Freedom, Buddhism, Quantum Physics, Consciousness | Slavoj Zizek
Interview · Curt Jaimungal ·
published 2026-04-27 · 1:30:20 · 12,343 words
the date above is when the video was uploaded, no recording date was found
philosophy-generalscience-physicssubjectivityideologyfreedompsychoanalysisconsciousness-mindhegel-dialecticsreligion-theologytechnology-ai-cyberspacecommunism-socialism
Žižek engages with a question about whether a stone can have freedom, using the opportunity to define freedom not as free choice but as a 'self-chosen form of necessity' or the decision of what one is. He contrasts this with quantum indeterminacy, arguing that the quantum 'collapse' is ontological rather than merely epistemological, and uses this to distinguish his materialism from 'Hegelian Deepak Chopra' mysticism. He references Schelling, Kant, Democritus, and a debate with Carlo Rovelli, concluding with an anecdote about Sartre’s view on freedom under Nazi occupation. Žižek distinguishes three levels of freedom: everyday compliance, the radical redefinition of social contracts, and the death drive as empty, suicidal choice. He critiques Anil Seth’s materialism for ignoring the death drive, arguing that self-awareness arises from the enigmatic desire of the Other, leading to paranoia as a rationalized response. Finally, he interprets quantum mechanics not as idealism, but as evidence of a materialist 'Real' left indeterminate by a 'lazy' God, citing Schelling’s pre-Logos state. Žižek argues that Hegel’s philosophy of retroactive necessity aligns with quantum mechanics, where contingency establishes necessity, contrasting this with Fukuyama’s teleology. He critiques the harmonization of quantum physics with Eastern spirituality (Vedanta), citing Iain McGilchrist and the dangers of abstract generalization, while referencing the series 'E Pluribus' and the concept of the Fall. He concludes with a discussion on AI, Neuralink, and a personal anecdote about his conservative habits and interactions with the audience.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 27
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “freedom as a self-chosen form of necessity”
Freedom is not the absence of necessity or simple free choice, but the act of deciding one's identity, thereby establishing a new necessity.
The radical act of deciding not just what to do, but what you are, which affects your fundamental identity.
The measurement/collapse in quantum mechanics is not just a change in our knowledge (epistemological) but affects the thing itself (ontological).
A pejorative label for those who use quantum mechanics terminology to support mystical or idealist claims, which Žižek rejects in favor of a materialist reading.
as “antinomies of pure reason”
Kant's concept of contradictory propositions that are both provable, used by Žižek to describe the incompatible aspects of reality (wave/particle) that coexist.
as “atom as 'less than nothing'”
An interpretation of Democritus's etymology (atomos/meden) where the atom itself is a void or negation, not just a positive entity in space.
The human capacity to step out of the drive for self-reproduction/survival; the ability to kill oneself or act without profit, which is the basis for morality.
as “Nacht der Welt”
Hegel’s term (from German mysticism) for the 'night of the world,' a reduction to zero where one must freely choose to be part of society.
Anil Seth’s notion of consciousness which Žižek likes because it avoids subjectivism, though he critiques its survivalist premise.
The basic doubt: 'Why am I what you are saying that I am? What do you really want from me?'
A 'crazy but rational' ultimate answer to the enigma of the Other, providing an absolute plot to explain what others want, underlying conspiracy theories.
We are free only when the Other remains non-transparent; knowing precisely what we are for others would reduce us to objects.
as “Imp of the Perversity”
Edgar Allan Poe’s story illustrating the desire to do evil/suicide without any moral or material profit, representing the 'zero level of freedom.'
as “three levels of freedom”
A hierarchy ranging from everyday politeness/rules, to the radical re-invention of the social contract, to the death drive as empty, suicidal choice.
Not self-destruction for Nirvana, but a self-destructive tendency persisting ad infinitum; the capacity to do something terrifying for no positive reason, representing the most radical human freedom.
as “God with his pants down”
An 'obscene expression' for the idea that quantum mechanics reveals a reality left indeterminate/incomplete by a 'lazy' God who didn't constitute the micro-level fully.
Schelling’s text where Žižek finds the question of what existed before the Logos/Order, answering the quantum physics question of the pre-Logos state.
Žižek’s preferred term over 'duality,' emphasizing the specific observable consequences and non-commutation of quantum objects that interest him philosophically.
as “necessity but this necessity itself is contingent”
The idea that historical or physical laws emerge from contingent decisions or events, becoming necessary only retroactively.
A reinterpretation of Hegel not as a panlogician deducing necessity, but as one who explains how necessities arise contingently and retroactively.
The original site of awareness: the confrontation with the enigmatic desire of others ('what do they want from me?'), which generates self-awareness and doubt.
as “Hegel in a Wired Brain”
Žižek’s proposed title for a book on Neuralink, exploring how direct brain-machine interfaces alter self-awareness and humanity.
A metaphor for the Stalinist reality where the choice between socialism and barbarism (Luxemburg) collapses into a state where both exist simultaneously.
Marx’s concept that the present structure of humanity retroactively reveals the potentialities of its past (apes), without teleological guarantee.
as “Real (Lacanian)”
Something outside our reality but which is its presupposition; the indeterminate background that quantum waves measure, used here as an argument for materialism.
Iain McGilchrist’s distinction between the abstract, generalizing 'left' brain mode and the contextual, distinctness-seeing 'right' brain mode.
as “paradise was nothing it's retroactive dream”
The theological idea that the Fall creates humanity, and retroactively constructs the idealized state of Paradise from which it fell.
Stories he reaches for 3
Žižek uses the obscene phrase 'quantum mechanics caught God with his pants down' to argue that God was too lazy to fully constitute reality, leaving the micro-level indeterminate, which quantum waves measure.
“I use consciously this obscene expression that quantum mechanics caught god with his pants down as it were. Ah you were too lazy here”
Žižek quotes Sartre’s claim that people were 'never more free than under German occupation' because they were forced to make radical decisions about their survival and identity, not just minor social choices.
“He said yes German occupation was horrible... but in some sense we were never more free than under German occupation.”
Luxemburg said the future is either socialism or barbarism; Stalin proved it can be both at the same time.
“Stalin proved it can be both at the same time you know. It's not even the choice you know.”
Works invoked 7
Hegel in a Wired Brain other
A proposed book title by Žižek on Neuralink and direct brain-machine communication.
Schelling’s text used to answer what existed before the Logos, aligning with quantum physics' indeterminate reality.
The Economist journal
A subscription service Žižek praises for its high-quality science and AI coverage, specifically mentioning articles on attitudes toward science and dark energy.
Used to illustrate the desire to do evil/suicide without profit, representing the zero level of freedom.
Book on freedom book
Žižek jokingly states that if he were dictator, he would burn this book because it 'got confused towards the end,' though he summarizes its core argument.
Buddhism at War book
Used to show how Zen Buddhism justified killing, illustrating the dangers of non-dualistic interpretations.
E Pluribus tv
A series Žižek likes, used to illustrate the misery and non-transparency of the 'we' or collective subject.
People invoked 30
Andrés Gómez Emilsson negative
A speaker at a conference who used 'quantum superposition' metaphorically for mental states, which Žižek interrupted to critique as redundant classical uncertainty.
Present at the conference where Gómez Emilsson spoke; mentioned as part of the audience/context.
Carlo Rovelli negative
Debated by Žižek; Žižek claims Rovelli misuses the term 'freedom' regarding quantum observation, confusing epistemological choice with ontological freedom.
Iain McGilchrist positive
Cited for his distinction between left (abstract/generalizing) and right (contextual/distinct) brain modes, which Žižek uses to critique the harmonization of physics and spirituality.
Edgar Allan Poe positive
Cited for 'The Imp of the Perversity' as a literary illustration of acting evil/suicidally without profit.
Jacques Lacan positive
Followed for the theory that awareness arises from the questioning of the Other's desire ('what do they want from me?').
Francis Fukuyama negative
Mocked for believing the liberal democratic welfare state was the highest standard; Žižek argues we are now at a 'total loss' of standards.
Mentioned in the context of alternative cosmological theories ('eons like Penrose says') to challenge Big Bang-based religious validations.
Anil Seth positive
Appreciates his 'controlled hallucination' theory but critiques his premise that awareness is driven by survival/reproduction, ignoring the death drive.
Described as a 'friend of mine who still is a hero', member of Pussy Riot who opened an OnlyFans account.
Deepak Chopra negative
Used as a foil ('Hegelian Deepak Chopra') to represent the incorrect, mystical usage of quantum mechanics that Žižev rejects.
Mentioned in the context of 'philosophy paints gray on gray' (though the quote is often attributed to Hegel, Žižek attributes the sentiment here to 'he' in a context discussing Marx/Hegel, likely referring to Hegel's 'owl of Minerva' metaphor or Engels' materialism, but the text says 'he says philosophy paints gray on gray' immediately after 'social order which is already in decay'. This is Hegel's 'owl of Minerva' metaphor. I will correct 'he' to Hegel in the people list if not already there, but Hegel is already listed. The text says 'he says philosophy paints gray on gray'. This is Hegel. I have Hegel.
Benedictus de Spinoza positive
Cited for the idea of substance expressing itself in different ways (wave or particle), which Žižek uses to frame the question of reality's substance.
Democritus positive
Cited for the etymology of 'atom' (from 'meden' meaning non-being), supporting the idea that the atom is a void/negation, not just a positive object.
Mentioned as a quantum physicist who, like Rovelli, agrees with the wave-particle tension but goes their own way.
Martin Heidegger positive
Cited for the analogy of the hammer falling apart to explain the origin of awareness.
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling positive
Cited for seeing that freedom is not free choice but a more radical self-determination.
Søren Kierkegaard positive
Linked by Rovelli to Bohr and Hegel regarding the ultimate act of subjective choice.
Rovelli links Bohr and Kierkegaard regarding subjective choice and measurement.
Rosa Luxemburg positive
Cited as a 'great libertarian communist' whose choice of 'socialism or barbarism' was disproven by Stalin.
Nobel prize physicist who, despite criticizing philosophy, seeks a deeper spiritual dimension and is friends with the Dalai Lama.
Joseph Stalin negative
Used as the historical proof that socialism and barbarism can coexist, collapsing the quantum superposition of options.
Karl Marx positive
Cited for the non-teleological view that communism (the present) retroactively reveals the past (anatomy of the ape).
Socrates positive
Identified as the first philosopher for Žižek, not for freedom, but for the method of questioning what freedom means.
Sigmund Freud positive
Cited for the concept of the death drive as immortality/self-destructive tendency persisting ad infinitum, distinct from simple suicide.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Reinterpreted as 'Hegel of radical openness' where necessity arises contingently, contrasting with the 'panlogical' Hegel.
Immanuel Kant positive
Cited for the notion that we are enslaved by nature/psychology, and freedom is only achieved by obeying the moral law, creating distance from spontaneous tendencies.
Jean-Paul Sartre positive
Žižek states 'I don't like him too much as a philosopher' but quotes him positively to illustrate the radical nature of freedom under extreme conditions (Nazi occupation).
Bernardo Kastrup negative
Identified as an idealist; Žižek implies disagreement with his views.
Referred to as 'old Pope John' in the context of religious beliefs tied to quantum mechanics.
Transcript 68 turns
Slavoj Žižek
I like you very much, you know why? Why? You did the first what I always you did this that I'm doing all the time. What do you mean? This, scratch your nose for a second. Because I am the one people laugh at me all the time, like, he cannot go five minutes without scratching. So you you begin. Okay. Okay. What would it mean for a stone to have freedom? Well, that to answer you properly, I would have to explain why for me Socrates is the first philosopher for me nonetheless. Because you know, instead of going directly at the topic, no probably not for freedom you need awareness or and so on and so on, I would go back to what do you mean by freedom? Because freedom is not simply opposed to necessity. It's even it's even problematic if freedom needs needs really a free choice. Let's say you passionately fall in love. Usually you don't make a choice. There is no moment when you tell yourself, look, there are if I'm heterosexual, there are nice ladies here and there, let me pick that one. No, all of a sudden you realize that you already were in love. That's for me freedom at its most radical and here we come back to Schelling. Schelling saw this clearly. That freedom in this sense is more radical, it's not free choice. Why? I can put it in more existentialist terms although I'm not that, because for me true act of freedom is not I go to a to a store and oh my god should I pick I don't know chocolate cake or cheesecake and then I choose freely. No, true freedom is as it were when you choose yourself, when you decide not only what to have, what to use, but when you decide or choose what you are. These are the true choices for me, the choices which affect your identity. In this sense, no, stone I think definitely and doesn't have freedom. Do you think is there a theory which claims that stone does have freedom? To go a step further then you can immediately interrupt me. I think that the quantum theory of indeterminacy and so on, I know it's not simply non-determinism, Schrödinger equation and so on, there are rules. But within this scope you cannot predict it. There are chances and so on, but this has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom is a self-chosen form of necessity. If I if I throw something like a coin into the air and say on which side it will fall down I decide this is not freedom, I just leave it to what appears to me as contingency although probably it's not. Freedom is a decision which establishes a new necessity. In this sense now I can make a jump for which I will be hated by people who think I confuse anything things. You know what I had a debate brief one with Carlo Rovelli? Yes. And very strangely I tried to catch him on that, he used the term freedom. His idea is this one precisely to take you can immediately counterattack that I simplify it or what I know, but let's say wave particle. Okay. What I will perceive as reality and I will not go now into this do my choice does my choice what to focus on, my observation, does it create that or not, but the point is that this is for him the moment of freedom. Freedom in the sense that when I do a quantum observation I choose what aspect to measure. We observe an entity as a particle or as a wave and we know all the paradoxes and so on and so on. I would even be afraid to use the term freedom here because if we say this is freedom, I'm free to choose what I will measure in a quantum experiment, isn't it that then if I say only this am I not caught into an a very strong ontological duality? In the sense that we have the quantum domain which is contingent but not in any meaningful sense free, and then it's me. But how do I fit the quantum domain? What am I? For example, most of the quantum physicists reject the notion of freedom of the will, you know? Yes. So I would say you see now I I know you never will get this from me, I shouldn't talk too much, I didn't answer your question but I confused it in the right way so that you see in what direction my mind works. It was a simple precise question and that's where I enjoy theory. Theory should in a first step bring out all the hidden presuppositions. Like for example I remember even in our ordinary reality, no? Some some some cognitivists go into they claim even we humans are we free or not? They claim that usually we confuse different levels of freedom. What we spontaneously experience as freedom is I do what I think that it's the best for me or what I want and so on and so on. I'm not under external pressure. But this in no way excludes the option that what I will choose in a way which I experience as free, that that will be strictly determined by my previous experience, neuronal processes, whatever you want and so on and so on. So here I would be close to Kant. Kant has a very interesting notion. He says that well we think that we act freely, like f-off I will just do this do that and so on. We are totally enslaved to our nature, psychic, biological, neuronal, whatever, and that the only way to be free is to obey the moral law. Because the moral law means we acquire a distance towards our spontaneous tendencies, you know? And this is what is very close to me, that freedom is, for example what is for me freedom? Let me give you, I'm sorry then I will stop, a pathetic example. It is ridiculous. I walk along a shore and I see a child drowning there, no? I obviously have a choice. Here I oppose the standard stupid religious answer which is only if you believe in some divine punishment after your life, no, that's not at all what goes on in you. You have to make a choice. Will you do what you experience as your duty to help the child drowning, or will you follow a simple pleasure principle? You look around, nobody's there to see me so f-off I leave the child to drown. This is for me if you decide to jump in water an authentic free decision. I stop, I talk too much. Okay, I'm going to resist the urge to correct any quantum mechanical misinterpretations when it comes to math or physics. But but don't don't resist the urge, tell me where you think I'm wrong. I was just referring to what Rovelli does. Rovelli is using here the freedom, freedom in the sense that we observers can decide will we measure this aspect or that aspect. He uses the term freedom. I want to avoid now I'm well aware, I may be an idiot but maybe not a total idiot, so I'm well aware of the complexity. I mean usually people say you philosophers are confused. If I approach quantum mechanics to get clear insight insight, I discover that in quantum mechanics the mess is so terrifying today, almost anything goes. There are people who claim this that and but the key what really interests me and here maybe we touch something that approaches freedom is the so-called collapse, no? So-called, let's not go into. I decide to measure this and then I get a result which is contingent but and so on. For me how do we read this? Do we read this I see tendencies today to read this more in a in an epistemological way? Waves are out there, freedom is just the choice which aspect of multiple superposed quantum reality I will approach. As if freedom means there are multiple possibilities out there in the world, I will choose on which aspect to focus. No, I think quantum mechanics is more radical. The so-called I know all the problems collapse is not just epistemological. It's ontological. In other words, it affects the thing itself. I stop now and please counterattack, you say why. Here you
I like you very much, you know why? Why? You did the first what I always you did this that I'm doing all the time. What do you mean? This, scratch your nose for a second. Because I am the one people laugh at me all the time, like, he cannot go five minutes without scratching. So you you begin. Okay. Okay. What would it mean for a stone to have freedom? Well, that to answer you properly, I would have to explain why for me Socrates is the first philosopher for me nonetheless. Because you know, instead of going directly at the topic, no probably not for freedom you need awareness or and so on and so on, I would go back to what do you mean by freedom? Because freedom is not simply opposed to necessity. It's even it's even problematic if freedom needs needs really a free choice. Let's say you passionately fall in love. Usually you don't make a choice. There is no moment when you tell yourself, look, there are if I'm heterosexual, there are nice ladies here and there, let me pick that one. No, all of a sudden you realize that you already were in love. That's for me freedom at its most radical and here we come back to Schelling. Schelling saw this clearly. That freedom in this sense is more radical, it's not free choice. Why? I can put it in more existentialist terms although I'm not that, because for me true act of freedom is not I go to a to a store and oh my god should I pick I don't know chocolate cake or cheesecake and then I choose freely. No, true freedom is as it were when you choose yourself, when you decide not only what to have, what to use, but when you decide or choose what you are. These are the true choices for me, the choices which affect your identity. In this sense, no, stone I think definitely and doesn't have freedom. Do you think is there a theory which claims that stone does have freedom? To go a step further then you can immediately interrupt me. I think that the quantum theory of indeterminacy and so on, I know it's not simply non-determinism, Schrödinger equation and so on, there are rules. But within this scope you cannot predict it. There are chances and so on, but this has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom is a self-chosen form of necessity. If I if I throw something like a coin into the air and say on which side it will fall down I decide this is not freedom, I just leave it to what appears to me as contingency although probably it's not. Freedom is a decision which establishes a new necessity. In this sense now I can make a jump for which I will be hated by people who think I confuse anything things. You know what I had a debate brief one with Carlo Rovelli? Yes. And very strangely I tried to catch him on that, he used the term freedom. His idea is this one precisely to take you can immediately counterattack that I simplify it or what I know, but let's say wave particle. Okay. What I will perceive as reality and I will not go now into this do my choice does my choice what to focus on, my observation, does it create that or not, but the point is that this is for him the moment of freedom. Freedom in the sense that when I do a quantum observation I choose what aspect to measure. We observe an entity as a particle or as a wave and we know all the paradoxes and so on and so on. I would even be afraid to use the term freedom here because if we say this is freedom, I'm free to choose what I will measure in a quantum experiment, isn't it that then if I say only this am I not caught into an a very strong ontological duality? In the sense that we have the quantum domain which is contingent but not in any meaningful sense free, and then it's me. But how do I fit the quantum domain? What am I? For example, most of the quantum physicists reject the notion of freedom of the will, you know? Yes. So I would say you see now I I know you never will get this from me, I shouldn't talk too much, I didn't answer your question but I confused it in the right way so that you see in what direction my mind works. It was a simple precise question and that's where I enjoy theory. Theory should in a first step bring out all the hidden presuppositions. Like for example I remember even in our ordinary reality, no? Some some some cognitivists go into they claim even we humans are we free or not? They claim that usually we confuse different levels of freedom. What we spontaneously experience as freedom is I do what I think that it's the best for me or what I want and so on and so on. I'm not under external pressure. But this in no way excludes the option that what I will choose in a way which I experience as free, that that will be strictly determined by my previous experience, neuronal processes, whatever you want and so on and so on. So here I would be close to Kant. Kant has a very interesting notion. He says that well we think that we act freely, like f-off I will just do this do that and so on. We are totally enslaved to our nature, psychic, biological, neuronal, whatever, and that the only way to be free is to obey the moral law. Because the moral law means we acquire a distance towards our spontaneous tendencies, you know? And this is what is very close to me, that freedom is, for example what is for me freedom? Let me give you, I'm sorry then I will stop, a pathetic example. It is ridiculous. I walk along a shore and I see a child drowning there, no? I obviously have a choice. Here I oppose the standard stupid religious answer which is only if you believe in some divine punishment after your life, no, that's not at all what goes on in you. You have to make a choice. Will you do what you experience as your duty to help the child drowning, or will you follow a simple pleasure principle? You look around, nobody's there to see me so f-off I leave the child to drown. This is for me if you decide to jump in water an authentic free decision. I stop, I talk too much. Okay, I'm going to resist the urge to correct any quantum mechanical misinterpretations when it comes to math or physics. But but don't don't resist the urge, tell me where you think I'm wrong. I was just referring to what Rovelli does. Rovelli is using here the freedom, freedom in the sense that we observers can decide will we measure this aspect or that aspect. He uses the term freedom. I want to avoid now I'm well aware, I may be an idiot but maybe not a total idiot, so I'm well aware of the complexity. I mean usually people say you philosophers are confused. If I approach quantum mechanics to get clear insight insight, I discover that in quantum mechanics the mess is so terrifying today, almost anything goes. There are people who claim this that and but the key what really interests me and here maybe we touch something that approaches freedom is the so-called collapse, no? So-called, let's not go into. I decide to measure this and then I get a result which is contingent but and so on. For me how do we read this? Do we read this I see tendencies today to read this more in a in an epistemological way? Waves are out there, freedom is just the choice which aspect of multiple superposed quantum reality I will approach. As if freedom means there are multiple possibilities out there in the world, I will choose on which aspect to focus. No, I think quantum mechanics is more radical. The so-called I know all the problems collapse is not just epistemological. It's ontological. In other words, it affects the thing itself. I stop now and please counterattack, you say why. Here you
unknown
should be free, don't resist the urge. Okay. So the concern is that sometimes people for some reason they they
should be free, don't resist the urge. Okay. So the concern is that sometimes people for some reason they they
Slavoj Žižek
absolutely love quantum mechanics and they want to take something that is one of their beliefs, whatever it may be, and then they see quantum mechanics if you water it down to something else, it becomes compatible with whatever else they wanted it to say. And then so then they attach themselves to the quantum mechanics, but it would have actually been easier to say the more simplified version and the quantum mechanics doesn't add anything. So I'll give you an example. Yeah. I was at this conference where Andrés Gómez Emilsson was talking to Michael Levin and he said to Michael Levin something like this. He said, look our minds are wondering about A and then also wondering about B, two options. And then he said our minds are in a quantum superposition of A and B. And then I I put up my hand and said Andrés, so why can't you just say that as as simply like your mind is wondering about A and your mind is wondering about B. What does quantum superposition add to this? Where is the complete inner product space? Why is it complex? etc. Or furthermore why can't you say it's in a classical superposition like what does quantum add to that? And then he paused and said yes it is just A or B or could just be classical that that's true. So let me ask you a provocative question. Absolutely. What separates you, the recent Slavoj Zizek of the past decade interested in quantum mechanics, from a Hegelian Deepak Chopra who also uses quantum mechanics that many would say is the incorrect usage of quantum mechanics? Deepak Chopra, you talk about the the the the Epstein guy who should be in prison measured by my standards? That Deepak Chopra, yeah. Yeah. I can answer you. And by the way Slavoj, I mean I mean it with complete respect. I'm just I'm just being overly provocative. Absolutely you are correct, yes. You know what's the origin of it? To it's not for me Hegel or quantum mechanics. I without having the time to go totally into it deeply, I will just give you an example of what put me on the path towards quantum mechanics. I'm sure you will explode that it's a vague analogy just but I will try to you know it all I can even locate my nothing to do with quantum mechanics my original
absolutely love quantum mechanics and they want to take something that is one of their beliefs, whatever it may be, and then they see quantum mechanics if you water it down to something else, it becomes compatible with whatever else they wanted it to say. And then so then they attach themselves to the quantum mechanics, but it would have actually been easier to say the more simplified version and the quantum mechanics doesn't add anything. So I'll give you an example. Yeah. I was at this conference where Andrés Gómez Emilsson was talking to Michael Levin and he said to Michael Levin something like this. He said, look our minds are wondering about A and then also wondering about B, two options. And then he said our minds are in a quantum superposition of A and B. And then I I put up my hand and said Andrés, so why can't you just say that as as simply like your mind is wondering about A and your mind is wondering about B. What does quantum superposition add to this? Where is the complete inner product space? Why is it complex? etc. Or furthermore why can't you say it's in a classical superposition like what does quantum add to that? And then he paused and said yes it is just A or B or could just be classical that that's true. So let me ask you a provocative question. Absolutely. What separates you, the recent Slavoj Zizek of the past decade interested in quantum mechanics, from a Hegelian Deepak Chopra who also uses quantum mechanics that many would say is the incorrect usage of quantum mechanics? Deepak Chopra, you talk about the the the the Epstein guy who should be in prison measured by my standards? That Deepak Chopra, yeah. Yeah. I can answer you. And by the way Slavoj, I mean I mean it with complete respect. I'm just I'm just being overly provocative. Absolutely you are correct, yes. You know what's the origin of it? To it's not for me Hegel or quantum mechanics. I without having the time to go totally into it deeply, I will just give you an example of what put me on the path towards quantum mechanics. I'm sure you will explode that it's a vague analogy just but I will try to you know it all I can even locate my nothing to do with quantum mechanics my original
unknown
experience as it were. I read when I was a student still half a century ago a text by Fredric Jameson where he debates Adorno and he goes into this for me a key insight. That we have vaguely, it's a generalization, it
experience as it were. I read when I was a student still half a century ago a text by Fredric Jameson where he debates Adorno and he goes into this for me a key insight. That we have vaguely, it's a generalization, it
unknown
doesn't matter, it's just an example. We have on the one hand a liberal individualist view of reality where society is explained accounted for in the terms of interaction or of individuals. We interact, we discover gradually that in order to do it it makes things easier if we codify it somehow, to minimize blah blah blah, so that what we experience as a social substance, the set of rules, written unwritten rules, emerges out of the interaction of individuals. Then we have the opposite view usually associated with another type of sociologists who are they are all empirical, I'm not talking about speculative sociologists, who would say no, society, social space comes first. Society were always here but you can follow exactly through history how when did the notion of individual in the modern sense emerge especially with individual rights and so on and so on. So you put so then the naive question would be okay but in itself what comes first? And Adorno's answer where Jameson refers to Adorno is no, we should the result should not be it could be this it could be that but we don't really know what society is in itself. What if we say the definition the or the key determination of actual society is precisely this gap as such? And this fits quite nicely I think our today's global society. On the one hand we are
doesn't matter, it's just an example. We have on the one hand a liberal individualist view of reality where society is explained accounted for in the terms of interaction or of individuals. We interact, we discover gradually that in order to do it it makes things easier if we codify it somehow, to minimize blah blah blah, so that what we experience as a social substance, the set of rules, written unwritten rules, emerges out of the interaction of individuals. Then we have the opposite view usually associated with another type of sociologists who are they are all empirical, I'm not talking about speculative sociologists, who would say no, society, social space comes first. Society were always here but you can follow exactly through history how when did the notion of individual in the modern sense emerge especially with individual rights and so on and so on. So you put so then the naive question would be okay but in itself what comes first? And Adorno's answer where Jameson refers to Adorno is no, we should the result should not be it could be this it could be that but we don't really know what society is in itself. What if we say the definition the or the key determination of actual society is precisely this gap as such? And this fits quite nicely I think our today's global society. On the one hand we are
Slavoj Žižek
overdetermined predetermined not just in artificial intelligence but with collective forms of ideology written and especially unwritten rules so we are always embedded in a society. At the same
overdetermined predetermined not just in artificial intelligence but with collective forms of ideology written and especially unwritten rules so we are always embedded in a society. At the same
unknown
time we are addressed more than ever as individual individuals. Let's not go into details but you see my point. What if now I will use a very precise formulation what if what appeared
time we are addressed more than ever as individual individuals. Let's not go into details but you see my point. What if now I will use a very precise formulation what if what appeared
Slavoj Žižek
to me as a problem my god is it this or that, what if this is the solution, the reality is this tension itself. And here I make now a mega jump what I like but you will probably explode is that what first my original experience, what first attracted me in quantum mechanics is precisely this idea that okay we can not use the term duality but you have let's say two aspects and then we should not get caught in this the philosopher here for me would be Kant, this Kantian idea of antinomies of pure reason, why? Because reality is out there out of our reach. Just for the people who are wondering what are you referring to off air we spoke about or I said to you that the wave particle duality is not a formal duality but that wasn't recorded so that's just what you're referring to. Please continue. Yeah yeah yeah what yeah let's say wave particle, no? I will not use the term duality. I think that I wonder if you would agree but I warn you I did debate with some quantum physicists who are more or less seriously taken, Lee Smolin, Rovelli, others no, and up to this point we agree but then they go each their own way. What this idea that now I'm using very problematic Hegelian terms because the term contradiction is another very problematic term you know. What do you mean by contradiction? But what I want to say is that what if the question but what reality is really? Is there some substance which like in Spinoza expresses itself either as as either as wave or as particle, no? What if this gap, this duality is part of reality itself? What if I want to resist this temptation to say oh there must be something deeper. What if there is nothing deeper? We have to accept that reality is crazy in this sense that things which are incompatible for us can exist out there and that's the second reason. I'm absolutely but not in a stupid way a materialist. But here I agree with Rovelli with all of them that you know we have to get rid of this stupid notion that materialism means reality is one big void of space and then some small balls whatever we call them atoms are floating there freely. And then they bounce into each other blah blah blah. Even with Democritus things are much nicer. You know what is Democritus' terms for atom? Den. Den is shortened of meden. Meden means non-being. En is being, met is negation, and he coined the artificial term den which literally means that's where I took the term less than nothing. So what I'm trying to say let's avoid details is that for Democritus it's not void and then small balls jumping here and there. No, atom itself is a void in itself. We don't have atom and space in which atoms move, it gets complex. So I first let me complicate like this but what was your question repeat it, I want to be attacked. I subscribe to the Economist, their science and their AI coverage is among the best I've found anywhere and I say that as someone who reads plenty of it. I'll give you some examples. They just ran an analysis on how attitudes toward science are changing in American politics and what this means for research and funding in scientific institutions moving forward. This sort of high-quality reporting is fantastic. They even covered how dark energy may be weakening over time. Now if that holds up it completely changes our understanding of the universe's fate. If you watch this channel those are exactly the kinds of questions that we explore every week. I subscribe to the Economist because their science and their AI reporting regularly surprises me with how deep it goes and they're also of course known for global
to me as a problem my god is it this or that, what if this is the solution, the reality is this tension itself. And here I make now a mega jump what I like but you will probably explode is that what first my original experience, what first attracted me in quantum mechanics is precisely this idea that okay we can not use the term duality but you have let's say two aspects and then we should not get caught in this the philosopher here for me would be Kant, this Kantian idea of antinomies of pure reason, why? Because reality is out there out of our reach. Just for the people who are wondering what are you referring to off air we spoke about or I said to you that the wave particle duality is not a formal duality but that wasn't recorded so that's just what you're referring to. Please continue. Yeah yeah yeah what yeah let's say wave particle, no? I will not use the term duality. I think that I wonder if you would agree but I warn you I did debate with some quantum physicists who are more or less seriously taken, Lee Smolin, Rovelli, others no, and up to this point we agree but then they go each their own way. What this idea that now I'm using very problematic Hegelian terms because the term contradiction is another very problematic term you know. What do you mean by contradiction? But what I want to say is that what if the question but what reality is really? Is there some substance which like in Spinoza expresses itself either as as either as wave or as particle, no? What if this gap, this duality is part of reality itself? What if I want to resist this temptation to say oh there must be something deeper. What if there is nothing deeper? We have to accept that reality is crazy in this sense that things which are incompatible for us can exist out there and that's the second reason. I'm absolutely but not in a stupid way a materialist. But here I agree with Rovelli with all of them that you know we have to get rid of this stupid notion that materialism means reality is one big void of space and then some small balls whatever we call them atoms are floating there freely. And then they bounce into each other blah blah blah. Even with Democritus things are much nicer. You know what is Democritus' terms for atom? Den. Den is shortened of meden. Meden means non-being. En is being, met is negation, and he coined the artificial term den which literally means that's where I took the term less than nothing. So what I'm trying to say let's avoid details is that for Democritus it's not void and then small balls jumping here and there. No, atom itself is a void in itself. We don't have atom and space in which atoms move, it gets complex. So I first let me complicate like this but what was your question repeat it, I want to be attacked. I subscribe to the Economist, their science and their AI coverage is among the best I've found anywhere and I say that as someone who reads plenty of it. I'll give you some examples. They just ran an analysis on how attitudes toward science are changing in American politics and what this means for research and funding in scientific institutions moving forward. This sort of high-quality reporting is fantastic. They even covered how dark energy may be weakening over time. Now if that holds up it completely changes our understanding of the universe's fate. If you watch this channel those are exactly the kinds of questions that we explore every week. I subscribe to the Economist because their science and their AI reporting regularly surprises me with how deep it goes and they're also of course known for global
unknown
affairs both political and economic reporting. They are top tier and interestingly and flatteringly, TOE is one of the only podcasts that the Economist partners with. So as a listener you get an exclusive off. That's not a deal that they have just anywhere. Head to
affairs both political and economic reporting. They are top tier and interestingly and flatteringly, TOE is one of the only podcasts that the Economist partners with. So as a listener you get an exclusive off. That's not a deal that they have just anywhere. Head to
Slavoj Žižek
economist.com/toe to subscribe. That's economist.com/toe for off. I don't recall the question so I actually want to investigate what is it more psychological. What is it earlier you said but what do we mean by, oh gosh what was it? Was it freedom or what else? Well. Yes right right. Okay exactly exactly. It's like but what do we mean by freedom? That's that's super interesting. Okay so I also talk like that when people say some concept some so and so I say but what what do you mean by so and so? However, what I like to do is I say here's what I mean by so and so, here's what I think you could mean by so and so. I think you're also similar but then you also made an interesting turn where you said true freedom is this and that. So I want to know how is it that Slavoj, how is it that you get to the the the true freedom? What is it that you're analyzing about some concept? How do you know what is it that's going on that's occurring to you inside, maybe it's a resonance, maybe it's something else, maybe it comports with how the word is used in other pieces of literature. How is it that you know when you're getting to to some chord, nugget that you would call the truth of of freedom or the truth of of whatever it may be, reality or what have you. This is more a question about you than it is about the concept itself. Oh perfect perfect I will try to answer it by some very condensed version of the central argument of my book on freedom which I have renounced today, if I were to be nominated a dictator of my own country I would burn that book. I think it got confused towards the end but my basic point is that and this is what fascinated me you see here it's my Hegelian side. You know what gave me the original impact here? I don't like him too much as a philosopher but nonetheless Sartre. He wrote a text which I quote in already for an American weekly journal where he said something which may appear shocking. He said yes German occupation was horrible, terror all the time you never knew if you will be arrested but in some sense we were never more free than under German occupation. I don't think this was some cheap postmodern or whatever paradox. What he meant is that in a situation like under occupation you are not making choices which move within a stable social order. You are making much more radical decisions which concern your survival, in what form you will survive and so on and so on. So I here follow Hegel in what simple sense? First against liberals
economist.com/toe to subscribe. That's economist.com/toe for off. I don't recall the question so I actually want to investigate what is it more psychological. What is it earlier you said but what do we mean by, oh gosh what was it? Was it freedom or what else? Well. Yes right right. Okay exactly exactly. It's like but what do we mean by freedom? That's that's super interesting. Okay so I also talk like that when people say some concept some so and so I say but what what do you mean by so and so? However, what I like to do is I say here's what I mean by so and so, here's what I think you could mean by so and so. I think you're also similar but then you also made an interesting turn where you said true freedom is this and that. So I want to know how is it that Slavoj, how is it that you get to the the the true freedom? What is it that you're analyzing about some concept? How do you know what is it that's going on that's occurring to you inside, maybe it's a resonance, maybe it's something else, maybe it comports with how the word is used in other pieces of literature. How is it that you know when you're getting to to some chord, nugget that you would call the truth of of freedom or the truth of of whatever it may be, reality or what have you. This is more a question about you than it is about the concept itself. Oh perfect perfect I will try to answer it by some very condensed version of the central argument of my book on freedom which I have renounced today, if I were to be nominated a dictator of my own country I would burn that book. I think it got confused towards the end but my basic point is that and this is what fascinated me you see here it's my Hegelian side. You know what gave me the original impact here? I don't like him too much as a philosopher but nonetheless Sartre. He wrote a text which I quote in already for an American weekly journal where he said something which may appear shocking. He said yes German occupation was horrible, terror all the time you never knew if you will be arrested but in some sense we were never more free than under German occupation. I don't think this was some cheap postmodern or whatever paradox. What he meant is that in a situation like under occupation you are not making choices which move within a stable social order. You are making much more radical decisions which concern your survival, in what form you will survive and so on and so on. So I here follow Hegel in what simple sense? First against liberals
unknown
I totally accept the standpoint by some even conservatives and by some Marxists that and again I'm here doing a simple Socratean analysis, my point is let's imagine that you claim you are free in your society. What does this mean? It doesn't mean I can do whatever I want. I walk out I see you or you see me you don't like my face you kick me and so on. A whole set of written and unwritten rules must be operative so that we feel free. Here I I still advocate the standpoint also of conservatives who claim you can feel free safely living you can relying it will be safe to go out, you can count on state institutions court, education and so on. I like this Hegelian insight into how many things must relatively effectively function so that you can feel free in this elementary sense. It's not the Sartrean sense but is this everyday sense. I do what I want. Yeah sorry many thing like personal freedom you have to be educated, healthcare, how many things have to be there as an institution so that you can be free? So this is for me the social notion of freedom. But then there are existential moments and I think you know I like to jump people hate me for that from the most abstract level metaphysical freedom to concrete level what are we society are we approaching now? Till now isn't it a beautiful irony that China now plays more fairly with market rules, fair competition and so on than United States with all these tariffs and so on? This is contingency which introduces disorientation. But this will compel us to redefine freedom maybe to move to a higher level of freedom not in may or maybe lower. All I want to say is that when people talk about the end of the world today, are we aware how many things that were automatically presumed to be impossible now we talk about them. People didn't even notice how some years ago it's publicly admitted that states are torturing political prisoners. Americans are doing it, Israelis are doing it, Arabs probably probably also and so on and so on. So something that at least you didn't talk publicly about it became possible. So so that I don't lose my threat, what I'm saying is that today we it's not only are we free or not, but the very space which till now
I totally accept the standpoint by some even conservatives and by some Marxists that and again I'm here doing a simple Socratean analysis, my point is let's imagine that you claim you are free in your society. What does this mean? It doesn't mean I can do whatever I want. I walk out I see you or you see me you don't like my face you kick me and so on. A whole set of written and unwritten rules must be operative so that we feel free. Here I I still advocate the standpoint also of conservatives who claim you can feel free safely living you can relying it will be safe to go out, you can count on state institutions court, education and so on. I like this Hegelian insight into how many things must relatively effectively function so that you can feel free in this elementary sense. It's not the Sartrean sense but is this everyday sense. I do what I want. Yeah sorry many thing like personal freedom you have to be educated, healthcare, how many things have to be there as an institution so that you can be free? So this is for me the social notion of freedom. But then there are existential moments and I think you know I like to jump people hate me for that from the most abstract level metaphysical freedom to concrete level what are we society are we approaching now? Till now isn't it a beautiful irony that China now plays more fairly with market rules, fair competition and so on than United States with all these tariffs and so on? This is contingency which introduces disorientation. But this will compel us to redefine freedom maybe to move to a higher level of freedom not in may or maybe lower. All I want to say is that when people talk about the end of the world today, are we aware how many things that were automatically presumed to be impossible now we talk about them. People didn't even notice how some years ago it's publicly admitted that states are torturing political prisoners. Americans are doing it, Israelis are doing it, Arabs probably probably also and so on and so on. So something that at least you didn't talk publicly about it became possible. So so that I don't lose my threat, what I'm saying is that today we it's not only are we free or not, but the very space which till now
Slavoj Žižek
by space I mean rule of law, rules of decency, politeness and so on are being disregarded they are falling apart. In such a situation you have to be free in more radical sense. You have to redefine basically the society in which you are free. So this is not just freedom in the sense of within existing circumstances I can act freely, it's to redefine, change this circumstances themselves. Then we have ah I go further so now we have this everyday freedom you have to follow rules you know you are scientist Rovelli whoever. But when you go out and ask your secretary for a coffee which I'm enough of a pessimist, sorry feminist I wouldn't do it, I would I would like have a secretary who would tell me fuck off why don't you go for your coffee. But what I'm saying is that you rely on a certain set of kindness, decency and so on. A higher level of freedom is when you have to as it were to use Rousseau term to reinvent social contract itself. And then even there is even a more radical level freedom as madness in the sense of what Freud calls death drive. One has to be here very precise. Freudian death drive is not oh I want to kill myself or Nirvana obliterate. If you read Freud closely then when he talks about death drive he really means immortality, he means some self-destructive tendency that persists ad infinitum as it were you know. That freedom at its most radical is what Freud calls beyond the pleasure principle. You do something terrifying for no positive reason not because I will profit or not, but it's a kind of an empty suicidal choice. This is part of most radical human freedom for me and both Schelling and Hegel in their own way reach this point. Hegel calls it following German mysticism Nacht der Welt, the night of the world, this reduction to zero. In some sense you have to choose although we emerge out of society but existentially at the deepest level you have to freely choose to be part of a society. That would be the most radical freedom for me. So you see I just complicate. You ask me what is freedom I would tell you vaguely that I can that I can distinguish these three levels. But what I like in Schelling is that he says that the truly free acts we experience them in our consciousness as necessity. If you really passionately the example that I already used fall in love, first it never happens in the present. You cannot say oh now I will fall in love. No all of a sudden you realize my god I was already in love, I am in love. And from that point on it's like fate. Your life changes this choice which you never made consciously determines your life. This is for me freedom at its most radical in our relatively normal daily life. So okay let me express some of my freedom by the rest at the at the cost of restraining you by accident. This podcast I keep it a-political. So that is to say You are right. This is needed today. Okay great great. Wonderful and that's and that's super difficult I imagine for you because you're everything's melded together and so if I ask you a question about consciousness it may lead to politics and it may lead to physics and it may lead somewhere else and it and it winds around. That's fine. I'm just asking you to skip the political part I don't care about that for this purpose and I think new ground can be gotten to. I want to know your views on consciousness. I think that I follow guys like this may surprise you, did you maybe do already something with like Anil Seth? Yes yes a few times. I I appreciate very much what he's doing. I know you have your critiques of his work and you've even published them. Yeah but it's benevolent, it's not a critique you go to gulag. It's maybe a critique of one year of re-education camp and then you go out. No, what I want to say is that I like very much his notion of consciousness as controlled hallucination. Why do you like it? Because it avoids this first I of course don't agree this with this stupid subjectivism. I hate okay, sorry if it will sound political but it's just my evil nature it's not political. If I were to be a dictator guys who immediately go to gulag will be those who try to link quantum physics with some oriental wisdom Bhagavad Gita and so on all that bullshit you know. No no no I remain a materialist not not only in this sense of anti-subjectivism in this sense that we are not alone. But in another more refined sense in the sense that how do we I would have to go to go in detail here more deeply into psychoanalysis but let me give you the basic insight. We only become ourselves this is for me the most convincing theory of awareness which is incidentally always self-awareness, awareness is always reflexive no? Let's say for me I follow Lacan, you confront when you are already a small kid you notice that people around you father, mother, uncle, brothers whoever play certain games with you. They want something from you implicitly. But you discover that not only that you don't know what this is what do they want from me, out of this questioning awareness arises. Here I even now you will again accuse me of jumping here and there but I like vague analogies. You know when Heidegger says that the key when do you start to think about a hammer? Not when it functions smoothly but when it falls apart. My god what went wrong and so on. So I think that awareness the original site of awareness is the confrontation with this enigmatic other. Not divine but these people around you my god what do they want from me, what am I for them. And this deep existential question is here I agree with Freud and Lacan is the basic hysterical question. The hysterical question is why am I what you are saying that I am? You are calling me my master, my wife whatever why am I what you are saying that I am? What do you really want from me? This basic doubt and I think this is part of basic human communication so that I go here a step further. Our world is built as not just with natural objects but especially with others, how we construct a world to answer these dilemmas. The ultimate answer is paranoia. Paranoia is basically something crazy but at the same time very rational. Paranoia says don't worry I can tell you exactly what others want from you. That guy has a mega plot against you and so on and so on. Paranoia Sorry and when you say that's the ultimate answer do you mean that's the ultimate correct answer or do you mean to say that's the inevitable result of No no no it's a crazy answer. It's a crazy answer but it clarifies thing like today conspiracy theories no? They you know what's so interesting with me in them for me? First they say all this scientific knowledge is bluff blah blah but then all of a sudden they come with an absolute answer you know. I I think the enigma of the other what does the other want from me is original. There is no individuality there is no self-awareness without it. And ultimately even there is no freedom. We are free I will give you another crazy definition not all-encompassing but one possible approach. We are free when the other remains non-transparent for us. If we were to know precisely where what are we for the others we would be reduced to an object. We wouldn't have this inner subjectivity however we experience it. I'm going very fast here but I'm just giving you hints. I remember the doubt before launching this podcast. What if no one listens? What if I'm wasting my time? If you've ever felt that way about starting a business, Shopify is the partner that turns uncertainty into momentum. They power millions of businesses and of all US e-commerce from Allbirds to Gymshark to brands just getting started. No straggler left behind. Shopify's AI tool writes your product descriptions for you, it enhances your photography, it builds you a stunning store from hundreds of templates. Forget about the dormant haze of bouncing between separate platforms.
by space I mean rule of law, rules of decency, politeness and so on are being disregarded they are falling apart. In such a situation you have to be free in more radical sense. You have to redefine basically the society in which you are free. So this is not just freedom in the sense of within existing circumstances I can act freely, it's to redefine, change this circumstances themselves. Then we have ah I go further so now we have this everyday freedom you have to follow rules you know you are scientist Rovelli whoever. But when you go out and ask your secretary for a coffee which I'm enough of a pessimist, sorry feminist I wouldn't do it, I would I would like have a secretary who would tell me fuck off why don't you go for your coffee. But what I'm saying is that you rely on a certain set of kindness, decency and so on. A higher level of freedom is when you have to as it were to use Rousseau term to reinvent social contract itself. And then even there is even a more radical level freedom as madness in the sense of what Freud calls death drive. One has to be here very precise. Freudian death drive is not oh I want to kill myself or Nirvana obliterate. If you read Freud closely then when he talks about death drive he really means immortality, he means some self-destructive tendency that persists ad infinitum as it were you know. That freedom at its most radical is what Freud calls beyond the pleasure principle. You do something terrifying for no positive reason not because I will profit or not, but it's a kind of an empty suicidal choice. This is part of most radical human freedom for me and both Schelling and Hegel in their own way reach this point. Hegel calls it following German mysticism Nacht der Welt, the night of the world, this reduction to zero. In some sense you have to choose although we emerge out of society but existentially at the deepest level you have to freely choose to be part of a society. That would be the most radical freedom for me. So you see I just complicate. You ask me what is freedom I would tell you vaguely that I can that I can distinguish these three levels. But what I like in Schelling is that he says that the truly free acts we experience them in our consciousness as necessity. If you really passionately the example that I already used fall in love, first it never happens in the present. You cannot say oh now I will fall in love. No all of a sudden you realize my god I was already in love, I am in love. And from that point on it's like fate. Your life changes this choice which you never made consciously determines your life. This is for me freedom at its most radical in our relatively normal daily life. So okay let me express some of my freedom by the rest at the at the cost of restraining you by accident. This podcast I keep it a-political. So that is to say You are right. This is needed today. Okay great great. Wonderful and that's and that's super difficult I imagine for you because you're everything's melded together and so if I ask you a question about consciousness it may lead to politics and it may lead to physics and it may lead somewhere else and it and it winds around. That's fine. I'm just asking you to skip the political part I don't care about that for this purpose and I think new ground can be gotten to. I want to know your views on consciousness. I think that I follow guys like this may surprise you, did you maybe do already something with like Anil Seth? Yes yes a few times. I I appreciate very much what he's doing. I know you have your critiques of his work and you've even published them. Yeah but it's benevolent, it's not a critique you go to gulag. It's maybe a critique of one year of re-education camp and then you go out. No, what I want to say is that I like very much his notion of consciousness as controlled hallucination. Why do you like it? Because it avoids this first I of course don't agree this with this stupid subjectivism. I hate okay, sorry if it will sound political but it's just my evil nature it's not political. If I were to be a dictator guys who immediately go to gulag will be those who try to link quantum physics with some oriental wisdom Bhagavad Gita and so on all that bullshit you know. No no no I remain a materialist not not only in this sense of anti-subjectivism in this sense that we are not alone. But in another more refined sense in the sense that how do we I would have to go to go in detail here more deeply into psychoanalysis but let me give you the basic insight. We only become ourselves this is for me the most convincing theory of awareness which is incidentally always self-awareness, awareness is always reflexive no? Let's say for me I follow Lacan, you confront when you are already a small kid you notice that people around you father, mother, uncle, brothers whoever play certain games with you. They want something from you implicitly. But you discover that not only that you don't know what this is what do they want from me, out of this questioning awareness arises. Here I even now you will again accuse me of jumping here and there but I like vague analogies. You know when Heidegger says that the key when do you start to think about a hammer? Not when it functions smoothly but when it falls apart. My god what went wrong and so on. So I think that awareness the original site of awareness is the confrontation with this enigmatic other. Not divine but these people around you my god what do they want from me, what am I for them. And this deep existential question is here I agree with Freud and Lacan is the basic hysterical question. The hysterical question is why am I what you are saying that I am? You are calling me my master, my wife whatever why am I what you are saying that I am? What do you really want from me? This basic doubt and I think this is part of basic human communication so that I go here a step further. Our world is built as not just with natural objects but especially with others, how we construct a world to answer these dilemmas. The ultimate answer is paranoia. Paranoia is basically something crazy but at the same time very rational. Paranoia says don't worry I can tell you exactly what others want from you. That guy has a mega plot against you and so on and so on. Paranoia Sorry and when you say that's the ultimate answer do you mean that's the ultimate correct answer or do you mean to say that's the inevitable result of No no no it's a crazy answer. It's a crazy answer but it clarifies thing like today conspiracy theories no? They you know what's so interesting with me in them for me? First they say all this scientific knowledge is bluff blah blah but then all of a sudden they come with an absolute answer you know. I I think the enigma of the other what does the other want from me is original. There is no individuality there is no self-awareness without it. And ultimately even there is no freedom. We are free I will give you another crazy definition not all-encompassing but one possible approach. We are free when the other remains non-transparent for us. If we were to know precisely where what are we for the others we would be reduced to an object. We wouldn't have this inner subjectivity however we experience it. I'm going very fast here but I'm just giving you hints. I remember the doubt before launching this podcast. What if no one listens? What if I'm wasting my time? If you've ever felt that way about starting a business, Shopify is the partner that turns uncertainty into momentum. They power millions of businesses and of all US e-commerce from Allbirds to Gymshark to brands just getting started. No straggler left behind. Shopify's AI tool writes your product descriptions for you, it enhances your photography, it builds you a stunning store from hundreds of templates. Forget about the dormant haze of bouncing between separate platforms.
unknown
Shopify puts inventory payments and analytics under one roof with the propriety of a true commerce expert. Their award-winning support means you're never alone and that iconic purple Shop Pay button, it's the backbone of their checkout, the best converting on the planet turning abandoned carts into actual sales. It's time to turn those "what ifs" into with Shopify today. Sign up for your per month trial at shopify.com/toe. That's shopify.com/toe. This video is sponsored by Shortform. If you want a free trial and an exclusive off their annual plan, then go to the link in my description shortform.com/toe. If you're like me, you've encountered books that are
Shopify puts inventory payments and analytics under one roof with the propriety of a true commerce expert. Their award-winning support means you're never alone and that iconic purple Shop Pay button, it's the backbone of their checkout, the best converting on the planet turning abandoned carts into actual sales. It's time to turn those "what ifs" into with Shopify today. Sign up for your per month trial at shopify.com/toe. That's shopify.com/toe. This video is sponsored by Shortform. If you want a free trial and an exclusive off their annual plan, then go to the link in my description shortform.com/toe. If you're like me, you've encountered books that are
Slavoj Žižek
so dense finishing
so dense finishing
unknown
them is actually just the beginning. Shortform helps with that.
them is actually just the beginning. Shortform helps with that.
Slavoj Žižek
Their book guides go far beyond pastiche summaries. They critique, they add context, they include interactive exercises and connect ideas across authors. Take Gödel, Escher, Bach or The Master and His Emissary, two of the most demanding reads in consciousness studies on the popular market. My method is I read the guide first, then the book, then I read the guide again. So it's a triptych of engagement that cements understanding, better understanding for me. The GEB guide maps recursive structures in a way that exhibits intellectual pleiotropy where one insight branches into consciousness, computation, and self-reference simultaneously. Shortform uncovers philosophy, science and psychology, ipso facto, the intellectual core of this channel. They publish new guides weekly and subscribers vote on what books get covered next. Their browser extension, Shortform AI, summarizes articles and YouTube videos with a single click. Go to shortform.com/toe for a free trial and an exclusive off your annual subscription. That's shortform.com/toe. Okay let me make a simple analogy. So let's imagine you have a flashlight and we're in the dark. Okay so we have this flashlight but then we can't even know ourselves because in your model consciousness or awareness is self-reflexive until it bounces off of another object. Now if that object is transparent then it would just go through, we wouldn't see it, so we wouldn't even know ourselves because in order to know ourselves something has to hit us. Yeah. Okay. Re-educating Anil Seth, putting him in a camp for a year. I didn't hear that part, I want what would you say to him where is he missing the mark, where is he on the mark? Well I think that what what that I think that no no my point is much more precise here I agree with him. Also I like very much that you introduced into this duality me and another something third is needed. And this is a very interesting question. I spoke with linguistic philosophers, I told them not just empirical but theoretically why in human exchange even if we speak dialogue is never just a dialogue. There are at some deeper level always at least three. We have to refer to some third agency which can be superego some social fantasy whatever no? Sure. So back to Anil Seth you know he has one basic premise that what underlies awareness is a desire to survive and reproduce itself no? He takes this desire or will or tendency drive I don't know what term he uses because he explains everything as a strategy for survival. I think what makes us humans is precisely what I called death drive, a radical indecision. It's no, I can step out, I can kill myself, I can say I don't care, the drive to self-reproduction to whatever is not the ultimate horizon. You know who knew this in a literary way? You know Edgar Allan Poe's wonderful story The Imp of the Perversity where the idea is it's a short story to make something evil but to take great care that you don't profit in any way from it. Also not morally, you know. Kant says the moment you do something great because you know somebody is observing it it will bring your fame no it's no longer to do something evil even suicidal just for the sake of it this is the zero level of freedom and now I go very quickly through a speculation that you will not like probably but I have better foundation I don't have time now. I would say that how does morality social morality emerge? Social morality in the sense precisely of there are things for which I am ready to sacrifice my life. I I don't I think that this comes second. First comes I am able to sacrifice my life, to kill myself. Then on on at a second level you say but let's try to recuperate to to re-include this tendency into
Their book guides go far beyond pastiche summaries. They critique, they add context, they include interactive exercises and connect ideas across authors. Take Gödel, Escher, Bach or The Master and His Emissary, two of the most demanding reads in consciousness studies on the popular market. My method is I read the guide first, then the book, then I read the guide again. So it's a triptych of engagement that cements understanding, better understanding for me. The GEB guide maps recursive structures in a way that exhibits intellectual pleiotropy where one insight branches into consciousness, computation, and self-reference simultaneously. Shortform uncovers philosophy, science and psychology, ipso facto, the intellectual core of this channel. They publish new guides weekly and subscribers vote on what books get covered next. Their browser extension, Shortform AI, summarizes articles and YouTube videos with a single click. Go to shortform.com/toe for a free trial and an exclusive off your annual subscription. That's shortform.com/toe. Okay let me make a simple analogy. So let's imagine you have a flashlight and we're in the dark. Okay so we have this flashlight but then we can't even know ourselves because in your model consciousness or awareness is self-reflexive until it bounces off of another object. Now if that object is transparent then it would just go through, we wouldn't see it, so we wouldn't even know ourselves because in order to know ourselves something has to hit us. Yeah. Okay. Re-educating Anil Seth, putting him in a camp for a year. I didn't hear that part, I want what would you say to him where is he missing the mark, where is he on the mark? Well I think that what what that I think that no no my point is much more precise here I agree with him. Also I like very much that you introduced into this duality me and another something third is needed. And this is a very interesting question. I spoke with linguistic philosophers, I told them not just empirical but theoretically why in human exchange even if we speak dialogue is never just a dialogue. There are at some deeper level always at least three. We have to refer to some third agency which can be superego some social fantasy whatever no? Sure. So back to Anil Seth you know he has one basic premise that what underlies awareness is a desire to survive and reproduce itself no? He takes this desire or will or tendency drive I don't know what term he uses because he explains everything as a strategy for survival. I think what makes us humans is precisely what I called death drive, a radical indecision. It's no, I can step out, I can kill myself, I can say I don't care, the drive to self-reproduction to whatever is not the ultimate horizon. You know who knew this in a literary way? You know Edgar Allan Poe's wonderful story The Imp of the Perversity where the idea is it's a short story to make something evil but to take great care that you don't profit in any way from it. Also not morally, you know. Kant says the moment you do something great because you know somebody is observing it it will bring your fame no it's no longer to do something evil even suicidal just for the sake of it this is the zero level of freedom and now I go very quickly through a speculation that you will not like probably but I have better foundation I don't have time now. I would say that how does morality social morality emerge? Social morality in the sense precisely of there are things for which I am ready to sacrifice my life. I I don't I think that this comes second. First comes I am able to sacrifice my life, to kill myself. Then on on at a second level you say but let's try to recuperate to to re-include this tendency into
unknown
something that can be of use to a society and it's not just individuals because people usually tell me yeah of
something that can be of use to a society and it's not just individuals because people usually tell me yeah of
Slavoj Žižek
course it's biologically determined like ants who sacrifice a couple of them when they are attacked so that others survive. A computer scientist told me even artificial intelligence agents units they already are developing this minimal collective spirit. One program can sacrifice himself close down itself it if somehow serves the others. And we but with humans it's more radical like sometimes a whole entity a nation is ready to say we rather die than to lose our freedom for example no? And to account for this you need some zero level readiness to end your life which I call death drive. I'm much more a pessimist here. I think that our what may appear as our goodness is the result of of successfully reintegrating some terrifying self-destructive dimension. But this is not quantum physics I know. Bernardo Kastrup. He's an idealist. Have you watched any of his material? No I I should I is it
course it's biologically determined like ants who sacrifice a couple of them when they are attacked so that others survive. A computer scientist told me even artificial intelligence agents units they already are developing this minimal collective spirit. One program can sacrifice himself close down itself it if somehow serves the others. And we but with humans it's more radical like sometimes a whole entity a nation is ready to say we rather die than to lose our freedom for example no? And to account for this you need some zero level readiness to end your life which I call death drive. I'm much more a pessimist here. I think that our what may appear as our goodness is the result of of successfully reintegrating some terrifying self-destructive dimension. But this is not quantum physics I know. Bernardo Kastrup. He's an idealist. Have you watched any of his material? No I I should I is it
unknown
worth? I have so little time and I try to you know now I'm much more interested in this infinite as but what's his point tell me okay. Well he's an idealist so he would say that we think there's the material or the physical whatever we want to call it whatever synonym but that comes from a base of consciousness. The base unit is consciousness. In fact there is one cosmic mind and then we are all almost eddies or little whirlpools in it that come from some dissociation. Okay but but you know you know okay but no no I am now I remember I when I was covering this how to call them universal consciousness readings of quantum mechanics I how can you know what's my idea and it shocked some people? That not only are theories of quantum mechanics which interpreted in an idealist way, you know all that bullshit, awareness consciousness creates reality, not only are they wrong but the true opposition is for me Einstein versus Niels Bohr. Probably you know what's my point. For me Einstein is way too idealist because although he still is a as he says Spinozian idealist, if you look at the universe as a totality you discover inner beauty harmony and so on and so on. I think the ultimate lesson of quantum mechanics when they repeat all the time there is no totality every totality is rooted in a particular standpoint and so on and so on. Why? Not because we create the world but isn't is like I will put it like this what I find so fascinating and I've spoken with quantum physicists and with theologians even. They some of them accepted my idea crazy that you know the best definition we have our ordinary reality objects Are you going into the idea that they accepted? No no no accepted in the sense that they see they no they accepted just that. They see that if you fully accept what I see as an ontological implication of quantum mechanics that our reality is not all there is, that quantum waves or superpositions and so on form a different totally different reality of its own which our which do not fit our notion of reality. But I think that here I intrigue that what fascinates me in quantum reality and I don't think I'm just playing here with vague homologies is that reality itself is in itself not fully constituted. What means wave function? It means it's not fully determined in advance. Reality is in itself ontologically open. And now maybe you know this example I forgot in what book introduction to philosophy I found this ingenious parallel where you must know it. This is if you ask me your favorite philosophical joke it's not a joke it's a parallel it's this one. When a guy tries to explain quantum indeterminacy through video games. You know he said the creator creates a video game but he sets rules, for example you see in
worth? I have so little time and I try to you know now I'm much more interested in this infinite as but what's his point tell me okay. Well he's an idealist so he would say that we think there's the material or the physical whatever we want to call it whatever synonym but that comes from a base of consciousness. The base unit is consciousness. In fact there is one cosmic mind and then we are all almost eddies or little whirlpools in it that come from some dissociation. Okay but but you know you know okay but no no I am now I remember I when I was covering this how to call them universal consciousness readings of quantum mechanics I how can you know what's my idea and it shocked some people? That not only are theories of quantum mechanics which interpreted in an idealist way, you know all that bullshit, awareness consciousness creates reality, not only are they wrong but the true opposition is for me Einstein versus Niels Bohr. Probably you know what's my point. For me Einstein is way too idealist because although he still is a as he says Spinozian idealist, if you look at the universe as a totality you discover inner beauty harmony and so on and so on. I think the ultimate lesson of quantum mechanics when they repeat all the time there is no totality every totality is rooted in a particular standpoint and so on and so on. Why? Not because we create the world but isn't is like I will put it like this what I find so fascinating and I've spoken with quantum physicists and with theologians even. They some of them accepted my idea crazy that you know the best definition we have our ordinary reality objects Are you going into the idea that they accepted? No no no accepted in the sense that they see they no they accepted just that. They see that if you fully accept what I see as an ontological implication of quantum mechanics that our reality is not all there is, that quantum waves or superpositions and so on form a different totally different reality of its own which our which do not fit our notion of reality. But I think that here I intrigue that what fascinates me in quantum reality and I don't think I'm just playing here with vague homologies is that reality itself is in itself not fully constituted. What means wave function? It means it's not fully determined in advance. Reality is in itself ontologically open. And now maybe you know this example I forgot in what book introduction to philosophy I found this ingenious parallel where you must know it. This is if you ask me your favorite philosophical joke it's not a joke it's a parallel it's this one. When a guy tries to explain quantum indeterminacy through video games. You know he said the creator creates a video game but he sets rules, for example you see in
Slavoj Žižek
the background forest. But there is no program for how each tree looks in the inside. Because it's not part of the game that you will go there you have to remain on the main street or whatever. So it's an incomplete reality. In the background you have a blurred reality. And his idea is this where things come become charming for me. That what if you assume the same for our reality? That god if we imagine a creator was too lazy to create it to the end. He said we go to the micro level neutrons and so on but then eh people will be too stupid to move beyond so why should I lose time constitute fully to the end. So the idea is I use consciously this obscene expression that quantum mechanics caught god with his pants down as it were. Ah you were too lazy here, we went too far. In other words, if you imagine a god who properly constitute create our reality quantum physics hints at a level of reality which was as it were left behind, left indeterminate by god. For because of this I think that quantum waves and so on are true measure of materialism. In the sense that I use here the term god in a very specific way. Not just old uncle sitting up there but a total rational intuitive what you want view of reality as if there is some mind in which reality is totally present. No, the lesson of quantum physics is no, there is no higher mind like that. There are only particular standpoints. The paradox why I like this solution of mine is that I use as an argument for materialism precisely what is usually quoted as an argument for idealism. You see quantum mechanics teaches us that only our awareness observation create reality. Yeah but something comes before and that's what in Lacanian terms I would have called the real. Something outside our reality but which is there at its presupposition and now haha I will return to your beginning. Schelling was here the true genius because in his Weltalter (Ages of the World) he has a wonderful it hit me immediately the beginning not the intro of the text where he says okay at the beginning was Logos, the word, divine Logos. But what was there before the beginning? You see that's quantum physics answers that question, what was there before Logos introduced order and so on and so on you know. I talk too much I'm sorry. You should be more aggressive you know you talk about aggressiveness and so on but I suspect you that you are basically a kind man you know, very dangerous. Ah no I'm a I'm a huge softy I'm a huge softy. I want to allow you to explain yourself and I want to ensure that I'm not mischaracterizing you so I don't want to stop you prematurely. But then but then characterize me in a brutal way. Okay here we go. Here's what I see, here's what I see a a mistake that many who get popular accounts of quantum mechanics do. So for instance even when people talk about wave-particle duality, that's introduced in lecture one of a quantum mechanics course by a professor who's almost mystifying it to to an audience to to get them to like linear algebra. And then all of a sudden it's never brought up again because there's no wave-particle duality as a formal duality and then if you look at the the axioms of quantum mechanics it doesn't say here's the wave part here's the particle part and so on. So anyhow, here's what I see happening. It says, okay I would more like call it a wave-particle characteristic of a quantum mechanical object, that's the way that I would say it but it's many more words. But what is quantum mechanical object,
the background forest. But there is no program for how each tree looks in the inside. Because it's not part of the game that you will go there you have to remain on the main street or whatever. So it's an incomplete reality. In the background you have a blurred reality. And his idea is this where things come become charming for me. That what if you assume the same for our reality? That god if we imagine a creator was too lazy to create it to the end. He said we go to the micro level neutrons and so on but then eh people will be too stupid to move beyond so why should I lose time constitute fully to the end. So the idea is I use consciously this obscene expression that quantum mechanics caught god with his pants down as it were. Ah you were too lazy here, we went too far. In other words, if you imagine a god who properly constitute create our reality quantum physics hints at a level of reality which was as it were left behind, left indeterminate by god. For because of this I think that quantum waves and so on are true measure of materialism. In the sense that I use here the term god in a very specific way. Not just old uncle sitting up there but a total rational intuitive what you want view of reality as if there is some mind in which reality is totally present. No, the lesson of quantum physics is no, there is no higher mind like that. There are only particular standpoints. The paradox why I like this solution of mine is that I use as an argument for materialism precisely what is usually quoted as an argument for idealism. You see quantum mechanics teaches us that only our awareness observation create reality. Yeah but something comes before and that's what in Lacanian terms I would have called the real. Something outside our reality but which is there at its presupposition and now haha I will return to your beginning. Schelling was here the true genius because in his Weltalter (Ages of the World) he has a wonderful it hit me immediately the beginning not the intro of the text where he says okay at the beginning was Logos, the word, divine Logos. But what was there before the beginning? You see that's quantum physics answers that question, what was there before Logos introduced order and so on and so on you know. I talk too much I'm sorry. You should be more aggressive you know you talk about aggressiveness and so on but I suspect you that you are basically a kind man you know, very dangerous. Ah no I'm a I'm a huge softy I'm a huge softy. I want to allow you to explain yourself and I want to ensure that I'm not mischaracterizing you so I don't want to stop you prematurely. But then but then characterize me in a brutal way. Okay here we go. Here's what I see, here's what I see a a mistake that many who get popular accounts of quantum mechanics do. So for instance even when people talk about wave-particle duality, that's introduced in lecture one of a quantum mechanics course by a professor who's almost mystifying it to to an audience to to get them to like linear algebra. And then all of a sudden it's never brought up again because there's no wave-particle duality as a formal duality and then if you look at the the axioms of quantum mechanics it doesn't say here's the wave part here's the particle part and so on. So anyhow, here's what I see happening. It says, okay I would more like call it a wave-particle characteristic of a quantum mechanical object, that's the way that I would say it but it's many more words. But what is quantum mechanical object,
unknown
define it? What other things do we know
define it? What other things do we know
Slavoj Žižek
or presume about it, what other dimension then either particle or wave? Is there anything else? I don't think
or presume about it, what other dimension then either particle or wave? Is there anything else? I don't think
unknown
that there's a simple way to state it other than something that's mathematical. So the concern that I have is that there is some pattern, like let's say quantum history is a book of yours. Okay and in it you mention how there's necessity there's contingency. Okay, look let's imagine you take A and then you put comma and then a B and then you and you put the brackets around so that you have some
that there's a simple way to state it other than something that's mathematical. So the concern that I have is that there is some pattern, like let's say quantum history is a book of yours. Okay and in it you mention how there's necessity there's contingency. Okay, look let's imagine you take A and then you put comma and then a B and then you and you put the brackets around so that you have some
Slavoj Žižek
the commutator and you're saying that that doesn't equal zero. Okay but that that mathematical statement has specific observable consequences and it even has an observational bound that's a Heisenberg uncertainty bound. So it seems to me that what you're describing is more of the sort of of just saying that there are symbolic acts that matter, you can't undo these symbolic acts and the the order matters. So yes, but that could also be just said of of if one wants to make a physics analogy of just ordinary path dependence. So when someone says that this is like quantum mechanical non-commutation. Well, is it like quantum mechanical non-commutation or is it like non-commutation or is it just like saying the order matters? Because saying the order matters is something we can say ordinarily, but the ordinary is not something people like so they dress it up and they decorate it with quantum mechanics. I will tell you what, it's precisely that quantum reality has a series of properties, it changes notion of space, time and so on which do not fit our ordinary reality and those properties interest me. You know but but I will try to answer another thing when you mentioned contingency necessity and so on. Here again, I in advance admit my guilt that I'm jumping up and down. Hegel is usually taken as this ultimate idealist, everything is deduced logically and so on. I don't know a philosopher more open to contingency than Hegel. Why? You know what Hegel says in the famous you must know this passage in introduction to his or forward I think to his Philosophy
the commutator and you're saying that that doesn't equal zero. Okay but that that mathematical statement has specific observable consequences and it even has an observational bound that's a Heisenberg uncertainty bound. So it seems to me that what you're describing is more of the sort of of just saying that there are symbolic acts that matter, you can't undo these symbolic acts and the the order matters. So yes, but that could also be just said of of if one wants to make a physics analogy of just ordinary path dependence. So when someone says that this is like quantum mechanical non-commutation. Well, is it like quantum mechanical non-commutation or is it like non-commutation or is it just like saying the order matters? Because saying the order matters is something we can say ordinarily, but the ordinary is not something people like so they dress it up and they decorate it with quantum mechanics. I will tell you what, it's precisely that quantum reality has a series of properties, it changes notion of space, time and so on which do not fit our ordinary reality and those properties interest me. You know but but I will try to answer another thing when you mentioned contingency necessity and so on. Here again, I in advance admit my guilt that I'm jumping up and down. Hegel is usually taken as this ultimate idealist, everything is deduced logically and so on. I don't know a philosopher more open to contingency than Hegel. Why? You know what Hegel says in the famous you must know this passage in introduction to his or forward I think to his Philosophy
unknown
of Right. He says philosophy can only grasp a
of Right. He says philosophy can only grasp a
Slavoj Žižek
social order which is already in decay. It can grasp its inner logic. Philosophy always comes too late. And then you know he says philosophy paints gray on gray, gray gray concepts on gray gray reality, reality in decay. Then he is much more materialist here than Marx. Marx still believes in some kind of teleology. After capitalism socialism we can get the logic of history where it points and act accordingly. For Hegel this is prohibited. Hegel says we cannot say anything about future. Future is radically open. So what Hegel knows is this and here I see a parallel which maybe you will disagree I give you the right with quantum mechanics, not even parallel because I think Hegel is often confused here and only quantum mechanics allows us to see what Hegel was aiming. You know this quantum mechanic rule Rovelli repeats this all the time that that in his in a chapter of his last book that didn't yet appear, I just got a chapter, he linked a little bit too quickly I think Kierkegaard and Bohr. He says that both refer as they see the ultimate act in a subjective choice what you will choose believe of which dimension you will measure against Hegel who no but Hegel have this point which is also in Kierkegaard in Rovelli that history is open it becomes necessary retroactively. It's there is necessity but this necessity itself is contingent. In the sense that once you establish a necessity, once you make a contingent decision you structure in a new necessary way, you see a new pattern in the entire past. It sounds very speculative but it's as if again you will kill me because this is my quick jumps you fall in love and then you read all your past life in view of this as everything was pointing towards this and so on and so on. So what I find in quantum mechanics it's not just this particle blah duality, but this basic idea not just everything is contingent but through this contingency itself rules arise laws what you call them in an ultimately contingent way. You know that in some tendencies you recent readings of quantum physics you must know this better than me are they to be taken seriously or not. You even have now evolutionary quantum mechanics where they claim that what we consider perceive as natural laws eternal no that after Big Bang there were more options and it was like a struggle for survival and in a contingent way one version won. I like to save the notion of contingency but sorry of necessity but something that it's not eternally necessary something out of in a contingent way something retroactively emerges as necessity. Is it the case that you started to like quantum mechanics because of Carlo Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics is physics and it sounds like Hegelian ontology, so relational properties then maybe get mapped to incomplete reality. Yeah but but it's not that I want to reduce it to Hegel. I'm well aware of Hegel's limitations and so on and so on. It's just that not only Rovelli but also others allowed me to read in a radically new life Hegel himself his work. It's no longer this panlogical Hegel he deduced from his mind everything. It's Hegel of radical openness, not Hegel of necessity but Hegel of how necessities arise in a contingent way. Something contingently erases and establishes itself as a necessity. So let me ask you this, is there a reason that there's a particular type of openness? There's the heat equation on a Hamiltonian flow on a projective complex space. Like why is it structured to not just be this radical openness but it's of a particular kind? That's a very good question but I try not to bluff more than necessary. So my answer to you would have been that you are now entering a domain where are these different kinds of openness and so on and so on, which is not I must admit my domain. What I'm just saying is that when we talk about openness I don't mean any kind of domain of pure contingency and so on. It's a very it's an it's a determined world but which arose in a contingent way. For example today, don't be
social order which is already in decay. It can grasp its inner logic. Philosophy always comes too late. And then you know he says philosophy paints gray on gray, gray gray concepts on gray gray reality, reality in decay. Then he is much more materialist here than Marx. Marx still believes in some kind of teleology. After capitalism socialism we can get the logic of history where it points and act accordingly. For Hegel this is prohibited. Hegel says we cannot say anything about future. Future is radically open. So what Hegel knows is this and here I see a parallel which maybe you will disagree I give you the right with quantum mechanics, not even parallel because I think Hegel is often confused here and only quantum mechanics allows us to see what Hegel was aiming. You know this quantum mechanic rule Rovelli repeats this all the time that that in his in a chapter of his last book that didn't yet appear, I just got a chapter, he linked a little bit too quickly I think Kierkegaard and Bohr. He says that both refer as they see the ultimate act in a subjective choice what you will choose believe of which dimension you will measure against Hegel who no but Hegel have this point which is also in Kierkegaard in Rovelli that history is open it becomes necessary retroactively. It's there is necessity but this necessity itself is contingent. In the sense that once you establish a necessity, once you make a contingent decision you structure in a new necessary way, you see a new pattern in the entire past. It sounds very speculative but it's as if again you will kill me because this is my quick jumps you fall in love and then you read all your past life in view of this as everything was pointing towards this and so on and so on. So what I find in quantum mechanics it's not just this particle blah duality, but this basic idea not just everything is contingent but through this contingency itself rules arise laws what you call them in an ultimately contingent way. You know that in some tendencies you recent readings of quantum physics you must know this better than me are they to be taken seriously or not. You even have now evolutionary quantum mechanics where they claim that what we consider perceive as natural laws eternal no that after Big Bang there were more options and it was like a struggle for survival and in a contingent way one version won. I like to save the notion of contingency but sorry of necessity but something that it's not eternally necessary something out of in a contingent way something retroactively emerges as necessity. Is it the case that you started to like quantum mechanics because of Carlo Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics is physics and it sounds like Hegelian ontology, so relational properties then maybe get mapped to incomplete reality. Yeah but but it's not that I want to reduce it to Hegel. I'm well aware of Hegel's limitations and so on and so on. It's just that not only Rovelli but also others allowed me to read in a radically new life Hegel himself his work. It's no longer this panlogical Hegel he deduced from his mind everything. It's Hegel of radical openness, not Hegel of necessity but Hegel of how necessities arise in a contingent way. Something contingently erases and establishes itself as a necessity. So let me ask you this, is there a reason that there's a particular type of openness? There's the heat equation on a Hamiltonian flow on a projective complex space. Like why is it structured to not just be this radical openness but it's of a particular kind? That's a very good question but I try not to bluff more than necessary. So my answer to you would have been that you are now entering a domain where are these different kinds of openness and so on and so on, which is not I must admit my domain. What I'm just saying is that when we talk about openness I don't mean any kind of domain of pure contingency and so on. It's a very it's an it's a determined world but which arose in a contingent way. For example today, don't be
unknown
afraid I will not go into politics but almost everybody agrees haha that that we are approaching some kind of
afraid I will not go into politics but almost everybody agrees haha that that we are approaching some kind of
Slavoj Žižek
the end of the world all the threats and so on and so on. And I think that I
the end of the world all the threats and so on and so on. And I think that I
unknown
think that there is some basic truth in it that we are approaching a zero point. And that we cannot think in the old teleological way either liberal or Marxist or pseudo-Hegelian where you say no no at the end there is socialism
think that there is some basic truth in it that we are approaching a zero point. And that we cannot think in the old teleological way either liberal or Marxist or pseudo-Hegelian where you say no no at the end there is socialism
Slavoj Žižek
or as Fukuyama
or as Fukuyama
unknown
thought worldwide liberal democracy or whatever. The way we so I'm not I'm not claiming I'm not articulating proposing openness in the sense of you can do whatever you want everything is open and so on and so on. No our openness today coincides with never in our history I think were we so close to a global catastrophe. Ecological, artificial
thought worldwide liberal democracy or whatever. The way we so I'm not I'm not claiming I'm not articulating proposing openness in the sense of you can do whatever you want everything is open and so on and so on. No our openness today coincides with never in our history I think were we so close to a global catastrophe. Ecological, artificial
Slavoj Žižek
intelligence, I'm not opposed to it I'm just saying we don't know. I love these questions but I find all the contradictory answers you know. Does again I will give you a Socratean answer
intelligence, I'm not opposed to it I'm just saying we don't know. I love these questions but I find all the contradictory answers you know. Does again I will give you a Socratean answer
unknown
does AI artificial intelligence agents can they think if they can in what sense can they think and so on? Again my point would be what do you mean by thinking. What interests me in artificial intelligence is that it will demand of us to redefine what does being human mean? Because I mean I have no what I have no doubt that artificial intelligence has already you probably know this better than me incredible capacity capacities to cheat to lie to cover up and so on and so on at this level and it's infinitely more intelligent. So is there anything that makes us uniquely human? But now is the crucial point my point is not so haha let the digital space do their its calculations but we are still the top of creation. No, I think that we probably who knows maybe in the digital space
does AI artificial intelligence agents can they think if they can in what sense can they think and so on? Again my point would be what do you mean by thinking. What interests me in artificial intelligence is that it will demand of us to redefine what does being human mean? Because I mean I have no what I have no doubt that artificial intelligence has already you probably know this better than me incredible capacity capacities to cheat to lie to cover up and so on and so on at this level and it's infinitely more intelligent. So is there anything that makes us uniquely human? But now is the crucial point my point is not so haha let the digital space do their its calculations but we are still the top of creation. No, I think that we probably who knows maybe in the digital space
Slavoj Žižek
another type
another type
unknown
of spirituality which will emerge which will be totally different incompatible with our spirituality. We are still too anthropocentric when you say oh maybe they already think and so on we still propose our measure as the general measure. I'm here more not a
of spirituality which will emerge which will be totally different incompatible with our spirituality. We are still too anthropocentric when you say oh maybe they already think and so on we still propose our measure as the general measure. I'm here more not a
Slavoj Žižek
pessimist even but like something radically new may emerge. This is why to conclude with but it's not a joke it's connected with our topic. Did you see the series E Pluribus? Yes, very much like it. You know what for me the most yeah not how this hysterical humans arise but what you learn from it about this we or whatever the singular humanity subject. You see that they are not happy at all. You know which is for me the most depressing scene? You remember when that Polish nice woman takes the heroin to spend a night where this we they spend. It's a very miserable a kind of a gigantic stadium where they just sleep down there is no sex. Then you learn that they have problems with food that they themselves are traumatized by the fact that they are programmed to do something and they don't know why, why do we have to to just put all energy into spreading around this virus to other civiliz- you know this enigma of the other. There maybe something authentic will emerge when you discover what I was talking already of intersubjectivity not only the other is non-transparent but you learn that the other is non-transparent to itself. They are perplexed. They claim happy happy join us, they are very miserable they are not really happy. So what's the point? So here I'm here you see what's my point Hegel is just for me somebody who have two three premises. One is when things can go wrong they will for sure go wrong. Hegel is not Hegel what is Hegel's typical procedure? A big event like French Revolution okay let's okay let's take a look at it and what happens in a couple of years you get terror. You want freedom you get terror. That's why I think Hegel would have loved at least early 20th century you know you have October Revolution big freedom emancipation wait for years Comrade Stalin is there you know this is Hegel. And another thing of Hegel is that big projects always go wrong and necessarily go wrong and maybe something good emerges only in the second round after the failure. So it's a totally different Hegel from this official optimist and so on you know. How how do you Slavoj interact with AI like how what are your personal use cases of LLMs? How do you Ah this will maybe interest you I even try to avoid ChatGPT but especially maybe this is a mistake and I'm missing something but I'm on there are a couple of Instagram, X sites which claim to be me. It's all done behind my back I'm totally out of this. I have email and that's it. I am afraid of getting too attached to it. I consciously try to remain old fashioned in the sense of reading books watching operas. People think I'm some kind of postmodern madman. Sorry I'm very conservative. I enjoy great operas I enjoy liter- Wait just a moment are you saying that the penis pictures I get from your OnlyFans account aren't yours? There exists really? No I'm just making that up. Because I wouldn't I wouldn't be surprised. The only link I have with OnlyFans is you know a friend of mine who still is a hero, Nadya Tolokonnikova of Pussy Riot she opened I think an OnlyFans account now no. But I'm so surprised then when people try to pretend to be me, answer me, imitate me but they get it so wrong. Ah but you know where is for me I will tell you something. Yeah. I checked at some of our departments I don't know if with you it's the same, isn't this a set tragedy? What's the model in today's publishing in scientific journals? You have a ChatGPT higher level of course write a
pessimist even but like something radically new may emerge. This is why to conclude with but it's not a joke it's connected with our topic. Did you see the series E Pluribus? Yes, very much like it. You know what for me the most yeah not how this hysterical humans arise but what you learn from it about this we or whatever the singular humanity subject. You see that they are not happy at all. You know which is for me the most depressing scene? You remember when that Polish nice woman takes the heroin to spend a night where this we they spend. It's a very miserable a kind of a gigantic stadium where they just sleep down there is no sex. Then you learn that they have problems with food that they themselves are traumatized by the fact that they are programmed to do something and they don't know why, why do we have to to just put all energy into spreading around this virus to other civiliz- you know this enigma of the other. There maybe something authentic will emerge when you discover what I was talking already of intersubjectivity not only the other is non-transparent but you learn that the other is non-transparent to itself. They are perplexed. They claim happy happy join us, they are very miserable they are not really happy. So what's the point? So here I'm here you see what's my point Hegel is just for me somebody who have two three premises. One is when things can go wrong they will for sure go wrong. Hegel is not Hegel what is Hegel's typical procedure? A big event like French Revolution okay let's okay let's take a look at it and what happens in a couple of years you get terror. You want freedom you get terror. That's why I think Hegel would have loved at least early 20th century you know you have October Revolution big freedom emancipation wait for years Comrade Stalin is there you know this is Hegel. And another thing of Hegel is that big projects always go wrong and necessarily go wrong and maybe something good emerges only in the second round after the failure. So it's a totally different Hegel from this official optimist and so on you know. How how do you Slavoj interact with AI like how what are your personal use cases of LLMs? How do you Ah this will maybe interest you I even try to avoid ChatGPT but especially maybe this is a mistake and I'm missing something but I'm on there are a couple of Instagram, X sites which claim to be me. It's all done behind my back I'm totally out of this. I have email and that's it. I am afraid of getting too attached to it. I consciously try to remain old fashioned in the sense of reading books watching operas. People think I'm some kind of postmodern madman. Sorry I'm very conservative. I enjoy great operas I enjoy liter- Wait just a moment are you saying that the penis pictures I get from your OnlyFans account aren't yours? There exists really? No I'm just making that up. Because I wouldn't I wouldn't be surprised. The only link I have with OnlyFans is you know a friend of mine who still is a hero, Nadya Tolokonnikova of Pussy Riot she opened I think an OnlyFans account now no. But I'm so surprised then when people try to pretend to be me, answer me, imitate me but they get it so wrong. Ah but you know where is for me I will tell you something. Yeah. I checked at some of our departments I don't know if with you it's the same, isn't this a set tragedy? What's the model in today's publishing in scientific journals? You have a ChatGPT higher level of course write a
unknown
text. Then the journal said it is peer reviewed, fuck it they use ChatGPT to review it and then they publish it and at the end nobody really reads it
text. Then the journal said it is peer reviewed, fuck it they use ChatGPT to review it and then they publish it and at the end nobody really reads it
unknown
because most that happens is that maybe some researcher
because most that happens is that maybe some researcher
Slavoj Žižek
asks its ChatGPT go through that text and give me resume and so on. You know I'm not horrified by this but I want to I want to keep a distance towards it. That's why since I believe in the sense of humor maybe you know more about it. How does it how does it go with with with AI producing jokes? Can they do it, how good are the jokes? I I don't think it's that great with jokes. Yeah yeah yeah. The other thing that I'm really afraid of is not AI as such but I wrote a book on it this Neuralink the idea of directly wiring our brain to a PC to a digital network no? It's no
asks its ChatGPT go through that text and give me resume and so on. You know I'm not horrified by this but I want to I want to keep a distance towards it. That's why since I believe in the sense of humor maybe you know more about it. How does it how does it go with with with AI producing jokes? Can they do it, how good are the jokes? I I don't think it's that great with jokes. Yeah yeah yeah. The other thing that I'm really afraid of is not AI as such but I wrote a book on it this Neuralink the idea of directly wiring our brain to a PC to a digital network no? It's no
unknown
longer just a dream now I learned finally Elon Musk came they will begin to sell them first model then as always Chinese already are commercializing it and you know what I really hate you noticed it probably that they always
longer just a dream now I learned finally Elon Musk came they will begin to sell them first model then as always Chinese already are commercializing it and you know what I really hate you noticed it probably that they always
Slavoj Žižek
introduce this as some kind of humanitarian measure you know like oh there was a crippled guy now we can communicate with him he's so Yes. Okay but what about the other aspect which is we can potentially control even what you think. And this is I'm not satisfied with my book Hegel in a Wired Brain but this is what really intrigues me if a Neuralink that is to say direct communication between our thoughts and digital space if this will become a fact how will this change our self-awareness if you know that you are open towards the machine not only towards other beings who were ali- in what sense will we still be human and so on I don't I'm just asking people. Let me ask you this, let me connect back to the beginning part of the conversation when speaking about what was true, oh gosh what was it? Not meaning. Freedom. Freedom. Freedom. Okay what is true humanity non-politically? I'm restraining you. Oh no don't be afraid I will not go into with communism we will be human no no my standard joke of you should like this openness is you know Rosa Luxemburg the great libertarian communist said the future will be either socialism or barbarism no? Well you know what's her mistake? Stalin proved it can be both at the same time you know. It's not even the choice you know. It's a quantum superposition which was collapsed into a different basis. No no no here I'm a little bit more careful no? One should be maybe I'm sometimes not careful enough by generalizing too quickly the notion of superposition, but I nonetheless think that in a limited way if one uses superposition in the sense that in a certain historical situation it's not simply there is one option which would be the best and then will we catch it or not, that there are genuinely multiple options and when one wins it retroactively changes our perception of the past itself. For example this is the Marx I like. When he says communism offers the key to previous modes of production in the sense that Marx says anatomy of man is the key for the anatomy of the ape. He doesn't mean it teleologically, we are the crown of creation. But he is aware that humanity emerged out of apes if it did by a pure coincidence change, but once it's here it renders the past visible in this way. And till now it was, Fukuyama was right everybody mocked him, liberal democratic welfare state was the highest standard because socialism the way we had it failed. And we are now at a total loss we don't even have a standard no? We are in a situation something like multiple I use a metaphor multiple superposition but you know where I'm not critical of you but what are you then doing with quantum physicists? Don't you know how almost every imaginable theory you will find some idiot who advocates it? There is Big Bang there is no Big Bang there are multiple Big Bangs, universe is finite. This is a great point. So this is one of my concerns with some people who try to tie much like you mentioned the Vedic texts, ancient ancient India oh oh quantum physics, the Vedas said this years ago, years ago I get that comment plenty. I'm actually writing a Substack post about that. But do you know that do you know that even Rovelli, he published in November in that Noema magazine a text his dialogue with some Veda guy where they claim yes there is a deep spiritual similarity between this Vedantic view of Atman Krishna blah blah and quantum. I for me you go to gulag if you claim this you know. A problem with that is there's two problems. One is that there's a similarity between almost anything. So I can find a similarity between my lip balm here and your life history. Okay, so you can abstract anything or generalize anything to find similarities with anything else but then there's some harm that comes about from trying to harmonize. Yeah yeah. There are multiple ways of abstracting. In fact if a mathematician or a physicist ever tells you this object here is the generalization of another object, that's false. There's no such thing as the generalization, there's a generalization. If it was the generalization... I agree with it and that's for me the lesson of quantum mechanics and that's why I don't like this they themselves sometimes fall into bad generalizations. Like in one of his texts the ultimate real whatever about precisely your point theory of everything no, Rovelli I think comes too close to this. He
introduce this as some kind of humanitarian measure you know like oh there was a crippled guy now we can communicate with him he's so Yes. Okay but what about the other aspect which is we can potentially control even what you think. And this is I'm not satisfied with my book Hegel in a Wired Brain but this is what really intrigues me if a Neuralink that is to say direct communication between our thoughts and digital space if this will become a fact how will this change our self-awareness if you know that you are open towards the machine not only towards other beings who were ali- in what sense will we still be human and so on I don't I'm just asking people. Let me ask you this, let me connect back to the beginning part of the conversation when speaking about what was true, oh gosh what was it? Not meaning. Freedom. Freedom. Freedom. Okay what is true humanity non-politically? I'm restraining you. Oh no don't be afraid I will not go into with communism we will be human no no my standard joke of you should like this openness is you know Rosa Luxemburg the great libertarian communist said the future will be either socialism or barbarism no? Well you know what's her mistake? Stalin proved it can be both at the same time you know. It's not even the choice you know. It's a quantum superposition which was collapsed into a different basis. No no no here I'm a little bit more careful no? One should be maybe I'm sometimes not careful enough by generalizing too quickly the notion of superposition, but I nonetheless think that in a limited way if one uses superposition in the sense that in a certain historical situation it's not simply there is one option which would be the best and then will we catch it or not, that there are genuinely multiple options and when one wins it retroactively changes our perception of the past itself. For example this is the Marx I like. When he says communism offers the key to previous modes of production in the sense that Marx says anatomy of man is the key for the anatomy of the ape. He doesn't mean it teleologically, we are the crown of creation. But he is aware that humanity emerged out of apes if it did by a pure coincidence change, but once it's here it renders the past visible in this way. And till now it was, Fukuyama was right everybody mocked him, liberal democratic welfare state was the highest standard because socialism the way we had it failed. And we are now at a total loss we don't even have a standard no? We are in a situation something like multiple I use a metaphor multiple superposition but you know where I'm not critical of you but what are you then doing with quantum physicists? Don't you know how almost every imaginable theory you will find some idiot who advocates it? There is Big Bang there is no Big Bang there are multiple Big Bangs, universe is finite. This is a great point. So this is one of my concerns with some people who try to tie much like you mentioned the Vedic texts, ancient ancient India oh oh quantum physics, the Vedas said this years ago, years ago I get that comment plenty. I'm actually writing a Substack post about that. But do you know that do you know that even Rovelli, he published in November in that Noema magazine a text his dialogue with some Veda guy where they claim yes there is a deep spiritual similarity between this Vedantic view of Atman Krishna blah blah and quantum. I for me you go to gulag if you claim this you know. A problem with that is there's two problems. One is that there's a similarity between almost anything. So I can find a similarity between my lip balm here and your life history. Okay, so you can abstract anything or generalize anything to find similarities with anything else but then there's some harm that comes about from trying to harmonize. Yeah yeah. There are multiple ways of abstracting. In fact if a mathematician or a physicist ever tells you this object here is the generalization of another object, that's false. There's no such thing as the generalization, there's a generalization. If it was the generalization... I agree with it and that's for me the lesson of quantum mechanics and that's why I don't like this they themselves sometimes fall into bad generalizations. Like in one of his texts the ultimate real whatever about precisely your point theory of everything no, Rovelli I think comes too close to this. He
unknown
tries to discern some zero level quantum oscillations outside time and space and says this is it, the
tries to discern some zero level quantum oscillations outside time and space and says this is it, the
unknown
absolutely
absolutely
Slavoj Žižek
ultimate reality. But then when he tries to climb back into our reality it doesn't work really. Remember I said there were two problems? So one problem is the generalization, the de-generalization versus a-generalization problem. Okay the another problem is that many people tie their their religious beliefs to something about quantum mechanics or maybe something about the Big Bang if you're a Christian you say oh the Big Bang validates the beginning of the cosmos. But then the problem that I have is that I know this is how the old Pope John
ultimate reality. But then when he tries to climb back into our reality it doesn't work really. Remember I said there were two problems? So one problem is the generalization, the de-generalization versus a-generalization problem. Okay the another problem is that many people tie their their religious beliefs to something about quantum mechanics or maybe something about the Big Bang if you're a Christian you say oh the Big Bang validates the beginning of the cosmos. But then the problem that I have is that I know this is how the old Pope John
unknown
Paul the Second shouted at at Stephen Hawking. He said your domain is Big Bang beyond Big Bang only we theologians can move. Yeah sorry eh Listen
Paul the Second shouted at at Stephen Hawking. He said your domain is Big Bang beyond Big Bang only we theologians can move. Yeah sorry eh Listen
Slavoj Žižek
slowly slowly I am losing my time I'm sorry. Oh of course. Basically what I was what I was going to say is that I'm old fashioned and that I think that your faith and your values much of it should come down to faith one should be honest about that. If we're tying our religious convictions to quantum mechanics to some indeterminacy in quantum mechanics but then let's imagine it turns out oh no no it's not indeterministic, there's actually just it's super deterministic, maybe that's actually the real case. What if the Big Bang isn't the Big Bang what if there are eons like Penrose says? So are you going to then overturn your religious beliefs because they were tied to this or are you going to find some other way and and so that's the issue is that look you're trying to say, not you, not you, but one, one tries to say that this modern perspective of quantum mechanics validates this Indian text the Vedantas or sorry whatever Advaita Vedanta. Okay. And that also assumes that that's all that India is and they don't talk about Dvaita Vedanta which is dualism. Okay. But then if the modern physics changes and turns out to not validate it do you then say ah okay I'm going to put less credence now into my my religious beliefs? Probably not because one already had that and then they're trying to say look look at this this fanciness over here validates this. Yeah but you know I totally agree with your point but I think it gets even more complex what I for a long time thought that we, not scientists, we philosophers theologians that we are making this trying to appropriate it. But what surprises me again and again is how many quantum physicists themselves are searching for some foundation, for example you know that German guy who got together with some others Nobel prize, Zeilinger I think is his name. Yes. My he again he is friend with Dalai Lama yeah there is a deeper spiritual dimension and so on and so on. The big enigma is why they themselves are prone to this. They criticize philosophy very much but then again and again they fall into it. It's a complex. So look one line of thinking and this comes from Iain McGilchrist, it's his perspective on this
slowly slowly I am losing my time I'm sorry. Oh of course. Basically what I was what I was going to say is that I'm old fashioned and that I think that your faith and your values much of it should come down to faith one should be honest about that. If we're tying our religious convictions to quantum mechanics to some indeterminacy in quantum mechanics but then let's imagine it turns out oh no no it's not indeterministic, there's actually just it's super deterministic, maybe that's actually the real case. What if the Big Bang isn't the Big Bang what if there are eons like Penrose says? So are you going to then overturn your religious beliefs because they were tied to this or are you going to find some other way and and so that's the issue is that look you're trying to say, not you, not you, but one, one tries to say that this modern perspective of quantum mechanics validates this Indian text the Vedantas or sorry whatever Advaita Vedanta. Okay. And that also assumes that that's all that India is and they don't talk about Dvaita Vedanta which is dualism. Okay. But then if the modern physics changes and turns out to not validate it do you then say ah okay I'm going to put less credence now into my my religious beliefs? Probably not because one already had that and then they're trying to say look look at this this fanciness over here validates this. Yeah but you know I totally agree with your point but I think it gets even more complex what I for a long time thought that we, not scientists, we philosophers theologians that we are making this trying to appropriate it. But what surprises me again and again is how many quantum physicists themselves are searching for some foundation, for example you know that German guy who got together with some others Nobel prize, Zeilinger I think is his name. Yes. My he again he is friend with Dalai Lama yeah there is a deeper spiritual dimension and so on and so on. The big enigma is why they themselves are prone to this. They criticize philosophy very much but then again and again they fall into it. It's a complex. So look one line of thinking and this comes from Iain McGilchrist, it's his perspective on this
unknown
is that we have two modes broadly speaking these are generalizations, one of generalizations, that's one of the modes. Yeah yeah. So abstraction and then another of uniqueness.
is that we have two modes broadly speaking these are generalizations, one of generalizations, that's one of the modes. Yeah yeah. So abstraction and then another of uniqueness.
Slavoj Žižek
And interestingly the abstract one is the one that has racism in it because it sees you as the same as someone else of your race and it doesn't distinguish between whereas the the right mode as he calls it the right versus left it doesn't morphologically matter, but the right mode is the one that sees distinctness
And interestingly the abstract one is the one that has racism in it because it sees you as the same as someone else of your race and it doesn't distinguish between whereas the the right mode as he calls it the right versus left it doesn't morphologically matter, but the right mode is the one that sees distinctness
unknown
and uniqueness and this
and uniqueness and this
Slavoj Žižek
situation is different this one has context. The left mode is the one that sees abstractions and generalizations. Now this left mode is again broadly speaking what the mathematicians and the physicists tend to be engaged in, the min-maxed towards on the max end. You'll notice that the interpretations that again broadly speaking this itself is its own generalization so that's why I even loathe to say it but I'm giving an Iain McGilchrist perspective is that what they resonate with broadly speaking are those bastardizations of the the east that comes from the new age. Yeah. So they see that as a sort of true east like to go back to this true. But the true east is quite varied and the ideas of they have of the soul is sometimes they have ideas that there is a reality to the soul that doesn't just ultimately go to Brahman or Atman where one is the same as it. And that there's a reality of the other, there's realness that's not just coming down to non-distinctness. There's a genuine belief in free will in many of these other interpretations. Yeah. There's also a genuine belief that you have to not consume psychedelics for instance or that or drugs in general that you have to act right. And that acting right
situation is different this one has context. The left mode is the one that sees abstractions and generalizations. Now this left mode is again broadly speaking what the mathematicians and the physicists tend to be engaged in, the min-maxed towards on the max end. You'll notice that the interpretations that again broadly speaking this itself is its own generalization so that's why I even loathe to say it but I'm giving an Iain McGilchrist perspective is that what they resonate with broadly speaking are those bastardizations of the the east that comes from the new age. Yeah. So they see that as a sort of true east like to go back to this true. But the true east is quite varied and the ideas of they have of the soul is sometimes they have ideas that there is a reality to the soul that doesn't just ultimately go to Brahman or Atman where one is the same as it. And that there's a reality of the other, there's realness that's not just coming down to non-distinctness. There's a genuine belief in free will in many of these other interpretations. Yeah. There's also a genuine belief that you have to not consume psychedelics for instance or that or drugs in general that you have to act right. And that acting right
unknown
is even prior to the meditation. So many people think they meditate themselves to the insight but in many of these other sects or interpretations you have to act right first you have to meditate as well yes but it's both in conjunction
is even prior to the meditation. So many people think they meditate themselves to the insight but in many of these other sects or interpretations you have to act right first you have to meditate as well yes but it's both in conjunction
Slavoj Žižek
that get and anyhow this all gets molded in the west into thinking the core of the east is some kind of single relativistic non-dualistic-ness what have you but that's false that's just one strain of it. I here you touched I am so sorry we
that get and anyhow this all gets molded in the west into thinking the core of the east is some kind of single relativistic non-dualistic-ness what have you but that's false that's just one strain of it. I here you touched I am so sorry we
unknown
don't have time here you touched
don't have time here you touched
Slavoj Žižek
a crucial point
a crucial point
unknown
because although except for my quantum Hegelian view I have infinite respect for Buddhism you know. But first all the ethical ambiguities of Buddhism. On the one hand you have this you know bodhisattva no suffering blah blah at the same time Buddhism excelled in justifying brutal war. I there is a wonderful book called
because although except for my quantum Hegelian view I have infinite respect for Buddhism you know. But first all the ethical ambiguities of Buddhism. On the one hand you have this you know bodhisattva no suffering blah blah at the same time Buddhism excelled in justifying brutal war. I there is a wonderful book called
Slavoj Žižek
Buddhism at War, forgot the name of the author which goes in detail how the entire Japanese Zen Buddhist community justified in Buddhist terms brutal killing. Claiming if you remain caught in false bodily humanity like let's say we are opposing side on a battlefield. I have a knife. My duty is to stick my knife into your eye mouth whatever. Since I'm I hope so relatively
Buddhism at War, forgot the name of the author which goes in detail how the entire Japanese Zen Buddhist community justified in Buddhist terms brutal killing. Claiming if you remain caught in false bodily humanity like let's say we are opposing side on a battlefield. I have a knife. My duty is to stick my knife into your eye mouth whatever. Since I'm I hope so relatively
unknown
decent man I would find problems. Zen Buddhist solution because you are still caught into your false ego if you go through satori Nirvana experience you see that there is no substantial reality just phenomena freely floating.
decent man I would find problems. Zen Buddhist solution because you are still caught into your false ego if you go through satori Nirvana experience you see that there is no substantial reality just phenomena freely floating.
Slavoj Žižek
And in this free float my knife somehow hits your eye and I'm absolved of all responsibility and so on.
And in this free float my knife somehow hits your eye and I'm absolved of all responsibility and so on.
unknown
You know but nonetheless in spite of all this my second choice is Buddhism. You know what's only the problem of Buddhism it will sound horrible. Yes Nirvana is an authentic experience. But I never found in Buddhism a good explanation of why did we fall from Nirvana into our vulgar reality? I think the fall comes first. That's my focus. So I spoke to Wolfgang Smith I know we both have to get going. I spoke to Wolfgang Smith who's studied in India and actually then became a Catholic and he said we read Buddhist texts and we are mind blown about how how interesting they are mystical and so forth and we wonder do they ever read our texts and think that oh this is an interesting idea? And he said there is one respect that there's something in Christianity that's not captured in the east and that is the idea of the Fall. They don't have an idea
You know but nonetheless in spite of all this my second choice is Buddhism. You know what's only the problem of Buddhism it will sound horrible. Yes Nirvana is an authentic experience. But I never found in Buddhism a good explanation of why did we fall from Nirvana into our vulgar reality? I think the fall comes first. That's my focus. So I spoke to Wolfgang Smith I know we both have to get going. I spoke to Wolfgang Smith who's studied in India and actually then became a Catholic and he said we read Buddhist texts and we are mind blown about how how interesting they are mystical and so forth and we wonder do they ever read our texts and think that oh this is an interesting idea? And he said there is one respect that there's something in Christianity that's not captured in the east and that is the idea of the Fall. They don't have an idea
Slavoj Žižek
of the Fall. Yeah and that's my idea and Hegel I follow here you know what Hegel says? Hegel says paradise was nothing it's retroactive dream. Fall means humanity. And the specific idea of Christianity is for me that that fall the fall itself creates retroactively what it is the fall from. Aha I see. That's that's where I don't what I don't quite find. Sorry I have to run but listen at some point in the future it would
of the Fall. Yeah and that's my idea and Hegel I follow here you know what Hegel says? Hegel says paradise was nothing it's retroactive dream. Fall means humanity. And the specific idea of Christianity is for me that that fall the fall itself creates retroactively what it is the fall from. Aha I see. That's that's where I don't what I don't quite find. Sorry I have to run but listen at some point in the future it would
unknown
be wonderful to repeat it not with politics I agree with you, but maybe with all this theology Buddhism and so on because I agree with you I do have an infinite respect for Buddhism but there is nonetheless some kind of ambiguity in it you know. Yes. You can you can push it in the direction of infinite respect for life but you can also push it in the direction of this indifference in the sense of all is just appearance and so on so I know you have to get going but I want to agree with you in less than a minute. Okay. So many people like Neil deGrasse Tyson will say that if you take a look at the moon or from a perspective of the moon you look at the earth and you say wasn't it so foolish that we wasted all that blood shed on war and so forth. Okay, yes I could take that perspective. I could also take the perspective of the person from Jupiter looking at the person on the moon saying isn't it so foolish that you care that we cared that we had blood shed and so forth and that all of it doesn't matter. But this you see but this is for me quantum view in a metaphorical sense only if you add there is no global divine view which sees it all,
be wonderful to repeat it not with politics I agree with you, but maybe with all this theology Buddhism and so on because I agree with you I do have an infinite respect for Buddhism but there is nonetheless some kind of ambiguity in it you know. Yes. You can you can push it in the direction of infinite respect for life but you can also push it in the direction of this indifference in the sense of all is just appearance and so on so I know you have to get going but I want to agree with you in less than a minute. Okay. So many people like Neil deGrasse Tyson will say that if you take a look at the moon or from a perspective of the moon you look at the earth and you say wasn't it so foolish that we wasted all that blood shed on war and so forth. Okay, yes I could take that perspective. I could also take the perspective of the person from Jupiter looking at the person on the moon saying isn't it so foolish that you care that we cared that we had blood shed and so forth and that all of it doesn't matter. But this you see but this is for me quantum view in a metaphorical sense only if you add there is no global divine view which sees it all,
Slavoj Žižek
which can say which can locate all this experiences into a kind of harmonious totality. That is crucial for me no? Listen with all oh can I ask you a racist question? I like. Please I only like racist questions. Kurt is German and what is that Jaimungal what are you I'm now asking you a Nazi question your racial identity? Yes yes okay well well please okay I am from I am from Trinidad so the Caribbean. Oh my god you sing beautiful songs there and all that bullshit you know. But where does the German name come? I don't know actually
which can say which can locate all this experiences into a kind of harmonious totality. That is crucial for me no? Listen with all oh can I ask you a racist question? I like. Please I only like racist questions. Kurt is German and what is that Jaimungal what are you I'm now asking you a Nazi question your racial identity? Yes yes okay well well please okay I am from I am from Trinidad so the Caribbean. Oh my god you sing beautiful songs there and all that bullshit you know. But where does the German name come? I don't know actually
unknown
I don't know. But it is spelled with a C so if it were German it would be K. That's true it's K yeah. Yeah I mean it's it was a real
I don't know. But it is spelled with a C so if it were German it would be K. That's true it's K yeah. Yeah I mean it's it was a real
Slavoj Žižek
pleasure you know why for me? Because it wasn't necessary to talk about all this boring bullshit Trump, Iran and so on I'm so tired of that you know. Yes yes. It's horror I agree it's horror and what happens in Gaza and West Bank but
pleasure you know why for me? Because it wasn't necessary to talk about all this boring bullshit Trump, Iran and so on I'm so tired of that you know. Yes yes. It's horror I agree it's horror and what happens in Gaza and West Bank but
unknown
my god let's keep our spirits open you know. Yes yes. Listen it was a pleasure I'm always open to you you have
my god let's keep our spirits open you know. Yes yes. Listen it was a pleasure I'm always open to you you have
Slavoj Žižek
my email we can do it no? Yes yes. Thanks very
my email we can do it no? Yes yes. Thanks very
unknown
much.
much.
Slavoj Žižek
Bye bye. Bye bye. Bye bye.
Bye bye. Bye bye. Bye bye.