Slavoj Zizek. Materialism and Theology. 2007 1/8

www.egs.edu/ Slavoj Zizek lecturing about materialism and theology, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the psychoanalysis of culture and societies. Videolecture focuses on fundamentalism, materialism, theology, atheism, atheists, humanists, humanism, reason, logic, rationality, intelligent design, believe, faith, religion, christian, christianity, islam, fundamentalists, fundamentalism, god, nature, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Public open lecture for the students of the European Graduate School EGS, Media and Communication Studies department program, Saas-Fee, Switzerland, Europe, 2007, Slavoj Zizek.
Slavoj Zizek, a Slovenian sociologist, postmodern philosopher, and cultural critic is a professor at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana and at the European Graduate School EGS who uses popular culture to explain the theory of Jacques Lacan and the theory of Jacques Lacan to explain politics and popular culture. He was born in 1949 in Ljubljana, Slovenia where he lives to this day but he has lectured at universities around the world. He was analysed by Jacques Alain Miller, Jacques Lacan's son in law. His research focuses on Karl Marx, Hegel and Schellingfundamentalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
He has published many books and translations in several languages. He is the author of The Sublime Object of Ideology, 1989, Beyond Discourse Analysis (a part in Ernesto Laclau's New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time), London: Verso. 1990, For They Know Not What They Do, London: Verso. 1991, Looking Awry, MIT Press. Enjoy Your Symptom!, Routledge. 1992, Tarrying With the Negative, Durham, New Carolina: Duke University Press. 1993, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Lacan, But Were Afraid to Ask Hitchcock,1993, The Metastates of Enjoyment,1994, The Indivisible Remainder: Essays on Schelling and Related Matters, 1996, The Abyss of Freedom, University of Michigan Press. 1997, The Plague of Fantasies, Multi-culturalism, or, the Cultural Logic of Multi-national Capitalism, New Left Review, issue 225 pgs. 28--51, The Ticklish Subject, 1999, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality (authored with Judith Butler and Ernesto Laclau), Verso. 2000, The Art of the Ridiculous Sublime: On David Lynch's Lost Highway, Washington: University of Washington Press. The Fragile Absolute, 2000, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? 2001, The Fright of Real Tears: Kryzystof Kieślowski Between Theory and Post-Theory, British Film Institute (BFI), On Belief, Routledge. Opera's Second Death, Repeating Lenin, Zagreb: Arkzin D.O.O. 2001, Welcome to the Desert of the Real, 2002, Revolution at the Gates: Žižek on Lenin, the 1917 Writings, Organs Without Bodies. 2003, The Puppet and the Dwarf, 2003, Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle, 2004, Interrogating the Real, London, Continuum International Publishing Group. 2005, The Universal Exception, London, 2006, Neighbors and Other Monsters (in The Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology), Cambridge, Massachusetts: University of Chicago Press. The Parallax View, How to Read Lacan, New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2007

[@Altheiaih]

What I like about Zizek is that he speaks in simple and well structures English everyone is able understand, because usually philosophers use complicated words and complicated metaphors we people by and large don't grasp...

[@egsvideo]

thank you for your comment. no, we have not yet transcribed all of our recent lectures. if you wish to share your transcripts i will be happy to make them available at the website of the european graduate school. thank you.

[@egsvideo]

thank you for the comment. most lecture recordings, transscripts, and translatios are made available to our students and faculty members.

[@pikiwiki]

this guy makes a lot more sense than several other philosophes. He's punchy and concise- like that...

[@egsvideo]

thank you for your comment. i agree, there can be a difference between content, form and function (or the presentation of the above), but the european graduate school believes, that adding the visual can enrich the experience for some users. (personally i have to listen to the lectures several times to feel that i understand -most- of the meanings, pointers, and connections.)

[@egsvideo]

@justinosmond the lecture was given in 2007, the book was published in 2009. faculty members generally present and discuss the research they are working on at european graduate school. some of the lectures and seminars can then be found in books and articles.

[@egsvideo]

thank you for your comment. yes ... be assured that sennheiser will play a certain part in our future budgets and lectures. still, we hope that at least zizek is loud and clear - the european graduate school as an institution focuses more on the clarity and beauty of thought - but we will work on the sound too.

[@abovethewaves240]

his english is perfectly fine in this talk. anyone confused by it is probably misrecognizing the real source of their confusion. anyways, this is truly radical Hegelian dialectics...my only beef would be that Zizek's long stream of direct quotes in this particular segment are a bit excessive/detailed for the argument he is making about contemporary materialism and theology, they are almost distracting at times;

[@egsvideo]

thank you for your comment. zizek is not a native speaker of english, he is slovenian. he is actually quite fluent in english, german, french and spanish - and others might actually appreciate his exploration of moments, objects, gestures and languages.

[@lajungesombre]

@egsvideo what about to students in general? :-)

[@SirRoco1]

is it possible to get these egs lectures as text somewhere?

[@justinosmond]

@SirRoco1 He is reading almost word-for-word from his first essay in "The Monstrosity of Christ" (2009).

[@abovethewaves240]

I'd like to here more theoretical/interpretive analysis/connecting Christianity as read through the Pope's speech and contemporary Islam to the problem of materiality; with more positioning and less lengthy direct quotes. lol, it can be hard to follow a seamless stream of paradoxical syntheses, even when they are very sharply and productively articulated.

[@justinosmond]

@egsvideo Indeed. I hope my comment helps those looking for a copy of the lecture.

[@bcp2012]

i think its hilarious when people post things that say this man is wrong about the things he is talking about. i don't necessarily agree with everything he says but respect the thought he has put into it and have no place contradicting him until i feel i have spent just as much time considering my own views.

[@Schizopantheist]

@s8ist420 I think youre wrong, or somewhat wrong; but i also wonder about something to the extent that he's still a Lacanian. Isn't there an idea in Lacan that the 'analysand' will, whilst originally idealising the analyst eventually reject them as a source for 'the answer' to their problems, and that this idea will result in a moment of transformative insight? Something like that. So in this view Zizek would deliberately intellectually bewitch an audience and allow for a 'positive' disillusion.

[@gailforce]

It's the "you must think this way" coin.

[@mattblair161]

@PObserver I'm a philosophy major and I honestly find that 2 be the most convincing proof i've ever read lol! props

[@skibumwilly1895]

In “how to balance inequality” on KZbin, A few calls to a friend in the White House about an inheritance cap to let people redistribute their wealth fairly, realigns man's mission here with his natural, higher purpose. How to balance inequality

[@Komnenos1234]

I agree with what you said. If he said something undeniable like "two plus two equals four", snorting all the coke in the world would not make him wrong. It's the same with all things.

[@drfeelgood9491]

Actually, the sounds coming from the cardiac monitor that he was mocking at the beginning of his talk are not there just "to create the atmosphere"...LOL...Everything has to be about cinema with him. The sounds are important so the doctors & nurses are aware of the patient's vital signs (heart rate primarily) immediately upon entering the room w/o having to measure them directly or even look at the monitors. That is particularly important during an unstable state, w/c is why it is in the ICU.

[@timmythetoolshed]

That word 'vulgar' has many layers of meaning and I would say it is not indicative of any condescension towards those personages on the part of slavoj zizek...

[@chamallowbleu]

Zizek starts at 1:04

[@mmeditatio]

@s8ist420 Actually Zizek is one of the most readable, easily understandable philosophers around. He doesn't try to sound smart; he's very down to earth. And if you are familiar with his work, you would know that much of it is a critique on postmodern relativism. I get the feeling you're the one trying to sound smarter (or, rather, more informed) than you actually are.

[@fernicholson]

debo decir que no habrá forma y peor no hay mucho material de Zizek en español, recomiendo (y se que no es cualquier cosa) aprender a leer en ingles y conseguir transcripciones. Yo tuve que hacer eso con el frances (no es sangronada). suerte!

[@eotto2001]

The thing that makes him easy to listen to as a Marxist is that he is more grounded in Hegel than Marx. Most aren't. If you don't like Marx, listen to him for the Hegel. He is cleaning up the ontological problems in understanding Marx. Even if you are conservative or a reactionary, he is laying it out for how your political and intellectual processes are working. If you are liberal, you might see why the Right's label of liberal of Marxist is incorrect.

[@astrocitofibroso]

@bcp2012 i think its better that everyone express their thoughts and then we can discuss each thoughts because if we just watch this and dont debate about it it would be contraticting what zizek its doing, because what the posts here are doing its the exact same thing zizek its doing to church and what he its talking about... but i dunno again its just my thought debating :)

[@mattsolomon3]

discernible truths... it would be in the case of descarts

[@radphilospher]

mistarcraw and pugnacious: you guys are f-ing hilarious

[@ErikJoeNoise02]

it is really great to watch someone like this guys, listen to his ideas and see him wearing ashirt that looks like a pijama ... ;-)

[@stillceaser]

@g4macdad Actually, if you examine what you've just said, it's irrational.

[@iwpoe]

He has said as much in other places.

[@hi0u91e9]

but mathematics does not begin with descartes. mathematics precedes christianity (both voluntarist and premodern teleologies).

[@richidpraah]

he might renounce the idea of literal belief in obviously, in quite some senses, metarepresentated male figures buliding the universe from an ultimo of objects or however you'll downboil an objectified image of a monotheistic god. but unlike dennett (claiming himself to understand the forlornness of dualism) and dawkins etc. who does not even think they have to account for subjective experience of their slicing of being, and can offer the intellectually easiest dissections of "stupid ideas"cont-

[@BehaviorModification]

'...when you have the heart operations... the machines that make the beep beep sounds... that don't really do anything but create the atmosphere..." ha! It's actually refreshing to hear a thought-provoking philosopher who doesn't take himself so bloody seriously. Re: 'Christianity,' 'Theology,' & what have you, I must say that I agree w/Ghandi's response when asked what he thought about 'Western Civilization'-"I think it's a fine idea." How many have truly witnessed pre-Romanized Christianity?

[@mattsolomon3]

Maybe then you could say (and to an extent I think it holds true) that theological understanding has the shaky foundations of this empirical nondescript relativity to reason. A shakiness inherited by science and sustained as means to subjugate.... and didcontrol

[@s8ist420]

@AndrewMann552 : He's not a real "clear" thinker though. In fact, every esoteric and unprovable thing he says is designed for the purposes of making him seem so highly intelligent that you just don't get it. Those who claim to understand him have the benefit of being appearing to be just as clever. The problem is that he's not saying anything. He's just trying to sound subversive while using the postmodern voice.

[@JaffarDS]

@Slabbers Because explaining the world with an intelligence is worse than saying nothing creates nothing.

[@solvealways]

not sure how anyone gathered his theological stance from this... this was not a profession of his beliefs

[@ignati123]

The only materialism I saw when the Marxists created the Soviet Union was their socialist agenda, not the Russian Orthodox Church or any religious body for that matter. Materialism is a thing of the impious.

[@poprockssuck87]

@Slabbers Intentions of a founder and this being a reason for dismissal is nothing more than genetic fallacy. That said, creationism is to intelligent design as religion is to apologetics. Furthermore, with the existence of God, it is reasonable that evolutionary processes would have intention even if occurring without divine interference and that distinctly human faculties have further meaning. Thus, with God, evolution is likely to have aim. Philosophy shows the fault of secularism in science.

[@icommunism]

dingorex, you will find that Zizek spends his life meeting God and human spirituality head on. Christianity is no simple matter, philosophers (christian and otherwise) have attempted the whole of the thing for centuries in varied capacities. Spirituality is an ongoing issue, argue it or sit aside. or maybe try not telling Zizek or even God what they believe.

[@DaimonTheFallen]

Is that all you're getting from his lecture? The fact that he's an atheist and you quickly dismiss anything he has to say? Anything to avoid critical thought, what a waste.

[@Slabbers]

Bullshit gatver22, Intelligent Design is indistiguishable from creationism and is based on religious dogma. Philip E. Johnson, one of the architects of the I.D. movement, has spoken openly about this, e.g. "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." The Dover Trial ruled that I.D. is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

[@Jamesbharris2]

Charitably, the guy's got a cold: uncharitably, he's coked up to the nostrils.

[@GuerrillaAtheism]

I tried to watch the whole thing. But it turned into "Blah blah blah... I think blah blah blah..." His accent made it difficult to listen to him for too long. Perhaps I'll come back later.

[@rufusgriffin2113]

for someone who has interesting things to say, it's a shame he struggles so with the language

[@alliant]

@howcynicalofme how cynical of you

[@dingorex]

Anything to avoid Jesus. A whole life avoiding God and human spirituality. What a waste.

[@Infectiousthought]

pop-science, fundamentalist atheism. two horribly misleading phrases.

[@JohananRaatz]

Sorry smug new atheists, but research into Quantum Gravity has knocked both materialism and physicalism out the window: watch?v=4NP4QmrbBww

[@Flirmy]

this guy is coked up.

[@GuitarWithBrett]

wow, I never realized Zizek has no conception of scientific method or knowledge, dismissing Dennett and Dawkins as vulgar materialists with no attention to scientific theory or method

[@skibumwilly1895]

In “how to balance inequality” on KZbin, A few calls to a friend in the White House about an inheritance cap to let people redistribute their wealth fairly, realigns man's mission here with his natural, higher purpose. How to balance inequality