1.75 times here and I finally got it :D What he says is that people don't want to admit that they are responsible for GLOBAL problems. And frankly I can't admit it either. You just HOPE that regional/domestic organisations and civil awareness would deal with the problem locally and the diplomacy would deal with the "fairness" on a higher level and therefore deal with the GLOBAL problem indirectly as a result Well, since we're no longer living in a period where diplomacy (and similar "sincere" organisations like "international union of scientists" or "international union of healthcare workers" e.t.c., can guarantee fairness of gameplay on a global level (but on the contrary, the "motivation" to overcome and "take over" global problem solutions by the private sector is apparent). There's no longer that "safety layer" above that would deal with "mutual struggles" of humanity (both on a societal and personal level). HE EVEN SAID IT that the unions in Europe 30 or so years ago were HIGHLY SKEPTICAL of the "concern for nature" and ecology being an apparent "tool" of the ruling class to take over their role (and, apparently, they were right, sadly, about it) And yes, it's more and more apparent that lobbying, media agendas, private interests, everything took precedence and/or higher power and priority over international law and diplomacy levels. And yes, as a result, I highly doubt that there would be a possibility anymore for a mistake anywhere (except the big 3). Basically, anywhere except the US, China, and Russia, if there was a "global" problem like say another Chernobyl or something like that, there would be severe consequences, isolation, and "austerity measure" conditions for outside/international help (i.e. no longer a "charity minded and funded" organisation like the UN would help, and even further, only it and only the "international union of university science") Because diplomacy failed under the hand of international and gigantic (but still private in action and interest) corporations, there is no longer the "guarantee" that mutual problems will be dealt with (without a severely higher price to pay). And my God that is surely evident, just look at Syria, Lybia, Iran and the modernly present case of China with the virus IN ALL those cases the OBVIOUS STANCE of "official" media is to blame the first victim for the mess.. There's no longer "international empathy" to help in some (indirect) ways and keep things "silent" on an international scale, on the contrary, it's all about competition, and who gets "louder" (or first ?) at the "crimescene" in order to capitalize as largely as possible on that OR, in my semi/wanna-be-French tone, simplified in one sentence: cause the "bad guys" have won already and rigged the game, basically the whole world is now forced to be one shade (or another) of the mindset of Israeli/Arab businessmen OR even simpler - people don't (and won't) care about the truth as long as the "presenter" has superior representative power/s than the problem itself (which may or may not have been one of the "notorious" methods back in the days of KGB :P), cause people can't cope with them being required to be a part of the solution with a problem they can't deal with and chose a "public representative figure" to trust dealing with instead
Thank you, both, for your reply. I agree it could be any of those things. I think it could be that people know that reusable straws won’t save the environment or ward off the mass extinctions coming when global corporations are not made to stop creating climate change or do anything to mitigate it themselves. We all feel powerless to stop our own demise.
The Radical Revolution If we cared more about the toxic effects of everyday pollution we wouldn’t need to care about climate change. You know how many people die every year from breathing dirty air?
I just got handed my restitution bill last week for smashing up the windows of an Xfinity building. I'm unemployed after losing three cars to accidents and needed repairs beyond my capabilities to prevent within the span of a year, forced to spend the final insurance payout to meet rent to the people who inherited the property I live on after my landlord killed himself because the addition to this house he made is making the bank want to foreclose the place. I live with my family. A hand-me-down laptop, two pairs of pants, five shirts, work boots and the books of Dune the only possessions I have. I feel the most free and alive I ever have.
Our daily lives carry social institutions inside of social institutions. We are to busy with what's immediate to even think about solving world problems. Which is okay being as we have politicians and people who WE put in power to handle the bigger broader questions. Now when those people don't handle it (do their jobs) then our responsibility isn't to fix climate change on our own but to choose a better qualified person to do it.
We collectively create culture, not only politicians. Politicians try to make good policy, if they aren't corrupt. That policy isn't integrated until accepted by 'the people'. The public opinion, is determined by active dialogue, and knowledge and values of citizens. Not only politicians
@@tierrapetersen4651 Exactly, and I don't support it that everyone is concentrating on this. Like this man is trying to have a serios talk and 90% of the comments are jokes about his tics. I understand a joke or two, but to keep making fun of something a person can not control is almost bullying. Let's just focus on what he has to say, not on his problems
Damn, Zizek packs soooo much into 7 minutes. I wish I could be that smart. Imagine what the world looked like if we had no borders, no countries. We would be much more empathetic to the human suffering. But even then, we'd probably fuck it up, because humans are good at that.
While I totally agree that he is an incredibly intelligent man, Zizek does not advocate full integration of immigrants though. He seems to firmly believe in a clear seperation of cultures such as Islam and traditional western Christianity. He's said before that multiculturalism and integration often has detrimental results. I think that he is more of a nihilist in that your "culture" doesn't really matter, it's being a proletariat and engaging in class struggle is more of a unifying concept.
Sorry for the long post but whenever I read a title like this my brain revolts a bit and says, “please define people” (pretty sure they are people who do) or “define care” (to what extend do you consider “caring” to be in a climate context?)... Can we not agree that finding any important universal truth and/or meaning based on titels that are not universally defined is futile and should not be tried to be answered in a 7 min video? Why ask directions to destinations you cannot travel to, you will need to rephrase this if you want to create any sort of consensus! Undefined questions can only result in non-meaningful answers, they will create more incertainty and static in times where clarification is very much welcomed! He talks about abolishing democracy by opening borders, but does not address the fact that we don’t even get to vote on people, we get to vote on parties which makes it particracy not a democracy (= see Greek for Eklessia and get your terminology right)... And if you really care and start doing some research you will learn that the term “democracy” has a nack of changing it’s definition over the course of history depending on who it’s intended to serve! I have a list of people who where at the helm of 18th and 19th century implementation of democracy which was in itself a result of the French concept of enlightment (See Rousseau). Some of these men included slave traders like John Adams... trading slaves is off course a very democratic thing to do (sarcasm here)! Yet he thought he was perfectly qualified to determine what it should mean for others (and yes people back then knew very well slavery to be wrong, so don’t give me that “missing paradigm shift” issue)! Talk about hypocrite! So tell me what has changed since then?! Because of that... How about we instead abolish all political parties and it’s political class where this dogmatic thinking that an elitist group is or should be able to decide what is good for all it’s contituents is a good idea, can be thrown in the garbage bin once and for all! Screw any politician that thinks it get’s to say how I need to live/work when that same politician is not playing by the same rules that I have to play with! Think about it... The professional politician is considered world’s most untrustworthy profession, yet at every election we place all our hope in them hoping they will create a future where equality, freedom and fraternity for all is installed... Yeah right, that person only cares about re-election! My point is, we are all politically involved whether as an individu, person, professional, etc. Let data analysits, field experts, industry leaders, people that work with the substance on a daily basis decide what course of action needs to be taken in what situation instead of this crazy idiotic system we are still using today!
@@GillesvanZeebroeck if in the united states you told people that the experts would take over they would assume you were invoking communism or whatever their idea is of communism as a boogeyman. anti intellectualism is rampant these days
@@chloegrobler4275 thank you for taking the time to read my lengthy post… Analysing your reply invokes the following question “what benefit could one possibly gain by assuming you know the facts”? When people start to assume, the logic is usually thrown out the window… it’s like religious people who basically say “it’s too difficult to understand, it must be divine” If we start catering to the unknowing and unwilling than we will all be dead in 200 years!!!
Yeah i dont think is that abstract of a concept. I live in Brazil and in the region a live, climate is changing Very fast and resulting in phenomenons not seen before. Flood in usually dry places and longer than normal dry stations. Theres even places where the Sea already covered places that used tô be postal cards. I think It depends where you live and whats your connection to the real world.
That doesnt mean people around here are acting to mitigate these changes more than people that live in less impacted countries. But still, around here we see everyday these climate changes
I’m not sure who will see this but I personally will be hosting a series of seminars with Zizek through the European Graduate school on “Obscene Masters”. I’d be more than happy to link you to it for more information. It’s going to be an incredible discourse :)
@@uweseeler1 What I'm sure of is that nobody who watches him is able to communicate his value in terms of unique intellectual contributions, which is why the same comment works 1000 times. I suspect that's also why it's far more common for people to respond to me with a general dismissal rather than by showing me why I'm incorrect. It may also be why given the 1000 comments I've written with examples of how other intellectuals are pulling their weight in exactly the way I'm suggesting that he's not, the comments tend to go dark. My reasons for putting pressure on this are pretty simple. I think we are wasting our time listening to people without ideas, and we become collectively dumber when we get more joy out of circular, pseudo-intellectual jerk off sessions than we do out of real intellectual or material progress.
Yeah, when you say it's February, people shouldn't be sunbathing, it's like people look at you, like shut up, just enjoy it. Almost like global warming is desirable. But I generally think, global warming is too big for people to get their heads around. It's like anything that requires a global perspective, is just too much to comprehend. It's like weather forecasters never mention El Nino in regards to hurricanes, Or the fact that the rotation of the Earth plays a big part in creation of the wind. People just don't want to comprehend planetary perception. Which comes down to planet denial. I think at some unconscious level, we're still highly traumatized by Copernicus. We still haven't got our heads around we occupy a planet in the centre of who knows what. We cling to nation states, and can't expand our minds to embrace global consciousness, but without such an expansion of consciousness, we're ultimately doomed. Almost as if the cosmos has laid a test down for any advanced species, either embrace planetary consciousness - or go the way of the dinosaurs
@@tark8985 "the new werld ordurrrr" haha that reactionary mentality comes to mind when you tell people we gotta get together globally to tackle these problems.
At an individual level people care mostly about the *immediate* problems they face not something "theoretical" like "Capitalism" or "Climate Change". That being said they might not care about Climate Change (in the abstract sense) but they WILL care about the Super Storm that floods their valley and sweeps their livelihoods away. The consequences of Climate Change will lead to intense social and political instability and could potentially topple the current paradigms our civilizations are based on.
Why people ignore climate change, because most live modest lives and take good care for few personal belongings they own. Same rationality is expected from governments and corporations, that's also why climate is or was a stable system. Most resources are not spent for benefits of simple individuals, industrial power is utilized against competition and for territorial conquests. Why do they produce so many variation of same thing when it's obvious from technical point of view only certain designs are useful, like they try to produce unique consumer products on industrial level. Everybody would like to buy an ideal quality and durable product, but this is not how global economy works, we all get cheap and crappy surrogates instead or fetish like Žižek would call this. When people have money they want to enforce and protect their sphere of influence, those cost most money and cause worst natural destruction. What can we do, trust politics and build even larger military repressive apparatus probably, so those in power can do more dumb, evil and insane things. Global ethics can't change over night, it depends on mentality, education and well being of billions. Remember those movements against wars, it turned out nobody want to join army and die on some battlefield, but end of fighting didn't make problems go away. People adapt and find new ways to get justice, by causing more bad things to happen. First we need to know why our society doesn't work and try to solve old problems rationally, on a scale of a single individual or we can't have enlightened synergy.
The modern "modest" life is not modest at all, It is built upon huge amounts of exploited labour and unrealistic demands for destructive progressive technologies as a materialistic response to existential dread.
I like a lot of what he says but he is wrong about very many things and it is wrong for people to idolize his every word like he is a kind of Dalai Lama or Jesus or something.
One simply, to provoke you a little bit, has to admit that this love, peace and harmony agenda pushed by those in (european) power, simply belongs to an otherworldly realm. It doesn't work in people's day2day experiences. Be it climate change or immigrants. One has to admit that we don't want culturally misprogrammed, undereducated primitive tribes messing up our societal arrangements by their sheer aggressiveness. No, and we have the right, if not to say duty, to reject these medieval patterns of social conduct. Bottles, stones and fireworks thrown at ambulances and fireman January 1, 2023 say it all ! And believe me saying jurisprudence finds itself unable to handle these excesses appropriately.
What is his opinion on the enlightenment (and his ugly beast,democracy)? I'm asking because i phisically can't stand his talks. He justs starts on his tangent,rambles on,makes a few citations and closes with a thought..out of context..
He's a lover of the Enlightenment (well most philosophers are) and said that the only thing worth fighting for in Europe is the emancipatory project, which is the legacy of the Enlightenment. So precisely for Zizek, he believes that the far-right is the true enemy of Europe. He even said that if there was a Eurocentric idea, it was Communism and that if there was a guy who embodied European legacy, it was Marx. Zizek doesn't hate democracy, but he believes that we shouldn't have any illusion about it. The majority can be wrong, and, in this case, he always likes to use the refugee crisis as an example and how the people can be wrong. If you have a problem with how he talks, just read his books.
@@LeonWagg Makes sense. However is relation to communism is pretty accademic to say the least-he doesn't have much clue on strategy and power politics= he is the textbook idealist. The idea of communism being euro-centric also is preposterous, as its roots are mainly judeo-christian. Anyway,that clears up my doubts. if he supports the enlightenment he is part of the problem EDIT: it s not only famous reactionaries who opposed the enlightenment(De maistre, Burke, Nietzsche..) but also liberals, interestingly, like Isaiah Berlin. He suggested that the legacy of enlightenment is authoritarianism while liberalism is reactionary (i assume because is not necessarily democratic..)
I don't even know what you mean by ”idealist.” Zizek's main philosophical project is precisely the reversal of Marx’s dialectical materialism to Hegel. Marxism is, in many sense, influenced by Christianity, especially Marx’s position of the proletariat relating to the idea of faith in Christianity. Marx’s notion of the proletariat as a pure subject also links back to Descartes’ Cartesian subject. Marxism IS a product of European tradition even if you don't agree with it. I know you fascists hate the enlightenment and prefer being a serf in feudalism. But yeah, communism is a eurocentric idea, and the Enlightenment is part of European identity even if you hate it. I don't think it's fair to say that Berlin totally rejected the Enlightenment, and you can see it clearly in his love for Marx (or at least his sympathy for Marx). The main reason Berlin was skeptical about the Enlightenment is pretty like you said he believed that for the Enlightenment tradition to achieve its ultimate goal (freedom equality and so on), it would have to involve unacceptable coercion and would risk ironing out the rich diversity of human life. So it's not much that he disagreed with the tradition itself. I mean, even Zizek acknowledges a dangerous tendency within the Enlightenment (Gulag and so on). However, he still believes that for us to overcome it, the Enlightenment is the only intellectual tool to do so. Btw I don't think Nietzsche was a reactionary, or at least you can't really compare him with de Maistre or Burke.
Maybe people don't want to deal with those issues because they are not real problems. Nobody is against individuals, but when LGBT or immigrants crowd together and demand special rights, majority feels challenged by those ideas and defend their way of life. Maybe because majoritiy of people are not gay and don't want to leave their home country, specially not together with other people they don't like or try to escape from.
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
I’ve listened to this twice and I still don’t know why we don’t care about climate change.
We don’t care about climate change because it’s too abstract and too far removed from our everyday experience.
1.75 times here and I finally got it :D
What he says is that people don't want to admit that they are responsible for GLOBAL problems. And frankly I can't admit it either. You just HOPE that regional/domestic organisations and civil awareness would deal with the problem locally and the diplomacy would deal with the "fairness" on a higher level and therefore deal with the GLOBAL problem indirectly as a result
Well, since we're no longer living in a period where diplomacy (and similar "sincere" organisations like "international union of scientists" or "international union of healthcare workers" e.t.c., can guarantee fairness of gameplay on a global level (but on the contrary, the "motivation" to overcome and "take over" global problem solutions by the private sector is apparent). There's no longer that "safety layer" above that would deal with "mutual struggles" of humanity (both on a societal and personal level). HE EVEN SAID IT that the unions in Europe 30 or so years ago were HIGHLY SKEPTICAL of the "concern for nature" and ecology being an apparent "tool" of the ruling class to take over their role (and, apparently, they were right, sadly, about it)
And yes, it's more and more apparent that lobbying, media agendas, private interests, everything took precedence and/or higher power and priority over international law and diplomacy levels. And yes, as a result, I highly doubt that there would be a possibility anymore for a mistake anywhere (except the big 3). Basically, anywhere except the US, China, and Russia, if there was a "global" problem like say another Chernobyl or something like that, there would be severe consequences, isolation, and "austerity measure" conditions for outside/international help (i.e. no longer a "charity minded and funded" organisation like the UN would help, and even further, only it and only the "international union of university science")
Because diplomacy failed under the hand of international and gigantic (but still private in action and interest) corporations, there is no longer the "guarantee" that mutual problems will be dealt with (without a severely higher price to pay). And my God that is surely evident, just look at Syria, Lybia, Iran and the modernly present case of China with the virus
IN ALL those cases the OBVIOUS STANCE of "official" media is to blame the first victim for the mess.. There's no longer "international empathy" to help in some (indirect) ways and keep things "silent" on an international scale, on the contrary, it's all about competition, and who gets "louder" (or first ?) at the "crimescene" in order to capitalize as largely as possible on that
OR, in my semi/wanna-be-French tone, simplified in one sentence: cause the "bad guys" have won already and rigged the game, basically the whole world is now forced to be one shade (or another) of the mindset of Israeli/Arab businessmen
OR even simpler - people don't (and won't) care about the truth as long as the "presenter" has superior representative power/s than the problem itself (which may or may not have been one of the "notorious" methods back in the days of KGB :P), cause people can't cope with them being required to be a part of the solution with a problem they can't deal with and chose a "public representative figure" to trust dealing with instead
Thank you, both, for your reply.
I agree it could be any of those things. I think it could be that people know that reusable straws won’t save the environment or ward off the mass extinctions coming when global corporations are not made to stop creating climate change or do anything to mitigate it themselves. We all feel powerless to stop our own demise.
The Radical Revolution If we cared more about the toxic effects of everyday pollution we wouldn’t need to care about climate change. You know how many people die every year from breathing dirty air?
Because he doesn’t say anything
A historical and profretic speech from Zizek ,I love him for this
goos gitaar you don’t know what he said
I just got handed my restitution bill last week for smashing up the windows of an Xfinity building. I'm unemployed after losing three cars to accidents and needed repairs beyond my capabilities to prevent within the span of a year, forced to spend the final insurance payout to meet rent to the people who inherited the property I live on after my landlord killed himself because the addition to this house he made is making the bank want to foreclose the place.
I live with my family. A hand-me-down laptop, two pairs of pants, five shirts, work boots and the books of Dune the only possessions I have. I feel the most free and alive I ever have.
You have been through a lot!
God bless brotha! You really don't need shit but happiness (& a little freedom) to be happy.
Stop smashing and start killing.
Omg ,may god gift you some luck
How did you manage to destroy 3 cars man?
I just threw eight wild pitches trying to read his hand signals.
Our daily lives carry social institutions inside of social institutions. We are to busy with what's immediate to even think about solving world problems. Which is okay being as we have politicians and people who WE put in power to handle the bigger broader questions. Now when those people don't handle it (do their jobs) then our responsibility isn't to fix climate change on our own but to choose a better qualified person to do it.
We collectively create culture, not only politicians.
Politicians try to make good policy, if they aren't corrupt. That policy isn't integrated until accepted by 'the people'. The public opinion, is determined by active dialogue, and knowledge and values of citizens. Not only politicians
There is something beautiful about Zizek lecturing people about complex Marxist theory at something called "#NYUSkirball"
This man is a nasal beat boxer.
🤣🤣
I think it takes a lot of courage to have an annoying anxious tick and still be able to get up in front of people and speak.
@@tierrapetersen4651 Exactly, and I don't support it that everyone is concentrating on this. Like this man is trying to have a serios talk and 90% of the comments are jokes about his tics. I understand a joke or two, but to keep making fun of something a person can not control is almost bullying. Let's just focus on what he has to say, not on his problems
Someone buy this man a box of Claritin-D!
please stfu if you have problem just don't listen to him.
Damn, Zizek packs soooo much into 7 minutes. I wish I could be that smart. Imagine what the world looked like if we had no borders, no countries. We would be much more empathetic to the human suffering. But even then, we'd probably fuck it up, because humans are good at that.
While I totally agree that he is an incredibly intelligent man, Zizek does not advocate full integration of immigrants though. He seems to firmly believe in a clear seperation of cultures such as Islam and traditional western Christianity. He's said before that multiculturalism and integration often has detrimental results.
I think that he is more of a nihilist in that your "culture" doesn't really matter, it's being a proletariat and engaging in class struggle is more of a unifying concept.
Typical marxist arrogance, pushing globalism for others while YOU keep capitalism and escape the PRISON & MICROMANAGEMENT of your own madness !
3:44 sadly many still feel this
*video starts*
Zizek : *sniff* you know - Marx *sniff*
Some form of this comment is the top comment on every one of his videos because this guy are a cult of personality.
I wrote the exact same comment, beat me to it.
“No captions are available for this video”
Yeah that makes sense I guess
Sorry for the long post but whenever I read a title like this my brain revolts a bit and says, “please define people” (pretty sure they are people who do) or “define care” (to what extend do you consider “caring” to be in a climate context?)... Can we not agree that finding any important universal truth and/or meaning based on titels that are not universally defined is futile and should not be tried to be answered in a 7 min video?
Why ask directions to destinations you cannot travel to, you will need to rephrase this if you want to create any sort of consensus! Undefined questions can only result in non-meaningful answers, they will create more incertainty and static in times where clarification is very much welcomed!
He talks about abolishing democracy by opening borders, but does not address the fact that we don’t even get to vote on people, we get to vote on parties which makes it particracy not a democracy (= see Greek for Eklessia and get your terminology right)... And if you really care and start doing some research you will learn that the term “democracy” has a nack of changing it’s definition over the course of history depending on who it’s intended to serve! I have a list of people who where at the helm of 18th and 19th century implementation of democracy which was in itself a result of the French concept of enlightment (See Rousseau). Some of these men included slave traders like John Adams... trading slaves is off course a very democratic thing to do (sarcasm here)! Yet he thought he was perfectly qualified to determine what it should mean for others (and yes people back then knew very well slavery to be wrong, so don’t give me that “missing paradigm shift” issue)! Talk about hypocrite!
So tell me what has changed since then?! Because of that...
How about we instead abolish all political parties and it’s political class where this dogmatic thinking that an elitist group is or should be able to decide what is good for all it’s contituents is a good idea, can be thrown in the garbage bin once and for all! Screw any politician that thinks it get’s to say how I need to live/work when that same politician is not playing by the same rules that I have to play with!
Think about it... The professional politician is considered world’s most untrustworthy profession, yet at every election we place all our hope in them hoping they will create a future where equality, freedom and fraternity for all is installed... Yeah right, that person only cares about re-election! My point is, we are all politically involved whether as an individu, person, professional, etc. Let data analysits, field experts, industry leaders, people that work with the substance on a daily basis decide what course of action needs to be taken in what situation instead of this crazy idiotic system we are still using today!
Many articulated points! Appreciated reading every word! Thanks for such an effort to share those views.
@@karebear9827 Well thank you very much for taking the time to read my post, I appreciate it a lot!
@@GillesvanZeebroeck if in the united states you told people that the experts would take over they would assume you were invoking communism or whatever their idea is of communism as a boogeyman. anti intellectualism is rampant these days
@@chloegrobler4275 thank you for taking the time to read my lengthy post…
Analysing your reply invokes the following question “what benefit could one possibly gain by assuming you know the facts”? When people start to assume, the logic is usually thrown out the window… it’s like religious people who basically say “it’s too difficult to understand, it must be divine”
If we start catering to the unknowing and unwilling than we will all be dead in 200 years!!!
They dont care about it cause its an invisible unreachable supervillain. Kind of like they dont care about Satan
People try so hard to hate Zizek but they can't because they know hes right.
He is a marxist marxists are not right ... didn't the piles of communist corpses during the last century teach you that lesson yet?
I don't hate him, I am just highly critical of his tendency to view the world in black and white.
@@Vastilious Poverty was universal before capitalism. Poverty is the lowest it has ever been because of capitalism. End...of...Story!
@@donaldhysa4836 doesn't he call himself a hegelian? Or at least identify closer with that over marxism?
@@acolyte1951 I heard him call himself a fucking communist
The Man Who Blew Too Much
Yeah i dont think is that abstract of a concept. I live in Brazil and in the region a live, climate is changing Very fast and resulting in phenomenons not seen before. Flood in usually dry places and longer than normal dry stations. Theres even places where the Sea already covered places that used tô be postal cards. I think It depends where you live and whats your connection to the real world.
That doesnt mean people around here are acting to mitigate these changes more than people that live in less impacted countries. But still, around here we see everyday these climate changes
@@CamaraocompaoI think you’re misreading his point
@@brandonszpot8948 why my broder
I’m not sure who will see this but I personally will be hosting a series of seminars with Zizek through the European Graduate school on “Obscene Masters”. I’d be more than happy to link you to it for more information. It’s going to be an incredible discourse :)
Link it g
Don’t bother. He doesn’t say anything
@@MrClockw3rk you really must be very sure about the zizek not saying anything stuff. otherwise you would not comment it 1000 times.
@@uweseeler1 What I'm sure of is that nobody who watches him is able to communicate his value in terms of unique intellectual contributions, which is why the same comment works 1000 times.
I suspect that's also why it's far more common for people to respond to me with a general dismissal rather than by showing me why I'm incorrect.
It may also be why given the 1000 comments I've written with examples of how other intellectuals are pulling their weight in exactly the way I'm suggesting that he's not, the comments tend to go dark.
My reasons for putting pressure on this are pretty simple. I think we are wasting our time listening to people without ideas, and we become collectively dumber when we get more joy out of circular, pseudo-intellectual jerk off sessions than we do out of real intellectual or material progress.
@@MrClockw3rk Who should I read then?
Yeah, when you say it's February, people shouldn't be sunbathing, it's like people look at you, like shut up, just enjoy it.
Almost like global warming is desirable.
But I generally think, global warming is too big for people to get their heads around. It's like anything that requires a global perspective, is just too much to comprehend.
It's like weather forecasters never mention El Nino in regards to hurricanes, Or the fact that the rotation of the Earth plays a big part in creation of the wind. People just don't want to comprehend planetary perception.
Which comes down to planet denial. I think at some unconscious level, we're still highly traumatized by Copernicus. We still haven't got our heads around we occupy a planet in the centre of who knows what.
We cling to nation states, and can't expand our minds to embrace global consciousness, but without such an expansion of consciousness, we're ultimately doomed. Almost as if the cosmos has laid a test down for any advanced species, either embrace planetary consciousness - or go the way of the dinosaurs
A great way to put it really
People can understand and help national crises at BEST but global crises? Nah
@@tark8985 "the new werld ordurrrr" haha that reactionary mentality comes to mind when you tell people we gotta get together globally to tackle these problems.
You are not first.
At an individual level people care mostly about the *immediate* problems they face not something "theoretical" like "Capitalism" or "Climate Change". That being said they might not care about Climate Change (in the abstract sense) but they WILL care about the Super Storm that floods their valley and sweeps their livelihoods away. The consequences of Climate Change will lead to intense social and political instability and could potentially topple the current paradigms our civilizations are based on.
INTELLIGENCE 100, SPEECH 005
I fucking love his fucking chris chan sweater
Why people ignore climate change, because most live modest lives and take good care for few personal belongings they own. Same rationality is expected from governments and corporations, that's also why climate is or was a stable system. Most resources are not spent for benefits of simple individuals, industrial power is utilized against competition and for territorial conquests. Why do they produce so many variation of same thing when it's obvious from technical point of view only certain designs are useful, like they try to produce unique consumer products on industrial level. Everybody would like to buy an ideal quality and durable product, but this is not how global economy works, we all get cheap and crappy surrogates instead or fetish like Žižek would call this. When people have money they want to enforce and protect their sphere of influence, those cost most money and cause worst natural destruction. What can we do, trust politics and build even larger military repressive apparatus probably, so those in power can do more dumb, evil and insane things.
Global ethics can't change over night, it depends on mentality, education and well being of billions. Remember those movements against wars, it turned out nobody want to join army and die on some battlefield, but end of fighting didn't make problems go away. People adapt and find new ways to get justice, by causing more bad things to happen. First we need to know why our society doesn't work and try to solve old problems rationally, on a scale of a single individual or we can't have enlightened synergy.
The modern "modest" life is not modest at all, It is built upon huge amounts of exploited labour and unrealistic demands for destructive progressive technologies as a materialistic response to existential dread.
Glad you have an answer. Zizek sure doesn’t.
Most live good modest lives? You mean to tell me..capitalism works?
@@sotetsotetsotetsotetsotet2379 lol its not exploited if its a consensual agreement
@@donaldhysa4836 Consent or die is not consent.
Chris Chan sweater
Cool
Isn’t the image for the video the Muslim prayer?
Marx and Zizek should still go to an ayahuasca ceremony together in the Amazon.
I like a lot of what he says but he is wrong about very many things and it is wrong for people to idolize his every word like he is a kind of Dalai Lama or Jesus or something.
One simply, to provoke you a little bit, has to admit that this love, peace and harmony agenda pushed by those in (european) power, simply belongs to an otherworldly realm. It doesn't work in people's day2day experiences.
Be it climate change or immigrants. One has to admit that we don't want culturally misprogrammed, undereducated primitive tribes messing up our societal arrangements by their sheer aggressiveness. No, and we have the right, if not to say duty, to reject these medieval patterns of social conduct.
Bottles, stones and fireworks thrown at ambulances and fireman January 1, 2023 say it all !
And believe me saying jurisprudence finds itself unable to handle these excesses appropriately.
What is his opinion on the enlightenment (and his ugly beast,democracy)? I'm asking because i phisically can't stand his talks.
He justs starts on his tangent,rambles on,makes a few citations and closes with a thought..out of context..
He's a lover of the Enlightenment (well most philosophers are) and said that the only thing worth fighting for in Europe is the emancipatory project, which is the legacy of the Enlightenment. So precisely for Zizek, he believes that the far-right is the true enemy of Europe. He even said that if there was a Eurocentric idea, it was Communism and that if there was a guy who embodied European legacy, it was Marx.
Zizek doesn't hate democracy, but he believes that we shouldn't have any illusion about it. The majority can be wrong, and, in this case, he always likes to use the refugee crisis as an example and how the people can be wrong.
If you have a problem with how he talks, just read his books.
@@LeonWagg Makes sense. However is relation to communism is pretty accademic to say the least-he doesn't have much clue on strategy and power politics= he is the textbook idealist.
The idea of communism being euro-centric also is preposterous, as its roots are mainly judeo-christian.
Anyway,that clears up my doubts. if he supports the enlightenment he is part of the problem
EDIT: it s not only famous reactionaries who opposed the enlightenment(De maistre, Burke, Nietzsche..) but also liberals, interestingly, like Isaiah Berlin.
He suggested that the legacy of enlightenment is authoritarianism while liberalism is reactionary (i assume because is not necessarily democratic..)
I don't even know what you mean by ”idealist.” Zizek's main philosophical project is precisely the reversal of Marx’s dialectical materialism to Hegel. Marxism is, in many sense, influenced by Christianity, especially Marx’s position of the proletariat relating to the idea of faith in Christianity. Marx’s notion of the proletariat as a pure subject also links back to Descartes’ Cartesian subject. Marxism IS a product of European tradition even if you don't agree with it. I know you fascists hate the enlightenment and prefer being a serf in feudalism. But yeah, communism is a eurocentric idea, and the Enlightenment is part of European identity even if you hate it.
I don't think it's fair to say that Berlin totally rejected the Enlightenment, and you can see it clearly in his love for Marx (or at least his sympathy for Marx). The main reason Berlin was skeptical about the Enlightenment is pretty like you said he believed that for the Enlightenment tradition to achieve its ultimate goal (freedom equality and so on), it would have to involve unacceptable coercion and would risk ironing out the rich diversity of human life. So it's not much that he disagreed with the tradition itself. I mean, even Zizek acknowledges a dangerous tendency within the Enlightenment (Gulag and so on). However, he still believes that for us to overcome it, the Enlightenment is the only intellectual tool to do so.
Btw I don't think Nietzsche was a reactionary, or at least you can't really compare him with de Maistre or Burke.
Your comment was deleted for some reason, so I didn’t see it lol.
@@LeonWagg not the first time, I reckon.
bc its a hyperobject
I wonder what does he thinks about Marxs' ethnographic notes.
I’m starting to believe he does coke
In summary, he is a member of the atheist RELIGION. We know how this story ends.
Cuz liars
Because it's a hoax
He really needs to get handle on his tick, he can barely get through a sentence without touching his nose.
he should stay focused on what he wants to say. He just talks and talks.. so overrated.
shut up
The problem is.. you can't find pearls in the shallow waters of the ocean my friend
Have you considered that you're just not paying enough atention my man. I can understand what he's saying
Maybe people don't want to deal with those issues because they are not real problems. Nobody is against individuals, but when LGBT or immigrants crowd together and demand special rights, majority feels challenged by those ideas and defend their way of life. Maybe because majoritiy of people are not gay and don't want to leave their home country, specially not together with other people they don't like or try to escape from.
Yeah you make no sense.
people don’t see that they should defend their way of life and their childrens‘ and grandchildrens‘. that’s the problem.
No sense
Ah yes, the special rights to literally exist.
@@kkounal974 Define, to exist.
What a mess of a guy
To bad there was absolutely no elaboration on the very subject .