Zizek starts @6:47

zizek @ 6:44

@foteini-fg9xv

6 жыл бұрын

Irwin Wade Thanx bro!

I've never known a voice to 'quiver' until hearing this guy's introduction

The guy at the very beginning sounds like he's trembling in anxiety...

@tinkerttoy

7 жыл бұрын

"oh god he's right behind me i can smell his BO from here should i tell him or keep my mouth shut"

Is that Cornell West in the crowd @06:33 ?

6:34 great to see cornell west in the audience!!

"Uh, hi."

The desire to help others is a communal instinct. Morality extends beyond simple communal regulations and into individual conduct. Things like deceit, philandering, promiscuity can be condemned by some moralities yet encouraged in others. The absence of these is not necessary for the survival of communities; contemporary Western morality is a great example of how such immoral societies can persevere.

And, its important to note that religion is not the only area where humans have delusional beliefs. I think you know this. By 'faith' I mean unfounded trust in something. All of us have unfounded trust in things, to a certain extent; we are not infallible. An example is confirmation bias: humans look for evidence that confirms their original thesis, and sometimes ignore things that challenge it. This is an example of the 'faith' that all of us have.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

Check out Kantian philosophy and the Categorical Imperative. Philosophers have various solutions to the problem of radical subjectivity

Can anyone write the Italian sentences down for me please?

@MrPotens

6 жыл бұрын

"Eppur si muove"

@MrPotens

6 жыл бұрын

"Se non è vero è ben trovato"

I haven't "backed away" from anything. You failed to comprehend.

This is the truest thing anyone can ever say, like Aristotle surmised he who knows all, knows nothing. Our salvation our satisfaction will only come through questioning.

very welcome m8

Thank you to save half of my time!

@MrDeicide1... But you started by saying that morality "doesn't exist in nature" and conclude that we (humans) make it up as we go along. By what authority am I or anyone else bound to live by this human made morality.. Who are you to tell me or anyone else by what authority I should live?

@andrewpearson1903

5 жыл бұрын

I'm always amused and a little disappointed by "skeptics' " belief in the primacy of avoiding pain. Only small minds can conceive of suffering as the worst evil

Well Slovaj is adept at telling stories to illustrate a sociological observation that Durkheim the French sociologist had made in the early part of the 20th century. Religion is about social consciousness sustaining the web of social relations called society.

@featheon especially with his voice cracking like that

"Morality evolves" Yes it does, and this is why I would argue that morality IS rooted in nature. Being rooted in empathy and altruism as well as other factors. It's advantageous to survival (In the right circumstances). Look at any social species, be they ants, or chimpanzees, or piranha. One could make the case that these creatures exhibit some kind of primal morality. Some of it is purely instinctual and hard wired, whereas some of it arises from learned behaviours.

@McRingil

5 жыл бұрын

Why is survival moral

@jeffreylaporte6525

5 жыл бұрын

Adam Małysz they didn’t say survival was moral, they said morality arises from nature because it aids survival and, in doing so, propagates itself

not trying be an ass but id like some subtitles

He sounds like he's tearing up the entire time. . .

You cannot believe in absolute morality without being in God, who is absolute. What universal justification for morals exists when God does not? Morals can be man-made, yes. But only morality set forth by God is true morality.

If you are willing to admit that (my last response), I'll admit that our difference hinges on the notion of "absolute". To me, in this sense, to be "absolute" we simply need to show how the act causes tangible harm to life. If 'harm to life' falls short of 'absolute' for you, I'd probably agree with you if I go ahead and accept Athenian's definition of "absolute" morality.

@TheOverhuman You are absolutely right, but paradoxically Zizek may also be right, although for the wrong reasons. The phrase "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" does not appear in many English translations. So if Zizek read only the English translation he would be right in thinking that it does not appear; even though Dostoevsky did in fact say it, as you rightly point out.

If I am right that both evolution and human self-interest provide reasons for morals, they are 'universal'. They are not relative. They may change in their specific rules, but they are manifestations of the same ideal, that of helping others.

Yeah, so what? That doesn't change the fact that relative morals are exactly that; relative, and therefore man-made and can change according to man's desire. As a result, relative morals have no substantial justification and are practically invalid; to force them upon others would be universally unjust (hence why human rights are becoming a violation of justice). People cannot tap into absolute morals without an absolute God to justify them. God and Truth are one and the same.

somewhere between the evolutionary ethics or naturalist morality and moral skepticism is probably a bit closer to the objective truth. we are restricted by ideological convictions to retain moralities but i think some ppl need it. "liberation" from having a grounded view is propably better than deconstructing reality from birth! craziness might occur

We argued on religion being the perfect excuse Created for purposes of racial/ethnic butchery. And yes, I have addressed that, perfectly.

And immediately before that you called me "moronic". So you just perfectly illustrated yourself in this last post.

I've already explained why ad-homs undermine your argument at its foundation. I don't expect you to understand, but be aware that an insult without any logic to back it up is not useful. Also: "Obviously, you are not one of those smarter than me."

I understand your sentiment, but your definitions are incorrect. Something absolute cannot be diminished or compromised in any way. The fact that morality in your view has its basis in humanity itself means definitively that morality is relative to moral interpreter. Hence why humanity has come up with so many different interpretations of morality. Truth is absolute so only one morality can be universally correct.

I still find this distinction problematic; is it the harm caused which makes something evil, or an expression of the state of the "evolution" of morality? I would honestly side with the former; that the harm caused by slavery is identifiable even in ages where it was commonly thought to be acceptable. Indeed, changes in morality often take place over a single generation; individuals themselves come to see actions they formerly condoned to be "objectively" wrong and harmful. ..cont....

Its a question of values. Assuming, based on evolution and human self interest, that all humans generally think that others' lives are valueable. Given that humans hold these values, it is possible for us to create a world of mutual respect. If this value holds, morality can persist despite different cultures. But tell me, how do we 'enforce' God's morals to those who refuse? The answer is that they are clearly not universal, because people disagree.

As long there IS a reason. You don't coddle cancer in your body. You cut it out, right? You might not view the element I've described as darkness, but then again, that would be the Reason we're arguing in the 1st place, right?

Zizek is in a way an original product of philosophical postmodernism.

'Smart' is an arbitrary phenomenon, considering that, with the absence of a God, most knowledge and ethical systems are but competiting wills. The distinction between insulting a person and insulting an idea seems obvious to me; what about it do you find untruthful?

Nice call

@cocconutz Since Zizek speaks six languages he could have very well read Dostoevsky in Russian.

If I knew wth you just wrote, to whom, or to wth you were referring to that I supposedly wrote - I'd have a PHD in psychiatry.

what is he saying at 13:20? They dedicate their lives to the ??????? of pleasures...

You can't think. Give it up

I'm saying that some people aren't psychopaths, yet they still endorse religion. Thus, it can't be that all religions are apologies for psychopathy

And calling you "not smarter" than me is an egregious vile insult!! Have you picked your weapon yet?

You've misunderstood me, my friend. When I said that Athenian's "absolute" differed in history - I clearly meant there were "gods" upon "gods" before your current "god". So, in a sense, the notion of "absolute" HAS been evolving. As with human progress, humanity's delusions have been evolving, much like lice that feed on us have. There WERE times when suffering of slaves was irrelevant, invisible. They were, after all, "tools that speak" I "admitted" nothing.

6:30

Whatever IS. And, btw, no "excuse" was needed. The Reason was - getting rid of trash.

6:44 to skip the bullshit

Well put, religion is only knowledge and experience being passed down.

You went off on a tangent. Athenian referred to his deity as the "absolute", and cried and raged about it. It is that notion that I objected to. Religion based "morality" only ever served to oppress and subjugate. As far as Stone Age, as witnessed among Native Americans - slavery was an unknown. Prisoners of war were co-opted into the tribe/clan and eventually enjoyed full rights. It took "higher" forms of religion to come up with the concept of "owning" another homo sapiens.

I'm interested to know how God's existence can be reached by intuition. Even if you say the universe can't 'come from nothing' the same applies that God can't 'come from nothing'. Thus, in both atheist and theist viewpoints, something must come from nothing. Moreover, 'logic' can only possibly prove deism. Just because a God exists, doesn't mean any religion (IE, catholicism) is true. Intuition is nothing without logic, as many have had the 'intuition' that everyone around them are penguins

Think Dr. Norman Finklestein. Truth, InshallaH. i am Agnostic, also Gautama-Philosophies Biased. By Birth.

subtitle is needed. we love you Zizek but as a latecomer to english we cant understand you

Secondly, morality is in everyone's interest, since the state of nature is disagreeable. Thus, people have reasons to be moral even without God.

i meant, liberation from all idealogical constraints from birth is a BAD dangerous idea that will have us in the maddening slavery of purely free minds...its not a very appealing thing once u think about it

@andrewpearson1903

5 жыл бұрын

So what should we do about it? Once one is untethered from convention, one ceases to trust social and emotional truths, to take good and bad for granted. The leaders of the Murids, a Buddhist-influenced Islamic sect in the Caucasus, sought to experience God through visions and would afterwards proclaim themselves "beyond good or evil." And if we follow "objective" morality to its conclusion we discover that it's arbitrary and doesn't exist in nature, and further cannot exist in self-aware institutions. It must come from outside. We must submit ourselves to a true morality or eat ourselves at the tail.

Morality is a combination of couple of simple mathematical algorithms, of which one of the more important states: do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you. It is an elementary truism, as universal in the cosmos as any mathematical rule.

moral skepticism is the only rational assumption. i think the capitalist view of behavior control is cultural and legal and mostly evolved delusion, but some cooperative ethics seem innate

LOL yeah I skipped too.

It provided 3 generations of light, prosperity, humanity and freedom. Those people aren't all dead yet. And yes, an obvious equivalency, nei sameness exists. Calling demonstratively internationalist communist soviet union "nationalist" is beyond comprehension.

Ironically, the appeal to 'God's' laws is just as subjective, as people choose different Gods with no competing way of saying whose God is right. Even if there is a God and he is real, the lack of proof means that They cannot be the basis of morality. What if the Christian moral laws are rejected by Muslims, Hindus, and Atheists? You have yourself, then, a system that for intents and purposes mirrors relativism.

(The guy at the beginning )

"All of us have unfounded trust ... blah blah" . All of "us" who? Not all of us grew up In US.

True, some people are just plain dumb and have no idea what they're endorsing

It imposes itself as the most blatant example of what purposes religion has. Same could be said of apologetics for genocide or... name a crime against humanity. Religion PROVIDES justification for evil done to mankind. I'm sorry if your mind still manipulates, sloshes around religious "sources" of morality and if you are still trying to find something of value there. I can not help you in that quest.

Confirmation Bias is not a phenomenon unique to US citizens

Again and again, and AGaIN you keep saying that i said something I didn't. I said apologetics not "source". Although that is debatable too >.> I see the US as Saudi Arabia of christianity. You do not. We don't see things the same way. Kill me

i´m alright with forcing people to be moral. Whether it exists in nature? Why do i care? I and many agree. But where you´re argument is confused is everywhere but our lovely reformed capitalisms.

Don't get dressed up or nothing.

By this introduction, one might almost get the idea that Slavoj was actually an intelligent man. Thankfully, Zizek himself, in his opening, sets the record straight about his own intellectual insignificance. I appreciate his honesty here at least...

Make sense dude. Reread, then do-over

But the religion came before the psychopathy; thus, it can't be an apology for it.

"Idiotic n facile" . Well now, that proves it!! Thanks for clearing that up. In '33 all the Germans, magically, stopped going to church and embraced runes and bonfires. Of course! That's what happened. >.>

Yes there IS a logical and historical progression to the extent that it was second nature in Germanic gestalt . Denial of that fact is just purposely wearing blinders. And you don't LIKE Comrade Stalin?!!! Imma tell Comrade Theodore that >.>

I never said that you believe in dog. Watercolors are also nice for illustrations. You have no idea how I view anything. I could explain to you that putting words in other people's mouths - illustrates lack of conscience. You want more criteria ?

@rotzikotzi99 pursuit of pleasures

That was a joke. You said that I have an "authoritarian personality" and can't consider information because of bias against the source. I just pointed out that you don't think much of Stalin (who btw, wrote true gems on religion) and don't "like" him. You should have just replied "Touche" and be gone.

he talks like that all the time

At this juncture I'm compelled to say goodbye to you, sir. Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking, and I take no pleasure nor do I have time to run around in circles with you. I wish you good health

There are plenty of people smarter than you who endorse religion, and there are plenty of people who don't endorse religion that believe in other things with the same level of faith. To claim that Descartes is stupid because he believed in God - or that his belief is psychopathic - is moronic. In other words, belief in faith can't be reduced to intelliegence

@andrewpearson1903

5 жыл бұрын

Descartes was dumb for other reasons. :) Even Pascal thought him "not worth an hour."

Animal sex is permitted as animals have sex between them all the time. *Troll*

My friend, I find your statement deeply problematic. Certainly slavery is ALWAYS an evil system for humanity; the "evolution" of morality involves the progression towards an Absolute, not an evolution of the Absolute itself. Such things as slavery are only contingent on whether or not they cause human suffering, and you admit this when you say, "There's no morality existing outside of human society. The "absolute" differed through history."

no mention of Zizek scruffy beard award so unlnformed

Woah there. The fact that you assumed I believe in God (I don't) illustrates my point: you view this as a competition, you view your academic competitors as lower than you. Truth should be the value you seek, not 'winning'. Psychopathy is a mental disorder defined clearly by the DSM; It does not apply to all christians. If you wish, I can explain to you the specific criteria needed for psychopathy.

You're making no sense at all

This guy is a nonsense farmer. Deconstruction is for children, not fully grown men with speech impediments.

Of course, 1 question at a time though. Russia Barely exited the serfdom period at the turn of the century. You are talking about a tremendous mass of illiterate, religion infested peasantry, teetering on subsistence. You are also talking about a devastating war '14 - '24, You are talking about Western intervention, by almost every country in Europe, invasion on the side of tzarists. You are talking about German troops stationed in Ukraine 'till '22.

And, there are a few reasons why atheism doesn't neccesitate relativism. Firstly, humans are inclined to have morality because of evolution. Evolutionarily, it is bad for the species if we kill eachother - Thus, morality can be grounded there.

The only true atheist is a relativist. Unfortunately for you, absolute truth does exist, and so does God. This is a conclusion that can be reached by both logic and intuition. :)