Slavoj Žižek: God, Marxism, Philosophy, and Quantum Mechanics | Robinson's Podcast

[@Faus4us_Official]

I admire Slavoj as a human. He's open, honest, and unapologetic. He doesn't try to be something he isn't. He is Slavoj!

[@wrathofcorn]

the dude SERIOUSLY needs to take a public speaking class, though. He takes 20 minutes to say almost nothing sometimes. He's a genius, sure, which we accept causes him to be all over the place but if he's so smart he should be able to convey a point without 39 anecdotes and 15 side quests.

[@owabowa]

​@@wrathofcornBut do we really want to lose what makes Slavoj Zizek, Slavoj Zizek? I like his shananingans, and the more that you read and listen to his works, the more you understand that the obscure refrences, or tagents that he goes on, and the like, actually often (not always lol) have a deeper meaning to them. At first I didn't get his public speaking style, but after learning more about his ideas I continue to be able to make sense of his way of communicating. It's like finding Eastern eggs in movies at the like lol, it's quite the adventure

[@DudokX]

I still cannot believe you got Sean Carroll and Slavoj Zizek into the same call.

[@julienlavoie6908]

Witchcraft

[@tinovuorinen9482]

I love Žižek. Just made my bachelor's degree about his political philosophy, and now waiting for new book of philosophizing quantum theory to make my master's degree on that.

[@ardekakka]

hyi helvetti, ja minun verorahoilla

[@mohsanaliraja]

keep inviting zizek... we love him!

[@chauste4340]

quite an ominous ending with zizek telling you "you're not as innocent as you claim to be"

[@azumanguy]

The true ending was edited out in good Stalinist fashion

[@jaythefox]

I always find it funny how they have to just cut off at some point or else he'd keep talking forever 😂

[@megg.3933]

SZ always amazing, and love that you just let him talk. He is gold ❤️

[@greenmountainfarms7515]

Yes, more Zizek please! Edit: what's up with the audio? Zizek's voice is being pitch shifted.

[@artemklenkov8392]

an ai noise cancellation maybe? Sounds very unnatural.

[@DelandaBaudLacanian]

Isabel Millar and her psychoanalysis of AI would be a great interview too if you want to learn more about Zizek's Lacanian tradition

[@drrains]

I was delighted to see another SZ episode. A way to consider thinking, not what, not how. That's what i keep in mind at all times.

[@negritoojosclaros]

Love this plataform that you made! The topics and guests are so interesting and world class! Keep it!!

[@AI-Hallucination]

About to start a darkroom printing session and Uncle Slavoj is always good for the background noise thank you very much

[@user-dt4ol7xe2q]

Oh my god again?!

[@robinsonerhardt]

again.

[@drrains]

And thank you again

[@YaBoiTaeWu]

Another absolutely fantastic episode sir

[@RYBATUGA]

Love listening to (and reading) Slavoj

[@amihartz]

I love to hear Rovelli brought up, his views are the simplest in understanding QM and get rid of pretty much all the confusion yet is ignored in much of these discussions. I think Francois-Igor Pris' views are also under appreciated.

[@addammadd]

Slavoj on helium? What’s up with his high voice?

[@user-hk7rf5bh2b]

Next up Slavoj with...Leonard Susskind? To balance out Lee Smolin?

[@robinsonerhardt]

who knows?

[@karloshorn4730]

@@robinsonerhardt​​⁠anyway you can have a talk with Dr. Darren Staloff and have a little homage for the late Prof. Michael Sugrue (@dr.michaelsugrue)?

[@StairwayToHeavenOnEarth]

I would say that it may be necessary to be a good philosopher to even survive the coming storm.

[@DBREW]

This is an interesting perspective. What storm do you refer to? How do you know it's coming?

[@poorpriest4549]

@@DBREW Humanity gonna fight against global warming and other natural disasters, unequality, automatisation can happen too fast and turn the world into cyberpunk dystopia, a lot more proxy wars for Africa (Ukraine is basically the prologue to this whole thing, the whole point of conflict is to make it clear who will be against who) and so on and so on. Fall of democracy is on horizon. Imagine what will happen when people realise that they were told that communism can't work because you can't everyone equal, but they also were told that SOMEHOW everyones vote equal and matters. Literally Matrix.

[@Youbedoo]

Hi. I do feel that when we look back from 2030 we'll see that this decade saw the BIG historic shift. So, the storm which is precipitating this shift is: quantitative easing, wokeism, fertilizer shortage, polarization, populism and a few other huge trends. Environmental degradation is basic to the fact that it's change or die time. It's a perfect storm, if you will. Thanks for asking😊

[@gwyndolin554]

good episode my friend I hope you'll invite him in another one!

[@TimZM]

🍿

[@robinsonerhardt]

agreed

[@yosivin1]

In this podcast episode, Slavoj Žižek passionately argues for the continued relevance of philosophy in understanding and addressing the complex issues of our time. He emphasizes the importance of adopting a Socratic mindset, characterized by relentless questioning and a readiness to challenge our fundamental assumptions. This approach, Žižek contends, is essential for critically examining the language we use to conceptualize reality, especially as key terms such as "freedom," "equality," and "justice" have become diluted and misused over time. ### Key Points Discussed by Žižek 1. **Socratic Mindset**: - Žižek advocates for a philosophical method of constant questioning. - This method involves destabilizing basic assumptions and critically examining the terms we use. 2. **Examples Illustrating Human Nature**: - The "miracle" of Tristan da Cunha: Residents returned to a simple, communal life post-evacuation, exemplifying solidarity. - Low-paid caregivers in hospitals: Their selfless dedication highlights human nature's complexity beyond the capitalist portrayal of egotism. 3. **Philosophical Implications of Quantum Mechanics**: - Žižek discusses the debate about the nature of observation in quantum mechanics and its role in collapsing superpositions. - He notes that pioneering scientists like Einstein and Bohr had to engage in philosophical reflection to revolutionize concepts of time, space, and relativity. 4. **Critique of Hypothesis Falsification in Science**: - Žižek argues that science does not only progress through hypothesis falsification. - Major scientific breakthroughs often involve challenging and redefining established paradigms. 5. **Philosophy's Role in Science**: - Philosophical debates about quantum mechanics are increasingly relevant and are often pursued in philosophy departments rather than physics departments. - Even physicists are turning to philosophical tools to address unresolved questions in their field. 6. **Different Philosophical Approaches**: - Žižek acknowledges the differing methodologies of analytic and continental philosophers. - He ultimately argues for the importance of a Socratic method of critical questioning for both schools of thought. ### Conclusion Žižek's main thesis is that philosophical inquiry is indispensable for tackling contemporary issues, including artificial intelligence, language, and quantum mechanics. He urges us to engage with these topics not with predetermined agendas but with open minds and a willingness to re-examine our assumptions and the language we use. By doing so, we can better navigate and understand the complexities of our world.

[@garymelnyk7910]

Superb. Thank you. For your effort here( and for your clarity).

[@garruksson]

I laughed so hard at the ending 😁uncut version coming soon? ;)

[@sammosaurusrex]

Wait, you're the guy who had a conversation between Zizek and Carroll, aren't you? What a funky mix of thinkers that was.

[@awatgharib]

Grate. I love your podcast

[@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg]

it is not quite right, what u get is you observe it is what you would get if you gave a wave a random ish phase at one slit and so on, if you disturb it too little sometimes this sometimes not. it is not directly as simple as looking gives you particle behavior, and if you dont look until the end it gives wave behavior, that is not entierly right, what happens is that the wavefunction gets shifter by the apparatus you look with depending on what it is and so on, and so you simply get a different final function for the probability distribution that is more like two overlapping single slit diffractions, but that is still the kind of thing you would expect from waves, and the distribution is calculated using the same type of evolving functions as is refered to as the wavelike behavior, so i think this point is a bit pointless, just to be blunt about it, i think the talk of particle vs wavelike behavior is nonsense, i think there is a certain type of mathematical function that is used to calculate behavior, and the ontological status of the structure there in, and the resultant probability distribution is not really necessarily related to reality or the ontology out there in a world at all, just the resulting statistics that have been tested are a feature of the real pattern of behavior in nature. what we know is that the resultant statistics in the case of current theory results from a wavelike picture of evolving and interfering amplitudes, a wavelike picture, and the particle side from the perspective of observations, only really is evidenced by chunks of energy being observed at detectors, and stull like paths in cloudchambers, although these only happen when particles have mass in a very localized way. my person beliefe is a bit complicated, but i do not believe photons or massless fields have particles associated with them at all, i believe systems that couple to light and can recive energy from the em radiation have quantized energy levels for a spesific structural reason and light has no choice, it is absorbed and emitted in chunks related to its frequency, but there are no point like or well localized particles to be found traveling from A to B at all. and in contrast to this, when it comes to massive particles like electrons i believe they have a more localized structure to them we would recognize as conforming to what most people thinks about when they hear the word particle. so on one side there are wavelike phenomena that have some properties akin to particles, only being absorbed in chunks ect, and on the other we have particles that behave like waves in some ways, like electrons and other massive fermions. and my point is not to show why this is superior, im just saying it is totally plausible to have an ontology that is this way, and in that case, there is no resolving the wave/particle duality, it just simply doesnt exist, and has a solution that is different for different kinds of things. in addition to that, the wave particle duality is just a linguistic conjuration, it has no meaning, the mathematics is clear about what is happening to produce the probability distributions, and it is a wavefunction that evolves more or less like a wave in high dimensions. roughly speaking, the particle nature is almost entierly confined to application and intepretation of the application of the born rule, and how measurement appears to work, and those are really very different reasons for buying into the duality from opposing sides. you need a rigorous mathematical exposition, and discussion of the ontology referenced in attempt to talk about the reality of either side or both sides in nature so to speak, it is a seperate matter than talking about what the math says, it is highly speculative and therefore very easy to derail imo.

[@negritoojosclaros]

Hahahha was the end and he kept talking!!

[@benderthefourth3445]

I propose a change in the Žižek's "how to make an interview to Slavoj Žižek". You don't need to ask him a question, you just need to start asking a question and he will talk for an hour before you had the time to finish!

[@Treeboar8]

Whenever slavoj talks about quantum physics I want to bring up the need for a new theory of Time, time is not 1D but the future is at the centre of everything, and gravity is the material manifestation of this centrality. The pull of the future is the counterpoint of the past, and for life and every complex system this pull becomes a greater potential for life.

[@Treeboar8]

I'm not kidding, there is a copernican level revolution that needs to happen with regards to the concept of time, that will reassert the difference between the past and the future....and still leave room for a broader definition of presence, as content, with room for duration.

[@milkenjoyer14]

i need joscha bach and/or thomas metzinger on this podcast. robinson pls

[@anderscallenberg8632]

Zizek: Language is an instrument of lying The later Wittgenstein: Language has no downtown Robert B Brandom: The center of language is the game of giving and asking for reasons There seems to be many takes on this ”what is language?” 😊

[@totonow6955]

You aren't as innocent as you claim to be.

[@petertomshany]

Love to see a follow up with Jenann Ismael… also Nima Arkani-Hamed?

[@jacksonstenger]

I would like to have a discussion with Slavoj Žižek on my podcast (I can send details), do you know how I might get in contact with him to discuss this? It would truly be an honor.

[@Bob-vy7sq]

🎉🎉🎉

[@addammadd]

I think it would be incredibly interesting and provocative to have on Gabriel Rockhill and Slavoj Žižek and see if Rockhill can say to the man’s face what he’s been excreting into the internet over the past couple years.

[@mattiafabbri8944]

I love Zizek but I think that Rockhill has undoubtedly touched some serious points against him

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

I think Gabriel Rockhill is basically correct in his critique of Zizek as a political figure, but I see his philosophy as very much separate from his politics.

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

One thing I like about Rockhill’s criticism of Zizek is that instead of the usual woke nonsense, his critique is much more of a tankie anti-imperialist critique, which is definitely the correct way to attack him.

[@mattiafabbri8944]

@@ludviglidstrom6924 when I knew (from Rockhill) Zizek wrote that Jugoslavia needed more capitalism, immediately a lot of doubts about him started to converge.

[@christopheryuda4029]

does anyone else get taken aback everytime zizek speaks at how selfless it all sounds? acting without ego

[@lamarguitar]

That flows naturally from his commitment to criticize systems rather than people. It's refreshing and liberating to focus responsibility and social change on systems rather than individuals.

[@djsjdh-hoahdi]

Zizek is a true Hegelian in core belief, thought and action , that's how you can tell

[@l.z.2315]

​@djsjdh-hoahdA sa Hegelom smo stigli daleko?i

[@garymelnyk7910]

Aligns with The Principles of Human Action. By William Hazlitt: possibly the finest prose writer in the English language.

[@EZ-jd2nq]

Dubious statement that Roger Penrose found God. Citation needed.

[@jpsi9]

Vive Zizek

[@dosomethingelsenow]

Why is his voice the wrong pitch in this video?

[@user-ix7qb4du6k]

That was really cool man. It's much easier to focus without the cat wondering around (I like cats more than dogs). Ontology for sure. I don't think Ontology can get out of Epistemology, without the help of so-called "post-structural" philosophers. Language. A.I. Tower of Babylon. Entropy. I agree Philosophy can Hugely change things. Thank you for getting Zizek on the screen. Your welcoming of of hi,m was sincerely and genuinely meaningful in-itself. Thanks, dude. Peace out. James.

[@joeyrufo]

31:49 you have to connect the dialectical to the metaphysical!!!!!

[@helpanimals-]

Stoic philosophy is what we need. Look them up people

[@endivjakdivjak6451]

I love the insane reflecting on the sanity, utterly amusing.

[@tanveersingh5423]

I am glad he is on a video and not talking face to face...i lost my umbrella yesterday

[@lorenzomoriondo6338]

at 1:09:00 that is Nozick's relativism, anything been local the epistemological becomes (at what level? in which proportion?) ontological

[@petertomshany]

An anthropic boundary between the two?

[@amihartz]

Relativism, relationalism, dialectics, contextualism, dependent arising, etc, it goes by many names. It has existed in philosophy for thousands of years but was largely rejected by materialist philosophers due to the influence of Newtonian physics which has very little relativism, and then the influence of Kant who basically turned Newtonian physics into a philosophy of nature. Relativism then ended up pushed off into religious circles like Buddhism. It only came back to materialist philosophy in around the 1800s when philosophers like Friedrich Engels recognized that the Newtonian philosophy of Kant had irreconcilable problems, like the mind-body problem, which could never be resolved within that framework and so it had to be abandoned. These materialist views became popular in some eastern countries like China but still had little impact on western thought. It is only with the rise of quantum mechanics in the 1900s that Newtonian based philosophy came under question and some physicists have been inclined to reconsider relativism. Even prior to Bell's theorem, physicists like David Bohm and Dmitry Blokhintsev were pointing out that abandoning a Newtonian and Kantian view of reality is necessary to make sense of nature without devolving into idealism or suggesting that QM must be incorrect.

[@farrider3339]

How do we know that a wave is forming when a particle remains unobserved ?

[@garymelnyk7910]

Excellent!

[@damaryfriedrich9325]

Supi❤

[@sonarbangla8711]

'Design' if it isn't 'divine design', doesn't need proof that the purpose was to achieve life if not consciousness, implies that the whole of the universal process arrive at determinism out of probabilistic nature of reality, proves that somehow we must have won infinite lotteries over millions or billions of years in a row, shows 'divine design' was necessary for the universe to have any logical bearing, god or no god.

[@billusher2265]

Interview Zachary Foster

[@aungkhantphyo1484]

could you tell me list of book names slavoj mentioned in this live?

[@GNARGNARHEAD]

Žižek seems to not be entirely aware of the twin slit experiment, it's that a single photon still exhibits an interference pattern, as if the probability wave is interacting with it self to produce the peaks and troughs of an interference pattern.. anyways, enjoyable as always 🫡

[@dQuasi2]

The rudiement of langauge is order (command).

[@KaiWatson]

"you know!"

[@mehdimehdikhani5899]

why did you cut off the end?

[@EldinSpiritofPower]

comedic effect! well it made me laugh

[@joeyrufo]

51:52 no! It doesn't start as "lying"! It starts as a GAME! 🙄

[@JB-lovin]

I just can't with Slavoj Zizek. At least, not without Adderall.

[@Treeboar8]

Heaven is divided only so far as the descent of the cross is divided from the ascent from the double cross

[@arnazaron]

now we know that Robinson is not as innocent as he claims to be))) I hope you din't argue in the end. Thanks for the video)

[@user-ys4mu8gj7x]

Nietzsche: Envy

[@swozzares]

what just happened?

[@shomulder6854]

👋👍👌🤘💯🙏❤️

[@IbrahimAnSah-sx6yv]

why is your intro so noisy lol

[@ardekakka]

eh

[@Hitee-id7qk]

Logic of envy is truly embedded in religion. Imagine we all go to heaven, and how annoyed the religious would be? lol

[@paigemcloughlin4905]

these ramblings are interesting but what about gaza, what about the minimum wage, what about unionization.

[@EZ-jd2nq]

Whataboutery and so on and so on

[@paigemcloughlin4905]

@@EZ-jd2nq I don't care about his social theory but what practical ways to make good political outcomes happen.

[@lukedmoss]

True. Although there is some moral assumptions in what we expect others talk about, and talking about those philosophical underpinning is important. And not all ramblings about the above are necessarily productive. Tonight's presidential debate, for example, has the potential to be constructive or more likely performative.

[@sonarbangla8711]

Zizek always misses the point, here he dwells on capitalism, migration, global warming etc., but misses the human problems of master-slave or what Xi dwells on CBDC and universal employment. One other thinker Dr Younus also wants 0 unemployment, 0 pollution, 0 environmental catastrophe. Weather these are achievable aren't known to anyone. Zizek seems to have watched all movies and read all novels. Who knows why?

[@nanakokuroi3619]

He likes to talk about Kharkov but ignores Donetsk. Westerner through and through.

[@garymelnyk7910]

I think you must be Russian.

[@twntwrs]

Chomsky's - nothing to see here- about Zizek still holds.

[@ympx]

Zizek at least is amusing, and doesn't contradict his secular humanism with endless america bad while pandering to third world authoritarians.

[@garymelnyk7910]

If there’s “nothing to see” why are you here?

[@twntwrs]

To see if the normally rather clever Mr Erhardt would call Zizek out on his bulshite.

[@missh1774]

I am only a poor savage. What would I know of words? 🇳🇿 "cursing emerges when we are at a loss of words"... Thanks Zizek and Einhart ... Does this also mean a waiter whom curses often is actually sick of his job and the patron is an imbecile 🤭 Im kidding but since the patron is blessed with unlimited wealth, maybe things will be okay for the waiter. 🤔 A chance encounter? I do like that idea...

[@robinsonerhardt]

Thank you!

[@philosoraptorautistic]

You are a cross over episode freak😂I mean freak in a good way

[@arcticwolf6402]

I like Zizek. He's a good character. Whatever he discusses, he makes it sound exciting and so on. But I don't think there is any real substance to anything he says.

[@val_allue]

Substance is overrated😂

[@vla61m1r]

Don’t know about Zizek’s books but after listening to his interviews I come out with exactly what I came here with in the first place.

[@garymelnyk7910]

@@val_allueYes. An illusion that stubbornly persists. A baseless fabric of this vision.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

“Real substance” is redundant. Anyway, what do you mean by it with reference to Zizek? That he doesn’t believe what he says? That his theories don’t correlate with reality? Does anyone’s words have “real substance”? Which philosopher’s words do have “real substance”? And how can I measure their real substantiality?

[@dewetmaartens359]

Come to South Africa end experience your Marxist utopia.

[@owabowa]

What even is this comment😂

[@ahmetdogan5685]

I like Slavoj the clown 😂

[@robbie_]

Slavoj is a fool.

[@alexchou2304]

Robbie is a genius

[@garymelnyk7910]

Maybe. But like the fool in King Lear he doesn’t give up on his Master.

[@alexchou2304]

@@garymelnyk7910 TRUE. Slavoj is a very insightful intellectual despite the criticism and controversies he received. Espeically on the study of Hegel and Lacan.

[@lament22]

zizek is so boring and annoying to listen to 🥱😴

[@drrains]

You should no listen den

[@lament22]

@@drrains i would prefer not to

[@drrains]

@@lament22 good, don't. Joe Swanson

[@GlobalTheatreSkitsoanalysis]

@@lament22 YouSaidTheThing.gif

[@addammadd]

Try reading.