obligatory congratulations on the arrival of your son. may he grow up to become brave and kind.

I'm a dad myself. Congratulations 👏🏿

Congratulations! That is one lucky new human to have a brilliant father to raise him.

Up until this point, I had been struggling to understand a lot of Zizek's work. Thank you for making it so much more clear, it's just what I needed!!

Hi, long time follower here for more than 10 years. I've listened to all of your podcasts and some of them 2 or 3 times.😊 Congratulations to you and your wife for newborn.🎉 Please keep up the good work❤

Congrats on being a dad, buddy. I've been keeping up with you for years, started with you working in a factory or something (if I'm not wrong, as far as I can recall) and trying to find the wisest man that ever lived, and I think you found Plato first. (Again correct me if I'm wrong, you mentioned this somewhere from years) and now you're a father and episode 200 is coming soon. I'm happy for you and thanks.

All the best for your newborn son :)

Holy fuckamoley. I am a longtime follower. Not more than 5 or 6 days ago I was thinking about you - trying to remember your name... "Philosophy now?... Philosophy Tube...??? Philosophize this??? Yes!!" I've been following zizek heavily lately - naturally conservative communist stuck out to me too. He seems to be weaving shit around everywhere, I f*ckin love it. I am so glad you've covered it. Super glad you are still making shit :-)

Žižek gives a pragmatic perspective on communism or revolution ideals. We can’t just adapt every new progressive ideas and/or lower our standards to be content with concessions or “choices” capitalism system offers us. Žižek wants us to understand the “choices” that capitalism offers us (not just take them at face value) while striving for communism. Žižek also advising us to learn from revolution of the past see their mistake and be realistic (looking at the material conditions and not mere ideals) while keeping in mind what we really want (our desire).

Congratulations on the new arrival, and thank you so much for these podcasts. Love the way it is full of ideas and information in a very manageable way for your listeners.

I always think of the imaginary register as oneself through time, and the symbolic register as oneself in space. Zizek saying you are who you are now plus who you will be is, i guess, stemming from the self perception of the imaginary register. You do crave, you feel an itch you need to scratch, a push forward to do, to change your circumstances; you do that and then you step back and see how you have changed, how much of your itch was actually scratched, if what you did worked really well, then you may incorporate it as an habit, if it was mediocre you may forget about it and only retain the memory that it does not work for you. Thats the self image, of the imaginary register; you start to see yourself better, being defined outwardly by all the things you tried and how much those things matched your desire, how much they satisfied your craving. You see yourself through time, you see your self image as X, then you try to satisfy your desire, and then your self image is actualized by incorporating that failed attempt (the realization that it didnt quite work) to your self image; If you try drawing and it really works, you may start calling yourself a drawer or an artist. On the other hand, the symbolic you, the "artist" or "drawer" tag you attach to yourself, works like space, you understand what you are or what you do not exactly in itself, by definition, but deferentially by comparing it to other tags like carpenter, designer, etc (as we understand position by reference to other objects or points of reference); two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, just as two symbols cannot mean the same at the same time without becoming interchangeable, and therefore, losing their relative importance; as you could use one or the other without difference. You may even find that the words dont fully capture what your self perception points towards, and could find yourself having to correct others if they call you a designer instead of an artist, recognizing the limitations of the very words to fully express your self image, and at the same time, being a possible point of advancement of your identity, when you wish to define yourself in front of others yet find that the words dont fully capture your craving for self definition. Why try to measure, in school for example, the competence of the people for a certain task, their "knowledge" or their IQ, and the measuring tape rules over us, we cast aside all other human qualities, and declare a certain parameter as our tyrannic leader. We measure symbolically, digitally, the analogical reality of that person's subjectivity, we leave all other inmensurable qualities out, such as: artistic vision, out-of-the-box thinking, maturity, emotional consciousness, innovation (even when we pretend that capitalist system pushes and rewards many of those qualities we only measure it after they have had a perceivable effect, never how much the system limits them in the first place). The example of craving for the perfect romantic relationship is really good to illustrate the distance between the symbolic and the imaginary registers. The self image that still needs development (that still hasnt seen itself enough through trial and error) cannot cope with, nor be satisfied by the material reality that the symbolic perfect love creates, as those symbols dont create the circumstances where their undefined cravings face their needed negation and resolution (lets say you are really insecure and the fact that your partner is apparently unable to cheat on you doesnt make you feel at easy but with a weird unexplainable lack). Yet the quest to find that ideal, that symbolic perfect relationship thinking it may satisfy your desire, is, in itself, a moving force were we project ourselves, it serves us as a hint, a quest marker in a game; that points us towards something that someone else has found interesting enough to name , to symbolize or put into words. That interest some group of people had placed into naming something fuels our belief in that concept, a belief that may keep on working after we've found that that thing (as all things would) didnt fully satisfy our desire. That collective interest, and the collective belief it creates form, not only religion, the credibility that any given concept has, like a critical faith mass; where if enough people think its true, then it is, and it will be because its "good enough", we already have it, and even if it doesnt fully work for us at least someone else is still believing in it, so it still has potential. And i guess the ideals of the revolutionaries also work like that, when they go too far off of what the "society's self image" is, what it can accomplish, or what circumstances it can tolerate in its everyday life. If you dont have those ideals (those symbols) you lose direction, lose to force that pushes us forward to do and to change, we lose our hope and become intoxicated with the present and with frivolous consumption; we need that extra, that surplus, that distance between the ideal and its material form, and the promise of satisfaction that the digital nature of symbols has, as it pushes us forward. Yet we also need our thinking, our pondering, our everyday circumstances with our self image placed into them, need our identity to be at a certain level of development before we can get rid of our old outdated symbols (which barely satisfy us but we keep on using cus everyone else does, and we need to communicate with each other) and change them for new ones, otherwise we are directionless and with an ever present feeling of unease, anxiety and hopelessness. Wow, wall of text, good episode man ❤ Like if you're also already eating from the trashcan all the time 🦝(?

Congratulations

Congrats!

congratulations dude

Great episode, a very good in depth and concise description of Zizeks positions!

Just found your channel! I’m obsessed. Please keep this going 🙏🏽

No way I’ve just become a dad this year too

Really clear and concise explanation. Great stuff! Looking forward to the next part. In regard to the discussion about the confusion of left vs right, I really appreciate the argument put forward by the political anthropologist youtube channel 'What is politics?' in his video 'What the Left-Right Political Spectrum is Really About' (quote below). “The fundamental division of politics is hierarchy on the right versus equality on the left. Hierarchy meaning ranked inequality: do we want an extreme political hierarchy where one person gets to make all the decisions like a monarch or a dictator on the right, or do we want extreme political equality like direct democracy on the left, or do we want something in between on a spectrum. Economic hierarchy: do we want one person who controls all of the resources, or do we want everyone to share all the resources equally, or something in between. Cultural hierarchies: do we want one ethnic group, one religion, one gender group, one absence of religion to have all of the rights and privileges and everyone else has nothing, or do we want everyone to have equal rights and privileges, or something between. And international hierarchies: do we want one nation to dominate all of the others, or do we want all nations to be equal, or something in between.”

“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions” Hume.

Congrats on being a dad🎉

Hooray! Another fantastic episode sir thank you

Congratulations!!!

Congratulations man!

Congratulations on your child

This was a really great, Thanks. Oh and also - congratulations on becoming a father! Best of luck to You and Yours ;)

One lucky kid! Congrats!

I know you've got more episodes planned. I think maybe the topic of what capitalism is turning to, or late stage capitalism and post-capitalism would be great to explore. Possibly Mark Fisher more culturally or Varoufakis's "Techno-feudalism" on the more economic vein?

Great coverage Stephen. Do you know the @ZizekandSoOn boys/ Cadell Last @PhilosophyPortal ? That would be a seriously great discussion.. “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them.” ◼️

❤ Before every good man is a woman that made him a better man. Congratulations to the family West-- Whoever you are, to you endless announcements --Uncle Walt

Congratulations ❤

Congrats on the new family member! Many of these thoughts sound strange and foreign to a native person of the americas mind. What we are taught is to strive to lead a single life, to have one face and one heart (ie not be two faced saying one thing with your mouth and having another thing in your heart), to create beautiful memories to be remembered by when we are no longer here. I desire to lead a full and complete life and the only way I know how to do that is by following my ancestors philosophy, which is that we are all like a seed that is flowering out, creating beautiful colors, scents, and memories. Why? Because we are not guaranteed anything after this life, so we might as well make this life enjoyable. Constantly desiring objects doesn't sound enjoyable, or healthy.

Love the show. My husband has listened to almost every episode, now. I went to your site and looked at your merchandise and noticed you use Spring. Because of you, I am starting to use Spring. Do you use them as an affiliate? If so I want to make sure you receive the credit. I did click on them from your site. I hope that works. Thank you for all the hard work you put into your podcast/KZfaq episodes.

Congratulations!

This episode is so great! Does anyone have any books that cover these themes? Like the themes of global capitalism creating identies, creating desires??

Apologizing because the video ended up being long... pfff. Brother, it saddens me every time you change your tone of voice to conclusion mode, warning me that the video is about to end. Congrats on the kid!

Congrats to you for becoming a father of a well educated son. Nontheless do I need unload some critisism to this episode. Though you always anticipate this critique in a funny yet incomplete way like: You might say: "the individual is sacred" or "how could he possibly say he's a communist?!" Yes, I feel these comments but I still don't get (I also listened to a lot of your other episodes) why there should be any higher value to what Zizek stands for. First of course: Terminology What always strikes me is how often some (more left leaning) people tend to directly compare capitalism to socialism and thereby seeing capitalism as a holistic system for rather than from humans and society. As if it was thought out and planned like a religion or at least like a tool to keep an unhealthy but stable relation between opressors and opressed. Sure this might be one outcome here and there coming from big corporations and (again) governments but the easy and pure principle of capitalism isn't that. It's just individual freedom + private ownership. Nothing more. Not talking of corporatism. And it can be applied in dictatorships as well as in democratic republics or even some kinds of communism. It's only these two principles first and foremost and the rest are different outcomes much more rooted in human bahaviors that we can easily see in all other forms of economic systems. So would abolishing capitalism really make anything better? Yes you can condemn the superficial motivations of people and their strive for status and sometimes poor reasoning. But still, when you talk to people from former soviet countries they will tell you the status game wasn't gone at all. People living there today are much more sensitive about 'who got some better pieces of meat' and why can someone afford a little extra. There were usually tricks and ways around the official way the system was supposed to work. Everybody knew. My point is, I can't see why the economic (system) part of a society that is always an outcome yet an condition to itself should have the biggest impact on the wellbeing of humans. Especially today I see so many more ways and failings (the pandemic politics for e.g.) that could occur to make things eather more miserable or better. My concern however is that all centralistic managment and states with a growing influence in the private decisions of its citizens is prone to do worse for the future. Long live the principle of subsidiarity! Also can we try to approach the idea of capitalism from a different angle? All multinational corporations aside, let's think of what simple humans did in the past way before empires emerged and how small groups without anonymity got to survive. They trade. Always stick together and try to support the group in exchange for protection. Yes the strongest male probably had some privileges but enequality is given by nature and was therefore accepted to a certain degree. Tyrants were sorted out by the group. Now bigger groups exceeding ca 120 individuals need common rules because our brains can't handle more private relations. That's why clans in the early days weren't more people than about 100. Becoming dependent of common rules makes things comlpicated not only in the past but also in corporations and of course politics which purpose is to lay out such rules. I think that under these circumstances the organisation of an anonymous society will always contain structures of opression and they can best be solved within the smallest containments. Giving me superficial desires is not opression! I'm just a little weak and unaware sometimes like everyone else. But like everyone else I need to be responsible for my actions as good as I can. This will never change in another economic system. Even without any freedom I still need to come up with ideas to survive or get the best out of my opression. At last I'd like to point out that we absolutely come close to an agreement about a probably good way to govern. But I'd rather call it a social democracy (including capitalism) instead of democratic socialism. There is a distinct difference, right? Wish you the best.

Congrats, nothing better than being a dad of a bouncing baby :) Great podcast as usual :)

❤

The weird thing is that as a scandinavian. The first great culture shock to me was when I was a teen and an american internet personality named Linkara(he was with the nostalgia critic crew, reviewing bad comics) referred to himself as a "Capitalist" that really put my brain in a spin! You don't call yourself a capitalist! You call other people capitalist! As a slur. It's like saying, "Im an exploiter!😊" Like what?.... And about at that time when Obama got elected I saw americans referring to him as a "socialist". That's when I started becoming quite hostile with the United States. These people are dangerous and they're not living on the same planet I am! When marxism was taught in school here the consensus seem to have been "He's a great critic of the capitalist system but perhaps not a great visionary for a new one". And then I got taught how the sexist way women are being seen makes sense from the point of view of an agrarian economy and family unit and the "theory of alienation". Nuanced and indepth stuff. Worth considering. So when I saw Slavoj Zizek's Perverts Guide to Cinema at 17. I felt quite comfortable.. This kind of leftist analysis was what I associated with being a leftist thinker. And when he debated Peterson it was like an insane crossover that ive personally always wanted. Slavoj is what im used to a leftist thinker being like. A smart aleck. Who ofcourse always has a point and should be listened too. Not a satanist. Or however the american crowd views it.

Stephen I was wondering what you thought of Zizek's take on the Foucauldian understanding that, where there is Power there is always resistance. Zizek thinks that this resistance can support or justify power (1). I was thinking of the example of eco friendly designed products, that really these products do nothing for the environment as they are still fundamentally industrially manufactured goods, that continue to reinforce the problem of consumerism. Zizek's call to action 'I'd prefer not to' to me cuts across so much of this contemporary habit of 'virtue signalling' - There's heaps of overlap between this perspective and Baudrillard's simulacra and simulation. Stay with me... In Australia there's a huge ethic or personal responsibility surrounding the issue of recycling, people act as if to be virtuous you need to fully engage with he separating of different plastics, and yet if you go and see how the waste is manged its often sent off shore where it is not recycled at all. What we are participating in then is a simulation of recycling, rather than a recycling program that having real world benefits. My point, finally, i would guess that Zizek would state that the only way through is to not recycle as recycling is participating in consumerism. Then i balance this with Camus and think that Camus may say even though its absurd to recycle without a clear outcome, none the less our role is to embrace the absurd nature of recycling, and act as if it is important anyway. What do you think Stephen? Should we recycle? 1, thedangerousmaybe.medium.com/i-would-prefer-not-to-%C5%BEi%C5%BEeks-bartleby-politics-12bd8d9de66a

Didn't you mix up democratic socialist with social-democracy, or is Zizek using the term in that way? Because I always thought that democratic socialism was exactly the same as "normal" socialism but achieved through liberal democratic means instead of a revolution.

1/10 not enough sniffing or nose touching to be a serious discussion about Zizek.

Conservative Communist?

Yeah, saying "you didn't actually read Marx" doesn't counter the fact, that all communist/socialist countries failed

Hi dad, I'm born

Z is the ultimate Spinx without a secret. Not worth your time, IMO.

iT WaSn'T rEaL cOmMuNisM

NH N

Zizek isn't a philosopher, he is a dedicated film maker and honest about the demonic nature of humanity.

So ... take some common sense, mix in some neologisms, fold in a little academic jargon, add a pinch of hyperbole, half-bake it all, and--in your loudest, fastest-talking huckster voice--present the whole hot mess as your "original" recipe for self-actualization. Little wonder some have figured out that Emperor Zizek is wearing no clothes. (What a con.)

Shocking, that person who is emersed in philosophy and knowledge of this world has chosen to bring a innocent child in this Hell !

Congratulations