Super wichtiges Thema!

Für Lehrerin ich bin hier HALLO

Zelo sta mi všec

Gunther Anders - a real prophet. Thank you, Sreco Horvat. Hvala, bez vas ne bih ni cula za njega.

Cool

Verrückt ist deutsche Gesellschaft und die Regierung und ganz Deutschland, das immer mehr neomarksistisch wird! Ich bin geschockt, dass das GI solche Propagandamittel gegenüber den DaF-Lernern benutzt! LGBT ist eine Bewegung, die durch ein großes Lobby in ganz Welt und besonders in DE finanziert wird! Sie wirken sowohl gegen das Naturrecht als auch gegen die Familie (wo Mann und Frau als beste Vorbilder für die Kinder vorkommen)! Keine Gender können das ändern und bestreiten!

The last question gives a very poor (and old-fashioned) 'definition' of tragedy (a definition that was given in schools years ago -and I hope it is not given anymore). Tragedy gives you a grammar of human action that is far richer than the old-fashioned 'definition' of it (as action having been decided already -in which case all tragic personae are nothing but comical fools). What tragedy says about action is that while it is significant and challenging it is action IN the world, which means, it has been preceded by other actions that have far-reaching consequences (in Hegel 'fate' is not divine, it is very much a constitutive element of action -causality of fate, he calls it. As new action challenges previous actions that have built a horizon that 'constrains' significant action. The one who accepts this horizon as a given is Ismene, the one who does not is Antigone. Antigone is very aware of all the previous terrible acts that have created a horizon that has come to totally (but not absolutely -had it also been absolutely determined, her action would simply be the rantings of a fool) determine both her city and her birth. All one has to do is go to the first lines she speaks in Sophocles' Antigone to see how aware she is of what is exactly that has 'cursed' her and Ismene's lives (by the way, Antigone is very aware of the incestuous origins of herself and her siblings, she is also very aware that Polyneices was a traitor, and the one who asked a question about a possible incestuous love harboured by Antigone for Polyneices because " you know, children of incest must be incestuous themselves" [what a ridiculous anti-logic logic!] just paraded her ignorance of the meaning of the word 'philia' in Greek). Antigone lists with immense clarity all the reasons for her and Ismene's troubles. The cluster of actions that predate them and which, in their horrific nature, have brutally determined lives born beyond that horizon ('causality of fate'). Given this, her action (not done clandestinely but shouted from the rooftops) is her only way of breaking out of that 'causality of fate'. The substance of freedom where her life is staked (for she knows this is a life/death matter, not a mere 'freedom of the will' thesis). Creon too sought to address these terrible events but with an erroneous idea of law, one where legitimacy/lawfulness and legality (the laws of the city) are conflated. This brings me to the last person's question, and her facile understanding of tragedy, tragic action, and fate as "all outcomes being predetermined". First of all, Antigone appeals to divine laws not as some laws that are more authoritative than human laws (which would simply make her into some reactionary force within the much more modern and emancipated city and its written laws) but as UNWRITTEN laws, that is, as laws that are NON IDENTICAL with the laws 'we' have: the non-identity of law with itself. Her transgression is fully conscious action (not foolish action in the face of 'fate's forces'), and her appeal to 'unwritten law' aims to DISTINGUISH her kind of transgression (lawful but illegal -legal being the law of the city embodied and enunciated by Creon) from the transgression of a criminal act. While she ruptures the law of the city (like a criminal does), very much unlike the criminal's her action is LAWFUL (in accordance with unwritten law): it seeks to reconcile the city, in an act of reconciliation (burying the guilty dead) that will allow an exit from that horizon of action that has been determined by previous generations and their acts. She is the bearer of action that seeks to lift herself and her polis out of the determining force of a cluster of terrible actions that have determined her life and the life of her city. What Hegel sees in the Sophoclean tragedy is the acknowledgement of mutual, intersubjective suffering that does not exist in the Master/Slave dialectic. It is Antigone who is aware of that (and Creon only when he loses everything when it is too late. Creon remains the vehicle for the reproduction of what the past horizon of action determined for him: fate), 'We suffer because we erred'. Because of this last awareness, it is Antigone who is the bearer of the 'ethical substance' of the city.

2:27 skip intro

1:30:21 and so on and so on : "A certain stupidity is a very basic element for being a part of a Symbolic Order." Here, I claim, Zizek isn't zizekian enough. The moment you get sucked into a Symbolic Order a precondition is being thoroughly brainwashed and in desperate need for conformity.

ни о чем для кого это

Ja, der dialektische Materialismus ist eine philosophische Strömung, die insbesondere mit dem deutschen Philosophen Karl Marx und seinem Freund und Kollegen Friedrich Engels in Verbindung steht. Der dialektische Materialismus ist eine Weiterentwicklung der Dialektik, die auf Hegels Philosophie basiert. Die zentrale Idee besteht darin, dass die Welt und ihre Entwicklung durch materielle Verhältnisse bestimmt werden. Hier sind einige grundlegende Prinzipien des dialektischen Materialismus: 1. **Dialektik:** Die dialektische Methode betrachtet die Welt als von Widersprüchen und Veränderungen geprägt. Widersprüche sind nicht als negativ, sondern als treibende Kraft für Veränderungen zu verstehen. 2. **Materialismus:** Im dialektischen Materialismus steht die materielle Realität im Mittelpunkt. Die sozialen, ökonomischen und politischen Strukturen werden durch die materiellen Bedingungen einer Gesellschaft bestimmt. 3. **Historischer Materialismus:** Karl Marx entwickelte den historischen Materialismus, der die Überzeugung vertritt, dass die Entwicklung der Gesellschaft durch den Widerspruch zwischen Produktivkräften und Produktionsverhältnissen vorangetrieben wird. Der dialektische Materialismus bildet die philosophische Grundlage für den Marxismus. Er betont die Bedeutung der ökonomischen Strukturen in der Gesellschaft, insbesondere in Bezug auf Klassenkämpfe und historische Veränderungen. Der Begriff "dialektischer Materialismus" verdeutlicht die Verbindung zwischen der dialektischen Methode (die Entwicklung durch Widersprüche) und dem Materialismus (der Betonung der materiellen Realität). Es ist wichtig zu beachten, dass der dialektische Materialismus als philosophisches Konzept im Rahmen der marxistischen Theorie und Politik diskutiert wird.

Die Dialektik ist eine philosophische Methode und Denkweise, die auf Widersprüche und Veränderungen in der Welt fokussiert ist. Der Begriff stammt aus dem antiken Griechenland, insbesondere von den Philosophen der Schule von Elea, aber die dialektische Methode wurde später von Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel und Karl Marx weiterentwickelt. Hier sind einige grundlegende Konzepte der Dialektik: 1. **Widersprüchlichkeit:** Die Dialektik geht davon aus, dass Widersprüche ein grundlegendes Merkmal der Realität sind. Sie betrachtet Dinge und Prozesse nicht als statisch oder unveränderlich, sondern als in ständiger Bewegung und Entwicklung begriffen. 2. **Dreistufigkeit:** Hegel prägte die Idee der Dreistufigkeit in der Dialektik, die als These, Antithese und Synthese bekannt ist. Nach dieser Methode entwickelt sich eine Idee oder ein Konzept durch das Auftreten von Widersprüchen: Eine Ausgangsthese führt zu ihrer Gegenthese, und die Interaktion beider führt schließlich zu einer Synthese, die ihrerseits die neue Ausgangsbasis bildet. 3. **Entwicklung und Veränderung:** Die Dialektik betont, dass alles einem Prozess der Entwicklung und Veränderung unterliegt. Es geht darum, Phänomene in ihrem Wandel und ihrer Dynamik zu verstehen, anstatt sie als statische Entitäten zu betrachten. 4. **Negation der Negation:** Diese Idee stammt von Hegel und besagt, dass Veränderung und Entwicklung oft durch Negation und anschließende Aufhebung von Widersprüchen erfolgen. Eine bestehende Idee oder Struktur wird negiert, aber diese Negation wird selbst aufgehoben, um zu einer höheren Synthese zu führen. Karl Marx übernahm die dialektische Methode von Hegel, passte sie jedoch an und entwickelte den historischen Materialismus, der auf sozioökonomischen Widersprüchen basiert. Insgesamt betont die Dialektik die Dynamik, Veränderung und Widersprüchlichkeit in verschiedenen Bereichen, von der Philosophie über die Gesellschaft bis zur Naturwissenschaft.

29:50 “ A true master” the best part. Not a master of prohibitions but a master who help you to decide your true self

Who is the host?

Und jetzt bitte noch Slavoj Zizek und Peter Sloterdijks Gespräch online stellen!

So strange to see Dolar laughing like this, he sounds much younger. Low-key beautiful.

Was this lecture published anywhere, or is a copy of the transcript of the lecture available anywhere, please?

Das is verrückt

57:23 "Okay, I also have lets say some problems with Stalin"

That question was ridiculous and amazing - "Have you ever cheated on Hegel?"

Everything he's stating that cause the problem was enabled or defended by the left in the last 100 years, you guys not event started to pay your debt to us, wait and see.

Good content

Im an anarchist, but despite Zizek's criticizm of anarchism, i appreciate his arguments. you rarely see someone criticizing anarchism more in depth, without using it as a synonym for chaos and disorder. I will point out though that I would love Zizek to go deeper into his presupposition that humans are evil by nature, as it's a crucial point in anarchist thought which trusts in the innate human cooperation and altruism.

I wonder what he thinks about an AI master. Even if its tied to only one individual. All to balance out what he said "too much 'freedom' is unfreedom".

zizek is always fascinating and provocative; a thrilling interlocutor

What I’m hearing that we all need to believe in Santa Claus so that Santa Claus keeps coming. I mean, we all like Santa Claus, right? What’s a little bullshit among friends and family, as long as the presents keep coming? The problem here in the literal powder keg that is the US in 2023 is that there is NOTHING that will unite us. The only thing we can agree on is that we hate each other, and I don’t think that’s the kind of bullshit that Slavoj is promoting here.

“This situation makes what remains of the left desperate.” Indeed.

Usual casual listeners of zizek must be a bit lost when he quotes malabou ranciere and balibar 😂 People tend to forget he actually has a job

Somewhere at Google there are CPUs just melting down to slag trying to power the auto caption on Slavoj lectures

hook

31:09 ❤

English language commentary on Anders is so rare. Thank you for this.

Yeah, Trump is definitely not a post-modernist. Using mental gymnastics for the sake of saying something paradoxical or provocative is pretty low.

Hello. Can someone tell me how you spell the surname of Claude (Everly?) the man being discussed at approx 40mins in the video?

Sehr gut vielen dank

Vielen Dank für solch interessantes ,wichtigrs und nüzliches Video

The lecture is quite good because seems like he’s really honed out his thousands of awesome and interconnected ideas in this presentation.

"Kill him, liquidate him and so on and so on" - Slavoj Zizek

very cool

Truth is not a minted coin that can be passed on from hand to hand... one of the greatest phrases in the history of philosophy.

"if you are in a regime where things go bad if the master is stupid, then the regime is bad" Yes and, furthermore, leadership is for people who do not have adequate protocols.

I think his analysis would by stronger if he stopped referring to electoralism as democracy.

in your case, it's clearly cocaine

He accurately assessed the problem, but the medicine offered is far from palatable

A union of opposites seems absolutely necessary. Freedom and Control. What is the limit for each? Where does dystopia begin? The macro-level leadership vacuum I subscribe to. The prescriptive cure needs work in my view.

Pri 56;22 sta Gregor in Slavoj zamudila odlično priložnost, da bi citirala znameniiti: "Mehr Licht!". Pa še na temo praznih pregovorov bi se lepo vezalo 🙂

Mr Zizek is the best.

About the restaurant joke : upon choosing the restaurant I sometimes enjoyed proposing a place cheap enough that I could afford it on my own, to which the response was often times negative invoking the health benefits of higher standards (or mere discomfort should I propose to cook something) - so much so, that despite any appearing politeness, my message read something like "fuck you, if you want to be charitable, don't use me as a token of your generosity, and let's rather work on making decent food available to anyone, in the meantime, would you please join us "low ranking citizens" for just a single stupid meal or, if you need me to pretend like I depend on you, would you please tell me in the name of which madness you want me to?" In my mind this sounds both like a psychotic reaction (through distaste for the pretense involved in politeness) and a hysterical reaction (as I'm also genuinely curious what I'm supposed to be for the other) - now, upon noticing the traumatic discomfort I cause to my friends through such ways, I sometimes skip pretending like I hope to pay, which also deprives them of the heroic role (be it at the cost of my seeming bereft of gratitude) which only further convinces me that they are eager to follow such rituals, insofar as it allows them to feel like caretakers, a very human sentiment indeed, yet one that is easily diverted in over reliance on set rituals, which are a hallmark of obsessive neurotics such as Zizek - not to undermine his very inspiring work My question is then, why can't this ritual work the other way around? I'd be very happy to cook, in other words, play the provider in a way that is less eager to symbolise the coping (sweeping under the rug) mechanism of charity, and rather reminds of a certain order of necessity and its cost - ie. work goes into feeding ourselves, and if you want it to be invisible, it's gonna cost an effort that's not reducible to mere transaction, and equates with a lasting, everyday life, social change (and again, in the meantime, please bear the sight of a "slave")?

Zizek at a high level of coherence, clarity, concise. Excellent, thanks for uploading.