I'm really liking your Zizek videos

Thank you so much for this.

In your view, how would you explain that the Freudian unconscious is self-consciousness in the context of Hegel's myth about the encounter of two self-consciousness (the one in the Phenomenology of Spirit)? How does the unconscious relate to the idea of the Other? I am also struggling with what differentiates the ego from self-consciousness/unconscious. In fact, how do u even differentiate between the terms self-consciousness, ego, the 'I', subject, individual, self? Where do they fit in your theoretical framework? Sorry if I'm not making sense, I am really confused about these topics.

The discussion concerning Sartre is interesting. An old professor of mine complained that Lacan ripped off Sartre without giving him credit. You're right, I think, to point out Zizek's mistake. If I remember correctly, Sartre thought the notion of a substantial unconscious would reduce consciousness to a mere in-itself. But the part that bothers me in Sartre is exactly the part that seems to bother me about Zizek's view as far as I understand it. Sartre had a notion of "pure reflection" that occurred instantaneously and would radically change the subject's orientation. How this occurs can not be explained for it is instantaneous and immediate which makes subjectivity rather undialectical (temporality is opened up by virtue of a particular project-orientation, the very thing needing to be changed). When Hegel speaks of the "I," such a thing is only pure insofar as it's abstract. I am "I" and you are "I." It is only the self-particularization of this universal "I" which allows us to differentiate ourselves. But this does not happen out of some immediate moment, but through our brute factical content and the content given by the ethical institutions of my world which provide standards of choice. Thus, if I interpret Hegel correctly, the reflexivity of the subject is simply a self-mediating content, not a self-relating void for this seems to sneak in a transcendental ego of sorts through the back door. The "I" as it actually exists, in everyday life, is always concrete and never an empty self-relation. In this view, the subject would be thoroughly immersed with its world, not withdrawn from it. This is all assuming I've understood the video.

I think there is a definite sense in which Lacan (and Zizek) is a formalist, in the way someone like Sartre is not. Not entirely unrelated to this - Lacan's Big Other finds affinity with Heideggerian facticity, which is quite different than Sartre's notion of the self, as far as I am aware.

For Zizek/Lacan vs Sartre, don't know if this answers your question, what I've heard is that when it comes to Zizek vs existentialists, that what they both agree upon is the negativity/void of the subject, however existentialists posit to some degree the existence of the Big Other while Zizek through Lacan posits the non-existence of the Big Other. Apparently this is supposed to have implications on what to do regarding the problem of subjectivity, where existentialists think that the problem can be solved by embracing one's freedom (via Sartre) or personal faith in God through an existential leap of faith (via Kierkegaard). Zizek is supposedly different because there is no solution to the problem of subjectivity and any attempt to do so just reifies the problem instead of solving it. In other words, existentialists make this mistake because by positing the existence of the Big Other, there is a path for subjectivity to escape its prison, but if the Big Other doesn't exist in the first place, then there is no hope for it at all, so he's kind of a very pessimistic version of existentialism.

It is the object creating the subject in the first place. Not the other way round. That's why precisely the question remains : Which is the lesser of two evils - Coffee without milk ? or Coffee without cream ? Cheers and thanks for this excursion into definitions, and definitions of definitions Sorry I don't have time now to go into this ~ 👋°•.

I find the reason behind this content far more interesting than the actual content no offense. I'm not educated and I don't know any names you have mentioned it seems like the people interested in this are searching for answers, big answers. And I think almost everyone spends a lot of effort wanting to know the bottom line the absolute answer to it all. There is solace to be found in the thoughts of others but there's piece of mind to be found in your own thoughts think for your self too much effort is spent on looking at the question please forgive the countless grammatical errors like I said I'm not educated but I do and try to think for myself