What is Christian Atheism for Slavoj Zizek
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2024
- Slavoj Zizek differs from the modern "atheist" movement by taking the Bible seriously and literal. So seriously, he recognizes the Bible does not "contradict" itself in the stupid liberal argument - the Bible undermines itself in a Hegelian manner by presenting its own negativity and thus immanentizing itself, through itself. Hence, "Christian Atheism."
Thank you for expressing these ideas clearly
That was really good, instant subscribal!
Interesting video, thanks for sharing. I am confused about your position though. You said at one point your view is something similar to Zizek’s, if that’s the case why do you choose to be Orthodox Christian? Atheism seems contradictory to that specific strand of Christianity. If I’m misunderstanding anything I’d appreciate correction, thanks!
Anyone here cause of the alg
Jesus is quoting Psalms 22
Interesting stuff.
How does Zizek (or other christian atheists) make sense of the fact that this Lacanian insight is found exclusively in the Bible? Why doesn't this aspect of the "human nature" show up in other places? Did the authors of the Bible unconsciously include this truth, but other sacred text authors didn't? Great video btw
Does it not show up in Buddhism too, for whom there is no overarching God?
@@thenowchurch6419 Nope, since the point is that in order to enter in the “death of God” that same death must be reflected in the substance (God).
That’s what happens with the Incarnation: the suffering and pains of existence get transposed into the “beyond” itself, and this same “beyond”comes “down here”.
Buddhism on the other side cannot develop such a concept: there still is an “uncontaminated” Nirvana, something that is completely other in relation to the Fall, that as such mitigates its radicality.
@@parmiggianoreggie-ano1832 Buddhism may not be able to provide what the Christian theology does but I do not think it is because of an "uncontaminated" Nirvana.
The concept of Nirvana is ticklish but it is mainly the extinguishing of the separate ego not an ontological reality unto itself.
Buddhism itself may be confused and in disagreement on this but it seems to me that Buddha always put the here and now reality first and aimed at getting the mind to accept what is.
The same teaching that Krishnamurti put forward.
Is Buddhism less effective because it does not transpose the suffering in to the "beyond" and does not have a beyond to "come down"?
I just don't get it. All of Zizek's games (following Hegel) are _protestant_ in character: not post-Christian, but post-Luther. Christ himself proclaims the death of God? Well sure, but what about Easter? Chesterton drew exactly the opposite conclusion from Christ's last words, because he remembered and believed in Easter. "Christian Atheism" follows from protestantism, not from orthodoxy, which is far more interesting. And who ever said that the Song of Songs was _not_ about actual lovers? Everything that happens is significant, a sign, a metaphor. Literally! That's orthodoxy. Zizek says nothing new. He only forgets to say something old.
Zizek has a useful and intuitive reading of the Bible but he is mistaken that there is no Universal God.
There is just a set up in which the God is not active in this universe apart from what humans channel and do ourselves.
There is no God apart from the Christ who is the Universal Open Panentheist God.
- you talk too much about god instead of the atheism 🤣
yea because the focus is on reading the Bible to uncover atheism. talking about atheism in general is retarded and cringe.
Speaking from personal experience, it is _much_ more effective to become an atheist by discovering the contradictions _within_ a religion than it is to listen to the "facts and logic" of the New Atheists.
@@Synodalian nah these aren’t contradictions in the soy liberal way. These are Hegelian moments of negativity.
@@dissatisfiedphilosophy
Ah _absolutely,_ I should've said antinomies instead, because too often "contradiction" gets conflated with opposition/contrariness.
@@Synodalianreal