No voice brings me more comfort than that of this man.

God bless Professor Zizek!

@josiplilic3384

4 ай бұрын

Yea, bless him! He used to teach me how liberals could be worse than honest conservative.However,as a leftist myself, he's been behaving too liberal for my taste, both in Russia/Ukraine war & Izrael/Palestine also! His critique of ideology is unparalleled,but his geopolitics stands are questionable,at least.Brother Cornel West is more consistent & my favorite philosopher! But he has forgotten that he could have never been a politician 😂

@he1ar1

4 ай бұрын

@@josiplilic3384 Zizek was a liberal in the 90s, when no one who wanted to be taken serious would want to associate themselves with Marx or Hegel. Without Zizek hardly anyone outside of universities would know about Marx today. Left politics would be a history course.

@josiplilic3384

4 ай бұрын

@@he1ar1 as if you had to tell me that! I'm over 40,did read Sublime....& few other of his books(even started to read Less Than Nothing, but capitulated after 30 pages🤣)!He is in my leftist holy trinity,along with Cornel West & Chris Hedges! His critique of ideology is unmatched to this day.Said all of that,I have right to criticize his blind spots,I would hope so...

@MonkeyDIvan

4 ай бұрын

@@josiplilic3384 Cornel West is a gem of a human being, but he would obviously make for a bad politician. He is too human for that.

@josiplilic3384

4 ай бұрын

@@MonkeyDIvan honesty & huuuuuge intelect combined, disqualifies Brother West from being politician (let alone president) by default! I've once heard that Woodrow Wilson read entire bookstore,but he was kinda tragic SOB.

20:01 ''Dark Deleuze'' (2016) by Andrew Culp

Thank you!!!

Finally! 🇧🇷

I like this idea of yours very much!

From tactical principled pragmatism. Hegelian Dialectic, to quantum physics, hehehe 😄. I love Zizek..

@ammariaya364

2 ай бұрын

ADHD in its purest most beautiful model

❤

1:32:13 Žižek on Tana French (American-Irish writer of crime fiction).

New from the Hegelian philosopher Zizek

If you gave a tree freedom, it wood* never choose to be turned into a chair. 58:20

How do we get ticket's to Zizek's April event?

what is this beautiful music at the end of the interview? Can anyone tell me what piece of music it's coming from?

We don’t have free will, which is why we must plan for the future. We must use the past in the present to put ourselves in the best position for the future. And probability does not exist, only actuality.

@VoloBonja

4 ай бұрын

So we have control, that's enough for me.

What was the book that Zizek referenced about Hitler for the context for his rise?

@bt8593

2 ай бұрын

He mentions the existence of several books but doesn't give specifics, judging from the transcript.

I have a suggestion for how to introduce Slavoj: read his CV!

Wait what? There a debate going on soon with Zizek and West. No way, do we have details? Is this a public event? Can we get details? I will be there in a heartbeat. I love both of them. Is this real.

Best fillum of all times : Ninotschka. Here I turn retroactively into a partisan of determinate negation. Sorry, we don't have time now to develop this further . . .

@mattiafabbri8944

4 ай бұрын

exquisite film

@IvoMaropo

Ай бұрын

What a thing potentially isn't falls back into the determination of what it effectively is (a.k.a. Hegel's bestimmte negation). In other words, "the signifier falls into the signified" (Lacan).

@farrider3339

Ай бұрын

@@IvoMaropo would u like your coffee without cream or without milk ;)

"man is an animal who needs a master. For he certainly abuses his freedom in relation to others of his own kind. And even although, as a rational creature, he desires a law to impose limits on the freedom of all, he is still misled by his self-seeking animal inclinations into exempting himself from the law where he can." Kant and the Limits of Civil Obedience

@DJWESG1

4 ай бұрын

All the famous thinkers stole from Hobbes.

@the-coop

4 ай бұрын

@@DJWESG1 I watched "Marxism vs Capitalism | Aaron Bastani and Matthew Lesh" shortly after reading your comment and Mr Lesh did it within the first few minutes.

@danielnaylor7737

2 ай бұрын

​@@DJWESG1Bit obtuse... to say the least

1:15:30 I wish Slavoj had given this explanation in front of Sean Carrol or another physicist, because it is fundamentally wrong. It is NOT TRUE that you can manipulate in general one side of an bell/EPR pair (meaning an entangle pair of two particles), and that the other particle will respond. The ONLY thing you can do to one particle in the pair which will effect the other, is measure it and send the result of that measurement to the other experimenter (which must happen slower than the speed of light). All other manipulations on one side of an EPR pair have no effect on the other side. Further, the only way that I can find out if a process produces EPR pairs is by measuring both members of the pair (to see how correlated they are). In other words, entanglement only implies that quantum particles can have correlated noise regardless of distance, not that you can send signals or manipulate object faster than the speed of light. If you are physicist and you are unsure whether an bell/EPR allows you to send a signal faster than the speed of light, consider the density matrix for the state of the bell pair. Once the pair are space like separated and you perform any non-measurement action on spin 1, it must be represented by unitary matrix and since you are only able to change the energy for spin 1 this unitary must have the form U tensor I (only acting on spin 1). So, you can conjugate the density matrix by the unitary to see the state of the system after you do anything to spin 1. I can now find the statistics for spin 2 using the reduced density matrix for spin 2, so take the partial trace over spin 1. Putting the spin 1 unitary matrices on each side of the density matrix simply changes the basis of the partial trace and therefore has no effect. Therefore, the reduced density matrix for spin 2 is identical regardless of the choice of U. This argument trivially generalizes to any type of entanglement between two space-like separated systems. What about a doing a projective measurement on spin 1, but not sending the information to the person that captured spin 2? Whatever measurement you do can be represented by unitary transformation on spin 1 and then a measurement along Z. If you don't send the information to the person with spin 2, then you can represent measuring spin 1 by summing over the density matrices produced by each measurement outcome times their probability. If you write out that series of operations, you will see that this equivalent to taking the partial trace over spin 1. (This argument can be generalized to all other forms of measurement.) Therefore, measuring spin 1 without sending the result to the person with spin 2 does not affect the statistics of spin 2. This clearly show that you cannot use an EPR pair to send any information, unless you also know the result from the measurement of the other member of the pair.

I think there's a better example in modern physics that supports the notion of ontological incompleteness and is less misleading at the same time. It is the "renormalization theory" which founds quantum electrodynamics. To oversimplify, this renormalization theory successfully deals with infinity that arises with respect to the self-energy of an electron. In the classical Maxwellian theory, the self-energy of an electron should be infinite. While the renormalization theory basically says that, ok we suppose that this infinite self-energy should be finite in a more advanced theory which is unknown to us, but we don't need to know the details of this "advanced theory" anyway, since with the help of some mathematical tricks, the infinite terms in our equation will all cancel out in the end, leaving us only a finite answer. The interesting thing here is that renormalization theory cannot get rid of this mysterious "advanced theory" which only provides infinities that all cancel out in the end, which is in my opinion an even better example of the structural necessity of ontological incompleteness.

@swagatosaha

3 ай бұрын

I wish I had the relevant references with me, and I hope you'll be able to find them on the internet without much trouble; but I don't think 'renormalization theory' is Hegelian. The hypothetical 'advanced theory' is akin to 'metalanguage' - the same way, 'language' cannot fully define its conditions of use/interpretation (Lacan gets into this), we are led to define a 'metalanguage' that does it instead, this 'metalanguage' in turn requiring a 'metalanguage'of its own; and we can speculate if this chain of instantiations might converge or not. With renormalization too, based on what I've read, there are allusions to a 'space of possible theories'. But the big Hegelian-Lacanian point seems to be that there is no 'metalanguage', or equivalent, there is no vantage point made available by a 'higher theory' that guides our theoretical efforts. This is of course based on Zizek's reading of Hegel. Renormalization, rather than Zizek's ontological incompleteness, seems to be kind of nominalist. As in, you have terms in your Hamiltonian which blow up to infinity at certain regimes and may be safely neglected at others, and to renormalize means to make use of a 'universal container' that mediates these impossible switchovers. The big metaphysical question being - outside of our calculations on pen and paper or on a computer, what does 'renormalization' say about the nature of reality? What does it mean, and why must Nature be renormalizable? There's another lecture by Zizek, and I'm pretty sure he writes about it in places too, as to how Deleuze's concept of 'rhizome'/'assemblage' crucially departs from the Hegelian field, insofar as it excorsies 'antagonism' or 'negativity'. I think 'renormalization group' is closer to Deleuze.

@shan-chaofu5079

3 ай бұрын

​@@swagatosaha Very interesting point! I stopped my learning in physics by the time I was taking a quantum filed theory class, so I might not have good knowledge of what really happens after that in physics. But from what I know, taking into consideration what physicists have been up to since quantum electrodynamics and especially since standard model, I think this notion of a "higher theory" creates more trouble and renders itself the thing to be "exorcised". Yes, it resolves an "antagonism", but please note that this is only a temporary truce in the history of physics. The solved problems in natural sciences are historical and finite even when the solution claims to be a "grand theory". I agree that the "higher theory" at stake in quantum field theory formally looks like a "metalanguage", yet it is a virtual one and this is crucial. As for Deleuze, I think Zizek's reading on Deleuze might actually be helpful to elucidate the paradox here. It's in his book Organs without Bodies. My understanding is that, according to this book, a "virtual metalanguage", in a stricter sense, should be taken as a "quasi-cause", which is "equivalent of Lacan's objet petit a, this pure immaterial, spectral entity that serves as the object-cause of desire"(OwB p.24). Sorry if I'm not clear enough!

and so on

I find the concept "dark deleuze" very funny because it seems to me it is only necessary for americans, elsewhere decent exposure and sufficient background seems to be enough to understand there is nothing remotely chilled out about it. It's like when you're a child and the subject of your history class is war all of a sudden, to a kid who doesn't understand the scale of violence the whole event is something reducable of paintball or team sports (especially when this narrative starts with people who had the average life expectancy of 25 years, or people who didn't have a toilet to shit in). I believe the majority of american intellectuals really are that naive. That's why Andrew Culp's book was necessary in a way, but still Deleuze's own writing is well written anyway so I would be really skeptic about the point of such book.

Zizek at 2:34

In " Being and Nothingness", Sartre said rhat absolute freedom is suffocating.

Freedom is a state in which there is no force acting upon an individual, or all the forces acting upon him are equalized. This is the only materialist notion of freedom, derived from Newtonian laws of dynamics, the only laws of dynamics ever to be formulated. In Deleuzian terms, individual begins with the territory, and therefore those who have no territorial autonomy (literally a piece of land that belongs to them, where they are isolated from everyone else, free to do whatever they want) are not individuals. All definitions have to have form of experimental condition of assessment weather said individual fall in the category of free people, or not. The problem with todays corrupt feudal laws is they attribute freedom a'priori to each human, ideologically, and therefore expect slaves to act like free people to sustain the ideology, even if their material conditions are that of fundamental lack of physical autonomy, not to mention intellectual one (which is meaningless when the physical aspects are not met - what identity capitalism knows very well). The above is in consistence with what Slavoy said - the condition of freedom is a constant superposition, that is a form of order. This is why freedom does not exist in nature. Chaos of nature is the unbalance of many contradictory orders (not to be mistaken with disorder - a dialectical negativity of order). The problem with what I wrote & what Slavoy ultimately drive towards - is the origins of this type of logic. Newtonian logic, the dynamics, is a logic of inanimate objects, not agents. If we apply dynamic to any problem, we exclude possibility of recognizing agency or intellect of any kind.

I THOUGHT THEY SAID KANYE WEST IN THE BEGGINING LMAO

🇳🇦🇳🇦👋🏾

kzread.info/dash/bejne/mIqptbuOfqTLm8Y.html The Flying Lizards - Money • TopPop

The content starts at 2:35

I have a constant suspicion that Zizek is really the ultimate troll in disguise. He is constantly making inconsistent experiments with his dialectical dance. Almost anything holds if you tell it in a convincing way. I totally disagree with his praise of Shortcuts (1:30:43). No, the "vulgar lefties" are right: the greatness of the movie IS in its depiction of the mute despair of lower middle classes; a despair which lacks even the most basic permission to articulate itselt. Who cares that its form tells us another story and even contradicts its content? Isn't it precisely an ideological intervention of happy Deleuzian multitudes as if to say that "things aren't really that bad"? How the hell can such a movie be the greatest one of the last half century (an incredibly bombastic claim to make, by the way)!???

As usual, it is too tedious to separate the lobster meat from the gibberish (both of which Mr Z is able to provide in spades) ...

My school batchmates are scandalised that I want to make a film on a paedophilic monk . They don't know about my approach. So they don't try openly to hush me up. But I am sure they are threatened by anylitical reconstruction of the scandal. But I don't care.

Left wing OR Right wing propaganda stays propaganda.

@nicosge6742

4 ай бұрын

thx for your input!

After I saw Zizek make some of the most profoundly stupid statements I've ever heard from an intellectual regarding meditation and introspection, I just haven't been able to regard him the same anymore.

@VoloBonja

4 ай бұрын

A link? Please

5:25 41:40 44:15 ab49:30!!! Anwendung auf finanzwirtschaftliche Phänomene: wie diese aus der "Natur" entstanden sind! 53:40! 55:40! 1:09:30

sry but too much nervosity in the first minutes already

Those muppets talk to much.