The end of good and evil | Slavoj Žižek, Rowan Williams, Maria Balaska, Richard Wrangham 

your intuiting, that's its true, because you feel it, but don't think that its true, because you don't really unterstand it on an abstract level

@@critical_thinking_is_welcome Well said!

i wish fr

It would be better than having a conversation with him. You wouldn't need an umbrella.

Would be reeeeally intimidating ngl🤣

He smokes and starts talking normal. 😅

That guy thinks so deeply even when sober, I cannot imagine that.

That kids kids kids kid grew up to be Hitler. Could be bad could be good

Bro will not give up on how he was wrong about Palestine, just back down and stop this foolish nonsense

@@sara-yk1sq ????

the exact same story is recorded in chinese folklore called 塞翁失马

what?

True shame :(

thats the point lol

Yea, what the F..orschung. Can't they just let us buy this video for like 20 cents instead of forcing us to sub for 5 pounds a month. Someone please pirate it, there is no evil according to Maria.

I don’t know if it works on this one but the last panel they had with Zizek you could literally just right click the video preview and download it

The Institute of Art and Ideas (for subscribers who pay)!

agreed, it is deceptive and clickbait

Yes, cutting him off in the middle of a point was barbaric. I will not be subscribing to this channel for sure.

Sometimes, the creator doesn't have a say on where to put the advertisement.

Yep, total clickbait. No interest in subbing to Iai as a result.They need to get a clue about how social works.

🙏🫂

It's not all a big mystery zone for Marxists. 1) Human beings are naturally more cooperative than competitive. For 95% of human history people lived without economic classes. 2) The ruling ideology is the ideology of the ruling class.

The Founding Fathers were Rich White Males - that would be his theory. They created the Constitution to preserve their power.

But u didnt choose to

@@robertmusilbronson3118 🤣 ❤

He ain't no Socrates, tho

​@thstroyur you're right he's diogenes.

@@thstroyur ruff ruff, growl, bark, bite...it's for your own good.

There's a link to the full debate/convo in the description

​@@sempressfiI think one has to pay for it though. This is hard for many people.

​@@totonow6955 Reserved for rich man only? Dontcha just Hate greed 😅

@@totonow6955 1. Click the top left link 2. After about 20 minutes refresh the page, and you can continue watching

I smell some UG here!

Sometimes I wonder if in fact understanding the question is not the answer to the question. That way the inquiry that brought about the question remains open. Kind regards Eamonn.

Isn't Zizek doing something similar? The idea that consciousness (human) is a mistake, that something went badly wrong when we develop self-consciousness. This is not unique to Nietzsche. It's a *Christian* idea, but it's definitely in Nietzsche. And it's in True Detective lol

He's definitely doing a Genealogy of Morals thing

Pretty sure they did

@@1otterclan the priest clearly did not

Hitler wouldn't have ever come to stage if humans learned to share and not only look after their own group. Hungry humans = dangerous.

Hey that sounds like the personality of the average postmodernist.

You've described power (in a way), and probably destruction But evil has a much simpler definition actually Power for the sake of it Or if it's too incomplete/confusing to you then it's Power for the sake of power That's it, everything extra is irrelevant (or part of the "game"), power for the sake of power is what defines evil, literally

hope = lack of knowlegde about the subject

@janklaas6885 what do you mean friend ?

@@richardgilmour1614 hope = lack of knowlegde about " you all find your path to the wisdom of truth "

@@janklaas6885 please enlighten me, I'd like to learn more

Also a concept of "fairness"?( when two pets, e.g.dogs are each given a treat, but one more than the other,the one who got less notices and protests) - or would that go under "jealousy"?

Fairness and generally, ethics have no real power or substantial meaning in a social structure. Everything comes down to interest. So, the right or wrong in a social structure comes when something benefits or not the majority of the population. But, as humans , "we" learned to manipulate these concepts. That's why you see everyone talking about ethics. You can say almost anything and present it using ethics. See the Nazis and Goebbels in particular and you will understand.

yutube deleted me. Lies. The emergence of evil and good is purely proto deterministic, from a metaphysical point of view. Transcending the mere emergent secondary characteristics of mere materialism. At the heart of Good and Evil lies the concept of causation. And at the point of metaphysical consideration is completely dissipated by the consideration of infinite regress. In other words turtles all the way down, making evolutionary considearation obsolete

"... who is usually dismissed as the vulgar materialist..."

That is an evil that is not necessarily bad then.. very strange.

If evil can be reduced to what causes suffering, then there are natural, abiotic forces that are evil, e.g., hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. And if we apply it to people, the field of medicine causes suffering as well in the hopes of a higher end goal. Growth is built off of overcoming suffering, such as when completing goals, lifting weights, etc.

I don't think that suffering itself has anything to do with it. I was merely pointing out that acts that cause suffering of others is what considered evil. Moreover, we can trace back to a point when good and evil don't make sense anymore. In the food chain of primitive organisms without social structures. When one crocodile accidentally tears a leg of another one during a chase for food, the on abused suffers but unlikely is going to keep the grudge for years for the offender. In objective reality of social interactions good also emerges as something that causes positive outcomes, success of the group as a counterweight of destructive behavior. Even love to your peers.

Morality is definetly subjective. As Zizek said, morals are different for each cultures and subcultures

​@@jarlbalgruufthegreater1758things that are wrong are still wrong. I am not an African woman, but female genital mutilation is still wrong.

Stfu...what an empty and pointless comment.

As we live in a material word and we need to survive (ultimately the judgment of life and death) power covers that for us. As spiritual /conscious / having a soul / having emotions desire intertwining those two as one in love we are focused and see and understand, there is no good and evil which are social constructs and there is no social in love, we experience oneness (connection as some may call it)

Not gonna happen man. I’m interested in your take here but I am firmly convinced that video games are a new media (with Hidetaka Miyazaki’s work being the highest form of art the medium has yet seen) and old men like Zizek will be unable to appreciate because they don’t play games. The next generation’s philosophers will fawn though

Seriously though, please make your case for Elden Ring being Zizekian. I am honestly intrigued

@@kevinbeck8836 In Elden Ring, we navigate a stagnant world where most of the effective illusion that structure life have faded away or been broken down altogether. Marika the Eternal, curses all of humanity to suffer under the same cycle for infinity, constantly doing battle with the passing of ages until there is nothing left but ash. A noble ambition becomes an unending, unbearable curse (very Zizekian). Like most great video games, it is a reflection of our own reflection on the world. It shows us the innate paradox of life, that we really cannot distinguish reality from illusion. "For our reality to make sense, it must always be supplanted by the virtual reality." Elden Ring does the exact opposite, where our experience in the real world overlays onto the game. Not only because the game world and characters are based on our own reality, but because the experience we have in the game is taken with us into the real world. That is what is meant by "a reflection on our own reflection of the world". Rather than running from ideology (the most ideological act possible), it presents a world where ideology is explicit. It is not only as ideological as our own world, it is almost more ideological. Tldr: Elden Ring is a game where the "effective dictatorship of illusion" (Debord) has been thrown into question. The world reduced to a stagnant cycle of the same, all because people tried, with good intentions, to create eternal life and cheat destiny. It is a game where "the future is already written into our fate, but we can change our fate. To open a path to a different future" (Zizek)

​@@kevinbeck8836Elden Ring is a study into many things, but mostly the relationship between the ideal and the material. A world where humanity is cursed to suffer under the same cycle for infinity, constantly doing battle with the passing of ages until (usually) there is nothing left but ash from which a new world will arise. A noble ambition for life and order becomes an unending, often unbearable curse. It is a reflection of our own reflection on the world. It shows us the innate paradoxes of life, that we really cannot distinguish reality from illusion/virtual reality. "For our reality to make sense, it must always be supplanted by the virtual reality." In Zizek's common Pokémon Go example, the virtual reality overlays reality in a totally and you question now which is the real and which is the virtual; a pure form of ideology (see Zizek on Pokémon Go) Juxtaposed to this, Elden Ring does the opposite like most; but with a twist where our experience in the reality overlays onto the virtual one, not only because the world and characters are based on our own reality, but because the experience we have in the game is taken with us into the real world. That is what I meant earlier by "a reflection on our own reflection of the world" (very Nietzschean/Hegelian) The world of Elden Ring is totally, completely ideological. Great runes, demigods, the strength of one's will, fate written in the stars, arcane powers of life, fleeting bounty, trying so hard but so foolishly to prolong things which are meant to die. It is a world of good intentions going horribly wrong. Rather than running from ideology, it presents a world where ideology is explicit. It is not only as ideological as our own world, it is almost more ideological. Just as the near-hollowed subjects of an abandoned world, we, who will die over and over and over again for the sake of some accursed, ever-fleeting will, possess the strength to persevere in the face of such a fate. Because we are the ones who die for capitalism, for grace, for reason, for absurdity, for will, and even for nothing. Perhaps a blessing is a curse. And a curse, a blessing. Who is to say. The ones who die choose how they meet their end. Death is revolutionary. That is why Elden Ring is one of few examples of great art in our contemporary world that successfully does battle with the ideology of today; though it neither defeats or is defeated by it. It spurs the cycle, contributes something to the world, though it doesn't make claim to anything

​@@kevinbeck8836Elden Ring is a study into many things, but mostly the relationship between the ideal and the material. A world where humanity is cursed to suffer under the same cycle for infinity, constantly doing battle with the passing of ages until (usually) there is nothing left but ash from which a new world will arise. A noble ambition for life and order becomes an unending, often unbearable curse. It is a reflection of our own reflection on the world. It shows us the innate paradoxes of life, that we really cannot distinguish reality from illusion/virtual reality. "For our reality to make sense, it must always be supplanted by the virtual reality." In Zizek's common Pokémon Go example, the virtual reality overlays reality in a totally and you question now which is the real and which is the virtual; a pure form of ideology (see Zizek on Pokémon Go) Juxtaposed to this, Elden Ring does the opposite like most; but with a twist where our experience in the reality overlays onto the virtual one, not only because the world and characters are based on our own reality, but because the experience we have in the game is taken with us into the real world. That is what I meant earlier by "a reflection on our own reflection of the world" (very Nietzschean/Hegelian) The world of Elden Ring is totally, completely ideological. Great runes, demigods, the strength of one's will, fate written in the stars, arcane powers of life, fleeting bounty, trying so hard but so foolishly to prolong things which are meant to die. It is a world of good intentions going horribly wrong. Rather than running from ideology, it presents a world where ideology is explicit. It is not only as ideological as our own world, it is almost more ideological. Just as the near-hollowed subjects of an abandoned world, we, who will die over and over and over again for the sake of some accursed, ever-fleeting will, possess the strength to persevere in the face of such a fate. Because we are the ones who die for capitalism, for grace, for reason, for absurdity, for will, and even for nothing. Perhaps a blessing is a curse. And a curse, a blessing. Who is to say. The ones who die choose how they meet their end. Death is revolutionary. That is why Elden Ring is one of few examples of great art in our contemporary world that successfully does battle with the ideology of today; though it neither defeats or is defeated by it. It spurs the cycle, contributes something to the world, though it doesn't make claim to anything

Come on…

Ok Heidegger

The foundation of Persian civilization is "Think Good, Say Good and Do Good", all is doing something to be Good. @@chilledtorsion

I hear that a lot. It doesn't strike me as accurate. Because under it, one could label indifference or apathy as evil, but this obviously doesn't do justice to more robust examples we typically use the word "evil" to describe, such as serial killers, genocide, etc.

Top left link worked for me

I think people are both evil and good. As Jung said: “No tree can grow to Heaven unless it’s roots reach down to Hell.”

if you change an idea, it's no longer the same. what we refer to as good and evil TODAY is what we are talking about here.

@@opensocietyenjoyer Yes but changing of ''ideas'' is really a illusion. Don't get me wrong there is nothing bad about illusion, to a certain degree illusions construct our reality therefore ''ideas''. And it really doesn't matter what background it comes from and/or historical period. Does it come from Islam, Christianity. Buddhism. Does it come from Stone age, Bronze age, Medieval. Modern age etc. The deviation of ''ideas'' across cultures and time periods are really minor, and boil down to really small details more than big differences, in the grand scheme of things. I don't buy the theory that ''ideas'' constitute what's good and evil. For example: Murdering and raping is inherently evil always has been. No matter what ''ideas'' a culture has. Never will you see a person with a sane brain claiming that going around raping and murdering is a virtue therefore ''good''. No matter the culture, religion or time period. On the other hand sharing, giving emotions and/or goods is inherently good. Again no matter the culture,time period or religion. We really have two options on the table here. Either there is good and evil, and people are both, because you can't have negative without positive.For example: We can see that in that the fabric of the universe. For example: Look at mathematics, the language of the universe. You can't have a plus without a minus, you can't divide without multiplying etc. The other option is that everything is neutral, and nothing really matters which is a pretty nihilistic view and a dangerous one. And if that is the case( that nothing really matters) then there is no difference between animals and humans. And if we take that root, that nothing really matters, then we get lunatics running the asylum. People like Hitler, Mao, Stalin etc.

@@opensocietyenjoyer Yes but changing of ''ideas'' is really a illusion. Don't get me wrong there is nothing bad about illusion, to a certain degree illusions construct our reality therefore ''ideas''. And it really doesn't matter what background it comes from and/or historical period. Does it come from Islam, Christianity. Buddhism. Does it come from Stone age, Bronze age, Medieval. Modern age etc. The deviation of ''ideas'' across cultures and time periods are really minor, and boil down to really small details more than big differences, in the grand scheme of things. I don't buy the theory that ''ideas'' constitute what's good and evil. For example: Murdering and raping is inherently evil always has been. No matter what ''ideas'' a culture has. Never will you see a person with a sane brain claiming that going around raping and murdering is a virtue therefore ''good''. No matter the culture, religion or time period. On the other hand sharing, giving emotions and/or goods is inherently good. Again no matter the culture,time period or religion. We really have two options on the table here. Either there is good and evil, and people are both, because you can't have negative without positive.For example: We can see that in that the fabric of the universe. Look at mathematics, the language of the universe. You can't have a plus without a minus, you can't divide without multiplying etc. The other option is that everything is neutral, and nothing really matters which is a pretty nihilistic view and a dangerous one. And if that is the case( that nothing really matters) then there is no difference between animals and humans. And if we take that root, that nothing really matters, then we get lunatics running the asylum. People like Hitler, Mao, Stalin etc.

​@@opensocietyenjoyer This perfectly crystalized idea - exists nowhere, not even in you. Relational and in flux.

Dr. Myriam Francois

I choose to be evil

@@TKDHH8841 Choices have consequences...

@@jusoneofdemgods I agree

People who believe they act good, are in fact evil, while people who choose to be evil are confused @@jusoneofdemgods

I can't agree that humans are without instinct. Most of the people I interact with every day act purely out of instinct and do not objectively reflect on their thoughts and actions.

When has there ever been a human culture that was really, truly fair? Is fairness just a myth we teach our children? Is it a lofty goal that is defeated by instinctive behavior?

What is the problem?

Você quer dizer que a sobrevivência é a forma mais elevada de atenção por ser a primeira a defender a fragilidade da vida? E daí, em consequência, que ela é o bem e o mal sua ameaça? Em termos individuais parece que sim, mas em coletivos não porque aí teríamos que nos defender dos egoísmos. Nestes então teria de ser o controle de todos e cada um o bem. Isso parece que é o que Zizek descobre em Hegel afirmando que a origem do bem é o mal ou a loucura original ou a queda, nos termos da Bíblia? Talvez que a distinção entre o indivíduo e o social, inevitável, se despercebida, gere confusão sobre o bem e o mal.

Marxist- nietzschean "rational human navigation", whatever you meant by that, which is much worse than "divine"'s.

@@kavorka8855 ok