Slavoj Zizek vs. Terry Pinkard (How to Read Hegel)

[@TheHunterGracchus]

At the start of the pandemic, I finally got around to reading Terry Pinkard's book about German Idealism. It made a huge impact and got me back to reading philosophy again.

[@MiezoT]

I love how Zizek calls Doug "Duck".

[@danielsacilotto6235]

Brandom vs. Zizek would be dope.

[@happychey13]

The battle will be legendary...

[@SIRVER123456789]

or Pippin v. Zizek! clash of titans

[@sydneysymposia]

14:10 zizek agrees so hard he falls off the table.

[@mk-oc7mt]

Great catch

[@bilbobaggins5752]

Even Terry says "and so on" a ton. Muscling into Zizek's catch phrases

[@youmothershouldknow4905]

But does he offer a dirty-but-not-too-dirty joke.

[@theonetruepyro]

This is my first time watching this channel but I really loved the way you dragged them into the ontological question at 58:00 that they kept trying to talk around. It’s always good to have a debate flow freely in the direction that the passions of the people lead them but too much of this often leads to confusion. I highly appreciate Zizek’s thought but I think people give him a little too much leeway at talks sometimes and he can go off into a tangent of a tangent of a tangent and never really quite return. (At least, return with his guest that is) It takes subtlety to strike a midpoint between free ranging discussion and structured QnA and I believe you hit it pretty well here.

[@mrstronghito]

Really great dialog between two giants, thanks for brining this to us! Really important topics discussed here.

[@bigggmoustache8868]

I fucking love how excited Slavoj was at the end of the conversation lmao. He seemed positively giddy xD!

[@mrstronghito]

Great work Doug! You're really playing the Obi Wan card to the fullest since the formation of Sublation - Strike me down and I will become more powerful than you can imagine, and so on and so on, blah, blah

[@jonathanhansson804]

Omg what a comment

[@nikolademitri731]

Don’t let him get a big head, dahmmit! If you’re reading this, Doug, YOU SVCK!!! Thank you.

[@rb5519]

Great to listen to Slavoj speak about Marx, Hegel, their place in society blah blah blah and so on and so on.

[@FG-fc1yz]

18:00 Tiere sind die ultimativen Idealisten 59:38 Negativität als Notwendigkeit des Selbstbewusstseins, nur aufgrund der Negativität Spontanität und Freiheit ab1:07:50 für Zizek SB = formale Selbstreflexion (z.B. durch Ritual, Symptom etc.; wo sich die Art der Verständlichkeit reflektiert; damit Selbstreflexion der Verständlichkeit: Ausbildung eines Selbst/Ichs) 1:22:40 Warum Subjekt=Substanz

[@grubernitsch]

1:13:10 - who wants to see that meeting between Schelling, Marx and Engels?

[@argengama7548]

Now i wanna see a debate between zizek and cutrone on the nature of value, that be fun to watch.

[@sir_kitten]

Thank you for organizing this discussion!!

[@ZizekandSoOn]

Nice one Doug!

[@landoonline6393]

Gotta love Zizek with upgraded video and audio quality.

[@AJJ129]

I would love to here these two go on about Hegel again very insightful and I love how zizek ties Hegel to contemporary political economy problems. It’s nice to see two academics who respect and admire eachother.

[@benoitguillette8945]

This discussion was great! I specially love what was said from the 23th minute until the end: it was said that matter is not what resists sublation; matter is an immediate embodiment of the process of sublation. But, this embodiment (the Monarch) is a gap in matter. This line of thought was repeated at the end of the discussion, in relation to quantum physics.

[@IvoMaropo]

Yes. Basically, the monarch is Lacan's objet petit a, the signifier of the lack of the signifier.

[@vitoroliveirajorge368]

Two giants of thought. Thank you very much.

[@Michelle_Wellbeck]

From the zoom nametags we can see that Slavoj Zizek's stature has reached the threshold where he may now be referred to by mononym; "zizek".

[@mrstronghito]

Soon he will simply be referred to with a symbol - the philosopher formerly known as "Zizek"

[@johnryan3913]

@@mrstronghito Let's have a glyph design contest!

[@gregsimmons3323]

Once again, Zizek smashes his debate opponent by effusively agreeing with everything they say. Lol

[@momo-hs5jn]

it´s because zizek is the master of dialectics, he is in fact the ultimate personified spirit in that he negates to a degree nobody else does which in practice means the ultimate affirmation of everything. with this we could even argue he manages what kant never was able to do: illuminate the thing in itself!

[@punchgod]

@@momo-hs5jn love this answer. Stay passionate brother

[@farrider3339]

This is PRECISELY, I claim, what we would call a hidden "yes but" knock out opening 😇

[@jhlagado1]

You clearly didn't understand anything and probably didn't even watch the video. This was NOT a debate and Terry Pinkard is an authority on Hegel while Zizek is a professional bloviator and waffler. You should go back to cheerleading in the comments of Jordan Peterson videos.

[@adarshpreet7498]

now please have a conversation with Richard Winfield vs Zizek and Robert Pippin vs Stephen Houlgate

[@muskscent]

Zizek agreeing with his "opponent" to spite Doug was great lol

[@jopeDE]

Thx! Great conversation

[@harveyyoung3423]

Pinkard (@14:00mins turns the traditional Statist Totalitarian Hegel i was framing in my comment on Zizek below inside out. that is i think in contrast to the materialist Marxist route out he looks towards the concrete example as intrinsic to logic. much like Kant's schematism and typic and ectype and architype or in the central role of judgement and case president in common law, here the central role of the judge in wide scope law and the local context and with reflection on the case president and its self being expressed as a wide scope law. (Kant Groundwork and Hans Kelsen c.f Schmidt and Sidgwick's "compositional fallacy") Rather oddly Pinkard's turning of Hegel inside out makes him appear more attuned to Kierkegaard's subjectivity and the existentialism that followed with the focus on context and situation. i think this quickly becomes: either the flight to pure subjectivity ("looks" and "is" collapse together) in contemporary terms the historical arch of progress as a reach up to an idolatry of law and laws of laws as rights becomes so abstract that there is a counter movement the opposite of right held as subjectivity is truth. right already contains this inner subjective hole waiting to be filled (eg right becomes as notion and progress its own fulfilling as the abstract individual then endowed with unmediated unreflected truth. This creates and legal person as a monster though not a higher synthesis. But i think Pinkard is probably referencing here the person as responsible as a actor an agent in responsibility e.g. in Hannah Arendt and McDowell's brining in of Aristotle's subject of the Ethics. all of which looks like a limit for the notion of absolute freedom in the traditional reading of Hegel's purpose of the State. For me watching history unfolding over the last few years i criticised opponents of the left as still using the liberal arguments from the sixties (Berlin Popper etc) against the postmodernism of Foucault Derrida and Deleuze. but as time as gone on the left in institutional power now having deconstructed the liberal state have turned into just an tweeked version of that cold war image of the Hegelian totalitarian State. i think it is this context that the recent Aristotelian reading of Hegel as come in along with David Harvey's Aristotelain reading of Marx i saw on his You Tube course some years ago. Still it makes it look as if the existential critique of Hegel is still an Hegelian moment on the way as well as the new Analytical Hegelianism as meaning the old Analytical Philosophy was still an Hegelian moment on the way. so Russell was an Hegelian there is no escape. nice though to bring out the idea of context in Hegel as this was his Critic of Kant which then somehow became an apparent sublation of the empirical under the notion. I think this was the point in the Preface to the Phenomenology (that ) that the anomic or exception is there, il y a, in tension with the law transient but effecting forward. but this means no retroactive law or retroactive conception of historical justice. to think this justice as going backwards is to make the past appear as linear and determined destiny. the historical conception of retroactive justice requires that there was never a decisive context and judgment in this context. it is to imagine no real effective counter factuality. no events and acts that change it is to imagine rights and laws as if common law makes no differance to law's destiny. to imagine rights laws are unmediated by other laws and by interpretation. rights are the legal ontic ontology and the application of law by people they are at once tautologies and self contradiction in performance of the law not meta laws or axioms so not as Suter suggests akin to Russell's paradox. in analytic philosophy terms retroactive justice through rights imagines a rights law as a single "fundamental series" to infinity (Russell v Kant v Hegel) without any effective acquaintance windows. it is to imagine these rights exist even if the institution does not exist or cannot act. the law is finite with respect to its own institutional context in place and time. this is a point lost by the myth of rights as meta laws and the myth that laws that refer to the institution itself are immune to the outside world that is the identity or index is immediate not mediated as in category theory and group theory axioms. its Arendt's point about access to right in use. There are manifold moments in the TV series "The First Lady" of this and the acting is brilliant bringing in by my interpretation the Aristotelian presence of real people, contingency and the myth of right they all are "saying" but actually "doing" better. here are manifold concrete examples like this morning a saw Episode 9: look at the design of Eleanor Roosevalt's chair for example. i mean the pose WW2 flight from totalitarianism viewed totalitarianism as primarily the neglect of human rights with prejudice and bad scientific utilitarianism by increment. So the solution appeared to be the absolute application of human rights, the project of absolute de prejudicing of attitudes and dispositions to zero by social psychology as a causal science and now the presentation of every increment as a destiny to an absolute unjust utility totality. the new return of the "negative" Cosmological and teleological arguments by way of Bayesian risk conflating potentiality with possibility. I'm surprised no one has rebooted those old arguments for this new technological era cos we are their already. A duty to Save the Planet at whatever cost.

[@acknowledgingourdiscontent]

^Rick Roderick clips, those lectures are magnificent

[@redfordgrange3507]

That was great. Well matched, those two.

[@cyanpunch6140]

21:15 what is Slavoj talking about in reference to the "stupid dialectical materialism that once existed"?

[@sublationmedia]

Stalin.

[@cyanpunch6140]

@@sublationmedia ah, I see

[@chungnguyenanh]

Some one can tell me who is the chinese guy who Slavoy mentioned in last minutes of conversation ? Please ! Im so curious !

[@Inflames128gg]

Thank you, this was very productive

[@mitjadrab6529]

I can't believe Žižek actually bought a new camera.

[@dubbelkastrull]

28:48 bookmark

[@spiritpeacefulrevolution3523]

Hi there, would I be able to speak about the 38 Sessions Of Spirit which teaches Hegel and helps the mission of bringing him into the world in much the way this excellent facilitation of Zizek and Pinkard was today?

[@rallarmann89]

Could anyone point me in the direction of the quote from Pinkard that Zizek starts citing at some point during the first half hour? (Sorry, couldn't find the exact time atm.)

[@eziekial101]

it's so funny that zizek keeps pivoting to gang up on doug lol, interesting talk

[@nechastivi3187]

"Terry Pinkard" vs only "zizek" as nickname and they didn't even started, i love it.

[@BogdanLiviu7]

36:48 - Greetings from Romania!

[@dethkon]

You’ve been doing a ton of work since starting Sublation. I really appreciate it. Great dialogues.

[@yenaskitegar3140]

i want them both, to discuss hegel with william lawvere while he is still alive, inventor of category logic, he sees values in hegel as applied to math.

[@user-wl2xl5hm7k]

Great! Robert Pippin next

[@harveyyoung3423]

Zizek's reference to "a fish swimming in water" (@9:00mins) could be a reference to the introduction of Moby Dick. Here as I recall the narrator to understand Whales, first goes to a museum with a stuffed Whale in it and points out that this is not a living mammal, that he need to go Whaling to encounter a living Whale. The structural/ontological dichotomy is now set up between the technological industrial Whaling ship, with its bottom line and its purpose in action, in contrast to the Whale in its excess. its a reference to the sublime in Kant, and particularly the dynamic sublime. this contrasts with the museum that only offers the cognitive mathematical sublime. It links nicely with Job and Hobbes on awe and contrasts politics as action in its moving context (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea Latin: changing in the changing thing MM) and political science: the attempt to have a static mathematical representation of an substance attribute by a summation of many Russell variable in their series universals. The problem is that political science and policy can only ever be a representation under symmetry series conditions for the variable. the symmetry conditions for apprehension means the object from the point of view of the sciences must be some kind of a synthesis of these exclusive bound variables. so in politics they jump from sociology to psychology to law to attitude disposition and institutional form. this provides the political science justification so much sub objective choice in which science to refer to it ceases to be the normative ground for politics that it was meant to be before and after WW2. that is political science as rational politics as opposed to the politics of subjectivity and spectacle (eg H####R), has become just another contested and exculpatory practice. they describe a multiple of science and then talk of a synthesis in policy and the concern of the party lines and the situation. I am of the mind that there is a need for the original unity before analysis into multiple sets of data and then the attempt at synthesis in policy application. This is Kant's position of original synthesis the context of which is emphasised by Pippin in his book on Hegel's Logic and by McDowell in his exchanges with Pippin on Kant's Transcendental Deduction. I can add that my view here on original unity is that they confuse a gladiator with the decathlon events as the analysis and think they have a problem of how to unify the different events back into a gladiator. following Wittgenstein then this is not a problem of synthesis to be solved but that the original frame of analysis into series followed by attempt series synthesis needs to be dissolved. i am though also not sold by the discourse route from Brandon (with its long history in second half of 20the century Pareto Arrow R.M. Hare Rawls Habermas etc. and so on into legal regulations of speech with apparent legitimacy in preventing silencing of others speech. here the cure is worse that the disease as it takes off by thinking Ethos can be captured by Moralise: that is human relations can be reduced to legal vocabulary of negative prohibitions and force and conflict. This is how i read the strategy of Philosophy of Right that wants to sublate the original human relations for legal conflicts over rights v right v right. i have also learnt that making care or respect a matter of law to solve this is even worse than this. I'm not for this Hegel either as it repeats the ontological structural dichotomy as before. Another way to put this problem is that of truth as revealing is also a concealing from the Greek for truth as alitheia drawn out by Heidegger. For Heidegger then the problem of knowledge though series and variables is not just a science or logic problem but an unavoidable differance even for common understanding of the ontic and the ontological eg the ontological difference. Heidegger even uses the fish out of water metaphor in this connection in his "Letter on Humanism" (Pathmarks McNeill Ed. 1999 p.g. 240)

[@Achrononmaster]

@20:55 "self-consciousness" is a redundant expression. There is no "self" without consciousness. An amoeba (if panpsychism is nuts, which it is) has no self symbol, conscious beings like us impute selfhood to amoeba's (falsely, if by the term we mean "having inner subjective qualia - a 'what it is like to be' experience".) Also, Hegel was a dullard if he thought ideals came from materials. Any half way decent mathematicians can weave a story of minimalist platonism regarding at least mathematics, and no one will ever prove them wrong (since you cannot conduct experiments upon that which is non-physical, we can only ever explore the connection between the platonic abstractions and material reality, which is our mind, never the platonic realm itself, which will be, for us, forever something mysterious and of uncertain "reality" or uncertain ontology let's say).

[@Achrononmaster]

Also, if I do not know what I'm talking about neither do these two dudes. Bless their hearts though. Of that which we cannot speak about we cannot even whistle about. (Ramsey, not Wittgenstein.)

[@multi-mason]

@@Achrononmaster Where did you get this ridiculous idea that experiments can’t be conducted on the non-physical? That we can conduct experiments in pure math is not the least bit controversial. Mathematical proofs and falsifications are in no way controversial. Nor is it controversial that you can not escape a purely abstract version of reality. Nor is it controversial that material reality is not directly accessible to us sentient beings. The inescapable conditions presented by these wholly noncontroversial observations are rationally incontestable, though their relevance is most certainly highly debatable. While the generally accepted view is that these dilemmas are irreconcilable and so we shouldn’t waste time or energy debating them nor their relevance and instead give our attention to things which at least seem to be of practical use. The broad consensus on such matters is in no way evidence based, but rather founded upon purely intuitive conclusions and assumptions which can not be experimentally falsified (the actual definition of pseudo-science). Thought experiments are not controversial either, of course, and there is no reasonable debate to suggest that they lack validity simply because they haven’t been carried out physically. What actually is controversial and highly debatable is the notion that experiments can be conducted on actual material outside of a purely abstracted context. This is controversial and highly debatable because it is not the least bit controversial that we can not verify anything outside of our subjective, purely abstracted, perceptual impressions, which we can only experience as mental impressions.

[@punchgod]

Read some Deleuze buddy

[@dougalsii]

Zizek and Pinkard explained Hegel. We have finally reached the end of history! 🥳

[@YTwoKay]

I wish the me from my early twenties, not-too-long-ago had heard of Terry! His points about determinism and negativity ring true to me that in a way everyone has to literally learn to accept their own agency and deal with the little critic in their head, all this while recognizing that one's circumstances are often out of one's control. Sartre gave me some pause and confusion when he asks that we "live authentically" (this was worrisome) and then Friedrich Nietzsche is not so much less daunting with his "leap of faith" idea.

[@robewalt2]

"Leap of faith" Kierkegaard?

[@multi-mason]

Typically self-centered egocentrism at its finest. Get over yourself. The only way to experience truth is selflessly.

[@djsjdh-hoahdi]

@@multi-masonyou speak truth here but you can evolve your manner of communicating it.

[@lp4755]

Hegel and enactivism - how about that (There's a recent paper on the relation but i haven't read it yet)

[@NO-LIVAS]

... and so forth

[@PrimoSchnevi]

Thanks

[@JAMAICADOCK]

Hegel understood that there's no end game of history. Politics will always mutate the mutation. Generating slugs and butterflies from the same pupa.

[@filozofijazazivot]

Inspiring

[@mirzaardi3274]

Please make a discussion between Zizek and Seyla Benhabib on Hegel and Human Rights. Please.....

[@Chorismos]

Wonderful...

[@Achrononmaster]

@9:30 Žižek (seems to?) confound effects of capitalism with effects of progressivism, they're not the same. WW-1, 911, GFC, blah, blah are not caused by idealism, they're caused by cynicism (neocons might start out as socialist idealists, but when they turn necon they really go off the deep end of cynicism). Fukuyama is a deep cynic. There's nothing more depressing than _End of History._ It's nihilism with a smile, saying this is as good as it gets. Total cynicism. What I say is there's never and end, and end denies the human spirit, which has boundless potential (not physically infinite potential, but abstractly infinite for sure).

[@Achrononmaster]

@12:30 ok, change "progressivism" to "absolutist or transcendental" thinking. But even then Žižek is wrong. It's not thinking about the transcendent that's the cause of false hope and suffering (such thinking is sublime, a good), the case of the misery is that people get it in their head they can comprehend the transcendent and know what to do about it in the physical world. Such people can be inspirational, but they're fallible and flawed creatures, and the parts they get wrong can be dangerous.

[@in.der.welt.sein.]

​@@Achrononmasterthat's pretty much the most abstract, empty way one could put it, and then adding in "original sin" hardly makes it convincing.

[@ericmiller6056]

"Wer Hegel liest, liest alleine." -Dieter Henrich Literal translation: "Whoever reads Hegel, reads alone." But the spirit of the remark is better captured as follows: "You wanna read Hegel, kid? You're on your own!"

[@Panama_lewis]

Got it, using Hegel to forward social democracy.

[@markslist1542]

Great, but ridiculous amounts of bass in the audio.

[@BDFaran]

Thank you for the initiative and all the work for putting these sessions together. I only wonder wouldn't this particular session be more informative and to the point if Mr Zizek was not there.

[@atnafuzewdie8714]

God became Man for Man to became God. Hegel

[@AncientRylanor69]

w

[@michaelcarrig627]

The dialectic of the post-nasal drip.

[@JasonQuackenbushonGoogle]

And if you take zizek seriously it’s astonishing that Wittgenstein and Cohen never realized that Hegel had already built in their rejections of him into his system. If we grant that Pinkard and Zizek are presenting legitimate interpretations of Hegel, but all that actually shows is that everything follows from a contradiction, and Hegel is therefore semantically empty.

[@parmiggianoreggie-ano1832]

But isn’t that actually the point? It seems like an obsessive preservation of the Other to claim “Hegel is semantically empty” and thus there’s no reason to give him that attention. It seems like an “honest disavowal” where the effect/consequence of the truth is negated by it’s own affirmation. The point here is exactly that the “nothing” of Hegel is what we must strive for, not some kind of secret content that stands in it but the truth that is concealed by our own form of interrogation.

[@punchgod]

As a closet deleuzean, all readings are legitimate. 😊

[@JasonQuackenbushonGoogle]

Always nice to see Judith Butler get dragged though.

[@godotkrull579]

Leibniz was the last guy who knew everything...

[@fleetstreet11]

*sniff* and so on and so on

[@L4wr3nc3810]

epic

[@marlobardo4274]

If Hegel was the last guy to know everything then Socrates was already the first guy to know nothing...

[@mustyHead6]

Well, socrates started philosophy (love of wisdom) and hegel famously said his mission was to *have* knowledge rather than just love of it.

[@theelectricant98]

​@@mustyHead6preface to the phenomenology?

[@JasonQuackenbushonGoogle]

Pinkard’s Hegel sounds very reasonable and unobjectionable. its curious how no one previously noticed that far from being a reactionary or metaphysical charlatan, he was really just a post analytic neo pragmatist

[@ornature5324]

Pragmatism is neo-hegelianism in many ways historically, although pinkard agrees that there are great differences ultimately

[@in.der.welt.sein.]

What do you mean? Pinkard points out on the first page of his Hegel biography that those interpretations are literally a dime a dozen, and the whole book shows how these interpretations don't match reality.

[@in.der.welt.sein.]

@@dostoyevsky1222 I don't follow...

[@akankshatrivedi2168]

*sniff* *sniff* .. so on and so on..

[@atnafuzewdie8714]

Wherther, you like it or not, Hegel Has Created and is still Creating Universes. Thanks to Christ. Hegel is the Unty of God the Father and his Son Christ-Logos-the Holy Sprit.

[@atnafuzewdie8714]

I just would like to add and mention he Hegel like Christ and father is the Logos. Science of Logic.

[@alexelefelt]

The easiest way is to not read it

[@atwarwithdust]

Star Wars as a Hegelian retort to Hegel: not only can the road to hell be paved with good intentions, but the road to a better galaxy can be paved by a genocidal maniac (Darth Vader).

[@briankoontz1]

How is modern Hegelianism not a nostalgic critique of factionalism, division, and most of all nationalism? So in order to combat the "rise of the alt-right" and right critiques of Neoliberalism, Zizek brings us Hegel, who existed in a living world of emerging human power and sought to shape that power in a Humanist direction. We ourselves live in a dying world of desperation and survival. Once we remove nostalgia, there's no connection here. The idea is that we can re-create the world that Hegel lived in through Hegelianism, keeping all the best parts of the world post-Hegel, but instead we should create a 21st century world that suits us, not a nostalgic vision of the past.

[@benoitguillette8945]

I think that you have missed the part in which Zizek said that “Hegel would have predicted Stalin” (just out of his sheer darkness or negativity).

[@briankoontz1]

​@@addammadd We don't so much need philosophy as need to be freed from it. This is Anarchism, which was popularized post WWII and especially post-1968, when Capitalism lost its meaning within Western culture. The purpose of Anarchism is to clear away old irrelevant ideas and allow us the freedom to create new ones. The opponent of Anarchism was (and still is) approaching human extinction, the growing irrelevance of creating new ideas. Every new idea is greeted with a groan, a rolling of the eyes, as if "this guy doesn't get it, we'll all be dead soon". So what we turn to are old, already formed (and therefore highly articulated) ideas, through which we can celebrate and wax nostalgic for the living, hopeful world in which (and more importantly, FOR WHICH) they were formed. We ought to question what Right do we have to Hegel? But we never limit ourselves, we are the Alpha and the Omega, we have the right to everything, celebrated under the concepts of Creativity and Freedom, Imperialism scoffed at by the Righteous Left as a factor, with our own certainty in our Rationality held up as the justification for total access. We are reflexively desperate and terrified. Our mark of pride and happiness is that we consider our dire circumstances, and respond to it. We honor nostalgia because it "keeps us going", and we fear what would happen to ourselves, noting the growing rate of suicide, if we were to cut ourselves off from the past living world. The grave error is that by identifying with the past living world we relate ourselves to it - it allows for the illusion that things are not so bad after all, Hegel is still relevant, we've made sure of that, so clearly that proves that our world is similar to the world of Hegel, because otherwise how could he have been made relevant? So we high-five ourselves for our vast cleverness, our "overcoming of our problems", the way that someone who puts up wallpaper over a bloody wall has "solved his dilemma".

[@freddie2119]

​@@briankoontz1 'Our mark of pride and happiness is that we consider our dire circumstances, and respond to it. We honor nostalgia because it "keeps us going", and we fear what would happen to ourselves, noting the growing rate of suicide, if we were to cut ourselves off from the past living world. The grave error is that by identifying with the past living world we relate ourselves to it - it allows for the illusion that things are not so bad after all...' ...the opening of Hegel's philosophy of right, 'abstract right', is involved in your musings here as to why you must begin from relating yourselves to the present in order to seek its overcoming (or to at least problematise 'it'), - as in order to posit the overcoming of any determination, the tarrying is part of a desire 'for' sublation (at least if you're trying to draw an emancipatory prospect, - which in Hegel's thought I consider to be completely misplaced...). This grave error of any such materialist reading is assuming that it can prima facie lead to its own suspension, - purely from the angle of desire itself. This is the lesson of Hegel, - that tarrying with the negative is an abyssal front which is not for 'change' or 'progress' or 'the end of...', but pure Becoming. It's a bit like submerging under water and occasionally having to emerge when out of breath, - again and again. It is when running out of breathe when one finally turns back to Hegel (not when waxing nostalgically!).

[@user-wl2xl5hm7k]

@@benoitguillette8945 That’s just a theoretical and ironic statement. One can’t soothsay anything. If Hegel knew about pragmatism, he may have been able to prevent Stalin.

[@benoitguillette8945]

@@user-wl2xl5hm7k The Owl of Minerva waits because it knows that, no matter what, a contingency will happen that will necessarily destroy the prevalent symbolic order or history.

[@marcelomunizfreire4555]

Congrats, Douglas Lain. You succeed to make Zizek return to where he should not have gone away: debating Hegel! This way, he can spare us from his Nato-lover ideological remarks about politics! Great job, Douglas!

[@gonx9906]

I wish i could listen to zizek but i cant get pass of his accent and mannerisms

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

Keep trying. I dismissed Zizek videos for a long time because the way he spoke distracted me too much, but if you keep listening a point comes where you’ll pretty much cease to notice it. Now, I even find him strangely charismatic.

[@kalazcze]

This podcast host is annoying. He is only interested in manipulating the discussion so that it unfolds in the way he marketed it.

[@sublationmedia]

Weird, because I put all of my questions aside and let Zizek lead the discussion.

[@theelectricant98]

Point to even one instance of this happening

[@koboldgeorge2140]

From listening to these three here's my take away of hegelianism: Intellectuals are sissy losers who dont understand the world and are basically incapable of functioning in it, but they know there are powerful and virtuous people in the world who can function. The problem for the intellectual then, is how to get strong and virtuous people to subordinate themselves to effete weaklings that would sooner die than do anything worthwhile with their lives. For hegel, this ultimate struggle between the knowledge holders and the virtue holders is the primary driver of history, and the push and pull between them creates the apparent movement of the historical process. The question these three are trying to deal with is that for 200 years intellectuals have been responsible for the most disgusting atrocities of all time, and where the public once accepted excuses about material conditions ruining The Great Work, increasingly the court alchemists and astrologers of the world's empires are viewed with hatred. Some, the draghi/macron/biden camp of degenerate bourgeois relics, cling to the old faith. On the other side is an increasingly agitated public, who still havent quite realised that the electoral and administrative mechanisms are non-overlapping magisteria. What then, as a useless weakling without ambition, vision or hope, is an intellectual to do in such a world? The answer: do whatever, because youre going to fail anyways. For hegel teaches us that failure isn't a sign that youre a loser without virtue, who is attempting to push the world in a sinful direction in opposition to divine will; but rather is unavoidable and needs to be done and actually is a sign that you're doing the right thing. Grade me, teacher

[@sublationmedia]

Shut off your mind, relax, and float downstream.

[@CynicalBastard]

You need Jesus.

[@johnryan3913]

D minus

[@pavdalianis1960]

Seriously people you need these guys to tell you how to read hegel? Just read hegel.

[@XD226]

23:00