Slavoj Žižek: Absolute Knowing

[@RichInk]

Young man, do not stop. Keep pushing in the seeking, keep challenging yourself. Good god, you will become.

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

Excellent! I’m thrilled to see you doing an unscripted series! It was a great presentation that I found easy to follow, the logic coherent and well-structured, and the style inviting. Very well done!

[@thevulgarhegelian4676]

Just found this jewel of a channel. Wow. Your breaking down is wonderful, helpful and deeply appreciated to help graps concepts thatare very difficult. The McGowan breakdown and interview was mind blowing.
Loving your work. Thanks

[@tribebuddha]

Hey, young man! Thanks for the videos. 👍🏾 Carry on, scholar!

[@bogdanandone9022]

Damn you've got a good way of explaining

[@dylanqdrujcf7850]

~5:47: Might it be better to say that the subject cannot access, yet contains, its own limits? That it is finite yet unable to reach its own boundaries within itself, so it is self-experienced as infinite. This has a nice analogy in the idea of open sets, and their closure, in topology.

[@wherearewenow8361]

Truly gifted

[@joaoboechat7637]

Knowing that you can never achieve the object is not absolute knowing. What you described has a lot more to do with Kant then Hegel. The object in this sense would also be absolute( divided, lacking, etc...) therefore, it is subject.What is shaterred in absolute knowing is precisely the measure in wich we negate, say reality from fantasy, subject from object.

[@michellegarner632]

Wonderful! Thank you for this brilliant recap Trey. Its clear you can do both unscripted or scripted videos excellently🥳

[@cnreiger]

The subject is a Klein bottle!
but I'm a little confused, isn't a huge part of Zizek's (and Hegel's) project moving outside of the transcendent circle? and in that sense, isn't that what absolute knowing effectively accomplishes? When the subject begins to act from the place of its own impossibility/contradiction isn't this accessing a real lack or hole in being, which allows for a redefinition of all particular determinate limits? when you touch the real of your own impossibility, you also touch the impossibility of the other, which means that you are touching something outside of your own subjectivity. the impossibility of your own self knowledge is the subject, and this impossibility is the condition of possibility for a Real engagement with the world through the contradiction inherent to both?
It's the acceptance that the subject is its own Other, and that similarly the Other is its own Other, that there is an overlap in the split in both. and that's love when you maintain that gap and don't try to cover it up. Anyways would enjoy hearing what you think. I am pretty sure this is a crucial part of this discussion, but I might be missing something too.

[@asakatali]

@@telosbound In my understanding, he is attempting (see Sex and the Failed Absolute) to build a theoretical support against the idea that the transcendental horizon suggests we are "stuck in a box", rather, what is "outside" is already inside as the Other that lacks, that Other includes the Real of science as itself incomplete, parallaxed. What is "outside" is only the roiling quantum flux of the object, the in-itself of which is the objet a.

[@cnreiger]

@@telosbound this is really helpful, thank you! particularly the last point about Zizek's emphasis on negativity. I was thinking more about that structure of love rather than the death drive, it's interesting thinking about the two.
I am not aware of any such works really, other than stuff like the idea of reconciliation as a shift in perspective. Do you know where I could learn more about McGowans position on this and where his disagreement lies?

[@cnreiger]

@@asakatali This is also really helpful! and kinda what I was thinking about when I mentioned the Klein bottle, the way the inside is the outside. Bringing it to the Real of science also is what I was thinking about, so thank you for articulating that. Could you expand on the idea that the in-itself is the objet a? In the way im understanding it (and correct me if im wrong) objet a is both the distortion of the field of reality (the absent cause), and what covers up and blocks this distortion (stimulating our desire and stabilizing the field of perception), so I'm interested on how to understand this better on the quantum level! I should read Sex and the Failed Absolute seems really good

[@aarshraja846]

this was a slay

[@dialmformowgli]

♡

[@parmiggianoreggie-ano1832]

Out of curiosity, have you ever read “Lacanian psychoanalysis and Eastern Orthodox Christian anthropology”? If yes, what are your thoughts about it?

[@Wesenschau]

😎🧠 🔥

[@devonjosiah7308]

You look like you're wearing a Dominican habit