So what did you retards think of this?

So what did you retards think of this?

youtube.com/watch?v=t8f41HqGbnA

0:10
>she mimics his speech impediment

*sniff*

I've learnt nothing but it was very entertaining. Self does call him out on his bullshit and doesn't let him stray too far from topic.

>medieval people didn't really believe god
>they just pretended they did to conform
>luther made us think we actually believe god

That was a half-point, yeah. He made it better in other lectures when he does put it that now you can really believe because you don't have the social obligation to do so, in much the same way you can make the argument that you can only be good if you don't fear punish if you aren't.

Most medieval people never even met someone of a different religion and were illiterate. Of course he's a Marxist so he'll say it's about coercion and power.

Enjoying this but Self has an irritating way of talking over Zizek constantly. He's somewhere betwixt presenter and interviewee. Also, keeps making jokes that obviously Zizek doesn't get and obviously has no intention of caring.

Oh, and who the hell reads Zizek as prescriptive?

That was a really interesting conversation, thanks for posting OP

Zizek is doing so much good for the revival of Hegel. Praise him for that.

the idea that protestantism changed christianity from a collective social obligation mediated by a priesthood into an individual relationship with a deity is not exactly new or controversial.

Not really, only thing it did was to cut out the hierarchy. Protestants were just as wary of non-Christians.

More than that, their religion (rather the surface details of it) are no different to an implicit component of culture or language. It's taken as natural and standard. It's not a conscious belief of something (certainly not a pretense of belief), it's literally no different to understanding the meaning of "food" or "mother". It's not a belief or learnt thing, it's a given of existence.

Questioning it would be like questioning whether or not you should drink water or light a fire when your home is cold.

not that user but still the implications of this are substantial and interesting to think about

vague, dreamy and half-baked thoughts follow

i'm vexed and bewildered by capitalism also. i agree with weber's thesis, that the protestant work ethic is what gives rise to the spirit of capitalism. centuries later, here we are, having become trapped in a gigantic happiness-producing machine that now seems to run itself autonomously, basically fueled as Z says by fictions, desires, and fantasies.

the inner mystic wingnut in me is often seduced for this reason by nondual forms of thought as a way of living with capitalism.

just some rambling tho

I think she was trying to do a poor Slovene accent.

Oh shit my two favourite public speakers! Thanks OP

Why? He's reviving the biggest hack in philosophy.

removing priestly mediation is precisely the point. early christianity has endless saints and martyrs but receiving direct communication from the divine is attributed to only a tiny subset (paul, augustine, maybe a couple others). everyone else touches god only via the sacraments, which are community affairs officiated by a priest. then protestantism happens and now the dominant christian narrative is one of private divine visitation: jesus is in your heart, he speaks to you, he came to you when you were at the nadir of your life and rescued you, remade you into a new person. clearly a massive change in religious though has taken place because the idea that god comes down to earth to help every random drunkard turn his life around sure as hell wasn't present in the middle ages.

would you say that in postmodernity/late capital the role of christian saints has been taken over by marxist intellectuals?

sorry if this seems like a dumb question

marxist intellectuals don't exist though.

>. clearly a massive change in religious though has taken place because the idea that god comes down to earth to help every random drunkard turn his life around sure as hell wasn't present in the middle ages.

Well yeah, they had predestination and John Calvin. They just believed they were alotted their place so it didn't matter.

>Reviving Hegel by purposely misreading Hegel so hard even his hand-picked translator pointed out he's talking shit

oh come on. there's plenty.

zizek and badiou are two examples, and they're both still living. baudrillard was a marxist for a while. nick land isn't really a marxist but without capital there's no accelerationism and so on. lots of others. there were shit-tons of marxist intellectuals, it's just that most of them are dead now

I'm not on anybody's side in this argument, but I'm surprised you'd use Badiou as a example, In my opinion his credentials should've been revoked when single handily led Socialism in France off a cliff and started writing Pop-pamphlets.

i wouldn't call myself a marxist either, so i can't pass judgment on this, i have no credentials-granting powers, I've just read enough Badiou to know that he loves him some Mao and still identifies as a communist.

i'm also too stupid to understand the math in B&E so i mostly just read the non-mathy stuff: Ethics and so on

the christian saint was also a part of this mediated dialogue with the distant divine. once in heaven, the saint had god's ear and when you had some specific trouble you could pray to god via the relevant saint's mediation.

the late capitalist version of this would be a tv "expert" that tells you why the economy is in the shitter and what to eat to beat cancer. these scary forces beyond your control can be tamed by filtering them via the reassuring presence of a talking head with a degree.

Lol what?

christianity seems so much better

I swear people say this about any interpretation of Hegel. I've never seen someone say that Hegel got interpreted right. It just seems such a meme.

Or, more likely, because modern philosophy is a bunch of far-left wingers attempting misconstrue their favourite right-wing philosophers into a hideous monstrosity.

But even then said far-left philosophers have a limit, usually around the "Nietzschean Socialism" mark.

i agree with this post

what's your interpretation of deleuze, was he right or left. or neither?

Will Self is nailing it when asking where the "revolutionaries" will meet. If he dives into Veeky Forums he may see some of the posters here with the ideal hes talking about (while wading through the /pol/ refugees), and that we will all never meet.


fuck, its all very cynical innit?

I'm convinced Deleuze was a informant, If not a outright saboteur. He also manipulated and reacted to Badiou like a fiddle, who continues to embarrass himself even to this day.

Probably a Left-Gaullist.

So is this actually worth watching? Zizek says the same shit in every single video i've seen of him

Self seems to really frustrate him, by calling out on his shit

Zizek and Badiou seem to have this interesting relationship with Deleuze (and Guattari, although Z has a less favourable view of him). It's almost as if they both sort of wish that D could have just been a solid Marxist like they were, but he took his hi-power metaphysical brain and sent it in these other directions instead. I forget if it's Deleuze or Guattari that Lacan says he wished could have been his disciple, the guy that psychoanalysis needed

ah that continental drama.

what's the connection to the picture tho?

The tension between the two was fucking delicious.

it seems to me Self just condescendingly sneers on Zizek which just results in him trying to discredit yet fails to grasp some of Zizek's arguments

Zizek doesn't like Guattari because Guattari pushed the La Borde clinic away from a pure Freudian practice towards a hybrid Deleuzian practice.

Zizek is bitter towards Deleuze for so many reasons, most of all because while Lacan was alive he was way more popular than Deleuze, but since his death Deleuze has eclipsed Lacan so heavily Zizek feels embarrassed the side he chose lost.

They both make good points and I could sympathise with Self in his trying to keep Z on message but I don't see why he had to be quite so patronising about it.

>here's what i imagine zizek's feelings are

what are your thoughts on the brangelina divorce?

What makes you so sure Deleuze was an informant or saboteur? He may not have liked ideology based explanations, but he was still talking about revolutionary becomings and criticizing those who made careers off of denouncing the USSR (gulags and overall failure) without coming up with any alternative.

>mfw Baidou, wittingly or not, lapses into phallocentric positions

Convince me I need to watch another 1hr+ video of Zizek.

He hasn't said anything new since Sublime Object of Ideology. And I'm not stuffing my face with food, so I don't need the mindless entertainment right now.

I'm just tired of Zizek using Hegel and Lacan to ironically pretend he's not a liberal with liberal solutions.

You probably don't need to. This vid exists in more to promote his newest book than anything else. His quick media interviews are more interesting and you'll definitely get more from his reading his books - the recent ones are more cultural criticism than straight-up motherfucking philosophy.

Ok, will avoid everything he's doing now as I have been for a while. Thanks.

Self is a notorious dick, quite callous and acerbic. Even on his solo lectures, whenever he gets questions from the audience he comes off as dickish.

but why does he speak like that?