Why so complicated?. 😭

@Guillermo Lombana oh come on now...did you really compare Zizek with Chopra?

Guillermo Lombana Philosophical works are criticized all the time. That’s the point of peer review. What are you talking about? Postmodernism is also a philosophical school, so by using the word you are engaging in philosophy which is innately complex.

so germans didn't make tons of insane medical and scientific discoveries in their genocides and even attempt to remove disease and birth defects by selective breading and 'genetic superiority'? his answer was the straightest path sometimes goes through fire, how hard is that to understand? immortality is also somewhat related to how the Egyptians viewed this answer; it could not be that great; scenario: you meet a scientist that has proven god exists and you will meet him after you die, then he offers you 'immortal potion' queue moral dilemma; is helping people survive or die more beneficial? Question: would you kill a human in the name of humanism? That's basically his question to you. I'd place him as more unsure of blind support than blatantly against humanist agendas, because rabbitholes can be just as dangerous as anything else. The same way he casually compared humanism to the nazi's is WHY he is cautious of that agenda. But ofc humanism is good and ofc he recognizes that, he at least asks, at what cost? it's not that he hates humanism. omg.

exactly. as usual zizek never answer any questions and never dwell into any contents of the philosophers. so on and so on.

I need help reacting to something.

It was the least of my expectation to find a "Community" Reference. -Zezik (2021, probably). 🤣

Know thyself.

To be a humanist is to imagine you are the "captain of your ship." Heidegger, for instance, would say that each of us is entangled in life and not autonomous. Zizek quotes Freud as saying that we have a "death drive" or a drive towards being a vampire, basically. A traditional Catholic would agree that we have a fallen or corrupted will, but that salvation is possible. Zizek, as he often says, sounds like a theologian.

@Drewmer MRooster12 Zizek didn't describe humanism in this talk, if I recall. He just said what humanism isn't. He mentioned that what Freud called the death drive can also be described as man's desire to destroy. Zizek characterized this as a desire to live like the living dead -- neither dead nor alive. The humanist acts and talks as if he has the power to save himself or at least to work with God. The antihumanists doubt that people have that freedom. (Even the exisstentialists believed in freedom)

@Drewmer MRooster12 He is pretty infamous for saying what HE wants to say and not answering questions. I am a dilettante in this area (high school history teacher). Why do you say that his position is not the opposite of the humanist position? There were Christian humanists, so it isn't about religion.

@Drewmer MRooster12 So you are saying that humanists were atheists? Even Voltaire advocated religion for the masses. The Enlightenment thinkers were all deists just like Washington and Jefferson. Franklin, too, if I remember.

@Drewmer MRooster12 I am just guessing but zizek seems to be saying that we should give up hope of ever really being a true individual. Now psychology tells us that our ego is just a fraction of what goes on unconsciously. So zizek is saying the humanists cannot claim the freedom that they do. I am sure that the current generation of identity politics activists would be surprised to be told they are unfree.

and the next one: Slavoj Zizek - Why I'm not a Slavoj Zizek

Excellent comment, in its brevity. With his love of creating paradoxes, Zizek can easily, and enthusiastically, contradict what elsewhere he affirms he deeply endorses.

@@SandyBlJ It's even better in his theoretical books

HahahahhHahahH

.

Haha

Lol right 😂

thank you, didn't know anything about mystical line of thought z. mentioned but you helped with it. i'd agree 90% with your recap of his words. whereas to me, Z. is saying traditional humanism doesn't make room for shadows of the self, it generally only includes some sort of positive optimism and perspective. The humanism boundaries which Z. identifies with go further beyond to include what you described, to include the dark night of the soul. Reflecting to that, Z.'s humanism appears modern/postmodern versus the traditional one which he was asked about in the first place.

Dark night*

Zizek is not a humanist. BUt he is not an antihumanist like Nietzsche. Here I don't know what he is saying. The mystics are good though. Keep up the good work.

Yes, I agree with this, and would just like to add and so on.

​@@zootopia8586Nietzsche was not anti-humanist.

I might have a general idea of what he's trying to say, but this is the video about him that has left me the most confused out of the ones I've watched lmao

If I understand him correctly, the gist is he thinks humanist tradition has this self-congratulatory focus on the human mind and the light of reason while he he is much more interested in the dark, primal, irrational passion that he connects to overcoming the life and death binary/transcending mortality. It's also kind of similar to what Plato wrote about sexual desire - that it's actually about trying/wishing to achieve immortality but ending up conceiving children as a substitute.

@@sarahofastora9089 Thanks, your explanation helped me a bit lol

Wissa He's not talking about anything. That's his trick, learned, no doubt, from the French writers he likes and mentions here. He's empty of content, just brings a lot of random facts with no logic, no evidence, no data; he spices them up with annecdotes and jokes, ticks "and sho on, and sho on"; and brings random concepts and authors to pretend to give authority and to sound like it's important and academic; amd then say those empty words with confidence, like you know what your talking about. He's a charlatan. He's void of content or ideas. And that's why everybody likes him: they proyect their own thoughts in the void, and pretend to "know what he meant", which can never be proven true or false because there's no evidence.

​@@julianblake8385 IMO it's not entirely black and white. If Zizek's ramblings were run through a decent editor, there is a point somewhere in here about the naivete of Humanism with respect to its idealistic assumptions about human nature ... but my god is there a lot of other incoherent shit piled on top. He's not TOTALLY void of content, but he is definitely putting on a show first and communicating ideas second. Far more annoying to me than Zizek himself are fans of his who insist he his a Serious Intellectual, when fully half his time speaking in public is literally spent telling jokes.

No, it's not what he meant, not even close. So, what did Slavoj mean?! Since he wasn't capable to explain this, I certainly won't claim to do it for him. Please understand, I have no intention to criticize you, and your comment. On the contrary, I'm only drawing attention to the fact that in this video Zizek struggles, struggles really hard, to make sense - unsuccessfully, unfortunately. This opens the way for each and every viewer to come up with his/her OWN ideas, as brought up through association with Zizek's fruitless flight of ideas (I posted a separate comment on this).

SandyBlJ so you’re saying Zizek doesn’t make his ideas clear but you know what he is talking about? Please, we’re all ears. The fact that he mentions a mystic, albeit Christian, does indicate bringing up other mystics isn’t necessarily bogus. From what I hear, he’s talking very much about something similar to the Buddhist ego, that our sense of self is over and against the world, not the humanist idea of the noble reasoning self amidst a sea of unreason.

@@zootsoot2006Please read my earlier response to you, carefully. The answer to your second post is already there, fully. Most evidently, I did NOT say I have a better interpretation than yours of this talk ("you're saying... you know what he's talking about"). I said he's rambling aimlessly, he's unable to crystallize his ideas. I also said (in another comment) that "flight of ideas" is frequent in Zizek's speeches, but here it's pushed to an extreme - whereas in other speeches, besides this "flight", there are also better organized, more coherent trains of thought [analogy: heavy clouds here vs. partly cloudy/partly sunny in other talks]. I also said that, for you as well as for others, his incoherence makes it possible ("opens the way") to bring up your own ideas, through association of ideas with his unfinished, not even half-baked, incoherent ideas. You structured your own ideas and, at most, they run in parallel to what Zizek did here. This is NOT the same thing as giving an explanatory account of what he did - because that's "mission impossible" (due to his hopeless incoherence here). Therefore, it is perfectly logical (non-contradictory) to say: Zizek is incoherent, therefore a good, coherent explanation of what he did here is an impossibility, but, it's possible for viewers, through sheer association of ideas, to bring up certain ideas that are neither expressed, nor even implied, by Zizek, but are somewhat parallel to his (which makes this association of ideas possible, in the first place).

He’s talking about Non-Dualism which is paradoxical. You just have to know some of the references and the tie ins to the concepts and themes he’s talking. Information + Context.

@@NatanJavid1 Your comment manages to be even more obscure, and more pretentious too, than Zizek's incoherent talk. Besides, either you didn't read my comments above, or at most, you quickly skimmed through them without even trying to understand the points I made. "Non-Dualism which is paradoxical". Amusing; "non-dualism" means "opposite of dualism", which, in philosophical tradition means "monism", which is not paradoxical. But, of course, this is something completely different from Zizek's talk; he enjoys cultivating paradox, on about any subject he touches. (I would note that dialectical types of monism involve the "unity of contraries", as opposite to dualism; nonetheless, this is not a concept that Zizek was developing, or crystallizing, here. Dialectical thinking has its rigorous order and clarity, which are very far from Zizek's "flight of ideas" here.) "You just have to know, etc...". Yes, I happen to know his references and "tie-ins" (i.e., conceptual and thematic connections); unfortunately, they don't take away the aimless rambling character of his talk. However, this was your pretense; i.e., trying to sound like an 'authority', without having anything of substance to say. I appreciate philosophers who value conceptual clarity and order in their reasoning, who are able to organize their ideas, and do so because they actually care about communicating their ideas to their readers/listeners, NOT just about making a "strong impression" on them. Communicate vs. Impress.

Are you any familiar with philosophy in general?

You won’t find a lot of ways to access Zizek’s ideas in a concise way. His thinking is very expansive and disorganized.

It's impossible to do Hegel in a concise way; take a class or join a book club. After that you can read Fink's introduction to Lacan.

Any thoughts on Satre and his humanist Marxism founded in existentialism? I've just come across this approach and it's fascinating to me.

I’m unfamiliar with it, but it sounds like I’d like to explore.

He just mumbling incoherent stuff. Don't worry.

@@JosiahWarren give reasoning behind your certainty of this

He's just asystematic (ironically, cause he's a hegelian) and too verbose. It's a bit boring when you get used to his prose, because it looks like he's more an artist than a philosopher.

Why do you say Peterson enjoys pseudo intellectualism?

Miguel Urzúa yeah, or implying Jordan Peterson agree with social Darwinism.

I love youtube intellectuals.

@@miguelurzua4026 He is a psychologist that claims to understand the totality of philosophy. His theories on Cultural Marxism and Communist infiltration are strawman's of People like Derrida , Foucault and the Frankfurt school. in the debate he had with zizek, He admitted to only reading the Communist manifesto.

@@sailorguy23 I did not actual say that he advocates for Social Darwinism, but I'm sure his followers like it.

Do you think Zizek makes this content himself? Zizek doesn't construct these three minute videos, watch one of the documentaries about him, I recommend reality of the virtual, or better still take a dopamine detox and read a book

@@pricriminal8891 Sure, the problem is about the "construction of the video"... Or, maybe not so. There is nothing special about “constructing” this video. It is Zizek’s answer to the question asked at its beginning. My comment is about what Zizek is saying here - and this is what “making the content” actually means - including his characteristic flight of ideas and love of creating paradoxes. For these, he is entirely responsible. You have nothing interesting to say - but you enjoy being rude. This resulted in your hollow, worthless post.

Following your reference, there's also the ritual of purification, as Creonte would put it, blood for blood or exile. I think we've sinned enough, and such ritual would, in the last option, let us leave to reflect on our past. To purify our soul, facing our nature. That could be another night, one of atonement and negativity incarnate, in hegelian terms. That is very human, i think.

Zizek talks about this. He agrees that we are fallen. He says that it is precisely that fall which is also the light. He likes to invoke Christian imagery in saying "the miracle of the cross is not that we are saved etc, but that God died." It is why he calls himself an atheist christian, because he finds freedom in the acceptance that Christ died on the cross. Unlike humanists he also denies all Gods outside of this God (science, social progress, politics cannot save us). Basically his view is that since God died we must accept that we are truly alone, and in the absence of that God, we are free. This is, a rejection of what he sees as humanism, which is the perpetual "light" around the corner, the type that would ascribe some meaning to suffering as if there is something awaiting that has not yet been revealed. He sees view this as antithetical to freedom as it replaces allegiance and belief in one God with belief in the other (humanity, nature).

Assuming you have, how did you digest Hegel ('assuming' is all I have, as I haven't digested him myself)? Is Spirit = Mind, and if so, in what sense? (Just my subjective experience of being 'me' and everything in it (like thoughts)? some universal mind independent of 'me'? some universal mind that 'me' is a particular instantiation of? or all of them?) If Spirit is Mind, is his work the investigation of the categories/structures of it? Like, are self-destructive phases part of the Becoming/Process/Change of my subjective experience, which render it different tomorrow from what it was today? And if that is what he's doing (trying to nail down the fundamental structures of experience, like Descartes trying to get to the most fundamental 'aspect' of the subject (only his own subjectivity)), is it so that the fundamental structure of experience / subjectivity / Spirit / Mind, is Reason/Logos/the Ideal rationality underlying/constituting existence at the most foundational level? If the stuff above is an accurate description of his thought, did he arrive at his conclusions by thinking about and describing to himself the contents of his "head"? (I mean, obviously he did, as all we have is our "heads", but I mean in the sense that he began to think, and tried to conceptualize the Ways in which he thought, instead of the thoughts (phenomenology)). And lastly, how did he, and how do we, know that he's right? Is it an Aristotle vs Sophist type of situation, where he said ok, this is how my thinking appears to work, and whatever I do I notice myself inevitably presuming that this is how it is, so I'm stuck here, forever, and I have to accept this as a fundamental aspect of my Mind? (Aristotle claiming that if he could only get the Sophist to say something, anything, then he'd have proven that the LNC is true, because in saying something, the Sophist would be presupposing the LNC... it's like a prison wall surrounding the space of thought -- we can't get outside of it, it's one of the structures of our minds, fundamental, and without it there's no thinking at all)? If I'm totally off, I'm afraid I'll never get close to even being able to parrot a somewhat accurate summation of Hegel's thought. I hate feeling stupid, but even that would be better than not knowing.

@@isawilraen9816 Your questions regard the most essential notions at the core of Hegel's worldview; it's hard to to do justice to such a subject, in the space of an KZfaq comment! Due to my love for Hegel's philosophy, I'll try to summarize the essential points relevant to your post, in as limited space as I can. Spirit (Geist) (sometimes also translated as Mind) is Universal (i.e., the ultimate reality), and all particular minds are instantiations of it. Its process of Becoming has the end of revealing the categories that constitute the underlying, fundamental structures of reality, in their dynamic (continuously changing) character. This is indeed Logos, but understood in a manner that upends the classic notions of it: its categories are dynamic (neither permanent, nor unchanging, stable truths), and necessarily involve contradiction (though, it's been noted that dialectic contradiction is a different concept than the formal logic concept of contradiction). This is a brief answer to your first two paragraphs. Before I continue, I must emphasize that, since Hegel is an Objective Idealist, nothing can lead to more confusion in his interpretation than using in it concepts from the various subjectivist philosophic schools. Thus, talking about (or, reflecting on) anyone's subjective experience, or subjective mind, is not the gateway towards the Absolute. Hegel's ontology is the opposite of Descartes' foundational subjectivism (the belief that his own mind's self-investigation would provide a sound basis for the truth on Reality as a whole). For Hegel, this is a dead-end. What really matters for Hegel, is the Becoming process of the Universal Spirit. It proceeds according to its own logical order, through hypostatizing itself in every aspect of reality; the categories of Hegel's dialectical Logic are necessary in order to understand this hypostatizing, of the Logos into the Real, which has as its end the return of the Logos to itself, by turning the potential of its self-knowledge into actual self-knowledge. This is fully achieved only at the highest level of philosophic development - which to Hegel was, of course, his own philosophy (in which, therefore, the Absolute Spirit achieves the ultimate self-reflection)! Therefore, for Hegel, the most fundamental type of philosophic inquiry is ontologic, not epistemologic (as it was for Descartes, and for all the subjectivists, including Kant). That means, a synoptic understanding of the Real is needed in order to resolve the question of knowledge - and not vice-versa (as it was, and it still is, in all subjectivist traditions - including post-Hegelian ones; Hegel would say that the latter didn't understand anything of his philosophy!). Based on this, you can see how Hegel's Objective Idealism resolves the question of truth. He does it by eliminating the unbridgeable gap that the various subjectivist currents created between Subject (any individual mind) and Objectivity. E.g., "you can't really know the realm of the things-in-themselves", affirmed Kant (and any subjectivist will agree, albeit in different wordings). Hegel's answer: this gap is a false notion, that needs to be superseded. All Being (individual minds, and objective entities) is ultimately the Universal Spirit, true knowledge is the reflection of it in itself - which can be achieved, and is achieved, only through Universal Becoming, according to the categories (necessarily involving contradictions) of Dialectic Logic. In other words, the Absolute goes through the processes of objectifying (hypostatizing) itself, and struggling against itself, until it actually re-creates its unity - this time, in a fully conscious manner (from potential, to its actualization, a fundamental Aristotelian notion, worked out and developed in this amazing manner by Hegel). An individual philosopher's mind is only an instantiation of the Universal Spirit; these instantiations occur at various levels of understanding. However, what ultimately matters is the Becoming of Spirit itself, only. Thus, Hegel viewed his own mind as a manifestation of Spirit - not just any instantiation (or, manifestation), but the one where Spirit achieves its actual full self-reflection. So, there is - at this level only - ultimately no gap between subjectivity and objective reality; this gap was - for all subjectivist thinkers - the impediment to claiming knowledge of truth (since this claim relates to Otherness, to what is outside any individual subject's mind). Instead, Spirit recognizes ITSELF in all its objectified instantiations (vs. seeing them as examples of irreducible Otherness), and thus it only actualizes what was ITS own, fully given, potential from the very beginning of Universal Becoming. Truth is the self-reflection of the Absolute, the culmination of its own process of Becoming. Therefore, true knowledge has an Universal and Absolute character, which is hypostatized necessarily in individual minds (which gives it the appearance, yet an appearance only, of an "individual achievement").

@@SandyBlJ This summation is utterly profound... thank you for this.

Speak for yourself, Zombie. I know I’m alive because I have faith in God. I am breathing and indeed living. A complex human who’s been on this planet for over 40 years- real life experience rather than wasting time in a boring ass classroom. I do my own studying here in the wonderful Information Age. But, to each his own. ✌️

@@IIXxx_juliet_xxXII What the fuck are you talking about.

Deranged

@Guillermo Lombana lol Too true

get over uself

Cocaine

Nervous tick

We cant really explain something through empirical analysis. Science is not some magic truth-finding stick. In fact, science in itself need to be explained and analysed.

@@ignatutka6202 I see, off course there are flaws and controversies within the scientific field. Albeit, I rely more on science than on fuzzy interpretivism. Think about it, imagine if the discipline of law or medicine totally relied on subjetivism/interpretivism based on social constructivism.

@@rudolfbaresic Don't know why you mentioned interpretivism as something non-scientific, while science is completely based on it, and law -- as all ethical systems -- is based only on subjectivism. Even if we apply scientific paradigm, medicine and politics are principal different to compare them. We can by some experiments on separate individuals try to find better way to heal people, but we cant do such thing with politics.

@@ignatutka6202 So according to you there is no difference between mumbu jumbo socialconstrivism and science driven analysis based on an empiricist epistemology. Just because there is an element of interpretivism in all spheres of scientific conduct everything is relative.

​@@rudolfbaresic my point is there are two mumbu jumbos and all the difference is one of them called science and is treated like some very rational and logical alternative of another.

when the revolution comes, you will be among the first to be LEE-KWEE-DATED

Just curious to know; what makes you think that he was bullied?

@@mitjadrab6529 my ability to see him

trans humanist is othher state arise from panic paranoic state of mind is danger because transhumanist joy to force convince other in world they belive is the best . Just simple mind like zen budist teaching is supreme human state of peace calm mind wit no wisch in better world just joy this present moment and control desire of want like need overcome them by zazen posture.eat natural food work in organic golden garden that all inap

As a recent convert to Claritin-D, I can confirm this claim. Shit changed my life.