@@iwouldprefernotto49 holy shit he's got a blessed brain. I've never felt more of a dipshit when I hear someone speak my own language better than me, plus in other languages too. I have no hope lol 🤣
@@duggiefresh8170 "Man and women do not exist biologically and are abstract zero point" blah blah. Oh dear... Postmodernist neomarxism for sure. Nothing to do with the real world. He suggests tearing down culture ,not improving it.
Nonsense. This is a perfect example of the danger of the insane Great reset-globalistic communism/utopianism. The man is a parody of himself. Gullible young female journalists like the political bullies and mafiosi just as much as young bimbos like classic mafiosi with expensive cars. Recently a norwegian sportsman in the handball national team, known to be a mainstream woke, went public with a purely racist rant against the egyptian tournament hosts and culture. "They don't follow strict covid 19 guidelines. They are not like us. They talk loudly over distance". Ole Erevik in Nettavisen.no. Pathetic. The socialists are just like the fascists. They have no respect for natural differences and national independence. They are socially awkward losers shivering in their knees in social contexts and direct cultures. They hide in their eurocentric foggy castles and judge and want to judge and control everyone else down to the most frenetic detail. In Canada a family in Gatineau recently had Trudeau's Gestapo police at their door because there was a family dinner with 6 people. The sixth was dragged out. "Not covid friendly." These people are dangerous for the future of civilization. They should be counterdebated and debunked, as much as possible, as often as necessary.
I'll say this about Zizek, he proves that people who say leftist in a derogatory manner as if it's a unified political philosophy are terribly mistaken. Even those who call themselves socialist or communist have a wide range of beliefs
Islam, Chinese civilisation, Ubuntu, effectively challenge Eurocentrism, but in countries where they are dominant. But within Europe/the West, what Zižek is saying is correct : the critics are totally western in their thinking
This is the second time I've seen Zizek talking to this reporter. She absolutely loved the abstract philosophical stuff. When he starts saying 'unfettered capitalism, combined with cultural philistinism is beyond saving', she seems much more troubled by this. 'Ah, so capitalism isn't the problem?' 'No, look - it always sucks donkey ass; the question is *how much* donkey ass must it suck?' He also concisely explains who so many British (and not only British) people love Europe but, by now, hate the EU...
I'm a european and I'd love to change "european" from a geographical term to a moral/political term through European Union. A country to become a european member have to agree on some values and arguments and to fit itself into the european "superculture" (super in latin means "upper", "superior", "above", and it may be the right term to describe this european culture which doesn't cancel the national culture as italian, spanish, german etc). So, "european" isn't only a geographical term, and the prove is that Georgia, which isn't in Europe, asked to join EU: a non-european (geographical) country wants to become european (ideological). But I don't agree on where the values come from. I agree on Galimberti who says that values are only the parameters which a society choose to live together
Yeah. I got that too. He also skipped over centuries of Europeans enslaving Africans. He also misses that equality (gender and others) existed in the Zulu empire and the Mali empire way back in the 11th century.
@@mcfusiak5916 Not remotely true. Your statement is at once, jointly, manifestly and patently false. European values are *NOT* unique, and in many cases are to be found "naturally occurring" in various form, amongst other cultures/civilisations. What is different however, is the vigour with which Europeans have sought to "ram" the doctrine of European supremacy and exceptionalism, down everyone else's throats - historically, this has been done via bloody conquest, whereas nowadays it is done more subtly, via propaganda outlets such as Hollywood and the "Western" media. FTFY
human rights are a privilege of the rich and powerful, they are not an idea, the question is who has the best economic and spiritual foundation to give them
The problem i sew in your conception is, you construct 'human rights' as something that is given by a materialistic foundaition. I'd say its quite the opposite. Human rights arent materialistic. Its a pure ideal serving us as goal. Its not the point to fully maintain it, but to go in this direction through institutes and structures.
My problem with his argument is that I think Descartes was wrong to separate the mind and body. We are embodied creatures, our gender is not wholly culturally constructed. We don't need Descartes to justify human rights. We can be different but equal as human beings. It's a mistake to think we need to be reduced to some sort of zero point, all identical. Such a view would surely appeal to dictators and despots intent on standardizing us, seeing us as blank slates on which to impress their world view.
He didn't stand by that point. He just said that without cartesian subjectivity, Judith Butler's critique of the constitution of gender wouldn't have a base in which to rest on. His central point in this interview is about how often the values that come from the european tradition serve as basic ideas for movements that are critical of european thought hegemony. Furthermore, his remark about how we should be more eurocentric relies precisely in the idea of Universality, which is a value of Enlightenment, that has passed from author to author like Kant and Hegel and even Marx to some extent, as part of the western tradition. The interesting thing is that with every iteration, this notion of Universality becomes more and more refined by each author (Kant introduces the general idea of enlightenment as emancipation from domination, Hegel historicizes it and Marx introduces the economic and class analysis to it), while also being updated by each author in the tradition to make it relevant to problematics of their time. I think Zizek's goal is to insert himself in this Universalist/emancipatory tradition of enlightenment, trying to refine it even more and to reinterpret it in light of current events and within the framework of the ideas of contemporary authors.
@@diegootero6095 Thanks Diego. I don't know about Judith Butler, sorry, but if her critique of gender is based on Descartes subject: a disembodied res cogitans, therein lies my disagreement. We aren't a res cogitans situated somehow within a res extensa, it seems to me. Of course consciousness itself is a mystery, but gender is surely based in biology. I am consciousness seeing the world through a male or female body-mind.
@@arthurchinaski3736 damn, I had literally finished writing my reply, but i casually erased it before posting. What i was trying to say in it was that I don't think Zizek is impliying that Butler's critique of gender is literally based on the cartesian subject. Rather, I think he meant that, even though it's fashionable for so called "postmodern" thinkers to trash on the western tradition of thought, their critiques wouldn't even be possible without the framework this tradition provides (like the problems of knowledge-opinion, mind-body, subject-object, etc.). In the case of Butler, her theories are part of the old debate around the mind-body problem, that was initially adressed by Descartes. Butler's critique of gender is inserted in this tradition, and takes a particular position within it, which is not necesarily the same as Descartes' (don't quote me on this, i haven't read her either but i've heard a few things). In that sense, Zizek is saying that without Descartes proposal of the mind-body problem, Butler's theory wouldn't have a framework in which to exist.
lol his lack of knowledge of anything outside of Europe is so shallow But it seems like it's European custom to confidently talk about things they have no idea about
Is this idea of the progressive european legacy in contradiction with proletarian internationalism? I mean, isn't Zizek bringing us back 150 years to the past to this pre revolutionary progressive concept before the idea of universal human rights and care, which are still present after the fall of the eastern bloc by working class people all over the world and is inherently anti capitalist? And ever less compatible with our current society, weather we are talking of western or eastern capitalism. I have a hard time projecting Zizek's concept to the current state of the universal working class, who in many emerging countries is recentful of centuries of western colonialism.
Robert Tuttle sure, but those emancipatory ideas are at the same time influential in anti-imperialist ideas for example, who combine them with the ideas of those who fought for independence in each particular nation, so even the anti eurocentist ideas are influenced by the european born progressive current. Maybe there's a balance but the problem is eurocentism is usually used to cover up all of europe problems.
Are you aware that anti-colonialist thinkers tend to more and more reject the whole theoretical framework constructed by thinkers in the european tradition and justifying it with anti-imperialism? This is the left shooting its own feet. Universalism is present in every idea of the european Enlightenment, from egalitarianism to women's rights, from anti-colonialist theory to LGBTQIA+ rights. What Zizek means is that the fact that they, e.g. democratic rights or human rights, were initially used to justify imperialism and exclude huge portions of people doesn't mean they should be discarded because when you universalize them, they become much more egalitarian. You can't find the same universalism in Asian, African or American philosophy, one has to be strictly Eurocentric - not in the sense of praising european imperialism - to push this progressive legacy forward.
mental_diarrhea42O Is that true though? That’s what I’m not sure of, is there really not such universalism anywhere else? It’s hard to believe somehow, I’m pretty sure Buddhism, e.g., will have something to say on this, but I’ve not studied it so I don’t know.
@@Snowcountry556 Actually Zizek already covered buddhism and its inability to be universalized and it's a quite fascinating take. The crux of it is that buddhist dogma of separation from worldly matters and being a passive observer of physics in front of you is in itself a deeply reactionary idea which inspired e.g. Japanese fascists. I don't want to go deeper into it to avoid clouding the conversation - I'm sure you can find both full Zizek presentations and bite-sized fragments about it on yt
@-sunrise-parabellum- yeah, and his take on buddhism is based on specific East Asian varieties of Buddhism. I love the man's ideas a lot, but the fact that he speaks of Buddhism without acknowledging Nagarjuna and other Indian originators of the now East Asian faith is utterly disappointing.
Would be really interested to know how well versed Zizek is on non-european conceptual belief systems. At the beginning he talks about some things as being European values, however I've heard (but never looked into) that many of these values were present in other indigenous cultures long before Europe's enlightenment period
@@LeonWagg i suppose you understand the thousands of years of history before non greco/roman cultures began being civilized Voting has been around in East Asia far longer But i doubt you can speak any East Asian languages fluently to read it's history and understand.
Enlightenment ideals was not created in Europe tho so to attribute it to Europe is ill-informed and eurocentric because a better example of it existed in Ethiopia hundreds of years before the concept was ever written about In Europe. And unlike Europe it was to all people not just some people .
I've been watching many of Slavoj's youtube video and I am finding him increasingly difficult to follow, I wonder if I'm the only one? His arguments are funny, thought provoking and sometimes all over the place. He casts himself as a Hegelian and Marxist (but refutes this sometimes too). I find it a strange when he talks about hotbed topics like PC culture, feminism, discrimination, authoritarian capitalism in similar ways to Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson, and Sam Harris to name a few. They often get branded by the left as being Alt-right, anti-feminist, and so on and so on for exactly the same statements Slavoj makes. Maybe claiming to be Hegelian/Marxist/Socialist works as a 'get out of jail free card' inoculating him from criticism from the left? I am in the process of re-reading Hegel to see what our current society would look like through Hegels lens. It is sometimes mystifying, how did he come to his current conclusions on the topics he speaks about. How did Slavoj superimpose Hegel onto current societal topics like European union, Datalink, and so on and so on......? Speculating here; maybe his thoughts have floated so far away from his original Hegelian roots that they have become mostly unrecognisable for me (which does not invalidate what he says per se). The problem I have is that his arguments seem to be so contradictory or provocative that I often can't follow his reasoning, which is problematic. His legendary 'and so on, and so on's' seem to become less self-explanatory the more I read about his classic source material. A priest asks people to believe stuff because they have interpreted the book for you so you don't have to read it. Is that what Slavoj is doing with Hegel? (Oops, am I becoming like Slavoj myself?). Maybe I'm taking him and Hegel too serious and I should think of him more like an intellectual comedian. Comedians provoke and get you to self reflect, a good thing, but then trying analyse the underlying reason why a joke is funny spoils the show ;-). Anyways it's always fun and confusing to hear him speak. If someone could comment on what I'm missing in my thinking about Slavoj that would be awesome ;-)
No. They don't often get branded by the left as being Alt-right, anti-feminist, and so on and so on for exactly the same statements Slavoj makes. You are missing the nuances. Zizek critizises PC culture for being weak and ineffectual upholders of status quo. Jordan Peterson sees PC-culture as a threat. Totally different perspectives.
Zizek has often made one statement that turns Marx upside down: Zizek says that this (the present historical moment) is an interregnum where we should concentrate on thinking more clearly and thinking better. Meaning, this is not the time for action. (Recall that Marx said exactly the opposite.) I think the answer to your question, and the reason for your confusion, regarding Zizek lies in this worldview of his. He takes what Hegel or Marx or Nietzsche has to offer, but he also thinks that we need more today than they can provide. Think about this perspective; maybe it will help you see Zizek's points a little more clearly.
This is because he speaks the same language as the current radical leftists, hell, he met judith butler and has exchanged views with her, he's not criticized by leftists because he is on the same level as one of their main academic figures. Peterson, Harris etc. speak more in scientific terms, Zizek understands leftist political and philosophical thought better than radical leftists themselves, the power of knowledge my friend.
Christianity has nothing to do with democratic and egalitarian values. And egalitarian values are universal, not necessarily flowing out of Euroleam culture this is sloppy thinking
It's not a "I have black friends therefore I should face no repercussions for my racism" thing, it's "I have black friends who are great theoreticians and what I'm talking about also exists within their theoretical emancipatory contributions"
@S K. That's actually not true, leftist parties usually win big in local elections due to the focus on the economic situation of the working class and there's nothing preventing them from addressing structural problems transpeople and non-whites face. We don't lose popularity because of that, we lose popularity because the state apparatus is controlled by neoliberal establishment since '89 and a logical extension of that is the left being discredited and deplatformed.
@S K. Check out local elections in e.g. Belgium (PVDA) and France (various socialist parties). It's a fact that there are many European countries where the left holds strong in the locals and, with all due respect, it's simply ignorant to say otherwise. Of course you alienate the working class by antagonizing it but it's liberals and liberal leftists who tend to center their worldview around this narrative of whites vs. the world. You'd know there is a stark difference between this and the narrative created by leftists rooted in the marxist tradition if you actually participated in leftist discourse - your criticism strikes me as 'outsider' criticism without prior knowledge about these often crucial differences.
@S K. your view off the left is one of a projection based on right wing talking points. The fact is that the left is doing good in Britain (Labour) America (Bernie is the most popular presidential candidate) France (melenchon).
Europeans: We made the first fire guns. Chineses: No brow, it was us! Europeans: I know man, but we are White, everbody trust us. If someone denny, let's call "Afrocnetrist". Bye!
It isn't really, but Žižek argues that the inherent universalism of human rights, the Enlightenment ideas that made the declaration possible, can only be found in European philosophy.
@@davidwuhrer6704 Those "values" have their origin outside of Europe. It's true that Europe is more or less a progressive continent, however, colonialism originated with the enlightenment era and has effectively destroyed countless cultures across the globe. Those who lived under Eurocentric rule did not have their "human rights" fully realized or respected.
If you take each article of the human rights, you can find books written by great european philosopers about it and they talked about it maybe centuries or thousands of years ago. I'm not saying that freedom of speech, respect of law etc born and existed only in Europe but all the concepts behind the human rights come from european philosophy and history, meanwhile in Africa, Oceania or America almost no one talked about it (I doubt that in Asia did but I don't know). That's why it's eurocentric: if you take a world without Europe you can't even understand what the human rights are about
@@fedbat2199 That's not even close to true. Ancient Greece had slavery while their contemporaries like Persia abolished the practice. The Romans were no better, often enslaving POWs and neutral neighbors alike. Ancient Europe did not have a concept of human rights like how we think of it. So no Europe did not invent human rights nor regularly practiced it and instead upended human rights outside of Europe during the colonial era.
Sounds like Papa Marxism has never read on Jose Carlos Mareategui's (considered the first Latin American Marxist intellectual) explanation of "primitive communism" in relation to the Incan empire. What a shame.
Also, it was Christianity that cemented the transposed it patriarchal rule onto indigenous peoples of the Americas post Columbus exchange . Not very historical
Mariategui was just another eurocentric communist, if you want to touch the bottom of the iceberg you should read about Fausto Reinaga and his indigenist theory and neo-inca philosophical attempt. Reinaga was a former communist but also descendant of Aymara revolutionaries in Bolivia. About the moral and 'humanist' concepts many of these were known among american civilizations, even the right to vote among Iroquois confederacy, and as you said the true socialism of the incas which is in its own league since it would be called somewhat an theocratic socialism by the westerners point of view. Even more the Aztec philosophy was basically Heidegger centuries before Heidegger
well in Islamic Golden Age lets say it was much more Humanistic than Northern Parts of Europe at its times. For example women had more rights. I dont think its Eurocentric, it that when A Country and Its people get more richer they adopt these ideas
tl;dr: cogito is not-conforming-to-your-social-identity and fighting to give new meaning to yourself By Cartesian cogito, Zizek means the ability to interpret your own reality anew and give new meaning to yourself - going through this carte blanche by examining your own identity vs. identity that was forced on you in the process of socialization. Think first feminists, slaves, colonized people, the Third Estate in the French Revolution, every oppressed people who questioned their social identity and fought to be universalized, recognized as equal individuals driven by reason. When slaves on Haiti rebelled, they didn't go back to their "traditional african roots" (their original social identity), they redefined their own identity as equal citizens of the world and as such engaged in pure Cartesian cogito. They didn't go back to their particularities (I am separate), they universalized themselves (I am part of the whole) and this allowed them to establish a natural link, a sense of solidarity between their oppression and oppression of others. I'd recommend Susan Buck-Morss' "Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History" as an introduction to this if you're interested.
@@-sunrise-parabellum- This is pretty interesting, how does/would Cartesian Cogito manifest itself in the black community in America? Just asking because Zizek started talking about Malcolm X prior to him talking about Cartesianism.
@eqequestrian Thanks for the insightful comment. How do you think he sees eurocentrism with regards to cartesian subject though? I don't quite get that part. Is it something like Europe denying the capitalist particularities ascribed to European culture but the need to do it in a eurocentric and pan-european way? That's what I suppose because of his support of pan-european movements for political emancipation and his views about how anti-capitalist movements in Europe fail when they just stay within a country's political space instead of the continent's. But I'm not sure, at all.
It‘s a swiss TV program (Sternstunde Philosophie). In TV they translate him into german with a voice-over so it wouldn‘t make sense if she spoke english. But if you wanna listen to the original answers he gave you find it online (like this video here).
1:00 Holocaust....whatever ... He also skipped over the bit where Europeans enslaved Africans for centuries. Regarding equality starting in Europe - alas, Zizek is also wrong (unbelievable really). Equality (gender and others) existed in one of the empires of Zimbabwe (responsible for building the great Zulu wall). Similarly the Mali empire had the concept of human rights way back in the 11th century (before the Magna Carta) - it is even speculated that "Sundiata The Great"'s charter was what influenced the Magna Carter - since the former preceded the later (chronologically) by at least a century. Zizek should not feel compelled to talk about *EVERYTHING* - even things where he has so little knowledge that even I can so easily prove him wrong. It does real disservice to his great knowledge - and some of the truly innovative ideas in philosophy that he has come up with. I suppose it is human nature to be influenced by societal "norms" / widely held beliefs - and to lack awareness of biases obtained by a process of osmosis, from one's environment. In that regard, Zizek is no different from other similarly flawed great minds such as Hegel, Kant, (David) Hume - and many others.
@@markkorchnoy4437 It's difficult to believe isn't it? You have to question yourself and what you've been taught to find out why it is almost impossible that Zimbabwe (of all places) had figured out the concept of gender equality before Europe ever did.
@@lesleykramer7207 I don't think he is saying "europeans were the first people to value equality" but rather "today's notion of equality (and many other things) historically derives from european thought".
@@lesleykramer7207 it's not about what culture had what first, Zizek is talking about the origin of modern ideas like human rights etc. Many cultures had many things we would call progressive now but it does not mean that our modern ideas come from them. What matters in what Zizek is saying is the origin of ideas.
@Gerardo Ojeda Anyone reading this take note, to laugh at a thing requires you give your attention towards it. Mock something all you want, but don't pretend that somehow your disdain for a thing is equivalent to ignoring it
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
It's cool they can have a full-blown conversation in two separate languages.
Zizek is fluent in several European languages, including German.
The Radical Revolution what language was she speaking? I’m guess Slovenian?
@@scarpaflow German
She's speaking German, with a light Swiss accent, as she's Swiss. Just out of curiosity, where are you from?
@@iwouldprefernotto49 holy shit he's got a blessed brain. I've never felt more of a dipshit when I hear someone speak my own language better than me, plus in other languages too. I have no hope lol 🤣
Now this is multitasking. He has parked 3 jets and conducted a symphony in between questions
Perfect comment! He is intelligent, but I don't want him making my sandwich.
@@duggiefresh8170 "Man and women do not exist biologically and are abstract zero point" blah blah. Oh dear... Postmodernist neomarxism for sure. Nothing to do with the real world. He suggests tearing down culture ,not improving it.
@@KibyNykraft hhahahahaahha
That's also Europe. Two languages at the same time and everybody understands!
I'm not a communist, but I enjoy hearing Zizek's input.
Nonsense. This is a perfect example of the danger of the insane Great reset-globalistic communism/utopianism. The man is a parody of himself. Gullible young female journalists like the political bullies and mafiosi just as much as young bimbos like classic mafiosi with expensive cars.
Recently a norwegian sportsman in the handball national team, known to be a mainstream woke, went public with a purely racist rant against the egyptian tournament hosts and culture.
"They don't follow strict covid 19 guidelines. They are not like us. They talk loudly over distance". Ole Erevik in Nettavisen.no. Pathetic.
The socialists are just like the fascists.
They have no respect for natural differences and national independence. They are socially awkward losers shivering in their knees in social contexts and direct cultures. They hide in their eurocentric foggy castles and judge and want to judge and control everyone else down to the most frenetic detail.
In Canada a family in Gatineau recently had Trudeau's Gestapo police at their door because there was a family dinner with 6 people. The sixth was dragged out. "Not covid friendly."
These people are dangerous for the future of civilization. They should be counterdebated and debunked, as much as possible, as often as necessary.
I'll say this about Zizek, he proves that people who say leftist in a derogatory manner as if it's a unified political philosophy are terribly mistaken. Even those who call themselves socialist or communist have a wide range of beliefs
Generalization usually ends in mistakes, regardless of topic.
exactly
If you put 10 leftists in one room, they'll sort themselves into 11 different groups.
“I am, here, more of a pessimist”
The logocentrism of Zizek- everywhere is ‘here’.
Islam, Chinese civilisation, Ubuntu, effectively challenge Eurocentrism, but in countries where they are dominant.
But within Europe/the West, what Zižek is saying is correct : the critics are totally western in their thinking
I love how in Europe you can talk to somebody in a language and they respond in another, and everybody understands.
Like han solo and chewbacca
That's commonplace around the world
That’s not the case at all
Africa, Asia and Oceania you can do that too.
@@firstal3799 no it’s not lmao
This video has solidified my love for Zizek!
My god, the interviewer is really good. What's her name? Is she a philosopher or a journalist?
Barbara Bleisch.
The beauty of Austria television. Oh my god, here in Italy we have nothing like this. Id never see Zizek on TV
@@traurigesland4622 you mean schweiz television.
@@Nihil01 yep sorry
She‘s a philosopher. About two years after this interview she wrote a book about “wether we owe something to our parents or not’.
Slavoj "I have many black friends" Zizek
The fact that it was on TV made them speak faster and it's so much harder for me to catch up, mein gott
"In this sense for me Eurocentrismus is the only possible form of true non-Eurocentric universalism"
xD
😆 And "the Moon is made of cheese", "the Earth is flat" etc.
Sartre talks about "being-a-lack". It's still being! You are free to refuse being it and choosing a new essence to fill in.
"Transgenderism today is for me the greatest practical embodiment of Cartesian cogito"...that's an interesting notion
This is the second time I've seen Zizek talking to this reporter. She absolutely loved the abstract philosophical stuff. When he starts saying 'unfettered capitalism, combined with cultural philistinism is beyond saving', she seems much more troubled by this. 'Ah, so capitalism isn't the problem?' 'No, look - it always sucks donkey ass; the question is *how much* donkey ass must it suck?' He also concisely explains who so many British (and not only British) people love Europe but, by now, hate the EU...
Love his tshirt
Hunter gatherers are the true egalitarian people, not Europeans. There was an ancient genocide of the European hunter gatherers by the Yamnaya.
anyone got the source of this interview? i want to see the full version :D
ua-cam.com/video/Zm5tpQp6sT4/v-deo.html
I'm a european and I'd love to change "european" from a geographical term to a moral/political term through European Union. A country to become a european member have to agree on some values and arguments and to fit itself into the european "superculture" (super in latin means "upper", "superior", "above", and it may be the right term to describe this european culture which doesn't cancel the national culture as italian, spanish, german etc). So, "european" isn't only a geographical term, and the prove is that Georgia, which isn't in Europe, asked to join EU: a non-european (geographical) country wants to become european (ideological).
But I don't agree on where the values come from. I agree on Galimberti who says that values are only the parameters which a society choose to live together
Europe is basically a protectionist cartel
Holocaust....whatever....
and so on and so on...
Yeah. I got that too. He also skipped over centuries of Europeans enslaving Africans. He also misses that equality (gender and others) existed in the Zulu empire and the Mali empire way back in the 11th century.
@@lesleykramer7207 you're talking about basically exception, european 'values' are quite widespread and accepted by hundreds of millions
@@mcfusiak5916 Not remotely true. Your statement is at once, jointly, manifestly and patently false.
European values are *NOT* unique, and in many cases are to be found "naturally occurring" in various form, amongst other cultures/civilisations.
What is different however, is the vigour with which Europeans have sought to "ram" the doctrine of European supremacy and exceptionalism, down everyone else's throats - historically, this has been done via bloody conquest, whereas nowadays it is done more subtly, via propaganda outlets such as Hollywood and the "Western" media. FTFY
@@lesleykramer7207 equality of genders in Zulu and Mali empires? what exactly do you mean?
Human rights are inherently Eurocentric?
WHat about Cyrus' Cylinder?
human rights are a privilege of the rich and powerful, they are not an idea, the question is who has the best economic and spiritual foundation to give them
The problem i sew in your conception is, you construct 'human rights' as something that is given by a materialistic foundaition. I'd say its quite the opposite. Human rights arent materialistic. Its a pure ideal serving us as goal. Its not the point to fully maintain it, but to go in this direction through institutes and structures.
Yes, universal human rights are a European legacy more than anyone elses.
@@whitephoenixofthecrown2099What?
@@heyyo6050 they have a European origin.
My problem with his argument is that I think Descartes was wrong to separate the mind and body. We are embodied creatures, our gender is not wholly culturally constructed. We don't need Descartes to justify human rights. We can be different but equal as human beings. It's a mistake to think we need to be reduced to some sort of zero point, all identical. Such a view would surely appeal to dictators and despots intent on standardizing us, seeing us as blank slates on which to impress their world view.
He didn't stand by that point. He just said that without cartesian subjectivity, Judith Butler's critique of the constitution of gender wouldn't have a base in which to rest on. His central point in this interview is about how often the values that come from the european tradition serve as basic ideas for movements that are critical of european thought hegemony. Furthermore, his remark about how we should be more eurocentric relies precisely in the idea of Universality, which is a value of Enlightenment, that has passed from author to author like Kant and Hegel and even Marx to some extent, as part of the western tradition. The interesting thing is that with every iteration, this notion of Universality becomes more and more refined by each author (Kant introduces the general idea of enlightenment as emancipation from domination, Hegel historicizes it and Marx introduces the economic and class analysis to it), while also being updated by each author in the tradition to make it relevant to problematics of their time. I think Zizek's goal is to insert himself in this Universalist/emancipatory tradition of enlightenment, trying to refine it even more and to reinterpret it in light of current events and within the framework of the ideas of contemporary authors.
@@diegootero6095 Thanks Diego. I don't know about Judith Butler, sorry, but if her critique of gender is based on Descartes subject: a disembodied res cogitans, therein lies my disagreement. We aren't a res cogitans situated somehow within a res extensa, it seems to me. Of course consciousness itself is a mystery, but gender is surely based in biology. I am consciousness seeing the world through a male or female body-mind.
@@arthurchinaski3736 damn, I had literally finished writing my reply, but i casually erased it before posting. What i was trying to say in it was that I don't think Zizek is impliying that Butler's critique of gender is literally based on the cartesian subject. Rather, I think he meant that, even though it's fashionable for so called "postmodern" thinkers to trash on the western tradition of thought, their critiques wouldn't even be possible without the framework this tradition provides (like the problems of knowledge-opinion, mind-body, subject-object, etc.). In the case of Butler, her theories are part of the old debate around the mind-body problem, that was initially adressed by Descartes. Butler's critique of gender is inserted in this tradition, and takes a particular position within it, which is not necesarily the same as Descartes' (don't quote me on this, i haven't read her either but i've heard a few things). In that sense, Zizek is saying that without Descartes proposal of the mind-body problem, Butler's theory wouldn't have a framework in which to exist.
@@diegootero6095 Thanks for that, Diego. You explain Zizek better than Zizek does! Happy New year to you.
It's kinda funny hearing him say I have black friends how that single sentence has been turned into a joke
lol his lack of knowledge of anything outside of Europe is so shallow
But it seems like it's European custom to confidently talk about things they have no idea about
Zizek for president 🎉
the fact that he spontaneously answers in german makes this even more trippy to watch 😂 Wusste nichtmal das er deutsch kann...
Steven Tyler's sister is interviewing Slavoj
Jesus, I think this was COVID’s patient zero.
The texting is so confused
The Shroud, The Comet & Crucifixion by cfapps7865, see it.
LMAOOOOOO seeing slavoj try to cope is the best
Is this idea of the progressive european legacy in contradiction with proletarian internationalism? I mean, isn't Zizek bringing us back 150 years to the past to this pre revolutionary progressive concept before the idea of universal human rights and care, which are still present after the fall of the eastern bloc by working class people all over the world and is inherently anti capitalist? And ever less compatible with our current society, weather we are talking of western or eastern capitalism.
I have a hard time projecting Zizek's concept to the current state of the universal working class, who in many emerging countries is recentful of centuries of western colonialism.
Robert Tuttle sure, but those emancipatory ideas are at the same time influential in anti-imperialist ideas for example, who combine them with the ideas of those who fought for independence in each particular nation, so even the anti eurocentist ideas are influenced by the european born progressive current. Maybe there's a balance but the problem is eurocentism is usually used to cover up all of europe problems.
Are you aware that anti-colonialist thinkers tend to more and more reject the whole theoretical framework constructed by thinkers in the european tradition and justifying it with anti-imperialism? This is the left shooting its own feet. Universalism is present in every idea of the european Enlightenment, from egalitarianism to women's rights, from anti-colonialist theory to LGBTQIA+ rights. What Zizek means is that the fact that they, e.g. democratic rights or human rights, were initially used to justify imperialism and exclude huge portions of people doesn't mean they should be discarded because when you universalize them, they become much more egalitarian. You can't find the same universalism in Asian, African or American philosophy, one has to be strictly Eurocentric - not in the sense of praising european imperialism - to push this progressive legacy forward.
mental_diarrhea42O Is that true though? That’s what I’m not sure of, is there really not such universalism anywhere else? It’s hard to believe somehow, I’m pretty sure Buddhism, e.g., will have something to say on this, but I’ve not studied it so I don’t know.
@@Snowcountry556 Actually Zizek already covered buddhism and its inability to be universalized and it's a quite fascinating take. The crux of it is that buddhist dogma of separation from worldly matters and being a passive observer of physics in front of you is in itself a deeply reactionary idea which inspired e.g. Japanese fascists. I don't want to go deeper into it to avoid clouding the conversation - I'm sure you can find both full Zizek presentations and bite-sized fragments about it on yt
@-sunrise-parabellum- yeah, and his take on buddhism is based on specific East Asian varieties of Buddhism. I love the man's ideas a lot, but the fact that he speaks of Buddhism without acknowledging Nagarjuna and other Indian originators of the now East Asian faith is utterly disappointing.
Would be really interested to know how well versed Zizek is on non-european conceptual belief systems. At the beginning he talks about some things as being European values, however I've heard (but never looked into) that many of these values were present in other indigenous cultures long before Europe's enlightenment period
These ideas exist outside Europe, no doubt about that, but they were for the first time conceptualized and grounded intellectually by Europeans.
No not true either. Its just that current outgrowth precedes primarily from Europe in the mid to immediate past.
@@LeonWagg i suppose you understand the thousands of years of history before non greco/roman cultures began being civilized
Voting has been around in East Asia far longer
But i doubt you can speak any East Asian languages fluently to read it's history and understand.
@@LeonWagg there's no way to know that
@@LeonWaggNot true, radical equality was a Sikh concept way before Europeans came up with it in 1968 or whatever
0:12 CUT
I need those subtitles for the comrade with the speech impediment :D
Enlightenment ideals was not created in Europe tho so to attribute it to Europe is ill-informed and eurocentric because a better example of it existed in Ethiopia hundreds of years before the concept was ever written about In Europe. And unlike Europe it was to all people not just some people .
I've been watching many of Slavoj's youtube video and I am finding him increasingly difficult to follow, I wonder if I'm the only one? His arguments are funny, thought provoking and sometimes all over the place. He casts himself as a Hegelian and Marxist (but refutes this sometimes too). I find it a strange when he talks about hotbed topics like PC culture, feminism, discrimination, authoritarian capitalism in similar ways to Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson, and Sam Harris to name a few. They often get branded by the left as being Alt-right, anti-feminist, and so on and so on for exactly the same statements Slavoj makes. Maybe claiming to be Hegelian/Marxist/Socialist works as a 'get out of jail free card' inoculating him from criticism from the left?
I am in the process of re-reading Hegel to see what our current society would look like through Hegels lens. It is sometimes mystifying, how did he come to his current conclusions on the topics he speaks about. How did Slavoj superimpose Hegel onto current societal topics like European union, Datalink, and so on and so on......? Speculating here; maybe his thoughts have floated so far away from his original Hegelian roots that they have become mostly unrecognisable for me (which does not invalidate what he says per se). The problem I have is that his arguments seem to be so contradictory or provocative that I often can't follow his reasoning, which is problematic. His legendary 'and so on, and so on's' seem to become less self-explanatory the more I read about his classic source material. A priest asks people to believe stuff because they have interpreted the book for you so you don't have to read it. Is that what Slavoj is doing with Hegel? (Oops, am I becoming like Slavoj myself?). Maybe I'm taking him and Hegel too serious and I should think of him more like an intellectual comedian. Comedians provoke and get you to self reflect, a good thing, but then trying analyse the underlying reason why a joke is funny spoils the show ;-). Anyways it's always fun and confusing to hear him speak. If someone could comment on what I'm missing in my thinking about Slavoj that would be awesome ;-)
No. They don't often get branded by the left as being Alt-right, anti-feminist, and so on and so on for exactly the same statements Slavoj makes. You are missing the nuances. Zizek critizises PC culture for being weak and ineffectual upholders of status quo. Jordan Peterson sees PC-culture as a threat. Totally different perspectives.
Zizek has often made one statement that turns Marx upside down: Zizek says that this (the present historical moment) is an interregnum where we should concentrate on thinking more clearly and thinking better. Meaning, this is not the time for action. (Recall that Marx said exactly the opposite.) I think the answer to your question, and the reason for your confusion, regarding Zizek lies in this worldview of his. He takes what Hegel or Marx or Nietzsche has to offer, but he also thinks that we need more today than they can provide. Think about this perspective; maybe it will help you see Zizek's points a little more clearly.
ua-cam.com/video/IgR6uaVqWsQ/v-deo.html
This is because he speaks the same language as the current radical leftists, hell, he met judith butler and has exchanged views with her, he's not criticized by leftists because he is on the same level as one of their main academic figures. Peterson, Harris etc. speak more in scientific terms, Zizek understands leftist political and philosophical thought better than radical leftists themselves, the power of knowledge my friend.
He is a politically incorrect leftist who just doesn't give a shit, he just says whatever he wants! He doesn't self-censor.
transgenderism greatist example of cartisionism... i love the movement and sensibleness of this comment. why we read and listen. thank-you.
Christianity has nothing to do with democratic and egalitarian values. And egalitarian values are universal, not necessarily flowing out of Euroleam culture this is sloppy thinking
so if you're transgender you are Malcolm x, not a terrible thing at all
Christianity is hierarchical though.
Did slavoj real pull the "I have black friends"
He always does that lol
It's not a "I have black friends therefore I should face no repercussions for my racism" thing, it's "I have black friends who are great theoreticians and what I'm talking about also exists within their theoretical emancipatory contributions"
@S K. That's actually not true, leftist parties usually win big in local elections due to the focus on the economic situation of the working class and there's nothing preventing them from addressing structural problems transpeople and non-whites face. We don't lose popularity because of that, we lose popularity because the state apparatus is controlled by neoliberal establishment since '89 and a logical extension of that is the left being discredited and deplatformed.
@S K. Check out local elections in e.g. Belgium (PVDA) and France (various socialist parties). It's a fact that there are many European countries where the left holds strong in the locals and, with all due respect, it's simply ignorant to say otherwise. Of course you alienate the working class by antagonizing it but it's liberals and liberal leftists who tend to center their worldview around this narrative of whites vs. the world. You'd know there is a stark difference between this and the narrative created by leftists rooted in the marxist tradition if you actually participated in leftist discourse - your criticism strikes me as 'outsider' criticism without prior knowledge about these often crucial differences.
@S K. your view off the left is one of a projection based on right wing talking points. The fact is that the left is doing good in Britain (Labour) America (Bernie is the most popular presidential candidate) France (melenchon).
Europeans being eurocentrics.
The basis for Christianity is not European
Wrong: Christianity as we know it is full of Greek and Roman philosophy, since it was rearranged and spreaded by them.
FullMetalPier 😂
Martin Which one?
Martin Calling Christianity European is like calling Buddhism Chinese is all I’m sayin. It’s origins are in Africa as history shows us
Martin I don’t educate myself through Wikipedia lmaooo
Europeans: We made the first fire guns.
Chineses: No brow, it was us!
Europeans: I know man, but we are White, everbody trust us. If someone denny, let's call "Afrocnetrist". Bye!
How’s human rights Eurocentric??
It isn't really, but Žižek argues that the inherent universalism of human rights, the Enlightenment ideas that made the declaration possible, can only be found in European philosophy.
@@davidwuhrer6704 Those "values" have their origin outside of Europe. It's true that Europe is more or less a progressive continent, however, colonialism originated with the enlightenment era and has effectively destroyed countless cultures across the globe. Those who lived under Eurocentric rule did not have their "human rights" fully realized or respected.
If you take each article of the human rights, you can find books written by great european philosopers about it and they talked about it maybe centuries or thousands of years ago. I'm not saying that freedom of speech, respect of law etc born and existed only in Europe but all the concepts behind the human rights come from european philosophy and history, meanwhile in Africa, Oceania or America almost no one talked about it (I doubt that in Asia did but I don't know). That's why it's eurocentric: if you take a world without Europe you can't even understand what the human rights are about
Wait, I wrote a wrong thing. Human rights aren't eurocentic but come from european culture, I think
@@fedbat2199 That's not even close to true. Ancient Greece had slavery while their contemporaries like Persia abolished the practice. The Romans were no better, often enslaving POWs and neutral neighbors alike. Ancient Europe did not have a concept of human rights like how we think of it. So no Europe did not invent human rights nor regularly practiced it and instead upended human rights outside of Europe during the colonial era.
Sounds like Papa Marxism has never read on Jose Carlos Mareategui's (considered the first Latin American Marxist intellectual) explanation of "primitive communism" in relation to the Incan empire.
What a shame.
Also, it was Christianity that cemented the transposed it patriarchal rule onto indigenous peoples of the Americas post Columbus exchange . Not very historical
@Bobby Danger You're choosing to interpret it in a derogatory manner
Is there a certain title you recommend?
Mariategui was just another eurocentric communist, if you want to touch the bottom of the iceberg you should read about Fausto Reinaga and his indigenist theory and neo-inca philosophical attempt.
Reinaga was a former communist but also descendant of Aymara revolutionaries in Bolivia.
About the moral and 'humanist' concepts many of these were known among american civilizations, even the right to vote among Iroquois confederacy, and as you said the true socialism of the incas which is in its own league since it would be called somewhat an theocratic socialism by the westerners point of view.
Even more the Aztec philosophy was basically Heidegger centuries before Heidegger
well in Islamic Golden Age lets say it was much more Humanistic than Northern Parts of Europe at its times. For example women had more rights. I dont think its Eurocentric, it that when A Country and Its people get more richer they adopt these ideas
cartesian cogito???
tl;dr: cogito is not-conforming-to-your-social-identity and fighting to give new meaning to yourself
By Cartesian cogito, Zizek means the ability to interpret your own reality anew and give new meaning to yourself - going through this carte blanche by examining your own identity vs. identity that was forced on you in the process of socialization. Think first feminists, slaves, colonized people, the Third Estate in the French Revolution, every oppressed people who questioned their social identity and fought to be universalized, recognized as equal individuals driven by reason. When slaves on Haiti rebelled, they didn't go back to their "traditional african roots" (their original social identity), they redefined their own identity as equal citizens of the world and as such engaged in pure Cartesian cogito. They didn't go back to their particularities (I am separate), they universalized themselves (I am part of the whole) and this allowed them to establish a natural link, a sense of solidarity between their oppression and oppression of others. I'd recommend Susan Buck-Morss' "Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History" as an introduction to this if you're interested.
@@-sunrise-parabellum- wut? sounds like bullshit.
@@ramsaysnow9196 Ty for your enlightening contribution
@@-sunrise-parabellum- This is pretty interesting, how does/would Cartesian Cogito manifest itself in the black community in America? Just asking because Zizek started talking about Malcolm X prior to him talking about Cartesianism.
@eqequestrian Thanks for the insightful comment. How do you think he sees eurocentrism with regards to cartesian subject though? I don't quite get that part. Is it something like Europe denying the capitalist particularities ascribed to European culture but the need to do it in a eurocentric and pan-european way? That's what I suppose because of his support of pan-european movements for political emancipation and his views about how anti-capitalist movements in Europe fail when they just stay within a country's political space instead of the continent's. But I'm not sure, at all.
Why in the world are they not talking in the same the language, even though they clearly understand both languages...
Because understanding is easier than speaking.
It‘s a swiss TV program (Sternstunde Philosophie). In TV they translate him into german with a voice-over so it wouldn‘t make sense if she spoke english. But if you wanna listen to the original answers he gave you find it online (like this video here).
Why should they? As you said, they understand both languages
who is that woman, it is pretty
It?
He seems to confuse Eurocentric with European. The steam engine is a European invention but its not Eurocentric 😂
1:00 Holocaust....whatever ...
He also skipped over the bit where Europeans enslaved Africans for centuries.
Regarding equality starting in Europe - alas, Zizek is also wrong (unbelievable really). Equality (gender and others) existed in one of the empires of Zimbabwe (responsible for building the great Zulu wall). Similarly the Mali empire had the concept of human rights way back in the 11th century (before the Magna Carta) - it is even speculated that "Sundiata The Great"'s charter was what influenced the Magna Carter - since the former preceded the later (chronologically) by at least a century.
Zizek should not feel compelled to talk about *EVERYTHING* - even things where he has so little knowledge that even I can so easily prove him wrong. It does real disservice to his great knowledge - and some of the truly innovative ideas in philosophy that he has come up with.
I suppose it is human nature to be influenced by societal "norms" / widely held beliefs - and to lack awareness of biases obtained by a process of osmosis, from one's environment. In that regard, Zizek is no different from other similarly flawed great minds such as Hegel, Kant, (David) Hume - and many others.
You think europeans took the idea of equality from Zimbabwe?
@@markkorchnoy4437 It's difficult to believe isn't it? You have to question yourself and what you've been taught to find out why it is almost impossible that Zimbabwe (of all places) had figured out the concept of gender equality before Europe ever did.
@@lesleykramer7207 I don't think he is saying "europeans were the first people to value equality" but rather "today's notion of equality (and many other things) historically derives from european thought".
@@lesleykramer7207 it's not about what culture had what first, Zizek is talking about the origin of modern ideas like human rights etc. Many cultures had many things we would call progressive now but it does not mean that our modern ideas come from them. What matters in what Zizek is saying is the origin of ideas.
No. He said that belief system is European
he is not smart
@Gerardo Ojeda Anyone reading this take note, to laugh at a thing requires you give your attention towards it.
Mock something all you want, but don't pretend that somehow your disdain for a thing is equivalent to ignoring it