15 сағат бұрын
17 сағат бұрын
19 сағат бұрын
22 сағат бұрын
Күн бұрын
Күн бұрын
Күн бұрын
Күн бұрын
Күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
21 күн бұрын
21 күн бұрын
28 күн бұрын
28 күн бұрын
28 күн бұрын
Ай бұрын
Ай бұрын
Ай бұрын
Ай бұрын
Пікірлер
@unusualpond 12 сағат бұрын
Zizek always waits three days before texting back
@dontbeafool 13 сағат бұрын
What if what I like is accumulating resources?
@evilhilda 14 сағат бұрын
always love watching your videos
@rovic2hacking505 15 сағат бұрын
Zizek's sex toy name is stimulate training unit
@gonx9906 16 сағат бұрын
This is one of the reasons i can't fully take Zizek seriusly, a philosopher thats want to have an opinion about everything doesnt look good.
@strife9878 17 сағат бұрын
Boosting this 🙌!
@juanandrescastro8568 13 сағат бұрын
❤❤❤
@mlw.high. 19 сағат бұрын
Love this
@Imblakeimblakethatsrght 20 сағат бұрын
Excellent video, it's fucking awesome.
@Imblakeimblakethatsrght 20 сағат бұрын
algorithm boost comment
@unapologeticallychristian. 20 сағат бұрын
Amazing
@KK-sg5gl 21 сағат бұрын
Does Zizek himself say to be your happiest, healthiest, most focused self? Or did you add that in? What if the way someone wants to live their life at the moment is by being unhealthy, reclusive, and anything else along those lines?
@matijafuckar1235 19 сағат бұрын
Good point
@theblitz6794 18 сағат бұрын
Why would a psychologically healthy person want to live that way?
@KK-sg5gl 13 сағат бұрын
@@theblitz6794perhaps their burnt out? Maybe they were responsible and saved a lot of money and made good investments, but something like 2020 came and took their career from them? And for the foreseeable future they just want to enjoy life (being rebellious) as they choose. Perhaps that’s just their personality and since 2020 now they can work at home and they’ve become very comfortable staying in and never touch a dating app. I’m not sure what year the study was done, but 1/50 people in Japan were reported to be recluses.
@KK-sg5gl 21 сағат бұрын
It’s been proven. Average men swipe yes 1,000 times. Get 50 matches. Go out on 3 first dates. And have a slim chance that one of them continuing on longer. Not so easy as pushing a button.
@fixthefernback8030 19 сағат бұрын
zizek is very much anti-tinder, so idek why you're bringing that up here.
@matijafuckar1235 19 сағат бұрын
@@fixthefernback8030based + disco elysium avatar = double based
@Ivan-qk2rn 18 сағат бұрын
I agree that to say it's as easy as just click the button is not exactly true. But what is true, I hope you'd agree, that companies present it as if it's an easy button. And it's definitely and deliberately skewed to make people keep on swiping as not as proof of how lame the apps are, but as a proof of how cool and emancipated they are, all the potential matches and dates should almost me your head dizzy of thought how free you are to choose. That is precisely what a negative liberal concept of freedom is. There is no obvious barrier for you to get a million girls, the tinder is your oyster to crack. But it's not enough as you say, it's all empty potential never realized.
@KK-sg5gl 13 сағат бұрын
@@fixthefernback8030at 0:40 that’s exactly what the video says. Not me. Did you listen?
@KK-sg5gl 13 сағат бұрын
@@Ivan-qk2rnno. It’s only empty potential for average men. Even a 4/10 woman can swipe 20 times, get 18 matches, and get a date within 24 hours with 10/18 of those matches. That’s over a 90% difference in results for the genders. Conclusion? Women need to be rebellious and stay with one partner to make relationships “work” again. It’s in their hands.
@11-AisexualsforGod-11 21 сағат бұрын
Our points are only valid so far as we receive the female gaze according to our society.. Im considering just making a video obtaining female validation before rejecting it for this reason.. Woman.. children.. employers.. I reject them all for my self
@11-AisexualsforGod-11 21 сағат бұрын
And daddies I guess.. thats really whats behind the white knight problem
@fixthefernback8030 19 сағат бұрын
failed step one
@11-AisexualsforGod-11 17 сағат бұрын
@@fixthefernback8030 The gaze litteraly chases me where ever I go.. I fear it
@11-AisexualsforGod-11 17 сағат бұрын
I dont how to be apart of the sheep and fear the repercussions for being my self
@franciscobermejo1779 21 сағат бұрын
beautiful
@NoPrivateProperty 22 сағат бұрын
evil is the force behind capitalism. capitalism is a manifestation of evil
@Baker311 20 сағат бұрын
So most of the countries have social systems i am not quite sure what is the idea behind this as there is plenty of evil potential in communism or was on the experiment when it often spirals into a personality cult parts of my family tree for instance died in the purges it is not in anyway immune to evil and the records show plenty i think this subject is much deeper than economic system and the assumption it being only tied to politics might be paradoxical as a doorway to evil deeds.
@Bleilock1 Күн бұрын
If there was no evil, we wouldnt live under capitalism
@celineqoujaq2175 Күн бұрын
33:58 35:37 35:52 35:57 36:07
@christianlesniak Күн бұрын
I saw it and thought it was some bullshit and a copout, but you've made a really great case for it. I'll have to watch it again and keep an open mind.
@celineqoujaq2175 Күн бұрын
28:52 28:56 29:01 29:36 32:03
@celineqoujaq2175 Күн бұрын
18:29 18:32 18:43 18:55
@JoshJustifies Күн бұрын
I’ve seen most of your other lessons on the topics you discussed here but didn’t fully grasp the concepts, but for some reason, this was the one it really clicked for me. Love your work Julian!
@celineqoujaq2175 Күн бұрын
12:37 12:38 12:46 12:54 13:11
@celineqoujaq2175 Күн бұрын
8:22 8:23 8:27 8:51 9:11
@amillar7 Күн бұрын
Not a sports person at all but I really understood the ideas here, I think. Thanks!
@Baker311 Күн бұрын
I think the thought of evil and good fading has more to do with chaos theory as the thought of these might have become tiring and the drive for new ideas pushes out new things this time the trend may be this is fading, but i can’t see anything good coming out the conceptionof evil or good fading, since if it seems to work logically on a trained mind, but on the level of a consensus i feel as this just doesn’t work or is extreme difficult in getting it to work in a thought experiment if it became a consensus, but this is merely a reaction or a possible impulse on my end to respond, which might aswell be incorrect on my end.
@JockStud Күн бұрын
Concise presentation.
@he1ar1 Күн бұрын
Someone who does something wrong can be blamed for wrong doing. When someone has done something so wrong and bad that it feels unworthy of blame. We have encountered evil. We never know when we will encounter this feeling. It often happens when least expected.
@Bleilock1 Күн бұрын
Does that feeling of "unworthy of blame" ever made you feel you wanna eliminate them in return If not... you might just be soft No evil goes unpunished
@Nothining Күн бұрын
What's wrong with seeing all as one whole? Did not Hegel see it this way as wel?? Alienated humanity, chaos, order, beauty, paradise, fall from paradise, evil, perception of evil? Are they all not inseperable parts of one whole which we could 'nature?'
@julianphilosophy Күн бұрын
Very fair question! It helps to see how Hegel was responding to Schelling’s “Naturphilosophie”, which he accused of idealizing and mystifying nature as the absolute. Against this Hegel argued for a nature/absolute that is always already split from within by the subject/particular. It’s a bit ironic that Hegel is often depicted as a mystical thinker of the absolute, as this was precisely what he couldn’t stomach about the German romantics. (He mocks them by saying that their philosophy claims that “at night all cows are black”) To me, any idealization of nature that argues for a “return” to the natural world is always ideologically suspect. Remember that many reactionary arguments (including anti-Semitic) follow the same logic of “it’s unnatural”. Hence, to me, why there’s a bit of a pipeline between Gaia-earth esotericism and the alt-right. Of course, and this should go without saying, being aware of the detrimental impact of humans on nature, and fighting for preservation and ecological justice is key. My own belief is that the first step towards this is precisely to reject the idealization of nature as a “mother-earth” figure. As Žižek argues, in his more vulgar way, “if Mother nature is a mother, then she is a b*tch of a mother.”
@Nothining Күн бұрын
@@julianphilosophy I think I understand and agree with you. The wholeness, i. e. unity of all that exists AND seperateness between all entities such as the subject always-already form a wholeness, a unity which we could call nature/absolute. This nature/absolute is not a reality beyond this plane from which we fell and have to return to. It is always-already present right here and now, it is never not present. It is us. Maybe this is a way too mystical way of thinking than you originally meant. But this way of thinking helps me realize; do not try to escape to a higher reality from which you fell, you are always-already in that "higher" reality. So if ecological justice is needed, perform to it, instead of saying; oh no this is the illusionary material lower plane in a rank of higher spiritual hierachy, it doesn't matter! No the true "spiritual" is in the "material!"
@mutasembillah3327 Күн бұрын
@@julianphilosophy What we call nature that we fight for is not a something absolute , we know that our current being is governed by values forced by power and other factors , nature is valueless , being is valueless , our perception of becoming of values which govern being is governed by many factors ( historical , cultural , political… etc ) , not only beauty of nature but also ugliness of nature is an illusion , suffering is hated by us because of it’s image and effect on us and even it may be in some context good , we are the measure , we add attributes to nature based on our subjective psychological perspectives , not based on the reality of nature , evil and good are meaningless words objectively , killing humanity may be good from a perspective of ending suffering and pleasure one time for the eternity for the sake of ending suffering , and may be evil in another contexts, our current being is not absolute, not an eternal necessity, its governed essentially by power, what we are fighting for theoretically is destroying the force which force such reality upon us , which may allow for those who are creative , great and not totalitarian to create a reality which would bring humanity to life , zizek as a sufferer and a resentful is trying to fight against slavery and any type of inequality in a blind way which may induce a non imaginable suffering for nothing , if you understand the reality of war you would realize that inequality and a certain degree of racism is needed at time of war to restructure the system even if you are a platonist , absolute inequality is an existential issue in modern western society , it’s created by modernism , many other societies didn’t have an existential problems of inequality and following the great and a certain degree of patriarchy in society , yeah suffering existed but not at this level which is created by imperialism , zizek psychological issues and values have been criticized by many postmodernists , he want people to be resentful and vengeful to fight for themselves , but only the great , creative and strong monsters who he is trying to destroy are capable of leading a universal revolution and they are too weak now , and people are too weak to fight for themselves or grasp their reality , we should know universal revolution to restructure the system may Lead to world war 3 which may be destructive by which a hundred of millions of people will die , beside many other inconceivable aspect of suffering , and has a minor degree of making any thing better , I know that things are getting much worse , and the future is not absolutely predictable and tolerable , but we shouldn’t treat our reality in a romantic resentful dramatic way in the sense of refusing our reality at any cost which may lead us to a harsher reality and non tolerable suffering , zizek the resentful dreamer should seek a therapist and more knowledge of war and politics .
@julianphilosophy Күн бұрын
I’ve attempted to avoid spoilers as much as possible. Thanks for watching. If you’d like to help me keep making these daily videos please consider becoming a patron. Thank you! Julian www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy
@JB-fp3fb 2 күн бұрын
@6:07 I thought you were going to start talking about how Frodo becomes Sam's "fetish object" at this point. After all, Sam's fixation on Frodo, epitomised in the scene where Sam walks into the water, forces Frodo to turn around and literally return his gaze.
@rama_lama_ding_dong 2 күн бұрын
Is art can have a message... Is there such things as art wothout a message? Such a stupid thing to say
@JB-fp3fb 2 күн бұрын
A piece of art is just an inanimate thing. Its creator might make it with the intention to communicate a message, but the fact that so many works have famously been interpretted in ways opposed to their creator's intentions seems to be evidence that there is no way for a piece of art to have an inherent message of its own. I could be wrong though. Why do you think art must have a message?
@rama_lama_ding_dong 2 күн бұрын
@@JB-fp3fb interpreted wrong .. Is that possible? But a wrongly interpreted message is still a message received. Art signifies (a more appropriate Lacanian term) no? It's is a signifier. We can study it semiotically.
@JB-fp3fb Күн бұрын
@@rama_lama_ding_dong I see. I think our disagreement is about the locus of the message, so to speak. I was thinking that to "have" a message an artwork would need to own, or possess, its message. It would need to be a signifier directly tied to what it signifies in such a way that precludes, or at least invalidates, other signifieds that an audience member might try to apply to it. Which doesn't seem to be how art is. But you are saying that simply being a signifier is inherent to a piece of art. That artworks have such powerful potential as signifiers that, when observed, one will inevitably signify something, regardless of what that particular message is to that particular observer. Am I understanding that right?
@rama_lama_ding_dong Күн бұрын
@@JB-fp3fb here I vere into Deleuze & Guattari 's idea of line of flight-escape, points of eruption where a flow crosses the plane of consistency-immanence and becomes, so a becoming, but a locus nonetheless. Misinterpreted art is interpreted art, and often the mis-take leads to something new and wonderful. Re-interpretation also. Derrida would say "there is *nothing outside the text" meaning well possible interpretations are already there. Who knows. Right wing people read Orwell and cops listen to rage against the machine
@LiquidDemocracyNH 2 күн бұрын
You are very good at taking these ideas and putting them into plain English. I need you to explain every philosopher😂
@holaisaaa 2 күн бұрын
$5 is not a bad price at all, I want to subscribe! The seminars are how long? I find the more in depth the better! Thank you so much for the insight
@johncracker5217 2 күн бұрын
Even with Julian saying Hegel instead of Aristotle and Aristotle instead of Hegel 1000 times, this is still his best lecture.
@rossmoore7868 2 күн бұрын
Philosophy is not just world-building - it is word-building: language as it’s own consolation
@johncracker5217 2 күн бұрын
6:24 I learned a new word. Polularily 😂
@johncracker5217 2 күн бұрын
By far, Julian’s best lecture
@domenhitrec3288 2 күн бұрын
Thank you! I would be curious to hear about the other two movies, especially gollums neurotic, schizophrenic behaviour and his obedient-conspiratorial relationship with ‘the master’.
@davidbowie1660 2 күн бұрын
Can be Asclepius insignia and medical paraphernalia considered as something that has power to castrate a person symbolically? No joke.
@fierypickles4450 2 күн бұрын
Man i would love for you to do an analysis of elden rings lore.
@christopherchilton-smith6482 2 күн бұрын
🙄 The part of your brain that "rewards" you with good feels like satisfaction resets because it has to. It's function is so robust that it must reset to be prepared for the vast and varied experiences that activate it. Hilariously, I do think his answer is still pretty close. Psychoanalysis along with some relevant education can help ameliorate this, having goals you can't accomplish within your lifetime can also help.
@_jamesdphillips 2 күн бұрын
the dao of The Shire
@EarlofSedgewick 2 күн бұрын
There's a quote in the book that i found to be absolutely the heart of the first book upon re-reading it. Hearing your identification of the Ring as a fetish object makes it clearer, but i think the quote indicates something additional, maybe even more apt for a psychoanalytic reading. For context, Frodo is sitting on the seat of the kings at Amon Hen when he slips on the Ring: And suddenly he felt the Eye. There was an eye in the Dark Tower that did not sleep. He knew that it had become aware of his gaze. A fierce eager will was there. It leaped towards him; almost like a finger he felt it, searching for him. Very soon it would nail him down, know just exactly where he was. Amon Lhaw it touched. It glanced upon Tol Brandir he threw himself from the seat, crouching, covering his head with his gray hood. He heard himself crying out: Never, never! Or was it: Verily I come, I come to you? He could not tell. Then as a flash from some other point of power there came to his mind another thought: Take it off! Take it off! Fool, take it off! Take off the Ring! The two powers strove in him. For a moment, perfectly balanced between their piercing points, he writhed, tormented. Suddenly he was aware of himself again. Frodo, neither the Voice nor the Eye: free to choose, and with one remaining instant in which to do so. He took the Ring off his finger. He was kneeling in clear sunlight before the high seat. A black shadow seemed to pass like an arm above him; it missed Amon Hen and groped out west, and faded. Then all the sky was clean and blue and birds sang in every tree. Frodo rose to his feet. A great weariness was on him, but his will was firm and his heart lighter. He spoke aloud to himself. `I will do now what I must,' he said. 'This at least is plain: the evil of the Ring is already at work even in the Company, and the Ring must leave them before it does more harm. I will go alone. Some I cannot trust, and those I can trust are too dear to me: poor old Sam, and Merry and Pippin. Strider, too: his heart yearns for Minas Tirith, and he will be needed there, now Boromir has fallen into evil. I will go alone. At once.' So to me this smacks of the Kantian ethical imperative, where Frodo is struggling between the exterior ethical framework (The Voice) of what he knows he ought to do, and the appealing drive of succumbing to a temptation (The Eye). But Tolkien beautifully illustrates that neither force wins out or convinces him Rather it is that Frodo becomes aware of himself, and he realises what he must do because he feels he doesn't have a choice, much like Kant's theory of ethical imperatives. "Free to choose, and with one remaining instant in which to do so." By specifying the decision as instantaneous, it is clear that there is no weighing of pros/cons, but rather an essentially instinctive choice made when he is in touch with himself as a free being, unbound to any super-ego ideals. Yet it is precisely at that point that he enslaves himself to carrying out the task to completion. I don't think the movie captured that moment at all well enough, but it was serviceable considering it could be one of the least filmable sequences in cinema. I would be very interested to know anyone else's thoughts and interpretations of this scene in the book, and whether the movie conveys the same idea.
@EarlofSedgewick 2 күн бұрын
Like, The Eye as a symbol of desire is perfect. "Anxiety is the uncertainty that comes from not knowing the desire of the Other", and having Sauron be an Eye which you can feel watching you sums that up really well. Boromir watches Frodo with increasing intensity and frequency in both the book and the movie, showing again how the gaze provokes that response and leads to desperation. That the Voice would be the counterpoint to the Eye also makes sense, although I don't know if I could put it into psychoanalytic terms. But I do love that it is painted as being qualitatively the same as The Eye - a disembodied power, its separateness no more reassuring than any other exterior authority. It's only when Frodo returns to himself, when he realises his own sovereignty that he is able to choose, and chooses based seemingly upon the concept of retaining the integrity of his Self. There's also much less of an emphasis on Sam's contributions, which, if I'm correct, is something that Peter Jackson injected into the film, whereas in the books Sam is more gradually is revealed to be a heroic figure in his own right.
@julianphilosophy 2 күн бұрын
Yes!
@KendrickMegaFan 2 күн бұрын
The discord on Patreon doesn’t seem to be working. Is the link expired?
@julianphilosophy 2 күн бұрын
dm me on patreon or substack I’ll send you a fresh one
@animefurry3508 2 күн бұрын
Omg thank you, for doing Lotr! These movies/books are wonderful, they are part of my soul. They have been with me since my earliest memories!
@julianphilosophy 2 күн бұрын
Thanks for watching! Check out my patreon for more exclusive content, including my ebooks and weekly seminars: www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy
@user-tn5em6vq9h 2 күн бұрын
I dont like fighting, but i like some fighters!
@jenwans3055 3 күн бұрын
We got Conor Philosophical analysis before gta6 🗣️🗣️
@yilguy 3 күн бұрын
Thats a shallow Mcgregor analysis. I was expecting a man that is buried by his glory. He ends up beating old men in the bar just because he refuses to drink his whiskey. I am pretty sure that man doesnt want Mcgregor to represent his country like that. I am not even mentioning saying humiliating things about Someones religion, family etc. Mcgregor is a modern example of not “how to find success through war and pain” but “being lost in everyway possible after successes” I like julian and as an amateur philosopher i dont miss his videos. He is the guy who doesnt hurry on analyzing the cases through the lens of certain philosophies. But in this case he is too quick too theroize Mcgregor as a gladiator to risk everything. I think there is the REAL of Mcgregor we should be talking about.
@EMC2Scotia 2 күн бұрын
McGregor is the case study, or mere embodiment of the theory here I think. McGregor and others who go to such extremes at times to 'be free'. Perhaps there is the risk here that the theory is being substantialized in physical form. From another angle, Derek Hook does an interesting analysis of Chis McCandless who 'went to the end' as told in the book/movie 'Into The Wild'
@yilguy Күн бұрын
@@EMC2Scotia you are too quick to compare the two cases. Chris went into something that goes nowhere. For connor on the otherhand, that path always signifies some glory, sacrifice etc. Lacanian analysis always relates freedom with something as nothing. Free subject is not just accepting what happens to him/her, he or she also faces the emptiness that fighting brings. We have much better examples like GSP or jon jones who deal with the symptoms of fighting but rarely glorify them as an act of sacrice or gladiatorship. As a guy that get interested with both lacanian theory and mma i can easily spot that fake narrative of freedom vs the real one.
@peterkoinzell7983 3 күн бұрын
I've barely heard of McGregor since he lost that one fight I believe in 2013 or 2014. Gotta be difficult to be a champion of such a sport.His philosophy makes sense for him. Very stoic, I like.