How does historical contingency relate to freedom? Leave your thoughts in the comments. To watch the full conversation, head to iai.tv/video/the-life-and-philosophy-of-slavoj-zizek?KZread&

@kennethshort2016

Ай бұрын

You have to stay with this guy but he's really bright and insightful. What nationality is he?

It's so fascinating to me how EVERY person who has Slavoj on their show/podcast/etc, absolutely cannot control him or the conversation. Once he goes its like trying to stop a moving train. U love 2 see it

@thstroyur

5 ай бұрын

Zizek is a force of nature; his lispy tic - doubly so.

@logancade342

5 ай бұрын

It drives me crazy how every host, without fail, will at some point interject to move to their next prompt at a point which betrays the fact that they are not following the meaning of his words in real time. And yes, his speech patterns are an acquired taste. His thought patterns, same. In my opinion, acquiring that taste is the responsibility of a host/moderator so that they can ensure the ideas are being communicated as effectively as possible.

@thstroyur

5 ай бұрын

@@logancade342 Nobody has to "acquire a taste" regarding someone else's speech pattern.

@logancade342

5 ай бұрын

@@thstroyur nobody has to do anything

@JackT13

5 ай бұрын

Haha yes, someone could ask him what the time is and before you know it he’s pontificating about the sociopolitical set-up of 7th century Armenia

"When I was introduced to metaphysics as an undergraduate, I was given the following definition: metaphysics is the study of ultimate reality. This still seems to me to be the best definition of metaphysics I have seen." Peter Van Inwagen, "Metaphysics", 3rd edition, P. 1

@ElectricityTaster

5 ай бұрын

kneegah how many comments are you going to make?

@adriaanvivier864

4 ай бұрын

@ElectricityTaster it's like an AI bot is rambling like zijek don't you think ? But they are two ingredients short, so they left it here to test the public ? Also found weird 😕

Zizek is basically a Phd Philosopher that rambles on and on, but you cant help and be intrigued by what he says

@shadowkxm

5 ай бұрын

And so on and so on

@alecfraher7122

4 ай бұрын

basically; really? ~ how much more dismissive can you be? the lineage goes back to the legacy of Paul Hirst and the failings of the Left to defeat the unbridled rise of the right wing authoritarianism today ... his ramblings no-more than having the decency to actually name what the Left intelligencia suppressed for 40 yrs...

@kennethshort2016

Ай бұрын

​@@shadowkxm Yea. He's really a force of nature. He really tries to help people understand complex ideas. He dares to think big. I heard him speak once on the idea of God and pain

@MarceloZigaran

6 күн бұрын

Zizek is so much more than a Phd philosopher ….

Thank you❤

also he just seems like an all around nice man. (and the bit about cinema clearly works it's way into how one might think about video games)

You know I'm afraid I'm rushing myself (I wanted to go to school today), but this idea Lacan had of comparing the Subject to odd knots in topography is pretty brilliant, heck it kind of reminds me of the revolution in thought first achieved, perhaps, by Kant. (Or Einstein relative to Newton, in this sense that it's all very counter to our prior intuitions, or settled assumptions, that provide the ideological tint to the way we view things)

now if we can get ai to translate his speech we will reach the singularity

@hoola_amigos

5 ай бұрын

😂😂

@kennethshort2016

Ай бұрын

Lol😊

And in the end all knowledge is categorical, the value of fluidity lies more in our ability to admit that we _DON'T_ know.

Zižek advocates for diverse discursive strategies to challenge established norms. Drawing from personal and historical examples, including the unexpected emotional response to a pet's death and the ethical justifications of figures like Himmler, he illustrates the complexities of human behavior. Addressing technological advancements, particularly brain-computer interfaces, Žižek contemplates the potential impact on freedom, suggesting an optimistic view that retains the essence of subjective experience even in the face of advancing neurobiological understanding

@farrider3339

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, this is what he's been saying. Nice summary🎉

@Vader53124

5 ай бұрын

And so on, and so on.

@swagatosaha

5 ай бұрын

Pretty sure this is AI generated

@gothxm

4 ай бұрын

​@@swagatosahait does have that vibe doesn't it?

@kennethshort2016

Ай бұрын

I love how he defined true patriotism any why Himmler was a prime e example.

I love the video game analogy! But I personally think freedom is just a story that Life tells itself in order to stay alive.

And the key detail is to get people to accuse one another. (or get in each other's way)

A quick reading of Hegel implies that a statement is authoritative because our life is at stake over whether we accept it, reject it, or choose to ignore it; either it's relevant somehow to our choices in life in which we run a risk to it (understood in a broad sense, no one wants to end up in the gutter), or because someone overbearingly present is threatening us with a stick (or bribing us with a carrot)

"His odd interests marked him as an outsider, and he did not alleviate this by feeling any compulsion to be 'one of the boys.' He despised gym class and team sports and often cut classes to follow his own interests. Moving beyond the standard school texts, he absorbed volumes analyzing human behavior on every level, from the impulses of the individual to the dynamics of the herd."

In any case, even Hayek is quite clear - _who is a very respected professional economist_ - that the biggest supporters of "Collectivism" are organized capital, and organized labour, because on the one hand monopolies shut out competition, and on the other monopolies can pay higher wages to specific groups (at the detriment of the workers in the non-monopolized industries) - effectively producing a "frozen society"

Freedom is a necessity of its own ~ CB McPherson on possessive individualism ? Who is Zizek channelling and how would anyone actually know ~ his talking about Himmler etc is the core ground of the anthroposophists and rosicrusions; the take on naturalism is akin to the work of Enst Bloch in The Principle of Hope; Plancks constant is a thought-form to mitigate indeterminacy ~ Existenz?

Anyway, on the problem of Analytic Philosophy, it seems to have been the product of the historically most dramatic application of Ockham's Razor ever made - the reduction of meaning to formal logic and predicable experience (or more like the first, and then the latter) - then Ryle came and said "No, we really do get meaningful concepts from everyday life", and a few decades later, "No there really are meaningful really philosophical (and therefore, I suppose, "extra-ordinary") problems", and then "But those French-o's are so obscure, they're like gurus... like... like..." and then "We're back to doing philosophy as it's always been done" (since philosophers have always been akin to "a guru")

From chapter XXIV, "Craving" All-conquering, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering. All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? That's like saying I DON'T have a "guiding light" or "any values"

Of course that also raises the question of beauty and clarity in Science, if not perhaps, "sublime obscurity" is sometimes to be preferred. (As if I were to suggest there _is_ some deeper truth, that can't quite be caught by the conventional)

I suppose then we can revive the question, still in vogue if I'm not mistaken, among biologists of "how did life begin?", well that's a metaphysical discussion, when what we're lacking is an empirical apparatus. But we are all, as humans, at least familiar with human forms of DESIRE.

I guess what would be _therapeutic_ is re-establishing a normal cardiac rhythm in a traumatized brosef. The key to that is "how to induce no more worrying" (or "faith")

I hope you have a nice day (I know it must be afternoon in Slovenia, it's 1 am here)

Hey Zizek, it just occurred to me that Alain Badiou and Markus Gabriel's philosophy of "worlds" can solve the problem of revolutions (defined in Hegel as the problem of factions, usurpations, and the fear of death leading to a rigid morality, at a certain point in the dialectic of absolute liberty as he describes it). So, for example, one might find an "anarcho-capitalist colony" and a "marxist commune", say, both with grants from the State (land), tax exemptions (like the Amish), and formal autonomy to be backed up should they choose to arms themselves. I think this is a solution to man's desire to go on further adventures, for, indeed, the venture of colonization was an adventure.

@smokedbeefandcheese4144

4 ай бұрын

Couldn’t work. People with power wouldn’t tolerate it. People with power always want more. The job self selects for addicts. They will always try and take over things they don’t already control.

I think in terms of the causal origin of hysteria, in which one often finds it hard to stop talking, in trauma, one can find the roots of justifications of our reality and our actions. It is as if we were at one remove from what reality really means (in which case we'd just "align by right", as Confucius would say; we would be aware reality changes, we wouldn't be so attached to it being this way, or having to be that). I guess that view of things can be oppressive, I bid welcome to ever new avenues of theory!

"Life Energy" well into the start of the latter half of the twentieth century was considered a valid hypothesis (this was a dispute between the vitalists and the mechanists, roughly speaking, though quantum theory may've torn falsified the traditional metaphysical dichotomy it merely introduced a new one: Indeterminism). You realize once we admit that life "wants" to live, we must admit that life is at least partly defined by desire. Once we admit that we must be at least rhetorically prepared (though logically this may be sleight-of-hand) to entertain the idea of a "cosmic life force"

Notably the name of one member of "The Hell-Fire Club" was "John Wilkes", the cave they used for their praxis was once written about by Winston Churchill, per the Ashe book, as containing hidden evil.

You know, Slavoi, the idea of Heideggerian "Destruction", Derridean "Deconstruction, is already found in Hegel's pre-face, right in the paragraph about beauty, understanding, analysis and death. And, as we know, Hegel's idea of how ideas work is inherently political, since _the point_ of its development in the Phenomenology is precisely the "Dialectic of Absolute Liberty" (and so the introduction, the way we perceive things inherently changes what we perceive, which is kind of just true, and is simply what came to be called "The Hermeneutic Circle")

anyway, added adendum: Ordinarily we hold synthetic judgments to be the empirical observation that inspires a definition which shall be the future subject of an analytic judgment. (But, typically in the case of scientific/artistic/philosophical/theological creativity, ___ [moment of insight, etc. etc.

Which of course raises questions as to what we "mean" when we say "Continental Philosophy" (even Marx abides by this Hegelian notion in his love of material action), since it's undoubtedly a unitary tradition of thought. A great interpretation I stumbled upon once is that Continental Europe was more concerned with the temporal facet of reflection, whereas Analytic Philosophy was concerned with the atemporal junctures and conclusions of that reflection - and this distinction can be lifted wholesale from Marcuse who makes it outright in "One-Dimensional Man" ("factors v. facts"). And I don't dispute it, since it still sounds right to me, except another vital difference (and I think Marcuse comes close to sounding like an analytic philosopher in the plain-spokenness of what he's saying) is _scope._ The analytic philosopher treats isolated problems, continental types generally don't am I wrong? systematicity wouldn't be right, since Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Batailles and Butler (though she sounds like she created a "subversion ideology", and a bit "analytic" in the rigidity of her prose too) set out to subvert it, but there definitely seems to be this "vital" ("I'm not wasting time) drive to re-contextualize what was said in one place, into another place.

Chavez was so fond of Velasco he even read his books, which had been given to him by the General President personally when he was still a cadet. (Chavez, like Velasco, was also a military officer)

Notably, the later 1976 introduction of Burton Wolfe, as compared to the first, 1969 introduction, reverses the formula: instead of "9 parts outrage, 1 part social respectability" - "9 parts social respectability, 1 part outrage". Well these are "formulas", so unsurprisingly they recall cooking ("doctrines are foods", to summarize Saint Paul's epistles), and chemistry (alchemy)

Graham Harman published a book called "tool-being", about how Heidegger's metaphysics lend themselves to categorical statements about the nature of reality. Given the circumstance it's best read "being-a-tool"

I wish he'd brought up al-chemy and Hermes Trismegistus, but of course I also agree with his assessement of the history of metaphysics as the dream of the mono-myth of the pyramid, and of course Kabbalah is profoundly tied up with the history of metaphysics and alchemy, and of philosophy as a whole (as well as all forms of Abrahamic Religion)

"what is abject, on the contrary, the jettisoned object, is radically excluded and draws me toward the place where meaning collapses." Yulia Krasteva, "Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection", P. 2 Okay, so "Return to Chomsky" or "The Kristevan New Linguistics"? Cuz I think I founded a theory like this one on solid formal logic - I mean that language cannot work without a collapse of meaning, that this is a tautological feature of language, according to my concept

speaking of fundamental mis-understandings, Chomsky appears to provide a response to this criticism in Chapter 8 of his "Syntactic Structures", in the form of a "n + 1 tier" analysis of languages, to account for the way people really use languages in really life. Specifically he starts from how a phonetic analysis of language would be incomplete without a morphological analysis of language, then says we need to add a "transformational" layer to the analysis. For a long time I thought of Chomsky's linguistics, as explained to me by my professor, as akin to DJ's cutting and re-mixing samples on a beat on the spot in a club (not that I go to clubs, much, I'm a homebody)

So you know, one thing I'm fond of in Deleuze is the vindication of man as machine, the "desiring-machine" (I know his point is to _break free_ from the code he is telling us, like a machine "breaks through" in production, or creativity, with technical exactitude and perfection - I am a machine, I am not a machine) - like when American foot-ballers say things like "Beast Mode", or people say "Ludwig Wittgenstein was a finely tuned machine", or "You are a machine!" ("you're so good at the things you set for yourself, you excel")

If I were into social justice, and also real politik, I might be inclined against "idealistic dreaming" ("tough minded" in James' long monologue, which is his philosophy)

Also Gianni Vattimo (I think he left an impression because I'm pretty sure Pando is not doing a project on Thomas Reid's "Common Sense" for no reason. And one professor's Italian by ancestry, named "Di Pierro" - he and Briceño, the dean and founder, teach Medieval Philosophy)

Anyway, Lacan seems to be saying the cause of the Oedipus Complex is "frustration". I'd say that's an adequate summation of ideology, because it reproduces itself through its recurrent, inevitable, and endless frustrations (because it pretends to replace reality)

I think any vision of a future must admit that reality is not as it will be, which is to say reality is not yet, or even that reality is not as it must be, so it can only describe the present reality by way of a lack or a negation. The language of a better, more perfected, or more complete reality, must necessarily be in-direct.

You know it's oft-pointed out that, for a long time in the analytic tradition (particularly in the period called "the ordinary language school", in which Gilbert Ryle hung a sign stating "He who studies the history of philosophy, let him not enter here" [or something like that, the point was to mimick Plato's sign about geometry but in the reverse, but I'm stating it as if it were Dante] - anywway that guy really loved Jane Austen, which was weird, since his "partner-in-crime" was J.L. Austen, a guy who must've been keenly aware of how one can be manipulative using "common language" - which, in that regard, might be called "base"), perennial historical problems of philosophy would be re-represented by a practitioner of the analytic tradition, as if they were just newly invented whole-sale, then some pesky commentator (likely one of those dreaded "scholars" that show up in histories of the analytic tradition, busy picking away at some particular phrase of Descarte's original French, having a copy of the manuscript at hand, and some knowledge of paleography) would point out, "But wasn't this first said by Saint Augustine in other words?" (which of course reminds us that it is in the nature of philosophical problems really to be "perennial", they are the "Big Questions" as it were). At this point some amount of self-awareness set in and "Philosophy 101" teachers would start saying things like "Modern philosophy was begun by Descartes, in reality we are still discussing the problems set forth by Descartes" (or some reference to "footnotes to Plato"). So it strikes me as note-worthy that both the analytic and continental traditions as it were, "make stock" of all the old "problems of philosophy," whether in the "de-constructive vein" in reality begun by Hegel in his preface, or in the more categorical sense found in analytic philosophy ("does it check the boxes?", haha very funny "masheen"). But just as Hegel says, that to hold onto the past definitions is to hold on to death, and that this is the most difficult task (some might call it "mourning", like how Mary Magdalene, the most fervent believer, wailed loudest during his killing and death), but he also says this is philosophy's task in "Philosophy of Right", no? But verily, the owl of Minerva appears to show up when "God is dead" (Hegel as a Lutheran must've had some awareness of Marian doctrines, "Inanna" also is associated to owls, and this man had some knowledge of Semitic languages), and the "unhappy consciousness" is at it's apex, waxing bright (which is to say, at dusk before the beginning of the darkness of a new war, on the eve of a new epoch in universal history - an unhappy time, a _historical_ time), it seems that this "making stock" is precisely what sets the scene, what was it Heidegger said, "making the house of language ready for the god who is to be our guest"? something like that, for the "new hero" to arrive. As Newton stood "on the shoulders of giants" (verily, I like to say, God is always a Collective effort, that's a labour saving device)

anyway, I clearly mis-understood Chomsky because, judging from how I interpreted what my master told me, I thought the "transformations" were semantical (something akin to re-en-coding) not syntactical. Like how an idea about a unicorn can come to mean many different things (I mean that for some reason is the rough idea in my head; I have a few "Mario Teodoro-isms", so it'd be neat to get a few "Alberto Cortesisms")

"Some security is essential if freedom is to be preserved, because most men are willing to bear the risk which freedom inevitably involves only so long as that risk is not too great." Hayek, the Road to Serfdom, P. 99 How compassionate. You know it is a feature inherent to _charity_ that it helps out the poor and _needy,_ I think these books are at least as universally neglected as Foucault and Derrida, don't you agree?

Well as we all know emotions are by nature _REACTIVE_ (a kind of unreflective or "immediate" action, therefore close to passivity), not active. Shout to my profe Garces!

@f.vazquez9259

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the thoughts you are sharing here. Maybe you should start your own channel!

Mocking references to Nietzsche are included in similar paragraphs, instead of switching tactics from negative to positive on the basis of the popularity of the saying "God is dead"; the new introduction changes phrasing, "no need to beat a dead horse".

To be fair, while I love Spinoza as one of history's most genuine human beings, the argument could just as easily be targetted against his thought, and those inspired by it.

Magic understood as rituals in the woods may be pertinent to understanding how it is done in Germany, but as parlor tricks it might be more amenable to England and Italy. And if there is one "Big Book" of the Twentieth Century (a sort of "gnostic consensus" on the literary value of knowledge, it's "Alice in Wonderland" - everyone read it, analytic or continental)

He is obviously connected to the Historic Faculty of Theology at Paris, where Aquinas, an Italian, crafted his PHILOSOPHY

That is what was accused of Socrates, "That he'd make the weaker argument the stronger", is it not? I think it's also in Saint Paul's "In weakness is my strength perfected"

In Hebrew, per a "Latin American Pastoral Bible" I got from my mom, the word for "Judgment" literally means "to govern", so the era of the "Judges" is literally "the era of the governors"

Ockham was also at Paris, I think, Roscelin, obviously. All the big names, Duns Scotus (Eirugena was an Irishman 3 centuries prior but I know he visited), etc.

like reading the mood of the room - like BPD and manipulative, sensitive or hyper-sensitive types do.

I personally agree that the Zohar was contemporary with the Talmud, tradition would actually place it's completion in the second century and where-abouts prior to the 6th century completion of the Talmud (took 5 centuries to write, the Zohar was written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, his son Elazar, and his disciples, per tradition. It's roughly 10000 pages, making the "skeptical critical position" of "Moses ben Shem Tov made it all up in 13th century Spain" untenable)

Nobody Leads him he leads the conversation

Quirky, not everyone would agree, but "Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War II" is a personal favorite (but I wouldn't ordinarily recommend it), I just think it'd be up your alley. "In the grim darkness of the far future there is only war" (the tag-line for the series which was initially, and still is, a table-top, gets parodied pretty regularly on internet forums of the more "there are no girls on the internet it's the late 2000's" variety)

Is Lacan saying that nostalgia is the uniting feature of the human condition? I know that sounds counter to what he is literally saying, but he's talking about recovering a "state of oneness that only exists in myth", I mean he's saying myth (which is extraordinary) is excluded from language, right? And that the signification of language (which is ordinary) is always what's excluded?

It's very adorable to try to save free will with quantum fisics. Probability, statitics and randomness only add to the problem. Reminds me of theologians evoking contemporary astronomy to resuscitate god.

I propose it is a matter of utmost importance in ethics that we be able to fantasize about subjects (I guess not in the Lacanian sense - I mean historical philosopher's and their positions as a whole taken as representing a kind of "philosophical person") of discourse by way of merciless suspicion as theoretical "philosophical demons" (a bit like Donald Davidson's "philosophical zombies" I only know about because of "Existential Comics", which lies so flagrantly, my rage, etc.)

To be frank that's bad-ass (if an interpretation of my own concoction), I love nature! I'd totally love to integrate an element of "naturalist mysticism" into my own thinking

I put "shock" in scare quotes (it seems the devil's doctrine), but there is some stuff explicit in Hinduism, easily found in the other religions, that could be interpreted as having to do with the electricity emanating from the Earth's core during its rotation. "The two are one".

But the fact is, from my own personal conviction, I do agree, and I believe this belief is pragmatically founded as a question of ethics (which deals with actions, choices, values). So what is the last paragraph of Clark and Chalmer's article? "As with any re-conception of ourselves, this view will have significant consequences. There are obvious consequences for philosophical views of the mind and for the methodology of research in cognitive science, but there will also be effects in the moral and social domains. It may be, for example, *that in some cases interfering with someone’s environment will have the same moral significance as interfering with their person.* And if the view is taken seriously, certain forms of social activity might be re-conceived as less akin to communication and action, and as more akin to thought. In any case, once the hegemony of skin and skull is usurped, we may be able to see ourselves more truly as creatures of the world."

And the corresponding notion to "Agape" in Buddhism is "Maitri" (which is the root word for "Maitreya", translated as "Friend", and also called "A-jita," - "The Un-conquerable") The Bhagavad Gita has a sharp criticism of the concept of Love as manipulation (so it clearly means something like any of the Greek concepts of Love except Agape used as a weapon), but I've yet to find their word for the positive thing, I forgot the Jewish one, and I don't have the Muslim one.

You know Vasconcelos said "The Latin (though I think he meant Olmec) head" is essentially SYSTEMATIC. A quick reading of Ortega y Gasset suggests he really did mean "Olmec", as Lenkersdorf (though a European name) and Villoro (though a Catalan), both Indigenists (where Vasconcelos was ostensibly a Hispanist), believed the facet of highest value in thinking to be "Objectivity", and Mario Bunge, an Argentine and perhaps mestizo also, defined the "detail of import" in science to be "system" ("Epistemologia", siglo XXI edition, P. 227), and more so "total system", not "set of justified true beliefs" but "set of justified true beliefs arranged in such a way, that any modification of one statement modifies the rest" (a form of "totalitarian Ockham's Razor" as it were, or "epistemic austerity"). Yay, it's how I think, very very "top-down" - and I fancy it to be very much like the Germans. (Villoro's "El grupo Hiperion", who I in my ignorance, formerly associated with Nietzsche's hyperborea, and not Holderlin's novel. Yay perhaps it means both)

I probably made several mistakes there. Anyway it seems to imply that what children fight over is their mothers, I find that a brilliant correlative to Freud from a social perspective, and this is understood, more or less, as "comfort" (which of course recalls the Master-Slave Dialectic of Hegel). This is what immature adults continue to do when they've refused to grow up - they fight to impose their "comfort zone" at other people's expense.

I think he said "He's the one guy whose opinions I generally consult" or "agree with" or "take seriously" or something like that

You know that's prophesied verbatim in "Our Lady of La Salette" (largely about Louis Napoleon and that electronic spire he appended to the Notre-Dame that was the only bit that burned definitively in 2018... then Macron asked for ever more hyper-modern redesigns. Fortunately it's all safe now, and even the altar Cross was still standing after the burning)

And you know Zizek, I do fundamentally agree: Wisdom does suck. It is our need to escape from it in which it's meaning actually inheres. I think that is what the Ubermensch consists in, as one who arises as over the mass. (consider proverbs, they are paradoxical in that they indicate "collective interpretations", but interpretations are inherently subjective! once we've established the bare minimum of actual survival, as everyone knows, the task of self-realization is only just made available to the individual). So that one might say that man lives this life and becomes free (English), but it is the will of the super-man to survive this life and become (German)

To all of those judging this man based on a short extract (the KZread Shorts extract), have you made the effort to go listen to the entire talk so that you can be sure you hear what he is saying? (And not what you think he is saying)

He reminds me a lot to hermeneutics. In the way of approaching history and the openness of ontology, i felt like i was reading Dilthey or Gadamer.

@victorperez1234

5 ай бұрын

I know he is student of Lacan, Hegel, Marx...so is obvious he will lean to in the direction of hermeneutics, but i dont recall before seen him so in to it.

does anyone know what is he reffering to at 10:27

If you want to have a co-op that's fine by me, but only on the condition that you genuinely want it (that it's fine by you)

You know, I think, the early modern thinkers may not've said it out loud, because it would be scandalous, but it really does follow from their thought that "the notebook has a mind" because I am "minding it", that the mind has to reach out and "correspond" to what it is perceiving, if it is to perceive it adequately. Which isn't fundamentally different from Plato saying, that because we think in terms of universals, there must be some real universals out there in the world we are connected to. But that isn't to say the external reality has a mind independent of my "minding it". (somewhat similar to that interpretation Nietzsche made of Descartes that the limits of his discovery amount to "(far as I know) I am while thinking"). Anyway, the whole thing comes to a head with Schopenhauer, who really does say that, only he adds that Nature has a Mind ("The Will"), as a Cosmos (whole), from Eternity

I actually have a funny answer to Andy Clark - if an external statement claims that our minds are internal, and the statement is plausible (say because it is wrapped in the authority of ancient wisdom or folklore), and the statement is generally available to consciousness because it is part of the general culture, then is the mind external, yes or no? (you see it's a "Liar's Paradox") But it's a simple fact that our minds are persuaded by plausibility, and if a belief is what guides life or behavior, the question becomes rather "Is the statement in question authoritative" (assuming that it's right) - because I think we all agree there is an enormous arrogance to the kinds of people who will reject the Bhagavad Gita (but in the Gita, per the Advaita interpretation, "the two are one", and that's generally the form of spiritual statements) for a book on neuro-science - or "does it guide life aright?" But the statement I had in mind comes in the form of an anecdote about Al-Ghazali, that he was once assaulted by a thief who stole all his books. Al-Ghazali shouted "You are stealing all my knowledge!", and the thief responds, "Then how can you call that knowledge?". I've yet to find an "authoritative source" for it. Anyway, I'm missing a 2 page gap in the article, but Chalmers and Clark don't seem to bring up Plato's "Writing Problem" (wonder if Derrida ever did) in the "Cratylus" (I think the key to reading that is that Socrates references "Thoth" as writing's inventor, thus reminding one of both alchemy and hieroglyphs, images, and that Lysias "the best of our writers" was an orator; that whole sequence is fascinating, but of course I'd have to re-read the whole thing) Well of course I'm all precocious and confusing.

In that regard, Lacan can certainly be said to have "returned to Freud" (psycho-analysis has a moral mission), but it's also generally taken that Freud himself was rather "conservative" (the best we can hope for is a healthy neurosis, but I guess that is Lacan also). Perhaps he gets confused with his cousin (whom he despised), Eduard Bernays.

The interviewer was out of her league. As always, Zizek was great.

@genomedia44

3 ай бұрын

In what way? She didn't say anything at all really. I much prefer it when an interviewer isn't forcing a direction , or speaking over their guests

That said, the implications of my "Bergsonian" (Bergson and Comte were such big hits in Latin America they kind of arrived to stay, so Deleuze as a positivist vitalist kind of gets the most attention out of the fancy foo foo French people) linguistics are really just out-lined in Ngugi Wa Thiongo's (he's a Gikuyu, I heard they're from Kenya!) "Decolonizing the Mind", since what language does fundamentally, according to him, is communicate values the end of which is the reproduction (understood in a broad sense, what life wants to do is live, and live well) of life (what is "uncommonly" called "wisdom"), the form of a language must correspond to a tradition of ancestral wisdom. It's just as likely related to syntax as semantics, so don't forget to read the Ha'dith along with your Qu'ran kids! (a value that gets emphasized in Ngugi's book, which is also found in Islam, is "generosity", as opposed to miserliness, rarely spoken about by Europeans _after_ the Greeks, as I'm quite sure it shows up in Aristotle)

I, for one, insist on quality, in my melo-drama (if people aren't still talking about it 5 years later I'm generally unconcerned, but my older brother recommended the anime "Chainsaw Man" to me and it's about spying, so I am interested)

In Jacques Lacan, it is quite clear the "genesis" (my English translation by Bruce Fink talks about "geneticism based research... not properly cut off from analysis") of "the object relation" (the perception of things) as founded in the child's contact with the mother. How is this not Rousseau? Man's first encounter with Nature. Look, I study philosophy not literature, but I remember from high school that "conflict with society", "conflict with self", "conflict with nature" are forms that literary dramas often take

I mean the meme of "nostalgia for a world that never existed" or "nostalgia for a past that I didn't live in", both of those were memed to the entire internet-abled (understood not as those who passively receive prompts from an algorithm, but people from "old internet", like 2012 and prior) population

You know there are philosophers who have gone on record and said such things as "Aristotle's insight was that there is no need to invoke a 'deeper reality' to explain phenomenal realities" (that would be Martha Nussbaum in an interview in the 80's), but Noam Chomsky in his books from the 60's states that there is no science without explanation by means of a "deeper under-lying structure", his explanations then, unsurprisingly, take the form of a layered explanation, so there's a phonological layer, then a morphological layer, of language. But Derrida few years later would already point out that this is (actually Saint Augustine started it) "the naturalistic fallacy" of language, as it were. The very existence of "Grammatology" as a department of archeology, which originated in the study of Egypt, disproves that language starts at phonemes and then proceeds to "morphemes". Because hieroglyphs are non-phonetic language - something every linguist knows, and none seems to care to account for. I blame freemasonry?

@jezzdogg6857

4 ай бұрын

Why do you write so many comments?

Sigmund Freud in "Civilization and its Discontents" CLEARLY outlined a theory of human progress (and how that progress might be disrupted as ominously alluded to in the last paragraph, taken by scholars as a suggestive reference to Adolf Hitler). Trouble is, the detail I recall most is that he correlates hygiene to the progress of civilization, and I don't even remember if this idea of "civilization" is what Freud meant to advance, or criticize.

I can't help but perceive in the "Oedipus Complex" (at least as construed in Lacan, but it's definitely there in Freud, if I recall the point of the Oedipus Complex is that it resolves itself - to escape it), a High Modern attempt at replacing Religion. But perhaps it could also serve as a biological explanation for the perennial existence of Religion (well it's "Moses and Monotheism" where one finds "Return of the Repressed", but that's a long book and I know like, 3 pages. "Future of an Illusion" and all that)

arguably what Schopenhauer is saying is "fulfill desire", granted that this is what you really desire, and not just what you think you desire. (Because of the lack of the Will understanding itself)

to be fair, I don't Hegel ever claimed to be party to "Absolute Idealism" either. Schopenhauer claimed to be an idealist, and his reading of Kant was completely different (but I bet both can be read into Plato retroactively) - and would become Wittgenstein and, in some weird way I've yet to divine, Nietzsche

You know comic relief isn't so bad once you understand that in drama, things get tense. And if it's real then it's really tense.

When Lacan says "My title conveys the fact that, beyond this speech, it is the whole structure of language that psychoanalytic experience discovers in the unconscious. This is to alert prejudiced minds from the outset that the idea that the unconscious is merely the seat of the instincts may have to be reconsidered.", in "The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious" (delivered as a talk in 1957). Look, I got this from Wikipedia, but Noam Chomsky supposedly takes up linguistic applications Carnap in a 1957 book to claim that a language is an infinite set of grammatical statements that can be generated algorithmically from a "syntactic structure" given a finite number of "linguistic elements" (it's been a while, but I did take 4 semesters of formal logic - Wikipedia meant something like "semantic variables", right? Like in math). This later became, published in the most famous book "Language and Mind" (1968), growing from a debate with the behaviorists, the claim that the mind pre-exists behavior, but not necessarily language, as an innate syntactic structure subject to biological evolution, right? So that Chomsky gets lumped in, some times, I've heard or read this somewhere, with the "Structuralists" - which would make him ironically just as "continental" as "analytic", right? Because Freud didn't shy away from saying, that what he was creating was a science somewhere in the "interstices between biology and psychology", and in that regard Chomsky was merely making "lingui-analysis" (and how is that not pseudo-science?)

I was part of the "Technical Council" (it's like the school local government, filled with technicalities and laws!), but only as an "assistant" ("suplente"... I forget the guy's name I was supposed to be helping out - anyway he was also a nice Catholic boy and if I recall he "weirdly out of no-where despite having no tendencies" turned "gay" as well)

I think this is very important for the new hot thing in linguistics "The Return to Chomsky"

@MrSalbego

4 ай бұрын

Shut up

You know Mr. Zizek, it used to be said, I think it still is held implicitly by scientific consensus surrounding the use of Ockham's Razor, that "Nature takes the path of least resistance". But that is like saying that, were someone to set himself up "against Nature" (and not in a fun way like in late ninteenth century "decadent" novels and art), Nature would have a hard time saving "herself" (or whatever you prefer to call it), for if it "takes the path of least resistance", it "goes with the flow", or sort of "goes where the wind blows" so to speak. Anyway if the common saying holds true, then Rousseau had a very intuitive mind about Nature. (even if he really did create the myth of "mommy comfort", I genuinely don't think Derrida was denying the existence of "natality", or birth and generation", as a scientific fact, much less the reality of the external world which is a metaphysical question of a higher order)

You know Louis de Montfort, a Catholic theologian, oft pointed out that just because a Church doctrine "sounds weird", doesn't mean it's "non-sense" (as many Protestants would put it), it just means you need to know the context, so it would help to be charitable with what you yourself do not understand ("faith seeking understanding"), so it seems to me I'm blessed to have access to English Wikipedia, but that to understand Lacan, in other times, one must've had access to actual Lacanians, that know each other in a sequence that leads to people who actually knew Lacan. "In Les Freudiens hérétiques, the 8th tome of his work Contre-histoire de la philosophie (Anti-History of Philosophy),[128] philosopher and author Michel Onfray describes Lacan's Écrits as "illegible".[128]: 49  According to Onfray, Lacan engages in constant word play, has a taste for the formulaic, and deploys "incantatory glossolalia" and unnecessary neologisms.[k] He calls Lacan a "charlatan," and a "dandy figure" who "sinks into autism," eventually becoming senile."

Conversely, if he would want it, he wouldn't want to grasp it. "If you love her let her go", something everyone knows (but maybe isn't entirely true, at least not so literally)

"desire is only that which I have called the metonomy of all signification." Jacques Lacan, "Of Structure as an Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever" You know I like it.

I don't think the PRI made any deals with France (as Porfirio had fled to France it is likely that the local capitalists have an old legend going about avenging "their Porfirio"), but I recall we at some paint made a deal with the Federal Republic of Germany. (I recall the term "special relationship" coming up because we are both "Federal Republics", which recalls Nigeria, Brazil or anyone else who might be attached to that title)

I learned in 7th grade by division of halves you can get to zero point in reality but not mathematically. Zizek's story about Himmler, was never heard before. What is the definition of freedom used in this context? Reading minds is reading memories, or is it thoughts about memories? Probably cannot read someone's mind while they are making calculations in real time.

You know Zizek, I feel the concept of "Evolution" has been forgotten by philosophers as of late - despite it showing up prominently in Spencer and Bergson (Nietzsche having criticized the Darwinian concept) - but as an evaluative concept, that relatively devalues Rousseau's Natural Man and values upward Nietzsche's Ubermensch (I find it funny that "mensch" is neuter) - I think it can be held up as given toward superiority because evolution is adaptation to an environment prodded on my random mutation. So it might be said that the most evolved organism is the one most able to adapt to the largest number of contingencies (circumstance/randomness)

You know my brother-in-law was a U.S. marine and studied engineering so he can make fancy new weapons for the U.S. empire ("he works for the military-industrial complex", in few words) - I bet the following years are going to be a _very fun time_ (to interpret Mao correctly)

I think it is a simple fact, that no self-respecting mathematician (who isn't swallowed up by the need to be "up-to-date") will want to depend on their calculator for every calculation (even if a mathematician might pride themselves more on understanding mathematics conceptually). And, perhaps, were things not so dire, we may've already witnessed a re-birth in "verbal math" (which used to be a thing)

Indeed, Maimonides first intuited the existence of the human Unconscious almost two centuries after Ibn Sina, or "Avicenna" by way of the discovery of psycho-somatic conditions as described in his proto-Aquinean-hylo-morphic theory: The Oneness of Body and Mind.

How about Yuval Harari, the guy who talks about digital dictatorship, _at the World Economic Forum_

Point is I'm afraid I didn't really "get" the Chomsky that well either (as if someone whose claims escape the bounds of philosophy, and into empirical science should be so easy to "get"; indeed, continental philosophers generally have political implications to their thought, so it's unsurprising that they are not superficial or "understandable at a glance")