Slavoj Zizek - too late to awaken: counting down to doomsday
Talk · John Hillman ·
2023-11-01 · 1:36:56 · 10,893 words
science-physicshistorycinema-art-culturehegel-dialecticsecology-climategeopolitics-warfascism-populismrace-antisemitismreligion-theologyliberalism-political-correctnesstechnology-ai-cyberspacesubjectivityrevolution-violenceethicsphilosophy-generalcapitalism
A Royal Institution Friday-evening discourse in which Žižek argues that reality is ontologically unfinished (drawing on quantum physics and the block-universe debate), that our historical present is an open, undecidable moment whose meaning is decided retroactively, and that this demands a Hegelian politics of distrust rather than Marxist teleology. He develops a sustained analysis of the Israel-Gaza war, diagnosing a convergent 'Zionist anti-Semitism' shared by Hamas, the Israeli hard-right, and Western far-right figures, and insisting the European Enlightenment must not be renounced. Closing turns defend his constrained Frankfurt speech, reject Spinoza and the Bhagavad Gita's ethics of detached duty, and offer a Christian-atheist vision of radical freedom.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 17
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Einstein/Rovelli view that past, present and future are all already here; Žižek rejects it as losing the openness of the universe.
as “collapse of the wave function”
Quantum-physics model he borrows to argue that retroactive meaning and an unfinished reality are ontologically basic, not merely epistemic.
as “futur vs avenir”
French distinction he adopts: futur prolongs the same order, avenir names a genuinely different one, our problem is that we have a catastrophic futur but no avenir.
as “necessity out of contingency”
Jean-Pierre Dupuy's theory that a contingent event is retroactively read as necessary once it occurs, Žižek's model for how historical meaning is fixed.
as “radical freedom”
Schelling/Kant idea that the freest acts (like falling in love) are perceived as necessity; freedom is not choice among options but retroactive recognition of being-in-love.
Hegel's image from the Philosophy of Right: philosophy can only grasp an epoch once it begins to disintegrate; for Žižek this is Hegel's modesty about the future.
Lacan's predestined symbolic structure; Žižek insists there is no big Other to tell us how to act, the narrative justifying our acts is created by the acts themselves.
His image for politics that continually consumes its own founding ground, begun with Stalinism (each hero becomes the next enemy) and now generalised, with no primordial ground left.
Wittgenstein's distinction Žižek deploys against cancel culture: ignore what it says (diversity, inclusion) and look at what it shows (excluding those who don't fit).
as “states which are essentially byproducts”
Jon Elster's term (e.g. dignity): states you cannot self-ascribe in the first person but must show through how you act; Žižek applies it to cancel culture's inclusion.
His coinage for the stance of those who want Jews out of their own country but in Israel as a wall against Asian immigrants, anti-Semites who support Zionism for antisemitic reasons.
His name for the ethics (Himmler/Bhagavad Gita) that says a true hero sacrifices their own decency and the dignity of others for a higher cause, virtue guaranteed by the crime itself.
His ironic name for the state-led economic intervention forced by catastrophe (e.g. Trump's $2000 checks during COVID), a glimmer of post-capitalist planning emerging through crisis.
as “ontological incompleteness of the universe”
His claim that reality is not fully formed in advance, like a video game whose unvisited interiors the programmer never rendered, leaving an open, undecidable present.
His anti-Spinozist formulation against the identity of ego and world: the subject's split from reality is the very site of freedom, not an illusion to be overcome.
as “atheist Christian”
Self-description: Christianity's materialist lesson is that on the cross God himself dies (not his representative), leaving only the Holy Spirit as the community of radically free believers.
as “spirit begins when something goes wrong”
On AI: his thesis that genuine spirit/thought starts at the point of failure and a new problem, so AI's very omnipotence is its stupidity.
Stories he reaches for 10
A fascist leader is applauded at the end of his speech; a Stalinist leader stands up and drums up the applause, because in Stalinism the leader is only a servant of the people, so the cause is outside him.
“fascist leader receives the applause at the end. stalinist leaders can up and drums the applause”
From Anne Applebaum's Gulag book: every year on Stalin's birthday, all the prisoners in a camp had to gather and sign a telegram wishing all the best to Stalin.
“every year on stalin's birthday, they, all the prisoners in the gula camp in, got together and had to sign a telegram wishing all the rest to stop”
Hitler's favourite book was the Bhagavad Gita, carried in his pocket; Himmler drew on it to claim you can slaughter starving Jews while retaining your dignity, the ethics of a fake cause that demands you sacrifice basic decency.
“hitler, you know what was his favorite book? he always had a special letter about a copy in his pocket”
In 1935 Reinhard Heydrich, the father of the Holocaust, wrote that Jews must be split into Zionists and assimilationists, and that Zionist emigration to Palestine should be supported with goodwill, Žižek's exhibit for Zionist anti-Semitism.
“we must separate the jews into two categories, the zionists and the partisans of assimilation”
Žižek's preferred Hamlet is Kurosawa's film (Toshiro Mifune as a student returning from the US into the story), whose title carries a deep truth: only bad people sleep well, because they do what they want with no conscience.
“only bad people sleep well. of course, because you do what you want then, no conscience is counted”
At the 1952-53 Geneva negotiations on Korea, a French journalist asked Zhou Enlai what he thought of the French Revolution; he answered 'it's too early to say', and Žižek insists he was in no sense wrong.
“what do you think about french revolution? and true i said in a totally correct way, it's too early to say”
Three days after Fukushima it was clear the 30-million Tokyo area might need evacuation, impossible today without global cooperation; and Vancouver hit 50°C while doing everything right ecologically, because the catastrophe is global air circulation, not local fault.
“vancouver was hotter than mumbai... it's the whole circulating of the air around the north pole”
Saint-Just said a revolutionary is not someone who knows historical necessity but like a captain on a boat in a storm without a compass, forced to improvise, Žižek's image for our present undecidable situation.
“a revolutionary is like a captain on a boat. in a storm without compass and has to improvise”
Ruth Klüger reports a German philosophy candidate meeting an old Hungarian Auschwitz survivor who curses Arabs in contempt; asked how an Auschwitz survivor can talk like that, the answer is that Auschwitz taught nothing, no humanity or tolerance comes from the camps.
“Auschwitz was no instructional institution. you learned nothing there and least of all humanity and tolerance”
What if, as Tosca runs to jump, Cavaradossi suddenly moves and shouts 'don't jump, I was just joking, I'm alive', the triumphant music would actually fit better there than the tragic death.
“what if tosca runs to the edge to jump down. when cavaradossi starts to move and say, ha ha, don't jump too fast, i was just joking, i'm really alive”
Works invoked 11
Philosophy of Right book
Hegel's work, source of the owl-of-Minerva image: philosophy grasps an epoch only as it disintegrates, Žižek's warrant for modesty about the future.
Tristan und Isolde opera
Wagner opera; Ponnelle's Bayreuth staging, where Isolde's final appearance is Tristan's dream, is cited as something 'deeply true'.
Bhagavad Gita book
Religious text carried by Hitler and used by Himmler; Žižek rejects its ethics of detached duty as the very model of false heroism through crime.
T.S. Eliot's essay used to argue that every new work reorders the entire past, the canonical statement of retroactive meaning.
The Bad Sleep Well film
Kurosawa's Hamlet adaptation (Toshiro Mifune as a student returning from the US), set in contemporary Japan; Žižek calls it the best Hamlet he knows.
Gulag book
Anne Applebaum's book, source for the anecdote of gulag prisoners forced to sign Stalin's birthday telegram.
Hegel's 1825 lectures, where he says it's too early to say what Russia and the United States will become, Žižek's precedent for an open present.
Fanon's book, cited for his refusal of 'original African wisdom', Žižek's ally against renouncing the European Enlightenment.
Le Monde journal
French daily quoted (via Dupuy) for the line that if Balladur wins, his victory will be necessary, exhibit of necessity retroactively arising from contingency.
Tosca opera
Puccini opera whose ending Žižek rewrites: if Cavaradossi jokes 'I'm alive' as Tosca jumps, the triumphant music would fit better, a thought-experiment in the openness of the work.
Ruth Klüger's memoir, source of the closing testimony that Auschwitz taught nothing, no humanity or tolerance came from the camps.
People invoked 40
One side of the German 'new historians' struggle' (with Habermas) over ranking Holocaust and colonialism, Žižek intervenes to reject the very competition.
Ehud Olmert positive
Former PM later convicted of corruption; quoted for saying Israel now has a unique chance to stretch its hand against Hamas but to all, Žižek's glimmer of an avenir.
Frantz Fanon positive
Admired for openly stating in Black Skin, White Masks that he doesn't care for any original African wisdom, used to defend not renouncing European Enlightenment.
Ruth Klüger positive
Auschwitz survivor and author of 'Still Alive'; her line that Auschwitz taught nothing, no humanity or tolerance, is Žižek's closing testimony.
Zhou Enlai positive
His 'it's too early to say' about the French Revolution is Žižek's exhibit for the retroactive, undecidable meaning of historical events.
Carlo Rovelli negative
Italian physicist, defender of the block-universe / time-is-derived view, which Žižek says he instinctively rejects as losing the openness of the world.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy positive
Called a genius; theorist of catastrophes who develops how necessity arises retroactively out of contingency, Žižek's main frame for the present.
Itamar Ben-Gvir negative
Now Israel's minister of public security though convicted 20 years ago by Israel itself as a terrorist and racist, Žižek's exhibit for the horror of the present government.
Jean-Pierre Ponnelle positive
Director of the Bayreuth Tristan und Isolde whose staging of Isolde's final appearance as Tristan's deluded dream Žižek finds 'deeply true'.
Rafael Trujillo negative
Dominican dictator of the parsley massacre; asked his greatest act he named the slaughter, another instance of crime ennobled as moral achievement.
Jacques Lacan positive
Invoked for the thesis that there is no big Other, no predestined symbolic structure to tell us how to act.
Gilles Deleuze negative
Cited only as a contemporary Spinoza reader who, in Žižek's view, still cannot make room for ontological openness or modern subjectivity.
Moshe Dayan positive
Quoted (under scare quotes at Frankfurt) for admitting that Gazans had the right to attack a kibbutz in 1956, used to show the considerate, constrained framing Žižek attempted.
Theorist of risk and chance, credited as crucial in avoiding nuclear war during the Cold War; briefly distinguished from the German idealist of the same name.
Donald Trump negative
Both as the US democracy-threatening figure (new speaker 'worse than Trump') and as paradoxically enacting 'war communism' via COVID cheques; also the pro-Israel president backed by openly antisemitic groups.
Anne Applebaum positive
Source for the gulag anecdote: prisoners forced to sign Stalin's birthday telegram.
Álvaro García Linera positive
Ex-vice president of Bolivia, the one new-left country that didn't screw it up, though Žižek criticises Bolivia's breaking of diplomatic ties with Israel.
Shulamit Aloni positive
Mother of his friend Udi Aloni and minister in Rabin's government; from her he learned Israel's earlier strategic mistake of supporting Hamas to split the Palestinians.
Louis Antoine de Saint-Just positive
Quoted approvingly: a revolutionary is like a captain in a storm without a compass, forced to improvise, Žižek's image for our open present.
Adolf Hitler negative
Noted as carrying the Bhagavad Gita as his favourite book, the link between detached-duty ethics and the Holocaust.
Benedictus de Spinoza negative
Rejected (with Deleuzian readers) for leaving no place for modern subjectivity or ontological openness, no radical abyss of freedom.
Played the Hamlet figure in Kurosawa's contemporary-Japan adaptation.
T. S. Eliot positive
Praised for 'Tradition and the Individual Talent': every new work reorders the entire past, the thesis Žižek uses to argue retroactive meaning.
Heinrich Himmler negative
Exemplar of the Bhagavad-Gita ethics, killing while preserving one's dignity, Žižek's model of false heroism through committing crime.
Benjamin Netanyahu negative
Criticised for declaring Israel the state of the Jewish people only, and for his government's settlement / theocratic drift aligning formally with Hamas's exclusionary aim.
Anders Behring Breivik negative
Norwegian terrorist cited as a contemporary Zionist anti-Semite, praising Israel's killing of Palestinians while wanting Jews kept out of Europe.
Jon Elster positive
Norwegian theorist; his 'states which are essentially byproducts' (e.g. dignity) is used to analyse cancel culture's self-defeating self-ascription of inclusion.
Reinhard Heydrich negative
The 'father of the Holocaust'; his 1935 plan to split Jews into Zionists and assimilationists and support emigration to Palestine is Žižek's exhibit for Zionist anti-Semitism.
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling positive
The German idealist, distinguished from Thomas Schelling: for him the freest acts (love) are perceived as necessity, Žižek's model of radical freedom.
William Shakespeare positive
Invoked as the canonical example against historicism: read Shakespeare to understand Elizabethan England, not vice versa.
Other side of the German debate with Mbembe over colonialism vs Holocaust; Žižek treats the ranking itself as obscene.
Akira Kurosawa positive
Director of Žižek's preferred Hamlet adaptation (The Bad Sleep Well), with Toshiro Mifune as a student returning from the US.
Joseph Stalin negative
Symbol of the 'eating the last cannibal' logic and the Enlightenment-gone-wrong; gulag prisoners forced to sign his birthday telegram.
Karl Marx negative
Žižek's 'anti-Marxist moment': Marx was too caught in historicist teleology toward a final goal; Žižek says he is more Hegelian here.
René Descartes positive
Named as the greatest revolution, modern subjectivity, which Žižek insists is precisely what Spinoza lacks.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Praised for his modesty (owl of Minerva) and as the great thinker of distrust, taking an enthusiastic moment and asking how terror will arise out of it.
Immanuel Kant positive
Held to be more subversive than the Bhagavad Gita: duty must be done, but the subject remains totally, subjectively responsible for it, no objective absolution.
Quoted by the host (and endorsed by Žižek) for the maxim that offending both sides of an argument means you are doing something right.
Albert Einstein negative
Cited as the source of the block-universe view that Žižek treats as a foil for his own thesis of ontological incompleteness.
Ludwig Wittgenstein positive
His saying/showing distinction is deployed to expose cancel culture: judge it by what it shows (exclusion) not what it says (inclusion).
What it argues
ontological incompleteness of the universefutur vs avenir and the catastrophic openness of the futurenecessity arising retroactively out of contingencyZionist anti-Semitism and the Israel-Gaza warfalse heroism through committing crime (Himmler/Bhagavad Gita ethics)the European Enlightenment must not be renouncedHegel as the thinker of distrustatheist Christianity and radical freedomcancel culture: showing vs sayingglobal catastrophe demands global cooperation, not local self-organization
Dialectical moves 12
“To understand Elizabethan England, read Shakespeare — not the other way around.”
Inverts the historicist dependency of context-on-text: the classic is not explained by its epoch, it explains its epoch.
“Only bad people sleep well — because they do what they want, no conscience counts.”
Inverts the moral link between peace of mind and goodness: consciencelessness, not virtue, is what lets you sleep.
“The true patriot is the one who can do even horrible things.”
Inverts patriotism into its opposite: the loyal subject is precisely the one capable of suppressing elementary human sympathy.
“Forget what they are saying, look at what they are showing — by how they act.”
Inverts cancel culture's self-description against itself: its inclusive speech is belied by its exclusionary practice.
“We are no longer cooking on a primordial ground; all the time we are eating the last cannibal.”
Inverts the image of stable foundation: politics now feeds on its own prior ground, started by Stalinism and now generalised.
“Hamas and the Israeli hardliners have formally the same goal: our end without the other.”
Inverts the appearance of opposition: the two official enemies are structurally symmetrical in their exclusionary aim.
“Auschwitz was no instructional institution; you learned nothing there, least of all humanity and tolerance.”
Inverts the pedagogy-of-suffering trope: the camp produces no moral lesson, and supposing it does is itself dangerous.
“What dies on the cross is not a representative of God but God himself, beyond himself.”
Inverts orthodox theology: the event is God's self-abandonment, leaving only the community of believers as the Holy Spirit.
“My problem is not the all-powerfulness of AI but that in it omnipotence is stupid — spirit begins when something goes wrong.”
Inverts the standard AI-anxiety: the threat is not power but the lack of failure, since thought only starts at a new problem.
“I am a failure in the universe — my problem is precisely that ego and world are not identical.”
Inverts the Spinozist/Hindu identity of self and cosmos: the very non-coincidence is the site of freedom.
“The true question is not whether the Jews really are as the Nazis say, but whether Nazi self-identity needs the figure of the Jew to sustain itself.”
Reframes antisemitism from a question of fact about Jews to a question of the antisemite's structural dependency on the figure of the Jew.
“It's too early to say — about the French Revolution, two centuries on.”
Inverts the demand for a verdict on the present: the meaning of an event is decided retroactively from an open future.
Claims 27
asserts
The universe is ontologically unfinished — reality is not fully formed in advance, which is why the present remains genuinely open.ontological incompleteness / quantum physics
rejects
Block-universe theory (past, present, future all already here) loses something essential about the openness of the world.block universe / Einstein-Rovelli
reframes
To understand Elizabethan England you should read Shakespeare, not the other way round — the classic retroactively illuminates its context.historicism vs the classic
asserts
The symbolic status and meaning of the past changes with each new present; a later interpretation can reveal what was always already there in the original.T.S. Eliot / retroactive meaning of the past
rejects
Marx remained too caught in historicist teleology — a final goal is built in — whereas Žižek as a materialist is more Hegelian about the openness of the future.Marx's teleology
asserts
There is no big Other: no predestined symbolic structure tells us how to act; through our acts we create the very narrative that justifies them.Lacan / political act
asserts
Hegel is the great thinker of distrust: he takes every enthusiastic moment and asks with suspicion how terror will arise out of it.Hegel / dialectic of distrust
asserts
The Hamas attack was aimed not at winning a war but at eternalising war and sabotaging any possibility of peace.Hamas / Israel-Gaza war
reframes
Hamas and the Israeli hardliners share the same formal goal: a land without the other.Israel-Gaza symmetry
asserts
Israel actively supported Hamas in order to split the Palestinians (secular PLO vs fundamentalists) and so block a two-state solution.Israeli strategy / Shulamit Aloni
asserts
A Zionist anti-Semitism is rising: antisemites who want Jews removed from their own countries and sent to Israel as a buffer against Asian immigrants.Zionist anti-Semitism
rejects
Auschwitz taught nothing good — no humanity or tolerance comes out of the concentration camps; victimhood does not ennoble.Ruth Klüger / Holocaust pedagogy
reframes
Cancel culture should be judged not by what it says (diversity, inclusion) but by what it shows — its practice of excluding all who don't fit its definition.cancel culture
asserts
The European Enlightenment must not be renounced, because even its anti-colonial critics depend on its concepts.Enlightenment / Fanon
asserts
Open Western notions like human rights, though originally restricted, were expanded by revolutionary movements (Haiti) rather than being purely masks of white power.human rights / Haiti
asserts
A revolutionary is not someone who knows historical necessity but a captain in a storm without a compass, forced to improvise — Saint-Just's lesson for today.Saint-Just / revolutionary politics
asserts
Global catastrophes (ecology, Fukushima) require more efficient states and international cooperation, not stronger nation-states or local self-organization.global cooperation / ecology
rejects
Local communitarian self-organization is not a real solution because we live in a global era where catastrophes circulate globally.localism
asserts
Stalinism is European Enlightenment gone wrong — not an external aberration but its internal perverted fulfilment.Stalinism / Enlightenment
rejects
The Bhagavad Gita's ethics of acting detached from consequences is not a proper ethical act — duty cannot be made objective to absolve the subject.Bhagavad Gita / detached duty
asserts
Kant is more subversive than the Gita: you must do your duty but remain totally, subjectively responsible for it — you cannot hide behind an objective order.Kant / subjective responsibility
reframes
The true question about antisemitism is not whether the Jews are really as the Nazis say, but whether Nazi self-identity needs the figure of the Jew to sustain itself.antisemitism / vertical abstraction
asserts
Through catastrophe something new can emerge — as Trump's COVID checks already amounted to a state-led 'war communism' breaching market rules.war communism / catastrophe
rejects
Spinoza (and his Deleuzian readers) leaves no place for modern subjectivity or ontological openness — there is no radical abyss of freedom in him.Spinoza / Deleuze
asserts
Christianity is materialist: what dies on the cross is God himself, and the Holy Spirit is the community of radically free believers — hence the 'atheist Christian' stance.Christianity / Holy Spirit
reframes
The danger of AI is not its omnipotence but that its omnipotence is stupid — it cannot use its own mistakes; spirit begins where something goes wrong.AI / spirit
rejects
It is obscene to rank the Holocaust against colonialism in a hierarchy of evil; both can be uniquely horrific without a competition.Historikerstreit / Mbembe-Habermas
Quotes 14
“Auschwitz was no instructional institution. you learned nothing there and least of all humanity and tolerance. Absolutely nothing good came out of the concentration camps.”Slavoj Žižek · Auschwitz teaches nothing
“only bad people sleep well. of course, because you do what you want then, no conscience is counted”Slavoj Žižek · consciencelessness and evil
“it's too early to say”Slavoj Žižek · retroactive meaning of history (Zhou Enlai on the French Revolution)
“the owl of minerva, which takes off in the dusk. philosophy can only grasp a certain epoch. when this epoch begins to disintegrate”Slavoj Žižek · Hegel's modesty about the future
“there is no big other. there is no predestined symbolic structure which if only we were to know it, it would tell us how to act now”Slavoj Žižek · no big Other / openness of the act
“I am a failure in the universe”Slavoj Žižek · anti-Spinozist split of subject and world
“what dies on the cross? no. not a representative of god. it's god of beyond himself”Slavoj Žižek · atheist-Christian materialism
“spirit begins when something goes wrong”Slavoj Žižek · AI's stupidity is its omnipotence
“forget about what they are saying, diversity, inclusion and so on, just look at what they are. show me. by they act”Slavoj Žižek · cancel culture judged by showing not saying
“we are eating the last cannibal”Slavoj Žižek · politics consumes its own ground
“hamash and the israeli hardlin. they have formally the same goal, our end without the other”Slavoj Žižek · structural symmetry of the enemies
“you are on your own”Slavoj Žižek · radical freedom without Marxist progress or big Other
“the true patriot is the one who can do even horrible things”Slavoj Žižek · patriotism inverted into crime
“stalinism is... still our european enlightenment gone wrong”Slavoj Žižek · Stalinism as Enlightenment's internal perversion
Transcript 96 turns
Host
the the ri before put your hands up now. if you've not been to the ir before, add up now. if you're not sure if you picked the. so you're all very well. you probably don't have faraday inside there. we're not using that ceiling. the experiments and the fireworks are all mental and discussed and delivered this evening. but that means that nothing to the level of excitement. we're still delighted to have you all here. our speaker this evening is fond of a maxim which he believes, and i'll take his word for it, from jean-paul sartre. what sartre said was that if you find that people are offended by what you say equally from both sides of an argument, then you must be doing something right. if you're offending people and people from the other side. and so especially those of you that have come for the r, not for slavo, who don't know him, may find yourselves exercised or offended by what you hear. and i just want to reassure you that there will be also people here who will be offended by the reverse. so i'll remind you of our code of conduct, which is available online. we're having a discussion which is open to all views. and the ria is a safe space for everybody's positions. we're not going to be discussing individuals. or their beliefs, but the topic of the talk will be set out for you. so i'm very grateful to you for joining with me in welcoming our speaker this evening, slavoj žižek.
the the ri before put your hands up now. if you've not been to the ir before, add up now. if you're not sure if you picked the. so you're all very well. you probably don't have faraday inside there. we're not using that ceiling. the experiments and the fireworks are all mental and discussed and delivered this evening. but that means that nothing to the level of excitement. we're still delighted to have you all here. our speaker this evening is fond of a maxim which he believes, and i'll take his word for it, from jean-paul sartre. what sartre said was that if you find that people are offended by what you say equally from both sides of an argument, then you must be doing something right. if you're offending people and people from the other side. and so especially those of you that have come for the r, not for slavo, who don't know him, may find yourselves exercised or offended by what you hear. and i just want to reassure you that there will be also people here who will be offended by the reverse. so i'll remind you of our code of conduct, which is available online. we're having a discussion which is open to all views. and the ria is a safe space for everybody's positions. we're not going to be discussing individuals. or their beliefs, but the topic of the talk will be set out for you. so i'm very grateful to you for joining with me in welcoming our speaker this evening, slavoj žižek.
Slavoj Žižek
thanks very much and it's really an honor for me to be here, although as you may have noticed, i have some problem, is it an allergy or cold, it doesn't matter. so if there is a thing i don't like to do, it is to resume the book or read parts of the book, you know, like i knew some not even writers, even authors from humanity who, this is unimaginable for me, who in his lectures, he was a man of course, opened a book and, read a paragraph and then said, can you guess what i was trying to? tell me this no in my mental universe, i will tell him immediately, yeah, you meant to say i want one-way ticket to g come back. but seriously, you know, you broke. a totally different desire because we all the scientific. i i am now more and more trying to follow it with mine, of course. i. mind but nonetheless, i think it is so important what is happening now with the latest discoveries in quantum physics. i think, not to lose time, something is happening that we force us to change maybe even the basic notions of space and time. and i learned from some names i'm in contact with that maybe you know mah here, the me that this is... one of the... points where the attention is focused now. they all seem to agree that one basic dimension which have to be sacrificed is not being really basic, space or time. so then you have einstein and all those so-called block-universe theorists who think space is more fundamental and time is as carlo rovelli, the italian, he was saying on friday, just passed. yes.
thanks very much and it's really an honor for me to be here, although as you may have noticed, i have some problem, is it an allergy or cold, it doesn't matter. so if there is a thing i don't like to do, it is to resume the book or read parts of the book, you know, like i knew some not even writers, even authors from humanity who, this is unimaginable for me, who in his lectures, he was a man of course, opened a book and, read a paragraph and then said, can you guess what i was trying to? tell me this no in my mental universe, i will tell him immediately, yeah, you meant to say i want one-way ticket to g come back. but seriously, you know, you broke. a totally different desire because we all the scientific. i i am now more and more trying to follow it with mine, of course. i. mind but nonetheless, i think it is so important what is happening now with the latest discoveries in quantum physics. i think, not to lose time, something is happening that we force us to change maybe even the basic notions of space and time. and i learned from some names i'm in contact with that maybe you know mah here, the me that this is... one of the... points where the attention is focused now. they all seem to agree that one basic dimension which have to be sacrificed is not being really basic, space or time. so then you have einstein and all those so-called block-universe theorists who think space is more fundamental and time is as carlo rovelli, the italian, he was saying on friday, just passed. yes.
Host
oh my gosh.
oh my gosh.
Slavoj Žižek
thank. thank.
thank. thank.
Host
when i told him you were speaking this
when i told him you were speaking this
Slavoj Žižek
where does he stand here? he is more and surprise, surprise. i'm not now losing time. this will bring me to the... topic of what i will try to communicate here. lely yes. his idea is, if i understood it correctly, that. that if you were to see all, which is theoretically impossible, time would literally become just another dimension of space,, time is limited. you. yeah. with my instinctual guts, i think that if you adopt this so-called block theory that past, present, future are all in some sense already here, we just cannot see them all, that you lose something extremely important. b. maybe what i call not just simple in some stupid humanist sense openness of the universe, but in a much more precise way, deep my that fascinated, right? quantum physics, the idea and who cares about all that politics our experiment, let's go a little bit into more serious things. what absolutely fascinates me is the idea that the world reality is in itself i hope it will not something complicated, ontologically unfinished. what do i mean by this? some of you may know my line of thought, but i like it so much that i repeating. i usually introduction to philosophy, i forgot the name. so... think about playing video games. let's say you play some stupid game, cowboy shooting, b, whatever, and in the background there are trees, there are houses, but you are not... but the programmer did not program the inside of the houses or the details of the forest. because it's not part of the game that you go there why lose time. and now right. some earth. quite some quantum f. i like this. this is where, okay, it's just a joke, a metaphor, but you learn a lot, applied this ironically, their materialism, to god himself. the idea is that god created the universe for us, but he thought people are stupid. it's enough if i do the job to the atom and elementary parts of the atom. when i go into all that quantum, people are stupid and then and then they even have you that austrian guy who got, i admire him very much z there i think. and the fact you think i know yes i don't know you have to know otherwise you will join in g sorry, sorry the hypothesis of a legacy dot, you know why should i bother with those quantum stuff now? but then the challenge is what if the universe ich! nonetheless, in some sense objectively existing, without god, but nonetheless unfinished. d. literally reality is not fo. then this is how then you, of course, can interpret the so-called collapse of the wave function and so on and so on. but why am i mentioning this here? because we were talking before on the influence of t.s. eliot on shakespeare, you told me this, and conservative as he was, a couple of points that were made by t.s s eliot, i like them very much. for example, in his, i think, tradition and the individual talent, where he says that every new work of art not only introduces a but entire bus. and let's be very precise here. we are not here at the level of merit. what happened, happened, but the symbolic status, the meaning of the past changes all the time. and... so that's why, for example, i am totally opposed to a historic, primitive historicist approach to great classics, which is to understand shakespeare, you must read all books that you can about elizabethan england and so on and so on. no, i'm almost tempted to say the opposite. to understand elizabethan england, read shakespeare. you get it there from there. so what i want to say is that. did you have? ol. ready metric feeling t.s. eliot, let's say, influenced on shakespeare. that some later interpretation although it's clear it wasn't already. in the original allows you to see original in a totally new way. but in such a radically new way that it's not enough to say, yeah, the contemporary interpreter pulled it, put it into and so on. it really, in some way, i don't want to get lost here in this quantum physics metaphysics, but in some way, as a wave, vibration, whatever, it was already at least the possibility for it was already here. and i like so much, i'm a big fan, even further from your science, a big fan of the opera. i it's not, i mean just mentioned two examples, mega popular. jean-pierre ponnelle did some 20 years ago a version in bayreuth of wagner's tristan und isolde. you know, at the end, isolde arrives and they both die together. for it something so simple, but the feeling is my god, that's it. the final appearance of isolde is just the dream of the deluded christian. you have isolde there in all the light seeing her. love, death, and then you have the moment of darkness and then light and tristan alone just. there is something so deeply true in it. or another very very big there. but interesting end. i hope you know at least some of you tosca puccini. you know, at the end, cavaradossi, the lover of tosca, is shot. uh... but tosca thinks he made a deal with the bad guy that he will not really be shot. and then you have this tragic moment. he calls mario, mario, mario. she sees that he is really dead and... th from dead. g. okay, what if? i found this philosopher, my friend al, that you had this idea. what if, because the music allows for this without words, what if tosca runs to the edge to jump down. when cavaradossi starts to move and say, ha ha, don't jump too fast, i was just joking, i'm really alive, and then the two embrace and the music that we get, the triumphant music, would work much better here than. not to mention other wonderful example, you were a professor of this. like yeah. hamlet, the best hamlet i know, go to par way, you can download it by akira kurosawa, set in contemporary japan, where hamlet is makes a joke it played by toshiro mifune, who is a student returning from the united states entering the story. but a wonderful title which is so deeply true. only bad people sleep well. of course, because you do what you want then, no conscience is counted.. it's so that you see, this is what fascinated me so much. our present ich. we, we don't yet know what it will mean. i usually mention here a big legend. which is not quite true, but it's a beautiful one. in 1952, 1953, when there were negotiations about how to end the korean war, zhou enlai, the same guy in china, was in geneva, i think negotiations were there, and the french journalist asked him, what do you think about french revolution? and true i said in a totally correct way, it's too early to say. in no sense he was right. do you remember when kommen nicht regimes. disintegrated. the big debate was you have. between more conservative historians who claim the era that began with french revolution is now over and it was quite lucky that it was exactly 200 years. no? now we are in a post-ideological pragmatic universe, blah, blah. so it's literally dead. oh. present! decides how we will interpret uh. jokes, let's go on. i think we are today. el el talking. about not only the israel-gaza war, but also general situation, ecology, immigrants and so on. i think we are now in a similar open situation. we can feel it. we don't know we are at a moment when things change but it's not clear in what direction that will go. we have the possibility of a catastrophic reading. neoconservatives, populists will take over. and here i don't fear so much the so-called arab terrorists. if you ask me, i fear for the united states. will it survive as a democracy? you know, the guy who was now elected, i prefer to forget his name, mike something, the new speaker of the congress. he's a doctor trump madman, worse than trump himself. maybe mean. so will it be this direction? will it go into another direction? what will happen with ecological crisis? what will what will be the result of the war in the middle east now? i think that here again this scientific metaphors. first, i'd like to introduce a distinction which is subt, which is greater than the title, what lies ahead when there is no future? i'd like to introduce here, i think i begin the book with this. we have it, we are lucky in slovenia, i think correctly if i'm wrong. you don't have it, germans don't have it, but the french have it, two terms for what is to come, futur and avenir. f ich basically. the prolongation of the sameeness goes on now. like if that will be in the united states next year. presidential elections and if biden will win then you can say biden is the present and the future president. but you cannot say le président à venir. this means a different next one. and that's, i think, our problem today. our future is written as a very catastrophic scenario. if you ask me... i don't see a way out. i more and more obsessed. and i'm just hoping that like a miracle, like a, something will come. now, a little bit more of this very simple theoretical affair, i'm confused. i'm never sure when i see these, are you just scratching your beard or want to ask a question it's a good question. the formalism is that we'll take questions in a batch.,. so my idea is this one. you should maybe invite him. he is a genius. did you hear about him, jean-pierre dupuy. d he's a theorist of catastrophes who also works in a little bit in seattle, in santa cruz and the world and he developed wonderful theory of how necessity arises out of contingency. the situation is confused, but then when? in a contingent way. certain versions. we. it retroactively makes sense. you know, it's a different story. now you will say it's just a story. stories are for me never just stories. stories determine how we act in our history. so dupuis develops this into detailed heat. it's a wonderful quote in one of his early books when there were certain pre-presidential elections by a politician who is now already dead, balladur, and we quote. a line from le monde where it says, if, if. monsieur balladur will win next weekend pre-election, then his victory will be necessary. you see the point? how something happens in a contingent way, but once it happens, we. read it as necessary. now, again. you will say, but this is some mystery and so, no, no, no. think about love. how do you fall in love? you never fall in love, it's my old story, if some of you know it, i'm sorry. you never say, i'm be consciously vulgar now. i'm sorry, death. i will not try not to be prosecuted at any point. like, let's say, here is a lady and there and there. i like her hair, i like her eyes, i like her legs, then i look again and make up, but i like three things about her and two and then i choose her. no, the paradox. is dead? you have reasons. to fall in love. but these reasons work as reasons once you already fell in love. . but it's contingent. but once you are in, and now we have another philosophical paradox here. schelling, not the one whom i also appreciate very much, maybe you know thomas schelling. then. just your good accent, just. no, no, seriously. he was a theorist of risk and chance who was maybe a crucial person in avoiding nuclear war in the cold war era. very intelligent. but i'm talking now about the old german idealist schelling? success... who says basically the same thing that. the things where you are really free, the most radical freedom, like love, to fall in love, it must be free. you perceive them as necessity. again, that's why you never can say i'm now falling in love. all of a sudden you discover retroactively that you are in love. now, enough of this introduction stuff. i am terribly afraid that we are now in such a situation. imagine megaatastrophe, ecological, military and so on, et. who knows how we will reconstruct our past? i notes i give notes. idea. so here comes, now this may surprise you, my anti-marxist moment. marx was for me still too much caught in. historicist teleology in the sense of moving towards a final goal. much new things can go wrong, but nonetheless, basically today's society is opening up a path for new communist society, whatever, and so on and so on. i as a materialist, i'm much more hegelian here. people forget hegel's modesty. forget all the bullshit, hegel absolute knowing, i know everything. no. you remember what hegel says in the introduction to his philosophy of right? he says it literally. the future, we cannot say anything reasonable about it. all that philosophy can do is like his famous metaphor, the owl of minerva, which takes off in the dusk. philosophy can only grasp a certain epoch. when this epoch begins to disintegrate. this doesn't mean that schelling was an idiot about the future. for example, in 1825, in his lectures on the philosophy of history, apropos russia and united states. he says it's too early to say what they are, they will be the countries of the next century. so bad to say. but what take... i want to praise here schelling in the sense that we are in an open situation. all we know is that we are now in. a social order, let's call it global capitalism, which is decay, which is gradually decaying in different forms and so on. i will not go into it okay, now i this is for me beique. problem. we have to accept that in my lakian r there is no big other. there is no predestined symbolic structure which if only we were to know it, it would tell us how to act now. no, through our act. we create. the very narrative which justifies our acts, the segregation is open. but now i come to more, but in a horrible sense, stuff, what's the most dangerous thing in such a situation? it is... earth. what i'm really afraid today, it's not egotism. i'm so tired of all these things about, you know, we are consumerist, egotists and so on and so on. no, what really worries me is the example here would have been i just read a book about ukraine back. around that local, 90, 30, 32. where the train people. they were telling them openly, you will see horrible things, small children starving, desperate marty, blah, blah, blah, and you will have to take food of them, maybe even kill them and so on. and the idea was, if you feel any sympathy for them, you are a traitor. the true patriot is the one who can do even horrible things for week in pos today posna in october 43. set. again, he says, of course. if you see. a sturdy jewish kid and mother. this arouses sympathy. but he says, the moment you show respect for the minimum human dignity of the enemy, you are a... yeah. you are. yeah. he was not simply a brutal guy. he, now i will say something, i hope i will not. hurt any of you. you know that hitler hitler, yeah, that guy, holocaust and on. hitler, you know what was his favorite book? he always had a special letter about a copy in his pocket. b. you know, this idea of when you act. fully with your ex. by problème. how can kill the starving jews, blah blah and retain their dignity at the same time. the answer was yes. the answer was... bhagavad gita. and i think that these terrifying ethics. the ethics of fake cause were on behalf of god. gosh! you had to you have to... sacrifice your basic sense of decency, dignity of others and so on and so on. then it today massively returning. till now it was more or less half hidden. discreetly you admit it. for example, i was shocked. you probably don't remember who was rafael trujillo. he was the dictator of dominican republic and 37. leg are slaughtered. so-called pass slaughterughters, throwing out all the. people. no. hus what this? because haiti were french, they pronounced it in a french way and domin french, if you get the wrong answer they give and you know montev horrible. when at the end of his life, he was asked, what is your greatest act? he says this, that i gathered moral. g? don. on both sides in gaza and trewan. yeah. the. returning this terrible logic of committing a crime. you are slaughtering people, patim. deeper sense, even some theologologists put it in this way, in a deeper sense, a true hero is ready to sacrifice his soul to the devil just to do his duty duty towards towards this country or i don't have time to develop the now, but just to give you the idea, there is a wonderful old joke that i know you all heard. know some people come to explorers come to a lone tribe and ask, are there still cannibals in your tribe? and you know what the answer they get. no last week we ate the last one. but this is our. politics is more and more doing. it's no longer some primordial founding ground. is and i think this began with stalinist per. all the time we are eating the last cannibal. with stalinists this meant, droka is the enemy, whoever was there, and so on and so on. i think, now, to provoke you very modestly a little bit more, that the same happens up to a point in so-called gender culture. i totally subscribe to the goals of cancer culture for diversity, tolerance and so on. but did you notice, okay, i will now refer to an analytic philosopher. ludwig wittgenstein, who has his struck about already, but later he developed it even more, this difference between saying something and saying, showing it. did make you know another norwegian theorist, john elster. you're. i'm the representative of the audience. i don't have any of the representatives. i'm sure there are other. i to say. a wonderful term, states which are essentially byproducts, like dignity. if you say i'm a dignified person and so on, it's ridiculous. you must show dignity by how you act. you cannot in first person define yourself as dignified. and i think something of the same order happens often with a cancelled culture. forget about what they are saying, diversity, inclusion and so on, just look at what they are. show me. by they act. what they are doing. they're excluding all the time. they're attentioning people who don't fit their definition of inclusion and so on and so on. and this is why my problem with cancer culture, did you notice ich. perverse pleasure in it of destroying western legacy. science, oh is maleauvinistic, logocentric and so on, freedom and human rights, oh these are the rights of white men and so on and so on. i would return to my hamlet example. no, there are open notions. yes, at the beginning, obviously, there was a hidden. s, human rights really meant the rights of white men with some property and so on. but you know what happened then? immediately, larry mstone draft, we in all, then you had, for me, a mega event, shiti revolution. why not us blacks also? and so on and so on. much more than just this negative critique of ideology, throwing all the western tradition out. i i hope i will not offend you too much to provoke you. my god, i'm tempted to say precisely today when europe is so universally shattered and is losing everyone, you know, donald trump hates europe. if you know, i know because i enjoy reading them, this extreme right conspiracy theorists, for them, the true enemies is european union, not isis or al-qa, they are just instruments of european capital. so what and then of course, third world, european colonialism and so on and so on. but what what we need today? if precisely something which in however mystified for it is in practice, europe is betraying itself all the time. but are we aware that even the critics of neocolonialism and all that use concepts developed by european enlightenment. so absolutely i'm not ready to renounce european enlightenment. i think that... even people who you think that they are more radical, they are, but not in the wrong way. i always admired frantz fanon, who stated this. openly, fanon, in his earlier book, black skin white masks, i don't know the other way around, frantz fanon, he says, i don't care for any original african wisdom and so on and so on. he knew what he's talking. and now, by concluding that most important part. i think that precisely we should not renounce this european stance of enlightenment of listening to all sides, of questioning everything in today's gaza-israel war. maybe some of you know i gave a speech there at the opening of the frankfurt book fair and i even went maybe too far. i said i absolutely condemn hamas's attack. eh... because who slaughtered there, but i know people who knew them. and do you know that they were the most open? aram. among the jews. they were all the time precisely in that kibbutz that was slaughtered and the k party. so why did habas do it? i think the explanation is relatively simple. it was not so much the need to win the war, but to make a war to guarantee the there will not be peace, to eternalize the war, to sabotage any. well... possibility. in this right. but... yeah. some of the figures around netanyahu. i'm not saying they are the same, but come pretty close to this. how about... steps. for example, do you know who is now? it's kind of a royal joke for maybe this event. do you know who is now minister for public security or whatever of israel? it is itamar ben-gvir. who was 20 years ago. gon demon! as a terrorist and racist by whom? by israel. it says. he is now. the guy who runs it. who runs security there. the horror here is the following one. i know i want it all the time. what the leader of hamas said, we have only one thing to say to you, to jews. get out of our land, get out of our sight. the land is ours, alud, jerusalem is ours. everything here is ours. there is no place or safety for you. clear and disgusting. but i'm not putting them at the same level. but look what the present government. auf geht yahoo. when they took power, david. announced dead. the jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the land of israel. the government will promote and develop the settlements of all parts of the land of israel in the galilee, negev, gola, judea, samaria, which means west bank and so on. or as netanyahu stated, israel is not a state of all its citizens, but of the jewish people and only. it. no? what i'm saying is that what if, this is my a little bit of conspiracy theory, what if there is. i'm not saying direct. causality. but... in some sense link between the hamas attack. empty. what went on, remember, a couple of months ago in israel, this big conflict between secular powers and what netanyahu is doing now, basically, the israelis were colleagues we are the only democracy there where they are now more and more becoming becoming a theocratic state, israel, what i want to say is just this. i hope we all find this. acceptable. again. friends of my friends were slaughtered by hamas, but i think that hamash and the israeli hardlin. they have formally the same goal, our end without the other. they say more or less openly the istinians think they made many mistakes. there is also anti-semitism there and so on and so on. but i think that to understand what goes on now. e. this conflict. don't focus just on gaza. yeah, horrible things are happening there. but focus on the west bank. silently there this slow ethnic cleansing is going on. so then i will finish if i may just up, up, shut the clip, please. you see, i made a joke before that the guy would fall asleep. he's so focused rather. je suis. very about the settler humiliating palestinian farmers on their own land and earth. you will see in the background of police of military who do nothing. it you know, this is... the problem. and now speaking about that big choice avenir futur, no? israel, i think. kids, now! a unique unique gems. off. and not hear even a radical leftist, you know who said this. the guy who was later convicted for corruption, ekut ulmer azid, the prime minister and so on. he says, now we have a unique hand to say. yes! against hamas but to all of you now we stretch our hand. this is an absolutely unique case. more and more voices in israel are saying this. otherwise, i guarantee you, it will end bad. all, sorry, can i ask, do you want to carry over the clip or you you got the point. yeah. complex but it's now well known. i learned it from them. not first person, but second person. the mother of my friend, udi aloni, shulamit aloni, she was a minister in rabin's government. and... already at that time, the israeli strategy made... terrible mistake. they supported hamas. did you know this? this is not a paranoia theory. you can read in the media why for a very simple thing. they wanted to split the palestinians. secular plo on the west bank and more fundamental from there, if they are split, there will not be a two-state solution. very simple. i... bro. close to the end. i hope you got my point. with all my sympathy for the palestinians. i sincerely worry for what will happen if this goes on with my jewish friends. if israel doesn't use this chance. i predict an explosion in the first part of anti-semitism. it's already happening. did you read a couple of days ago what happened in some d, in some airport that people, protesters broke in and were looking for the jew among them and so on. so one more thing and then i will finish. back to himmler, all that evil and so on. what i am again and again telling my jewish friends, it's not only now precisely because you have a strong army and so on. it... oh the ideal moment two. stretch the hand widely to palestinians, don't treat them just as an obstacle, disturbing point. give them a view. you know what i am terribly afraid here. something is happening now. the explosive rise of something that i cannot but call zionist anti-semitism. the stance which goes like this. we don't want jews in our country. but yes, we want them there in the middle east to build a wall against asian brutal immigrants and so on. and you know who? that's why my talk was interrupted also in frankfurt. in an extremely negative way, i wanted that i couldn't just quote. you know? uh. who... eh. who said this? grow. from 1935. we must separate the jews into two categories, the zionists and the partisans of as. a strictly racial concept and through immigration to palestine they help to build their own jewish state. our good wishes and our official goodwill will go with them. reinhard heydrich. the father of holocaust. and and then the next guy, you know, you remember that guy, brit, that crazy norwegian terrorist who shot it. he said the same. he said, israel should kill palestinians, they should at alaksa, they should destroy, build temple, but not here. here he said the germans took care of jews in europe, but england and especially united states, they still have a problem and so on. and what terrifies me absolutely, uncont. ich. that. some hope. d zionism, the way it is practice! bye. the state of israel now will implicitly or not even so implicitly begin to collaborate with zionist anti-seites. now you will ask me, where are they today? let me name one, obviously, donald trump. he was very much pro-israel, allowed them to annex golan heights and so on and so on. at the same time, he was supported by all those groups, proud boys and so on, which are more or less openly antisemitik. you know, i i... be. so. and. the. e. attack. stop the big protests in israel. against this new civil law and so on and so on. so to conclude, i promise you, i will just read you ugh. one paragraph from the end, i quote it really at some point of one of my great books, ruth klüger, a girl who survived holocaust in auschwitz, wrote memoirs. still alive, a holocaust girlhood. remember. and ruth klüger describes a conversation with some advanced philosophy candidates in germany.. one reports how in jerusalem he, one of his candidates, made the acquaintance of an old hungarian jew who was a survivor of auschwitz and yet this man curse the arabs and tell them all in contempt. how can someone who comes from auschwitz talk like that? the german asks. i get into the act and argue, perhaps more hotly than need be. what did he expect? auschwitz was no instructional institution. you learned nothing there and least of all humanity and tolerance. absolutely nothing good came out of the concentration camps. this is what we should all remember., this is another version of that idea, heroism, false heroism through committing crime. this idea that in extreme situations where you are victiming, it may ennoble you, it may also make you it may even make you... even. oui. so again, to really conclude.
where does he stand here? he is more and surprise, surprise. i'm not now losing time. this will bring me to the... topic of what i will try to communicate here. lely yes. his idea is, if i understood it correctly, that. that if you were to see all, which is theoretically impossible, time would literally become just another dimension of space,, time is limited. you. yeah. with my instinctual guts, i think that if you adopt this so-called block theory that past, present, future are all in some sense already here, we just cannot see them all, that you lose something extremely important. b. maybe what i call not just simple in some stupid humanist sense openness of the universe, but in a much more precise way, deep my that fascinated, right? quantum physics, the idea and who cares about all that politics our experiment, let's go a little bit into more serious things. what absolutely fascinates me is the idea that the world reality is in itself i hope it will not something complicated, ontologically unfinished. what do i mean by this? some of you may know my line of thought, but i like it so much that i repeating. i usually introduction to philosophy, i forgot the name. so... think about playing video games. let's say you play some stupid game, cowboy shooting, b, whatever, and in the background there are trees, there are houses, but you are not... but the programmer did not program the inside of the houses or the details of the forest. because it's not part of the game that you go there why lose time. and now right. some earth. quite some quantum f. i like this. this is where, okay, it's just a joke, a metaphor, but you learn a lot, applied this ironically, their materialism, to god himself. the idea is that god created the universe for us, but he thought people are stupid. it's enough if i do the job to the atom and elementary parts of the atom. when i go into all that quantum, people are stupid and then and then they even have you that austrian guy who got, i admire him very much z there i think. and the fact you think i know yes i don't know you have to know otherwise you will join in g sorry, sorry the hypothesis of a legacy dot, you know why should i bother with those quantum stuff now? but then the challenge is what if the universe ich! nonetheless, in some sense objectively existing, without god, but nonetheless unfinished. d. literally reality is not fo. then this is how then you, of course, can interpret the so-called collapse of the wave function and so on and so on. but why am i mentioning this here? because we were talking before on the influence of t.s. eliot on shakespeare, you told me this, and conservative as he was, a couple of points that were made by t.s s eliot, i like them very much. for example, in his, i think, tradition and the individual talent, where he says that every new work of art not only introduces a but entire bus. and let's be very precise here. we are not here at the level of merit. what happened, happened, but the symbolic status, the meaning of the past changes all the time. and... so that's why, for example, i am totally opposed to a historic, primitive historicist approach to great classics, which is to understand shakespeare, you must read all books that you can about elizabethan england and so on and so on. no, i'm almost tempted to say the opposite. to understand elizabethan england, read shakespeare. you get it there from there. so what i want to say is that. did you have? ol. ready metric feeling t.s. eliot, let's say, influenced on shakespeare. that some later interpretation although it's clear it wasn't already. in the original allows you to see original in a totally new way. but in such a radically new way that it's not enough to say, yeah, the contemporary interpreter pulled it, put it into and so on. it really, in some way, i don't want to get lost here in this quantum physics metaphysics, but in some way, as a wave, vibration, whatever, it was already at least the possibility for it was already here. and i like so much, i'm a big fan, even further from your science, a big fan of the opera. i it's not, i mean just mentioned two examples, mega popular. jean-pierre ponnelle did some 20 years ago a version in bayreuth of wagner's tristan und isolde. you know, at the end, isolde arrives and they both die together. for it something so simple, but the feeling is my god, that's it. the final appearance of isolde is just the dream of the deluded christian. you have isolde there in all the light seeing her. love, death, and then you have the moment of darkness and then light and tristan alone just. there is something so deeply true in it. or another very very big there. but interesting end. i hope you know at least some of you tosca puccini. you know, at the end, cavaradossi, the lover of tosca, is shot. uh... but tosca thinks he made a deal with the bad guy that he will not really be shot. and then you have this tragic moment. he calls mario, mario, mario. she sees that he is really dead and... th from dead. g. okay, what if? i found this philosopher, my friend al, that you had this idea. what if, because the music allows for this without words, what if tosca runs to the edge to jump down. when cavaradossi starts to move and say, ha ha, don't jump too fast, i was just joking, i'm really alive, and then the two embrace and the music that we get, the triumphant music, would work much better here than. not to mention other wonderful example, you were a professor of this. like yeah. hamlet, the best hamlet i know, go to par way, you can download it by akira kurosawa, set in contemporary japan, where hamlet is makes a joke it played by toshiro mifune, who is a student returning from the united states entering the story. but a wonderful title which is so deeply true. only bad people sleep well. of course, because you do what you want then, no conscience is counted.. it's so that you see, this is what fascinated me so much. our present ich. we, we don't yet know what it will mean. i usually mention here a big legend. which is not quite true, but it's a beautiful one. in 1952, 1953, when there were negotiations about how to end the korean war, zhou enlai, the same guy in china, was in geneva, i think negotiations were there, and the french journalist asked him, what do you think about french revolution? and true i said in a totally correct way, it's too early to say. in no sense he was right. do you remember when kommen nicht regimes. disintegrated. the big debate was you have. between more conservative historians who claim the era that began with french revolution is now over and it was quite lucky that it was exactly 200 years. no? now we are in a post-ideological pragmatic universe, blah, blah. so it's literally dead. oh. present! decides how we will interpret uh. jokes, let's go on. i think we are today. el el talking. about not only the israel-gaza war, but also general situation, ecology, immigrants and so on. i think we are now in a similar open situation. we can feel it. we don't know we are at a moment when things change but it's not clear in what direction that will go. we have the possibility of a catastrophic reading. neoconservatives, populists will take over. and here i don't fear so much the so-called arab terrorists. if you ask me, i fear for the united states. will it survive as a democracy? you know, the guy who was now elected, i prefer to forget his name, mike something, the new speaker of the congress. he's a doctor trump madman, worse than trump himself. maybe mean. so will it be this direction? will it go into another direction? what will happen with ecological crisis? what will what will be the result of the war in the middle east now? i think that here again this scientific metaphors. first, i'd like to introduce a distinction which is subt, which is greater than the title, what lies ahead when there is no future? i'd like to introduce here, i think i begin the book with this. we have it, we are lucky in slovenia, i think correctly if i'm wrong. you don't have it, germans don't have it, but the french have it, two terms for what is to come, futur and avenir. f ich basically. the prolongation of the sameeness goes on now. like if that will be in the united states next year. presidential elections and if biden will win then you can say biden is the present and the future president. but you cannot say le président à venir. this means a different next one. and that's, i think, our problem today. our future is written as a very catastrophic scenario. if you ask me... i don't see a way out. i more and more obsessed. and i'm just hoping that like a miracle, like a, something will come. now, a little bit more of this very simple theoretical affair, i'm confused. i'm never sure when i see these, are you just scratching your beard or want to ask a question it's a good question. the formalism is that we'll take questions in a batch.,. so my idea is this one. you should maybe invite him. he is a genius. did you hear about him, jean-pierre dupuy. d he's a theorist of catastrophes who also works in a little bit in seattle, in santa cruz and the world and he developed wonderful theory of how necessity arises out of contingency. the situation is confused, but then when? in a contingent way. certain versions. we. it retroactively makes sense. you know, it's a different story. now you will say it's just a story. stories are for me never just stories. stories determine how we act in our history. so dupuis develops this into detailed heat. it's a wonderful quote in one of his early books when there were certain pre-presidential elections by a politician who is now already dead, balladur, and we quote. a line from le monde where it says, if, if. monsieur balladur will win next weekend pre-election, then his victory will be necessary. you see the point? how something happens in a contingent way, but once it happens, we. read it as necessary. now, again. you will say, but this is some mystery and so, no, no, no. think about love. how do you fall in love? you never fall in love, it's my old story, if some of you know it, i'm sorry. you never say, i'm be consciously vulgar now. i'm sorry, death. i will not try not to be prosecuted at any point. like, let's say, here is a lady and there and there. i like her hair, i like her eyes, i like her legs, then i look again and make up, but i like three things about her and two and then i choose her. no, the paradox. is dead? you have reasons. to fall in love. but these reasons work as reasons once you already fell in love. . but it's contingent. but once you are in, and now we have another philosophical paradox here. schelling, not the one whom i also appreciate very much, maybe you know thomas schelling. then. just your good accent, just. no, no, seriously. he was a theorist of risk and chance who was maybe a crucial person in avoiding nuclear war in the cold war era. very intelligent. but i'm talking now about the old german idealist schelling? success... who says basically the same thing that. the things where you are really free, the most radical freedom, like love, to fall in love, it must be free. you perceive them as necessity. again, that's why you never can say i'm now falling in love. all of a sudden you discover retroactively that you are in love. now, enough of this introduction stuff. i am terribly afraid that we are now in such a situation. imagine megaatastrophe, ecological, military and so on, et. who knows how we will reconstruct our past? i notes i give notes. idea. so here comes, now this may surprise you, my anti-marxist moment. marx was for me still too much caught in. historicist teleology in the sense of moving towards a final goal. much new things can go wrong, but nonetheless, basically today's society is opening up a path for new communist society, whatever, and so on and so on. i as a materialist, i'm much more hegelian here. people forget hegel's modesty. forget all the bullshit, hegel absolute knowing, i know everything. no. you remember what hegel says in the introduction to his philosophy of right? he says it literally. the future, we cannot say anything reasonable about it. all that philosophy can do is like his famous metaphor, the owl of minerva, which takes off in the dusk. philosophy can only grasp a certain epoch. when this epoch begins to disintegrate. this doesn't mean that schelling was an idiot about the future. for example, in 1825, in his lectures on the philosophy of history, apropos russia and united states. he says it's too early to say what they are, they will be the countries of the next century. so bad to say. but what take... i want to praise here schelling in the sense that we are in an open situation. all we know is that we are now in. a social order, let's call it global capitalism, which is decay, which is gradually decaying in different forms and so on. i will not go into it okay, now i this is for me beique. problem. we have to accept that in my lakian r there is no big other. there is no predestined symbolic structure which if only we were to know it, it would tell us how to act now. no, through our act. we create. the very narrative which justifies our acts, the segregation is open. but now i come to more, but in a horrible sense, stuff, what's the most dangerous thing in such a situation? it is... earth. what i'm really afraid today, it's not egotism. i'm so tired of all these things about, you know, we are consumerist, egotists and so on and so on. no, what really worries me is the example here would have been i just read a book about ukraine back. around that local, 90, 30, 32. where the train people. they were telling them openly, you will see horrible things, small children starving, desperate marty, blah, blah, blah, and you will have to take food of them, maybe even kill them and so on. and the idea was, if you feel any sympathy for them, you are a traitor. the true patriot is the one who can do even horrible things for week in pos today posna in october 43. set. again, he says, of course. if you see. a sturdy jewish kid and mother. this arouses sympathy. but he says, the moment you show respect for the minimum human dignity of the enemy, you are a... yeah. you are. yeah. he was not simply a brutal guy. he, now i will say something, i hope i will not. hurt any of you. you know that hitler hitler, yeah, that guy, holocaust and on. hitler, you know what was his favorite book? he always had a special letter about a copy in his pocket. b. you know, this idea of when you act. fully with your ex. by problème. how can kill the starving jews, blah blah and retain their dignity at the same time. the answer was yes. the answer was... bhagavad gita. and i think that these terrifying ethics. the ethics of fake cause were on behalf of god. gosh! you had to you have to... sacrifice your basic sense of decency, dignity of others and so on and so on. then it today massively returning. till now it was more or less half hidden. discreetly you admit it. for example, i was shocked. you probably don't remember who was rafael trujillo. he was the dictator of dominican republic and 37. leg are slaughtered. so-called pass slaughterughters, throwing out all the. people. no. hus what this? because haiti were french, they pronounced it in a french way and domin french, if you get the wrong answer they give and you know montev horrible. when at the end of his life, he was asked, what is your greatest act? he says this, that i gathered moral. g? don. on both sides in gaza and trewan. yeah. the. returning this terrible logic of committing a crime. you are slaughtering people, patim. deeper sense, even some theologologists put it in this way, in a deeper sense, a true hero is ready to sacrifice his soul to the devil just to do his duty duty towards towards this country or i don't have time to develop the now, but just to give you the idea, there is a wonderful old joke that i know you all heard. know some people come to explorers come to a lone tribe and ask, are there still cannibals in your tribe? and you know what the answer they get. no last week we ate the last one. but this is our. politics is more and more doing. it's no longer some primordial founding ground. is and i think this began with stalinist per. all the time we are eating the last cannibal. with stalinists this meant, droka is the enemy, whoever was there, and so on and so on. i think, now, to provoke you very modestly a little bit more, that the same happens up to a point in so-called gender culture. i totally subscribe to the goals of cancer culture for diversity, tolerance and so on. but did you notice, okay, i will now refer to an analytic philosopher. ludwig wittgenstein, who has his struck about already, but later he developed it even more, this difference between saying something and saying, showing it. did make you know another norwegian theorist, john elster. you're. i'm the representative of the audience. i don't have any of the representatives. i'm sure there are other. i to say. a wonderful term, states which are essentially byproducts, like dignity. if you say i'm a dignified person and so on, it's ridiculous. you must show dignity by how you act. you cannot in first person define yourself as dignified. and i think something of the same order happens often with a cancelled culture. forget about what they are saying, diversity, inclusion and so on, just look at what they are. show me. by they act. what they are doing. they're excluding all the time. they're attentioning people who don't fit their definition of inclusion and so on and so on. and this is why my problem with cancer culture, did you notice ich. perverse pleasure in it of destroying western legacy. science, oh is maleauvinistic, logocentric and so on, freedom and human rights, oh these are the rights of white men and so on and so on. i would return to my hamlet example. no, there are open notions. yes, at the beginning, obviously, there was a hidden. s, human rights really meant the rights of white men with some property and so on. but you know what happened then? immediately, larry mstone draft, we in all, then you had, for me, a mega event, shiti revolution. why not us blacks also? and so on and so on. much more than just this negative critique of ideology, throwing all the western tradition out. i i hope i will not offend you too much to provoke you. my god, i'm tempted to say precisely today when europe is so universally shattered and is losing everyone, you know, donald trump hates europe. if you know, i know because i enjoy reading them, this extreme right conspiracy theorists, for them, the true enemies is european union, not isis or al-qa, they are just instruments of european capital. so what and then of course, third world, european colonialism and so on and so on. but what what we need today? if precisely something which in however mystified for it is in practice, europe is betraying itself all the time. but are we aware that even the critics of neocolonialism and all that use concepts developed by european enlightenment. so absolutely i'm not ready to renounce european enlightenment. i think that... even people who you think that they are more radical, they are, but not in the wrong way. i always admired frantz fanon, who stated this. openly, fanon, in his earlier book, black skin white masks, i don't know the other way around, frantz fanon, he says, i don't care for any original african wisdom and so on and so on. he knew what he's talking. and now, by concluding that most important part. i think that precisely we should not renounce this european stance of enlightenment of listening to all sides, of questioning everything in today's gaza-israel war. maybe some of you know i gave a speech there at the opening of the frankfurt book fair and i even went maybe too far. i said i absolutely condemn hamas's attack. eh... because who slaughtered there, but i know people who knew them. and do you know that they were the most open? aram. among the jews. they were all the time precisely in that kibbutz that was slaughtered and the k party. so why did habas do it? i think the explanation is relatively simple. it was not so much the need to win the war, but to make a war to guarantee the there will not be peace, to eternalize the war, to sabotage any. well... possibility. in this right. but... yeah. some of the figures around netanyahu. i'm not saying they are the same, but come pretty close to this. how about... steps. for example, do you know who is now? it's kind of a royal joke for maybe this event. do you know who is now minister for public security or whatever of israel? it is itamar ben-gvir. who was 20 years ago. gon demon! as a terrorist and racist by whom? by israel. it says. he is now. the guy who runs it. who runs security there. the horror here is the following one. i know i want it all the time. what the leader of hamas said, we have only one thing to say to you, to jews. get out of our land, get out of our sight. the land is ours, alud, jerusalem is ours. everything here is ours. there is no place or safety for you. clear and disgusting. but i'm not putting them at the same level. but look what the present government. auf geht yahoo. when they took power, david. announced dead. the jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the land of israel. the government will promote and develop the settlements of all parts of the land of israel in the galilee, negev, gola, judea, samaria, which means west bank and so on. or as netanyahu stated, israel is not a state of all its citizens, but of the jewish people and only. it. no? what i'm saying is that what if, this is my a little bit of conspiracy theory, what if there is. i'm not saying direct. causality. but... in some sense link between the hamas attack. empty. what went on, remember, a couple of months ago in israel, this big conflict between secular powers and what netanyahu is doing now, basically, the israelis were colleagues we are the only democracy there where they are now more and more becoming becoming a theocratic state, israel, what i want to say is just this. i hope we all find this. acceptable. again. friends of my friends were slaughtered by hamas, but i think that hamash and the israeli hardlin. they have formally the same goal, our end without the other. they say more or less openly the istinians think they made many mistakes. there is also anti-semitism there and so on and so on. but i think that to understand what goes on now. e. this conflict. don't focus just on gaza. yeah, horrible things are happening there. but focus on the west bank. silently there this slow ethnic cleansing is going on. so then i will finish if i may just up, up, shut the clip, please. you see, i made a joke before that the guy would fall asleep. he's so focused rather. je suis. very about the settler humiliating palestinian farmers on their own land and earth. you will see in the background of police of military who do nothing. it you know, this is... the problem. and now speaking about that big choice avenir futur, no? israel, i think. kids, now! a unique unique gems. off. and not hear even a radical leftist, you know who said this. the guy who was later convicted for corruption, ekut ulmer azid, the prime minister and so on. he says, now we have a unique hand to say. yes! against hamas but to all of you now we stretch our hand. this is an absolutely unique case. more and more voices in israel are saying this. otherwise, i guarantee you, it will end bad. all, sorry, can i ask, do you want to carry over the clip or you you got the point. yeah. complex but it's now well known. i learned it from them. not first person, but second person. the mother of my friend, udi aloni, shulamit aloni, she was a minister in rabin's government. and... already at that time, the israeli strategy made... terrible mistake. they supported hamas. did you know this? this is not a paranoia theory. you can read in the media why for a very simple thing. they wanted to split the palestinians. secular plo on the west bank and more fundamental from there, if they are split, there will not be a two-state solution. very simple. i... bro. close to the end. i hope you got my point. with all my sympathy for the palestinians. i sincerely worry for what will happen if this goes on with my jewish friends. if israel doesn't use this chance. i predict an explosion in the first part of anti-semitism. it's already happening. did you read a couple of days ago what happened in some d, in some airport that people, protesters broke in and were looking for the jew among them and so on. so one more thing and then i will finish. back to himmler, all that evil and so on. what i am again and again telling my jewish friends, it's not only now precisely because you have a strong army and so on. it... oh the ideal moment two. stretch the hand widely to palestinians, don't treat them just as an obstacle, disturbing point. give them a view. you know what i am terribly afraid here. something is happening now. the explosive rise of something that i cannot but call zionist anti-semitism. the stance which goes like this. we don't want jews in our country. but yes, we want them there in the middle east to build a wall against asian brutal immigrants and so on. and you know who? that's why my talk was interrupted also in frankfurt. in an extremely negative way, i wanted that i couldn't just quote. you know? uh. who... eh. who said this? grow. from 1935. we must separate the jews into two categories, the zionists and the partisans of as. a strictly racial concept and through immigration to palestine they help to build their own jewish state. our good wishes and our official goodwill will go with them. reinhard heydrich. the father of holocaust. and and then the next guy, you know, you remember that guy, brit, that crazy norwegian terrorist who shot it. he said the same. he said, israel should kill palestinians, they should at alaksa, they should destroy, build temple, but not here. here he said the germans took care of jews in europe, but england and especially united states, they still have a problem and so on. and what terrifies me absolutely, uncont. ich. that. some hope. d zionism, the way it is practice! bye. the state of israel now will implicitly or not even so implicitly begin to collaborate with zionist anti-seites. now you will ask me, where are they today? let me name one, obviously, donald trump. he was very much pro-israel, allowed them to annex golan heights and so on and so on. at the same time, he was supported by all those groups, proud boys and so on, which are more or less openly antisemitik. you know, i i... be. so. and. the. e. attack. stop the big protests in israel. against this new civil law and so on and so on. so to conclude, i promise you, i will just read you ugh. one paragraph from the end, i quote it really at some point of one of my great books, ruth klüger, a girl who survived holocaust in auschwitz, wrote memoirs. still alive, a holocaust girlhood. remember. and ruth klüger describes a conversation with some advanced philosophy candidates in germany.. one reports how in jerusalem he, one of his candidates, made the acquaintance of an old hungarian jew who was a survivor of auschwitz and yet this man curse the arabs and tell them all in contempt. how can someone who comes from auschwitz talk like that? the german asks. i get into the act and argue, perhaps more hotly than need be. what did he expect? auschwitz was no instructional institution. you learned nothing there and least of all humanity and tolerance. absolutely nothing good came out of the concentration camps. this is what we should all remember., this is another version of that idea, heroism, false heroism through committing crime. this idea that in extreme situations where you are victiming, it may ennoble you, it may also make you it may even make you... even. oui. so again, to really conclude.
Host
as you put the notes down, you come closer. we're going to stop at the top of the answer. okay, so. that i.
as you put the notes down, you come closer. we're going to stop at the top of the answer. okay, so. that i.
Slavoj Žižek
and and play what i know a post modern and we say see, because you stick to the metaphysical
and and play what i know a post modern and we say see, because you stick to the metaphysical
Host
if you want to hear something funny, so when carlo rovelli came and spoke on friday, he was speaking in a format which was originated in 1825 with a bell that rings at the beginning and then the bell rings at the end of the hour. we don't apply this to you. no no. and i did the joke to him. i came in and the bell rang and i said, i'm sorry, carlo, but in this talk, time is not relative.
if you want to hear something funny, so when carlo rovelli came and spoke on friday, he was speaking in a format which was originated in 1825 with a bell that rings at the beginning and then the bell rings at the end of the hour. we don't apply this to you. no no. and i did the joke to him. i came in and the bell rang and i said, i'm sorry, carlo, but in this talk, time is not relative.
Slavoj Žižek
i don't how.
i don't how.
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
we did in frankfurt when we had another much better debate. i not getting started. death.
we did in frankfurt when we had another much better debate. i not getting started. death.
Host
that.
that.
Slavoj Žižek
like about... many people don't like them, but they are my guys. and. saint just made a wonderful point. he said, a revolutionary is not somebody who knows the historical necessity. he said, a revolutionary is like a captain on a boat. in a storm without compass and has to improvise and so on and that's what we can learn today we need hegel. more than ever. you know what is hegel doing? not justifying things, but hegel is for me the great thinker of distrust. hegel always takes an enthusiastic moment like french revolution and biggest suspicion. oh whoa, whoa, how will... terror arise out of it. heel, i think, would have loved the second part of 19th century because we know it was, at least for us in europe, the era of relative prosperity in germany bismarck introduced even health today, maybe even more than to make great plans for the future. this healthy skepticism. yes, we have a great plan, but focus on how can it go wrong. like, have your would have luck. l okay, he was a tough guy, but he was not than stalin. at the beginning, there was some kind of enthusiasm. up, up, up. after a couple of years, you get st. you know, how things go wrong. liberalism up. you get 50 seconds. this is what we should focus on. peace. the about how some well thought out plan can go wrong. sorry,. i can briefly repeat it very true. you know what's my joke, you know? compare. fascist leader and stalinist leader giving a speech. fascist leader receives the applause at the end. stalinist leaders can up and drums the applause. no's a big difference because in stalinism a leader is just a servant of the people. like there is a cause outside, i just instrument. i don't celebrate in any way stalinism. in some sense, it was even worse. but it's different than you so much. for example, do you know that, and i got this from anne applebaum, from her gulag book, do you know that every year on stalin's birthday, they, all the prisoners in the gula camp in, got together and had to sign a telegram wishing all the rest to stop.
like about... many people don't like them, but they are my guys. and. saint just made a wonderful point. he said, a revolutionary is not somebody who knows the historical necessity. he said, a revolutionary is like a captain on a boat. in a storm without compass and has to improvise and so on and that's what we can learn today we need hegel. more than ever. you know what is hegel doing? not justifying things, but hegel is for me the great thinker of distrust. hegel always takes an enthusiastic moment like french revolution and biggest suspicion. oh whoa, whoa, how will... terror arise out of it. heel, i think, would have loved the second part of 19th century because we know it was, at least for us in europe, the era of relative prosperity in germany bismarck introduced even health today, maybe even more than to make great plans for the future. this healthy skepticism. yes, we have a great plan, but focus on how can it go wrong. like, have your would have luck. l okay, he was a tough guy, but he was not than stalin. at the beginning, there was some kind of enthusiasm. up, up, up. after a couple of years, you get st. you know, how things go wrong. liberalism up. you get 50 seconds. this is what we should focus on. peace. the about how some well thought out plan can go wrong. sorry,. i can briefly repeat it very true. you know what's my joke, you know? compare. fascist leader and stalinist leader giving a speech. fascist leader receives the applause at the end. stalinist leaders can up and drums the applause. no's a big difference because in stalinism a leader is just a servant of the people. like there is a cause outside, i just instrument. i don't celebrate in any way stalinism. in some sense, it was even worse. but it's different than you so much. for example, do you know that, and i got this from anne applebaum, from her gulag book, do you know that every year on stalin's birthday, they, all the prisoners in the gula camp in, got together and had to sign a telegram wishing all the rest to stop.
Host
now deeply
now deeply
Slavoj Žižek
he dead. stalinism is... still our european enlightenment gone wrong.
he dead. stalinism is... still our european enlightenment gone wrong.
Host
yeah. it it's really hard to distinguish between when you are about to finish and half. by the way, with the applause. the microphones are very sensitive, so we learn to clap but silent when you're on the stage. because otherwise the microphone is. can i ask you a question, and it's a technical one. we're coming to questions from the floor, but there's a question i want to start with, which is of a technical nature, but i also think it's really interesting. so when i went through the book, yeah. others also, this one. there was some stuff about israel-palestine in there and it's referred to to some extent. and also therefore, the blurb that we had for this evening did not particularly focus on israel-palestine th and so on because we wrote it before the attacks and the consequences. it's really striking to me that if you look at the current situation, which you've described in terrible detail, it's excited tremendous popular response. across the world. there have been demonstrations in london and other cities almost and i don't to trivialise it. it's imaginable to me if there were 100,000 in london that globally there are as many people marching as there are people in gaza, in a funny sense, right? 10 times 100,000 comes to a million, maybe it's 20 cities is marching. i'm not doing a what about question, but i'm asking you, johnemy, what do you think is the fascination which you've exhibited to some extent now because it's immediate, but more generally, there are very few things that get that number of people on the stream. what is the fascination? of the israel-palestine question. in the public imagination, what is its relevance, what is its apparently central resonance and repeatedly so for these questions about future development?
yeah. it it's really hard to distinguish between when you are about to finish and half. by the way, with the applause. the microphones are very sensitive, so we learn to clap but silent when you're on the stage. because otherwise the microphone is. can i ask you a question, and it's a technical one. we're coming to questions from the floor, but there's a question i want to start with, which is of a technical nature, but i also think it's really interesting. so when i went through the book, yeah. others also, this one. there was some stuff about israel-palestine in there and it's referred to to some extent. and also therefore, the blurb that we had for this evening did not particularly focus on israel-palestine th and so on because we wrote it before the attacks and the consequences. it's really striking to me that if you look at the current situation, which you've described in terrible detail, it's excited tremendous popular response. across the world. there have been demonstrations in london and other cities almost and i don't to trivialise it. it's imaginable to me if there were 100,000 in london that globally there are as many people marching as there are people in gaza, in a funny sense, right? 10 times 100,000 comes to a million, maybe it's 20 cities is marching. i'm not doing a what about question, but i'm asking you, johnemy, what do you think is the fascination which you've exhibited to some extent now because it's immediate, but more generally, there are very few things that get that number of people on the stream. what is the fascination? of the israel-palestine question. in the public imagination, what is its relevance, what is its apparently central resonance and repeatedly so for these questions about future development?
Slavoj Žižek
did you follow that debate in germany? they even called it the new historian struggle, when it was between, on the one hand, that african guy, mbembe, achille mbembe, and on the other side, habermas and others and i intervened into it with some general comment and i said my position is it's absolutely obscene to engage in such even type of design namely what is greatest sin? holocaust or t mi. and i found this, because if you measure it in a certain way of toxic holocaust, its unique industrialized murder, on the other hand, i mean this ironically now, don't underestimate colonialism, the forests did. for example, and here i'm very open. even to something that some people will proclaim the time betraying the left year. visit accra in ghana, visit slavery museums somewhere there. and you learn that there were no bad white people i attacking slaves. these entities, i don't know if in our european sense they were states or not, i don't mean this in a patronizing way, but the political entities, slavery was widely developed there already. the mic? but to stay there mostly on one or another island and just just were dealing it. so that's one point. second point. show me one civilization in the entire right. show me one civilization after neolithic which didn't have slaves. know, not even one. especially... for example, you know when in saudi arabia, formerly, they still had slaves, among slavery in 1962. and so on. and if you compare it can be done. the number of slaves. taken by western european whites to the united states and the number of slaves taken in eastern africa by the arabs, the number is the same, around 10 millions. so... now, i will say something. really provocative. back. so what did the white people, what is the new thing the white people did? they started a movement against labor. the only... it was insincere, they treated in all possible ways a more. it was done. now, i'm not in this sense simplifying slavery and black humiliation. let's be serious. i know i'm even in theory sympathetic to so-called afro-pessimism. you know how this radical disization of blacks persists. i. all day. but just, to make you aware what history of a country you live here. i read recently a book about the opium war. you know what horror was this? in bengal, in the english colonizers. let people start and growing enough food for them, but growing mostly opium, selling it to china. then a young chinese emperor was desperate. millions of people at the end wrote a nice letter to queen victoria already. even didn't get a reply and then all he did was all western powers and you what this spent for china not per capita but as a global economic power. in 1820 china was still three times stronger than the united kingdom of course it. what they. so in 20 years. you cannot imagine the catastrophe. two thirds of the entire economy well done. yeah so, i mean, you know, so my idea is simply... eh it's something obscene to play the game which is work. what would hurt you more if i squeeze your stomach or if you put?
did you follow that debate in germany? they even called it the new historian struggle, when it was between, on the one hand, that african guy, mbembe, achille mbembe, and on the other side, habermas and others and i intervened into it with some general comment and i said my position is it's absolutely obscene to engage in such even type of design namely what is greatest sin? holocaust or t mi. and i found this, because if you measure it in a certain way of toxic holocaust, its unique industrialized murder, on the other hand, i mean this ironically now, don't underestimate colonialism, the forests did. for example, and here i'm very open. even to something that some people will proclaim the time betraying the left year. visit accra in ghana, visit slavery museums somewhere there. and you learn that there were no bad white people i attacking slaves. these entities, i don't know if in our european sense they were states or not, i don't mean this in a patronizing way, but the political entities, slavery was widely developed there already. the mic? but to stay there mostly on one or another island and just just were dealing it. so that's one point. second point. show me one civilization in the entire right. show me one civilization after neolithic which didn't have slaves. know, not even one. especially... for example, you know when in saudi arabia, formerly, they still had slaves, among slavery in 1962. and so on. and if you compare it can be done. the number of slaves. taken by western european whites to the united states and the number of slaves taken in eastern africa by the arabs, the number is the same, around 10 millions. so... now, i will say something. really provocative. back. so what did the white people, what is the new thing the white people did? they started a movement against labor. the only... it was insincere, they treated in all possible ways a more. it was done. now, i'm not in this sense simplifying slavery and black humiliation. let's be serious. i know i'm even in theory sympathetic to so-called afro-pessimism. you know how this radical disization of blacks persists. i. all day. but just, to make you aware what history of a country you live here. i read recently a book about the opium war. you know what horror was this? in bengal, in the english colonizers. let people start and growing enough food for them, but growing mostly opium, selling it to china. then a young chinese emperor was desperate. millions of people at the end wrote a nice letter to queen victoria already. even didn't get a reply and then all he did was all western powers and you what this spent for china not per capita but as a global economic power. in 1820 china was still three times stronger than the united kingdom of course it. what they. so in 20 years. you cannot imagine the catastrophe. two thirds of the entire economy well done. yeah so, i mean, you know, so my idea is simply... eh it's something obscene to play the game which is work. what would hurt you more if i squeeze your stomach or if you put?
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah. the tragedy is death. like... the tragedy is death. for, third world. people, this is an internal european affair and so on, which is why, and this is what really makes me afraid, that one of the results will be that in so-called african, asian third world countries, anti-semitism will become part of anti-colonialist strategy. for their tradition. it is already happening with homosexuality. i follow this in uganda, you know, the new laws, even death penalty if you are caught homosexual act. yeah, yeah, but i did something that many people didn't do. i look on the web into the newspapers. what's the explanation? lgbt plus homosexuality is part of colonialist ideology. you must choose the decadent west or. i this is, because you know, all these countries there, indonesia and so on, they are not in themselves ent. d. effect of this war. ent... will even universalize itself because now and here russia will may even succeed with this propaganda of how russia you know how russia presents its politics in ukraine. we are defending the third world colonial countries against ukraine which is the slave of western imperialism. there i even learned from friends of my and the work of this. orthodox conservative thinkers, but then he also had a group of marxists. here we go.
yeah. the tragedy is death. like... the tragedy is death. for, third world. people, this is an internal european affair and so on, which is why, and this is what really makes me afraid, that one of the results will be that in so-called african, asian third world countries, anti-semitism will become part of anti-colonialist strategy. for their tradition. it is already happening with homosexuality. i follow this in uganda, you know, the new laws, even death penalty if you are caught homosexual act. yeah, yeah, but i did something that many people didn't do. i look on the web into the newspapers. what's the explanation? lgbt plus homosexuality is part of colonialist ideology. you must choose the decadent west or. i this is, because you know, all these countries there, indonesia and so on, they are not in themselves ent. d. effect of this war. ent... will even universalize itself because now and here russia will may even succeed with this propaganda of how russia you know how russia presents its politics in ukraine. we are defending the third world colonial countries against ukraine which is the slave of western imperialism. there i even learned from friends of my and the work of this. orthodox conservative thinkers, but then he also had a group of marxists. here we go.
Host
whoo.
whoo.
Slavoj Žižek
enabled him to formulate his struggle in terms of secular struggle, anti-colonialist and so on and so on. the real danger i see it in this. will be the west. but even here, never forget. anti-semitism is just beneath the surface all the time. look in germany, how aller für deutschland and so on. and then all the world, you know. it will become like you know, we like what about immediate about. say. zionism and other forms of racism, that's what i'm afraid of.
enabled him to formulate his struggle in terms of secular struggle, anti-colonialist and so on and so on. the real danger i see it in this. will be the west. but even here, never forget. anti-semitism is just beneath the surface all the time. look in germany, how aller für deutschland and so on. and then all the world, you know. it will become like you know, we like what about immediate about. say. zionism and other forms of racism, that's what i'm afraid of.
Host
this will be the dividing line. take my mistake as a warning. ask your questions briefly and we'll try and keep the answers brief to get through. can we have the lights up a little more in the audience please? so if you make yourself known with your hands, we'll bring a microphone to you and we will be in. there's a hand just there. yep,. like this one. thank you. they.
this will be the dividing line. take my mistake as a warning. ask your questions briefly and we'll try and keep the answers brief to get through. can we have the lights up a little more in the audience please? so if you make yourself known with your hands, we'll bring a microphone to you and we will be in. there's a hand just there. yep,. like this one. thank you. they.
Audience Member
thanks so much for your talk. i just have a question. i completely understand the reasons to be pessimistic considering everything that's going on, but what would need to change or what would potentially the reasons to stay optimistic and positive?
thanks so much for your talk. i just have a question. i completely understand the reasons to be pessimistic considering everything that's going on, but what would need to change or what would potentially the reasons to stay optimistic and positive?
Audience Member
because isn't it that that would drive some positive change of action?
because isn't it that that would drive some positive change of action?
Slavoj Žižek
yeah who did they call it? one million dollars question. do i have that?
yeah who did they call it? one million dollars question. do i have that?
Host
you
you
Slavoj Žižek
yeah yeah.
yeah yeah.
Host
let's give that a shot. so the thought is, wouldn't we be better off if we were more positive? because your sense is almost that we need to confront them and see the inevitability of catastrophe. in order to make things better or something.
let's give that a shot. so the thought is, wouldn't we be better off if we were more positive? because your sense is almost that we need to confront them and see the inevitability of catastrophe. in order to make things better or something.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, but okay, but you know what is my fear? maybe i hope, i pray to god, although i have an atheist, i'm too pessimistic, but... do you see anywhere, any evil? little bit of a... quote. like in latin america, all this new left wave, the only one, the only country where the left didn't screw it up is bolivia. i know the vice president, garcía linera, ex-vice president, they did it. it's a miracle. but how they broke diplomatic ties with israel, which is exactly, i think, not the thing to do now. i am. my situation is this one. now i really appear crazy. through this catast something new will emerge in what way? when i mention war communism as our future, in good sense, people laugh at me. and i they tell me, give me an example. and i tell them donald trump. you remember when the whatever, the epidemic was at its high point? he had to do something against all the market rules. every family got a check for $2,000 and so on. he the state felt compelled to actively intervene into economy and this is my answer to all the liberalsals who claim raise taxes for half a percent. no, it will ruin the market. trillions first time, then they didn't. r. inde through catastrophes, we also hopefully will learn what can we do. because to go back, i cannot. three days after fukushima. catastrophe visited japan. as part of european union and he said, one they? japanese government was rep because
yeah, but okay, but you know what is my fear? maybe i hope, i pray to god, although i have an atheist, i'm too pessimistic, but... do you see anywhere, any evil? little bit of a... quote. like in latin america, all this new left wave, the only one, the only country where the left didn't screw it up is bolivia. i know the vice president, garcía linera, ex-vice president, they did it. it's a miracle. but how they broke diplomatic ties with israel, which is exactly, i think, not the thing to do now. i am. my situation is this one. now i really appear crazy. through this catast something new will emerge in what way? when i mention war communism as our future, in good sense, people laugh at me. and i they tell me, give me an example. and i tell them donald trump. you remember when the whatever, the epidemic was at its high point? he had to do something against all the market rules. every family got a check for $2,000 and so on. he the state felt compelled to actively intervene into economy and this is my answer to all the liberalsals who claim raise taxes for half a percent. no, it will ruin the market. trillions first time, then they didn't. r. inde through catastrophes, we also hopefully will learn what can we do. because to go back, i cannot. three days after fukushima. catastrophe visited japan. as part of european union and he said, one they? japanese government was rep because
Audience Member
ep.
ep.
Slavoj Žižek
look the whole tokyo area. 30 million people will have to be evacuated. now, where? in ancient times this meant go, go to another continent and move with. today you cannot do it like this. that's why it's a matter of survival. organize, impose not just some kind of consultative bodies, but effective measures of international cooperation. why? because these catastrophes are global look what fascinated me because i like that area. not weeks. yeah. . ki. vancouver. you remember? two and a half. yes ago, sam. 50 degrees celsius. vancouver was hotter than mumbai or sorry and all those parts. now, it's obvious that it's not because they were doing something wrong. they were, but basically they were rich parts where they did the usual ecological stuff. no, it's the whole circulating of the air around the north pole, which is... protect and so on. so it's absolute necessity to do global measure. we not only need efficient states, we need more efficient international cooperation, but the tendency today, again by pessimism, is exactly the opposite. well, it's stronger nation states. even china, why are they screwing now uyghurs tibetans? it's already they already infected by european... sovereign, nation state and so on. so now i'm asking you,. not as a provocation, but... i desperately am looking for some good news. just don't tell me local, local sales management cooperation and so on and so on. i think that we live in a global era and i don't believe in these people will self-organize here, there, you know. oh.
look the whole tokyo area. 30 million people will have to be evacuated. now, where? in ancient times this meant go, go to another continent and move with. today you cannot do it like this. that's why it's a matter of survival. organize, impose not just some kind of consultative bodies, but effective measures of international cooperation. why? because these catastrophes are global look what fascinated me because i like that area. not weeks. yeah. . ki. vancouver. you remember? two and a half. yes ago, sam. 50 degrees celsius. vancouver was hotter than mumbai or sorry and all those parts. now, it's obvious that it's not because they were doing something wrong. they were, but basically they were rich parts where they did the usual ecological stuff. no, it's the whole circulating of the air around the north pole, which is... protect and so on. so it's absolute necessity to do global measure. we not only need efficient states, we need more efficient international cooperation, but the tendency today, again by pessimism, is exactly the opposite. well, it's stronger nation states. even china, why are they screwing now uyghurs tibetans? it's already they already infected by european... sovereign, nation state and so on. so now i'm asking you,. not as a provocation, but... i desperately am looking for some good news. just don't tell me local, local sales management cooperation and so on and so on. i think that we live in a global era and i don't believe in these people will self-organize here, there, you know. oh.
Host
okay, so we're going to buffer up because that's the only hope we've had. so we're going to go there. no around with you..
okay, so we're going to buffer up because that's the only hope we've had. so we're going to go there. no around with you..
Slavoj Žižek
too much left.
too much left.
Host
make your judgments as you want. go.
make your judgments as you want. go.
Slavoj Žižek
they.
they.
Host
yeah, the czech one, right? yeah, yeah, okay because he was ready before. i'll tell you let's go ahead.
yeah, the czech one, right? yeah, yeah, okay because he was ready before. i'll tell you let's go ahead.
Audience Member
hi, professor, good evening. thank you for an interesting presentation interesting. a conclusion and a clear thread. my language is pretty clear on. you know, you are a person of a certain age, the and will probably, you will still probably enjoy the world as it is. and if i'm lucky, i will be marginally younger than you. but look at the audience. there are people in their 20s or even younger. and i think you know that this sort of pessimism slash sort of cynicism you're exhibiting, i respect that, but there's not much they can take away from it because you're basically saying you're fact. and i mean, do you have any practical advice for young people in this audience other than you will witness the end of the world as you know it? because it's fine when you say it in this nice little auditorium.
hi, professor, good evening. thank you for an interesting presentation interesting. a conclusion and a clear thread. my language is pretty clear on. you know, you are a person of a certain age, the and will probably, you will still probably enjoy the world as it is. and if i'm lucky, i will be marginally younger than you. but look at the audience. there are people in their 20s or even younger. and i think you know that this sort of pessimism slash sort of cynicism you're exhibiting, i respect that, but there's not much they can take away from it because you're basically saying you're fact. and i mean, do you have any practical advice for young people in this audience other than you will witness the end of the world as you know it? because it's fine when you say it in this nice little auditorium.
Host
good question. so thank you. by the way, i enjoy the fact that you're raising the the youngest people sitting directly opposite you immediately followed by a swear word. guys, don't use this language. there is a tradition at the our institution that the youngest people in the room can ask anything they want at any time, so you just give me a nod and we'll bring the mic. but we've got checha next. we're going to take a couple and then you'll come back.
good question. so thank you. by the way, i enjoy the fact that you're raising the the youngest people sitting directly opposite you immediately followed by a swear word. guys, don't use this language. there is a tradition at the our institution that the youngest people in the room can ask anything they want at any time, so you just give me a nod and we'll bring the mic. but we've got checha next. we're going to take a couple and then you'll come back.
Audience Member
y, is this working? you introduced the bhagavad gita when you were discussing, almost right after you talked about this radical freedom, the ontological incompleteness of the universe. you introduced the bhagavad gita as almost like a foil to that. but i feel like in that text, there is this sort of idea of like if you're disconnected from the consequence of your action it is that at that point i feel like radical freedom would open up that alternative future or alternative to sort of symbolic norm would occur. so i wonder if you think that's true or there's something there in that like juxtaposing that with be sort of... you know, evil interpretation of himler.
y, is this working? you introduced the bhagavad gita when you were discussing, almost right after you talked about this radical freedom, the ontological incompleteness of the universe. you introduced the bhagavad gita as almost like a foil to that. but i feel like in that text, there is this sort of idea of like if you're disconnected from the consequence of your action it is that at that point i feel like radical freedom would open up that alternative future or alternative to sort of symbolic norm would occur. so i wonder if you think that's true or there's something there in that like juxtaposing that with be sort of... you know, evil interpretation of himler.
Host
okay, we'll take one more as the buffer and see. yeah, we've got a hand went straight up there. look, in the dark shows. i can see yes. yeah,. people.
okay, we'll take one more as the buffer and see. yeah, we've got a hand went straight up there. look, in the dark shows. i can see yes. yeah,. people.
Audience Member
hi, thank you. i know you're a fan of hegel and in the spirit of hope for everyone. you started with t. eliot and then you said something about necessity and not really contingency in the world. and then you mentioned gaza and... i'm wondering, a lot of what you start with... has to do with spinoza, it's at the core of it. and maybe it's perhaps what, i don't know, the conflicts in the world right now would need. and so since it's, i don't know, very connected to everything that you said, i think would bring together the points raised and the hope for a all. what's your opinion, spininoos about this, like tying together all your points?
hi, thank you. i know you're a fan of hegel and in the spirit of hope for everyone. you started with t. eliot and then you said something about necessity and not really contingency in the world. and then you mentioned gaza and... i'm wondering, a lot of what you start with... has to do with spinoza, it's at the core of it. and maybe it's perhaps what, i don't know, the conflicts in the world right now would need. and so since it's, i don't know, very connected to everything that you said, i think would bring together the points raised and the hope for a all. what's your opinion, spininoos about this, like tying together all your points?
Host
okay, that's one. so we've got advice for the young, we've got gita and the acceptance and we've got skza. what are we going to do? first, okay,'ll.
okay, that's one. so we've got advice for the young, we've got gita and the acceptance and we've got skza. what are we going to do? first, okay,'ll.
Slavoj Žižek
the the this is, of course a question for another lecture.
the the this is, of course a question for another lecture.
Host
and you also probably for me and the rest, just give us a word of what you think, why spinoza has being brought up at this point, what do people mean by spinoza in this context?
and you also probably for me and the rest, just give us a word of what you think, why spinoza has being brought up at this point, what do people mean by spinoza in this context?
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, but for me, even in... most contemporary readings, deleuze and so on, there is no place in spinoza for what we call modern. i'm absolutely a partisan of modern subjectivity. descartes. these are the greatest revolution and i... hely. how? maybe i'm misreading spinoza, but where do you find this ontological openness in spinoza? is spinoza precisely
yeah, but for me, even in... most contemporary readings, deleuze and so on, there is no place in spinoza for what we call modern. i'm absolutely a partisan of modern subjectivity. descartes. these are the greatest revolution and i... hely. how? maybe i'm misreading spinoza, but where do you find this ontological openness in spinoza? is spinoza precisely
Audience Member
fun.
fun.
Slavoj Žižek
sorry, quantum mechanics, is shouting.
sorry, quantum mechanics, is shouting.
Audience Member
that makes sense out of spininoza. that moment of... it's like that moment that it's like... present is making that moment.
that makes sense out of spininoza. that moment of... it's like that moment that it's like... present is making that moment.
Host
so it's the collapse of the wave function.
so it's the collapse of the wave function.
Audience Member
yes, yes. and he anticipated in that chain of alignment.
yes, yes. and he anticipated in that chain of alignment.
Host
so the claim is that spinoza anticipated the notion of the collapse of the wave function. and that the modern physics which talks about uncertainty until you observe it and then it becomes certain, which you described as being historical, is prefigured by spinoza. yeah.
so the claim is that spinoza anticipated the notion of the collapse of the wave function. and that the modern physics which talks about uncertainty until you observe it and then it becomes certain, which you described as being historical, is prefigured by spinoza. yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
i mean, again,. i was too much into it here, but... forg. again. ontologically, it knows. the world is, i believe that in the most radical meaning of quantum physics, there are multiple realities all against some radical abyss threatening all the edge of self-destruction here strict heg. i don't see where you find this in he knows that...
i mean, again,. i was too much into it here, but... forg. again. ontologically, it knows. the world is, i believe that in the most radical meaning of quantum physics, there are multiple realities all against some radical abyss threatening all the edge of self-destruction here strict heg. i don't see where you find this in he knows that...
Host
no, no, no, no, no, no, no. you want to do advice for the young? you want to do bh pizza?
no, no, no, no, no, no, no. you want to do advice for the young? you want to do bh pizza?
Slavoj Žižek
no, let... you. yeah. the bhavad-gita. nonetheless, you know, the most famous scene where arjuna doubts should i lead the army into attack? and then krishna, who appears to him, gives him... ch, no. i simply... reject this as a proper ethical act. i think that here i the county, again, provoking you. you know, kant says something much more subversive in this. in his practicalactical reason. it's not just do your duty unconditionally or as they say in german, du kannstst denn du selbst, you can because you must. but it's also you are totally responsible for your beauty. you are never in this objective, let's say we are friends, then i have to do something horrible to you and then i can tell you, sorry, we are still friends, but you know that's my duty. no, i'm not allowed. i must to do this, i must totally stand subjectively. duty. duty cannot be objectiveivism that's for me modern freedom so if you go to you know now we are going to will be very brief different namely and i have many friends in india and maybe they are one-sided but they tend to agree with me is not objective that the greatest catastrophe of india was around year zero a little bit the defeat of buddhism. and then this violent return of hinduism. you know, because buddhism, although i also have problems, there is for me this sense of, how i put, of some abyss of freedom, nothing is substantially true and so on and so on, which does not mean any kind of relativism and so on and so on. bhhararat ita is just i, okay, i stop so that i don't get lost. you know this identity of my ego and the world so or whatever. my problem is precisely they are not identical. i am a failure in the universe. and for me, that's why i call myself with a little bit of irony, atheist christian, i think this is for me the materialist even lesson of christianity. it.
no, let... you. yeah. the bhavad-gita. nonetheless, you know, the most famous scene where arjuna doubts should i lead the army into attack? and then krishna, who appears to him, gives him... ch, no. i simply... reject this as a proper ethical act. i think that here i the county, again, provoking you. you know, kant says something much more subversive in this. in his practicalactical reason. it's not just do your duty unconditionally or as they say in german, du kannstst denn du selbst, you can because you must. but it's also you are totally responsible for your beauty. you are never in this objective, let's say we are friends, then i have to do something horrible to you and then i can tell you, sorry, we are still friends, but you know that's my duty. no, i'm not allowed. i must to do this, i must totally stand subjectively. duty. duty cannot be objectiveivism that's for me modern freedom so if you go to you know now we are going to will be very brief different namely and i have many friends in india and maybe they are one-sided but they tend to agree with me is not objective that the greatest catastrophe of india was around year zero a little bit the defeat of buddhism. and then this violent return of hinduism. you know, because buddhism, although i also have problems, there is for me this sense of, how i put, of some abyss of freedom, nothing is substantially true and so on and so on, which does not mean any kind of relativism and so on and so on. bhhararat ita is just i, okay, i stop so that i don't get lost. you know this identity of my ego and the world so or whatever. my problem is precisely they are not identical. i am a failure in the universe. and for me, that's why i call myself with a little bit of irony, atheist christian, i think this is for me the materialist even lesson of christianity. it.
Audience Member
sch.
sch.
Slavoj Žižek
what dies on the cross? no. not a representative of god. it's god of beyond himself. after that we get holy spirit. what is holy spirit? the community of believers. yes.
what dies on the cross? no. not a representative of god. it's god of beyond himself. after that we get holy spirit. what is holy spirit? the community of believers. yes.
Audience Member
.
.
Slavoj Žižek
of believers who are are radically free. so my idea is this radical notion of freedom where we are left to our own. we cannot rely neither on marxist notion of progress or whatever. you are on your own.
of believers who are are radically free. so my idea is this radical notion of freedom where we are left to our own. we cannot rely neither on marxist notion of progress or whatever. you are on your own.
Host
okay.
okay.
Slavoj Žižek
okay.
okay.
Host
and we'll hold the young people over and i will hold you to it. but let me tell you what's going to happen. some of you i can see that need to go. we're going to be done by 2035. so we're going to finish five minutes late according to the program. i'm going to take three more interventions. we're going to roll in. there's one there. there's one yeah let's go with that one and let's go with the front here and then we'll see what we going to do that.. so yeah, give it please. yep, you. good. yes, yep, the government.
and we'll hold the young people over and i will hold you to it. but let me tell you what's going to happen. some of you i can see that need to go. we're going to be done by 2035. so we're going to finish five minutes late according to the program. i'm going to take three more interventions. we're going to roll in. there's one there. there's one yeah let's go with that one and let's go with the front here and then we'll see what we going to do that.. so yeah, give it please. yep, you. good. yes, yep, the government.
Audience Member
yeah, i'm very sorry that today you are much constrained or much restrained in terms of the way you speak, as if you were afraid of something. and this leads to my question on freedom of speech. it is very sad to see that, comparing to what you have spoken in south bank, in 2015 about the conflict between israeli and pak and to what you comment on this conflict in the frankfurt book fair and today, it seems to me that you are way more constrained. is there who is sh fek? actually afraid of. that's a great question..
yeah, i'm very sorry that today you are much constrained or much restrained in terms of the way you speak, as if you were afraid of something. and this leads to my question on freedom of speech. it is very sad to see that, comparing to what you have spoken in south bank, in 2015 about the conflict between israeli and pak and to what you comment on this conflict in the frankfurt book fair and today, it seems to me that you are way more constrained. is there who is sh fek? actually afraid of. that's a great question..
Host
i. the way, true fans, right? they're comparing what you said this time with the two previous ones. i think we're going here next and then we've got time for.
i. the way, true fans, right? they're comparing what you said this time with the two previous ones. i think we're going here next and then we've got time for.
Audience Member
i got a question. like, how can you be sure that the political initiatives you're making at the moment are absolutely right? i think we can structure the future by analyzing the past. from a center point of view, the future can indeed be understood as the sum of countless moments. but for the present, the present is in a complex system. it's an entanglement of countless plots. i think there is no determined direction.
i got a question. like, how can you be sure that the political initiatives you're making at the moment are absolutely right? i think we can structure the future by analyzing the past. from a center point of view, the future can indeed be understood as the sum of countless moments. but for the present, the present is in a complex system. it's an entanglement of countless plots. i think there is no determined direction.
Host
there's no one determined direction. okay so how can you be sure you're doing the right thing, i think is the question. more for the? okay, let's go to the back.
there's no one determined direction. okay so how can you be sure you're doing the right thing, i think is the question. more for the? okay, let's go to the back.
Slavoj Žižek
thank. i didn. yes.
thank. i didn. yes.
Host
there is no way we're going to get. what's true.
there is no way we're going to get. what's true.
Audience Member
you you don't lose. now now you're looking
you you don't lose. now now you're looking
Host
congratulations. start to replace jobs. is this maybe the answer for communism? maybe?. so we're going to come back to the blast for the young. we've got what are you scared of and how do you know you're right and ai. we fool us.
congratulations. start to replace jobs. is this maybe the answer for communism? maybe?. so we're going to come back to the blast for the young. we've got what are you scared of and how do you know you're right and ai. we fool us.
Slavoj Žižek
okay, let's how do i know that i am right? you know, precisely what is in my universe totally prohibited is this idea present is incredibly complex, we cannot be right and so on and so on. no, ethically, in different situations, we without pretending any to any radical absolute knowing, we know we can be... right the philosophical reflexive of, what do you mean by this? let's return to anti-semitism. my old example, let's say i am in germany, 35, sitting. anti-seite and we debate are the jews really the way they are? that they are profiting, seducing our women and so on and so on. the moment we should also debate this, but this is not the right debate. here you can always come. you say jews are good, but there is some jew there who stole that money from me. you find examples for everything. i believe in the power of abstraction, vertical abstraction here, not some globalization. the true question and there. we can give an absolute answer. the true question is not, is the nazi idea of. sustain their self-identity needs something like the figure of a jew. because if you take the figure of the jew away, nazism collapses. it's a very simplified analysis. because the jew is needed to sustain their corporate vision, which is our society is basically,, homogeneous. orgasm, then an intruder comes the jew and ruins it and so on and so on. so i don't have time to go into it in detail, but you see my point. my point is... death. yeah. of course, there is infinite complexity and so on and so on. but where did you... i would die. your certainty when this very view of reality as infinitely complex, interacting and so on and so on is for me already a very dogmatic presupposition. i don't, but we don't understand.
okay, let's how do i know that i am right? you know, precisely what is in my universe totally prohibited is this idea present is incredibly complex, we cannot be right and so on and so on. no, ethically, in different situations, we without pretending any to any radical absolute knowing, we know we can be... right the philosophical reflexive of, what do you mean by this? let's return to anti-semitism. my old example, let's say i am in germany, 35, sitting. anti-seite and we debate are the jews really the way they are? that they are profiting, seducing our women and so on and so on. the moment we should also debate this, but this is not the right debate. here you can always come. you say jews are good, but there is some jew there who stole that money from me. you find examples for everything. i believe in the power of abstraction, vertical abstraction here, not some globalization. the true question and there. we can give an absolute answer. the true question is not, is the nazi idea of. sustain their self-identity needs something like the figure of a jew. because if you take the figure of the jew away, nazism collapses. it's a very simplified analysis. because the jew is needed to sustain their corporate vision, which is our society is basically,, homogeneous. orgasm, then an intruder comes the jew and ruins it and so on and so on. so i don't have time to go into it in detail, but you see my point. my point is... death. yeah. of course, there is infinite complexity and so on and so on. but where did you... i would die. your certainty when this very view of reality as infinitely complex, interacting and so on and so on is for me already a very dogmatic presupposition. i don't, but we don't understand.
Host
there's a claim that you're frightened of something.
there's a claim that you're frightened of something.
Slavoj Žižek
ah,'s not hypocritical. i like that question very much because it enables you to make my point. don't be afraid. do you think that i'm such an idiot that i didn't know what will happen in frankfurt after my speech, which was extremely constrained. you know, like all the figures i was quoting were who. under quotation marks, i'm sorry, even moshe dayan quoted by admitting one, by admitting precisely that gazans had the right to attack a kibbutz there in 1956. you know what was my test? and it worked. i ask myself, if i just say palestine free from the river to the sea, blah, blah, also this is. should be specified. i doubt it. of course! everybody! it will be just, you know. ah, you've chosen your side. what i've tried to do is to be es consider. yes. possible. not only with all... this. constraint approach there. not only... it did. save me in any way. the front bake. e. those and those horrible german daily newspaper attacks on me were even worse. because they claimed instead of openly. admitting that i'm supporting a terrorist, i'm hiding, i'm hypocritical and so on and so on. that's what i really wanted to teach. and it's a very, if you want, antagonistic marxist lesson. it is that even if you try to be very considerate. you know, i gave all of them all of the way through, i mean, i admit that he that he has shamas and so on. for example.
ah,'s not hypocritical. i like that question very much because it enables you to make my point. don't be afraid. do you think that i'm such an idiot that i didn't know what will happen in frankfurt after my speech, which was extremely constrained. you know, like all the figures i was quoting were who. under quotation marks, i'm sorry, even moshe dayan quoted by admitting one, by admitting precisely that gazans had the right to attack a kibbutz there in 1956. you know what was my test? and it worked. i ask myself, if i just say palestine free from the river to the sea, blah, blah, also this is. should be specified. i doubt it. of course! everybody! it will be just, you know. ah, you've chosen your side. what i've tried to do is to be es consider. yes. possible. not only with all... this. constraint approach there. not only... it did. save me in any way. the front bake. e. those and those horrible german daily newspaper attacks on me were even worse. because they claimed instead of openly. admitting that i'm supporting a terrorist, i'm hiding, i'm hypocritical and so on and so on. that's what i really wanted to teach. and it's a very, if you want, antagonistic marxist lesson. it is that even if you try to be very considerate. you know, i gave all of them all of the way through, i mean, i admit that he that he has shamas and so on. for example.
Host
it.
it.
Slavoj Žižek
no.
no.
Host
i. three ai and then yeah, we're going to finish afterwards just do young people. and we've got the christmas lecture.
i. three ai and then yeah, we're going to finish afterwards just do young people. and we've got the christmas lecture.
Slavoj Žižek
so. i.
so. i.
Host
thank. believe
thank. believe
Slavoj Žižek
what christmas lectures, oliver cromwell did one good thing..
what christmas lectures, oliver cromwell did one good thing..
Host
you. thank. i'm gonna hold. i i'm really sorry, but we have to keep time. i'm going to press you on the young people. just say a couple of sentences, please,, on what would you say to the young? it's a fair question.
you. thank. i'm gonna hold. i i'm really sorry, but we have to keep time. i'm going to press you on the young people. just say a couple of sentences, please,, on what would you say to the young? it's a fair question.
Slavoj Žižek
but nonetheless.
but nonetheless.
Host
.
.
Slavoj Žižek
i.
i.
Host
thank.
thank.
Slavoj Žižek
thank.
thank.
Host
end. okay.
end. okay.
Slavoj Žižek
it.
it.
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
you not problem. my problem is not this all-powerfulness of the ai, but that in it very. omnipotence is stupid. it cannot use its own mistakes and so on. spirit it for me. begins when something goes wrong a new problem.
you not problem. my problem is not this all-powerfulness of the ai, but that in it very. omnipotence is stupid. it cannot use its own mistakes and so on. spirit it for me. begins when something goes wrong a new problem.
Host
good down for the and then we'll go to the outside. uh,.
good down for the and then we'll go to the outside. uh,.
Slavoj Žižek
it. i would... me a little bit is okay, i am not young but i have two sons, one is much younger than you. and so... why i find it strange, what is the, now i will do not philosophical, but hermeneutic analysis. when you say the young people, what do you mean? i see a fundamental ambiguity in it. do you mean i may be right that it's not good to tell this to the young people because you ruin their future, or are you saying, since you're an old creepy guy, i mean disrespect towards me. it's not only bad for no perspective to the young people, but you are factually wrong. and i would, because that's the same argument that goes, for example, with freedom of the will. the argument of car. ich! not there is no freedom of the will, but if we renounce the freedom of the will, the very morality, responsibility of our mind is lost. um. like... again, this is what i don't get i think it is like... this. at what level you don't agree? you see what i wanted to say. do you think that we don't have, we shouldn't say the truth too directly because the young people will be desperate. or do you think that there is hope and young people will maybe see it and so on and so on? so i'm going to stop you with.
it. i would... me a little bit is okay, i am not young but i have two sons, one is much younger than you. and so... why i find it strange, what is the, now i will do not philosophical, but hermeneutic analysis. when you say the young people, what do you mean? i see a fundamental ambiguity in it. do you mean i may be right that it's not good to tell this to the young people because you ruin their future, or are you saying, since you're an old creepy guy, i mean disrespect towards me. it's not only bad for no perspective to the young people, but you are factually wrong. and i would, because that's the same argument that goes, for example, with freedom of the will. the argument of car. ich! not there is no freedom of the will, but if we renounce the freedom of the will, the very morality, responsibility of our mind is lost. um. like... again, this is what i don't get i think it is like... this. at what level you don't agree? you see what i wanted to say. do you think that we don't have, we shouldn't say the truth too directly because the young people will be desperate. or do you think that there is hope and young people will maybe see it and so on and so on? so i'm going to stop you with.
Host
question and i think it feels to me appropriate
question and i think it feels to me appropriate
Slavoj Žižek
he.
he.
Host
to. thank. we have a friday evening discourse on wednesday discourse impact on ai, which i commend to you and the christmas lectures i also we're going to look at ai and see if we can.
to. thank. we have a friday evening discourse on wednesday discourse impact on ai, which i commend to you and the christmas lectures i also we're going to look at ai and see if we can.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah. you don't know what is dialogue dialogue late plot of dialogues where one guy talks all the time and the other just says every minutes by so it is sorry. the guy who every 10 minutes
yeah. you don't know what is dialogue dialogue late plot of dialogues where one guy talks all the time and the other just says every minutes by so it is sorry. the guy who every 10 minutes
Host
you. so we will be continuing to talk outside. there is a book signing. please do feel free to buy a copy. we're going to have to move that signing thing forward as we have here. but please, before you leave, and thank you for staying late, join me in thanking our speaker.
you. so we will be continuing to talk outside. there is a book signing. please do feel free to buy a copy. we're going to have to move that signing thing forward as we have here. but please, before you leave, and thank you for staying late, join me in thanking our speaker.