What is the main ideological battle-line in the world, today? | Slavoj Zizek & Yuval Noah Harari

Are we living in an age of naivete and cynicism in society? Can we be optimistic about the future? What defines our 'new normal' in the world of identity, politics, and ideology?
All of these questions answered and more in this snippet from a lively discussion between Slavoj Zizek & Yuval Noah Harari. Stay tuned for more clips from this conversation!
This conversation was filmed on July 29, 2022
Subscribe to Yuval’s Channel!
@YuvalNoahHarari
Socials & Website
Twitter: / harari_yuval
Instagram: / yuval_noah_harari
Facebook: / prof.yuval.noah.harari
KZbin: @YuvalNoahHarari
Website: www.ynharari.com/

Yuval Noah Harari is a historian, philosopher, and the bestselling author of 'Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind' (2014), 'Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow' (2016), '21 Lessons for the 21st Century' (2018), the series 'Sapiens: A Graphic History' (launched in 2020, co-authored with David Vandermeulen and Daniel Casanave), and 'Unstoppable Us', Volume 1 (2022).

[@notsoginger]

These two are the most enlightened philosphers of our time and it's a pleasure to see them both having a conversation. Looking forward to the full video

[@Alexander-nf8wk]

Please release full conversation! Very enlightening..best wishes to all the community.

[@shahlabadel8628]

ditto!

[@2msvalkyrie529]

Could you share with us the parts you found " enlightening " ?

[@aman_chandravanshi]

@@2msvalkyrie529 none can be done for you. it is a problem in your end.

[@magicbuns4868]

They can do both, some of us don't have attention spans shorter than a goldfish.

[@techwithdipufrom0ton621]

The voice of the philosopher Slavoj Zizek fascinates me the most and I enjoy it very much.

[@lukasmolcic5143]

"what we experience as the ideological cilvil war is strictly internal to the system", beautiful ending

[@littlesometin]

What does that mean?

[@matthewparlato5626]

@littlesometin United States liberal Progressive hegemony Has been total since the forties so it's just a fake conflict over small taxation differences.... Not understanding this causes you to spazz out and become antifa Or Boomer con who thinks something has been taken away from me when you've had it all

[@lukasmolcic5143]

@@littlesometin the cultural civil war we are seeing between "the left" and "the right" around trans issues, gay rights, hyper masculinity and similar topics is not a fight against the current ideology or against the current status quo, the marketing people have recognized they can do something woke to trigger the conservatives and attract progressives to defend them while gaining huge visibility in the process, politicians can take stances on cultural issue to gain popular support without being a threat to any concrete power structures, the whole ideological conflict has become a huge market in itself with numerous podcasts, streamers, publications etc. monetizing on participating in it. And besides all those we have the standard age old divide and conquer dynamic keeping the population from focusing on who holds the power and how is it being used.

[@gborsonello]

@@lukasmolcic5143 this should be published front page on all papers around the globe.

[@DoktorElmo]

@@lukasmolcic5143 beautifully summarized!

[@yasharben-mordechai-uy3lg]

It is so critical to understand the punchline. We are confronting a cancelation politics where ideas are not contested: "If you don't agree with me you don't have the right to exist".

[@michaelkepes6125]

In four short lines you nailed it

[@cthoadmin7458]

What a joy! Please, please, the full conversation!

[@tonykajan]

I have been waiting for this conversation for so long. Please upload the full discussion. Best wishes.

[@gasparcayetanogarcia-huido396]

Pleaaaaase yes do so, big thanks to @harari @zizek!!!

[@artonion420]

No other now living thinkers have given me more than these two. To see them converse is almost shameful, a forbidden pleasure. I had not dared dreaming of the mutual respect that seems so evident from their discussion about nature.

[@nhopkins]

Same here

[@BreathEasyify]

More what, bull crap. I didn't get anything out of it. Just a couple of old farts blowing smoke.

[@3breze757]

that's because you educate yourself on the youtube. Go read a book

[@TheCommanderjoe]

Thats kinda gay but heck yeah man

[@hritizgogoi3739]

"almost a forbidden pleasure" haha yeah.

[@wyverntheterrible]

Imagine this guy speaking Welsh. Mind blown.

[@adp023]

My two favorite philosophers! I need to rewatch The Perverts Guide to Ideology for the tenth time!!

[@cetnap__kit45]

Adakah versi lengkapnya?

[@Jon-dh3ki]

Bleak

[@hunched_monk3279]

It never gets old. Who will rise up as the true revolutionary?

[@MilkShake]

Great series, i wish it wouldn't stop

[@Minimalrevolt-m83]

This is something that humanity wants to hear a like-minded conversation about the world we living in. Proud to engage from Malaysia!👍✍

[@emilianosintarias7337]

i have such a tragic impression of malaysia as superficial, conservative, racist, anti-intellectual, repressive, etc., that your comment is a wonderful reminder of how many smart and sincere souls still live there. I am happy to be reminded that it is wrong of me to generalize and stereotype, and wrong of me to not appreciate each culture. Best wishes.

[@paulaustinmurphy]

They aren't "like-minded". Zizek is a self-described "communist". Harari... isn't.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@paulaustinmurphy Zizek is also a self-described atheist christian.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@paulaustinmurphy If they were identical-minded it would have been a rather boring conversation though.

[@paulaustinmurphy]

@@BlacksmithTWD Has it really said he's an "atheist Christian"? Actually, it wouldn't surprise me. There's a strong streak of rather shallow contrarianism in Zizek. I believe he has a painting of Stalin in his office... You can borrow from Christianity and not believe in God. But borrowing from Christianity isn't same as being a Christian. All sorts of people - from Hitler to Bertrand Russell - have borrowed from, or said good things about, certain elements of Christianity without thereby being Christians.

[@gitarisbat]

I love this chaotic duo ❤

[@MultiMediumArts]

That was a great segment of this talk Yuval, thank you for sharing this!

[@mariocuric6690]

2 biggest teachers of my life

[@jimjmcd]

I think the ideological landscape in both the US and the UK would change a lot if campaigns were financed only by voters and not by corporate interests.

[@dystopiaahoy]

It’s inspiring to see the philosophical arm of our secret service singing from the same hymn sheet.

[@virtualsocialretreat8234]

uh oh... will you share one of your hyms with me? i don't want to be trapped with only one hymn sheet :/

[@antoniusnies-komponistpian2172]

The main ideological battle-line is between those who believe in the usefulness of democracy and those who don't.

[@muhammadtajalamkhanzada4625]

“SALVOJ ZEZIK” “ Even Sexual identity what you consider natural and so on everything becomes a matter of possible personal choice or technological manipulation” ۔۔!

[@degla232]

unironicaly we need to find god

[@jml732]

@@degla232 We already found it and it wasn't useful.

[@degla232]

@@jml732 i mean god was everything but usless.

[@jml732]

@@degla232 For while, but today it is a simulacrum. If you want to be pious, you'd need to abandon modern life and join an amish community.

[@silence8806]

The main ideological battle-line in the world is between people who want to live free and self-determined and the people who want to live as eternal slaves. "Religion poisons everything." - Christopher Hitchens

[@Squashball]

More please!

[@TheMusicmalife]

감사합니다.

[@jhonhawlker4620]

What a genius man!

[@ricksteves1973]

it's cool they put a green screen in a sauna

[@SamuelHauptmannvanDam]

PLEASE!! I AM STARVING!! RELEASE IT ALL!!!

[@luisaoc7378]

the question to engulf all questions

[@dt6822]

Loving this!!! The great Hegelian of our time and the great Oracle of Delphi!

[@phpn99]

The answer is much simpler than heard here : Since Antiquity, there has been a conceptual opposition between Logos, which is idealistic, objective and universal, and Pathos, which is skeptical, subjectve and individualistic. Across generations, thinkers attempting to understand the World, Society, and the Living creature, have posited conflicting ideas on the basis of what vantage point they were trying to understand these subjects from. From the early days of Pythagoras, when they were idealists, they said that appearances belie the Truth, yet that we are analogues of the world and as such, equipped to make sense of it objectively. From the early days of Heraclitus, when they were Sophists, Skeptics, Hedonists or eventually medieval Nominalists, they posited that the world cannot be known in itself and that there are no universals, no objective truth ; that agency is all that matters. With Aristotle and Kant, the two sides of the argument found an efficient synthesis, as Hegel would have pointed out. But in Brentano and Nietzsche, Husserl, Kierkegaard and Heidegger, the ancient trope of Parmenide and Heraclitus resurfaced. During the 20th century, in the wake of Kurkheim's sociology and the idealist undertones of Structural Anthropology, many left-leaning intellectuals fascinated by Nietzsche's rejection of ideals and by the neo-sophistry of phenomenology, posited again, that the world and society cannot be known objectively, and that agency, transactional power structures - and language - were the only world we could act upon. This came to a head with Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze and Lyotard, in Post-structuralism and post-modernism. But it led nowhere, except when it crossed the Atlantic, and it became the driving force in Critical, Gender and Race Theory, De-Colononialism, Intersectionality and other chimeras. But it boils down to the same old dilemma : Is the world objective, reason-able ("Logos" in Greek) ; is human biology and experience rooted in the same operating structures, or is there no shared reality, is everything merely culture and narrative - Pathos ? The problem as always is that both sides tell one aspect of reality, and that Truth is the sum of these parts. The vehement, irreconciliable binary opposition between overly dogmatic camps, makes us forget that the combination of idealism and empiricism has been successfully made throughout history, notably in the works of Aristotle, Kant and Hegel. The world has an objective reality and we are linked by universal factors, obligatorily from that fact, yet the variety of human subjective experience cannot be denied and it is an object in itself. The fact that we're still debating between Logos and Pathos today, only makes us human. What bothers, is that it is accompanied by a lot of anxiety, and a lot of neuroticism. The social tension that underlies this, has nothing to do with metaphysics and everything to do with materialistic needs. People are tense because the physical walls that used to keep communities separate, have now been made ineffective by the era of social media. Individuals and communities suddently find themselves in one gigantic open-plan office space, and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable. People puff their chest... it's all animal behaviour. But it will pass.

[@yudhajitain]

Amazing synthesis. Absolutely agree.

[@michaelkepes6125]

Look at the brain on Brad ☺

[@degla232]

Says the anwser is much simpler writest a 200 word essey then says its just human behaviour it will pass 🤣

[@Alexander-mr7jq]

This looks like a very interesting conversation... Share more. 😅 It's funny when the speech of a left-wing philosopher gives me relief... How polarized the public space is, that common values ​​become so clear with Žižek, it's very sad.A real discussion in the public space is a great success, not a discussion based on pseudo-narratives. Despite Harari's superficiality, I consider even his works to be an achievement from this perspective.

[@shadowjuan2]

It’s because the issue is not simply left vs right. It’s much more profound, what is understood as left and right today is totally different from what it was 30-50 years ago. Today’s left is a totally different ideology than say Marx’s left, same could be same about the right. It’s a very complex phenomenon, it doesn’t matter whether you identify with right or left, the truth is that everyone seems to be at struggle even within themselves.

[@garthballantine193]

It says something doesn't it when even those who have always been considered to be on the left are so critical of the extreme left of today that seems to be setting the direction of society/culture. I wonder how those on today's left interpret those criticisms? Do they ever stop and consider perhaps they've gone too far or are they too deep within their echo-chambers? Perhaps their sense of personal identity is so tied up in being radical, in pushing the boundaries, that they can't allow themselves to dare consider the wisdom of those that have gone before them.

[@degla232]

@@shadowjuan2 as cringe as it sounds its more of a spirtual battle its like the church was never seperated from the state. No politcal system can replace the complexity of moral values.

[@JJ-ts6zo]

These two compliment eachother in a good way

[@Taospark]

I feel the true throughline is that the information and ability gap between a privileged elite and a poor person has drastically shrunk after the Internet and we are seeing different nativist, humanist, leftist, and centrist reactions when anyone can be a wild card in a system that is increasingly both chaotic and decentralized based only on consensus to keep it going.

[@jdzentrist8711]

Bill Clinton reflected publicly on this back when he was POTUS, referring mainly to his colleague, Newt. In so many words he summed it up, saying "We just have different approaches, different philosophies." At another time, after he left Office, he said, "We are just talking at cross-purposes." I'd like to recommend: Ellie Anderson; Michael Sugrue; Eric Dobson; Sadler; Ryan Chapman; Bryan Magee & his distinguished interlocutors. Many thanks to You Tube!

[@alcosmic]

5thGeneration Warfare, Yuval. That's what's fueling it

[@volodymyrvyshemirskyi]

I am my own theologian. I believe that people's souls are not ethnic. The world is now moving towards cultural and religious convergence. I believe in the noosphere. There should be No End to the History. We, people of all countries, must develop to learn to live with nature together

[@FuzzyAnkles]

🍄

[@FCPaufUror]

Humans have no souls. Please don't base your political views on non-existent mythology.

[@koroglurustem1722]

There's an end, but not that there will be no more changes. There's an absolute end to the world and God promised that it will happen. The destruction of the earth, resurrection and day of judgment, then eternal hell and paradise.

[@Plutonianpodcast]

Yuval knows exactly what's happening, its the people promoting the ideas right here.

[@jorgeabraham3414]

oh yes he exactly knows lol

[@benlamprecht6414]

Thanks for publishing this extremely interesting and insightful analysis

[@beyondtheshadow1224]

✨✨🙌🙌🙌🙏🙏🙏✨✨from 🇧🇷

[@macdonaldukah1680]

Highly insightful clip! No need to quarterback anything here.

[@fireofhislove3395]

You live on a spiritual battlefield. There are those who serve the light and those who love darkness. Blood has been spilt and men have died.

[@bezarau]

Please make the full conversation public somewhere!! pleeaase

[@TheTeciful]

[@zk1479]

Materialism is greatest battlefield. Majority of Humans do not know that they are spirit anymore.

[@zedor1553]

When finally two misunderstood geniuses meet and try to get somewhere, I hope they become friends

[@Troyphy]

Yuval Noah Harari isn't misunderstood. He openly says our minds should be replaced by A.I. Where are you getting that he's misunderstood?

[@MV-vv7sg]

@@Troyphy many people who are in the spot light will be misinterpreted and miss-understood by some. That’s the result of being heard by so many. It’s just that you haven’t encountered those as much as @ZedOr perhaps.

[@Antowan]

@@Troyphy i would also argue that neither of them are geniuses.

[@sayresrudy2644]

yuval a genius! hahahahahahaha

[@zedor1553]

@@sayresrudy2644 not him. You!

[@Anabsurdsuggestion]

Damn! He didn’t say ‘hermeneutics’! It’s one of my favourite Zizek pronunciations.

[@raresmircea]

Started laughing when i saw them together in the thumbnail 😂

[@gking407]

Social media. Not tough to diagnose but it seems so very difficult to alter course from the suicidal path we’re on

[@searchforserenity8058]

Battle-lines are the same as they have always been: those who can dominate VS those who are dominated. This never seems to change because we humans have not yet collectively recognized we actually DO have other options to survive. As Zizek points out in the US, this line has blurred some because the Right, who has always relied on domination, particularly rather cruel forms of it, are now dealing with an increasing number of those on the Left who are using domination too (this is Cancel Culture, MeToo, etc). Instead of the Left challenging domination and making a case for those other options, such as nurturing and critical thinking, they are cluelessly using the same weapon against their opposition that their opposition uses against them. Sad they can't see it won't work.

[@defnlife1683]

You're right, but it's even worse. They are doing things that don't ultimately change power structures. "What we experience as civil war is strictly through the system." - Last line. They're strictly focused on things that don't change those structures, while those in actual power stay the course. Crazy.

[@searchforserenity8058]

@@defnlife1683 Real change can only come when we realize what so many great thinkers were trying to tell us: the only true freedom is the freedom from fear. Not, as the Left would believe, by eliminating anything that creates fear (like domination and bullying). Or as the Right believes which is if they can freely dominate others without consequence, they can be free. Instead it is more a recognition that we can feel fear but still choose to do the right thing and respect the agency of others (even when they are not doing so to us). This way fear doesn't control us. This is what then makes us truly "free". This type of person is what Nietzsche was trying to describe with his concept of the Ubermensch. Until anyone on either side recognizes this, learns mindfulness to consciously regulate fear and stop choosing bullying and domination as a response to it, the battle will just be over who gets to use it as a weapon and nothing will essentially change. Sad they can't see that the real battle should be over making a logical, rational and objective case for why we need to stop using it in the first place.

[@defnlife1683]

@@searchforserenity8058 ok, first off: shame on you for using facts and logic on the internet. Second: Yes. You’re not wrong.I agree.

[@sylviam6535]

The left does not use domination? Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot disagree with that.

[@apollontheintp3257]

It's really not the first time that the left does this in history. It's actually inherent in their thinking.

[@user-vw5fn6jk5e]

True

[@michaeljeffery7466]

Neat.

[@jorgeabraham3414]

Such a great performance by much beloved Western Liberalism Court Jesters, please give them an applause and don't forget to give them their bag of money on their way out thanks!

[@ceeemm1901]

No bags left, the Neo-liberal Junta took it all.

[@iachtulhu1420]

Both are neoliberal apologists at this point.

[@billyd1436]

The division and question is… predation or cooperation.

[@huydo8605]

"My thoughts, my ideas have to be done, to be fulfilled!" Hehe

[@thomasabradley]

Such a tease - when can we hear the full version please!

[@moisted]

Where can I see the full conversation?

[@em945]

The description box says it is from the youtube channel of Harari..

[@akhileshsingh.3096]

🙏

[@CynicalBastard]

I have brought that point up so many times to conservatives online ["storming the Bastille"]...they just look past it, they cannot fathom, or do not want to to know, whatever contradiction you can point out, whatever aberration...naivety indeed.

[@homewall744]

The difference is "liberal democracy" against "authoritarian democracy." The former allows all human rights. The latter is just power makes right; the mob rules; extortion and bribery are fine so long as approved by power backed by a plurality.

[@jorgeabraham3414]

The Guardian and NY Times readers are super easy to find 🤣

[@GeeksofGANGA]

Like me for : Where I can see full conversation?

[@gonx9906]

Full video where?

[@marcgrant2225]

The battle line in the US is the product of our understandable and rightful societal insecurity which the pundits have made ideological. The spin doctors and the media have polarized us to a tipping point and leadership continues to cater to this divide even as the danger of violence escalates. Too much has gone wrong for too many and I think the future is bleak.

[@laaaliiiluuu]

Because the leaders (banks and hedgefunds) would make a lot of money from a civil war.

[@chloegrobler4275]

problem is now the water is poisoned. an honest individual with his or her own thoughts gets sucked into the ideological battle and become a part of the whole. choosing sides is all you have now.

[@iNDY1001]

....You should have a look at mathematical models that make large language model AI's work.....Kinda seems like that sort of approach to relationships was an inevitability in order for the culture to adapt to the current information environment. I think the engineering word multiplexing would best apply to the changes happening to culture. A world where one is member to multiple tribes and those relationships start taking on more precedence than the current political groupings/ affiliations. Intersectional thought processes seem much better at resolving that ways of relating to one another. Seeing it as bi/multilatteral communicative process as opposed to a battle might be start. Battling insinuates one taking precedence over the other, why not an oscillation?

[@Leboybandent]

Is there more? :)

[@ligakaktina476]

Problems can be resolved through discussion but discussion is possible only if we have the same values. If one side sees bunch of sells and other side sees baby in discussion about abortion - is compromise possible there? Both sides are passionate about their beliefs and it is important for them. When in the question where life begins - consensus is found- we are in half way.

[@richardnunziata3221]

It is a false conflict in that it has to be continuously fed by media and political dynamics at the national level...without which it would dissipate

[@AMX505]

Well done Yuval, can't wait for your next conversation with Roger Waters

[@jimranallo686]

Very good surface narrative... unfortunately I believe it's a bit more serious....this is a war on ours souls.... cheers from Mexico

[@the_good_citizen]

where is the Full conversation??

[@NaveedShahzadKhan]

So the main ideological battle-line is the one which is among the financially wealthy yet demographically low regions? i don't understand how super powers ideological war impacts global politics?

[@alecmisra4964]

With the alt right now characterising itself as the "dissident right" and the "sensible center" this should tell you something of how the lines have altered. "Cthulu always swims Left" as they say over there.

[@johnhricko8212]

PLEASE have production pay attention to audio - TOO QUIET! They are wearing mics! I wish I could have listened, but I couldn't. Great ideas must be heard!...

[@sebastianconrad6823]

SOCIAL MEDIAAAAAAA

[@roygertel]

👌

[@wghost1]

That was an interesting discussion indeed but the way i see it, there are no specific parameters anymore, in my opinion they no longer exist , politicians do whatever they want on the other hand people would also want to do whatever they want , and the world is just scrambled , which is the same reason why i am so convinced that democracy itself is just another form of dictatorships just as Socrates pointed out long time ago , ironically he lost his life for it. The man was truly a sage. Not to mention all the redundant ideologies carried on but religious parties which doesn't reflect any religious nobility. So i came to the conclusion of "Screw everybody, i take care of myself - i judge myself and you stay out of it" As simple as it sounds.

[@nycjordi]

nothing shocked me more in the last 2 years than seeing Chomsky advocating for the force interment of individuals not vaccinated.

[@KR-jq3mj]

It must be pretty difficult to claim an allegiance if you don't know the history or the politics of the political party you think you align with. People are just making up their world views as they go along. Disconnection ironically through connection.

[@victor.pacheco.developer]

Hey Yuval, first of all, I really like you and your ideas. I am waiting for a video, maybe a book, about AI and the future of humanity. Is there a capitalist, maybe safety/political reason for you not to talk about it? Cheers

[@aconsideredopinion7529]

Those who want and believe in human right and the rule of law and those who want authoritarian, dictatorial or oligarchy systems. Democracy is a terribly means of governing its messy, inefficient, unruly and frustrating but it works. With developments in IT it is now possible to have a more responsive accountable and transparent form of democracy…

[@view1st]

It works... in achieving what, exactly? It amazes me how in the same sentence you tell us why democracy *DOESNT* work and then come to the _non sequitur_ conclusion that it's the best.

[@MV-vv7sg]

06:22 Obvious now he has said it, but is a good way to classify those people. Cancelling where there should be taking misdeeds to trials.

[@tekannon7803]

Slavoj Zizek and Yuval Noah Harari have pinpointed the culprit that is dividing American society and at 2:44 into this videocast, I submit that I am not qualified in any way compared to these scholars and world-renown thinkers, but I believe I have a solution for the American societal fracture that may re-unite opposing political parties and I know this is going to be difficult for Mr Zizek and Mr Harari to accept, because it is probably too utopian of an idea, but here goes. The problem is that people have so much time on their hands. In fact, looking into one's neighbor's backyard and finding something to complain about----I am just trying to make a point----is rampant and the only way for it to stop is to change the narrative and that means to replace the outdated American individualist or whatever the mindset is that is causing so much unnecessary commotion and the like. My solution is in the mind. Children from 2 to 72 need to ask themselves this one question: What is my greatest challenge in life? And: go for it now. I can guarantee you that when you are going for your greatest challenge, you don't have time to hate anybody or worry about what your neighbor is doing. This might even be what should be preached to the world and maybe all the wars will stop. Slavoj and Yuval could dissect this idea and make it work for the average person to understand better than I ever could, but this is my two cents in trying to calm things down and get everyone going for a good life...

[@marikaoconnor5058]

There are greater forces at work. Nature seems to have lost patience with human self-interest and short-terminism. The internet and big tech are nature's handmaidens in this, fomenting division in all areas. Sorry to be a doom-monger, but we have boxed ourselves into this corner. We can only focus on preserving community values which may help some of us survive.

[@tekannon7803]

@@marikaoconnor5058 GGGGGGGGGGGGreat to hear from you. They say the outcome of a war---like the war in Urkaine---can never be predicted. We all seem to be forgetting that Mother Nature has plan 'b', plan 'c' waiting in the wings when tipping points get surpassed by whatever and whoever is to blame. The environment is like economics, if you get 6 economists together in one room, you will have 6 different views on the economy. Our environmental scientists give us their point of view, but they do not have a crystal ball.

[@nemanja721]

@@marikaoconnor5058 I agree with the diagnosis, since I'm not sure that collectivism is the correct answer to the question of humanity. i.e. I wish it's not. But maybe it is, perhaps the transmission of natural principles takes place primarily through the Species.

[@virtualsocialretreat8234]

are you suggesting an earnest retaking of some sort of heroic purpose? i'm not opposed to that, it's just so... unlikely. i can't even imagine it doing it myself, this "going for it now". that would require some kind of apotheosis. i'm afraid total catastrophe would be the only thing to push me towards it.

[@felipekernmoreira7400]

They started speaking about the ideological battles in the world, but the conversation suddenly headed to US politics, in part as an example, but I think is, to a large extent, restrictive.

[@johnadams8902]

Screw talking let's fight

[@qetruszka1085]

Have they answered the question? Or did I just miss it

[@djflorence8051]

the answer is in the channel owners name

[@jornalistarenatarosa4205]

The January 6th of 2021 has its copy in Brazil last January 8th. It was dreadful!

[@petermarx5217]

Not as dreadful as cancelling the opposition through control of the media...

[@miro5633]

There are and will be different reasons for ideological battles but at present battle-line is Internet

[@genzcurmudgeon8037]

The main battle is between those who want to be left alone and those who will not leave them alone.

[@goswo]

So true

[@gooddaysahead1]

Your GenZ is showing.

[@ole12345]

r/im14andthisisdeep

[@Leboybandent]

yeah like the ones trying to find protection from mass killings.

[@gooddaysahead1]

@@genzcurmudgeon8037 Check out the famous quote by H.L. Mencken about simple answers to complex problems.

[@lostsoul2184]

Me and my dad talkin in the evenin after

[@alexsanderrain2980]

From the view of an amateur historian, that I am, this looks like the days before the 1848 revolutions in Europe.

[@seanmcdonald4686]

The United States is an angry toddler smoking a joint in an armory.

[@TaiganTundra]

Certain people in the world forfeit their right to live, two of them are in this video.

[@seanharbinger]

We are attempting to reject primitive ‘god doctrines’ while defining a stable transparent economic model, resulting in tension between sovereignty and servitude.

[@globalshift2005]

A discussion between the opposing view points would have been more valuable.

[@invictus327]

The assumption, perhaps acknowledged in parts of this dialogue not displayed here, is that ideological difference is normative, inevitable. Yes, it is in a way normative but it is worth considering the extent to which the presence of ideological positions is an inverse function of the the differences and tribal individuation through (and as) which ideological positions percolate to ascendance. From a complex systems science perspective, we might consider the dissociative discontinuities that give rise to a perceived need (or identification of) ideological positions as being both the cause and consequence of such belief systems. Harari and Zizek discuss the "what" of this topic and yes it is interesting but the underlying philosophical question of "why" remains conspicuously absent as a owing frame of intellectual reference.The assumption, perhaps acknowledged in parts of this dialogue not displayed here, is that ideological difference is normative, inevitable. Yes, it is in a way normative but it is worth considering the extent to which the presence of ideological positions is an inverse function of the differences and tribal individuation through (and as) which ideological positions percolate to ascendance. From a complex systems science perspective, we might consider the dissociative discontinuities that give rise to a perceived need (or identification of) ideological positions as being both the cause and consequence of such belief systems. Harari and Zizek discuss the "what" of this topic and yes it is interesting but the underlying philosophical question of "why" remains conspicuously absent as a moving frame of intellectual reference.

[@baydj9]

big respect to zizek ❤️

[@andreahoehmann1939]

Minute 7:10: This is not a really new idea: Hannah Arendt has also warned of a situation in which there is no generally accepted reality, but only different opinions that are at odds with each other.

[@ne-fala]

I understand find an end point to open ended conversation is hard. ... But cutting at the end of the sentence, cutting the last word... That's just cruel editing

[@christophergraves6725]

I am an American and I can assure you that Americans are no longer in agreement on basic political philosophy or even ontology. There are those of us who seek to conserve Christian Western Civilization with the assumption that any sort of Utopia is impossible given a fallen human nature that needs to be controlled by the separation of power and traditional ethical standards. Then there are those who are a variant of Marxism following in the line of Herbert Marcuse who believe something like the Millennium is possible without Jesus. What is necessary, on this view, to usher in Heaven on Earth is the rejection of Christianity, traditional morality, the family, and the traditions of Western Civilization. So, conservatives see cultural Leftists, who are also frequently a variation of neoliberal in economics, as threatening the traditional family and long-standing communities while those on the cultural Left see conservatives as the main obstacle to reaching a much higher level of human existence and human flourishing. In 1860, it was true that for the most part the North and South agreed on the basics of political philosophy and ethics and religion. Their main difference was over slavery as well as the organization of the economy and the role of the national government with slavery being the hot button issue that set off the fight. Nowadays, there is much less commonality among Americans. Civil war is a real possibility, much more than in 1860.

[@senorchipotle]

If this genius intellectual can’t understand why Americans are so at odds, then he isn’t worth listening to about anything.

[@vladdumitrica849]

Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented. Those who think that democracy is when you choose someone to make decisions for you without him having to consult you, are either a fool or a scoundrel. It's like when you have to choose from several thieves who will steal from you. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and even more surely you will be left without money and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, you will not find, in any economic or sports activity, someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and who is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, without to wait until the term to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

[@moisted]

Yes that's all would be true if we, the voters, "were always right". But as Yuval has been proving in his books and speeches freedom of choice and vote is just an illusion. In really"voters are NOT always right". They're more influenced by feeling than logic. "Follow your heart" is wrong advice, it will lead to civil war. A new thought pattern is required, democracy as defined today will not work anymore. What is really sustainable is a regime centers on Blockchain network decisions which removes the possibility of human abuse. Unfortunately, we're not there yet.

[@xanathem7]

My two immediate concern with pure direct democracy are these: 1. Could people be bothered with constant voting, many, I know, want to just go about their lives. So, would the result be an even greater voter fatigue? 2. Can important decisions affecting e.g. national security be entrusted to the people, who in this modern information age, can fall prey to misinformation campaigns? In principle I am in favour of more direct democracy though.

[@gonx9906]

Suuuure buddy sure

[@thecount1001]

sort of. most shareholders don't know, care or vote, so much more like a political sphere than you outline, but your points are well taken. having read Martin Gurri recently (at the behest of Stephen Kotkin) he feels that much of the decay and despondency in liberal democracies comes from within: people want what gov't and power structures can't provide, the happiness they crave, but that which eludes them and is harder to achieve in a free and competitive world.

[@piotraksamit587]

It's sound bit like "Another Now" Yanis Varoufakis

[@futuristcorporation]

Was expecting more depth from Zizek, whose take was indistinguishable from something a second-year liberal arts major could find to say.

[@myla6135]

Maybe the reason the big things (geopolitical, economic etc) don't appear to matter is because our parties in democracies generally agree more or less on those issues (ie all cling to the sacred middle ground which is what voters like) and so politicians have had to find another way of appealing to their electorates. They decided to go for culture wars instead. So now all the news focuses on these issues. It seems to me these cultural issues are easier to understand (populism in other words). We all understand racism, abortion, transgender and so can easily comprehend these issues when they are portrayed in a good and evil sense but may struggle with currencies, interest rates, international relations in the diplomatic sense. As an example we all get what wars are about if it's put in a good and evil narrative. That's much easier than looking at underlying causes, longer historical grievances and so on. And politicians and the media love pushing little good and evil stories leaving out the other side's (ie the 'evil' side's) point of view. So by the time the media has finished (egged on by politicians trying to win votes) you get the sort of internal hatred now on show. No-one (except a few of us) even bothers to try and see the other's point of view any more. Shame.

[@mdekeyser82]

To answer Slavoj's question. Internet was not filled by social medias. Echo chambers are making people crazy. Social media has to disappear ASAP.