Conferences Series Events
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY

Slavoj Zizek: Catastrophic But Not Serious

More from this partner:

25
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
37,339 Views

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

Nobi-Wan Avatar
Nobi-Wan
Posts: 4
Posted: 05.23.11, 06:57 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, 06:25 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, 08:23 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, 05:28 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, 05:10 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?"
Nobi-Wan Avatar
Nobi-Wan
Posts: 4
Posted: 04.28.11, 05:16 PM
To start off with, there are several legitimate studies that do show that organic food has a higher nutritional value than conventional food. Some studies have linked pesticides in our food to everything from headaches to cancer and birth defects. According to a report by the National Academy of Sciences low levels of exposure can be significantly more toxic for fetuses, children, and pregnant women. Do I think that everything that is natural is good for me? NO! Pig crap is natural, but I'm not going to eat it. That's just common sense. Just as an apple without poison sprayed on it is probably better than the one with poison sprayed on it. 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. The same cannot be said about the use of pesticides. When I buy organic it usually comes from a small farm and sometimes locally. Buying locally or from a small farm means that I have supported a small farm over a factory farm, a farm concerned more with it's product then it's bottom line. More times then not when you produce things in smaller volumes you get a better product with less waste. Some will argue that this will inherently make the product more expensive, but that is not always true. My organic apples along with many of the other organic products I buy cost the same as the non organic ones, thanks to consumer awareness. The decision for me and my family in my opinion is a no brainer. To claim that someone is selfish and ignorant for buying organic food, in my opinion is ignorant based on the research I have done. I am not a mainstream lefty. Fanaticism does not appeal to me on either side of the political fence. Trying to be more aware of what one puts in their bodies and the environment is not inherently fanatical. Not everyone who believes in taking care of our planet or themselves are eco-terrorists or health nuts. I strongly believe in critical thought, but not critical thought just for the sake of critical thought.
JoshuaKot Avatar
JoshuaKot
Posts: 2
Posted: 04.26.11, 08:31 AM
@Polesch Based on the current science cooking for destroys some nutrients in food and improves others, think Vitamin C and lycopene. Although it is true that plants have developed many defenses against being eating by humans or other animals, humans have evolved as well to actually benefit from such defenses, see hormetics. With regards to bacteria, be it in water or anything else, its not as simple as bacteria is bad for human health, actually many strains of bacteria are very important for human health an thus are consumed regularly, see probitics and prebiotics. I am a scientist so I use science as my lens to see the world and I certainly agree with you that the truth of what we currently understand regarding "organic" is distorted for a number of reasons. That being said, I for one am always skeptical of claims made by someone whose livelihood is based upon such claims, which is all too common in the world we live in today. How can I trust someone selling pesticides that they are safe? What motivation does that person have for being honest about the science regarding pesticides, little to none. What do you think?
Polesch Avatar
Polesch
Posts: 9
Posted: 04.22.11, 02:05 PM
The current science has found 40 different "natural" toxins in organic fruit, only 5 toxins in fruit used with pesticides. (Cancer-causing toxins) Why? Because natural selection will generate survival mechanisms when they are needed, even if they are toxic to predators, something that is encouraged. The truth is, most plants are not to be consumed, but to survive, that's why 90% of all plants in the rain forest is toxic. Many will even kill you, like Castor beans. And many plants will give you a terrible rash or a sting. "Natural" is never good, nature is not your friend, but your enemy, we have to control it and utilize it. Raw food is natural, cooking is not, should you eat raw food? Water in nature will make you sick, that's we we clean it, would you consume water with billions of bacteria?

There's no rational conclusion that "natural" is "good", so please.
phiscal Avatar
phiscal
Posts: 80
Posted: 04.21.11, 05:10 PM
Zizek is a hoot. He's easy to listen to. He's provocative. Personal hygiene may be a problem for him. One could be forgiven for thinking that he might have a substance abuse problem.

His leftism is certainly not the shrink-wrapped value package that is typical of the NPR or NYT communities. He challenges lefty assumptions far more than righty views.

Unfortunately for me, he leaves two big holes. He does not specify his complaint with humans pursuing their interests in relative freedom. Nor does he give even the vaguest outline of his version of communism or how it would be an improvement.

He is, however, highly entertaining...and worth the two hours.
phiscal Avatar
phiscal
Posts: 80
Posted: 04.21.11, 04:57 PM
@Nobi-Wan,

Scientists can find very little additional nutritive value in organics over non-organic foods beyond what may be a very small additional quantity of calcium in leafy vegetables.

Certainly many, many people would like to prove pesticides harmful to people in the quantities used, but they just cannot come with supporting data.

So skeptics are not totally off base when they assert that eating organic foods is a statement of one's viewpoint, not really much of a practical health measure.
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
Advertisement


LAW  |   ECONOMY  |   STEVE JOBS  |   INVESTING  |   MARKETING  |   ENTREPRENEURSHIP  |   RECOVERY  |   ECONOMIC POLICY  |   GLOBALIZATION  |   EMERGING MARKETS
CLIMATE CHANGE  |   ENERGY  |   SUSTAINABILITY  |   ENVIRONMENT  |   TRANSPORTATION  |   POLICY  |   BUILDINGS
OCCUPY WALL STREET  |   ELECTION 2012  |   MUSLIM WORLD  |   HEALTHCARE  |   SOCIAL ISSUES  |   FOREIGN POLICY  |   TERRORISM  |   CAPITOL HILL
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