Full lecture: Žižek explained - who is tickling the ticklish subject?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- If you’d like to download the audio or transcript of all of these classes, please visit: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian
.
Plus, exclusively for Patrons, you can also purchase the accompanying ebook/audiobook 👍👨🏻🏫
Your background looks like the cover of the Foxygen album We are the 21st Century Ambassadors of Peace & Magic and you the eye. lol
Buddhism calls the desire for no desire, "the one fortunate attachment". They are fully aware of the contradiction but it works anyway, being desirous of non-desire reduces overall desire even though you have a neat logical answer saying it doesn't.
Not only are these great philosophy videos but you guys are both really cute.
To interpret Lacan is to theorize because till now " Ecrits" is still a notoriously obscure book that nobody really understands. Even the Lacanian scholars admitted that hopeless endeavor.
In fairness to Zizek, he was able to interpret some aspects of Lacanian Post-Structuralism: desire-drive equation, the discourse theory, etc. But I disagree with his interpretation of the other and the Other as if subjectivity is also politicized. Jacques Ranciere in his book * Dissensus ", re-defines politics and aesthetics as the disruption from normal course of things. To say that politics is everywhere is to say that it is nowhere. . I agree with that formulation. To politicize subjectiviy ( in the manner of Foucault ) is to deny its revolutionary potentials ( in the sense of Gramsci's Counter-Hegemony). Remember that Lacan asserted that the only realm where subjectivity is absent is in the dimension he called Real ( the Noumenal in Kantian sense, and tne in-itself in Sartre"s philosophy, or the non-existence or death). I agree with Ranciere's definition of power. So, to me, Zizek and Focault are wrong in that respect.
Whenever I teach Lacan in my Literary Theory classes, I let the my students read the primary sources and explain it by comparing various interpretations ( French Feminism, Zizek's Hegelian Marxism, or a standard companion to the French psychoanalyst). Yet I am never definitive in my interpretation. Most of the time, I point out some of the issues when Lacan committed some misreadings of Saussure and Hegel via Kojeve.
Being definitive is not education. It's indoctrination.
This lecture clarified a lot of things. Thank you so much! ☺️
i am shocked, another episode outside the car!
Yes! We’re in NYC so it’s all public transport. But we promise to have a better camera set up next week
Another great episode. If in or outside the car is not that important :) Actually do I not watch (see) primarily your episodes, more I listen to eat, while I am on the road via public transport. Thanks for teaching!
Reach out to Cadell Last to have a zoom discussion on Zizek and Hegel!
I really get this. So cool.
From Sudan
thanks .
can you make a video only specifically on the idea negation of negation .
If we are desiring machines than there's no lack, because we desire no matter what, lack or no lack! 😶
Apropos your discussion of the need to keep desiring in relation to Buddhism and the famous notion of extinction of desire. Some modern Buddhists contend that the notion of "all is suffering," would be better translated "everything is unsatisfactory." Thus the emphasis would not be so much in trying to extinguish desire, but to accept that things will never be other than unsatisfactory in the world. If profoundly accepted that really could improve the sense of peace in the world. Moreover, our Western sense of what suffering means, from the outset, is heavily colored by the central role of Expiation in the Western notions of suffering. Which would mean translating Buddhistic notions as suffering, and collateral notions of "extinction," would likely have a meaning for Western minds different than it did for original Buddhists. I think the devil is really in the details on this issue.
How to be more than a person?