To watch Slavoj Zizek debate the fundamental nature of morailty, click here: iai.tv/video/moral-facts-and-moral-fantasy?UKposts&+comment&

0:32 Reporter: Welcome Mr. Zizek Zizek: “Thanks very much, although immediately as a Hegelian I must correct you SNIFF”

- Hello, Slavoj - Yes. However, immediately, as a Hegelian, i must correct you...

Watching Žižek always makes me very nervous. There seems to be more energy inside his mind than a human body can bear, and I'm fearing his body may explode anytime. But he is brilliant.

"True love is not idealization.. you expect all the small imperfections and you love the person even more." I love Zizek's hand gestures. Only a philosopher gets this animated about ideas.

Man if this guy had access to tissues he would be literally unstoppable

These new episodes of Between Two Ferns are just getting better and better, and nice to see Galifianakis is doing well.

"Philosophy is like falling in love." ~ Slavoj Žižek Can't agree more.

It pains me to see Zizek going old, someone introduced him to me when I was quite younger and it's like a part of what people shared with me is going away slowly. I wish him health and a long life.

14:28 "I dont expect from philosphers solutions... but to enable us to ask the right questions" This is an important point and a good starting place for understanding what philosophy can do in the contemporary world.

"True love is not idealization. You accept all imperfections and for that you love even more."

God I hope he's taking care of himself. We need Zizek around for a long time.

This was great. Thank you very much!

Where Slavoj Zizek impresses me the most is when he talks about true love, cause it's a feeling I haven't been able to feel for at least a decade and I almost forget that it exists. Zizek always manages to remind me of what I've lost.

WOW that was amazing thank you for this amazing interview

When I start to listen Žižek, I just can't stop

30:03 needed this badly rn. Thanks a lot. "The art for me is to be totally open towards the future, in the sense of things happen contingently but nonetheless not to forget that every present moment at least in our human universe retroactively interprets the past in a teleological way..... We have to live with this contradiction. "

Incredible mind. And someone who courageously understands and exposes the very core of Hegelian philosophy. Undoubtedly, one of the greatest living philosophers (despite wether you like or not his manners and ways of talking about Philosophy)

Great interview

Terrific conversation.

More Zizek!!! Yay

I'm gonna have such a hard time taking this interview seriously when it's shot on the set of 'Between Two Ferns'.

Gran entrevista, de las mejores que se le hicieron a Zizek

There's absolutely no one on earth that could REALLY occupy Zizek's place and do what he does the way he does. He is absolutely idiosyncratic - a dialectical subject to an absolutely maddening degree. I've been studying him for over 11 years now and can confidently say that we'll never see another. Once the man starts talking, everyone else becomes a listener, a student. It is as if he knows everything and has ingenious insights for everything he knows. His knowledge and insight are without par.

Sufferin Succotash, Slavoj landing Immanuel's last name repeatedly within the opening minutes made me grab the popcorn. Something tells me this will be a marvelous rollercoaster ride. It's got a bit of everything in it. Onward!

Zizek comes off as your grandpa that goes on about anything and everything you say but in the best way. Love him so dearly

I love listening to the insights and contemplating the ideas and constantly challenging myself to evaluate and then reevaluate those ideas....

What a wonderfull interview. Thank you very much!! Saludos desde Argentina 🇦🇷. As a psychology student, I apreciate the recognisment he made to Argentina.

Žižek is one of the most well-informed and knowledgeable philosophers I've got to know. The insight he has regarding philosophy and history is so eye-opening. Slavoj 🖤

Although I'm not entirely sure what he's talking about the whole video, Slavoj seems like a pretty interesting person. The way he talks and conducts himself is so entertaining and I find it very so whilst I'm watching and listening. Hegelianism is a new concept to me, but I've been really getting onto Philosophy lately and I want to learn more about it from this man. Thank you for this wonderful content!

A brilliant interview! I learned so much!

just beautiful!🥲

Wildly speculative towards the end. Zizek performs a greater service when he stays with the stresses of our times - the political tensions and blockages in our thinking - rather than drifting off into metaphysics, which can be accepted or sceptically rejected with a shrug of the shoulders.

I love this

"Reality is ontologically open, not fully constituted."

“Anyone who doesn’t take love as a starting point will never understand the nature of philosophy”. ~Plato

great questions

Thank you for sharing this interview. Zizek is always insightful in a thought provoking way. There's no one right answer, just many wrong answers( like deep ecology and so on). The only way is to object these wrong answers, and reformulate the questions.

One of the absolute best. Reminds me of Walter Russel.

Got a good idea of the contours of the man's mind from this. Thanks.

I could listen to him for hours, he says things others are scared to say, which is very uncomfortable but truthful, he’s very passionate about his knowledge too, amazing man🤝🏼

I’ve admired Zizek’s lectures for years now although there have been times I’ve thought him a bit of a crank. This lecture brought me back into the admired. No one talked to me about Hegel like he does. Is that love or not?

On his top right now. Mega genius.

We accept those who fit in…and we isolate those who don’t…that is not love. Pandemic is a great example in that regard. How we raise our children is another great example.

Thank you Slavoj for sharing your definition of love. Yes, we are taught to pray for guidance to define our own ideals in sex relations, but the exercise is meant to define what it is we dream we can be, not the characteristics of a partner. It is with this aspect of our lives that we are free to seek guidance on our own. Human opinions run to extremes, so we can take comfort by working with the Creator on this problem by ourselves, but my concern has shifted to the study of working with identity on machines instead.

i dont know my english is to poor to understand him atleast you guys do that is great 👍

Wish Zizek would engage with John Dewey, for whom Hegel was such an important figure on the way to a more thoroughgoing philosophic naturalism. Good stuff, thx.

My son introduced me to this guy 🔥

I like this guy - he makes a lot of sense

So many folks relate and comprehend the way things work through analogies to the latest machines we have built. Not long ago the universe was a clockwork, today the universe is like a computer, even a video game with holograms. This is the thought-space strait jacket which forever limits so many of us and precludes the necessary freedom to identify real root causes and truly solve our problems. When you hear the universe is like our latest technology, you are being mislead.

Love is unconditional, anything else is not Love. We have lost sight of this and redefined it in a way that its foundation lies in codependency. People are looking for partners to meet their needs, while the partner is looking to meet their own needs as well, so both are left unsatisfied, not aligned - or not meeting each other in the middle - creating a ground for unhappiness and an endless quest for something that can only be found in oneself. It is when you find your needs met by your own self that you can experience true Love as you will not feel the need to find it in a web of conditions, but like he says, find it in the imperfections, and that's true Love. Really interesting conversation, enjoyed listening to his points of view and the ones he referenced.

Brilliant

Amazing interview! Very interesting!

31:30 - great definition of freedom.

As contemporary beings part company with coherent language they keep coming up with words like broken and lost - as if the love of wisdom could get lost or someone can put it down somewhere forget exactly where

When he speaks, he looks so young, so full of anticipation

Žižek enlightened. The world is the Light out of the Night.

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini

I like his description of real love.

This philosopher is most insightful when he says we need to know how to ask, or formulate, the right question. We have generally forgotten how to think. Theory, in contrast, is not about thinking, but about confirming predictions, which is "only" science. We need to get back to something like an unhampered and humbling speculation, since the status of philosophy is no longer influential: it cannot offer insight into what is least understood (even if indispensable) within science generally -- how is the working theory even possible? The ancient philosophers were not confused: whatever it is we mean when we posit a psychology, they should merely point to the evidence of nature, a cosmos, as proper object; conversely with our definition of a physical world, our modeling of its reality, they should not find it strange that we are able to ask questions about what are only too obviously the numerous subjects of busy, fruitful minds. Far from the rupture of a mind/body illusion, it is no feat of imagination to understand that the human species has yet neither suffered its burden, nor regretted its absence. We can never return to such a condition of pure wonder with the world, ourselves. We can try, though, to happily investigate our chronic ignorance, so loving knowledge.

he's inspirational

Love actually love of wisdom, philosophy.

Saying all that he said, the name of this video should not be that philosophy is lost, but is needed. That is, we need to fall in love more with philosophy in these times.

Philosophy is all about ideas, but you have to deal with its intensity.

I just love Slavoj Žižek so much common sense these days. I do feel bad for Slavic and his nervous ticks. Since I have nervous ticks myself I really can Identify. I continually chew my nails and the Calliss off my fingers. Partly because I like to keep my fingers smooth for my lover and it calms me. So I can imagine what is going through his mind but more important. How did his sole get to be Slavic and what did he do in his past lives to turn him in to what we see today. I often think of that more and more each day. What have we become and what will we become. There's nothing in this universe but us chickens.

"Love is something else, it's not conditional."

We live in the spirit of our times. Philosophy can deliver us from this spirit, and introduce us to the spirit of the depths.

Philosophy, that dear delight! -PLATO

After wrestling with Hegel’s incomprehensible philosophy for many years, finally I have understood it! Thank you, Mr. Zizek! All I had to do was to touch my nose every 5 minutes!!!

Do you think it makes sense to interpret even the very closing remark on love as an analogy for attributes of philosophy? Namely, that we do philosophy even more (intensely, properly, attentively, and in historical progression) - equted to loving even more - when discovering, expecting and living with its non-idealized imperfect characteristics of its nature and objects: the imperfect person we love. And love itself being imperfect, or experienced as such. In the sense that it is the vehicle of this imperfect way of a loving relationship. Then what we philosophize about, rather than philosophy itself (exclusively), is the thing we are deeming imperfect. So the world is imperfect, as is both love and philosophical thinking.

Gênio!

As for the question "are philosophers still useful today" i put it like this: when people from a distant future will want to understand us and the way we used to think who are they gonna read? They can read literature, sure but that is not a deep enugh insight on our mind, and they wouldn't find in science either, only in philosophy they're gonna find what they need to really understand us, to know the questions we deeply asked, the fears and desires, our way of appoaching problems and the true depth of our thoughts. We need philosophy now to understant who we are and what we want to be.

"there are many theories like neo-feudalism, corporate authoritarianism, but something new is emerging, we don't really know what is happening"

1:29 Reminds me of Raymond Chandler in one of his noir novels: "Her eyes were like waterholes in the desert, where strange animals come to drink at night"

The Hegelian warning that just when you think you've reached 'nirvana' (mixing metaphors) you're in for a surprise is similar to recent comparisons with AI as the Molloch (a.l.a. Allen Ginsberg's poem): a force created by humans in hopes it will be beneficial but has the power to damage or even destroy societies, e.g. Facebook, Twitter, UKposts...

Hegel and as if the speaking in tongues of Ferenzci; Marx through Feurerbach ~ see Maria Pierri on Occultism in the origins of Freud and Ferenzci. The dialogue between the two are held at the Freud Mueseum, London.

Zizek meant to reference Carlo Rovelli around the 23:00 mark, for unsuspecting viewers. I guess Marco sounds like Carlo

The total importance, brightness, wisdom, and even savvy and smart articulated Philosopher and a wise Hegel's follower people, readers and audience can believe to find in Zizek comes out from a constant citation and quoting Lacan fragments and really robust erudition. All what Zizek mention and looks like genuine genius is already in Lacan's Seminars and "Écrits". Not only from Lacan but mostly from him. Also from different structuralists and post structuralist such as Althusser, Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida. Basically the most recurrent references used by Zizek are elaborate thoughts delivered years ago during 50's, 60's and 70's by Jacques Lacan. Zizek usually mention in his books, lectures and interviews the most strong ideas and thoughts advanced by Lacan and Zizek's references are Lacan's references: Hegel, Heidegger, Lévi-Strauss, Saussure, Jacobson, Derrida, even though mystic thinker Jacob Bohem. However, his thought is very important to out time in the way he has given us an updated Lacan ready to be consumed by his current followers who not knowing Zizek's ideas are already Lacan's.

You are god mr. Slavoj and i am a believer of you...

Interesting how Philosophy of Right is always present on his talks

Žižek performs the most sophisticated, evocative Stand-Up! It is reminiscent, in its way, to W. H. Auden's curly-cues. StephenKMackSD

I love him more now that he says that he takes Buddhism very seriously🌸💕🪷

Zizek really hits me with his notion that reality is not yet fully constituted, and the question is why there are disturbances (in non-existence as I understood it) that created the reality (space-time, matter, etc). That goes along with my view of reality as a big catastrophe that exploded, and from then it tries to nullify itself and get back to 0 disturbances - maximum entropy, heat death, and decay of all matter, in which Penrose said all the notions of space-time metrics collapse, creating a new universe.

Zizek is rightfully hopeful about philosophy. Philosophy is the study of concepts i.e. analytic philosophy. Political philosophy is derived and on the periphery of philosophy.

did he just get back from a festival

"I believe, as a good Hegelian, in total contingency."

He's a brilliant mind, no doubt. His work speaks for itself. He's just too intense for me as a speaker. It's like he's always on the verge of exploding out of his body and it stresses me out. 😆

philosophy is the way we see the world, the reason why we make the decisions we make, it is based on the traditional knowledge, academical knowledge, social knowledge etc... we all make philosophy everyday, how do you inow something is bad? how do you know is good? how do you follow a goal? the only difference I may say is that we are split between Active philosophy and passive philosophy. The former is when we just go with the flow, perhaps ignorant of why we act the way we act, or we do know but we just do not give it any importance. the latter is when we learn for every point of view, from the people around us and by studying philosophy and then, we search for this thought emancipation where we grab this knowledge and build our very own philosophy and we live our lives witj it,and if we deem it worthy, we teach, helping the cycle of emancipation.

My parents say that instead of reading philosophy me and my girlfriend should make babies. Why?? For what??? I love philosophy 💝❤️

Filosofi is mother of all science,more like this pleas

a keypad for a digital clock sits on the wall in a room where squash is played. every now and then the keypad is hit, it has a certain code to open the door, a certain code to call the police and 9997 codes that plays a sound "ouch stop that" and the time to enter a code is indefinite. almost every contingency resulting in a code being entered the music will play. that is the only form of free will you can ever have if experience can necessarily be mapped onto some physical states.

At 20:42 there is an edit that cut out what Zizek was describing as how free will is currently conceived (multiple unconscious processes) but didn’t let him say his conclusion

26:26 I've been asking a hindu (advaita) youtuber and a christian friend this same question. "if god/ishvara is whole/divine/perfect/peace/bliss/love ect. why did they create the world/universe? the ontological question is "why is there something rather than nothing" I answered it myself : if there was "nothing" it could not be "known" without a "knower" so only "something" can exist. (nothing is just an abstract concept of the opposite of something and hence can't exist)

My boi gets even smarter with years unbelievable

To the entrance. Light and darkness are not the two poles. Light is the one that makes black and white become. Light is the moment. Schelling has described this clearly. The separation by light into black and white, as both are moments of light. But this has also been known since French rationalism, Descartes already.

I love the passion of this man! jajajaja

Also I just barely got around to reading Marcuse (I guess I must be "continental"...), but he did a really great critique of analytic philosophy, in which he still admits it has potential, because, for example, the ordinary language school (at Oxford?) based on.. Ryle's interpretation of Wittgenstein, right? Ignores the factors behind the facts.

Freedom is not absolute. It's in the context of what is determined by human (and other animal) nature. Different species can have different extents/kinds of freedom.

To love is to love imperfections. Agree

The subs are fun