What Zizek criticises here is known in the Mahayana as the fallacy of Nihilism, which is seen as an extreme view and by doing so it's devious. If someone argues in the way like D.T. Suzuki, than this person has fallen into the nihilistic trap on a mere Concept of Shunyata, which is seen as seriously dangerous and even worse than the fallacy of eternalism, or as we call it: Theism.
"Slavoj Žižek, contemporary philosopher and psychoanalyst, discusses... enlightenment, kharma, nirvana, war, Thomas Metzinger, free will, Benjamin Libet, Martin Heidegger, Patricia and Paul Churchland, and The Lion King." The Lion King was the best reference of the lecture. He is learning some buddhism, but when is he going to study it seriously ?
I dont get the end. If nirvana is immanent, how could anything go wrong in that "realm" as he sort of gestured. And when it comes to the fact that there is no agent, no self and so on, and that you therefore shouldnt have no problem with killing, can't you just as well refuse war or killing no matter the consequences? "The greater good" there is no such thing, since that would obviously belong to the realm of Samsara.
so where is capitalism in this lecture? I used to like Zizek but growing tired of his jumping here and there and really not talking about anything in depth, more like kitchen chat with jokes and pokes. If you wanna talk about ethical quandary of Buddhist teachings, it's the whole really interesting subject, but you gotta really address it then, like the whole teaching of 'skillful means' by which Buddha can kill people to save them from greater evil. It's a big topic but Zizek would never seriously engage with it or with any other topic either.
What Zizek criticises here is known in the Mahayana as the fallacy of Nihilism, which is seen as an extreme view and by doing so it's devious. If someone argues in the way like D.T. Suzuki, than this person has fallen into the nihilistic trap on a mere Concept of Shunyata, which is seen as seriously dangerous and even worse than the fallacy of eternalism, or as we call it: Theism.
"Slavoj Žižek, contemporary philosopher and psychoanalyst, discusses... enlightenment, kharma, nirvana, war, Thomas Metzinger, free will, Benjamin Libet, Martin Heidegger, Patricia and Paul Churchland, and The Lion King." The Lion King was the best reference of the lecture. He is learning some buddhism, but when is he going to study it seriously ?
I dont get the end. If nirvana is immanent, how could anything go wrong in that "realm" as he sort of gestured. And when it comes to the fact that there is no agent, no self and so on, and that you therefore shouldnt have no problem with killing, can't you just as well refuse war or killing no matter the consequences? "The greater good" there is no such thing, since that would obviously belong to the realm of Samsara.
dr. Žižek is spaeking about the food, wich he probably never tryed
so where is capitalism in this lecture? I used to like Zizek but growing tired of his jumping here and there and really not talking about anything in depth, more like kitchen chat with jokes and pokes. If you wanna talk about ethical quandary of Buddhist teachings, it's the whole really interesting subject, but you gotta really address it then, like the whole teaching of 'skillful means' by which Buddha can kill people to save them from greater evil. It's a big topic but Zizek would never seriously engage with it or with any other topic either.
"if you want more, read my big book" --Zizek in this lecture