On Hegel with Russell Sbriglia
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2021-01-21 · 1:08:01 · 9,492 words
hegel-dialecticspsychoanalysisideologycapitalismfascism-populismphilosophy-generalhistorysubjectivityrevolution-violence
Žižek participates in a roundtable discussion with two Hegelian scholars (Todd and Russell) about the development of his thought from Lacan to Hegel, the relationship between Hegel and Marx, and the limits of Hegel's philosophy regarding capitalism and modern science. The conversation covers materialism (defined as contingency and contradiction rather than atoms in space), enjoyment as a materialist category, the Capitol insurrection as driven by surplus enjoyment, and Hegelian infinite judgment. Along the way the speakers discuss the best books on Hegel, Trumpism, totalitarianism, and the Bolshevik abolition of the death penalty.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 16
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Implicitly referenced through commodity fetishism: the illusion that structures reality itself, where Marx's key insight is that ideological illusion is not merely in consciousness but in the social practice.
Žižek uses it as a prime example of where Marx surpasses Aristotelian positivity, showing that illusion structures reality itself, not merely consciousness.
The Hegelian motor of dialectics, Žižek contrasts genuine Hegelian negativity with pseudo-Maoist 'contradiction' that is really just mythic conflict of opposites.
Hegel's figure that philosophy only grasps a form of life when it is already disintegrating, Žižek argues this must be applied to Hegel's own thought, not just his historical analyses.
as “not-yet-there Hegelians”
Žižek's label for thinkers like Pippin who hold that Hegel had a vision of social freedom we simply haven't reached yet, which Žižek regards as insufficiently dialectical.
Lacan's category invoked to name the regime where experts rule and no master signifier is present, paradoxically generating the populist demand for a figure like Trump.
The Trumpist rioters felt their enjoyment (their way of life) was being stolen from them, while simultaneously projecting onto the racial Other a secret excess enjoyment.
Invoked (following a colleague's message) to explain the Capitol riot, the festive-transgressive dimension of the event that cannot be understood without the concept of carnival and theft of enjoyment.
Referenced implicitly in the discussion of Hegel's reconciliation, where Žižek insists reconciliation for Hegel includes acknowledging complicity and even death penalty as the criminal's due.
Žižek's argument that necessity is not predetermined but arises when a contingency retroactively posits itself as necessary, illustrated by the Dupuy/Balladur example: 'if he wins, his victory will have been necessary'.
as “materialism of ideas”
Žižek's proposed reformulation of materialism: not atoms in empty space but contingent formal combinations (like letters/atoms in Democritus) from which meaning retroactively emerges.
Žižek invokes surplus enjoyment to explain the Capitol insurrection as driven not by objective material grievances but by jouissance, the enjoyment of transgression itself, citing that the rioters were largely bourgeois, not working class.
The symbolic order within which subjects function; Trump is analyzed as acting as if he himself IS the big Other rather than appealing to it, which is the key to populist leader appeal.
Agamben's concept that Žižek dismisses, he agrees with the implied interlocutor that there is no such thing as bare life, that 'life' is always already mediated.
as “recognition”
For Hegel, Žižek argues, recognition essentially contains resignation, it is not peaceful mutual acknowledgment but the recognition that failures are necessary.
A Hegelian logical form Žižek proposes as the master key for rereading all crucial Hegelian lines, illustrated by the Columbo episode where the formula breaks down and has to return to Agatha Christie conventions.
Stories he reaches for 2
In a letter, Engels predicted an all-European mega-war (Germany vs. France/England and Russia), estimated around a million deaths (the official WWI figure), and the possibility of a Russian revolution; in another fragment he foresaw a German war of revenge ~30 years later, anticipating WWII.
“He said it this will be a mega carnage, it will lead to around million deaths. You know what is today the official number? million It's incredible.”
Žižek proposes his solution to the Sartrean dilemma of choosing between the Resistance and your love object: tell the resistance you must stay with your parents, tell your parents you must fight, and do neither, go to a small cabin and read Hegel; he notes this is actually what Sartre did.
“you say to the resistance I have to stay with my parents you say to your parents I have to fight for resistance and you do neither but go to a small cabin in the countryside and read Hegel.”
Works invoked 14
Referenced implicitly via the formula 'not only as substance but also as subject' and the Calvary of the Spirit passage, Hegel's definition of history as the Calvary of spirit where all wounds are preserved.
Philosophy of Right book
Extensively discussed; Žižek defends Hegel's placing the state over civil society as a radical critique of liberalism, and reads the monarch figure as a placeholder for contingency.
Žižek's own foundational work, referenced as where he laid out his mid-Lacan symbolic order approach; now treated as a starting point he has moved beyond.
What is Sex? book
Alenka Zupančič's book cited for her materialist definition: a being (the subject) that makes contradiction available to thought.
Gillian Rose's book that Žižek enthusiastically calls 'my fucking answer' to the question of the best book on Hegel.
Columbo tv
The TV detective series, particularly an episode ('Goodbye to the Commodore') used to illustrate infinite judgment: when Columbo's formula breaks down and he must regress to the Agatha Christie model.
Dialectics of Nature book
Žižek says the title is a Stalinist falsification, Engels never used the phrase except once with 'sozusagen' (so to speak); wrongly used to construct a universalized ontology.
Beatrice Longuenesse's book recommended as very good on Hegel, though she later moved toward Kantianism.
The Rammstein song is praised for its embedded critique of Buddhism and its formula 'we must live till we die' as illustrating that life itself is a horrible duty.
Žižek calls this one of Marx's philosophically worst works, in which Marx regresses from Hegel back to Aristotle with a positive conception of human nature.
Sartre's text where the resistance-or-love-object dilemma is presented; used to illustrate Badiou's problem about conflicting events.
Catherine Malabou's new book (not yet translated into English); Žižek finds the anarchist-feminist solution too simple but acknowledges it touches on something real about autonomous feminine enjoyment outside the penis/vagina complementarity.
Engels's text where he introduces the 'unfortunate distinction' between Hegel's method and his determinate content, a distinction Žižek does not want to rely on.
Freud's text on crowd formation, collective enjoyment, and affective identification, Žižek proposes celebrating its anniversary with a new volume.
People invoked 33
Gillian Rose positive
Žižek enthusiastically endorses 'Hegel Contra Sociology' as the best book on Hegel (his 'fucking answer'), notes she was very bright, and mentions her deathbed conversion to Judaism and her relationship with Rowan Williams.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy positive
Žižek 'eternally quotes' Dupuy's example of retroactive necessity from the Balladur passage in Le Monde as the best illustration of proper dialectical contradiction.
Alenka Zupančič positive
Cited for her definition of materialism in 'What IS Sex?', a being that makes contradiction available to thought, and for her Democritus/atoms-as-letters argument.
Robert Pippin positive
Žižek partially agrees with Pippin's reading of Hegel (especially the Aristotle critique) but places him among the 'not-yet-there Hegelians' who think Hegel's vision of social freedom just hasn't been realized.
Rocío Zambrana positive
Her text on Hegel, Marx, and critique is praised for showing in an anti-Habermasian way that Hegel demonstrates the repeated failure of any figure of life without presupposing a true reconciliation standard.
Jacques Lacan positive
Foundational reference for Žižek's early work; now being integrated into a Hegelian frame; invoked for big Other, sexual non-relationship, and surplus enjoyment.
Louis Althusser positive
Invoked briefly for the notion of interpellation, subject as both free individual and subjected to public power.
Frank Ruda positive
Credited for wonderfully developing 'materialism without matter', a title Žižek is not sure of but endorses the argument.
Judith Butler negative
Criticized for misreading Hegel's lesson as mutual recognition and conflict-resolution, when for Hegel it is the opposite, only through conflict do you get there.
Donald Trump positive
Analyzed as the paradoxical populist who acts as the big Other himself rather than appealing to it; his stupidity and cognitive dissonances are structural features, not incidental flaws.
Étienne Balibar positive
Žižek credits Balibar's essay on the rise of the super-ego and his reading of Kelsen's critique of Freud's crowd psychology as making a good point.
Alain Badiou positive
Compared with Agamben (as opposites) and criticized for the 'human animal' baseline plus the event as too private and infrequent; Žižek poses an unanswered question about conflicting events.
Graham Harman negative
Mentioned as having attacked the Lacano-Hegelian position in the collection Žižek edited with Russell, claiming it is a Berkeleyan idealism masquerading as materialism.
Giorgio Agamben negative
His pandemic response is called terrible and his concept of bare life is rejected as impossible; there is no such thing as bare life, life is always mediated.
Mentioned as the influence on Lacan's view that modern science is essentially mathematical formulation.
Jean-Claude Milner negative
Mentioned as one who thinks the real scientific revolution is DNA/letters returning, against the mathematical-physics line of Koyré and Lacan, a view Žižek says he does not buy.
Fredric Jameson positive
Invoked as a materialist thinker who nonetheless acknowledges that in communism real problems will be envy and enjoyment, supporting Žižek's point about enjoyment as a category materialism cannot ignore.
Friedrich Engels positive
Žižek praises Engels as a superior pragmatic analyst (predicting WWI, WWII, Russian Revolution) while acknowledging his philosophical inferiority; corrects the attribution of 'Dialectics of Nature' as a title.
Used as an example that a smarter totalitarian leader would not necessarily be better, 'what if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia?', and as evidence that totalitarian stupidity is structural.
Alexandre Kojève positive
Mentioned as increasingly intriguing despite distorting Hegel; the focus on struggle unto death and recognition is noted, and his later work is said to be worth attention.
Catherine Malabou positive
Her new book 'Clitoris and Thought' is discussed with interest; Žižek finds the basic thesis too simple in its anarchist-feminist framing but thinks it touches on something real.
Rowan Williams positive
Mentioned as intelligent, in the context of Gillian Rose's deathbed conversion and their friendship/possible relationship.
Mao Zedong negative
Cited as an example of pseudo-Hegelian 'contradiction' that is really a pre-modern mythic universe of class conflict, not genuine Hegelian contradiction.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe positive
Žižek says he doesn't like Goethe and hates the elevation of big geniuses of the era, but acknowledges Goethe (like Hegel) saw the horrifying dimension of German nationalism early.
Cited as the administrative genius whom Hitler appointed minister of armaments after Stalingrad, who dramatically increased German war production despite bombing, an example of a 'bright' figure behind a totalitarian leader.
Jürgen Habermas negative
Criticized for the transcendental argument that negative dialectics (Adorno, Horkheimer) implicitly presupposes positive standards; Rocío Zambrana's work is praised for avoiding this Habermasian trap.
Warren Montag positive
A Spinoza-Hegelian scholar whose text on the Capitol coup is engaged; Žižek notes he doesn't always agree with Montag but respects him as a 'strange figure'.
Hans Kelsen positive
Cited as the neo-Kantian legal theorist who critiqued Freud's crowd psychology, arguing Freud describes a pathological formation, not the normal constitution of legal-symbolic order.
Contrasted with Hitler to illustrate that totalitarian leaders claim their rule is grounded in real qualities, unlike Hegel's contingent monarch.
Karl Marx positive
Žižek credits Marx with doing the Hegelian job on capitalism that Hegel missed, but criticizes his Aristotelian philosophical regression and his failure to account for enjoyment.
Sigmund Freud positive
Invoked for Mass Psychology and Group Psychology, especially the problem of collective enjoyment, crowd formation, and the unresolved Oedipus as the basis for internalization of the law.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Central reference throughout; Žižek defends returning to Hegel through Marx, but insists Hegel's Logic would need rewriting for quantum physics and that his political philosophy is historically limited.
Jean-Paul Sartre positive
His Existentialism is a Humanism dilemma (resistance vs. love object) is invoked; Žižek jokes that his own answer (retreat and read Hegel) is what Sartre actually did during the war.
What it argues
Hegel vs. Marx on capitalism and negativitymaterialism redefined as contingency and contradictionenjoyment (jouissance) as a political-materialist categoryTrumpism and surplus enjoyment in the Capitol riotHegelian infinite judgment as organizing conceptthe limits of Hegel's political philosophy and its historical situatednessthe dialectic of contingency and necessity
Dialectical moves 8
“Hegel's lesson is exactly the opposite: only through conflict do you get there — not mutual recognition.”
Against Butler's reading of Hegel as endorsing mutual recognition, Žižek insists that for Hegel conflict is constitutive, not something to be overcome.
“Men are from Venus, women are from Mars — everything turned around.”
Against the cliché 'men are from Mars, women from Venus', Žižek inverts it to show that Lacan's 'there is no sexual relationship' means the opposite of complementarity, the very reversal being the point.
“The ultimate contingency is an elevation of some contingency into necessity — necessity is not determined in advance, it is in itself contingent which contingency becomes necessity.”
The classical dialectical pair of necessity/contingency is radicalized: necessity itself is a retroactive product of contingency, so contingency is more fundamental than necessity.
“For Hegel, death penalty IS reconciliation — this is how you treat the criminal in an honorable way as a free being.”
What appears as punishment is reframed as the ultimate form of recognition: executing the criminal respects his freedom and acknowledges that punishment is already contained in the crime.
“Trump acted as if he IS the big Other — not that the big Other speaks through him, but that he himself is the big Other.”
The inversion of the usual populist structure where the leader claims to channel a transcendent authority: Trump collapsed the distinction by being the authority itself, which explains his cognitive dissonances as features rather than bugs.
“We must live till we die — living is the horrible duty, not the problem.”
The Rammstein lyric inverts the usual pessimist formula: the problem is not that we must die, but that we must live; life itself becomes an obligation rather than a natural given.
“Marx is more idealist than Hegel.”
The standard view that Hegel = idealism and Marx = materialism is inverted: Marx's fantasy of the future and his Aristotelian positivity make him the idealist, while Hegel's 'Owl of Minerva' formula is the more materialist position.
“Philosophy paints gray on gray — and this applies to Hegel's own thought.”
Hegel's formula that philosophy grasps a form of life only when it is already disintegrating must be reflexively applied to Hegel himself, undermining any claim that his Logic transcends his historical moment.
Claims 20
asserts
Marx philosophically regresses from Hegel back to Aristotle in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts by positing a positive human nature as a natural being with potentials, which is a pre-Cartesian move.Marx's philosophical limitations relative to Hegel
asserts
Hegel lacks a genuine concept of capitalism — he understands economic life at the level of individual artisans exchanging products, not at the level of labour-power as a commodity.Hegel's philosophy and capitalism
asserts
Marx 'did the Hegelian job' that Hegel himself failed to do with respect to capitalism, so the correct path is to return to Hegel through Marx.the Hegel-Marx relationship
asserts
It is too simple to separate Hegel's historically contingent political philosophy from his supposedly eternal Logic; the historical limitations infect the Logic itself.the method/system distinction in Hegel scholarship
asserts
Hegel's Logic would need to be rewritten to account for relativity theory and quantum physics, because these sciences introduce notions of causality that Hegel's categories do not fully cover.Hegel's Logic and modern science
asserts
Necessity is not determined in advance; it is in itself contingent which contingency gets retroactively elevated into necessity — a more radical reading than classical Marxist dialectics.dialectic of contingency and necessity
asserts
Enjoyment is a materialist category, and Marx's failure to account for it prevented him from foreseeing the complications and terrors of socialist revolution.Marxism and the dimension of enjoyment
asserts
The Capitol insurrection cannot be understood without the categories of theft of enjoyment and carnival — the rioters were driven by surplus enjoyment, not material deprivation.Trump's Capitol riot / January 6
asserts
The stupidity of a totalitarian leader is not incidental but constitutive of their success; a smart version of Trump would not be more successful.totalitarianism and populist leadership
asserts
Trump acted as if he himself IS the big Other, rather than appealing to the big Other, which is key to his appeal.Trump's populist appeal
asserts
For Hegel, reconciliation with the criminal means executing him — the death penalty is the form of reconciliation, treating the criminal as a free being who wills his own punishment.Hegel's theory of punishment and reconciliation
reframes
Hegelian recognition essentially contains resignation — it is the recognition that failures are necessary, not a happy mutual acknowledgment.Hegelian recognition
reframes
Materialism should not be defined as atoms in empty space but as the radical contingency from which retroactive necessity and meaning emerge — with virus (the pandemic) as a paradigm case.materialism
asserts
Marx is in fact more idealist than Hegel because Marx presupposes a fantasy of the future written into his analysis of the present.the idealism/materialism of Marx vs. Hegel
asserts
Hegel's point that philosophy paints gray on gray must be applied to Hegel's own thought — his political philosophy is not a timeless rational state theory but reflects his own disintegrating historical moment.application of Hegel's own method to Hegel
asserts
Real democracy requires an element of lottery/contingency at the top of power; Hegel's monarch was a placeholder for this contingency.democracy and contingency in Hegel's political philosophy
asserts
Engels was a superior pragmatic-political analyst (predicting WWI, WWII, and the Russian Revolution) even if theoretically inferior to Marx and Hegel.Friedrich Engels
asserts
The 'Dialectic of Nature' title attributed to Engels is a falsification — Engels never used that phrase except once with the qualifier 'sozusagen' (so to speak).Engels and the Dialectic of Nature
asserts
Hegel and Goethe both saw the danger of German nationalism at a time when it was still presented in democratic garb.Hegel, Goethe, and German nationalism
rejects
There is no bare life in Agamben's sense — life is always already mediated, and the Muselmann figure cannot ground a political ontology.Agamben's concept of bare life
Quotes 10
“We must live till we die — vorwärts vorwärts ins Verderben wir müssen leben bis wir sterben — making living not organic, to go on living is a horrible duty.”Slavoj Žižek · life as obligation, not gift
“When people ask me what do you mean by materialism I say virus.”unknown · materialism defined as radical contingency
“Hegel's logic is eternal. I wonder — don't worry, this is not racism because the real shithole is my country.”Slavoj Žižek · self-deprecating geopolitical aside during a philosophical debate
“Monarch was Hegel's lottery.”Slavoj Žižek · Hegel's monarch as a placeholder for contingency in political structure
“The ultimate contingency is an elevation of some contingency into necessity — that's why necessity is not determined in advance.”Slavoj Žižek · retroactive necessity as the core of materialist dialectics
“You say to the resistance I have to stay with my parents, you say to your parents I have to fight for resistance, and you do neither — go to a small cabin in the countryside and read Hegel.”Slavoj Žižek · comic evasion of Sartrean existential dilemma
“I am a fair Stalinist — the condemned has the right to make his point.”Slavoj Žižek · self-ironizing Stalinist joke about giving interlocutors a chance to speak
“For Hegel, death penalty IS reconciliation — that's how you treat him in an honorable way as a free being.”Slavoj Žižek · Hegel's counter-intuitive equation of punishment with recognition
“The stupidity of the totalitarian so-called leader is crucial to their success — it's not like you can have a smart version of Trump who would be more successful.”Slavoj Žižek · structural role of stupidity in fascist/populist leadership
“Materialism of ideas — in the same way that letters are combined in words, atoms are combined: contingent blindness out of which retroactively meaning emerges.”Slavoj Žižek · Žižek's reformulation of materialism away from substance toward formal combination
Transcript 107 turns
unknown
Would you say that since Sublime Object of Ideology, years ago, have you, had, years ago, or Has your thought evolved since then, would you say? Or do you think, no, it's been a kind of a straight, I sort of laid out in Sublime Object what I think and I've just developed that since that time.
Would you say that since Sublime Object of Ideology, years ago, have you, had, years ago, or Has your thought evolved since then, would you say? Or do you think, no, it's been a kind of a straight, I sort of laid out in Sublime Object what I think and I've just developed that since that time.
Slavoj Žižek
It's a okay, I don't think I'm worthy of this to lose too much time on me, but I would say that it's a more complex trajectory, because for some time, the first years, I moved from this general mid-Lacan approach of symbolic order and the real as just a hole in the symbolic order. It's basically still the transcendental approach. We cannot step outside of the symbolic order and so on and so on, more towards all these different notions of the real and so on and so on. And now, even this fascination with the real, in a Hegelian sense or way, I'm trying to get out of it. That it was like first down, but then I think I came too close to some almost I would say too primitive materialism. And now I must admit, it took me a long time to say bluntly, but here now I will return this point that I will make now, I will return it as a question to both of you. You said, Todd, and basically and this was already a problem in a debate I had with you when we talked about your book. I want to give you a chance, I am a fair Stalinist, the condemned has the right to make his point. But I really see a problem in this. Namely, you told me, let's be Frank here, back from Marx to Hegel. We are more Hegelians, really and so on. I agree with it. But nonetheless, not because Marx was brighter or whatever, Marx's philosophical formulations are often incredibly naive and so on, obviously often he wasn't even aware of his own, of the implications of his own deeper insights. Because for example, I always return to this notion of commodity fetishism, illusion which structures reality itself and so on. But isn't it that ultimately Marx doesn't go to the end here? He basically still thinks that there is some positivity of, let's call it how he calls it, actual life, process of metabolism, humanity as part of nature and so on and so on. So, and this is one of the points where I do agree with Pippin, although he himself breaks his rules sometimes. Namely, Aristotle, no? I think both of you have written about it. I think that the price Marx pays already in his, I think one of his worst things he did, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts philosophically he regresses from Hegel, German idealism back to Aristotle. For him, humanity, humans are like natural being with some positive potential. It's pre, pre, even pre-Cartesian, this idea of positivity and so on. So, I think that of course here we should go back to Hegel. But I, my point is this one, that nonetheless and you can see this clearly, what did Hegel see of modernity? He saw clearly the philosophical and theological revolution, Protestantism, Descartes, then subjectivity, journalism, negativity, blah, blah, blah, Luther and so on. And he saw French Revolution, the political revolution. But although he read Adam Smith, classics of political economy and so on and so on, it can be justified by the fact that simply because of stupid empirical historical limitation he wasn't able to do it, but he really doesn't have a concept of capitalism, precisely a Hegelian concept. For Hegel, capitalism is still something that happens basically on the at the level of interaction between partisan between sorry, artisans, individuals selling their work etc. The logic of proletarian as a commodity selling it and so on and so on. And here Marx did the Hegelian job in some sense. So here I think we have to return to Hegel, but through Marx. Marx saw clearly this radical novelty which Hegel maybe should have been a little bit more attentive because yes, at his time it wasn't yet a full-blown capitalism. But remember, Industrial Revolution was already going on, you know in England and so on. Yeah, I agree with you, yeah. So, it is here I see and sorry, something else. Another point you insisted that nonetheless in some sense Hegel did it. It is the highest point we can reach about thinking freedom and so on and so on. But I have a very naive problem here. It's I am consciously stupid and simple now. But when Hegel says you know philosophy paints gray on gray blah blah blah it just grasps a certain form of life which is already disintegrating. But doesn't this apply also to his thought? And I think, now I'm coming to the crucial point, that it's too simple here to distinguish simply between Hegel's historical analysis where you can say of course he couldn't have seen further and his logic. I think it's too Kantian a solution to introduce this dualism that you say of course his philosophy of state politics is marked by his time but what but Hegel's logic is eternal. I wonder and I wanted to ask you this because we debated when I visited your city, Vermont place the last time. Don't worry, this is not racism because the real shithole is my country. But what I wanted to say is that is that what I wanted to say is that for example if you still insist Hegel's logic is it that basically you cannot move further. But this is I'm consciously stupidly naive here. And it's not a rhetorical question. I want from both of you a real answer to it. It's so stupidly naive but let's take two high points of 20th century science the obvious ones relativity theory, quantum physics. You think that you find in Hegel's logic categories that can fully cover the notions of causality and so on at work here? I doubt. Well, I agree with you. Yeah, I can take your reaction here as aggressive as possible. No, I agree with you but but isn't it? I mean, it's funny you mention it because you're the one who showed that actually Hegel anticipates quantum physics and and so I feel like there that that there's nothing, to be precise, maybe I was bluffing, be brutal. How do you think that Hegel anticipates quantum physics? Well, because just because he he sees the way in which the mater like the way in which within the matter itself there must be contradiction and that's I think one of the that's maybe the essential discovery of quantum mechanics. So I don't I guess I think you're right to say that if he was going to he would have to rewrite the logic today to take into account the great movements of of of modern physics. I mean biology's a different question I think because I'm not sure how. But there's another question because you know that some people like Milner even think but I'm not ready to follow them, that Lacan was too too much under influence of Koyré, this idea that modern science is mathematics and also too much then the later were too much influenced by quantum physics and so on which are also mathematical formula, but his idea is that the real revolution is now DNA these letters are returning. I don't buy that. I don't think that complex as it is, DNA analysis, neurology can be simply covered by traditional categories they don't really revolutionize Hegel's frame, you know? Right, right. I think that's absolutely right. So I think but I do think you're right that you would have to rewrite the logic given the given the great discoveries of of the 20th century but I don't think that and here's what I would say, I don't think that any any of there has been no discovery that has actually dislodged the notion of the of how he conceives the absolute idea. So for me, that's absolutely, here I totally agree yeah. So okay so for me that's the key thing and then
It's a okay, I don't think I'm worthy of this to lose too much time on me, but I would say that it's a more complex trajectory, because for some time, the first years, I moved from this general mid-Lacan approach of symbolic order and the real as just a hole in the symbolic order. It's basically still the transcendental approach. We cannot step outside of the symbolic order and so on and so on, more towards all these different notions of the real and so on and so on. And now, even this fascination with the real, in a Hegelian sense or way, I'm trying to get out of it. That it was like first down, but then I think I came too close to some almost I would say too primitive materialism. And now I must admit, it took me a long time to say bluntly, but here now I will return this point that I will make now, I will return it as a question to both of you. You said, Todd, and basically and this was already a problem in a debate I had with you when we talked about your book. I want to give you a chance, I am a fair Stalinist, the condemned has the right to make his point. But I really see a problem in this. Namely, you told me, let's be Frank here, back from Marx to Hegel. We are more Hegelians, really and so on. I agree with it. But nonetheless, not because Marx was brighter or whatever, Marx's philosophical formulations are often incredibly naive and so on, obviously often he wasn't even aware of his own, of the implications of his own deeper insights. Because for example, I always return to this notion of commodity fetishism, illusion which structures reality itself and so on. But isn't it that ultimately Marx doesn't go to the end here? He basically still thinks that there is some positivity of, let's call it how he calls it, actual life, process of metabolism, humanity as part of nature and so on and so on. So, and this is one of the points where I do agree with Pippin, although he himself breaks his rules sometimes. Namely, Aristotle, no? I think both of you have written about it. I think that the price Marx pays already in his, I think one of his worst things he did, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts philosophically he regresses from Hegel, German idealism back to Aristotle. For him, humanity, humans are like natural being with some positive potential. It's pre, pre, even pre-Cartesian, this idea of positivity and so on. So, I think that of course here we should go back to Hegel. But I, my point is this one, that nonetheless and you can see this clearly, what did Hegel see of modernity? He saw clearly the philosophical and theological revolution, Protestantism, Descartes, then subjectivity, journalism, negativity, blah, blah, blah, Luther and so on. And he saw French Revolution, the political revolution. But although he read Adam Smith, classics of political economy and so on and so on, it can be justified by the fact that simply because of stupid empirical historical limitation he wasn't able to do it, but he really doesn't have a concept of capitalism, precisely a Hegelian concept. For Hegel, capitalism is still something that happens basically on the at the level of interaction between partisan between sorry, artisans, individuals selling their work etc. The logic of proletarian as a commodity selling it and so on and so on. And here Marx did the Hegelian job in some sense. So here I think we have to return to Hegel, but through Marx. Marx saw clearly this radical novelty which Hegel maybe should have been a little bit more attentive because yes, at his time it wasn't yet a full-blown capitalism. But remember, Industrial Revolution was already going on, you know in England and so on. Yeah, I agree with you, yeah. So, it is here I see and sorry, something else. Another point you insisted that nonetheless in some sense Hegel did it. It is the highest point we can reach about thinking freedom and so on and so on. But I have a very naive problem here. It's I am consciously stupid and simple now. But when Hegel says you know philosophy paints gray on gray blah blah blah it just grasps a certain form of life which is already disintegrating. But doesn't this apply also to his thought? And I think, now I'm coming to the crucial point, that it's too simple here to distinguish simply between Hegel's historical analysis where you can say of course he couldn't have seen further and his logic. I think it's too Kantian a solution to introduce this dualism that you say of course his philosophy of state politics is marked by his time but what but Hegel's logic is eternal. I wonder and I wanted to ask you this because we debated when I visited your city, Vermont place the last time. Don't worry, this is not racism because the real shithole is my country. But what I wanted to say is that is that what I wanted to say is that for example if you still insist Hegel's logic is it that basically you cannot move further. But this is I'm consciously stupidly naive here. And it's not a rhetorical question. I want from both of you a real answer to it. It's so stupidly naive but let's take two high points of 20th century science the obvious ones relativity theory, quantum physics. You think that you find in Hegel's logic categories that can fully cover the notions of causality and so on at work here? I doubt. Well, I agree with you. Yeah, I can take your reaction here as aggressive as possible. No, I agree with you but but isn't it? I mean, it's funny you mention it because you're the one who showed that actually Hegel anticipates quantum physics and and so I feel like there that that there's nothing, to be precise, maybe I was bluffing, be brutal. How do you think that Hegel anticipates quantum physics? Well, because just because he he sees the way in which the mater like the way in which within the matter itself there must be contradiction and that's I think one of the that's maybe the essential discovery of quantum mechanics. So I don't I guess I think you're right to say that if he was going to he would have to rewrite the logic today to take into account the great movements of of of modern physics. I mean biology's a different question I think because I'm not sure how. But there's another question because you know that some people like Milner even think but I'm not ready to follow them, that Lacan was too too much under influence of Koyré, this idea that modern science is mathematics and also too much then the later were too much influenced by quantum physics and so on which are also mathematical formula, but his idea is that the real revolution is now DNA these letters are returning. I don't buy that. I don't think that complex as it is, DNA analysis, neurology can be simply covered by traditional categories they don't really revolutionize Hegel's frame, you know? Right, right. I think that's absolutely right. So I think but I do think you're right that you would have to rewrite the logic given the given the great discoveries of of the 20th century but I don't think that and here's what I would say, I don't think that any any of there has been no discovery that has actually dislodged the notion of the of how he conceives the absolute idea. So for me, that's absolutely, here I totally agree yeah. So okay so for me that's the key thing and then
unknown
about the political, I think you're absolutely right to say, I mean I think it's a kind of a way that you know how in the past you would separate Hegel's system from his method? That was the classic Marxist
about the political, I think you're absolutely right to say, I mean I think it's a kind of a way that you know how in the past you would separate Hegel's system from his method? That was the classic Marxist
Slavoj Žižek
thing to do and I think and not so much Marx here, you must be careful. Unfortunately although if anything Engels was not you know, you know the story I've written about it. At the level
thing to do and I think and not so much Marx here, you must be careful. Unfortunately although if anything Engels was not you know, you know the story I've written about it. At the level
unknown
of like let's put it in this way, let's say that we take power, no, and introduce democratic order with new Gulags and so on all that comes with it. And let's say that Hegel and Marx are still alive. I would make Marx a big theoretician celebrated monument but for pragmatic decisions what to do politically and so on
of like let's put it in this way, let's say that we take power, no, and introduce democratic order with new Gulags and so on all that comes with it. And let's say that Hegel and Marx are still alive. I would make Marx a big theoretician celebrated monument but for pragmatic decisions what to do politically and so on
Slavoj Žižek
what is going on in real life I would put Engels. Yeah. Do you remember, is it already published, I don't know, that text where I go into it, it's ingenious. This for me Engels at his best. You know that in Engels predicted not only in a letter not only World War One but World War Two. I did not know that. It's unimaginable. He said the way it's looking now, there will be an all-European mega war Germany against France, England on one side and Russia on another. And then he qualifies further this predicate, He says it this will be a mega carnage, it will lead to around million deaths. You know what is today the official number? million It's incredible. And point two, it may lead to a revolution in Russia. And then in another
what is going on in real life I would put Engels. Yeah. Do you remember, is it already published, I don't know, that text where I go into it, it's ingenious. This for me Engels at his best. You know that in Engels predicted not only in a letter not only World War One but World War Two. I did not know that. It's unimaginable. He said the way it's looking now, there will be an all-European mega war Germany against France, England on one side and Russia on another. And then he qualifies further this predicate, He says it this will be a mega carnage, it will lead to around million deaths. You know what is today the official number? million It's incredible. And point two, it may lead to a revolution in Russia. And then in another
unknown
fragment it's breathtaking, he writes but if Germany loses the war around years later Germany may trigger another war of revenge. So you know what I mean. Yeah. Underestimate Engels, he had this incredible sense of of pragmatism but in the realist noble sense. Right, but theoretically, theoretically Engels is not, no, no, no, no. Also, again this can be debated, but when he speaks about pure
fragment it's breathtaking, he writes but if Germany loses the war around years later Germany may trigger another war of revenge. So you know what I mean. Yeah. Underestimate Engels, he had this incredible sense of of pragmatism but in the realist noble sense. Right, but theoretically, theoretically Engels is not, no, no, no, no. Also, again this can be debated, but when he speaks about pure
Slavoj Žižek
philosophy and all
philosophy and all
unknown
that stuff, no, although one thing is important, my professor of Marxism when I was young believe me or not I once was young who was a Frankfurt school Marxist but with a sympathy for Engels. He said that you know this was a falsification when under
that stuff, no, although one thing is important, my professor of Marxism when I was young believe me or not I once was young who was a Frankfurt school Marxist but with a sympathy for Engels. He said that you know this was a falsification when under
Slavoj Žižek
early Stalinism I think they edited manuscripts on Engels and on natural sciences and gave the title Dialectic of Nature. You know that Engels never uses. I know he doesn't, yeah that's true. Yeah I know. Only at one point he says dialectic sozusagen as if so to speak in nature. Right. So it's totally wrong to see this as a kind of universalized ontology and so on and so on, you know. But but why did I going into this excursion, I will immediately give you the word I'm sorry, because you are right because it's Engels in his Ludwig Feuerbach and the, it's not end, it's Ausgang, getting out of German idealism, he introduces this unfortunate distinction between Hegel's method and contingent determinate particular content and so on. Right. So I don't want to I'm not going to rely on that. Like I think but my point about the Hegel's political structure and I think you're you know Pippin says this same thing too about how you have to apply Hegel's own notion of the Owl of Minerva to his own understanding of. But he himself doesn't do it. No I know he doesn't, I know. But but I mean at the end he still belongs to what I call not yet there Hegelians. Right. That the idea is that Hegel had a vision of social freedom, we are not yet there. Sorry, go on. Right, well I also don't understand the role that mutual recognition gets for them because that doesn't play that part for Hegel at all so it's a really it's a fascinating kind of introduction of something. And of course I as I developed and we will develop much more in detail in this text that I I did develop, it's not just yet published, that I did develop, that for Hegel also what both of you I think I talked already we agreed with both of you that for Hegel recognition has this basic element of resignation. Recognition is precisely the recognition that failures are necessary and so on and so on. It's not that we get over the trouble, we recognize each other and then it's peace or whatever.
early Stalinism I think they edited manuscripts on Engels and on natural sciences and gave the title Dialectic of Nature. You know that Engels never uses. I know he doesn't, yeah that's true. Yeah I know. Only at one point he says dialectic sozusagen as if so to speak in nature. Right. So it's totally wrong to see this as a kind of universalized ontology and so on and so on, you know. But but why did I going into this excursion, I will immediately give you the word I'm sorry, because you are right because it's Engels in his Ludwig Feuerbach and the, it's not end, it's Ausgang, getting out of German idealism, he introduces this unfortunate distinction between Hegel's method and contingent determinate particular content and so on. Right. So I don't want to I'm not going to rely on that. Like I think but my point about the Hegel's political structure and I think you're you know Pippin says this same thing too about how you have to apply Hegel's own notion of the Owl of Minerva to his own understanding of. But he himself doesn't do it. No I know he doesn't, I know. But but I mean at the end he still belongs to what I call not yet there Hegelians. Right. That the idea is that Hegel had a vision of social freedom, we are not yet there. Sorry, go on. Right, well I also don't understand the role that mutual recognition gets for them because that doesn't play that part for Hegel at all so it's a really it's a fascinating kind of introduction of something. And of course I as I developed and we will develop much more in detail in this text that I I did develop, it's not just yet published, that I did develop, that for Hegel also what both of you I think I talked already we agreed with both of you that for Hegel recognition has this basic element of resignation. Recognition is precisely the recognition that failures are necessary and so on and so on. It's not that we get over the trouble, we recognize each other and then it's peace or whatever.
unknown
Right. Don't forget that Hegel's Philosophy of
Right. Don't forget that Hegel's Philosophy of
Slavoj Žižek
Right finishes with what, with the necessity of war and so on. But you know where I would confirm this. It's very interesting. Probably it is translated but it would be nice if some of you would write the introduction to re-edit it. You know which is Hegel's last text that he wrote and published essay? His reaction to English that new electoral law where they expanded the voting, reform bill. Yeah, yeah and you can see Hegel's panic there. He saw something new coming which basically ruins his vision of a rational state and he was at a loss there. Right I think that's right and I think that like he couldn't sustain the notion the estates is really so important for him in the Philosophy of Right. Like he can't the notion of direct suffrage he
Right finishes with what, with the necessity of war and so on. But you know where I would confirm this. It's very interesting. Probably it is translated but it would be nice if some of you would write the introduction to re-edit it. You know which is Hegel's last text that he wrote and published essay? His reaction to English that new electoral law where they expanded the voting, reform bill. Yeah, yeah and you can see Hegel's panic there. He saw something new coming which basically ruins his vision of a rational state and he was at a loss there. Right I think that's right and I think that like he couldn't sustain the notion the estates is really so important for him in the Philosophy of Right. Like he can't the notion of direct suffrage he
unknown
can't he can't accept that but so I agree with you that that his his way of
can't he can't accept that but so I agree with you that that his his way of
Slavoj Žižek
understanding it we have to apply his own thought to his his political philosophy but what I would say is he's just trying isn't he isn't he what he trying to do is and I think this what he always tries to do, let's understand what is real and let's understand the actuality of what's going on and then we can see and within that we will see the way in which there's some form of contradiction and then I think that he thinks the figure of the monarch which you have I think rightly defended one of the only people I think you were right to do that. I'm not sure there is another idiot who publicly defended it so often, yeah yeah but sorry, please finish, yes. So I think so I think his notion is that the figure of the monarch is the point of contradiction
understanding it we have to apply his own thought to his his political philosophy but what I would say is he's just trying isn't he isn't he what he trying to do is and I think this what he always tries to do, let's understand what is real and let's understand the actuality of what's going on and then we can see and within that we will see the way in which there's some form of contradiction and then I think that he thinks the figure of the monarch which you have I think rightly defended one of the only people I think you were right to do that. I'm not sure there is another idiot who publicly defended it so often, yeah yeah but sorry, please finish, yes. So I think so I think his notion is that the figure of the monarch is the point of contradiction
unknown
within the structure and that we have to read whatever the subsequent structure is we have to interpret it precisely in that same way. So I think all he's giving us really is a is a way of making sense of what's there in order. And I also but do you think that in a Hegelian way we
within the structure and that we have to read whatever the subsequent structure is we have to interpret it precisely in that same way. So I think all he's giving us really is a is a way of making sense of what's there in order. And I also but do you think that in a Hegelian way we
Slavoj Žižek
can by because Hegel points about
can by because Hegel points about
unknown
monarch
monarch
Slavoj Žižek
is that he's just a pure performative gesture he makes he is he is what Mike Pence decided to be although Trump didn't
is that he's just a pure performative gesture he makes he is he is what Mike Pence decided to be although Trump didn't
unknown
want him to be you know his role was just to register and Trump did something interesting from the Hegelian standpoint. It's like asking a king like the Queen of England
want him to be you know his role was just to register and Trump did something interesting from the Hegelian standpoint. It's like asking a king like the Queen of England
Slavoj Žižek
Labour Party wins election don't recognize it. But this recognition is in parliamentary democracy even if you have a king it's it's it's a purely symbolic act of a ritual you know. Yeah. Okay so what I want to say is that why not then I think one can justify it in Hegelian terms what about not instead of a king at least a president where you combine general election and lottery. This worked quite well for some time. Yeah because Hegel wanted the element of contingency. He said monarchy is determined by by heredity and this is from the spiritual standpoint contingency. Stupid but you know what they had in two models of limited but nonetheless within this limits they tried to make it real democracy within this limits, ancient Greece and Venice. They combined lottery with qualifications. I quoted somewhere like in Venice how did they select a Doge? It was madness first they had I think candidates then by some committee went through so that you don't get an idiot at the end and eliminated Among these by lottery they went down I think to then again a committee you know so that they tried to I wonder to what extent it worked but I think that there must be at least for the top of the power an element of this type of lottery contingency. Monarch was Hegel's lottery. I agree with that and I think his wasn't his notion
Labour Party wins election don't recognize it. But this recognition is in parliamentary democracy even if you have a king it's it's it's a purely symbolic act of a ritual you know. Yeah. Okay so what I want to say is that why not then I think one can justify it in Hegelian terms what about not instead of a king at least a president where you combine general election and lottery. This worked quite well for some time. Yeah because Hegel wanted the element of contingency. He said monarchy is determined by by heredity and this is from the spiritual standpoint contingency. Stupid but you know what they had in two models of limited but nonetheless within this limits they tried to make it real democracy within this limits, ancient Greece and Venice. They combined lottery with qualifications. I quoted somewhere like in Venice how did they select a Doge? It was madness first they had I think candidates then by some committee went through so that you don't get an idiot at the end and eliminated Among these by lottery they went down I think to then again a committee you know so that they tried to I wonder to what extent it worked but I think that there must be at least for the top of the power an element of this type of lottery contingency. Monarch was Hegel's lottery. I agree with that and I think his wasn't his notion
unknown
and I think this is a absolutely contemporary idea that it's precisely the contingency of this figure on the top that saves us from the fascist the risk of fascism. I think yeah. Yeah a fascist leader is a figure of fate. Hitler would never have said oh it could have been another guy I am contingent. Right right. And unfortunately Stalin also not. That's problem with so-called totalitarianism, they want their reign to be grounded in their actual or whatever real qualities. And here I think it's that Israeli friend of ours Yuval Creamnitzer who made this this nice point that you want rule of experts and you end up with Donald Trump. Right that's right. No it's true. University discourse where there is no figure of the master just experts rule and tell us science tells us this is to be done economists
and I think this is a absolutely contemporary idea that it's precisely the contingency of this figure on the top that saves us from the fascist the risk of fascism. I think yeah. Yeah a fascist leader is a figure of fate. Hitler would never have said oh it could have been another guy I am contingent. Right right. And unfortunately Stalin also not. That's problem with so-called totalitarianism, they want their reign to be grounded in their actual or whatever real qualities. And here I think it's that Israeli friend of ours Yuval Creamnitzer who made this this nice point that you want rule of experts and you end up with Donald Trump. Right that's right. No it's true. University discourse where there is no figure of the master just experts rule and tell us science tells us this is to be done economists
Slavoj Žižek
tell us that. And then you got a figure like
tell us that. And then you got a figure like
unknown
Trump who elevated his totally contingent personal idiosyncrasies eccentricities and so on into like he was he didn't claim big others speaks through him he often acted as if he is the big other. He is the big other. I know and also I think it's really important that he is explicitly against
Trump who elevated his totally contingent personal idiosyncrasies eccentricities and so on into like he was he didn't claim big others speaks through him he often acted as if he is the big other. He is the big other. I know and also I think it's really important that he is explicitly against
Slavoj Žižek
the expert right like that like he he he made Pen he made Fauci the expert his foil and I think that's you know like I think that's a key to the appeal of a figure like him or like Mussolini. I totally agree with you here I don't agree with otherwise very good text did you read it I don't know where it was published by that I respect him strange figure but I mean in a very do you know Warren Montag who is a Spinoza Hegelian scholar yeah as a Spinozist he wants to also integrate Hegel and he wrote a text where he said that okay this first coup attempt last week was more a travesty not serious but he said it may return that we were lucky that's how he put it that we had on the top a figure who is ridiculous with cognitive dissonances like Trump what if next time it will be a much more serious but these cognitive dissonances are the base of Trump's success. I know I know I think point is yeah. Yeah, I think that and you know what it's interesting because you know this I think
the expert right like that like he he he made Pen he made Fauci the expert his foil and I think that's you know like I think that's a key to the appeal of a figure like him or like Mussolini. I totally agree with you here I don't agree with otherwise very good text did you read it I don't know where it was published by that I respect him strange figure but I mean in a very do you know Warren Montag who is a Spinoza Hegelian scholar yeah as a Spinozist he wants to also integrate Hegel and he wrote a text where he said that okay this first coup attempt last week was more a travesty not serious but he said it may return that we were lucky that's how he put it that we had on the top a figure who is ridiculous with cognitive dissonances like Trump what if next time it will be a much more serious but these cognitive dissonances are the base of Trump's success. I know I know I think point is yeah. Yeah, I think that and you know what it's interesting because you know this I think
unknown
you've played out
you've played out
Slavoj Žižek
this game before like do you kill Hitler in his as a child because what if actually Hitler was not as bad as someone who would have been smart enough not to invade Russia but I think isn't it crucial to realize that the stupidity of the totalitarian so-called leader is crucial to their success? It's not like you can have a smart version of Trump who would be more successful. Absolutely but you know what maybe Trump was a little bit stupid at another level. You know what bright totalitarians know how to do that secretly at least intimately they know their limits and they know how to put the right people around them on for example the greatest thing but we paid the price of it because of this there were at least two three millions more people dead and World War
this game before like do you kill Hitler in his as a child because what if actually Hitler was not as bad as someone who would have been smart enough not to invade Russia but I think isn't it crucial to realize that the stupidity of the totalitarian so-called leader is crucial to their success? It's not like you can have a smart version of Trump who would be more successful. Absolutely but you know what maybe Trump was a little bit stupid at another level. You know what bright totalitarians know how to do that secretly at least intimately they know their limits and they know how to put the right people around them on for example the greatest thing but we paid the price of it because of this there were at least two three millions more people dead and World War
unknown
Two dragged for was for Hitler I think end of Stalingrad and so on he nominated Albert Speer who was a administrative genius the minister of defense and gave him real full power. You know what Speer accomplished in with all bombings
Two dragged for was for Hitler I think end of Stalingrad and so on he nominated Albert Speer who was a administrative genius the minister of defense and gave him real full power. You know what Speer accomplished in with all bombings
Slavoj Žižek
and so on. German industrial arms production was at its highest point he did miracles without Speer World War Two would have been absolutely over at least in the middle of So you know and some people told me unfortunately that who are not pro Ronald Reagan that even Reagan had some of this. He knew to put the right people around him Trump wasn't very strong here because look at Mike Pence, Pompeo, especially Pompeo and so on you know. Yeah. Well they just they just you know the transition Biden's transition team just revealed today that they had absolutely no plan for for the COVID vaccination rollout. So ah absolute. Now that you are there I will quote you respectfully, you sent me a message where I will simply quote you as a private private conversation and so on you know where you developed this re-actualized the old stuff that we all knew but fuck it you got it you applied it on me now how this theft of enjoyment and carnival this is it here no that you cannot understand the the Capitol thing without these categories. And you know Russell how complex I then try to analyze it a little bit. This goes because it's on on both ways these Trumpist protesters they at the same time
and so on. German industrial arms production was at its highest point he did miracles without Speer World War Two would have been absolutely over at least in the middle of So you know and some people told me unfortunately that who are not pro Ronald Reagan that even Reagan had some of this. He knew to put the right people around him Trump wasn't very strong here because look at Mike Pence, Pompeo, especially Pompeo and so on you know. Yeah. Well they just they just you know the transition Biden's transition team just revealed today that they had absolutely no plan for for the COVID vaccination rollout. So ah absolute. Now that you are there I will quote you respectfully, you sent me a message where I will simply quote you as a private private conversation and so on you know where you developed this re-actualized the old stuff that we all knew but fuck it you got it you applied it on me now how this theft of enjoyment and carnival this is it here no that you cannot understand the the Capitol thing without these categories. And you know Russell how complex I then try to analyze it a little bit. This goes because it's on on both ways these Trumpist protesters they at the same time
unknown
feel life is being stolen from them and by life they mean of course their upper middle class way of life we socialized guns we know the way of life but at the same time you have this envy of this is element of racism how the other has some secret modes of enjoyment you know the obsession the
feel life is being stolen from them and by life they mean of course their upper middle class way of life we socialized guns we know the way of life but at the same time you have this envy of this is element of racism how the other has some secret modes of enjoyment you know the obsession the
Slavoj Žižek
Jews have some secrets and so on and I think without taking into account this this reference and this reference to carnival you know you cannot really understand.
Jews have some secrets and so on and I think without taking into account this this reference and this reference to carnival you know you cannot really understand.
unknown
I'm not saying it's not extremely dangerous ah incidentally maybe.
I'm not saying it's not extremely dangerous ah incidentally maybe.
Slavoj Žižek
Because you know who convinced me that things are dangerous here nonetheless in the long term it was not Warren Montag another guy I forgot who I quote him in some new text of mine where he said that did you read this that they made an analysis opinion poll among Republican Party members congressmen and so on they asked them immediately after Capitol events a simple question do you agree with what the protesters did violently disband the Congress you know that almost half of them were
Because you know who convinced me that things are dangerous here nonetheless in the long term it was not Warren Montag another guy I forgot who I quote him in some new text of mine where he said that did you read this that they made an analysis opinion poll among Republican Party members congressmen and so on they asked them immediately after Capitol events a simple question do you agree with what the protesters did violently disband the Congress you know that almost half of them were
unknown
for. Right. So if you go to the base you know that you have now if you extrapolate this in United States about million people who are politically so radical in the right-wing sense that they are ready for a violent coup d'etat to restore the
for. Right. So if you go to the base you know that you have now if you extrapolate this in United States about million people who are politically so radical in the right-wing sense that they are ready for a violent coup d'etat to restore the
unknown
true voice of the people and so on and so on. It's amazing. But still I
true voice of the people and so on and so on. It's amazing. But still I
unknown
think sorry let's go on. Yeah, yeah let's go on. Cuz so I want to just come back to this Philosophy of Right question. So so don't could you say this, could you say that the very way
think sorry let's go on. Yeah, yeah let's go on. Cuz so I want to just come back to this Philosophy of Right question. So so don't could you say this, could you say that the very way
Slavoj Žižek
he structures the book that is placing the state as placing civil socie- like he understands capitalism as civil society right like that's his term for for it. So so by placing the state outside of civil society isn't he isn't isn't that itself a kind of radical critique of the liberal conception of freedom and the whole liberal political ideal? Like isn't he by giving the state the final structural word? Like isn't that his because I think he's not an idiot he would have known right that actually civil society by that time had already outstripped the state. So I mean right now there's this whole this whole oh we're so worried about state power but of course it's it's the power of capital that's much more of a danger. And I think didn't Hegel recognize that? So so structuring the Philosophy of the Right in the way that he did by making the state this break on civil society isn't that already a way of. Yeah but how can you
he structures the book that is placing the state as placing civil socie- like he understands capitalism as civil society right like that's his term for for it. So so by placing the state outside of civil society isn't he isn't isn't that itself a kind of radical critique of the liberal conception of freedom and the whole liberal political ideal? Like isn't he by giving the state the final structural word? Like isn't that his because I think he's not an idiot he would have known right that actually civil society by that time had already outstripped the state. So I mean right now there's this whole this whole oh we're so worried about state power but of course it's it's the power of capital that's much more of a danger. And I think didn't Hegel recognize that? So so structuring the Philosophy of the Right in the way that he did by making the state this break on civil society isn't that already a way of. Yeah but how can you
unknown
avoid here the we must mention also here the fact that the radical right agrees here with Hegel but from their position they say of course liberal
avoid here the we must mention also here the fact that the radical right agrees here with Hegel but from their position they say of course liberal
Slavoj Žižek
Jewish capitalism civil society it must be dominated you know you can also give right-wing spin to this. No I agree but but I think that I don't think that Hegel does that. I mean he like throughout the 20s he would like his whole opposition like his whole private political intrigue at the University of Berlin was against was supporting left-wing students against these right-wing nationalist professors and and I think like his I I would just say he's consistently against this right-wing nationalism. No no no you are totally right here here although I hate to I don't like Goethe and I hate this elevation of big geniuses of this time you know like the ultimate orgasm Hegel meets Goethe what did they talk about no but both were already at that time suspicious of this dangers of German nationalism. They both Goethe I forgot where in some of those talks with Eckermann he he saw although it was often meant in this democratic way people he saw the horrifying dimension in it you know. So I think that that that this is the unique Hegel's position that he saw he saw he saw the danger but as you know the problem is here estates you know because estates are at the same time civil society that self-organization
Jewish capitalism civil society it must be dominated you know you can also give right-wing spin to this. No I agree but but I think that I don't think that Hegel does that. I mean he like throughout the 20s he would like his whole opposition like his whole private political intrigue at the University of Berlin was against was supporting left-wing students against these right-wing nationalist professors and and I think like his I I would just say he's consistently against this right-wing nationalism. No no no you are totally right here here although I hate to I don't like Goethe and I hate this elevation of big geniuses of this time you know like the ultimate orgasm Hegel meets Goethe what did they talk about no but both were already at that time suspicious of this dangers of German nationalism. They both Goethe I forgot where in some of those talks with Eckermann he he saw although it was often meant in this democratic way people he saw the horrifying dimension in it you know. So I think that that that this is the unique Hegel's position that he saw he saw he saw the danger but as you know the problem is here estates you know because estates are at the same time civil society that self-organization
unknown
productive but at the same time with the other foot in the state
productive but at the same time with the other foot in the state
Slavoj Žižek
already no. So for Hegel the okay apart from police I like Hegel's thought on police ah speaking about this is in my new text I hope you both will love it. You know when Pippin and those guys praise reconciliation no. Yeah reconciliation for Hegel is just not that also the judge should recognize its own complicity that you cannot simply blame just the other that when you have a heavy crime you must ask but aren't we implicit in it we cannot simply judge it from outside. Okay my point is here but never forget for Hegel how do you reconcile with the criminal? By killing him. Death penalty is reconciliation for Hegel. Right right. And even he didn't mean what's he even thought that the criminal I mean he this is absolutely central to his thinking I think that the criminal actually wills their own punishment right like the punishment is actually included in the crime. Yeah he says this that you treat him in a honorable way as a free being and so on. And this is even ironically God bless my unfortunate Bolsheviks confirmed I told already a couple of time how this story you know the story of radicals coming to power first thing they bombastically abolish death penalty. And then of course usually a couple of months later they start killing the enemies. And you know Bolsheviks did this they immediately abolished death penalty and then at the beginning of the civil war they got some arrested some white generals defeating
already no. So for Hegel the okay apart from police I like Hegel's thought on police ah speaking about this is in my new text I hope you both will love it. You know when Pippin and those guys praise reconciliation no. Yeah reconciliation for Hegel is just not that also the judge should recognize its own complicity that you cannot simply blame just the other that when you have a heavy crime you must ask but aren't we implicit in it we cannot simply judge it from outside. Okay my point is here but never forget for Hegel how do you reconcile with the criminal? By killing him. Death penalty is reconciliation for Hegel. Right right. And even he didn't mean what's he even thought that the criminal I mean he this is absolutely central to his thinking I think that the criminal actually wills their own punishment right like the punishment is actually included in the crime. Yeah he says this that you treat him in a honorable way as a free being and so on. And this is even ironically God bless my unfortunate Bolsheviks confirmed I told already a couple of time how this story you know the story of radicals coming to power first thing they bombastically abolish death penalty. And then of course usually a couple of months later they start killing the enemies. And you know Bolsheviks did this they immediately abolished death penalty and then at the beginning of the civil war they got some arrested some white generals defeating
unknown
them and
them and
Slavoj Žižek
killed them. And then the whole
killed them. And then the whole
unknown
Western Europe social democrats liberal leftists were horrified but didn't you say but didn't you abolish death penalty? Ah they got the answer of a lifetime you know what was the official answer? This was not that punishment this was just a military preemptive measure to prevent this has nothing to do with punishment and so on you know. Yeah. Sorry but Russell we are ignoring you strike. Well I was I was gonna ask if we could if we could go back to if we could try to bring things to Hegel's ontology. Because
Western Europe social democrats liberal leftists were horrified but didn't you say but didn't you abolish death penalty? Ah they got the answer of a lifetime you know what was the official answer? This was not that punishment this was just a military preemptive measure to prevent this has nothing to do with punishment and so on you know. Yeah. Sorry but Russell we are ignoring you strike. Well I was I was gonna ask if we could if we could go back to if we could try to bring things to Hegel's ontology. Because
Slavoj Žižek
and this is
and this is
unknown
kind of selfish because I'm I'm trying to work on this response to that Graham Harman wrote to our to our collection that you and I edited Slavoj but that Todd has a has a piece in and what made me think of it was when we were talking about the figure of the monarch and Philosophy of Right because I've been thinking about infinite judgment and you know state as monarch and I just I I am trying to rethink Hegel through almost the entirety of Hegel through infinite judgment but the question that I wanted to pose
kind of selfish because I'm I'm trying to work on this response to that Graham Harman wrote to our to our collection that you and I edited Slavoj but that Todd has a has a piece in and what made me think of it was when we were talking about the figure of the monarch and Philosophy of Right because I've been thinking about infinite judgment and you know state as monarch and I just I I am trying to rethink Hegel through almost the entirety of Hegel through infinite judgment but the question that I wanted to pose
Slavoj Žižek
to the two of you is because the one the main thing that that Harman goes after us for is he claims that our like Lacano-Hegelian position is is an idealism almost of like a Berkeleyan idealism and he said there's no he says we have no business calling it it materialism and I'm basically
to the two of you is because the one the main thing that that Harman goes after us for is he claims that our like Lacano-Hegelian position is is an idealism almost of like a Berkeleyan idealism and he said there's no he says we have no business calling it it materialism and I'm basically
unknown
going back and forth between distilling what we mean by materialism to contradiction and and contingency. Yeah contingency is crucial I think materialism sorry please finish oh my god I'm so sorry go ahead. No no no I was I was just going to say which of the two because I think Todd would say and I'm kind of I might be in agreement
going back and forth between distilling what we mean by materialism to contradiction and and contingency. Yeah contingency is crucial I think materialism sorry please finish oh my god I'm so sorry go ahead. No no no I was I was just going to say which of the two because I think Todd would say and I'm kind of I might be in agreement
Slavoj Žižek
that that contradiction would be the sort and I don't mean this necessarily in the Lacano-Hegelian the master signifier to use for as a shorthand for for materialism Alenka Zupančič even makes this point that in in What IS Sex? that a definition of materialism
that that contradiction would be the sort and I don't mean this necessarily in the Lacano-Hegelian the master signifier to use for as a shorthand for for materialism Alenka Zupančič even makes this point that in in What IS Sex? that a definition of materialism
unknown
would be that
would be that
Slavoj Žižek
depending upon the subject is a being that makes contradiction available to thought but I'm wondering if you know if contra like where with regard to contradiction contingency comes in because I don't think they're two names for the same thing but they're related. I I yes I this is a very good question first I would say that that and you Todd showed this very nicely that you know often with old school Marxists up to Mao Zedong who emphasized contradiction if you look at it closely it's not really a contradiction it's simply this almost pre-modern mythic universe of conflict of opposites you know. Like I don't know in Mao Zedong it's class struggle one class against the other you know or with this Jungian anthropologist male principle versus the feminine Hegelian contradiction is absolutely not this. That's why when Lacan says there is no sexual relationship he doesn't mean men are from like I like to turn it around men are from and that's our unfortunate experience men are from Venus women are from Mars everything turned around you know. So it's not this one has to be very precise and what I try to develop is that this is the only thing Russell I can answer now to you is that where I see the connection between contradiction and contingency is that the point that I am repeatedly making is that usually in classical Marxism and so on it's what you quoted Todd that idea of you know if not Hitler then another guy. They see the dialectic of contingency and necessity in this term history has a general necessity but
depending upon the subject is a being that makes contradiction available to thought but I'm wondering if you know if contra like where with regard to contradiction contingency comes in because I don't think they're two names for the same thing but they're related. I I yes I this is a very good question first I would say that that and you Todd showed this very nicely that you know often with old school Marxists up to Mao Zedong who emphasized contradiction if you look at it closely it's not really a contradiction it's simply this almost pre-modern mythic universe of conflict of opposites you know. Like I don't know in Mao Zedong it's class struggle one class against the other you know or with this Jungian anthropologist male principle versus the feminine Hegelian contradiction is absolutely not this. That's why when Lacan says there is no sexual relationship he doesn't mean men are from like I like to turn it around men are from and that's our unfortunate experience men are from Venus women are from Mars everything turned around you know. So it's not this one has to be very precise and what I try to develop is that this is the only thing Russell I can answer now to you is that where I see the connection between contradiction and contingency is that the point that I am repeatedly making is that usually in classical Marxism and so on it's what you quoted Todd that idea of you know if not Hitler then another guy. They see the dialectic of contingency and necessity in this term history has a general necessity but
unknown
it's like history needed to contain the crisis some kind of fascist dictatorship but it was historical contingency that Napoleon sorry that Hitler was the
it's like history needed to contain the crisis some kind of fascist dictatorship but it was historical contingency that Napoleon sorry that Hitler was the
Slavoj Žižek
guy. I said Napoleon because Plekhanov the father of dialectical materialism uses the example of Napoleon here. French Revolution had to end up in some kind of empire new authoritarian order it was a contingency that that Napoleon was the guy. What I think is that it's not just that necessity actualizes itself in contingency it's and here I try to get closer to quantum physics lesson is that necessity is not determined in advance. We have an open contingency situation and which tendency retractively becomes an necessity it's in itself contingent that the ultimate contingency is an elevation of some contingency into necessity. That's why you must know this I eternally quote again and again that Dupuy thought who refers to that wonderful passage from Le Monde that if Balladur French politician years ago will win next election if he will win his victory will be necessary if he will win. I think this is a nice example of a proper dialectical contradiction. You don't say just contradiction tension between necessity and contingency no you say that you must introduce this self relating that
guy. I said Napoleon because Plekhanov the father of dialectical materialism uses the example of Napoleon here. French Revolution had to end up in some kind of empire new authoritarian order it was a contingency that that Napoleon was the guy. What I think is that it's not just that necessity actualizes itself in contingency it's and here I try to get closer to quantum physics lesson is that necessity is not determined in advance. We have an open contingency situation and which tendency retractively becomes an necessity it's in itself contingent that the ultimate contingency is an elevation of some contingency into necessity. That's why you must know this I eternally quote again and again that Dupuy thought who refers to that wonderful passage from Le Monde that if Balladur French politician years ago will win next election if he will win his victory will be necessary if he will win. I think this is a nice example of a proper dialectical contradiction. You don't say just contradiction tension between necessity and contingency no you say that you must introduce this self relating that
unknown
the way necessity arises out of a contingency is in itself basically is contingent. Second thing and I think we all agree here let's when we say materialism let's forget about that stupidity of you know this primitive representation empty space and some small parts of matter just going around there. I mean I am and Frank Ruda I don't always agree with him but he wonderfully developed this I think isn't the title of one of his book Materialism Without Matter? or I don't know what you know that I'm here ready to go to the end. There is no matter in this sense that can only be abstract waves oscillations whose nature is purely formal immaterial mathematical formulated in mathematics but the crucial thing is the radical contingency in the sense that not in the sense that there is no necessity but in the sense of you
the way necessity arises out of a contingency is in itself basically is contingent. Second thing and I think we all agree here let's when we say materialism let's forget about that stupidity of you know this primitive representation empty space and some small parts of matter just going around there. I mean I am and Frank Ruda I don't always agree with him but he wonderfully developed this I think isn't the title of one of his book Materialism Without Matter? or I don't know what you know that I'm here ready to go to the end. There is no matter in this sense that can only be abstract waves oscillations whose nature is purely formal immaterial mathematical formulated in mathematics but the crucial thing is the radical contingency in the sense that not in the sense that there is no necessity but in the sense of you
unknown
know which example I like to use of actual contradiction although it's not even a true contradiction. Let's take the pandemic no. Let's say it will be much more serious and almost ruin us. Of course in
know which example I like to use of actual contradiction although it's not even a true contradiction. Let's take the pandemic no. Let's say it will be much more serious and almost ruin us. Of course in
Slavoj Žižek
itself it's
itself it's
unknown
necessary necessary in the sense that if we analyze it we see that nothing did happen that would violate natural laws and so on but nonetheless from the standpoint of human history it's contingent it doesn't necessarily express any deeper social tendency it just happened as again from our standpoint something totally meaningless. Which is why when people ask me what do you mean by materialism I say virus that's why of course we should analyze its historical conditions connected with global capital blah blah blah but ultimately there is no deeper message in it in the sense of it's a warning of Mother Nature and so on and so on that would be for me contingency and
necessary necessary in the sense that if we analyze it we see that nothing did happen that would violate natural laws and so on but nonetheless from the standpoint of human history it's contingent it doesn't necessarily express any deeper social tendency it just happened as again from our standpoint something totally meaningless. Which is why when people ask me what do you mean by materialism I say virus that's why of course we should analyze its historical conditions connected with global capital blah blah blah but ultimately there is no deeper message in it in the sense of it's a warning of Mother Nature and so on and so on that would be for me contingency and
Slavoj Žižek
contradiction. Yeah I think that's really good but I but I wonder why do you think it's necessary to to cling and insist on the signifier materialist? I just I wonder about that I mean what what's at stake? It's more that there is no global teleology teleology is always a backwards retroactive teleology. This is the reason I still cling to this term. Idealism is for me not so much ideas I'm for my formula would have been materialism of ideas. Okay okay. Like Alenka Zupančič pointed out already in Democritus he always compares atoms with letters and she says the same in the same way that letters are combined in words and so on and so on. So for me what matters is just this contingent blindness out of which retroactively then necessity sorry necessity or meaning or whatever emerges and this is would be one reason. And again this is hidden in Hegel when he says let's not philosophize about the future we can only right. I mean right. I mean in certain ways that's the most materialist statement of all right? Hegel's saying like the Owl of Minerva takes flight only with the falling of dusk. I I think that's right but I want to say Marx is here more idealist than Hegel that's my. No no no question absolutely absolutely. No sorry more idealist yeah yeah yeah. No more idealist yeah yeah yeah yeah. But but I would just say I my question always was like doesn't Hegel and this this gets to why I want to insist on neither idealism or materialism because doesn't Hegel miss the way in which there's always a fantasy of the future written in to my analysis of the actual situation and then isn't that the stake of enjoyment in the way in which in what's happening? So like I think I think the problem I guess with the and this is my problem with all Marxist analysis is that by being materialist it writes the enjoyment factor out of it and then like just like we were analyzing this storming of the Capitol like it's totally driven by enjoyment it's not driven by the objective material conditions of those people doing the storming because I think our immediate reaction was oh this this is the white working class blah but then it turns out it wasn't the white working class it was the it was the white bourgeoisie basically and so it's pure surplus yeah. So right it's surplus so it's so so it's enjoyment that's driving it and I think I guess for me I don't see how materialism accounts for. Yeah but why not why why is for you enjoyment not a materialist category? Why would it because if anything Marx in his notion of humanity counted too much on this it sounds so naive as if I'm defending some irrationality but he was counting too much of behind every passion and so on there must be class interest in the rational sense you really know what are your interests. No, enjoyment absolutely yes and I think I will go even a step further to your bourgeois anti-Marxism joining you I would say that it's because of this missing the dimension of enjoyment and so on that Marx wasn't able to see or okay it would have been too difficult for him to predict it but even to get a hint of the complications and terrifying consequences possible of a socialist revolution. Right. You go for example it's clear even Fred Jameson who wants to be materialist everything says this very nicely you know that we will see what real problems are in communism then will be real problems envy will be a mega problem and so on so I totally agree and that's why immediately I give you the word so as I finish I think that maybe another volume to do would have been do you know that it's this year or in two years or one from now do you know that we will be celebrating I think it's next year did even some of you told me this the years of Freud's Mass Psychology of the Crowd and this is very important because Freud was dealing precisely there with this problem crowd formation means collective shared enjoyment and so on and you know what is so important here. Ah you know I often don't agree with him but he did a good text the the rise of the super-ego Étienne Balibar on this where he shows that you know and I think he had a point you know who was Hans Kelsen the big German liberal left moderate left neo-Kantian theorist of law and he answered critically but in a friendly way to Freud's crowd psychology his point is that what Freud was describing there is not the constitution of society in the sense I'm already introducing Lacan's terms here of the big other global symbolic order within which we function and individuals but that Freud really describes something which is at least measured by the normal standards of bourgeois life a pathological formation. Freud can deduce this from all this game of affective identification but where does the idea of a legal order which confirms us as free individuals where does it come? Then Freud tried to answer it in
contradiction. Yeah I think that's really good but I but I wonder why do you think it's necessary to to cling and insist on the signifier materialist? I just I wonder about that I mean what what's at stake? It's more that there is no global teleology teleology is always a backwards retroactive teleology. This is the reason I still cling to this term. Idealism is for me not so much ideas I'm for my formula would have been materialism of ideas. Okay okay. Like Alenka Zupančič pointed out already in Democritus he always compares atoms with letters and she says the same in the same way that letters are combined in words and so on and so on. So for me what matters is just this contingent blindness out of which retroactively then necessity sorry necessity or meaning or whatever emerges and this is would be one reason. And again this is hidden in Hegel when he says let's not philosophize about the future we can only right. I mean right. I mean in certain ways that's the most materialist statement of all right? Hegel's saying like the Owl of Minerva takes flight only with the falling of dusk. I I think that's right but I want to say Marx is here more idealist than Hegel that's my. No no no question absolutely absolutely. No sorry more idealist yeah yeah yeah. No more idealist yeah yeah yeah yeah. But but I would just say I my question always was like doesn't Hegel and this this gets to why I want to insist on neither idealism or materialism because doesn't Hegel miss the way in which there's always a fantasy of the future written in to my analysis of the actual situation and then isn't that the stake of enjoyment in the way in which in what's happening? So like I think I think the problem I guess with the and this is my problem with all Marxist analysis is that by being materialist it writes the enjoyment factor out of it and then like just like we were analyzing this storming of the Capitol like it's totally driven by enjoyment it's not driven by the objective material conditions of those people doing the storming because I think our immediate reaction was oh this this is the white working class blah but then it turns out it wasn't the white working class it was the it was the white bourgeoisie basically and so it's pure surplus yeah. So right it's surplus so it's so so it's enjoyment that's driving it and I think I guess for me I don't see how materialism accounts for. Yeah but why not why why is for you enjoyment not a materialist category? Why would it because if anything Marx in his notion of humanity counted too much on this it sounds so naive as if I'm defending some irrationality but he was counting too much of behind every passion and so on there must be class interest in the rational sense you really know what are your interests. No, enjoyment absolutely yes and I think I will go even a step further to your bourgeois anti-Marxism joining you I would say that it's because of this missing the dimension of enjoyment and so on that Marx wasn't able to see or okay it would have been too difficult for him to predict it but even to get a hint of the complications and terrifying consequences possible of a socialist revolution. Right. You go for example it's clear even Fred Jameson who wants to be materialist everything says this very nicely you know that we will see what real problems are in communism then will be real problems envy will be a mega problem and so on so I totally agree and that's why immediately I give you the word so as I finish I think that maybe another volume to do would have been do you know that it's this year or in two years or one from now do you know that we will be celebrating I think it's next year did even some of you told me this the years of Freud's Mass Psychology of the Crowd and this is very important because Freud was dealing precisely there with this problem crowd formation means collective shared enjoyment and so on and you know what is so important here. Ah you know I often don't agree with him but he did a good text the the rise of the super-ego Étienne Balibar on this where he shows that you know and I think he had a point you know who was Hans Kelsen the big German liberal left moderate left neo-Kantian theorist of law and he answered critically but in a friendly way to Freud's crowd psychology his point is that what Freud was describing there is not the constitution of society in the sense I'm already introducing Lacan's terms here of the big other global symbolic order within which we function and individuals but that Freud really describes something which is at least measured by the normal standards of bourgeois life a pathological formation. Freud can deduce this from all this game of affective identification but where does the idea of a legal order which confirms us as free individuals where does it come? Then Freud tried to answer it in
unknown
a very complex way but I think he didn't fully succeed. Freud's points was that how the law the rule of law grabs us how can we
a very complex way but I think he didn't fully succeed. Freud's points was that how the law the rule of law grabs us how can we
Slavoj Žižek
internalize it it you must presupposed the guilt feeling base of the unresolved Oedipus and so on and so on that you know the way the subject can be can submit itself to the rule of law in this classical Althusserian sense that you are a subject in the sense of free individuals but at the same time subject in the
internalize it it you must presupposed the guilt feeling base of the unresolved Oedipus and so on and so on that you know the way the subject can be can submit itself to the rule of law in this classical Althusserian sense that you are a subject in the sense of free individuals but at the same time subject in the
unknown
sense
sense
Slavoj Žižek
of subjected to public power and so on and so on this is I think a very good point that Balibar made there sorry I've talked too much. No no no that's okay so so I so again so you so for you though enjoyment is materialist. That's but again not in this primitive sense that there are some small atoms floating there in the air yeah yeah yeah I know. Ah you know what I like sorry here I
of subjected to public power and so on and so on this is I think a very good point that Balibar made there sorry I've talked too much. No no no that's okay so so I so again so you so for you though enjoyment is materialist. That's but again not in this primitive sense that there are some small atoms floating there in the air yeah yeah yeah I know. Ah you know what I like sorry here I
unknown
will tell you but it's nonetheless enjoyment not organic spontaneity. Now I am watching I must advise you to do it I'm returning to my not really youth the hits were years ago this German hard rock band
will tell you but it's nonetheless enjoyment not organic spontaneity. Now I am watching I must advise you to do it I'm returning to my not really youth the hits were years ago this German hard rock band
Slavoj Žižek
Rammstein
Rammstein
unknown
you know and they have a wonderful song with the title Dalai Lama. I thought it's some Buddhist bullshit no. The title ironically refers to the fact that Dalai Lama was afraid to fly to take flight plane to take a plane. Okay so this is a scene father and son are visiting his husband and the boy's mother and they are nicely on a long flight then God of the winds up there says this shouldn't happen people shouldn't enjoy flights they don't belong to the sky and sends causes a strong storm and you know who is the figure of Dalai Lama here it's the father himself because he when he sees that the son is anxiety he wants to protect the son and holds him tightly and then the storm passes it's over the plane doesn't crash but the father unintentionally cut off the breathing and killed the son. There is a nice critique here that maybe the way Buddhism wants to
you know and they have a wonderful song with the title Dalai Lama. I thought it's some Buddhist bullshit no. The title ironically refers to the fact that Dalai Lama was afraid to fly to take flight plane to take a plane. Okay so this is a scene father and son are visiting his husband and the boy's mother and they are nicely on a long flight then God of the winds up there says this shouldn't happen people shouldn't enjoy flights they don't belong to the sky and sends causes a strong storm and you know who is the figure of Dalai Lama here it's the father himself because he when he sees that the son is anxiety he wants to protect the son and holds him tightly and then the storm passes it's over the plane doesn't crash but the father unintentionally cut off the breathing and killed the son. There is a nice critique here that maybe the way Buddhism wants to
Slavoj Žižek
protect us from
protect us from
unknown
Christ. But you know what I like here that the basic motive behind it is like in German it sounds so nice
Christ. But you know what I like here that the basic motive behind it is like in German it sounds so nice
Slavoj Žižek
vorwärts vorwärts ins Verderben wir müssen leben bis wir sterben. They say forward forward towards destruction and now it's a wonderful formula this is the basic pessimist message we must live till we die but making living not organic to go on living is a horrible duty you know yeah yeah. We must we must live till we die because they Rammstein said here the exact opposite of what one would have expected which is okay we can enjoy living but at the end we have to die that's not problem the problem is that you must live before you die right right no I think that's really good that you have to there has to be a way to wrench the idea of life out of the immediacy in which it's usually understood I think that's right that that that typically life is understood as this immediate I escape from all the mediated world back into my bare life but I think there's no I wonder if that's the problem with this concept of the Muselmann like that there is a such thing I've I've been thinking more and more that Agamben's whole I mean his response to the pandemic has been terrible but but I think his whole way of thinking of a some notion of bare life is just un I just think that's impossible that there has to be. Yeah I totally agree this is what Agamben issued the same is with Badiou although they are opposed Badiou speaks with this human animal life it doesn't exist right right this is a secondary product where is it where is it but do you think that we are at some basic level human animals and then from time to time a miracle happens and so on your event and so on. Right. Yeah that right like for Badiou he's too private about the event like the event there have to be if the event is what makes us human there have to be there it has to be happening all the time and. But do any of you two Todd and you Russell have an idea he always he Badiou when I talked with him he always avoided this I mentioned it somewhere in my reading about you this totally stupid brutal question okay let's say that you as an individual at the same time are caught in two events both absolutely authentic deep event of love personal love and political engagement but let's say that there is the conflict between the two of the like let's say your love object woman whoever wants you be safe stay with me how do you do with the interaction of events. Yeah you can't there's no way to answer you know you know that's so fascinating you brought that up because you know Sartre in Existentialism is a Humanism he presents exactly this problem like you're called between serving in the resistance or staying with your love object which do you decide and his point is there's nothing to help you make the decision so I think it's interesting. Ah but do you know my solution you remember I wrote about it somewhere my solution is you say to the resistance I have to stay with my parents you say to your parents I have to fight for resistance and you do neither but but go to a small cabin in the countryside and read Hegel. I think that's what Sartre did actually during the war. Yeah yeah yeah. So I want I we're about ready to be done but I
vorwärts vorwärts ins Verderben wir müssen leben bis wir sterben. They say forward forward towards destruction and now it's a wonderful formula this is the basic pessimist message we must live till we die but making living not organic to go on living is a horrible duty you know yeah yeah. We must we must live till we die because they Rammstein said here the exact opposite of what one would have expected which is okay we can enjoy living but at the end we have to die that's not problem the problem is that you must live before you die right right no I think that's really good that you have to there has to be a way to wrench the idea of life out of the immediacy in which it's usually understood I think that's right that that that typically life is understood as this immediate I escape from all the mediated world back into my bare life but I think there's no I wonder if that's the problem with this concept of the Muselmann like that there is a such thing I've I've been thinking more and more that Agamben's whole I mean his response to the pandemic has been terrible but but I think his whole way of thinking of a some notion of bare life is just un I just think that's impossible that there has to be. Yeah I totally agree this is what Agamben issued the same is with Badiou although they are opposed Badiou speaks with this human animal life it doesn't exist right right this is a secondary product where is it where is it but do you think that we are at some basic level human animals and then from time to time a miracle happens and so on your event and so on. Right. Yeah that right like for Badiou he's too private about the event like the event there have to be if the event is what makes us human there have to be there it has to be happening all the time and. But do any of you two Todd and you Russell have an idea he always he Badiou when I talked with him he always avoided this I mentioned it somewhere in my reading about you this totally stupid brutal question okay let's say that you as an individual at the same time are caught in two events both absolutely authentic deep event of love personal love and political engagement but let's say that there is the conflict between the two of the like let's say your love object woman whoever wants you be safe stay with me how do you do with the interaction of events. Yeah you can't there's no way to answer you know you know that's so fascinating you brought that up because you know Sartre in Existentialism is a Humanism he presents exactly this problem like you're called between serving in the resistance or staying with your love object which do you decide and his point is there's nothing to help you make the decision so I think it's interesting. Ah but do you know my solution you remember I wrote about it somewhere my solution is you say to the resistance I have to stay with my parents you say to your parents I have to fight for resistance and you do neither but but go to a small cabin in the countryside and read Hegel. I think that's what Sartre did actually during the war. Yeah yeah yeah. So I want I we're about ready to be done but I
unknown
want to I want to maybe ask you a question about books on Hegel because people always ask me this
want to I want to maybe ask you a question about books on Hegel because people always ask me this
Slavoj Žižek
question and and I I'm usually kind of struggle for an answer and so
question and and I I'm usually kind of struggle for an answer and so
unknown
excluding
excluding
Slavoj Žižek
your own what would you say this is for us and you what would you say is the you think the best book on Hegel? Oh of all time ever excluding your own. Big No no for me you can include them there are still others which are better but I never thought in this terms incidentally this is not directly about Hegel although she mentions Hegel did any of you read it found quite an echo in France it's not as far as I know yet translated into English I don't agree with the basic thesis but it's interesting Catherine Malabou's new book Clitoris and the Thought I haven't read it the idea is this one that we have this male chauvinist symmetry penis vagina's hole complementing each other but that clitoris is that part of autonomous feminine enjoyment which distorts that clitoris is feminine its its anarchist and so on I find this solution too simple but on the other hand it does touch something does Lacan I don't remember have a theory of clitoris I don't think so I don't remember ever him. even in biology there is great problem usually they dismiss it as it's a kind of a thwart in its development penis you know right same way we men have breasts at least nipples women have clitoris no but even with feminine orgasm it's a problem because main male orgasm okay to push out the sperm and they try to speculate to suck in the sperm but it doesn't really work you know no I would I would like to do something I would like to follow her but totally discard this simple anarchist feminist reading there the women have their own space and so on and so on you know and kind of but re re-turn it around in a Hegelian way. But you would not say her book you would not say the avenir de Hegel you would not say that's the best book written on Hegel I don't
your own what would you say this is for us and you what would you say is the you think the best book on Hegel? Oh of all time ever excluding your own. Big No no for me you can include them there are still others which are better but I never thought in this terms incidentally this is not directly about Hegel although she mentions Hegel did any of you read it found quite an echo in France it's not as far as I know yet translated into English I don't agree with the basic thesis but it's interesting Catherine Malabou's new book Clitoris and the Thought I haven't read it the idea is this one that we have this male chauvinist symmetry penis vagina's hole complementing each other but that clitoris is that part of autonomous feminine enjoyment which distorts that clitoris is feminine its its anarchist and so on I find this solution too simple but on the other hand it does touch something does Lacan I don't remember have a theory of clitoris I don't think so I don't remember ever him. even in biology there is great problem usually they dismiss it as it's a kind of a thwart in its development penis you know right same way we men have breasts at least nipples women have clitoris no but even with feminine orgasm it's a problem because main male orgasm okay to push out the sperm and they try to speculate to suck in the sperm but it doesn't really work you know no I would I would like to do something I would like to follow her but totally discard this simple anarchist feminist reading there the women have their own space and so on and so on you know and kind of but re re-turn it around in a Hegelian way. But you would not say her book you would not say the avenir de Hegel you would not say that's the best book written on Hegel I don't
unknown
think. That one is not bad the previous one Hegel and the Future or what yeah yeah that's what I'm thinking but you know no I don't know although he's critical of Hegel yeah I still like the second Gerard Lebrun not translated into English oh the Nietzsche Hegel dialectique was the title that one is good but it's basically a Nietzschean critique of Hegel but tell me the two of you what would you. Here's what I here's what
think. That one is not bad the previous one Hegel and the Future or what yeah yeah that's what I'm thinking but you know no I don't know although he's critical of Hegel yeah I still like the second Gerard Lebrun not translated into English oh the Nietzsche Hegel dialectique was the title that one is good but it's basically a Nietzschean critique of Hegel but tell me the two of you what would you. Here's what I here's what
Slavoj Žižek
I I would say I mean I'm not just sucking up to you but I would say less than. No no it's prohibited okay
I I would say I mean I'm not just sucking up to you but I would say less than. No no it's prohibited okay
unknown
prohibited to say you you are not allowed to mention any of our names okay here's what I would say I would say Gillian Rose Hegel Contra Sociology yes that's that was my
prohibited to say you you are not allowed to mention any of our names okay here's what I would say I would say Gillian Rose Hegel Contra Sociology yes that's that was my
Slavoj Žižek
fucking answer. I think that's the best one. She did cultural appropriation of you basically. But I would also that one is good yes I think that she was really bright but you know that at the end she converted when okay when she was dying no when you can be response she she returned to to not to Catholicism or even to Catholicism I know she was very friendly she Gillian Rose there were even talks that there was something between the two of them I know they know each other but what do you think Rowan Williams oh Rowan Williams yeah the relatively not relatively he is intelligent and so on he's
fucking answer. I think that's the best one. She did cultural appropriation of you basically. But I would also that one is good yes I think that she was really bright but you know that at the end she converted when okay when she was dying no when you can be response she she returned to to not to Catholicism or even to Catholicism I know she was very friendly she Gillian Rose there were even talks that there was something between the two of them I know they know each other but what do you think Rowan Williams oh Rowan Williams yeah the relatively not relatively he is intelligent and so on he's
unknown
very good yeah yeah he's very good so yeah that one would definitely I
very good yeah yeah he's very good so yeah that one would definitely I
unknown
always
always
unknown
list that one then Beatrice Longuenesse wrote a book Hegel et la critique
list that one then Beatrice Longuenesse wrote a book Hegel et la critique
unknown
de la métaphysique but later she got lost into some more Kantian stuff of she became a Kantian yeah yeah so she's very good I think I think I don't know I
de la métaphysique but later she got lost into some more Kantian stuff of she became a Kantian yeah yeah so she's very good I think I think I don't know I
Slavoj Žižek
feel like Kojève even
feel like Kojève even
unknown
though he he distorted a lot. I am more and more perplexed intrigued by his later work. Yeah. Everybody focuses so much on that struggle life and death and so on and so on. Okay against Judith Butler and so on he makes an important point because Judith Butler really thinks that Hegel's lesson is conflict doesn't
though he he distorted a lot. I am more and more perplexed intrigued by his later work. Yeah. Everybody focuses so much on that struggle life and death and so on and so on. Okay against Judith Butler and so on he makes an important point because Judith Butler really thinks that Hegel's lesson is conflict doesn't
Slavoj Žižek
work right we need mutual recognition no Hegel's lesson is exactly the
work right we need mutual recognition no Hegel's lesson is exactly the
unknown
opposite one only
opposite one only
Slavoj Žižek
through conflict do you get there right right you know and then at the end there is no happy life Hegel defines history as the as the Calvary of the spirit where the the bones of the spirit all the wounds are ah you know what about her and I I don't know if I'm pronouncing her name. right but she did a very good text on Hegel Marx and the notion of critique does the name Rocío Zambrana tell you anything? oh yeah yeah yeah she she did a text on Hegel and critique claiming in a very nice anti-Habermasian way that Hegel doesn't that Hegel precisely shows the repeated failure of any figure of life but without presupposing a set standard like this is the true reconciliation and finally we come to that to that and in a very intelligent way she proposed
through conflict do you get there right right you know and then at the end there is no happy life Hegel defines history as the as the Calvary of the spirit where the the bones of the spirit all the wounds are ah you know what about her and I I don't know if I'm pronouncing her name. right but she did a very good text on Hegel Marx and the notion of critique does the name Rocío Zambrana tell you anything? oh yeah yeah yeah she she did a text on Hegel and critique claiming in a very nice anti-Habermasian way that Hegel doesn't that Hegel precisely shows the repeated failure of any figure of life but without presupposing a set standard like this is the true reconciliation and finally we come to that to that and in a very intelligent way she proposed
unknown
reading of what Hegel's critique means avoiding this transcendental Habermasian argument you
reading of what Hegel's critique means avoiding this transcendental Habermasian argument you
Slavoj Žižek
know this is the basic argument of Habermas against Adorno and Horkheimer right that it's just negative dialectics but they implicitly presuppose some positive standards you know so I don't know yet I haven't I've ordered it yet her other books but I think there is some hope that she would come close to it also because she's also politically wrote a lot about colonialism, racism and so on and so on but not in the stupid I hope politically correct
know this is the basic argument of Habermas against Adorno and Horkheimer right that it's just negative dialectics but they implicitly presuppose some positive standards you know so I don't know yet I haven't I've ordered it yet her other books but I think there is some hope that she would come close to it also because she's also politically wrote a lot about colonialism, racism and so on and so on but not in the stupid I hope politically correct
unknown
way you know yeah alright I think we can stop that's a that's a good no it was really nice and it wasn't
way you know yeah alright I think we can stop that's a that's a good no it was really nice and it wasn't
Slavoj Žižek
as horrifying as I thought but
as horrifying as I thought but
unknown
Russell you determine next time I feel bad I talked too much and me and Todd have stolen how we would you determine the topic
Russell you determine next time I feel bad I talked too much and me and Todd have stolen how we would you determine the topic
Slavoj Žižek
what do you say that you are doing exactly this universalization of universalization
what do you say that you are doing exactly this universalization of universalization
unknown
infinite judgment as the key you know. Well I mean I mean I came through it specifically through I've been reading all these all this stuff on Hegel and the sublime and a lot of it's not very good and I think that the way in
infinite judgment as the key you know. Well I mean I mean I came through it specifically through I've been reading all these all this stuff on Hegel and the sublime and a lot of it's not very good and I think that the way in
unknown
which to understand Hegel and the sublime was through infinite judgment and I mean Slavoj you
which to understand Hegel and the sublime was through infinite judgment and I mean Slavoj you
Slavoj Žižek
actually you gesture
actually you gesture
unknown
toward that in
toward that in
Slavoj Žižek
Sublime Object of Ideology but but I'm increasingly thinking that that for so you know not only is substance but also as subject I'm incre- thinking that all of these you know standard crucial Hegelian lines can be framed through through infinite judgment. but I haven't developed I haven't developed it yet. you should you
Sublime Object of Ideology but but I'm increasingly thinking that that for so you know not only is substance but also as subject I'm incre- thinking that all of these you know standard crucial Hegelian lines can be framed through through infinite judgment. but I haven't developed I haven't developed it yet. you should you
unknown
should
should
Slavoj Žižek
because I have this is one of the new things that I have in my text that I've just finished long one on Hegel I will not this is just like a teaser like I will not go into details but there is you know you were too you are too young both but maybe
because I have this is one of the new things that I have in my text that I've just finished long one on Hegel I will not this is just like a teaser like I will not go into details but there is you know you were too you are too young both but maybe
unknown
when you were younger you saw some of them Columbo detective series no? Oh yeah Columbo
when you were younger you saw some of them Columbo detective series no? Oh yeah Columbo
Slavoj Žižek
Peter Fa- yeah yeah one of them I use to explore this notion of infinite judgment because you know what happens is the crucial one I think the last one of season six or seven you know what is Columbo about he breaks the rule you know from the beginning we all know Columbo knows who is the criminal no and the whole game is just how he will catch the criminal make him confess but there is one I think the last of season six or seven I forgot where something absolutely strange
Peter Fa- yeah yeah one of them I use to explore this notion of infinite judgment because you know what happens is the crucial one I think the last one of season six or seven you know what is Columbo about he breaks the rule you know from the beginning we all know Columbo knows who is the criminal no and the whole game is just how he will catch the criminal make him confess but there is one I think the last of season six or seven I forgot where something absolutely strange
unknown
happens
happens
Slavoj Žižek
the same game Columbo knows blah blah blah then two thirds into the show the alleged murderer gets killed and then Columbo to get out of this regresses to Agatha Christie model collects all the group of suspects and plays you know like in the final moments in Agatha Christie yeah yeah and so it is as if my formula didn't work let's return to the origins from what I was but the genius is that he admits that this is his lowest point because at the end then it was meant to be the end of the whole series because at the end he says I will no longer do this work I want to be on a vacation we have some money and takes a small boat boat and joins with his wife joins his wife who is waiting for him a big
the same game Columbo knows blah blah blah then two thirds into the show the alleged murderer gets killed and then Columbo to get out of this regresses to Agatha Christie model collects all the group of suspects and plays you know like in the final moments in Agatha Christie yeah yeah and so it is as if my formula didn't work let's return to the origins from what I was but the genius is that he admits that this is his lowest point because at the end then it was meant to be the end of the whole series because at the end he says I will no longer do this work I want to be on a vacation we have some money and takes a small boat boat and joins with his wife joins his wife who is waiting for him a big
unknown
liner whatever
liner whatever
Slavoj Žižek
ship and so it is as if he reached the end of his formula everything goes wrong and so on and I was quite shocked then I went on Wikipedia and so on and noticed immediately that there were texts written they tried to
ship and so it is as if he reached the end of his formula everything goes wrong and so on and I was quite shocked then I went on Wikipedia and so on and noticed immediately that there were texts written they tried to
unknown
was that really the last episode sorry was that really the last episode you know how you how you can find it if you are interested go to Google and put Columbo I think it's called The Last Commodore c-o-m-m-o-d-o-r-e I the Last Commodore goodbye to Commodore if you
was that really the last episode sorry was that really the last episode you know how you how you can find it if you are interested go to Google and put Columbo I think it's called The Last Commodore c-o-m-m-o-d-o-r-e I the Last Commodore goodbye to Commodore if you
Slavoj Žižek
put Columbo and Commodore these two words you will get it immediately but it didn't end up being the it didn't end up being the last episode was it the last episode or it was the end of the season they thought and then for one or two years but after that they started it again but it didn't really work they're doing like the movies a couple of them which are good basically the formula died yeah that's interest that's that's interesting so listen did you hear Russell next time when you will have something more please do what I asked you for the sake of all of us when you will have some idea draft of this text you know I will you should send it you know why also so that if there is some good idea I will steal it from you and then you know my usual stuff there be a small footnote after I finish this text I discovered that my friend Russell had a similar idea and so on too late it was too late to incorporate yeah yeah yeah it was made the basic physics unfortunately it was already to press when I saw this yeah yeah yeah it's basically basic
put Columbo and Commodore these two words you will get it immediately but it didn't end up being the it didn't end up being the last episode was it the last episode or it was the end of the season they thought and then for one or two years but after that they started it again but it didn't really work they're doing like the movies a couple of them which are good basically the formula died yeah that's interest that's that's interesting so listen did you hear Russell next time when you will have something more please do what I asked you for the sake of all of us when you will have some idea draft of this text you know I will you should send it you know why also so that if there is some good idea I will steal it from you and then you know my usual stuff there be a small footnote after I finish this text I discovered that my friend Russell had a similar idea and so on too late it was too late to incorporate yeah yeah yeah it was made the basic physics unfortunately it was already to press when I saw this yeah yeah yeah it's basically basic
unknown
logic
logic
Slavoj Žižek
yeah yeah yeah yeah that's perfect that's good yeah yeah so have a nice time enjoy.
yeah yeah yeah yeah that's perfect that's good yeah yeah so have a nice time enjoy.