Right? Holy shit. It would have increased the drama and angst by lot. Made it all the more tragic. Specially after the child is rescued at the end, with the knowledge that his father was also days away from the rescue, and could have been saved if he maybe did not put up with the fantasy.

definitely...

I need a director's cut with this ending pronto !!!

I wonder what films does he like if that one wasn't "strong enough" xd

I feel like it would've made it a lot more depressing and give the kid too much procociousness that I think is beyond most, what 7 year olds.or.something?

Literary Theory you caught him!

@@Kbarz lol

He does look like Rick Roderick I'll give you that

Holy shit, I nearly spat my breakfast out all over the table

@@brettrobbins I knew that accent was as fake as those phony facial tics, but I couldn't figure out what was really underneath until you pointed out this gap in his disguise. TY

I wonder is it because most of the people don't know shit, only couple of movies.

Movies and ideologeese.

It's because he is a psychoanalyst in the tradition of Freud via Lacan. For him, movies reveal the subconscious.

And about sex

you mean filems

And so on and so on.

Sniff

Ender Wiggin lisp*

Would you way that when Zizek talks me makes a point within a point and so on and so on *sniff*

He loves the smell of the sides. of his nose

Ever read Foucault? Or better yet, a transcript of him speaking? Philosophers, for reasons I can’t explain, tend towards embedding and extending sentences. I think it has to do with capacity of intelligent individuals to think faster than they are capable of formulating adequate words to describe their thoughts. This is of course contrasted with dimwitted individuals who can say much without really expressing much of anything.

@@Alexander-mw1ek I think there's a longing in being precise about the ideas they are trying to convey and that maybe requires a bigger lexicon or extending the train of thought to reach, in a certain order some point., also if you talk a lot you wouldn't want to be repeating the same words and patterns it becomes boring , doesn't bring value nor authority. And then there's a lot of them that learn certain ways to organize ideas that are more compelling or engaging or even emotionally charged and so on and so on...

C-

@@DanielRivera-on5qh lol

@@DanielRivera-on5qh Really? I thought it wasnt bad. What was so wrong in his statement?

IMO he's so easy to understand. It's good evidence of the dichotomy between the awake and the asleep. All it takes is lucid awareness, all it takes is effort put into your listening. But today people want understanding fed to them, which is impossible. Understanding must come from your own intellect. If it comes from anyone else, if it is fed to you by anyone else, it is ideology.

I think Żiżek would like Bolesław Prus' short story called "Kamizelka" ("The Waistcoat"). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waistcoat "As the husband had been losing weight, he had been shortening one of the vest's bands in order not to worry his wife; and she had been shortening the other one in order to give him hope. Thus they had deceived one another in a good cause."

no you are wrong pssimism = drive to knowledge.

Perhaps more Chesterton, in paraphrase: I opened my mind as I opened my mouth: with the purpose of shutting it again on something solid. And, I said, I would look very silly if I went around everywhere with my mouth open.

Same with Peterson

The Holy Ghost is the Third Person in the Trinity

The HS can usually only appear where 2+ are so, when you're just growing in your Christianity, you can have God pass into you from someone else.

It's funny to me, because when you ask most Christians, they will tell you that the Holy Spirit is the least understood of the Trinity by them, and yet it is the Person Whom we most viscerally encounter

“…it’s just the imminence of an emancipatory collective.”

yeah thats wrong Christianity is not about love. Jesus was not a Hippy lol

That means his theology is non existent. It just cancels itself mathematically.

He fell down into the mystery of faith and never let God catch him

@@Kaspar502 I'd rather Romans 1:18 becomes less mysterious, frankly. Especially as how it relates to a post 'glass darkly' world... And a pre Revolt in heaven, heaven. Kind of unlikely situation, that last one. Seems many angels never 'got' it.

​@@imnothingbutastreetcat7996No. It means he has a philisophy he fits things into and this is what it looks like.

​@@imnothingbutastreetcat7996he believes in a psudeo-christian hegelian theology. I don't know all the details but he believes that God literally died on the cross and poured his own essence into the geist of humanity. First there was God the Father, big guy controlling the entire world and so on, who through the incarnation made us truly free by liberating us from the responsability that the existence of God posed to humanity by literally dying for us on the cross, then the Holy Spirit comes into humanity and creates the "egalitarian communty bound by love" he talks about. So yeah, completely unbiblical and heretical but thats what philosophers do.

Are your grandparents in a 12-step program like AA?

@@jele754 Reinhold Niebuhr

I'd say that the idea of a transcendent guarantee blinds us to the reality of Love. That's why Christianity elevates it to a divine category. As long as we think there's a god, we will not see that we're together in this. Alone, left to our freedom, as Zizek says.

The other existential terror is that if everything is in fact meaningful, the standards become infinitely high and your actions now have an unfathomably negative value. It’s like smoking your whole life and then finding out that it causes cancer. Not only do you have to embark on the impossible task of quitting, but you also have to somehow deal with the irreversible damage you’ve already done.

@@willmcpherson2 Your definitions make any action impossible. But that is a cop out. Actions can also have a positive value - particularly if you just aim for the achievable without placing the impossibility of "infinitely high" standards on any action.

That quote is utter nonsense, both as it stands alone here and in its original context. There isn't a God, and there are atheists. Is Chesterton seriously suggesting that even if people like me are wrong, and there is a God, then his sudden absence would force the entire human species to believe in his presence? Part of the problem is Chesterton fabricates his own definition for the word atheist, one which is not correct. OED has atheist as one who "disbelieves or lacks belief" in God. That is, does not believe there is one or does believe there is not one. These two are subtly distinct, but Chesterton's invented definition does not match either.

@@jamiefraser-bingham9091 who are you to proclaim so surely there is no God?

@@jamiefraser-bingham9091 Atheist is someone who say there is no God,,so you are trying to redefine atheism so you don't need to defend your position .

The quote is mistake in any event, because what's being implied is if there was really no god there would be no one calling themselves atheists, but those people wouldn't cease to exist, there just wouldn't be a word called atheist because the thing it pertains to doesn't exist. Kind of like how there isn't a word for someone who doesn't believe in vampires. It's commonly accepted that vampires don't exist.

The biggest mistake you could make is to quote or read Chesterton out of context, because he uses popular sayings, proverbs, allegories and aphorisms to get his point across. So of course taking them out of their context would lead to a misunderstanding like this. His words aren't meant to be taken as a factual statement.

...and other hilarious delusions of morons.

Angry Sprayer Shut the fuck up. Communism will win.

@@_sarpa reddit

@@_sarpa reddit

I would like to believe that the early christians thought this deeply as Zizek is trying to portray.

lol!

While I agree that love is an emotion, when our Lord is asked, "who is my neighbor?" in reaction to the commandment to love our neighbors, He uses the parable of the Good Samaritan to make His point. In the parable, He does not speak of the love the Samaritan may or may not feel in his heart, but rather of the love the Samaritan has in his actions

This should be on a T-shirt

joyela aeuvunya Zizek is fully anti-stalinist, if you thought that even for a second he defends old communist regimes you’re wrong, you’ve been fooled and you’ve fell right into his joke. You literally have no sense of humor if that is the case. You should know he is openly a black humor preacher. Zizek is a neo-communist, like me and anyone intelligent enough. Of course neo-communism or post-communism imply defending also all the good things you stated.

joyela aeuvunya Also he is not anti-vulgarity, he is fully pro-vulgarity. Long live vulgarity and its charming appeal.

Televi Kunt exactly, just one thing. The fact that you said that anyone intelligent enough like zizek or you should is neo communist is very prideful. Brilliant minds exist everywhere

Why tho?

Those jitters though

acumenfinito he has repeatedly said he refrains from using drugs

@@hoaxnineteen2020 he has a tick bro

In another talk he does the "there are two great evils in today's society; pedophilia and smoking.. I don't smoke"

@@flerperderp2094 omg that's hilarious lol

In beautiful 240p too

Pretty little 4 a big guy

The Arms of a synchronized swimmer with rebellious Hands longing to be Jazzy.

his hands are so dirty tho

Oh yeah i know, you should watch him WALK ON WATER... lol, spare me. He's a piece of shit. imgur.com/a/lJ081b4

@@EQOAnostalgia You're a moron. Imagine being so quick to judge him simply because he's a communist.

Great, see you at Mass, then

Can you elaborate? I tried looking it up but I'm at work during my break and I can't find it concisely. Thank you

G K Chesterton wrote many things. I think the book Zizek is quoting from is either "Orthodoxy" or "Heretics". Both are from the 1900s, be aware, but if you're prepared to engage some of that culture, it is humorous, ironic, but does make one think.

​@@HolyKhaaaaan Oh yeah, he said to Peterson that he should read that book.

@@nauj8316 hohoho,that'd so?,interesting .deffinitly should read it

@@a.bagasm.7253 yes, you should, if you watch the debate between Peterson and Zizek you can find more info

Jesus is a socialist if you think about it. His father in the old testement wen't against monarchy, and warning them on the disadvantages of having a King.

@@bigmanjoe3603 no, dont affiliate him with any ideology

@@bigmanjoe3603 Reading your comment was honestly hilarious.

Belief that you don't have to believe yourself. The cross signifies the death of the man on the cloud out there and now Christianity is guided by the holy spirit; an immanent experience and so on of love between people and so on and so on. What an amazing scholar!

That's more of a feature of continental atheism.

Isnt it hegelian to say that to fall in the abyss of atheism you have to go through Christianity?

@@pramitpratimdas8198 Good point: it does look Hegelian. It certainly seems to be true, whether Hegelian or not! And it does characterize Ž's particular form of atheism, which is so obsessed with seeing an emergent synthesis (which looks remarkably Marxist, not just Hegelian) where X-tian tradition denies it. The ever-living God, he says, and the (antithetical) death of his Divine Son, bring forth an age of the Spirit: spirit as synthesis. But no - like all protestant obsessives, he _forgets Easter:_ it is Christ Risen who re-emerges on the third day, not any third thing, not even the Spirit, who was there all along. Ž "Hegelianizes" the incarnation by ignoring the risen Christ and putting an abstract, synthetic Spirit in his place.

@@worldnotworld Risen Christ, the Easter, that's relapse into paganism. That's why only women allegedly saw him that Sunday morning. Hysterical bats! :)) Or wise old granmas - no sense in weeping, no luxury of dying, gotta go on with life, seasonal works, cycles, moons, wash and feed a newborn, wash and feed the elderly...

@@ljubog It is the deletion of the Resurrection that's a relapse into paganism. Sacrifice of victim now simply restores order, as in tragedy; no escape from eternal cycle of birth and death and perpetual emasculation. There would be no death of "God" without the Resurrection, because God could not have been revealed.

This is not strange in any sense. We all know Its a Game of pretending, you don't need to think too much to realise It. The reason its actually pretty simple too. We are not rational beings, we are Animals with the ability to communicate and use the reason. We dont like to use the reason though, because its hard and It might mean that one of the ideas we thought of is incorrect. We have emotional feelings for these ideas, so, when we are forced to disasociate from them, It is painful. This happens with religion belief, but also with any kind of tradition, like going to church, making your bed when you wake Up...

Strongly disagree on the pretending part. It sounds more like you are projecting your experience unto others. I had a similar situation in my late teens and early 20s where I basically had no faith, and learning a couple of new things as well as life turned that around.

@@Baccanaso Based on the fact that all religions and gods are demonstrably false it is by default pretending even if a person truly believes. Although when a person actually believes such religious nonsense it probably technically changes from pretending to delusion.

@@Baccanaso The counter argument being that you have just re-tricked yourself into believing something you don't actually believe, convinced you've arrived upon a new framework that makes sense to you.

Every way of living is irrational

Before the historical battle of Marathon, the Athenians were shocked, after the news that they have to face the Persians without any spartan help... They started sacrificing goats to the goddess Artemis, asking her if she accepts. She surely accepted the initial sacrifice (bound to requests towards her), but her answer was negative: 1 goat for every dead barbarian was too little, 10 goats or 100 goats too... They went over, asking her, how many goats they have to promise her, for every wounded barbarian... 1 goat for every wounded barbarian was too little, 10 goats too, but 100 goats was finally enough! So, they´d sacrifice 100 goats after the battle for every wounded or dead Persian... After the battle, they found out, that they had nearly no casualties themselves, but on the other side, there were 6400 dead Persians... That was bleaker than having higher casualties themselves, cause they now had to pay for 6400*100=640.000 scapegoats, more than existed in whole Greece, more than ever existed in whole Greece during the whole 100 years before !!!!!!!!! So, they begann sacrificing and making requests. With each goat they sacrificed, they asked Artemis, if she´d be satisfied with another number of scapegoats than the promised, a number much lower than the initially promised. After 10 goats, Artemis finally answered, that she´d be OK with 100 instead of 640.000 goats... They went on sacrificing another 90, so, 100 altogether, and went home, as though nothing has ever happened, not to lose a single word about this event ever again... Acting like that was state-doctrine, religion was solely folklore, and to avoid being totally respectless towards the gods was a matter of fair-play and good maners, but nothing more... As soon as a justification was at hand, of how to avoid one´s responsibilities towards the gods, it was over, no matter how cheap and flimsy the justification was... Well that was thousands of years ago, when still lot of superstition was around (but already no true belief)... And, of course, the average Christian isn´t the average Greek, to be clear about that (and, even Greeks became Christians after all, after some pressure/maiming from above)... And don´t trick yourself, into believing that "people were different back then", or at any time in history, cause people have been the exact same strong thinkers for the last 8-11.000 years (even if their lack of knowledge often betrayed their thinking-efforts). To my opinion, there´s probably a natural disposition, just as you explained, but this disposition is something very, very rare, and most people are born atheists, and turned into believers, for lack of choice... I grew up in a greek village, and people there have their own moral frames, which keep them off from committing crimes. But when they are in the public, they are suddently Christians, in order to damn their village-neighbor, for example, for being such a big sinner and a bad person, and themselves being oh-so-noble-and-essential for the community/village (as a last-resort-excuse to win a fight amongst neighbors). But as soon as they are at home, they are suddently atheists again... Everybody lies in your face, just as you in everybody else´s face, and everybody knows about it, but the game perpetuates itself no matter what... Cause god is an entity that has never been collectively deconstructed, so, it keeps its authority, for as long as people bevieve, that there´s a single true believer left among them, who would be critical for tipping the scale to their favor, in such a debate (religious arguments are still relevant in preelection campaigns still today, in the country where politics were invented, or otherwise, the classical conservatives would have zero arguments)... Communism includes a great next step, where all come together, and confess, that they´ve been lying all the time, and that it´s time to stop with it, and let it be, in the future...

Communion U don't believe actually in somethings, u Just believe because another is telling u that the truth is true

Hegel

He is just a normal philosopher. It´s other people calling themselves "philosophers", that haven´t grasped what philosophy actually does, and there´s so many of them, that is confuses you, giving you a false picture of philosophy... If philosophy were less than what he does, it´d be a shame...

Modern American conservatives are so lost in general

@@dylanjulve5374 yes

Click

American?

Sebastian Melmoth Is there any other nationality?

Ah... explains a lot.

@@sebastianmelmoth685 Winning!!!

I couldn't understand him at first but now i listen to him alot and i'm completely used to it (that sounds crazy but yes i'm completely used to it!)

Lol he always does that then goes on for 5 more minutes it's a schtick

Extremely arrogant to the point of being aggressively preachy.. they're like another type of religious fanatics

The great anti-Christ

Thank you, brother. One of the reasons why I really like Jesus is because he says that those that do the will of God are his brothers and sisters. He never says that we have to be a particular religion, race, or anything else. And what is the will of God? Simply that we love each other. God bless you.

You shall know them by the fruits and what fruit has Islam bore? Oh yes terrorism and beheadings.

Søren Kierkegaard, the person we can all believe in in the third-person :)

almost as if people have created gods

@@_sarpa yeah, and why would they do that? Pay attention mong

@@comradesillyotter1537 To cope with the harsh reality of their lives?

bluegender2005 He defends Christianity because it's the only way (according to him) to achieve true atheism.

Yeah, I think he believes that the only serious atheist position is that of Jesus on the cross feeling abandoned by his father. A Jesus that minutes later says his final words, addressed, of course, to his father: "in Thy hands I commend my spirit." You may not believe, or even like Christianity, but you can't deny the astounding originality of a religion that claims that God became Man, became and atheist, and died.... Yes. According to Christianity, God died on that cross. What human mind can come up with a story as outrageous?

@@xaviervelascosuarez I struggle with this. What 'objectified belief' is he speaking of in the end? Also why is it the ultimate 'christian gesture' to pretend that there is somebody out there that believes? Isn't that false Christianity?

@@jazz7581 yes, he's no Christian, that's for sure. But he seems to be searching.... And getting closer. May Gilbert K. get for him the graces he needs!

@@xaviervelascosuarez no I didn't mean to ask rhetoric questions, I was really asking what he meant, and for you to explain to me, because I didn't understand it

In the beginning there was the Logos and the Logos was with God because the Logos was God

Something like that I would call communion as he did...since the Holy Spirit was the Main thing left

@@lionofjudah8403 And also failed to give reason, to that twerpy being, in 2 Samuel 24 - maybe, yeah.