Critiquing Slavoj Žižek's "Violence"

Here’s a video examining Slavoj Žižek’s book “Violence” in a bit more detail. It’s got some interesting things to say about politics, democracy, and capitalism, but there’s some problems too.
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr9...
Patreon: / philosophytube
Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6...
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8b...
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgj...
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: [e-mail]
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Taking Sides - edited by Cindy Milstein (tinyurl.com/m2k...)
Casting Out - Sherene Razack (tinyurl.com/zxf...)
The Muslims Are Coming - Arun Kundnani (tinyurl.com/lbn...)
What Terrorists Want - Louise Richardson (tinyurl.com/jln...)
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.

[@NightmarishWaltz]

*Sniffs at your video*

[@maggitPL]

I sniff in your general direction!

[@Vrailly]

and so on and so on

[@robertjohnson9565]

Olly gets high sniffing himself

[@sarahloffler1872]

No, i claim the opposite.

[@maksuree]

shniff

[@jonathaneby1440]

I'm American and I also find the comparison of poor people to insects disturbing.

[@aejlindvall]

As a swede as well! Especially using the insect locus, with the reference of it in the bible...

[@ThatLad20]

why dont you read the book and see for yourself if it is really this disturbing in the context of the chapter which deals with biblical violence.

[@briankoontz1]

Without context it's disturbing, but in our modern world of globalized technocratic rule, most people have minimal value to the capitalist system, and thus they are effectively pests that, *sigh*, capitalists need to keep alive in order to not be perceived as monsters. So it's a point-of-view contextual issue. It's terrible to make the case that an OBJECTIVE view considers poor people as insects, but as we move through the 21st century and less and less people have actual value to the capitalist system, it's empirically reasonable to consider that TO THE CAPITALISTS, poor people are pests.

[@tearsinpain]

@@ThatLad20 I didnt find it disturbing in the context of that chapter, i mean i didnt even register it has a disturbing within the context.

[@AsherJKlassen]

"When those outside the structured social field strike ‘blindly’, demanding and enacting immediate justice/vengeance, this is divine violence. Recall, a decade or so ago, the panic in Rio de Janeiro when crowds descended from favelas into the rich part of the city and started looting and burning supermarkets. This was indeed divine violence… They were like biblical locusts, the divine punishment for men’s sinful ways. This divine violence strikes out of nowhere, a means without end - or, as Robespierre put it in his speech in which he demanded the execution of Louis XVI: “Peoples do not judge in the same way as courts of law; they do not hand down sentences, they throw thunderbolts; they do not condemn kings, they drop them back into the void; and this justice is worth just as much as that of the courts.”" In this context, Zizek appears to be using it as a hypertextual literary device in reference to the story of plagues in Egypt from the book of Exodus, and not as a dehumanizing way of framing poor people.

[@PristianoPenaldoSUIIII]

dis gonna be good

[@LOGICZOMBIE]

Thank you for your contribution.

[@digitalbrentable]

Žižek's theory is a lot like his public speaking skills; kind of sloppy and all over the place, hard to follow, sometimes incoherent, and peppered with conventional no-no's. And yet, somehow, this overweight, heavily accented, lefty academic with a hobo beard and compulsive speech ticks is rather charming, persuasive, and more resonant in his hits than alienating with his misses. He's not a perfect philosopher, but I'd say he does more good than harm. He's played a big role in building class conciousness in myself and many others, and I think this is his big strong suit. Slavoj Žižek is a great place to begin when it comes to contemporary socialist theory, but a terrible place to stop.

[@toastwagon1651]

Pervert's Guide To Ideology demonstrates this perfectly, it's very much a film made to establish a baseline to anyone that thinks apolitical or full "anti-ideology" (hello Ken Levine and his continued willful failure to recognize the strengths in his pre-critical writing/design talents) are things. The idea of art being inherently political and ideological, the idea of literally everyone inescapably having politics and ideologies, the idea that capitalism is inherently bad and normalizes bad things, the idea that dispassionate platitudinous centrism can easily normalize/legitimize fascism. these are far-fetched to liberals/centrists and dangerously revolutionary ideas that must be purged to most right-of-center, but are really mundane matters-of-fact to most anyone in the far-left. Beginner's guides to socialism are not bad, though, and I think it's actually kinda crappy that a lot of folks on the far-left say Zizek's work is worthless garbage to be avoided, because in times where practically everyone is having their internalized ideologies interrogated to degrees few are truly prepared for, many people are going to grab onto some flawed pop-philosophy, and i'd much rather Zizek than the glut of alt-right status-quo defenders that any social media platform will gleefully recommend more of if a kid searches for fearful affirmation that they're incapable of racism. We should still be very critical of Zizek, get people that listen to him to seek better writing and gain better understanding of many ideas he merely hints at (or, at worst, misconstrues with poor writing), and use critique of his work to figure out why his work is popular, and build on and over his flaws in that popularization, but he's still not a bad starting point for ideology that a massive portion of the population needs a starting point for. It's especially fitting that Pervert's Guide starts with talking about They Live, a film that certainly outclasses the average film of its genre, in its industry and of its time, and should set a baseline for quality, but its leftist themes aren't particularly deep--well-executed, sure, but not deep--and a lack of deeper understanding of its own themes is reflected by how its director hasn't gone on to make the most uh... Progressive stories in the world. Escape from NY is difficult to watch now for many reasons, not the least of which being use of sexual violence (and the ignorance thereof) for spectacle/edgy "cool" male-protagonist building. And I mean, one of his most recent credits was writing FEAR 3, a game riddled with drastic mishandling of gender, sex and masculinity, a game where one of the interviews with Carpenter has a quote of him saying "God of War had a sequence where it tells you to push the button to have sex with women, boy did i push the button!". Coincidentally, It almost acts as a cautionary tale for what might happen if you just stop at Zizek and say "yep, I am now maximum leftist, there is nothing more to learn!"

[@colinlee1237]

where did you go after him

[@digitalbrentable]

Two main directions to go after Žižek; back in time to the foundational socialist theorists (e.g. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, Bakunin, Stirner, etc...) or to other contemporary socialist philosophers, such as listed by Olly in his video and video description. Going back to the classics is great because a lot of new works take them as assumed knowledge and/or refer to them and their concepts, but they can sometimes be a bit harder to read. You can always do both.

[@RGR0000]

I find that the best zizek book was the first one (translated at least): The sublime object of Ideology. To make a refrase, pretty much after everything feels like a footnote.

[@MCArt25]

Zizek is primarily a really, really skilled troll.

[@supernova622]

As a long time viewer who hasn't watched your entire backlog, i appreciate you're still leaving older vids up. When this video first came out, i skipped it because I wasn't familiar with the subject matter. I'm glad to be able to revisit it now as I'm getting bombarded with Zizek content

[@conanbarbarian9719]

I got a Prager university ad on this video. I guess KZbin really is going downhill.

[@fuckfannyfiddlefart]

Until the left start making paid advertising or will always be like this, this is our omission.

[@EilidhKH93]

@@fuckfannyfiddlefart "liberal communism"

[@jonaswomack4493]

Lefties usually keep ad tracking off and I think (but I have no numbers I’m just hypothesizing) that keeps analytics from not putting pragerU ads on for example lgbt+ videos. It’s definitely mostly to do with how much money they pour into ads but I think it’s an algorithmic problem too?

[@samuelbroad11]

I use a youtube adblocker on Firefox.

[@kajakern268]

use uBlock origin. don’t support the manipulation machine called “Advertisement” & save energy. use pivacy badger. don’t support surveillance capitalism !

[@vagrant9414]

This * *sniffs* * is the epitomy of * *grabs ear twice* * why I do not * *sniffs* * like KZbinrs, Twitter users and *S O O N A N D S O O N*

[@yoavsnake]

When the wise man points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger

[@bojandam963]

His sniffs and grabing ears are ticks

[@scarletstarlet773]

But does he write "and so on and so on and so on" on every page?

[@robertoborgs]

actually he does quite a bit, yes

[@Jake-kn3xg]

Please do the Sam Harris critique haha.

[@Cy5208]

Caffa Jake crowdfund it I'll put in $15

[@PristianoPenaldoSUIIII]

I'll totally up my patreon amount if he does.

[@TykoBrian7]

@@queenisforever1 what's your problem?

[@modernfckinman]

I get that I'm super late, but Cuck Philosophy has a critique of Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" on his channel and he goes pretty in depth into how sloppy and careless the book is and how arrogant Harris' attitude is toward philosophy

[@nickjensensbookreviews5137]

sam harris is pro torture damn

[@pannekook2000]

slavoj is pronounced "slavoy" not "slavoge". this is super old but y'know

[@hheintze1]

6:32 Zizek is right here, the united states has no premodern history. You are confusing the united states with the land the united states is built on. Saying that the indigenous history is a part of the united states is wrong, the united states exists in opposition to indigenous people's history: A history whcich indigneous peoples are no longer the masters of. It's the same reason many of our indigenous people hate the "native american" label, because it tries to further subsume indigenous people into the "American" cultural heritage that was imposed on them from without.

[@kellyloganme]

To me, this also points out a larger point about how we tend to define history more by countries than by people and locations and how this can both improperly narrow the discussion and generalize it. I think there is a struggle in every country between the culture and history of the people contained within it's current artificially created borders and the state that needs to impose a homogenizing nationalism onto them. Is this a critical flaw in the ability to discuss a group of people in an area that is defined as a country, or is it something that just needs to be taken into account, like other labels that have their advantages and disadvantages?

[@kellyloganme]

@Y T Which era of peace and pluralism is that? I thought we were talking about US history.

[@DjuanEastman]

Y T who hurt you?lol

[@kellyloganme]

@Y TYou seem to be confusing who you are talking to. I mentioned no historical injustices. What I said in this thread is that when you lump everyone's history into a country's borders you can lose information. As some of my family came from various areas between what is now considered Austria, Germany and Poland, this is a very clear concept to me as I look back at the experience of my ancestors as borders moved back and forth across villages my families lived in. On the other hand, there are important cultural and historical effects that apply to people living under the regime of a particular country's rulers at particular times, so what I was considering is that neither a people/group-centered nor a country-centered approach fits all situations. My question to you was what time period you were thinking was one of peace. My family has not known peace for four generations in this country. My grandfather's generation went to war, my father's, mine and my son's. From shell shock to Agent Orange to IEDs, I have not known a year unaffected by constant US wars. As Djuan correctly noted, all you are showing right now is that you have a chip on your shoulder and a tendency to swing wildly and miss clownishly. Take a breath and try joining the discussion instead.

[@DjuanEastman]

@Y T Marine, Gen Xer, and I'm just seeing a little boy whose daddy should have given him more hugs.

[@JordanSullivanadventures]

I really appreciate how Abby has always demonstrated this ability to engage with all material critically, noting where she agrees and doesn't agree and why, as well as where certain ideas have been explored before. Back when I was in college, I used to read philosophy thinking that if I didn't agree with part of a philosopher's work, it must meant that I just didn't "get it," but Abby taught me that I can fully understand a philosopher's work, agree with parts of it and reject others. It's a very intellectually empowering thing, so thanks :)

[@disciple3654]

I thought a world without sniffing in a slavoj zizek vid was impossible.

[@amirakhan9731]

Disciple absolute ideology

[@Judewilkinsonjfk]

I like the soft Mozart

[@edthoreum7625]

thank you! 1:43 lack of passion 2:00 getting involved & taking side 2:30 religion & terror 2:50 louis richardson-what terrorist want 3:10 pamela king -religion &ID 3:30primitive vs modernity 3:50 shereen razak ,casting out 4: 50 extra legal violence ,carl schmitt 5:05 liberation communist threat to liberation 7:00the poor as insects

[@saltoftheegg]

Wait... you’re telling me Bruce Wayne is Batman?!?!

[@PROPAROXITONO]

i would not tell you that, but do you ever see Bruce Wayne and batman in the same room? or do you ever see me and batman in the same room?

[@ceve]

No, that's Bruno Díaz

[@homemdasneves]

Mein Gott. This video is pure ideology

[@jonnyvelocity]

*tugs shirt*

[@AsdfgAsdfg-zz5cn]

Chickenoflight In the Marxist, or liberal sense?😲

Lass dir Kirche im doch

[@willk4802]

i'm glad that all of the older videos have been left up- while I'm a big fan of Abigail's recent work over the last 2 years or so, i have very little of the more academic understanding of philosophy and these have helped me learn a bit more :) Zizek's Violence was on my bookshelf for later, so now i know a little bit of what to expect (and where to go for more!)

If he would've looked a bit further east, Zizek could have disproved by himself the clash of civilization thesis. Culturally Romania's is as "uncivilized" (I don't think the civilized-uncivilized paradigm is useful or even correct, but for the sake of the argument) a country as it can be. By which I mean, we (sadly) reject many notions of social justice, progressiveness and are faced with increasing groups of religiously radicalized youths. There are constant talks of the decadent West. In school, our (strongly Eastern-Orthodox Christian) Religion professor used to praise the Islamic people for how pious and full of faith they are, noting especially how "the women cover themselves". On the other hand, politically, global capitalism and being subject to EU's norms and regulations asks of Romanians to accept and participate in what Zizek would call civilized behaviors and actions. Yet there's no terrorism here. The idea that clashing cultures (as opposed to clashing political goals, military aggression and responses to it, want for power etc.) has anything to do with it is laughable.

[@orenashkenazi9813]

I'm American, not British, but it's really hard for me to imagine describing people as insects as anything but abhorrent, especially referring to poor or marginalized people as "locusts." Like, what is the plague of locusts if not a calamity that destroys your civilization? How can it be okay to compare people to that?

[@Torthrodhel]

I adore insects but I still know what people mean when they compare other people to them. It's never a compliment.

[@josephwritessongs]

Someone quoted the full passage above and it's actually saying that poor folks rebelling against their oppressors is divine justice like the plagues of locusts sent against the enslaving Egyptians. I think in that context it's legitimising violence against oppressors rather than dehumanising poor people, no?

[@Torthrodhel]

@@josephwritessongs interesting perspective but perhaps more rooted in the historical language meanings than the current language meanings.

[@elijahculper5522]

Oren Ashkenazi A room full of a hundred second-graders with recorders. Yeah. I think I could compare those humans to a plague of locusts and the analogy would be apt. Anyone who thinks it’s abhorrent to talk about that situation in terms of locusts clearly has either never met a second grader or never heard a recorder.

[@bilbobaggins5752]

I haven't read his books either, but I've watched videos of him speak. He's really prolific and sometimes he outright dismisses some of his books as "bad" or something he's not confident about. He said that he isn't confident writing about political philosophy and thinks others can discuss the topic better. I think he's much more into writing huge books about Kant and Hegel. You might like those type of books better. I'm glad a character like he is popular abroad. Countries like Slovenia or other nations in the "new Europe" could really do with being noticed or perhaps seen as of intellectual value.

[@WaaDoku]

6:38 Žižek is right though. The United States of America has no pre-modern historical tradition. The indigenous civilizations you are talking about existed long before any political entity was established by Westerners on the American continent. I think the political state of the US and the geography of where the US is are two very different things. I doubt he is talking about the geographical history there. Also, would've been great if you actually talk about that other definition of terrorists/terrorism you were referencing to give some context.

[@iVideoCommenter]

WHOA! Extralegal violence as the foundation of law? Could you please expand on that? Sounds fascinating.

[@RobinBonhomme]

I can sum it up and provide someone who talks about it pretty in depth over various lectures. It pretty much is the use of the law to enforce the system of the state (race supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism, etc.) rather than to truly provide justice. Michael Parenti has a few lectures in which he talks about the function of the police as being a form of social control. Definitely give it a look.

[@jonnyvelocity]

It's a disavowed transgression of the law that makes it possible. An example is the 'Code Red' in A Few Good Men that everyone knows exists and is a manner of course in the marines, almost necessary to their operations (at least in their minds), but can't be spoken of because it's 'illegal', but essential. These acts uphold the law in the name of the law while transgressing the law because the actor feels compelled to do so in his/her fealty to the law. These themes can be seen in the writings of the Apostle Paul too.

[@karlnord1429]

Omerta. Honor culture is the anarchistic system that leads into law. Once you have many thieves then eventually someone will find a way to get them to work together. A thing tends to come out of its opposite.

[@prezdabeast6264]

i adore how so many of these observations are "this point was made a lot clearer by [woman], this point is well disputed by [woman], i recommend these books by [woman] and [woman]," it brings me back to doing my undergrad at a women's college and is giving me tons of additions to my reading list!

[@kokko9507]

Quite sexist to favour and support only women. No wonder egalitarianism is still a struggle. Feminists et al are ruining the progress, and claiming actual progress as theirs.

[@BushidoBoyd]

@@kokko9507 you sound cranky did you forget to take your daily nap time?

[@themimsyborogov42]

would love to see your critic on sam harris end of faith :) (as an atheist)

[@mikeroch4122]

why he doesn't have the academic, intellectual, or communication skills to fill a show box. I doubt a harris fan would even watch the video even for laughs. Olly is just another shill for poorly constructed identity politics postmodern nonsense

[@themimsyborogov42]

Whilst your response is interesting, I was more concerned about the flaws within the end of faith to allow for better improvement on the ideas stated within it.

[@JohnSmith-ft4gc]

What Identity Politics? Don't just assume because Olly is a red. Plenty of reds are opposed to Idpol, I would say more reds are opposed to it than Liberals.

[@landonpowell6296]

+John Smith His bad bellyfeel over anyone criticizing islam is good proof of him being an idpol shill.

[@irreview]

@@landonpowell6296 Maybe you should read the books he suggested first, such as on Islam and Terrorism and Islam and Women and Gender, but I guess you red pill-types like to wallow in your ignorance.

[@Carols989]

As someone from Rio de Janeiro myself... that comparison was.... not good. Poor people here already face a ton of discrimination disguised as "fair critiques". Plus all the racism... yeah, not good

[@mathieuleader8601]

I guess Franz Kafka's trial sums up extra-legal violence

[@ShubhamBhushanCC]

Of course during love making Stalin must be remembered

[@ShekharWasHere]

Saw this video in my recommendation and had never heard of it before so I clicked it and got jump scared by younger Abby

[@andreborba7979]

Hey Olly! Been following PT for quite some time now, and I really like your videos. I came to think of you as a moderate, parsimonious and intelligent folk. I really appreciate how you stand for your opinions with elegantly based arguments. And that's why I'm asking: could you do a video on recommended reading for "Philosophy Dummies"? LOL I mean some basics, like understanding rhetorics, recognising fallacies and building up arguments. My college degree is in Biomedical Sciences and I do know how to recognise that within my field of research, but I find myself having a hard time when reading topics on other issues (for instance: violence). I do not pretend to be a philosopher, nor a critique and I certainly do not want to pretend like I can build up philosophical arguments for every aspect of life. I just want to equip myself with some better notions so I can better navigate my way through the world. Keep up the good job! I really like watching your videos and I've learnt a lot from you. Hope to continue doing so for as long as you keep vloging. Thanks!

[@magnuskarlsson8655]

I'm not saying that youtubers shouldn't criticize world-renown philosophers, but a little humility wouldn't hurt. Humility in the sense of trying to get to the bottom of what he's actually saying and advocating. Zizek doesn't hold any of the beliefs or prejudices that you ascribe to him in the video. If you are not interested in trying to understand his views, then why are you making a video about him in the first place?

[@Kadaspala]

I'm a big fan of Zizek, but this critique is entirely fair. He's definitely not the place to go for coherent in depth analysis, or even basic foundation for beginners (despite his 'pop culture' appeal). Nonetheless, I find his psychoanalytic approach often does provide provocative and enlightening perspectives and framing I had never before considered...but there are definitely plenty of blatant misses in his works as well.

[@yogsothoth7594]

On the subject of terrorism, I think I get what he's trying to get at. Terrorism is a method of factions who cannot win by conventional means. Seeing as its likely that animosity to arise between nations who are strong and those who are weak and that strong nations are likely to be more advanced i would be typical to expect that less advanced nations are going to produced more terrorists. Also on the subject of American's lack of pre-modern traditions America as a landmass has them but America as a state has not, the culture and political climate of the united states was not created by native Americans.

[@ludophile99]

I haven't read 'Violence' but knowing some general features of Zizek's thinking, I think there might have been some misinterpretation. The narrative of 'modern civilzed society vs. primitive islamic society' is definitely not something Zizek would hold for example. I think that in the book Zizek using these kind of terms is expressing the content of a specific idelogy he is trying to analyse and is not speaking his mind. And this holds for other weird expressions you might have picked. But as I said I'm not sure, I'm not a closer follower of Zizek and haven't read the book, but it just seems very unlikely.

[@YouCanCallMeVCH]

Ayoub Ouazzani In another Book of him he even talks about the failings of the left (which of course is modernist, because its the left) in the middle East and the emerge of patriarchal Islamism. (in the sense of "fascism is failed revolution") So I don't really know where the whole culture clash should come from.

[@FancyTophatDude]

Yeah zizek really likes using provocative ideas in his writing to get reactions out of the reader. I'm not entirely sure if that strengthens his points or draws attention away from them but i guess it's a valid strategy.

[@minabasejderha5972]

Zizek has elsewhere explicitly said that the primitive vs modern interpretation of Islamic Terrorism is misguided about the nature of global capitalism. Much like Wallerstein, he would instead ask how the modern global-capitalist order generates a society that sees itself as modern and another society that sees itself as a defender of a premodern tradition such that this narrative exists at all. Just to reiterate, he has said that Islamic Terrorism is a fully modern occurrence, brought about by the dynamics of global-capitalism. It just sees itself and is seen by others as older.

[@tuffy135ify]

@@minabasejderha5972 He sounds like he's all over the place. What a waste of time to listen to.

[@TheMrVengeance]

@@tuffy135ify - Welcome to philosophers. 🤷🏻‍♀️ That's just how it be sometimes. A lot of Zizek is influenced by Lacan, and Lacan is heavily influenced by Hegel and Kant. Try reading some Hegel and Kant and come back to me when you have your eyes gouged out in frustration. 😂You'll be begging for the "eloquent structure" of Zizek.

[@OH-pc5jx]

To give my two cents, give Zizek’s political stuff a miss and read his Hegel, psychoanalysis, theology, and cultural studies stuff. I genuinely think the political stuff is (except for his analysis of ideology ofc) mostly a distraction induced by his fame

[@alexanderdaniels7907]

Hey Olly, so I was hoping you could please go a bit more in depth on religion and all that jazz, I haven't read Harris, Hitchens, or pretty much anything at all so I'm not trying to defend them or their work. It's just that as an atheist I'd like to know what you mean (as I feel I'm probably missing some crucial information). The point of "Islam is open to criticism" seems fair in that all religion is (along with everything else), for example there are multiple false statements in the Quran (like all religious texts) such as saying the sun sets in a muddy spring, and that mountains act like pegs in the earth, I don't think it gets any worse than Christianity or Judaism, etc. I wouldn't go as far as to call Muslims primitive, because they aren't, a lot are just great, the religion isn't all good, some places recommend killing of those that commit apostasy. Although not all Muslims support the worse sides of their religion, they interpret it themselves, although I have other problems with religion in general and I'm not Muslim myself (as I said) I don't hate them and am only as critical of them as other religions really. I don't think we should canonize them and reject all Muslim wrong doings, their just people, some are awful, but a lot aren't. I feel like a lot of people are in my position and would benefit from an explanation of your feelings on this topic, I don't need you to talk about the end of faith specifically but I don't know, at least respond to this comment. Sometimes philosophy and learning in general is scary, cause everything seems to be wrong, nobody seems to really know anything, and if you care enough to try and figure it out you realize you know nothing either and "it" is never gonna make sense either. Idk, I'd appreciate it is all, I think I might be confused.

[@lifeisbettergreen]

Seeing this in 2019 but it is still so good. I love the casual gestures to better, deeper works

[@kaan-kaant]

So, I read this one a while a back, and I was kind of under the impression that the kind of summarising nature of points made by other writers was actually kind of the purpose of the book?

[@slugfly]

I think it's useful and helpful that you describe how your own framework for understanding language and interpreting contexts can skew or obscure the message an other is trying to express.

[@alexmeyer7986]

Nice, I enjoyed this little longer discussion of the book. Maybe do things like this in the future?

[@cuttlefish1801]

interesting point around 6:50, and one with which i wholly disagree. the USA has no pre-modern historical traditions because it's a settler-colonial state; indigenous societies of america's past are distinct from and unrepresented by the present-day united states of america, and drawing a clear line between american history (the history of the american continent) and the history of the usa (the united states of america and the imported people/political ideals it represents) is fair and accurate. i'm not sure if that was zizek's point exactly, but in the event that it was, i don't think that at all constitutes an erasure of indigenous americans. would actually be pretty easy to use this to argue the opposite - that the united states' attempt to paint itself as the successor of pre-modern indigenous societies is essentially stealing glory from the people it's responsible for murdering.

[@pachi5668]

So you're implying that Žižek’ has few original points and the rest was said before by other people with diferent backgrounds (women, black activists, etc) but the white dude who says 'we need to not get involved passionately' and problably will never face the violence that other people can't get away from is the one that gets more media attention? Interesting.

[@Esmoxe]

Patricia Machado In this theory of yours you quietly omit Carl Schmidt but your point would be less poignant by saying that, right? Good practice

[@enfercesttout]

in her defence carl was a nazi, and he was involvement with such conflicts passionately. From other side of course.

[@jonnyvelocity]

"...and problably will never face the violence that other people can't get away from.." To be fair he grew up in the Soviet Bloc and is from former Yugoslavia, so...

[@paperbackwriter1111]

Jonny Velocity How did he grow up in the Soviet block if he's always lived in Slovenia?

[@kathleenmccauley2239]

Yeah :c

[@sphamandlankosi6746]

The background music was on point.

[@nilmagnifico8121]

I only wish I read a little quicker and watched fewer KZbin videos!

[@oliverutis7142]

I haven't read this particular book by Zizek, but he has written a lot of books (with quite some repetition between them) of which I have read many. It might be useful to see him and his works as the most prominent spokesperson of the Slovene school of philosophy (and psychoanalysis). For your philosophical tastes (and mine) Alenka Zupancic, for instance, might be the more interesting writer, whose contributions are more obviously original. What Zizek does achieve, though, is that he _popularizes_ a couple of key concepts and approaches from Lacanian psychoanalysis and Hegelian philosophy. And for that I'm insanely grateful. Because my experience is that in discussions "out there in the world", people who have engaged with Zizek can relate and respond to these modes of thinking without having gone through the daunting task of studying e. g. Hegel for years, themselves. Zizek's discourse/mode of speech is very associative, repetitive and often leads the reader into short circuits and contradictions. In my view, his written monologue is more akin to the speech of the analysand in psychoanalysis. And less to a philosophical discourse propre, as e.g. with Zupancic. In that capacity, however, I value Zizek's contribution quite highly.

[@tinyf666]

I like the way Mladen Dolar described Zizeks work as something like writing the same book for 30 years. The same topics and concepts keep rotating in his books but every time some new dimension or detail is getting unfolded.

[@scaredyfish]

With those glasses and beard you look like photos of my dad from the '70s

[@zaddyjacquescormery6613]

Žižek was a visiting professor at Tulane University in New Orleans in 1993. While he may not have intimate first- or direct second-hand knowledge of the effects of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, that may explain why he speaks of it in a familiar tone in Violence.

[@ignaciolecs1000]

i haven't read that particular book, but often when zizek talks about religious fundamentalist it is the other way round. Like it happens in the movie Persepolis some arabic countries where "modern" "tolerant" (some even laic to different degrees) up until western interest went over them. He usually poses islamic fundamentalism (wich he separates from the islamic religion) as a reaction to western capitalist influence on those countries.

[@RobinSkyrdeThe-Space-Cowboy]

I think Violence is an unfortunate starting point for Žižek, though it was also mine, lol. He has a peculiar bibliography/methodology of writing. There is a grouping of books that really lay the ground work of his philosophical project (Sublime Object of Ideaology, Less Than Nothing, Sex and the Failex Absolute, etc) and then there are many other, smaller works, which re-hash upon points made in other books, while also focusing on something a little more specific. I suppose I just think Violence isn't really as unique or "meaningful" as his other, more important works.

[@ttrenchmiranda]

Damn, Olly, that hair is looking fabulous!

[@lloydy3250]

Sorry, it's great, but a backing track over narrative is kinda unbearable, so even it is great music, and a considered narrative, I'm out.

[@shaunterryjr]

The Americas surely have a premodern history, but the United States surely doesn't (or, depending on how you delineate between modernity and premodernity, it barrrrrrrrrely does). I have to side with Žižek on that one point. It's an important one, I think, if we think about how traditions and histories can form resistances to modern and postmodern culture forces, especially as they ally with capitalist forces. Other than that, great video!

[@peterhails9672]

There is a psychoanalytic reason as to why Zizek wants to distance himself from a passionate analysis of violence. He sees passionate investments as a potential ideological lure that fixates the subject on a specific fantasy organized around a cause (objet petit a). In other words, he probably links this to the lure that subjetive violence has on us, thereby obsfucating the more elusive and apparently neutral matrix he calls "objective violence" which structures the possibility of subjective violence.. One example of this ideological lure can be seen in a racists symbolic reality, destroying racism would imply that the racist subject would indeed suffer a traumatic loss depending on the severity of the passionate attatchment he had on the racist figure. You need to read or least follow up on what Zizek has writter or said to fully understand why he sounds so paradoxical or inflamatory. He developed a rather complex and detailed theory of ideology that without first understanding it, you would completely misinterpret his ideas.

[@alwaystheparadox]

Oh here's a better explanation of the call for dispassion!

[@herpydepth1204]

If you gave a poor person money would they not be insects anymore? Him saying that really just doesn’t work. If one were to compare a person with three dollars to multiple people with only one penny the person with three dollars would be seen as rich even though they are all poor. It’s just a strange comparison really

[@chongli297]

Thanks for making this video, Olly. I reacted rather angrily, perhaps unfairly, to your first video. I have been frustrated by an overall trend in all media towards hot takes and clickbait over more rigorous and thoughtful pieces. I worry that a lot of the powerful tools available on the Internet have created a set of perverse incentives that exacerbate this problem. A decent article I read on this subject is "The Like Button Ruined the Internet" by James Somers, published in The Atlantic. You may be aware of a better source on this subject, I don't know; I only recently started paying attention to it. Your critiques here are thoughtful and on-point. I appreciate that. Admittedly, I've watched a lot of Zizek videos and I find myself starving for good criticism of his arguments. Too many people who might otherwise make a good critique or suggest a better alternative source end up dismissing him outright due to his vulgarity. This is especially vexing in light of Zizek's arguments pertaining to vulgarity itself, among other taboos. I am fascinated by this idea of violence being defined in contrast to a background level of violence which society seems to ignore. We've had a bit of discussion around this when we dealt with the "punch a Nazi" debate. Whether it is moral (or even effective) to use overt, personal, physical, deadly violence against people we perceive to be responsible for background violence is a question that has been left hanging in the air. Personally, I have not read a compelling enough case for or against it, in light of how pernicious background (or structural) violence can be.

[@vidividivicious]

Hopefully you will do more videos about Zizek's ideas (western Buddhism, the problem with cultural capitalism...), and also on Chomsky

[@ontrox1517]

PLEASE DO END OF FAITH VIDEO

[@PhilosophyTube]

Nope!

[@RandomP3rson]

Come onnn! Ha

[@shredermn]

Olly, I'm also interested to hear you opinion about Sam Harris, since he has given much to talk about in recent years. Perhaps you could do a review about his videos or his philosophy in general? He has some very interesting debates on KZbin with Jonathan Haidt or Scott Atran. I leave it to your consideration :)

[@Cy5208]

Mia Townsend I'm in $15 let's crowdfund it

[@YaraelgerzawY]

YES! PLEASE!!

[@aresh004]

it's amusing to watch you expend such effort trying to hold back from expressing just how much you dislike this book.

[@sgnMark]

Is there a philosopher that connects philosophical ethics with politcal ideologies? It seems that value judgements made by modern day philosophers back handedly place virtues in line with reasoning, or even worse, above reasoning; where political correctness trumps a claim that does in fact have backing. Maybe Neitzche, I dunno.

[@besacciaesteban]

Maybe to late, but why not. I think that he refers to trauma being very personal to the same source of violence. In that view, you cannot reach a formal definition of violence, it becomes a collection of individual experiences perceived as violent. So you need to first define violence and then look at the effects, if you try to form the picture of it from the effects you will never have a full one. Moreso, you cannot possibly look at every effect of violence, at any moment you will have to settle with an even less complete image.

[@edwardferry8247]

How can you be a philosophy MA and have never read Zizek ? That’s like studying Fine Art and never encountering globally leading contemporary artists. His writing on Hegel is part of the modern discourse about his work.

[@nngnnadas]

What he said about the united states is completely accurate tough. the entity known as the US came into being in modern times. It would be inappropriate to talk about the history of the original inhabitants before white people came as a history of the US.

[@nngnnadas]

But just to be clear if you say build a curriculum with a title refering to a certain country's history, it is appropriate to include chapters about what happened in its geographical location before it came into being. Accuracy is not always the most important thing.

[@PhilosophyTube]

That coming into being was achieved through theft and genocide though, so it would be appropriate imo

[@nngnnadas]

To me it seem all the more why it was a break and not a continuation. I haven't read the passage so if you feel an aknowledgement of the fact that the theft and the genocide happened and was bad whould be relevant in context I whould take your word.

[@somistyy]

6:20 The only things close to a "slur" on page 24 are "blind" (where the person in reference was literally blind) and "idiot". Not to be the "people are soft nowadays" person, but isn't this criticism just absurd? At a practical level, should he have said "person of impaired reasoning", not only is this not normative the stupidity being described isn't even necessarily a disability but perhaps a intemperance. Ultimately, your content is a review and subjective, but this sort of value judgement seems to painted with too ideological a brush for me. Idk, just thought the focus should be more philosophical inquiry, when these sorts of conclusions just seem to be from a place of confirmation bias against an author who you thought you wouldn't agree with. Then again, I also think my opposition to your narrative and rejection of some of your points on "emotional damage" comes from own ideological beliefs.

[@50iraqidinar]

I'm all for not using ableist language whenever it's unnecessary, but as a rhetorical strategy, I think it's actually really really important to be able to call people stupid, idiots, imbeciles, etc, and generally denigrate their cognitive abilities. We should not concede that our enemies are merely immoral and venal. They are, but they're also deeply stupid. And we have the right to point that out.

[@freegadflyathome]

Zizek is amazing. He pulls you in and holds you there. He's not the best at making his ideas clear, but I'm happy to hear him put them out there, then do my own homework from there.

[@fredrickreloaded4488]

I'm so used to modern philosophy tube that I kept expecting the video to be a satirical intro before going off the rails

[@stephen0793]

A reading of violence needs to be dispassionate because, for instance, in the Vietnam War, one can always look at victims on one side, and say "oh, look at the suffering, isn't it terrible?" This kind of half-baked sympathy which doesn't try to look at systemic structures and why things are occurring, but simply looks and says "how horrible? How can I donate?"

[@pavelcollee-foley7997]

don't worry, he has at least 49 other books.

[@pavelcollee-foley7997]

420th comment

[@RaccoonGrrrl]

Ahh more firewood

[@enfercesttout]

i was just getting started to read zizeks sublime object of ideology. What a timing.

[@sledgehammer5033]

I already am eating from the trash can all the time

[@Torthrodhel]

So we're all cockroaches to Cameron, then? Hmm. Wonder where he got the notion to confuse humans with animals. Maybe something he picked up at university.

[@carlopro63]

This isn't a critique.

[@Taeerom]

On Zizek saying that the USA has no pre-modern history, I think you kinda miss his (or part of his) point (if you accurately recounted it). Pre-modern America was not the United States of America. And the forming of the USA were not, as far as I can tell, a continuation of the people and cultures already living there. So, while he did not specifically mention the native experience as part of American history, he did not really mean the territory either. It's like how we can say there were no history of Scotland before the Scots invaded and drove off/culturally assimilated the picts. The only thing that is the same and is a continuation is the nature. The people and the culture weren't a product of the people they ethnically cleansed. Now, then you can of course make the argument that as native Americans were included into the USA to various degrees, the USA also inherited a longer history than the white settlers. And that history, is what is deliberately destroyed - as you say. In any case, you got the intention of his statement, which is, I believe, the purpose of communication.

[@ekaterinati4436]

How accurate! Thank you, your channel is such a treasure ✨

[@digicherry4898]

Ok... that intellectual breakdown into piecemeal bits by other authors is the reason why I subbed.

[@Nulono]

Could you be more specific about this "able-ist slur"?

[@fminter]

This is the only thing I found: "Lucius and Ivy Walker, the village leader's blind daughter, decide to get married.". Would it be the use of "blind" instead of visually impared?. I hope it is more.

[@Noelciaaa]

@@fminter since when is blind bad.... Maybe it was something else

[@fminter]

@@Noelciaaa I agree. But I didn't find it.

[@TheMrVengeance]

@@fminter - It's just above the last paragraph. _"..., the informally dressed official with his crippled partner at the table."_ Cripple(d) is considered ableist. Also I think you might have a different edition? Because your sentence isn't on page 24 at all for me, I have the same edition as Olly.

[@misandrist]

Thanks for bringing up the poor people/insects point- I noticed this comparison when reading (first thing I thought of was Cameron's and Katie Hopkins' description of the poor as 'cockroaches') and found it particularly distasteful. Just made me a little uncomfy.

[@misandrist]

also good luck dealing with all the inevitable hate comments

[@robertjohnson9565]

Hi, got a link to the Cameron-cockroach-poor people quip?..I can't find anything. The Hopkins remark was on migrants it seems.

[@misandrist]

Hi! Yes, Hopkins referred to immigrants as such too (favourite insult of hers, it appears). The "benefits scroungers = insects" quip of Cameron's was in a radio interview with BBC I THINK (not 100% on the BBC bit) - this is circa 2010ish and there wasn't a particularly large fuss over it if I remember correctly. The Guardian would probably cover it somewhere.

[@robertjohnson9565]

Doesn't sound like the exact details matter much to you. This is dealt with elsewhere in the comments section with Olly following up.

[@misandrist]

Hello again, Cameron's interview was something I heard myself ages ago- I'm pretty sure my ears work fine, thanks. And if it's dealt elsewhere in the comment section why bother asking me? Either way, I'm sure you can agree the tradition of comparing the "lower" class to insects is disturbing. No need to be uptight eh Robert?

[@woulg]

I absolutely love how you explained your take on this. It seems so clear to me that you hated it but you wanted to give it a fair review, and I think you did an excellent job. I have been on a Slavoj zizek KZbin clips binge and it's nice to hear someone point out some of the things that he misses. It's funny because I was actually thinking, earlier today before I saw this clip, I wonder what Olly(sp?) thinks about zizek hahah I'm glad I found this, I'm going to watch the other video about the book now :)

[@jshukla423]

A little but of a cult following is an understatement. Complete understatement.

[@darwin4219]

my god. PURE IDEOLOGY.

[@josesweeney955]

Could you talk about Chavs, of Owen Jones?

[@misandrist]

I love that book, I would like to see a video on it too!

[@yassinenaciri8588]

Hello, i would love to know if you have a book that presents the major and original philosophical views on violence and exposes them clearly. Thank you in advance!

[@stringcheeseofficial1977]

I like how you only wear your glasses in your book chat videos. We stan a farsighted icon

[@bokkie1998]

Another great professor that writes about terorism is Beatrice de Graaf (netherlands) who takes the book ‘what terrorists want’ and talks about what terrorists believe

[@Jokkkkke]

Haven't read this one but I'm guessing its not the best introduction to Žižek's work. Try reading Trouble in Paradise. I wonder what you think of it

[@TheMrVengeance]

To be honest, I don't think anything by Žižek is a good introduction to Žižek. He's an.. acquired taste. Then again, a lot of philosophers have that problem. They all build on each other, Žižek on Lacan, Lacan on Hegel. And by the time you understand them all you'll have three degrees. 😅

[@good4insects]

wouldn't "liberal Communism" just be a hippie commune? Ahhhem sorry Epicurean commune.

[@rickxama]

religion, not god necessarily, allows anything, anything except think for yourself!

[@kevincoughlin5901]

I'm a fan of Zizek, but I think most of what you said is fair. I haven't read Violence yet, but Zizek tends to talk a lot about how he has serious work, and that his popular work is often a distraction. The smaller and newer books tend to be written for a more popular audience, they tend to be sloppy, and they often rehash old ideas.

[@willg-r3269]

kevin coughlin Agreed. I'd be interested to see Olly report on a more weighty text like The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989), since it's Žižek's breakout work and it likely predates whatever work of Barbara Flagg's he mentioned as anticipating Žižek's view of ideology, or maybe especially Tarrying with the Negative (1993), especially since the last chapter in particular may be Žižek's clearest early articulation of the interdependence between liberalism and far-right racist nationalism.

[@theamici]

From a social/economic/technological progressive point of view you kinda have to view some other societies as more primitive though. Simply because in the movement towards the progressive ideals many of them may have gotten some items checked, while other items are still a long way off from being checked. Just think about how extremely harshly gay people are sometimes treated, how people sometimes still have to use animals to carry people and goods, how they don't have access to electricity and internet, how censorship is still treated as an okay thing, and so forth. As long as we have a ideals, we can measure by some means a progress towards those ideals (which doesn't have to be linear), and those who are behind in that measure are by definition more primitive.

[@theamici]

@Gao Li There's nothing imperialist about it. You can disagree about what you think is valuable, like maybe you don't think having hospitals which can treat cancer is important, maybe you'd rather have traditional medicine because it feels more aligned with your culture. But if you do care about having doctors and technology capable of treating cancer, then you are admitting those who don't have this are primitive. Things like language doesn't necessarily have much to do with being primitive or not, as languages are malable and can adapt, in whatever way you may prefer, to meet the tasks required of it. But other things, like medicine, are more factual and follows objective standards, it has no room for faith. With things like being gay, it really depends upon how much you value the happiness and prosperity of your peers. If that doesn't matter to you, if you're okay with lots of your fellow humans living in fear or being executed merely for having sex with each other, then from your perspective it's true it's not a sign of being primitive.

[@theamici]

@Gao Li It seems to me you are just after creating excuses for hiding facts. The reason WHY someone is primitive is irrelevant to whether they are primitive. It could've been slavery, unfair trade practices, clientalism and corruption by multinational companies... it doesn't matter. Primitive is the result, not the how.

[@SnarkyPhilo]

Good vid. in terms of why we need to seperate some sort of emotion or somethign of the like from disscussions of violence, it could be that he was alluding to the need to look at violence objectivly with out any sort of individual bias coloring it or something. thats my thuoght at least on that part, otherwise i thought you made some good points in the pros and cons of the book. I am curious, have you read Jaspir Puar's Terrorist assembleges? I would be very interested in seeing a vid on that.

[@TheMrVengeance]

You're correct, quoting from the book: _"My underlying premise is that there is something inherently mystifying in a direct confrontation with [violence]: the overpowering horror of violent acts and empathy with the victims inexorably function as a lure which prevents us from thinking."_ He goes on to explain how this lures you in to a sense of outrage and urgency. A desired to 'do something about it', to stop the violence. That's why he makes that point that to properly discuss and reflect on violence, it has to be in a distant way. As an example Žižek here refers to a letter Marx wrote to Engels in 1870, when it looked like there might be a revolution in Europe, Marx wrote in panic: _"Can't they wait a couple of years, I haven't finished Capital yet!"_ When you're directly confronted with violence, it's tempting to revolt and jump to action, instead of sitting back and thinking about it.

[@JIMMEH13NITSAW]

I'm glad you went into further detail on this book and I appreciate some of the criticism and good points you observed in it. I first heard of Slavoj Žižek late last year through some KZbin videos and since then, while I've still yet to read any of his books, have been watching/listening to videos of his talks on KZbin. I became a bit of a fan of his since some of what he said really resonated with me in ways that not many other people had before. In saying that I don't really like the cult following around him, whenever that happens with someone I get sceptical since the people following him either don't really understand him on that deep a level and just blindly follow him, or they find him a funny character which he is but people make tons of jokes about him which I think kind of delegitimises him unfortunately. I think he has an interesting mind, I love his political commentary and some of the stuff he talks about with ideology. He does have a tendency to ramble and some of what he says gets left unexplored kind of like you were saying in this book. Overall I like him though.

[@alicemagari]

Liberal communism threat of zizek has been extrapolated from Malcom x

[@Mandragara]

Olly I demand you interact with the Sam Harris shite that plasters my facebook feed.

[@Garland41]

Read Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation and Free Will, and they were both shit.

[@JeffMuehlbauer]

Please make a series of these critique videos :) I haven't read any Zizek, so it was interesting to learn about his ideas and your critiques of them.

[@Profmak78]

You stipulate that you've not read any other Zizek, and this is evident in your commentary. I think you misunderstand his rhetorical style. For instance, he absolutely does not believe that religion is a source of violence today; quite the contrary. Nor does he indulge in the Orientalist fantasy of the Muslim Other that you think you detect. In fact, he is explicitly rejecting this fantasy. I have my own rather deep disagreements with Zizek, but you really need to read more of his work to get the way he makes his arguments.

[@jonnyvelocity]

Yeah, when he said this is his first contact with the Ziz, it all started to make sense. Maybe he just doesn't like his style, which is fair.

[@lotoreo]

As someone who is perhaps a bit more familiar with Zizek's work then Olly, I think I mostly agree with you. However, I don't think it's fair to critique Olly for not understanding Zizek's deeper point of this book because he hasn't read the other ones. In my opinion, saying you can't understand this book unless you've read the other ones is a critique of the book - not the reader.

[@saoirsecameron]

I don’t think it’s fair though to expect people to be familiar with the entire works of an author before they can meaningfully critique an individual text. It may very well be that Zizek does not ascribe to the interpretations that Ollie took away from this text in isolation, but assuming many other people read this text in isolation and begin espousing these “incorrect” interpretations, ultimately the text must also be evaluated on its impact regardless of authorial intent.

[@Om.arweens]

@@saoirsecameron damn nice philosophizing guys we're almost at the truth.

[@camipco]

I think this is a fair critique of Zizek's rhetoric style, however. He relies, often, on the audience inferring when he being satirical when he could just state his positions clearly. It's more engaging, and he's great fun once you get into him, but there's a significant cost in philosophical efficacy.

[@liamwarnock5960]

@philosophytube I'm surprised you said Sam Harris' end of faith is the worst. I'd have thought you'd have gone with ayn rand.

[@Paradoxarn.]

I find it interesting that a large part of this critique is about how certain ways of phrasing things are "red flags" and "put offs" and while I don't disagree with what is said per se, it seems to me that such considerations are supremely irrational even if the video is only supposed to be a first impression. While I myself can have similar reactions, and probably to very similar things which are mentioned in this video, I try to see past my personal biases instead of neurotically embracing them. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with anything said in this video but it just seem like a potential character flaw to me. Then again it might not be any of my business.

[@enfercesttout]

You cant agree or not agree with a metaphor deeming poor people like locusts. it's physically correct but way it's phrased is tasteless. Being a tasteless prick is goes unchallenged too often.

[@0bscurast0ne11]

all human beings are irrational, even you. that said, these things all seem like perfectly rational reactions to me. olly even explains why he cringes at many of those red flags, because of their connections to other philosophies. what about that is irrational or biased?

[@Paradoxarn.]

+existential. anarchist +0bscura St0ne It is easy to say that "Being a tasteless prick is goes unchallenged too often." but does making a few tasteless ("pricky") remarks make one into a tasteless prick? One could of course say that it does per definition but that reminds me a bit to much about how Ray Comfort (A evangelist street/internet preacher) asks people if they have ever stolen something and when they (almost always) say yes, he responds "So you are a thief then." The point is that if everyone is a tasteless prick, then (for all practical purposes) nobody is a tasteless prick. As for what is irrational about cringing at red flags because of their connections to other philosophies, well it seems to be based on a guilt by association fallacy for one. Another reason is they aren't necessarily connected to those other philosophies, they might just sound similar. Lastly, it is an emotional or automatic reaction rather than one based on reason.

[@enfercesttout]

"does making a few tasteless ("pricky") remarks make one into a tasteless prick" yeah but publishing a book is a different kind of bussiness.

[@Paradoxarn.]

+existential. anarchist Perhaps, but given that neither of us have read the book in question and given that Olly did not call the author a tasteless prick despite having read the book, I think that there is no reason to make such judgements. Besides aren't you judging how an old east European man formulates his remarks from from a western modern perspective? I'm not saying that you don't have the right to do so, but it seems likely that placing his remarks in a context which it does not belong.

[@puglosipher1666]

Why does greed exist, what causes it? Could greed not exist in a society?

[@42laxer84]

What books would you recommend for a beginner trying to learn about ethics?