Відео

Obelisks are linked, to the moon...not penises sicko

You do realise the Jung was a total pervert...dick obsessed

the best video about Lacan i've ever watched

Hello Todd: thanks for this enlightening introduction video for your new book. I just finished reading Zizek's Christian Atheism and I identify with his ideological stance of Death Drive Marxism. This orientation I want to expand upon, to which I will soon begin reading your new alienation book in tandem with Zupancic's new disavowal book, and I look forward to all the knowledge and further self-hystericization I will gain from it

I tried to read Hegel once, and found out that I Lacan, Freud, Socrates, Descartes and Plato.

Identity politics is on the right? Have you not been paying attention for the last ten years!? I really like your work and at this point you’re literally the only leftist I follow. Refreshing to hear an intelligent leftist at least! You could be more generous to the right’s take on ethnic identity and more critical of BLM which has perhaps shown its true colours since time of recording.

This is compelling, and theres certainly something to it and what you have elaborated about enjoyment, but one area where this is defeated by observation is that all of this only ever seems to go in one direction. The working class never get a superegoic drive to attack the capitalists when they have the numbers and certainly the conditions to do so, nor do they ever derive surplus enjoyment from stamping out their uncastrated enjoyment. It only ever seems to flow from the rulers downwards. I would be interested to know if theres any reason for this "inequality".

Or just read the Science of Logic like a non charlatan.

Sooo good.

Hi Sir, I am a Literature Masters student from India, and I would be immensely thankful to you if you could elucidate and elaborate your profound insights into "The Parallax View" by Zizek. He is sometimes dense and all over the place and I resort to intellectuals like you to get under the skin of profound depths of zizek. Thank you in advacne sir.

I am so interesting to hear you. Hope Meet soon from new one❤

Clearly the subject is not the only site of emancipatory politics: Witness, for instance, how group identity is leveraged against the hegemony of atomising liberalism. Presumably for McGowan, the destruction of small scale, localised cultures was a net positive because it liberated these people from ascribed identity and allowed them to confront "the problem that animates us" and fulfil their radical potential.

Re Althusser's theory, I once was 'hailed' by a cop and acted like I did not hear them, when I knew full well they wanted to speak to me. They did not take kindly to my pretending not to hear, or 'being hailed as a subject'.

I’m reminded about a short back and forth you and Ryan had on an episode of Why Theory where you talked about having a college professor who was (symbolically?) misaligned and thus was able to change your mind about some things. I’ve always found this idea interesting but it was never expanded upon. How would this relate to argumentation through/around enjoyment? Does symbolic alignment predispose someone to assuming similar modes of enjoyment?

The Washington Monument took 36 years to erect.

Theory is just entertainment to cope with political impotence in the face of capitalism.

1:00:52 "can you ever do x for x?": purpose without purposiveness. I educate my child to educate my child; I do this free from obligation and opportunity cost. It’s as close to scholé as I can fathom and consequently becomes the means of imagining the end of capitalism without imagining the end of the world.

I hate to read Christianity into everything, I don’t even adhere to a confessional Christianity. But I’m currently reading Simone Weil by way of Peter Rollins, and she talks about time in a very similar fashion. This sounds very much like the project of “Christian atheism” where the Crucifixion is a representation of those moments in time that changes the way we think about the past. Definitely going to listen to this again, and read some of Benjamin’s work. Thanks so much for this!

Great lecture! Thank you

22:28 - Letter "Bet" - *ב‎*

Just looked this up... A "convulsion" typically refers to a sudden, violent movement or disturbance. In a figurative sense, if you say "convulsion of two things," it could imply a tumultuous interaction or clash between two ideas, events, or forces. For example, it might describe a conflict between two opposing viewpoints or the chaotic interplay between two trends in society.

Merci pour votre travail Todd, il faudrait traduire vos livres en français ! Votre bouquin « real gaze » vis à vis du cinéma peut être une source de réflexion très intéressante pour les travailleurs du film et autres narrateurs du monde entier. J’y reviens souvent pour continuer à interroger les rapports, ou les absences de rapports, entre fantasme et désir, dans les différentes formes de récits.

Love you platforming thinkers to your adoring fans man keep it up

Can you have a racist act without a concept of race in the first place? Historically the concept of race first emerged to explain class differences in society and only later became preoccupied with skin colour, particularly during the colonial period. The point is that the concept of race allowed the possibility and justification of discriminatory action.

Trump 2024! Now psychoanalyze me based only on that.

The lack that can never be satisfied: The Book of Ecclesiastes comes to mind.

Is there a connection to the Being - Nothing - Becoming in the early part of the Science of Logic ?

I was able to correct the joke along with you at the end. Really happy this is landing somewhere in my skull!

What philosophy professors think is significant, important, or central is not what is central

I was just thinking about how I've heard your position on why "raising awareness" never works, but I can never exactly remember your argument for why this is the case. This video kind of sums it up, right? Awareness raising doesn't work because it's not engaging the subject at the level of enjoyment. So, in a sense, this is a dialectical reversal of the ubiquitous line which (the insufferable) Ben Shapiro is most known for: "Facts don't care about your feelings." If we are psychoanalytically-minded we see that facts ONLY care about your feelings. 😆

I literally picking up pecans from the ground and value them highly

Yeah, I like your use of Hegel to approach this topic. I will read your book. However, I think you're far too soft on the right-wing particularism of the progressive bureaucracy

1:41 honestly, I just tune into McGowan to listen to him explain a joke and then I’m good.

Awful. Truly awful. Like Zizek’s “analysis” of Covid, this is totally (hopelessly) dishonest, one-sided, naïve.

Gin Rummy would say that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

My favourite strikes again

What would be the relation between the _point de capiton_ and suture on your view?

Hi, Todd.

Baby you got somethin in your nose

I think we can all find a way to agree without being agreeable

not good news if, like me, you think that evidence's conforming to one's form of enjoyment is very orthogonal to good evidential reasons lol

TLDR; Big Brother as gooning fodder for cookers

So, God in our era must be Analyst, not Master.

Beautiful as always!

I thought the punchline would be “it was Lenny.”

You are an inspiration.

Always a pleasure.

Banger

I think the Gherkin in London is one even though it's more like a "plug" 😁

You mentioned that the feminine Jouissance can jump between being masculine or feminine. that would seem to imply that there are 3 different types of desire for the feminine then? 1. The Masculine Barred S to objet a 2. The Feminine Barred La to Phallus 3. The Feminine Barred La to S(Barred A) What exactly is the 2nd one representing? The Phallus to my understanding was the thing that gives access to the Maternal Function’s Desire. Is that saying, a woman can desire the Approval of the Big Other (society I guess) by the Phallus? - 1 would be a woman who’s desire is triggered but separated from their access (the desire to “conquer a No”) - 2 would be access to the approval and recognition of society at large (the desire to have complete access & acceptance throughout the social order) - 3 would be desire to belong somewhere beyond the symbolic order all together (the desire to connect with that which subverts/excluded from the order) Another 2 questions: 1. What necessitates these forms of Desire in the first place? What is the logical chain from Impossible Feminine Ideal & these many different types of desire? 2. What’s the difference between Masculine desire for Objet a & Feminine desire for S(Barred A)? The barrier is present in both and desire seems to be implied in the latter. 3. What is the difference between wanting the Phallus (means of providing enjoyment to the Other) & wanting the S(Barred A) (that which the Big Other Lacks, if I’m understanding correctly)?