Death Drive Dialectics is a youtube channel/podcast hosted by Nicholas Tolliver and Tyler Mraz. Our channel is dedicated to making philosophy, critical theory, and psychoanalysis more approachable and understandable. Our goal is to ground philosophy by using it to analyze relevant social and political and by using it as a lens to shed light on history, media and culture.
The intro music is done by Fabulizer Music and the song is Wave Shaper
Bruh, I received this video and feel hella gratitude from it, thx for making it. will say as a total novice to all these works, this video is definitely the densest conceptual work to unpack, however makes for some real great reading and is hella motivating
It is definitely for those who are already familiar with these theorists. We originally wrote it as an essay for an academic journal, which is why its tone is a bit dry and is packed with jargon. Thanks for watching tho!
@@deathdrivedialectics Hello, I am one of the people over whose head this is going. Could you send me the paper. I imagine I would have an easier time understanding if it was written down. Thanks :)
The Joker and Batman are in conflict because of their concept of engagement with chaos. If Batman is Kantian he is imposing order through his categorical imperative while The Joker embraces chaos and nihilism. Order vs. Chaos, the dialectic is far more Hegelian than Kantian.
Peeling poor men away from liberation struggles by offering them a place over women in the hierarchy of violence was (and continues to be!) one of the most effective tools they've got. Thanks for a thoughtful interview with the scholar who opened my eyes to that.
Incredibly depressing but this is the exact articulation everyone, including myself for too long that has been subconsciously coming to terms with this and mourning the death of the real. Almost everything and everyone has become an artificial representation in one of these orders of simulation, and it's like we ALL instinctively know this without ever even reading about Baudrillard but lost on how to articulate it beyond personal fixations, when someone airs grievances about "the mainstream media" or "influencer culture" or express their endless incredulity when some celebrity idol doesn't meet their expectations in some way (suicide, scandal, etc...) Even fucking banned drugs have turned into simulacra now: everything is fentanyl or bath salts. Just shitty castrated representations of their original forms. Can't even escape the simulations in any meaningful way. I mourn deeply for even the mere fact that too many people will not hear and understand what you guys articulated here, it seems...
Awesome vid!! Lecan has been very difficult to understand, but you guys explained it to where Lecan can be interpreted better. Perhaps: Object a = Lack and Signifier = symbolic satisfaction
The title the editors chose for the front cover - ''What Is Sex?'' sure is catchy, but it is unfortunate in that it causes a lot of these rhetorical ''What Is Sex?'' questions to Zupancic, whereas her original title ''Sex and Ontology'' is blander but more precise.
Wild conspiracy theory, that I dreamt about one night. The basic idea is that the CIA invented bitcoin to trigger gen Z's objet a directed desire back into the financial world after the 2008 banking/housing crisis and occupy movements.... Crypto trading lotto/objet a desire for younger generations and on ramp to gamble in traditional markets for digital age.
Oddly, I think we are in a post-sex age. We are so unidated by sexuality that its become its opposite "unsexy". We are entering abn age of spiritual exploration and sex is not necessarily all that.
The Real is the intrusion of a seemingly more fundamental unreality into reality. It is how that which is not for us appears for us. The Real thus is always disappearing, it has the character of an event, a suddeness of appearing that immediately disappears into reality. Through this disappearence the possibility of the Real haunts reality. The Real is never integrated into reality as that which it is, but covered up with a reality which it is not. The haunting is the continued suggestion of the Real behind its cover.
If by now, people don't know the differentiation about sex and gender, maybe they should stop making other people's lives so miserable by legislating and controlling every little nuance to death.
52:22 The problem of the privatization of public space is that the public sector (state/local government) has become totally hamstrung-their money/power vampirically drained by private enterprise. Now government is increasingly indebted to/reliant on contracting private corporations to manage (with their major profit seeking conflicts of interest) our health care, public water supplies, infrastructure/transportation, criminal justice, education, prisons, parks, policing, sanitation, libraries, weather services, etc. And to add insult to injury, the spin put on governments inability to provide for the common good is that "government can't get anything done-they're too inefficient!" Private entities have a death grip on a majority of financial power now, and once they strangle our democratic institutions in the cradle they come marching into town dressed like heroes, telling us to trust them to finally get the job done. It's a sick market strategy to distort our view of the massive protective power of a strong public sector and gaslight us into transferring our commons into the hands of profit maximizing private barons.
Good interview in general, but try to avoid „you know“ as a filler word. Embrace the 0.5 seconds of silence if you not find the right word. Its not only more pleasant to listen to, but also increases your „authority“ of everything you say.
I never understood why a gender dynamic existed prima facie between the far left and the far right. Germany, it is well known, was the "Fatherland." The Soviet Union, of course, was the "Motherland." It isn't until I was much older that I finally understood the point Freud was making, which explained the binary within politics itself. Feminine morality is fundamentally more concerned with the means than the end, but dishonestly so. It worries that speaking certain unpopular truths will be emotionally hurtful to some people - on the basis of the overarching belief that it doesn't really matter - since what ultimately matters is that state of being we shall arrive at after all this, which is merely a distraction. The cultural issues are merely distractions, the means of production are what ultimately matters, is how Marx was able to escape the matriarchal virtue trap. This phenomenon is so powerful and so fundamental, so at the core of our being that it can be shocked into recognition. The matriarchs establish certain moral positions that are obviously irrational, and stem from that feminine irrationality. But at a more profound level, are devious and deceptive tricks that benefit only one gender at the cost of the other, whose compliance is not only demanded, but additionally enforced by men. In this way, even minds like Zizek cannot resist the compulsory prostration before the matriarchal shrine of virtue - where emotions override all sensibilities by a compelled reactionary fascistic demand that everyone observe and pay homage to the feminine privilege irrationally sourced. An example of this is age of consent. In most countries, the age of consent today is 16. It used to be 14 until the same matriarchal paranoia compelled it to be raised. We also have the arbitrary number of 18 as the age of adulthood - even though you can drive a car at 16. So in many jurisdictions, you can operate a motor vehicle - a veritable weapon of death - and most certainly are permitted to use a knife, power tools, saws and even own guns, but you are not permitted for another several years to decide to have sexual relations with someone, even of your own age. At 17 years of age and 364 days you are not of capacity to decide. But the next day, you are. In this way the matriarchal (I don't say feminine, but rather mothering) oedipal phenomenon functions as the actual ideological bureau of the patriarchal order - it establishes all the social conventions and norms of social relations and acceptability, but then simultaneously implicates and blames the so-called patriarchal order which is, in a completely incoherent way, both required to stop oppressing and execute the demands of the matriarchal feminine. It is additionally required to sacrifice of itself, both in means and in life, to protect and assure the survival of the feminine, while also accepting onto itself all the faults and blames that the feminine doesn't do it themselves. And thus we arrive at someone who is incredibly brilliant and insightful saying things like "9 billion dollars went missing in Ghana after the French left, but I'm saying it is our fault that the French were there to begin with." The actual culprit of a theft can never be the party with the direct responsibility and blame, but always the patriarchal order of tradition, even when it has been dead for a century. In that way, the criticism of colonialism, which emerges from the European Academy in the French school, is used today in full - philosophy, nomenclature, methodology - by all sections around the world - to call out Europe collectively for its folly in historical interventionism, such that even the methods demonstrate the ideological fallacies they espouse and prove that even in the critique of colonialism a colonial methodology was required to be developed by the colonialists and then provided to the colonials. And that is simply by another word the dynamic between the matriarchal and patriarchal forces - where the mother must remain always holy even when she is heating up the oven to cook Hansel and Gretel while fattening them up. The greatest cause of the demise of the left is the adoption of lies everyone knows are lies, in order to preserve and protect the survival of the irrational matriarchal value system - a scapegoating method conjured by an unbelievably entitled position - where, not required to actually build, create and fight, the veritable matriarch can simultaneously embody completely self-contradicting paradoxical positions, while demanding at the threat of complete hysteria, that it never be acknowledged as false; one must accept that the French are both required and obligated morally to get involved in helping people (which was the original argument for colonialism) and simultaneously leave them alone because interventionism is colonialism. One must simultaneously accept the Indigenous Americans demand that "the white people get out and leave us alone," while flaggellating the Canadian government for simultaneously not assuring that the people who demanded more than anything to be left alone are, in fact, not left alone, when it comes to countless demands their own failures cause - such as not providing clean water on reserves - which is then the responsibility of those same white people who were asked to leave, for having left. Anyone who has ever dated a woman has experienced precisely this in their own life. And that is why I cannot consider myself a leftist anymore, since its position is today completely incomprehensible. What was always a more complex dynamic than the claim of oppression, is today just another method of scapegoating others, in everything, the default position of the feminine since it is not required to take any risks, but always simply make demands and criticize.
'Matriarchal paranoia raised the age of concent from 14 to 16..' Or just the realisation 14 is far too young to be married and give birth, and probably too young for pervy older adults.
@@DJWESG1 Says who. You just proved my point. 93% of all sex abuse of children is by a member of the family or a family friend. But matriarchal policy development isn't guided by science or evidence, it is always a consequence of female neuroticism.
I really enjoy learning and listening to philosophy and sociology and I’ve been doing it for most of my life. I’m no PHD but I do have say I don’t understand why throughout history philosophers and sociologists have “searched through the wreckage of our past mistakes” to try and find the reasons for inequality etc. As far as I’ve ever been able to determine is that there is very little “humanity” in humans, especially in our new digital age. We are all consumed with ourselves, our lives, our hopes and dreams. We’ve little to no concern about the rest of humanity that is not within our direct sphere. Think of the homeless we pass, the sick and dying we charge to cure for profit. We’re animals and I think we a tribute too much of “divine” in us where it does not exist.
Ever since and b4 diogenes wandered around with his lamp during the day, holding it up to ppls faces and asking 'I'm looking for a human being, have you seen one'
Yes, the right is controlling women with the anti-abortion policies, abut the left is controlling women by taking away our female only spaces and language, and supporting males over women in every aspect of out lives.
Amazing video! If we talk about the linguistic nature of desire, it seems that we are dealing not with the relationship between the signifier and the signified, but with the reference of one signifier to another through a chain of signifiers with an endless process of postponement, the so-called metonymy of desire (desire is always a desire for something else)
zizek is one of these new school youtube/digital marxists, a lot like the people Lenin complained about which he called acadrmic marcists, and, btw, he is an academic.
The thought that humanity was born out of a madness of animals (roughly, what Slavoj said) reminds me of Stanisław Lem's explanation why humans get sick much more often than animals - and he gave a slightly anthropocentric answer, tickling the ego, that we are the more complicated organisms. But at the same time he seemed to think that it was humanity's curse.
Not so much a thought, but instead a fact. We have an absolutely brutal history tied to our evolutionary beginnings, conflict being the only means of survival for nearly all our time here on this god forsaken earth.
