The Sublime Object of Ideology - Slavoj Žižek - Full Audiobook - Part 1

[@takieddinbalti6956]

This is great, finally some zizek wisdom without his talking moistening my ears.

[@youngsdrums]

👍

[@CAkidTalks]

Makes my ears dry.

[@TheFifthBanana01]

*sniff*

[@simpulacra2]

Sniff

[@cursed_potato7604]

@@CAkidTalks Wet Ass Ears

[@mikeguliano3159]

Thank you very much for the upload. The voice of this gentleman was 500% better than the usual boring, cringey, inflecting at all the wrong times audiobook orators.

[@iraholden3606]

LibreVox

[@chriswaggoner4691]

hey, whoever you are, thank you so much for doing these readings. It's very much appreciated. I hope you got something out of doing the work, for yourself as well.

[@GuessTheFondMachine]

Wow hell yeah. *sniffs*

[@rasmussrensen2029]

And so on.

[@neko_tov]

@@rasmussrensen2029 *shniffs*

[@tareqewaida8532]

the only audiobook I wouldn't want to hear in author's voice

[@friendoftheshow8117]

Phenomenal work! I want to thank you, because I don't think I would have sat down the text if I didn't have this sort of an exposure to it. I had the initial impression that this was just famous for placing Zizek on the scene, whereas the really hard work would be found in his larger texts, but this really is absolutely foundational to everything else he's been working on

[@veronicarodriguez8094]

Dear Zizek, Thank you kindly for your insights.

[@john2426]

LOVE IT....THANKS

[@paraphilicanalysis1737]

When it comes to the idea of a subject, through which we believe, I am reminded of a quote from Watchmen: “Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says, "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says, "But doctor...I am Pagliacci.”

[@mikeandyholloway]

Oh hell yes! Thank you narrator and patrons!

[@leonpinguin]

Amazing, thanks for your time.

[@antoniusdeweerd8506]

Amazing work ! So great to have an audio version of this. Much appreciated ❤ Just a small note to all non-French speakers: “Che vuoi?” Is not French but Italian … and means: “what do you want ?” (It is also connected to the famous Italian hand gesture 🤌) In French it would be: “qu'est-ce que tu veux?”… The unfortunate consequence is that most English speakers end up pronouncing the words as if they are French thereby uttering two French words that have nothing to do with what’s at stake being “chez” (at the house/place of) and “voix” (voice)… Is you wanna do it correctly here’s how it’s done: “Che” is pronounced with a ‘k’ sound at the beginning. “Vuoi” has a ‘v’ sound followed by a ‘w’ followed by “oy” (as in boy).

[@HypatiaMuse]

Thank you for this- bravo.

[@mehmettunc3640]

Thanks, finally an audiobook!

[@DankAudioStash24]

Wow!

[@HBrown-cc6wv]

Phenomenal channel.

[@bloodsports6147]

Thank you! Was waiting for someone to upload this.

[@omletecrayola]

Thank You

[@hastiestone3951]

Such a great reading

[@JohlBrown]

Been meaning to read this for years. Thank you.

[@williamscottharkey]

Really appreciate this! Many, many thanks!

[@manofculture1871]

This book is so damn unreadable. I love it.

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

Thank you, for the algorithm

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

“The Real” sounds very much like the singularity in physics and mathematics, the center of a black hole or what existed at the Big Bang, a point of infinite density and gravity, somehow both a part of and outside the space-time continuum.

[@MajorZeuz]

A very apt comparison, in my belief. Also because it is almost or entirely impossible for us, in our position (often too inundated in the Other and the Imaginary) to ever truly observe the thing itself, or know what it truly is to exist in it.

[@OllieMendes]

Only problem is this is really quiet for me. I've got headphones and I have to turn my audio up three times louder to hear it.

[@_seth9430]

Now just imagine this book voiced by AI Ziziek...

[@ButthurtImmigrant]

I understand pretty much everything, but I still have no idea what he’s saying.

[@0hate9]

Good audiobook, but for the record, "apropros" is pronounced with a silent "s".

[@Hashbrown1816]

Fuck Audible, all my homies love Theory Audiobooks.

[@acetoz5158]

I don’t believe anyone listening to this understands it as deeply as it can be. Too dense to be listened to.

[@susugam3004]

some people learn better one way or another :) there's a rewind button and another one for pause!

[@TheDirolo]

Because it doesn’t say anything

[@GentlemanLife-Beyotch]

Why didn't I hear congestion?

[@dougj4435]

Whenever I read Zizek, I still hear Daffy Duck narrating. Luckily I have a Zizek proxy now thanks to you! How about something on Critical Realism from Bhaskar?

[@aaronjones818]

Does anyone understand this

[@susugam3004]

it took me a few years but yes, i'm starting to.

[@merentayak8403]

Teşekkürler

[@dsff6288]

1- How marx invent the symptom - 2-from sy,ptom to sinthome 3- che vuoi thinking-+ wish subject is the real-

[@BlackTylerOG]

I have no idea what any of this means

[@foamersimpson6690]

7:36:48

[@marcus_lyn]

This is such an absurd labor that's been put out into the world - a totally novel product of the intermingling between Zizek's presence as a leftist figurehead, the proliferation of breadtube, and the zoomer tendency for passively consumable content. The impressions in the comment area are scattered, some thankful, others skeptical, asking things like "Can anybody really understand this?", "Are people pretending to get it?", "Am I just stupid?". An air of general confusion prevails. What I'll say is that the most is gotten out of this book with at least some background knowledge of German Idealism. If you don't even know what that is, you have to do some more learning. I also just wouldn't recommend listening to this book. It's extremely helpful to be able to go back and forth easily in a book as dense with info as this one. These are pretty heady ideas and it may take a few tries to fully process even some sentences.

[@jennyhirschowitz1999]

A fine comment. Thank you ….. I too am going back and forth from the excellent narration to the relevant texts, where my marginalia appears to be taking over available space. Once I settle into a bit of quiet reading, even concentrating on a solitary paragraph, it’s akin (to me) to listening to a few staves of Schoenberg ……. Miss Jenny (music theory teacher).

[@normalhuman6260]

Zizek is his own superspreader event *sniff sniff*

[@NoahsUniverse]

Read a bit too seriously and kind of removed from it but still good

[@sunglasseslizard7631]

57:52

[@robertrostad3930]

I clicked hoping that it was read by someone easier to listen to than the author...but goddamn son, you’ve overcompensated...

[@Andynonymous_music]

Great narration! however one correction: “che vuoi” is Italian and hence pronounced as “ke vuoy”. You were reading it as French it seems.

[@diegomoreno9557]

Better than any pills

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

13:50 No.. The aim is not only in the relative disposition of the material toward which I'm aiming. This is just empty language games. If I smash an apple on my forhead until its destroyed I have not achieved my goal of feeding myself. The action is NOT to be inferred by the material arrangements. WEAK SOULS fly to events. The true action is in every successive impulse toward the ideal to which you are toiling, it unfolds continually from your soul and leaves the Universe behind it as it constantly surges forward,it is the "Will", which even in eating an apple, is incalculable moment to moment and it makes no sense for you to pinpoint the moment, for example, that the thing was ate. Zizek has this weak tendency toward positivism and nihilism and seeks to reduce the Grand incalculable Beauty and Chaos of Nature to something dull and boring like himself so that he may have a better chance of understanding Her.

[@marcus_lyn]

Zizek isnt telling you about his ideas here, he's giving a Hegelian model of cognition... you aren't meaningfully responding to any of this. Your first sentence isn't even a good reflection of what was said, yes the goal has to be founded in the possibilities offered by the object you are acting on, for example, you cannot "drink space" or "communicate with air", the object does not behave this way, its an impossibility. Zizek is a Lacanian-Hegelian Marxist, this is nowhere near close to positivism or nihilism. Zizek specifically points out that Hegel does not lament the loss of your 'Grand incalculable beauty and Chaos', on the contrary it's like his entire thing. The power of understanding is in this 'stripping away' of unnecessary material in order to grasp things in their most essential components, at which point the thing is liberated from our subjective intervention and is self-deployed through the automata of the System, it Spiritually develops. I hate pseudo-intellectuals

[@PrimoPete]

I was afraid, I thought Zizek himself would be narrating.

[@danv4299]

Man, I thought Zizek himself was gunna be the narrator >:o

[@JohnM-cd4ou]

Disappointing how great the first chapter is, because the entire book goes downhill quickly after it ends

[@danhatesyou.3942]

this book makes me feel stupid

[@ДмитрийВербицкий-у7д]

Young Amy Clark Mark Thompson Paul

[@donkeybro7191]

:D

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

My own footnotes (other ppl can ignore) 0:44 they were not simply "holding on to ideology", you dont just generate all things spontaneously, the good act is contained in all parts of the act, from the conception of the aim, to the persons disposition and spirit when carrying it out, to its outcome and everything in between. The process he laments is the same outcome he celebrates. the true copernicus revolution is not a single moment but the final burst of an accumulation of pressure, the entire interval of time between the 1st formalisation of the belief, along with every reconfiguration of single parts through time, wherein the finalized revolution is being actualized quietly and modestly, till we reach the point Zizek calls "the revolution", is the revolution itself. He misunderstand himself. You are not a computer. 5:00 What hes tryna say by "immediacy of life" is to be one with things and command fate, to know that all things must go well because your Soul commands it, all people know this feeling. And that the Discerning spirit (which he calls the understanding) is not the creating one (which he calls the sublime or imagination). The creating one is one with all things and his being flows into him from a higher place and it is not to be questioned, everybody knows this as the "authentic" or "still" experience, with all things falling into place, because the creating one who lives above time is one with everything, because experience is subsequence, time is succession itself, so to be in your proper place is to always be in succession I.e to always be a creator, the discerning faculties of understanding should serve only your character. The sublimity is this character, it's not something to be disillusioned about. Why would you make an enemy out of beauty? 7:00 "Spontaneously choosing.. " As if the natural inclination of Man is to nihilism. Could it be that you post modernists have killed the peoples spirit with you insistence that Nature herself must be as BORING and technical and academic as you? 😂 Nature is not a materialist. 10:00 Wow Okay Chomsky was right this guy is actually saying nothing in so many words and he constantly balanced on Hegels thoughts and other mens words and really is adding nothing. What he's said so far is.. Understanding things makes us isolate properties and the isolation of properties in perpetuity leads to a loss of essential meaning.. Basically Nature is boring and meaning is "merely" in our minds and all else is "mere" ideology, essentially he believes the more lively and engaging something is the more false, no wonder why hes such an invalid physically. This is simple nihilism, in the same form as its come since its inception, shallow and dressed in splendour and big words and false aires. This guy is boring.

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

@@quent94181 I mean all you've done is declare your allegiance to Zizek.. I dont see anything else in what you wrote other than "you dont like Zizek but I do".. What about my other points? Chomsky is in a totally difference Universe to Zizek. They do not see the same world when they leave the house. Zizek only sees a dull grey indifference and so nothing he says is to be trusted.. And that's also why he is totally fruitless in his political endeavours. But yeah I made a few points about his psychological disposition which I think informs the rest of his Being.. And Chomsky is a purer and Greater soul to me.

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

@@quent94181 Fair enough.. You are a tolerant guy.. I dont think somebody is good for the world just because he says vaguely Lefty things.. I think Zizeks way of thinking is positively harmful and even on par with some of the worst influences on society.. At least when it comes to public writers and stuff.. And I think Chomsky was just expressing what he genuinely perceived

[@Hic_Rhodus]

@@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200 Like Iaroslav, I am unwilling to debate anyone who thinks that the youtube comments section is an important and appropriate venue to try to denounce a prominent philosopher... or even to take "notes" on his work. Reading your first two notes, I will simply say in reply that your notes are exactly what they would be expected to be: basic, spontaneous reactions to a first-reading of Zizek and not responding to him in any meaningful way whatsoever. You irretrievably mix and mangle what you are reading/hearing with your own immediate philosophical and religious presumptions. You confuse stating your own personal beliefs and opinions with productively engaging with a text. None of what you are writing shows any understanding of the critical intellectual situation (and discourse) Zizek is engaging with and intervening in. That is what is important, and that is what has made Zizek important. Whatever philosophical objections you are picking up on, 5 minutes after reading him, is of little importance to anyone outside yourself. No one cares (however brutal that sounds). You would do yourself a big favour in life if you ditched this angry evangelist internet persona. It will only damage you in the long term (no one else). And its far easier to see through than you suppose. (Older people often know this from painful personal experience.) No real philosophy or intellectual critique is done via youtube comments. If you spend some hard time slowing down, listening and honestly reading through important texts (whomever they are by)... and then (more importantly) consulting humbly with people who know far more than you about them... then finally you might arrive at a time and place where you are able to engage in productive discussion (not angry condemnatory rants) with actually-existing communities of people who are influenced by these texts.

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

@@Hic_Rhodus So why did you comment.. You just want to spew out some big words and block out your ears to anything different to what your fat lisping daddy told you?

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

@@Hic_Rhodus I stopped reading at "omg how dare you disagree with such a 'prominent philosopher'" Do you even hear the cringe coming out of your face

[@reallivebluescat]

Didn't understand anything. I think Alot of people who listen to this pretend that they do .

[@Shoegaze-]

You’re clearly ignorant lol it’s more of an academic paper than a book and obviously requires a lot of background knowledge