A couple of things: 1. In one of several sessions with Phil Donahue, when he said of Ayn Rand, an avowed atheist, that she had "faith in science" she contradictied him by saying "conviction". They never pursued that further. It's simple: science comes through where mysticism fails utterly 2. Ideology per se, is NOT evil, dumb or insane. A bad ideology is. Ideology is the glue that bindes two branches of philosophy. Ethics; Which itself is a derivative and Politics, which is Ethics applied to social systems. If your ethics is on that holds to rational self-interest; that the individual is an an in themself. your politics will be one of Individual Rights, leading to free speech. If your Ethis are those of Altruism (see August Compte on the matter). Your politics will be first a mixed system then totalitarianism since you will regard the individual as a means to an end. The interface between Ethics and Politics is ideology, which is the creation of a coherent set of principles generated by ethicks and applied by politics into a constitution and legislation Now the tie-in. Ehtics is NOT an irredicible primary. that is, it has roots elsewhere within the scope of philosophy. Those roots are irridcibles primaries, that is, to discuss them fully youmust break the bounderies of philosophy. These roots are Metaphysics: How does the world work? objectivism: separate and apart from our thoughs, knowledge, wishes and feelings or subjectivsm; It is true becuase I believe or want it to be. and Epistemology; What do I know and how do I know it?" Reason: The facultuy that integrates the material provided by the senses into a sytematized (organized, hierarchical, cohernet) whole, or something else; Mysticism, class consciouness, historical determinism: Anything other than reason. Now, which of these does science fall into. Now scientists can, may and often do disagree with that disagreement settled by hypothesis and validation; i.e. trila nd success
The true mysticism is like that of Aleister Crowley's Thelema. A scientific mysticism; a submission of the subjective experiences to a rational and empirical examination. The Method : Science. The Aim: Religion.
@@thenowchurch6419 I have no idea of what you are talking about. It started off fine but then reall got off into the weeds. What we are told about Crowley is confusing. It seems that most of what he was about was satirizing the foibles of the upper classes of his time Mysticism is the metaphysical doctrine that the world is run by forces not amenable to Reason. When you think of modern mysticism the name that come sto mind is Madame Helena Blavatsky, from whom the Nazis got the Aryan myth Determinism, either class or economic, is another form of mysticism. Keynesianism is another. In early 1978, as we were being ravaged by "Stag-flation [economic stagnation + inflation]", the Kenesians had their little meeting at Bretton Woods and announced in all seriousness that their models "did not allow the existence of stag-flation [which had been going on for 3 years[". Now you would think after a massive failure of that maggnitude (it went on until 1981 when Reagoan started bringing in other economic models), the Establishment would drop Keynes like hot potato. What do you think they would have done if a Rightist economic model had failed that spectacularly (Look at the rate of inflation, price of oil, unemoloyment rate and Prime Interest Rate for the years 1979-81)? they would have been all over it like dumb on a Leftist. Did they ditch the failed system. Not if Paul Krugmann is to be believed . Now THAT is faith beyond the wildest limits of religious fundamentalism. THAT is the naked face of mysticism; clinging on to a system that failed on an intergalactic level
"We are the bar/café that doesn't have beer without alcohol. The bar that doesn't have wine without alcohol is across the street." I feel that I may be onto something here; combining two ideas Slavoj talked about. But surely, I wil find the 'correct way' to make this optimally paradoxical. Fully Žižek-ized.
Without religion we will be left with Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius, Sam harris, Steven Pinker etc. They teach us the good ideas such as treasuring every moment OF THIS LIFE. Let us also then appareciate liberalism that has provided us with the fastest methodology for peace and prosperity.
I agree with your point but let it be known that Stephen Pinker was at minimum a key part of Epstein’s defense team and potentially a friend and “visiter o’ the isle” so to speak. Not that he hasn’t written some insightful ideas but the man is if not a pedo certainly a defender of pedos.
I can't stand the fact Žižek is so blind to one single fact so I need to push this until it reaches him: WE ARE NOT LIVING A VERION OF THE FUTURE OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITHOUT THE GREEN MOVEMENT. Your notion that green parties were wrong and basing that on the fact that we have more forests today is logically wrong. Our present is the future of many green parties who were active and who build these green policies into actions and policies that shaped what is to come. They were not wrong. Without them, we would have fewer forests.
A couple of things:
1. In one of several sessions with Phil Donahue, when he said of Ayn Rand, an avowed atheist, that she had "faith in science" she contradictied him by saying "conviction". They never pursued that further. It's simple: science comes through where mysticism fails utterly
2. Ideology per se, is NOT evil, dumb or insane. A bad ideology is. Ideology is the glue that bindes two branches of philosophy. Ethics; Which itself is a derivative and Politics, which is Ethics applied to social systems. If your ethics is on that holds to rational self-interest; that the individual is an an in themself. your politics will be one of Individual Rights, leading to free speech. If your Ethis are those of Altruism (see August Compte on the matter). Your politics will be first a mixed system then totalitarianism since you will regard the individual as a means to an end. The interface between Ethics and Politics is ideology, which is the creation of a coherent set of principles generated by ethicks and applied by politics into a constitution and legislation
Now the tie-in. Ehtics is NOT an irredicible primary. that is, it has roots elsewhere within the scope of philosophy. Those roots are irridcibles primaries, that is, to discuss them fully youmust break the bounderies of philosophy. These roots are Metaphysics: How does the world work? objectivism: separate and apart from our thoughs, knowledge, wishes and feelings or subjectivsm; It is true becuase I believe or want it to be. and Epistemology; What do I know and how do I know it?" Reason: The facultuy that integrates the material provided by the senses into a sytematized (organized, hierarchical, cohernet) whole, or something else; Mysticism, class consciouness, historical determinism: Anything other than reason. Now, which of these does science fall into. Now scientists can, may and often do disagree with that disagreement settled by hypothesis and validation; i.e. trila nd success
In the same way that I agree with Eric Cartman on Hippies, I also agree with Officer Barbrady on Ayn Rand.
The true mysticism is like that of Aleister Crowley's Thelema.
A scientific mysticism; a submission of the subjective experiences to a rational and empirical examination.
The Method : Science.
The Aim: Religion.
@@thenowchurch6419 I have no idea of what you are talking about. It started off fine but then reall got off into the weeds. What we are told about Crowley is confusing. It seems that most of what he was about was satirizing the foibles of the upper classes of his time
Mysticism is the metaphysical doctrine that the world is run by forces not amenable to Reason. When you think of modern mysticism the name that come sto mind is Madame Helena Blavatsky, from whom the Nazis got the Aryan myth Determinism, either class or economic, is another form of mysticism. Keynesianism is another. In early 1978, as we were being ravaged by "Stag-flation [economic stagnation + inflation]", the Kenesians had their little meeting at Bretton Woods and announced in all seriousness that their models "did not allow the existence of stag-flation [which had been going on for 3 years[". Now you would think after a massive failure of that maggnitude (it went on until 1981 when Reagoan started bringing in other economic models), the Establishment would drop Keynes like hot potato. What do you think they would have done if a Rightist economic model had failed that spectacularly (Look at the rate of inflation, price of oil, unemoloyment rate and Prime Interest Rate for the years 1979-81)? they would have been all over it like dumb on a Leftist. Did they ditch the failed system. Not if Paul Krugmann is to be believed . Now THAT is faith beyond the wildest limits of religious fundamentalism. THAT is the naked face of mysticism; clinging on to a system that failed on an intergalactic level
Thanks I enjoyed that one
Beautiful .
"We are the bar/café that doesn't have beer without alcohol.
The bar that doesn't have wine without alcohol is across the street."
I feel that I may be onto something here; combining two ideas Slavoj talked about.
But surely, I wil find the 'correct way' to make this optimally paradoxical. Fully Žižek-ized.
Without religion we will be left with Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius, Sam harris, Steven Pinker etc. They teach us the good ideas such as treasuring every moment OF THIS LIFE. Let us also then appareciate liberalism that has provided us with the fastest methodology for peace and prosperity.
Yes but the average person needs to believe in magic
Really, really funny commenting this on Zizek's video about capitalist ideology
I agree with your point but let it be known that Stephen Pinker was at minimum a key part of Epstein’s defense team and potentially a friend and “visiter o’ the isle” so to speak. Not that he hasn’t written some insightful ideas but the man is if not a pedo certainly a defender of pedos.
First! And I lived near Žižek for a few years
Asi ga kdaj vidu, kupovati kokakolo v štacun?
@@mjauzysugar free and decaffeinated Coke!
@@Anabsurdsuggestion so chemical?
Never seen anyone boast about 2 such useless things in a sentence
❤❤❤
He speak same exelent Eglisch like me ..😅
you okay otherwise?
Yes thank you ...
In a spirit of Zizek's talk if you do not speak perfect English make sure to have a lot of to speak about in English :)
I can't stand the fact Žižek is so blind to one single fact so I need to push this until it reaches him:
WE ARE NOT LIVING A VERION OF THE FUTURE OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITHOUT THE GREEN MOVEMENT. Your notion that green parties were wrong and basing that on the fact that we have more forests today is logically wrong. Our present is the future of many green parties who were active and who build these green policies into actions and policies that shaped what is to come. They were not wrong. Without them, we would have fewer forests.
Interesting
He dresses nicely, I must say.
Honey, I bet you look spectacular in a suit.
Is anyone going to tell this guy that he needs to fix his sssss....because some of us can´t fallow him such as he is?