Slavoj Žižek psychoanalyses himself
Interview · fediak 22 ·
2024-05-26 · 0:29:56 · 4,277 words
ideologycommunism-socialismcinema-art-culturetechnology-ai-cyberspacescience-physicssubjectivityphilosophy-generaleveryday-life
Žižek argues that contemporary 'cynical reason', where truth is openly stated but fails to mobilize action, creates a paralyzing apathy, illustrated by his critique of 'The Last of Us' and art biennials. He connects this to a 'war communism' necessitated by ecological collapse, while deconstructing the ethical vacuity of pseudo-Oriental spiritualism used to justify atrocities like the Holocaust and Stalinism. Finally, he posits an 'ontologically incomplete' universe, drawing parallels between quantum physics, video game logic, and Shakespearean incompleteness, to argue for a form of freedom grounded in contingency and the 'virtual' nature of the unconscious.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 8
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
A 'communist pessimist' prediction that future crises will necessitate an emergency state of war communism because the market will fail to manage collapse.
An era, following Peter Sloterdijk, where power tells the objective truth of exploitation, yet this very transparency immobilizes and apathizes the subject rather than mobilizing them.
as “disavowal”
The mechanism where one knows something is true but pretends it is not, or where a fetish allows one to ignore a traumatic reality.
A substitute object (like a hamster) that embodies the disavowal of a traumatic loss (a wife's death), allowing the subject to continue functioning until the fetish is also lost.
Referenced as a concept Žižek plans to elaborate on later in the day, linked to the theological debate.
as “ontological openness”
The idea that nature and history are not closed deterministic systems but are incomplete, allowing for retroactive necessity and genuine contingency.
as “pure cartesian subjectivity”
The subject understood not as personality but as an empty space or void supported by the unconscious, which persists even if AI maps the mind.
as “coffee without cream”
A Lacanian setpiece illustrating the difference between a positive lack (cream) and a negative lack (milk), used to explain how subjects articulate what they are deprived of.
Stories he reaches for 6
A waiter offers 'coffee without milk' when asked for 'coffee without cream'; Žižek uses this to explain how feminism must articulate the specific lack (cream/freedom) rather than just the positive presence (milk/presence).
“can i got coffee but without cream? and the waiter answers correctly. sorry sir, we don't have cream only milk, so can i give you coffee without milk?”
Žižek quotes Zen master D.T. Suzuki, who justified killing in war by claiming enlightenment allows one to see the 'dancing knife' as a phenomenon without substantial reality, thus bypassing ethical guilt.
“you should have i'm observing a phenomenon phenomenal multiplicity where my knife is dancing in the air and somehow it gets stuck into your breast.”
Heinrich Himmler carried a copy of the Bhagavad Gita to justify the Holocaust, using the text's idea of duty and the illusory nature of life to remain 'decent' while committing atrocities.
“he always was carrying in his pocket a special lettered copy of bhagavad gita. where you have this idea, you know, the king is convinced to go into battle saying life is an appearance, the main thing is to do your duty.”
A friend's wife dies of cancer, but he only breaks down when his wife's pet hamster dies; the hamster was a 'fetish' that allowed him to disavow the wife's death until the substitute was gone.
“the guy immediately tried to kill. you know, hamster was his fetish. he embodied like the wife somehow as a fetish, it was a disavowal of his wife's death.”
Soviet propaganda argued that true Bolshevik decency requires overcoming the 'temptation of evil' (starving peasants) to achieve historical necessity, a logic Žižek sees returning in Trump's rhetoric.
“this your decency is the greatest temptation to evil if you're a true bolshevik you go on killing and this horrible ethics is returning to today trump”
In video games, background trees are not fully rendered because the programmer assumes players won't approach them; Žižek uses this to argue that God left the universe 'undetermined' (quantum physics) because humans might not reach the atom.
“when god was programming the universe, he said people are too stupid to reach beyond the atom. so why should i bother their programming? he left it undetermined.”
Works invoked 6
Ninotchka film
Source of the 'coffee without cream' anecdote, used to explain the structure of lack and the unconscious.
Bhagavad Gita book
Cited as a text used by Himmler to justify the Holocaust through the logic of duty and the illusory nature of life.
Mein Kampf book
Mentioned as a 'boring book' that Žižek read to understand Hitler, contrasting with the 'multiculturalist' idea of listening to the enemy's story.
The Bad Sleep Well film
Kurosawa's Hamlet adaptation, cited as the best cinematic version of Shakespeare, illustrating 'completing' a work.
Used to illustrate the potential for 'war communism' in a post-apocalyptic scenario.
Zen War book
A book by Brian Victoria describing how Zen Buddhism supported the Japanese imperial war.
People invoked 10
Jacques Lacan positive
Žižek recounts his own psychoanalysis with Lacan, using it to illustrate obsessional neurosis and the structure of the unconscious.
A German physicist whose deterministic views on naturalism Žižek acknowledges as intelligent but disagrees with regarding the possibility of freedom.
Judith Butler positive
Žižek states he has 'many but mix' (mix-ups/disagreements) with her but agrees with her on the formulation of deprivation in feminism.
Donald Trump negative
Used as a contemporary example of the same rhetorical trick as Himmler and Stalin: redefining 'basic common sense decency' to justify horrible acts for the country.
Heinrich Himmler negative
Used as an example of 'cynicism at its purest,' carrying the Bhagavad Gita to justify the Holocaust as a 'decent' ethical act.
Peter Sloterdijk positive
Cited as a 'conservative german friend' whose concept of 'cynical reason' Žižek adopts to explain contemporary apathy.
D. T. Suzuki negative
A popularizer of Zen who, according to Žižek, collaborated with the Japanese army and provided a spiritual justification for killing via the 'dancing knife' metaphor.
William Shakespeare positive
Used as an example of an 'incomplete' work that requires later interpretation (like Kurosawa's) to be fully understood.
Akira Kurosawa positive
Praised for his film adaptation of Hamlet ('The Bad Sleep Well'), which Žižek sees as a completion of Shakespeare's work.
Joseph Stalin negative
Cited alongside Himmler and Trump as using a rhetorical trick of 'pseudo-Oriental spiritualism' to justify horrific acts as duty.
Transcript 53 turns
Interviewer
thanks very much for coming and welcome to this talk. delighted to be talking to slavoj žižek. he is the iconoclastic philosopher of our time known for giving voice to the profound, the absurd and everything in between. among his many books are the sublime object of ideology, living in the end times and more recently pandemic, as well as hegel in a wired brain and surplus enjoyment, a guide for the non-perplexed, really critical difference. and he tells me he's now got three more books emerging in the autumn, including freedom, a disease without cure, and too late to awaken. is that the other title? so what we'll do is we'll have 30 minutes where we will talk and then we'll turn for a q&a with about 15 minutes for that. so in terms of the life and work, there's this question about life. slavoy, shall we start with? often very, very driven people have a deep-lying underlying trauma as we were discussing. so what is your trauma?
thanks very much for coming and welcome to this talk. delighted to be talking to slavoj žižek. he is the iconoclastic philosopher of our time known for giving voice to the profound, the absurd and everything in between. among his many books are the sublime object of ideology, living in the end times and more recently pandemic, as well as hegel in a wired brain and surplus enjoyment, a guide for the non-perplexed, really critical difference. and he tells me he's now got three more books emerging in the autumn, including freedom, a disease without cure, and too late to awaken. is that the other title? so what we'll do is we'll have 30 minutes where we will talk and then we'll turn for a q&a with about 15 minutes for that. so in terms of the life and work, there's this question about life. slavoy, shall we start with? often very, very driven people have a deep-lying underlying trauma as we were discussing. so what is your trauma?
Slavoj Žižek
in some sense, i'm not kidding, life itself. i don't think i existed before theory, and i'm so corrupted that even when i watch a movie or read a novel, my mind is always, how can i use it in my theory afterwards? and i notice details. for example, did you see that? it's not so good, but it's based on video game the first season of the series the last of us post-apocalyptic for me of course as a leftist i think it's it's episode 5 where the two father figure and the girl walker and enter a city which is well organized in these survivalist terms. they share everything and then i don't know who, i think pedro pascal, the guy but you have communism here. and they simply say, yes, so what? we have communism. yes. and i think this is what we will need. if things go on like this, look at you here in england, you are now almost as bad and without in slovenia, public health service and so on, everything collapsing. and just imagine a new crisis of whatever sort. it's clearly death. the market will not do it. that we will need, i'm a communist pessimist, we will need more some kind of a war communism emergency state. but i'm losing.
in some sense, i'm not kidding, life itself. i don't think i existed before theory, and i'm so corrupted that even when i watch a movie or read a novel, my mind is always, how can i use it in my theory afterwards? and i notice details. for example, did you see that? it's not so good, but it's based on video game the first season of the series the last of us post-apocalyptic for me of course as a leftist i think it's it's episode 5 where the two father figure and the girl walker and enter a city which is well organized in these survivalist terms. they share everything and then i don't know who, i think pedro pascal, the guy but you have communism here. and they simply say, yes, so what? we have communism. yes. and i think this is what we will need. if things go on like this, look at you here in england, you are now almost as bad and without in slovenia, public health service and so on, everything collapsing. and just imagine a new crisis of whatever sort. it's clearly death. the market will not do it. that we will need, i'm a communist pessimist, we will need more some kind of a war communism emergency state. but i'm losing.
Interviewer
yeah, no, no, you're not. that's really important. so, i mean, i want to ask you about the end, because you've been writing for a long time. you were talking about melancholia and how you quite like it because it is the end. and, you know, there are virtues to ends where something emerges, but then if it's just a total collapse, then that's a bad idea. and in surplus enjoyment, you've turned to that, living in the end times, which is quite some time ago you were talking about it. so, i mean, to ask you a question you ask in hegel in a wired brain. are we living in a dystopian time or a time of dystopian fantasies or both?
yeah, no, no, you're not. that's really important. so, i mean, i want to ask you about the end, because you've been writing for a long time. you were talking about melancholia and how you quite like it because it is the end. and, you know, there are virtues to ends where something emerges, but then if it's just a total collapse, then that's a bad idea. and in surplus enjoyment, you've turned to that, living in the end times, which is quite some time ago you were talking about it. so, i mean, to ask you a question you ask in hegel in a wired brain. are we living in a dystopian time or a time of dystopian fantasies or both?
Slavoj Žižek
it's a very good question because this difference is crucial. the only way i can account for it, let me be precise. which difference? precisely. are we really more or less approaching some kind of end or is it just that in a strange way we are obsessed by the end? i think both are true, but not in the sense of harmony. the explanation i have is that we at the same time, we live in an era of what i call following my conservative german friend peter sloterdijk. we live in an era of cynical reason where, you know, in the old times, the disavowal worked like this. you knew something is true but you pretended it's not true. or you try to explain it away and so on. now we are entering a new era. i have in my next book, but also in impress later, of science where we learned we, those in power, not me, we learned how to. tell objectively at the level of facts the truth, but this very fact immobilizes us. precisely the fact of talking about it instead of mobilizing us makes us apathetic, inefficient and so on. for example, even at the level of art, because i'm here, not at the other place. is there another place in heaven?
it's a very good question because this difference is crucial. the only way i can account for it, let me be precise. which difference? precisely. are we really more or less approaching some kind of end or is it just that in a strange way we are obsessed by the end? i think both are true, but not in the sense of harmony. the explanation i have is that we at the same time, we live in an era of what i call following my conservative german friend peter sloterdijk. we live in an era of cynical reason where, you know, in the old times, the disavowal worked like this. you knew something is true but you pretended it's not true. or you try to explain it away and so on. now we are entering a new era. i have in my next book, but also in impress later, of science where we learned we, those in power, not me, we learned how to. tell objectively at the level of facts the truth, but this very fact immobilizes us. precisely the fact of talking about it instead of mobilizing us makes us apathetic, inefficient and so on. for example, even at the level of art, because i'm here, not at the other place. is there another place in heaven?
Interviewer
i don't know.
i don't know.
Slavoj Žižek
because because if there is a thing i hate and one of the things where i am tempted to act as a terrorist, like a bomb there, it's this big art biennials, venice, kassel.
because because if there is a thing i hate and one of the things where i am tempted to act as a terrorist, like a bomb there, it's this big art biennials, venice, kassel.
Interviewer
.
.
Slavoj Žižek
and so on did you notice something about them? how in their programmatic notes to begin with, they say we are all under capitalism, we are part of exploitation, eurocentric, racist, blah, blah, blah. and then they go on and the way kassel and venice functions are perfect examples of pure capitalist commercialization of art. you see the paradox? you are telling it what it is. and instead of presenting you it goes it wasn't the same with, no, it was a little bit north two years ago when you remember the glasgow conference on the prince, now no longer just prince, charles was there and in some stupid sense, although it's not he basically told the truth danger, blah blah blah but nothing came out of it. and this is very close to me now i am this is as much as you will get from me about life. i know that stance because i have it. it's the obsessiveessional neurotic stance. you talk all the time not to achieve something, but to make it sure that nothing will happen. that's why another detail from life, when i was 50 years ago, 40, in psychoanalysis, you can imagine how it looked. it was a lian psychoanalysis which means i could be sure that the session will not last more than five- seven minutes. so i talked all the time. why? because i was afraid that if i stop talking for a second, the analyst will ask me some really embarrassing questions. so you see this idea of being active to make it sure that nothing will really change.
and so on did you notice something about them? how in their programmatic notes to begin with, they say we are all under capitalism, we are part of exploitation, eurocentric, racist, blah, blah, blah. and then they go on and the way kassel and venice functions are perfect examples of pure capitalist commercialization of art. you see the paradox? you are telling it what it is. and instead of presenting you it goes it wasn't the same with, no, it was a little bit north two years ago when you remember the glasgow conference on the prince, now no longer just prince, charles was there and in some stupid sense, although it's not he basically told the truth danger, blah blah blah but nothing came out of it. and this is very close to me now i am this is as much as you will get from me about life. i know that stance because i have it. it's the obsessiveessional neurotic stance. you talk all the time not to achieve something, but to make it sure that nothing will happen. that's why another detail from life, when i was 50 years ago, 40, in psychoanalysis, you can imagine how it looked. it was a lian psychoanalysis which means i could be sure that the session will not last more than five- seven minutes. so i talked all the time. why? because i was afraid that if i stop talking for a second, the analyst will ask me some really embarrassing questions. so you see this idea of being active to make it sure that nothing will really change.
Interviewer
can i posit a kind of devil's advocate on that though? that is it possible that by talking about the apocalypse, it becomes something that occurs. i mean, you bring it into being. you know, by everybody saying we're in an apocalypse, it's happening, it and then so whenever there's an apocalyptic possibility, that's immediately grasped and we kind of incite ourselves into an apocalypse. or is that?
can i posit a kind of devil's advocate on that though? that is it possible that by talking about the apocalypse, it becomes something that occurs. i mean, you bring it into being. you know, by everybody saying we're in an apocalypse, it's happening, it and then so whenever there's an apocalyptic possibility, that's immediately grasped and we kind of incite ourselves into an apocalypse. or is that?
Slavoj Žižek
i i know the question, but i'm not sure if it functions like that. i think it's more this idea if we talk enough about it, life will somehow magically just life will just go on. that's why... some of you will widely disagree with me. because even some left ask me, are you crazy? how can you support ukraine? you support nato, you support western imperialism and so on. well, this is a very strange. you can i go into it with my too late to awaken book. you know, i tell them first i passively speak russian and i'm not my brains are not washed by western propaganda about ukraine. sorry, i'm listening to russian media all the time. and it's absolutely horrible what i read there. so which is why i'm jumping, but here we are to jump here and there. another thing that i hate absolutely is this pseudo-deep proverb, you know, apparently multiculturalist. the enemy is somebody whose side, whose truth, whose story you were not able to listen to.
i i know the question, but i'm not sure if it functions like that. i think it's more this idea if we talk enough about it, life will somehow magically just life will just go on. that's why... some of you will widely disagree with me. because even some left ask me, are you crazy? how can you support ukraine? you support nato, you support western imperialism and so on. well, this is a very strange. you can i go into it with my too late to awaken book. you know, i tell them first i passively speak russian and i'm not my brains are not washed by western propaganda about ukraine. sorry, i'm listening to russian media all the time. and it's absolutely horrible what i read there. so which is why i'm jumping, but here we are to jump here and there. another thing that i hate absolutely is this pseudo-deep proverb, you know, apparently multiculturalist. the enemy is somebody whose side, whose truth, whose story you were not able to listen to.
Interviewer
ar you.
ar you.
Slavoj Žižek
crazy. okay, this applies maybe to small neighborly conflicts, but will you say hitler is our enemy because we were not ready to listen to his story? i did. i read mein kampf, a very boring book. and you are even more horrified there. on the other hand, i think that of course, we always have a story. but in politics, it's not that you enact a a story. it's that you do something horrible and the big problem is to invent a story which covers it up, which allows you to live with the horror. and i think unfortunately, and my japanese friends even agree with me here, that that's the case with so-called western buddhism. that's in the same there. no wonder that so, the most popular spiritual, religious, if you call it, but it's not, orientation of uh big corporate guys today is some kind of a vague pseudo-oriental spiritualism. because it's wonderful. you do all the dirty things, people losing jobs, killing, and then you tell yourself, but what is this? but isn't life just a fleeting appearance? the truth is in me and so on and so on. i mean, if you have, i respect buddhism, especially zen buddhism. but this was for me the sobering one of my, how should i call it? grounding. again, fucking life, we are coming back. life experiences. when i read a book, i quote it often. maybe some heard about brian victoria. he is a japanese, although this type name, zen war, zen war, something like that. it describes how almost all of them, there were a couple of million, zen establishment, apart from four or five dissidents, totally supported the japanese imperial war. you know, if you are old enough, the big guy popularizer of zen, daisetz teitaro suzuki. yeah, but look at his earlier writings, you know, in late 30s, he wrote a long justification of the japanese attack on china. not only this, he collaborated with the army because he proposed them a theory with a terrifying example but which is the truth. i appreciate him. he said, sorry, let's say you are my enemy. we meet in the battlefield. the fight is primitive, i have a knife. nonetheless, i'm not totally evil. i would find it a little bit problematic to stick my knife into you. and
crazy. okay, this applies maybe to small neighborly conflicts, but will you say hitler is our enemy because we were not ready to listen to his story? i did. i read mein kampf, a very boring book. and you are even more horrified there. on the other hand, i think that of course, we always have a story. but in politics, it's not that you enact a a story. it's that you do something horrible and the big problem is to invent a story which covers it up, which allows you to live with the horror. and i think unfortunately, and my japanese friends even agree with me here, that that's the case with so-called western buddhism. that's in the same there. no wonder that so, the most popular spiritual, religious, if you call it, but it's not, orientation of uh big corporate guys today is some kind of a vague pseudo-oriental spiritualism. because it's wonderful. you do all the dirty things, people losing jobs, killing, and then you tell yourself, but what is this? but isn't life just a fleeting appearance? the truth is in me and so on and so on. i mean, if you have, i respect buddhism, especially zen buddhism. but this was for me the sobering one of my, how should i call it? grounding. again, fucking life, we are coming back. life experiences. when i read a book, i quote it often. maybe some heard about brian victoria. he is a japanese, although this type name, zen war, zen war, something like that. it describes how almost all of them, there were a couple of million, zen establishment, apart from four or five dissidents, totally supported the japanese imperial war. you know, if you are old enough, the big guy popularizer of zen, daisetz teitaro suzuki. yeah, but look at his earlier writings, you know, in late 30s, he wrote a long justification of the japanese attack on china. not only this, he collaborated with the army because he proposed them a theory with a terrifying example but which is the truth. i appreciate him. he said, sorry, let's say you are my enemy. we meet in the battlefield. the fight is primitive, i have a knife. nonetheless, i'm not totally evil. i would find it a little bit problematic to stick my knife into you. and
Interviewer
thank you.
thank you.
Slavoj Žižek
this this problem, suzuki. and he says, zen buddhism has a solution here. you must go through that, you can call it nirvana, whatever, the zero experience, enlightenment, where you see there is no substantial reality. you are not really active. you are just an empty brain observing the crazy dance of phenomena. so suzuki, i'm quoting him, he says, so it's not... i as a person will stick my knife into you. painful. i'm still human at some level. but you should have i'm observing a phenomenon phenomenal multiplicity where my knife is dancing in the air and somehow it gets stuck into your breast. and i can calmly leave it. so you know no let
this this problem, suzuki. and he says, zen buddhism has a solution here. you must go through that, you can call it nirvana, whatever, the zero experience, enlightenment, where you see there is no substantial reality. you are not really active. you are just an empty brain observing the crazy dance of phenomena. so suzuki, i'm quoting him, he says, so it's not... i as a person will stick my knife into you. painful. i'm still human at some level. but you should have i'm observing a phenomenon phenomenal multiplicity where my knife is dancing in the air and somehow it gets stuck into your breast. and i can calmly leave it. so you know no let
Interviewer
talk about paradox as well because that's really fundamental to your writing and to zen in fact that idea of paradox and in terms also of i mean you've talked and you're sort of talking about it at the moment you've said that recently things have changed with ideology that you were saying until now ideology was just a lie but now it's a more cynical thing in a very precise sense that you know what you're doing i will call it
talk about paradox as well because that's really fundamental to your writing and to zen in fact that idea of paradox and in terms also of i mean you've talked and you're sort of talking about it at the moment you've said that recently things have changed with ideology that you were saying until now ideology was just a lie but now it's a more cynical thing in a very precise sense that you know what you're doing i will call it
Slavoj Žižek
in the guise of truth.
in the guise of truth.
Interviewer
but what what does this do then to the old enlightenment mind, this idea that everyone is a kind of, which you've written about as well, that we're sort of rational actors and we can make these decisions? if you're in this
but what what does this do then to the old enlightenment mind, this idea that everyone is a kind of, which you've written about as well, that we're sort of rational actors and we can make these decisions? if you're in this
Slavoj Žižek
kind of
kind of
Interviewer
tot.
tot.
Slavoj Žižek
no, i remain fully, although many people would not believe me, a guy of enlightenment. what i'm saying is not that, since rational argumentation doesn't work. then whatever, just violence or do nothing and so on. no, i think that there are different even strategies of speaking where you can undermine this stance and i even in one of my earlier books, i forgot which one, there are too many of them i elaborated this how you know every apparently, cynical guy, usually you have a fetish, an exception, you know. and that is where you have to attach it. maybe some of you know this example that i used years ago. it's real life, very stupid. a friend of mine it was 30 years ago, 20. had a wife who was, sorry for this, sexist sounding, but beautiful young. they loved each other, all you want. and then all of a sudden, in her mid-20s, she got breast cancer. and it was too late. she died in two months. horrible. and we... were so surprised that the guy, the husband. just went on functioning like normally, talked even about the last moments of his wife, and then something happened. his wife has had a preferred pet object, a small hamster. half a year later, his hamster, this hamster died. the guy immediately tried to kill. you know, hamster was his fetish. he embodied like the wife somehow as a fetish, it was a disavowal of his wife's death. so it was at that point that he totally broke down. he had to be for one month on a how do you call it suicide watch, you know. always somebody with him. and tomorrow to make a little bit of propaganda at my speech about surplus enjoyment or maybe even at the theological debate in the afternoon i will go into another form of this i was so fascinated with the figure of heinrich himmler, ss boss, who was formally, formally as to form, an extremely ethical guy. never heard but he organized holocaust. but for him this was the highest ethical act. and you know he used a terrifying reversal here this cynicism at its purest he admitted it this is horrible. how can we decent germans do this killing jewish children we not even ar and remain decent. you know what was his answer? oriental spiritualism. he always was carrying in his pocket a special lettered copy of bhagavad gita. where you have this idea, you know, the king is convinced to go into battle saying life is an appearance, the main thing is to do your duty. and the really horrible thing, you find the same rhetorical trick in stalinism with trump today. we all have, as i used it in my example, you know, this i call it basic common sense decency. like certain things you may, i don't, dream about them. i'm not saying i don't have dirty dreams, just not that kind.
no, i remain fully, although many people would not believe me, a guy of enlightenment. what i'm saying is not that, since rational argumentation doesn't work. then whatever, just violence or do nothing and so on. no, i think that there are different even strategies of speaking where you can undermine this stance and i even in one of my earlier books, i forgot which one, there are too many of them i elaborated this how you know every apparently, cynical guy, usually you have a fetish, an exception, you know. and that is where you have to attach it. maybe some of you know this example that i used years ago. it's real life, very stupid. a friend of mine it was 30 years ago, 20. had a wife who was, sorry for this, sexist sounding, but beautiful young. they loved each other, all you want. and then all of a sudden, in her mid-20s, she got breast cancer. and it was too late. she died in two months. horrible. and we... were so surprised that the guy, the husband. just went on functioning like normally, talked even about the last moments of his wife, and then something happened. his wife has had a preferred pet object, a small hamster. half a year later, his hamster, this hamster died. the guy immediately tried to kill. you know, hamster was his fetish. he embodied like the wife somehow as a fetish, it was a disavowal of his wife's death. so it was at that point that he totally broke down. he had to be for one month on a how do you call it suicide watch, you know. always somebody with him. and tomorrow to make a little bit of propaganda at my speech about surplus enjoyment or maybe even at the theological debate in the afternoon i will go into another form of this i was so fascinated with the figure of heinrich himmler, ss boss, who was formally, formally as to form, an extremely ethical guy. never heard but he organized holocaust. but for him this was the highest ethical act. and you know he used a terrifying reversal here this cynicism at its purest he admitted it this is horrible. how can we decent germans do this killing jewish children we not even ar and remain decent. you know what was his answer? oriental spiritualism. he always was carrying in his pocket a special lettered copy of bhagavad gita. where you have this idea, you know, the king is convinced to go into battle saying life is an appearance, the main thing is to do your duty. and the really horrible thing, you find the same rhetorical trick in stalinism with trump today. we all have, as i used it in my example, you know, this i call it basic common sense decency. like certain things you may, i don't, dream about them. i'm not saying i don't have dirty dreams, just not that kind.
Interviewer
but that's not part of the life conversation.
but that's not part of the life conversation.
Slavoj Žižek
no maybe i don't don't be afraid.
no maybe i don't don't be afraid.
Interviewer
no, no, no, what i just wanted to...
no, no, no, what i just wanted to...
Slavoj Žižek
is that... uh. can briefly briefly really the problem of himmler is how do you... remain sain and so on and he operates a very dirty trick. he says that every idiot can be decent and fight for his countries but true patriotism is that you are ready to do horrible things for your country and i discovered in how they were making propaganda for collectivization in 1930s, early 30s when they collectivized and millions died of hunger in russia and i found that same figure they said you will see horrible things peasant farmers families starving and so on but this your decency is the greatest temptation to evil if you're a true bolshevik you go on killing and this horrible ethics is returning to today trump but not
is that... uh. can briefly briefly really the problem of himmler is how do you... remain sain and so on and he operates a very dirty trick. he says that every idiot can be decent and fight for his countries but true patriotism is that you are ready to do horrible things for your country and i discovered in how they were making propaganda for collectivization in 1930s, early 30s when they collectivized and millions died of hunger in russia and i found that same figure they said you will see horrible things peasant farmers families starving and so on but this your decency is the greatest temptation to evil if you're a true bolshevik you go on killing and this horrible ethics is returning to today trump but not
Interviewer
i want to ask you a bit in terms of appearances as well that we take.
i want to ask you a bit in terms of appearances as well that we take.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah
yeah
Interviewer
and i was thinking about hegel in a wide brain where you're talking all about hegel and subjectivity.
and i was thinking about hegel in a wide brain where you're talking all about hegel and subjectivity.
Slavoj Žižek
how.
how.
Interviewer
hegelian notions of subjectivity might relate to this kind of strange world we're now in.
hegelian notions of subjectivity might relate to this kind of strange world we're now in.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Interviewer
for the first time, you know the russians wanted to do this in the soviet union, but now we actually begin to have this technology where we can create these strange singularities, which you write about, where brain-computer interfaces can link.
for the first time, you know the russians wanted to do this in the soviet union, but now we actually begin to have this technology where we can create these strange singularities, which you write about, where brain-computer interfaces can link.
Slavoj Žižek
bring not this. potentially.
bring not this. potentially.
Interviewer
of course it's still sci-fi, but the beginnings of these kind
of course it's still sci-fi, but the beginnings of these kind
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Interviewer
technologies and i want to ask you about that how then does that change to you the notion first of subjectivity which you write about and also these ideas of free will autonomy in terms of who's controlling the
technologies and i want to ask you about that how then does that change to you the notion first of subjectivity which you write about and also these ideas of free will autonomy in terms of who's controlling the
Slavoj Žižek
i don't want to lose too much time, so as to freedom, i try to provide in the first chapter of my freedom book, which will be out. by bloomsbury in the fall, i tried to the point is how to. in facing the neurobiological, however you call it determinism. how to under quotation marks, save freedom.
i don't want to lose too much time, so as to freedom, i try to provide in the first chapter of my freedom book, which will be out. by bloomsbury in the fall, i tried to the point is how to. in facing the neurobiological, however you call it determinism. how to under quotation marks, save freedom.
Interviewer
yes.
yes.
Slavoj Žižek
because i agree with some determinists like the german lady sabine hossenfelder. she's very intelligent. she said that she even doesn't argue. she said that the moment you accept naturalism, there simply is no space for freedom. freedom is a subjective concept. so how to save freedom? my answer is not that it's freedom already there in nature, but that the first thing to do is to open up nature, not in the sense of higher spirituality, but in the sense that nature is in itself ontologically incomplete, open. not only human sorry, not only human culture, but what do i mean by ontological openness? for example, here i always opposed historicicism, which says, for example, classical example, i use it often in my books, to really understand shakespeare, you have to know the details of elizabethan england and so on. my idea is not to really understand shakespeare. shakespeare didn't understand himself. his work was full of inconsistencies, incomplete, and if you come later. it's not an obstacle. you can even understand shakespeare better than he understood himself. and so in some sense we are not just reading shakespeare. differently. we are literally completing his work. that's how i hate the official dogma of multiculturalism. but i respect it when you really get it. for example, maybe some of you heard this. i find it so wonderful that the best shakespeare cinema version that i know is done by akira kurosawa 61 or 2. the version of hamlet set in contemporary japan. hamlet is a japanese student returning from the united states. his father was a big corporate boss. and it has a wonderful title, this movie. only bad people sleep well. it's a wonderful they don't care. but what i want to say is that i am ready, maybe i'm speculating too much. i am now trying to study in detail as much as i can understand quantum physics because i think what you find at the bottom of quantum physics is this idea of ontologically incomplete universe in the sense that in what sense? sorry, give me two minutes. ne.
because i agree with some determinists like the german lady sabine hossenfelder. she's very intelligent. she said that she even doesn't argue. she said that the moment you accept naturalism, there simply is no space for freedom. freedom is a subjective concept. so how to save freedom? my answer is not that it's freedom already there in nature, but that the first thing to do is to open up nature, not in the sense of higher spirituality, but in the sense that nature is in itself ontologically incomplete, open. not only human sorry, not only human culture, but what do i mean by ontological openness? for example, here i always opposed historicicism, which says, for example, classical example, i use it often in my books, to really understand shakespeare, you have to know the details of elizabethan england and so on. my idea is not to really understand shakespeare. shakespeare didn't understand himself. his work was full of inconsistencies, incomplete, and if you come later. it's not an obstacle. you can even understand shakespeare better than he understood himself. and so in some sense we are not just reading shakespeare. differently. we are literally completing his work. that's how i hate the official dogma of multiculturalism. but i respect it when you really get it. for example, maybe some of you heard this. i find it so wonderful that the best shakespeare cinema version that i know is done by akira kurosawa 61 or 2. the version of hamlet set in contemporary japan. hamlet is a japanese student returning from the united states. his father was a big corporate boss. and it has a wonderful title, this movie. only bad people sleep well. it's a wonderful they don't care. but what i want to say is that i am ready, maybe i'm speculating too much. i am now trying to study in detail as much as i can understand quantum physics because i think what you find at the bottom of quantum physics is this idea of ontologically incomplete universe in the sense that in what sense? sorry, give me two minutes. ne.
Interviewer
yes. yeah. that.
yes. yeah. that.
Slavoj Žižek
but i like to repeat it of mine. you know, because it links to the previous debate at video games. look, the first thing about video games is that their universe is incomplete. you're in a game, stupid game where you are shooting, fighting on the main street of a small town, let us say, and in the back you see forest weak trees. but it's not part of the game that you can approach those trees and see them in detail. it's part of the game that you go there, so the programmer say, why lose time on that programming? let's leave it open. and the way i got this from a popular introduction to philosophy, sorry, i forgot the name, but very intelligently, i think writtenritten, the guy says,, is not quantum physics, does it not have the same lesson? when god was programming the universe, he said people are too stupid to reach beyond the atom. so why should i bother their programming? he left it undetermined. and we were a little bit too bright for god and we, as you say in english, caught got with his pants down, as it were. you know.
but i like to repeat it of mine. you know, because it links to the previous debate at video games. look, the first thing about video games is that their universe is incomplete. you're in a game, stupid game where you are shooting, fighting on the main street of a small town, let us say, and in the back you see forest weak trees. but it's not part of the game that you can approach those trees and see them in detail. it's part of the game that you go there, so the programmer say, why lose time on that programming? let's leave it open. and the way i got this from a popular introduction to philosophy, sorry, i forgot the name, but very intelligently, i think writtenritten, the guy says,, is not quantum physics, does it not have the same lesson? when god was programming the universe, he said people are too stupid to reach beyond the atom. so why should i bother their programming? he left it undetermined. and we were a little bit too bright for god and we, as you say in english, caught got with his pants down, as it were. you know.
Interviewer
and you then believe then, or are you positing in terms of that argument? so are you saying, or maybe it's not possible, within quantum physics this question, is reality discrete or continuous? so is reality like minecraft where you kind of zoom in further and further and further and then you get, as you say, down further, further to these tiny little, you know, to the leptons and further and further down. is that a synthetic?
and you then believe then, or are you positing in terms of that argument? so are you saying, or maybe it's not possible, within quantum physics this question, is reality discrete or continuous? so is reality like minecraft where you kind of zoom in further and further and further and then you get, as you say, down further, further to these tiny little, you know, to the leptons and further and further down. is that a synthetic?
Slavoj Žižek
but i don't have any empirical ground for this. and for discrete nature in what sense? and i think this is almost maybe the lesson of quantum physics, but i'm very much speculating now. i think that it's not this endless divisibility. you can further split the. at a certain point you can to the you i can split this in half, this and that, this and that. but i believe when you approach the zero point, the division is between something and nothing. you see, you get something, its counterpoint is void, is nothing. and so i'm not saying this is that metaphysical reading of that in this freedom is grounded. no, freedom is not contingency.
but i don't have any empirical ground for this. and for discrete nature in what sense? and i think this is almost maybe the lesson of quantum physics, but i'm very much speculating now. i think that it's not this endless divisibility. you can further split the. at a certain point you can to the you i can split this in half, this and that, this and that. but i believe when you approach the zero point, the division is between something and nothing. you see, you get something, its counterpoint is void, is nothing. and so i'm not saying this is that metaphysical reading of that in this freedom is grounded. no, freedom is not contingency.
Interviewer
mm.
mm.
Slavoj Žižek
no it's not my free act if i... but even this is not. of course, it's deterministic, but let's say for me it's a contingency. if to make a decision, i throw a coin up and said head, tail or whatever. no, that's contingency from my view, really it's not. but freedom is a necessity of its own. freedom is a positive decision that you do. is this only, as they say, user's illusion? i think... note, i think we have to, it's more important than ever, we have to accept this ontological openness of nature already, of history. for example, we are now in an open situation and retroactively it will become necessary. if there will be a world war, if there will be people who will survive it, they will tell the story of how it was all pointed towards this war. we were doomed. if there will not be a war, they will say, it was like cold war, false alarms and so on. what i'm claiming is that these are not simply illusions. the situation is genuinely open. and another lesson, which i know is not legitimate, i applied it too quickly from to physics, to humanities, nonetheless, is that. to understand something a historical event you should read it as in a superposition with other possible events when. th happens you should always ask yourself what other options failed so the this could have. happened so in this way, back to our point immediately, my point in wire brain is a more optimistic one. it's not just dark end of humanity. i try to and it's so interesting that nobody likes those final concluding chapter where i try to do exactly this, to ask this absolutely naive question. maybe it's even a wrong question. let's say that this self--objectivization in the sense of a machine which can read our mind. let's say that it more or less succeeds. we have it. does this mean that we no longer exist as subjects? my answer is an optimist one there. first, by subject we should not understand this inner wealth of personality, but the pure cartesian subjectivity. that empty space will remain supported in the unconscious. because i have here quite an unconscious for me is not deep ingrained in our brain. and think about unconscious as just some kind of a purely symbolic virtual entity something that exists. not materially really but just as a like we have three four versions of that we think about. but to account for these versions, you have in your symbolic space to presuppose another option. and unconscious is in this sense purely virtual. you know, you must have heard maybe even here two years ago when i repeated this story about wonderful anecdote it's overused from movie ninotchka you know guy goes to a cafeteria and bring me coffee. he said, can i got coffee but without cream? and the waiter answers correctly. sorry sir, we don't have cream only milk, so can i give you coffee without milk?
no it's not my free act if i... but even this is not. of course, it's deterministic, but let's say for me it's a contingency. if to make a decision, i throw a coin up and said head, tail or whatever. no, that's contingency from my view, really it's not. but freedom is a necessity of its own. freedom is a positive decision that you do. is this only, as they say, user's illusion? i think... note, i think we have to, it's more important than ever, we have to accept this ontological openness of nature already, of history. for example, we are now in an open situation and retroactively it will become necessary. if there will be a world war, if there will be people who will survive it, they will tell the story of how it was all pointed towards this war. we were doomed. if there will not be a war, they will say, it was like cold war, false alarms and so on. what i'm claiming is that these are not simply illusions. the situation is genuinely open. and another lesson, which i know is not legitimate, i applied it too quickly from to physics, to humanities, nonetheless, is that. to understand something a historical event you should read it as in a superposition with other possible events when. th happens you should always ask yourself what other options failed so the this could have. happened so in this way, back to our point immediately, my point in wire brain is a more optimistic one. it's not just dark end of humanity. i try to and it's so interesting that nobody likes those final concluding chapter where i try to do exactly this, to ask this absolutely naive question. maybe it's even a wrong question. let's say that this self--objectivization in the sense of a machine which can read our mind. let's say that it more or less succeeds. we have it. does this mean that we no longer exist as subjects? my answer is an optimist one there. first, by subject we should not understand this inner wealth of personality, but the pure cartesian subjectivity. that empty space will remain supported in the unconscious. because i have here quite an unconscious for me is not deep ingrained in our brain. and think about unconscious as just some kind of a purely symbolic virtual entity something that exists. not materially really but just as a like we have three four versions of that we think about. but to account for these versions, you have in your symbolic space to presuppose another option. and unconscious is in this sense purely virtual. you know, you must have heard maybe even here two years ago when i repeated this story about wonderful anecdote it's overused from movie ninotchka you know guy goes to a cafeteria and bring me coffee. he said, can i got coffee but without cream? and the waiter answers correctly. sorry sir, we don't have cream only milk, so can i give you coffee without milk?
Interviewer
that's in the...
that's in the...
Slavoj Žižek
let's say consciousness is what i see. in any case i get just plain coffee. but it's a big difference if it's coffee without milk or coffee without cream. you will say i'm bullshitting. no, think about feminism. isn't the big change in the history of feminism where women got it debt. women who suffer what they are deprived of is not milk but cream, if i can put it like this. that is say that it's not that they have a prescribed place in the symbolic space and that maybe if the husband is too brutal, no that. that what they are deprived of, their freedom and so on, needs a more radical shift. so the first step in feminism, and i got this from judith butler, with whom i have many but mix, but i agree with her here, is to. first to clearly formulate what you are deprived of. it's not enough to say, oh, my husband doesn't give me enough money and so on, blah, blah, blah. no, you have to say the whole. system which puts my husband if we are living in traditional patriarchal society is wrong. so to conclude, not.
let's say consciousness is what i see. in any case i get just plain coffee. but it's a big difference if it's coffee without milk or coffee without cream. you will say i'm bullshitting. no, think about feminism. isn't the big change in the history of feminism where women got it debt. women who suffer what they are deprived of is not milk but cream, if i can put it like this. that is say that it's not that they have a prescribed place in the symbolic space and that maybe if the husband is too brutal, no that. that what they are deprived of, their freedom and so on, needs a more radical shift. so the first step in feminism, and i got this from judith butler, with whom i have many but mix, but i agree with her here, is to. first to clearly formulate what you are deprived of. it's not enough to say, oh, my husband doesn't give me enough money and so on, blah, blah, blah. no, you have to say the whole. system which puts my husband if we are living in traditional patriarchal society is wrong. so to conclude, not.
Interviewer
yes
yes
Slavoj Žižek
long joe i will tell you another scene. did you see françois? no time!
long joe i will tell you another scene. did you see françois? no time!
Interviewer
but you sl and is here. can.
but you sl and is here. can.
Slavoj Žižek
society. no, no! we live in oppressive society.
society. no, no! we live in oppressive society.
Interviewer
i!
i!
Slavoj Žižek
we arrive this yes.
we arrive this yes.
Interviewer
okay.
okay.