Slavoj Žižek on Christian Atheism, Dawkins & why young people don't read anymore

[@livelovelaugh2130]

I like to expose myself. - Slavoj Žižak 2024

[@Frohicky1]

Totally.

[@conw_y]

I hope one day to reach such heights of intellect.

[@shmoo42]

And so and and so on

[@TheEternalOuroboros]

00:42 Are there fewer ‘deep thinkers’ now? 08:00 How the communist oppression made Slavoj 09:15 A trend of self-relativisation 12:01 The decline of big Theology 16:12 Cultural Christianity vs Christian Atheism 28:36 Identity politics 33:45 Egotism

[@LuizMigSBR]

Thank you

[@claesvanoldenphatt9972]

Žižek is perhaps the most philosophically sophisticated apologist for Christian faith on the scene today. He seems to grasp the philosophy of the Resurrection better than most Christian apologists. Bravo Slavoi!

[@joaov.m.oliveira9903]

Yes, I also love René Girard's take on it, it's incredibly insightful and awakening, though intellectually challenging at times.

[@Moribus_Artibus]

7:36 - "I think 99% of the people are boring idiots, I don't want to have contact with them"

[@Alexander-mr7jq]

Oh god, I love it so much 😅

[@davidwing288]

Hell yeah

[@notreallydavid]

I know I am. It's probably unfixable.

[@danieltemelkovski9828]

Fortunately, it's not the same 99% for everyone.

[@tomaszmielnik]

@@Alexander-mr7jq Why?

[@VD-cb9ws]

The comical shaking of the screen along with these deep discussions is *chefs kiss*.

[@akimorita]

It looks like his home is in a perpetual earthquake, and he just doesn't give a damn 😆

[@hilaladaslk5707]

@@akimorita 😂😂😂

[@kenpanderz]

his laptop camera is trying to avoid the spittle.

[@BlackHorse-d6o]

This is a much needed discussion that is necessary to reconcile our great traditions and moral anchors with the modern world. I do think he's conflating New Age renditions of Eastern spirituality with the actual traditions. They are just as deep and broad as Western religious thought.

[@richardjames5147]

That is very true in today's information society: ready access to an abudance of information just encourages a superficial engagement with any text, viewpoint or topic.

[@christopherdew2355]

Yes, but on the other hand this very morning I heard Dale Ahlquist talking to John Anderson on G K Chesterton, and now Zizek mentions him; moreover, I had always thought of Zizek at the Avant guard of Marxism and now he's accepting a Christian viewpoint and this could lead to an essay comparing utopian models with the Christian one!

[@themanontheinside]

​@@christopherdew2355Christianity is not utopian in this life. Heaven comes after. A big issue with gnostic faiths like Marxism is that heaven can be achieved here, in this life hence the "greater good" arguments and the inevitable disaster that always follows Marxist thought and praxis.

[@nickt2822]

No. It just emphasizes our own superficiality. In the age of information we are less informed than ever because we do not bother to dive deeply in anything.

[@adamhatala7184]

Althought this may be true in some spheres, I think this was not his point here. He explicitly asserts people are not lack of deep knowledge. He was not able to express it clearly, but despite of this deep knowledge they are flat in knowledge. It is oppen to interpretation but one way to grasp it can be that people just know tons of informations but are not able to experience it, to really understand.

[@AI-Hallucination]

i am sure huxley already told us this

[@fhinq2776]

ZIZEK is simply the GOAT

[@EmptyD0ll]

i swear to god i have no idea what hes saying but i cant stop listening

[@mattgilbert7347]

Welcome to Zizek studies!

[@noahhorlacher1149]

A couple minutes in and the screen is shaking while he's already deep in a rabbithole :D Love Žižek

[@georgesandchopin299]

I think he has missed is that the appeal of Buddhism to the likes of Oppenheimer is that it is a nonthestic religion, which is a whole other set of propositions, and naturally appealing to that type of Faustian scientist faced with mythic proportions

[@Nick-xx9br]

I love this man. My personal Prophet.

[@SeekerStardust]

Amen lol ..he is fascinating to listen to

[@madcyborg1822]

Woah dude, get off the meth.

[@lostcauselancer333]

Hating students seems very on brand for Zizek.

[@winstonsmith9424]

where was the hate?

[@lostcauselancer333]

@@winstonsmith9424 I believe he explicitly said he doesn’t teach classes because he “hates students.”

[@daveJenkins-q3t]

Hardly he's semi dependent on students, I've been to one of his gigs , full of students

[@popdop0074]

​@@lostcauselancer333He's a sarcastic bastard, he can't stand the student mindset; he doesn't hate every individual student.

[@themanontheinside]

@@daveJenkins-q3t man' got to eat

[@jonnmostovoy2406]

I love Žižek's bookshelf in the background!

[@SeekerStardust]

Slavoj Žižek so fascinating! is a real intelectual. love this interview :) & am not a usualy Spectator reader

[@benjammin4840]

Wonderful thank you

[@woodsfamily1100]

I keep having to clean my monitor.

[@milfredcummings717]

[@kishorekrishnadas5541]

@@milfredcummings717Some one is Milfred Cumming a lot.

[@gukagudashvili]

​@@woodsfamily1100 Is that your reaction to him for not having X and Facebook?

[@kenpanderz]

the 4D experience of Saliva Žižek.

[@DanielWhite-v4e]

I really impressed

[@charlieducey8880]

Żiżek sounds pretty Manichean in his theology... I am not sure many of the Christians he quotes would agree that God is good and bad, or that the God of the Jewish Scriptures is demonic. That's definitely not what Chesterson thought.

[@maxonmendel5757]

yeah p much.

[@Chris-ee9tf]

@@charlieducey8880 no. Chesterton Will agree. For him, God is also an ultimate devil.

[@BelteshazzarBaumbruck]

Sounds more like Carl Jung's Shadow: He thought that the Christian Trinity should be expanded to include Satan: Sherrard, Philip - Introduction to Religious Thought of C. G. Jung, Comp Studies in Religion 1969. www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/uploads/ArticlePDFs/83.pdf

[@valentinofindrik933]

@@Chris-ee9tf Where did you get that from, if I may ask?

[@ulquiorra4cries]

Zizek constantly references outside of himself in order to ironically imply things about himself.

[@torquemaddertorquemadder2080]

_They put a bunch of random old shoes in a glass box. And that is why it is easier for academic professors employed by the capitalist state apparatus to imagine the end of the world than it is for them to imagine the end of the capitalist state apparatus._

[@humanperson8418]

35:20 - Best answer to the fairy: "Give me generosity towards my neighbor."

[@mertkusluvan3107]

Jung makes a similar argument in his book “Answers to Job”. He essentially says that it is because God is instictive and cannot cognize himself.

[@BelteshazzarBaumbruck]

Carl Jung was heavily immersed in the occult, which is why Freud became scared of him. Jung Carl thought that the Christian Trinity should be expanded to include Satan: Sherrard, Philip - Introduction to Religious Thought of C. G. Jung, Comp Studies in Religion 1969. www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/uploads/ArticlePDFs/83.pdf

[@SeairraAnn]

I wish the people who interview Zizek would take time to understand his work. It always feels like they are way out of their league in the conversation and ask questions that show clearly that they don't understand what he is talking about. These interviews must be exhausting for him

[@kenpanderz]

i think thats mostly because he's constantly bouncing in his chair.

[@the_cata4303]

I think sometimes he is having fun doing it despite being annoyed you can clearly see he always founds a way to say what he wants to say and not what the interviewer would expect to say. You can also directly see if he is annoyed by the amount of ticks he has.

[@dannyarcher6370]

The only Marxist I find compelling to listen to...even if he isn't really a Marxist.

[@P.Aether]

A true Marxist wouldn't call himself a Marxist. "I am not a Marxist" - Marx

[@dannyarcher6370]

@@P.Aether Well, he calls himself one.

[@russellsharpe288]

@@dannyarcher6370 In his encounter with Peterson he said he is more of a Hegelian than a Marxist. I don't think this was just a tactic to wrongfoot Peterson, who had based his address on a critique of Marxism, though - knowing Zizek - it may have been.

[@dannyarcher6370]

@@russellsharpe288 I don't recall that but I know he's said he's a Marxist many times.

[@pichitosmalltown3239]

Marx was Hegelian

[@DF-ss5ep]

You can tell he was really liking the questions

[@RichardEnglander]

He calls himself an atheist but 26:00 all this about the Demiurge and God and Hegel is him revealing that hes a Hegelian gnostic flirting with the esoteric and hermetic secret knowledge of the cultists.

[@shortminute]

He is correct at taking a philosophical stand and stop presenting one’s argument in a package of niceness.

[@BelteshazzarBaumbruck]

Yes, I think you've rumbled him as a Gnostic.

[@shortminute]

@@BelteshazzarBaumbruck lol

[@ScholasticSoma]

Exactly.

[@antun88]

He has this insane claim that at the most deep level, christianity is atheistic. That the story of christianity is about the death of God, divine purpose etc...

[@jonnmostovoy2406]

Žižek is a true centrist.

[@danielhavlin]

Lmao the entire time his camera was shaking like crazy.

[@martinhunter1187]

Love this guy. He’s funny & occasionally insightful. But too discursive - nothing stacks - lots of interesting & amusing fragments lying about though

[@winstonsmith9424]

Some say he's all over the place but he spits out very important ideas - ok maybe as fragments - and they sometimes take a few seconds to land and I for one think they stack . I respect his style - who could he be if not himself? - some of the fragments - the fireworks - he ahem spits out - are very funny and ahem imho more than interseting but very important

[@pichitosmalltown3239]

read his serious philosophical works, most of what he says and writes are for idiots like us

[@axelbruv]

"Occasionally insightful" might be the biggest insult to a thinker.

[@TheYIAmag]

Genesis 6:4 opened and answered all my questions after 36 years of doubting

[@Alexandria-wd7gm]

Expored Eckart recently and I don't see his ideas are somewhat more 'radical' and 'deeper' to ideas in Advaita Vedanta, Sunyata of Mahayana Buddhism, and also Sufism. I'm happy to discover the mystic part of Christianity though.

[@mickaziza]

Going to reread The Idiot.

[@BeesWaxMinder]

Relisten to Bowie/Iggy's IDIOT while you're at it!

[@exercisethemind]

Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican’s cultural minister, wrote an article on the Christian themes in Bowie’s lyrics, notably in his album, "Station to Station" (A reference to the Stations of the Cross), when he was suffering through a painful period of addiction, and wrote the stunningly beautiful, "Word on a Wing", which contained the prayer: “Lord, I kneel and offer you my word on a wing/and I’m trying hard to fit among your scheme of things.”

[@BeesWaxMinder]

@@exercisethemind 🙏

[@ivanlilic5247]

@@mickaziza I've read The Idiot twice! But I've read Brothers Karmazov 20 times,at least! Courant political topics aside, Žižek's reading of Dostoevsky, annoyes me the most! I think brother Cornel West is better orbitour of Russian classics, but he should've never run for prez 😥 It's running his legacy ....

[@ivansevo427]

I sometimes think that Zizek takes from Hegel what suits his own view and removes the rest. I'm not sure Hegel was this definitive about being an atheist. Was Hegel really an atheist?

[@fhinq2776]

@@ivansevo427 well not in a modern sense but he definetely was not religious like that, he saw the dialectics of Christianity and the philosophy of Christianity in itself

[@TribuneAquila]

Ironically to define yourself as a hegelian and then attempt to live and perceive exactly as hegel did is precisely the most anti hegelian thing you could do! Think of hegel as putting for a methodology rather than a dogma, so zizek is hegelian in the sense that he is using psychoanalysis through Marxist analysis to return to Hegels methodology

[@ivanlilic5247]

"By Zeus, Socrates,you are right"(vis a vis dialogues)😂😂😂

[@ghevargheese]

Esto me recuerda al Ateísmo católico de Don Gustavo Bueno, que en paz descanse. También leyó a Chesterton, y, el decía, igual que Žizek, que, la única manera de pensar era desde un sistema: platónico, hegeliano, o el que fuere, por ejemplo. Bueno y Žižek convergen en varios puntos, sin embargo, hay unas coordinaciones muy turbulentas en algunos puntos. Además, el sistema filosófico de Bueno, ya hizo una crítica del de Žižek.

[@mattgilbert7347]

Zizek's point about fake modesty vs "dogmatic" certainty is a nice one. He's right, the only way to actually risk being in error and thus open oneself up for the possibility of being able to learn new things and maybe change one's mind is to state your position clearly and with a kind of certainty. The "fake modesty" that tries to reduce this risk by saying "it's just my opinion; I may be wrong" etc is the *really* dogmatic one in that they close off any avenues of criticism and hide from any challenges to their *apparently* open position. It is kind of interesting that the position of "fake modesty" bears a superficial resemblance to certain risk management strategies employed by capitalists in some industries (I am thinking here mostly of Hollywood and blockbuster films)

[@oraz.]

He's been changing a bit. More in line with popular consensus on foreign policy.

[@paulliebenberg3410]

I suppose reflexively I'm a cultural Christian; I was born into a Christian household. My coming of age was during the Vietnam war era; low draft lottery number and all that---never had to serve due to a strange combination of fates. Became a practicing ex-Christian at that point. Need to read Slavoj Žižek's book.

[@ScholasticSoma]

Anyone else having Deja Vu from Zizek circa 2004?

[@mattgilbert7347]

I thought it was just me. Slavoj busting out the classic hits

[@Vidhata786]

@7:36 he referred me in his conversation. I'm overwhelmed.

[@brooksc900]

Interesting one, thank you. Freedom of expression suggests it is for everybody. Of course, that isn't tolerated. 🥵

[@sergiosatelite467]

I keep trying to see what everyone finds so admirable about Z. All I keep finding is an eccentric personality, high on impulsivity, using creative terminology - “self-relativization” - to say fairly unimpressive things. I’m beginning to think people think things that sound hard to understand might be intrinsically smart…

[@CynicalBastard]

People think they are intrinsically smart, yet, they don't know if what they claim to be "smarts" is even the thing people propound it to be.

[@arkpolar9604]

@@sergiosatelite467 I wonder if perhaps you find him disagreeable instead. I notice lots of people attempt to undermine someone intellectually when they resent them. A creative, honest and unashamedly eccentric personality is interesting on its own. I think his point on relativisation is meant to be an admission and not be profound, he’s just explaining why he often expresses his thought in a dogmatic tone that doesn’t reflect his core stances, which is because it opens him up to more productive criticism. I think what he brings to the table is novelty, an opportunity for a change in perspective. He only has to be novel in a particular cultural context.

[@sergiosatelite467]

@@arkpolar9604​​⁠I understand what you mean - I think. I actually like his personality quiet a bit. I find him very entertaining. My concern is that I sometimes fear that might be most of what he’s got going on. It could be my understanding is limited in ways I cannot see so I miss what others are getting. It could be I’ve already got what he offers elsewhere and so it just seems like stuff I already understand but said in a funny way. Or it could be ideas like “Christian Atheism” seem irresponsible to me. Who knows. But I like him. And so on and so forth.

[@Hello_there-7pt]

​@@sergiosatelite467 I completely agree with your original comment. I couldn't quite express it, but you expressed it so well.

[@dianalee1589]

he is not a phylosopher he is a propagandist

[@humbertojan8746]

It should also be noted that Russia has a long tradition of (in this case secular) Christian socialist thinking too. It would of great benefit if Slavoj Zizek would talk about the Russian writers from this period, both the atheists and the Orthodox Christians. The groundwork ideas of a post-Christian Russia and what it means for the Russian Empire were written by intelligentsia from formally Orthodox Christian families influenced by communist ideas or other ideas that were the result of western modernity/capitalism/enlightenment. I believe the people who interested it most to popularise communist thinking among the Russian intelligentsia were western oligarchs with globalist worldview that saw an opportunity to dechristianize and westernize the Russian empire. But it was also just the logical consequence of Christianity, and the gift of the holy spirit to the world could be seen as the start of our modern world, where the focus has shifted less on survival and and more on the life within each of us all (individualism), just like greek Civilisation foreshadows the Christian west by giving us the science of being we call philosophy. Life here could be seen as a preparation of each of us individuals for the great wedding, the eternal life which awaits every person (logically to me the gift of life seems too otherworldy of a thing for it to last just for a very short temporal lifetime.)Death is a disease. Satan was the first to die. The world we exist in now is in flawed state, and our temporal lives in this earth are only the first stage. There could be no utopia here. Historical progress is only a process and needs to happen. There will be good aspects and bad, lot's of things to discover both in culture and science (both modern and traditional cultures), lots of great historical events, and lots of great empires. Christians are against communist utopianism, a Christian believes there could be no utopia on this planet because the problem is within the human itself. That is not to say we can be outside of politics. But the "political" battle that is going on inside ourselves influences our decisions directly or indirectly, and it is influenced by irrational, subconscious part of our fallen state that is can be kept unconfronted, unless it starts shows you something you don't want to see. Our rulers know this human characteristic and influence this through our onesidely political western culture, which has since the middle ages very precisely been set up to cause the exact chain of reactions that have caused all world "revolutions", the main actor in this being the masonic Catholic Church, to get the world population to rebel against it. And they knew modernity would cause capitalism which would cause marxism, and marxism would cause national socialism etc. The main point being not to judge these things in themselves but just that the progress of world history has been very well a consciously influenced process by a group of elites, and that they have a certain agenda they want to bring about. A Human "liberation" (more like liberation from being human) mission probably best represented in Rabelais' novel gargantua and pantagruel. The elites just enjoy the sight of innocent humans going mad with pride caused by the experiment of human liberation from any norm or value and see it as a once in a lifetime opportunity to see some mad shit happen. They think it will result in some interesting chaos that they can enjoy from the comfort of their skyscraper apartments. We are ruled by demonically possessed people; 'lizards' as some conspirist "nutballs" call it. Also Robespierre was a freemason. I know Zizek is very fond of a certain german writer so he should understand that this is a probable possibility. It really is just Bible + Hegel = end of history. That's not to say that everything that we as modern citizens enjoy about this modern culture is bad or evil per definition, things like "rebellion" against lies or rock music aesthetics or youth culture, it's just that the aspects that are natural for humans to gravitate to are purposefully mixed (especially in the corporate masonic sponsored entertainment industry) in with things that influence us on a subconscious level, like esoteric and luciferian symbolism in things like music videos, magazines, specific youtube videos, and more grander scale ritualistic events at hollywood bowl, eurovision or olympic games to get us prepared to accept the ideas that they want us to ultimately accept. That is the lie that Satan has liberated us from the servitude of God. Satan isn't a rock star, he wants to fool as much people as possible to serve him. Which has been influenced by thousand of years of infiltration and heresy in an already completely masonic and satanic controlled organisation called the Catholic Church. Demons exist, btw. there's more than 6 billion of them, and they are around us at all times. For me as an orthodox Christian, this world is a place to work, to enjoy life, to repent and find the kingdom of God within yourself through prayer and with God's grace, to learn to live with others and to prepare for eternal life. As far as the thing about waiting for the second coming; Christ's deciples were gifted the holy ghost, and it is already here on earth, yes. The path to salvation is to become one with it, through praying and taking communion, reading the new testament and learning about the life within yourself with the guidance of the Church Fathers writings (you could say they are the forefathers of modern psychology). Literally nobody says you have to wait for second coming and do nothing. I think it'd be great Slavoj Zizek would debate Alexander Dugin or anyone slightly knowledgable about these topics. If an orthodox Christian is reading this, please correct me if i'm wrong about what I said about the beliefs of orthodoxy, it is only my very flawed subjective understanding of the topic, and i'm aware that i'm far from qualified to teach anything about the orthodox faith. God Bless

[@parapadirapa]

Zlavoj's camera was holding on to dear life

[@GeorgeMonsour]

I imagine Socrates speaking with the same mannerisms and voice without Slavoj's certainty and I realize KZbin is an interpretation of the agora. Time is wild regardless of when it is because of the treasures that come over time.

[@anon_genz]

Žižek seems to leave out the resurrection in the Christian narrative. You can’t separate the death of God from the resurrection and omit the latter. Speaking in narrative terms, the Christian story objectively does not end with death.

[@joriankell1983]

God never died. He can't. That was Jesus, the son of God.

[@anon_genz]

@@joriankell1983 Yes, Jesus died in His human nature, while His divine nature did not truly die. However, since Christ is understood to be the God-Man, His experience of death can be said to be God experiencing death.

[@LukeDruid]

@@anon_genz what is left, is spirit; "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them"

[@markoslavicek]

I think I agree with you on this one, although I'm not fully acquainted with Zizek's argument apart from videos like this on KZbin (and he notoriously expresses himself confusingly when speaking publically). The idea of god dying on the cross is a compelling one, and maybe enough for Zizek to prove his point, but Christianity indeed bases a great deal of its ideology on the resurrection point. Consequently, I am not fully convinced by Zizek's argument on this one - that in order to be trully atheist, one first much go through Christianity - as the dying god myth is an ages long one and predates Christianity (not to mention other atheistic instances in other cultures pre-dating Christianity).

[@anon_genz]

@@markoslavicek Although the motif of the dying and rising god is indeed older than Christianity, Christians claim that this motif is made concrete in a historical person. In that sense, the motif-and religion as a whole-reaches its peak in Christianity by asserting that the mythological became real, a claim not made by prior myths. So, I understand Zizek’s reasoning for saying that to be a true atheist, you need to pass through Christianity, as giving Christianity its due as the highest form of religion, so that to discard it fully is to welcome the ‘death of God’ as put forth by Christianity itself. So though I don’t agree with Zizek’s conclusion-in fact, I think it is factually incorrect-I do agree that a form of atheism that acknowledges the significance of its Christian heritage and integrates it into its philosophy is far better than the atheistic scientism that elevates reason above all, mocks those who differ, and concedes ground only after its ideas contribute to society’s degradation.

[@davidwensboposaric5498]

Can't understand Mr. "and so on" but I bet he'd get well along with my late father and the thought of them together waivingly knocking the glasses of the table makes me smile.

[@povilaskimutis1409]

When Zizek talks about Holy Father, the line καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν - is interpreted in 2 ways. First way - literally, do not lead us into challenges. Second way- do not allow to tempt us. The theological implications are obvious.

[@rubyjardeh]

rare triple a combo 18:37

[@atoms-to-atoms]

I loved "the Idiot"..and love Ziz but admire him for his divine curiosity even though I have little of it myself.

[@yossariandunbar2829]

Zizek and Dawkins inching towards their deathbed conversions. More power to them.

[@maxonmendel5757]

doubt it. deathbed conversions are usually just catholic propaganda and zizek has been on this for 20 years

[@yossariandunbar2829]

@maxonmendel5757 I think you are mistaken. Can you direct me to an example of this propoganda? You might be misunderstanding the sacrament of the last rites. Zizzys age won't be a barrier to him talking to God. Though prideful attachment to his previous public statements about God might be an obstacle for him. In any case, he needs prayers.

[@EMC2Scotia]

@@yossariandunbar2829 You might need to read his book again on this point.

[@yossariandunbar2829]

@@EMC2Scotia I haven't read his book, not my sort of thing.

[@maxonmendel5757]

@@yossariandunbar2829 deathbed conversions are just a matter of faith. Camus died in a car crash. before he died, he allegedly spoke to a Methodist minister. after he died, the same minister wrote a book declaring Camus was secretly a Christian convert. can we ever know? not likely. is your faith bias inclining you to believe one or the other? certainly. Same with AJ Ayer, I guess. Anthony Flew is another one, a truly egregious example. not saying religion is all a con, but I am saying that People who think about theology aren't determined to become whatever religion you identify with the moment before you die. thats a fantasy you have as a result of confirmation bias.

[@mirandabluff836]

Is his laptop on his belly? Why is the camera shaking?

[@chesscomsupport8689]

Is the box of tissues behind him (which apparently matches the painting, or whatever it is, above) supposed to be a kind of self-deprecating joke?

[@winstonsmith9424]

possibly a situationist prop or possibly just a box of tissues

[@lizstewart1532]

I don't think it is a painting. It looks like 2 boxes to me.

[@chesscomsupport8689]

@@lizstewart1532 Fair. In that case, the question is: are they boxes of individual tissue boxes like the one we see?

[@lizstewart1532]

@@chesscomsupport8689 Hmmm..... that would be a lot of tissues. If the patterns match maybe that suggests a supermarket own brand, where they plaster the seasonal design over lots of things.

[@chesscomsupport8689]

@@lizstewart1532 Perhaps. If anyone has use for a lot of tissues, it's Zizek.

[@GallumA]

he fears actually being open because none of his opinions work unless he is certain. that only shows a weakness in his ideas which require his kind of 'force of will' to be made coherent. this is like the thinker's version of an amateur singer who gets louder when instead they should move to a new key, because they mistake the experience of expressing musical momentum through the correct technique, versus through the feeling they feel when they experience it. He accuses the point of uncertainty of being safe, it is exactly the opposite. This is why the arrogant are certain, because they are naturally insecure people who discovered the opiate of certainty, and so reduce their thinking to such a low resolution that a large complex situation can look the same to them from every possible angle, through all of time, up until it becomes undeniable that their 'superhero' or 'supervillain' is not as clear cut as it is. Uncertainty is recognition at least that we must have a dynamic relationship to reality, because reality it's self has far more fidelity than we can possibly have the resolution to process. But at least the uncertain have a higher resolution than a Marxist.

[@mattgilbert7347]

Sorry but I think you completely missed his point here. Zizek's point about fake modesty vs "dogmatic" certainty is a nice one. He's right, the only way to actually risk being in error and thus open oneself up for the possibility of being able to learn new things and maybe change one's mind is to state your position clearly and with a kind of certainty. The "fake modesty" that tries to reduce this risk by saying "it's just my opinion; I may be wrong" etc is the *really* dogmatic one in that they close off any avenues of criticism and hide from any challenges to their *apparently* open position. Zizek's position is the proper attitude to dialogue and discussion. You have to risk being wrong if you want to ever be able to say something true and correct. I hope that helps, please take it in the spirit in which it was given, that of constructive criticism. Not trying to "own you in the comments" or whatever, but I think I am correct here.

[@DirtySanchez658]

Always interesting that bloke

[@anon_genz]

To address Žižek’s point about why the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed in the Garden of Eden, it’s a common Jewish and Christian tradition to say that God eventually intended to give Adam and Eve the fruit if they had been patient. Of course, the placement of the tree could also be seen as a test of sorts. Either way I don’t believe God is to blame in the Genesis narrative.

[@carlmurphy2416]

How could Adan and Eve understand the immoral implications of disobeying god without having prior knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit of the forbidden tree? They didn't have knowledge of good and evil, therefore they did not know that what they were doing was wrong.

[@anon_genz]

​@@carlmurphy2416 I agree that Adam and Eve did not fully understand the moral implications of their actions. However, it’s important to note that they did have the free will required to enable them to distrust God in the first place. You can imagine a child who has been rightly taught not to harm his siblings. Yet one day, out of anger, he decides to push his sibling, causing him to fall down a set of stairs, resulting in the sibling’s death. It can be said that the child didn’t completely understand the implications of his actions, yet he still made the poor decision that led to the unintended consequences, therefore is at fault. It wouldn’t be proper to blame the architect for the stairs existing or the parents for the child failing to follow instructions. Nor God for creating creatures capable of acting freely.

[@HeretykDKn]

Isn't this example of free will in the garden of Eden indicative of God's shoddy craftsmanship? I mean, how is it that sinful, defective products like Adam and Eve come from a "perfect" god?

[@anon_genz]

@@HeretykDKn God could have chosen to create robots that followed His every command with 100% consistency, but in that case, the creatures wouldn’t be free, and the good that resulted would be artificial. Instead, He created free creatures who could follow His instructions perfectly, but also have the capacity to willing not follow instructions. That’s the consequence of free will-it makes evil possible, but it also makes true goodness possible, because good done out of choice, not compulsion, is genuine.

[@HeretykDKn]

@@anon_genz at least with the robot option sin and death would never have been a problem in the first place. I feel as tho you didn't answer what I was asking, and that's okay. I mean, a perfect god wouldn't have allowed this to even happen in the first place, and that is, creating sinful creatures that fall short of his perfection. And before you reply with an answer that they'll be robotic and artificial (as you have already done) I would much rather that as a solution to the problem of sin and death, then to create creatures with willing intent to sin and do the wrong thing. (Hence the current situation that we have).

[@patrykalasad3378]

You funny Zizek

[@nodefault3092]

DŹWIG!!!

[@Mark_Dyer1]

Professor Zizek: There is a reason that many Christians study within the theological sub-discipline of 'Christology' (contemporary scholars - especially Jewish ones - refer to 'Jesus Studies') today; and that is because an impression has been gained, through a century-and-a-half of scriptural scholarship (culminating, perhaps, in the 1970s with 'The Myth of God Incarnate'), that belief in the Jesus of the Gospels, but as taught by the Primitive JEWISH Church, is both 'unreasonable' and 'unreasoned'. The hierarchical 'career-clergy' of today's Church of England mark the end-game in that process: able to retain faith in the young Jewish male, Jesus of Nazareth, only through increasingly devout worship of the ancient documents whose misfortune was to be categorised as 'scripture', than to worship of the subject of those documents. The consequence is a secular State which is kind to the 'sexual maverick' (recognising their love) and a Church which is increasingly nasty to them. Is the State more 'Jesus-like'; or is the Church? This is why we study Jesus. It is nothing less than a search for truth. However, your diversion concerning the 'death of God' reminds me of my own theological hero, Jurgen Moltmann; and certainly provides food for thinking. It was saddening to hear of Hanif Koreshi: but - as a retired Nurse - I fully understand the sentiments expressed by his lowly-paid carers (which I was not!).

[@mikklecash6046]

In the bible, there aren't any apples on the tree. It says: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it". I think that the primitive tribesmen who first heard the story realised that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not physical fruit. The story is using a metaphor.

[@guypanton8341]

Or perhaps God meant that He won’t allow the tree to bear fruit, effectively withholding from Adam and Eve any knowledge of good and evil. But, then, what was Eve tempted by? What did she eat?

[@mikklecash6046]

The serpent told her that if she ate it she would be like God, knowing good and evil. They were ungrateful, living in a perfect situation they wanted something else, something more. They could have asked God first.

[@guypanton8341]

@@mikklecash6046 You miss my point. You said the fruit was metaphorical; but Eve is said to be tempted by and eats an actual fruit. It’s not the fruit that’s metaphorical, it’s the entire story of the fall. But what’s the fruit? Where does the fruit fit into the metaphor? And, in any case, your original post isn’t a response to Žižek’s reading. There remains the strangeness of God sticking this tree in the middle of Eden, then telling Adam and Eve that it’s the only thing they’re not to touch.

[@mikklecash6046]

@@guypanton8341 If you just think of it as a fruit tree, then it seems strange. But in this case it is a test - God imposing a boundary. When Adam and Eve eat the fruit, that is a metaphor for rejecting the boundary, and hence rejecting God. Th

[@guypanton8341]

@@mikklecash6046 Why did Adam and Eve need to be tested? Remember that they didn’t know good or evil. They were both completely indifferent to the moral element of the test.

[@AkiraBergman]

Widespread superficiality has always existed, but perhaps in another form. People read, but mostly pulp fiction. People believed but mostly what others told them. They didn't even read their own holy books. Since the internet and the social media, this superficiality has become exposed and confronting more clearly.

[@megumirogers8004]

to me,that is more than shock,rather i am angry. Zizek is a very modest nice person,therefore his respnse against that stupidity is very mild. i have 4 grown up children,eldest son and youngest son studied Pilosophy in one of the top Uni.,in Europe. the youngest just finished his PHD . then 2 of them,especially yongest says Zizek is a greates philospher in 21C.. he has been reading almost all his books. i am influenced by him,and following Zizek by his books and internet. he is a true brain! and very nice person. ---i tell you,unfortunately in this generation,young people bacame much silly.they don't know even what is thinking,what is the thought. many of them even would not tnik! ----you said,DEEPLY THINK!!?? what a words !! in their 20s,30s when they believe they know everything,especially philosophy , it's a sign,it means, they do not know anything. it's not only matter of the study in Uni.,etc.,their experiemces are too so little. as Zizek said,in such digital world,it has been increasing,making those young people rather dumb. it's just brief comment,so i wouldn't write details,but if they are clever enough,they might understand what i wrote here.and shout their mouth at once.----i am rather scared to know what you said in the introduction.

[@DanielWhite-v4e]

no one bans parental advisory zizek books for whatever reason

[@DanielWhite-v4e]

sure exiles is a play by Joyce in the sense that g k Chesterton is a library of wisdom all unto himself

[@Gary-l7h]

Felix Culpa, happy fault, without it we cannot be like God. But in this idea he shoots down the idea that God is perfect, as he also relates on his explanation in the book of Job story. He goes even further to say the God of the Old Testament is the devil himself and then apologizes for taking the risk of sounding antisemitic but makes up for it by praising the work of His son Jesus. Another Christian apology, but the title of his book suggests otherwise, a true paradox, Zizek's motis operandi.

[@AMENISTAN]

I Hate the title but I appreciate the author alot

[@kishorekrishnadas5541]

Zizek the Gnostic.

[@kishorekrishnadas5541]

"Don't be yourself." "People are much better and much worse than we think." "Kirkegaard shows, "we cannot really truly believe we can only believe that we believe.""

[@kishorekrishnadas5541]

I identify as a plus.

[@kennethmarshall306]

I’ve heard Rowan Williams being put under pressure by intelligent interviewers and he stops floundering, especially when he tries to fit God into a world full of suffering. He falls back on the old aphorism of ‘God works in mysterious ways’. Not at all satisfying.

[@precastengineer]

I have listened to Slavoj many times and I always find him difficult to understand, I cannot follow what he’s talking about or what he is trying to say.

[@lostinthesupermarket]

Zizek is one of the few Marxists I can listen to for more than 5 minutes. It always amazes me how he arrives to the right conclusions through the wrong logic. If he wasn't such hardcore lefty and obnoxiously intellectual he would fit perfectly in the new right. He just doesn't know it yet.

[@DanielWhite-v4e]

'Daniel Booksby'

[@colinmoore35]

I don't know if I agree or not 😵‍💫

[@rollovaughan]

I’ve always held the belief that in Christian doctrine the quest for truth is an axiom, thus a true scientific sorta thing.

[@exercisethemind]

Catholic doctrine holds that our theology can never contradict scientific fact. God is Truth. If something is proven false, it is not God.

[@rollovaughan]

@@exercisethemind nicely put.

[@iainrae6159]

It seems to me the Greek Gods were more fun and interesting than the monotheistic diety who appears to be needy for endless worship and a bit dour.

[@exercisethemind]

As a Catholic I was raised with both my parents and my Catholic school teachers requiring me to read various mythologies, especially the Greeks. And you're right, the stories were more exciting to me as a boy and they communicated important moral lessons as well. But as an adult, the Bible, both the Jewish Scriptures and the Good News of Christ are far more relevant and moving to me. Once you understand the full story and that Jesus is as right now as he was then, it is a truly radical and transformative experience.

[@brianbridges8124]

@@exercisethemind everyone thinks they understand the story better than the others who dont find it compelling. are the bible stories about what jesus said right about literally everything? or are you sure confirmation bias and emotional and cogntive bias arent at play here?

[@BelteshazzarBaumbruck]

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were inclined to disagree with you: The pagan Greek gods were grotesque, absurd, and immoral. That's why the Greek philosophers abandoned them. Clearly you've never read any of the Classics or the Bible, which is why you are ignorant of both.

[@exercisethemind]

@@brianbridges8124 Jesus was not as literal as many Evangelicals want him to be. Sometimes he spoke literally, sometimes he was symbolic, but yes, Jesus was TRUE. If your right hand offends, don't literally cut it off. But do be discerning in avoiding the bad and perusing the good. So, what is it that you think Jesus was wrong about? Self-sacrifice? None of us will live forever. And living alone is torture. Self-interest is just narcissism and it's destroying us. It's not even enjoyable, hedonism is just a mirage. Your life is an offering to the world of one type or another. If you recognize that it has meaning, it's really quite beautiful.

[@brianbridges8124]

@@exercisethemind i wasnt making the claim that anything jesus said was necessarily wrong, although i could find something if i looked, my pint was that many people disagree on what he meant, and yet all people think that THEIR interpretation is the correct one, everybody is so coc sure but there is no test to run to see which is correct if any. the problem of smbolic and metaphorical language is that it can mean virtually anything to anyone. whatever resonates the most with each person is the interpretation they will go with. thats why you have so many different denominations that can disagree on a large number of things.

[@jamiehovis7722]

I’m a millennial and I find modern pop culture and social media boring

[@DanielWhite-v4e]

'stupid is as stupid does' not kierkergaard

[@DanielWhite-v4e]

ha anymore superb

[@DanielWhite-v4e]

the base of the mountain Gigaton Hammer!

[@e_deus_disse]

Wait is zizek gnostic?

[@AB-kq9xm]

who is she

[@NiallLEONARD-e7l]

Poor old interviewer really does not get what interviewee is on about. Clueless. In some sense, proves the dreadful theory addressed.

[@stargazingsnail]

listening to ones of Gods prophets (zizek) while hitting the pen, # transcending space and time

[@chrismichael5222]

Why not then doesn't he not embrace the politheist gods that actually portrait the gods as having the chaos and order in their characters

[@TribuneAquila]

Because there is no critique of ideology in these polytheist religions (as I'm aware). In Christianity there is a moment where even God becomes an atheist, this is the subjective destitution that zizek believes we require to inspire true revolution. A moment so traumatic to ourselves that we all doubt the existence of ourselves (because it is developed via capitalist ideology), through this we may perhaps create a new language which can then inspire revolution, a capurnican revolution which entirely reframes how we define the world and this ourselves, just as gods subjective destitution proceeded a shakeup which entirely redefined how people viewed the world and themselves (first in the so called West, and then eventually the world)

[@Gary-l7h]

God did not hide the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil because then Humans would not have been FREE as He is to choose, otherwise how could it be said we are made in His image. But as Slavoj explains about the true meaning of the story of Job, God was saying about Himself, as great as I am, I was mistaken to do so. Later Slavoj says God sent His only Son and we murdered Him and that He is not going to send anyone else, but the Spirit of Jesus sacrifice for SIN manifests a community of people who try to do Good. What a wonderful Apology for Christianity. But he doesn't go into the Second Coming of Christ and the book of Revelation because that is not the subject matter here. Personally, I have spent a life time in that study and can say Jesus will return between 2025 to 2026.

[@tomaszmielnik]

Problem with Zizek is that he clings to the times. But philosophers are out of the times.

[@DanielWhite-v4e]

am I Russian?

[@joshbaino3087]

I am sorry for male chauvinist comment but the interviewer is very pretty

[@metallicmonkey4519]

"I read a couple of reviews on your book". What a disrespectful thing to say. If you're going to interview someone like Zizek, at least take the time to actually read his book.

[@eugenemuhammad9709]

This is Thomas J.J. Altizer all day!

[@Quammor]

This was truly intriguing

[@DaboooogA]

And not a single word about Islam

[@philipfarmer3232]

A worthwhile video because of the beauty of the presenter's skin.

[@tonysherwood9619]

Ask the Archbishop of Canterbury and the King - what the hell is going on!

[@recursive4794]

Hardly much defending of Christianity going on because he doesn't have much of an idea of what it is, despite lessons from Rowan Williams. Just playing with some Christian/blblical ideas and giving them an old Gnostic slant. And if he loves Kierkegaard so much why doesn't he take Christianity seriously? Instead of the usual, admittedly quite entertaining, series of paradoxes and provocations.

[@montgomeryramone9655]

Christian Atheist. Is that as good as Atheistic Christianity?

[@DrRhysPritchardPhDMScBSc]

Brilliant interview with a man who it is like wrestling with a renowned intellectual wolf dressed in teddybear 🧸 fancy dress 👗. You are definitely a woman who has the skills of a circus 🎪 Ringmaster or Ringmistress depending on your interpretation of postmodernism. Really enjoyed the dialectic. Fantastic 😊

[@grosbeak6130]

I really don't think this lady who's doing the interview is asking the right or best questions or really getting what he's trying to say.

[@aristidesiliopoulos7041]

Not deep thoughts or any of that. There is a lack of intimacy with source material and lack of rigor. So people share base unchallenged opinion or surface level knowledge and pass it off as expertise.

[@LearnwithGern2025]

He chops down the tree but still wants to live in the treehouse.

[@andreioarcea7784]

I think Zizek is a failed Marxist who became a conservative, philosophically a Manichean of sort who appreciates Kierkegaard, ultimately just a Christian apologist where none is needed. He says he is not just a simple cultural Christian. You could even say that cultural Christians have more in common with people like Alain Badiou, a communist philosopher in search of either a theism or historicism, or both, which combines humanist perspectives with hollowed out Christian Revelation precepts. For Badiou nothing is unachievable, thus we must reject God entirely, there is no Truth beyond the conditions that shape reality in a materialist way as modes of operation for art, economics, politics, science. Badiou proposes an ethical framework based on sipping retroactively through historical Events, searching and attributing meaning, such as the Revelation. No true ontological meaning, no belief, no affinity to sacredness as Rudolf Otto would put it, not even the metaphysical earthquake Kierkegaard felt, and which Zizek loved in all it’s poetry. The Event is only important retroactively and because it serves us with a programme for humanities betterment. This cultural project may serve more as a personal or group related template for cultural criticism than anything resembling a movement, but Zizek missed his communist moment, he was considered to weak for it, he is aware of the fallacy of this endeavour, because he knows that they can end either as utopias or degenerate in a sort of ideological dogmatic worldview, but somehow still he is constantly inoculating himself with the thought that “beautiful” Hegelian dialectics and Marxism is his destiny and the answer for everyone. Hence the awkward stories about Indian pariahs and caretakers, as true “materialists” who just wouldn’t stop wanting to do the job! He is both excited and repulsed by the real events, in such a way that he cannot but end up as the worst of misanthropists and pessimists. I cannot come up with anything other than an apology for his love of Chesterton, the biggest Fallstaff Christian apologist there ever was! Chesterton was talking of the lack of virtuality of God, clearly stating that this does not mean inexistence. Chesterton was an optimist, Zizek is a pessimist. Why would positive evil be a necessary proof that God is evil. I do not think Chesterton was a materialist, could have been a realist, a realist who took the problem of good versus evil very seriously. Moral acts can be sinful if done wrong presupposing free will, sin is a prerequisite of Godhood and doing so is an offence, a disobedience against God. I cannot see anything stating that God is evil in the sense that Zizek states it, beyond the fact that in the old days scholars and scientist alike started from a sceptical position towards their considerations. Sin is a prerequisite of Godhood not a quality of it. Zizek was right in implying that Chesterton put great efforts in trying to convey the delicate inadequacies and delicious superiority in Christian thought, and the incommensurable weight that comes with such boisterous self-proclaimed burdens. But he cannot participate in these tribulations, he is happy to sit aside and theorise, just an observer, a disclaimer of the aspects of Christianity that are not sufficiently researched or thought of, too disturbing to do so, a failed gnostic without any interest in returning to the essence as well. His only salvation is the Hegelian Spirit and His movement through Time and History. What is a man to do? The only true friends he has, other than the typical western Christians, who he apparently avoids, are protestants. He doesn’t come up with a secular perspective that can be relevant for our modern times like Badiou does, delusional as he is, tries to at least. Protestants don’t have the Rituals the orthodox Christians have. What to do other than joke and obfuscate us of the real dangers of Christianity, somehow enticing us then gatekeeping it, while rationalizing every step of the process, but without any hope of assuming the deed, just bulldozing through it, to become who knows, just some other Hegelian construct that needs to be dialectically destroyed.

[@FraserBailey-jm5yz]

As they are interviewing Slavoj, you'll think they might have lined up some subtitles. That aside, it's hard to take him seriously given that he always insists on telling us that he's a communist. In truth I think he's an idiot and this interview has done nothing to dispel that belief. I do like 'Christianity should annoy people', though.