If you had told me when I started reading philosophy texts that my endpoint would be watching videos of a slovenian marxist yelling about kung-fu panda and toilets I think I'd accept that as ideal, honestly
Have you not seen those movies? They are surprisingly deep and very emotional. I swear to you man, they have more philosophical meanings than most animated movies out there
Karate of Comedy well the profound is almost always terribly upsetting. You know the saying, the truth WILL set you free, but first it'll piss you off..
I swear, I’ve seen the inside of Zizeks mind. It is a well oiled machine, taking in images and sound and producing pure ideology. It’s kind of frightening in a way
As I've heard the story it goes: Soren Kierkegaard had a friend over who saw a horseshoe above his doorway. He laughed and asked Kierkegaard if he really believed in such stupid superstiton. Kirkegaard said, "No, but that doesn't mean it's not true."
"This reflexive moment of declaration means that every utterance not only transmits some content, but, simultaneously, determines how the subject relates to this content. Even the most down-to-earth objects and activities always contain such a declarative dimension, which constitutes the ideology of everyday life" (Zizek, 2010).
If you type ZIZEK into the search bar, instead of Zizek on revolution, Marx, dialectics, Syria, Obama and all the other things Chomsky would be talking about in RUclips videos, you get Zizek on string, coffee, vegetarians etc. However, Zizek on Kung Fu Panda is the best yet. He really should give up the armchair revolution and do stand-up instead.
I also-- I'm not saying I love the movie but, in a way I admire Kung Fu Panda. It appears just-- a stupid cartoon, no, it's-- what I admire in the movie is the following, everyone noticed it: On the one hand, the movie mobilizes, you know, all that-- let's call it, uh, oriental military mystique: kung fu fight, warrior discipline, all that, stuff. At the same time the movie is totally ironic, making fun of its own ideology. What is so fascinating is that, although the movie makes fun of its own ideology all the time, the ideology survives, and this is how cynicism functions.
whats great thing about zizek is that he has one concrete idea derived from Hegel from which he analyses and criticizes the current society......the most simple thing is the hardest thing to observe in this world.
@@TheIllusionguy Probably the idea that reason exists in relation to one's own historical period. We literally don't think in the same way that we did 300 years ago. What seemed rational then might be nonsense today, and it's hubris to assume the end of history is at hand.
@@albertskoften1452 wow, it’s awesome to hear this put into words. I should study Hegel. I’ve always advocated for viewing ourselves in a historical context so we can think outside of the confines of our current values and beliefs. I think this is why people are so hesitant to question the status quo and push for something better. Maybe better isn’t the right word, but different.
Very interesting discussion. What kid doesn't believe in Santa Claus though? I know I did, and most of my friends as well. Learning that guy wasn't real was probably the biggest trauma of my youth, growing up in an atheist family with no other "spiritual stuff" available.
+pies765 Sry you missed my point, I meant it as a metaphor. I make no association between Santa Claus and any "religion" other than consumer capitalism. My point was that consumerism's loss of mystique is only traumatic to people who don't have believe in anything other than materiality. Material life, after all, is nothing other than consumption and excretion... When the ideological veil of the consumerist religion is lifted, there can be nothing but nihilism and decay (provided there's nothing other than materiality).
He looks like Christoph Waltz circa Django Unchained via Jeff Daniels circa The Squid And The Whale filtered through Harvey Fierstein's beard, then slowly purified in vats of Slovenian vodka containing the fermented shavings of Gerard Depardieu's pubes. And yet, his ideology survives.
The stuff about Kung fu Panda is at least published in german, in his book called 'die bösen geister des himmlischen bereichs'. i couldn't find a correspondent title in the english wikipedia article 'Slavoj Zizek Bibliography', so i'm not sure, wheter it's published in english.
(cont) When we act, we *feel* as if "we" are making choices. That is to say, there is a feeling of deliberation. This is the 1st perspective: our direct, imediate experience of ourselves. Someone asks us to make a choice and we do. From the 3rd person perspective, our choices are determined by multiple factors: inclination (itself determined), available information, haste or lack thereof, emotional state etc. (see cont 2)
Here's an intrusion of the radical other into your analogy, that radical other being my comrades and me (gathered around the nascent project we call *Paths of Development*): If Zizek is the new Marx, we are the new Bakunin + Kropotkin, if Zizek is the new Hegel, we are the new Marx + Bakunin + Kropotkin. It all depends on how you interpret the actual dialectic and the "new-So-and-So" analogy. Anyway, I just wanted to announce that some other random ex-Yugoslavians (younger and more *practically* oriented) are preparing something big which is supposed to respond to quite a few of Zizek's questions along with the real everyday needs of people around the World. More to come _and so on and so on_... :)
Žižek is a bit more focused on Lacan he has Hegelian ideas but Hegels concept applies to almost anything, he actually has quite a few ideas which directly oppose Hegelian ideology
(5) We are only ever partly responsible for what we do; we can't not be responsible, because we did it, but we did so as a result of being in a certain position within a network of causes. Clarification: we have, as it were, degrees of freedom (on the 1st person level). Our views, for example, can be changed via exposure to different memes, which act as new causal factors. That is why having discussions is not pointless in a deterministic context. (Maybe these should have been a PM. Apologies)
In that strict sense you mentioned, some beliefs do not work But as social praxis, they are maintained artificialy, via inertia, circumstantial necessity etc. Let me give you another example: the legal system presuposes full individual responsibility aka free will. But nowadays the evidence is starting to point in a deterministic direction Therefore from a pragmatic point of view judges and juries need to work AS IF free will existed (can't let murderers loose), even though that is not the case
Probably because the functional difference between a murderer acting on free will and a murderer being one deterministically still ends with murder. THe problem in justice is the nature of the consequences, which if based on free will is more easily punitive, and if based on determinism is more easily a sort of containment or separation from the world.
OK, now that's an interesting claim. What I thought he meant was beliefs we know aren't true affect our individual behavior in the same way that true beliefs do. What he's actually saying is that as a society, we artificially maintain false beliefs for pragmatic reasons. I'm sorry. I'm an analytic philosopher, and, as I'm sure you know, we have a bad habit of misreading non-analytic philosophers so we can easily refute them. :-)
Not that I'm much of a debater (I mostly listen to expositions of points of view and then have the "debate" in my head so I can have a conclusion), but I'll give you the short version (that is, the only one I have). I'm what you would call a compatibilist. That is, I believe that the problem of free-will, if it is to be comprehensively delt with, must be viewed from 2 perspectives at once: 1) the forst-person conscious perspective and 2) the third-person objective perspective (see cont.)
@@everythingatonce4232 Omg :))))) You can imagine I haven't the slightest notion what I was going to say at the time (or what the initial point I was responding to even was). Being at work atm I can't exactly recap. I usually stay o top of these things, but this one I somehow forgot about. Sorry. For what it's worth, 8 years o I still find compatibilism compelling, even more so than back then :)))
@@MysticOfTheSands I mean 8 years of course you wouldn't remember. Someone replied to a stance I had 6 months ago and I couldn't remember the level on which I was saying those things, the pressupositions etc.
could an interpretation on zizeks idea of how cynicism and belief exist simultaneously be the following, that one would can somewhat not believe something or have no investment in a particular idea, morality, certain science, any phenomena etc, however still it exists within their ideology as something that guides them for lack something better or out of ignorance?
I can pitch in here too, if you like. Simple (as I see it). Take cooking. One never "just cooks" food. Every time you do that, you have various notions in your mind as to why you cook it. It may be survival, it may be something else. No matter. Add to that the specific ways of cooking and eating, each bundled up with justifications (explicit or in subtext). That is "the ideology of everyday life." Here, ideology does not mean you holding speeches about cooking.
(2) Now you might think I'm a compatibilist only so that I can have my cake and eat it too. Wrong. The reason is that this position accounts for our everyday experience, while in hard determinism, our conscious activity is irrevocably schitzofrenic. When I make a decision, I am involved in an entire network of factors; I do not, on a conscious level, simply "ride along". I also do not know beforehand what the determined result of my deliberation will be, thus I must take an active part in it.
(3) However, form the objective perspective, "I" do "ride along" since there is no essential "I" in the process (see Thomas Metzinger "Being No One"). The conscious self/ego is an aglutination of memories which outline specific trates. In the past, "I" have acted in such and such a manner, therefore "I" am a timid/brave/generous/miserly/handy/clumsy/etc person. But "existence preceeds essence" as the existentialist say. First there is the succession of events and then the definition-personality
(4) In the above I meant "specific traits". Sorry. Now, that does not change the fact that we do feel we are individual entities and from an everyday standpoint that is ok. We cannot help feeling like that most of the time. But we can, slowly, come to a different perception of ourselves by repeated exposure to the (let's call it) "bundle theory" of the self (as per Hume). What does all this say for social relationships? (see 5)
No. Read top comment. It expresses the point quite well. Furthermore, what he says has a descriptive character. He doesn't say "People SHOULD pretend to believe in Santa Claus although they know he isn't real". What he says is "People DO pretend to believe in Santa for reasons x,y,z in spite of their knowing full well he isn't real."
This is what happens with cancel culture , a belief that functions in society even thou nobody believes in it. The people issue the apology the others act outraged but everyone is a cynic and really dont care about it
I for one am of the opinion that there is far too much yammering both in real life and in philosophy. Does that help? I don't know... Things can always be expressed in ways easy to understand, even if the subject is complex. Why go on a merry-go-round?
Do you believe you're oppressed? No, of course I know I'm not. Do you believe you're oppressing? No of course I know I'm not. Yet this philosophy still exists how?
You may or may not be correct, but I feel morally compelled to notify: your comment is anyway much worse than Slavoj's: You present a Conclusion (="weakest of Slavoj's"), but so that others could Infer it, you give the Premises of... only asserting Your Belief in it ("I don't think..."). Belief has SOME value, but it'd have much more, if merely you'd Reason it somehow: truth of Others isn't only of You, but requires Evidence; you never inform us WHAT in SLAVOJ's analysis DOESN'T Work (& Why).
Alright, so our actions have various intentions and justifications behind them. First, why couldn't Zizek have just said that? Perhaps it doesn't sound as profound? Second, what's the point of invoking ideology? If I go to the kitchen to make a sandwich, it's because I'm hungry, not because I have any desire to, say, perpetuate capitalist social hierarchies in which the laborers who produce the bread, the peanut butter, etc. are at the mercy of those who consume it.
He's saying that people do things that they don't rationally support like putting crosses up even you are an atheist. This is important because it's a form of bad faith acting we should be aware of. People know supply side economics don't work and yet still we deregulate and lower taxes on the wealthy. He's demonstrating how idealogies that no body actually believe in can impact our material reality.
Not buying it. Zizek does this a lot: he takes low-hanging fruit--we pretend like Santa is real even though we know he's not--and draws grand, unjustified philosophical conclusions from it--beliefs function whether or not we know they're true. In fact, this claim seems nonsensical, if not totally false: how can we believe something that we know isn't true if belief is defined as "asserting something to be TRUE"?
His point is that the disbelief of a person does not preclude their actions from functioning _as if_ they maintain that belief and thus they maintain the belief itself as a social phenomenon. The belief does not need to be held by anyone except the society itself as a collective because the sum is more than its parts. It's like an atheist who still behaves like a Christian even if they are not a Christian: they act _as if_ they are Christian and thus their actions maintain Christianity even if they are explicitly against Christianity. In the Santa Claus example, the social construct and myth of Santa Claus persists even if nobody believes in Santa Claus. It's as if society itself is what is holding the belief. To put this differently, they may be disbelievers, but they remain alievers. The way to subvert an ideology or framework or system is by not merely acting as the subversive _within_ that given structure, but to _go beyond that structure_ entirely. Even in opposition, such as controlled opposition, one can maintain the current order. Abolishing the current order necessitates opposition which is beyond the opposition sanctioned by that order. This involves not merely disbelief, and not merely the practice of disbelief, but a praxis that exists outside the framework entirely. Every ideology, framework, or system has its own predefined antithesis. To truly negate it, one has to be not just the negation, but the negation to the negation as well.
If you had told me when I started reading philosophy texts that my endpoint would be watching videos of a slovenian marxist yelling about kung-fu panda and toilets I think I'd accept that as ideal, honestly
A good friend of mine did that. Now I can't stop thinking about the third pill
have to start showing this man anime
We gotta show him Avatar: the last airbender
He should watch naruto.
I want to see him analyze Boku no Pico
Imagine Evangelion
Berserk!
Show Zizek Evangelion.
DO NOT
Le deep depression anime
Slavoj zizek on the emoji movie.
Oh my God, I just want to crawl in this guy's mind and just... walk around...
Actually had a philosophical comment on Kung Fu Panda
Have you not seen those movies? They are surprisingly deep and very emotional. I swear to you man, they have more philosophical meanings than most animated movies out there
Karate of Comedy well the profound is almost always terribly upsetting. You know the saying, the truth WILL set you free, but first it'll piss you off..
I swear, I’ve seen the inside of Zizeks mind. It is a well oiled machine, taking in images and sound and producing pure ideology. It’s kind of frightening in a way
You can tell Zizek washed his hair the night before.
So soft
😂😂😂😂
As I've heard the story it goes: Soren Kierkegaard had a friend over who saw a horseshoe above his doorway. He laughed and asked Kierkegaard if he really believed in such stupid superstiton. Kirkegaard said, "No, but that doesn't mean it's not true."
Only Zizek could string together Kung Fu Panda, Niels Bohr, and horseshoes.
I want the analysis powers of Slavoj Zizek on cocaine, just so I can interpret Nacho libre and its ideology
"I don't understand this, therefore he is just blabbering about bullshit because if I don't understand it then it's not true"
~RUclips Intellectuals
+Plato Smith The Dunning-Kruger Effect seems to be alive and well hahaha
this, but unironically
And therefore you proceed to try to humiliate them..how nice of you.
More or less
This is literally how colonialists viewed native cultures
Nose touching levels aren't high enough for me
lol
Here you go, this should satisfy your need: ruclips.net/video/RBp87dXtMtk/видео.html
Niels Bohr. The copenhagen guy. hahahaha
"This reflexive moment of declaration means that every utterance not only transmits some content, but, simultaneously, determines how the subject relates to this content. Even the most down-to-earth objects and activities always contain such a declarative dimension, which constitutes the ideology of everyday life" (Zizek, 2010).
Niels Bohr's theories went on to be called the 'Copenhagen School' (of physics). That's why he's the "copenhagen guy".
If you type ZIZEK into the search bar, instead of Zizek on revolution, Marx, dialectics, Syria, Obama and all the other things Chomsky would be talking about in RUclips videos, you get Zizek on string, coffee, vegetarians etc.
However, Zizek on Kung Fu Panda is the best yet. He really should give up the armchair revolution and do stand-up instead.
A few month's ago,I found the Kung Fu Panda videos and I simply love them. Slavoj Zizek's has the right words to make me realize why....thanks.
I also-- I'm not saying I love the movie but, in a way I admire Kung Fu Panda. It appears just-- a stupid cartoon, no, it's-- what I admire in the movie is the following, everyone noticed it: On the one hand, the movie mobilizes, you know, all that-- let's call it, uh, oriental military mystique: kung fu fight, warrior discipline, all that, stuff. At the same time the movie is totally ironic, making fun of its own ideology. What is so fascinating is that, although the movie makes fun of its own ideology all the time, the ideology survives, and this is how cynicism functions.
whats great thing about zizek is that he has one concrete idea derived from Hegel from which he analyses and criticizes the current society......the most simple thing is the hardest thing to observe in this world.
damien park which idea of Hegel would that be?
Anik Sarkar His admiration of Eastern Martial Arts.
@@TheIllusionguy Probably the idea that reason exists in relation to one's own historical period. We literally don't think in the same way that we did 300 years ago. What seemed rational then might be nonsense today, and it's hubris to assume the end of history is at hand.
@@albertskoften1452 wow, it’s awesome to hear this put into words. I should study Hegel. I’ve always advocated for viewing ourselves in a historical context so we can think outside of the confines of our current values and beliefs. I think this is why people are so hesitant to question the status quo and push for something better. Maybe better isn’t the right word, but different.
Kung Fu Panda presents eastern martial arts in a silly way while still making them look awesome, agree or disagree?
Agree
now i cant wait to see Kung Fu Panda 2
SEE IT! ITS EVEN BETTER THAN THE FIRST!!
i want this man’s voice
oh dude zarkflappysheep is based!?!?!!?
🥃 Fun Drinking Game: Take a shot every nose touch or sniff
Hana only if your idea of fun is risking your life
Or every time he says ideology
@@matrixrevolution1460 what am I going to drink? Pure ideology?
It might actually have been a reference to the play "Copenhagen" which is based on a meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg. Just a thought.
absolutely my favorite video on the internet
He nearly always uses this; but it is such an important point it bears repeating over and over.
God, is that you?
Very interesting discussion. What kid doesn't believe in Santa Claus though? I know I did, and most of my friends as well. Learning that guy wasn't real was probably the biggest trauma of my youth, growing up in an atheist family with no other "spiritual stuff" available.
+Dylan O'Brien Muslims, Jewish People, etc. Everyone who is not a christian.
+pies765 Sry you missed my point, I meant it as a metaphor. I make no association between Santa Claus and any "religion" other than consumer capitalism. My point was that consumerism's loss of mystique is only traumatic to people who don't have believe in anything other than materiality.
Material life, after all, is nothing other than consumption and excretion... When the ideological veil of the consumerist religion is lifted, there can be nothing but nihilism and decay (provided there's nothing other than materiality).
Oh I see, I missed the point. I apologize.
Well, but you were correct. I shouldn't expect people to understand heavily contextual things on youtube.
>> A belief functions (as social category) even if no one believes in it. I think this is crucial to understand how things function today.
Everybody was kung fu fighting and so on and so on
He looks like Christoph Waltz circa Django Unchained via Jeff Daniels circa The Squid And The Whale filtered through Harvey Fierstein's beard, then slowly purified in vats of Slovenian vodka containing the fermented shavings of Gerard Depardieu's pubes.
And yet, his ideology survives.
Zizek is a cool dude :)
This is how I feel about Surfs Up. Brilliant fucking movie.
The stuff about Kung fu Panda is at least published in german, in his book called 'die bösen geister des himmlischen bereichs'. i couldn't find a correspondent title in the english wikipedia article 'Slavoj Zizek Bibliography', so i'm not sure, wheter it's published in english.
(cont) When we act, we *feel* as if "we" are making choices. That is to say, there is a feeling of deliberation. This is the 1st perspective: our direct, imediate experience of ourselves. Someone asks us to make a choice and we do. From the 3rd person perspective, our choices are determined by multiple factors: inclination (itself determined), available information, haste or lack thereof, emotional state etc. (see cont 2)
he just flipped off his forehead at 0:57
00:00 youfrrreetishfritishmainfritishvery kind of you
ive got a feeling that zizek is the new marx of the modern world.
They're both students of Hegel
Here's an intrusion of the radical other into your analogy, that radical other being my comrades and me (gathered around the nascent project we call *Paths of Development*):
If Zizek is the new Marx, we are the new Bakunin + Kropotkin, if Zizek is the new Hegel, we are the new Marx + Bakunin + Kropotkin. It all depends on how you interpret the actual dialectic and the "new-So-and-So" analogy.
Anyway, I just wanted to announce that some other random ex-Yugoslavians (younger and more *practically* oriented) are preparing something big which is supposed to respond to quite a few of Zizek's questions along with the real everyday needs of people around the World.
More to come _and so on and so on_... :)
Žižek is a bit more focused on Lacan he has Hegelian ideas but Hegels concept applies to almost anything, he actually has quite a few ideas which directly oppose Hegelian ideology
marx was a loser, zizek is a cool loser
I would not have expected such insights on a movie about a Kung Fu Panda.
(5) We are only ever partly responsible for what we do; we can't not be responsible, because we did it, but we did so as a result of being in a certain position within a network of causes. Clarification: we have, as it were, degrees of freedom (on the 1st person level). Our views, for example, can be changed via exposure to different memes, which act as new causal factors. That is why having discussions is not pointless in a deterministic context. (Maybe these should have been a PM. Apologies)
In that strict sense you mentioned, some beliefs do not work But as social praxis, they are maintained artificialy, via inertia, circumstantial necessity etc. Let me give you another example: the legal system presuposes full individual responsibility aka free will. But nowadays the evidence is starting to point in a deterministic direction Therefore from a pragmatic point of view judges and juries need to work AS IF free will existed (can't let murderers loose), even though that is not the case
Probably because the functional difference between a murderer acting on free will and a murderer being one deterministically still ends with murder. THe problem in justice is the nature of the consequences, which if based on free will is more easily punitive, and if based on determinism is more easily a sort of containment or separation from the world.
This is just like Morbius
Zizek looks like panda of the movie.
OK, now that's an interesting claim. What I thought he meant was beliefs we know aren't true affect our individual behavior in the same way that true beliefs do. What he's actually saying is that as a society, we artificially maintain false beliefs for pragmatic reasons. I'm sorry. I'm an analytic philosopher, and, as I'm sure you know, we have a bad habit of misreading non-analytic philosophers so we can easily refute them. :-)
Not that I'm much of a debater (I mostly listen to expositions of points of view and then have the "debate" in my head so I can have a conclusion), but I'll give you the short version (that is, the only one I have). I'm what you would call a compatibilist. That is, I believe that the problem of free-will, if it is to be comprehensively delt with, must be viewed from 2 perspectives at once: 1) the forst-person conscious perspective and 2) the third-person objective perspective (see cont.)
8 years and I'm still waiting for the Continued...
@@everythingatonce4232
Omg :)))))
You can imagine I haven't the slightest notion what I was going to say at the time (or what the initial point I was responding to even was). Being at work atm I can't exactly recap.
I usually stay o top of these things, but this one I somehow forgot about. Sorry.
For what it's worth, 8 years o I still find compatibilism compelling, even more so than back then :)))
@@MysticOfTheSands I mean 8 years of course you wouldn't remember. Someone replied to a stance I had 6 months ago and I couldn't remember the level on which I was saying those things, the pressupositions etc.
Tell us!
could an interpretation on zizeks idea of how cynicism and belief exist simultaneously be the following, that one would can somewhat not believe something or have no investment in a particular idea, morality, certain science, any phenomena etc, however still it exists within their ideology as something that guides them for lack something better or out of ignorance?
Jordan Peterson and Slovaj Zizek the titans of philosophy of the modern day and what are their main topics Pinocchio and Kung Fu Panda
kung fu panda is a modern masterpiece
Do not put zizek in the same sentence as Peterson unless you're using zizek to discredit peterson
I can pitch in here too, if you like. Simple (as I see it). Take cooking. One never "just cooks" food. Every time you do that, you have various notions in your mind as to why you cook it. It may be survival, it may be something else. No matter. Add to that the specific ways of cooking and eating, each bundled up with justifications (explicit or in subtext). That is "the ideology of everyday life." Here, ideology does not mean you holding speeches about cooking.
Zizek looks like a kung fu panda.
I can't wait for english version
Kinda like what Kierkegaard says, “A leap of Faith”.
(2) Now you might think I'm a compatibilist only so that I can have my cake and eat it too. Wrong. The reason is that this position accounts for our everyday experience, while in hard determinism, our conscious activity is irrevocably schitzofrenic. When I make a decision, I am involved in an entire network of factors; I do not, on a conscious level, simply "ride along". I also do not know beforehand what the determined result of my deliberation will be, thus I must take an active part in it.
(3) However, form the objective perspective, "I" do "ride along" since there is no essential "I" in the process (see Thomas Metzinger "Being No One"). The conscious self/ego is an aglutination of memories which outline specific trates. In the past, "I" have acted in such and such a manner, therefore "I" am a timid/brave/generous/miserly/handy/clumsy/etc person. But "existence preceeds essence" as the existentialist say. First there is the succession of events and then the definition-personality
This man is dangerous, and I fear for my safety.
Good Day.
(4) In the above I meant "specific traits". Sorry. Now, that does not change the fact that we do feel we are individual entities and from an everyday standpoint that is ok. We cannot help feeling like that most of the time. But we can, slowly, come to a different perception of ourselves by repeated exposure to the (let's call it) "bundle theory" of the self (as per Hume). What does all this say for social relationships? (see 5)
this guy is optimal
1:54 - "you don't have to believe in it, but belief still functions" lol whatever you say my friend
I know, but it can lead to debeneficial negotiation of market place space, in market place of ideas.
No. Read top comment. It expresses the point quite well. Furthermore, what he says has a descriptive character. He doesn't say "People SHOULD pretend to believe in Santa Claus although they know he isn't real". What he says is "People DO pretend to believe in Santa for reasons x,y,z in spite of their knowing full well he isn't real."
Although I would be happy to debate you about free-will...
He makes sense.
we need to show him Paranoia Agent
reminds me of Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut
based hegelian ideological deconstruction of the Dreamworks classic Zizek!
1:40 "Live as if" Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson talked about this kinda
I came here to hear funny sniffing russian man talk about Kung Fu Panda and he tells me Santa doesn't exist?! How is this allowed?!?!?!?
What in the world does that mean?
im sure all the kids that watch animation start contemplating Niels Bohr...as they slurp jelly through their nose.
Just think what the panda would do with the horseshoe.
yay! Niels Bohr :D :D :D
This is what happens with cancel culture , a belief that functions in society even thou nobody believes in it.
The people issue the apology the others act outraged but everyone is a cynic and really dont care about it
I for one am of the opinion that there is far too much yammering both in real life and in philosophy. Does that help? I don't know... Things can always be expressed in ways easy to understand, even if the subject is complex. Why go on a merry-go-round?
Do you believe you're oppressed? No, of course I know I'm not. Do you believe you're oppressing? No of course I know I'm not. Yet this philosophy still exists how?
Is that not Linda Hutchens concept of post-modern irony?
tomorrow zizeck will talk about you can wipe oil stains off your shirt
Just like how nobody trusts politicians.
LOL! This made my day!
how
You may or may not be correct, but I feel morally compelled to notify: your comment is anyway much worse than Slavoj's:
You present a Conclusion (="weakest of Slavoj's"), but so that others could Infer it, you give the Premises of... only asserting Your Belief in it ("I don't think...").
Belief has SOME value, but it'd have much more, if merely you'd Reason it somehow: truth of Others isn't only of You, but requires Evidence; you never inform us WHAT in SLAVOJ's analysis DOESN'T Work (& Why).
Kung fu panda is pure ideology.
The guys basically promoting hypocrisy
Be like Kung Fu Panda: Black, White and Asian.
Alright, so our actions have various intentions and justifications behind them. First, why couldn't Zizek have just said that? Perhaps it doesn't sound as profound? Second, what's the point of invoking ideology? If I go to the kitchen to make a sandwich, it's because I'm hungry, not because I have any desire to, say, perpetuate capitalist social hierarchies in which the laborers who produce the bread, the peanut butter, etc. are at the mercy of those who consume it.
He's saying that people do things that they don't rationally support like putting crosses up even you are an atheist. This is important because it's a form of bad faith acting we should be aware of. People know supply side economics don't work and yet still we deregulate and lower taxes on the wealthy. He's demonstrating how idealogies that no body actually believe in can impact our material reality.
@@josephsheehan6079 Isn't it more that we are acting ideologically, whether or not we are aware of it/accept it?
Then I assume you are especially dangerous.
Then you are probably insane. Everybody knows intellectuals can do any physical harm.
Um, wait... Hemingway...
XD
if you ever wondered what kind of toilet paper Einstein preferred, this video is almost the equalvilence :p
A mother dropping her baby and making him mentally delayed would be more funny than your joke. In this case, you would be the baby.
2:03 ok mr "dozens of published books, world renowned philosopher and academic" this is outrageous. I've lost all respect after this.
kubg fu panda is an americans production so it cant make fun "their military culture"
Not buying it. Zizek does this a lot: he takes low-hanging fruit--we pretend like Santa is real even though we know he's not--and draws grand, unjustified philosophical conclusions from it--beliefs function whether or not we know they're true. In fact, this claim seems nonsensical, if not totally false: how can we believe something that we know isn't true if belief is defined as "asserting something to be TRUE"?
His point is that the disbelief of a person does not preclude their actions from functioning _as if_ they maintain that belief and thus they maintain the belief itself as a social phenomenon. The belief does not need to be held by anyone except the society itself as a collective because the sum is more than its parts. It's like an atheist who still behaves like a Christian even if they are not a Christian: they act _as if_ they are Christian and thus their actions maintain Christianity even if they are explicitly against Christianity. In the Santa Claus example, the social construct and myth of Santa Claus persists even if nobody believes in Santa Claus. It's as if society itself is what is holding the belief. To put this differently, they may be disbelievers, but they remain alievers.
The way to subvert an ideology or framework or system is by not merely acting as the subversive _within_ that given structure, but to _go beyond that structure_ entirely. Even in opposition, such as controlled opposition, one can maintain the current order. Abolishing the current order necessitates opposition which is beyond the opposition sanctioned by that order. This involves not merely disbelief, and not merely the practice of disbelief, but a praxis that exists outside the framework entirely. Every ideology, framework, or system has its own predefined antithesis. To truly negate it, one has to be not just the negation, but the negation to the negation as well.