Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now

Slavoj Zizek: Catastrophic But Not Serious

More from this partner:

25
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
34,972 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

Nobi-Wan Avatar
Nobi-Wan
Posts: 4
Posted: 02.03.12, 02:40 AM
Listen again if you feel my comments are off base. Mr. Zizek's comments on this subject are straight forward. It's not up to interpertation. Yes, one can interpret things to fill their own preconceived feelings, but the thing to do is listen to the speaker and not inject ones feelings. The messages that were sent by me previously were not off base. Playing devil's advocate is essential. In that spirit I have watched the speech several times with extra focus on the part of the speech I have pointed out before. Again the comments that were made by me were not off base. Listen again for yourself. Listen to 09, Mr.Zizek paints with a broad brush. Not my opinion, but fact. Now this might be hard for some to understand, but don't be like a child with your fingers in your ears. Again I feel Mr.Zizek is very intelligent and informed, but I feel he is off base with his blind assertion on this subject. Philolnfinitum in your post you claim that I was only attacking Mr.Zizek and not his ideas. Well even in that one post I attacked the mans ideas at the same time explaining that I would not usually bring up the " Ad hominem" attack, I just felt it pertained to my point. Read the whole post, not just the part that enables you to put your fingers in your ears. Not to mention my other post which had no "Ad hominem" attacks. Moxi when I spoke of myself not being selfish, I was commenting on one of the other bloggers assertions, not Mr. Zizek's. Read the whole thread before you respond. You may be use to spoon fed information, but you will not get that from me. If you disagree with my comments play devil's advocate and do the research yourself. By the way, cheers to you my friend.
agniky Avatar
agniky
Posts: 1
Posted: 10.13.11, 11:46 AM
hehe.. you definetly listened to zizek for about the first time. please watch his other vidoes on youtube. you have to enjoy it (if you get the ideological dimensiopn of this, youve watched enough)

geetings. agniky
Moxxi Avatar
Moxxi
Posts: 3
Posted: 09.14.11, 02:56 PM
Nobi, you’ll have to pardon those of us who may have (rightly) noticed that your initial comments clearly oozed self-righteousness and judgment. It is the very height of presumptuousness to make statements such as “It is obvious that he is not willing to change his lifestyle for the sake of his health.”

To begin with your first question, no. No he is not saying anything about apple quality, as I have already mentioned. And neither is he simply saying that people make such purchases to assuage their feelings of guilt. He’s commenting on the fact that within modern “cultural” capitalism it is quite interesting to note that the concept of “purchasing” has acquired new characteristics that could be called an excess to “purchase”, and as a result the very act of purchasing becomes a part of an ideological construct, enabling its adherents to become profoundly offended at suggestions that their choices MAY not constitute the changes required to effect a comprehensive solution.

Neither does he "claim that someone is selfish and ignorant for buying organic food" as you say. His aim is more to the purpose of making people think about the possibility that their participation may be reduced to the act of purchasing one thing rather than another, and that the solution to the pressing problems of a consumerist society has been framed in such a way that no serious changes are required to bring about that solution's realization.

And please pardon my semi-drunken, somewhat untoward enthusiasm in the previous posts. I am, I should say, a bit guilty of occasional buzz-commenting, in which I may or may not explain my position to the best effect, or even stay on the topic at all. Cheers!
PhiloInfinitum Avatar
PhiloInfinitum
Posts: 1
Posted: 09.01.11, 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobi-Wan
Does this gentleman really believe that an apple without pesticides sprayed on it isn't healthier then one with them? It is obvious that he is not willing to change his lifestyle for the sake of his health, let alone others. He's pale, sweaty and over weight. Under most circumstance I would not point this out but it's kind of hard hearing someone be condescending about people making an effort to be more healthy, because he doesn't care about his own health. Yes, I agree changing things isn't a magic wand, but changes like conserving our resources and being concerned with our health are good things. Not out of guilt, but because it's the right thing overall. An economy based on the consumption of fixed resources will consume itself.
Ad hominem arguments against the man delivering the message, and not arguments against the message itself are fallacious and nonsensical. Don't reply if your only comments are against the deliverer of the ideas and not the ideas themselves.
theknopfknows Avatar
theknopfknows
Posts: 276
Posted: 07.05.11, 10:09 PM
Excellent thank you He said it all! However Identity through enemy the necessity for an enemy to justify your own existence. Also The question, "Does the initial INTENTION have anything to do with the FINAL OUTCOME:" All our new inventions including computers were first run through the military grid before released to public. Also a border less war is the endless war like religion or war on terrorism. If your country`s Economy only survives on war and weapon sales, death is your profit and profits before people; your worth dead more than alive organ sales are up! thanks fora tv great lecture more coming I HOPE!
Nobi-Wan Avatar
Nobi-Wan
Posts: 4
Posted: 05.23.11, 07:57 PM
Moxxi, as far as the number 2 goes I have 2 words for you, intellectual puffery. Your message dodges my point and attempts to belittle me, as did a lot of the other self righteous defensive responses I've gotten. You have the nerve to call me self righteous when I made it clear that I make these decisions for myself and my family because I feel it's the right thing to do not out of guilt or so I can judge others for not being able to make the choices I do or those who are able to make the same choices but choose not to. It is that assertion that I have a problem with. I agree with a lot of what Mr.Zezk states in this two hour discussion. What I was addressing was his assertion that people who are concerned with their health and the health of the planet are doing it out of guilt and self righteousness. In my opinion that assertion is self righteous. As you notice I put "in my opinion" just as I did in previous messages, these are words that a self righteous person wouldn't use. Do I feel that sometimes some people do these things for the reasons that Mr.Zizek stated? Yes, but I feel it is ignorant and self righteous to make the assertion that it is the same for all people who make an effort to change their lifestyle. My point being, as I stated in my other messages my decision does not come from ideology, self righteousness, or guilt it comes from logic. So don't make blind assertions.
charlesfrith Avatar
charlesfrith
Posts: 5
Posted: 05.18.11, 07:25 AM
Slavoj Zizek is using all he has to get us to wake up. There is a philosophical argument for what he is saying though it's quicker to google my name and cosmic capitalism than explain here. I don't believe that Zizek believes what he says but instead thinks the best way to achieve his aim is to argue the opposite. Zizek is an interesting human.
kirmy Avatar
kirmy
Posts: 1
Posted: 05.17.11, 09:23 PM
I think one of the most important things to understand about Zizek's organic apple point is that the significance of its consumption is NOT reducible to merely ethical, political, or some sort of scientific/health rationale. That is not to deny that these ideas are in play in its consumption, but the reality of these ideas, the claim to truth that they point towards, is largely irrelevant to Zizek. This is an easy mistake to make. Its like the way a pointed finger will direct our gaze towards some other object. But for Zizek it is the (ideological) thing that is doing the pointing that we should worry about. Therefore if you become fixated on the (scientific) truth of the apple, you miss the point.
For Zizek the only reality worth worrying about is in ideology itself, not in the truth outside the ideology that might justify it. It doesn't really matter if the organic apple is healthier or not, just as for a psychoanalyst it doesn't matter if the client has a genuinely good reason to be paranoid or not. Either way the reality of the experience itself is what needs critique, in the case of Zizek, or treatment in the case of psychoanalyst.
In this sense I think Moxxi is closer to the mark. It is surely a fair point to say that AN (even if not the only) effect of buying organically can be an allying of the guilt associated with some wider issue in a way that never really produces any broader or significant effect. In this way, Environmentalism, particularly the individualist, puritanical, more eco-friendly than thou because I don't use plastic bags version, could well become (be?) a dominant ideology that stands in the way of a more radical shift in the interest of more sustainable living.
Moxxi Avatar
Moxxi
Posts: 3
Posted: 05.16.11, 06:28 PM
@Nobi-Wan Plus, just to be a gadfly I guess... your statement: "Does that mean organic practices are always the best? From the RESEARCH I HAVE DONE the answer is no. THAT SAME RESEARCH has also shown that pesticides have had a significantly adverse affect on large parts of the third world. And how in the world is it selfish for me to make what I feel is the right decision for my health and my family's? Me choosing an organic apple over a non organic one has no adverse affect on the third world."
I capitalized the important words You need to make a cogent argument here. Some people might misunderstand your lack of reference (ubiquitous). I'm just criticizing here for your further benefit so that you might make a better statement later and so on and so on
Moxxi Avatar
Moxxi
Posts: 3
Posted: 05.16.11, 06:10 PM
@Nobi-Wan Your argument about 'pig crap' although beautifully stated (ahem) is a logical fallacy along the lines of "1 is a number. 2 is a number. Therefore 1=2." But enough about number 2. You seem entirely to miss the point of the discussion. Your argument is draped in the self-righteous pseudo-reasoning that perpetuates the problem in its essence. Slavoj is not expressing an opinion with regard to which apple you should buy, and so on and so on He's saying something (maybe, I hope) much simpler. You make an assumption within the ideology that your choice to purchase one apple over another apple is something that enables you to speak sanctimoniously about a much larger systemic problem (relieves you of responsibility). I'm sorry, I mean do you really mean to argue on the basis of 1) His physical appearance? My god, the first question I should ask then is: are we in a functional discussion? 2) You really believe that your apple buying choices will affect the outcome? I can hear your answer "everybody should buy one apple instead of another." The point is (still) you "cure poverty" by "keeping the poor alive" rather than addressing the real issue. BTW, the apple is just an accessible example. and 3)You are not selfish? Maybe not (who am I to judge?) but you still overlook the fact that you are able to have a choice. There are plenty of starving people in the world, and you are in a position to speak about 'decisions'. Decisions about apples. Your decisions about "apple quality" and "apple origin" are more in the family of "what type of film will I watch tonight?"
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
Advertisement