The Madness of Modern Philosophy

Hello and good morning everyone, in today’s lecture I’d like to explain Slavoj Žižek’s stance towards the Cartesian cogito, and what he calls “The Constitutive Madness of Modern Philosophy.”
Thank you for watching. If you’d like to help me keep making these daily videos please consider becoming a patron. Thank you!
You can read the edited transcript of this lecture and support my work here: / transcript-3-of-105275838
#slavojzizek #zizek #philosophy #psychoanalysis #lacan #freud #postmodernism

[@julianphilosophy]

The lecture brings at 3:17 Thank you for watching. My “Complete Guide to Žižek” ebook can be found here: www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy

[@Kaydin66]

STOP USING PICTURES OF FAMOUS PHILOSOPHERS IN YOUR THUMBNAILS WHEN THEY AREN'T THE VIDEO fuck you

[@jasondestroyerofworlds7227]

What's it gonna bring me..... Sh*t? Huh... Thought so -_-

[@Liisa3139]

What a complex way to put the fact that thinking is difficult. It only starts when you begin to truly question your own "thinking" and notice that actually you have been just following the mass. It is a painful realization that introduces the individual to the solitude of existence. From then on you will be the "enemy" of any crowd, you will be out from the garden - as you are one of the minority that can see that the garden is not a garden at all, but a wasteland.

[@Nasir_3.]

Light’s place is good now, the previous ones were even hurting my eyes. From Afghanistan by the way, keep up the good work man

[@vivekkaushik9508]

How's it going over there now my friend? Good to see people from Afghanistan interested in western philosophy.

[@andrewcraig3113]

This is such good overview and analysis, I appreciate it, I’ll subscribe

[@devilishegg]

Feedback: it took 3 minutes to get to the content of the video. This makes it hard to focus on the actual content since the intro items may or may not apply to the person watching. Thank you for putting this out!

[@devilishegg]

I just saw your pinned comment, but having these items at the end I think would be better. :)

[@raymondmartini5500]

From Melbourne, Australia, as a novice, I am seriously grateful!

[@franciscobermejo1779]

I get It, both the cogito and the unconscious are fruits

[@samstewart4329]

Can’t wait to understand this one 🙌. One day…

[@davidwright8432]

From a philosophy course taken now 6 decades back (!) I got the impression the 'cogito' was Descartes' answer to the question, 'At absolute rock bottom, being aware that 'I am', how can I know (in the sense of 'correctly confirm') that this is so? Evading (putative) Demonic temptation to belief about my nature. My own take on Descartes (subject to change, after argument!) is that he was interested in anchoring his own existence, not in promulgating an Enlightenment view of this, based on healthy skepticism and empirical investigation. Of course I no more 'do' psychoanalysis, than I 'do', god. Nobody's given me any - let alone a convincing - account of what a 'psyche' is, and how it might be analysed. And into what?

[@kikiami9642]

@julianphilosophy hey where are you speaking in Seattle? I’m also in the PNW and really enjoy your thoughts and would love to hear you in person, thanks for sharing your knowledge journey :)

[@bigguy7777]

awesome :-)

[@callmeuriah.5433]

Okay, this one goes hard.

[@Faus4us_Official]

I see Slavoj Žižek. I click.

[@LostSoulAscension]

I'm realizing that I'm not so into the philosophical contents of philosophy, but more so the philozophization of philozophy.

[@mdialidadi]

Thanks! Living in Melbourne, Australia, but grown and educated in Iran

[@andrewswanlund]

Hi, thanks, glad to find your channel. I don't hear very well, so have to turn the volume to maximum. Would it be possible to turn up the recording volume or get closer to the microphone? Otherwise it makes it a challenge to parse. thanks!

[@beenabarna1403]

Thank you from Colorado

[@kimwelch4652]

The reliance on Freud's formulation of the unconscious is a mistake. Freud saw the unconscious as only a store of repressed thoughts. His idea of the unconscious is smaller than the ego-consciousness. The Jungian formulation is the unconscious as both the content that is rejected by the ego, and a universe of content that has never been and may never be conscious. Jung's idea of the unconscious is larger than the ego, and carries more of the individual's behavior. This comports more closely with experimental evidence. We are legion, and sometimes, more often than we like to think, the legion gets the upper hand.

[@christopherjones7849]

This is also described back in Platos apology. These ideas are not new nothing is. We are a needle and thread with no knot to hold the patch together, humanity will forever seek security against our will as individuals. And what we fear most is what puts us farther ahead

[@marcsilverstein7991]

How does the Freudian unconscious relate to the Kantian Ding-An-Sich? I feel like theres a connection in the sense of the inaccessible or unknowable barrier or limit

[@wailinburnin]

You want “Zizek on Ding-An-Sich?” [I just like saying it three times quick!]

[@Azupiru]

The Symbols of these Classical Orders are actually traceable in the material culture from Sumer, to Akkad, to Phoenicia, to Israel, and all around the Mediterranean, and they still stand as your reigning Corinthian Order, going over 2000 years strong, with its thorny acanthine concealment of the source of the volutes represented in previous Orders (see the proto-Aeolic capitals of the City of David...). This is the *patterning* of your civilization, things you hardly notice (floral patterns, rosettes, architecture, mosaic motifs, etc.), but if you trace these to their source, and you consider the entirety of the Constructed Hebrew Language games and the Classical Syriac response in the translation of the Peshitta (consider how bizarre the following example is in Classical Syriac, אכרוך כרכין, which means, "I bind/roll books/scrolls" and "I circle fortresses"), you learn exactly what the "Apocalypse" is about. When you follow the chain of referents (it's not even really that long. I'm kind of surprised I'm the first person pointing this out), it points to one flower, the Saffron Crocus. Seriously. I don't think your Civilization will be able to bear the weight of the truth. The Orders are collapsing.

[@totonow6955]

I have benefited a lot from Todd McGowan, Richard Boothby and Ryan Rngley.

[@marcsilverstein7991]

If you say that Lacan is a return to the Cartesian cogito, does that mean the Cartesian cogito was later rejected or ignored until Lacan? What does that mean? Also how does the Cartesian Cogito relate to the issue of Thinking and Being, and Being and Nothing found in Hegel , the latter being the beginning of Science Of Logic of course

[@he1ar1]

In the metaphor of excrement, I think that Zizek is critical of Luther rather than Calvin. Calvin says that god has predestined humans to go to heaven. God is good and there is no reason to doubt god's wisdom. Luther says it is by good work that we go to heaven. Since Zizek says that we can't do good work because we are full of ****, Luther condemns us all to hell. And we must conclude that god is **** for letting that happen.

[@grosbeak6130]

Calvin also had an equal predestination for those who would be left out of heaven, which is most of humanity by default are going to hell. I don't know where you're getting your information from.

[@damaplehound]

Why do you think Calvin thought all of humanity was predestined for salvation? By reading him and the reformed movement, it seems most of us are predestined for damnation, not heaven.

[@one-sidedrationalization1091]

According to the 5 solas, Luther believes in justification by faith alone. He doesn’t believe in faith based works, in his view God does not need our good works, it’s our neighbors who do. Loving one’s neighbor means loving those who help themselves. If one has faith in Christ alone, it is assumed that one does good works in service of one’s neighbor.

[@mattgilbert7347]

Luther was obsessed with theses and feces. Can you imagine him on social media? Our boy would *never* stop shitposting.

[@mattgilbert7347]

Calvin had most of humanity predestined to damnation. However, the idea was to assume that you were one of the elect, and proceed from that assumption (or faith). Then you would prove it - or rather, your life would.

[@KrkiAlax]

💯

[@xXSironimoXx]

And the story kinda starts with Plato and Aristotle writing down the Socratic turn of sophstic against itself. Explicitly Aristotle started the dialecical ladder by incorporating the sophistic agon (well simply the open fight with words...long story) - could you call this the birth of 2-side-logic (give me a better name;) ? In Hegelian Terms could you call it an "Aufhebung"? So Aristotle "hat den sophistischen Agon "aufgehoben" in 3 ways (thats why German is awesome, it has 3 meanigs here:) aufgehoben in sense of "canceld", aufgehoben im Sinne von "conserved and saved for later", aufgehoben in the sense of "picked up from the ground" (maybe say the agon is used in Aristotelian dialectics or general dialectics idk)... well i forgot my point hf

[@donaldwatkins6937]

I'm watching from Taiwan

[@buckets3628]

Could you do a video (not sure if u already have) about different ways you believe are potentially effective to learn philosophy through any given medium, and how to keep track of all the ideas and thoughts as you learn? Thanks. I respect the goal of this channel as described in the introduction.

[@tomfreemanorourke1519]

Madness is a metaphysical existential reality of 'cogitor' ergo sum.

[@ipusengmathope]

South Africa 😊

[@aleksandarignjatovic3130]

From I think therefore I am DOES NOT FOLLOW I do not think therefore I am not. but I am not therefore I do not hink (counter position). These are two different things.

[@JackPullen-Paradox]

If one is a skeptic, then one may doubt one exists. Then, in the face of no proof of existence, one may give in to such doubts. So, it would be an undulating or rollercoaster experience. One would be constantly shocked into consciousness by the occurrence of thought.

[@Kholan95]

OP, I thought the same thing, but I also understand the reply. ​@@JackPullen-Paradox, there seems an assumption that the skeptic need anything more than the acknowledgement of the thought as proof before going back to the liminal state before questioning again the degree of lucidity in which one dreams. An appeal to the ethos of such a supposed giant as Descarte may honestly do a better job, but at that point one is no better than a devout follower of religious belief, though God is Objectivity and the shrouds of "logic" and "reason" are hallucinating facsimiles of faith. On a personal note: None of it was good enough for me when I was young. By the end of it, it was the emotion behind family bonds, the pleasure of experience in itself, and a desire to have more that gave me motivation to get through grade school. I guess I found my next cup of coffee as it were. Zizek and I suppose Lacan disect not only the logic of questioning but patho-logic-izarion of the questioner. There is a lot to the madness in which they talk, but the conclusions leave me with more questions than answers... 14:18

[@TheGiantMidget]

​@@JackPullen-Paradoxyes but doubting is an act of thinking and so if you doubt that you exist that is proof that you do exist because you can only doubt if you are thinking and you can only think if you exist

[@JackPullen-Paradox]

​@@TheGiantMidget (This is an aside) Suppose we were materialists who believed that the brain equaled the mind, and that there were an evil demon who had an inanimate brain in a vat of nutrients. Let's assume for generality that the brain was grown form whatever seed genetic research required to produce such a thing, and that this brain was devoid of any thoughts or other mental debris Then that demon could apply electrodes to portions of the brain and simulate any idea or experience (well, at least any that that brain could be capable of). Since consciousness is said by the materialists to be the process of collections of brain states, "someone" would be experiencing these brain stimulations--possibly one of us. If so, we would not exist in the usual sense, yet we could still perceive. Someone else, say you for instance, could also be simulated by the same brain, it would seem. So, you and I could have our consciousness triggered within the same brain. But what of second brain that could be triggered to have our same conscious experiences? Then there could be two brains with the same experiences of consciousness. Yet, in what sense would either of us exist? (I would like to expand upon this idea of multiple brains and multiple personalities but the only thing I have a the moment is the idea that we are talking about a personality that has no memories or other substance to ground it, but is still fully rounded through nothing more than electrical stimulation.) If such a thing as a brain in a vat were possible then I could rationally maintain the stance that I did not exist even though I was able to have thoughts, doubts, etc.

[@JackPullen-Paradox]

The owner of the consciousness in the case discussed above is the process that was induced in the brain. The consciousness does not reside in the brain; so, where does it reside? It existence is independent of place but not time, i.e., the consciousness can exist in two processes that are in space-separated brains and yet be virtually identical. Brains may make for better consciousness but are not so different that we can rule out other processes occurring on other substrates having at least a rudimentary consciousness attached to them. Given this possibility, consciousness may be all around us. In this case, must not consciousness be a fundamental property of the universe in order to avoid paradoxes? The universe would be filled with consciousness and there would be no description involving matter, energy, dark matter, and dark energy that would provide a cause and effect mechanism for its existence. This is similar to the problem of the dualists in explaining how the mental realm interacts with the physical realm.

[@wailinburnin]

Does Zizek know you are saying Zizek makes dense statements? I think, therefore, I am…I think? - [Descartes, in a moment of doubt]

[@fjfaase]

A => B does not imply ~A => ~B, only ~B => ~A.

[@JackPullen-Paradox]

Why when we go to sleep, or when we wake up, we are not concerned about the possibility of non-being? I would say that given the Cogito or without it, there is neurotic behavior for only a very few concerning continuity of existence. Some experience an end of existence anxiety, but this seems to be something different. The intellectual lives to think. But the intellectual is very aware of existence during periods of non-thinking: it is the long, dull tunnel of boredom when nothing stimulates the intellect. For the very creative, this experience on occasion presages a creative leap forward and may not be entirely dreaded. But for most, the experience will be exquisitely unpleasant. But it still does not necessarily give way to neurotic symptoms.

[@TheGiantMidget]

You're never not thinking. Any act of perception is thought because it exists in the mind. You only cease to be in thought when you die

[@JackPullen-Paradox]

​@@TheGiantMidgetI may not say it is continuous but I wouldn't disagree; however, I think of the Evil Demon and believe that its power over the senses was in Descartes' mind the power to simulate existence. It had the power, also, to simulate every facet of rational thought. The one thing it couldn't do was hide the notion that one was thinking. Could HE have meant perception also? I wouldn't have thought perception was intentional enough to his mind, though it is in fact probably the most intentional thing we do, but perhaps. So, it may be that Descartes did not include perception in his idea of thinking, yet it would be included in a modern reinterpretation of the Cogito. But if it is, it seems to dilute the novelty and profundity of the Cogito. It would imply that denial of existence is impossible. However, Descartes claimed to have achieved doubt. How did he do it? It is I who is doubting. This seems to me to mean that we are talking about a mental dialog or stream of ideas: how should I put it? One need not think in words or sounds but one does not usually include perception in what one means when one says one is thinking. Perception simply occurs. One must grapple with "idealets" or notions to come to a conclusion like, "It is I who is doubting." So, although a modern view is that thought includes perception, that is not, I believe, what Descartes alluded to in the discourse leading to I Think, Therefore I Am. And I believe that Descartes would not have included perception even if he had known all of modern brain science; though, perhaps, in that case, he might not have counted himself a dualist either!

[@TheGiantMidget]

@@JackPullen-Paradox i think maybe a better terminology would be "i am aware therefore i exist" even if all of your thoughts and perceptions are illusory, the mere awareness of these things cannot be doubted

[@JackPullen-Paradox]

​@@TheGiantMidget I'm toying with the idea of the evil daemon changing our doubt to belief (not the other way round) or our awareness of our environment to ... what? At that point, one seems to be certain of something, but if the daemon is changing our belief to doubt, would we not doubt? On the other hand, how could we doubt? It's like one would alternate between belief and unbelief as one would see one thing or the other in certain optical illusions. Then one would be said to accept existence if one believed at the time of death, or got tired of the uncertainty and willed one or the other. I'm being a little facetious, I suppose. But it does not seem completely clear what a modern Descartes would think at a given time if all he had were perceptual information to go on. However, the question becomes, Can one doubt that one is perceiving? There is a brain condition in which the subject is unaware of existing paralysis. Could the evil daemon afflict one with a form of this condition that involved the entire body and mind? One can doubt what one is perceiving but one would be certain that one is perceiving something; yet, if the evil daemon can convert belief into unbelief, one would doubt with certainty that one was perceiving. At least for a while. And every time the belief came back, the doubt would also come back. Because all of this happens in Time, one would experience the alternation of belief and unbelief unless one chose to pick a side in some way and deal with the situation at some other level, which also seems to be a possibility for the human mind. How much does the intellect affect our perceptions? One can convince oneself that the world does not exist as solid structures but as clouds of swirling particles. One can convince oneself that the world is a simulation. That thought is a disembodied process and the referent does not exist in any meaningful way. This is not the daemon; this is an intellectual person trying to make sense of the world. If such a person took to heart the possibility of misperception, would they not be capable of doubting existence. Just a thought. All-in-all, the statement, I am aware therefore I exist," is a better version of the Cogito. And the probability of being duped b y an evil daemon, given one exists, is doubtful on that account. However, if we are talking about the mind, or the human brain, the possibilities seem a little too vast to be completely certain. Therefore, should our belief in existence be completely certain?

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Miracles can and do exist because Consciousness is above law, and a mind that is one with Consciousness is also above laws and can change them as necessary, not according to whim, or for gain, but in accordance with; and compliance with Cosmic Intelligence for a particular purpose. The miracles Christ performed were of this nature.

[@karldehaut]

Ok a nice mix between platonic realism and idealism. A problem arises, both require satisfying conditions of necessity and universality. If your “Consciousness” conforms to “Cosmic Intelligence” you have 2 consciousnesses, one of which is subordinate to the other, otherwise they would not be distinct. So how, or even why, does human consciousness, even if it is above the laws (which ones?) know cosmic intelligence? If it is by a revelation through Christian narrative is absolutely contingent. The only way to provide access to cosmic intelligence in the Christian narrative is through the petio principii sophism. This lead invariably to a circular reasoning. Furthermore (a trifle) how a Cosmic Intelligence interact with this pesky natural world? Even in the case of accepting of miracles existence and reality these problems arise.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

@@karldehaut I thought I had answered this but I do not see my answer showing up. Consciousness, Intelligence, Mind are different modes not different separate things. For example a mind shares in or has intelligence, Intelligence shares in or is conscious. Consciousness is fundamental to both.

[@juvenalhahne7750]

Sem legendas nao da pra saber do que voce esta falando, o que e uma pena! Lendo os comentarios da pra sentir que a coisa foi do balacobaco!

[@guilhermeviegas6139]

pois é

[@miro6470]

Tem legendas em inglês se você ativar o CC. Tem também tradução automática que dá para configurar para português.

[@aosidh]

Cf "When You Sleep", Cake

[@Beautyargentina6]

Can someone translate bro I deadass can’t take it😭

[@derwandschauer]

Austria

[@faustynaterefenko9146]

[@brb3841]

Virginia❤

[@yj9032]

Buddy, you gotta invest in a good mic.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

I still don't understand how America gets drawn back into the physicalism vs idealism and that we must categorize subjectivity into one or the other. Gravity is not idealism nor physicalism and its clearly subjective properties like hamiltonian oscillating waves correlated with idealized time has benefits and valuable sensibility while out top down physical approach through hiesenberg end in clear physical uncertainty or even mystification. Nature gives us more than dualism. More than just inderect lines detected in environments qaurks or love and gravity none of which are physical or idealism. X,yz manmade time hierarchy knowledge of Good and evil equations even if we merge or standardized like Einstein or merge plato like Darwin it's still more than dualism. Neither idealism/ faith or physical works gives us all we measure in nature today. I thought as Americans,or most of our ancestors fled these exact prayer logic, conservative whatsboutism vs cursed rationalism progressive interventionism for something better. Pure and honest approach where we condition ourselves and stop trying to force the old world beliefs. I get moving closer to the rest of the world both in helping accommodate immigration from Europeans in 1900s -1945s . Allowed them to focus on rebuilding Europe, then turned to participatory academics to get 3rd world's nations to take part and industrialize. But in all this uk & America just all but gave up its elusive prosperity oreintation and direction in phylosphy looking to Europe or abroad

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Of course here when you seek Jesus salvation to unify the tripartite nature unless you find set theory mathematical equation that simply isn't close yet. Or you can plagerize it in some idealize Hibbert space theory or something

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

We could make a case this has went on since mosaic commandments was born in conflict with physical lawisms of the Assyrian / Babylonian era. History of nations people places and things formulated out of the search for civilization roots in esoterica America appeared to find a way out in objectivism. Ancient world inspired Helenistic enlightenment in concert with paper scroll production 1300s global peasant revolt inspired European enlightenment in concert with Gutenberg press. One ul separatist pilgrim puritan classical American American experiment the Amish bailed on once we decided to build out a computational lasseia Faire future new paradigm of our own We liberated all common sense marginalized groups leaving only criminals, industrialized the world, and humanity has no dream beyond this 3rd enlightenment. Many talk of repeating messy colonization of space and all physical Dyson spheres where I guess the past mistakes taught Noone anything about where this endless circle leads us.

[@conforzo]

Which is why Hegel is so clear. He presupposes nothing at all.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

I always felt it should be:: I Am, therefore I think. Why not start with the ground of being which is consciousness (the so-called hard problem). Without ‘ I am-ness ‘ we would not be, and therefore not thinking. Much of modern philosophy is nonsense. The Dark Age did a major number on Intelligence to which the human mind has access and therefore we have to go back to Ancient Philosophy to find commonsense. Parmenides was so advanced that today what he was able to grasp about reality is beyond the grasp of most people. Then there are materialists who cannot comprehend anything beyond matter and match the age we are in now which is The Material Age.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

@@TwisterTornado Beats talking off the top of your head.

[@TheGiantMidget]

Nietzsche would agree

[@taciprince7400]

9:46

[@taciprince7400]

18:13

[@taciprince7400]

23:00

[@taciprince7400]

27:53 conclusion

[@kimwelch4652]

""If I stop thinking, I will cease to exist."" Hilarious. Do modern philosophers fear the Buddha?

[@darrellee8194]

No, I think they are conflating thought with experience. Certainly, if I stop "experiencing" then I cease to exist.

[@andybaldman]

Don’t use a thumbnail of zizek if you don’t plan on showing zizek. Thumbnail was misleading.

[@jeremybrookshire8775]

But he talked about him?

[@andybaldman]

@@jeremybrookshire8775 Then make a thumbnail with a text graphic that explains the subject of the video. But if the picture in the thumbnail is a frame of video that doesn't actually appear in the video, it's clickbait.

[@jeremybrookshire8775]

@@andybaldman ehhh, like 50% clickbait.

[@michaelbergfeld8751]

The cogito is not a REAL thought it is a fabricated one. There is consciouness, but that doesn't mean i am, but i am aware. So Descartes doesn't say something that merites other than correction.