Man, his alternate ending for Benigni's film is actually damn good.

@ikemotosystems1434

3 жыл бұрын

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.

@TheMsnitish

2 жыл бұрын

definitely...

@AJK666007

Жыл бұрын

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

@gojimi3011

9 ай бұрын

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

don't say "it's wrong", say instead "in some stupid sense, it's true" LOL

00:37 Zizek is actually from the southern U.S.

@Kbarz

4 жыл бұрын

Literary Theory you caught him!

@brettrobbins

4 жыл бұрын

@@Kbarz lol

@voila6433

4 жыл бұрын

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

@jay70328

4 жыл бұрын

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

@MarcillaSmith

3 жыл бұрын

@@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

Slavoj: Says a name Slavoj: NOt a cOmMuNiSt

@johnnytocino9313

4 жыл бұрын

And so on and so on.

@nicanornunez9787

3 жыл бұрын

Sniff

I like how ŻIżek always ends up talking about movies

@maxmagnus777

5 жыл бұрын

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

@xylophone897

5 жыл бұрын

Movies and ideologeese.

@russelllaviolette7515

3 жыл бұрын

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

@almoskovac253

3 жыл бұрын

And about sex

3 жыл бұрын

you mean filems

when you listen to zizek, it is like reading an indented list. have you ever read the thousand arabian nights? a story inside another story inside another. gotta have good memory

@christopherkwasnik6683

5 жыл бұрын

Ender Wiggin lisp*

@Lambda_Ovine

3 жыл бұрын

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

@ponscardinal2862

3 жыл бұрын

He loves the smell of the sides. of his nose

@Alexander-mw1ek

Жыл бұрын

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.

@petriano1

Жыл бұрын

@@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...

What he is getting at is the paradox of faith Kierkegaard is so good at drawing out. To believe and accept paradox one can go no further than to believe that oneself believes. Faith (like sin) is its own presupposition. Chesterton makes a similar point drawing on Christ's analogy to not let the right hand know what the left is doing. Zizek is right to point out the mysterious functionality of such belief, to which the Christian has always responded that it is God who sustains and grants faith, not human will or intellect.

@DanielRivera-on5qh

2 жыл бұрын

C-

@santosturmio8189

2 жыл бұрын

@@DanielRivera-on5qh lol

@munkqiking7207

Жыл бұрын

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

most people aren't dynamic enough to accept zizek I think, they don't want to struggle with ideas.

@AlexDeLarge1

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@DuchAmagi

6 жыл бұрын

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."

@Jixejo

5 жыл бұрын

i think his philosphy is just so heavy in pessimism that zizek himself misses many of the nicer points about life, and instead leads his audience into this state of souless sadness because he is taking this heavy too-literal view to life.

@lostintime519

5 жыл бұрын

no you are wrong pssimism = drive to knowledge.

@andrewpearson1903

5 жыл бұрын

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.

"Holy Spirit is the egalitarian community bound by love" This is the most concise explanation of Christianity (or even Western Spiritualism) I've ever seen

@Anthony-ux8bt

4 жыл бұрын

The Holy Ghost is the Third Person in the Trinity

@gianni206

3 жыл бұрын

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.

@MarcillaSmith

3 жыл бұрын

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

@shanecavanaugh3901

2 жыл бұрын

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

@daybyday3840

2 жыл бұрын

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

As I said to my roommate: this guy's theology is almost entirely wrong but almost entirely correct at the same time. He's absolutely fascinating.

@imnothingbutastreetcat7996

Жыл бұрын

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

@Kaspar502

Жыл бұрын

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

@chrissonofpear1384

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@greyngreyer5

9 ай бұрын

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

@nikosantikythera2422

8 ай бұрын

@@imnothingbutastreetcat7996It really means that one cannot partake of God’s divinity by way of mathematics alone.

In my childhood i never realized Sylvester the cat is so damn wise.

@Research0digo

9 ай бұрын

lol!

He might also say, as Chesterton also said, "without God, there would be no atheists".

@jamiefraser-bingham9091

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@felipesorondo5883

4 жыл бұрын

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

@matematic5256

4 жыл бұрын

@@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 .

@joegillian314

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@griffith1558

4 жыл бұрын

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.

In my grandparents' house there hung a framed print of the words "God grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." The first part of that, I think, is why most large religions offer the promise of a divine plan or cosmic order. We cannot control everything, and faith that life is inherently meaningful and worthwhile is a good remedy for existential terror. So on a purely pragmatic level, the idea of God as a personal and good-natured entity serves to aid people in times of chaos. There are certainly times when faith is the only redress. I think there's more to it than that but I'm pretty sleep-deprived.

@jele754

4 жыл бұрын

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

@MatauReviews

4 жыл бұрын

@@jele754 Reinhold Niebuhr

@Javier-il1xi

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@willmcpherson2

3 жыл бұрын

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.

@peterwright9934

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

Zizek is right: we have not even begun to take in the meaning of the Cross.

@_sarpa

4 жыл бұрын

...and other hilarious delusions of morons.

@televikkuntdaowuxing

4 жыл бұрын

Angry Sprayer Shut the fuck up. Communism will win.

@firstlast542

4 жыл бұрын

@@_sarpa reddit

@comradesillyotter1537

3 жыл бұрын

@@_sarpa reddit

@osculocentric

2 жыл бұрын

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

Wow! One of the most concise Zizek interview responses I've seen. I love his use of Hegelian philosophy with a twist of egalitarian mutual self assurance. P.S A little know drinking game involves taking a shot every time Zizek has a nervous tick. A serious downfall of said game is alcohol poisoning; and questioning the teachings of the church.

Probably the best dialogue by Slavoj I've seen in ages

What a plot twist! Damn you Zizek, thanks for this!

I keep trying to find a way to take the laughter out of Friends, and have it play somewhere. Someone told me it was filmed in front of a live audience, so it had to be genuine. I asked about the "laughter" sign that signals for them to laugh, and they said, "so what? It's just a suggestion." Ah yes, like the cool postmodern father asking about sex, the cool suggestive sign just making a suggestion to laugh. God bless

Beautiful. Thank you. "The radical absence of any Transcendent guarantee" is not just through the Christian experience. The Vedic tradition also holds this.

What he said about canned laughter really resonates with me.

7:12 Never go full Castro.

@EMC2Scotia

6 жыл бұрын

This should be on a T-shirt

@Jixejo

5 жыл бұрын

when is he not attempting to revive stanlinism? this is why he doesn't get invited onto television as much anymore, he just started this mega argument with a stalinist revival attatched, it was crazy. although i prefer his political commentary.... i am glad for his anti-right/fascism stance, its been useful as an ally, some of his more philosphical point about life just make me sad, and i honestly feel he hasn't experienced this type of natural understanding about things.... he sort of understands that stalanism is just about as totalitarian as any other dictator shit but somehow he excuses it. but its all nasty. i find his trying to make humour from bad things quite weird actually, and despite his anti-vulgarity stance, he is quite full of vulgarity and angry reactions himself.

@televikkuntdaowuxing

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@televikkuntdaowuxing

4 жыл бұрын

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

@teopablo1123

4 жыл бұрын

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

Are the objective social beliefs Žižek refers to like Daniel Katz's & Floyd Allport's research on pluralistic ignorance, where no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believe, and where people privately disdain but publicly support a norm (or a belief)?

@5:24 Zizek says he doesn't smoke but conveniently omits any refutation of drug use 😂

@hoaxnineteen2020

5 жыл бұрын

Those jitters though

@EpiCx8

5 жыл бұрын

acumenfinito he has repeatedly said he refrains from using drugs

@burbclavefutur1527

4 жыл бұрын

@@hoaxnineteen2020 he has a tick bro

@flerperderp2094

2 жыл бұрын

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

@tacitozetticci9308

Жыл бұрын

@@flerperderp2094 omg that's hilarious lol

I just realized how amazingly smart this guy is. Wow.

Oh wow... This was amazing!

if you see this video alone you will think he did not arrive at a final conclusion. He said Christianity, Christ, changed belief from an Almighty God to a communion of love between man, but seems to point out that nobody believes in it as in the case of Santa Claus. Afterwards he uses as an example the movie life is beautiful, and I think he uses it to reinforce how human behave in this way of third person belief. I presume his call is that Christians should work inwards to believe in love. For me love is a philosophy, rather than a universal truth. Love is a feeling we can cultivate and exercise, we have to learn how to do it and conduct ourselves as much as possible by promoting the feeling inside and outside. Love is difficult because many other feelings and situations in life do not require love 100%, unless you are willing to sacrifice your life.

@MarcillaSmith

3 жыл бұрын

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

Chesterton quote! The Prince of Paradox just keeps popping up! Give him a read!

@musicfiction

5 жыл бұрын

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

@HolyKhaaaaan

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@nauj8316

5 жыл бұрын

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

@a.bagasm.7253

3 жыл бұрын

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

@nauj8316

3 жыл бұрын

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

Lmao, I swear he is saying "eight-dayism".

Brilliant. Thank you!

7:26 Hope the laughter was added for dramatic effect.

Sounds like Douglas Adams' electric monk... it does the believing so you can get on with more important things...

What he describes is also a bit the point of Peter Pan's "I believe in fairies".

'Believing through others'...shout out to Robert Pfaller here!!

I actually like that interpretation of Christianity and social believe without individuals literally believing.

@MarcillaSmith

3 жыл бұрын

Great, see you at Mass, then

I wonder if he’s read Miguel de Unamuno’s “San Manuel Bueno, Mártir”. That would be a more decent version of Begnini’s quote.

Incredible experience listening! Mind opening!

@tim90003

3 жыл бұрын

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!

what's the title of Hegel's book in which he said that God died on the cross?

I just realized that he has pretty arms and hands.

@DocterSable

6 жыл бұрын

In beautiful 240p too

@josephgoulet1565

6 жыл бұрын

Pretty little 4 a big guy

@NadaVerse

6 жыл бұрын

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

@israelstrommusic

4 жыл бұрын

his hands are so dirty tho

as a Christian i'm amazed at his insight into Christ's work. He doesn't quite get it, but he's way ahead of many theologians. looking forward to when Jesus returns and we can have true communism, won't that be a surprise for everyone :)

@bigmanjoe3603

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@ok-up4qx

Жыл бұрын

@@bigmanjoe3603 no, dont affiliate him with any ideology

@theeternalempire7235

Жыл бұрын

@@bigmanjoe3603 Reading your comment was honestly hilarious.

I like how his voice can't keep up with his mind and body.

@EQOAnostalgia

4 жыл бұрын

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

@thishandleistaken1011

3 жыл бұрын

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

8:53 "this reminds of the subway scene from 'in pursuit of happiness' "

I wasn't expecting to like a video of Slavoj Zizek but this is very interesting.

Great clip!

This was interesting. Thank you.

He's not one of these fatuous idiots; who need to make atheism an unnecessarily big deal, I really respect that.

@pramitpratimdas8198

Жыл бұрын

That's more of a feature of continental atheism.

Now it makes so much sense. What Zizek refers to as "genuine atheism" is "conventional liberation".

In what sense he is 'defending' Christianity.? 😅 He is saying, through christianity you can understand the true painful sense of being atheist.

He touches on something I’ve been thinking for years now. I never really was religious but I grew up in a very religious home so it took a while for me to even begin to “lose my religion,” so to speak. It wasn’t until I was in my 20’s that I began to really confront the religious belief system in my own mind and everything that didn’t seem to add up to me... I’m not speaking about the ridiculous stories that obviously don’t make sense no matter how you try and interpret them... at least not this time, but more to the phenomenon that people who claim to be religious are more often the ones who do things and live the exact opposite of the tenants or teachings of their “prophet/savior.” So I eventually came to an idea that actually no one (aside perhaps from those who live a monk-like existence I guess) are really religious and 99.999999999% of humans alive today are actually atheists or better yet really don’t believe. It’s just that some people like to participate in the pretend relationship they have with a “savior” and/or with their fellow “believers” as well. It’s ALL pretending and going through the motions/rituals which serves to comfort each other... whether for nostalgic reasons or for the community function that religious structure creates. Hence his Santa analogy of the parent and child pretending to go along with the narrative ultimately for the other’s sake. The curiosity had always bothered me of why/how fellow humans who are otherwise sane people can/do compartmentalize the contradictions of a logical mind as to turn that logic off only when dealing with matters of theology and religious belief/history/ritual. Which is to say that all those people who get up on Sunday mornings and conduct their lives like any other day in a totally logical way, they get up at a scientific time, dress themselves in a ritualistic way, eat breakfast as to satisfy a biological need, get into their meticulously engineered vehicles, use relatively well designed/planned man made roads, to arrive at the structurally sound highly engineered building they call church, and then they just turn off the part of their brain that they just used (all that beneficial logic and scientific participation) to join others who have also decided to “turn off.” And from there they proceed to just all sit there pretending things that are the exact opposite of the kind of thought which literally got them there in the first place. That’s a wild phenomenon of human nature... I find it more strange than any other “strange”human characteristic. Name another such strange widely acceptable relatively unquestionable and even celebrated practice... I can’t think of one, although politics comes pretty close. We are a strange animal indeed.

@arturonavarropovedano2396

3 жыл бұрын

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...

@Baccanaso

Жыл бұрын

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.

@eddieperez7132

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@MrFuzziiWuzzii

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@davidd854

Жыл бұрын

Every way of living is irrational

Slavoj, brilliant as always.Today he is the only thinking thinker and the others just philosophers.

Slavoj Žižek is the greatest apologist of Christianity that I know. Thank you, professor.

He is truly what I call a "philosopher philosopher"

@klausbrinck2137

9 ай бұрын

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...

Zizek sees one way that we are. The way I and probably a lot of people following him are, playing these social games despite cynical materialist understanding deep down, even as small children playing the Santa Claus game. But, I am convinced that there are people who believe with absolute sincerity in things like that, by natural disposition. Even abrasive Atheists like Dawkins may start out that way, believing wholeheartedly in everything from Santa and the Easter Bunny to whatever magic or religious concepts they were exposed to, only to feel deeply betrayed upon the realization anyone would ever play this kind of game. To them, we are simply liars to be renounced as stupid and immoral, and those whom we've duped are pitiful idiots who need to be re-educated out of their indoctrination.

@klausbrinck2137

9 ай бұрын

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...

He's right about the lack of insight within New Atheism. But he's not so much too Hegelian as too Protestant. He forgets that what Christianity tell us is not only of the death of God, but of his resurrection. He never discusses the resurrection.

@pramitpratimdas8198

Жыл бұрын

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

@worldnotworld

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@ljubog

Жыл бұрын

@@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...

@worldnotworld

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

"Sorry guys you scrood it up naow" LMAO

my father always said "should died on the cross" when I said he should come back home mom and I miss him.

Misleading description

No invisible man in the sky, 2000+ years of "He's coming" and nothing!

"canned laughter"... YES I like how he also informs us that he's about to end HAHAHHAH

@davyroger3773

3 жыл бұрын

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

I'd love to see a debate between him and Nietzsche at this point

Life is Beautiful is terrible.

Zizek, the Great Catechist.

@GrothendiecksWish

5 жыл бұрын

The great anti-Christ

Sad that political conservatives in the US have denied so many the beauty of Christianity

@dylanjulve5374

3 жыл бұрын

Modern American conservatives are so lost in general

@thebacons5943

3 жыл бұрын

@@dylanjulve5374 yes

"all those aquarius bullshit"~Zizek

So uhh.. I conclude he's talking about how christianity propels us single-handedly to go through so called WW2 Auswitzsch prison known life even if, hypothetically, the Father is lying about heaven/hell and so on and so forth which is even better if, in his opinion if we pretended to know it all along and still go with it.

❤ we believe by knowledge and experiance

I think what i realized and Zizek really helped me understand about atheism vs. christianity is that i would prefer a christian oblivion to an atheist afterlife One of my fundamental obsessions is that i have a fear of death hanging over me even tho im still very young. I constantly am finding ways to cope with, deny and rationalize it. Hoping for an afterlife, reincarnation or just a third way in order to transcend my neurobiology Then i realized to myself, if upon my death God came to me and said “you have done well my child, now your soul will sleep” I would be more satisfied than if I were to wake up in an afterlife that was objectively true and featured Hitchens and all that hanging about I think Christianity and religion are profound and beautiful when you chase spiritual enlightenment and fulfillment in love and life without expecting reward from it. Perhaps my God-made purpose was to overcome my fear of Death and recant my want for an afterlife in order to be fulfilled and happy Now granted I would love to have an Afterlife or other for unselfish reasons like for the souls of my family to be saved and still around. So if God and Heaven is real I would stick around for that, so maybe im still being selfish deep down in hope, but I think that I should pursue God not because I want to get something out of it but because it is in my nature or destiny to face my fears of death and not cling onto selfish immortality Which is I think his greater point. I want the Christian God to be true because it will help people not because it will help myself. And I think Christianity or Religion as a whole should try to emphasize the process of doing good in this life because it feels good and will fulfill your spirit as opposed to making sure that there’s a certainty and lack of fear of the next life

This would all be spot on if Jesus just died. But he didn't just die, he ressurected. Thats the part he's missing

Man, how this mind swirls...

that was so beautiful

At 00:12 what does he quote? Ecclesiastes says?

@derekkerekes3398

3 жыл бұрын

Hegel

Tks!!!

I too, no matter where I go, wear tshirts only

au with zizek as my pastor

haha, when he signals for canned laughter, that is the only time that the crowd doesn't laugh at what he is saying.

Do you find the writer in his books or the animator in his fictional cartoon world? That is why God is unapproachable because if all things have a creator and our reality has one, let us call it the ALL. If the ALL exists and nothing exists outside it , therefore it can only mean we exist inside the MIND OF THE ALL. All entities in our universe bare a semblance of THE ALL but cannot categorically be described as THE ALL, just like you see aspects of the writer in the characters of his book nevertheless none of them are the writer. If the characters of a book went on a search for their writer would they ever find him? That is why I find our attempts at finding God futile although we can use religion to stave off our fears and existential crises and even as means of dealing with not fully understood phenomena.

Misleading title

This guy must be a great French kisser

Amazing thoughts !

What he’s trying to say is that we should pretend to believe but I don’t get the idea, why should we? I know that throughout history there were a lot of nations that pretended to believe in certain things but for them it all happened naturally, why should step out of our path and pretend to believe?

Beautiful.

Ave Maria!

The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins- Soren Kierkegaard. Something in Zizek's words made this quote spring up in my mind. It is almost as if Christianity was special in that God was accorded three avatars and that each was same and different simultaneosly.

@ryancain6012

5 жыл бұрын

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

@_sarpa

4 жыл бұрын

almost as if people have created gods

@comradesillyotter1537

3 жыл бұрын

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

@Kycilak

Жыл бұрын

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

With friends like this, who needs heathens

can someone help me understand the concise point of what he is saying, i get the many points of what he is saying but regarding 3rd person belief christianity etc im not sure how i should understand

@Richallmight2

3 жыл бұрын

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

10 minute talk summarizes 50 books

from 4:33 on Foucault would agree :))

The audience starting laughing like in "Friends"

One of Zizek’s best

Chesterton was one the most conservative philosophers of all time and yet zizek calls him "beloved". He has such freedom of thought from everything dogmatic and ideological. Even though he considers himself an communist you can be sure it's NOT because of any propaganda. It's because he agreed or arrived in conclusions that made him take this path. That's the ONLY communist that i have the least bit respect.

Christian world has had unique interpreters. Your church may save you or exploit you, to fight for a right church was the mission of Christ's rare path.

This dude needs subtitles.

@sebastianmelmoth685

5 жыл бұрын

American?

@CAL112100

5 жыл бұрын

Sebastian Melmoth Is there any other nationality?

@sebastianmelmoth685

5 жыл бұрын

Ah... explains a lot.

@CAL112100

5 жыл бұрын

@@sebastianmelmoth685 Winning!!!

@israelstrommusic

4 жыл бұрын

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!)

The problem with Dawkins and Hitchens is their ideology isn't just naive, but it's /arrogant/ and naive.

@priscillakhapai3623

4 жыл бұрын

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

8:42 I CAN WAİT!!

I think he gets close with the transfer of objective belief, only Christ believes and intercedes for us.

6:58 did you spot the mouse?

@Saint_nobody

4 жыл бұрын

Click

I think that what the tar of cigarettes does to your lungs is pretty breathtaking

Great!!

I love how he touches his nose all the time. :)

1:13 The immanence of an emancipatory collective.