Відео

❤❤❤

Good point

Why would a psychologically healthy person want to live that way?

@@theblitz6794perhaps their burnt out? Maybe they were responsible and saved a lot of money and made good investments, but something like 2020 came and took their career from them? And for the foreseeable future they just want to enjoy life (being rebellious) as they choose. Perhaps that’s just their personality and since 2020 now they can work at home and they’ve become very comfortable staying in and never touch a dating app. I’m not sure what year the study was done, but 1/50 people in Japan were reported to be recluses.

zizek is very much anti-tinder, so idek why you're bringing that up here.

​@@fixthefernback8030based + disco elysium avatar = double based

I agree that to say it's as easy as just click the button is not exactly true. But what is true, I hope you'd agree, that companies present it as if it's an easy button. And it's definitely and deliberately skewed to make people keep on swiping as not as proof of how lame the apps are, but as a proof of how cool and emancipated they are, all the potential matches and dates should almost me your head dizzy of thought how free you are to choose. That is precisely what a negative liberal concept of freedom is. There is no obvious barrier for you to get a million girls, the tinder is your oyster to crack. But it's not enough as you say, it's all empty potential never realized.

@@fixthefernback8030at 0:40 that’s exactly what the video says. Not me. Did you listen?

@@Ivan-qk2rnno. It’s only empty potential for average men. Even a 4/10 woman can swipe 20 times, get 18 matches, and get a date within 24 hours with 10/18 of those matches. That’s over a 90% difference in results for the genders. Conclusion? Women need to be rebellious and stay with one partner to make relationships “work” again. It’s in their hands.

And daddies I guess.. thats really whats behind the white knight problem

failed step one

@@fixthefernback8030 The gaze litteraly chases me where ever I go.. I fear it

I dont how to be apart of the sheep and fear the repercussions for being my self

So most of the countries have social systems i am not quite sure what is the idea behind this as there is plenty of evil potential in communism or was on the experiment when it often spirals into a personality cult parts of my family tree for instance died in the purges it is not in anyway immune to evil and the records show plenty i think this subject is much deeper than economic system and the assumption it being only tied to politics might be paradoxical as a doorway to evil deeds.

Does that feeling of "unworthy of blame" ever made you feel you wanna eliminate them in return If not... you might just be soft No evil goes unpunished

Very fair question! It helps to see how Hegel was responding to Schelling’s “Naturphilosophie”, which he accused of idealizing and mystifying nature as the absolute. Against this Hegel argued for a nature/absolute that is always already split from within by the subject/particular. It’s a bit ironic that Hegel is often depicted as a mystical thinker of the absolute, as this was precisely what he couldn’t stomach about the German romantics. (He mocks them by saying that their philosophy claims that “at night all cows are black”) To me, any idealization of nature that argues for a “return” to the natural world is always ideologically suspect. Remember that many reactionary arguments (including anti-Semitic) follow the same logic of “it’s unnatural”. Hence, to me, why there’s a bit of a pipeline between Gaia-earth esotericism and the alt-right. Of course, and this should go without saying, being aware of the detrimental impact of humans on nature, and fighting for preservation and ecological justice is key. My own belief is that the first step towards this is precisely to reject the idealization of nature as a “mother-earth” figure. As Žižek argues, in his more vulgar way, “if Mother nature is a mother, then she is a b*tch of a mother.”

@@julianphilosophy I think I understand and agree with you. The wholeness, i. e. unity of all that exists AND seperateness between all entities such as the subject always-already form a wholeness, a unity which we could call nature/absolute. This nature/absolute is not a reality beyond this plane from which we fell and have to return to. It is always-already present right here and now, it is never not present. It is us. Maybe this is a way too mystical way of thinking than you originally meant. But this way of thinking helps me realize; do not try to escape to a higher reality from which you fell, you are always-already in that "higher" reality. So if ecological justice is needed, perform to it, instead of saying; oh no this is the illusionary material lower plane in a rank of higher spiritual hierachy, it doesn't matter! No the true "spiritual" is in the "material!"

@@julianphilosophy What we call nature that we fight for is not a something absolute , we know that our current being is governed by values forced by power and other factors , nature is valueless , being is valueless , our perception of becoming of values which govern being is governed by many factors ( historical , cultural , political… etc ) , not only beauty of nature but also ugliness of nature is an illusion , suffering is hated by us because of it’s image and effect on us and even it may be in some context good , we are the measure , we add attributes to nature based on our subjective psychological perspectives , not based on the reality of nature , evil and good are meaningless words objectively , killing humanity may be good from a perspective of ending suffering and pleasure one time for the eternity for the sake of ending suffering , and may be evil in another contexts, our current being is not absolute, not an eternal necessity, its governed essentially by power, what we are fighting for theoretically is destroying the force which force such reality upon us , which may allow for those who are creative , great and not totalitarian to create a reality which would bring humanity to life , zizek as a sufferer and a resentful is trying to fight against slavery and any type of inequality in a blind way which may induce a non imaginable suffering for nothing , if you understand the reality of war you would realize that inequality and a certain degree of racism is needed at time of war to restructure the system even if you are a platonist , absolute inequality is an existential issue in modern western society , it’s created by modernism , many other societies didn’t have an existential problems of inequality and following the great and a certain degree of patriarchy in society , yeah suffering existed but not at this level which is created by imperialism , zizek psychological issues and values have been criticized by many postmodernists , he want people to be resentful and vengeful to fight for themselves , but only the great , creative and strong monsters who he is trying to destroy are capable of leading a universal revolution and they are too weak now , and people are too weak to fight for themselves or grasp their reality , we should know universal revolution to restructure the system may Lead to world war 3 which may be destructive by which a hundred of millions of people will die , beside many other inconceivable aspect of suffering , and has a minor degree of making any thing better , I know that things are getting much worse , and the future is not absolutely predictable and tolerable , but we shouldn’t treat our reality in a romantic resentful dramatic way in the sense of refusing our reality at any cost which may lead us to a harsher reality and non tolerable suffering , zizek the resentful dreamer should seek a therapist and more knowledge of war and politics .

A piece of art is just an inanimate thing. Its creator might make it with the intention to communicate a message, but the fact that so many works have famously been interpretted in ways opposed to their creator's intentions seems to be evidence that there is no way for a piece of art to have an inherent message of its own. I could be wrong though. Why do you think art must have a message?

@@JB-fp3fb interpreted wrong .. Is that possible? But a wrongly interpreted message is still a message received. Art signifies (a more appropriate Lacanian term) no? It's is a signifier. We can study it semiotically.

@@rama_lama_ding_dong I see. I think our disagreement is about the locus of the message, so to speak. I was thinking that to "have" a message an artwork would need to own, or possess, its message. It would need to be a signifier directly tied to what it signifies in such a way that precludes, or at least invalidates, other signifieds that an audience member might try to apply to it. Which doesn't seem to be how art is. But you are saying that simply being a signifier is inherent to a piece of art. That artworks have such powerful potential as signifiers that, when observed, one will inevitably signify something, regardless of what that particular message is to that particular observer. Am I understanding that right?

@@JB-fp3fb here I vere into Deleuze & Guattari 's idea of line of flight-escape, points of eruption where a flow crosses the plane of consistency-immanence and becomes, so a becoming, but a locus nonetheless. Misinterpreted art is interpreted art, and often the mis-take leads to something new and wonderful. Re-interpretation also. Derrida would say "there is *nothing outside the text" meaning well possible interpretations are already there. Who knows. Right wing people read Orwell and cops listen to rage against the machine

Like, The Eye as a symbol of desire is perfect. "Anxiety is the uncertainty that comes from not knowing the desire of the Other", and having Sauron be an Eye which you can feel watching you sums that up really well. Boromir watches Frodo with increasing intensity and frequency in both the book and the movie, showing again how the gaze provokes that response and leads to desperation. That the Voice would be the counterpoint to the Eye also makes sense, although I don't know if I could put it into psychoanalytic terms. But I do love that it is painted as being qualitatively the same as The Eye - a disembodied power, its separateness no more reassuring than any other exterior authority. It's only when Frodo returns to himself, when he realises his own sovereignty that he is able to choose, and chooses based seemingly upon the concept of retaining the integrity of his Self. There's also much less of an emphasis on Sam's contributions, which, if I'm correct, is something that Peter Jackson injected into the film, whereas in the books Sam is more gradually is revealed to be a heroic figure in his own right.

Yes!

dm me on patreon or substack I’ll send you a fresh one

McGregor is the case study, or mere embodiment of the theory here I think. McGregor and others who go to such extremes at times to 'be free'. Perhaps there is the risk here that the theory is being substantialized in physical form. From another angle, Derek Hook does an interesting analysis of Chis McCandless who 'went to the end' as told in the book/movie 'Into The Wild'

@@EMC2Scotia you are too quick to compare the two cases. Chris went into something that goes nowhere. For connor on the otherhand, that path always signifies some glory, sacrifice etc. Lacanian analysis always relates freedom with something as nothing. Free subject is not just accepting what happens to him/her, he or she also faces the emptiness that fighting brings. We have much better examples like GSP or jon jones who deal with the symptoms of fighting but rarely glorify them as an act of sacrice or gladiatorship. As a guy that get interested with both lacanian theory and mma i can easily spot that fake narrative of freedom vs the real one.