Slavoj Žižek and Alex O'Connor Live in London
Debate · Alex O'Connor ·
2025-11-09 · 1:23:32 · 10,467 words
with Cathy Newman
religion-theologyideologycommunism-socialismpsychoanalysisgeopolitics-warhegel-dialecticscinema-art-culturedemocracyfascism-populismscience-physicssubjectivitytechnology-ai-cyberspacepolitics
Žižek defines his position as 'Christian atheist,' arguing that true atheism requires passing through the Christian experience of the 'death of God' and the collapse of the 'Big Other.' He contrasts this with 'cultural Christianity' and globalizing perspectives (like Spinoza’s harmony or Stalinist justification of terror) that seek to redeem horror from a distance. Using examples of modern atrocities (scam compounds, human trafficking), he argues for a passive, witnessing stance rather than active salvation, interpreting the Holy Spirit as an egalitarian community of comrades. Žižek argues for a radical theological reading of ideology, using the Book of Job, Judas, and the Fall to posit that the 'Fall' or betrayal retroactively creates the meaning of the past, paralleling quantum mechanics and Hegelian retroactivity. He extends this to cultural analysis, suggesting that distance (the 'other') provides better insight than integration, citing Shakespeare, Joyce, and Hollywood emigrants. Finally, he applies this logic to contemporary US and UK politics, arguing that the 'living dead' establishment parties are irrelevant, and true political change comes from the radical poles of Trumpian populism and Democratic Socialism, which share a revolutionary desire to break global capitalism. Žižek argues that the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the feasibility of radical socialist measures, urging a 'moderately conservative communist' approach that abandons hope to act decisively in the face of despair. He uses the palm-reading anecdote to illustrate ideological disavowal and the 'Munich' film scene to define active politics, while reinterpreting the 'death of God' through a theological lens of Christ in Hell. The excerpt concludes with a critique of middle-class guilt, a discussion on the 'second death' and AI, and a final reflection on the need for interpretation over mere change.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 25
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
A pejorative term for those (like Richard Dawkins' critics) who claim there is no God but argue Christianity is the best existing ethical order; Žižek rejects this as insufficient.
as “Big Other”
The symbolic order or transcendent guarantee of meaning; Žižek argues Christianity uniquely stages the death/disintegration of the Big Other, leaving no global harmony to justify local horrors.
as “God of Beyond”
Hegel's concept of what dies on the cross: not just a messenger, but the transcendent higher force itself, leaving the immanent world without divine justification.
The ideological stance that justifies local horrors (like Stalinist purges or the Holocaust) by viewing them from a 'distance' where they contribute to a harmonious totality; Žižek rejects this.
A term borrowed from John Milbank to describe Žižek's view: the materialist recognition that there is no Big Other, which opens a space for freedom and free action.
as “Holy Spirit as Communist Party”
Žižek's reinterpretation of the Holy Spirit not as a divine entity, but as the first egalitarian community of 'comrades' united by a shared cause, devoid of hierarchical family structures.
The proper Christian attitude toward horror: not active salvation or redemption, but the pure, passive presence 'with you no matter what you do.'
as “critique of ideology as Job”
Identifying the Book of Job, not Marx, as the primary text for understanding ideology, where the friends' attempts to give meaning to suffering are the ideological illusion, and God's silence confirms the lack of meaning.
Reinterpreting Judas not as a villain but as the necessary agent who enables Christ's mission, acting out of loyalty to the divine plan despite knowing the tragic cost.
A Rhenish mystical concept (Eckhart/Böhme) asserting that God contains a terrifying, evil aspect, rejecting dualism; God and Devil are the same force viewed from different distances.
as “The Fall retroactively creates Paradise”
A Hegelian/quantum reading where 'Paradise' (pre-Fall innocence) does not exist as a positive state prior to the Fall; it is only constructed retroactively by the act of falling/knowing.
Reversing the leftist quantum metaphor: instead of a free wave collapsing into alienated matter, the 'collapse' (fixed identity) is the primary state, and the 'wave' (plurality/freedom) is the secondary, illusory freedom.
as “Defense of alienation”
Alienation is not a problem to be solved but the necessary condition for freedom, as it creates the distance required for subjectivity and action.
The oppressive demand that ethnic others integrate into the host society, which Žižek rejects in favor of maintaining a respectful distance that allows for true insight.
A description of the traditional Republican and Democratic establishments in the US, which have no real political life or vitality, surviving only because they 'forgot to notice that they are already dead.'
as “Trumpian leftist”
A paradoxical category (exemplified by Steve Bannon) describing a leftist who adopts Trumpian methods of radical, anti-establishment disruption to break global capitalism.
A paradoxical stance advocating for radical socialist interventions (like UBI) during crises, but framed within a conservative respect for order and the necessity of acting now rather than waiting for utopia.
as “Disavowal”
The structure of belief where one rationally disavows a belief ('it's bullshit') but acts as if they believe it ('I'm afraid'), as illustrated by the palm-reading anecdote.
as “God dies”
The central event of Christianity: the death of the transcendental frame itself, not just a representative, which disintegrates the basic theological structure of trust in the Big Other.
A political motto derived from Dante's 'Lasciate ogne speranza,' meaning that true political action begins in total despair, without reliance on any 'Big Other' or grand vision.
as “Christian atheist”
Žižek's self-definition: an atheist who maintains the Christian structure of faith after the death of God, rejecting both traditional belief and 'cultural Christianity'.
A theological re-reading suggesting that since God/Heaven is absent, Christ works in Hell with sinners, implying a message of despair and abandonment to ourselves rather than hope in a higher power.
as “un-dead”
A state of being that is neither fully alive nor dead, used to describe the horror of human subjectivity and the potential future of AI/sexuality where representation is bypassed by direct machine connection.
A Lacanian concept referring to the symbolic death inherent in subjectivity; being human means being 'un-dead' or separated from immediate animal life by the symbolic order.
The Hegelian/Lacanian lesson that no matter how much one tries to lie, truth inevitably returns through slips, symptoms, and contradictions, contradicting cheap skepticism.
Stories he reaches for 6
Job's three friends represent ideology by trying to impose meaning (guilt, temptation) on suffering. God's response reveals this as nonsense, confirming Job's anger was correct, but leaving the 'why' unanswered.
“Job loses everything, then you get ideology. Three friends come to him... 'your suffering has a deeper meaning.' That's basic ideology.”
An East European-style joke where Putin, Xi, and Trump ask God about their future dominance; God reveals each will be subsumed by the next, until Trump asks about America, causing God to cry, illustrating Trump's radical, desperate change of rules.
“Trump says so what will be with my Great America years from now? God turns around and starts to cry.”
Citing Eliot that a new work of art changes the meaning of the entire past, paralleling the theological concept of retroactivity.
“With every really new big work of art... all the past its meaning changes.”
Chesterton interprets God's speech not as a display of power, but as an admission that creation is a 'big mess' and God has 'screwed up' everything, not just Job.
“G.K. Chesterton... 'it's not only you I screwed up all the work of creation, it's all one big mess.'”
A reading of Hamlet where Hamlet's father won independence from Norway (throwing the world 'out of joint'), and Hamlet restores the status quo by installing the Norwegian Fortinbras, making Hamlet a traitor to his father's revolutionary act.
“Hamlet's father threw the world out of joint by giving independence to Denmark, Hamlet sets it straight by reinstalling Norway.”
Judas is the 'true hero' because he knowingly betrays Jesus to fulfill God's mission, paying the terrible price himself, making him an agent of the divine plan rather than a mere villain.
“Judas is for me the greatest hero. He, through his betrayal, enables Christ to do what he came for.”
Works invoked 13
The Book of Job book
Identified as the 'first book of the critique of ideology,' illustrating that ideology is the attempt to give meaning to suffering, which God rejects.
Casablanca film
Cited as a 'great movie' directed by Hungarian emigrant Michael Curtiz (Mihály Kertész), illustrating that emigrants provide the best images of despair.
Hamlet play
Used to illustrate the 'logic of integration' and retroactivity: Hamlet restores the Norwegian status quo, betraying his father's independence.
The Castle book
Used as a metaphor for God: the closer one gets, the more the 'great castle' reveals itself as 'small dirty houses' (the Devil).
Christian Atheism book
Žižek's own book, which he quotes at the beginning to define the debate between Einstein and Bohr.
The Gospels book
Žižek claims to have a 'very Stalinist reading of Gospels,' focusing on the death of God and the emergence of the community of comrades.
Humanism and Terror book
By Maurice Merleau-Ponty; cited as the 'most intelligent justification of Stalinist purges' because it justifies terror via global harmony.
Talmud book
Cited for a story of two rabbis arguing with God, which Žižek finds 'incredibly almost materialist' and 'wonderful.'
Disavowal book
A short book by Alenka Zupančič, cited to explain the structure of modern belief (disavowal).
Cited for the inscription 'Lasciate ogne speranza' (Leave all hope) at the entrance to Hell, used as a political motto.
Todd McGowan's book, cited for the insight that alienation is necessary for freedom.
Munich film
Spielberg's film, specifically the scene defining 'hope' as laziness, used to illustrate the necessity of abandoning hope for action.
Scam book
Published by Verso Books; an analysis of the digital scam triangle in Myanmar, Laos, and Thailand, used to illustrate modern atrocities.
People invoked 47
Franz Kafka positive
Liked for The Castle, which serves as a metaphor for God revealing himself as the Devil when approached closely.
Referenced in the context of the 1938 Munich negotiations with Hitler.
Dante Alighieri positive
Cited for the motto 'Lasciate ogne speranza' (Leave all hope) from the entrance to Hell, used as a political maxim.
Alenka Zupančič positive
Described as a 'good friend' and part of Žižek's 'Stalinist Lacanian troika' in Slovenia; author of 'Disavowal'.
Todd McGowan positive
Described as 'my friend'; cited for his book 'In Defense of Alienation,' which argues alienation opens the space for freedom.
Referenced as a contemporary politician proposing raising taxes on the rich, contrasting with the system's claimed collapse.
Featured in the 'Putin, Xi, and Trump' joke as a leader who will economically rely on Taiwan rather than just occupying Russia.
Steve Bannon positive
Described as 'disgusting but I appreciate him'; cited for the idea that a coalition of Trumpians and Democratic Socialists would be ideal because both are revolutionary.
Jacques Lacan positive
A primary influence; Žižek uses Lacanian concepts like the 'Big Other' and 'subject supposed to know' to structure his theological arguments.
Pontius Pilatus positive
Used in a hypothetical: if Pilate had set Jesus free, Christianity would not exist, highlighting the necessity of the Crucifixion.
Job positive
Viewed as a 'very interesting figure' who is 'very mad' and denies the ideological comfort of his friends, representing the correct stance against ideology.
Cited as an example of a Western leader implementing quasi-socialist measures (income support) during COVID.
G. K. Chesterton positive
Described as 'my beloved Catholic, a genius' for his reading of Job, which reveals God's admission of creating a 'big mess.'
Jodi Dean positive
Described as 'my good friend'; her book on the 'notion of comrade' is cited to support Žižek's political reading of the Holy Spirit.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty negative
Cited for 'Humanism and Terror,' which Žižek calls the 'most intelligent justification of Stalinist purges' precisely because it justifies horror via global harmony.
Raffaele Nogaro positive
A 'big person in Vatican' with whom Žižek co-published a book; Nogaro argues one should love people, not God, as God is love in a world without God.
Donald Trump positive
Described as 'disgusting' but appreciated for breaking global capitalism rules (tariffs) and showing that 'stating radically what is to be said' is how to win, ignoring the center.
Zohran Mamdani positive
Cited as 'intelligently' following Trump's model of ignoring the center and targeting poor white voters, resulting in a surprising victory.
Jeremy Corbyn positive
Met at Hay-on-Wye; cited as having a 'strange political constellation' in the UK.
John Milbank positive
Described as 'your great Orthodox Christian' who called Žižek a 'mystical materialist,' a term Žižek accepts.
Mentioned in the context of a potential 'true election' between him and the new Labour Party in the UK.
Fredric Jameson positive
Described as 'My good friend who recently died'; cited for the insight that predestination means the past is reinterpreted by the present.
Referenced in the context of the 1938 Munich negotiations.
Benedictus de Spinoza negative
Einstein is described as 'Spinozean'; Žižek critiques the Spinozan view of cosmic harmony as relying on the Big Other.
Bernie Sanders positive
Cited for the 'ingenious' idea that the left should target poor white farmers/workers who vote for Trump, rather than worrying about the center.
T. S. Eliot positive
Cited for the line that a new work of art changes the meaning of the past.
Cited as an example of the 'un-dead' (zombies) to illustrate the horror of the non-predicate.
Yanis Varoufakis positive
Cited for the view that the left must move out of global capitalism, a goal Trump achieved through tariffs.
Mladen Dolar positive
Part of Žižek's 'Stalinist Lacanian troika' in Slovenia.
Richard Dawkins negative
Used as an example of 'cultural Christians' or standard atheists who think Christianity is the best ethical order despite no God; Žižek rejects this approach.
Peter Sloterdijk negative
Described as a 'not an idiot German guy' but criticized for the idea that global society is getting 'too close' and needs to be a 'big block' of integration.
Pope Francis negative
Described as 'the good one' but criticized for changing 'lead us into temptation' to 'protect us from temptation,' which Žižek sees as a theological error.
Rowan Williams positive
A theologian with whom Žižek debates well, whom he considers a 'materialist' despite their religious differences.
Mentioned as an exception within the Labour Party regarding the 'white male to rule' dynamic.
Hannah Arendt positive
Cited in an anecdote about her death, which Žižek finds 'wonderful' and 'ideal' as a model for a good end.
Niels Bohr positive
Cited for his retort 'don't tell God what to do,' which Žižek uses to illustrate that truth does not reside in a global perspective.
Meister Eckhart positive
Cited as a source for the idea that God contains a terrifying evil aspect, breaking the benevolent image.
Jakob Böhme positive
Cited alongside Eckhart as a Rhenish mystic who admitted the evil aspect in God.
Featured in the 'Putin, Xi, and Trump' joke as a leader who will eventually become a 'Chinese colony'.
Judas Iscariot positive
Reinterpreted as the 'true hero' and 'greatest hero' who enables Christ's mission through betrayal, acting as an agent of the divine plan.
Joseph Stalin negative
Used as an example of 'deeply religious' ideology; Stalin's early theological poems and the justification of purges via 'global harmony' are critiqued as maintaining the Big Other.
Karl Marx negative
Žižek jokes 'I'm here against Marx,' arguing that 20th-century attempts to 'change the world' went too far and we need to 'interpret' more.
Paul the Apostle positive
Described as 'the big one, sorry Paul'; Žižek values Paul's focus on the death of Christ over miracles, seeing it as the core of Christianity.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Described as 'my source here'; Žižek relies on Hegel's reading of the crucifixion as the death of 'God of Beyond' itself.
Immanuel Kant positive
Cited for the distinction between 'negating a predicate' and 'asserting a non-predicate' (e.g., 'un-dead').
Mentioned only as Merleau-Ponty's 'famous colleague' with whom he split.
Albert Einstein negative
Respected but critiqued for his 'Spinozan' belief in cosmic harmony and 'God doesn't play dice,' which Žižek sees as relying on the Big Other.
Transcript 40 turns
Cathy Newman
Hello, hello. My name is Georgia. I'm a producer here at How To Academy and it's such a pleasure to see such a full house. So thank you so much for joining us. As a producer, I get to do the fun housekeeping bits, which is just to say that copies of Slavoj's book Quantum Theory are available for sale out there and we're delighted that Slavoj will be joining us after the show to sign and he'll be doing that around here. So please make sure you form an orderly line. Focus on the orderly, focus on the line part of that down here after the show. A man that doesn't really need much of an introduction, you know who he is. Philosophical rockstar, consummate joker, film star, and the author of books including On Progress, Too Late to Awaken, Quantum Theory, and we're delighted that he's joining us for another show. So, so yeah, I'm very, very excited about this and we are delighted as well that he'll be in conversation with Alex O'Connor, who is the podcaster, video maker, better known often as CosmicSkeptic. So please join me in giving them a huge round of applause and enjoy the conversation. Thanks.
Hello, hello. My name is Georgia. I'm a producer here at How To Academy and it's such a pleasure to see such a full house. So thank you so much for joining us. As a producer, I get to do the fun housekeeping bits, which is just to say that copies of Slavoj's book Quantum Theory are available for sale out there and we're delighted that Slavoj will be joining us after the show to sign and he'll be doing that around here. So please make sure you form an orderly line. Focus on the orderly, focus on the line part of that down here after the show. A man that doesn't really need much of an introduction, you know who he is. Philosophical rockstar, consummate joker, film star, and the author of books including On Progress, Too Late to Awaken, Quantum Theory, and we're delighted that he's joining us for another show. So, so yeah, I'm very, very excited about this and we are delighted as well that he'll be in conversation with Alex O'Connor, who is the podcaster, video maker, better known often as CosmicSkeptic. So please join me in giving them a huge round of applause and enjoy the conversation. Thanks.
unknown
Go ahead. Go ahead. Thanks. Thank you. No, this is for you. This is for me. Yeah, we're going to try and stick to the rules time-wise. We've already broken one rule because we seem to have swapped names, but I'm sure no one's particularly confused. Slavoj, how are you? How is it being back in London?
Go ahead. Go ahead. Thanks. Thank you. No, this is for you. This is for me. Yeah, we're going to try and stick to the rules time-wise. We've already broken one rule because we seem to have swapped names, but I'm sure no one's particularly confused. Slavoj, how are you? How is it being back in London?
Slavoj Žižek
Well, I'm unfortunately still alive, but getting close to it. No, seriously, I wonder if you have the same attitude as me. I'm not afraid of death. I'm afraid of long dying, slow. This makes a point maybe very early. I spoke with a professor in New York who was old, who was there when Hannah Arendt was dying. And it was ideal. She invited people to her home, they were talking and she was like in a potay like this, put the head down, dozed off a little bit, then she reawakened, talked a little bit, fell asleep again, reawakened, then fell asleep and didn't awake. That was it. Isn't this wonderful? Sorry, let's go on further.
Well, I'm unfortunately still alive, but getting close to it. No, seriously, I wonder if you have the same attitude as me. I'm not afraid of death. I'm afraid of long dying, slow. This makes a point maybe very early. I spoke with a professor in New York who was old, who was there when Hannah Arendt was dying. And it was ideal. She invited people to her home, they were talking and she was like in a potay like this, put the head down, dozed off a little bit, then she reawakened, talked a little bit, fell asleep again, reawakened, then fell asleep and didn't awake. That was it. Isn't this wonderful? Sorry, let's go on further.
unknown
Well, I actually, of course we'll do questions at the end, which people are submitting with the QR code. One of the questions was already that we've had about how you deal with death as an atheist materialist. And we were talking upstairs and it seems like our biggest point of overlap is our interest in theology. And perhaps as a good place to start, you consider yourself what, an atheist materialist? Would you call yourself that?
Well, I actually, of course we'll do questions at the end, which people are submitting with the QR code. One of the questions was already that we've had about how you deal with death as an atheist materialist. And we were talking upstairs and it seems like our biggest point of overlap is our interest in theology. And perhaps as a good place to start, you consider yourself what, an atheist materialist? Would you call yourself that?
Slavoj Žižek
No, it's a very precise term. I would love to explain it, although I would like to avoid repeating myself too much. I think it can be put in very simple, short terms, very briefly. I define myself as Christian atheist. Atheist absolutely. None of that stuff, you know, maybe is, maybe God is not. I'm also absolutely not that Richard Dawkins approach, how do they call themselves, cultural Christians. Like the idea is we know there is no God, but nonetheless, among the existing ethical, moral orders, Christianity is relatively the best. No, no, no, it's much more precise. First, my definition of atheism is not simply there is no God. Yes, it's part of it, of course, but if you ask people or a person do you believe in God or not, sorry, you may have noticed I have even a little bit of temperature, so be patient. You know, it's a very complex question. You should know this as skeptic, you know, although when we the people take over the people, it will be end of, yes, we will have to say communism or not, no skepticism there, it's Gulag or a seat in Moscow in the politburo. Sorry, let's go on quite much more seriously, I promise. For me, crucial here is the debate which defines this best between, I quoted it in my Christian Atheism book at the beginning, between Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein, with all respect for him, defined himself as a Spinozean. He said, of course there is no personal God, blah, blah, but when you look at the universe from a proper scientific distance, you see the wonderful harmony of all of it. And this gives you a satisfactory feeling to some kind of a almost religious experience, divine order and so on. And this is how also Einstein grounded his famous physics against quantum physics: God doesn't play dice, you know. And you know what is, I repeated it a couple of times in my work, Niels Bohr's answer. It is don't tell God what to do. This is not a theological statement. The point is that for me, the fundamental religious stance is precisely, and I'm sorry if you know this line of thought, but I think it's crucial, it's precisely this idea that truth does not reside in this global perspective. Let's see it in totality. For me, the worst of Christianity or any other global religious approach is this metaphor which even today is often used, like if you think you are seeing something horrible, this is like looking at a painting, great painting, from too close. Imagine, I'm sorry for the vulgar case, imagine, vulgar in the sense of everybody knows it, Mona Lisa. If you look at it from one inch or closer, you see just a stain. If you withdraw back, you will see that this what appeared to you as stain, ethical evil, whatever, contributes to global harmony. I think that for me the way I read Christianity, it renounces exactly this global perspective, what Lacanians would have called the Big Other, this idea that no matter how confused things appear to us, all the horrors in our daily experience, globally it's a harmonious totality. That's why, but we did it yesterday here, we don't have to go on, that's my interest in quantum physics. The basic point is that precisely there is no totality which is elevated above the texture of reality, every totality, every unity, every view of all of it is partial. But let me just conclude very quickly. So I think that, why my obsession with Christianity as an atheist? Because I think that what Christianity stages, the story of crucifixion and so on, as Hegel who is my source here put it, what dies on the cross is not a representative messenger of God. Like God is up there, okay, let's send my son down to help people. Okay, they crucified him, it didn't work, so come back to me my son, we'll try again. No, what dies, Hegel says this, what dies on the cross is God of Beyond itself. For Hegel, what dies on the cross is this very idea that there is some higher force. It doesn't have to be personal God. It can be, and in this sense for me, Stalinism, deeply religious, not only she was when she was young. You know that Stalin, he wrote when he was young theological student, he wrote some short religious poems which became national treasures. People even don't know the Stalin wrote them. But what I want to say is that, you know why Stalin is still theological and Stalinism? Because it still has this faith of no matter how horrible things are now, if you look at them from proper distance, you can somehow justify it. You can see that these are just small stains, but from a proper distance you see that these stains contribute to global harmony. And this is why the most intelligent justification of Stalinist purges was written by book published in I think, by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, the famous colleague of Sartre then they split, called I think Humanism and Terror. His idea is that yes, Stalinist terror is a horrible thing, but if the result of this terror will be a thriving happy new communist society then retroactively it will be justified. For me, this is precisely what the death of Christ means and prohibits this stance. No, let's take 20th century, there are other horrors, and 21st century. Let's take the standard name, colonization in modern era, or then Gulag, Auschwitz and so on. Isn't it obscene to say, yeah, Auschwitz is a stain if you look too close at it, but from a proper distance it contributes to global harmony? We feel an urge to do this because I met in Israel years ago a group of Jews, a small sect but not mega small, some people, who read try to read Holocaust in this way. It is that Jews got too satisfied with, sorry, with living among Christians in the West and God in his infinite wisdom organized Holocaust to remind them it's time for you to return home. But it's for me a crazy, very tragic position. For me, Christianity means first, and that's for me even at a mystical level, here I'm not afraid to assume the term how he, by he I mean John Milbank, your great Orthodox Christian, he called me a mystical materialist. Yeah, why not? By this I mean that the experience that there is no Big Other, as Lacon would have put it, that is to say that there is no higher rational scheme that would somehow justify or enable us to locate, to provide meaning to horrors that are happening, we have to renounce this. It's not just bad news because at the same time it opens up a space for freedom, for free action. This is why I think the only thing about Christianity is it's simply a story put in theological terms about how God dies. God precisely as this transcendental a priori frame which provides meaning to our lives. Even in Marxism you usually find this, all the class struggle horrors, don't worry too much, oh at the end communism will come out of this. And we get Holy Spirit. That's what fascinates me, as I often debating with theological friends, what as I often like to say what is Holy Spirit? It's the first form of Communist Party for me, in the sense of comrades. They are there, egalitarian community. You know, that's how I read Christ's famous words, you know when they tell him he's preaching in a tent, your family is out there, and he shows at people indoor and says this is my family, my followers. It doesn't mean you have to hate your family. I think family stands here for the entire social hierarchic order. The idea of Holy Spirit is, you know as St. Paul says, for me there are no Jews or pagans, whatever term he uses, there are no men and women and so on, we are just united in Christ. I, I think that this idea of a egalitarian community of comrades, my good friend Jodi Dean wrote a wonderful short book on the notion of comrade, trying to read it totally outside this usual notion of you know comrade, communist, Stalinist. Comrade is something, somebody with whom you are not supposed to be friendly. You just share the commitment to a cause. So I think all this topic of of Second Coming and so on, I think it's a vulgar misreading. I have a very Stalinist reading of Gospels. All that bullshit has to be censored that as if Christ will really come. No, God is over. You can read, I don't know in which in which of the four Gospels that when people ask Christ some apostles are how we will know that you are back? Who says when there is a love among couple of you, I am there. And I take this literally. So I read in this, now you will say I know this is for me sorry to insult you preemptively in advance, this is for me the idiot's question. But why don't you say this directly? Why do you need this detour through religion? Ah, my answer is because this trust into Big Other, which is for me the fundamental form of religion, in some higher cosmic order, it can be personal God or not, this is something that is not simply a historical sign of alienation and so on. It is something that pertains to our very symbolic order. When, as Lacon says, when you speak you in some sense already believe. And I think that's how all radical theologians, sorry, read the death of Christ. That this very basic theological structure, trust into the Big Other, disintegrates. It's a terrifying experience. Your world has to break down. And then from zero point you get Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, I will not go into all these problems. But what I'm saying is that that would be my reading why I am a Christian atheist. Because it's not you can be also a non-Christian atheist. I think to be truly an atheist you had to go through this Christian experience of the death of God. If you don't go through it, then, then, then you are like standard communist and so on. Big Other, some theological structure survives. And just to conclude, maybe this can bring us to political topic. I, for example today, it's not just Gaza, Ukraine, whatever, the usual suspects. Two of the recent news, which maybe you followed them, which really horrified me. Where, you know, I think Verso Books already published or not a book called Scam, an analysis of what happens in that triangle: Myanmar, Laos, Thailand. There is there a gangster community, tens of thousands of people, specialized in digital scam. They contact through the web people all around the world, the world, on the one hand trying to get some money for you promising investment, on the other hand erotic challenge. Like ladies talk to you, send you their pictures, you again send them blah, blah, blah. Okay, doesn't matter. What matters is this. Do you know what what money we are talking here about? This small gangster triangle there turns around so much money that only two world economies turn around more money: United States and China. They are incredibly, incredibly financially strong. Point two, they work through slaves, it's a direct slavery. They typical story, it was now fashionable often the Russian girl, beautiful model, they told her a nice post to to to be a hostess whatever in Thailand. She landed there, they took her on a truck, went to that Myanmar camp, then she was forced to seduce men via phone to work for to hours a day and she had to fulfill a quota. After she didn't fill the quota, you get to another building where you are kept chained and they are gradually taking your body parts till you die, selling them. This is again a are we aware this is what is happening and I it would be very difficult to justify it in any theological term. Or I read another thing in Southern Libya, many refugees from Sudan and Eritrea walk through to it to reach Northern Libya to go across. Yes, what happens is that they are kidnapped when they walk alone through the desert and again we are not talking about people, there are a couple of camps all together there are people think definitely over people. They identify you then they torture you in front of a camera and they send it to your family which is already in Europe or there in Sudan. They send long clips regularly every week of how you are slowly tortured and dying. And then they say if you don't send us money, he will die. Then to add insult to injury, when you die, you get the last message: if you want the body, another of I mean things happen like this. And for me a proper Christian attitude is not oh everything will be at some point redeemed. No, I think the basic Christian attitude is the one I like things from good commercial movies. From time to time you have a good line. In one of them, I forgot which one, I think even Brad Pitt plays in it, a guy who is basically not bad but he is caught in a self-destructive mood. And when he finally dies, the priest says what can we as Christians do in such a situation? You see somebody self-destructing in a self-destructive mood. You could just say I know you have your faith, I cannot do anything but just this pure idea of being a passive witness, like I am here with you no matter what you do. I think this, not some active salvation, is the basic attitude of Christianity. So my view is again it's very desperate along these lines again that's my basic position. If your view is... if your view is... if it is that Christianity is not literally true, um, you don't sort of believe in the resurrection, in fact you don't even think that's what Christianity is ultimately about... Ah, yes, back. Yeah. Earlier you said, you know, you don't like this cultural Christianity thing and I don't either, but I wonder if it's for different reasons because I'm wondering what it is that separates you from such a view. I mean they say I don't think Christianity is true, I think there are some elements which rightly, if rightly identified, provide a helpful sort of metaphor to allow us to all get along. It sounds like you're saying something not too dissimilar. So what is it that's different between your position and theirs? But again my point about Christianity is just that's why I like Paul, the big one, sorry Paul. You know, intelligent Christian theologians noticed something. Paul is not interested, interested at all in all the bullshit what miracles Christ does and so on. The basic message of Paul is Christ died on the cross. What does this mean? What comes besides it is unimportant bullshit. So for me in Christianity we find even more than in Buddhism I think this idea of the Big Other doesn't exist. I don't find this in other religions. For example in let's let's take a quick look at two other religions of the book. Judaism and Islam. Islam is simple, simple in the sense that just Christ is celebrated there but not directly son of God, which is God, but as another messenger of God. Yes, that doesn't interest me. God must die in my universe not just stay up there. And then Judaism, what I find attractive in Judaism, you find many interesting things, is this idea of God as radical otherness. All my Lacanian Jewish friends, Jewish also in the sense of commitment to Jewish theology, claim this that in Christianity there is still love, love links you to God. Yes. Yeah, but only in Judaism anxiety of the otherness, this God is an other who doesn't give you a clear answer, you never know what he means and so on. But I think this is a wrong reading of Christianity. I think love that you get in Christianity, and now I will give you a surprise, you know with whom I now even co-published in Italian a book on? Padre Raffaele Nogaro, a big person in Vatican, where he goes into this openly. He said you shouldn't love God. You should love your people around you, and God is this love itself. For him the greatest sin is to say I love God. No, God is love in a world without God. So I I don't find in any other religion something something similar, although I know in Judaism and in Christianity you find wonderful things. For example in Judaism my favorite story is I wonder if you know it at two places in Talmud you find something which is incredibly almost materialist. You find two rabbis fighting, I'm sorry if you know the story, it's two times repeated, once in a serious way, once in a more comical way. They struggle about theological point and the guy who is losing the debate says let's call Jehovah. He will decide. And Jehovah an old man comes. And then you know what does the guy who was winning the debate what does he say? These are Jewish sacred writings. He says, not in these terms, I translate it into today's terms: fuck off old guy. You created a stupid confused world. We are now desperately trying to make something out of it. You screwed it up, fuck off. You know how God
No, it's a very precise term. I would love to explain it, although I would like to avoid repeating myself too much. I think it can be put in very simple, short terms, very briefly. I define myself as Christian atheist. Atheist absolutely. None of that stuff, you know, maybe is, maybe God is not. I'm also absolutely not that Richard Dawkins approach, how do they call themselves, cultural Christians. Like the idea is we know there is no God, but nonetheless, among the existing ethical, moral orders, Christianity is relatively the best. No, no, no, it's much more precise. First, my definition of atheism is not simply there is no God. Yes, it's part of it, of course, but if you ask people or a person do you believe in God or not, sorry, you may have noticed I have even a little bit of temperature, so be patient. You know, it's a very complex question. You should know this as skeptic, you know, although when we the people take over the people, it will be end of, yes, we will have to say communism or not, no skepticism there, it's Gulag or a seat in Moscow in the politburo. Sorry, let's go on quite much more seriously, I promise. For me, crucial here is the debate which defines this best between, I quoted it in my Christian Atheism book at the beginning, between Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein, with all respect for him, defined himself as a Spinozean. He said, of course there is no personal God, blah, blah, but when you look at the universe from a proper scientific distance, you see the wonderful harmony of all of it. And this gives you a satisfactory feeling to some kind of a almost religious experience, divine order and so on. And this is how also Einstein grounded his famous physics against quantum physics: God doesn't play dice, you know. And you know what is, I repeated it a couple of times in my work, Niels Bohr's answer. It is don't tell God what to do. This is not a theological statement. The point is that for me, the fundamental religious stance is precisely, and I'm sorry if you know this line of thought, but I think it's crucial, it's precisely this idea that truth does not reside in this global perspective. Let's see it in totality. For me, the worst of Christianity or any other global religious approach is this metaphor which even today is often used, like if you think you are seeing something horrible, this is like looking at a painting, great painting, from too close. Imagine, I'm sorry for the vulgar case, imagine, vulgar in the sense of everybody knows it, Mona Lisa. If you look at it from one inch or closer, you see just a stain. If you withdraw back, you will see that this what appeared to you as stain, ethical evil, whatever, contributes to global harmony. I think that for me the way I read Christianity, it renounces exactly this global perspective, what Lacanians would have called the Big Other, this idea that no matter how confused things appear to us, all the horrors in our daily experience, globally it's a harmonious totality. That's why, but we did it yesterday here, we don't have to go on, that's my interest in quantum physics. The basic point is that precisely there is no totality which is elevated above the texture of reality, every totality, every unity, every view of all of it is partial. But let me just conclude very quickly. So I think that, why my obsession with Christianity as an atheist? Because I think that what Christianity stages, the story of crucifixion and so on, as Hegel who is my source here put it, what dies on the cross is not a representative messenger of God. Like God is up there, okay, let's send my son down to help people. Okay, they crucified him, it didn't work, so come back to me my son, we'll try again. No, what dies, Hegel says this, what dies on the cross is God of Beyond itself. For Hegel, what dies on the cross is this very idea that there is some higher force. It doesn't have to be personal God. It can be, and in this sense for me, Stalinism, deeply religious, not only she was when she was young. You know that Stalin, he wrote when he was young theological student, he wrote some short religious poems which became national treasures. People even don't know the Stalin wrote them. But what I want to say is that, you know why Stalin is still theological and Stalinism? Because it still has this faith of no matter how horrible things are now, if you look at them from proper distance, you can somehow justify it. You can see that these are just small stains, but from a proper distance you see that these stains contribute to global harmony. And this is why the most intelligent justification of Stalinist purges was written by book published in I think, by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, the famous colleague of Sartre then they split, called I think Humanism and Terror. His idea is that yes, Stalinist terror is a horrible thing, but if the result of this terror will be a thriving happy new communist society then retroactively it will be justified. For me, this is precisely what the death of Christ means and prohibits this stance. No, let's take 20th century, there are other horrors, and 21st century. Let's take the standard name, colonization in modern era, or then Gulag, Auschwitz and so on. Isn't it obscene to say, yeah, Auschwitz is a stain if you look too close at it, but from a proper distance it contributes to global harmony? We feel an urge to do this because I met in Israel years ago a group of Jews, a small sect but not mega small, some people, who read try to read Holocaust in this way. It is that Jews got too satisfied with, sorry, with living among Christians in the West and God in his infinite wisdom organized Holocaust to remind them it's time for you to return home. But it's for me a crazy, very tragic position. For me, Christianity means first, and that's for me even at a mystical level, here I'm not afraid to assume the term how he, by he I mean John Milbank, your great Orthodox Christian, he called me a mystical materialist. Yeah, why not? By this I mean that the experience that there is no Big Other, as Lacon would have put it, that is to say that there is no higher rational scheme that would somehow justify or enable us to locate, to provide meaning to horrors that are happening, we have to renounce this. It's not just bad news because at the same time it opens up a space for freedom, for free action. This is why I think the only thing about Christianity is it's simply a story put in theological terms about how God dies. God precisely as this transcendental a priori frame which provides meaning to our lives. Even in Marxism you usually find this, all the class struggle horrors, don't worry too much, oh at the end communism will come out of this. And we get Holy Spirit. That's what fascinates me, as I often debating with theological friends, what as I often like to say what is Holy Spirit? It's the first form of Communist Party for me, in the sense of comrades. They are there, egalitarian community. You know, that's how I read Christ's famous words, you know when they tell him he's preaching in a tent, your family is out there, and he shows at people indoor and says this is my family, my followers. It doesn't mean you have to hate your family. I think family stands here for the entire social hierarchic order. The idea of Holy Spirit is, you know as St. Paul says, for me there are no Jews or pagans, whatever term he uses, there are no men and women and so on, we are just united in Christ. I, I think that this idea of a egalitarian community of comrades, my good friend Jodi Dean wrote a wonderful short book on the notion of comrade, trying to read it totally outside this usual notion of you know comrade, communist, Stalinist. Comrade is something, somebody with whom you are not supposed to be friendly. You just share the commitment to a cause. So I think all this topic of of Second Coming and so on, I think it's a vulgar misreading. I have a very Stalinist reading of Gospels. All that bullshit has to be censored that as if Christ will really come. No, God is over. You can read, I don't know in which in which of the four Gospels that when people ask Christ some apostles are how we will know that you are back? Who says when there is a love among couple of you, I am there. And I take this literally. So I read in this, now you will say I know this is for me sorry to insult you preemptively in advance, this is for me the idiot's question. But why don't you say this directly? Why do you need this detour through religion? Ah, my answer is because this trust into Big Other, which is for me the fundamental form of religion, in some higher cosmic order, it can be personal God or not, this is something that is not simply a historical sign of alienation and so on. It is something that pertains to our very symbolic order. When, as Lacon says, when you speak you in some sense already believe. And I think that's how all radical theologians, sorry, read the death of Christ. That this very basic theological structure, trust into the Big Other, disintegrates. It's a terrifying experience. Your world has to break down. And then from zero point you get Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, I will not go into all these problems. But what I'm saying is that that would be my reading why I am a Christian atheist. Because it's not you can be also a non-Christian atheist. I think to be truly an atheist you had to go through this Christian experience of the death of God. If you don't go through it, then, then, then you are like standard communist and so on. Big Other, some theological structure survives. And just to conclude, maybe this can bring us to political topic. I, for example today, it's not just Gaza, Ukraine, whatever, the usual suspects. Two of the recent news, which maybe you followed them, which really horrified me. Where, you know, I think Verso Books already published or not a book called Scam, an analysis of what happens in that triangle: Myanmar, Laos, Thailand. There is there a gangster community, tens of thousands of people, specialized in digital scam. They contact through the web people all around the world, the world, on the one hand trying to get some money for you promising investment, on the other hand erotic challenge. Like ladies talk to you, send you their pictures, you again send them blah, blah, blah. Okay, doesn't matter. What matters is this. Do you know what what money we are talking here about? This small gangster triangle there turns around so much money that only two world economies turn around more money: United States and China. They are incredibly, incredibly financially strong. Point two, they work through slaves, it's a direct slavery. They typical story, it was now fashionable often the Russian girl, beautiful model, they told her a nice post to to to be a hostess whatever in Thailand. She landed there, they took her on a truck, went to that Myanmar camp, then she was forced to seduce men via phone to work for to hours a day and she had to fulfill a quota. After she didn't fill the quota, you get to another building where you are kept chained and they are gradually taking your body parts till you die, selling them. This is again a are we aware this is what is happening and I it would be very difficult to justify it in any theological term. Or I read another thing in Southern Libya, many refugees from Sudan and Eritrea walk through to it to reach Northern Libya to go across. Yes, what happens is that they are kidnapped when they walk alone through the desert and again we are not talking about people, there are a couple of camps all together there are people think definitely over people. They identify you then they torture you in front of a camera and they send it to your family which is already in Europe or there in Sudan. They send long clips regularly every week of how you are slowly tortured and dying. And then they say if you don't send us money, he will die. Then to add insult to injury, when you die, you get the last message: if you want the body, another of I mean things happen like this. And for me a proper Christian attitude is not oh everything will be at some point redeemed. No, I think the basic Christian attitude is the one I like things from good commercial movies. From time to time you have a good line. In one of them, I forgot which one, I think even Brad Pitt plays in it, a guy who is basically not bad but he is caught in a self-destructive mood. And when he finally dies, the priest says what can we as Christians do in such a situation? You see somebody self-destructing in a self-destructive mood. You could just say I know you have your faith, I cannot do anything but just this pure idea of being a passive witness, like I am here with you no matter what you do. I think this, not some active salvation, is the basic attitude of Christianity. So my view is again it's very desperate along these lines again that's my basic position. If your view is... if your view is... if it is that Christianity is not literally true, um, you don't sort of believe in the resurrection, in fact you don't even think that's what Christianity is ultimately about... Ah, yes, back. Yeah. Earlier you said, you know, you don't like this cultural Christianity thing and I don't either, but I wonder if it's for different reasons because I'm wondering what it is that separates you from such a view. I mean they say I don't think Christianity is true, I think there are some elements which rightly, if rightly identified, provide a helpful sort of metaphor to allow us to all get along. It sounds like you're saying something not too dissimilar. So what is it that's different between your position and theirs? But again my point about Christianity is just that's why I like Paul, the big one, sorry Paul. You know, intelligent Christian theologians noticed something. Paul is not interested, interested at all in all the bullshit what miracles Christ does and so on. The basic message of Paul is Christ died on the cross. What does this mean? What comes besides it is unimportant bullshit. So for me in Christianity we find even more than in Buddhism I think this idea of the Big Other doesn't exist. I don't find this in other religions. For example in let's let's take a quick look at two other religions of the book. Judaism and Islam. Islam is simple, simple in the sense that just Christ is celebrated there but not directly son of God, which is God, but as another messenger of God. Yes, that doesn't interest me. God must die in my universe not just stay up there. And then Judaism, what I find attractive in Judaism, you find many interesting things, is this idea of God as radical otherness. All my Lacanian Jewish friends, Jewish also in the sense of commitment to Jewish theology, claim this that in Christianity there is still love, love links you to God. Yes. Yeah, but only in Judaism anxiety of the otherness, this God is an other who doesn't give you a clear answer, you never know what he means and so on. But I think this is a wrong reading of Christianity. I think love that you get in Christianity, and now I will give you a surprise, you know with whom I now even co-published in Italian a book on? Padre Raffaele Nogaro, a big person in Vatican, where he goes into this openly. He said you shouldn't love God. You should love your people around you, and God is this love itself. For him the greatest sin is to say I love God. No, God is love in a world without God. So I I don't find in any other religion something something similar, although I know in Judaism and in Christianity you find wonderful things. For example in Judaism my favorite story is I wonder if you know it at two places in Talmud you find something which is incredibly almost materialist. You find two rabbis fighting, I'm sorry if you know the story, it's two times repeated, once in a serious way, once in a more comical way. They struggle about theological point and the guy who is losing the debate says let's call Jehovah. He will decide. And Jehovah an old man comes. And then you know what does the guy who was winning the debate what does he say? These are Jewish sacred writings. He says, not in these terms, I translate it into today's terms: fuck off old guy. You created a stupid confused world. We are now desperately trying to make something out of it. You screwed it up, fuck off. You know how God
unknown
Jehovah reacts? He said oh my God, oh my God, you got me and runs away. This is something that I appreciate. In Islam it's the same with some elements of Sufi mysticism. But you know what's for me that's why I consider myself an atheist Protestant. What would you say as a skeptic to this logic? You know the problem with Pontius Pilate's wife. She tried to convince her husband this is a sacred man Jesus, don't allow him to be crucified and so on. And typically Catholics almost not all but majority
Jehovah reacts? He said oh my God, oh my God, you got me and runs away. This is something that I appreciate. In Islam it's the same with some elements of Sufi mysticism. But you know what's for me that's why I consider myself an atheist Protestant. What would you say as a skeptic to this logic? You know the problem with Pontius Pilate's wife. She tried to convince her husband this is a sacred man Jesus, don't allow him to be crucified and so on. And typically Catholics almost not all but majority
Slavoj Žižek
almost treat her as a saint. Oh my God she knew Christ was she suspected it
almost treat her as a saint. Oh my God she knew Christ was she suspected it
unknown
oh she was good almost a saint. I much
oh she was good almost a saint. I much
Slavoj Žižek
more agree with radical Protestant who claims quite correctly in Paulinian way, Paulinian Saint Paul, she was directly an organ of the devil. Why? Because let's say that Pontius Pilate would have set free Jesus Christ. What would then happen? No Christianity, nothing. Just one that you know Christ came here to die and not to redeem us but to redeem us in the sense of Holy Ghost, space of freedom. That's this is why I hope we share this. I am an atheist who finds so many interesting things debated if you read them properly in the theological topic, no? For example when people ask me sorry maybe you know this story it's crucial for me maybe you know it, when people ask me okay critique of ideology, tell me which is for you the first book of the critique of ideology? I say Book of, how you pronounce it, H-E-O-P, Job, the guy who got so? Yes, Job. And I don't mean this obscenity that at the beginning you know basically God and devil have a nice after dinner chat and debate like how can we prove that people really believe in you. And then the crucial moment is this one: when Job loses everything, then you get ideology. Three, I think it's three, friends come to him and each of them has a simple message. No, your suffering has a deeper meaning. The first one tells him even if you don't feel guilty, look deeper, you must have done something wrong. That's basic ideology. The second guy says maybe it's just a temptation, God is tempting you and so on and so on. And then a miracle happens. Job denies it. Job is very interesting figure. He is not passive let's suffer, no he is very mad he said no that's all bullshit. And then Jehovah or however comes and says critique of ideology: all that those three guys were telling you is bullshit. You were totally right. It has no meaning your suffering. So then Job asks Jehovah, but nonetheless why did you do this to me then? And now we come to the big theological point. Jehovah gives a speech which is I think usually totally misunderstood. It's usually read as the assertion of a radical gap between us humans and God. You know all that stuff, where were you when I created this that? Like I created so many great like we are not on the same level. But my beloved Catholic, a genius, G.K. Chesterton, he has a short text, you can get it on on on Google immediately, on his reading of Book of Job. His reading is wonderful. He said that if you read it between the lines Jehovah's answer to Job is you think that you are something special, look around, it's not only you I screwed up all the work of creation, it's all one big mess. You see, one can learn so much from intelligent theology. Even predestination. My good friend who recently died Fredric Jameson said and it surprised me because before I understand understood it, that predestination is the most precious category for every Marxist. Because it doesn't simply mean everything is decided in advance. It means that with our activity now we are reinterpreting, recreating a certain vision of the past. Predestination doesn't mean it's decided in advance. It means that the true change is in changing the past itself. Because with as my god I referring here to another conservative T.S. Eliot, the famous line of him where he says with every really new big work of art, not only a new era begins but all the past its meaning changes. And okay, I could go on here but it's time for me to stop into where I find parallel between this and quantum physics. So I am for this much more modest pessimist stance. There are mega horrors in the world. I don't simply believe in any progress and Christianity just means all we can count on is our love our solidarity. I spoke too much I'm sorry. On the minor point of of Pilate's wife. I find this interesting right? To the extent with which you associate with the Christian story and tradition, Jesus says of Judas... Judas is the only true hero friend. It's absolutely clear to me that that they made a deal. Basically Jesus ordered Judas to betray him. That's one reading. Please, please, now I like it, please attack. There are some versions of Christianity which think something like that went on. But if you're talking about the story in the Gospels, Jesus says of Judas it would be better if you were never born. So how how I read it, sorry to interrupt you then you can counter attack. In the sense that Judas is for me the greatest hero. He, through his betrayal, enables Christ to do what he came for. So in the sense ah that Judas is the true hero. He does something that he knows it's the worst crime he will pay terrible price in whatever but he does it because the fate of Christianity God his mission matters to him more. Which is why you know I don't be afraid, I am for Palestine and so on all that, but there is a Jewish friend of mine who now lost his job there, he is good guy, who told me the best, maybe you know it, the best defense of Judas. He says listen, if we Jews know how to do one thing it is to sell something which we know it's precious for its proper price. And he says no Jew would sell God for silver coins, it cannot be you know. Sorry but tell me your version, yeah. But it's true I don't think Judas... I don't think he would have done that. Of course we don't know what actually happened, but as... But it doesn't matter, do you think that element maybe in imposed you associated with the story, right? Yeah we know that yes I mean this is a reading that people have, right? That if Judas didn't do this then God's mission wouldn't have been fulfilled. So in some sense Judas was like a necessary part of God's plan and yet we're... But I think he knew it. That's why Christ gives him a kiss, that kiss and so on. He assumed the most desperate tragic role that you can imagine. So why then do you think, firstly, that he was paid for it and secondly that Jesus says of him it would be better if you were never born? I'll tell you why I think this happens and I think this is interesting is that you say that, you know, Pilate's wife is an agent of the devil. I think in the Christian story you can see Judas as an agent of the devil, but you can ask a more fundamental question, which is why does the devil exist in the first place? If God creates... Very good question. But Devil is another name of God for me. I'm here very orthodox. You know who are my source? Where the real Christian story begins. Meister Eckhart, Jacob Böhme, this Rhenish mystics. They were the first to really break out of this benevolent image of God and to admit that there is a terrifying evil aspect in God himself. You don't need dualism. And all great writers knew this. For example, why do I like Franz Kafka? You remember in The Castle, the there it's not Joseph K., it's just K. the how do you call it he measures land no? He once tries to approach the castle but up on the mountain but the closer he comes to the castle the more he thinks this is not a great castle it's just some small dirty houses and so on. So the message for me is that God is like, sorry this one will be just a metaphor I apologize in advance, but in some country I think it's Chile, I'm not sure, they had a special term, I apologize I consider myself a feminist in advance, but they have a term for a woman who looks nice from yards and then when you come too close to her you see she is not so beautiful. With women that's sexism, but for God it holds I think. If you come too close to God you see God literally is devil. Is the same. Otherwise we are in some again in some pagan dualism. And another ah would you agree this? My god I love this talk sorry if I repeat old stuff. Because only we materialists can have real theological debates. Even that's why I go along very well, we have debates with Rowan Williams, with John Milbank and so on. They would be very angry to say this, but I consider them in my sense without knowing they are already materialists I'll put it. So again, you remember the debate about two years ago or three when before Pope Francis the good one died? He, this is for me one of the worst things he did, with
more agree with radical Protestant who claims quite correctly in Paulinian way, Paulinian Saint Paul, she was directly an organ of the devil. Why? Because let's say that Pontius Pilate would have set free Jesus Christ. What would then happen? No Christianity, nothing. Just one that you know Christ came here to die and not to redeem us but to redeem us in the sense of Holy Ghost, space of freedom. That's this is why I hope we share this. I am an atheist who finds so many interesting things debated if you read them properly in the theological topic, no? For example when people ask me sorry maybe you know this story it's crucial for me maybe you know it, when people ask me okay critique of ideology, tell me which is for you the first book of the critique of ideology? I say Book of, how you pronounce it, H-E-O-P, Job, the guy who got so? Yes, Job. And I don't mean this obscenity that at the beginning you know basically God and devil have a nice after dinner chat and debate like how can we prove that people really believe in you. And then the crucial moment is this one: when Job loses everything, then you get ideology. Three, I think it's three, friends come to him and each of them has a simple message. No, your suffering has a deeper meaning. The first one tells him even if you don't feel guilty, look deeper, you must have done something wrong. That's basic ideology. The second guy says maybe it's just a temptation, God is tempting you and so on and so on. And then a miracle happens. Job denies it. Job is very interesting figure. He is not passive let's suffer, no he is very mad he said no that's all bullshit. And then Jehovah or however comes and says critique of ideology: all that those three guys were telling you is bullshit. You were totally right. It has no meaning your suffering. So then Job asks Jehovah, but nonetheless why did you do this to me then? And now we come to the big theological point. Jehovah gives a speech which is I think usually totally misunderstood. It's usually read as the assertion of a radical gap between us humans and God. You know all that stuff, where were you when I created this that? Like I created so many great like we are not on the same level. But my beloved Catholic, a genius, G.K. Chesterton, he has a short text, you can get it on on on Google immediately, on his reading of Book of Job. His reading is wonderful. He said that if you read it between the lines Jehovah's answer to Job is you think that you are something special, look around, it's not only you I screwed up all the work of creation, it's all one big mess. You see, one can learn so much from intelligent theology. Even predestination. My good friend who recently died Fredric Jameson said and it surprised me because before I understand understood it, that predestination is the most precious category for every Marxist. Because it doesn't simply mean everything is decided in advance. It means that with our activity now we are reinterpreting, recreating a certain vision of the past. Predestination doesn't mean it's decided in advance. It means that the true change is in changing the past itself. Because with as my god I referring here to another conservative T.S. Eliot, the famous line of him where he says with every really new big work of art, not only a new era begins but all the past its meaning changes. And okay, I could go on here but it's time for me to stop into where I find parallel between this and quantum physics. So I am for this much more modest pessimist stance. There are mega horrors in the world. I don't simply believe in any progress and Christianity just means all we can count on is our love our solidarity. I spoke too much I'm sorry. On the minor point of of Pilate's wife. I find this interesting right? To the extent with which you associate with the Christian story and tradition, Jesus says of Judas... Judas is the only true hero friend. It's absolutely clear to me that that they made a deal. Basically Jesus ordered Judas to betray him. That's one reading. Please, please, now I like it, please attack. There are some versions of Christianity which think something like that went on. But if you're talking about the story in the Gospels, Jesus says of Judas it would be better if you were never born. So how how I read it, sorry to interrupt you then you can counter attack. In the sense that Judas is for me the greatest hero. He, through his betrayal, enables Christ to do what he came for. So in the sense ah that Judas is the true hero. He does something that he knows it's the worst crime he will pay terrible price in whatever but he does it because the fate of Christianity God his mission matters to him more. Which is why you know I don't be afraid, I am for Palestine and so on all that, but there is a Jewish friend of mine who now lost his job there, he is good guy, who told me the best, maybe you know it, the best defense of Judas. He says listen, if we Jews know how to do one thing it is to sell something which we know it's precious for its proper price. And he says no Jew would sell God for silver coins, it cannot be you know. Sorry but tell me your version, yeah. But it's true I don't think Judas... I don't think he would have done that. Of course we don't know what actually happened, but as... But it doesn't matter, do you think that element maybe in imposed you associated with the story, right? Yeah we know that yes I mean this is a reading that people have, right? That if Judas didn't do this then God's mission wouldn't have been fulfilled. So in some sense Judas was like a necessary part of God's plan and yet we're... But I think he knew it. That's why Christ gives him a kiss, that kiss and so on. He assumed the most desperate tragic role that you can imagine. So why then do you think, firstly, that he was paid for it and secondly that Jesus says of him it would be better if you were never born? I'll tell you why I think this happens and I think this is interesting is that you say that, you know, Pilate's wife is an agent of the devil. I think in the Christian story you can see Judas as an agent of the devil, but you can ask a more fundamental question, which is why does the devil exist in the first place? If God creates... Very good question. But Devil is another name of God for me. I'm here very orthodox. You know who are my source? Where the real Christian story begins. Meister Eckhart, Jacob Böhme, this Rhenish mystics. They were the first to really break out of this benevolent image of God and to admit that there is a terrifying evil aspect in God himself. You don't need dualism. And all great writers knew this. For example, why do I like Franz Kafka? You remember in The Castle, the there it's not Joseph K., it's just K. the how do you call it he measures land no? He once tries to approach the castle but up on the mountain but the closer he comes to the castle the more he thinks this is not a great castle it's just some small dirty houses and so on. So the message for me is that God is like, sorry this one will be just a metaphor I apologize in advance, but in some country I think it's Chile, I'm not sure, they had a special term, I apologize I consider myself a feminist in advance, but they have a term for a woman who looks nice from yards and then when you come too close to her you see she is not so beautiful. With women that's sexism, but for God it holds I think. If you come too close to God you see God literally is devil. Is the same. Otherwise we are in some again in some pagan dualism. And another ah would you agree this? My god I love this talk sorry if I repeat old stuff. Because only we materialists can have real theological debates. Even that's why I go along very well, we have debates with Rowan Williams, with John Milbank and so on. They would be very angry to say this, but I consider them in my sense without knowing they are already materialists I'll put it. So again, you remember the debate about two years ago or three when before Pope Francis the good one died? He, this is for me one of the worst things he did, with
unknown
all
all
Slavoj Žižek
respect for him, you remember
respect for him, you remember
unknown
he accepted the suggestion that we are how do you call this oh God who is in heaven blah blah this famous prayer,
he accepted the suggestion that we are how do you call this oh God who is in heaven blah blah this famous prayer,
unknown
the elementary prayer, that we should change that line and don't
the elementary prayer, that we should change that line and don't
Slavoj Žižek
lead us into temptation. The idea is that this would be... no he said protect us from temptation. Yes, but are you crazy? My answer is
lead us into temptation. The idea is that this would be... no he said protect us from temptation. Yes, but are you crazy? My answer is
unknown
look God says don't eat from the apple tree of how does it say from the tree of knowledge of good and... yeah yeah. But then what the fuck why did he put that tree in the very center of the paradise? It's pure pure pure I lead you to temptation. For what it's worth I think that the
look God says don't eat from the apple tree of how does it say from the tree of knowledge of good and... yeah yeah. But then what the fuck why did he put that tree in the very center of the paradise? It's pure pure pure I lead you to temptation. For what it's worth I think that the
Slavoj Žižek
Italians have been saying protect us from temptation in Italian like since since the since the start. I think it's a suggestion that only the English translation be changed of that back. Maybe, but I spoke with some real guys who knew the original and it's not just protect us, it is stronger meaning. But which is why I think, and here again I'm a Hegelian, the Fall, that's the paradox for me, the same logic as you find all the time in Hegel in quantum mechanics, we don't have time for what, isn't the Fall something that retroactively creates what you fall from? Hegel's reading is that paradise before the Fall, before knowledge, before consciousness, is simply animal kingdom. And then only through the Fall you become aware where you have fallen from: goodness. So there is no goodness prior to the Fall. I sympathize with this to the extent with what you
Italians have been saying protect us from temptation in Italian like since since the since the start. I think it's a suggestion that only the English translation be changed of that back. Maybe, but I spoke with some real guys who knew the original and it's not just protect us, it is stronger meaning. But which is why I think, and here again I'm a Hegelian, the Fall, that's the paradox for me, the same logic as you find all the time in Hegel in quantum mechanics, we don't have time for what, isn't the Fall something that retroactively creates what you fall from? Hegel's reading is that paradise before the Fall, before knowledge, before consciousness, is simply animal kingdom. And then only through the Fall you become aware where you have fallen from: goodness. So there is no goodness prior to the Fall. I sympathize with this to the extent with what you
unknown
just said about the tree. But but but, no there's no but this time, there's an and this time, which is that of course if the whole thing that Adam and Eve do is that they sin and the way that they sin is by eating from the tree of knowledge of the knowledge of good and evil, if they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil yet then eating from the tree can't have been evil, or at least not knowing where evil. And so it's sort of a retroactively justified evil, which you have analogized with quantum mechanics. No in the sense
just said about the tree. But but but, no there's no but this time, there's an and this time, which is that of course if the whole thing that Adam and Eve do is that they sin and the way that they sin is by eating from the tree of knowledge of the knowledge of good and evil, if they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil yet then eating from the tree can't have been evil, or at least not knowing where evil. And so it's sort of a retroactively justified evil, which you have analogized with quantum mechanics. No in the sense
Slavoj Žižek
that in quantum mechanics I think but we don't have time to
that in quantum mechanics I think but we don't have time to
unknown
go into it now the for me that's how I read collapse in quantum mechanics. I don't you know there are two, sorry I speak now as a Stalinist, there are two deviations: leftist and rightist in reading quantum mechanics. The rightists are those who try to reduce quantum waves, oscillations, to our ordinary reality. For example, but he was a communist leftist but nonetheless David Bohm. His idea is that there still are particles and quantum waves are just waves emitted by particles
go into it now the for me that's how I read collapse in quantum mechanics. I don't you know there are two, sorry I speak now as a Stalinist, there are two deviations: leftist and rightist in reading quantum mechanics. The rightists are those who try to reduce quantum waves, oscillations, to our ordinary reality. For example, but he was a communist leftist but nonetheless David Bohm. His idea is that there still are particles and quantum waves are just waves emitted by particles
Slavoj Žižek
but the basic element are particles and so on and so on. Then you have some I call them ironically leftists who think that quantum waves are leftist progressive idea of flow of production and then collapse equals alienation. In the sense that a creative process gets gets gets falls into a fixed identity. I I think it's a false dilemma. I think as I try to develop in this book that what they call collapse comes first. I don't buy this pseudo-leftist version that there is a happy domain of wave oscillations plurality and so on fixed and then my god I don't know from where you get alienation. And this, would you agree with this, this brings me to a more general point. My friend, sorry, my friend Todd McGowan wrote a book, I don't fully agree with him, but his basic insight is right, in defense of alienation. And I agree with this at all levels. To do something good, to feel good, to fight for good whatever, alienation has to be here. Alienation opens up the space for our freedom. And because without alienation we would be in some suffocating proximity and so on. I think it's the time to turn around the the tables here, which is my let me make a crazy jump to our contemporary society. I hate it when you have racist problems what I hate is this idea the logic of integration. It happens and then you can be from left or from the right. You can be leftist or rightist. You can say they are a foreign body, they don't want to integrate, or as a leftist you usually say we are not ready to integrate them. But my idea is fuck it why should they integrate? Why? There are many people in the world I hate quite a lot of people even ethnic groups and so on why not? The big problem for me is the ethnic others and so on, they are a vast group, we will never be able not only to understand them, but I will go a step further here, do we even understand ourselves? I think that I don't believe that the other, now I'm talking about ethnic other another nation and so on, that they are deep in their own world and we cannot ever be sure did we understand it. No I think that quite often a distance gives you better insight into it. For example, the example that I often mention in my books is Shakespeare. I think this is a pseudo-problematic this: without studying all the historical context can we really understand Shakespeare? No it's quite clear in Hamlet and so on. For example the best known claim that Shakespeare was self-contradictory there. He didn't know... so to amuse you it's a nice joke it will come from a text that will appear in my next book. You know that famous phrase: time is out of joint, I was here to set it straight. But read it properly. How
but the basic element are particles and so on and so on. Then you have some I call them ironically leftists who think that quantum waves are leftist progressive idea of flow of production and then collapse equals alienation. In the sense that a creative process gets gets gets falls into a fixed identity. I I think it's a false dilemma. I think as I try to develop in this book that what they call collapse comes first. I don't buy this pseudo-leftist version that there is a happy domain of wave oscillations plurality and so on fixed and then my god I don't know from where you get alienation. And this, would you agree with this, this brings me to a more general point. My friend, sorry, my friend Todd McGowan wrote a book, I don't fully agree with him, but his basic insight is right, in defense of alienation. And I agree with this at all levels. To do something good, to feel good, to fight for good whatever, alienation has to be here. Alienation opens up the space for our freedom. And because without alienation we would be in some suffocating proximity and so on. I think it's the time to turn around the the tables here, which is my let me make a crazy jump to our contemporary society. I hate it when you have racist problems what I hate is this idea the logic of integration. It happens and then you can be from left or from the right. You can be leftist or rightist. You can say they are a foreign body, they don't want to integrate, or as a leftist you usually say we are not ready to integrate them. But my idea is fuck it why should they integrate? Why? There are many people in the world I hate quite a lot of people even ethnic groups and so on why not? The big problem for me is the ethnic others and so on, they are a vast group, we will never be able not only to understand them, but I will go a step further here, do we even understand ourselves? I think that I don't believe that the other, now I'm talking about ethnic other another nation and so on, that they are deep in their own world and we cannot ever be sure did we understand it. No I think that quite often a distance gives you better insight into it. For example, the example that I often mention in my books is Shakespeare. I think this is a pseudo-problematic this: without studying all the historical context can we really understand Shakespeare? No it's quite clear in Hamlet and so on. For example the best known claim that Shakespeare was self-contradictory there. He didn't know... so to amuse you it's a nice joke it will come from a text that will appear in my next book. You know that famous phrase: time is out of joint, I was here to set it straight. But read it properly. How
unknown
did time get out of joint? For me Hamlet is the ultimate evil person in the drama. First I totally buy, did you read John Updike's novel Gertrude and Claudius? No. Which is a total rehabilitation of Claudius. The idea is that Hamlet's father was an evil tyrant, he wanted to kill Claudius and so on,
did time get out of joint? For me Hamlet is the ultimate evil person in the drama. First I totally buy, did you read John Updike's novel Gertrude and Claudius? No. Which is a total rehabilitation of Claudius. The idea is that Hamlet's father was an evil tyrant, he wanted to kill Claudius and so on,
Slavoj Žižek
they killed him out of pure despair and then that's the final lines of the book are: and then everything was everybody was happy in the land of Denmark. But then Hamlet returned from Wittenberg where everything went wrong. You know why? Be careful of something. On what day was Hamlet born? On the day when Hamlet one, Hamlet's father, won independence from Norwegians. And Hamlet is a traitor I think. You remember what happens, nobody noticed this at the end, who takes over? Fortinbras, who is a Norwegian
they killed him out of pure despair and then that's the final lines of the book are: and then everything was everybody was happy in the land of Denmark. But then Hamlet returned from Wittenberg where everything went wrong. You know why? Be careful of something. On what day was Hamlet born? On the day when Hamlet one, Hamlet's father, won independence from Norwegians. And Hamlet is a traitor I think. You remember what happens, nobody noticed this at the end, who takes over? Fortinbras, who is a Norwegian
unknown
prince who came there to occupy Denmark. So Hamlet ends with Hamlet liquidating the family there and installing as it were a foreign occupier as that. Not to mention the obvious feminist stuff. Are you aware how terribly Hamlet is treating not only his mother but especially Ophelia? I think that the only... and we can see this today. Today better than Shakespeare himself. That's why as I always repeat that version of Hamlet that I know is Akira Kurosawa's film from '62 with a wonderful title Only Bad People Sleep Well. The idea is wonderful. No, really bad people are not oh my God you sleep bad blah blah. No they don't care, they are simply evil. If you sleep bad because of your sins you are already... so how does Hamlet at the end set things straight? It's a very
prince who came there to occupy Denmark. So Hamlet ends with Hamlet liquidating the family there and installing as it were a foreign occupier as that. Not to mention the obvious feminist stuff. Are you aware how terribly Hamlet is treating not only his mother but especially Ophelia? I think that the only... and we can see this today. Today better than Shakespeare himself. That's why as I always repeat that version of Hamlet that I know is Akira Kurosawa's film from '62 with a wonderful title Only Bad People Sleep Well. The idea is wonderful. No, really bad people are not oh my God you sleep bad blah blah. No they don't care, they are simply evil. If you sleep bad because of your sins you are already... so how does Hamlet at the end set things straight? It's a very
Slavoj Žižek
conservative view. Hamlet's father threw the world out of joint by giving independence to Denmark, Hamlet sets it straight by reinstalling Norway. I love this totally totally inconsistent but very productive reading. So my point here so that I don't get lost is that the same holds for great novelists. Look, what do we know about Ireland? Ireland as a country existed in the 20th century to give birth to Joyce, I don't like Joyce but Joyce and Beckett. They both had to move outside to do it. Look at Hollywood. Who gave in the 30s 40s the best image of despair of the American life? European emigrant directors. Especially although now they have a terrible leader Orbán, Hungarians. You know Casablanca, the great movie? Directed by Michael Curtiz. You know who he was? Mihály Kertész, a Hungarian. He even didn't speak English well. He had to have an interpreter to direct. So what I'm saying is that at this level I agree with my right-wing friend but he is not an idiot German guy Peter Sloterdijk whose idea is that in today's global society we are getting too close to each other. My ideal is not in a big block where I would like to live there are apartments and there is an Indian there, a black African there, a Chinese guy there. No, I want to politely ignore them we friendly nod to each other and maybe why not from time to time we get friendly but not obligatory. I don't want this pressure. I believe that we not only don't understand others but even basically don't understand ourselves. And we should learn to live with this. We um started a little bit late so I've got permission to go a little bit late when it comes to the audience Q&A. People have been submitting questions and well let's just see how far we get. I'm very sorry for this, I'm disgusted by all this, I mean I'm sorry. I'm sure we we can forgive you. Um, upstairs we were talking about the UK Conservative and Labour Party. Somebody has asked, I'm going to put two questions kind of together here based on what we were talking upstairs. Yeah. Somebody here asked about the UK's future. They actually asked whether it has a future, um, but there's another question here, an anonymous question: How do we stop leftist infighting? And based on what we were talking upstairs I think I might just throw them both... Do you mean you mean this that immediately after Corbyn and that Indian lady, I'm so sorry don't take me for a racist I always Sultana? It's not it's not me, it's not my question, I don't... I know, I know it is, but they... that immediately when they tried to do this new leftist party there was a split immediately. Yes, but what I... okay, I will give you my... Yeah, how do we stop that kind of thing happening? Deeper, deeper insight. Yeah, yeah. I think something similar is happening, nonetheless a vague parallel, somewhere more openly, somewhere less openly, in many Western countries. What is happening in United States and up to a certain point also in the UK. In United States in reality we have four parties or at least agents. We have traditional Republican establishment, traditional Democratic establishment, and then and they are dead. They are living dead. To repeat my old joke: they are alive because they forgot to notice that they are already dead. There is no political life in them. And then you get two only living options in a bad sense also. I'm not for Trump but it's Trumpian populism and it's so-called Democratic Socialists. And the problem here is that of course these four parties don't work at the same level. So what to do politically? On the right unfortunately Trump occupied the Republican Party. It's almost nothing. On the left the meaning of Mamdani's victory, and I think there are big troubles ahead, but nonetheless something unique happened. He intelligently he followed Trump. You know the big Democratic trauma of the Democratic establishment in United States is let's not move too much to the left because then we will lose center. But why didn't they learn from Trump that it's the exact opposite which is true? How did Trump win? Not to play the center but to state radically what is to be said. And Mamdani got this, even maybe more than Bernie Sanders and AOC. That's how you win. Which is why there are then all possible combinations. For example, the guy who is disgusting but I appreciate him, the Trumpian leftist, Steve Bannon. He said already years ago that the ideal government for the US would have been a coalition of Trumpians and Democratic Socialists because they all are in some sense revolutionary, they want a substantial change. Why I make this ambiguous statements as if I like Trump. I follow here, here I agree with him not everywhere, Varoufakis, who said the left was blah blah talking for decades we have to move out of global capitalism. Trump did it. Are we aware what Trump did? With his tariffs and so on, he broke all the rules of global market and so on. And so where do I see hope? What Mamdani did, I think he's following Bernie who said something absolutely ingenious already more than Bernie Sanders, already more than years ago. He said we shouldn't worry about the center. We should target poor white farmers, workers who otherwise vote for Trump. They are our public, we should target them. And I think this is what Mamdani did. And he won in a quite surprising way. I I simply couldn't believe it, how with all the Jewish, not all the Jews, many Jews supported Mamdani, but the Jewish establishment, enormous amounts of money and so on. So this is I think the future, the the true elections at this point in the United States would have been the elections between Trumpians and Democratic Socialists. This is... it is not a statement of preference of value, they are the only two living political options. And here in the UK it's similar. First when I met Corbyn at Hay-on-Wye we just chatted for minutes, he laughed and agreed with me when I told him you have a very strange political constellation now here in the UK. You have one big center-right party in power, it's called Labour Party, you know. Then you have some crazy right-wingers and small groups and whatever remains of the Conservative Party. And I said this in a very evil way. What's the main distinction? It's that apart from Rachel Reeves and some others, if you want white male to rule you you have Labour Party, if you want blacks, women, Indians to rule you you go to Conservative Party. It's very complex situation. So let's be frank. The only true elections here would have been Farage against the new Labour Party. But in both cases I see big problems. Because in this direct confrontation there will be strange alliances. Did you see with Mamdani the scandal of
conservative view. Hamlet's father threw the world out of joint by giving independence to Denmark, Hamlet sets it straight by reinstalling Norway. I love this totally totally inconsistent but very productive reading. So my point here so that I don't get lost is that the same holds for great novelists. Look, what do we know about Ireland? Ireland as a country existed in the 20th century to give birth to Joyce, I don't like Joyce but Joyce and Beckett. They both had to move outside to do it. Look at Hollywood. Who gave in the 30s 40s the best image of despair of the American life? European emigrant directors. Especially although now they have a terrible leader Orbán, Hungarians. You know Casablanca, the great movie? Directed by Michael Curtiz. You know who he was? Mihály Kertész, a Hungarian. He even didn't speak English well. He had to have an interpreter to direct. So what I'm saying is that at this level I agree with my right-wing friend but he is not an idiot German guy Peter Sloterdijk whose idea is that in today's global society we are getting too close to each other. My ideal is not in a big block where I would like to live there are apartments and there is an Indian there, a black African there, a Chinese guy there. No, I want to politely ignore them we friendly nod to each other and maybe why not from time to time we get friendly but not obligatory. I don't want this pressure. I believe that we not only don't understand others but even basically don't understand ourselves. And we should learn to live with this. We um started a little bit late so I've got permission to go a little bit late when it comes to the audience Q&A. People have been submitting questions and well let's just see how far we get. I'm very sorry for this, I'm disgusted by all this, I mean I'm sorry. I'm sure we we can forgive you. Um, upstairs we were talking about the UK Conservative and Labour Party. Somebody has asked, I'm going to put two questions kind of together here based on what we were talking upstairs. Yeah. Somebody here asked about the UK's future. They actually asked whether it has a future, um, but there's another question here, an anonymous question: How do we stop leftist infighting? And based on what we were talking upstairs I think I might just throw them both... Do you mean you mean this that immediately after Corbyn and that Indian lady, I'm so sorry don't take me for a racist I always Sultana? It's not it's not me, it's not my question, I don't... I know, I know it is, but they... that immediately when they tried to do this new leftist party there was a split immediately. Yes, but what I... okay, I will give you my... Yeah, how do we stop that kind of thing happening? Deeper, deeper insight. Yeah, yeah. I think something similar is happening, nonetheless a vague parallel, somewhere more openly, somewhere less openly, in many Western countries. What is happening in United States and up to a certain point also in the UK. In United States in reality we have four parties or at least agents. We have traditional Republican establishment, traditional Democratic establishment, and then and they are dead. They are living dead. To repeat my old joke: they are alive because they forgot to notice that they are already dead. There is no political life in them. And then you get two only living options in a bad sense also. I'm not for Trump but it's Trumpian populism and it's so-called Democratic Socialists. And the problem here is that of course these four parties don't work at the same level. So what to do politically? On the right unfortunately Trump occupied the Republican Party. It's almost nothing. On the left the meaning of Mamdani's victory, and I think there are big troubles ahead, but nonetheless something unique happened. He intelligently he followed Trump. You know the big Democratic trauma of the Democratic establishment in United States is let's not move too much to the left because then we will lose center. But why didn't they learn from Trump that it's the exact opposite which is true? How did Trump win? Not to play the center but to state radically what is to be said. And Mamdani got this, even maybe more than Bernie Sanders and AOC. That's how you win. Which is why there are then all possible combinations. For example, the guy who is disgusting but I appreciate him, the Trumpian leftist, Steve Bannon. He said already years ago that the ideal government for the US would have been a coalition of Trumpians and Democratic Socialists because they all are in some sense revolutionary, they want a substantial change. Why I make this ambiguous statements as if I like Trump. I follow here, here I agree with him not everywhere, Varoufakis, who said the left was blah blah talking for decades we have to move out of global capitalism. Trump did it. Are we aware what Trump did? With his tariffs and so on, he broke all the rules of global market and so on. And so where do I see hope? What Mamdani did, I think he's following Bernie who said something absolutely ingenious already more than Bernie Sanders, already more than years ago. He said we shouldn't worry about the center. We should target poor white farmers, workers who otherwise vote for Trump. They are our public, we should target them. And I think this is what Mamdani did. And he won in a quite surprising way. I I simply couldn't believe it, how with all the Jewish, not all the Jews, many Jews supported Mamdani, but the Jewish establishment, enormous amounts of money and so on. So this is I think the future, the the true elections at this point in the United States would have been the elections between Trumpians and Democratic Socialists. This is... it is not a statement of preference of value, they are the only two living political options. And here in the UK it's similar. First when I met Corbyn at Hay-on-Wye we just chatted for minutes, he laughed and agreed with me when I told him you have a very strange political constellation now here in the UK. You have one big center-right party in power, it's called Labour Party, you know. Then you have some crazy right-wingers and small groups and whatever remains of the Conservative Party. And I said this in a very evil way. What's the main distinction? It's that apart from Rachel Reeves and some others, if you want white male to rule you you have Labour Party, if you want blacks, women, Indians to rule you you go to Conservative Party. It's very complex situation. So let's be frank. The only true elections here would have been Farage against the new Labour Party. But in both cases I see big problems. Because in this direct confrontation there will be strange alliances. Did you see with Mamdani the scandal of
unknown
Trump supporting a Democrat, Cuomo? So there will be strange alliances. The problem is this one: to decide at what point should we risk the serious left, our own party, or to work within the establishment party. I think Mamdani was right at this point to remain within the Democratic Party. He should now made a good Stalinist... make a good Stalinist purge of Democratic Party in the state of New York, get it over, and then connect with many other states where Democratic Socialists are strong. Because you know what's so ridiculous. When Trump said Mamdani is such a pure communist. Sorry, are we aware where we are? Measured by what social democracy meant when Harold Wilson was here on the glorious days of Swedish social democracy, measured by those standards, what Mamdani is doing is very modest. But
Trump supporting a Democrat, Cuomo? So there will be strange alliances. The problem is this one: to decide at what point should we risk the serious left, our own party, or to work within the establishment party. I think Mamdani was right at this point to remain within the Democratic Party. He should now made a good Stalinist... make a good Stalinist purge of Democratic Party in the state of New York, get it over, and then connect with many other states where Democratic Socialists are strong. Because you know what's so ridiculous. When Trump said Mamdani is such a pure communist. Sorry, are we aware where we are? Measured by what social democracy meant when Harold Wilson was here on the glorious days of Swedish social democracy, measured by those standards, what Mamdani is doing is very modest. But
Slavoj Žižek
you know what gives me hope. I loved the period of of COVID. Not only because I'm getting old and bitter and hate people and I was able to be alone there, but do you notice the miracle of COVID. A big lesson for the left. Even guys like your Boris Johnson or Trump in the West, they were doing measures which I'm sorry were almost formally radical socialist, even communist, you know elements of this, how do you call it, income income for everybody, for example universal basic income. Yeah, yeah, there were elements of this. Okay, Trump also gave lot to big companies, but nonetheless every family got regularly a check for and so on. Now why is this important? No nobody or few people noticed it. Till that point when you as Mamdani is doing it now, when you said why don't we raise the taxes for the rich just a little bit? No, the system will collapse and so on. But you know what happened in the time of COVID. All the rules were broken, even Trump evoked that law from early 50s where it says that in the critical situation the government can order companies what to produce and so on. So I think this is the great positive lesson of of COVID. You can do radical things if you do them in the right way. No, don't be afraid. It's not necessary that there will be chaos. And in this sense I remain, as I say ironically, moderately conservative communist, no? By communism I mean there will be new crisis I'm sure, worse than that one: nuclear war, ecological crisis, artificial intelligence, whatever you want. And we are here still, if I may conclude, at the level of my good friend Alenka Zupančič, part of my Stalinist Lacanian troika in Slovenia, Mladen Dolar, Alenka and me. She published a short book called Disavowal, claiming that today it's too simple to ask do you believe in God or not or what. A typical attitude is this: I don't believe it, but secretly I believe it or the other way around. Let me give you a personal example that I love. It happened to me, I will be caught in ideological shit. I remember, very traumatic memory years ago, I was sitting at a table with a friend who pretended to know to read your destiny from the lines in your palm. And I said haha what a bullshit and so on. Then he, my god he was bright, he asked me the right question. He said, okay if it's bullshit allow me to do it. And I said no, no, no, no, no, I don't want to. Why? Because it's bullshit. But he told me, but if it's bullshit why be afraid of it no? You know it's bullshit. He caught me. Although I rationally knew that it's bullshit, I was afraid that something will come out there. And I think that's how politics works today. It's not just that we pretend to believe but really don't believe. It's and here I agree with your agnostic stance, it's much worse. Many people pretend to be cynical skeptics and so on but de facto in their acts they believe. So my position of the God is dead doesn't mean let's be cynical there is no high... no, no, no, it means active engagement. In my next book there will be... I like so much popular movies... another popular movie called Munich. Not Spielberg, but about '38 negotiations between Chamberlain and Hitler in Munich. There is a debate between an English guy who says we should negotiate endlessly, there is always hope. And then a German guy, more radical anti-Nazi, says beautiful definition: hope is means hope is for those who are too lazy to act now, hope is somebody else will do it later for me. So the condition of absolute condition of being active now is to abandon hope. For me the best political motto is the entrance to Dante's Hell: Lasciate ogne speranza, leave all hope those who enter. That should be today's politics. I don't believe any great vision. Hope through political act begins in total despair. In the sense of we don't know where we are, it's lost, so let's begin somewhere. And at let's begin with what, here I'm totally a pragmatist. Everything is possible, alliance with conservatives to fight this danger, to fight that danger and so on, just I think that that precisely this sense of confusion today that we don't even know where we are. I will conclude with a joke which I'm absolutely sure that most of you know, but it's my favorite joke lately because I invented it. I didn't write it yet in some of my books. You know, it's an old East European joke and I rewrote it to fit today's situation, I'm sorry if you know it. The three big guys today, Putin, Xi (the Chinese), and Trump confront God, each can ask a question. First Putin says how will it be, we will occupy Ukraine, we will be masters of Europe. God says unfortunately maybe you will get Ukraine, but in years from now you will be a Chinese colony. Putin turns around and starts to cry. Then Xi asks ah we will get all of Russia, we'll be... God says eh it's not so simple. Maybe you will get Russia, but economically it will not work well, you will have not to occupy Taiwan but to rely on Taiwan and so on. Xi turns around and starts to cry. Then Trump, probably you know as if you are minimally Hegelian in Hegelian reflexivity what will be the end? Trump says so what will be with my Great America years from now? God turns around and starts to cry. That's that's what I meant by death of God. Trump is something so new, it's desperate, he changed the rules radically. Let's use the opportunity. Instead of this fixation of how horrible Trump is, which is a lie I think. Yes, Trump is horrible, but he is horrible because he correctly detected what was the fake in the predominant American welfare state model. Please hit back I don't feel... Well, you know, earlier you were describing yourself as as somewhat Christian in the sense that you're a Christian atheist, that you identify with something about Christianity, and then you say that your political motto is to abandon hope... Yeah. ...and you draw from imagery of literally entering into hell. You can understand why some Christians might look at you and be somewhat... Ah, but Devil is another... that's how I read the death of God. Yeah. There is no heaven, there is nothing up there, we are abandoned to ourselves. And as many very intelligent theologians... I have some strange contacts in Norway of all places. Incidentally I like Norway for very filthy reason, but good. You know that Norway is the only remaining welfare state which because they had enough, not so much oil as natural gas and so on, they can do it. So they claim that God may be in heaven, but Christ belongs to hell. Christ works in hell together with all other sinners so that some of them even proposed a wonderful formula: better with Christ in hell than with God in heaven. So in this sense I don't see a problem. The message of Christ is despair, but despair in the sense that there is no hope in the precise sense that we cannot count on any Big Other, on any big vision, just in this sense. So we've got maybe five minutes. There are... I can squeeze two in here and that the first question I'm just interested in this is someone has asked how you feel about us having more comfortable chairs than everybody else. As... Well, no, you know this is a question where one can only answer with a half-obscene joke. Sorry, fuck you. You see there and at least we are doing the work up here. So yes, we deserve better chairs. I feel quite well. And it's the same, it would be more hypocritical since I have this high Senator status, no, with Lufthansa, I can even if I buy the cheapest ticket I can check in first class even if I have economy ticket. And there I ex- I feel compassion. I like so much to take a look at economy check-in where there are long line of people and I feel such sympathy for them. Why? Because I'm not there, because I'm here. So it's the same with me. Be sure I feel a deep sympathy for you there. No, but quite seriously, let's make a more serious point. Do these middle-class leftists, who if you get some money it makes them feel guilty, do they know how alienated they are from ordinary people? All so-called ordinary people that I know and I have very good relations with them, they don't have this attitude oh... No, you can have money, grab it, spend it and so on. They appreciate money. I hate these deep proverbs like money is not all. Yeah, you can say this when you have enough money. I mean you know what I mean. We can really not in any deep moralistic sense learn a lot from ordinary so-called ordinary people. Sorry let's go. Finally, um, briefly if possible... Sorry? Briefly. We're running out of time. Um, but there's... I know, but that's why I talk so much so that with all hypocrisy I can say now oh I would love to go on for two hours and so on. No, but I'm already thinking how nice it will... Sorry, please go on. I just I'm interested in in ending where we started and coming full circle. Because the first words out of your mouth prompted me to to think of a question that was submitted quite early and we've talked about Christianity and religion and what one of the things that's missing perhaps from the analysis thus far is this idea that's quite important to religion of afterlife. And somebody has asked as an atheist materialist, at least in the sense of what happens after death, how do you find peace with death from that perspective knowing that consciousness... You know which category is here my key category? It's a wonderful category. I think I explained this in my books years ago already. I in Kant you find a wonderful, I'm sorry some of you know this, you find a wonderful distinction... I'm so sorry what is it between negating a predicate and asserting a non-predicate. Yes. For example, if I say you are dead, I... no sorry if I say you are not alive, then it means you are dead. It's unambiguous. But if I negate a predicate... no sorry assert a non-predicate: if I don't if I say you aren't dead, sorry I made a mistake, it means you are alive. But if I say you are un-dead it means something much more horrible. We are in the domain of Stephen King and so on, un-dead zombies and so on. And
you know what gives me hope. I loved the period of of COVID. Not only because I'm getting old and bitter and hate people and I was able to be alone there, but do you notice the miracle of COVID. A big lesson for the left. Even guys like your Boris Johnson or Trump in the West, they were doing measures which I'm sorry were almost formally radical socialist, even communist, you know elements of this, how do you call it, income income for everybody, for example universal basic income. Yeah, yeah, there were elements of this. Okay, Trump also gave lot to big companies, but nonetheless every family got regularly a check for and so on. Now why is this important? No nobody or few people noticed it. Till that point when you as Mamdani is doing it now, when you said why don't we raise the taxes for the rich just a little bit? No, the system will collapse and so on. But you know what happened in the time of COVID. All the rules were broken, even Trump evoked that law from early 50s where it says that in the critical situation the government can order companies what to produce and so on. So I think this is the great positive lesson of of COVID. You can do radical things if you do them in the right way. No, don't be afraid. It's not necessary that there will be chaos. And in this sense I remain, as I say ironically, moderately conservative communist, no? By communism I mean there will be new crisis I'm sure, worse than that one: nuclear war, ecological crisis, artificial intelligence, whatever you want. And we are here still, if I may conclude, at the level of my good friend Alenka Zupančič, part of my Stalinist Lacanian troika in Slovenia, Mladen Dolar, Alenka and me. She published a short book called Disavowal, claiming that today it's too simple to ask do you believe in God or not or what. A typical attitude is this: I don't believe it, but secretly I believe it or the other way around. Let me give you a personal example that I love. It happened to me, I will be caught in ideological shit. I remember, very traumatic memory years ago, I was sitting at a table with a friend who pretended to know to read your destiny from the lines in your palm. And I said haha what a bullshit and so on. Then he, my god he was bright, he asked me the right question. He said, okay if it's bullshit allow me to do it. And I said no, no, no, no, no, I don't want to. Why? Because it's bullshit. But he told me, but if it's bullshit why be afraid of it no? You know it's bullshit. He caught me. Although I rationally knew that it's bullshit, I was afraid that something will come out there. And I think that's how politics works today. It's not just that we pretend to believe but really don't believe. It's and here I agree with your agnostic stance, it's much worse. Many people pretend to be cynical skeptics and so on but de facto in their acts they believe. So my position of the God is dead doesn't mean let's be cynical there is no high... no, no, no, it means active engagement. In my next book there will be... I like so much popular movies... another popular movie called Munich. Not Spielberg, but about '38 negotiations between Chamberlain and Hitler in Munich. There is a debate between an English guy who says we should negotiate endlessly, there is always hope. And then a German guy, more radical anti-Nazi, says beautiful definition: hope is means hope is for those who are too lazy to act now, hope is somebody else will do it later for me. So the condition of absolute condition of being active now is to abandon hope. For me the best political motto is the entrance to Dante's Hell: Lasciate ogne speranza, leave all hope those who enter. That should be today's politics. I don't believe any great vision. Hope through political act begins in total despair. In the sense of we don't know where we are, it's lost, so let's begin somewhere. And at let's begin with what, here I'm totally a pragmatist. Everything is possible, alliance with conservatives to fight this danger, to fight that danger and so on, just I think that that precisely this sense of confusion today that we don't even know where we are. I will conclude with a joke which I'm absolutely sure that most of you know, but it's my favorite joke lately because I invented it. I didn't write it yet in some of my books. You know, it's an old East European joke and I rewrote it to fit today's situation, I'm sorry if you know it. The three big guys today, Putin, Xi (the Chinese), and Trump confront God, each can ask a question. First Putin says how will it be, we will occupy Ukraine, we will be masters of Europe. God says unfortunately maybe you will get Ukraine, but in years from now you will be a Chinese colony. Putin turns around and starts to cry. Then Xi asks ah we will get all of Russia, we'll be... God says eh it's not so simple. Maybe you will get Russia, but economically it will not work well, you will have not to occupy Taiwan but to rely on Taiwan and so on. Xi turns around and starts to cry. Then Trump, probably you know as if you are minimally Hegelian in Hegelian reflexivity what will be the end? Trump says so what will be with my Great America years from now? God turns around and starts to cry. That's that's what I meant by death of God. Trump is something so new, it's desperate, he changed the rules radically. Let's use the opportunity. Instead of this fixation of how horrible Trump is, which is a lie I think. Yes, Trump is horrible, but he is horrible because he correctly detected what was the fake in the predominant American welfare state model. Please hit back I don't feel... Well, you know, earlier you were describing yourself as as somewhat Christian in the sense that you're a Christian atheist, that you identify with something about Christianity, and then you say that your political motto is to abandon hope... Yeah. ...and you draw from imagery of literally entering into hell. You can understand why some Christians might look at you and be somewhat... Ah, but Devil is another... that's how I read the death of God. Yeah. There is no heaven, there is nothing up there, we are abandoned to ourselves. And as many very intelligent theologians... I have some strange contacts in Norway of all places. Incidentally I like Norway for very filthy reason, but good. You know that Norway is the only remaining welfare state which because they had enough, not so much oil as natural gas and so on, they can do it. So they claim that God may be in heaven, but Christ belongs to hell. Christ works in hell together with all other sinners so that some of them even proposed a wonderful formula: better with Christ in hell than with God in heaven. So in this sense I don't see a problem. The message of Christ is despair, but despair in the sense that there is no hope in the precise sense that we cannot count on any Big Other, on any big vision, just in this sense. So we've got maybe five minutes. There are... I can squeeze two in here and that the first question I'm just interested in this is someone has asked how you feel about us having more comfortable chairs than everybody else. As... Well, no, you know this is a question where one can only answer with a half-obscene joke. Sorry, fuck you. You see there and at least we are doing the work up here. So yes, we deserve better chairs. I feel quite well. And it's the same, it would be more hypocritical since I have this high Senator status, no, with Lufthansa, I can even if I buy the cheapest ticket I can check in first class even if I have economy ticket. And there I ex- I feel compassion. I like so much to take a look at economy check-in where there are long line of people and I feel such sympathy for them. Why? Because I'm not there, because I'm here. So it's the same with me. Be sure I feel a deep sympathy for you there. No, but quite seriously, let's make a more serious point. Do these middle-class leftists, who if you get some money it makes them feel guilty, do they know how alienated they are from ordinary people? All so-called ordinary people that I know and I have very good relations with them, they don't have this attitude oh... No, you can have money, grab it, spend it and so on. They appreciate money. I hate these deep proverbs like money is not all. Yeah, you can say this when you have enough money. I mean you know what I mean. We can really not in any deep moralistic sense learn a lot from ordinary so-called ordinary people. Sorry let's go. Finally, um, briefly if possible... Sorry? Briefly. We're running out of time. Um, but there's... I know, but that's why I talk so much so that with all hypocrisy I can say now oh I would love to go on for two hours and so on. No, but I'm already thinking how nice it will... Sorry, please go on. I just I'm interested in in ending where we started and coming full circle. Because the first words out of your mouth prompted me to to think of a question that was submitted quite early and we've talked about Christianity and religion and what one of the things that's missing perhaps from the analysis thus far is this idea that's quite important to religion of afterlife. And somebody has asked as an atheist materialist, at least in the sense of what happens after death, how do you find peace with death from that perspective knowing that consciousness... You know which category is here my key category? It's a wonderful category. I think I explained this in my books years ago already. I in Kant you find a wonderful, I'm sorry some of you know this, you find a wonderful distinction... I'm so sorry what is it between negating a predicate and asserting a non-predicate. Yes. For example, if I say you are dead, I... no sorry if I say you are not alive, then it means you are dead. It's unambiguous. But if I negate a predicate... no sorry assert a non-predicate: if I don't if I say you aren't dead, sorry I made a mistake, it means you are alive. But if I say you are un-dead it means something much more horrible. We are in the domain of Stephen King and so on, un-dead zombies and so on. And
unknown
my idea is, it's a very paradoxical claim in my other books, that what Freud called death drive has nothing to do with this Nirvana bullshit we disappear in the void, it's this obscene un-deadness. And so I think the proper materialist, sorry, the proper materialist stance is not to just to say we are all mortal we
my idea is, it's a very paradoxical claim in my other books, that what Freud called death drive has nothing to do with this Nirvana bullshit we disappear in the void, it's this obscene un-deadness. And so I think the proper materialist, sorry, the proper materialist stance is not to just to say we are all mortal we
Slavoj Žižek
will die, but to assert not as if that there really are ghosts, but as Lacan says so wonderfully, being subjects already entails a symbolic death in the sense that you maintain a distance from your immediate animal awareness and so on. So as Lacan puts it when he speaks about the second death, this second death is our normal life. In some sense being a human being who dwells in the symbolic order means in some sense that you already are a falling being fallen being you died and so on. So it's crucial for me that a certain mode of un-deadness which is horrible is what pertains to human subjectivity. And in this sense, in this sense
will die, but to assert not as if that there really are ghosts, but as Lacan says so wonderfully, being subjects already entails a symbolic death in the sense that you maintain a distance from your immediate animal awareness and so on. So as Lacan puts it when he speaks about the second death, this second death is our normal life. In some sense being a human being who dwells in the symbolic order means in some sense that you already are a falling being fallen being you died and so on. So it's crucial for me that a certain mode of un-deadness which is horrible is what pertains to human subjectivity. And in this sense, in this sense
unknown
I'm not... I'm not afraid of death. I think the true trauma is this un-dead spectral life which is our everyday life in which we live and here I see, we
I'm not... I'm not afraid of death. I think the true trauma is this un-dead spectral life which is our everyday life in which we live and here I see, we
Slavoj Žižek
don't have time for it, a danger of artificial intelligence. That this perverted un-deadness will flourish. Just think about I wrote a short text about about sexuality. It's already happening. If you combine immersing yourself in digital world with with a connecting machines with your erotic centers and so on, we will be able soon to have extremely intense orgasmic experiences but maybe even without dirty dreams without representations. It will just be the... and this will be something horrible for me. This will be close to un-deadness. On that, um... I really said that we didn't have even more time because I think seriously you are onto something with your cosmic skepticism. You know what would be, please allow him to finish this. One thing I don't get quite clear about your view, I hope you are not just cosmic skeptic in this usual sense reality is out there but we cannot ever be sure if we got it and so on. The lesson
don't have time for it, a danger of artificial intelligence. That this perverted un-deadness will flourish. Just think about I wrote a short text about about sexuality. It's already happening. If you combine immersing yourself in digital world with with a connecting machines with your erotic centers and so on, we will be able soon to have extremely intense orgasmic experiences but maybe even without dirty dreams without representations. It will just be the... and this will be something horrible for me. This will be close to un-deadness. On that, um... I really said that we didn't have even more time because I think seriously you are onto something with your cosmic skepticism. You know what would be, please allow him to finish this. One thing I don't get quite clear about your view, I hope you are not just cosmic skeptic in this usual sense reality is out there but we cannot ever be sure if we got it and so on. The lesson
unknown
of quantum
of quantum
Slavoj Žižek
mechanics for me is what is in some sense and I found this expression with some top quantum guys
mechanics for me is what is in some sense and I found this expression with some top quantum guys
unknown
what is reality itself has an inbuilt skepticism in the sense of it is this but maybe it's not this that a certain skeptic uncertainty is inscribed its objective out there. It's not just reality is out there we cannot ever be sure did we get to know it and so on. How far are you ready to go into this? Well, the
what is reality itself has an inbuilt skepticism in the sense of it is this but maybe it's not this that a certain skeptic uncertainty is inscribed its objective out there. It's not just reality is out there we cannot ever be sure did we get to know it and so on. How far are you ready to go into this? Well, the
Slavoj Žižek
truthful answer, even if we weren't overtime, is that the reason I called my channel CosmicSkeptic is because I thought it sounded cool when I was Sorry because I thought it sounded cool. Yeah, when I was a when I was a teenager. So how are you now when you are in mid-50s or what would I say? We're getting... No because again where I agree with you, sorry I hope we're not losing time, is that you have to I want to save you from this cheap usual skeptical attitude. We are all manipulated today, we don't know... No I think, you know as people say, all this manipulative... No, more than ever today those in power are afraid of truth. The lesson of Lacan is not we cannot ever be sure if we reached the truth. It is the lesson of psychoanalysis and of Hegel is the opposite one. It's even no matter how much you try to lie you cannot get rid of truth. Truth will return in a symptom, in your slips and so on. I have to insist, you will be outside signing books I understand, if people are interested in getting that done on the way out. But just please I am tired don't do this: "Oh Professor," if you call me Professor you... "Oh Professor, could I just ask you a question?" You know what's my usual answer: "You can, but a question to which the answer is yes or no." The signing is down here not out the front, sorry for those at the back. Um, but I'm going to insist that that is where we leave things. Ladies and gentlemen, Slavoj Zizek. Thank you very much. No, just to conclude, I'm so glad for this debate with you because you are aware of something that we live in an era of confusion where philosophy we need philosophy
truthful answer, even if we weren't overtime, is that the reason I called my channel CosmicSkeptic is because I thought it sounded cool when I was Sorry because I thought it sounded cool. Yeah, when I was a when I was a teenager. So how are you now when you are in mid-50s or what would I say? We're getting... No because again where I agree with you, sorry I hope we're not losing time, is that you have to I want to save you from this cheap usual skeptical attitude. We are all manipulated today, we don't know... No I think, you know as people say, all this manipulative... No, more than ever today those in power are afraid of truth. The lesson of Lacan is not we cannot ever be sure if we reached the truth. It is the lesson of psychoanalysis and of Hegel is the opposite one. It's even no matter how much you try to lie you cannot get rid of truth. Truth will return in a symptom, in your slips and so on. I have to insist, you will be outside signing books I understand, if people are interested in getting that done on the way out. But just please I am tired don't do this: "Oh Professor," if you call me Professor you... "Oh Professor, could I just ask you a question?" You know what's my usual answer: "You can, but a question to which the answer is yes or no." The signing is down here not out the front, sorry for those at the back. Um, but I'm going to insist that that is where we leave things. Ladies and gentlemen, Slavoj Zizek. Thank you very much. No, just to conclude, I'm so glad for this debate with you because you are aware of something that we live in an era of confusion where philosophy we need philosophy
unknown
even in our daily life. Yes. Like abortion, yes or no? Oh, you have to already to
even in our daily life. Yes. Like abortion, yes or no? Oh, you have to already to
Slavoj Žižek
decide is is an unborn baby already... We need thinking today. I'm here against Marx, you know my joke. Marx said philosophers have only interpreted, we have to change. No. In 20th century we tried to change the world too much. He's right.
decide is is an unborn baby already... We need thinking today. I'm here against Marx, you know my joke. Marx said philosophers have only interpreted, we have to change. No. In 20th century we tried to change the world too much. He's right.
unknown
It's time to
It's time to
Slavoj Žižek
interpret.
interpret.
unknown
Thanks,
Thanks,
Slavoj Žižek
everyone.
everyone.