www.egs.edu Slavoj Zizek lecturing about materialism and theology, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the psychoanalysis of culture and societies. Videolecture focuses on fundamentalism, materialism, theology, atheism, atheists, humanists, humanism, reason, logic, rationality, intelligent design, believe, faith, religion, christian, christianity, islam, fundamentalists, fundamentalism, god, nature, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Public open lecture for the students of the European Graduate School EGS, Media and Communication Studies department program, Saas-Fee, Switzerland, Europe, 2007, Slavoj Zizek. Slavoj Zizek, a Slovenian sociologist, postmodern philosopher, and cultural critic is a professor at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana and at the European Graduate School EGS who uses popular culture to explain the theory of Jacques Lacan and the theory of Jacques Lacan to explain politics and popular culture. He was born in 1949 in Ljubljana, Slovenia where he lives to this day but he has lectured at universities around the world. He was analysed by Jacques Alain Miller, Jacques Lacan’s son in law. His research focuses on Karl Marx, Hegel and Schellingfundamentalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock. He has published many books and translations in several languages. He …
On July 16, 2010, In Uncategorized, by admin
www.egs.edu Slavoj Zizek lecturing about materialism and theology, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the psychoanalysis of culture and societies. Videolecture focuses on fundamentalism, materialism, theology, atheism, atheists, humanists, humanism, reason, logic, rationality, intelligent design, believe, faith, religion, christian, christianity, islam, fundamentalists, fundamentalism, god, nature, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Public open [...]
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
wtf
@spinozareagan His understanding of evolutionary biology (at least as summarized in “The Selfish Gene”) is somewhat primitive; he doesn’t give much credit to epigenetic possibilities… see “The Four Dimensions of Evolution”
As a Christian, I find Zizek’s insight very interesting. I also find it interesting that he likes Chesterton (who is one of my favorite authors).
reduction > induction
God, singularity, mind, supervene are placeholders.
Actually I checked up on what I said and I had it right the first time. That was a contingent, or conditional statement, that Zizek presents. But I still disagree with philosophers who say that there are “two kinds of truth”, contingent and necessary. Contingent truth is not actually truth at all.
“…he uses popular culture to explain the theory of Jacques Lacan and the theory of Jacques Lacan to explain politics and popular culture.”
Not only that, he states at the beginning that he is laying out a theory that takes as its foundation the “inexplicableness of everything”.
Minor correction, it’s neither conditional or necessary. It cannot be determined from the information given.
“…he uses popular culture to explain the theory of Jacques Lacan and the theory of Jacques Lacan to explain politics and popular culture.”
Not only that, he states at the beginning that he is laying out a theory that takes as its foundation the “inexplicableness of everything”.
That’s only conditionally circular reasoning, not necessary. It’s (necessarily) circular if these ideas are not part of a larger framework and do not form an inference.
Marx’s materialism so dwarfs the scientific understanding of physics that we have today. Materialism is a misleading term since energy forces are unaccounted for due to their being difficult to perceive, for instance however, radiation, music, cultural jamming, hegemony(and other institutional power relationships), hormonal reactions, and drug use are some energy forces that exist but may be unaccounted for by the ‘materialist’ who only believes in matter as opposed to energy and matter.
zizek is not a postmodern philosopher by any stretch of the imagination – he is part of a continental, aggressively anti-postmodern trend in philosophy. Some attribute it to his style, which I can see to a very limited extent, but the charge of going too fast and lacking depth is often overplayed against zizek. He is far more accessible, I imagine, once one has a minimal grasp of German idealism – and, equally common-sensical, once one has actually read at least some of what he references.
book maggot? nonsense? It always amazes me how hostile people can get towards material that hasn’t be conveniently dumbed-down for them. If you don’t understand, that’s one thing. If you infer from this that there’s nothing of any substance to understand then you are, well, naive and unlikely to want to enrich your vocabulary.
The ‘use accessible language’ argument, which is valid in certain contexts is often abused by people who are lazy and unwilling to put the work into learning the trade
materialism and atheism are logical
I agree. Dawkins is like the cat that got the cream. So astounded that people still refute Darwinism, when really, its not worthy of much intellectual discussion. I always laugh at the atheist/theist dichotomy. Both are essentially symptomatic of the same sickness that plagues western thought. Credit to Zizek for flagging this up!
he is good at prancing and frenetically stabbing around his reasonably shady comparisons and points. leaving you so busy keeping up with his confounding spins and examples you have little time to appraise what he is actually trying to say. watching it again leaves you stunned by how little he is saying and how flimsily it is backed. trouble is i still totally agree with the essence of what he’s saying. i like his sentiment and attitude
he is laying out a theory that takes as its foundation the “inexplicableness of everything”.”Here’s a theory: Kill brain, you die, try to deny” and that is the beautiful aesthetic totally human point. The absurdity of the normal implies irrationality but irrationality is the normal of the absurd so that what is normal is a sense of the absurd that produces the need for philosophy or wonder and thus can render the all of existence as sublime in all senses
“Anyone that doesn’t subscribe to a reductionistic scientism is a mystic and a pseudophilosopher.”
Yes, pretty much.
in other words u DO NOT UNDERSTAND A WORD HE IS SAYING. go smoke some more meth dude.
I thoroughly agree.
I am always amazed at the nonsense this sort of book maggot can generate.
It states in the sidebar that this sort of “theorizing” is an entirely circular undertaking:
“…he uses popular culture to explain the theory of Jacques Lacan and the theory of Jacques Lacan to explain politics and popular culture.”
Not only that, he states at the beginning that he is laying out a theory that takes as its foundation the “inexplicableness of everything”.
Here’s a theory: Kill brain, you die, try to deny.
Right. Anyone that doesn’t subscribe to a reductionistic scientism is a mystic and a pseudophilosopher.
But Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, is a TRUE philosopher
Yes, anyone who doesn’t subscribe to a reductionistic scientism is a mystic and a pseudophilosopher. Right on.
Dawkins is, afterall, a scientist, and can tell us so much about evolutionary biology. He is a REAL philosopher!
Yes, anyone who doesn’t subscribe to a reductionistic scientism is a mystic and a pseudophilosopher. Right on.
Dawkins is, afterall, a scientist, and can tell us so much about evolutionary biology. He is a REAL philosopher!
Zizek isn’t a postmodernist. You and all the rest of the vulgar materialists/petty atheists (Dawkins fan boys) are way out of your element.
Dawkins can tell us an awful lot about evolutionary biology. But he can tell us nothing of our Being.
mrfatd: Zizek is a scientist. All sciences are directly triggered by philosophy. Philosophy defines the underlying logic of science. Without philosophy we would find ourselves in a world of myths and with no chance to question them.
don’t you mean “pheudopsilosophy?”
Thanks a lot for uploading these