Can I ask all of you lovely philosophers, young and old, white and non white, to be respectful and listen with a critical mind to the ideas of others in Olly's future video on white supremacy? I love this comment section. I love the open and honest discussions we have under PT's videos. Let's try to keep that up, eh? Afterall, we are addressing a social problem that is in everyone's interest to learn about and discuss. Let's be civil when the video comes up and not have a petty flame war over it.
Hopefully Olly won't just use Sophistry to spew propaganda, and will instead look at scientific research and data for his points. Not ideological conjecture, and opinion.
Olly not liking Zizek is perhaps the first huge difference I've noticed in our tastes and opinions. Though I haven't actually read Violence in particular yet. Still, I find most accusations of 'casual racism' against him tend to, in my opinion, be misreading him. He certainly lacks the PC sensibilities of much of the contemporary orthodox left, and he'll use old racist jokes to make a point, etc -- but read and listen to him enough and it's incredibly apparent that he himself doesn't condone (and indeed, very much criticizes) racism, and that includes systemic institutional racism as well. His use of what appears 'casually racist' tends to serve a purpose -- generally an uncensored study of ideology and human psychology. He does psychoanalysis even more than philosophy, so it's important to read him in that context. It's not as if he's Milo Yiannopolous and is merely being provocative with the specific intention to offend.
Olly did not condemn Zizek because he's casually racist, it's because his writings require quite a bit of experience to understand. And that not interpreting him correctly could lead people to really bad directions. Ex: Mr.PunchyFace praising Zizek as the greatest philosopher of our time. The nuance is lost to many people who aren't used to his style.
Zarko Cekovski You may be right, and I can definitely get behind that. Perhaps I'm actually the one reading Olly wrong here. Still, I also disagree with his dismissal based on the pretense that similar works can be found elsewhere that are more concise. That itself is true -- if you read Zizek expecting the construction of a clear philosophy you're going to be disappointed. But I personally find his melding of psychoanalysis with politics and philosophy, coupled with constsnt deconstruction and subversion of existing philosophies, provides a lot of thought provoking perspective I never considered before. Guess that still ties into the whole 'probably not the best choice for novices without context', but I feel as if Olly should've just said such more clearly himself if rather than give it a more generalized 'do not suggest.'
No you were correct taonovan, olly openly says that there are "more than a few instances of casual racism". Its a line ive heard from several young arrogant kids whose worthless philosophy masters degrees have given a slight ego to. While i like this channel, I wish he would drop the value judgements, it doesn't add anything and does him a huge disservice.
Its sad how sophomoric this channel is while still having a few choice gems. Casual racism in zizek? Im sorry good sir but it may be in fact you who does not understand his work. Furthermore what degrees are you running around with to make such vast claims about the value of a piece compared to other scholarship? You sir should humble yourself a bit, recommend what you enjoy, reason it appropriately, and don't recommend what you don't enjoy, simple as that.
P Sid i think he did an episode about 'waiting for godot' a play that is heavily influenced by Existentialism and eg Camu's philosophy about the Absurd. he also mentioned it:)
I'd really like to know more about that criticism of Zizek. For me he always has been provocative and he doesn't hide it and he's not a fan of liberalism I get that but... I don't see why so many people sneer at him outside of ad hominem.
Because he's just left and radical enough to interest people who are sick of liberalism but he doesn't do anything to subvert the system. Most of what he does is rationalize what is already happening and make some decent jokes. To those to the left of Zizek this is really frustrating.
I don't see what is the problem with rationalising what is happening and explaining it, left-wing sociologists do that as well and they aren't the spearhead of change and for one good reason. They are class intellectuals they can only provide tools to explain things and educate the people, but they cannot create manuals on how to change things.
Don't let Ollie's critique of Zizek stop you from reading Violence, I personally enjoyed Violence and other pieces by Zizek. His books can be hard to sift through though so they're normally "the cherry on top" for a topic rather than an introduction.
Hey Olly, you may not have been aware, but a large body of black feminist literature had documented the phenomena of epistemic injustice before and in more detail than Fricker's "Epistemic Injustice". Funnily enough, her book is an instance of epistemic injustice (not by any fault of Fricker's doing), since the concept she explores was only widely accepted as consequential and valid to consider when she, a white person, wrote about it.
I would have appreciated it if you would have been more detailed in your critique of Zizek's book. Perhaps a couple of examples or so. Or if you are reading this comment, maybe you can talk a bit about what you disliked and why. I'm just asking out of curiosity. .)
Thanks all the fantastic books, and thanks especially for engaging with Zizek's "Violence" in such a nuanced and critical way, and for recommending such fantastic alternatives! That particular book has been creeping toward a somewhat uncritical canonicity in the discussion around social violence, and it's refreshing to hear it discussed within the context of other, more thoughtful works.
I noticed that Olly was careful to criticize the content of the book, not the author's character. To me, Zizek seems like a fun and jolly person, but a lot of his conclusions about race, refugees, etc are flawed, and his penchant for being controversial to get.a point across can make it hard to take his other claims seriously.
i think a lot of his points about race and refugees, LGBTQ etc are largely misunderstood. like how a lot of people took his supposed "endorsement" of donald trump at face value.
Nice little bit of comical acting during the book list scrolling. Showcasing our acting skills, are we? ;) Good job! Thanks again for taking your time to set up this video.
What about Foucault? you said that you were going to make 2-3 video right after the creativety series. Not like i have a grudge, love the show, I was just really looking forward to Foucault form, when you mentioned it in a previous video. Keep up the good work
Yup, don't worry, Foucault is coming soon. The videos are edited and uploaded so it's definitely gonna happen: I just felt the white supremacy one was a bit more topical and I wanna get it out next week
I subscribe to TGC+. The pricing starts at 19.99/month. Yearly it's 179.99 (14.99/month). I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to learn. It's a dirt cheap way to have access to Professors who are top-notch. Most people have to pay tens of thousands a year to get that sort of teaching.
Your summary of "Social Death" reminded me of a book I'm reading right now applying the work of Rene Girard, who apparently posits a hypothesis of original societal formation based on fundamental mimetic desire, which is said to account for the social prevalence of ritual and mythic transference, of the social impulse toward scapegoating, differentiation, exclusion and ultimately victimization. I'm not that far into this particular book, but I'm curious if Olly (or anyone here) has heard of Girard. The idea of mimetic desire/rivalry as the basis of social formation is interesting, at the very least.
On the topic of sending research material, besides going through all of these videos, how do we know what you've read or received? Like, Have you read Loraine Code's "Epistemic Responsibility" or "What Can She Know?" Maybe Gilles Deleuze isn't on your wishlist, and we don't know if you've read any of his work. Some John Dewey? Jean Grimshaw? Is there a way to know this or suggest books or authors that you may not have heard of?
Nkanyiso Innocent Khwane there's a whole tradition of utopian literature that was written for a philosophical point. Utopua, Platos's republic, 1984, etc ect. would probably be a great resource for that!
Nkanyiso Innocent Khwane you could even take something less than satisfying and deconstruct it. like bioshock is basically a long rant against Randian Objectivism.
Depends on the kind of world you want to build and whether you want to affirm the author or not. Personally I think Focualt's ideas could lend well to dystopian fiction. The republic was recommended but personally I think that it's been analyzed to death although it is a personal favorite
Can I send you books not included in your wishlist? If so, how do I do that? I would like to send you some books about politics and sociology in Latin America and, specifically Brazil.
I'm afraid that would involve giving out my address on the internet, which I don't do. And I don't have a PO box, sadly. Maybe I should look into one...
I don't actually see what's wrong with Žižek. He's very provocative and sometimes some of the things that he says trigger my "that's racist!" impulse. But after thinking about what he's actually trying to say, I usually see that impulse as wrongheaded. IDK though, you've probably thought about this much harder than I have. Can you maybe give an example of him being casually racist or contradicting himself?
Ditto. Žižek, with good reason, despises diffusion into identity politicking and fear of saying the wrong thing, and negates this by being (what's now considered) provocative. I think, especially in view of the assaults on free speech on British campuses, pushing the letter in both the right and wrong and irreverent directions matters.
Not going to lie, when you mentioned the fugu fish I immediately thought of the Simpsons episode. The only work I ever seen (I haven't read any of his stuff) by Zizek was the documentary "A Perverts Guide to Film." Which was alright, but he was trying to do too many things in that doc. Also the title for the doc I always thought was a bit creepy.
Hey Ollie ! Could you maybe edit in a full screen good quality picture of each book as you mention it so that we can screenshot it because I'll often do so to remind my self to buy them at a later date. just a constructive criticism. keep up the good work x
ahhh, alas poor Zizek... I knew him well, Horatio. jk, but from what I hear he's moved substantially to the right over time, which is sad [to me, at least] a pity I dont have money [or time, at the moment] I'd love to subscribe to Great Courses! I love a good lecture series.
Dear Olly, Žižek critique? I'm very interested to hear your point of view. You brought it on yourself, mate(racist, really?). Also, recently finished Violence(he needs to make "I digress" his catch phrase) and I will be giving it a second run once I go through Trouble in Paradise. Great videos btw. Eagerly awaitng your next video, : )
Subscribed :) I love reading. Could you post a review/summary of Future of Online News Media: For Bloggers, Startups and Media Organizations ? It'll be great help. Thanks.
I can't remember the racist parts of Violence, it would have been nice to have an example. For instance, was it a racist joke? If it was, then of course.. it's Zizek, that's the point. But if it's a doubting of the ability of a someone of a certain ethnic background to be able to do something because of their background, then sure. That's cause for alarm. I don't remember the latter in there though.
Though I like and subscribe to your channel your treatment of Zizek was a bit patronizing to your audience and lacking in any real critique. It is a book that is critical of neo-liberal capitalism and neo-liberal culture and when I read it nine years ago it was part of a wider debate on the topic. Warning people it is toxic and then giving them a reading list to go to is pretentious as T S Eliot's notes for the Waste Land that demands the reader tackle the whole of western literature and myth before they can approach an understanding of the poem. I have seen your tweets but can not link them to chapters. Just set out your critique and let us look at the issues you have with this work
I find Zizek quite intolerable tbh. I think he largely just talks a lot of utter bollocks with an unearned confidence. I am SO pleased it wasn't just me. lol
I have a recommendation! Everyone check out "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by the wonderful philosopher Hannah Arendt. It has gained a lot of relevance in the past couple months with the rise of Trump-Oh he brought it up. Still worth a read!
I don't appreciate you being dismissive and uncharitable towards Žižek. Like him or not, he's an important philosopher, and I don't think it's acceptable to dismiss him instead of engaging with and criticizing the material.
You're right, 'dismissive' isn't accurate, my apologies. There just wasn't as much engagement (in this video) as I expected there to be. Would you mind directing me to those other criticisms? I don't know where to find them. Thanks for replying and for making philosophy accessible to more people through RU-vid
Zarko, while I appreciate your taking part in the discussion, please consider posting in a more matter-of-fact fashion; you are clearly very engaged and that's good, but perhaps a less personal approach to philosophy would benefit us here. Please also reflect on whether your nationality really gives you any advantage as far as ability to judge Zizek's (or anyone else's) philosophical ideas is concerned. Cheers!
It seems to me that you have a strong bias againstZizek which you would do well with trying to shake off. I am no stranger to emotionally responding to philosophical arguments myself, so please consider this friendly advice: read more of his work, and listen to his talks, but this time try to take-on a more charitable attitude. Thinking critically is crucial for reading philosophy, but you should also exercise an attitude of distrust towards your own skepticism, especially in cases like this, as you might find that yours is an attitude shared by a majority of leftist thinkers around today and is quite likely the result of the 'atmosphere' created around Zizek.
First of your videos I had to give the thumbs down. Very disappointed in your review of Zizek's book. And that's being charitable, really. It's better characterized as a flippant dismissal of the author. I expect WAY MORE rigor from you.
