The New Sacred
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2012 · 1:05:22 · 9,284 words
with John Vignaux Smyth (host), Jean-Pierre Dupuy, Marsha (questioner), Manny Medavoy (questioner)
religion-theologyhegel-dialecticscapitalismcommunism-socialismideologyliberalism-political-correctnesscinema-art-culturephilosophy-general
This is a recorded Q&A dialogue between Slavoj Žižek and Jean-Pierre Dupuy, convened by CHCR, covering their intellectual agreements and differences across politics, theology, and philosophy. Key threads include: the self-destructive dynamics of capitalism, the impossibility of a clear revolutionary agenda, the uniqueness of Christianity as atheism's necessary passage, the theology of sacrifice and the passion of Christ, and the relationship between the sacred, violence, and the economy. Žižek also touches on political correctness as a market-contract model for seduction, Hegelian dialectics in Antigone, and the holy spirit as proto-communist egalitarian community.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 13
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Dupuy's thesis (title of his book): reason in its highest forms, economic, military, scientific, political rationality, is always already contaminated by the logic of the sacred.
Žižek's gloss on Hegel's dialectical trick: the sacred, formally above the political, inverts within the political, used here to read both Dupuy's work and Antigone.
Žižek admits it is a 'totally ridiculous philosophy' while using it as the deliberate subtitle of his major books, provocatively reclaiming what he considers a live philosophical stance.
as “negative communist”
Žižek's self-description: he does not advocate a positive communist program but identifies commons (ecology, intellectual property, migration walls) as constitutive problems that the capitalist/Fukuyama model cannot solve.
as “commons”
Žižek uses 'commons' (intellectual property, financial flows, ecology, apartheid) as the set of shared problems that capitalism cannot solve, making him a 'negative communist', defined by what we must collectively manage rather than by a positive program.
Term introduced by questioner Marsha (attributed to Dupuy) for the mystified, theologized understanding of economy that replaces the political realm; Žižek engages with it throughout.
as “retroactive temporality / changing the past”
The idea (traced through Bergson, Sartre, and Lacan) that certain acts make it true that a past line was never crossed, used by Žižek to analyze seduction, political correctness, and the structure of risk.
The Latin formula ('corruption of the best is the worst') cited from Illich and Girard, used by Žižek to explain how religion enables good people to do terrible things by providing a transcendent monstrous vision.
as “holy spirit as proto-communist party”
Žižek reads the holy spirit not as mystical presence but as the founding of an egalitarian emancipatory community that bypasses social hierarchy, the 'really great news' of Christianity.
as “drive vs desire”
In drive, the object loses entity-status and becomes a topological term of turning around the void; satisfaction comes from the circling itself, not from attaining an object.
Lacan's object cause of desire and object of drive, invoked to distinguish desire (pursuit of an object) from drive (satisfaction found in circling a void).
Protestant/Jansenist doctrine that Žižek endorses as the theologically honest position: your fate is sealed, which liberates you from the obscene idea that good works earn salvation.
Žižek's ironic label for the dominant ideology that lets you live as before while maintaining inner distance, opposed to his reading of Christian love as active engaged struggle that brings division.
Stories he reaches for 9
Žižek cites Himmler's 1943 Poznan speech to SS officers, where Himmler says any idiot can sacrifice his life for a cause but it takes a truly great man to sacrifice his soul, doing terrible things for the cause. Žižek finds the same logic in Stalinist cadre preparation for forced collectivization.
“it takes a really great man to sacrifice his soul to do horrible things for the cause. and that's the true greatness”
Žižek cites physicist Steven Weinberg's quip, without religion, good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but religion is needed to make good people do bad things, as containing an element of truth even though Žižek elsewhere celebrates Christianity.
“you need something like religion to make good people do bad things”
Žižek notes that the Bosnian Serb leader Karadžić was a poet, and that a Rwandan national poet similarly prepared the ground for genocide over two decades, illustrating that totalitarian systems require not just philosophers but poets and religious mythologists to make good people do evil.
“if you go to rwanda, i discovered karadžić there... there was a big national poet who for two decades laid the ground for that slaughter”
In both Catholicism and Protestantism you can do whatever you want; in Catholicism you just confess weekly, while in Protestantism you have to feel a little guilty. A joke Žižek uses to approach the predestination question.
“in catholicism you only have to confess it every week. in protestantism you have to feel a little bit bad and guilty.”
The scene in Fight Club where Ed Norton beats himself up rather than his boss is cited as the most subversive illustration of 'turning the other cheek', destabilizing the adversary by refusing the expected response.
“instead of hitting him, he strikes back at him. and it's the most painful, incredibly subversive thing”
In Bosnia, hard-line communists failed to exploit the Virgin Mary apparition commercially; Slovenian business-minded communists planned to build a hotel around a local miracle, only to be embarrassed when a local priest declared it superstition, whereupon the communist weekly attacked the priest for unpatriotic behavior.
“fuck you, your duty economic to help is to proclaim this is a miracle. who are you to play some atheist games here”
Eichmann said the voice of Hitler was for him the voice of ethical duty, Žižek uses this to argue that Arendt conceded too much, because you can never use duty as an excuse; you are responsible also for the cause itself.
“the voice of hitler was the voice of ethical duty. i just followed my duty. no, you cannot say this.”
Žižek cites Austrian writer Elfriede Jelinek (whom he finds 'too tasteless') for the line that language spontaneously lies and you must torture language to squeeze truth out of it, using it to rebut Heidegger's 'let language speak.'
“language spontaneously is lying. we have to torture language make to squeeze out the truth out of it.”
Before the Titanic sank there was a novel about a mega-ship named 'Titan' hitting an iceberg; this near-coincidence illustrates Žižek's limited sense in which 9/11 'had it coming', not moral deserving, but that the event was structurally anticipated.
“it is as if it was in the air. only in this sense they had it coming”
Works invoked 14
Less Than Nothing book
Žižek's own book, referenced by the host as containing a discussion of the limitations of Dupuy's approach regarding class antagonism.
Antigone play
Žižek uses Antigone (via Jameson) to illustrate that the split between sacred/political is constitutive of the state, not a sign of decay.
Elysium film
Cited alongside Hunger Games as a Hollywood dystopia illustrating the direction of capitalism's class dynamics.
The Hunger Games film
Cited as a Hollywood dystopia about extreme class struggle that illustrates the trajectory capitalism is on.
Fight Club film
Žižek cites the scene where Ed Norton beats himself (not his boss) as an incredibly subversive illustration of 'turning the other cheek' as destabilizing the adversary.
The Matrix film
Source of the 'Welcome to the Desert of the Real' phrase, referenced in passing.
Žižek's own short book, cited as containing his analysis of 9/11, named after the Matrix reference.
Source of Benjamin's emergency-brake image, cited by Žižek to frame his rejection of progressive teleology.
The Usual Suspects film
Cited by Dupuy as a great film where Keyser Söze's act of killing his own family completely destabilizes the terrorists, illustrating the subversive power of the unexpected act.
Alien 3 film
Žižek calls it 'a masterpiece' (though a commercial failure), directed by David Fincher; relates it to the logic of cloning/resurrection.
Žižek says in an enlightened, well-organized state this book by Dupuy should be printed and freely distributed in schools; engages its thesis throughout.
Žižek says he would be ready to kill for this Walter Benjamin title, it marks the distinction between general languages and specifically human language, a gap Žižek uses to think language.
Seven film
Mentioned by Dupuy as a 'nice Hegelian movie' because Kevin Spacey's death is included in his own plan; Žižek endorses this reading.
Žižek rejects the book's implicit argument that Paul corrupted the original Jesus; corruption comes after Paul.
People invoked 26
Naomi Wolf positive
Cited as a liberal (not left-wing) feminist who already made the point that rigid political correctness approaches a pure market-negotiation model for sexuality.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy positive
Žižek endorses Dupuy's 'The Mark of the Sacred' enthusiastically, saying in an enlightened state it should be freely distributed in schools; describes him as a kindred spirit and engages his theses throughout.
Cited as example of poet-as-nationalist instigator of violence, illustrating that totalitarianism requires poetic/mythological imagination, not just philosophical systems.
René Girard positive
Žižek follows Girard's reading of the Christ sacrifice as a collective murder that is simultaneously an anti-sacrifice; notes Dupuy reportedly persuaded Girard to change his mind on this.
Günter Anders positive
Mentioned by Dupuy as a Heidegger student (with Arendt and Jonas) whose untranslated work Dupuy found anticipated all his own abstract patterns; not Žižek's direct citation.
Jacques Lacan positive
Cited on objet petit a as both cause of desire and object of drive; used to frame the drive/desire distinction.
Steven Weinberg positive
Žižek disagrees with him overall but credits his quip that religion makes good people do bad things as containing an element of truth.
Jean Baudrillard negative
Žižek rejects Baudrillard's '9/11 had it coming' position as morally equivalent to American religious right figures like Pat Robertson.
Francis Fukuyama negative
Žižek argues the 'Fukuyama model', end of history, liberal capitalism, will not work; notes that Fukuyama himself has abandoned it.
Reza Aslan negative
Žižek rejects the historicizing Christian position (associated with Aslan's 'Zealot') that the original Jesus is authentic and Paul is the corrupting bad guy.
Alain Badiou positive
Žižek calls Badiou 'my friend' and endorses his position that the 20th century is over and we cannot simply return to Stalinist communism.
Fredric Jameson positive
Žižek cites 'my friend Fred Jameson' on Antigone, that the split between religious and political authority is constitutive of the state, not a sign of decay.
Žižek says Assange showed him a real Swedish document, a pre-sex consent form, used to illustrate the political-correctness-as-market-contract argument.
Pat Robertson negative
Cited as an American religious right pervert whom Žižek reads privately; said the same thing as Baudrillard about 9/11 deserving.
Žižek cites Himmler's Poznan speech as one of the most monstrous texts he knows, illustrating corruptio optimi, the logic that sacrificing your soul to do terrible things for the cause is moral greatness.
Elfriede Jelinek positive
Žižek admits he finds her 'too tasteless' but repeatedly quotes her line that 'language spontaneously is lying and we must torture it to squeeze out truth.'
Martin Heidegger negative
Žižek targets the Heideggerian tendency of 'letting language speak' as wrong, language must be thought in but against, not allowed to flow freely.
Napoleon positive
Žižek invokes Napoleon's 'on attaque et puis on le verra' as the only viable political strategy under conditions of uncertainty about how to move beyond capitalism.
Hannah Arendt positive
Žižek expresses a 'friendly criticism' that Arendt came too close to endorsing Eichmann's Kantian self-justification by not pushing far enough on responsibility for the cause.
Walter Benjamin positive
Žižek aligns with Benjamin's image of pulling the emergency brake on the train of history rather than accelerating it forward.
Søren Kierkegaard positive
Žižek identifies as 'a kierkegaardian or whatever you want' and cites Kierkegaard's paradoxical 'love your neighbor as if he were dead' to argue Christian love is extreme engagement, not sentiment.
Ivan Illich positive
Dupuy cites Illich alongside Girard for the corruptio optimi pessima formula.
Karl Marx positive
Žižek agrees with Marx that capitalism has self-destructive dynamics; disagrees with his model of the working class as universal emancipatory agent.
Paul the Apostle positive
Žižek defends Paul against historicizing critics; argues corruption of Christianity comes after Paul, not from Paul.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Žižek repeatedly invokes Hegel's dialectic, immanent reversal, Antigone, the mistake of perspective, as the theoretical framework for his readings of Christianity, politics, and sacrifice.
Immanuel Kant positive
Žižek argues we should be Kantians in requiring responsibility for the cause itself, not just obedience to duty, invoking Kant to criticize Eichmann and Stalinist apologetics.
What it argues
Christianity as the only path to consequent atheismHoly Spirit as proto-communist egalitarian communityThe sacred contaminating rationalityCapitalism's self-destructive dynamics and the impossibility of a clear post-capitalist agendaPolitical correctness as market-contract logic applied to seductionRetroactive temporality and changing the pastSacrifice, collective murder, and the passion of Christ
Dialectical moves 8
“The sacred should formally be above the political, but within the political it turns around — this is the elementary trick of Hegel's dialectic.”
The subordinate term (sacred) inverts and constitutes the dominant one (political), making apparent hierarchy the product of its opposite.
“Antigone is not a sign that the state is falling apart; the gap between religion and power is constitutive of the state.”
What looks like decay or conflict is actually the condition of possibility of the institution itself.
“The only way to be a consequent atheist is to go through that Christian moment — even God doesn't believe.”
Atheism requires passing through, not bypassing, Christianity; it is Christianity's own internal logic that cancels God.
“Resurrection is not a creepy dead man returning — holy spirit is already the resurrection. Nothing more should be looked for.”
The literal bodily resurrection is a regression; the true resurrection has already happened as the community of the spirit.
“Taliban bombing Buddhist statues showed more respect to Buddhism than cultural tolerance does — they at least took it seriously as a threat.”
Apparent destruction is more respectful than aesthetic museification; genuine confrontation honors the other more than tolerant indifference.
“You are not just responsible for what you do for a cause — you are also responsible for the cause itself. You cannot use duty as an excuse to do duty.”
The infinite regress of justification by cause is foreclosed; responsibility extends to the very framework that legitimates action.
“The task is not to be on the train of history moving forward but to pull the emergency brake.”
Progress is not the goal; halting catastrophe is, reversing the standard left teleology of historical forward movement.
“In drive, the object is no longer an entity but just a topological term of turning around — you accept the void; running around the void itself brings satisfaction.”
Drive and desire differ not in what they aim at but in their structure: desire chases an object, drive circles a void and finds enjoyment in the circling.
Claims 16
asserts
The only way to be a consequent atheist is to pass through the Christian moment — the Father's abandonment of Christ — so that even God does not believe.Christianity and atheism
asserts
Capitalism will not solve shared commons problems (intellectual property, ecology, financial flows, migration walls), making some form of communism necessary as a negative designation of what is lacking.capitalism and communism
asserts
There is no teleological trust in the working class as universal agent; the task today is Walter Benjamin's — pulling the emergency brake on the train of history, not driving it forward.revolutionary agency and Marxist teleology
asserts
Politically correct seduction, taken to its logical conclusion, becomes a pure market contract, which is the most repellent outcome of liberal sexual ethics.political correctness and sexuality
asserts
The antigone split between religious (Antigone) and political (Creon) authority is not a sign of Greek state decay but constitutive of the state itself.Hegel's dialectic and Antigone
reframes
Resurrection as bodily return of Christ is an obscene zombie fantasy; resurrection is already accomplished in the holy spirit as egalitarian emancipatory community.Christian resurrection
asserts
Religion (and poetry) is uniquely capable of making good people do terrible things by providing a transcendent vision that redeems violation of ordinary ethics.religion, ethics, and political violence
asserts
You are not only responsible for what you do for a cause; you are also responsible for the cause itself — using duty as an excuse to commit atrocity is never permitted.Kantian ethics and political responsibility
reframes
Christ's command to 'hate your father and mother' is not sadism but a rejection of the social hierarchy those family roles represent.Christian love and social hierarchy
reframes
Christian love is not peaceful unity but active engaged struggle that brings division — the opposite of the 'inner distance' of western Buddhism.Christian love and contemporary ideology
asserts
The Gnostic reading — that God sacrificed his Son as an apology for a botched creation — is attractive as a speculative reading even if not held seriously.theology of divine sacrifice
rejects
Language spontaneously lies; we must think in language but against language — we cannot allow language to simply speak, as Heidegger proposed.Heidegger's philosophy of language
asserts
Christianity is irreplaceable and not accidentally European; it is intrinsically linked to Judaism and represents a unique break that cannot be substituted by Islam or Buddhism.the uniqueness of Christianity among religions
rejects
Paul is not the corruptor of original Christianity; corruption comes later, after Paul.historicizing readings of Paul vs. Jesus
asserts
Cultural tolerance that aestheticizes religious monuments as human achievements treats the sacred as dead and is the worst form of disrespect — worse in a sense than the Taliban's iconoclasm.cultural tolerance and the sacred
rejects
Today's global capitalism accommodates local cultures perfectly; what unites us is the market, not hamburgers, so 'third worldist' multicultural resistance is absorbed instantly.multicultural resistance to capitalism
Quotes 13
“the only way to be a consequent atheist is to go through that christian moment, father, why have you forsaken me and so on. it's not enough for us not to believe. the chicken, the self-transcendent moment should not believe.”Slavoj Žižek · Christianity as the passage to consequent atheism
“holy spirit is already a return. it's a pure obscenity to look for something more, some living dead like christ coming up and returning.”Slavoj Žižek · holy spirit as true resurrection
“the really good news of holy spirit is that an egalitarian emancipatory community which bypasses social hierarchy is possible. that's the really great news.”Slavoj Žižek · holy spirit as proto-communist community
“you need something like religion to make good people do bad things.”Slavoj Žižek · religion enabling good people to do evil
“you are not just responsible in the sense of let's do anything for the cause. you are also responsible for the cause itself.”Slavoj Žižek · Kantian responsibility extended to the cause itself
“one can even put it in tautological terms, to use doing duty as an excuse to do duty. you have to be absolutely responsible for it.”Slavoj Žižek · duty cannot excuse duty
“today's global capitalism is not we all eat hamburgers. we all have our small cultures. what unites us is the market.”Slavoj Žižek · global capitalism absorbs cultural difference
“the task is not to be on the train of history moving forward but to pull the emergency break.”Slavoj Žižek · Benjamin's emergency brake against progress ideology
“what i like about christianity. it's not again bullshitting us with some messianic moment nothing will happen what happened it already happened this already happened, we are in deep shit.”Slavoj Žižek · Christianity's pessimist it-already-happened over Jewish messianism
“i am just afraid of this cultural respect. you know, this is, i think, the worst thing you can do.”Slavoj Žižek · cultural tolerance as the worst disrespect for the sacred
“language spontaneously is lying. we have to torture language make to squeeze out the truth out of it.”Slavoj Žižek · language must be worked against to yield truth
“i'm a very strange communist. i'm a negative communist. i think commons are our problem today.”Slavoj Žižek · negative communism defined by commons problems
“on attaque et puis on le verra. exactly that's all we can do.”Slavoj Žižek · Napoleon's improvisation as political strategy under uncertainty
Transcript 156 turns
John Vignaux Smyth (host)
oh
oh
Slavoj Žižek
no, what we were talking about, my most sublime experiences are when two historical epochs collide so that you talk about something new, but you have only the old language. like... sorry, and we left two minutes. in ex-yugoslavia, when communism was already falling apart. this is my favorite anecdote. a student radio which was dissident, anti-communist, invited an old communist, the true khre, you know like. and this guy terribly wanted to please the young generation. you know, like, and they of course asked him stupid questions like, what's your relation to sexuality and so on. so this guy knew he had to say something positive about it. but the only language he disposed of was the old and he did something wonderful. sent sentences like touching women between their legs, it's a great instigation for my struggle for socialism and so on. you know, like praising sex, but in the communist jargon. i love this moment, you know, when two languages, another story why you know, you may remember it. in the 80s there was this great miracle in bosnia, med gorje. virgin mary appeared. in bosnia, communists were hardliners. so they didn't want to exploit it commercially, which was a catastrophe, because italian travel agents earned billions. in slovenia, communists were really business-oriented. so there was a small statue close to airport of ljubljana of virgin mary, which started to do what they are supposed to do, a little bit of blood, moving and so on. so slovene communists were delighted. we will build a hotel, their business. and so on, and then a catastrophe happened. the local priest in whose domain this happened wrote a text claiming, no, this is not an authentic miracle, this is superstition. and then i have it. i wonder, in the communist weekly journal, they attacked this priest for non-patriotic behavior. like, fuck you, your're... duty economic to help is to proclaim this is a miracle. who are you to play some atheist games here on i talk too much stop
no, what we were talking about, my most sublime experiences are when two historical epochs collide so that you talk about something new, but you have only the old language. like... sorry, and we left two minutes. in ex-yugoslavia, when communism was already falling apart. this is my favorite anecdote. a student radio which was dissident, anti-communist, invited an old communist, the true khre, you know like. and this guy terribly wanted to please the young generation. you know, like, and they of course asked him stupid questions like, what's your relation to sexuality and so on. so this guy knew he had to say something positive about it. but the only language he disposed of was the old and he did something wonderful. sent sentences like touching women between their legs, it's a great instigation for my struggle for socialism and so on. you know, like praising sex, but in the communist jargon. i love this moment, you know, when two languages, another story why you know, you may remember it. in the 80s there was this great miracle in bosnia, med gorje. virgin mary appeared. in bosnia, communists were hardliners. so they didn't want to exploit it commercially, which was a catastrophe, because italian travel agents earned billions. in slovenia, communists were really business-oriented. so there was a small statue close to airport of ljubljana of virgin mary, which started to do what they are supposed to do, a little bit of blood, moving and so on. so slovene communists were delighted. we will build a hotel, their business. and so on, and then a catastrophe happened. the local priest in whose domain this happened wrote a text claiming, no, this is not an authentic miracle, this is superstition. and then i have it. i wonder, in the communist weekly journal, they attacked this priest for non-patriotic behavior. like, fuck you, your're... duty economic to help is to proclaim this is a miracle. who are you to play some atheist games here on i talk too much stop
Moderator
so we're reconvening this morning and picking up where we left off last night. this is the event sponsored by chcr. and time is short, so i'm not going to use time for an introduction, but let's go to the first question, which is by one of our hosts. john vignaux smyth will be going around the room as much as time permits with questions for jean-pierre and slavoy.
so we're reconvening this morning and picking up where we left off last night. this is the event sponsored by chcr. and time is short, so i'm not going to use time for an introduction, but let's go to the first question, which is by one of our hosts. john vignaux smyth will be going around the room as much as time permits with questions for jean-pierre and slavoy.
Slavoj Žižek
but he should have more time because i talked too much yesterday.
but he should have more time because i talked too much yesterday.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
so
so
Slavoj Žižek
who are you to say no? you are not free.
who are you to say no? you are not free.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
n nobody means a matter of density of her. contents. you can. okay. it talk.
n nobody means a matter of density of her. contents. you can. okay. it talk.
Slavoj Žižek
to say you say in one sentence more than i in half a no no no no not you not you but i mean
to say you say in one sentence more than i in half a no no no no not you not you but i mean
Moderator
answer questions so our first question is from one of our hosts, john vignaux smyth.
answer questions so our first question is from one of our hosts, john vignaux smyth.
John Vignaux Smyth (host)
i'll leap into it with so little time. savoy, recently you have said about the mark of the sacred by jean-pierre that in in an enlightened, well-organized state, this book should be printed and freely distributed in all schools. in dreams, you know.
i'll leap into it with so little time. savoy, recently you have said about the mark of the sacred by jean-pierre that in in an enlightened, well-organized state, this book should be printed and freely distributed in all schools. in dreams, you know.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
except that i won't have any fees then. that's a problem.
except that i won't have any fees then. that's a problem.
Slavoj Žižek
we will see here how seriously you are against capital, no? you want, as they say, to have a cake and to eat it. no exactly. sorry.
we will see here how seriously you are against capital, no? you want, as they say, to have a cake and to eat it. no exactly. sorry.
John Vignaux Smyth (host)
and are also pointedly sort of combining state with the sacred there. could you explain, you've explained already a little bit why you think his work is so important, and could you perhaps add something about what you call, i think in less than nothing, the limitations of his approach when it comes to things like class antagonism?
and are also pointedly sort of combining state with the sacred there. could you explain, you've explained already a little bit why you think his work is so important, and could you perhaps add something about what you call, i think in less than nothing, the limitations of his approach when it comes to things like class antagonism?
Slavoj Žižek
no, okay, very briefly. first, i would have to speak for half an hour, so i will just give clearly emphasize one aspect, not the central one, that i admired with you and that i was immediately ready to link with hegel. this idea of the imminent reversal, like in principle, the sacred in the sense of religious should be above the political, but within in the political, it turns around. and this is what, in a way, the elementary trick of hegel's dialectic. and this is also how we should read antigone. my friend fred jameson pointed out that this split that we see in antigone between this religious, divinities, antigone and the political aspect creon, is not a mark of a decay of some original greek state, but it's constitutive. the state. antigone is not a play which signals that the state is falling apart, but it's the you have to have that gap between religion and power precisely to have the state functioning. it's constitutive of the state. so this is one aspect which i developed in detail which i find incredible is to this agreement y. i'm at a loss here because let me just show my card. of course, the way i use the terms is to annoy people. did you notice that all my last big books, the subtitle of each one is something to do with dialectical materialism. now, i the first one to know that, if there ever was a totally ridiculous philosophy, totally useless, it's dialectical materialism. no? so so a little bit more seriously. i think the difference is not... so great, you remember when yesterday i provoked him with the question like, fuck off, tell me where you stand. and i agree with his answer. i'm a very strange communist. i'm a negative communist. i think commons are our problem today. commons in the sense of i enumerated them. for example, it's clear that capitalism will not be able to solve the problem in the way we have it today of of intellectual property is destroying it. we are almost entering communism there. or financial flow or for example, ecology, new forms of apartheid. that's the basic fact of me today. the more capitalism is global, the more new walls are emerging. so i'm only saying we have problems and the fukuyama model will not work. and incidentally, fukuyama himself, the last time i met him, is no longer a fukuyama guy. but i don't have a clear solution. i'm certainly totally sure that, as my friend alain badiou emphasizes, the 20th century is over. we cannot simply return neither to stalinist communism. so, and like you, and here... i'm here open. i... enlightened catastrophes like you, all we can say is that if we let things flow the way they are moving now, we are approaching what? well even hollywood knows it. did you notice how all the big latest hits of hollywood are some dystopian movies about a society with extreme class struggle, hunger games, elysium and so on and all i see is your model. we have to accept in precise terms that you described it catastrophe as inevitable and then maybe who knows how to do something without any clear formula. i like here napoleon you know on attaque et puis on le verra exactly that's all we can do where i agree with marx that capitalism has a self-destructive dynamics. i don't think that, at least in marx's term, his model of work class as universal which will appear as an agent works. i no longer have this teleological trust. i'm more on walter benjamin's side. you know when benjamin said in one of his famous passages that referring to this unfortunate model of the train of history that today the task is not to be on the train of history moving forward but to pull the emergency break you know. so here i'm not try now to squeeze out but here i think that like, may i turn this to a question? for you. you obviously do locate the problem in also global capitalist dynamics.
no, okay, very briefly. first, i would have to speak for half an hour, so i will just give clearly emphasize one aspect, not the central one, that i admired with you and that i was immediately ready to link with hegel. this idea of the imminent reversal, like in principle, the sacred in the sense of religious should be above the political, but within in the political, it turns around. and this is what, in a way, the elementary trick of hegel's dialectic. and this is also how we should read antigone. my friend fred jameson pointed out that this split that we see in antigone between this religious, divinities, antigone and the political aspect creon, is not a mark of a decay of some original greek state, but it's constitutive. the state. antigone is not a play which signals that the state is falling apart, but it's the you have to have that gap between religion and power precisely to have the state functioning. it's constitutive of the state. so this is one aspect which i developed in detail which i find incredible is to this agreement y. i'm at a loss here because let me just show my card. of course, the way i use the terms is to annoy people. did you notice that all my last big books, the subtitle of each one is something to do with dialectical materialism. now, i the first one to know that, if there ever was a totally ridiculous philosophy, totally useless, it's dialectical materialism. no? so so a little bit more seriously. i think the difference is not... so great, you remember when yesterday i provoked him with the question like, fuck off, tell me where you stand. and i agree with his answer. i'm a very strange communist. i'm a negative communist. i think commons are our problem today. commons in the sense of i enumerated them. for example, it's clear that capitalism will not be able to solve the problem in the way we have it today of of intellectual property is destroying it. we are almost entering communism there. or financial flow or for example, ecology, new forms of apartheid. that's the basic fact of me today. the more capitalism is global, the more new walls are emerging. so i'm only saying we have problems and the fukuyama model will not work. and incidentally, fukuyama himself, the last time i met him, is no longer a fukuyama guy. but i don't have a clear solution. i'm certainly totally sure that, as my friend alain badiou emphasizes, the 20th century is over. we cannot simply return neither to stalinist communism. so, and like you, and here... i'm here open. i... enlightened catastrophes like you, all we can say is that if we let things flow the way they are moving now, we are approaching what? well even hollywood knows it. did you notice how all the big latest hits of hollywood are some dystopian movies about a society with extreme class struggle, hunger games, elysium and so on and all i see is your model. we have to accept in precise terms that you described it catastrophe as inevitable and then maybe who knows how to do something without any clear formula. i like here napoleon you know on attaque et puis on le verra exactly that's all we can do where i agree with marx that capitalism has a self-destructive dynamics. i don't think that, at least in marx's term, his model of work class as universal which will appear as an agent works. i no longer have this teleological trust. i'm more on walter benjamin's side. you know when benjamin said in one of his famous passages that referring to this unfortunate model of the train of history that today the task is not to be on the train of history moving forward but to pull the emergency break you know. so here i'm not try now to squeeze out but here i think that like, may i turn this to a question? for you. you obviously do locate the problem in also global capitalist dynamics.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
what does this mean for you politically? it's the same question as yesterday. how can we overcome capitalism? or is it the pessimist answer you gave yesterday and it's also my that yeah i don't see a clear agenda what kind of political party we should constitute a global movement. what i only radically opposed is as i hinted yesterday, is this third world... bullshit, you know. some local culture there which exists and so on. they are the worst. if there is something very easy to do for capitalism, it's to swallow. damn. today's global capitalism is not we all eat hamburgers. we all have our small cultures. what unites us is the market. i talk too much, please., yeah. well how to move beyond capitalism.
what does this mean for you politically? it's the same question as yesterday. how can we overcome capitalism? or is it the pessimist answer you gave yesterday and it's also my that yeah i don't see a clear agenda what kind of political party we should constitute a global movement. what i only radically opposed is as i hinted yesterday, is this third world... bullshit, you know. some local culture there which exists and so on. they are the worst. if there is something very easy to do for capitalism, it's to swallow. damn. today's global capitalism is not we all eat hamburgers. we all have our small cultures. what unites us is the market. i talk too much, please., yeah. well how to move beyond capitalism.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
this is a question i've never really asked myself.
this is a question i've never really asked myself.
Slavoj Žižek
you but you imply that we should do it.
you but you imply that we should do it.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yes, of course. but in my case, in my own personal life, although the problems are absolutely global, we agree on that, do it piecemeal. and while keeping in mind that this avoids a lot of very important problems. um and i'm deeply committed in a series of actions that are not political in the sense, in the stupid sense.
yes, of course. but in my case, in my own personal life, although the problems are absolutely global, we agree on that, do it piecemeal. and while keeping in mind that this avoids a lot of very important problems. um and i'm deeply committed in a series of actions that are not political in the sense, in the stupid sense.
Marsha (questioner)
yep
yep
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
belonging to a political party that's why i said yesterday i was referring to my country. there is not one single political offer which might correspond to what i'd like to happen. a series of examples, but there is nothing original in that. i've accepted a position which gives me a lot of influence although backstage. i'm chairing the ethics committee of the french high authority of... on nuclear safety and security. as you may know, um french electricity is 80% of french electricity is produced in nuclear power plant. and so we have lots of experts. we are present and i went there three times each to chernobyl and fukushima. um... and, um... and in my personal itinerary when i was young. man i was an anti-nuclear activist. today? today have in mind climate change and when you put these two things together you have a serious problem.
belonging to a political party that's why i said yesterday i was referring to my country. there is not one single political offer which might correspond to what i'd like to happen. a series of examples, but there is nothing original in that. i've accepted a position which gives me a lot of influence although backstage. i'm chairing the ethics committee of the french high authority of... on nuclear safety and security. as you may know, um french electricity is 80% of french electricity is produced in nuclear power plant. and so we have lots of experts. we are present and i went there three times each to chernobyl and fukushima. um... and, um... and in my personal itinerary when i was young. man i was an anti-nuclear activist. today? today have in mind climate change and when you put these two things together you have a serious problem.
Marsha (questioner)
yes
yes
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
if we want to i mean just a figure among many others if we want to avoid a major major climatic disaster before the end of this century. we have to restrain ourselves. i mean, when i say we, humankind. we have to refrain from extracting from the ground more than one third. of the remaining fossil resources coal, gas and
if we want to i mean just a figure among many others if we want to avoid a major major climatic disaster before the end of this century. we have to restrain ourselves. i mean, when i say we, humankind. we have to refrain from extracting from the ground more than one third. of the remaining fossil resources coal, gas and
Marsha (questioner)
oil oil.
oil oil.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
including what is called then which is so successful and apparently here, how do you call it
including what is called then which is so successful and apparently here, how do you call it
Marsha (questioner)
fracking.
fracking.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no but the uh the uh the thing itself
no but the uh the uh the thing itself
Marsha (questioner)
sh gaz.
sh gaz.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
thank you. um... uh so i'm trying to solve. those problems which take the form of dilemmas or quasi-impossibilities. i'm also a member of the french section of the ipcc, international panel on climate change. this is my in sense political commitment. in the... given the word political um not the traditional sense of political parties, but of action in the city. this is backstage. very few people know about it and but i don't care if i can change the world. piecemeal but piecemeal at the same time those problems are absolutely fundamental. because if really there is not a scarcity of fossil resources as everyone keeps repeating but an overabundance. the market can. well, let's suppose that the market can do what it's supposed to do, namely allocate scarce resources. but here we're not dealing with the case of scarcity. we're dealing with the case... of overabundance. there are three times too many. fossil resources. so how do you solve that problem? not with the markets. so in itself, this example shows i mean, illustrates a radical critique. of what the market can do and cannot do, etc. i could multiply the number of illustrations of what i'm trying to do most of the time backstage. but maybe we'll move on to our next question if we could. marsha.
thank you. um... uh so i'm trying to solve. those problems which take the form of dilemmas or quasi-impossibilities. i'm also a member of the french section of the ipcc, international panel on climate change. this is my in sense political commitment. in the... given the word political um not the traditional sense of political parties, but of action in the city. this is backstage. very few people know about it and but i don't care if i can change the world. piecemeal but piecemeal at the same time those problems are absolutely fundamental. because if really there is not a scarcity of fossil resources as everyone keeps repeating but an overabundance. the market can. well, let's suppose that the market can do what it's supposed to do, namely allocate scarce resources. but here we're not dealing with the case of scarcity. we're dealing with the case... of overabundance. there are three times too many. fossil resources. so how do you solve that problem? not with the markets. so in itself, this example shows i mean, illustrates a radical critique. of what the market can do and cannot do, etc. i could multiply the number of illustrations of what i'm trying to do most of the time backstage. but maybe we'll move on to our next question if we could. marsha.
Marsha (questioner)
well, this actually follows up on slavoj's question to you. i appreciate the pragmatic places where you're intervening to kind of intervene in of not climate change.
well, this actually follows up on slavoj's question to you. i appreciate the pragmatic places where you're intervening to kind of intervene in of not climate change.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah, it's not.
yeah, it's not.
Marsha (questioner)
but'm also interested in the abstract way that you approach.
but'm also interested in the abstract way that you approach.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
oh yes, of course.
oh yes, of course.
Marsha (questioner)
and in this book, you critique what you call economystification. the way a mystified, theologized understanding of the economy is coming to replace the political realm. as the arena where we accept that somehow in thinking economically we will do a better job of solving our problems than if we engage with the more traditional political. yeah. realm. yeah think a and convincing. question question for you is, in articulating such a critique. do you see yourself as carrying the enlightenment goal further of trying to demystify the world by taking the demystification of god, transpose to the political realm, now transpose to the economy? are you trying to demystify, kind of unmask the theological elements in the way that we worship the economy?
and in this book, you critique what you call economystification. the way a mystified, theologized understanding of the economy is coming to replace the political realm. as the arena where we accept that somehow in thinking economically we will do a better job of solving our problems than if we engage with the more traditional political. yeah. realm. yeah think a and convincing. question question for you is, in articulating such a critique. do you see yourself as carrying the enlightenment goal further of trying to demystify the world by taking the demystification of god, transpose to the political realm, now transpose to the economy? are you trying to demystify, kind of unmask the theological elements in the way that we worship the economy?
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yes.
yes.
Marsha (questioner)
and... okay, so so so that's you would articulate your project that way. in that case, though, i'm curious how you understand an attempt to kind of apply that enlightenment. rationality to the economy given the way that you tend to construct political action in terms of mobilization of.
and... okay, so so so that's you would articulate your project that way. in that case, though, i'm curious how you understand an attempt to kind of apply that enlightenment. rationality to the economy given the way that you tend to construct political action in terms of mobilization of.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
thank
thank
Marsha (questioner)
do you believe, for example, with the kind the non-dues air, like a?
do you believe, for example, with the kind the non-dues air, like a?
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah.
yeah.
Marsha (questioner)
is it to unask?
is it to unask?
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
but okay.
but okay.
Marsha (questioner)
yeah.
yeah.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
you know, this abstract dimension, of course it's mine, that's my flesh, what i'm made of, the stuff i'm made of, because my formation, etc etc. but you know what? these patterns which when you see them drawn on a board or etc which look highly abstract. they are. almost all of them, if not all of them, in slavoy's books. i don't like that guy too much to whom you refer and well, you know when i discovered günter anders' work, it's not it's not translated into english, which is a scandal. it's more and more translated into french and i'm instrumental in that, translating, editing, etc. güer anders was one of the three they are called heidegger's children. the three of them. the other two are hannah arendt, much more famous, and hans jonas. we already mentioned hans jonas. so the three of them are german jews. students of a nazi philosopher. and their relationship with heidegger. var i mean, they didn't have the same evolution. as you know, hannahndt had a special relationship with her master anyway. of the three, gunther anders is the less... no and the less famous in particular because it's not translated. but when i discovered his work, friend of mine. i... almost sued him i almost sued him because i found there everything, all those abstract elements i was trying to put forward. and then i realized that he wrote these things in the 50s and 60s, so i couldn't really, i was not... yeah. so i refrained. the same with jean-jacques, except with slavoy, except that in that case i might have sued him because these works were more or less contemporary. no, but i'm kidding, of course. but i mean, no, what is? clodini is when you realize kindred spirit, i mean, that there are kindred spirits and yeah. let me take an example to be less abstract with. in this book here, that's the only one i have in a book form. all the others are here. i have 20 books. i've not read them. sorry, they are here in my ipad, amazon, etc. okay, kindle. that's the only one i have because it doesn't exist in kindle form, strangely enough. no, no, okay. um... so there is a beautiful passage, funny, about political correctness in this book. and seduction. okay, how do you put together in america seduction and political correctness? my little knowledge of the american world, i know at least 10 cases of professors, i mean, of... married couples who once were professor and student so something might happen
you know, this abstract dimension, of course it's mine, that's my flesh, what i'm made of, the stuff i'm made of, because my formation, etc etc. but you know what? these patterns which when you see them drawn on a board or etc which look highly abstract. they are. almost all of them, if not all of them, in slavoy's books. i don't like that guy too much to whom you refer and well, you know when i discovered günter anders' work, it's not it's not translated into english, which is a scandal. it's more and more translated into french and i'm instrumental in that, translating, editing, etc. güer anders was one of the three they are called heidegger's children. the three of them. the other two are hannah arendt, much more famous, and hans jonas. we already mentioned hans jonas. so the three of them are german jews. students of a nazi philosopher. and their relationship with heidegger. var i mean, they didn't have the same evolution. as you know, hannahndt had a special relationship with her master anyway. of the three, gunther anders is the less... no and the less famous in particular because it's not translated. but when i discovered his work, friend of mine. i... almost sued him i almost sued him because i found there everything, all those abstract elements i was trying to put forward. and then i realized that he wrote these things in the 50s and 60s, so i couldn't really, i was not... yeah. so i refrained. the same with jean-jacques, except with slavoy, except that in that case i might have sued him because these works were more or less contemporary. no, but i'm kidding, of course. but i mean, no, what is? clodini is when you realize kindred spirit, i mean, that there are kindred spirits and yeah. let me take an example to be less abstract with. in this book here, that's the only one i have in a book form. all the others are here. i have 20 books. i've not read them. sorry, they are here in my ipad, amazon, etc. okay, kindle. that's the only one i have because it doesn't exist in kindle form, strangely enough. no, no, okay. um... so there is a beautiful passage, funny, about political correctness in this book. and seduction. okay, how do you put together in america seduction and political correctness? my little knowledge of the american world, i know at least 10 cases of professors, i mean, of... married couples who once were professor and student so something might happen
Marsha (questioner)
you.
you.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
of the 10? no, no, no, no, no.
of the 10? no, no, no, no, no.
Marsha (questioner)
n.
n.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no, no, no, no, no, no. i'm too coward. i'm too coward.. but precisely, i had not read what you say about this. so, i mean, it's paradoxical and you might want to explain it better than i do. but okay, there is a prohibition. you don't try to seduce your female student. well, i suppose it's heterosexual world, etc. you don't try to seduce your female student. um... but if you cross the line, nevertheless. and attempt something like say there are two cases she accepts and for instance you get married or not by the way but um no sorry i she refuses and then she might sue you etc etc that things happen. or she might accept. your seduction. if that is the case, if that is the case. retrospectively one can say that there was no line crossed. there was no line crossed. it's not that the line has been crossed and it doesn't matter anymore. there has never been any line that was crossed. and slavoy, you know, where i found this kind of metaphysics of time. et personne.
no, no, no, no, no, no. i'm too coward. i'm too coward.. but precisely, i had not read what you say about this. so, i mean, it's paradoxical and you might want to explain it better than i do. but okay, there is a prohibition. you don't try to seduce your female student. well, i suppose it's heterosexual world, etc. you don't try to seduce your female student. um... but if you cross the line, nevertheless. and attempt something like say there are two cases she accepts and for instance you get married or not by the way but um no sorry i she refuses and then she might sue you etc etc that things happen. or she might accept. your seduction. if that is the case, if that is the case. retrospectively one can say that there was no line crossed. there was no line crossed. it's not that the line has been crossed and it doesn't matter anymore. there has never been any line that was crossed. and slavoy, you know, where i found this kind of metaphysics of time. et personne.
Slavoj Žižek
exactly.
exactly.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
and also in the philosophy of quantum mechanics but that's why okay let's keep to the so... it's not that the, again, it's... changing the past. okay, listen, one more example there was a line and it's not that there is no longer a line. it becomes true that there never was a lie. you understand the huge difference. it's in bergson and his most famous student, jean-paul sartre,. okay, so these are abstract figures. and depending on the talent of the writer. and savoy has an incredible talent. you make it accessible to anyone and i think anyone can understand although it's shocking it's shocking. this idea that you can change the past, i mean, it's... h. but you cannot change it causally, that's what i said. and savoy goes so far as to say that in a world where political correctness is very strong, um this i've just described, it's more than a phenomenon. is older, stronger. it's precisely in a world where you have these radical prohibitions that they can disappear. it's not disappear in the sense that they are no longer there. in the sense that they were never there. okay, this is the abstract kind of pattern that i'm interested in. but i do it in my own terms, writing, etc. and clavia has this incredible talent of making them concrete by taking lots of examples drawn from daily life. that's your incredible talent, i may say.
and also in the philosophy of quantum mechanics but that's why okay let's keep to the so... it's not that the, again, it's... changing the past. okay, listen, one more example there was a line and it's not that there is no longer a line. it becomes true that there never was a lie. you understand the huge difference. it's in bergson and his most famous student, jean-paul sartre,. okay, so these are abstract figures. and depending on the talent of the writer. and savoy has an incredible talent. you make it accessible to anyone and i think anyone can understand although it's shocking it's shocking. this idea that you can change the past, i mean, it's... h. but you cannot change it causally, that's what i said. and savoy goes so far as to say that in a world where political correctness is very strong, um this i've just described, it's more than a phenomenon. is older, stronger. it's precisely in a world where you have these radical prohibitions that they can disappear. it's not disappear in the sense that they are no longer there. in the sense that they were never there. okay, this is the abstract kind of pattern that i'm interested in. but i do it in my own terms, writing, etc. and clavia has this incredible talent of making them concrete by taking lots of examples drawn from daily life. that's your incredible talent, i may say.
Slavoj Žižek
okay. can i briefly reply to you, but with total agreement and at the same time connect i found this example so interesting because you know what's my problem here? that up. without this dialectic of taking a risk, crossing the line, and then retroactively hoping that the line will retroactively disappear. der ich no proper. process of seduction. at some point someone has to make a gesture where you take a risk. either you will be accused so now then debating with my friends, i tried to force them to imagine a purely politically correct seduction. and i got a clear answer. it would have looked weirdly is a pure market. contract contract a correct way would be for me to put it for her, we negotiate and so on, and so that you don't think that i'm kidding. julian assange... showed me such a document already exists in sweden, which is the ultimate politically correct country. they had this problem. you know, what's so nice is that even things can retroactively become rape in sweden. in their law it says that if let's say we, i don't want to be accused then of harassing you any, okay, the beautiful lady here where there is no one. we flirt terribly, then we both want to go to bed. no problem here. i just know that she hates, let's say, catholics. i'm a catholic. so to make it easier, i fake to her, i tell her i'm a protestant. i lie. and we go to bed, wonderful time, blah blah. i'm not kidding. two weeks later. she discovers that i lied to her that i am a catholic. not only she can prosecute me, but... even if she dragged me to bed, i become formally rapist. and to prevent d. and assange showed me the document. it's not yet the law, maybe they're not so crazy, but it already circulates in political circles there. a kind of a... forum to fill in. let's say i'm flirting with a lady. we want to do it but just to make it sure it's a forum. name, date of birth, religion, education, do you have aids, any illness? we both sign it up. we can do whatever we want. i find this vision pretty horrible and even some liberal, not left-wing feminists, like not naomi klein, the other one, naomi wolf, already made this point of how at its most rigid, inflexible, political correctness approaches a pure market negotiation model. which is why now the other thing where you that you ask, i would i am here, but this is a subtle point we don't have time to go into it. i am pro-enlightenment to the end as it were. so i want to ask you, probably i'm not the only one. ouch how! the only problem i have with you, but i see it ambiguity ich. if one looks these blururb-like condensations of what they put on cover on your books. it may sound as if you are pleading. or... demanding, proposing some kind of that's how it is put there return! to the sacred. i find this can you clarify your position here? is it because i don't
okay. can i briefly reply to you, but with total agreement and at the same time connect i found this example so interesting because you know what's my problem here? that up. without this dialectic of taking a risk, crossing the line, and then retroactively hoping that the line will retroactively disappear. der ich no proper. process of seduction. at some point someone has to make a gesture where you take a risk. either you will be accused so now then debating with my friends, i tried to force them to imagine a purely politically correct seduction. and i got a clear answer. it would have looked weirdly is a pure market. contract contract a correct way would be for me to put it for her, we negotiate and so on, and so that you don't think that i'm kidding. julian assange... showed me such a document already exists in sweden, which is the ultimate politically correct country. they had this problem. you know, what's so nice is that even things can retroactively become rape in sweden. in their law it says that if let's say we, i don't want to be accused then of harassing you any, okay, the beautiful lady here where there is no one. we flirt terribly, then we both want to go to bed. no problem here. i just know that she hates, let's say, catholics. i'm a catholic. so to make it easier, i fake to her, i tell her i'm a protestant. i lie. and we go to bed, wonderful time, blah blah. i'm not kidding. two weeks later. she discovers that i lied to her that i am a catholic. not only she can prosecute me, but... even if she dragged me to bed, i become formally rapist. and to prevent d. and assange showed me the document. it's not yet the law, maybe they're not so crazy, but it already circulates in political circles there. a kind of a... forum to fill in. let's say i'm flirting with a lady. we want to do it but just to make it sure it's a forum. name, date of birth, religion, education, do you have aids, any illness? we both sign it up. we can do whatever we want. i find this vision pretty horrible and even some liberal, not left-wing feminists, like not naomi klein, the other one, naomi wolf, already made this point of how at its most rigid, inflexible, political correctness approaches a pure market negotiation model. which is why now the other thing where you that you ask, i would i am here, but this is a subtle point we don't have time to go into it. i am pro-enlightenment to the end as it were. so i want to ask you, probably i'm not the only one. ouch how! the only problem i have with you, but i see it ambiguity ich. if one looks these blururb-like condensations of what they put on cover on your books. it may sound as if you are pleading. or... demanding, proposing some kind of that's how it is put there return! to the sacred. i find this can you clarify your position here? is it because i don't
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
follow you here if
follow you here if
Slavoj Žižek
if you want that.
if you want that.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no,, no, no, no, no, no, bro, yes. and even in the french, i mean, not even, especially in the french version, i was accused of, i mean
no,, no, no, no, no, no, bro, yes. and even in the french, i mean, not even, especially in the french version, i was accused of, i mean
Slavoj Žižek
yes. because. .
yes. because. .
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no, no, no, no, not at all. what i'm saying is that it's not one more book on the, i mean, i'm talking of the mark of the sacred, one more book on how to reconcile faith and reason, etc., etc. it's the book is intended just to show there is no agenda in a sense, but to show. that. this question, there is a preliminary question or issue, which is to realize how much what we call rationality, and i think i take up six domains, economic rationality, military or strategic rationality, science and technology. political okay yeah there are six um... that what we call rationalité is not undermined but is full or is pregnant is fraught. fraught. with a good measure. of the logic of the sacred. yeah. so it's not one pure reason. uh trying to uh... there are several versions in the usual story, trying to enter into a dialogue with... with religion as it is or theology, etc etc etc. re... reason is always already contaminated by the logic of the sacred. that's what i call the mark of the sacred. to detect the mark of the sacred, whatever i mean by that. in what appears to be the height of rationality.
no, no, no, no, not at all. what i'm saying is that it's not one more book on the, i mean, i'm talking of the mark of the sacred, one more book on how to reconcile faith and reason, etc., etc. it's the book is intended just to show there is no agenda in a sense, but to show. that. this question, there is a preliminary question or issue, which is to realize how much what we call rationality, and i think i take up six domains, economic rationality, military or strategic rationality, science and technology. political okay yeah there are six um... that what we call rationalité is not undermined but is full or is pregnant is fraught. fraught. with a good measure. of the logic of the sacred. yeah. so it's not one pure reason. uh trying to uh... there are several versions in the usual story, trying to enter into a dialogue with... with religion as it is or theology, etc etc etc. re... reason is always already contaminated by the logic of the sacred. that's what i call the mark of the sacred. to detect the mark of the sacred, whatever i mean by that. in what appears to be the height of rationality.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
um and i'll do that in six different domains. okay so it's again, it's is approach. no, no, no, no. thank you very much for this question. yeah.
um and i'll do that in six different domains. okay so it's again, it's is approach. no, no, no, no. thank you very much for this question. yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
because in france.
because in france.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
i mean, the public discussion of my book in france was precisely made very difficult for me because most readers, it must be my fault, i mean, the reader is always right in principle, most readers understood that interpretation, that i'm advocating a return to the sacred. actually, it's not that i would be against. it's, for me, it's nonsense. i mean, there is no way. and because because everything is contaminated, not by the sacred. but back the christian message. and now i have a question for you. um... which is in the center very simple. your interpretation of christianity is so strong, so beautiful.
i mean, the public discussion of my book in france was precisely made very difficult for me because most readers, it must be my fault, i mean, the reader is always right in principle, most readers understood that interpretation, that i'm advocating a return to the sacred. actually, it's not that i would be against. it's, for me, it's nonsense. i mean, there is no way. and because because everything is contaminated, not by the sacred. but back the christian message. and now i have a question for you. um... which is in the center very simple. your interpretation of christianity is so strong, so beautiful.
Slavoj Žižek
so powerful.
so powerful.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
that why
that why
Slavoj Žižek
when you praise me like this, i already see you behind your back,ing the knife. no no.
when you praise me like this, i already see you behind your back,ing the knife. no no.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no.
no.
Slavoj Žižek
no, no, no, no. no, because
no, no, no, no. no, because
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
i forgot to add that it's mine too. so if i were praising you, okay,
i forgot to add that it's mine too. so if i were praising you, okay,
Slavoj Žižek
phrasing.
phrasing.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah,. why don't you take the ultimate step? which is to become a.
yeah,. why don't you take the ultimate step? which is to become a.
Slavoj Žižek
is. because i mean a is christian. and i mean quite seriously, it's not some cheap postmodern joke. for me, literally, the only way to be a consequent atheist is to go through that christian moment, father, why have you forsaken me and so on. you know, as i repeated yesterday, it's not enough for us not to believe. the chicken, the self-transcendent moment should not believe. that's the problem and i see in this the absolute uniqueness of christianity.
is. because i mean a is christian. and i mean quite seriously, it's not some cheap postmodern joke. for me, literally, the only way to be a consequent atheist is to go through that christian moment, father, why have you forsaken me and so on. you know, as i repeated yesterday, it's not enough for us not to believe. the chicken, the self-transcendent moment should not believe. that's the problem and i see in this the absolute uniqueness of christianity.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah, i can absolutely relate to that. but then i have another question. it seems to me, but again, i've not read everything that you wrote, that, and i'm hasting to say that in a sense i like that, although liking not we are not on facebook, liking, not liking. you speak almost never from what i've read. about the resurrection. and you speak about the passion of christ. and for me the key element in christianity is the passion of christ, much more than resurrection. okay, and now i have a series of sub-questions. why, i mean, actually you almost say it in this book at the beginning. yesterday you considered several possibilities how to interpret the passion of christ. yeah one would be god father sacrifice his son, the usual story. or what else? or christ sacrificed himself in a sense, gave his life for for the salvation of the world.
yeah, i can absolutely relate to that. but then i have another question. it seems to me, but again, i've not read everything that you wrote, that, and i'm hasting to say that in a sense i like that, although liking not we are not on facebook, liking, not liking. you speak almost never from what i've read. about the resurrection. and you speak about the passion of christ. and for me the key element in christianity is the passion of christ, much more than resurrection. okay, and now i have a series of sub-questions. why, i mean, actually you almost say it in this book at the beginning. yesterday you considered several possibilities how to interpret the passion of christ. yeah one would be god father sacrifice his son, the usual story. or what else? or christ sacrificed himself in a sense, gave his life for for the salvation of the world.
Slavoj Žižek
world or the most obscene gnostic reading, which i like, that if you accept the premise that god is a limited stupid guy, yeah that sacrificing his son is a way and i like this reading also i don't take it too seriously but it's beautiful that it's god's apology to humans sorry that i screwed it so up the world with creation i can just give you because otherwise you must know this this was a big problem in early centuries of christianity why does god have to sacrifice his son? why? because people usually answer me because there was sin and so on, sins have to be paid. no, this idea that above god there is some kind of sense of cosmic justice that even god has to obey, this is a pagan idea. so then the other popular version was that it's deal with the devil. here that god makes a deal with the devil i give you my son if you give a chance to what i'm trying to tell you sorry for interrupting you is that this why divine sacrifice this is a big problem in christianity, not even resolved today. yeah but now there is a third version..
world or the most obscene gnostic reading, which i like, that if you accept the premise that god is a limited stupid guy, yeah that sacrificing his son is a way and i like this reading also i don't take it too seriously but it's beautiful that it's god's apology to humans sorry that i screwed it so up the world with creation i can just give you because otherwise you must know this this was a big problem in early centuries of christianity why does god have to sacrifice his son? why? because people usually answer me because there was sin and so on, sins have to be paid. no, this idea that above god there is some kind of sense of cosmic justice that even god has to obey, this is a pagan idea. so then the other popular version was that it's deal with the devil. here that god makes a deal with the devil i give you my son if you give a chance to what i'm trying to tell you sorry for interrupting you is that this why divine sacrifice this is a big problem in christianity, not even resolved today. yeah but now there is a third version..
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
which you mentioned in passing at the beginning of this book. and...
which you mentioned in passing at the beginning of this book. and...
Slavoj Žižek
which is yours or what you like that one or yours?
which is yours or what you like that one or yours?
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no, your book. i know, i know, but you had the third version., the third version, which is mine, to be sure. yeah,. it's that... jesus' death on the cross. was a sacrifice. in the anthropological sense of the term, that is a collective murder. independently of jesus or his father's will or a desire, etc., it was a collective murder. and let me take an illustration of that. the problem with the interpretation of what happened on 9-11 in new york city and washington is that... let me take the french reaction to that. the day after, le monde, the very important french newspaper, titled we are all americans, okay but a month later, there were people like baudrillard and others who said, who wrote articles saying they had it coming, the americans, they deserved it. and they added even what's his name, the founder of nouvel observateur, pierre nora. uh said the same um um after all, we shouldn't hasten to condemn these guys, the 19 guys of 9-11, too fast. because after all, they gave their lives. for their cause. they sacrificed themselves. that sounds christian. so in order but it's absolutely it's a perversion of of christianity. illich used to say ivan illich and also rené girard, so by the way, both of them now or in the past, full-blown christians. used to refer to the old latin formula corruptio optimi. pessima that is the corruption of the best is
no, your book. i know, i know, but you had the third version., the third version, which is mine, to be sure. yeah,. it's that... jesus' death on the cross. was a sacrifice. in the anthropological sense of the term, that is a collective murder. independently of jesus or his father's will or a desire, etc., it was a collective murder. and let me take an illustration of that. the problem with the interpretation of what happened on 9-11 in new york city and washington is that... let me take the french reaction to that. the day after, le monde, the very important french newspaper, titled we are all americans, okay but a month later, there were people like baudrillard and others who said, who wrote articles saying they had it coming, the americans, they deserved it. and they added even what's his name, the founder of nouvel observateur, pierre nora. uh said the same um um after all, we shouldn't hasten to condemn these guys, the 19 guys of 9-11, too fast. because after all, they gave their lives. for their cause. they sacrificed themselves. that sounds christian. so in order but it's absolutely it's a perversion of of christianity. illich used to say ivan illich and also rené girard, so by the way, both of them now or in the past, full-blown christians. used to refer to the old latin formula corruptio optimi. pessima that is the corruption of the best is
Slavoj Žižek
worse.
worse.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
and they explain, like chasterton, by the way, the modern world as being shaped by the christian message, but the corrupt version of the christian message. and the corrupt version of the christian message in this case is precisely to consider that if you sacrifice your life, like the people, the guys, the terrorists of 9-11, then it's hard to condemn you. but what i propose is to say that 9-11 was a collective murder and that jesus passion on christ was also it was a sacrifice. in the anthropological sense, i believe, a collective murder.
and they explain, like chasterton, by the way, the modern world as being shaped by the christian message, but the corrupt version of the christian message. and the corrupt version of the christian message in this case is precisely to consider that if you sacrifice your life, like the people, the guys, the terrorists of 9-11, then it's hard to condemn you. but what i propose is to say that 9-11 was a collective murder and that jesus passion on christ was also it was a sacrifice. in the anthropological sense, i believe, a collective murder.
Slavoj Žižek
okay, i'll tell you where very deeply, first about that had it coming moment. although i also wrote a very short book, welcome to the desert of the real, obvious reference to the matrix movie. but there i try to think both aspects together. on the one hand, it is true that it's the same as with, i always like this example, titanic. do you know, one almost gets superstitious, that four or five years ago, sorry, before titanic was sung, there was a novel. in which tells the story of a hyper mega luxurious sheep. which gets hits the iceberg and gets sunk and in the novel the name of the ship is titan. so it is as if it was in the air. only in this sense they had it coming. that obviously what happened, even if it was shocking. was somehow in the air as an expectation.
okay, i'll tell you where very deeply, first about that had it coming moment. although i also wrote a very short book, welcome to the desert of the real, obvious reference to the matrix movie. but there i try to think both aspects together. on the one hand, it is true that it's the same as with, i always like this example, titanic. do you know, one almost gets superstitious, that four or five years ago, sorry, before titanic was sung, there was a novel. in which tells the story of a hyper mega luxurious sheep. which gets hits the iceberg and gets sunk and in the novel the name of the ship is titan. so it is as if it was in the air. only in this sense they had it coming. that obviously what happened, even if it was shocking. was somehow in the air as an expectation.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
excellent.
excellent.
Slavoj Žižek
that's as far as i go. but in no way would i play this game where incidentally, baudar joins hands with the utmost american perverts that i like. you know, pat robert, this is my secret if you want to know what i'm reading privately.
that's as far as i go. but in no way would i play this game where incidentally, baudar joins hands with the utmost american perverts that i like. you know, pat robert, this is my secret if you want to know what i'm reading privately.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
pe
pe
Slavoj Žižek
robertson, then those left behind jer, you know, tim lahaye and so on, all that. said the same thing.
robertson, then those left behind jer, you know, tim lahaye and so on, all that. said the same thing.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yes, yes, i know, i know.
yes, yes, i know, i know.
Slavoj Žižek
so i totally reject that. now let's go to the more important point. i like very much what you said that the optimal corax fusion is corruption of be the good. i often quote, i think it was that stephen weinberg of the first three seconds, the quantum, sorry, the quantum cosmology who i don't agree with him totally. my god, i wrote three, four books celebrating the emancipatory core of christianity. but nonetheless, there is an element of truth in what he says there. he said very simply that without religion, good people would have been doing good things and bad people bad things. but you need something like religion to make good people do bad things. and this is my personal experience. also, i would just as an old platonic guy, add poetry. it gave me to think how, you know, radovan karadžić is a poet, leader of serbs. and then i noticed that if you go to rwanda, i discovered karadžić there. i quote his name in some of my books. there was a big national poet who for two decades laid the ground for that to slaughter and so on. that is to say, because i'm sick and tired that we philosophers are accused usually you know, like, you know, like even here i disagree with levi das, who said, and even adorno thinks the same that the origin of political totalitarianism is the philosophical notion of totality. you know, like we philosophers with our total rational visions, we lay the foundations. i say, but what about po? every totalitarian system, they need a poet or a religious thinker, mythologist, because again, to make good people do bad things. you need some kind of a transcendent, monstrous vision. which then allows you. to feel great, noble, precisely by violating elementary ethical norms. you know who? it should be reprinted as a classic. one of the most monstrous texts that i know, the famous heinrich himmler speech in posen poznan to nazi officers, where he basically says, every idiot can sacrifice his life for a high cause. but it takes a really great man to sacrifice his soul to do horrible things for the cause. and that's the true greatness and you can find the same logic, although i don't put them on the same level not at all in stalinism i remember how in the end of 20s, when this most terrible thing happened, which was the true revolution, much more radical than october revolution, the forced collectivization of farms. and how they prepared communist cadre to do it. the idea was, beware, you will be doing horrible things there. you will see farmers' children starving and so on. but the true ethical greatness is to do it. so here i would follow your line if i got it between the lines that nonetheless following girard, okay. it's a collective murder, but nonetheless, you know what girard says about it, that it's nonetheless more paradoxical, is that it's an anti-sacrifice at the same time, christ. sacrifice
so i totally reject that. now let's go to the more important point. i like very much what you said that the optimal corax fusion is corruption of be the good. i often quote, i think it was that stephen weinberg of the first three seconds, the quantum, sorry, the quantum cosmology who i don't agree with him totally. my god, i wrote three, four books celebrating the emancipatory core of christianity. but nonetheless, there is an element of truth in what he says there. he said very simply that without religion, good people would have been doing good things and bad people bad things. but you need something like religion to make good people do bad things. and this is my personal experience. also, i would just as an old platonic guy, add poetry. it gave me to think how, you know, radovan karadžić is a poet, leader of serbs. and then i noticed that if you go to rwanda, i discovered karadžić there. i quote his name in some of my books. there was a big national poet who for two decades laid the ground for that to slaughter and so on. that is to say, because i'm sick and tired that we philosophers are accused usually you know, like, you know, like even here i disagree with levi das, who said, and even adorno thinks the same that the origin of political totalitarianism is the philosophical notion of totality. you know, like we philosophers with our total rational visions, we lay the foundations. i say, but what about po? every totalitarian system, they need a poet or a religious thinker, mythologist, because again, to make good people do bad things. you need some kind of a transcendent, monstrous vision. which then allows you. to feel great, noble, precisely by violating elementary ethical norms. you know who? it should be reprinted as a classic. one of the most monstrous texts that i know, the famous heinrich himmler speech in posen poznan to nazi officers, where he basically says, every idiot can sacrifice his life for a high cause. but it takes a really great man to sacrifice his soul to do horrible things for the cause. and that's the true greatness and you can find the same logic, although i don't put them on the same level not at all in stalinism i remember how in the end of 20s, when this most terrible thing happened, which was the true revolution, much more radical than october revolution, the forced collectivization of farms. and how they prepared communist cadre to do it. the idea was, beware, you will be doing horrible things there. you will see farmers' children starving and so on. but the true ethical greatness is to do it. so here i would follow your line if i got it between the lines that nonetheless following girard, okay. it's a collective murder, but nonetheless, you know what girard says about it, that it's nonetheless more paradoxical, is that it's an anti-sacrifice at the same time, christ. sacrifice
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
to end they change his mind. that's a frisch, ja.
to end they change his mind. that's a frisch, ja.
Slavoj Žižek
really you change his mind.
really you change his mind.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yes, yes completely.
yes, yes completely.
Slavoj Žižek
he gets my hands on me in a good stalinist way, he will change his mind again
he gets my hands on me in a good stalinist way, he will change his mind again
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
he was wrong to agree with you.
he was wrong to agree with you.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
to change his mind on this. and well now he's completely unable to speak.
to change his mind on this. and well now he's completely unable to speak.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, because again, i think this guy will read what you said, you know. the most tricky sacrifice ist du. sacrifice yourself. for a cause, even if it's if and that's the almost a definition of perversion, as if by sacrificing for the cause you can redeem the cause. you know, so i claim that here we should be kantians. you are not just responsible in the sense of let's do anything for the cause. you are also responsible for the cause itself. i think that what authentic christian and also kant ethic prohibits is to use the cause as an excuse. you know, when you can say, oh, it's horrible what i'm doing, but fuck it. it's for a stalinist communist. it's a historical necessity, whatever. no, you never are allowed to use... one can even put it in tautological terms, to use doing duty as an excuse to do duty. you have to be absolutely responsible for it. and here, that would be my... friendly criticism of hannah arendt. here, i... think she comes too close to somehow endorsing critically, of course. you know, when eichmann said, oh, i was a kantian. for me. the voice of hitler was the voice of ethical duty. i just followed my duty. no, you cannot say this. you cannot blame the big other. you are totally responsible also for your duty. that's why, to go to the return, the question of resurrection. i'm here, maybe i'm simplistic and so on. but i think all the stuff of christ returning afterwards, it's a kind of a zombie obscene version. if i were to be a christian, i would burn those, what are the last texts of the bible? theocalyptic stuff in my stalinist universe already the gospel of john kind of a... disappears you should notice reading closely that it's the gospel of john which is the first one the only of the gospels which comes close to anti-semitism even already. it's the dangerous one. so my point is i follow here the bible you know the crucial point for me is when disciples ask christ, how will we know when you will return? and he gives a simple beautiful answer. when there will be love between the two of you. i am there. i will return. for me, holy spirit is already a return. it's a pure obscenity to look for something more, some living dead like christ coming up and returning. holy spirit is it. nothing more. and holy spirit it's clear. it's for me now i provoke you, the proto forum of communist party. in what sense? you know when christ says, the famous, he's with his disciples and somebody comes and says, oh, your mother is there, blah blah and he says no, my family is here. and all that stuff about if you don't hate your father, mother, you're not my follower. no, it's not some stupid sadism. i think that when christ mentions their mother father, it's simply a shortcut for social hierarchy. i think he is not saying... hate your father, but hate your father insofar as he stands for symbolic hierarchy of a social order. the hope, the really good news of holy spirit is that an egalitarian emancipatory community which bypasses social hierarchy is possible. that's the really great news. so i get this for me, resurrection is holy spirit already. it's a total mistake of perspective to look for something something more, some creepy guy coming out of grave again. maybe it's too simplistic reading, but anyway.
yeah, because again, i think this guy will read what you said, you know. the most tricky sacrifice ist du. sacrifice yourself. for a cause, even if it's if and that's the almost a definition of perversion, as if by sacrificing for the cause you can redeem the cause. you know, so i claim that here we should be kantians. you are not just responsible in the sense of let's do anything for the cause. you are also responsible for the cause itself. i think that what authentic christian and also kant ethic prohibits is to use the cause as an excuse. you know, when you can say, oh, it's horrible what i'm doing, but fuck it. it's for a stalinist communist. it's a historical necessity, whatever. no, you never are allowed to use... one can even put it in tautological terms, to use doing duty as an excuse to do duty. you have to be absolutely responsible for it. and here, that would be my... friendly criticism of hannah arendt. here, i... think she comes too close to somehow endorsing critically, of course. you know, when eichmann said, oh, i was a kantian. for me. the voice of hitler was the voice of ethical duty. i just followed my duty. no, you cannot say this. you cannot blame the big other. you are totally responsible also for your duty. that's why, to go to the return, the question of resurrection. i'm here, maybe i'm simplistic and so on. but i think all the stuff of christ returning afterwards, it's a kind of a zombie obscene version. if i were to be a christian, i would burn those, what are the last texts of the bible? theocalyptic stuff in my stalinist universe already the gospel of john kind of a... disappears you should notice reading closely that it's the gospel of john which is the first one the only of the gospels which comes close to anti-semitism even already. it's the dangerous one. so my point is i follow here the bible you know the crucial point for me is when disciples ask christ, how will we know when you will return? and he gives a simple beautiful answer. when there will be love between the two of you. i am there. i will return. for me, holy spirit is already a return. it's a pure obscenity to look for something more, some living dead like christ coming up and returning. holy spirit is it. nothing more. and holy spirit it's clear. it's for me now i provoke you, the proto forum of communist party. in what sense? you know when christ says, the famous, he's with his disciples and somebody comes and says, oh, your mother is there, blah blah and he says no, my family is here. and all that stuff about if you don't hate your father, mother, you're not my follower. no, it's not some stupid sadism. i think that when christ mentions their mother father, it's simply a shortcut for social hierarchy. i think he is not saying... hate your father, but hate your father insofar as he stands for symbolic hierarchy of a social order. the hope, the really good news of holy spirit is that an egalitarian emancipatory community which bypasses social hierarchy is possible. that's the really great news. so i get this for me, resurrection is holy spirit already. it's a total mistake of perspective to look for something something more, some creepy guy coming out of grave again. maybe it's too simplistic reading, but anyway.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
that's what you confirmed what i was simply surmising that resurrection for you is not certainly not the hinge
that's what you confirmed what i was simply surmising that resurrection for you is not certainly not the hinge
Slavoj Žižek
okay.
okay.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
it is, but it already happens. it is there.
it is, but it already happens. it is there.
Slavoj Žižek
in hope.
in hope.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
okay, but it's a different. yes, it's not the zombie story. although there is something beautiful in this zombie story, it's that the disciples do not recognize him and he has exactly the same traits, features. than before and they do not recognize him okay
okay, but it's a different. yes, it's not the zombie story. although there is something beautiful in this zombie story, it's that the disciples do not recognize him and he has exactly the same traits, features. than before and they do not recognize him okay
Slavoj Žižek
i know, i know. and also, do you know why this is why i like there was a remake of romero, one of those movies. uh of the debt, whatever. where it uses a certain quote from apocalyptic which is for me extremely obscene. it speaks about resurrection of the dead and it describes it precisely in the sense of horror movies. like graves will be open, dead people will arise and so on and so on. i think there is in hegelian sense there is a kind of a mistake of perspective.
i know, i know. and also, do you know why this is why i like there was a remake of romero, one of those movies. uh of the debt, whatever. where it uses a certain quote from apocalyptic which is for me extremely obscene. it speaks about resurrection of the dead and it describes it precisely in the sense of horror movies. like graves will be open, dead people will arise and so on and so on. i think there is in hegelian sense there is a kind of a mistake of perspective.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
you you find that already in jeremiah, for instance. jeremiah, the prophet. yeah, yeah, yeah. the death, the resurrection, the death that i mean. no, you do not. okay, sorry. they are not a christian.
you you find that already in jeremiah, for instance. jeremiah, the prophet. yeah, yeah, yeah. the death, the resurrection, the death that i mean. no, you do not. okay, sorry. they are not a christian.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, obviously pretend to be, but they're not.
yeah, obviously pretend to be, but they're not.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
christian or jews because after all jeremiah it's in the old testament but okay doesn't matter no no but i just want to illustrate what what slavoy said, that's why i always thought that david fincher was a great movie maker because his first movie illustrates exactly the point you made a few minutes ago. you
christian or jews because after all jeremiah it's in the old testament but okay doesn't matter no no but i just want to illustrate what what slavoy said, that's why i always thought that david fincher was a great movie maker because his first movie illustrates exactly the point you made a few minutes ago. you
Slavoj Žižek
alien alien.
alien alien.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
seven no, but did
seven no, but did
Slavoj Žižek
he he do before? one it plays with exactly the same logic. and i think it's a masterpiece although it was a failure alien tree, you remember that true he did that. it's incredibly good. yes i agree. and it goes precisely into this cloning resurrecting exactly
he he do before? one it plays with exactly the same logic. and i think it's a masterpiece although it was a failure alien tree, you remember that true he did that. it's incredibly good. yes i agree. and it goes precisely into this cloning resurrecting exactly
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
but seven, you remember the theme. the kevin spacey who once more incarnates embodies evil, not as evil as in house of cards. no, no, no, no.. yeah, but as in the usual suspects by david... by singer. bryan singer. bryan singer, a great movie. this is also a great movie. but anyway, so the seven seven, that means the seven sins and the devil, that is kevin spacey, sacrifices his life because he's killed. out of brad pitt's envy because he killed his like f, you remember? very nice hegelian movie because but presby doesn't get that his own death of kevin is included you know exactly
but seven, you remember the theme. the kevin spacey who once more incarnates embodies evil, not as evil as in house of cards. no, no, no, no.. yeah, but as in the usual suspects by david... by singer. bryan singer. bryan singer, a great movie. this is also a great movie. but anyway, so the seven seven, that means the seven sins and the devil, that is kevin spacey, sacrifices his life because he's killed. out of brad pitt's envy because he killed his like f, you remember? very nice hegelian movie because but presby doesn't get that his own death of kevin is included you know exactly
Slavoj Žižek
yeah. so you too, i mean.
yeah. so you too, i mean.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
we love cinema. so yeah sorry.
we love cinema. so yeah sorry.
Slavoj Žižek
i think christopher nolan is overestimated. i think that...
i think christopher nolan is overestimated. i think that...
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
oh yes, yes.
oh yes, yes.
Slavoj Žižek
i. i david finn.
i. i david finn.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. yeah.
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
question
question
Questioner
so think this continues it, and that is maybe trying to tease out a little bit of the difference, but i think it's related to what you guys were just saying, and that is the way in which you would both read lac's notion of drive and desire differently. it seems like slavo, you would see the star and that beingized, whereas dup, it's important to have that star externally in the form of desire for the purpose of creating the rituals.
so think this continues it, and that is maybe trying to tease out a little bit of the difference, but i think it's related to what you guys were just saying, and that is the way in which you would both read lac's notion of drive and desire differently. it seems like slavo, you would see the star and that beingized, whereas dup, it's important to have that star externally in the form of desire for the purpose of creating the rituals.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
except that desire, as i said yesterday, the etymology of the word desire means the absence of the star, the, privative, the deprivation. des sider are in latin, sider. s what are the words in english that come from. see okay anyway see duration when you are stunned you don't say you are struck by a star anyway.
except that desire, as i said yesterday, the etymology of the word desire means the absence of the star, the, privative, the deprivation. des sider are in latin, sider. s what are the words in english that come from. see okay anyway see duration when you are stunned you don't say you are struck by a star anyway.
Slavoj Žižek
and see there in
and see there in
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
in greek means star. so desire. they see, are deprived of thislam. it's the absence of the star that guides you in a sense
in greek means star. so desire. they see, are deprived of thislam. it's the absence of the star that guides you in a sense
Slavoj Žižek
but i think that precisely here i'm on his side that with drive. with drive, this is the big lian theological problem. lecon says that object l' object is object cause of desire, but also the object of drive. so how do they... different and i think that it's in the drive that in a way the object is no longer. an entity but just become the topological term of turning around. so in a way, you accept the void. you no longer are running after an object, but... running around the void in itself brings satisfaction and so on. so i don't think that here you would, i mean, i appreciate you being paid by reactionary forces for trying to between the two of us you will be when we take power you will be able to explain this to secret police write confession no but quite seriously i am bothered by this because now i will be frank. i'm not idealizing as a couple. there are differences, but it's difficult to locate them. whenever i look closely, i. god. ...
but i think that precisely here i'm on his side that with drive. with drive, this is the big lian theological problem. lecon says that object l' object is object cause of desire, but also the object of drive. so how do they... different and i think that it's in the drive that in a way the object is no longer. an entity but just become the topological term of turning around. so in a way, you accept the void. you no longer are running after an object, but... running around the void in itself brings satisfaction and so on. so i don't think that here you would, i mean, i appreciate you being paid by reactionary forces for trying to between the two of us you will be when we take power you will be able to explain this to secret police write confession no but quite seriously i am bothered by this because now i will be frank. i'm not idealizing as a couple. there are differences, but it's difficult to locate them. whenever i look closely, i. god. ...
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
it's not there. in terms of influences i noted down here in the last page of the book. that your marks was my ilich. your lacon. ou girard. your vertigo. was and still is my vertigo. your argentina for me is brazil. i agree my hegel your hegel is for me david k. lewis the theory of possible worlds and counterfactual
it's not there. in terms of influences i noted down here in the last page of the book. that your marks was my ilich. your lacon. ou girard. your vertigo. was and still is my vertigo. your argentina for me is brazil. i agree my hegel your hegel is for me david k. lewis the theory of possible worlds and counterfactual
Slavoj Žižek
great.
great.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. and my christianity is yours, i would say. and you know, anyway, even if i wanted to be a catholic, i couldn't because of the last five popes at least, because i'm a divorced man. living, living in sin, living... living maritally.
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. and my christianity is yours, i would say. and you know, anyway, even if i wanted to be a catholic, i couldn't because of the last five popes at least, because i'm a divorced man. living, living in sin, living... living maritally.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, but you know what for me, the best definition, you must have heard a joke. there is a truth in it. we say in my country between protestantism and catholicism. in both... systems you can do absolutely whatever you want. in catholicism you only have to confess it every week. in protestantism you have to feel a little bit bad and guilty. it's okay no but seriously i am absolutely maybe this is our difference. i don't know that if i were to choose between protestant and catholicism well, uh... i'm for. in protestantism you have predestination. and without predestination, this stupid obscene idea that you're good
yeah, but you know what for me, the best definition, you must have heard a joke. there is a truth in it. we say in my country between protestantism and catholicism. in both... systems you can do absolutely whatever you want. in catholicism you only have to confess it every week. in protestantism you have to feel a little bit bad and guilty. it's okay no but seriously i am absolutely maybe this is our difference. i don't know that if i were to choose between protestant and catholicism well, uh... i'm for. in protestantism you have predestination. and without predestination, this stupid obscene idea that you're good
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
help help
help help
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yes. oh. again, i agree with you. if i had to choose, if it were possible, it might sense. i. pascal't it that?
yes. oh. again, i agree with you. if i had to choose, if it were possible, it might sense. i. pascal't it that?
Slavoj Žižek
jansenists, the only catholics, also for predestination
jansenists, the only catholics, also for predestination
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
exactly. absolutely true. so i'm a pascalian, a quasi-pro protestant. i might be a jew too, if i had to choose, let's say, my destiny precisely, my past. yeah.
exactly. absolutely true. so i'm a pascalian, a quasi-pro protestant. i might be a jew too, if i had to choose, let's say, my destiny precisely, my past. yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
you you know what i don't like about the jews? sorry, now i will be again accused of anti-semitism, that even if we play all these kafka games, messiah will arrive too late, will not. they still... they are too much future oriented. what i like is this pessimist message. it already happened. fuck it, it's over, you know. this is what i like about christianity. it's not again bullshitting us with some... messianic moment nothing will happen what happened it already happened this already happened, we are in deep shit,?
you you know what i don't like about the jews? sorry, now i will be again accused of anti-semitism, that even if we play all these kafka games, messiah will arrive too late, will not. they still... they are too much future oriented. what i like is this pessimist message. it already happened. fuck it, it's over, you know. this is what i like about christianity. it's not again bullshitting us with some... messianic moment nothing will happen what happened it already happened this already happened, we are in deep shit,?
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah,, yeah. by the way, that should lead to your questions, sir. yeah yeah, we have two questions. it was you. no.
yeah,, yeah. by the way, that should lead to your questions, sir. yeah yeah, we have two questions. it was you. no.
Slavoj Žižek
no.
no.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no, you.
no, you.
Slavoj Žižek
you you, the... huh?
you you, the... huh?
Questioner
mm
mm
Slavoj Žižek
not the arab terrorists there because all isis people have beard like you
not the arab terrorists there because all isis people have beard like you
Questioner
thank you.
thank you.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
and let's not forget your questions.
and let's not forget your questions.
Questioner
this is with respect to a project i've undertaken about repur churches what's being done with architecture. you saying should be turned into grain silos or palaces of corn.
this is with respect to a project i've undertaken about repur churches what's being done with architecture. you saying should be turned into grain silos or palaces of corn.
Slavoj Žižek
this is a bad taste style this globe. you know this.
this is a bad taste style this globe. you know this.
Questioner
so this was in 2002. could you elaborate on this thought? have your thoughts on this changed any in recent times? and how would you see extraneous church architecture best used?
so this was in 2002. could you elaborate on this thought? have your thoughts on this changed any in recent times? and how would you see extraneous church architecture best used?
Slavoj Žižek
the only, okay, i will just give you very briefly a paradoxical, crazy answer. i will say that, and i've written about it,... the most horrible, what i always hated is the obscenity of this cultural tolerance. what beautiful ancient monument you treat them as dead. there is nothing, i wrote, you remember when taliban were bombing those buddhist statues? but at least for them, this was a threat, one religion fighting another. in a way, they showed more respect to buddhism than this cultural approach, you know, oh, what a beautiful monument to human inventiveness. i am just afraid of this cultural respect. you know, this is, i think, the worst thing you can do. and maybe can i, because we are approaching the end, just briefly answer your question, the first directed at me. working through christianity, suffering christ, conclude that difficult human life is the core of our being. okay, very briefly. yes, but, and my but is how to... how to... define this difficult human. uh. and here i am at the same time a kierke guardian or whatever you want and kierkegaard said some so crazy things like when he said the true christian love for a neighbor is you should love him as if he is dead, you know that love no, my point is this man how to unite this? and i think it's not simply you have this and that. uh. you know when christ says you know if you have a sword, shall it by weapon i bring i don't bring peace, i bring the sword the sword and so on in what sense? but not in some pseudo-buddhist sense of, you know, the short of mar. for me, christian love is an extremely engaged position of active struggle. it brings division it's not love as unity it's love that brings division and that's important more than ever today when the predominant dominant ideology is what we usually refer what i ironically refer to as western buddhism you know this richard gear stuff you know slightly basically that's why it's so popular you can just go on living at it is you just should do it with a little bit of inner distance and so on you know no i think that this message of christ. again. to unite. to redefine love as a position of active engagement. str ich a forum of love. this is for me crucial how to define it today. in this sense, i'm not saying we should all be just that suffering christ, but don't forget the other christ with all those paradoxical statements. sorry
the only, okay, i will just give you very briefly a paradoxical, crazy answer. i will say that, and i've written about it,... the most horrible, what i always hated is the obscenity of this cultural tolerance. what beautiful ancient monument you treat them as dead. there is nothing, i wrote, you remember when taliban were bombing those buddhist statues? but at least for them, this was a threat, one religion fighting another. in a way, they showed more respect to buddhism than this cultural approach, you know, oh, what a beautiful monument to human inventiveness. i am just afraid of this cultural respect. you know, this is, i think, the worst thing you can do. and maybe can i, because we are approaching the end, just briefly answer your question, the first directed at me. working through christianity, suffering christ, conclude that difficult human life is the core of our being. okay, very briefly. yes, but, and my but is how to... how to... define this difficult human. uh. and here i am at the same time a kierke guardian or whatever you want and kierkegaard said some so crazy things like when he said the true christian love for a neighbor is you should love him as if he is dead, you know that love no, my point is this man how to unite this? and i think it's not simply you have this and that. uh. you know when christ says you know if you have a sword, shall it by weapon i bring i don't bring peace, i bring the sword the sword and so on in what sense? but not in some pseudo-buddhist sense of, you know, the short of mar. for me, christian love is an extremely engaged position of active struggle. it brings division it's not love as unity it's love that brings division and that's important more than ever today when the predominant dominant ideology is what we usually refer what i ironically refer to as western buddhism you know this richard gear stuff you know slightly basically that's why it's so popular you can just go on living at it is you just should do it with a little bit of inner distance and so on you know no i think that this message of christ. again. to unite. to redefine love as a position of active engagement. str ich a forum of love. this is for me crucial how to define it today. in this sense, i'm not saying we should all be just that suffering christ, but don't forget the other christ with all those paradoxical statements. sorry
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
just. illustration of what you've just said, the turning the other cheek, it's exactly that. it's not a peace tool at all. it's to destabilize. your adversary. i mean, is he expecting you to strike back? and you turn the other cheek. so for two three seconds it's completely
just. illustration of what you've just said, the turning the other cheek, it's exactly that. it's not a peace tool at all. it's to destabilize. your adversary. i mean, is he expecting you to strike back? and you turn the other cheek. so for two three seconds it's completely
Slavoj Žižek
uh
uh
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
powerless. that's when you start.
powerless. that's when you start.
Slavoj Žižek
the same as sorry another movie that i hope we like. how is that one again with brett pete fight club. the most shocking scene then, you remember when ed norton approaches his boss and instead of hitting him, he strikes. back at him. and it's the most painful, incredibly subversive thing that that's the way we should follow.
the same as sorry another movie that i hope we like. how is that one again with brett pete fight club. the most shocking scene then, you remember when ed norton approaches his boss and instead of hitting him, he strikes. back at him. and it's the most painful, incredibly subversive thing that that's the way we should follow.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
the usual suspects too, that's in one of your books. keyser söze kills his own family. the terrorists are there, and then they are completely destabilized. but if we can, we'll take one last question from madi medevoy.
the usual suspects too, that's in one of your books. keyser söze kills his own family. the terrorists are there, and then they are completely destabilized. but if we can, we'll take one last question from madi medevoy.
Manny Medavoy (questioner)
yeah just wanted to ask one question which has to do with the way that much of your discussion has revolved around the specificity of christianity. because i think, you know, and this might be one place where perhaps there's a difference between the two. it the sacred is a certain kind of formal abstraction, like say, language. and it seems to me that slavboy, what you keep returning to is a kind of an interest in one particular language, say english is the language as christianity is to the sacred, a particular instantiation. and i know you've said a couple of times that you have to go through christianity of this version in order to arrive at the secular. there's a version of that that could be true. one must go through sort of the theological forms of christianity in order to have a modern state, right? because the state is modeled on the theology of sovereignty. or perhaps the market, again, as a sort of a natural law that's derived from a certain kind of sort of christian project. but if that's the case, it seems to me that that analysis actually does tend to presuppose a fixed past, a particular pathway that leads to a sort of the secular world of the state and the market. and so the question i have, which comes out of, say, the other work that's been going on in the welsec project, in other sites where people are thinking very hard about other forms of religiosity, about islam, about buddhism, about hinduism, and are asking the question whether in fact there are pathways through sort of like alternative particularities and histories of the sacred that nevertheless can converge with the sort of, say, the kind of theology, secular theology of the market, the secular theology of the state that we have. that know that we're kind of contending with, where it doesn't really matter what you make into the endogenous endpoint. it doesn't have to be christian in form. it could take some other form so long as it sort of produces the sort. so i'm just sort of putting that out there, does christianity really matter at all? or can anything be substituted in as a kind of a? yeah
yeah just wanted to ask one question which has to do with the way that much of your discussion has revolved around the specificity of christianity. because i think, you know, and this might be one place where perhaps there's a difference between the two. it the sacred is a certain kind of formal abstraction, like say, language. and it seems to me that slavboy, what you keep returning to is a kind of an interest in one particular language, say english is the language as christianity is to the sacred, a particular instantiation. and i know you've said a couple of times that you have to go through christianity of this version in order to arrive at the secular. there's a version of that that could be true. one must go through sort of the theological forms of christianity in order to have a modern state, right? because the state is modeled on the theology of sovereignty. or perhaps the market, again, as a sort of a natural law that's derived from a certain kind of sort of christian project. but if that's the case, it seems to me that that analysis actually does tend to presuppose a fixed past, a particular pathway that leads to a sort of the secular world of the state and the market. and so the question i have, which comes out of, say, the other work that's been going on in the welsec project, in other sites where people are thinking very hard about other forms of religiosity, about islam, about buddhism, about hinduism, and are asking the question whether in fact there are pathways through sort of like alternative particularities and histories of the sacred that nevertheless can converge with the sort of, say, the kind of theology, secular theology of the market, the secular theology of the state that we have. that know that we're kind of contending with, where it doesn't really matter what you make into the endogenous endpoint. it doesn't have to be christian in form. it could take some other form so long as it sort of produces the sort. so i'm just sort of putting that out there, does christianity really matter at all? or can anything be substituted in as a kind of a? yeah
Slavoj Žižek
okay. please.
okay. please.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
but
but
Slavoj Žižek
you have the concluding question okay, my god. fuck it. i have to run to the airport. i don't. here i will just state my position. no, i think again, not at the level of content, but at the very formal level. there is something unique in. christianity but so when you mention this presupposition and so on. here i think two things. first. if there is a title for which i would be ready to kill. the i find one in walter benjamin is the title of his essay. on language in general and specifically human language because this doesn't mean there are general languages of stars, of animals and among no there is only one language but we have to distinguish the purely formal aspect and human language and into this gap i locate when you talk about language. hegel knew this clearly and the austrian writer i found her too tasteless, i even don't like her, elfrieda jelinek. she nonetheless said something wonderful which i repeatedly quote. she said that language spontaneously is lying. we have to torture language make to squeeze out the truth out of it. and here would be my formal problem with at least a tendency heidegger as if you know. allow, let the language speak and so on. no, i think it's wrong to look for some deeper truth in language. language, we cannot think outside language. only within, but we have to think in language. against language. and my only point would be this one to you. it's not only christianity. the problem would already have been judaism. i think that christianity is inherently linked to judaism. it's only possible against the background of judaism. and i think an incredible break happens already in judaism, but we don't have time now to go into this.
you have the concluding question okay, my god. fuck it. i have to run to the airport. i don't. here i will just state my position. no, i think again, not at the level of content, but at the very formal level. there is something unique in. christianity but so when you mention this presupposition and so on. here i think two things. first. if there is a title for which i would be ready to kill. the i find one in walter benjamin is the title of his essay. on language in general and specifically human language because this doesn't mean there are general languages of stars, of animals and among no there is only one language but we have to distinguish the purely formal aspect and human language and into this gap i locate when you talk about language. hegel knew this clearly and the austrian writer i found her too tasteless, i even don't like her, elfrieda jelinek. she nonetheless said something wonderful which i repeatedly quote. she said that language spontaneously is lying. we have to torture language make to squeeze out the truth out of it. and here would be my formal problem with at least a tendency heidegger as if you know. allow, let the language speak and so on. no, i think it's wrong to look for some deeper truth in language. language, we cannot think outside language. only within, but we have to think in language. against language. and my only point would be this one to you. it's not only christianity. the problem would already have been judaism. i think that christianity is inherently linked to judaism. it's only possible against the background of judaism. and i think an incredible break happens already in judaism, but we don't have time now to go into this.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
but one sentence to it... i think. i, but... probably slavoy, i don't know, belong to a tradition where you find names like durkheim, tocqueville. uh... max weber, of course, etc. which contends that christianity is the and of religions. it's the end of religions. max weber for about protestantism said that it was responsible for the entzauber der welt, disenchantment, but literally it means the elimination of magic, zauber, zauberflöter, the magic flute. so... disac of the world, etc. um... so there is something absolutely specific. about christianity. i fully agree. and it could not have been replaced by anything else. um but maybe, okay, we have no time now. for me, the revelation is the... which in greek as you know the word revelation it's in greek it's apocalypse apocalypse means revelation it doesn't mean the big bang at the end. revelation. is the passion of the christ, precisely. not his resurrection or whatever. it's the passion of christ. what did we learn from that? um but this message, unfortunately, was corrupted, as we were saying.
but one sentence to it... i think. i, but... probably slavoy, i don't know, belong to a tradition where you find names like durkheim, tocqueville. uh... max weber, of course, etc. which contends that christianity is the and of religions. it's the end of religions. max weber for about protestantism said that it was responsible for the entzauber der welt, disenchantment, but literally it means the elimination of magic, zauber, zauberflöter, the magic flute. so... disac of the world, etc. um... so there is something absolutely specific. about christianity. i fully agree. and it could not have been replaced by anything else. um but maybe, okay, we have no time now. for me, the revelation is the... which in greek as you know the word revelation it's in greek it's apocalypse apocalypse means revelation it doesn't mean the big bang at the end. revelation. is the passion of the christ, precisely. not his resurrection or whatever. it's the passion of christ. what did we learn from that? um but this message, unfortunately, was corrupted, as we were saying.
Slavoj Žižek
but not, i hope we agree with here, i nonetheless don't follow the idea which is now popular with so-called historicizing christians. that it's the like aslan, zealot, no that it's the original christ and then paul is the big bad guy no i think paul still is
but not, i hope we agree with here, i nonetheless don't follow the idea which is now popular with so-called historicizing christians. that it's the like aslan, zealot, no that it's the original christ and then paul is the big bad guy no i think paul still is
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yes, yes.
yes, yes.
Slavoj Žižek
corruption happens afterwards.
corruption happens afterwards.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Manny Medavoy (questioner)
y. but just to get back to be as specific as possible, do you think econystification actually is dependent upon the specificities of a christian theology? or could it take...
y. but just to get back to be as specific as possible, do you think econystification actually is dependent upon the specificities of a christian theology? or could it take...
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no, my thesis is actually in the new book is... that um the economy. as the same relationship to violence than the sacred had. but it doesn't mean that the economy is sacred. no. and this relationship is a relationship of ambivalence. and i use, i resort to the play on words to contain to contain means at the same time to have within oneself and to keep in check, to stem. so the economy contains violence. it it's violent, but it's also... it keeps to some extent or it used to keep violence in check. in the same way, or the same way, not in the same way, but the same role as the sacred plaid. by containing violence in the yeah. violence and the sacred, so now it's the economy and the sacred. when i say, oh no, we have no time to talk about that. sorry. um
no, my thesis is actually in the new book is... that um the economy. as the same relationship to violence than the sacred had. but it doesn't mean that the economy is sacred. no. and this relationship is a relationship of ambivalence. and i use, i resort to the play on words to contain to contain means at the same time to have within oneself and to keep in check, to stem. so the economy contains violence. it it's violent, but it's also... it keeps to some extent or it used to keep violence in check. in the same way, or the same way, not in the same way, but the same role as the sacred plaid. by containing violence in the yeah. violence and the sacred, so now it's the economy and the sacred. when i say, oh no, we have no time to talk about that. sorry. um
Slavoj Žižek
i'm so sorry, so i propose the only solution because we have so many things to say that fuck it, we come back again.
i'm so sorry, so i propose the only solution because we have so many things to say that fuck it, we come back again.
Audience Member
no the only.
no the only.