The Comedy of Life
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2016-11-02 · 1:11:35 · 11,228 words
with Cathy Newman
psychoanalysissexuality-gendercinema-art-cultureeveryday-lifephilosophy-generalreligion-theologyideologysubjectivity
A public discussion event centered on Slovenian novelist Jela Breceli's book 'None Like Her', with Žižek as interlocutor alongside moderator Nigel Warburton. The conversation ranges widely across the philosophy of love, sex, marriage, comedy, and the novel's main character, a cynical Ljubljana photographer navigating failed seductions. Žižek uses the occasion to articulate his characteristic theses: that authentic love is a catastrophic disruption of ordinary life, that contemporary hedonism is paradoxically desexualized and masturbatory, and that comedy is a more honest mode than tragedy for confronting genuine horror. Psychoanalysis, Lacan, Badiou, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard are invoked throughout.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 16
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “masturbatory sex”
Žižek's term for sex in which the actual partner serves merely as a physical prop for fantasy, making even real intercourse effectively auto-erotic.
as “deconstructionist hedonism”
Žižek's label for the contemporary ideology that urges 'don't get overly attached, experiment with yourself, reconstruct yourself, discover new freedoms', closer to Judith Butler than to passionate love.
as “contingency turned into necessity”
Love retroactively restructures the lover's past life so that a purely contingent encounter appears as the telos toward which everything was building.
as “sublimation (vs. idealization)”
Following Lacan, Žižek distinguishes sublimation, where one loves the beloved's imperfections as part of what makes them the absolute, from idealization, which projects an imaginary perfection onto the object.
Žižek coins 'the Columbo model' for a structure where one reaches the conclusion first and only then assembles the reasons, applied to love (you fall in love, then discover the reasons), philosophy (Kant), and detective work.
Following Nietzsche, Žižek uses 'reactive' to characterize Hitler's violence: enormous destructive energy deployed not to transform the existing order but to preserve it, in contrast to Gandhi's 'active' transformation.
Žižek uses himself as a confessed example: the obsessional is hyperactive not to produce change but to guarantee nothing will change, analogous to Hitler's frantic destructiveness that left the economic order intact.
Lacan's concept that modern science constitutively forecloses subjectivity, requiring an empty, anonymous speaker, the antithesis of psychoanalysis, where who speaks always matters.
as “jouissance / surplus enjoyment”
Implied in Žižek's discussion of the Tibetan prayer-wheel theory of marriage: the excess of passion or attachment that symbolic ritual (marriage) is designed to neutralize or manage.
as “big Other”
Referenced when Žižek describes marriage as a public act of telling 'society', the symbolic order, that you have someone for whom you care more, effectively excluding the big Other.
as “the work of love”
Žižek (following Badiou) describes the extension of love into the small rituals of shared daily life, who cooks breakfast, domestic rhythms, as 'the work of love', distinguishing it from mere passionate nights.
as “event (Badiouian)”
Žižek invokes Badiou's concept of the event, a passionate commitment (love, science, politics) that exceeds ordinary animal life and elevates one beyond mere vegetating.
as “comedy vs. tragedy”
Žižek argues that comedy is the more adequate mode for genuine horror (Holocaust, Gulag) because tragedy still grants the victim a heroic dignity that mass atrocity destroys.
Implied throughout Žižek's discussion of how the beloved is elevated to 'the absolute' despite imperfections, the Lacanian object-cause of desire that invests an ordinary person with an excess.
Žižek characterizes Stalinism as perverse in a clinical sense: the Stalinist presents himself as a pure instrument of historical necessity who acts on others 'for their own good', making himself the object rather than a subject.
as “stasis (antinomian)”
Žižek draws on the Greek word 'stasis', which paradoxically means both static rest and uprising/rebellion, to argue that a fulfilling life requires a passionate commitment that is simultaneously destabilizing.
Stories he reaches for 7
Žižek reads Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code as symptomatic: the plot requires Jesus Christ to have had sex (to produce descendants), but the novel's protagonists never sleep together, the textual sex serves as cover for absent real sex.
“Poor Jesus Christ has to make love... to cover up the fact that there is no sex here between Langdon and so on.”
Žižek admits to being an obsessional neurotic: he talked non-stop in analysis to prevent the analyst from asking a truly embarrassing question, hyperactivity as a defense against change, structurally analogous to Hitler's frantic destructiveness.
“I talked all the time. Why? Because I was afraid that if I stop talking for a second the analyst may ask me some truly embarrassing question.”
Žižek notes that Quantum of Solace is the first Bond film where the love affair is not consummated, the protagonists simply split apart, as evidence that even Hollywood has abandoned the ideology of passionate love.
“This is the first James Bond movie where at the end the love is not consummated. They just desperate... they just split apart.”
In Terry Gilliam's film Brazil, diners receive physically a piece of anonymous grey slop, accompanied by a beautiful photograph of what the dish 'really is'. Žižek reads this as the structure of contemporary sex: the actual body is the inert physical prop while one fantasizes about the image above it.
“That's our sex more and more. You just need woman or the body as that piece of shit so that you can fantasize about the image.”
Žižek likens one theory of marriage to the Tibetan prayer wheel: you write a prayer on paper, spin the wheel, and can think about sex while 'objectively' praying. Marriage functions similarly to kill the excess of passionate love by substituting a symbolic mechanism.
“You put a prayer... you put it into a wheel, you turn it around and then you can think about sex whatever you want but objectively you are praying.”
Žižek invokes Primo Levi's If This Is a Man as the 'ultimate book' on the Holocaust and notes that it is full of genuinely comical details, demonstrating that comedy is not lightness but the only adequate form for horror that exceeds tragic dignity.
“If you read the ultimate book, Primo Levi, If This Is a Man, it's full of genuinely comical details.”
Žižek confesses that he tried to lie to his psychoanalyst, inventing dreams, and the analyst laughed, saying the lies revealed more about Žižek than the truth would have, illustrating the psychoanalytic principle that truth erupts in error and deception.
“I tried to lie all the time. I invented dreams and so on, and my analyst just laughed at me... through my lies I betrayed myself much more than I would have by telling the truth.”
Works invoked 15
The Da Vinci Code book
Žižek says Brown's books 'should be burned' but reads The Da Vinci Code symptomatically: the textual sex (Jesus's descendants) covers for the absence of real sex between the protagonists.
Quantum of Solace film
Described as 'politically very progressive', Bond saves Bolivia from a capitalist corporation, and used as evidence that Hollywood has abandoned the ideology of consummated romantic love.
The Great Dictator film
Cited (by another speaker, endorsed by Žižek's context) as one of the best films on the Second World War precisely because it is a comedy.
If This Is a Man book
Described as 'the ultimate book' on the Holocaust; its comical details are used to support Žižek's thesis that comedy is the more truthful mode for representing atrocity.
Angels and Demons film
The novel has a sex scene that the film adaptation removed, for Žižek this is further evidence of Hollywood's shift toward desexualized hedonism.
Brazil film
Called 'one of the candidates for the greatest British movie of all times'; the divided-meal restaurant scene is Žižek's key illustration of the masturbatory structure of contemporary sex.
To Be or Not to Be film
Lubitsch's wartime comedy cited alongside The Great Dictator as evidence that the best films on WWII are comedies.
Not I play
Žižek calls it his 'favorite Sam Beckett play' and uses its structure of subtle change beneath apparent sameness as a parallel to the novel's episodic repetition-with-difference.
Columbo tv
Žižek calls it 'very intelligent as a series'; uses its structure (crime shown first, detective knows immediately, drama is proof) as a model for love, philosophy, and epistemology.
Twin Peaks tv
Briefly mentioned when Žižek compares the backstage green room to 'the red and green rooms in Twin Peaks', passing positive reference.
Kierkegaard's work cited for the Socrates vs. Christ opposition, Žižek sides with the Christian model of descent to the singular individual over the Platonic ascent to the ideal.
Genealogy of Morals book
Žižek cites the passage on combining German and Jewish traits as 'the ultimate anti-anti-Semitic dream' and a beautiful idea.
Filth book
Mentioned by an audience member as a parallel to the novel's protagonist (Irvine Welsh); not directly commented on by Žižek.
Mentioned by the moderator (Jonathan Haidt) in passing in discussion of the psychology of sustained passion; not directly assessed by Žižek.
None Like Her book
The Slovenian novel by Jela Breceli (here as co-panelist) that is the occasion for the event; Žižek says the English translation is 'better than the original' and praises it as universalizing the particular.
People invoked 24
Primo Levi positive
Žižek calls If This Is a Man 'the ultimate book' on the Holocaust and uses its comical details to support his thesis that comedy is more truthful than tragedy for extreme horror.
Mahatma Gandhi positive
Žižek is 'very critical of Gandhi' but uses him as the example of genuinely transformative ('active') change contrasted with Hitler's reactive violence.
Jacques Lacan positive
Žižek invokes Lacan on: love as sublimation vs. idealization; the subject of science as excluding subjectivity; the role of money in psychoanalysis; and the structure of sadism. Treated throughout as the decisive theoretical authority.
Neil Gaiman positive
Quoted approvingly from Žižek's Violence book: 'It's difficult to imagine anything more brutal, violent than passionate love', used to support the claim that love is catastrophically disruptive.
Judith Butler negative
Žižek cites 'deconstructionist Judith Butler theory' as the name for the contemporary ideology of non-attachment and self-reconstruction, which he opposes to authentic love.
Žižek calls Trump 'truly vulgar' not for his grabbing but for publicly mentioning bodily functions about Melania and Hillary Clinton. Also describes him as 'a great democratic politician, our only hope' ironically, and credits him with 'single-handedly destroying the Republican party'.
Terry Gilliam positive
Brazil is called 'one of the candidates for the greatest British movie of all times'; the restaurant scene is used as a key illustration of the masturbatory structure of contemporary sex.
Alain Badiou positive
Žižek calls him 'my good friend Alen Badiou the French guy' and cites his concept of the 'event' and the idea that love must be extended into the small rituals of daily life.
Hanif Kureishi positive
Described as a friend 'although I have political suspicions about him'; his quip about every writer having a 'Pakistani diplomat father' is cited to illustrate how art universalizes the particular.
Norman Kemp Smith positive
Praised as the exemplary translator of Kant whose English version is linguistically clearer than the German original, cited by Žižek when comparing a Slovenian novelist's English translation.
Adolf Hitler negative
Used as the paradigm of reactive violence: destroying millions while leaving the economic order intact, structurally analogous to the obsessional neurotic's hyperactivity that prevents change.
Samuel Beckett positive
Žižek calls Beckett's Not I his 'favorite play' and uses it as a structural model for subtle repetition-with-difference, drawing a parallel to the novel's episodic structure.
Mladen Dolar positive
Described as 'Slavoj's friend'; his theory that marriage liberates one from constantly proving love, allowing relaxation, is cited approvingly (though Žižek offers his own different theory).
Mentioned by the moderator as having written passionately about marriage as companionship and friendship.
Ernst Lubitsch positive
To Be or Not to Be cited as one of 'the best movies on Second World War' and as a great comedy that addresses horrific themes in the right way.
Søren Kierkegaard positive
Žižek invokes Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments for the opposition between Socrates (reason/recollection) and Christ (the unique individual as absolute), siding with the Christian side.
Dan Brown negative
Žižek says his books 'should be burned', invokes Goebbels' book-burning as having the right principle but the wrong target; nonetheless uses The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons symptomatically.
Mentioned by another speaker (moderator) in discussion of The Happiness Hypothesis and the psychology of sustained romantic passion; not directly commented on by Žižek.
Plato negative
Žižek rejects the Platonic/Symposium model of love as ascent toward ideal forms, preferring the Christian model of descent to the singular individual.
Socrates positive
Žižek endorses the ancient Greek definition that the philosopher's duty is to corrupt the youth, and notes that the Athenian democratic court was 'totally right' to see this as a threat.
Sigmund Freud positive
Cited as establishing that psychoanalysis addresses not Victorian repression but the paradoxes of permissiveness; also cited alongside Lacan on the necessity of paying the analyst.
Immanuel Kant positive
Invoked twice: once as an example of the Columbo model (his moral philosophy reaches pre-given Protestant-Christian conclusions via ostensibly rational argument), and once re: Norman Kemp Smith's superior translation.
Friedrich Nietzsche positive
Žižek uses Nietzsche's distinction between reactive and active force to analyze Hitler vs. Gandhi, and cites Genealogy of Morals for the 'anti-anti-Semitic dream'. Notes Nietzsche's Polish ancestry as evidence against his appropriation by Nazis.
Jean-Paul Sartre negative
Žižek rejects Sartre's claim that human relationships collapse into sadism or masochism, arguing this misunderstands the psychoanalytic structure of sadism; 'I have otherwise great respect for him.'
What it argues
love as catastrophic disruption of ordinary lifecontemporary masturbatory hedonism vs. authentic lovecomedy as the mode adequate to genuine horrorlove as contingency converted into necessitymarriage as public declaration of indifference to societythe structure of obsessional neurosis as hyperactivity to prevent changesublimation vs. idealization in love
Dialectical moves 10
“Sex without love is masturbatory even if there is a real other person—you use the other as a plastic dildo, a physical prop to get enjoyment.”
The presence of a real other body does not make sex non-masturbatory; only love reaches the other beyond one's fantasy.
“Love is not the opposite of Christianity; it is its greatest competitor—both are experiences in which a 'higher cause' obsesses you and ruins ordinary daily life.”
Romantic love and religious devotion share the same metaphysical structure of an absolute disrupting the everyday, which is why Christianity fears carnal love.
“You don't fall in love because of reasons; you discover the reasons because you are already in love.”
Love's reasons are not prior causes but retroactive justifications, parallel to Christian faith preceding understanding.
“True love is sublimation, not idealization. You notice all the dirty details, all the imperfections, but they make you love the beloved even more.”
In authentic love, imperfection is not despite the absolute but part of what constitutes the beloved as absolute.
“The philosopher corrupts the youth—and the Athenian democratic court was totally right: from the standpoint of existing power, Socrates was a genuine threat.”
The democratic court's condemnation of Socrates was not a mistake but revealed the genuinely subversive function of philosophy.
“Hitler's violence was reactive—all that activity so that nothing would change. Gandhi, despite non-violence, really did change things.”
True violence (in the sense of real transformation) belongs to non-violence, while spectacular physical destruction can be profoundly conservative.
“I am hyperactive not to change things but to make sure that nothing will change—I talked all the time in analysis so the analyst could never ask me an embarrassing question.”
Obsessional neurotic hyperactivity functions as a defense against genuine transformation, not as productivity.
“Marriage is not about companionship—it is a public declaration: 'Fuck off, I have someone for whom I care more, you are out.'”
Marriage is a gesture of exclusion directed at the social order rather than an integration into it.
“Comedy is not easy light stuff; when things are really horrifying, presenting them as tragic is something false—tragedy still grants the victim a heroic dignity that atrocity destroys.”
Comedy is the more truthful mode for extreme horror precisely because it forgoes tragic dignity.
“Sadism does not objectify the victim. The object in a sadist relationship is the torturer himself—a pure instrument of a higher law.”
The sadist's real position is self-objectification as an instrument; the victim must remain a subject in order to be properly humiliated.
Claims 18
asserts
Contemporary ideology is no longer one of passionate sexual love but of a masturbatory, non-attached hedonism closer to Judith Butler's deconstructionist ethics.contemporary sexual ideology
asserts
Sex without love is masturbatory—the partner is used as a 'physical prop' to sustain one's own fantasy rather than to reach the other.the relation of sex and love
asserts
Authentic love is the only genuine metaphysical experience available in secular life: it is the irruption of an 'absolute' that destabilizes ordinary existence as radically as religion.the nature of love
asserts
Love is not objective: one does not love because of enumerable qualities but first loves, and then the reasons appear retroactively—mirroring the Christian structure of faith preceding understanding.the epistemology of love
asserts
Love is the conversion of contingency into necessity: a purely chance encounter is retroactively restructured so that the lover's entire life appears to have aimed at that moment.the ontology of love
asserts
True love is sublimation, not idealization: one notices all the imperfections of the beloved and loves them even more for those imperfections.love and the beloved
asserts
Marriage is not primarily about companionship or economics but is a public declaration of indifference to society: 'I have someone for whom I care more; you are out.'the function of marriage
asserts
Psychoanalysis is not a science in the standard sense because it is constitutively dependent on subjectivity—who speaks always matters—whereas science forecloses subjectivity by definition.the scientific status of psychoanalysis
asserts
Psychoanalysis is more relevant today than in Freud's era because the permissive tolerant father is even more pathogenic than the authoritarian one.psychoanalysis and contemporary society
asserts
Lying to one's analyst reveals more truth than telling the truth, because the manner of lying betrays the speaker.truth and deception in psychoanalysis
asserts
Hitler's violence was reactive—frantic activity in order to leave the existing economic order unchanged—making Gandhi more truly transformative despite his non-violence.violence, transformation, and historical change
reframes
Sadism does not objectify its victim: the sadist requires the victim to remain a subject capable of shame, making the torturer himself the true object (instrument of a higher law).sadism and objectification
asserts
Comedy is the more adequate mode for representing extreme historical horror because tragedy still preserves the hero's dignity, which atrocity actually destroys.comedy, tragedy, and historical horror
asserts
Happiness is for stupid people; what fulfills life is a passionate commitment—a Badiouian 'event'—which is more likely to make one unhappy than comfortable.happiness versus fulfillment
asserts
People were happiest under the Husák normalization regime in Czechoslovakia because they had material sufficiency without excess, an enemy to blame (communists), a reachable ideal (Western Europe) at the right distance, and guaranteed private safety.happiness and political regime
rejects
Sartre is wrong to describe human relationships as collapsing into sadism or masochism because that misunderstands what sadism is.Sartre's account of interpersonal relations
asserts
Cynical 'realism' about love can itself be a form of deception—noticing all the faults of a love object may be a flight from attachment rather than genuine perception.self-deception in love
asserts
The philosopher's duty is to corrupt the youth—to destabilize them and make them doubt the ruling ideology—and the Athenian democratic court was correct to sense this as a threat.the task of philosophy
Quotes 13
“Sex without love is masturbatory. Even if it's really another person, you really use the other as plastic dildo or whatever, as a physical prop just to get enjoyment.”Slavoj Žižek · sex without love is masturbatory
“Love is the basic metaphysical experience.”Slavoj Žižek · love as metaphysical experience
“Love is the beautiful example of contingency turned around into necessity.”Slavoj Žižek · contingency and necessity in love
“Whenever your lover is telling you 'It's not just physical love, it's much more,' your bells should ring, run away as fast as you can.”Slavoj Žižek · authentic vs. sentimental declarations of love
“True love goes the other way around: I discover how beautiful you are because I love you. Love is not objective.”Slavoj Žižek · love precedes its reasons
“The duty of a philosopher is to corrupt the youth—to tear them out, to destabilize them, to make them doubt the ruling ideology.”Slavoj Žižek · philosophy as ideological destabilization
“Marriage is a kind of a symbolic act of telling publicly society: 'Fuck off, I have someone for whom I care more, you are out.' It's a wonderful public declaration of indifference.”Slavoj Žižek · marriage as anti-social declaration
“Comedy is not 'ooh ooh it's easy stuff, we laugh.' When things are really horrifying, there is something false to present them as tragic.”Slavoj Žižek · comedy as the mode adequate to horror
“Happiness is for stupid people.”Slavoj Žižek · happiness vs. fulfillment
“Without having a passionate commitment—it can be love, it can be science, even work, whatever you want, politics—then in a way you remain a human animal.”Slavoj Žižek · event as what elevates one beyond bare life
“Not Facebook. Twitter... I think Facebook and Twitter, this is just a loss of time. I would have in my ideal state secret police checking on people.”Slavoj Žižek · Žižek's mock-Stalinist critique of social media
“I don't think sadism means objectifying your victim. The object in a sadist relationship is the torturer himself.”Slavoj Žižek · sadism as self-objectification of the torturer
“The true art elevates a particular situation, very specific, into something absolutely universal that you can relate to.”Slavoj Žižek · particularity and universality in art
Transcript 179 turns
unknown
Slavoj, this is a book about love. I’d love to know what you think about love because my hunch is you’re going to think it’s a ridiculous bourgeois concept and we can get beyond erotic love, that’s just something that it... that Hollywood sells us.
Slavoj, this is a book about love. I’d love to know what you think about love because my hunch is you’re going to think it’s a ridiculous bourgeois concept and we can get beyond erotic love, that’s just something that it... that Hollywood sells us.
Slavoj Žižek
No, first... okay, you will stop me if I speak for too long.
No, first... okay, you will stop me if I speak for too long.
unknown
You’ve only just started. Yeah, yeah,
You’ve only just started. Yeah, yeah,
Slavoj Žižek
yeah. Easy to start with
yeah. Easy to start with
unknown
me. First,
me. First,
Slavoj Žižek
I don't think even Hollywood is still doing that. I always use these example... two examples: James Bond and the greatest classic of today, Dan Brown. Did you notice something in James Bond films? With Quantum of Solace, it’s politically very progressive film. In it, basically James Bond saves Morales’s regime in Bolivia against some capitalist corporation takeover. But did you notice that this is the first James Bond movie where at the end the love is not consummated? They just desperate, Daniel Craig and Olga Kurylenko to name them, they just split apart. Next thing: Dan Brown. I’m... I mean, I think books should be burned. I think Goebbels had a nice, good principle in Germany in '33. He just didn't burn the right books, no? The right books like Dan Brown should be burned. But did you notice how already in the novels, for example, how is that one called? The... yes, the biggest hit, The Da Vinci Code. No sex. I mean, how can you screw the grand-grand-granddaughter of Jesus Christ, no? And it's this kind of perverted transmission. The plot of the story is of course the vulgar old crazy conspiracy theory that Jesus Christ really was married, has... but it's as if, you know, psychoanalysis teaches us this: when you have a great myth out there, forget about what is out there. Look at what happens here in front of our eyes. Poor Jesus Christ has to make love, has to f... to cover up the fact that there is no sex here between Langdon and and so on. Okay,
I don't think even Hollywood is still doing that. I always use these example... two examples: James Bond and the greatest classic of today, Dan Brown. Did you notice something in James Bond films? With Quantum of Solace, it’s politically very progressive film. In it, basically James Bond saves Morales’s regime in Bolivia against some capitalist corporation takeover. But did you notice that this is the first James Bond movie where at the end the love is not consummated? They just desperate, Daniel Craig and Olga Kurylenko to name them, they just split apart. Next thing: Dan Brown. I’m... I mean, I think books should be burned. I think Goebbels had a nice, good principle in Germany in '33. He just didn't burn the right books, no? The right books like Dan Brown should be burned. But did you notice how already in the novels, for example, how is that one called? The... yes, the biggest hit, The Da Vinci Code. No sex. I mean, how can you screw the grand-grand-granddaughter of Jesus Christ, no? And it's this kind of perverted transmission. The plot of the story is of course the vulgar old crazy conspiracy theory that Jesus Christ really was married, has... but it's as if, you know, psychoanalysis teaches us this: when you have a great myth out there, forget about what is out there. Look at what happens here in front of our eyes. Poor Jesus Christ has to make love, has to f... to cover up the fact that there is no sex here between Langdon and and so on. Okay,
unknown
so you’ve avoided the
so you’ve avoided the
Slavoj Žižek
question... No, no, no, let’s go on then. An even stranger thing. The second earlier novel, but the second Dan Brown movie, Angels Demons. Very strange thing happens. In the novel, there is sex at the end between Langdon and that Vittoria Vetra, whatever, an Italian scientist lady. In the movie, they have thrown out sex. Where are the old days where we were saying Hollywood adds sex to make it more commercial? Now Hollywood is throwing it out. And I think this is a very sad tendency. It's in our new type of hedonism. Even if we do real sex, we more and more do it in a masturbatory way. There is a wonderful scene in... did you see for me, absolutely one of the candidates for the greatest British movie of all times, Terry Gilliam's Brazil? You remember that wonderful scene in a restaurant where you order a meal and then you get literally, in Lacanian sense, a kind of a divided meal? What you physically get is a kind of a piece of dog shit, just anonymous, like some kind of porridge stuff. And then you get above it a beautiful photo of what this really is. That's our sex more and more. You just need woman or the body as that piece of shit so that you can fantasize about the image. So that's what I’m saying. I don't think that today's ideology... I don't mean official ideology, but simply how we perceive ourselves, our desires, how society suggests us to do it, is still passionate sexual love. It’s something much closer to deconstructionist Judith Butler theory: don't get overly attached, experiment with yourself, reconstruct yourself, discover new freedoms and so on. So I think we live in very sad times. And then I will stop just to tell you the last proof. I spoke with some American friends who are practicing psychoanalysts, which I will never be. Why? Because as an analyst you have calmly to listen to another person. Can you imagine me doing that? But okay. And they told me that half a century ago, if a man, married man or woman, was jumping around from one woman to another, this was considered something pathological. You know, clinical feature, oh we have to analyze it, what is this guy trying to avoid, escaping from? Today it's the opposite. If you jump around, it's normal. If you are faithful to your partner, oh, pathology, fixation and so on. I really think that that's for me the problem with standard critique of patriarchy and so on. That's no longer the ruling ideology. The ruling ideology...
question... No, no, no, let’s go on then. An even stranger thing. The second earlier novel, but the second Dan Brown movie, Angels Demons. Very strange thing happens. In the novel, there is sex at the end between Langdon and that Vittoria Vetra, whatever, an Italian scientist lady. In the movie, they have thrown out sex. Where are the old days where we were saying Hollywood adds sex to make it more commercial? Now Hollywood is throwing it out. And I think this is a very sad tendency. It's in our new type of hedonism. Even if we do real sex, we more and more do it in a masturbatory way. There is a wonderful scene in... did you see for me, absolutely one of the candidates for the greatest British movie of all times, Terry Gilliam's Brazil? You remember that wonderful scene in a restaurant where you order a meal and then you get literally, in Lacanian sense, a kind of a divided meal? What you physically get is a kind of a piece of dog shit, just anonymous, like some kind of porridge stuff. And then you get above it a beautiful photo of what this really is. That's our sex more and more. You just need woman or the body as that piece of shit so that you can fantasize about the image. So that's what I’m saying. I don't think that today's ideology... I don't mean official ideology, but simply how we perceive ourselves, our desires, how society suggests us to do it, is still passionate sexual love. It’s something much closer to deconstructionist Judith Butler theory: don't get overly attached, experiment with yourself, reconstruct yourself, discover new freedoms and so on. So I think we live in very sad times. And then I will stop just to tell you the last proof. I spoke with some American friends who are practicing psychoanalysts, which I will never be. Why? Because as an analyst you have calmly to listen to another person. Can you imagine me doing that? But okay. And they told me that half a century ago, if a man, married man or woman, was jumping around from one woman to another, this was considered something pathological. You know, clinical feature, oh we have to analyze it, what is this guy trying to avoid, escaping from? Today it's the opposite. If you jump around, it's normal. If you are faithful to your partner, oh, pathology, fixation and so on. I really think that that's for me the problem with standard critique of patriarchy and so on. That's no longer the ruling ideology. The ruling ideology...
unknown
So I asked you about love and you’ve told... talked to me about sex, which is interesting. I mean they’re connected. Okay,
So I asked you about love and you’ve told... talked to me about sex, which is interesting. I mean they’re connected. Okay,
Slavoj Žižek
no, no, no, no. But I will answer to you that one. Love, I’m very metaphysical here. Sex without love is masturbatory. Even if it's really another person, you really use the other as plastic dildo or whatever, as a physical prop just to get enjoyment. The only way to reach out to the other beyond your fantasy is love. And I’m quite metaphysical here but not in Plato's sense. Yes, I think that... first, I agree with... I think it was Neil Gaiman, I quote it in my Violence book, who wrote a wonderful passage on "It's difficult to imagine anything more brutal, violent than passionate... than passionate love." Look, let's say you are a modern deconstructionist Judith Butler person. You reconstruct yourself, you run around, you have one-night stands, drinks. Then you fall in love. It's a catastrophe. All your daily life is thrown off the rails. You’re obsessed by it. That’s why love is something that doesn't fit our universe. And that's why I... sorry for this stupidity... love love. I think love is precisely... and that's why Christianity has such a problem with carnal love, not because it's the opposite, but because it's its greatest competitor. Our... if by metaphysics we mean this: we are in our daily life, just ordinary concerns, and then some higher cause obsesses us, our ordinary life is ruined. Love is this. Love is the basic metaphysical experience. Second thing, and with this I will finish: love is always contingent. Love is the beautiful example of contingency turned around into necessity. What is love? You walk on the street, sorry for the stupid example, you slip on a banana, a lady who is totally by chance there helps you to stand up and you discover this is the love of your life. And automatically you restructure all your past life as if I was alive just to arrive at this moment, you know. Okay, so Jela... you’ve brutally deprived Jela of... I didn't help him get up after he slipped on the... Last time we met you called me your super-ego. I wonder what you’re going to call me this time, but... Jela, the... within the novel, do you think that Matjaž fits that example that Slavoj had there of... of using women in a kind of masturbatory way? That in a sense they become objects to fulfill his desires, or is there something else going on? Because there’s a succession of women that he doesn't stay with for long. He doesn't really seem that into seducing them, he sort of almost does it as a tick. Is he a Don Juan figure, is he... what is he doing there? I think that he begins as a Don Juan who doesn't really believe in true love anymore. But gradually he
no, no, no, no. But I will answer to you that one. Love, I’m very metaphysical here. Sex without love is masturbatory. Even if it's really another person, you really use the other as plastic dildo or whatever, as a physical prop just to get enjoyment. The only way to reach out to the other beyond your fantasy is love. And I’m quite metaphysical here but not in Plato's sense. Yes, I think that... first, I agree with... I think it was Neil Gaiman, I quote it in my Violence book, who wrote a wonderful passage on "It's difficult to imagine anything more brutal, violent than passionate... than passionate love." Look, let's say you are a modern deconstructionist Judith Butler person. You reconstruct yourself, you run around, you have one-night stands, drinks. Then you fall in love. It's a catastrophe. All your daily life is thrown off the rails. You’re obsessed by it. That’s why love is something that doesn't fit our universe. And that's why I... sorry for this stupidity... love love. I think love is precisely... and that's why Christianity has such a problem with carnal love, not because it's the opposite, but because it's its greatest competitor. Our... if by metaphysics we mean this: we are in our daily life, just ordinary concerns, and then some higher cause obsesses us, our ordinary life is ruined. Love is this. Love is the basic metaphysical experience. Second thing, and with this I will finish: love is always contingent. Love is the beautiful example of contingency turned around into necessity. What is love? You walk on the street, sorry for the stupid example, you slip on a banana, a lady who is totally by chance there helps you to stand up and you discover this is the love of your life. And automatically you restructure all your past life as if I was alive just to arrive at this moment, you know. Okay, so Jela... you’ve brutally deprived Jela of... I didn't help him get up after he slipped on the... Last time we met you called me your super-ego. I wonder what you’re going to call me this time, but... Jela, the... within the novel, do you think that Matjaž fits that example that Slavoj had there of... of using women in a kind of masturbatory way? That in a sense they become objects to fulfill his desires, or is there something else going on? Because there’s a succession of women that he doesn't stay with for long. He doesn't really seem that into seducing them, he sort of almost does it as a tick. Is he a Don Juan figure, is he... what is he doing there? I think that he begins as a Don Juan who doesn't really believe in true love anymore. But gradually he
unknown
changes, he develops a little bit and at the end I think he becomes a believer of a true love. So he starts as a very desperate person, just trying to find his way in life with
changes, he develops a little bit and at the end I think he becomes a believer of a true love. So he starts as a very desperate person, just trying to find his way in life with
Slavoj Žižek
women and then gradually he becomes more inclined to love. Because it seems to me that in the "negging" that I talked about... you know when he’s flirting through insulting the women, he’s got more respect for them in a sense, because he’s being honest with them, than he is
women and then gradually he becomes more inclined to love. Because it seems to me that in the "negging" that I talked about... you know when he’s flirting through insulting the women, he’s got more respect for them in a sense, because he’s being honest with them, than he is
unknown
when he’s in the bedroom because he’s... you know, he is using them at that point. Before it’s... there is a mutual game going on where
when he’s in the bedroom because he’s... you know, he is using them at that point. Before it’s... there is a mutual game going on where
unknown
there's a
there's a
Cathy Newman
two and
two and
unknown
fro and they come back at him sometimes and sometimes they overreact, sometimes they can stand up to him. But in the bedroom he seems to be using them physically purely to satisfy his lust. Yes, but... There's no... no glimmer of love.
fro and they come back at him sometimes and sometimes they overreact, sometimes they can stand up to him. But in the bedroom he seems to be using them physically purely to satisfy his lust. Yes, but... There's no... no glimmer of love.
Cathy Newman
No, no. At least at the beginning there's no glimmer of love. But it is true that there is a lot of failure even in the bedroom in a sense that he does not succeed in his endeavors.
No, no. At least at the beginning there's no glimmer of love. But it is true that there is a lot of failure even in the bedroom in a sense that he does not succeed in his endeavors.
unknown
No. So there’s the theme of variations. It's not like one seduction after another success rate, but he does have a high hit rate, for sure.
No. So there’s the theme of variations. It's not like one seduction after another success rate, but he does have a high hit rate, for sure.
Cathy Newman
I just wanted to add that I chose this structure because comedy thrives on... on failures. And it was funny to me that, you know, every other woman... every other woman is a total failure for Matjaž and that he needs to go through all these women and these failures in order to, as Beckett would say, fail better with his love at the end. So it’s a
I just wanted to add that I chose this structure because comedy thrives on... on failures. And it was funny to me that, you know, every other woman... every other woman is a total failure for Matjaž and that he needs to go through all these women and these failures in order to, as Beckett would say, fail better with his love at the end. So it’s a
Slavoj Žižek
romantic story. A very short remark, very important. I can confirm this in my relationship with her, how love works in a strange way. When I was seducing her, I went into all this bullshit, you know: "It's not just physical love, something deeper, blah blah." And basically, I’m sorry to tell you this, she told me: "Listen, do you know that sometimes I don't want all that deeper crap, I just want to be fully objectified and used," and so on. And this is part of true love. Whenever your lover is telling you "You know, it's not just physical love, it's much more," your bells should ring, run away as fast as you can. So did
romantic story. A very short remark, very important. I can confirm this in my relationship with her, how love works in a strange way. When I was seducing her, I went into all this bullshit, you know: "It's not just physical love, something deeper, blah blah." And basically, I’m sorry to tell you this, she told me: "Listen, do you know that sometimes I don't want all that deeper crap, I just want to be fully objectified and used," and so on. And this is part of true love. Whenever your lover is telling you "You know, it's not just physical love, it's much more," your bells should ring, run away as fast as you can. So did
unknown
you use the Trump method? Sorry? Did you use the Trump method? This is... I mean that’s quite a brutal confession in a sense. Did you go for the Trump... No, Trump is a great democratic politician, our only hope and so on. Wait a minute, I’m not kidding. Remember what Trump did. Are you aware, I’m not kidding, he single-handedly destroyed practically the Republican party. It's falling apart. Not too bad an achievement. No, so... but seriously about...
you use the Trump method? Sorry? Did you use the Trump method? This is... I mean that’s quite a brutal confession in a sense. Did you go for the Trump... No, Trump is a great democratic politician, our only hope and so on. Wait a minute, I’m not kidding. Remember what Trump did. Are you aware, I’m not kidding, he single-handedly destroyed practically the Republican party. It's falling apart. Not too bad an achievement. No, so... but seriously about...
Slavoj Žižek
about... no, you know what's the problem and there is another topic we debated with you. You know why Trump is really vulgar? Not so much as when he is vulgar with this touching, but he is the most tragically vulgar precisely when he doesn't want to but does it in a wrong way. For example, once I was shocked: at some press conference, he celebrated Melania. Melania, she is Slovene, you know. Oh, we Slovenes will in a week maybe occupy the White House and so on. But okay, and to celebrate her... her gentleness, refinement... I’m afraid to use that word, I will use a more subtle, refined word. He said "You know, in all my years with her, I haven't heard her not even once... flatulence emitting that sound," you know. But okay, maybe we sometimes do this. That... what is truly vulgar for me is even to mention this in public, you know. Like, you know, the true vulgarity is not so much to do things but it's to publicly mention things you don't talk about. Like he did the same with Hillary, you remember? Hillary disappeared in the middle of some debate for a minute and Trump said, obviously she had to run to the restroom, toilet, and Trump said "Oh, can you imagine where did she go, disgusting." No, we all do this, it's not disgusting. Just don't talk about it. Disgusting is to say this publicly. So, in spite of all my political admiration for Trump, no, he is not like me, he is not my friend. So I was interested... I was interested that you described your relationship, the early stages of it, as you seducing Jela, which is the model in the book actually, you know, Matjaž... it doesn’t seem to be very reciprocal. Yeah, but I’m here... this is not how it functions. I’m here total pessimist. We men think this, but from the beginning we are invisibly manipulated, we don't know even how. Like, I think women talk with each other, they decide which woman will get whom and it's all... we are dead before even we know. Well it's interesting in the... in the novel, the character who’s strongest, it seems to me, is
about... no, you know what's the problem and there is another topic we debated with you. You know why Trump is really vulgar? Not so much as when he is vulgar with this touching, but he is the most tragically vulgar precisely when he doesn't want to but does it in a wrong way. For example, once I was shocked: at some press conference, he celebrated Melania. Melania, she is Slovene, you know. Oh, we Slovenes will in a week maybe occupy the White House and so on. But okay, and to celebrate her... her gentleness, refinement... I’m afraid to use that word, I will use a more subtle, refined word. He said "You know, in all my years with her, I haven't heard her not even once... flatulence emitting that sound," you know. But okay, maybe we sometimes do this. That... what is truly vulgar for me is even to mention this in public, you know. Like, you know, the true vulgarity is not so much to do things but it's to publicly mention things you don't talk about. Like he did the same with Hillary, you remember? Hillary disappeared in the middle of some debate for a minute and Trump said, obviously she had to run to the restroom, toilet, and Trump said "Oh, can you imagine where did she go, disgusting." No, we all do this, it's not disgusting. Just don't talk about it. Disgusting is to say this publicly. So, in spite of all my political admiration for Trump, no, he is not like me, he is not my friend. So I was interested... I was interested that you described your relationship, the early stages of it, as you seducing Jela, which is the model in the book actually, you know, Matjaž... it doesn’t seem to be very reciprocal. Yeah, but I’m here... this is not how it functions. I’m here total pessimist. We men think this, but from the beginning we are invisibly manipulated, we don't know even how. Like, I think women talk with each other, they decide which woman will get whom and it's all... we are dead before even we know. Well it's interesting in the... in the novel, the character who’s strongest, it seems to me, is
Cathy Newman
the one who becomes the most
the one who becomes the most
Slavoj Žižek
attractive, the one who is capable of withholding, of playing hard to get, of actually choosing the moment and the... and the limits of what she’s prepared to do. She’s the one who actually becomes the one who can really compel Matjaž’s attention. But he is a feminine fantasy. I will tell you something, it will not embarrass you. It was widely assumed that the model for Matjaž is a Slovene very good photographer and he was Jela’s previous boyfriend. I can tell you we are now friends, that he is a very nice guy, not like that. It was Jela’s dream that he should have been such, more brutal and so on. Well I told you so. The silent type from the 50s, like Humphrey Bogart sort of person. Oh is this book to avoid libel? Sorry? You’re not just avoiding libel. So that’s interesting, that... so the photography thing, so there was an autobiographical element. Yes, there are. But I think that the... the truth of fiction is that it is a creation of a new world. Even if you pick some things from reality, the way you mold the story is actually totally a... a new life. And I really molded all the characters and really wanted to... to push through this line of
attractive, the one who is capable of withholding, of playing hard to get, of actually choosing the moment and the... and the limits of what she’s prepared to do. She’s the one who actually becomes the one who can really compel Matjaž’s attention. But he is a feminine fantasy. I will tell you something, it will not embarrass you. It was widely assumed that the model for Matjaž is a Slovene very good photographer and he was Jela’s previous boyfriend. I can tell you we are now friends, that he is a very nice guy, not like that. It was Jela’s dream that he should have been such, more brutal and so on. Well I told you so. The silent type from the 50s, like Humphrey Bogart sort of person. Oh is this book to avoid libel? Sorry? You’re not just avoiding libel. So that’s interesting, that... so the photography thing, so there was an autobiographical element. Yes, there are. But I think that the... the truth of fiction is that it is a creation of a new world. Even if you pick some things from reality, the way you mold the story is actually totally a... a new life. And I really molded all the characters and really wanted to... to push through this line of
unknown
thought, you know. And maybe I was thinking when you were talking about Plato and the two halves looking for each other. I think that comedy is not very Platonistic
thought, you know. And maybe I was thinking when you were talking about Plato and the two halves looking for each other. I think that comedy is not very Platonistic
Slavoj Žižek
in that sense. I think that the standpoint of comedy is that... that no half is ever gonna fit another half. So that there is a certain impossibility to love. But although there love is impossible, you can make it work. So I think that’s the miracle that comedy provides. Well I thought... I thought your novel was more existential in the sense
in that sense. I think that the standpoint of comedy is that... that no half is ever gonna fit another half. So that there is a certain impossibility to love. But although there love is impossible, you can make it work. So I think that’s the miracle that comedy provides. Well I thought... I thought your novel was more existential in the sense
unknown
that there are no givens, there's no romantic model that you have to follow. There's a sense in which you create a model through your choices and you choose in the light of the things that happen to you, not in the light of any kind of given framework within... within which love has to function. So that there's a kind of self-discovery, it’s like a Bildungsroman, there's a sense in
that there are no givens, there's no romantic model that you have to follow. There's a sense in which you create a model through your choices and you choose in the light of the things that happen to you, not in the light of any kind of given framework within... within which love has to function. So that there's a kind of self-discovery, it’s like a Bildungsroman, there's a sense in
Slavoj Žižek
which the character discovers things through his interaction. But his... actually in the Symposium, the... the Socratic position is very different from Aristophanes’ position, which is that you learn from your love. And it was homoerotic love, that... you know, the... the man falls in love with a beautiful young man, Socrates falls in love with a beautiful young man. Love isn't just about infatuation with that one individual because if you love a beautiful person, you love them because they’re beautiful, you start admiring
which the character discovers things through his interaction. But his... actually in the Symposium, the... the Socratic position is very different from Aristophanes’ position, which is that you learn from your love. And it was homoerotic love, that... you know, the... the man falls in love with a beautiful young man, Socrates falls in love with a beautiful young man. Love isn't just about infatuation with that one individual because if you love a beautiful person, you love them because they’re beautiful, you start admiring
Cathy Newman
beauty in other people, you admire the abstract concept of beauty and
beauty in other people, you admire the abstract concept of beauty and
unknown
gradually you move up what’s called Diotima’s ladder, this ladder up to the point where you’re focusing on the ideal form of things, not on the actual individual. Which is almost the opposite of what we think of as love, which is: love is about the individual. You’re then focused
gradually you move up what’s called Diotima’s ladder, this ladder up to the point where you’re focusing on the ideal form of things, not on the actual individual. Which is almost the opposite of what we think of as love, which is: love is about the individual. You’re then focused
Cathy Newman
on the idea of beauty or of love or perfection. So that... so that for Plato, the whole process is... is one of getting away from reality, whereas in the novel there's a sort of sense in which Matjaž’s development is towards being aware of what’s around him and getting away from being in the grip of a particularly pernicious Platonic view about what his... what love should be. Yeah, I would agree with that, yes. Can I add something, then you can stop me. But I agree with you, but in this sense: I think the big opposition, and Kierkegaard himself knew it very well in his Philosophical Fragments or how it's usually translated... wonderful... it's precisely Socrates versus Jesus Christ. I’m a Christian here,
on the idea of beauty or of love or perfection. So that... so that for Plato, the whole process is... is one of getting away from reality, whereas in the novel there's a sort of sense in which Matjaž’s development is towards being aware of what’s around him and getting away from being in the grip of a particularly pernicious Platonic view about what his... what love should be. Yeah, I would agree with that, yes. Can I add something, then you can stop me. But I agree with you, but in this sense: I think the big opposition, and Kierkegaard himself knew it very well in his Philosophical Fragments or how it's usually translated... wonderful... it's precisely Socrates versus Jesus Christ. I’m a Christian here,
unknown
although an atheist. I think that precisely as you said, the Christian view is that "Okay, you go up, up to all these ideas," but then you have to fall down radically to a single individual. That's the paradox of Christianity: God universal and so on, but at the end you are back, we are back to one person, a stupid ordinary guy in Palestine and so on. That's the first thing. The second thing, things get here complicated in love precisely in the same way as in theology. Look, if I say to some person: "I love you because you have beautiful hair, legs, even brains..." it's not true love. True love goes the other way around: I discover how beautiful you are because I love you. Love is not objective. If love were to be objective, it's a matter of mental accountancy. You have... I have you and her, I put a list. You have nice whatever hair, legs, the other lady has eyes, and I put "Oh wait, you are two points higher, it's you." That's not love. Love is precisely like intelligent theologians say, how it's obscene to say "I become a Christian because I found the arguments of Jesus Christ quite convincing." No, if you were in medieval times you should be burned for saying this. It's the opposite. True Christian attitude is: because you believe, you can understand Christianity. And that's the structure of love. So I am here in this sense again Christian. Love is contingent also in this radical sense that you are in love for reasons, but these reasons appear to you as such only once you already are in love. Second point which is important for me, made very nicely by
although an atheist. I think that precisely as you said, the Christian view is that "Okay, you go up, up to all these ideas," but then you have to fall down radically to a single individual. That's the paradox of Christianity: God universal and so on, but at the end you are back, we are back to one person, a stupid ordinary guy in Palestine and so on. That's the first thing. The second thing, things get here complicated in love precisely in the same way as in theology. Look, if I say to some person: "I love you because you have beautiful hair, legs, even brains..." it's not true love. True love goes the other way around: I discover how beautiful you are because I love you. Love is not objective. If love were to be objective, it's a matter of mental accountancy. You have... I have you and her, I put a list. You have nice whatever hair, legs, the other lady has eyes, and I put "Oh wait, you are two points higher, it's you." That's not love. Love is precisely like intelligent theologians say, how it's obscene to say "I become a Christian because I found the arguments of Jesus Christ quite convincing." No, if you were in medieval times you should be burned for saying this. It's the opposite. True Christian attitude is: because you believe, you can understand Christianity. And that's the structure of love. So I am here in this sense again Christian. Love is contingent also in this radical sense that you are in love for reasons, but these reasons appear to you as such only once you already are in love. Second point which is important for me, made very nicely by
Cathy Newman
Lacan: love is sublimation, not idealization. This means in true
Lacan: love is sublimation, not idealization. This means in true
unknown
love
love
Slavoj Žižek
you don't idealize your partner. That's the miracle of love. You noticed all the dirty details, whatever, imperfections, but they make you love the beloved even more. That's the miracle of love, how you have here an imperfect human being... here not me... and but no, in all this imperfection she is the absolute, or he, or whatever now in this transgender anti-species time, or it, or a dog or whatever, whomever you love. Well in a way the... the women that most of the women that Matjaž meets are interchangeable. They are interchangeable, so they fail as lovers, truly lovers in that sense, because they are just simply a means to an end for him, they... he’s not interested in them as individuals. But do we betray too much... you censored... you warned me in advance I shouldn't say too much that the big surprise is who becomes the one? I mean, don't tell us the big surprise, let's leave it as a surprise. I will just not polemicize with you. You know, we started before in the back room there, green room, how is it called, yeah. It reminds me of, you know, all those red, green rooms in Twin Peaks, you know, yeah. No, about... I don't think that it really spoils the game if you... we say too much if you know the ending. And even in detective novels, I will give you a perfect proof. They are no longer watchable today, but years ago I liked them: Columbo. What was the revolution of Columbo? The crime is perfectly shown at the beginning. You know everything. So what we are waiting for is not to discover what really happened, but how Columbo will establish the link between what really happened and ordinary reality, how will he establish a link. And another thing why Columbo was very intelligent, I mean as a series, is: did you notice something very mysterious which brings us back to this structure of love? The mystery of Columbo is this one: a murder or whatever happens, Columbo arrives at the crime scene and immediately he knows who is the culprit. And then it's just slowly how he will prove it. Well now this is interesting because that’s also following the model of how you describe love: that you fall in love with somebody then you discover the reasons. It’s also the model that Nietzsche has for philosophy: that philosophers express a conclusion which is miraculously consistent with their deepest heartfelt beliefs and then they... they tell you it’s actually the product of rational logical processes. So Kant happens to end up in his moral philosophy with a kind of Protestant Christian position about how you should be honest and not tell lies and so on, and he makes out that it’s just because he reasoned from ordinary experience to this position. But actually as Nietzsche points out, it’s
you don't idealize your partner. That's the miracle of love. You noticed all the dirty details, whatever, imperfections, but they make you love the beloved even more. That's the miracle of love, how you have here an imperfect human being... here not me... and but no, in all this imperfection she is the absolute, or he, or whatever now in this transgender anti-species time, or it, or a dog or whatever, whomever you love. Well in a way the... the women that most of the women that Matjaž meets are interchangeable. They are interchangeable, so they fail as lovers, truly lovers in that sense, because they are just simply a means to an end for him, they... he’s not interested in them as individuals. But do we betray too much... you censored... you warned me in advance I shouldn't say too much that the big surprise is who becomes the one? I mean, don't tell us the big surprise, let's leave it as a surprise. I will just not polemicize with you. You know, we started before in the back room there, green room, how is it called, yeah. It reminds me of, you know, all those red, green rooms in Twin Peaks, you know, yeah. No, about... I don't think that it really spoils the game if you... we say too much if you know the ending. And even in detective novels, I will give you a perfect proof. They are no longer watchable today, but years ago I liked them: Columbo. What was the revolution of Columbo? The crime is perfectly shown at the beginning. You know everything. So what we are waiting for is not to discover what really happened, but how Columbo will establish the link between what really happened and ordinary reality, how will he establish a link. And another thing why Columbo was very intelligent, I mean as a series, is: did you notice something very mysterious which brings us back to this structure of love? The mystery of Columbo is this one: a murder or whatever happens, Columbo arrives at the crime scene and immediately he knows who is the culprit. And then it's just slowly how he will prove it. Well now this is interesting because that’s also following the model of how you describe love: that you fall in love with somebody then you discover the reasons. It’s also the model that Nietzsche has for philosophy: that philosophers express a conclusion which is miraculously consistent with their deepest heartfelt beliefs and then they... they tell you it’s actually the product of rational logical processes. So Kant happens to end up in his moral philosophy with a kind of Protestant Christian position about how you should be honest and not tell lies and so on, and he makes out that it’s just because he reasoned from ordinary experience to this position. But actually as Nietzsche points out, it’s
unknown
just... That's why let's forget about all these bullshit philosophical reasoning. I think the best definition of philosophy was provided by ancient Greeks apropos Socrates: the duty of a philosopher is to corrupt the youth.
just... That's why let's forget about all these bullshit philosophical reasoning. I think the best definition of philosophy was provided by ancient Greeks apropos Socrates: the duty of a philosopher is to corrupt the youth.
Slavoj Žižek
No, I don't mean it in an immoral sense, but like to... to tear them out, to destabilize them, to make them doubt the ruling ideology, whatever. Just for those people who don’t know, that was one of the
No, I don't mean it in an immoral sense, but like to... to tear them out, to destabilize them, to make them doubt the ruling ideology, whatever. Just for those people who don’t know, that was one of the
unknown
charges that led to Socrates’ execution.
charges that led to Socrates’ execution.
Slavoj Žižek
That's what I meant, yeah, yeah. In a way from the standpoint of existing power, the Athenian court, democratic court, don't forget this, was totally right. They were just... So I would say... I would say you’re just... that's another example of what I was talking about with Nietzsche. That’s what you like doing, and then you give reasons about why that should be the whole of philosophy. But he wasn't doing it enough because you know, you corrupt the youth and then you end up appropriated by Hitler, you know. Although Nietzsche was a much nicer person. For example, he was always proud about his Polish ancestry, not exactly a Nazi feature. Another thing, in a wonderful part, I think you may correct me if I’m wrong, in Genealogy of Morals, he is so beaut... such a beautiful idea. He provides the ultimate anti-anti-Semitic dream. He says "We Germans are aggressive warlike, Jews are merchant some... if we bring Germans and Jews together, we would be absolutely unbeatable," no? That's his dream. Ah, that's the Nietzsche
That's what I meant, yeah, yeah. In a way from the standpoint of existing power, the Athenian court, democratic court, don't forget this, was totally right. They were just... So I would say... I would say you’re just... that's another example of what I was talking about with Nietzsche. That’s what you like doing, and then you give reasons about why that should be the whole of philosophy. But he wasn't doing it enough because you know, you corrupt the youth and then you end up appropriated by Hitler, you know. Although Nietzsche was a much nicer person. For example, he was always proud about his Polish ancestry, not exactly a Nazi feature. Another thing, in a wonderful part, I think you may correct me if I’m wrong, in Genealogy of Morals, he is so beaut... such a beautiful idea. He provides the ultimate anti-anti-Semitic dream. He says "We Germans are aggressive warlike, Jews are merchant some... if we bring Germans and Jews together, we would be absolutely unbeatable," no? That's his dream. Ah, that's the Nietzsche
unknown
that I like. Well you are famous for saying that Gandhi was more violent than Hitler, aren't you? But I meant it in a positive sense. No, no, sorry. For me, what I mean there by violence is of course not physical violence but how much did you really change reality. And I was just making in a provocative way, I admit it, the old Marxist point that, again to use Nietzsche's terms, Hitler's violence was deeply reactive. He was ready to kill millions so just that ultimately the existing economic order remains the same. He was active not to change things. And this is a wonderful example from everyday obsessional neurosis. Believe me, I can bear witness to it because I am one, obsessional neurotic. You don’t say. You know people ask me why am I so hyperactive.
that I like. Well you are famous for saying that Gandhi was more violent than Hitler, aren't you? But I meant it in a positive sense. No, no, sorry. For me, what I mean there by violence is of course not physical violence but how much did you really change reality. And I was just making in a provocative way, I admit it, the old Marxist point that, again to use Nietzsche's terms, Hitler's violence was deeply reactive. He was ready to kill millions so just that ultimately the existing economic order remains the same. He was active not to change things. And this is a wonderful example from everyday obsessional neurosis. Believe me, I can bear witness to it because I am one, obsessional neurotic. You don’t say. You know people ask me why am I so hyperactive.
Slavoj Žižek
Not to change things, but so
Not to change things, but so
unknown
that to make it sure that nothing will change. Like
that to make it sure that nothing will change. Like
Slavoj Žižek
you can imagine how my own psychoanalysis looked. I talked all the time. Why? Because I was afraid that if I stop talking for a second the analyst may ask me some truly embarrassing question. So I was active all the time to make it sure that nothing changes. And there was something of this, something of this in Hitler. It was while Gandhi, whatever you say and I am very critical of Gandhi, with all his non-violence and so on and so on, sorry, he did change things. India become independent and so on and so on. Only in this sense I mean it. Okay, I think this would be a good time to open up for questions
you can imagine how my own psychoanalysis looked. I talked all the time. Why? Because I was afraid that if I stop talking for a second the analyst may ask me some truly embarrassing question. So I was active all the time to make it sure that nothing changes. And there was something of this, something of this in Hitler. It was while Gandhi, whatever you say and I am very critical of Gandhi, with all his non-violence and so on and so on, sorry, he did change things. India become independent and so on and so on. Only in this sense I mean it. Okay, I think this would be a good time to open up for questions
unknown
actually. If we... we’ve got a roving mic somewhere I believe. Is that true? There was advertised...
actually. If we... we’ve got a roving mic somewhere I believe. Is that true? There was advertised...
Slavoj Žižek
roving mic at the back. So I can barely see because I’m blinded by lights here. Is there a hand up... Did you do your Stalinist duty? Did you organize the
roving mic at the back. So I can barely see because I’m blinded by lights here. Is there a hand up... Did you do your Stalinist duty? Did you organize the
unknown
debate, did you distribute questions and so on? Yeah, I distributed questions so you should get some tough questions now. There's one over here I can see. Maybe if there’s... is there just one mic? Yeah, so
debate, did you distribute questions and so on? Yeah, I distributed questions so you should get some tough questions now. There's one over here I can see. Maybe if there’s... is there just one mic? Yeah, so
Slavoj Žižek
wait for the... please do wait for the mic. Can you wave if you’ve got another question, anybody? I can’t really see. Yep, I’ve got one at the back there next. Hi. I just wanted to know if... because from what I heard, I haven't read the novel, and it sounds like there is associated with very classical stereotypical roles, like the male, the female, the seduction idea we have. And is there any place for... or you have thought about non-binary relationships or is there any thought about that in this novel, or maybe some influence or anything about that? Sorry, I didn't hear the question completely there. I understood it: that it is only male, female and so on, is there a place...
wait for the... please do wait for the mic. Can you wave if you’ve got another question, anybody? I can’t really see. Yep, I’ve got one at the back there next. Hi. I just wanted to know if... because from what I heard, I haven't read the novel, and it sounds like there is associated with very classical stereotypical roles, like the male, the female, the seduction idea we have. And is there any place for... or you have thought about non-binary relationships or is there any thought about that in this novel, or maybe some influence or anything about that? Sorry, I didn't hear the question completely there. I understood it: that it is only male, female and so on, is there a place...
unknown
please lady correct me if I’m wrong... for other not standard roles like not just heterosexual male-female for
please lady correct me if I’m wrong... for other not standard roles like not just heterosexual male-female for
Slavoj Žižek
other... did I get you correctly? Yeah, that’s exactly what I mean, yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, one of my aims in the novel was to provide very different characters, very different female characters. And as Nigel said, the main character winds up with a transvestite one night, and there is a lesbian figure as... so I tried to include different positions in... And that’s absolutely true. And I will do now something for which... but I believe in Columbo model... for which you both will lynch me. Don't do it. You know femin... don't do it, don't do it. Why are you adjoining women? Where is male bonding, my god? No, because... okay, I’ll put it in this way, very abstractly. Like the incident with the transvestite. No, no, that precisely what you worried about, non-conventional, plays a major positive role at the end. That's all that I will say. Absolutely. Yes. And the incident with the transvestite is very interesting because there's a lack of awareness on Matjaž’s part about how intimate he is. There’s... it’s shown rather than said but there's a kind of intimacy that only genitals prevent going further. I mean because in a sense that relationship could very well be a fundamental one for him because of... because he’s so much in tune with that individual and so attracted to that individual. And there's a kind
other... did I get you correctly? Yeah, that’s exactly what I mean, yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, one of my aims in the novel was to provide very different characters, very different female characters. And as Nigel said, the main character winds up with a transvestite one night, and there is a lesbian figure as... so I tried to include different positions in... And that’s absolutely true. And I will do now something for which... but I believe in Columbo model... for which you both will lynch me. Don't do it. You know femin... don't do it, don't do it. Why are you adjoining women? Where is male bonding, my god? No, because... okay, I’ll put it in this way, very abstractly. Like the incident with the transvestite. No, no, that precisely what you worried about, non-conventional, plays a major positive role at the end. That's all that I will say. Absolutely. Yes. And the incident with the transvestite is very interesting because there's a lack of awareness on Matjaž’s part about how intimate he is. There’s... it’s shown rather than said but there's a kind of intimacy that only genitals prevent going further. I mean because in a sense that relationship could very well be a fundamental one for him because of... because he’s so much in tune with that individual and so attracted to that individual. And there's a kind
unknown
of criticism built into the description, I felt, a kind of sense in which he doesn't realize what he’s doing as he’s doing it, and the degree to which he could easily have formed a relationship with that person,
of criticism built into the description, I felt, a kind of sense in which he doesn't realize what he’s doing as he’s doing it, and the degree to which he could easily have formed a relationship with that person,
Slavoj Žižek
but convention and his prejudices didn't... didn't lead him down that route. Yeah, that... that’s true. That’s a correct description. But I wanted to
but convention and his prejudices didn't... didn't lead him down that route. Yeah, that... that’s true. That’s a correct description. But I wanted to
unknown
stress out that to me it was important to show that impossibility which I was talking about. And I used these different characters to have this input of impossibility, different impossibilities
stress out that to me it was important to show that impossibility which I was talking about. And I used these different characters to have this input of impossibility, different impossibilities
Slavoj Žižek
or different challenges that one...
or different challenges that one...
Cathy Newman
one
one
unknown
has when trying to find true love. So it was a conceptual... it was a... how do you say... it was a deliberate decision to... to go to
has when trying to find true love. So it was a conceptual... it was a... how do you say... it was a deliberate decision to... to go to
unknown
have all these different differences and so on. That’s what I meant, the theme and variations is very musical with a kind of resolution, but it's a kind of false cadence and then there’s a different resolution that is really interesting the way it ends. But there's a question... have you got the microphone there? Yep. Can we pass the microphone down to a question at the back? Oh gosh, there are people in the upper tier as well. Is anybody... I
have all these different differences and so on. That’s what I meant, the theme and variations is very musical with a kind of resolution, but it's a kind of false cadence and then there’s a different resolution that is really interesting the way it ends. But there's a question... have you got the microphone there? Yep. Can we pass the microphone down to a question at the back? Oh gosh, there are people in the upper tier as well. Is anybody... I
Slavoj Žižek
don't know how we can get a microphone up there if you’ve got a question up there at the back. Earlier you spoke about... earlier you spoke about psychoanalysis and I was interested to know whether you think psychoanalysis can be scientific or not. Can be? Psychoanalysis can be scientific or not. Do you think
don't know how we can get a microphone up there if you’ve got a question up there at the back. Earlier you spoke about... earlier you spoke about psychoanalysis and I was interested to know whether you think psychoanalysis can be scientific or not. Can be? Psychoanalysis can be scientific or not. Do you think
unknown
psychoanalysis
psychoanalysis
Slavoj Žižek
is scientific?
is scientific?
Cathy Newman
Well, as Lacan answered this question... and I don't want please to... I feel bad for talking too much, so I will try to be short. You know, the question, Lacan changed this question into a question how radically do we have to change the notion of science so that psychoanalysis fits into it? Because obviously at a certain direct level, if we take as a model,
Well, as Lacan answered this question... and I don't want please to... I feel bad for talking too much, so I will try to be short. You know, the question, Lacan changed this question into a question how radically do we have to change the notion of science so that psychoanalysis fits into it? Because obviously at a certain direct level, if we take as a model,
Slavoj Žižek
as a paradigm, what today counts as serious science and so on, obviously psychoanalysis is
as a paradigm, what today counts as serious science and so on, obviously psychoanalysis is
Cathy Newman
not a
not a
Slavoj Žižek
science. Why?
science. Why?
unknown
Because science,
Because science,
Slavoj Žižek
the subject of science by definition, as Lacan puts it, forecloses or rather excludes subjectivity. The whole point of science is that the one who speaks as a scientist should be, it doesn't matter who it is, empty, anonymous and so on. And for Lacan, precisely in psychoanalysis the whole point is that it matters who speaks. And not
the subject of science by definition, as Lacan puts it, forecloses or rather excludes subjectivity. The whole point of science is that the one who speaks as a scientist should be, it doesn't matter who it is, empty, anonymous and so on. And for Lacan, precisely in psychoanalysis the whole point is that it matters who speaks. And not
unknown
only this but even, how should I put it, when you say something... this is the biggest epistemological break in psychoanalysis... when you say something which is obviously wrong in the objective sense, when you make a mistake, slip of tongue, whatever, that's where truth explodes. Like you make a slip of tongue, a mistake, it's a lie, but a lie can tell more about you than the truth. Which is why in analysis I was in, I know it, I tried to lie all the time. I invented dreams and so on, and my analyst just laughed at me and told me that not only was it obvious that I am lying but in my... through my lies I betrayed myself much more than I would have by telling the truth. So I’m just saying that I still think psychoanalysis is something extremely serious today, more
only this but even, how should I put it, when you say something... this is the biggest epistemological break in psychoanalysis... when you say something which is obviously wrong in the objective sense, when you make a mistake, slip of tongue, whatever, that's where truth explodes. Like you make a slip of tongue, a mistake, it's a lie, but a lie can tell more about you than the truth. Which is why in analysis I was in, I know it, I tried to lie all the time. I invented dreams and so on, and my analyst just laughed at me and told me that not only was it obvious that I am lying but in my... through my lies I betrayed myself much more than I would have by telling the truth. So I’m just saying that I still think psychoanalysis is something extremely serious today, more
Cathy Newman
actual than ever. Because Freud's problem was never this Viennese Victorian oppression. Freud's problem is not you are impotent because you have a severe father who terrorizes you. No, Freud's fundamental problem is if you have a tolerant father who tells you "Ah, did you... did you do it with any girls?" and so on and so on, it's an even better way to make you if you are a boy impotent and so on. So I think
actual than ever. Because Freud's problem was never this Viennese Victorian oppression. Freud's problem is not you are impotent because you have a severe father who terrorizes you. No, Freud's fundamental problem is if you have a tolerant father who tells you "Ah, did you... did you do it with any girls?" and so on and so on, it's an even better way to make you if you are a boy impotent and so on. So I think
unknown
that that's why psychoanalysis is actual more than ever today in our permissive times. I stop. Okay. Question down here, I don't know if you can see. Yeah, I wanted to ask both of you a question about marriage and you also I think mentioned that... that the book ends in marriage, right? So... Well there is a marriage. It’s not the hero’s marriage. Okay, well... anyway, sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. No I’ve... we’ve... we’ll be lying. We will be lying. I will still read it, thanks a lot. No, the... the question is because many people today dismiss
that that's why psychoanalysis is actual more than ever today in our permissive times. I stop. Okay. Question down here, I don't know if you can see. Yeah, I wanted to ask both of you a question about marriage and you also I think mentioned that... that the book ends in marriage, right? So... Well there is a marriage. It’s not the hero’s marriage. Okay, well... anyway, sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. No I’ve... we’ve... we’ll be lying. We will be lying. I will still read it, thanks a lot. No, the... the question is because many people today dismiss
unknown
marriage as like, well it's just a piece of paper, we can live together without getting married. Do you think there is a role for marriage nowadays which goes beyond the
marriage as like, well it's just a piece of paper, we can live together without getting married. Do you think there is a role for marriage nowadays which goes beyond the
unknown
merely let's say bureaucratic reasons? Maybe Jela could answer this one. Yes, I have a great answer, but it's not mine actually,
merely let's say bureaucratic reasons? Maybe Jela could answer this one. Yes, I have a great answer, but it's not mine actually,
Slavoj Žižek
it's from Mladen Dolar, Slavoj’s friend. Mladen Dolar, you probably know him as a philosopher. Anyhow, Mladen Dolar said that the function of marriage is that it sort of liberates you from constant tension of proving your love to the loved one. So you get married in order to relax in a relationship. So I like that answer. But Slavoj is more fundamental here, right? For marriage, yes. No, this theory of marriage is what I call the Tibetan praying meal or wheel, you know. You know what Tibetans do, it's a little bit racist dream, I don't know what's but... the idea is you put a prayer, write it on a piece of paper, you put it into a wheel, you turn it around and then you can think about sex whatever you want but objectively you are praying, you know. So it's and even in Hegel you found implicitly a wonderful theory of marriage which is: you are passionately in love with a girl or man whatever, you cannot get a calm moment for it, what to do, nervous, marry him or her. Soon you will get over-used to it, you will grow indifferent. If you want to kill the excess of love, you get married. But I don't quite buy this. I think that precisely today when marriage less and less plays the role, this economic role of breeding children, whatever, transferring property, that marriage is more actual. For me marriage is a kind of a symbolic act of telling publicly society: "Fuck off, I have someone for whom I care more, you are out." It's a wonderful public declaration of indifference. It’s interesting, yeah, John Stuart Mill wrote very passionately about... about marriage as companionship, as friendship, the sort of sense in which it doesn't have to be at a high passionate level to be something that’s valuable. Yeah, but it doesn't hurt to have a little bit of passion, you know. Sure. But it may be... I mean this is... I mentioned Jonathan Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis, he talks a lot about this and it’s very interesting. Psychologically you can’t hope for that passion to be at a high level throughout a long relationship. It’s not... it’s not plausible and this is part of the... the modern version of the Platonic myth that you find your other half and the passion will be intense for years and it just won’t. It’s going to grow into something else with the entwinement of life. But, sorry the last time I speak, but I hope you agree with me, but for me the true test of a relationship... okay it's nice, those passionate nights, blah blah. But as my good friend Alen Badiou the French guy developed, the other side
it's from Mladen Dolar, Slavoj’s friend. Mladen Dolar, you probably know him as a philosopher. Anyhow, Mladen Dolar said that the function of marriage is that it sort of liberates you from constant tension of proving your love to the loved one. So you get married in order to relax in a relationship. So I like that answer. But Slavoj is more fundamental here, right? For marriage, yes. No, this theory of marriage is what I call the Tibetan praying meal or wheel, you know. You know what Tibetans do, it's a little bit racist dream, I don't know what's but... the idea is you put a prayer, write it on a piece of paper, you put it into a wheel, you turn it around and then you can think about sex whatever you want but objectively you are praying, you know. So it's and even in Hegel you found implicitly a wonderful theory of marriage which is: you are passionately in love with a girl or man whatever, you cannot get a calm moment for it, what to do, nervous, marry him or her. Soon you will get over-used to it, you will grow indifferent. If you want to kill the excess of love, you get married. But I don't quite buy this. I think that precisely today when marriage less and less plays the role, this economic role of breeding children, whatever, transferring property, that marriage is more actual. For me marriage is a kind of a symbolic act of telling publicly society: "Fuck off, I have someone for whom I care more, you are out." It's a wonderful public declaration of indifference. It’s interesting, yeah, John Stuart Mill wrote very passionately about... about marriage as companionship, as friendship, the sort of sense in which it doesn't have to be at a high passionate level to be something that’s valuable. Yeah, but it doesn't hurt to have a little bit of passion, you know. Sure. But it may be... I mean this is... I mentioned Jonathan Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis, he talks a lot about this and it’s very interesting. Psychologically you can’t hope for that passion to be at a high level throughout a long relationship. It’s not... it’s not plausible and this is part of the... the modern version of the Platonic myth that you find your other half and the passion will be intense for years and it just won’t. It’s going to grow into something else with the entwinement of life. But, sorry the last time I speak, but I hope you agree with me, but for me the true test of a relationship... okay it's nice, those passionate nights, blah blah. But as my good friend Alen Badiou the French guy developed, the other side
unknown
of love is to expend it into everyday life, to establish all
of love is to expend it into everyday life, to establish all
unknown
these small rituals, how you structure your life. You know, it's not just passionate nights, it's my god, daily life, who cooks breakfast, how do you go here, there. And this is sometimes, I’m not exaggerating,
these small rituals, how you structure your life. You know, it's not just passionate nights, it's my god, daily life, who cooks breakfast, how do you go here, there. And this is sometimes, I’m not exaggerating,
Slavoj Žižek
not as important as sex but quite a beautiful part,
not as important as sex but quite a beautiful part,
unknown
maybe the
maybe the
Slavoj Žižek
most beautiful part of a relationship.
most beautiful part of a relationship.
unknown
This
This
unknown
patient, I would call it in a
patient, I would call it in a
unknown
Christian way, the work of love: patiently structuring your daily life as a couple, as the two sharing the same space. And if I may add something. I... I think the trick is how you get... again how the little tortures of life, I don’t know you are tired or overworked or whatever, how you get through them as a
Christian way, the work of love: patiently structuring your daily life as a couple, as the two sharing the same space. And if I may add something. I... I think the trick is how you get... again how the little tortures of life, I don’t know you are tired or overworked or whatever, how you get through them as a
Cathy Newman
couple but in a sense that this love is comic, that actually the impossibilities, impasses become a motor of, I don’t know, wittiness and humor and stuff like that. So that’s what I believe in, a comic love I would call it. Better than tragic love. Absolutely. Tragic love is overrated. Another question, second row there. Yes, thank you. I haven't read the book yet and it sounds very interesting and relatable and important on a lot of sort of broad levels. I’m wondering about the kind of specific context in which it takes place and do you think there's anything kind of Slovene about the novel and if so what would that mean
couple but in a sense that this love is comic, that actually the impossibilities, impasses become a motor of, I don’t know, wittiness and humor and stuff like that. So that’s what I believe in, a comic love I would call it. Better than tragic love. Absolutely. Tragic love is overrated. Another question, second row there. Yes, thank you. I haven't read the book yet and it sounds very interesting and relatable and important on a lot of sort of broad levels. I’m wondering about the kind of specific context in which it takes place and do you think there's anything kind of Slovene about the novel and if so what would that mean
Slavoj Žižek
or what does that look like? Well thank you for that question. I think that the answer is twofold. On the one hand the book was definitely inspired by Hollywood classic comedies, by even by British TV sitcoms, so in short by the best pieces of comedy we have. But on the other hand the book is very integrated into Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, and the characters are breathing that air and you can sort of feel the structure of this city. But I think that actually Ljubljana is a very average European city so it's not as exotic as one might expect. But I think that where the book succeeds... I’m sorry... I will tell you my friend, although I have political suspicions about him, but he’s really a nice guy, Hanif Kureishi. He provided the best answer to this dilemma. Once he told me: "I’m writing a new novel," and I couldn't restrain, for me the definition of a friend is someone who you can insult to the end in all ways and he accepts it. So I said: "Oh," he said, "it will be totally different book from the others." And I told him: "Oh, but nonetheless, you know, like in all your books the hero will have a Pakistani diplomat father
or what does that look like? Well thank you for that question. I think that the answer is twofold. On the one hand the book was definitely inspired by Hollywood classic comedies, by even by British TV sitcoms, so in short by the best pieces of comedy we have. But on the other hand the book is very integrated into Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, and the characters are breathing that air and you can sort of feel the structure of this city. But I think that actually Ljubljana is a very average European city so it's not as exotic as one might expect. But I think that where the book succeeds... I’m sorry... I will tell you my friend, although I have political suspicions about him, but he’s really a nice guy, Hanif Kureishi. He provided the best answer to this dilemma. Once he told me: "I’m writing a new novel," and I couldn't restrain, for me the definition of a friend is someone who you can insult to the end in all ways and he accepts it. So I said: "Oh," he said, "it will be totally different book from the others." And I told him: "Oh, but nonetheless, you know, like in all your books the hero will have a Pakistani diplomat father
unknown
who is a failed writer and so on, like how no." And he gave me a perfect answer. He said: "But don't we all have fathers who are Pakistani diplomats who are failed writers?" You know, like, the true art elevates a particular situation, very specific, into something absolutely
who is a failed writer and so on, like how no." And he gave me a perfect answer. He said: "But don't we all have fathers who are Pakistani diplomats who are failed writers?" You know, like, the true art elevates a particular situation, very specific, into something absolutely
Slavoj Žižek
universal that you can relate to. And that's the wager of the book. We cannot say if
universal that you can relate to. And that's the wager of the book. We cannot say if
unknown
it will work or not, but the hope is that this shitty... I despise her company... this Ljubljana cafeterias where people meet, that it will find this universal echo. But we cannot decide it in advance. Just before this other question: did you comment on the book as it was being written? At the end, yeah. And was it changed as a result? Yes, he made some... yeah, he made some great insights. Slavoj is very... he has great imagination and feeling for characters. Really? Yeah? I wouldn't... But I don't like to be seen like that. I like to be... to see myself
it will work or not, but the hope is that this shitty... I despise her company... this Ljubljana cafeterias where people meet, that it will find this universal echo. But we cannot decide it in advance. Just before this other question: did you comment on the book as it was being written? At the end, yeah. And was it changed as a result? Yes, he made some... yeah, he made some great insights. Slavoj is very... he has great imagination and feeling for characters. Really? Yeah? I wouldn't... But I don't like to be seen like that. I like to be... to see myself
Slavoj Žižek
as a brutal guy who is friendly towards everyone but you know this... you British are the best in it, this fake friendliness, very polite but keep it at a distance. You humil... can I just say... this is reason for divorce what you say now. Thank you very much for that. Hi, thank you very much for your talk. So I haven't read the book, but I was wondering: we are discussing a lot about love, love affairs, but the title of the book is The Comedy of Life, so what is the relation... No, the title is None Like Her. Well the title of the event is The Comedy of Life. Oh okay, the title of the book is None Like Her. Well the title of the event is The Comedy of Life. So why... why have you chosen this title for the event if we are discussing about love? So what is the relation between love and life? Love and comedy. Comedy, yeah. Love and life, more than comedy because you have already discussed
as a brutal guy who is friendly towards everyone but you know this... you British are the best in it, this fake friendliness, very polite but keep it at a distance. You humil... can I just say... this is reason for divorce what you say now. Thank you very much for that. Hi, thank you very much for your talk. So I haven't read the book, but I was wondering: we are discussing a lot about love, love affairs, but the title of the book is The Comedy of Life, so what is the relation... No, the title is None Like Her. Well the title of the event is The Comedy of Life. Oh okay, the title of the book is None Like Her. Well the title of the event is The Comedy of Life. So why... why have you chosen this title for the event if we are discussing about love? So what is the relation between love and life? Love and comedy. Comedy, yeah. Love and life, more than comedy because you have already discussed
Cathy Newman
about love... Comedy of Life. Ah that’s interesting. Why is it The Comedy of Life, not the Comedy of Love? Well I think because this event was not scripted beforehand so the conversation just went as it went and we ended up in the love thing. But why was the title The Comedy of Life? Well ask the organizers, that's all that I can say. I don't think... no, I’m not protesting it but can I make again the last time a short remark, very short. You know when you say comedy, just be very precise. Comedy for me does not mean
about love... Comedy of Life. Ah that’s interesting. Why is it The Comedy of Life, not the Comedy of Love? Well I think because this event was not scripted beforehand so the conversation just went as it went and we ended up in the love thing. But why was the title The Comedy of Life? Well ask the organizers, that's all that I can say. I don't think... no, I’m not protesting it but can I make again the last time a short remark, very short. You know when you say comedy, just be very precise. Comedy for me does not mean
unknown
"ooh ooh it's easy
"ooh ooh it's easy
unknown
stuff, we laugh." Can I draw your attention to two-three interesting details. Did you notice how all the best movies on Holocaust are comedies? Not because it's not serious, but because when things are really horrifying, there is something false to present them as tragic because you know, in a tragedy you still
stuff, we laugh." Can I draw your attention to two-three interesting details. Did you notice how all the best movies on Holocaust are comedies? Not because it's not serious, but because when things are really horrifying, there is something false to present them as tragic because you know, in a tragedy you still
Cathy Newman
have the tragic hero’s dignity. And life in Holocaust, in Auschwitz or in Gulag, was... you were so broken down that you were beyond... beyond the tragic dignity. That's why if you read the ultimate book, Primo Levi, If This Is a Man, it's full of genuinely comical details. So things are much more... just be careful, ambiguous here. Comedy is... comedy can be very light but comedy can also be something, the only way to cope with the situation which is so horrible that it's beyond tragedy. If you permit me, I’m sorry...
have the tragic hero’s dignity. And life in Holocaust, in Auschwitz or in Gulag, was... you were so broken down that you were beyond... beyond the tragic dignity. That's why if you read the ultimate book, Primo Levi, If This Is a Man, it's full of genuinely comical details. So things are much more... just be careful, ambiguous here. Comedy is... comedy can be very light but comedy can also be something, the only way to cope with the situation which is so horrible that it's beyond tragedy. If you permit me, I’m sorry...
Slavoj Žižek
And that’s not... that’s not... the book isn’t about the tragedy or the comedy in that terrible sense, is it? The Comedy of Life, although you say a certain kind of despair... But there is silent despair beneath it. That's what I think. That's why the conclusion is not... is it that most of the heroes are in a silent refined way, not in this "ooh I want to kill myself" but in a subtle way, I claim, I don't know if you agree. They don’t seem unhappy, do they? The characters aren’t unhappy for the most part. They may be trapped in a world... I would say despair even. Maybe it's too strong a word but... There is a bit of despair. And there’s progress as well. So it’s not like nothing happens and everything stays in a terrible situation. There is progress. And relationships... what strikes me is Matjaž is a very cynical outsider figure but he’s got very strong friendships, reliable friendships. Apart from the... the women that he’s trying to seduce, he has throughout the book several characters who are strong friends with him. He has his own gang, yeah. So it’s not a... it’s not a... it doesn’t seem to be pessimistic about human relationships to me. It means to me it seems actually quite optimistic in the sense this guy can lose his lover, can find lots of sex, can actually find different
And that’s not... that’s not... the book isn’t about the tragedy or the comedy in that terrible sense, is it? The Comedy of Life, although you say a certain kind of despair... But there is silent despair beneath it. That's what I think. That's why the conclusion is not... is it that most of the heroes are in a silent refined way, not in this "ooh I want to kill myself" but in a subtle way, I claim, I don't know if you agree. They don’t seem unhappy, do they? The characters aren’t unhappy for the most part. They may be trapped in a world... I would say despair even. Maybe it's too strong a word but... There is a bit of despair. And there’s progress as well. So it’s not like nothing happens and everything stays in a terrible situation. There is progress. And relationships... what strikes me is Matjaž is a very cynical outsider figure but he’s got very strong friendships, reliable friendships. Apart from the... the women that he’s trying to seduce, he has throughout the book several characters who are strong friends with him. He has his own gang, yeah. So it’s not a... it’s not a... it doesn’t seem to be pessimistic about human relationships to me. It means to me it seems actually quite optimistic in the sense this guy can lose his lover, can find lots of sex, can actually find different
unknown
sorts of relationships and friendships that work for him. So I didn't
sorts of relationships and friendships that work for him. So I didn't
Cathy Newman
find that... Yeah, but
find that... Yeah, but
unknown
maybe I missed it when I read it, but I
maybe I missed it when I read it, but I
Cathy Newman
think these friends are not friends who really understand him but maybe... Because he doesn’t get insulted by them. No, it's more like, how should I put it, they are friends who can be helpful precisely by way that they superficially misread him. Friends can also do this: when you are in truly desperate
think these friends are not friends who really understand him but maybe... Because he doesn’t get insulted by them. No, it's more like, how should I put it, they are friends who can be helpful precisely by way that they superficially misread him. Friends can also do this: when you are in truly desperate
Slavoj Žižek
situation, the last thing you want is somebody who would really understand you. You need an... you know like he is... like this guy Alexander or who? Yeah, but he is a true friend. I mean that's a real friendship. We will in the evening alone, we will... I will give you a chance to correct your errors, yes. No but I wanted to say just... to add
situation, the last thing you want is somebody who would really understand you. You need an... you know like he is... like this guy Alexander or who? Yeah, but he is a true friend. I mean that's a real friendship. We will in the evening alone, we will... I will give you a chance to correct your errors, yes. No but I wanted to say just... to add
unknown
something to what you were saying about horrible traumas of society and comedy. It’s very interesting that the best movies on Second World War were comedies. The Great Dictator
something to what you were saying about horrible traumas of society and comedy. It’s very interesting that the best movies on Second World War were comedies. The Great Dictator
unknown
and To Be or Not to Be from Ernst Lubitsch. And
and To Be or Not to Be from Ernst Lubitsch. And
unknown
they are great movies and they really tackle the theme in the right way, I think. It's not pathetic, it's not desperate. I think it's interesting
they are great movies and they really tackle the theme in the right way, I think. It's not pathetic, it's not desperate. I think it's interesting
unknown
that comedy can
that comedy can
unknown
address such
address such
unknown
terrible times. In the best way, I’m sure. So does that mean that you are
terrible times. In the best way, I’m sure. So does that mean that you are
Cathy Newman
pessimistic about... about relationships then? If you... are you agreeing with Slavoj’s account of the despair
pessimistic about... about relationships then? If you... are you agreeing with Slavoj’s account of the despair
unknown
of these
of these
Slavoj Žižek
characters? I think that finding true love is probably the biggest trauma of average individual. So that's why I think comedy is great with love because love is so troublesome and having a relationship is very hard and so on. I mean Sartre famously said that human relationships collapse into either sadism or masochism. That you either assert yourself so much that the other person becomes an object to you or you become an object to them. That doesn’t seem to be the way you were having it. No, no. No and I... I don't want to sound despair. I just think that structurally, you know, life is a very complex thing and it's sometimes it's very hard and... Well that’s why I started with the... Plato, the idea of perfection. Well let’s get rid of that. You have imperfection, but you can still celebrate imperfection without constant despair. Exactly. But may I something... wouldn't you agree that Sartre, although I have otherwise great respect for him,
characters? I think that finding true love is probably the biggest trauma of average individual. So that's why I think comedy is great with love because love is so troublesome and having a relationship is very hard and so on. I mean Sartre famously said that human relationships collapse into either sadism or masochism. That you either assert yourself so much that the other person becomes an object to you or you become an object to them. That doesn’t seem to be the way you were having it. No, no. No and I... I don't want to sound despair. I just think that structurally, you know, life is a very complex thing and it's sometimes it's very hard and... Well that’s why I started with the... Plato, the idea of perfection. Well let’s get rid of that. You have imperfection, but you can still celebrate imperfection without constant despair. Exactly. But may I something... wouldn't you agree that Sartre, although I have otherwise great respect for him,
unknown
blah blah, is simply wrong here? I don't think that sadism means objectifying
blah blah, is simply wrong here? I don't think that sadism means objectifying
Slavoj Žižek
your victim. Lacan’s thesis, beautiful one, is that it's on the contrary not objectifying but... look, the point of a sadist is not just to im... to torture the victim but to torture the victim in such a way, publicly disclosing him, her,
your victim. Lacan’s thesis, beautiful one, is that it's on the contrary not objectifying but... look, the point of a sadist is not just to im... to torture the victim but to torture the victim in such a way, publicly disclosing him, her,
unknown
that the victim is aware of the shamefulness and utterly ashamed and so on and so on. Sadism
that the victim is aware of the shamefulness and utterly ashamed and so on and so on. Sadism
Slavoj Žižek
is not objectifying. If there is an object in sadist relationship is the torturer himself. That's why I think, for
is not objectifying. If there is an object in sadist relationship is the torturer himself. That's why I think, for
Cathy Newman
example, Stalinism was sadist or perverse,
example, Stalinism was sadist or perverse,
unknown
not because they were doing, although because they were doing those horrible things, but because the strict definition of a Stalinist communist is pure instrument of historical necessity. I know better, sorry if you are my victim, I know better than you people what you want and on this behalf even if it's against your will I can torture you or whatever and so on and so on. Things are much more
not because they were doing, although because they were doing those horrible things, but because the strict definition of a Stalinist communist is pure instrument of historical necessity. I know better, sorry if you are my victim, I know better than you people what you want and on this behalf even if it's against your will I can torture you or whatever and so on and so on. Things are much more
Cathy Newman
complex in psychoanalysis,
complex in psychoanalysis,
unknown
you know, things about masochism, sadism and so on and so on. Well Sartre might have been psychologically naive there but I think his point was about objectification, he... he chose the word sadism presumably to be dramatic. I don’t think it was sadism in that sense. Yeah but don't you think that when somebody
you know, things about masochism, sadism and so on and so on. Well Sartre might have been psychologically naive there but I think his point was about objectification, he... he chose the word sadism presumably to be dramatic. I don’t think it was sadism in that sense. Yeah but don't you think that when somebody
Slavoj Žižek
is objectified, it works only because he or she remains a subject and finds this extremely humiliating and so on and so on. You want to humiliate the other by treating him her as
is objectified, it works only because he or she remains a subject and finds this extremely humiliating and so on and so on. You want to humiliate the other by treating him her as
unknown
an
an
Slavoj Žižek
object, precisely you can only humiliate a subject, not an object. Well let's face it, if he did mean that it still didn't make it a particularly attractive situation. Any more questions? I can... yes there’s one at the front row, and then one at the back... the back right after that.
object, precisely you can only humiliate a subject, not an object. Well let's face it, if he did mean that it still didn't make it a particularly attractive situation. Any more questions? I can... yes there’s one at the front row, and then one at the back... the back right after that.
Cathy Newman
This is for both of
This is for both of
Slavoj Žižek
you. What do you think is the role of money in love and is this approached in the book? The role of money. Okay, there is no money in the book. They
you. What do you think is the role of money in love and is this approached in the book? The role of money. Okay, there is no money in the book. They
unknown
buy quite a
buy quite a
Cathy Newman
few drinks, I have to say. Yeah, but that's all they buy. I mean, no property buying. But otherwise I don't think I have a stance on love and money. Slavoj, I’m counting on you. Not about love and money but about sex and money. I always had a deep respect, I saw some documentaries on prostitutes who claimed... okay, I’m against prostitution, I mean but generally. But some of them said: "I want simple sex and I’m terribly afraid of all that emotional burden and so on and so on." And if money is involved there is something so liberating in it, you
few drinks, I have to say. Yeah, but that's all they buy. I mean, no property buying. But otherwise I don't think I have a stance on love and money. Slavoj, I’m counting on you. Not about love and money but about sex and money. I always had a deep respect, I saw some documentaries on prostitutes who claimed... okay, I’m against prostitution, I mean but generally. But some of them said: "I want simple sex and I’m terribly afraid of all that emotional burden and so on and so on." And if money is involved there is something so liberating in it, you
unknown
know, like you then get the pure rough stuff without all the emotional luggage and so on and so on. And why am I mentioning this? Because it's exactly for the same reason that in
know, like you then get the pure rough stuff without all the emotional luggage and so on and so on. And why am I mentioning this? Because it's exactly for the same reason that in
Cathy Newman
psychoanalysis there has to be money. You pay the analyst. As Lacan and Freud put it very nicely, without money the analyst would become too involved into the pathological circle and so on.
psychoanalysis there has to be money. You pay the analyst. As Lacan and Freud put it very nicely, without money the analyst would become too involved into the pathological circle and so on.
unknown
Money means "I’m doing it for money, keep me out." So does marriage. Well I wouldn't go... no, no, no. With marriage, sorry don't be mad, I have another theory. Marriage is much worse than prostitution because in prostitution when you need sex you pay for it. In marriage you
Money means "I’m doing it for money, keep me out." So does marriage. Well I wouldn't go... no, no, no. With marriage, sorry don't be mad, I have another theory. Marriage is much worse than prostitution because in prostitution when you need sex you pay for it. In marriage you
Cathy Newman
have to pay for it to be with the wife but then if you don't make love, to keep the wife satisfied you again have to give her money
have to pay for it to be with the wife but then if you don't make love, to keep the wife satisfied you again have to give her money
unknown
so that she doesn't annoy you. I mean marriage is hell from this... So that’s a very sexist view of marriage, isn’t it? We talk here like communists, openly, don't tell anyone. I’d like to switch completely
so that she doesn't annoy you. I mean marriage is hell from this... So that’s a very sexist view of marriage, isn’t it? We talk here like communists, openly, don't tell anyone. I’d like to switch completely
Slavoj Žižek
subject. You said Jela that you were grateful to Olivia for the translation. Could you explain a bit how the process went and if there are any particular challenges? Well let me just say that I find it a miracle that a person who is totally English found interest in a minority language such as is Slovene. And it's even a greater miracle that she found my book interesting and that she really... I mean struggled with it, did the hard work and I think she did really a great job. How the process went, it's probably a question for Olivia herself. Let me just say that we did some communicating when she had some troubles or didn't understand certain words. She would email me and I would give my suggestions. But in general it was... it was all her. I mean, she didn't give me a lot of work with the English translation. So again, thank you for this question because I cannot stress out enough how happy I am that Olivia exists. And I want to add something. You will be mad at me but I read the novel in the manuscript and when you showed me some pages of translation, I think I even told you this. I said "My God but this is better than the original," you know. It's a little bit like... you Olivia, you are how is
subject. You said Jela that you were grateful to Olivia for the translation. Could you explain a bit how the process went and if there are any particular challenges? Well let me just say that I find it a miracle that a person who is totally English found interest in a minority language such as is Slovene. And it's even a greater miracle that she found my book interesting and that she really... I mean struggled with it, did the hard work and I think she did really a great job. How the process went, it's probably a question for Olivia herself. Let me just say that we did some communicating when she had some troubles or didn't understand certain words. She would email me and I would give my suggestions. But in general it was... it was all her. I mean, she didn't give me a lot of work with the English translation. So again, thank you for this question because I cannot stress out enough how happy I am that Olivia exists. And I want to add something. You will be mad at me but I read the novel in the manuscript and when you showed me some pages of translation, I think I even told you this. I said "My God but this is better than the original," you know. It's a little bit like... you Olivia, you are how is
unknown
called the big translator, Norman Kemp Smith, of "of pure..." of Kant. And everybody knows that linguistically the English translation is better than the original because Kant is a confused writer. He has this one page, one sentence with all that and Norman Kemp Smith does a wonderful
called the big translator, Norman Kemp Smith, of "of pure..." of Kant. And everybody knows that linguistically the English translation is better than the original because Kant is a confused writer. He has this one page, one sentence with all that and Norman Kemp Smith does a wonderful
Slavoj Žižek
job, he breaks it down into three-four sentences but all the logic is there. Allegedly some Germans actually read Kant in English because of that. Yeah that’s true, yeah. There was a question over there at the back, two actually, so they’re close together
job, he breaks it down into three-four sentences but all the logic is there. Allegedly some Germans actually read Kant in English because of that. Yeah that’s true, yeah. There was a question over there at the back, two actually, so they’re close together
unknown
for a change. Oh, sorry. Yeah, it's very hard for me to see here. Hi. I was wondering whether there
for a change. Oh, sorry. Yeah, it's very hard for me to see here. Hi. I was wondering whether there
unknown
was a space in the book to look at maybe this new modern sort of Silicon Valley marketplace approach to love. You know how you
was a space in the book to look at maybe this new modern sort of Silicon Valley marketplace approach to love. You know how you
unknown
know through Tinder and
know through Tinder and
Cathy Newman
other apps there's more like a... like
other apps there's more like a... like
unknown
love is kind of a market
love is kind of a market
Cathy Newman
and is there... is there a space for it in the... in the book? Well I tried to make book as contemporary as possible but it was written quite a few years ago before I think
and is there... is there a space for it in the... in the book? Well I tried to make book as contemporary as possible but it was written quite a few years ago before I think
Slavoj Žižek
Tinder even existed. But there is... there are some references to Facebook and all these new gadgets young people use. Although I have to say that because I don't use and I don't operate on Facebook and stuff like that, I wasn't... I mean I was afraid it would not be very convincing if my characters were too engaged in that stuff. But I tried to grasp youth between let's say and and this was written a few years ago so you do the math. But don't get it wrongly, we are not such a primitive country. I mean everybody uses Facebook and Twitter in Slovenia, just we don't. I’m here a Stalinist. I think Facebook and Twitter, this is just a loss of time. I would have in my ideal state secret police checking on people. If you are on Facebook more than one hour per day, you are mobilized to clean toilets in hospitals and so on and so on. Sorry, sorry, it's my Stalinism, okay. Why are you so skeptical? Are you using... do you use Twitter? Not Facebook. Twitter. You can find me on Twitter most hours. Also you don't have more complex thoughts? Everything you want to say can be put in what, characters? That’s so naive about how Twitter works. That’s so naive about how Twitter works. You can always
Tinder even existed. But there is... there are some references to Facebook and all these new gadgets young people use. Although I have to say that because I don't use and I don't operate on Facebook and stuff like that, I wasn't... I mean I was afraid it would not be very convincing if my characters were too engaged in that stuff. But I tried to grasp youth between let's say and and this was written a few years ago so you do the math. But don't get it wrongly, we are not such a primitive country. I mean everybody uses Facebook and Twitter in Slovenia, just we don't. I’m here a Stalinist. I think Facebook and Twitter, this is just a loss of time. I would have in my ideal state secret police checking on people. If you are on Facebook more than one hour per day, you are mobilized to clean toilets in hospitals and so on and so on. Sorry, sorry, it's my Stalinism, okay. Why are you so skeptical? Are you using... do you use Twitter? Not Facebook. Twitter. You can find me on Twitter most hours. Also you don't have more complex thoughts? Everything you want to say can be put in what, characters? That’s so naive about how Twitter works. That’s so naive about how Twitter works. You can always
unknown
link
link
Slavoj Žižek
to other things. But actually concision
to other things. But actually concision
unknown
can be quite effective. That’s unfortunately, that's true, yeah. I don't know, maybe you’re right. Hi. So I’m very intrigued by this book, Jela.
can be quite effective. That’s unfortunately, that's true, yeah. I don't know, maybe you’re right. Hi. So I’m very intrigued by this book, Jela.
Cathy Newman
Want to read it, would have been lovely to have read it before coming here. So I’m just trying to use the little glimpses of information that we’re getting to kind of piece... together to get some insight into it. And one book it reminds me of is Filth by Irvine Welsh. Just... just that aspect... I don't know if you know it, it's I think it's quite recent. Just that aspect of a strong silent type who goes around exploiting women in this flurry of activity, almost you know from one person to the other. That book I don’t think is... is about love. It’s about that character and obviously how... how complex he is. So that inevitably makes me wonder about your book and your character and why he’s in this flurry of activity of jumping from one person to the other, which links in nicely with what Slavoj pointed out that this flurry of activity can be just a means of trying to fight change, trying to fight keep things
Want to read it, would have been lovely to have read it before coming here. So I’m just trying to use the little glimpses of information that we’re getting to kind of piece... together to get some insight into it. And one book it reminds me of is Filth by Irvine Welsh. Just... just that aspect... I don't know if you know it, it's I think it's quite recent. Just that aspect of a strong silent type who goes around exploiting women in this flurry of activity, almost you know from one person to the other. That book I don’t think is... is about love. It’s about that character and obviously how... how complex he is. So that inevitably makes me wonder about your book and your character and why he’s in this flurry of activity of jumping from one person to the other, which links in nicely with what Slavoj pointed out that this flurry of activity can be just a means of trying to fight change, trying to fight keep things
unknown
as they are.
as they are.
Cathy Newman
So is there
So is there
Slavoj Žižek
something revealing about the character in the way he goes about this flurry of activity and how’s that resolved? Surely there is change, he can't fight it at the end. Sorry, I’m not sure if I because we don't hear as... there's a bit of an echo actually. Sorry. So did I understand correctly you’re asking me if my book was inspired by some other book from... No, I’m just... I’m just trying to draw parallels because obviously I haven't read yours, but what I took from the other one was that this... this strong but silent type who is very active in going through through different people in what superficially looks like perhaps searching for love, that that might be conveying more about them and their struggle with themselves than about love in a... finding love. So I wonder if there’s any of that theme in your book as
something revealing about the character in the way he goes about this flurry of activity and how’s that resolved? Surely there is change, he can't fight it at the end. Sorry, I’m not sure if I because we don't hear as... there's a bit of an echo actually. Sorry. So did I understand correctly you’re asking me if my book was inspired by some other book from... No, I’m just... I’m just trying to draw parallels because obviously I haven't read yours, but what I took from the other one was that this... this strong but silent type who is very active in going through through different people in what superficially looks like perhaps searching for love, that that might be conveying more about them and their struggle with themselves than about love in a... finding love. So I wonder if there’s any of that theme in your book as
unknown
well, whether your character, you know, why is he so active? Is he... is he like Slavoj pointed out, is he fighting something, is he fighting change, is he fighting himself? Yes, at least at the beginning, you can feel that all this... even all the humor comes out of this silent despair because he’s
well, whether your character, you know, why is he so active? Is he... is he like Slavoj pointed out, is he fighting something, is he fighting change, is he fighting himself? Yes, at least at the beginning, you can feel that all this... even all the humor comes out of this silent despair because he’s
Slavoj Žižek
actually pretty
actually pretty
unknown
broken up after his ended relationship. And I have to say that you will probably find many references in the book in a sense you will see that it was inspired by Hollywood comedies and probably some of them even have similar premise of the story. Make it clear, sorry.
broken up after his ended relationship. And I have to say that you will probably find many references in the book in a sense you will see that it was inspired by Hollywood comedies and probably some of them even have similar premise of the story. Make it clear, sorry.
Cathy Newman
By Hollywood comedies you mean mostly Ernst Lubitsch, Preston Sturges, that... Yes, but even I think this concrete premise was probably already filmed in some bullshit Hollywood comedy. But I think that there are some twists in... in my book that at least I don't know that they exist in some other... But if I understand correctly your question... sorry, this time I will be very short. You know, maybe you don't know, but I will tell you now. I don't like this guy Matjaž. I found him disgusting. I wouldn't like to have a friend like that. Just
By Hollywood comedies you mean mostly Ernst Lubitsch, Preston Sturges, that... Yes, but even I think this concrete premise was probably already filmed in some bullshit Hollywood comedy. But I think that there are some twists in... in my book that at least I don't know that they exist in some other... But if I understand correctly your question... sorry, this time I will be very short. You know, maybe you don't know, but I will tell you now. I don't like this guy Matjaž. I found him disgusting. I wouldn't like to have a friend like that. Just
Slavoj Žižek
to make it clear, okay. It's interesting because he... to me he’s got disgusting traits, but
to make it clear, okay. It's interesting because he... to me he’s got disgusting traits, but
Cathy Newman
there’s something quite attractive... Oh but what is a warm deep human person in him?
there’s something quite attractive... Oh but what is a warm deep human person in him?
Slavoj Žižek
No, no. I don't think he’s warm. I don't think he’s warm but he’s quite attractive. He’s quite sympathetic in a certain kind of honesty in the way that he deals with people. But he doesn't work anything seriously. He's just a lazy guy. He should be mobilized for forced labor. Is that what photographers are like? Sorry?
No, no. I don't think he’s warm. I don't think he’s warm but he’s quite attractive. He’s quite sympathetic in a certain kind of honesty in the way that he deals with people. But he doesn't work anything seriously. He's just a lazy guy. He should be mobilized for forced labor. Is that what photographers are like? Sorry?
unknown
That’s what photographers are like isn’t it? Okay, why not mobilize
That’s what photographers are like isn’t it? Okay, why not mobilize
Slavoj Žižek
them, yes. I don't believe in freedom. People should work, my God. Sorry, sorry. It's my Stalinism, okay. No, but as we talked with Nigel, there
them, yes. I don't believe in freedom. People should work, my God. Sorry, sorry. It's my Stalinism, okay. No, but as we talked with Nigel, there
unknown
are some parts in the book that are challenging for the main character in a sense that he has to respond to a critical
are some parts in the book that are challenging for the main character in a sense that he has to respond to a critical
Slavoj Žižek
situation like when
situation like when
Cathy Newman
his friends are in despair or at the end when he has to defend the dignity of a lady and you can see that at crucial points where it really matters he is not such a bad guy. Okay I concede that point. Though if the book had been written by a man, I think you would have been accused of deep sexism I think. By presenting a character who’s got these terrible traits but has some sympathetic aspects I think, yeah. There’s another question... up in that region. I think it's sort of deeply embedded in our culture, tradition, that... a life in which you don't find your true love is an incomplete life. Do you agree with that proposition? And second of all, if you don't, is that why many people convince themselves they are in love when perhaps they’re not? Sorry, what was the second part of the question? If I don't believe in... Well if you don't... the basic proposition is that you need to be find your true love to have a complete life in a sort of philosophical sense. But if that doesn't exist, if that's just a false proposition, is that why many people go around thinking they’re in love when they’re not? Because otherwise they’d have to admit they’ve got an incomplete life. Well, that's an interesting and a very good question I think. I... I think this assumption is not right. I don't think that people should be in pair in order to have a successful or satisfying life. I think that an individual can have a very flourishing life on his own. But it is true that our culture and probably even books like this, make... push us towards this idea and this longing for another person in our life. And that is probably problematic, yes. You know what would be my position here? I take your question very naively in a realist way. What do I think? First, I think what I already hinted at that true authentic love not only doesn't complete your life, it destabilizes it radically. It throws it off the rail and so on. At the same time I think, and here I’m very classical metaphysician, what my friend
his friends are in despair or at the end when he has to defend the dignity of a lady and you can see that at crucial points where it really matters he is not such a bad guy. Okay I concede that point. Though if the book had been written by a man, I think you would have been accused of deep sexism I think. By presenting a character who’s got these terrible traits but has some sympathetic aspects I think, yeah. There’s another question... up in that region. I think it's sort of deeply embedded in our culture, tradition, that... a life in which you don't find your true love is an incomplete life. Do you agree with that proposition? And second of all, if you don't, is that why many people convince themselves they are in love when perhaps they’re not? Sorry, what was the second part of the question? If I don't believe in... Well if you don't... the basic proposition is that you need to be find your true love to have a complete life in a sort of philosophical sense. But if that doesn't exist, if that's just a false proposition, is that why many people go around thinking they’re in love when they’re not? Because otherwise they’d have to admit they’ve got an incomplete life. Well, that's an interesting and a very good question I think. I... I think this assumption is not right. I don't think that people should be in pair in order to have a successful or satisfying life. I think that an individual can have a very flourishing life on his own. But it is true that our culture and probably even books like this, make... push us towards this idea and this longing for another person in our life. And that is probably problematic, yes. You know what would be my position here? I take your question very naively in a realist way. What do I think? First, I think what I already hinted at that true authentic love not only doesn't complete your life, it destabilizes it radically. It throws it off the rail and so on. At the same time I think, and here I’m very classical metaphysician, what my friend
Slavoj Žižek
Alen Badiou would have called events, like without having a passionate commitment... it can be love, it can be science, even work, whatever
Alen Badiou would have called events, like without having a passionate commitment... it can be love, it can be science, even work, whatever
Cathy Newman
you want, politics and so on... then in a way you remain a human animal. I’m here quite classical metaphysician. Most of us, most of us... and not the poor people, the rich even more... they just vegetate. And I think it's in a way something very traumatic
you want, politics and so on... then in a way you remain a human animal. I’m here quite classical metaphysician. Most of us, most of us... and not the poor people, the rich even more... they just vegetate. And I think it's in a way something very traumatic
Slavoj Žižek
but at the same time deeply satisfying, but at a not at the level of simple pleasure, if you find some why not put it in very naive metaphysical terms, some kind of a absolute on which you are transfixed. Like I read you probably know this more about me, I read
but at the same time deeply satisfying, but at a not at the level of simple pleasure, if you find some why not put it in very naive metaphysical terms, some kind of a absolute on which you are transfixed. Like I read you probably know this more about me, I read
unknown
somewhere or some friend of mine drew my attention
somewhere or some friend of mine drew my attention
Slavoj Žižek
to it that the Greek word stasis has a wonderful contrary
to it that the Greek word stasis has a wonderful contrary
unknown
meaning. It can mean stasis as static, non-changing, but it also means rebellion, in the sense
meaning. It can mean stasis as static, non-changing, but it also means rebellion, in the sense
Slavoj Žižek
of standing up against. And you need in this sense a stasis in your life. Maybe it even makes it more unhappy, because I don't think happiness for me at least is not a good category. Happiness is for stupid people. I mean, you know hap... sorry? Really? Listen, I developed in
of standing up against. And you need in this sense a stasis in your life. Maybe it even makes it more unhappy, because I don't think happiness for me at least is not a good category. Happiness is for stupid people. I mean, you know hap... sorry? Really? Listen, I developed in
Cathy Newman
my book, I forgot which one, I write too many of them, I had a wonderful debate in Lithuania years ago when people were really happy. Was there a political regime? And we came unanimously like in a Stalinist party congress to the conclusion: Czechoslovakia in the 1970s and 80s, Husák regime. Why? They were
my book, I forgot which one, I write too many of them, I had a wonderful debate in Lithuania years ago when people were really happy. Was there a political regime? And we came unanimously like in a Stalinist party congress to the conclusion: Czechoslovakia in the 1970s and 80s, Husák regime. Why? They were
unknown
living relatively well materially, not too well and that's good. If there is meat all the time in the stores you get used to it, you are not happy. If two days per month you don't get meat in the stores, it makes you
living relatively well materially, not too well and that's good. If there is meat all the time in the stores you get used to it, you are not happy. If two days per month you don't get meat in the stores, it makes you
unknown
happy that all other days. So that’s the first condition. The second condition: you must not be in power. It's too much responsibility. In authentic democracies you are not happy. There must be someone out there on whom you can put all the blame: communists in power, no. Third thing: you must have an ideal, like Western Europe, which must not be too far or too close. If it's too far you don't have a precise idea about it, if it's too close like for us in ex-Yugoslavia where borders were completely
happy that all other days. So that’s the first condition. The second condition: you must not be in power. It's too much responsibility. In authentic democracies you are not happy. There must be someone out there on whom you can put all the blame: communists in power, no. Third thing: you must have an ideal, like Western Europe, which must not be too far or too close. If it's too far you don't have a precise idea about it, if it's too close like for us in ex-Yugoslavia where borders were completely
Cathy Newman
open the last years, we knew that it's basically the same shit as with us, you know. But so it must be at the right distance to dream about it. Life must be safe and that... that was the trick of Husák regime, this decadent normalization after Prague '68. You had... you were guaranteed if you didn't mess with politics you had a
open the last years, we knew that it's basically the same shit as with us, you know. But so it must be at the right distance to dream about it. Life must be safe and that... that was the trick of Husák regime, this decadent normalization after Prague '68. You had... you were guaranteed if you didn't mess with politics you had a
Slavoj Žižek
certain private life, private niche satisfaction, you have someone communist in power to blame for and so on. I think people were happy there. It's a very sad conclusion. I’m not for that regime but okay that's happiness for me. I know you don't agree that's why I said. Well there are obviously different senses of happiness as well. In subjective reputations, yeah, not necessarily the only measure. Just picking up on that question though about the kind of self-deceptions in love, it strikes me that Matjaž at the beginning of the novel is suffering from a kind of sentimentality, a kind of unearned emotion as it were, in his love for Sarah who he’s split up from, because there’s a kind of romanticization of the nature of their relationship. And so that self-deception is actually addressed I think in the novel and there are characters who deceive themselves in various ways. So... so you definitely do touch on those subjects. But I... I would agree with the questioner that the area of love is one of those areas where we are so prone to self-deception and so prone to deception as well. It’s a particularly vulnerable area, that’s part of something we haven't really talked about: how love makes people vulnerable as well. That... that seems to be an important aspect of it. But also one of the deceptions of love is also the most dangerous one: the cynical deception, that you pretend to be a realist. You... like to give a simple melodramatic example: all of a sudden you become aware of all the faults of your love object. This is not realism, maybe you are escaping from something and so on. So there can also be deception which appears as its opposite: "Now I think I... I see things clearly" and so on and so on. Love is a big mess to put it like that, you know. One more question. Hi, thanks. Just touching on the previous question about fulfillment. I just wanted to ask regarding the character in your book and also personally, does your character, so the main protagonist, do the relationships or the one-night stands or the, you know, sexual encounters that he has, do they help with his existential dread? And does marriage in your personal lives, Slavoj in particular, has this helped with your dread existentially? I caught angst, I hope so, I don't bring peace. The worst thing you can say about me is that I bring peace or what. No but you’re a good guy. Oh my God. Sorry, do you hate me so much? Yeah but as far as the main character goes, I think that the thing is that his frame of mind changes. He starts as this bon vivant Don Juan figure and then gradually just becomes more sensitive, more maybe even
certain private life, private niche satisfaction, you have someone communist in power to blame for and so on. I think people were happy there. It's a very sad conclusion. I’m not for that regime but okay that's happiness for me. I know you don't agree that's why I said. Well there are obviously different senses of happiness as well. In subjective reputations, yeah, not necessarily the only measure. Just picking up on that question though about the kind of self-deceptions in love, it strikes me that Matjaž at the beginning of the novel is suffering from a kind of sentimentality, a kind of unearned emotion as it were, in his love for Sarah who he’s split up from, because there’s a kind of romanticization of the nature of their relationship. And so that self-deception is actually addressed I think in the novel and there are characters who deceive themselves in various ways. So... so you definitely do touch on those subjects. But I... I would agree with the questioner that the area of love is one of those areas where we are so prone to self-deception and so prone to deception as well. It’s a particularly vulnerable area, that’s part of something we haven't really talked about: how love makes people vulnerable as well. That... that seems to be an important aspect of it. But also one of the deceptions of love is also the most dangerous one: the cynical deception, that you pretend to be a realist. You... like to give a simple melodramatic example: all of a sudden you become aware of all the faults of your love object. This is not realism, maybe you are escaping from something and so on. So there can also be deception which appears as its opposite: "Now I think I... I see things clearly" and so on and so on. Love is a big mess to put it like that, you know. One more question. Hi, thanks. Just touching on the previous question about fulfillment. I just wanted to ask regarding the character in your book and also personally, does your character, so the main protagonist, do the relationships or the one-night stands or the, you know, sexual encounters that he has, do they help with his existential dread? And does marriage in your personal lives, Slavoj in particular, has this helped with your dread existentially? I caught angst, I hope so, I don't bring peace. The worst thing you can say about me is that I bring peace or what. No but you’re a good guy. Oh my God. Sorry, do you hate me so much? Yeah but as far as the main character goes, I think that the thing is that his frame of mind changes. He starts as this bon vivant Don Juan figure and then gradually just becomes more sensitive, more maybe even
unknown
more complex and then he can enjoy love and relationship in another
more complex and then he can enjoy love and relationship in another
unknown
way than he did at the beginning of his love quest. So there is an evolution of a character, I hope at least, because... But if I may draw a megalomaniac comparison with my favorite Sam Beckett play, Is it Not I or Not I, you know, that... Not I monologue. It appears just the same, but it's a very subtle play. Crucial shift happens, it's not
way than he did at the beginning of his love quest. So there is an evolution of a character, I hope at least, because... But if I may draw a megalomaniac comparison with my favorite Sam Beckett play, Is it Not I or Not I, you know, that... Not I monologue. It appears just the same, but it's a very subtle play. Crucial shift happens, it's not
Slavoj Žižek
just always the same. And I think this is what unfortunately maybe many readers will not note in... but I hope they will that exactly this is in your novel. It appears just the same on and on, but no there are subtle changes throughout it. It's
just always the same. And I think this is what unfortunately maybe many readers will not note in... but I hope they will that exactly this is in your novel. It appears just the same on and on, but no there are subtle changes throughout it. It's
unknown
not
not
unknown
just the same one-night stand story repeated again and again. And you can find out for yourselves by buying a copy at the back of the room and getting it signed personally. They’re priced which is very reasonable for this book I think. You repeated
just the same one-night stand story repeated again and again. And you can find out for yourselves by buying a copy at the back of the room and getting it signed personally. They’re priced which is very reasonable for this book I think. You repeated
unknown
this so often, do you get or what? No. Sorry, I must apologize to him. You know how many aggressive dirty remarks did he have, probably more... you had
this so often, do you get or what? No. Sorry, I must apologize to him. You know how many aggressive dirty remarks did he have, probably more... you had
Slavoj Žižek
more aggressive remarks in last two hours than in last
more aggressive remarks in last two hours than in last
Cathy Newman
two years of
two years of
Slavoj Žižek
your
your
Cathy Newman
life probably. Well I think you’re trying to seduce me after having read this book. Absolutely, but let's keep this between the two of us, don't tell anyone. Slavoj also has at least one book that he’s happy to sign at the back as
life probably. Well I think you’re trying to seduce me after having read this book. Absolutely, but let's keep this between the two of us, don't tell anyone. Slavoj also has at least one book that he’s happy to sign at the back as
Slavoj Žižek
well. So make sure you buy them before that if you’re... if you’re going to get the signatures. And I just want to thank the happy couple for a wonderful session and thank you very much for your questions and for coming. Thank you very much. You may be tempted to waylay these guys as they go to the back of the room but can you just talk to them when they’re sitting
well. So make sure you buy them before that if you’re... if you’re going to get the signatures. And I just want to thank the happy couple for a wonderful session and thank you very much for your questions and for coming. Thank you very much. You may be tempted to waylay these guys as they go to the back of the room but can you just talk to them when they’re sitting
unknown
down at the back rather than as they go past you.
down at the back rather than as they go past you.
Slavoj Žižek
Thank
Thank
unknown
you very much.
you very much.