I revel in the idea that, after mini-Zizek stops playing with his toys, Big Zizek spends hours analyzing the position, role and meaning of the plastic figures in the aftermath of the imagined events.
@@MrHarrystanki probably agree with you from the first two sentences but i can't do more than that man and sure as hell anyone who disagrees isn't gonna make it through, this response to a 6 word comment is fucking insane
While I didn't read all of your latest comments - as they seemed to be answers to people doing exactly what your first comments are opposing - I thoroughly agree with you that youtube holds decent potential for elaborate textual debates.They're rare to put it mildly, but there are also "themes" or subjects which seem to generate almost entirely interesting and enlightening debates in the comments, like (pre-historic) geology, and paleontology (excluding the occasional zealous person). What is also interesting about that is that these subjects are both almost completely free from culture, history, ideology and so on (and so forth) - obvious reasons for more civil internet debates. But going a bit deeper, of course astronomy is not without ideology. Contrarily it's deeply entangled in it, as well as culture and history (which are of course over lapping notions). Same with all sciences, and the early Zizek would likely say that the more it appears objective, the more deeply rooted, or interpellated, it is. Say natural science, or transactions. So what makes the difference? Is it the explicity of these things, or the "directness" (or lack of that) of their presentation? And that's not even taking into account your original point about banal comments. Surely dopamine boosts are part of the answer, but surely not exhaustive. BR Jon
@Ryan Kegglly He's a psychiatrist who had profound impact on the field and helping it evolve it into something more than Freudian and Jungian theories in Europe, yet he too had many weird twists in how Psychology should be approached as a scientific method and wanted to be part of the gang of Postmodern philosophers, so he's still quite controversial and debated in academic circles. His most important contribution is that of 'the Mirror Phase', in which he explains how children learn by mirroring adults. It also explains how children can be tested whether they are self-aware or not by holding a mirror in front of them, this coincides with the period from which they start adopting this mirroring behavior. Because he noticed adults adopt this mirroring as well as a social strategy, he started expanding this notion into object-subject relationships and what he would later call "picture theory", which in my opinion is much better explained by Levinas' Totality and Infinity, although he approaches this from an ethical point of view and isn't exactly the same (this book is much more about how we define each other's otherness and so, identity is not created by an individual but the society surrounding this individual), whereas Lacan hovers in his methods to prove psychology as a legitimate science. What's important to remember about Lacan is that he had a profound impact because he wanted Psychology to be something more than just an interpretation of sexual and dream symbols, but wasn't really able to let go of such interpretations himself entirely. He was a great psychiatrist, but not so great philosopher.
@@DarkAngelEU Don't worry. He is a psychoanalyst, not a psychiatrist . I heard him say that he would never practice psychoanalysis because the responsibility is too great . If you said the wrong thing, you can scar people for life. I felt this way when I taught high school. Those are jobs where the responsibility is incalculable.
When you posted this comment he was about 16, so he probably would have hated it then. He's about 21 as I post this reply, so if he sees it today he'll think maybe the old man's not so bad. If he watches it again in 2030 he'll be touched by how much his dad loves him, and feel bad about how much he didn't like this bit at first. The human condition, no?
@Blyledge Well, his father not only a meme, but kind of self obsessed with his own vision. Call him eccentric, cerebral narcissist or schizoid - something in this field is obviously about him. That means he is not good enough on being empathic. He pretends but he is not. That's sucks. Kid will grow traumatized by this kind of behavior from his father. But kid has a mother for feel beloved and accepted. And his father at least trying to be good enough. And Žižec himself not the worst example how to succeed in this world, also he knows something about this world (or at least have to think this way) and can present his quirky experience and wisdom to his son. Hope this kid will find a way.
Watching Zizek so excite to show off all the cool toys and interesting stuff his son did during a random play time makes me so jealous. I wish Zizek was my dad.
I could have sworn that it is his play area, not his son’s 😄 So many toys… how he tiptoes around not to disturb anything… and the excitement in his voice ☺️
@@BuGGyBoBerl No Problem, the test just asks if two women can talk in a story about something other than a man. And Zizek's son placed two female figures across each other talking, with no man in sight ^^ (presumabely instinctively, he's far too young to waste his time on something like that)
Just realized the movie that Zizek is playing for his son; it's The Man with the Golden Gun! You can hear the MGM lion, John Barry cues and Sheriff Pepper shouting at the 3:39 mark.
He really has the urge to put everything in words. Good for the speech-abilities for his son. Bad for all the other possibilities. But maybe it's for the camera
Not saying I would replace my father with our boy but he's the drunk uncle my neglected only child 6 year old self needed and never got to be narcissistically amused at least once a year when my parents fight over Christmas food preparations. This filled a void I wasn't aware was there.
@@kzr_1613 ne baš, zapravo! Ima puno tikova i govorne mane, te praćenje njegovih predavanja bude naporno, pogotovo na engleskom... Šteta, više ljudi bi razumelo njegove fantastične ideje. Ovako mnogi ni ne pokušavaju da čuju.
He might not be an avarage parent but what i find interesting is that in analysing the games of his child he seems to know more about his kids interests than most parents, not saying it's good, neither saying it's bad, it's just something i noticed that i didn't find in the comments yet.
@@edencastillo4417 Trying to assert intellectual superiority on the RU-vid comments section says an awful lot more about your amount of brain cells than it does mine. Of course you can’t solve morals via data sets you bafoon. But you won’t solve any issues in society via the authoritarian leftist and borderline extreme politics that this state of a man symbolises. If you want to ignore the vast amount of statistics that signal the failings of socialist economic policy because ‘you can’t empirically analyse the best outcome for human kind’, then be my guest - you clearly posses a level of ignorance equatable to the morons that worship the ground this excuse for a man walks on. Enjoy living in your morally superior but empirically inferior, impractical and grossly irrational utopia. It’s no wonder socialism attracts some of societys’ least ambitious people.
@@Soytu19 First of all, its obviously a joke and its not meant in a mean way towards zizek. Secondly, just because one is a genius, one is not a good parent. On the contrary, this is the point of the joke. If someone is a genius, especially in a field like psychoanalysis, he is analysing everything, as you see zizek playing with his kid. A normal parent can have innocent fun playing with his child, if you are a genius in psychoanalysis, nothing is innocent. That doesnt mean zizek cant be a good parent, but it makes it immensly harder.
