The revolution and the real
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2022-05-29 · 0:59:04 · 7,658 words
hegel-dialecticspsychoanalysiscapitalismideologyscience-physicsecology-climategeopolitics-warphilosophy-generalcommunism-socialismconsciousness-mind
In this hour-long German-language TV interview, Žižek ranges across his intellectual biography, health, and the current 'perfect storm' of crises (pandemic, war in Ukraine, hunger, climate change, brain-computer interfaces). He explicates his Hegelian-Lacanian framework, the Real, the Big Other, Realität vs. Reale, antagonism as constitutive rather than obstructive, and connects it to quantum physics (Schrödinger's cat, Bohr vs. Einstein). He then develops his political stance: a 'moderately conservative communist' position that rejects both open-borders liberalism and local-traditions romanticism, advocates for rational international cooperation and minimal market regulation, and defines his utopia as 'good alienation'.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 19
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “jouissance / surplus enjoyment”
Implicitly invoked via the 'mental orgasm' of finding the right word; the excess of satisfaction in intellectual work.
Žižek's ironic self-description of his prolific output: recycling the same material into different versions rather than producing wholly new content.
as “living dead”
Žižek's existential attitude toward death: writing already implies accepting one is dead, a testamentary posture, so one lives without obsessing over death.
Derrida's idea (cited approvingly) that every act of writing is already testamentary, a confrontation with and letting-go of oneself in death.
as “infinite speculative judgment (Der Geist ist ein Knochen)”
Hegel's formula identifying opposites (spirit = bone), cited as the model for Žižek's own 'Der Geist ist ein Virus'.
as “memes as viruses of the mind”
Dawkins's concept of memes, invoked to argue that ideas are the truly active agents reproducing themselves through human hosts.
Capitalism understood as a virtual anonymous system that reproduces itself through human carriers, analogous to a biological virus.
Žižek's update of Hegel's speculative judgment ('Der Geist ist ein Knochen'): the mind/spirit is a virus, culture and capitalism are anonymous viral systems that reproduce themselves through us.
Following Lacan, the death not of the biological body but of what we have understood as the human being, threatened today by brain-computer interface technology erasing the inside/outside divide.
as “List der Vernunft (cunning of reason)”
Hegel's concept that rational plans always go 'somehow wrong'; cited to support Žižek's pessimistic reading of Hegel against liberal-progressive Hegelians.
Hegelian reconciliation, here glossed as reconciliation with the necessarily tragic outcome of every rational plan.
as “good alienation (gute Entfremdung)”
Žižek's positive utopian term: accepting that subjectivity is always mediated by an anonymous symbolic order and that this mediation is the very condition of freedom, rather than an obstacle to overcome.
as “the Big Other (le grand Autre)”
The anonymous virtual system of norms, language, and unwritten rules that regulates social being without any individual owning it.
The implicit background norms that tell us how seriously to take explicit rules; constitutive of social reality and threatened by both right-wing populism and political correctness.
as “the Real (das Reale)”
For Žižek here, the Real is not a positive substance behind appearances but a purely virtual excess, an antagonism or inconsistency that is produced through our repeated failure to symbolize it.
as “Realität vs. Reale”
Žižek distinguishes empirical reality (transcendentally constituted, symbolic) from the Real, which is the virtual excess that every reality must exclude to constitute itself.
as “rational bureaucratic capitalism is socialism”
Žižek's provocative formula: socialism today means not abolishing markets but establishing strong international cooperation to steer and minimally control them.
as “war communism (Kriegskommunismus)”
Invoked as the model for emergency international coordination, not abolishing markets but imposing strong global cooperation during crises.
Žižek's self-description (new since about 2020): radical in demanding systemic global change, conservative in insisting on realistic assessment of risks and prices to be paid.
Stories he reaches for 5
Niels Bohr has a horseshoe above his door to ward off evil spirits. A friend asks how a scientist can be superstitious. Bohr replies: 'I don't believe in it, but I was told it works even if you don't believe in it.' Žižek uses this to define ideology today.
“Of course I'm a scientist, I don't believe in it. But I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it. That's ideology heute.”
When a richer person invites you to dinner, there is a ritual where you both insist on splitting the bill, knowing the other will pay, an unwritten rule neither party expects to be taken literally.
“when the bill arrives, you have to insist a little bit rhetorically, no, no, let's share? We both know you will at the end accept.”
Žižek claims there exists a whole subspecies of humor produced inside Auschwitz and later Srebrenica, tasteless but real, as evidence that extreme suffering cannot be processed as tragedy but only through humor.
“do you know there was a whole subspecies of Auschwitz humor? In Bosnia, of Srebrenica humor. So I accept this.”
Adorno (in an early essay on 'Gesellschaft') shows that the individualist and Durkheimian organicist notions of society are irresolvable, but that precisely this antagonism characterizes our society. Žižek uses this as a parallel to Lacan's Real.
“it's precisely this antagonism between individuality and anonymous system which characterizes our society. That's the basic Hegelian trick.”
French tautological jokes about Monsieur de La Palice: 'half a minute before he was dead, he was still alive.' Žižek uses this to articulate his attitude to death, not domesticating it but accepting it as a stupid contingent detail.
“half a minute before he was dead, Monsieur de La Palice was still alive. That's my attitude.”
Works invoked 7
Casablanca film
'Beginning of a beautiful friendship' quoted to describe Žižek's alliance with Die Welt as 'moderately communist-conservatives'.
Žižek's own book on brain-computer interfaces and the threat to human interiority; referred to for the 'second death' argument.
Cited as an example of the best Holocaust films being comedies, used to argue that extreme terror cannot be processed as tragedy.
Schelling's fragments on a virtual potential reality beneath fixed ordinary reality, linked to quantum indeterminacy.
Pensées book
Pascal's text read in detail to recover the paradoxical Kierkegaardian position: knowing God exists but acting as if he doesn't.
Marx's famous thesis ('philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it') is inverted: today we may need to return to deeper interpretation rather than hasty change.
Hegel's Preface to Philosophy of Right, cited for the owl of Minerva passage: philosophy always comes too late, grasping a form of life only when it is already decaying.
People invoked 22
Named as one pole in Adorno's antinomy of society (organicist view: society is primary, individuals secondary).
Nicholas Fearn positive
'Aggressively analytic' philosopher who probably hates Žižek's theory but whose 'God's laziness' analogy (video game programmer) Žižek finds a wonderful parallel to quantum incompleteness.
Blaise Pascal positive
Pascal's wager (Pensées) is reread: the interesting position is not atheism or naive faith but knowing God exists while acting as if he doesn't.
Jacques Derrida positive
Žižek notes he 'didn't have the best relations' with Derrida personally but approvingly cites his idea that writing is testamentary, every text already written from the perspective of one's death.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Appreciated for his observation that good conservatives 'mean it seriously' and think about the costs of proposals, cited in support of Žižek's 'moderately conservative communist' position. Also part of the Dada/Lenin myth.
Mentioned as a case of a young Hegelian who believed Marxism (proletarian revolution) would realize Hegel's vision of full freedom.
Theodor W. Adorno positive
An early text on the concept of 'Gesellschaft' is cited as making the same Lacanian/Hegelian point: the irresolvable antinomy between individualism and social organism IS society's character.
Jacques Lacan positive
Deep intellectual influence; Žižek notes rhetorical distance (hates Lacan's theatrical pauses) but endorses his Hegelian reading of the Real as constitutive antagonism rather than hidden substance.
Francis Fukuyama negative
The 'end of history' thesis exemplifies the liberal Hegelian mistake of projecting a final reconciliation onto existing liberal democracy.
Sabine Hossenfelder negative
Popular German physics commentator who revives Einstein's determinism (indeterminacy = incomplete knowledge); Žižek rejects this as a regression from Bohr.
Daniel Dennett positive
Described as 'not an idiot', appreciated as a cognitive scientist who developed the idea that the brain functions like something occupied by viruses.
Richard Dawkins positive
Cited for the meme concept as 'viruses of the mind'; Žižek does not fully agree with the formulation but uses it as a step toward his own 'Der Geist ist ein Virus'.
Jacques-Alain Miller positive
Lacan's son-in-law and heir; Žižek studied under him in Paris in the 1980s, mentioned by interviewer as biographical context.
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling positive
Cited (via interviewer overlap) as perhaps equaling Hegel; Weltalter fragments linked to quantum indeterminacy, a virtual potential reality beneath ordinary fixed-object reality.
Søren Kierkegaard positive
Invoked for the paradoxical position: knowing God exists but acting as if he doesn't, transposed as the authentic stance toward scientific determinism.
Niels Bohr positive
One of the 'authentic geniuses of the 20th century, scientific and in general'; Žižek is 'absolutely for' Bohr's ontological reading of quantum indeterminacy against Einstein's epistemological interpretation.
Leo Tolstoy positive
Usually dismissed as conservative and boring, but Žižek appreciates him more than Dostoevsky; credited with the first theory that mind is controlled by 'bacilli' that reproduce themselves.
Hans-Georg Gadamer positive
'Not my type of philosopher,' but his observation that death and horror cannot be integrated into everyday reality is cited approvingly as corroborating Lacan's point about the Real.
Karl Marx positive
Žižek identifies as a Marxist but criticizes Marx's teleology, his notion of transparent proletarian self-consciousness, and his conception of communism as capitalism without capitalism.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Central philosophical reference: Žižek reads Hegel as a pessimist and philosopher of historical openness, not teleological progress; source of the speculative judgment form, List der Vernunft, and the Versöhnung concept.
Albert Einstein negative
Einstein's position (indeterminacy = incomplete knowledge) is rejected in favor of Bohr's ontological reading.
Implicitly downgraded: Žižek says he appreciates Tolstoy 'much more than Dostoevsky'.
What it argues
humor as survival strategy under extreme conditionsthe four riders of the apocalypse as contemporary crisesHegel as philosopher of historical openness vs. cheap teleologythe Real as constitutive antagonism rather than hidden substancequantum physics and the incompleteness of realitygood alienation as political utopialimits of wisdom — proverbs vs. radical madness
Dialectical moves 11
“The best movies about the Holocaust are comedies — when terror reaches a certain level, tragedy becomes impossible and humor is the only form of survival.”
Humor and tragedy swap roles under extreme conditions: the expected tragic form fails precisely where pathos is greatest.
“Far from being a sign of depth and complexity, the phrase 'it's not so simple' can make us forget the obvious fact.”
Complexity-talk can function as ideological denial of the plainly visible rather than genuine intellectual depth.
“Der Geist ist ein Virus — not Der Geist ist ein Knochen.”
Updating Hegel's speculative identity: spirit/culture is itself a viral mechanism that reproduces through its human hosts.
“What you think is an obstacle is its own solution — the antagonism between individuality and anonymous system IS the character of our society, not a problem to be resolved.”
The Hegelian move: the apparent impediment (insoluble antinomy) is revealed as the truth of the thing itself.
“We always fail, but not in the sense that we miss something — that something emerges only through our failure to reach it.”
The Real is not a positive entity we fall short of grasping; it is produced as an effect of our repeated failure.
“The limitation is not in our knowledge of the thing — the thing itself is indeterminate (Bohr against Einstein).”
What appears as an epistemic limitation (we cannot know the quantum state) is relocated into ontology: reality itself is incomplete.
“Hegel is not the philosopher of the end of history but the philosopher of the opening of history toward the future — he comes too late, with the owl of Minerva.”
Against Fukuyama and liberal Hegelians, Žižek reads Hegel's 'tardiness' as irreducible openness rather than completed synthesis.
“My Freudian mistake: I said capitalism when I meant communism. Marx's communism was capitalism without capitalism.”
Marx's communism preserves capitalist productivism while fantasizing away the market, it is capitalism's own fantasy of itself minus its costs.
“Wisdom is by definition stupidity — proverbs can retroactively justify anything and therefore justify nothing.”
Conventional wisdom functions as ideology precisely because its retroactive applicability makes it conformist rather than critical.
“I am an atheist Christian.”
Žižek identifies with Christianity's radical dimension (Jesus's madness) while rejecting theistic belief, faith without the object of faith.
“The true Kierkegaard position: I know that God exists, but I will act as if he doesn't exist — transposed today as: I know science says we are not free, but I will act as if I am free.”
The paradoxical double of knowing one thing and acting on its opposite is the authentic existential stance, against both naive faith and naive secularism.
Claims 19
asserts
Humor and tragedy are not alternatives: when terror reaches extreme levels (Auschwitz, Srebrenica), only humor allows survival, not tragic dignity.the function of humor under extreme conditions
rejects
The rhetorical move of 'things are more complex' can serve to deny obvious facts (e.g. Russia attacked Ukraine) rather than deepen analysis.the ideological use of complexity
asserts
We are in a 'perfect storm' of four simultaneous crises — pandemic, war, hunger/climate, and the threat to human interiority from brain-computer interfaces — that together constitute the gravest historical emergency.contemporary civilizational crisis
asserts
The true danger of brain-computer interfaces is the erasure of the inside/outside distinction that grounds our sense of freedom — this is a 'second death' of the human.technology and subjectivity
reframes
Hegel is not a cheap optimist or teleologist; his philosophy is precisely about the irreducible opacity of the future and reconciliation with tragic outcomes.the meaning of Hegel's philosophy
rejects
Liberal Hegelians who project a future of full mutual recognition fundamentally misread Hegel by turning him into a progressivist.liberal Hegelianism
rejects
Marx's vision of communism is capitalism without capitalism — keeping capitalist productivism while eliminating the market — and this is its fundamental limitation.Marx's concept of communism
reframes
The lesson of Freud and Lacan is that we will never achieve full transparency of social life; our goal should be 'good alienation', not self-transparency.the political goal of emancipation
asserts
Unwritten rules are the foundation of social life and freedom; political correctness and right-wing populism both destroy them by demanding full explicitness.unwritten rules and political correctness
asserts
Quantum indeterminacy (Bohr) should be read not as an epistemic limitation but as a property of reality itself — the thing itself is indeterminate.interpretation of quantum mechanics
rejects
Sabine Hossenfelder's return to Einstein's determinism is wrong: quantum mechanics shows that indeterminacy is ontological, not merely a gap in our knowledge.Hossenfelder's determinist reading of quantum mechanics
reframes
Lacan's point is not that truth is out there but incomplete — rather, antagonism and inconsistency are the Real itself.Lacan's concept of the Real and truth
asserts
China represents the most dangerous contemporary paradox: it unites the two features the left criticized in capitalism — brutal market competition and strong state control — in the most efficient possible way.China and state capitalism
rejects
Romantic appeals to local non-capitalist traditions as resistance to globalization are wrong; capitalism is the only space of freedom that enables going beyond traditional hierarchies.anti-globalization romanticism
rejects
The left's focus on open-borders immigration policy is a mistake; the real task is addressing the structural conditions that produce migration.immigration and left politics
rejects
Wisdom, as embodied in proverbs, is the most conformist of intellectual postures — what we need is not wisdom but radical madness, well-thought but crazy decisions.wisdom and proverbs as conformist ideology
reframes
Marx's Thesis 11 should be reversed for today: after the 20th century's catastrophic rush to change the world, we need to return to deeper interpretation.the relationship between theory and practice
asserts
Rational bureaucratic market regulation with strong international cooperation is what socialism means today, not the abolition of markets.what socialism means today
asserts
Every reality must exclude something it cannot integrate — death, horror — and this exclusion is not a deficiency but constitutive of reality's structure.the structure of reality and the Real
Quotes 14
“life is a disease which is transmitted by sex and always ends with death.”Slavoj Žižek · Solidarność graffiti — materialist definition of life
“Der Geist ist ein Virus.”Slavoj Žižek · speculative identity: spirit/culture as viral self-reproducing system
“I don't believe in it. But I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it.”Slavoj Žižek · Bohr's horseshoe — cynical ideology: belief without subjective belief
“What you think is an obstacle is its own solution.”Slavoj Žižek · the basic Hegelian trick — constitutive antagonism
“We will never get there — what our highest desire should be is not self-transparency of social life, but eine gute Entfremdung, a good alienation.”Slavoj Žižek · good alienation as political utopia
“I am ein moderat konservativer Kommunist.”Slavoj Žižek · Žižek's self-definition: moderately conservative communist
“Philosophers can have only interpreted the world — what if today we should rather say, in the 20th century we wanted to change the world too radically and now we need to return to, in a deeper way, to interpret it.”Slavoj Žižek · reversal of Marx's Thesis 11 for our moment
“Wisdom is by definition stupidity.”Slavoj Žižek · proverbs as conformist ideology
“I know that God exists, but I will act as if he doesn't exist — transposed today: I know science is telling us we are not free, but I will act as if I am free.”Slavoj Žižek · the true Kierkegaard position: knowing one thing and acting on its opposite
“If I don't do at least some reading and writing every day, I feel guilty. Did I deserve to exist?”Slavoj Žižek · boy scout work ethic as existential self-justification
“writing is already accepting that you are dead.”Slavoj Žižek · writing as testamentary — living dead
“Marx's communism was capitalism without capitalism.”Slavoj Žižek · critique of Marx's vision of communism
“that something emerges only through our failure to reach it.”Slavoj Žižek · the Real as produced by failure, not missed positive substance
“I cannot imagine a more horrible world [than participatory local democracy]. Every afternoon I will have to talk about where do we get water, electricity?”Slavoj Žižek · defense of anonymous bureaucratic mechanisms over localist utopias
Transcript 91 turns
Slavoj Žižek
I'm not ashamed of it. Because I know what this is. It will maybe sound a little bit arrogant, but also bitter. That’s the way how my opponents try to disqualify me. They say, yeah, go and listen to him, it’s amusing, but don’t take it too seriously. Well, I still think that you can do both things. That you can be amusing and at the same time very serious. And very briefly, so that I don't get lost, I will tell you why. I have here a theory which is very tragic. Did you notice how all the best movies about Holocaust are comedies? La vita bella and others. Because when terror reaches a certain level, you cannot do it as a tragedy. A tragedy means that if I'm, sorry for the bad taste example, if I'm torturing you, you still act as a hero. You say, no, you open your breast, do whatever you want, I will not. But sorry, when you are really in a place like Auschwitz or Gulag, you lose this dignity. And the only way to survive it is through stupid humor. And I can confirm it. Jokes are too tasteless, I will not give, but do you know there was a whole subspecies of Auschwitz humor? In Bosnia, of Srebrenica humor. So I accept this. Also das
I'm not ashamed of it. Because I know what this is. It will maybe sound a little bit arrogant, but also bitter. That’s the way how my opponents try to disqualify me. They say, yeah, go and listen to him, it’s amusing, but don’t take it too seriously. Well, I still think that you can do both things. That you can be amusing and at the same time very serious. And very briefly, so that I don't get lost, I will tell you why. I have here a theory which is very tragic. Did you notice how all the best movies about Holocaust are comedies? La vita bella and others. Because when terror reaches a certain level, you cannot do it as a tragedy. A tragedy means that if I'm, sorry for the bad taste example, if I'm torturing you, you still act as a hero. You say, no, you open your breast, do whatever you want, I will not. But sorry, when you are really in a place like Auschwitz or Gulag, you lose this dignity. And the only way to survive it is through stupid humor. And I can confirm it. Jokes are too tasteless, I will not give, but do you know there was a whole subspecies of Auschwitz humor? In Bosnia, of Srebrenica humor. So I accept this. Also das
unknown
heißt, der Humor, der da drinsteckt, ist eigentlich die einzige Waffe, um mit Ihrer Theorie, mit der Tiefe auch umzugehen, mit dem, was Sie uns sagen
heißt, der Humor, der da drinsteckt, ist eigentlich die einzige Waffe, um mit Ihrer Theorie, mit der Tiefe auch umzugehen, mit dem, was Sie uns sagen
Slavoj Žižek
wollen. Yeah, but not because I'm not really deep, I hope I am in some sense, but because, you know, I'm not the usual Marxist. My message is a very pessimistic one.
wollen. Yeah, but not because I'm not really deep, I hope I am in some sense, but because, you know, I'm not the usual Marxist. My message is a very pessimistic one.
unknown
Genau, und die werden wir heute ein bisschen anschauen. Sie sind einer der bekanntesten, aber auch umstrittensten Intellektuellen unserer Zeit. Sie wurden auch als gefährlichster Philosoph des Westens bezeichnet, manchmal auch als Elvis der Kulturtheorie und so weiter. Sie schreiben— I hate that. Ich weiß, dass Sie das hassen, ich hab's trotzdem gesagt. Sie schreiben über Popkultur, über Politik, über Toiletten und Sex, genauso wie über Marx und Hegel, und das, wie ich finde, immer auf eine überraschende Art. Sie sagen immer, die Dinge sind genau andersrum, als wir meinen. Und das ist das Interessante. Und heute wollen wir in dieser Stunde mal so ein bisschen die Theorie von Slavoj Žižek und die Denker, die dahinterstehen,
Genau, und die werden wir heute ein bisschen anschauen. Sie sind einer der bekanntesten, aber auch umstrittensten Intellektuellen unserer Zeit. Sie wurden auch als gefährlichster Philosoph des Westens bezeichnet, manchmal auch als Elvis der Kulturtheorie und so weiter. Sie schreiben— I hate that. Ich weiß, dass Sie das hassen, ich hab's trotzdem gesagt. Sie schreiben über Popkultur, über Politik, über Toiletten und Sex, genauso wie über Marx und Hegel, und das, wie ich finde, immer auf eine überraschende Art. Sie sagen immer, die Dinge sind genau andersrum, als wir meinen. Und das ist das Interessante. Und heute wollen wir in dieser Stunde mal so ein bisschen die Theorie von Slavoj Žižek und die Denker, die dahinterstehen,
Slavoj Žižek
besser verstehen. Let me just add something. It's along your lines. I am getting tired of this rhetorische Figur of mine, the things are aber anders, the other way around. Isn't it that quite often today, we find a kind of a double trick? Like in Ukraine. Those who should have been against Russian aggression, in a way admit but deny the obvious fact: Russia attacked a smaller country. And you know what's the usual phrase? No, no, it's not so simple, things are more complex. So sometimes the very reference to depth and complexity can make us forget the obvious fact.
besser verstehen. Let me just add something. It's along your lines. I am getting tired of this rhetorische Figur of mine, the things are aber anders, the other way around. Isn't it that quite often today, we find a kind of a double trick? Like in Ukraine. Those who should have been against Russian aggression, in a way admit but deny the obvious fact: Russia attacked a smaller country. And you know what's the usual phrase? No, no, it's not so simple, things are more complex. So sometimes the very reference to depth and complexity can make us forget the obvious fact.
unknown
Ja, das stimmt. Das stimmt. Über die Ukraine müssen wir auch noch reden. Bevor wir aber über die Theorie dahinter reden, hinter Ihrer Kulturanalyse und Zeitanalyse, die viele kennen, müssen wir glaube ich persönlich anfangen. Sie sind geworden. Leider, ja. Wie geht es Ihnen? Gesundheitlich? Persönlich? Ich habe
Ja, das stimmt. Das stimmt. Über die Ukraine müssen wir auch noch reden. Bevor wir aber über die Theorie dahinter reden, hinter Ihrer Kulturanalyse und Zeitanalyse, die viele kennen, müssen wir glaube ich persönlich anfangen. Sie sind geworden. Leider, ja. Wie geht es Ihnen? Gesundheitlich? Persönlich? Ich habe
Slavoj Žižek
ein schweres Diabetes und so weiter, einige Herzprobleme. Sorry, but to make a philosophic joke, sometimes I forget that I don't speak German, you know. Then I simply do it. No, but quite seriously, now I will say something again to shock people, but I mean it so seriously. My solution is, I apologized, and I mean it very seriously. My solution to survive all these troubles and slowly getting senile is Arbeit macht frei. I think that the Nazis just brutally misused this idea. It's not that the idea is Nazi. No, this was a bad joke. Of course, in Auschwitz, Arbeit doesn't work, doesn't make you free. But I think what allows you to survive in these crazy times, I have problems with my illness, I worry about the situation in the world, is to have as a kind of a Grund-Ritual, a field of work and you stick to it at any cost. When I had COVID recently, and it wasn't a serious one, but I was very tired, the work went on. Und das ist wichtig, das gibt Ihnen Halt, die Arbeit. But it must be—I wouldn't call myself creative, it's too arrogant—but work which means something to you, which is deeply satisfaction. I cannot survive without
ein schweres Diabetes und so weiter, einige Herzprobleme. Sorry, but to make a philosophic joke, sometimes I forget that I don't speak German, you know. Then I simply do it. No, but quite seriously, now I will say something again to shock people, but I mean it so seriously. My solution is, I apologized, and I mean it very seriously. My solution to survive all these troubles and slowly getting senile is Arbeit macht frei. I think that the Nazis just brutally misused this idea. It's not that the idea is Nazi. No, this was a bad joke. Of course, in Auschwitz, Arbeit doesn't work, doesn't make you free. But I think what allows you to survive in these crazy times, I have problems with my illness, I worry about the situation in the world, is to have as a kind of a Grund-Ritual, a field of work and you stick to it at any cost. When I had COVID recently, and it wasn't a serious one, but I was very tired, the work went on. Und das ist wichtig, das gibt Ihnen Halt, die Arbeit. But it must be—I wouldn't call myself creative, it's too arrogant—but work which means something to you, which is deeply satisfaction. I cannot survive without
unknown
that. Das heißt, Sie sind nicht ruhiger geworden. Sie machen immer noch viele, also Sie haben fast Bücher geschrieben, muss man sagen. Sie schreiben weiter, machen Vorträge,
that. Das heißt, Sie sind nicht ruhiger geworden. Sie machen immer noch viele, also Sie haben fast Bücher geschrieben, muss man sagen. Sie schreiben weiter, machen Vorträge,
Slavoj Žižek
Interviews. It's different versions of the same material. I call this ironically ecological writing, you know, I recycle. Okay, gut. But no, what I seriously want to say is that I have this boy scout mentality. If I don't do at least some reading and writing every day, I feel guilty. Did I deserve to exist? No, and so on. But there is nothing that makes me happier as to invent the right word. You, as a philosopher, must also know that often you have the right idea, but it's floating in the air, you miss the right word. And then all of a sudden, when this word comes, that's as close as I come to, let's call it slightly obscenely, mental orgasm.
Interviews. It's different versions of the same material. I call this ironically ecological writing, you know, I recycle. Okay, gut. But no, what I seriously want to say is that I have this boy scout mentality. If I don't do at least some reading and writing every day, I feel guilty. Did I deserve to exist? No, and so on. But there is nothing that makes me happier as to invent the right word. You, as a philosopher, must also know that often you have the right idea, but it's floating in the air, you miss the right word. And then all of a sudden, when this word comes, that's as close as I come to, let's call it slightly obscenely, mental orgasm.
unknown
So, das ist eigentlich das Ziel. Aber trotzdem nochmal auf das Alter zurückzukommen. Sie haben gesagt, die Arbeit ist zentral für Sie, gibt Ihnen Halt, Struktur, Sinn. Was ist mit dem Tod? Denken Sie häufiger an den Tod, wenn Sie jetzt älter werden? Ist es eine—
So, das ist eigentlich das Ziel. Aber trotzdem nochmal auf das Alter zurückzukommen. Sie haben gesagt, die Arbeit ist zentral für Sie, gibt Ihnen Halt, Struktur, Sinn. Was ist mit dem Tod? Denken Sie häufiger an den Tod, wenn Sie jetzt älter werden? Ist es eine—
Slavoj Žižek
I think not in any mystic or Orientalischer way, but I don't think about death. My solution here is, you know, in France, they have jokes about Monsieur de La Palice, who is telling tautology stupidities, but with a certain wisdom. And in the jokes, when this Monsieur de La Palice was dying, one sentence is, half a minute before he was dead, Monsieur de La Palice was still alive, you know. That's my attitude. I don't think death can be domesticated, but I believe deeply, this for me is not a metaphor, in living in your life as a living dead. Living dead in the sense for me writing is already accepting that you are dead. The one philosopher with whom otherwise I didn't have the best relations, Jacques Derrida, said very nicely that there is something testamentarisch as if you are already dead in every writing. Also das Schreiben selbst ist eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem eigenen Tod und ist eigentlich ein Loslassen von sich selbst. Yeah, but the point is not to be obsessed with death. The point is to simply accept it as a stupid contingent detail, not think about it, but accept it and then go on working till you collapse. Wir reden auch darum über den Tod jetzt am Anfang, weil in den letzten zwei Jahren sind zwei Sachen passiert, nämlich die Pandemie und jetzt der Krieg in der Ukraine, und beide haben uns auch mit dem Tod und mit Elend
I think not in any mystic or Orientalischer way, but I don't think about death. My solution here is, you know, in France, they have jokes about Monsieur de La Palice, who is telling tautology stupidities, but with a certain wisdom. And in the jokes, when this Monsieur de La Palice was dying, one sentence is, half a minute before he was dead, Monsieur de La Palice was still alive, you know. That's my attitude. I don't think death can be domesticated, but I believe deeply, this for me is not a metaphor, in living in your life as a living dead. Living dead in the sense for me writing is already accepting that you are dead. The one philosopher with whom otherwise I didn't have the best relations, Jacques Derrida, said very nicely that there is something testamentarisch as if you are already dead in every writing. Also das Schreiben selbst ist eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem eigenen Tod und ist eigentlich ein Loslassen von sich selbst. Yeah, but the point is not to be obsessed with death. The point is to simply accept it as a stupid contingent detail, not think about it, but accept it and then go on working till you collapse. Wir reden auch darum über den Tod jetzt am Anfang, weil in den letzten zwei Jahren sind zwei Sachen passiert, nämlich die Pandemie und jetzt der Krieg in der Ukraine, und beide haben uns auch mit dem Tod und mit Elend
unknown
konfrontiert. Und Sie haben über beides natürlich nachgedacht, haben über die Pandemie auch zwei Bücher geschrieben, das ist das zweite davon. Vielleicht am Anfang zur Pandemie. Was hat dieses kleine, unsichtbare Virus für philosophische Einsichten angestoßen bei Ihnen?
konfrontiert. Und Sie haben über beides natürlich nachgedacht, haben über die Pandemie auch zwei Bücher geschrieben, das ist das zweite davon. Vielleicht am Anfang zur Pandemie. Was hat dieses kleine, unsichtbare Virus für philosophische Einsichten angestoßen bei Ihnen?
Slavoj Žižek
As a philosopher, I immediately made this parallel between Hegel and virus. Not only Hegel, but even, you know, with Hegel you have what he calls this infinite speculative judgment, Der Geist ist ein Knochen, where you oppose or identify the opposites. Also Georg Wilhelm
As a philosopher, I immediately made this parallel between Hegel and virus. Not only Hegel, but even, you know, with Hegel you have what he calls this infinite speculative judgment, Der Geist ist ein Knochen, where you oppose or identify the opposites. Also Georg Wilhelm
unknown
Friedrich Hegel, der große deutsche Philosoph,
Friedrich Hegel, der große deutsche Philosoph,
Slavoj Žižek
der für Sie sehr wichtig ist, werden wir noch— Der größte, vielleicht Schelling kommt in den—And my idea was this one. Then I noticed that many of today's philosophers, not just philosopher and not just today's, like you know in cognitive sciences, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and so on, I don't always— Der war
der für Sie sehr wichtig ist, werden wir noch— Der größte, vielleicht Schelling kommt in den—And my idea was this one. Then I noticed that many of today's philosophers, not just philosopher and not just today's, like you know in cognitive sciences, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and so on, I don't always— Der war
unknown
auch schon hier, Daniel Dennett, als Gast.
auch schon hier, Daniel Dennett, als Gast.
Slavoj Žižek
Wirklich? Er ist kein Idiot, er ist kein Idiot. He is one of these cognitive scientists whom I appreciate very much, and he also developed this idea that our brain functions like occupied by viruses. That thoughts are viruses which basically control us. And the big shock, I like this unexpected connections, you know who was the first one to develop this idea? He is usually dismissed as a conservative, boring, I appreciate him much more than Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy. He had a whole theory that our mind is controlled by, he doesn't call them viruses, but bacilli, bacilli which reproduce themselves. Okay. And so my idea is that now already our mind is in some sense occupied by viruses, our thoughts, the alienated symbolic system which reproduces itself through us.
Wirklich? Er ist kein Idiot, er ist kein Idiot. He is one of these cognitive scientists whom I appreciate very much, and he also developed this idea that our brain functions like occupied by viruses. That thoughts are viruses which basically control us. And the big shock, I like this unexpected connections, you know who was the first one to develop this idea? He is usually dismissed as a conservative, boring, I appreciate him much more than Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy. He had a whole theory that our mind is controlled by, he doesn't call them viruses, but bacilli, bacilli which reproduce themselves. Okay. And so my idea is that now already our mind is in some sense occupied by viruses, our thoughts, the alienated symbolic system which reproduces itself through us.
unknown
Aber was heißt das? Was heißt das, das entfremdete
Aber was heißt das? Was heißt das, das entfremdete
Slavoj Žižek
Symbolsystem? Das heißt—you find even this with—I don't agree with his formulation, you remember the other one, Richard Dawkins, I think. He developed this idea of memes. Ja. Memes are viruses of the mind. He uses this parallel. Das sind die
Symbolsystem? Das heißt—you find even this with—I don't agree with his formulation, you remember the other one, Richard Dawkins, I think. He developed this idea of memes. Ja. Memes are viruses of the mind. He uses this parallel. Das sind die
unknown
Ideen, die wie Gene weitergehen und so und sich verbreiten. Yeah, but the idea is that the
Ideen, die wie Gene weitergehen und so und sich verbreiten. Yeah, but the idea is that the
Slavoj Žižek
really active, active part are memes, are ideas, and we are just a medium for the memes to reproduce themselves. Then at the higher level of speculation, we can even say that, my God, capitalism itself is a virus. Und wir sind die Träger, nur die Träger dieses Virus. Yeah, who are the Träger, yeah, it's a virtual anonymous system which nonetheless regulates our being. And so my Hegelian formula would be not Der Geist ist ein Knochen, but Der Geist ist ein Virus. And so this pandemic virus confronted us with the fact that it's not an exception. We live in a universe of viruses. But let's go on if I may just— Wir haben nur eine Stunde, das wissen Sie. Ja, ja, ja, ja, aber die Freunde nennen mir Fidel. Fünf Minuten genossen und dann fünf Stunden. Okay, ich weiß. No, something serious I want to say. As you began very well, it's not just the pandemic or now the war. We are really in a time of four riders of the apocalypse today. It began, the first rider is plague, plague, viruses and so on. Then the second rider is war. We are now in a war, potentially it is maybe a new world war. Then it's hunger. Everybody knows now because of the role of Ukraine and Russia in the supply of wheat to the world, there is serious possibility of hunger, also global warming and so on. And then what would be the fourth rider? Death. I would here made a more contemporary twist. Not so much the usual death. Death is part of life. When people ask me about death, that's what I forgot, I quote my most beloved graffiti that was popular in the time of maybe you know it, of Solidarność in Poland. It's the best definition of life you can imagine. It's, life is a disease which is transmitted by sex and always ends with death. Ist eigentlich auch richtig, ja. Okay, but what I want to say is that and I've written a book about it, Hegel in a Wired Brain, that much more important than physical biological life survival is the consequences of, I don't know what's the German word, totale Vernetzung, of our brain. I'm not talking just about this capitalist digital control, all our moves are registered. We are now approaching something, and we don't know what will it mean. At a very primitive level, it already can be done. That your brain is directly connected with a computer, so computer can, it's still very primitive, but nonetheless, directly registers your thoughts. Now, of course, media present this to us as good news. Oh, you are totally crippled, but you just think about something and then that things move, yeah, but it goes also the other way around. If your thoughts can directly make things move, then digital universe can directly intervene into your—In other words, is there by not put under threat what we spontaneously perceive as our innermost freedom? I can be enslaved, in chains, but what is in my head, let's say you are the bad folterer, torturer, you cannot control that. No longer. It can be—the perspective is that it will be done. And since this distance between inside and outside is the basis of our feeling of freedom, I can at least think what I want— Und diese Freiheit steht jetzt auf dem Spiel mit dieser Innovation, dass es sozusagen die Gedanken direkt, dass es diese Schnittstelle gibt zwischen Gedanken und Körper. And is this not in some sense the death of what we, at least till now, understand or understood as a human being? This, following Lacan, I would have called it second death. Not physical death, but even when we are alive, the death of what we understood till now as being human. So it is important that we take into account that we are in this difficult situation of a perfect storm, where three, four crises are threatening us at the same time. I'm not necessarily a pessimist, but I think, I hope as a philosophers we will agree with it, we need to think more than ever. Here as a leftist, I always like to turn around Marx's thesis eleven. Philosophers can have only interpreted the world, it's time also to change it. What if today we should rather say, in 20th century maybe we wanted to change the world too radically, too fast, and now we need to return to, in a deeper way, to interpret it. Eine sehr philosophische Geste, sozusagen innezuhalten, Stopp zu machen und einfach mal nachzudenken, richtig, und diesen Satz umzukehren. Das sagen Sie auch, wenn wir den Kapitalismus überwinden wollen, Sie sind ja einer der führenden Kapitalismuskritiker, dann müssten wir ganz anders anfangen nachzudenken über uns selbst, über die Gesellschaft, über die Welt, und das wollen wir jetzt heute mal ein bisschen anschauen, wie Ihr Nachdenken aussieht. Und es sind drei Figuren, sozusagen die heilige Trinität Ihres Denkens, das ist Hegel, Marx und Lacan. Vielleicht würden Sie sagen, es gibt nur zwei. Marx we see today clearly the—I will be very brief, interrupt me—the limitations of Marx. First, his notion of proletarian identity. He has a certain teleology, orientation towards a final goal, which is I think inscribed into his thought. It is that with working-class revolution, proletarian self-consciousness, we are in a unique position, we step out of ideology, we have an agent who knows what he is doing, history becomes transparent. I think we should return from Marx to Hegel here. Hegel is for me, it may sound crazy, the philosopher of the opening of history towards the future. Because you know what Hegel says, and I deeply agree with him, that's the lesson of 20th century. In his Vorrede zu Rechtsphilosophie, Hegel says that philosophy cannot say anything about the future, it can only grasp a figure of life in its conceptual structure when this figure of life is already decaying. Es kommt wie die Eule der Minerva immer zu spät, in der Dämmerung, sagt er. And isn't this the—and so Hegel would feel, I think, like fish in a water in 20th century. We have first the outbreak of World War I. Everybody was at least in Europe optimistic, constant progress, second half of 19th century. Then a mega-catastrophe. Then we have Stalinismus. It began like some kind of, at least promise of liberation, we know where we are. Then we have the Fukuyama moment. We thought we are at
really active, active part are memes, are ideas, and we are just a medium for the memes to reproduce themselves. Then at the higher level of speculation, we can even say that, my God, capitalism itself is a virus. Und wir sind die Träger, nur die Träger dieses Virus. Yeah, who are the Träger, yeah, it's a virtual anonymous system which nonetheless regulates our being. And so my Hegelian formula would be not Der Geist ist ein Knochen, but Der Geist ist ein Virus. And so this pandemic virus confronted us with the fact that it's not an exception. We live in a universe of viruses. But let's go on if I may just— Wir haben nur eine Stunde, das wissen Sie. Ja, ja, ja, ja, aber die Freunde nennen mir Fidel. Fünf Minuten genossen und dann fünf Stunden. Okay, ich weiß. No, something serious I want to say. As you began very well, it's not just the pandemic or now the war. We are really in a time of four riders of the apocalypse today. It began, the first rider is plague, plague, viruses and so on. Then the second rider is war. We are now in a war, potentially it is maybe a new world war. Then it's hunger. Everybody knows now because of the role of Ukraine and Russia in the supply of wheat to the world, there is serious possibility of hunger, also global warming and so on. And then what would be the fourth rider? Death. I would here made a more contemporary twist. Not so much the usual death. Death is part of life. When people ask me about death, that's what I forgot, I quote my most beloved graffiti that was popular in the time of maybe you know it, of Solidarność in Poland. It's the best definition of life you can imagine. It's, life is a disease which is transmitted by sex and always ends with death. Ist eigentlich auch richtig, ja. Okay, but what I want to say is that and I've written a book about it, Hegel in a Wired Brain, that much more important than physical biological life survival is the consequences of, I don't know what's the German word, totale Vernetzung, of our brain. I'm not talking just about this capitalist digital control, all our moves are registered. We are now approaching something, and we don't know what will it mean. At a very primitive level, it already can be done. That your brain is directly connected with a computer, so computer can, it's still very primitive, but nonetheless, directly registers your thoughts. Now, of course, media present this to us as good news. Oh, you are totally crippled, but you just think about something and then that things move, yeah, but it goes also the other way around. If your thoughts can directly make things move, then digital universe can directly intervene into your—In other words, is there by not put under threat what we spontaneously perceive as our innermost freedom? I can be enslaved, in chains, but what is in my head, let's say you are the bad folterer, torturer, you cannot control that. No longer. It can be—the perspective is that it will be done. And since this distance between inside and outside is the basis of our feeling of freedom, I can at least think what I want— Und diese Freiheit steht jetzt auf dem Spiel mit dieser Innovation, dass es sozusagen die Gedanken direkt, dass es diese Schnittstelle gibt zwischen Gedanken und Körper. And is this not in some sense the death of what we, at least till now, understand or understood as a human being? This, following Lacan, I would have called it second death. Not physical death, but even when we are alive, the death of what we understood till now as being human. So it is important that we take into account that we are in this difficult situation of a perfect storm, where three, four crises are threatening us at the same time. I'm not necessarily a pessimist, but I think, I hope as a philosophers we will agree with it, we need to think more than ever. Here as a leftist, I always like to turn around Marx's thesis eleven. Philosophers can have only interpreted the world, it's time also to change it. What if today we should rather say, in 20th century maybe we wanted to change the world too radically, too fast, and now we need to return to, in a deeper way, to interpret it. Eine sehr philosophische Geste, sozusagen innezuhalten, Stopp zu machen und einfach mal nachzudenken, richtig, und diesen Satz umzukehren. Das sagen Sie auch, wenn wir den Kapitalismus überwinden wollen, Sie sind ja einer der führenden Kapitalismuskritiker, dann müssten wir ganz anders anfangen nachzudenken über uns selbst, über die Gesellschaft, über die Welt, und das wollen wir jetzt heute mal ein bisschen anschauen, wie Ihr Nachdenken aussieht. Und es sind drei Figuren, sozusagen die heilige Trinität Ihres Denkens, das ist Hegel, Marx und Lacan. Vielleicht würden Sie sagen, es gibt nur zwei. Marx we see today clearly the—I will be very brief, interrupt me—the limitations of Marx. First, his notion of proletarian identity. He has a certain teleology, orientation towards a final goal, which is I think inscribed into his thought. It is that with working-class revolution, proletarian self-consciousness, we are in a unique position, we step out of ideology, we have an agent who knows what he is doing, history becomes transparent. I think we should return from Marx to Hegel here. Hegel is for me, it may sound crazy, the philosopher of the opening of history towards the future. Because you know what Hegel says, and I deeply agree with him, that's the lesson of 20th century. In his Vorrede zu Rechtsphilosophie, Hegel says that philosophy cannot say anything about the future, it can only grasp a figure of life in its conceptual structure when this figure of life is already decaying. Es kommt wie die Eule der Minerva immer zu spät, in der Dämmerung, sagt er. And isn't this the—and so Hegel would feel, I think, like fish in a water in 20th century. We have first the outbreak of World War I. Everybody was at least in Europe optimistic, constant progress, second half of 19th century. Then a mega-catastrophe. Then we have Stalinismus. It began like some kind of, at least promise of liberation, we know where we are. Then we have the Fukuyama moment. We thought we are at
unknown
the end. Das Ende der Geschichte And now Geschichte returns and so Hegel is always very attentive to this. Hegel is not a cheap optimist. When you have even the best plan, this is really List der Vernunft, the cunning of reason, be sure that things will go somehow wrong. And what Hegel calls Versöhnung, reconciliation, is precisely reconciliation with this necessarily tragic outcome. Aber das ist wieder typisch Žižek, weil
the end. Das Ende der Geschichte And now Geschichte returns and so Hegel is always very attentive to this. Hegel is not a cheap optimist. When you have even the best plan, this is really List der Vernunft, the cunning of reason, be sure that things will go somehow wrong. And what Hegel calls Versöhnung, reconciliation, is precisely reconciliation with this necessarily tragic outcome. Aber das ist wieder typisch Žižek, weil
Slavoj Žižek
ich, mit Verlaub, das
ich, mit Verlaub, das
unknown
ist doch eine kreative Fehlinterpretation oder anders interpretiert. Aber Hegel sagt das wortwörtlich. Es ist nur ignoriert.
ist doch eine kreative Fehlinterpretation oder anders interpretiert. Aber Hegel sagt das wortwörtlich. Es ist nur ignoriert.
Slavoj Žižek
You know what's the problem with today's Hegelianer? I appreciate it. I call them liberal noch-nicht-da Hegelianer. Liberal in the sense that their highest value is Anerkennung, mutual recognition. And then they project a certain future orientation in Hegel. The idea is that Hegel outlines a certain vision of future of full freedom, mutual recognition, but he came too early. And then they are looking for a true Hegelian. For some young Lukács, it's Marx. Only with proletarian revolution we will be there. Then we have Fukuyama, who thought Hegelian moment is only today's liberal democracy. We even have stupid new agers who think with so-called Singularität, when our brains will become one, that will be Hegel's absoluter Geist. No, Hegel is a much more pessimist. Hegel thinks future is undurchsichtig. And my problem with Marx is that he imagines capitalism—sorry, communism, a Freudian mistake—communism as a time of this transparency, Durchsichtigkeit, where history will no longer or the system we are in will no longer be alienated, we, our collective mind, will be able to control the situation. I think the lesson of Freud and Lacan is that no, we will never get there, that what our highest desire should be, not a self-transparency of social life, but eine—I'm ironic here but I like it—eine gute Entfremdung, a good alienation. Was könnte das heißen, gute Entfremdung? This means we have to accept our, as humans, alienation in the sense that we are not just individuals communicating with each other. In every communication, there is a presence, only virtual, of what Jacques Lacan called le grand Autre, große Andere, the Big Other, the anonymous system which regulates our being. All diese Normen und Erwartungen und Sprache und so. Yeah, and especially important, I cannot emphasize this enough because I think today this is threatened, we should not underestimate the role of unwritten rules. You know rules that regulate our communication are not just the explicit rules. Klar.
You know what's the problem with today's Hegelianer? I appreciate it. I call them liberal noch-nicht-da Hegelianer. Liberal in the sense that their highest value is Anerkennung, mutual recognition. And then they project a certain future orientation in Hegel. The idea is that Hegel outlines a certain vision of future of full freedom, mutual recognition, but he came too early. And then they are looking for a true Hegelian. For some young Lukács, it's Marx. Only with proletarian revolution we will be there. Then we have Fukuyama, who thought Hegelian moment is only today's liberal democracy. We even have stupid new agers who think with so-called Singularität, when our brains will become one, that will be Hegel's absoluter Geist. No, Hegel is a much more pessimist. Hegel thinks future is undurchsichtig. And my problem with Marx is that he imagines capitalism—sorry, communism, a Freudian mistake—communism as a time of this transparency, Durchsichtigkeit, where history will no longer or the system we are in will no longer be alienated, we, our collective mind, will be able to control the situation. I think the lesson of Freud and Lacan is that no, we will never get there, that what our highest desire should be, not a self-transparency of social life, but eine—I'm ironic here but I like it—eine gute Entfremdung, a good alienation. Was könnte das heißen, gute Entfremdung? This means we have to accept our, as humans, alienation in the sense that we are not just individuals communicating with each other. In every communication, there is a presence, only virtual, of what Jacques Lacan called le grand Autre, große Andere, the Big Other, the anonymous system which regulates our being. All diese Normen und Erwartungen und Sprache und so. Yeah, and especially important, I cannot emphasize this enough because I think today this is threatened, we should not underestimate the role of unwritten rules. You know rules that regulate our communication are not just the explicit rules. Klar.
unknown
Each system implies another domain which tells us how seriously we should take the explicit rules. For
Each system implies another domain which tells us how seriously we should take the explicit rules. For
Slavoj Žižek
example, do you have the same everyday ritual in daily life, let's say coffee? Coffee. And not even—yeah, also—but let's say I'm—I'm sure I'm not, but let's say I'm richer than you. I invite you to dinner. Do you also have this ritual that when the bill arrives, you have to insist a little bit rhetorically, no, no, let's share? We both know you will at the end accept. But we have to go through this ritual. And I think, would you agree, that with today's vulgar Populismus, Trumpismus, but also on the left with political correctness, they violate or deny these unwritten rules. Like the problem with political correctness for me is that it wants to bring out all, for example in sexuality, in sexuality... Alles explizit machen und aufschreiben, die Regeln und so. Okay. Explicitly, for example, in an American university which I visited, they showed me they have a book. When they say, you can when you are seducing a lady, you can grab her shirt, but not—but just superficially, but not open a button. You should always ask, can I now open the button? And so on and so on. It's total, totale Regulierung. And I find this very dangerous because this is not how our mind works. All our, not only sexuality, but everyday politeness implies something said, something no said, something said but not meant seriously and so on. Dieses Subtile und Halbbewusste und Unausgesprochene. Yeah, and this is I think threatened today. Jetzt haben Sie gesagt, das findet man bei Jacques Lacan. Sie haben ihn in den 80er Jahren in Paris studiert bei seinem Schüler und Schwiegersohn Jacques-Alain Miller. Und dieser Jacques Lacan ist ganz wichtig
example, do you have the same everyday ritual in daily life, let's say coffee? Coffee. And not even—yeah, also—but let's say I'm—I'm sure I'm not, but let's say I'm richer than you. I invite you to dinner. Do you also have this ritual that when the bill arrives, you have to insist a little bit rhetorically, no, no, let's share? We both know you will at the end accept. But we have to go through this ritual. And I think, would you agree, that with today's vulgar Populismus, Trumpismus, but also on the left with political correctness, they violate or deny these unwritten rules. Like the problem with political correctness for me is that it wants to bring out all, for example in sexuality, in sexuality... Alles explizit machen und aufschreiben, die Regeln und so. Okay. Explicitly, for example, in an American university which I visited, they showed me they have a book. When they say, you can when you are seducing a lady, you can grab her shirt, but not—but just superficially, but not open a button. You should always ask, can I now open the button? And so on and so on. It's total, totale Regulierung. And I find this very dangerous because this is not how our mind works. All our, not only sexuality, but everyday politeness implies something said, something no said, something said but not meant seriously and so on. Dieses Subtile und Halbbewusste und Unausgesprochene. Yeah, and this is I think threatened today. Jetzt haben Sie gesagt, das findet man bei Jacques Lacan. Sie haben ihn in den 80er Jahren in Paris studiert bei seinem Schüler und Schwiegersohn Jacques-Alain Miller. Und dieser Jacques Lacan ist ganz wichtig
unknown
für Sie und auch dieser Begriff des Realen. Wir möchten
für Sie und auch dieser Begriff des Realen. Wir möchten
Slavoj Žižek
jetzt ein bisschen darüber reden und wir haben ein Einspieler vorbereitet, wo man Jacques Lacan sieht. Wir schauen uns das mal kurz an. Bitte. Je dis toujours la vérité. Pas toute, parce que toute la dire, on n'y arrive pas. La dire toute, c'est impossible matériellement. Sans les mots qui y manquent. C'est même par cet impossible que la vérité touche au réel. Darf ich eine Frage stellen? Ja, ist gut. Einfach loslegen.
jetzt ein bisschen darüber reden und wir haben ein Einspieler vorbereitet, wo man Jacques Lacan sieht. Wir schauen uns das mal kurz an. Bitte. Je dis toujours la vérité. Pas toute, parce que toute la dire, on n'y arrive pas. La dire toute, c'est impossible matériellement. Sans les mots qui y manquent. C'est même par cet impossible que la vérité touche au réel. Darf ich eine Frage stellen? Ja, ist gut. Einfach loslegen.
unknown
Lacan was very deep influence on me,
Lacan was very deep influence on me,
Slavoj Žižek
but rhetorically, at the level of behavior, nothing is more foreign to me than what we have just seen. Diese Kunstpausen die ganze Zeit, ganz schlimm. I cannot be like that. Aber inhaltlich sind Sie bei ihm. But it's very important, here comes my Hegelianism, to understand what Lacan says here correctly. He doesn't say there is a truth out there but we cannot fully grasp it, something always avoids us. I think that his point is much more Hegelian. Yes, we cannot tell all the truth. It's always antagonist, inconsistent. But this antagonism and inconsistency are the real itself. So it's not that there is a deeper real as Kant thought, Ding an sich out there beyond, and that's I think—I usually take a very simple example here. Adorno in a—in an early but good text on the notion of Gesellschaft, society, makes the same point as Lacan, I claim. Where he says we have today two predominant notions of society: the individualist liberal, the ultimate fact are individuals and social networks grows out of our interaction, and on the other hand the Émile Durkheim, Durkheimian organism. Society is first as a totality, individuals grow out of it. Then Adorno gives a wonderful formulation, a wonderful antinomy. He says we cannot resolve this antagonism. It's one or the other, there is no synthesis. But then he adds something, that it's precisely this antagonism between individuality and anonymous system which characterizes our society. That's the basic Hegelian trick. What you think is an obstacle is its own solution. When you—and this is what Lacan means, c'est par ce pas-tout, it is through this non-all, antagonism, inconsistency that we touch the Real. Aber das ist interessant, dieses Reale, also diese Lücke, könnte man sagen. Lücke, it's purely virtual, it's not a substantial reality behind. Aber was ist dieses Reale? Wenn ich etwas verstehen möchte in dieser—a total—a totally formal notion. It's something that is just an absent virtual point of reference of what effectively exists. It has—it's not a positive entity behind. Different things happen. If you want to understand these things, you
but rhetorically, at the level of behavior, nothing is more foreign to me than what we have just seen. Diese Kunstpausen die ganze Zeit, ganz schlimm. I cannot be like that. Aber inhaltlich sind Sie bei ihm. But it's very important, here comes my Hegelianism, to understand what Lacan says here correctly. He doesn't say there is a truth out there but we cannot fully grasp it, something always avoids us. I think that his point is much more Hegelian. Yes, we cannot tell all the truth. It's always antagonist, inconsistent. But this antagonism and inconsistency are the real itself. So it's not that there is a deeper real as Kant thought, Ding an sich out there beyond, and that's I think—I usually take a very simple example here. Adorno in a—in an early but good text on the notion of Gesellschaft, society, makes the same point as Lacan, I claim. Where he says we have today two predominant notions of society: the individualist liberal, the ultimate fact are individuals and social networks grows out of our interaction, and on the other hand the Émile Durkheim, Durkheimian organism. Society is first as a totality, individuals grow out of it. Then Adorno gives a wonderful formulation, a wonderful antinomy. He says we cannot resolve this antagonism. It's one or the other, there is no synthesis. But then he adds something, that it's precisely this antagonism between individuality and anonymous system which characterizes our society. That's the basic Hegelian trick. What you think is an obstacle is its own solution. When you—and this is what Lacan means, c'est par ce pas-tout, it is through this non-all, antagonism, inconsistency that we touch the Real. Aber das ist interessant, dieses Reale, also diese Lücke, könnte man sagen. Lücke, it's purely virtual, it's not a substantial reality behind. Aber was ist dieses Reale? Wenn ich etwas verstehen möchte in dieser—a total—a totally formal notion. It's something that is just an absent virtual point of reference of what effectively exists. It has—it's not a positive entity behind. Different things happen. If you want to understand these things, you
unknown
need to refer to some absent virtual entity, not divine but let's say an antagonism, to which all this what empirically exists refers. Ja, also wir haben sozusagen eine Welterklärung, sage ich jetzt mal, ein Weltbild und irgendetwas, das das stört, das nicht reinpasst, das wir nicht integrieren können, dieser unerklärliche Rest, der uns irritiert, den wir nicht einfangen können. Aber dieser—but this—I like to refer to Schelling here—unaufhebbare Rest doesn't exist
need to refer to some absent virtual entity, not divine but let's say an antagonism, to which all this what empirically exists refers. Ja, also wir haben sozusagen eine Welterklärung, sage ich jetzt mal, ein Weltbild und irgendetwas, das das stört, das nicht reinpasst, das wir nicht integrieren können, dieser unerklärliche Rest, der uns irritiert, den wir nicht einfangen können. Aber dieser—but this—I like to refer to Schelling here—unaufhebbare Rest doesn't exist
unknown
outside our multiple attempts. It's just their effect. That's a very Lacanian thought that das Reale is not a substance which with our mind we cannot grasp. Das Reale as the impossible is produced through our very failure
outside our multiple attempts. It's just their effect. That's a very Lacanian thought that das Reale is not a substance which with our mind we cannot grasp. Das Reale as the impossible is produced through our very failure
Slavoj Žižek
to reach it. That's a very Hegelian-Lacanian thought that we always fail, but not in the sense that we
to reach it. That's a very Hegelian-Lacanian thought that we always fail, but not in the sense that we
unknown
miss something. Yes, we miss something, but
miss something. Yes, we miss something, but
Slavoj Žižek
that something emerges only through our failure to reach it. Das gehört zur Realität dazu, dieser Fehler, diese Perspektive. No, here I am more transcendental. Here I would introduce the difference between—Lacanian—between Realität und das Reale. Realität is out there. It's what it is. Reale is this—is this purely virtual excess, which is purely virtual. Ganz banale Frage: Gibt es dieses Reale draußen in der Welt, zum Beispiel jetzt der Krieg, eine Pandemie oder sowas, das irgendwie auch unser Denken erschüttert? Kann man das, ist das auch— Auch, but in this precise, precise sense that it's Reale because we cannot really symbolize it. Already death is maybe something like that. Good philosophers, even Gadamer said once this, although he is not my type of philosopher, but he said that there are things like death, horror and so on that you simply cannot really integrate into our everyday sense of reality. All these mythological examples, for example, we like to imagine some happy traditional time where dying was a normal process, all the family was there around you, you calmly died. This is a retroactive myth. There is—that's Lacan's point—every reality excludes something. Something—it excludes it in the sense that we cannot integrate it in our horizon of meaning. And I think that this is what happened here, that's why I like Zürich. You know, okay, a little bit far from here on the other side beneath university, there is the Dada, Cabaret Voltaire or how is it. Dada, ja, Cabaret Voltaire, also in der Altstadt. You know which is, incidentally, but it's a fake, it couldn't have happened. You know which is my favorite theory of the origin of the name Dada? It's fake but it's beautiful. You know that literally round the corner there, Lenin lived exactly at that time. And the myth is, it's a beautiful myth, that Lenin once visited before it was called Dadaism their performance and applauded and said, "Da, da," which in Russian means "yes, yes." And then they took—unfortunately, it's a myth. I think that between modern art and radical political movements you never find consonance. That's all the dream of radical artists, like futurists in the Soviet Union, we will be the artistic counterpart of and so on. No, no, it doesn't work. But sorry, go on, I talk too much. Genau. Jetzt muss—wir haben über das Reale gesprochen. Schwierig zu definieren, irgendwie gibt's das, wir können es nicht in unser Symbolsystem, in unser Verständnis eingehen. Da gibt's noch die Realität. Und da spielt Hegel wieder— Warte, Realität ist transzendental konstituiert,
that something emerges only through our failure to reach it. Das gehört zur Realität dazu, dieser Fehler, diese Perspektive. No, here I am more transcendental. Here I would introduce the difference between—Lacanian—between Realität und das Reale. Realität is out there. It's what it is. Reale is this—is this purely virtual excess, which is purely virtual. Ganz banale Frage: Gibt es dieses Reale draußen in der Welt, zum Beispiel jetzt der Krieg, eine Pandemie oder sowas, das irgendwie auch unser Denken erschüttert? Kann man das, ist das auch— Auch, but in this precise, precise sense that it's Reale because we cannot really symbolize it. Already death is maybe something like that. Good philosophers, even Gadamer said once this, although he is not my type of philosopher, but he said that there are things like death, horror and so on that you simply cannot really integrate into our everyday sense of reality. All these mythological examples, for example, we like to imagine some happy traditional time where dying was a normal process, all the family was there around you, you calmly died. This is a retroactive myth. There is—that's Lacan's point—every reality excludes something. Something—it excludes it in the sense that we cannot integrate it in our horizon of meaning. And I think that this is what happened here, that's why I like Zürich. You know, okay, a little bit far from here on the other side beneath university, there is the Dada, Cabaret Voltaire or how is it. Dada, ja, Cabaret Voltaire, also in der Altstadt. You know which is, incidentally, but it's a fake, it couldn't have happened. You know which is my favorite theory of the origin of the name Dada? It's fake but it's beautiful. You know that literally round the corner there, Lenin lived exactly at that time. And the myth is, it's a beautiful myth, that Lenin once visited before it was called Dadaism their performance and applauded and said, "Da, da," which in Russian means "yes, yes." And then they took—unfortunately, it's a myth. I think that between modern art and radical political movements you never find consonance. That's all the dream of radical artists, like futurists in the Soviet Union, we will be the artistic counterpart of and so on. No, no, it doesn't work. But sorry, go on, I talk too much. Genau. Jetzt muss—wir haben über das Reale gesprochen. Schwierig zu definieren, irgendwie gibt's das, wir können es nicht in unser Symbolsystem, in unser Verständnis eingehen. Da gibt's noch die Realität. Und da spielt Hegel wieder— Warte, Realität ist transzendental konstituiert,
unknown
symbolisch immer. Das müssten wir jetzt verstehen, weil Sie glauben nämlich, die Realität
symbolisch immer. Das müssten wir jetzt verstehen, weil Sie glauben nämlich, die Realität
Slavoj Žižek
ist unvollständig, ähnlich wie das die Quantenphysik sagt. Also zum Beispiel ein Elektron hat keinen konkreten bestimmten Ort, erst dann, wenn wir es messen, und dazu gibt's ein ganz berühmtes Gedankenexperiment von dem österreichischen Physiker Erwin Schrödinger, Schrödingers Katze. Wir schauen uns das mal ganz kurz an. Es ist wirklich schwierig zu verstehen, passt auf. In einer geschlossenen Box befindet sich ein radioaktives Atom, ein Detektor, ein Hammer, ein Glas mit Gift und eine Katze. Radioaktive Atome haben die Eigenschaft zu zerfallen. Man weiß nur nicht genau wann. Ein Detektor kann den Zerfall messen und ist so programmiert, dass er, sobald er den Zerfall wahrnimmt, den Hammer auf das Glas mit dem Gift fallen lässt. Dieses Gift tötet, sobald es austritt, die Katze.
ist unvollständig, ähnlich wie das die Quantenphysik sagt. Also zum Beispiel ein Elektron hat keinen konkreten bestimmten Ort, erst dann, wenn wir es messen, und dazu gibt's ein ganz berühmtes Gedankenexperiment von dem österreichischen Physiker Erwin Schrödinger, Schrödingers Katze. Wir schauen uns das mal ganz kurz an. Es ist wirklich schwierig zu verstehen, passt auf. In einer geschlossenen Box befindet sich ein radioaktives Atom, ein Detektor, ein Hammer, ein Glas mit Gift und eine Katze. Radioaktive Atome haben die Eigenschaft zu zerfallen. Man weiß nur nicht genau wann. Ein Detektor kann den Zerfall messen und ist so programmiert, dass er, sobald er den Zerfall wahrnimmt, den Hammer auf das Glas mit dem Gift fallen lässt. Dieses Gift tötet, sobald es austritt, die Katze.
unknown
Also sind alle Versuchs-Elemente vollautomatisch miteinander gekoppelt. Es gibt nun die zwei Möglichkeiten, dass das Atom zerfällt und die Katze tötet, oder dass das Atom nicht
Also sind alle Versuchs-Elemente vollautomatisch miteinander gekoppelt. Es gibt nun die zwei Möglichkeiten, dass das Atom zerfällt und die Katze tötet, oder dass das Atom nicht
Slavoj Žižek
zerfällt und die
zerfällt und die
unknown
Katze am Leben bleibt. Das Atom ist
Katze am Leben bleibt. Das Atom ist
Slavoj Žižek
aber nun ein Quantenobjekt, und diese nehmen, solange wir sie nicht beobachten, keinen festen Zustand ein. Demnach befindet sich das Atom auch, was den Zerfall angeht, in der sogenannten Superposition. Das heißt, solange wir es nicht beobachten, deswegen befindet sich das alles auch in einer Box, ist es zerfallen und nicht zerfallen zugleich. Was natürlich schwer ist sich vorzustellen, da quantenmechanische Zustände anders sind als das, was wir aus unserem Makrokosmos kennen. Erst wenn wir in die Box gucken, dann zwingen wir das Universum sich für eine Möglichkeit zu entscheiden. Ab dann ist
aber nun ein Quantenobjekt, und diese nehmen, solange wir sie nicht beobachten, keinen festen Zustand ein. Demnach befindet sich das Atom auch, was den Zerfall angeht, in der sogenannten Superposition. Das heißt, solange wir es nicht beobachten, deswegen befindet sich das alles auch in einer Box, ist es zerfallen und nicht zerfallen zugleich. Was natürlich schwer ist sich vorzustellen, da quantenmechanische Zustände anders sind als das, was wir aus unserem Makrokosmos kennen. Erst wenn wir in die Box gucken, dann zwingen wir das Universum sich für eine Möglichkeit zu entscheiden. Ab dann ist
unknown
es entweder zerfallen oder
es entweder zerfallen oder
Slavoj Žižek
nicht zerfallen und entsprechend die Katze tot oder lebendig. Wenn nun aber in der geschlossenen Box das Atom zugleich zerfallen und nicht zerfallen ist, muss der Detektor auch zugleich ausgelöst und nicht
nicht zerfallen und entsprechend die Katze tot oder lebendig. Wenn nun aber in der geschlossenen Box das Atom zugleich zerfallen und nicht zerfallen ist, muss der Detektor auch zugleich ausgelöst und nicht
unknown
ausgelöst sein. Dadurch hat der Hammer das Glas zerstört und nicht zerstört und das Gift ist ausgetreten und nicht ausgetreten. Demnach müsste, solange wir nicht in die Box gucken, die Katze tot
ausgelöst sein. Dadurch hat der Hammer das Glas zerstört und nicht zerstört und das Gift ist ausgetreten und nicht ausgetreten. Demnach müsste, solange wir nicht in die Box gucken, die Katze tot
Slavoj Žižek
und lebendig sein. Wie wir sehen, wechselwirken hier Objekte aus dem Mikrokosmos mit solchen aus dem Makrokosmos, und diese müssten eigentlich jeweils ihren eigenen Naturgesetzen folgen. Dass das Atom aus dem Mikrokosmos gleichzeitig zerfällt und nicht zerfällt, ist völlig in Ordnung. Doch eine Katze ist kein Quantenobjekt und kann daher keine Superposition einnehmen. Eine Katze kann nicht tot und gleichzeitig lebendig sein. Und dieser Widerspruch ist das wahrscheinlich fundamentalste Problem unserer modernen Wissenschaft. Ja, ein eklatanter Widerspruch, der unser Denken an eine fundamentale Grenze bringt, nämlich dass wir anerkennen müssen, dass die Wirklichkeit widersprüchlich ist in ihrem Wesen drin, bis wir sie beobachten. Ja, aber—I want to add something here. You know probably that even today, people try to avoid this conclusion. For example, she is now I think very popular at least in podcasts in Germany, physikalische Theoretiker Sabine Hossenfelder. She tries—she basically goes back to Einstein and claims that this indeterminacy, superposition, simply means that our knowledge of reality is incomplete. Also es gibt keine Widersprüche, wir wissen es nur nicht, wie sie ist. Das ist Einsteins Position gewesen. Aber die Quantenmechanik sagt was anderes. Yeah, but here I am absolutely for Niels Bohr, of course. No? And first thing to return back to— Niels Bohr, der berühmte Physiker, genau, muss man vielleicht dazu sagen. Vater von Quantenphysik. And he is for me one of the authentic geniuses of 20th century, scientific and in general. If I may repeat here what I already did times in my book, Niels Bohr gave the best definition that I know of how ideology functions today. Mit dem Hufeisen oder was? Ja, erzähl Sie das. Yeah, the myth, but
und lebendig sein. Wie wir sehen, wechselwirken hier Objekte aus dem Mikrokosmos mit solchen aus dem Makrokosmos, und diese müssten eigentlich jeweils ihren eigenen Naturgesetzen folgen. Dass das Atom aus dem Mikrokosmos gleichzeitig zerfällt und nicht zerfällt, ist völlig in Ordnung. Doch eine Katze ist kein Quantenobjekt und kann daher keine Superposition einnehmen. Eine Katze kann nicht tot und gleichzeitig lebendig sein. Und dieser Widerspruch ist das wahrscheinlich fundamentalste Problem unserer modernen Wissenschaft. Ja, ein eklatanter Widerspruch, der unser Denken an eine fundamentale Grenze bringt, nämlich dass wir anerkennen müssen, dass die Wirklichkeit widersprüchlich ist in ihrem Wesen drin, bis wir sie beobachten. Ja, aber—I want to add something here. You know probably that even today, people try to avoid this conclusion. For example, she is now I think very popular at least in podcasts in Germany, physikalische Theoretiker Sabine Hossenfelder. She tries—she basically goes back to Einstein and claims that this indeterminacy, superposition, simply means that our knowledge of reality is incomplete. Also es gibt keine Widersprüche, wir wissen es nur nicht, wie sie ist. Das ist Einsteins Position gewesen. Aber die Quantenmechanik sagt was anderes. Yeah, but here I am absolutely for Niels Bohr, of course. No? And first thing to return back to— Niels Bohr, der berühmte Physiker, genau, muss man vielleicht dazu sagen. Vater von Quantenphysik. And he is for me one of the authentic geniuses of 20th century, scientific and in general. If I may repeat here what I already did times in my book, Niels Bohr gave the best definition that I know of how ideology functions today. Mit dem Hufeisen oder was? Ja, erzähl Sie das. Yeah, the myth, but
unknown
it's supposed to be true, is that Bohr had a house in the countryside where there was a horseshoe above the entrance which allegedly prevents evil spirits to enter, and a friend visits him and said, "But you are a scientist, you are
it's supposed to be true, is that Bohr had a house in the countryside where there was a horseshoe above the entrance which allegedly prevents evil spirits to enter, and a friend visits him and said, "But you are a scientist, you are
Slavoj Žižek
not superstitious. Why do you have this?" And Bohr answered, "Of course I'm a scientist, I don't believe in it.
not superstitious. Why do you have this?" And Bohr answered, "Of course I'm a scientist, I don't believe in it.
unknown
But I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it." That's ideology heute. We are all cynical, we don't believe in it, but we somehow rely on it that it works. But back to this quantum problem. You know what I did in my books, it's maybe too wild a speculation, I tried to link quantum physics to Schelling, who in his Weltalter fragments also formulates the hypothesis that
But I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it." That's ideology heute. We are all cynical, we don't believe in it, but we somehow rely on it that it works. But back to this quantum problem. You know what I did in my books, it's maybe too wild a speculation, I tried to link quantum physics to Schelling, who in his Weltalter fragments also formulates the hypothesis that
unknown
beneath our ordinary reality with fixed object, there is another virtual potential reality which is fließend, more ambiguous and so on. But now I come to the central, to the central point. Again, Bohr did a properly Hegelian thing. What others before him thought is just the limitation of our knowledge. He said, no, my God, why couldn't it be in the thing itself? Why cannot the thing itself be indeterminate? This is for me extremely important because again, it allows us to move beneath rather than beyond our ordinary notion of reality, which is still, I think, descending from 19th century, the
beneath our ordinary reality with fixed object, there is another virtual potential reality which is fließend, more ambiguous and so on. But now I come to the central, to the central point. Again, Bohr did a properly Hegelian thing. What others before him thought is just the limitation of our knowledge. He said, no, my God, why couldn't it be in the thing itself? Why cannot the thing itself be indeterminate? This is for me extremely important because again, it allows us to move beneath rather than beyond our ordinary notion of reality, which is still, I think, descending from 19th century, the
unknown
basic idea was, what is ultimate reality? Empty space where some small particles are jumping up and down. No. But now, if I may use another example from my books, this is what really fascinates me. Namely, that imagine the theological consequences of this incompleteness of reality. And I found in an introduction to philosophy by Nicholas Fearn, he is aggressively analytic, he hates my theory probably, but he made a wonderful observation. He says that we can imagine or interpret this imperfection of reality as an effect of God's laziness. Look, God was creating the universe. Er hat sie nicht vollständig gemacht, die Realität. Yeah, why? He uses, this guy, a wonderful parallel. He said, look, you play a video game. And of course, if it's not—you are walking on a street, shooting, in the background you see forest. Of course the programmer didn't program in detail all the trees there, because it's not part of the game that you go there. He left it incomplete. And he said, what if it was the same with God? He said, people, humans are too stupid, they will never reach the subatomic level, so I will not care to program it, no? Also nicht—genau, die Idee ist nicht, wenn man im Videospiel dahingeht, dann sieht es unscharf aus, aber nicht
basic idea was, what is ultimate reality? Empty space where some small particles are jumping up and down. No. But now, if I may use another example from my books, this is what really fascinates me. Namely, that imagine the theological consequences of this incompleteness of reality. And I found in an introduction to philosophy by Nicholas Fearn, he is aggressively analytic, he hates my theory probably, but he made a wonderful observation. He says that we can imagine or interpret this imperfection of reality as an effect of God's laziness. Look, God was creating the universe. Er hat sie nicht vollständig gemacht, die Realität. Yeah, why? He uses, this guy, a wonderful parallel. He said, look, you play a video game. And of course, if it's not—you are walking on a street, shooting, in the background you see forest. Of course the programmer didn't program in detail all the trees there, because it's not part of the game that you go there. He left it incomplete. And he said, what if it was the same with God? He said, people, humans are too stupid, they will never reach the subatomic level, so I will not care to program it, no? Also nicht—genau, die Idee ist nicht, wenn man im Videospiel dahingeht, dann sieht es unscharf aus, aber nicht
unknown
weil wir es unscharf sehen, sondern es ist einfach unscharf. Es ist nicht programmiert,
weil wir es unscharf sehen, sondern es ist einfach unscharf. Es ist nicht programmiert,
Slavoj Žižek
es ist unvollständig. And what if our reality is like that? Ah, dann sind wir klüger als Gott gedacht hat, ja? That's the idea that we were a little bit—and this would be for me the proper, but we can talk about later, not Kierkegaardian position. Søren Kierkegaard, der dänische Philosoph.
es ist unvollständig. And what if our reality is like that? Ah, dann sind wir klüger als Gott gedacht hat, ja? That's the idea that we were a little bit—and this would be for me the proper, but we can talk about later, not Kierkegaardian position. Søren Kierkegaard, der dänische Philosoph.
unknown
Ja, ja. Ganz kurz vielleicht, ja, interessiert mich. No—no, I—it would be too much because I
Ja, ja. Ganz kurz vielleicht, ja, interessiert mich. No—no, I—it would be too much because I
Slavoj Žižek
would have to return to Pascal. You know, Pascal's wager. He doesn't
would have to return to Pascal. You know, Pascal's wager. He doesn't
unknown
mean—detailed analysis have shown it—his idea is
mean—detailed analysis have shown it—his idea is
Slavoj Žižek
not, if you don't believe, act as if you believe and belief will come or whatever. No, basically, if you read Pascal, his Pensées, really in detail, his idea is that if you know that God believes, but don't act as if—but act and act as if he believes, you
not, if you don't believe, act as if you believe and belief will come or whatever. No, basically, if you read Pascal, his Pensées, really in detail, his idea is that if you know that God believes, but don't act as if—but act and act as if he believes, you
unknown
are a usual religious
are a usual religious
Slavoj Žižek
man, not interesting. If you act as God—if you don't believe in God and act as if God doesn't exist, you are a secular philosopher. Things get interesting when you paradoxically join the two. Like the usual humanist agnostic position is, I know God doesn't exist, but out of respect for tradition, I act as if he exists, it helps. But the true Kierkegaard's position is much crazier. It is, I know that God exists, but I will act as if he doesn't exist. And I think if you replace God with today's God, who is scientific determinism... Okay. That is—should be our position. Yes, I know science is telling us that we are not free, but I will do crazy things, I will act as if I am free. But it's more complex, but sorry, I just— Wir müssen noch zum Kapitalismus kommen irgendwann. Kapitalismus siegt immer. Okay, dann gehen wir zum Kapitalismus. Mich interessiert, all diese theoretischen Überlegungen, wie hängen die jetzt zusammen mit Ihrer gesellschaftspolitischen Forderung, dass wir den Kapitalismus überwinden müssen? Das ist die erste Frage. Was ist der Konnex? I am—I remain here, but in a very critical way, without accepting Marx's conclusions about capitalism, I remain here a Marxist. Now, first, good things about capitalism. You know, today it's so fashionable to say, oh, look at the third world, we have there remains of ancient traditions, they should—they can be used as a resistance against global capitalism. No. I think with all the horrors it produces, globalization creates a space for new reasons, and this was Marx's dogma always. Yes, we have to go through capitalism to some other order. But we can do this only through capitalism. Because capitalism destroys all the traditional values, hierarchies and so on. Ständische verdampfen... Genau. Marx was always very clear here. So I'm absolutely not in this position, local traditions, you know, some African, Latino-American can help us. The only space of Freiheit, of freedom, yeah, is Kapitalismus. And but the problem with Marx is how he imagined the Überwindung, going through
man, not interesting. If you act as God—if you don't believe in God and act as if God doesn't exist, you are a secular philosopher. Things get interesting when you paradoxically join the two. Like the usual humanist agnostic position is, I know God doesn't exist, but out of respect for tradition, I act as if he exists, it helps. But the true Kierkegaard's position is much crazier. It is, I know that God exists, but I will act as if he doesn't exist. And I think if you replace God with today's God, who is scientific determinism... Okay. That is—should be our position. Yes, I know science is telling us that we are not free, but I will do crazy things, I will act as if I am free. But it's more complex, but sorry, I just— Wir müssen noch zum Kapitalismus kommen irgendwann. Kapitalismus siegt immer. Okay, dann gehen wir zum Kapitalismus. Mich interessiert, all diese theoretischen Überlegungen, wie hängen die jetzt zusammen mit Ihrer gesellschaftspolitischen Forderung, dass wir den Kapitalismus überwinden müssen? Das ist die erste Frage. Was ist der Konnex? I am—I remain here, but in a very critical way, without accepting Marx's conclusions about capitalism, I remain here a Marxist. Now, first, good things about capitalism. You know, today it's so fashionable to say, oh, look at the third world, we have there remains of ancient traditions, they should—they can be used as a resistance against global capitalism. No. I think with all the horrors it produces, globalization creates a space for new reasons, and this was Marx's dogma always. Yes, we have to go through capitalism to some other order. But we can do this only through capitalism. Because capitalism destroys all the traditional values, hierarchies and so on. Ständische verdampfen... Genau. Marx was always very clear here. So I'm absolutely not in this position, local traditions, you know, some African, Latino-American can help us. The only space of Freiheit, of freedom, yeah, is Kapitalismus. And but the problem with Marx is how he imagined the Überwindung, going through
unknown
capitalism. I would say that Marx—Marx's idea of
capitalism. I would say that Marx—Marx's idea of
Slavoj Žižek
communism was capitalism without capitalism. He wanted to keep all this capitalist productivism, endless development and so on. And you know where we see Marx's idea today? China. In China, oder? Capitalism but with strong state control. China is for me the deepest paradox and the greatest danger today. You know what? I will give you a very simple definition, determination. We, the old 20th-century leftists, hated about capitalism two things. On the one hand, brutal market competition, where some are
communism was capitalism without capitalism. He wanted to keep all this capitalist productivism, endless development and so on. And you know where we see Marx's idea today? China. In China, oder? Capitalism but with strong state control. China is for me the deepest paradox and the greatest danger today. You know what? I will give you a very simple definition, determination. We, the old 20th-century leftists, hated about capitalism two things. On the one hand, brutal market competition, where some are
unknown
rich, millions are very poor, and strong state control. Didn't China precisely unite the two in the most efficient way? So I think China, although
rich, millions are very poor, and strong state control. Didn't China precisely unite the two in the most efficient way? So I think China, although
Slavoj Žižek
I admire their—the way they proceed, they are not stupid, they see the problems with liberal capitalism. But in the long term, I don't see solution in their version. Haben Sie eine Utopie? Ist das eine doofe Frage? Was stellen Sie sich
I admire their—the way they proceed, they are not stupid, they see the problems with liberal capitalism. But in the long term, I don't see solution in their version. Haben Sie eine Utopie? Ist das eine doofe Frage? Was stellen Sie sich
unknown
vor? I am here Hegelian. I'm afraid of utopias. If anything, my utopia is
vor? I am here Hegelian. I'm afraid of utopias. If anything, my utopia is
Slavoj Žižek
eine gute Entfremdung. In other words, this is very personal. You know now that we know that traditional social democracy and Realsozialismus no longer work, some desperate leftist cling to this local non-representative democracy. Imagine living in a small authentic community where you meet with others regularly, you define how we will school our children, what we do with environment and so on. Partizipativ, ganz klein. I cannot imagine a more horrible world. Every afternoon I will have to talk about where do we get water, electricity? No, I want—I want an anonymous not too oppressive mechanism to take care of all this. Aber der muss ja demokratisch legitimiert sein, oder? Ja, aber dennoch, it must be out there, non-transparent to me. I think this is the only space of freedom. And so my utopia is—I gave in Spain a talk, they were shocked, they attacked me—that they asked me the same question as you. My answer was rational bureaucratic capitalism is socialism. You know, you allow market, but it is clear today, that's my big argument even for war communism, that with all the trouble we are in now—war, pandemic, possibilities of hunger, migration—I'm not talking about abolishing markets. A world government today would have meant incredible corruption, better not think about. But we must find a way to establish international cooperation and minimally
eine gute Entfremdung. In other words, this is very personal. You know now that we know that traditional social democracy and Realsozialismus no longer work, some desperate leftist cling to this local non-representative democracy. Imagine living in a small authentic community where you meet with others regularly, you define how we will school our children, what we do with environment and so on. Partizipativ, ganz klein. I cannot imagine a more horrible world. Every afternoon I will have to talk about where do we get water, electricity? No, I want—I want an anonymous not too oppressive mechanism to take care of all this. Aber der muss ja demokratisch legitimiert sein, oder? Ja, aber dennoch, it must be out there, non-transparent to me. I think this is the only space of freedom. And so my utopia is—I gave in Spain a talk, they were shocked, they attacked me—that they asked me the same question as you. My answer was rational bureaucratic capitalism is socialism. You know, you allow market, but it is clear today, that's my big argument even for war communism, that with all the trouble we are in now—war, pandemic, possibilities of hunger, migration—I'm not talking about abolishing markets. A world government today would have meant incredible corruption, better not think about. But we must find a way to establish international cooperation and minimally
unknown
direct control the markets. Look at global warming. What happened, you remember last summer in my favorite almost places in the world, Vancouver, Seattle, Portland? Temperatures of degrees. Ja, jetzt auch in
direct control the markets. Look at global warming. What happened, you remember last summer in my favorite almost places in the world, Vancouver, Seattle, Portland? Temperatures of degrees. Ja, jetzt auch in
Slavoj Žižek
Indien, wahnsinnig. But you know what's crucial? This has nothing to do with their local pollution. The whole air circulation on the Northern Pole is interrupted, which means only through strict international strong cooperation... Aber es braucht nicht, wie die Klimajugend fordert, ein Systemwechsel? Was heißt das? Also es braucht Anpassung, es ist so moderat klingt das jetzt. But you know how I define myself? That's my new definition which horrifies all my leftist friends. Seit wann ist die gültig? Zwei Jahre. Ich bin ein moderat konservativer Kommunist. That is to say, by communism I mean we will have to seriously change in the direction of more social cooperation, global healthcare and so on, our global system. But you know what I appreciate with intelligent moderate conservatives? Lenin liked this in them, he wrote this. He said, they mean it seriously. They are not cheap liberals who just promise things, welfare. A good conservative always thinks about, wait a minute, what are the dangers? What will be the price we will have to pay for it? So I'm not talking about Trumpian populist whatever. Hat dieser Konservatismus auch mit dem Alter zu tun? Mit dem zunehmenden Alter? Sind Sie konservativer geworden in Ihren Ansichten? No, because I am still radical. I think radical changes will be necessary. I think we will—we are approaching at least the high probability of a crisis. Global warming means that now in India and so on, means less food, means new migrations. What will happen when, for example, from Middle East, where really I was there, I checked it, I was there in Dubai as a tourist when temperature rose to And even local people told me, no, no, it's not that we can get used to it, it's unlivable. So great changes will have to take place. How to do it without war? That's the problem. But also poverty we have to—this is why—another shock for my leftist friends—I don't think this focus on immigration, you know, we should open our doors. No, if we open our doors, just open, we will have millions here and then ordinary people, populists, will vote against this, we will have a civil war or whatever. I think that the problem is not opening the door to here, but to put it very simply, to now address the situation why are they coming here? We have to change the entire system. Because you know what's
Indien, wahnsinnig. But you know what's crucial? This has nothing to do with their local pollution. The whole air circulation on the Northern Pole is interrupted, which means only through strict international strong cooperation... Aber es braucht nicht, wie die Klimajugend fordert, ein Systemwechsel? Was heißt das? Also es braucht Anpassung, es ist so moderat klingt das jetzt. But you know how I define myself? That's my new definition which horrifies all my leftist friends. Seit wann ist die gültig? Zwei Jahre. Ich bin ein moderat konservativer Kommunist. That is to say, by communism I mean we will have to seriously change in the direction of more social cooperation, global healthcare and so on, our global system. But you know what I appreciate with intelligent moderate conservatives? Lenin liked this in them, he wrote this. He said, they mean it seriously. They are not cheap liberals who just promise things, welfare. A good conservative always thinks about, wait a minute, what are the dangers? What will be the price we will have to pay for it? So I'm not talking about Trumpian populist whatever. Hat dieser Konservatismus auch mit dem Alter zu tun? Mit dem zunehmenden Alter? Sind Sie konservativer geworden in Ihren Ansichten? No, because I am still radical. I think radical changes will be necessary. I think we will—we are approaching at least the high probability of a crisis. Global warming means that now in India and so on, means less food, means new migrations. What will happen when, for example, from Middle East, where really I was there, I checked it, I was there in Dubai as a tourist when temperature rose to And even local people told me, no, no, it's not that we can get used to it, it's unlivable. So great changes will have to take place. How to do it without war? That's the problem. But also poverty we have to—this is why—another shock for my leftist friends—I don't think this focus on immigration, you know, we should open our doors. No, if we open our doors, just open, we will have millions here and then ordinary people, populists, will vote against this, we will have a civil war or whatever. I think that the problem is not opening the door to here, but to put it very simply, to now address the situation why are they coming here? We have to change the entire system. Because you know what's
unknown
also my problem with immigrants?
also my problem with immigrants?
Slavoj Žižek
Never forget something. Mostly not the truly poor are coming here. Those who come here are usually, many of them, half criminal, you have to have money to pay the smugglers and so on and so on. A different approach. Da muss man auch vorsichtig sein, gell? Vorsichtig, ja, ja. Keine Vorurteile bedienen. Ja, ja. You know now—they gave me a wonderful answer—now I publish a lot with Die Welt in Germany, a paradox, who is moderately conservative. And you know I have a dialogue with them, I told them, "But nonetheless I'm some kind of communist, although moderately conservative. Why do you publish me?" And you know what the answer I got from them? "No problem, because we are moderately communists-conservatives," you know. Das ist the—as they say in Casablanca, beginning of a beautiful friendship. Sie haben gesagt, das Ziel ist gute Entfremdung. Ich habe Ihnen hier ein Spiegel mitgebracht. Wenn Sie da reinschauen, was sehen Sie da? Ist das gute Entfremdung? Es ist etwas absolut schrecklich. Because I hate—I hate mirrors. I hate seeing myself on screen. I haven't seen any of the film in which I— Sie haben so viele Filme gemacht und nie angeschaut? No, but no, no, it's not a kind of a postmodern arrogance or whatever. I'm not playing a game. With all my nervous tics
Never forget something. Mostly not the truly poor are coming here. Those who come here are usually, many of them, half criminal, you have to have money to pay the smugglers and so on and so on. A different approach. Da muss man auch vorsichtig sein, gell? Vorsichtig, ja, ja. Keine Vorurteile bedienen. Ja, ja. You know now—they gave me a wonderful answer—now I publish a lot with Die Welt in Germany, a paradox, who is moderately conservative. And you know I have a dialogue with them, I told them, "But nonetheless I'm some kind of communist, although moderately conservative. Why do you publish me?" And you know what the answer I got from them? "No problem, because we are moderately communists-conservatives," you know. Das ist the—as they say in Casablanca, beginning of a beautiful friendship. Sie haben gesagt, das Ziel ist gute Entfremdung. Ich habe Ihnen hier ein Spiegel mitgebracht. Wenn Sie da reinschauen, was sehen Sie da? Ist das gute Entfremdung? Es ist etwas absolut schrecklich. Because I hate—I hate mirrors. I hate seeing myself on screen. I haven't seen any of the film in which I— Sie haben so viele Filme gemacht und nie angeschaut? No, but no, no, it's not a kind of a postmodern arrogance or whatever. I'm not playing a game. With all my nervous tics
unknown
and so on, when I see myself for more than one minute on screen, I cannot do it. I cannot do it. Weil Sie meinen, das ist eine andere
and so on, when I see myself for more than one minute on screen, I cannot do it. I cannot do it. Weil Sie meinen, das ist eine andere
Slavoj Žižek
Person oder warum? Nein, nein. The problem is that it is me. But I don't like what I see. This is a disgusting nervous guy. I'm a writer basically, although I also like to talk, blah blah. Aber die Leute feiern Sie ja für Ihren Auftritt und genau für das, was Sie hier zeigen. Komisch, oder? Ja, but—but for me, for me this is a problem. Okay. Weil Sie identifizieren sich mit den Texten, als Schreiber. Absolutely, absolutely. Dieses Gespräch sollte man auch nicht schauen, sondern eigentlich die Bücher lesen, würden Sie sagen. Okay. Die anderen Leute können das tun, aber ich will vielleicht—I will do something else. I will see it when it will be on TV, but without the image. Mm, hören. Just in voice. And I propose you
Person oder warum? Nein, nein. The problem is that it is me. But I don't like what I see. This is a disgusting nervous guy. I'm a writer basically, although I also like to talk, blah blah. Aber die Leute feiern Sie ja für Ihren Auftritt und genau für das, was Sie hier zeigen. Komisch, oder? Ja, but—but for me, for me this is a problem. Okay. Weil Sie identifizieren sich mit den Texten, als Schreiber. Absolutely, absolutely. Dieses Gespräch sollte man auch nicht schauen, sondern eigentlich die Bücher lesen, würden Sie sagen. Okay. Die anderen Leute können das tun, aber ich will vielleicht—I will do something else. I will see it when it will be on TV, but without the image. Mm, hören. Just in voice. And I propose you
unknown
a nice manipulation. Why don't you do this not with Untertiteln,
a nice manipulation. Why don't you do this not with Untertiteln,
Slavoj Žižek
but you hear my voice and then you put my voice in the background and somebody reads the translation where you can manipulate then and mistranslate me and so on? I am evil by nature. Ja, wir sind schon leider fast am Ende des Gesprächs. Am Ende eine gute tiefe Frage, to which I can answer in a—you know, ask me what is the meaning of death and life, and then I will say some Zen Buddhist shit like clap with one hand. Ich wollte Sie jetzt fragen, ich schenke Ihnen hier etwas von diesen Dingen, und Sie können auswählen. Das ist eigentlich die Schlussfrage. Was steht da drauf? Weisheit ist by definition Dummheit. Ah, nein, nein, nein. I have a whole theory of this. Damit die Kamera es sieht. Ah, ja, Sie können es auch anziehen, gerne. Sitzt ja perfekt. You know, although I define myself as an atheist Christian, paradoxically. But what I like about
but you hear my voice and then you put my voice in the background and somebody reads the translation where you can manipulate then and mistranslate me and so on? I am evil by nature. Ja, wir sind schon leider fast am Ende des Gesprächs. Am Ende eine gute tiefe Frage, to which I can answer in a—you know, ask me what is the meaning of death and life, and then I will say some Zen Buddhist shit like clap with one hand. Ich wollte Sie jetzt fragen, ich schenke Ihnen hier etwas von diesen Dingen, und Sie können auswählen. Das ist eigentlich die Schlussfrage. Was steht da drauf? Weisheit ist by definition Dummheit. Ah, nein, nein, nein. I have a whole theory of this. Damit die Kamera es sieht. Ah, ja, Sie können es auch anziehen, gerne. Sitzt ja perfekt. You know, although I define myself as an atheist Christian, paradoxically. But what I like about
unknown
Jesus Christ is that
Jesus Christ is that
Slavoj Žižek
he—what he says are madnesses. He is not wise, he brings radical upheaval. The for me embodiment of wisdom are proverbs. And I don't know how it is with your language, but in my language, I cannot imagine anything more disgustingly conformist than proverbs. Whatever you do, it can be justified by a proverb. Let's say you do something risky and you succeed. Then
he—what he says are madnesses. He is not wise, he brings radical upheaval. The for me embodiment of wisdom are proverbs. And I don't know how it is with your language, but in my language, I cannot imagine anything more disgustingly conformist than proverbs. Whatever you do, it can be justified by a proverb. Let's say you do something risky and you succeed. Then
unknown
I, as a wise guy, will come and say, "Yeah, yeah, we have a saying, only those who risk
I, as a wise guy, will come and say, "Yeah, yeah, we have a saying, only those who risk
Slavoj Žižek
profit," you know. I justified. Okay. Let's say you do it and you fail. I will come again and I will say something—we have in Slovene a very vulgar proverb—don't urinate against the wind, because then it will—you know, this is for me the truth of wisdom.
profit," you know. I justified. Okay. Let's say you do it and you fail. I will come again and I will say something—we have in Slovene a very vulgar proverb—don't urinate against the wind, because then it will—you know, this is for me the truth of wisdom.
unknown
That it can retroactively
That it can retroactively
Slavoj Žižek
justify everything. So for me, we don't need wisdom which gives a false peace. What would be
justify everything. So for me, we don't need wisdom which gives a false peace. What would be
unknown
the wisdom? I tried it once, in a parodic way, but I did it in
the wisdom? I tried it once, in a parodic way, but I did it in
Slavoj Žižek
Israel and there
Israel and there
unknown
were even
were even
Slavoj Žižek
people with tattooed
people with tattooed
unknown
signs who agreed with me. I
signs who agreed with me. I
Slavoj Žižek
said, "Your situation there was so desperate that wouldn't the most disgusting thing be, let's say a wise guy, maybe a Nazi, comes to
said, "Your situation there was so desperate that wouldn't the most disgusting thing be, let's say a wise guy, maybe a Nazi, comes to
unknown
Jews who are
Jews who are
Slavoj Žižek
there starving of death and tell
there starving of death and tell
unknown
this something like,
this something like,
Slavoj Žižek
resign yourself to it, suffering is part of light, you always can find a little piece of happiness even here." This is an obscenity. This is wisdom for me. We need madness, we need well-thought but nonetheless crazy decisions. Das nehme ich als Schlusswort. Danke, Slavoj Žižek, für diese tolle Stunde und ich habe viel gelernt. Ich bin sehr dankbar zu dir, und ich werde sagen, dass weil du nicht ein schlechter Mann war, wenn wir, das Volk, die Macht... Das Volk. Wir. I, as embodiment of the people. When we take power, you will not go to Gulag, just it would be good, two, three
resign yourself to it, suffering is part of light, you always can find a little piece of happiness even here." This is an obscenity. This is wisdom for me. We need madness, we need well-thought but nonetheless crazy decisions. Das nehme ich als Schlusswort. Danke, Slavoj Žižek, für diese tolle Stunde und ich habe viel gelernt. Ich bin sehr dankbar zu dir, und ich werde sagen, dass weil du nicht ein schlechter Mann war, wenn wir, das Volk, die Macht... Das Volk. Wir. I, as embodiment of the people. When we take power, you will not go to Gulag, just it would be good, two, three
unknown
years of Zwangsarbeit. Das wird
years of Zwangsarbeit. Das wird
Slavoj Žižek
gütig, das ist human.
gütig, das ist human.