The life and philosophy of Slavoj Žižek | Interview
Interview · The Institute of Art and Ideas ·
published 2023-11-25 · 0:15:10 · 2,134 words
with Announcer
the date above is when the video was uploaded, no recording date was found
philosophy-generalideologytechnology-ai-cyberspacesubjectivity
Žižek argues for a specific definition of freedom as 'necessity of its own' rather than contingency, grounding this in an 'ontologically incomplete' nature inspired by quantum physics. He illustrates the mechanics of cynicism and fetishism through anecdotes about a grieving husband and Heinrich Himmler’s use of the Bhagavad Gita, linking these to modern political rhetoric. Finally, he posits that human subjectivity persists alongside technological determinism because the 'empty space' of the Cartesian subject is supported by the unconscious.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 8
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “freedom is a necessity of its own”
Freedom is not random contingency (like a coin toss) but a positive decision that retroactively creates its own necessity.
A substitute object (the hamster) that allows the subject to disavow a traumatic reality (the wife's death) and continue functioning.
A stance where one performs ethical duties while knowing they are hypocritical, using a 'fetish' or exception to maintain sanity.
as “basic common sense decency”
The cynical rhetorical trick used by figures like Himmler or Trump to frame horrific acts as necessary exceptions to 'normal' decency.
The idea that human scientific inquiry (quantum physics) exceeded the 'programming' limits set by the creator, revealing the universe's incompleteness.
as “ontological openness”
The claim that nature and history are not fully determined or closed systems, but are incomplete and open to retroactive completion.
A quantum physics concept applied to history: understanding an event requires reading it as a superposition with other possible, failed events.
as “pure cartesian subjectivity”
The subject defined not by personality or content, but as an empty space or void supported by the unconscious.
Stories he reaches for 4
SS leader Heinrich Himmler carried a leathered copy of the Bhagavad Gita to justify the Holocaust. He used the text's idea that 'life is an appearance' and duty is paramount to reconcile his 'decent German' self-image with the horror of killing Jewish children.
“he always was carrying in his pocket a special leathered copy of Bhagavad Gita... oriental spiritualism.”
Akira Kurosawa's film 'Yojimbo' (misidentified by Žižek as a Hamlet version titled 'Only Bad People Sleep Well') is cited as a completion of Shakespeare's work, showing that later interpretations can understand the work better than the author did.
“the best shakespeare cinema version that i know is done by Akira Kurosawa... only bad people sleep well.”
A husband whose wife died of cancer continued functioning normally until his wife's pet hamster died, at which point he broke down. The hamster served as a fetish object embodying the wife, allowing him to disavow her death until the fetish was lost.
“his wife had a preferred pet object, a small hamster... he embodied like the wife somehow as a fetish. it was a disavowal of his wife's death.”
In video games, background trees are not rendered in detail because the player cannot interact with them. Žižek uses this to argue that God 'left it open' in the universe because humans wouldn't reach beyond the atom, but humans did, revealing the universe's ontological incompleteness.
“it's not part of the game that you can approach those trees... let's leave it open.”
Works invoked 3
Bhagavad Gita book
Cited for its concept of 'oriental spiritualism' where duty transcends the appearance of life, used by Himmler to justify killing.
Wired Brain (Book) book
Žižek's own book (likely 'Wired Brain') which offers an optimistic view on AI and subjectivity, arguing the empty Cartesian subject remains.
Freedom (Book) book
Žižek's own upcoming book (published by Bloomsbury) where he elaborates on saving freedom against neurobiological determinism.
People invoked 6
Sabine Hossenfelder positive
A German physicist and determinist whom Žižek respects for her intelligence, though he disagrees with her conclusion that naturalism eliminates freedom.
Donald Trump positive
Cited as a contemporary political figure employing the same rhetorical trick as Himmler and Stalinism regarding 'basic common sense decency'.
Heinrich Himmler positive
Used as a prime example of 'cynicism at its purest' and the ethical reversal where horrific acts are framed as the highest ethical duty.
William Shakespeare positive
Used to illustrate historicism vs. ontological openness; Žižek argues Shakespeare was incomplete and inconsistent, allowing later interpretations to complete his work.
Akira Kurosawa positive
Praised for creating what Žižek considers the best cinematic version of Hamlet, illustrating how later works can complete earlier ones.
Joseph Stalin positive
Cited in the context of 1930s Soviet propaganda for collectivization, where 'decency' (pity for starving peasants) was framed as the greatest temptation to evil.
Transcript 30 turns
Slavoj Žižek
it's not my free act if i throw a coin up and said head, tail or whatever. no, that's contingency. freedom is a necessity of its own.
it's not my free act if i throw a coin up and said head, tail or whatever. no, that's contingency. freedom is a necessity of its own.
Interviewer
you've said that recently things have changed with ideology, that you were saying until now ideology was just a lie, but now it's a more cynical thing in a very precise sense that you know what you're doing. i will call it
you've said that recently things have changed with ideology, that you were saying until now ideology was just a lie, but now it's a more cynical thing in a very precise sense that you know what you're doing. i will call it
Slavoj Žižek
in the guise of truth.
in the guise of truth.
Interviewer
but what does this do then to the old enlightenment mind, this idea that everyone is a kind of, which you've written about as well, that we're sort of rational actors and we can make these decisions. if you're in this...
but what does this do then to the old enlightenment mind, this idea that everyone is a kind of, which you've written about as well, that we're sort of rational actors and we can make these decisions. if you're in this...
Slavoj Žižek
and
and
Interviewer
total
total
Slavoj Žižek
no, i remain fully, although many people will not believe me, a guy of enlightenment. what i'm saying is not that, since rational argumentation doesn't work. then whatever, just violence or do nothing and so on. no, i think that there are different even strategies of speaking where you can undermine this stance and i even in one of my earlier books, i forgot which one, there are too many of them i elaborated this how you know every apparently, cynical guy, usually you have a fetish, an exception, you know. and there is where you have to attach it. maybe some of you know this example that i used years ago. it's real life, very stupid. a friend of mine it was 30 years ago, 20. had a wife who was, sorry for this, sexist sounding, but beautiful young. they loved each other, all you want. and then all of a sudden, in her mid-20s, she got breast cancer. and it was too late. she died in two months. horrible. and we... were so surprised that the guy, the husband. just went on functioning like normally, talked even about the last moments of his wife, and then something happened. his wife had a preferred pet object, a small hamster. half a year later, his hamster, this hamster died. the guy immediately tried to kill. you know, hamster was his fetish. he embodied like the wife somehow as a fetish. it was a disavowal of his wife's death. so it was at that point that he totally broke down. he had to be for one month on a how do you call it suicide watch, you know. always somebody with him. and tomorrow to make a little bit of propaganda, at my speech about surplus enjoyment or maybe even at the theological debate in the afternoon, i will go into another form of this. i was so fascinated. with uh the figure of Heinrich Himmler, ss boss, who was formally, formally as to form, an extremely ethical guy. never heard it but he organized holocaust. but for him this was the highest ethical act. and you know, he used a terrifying reversal here this cynicism at its purest. he admitted it. this is horrible. how can we decent germans do this killing jewish children, we, not even, and remain decent. you know what was his answer? oriental spiritualism. he always was carrying in his pocket a special leathered copy of Bhagavad Gita. where you have this idea, you know, the king is convinced to go into battle saying life is an appearance, the main thing is to do your duty. and the really horrible thing, you find the same rhetorical trick in stalinism with trump today. we all have, as i used it in my example, you know, this i call it basic common sense decency. like certain things you may, i don't, dream about them. i'm not saying i don't have dirty dreams, just not that kind.
no, i remain fully, although many people will not believe me, a guy of enlightenment. what i'm saying is not that, since rational argumentation doesn't work. then whatever, just violence or do nothing and so on. no, i think that there are different even strategies of speaking where you can undermine this stance and i even in one of my earlier books, i forgot which one, there are too many of them i elaborated this how you know every apparently, cynical guy, usually you have a fetish, an exception, you know. and there is where you have to attach it. maybe some of you know this example that i used years ago. it's real life, very stupid. a friend of mine it was 30 years ago, 20. had a wife who was, sorry for this, sexist sounding, but beautiful young. they loved each other, all you want. and then all of a sudden, in her mid-20s, she got breast cancer. and it was too late. she died in two months. horrible. and we... were so surprised that the guy, the husband. just went on functioning like normally, talked even about the last moments of his wife, and then something happened. his wife had a preferred pet object, a small hamster. half a year later, his hamster, this hamster died. the guy immediately tried to kill. you know, hamster was his fetish. he embodied like the wife somehow as a fetish. it was a disavowal of his wife's death. so it was at that point that he totally broke down. he had to be for one month on a how do you call it suicide watch, you know. always somebody with him. and tomorrow to make a little bit of propaganda, at my speech about surplus enjoyment or maybe even at the theological debate in the afternoon, i will go into another form of this. i was so fascinated. with uh the figure of Heinrich Himmler, ss boss, who was formally, formally as to form, an extremely ethical guy. never heard it but he organized holocaust. but for him this was the highest ethical act. and you know, he used a terrifying reversal here this cynicism at its purest. he admitted it. this is horrible. how can we decent germans do this killing jewish children, we, not even, and remain decent. you know what was his answer? oriental spiritualism. he always was carrying in his pocket a special leathered copy of Bhagavad Gita. where you have this idea, you know, the king is convinced to go into battle saying life is an appearance, the main thing is to do your duty. and the really horrible thing, you find the same rhetorical trick in stalinism with trump today. we all have, as i used it in my example, you know, this i call it basic common sense decency. like certain things you may, i don't, dream about them. i'm not saying i don't have dirty dreams, just not that kind.
Interviewer
but that's not part of the life conversation.
but that's not part of the life conversation.
Slavoj Žižek
i i don't don't be afraid.
i i don't don't be afraid.
Interviewer
no, no, no, what i just wanted to say.
no, no, no, what i just wanted to say.
Slavoj Žižek
is that... can briefly really the problem of Himmler is how do you... remain sane and so on and he operates a very dirty trick. he says that every idiot can be decent and fight for his countries but true patriotism is that you are ready to do horrible things for your country and i discovered in how they were making propaganda for collectivization in 1930s early 30s when they collectivized and millions died of hunger in russia and i found that same figure they said you will see horrible things peasant farmers families starving and so on but this your decency is the greatest temptation to evil if you're a true bolshevik you go on killing and this horrible ethics is returning to today trump but not yet
is that... can briefly really the problem of Himmler is how do you... remain sane and so on and he operates a very dirty trick. he says that every idiot can be decent and fight for his countries but true patriotism is that you are ready to do horrible things for your country and i discovered in how they were making propaganda for collectivization in 1930s early 30s when they collectivized and millions died of hunger in russia and i found that same figure they said you will see horrible things peasant farmers families starving and so on but this your decency is the greatest temptation to evil if you're a true bolshevik you go on killing and this horrible ethics is returning to today trump but not yet
Interviewer
i want to ask you a bit in terms of appearances as well that we take.
i want to ask you a bit in terms of appearances as well that we take.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah
yeah
Interviewer
and i was thinking about Hegel in a Wired Brain where you're talking all about hegel and subjectivity.
and i was thinking about Hegel in a Wired Brain where you're talking all about hegel and subjectivity.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Interviewer
hegelian notions of subjectivity might relate to this kind of strange world we're now in.
hegelian notions of subjectivity might relate to this kind of strange world we're now in.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Interviewer
for the first time, know, the russians wanted to do this in the soviet union, but now we actually begin to have this technology where we can create these strange singularities, which you write about, where brain-computer interfaces can link.
for the first time, know, the russians wanted to do this in the soviet union, but now we actually begin to have this technology where we can create these strange singularities, which you write about, where brain-computer interfaces can link.
Slavoj Žižek
into this, potentially. not quite there, but, no, but still, potentially.
into this, potentially. not quite there, but, no, but still, potentially.
Interviewer
of course it's still sci-fi, but the beginnings of these kind
of course it's still sci-fi, but the beginnings of these kind
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Interviewer
technologies and i want to ask you about that how then does that change to you the notion first of subjectivity which you write about and also these ideas of free will autonomy in terms of who's controlling the
technologies and i want to ask you about that how then does that change to you the notion first of subjectivity which you write about and also these ideas of free will autonomy in terms of who's controlling the
Slavoj Žižek
i don't want to lose too much time, so as to freedom, i try to provide in the first chapter of my freedom book, which will be out. by Bloomsbury in the fall, i tried to the point is how to in facing the neurobiological, however you call it determinism. how to under quotation marks, save freedom.
i don't want to lose too much time, so as to freedom, i try to provide in the first chapter of my freedom book, which will be out. by Bloomsbury in the fall, i tried to the point is how to in facing the neurobiological, however you call it determinism. how to under quotation marks, save freedom.
Interviewer
yes.
yes.
Slavoj Žižek
because i agree with some determinists like the german lady Sabine Hossenfelder. she's very intelligent. she said that she even doesn't argue. she said that the moment you accept naturalism, there simply is no space for freedom. freedom is a subjective concept. so how to save freedom? my answer is not that it's freedom already there in nature, but that the first thing to do is to open up nature, not in the sense of higher spirituality, but in the sense that nature is in itself ontologically incomplete, open. not only human sorry, not only human culture but nature. what do i mean by ontological openness? for example, here i always opposed historicism, which says, for example, classical example, i use it often books, to really understand shakespeare, you have to know the details of elizabethan england and so on. my idea is not to really understand shakespeare. shakespeare didn't understand himself. his work was full of inconsistencies, incomplete and if you come later it's not an obstacle you can even understand shakespeare better than he understood himself and so in some sense we are not just reading shakespeare differently. we are literally completing his work. that's how i hate the official dogma of multiculturalism. but i respect it when you really get it. for example, maybe some of you heard this. i find it so wonderful that the best shakespeare cinema version that i know is done by Akira Kurosawa, 61 or 2. the version of hamlet set in contemporary japan. hamlet is a japanese student returning from the united states. his father was a big corporate boss but and it has a wonderful title, this movie. only bad people sleep well. it's a wonderful. but don't care but what i want to say is that i am ready, maybe i'm speculating too much. i am now trying to study in detail as much as i can understand quantum physics because i think what you find at the bottom of quantum physics is this idea of, ontologically incomplete universe in the sense that in what sense? sorry, give me two minutes. it's an old story, but i like to repeat it of mine. you know, because it links to the previous debate at video games. look, the first thing about video games is that their universe is incomplete. you're in a game, stupid game where you are shooting fighting on the main street of a small town, let us say and in the back you see forest weak trees. but it's not part of the game that you can approach those trees and see them in detail. it's part of the game that you cannot go there, so the programmer say, why lose time on that programming? let's leave it open. and the way i got this from a popular introduction to philosophy, sorry, i forgot the name, but very intelligently, i think written, the guy says, is not quantum physics, does it not have the same lesson? when god was programming the universe, he said people are too stupid to reach beyond the atom. so why should i bother their programming? he left it undetermined. and we were a little bit too bright for god and we, as you say in english, caught god with his pants down, as it were. you know.
because i agree with some determinists like the german lady Sabine Hossenfelder. she's very intelligent. she said that she even doesn't argue. she said that the moment you accept naturalism, there simply is no space for freedom. freedom is a subjective concept. so how to save freedom? my answer is not that it's freedom already there in nature, but that the first thing to do is to open up nature, not in the sense of higher spirituality, but in the sense that nature is in itself ontologically incomplete, open. not only human sorry, not only human culture but nature. what do i mean by ontological openness? for example, here i always opposed historicism, which says, for example, classical example, i use it often books, to really understand shakespeare, you have to know the details of elizabethan england and so on. my idea is not to really understand shakespeare. shakespeare didn't understand himself. his work was full of inconsistencies, incomplete and if you come later it's not an obstacle you can even understand shakespeare better than he understood himself and so in some sense we are not just reading shakespeare differently. we are literally completing his work. that's how i hate the official dogma of multiculturalism. but i respect it when you really get it. for example, maybe some of you heard this. i find it so wonderful that the best shakespeare cinema version that i know is done by Akira Kurosawa, 61 or 2. the version of hamlet set in contemporary japan. hamlet is a japanese student returning from the united states. his father was a big corporate boss but and it has a wonderful title, this movie. only bad people sleep well. it's a wonderful. but don't care but what i want to say is that i am ready, maybe i'm speculating too much. i am now trying to study in detail as much as i can understand quantum physics because i think what you find at the bottom of quantum physics is this idea of, ontologically incomplete universe in the sense that in what sense? sorry, give me two minutes. it's an old story, but i like to repeat it of mine. you know, because it links to the previous debate at video games. look, the first thing about video games is that their universe is incomplete. you're in a game, stupid game where you are shooting fighting on the main street of a small town, let us say and in the back you see forest weak trees. but it's not part of the game that you can approach those trees and see them in detail. it's part of the game that you cannot go there, so the programmer say, why lose time on that programming? let's leave it open. and the way i got this from a popular introduction to philosophy, sorry, i forgot the name, but very intelligently, i think written, the guy says, is not quantum physics, does it not have the same lesson? when god was programming the universe, he said people are too stupid to reach beyond the atom. so why should i bother their programming? he left it undetermined. and we were a little bit too bright for god and we, as you say in english, caught god with his pants down, as it were. you know.
Interviewer
do you then believe then, or are you positing in terms of that argument? so are you saying, or maybe it's not possible, within quantum physics this question, is reality discrete or continuous? so is reality like minecraft where you kind of zoom in further and further and further and then you get, as you say, down further, further to these tiny little, you know, to the leptons and further and further down? is that a...
do you then believe then, or are you positing in terms of that argument? so are you saying, or maybe it's not possible, within quantum physics this question, is reality discrete or continuous? so is reality like minecraft where you kind of zoom in further and further and further and then you get, as you say, down further, further to these tiny little, you know, to the leptons and further and further down? is that a...
Slavoj Žižek
no i spontaneously but i don't have any empirical ground for this and for discrete nature in what sense and i think this is almost maybe the lesson of quantum physics but i'm very much speculating now i think that. it's not this endless divisibility. you can further split that. at a certain point you can to the you i can split this in half, this and that, this and that. but i believe when you approach the zero point, the division is between something and nothing. you see, you get something, its counterpoint is void, is nothing. and so i'm not saying this is that metaphysical reading of that in this freedom is grounded. no, freedom is not contingency.
no i spontaneously but i don't have any empirical ground for this and for discrete nature in what sense and i think this is almost maybe the lesson of quantum physics but i'm very much speculating now i think that. it's not this endless divisibility. you can further split that. at a certain point you can to the you i can split this in half, this and that, this and that. but i believe when you approach the zero point, the division is between something and nothing. you see, you get something, its counterpoint is void, is nothing. and so i'm not saying this is that metaphysical reading of that in this freedom is grounded. no, freedom is not contingency.
Interviewer
mm.
mm.
Slavoj Žižek
no it's not my free act if i... but even this is not. of course, it's deterministic, but let's say for me it's a contingency. if to make a decision, i throw a coin up and say head, tail or whatever. no, that's contingency from my view, really it's not. but freedom is a necessity of its own. freedom is a positive decision that you do. is this only, as they say, user's illusion? i think note i think we have to, it's more important than ever, we have to accept this ontological openness of nature already, of history. for example, we are now in an open situation and retroactively it will become necessary. if there will be a world war, if there will be people who will survive it, they will tell the story of how it was all pointed towards this war. we were doomed. if there will not be a war, they will say, it was like cold war, false alarms and so on. what i'm claiming is that these are not simply illusions. the situation is genuinely open. and another lesson, which i know is not legitimate, i applied it too quickly from quant physics to humanities, nonetheless is that. to understand something a historical event you should read it as in a superposition with other possible events when. something happens you should always ask yourself what other options failed so the this could have. happened so in this way, back to our point immediately, my point in Wired Brain is a more optimistic one. it's not just dark end of humanity i try to and it's so interesting that nobody likes those final concluding chapter where i try to do exactly this, to ask this absolutely naive question. maybe it's even a wrong question. let's say that this self-objectivization in the sense of a machine which can read our mind. let's say that it more or less succeeds. we have it. does this mean that we no longer exist as subjects? my answer is an optimist one there. first, by subject we should not understand this inner wealth of personality, but the pure cartesian subjectivity. that empty space will remain supported in the unconscious.
no it's not my free act if i... but even this is not. of course, it's deterministic, but let's say for me it's a contingency. if to make a decision, i throw a coin up and say head, tail or whatever. no, that's contingency from my view, really it's not. but freedom is a necessity of its own. freedom is a positive decision that you do. is this only, as they say, user's illusion? i think note i think we have to, it's more important than ever, we have to accept this ontological openness of nature already, of history. for example, we are now in an open situation and retroactively it will become necessary. if there will be a world war, if there will be people who will survive it, they will tell the story of how it was all pointed towards this war. we were doomed. if there will not be a war, they will say, it was like cold war, false alarms and so on. what i'm claiming is that these are not simply illusions. the situation is genuinely open. and another lesson, which i know is not legitimate, i applied it too quickly from quant physics to humanities, nonetheless is that. to understand something a historical event you should read it as in a superposition with other possible events when. something happens you should always ask yourself what other options failed so the this could have. happened so in this way, back to our point immediately, my point in Wired Brain is a more optimistic one. it's not just dark end of humanity i try to and it's so interesting that nobody likes those final concluding chapter where i try to do exactly this, to ask this absolutely naive question. maybe it's even a wrong question. let's say that this self-objectivization in the sense of a machine which can read our mind. let's say that it more or less succeeds. we have it. does this mean that we no longer exist as subjects? my answer is an optimist one there. first, by subject we should not understand this inner wealth of personality, but the pure cartesian subjectivity. that empty space will remain supported in the unconscious.
Announcer
to continue watching this video, click the link in the top left or in the description below. or visit iai.tv for more debates and talks from the world's leading thinkers on today's biggest ideas.
to continue watching this video, click the link in the top left or in the description below. or visit iai.tv for more debates and talks from the world's leading thinkers on today's biggest ideas.