Slavoj Žižek by Marcus Pound 

Marcus Pound is very listenable, with great clarity as a teacher, and the charisma and humour to engagingly explore philosophical ideas. Thanks St. Johns College, Nottingham, for this and other lectures, so professionally delivered.

This is really great. Only begun to dive into the realm of philosophy (introduced to me by Zizek) and this video really helped me understand him better.

Thank you for such a clear introduction to Zizek!

Absolutely fascinating, thank you

Really awesome video, I finally understand what zizek was talking about with Christianity! Thanks!

This is fantastic. Thanks.

That was a solid introduction to Zizek, very well done; clear, concise, and to the point.

A film set in a post-capitalist society: Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Marcus just buy himself a first class ticket for gulag! ...:) he was so nice boy! :D

Wish I'd found these videos a long time ago. Really great summaries with additional independent analysis.

Thank you for the insightful lecture.

Wow! Your diction is SO PALATABLE!! I LOVE IT! Thanks

Thanks for making and posting the video

This is remarkably clear.

Fantastic explanation!

this is great! thanks very much

now I wont be able to watch more youtube until im done with this channel content, thank you!

Wow this was really insightful and gave me a somewhat new perspective on christianity and what the Jesus myth symbolizes. Even though i still doubt that the meaning that was unraveled here, was the original way the authors wanted that myth to be understood, but that doesn't change the fact that this was a very interesting video.

The universe is not meaningless, the universe is infinitely meaningful. I'm absolutely not saying there is one Grand Plan for Humanity, just the opposite. The fact that one can derive meaning for one's life exemplifies the fact that there must be an "a priori" level of meaning from which it's derived. Secularism derives this meaning to be that THIS LIFE is precious and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness with the least expense to others should be our goal. Consumerism is its antithesis.

I keep meaning to read Pound's book on Zizek...

Linguist here. That effect of a term as a locus of ideology, such as in the boy named Sue, has everything to do with the sociological aspects of language, rather than inherent properties of linguistic representation itself. This is because the sign is arbitrary (cf Saussure). I don't think Pound denied this but I just wanted to make it more clear.

Lacorn? Whose that?

as someone once said : "philosophy is a team sport"

Were can I find Marcus Pound on the internet please? This guy is so interesting and humble .

I love that he disappears at the very end.

wow.... will observe.....love the moving of christ's death to modern tender.... very good.,

4:45 Ari Gold - Entourage

Why did Lacan jump up and stroke his patient's cheek at that moment? I missed the point that was being made there. Can anyone fill that in (it's toward the end of the video)?

Are we usually very critical about what philosophers tell us, to a point where we expand on their idea to see how practical they really are or do we accept ideas depending on how well they align to our personal beliefs?

absorbing.

A short introductory talk of Slavoj Zizek. This is quite good, quite lucid, as a condensation of Zizek's work, although I'm not sure how I like this format of a guy talking before a changing backdrop of image in this lecture series.

Life has no meaning - its up to us to give it meaning. I think Sartre said something to that effect.

Finally a lame suppostation of the meaning of life. I love this guy so much I hope that I can meet him in my own personal hell.

A movie based on a post-scarcity post-capitalist society would actually be 'The Last Mimzy' minus the magical elements.

You could never be seven years too late

I want the rest of this for free , please

sorry, why do we need to go thro xty [ and the incarnation] in order to have an incomplete [half baked] materiality? 1 fully baked materiality to go please. and nature [physics] may never be be fully explicable David Rohm

However the Boy named Sue story is written by another human and has another meaning on top of it all...(cracked.c5m, i think)

where is the rest?

I accept the absurdity of creating meaning where there is fundamentally none. Otherwise, what else is there for man?

Where does Hegel talk about "the dark night of the soul"? Don't remember that outside of St John the Cross. Maybe he meant "the highway of despair"? But that is something entirely different. The real question, maybe, is why listen to anything on Continental Philosophy from England?

Love is selfish... ( Zizek)

never heard of Stark Trek eh? :P

And what's stopping transhumanism from creating a trinity via quantum computer? What would Islam think of that? If anything that would disprove, it would be any sense of beyond.

Far more interesting is the relationship between atheism and capitalism.

Dawkins explicitly does not replace God with another form of intelligence

I think we can get to the bottom of this but we would need to find the true axioms of the world.

a science documentary about the cosmos "presupposes at an implicit level a certain kind of intelligence to how things are generating and developing"? ....what?

10:17- But don't you get superstition with Christianity as well- what about practices such as exorcism?

all this talk of getting rid of the master-signifier and thinking post-metaphysically makes Zizek look like a post-structuralist, or even a deconstructionist. but zizek himself, when he uses those two terms, always makes fun of deconstructionists and post-structuralists.

Mr. Pound, outstanding! Thx! IMHO, the only thing you missed is his recent effort to tie in quantum mechanics into the Hegelian dialectic interpretation of reality/emancipatory potential. RU-vid: "Slavoj Zizek "On Jacques Lacan" (Full Lecture)" Starting at 1h 41m 40s Recall his Plato to NATO joke - Plato (really Democritus) suspected the Copenhagen Interpretation, only now we are proving it (e.g., Higgs). Zizek (I think) believes this helps solve the materialist-metaphysical paradox.

The suggestion that science's "fixation with nature" represents a replacement for god is pretty weak when presented right next to the parent-gods of psychoanalysis. Like, the guy literally goes from leaning in and snearing during his science impression, then lays back and starts acting all serious espouting well of course what's happening in psychoanalysis, it's not like that, we just have, like, "master signifiers", like the mother, and the father. Also using Dawkins near the phrase "presupposes at an implicit level a certain type of intelligence" is just plain weird given he wrote a book whose subtitle is "Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design", which argues precisely against presupposing an intelligent Universe.

Star Trek. You're welcome.

And what is that Post Metaphysical god you're talking about?....way to say nothing...like Zizek....or did I missed it? Scratches head.

if you're baffled by the association of religion and capitalism, read Max Webers "Der Geist des Kapitalismus" (the spirit of capitalism), or one of Marx's critiques of religion. christianity is actually not THAT prominent in Zizek's work, people always mention it because they're so baffled by a postmodern marxist-materialist's admiration of Jesus Christ, I guess. looking at people's favorite color sounds like something zizek might have done xD no, but seriously: check out his work.

lakorn

Why does he pronaunce s as š sometimes thats worse for me than listening to žižeks english.

This conversation about imagining how would be a Hollywood movie in a post-capitalist society is the source of wishful thinking or mental onanism that does not generate any insight or lead to anywhere. Zizek seems to delight himself with inconsequential idle ideas.

"Its very interesting watching science programs about the nature of the evolution of stars(and things) how often it presupposes at an implicit level a certain kind of intelligence to how things are generating and developing. This for Zizek is too metaphysical." It is stuff like this that makes me distrustful and suspicious of him as well as other philosophers in his tradition. I dont think that Zizek is the worst culprit by a longshot, and I need to read much more before I can be sure, but for now I cant tell whether they really have an understanding of the world that I dont have, or whether they are deliberately making things less clear in order to peddle bullshit. On the one hand, Zizek asserts an interpretation of Christianity which gives it a surprising amount of interest and relevance. However, is this the sole correct interpretation which would necessarily come to with sufficient study and consideration? Unlikely. Christianity is always changing and being reinvented as it is adopted by new people, as well as absorbing new elements. It has been many things in its time, and this is just one more way of reframing it. On the other hand the science program example could be interpreted as reading something into the dialectic of science which may not be there at all, in order to critique in and supersede it(it sometimes seems as though scientists and philosophers are engaged in a battle over precedence with regards to truth, which is really a battle for power. A battle which the scientists are mostly not aware of but the philosophers probably are). Its not that things are generated or developed *by* an intelligence, but that things are generated and develop *in* an intelligible fashion. This enhances the awe and sense of wonder that someone like an astrophysicist might feel in contemplation of the universe. The ultimate source of this awe and wonder is no doubt the same corner of the human mind that gives rise to the religious impulse. However, in the modern example man beholds the universe and is free to feel wonder(if he is able) without the positing the existence of a supersensible third element *that he will be at risk of being mistaken about*. This last aspect is key. Because one simply cannot dispense with using abstract concepts and layers of analogy to understand a material universe. Hence it it likely that one will always stray into metaphysics. Thus the philosopher who tries to create a clear division between materialism and metaphysics(without having their own acknowledged metaphysical system) and then excise metaphysics entirely like an exorcist trying to banish a spirit from a victim of possession may be at risk of being ridiculous. At the least, it can be said that there is nothing in the example of the scientist extolling the majesty and intelligibility of the universe that is not a part of human nature and built upon by human knowledge. But some in Zizeks tradition would probably claim that there is no such thing as human nature and question the validity of knowledge. They would say things about language and construction and ideology, arguing in a way which seems to me perversely very metaphysical and ideological.

M. Night Shyamalan's, The Village, is about a post-capitalist society.

The pop atheist's just replace God with science and nature. And approach it with the infatuation of a school age crush.

It's wrong that we find it easier to make an apocalyptic movie than a post-apocalyptic one. There are tons of both and no reason why the one should be easier than the other, other than by share chance of circumstances.

Capitalism strikes me as a process of evolution above all else, not something derived from religion. Natural selection of businesses. So to compare them I would necessitate empirical evidence they require each other. There maybe some very 'nice' patterns that come from them both, some correlation, but capitalism strikes me as strictly evolutionary. Apologies, I don't have time to read essays or books, was simply checking if there was a crude argument for it.

"Can you imagine a film set in a post-capitalist society?" Of course. "Mad Max." "We find it easier to imagine the end of the world." Which is a post-capitalist society.

It was misleading

Can some give me a strong clear non-technical reason as to why Christianity and Capitalism are not independent from one and other? ...Does it not strike a rational person as ludicrously warped to tackle capitalism through Christianity.

LAKORN!

You look and talk like a Mark. So youre nearly there.

Christianity is dying in the western world. There have been papers showing religion does not survive in democratic countries. I'm just baffled by the association of religion and Capitalism, I'd put it on par with looking at peoples favourite colour to understand capitalism. Religion has been distributed globally over many economies and to say religion and economic theory go hand in hand maybe has the tiniest reasoning behind it but I cannot see it as being the main method of tackling capitalism.

Star Trek doesn't depict any kind of society. It is not even set on Earth.

Christ came to puncture every human endeavor, including Capitalism.

Eclectic, muddled, semi-insightful nonsense. Philosophy has degenerated into cleverness and novelty. - Chomsky on Lacan is pretty hilarious.

Stalinist philosopher.