Who else feels like philosophy is just another object-a or death drive. The more I drink, the thirstier I become. The more I think, the dummer I feel. Am I just thinking about thinking for the sake of thinking? Am I sucking the thumb of the mind? Is that all this is? Am I solving any problems or creating anything valuable? Not really, I’m just driven to continue because I lack wisdom, and I will always lack wisdom.
There’s definitely something to that. Zizek says he’s pathologically incapable of enjoying anything unless it can go towards making a point in his next book
That’s certainly true. BUT only if one’s philosophizing is purely mental exercise without worldly application: a hamster running in a wheel, never able to run anywhere it wants to go…theory without praxis will never be fulfilling. Walter Benjamin gets to a similar point in “The Author as Producer”.
Hello, Julian. I think it would be a very interesting topic to explore Zizek's thought evolution from Heidegger to Hegel. I m really interested in what made him say that we should burn what he wrote on Heidegger. Thank you for your amazing videos.
I had the sublimely enjoyable experience of watching this in a mall food court, on a weekday (quite empty) while eating "Chinese food" from the Bourbon St Grill. I have never felt more seen, or more capable of seeing, in my life 🙃
I find difficult to understand why Zizek considers the socialists experiences as a failure so easily. I mean, yes, URSS ended, it had problems, so do Cuba and DPRK etc but how can he ignore the pressure, blocks and sabotage from the other capitalist countries? and how can he ignore the successes real socialist experiences have had? I mean, look at Cuba, as isolated as it is, people have pretty good health, education and security there. I don't know, man... I think that we cannot wait until the perfect idea of society comes out to try something new... maybe just having an horizon that can lead to something different than ecological catastrophe and brutal inequality is worth fighting for ASAP.
agree with this so much!! it's a question i always have for many "marxists" who completely deny or dismiss many socialist experiments just as much as capitalists do. While I do believe in the ruthless criticism of former socialist failures, to completely write off them seems more as a gap/flaw in knowledge on their part more than a complete understanding of the actual history of past socialist projects.
Object a I needed to play and feel this hell of being a dead object. For fake friends which weren’t being other teached than by an selfteached teacher of psychoanalysis, them schoolers thought narcissism is : equal beatiful. So ive seeen zizek live in Linz where i live. I Only remember After Research on my own. Love your symton like yourself, which he does, he doesn’t stop with twitching his nose.
This perfectly encapsulates what i think is the core of FreudoMarxism. More than say Reich's interpretation of liberation of sexual tension which reflected early Freud i am more inclined to Zupancic's emphasis of the death drive element of Freud.
And I’m really controlling thrice if I got my key till I close my flat door, it’s making sense, because consequences show, pain If I fail. Point. I’ve read Joyce and he did. timetable to my hometown, it’s for the hysteric, Verschiebungen, learning on and on people. We know how he felt with those imitators, which were only wanting to not to/ cannot be real/ overstep
I found this video fascinating, but I still don’t understand what is meant by the death drive. Isn’t Freud’s concept of “Thanatos” as opposed to “Eros” the desire for sweet oblivion? How is pursuit of pleasure for its own sake be following the death drive?
Thank you, this is a fair question. I should have emphasized that this is a Lacanian reading of the death drive, so specifically not in terms of Thanatos. The crucial element is: “every drive is an attempt to go beyond the pleasure principle, to the realm of excess jouissance where enjoyment is experienced as suffering”. As taken from the link below. Which is a fairly useful overview: nosubject.com/Death_drive
@@julianphilosophy I did check out your link, and it was helpful. I am still not sure I understand Lucan’s concept of the death instinct, but it’s a good start. If, however, Lucan views the death instinct as bad and the life instinct as good in a dualistic, manichaeist way, then I’m not on board.
Really thinking about his own about psychoanalysis, straight up we go.., not besides, just self analysis, I Wisch you all are in heaven of us 313+0 of übermächtige entities!
I don’t judge you til I get the point. I’m respecting you’re marriage that’s symbolic. I’m only internsted and only commenting. My position is a goaled schizophrenic. I have many questions, this is just like an memory that I know you could read, but I’m really writing to this to everyone.
Analyst discourse and master discourse are Semitic which fr means reading and writing, understand. Antisemitic, is hysteric, also university discourse. Ist Verschiebung. Im really sorry for my language, but they are just trippin.. it means what it means what it means!
You never feel pain, only pleasure will tech you schmerz will keep you dumb! It’s not about ectsasy, it’s being fake Freud… real… it’s said to be not the pic or word… it’s the feeling!
Zizek does but conjecture. Also his thought about Nation states being a relatively recent reality or idea is so ludicrous. The kernel of the nation state is tribal. How recent is that?
Nation states put a huge emphasis on a territory and the people who live there being parts of a political unit. This concept is entirely new. If you had a tribe and that tribe walked to the other side of the hill, the tribe would not turn into a new tribe. Furthermore, if a tribe attacked another tribe and kidnapped people from that other tribe for their own purposes, the victims would not be víctima of an international crime and could appeal to no authority and if they had children those children would not be considered dual members of two tribes. These concepts are very recent inventions.
Nation states by its nature is antagonistic to tribal and familiar relationship. With nation states your relations is abstract and undergirded by idealism about ethnicity, ideologies, etc that usually has little to do with your daily life and which makes your in-group distinct from other nations and peoples. Tribes does not have any of this. You can look at actual existing tribal communities today, like in India, where what binds them is not ideology but rather ritual magic which correlates directly to day to day life like how to pray for rain, etc.
This is not just a difference in technology. The Nation, the Race, the Class, the Ummah/community of believers etc, are fundamentally Modernist conceptions because you're ascribing metaphysical, unseen "glues" to discrete material things. This glue is what makes an American from say New Mexico feels a brotherhood with an American from Alaska despite the fact that they have almost nothing in common other than this unseen identity we call "nation" that is loosely related on material things cobbled together in a contradictory way. This identity would be alien to the tribal phratry.
Have you ever considered going over the Jordan Peele film Us? I feel like it has some pretty big ideas it's handling similar to what you normally cover. I dont know if the film was inspired by some filisophical works but maybe you know exactly what it's talking about.
I give you a tip, also to zizek, you go privately together, bowing that you’re transparent forever, together. And get to the point. Not discussing anymore.
Julian Imma hate on you cause I’m proud. But you ain’t gotta keep telling us how smart and accomplished you and your family are, but please keep posting videos and telling us smart and cool shit.
