Great Minds - Slavoj Zizek

Lecture given at Intelligence Squared, London - 1st of July 2011.
This video is the property of IQ2 and is uploaded under Fair Use: Copyright.

[@32peartree]

In fact a stuttering King would now be incredibly popular. His affliction being seen as endearing and human. In this sense, the King's Speech is reactionary nostalgia - celebrating a time when the King had to speak the King's English - and everything was in its place.

[@samizdat45]

I'd love to hear Zizek's interpretation of the ideology behind Captain America. Thank you for uploading. This man is truly the intellectual giant of our times.

[@ExitTheWordix]

There is no single word of wisdom coming from this man's mouth.

[@farrider3339]

"Illusion is not in what we think , illusion is in what we are doing !'' (Zizek 1:16:40) ✊Hit it babe 🏆

[@PolarJoMcKay]

"You know, but you act as though you don't know", the trauma of impending disasters of today. Absolutely! Love Slavoj . I agree, and think that the issue w many is what is 'impending'? - human evolution prepared us to 'not' react to crisis unless it was on our own doorstep and life and death action was required 'now' ( a lot of propaganda is needed to whip up enough emotional response that useful action follows). Maybe shared analysis (at least on theNet) & the Occupy movements are reaching us.

[@TheHardProblem]

@finny6 Combine, watch these videos AND read his books, with a bit of imagination you'll automaticly hear his voice speak the written words including the mannerisms. works for me

[@PedanticNo1]

Oh, Slavoj. I think I would hate you in person, but I'm happy enough to idolize you from beyond my computer screen. ♥

[@DrLeviathanxxx]

I heard pretty good points. It's a surreal analysis of reality, rather than a concrete proposal. It's true 20th century is over, now we need new tools, new ideas, otherwise we won't be able to face our problems.

[@Warcranium]

He suffers from severe anxiety. Judge him by his ideas, not his mannerisms.

[@alizarin89]

What a well-reasoned and intellectually valid point.

[@safetydept]

@th3orist Foucault uses the term épisteme to describe this, McLuhan uses 'environment'. "We don't know who discovered water, but it certainly wasn't a fish." Environments are invisible, all-pervasive, and constitute our sense experience. For McLuhan, our primary 'ideology' is the phonetic alphabet and the linearity it imposes upon our understandings of space, time and the way we think (reason), but he says all this is being subject to change within the new electric era of image and sound media.

[@riccardopoletti3694]

Amazing amazing thinker. Wow. Thank you Zizek

[@BeyondSideshow]

Fair enough. I checked out the criticism section you referred to, and I don't doubt the validity of many points made there; but I tend to shudder at black-and-white judgements in general. Following this simplistic line of thinking, we can keep putting thinkers in two boxes, essentially good / bad, throwing all the babies out with the bathwater. Crazy as Zizek may be, I maintain he has a lot of substance relevant to the age we live in, and that's why I regard him as interesting and important.

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

Totally agree, very good observation

[@funkrobert99]

“Any brief questions” nope! 😂

[@hagstromman345]

haha. "By buying the apple, I am helping THE humanity." I really enjoy when bilingual people insert sort of unnecessary articles when speaking. Classic. Really like Zizek.

[@MrUsernamessuckalots]

A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. - Ludwig Wittgenstein

[@pEMDASist]

that little comment at the end was awesome!

[@brollan1234]

@th3orist It brings me joy to see there's people subscribed to youtube that've actually read a book or two. Well summarized, it's hard to get across reasonable in this limited forum.

[@dystop]

A valid question indeed. I like Slavoj immensly, so I don't really see the point in making the story a "true story". Indeed, the point is valid in itself, it needs no story.

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

Absolutely.

[@DazedConfused1969]

Not great, just highly experienced and lived to tell the tales of truth

[@BeyondSideshow]

Hmm. Well I'm familiar with this presentation only in the sense that I just watched it :) Your frustration sounds to me like a question of preference of style - Zizek certainly talks a lot, and a lot of it is done in tangents, but I find him a remarkably lucid thinker. "Making a point" might take him anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, not because he's "not getting to the point" but because of the buildup necessary to make that point, as he acknowledges himself in this video.

[@brollan1234]

@th3orist At least the knowledge, or the understanding of their thought on ideology will help shape the questions that we ask, and I'd say that's a step in the right direction!

[@79898325]

1:21:55 I wish so badly he could have continued!

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

He is refuting the classical conception of ideology as something so incorporated on our perspective of the world that we dont even perceive it. He says ideology functions in the opposite manner: we are very aware of it, but we nevertheless act as if we are not. He also attempts to show how ideology itself engenders it´s reverse consequences, that these consequences are not a byproduct or a bad practice of ideology.

[@Schizopantheist]

People remember things more easily when they are put in this way, and they are also more likely and willing to listen to them. Strange but true. If you 'ground' a story people listen to it more. Zizek is good at rhetoric at the least.

[@CygnesNoirs]

And so on. And so on and so on. AAAAAAAAAAAAHGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH.

[@HunterZolomon]

Fair enough. So what is the Zizek primer? Which book would you recommend and why?

[@iknownothing0]

Can not wait till the 16 of November for his conversation with Varoufakis .those 2 maybe can save our Humanity if not Europe

[@sedeslav]

I am genuin pessimist just like Žižek. A pessimist is an optimist with experience.

[@riccardopoletti3694]

Who are you?

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

I love how paradoxical that comment of yours really is :)

[@finny6]

he's interesting. i find he repeats the same stories and jokes though. i guess i should just pick up one of his books. but then i'll miss out on his funny mannerisms!

[@BeyondSideshow]

That said, I'm not surprised if his eccentric style puts some people off. I guess the more listener-friendly stuff would be found in his (I think splendid) Pervert's Guide to Cinema & Pervert's Guide to Ideology movies - at least they are edited. :) To answer your question, though, I'm afraid I can't point you to a part where you can just get a quick summary of his "case". I don't think that's really possible in this case, as this lecture is not structured in such a manner.

[@arg1983bsas]

un verdadero chanta, como los profesores de la facultad Andre Breton,..perdon, facultad de Psicologia de La Plata

[@jmgresham93]

The general public is powerless to principles believed in by the alienated. The general critique of Slavoj Žižek's ideas: if such a thing ever occurs as a possible direction or development certain principles of the dominant conception will be regarded as facts of nature, but certain knowledge will be argued as being determinately impossible. This makes them unable to rationalize solutions to problems that they have created themselves like the global economic network that follows in contribution increasingly the direction of climate sensitivity with a perpendicular direction that is the rate of change of globalization.

[@galek75]

I fucking love you raccoon man

[@32peartree]

The King's Speech corresponds to a Fairy-tale. Like the Ugly Duckling, we find the stuttering King endearing. But also like the ugly duckling we're still glad he turns into a swan at the end. Which reflects a general attitude to difference - "we root for the ugly girl on big brother - but we're glad she transforms herself into a beauty through plastic surgery". Or you could apply a Marxist reading - i.e. the working class corresponds to the ugly duckling and the bourgeoisie to the swan.

[@wrpelton]

He's gone by many titles, but it seems to be only so that he can forsake and transcend them.

[@HunterZolomon]

Indeed. But that depends on the amount of attention needed to be lavished on a speaker in order to gain understanding. And in Zizek's case, that amount seems to be substantial. Great thinkers are generally lucid. But since you seem to be familiar with this presentation, would you mind directing me to the part where he summarizes his case, or at least makes a major point?

[@100FingeredMonkey]

Anyone know the name/author of a "really good book on Stalinism"?

[@leahmarieotting]

His mind eats minds like yours like cheap biscuit at tea time (without cream)

[@basmith13f]

Laura Kipnis is right--he's fascinating and frustrating all at once.

[@shakeyourmatt]

ohhhhhh........he's one of thooooooooose guys.....;)

[@HunterZolomon]

Right. I think I understand your approach to his work. I must admit there is something that resonates with that wild, bearded, frothing man. Otherwise I wouldn't "waste my time here" as you put it. Boxes are bad, agreed. But a healthy dose of valid criticism hardly results in a simplistic line of thinking. Quite the opposite actually, something I imagine Zizek himself would approve of. And yes, we still disagree :)

[@YuriRadavchuk]

Is he? How did you get it? I didn't notice.

[@maesternicitel6206]

great thoughts but use handkerchief next time pls

[@mutatismutandis6051]

A primer? The Zizek Reader by Elizabeth and Edmond Wright - since I'm guessing you're just mildly curious.

[@chuggermagic]

You should listen on the legitimacy of what he is saying, not what his conclusions are regarding any other subject.

[@mistercharli3]

i believe zizek prefers the term communism. if you are interested in his recuperation of the term, he has edited a book on the idea of communism.

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

What is it that you didnt understand? I might be able to explain it more directly

[@corvocousland6993]

ha ha zizek has a hilarious rant about exactly that - organic apples. look it up

[@safetydept]

I think Zizek takes a Lacanian stance that we can never fully articulate ourselves through language, hence, there is no possible answer to the question (within language, at least).

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

In short, he criticizes intellectuals who think the bad consequences of capitalism (famine in africa, etc.) are individual cases of misunderstanding or bad practice of capitalist principles, when it is capitalism itself that engenders those consequences. And the same goes for any other kind of social system whose functioning is supported by ideological principles. I hope my answer was understandable.. It´s hard to summarize it all because every explanation requires in turn another explanation

[@Pogs4Fathersday]

ESPECIALLY of Captain America during Marvel's Civil War.

[@johnk.lindgren5940]

Nec Plus Ultra You Tube at its best!

[@BeyondSideshow]

Actually he can speak English quite well, he's just got a strong accent. Can you dig the difference? Not that any of those things can be used to measure anyone's intelligence.

[@JAMAICADOCK]

I think its safe to say that unconscious discourses exist? Black Swan and The King's Speech are modern fairy-tails - and like all fairy-tails they are full of psycho/sexual subtexts.

[@iknownothing0]

Α Sokratis!! Too fast for some poor sad stuck minds...😮

[@ichhabedich1]

sehr schone sprech hier

[@TheRadrussian1]

sounds and thinks like daffy duck. im in love.

[@64meatpuppets]

Would you like a shmoke and a pancake? Shigaa and a waffle?

[@ruvstof]

A great small mind...

[@lazaromarinrosasr]

53:17

[@HunterZolomon]

Writing off Lacan is not hard once you've tried to read his work. Chomsky calls him a straight out charlatan, which I happen to agree with. Also, please don't assume a cursory google search is what swayed my opinion. I take an interest in certain academia and have encountered Zizek's work on several occasions during the past years, and not once has he been particularly impressive. Even though we disagree on Zizek, I thank you for your polite manners. It's an uncommon trait on KZbin.

[@WithANameLike]

Therapy

[@mutatismutandis6051]

So, pick up one of his books and be surprised.

[@SI-qp7cm]

51:00 I make the claim that Slavoj is mistaken here . With the benefit of hindsight the West has become frivolous about history and reality while also as a group becoming less intellectual then previously

[@BeyondSideshow]

Sounds like you are missing the context of these "quirky and amusing everyday observations"? They are, in every case, used as an illustration of a (quite properly structured) point he's making. It's not muddled at all. Of course one has to pay some attention while listening.

[@HunterZolomon]

Not frustrated, just a bit bemused. Apparently he subscribes to Lacan as well, a famous fraud who sold nonsense to the easily beguiled. Not the hallmark of a serious intellectual. From the Zizek wiki: "Žižek's presentation and argumentative style is forceful and often entertaining, but not lucid." I agree with much of the criticism directed towards him there. I grant you that he is entertaining, to some. But a great thinker? Not by a longshot.

[@faelismaegnus]

o dislikes - preaching to the choir.

[@BeyondSideshow]

Obscure and inconsistent - I honestly do not understand what you mean, except perhaps if you find his eclectic way of drawing surprising connections between seemingly unrelated topics "obscure" - I don't, as I've yet to see him fail to make sense out of these meandering dialectics. Of course there are more coherent and level headed thinkers and writers out there, but that's kind of obvious. "Confusing" - that would be very subjective. As I said before, this seems to be a matter of taste.

[@mschneiderg]

I think to formulate the question in this way is to abandon the 'marxist' element and give in to a reified, static view of society. The 'pre-existing structures' that you speak of are themselves sites of contention. I don't think that to accept this is to throw out Althusser or the concept of ideology existing materially and embedded in practice. I think the mistake is to assume that the political superstructure is ideologically pure and without contradiction.

[@benmarshallcorser]

how old do you think that chick is?

[@zweiosterei]

800 pages on Hegel? Fook me sideways.

[@mutatismutandis6051]

let me think... no, this is not why we're fucked at all. at all.

[@HunterZolomon]

Eccentric delivery is fine, try obscure, inconsistent and confusing. As for Lacan, I'm sure you are familiar with his square root of -1 idea. It is literally impossible to take such a man seriously. His work is such that serious critique of the content would hardly be possible since nonsense cannot be understood, no matter how hard you try. Alan Sokal tried and came to the conclusion that it's nothing but "gibberish".

[@BeyondSideshow]

All right - Zizek is an outspoken Lacanian, so if you write Lacan off with a cynical one-liner, of course you won't appreciate Zizek's philosophy either. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. Googling for external sources of criticism seems to me a bit pointless if you find it difficult to pay attention to his delivery for even one lecture. It's obviously not your cup of tea, so why waste your time?

[@WakeRunSleep]

The problem I see with Slavoj is he'll take an interesting example and then generalizes it as a truth.

[@carsonscott260]

I feel like he generalizes concepts so quickly not because he hasn't thought them through but because by the time his point becomes clear about something hes already gone down like 2+ tangents and is on a completely different topic

[@GothamClive]

Sorry that you were looking for a prophet and just found an honest man.

[@BeyondSideshow]

Ok, maybe "simplistic" is rude (man, aren't we polite! :) - but "Zizek - not a great thinker by a long shot, perhaps entertaining to some" based mostly on his eccentric delivery, or Lacan - "a straight out charlatan" - this sounds to me too easy, Chomsky or not. Such a debate, even if on youtube, of academic thinkers would benefit from an critique of the content of their work, otherwise it's just another case of apples and oranges & name dropping. Kinda makes me I wish I was an academic, ha.

[@grandboy12]

illuminati rules

[@jarek108]

cant agree.you can design psychological tests of rationality, independence,perception distortion,even monitor relevant brain activity.this may allow you to check if "religion is opium",if you properly define what you mean if we make claims about phenomena they must be verifiable,otherwise what is criterion of truth or usefulness?what is the goal of philosophy detached from experience?listening to own voice? certainly zizek thinks he has valid observations about society not only biased opinion

[@AgentHomer]

so then please tell me what a postmodernist and why Zizek is always described (in his own books) as a postmodern sociologist? you know postmodernists aren't this one identity with some set of key paradigms or whatever. Deleuze, Butler, Lacan and Bourdieu have very little in common. And the only thing postmodernists love to criticize more than common sense attitudes are other postmodernists, we all know that.

[@SenorMorgenStern]

He might be better than Louis C.K.

[@jarek108]

agreed, it exists has powerfull normative contents.my problem with his interpretation of such multidimensional message is that it is a) highly unscientific, subjective and one-sided;b) stated with no doubt or hesitation as if it was an obvious scientific fact despite a);c) clearly tendentious and ideologically driven towards authors clear leftist perspective. this is not how "great mind" makes science, not even "theory".this is personal ideology disquised as science.to what degree do we agree?

[@kostasmarkopoulos2443]

OMG, the guy is on drugs, heroine .

[@AgentHomer]

and which postmodernist attacked science anyway? I know Foucault attacked psychology (or at least certain forms of psychology), and Butler criticized naive, positivist biodeterminist biology, but which postmodernist seriously attacked science itself? of course they criticize positivist "science", but let's be honest, who doesn't? after all, it's only one - particularly stupid - form of science

[@v1das007]

Very disappointing. When he stated a question "so what should we do now" - practically, not theoretically - all he could say was "let's discuss and maybe someone will find the answer". Lol. How useful...

[@DystopianEmpire01]

Crazy basement dweller gives speech, receives vodka and PEZ.

[@jasontito7644]

the intellectual makes a simple idea complicated. an artist does the opposite, pls look at history you will see that most distruction was caused by intellectuals

[@farrider3339]

Priests , dictators , fascists are intellectuals ? Tink 💭 more Talk less

[@mutatismutandis6051]

well, you're wrong.

[@jarek108]

heh. for a guy who criticises ideologization he is really driven both obviously and hard by his ideology. to the point he actually takes interpretation of phenomena supposed by his ideological perspective as the objective truth about the reality. haha. relax Slavoj, black swan was a really good and complex movie not just an imperialistic attack on feminism! :).

[@uramalakia]

Try reading a book other than the bible. I'll give you homework, to help you along: How did the bible come about and when? How many gospels were there other than the ones in the bible and what happened to them? How did the idea of purgatory come about and when? How did celibat for clergymen come about and when? Start with these. If you manage to find the answers to them, you might want to do further reaserch yourself. Hopefully, by the end of it, you'll see how deep the rabbit hole is.

[@faelismaegnus]

"likes" is not right. Silly!

[@smerdyakovkb]

You musn't know what postmodernism is, since Zizek isn't a postmodernist. And there isn't any "diatribe against naturalism and science" here, so maybe you don't know what a "diatribe" is, or "naturalism" or "science"? You're also parroting Noam Chomsky without forming your own opinion, while Chomsky himself hasn't a well-formed on this topic. You're also attacking organized religion as if it were the world's main antagonism, and not an intellectual whipping boy for *true* charlatans. Nice post

[@mensabs]

nota great mind--an hysterical narcissist

[@iknownothing0]

Mensabs You in trouble if you see him like that. Are you American by the way? ?

[@michaelkulyk4739]

The fact that this man can be taken as a serious philosopher demonstrates the degeneration of contemporary postmodern bourgeois philosophy.He also demonstrates the degeneration of Marxism in the eastern European so called 'communist' states.

[@michaelkulyk4739]

If this man is a Marxist then I'm a millionaire playboy.He is an idealist through and through and doesn't understand anything about Marx's take on the relationship between life activity and consciousness.Consciousness,including what we call ideology-the public and personal sort-justifies and perpetuates life activity as required by objective social relations (social relations that exist above and beyond our will).Often enough this ideology hides or distorts these relations.Zizek doesn't get this

[@mutatismutandis6051]

Yeah and what about that guy Hawking? he can hardly speak at all.