Critiquing Slavoj Žižek's "Violence"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 кві 2017
- Here’s a video examining Slavoj Žižek’s book “Violence” in a bit more detail. It’s got some interesting things to say about politics, democracy, and capitalism, but there’s some problems too.
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: / philosophytube
Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6tpup
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgjek5w
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Taking Sides - edited by Cindy Milstein (tinyurl.com/m2k9nmt)
Casting Out - Sherene Razack (tinyurl.com/zxf8x4e)
The Muslims Are Coming - Arun Kundnani (tinyurl.com/lbnulu7)
What Terrorists Want - Louise Richardson (tinyurl.com/jlnwh7o)
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it. - Розваги
Žižek's theory is a lot like his public speaking skills; kind of sloppy and all over the place, hard to follow, sometimes incoherent, and peppered with conventional no-no's. And yet, somehow, this overweight, heavily accented, lefty academic with a hobo beard and compulsive speech ticks is rather charming, persuasive, and more resonant in his hits than alienating with his misses.
He's not a perfect philosopher, but I'd say he does more good than harm. He's played a big role in building class conciousness in myself and many others, and I think this is his big strong suit. Slavoj Žižek is a great place to begin when it comes to contemporary socialist theory, but a terrible place to stop.
Pervert's Guide To Ideology demonstrates this perfectly, it's very much a film made to establish a baseline to anyone that thinks apolitical or full "anti-ideology" (hello Ken Levine and his continued willful failure to recognize the strengths in his pre-critical writing/design talents) are things. The idea of art being inherently political and ideological, the idea of literally everyone inescapably having politics and ideologies, the idea that capitalism is inherently bad and normalizes bad things, the idea that dispassionate platitudinous centrism can easily normalize/legitimize fascism. these are far-fetched to liberals/centrists and dangerously revolutionary ideas that must be purged to most right-of-center, but are really mundane matters-of-fact to most anyone in the far-left.
Beginner's guides to socialism are not bad, though, and I think it's actually kinda crappy that a lot of folks on the far-left say Zizek's work is worthless garbage to be avoided, because in times where practically everyone is having their internalized ideologies interrogated to degrees few are truly prepared for, many people are going to grab onto some flawed pop-philosophy, and i'd much rather Zizek than the glut of alt-right status-quo defenders that any social media platform will gleefully recommend more of if a kid searches for fearful affirmation that they're incapable of racism. We should still be very critical of Zizek, get people that listen to him to seek better writing and gain better understanding of many ideas he merely hints at (or, at worst, misconstrues with poor writing), and use critique of his work to figure out why his work is popular, and build on and over his flaws in that popularization, but he's still not a bad starting point for ideology that a massive portion of the population needs a starting point for.
It's especially fitting that Pervert's Guide starts with talking about They Live, a film that certainly outclasses the average film of its genre, in its industry and of its time, and should set a baseline for quality, but its leftist themes aren't particularly deep--well-executed, sure, but not deep--and a lack of deeper understanding of its own themes is reflected by how its director hasn't gone on to make the most uh... Progressive stories in the world. Escape from NY is difficult to watch now for many reasons, not the least of which being use of sexual violence (and the ignorance thereof) for spectacle/edgy "cool" male-protagonist building. And I mean, one of his most recent credits was writing FEAR 3, a game riddled with drastic mishandling of gender, sex and masculinity, a game where one of the interviews with Carpenter has a quote of him saying "God of War had a sequence where it tells you to push the button to have sex with women, boy did i push the button!". Coincidentally, It almost acts as a cautionary tale for what might happen if you just stop at Zizek and say "yep, I am now maximum leftist, there is nothing more to learn!"
where did you go after him
Two main directions to go after Žižek; back in time to the foundational socialist theorists (e.g. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, Bakunin, Stirner, etc...) or to other contemporary socialist philosophers, such as listed by Olly in his video and video description. Going back to the classics is great because a lot of new works take them as assumed knowledge and/or refer to them and their concepts, but they can sometimes be a bit harder to read. You can always do both.
I find that the best zizek book was the first one (translated at least): The sublime object of Ideology. To make a refrase, pretty much after everything feels like a footnote.
Zizek is primarily a really, really skilled troll.
As a long time viewer who hasn't watched your entire backlog, i appreciate you're still leaving older vids up. When this video first came out, i skipped it because I wasn't familiar with the subject matter. I'm glad to be able to revisit it now as I'm getting bombarded with Zizek content
*Sniffs at your video*
I sniff in your general direction!
and so on and so on
Olly gets high sniffing himself
No, i claim the opposite.
shniff
I got a Prager university ad on this video. I guess UA-cam really is going downhill.
Until the left start making paid advertising or will always be like this, this is our omission.
@@fuckfannyfiddlefart "liberal communism"
Lefties usually keep ad tracking off and I think (but I have no numbers I’m just hypothesizing) that keeps analytics from not putting pragerU ads on for example lgbt+ videos. It’s definitely mostly to do with how much money they pour into ads but I think it’s an algorithmic problem too?
I use a youtube adblocker on Firefox.
use uBlock origin. don’t support the manipulation machine called “Advertisement” & save energy.
use pivacy badger. don’t support surveillance capitalism !
I really appreciate how Abby has always demonstrated this ability to engage with all material critically, noting where she agrees and doesn't agree and why, as well as where certain ideas have been explored before.
Back when I was in college, I used to read philosophy thinking that if I didn't agree with part of a philosopher's work, it must meant that I just didn't "get it," but Abby taught me that I can fully understand a philosopher's work, agree with parts of it and reject others. It's a very intellectually empowering thing, so thanks :)
But does he write "and so on and so on and so on" on every page?
actually he does quite a bit, yes
I'm American and I also find the comparison of poor people to insects disturbing.
As a swede as well! Especially using the insect locus, with the reference of it in the bible...
why dont you read the book and see for yourself if it is really this disturbing in the context of the chapter which deals with biblical violence.
Without context it's disturbing, but in our modern world of globalized technocratic rule, most people have minimal value to the capitalist system, and thus they are effectively pests that, *sigh*, capitalists need to keep alive in order to not be perceived as monsters.
So it's a point-of-view contextual issue. It's terrible to make the case that an OBJECTIVE view considers poor people as insects, but as we move through the 21st century and less and less people have actual value to the capitalist system, it's empirically reasonable to consider that TO THE CAPITALISTS, poor people are pests.
@@ThatLad20 I didnt find it disturbing in the context of that chapter, i mean i didnt even register it has a disturbing within the context.
"When those outside the structured social field strike ‘blindly’, demanding and enacting immediate justice/vengeance, this is divine violence. Recall, a decade or so ago, the panic in Rio de Janeiro when crowds descended from favelas into the rich part of the city and started looting and burning supermarkets. This was indeed divine violence… They were like biblical locusts, the divine punishment for men’s sinful ways. This divine violence strikes out of nowhere, a means without end - or, as Robespierre put it in his speech in which he demanded the execution of Louis XVI:
“Peoples do not judge in the same way as courts of law; they do not hand down sentences, they throw thunderbolts; they do not condemn kings, they drop them back into the void; and this justice is worth just as much as that of the courts.”"
In this context, Zizek appears to be using it as a hypertextual literary device in reference to the story of plagues in Egypt from the book of Exodus, and not as a dehumanizing way of framing poor people.
6:32 Zizek is right here, the united states has no premodern history. You are confusing the united states with the land the united states is built on. Saying that the indigenous history is a part of the united states is wrong, the united states exists in opposition to indigenous people's history: A history whcich indigneous peoples are no longer the masters of. It's the same reason many of our indigenous people hate the "native american" label, because it tries to further subsume indigenous people into the "American" cultural heritage that was imposed on them from without.
To me, this also points out a larger point about how we tend to define history more by countries than by people and locations and how this can both improperly narrow the discussion and generalize it. I think there is a struggle in every country between the culture and history of the people contained within it's current artificially created borders and the state that needs to impose a homogenizing nationalism onto them. Is this a critical flaw in the ability to discuss a group of people in an area that is defined as a country, or is it something that just needs to be taken into account, like other labels that have their advantages and disadvantages?
@Y T Which era of peace and pluralism is that? I thought we were talking about US history.
Y T who hurt you?lol
@Y TYou seem to be confusing who you are talking to. I mentioned no historical injustices. What I said in this thread is that when you lump everyone's history into a country's borders you can lose information. As some of my family came from various areas between what is now considered Austria, Germany and Poland, this is a very clear concept to me as I look back at the experience of my ancestors as borders moved back and forth across villages my families lived in. On the other hand, there are important cultural and historical effects that apply to people living under the regime of a particular country's rulers at particular times, so what I was considering is that neither a people/group-centered nor a country-centered approach fits all situations.
My question to you was what time period you were thinking was one of peace. My family has not known peace for four generations in this country. My grandfather's generation went to war, my father's, mine and my son's. From shell shock to Agent Orange to IEDs, I have not known a year unaffected by constant US wars. As Djuan correctly noted, all you are showing right now is that you have a chip on your shoulder and a tendency to swing wildly and miss clownishly. Take a breath and try joining the discussion instead.
@Y T Marine, Gen Xer, and I'm just seeing a little boy whose daddy should have given him more hugs.
This * *sniffs* * is the epitomy of * *grabs ear twice* * why I do not * *sniffs* * like UA-camrs, Twitter users and *S O O N A N D S O O N*
When the wise man points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger
His sniffs and grabing ears are ticks
slavoj is pronounced "slavoy" not "slavoge". this is super old but y'know
Please do the Sam Harris critique haha.
Caffa Jake crowdfund it I'll put in $15
I'll totally up my patreon amount if he does.
@@queenisforever1 what's your problem?
I get that I'm super late, but Cuck Philosophy has a critique of Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" on his channel and he goes pretty in depth into how sloppy and careless the book is and how arrogant Harris' attitude is toward philosophy
sam harris is pro torture damn
thank you!
1:43 lack of passion
2:00 getting involved & taking side
2:30 religion & terror
2:50 louis richardson-what terrorist want
3:10 pamela king -religion &ID
3:30primitive vs modernity
3:50 shereen razak ,casting out
4: 50 extra legal violence ,carl schmitt
5:05 liberation communist threat to liberation
7:00the poor as insects
I like the soft Mozart
i'm glad that all of the older videos have been left up- while I'm a big fan of Abigail's recent work over the last 2 years or so, i have very little of the more academic understanding of philosophy and these have helped me learn a bit more :) Zizek's Violence was on my bookshelf for later, so now i know a little bit of what to expect (and where to go for more!)
Wait... you’re telling me Bruce Wayne is Batman?!?!
i would not tell you that, but do you ever see Bruce Wayne and batman in the same room?
or do you ever see me and batman in the same room?
No, that's Bruno Díaz
I'm American, not British, but it's really hard for me to imagine describing people as insects as anything but abhorrent, especially referring to poor or marginalized people as "locusts." Like, what is the plague of locusts if not a calamity that destroys your civilization? How can it be okay to compare people to that?
I adore insects but I still know what people mean when they compare other people to them. It's never a compliment.
Someone quoted the full passage above and it's actually saying that poor folks rebelling against their oppressors is divine justice like the plagues of locusts sent against the enslaving Egyptians. I think in that context it's legitimising violence against oppressors rather than dehumanising poor people, no?
@@KoolKinchishKat interesting perspective but perhaps more rooted in the historical language meanings than the current language meanings.
Oren Ashkenazi
A room full of a hundred second-graders with recorders. Yeah. I think I could compare those humans to a plague of locusts and the analogy would be apt. Anyone who thinks it’s abhorrent to talk about that situation in terms of locusts clearly has either never met a second grader or never heard a recorder.
I thought a world without sniffing in a slavoj zizek vid was impossible.
Disciple absolute ideology
If he would've looked a bit further east, Zizek could have disproved by himself the clash of civilization thesis. Culturally Romania's is as "uncivilized" (I don't think the civilized-uncivilized paradigm is useful or even correct, but for the sake of the argument) a country as it can be. By which I mean, we (sadly) reject many notions of social justice, progressiveness and are faced with increasing groups of religiously radicalized youths. There are constant talks of the decadent West. In school, our (strongly Eastern-Orthodox Christian) Religion professor used to praise the Islamic people for how pious and full of faith they are, noting especially how "the women cover themselves". On the other hand, politically, global capitalism and being subject to EU's norms and regulations asks of Romanians to accept and participate in what Zizek would call civilized behaviors and actions.
Yet there's no terrorism here. The idea that clashing cultures (as opposed to clashing political goals, military aggression and responses to it, want for power etc.) has anything to do with it is laughable.
Seeing this in 2019 but it is still so good. I love the casual gestures to better, deeper works
Nice, I enjoyed this little longer discussion of the book. Maybe do things like this in the future?
I think it's useful and helpful that you describe how your own framework for understanding language and interpreting contexts can skew or obscure the message an other is trying to express.
i adore how so many of these observations are "this point was made a lot clearer by [woman], this point is well disputed by [woman], i recommend these books by [woman] and [woman]," it brings me back to doing my undergrad at a women's college and is giving me tons of additions to my reading list!
Quite sexist to favour and support only women. No wonder egalitarianism is still a struggle. Feminists et al are ruining the progress, and claiming actual progress as theirs.
@@kokko9507 you sound cranky did you forget to take your daily nap time?
I haven't read his books either, but I've watched videos of him speak. He's really prolific and sometimes he outright dismisses some of his books as "bad" or something he's not confident about. He said that he isn't confident writing about political philosophy and thinks others can discuss the topic better. I think he's much more into writing huge books about Kant and Hegel. You might like those type of books better.
I'm glad a character like he is popular abroad. Countries like Slovenia or other nations in the "new Europe" could really do with being noticed or perhaps seen as of intellectual value.
Mein Gott.
This video is pure ideology
*tugs shirt*
Chickenoflight In the Marxist, or liberal sense?😲
Lass dir Kirche im doch
After watching more recent videos I've returned back to theses and they sit differently, there's a layer of context that you've unraveled that's changed the experience. Still great, still important, doesn't lessen the experience just changes it
Love your careful and thoughtful critique. Thanks for all of your insightful videos
The background music was on point.
WHOA! Extralegal violence as the foundation of law? Could you please expand on that? Sounds fascinating.
I can sum it up and provide someone who talks about it pretty in depth over various lectures. It pretty much is the use of the law to enforce the system of the state (race supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism, etc.) rather than to truly provide justice. Michael Parenti has a few lectures in which he talks about the function of the police as being a form of social control. Definitely give it a look.
It's a disavowed transgression of the law that makes it possible. An example is the 'Code Red' in A Few Good Men that everyone knows exists and is a manner of course in the marines, almost necessary to their operations (at least in their minds), but can't be spoken of because it's 'illegal', but essential.
These acts uphold the law in the name of the law while transgressing the law because the actor feels compelled to do so in his/her fealty to the law. These themes can be seen in the writings of the Apostle Paul too.
Omerta. Honor culture is the anarchistic system that leads into law. Once you have many thieves then eventually someone will find a way to get them to work together. A thing tends to come out of its opposite.
Please make a series of these critique videos :)
I haven't read any Zizek, so it was interesting to learn about his ideas and your critiques of them.
How accurate! Thank you, your channel is such a treasure ✨
Zizek is amazing. He pulls you in and holds you there. He's not the best at making his ideas clear, but I'm happy to hear him put them out there, then do my own homework from there.
Hey Olly!
Been following PT for quite some time now, and I really like your videos. I came to think of you as a moderate, parsimonious and intelligent folk. I really appreciate how you stand for your opinions with elegantly based arguments.
And that's why I'm asking: could you do a video on recommended reading for "Philosophy Dummies"? LOL
I mean some basics, like understanding rhetorics, recognising fallacies and building up arguments. My college degree is in Biomedical Sciences and I do know how to recognise that within my field of research, but I find myself having a hard time when reading topics on other issues (for instance: violence). I do not pretend to be a philosopher, nor a critique and I certainly do not want to pretend like I can build up philosophical arguments for every aspect of life. I just want to equip myself with some better notions so I can better navigate my way through the world.
Keep up the good job! I really like watching your videos and I've learnt a lot from you. Hope to continue doing so for as long as you keep vloging.
Thanks!
I guess Franz Kafka's trial sums up extra-legal violence
I absolutely love how you explained your take on this. It seems so clear to me that you hated it but you wanted to give it a fair review, and I think you did an excellent job. I have been on a Slavoj zizek UA-cam clips binge and it's nice to hear someone point out some of the things that he misses. It's funny because I was actually thinking, earlier today before I saw this clip, I wonder what Olly(sp?) thinks about zizek hahah I'm glad I found this, I'm going to watch the other video about the book now :)
Žižek was a visiting professor at Tulane University in New Orleans in 1993. While he may not have intimate first- or direct second-hand knowledge of the effects of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, that may explain why he speaks of it in a familiar tone in Violence.
Your stuff is brilliant and helps me so much. I aim to become a patreon as soon as possible.
i was just getting started to read zizeks sublime object of ideology. What a timing.
As someone from Rio de Janeiro myself... that comparison was.... not good. Poor people here already face a ton of discrimination disguised as "fair critiques". Plus all the racism... yeah, not good
Ok... that intellectual breakdown into piecemeal bits by other authors is the reason why I subbed.
I'm glad you went into further detail on this book and I appreciate some of the criticism and good points you observed in it. I first heard of Slavoj Žižek late last year through some UA-cam videos and since then, while I've still yet to read any of his books, have been watching/listening to videos of his talks on UA-cam.
I became a bit of a fan of his since some of what he said really resonated with me in ways that not many other people had before. In saying that I don't really like the cult following around him, whenever that happens with someone I get sceptical since the people following him either don't really understand him on that deep a level and just blindly follow him, or they find him a funny character which he is but people make tons of jokes about him which I think kind of delegitimises him unfortunately.
I think he has an interesting mind, I love his political commentary and some of the stuff he talks about with ideology. He does have a tendency to ramble and some of what he says gets left unexplored kind of like you were saying in this book. Overall I like him though.
What books would you recommend for a beginner trying to learn about ethics?
yeeey. I was hoping someone will make a video like this.
Damn, Olly, that hair is looking fabulous!
I haven't read this particular book by Zizek, but he has written a lot of books (with quite some repetition between them) of which I have read many. It might be useful to see him and his works as the most prominent spokesperson of the Slovene school of philosophy (and psychoanalysis). For your philosophical tastes (and mine) Alenka Zupancic, for instance, might be the more interesting writer, whose contributions are more obviously original. What Zizek does achieve, though, is that he _popularizes_ a couple of key concepts and approaches from Lacanian psychoanalysis and Hegelian philosophy. And for that I'm insanely grateful. Because my experience is that in discussions "out there in the world", people who have engaged with Zizek can relate and respond to these modes of thinking without having gone through the daunting task of studying e. g. Hegel for years, themselves. Zizek's discourse/mode of speech is very associative, repetitive and often leads the reader into short circuits and contradictions. In my view, his written monologue is more akin to the speech of the analysand in psychoanalysis. And less to a philosophical discourse propre, as e.g. with Zupancic. In that capacity, however, I value Zizek's contribution quite highly.
I haven't read 'Violence' but knowing some general features of Zizek's thinking, I think there might have been some misinterpretation. The narrative of 'modern civilzed society vs. primitive islamic society' is definitely not something Zizek would hold for example. I think that in the book Zizek using these kind of terms is expressing the content of a specific idelogy he is trying to analyse and is not speaking his mind. And this holds for other weird expressions you might have picked. But as I said I'm not sure, I'm not a closer follower of Zizek and haven't read the book, but it just seems very unlikely.
Ayoub Ouazzani In another Book of him he even talks about the failings of the left (which of course is modernist, because its the left) in the middle East and the emerge of patriarchal Islamism. (in the sense of "fascism is failed revolution") So I don't really know where the whole culture clash should come from.
Yeah zizek really likes using provocative ideas in his writing to get reactions out of the reader. I'm not entirely sure if that strengthens his points or draws attention away from them but i guess it's a valid strategy.
Zizek has elsewhere explicitly said that the primitive vs modern interpretation of Islamic Terrorism is misguided about the nature of global capitalism. Much like Wallerstein, he would instead ask how the modern global-capitalist order generates a society that sees itself as modern and another society that sees itself as a defender of a premodern tradition such that this narrative exists at all.
Just to reiterate, he has said that Islamic Terrorism is a fully modern occurrence, brought about by the dynamics of global-capitalism. It just sees itself and is seen by others as older.
@@minabasejderha5972 He sounds like he's all over the place. What a waste of time to listen to.
@@tuffy135ify - Welcome to philosophers. 🤷🏻♀️ That's just how it be sometimes. A lot of Zizek is influenced by Lacan, and Lacan is heavily influenced by Hegel and Kant. Try reading some Hegel and Kant and come back to me when you have your eyes gouged out in frustration. 😂You'll be begging for the "eloquent structure" of Zizek.
So, I read this one a while a back, and I was kind of under the impression that the kind of summarising nature of points made by other writers was actually kind of the purpose of the book?
would love to see your critic on sam harris end of faith :) (as an atheist)
why he doesn't have the academic, intellectual, or communication skills to fill a show box. I doubt a harris fan would even watch the video even for laughs. Olly is just another shill for poorly constructed identity politics postmodern nonsense
Whilst your response is interesting, I was more concerned about the flaws within the end of faith to allow for better improvement on the ideas stated within it.
What Identity Politics? Don't just assume because Olly is a red. Plenty of reds are opposed to Idpol, I would say more reds are opposed to it than Liberals.
+John Smith
His bad bellyfeel over anyone criticizing islam is good proof of him being an idpol shill.
@@landonpowell6296 Maybe you should read the books he suggested first, such as on Islam and Terrorism and Islam and Women and Gender, but I guess you red pill-types like to wallow in your ignorance.
Hopefully you will do more videos about Zizek's ideas (western Buddhism, the problem with cultural capitalism...), and also on Chomsky
I like how you only wear your glasses in your book chat videos. We stan a farsighted icon
Regardless of your opinion on the matter it's good to see people criticising each other. Its mature and in general good for the progression of philosophy.
great review!
Thank you for your contribution.
Thanks for making this video, Olly. I reacted rather angrily, perhaps unfairly, to your first video. I have been frustrated by an overall trend in all media towards hot takes and clickbait over more rigorous and thoughtful pieces. I worry that a lot of the powerful tools available on the Internet have created a set of perverse incentives that exacerbate this problem. A decent article I read on this subject is "The Like Button Ruined the Internet" by James Somers, published in The Atlantic. You may be aware of a better source on this subject, I don't know; I only recently started paying attention to it.
Your critiques here are thoughtful and on-point. I appreciate that. Admittedly, I've watched a lot of Zizek videos and I find myself starving for good criticism of his arguments. Too many people who might otherwise make a good critique or suggest a better alternative source end up dismissing him outright due to his vulgarity. This is especially vexing in light of Zizek's arguments pertaining to vulgarity itself, among other taboos.
I am fascinated by this idea of violence being defined in contrast to a background level of violence which society seems to ignore. We've had a bit of discussion around this when we dealt with the "punch a Nazi" debate. Whether it is moral (or even effective) to use overt, personal, physical, deadly violence against people we perceive to be responsible for background violence is a question that has been left hanging in the air. Personally, I have not read a compelling enough case for or against it, in light of how pernicious background (or structural) violence can be.
Can someone give a link to Taking Sides? I can't seem to find it.
Of course during love making Stalin must be remembered
Hello, i would love to know if you have a book that presents the major and original philosophical views on violence and exposes them clearly. Thank you in advance!
I'm so used to modern philosophy tube that I kept expecting the video to be a satirical intro before going off the rails
Can you put the links to the books you reference? I am trying to find the right copy of 'taking sides'
They are already in the description if you click see more :)
Opinion on Frankfurt's compatibalism?
I'm not really familiar with him even tho I've heard of him so this is a good starting point, Thanks!
You've mentioned Max Stirner in your video introduction to anarchism. Would you consider doing a video more in-depth about Stirner and egoism?
I swear I've seen Zizek speak in a video before, but it was in regards to some piece of media - maybe a film? - he was in some way involved with. But I can't think of where exactly I've seen him from. Anyone know?
P.S. Can we not, like, *mock* tics, comments section? Please? Thanks.
Oh that's a thing Zizek fans do.
They celebrate imperfections because zizek says that it is only by celebrating imperfections of something can you grasp its perfection.
@@maskman9675 Do you have anything to say besides your usual neckbeardy strawmen? No? Ok.
Are you maybe thinking of "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema"? That was a full documentary he did, but I think he's done other stuff on particular filmmakers too (especially Hitchcock).
Good vid. in terms of why we need to seperate some sort of emotion or somethign of the like from disscussions of violence, it could be that he was alluding to the need to look at violence objectivly with out any sort of individual bias coloring it or something. thats my thuoght at least on that part, otherwise i thought you made some good points in the pros and cons of the book.
I am curious, have you read Jaspir Puar's Terrorist assembleges? I would be very interested in seeing a vid on that.
You're correct, quoting from the book: _"My underlying premise is that there is something inherently mystifying in a direct confrontation with [violence]: the overpowering horror of violent acts and empathy with the victims inexorably function as a lure which prevents us from thinking."_ He goes on to explain how this lures you in to a sense of outrage and urgency. A desired to 'do something about it', to stop the violence. That's why he makes that point that to properly discuss and reflect on violence, it has to be in a distant way.
As an example Žižek here refers to a letter Marx wrote to Engels in 1870, when it looked like there might be a revolution in Europe, Marx wrote in panic: _"Can't they wait a couple of years, I haven't finished Capital yet!"_ When you're directly confronted with violence, it's tempting to revolt and jump to action, instead of sitting back and thinking about it.
Does paypal charge less for transactions than Patreon?
I agree with most points in this video, especially the ones concerning how Zizek draws from but doesn't go beyond, in many ways, the ideas other people have already went over more thoroughly - and for someone who has read those people expressing those ideas, in a way that's much more refined and in-depth, I can see why this can be irksome.
And I agree with the conclusion, that again he manages to touch on a lot of topics and does bring up some interesting ideas, but ultimately doesn't go in deeper.
But - I suppose that a thing to keep in mind is that he is considered a bit of a pop philosopher at times, and a lot of people probably see his works like Violence and especially things like "A perverts guide to Ideology" as a kind of a gateway into ways of thinking they may not have considered before. And with this in mind, I think, the book and some of his other work, becomes more of a introduction to ideology, conceptions and ideas about violence, etc.
Now, I have read some of his papers way back and I recall thinking that they deal with things more coherently and in-depth, though it has been a long time - so don't take my word for it! Maybe this book and some of his other stuff is not as serious, but I think it can be - under the right circumstances - useful?
Saw this video in my recommendation and had never heard of it before so I clicked it and got jump scared by younger Abby
So weird, I was just in the middle of writing an essay on Modern Violence for my Humanities module and I was just about to bring this book into it.
i haven't read that particular book, but often when zizek talks about religious fundamentalist it is the other way round. Like it happens in the movie Persepolis some arabic countries where "modern" "tolerant" (some even laic to different degrees) up until western interest went over them. He usually poses islamic fundamentalism (wich he separates from the islamic religion) as a reaction to western capitalist influence on those countries.
I like your glasses here!
Pls Olly do a video on the End of Faith !!!
I think Violence is an unfortunate starting point for Žižek, though it was also mine, lol.
He has a peculiar bibliography/methodology of writing. There is a grouping of books that really lay the ground work of his philosophical project (Sublime Object of Ideaology, Less Than Nothing, Sex and the Failex Absolute, etc) and then there are many other, smaller works, which re-hash upon points made in other books, while also focusing on something a little more specific.
I suppose I just think Violence isn't really as unique or "meaningful" as his other, more important works.
Haven't read this one but I'm guessing its not the best introduction to Žižek's work. Try reading Trouble in Paradise. I wonder what you think of it
To be honest, I don't think anything by Žižek is a good introduction to Žižek. He's an.. acquired taste. Then again, a lot of philosophers have that problem. They all build on each other, Žižek on Lacan, Lacan on Hegel. And by the time you understand them all you'll have three degrees. 😅
my god. PURE IDEOLOGY.
If you haven't yet, I think you should make a video on whether or not solitary confinement should be allowed in prisons and if it is ethical.
With those glasses and beard you look like photos of my dad from the '70s
Hey which is the big orange book in the book shelf please tell
Ryaan Asif
William Shakespeare Complete Works
Yup, it is a complete Shakespeare
excellent very fair minded review. enjoyed the balance of praise and criticism.
PLEASE DO END OF FAITH VIDEO
Nope!
Come onnn! Ha
Olly, I'm also interested to hear you opinion about Sam Harris, since he has given much to talk about in recent years. Perhaps you could do a review about his videos or his philosophy in general? He has some very interesting debates on UA-cam with Jonathan Haidt or Scott Atran.
I leave it to your consideration :)
Mia Townsend I'm in $15 let's crowdfund it
YES! PLEASE!!
How can you be a philosophy MA and have never read Zizek ? That’s like studying Fine Art and never encountering globally leading contemporary artists. His writing on Hegel is part of the modern discourse about his work.
Your iguana is perilously perched.
Have you ever read any of Dr. Clint W. Jones's works? I'd love to hear what you have to say about him.
Please do Harris' 'The End of Faith'. Or anything on Harris' work, its so common on the internet to find people who support Harris' ideas itd be really interesting to see a good, thorough critique either of his ideas on religion, or on ethics.
On the subject of terrorism, I think I get what he's trying to get at. Terrorism is a method of factions who cannot win by conventional means. Seeing as its likely that animosity to arise between nations who are strong and those who are weak and that strong nations are likely to be more advanced i would be typical to expect that less advanced nations are going to produced more terrorists. Also on the subject of American's lack of pre-modern traditions America as a landmass has them but America as a state has not, the culture and political climate of the united states was not created by native Americans.
i love you oly
I think Žižek's statement about withdrawing into a more reflective state is in reference to asceticism and not fundamentally a withdrawal from the actual violence itself. You can still be engaged in violence but take a look at it from a 3rd person perspective to distance yourself from the issue and look at it more objectively. It does take great self determination to do so and you may be right that not everybody can do it immediately. But it's a learned skill and can be taught to virtually anybody.
His statement about being dispassionate when looking at a problem also speaks to the process divorcing any emotional bias that could be introduced by such experiences. It may put you off but is readily adopted by many thinkers like Sam Harris among others. :P
I really enjoyed a lot of Violence while disagreeing with more than I agreed with Zizek on. Its written nice accessible, though sometimes this leads to some concepts like the 'rage bank' not being well thought out. It can slip to rambling.
Maybe to late, but why not. I think that he refers to trauma being very personal to the same source of violence. In that view, you cannot reach a formal definition of violence, it becomes a collection of individual experiences perceived as violent. So you need to first define violence and then look at the effects, if you try to form the picture of it from the effects you will never have a full one. Moreso, you cannot possibly look at every effect of violence, at any moment you will have to settle with an even less complete image.
8:40 What's missing?
It's self-evident, that MOST people can't escape from continuous violence. But withdraw & learn to a certain degree is all we can try.
Yo have you read Johanna Oksala's book "Foucault, Politics, and Violence?" She early on deals with Zizek's notion of linguistic violence in an interesting way.
dis gonna be good
interesting point around 6:50, and one with which i wholly disagree. the USA has no pre-modern historical traditions because it's a settler-colonial state; indigenous societies of america's past are distinct from and unrepresented by the present-day united states of america, and drawing a clear line between american history (the history of the american continent) and the history of the usa (the united states of america and the imported people/political ideals it represents) is fair and accurate. i'm not sure if that was zizek's point exactly, but in the event that it was, i don't think that at all constitutes an erasure of indigenous americans. would actually be pretty easy to use this to argue the opposite - that the united states' attempt to paint itself as the successor of pre-modern indigenous societies is essentially stealing glory from the people it's responsible for murdering.
i’m crushed, have i been ignoring slavoj doing this all along? have i been reading what i hope is happening into words where it is not? 2018 has a lot of promise for me but only after a terrible first third in which my bounce is gone and i am trapped by a catastrophe and circumstances. feeling the bottom fall out of zizek i dunno, maybe having my nose rubbed in utter bleak will make going through hell go faster, building new ways to use my core ok to develop a sense of confidence might be just the thing. ugh it’s just sad, like the film Never Let Me Go, futility, trash, discards, transplants, commidity
o hey have you ever gotten into diogenes? the scraps i’ve learned about him make him almost too good to be true, or rather than worry i might use someone who kicked cats or something too shitty to support his thang, i um, what was that thing about the answer is simple but it isn’t easy?
I think most of your critiques of this book are fair and correct. Even as a bit of a Zizek fanboy myself, I have to agree. Zizek seems to have two lines of books he writes; the deeper philosophical works that have thousands of pages, where he really makes an effort; and the "Zizek Lite" line of books (such as this one), where he copies and pastes parts of other books and articles he's written, replaces the original examples that prove his points with more contemporary ones. He even admits this himself. I think these smaller books are intended for the larger audience.
I'm not sure if this is a savvy move on his part or a bad one, but I'm inclined to believe it's a smart move.
The Americas surely have a premodern history, but the United States surely doesn't (or, depending on how you delineate between modernity and premodernity, it barrrrrrrrrely does). I have to side with Žižek on that one point. It's an important one, I think, if we think about how traditions and histories can form resistances to modern and postmodern culture forces, especially as they ally with capitalist forces. Other than that, great video!
To give my two cents, give Zizek’s political stuff a miss and read his Hegel, psychoanalysis, theology, and cultural studies stuff. I genuinely think the political stuff is (except for his analysis of ideology ofc) mostly a distraction induced by his fame
I haven't read zizek honestly but I was interested in his film theory up until recently (prior to the book recommendation video) when I gave up on trying to get interested any more in him. I've heard some great ideas from him but ultimately none were particularly mind blowing. I fully admit I dismissed his work based on him as a person rather than trying to get to understand his approach, but overall I feel he relies too heavily on making shocking comments. Although I have wondered nietzsche also wrote to shock or polemicize so in this one respect how are they different if at all. (i do like nietzsche and I understand nietzsche and zizek are philosophically very different)
I'm a big fan of Zizek, but this critique is entirely fair.
He's definitely not the place to go for coherent in depth analysis, or even basic foundation for beginners (despite his 'pop culture' appeal). Nonetheless, I find his psychoanalytic approach often does provide provocative and enlightening perspectives and framing I had never before considered...but there are definitely plenty of blatant misses in his works as well.
Consider the level at which Žižek operates. Namely, it's popular philosophy that has to be watered down and his task is to talk mostly general stuff in the left circles, but for beginners it's sort of a crash course. It's always incomplete, but what is complete?
There is also a place where he actually puts the right questions (isn't that the real job of a philosopher?) like what do we do if we can't get away from political violence?
My third point is that he's a speaker more than a writer, so his thinking process is ongoing.
That said, he has plenty of flaws and his passages at times lack subtlety.
i agree with your problem with the whole "dispassionate" thing. it annoys me sometimes but at the same time i understand the need to look at things dispassionatly as it helps us give us a more objective view? idk. although in his case with looking at violence it seems like its weird to not talk to people who actually have exprienced violence..
6:38 Žižek is right though. The United States of America has no pre-modern historical tradition. The indigenous civilizations you are talking about existed long before any political entity was established by Westerners on the American continent. I think the political state of the US and the geography of where the US is are two very different things. I doubt he is talking about the geographical history there.
Also, would've been great if you actually talk about that other definition of terrorists/terrorism you were referencing to give some context.
I only wish I read a little quicker and watched fewer UA-cam videos!