Guide to Žižek: Demonic Innocence 

If you’d like to learn more about Žižek and continental philosophy in general, you can find my ebook and lectures on patreon: www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy

This is a very very difficult and advanced idea that I'm finding extremely interesting but difficult to grapple with. The analogy between paradise and innocence is extremely interesting because, by virtue of Paradise / Eden being essentially a religious concepts that does not present itself as a metaphor, it's relatively easy to understand why such a subjective, yet collective, concept, would be useful as a metaphor for the sublime, the truth, outside of the cave, etc. This is easy for me as an atheist to understand. On the other hand, the link between innocence and, say, political neutrality, is a bit more difficult for me because I've always considered the former to be a physical state of affairs. This lecture however, has encouraged me to think about it from a more of a linguistic and cultural perspective. One simply cannot conceive of "innocence" without first knowing about good and evil. Therefore, if good and evil are a subjective posteriori phenomenon, so must be innocence. One can also say that innocence is an Existentialist conceprt par excellence. Shopenheur also spoke about the difference between animals' bliss and human's extended misery in terms related to pain and joy especially. He says that humans experience of joy/pleasure is always limited by their sense of future -- which is also, of course, shared by animals, but to a much smaller extent, and that their pain is also magnified by their memory -- which is, again, shared by animals, but to a lower degree, given that the human's memory is also related to his "dread" and "anxiety", and the same applies to his pleasure. Edit: it's worth noting that Shopenheuer believed it was completely unexcusable to harm animals specifically because they wouldn't even understand why they're being harmed. It was a soft spot of his, like Niezteche (I was told he loved animals too). I will be definitely rewatching this and taking notes.

serious wisdom being conveyed in this lecture, thank you

Cool lecture. The Hamlet ’to be…’ monologue is not in the graveyard with Yorick’s skull (act 5) it is earlier (act 3) after he has an argument with Ophelia. Does the change in context affect the reading of the monologue?

How do you manage to put out so much content? 😭 need to know about your work process.

Greeting from Portugal!

Thank you, Julian! Very pleasant to hear you!

I was for the pleasure of it in library today, have read whole day about Stendhal. Fascinating and scary at the same time. His "love affair" with Madame Dembowski is tragic and deeply recognizable for me... Do not be born overly idealistic that is my advise ;) What a better way to end the day to watch some Zizek lectures ;)

Julian I absolutely love listening to you but it is often very difficult - the volume is low, the sound quality leaves a lot to be desired, and there's quite a lot of lagging. Have you considered maybe getting a new microphone? Maybe not livestreaming but recording beforehand? I think that could help loads.

Thank you so so much,

Greetings from Germany

I hope your books are ok

Thanks for the video! I just want to express some thoughts in response. I don't think it works at all to say "us humans, as opposed to animals, have consciousness of our own deaths, and this realization of your own finitude is the necessary precondition for freedom." We don't know if we're the only species that can reflect upon their own deaths, so it seems sloppy and irresponsible to me for thinkers to just make the unfounded assumption that it probably is the case, and then to build a whole system of thought on those unfounded assumptions. Would we say that if certain people with significant mental disabilities are unable to reflect upon death, that therefore they are not humans and cannot be free? That seems like a wild conclusion to jump to. Also, would we also say that, since animals (we are to assume blindly) don't reflect upon their deaths, that therefore they cannot be meaningfully be said to be free or unfree, so there is no meaningful difference between locking an animal up and abuse them versus letting them live in their natural habitats or take proper care of them? Historically, this is where a LOT of the "philosophical" arguments claiming that humans and animals are fundamentally in a different category go to; justifying animal mistreatment. I'm not saying there's nothing that makes humans unique among all other animals, but if we are to make such a conclusion, I would want to be well earned, and not lazily assumed because it's convenient for our current lifestyles or our own sense of importance in the universe. I think, all these arguments that we, or the world, once had this "innocence", "ignorance" and "bliss" - we, as people who are reasonably well versed in psychoanalysis, should instantly recognize this as a version of Lacan's "das Ding", this imagined "full" enjoyment we lost once we entered into the symbolic order, but in actually, we never had it to begin with; it's a total phantasm. Animals, babies, women, non-Westerners, aliens, pre-Historic peoples: NONE of them had or have some access to an "innocent bliss" or total enjoyment that we lost (whoever this "we" is, take your pick) because we entered into morality or because we can reflect on death. It never existed. We're just projecting this mindset on animals or "non-human" or "non-man" or "non-civilized" or... again, take your pick, the dichotomy changes over the ages, because people keep imagining that this original state of bliss is still out there somewhere, but ever further away.. it's kind of like the "God of the gaps" except it's an "Enjoyment of the gaps"; we don't know what or how animals are thinking, we can't access that truth, so we can project some kind of full enjoyment or bliss onto this gap.

I cant hear:(

Maybe Adam was as Nietzsche put it about Kant: Critique is a latent cretinism :)

Where does Kierkegaard talk about "the logical split between Socrates and Christ?" I thought Kierkegaard hailed Socrates as an ironic figure

I can't hear you Julian! The sound is weak. Headphones, yes!

any videos on zizek new book christian atheism?

watching from australia but I'm originally from brazil 🫶

We live infinitely from the perspective of nothing.. So much unnecessarily pain

16:53

Hello Julian: I am wondering if you post somewhere your interpretations on various social issues? I think many people would be highly interested to read your stances on various conflicts: Israel-Palestine, Ukraine-Russia, Sudan civil war, African coup belt, European / Indian farmers protesting farming policies, China's new article 23 policy, etc. informative video as always, TY

Kentucky

Adam: first emperor to wear no clothes?

Makes me think of comedian Matt Liebe in his brilliant tiktok parodies of liberal Zionists. He made several versions, in which he's talking in a "serious adult" voice and as the argument gets more absurd, he starts acting more and more infantile as his worldview collapses into a childlike anxiety about bad guys and faith in good guys. I've seen that impulse across reactionary types. It's GW Bush playing the clueless yokel; it's Donald Rumsfeld talking like a small town church lady while defending atrocities.

If nothing is truly nothing then life is inescapeable to where One becomes interested as to what should be muted or exalted in obtaining the best possible existence.. Cloning and state licensing for reproduction would allow us to maintain our hard obtained angles of perspective intergenerationaly.. no more pesky offspring

Now do it all again but you can't say precisely, strictly, as such, or in a sense. 🐫

Wtf did you do with my brain 🙂

Free Palpatine 🇦🇪

All this stupid theoretical mess stems from the presumption that human is obliged to be overall kind and fair. But we are not.