1:33 (analog zu Tieren, wo das Gap durch den Instinkt aufgehoben wird) 4:35 immer das gleiche Ziel; endpoint when object und subject are reconciled (versöhnt) 7:25 thinking is evil 9:30 the key moment of christianity 10:48 die Endlichkeit ist die Repräsentation, das Sein des Absoluten (hier: Göttlichen) 13:00 weil sich alle vermittelt zeigen muss, das direkte Zeigen zerstört das Absolute, das Heilige, das Göttliche und damit auch das endliche Leben (wealth of inner life)
This might be my question if I had attended Mr. Zizek's lecture: The world you're envisioning is one in which not only is there no 'privacy', but also only a very minimal identity as an individual. This idea feels threatening to us right now, in a time in which the dominant idea of everlasting life still entails our egos -- with our names, personalities, friends, families, etc. -- walking up to St. Peter at 'the pearly gates' of 'heaven.' Do you see that future world as a radical potentiation of today's social networks -- with their inherent social and political dangers -- or might the AI-supported shift from the individual to the collective provide a safeguard against both against loneliness and propaganda?
Note that Buddhism's central idea is "you are more than your thoughts", many of those thoughts were programmed into you by your culture and are not your essential nature but brainwashing by your 6 Ps (parents, professors, politicians, performers/poets, priests, peers)... Its very deep if you think about it. Also when we talk or move my hand its done with our thoughts, although yes we have the ability to imagine moving our hands or to say things in our head without actually moving our mouth but thats because for us to talk we have another part of our brain that we have to activate to actually move or talk with our mouth. Its a lot like typing a message here on youtube or notepad, to actually send it out you have to hit the send button.
@@aoeu256 Excellent analogy. And this is borne out not by the fact that there is a delay between the time we decide to do something and the time the signal occurs in our brains (I don't recall the details -- maybe you can clarify), but that the signal occurs before we make a conscious decision!
Maybe I'm just incredibly dense but I can't be the only one who has a hard time pinning down what Zizek actually believes. I admire his philosophical analysis but it's almost like he's not even a marxist or "communist," because in some other place he said he's a "faithful Christian" I get the impression he's trying to form some grand unifying philosophical theory by reconciling the entire corpus of philosophical thought.
There's a lot going on in this. I've got a BA and MA in philosophy and I'd say you'd have to have a very good knowledge of the literature and general ideas thrown around in philosophy over the past 3000 years to pick up on all the little references and allusions he crams in here. It's certainly hard work.
All he's saying is : _There is no fixed point ever available and tryimg to pin it down only worsens the mess_ My interpretation. But contradictions like presented by Zizek, turn into method by this view.
As Hannah Arendt doesn't believe in the thought of Gershom Scholem, so I don't believe either of har's thought and the thought of Rudolf Steiner. (For the difference in believing of my friend S. Alic, for instance.)
One thing that the singularity will do is that people will be able to communicate directly through thought images (which are like a thousand words in a moment), and perhaps in movies you won't just see the movie but also the thought images directly. I disagree with Zizec on the thought images being automatically sent out, we may have some power to not reveal certain parts of the thought images. Zizec seems to think that thought images are "infinite", but they are a finite form of communication just like words its just that they are more efficient like think 1000x - 10,000x more information content per unit of time. They can still allow the communication of vague information that must be re-evaluated. Where evil comes from isn't just from thinking, it has to do with our selfish emotions and the finitude of the mortal world - stuff like greed, envy, mortality, and our experiences and books we've read is always different than what other's people. When people read thought image books or thought image movies, they get more information per unit of time but its still finite and so there is still some sort of individuality produced. Also if everyone is in cyber space, then it gets rid of the finitude of materialism but there will still be the finitude of sexy ideas and art works.
Listening to Zizek can be a little like quick sex: it sounds like a very good idea, seems good whilst your doing it, includes a lot of fumbling, and inevitably feels dissatisfying.
His point about thoughts after the singularity seems like a non issue to me. Isn't it the case that we cause the movements of body parts or even speech by thoughts? Neural pathways lead to muscles, etc. It's just that there's a clear distinction in the mind between thoughts that have direct consequences and internal thoughts. It seems obvious to me that such a distinction could and would also exist after the singularity, and we could still have private thoughts.
We have to distinguish two parts here : The natural intelligence used when walking, digesting and getting tired and the overlay of thinking trying to describe and identify the outside world and put it into a context or even attach a meaning to what is going on. You can be YOU and still be vividly aware about your dependencies beyond your control. And this is a very common notion towards things, thinks and events. To most people this feeling incessantly present, but they screen it out due to minimal relevance for the appropriate action at a given moment. In the fine analysis we find anyway already a singularity (a mainstream) in what people strive for. Very old memes, directing the collective all mankind eversince and these are deeply grounded in the narrative we tell ourselves from generation to generation. Sorry, I don't have time now to develop this further. Stay pessimistic about 'singularity' and recalculate your equation.
Super n00b in philosophy. If I understand correctly Zizek loves Hegel because practically all contemporary philosophy is anti-hegelian ? Why cant you look it like Hegel was so wrong on many aspects (if everybody is disagreeing with him)? I do not understand what Zizek admires in Hegel
How will you maintain a minimum of pure distance? Most people spend their lives ‘finding themselves’ … are in a state of uncertainty, which has various forms of outward expression, for example, from quietness, so as not to be bullied , because they don’t have any other defence yet apart from the most instinctual of rage and aggression. While others use aggression and cruelty because they instinctively know that they too have no idea where the centre of that subjectivity is. Are you advocating for something for those who are not yet aware that is only performative, that they must be encouraged to go along with it, and for those who are at least aware to maintain a control over this? As a theory it appears to have these problems. As a directive it’s troubling as it points to a very established attitude. I’m not an advocate for the so-called spiritualness of the singularity, although I can see and intuitively feel that’s it’s there, but on the whole I don’t trust the machine apparatus that runs the algorithms, which give it this affect. How it’s built to process experience - metaphysical or what have you, in a certain way. We already have problems with a culture now of cancelling that is driven by the drive to attain this minimum distance, this state of purity. Which may for now be only the outwards affects of the still largely operational capitalist relationships … and the other problem, is the persistent notion of a society of total control. I maintain that there are other operations taking place that are not so easily identifiable and on the whole are happening or are being expressed at the level of language, in a virtual state as you describes that avoids the obvious mediated ideology while carried by it. So how to correctly formulate the authentic question on the Singularity remains.
I don't get what the problem with the loss of distance between subjectivity and objectivity is... Also, what is the justification for the "new forms of horror"? Why all this round and round with words without defining things properly and asking the questions that matter? What matters is the experience a being has, everything else doesn't matter. How can the experience, which seems to have a direct interface with the brain, be uncontrolable in a world where there's almost infinite abundance of knowledge and technology? The subjective experience is not separate from the objective world, so what is the argument for saying we won't be able to control this experience?
Why do we have to drag entire countries into your Frankenstein experiment. Why not go off and do your experiment with willing volunteers and if you are a success great and if not we can continue to live our lives.
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
Excellent opening coughs, sniffs, and so on and so on.
“Hegel came too early”
Hegel should have done kegels
Hegel is still coming
A post Covid world will have difficulty with him in social settings.
1:33 (analog zu Tieren, wo das Gap durch den Instinkt aufgehoben wird) 4:35 immer das gleiche Ziel; endpoint when object und subject are reconciled (versöhnt) 7:25 thinking is evil 9:30 the key moment of christianity 10:48 die Endlichkeit ist die Repräsentation, das Sein des Absoluten (hier: Göttlichen) 13:00 weil sich alle vermittelt zeigen muss, das direkte Zeigen zerstört das Absolute, das Heilige, das Göttliche und damit auch das endliche Leben (wealth of inner life)
Glorious sniff
This might be my question if I had attended Mr. Zizek's lecture: The world you're envisioning is one in which not only is there no 'privacy', but also only a very minimal identity as an individual. This idea feels threatening to us right now, in a time in which the dominant idea of everlasting life still entails our egos -- with our names, personalities, friends, families, etc. -- walking up to St. Peter at 'the pearly gates' of 'heaven.' Do you see that future world as a radical potentiation of today's social networks -- with their inherent social and political dangers -- or might the AI-supported shift from the individual to the collective provide a safeguard against both against loneliness and propaganda?
Note that Buddhism's central idea is "you are more than your thoughts", many of those thoughts were programmed into you by your culture and are not your essential nature but brainwashing by your 6 Ps (parents, professors, politicians, performers/poets, priests, peers)... Its very deep if you think about it.
Also when we talk or move my hand its done with our thoughts, although yes we have the ability to imagine moving our hands or to say things in our head without actually moving our mouth but thats because for us to talk we have another part of our brain that we have to activate to actually move or talk with our mouth. Its a lot like typing a message here on youtube or notepad, to actually send it out you have to hit the send button.
@@aoeu256 Excellent analogy. And this is borne out not by the fact that there is a delay between the time we decide to do something and the time the signal occurs in our brains (I don't recall the details -- maybe you can clarify), but that the signal occurs before we make a conscious decision!
9:46 seems very similar to some indian philosophy
Yep.
Maybe I'm just incredibly dense but I can't be the only one who has a hard time pinning down what Zizek actually believes. I admire his philosophical analysis but it's almost like he's not even a marxist or "communist," because in some other place he said he's a "faithful Christian"
I get the impression he's trying to form some grand unifying philosophical theory by reconciling the entire corpus of philosophical thought.
There's a lot going on in this. I've got a BA and MA in philosophy and I'd say you'd have to have a very good knowledge of the literature and general ideas thrown around in philosophy over the past 3000 years to pick up on all the little references and allusions he crams in here. It's certainly hard work.
All he's saying is : _There is no fixed point ever available and tryimg to pin it down only worsens the mess_
My interpretation. But contradictions like presented by Zizek, turn into method by this view.
"thinking as such is an evil" [7:53] [8:50] We must understand Zizek / Hegel's dialectic...
How is that possible? We know... (That is not Hannah Arendt's concept of the evil, as in her's analysis in "on the Banality of")
As Hannah Arendt doesn't believe in the thought of Gershom Scholem, so I don't believe either of har's thought and the thought of Rudolf Steiner. (For the difference in believing of my friend S. Alic, for instance.)
One thing that the singularity will do is that people will be able to communicate directly through thought images (which are like a thousand words in a moment), and perhaps in movies you won't just see the movie but also the thought images directly. I disagree with Zizec on the thought images being automatically sent out, we may have some power to not reveal certain parts of the thought images. Zizec seems to think that thought images are "infinite", but they are a finite form of communication just like words its just that they are more efficient like think 1000x - 10,000x more information content per unit of time. They can still allow the communication of vague information that must be re-evaluated. Where evil comes from isn't just from thinking, it has to do with our selfish emotions and the finitude of the mortal world - stuff like greed, envy, mortality, and our experiences and books we've read is always different than what other's people. When people read thought image books or thought image movies, they get more information per unit of time but its still finite and so there is still some sort of individuality produced. Also if everyone is in cyber space, then it gets rid of the finitude of materialism but there will still be the finitude of sexy ideas and art works.
Listening to Zizek can be a little like quick sex: it sounds like a very good idea, seems good whilst your doing it, includes a lot of fumbling, and inevitably feels dissatisfying.
His point about thoughts after the singularity seems like a non issue to me. Isn't it the case that we cause the movements of body parts or even speech by thoughts? Neural pathways lead to muscles, etc. It's just that there's a clear distinction in the mind between thoughts that have direct consequences and internal thoughts. It seems obvious to me that such a distinction could and would also exist after the singularity, and we could still have private thoughts.
We have to distinguish two parts here :
The natural intelligence used when walking, digesting and getting tired and the overlay of thinking trying to describe and identify the outside world and put it into a context or even attach a meaning to what is going on.
You can be YOU and still be vividly aware about your dependencies beyond your control. And this is a very common notion towards things, thinks and events.
To most people this feeling incessantly present, but they screen it out due to minimal relevance for the appropriate action at a given moment.
In the fine analysis we find anyway already a singularity (a mainstream) in what people strive for.
Very old memes, directing the collective all mankind eversince and these are deeply grounded in the narrative we tell ourselves from generation to generation.
Sorry, I don't have time now to develop this further.
Stay pessimistic about 'singularity' and recalculate your equation.
Eli Eli lama sabachtani
Super n00b in philosophy. If I understand correctly Zizek loves Hegel because practically all contemporary philosophy is anti-hegelian ? Why cant you look it like Hegel was so wrong on many aspects (if everybody is disagreeing with him)? I do not understand what Zizek admires in Hegel
How will you maintain a minimum of pure distance? Most people spend their lives ‘finding themselves’ … are in a state of uncertainty, which has various forms of outward expression, for example, from quietness, so as not to be bullied , because they don’t have any other defence yet apart from the most instinctual of rage and aggression. While others use aggression and cruelty because they instinctively know that they too have no idea where the centre of that subjectivity is. Are you advocating for something for those who are not yet aware that is only performative, that they must be encouraged to go along with it, and for those who are at least aware to maintain a control over this? As a theory it appears to have these problems. As a directive it’s troubling as it points to a very established attitude.
I’m not an advocate for the so-called spiritualness of the singularity, although I can see and intuitively feel that’s it’s there, but on the whole I don’t trust the machine apparatus that runs the algorithms, which give it this affect. How it’s built to process experience - metaphysical or what have you, in a certain way.
We already have problems with a culture now of cancelling that is driven by the drive to attain this minimum distance, this state of purity. Which may for now be only the outwards affects of the still largely operational capitalist relationships … and the other problem, is the persistent notion of a society of total control.
I maintain that there are other operations taking place that are not so easily identifiable and on the whole are happening or are being expressed at the level of language, in a virtual state as you describes that avoids the obvious mediated ideology while carried by it.
So how to correctly formulate the authentic question on the Singularity remains.
I don't get what the problem with the loss of distance between subjectivity and objectivity is... Also, what is the justification for the "new forms of horror"? Why all this round and round with words without defining things properly and asking the questions that matter? What matters is the experience a being has, everything else doesn't matter. How can the experience, which seems to have a direct interface with the brain, be uncontrolable in a world where there's almost infinite abundance of knowledge and technology? The subjective experience is not separate from the objective world, so what is the argument for saying we won't be able to control this experience?
In terms of the kurzwiel “singularity” it is the total loss of the subjective experience which is the horror that he described
Why do we have to drag entire countries into your Frankenstein
experiment. Why not go off and do your experiment with willing
volunteers and if you are a success great and if not we can continue to
live our lives.
I am a fascist who happens to enjoy Zizek.
Zizek is not leftist, he just call himself like that to generate polemic.
Why not accept class struggle and become nazbol?
I am a Žižek who happens to enjoy fascists.
@@Firmus777 why not accept History's ancient aliens show and become a posadist
Lmao.
This guy is honestly repulsive. An assault on the senses.
BUY A HANDKERCHIEF. GET SOME ZYRTEC and handle your SNOT problem PLEASE Mr Genius. It would be part of using your LOGIC and COMMUNICATION SKILLS.
Or you could just get over it.
its a nervous tic not a snot problem x
Let's just kiss ass I guess some people on here would be happy to tell the emperor what lovely clothes he has