Episode

Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Social:
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
X: / iamstephenwest
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow

[@swarming1092]

As someone who’s studied Zizek’s work and thought pretty intensely, this is probably the single best introductions I’ve come across that I really enjoyed.

[@UniMatrix_1]

Whats a good book to start with?

[@GenteelCretin]

@@UniMatrix_1 Honestly, start with Bruce Fink's "The Lacanian Subject," then read either "Less Than Nothing" or maybe "The Parallax View."

[@supine2491]

@@GenteelCretinThis is a pretty good recommendation for whoever has a PhD in actual philosophy, and is already deeply familiar with not just 20th century "continental" thought but German idealism in particular. If you're the sort of person who listens to this podcast, read something closer to How To Read Lacan, Violence, or even Hegel In a Wired Brain. Give it a couple of years of serious self-study and maybe you can try LTN.

[@user-mn3ez2kl3v]

The biggest takeways I've gotten from Zizek are a list of good movies and good list of jokes.

[@abbasishehryar8297]

agree. no one can defeat zizek in jokes.

[@ehfik]

@@abbasishehryar8297 i wonder if there is a compilation, an almanach, a guide... i think i heard some politic jokes that were great

[@kaiplaygame6808]

SNIFF and so on and so on

[@SouravDas-vi1jh]

Its hard to listen about zizek without these ornaments 😅

[@CrysolasChymera2117]

Indeed

[@ehfik]

@@SouravDas-vi1jh oh you put it so innocous

[@SouravDas-vi1jh]

@@ehfik of course, i admire him a lot

[@heerakathakor6016]

Hey, thanks a ton for taking the feedback positively! Yes, I'd absolutely love an interview with zizek as long as we keep getting these videos. Thanks a lot Stephen!

[@supine2491]

A correction(ish) of some import: ideology to Zizek is something like this indeterminate object engulfing social reality. You don't have "an ideology" which comes from a set of "ideologies", you are _in_ ideology as a constitutive part of reality as such. There's the famous They Live example: ideology isn't the rose-colored glasses you put on, rather, reality-distorting glasses are what make critique of ideology possible. That ideologies are put into this shopping cart of delineable, singular belief systems (qua consumer decisions) is exactly what this distinction is seeking to subvert in ways which you also aptly outline.

[@yochabelfatima5260]

You ate with that

[@MrDeanWeen]

I haven't heard an iconic "hmmm" (17:02 in the video) like this since Harvey Keitel sipped coffee in Pulp Fiction.

[@curtissjamesd]

I think that he is closer to a modern day Diogenes

[@adityagandhi7461]

Finally! I was waiting for you to do a podcast on zizek!

[@Tucanzz]

Zizek's fear of being appropriated is indicative of the humility you talked about. That's how to practice philosophy properly imo. Just like Socrates's humility to always seek out Truth from anyone without ever claiming to have a full grasp of it. The fear is that if you can box Zizek into one ideology, then he must have settled at one definite answer, which is the same point others settle for. No one can find the Objective Truth because there are so many different "truths" and perspectives which are all infinitely deep and complex. And the humility to accept this is the fuel to explore all sorts of various ideologies regardless of how different they are.

[@thepodunkpunks]

THANK YOU ❤

[@Parsons4Geist]

been waiting for this

[@MrDeanWeen]

Ugh, i knew I should have waited for the 2nd part to come out before watching the 1st. I just couldn't help myself.

[@adamlagerqvist8111]

Question I would ask Zizek: What if anything is keeping us from achieving real radical/progressive change in a world were most political movements seem to go nowhere and what can we do moving forward to ensure progress.

[@Andy2kk]

This will be interesting

[@animefurry3508]

This was very good! Zizek is such a Diogenes! And such a Libra! OmG

[@lonelycubicle]

The question I’d like you to ask Zizek is the same I asked after him after his Q&A after the movie “The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema”: how can a smart person like Noam Chomsky say he doesn’t understand Lacan? This was before before the blowup between Chomsky and Zizek about Chomsky saying the same harsh words he had about Lacan to apply to Zizek, so I didn’t ask because of the controversy, but assume people of good will can at least agree on where they differ. BTW, Zizek is very generous with his time, asking me to walk with him to another appointment he had as he explained with a very full answer. Unfortunately, hard as I tried (I have trouble understanding if there is almost any accent) I did miss much of his answer, so would be great if you asked so I can keep playing back his response. BTW, other qualified/smart people like John Searle have said similar about Lacan. You asked about a good introduction to Zizek, my first exposure was the documentary “Zizek!” which I thought was great. It was also my first exposure to criticism of Zizek where a review said as a philosopher, Zizek has interesting things to say, but “should be taken with a grain of salt”, (think it was in New York Times.)

[@lonelycubicle]

Since I think KZbin deletes links, following is the title and author of the movie review mention in my previous comment: Sometimes Groucho’s Cigar Is Not Just a Cigar The Pervert's Guide to Cinema NYT Critic’s Pick Directed by Sophie Fiennes Documentary 2h 30m By Stephen Holden Jan. 15, 2009

[@supine2491]

I bet you'd get a kick out of the Searle-Derrida debate in approaching this. In short, to Searle language is a system which must be optimized to maximize for clarity, get rid of inefficiencies caused by bad communication and sloppy thinking. A person who is not willing to dedicate themselves to this in philosophical discourse is considered, necessarily, either an idiot or a fraud. Like a doctor's first job is to do no harm, a philosopher's primary objective is the generation of clear, unambiguous language. Philosophers like Derrida, who don't just question but found an entire philosophical project on subverting such axioms, are inexcusable, because they refuse to use philosophy for its objective purpose: clarity. Their very use of language is fraudulent, more like a hallucinating ChatGPT than the proper scientifically minded philosopher. Derrida's response, among other things, ridicules the convenience of such rules of philosophical writing being invented and monopolized by a limited history of anglophone philosophers who tend to believe that the first true form of doing meaningful philosophy was invented by Bertrand Russell. Where did this come from, what does it do? Isn't it a product of history? How do such rules interrogate themselves? (How much is this even about language?) Such rules on ideal writing leave little room for how language is really used in the real world, where exactitude is rarely an objective of communication, nevermind the primary one. It's questioned whether this supposed clarity is possible, ideal, even clear, or, if this form of communication is chosen for more (ideologically) contingent or instrumental than objective purposes, unaware of smuggling in its own limitations. Searle's position is considered at best naive, at worst, an attempt at castrating language. Then, philosophers like Searle are limited about what they can even think about, as they begin from denying a structural indeterminacy or even insanity inherent to language. The narrowness of their thinking is fit for policing a forest which they, in a holy war for the soul of reality, insist consists of a single tree. And how could they not? The rules say the ideal forest has exactly one tree, and ordinary forests aren't philosophically meaningful. The battle lines are very similar for Chomsky & Zizek, where Chomsky just doesn't really believe this case is worth debating. I believe he's said he read the first page of Sublime Object of Ideology and that's when he concluded Zizek is a careerist fraud. I don't think much of Searle's side on this issue: his way of writing is fine for some purposes, just not a god-given fact of ideal language. Still, it does provide a philosophical position with debatable legitimacy, where few scholars would find Chomsky basically calling people names (a significant portion of his intellectual career) worth much intellectual consideration.

[@sinnsk5289]

Some things that came to mind watching this. 1. Now it makes perfect sense why Jordan Peterson struggled in his debate with Zizek... he thought of what Zizek said as his "position" and Zizek was like "where are these *snif* communists?" 2. I kept thinking about Zionists by the end of this, like how they think their apartheid is reasonable or actually goof, cheers their genocide in Gaza and seeing critique as an antisemitic attack. 3. That example of chatgpt was a great analogy... like twitter zionists repeat the same thing, drinking from the same racist coolaid (and to be fair the pro palestine or just the peace camp also repeats the same talking points).

[@mbottambotta]

I’d love to hear Slavoj Zizek’s take on propaganda. While not the same as ideology, it strikes me that propaganda has many similar characteristics. How do the two differ? Or are they essentially the same?

[@vtsirkinidis]

Thanks you for engaging with Zizek, I love the guy, he is a fellow Balkaner! Ask him about this feeling of a war and/or scarcity that can be felt in the horizon for Europe after so many years of "crises". Is this volatility a product of cultural changes or simply geopolitics doing the rounds?

[@nikslobodjanac2665]

Is there any other, similar podcast to this one out there? Would like have more sources and diversity of opinion about these kind of topics. Ty in advance

[@MystifulHD]

Holy.. been waiting for this, one of the most important thinkers of our generation.. if not the only actual one

[@daltsu3498]

Do interviews! Would also love to hear your personal opinions If you haven't come out and done an episode like that already! Been following and listening for years. Hope you're doing good buddy!!!

[@billyranger2627]

Good. U know your zizek. More power to you.

[@yj9032]

Oh dear

[@marcperpignon6317]

~THE PERVERTS GUIDE TO IDEOLOGY~ if you are unfamiliar with Zizek, this is a great place to start! 👍🏻

[@samibabar]

I recently read Žižek's Violence and this was the best refresher of his philosophy.

[@ericjackson-nq4hp]

Between the Greeks both Žižek and Steiner wrote books spiraling out from Sophocles' _Antigone_ The terror in truth. I dunno... the reading list around here is off the chart and I can't keep the pace, hahah, thank god, hahah.

[@TheDnegDegen]

At 22:30 you discuss the “wakeing up” that zizek attempts to do to progress and revolutionaries. Zizek doesn’t like the term waking up as if there is a difference between enlightenment and non enlightenment, but I understand what you mean. A question that I have for him would be and then what? I want to know what the world looks like ideally for him if he does “wake up” these progressives and use it in there work as a revolutionary change. I am genuinely curious on what his idealistic ideology of the future would be and his realistic one, but still love his chosen form of “hoping the masses don’t subscribe to me”.

[@TheDnegDegen]

I am interested in the many “and then what’s” down the line and getting into the nuances of his thoughts one the matter.

[@user-mx9iq7pi6u]

Could you ask zizek if he is still planning to come to Dundee University in May still 😅

[@assgrapes]

I would ask Zizek what progress looks like. Like, if we are all subject to our own relative ideology, how do we know what is the (objectively) "right" thing to collectively strive toward?

[@jasonhale4129]

Haha 21:20 absolutely nailed it.

[@christianbutcher716]

The true Tao can never be spoken

[@TennesseeJed]

He is interesting!

[@josephrichards7624]

Can you please please please ask him about whether he thinks a: mathematics or b:logic is an ideology? Especially curious about logic as it seems that this is so heavily focused on syntax that it can't be ideological?? As in how could p->q be an ideological statement? Curious how we would answer questions of the sort Thankyou!! Love the show btw

[@ahmadnawaz6612]

i am so lucky!

[@Amazology]

Z is also insanely prolific

[@MichaelALoberg]

Nice to get this coverage of Zizek, but the fact that the government remains standing tells us we're not quite done with the anarchist series.

[@Vladimir-Struja]

finally! wooo😀

[@exlauslegale8534]

10:37 words are real, they are just the form of expression of the form of content, or as Spinoza regards it, they belong to the attribute of thought (as opposed to the attribute of extension).

[@Stonecoldfrank]

Well, they're real in the sense that they do exist as physical facts, and also as representatives of subjective mental models. But they're not exactly real in the sense of producing a one to one representation of what's in everyone's mind any time a word is used and shared by more than one mind. I guess there are shared degrees of identity, and those degrees grow wider the more complex and numerous the elements of a particular mental model are.

[@janburda4241]

Hi, I would love to ask Slavoj where he thinks we are heading and whether he is positive about the future.

[@user-mx9iq7pi6u]

He is a pessimist

[@jankan4027]

He thinks Brics is/will win and he is not happy about that.

[@pmark417]

Ask him to describe the toilets in Airstrip One in 1984. Would the inner party and outer party have different relationships with shit? What about the proles?

[@host228]

Excellent podcast. Excellent!! Question: why use an example of Ghandi vs Hitler? I think you should addressed why the question has to be so extreme? Does Zizek have a more subtle example. How can anyone have credibility with such an extreme example? Is it not obviously not True that Gandhi is more violent than Hitler?

[@ericjackson-nq4hp]

Gandhi addressed Hitler as a friend. True to life, that is how Gandhi addressed Hitler. The tenents of nonviolent resistance amplify the destruction a man like Hitler is able to seize upon. Nietzsche; Apollonian & Dionysian. More subtly, we might consider the Christian Parable of _The Good Samaritan_ Even the guards at Auschwitz read their Goethe and their Shakespeare by candle light when they went home at night --George Steiner If we are to understand any system we must know the extremes of that system. --Deleuze Žižek is not a mechanic, he is a mastermind. _beware of the knowers_ --Bukowski

[@user-hr7lm3pm3d]

I'd ask if he thinks that our destiny is to cyclically submit to the concepts onto which we project our desire?. If our perpetual need for ideology will lead us to create and adhere to them, until the symptoms resulting from neglecting the aspects of our subjectivity that these concepts do not encompass, become socially unbearable, prompting us to replace them with another set of concepts? if the only reasonable thing we can do is to diminish the seriousness of our symptoms, by limiting the ideological oppression that the sublime objects of ideology exert on us, using something like what he called "weird communism", similar systems (he used as an example the digital free exchange of software), or, im guessing, Han's other?

[@dogayucel]

I have a question actually, and it’s a pretty basic one. As I see it, both philosophical and scientific advancements became far too complicated for the average person. I am a scientist and I genuinely have trouble understanding a topic that’s so similar to mine. I’m also personally interested in philosophy and I’m trying to educate myself in the history of philosophy, but philosophy texts nowadays are so dense and technical that it’s so hard to understand them in their truest form. This is obviously not the fault of scientists and philosophers, it’s a part of the process of progress but the gap is only gonna get worse and worse, and AI won’t make things any better. Hence the stupid conspiracy theories will get even more popular. When people understood the basic science and the basic ideas throughout the history (first vaccines, the communist manifesto etc.) ideas really have made a difference and resulted in a societal progress and it was a bottom up movement most of the time. Nowadays, it feels like everything is top down, the content people watch is top down, the vaccine people get is top down, the complex financial institutions very much force top down policies etc. Like I said, I’m a scientist so I obviously understand and support the mRNA vaccines, but I cannot say that for everything. I also like to think that I’m an anarchist, but I feel like we’ve past to a stage as a society that mostly relies on top down progress, which usually results in higher chaos and I feel like societal progress is very hard to achieve, so we arrived at a point where we started going backwards as a society but the technology and the academia continues to progress. What can we do about this? I’m honestly clueless. I just feel like when average people doesn’t get what’s going on around them, it’s very convenient for them to believe in a version that’s not necessarily correct, but easier for them to understand (trans debate is a good example of this, even though science does explain why trans people are the way they are, conservatives still believe that their argument is an actual scientific explanation, which couldn’t be further from the truth)

[@user-hr7lm3pm3d]

Well i think it happens with any concept we create, the more we believe in it, the stronger it gets, and at one point, it just keeps going by itself. I always think about economy, as we now let the economic science dictate most of our productive lives, but the concept economy relies on to work is scarcity, and if there isnt any scarcity, the system is already so big that it would, by people participating in it ( by example, individual agents may dispose of products to produce artificial scarcity), create it so the system can keep on going. Self-perpetuating conceptual systems is something we create constantly, we pretend democracy has checks and limitations, be it the republican division of powers, vote, laws against corruption and so on, yet being elected deposits a large amount of power onto a bunch of people that are virtually left unchecked. And those persons with powers game the democratic system to adhere to their personal or group intentions. There are obviously system that operate in a more horizontal way, language for example, it can be institutionalized, yet we are here exchanging ideas freely, and with an intrinsic motivation of expressing ourselves, not expecting to gain anything in particular (i guess Stephen is getting money from all this but whatever xd). and that exchange of ideas fulfills part of our needs, while also benefiting others (at least in forums or threads that dont just become completely violent and nonsensical). The accountability that the other person's desire to listen, exerts on you, makes you limit yourself in a healthy manner. There is not a systemic accountability in language, because it can be institutionalized, the accountability works in a different way, that i guess its the dialectic of recognition, and it may stop working if language is reproduced in another way (be it books, TV, that unilaterally expose you to other's ideas without having the chance to answer, or having your need for expressing yourself recognized). The point im trying to make is how to recognize and incorporate the other's desire and need into the system (without passing laws to forbid bad things, but to create system that encourage the good things), we have tried with the vote and all, but there is much that it leaves behind as you are still getting people to pick between things that they didnt have a voice in proposing.

[@dogayucel]

@@user-hr7lm3pm3d the system you described is one of the main reasons why I’m an anarchist, I believe that all other forms are destined to end up in these systems and I think that it is mostly a scale issue. You have made some great points but still, those are mostly applicable to individuals, not to the masses, which might be an issue when you hope to change institutional systems.

[@user-hr7lm3pm3d]

@@dogayucel There is a nice little game called The Evolution Of Trust, give it a try if you have the time, it explains with game theory (basically statistic predictions applied to systems) how certain attitudes or "strategies" can function over time or can just become obsolete in a given system. It gives a couple of conclusions (although more could be extrapolated from the game), one is that in games with a single round, or exchanges that only occur once with a single person, the one with the mean strategy, the less cooperating one, will statistically come on top of the others, as other strategies rely on a sort of revenge or payback to function. Basically, be a thief, steal from someone, never see that person again nor face repercussion, profit; be an honest guy, get your stuff stolen, never see the guy again, lose, stop being honest or be honest until youve lost everything. The bright side of the whole thing is that, depending on the variables, sometimes the honest guy, benefits more from being good, than the thief by being mean; if the honest guy, finds another honest guy, and cooperating is more beneficial than stealing, then the honest guy's strategy can prosper or at least subsist. A game that systematically encourages good behavior (that not only forces you to be good, but makes you feel fulfilled by that behavior), is the game that could be built from the bottom up, that would be sustained by the willing participation of the individuals and benefit from the collective effort, although it may not be as efficient as a top to bottom organization, it could still be a lot more tolerable and sustainable than what we have today.

[@deepfocusinside4685]

I really enjoyed this episode a lot. I came across Zizek 30 years ago in my philosophy studies but rarely understood his texts. He is absolutely right about the illusion most of the people live in regard to ideology which is perfectly demonstrated watching the debates nowadays. But I was not really satisfied with his standpoint either. I found Zen buddhism 20 years ago and think that it is much more radical and pointing to the truth than western philosophy is capable of. A nice introduction can be found here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXmrd3topLarhKM

[@Lukainka]

I fail to see what are its original contributions to modern thought and thus what should someone take the time to study him

[@dr.luciddreamster9323]

❤"There will always be a gap between the symbolic and the real." Is Truth a pathless land? Does ideology presume we lack the capacity, the inherent intelligence to grasp the Real? If an individual has total self awareness and rejects ideology completely, what is left? Is there hidden within us an intelligence common to all humans?

[@robertparris532]

You a non-postmodernist trying to engage postmodernists....prepare to be frustrated brother. In Wittgensteinian words "They're playing a different language game than you." They reject without truly engaging or understanding early phenomenologists, like Husserl for example. They tell you what those philosophers really meant...as if they are actually the real "knowers" , yet deny that when challenged. Certainly, listen and learn...there is value to grasp how they think...but I've never found much value in engaging them...they are circular and full of intellectual hubris.

[@user-hr7lm3pm3d]

Well Im not zizek but for what i know, the lacanian real isnt something meant to be understood really, its not the kantian noumenon, is not a truth beyond our understanding but something completely meaningless to us, which we cannot delve into because there is nothing there for us to see, its not truth, but the lack of our truth that lies there. Its like the impassable edges of a map on a videogame, with absolutelly nothing beyond it, and even if you buy an expansion of the game with more content, it would only enlarge the playable area and still keep its outer edge. (and i far as i know the real its not about the nature of existence, but only a psychological framework to understand the subject). I understood ideology as a tale, that has its own kind of cause-effect linear structure, all the words the story, things that make sense to us that we can put into words. But the important part its how the ending its represented, the "happily ever after" (zizek also talks about something like this with the example of V for vendetta), we certainly understand that ending is not the real ending, that life goes on after that, yet we wrote that weird ending, i mean, we are still at another part of the story and we have yet to get to that ending, but we wrote it as happily ever after, we projected onto that ending the fulfillment of our desire, that it would make us happy forevermore, and all the story gains meaning only because that ideal of ending retroactively justifies everything else, even though its not a particular tangible something. You could say having complete self-awareness, and rejecting ideology, i think would be like rejecting our cause-effect a priorism, cause and effect is not something inherent to reality, but our linear way to simplify and understand it. We would simply stop acting as ourselves since we wouldnt put a name on anything and all of the interconnectedness of reality would overwhelm our bodies, it would be like if your body really believed in determinism and not only symbolically thought its only probable. If you ask if truth is pathless land (as i understand kind of a path to nowhere?, as truth is something you have to attain then it would necessarily propel you forward, but if the path is like a cosmical godly preconceived path then nevertheless =>) if yours is an ideological quest for truth then no, youll forge a path forward between whats symbolically known as truth in your day, age and place, and how that symbolic truth interacts and mutually define each other against your own subjective desire. Now if you mean something as objective truth then its probably a "fruitless" path (its not really fruitless since the symbolic objective truth would still make you move forward and change you as a person), as you wouldnt get to that objective truth (and i guess thats what zizek says when he calls himself an idealist). Keep in mind Im not an expert, i ran my comment through chat gpt and it said i was right so there is that tho(?

[@dr.luciddreamster9323]

@@user-hr7lm3pm3d Thanks for your response. An expert may be needed to know what Zizek means. However, is delegating authority to an expert necessary to know thyself ?

[@dr.luciddreamster9323]

@@robertparris532 Thanks for your response. Wittgenstein, " true enough" is the best we got. There are those who know this and those who do not.😜 I am trying to engage the innate intelligence within. Dwelling in the silence between thoughts. Delegating authority to post modernist or phenomenologists is not required to know thyself.

[@user-hr7lm3pm3d]

@@dr.luciddreamster9323 My self always advances through the discussion of ideas, even more so when those ideas are sanctified by my belief in their relevance, so no, i wouldnt really need an expert to make those ideas represent my self to myself, but nonetheless i like the feeling of wonder thats caused by having a truth, represented as an "expert" that symbolizes that there is still room for learning. Its also useful for others as they may take a more critical stance against my ideas instead of accepting what otherwise may seem as more precise than what they actually are, also helping myself to relieve the uncertainty of possibly ruining someone's understanding of a topic, by coming from a possible place of unknown ignorance. So yea, i am glad i included that even without thinking too much about it in the first place haha

[@andrewbowen2837]

So Zizek thinks there is an objective world in itself, out there, that we can never grasp?

[@andrewbowen2837]

It seems very Nietzschean in the sense that everything is perspectival, there is an underlying non-truth, and we need to create a new ideology to make change

[@lonelycubicle]

@@andrewbowen2837 I assumed/thought Zizek is Nietzscean in that everything is perspectival, but Stephen said some things that made me think otherwise, so would be a great question to ask Zizek if he thinks Nietzsche’s perspectivalism is correct, and if so, isn’t that a contradiction?

[@supine2491]

Not at all: a Hegelian is nothing else if not committed to the absolute. Zizek's primary problem is more along the lines of how the one thing in material reality which remains in some part structurally unavailable to us, irreducible to any representation of matter and dependent on our way of representing it, yet still made purely of matter just like anything else, is ourselves. The "out there" is... out, there, but the real question over its (non)existence is how it is created by and through us. The absolute isn't in this (Hegelian) sense "the objective world" or "the subjective world" but both becoming self-aware in the conflux of one another. (That simple!) Adrian Johnston calls Zizek's project transcendental materialism. His wonderful Zizek's Ontology is easier than Slavoj's headier works, if still quite dense.

[@josedavidgarcesceballos7]

I would ask Zizek why he does not make citations...

[@marcodallolio9746]

I'm fascinated by the fascination americans have with Zizek. He represents every philosophical stance you guys are supposed to hate, he can't stand empiricism and pragmatism, while he loves psychoanalysis, a mode of thinking that literally makes no sense to you, and idealism, which you guys consider just glorified schizophrenia. Maybe it's the fact he uses vulgarity and doesnt sound snobbish like most european intellectuals. But I suspect it's deeper than that, it's almost like he's the forbidden philosophical fruit to you.

[@supine2491]

It's Slah-voy (silent h), not Sla-vov Zizek.

[@johnnybee69]

I'd ask Zizek do people's ideologies come more from nature or nurture, or in what kind of combination, and does your nationality play a significant role?

[@nikimehta720]

Zuboz's The Age of surveillance Capitalism, please

[@meesmoons8897]

Suppose you manage to take and step back and dissect your own thoughts, you manage to recognize the sources from which your thoughts originate. Only then are you a true truth seeker like Socrates. But then what? In the end, you will still have to make a choice that is inevitably influenced by your values and norms that you have created during your life no matter how self-aware you are of them. So how do you make this choice between ideologies so to speak? Do we even need to make a choice? Does the human race function without having some sort of collective fantasy? Idk if this makes sense im just a hobbyist at this shit

[@henriquegeirinhas7088]

Discuss with Zizek: could we get a state like protection to come from companies? We already have Shared capital (employee stocks), Promoting health care insurance and providing benefits to workers and families etc. To live in a world where companies are more like the state. What does a world like this look like?

[@Johnconno]

Nylon underpants.

[@AT-AT-AT-AT]

old school leftism is the best leftism.

[@christinemartin63]

Sounds like yet another "philosopher" with an angle, aiming for fame, money, tenure, young women, influence--the usual BS. (Give me Marcus Aurelius any day of the week.)

[@X0asis]

Did I pull a Zizek? February 22, 2024 To whom it may concern, Amanda is upset that I am not following her rules for having my dog on a leash as we exit the building. You may say she has a point, it is not the only point. Amanda, as a therapy counselor acts like an authoritative mother with me. She is not my mother. She demands an exacting perfection to her rules from me. Amanda is not perfect, and does not deserve perfection from me. This is my point of view. Further, if Amanda wants perfection, she may start with herself. I explained to Amanda, although I doubt she will remember.* I particularly do Not put a dog on a leash if I am carrying heavy boxes, and things, and particularly going downstairs, to protect my ability to work with my physicality and the product I am carrying. I am only ONE person, pulling the weight of 2, to afford to live in this economy, I mentioned this to Amanda verbally, too. *I doubt Amanda will remember anything in her selective presentation to the owner of the building, as her parting conversation was that she will “just” contact _____. I said ‘Excellent,’ even toned and turned to leave for my appointments. Amanda, as a therapy counselor acts like an authoritative mother with me. She is not my mother. She demands an exacting perfection to her rules from me. Amanda is not perfect, and does not deserve perfection from me. This is my point of view, and the On Point pushback. Amanda stated the dog had to be on a leash, next to a renter who has a dog, that is also never on a leash, whom I am sure overheard the conversation in the hall way. I adamantly stated the dog does Not need to be on a leash. We cycled, and repeated our statements twice. Amanda’s client chimed in standing outside the door to Amanda’s office, about the opportunity for the client to rebuke me if the dog is jumping on the child. This didn’t happen. This future-faking to be a suffering contingency in advance ambulance-chaser on me, in relation to my dog jumping on the child, did not happen. What did happen is Amanda flapped the door, without closing it. Amanda flapped her mouth putting me in a position to listen to her (b.s., as I will explain..) or fetch the dog, on repeat, Flap the door without closing it, or Flap her mouth and fill my ears with her obdurate “conscientious” bull-shit. It made fetching the dog a distracted task. Before getting to the crux of the problem with Amanda’s, over-arching, authoritative, “Foundational Mother of Compassionate and Caring Origin” crafted-persona that overtly is sensitive and caring ONLY FOR THE MONEY, lets discuss her flying-monkey client, that was exiting down the hallway and out the door. She was walking in a slow, paced manner to emphasize her presence. I passed her, once we got past the road blockage of Amanda’s 4 puffy chairs in the hallway. When I got to the door to exit, her client, harassed me, by calling me a “bitch.” The front door sticks, I paused at dislodging it open, raised an eyebrow, and could see her client in my periphery, as she could see me, and further commented that I “heard that correctly.” Before I opened the door, and now Amanda’s client is in front of me, at the door, I suggest to the side of her face, that she Was the bitch. She looked at me and said that she is “Bitchy” with a menacing face. I concurred without saying anything. The verbal exchange was even toned, and some what low in audible pitch and measured, and continued that way outside the door. Now I should mention, When Amanda’s client chimed in, obviously siding with Amanda, FOR THE MONEY, and one can say, even triangulating to amplify her apparent dismay, and even Amanda’s flapping of door and flapping on without closing the door, was to build a case for all to see her discomfort, vs getting the “offending” dog out of Amanda’s space and keeping it that way.** Amanda’s client was throwing a verbal brick-bat at me, I said it was my right to be upset, and further, if “you” are going to start something, “you” don’t expect (me) to finish it (?) This does not seem like a fair gam game to me. It is one-way triangulation without honest resolution. Let us remember that. Let’s also consider that Amanda is using emotions for manipulation because she refuses to think it thru, in all her caring two x too, which is obvious before my dog ever got to her office door, or myself. **Close the door and get the dog out of her space, vs Flapping the door and Flapping her mouth like an over-stepping of boundary Authoritative Mother demanding perfection of me to her “RULES” of thinking of others, that she herself, does not apply holistically, amounting to selective picking and choosing again, with a dash of entitlement for a huge dose of hypocrisy in the fine-nail / final action of stealing value and value able attributes from me, under the guise of her self-pronounced 360 virtue / of caring for others thru and thru. I might mention here, her blind husband, navigates to her office, to have a fond conversation, slow paced and dawdling, telling affectionate jokes, with, most likely a woman, and one has to ask, or ponder, why not have this fond conversation with this fond person at home? I think it is because Amanda acts as his mother, too. As for me, I was unpicking stitches in my office. It is a quiet activity. Her husband didn’t know I was there, after regular business hours. Yes, I swore in her showy demand for unearned dominance over me. I showed my being rail-roaded discontent, too, and not apathetically. For this, I have no apology. The emotions ring true. I have taken pictures of the path of egress, narrowed significantly on its own, with Amanda’s 4 puffy chairs, and narrowed to impass if someone is seated there. This is not to Fire and Safety code standards. This is not Fire Marshall approved. This is not OSHA approved. I can call and get someone to look at this, for a hopeful fee, and violation fee. I will list Amanda as first contact at her place of business, and ______ second, to make sure a violation fee is applied. Do I need to expound on this dysfunctional path of egress imposed in the public space for Amanda and her client’s convenience, that also stand to harass me at a place where I work and pay rent, to work without her obdurate, hypocritical, and overtly “sensitive and caring” front to steal, value & value able attributes that are not held by Amanda for Real, And at her co-dependent social convenience, ***IS NOT Generously thinking of others, as her working occupation would front to profess? One may consider to think, for Amanda only using emotions to manipulate to receive a value she isn’t carrying and hasn’t earned, and is thus stealing from me, at the very least, that she is ensuring she will always have work as a therapist/ counselor. (Faux, though), Her caring sans integrity does not heal. Put a band-aid on it for a fee! You Betcha! Mean wile, push the third person, she and the phony mother client, out, with a slanted and skewed observational effort “two-x-too.” Like I said, Amanda has a point for an enthusiastic dog to not be off leash in a public building, and so do I to reveal her overstepping boundaries with a false license to parade care as she steals from me in a hypocritical manner. As an authoritative mother-figure that I do not need, and which I NO DOUBT appalled, ON PURPOSE, with my deft and indelible pushback and reasserting boundaries not to be spoken too, or about, with perpetrated malfeasance and/or treating me as if I am (your projected) stupid (ability), to portend to NOT to be Amanda’s people-pleasing whipping post to squat her loathsome ill-thought-out “Lot” on me, to please vainly, as you can see, there was never any roi, return on investment, or further, be dismayed by Amanda’s fraught emotions and reasoning skills, and socially triangulated tactics if I displease her self-serving entitlement for hypocrisy. Simple solution, accept life is not perfect. Don’t be overly fussy. Use the door in your command. Don’t create a theatrical scene, particularly to steal virtuous attributes “you” are not toting. Don’t demand or portend to strong arm people if another person is not perfect for you, as you may get a strong arm back* (See the notation of harassment by Amanda’s client, prompted by Amanda’s open door swinging swill to APPARENTLY (re apparent lie) resolve the stated matter at hand by and bye doing NOTHING in pinky finger fashion at her command). I think I have demonstrated by merely skimming the surface of my thoughts about this matter in reflection, that if Amanda wants perfection, Amanda better come perfect as this is a 2 way street with me. Further, if Amanda is going to exact a loss of convenience from me, she will reap one, too, by losing the point she is either willfully suffering a delusion about her contribution to life by thinking of others, and following her own adjunct rules, to remove the furniture, in toto from the public hallway and pathway of egress. An other option, is to leave things as they are. I would not anticipate anymore complaints, and no stalking and whispering in my ear from Amanda’s clients that I am a “bitch.” I am not a delusional, lying, malfeasant, triangulating on my aplomb blind-spot in order to dominate under the pretense of carefully caring person with a slap-ass bitch-face that I can’t see whether the dumb-fuck and dumb-buck is “coming or going.” Thats for fucking damn sure! Pick your poison, choose your path. Any recrimination on my work and ability to work going forward will be met with further and in depth, intelligent razing, as I build my case to expand, legally, if necessary. --- Background reference work: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmSpdGx5e9x4qNUsi=dU2gslnJOpm7FJmj kzbin.info/www/bejne/pnu2n6KdorBmh7Msi=jQKoPeZ8jRJyqnNg