Think Again Podcast: Against Tolerance
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2016-11-13 · 0:48:55 · 7,556 words
with Co-Host
liberalism-political-correctnessideologycapitalismdemocracysexuality-genderfascism-populismcinema-art-culturepsychoanalysiseveryday-life
In this interview on the 'Think Again' podcast (recorded on the day of the 2016 US election), Žižek discusses the Trump-Clinton race, arguing both candidates represent a broken status quo in different ways: Trump as a disgusting but opportunist disruptor, Clinton as a guarantor of stagnation that marginalized Bernie Sanders' genuine left alternative. The conversation ranges across identity politics and global capitalism, the refugee crisis and limits of liberal tolerance, gender roles in late capitalism, standardized testing and creativity, and female desire in long-term relationships. A second segment has Žižek reacting to video clips of other thinkers.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 10
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Žižek deploys 'status quo' as a polemical target, Clinton's victory guarantees nothing changes, which is itself a political choice and arguably worse than a disruptive shock.
Žižek's characterization of Trump's political persona: not a coherent fascist ideologue but a figure who shifts positions entirely based on immediate crowd response, making him unpredictable but not a systematic danger.
as “watered-down Judith Butler”
Žižek's label for the popular-cultural reduction of post-structuralist identity theory to a feel-good consumerist ethic of perpetual self-reinvention, which he identifies as the dominant ideology of global capitalism.
Žižek uses this critically: official liberal tolerance replaces genuine political struggle with a demand for mutual understanding that depoliticizes conflict and serves the status quo.
as “struggling universality”
A universality that emerges from shared political struggle rather than from a UNESCO-style catalog of cultural contributions, authentic common ground born of conflict, not curated multiculturalism.
as “decaffeinated neighbor”
Žižek's term for the liberal fantasy of an ethnic Other purified of its threatening or disturbing aspects, analogous to consumer products stripped of their active ingredient (coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol).
as “prolonged adolescence”
Žižek (following Badiou) uses this to describe a structural shift in masculinity: men no longer pass through symbolic initiation rites (army, marriage, career) and remain permanently immature, seeking identity in gangs and violence.
Discussed via a clip of Daniel Bergner: the brain's capacity to be restructured by cultural conditioning, raised in the context of how gendered sexual norms shape women's desire over time.
In the context of the film 'Being There,' Žižek uses transference to explain how an idiot placed in the right symbolic position becomes a 'subject supposed to know,' his platitudes over-interpreted as wisdom.
as “subject supposed to know”
Lacan's concept invoked via 'Being There': whoever occupies the position of supposed knowledge will have their utterances interpreted as profound, regardless of actual content.
Stories he reaches for 3
MGM producer Sam Goldwyn, notorious for apparent malapropisms, read a complaint about too many old clichés in his films and wrote a memo demanding 'more new original clichés', which Žižek reads as profoundly right: true creativity installs new conventions, not merely breaks old ones.
“we urgently need more new original clichés... true creativity is not to break out of cliches, but to install new cliches.”
When Stalin was asked in 1928 which deviation was worse, right wing or left wing, he replied 'both are worse,' meaning not equally bad but each worse in its own way. Žižek applies this to Trump vs. Clinton.
“both are worse. not both are equally bad, but both are worse.”
The Tahrir Square demonstrations showed that questions of 'do we understand them, are they mature for democracy?' vanished the moment Egyptians rose up, suddenly there was shared, authentic universality in the common struggle.
“when that happened, all of a sudden... all those shitty problems of multiculturalism, do we understand them, disappeared and we were on the same side. this is our shared struggle.”
Works invoked 4
Being There film
Žižek calls it 'one of my absolutely favorite Hollywood movies' and 'one of the most radical wonderful movies'; uses it to illustrate the Lacanian concept of transference and the subject supposed to know.
Žižek's own book, which frames much of the discussion on tolerance, the neighbor, and the refugee crisis.
Harold and Maude film
Mentioned by the host; Žižek says he saw it 30 years ago and half-forgot it, but acknowledges it as interesting in the context of cross-generational desire.
Marathon Man film
Žižek calls it 'my favorite dentist movie' and uses the Olivier-Hoffman anecdote from its production to illustrate his point about true creativity as restraint.
People invoked 20
Briefly mentioned in context of the Clinton marriage dynamic, described as 'weakened' while Hillary was strategically in control during the Lewinsky affair.
Jackson Pollock negative
Žižek states flatly 'I hate Jackson Pollock,' using him as the example of the anti-cliché, explosion-of-self style of creativity he finds shallow.
Laurence Olivier positive
Žižek declares he is 'totally on the side of Laurence Olivier' in the Marathon Man anecdote; Olivier's British restraint and technical craft are held up against Hoffman's emotional Method acting.
Journalist whose clip on neuroplasticity and female sexuality Žižek finds interesting but insufficiently precise, critiques the clip for not clarifying whether female desire declines generally or only toward one's partner.
Mentioned alongside Thatcher as a woman who proved capable of the hardest political jobs, illustrating the new feminine power position.
Mark Rothko positive
Žižek names Rothko as his hero of abstract expressionism, implicitly contrasting him with Jackson Pollock's explosive expressionism.
Judith Butler negative
Her work is invoked only in popularized, 'watered-down' form, which Žižek identifies as the ideology of global capitalism; his target is the vulgarized version, though he distinguishes Butler herself from this reduction.
Paul Wolfowitz negative
Named as a Cold War hawk aligned with Clinton, representing the dangerous combination of progressive social concessions with aggressive foreign policy.
Described as 'disgusting' and representing white supremacy, but also as a 'radical opportunist' rather than a genuine fascist; Žižek argues his potential victory would have triggered a productive political shock.
Alain Badiou positive
Žižek refers to Badiou as 'my good friend' and follows his analysis of masculine initiation rites and the shift to prolonged adolescence in his new book.
George Orwell positive
Žižek quotes a passage in which Orwell claims radical progressives talk endlessly about change to ensure nothing actually changes; used to support Žižek's critique of liberal stasis.
Bernie Sanders positive
Presented as the beginning of a genuine left alternative, a step toward what in European terms would be a serious social-democratic force; his marginalization by Clinton is described as the true tragedy.
Yanis Varoufakis positive
Described as 'my good friend'; recounts Varoufakis's invitation to co-write a book on economics and his sardonic claim that economists don't know what they're doing.
Dustin Hoffman negative
His Method acting approach (staying up all night to prepare) is used as the negative example in the creativity discussion, contrasted unfavorably with Olivier's restraint.
Mentioned briefly and approvingly alongside Thatcher and Gandhi as an example of women holding real political power.
Hillary Clinton negative
Žižek's primary target: she represents the masterful ideological operation of uniting everyone from Occupy to Wall Street at the price of erasing Bernie Sanders; her victory means stasis and the eventual return of Trumpism.
Samuel Goldwyn positive
Žižek recounts Goldwyn's memo demanding 'more new original clichés' as unintentionally profound, a statement about what true creativity really is.
Cited alongside Indira Gandhi and Angela Merkel as examples of women taking on the 'tough jobs' of power, used illustratively about the new female power position in late capitalism.
Scott Barry Kaufman negative
Director of the Imagination Institute whose video on unlocking human potential through individual creativity standards Žižek views skeptically, too focused on the individual, too naive about community norms.
Joseph Stalin positive
Žižek cites Stalin's 1928 'both are worse' formula ironically but approvingly as a dialectical tool to analyze the election.
What it argues
both Trump and Clinton as symptoms of a broken political systemidentity politics as the dominant ideology of global capitalismtolerance vs. genuine universality through shared strugglethe decaffeinated neighbor: patronizing multiculturalismmasculinity crisis, prolonged adolescence, and new female powercreativity, standardized testing, and community standardstransference and the subject supposed to know
Dialectical moves 5
“Both are worse — not both are equally bad, but both are worse.”
Borrowing Stalin's paradoxical formula, Žižek argues Trump and Clinton each represent a different and non-equivalent form of political failure, refusing to collapse them into mere equivalence.
“The very fact that liberal progressives talk a lot about the necessity of change is precisely to make sure there will be no change.”
The rhetoric of change by moderate liberals functions ideologically to prevent real structural transformation by channeling energy into acceptable, non-threatening forms.
“True tolerance is not understanding the other to the end — true tolerance is accepting that you cannot understand them.”
Inverting the liberal premise, Žižek argues genuine tolerance requires acknowledging the opacity of the other rather than dissolving difference through sentimental comprehension.
“True creativity is not to break out of clichés but to install new clichés.”
What appears as artistic conservatism (creating new conventions) is actually the harder and more genuinely creative act than the easy posture of anti-conformism.
“Being called 'star of philosophy' or 'popular' is a refined way to attack me — a way to say you are a funny guy but not too serious.”
Popularity functions as dismissal; the label of 'accessible philosopher' is wielded to deny intellectual seriousness.
Claims 12
asserts
Both Trump and Clinton are 'worse' in different ways: Trump for his white-supremacist base, Clinton for guaranteeing the status quo that will reproduce Trumpism.the 2016 US election
asserts
The dominant ideology of today's global capitalism in the West is not patriarchy but a popularized, consumerist version of fluid identity politics ('watered-down Judith Butler').ideology of global capitalism
asserts
Clinton's greatest harm was not failing to defeat Trump but successfully neutralizing Bernie Sanders as the beginning of a genuine left alternative.Hillary Clinton's political legacy
rejects
Trump does not represent a new fascism; the United States is too complex for that, and Trump is fundamentally a radical opportunist, not an ideologue.Trump-as-fascism thesis
asserts
True tolerance is not requiring full mutual understanding but accepting coexistence with difference and irreducible otherness.liberal multiculturalism and tolerance
asserts
Authentic universality is not multicultural pluralism but the universality forged in shared political struggle, as in the Tahrir Square moment.universality and political solidarity
rejects
The demand to fully understand the other is patronizing and false; true respect accepts the neighbor, including their dark side.sentimental empathy politics
asserts
The couple Trump-Clinton typifies new gender roles in late capitalism: man as perpetual adolescent, woman as prematurely mature manipulator of power.gender roles in late capitalism
asserts
True creativity is not breaking clichés but creating new ones; anyone can be anti-cliché, but only genuine innovators install new shared conventions.creativity and artistic innovation
rejects
Standardized tests can legitimately measure how a candidate fits a specific job requirement; rejecting them entirely in favor of individual creativity standards is naive.anti-standardized-testing rhetoric
asserts
Being labeled 'popular star of philosophy' is a refined form of attack designed to dismiss one as a funny entertainer rather than a serious thinker.Žižek's public intellectual status
rejects
The 'enemy is someone whose story we haven't listened to' formula is politically naive; some enemies become more deserving of opposition the more you hear their story.liberal empathy toward enemies
Quotes 9
“both are worse. not both are equally bad, but both are worse.”Slavoj Žižek · Stalin's formula applied to Trump vs. Clinton
“we like coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, sausage without fat. we like to get a neighbor, an ethnic other without its dark side, a kind of a purified, decaffeinated neighbor”Slavoj Žižek · decaffeinated neighbor / patronizing liberal multiculturalism
“today's radical progressives talk a lot about change, about the necessity of change, to make it sure that there will be no change.”Slavoj Žižek · change-talk as ideological cover for stasis
“true creativity is not to break out of cliches, but to install new cliches. every idiot can be creative in the sense of i'm out of clichés.”Slavoj Žižek · true creativity as installing new conventions
“i believe in a struggling universality. we have problems, indians have problems, arabs have problems. can we form a united front?”Slavoj Žižek · struggling universality vs. multicultural pluralism
“to understand a culture is ultimately to understand their problem, their antagonism.”Slavoj Žižek · understanding through shared antagonism
“being called star of philosophy popular is a refined way to attack me. it's a way to say, oh, you are a funny guy, but not too serious.”Slavoj Žižek · celebrity label as intellectual dismissal
“who can say that i even understand myself. true tolerance is not i should understand all your myths and so on.”Slavoj Žižek · opacity of the self as basis for genuine tolerance
“you don't really want to solve a problem, you want to guarantee your reproduction.”Slavoj Žižek · institutional self-perpetuation vs. problem-solving
Transcript 227 turns
Host
today i'm very excited to be here with slavoy jijek. he's a hegelian philosopher, Lacanian psychoanalyst, and political activist. he's the... you dropped communist political. an ex-communist polit. not intentionally. it wasn't in the back of your book. maybe your.
today i'm very excited to be here with slavoy jijek. he's a hegelian philosopher, Lacanian psychoanalyst, and political activist. he's the... you dropped communist political. an ex-communist polit. not intentionally. it wasn't in the back of your book. maybe your.
Slavoj Žižek
the political court will establish your responsibility. it's not up to you to decide.
the political court will establish your responsibility. it's not up to you to decide.
Host
okay. fair enough, fair enough. he's the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the humanities, global distinguished professor of german at new york university, and his newest book is refugees, terror, and other troubles with the neighbors, against the double blackmail. welcome to think again, Slavoj. i'm glad to be.
okay. fair enough, fair enough. he's the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the humanities, global distinguished professor of german at new york university, and his newest book is refugees, terror, and other troubles with the neighbors, against the double blackmail. welcome to think again, Slavoj. i'm glad to be.
Slavoj Žižek
here again.
here again.
Host
so glad to have you. today, while we're recording this, i mean, this will come out a week later, but we're voting in america. people are very emotional. they're very proud. they're posting to facebook. i had my nine-year-old son with me in the polls today. but reading your book, you know, my sense is that you would view the election sort of in a sense, whichever side you vote on, it's a broken system. the whole thing needs to be kind of redesigned.
so glad to have you. today, while we're recording this, i mean, this will come out a week later, but we're voting in america. people are very emotional. they're very proud. they're posting to facebook. i had my nine-year-old son with me in the polls today. but reading your book, you know, my sense is that you would view the election sort of in a sense, whichever side you vote on, it's a broken system. the whole thing needs to be kind of redesigned.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, in my last text on the election, i, ironically, of course, referred to a famous answer by joseph stalin, who when asked in 1928, i think, by some of official his newspaper, of course, which deviation is worse, the right wing or the left wing, he said, both are worse. not both are equally bad, but both are worse. and i think it's something like this here. on the one hand, trump is worse. i mean, the ideas that he stands for all the white supremacy people, blah, blah, blah, it's just much lower than at least the official ideology of democratic party and all those lgbt plus groups and so on, that stands behind it and so on. so trump is worse. but at the same time, insofar as trump stands, although a bad change, for some kind of political dynamics.
yeah, in my last text on the election, i, ironically, of course, referred to a famous answer by joseph stalin, who when asked in 1928, i think, by some of official his newspaper, of course, which deviation is worse, the right wing or the left wing, he said, both are worse. not both are equally bad, but both are worse. and i think it's something like this here. on the one hand, trump is worse. i mean, the ideas that he stands for all the white supremacy people, blah, blah, blah, it's just much lower than at least the official ideology of democratic party and all those lgbt plus groups and so on, that stands behind it and so on. so trump is worse. but at the same time, insofar as trump stands, although a bad change, for some kind of political dynamics.
Host
right.
right.
Slavoj Žižek
clinton is worse in the sense that she is simply for the status quo. and that's my problem with hillary clinton. she reunited in a masterful ideological operation everyone who is hillary clinton. from occupy wall street to wall street, from lgbt, black liberation, gay rights to saudi arabian money, whatever you want and so on. the price for this was, of course, bernie sanders, who was at least the beginning of a true alternative, had to be erased, had to disappear. and that's what worries me with, i'm sure she will win, hillary's victory. nothing will happen. it's the status quo, which means that probably in a couple of years, trump will be again here. what i was not, as it was misrepresented, for trump, i mean, it makes me throw.
clinton is worse in the sense that she is simply for the status quo. and that's my problem with hillary clinton. she reunited in a masterful ideological operation everyone who is hillary clinton. from occupy wall street to wall street, from lgbt, black liberation, gay rights to saudi arabian money, whatever you want and so on. the price for this was, of course, bernie sanders, who was at least the beginning of a true alternative, had to be erased, had to disappear. and that's what worries me with, i'm sure she will win, hillary's victory. nothing will happen. it's the status quo, which means that probably in a couple of years, trump will be again here. what i was not, as it was misrepresented, for trump, i mean, it makes me throw.
Host
and let me interrupt.
and let me interrupt.
Slavoj Žižek
amen.
amen.
Host
and comment.
and comment.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, please yeah.
yeah, please yeah.
Host
the internet has been putting a lot of articles out saying that slavo here is pro-trump. in fact, what he said was exactly
the internet has been putting a lot of articles out saying that slavo here is pro-trump. in fact, what he said was exactly
Slavoj Žižek
yes.
yes.
Host
that is what you're saying.
that is what you're saying.
Slavoj Žižek
no, i'm just saying as you said, i'm trying to involve you so that if i'm linkedched, you will be lynched with me.
no, i'm just saying as you said, i'm trying to involve you so that if i'm linkedched, you will be lynched with me.
Host
hang from the
hang from the
Slavoj Žižek
yeah yeah that we should, without in any case voting for trump, we should just coldly appreciate this situation. maybe i'm wrong, i can even be convinced here, but if hilary wins, nothing changes. and even more dangerously, what worries me, all those big banks cold war warriors like wolfowitz and so on standing with her, i think she will be this horrible combination of some concessions to progressive sexual freedoms, blah blah, but it's part of the same package with aggressive foreign policy and so on and so on. while with trump, disgusting as he is, first i think this fear that practically he will introduce fascism or what. he cannot do it. united states are too complex a country and you cannot apply to him this situation of 1933 where also many leftists thought it's better hitler, that at least the front will be clear, move and so on. no, no, trump cannot do this. trump is not simply a neo-fascist. a radical... often confused opportunist. he often sometimes even said things which made sense. for example, you know, at a certain point he said, but we should show a little bit more opening for palestinian side also to see it. then in a typical trump way, when there was a jewish backlash, he said, no, no, no, jerusalem is the eternal capital of israel, all that stuff. he's radically opportunist.
yeah yeah that we should, without in any case voting for trump, we should just coldly appreciate this situation. maybe i'm wrong, i can even be convinced here, but if hilary wins, nothing changes. and even more dangerously, what worries me, all those big banks cold war warriors like wolfowitz and so on standing with her, i think she will be this horrible combination of some concessions to progressive sexual freedoms, blah blah, but it's part of the same package with aggressive foreign policy and so on and so on. while with trump, disgusting as he is, first i think this fear that practically he will introduce fascism or what. he cannot do it. united states are too complex a country and you cannot apply to him this situation of 1933 where also many leftists thought it's better hitler, that at least the front will be clear, move and so on. no, no, trump cannot do this. trump is not simply a neo-fascist. a radical... often confused opportunist. he often sometimes even said things which made sense. for example, you know, at a certain point he said, but we should show a little bit more opening for palestinian side also to see it. then in a typical trump way, when there was a jewish backlash, he said, no, no, no, jerusalem is the eternal capital of israel, all that stuff. he's radically opportunist.
Host
i mean, i think the concern that a lot of people have, myself included, that he's unpredictable. we don't know what he.
i mean, i think the concern that a lot of people have, myself included, that he's unpredictable. we don't know what he.
Slavoj Žižek
and here i respectfully. i with you. i think he has a lot of this posturing and so on, but i think that basically in his acts, he's just a very realistic opportunist and i don't think, i wouldn't even expect any big changes with him in power. what i do fear, i'm aware of the stuff first. i know that the very fact that he mobilized white supremists and is dangerous point. if he nominates all the judges, in the supreme court it's a problem. but for 40 years
and here i respectfully. i with you. i think he has a lot of this posturing and so on, but i think that basically in his acts, he's just a very realistic opportunist and i don't think, i wouldn't even expect any big changes with him in power. what i do fear, i'm aware of the stuff first. i know that the very fact that he mobilized white supremists and is dangerous point. if he nominates all the judges, in the supreme court it's a problem. but for 40 years
Host
so.
so.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, yeah yeah. but what i, nonetheless think is that. his victory. which will not happen. would have been such a shock. that it would hopefully trigger a certain process which i think would more or less certainly brought out a certain revitalized, not communist left, but let's say bernie sanders a step further and point two, it would have been a great problem for republican party, although people think that no, all these opportunisms, different factions in the republican party that in his victory they would be united. i don't believe this. i think that, okay, i'll put it like this. now i will say something radical. okay. those people i detect in those moderate leftist liberals who fell into this game, oh, hillary is nonetheless the lesser evil desperately in this her, that they secretly know that trump means change. he is a voice of those enraged disappointment which could be maybe redirected, that they are really horrified at change as such. they really, i quote in my new text, which appeared digitally online in in these times two days ago, i quote a wonderful passage from george orwell, who claims that today's radical progressives talk a lot about change, about the necessity of change, to make it sure that there will be no change. you know. i think that...
yeah, yeah yeah. but what i, nonetheless think is that. his victory. which will not happen. would have been such a shock. that it would hopefully trigger a certain process which i think would more or less certainly brought out a certain revitalized, not communist left, but let's say bernie sanders a step further and point two, it would have been a great problem for republican party, although people think that no, all these opportunisms, different factions in the republican party that in his victory they would be united. i don't believe this. i think that, okay, i'll put it like this. now i will say something radical. okay. those people i detect in those moderate leftist liberals who fell into this game, oh, hillary is nonetheless the lesser evil desperately in this her, that they secretly know that trump means change. he is a voice of those enraged disappointment which could be maybe redirected, that they are really horrified at change as such. they really, i quote in my new text, which appeared digitally online in in these times two days ago, i quote a wonderful passage from george orwell, who claims that today's radical progressives talk a lot about change, about the necessity of change, to make it sure that there will be no change. you know. i think that...
Host
but are you saying that all change is good? i mean, like shooting a nuclear bomb at the us.
but are you saying that all change is good? i mean, like shooting a nuclear bomb at the us.
Slavoj Žižek
i know it's a radical change, but it's not good.
i know it's a radical change, but it's not good.
Host
no.
no.
Slavoj Žižek
no, but i'm not there. saying that this fear of, again i repeat it, trump is disgusting, but this fear of trump that it will mean new fascism, i don't share this fear. i think he is really a very opportune
no, but i'm not there. saying that this fear of, again i repeat it, trump is disgusting, but this fear of trump that it will mean new fascism, i don't share this fear. i think he is really a very opportune
Host
i think it means significant empowerment of some very, very ugly elements in american society, which i'm not
i think it means significant empowerment of some very, very ugly elements in american society, which i'm not
Slavoj Žižek
maybe but it doesn.
maybe but it doesn.
Host
.
.
Slavoj Žižek
and he's not elected.
and he's not elected.
Host
but.
but.
Slavoj Žižek
but at the same time, i think that the big problem of united states from the very beginning, maybe the last time of a strong socialist party was, i think, in the years, not even decades after world war i, think.
but at the same time, i think that the big problem of united states from the very beginning, maybe the last time of a strong socialist party was, i think, in the years, not even decades after world war i, think.
Host
well, maybe yeah, 1930s.
well, maybe yeah, 1930s.
Slavoj Žižek
ter was lady.
ter was lady.
Host
that.
that.
Slavoj Žižek
i think there was some sup socialist workers party. so i think that what would be wonderful news for the united states is to make a step over this. radical eccentric circles and just this one issue movements and so on, like which are nice, lgbt, gay rights and so on, to make it into a serious a a little bit more radical political force, what in european terms would have been not too moderate but not too radical but a serious, even social democratic force. and that's for me the tragedy of hill. her greatest act will not be defeating trump, that was easy to do, but defeating the threat of this alternative bernie sanders and so on.
i think there was some sup socialist workers party. so i think that what would be wonderful news for the united states is to make a step over this. radical eccentric circles and just this one issue movements and so on, like which are nice, lgbt, gay rights and so on, to make it into a serious a a little bit more radical political force, what in european terms would have been not too moderate but not too radical but a serious, even social democratic force. and that's for me the tragedy of hill. her greatest act will not be defeating trump, that was easy to do, but defeating the threat of this alternative bernie sanders and so on.
Host
oh, i see, i see. so your issue, as i understand it from the book, is with this sort of tepid alliance of global capitalism, like that issues like lgbt rights and whatever get subsumed into this giant global octopus of global capitalism.
oh, i see, i see. so your issue, as i understand it from the book, is with this sort of tepid alliance of global capitalism, like that issues like lgbt rights and whatever get subsumed into this giant global octopus of global capitalism.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, and it works. and it works in the sense of that's the big problem i have with some feminists and so on, where i claim to put it in this bombastic marxist terms, the predominant ideology of today's global capitalism in the developed western countries is no longer patriarchy and so on. it's precisely this type of, let's call it, watered-down judith butler, you know. judith butler, okay. watered down in the sense of this common perception of let's not have a transfixed identity, we need the freedom to redefine ourselves, to reinvent ourselves and this is why also gbt plus fits it perfectly. this idea, no fixed divisions, we always reconstruct ourselves, redefine ourselves and so on. of absolutely.
yeah, and it works. and it works in the sense of that's the big problem i have with some feminists and so on, where i claim to put it in this bombastic marxist terms, the predominant ideology of today's global capitalism in the developed western countries is no longer patriarchy and so on. it's precisely this type of, let's call it, watered-down judith butler, you know. judith butler, okay. watered down in the sense of this common perception of let's not have a transfixed identity, we need the freedom to redefine ourselves, to reinvent ourselves and this is why also gbt plus fits it perfectly. this idea, no fixed divisions, we always reconstruct ourselves, redefine ourselves and so on. of absolutely.
Host
easily
easily
Slavoj Žižek
no i am here, not so much commodified, but i'm saying even not only that it is easily appropriated, but that it is fundamentally the ideology of today's global capitalism. no, now. oh i.
no i am here, not so much commodified, but i'm saying even not only that it is easily appropriated, but that it is fundamentally the ideology of today's global capitalism. no, now. oh i.
Host
identity politics equals global capital.
identity politics equals global capital.
Slavoj Žižek
oh wait. no know in what sense equals, if you deprive identity politics of its social edge, and that's the whole artistry of american mainstream politics, to be for identity politics, to deprive it of its more radical social edge. so that, for example, that's why i criticize the notion of tolerance. tolerance means instead of political struggle, which is intolerant, the problem becomes i am who i am, you are who i am, we should learn to tolerate each other and so on and so on. this is not what even right-wing authentic politics is. authentic politics is i have a global vision which is different for yours. let's fight without killing each other. but let's fight radically to the end.
oh wait. no know in what sense equals, if you deprive identity politics of its social edge, and that's the whole artistry of american mainstream politics, to be for identity politics, to deprive it of its more radical social edge. so that, for example, that's why i criticize the notion of tolerance. tolerance means instead of political struggle, which is intolerant, the problem becomes i am who i am, you are who i am, we should learn to tolerate each other and so on and so on. this is not what even right-wing authentic politics is. authentic politics is i have a global vision which is different for yours. let's fight without killing each other. but let's fight radically to the end.
Host
one really interesting thing in your book is the chapter on the stranger. and this brings me to that. the idea of the neighbor and the chapter is called the limits of neighborhood. and you quote another writer and essentially say that creepiness is the modern definition or the modern
one really interesting thing in your book is the chapter on the stranger. and this brings me to that. the idea of the neighbor and the chapter is called the limits of neighborhood. and you quote another writer and essentially say that creepiness is the modern definition or the modern
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Host
core of the neighbor. and you say you basically say we shouldn't try and within this refugee crisis and other other global issues we shouldn't try to sentimentally sympathize or empathize with the pain of others, but we should
core of the neighbor. and you say you basically say we shouldn't try and within this refugee crisis and other other global issues we shouldn't try to sentimentally sympathize or empathize with the pain of others, but we should
Slavoj Žižek
recognize our
recognize our
Host
alienation from
alienation from
Slavoj Žižek
no, i'm trying to say something else. i also quote it in the book. for example, you know, often we encounter in politics, for me at least, utter stupidities which appear as wisdom. and i quote one you may remember, which is, enemy someone to whose story we were not able or ready to listen to right right okay it sounds deep and it's understandable like you have your own vision. i don't care it. i stigmatize you as the enemy. i don't want to hear your side of the story. sorry, but this wisdom has great limitations. would you also say, for example, that hitler was our enemy because we were not ready to listen? no, there are real enemies. okay where the more you listen to his story,
no, i'm trying to say something else. i also quote it in the book. for example, you know, often we encounter in politics, for me at least, utter stupidities which appear as wisdom. and i quote one you may remember, which is, enemy someone to whose story we were not able or ready to listen to right right okay it sounds deep and it's understandable like you have your own vision. i don't care it. i stigmatize you as the enemy. i don't want to hear your side of the story. sorry, but this wisdom has great limitations. would you also say, for example, that hitler was our enemy because we were not ready to listen? no, there are real enemies. okay where the more you listen to his story,
Host
the more you should hate him. but speaking as one of these liberals that you're sort of writing against in that section.
the more you should hate him. but speaking as one of these liberals that you're sort of writing against in that section.
Slavoj Žižek
because, because i think...
because, because i think...
Host
that's me.
that's me.
Slavoj Žižek
i think that's me. listen, i can tell you something with all my friendship. when we the people take over, you go to gulak, but you call me, i will arrange that you will get cigarettes and whiskey there. you will not suffer too much. okay, let's excellent excellent. be sort of an oligarchy in oligia.
i think that's me. listen, i can tell you something with all my friendship. when we the people take over, you go to gulak, but you call me, i will arrange that you will get cigarettes and whiskey there. you will not suffer too much. okay, let's excellent excellent. be sort of an oligarchy in oligia.
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
but i am not saying we should not understand our neighbor and so on. i'm just saying there is a limit and true tolerance is not this. i should absolutely understand you. true tolerance is i don't understand you because as i put it cynically, i think in the book, who can say that i even understand myself. yeah, true tolerance for me is not i should understand all your myths and so on. true tolerance is we are in one of these big around washington square, these high condominiums and so on. and my ideal is to live there. next apartment is an african american, next apartment an indian, an arab. hardline jew, latino- american and we have polite relations maybe, maybe not i become friendly with none of them but we fully respect each other with all the differences. that's almost my ideal society. i don't like this absolute pressure. i must understand you to the end no the true the true even the true love is this. the true love now i'm moving, but it a good parallel i think to personal level. i never like this idea of total love we think like one and so on. that's horrible. in true love you leave to your beloved a certain autonomy. you know you cannot penetrate her not sexually but mentally totally and so on. so why this obsession with understanding the other to the end that's not the problem. and i think the problem is just the problem is that even if we don't at this level of ways of life, understand each other, we should build a common front. so my idea is, look, i always use this wonderful example. you remember tahrir square egypt demonstrations. okay. till that point, it was always popular to say, but can we understand egyptians, are they mature for democracy? when that happened, all of a sudden... all those shitty problems of multiculturalism, do we understand them, disappeared and we were not wrong. we knew now we are on the same side. this is our shared struggle. i like those moments. i don't think, as some liberal cynics would have said, bad liberals now not you, that this is just an illusion. no, it's not an illusion. this is authentic universality, which is always the universality of a struggle. not that unesco book book universality where old world cultures are described as big contributions to world humanity. i believe in a struggling universality. we have problems, indians have problems, arabs have problems. can we form a united front? okay, so i totally get that on no, i get it on the political level.
but i am not saying we should not understand our neighbor and so on. i'm just saying there is a limit and true tolerance is not this. i should absolutely understand you. true tolerance is i don't understand you because as i put it cynically, i think in the book, who can say that i even understand myself. yeah, true tolerance for me is not i should understand all your myths and so on. true tolerance is we are in one of these big around washington square, these high condominiums and so on. and my ideal is to live there. next apartment is an african american, next apartment an indian, an arab. hardline jew, latino- american and we have polite relations maybe, maybe not i become friendly with none of them but we fully respect each other with all the differences. that's almost my ideal society. i don't like this absolute pressure. i must understand you to the end no the true the true even the true love is this. the true love now i'm moving, but it a good parallel i think to personal level. i never like this idea of total love we think like one and so on. that's horrible. in true love you leave to your beloved a certain autonomy. you know you cannot penetrate her not sexually but mentally totally and so on. so why this obsession with understanding the other to the end that's not the problem. and i think the problem is just the problem is that even if we don't at this level of ways of life, understand each other, we should build a common front. so my idea is, look, i always use this wonderful example. you remember tahrir square egypt demonstrations. okay. till that point, it was always popular to say, but can we understand egyptians, are they mature for democracy? when that happened, all of a sudden... all those shitty problems of multiculturalism, do we understand them, disappeared and we were not wrong. we knew now we are on the same side. this is our shared struggle. i like those moments. i don't think, as some liberal cynics would have said, bad liberals now not you, that this is just an illusion. no, it's not an illusion. this is authentic universality, which is always the universality of a struggle. not that unesco book book universality where old world cultures are described as big contributions to world humanity. i believe in a struggling universality. we have problems, indians have problems, arabs have problems. can we form a united front? okay, so i totally get that on no, i get it on the political level.
Host
cultural level, i understand that we can't even understand ourselves, let alone understand another person.
cultural level, i understand that we can't even understand ourselves, let alone understand another person.
Slavoj Žižek
fully. i
fully. i
Host
or.
or.
Slavoj Žižek
also communities, one community, one way of life, right.
also communities, one community, one way of life, right.
Host
right. and i also understand something that you're saying, which i think is really interesting, which is that when we attempt to fully understand one another, what we essentially do is impress a set of assumptions upon the other. which then, when they don't meet those assignments,
right. and i also understand something that you're saying, which i think is really interesting, which is that when we attempt to fully understand one another, what we essentially do is impress a set of assumptions upon the other. which then, when they don't meet those assignments,
Slavoj Žižek
i'm
i'm
Host
get pissed.
get pissed.
Slavoj Žižek
off and we get angry or insulted or whatever. typical with african americans or with native americans. for example, how often i found my friends celebrating blacks, african americans as wonderful their music, blah blah blah. but then when you meet as every social group has it, a more brutal side, whatever, they get in total panic, you know, all of a sudden they understand, you know what's the problem? if i may use my old metaphor, in the same way that in today's consumerism, we like to get a product without its rough element. we like coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, sausage without fat. we like to get a neighbor, an ethnic other without its dark side, a kind of a purified, decaffeinated neighbor, i call them, you know. but for me, true respect for the neighbor is that precisely you accept the neighbor not as someone who should not be criticized, but you accept him precisely as someone with all his weaknesses, horrors, respectfully get engaged in a dialogue with him. not this patronizing respect which is false. sorry
off and we get angry or insulted or whatever. typical with african americans or with native americans. for example, how often i found my friends celebrating blacks, african americans as wonderful their music, blah blah blah. but then when you meet as every social group has it, a more brutal side, whatever, they get in total panic, you know, all of a sudden they understand, you know what's the problem? if i may use my old metaphor, in the same way that in today's consumerism, we like to get a product without its rough element. we like coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, sausage without fat. we like to get a neighbor, an ethnic other without its dark side, a kind of a purified, decaffeinated neighbor, i call them, you know. but for me, true respect for the neighbor is that precisely you accept the neighbor not as someone who should not be criticized, but you accept him precisely as someone with all his weaknesses, horrors, respectfully get engaged in a dialogue with him. not this patronizing respect which is false. sorry
Host
so in some ways, i guess what i want to say though is that i think that there is a type of empathy and that there is a value of empathy which is not sentimental or patronizing and which is actually a desire at any rate, to find some kind of common ground with other human beings.
so in some ways, i guess what i want to say though is that i think that there is a type of empathy and that there is a value of empathy which is not sentimental or patronizing and which is actually a desire at any rate, to find some kind of common ground with other human beings.
Slavoj Žižek
and i don't know.
and i don't know.
Host
if if these terms are even meaningful anymore, but in a way it seems like what you're describing is a very kind of what i would think of or would have thought of at one time in history as a very masculine perspective, a kind of like robust like let us make fun of each other and go to battle.
if if these terms are even meaningful anymore, but in a way it seems like what you're describing is a very kind of what i would think of or would have thought of at one time in history as a very masculine perspective, a kind of like robust like let us make fun of each other and go to battle.
Slavoj Žižek
together.
together.
Host
no. right.
no. right.
Slavoj Žižek
have the ultimate surprise for you.
have the ultimate surprise for you.
Host
i
i
Slavoj Žižek
which is not the say only for men, but now, as a good feminist, i would tell you, which notion of masculinity, femininity you have here. these roles are historical and change. for example, now comes the big. i think that the very couple trump, hillary, trump clinton tells us a lot. till now we have a certain notion of masculinity which was predominant. it was, i follow here my good friend alain badiou who develops this in his new book, which was defined by a certain right of maturity. like in traditional societies, but this men till 30, 40 years ago, you become really a man after some initiation, either in which was typical after you serve the army that was the initiation or after you find a permanent job or after you get married or even after you finish your studies now this symbolic moment of initiation are disappearing no longer have weight right men are more and more this is a tendency, but a profound one, defined by their, let's call it, prolonged adolescence. you are never mature even when you are adult, you remain an adolescent right and then women, very interestingly, are to a large extent treated as prematurely mature. already girls are treated as women responsible for them. so what is happening in our social space is that because of this lack of moment of initiation, which provides you with a certain identity, men then look for a that in half illegal gangs and so on.
which is not the say only for men, but now, as a good feminist, i would tell you, which notion of masculinity, femininity you have here. these roles are historical and change. for example, now comes the big. i think that the very couple trump, hillary, trump clinton tells us a lot. till now we have a certain notion of masculinity which was predominant. it was, i follow here my good friend alain badiou who develops this in his new book, which was defined by a certain right of maturity. like in traditional societies, but this men till 30, 40 years ago, you become really a man after some initiation, either in which was typical after you serve the army that was the initiation or after you find a permanent job or after you get married or even after you finish your studies now this symbolic moment of initiation are disappearing no longer have weight right men are more and more this is a tendency, but a profound one, defined by their, let's call it, prolonged adolescence. you are never mature even when you are adult, you remain an adolescent right and then women, very interestingly, are to a large extent treated as prematurely mature. already girls are treated as women responsible for them. so what is happening in our social space is that because of this lack of moment of initiation, which provides you with a certain identity, men then look for a that in half illegal gangs and so on.
Host
all.
all.
Slavoj Žižek
stuff, violence and so on. while women are emerging as something much more interesting. there is a new figure of power today which mobilizes certain traditional features of femininity, not just brutality but comprehending, understanding, which fits, let's call it post-authoritarian functioning of power even better. but you quotes a wonderful example. he says, look at typical . french courts for young delinquents. the typical scene is a young immigrant working class boy, non-socialized, immature, part of a gang, treated for him by faces of power which are for him predominantly feminine. judges, feminist judges, psychiatrists and so on. so i think that this new duality, man as immature rationally aggressive, exploding, not controlling himself. on the other hand, woman is more compassionate and so on. but at the same time,
stuff, violence and so on. while women are emerging as something much more interesting. there is a new figure of power today which mobilizes certain traditional features of femininity, not just brutality but comprehending, understanding, which fits, let's call it post-authoritarian functioning of power even better. but you quotes a wonderful example. he says, look at typical . french courts for young delinquents. the typical scene is a young immigrant working class boy, non-socialized, immature, part of a gang, treated for him by faces of power which are for him predominantly feminine. judges, feminist judges, psychiatrists and so on. so i think that this new duality, man as immature rationally aggressive, exploding, not controlling himself. on the other hand, woman is more compassionate and so on. but at the same time,
Host
in power. yeah.
in power. yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
first, let me make it clear. i'm not saying these are women. i'm here, i'm totally pro-feminist. i'm just saying this is one position which is of power which is today offered to women. okay, my point is this one. it's not an ideal example of this the couple donald trump-hary. donald trump is the ultimate, isn't he a perpetual adolescent? what is?
first, let me make it clear. i'm not saying these are women. i'm here, i'm totally pro-feminist. i'm just saying this is one position which is of power which is today offered to women. okay, my point is this one. it's not an ideal example of this the couple donald trump-hary. donald trump is the ultimate, isn't he a perpetual adolescent? what is?
Host
he just
he just
Slavoj Žižek
expl as this well hilary is this ultimate manipulative woman and even i heard some rumors, who knows if they are true, that even this is how their true personal relationship works.
expl as this well hilary is this ultimate manipulative woman and even i heard some rumors, who knows if they are true, that even this is how their true personal relationship works.
Host
okay.
okay.
Slavoj Žižek
who is, i mean, hillary and bill. and bill. it's bill who is now more weakened, so weakened, and hillary already in the levinsky affair, she was not that oh crying, what are you doing, but totally in control, strategic., she was okay, go to play with monica, well i'll do the serious plotting. so in other words, i like to see this couple, hillary and trump, yeah as a new version of sexual difference, of gender roles emerging in late capitalism. and they are not only bad for the men, but also bad for the women it allows women more power, but only if you obey these brutal commercialized, commodified rules of feminine manipulation and so on. this worries me. no, no, no, it's not only here. look, i even in a certain way i even admire this. did you notice that in the last decades, if you want really tough job done, margaret thatcher, indira gandhi, you need a woman and i like that. even in germany, angela merkel was a nice
who is, i mean, hillary and bill. and bill. it's bill who is now more weakened, so weakened, and hillary already in the levinsky affair, she was not that oh crying, what are you doing, but totally in control, strategic., she was okay, go to play with monica, well i'll do the serious plotting. so in other words, i like to see this couple, hillary and trump, yeah as a new version of sexual difference, of gender roles emerging in late capitalism. and they are not only bad for the men, but also bad for the women it allows women more power, but only if you obey these brutal commercialized, commodified rules of feminine manipulation and so on. this worries me. no, no, no, it's not only here. look, i even in a certain way i even admire this. did you notice that in the last decades, if you want really tough job done, margaret thatcher, indira gandhi, you need a woman and i like that. even in germany, angela merkel was a nice
Host
no, but i understand what you're saying. i understand what you're saying.
no, but i understand what you're saying. i understand what you're saying.
Slavoj Žižek
i am not saying that this is an argument against women's power,. it's just that we have women demands for power. i totally agree with them and then in a tricky way it offers you, okay, you women want power, here you have it in. here's how you have to.
i am not saying that this is an argument against women's power,. it's just that we have women demands for power. i totally agree with them and then in a tricky way it offers you, okay, you women want power, here you have it in. here's how you have to.
Host
give yeah.
give yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
al.
al.
Host
whatever.
whatever.
Slavoj Žižek
and this is a very sect tendency.
and this is a very sect tendency.
Host
yes, i can totally buy that. i guess no, no, no. again, going back to what we were saying before, i think you propose a dichotomy which may exist, but that the sole binary in that dichotomy doesn't have to be between sentimental, insultingly superior kind of pity for the other, and on the other hand, this sort of distance and solidarity. i don't think those are the only like i think that there is, there are visions of coming to understanding through understanding the other.
yes, i can totally buy that. i guess no, no, no. again, going back to what we were saying before, i think you propose a dichotomy which may exist, but that the sole binary in that dichotomy doesn't have to be between sentimental, insultingly superior kind of pity for the other, and on the other hand, this sort of distance and solidarity. i don't think those are the only like i think that there is, there are visions of coming to understanding through understanding the other.
Slavoj Žižek
your understanding is a very painful long process which goes well beyond any kind of sentiment. you know in what sense? you know, i will tell you how. you will probably not agree with it. i think it was the only moment i come to an understanding with my chinese friends. i was there at the philosophical conference and okay, we just talked obviously, we talked empty. and then somebody attacked me and another guy attacked me, but they attacked me in a totally different way and they ended up attacking each other. and i was able to identify with that struggle. all of a sudden there were no problems. i was fighting for one against the other, you know, to understand a culture. is ultimately to understand their problem, their antagonism. that would be my. i don't otherwise you mystify the other into this, you know, they live some organic, meaningful life. they know we are all in the same shit. i don't believe in some people there, like this is, or even with revolutionary activists.
your understanding is a very painful long process which goes well beyond any kind of sentiment. you know in what sense? you know, i will tell you how. you will probably not agree with it. i think it was the only moment i come to an understanding with my chinese friends. i was there at the philosophical conference and okay, we just talked obviously, we talked empty. and then somebody attacked me and another guy attacked me, but they attacked me in a totally different way and they ended up attacking each other. and i was able to identify with that struggle. all of a sudden there were no problems. i was fighting for one against the other, you know, to understand a culture. is ultimately to understand their problem, their antagonism. that would be my. i don't otherwise you mystify the other into this, you know, they live some organic, meaningful life. they know we are all in the same shit. i don't believe in some people there, like this is, or even with revolutionary activists.
Host
but what about the psychological experience of being a person and having a kid? and for example, let me give you an example really quick, and then let's move on to the next thing after i hear your response. you know, there's this guy. he works in the parking garage where we park our car., it's a real guy.
but what about the psychological experience of being a person and having a kid? and for example, let me give you an example really quick, and then let's move on to the next thing after i hear your response. you know, there's this guy. he works in the parking garage where we park our car., it's a real guy.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, yeah.
yeah, yeah.
Host
he... a few days ago, like i'm like, how you doing? you know, i didn't know anything. the guy's from the dominican republic. i see him when i park my car. i said, how you doing? and he's like, not so good. and i'm like, what's going on? and it turns out his daughter, who's like 30, is in a coma. and he and i had a moment, like she just fell into a coma. and like i had a moment where i stared across the abyss between of culture and everything else that divides me and this guy, and i just like hugged the man. i don't know. no, no.
he... a few days ago, like i'm like, how you doing? you know, i didn't know anything. the guy's from the dominican republic. i see him when i park my car. i said, how you doing? and he's like, not so good. and i'm like, what's going on? and it turns out his daughter, who's like 30, is in a coma. and he and i had a moment, like she just fell into a coma. and like i had a moment where i stared across the abyss between of culture and everything else that divides me and this guy, and i just like hugged the man. i don't know. no, no.
Slavoj Žižek
i totally believe in such moments, but you saw that it was a moment of pain, of nonetheless.
i totally believe in such moments, but you saw that it was a moment of pain, of nonetheless.
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
to be this, i think.
to be this, i think.
Host
but that is a common human experience. i have lost people. i am not his experience is not my experience..
but that is a common human experience. i have lost people. i am not his experience is not my experience..
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, yeah. there's some resonance there.
yeah, yeah. there's some resonance there.
Host
no we couldn't have wait a minute. i
no we couldn't have wait a minute. i
Slavoj Žižek
any problems, although some multiculturalists will again complicate the game telling you, but how do you know that the loss of a child means the same thing?
any problems, although some multiculturalists will again complicate the game telling you, but how do you know that the loss of a child means the same thing?
Host
i don't. intellectually i don't. but there was a thing.
i don't. intellectually i don't. but there was a thing.
Slavoj Žižek
that know that's what i mean. i think that you were right. this was a universal, a genuine universal moment and i don't believe in this pseudo-intellectual complication. but how do i know?
that know that's what i mean. i think that you were right. this was a universal, a genuine universal moment and i don't believe in this pseudo-intellectual complication. but how do i know?
Host
it.
it.
Slavoj Žižek
means the same thing to you as to him. no, i believe in this magic moments of sharing intimacy. i totally believe.
means the same thing to you as to him. no, i believe in this magic moments of sharing intimacy. i totally believe.
Host
okay.
okay.
Slavoj Žižek
genuinely universal.
genuinely universal.
Host
all right, i wanted to ask you about that. reading reading your book and then this.
all right, i wanted to ask you about that. reading reading your book and then this.
Slavoj Žižek
it's happened. no, no.
it's happened. no, no.
Host
so let's get to the second part of the show, huh we have.
so let's get to the second part of the show, huh we have.
Slavoj Žižek
surprise.
surprise.
Host
yeah, the video these are video. i suppose fuck you, you already had them there. they sent them to me. i've not watched them. i swear to you.
yeah, the video these are video. i suppose fuck you, you already had them there. they sent them to me. i've not watched them. i swear to you.
Slavoj Žižek
no, i'm not so bad.
no, i'm not so bad.
Host
i am better.
i am better.
Slavoj Žižek
but not so bad.
but not so bad.
Host
all right, so the first one, is scott barry kaufman, who is the director of something called the imagination institute.
all right, so the first one, is scott barry kaufman, who is the director of something called the imagination institute.
Slavoj Žižek
i'm an idiot. i don't know anything.
i'm an idiot. i don't know anything.
Host
i don't know what that is either. i'm also an idiot on that score. and it's called, there is a way to unlock human potential, but it's not standardized testing.
i don't know what that is either. i'm also an idiot on that score. and it's called, there is a way to unlock human potential, but it's not standardized testing.
Co-Host
the idea of what we should be testing is very hotly debated. there's a certain objectivity that we think we have once we standardize things and we give it the same test to everyone. and there is some truth to that, that the more you standardize a test, the more you kind of give everyone the same opportunity to perform on that test. so there is some argument to be made towards standardization. but we don't have standardized minds. i mean, no one has a standardized mind. there's no such thing as an average mind. so every one of us, every unique individual, as a dynamic system of not just cognitive processes, but motivational processes, dreams, desires. i formulated a theory, called it the theory of personal intelligence, because i argued i wanted to shift our focus of analysis from taking one aspect. we say, well, this is we've decided as society, that's our measure of intelligence. and then we compare everyone to each other on that one metric. so when it comes to testing, i'm not necessarily against testing. i'm not necessarily against using standardized tests. as a way of measuring learning outcomes, but as a way of measuring human potential, i'm not down with that.
the idea of what we should be testing is very hotly debated. there's a certain objectivity that we think we have once we standardize things and we give it the same test to everyone. and there is some truth to that, that the more you standardize a test, the more you kind of give everyone the same opportunity to perform on that test. so there is some argument to be made towards standardization. but we don't have standardized minds. i mean, no one has a standardized mind. there's no such thing as an average mind. so every one of us, every unique individual, as a dynamic system of not just cognitive processes, but motivational processes, dreams, desires. i formulated a theory, called it the theory of personal intelligence, because i argued i wanted to shift our focus of analysis from taking one aspect. we say, well, this is we've decided as society, that's our measure of intelligence. and then we compare everyone to each other on that one metric. so when it comes to testing, i'm not necessarily against testing. i'm not necessarily against using standardized tests. as a way of measuring learning outcomes, but as a way of measuring human potential, i'm not down with that.
Slavoj Žižek
it sounds nice, but i'm a little bit suspicious about it. you know why? because i don't like this focus on individuals. because this can ultimately also mean there are no idiots because each of us has individual standards and so on. of course, this is, even in a banal way, true. but there is nonetheless something in between this universal tests and your unique individual composer is, my god, we are not born as... individuals. we are raised through internalizing certain standards of our way of life and so on and so on.
it sounds nice, but i'm a little bit suspicious about it. you know why? because i don't like this focus on individuals. because this can ultimately also mean there are no idiots because each of us has individual standards and so on. of course, this is, even in a banal way, true. but there is nonetheless something in between this universal tests and your unique individual composer is, my god, we are not born as... individuals. we are raised through internalizing certain standards of our way of life and so on and so on.
Host
we live in communities. we
we live in communities. we
Slavoj Žižek
these communities precisely always involve a certain balance between intellectual, emotional, organizationalatorial capacities and so on and so on. so, yes, we should demystify tests. they don't measure an objective property of yours and so on. but they can... well measured, how do you stand? with regard to what your community expects from a successful or bright or whatever human being. and here things get for me complicated because as i was yeah if you don't fit this model, it's not as simple as to say but maybe you have your own standards. yes, you have your own standards but you know, like 101 of 199 people, this your own standards mean you are dropout right and every 100, even less, makes out of this distance something creative and you explode. and i think it's too cheap to say, yeah, creativity in everyone and so on and so on. again, creativity, it's a very problematic term. what do we mean by creativity? i mean, creativity is again a term which i would... return to him, to this guy. his own argumentation and say what does he mean by creativity? different cultures appreciate creativity in a different for example, in some cultures's a creative way is what i ironically refer to as the, how do you call them, as the lee strasberg actors studio yeah
these communities precisely always involve a certain balance between intellectual, emotional, organizationalatorial capacities and so on and so on. so, yes, we should demystify tests. they don't measure an objective property of yours and so on. but they can... well measured, how do you stand? with regard to what your community expects from a successful or bright or whatever human being. and here things get for me complicated because as i was yeah if you don't fit this model, it's not as simple as to say but maybe you have your own standards. yes, you have your own standards but you know, like 101 of 199 people, this your own standards mean you are dropout right and every 100, even less, makes out of this distance something creative and you explode. and i think it's too cheap to say, yeah, creativity in everyone and so on and so on. again, creativity, it's a very problematic term. what do we mean by creativity? i mean, creativity is again a term which i would... return to him, to this guy. his own argumentation and say what does he mean by creativity? different cultures appreciate creativity in a different for example, in some cultures's a creative way is what i ironically refer to as the, how do you call them, as the lee strasberg actors studio yeah
Co-Host
creativity means you openly bring
creativity means you openly bring
Host
out right right, right.
out right right, right.
Slavoj Žižek
i'm horrified.
i'm horrified.
Host
there's a famous, do you know this famous, allegedly there was a conversation between laurence olivier and dustin hoffman on the set of marathon man. are i was.
there's a famous, do you know this famous, allegedly there was a conversation between laurence olivier and dustin hoffman on the set of marathon man. are i was.
Slavoj Žižek
totally, this is my favorite dentist movie. i'm totally on the side of laurence olivier.
totally, this is my favorite dentist movie. i'm totally on the side of laurence olivier.
Host
olivia said, yeah, so for the audience.
olivia said, yeah, so for the audience.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah
yeah
Host
hoffman has been, he shows up and said he's been up all night.
hoffman has been, he shows up and said he's been up all night.
Slavoj Žižek
yes.
yes.
Host
he's exhausted.
he's exhausted.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah,.
yeah,.
Host
to try to get into
to try to get into
Slavoj Žižek
the.
the.
Host
using the
using the
Slavoj Žižek
merci.
merci.
Host
and he's too exhausted to act and olivier allegedly said to him, my dear man, why don't you just try acting?
and he's too exhausted to act and olivier allegedly said to him, my dear man, why don't you just try acting?
Slavoj Žižek
yeah you see for me, although it was less of this creativity imagination, it was much more intelligent this typically british restraint laurence olivier. you know, even we don't even agree. how we measure creativity and so on. i'm here more on the side of this risk, although it may appear almost ironic the way i shout all the time, but i'm intimately much more sympathetic with this. british or conservative japanese approach where they claim true creativity is not in this explosion of ideas. true creativity should appear as modest, invisible. you apparently do nothing, nothing big, but all of a sudden you appear that everything is different, everything changed, you know. so it's much more,'s even more complex than he imagines. and that's why i think he's not totally right.
yeah you see for me, although it was less of this creativity imagination, it was much more intelligent this typically british restraint laurence olivier. you know, even we don't even agree. how we measure creativity and so on. i'm here more on the side of this risk, although it may appear almost ironic the way i shout all the time, but i'm intimately much more sympathetic with this. british or conservative japanese approach where they claim true creativity is not in this explosion of ideas. true creativity should appear as modest, invisible. you apparently do nothing, nothing big, but all of a sudden you appear that everything is different, everything changed, you know. so it's much more,'s even more complex than he imagines. and that's why i think he's not totally right.
Host
well so i want to introduce another kind of complexity. so, you know, what you're saying on the one hand is that cultures have different values and different definitions of intelligence.
well so i want to introduce another kind of complexity. so, you know, what you're saying on the one hand is that cultures have different values and different definitions of intelligence.
Co-Host
yeah.
yeah.
Host
and and what you described was really a cultural or a personal preference for one style over another. you personally are sort of allergic to the kind of emotion-based, explosion-based form of creativity. yeah, but i will give you another example. sorry, very funny.
and and what you described was really a cultural or a personal preference for one style over another. you personally are sort of allergic to the kind of emotion-based, explosion-based form of creativity. yeah, but i will give you another example. sorry, very funny.
Slavoj Žižek
remember you know sam goldwyn, the producer, who was well known for his so-called goldwinisms. yes, apparent nonsense, but well thought out once.
remember you know sam goldwyn, the producer, who was well known for his so-called goldwinisms. yes, apparent nonsense, but well thought out once.
Host
okay, actually, you know what? i'm sorry, could you briefly explain?
okay, actually, you know what? i'm sorry, could you briefly explain?
Slavoj Žižek
sam goldwyn was the big metro-goldwyn-mayer producer who was well known for apparently making stupid mistakes, but which are very intelligent. so one of the stories of him is that he read in a newspaper the complaint that in the scenarios of the films he is making, there are too many old clichés. and he wrote a memo to his screenplay scenario department. we urgently need more new original he was deeply right. true creativity is not to break out of cliches, but to install new cliches. i see that's for me true creativity. every idiot can be creative in the sense of i'm out of clichés and so on. the truly difficult thing is to
sam goldwyn was the big metro-goldwyn-mayer producer who was well known for apparently making stupid mistakes, but which are very intelligent. so one of the stories of him is that he read in a newspaper the complaint that in the scenarios of the films he is making, there are too many old clichés. and he wrote a memo to his screenplay scenario department. we urgently need more new original he was deeply right. true creativity is not to break out of cliches, but to install new cliches. i see that's for me true creativity. every idiot can be creative in the sense of i'm out of clichés and so on. the truly difficult thing is to
Host
proose a new cliche. i think that that second kind that you're talking about is also more sustainable. like if you're the sort of expressionist exploding creative that can only last so long before you.
proose a new cliche. i think that that second kind that you're talking about is also more sustainable. like if you're the sort of expressionist exploding creative that can only last so long before you.
Slavoj Žižek
i hate jackson pollock. my hero of abstract expressionism is mark rothko, not jackson pollock.
i hate jackson pollock. my hero of abstract expressionism is mark rothko, not jackson pollock.
Host
interesting. okay. so but what i was going to say also, though, is that the problem, going back to standardized testing, one of the problems is that i don't know that societies know what they value. what i'm trying to say is that i'm not sure that standardized tests always actually or accurately represent anything like the values.
interesting. okay. so but what i was going to say also, though, is that the problem, going back to standardized testing, one of the problems is that i don't know that societies know what they value. what i'm trying to say is that i'm not sure that standardized tests always actually or accurately represent anything like the values.
Slavoj Žižek
absolutely obvious. but why even... expect this from standard tests and so on. what i'm on the other hand not against is that let's be very brutal you have a certain opening for a job right and you don't care about creativity blah blah you want people who are well at doing something right and i think you should have the right to test them and you don't pretend like you test me and i can then claim oh but you missed all my other creativities and you you can say, screw you, i'm not buying you as a whole person. i need you for this and i need you to have this property. i don't find there anything reified, alienated and so on and so on. but like if you are hired for a professor of mathematics. you should have certain abilities and i don't give a shit if you have ad
absolutely obvious. but why even... expect this from standard tests and so on. what i'm on the other hand not against is that let's be very brutal you have a certain opening for a job right and you don't care about creativity blah blah you want people who are well at doing something right and i think you should have the right to test them and you don't pretend like you test me and i can then claim oh but you missed all my other creativities and you you can say, screw you, i'm not buying you as a whole person. i need you for this and i need you to have this property. i don't find there anything reified, alienated and so on and so on. but like if you are hired for a professor of mathematics. you should have certain abilities and i don't give a shit if you have ad
Host
emotional ability. right, right, right, right, right, right. well, it gets even slipperier though, like, you know, for a professor of mathematics, that's one thing.'s, well, i won't call it concrete, but it's a little more concrete in some ways than what is needed in, say, a middle manager in a corporation.
emotional ability. right, right, right, right, right, right. well, it gets even slipperier though, like, you know, for a professor of mathematics, that's one thing.'s, well, i won't call it concrete, but it's a little more concrete in some ways than what is needed in, say, a middle manager in a corporation.
Slavoj Žižek
i agree with you. there are many myths there. they don and it very confused.
i agree with you. there are many myths there. they don and it very confused.
Host
andusing they have no idea what like when they hire people
andusing they have no idea what like when they hire people
Slavoj Žižek
they they don't know what they're doing. no, i totally agree with you. i even, for example, my good friend varoufakis, yanis, the greek, he told me, before he became varoufakis, well-known, he asked me, why don't we write a book on political economy, on economy together? i said, but i don't have any idea what economists do. he told me, neither do economists, you know, economists, a great science of magic like astrology, superstition. and so on. so this is a very deep thing what you said, especially people who pretend to understand others, psychological advisors and so on and so on, even psychoanalysts. it shocks me again and again how, for example, psychoanalysts, whom you would expect to have a refined nose for subtle nuances, i met so many, not just stupid but brutally insensitive. psychoanalysts who like much more than an average person don't get the point. like somebody can be making a tragic appeal, they dismiss this as just empty aggressivity or whatever. it makes you very pessimistic. and see how even the specialists don't get it.
they they don't know what they're doing. no, i totally agree with you. i even, for example, my good friend varoufakis, yanis, the greek, he told me, before he became varoufakis, well-known, he asked me, why don't we write a book on political economy, on economy together? i said, but i don't have any idea what economists do. he told me, neither do economists, you know, economists, a great science of magic like astrology, superstition. and so on. so this is a very deep thing what you said, especially people who pretend to understand others, psychological advisors and so on and so on, even psychoanalysts. it shocks me again and again how, for example, psychoanalysts, whom you would expect to have a refined nose for subtle nuances, i met so many, not just stupid but brutally insensitive. psychoanalysts who like much more than an average person don't get the point. like somebody can be making a tragic appeal, they dismiss this as just empty aggressivity or whatever. it makes you very pessimistic. and see how even the specialists don't get it.
Host
because the people, whoever is gatekeeping in those fields, they can't agree upon what constitutes a good psychoanalyst.
because the people, whoever is gatekeeping in those fields, they can't agree upon what constitutes a good psychoanalyst.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, but the problem is that you know this is the... of bureaucracy and all. you don't really want to solve a problem, you want to guarantee your reproduction. right. it
yeah, but the problem is that you know this is the... of bureaucracy and all. you don't really want to solve a problem, you want to guarantee your reproduction. right. it
Host
mitigating risk mostly.
mitigating risk mostly.
Slavoj Žižek
so we yeah that my wife will not kill me.
so we yeah that my wife will not kill me.
Host
i i don't want to.
i i don't want to.
Slavoj Žižek
otherwise.
otherwise.
Host
kill you that would be terrible we will do one more okay and this will be
kill you that would be terrible we will do one more okay and this will be
Co-Host
oh.
oh.
Host
daniel bergner, who is an author and a journalist, saying neuroplasticity explains why women may be less monogamous than men.
daniel bergner, who is an author and a journalist, saying neuroplasticity explains why women may be less monogamous than men.
Co-Host
there's some pretty stark research out there now that just talk about one study. this was done by a german scientist, looked at 2,500 committed couples, so no small number. the results are probably no fluke. and he measured their desire progressively over time. the desire starts at right about the same point for the men and for the women. so again, debunking this idea that somehow male desire, male libido, is is far stronger innately than female libido. but what happens interestingly is that male desire declines gradually over time. female desire dives much more dramatically than male desire within those committed relationships. and i think two things are worth saying. first, again, the very least this calls into question this idea that somehow women are comparatively better suited to monogamy than men are. but second has to do with cultural lessons and their effects on the brain. so i think most of us have heard this phrase or at least are familiar with the concept of brain plasticity. that is, the brain is shifting neurologically in response to what we do with it. well, what happens to the brain if we're taught very different lessons about sexuality from early on? boys are, of course, taught right from the playground, really, that being a little bit of a romeo, all to the good. girls are taught a very different and more constrained lesson, even in our seemingly unconstrained society.
there's some pretty stark research out there now that just talk about one study. this was done by a german scientist, looked at 2,500 committed couples, so no small number. the results are probably no fluke. and he measured their desire progressively over time. the desire starts at right about the same point for the men and for the women. so again, debunking this idea that somehow male desire, male libido, is is far stronger innately than female libido. but what happens interestingly is that male desire declines gradually over time. female desire dives much more dramatically than male desire within those committed relationships. and i think two things are worth saying. first, again, the very least this calls into question this idea that somehow women are comparatively better suited to monogamy than men are. but second has to do with cultural lessons and their effects on the brain. so i think most of us have heard this phrase or at least are familiar with the concept of brain plasticity. that is, the brain is shifting neurologically in response to what we do with it. well, what happens to the brain if we're taught very different lessons about sexuality from early on? boys are, of course, taught right from the playground, really, that being a little bit of a romeo, all to the good. girls are taught a very different and more constrained lesson, even in our seemingly unconstrained society.
Host
can you help me? but you can yeah
can you help me? but you can yeah
Slavoj Žižek
didn didn't quite
didn didn't quite
Host
get the.
get the.
Slavoj Žižek
the point is i know how with women it declined earlier, no?
the point is i know how with women it declined earlier, no?
Host
i'm saying, yeah, in committed relationships. but
i'm saying, yeah, in committed relationships. but
Slavoj Žižek
wait a minute, did he mean when he spoke about how women's eros declines much faster? did he mean generally the erotic desire of women or concretely the desire to your partner? the latter.
wait a minute, did he mean when he spoke about how women's eros declines much faster? did he mean generally the erotic desire of women or concretely the desire to your partner? the latter.
Host
desire but it was not.
desire but it was not.
Slavoj Žižek
clear from his life
clear from his life
Host
my understanding well, okay, my understanding of what he was saying was that he's proposing that women may be less inclined to monogamy than men because to, yeah, it's strange because it's like society conditions them not to be sexual beings and therefore sexuality drops off faster in relationships, but then why wouldn't it? why wouldn't it trap us another problem.
my understanding well, okay, my understanding of what he was saying was that he's proposing that women may be less inclined to monogamy than men because to, yeah, it's strange because it's like society conditions them not to be sexual beings and therefore sexuality drops off faster in relationships, but then why wouldn't it? why wouldn't it trap us another problem.
Slavoj Žižek
i.
i.
Host
ah.
ah.
Slavoj Žižek
nonetheless, women, in spite of gains of feminism and so on, are still more sexualized. even, i'll give you one measure. it's still considered normal, and i'm happy to enjoy this, to be married to a 30 years younger woman. okay, some people... a little bit ironic, but... no problems. right if i were to be 30 years younger, being married to 30 years older than me woman
nonetheless, women, in spite of gains of feminism and so on, are still more sexualized. even, i'll give you one measure. it's still considered normal, and i'm happy to enjoy this, to be married to a 30 years younger woman. okay, some people... a little bit ironic, but... no problems. right if i were to be 30 years younger, being married to 30 years older than me woman
Host
in spite of all
in spite of all
Slavoj Žižek
of all changes brought by feminism, it would cause much greater animosity, ironic remarks at least, and so on and so on. so i think that
of all changes brought by feminism, it would cause much greater animosity, ironic remarks at least, and so on and so on. so i think that
Host
actually, i'm not sure. if really.
actually, i'm not sure. if really.
Slavoj Žižek
no!
no!
Host
because honestly, i think there are a lot of people in the united states who would view the like older man-younger woman relationship and make catty, snotty ironic.
because honestly, i think there are a lot of people in the united states who would view the like older man-younger woman relationship and make catty, snotty ironic.
Slavoj Žižek
thanks.
thanks.
Host
and, oh, look at him fishing for the younger and the other way around, i guess it would engender some ridicule, but i think it would engender in america more bafflement. i think people would be like confused. they'd be like, huh why is that happening?
and, oh, look at him fishing for the younger and the other way around, i guess it would engender some ridicule, but i think it would engender in america more bafflement. i think people would be like confused. they'd be like, huh why is that happening?
Slavoj Žižek
no, it.
no, it.
Host
we.
we.
Slavoj Žižek
nice to ask, what does he see in her? not in an ironic way, but genuinely, like, why is that woman so attractive and so on? but okay, then i will put it in this way. wouldn't it be more logical in an abstract way from this decline of desire?
nice to ask, what does he see in her? not in an ironic way, but genuinely, like, why is that woman so attractive and so on? but okay, then i will put it in this way. wouldn't it be more logical in an abstract way from this decline of desire?
Host
rightclaim.
rightclaim.
Slavoj Žižek
but if in the marriage we have this gap, like when you are married 15 years, your wife's desire declines, so you should be the one looking for it elsewhere then. this.
but if in the marriage we have this gap, like when you are married 15 years, your wife's desire declines, so you should be the one looking for it elsewhere then. this.
Host
right. right.
right. right.
Slavoj Žižek
get it well that makes sense well i think what i agree with sorry is plasticity that you know the way our brain is all permanently restructuring itself it matters a lot and so on and so on also again we have to be so precise here i think that it's with men still, this is traditional identity, i know but it's if. anything till recently it was much more considered normal for a woman to be more exclusively mothers, stay at home and man is the one who goes outside, travels, does the job and so on. now the truly interesting see, it would be this one. if we are passing, i hope we are, from this to this post-patriarchal family, where woman is also expected to make a career and so on how does this shift affect the permanence of sexual excitement of desire? like, what did their relative at least emancipation, and this is a great gain for women.
get it well that makes sense well i think what i agree with sorry is plasticity that you know the way our brain is all permanently restructuring itself it matters a lot and so on and so on also again we have to be so precise here i think that it's with men still, this is traditional identity, i know but it's if. anything till recently it was much more considered normal for a woman to be more exclusively mothers, stay at home and man is the one who goes outside, travels, does the job and so on. now the truly interesting see, it would be this one. if we are passing, i hope we are, from this to this post-patriarchal family, where woman is also expected to make a career and so on how does this shift affect the permanence of sexual excitement of desire? like, what did their relative at least emancipation, and this is a great gain for women.
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
that it's considered normal, you're not a pathological frigid woman right if you want to make a career gain. how does this affect woman's desire?
that it's considered normal, you're not a pathological frigid woman right if you want to make a career gain. how does this affect woman's desire?
Host
does it diminish it?
does it diminish it?
Slavoj Žižek
or does it really strengthen?
or does it really strengthen?
Host
i mean. great question. and i think one thing i wanted to say or that i thought of while watching this video is how mysterious sexuality remains. and maybe that's a good thing. we don't, going back to what we were saying before about experts, like nobody is the expert on it. it's this very murky, scary realm. people don't talk about it in much. i mean, they do among friends or whatever, but as a society, the data exists, but not. in any consistent or robust way so people can come along and claim this or that may be the case about women's sexuality.
i mean. great question. and i think one thing i wanted to say or that i thought of while watching this video is how mysterious sexuality remains. and maybe that's a good thing. we don't, going back to what we were saying before about experts, like nobody is the expert on it. it's this very murky, scary realm. people don't talk about it in much. i mean, they do among friends or whatever, but as a society, the data exists, but not. in any consistent or robust way so people can come along and claim this or that may be the case about women's sexuality.
Slavoj Žižek
the problem for this is that probably the guy has more behind it.
the problem for this is that probably the guy has more behind it.
Host
yeah yeah.
yeah yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
from this clip, it simply appears to me, but i don't blame him because i didn't get enough background data. it wasn't clear. i see so many other options to interpret this, like when he said, we follow 250 couples or what.
from this clip, it simply appears to me, but i don't blame him because i didn't get enough background data. it wasn't clear. i see so many other options to interpret this, like when he said, we follow 250 couples or what.
Host
right, right, right, right, right.
right, right, right, right, right.
Slavoj Žižek
example. well, i would like, i would be much more interested if we were to compare one group of couples which remain married all the time and others which got divorced and so on, women and men, other partners, and how does this affect your there so on. there are so many other venues here that i simply
example. well, i would like, i would be much more interested if we were to compare one group of couples which remain married all the time and others which got divorced and so on, women and men, other partners, and how does this affect your there so on. there are so many other venues here that i simply
Host
yeah, fair enough. but going back to one thing, i think, and then we can wind it up. have you seen the film harold and maude? do you know the film harold and maude?
yeah, fair enough. but going back to one thing, i think, and then we can wind it up. have you seen the film harold and maude? do you know the film harold and maude?
Slavoj Žižek
i i totally forgot about that.
i i totally forgot about that.
Host
okay,.
okay,.
Slavoj Žižek
i've seen it 30 years.
i've seen it 30 years.
Host
yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a hal ashby film and like maud is an older lady and harold is discontent in his life and he falls in love with her. and that's the only film, i mean, i thought of it because of what you said. it's the only film i know of and it's the only piece of literature, like we all know lolita, right? which disgusts us on the other hand because we can't believe the intensity of this somewhat likable narrator's affection for this young girl. with harold and maud, it's to show, you know, maud must be 80 and harold is maybe 20. so radical. and he falls in love with her. how it sexual love or no, it's love love. she opens his world. he's in a very constrained family environment. his mom is rich. she's constantly trying to give him presents like a jaguar which he converts into a hearse. you would enjoyed this film, i think. i'm least. again.
yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a hal ashby film and like maud is an older lady and harold is discontent in his life and he falls in love with her. and that's the only film, i mean, i thought of it because of what you said. it's the only film i know of and it's the only piece of literature, like we all know lolita, right? which disgusts us on the other hand because we can't believe the intensity of this somewhat likable narrator's affection for this young girl. with harold and maud, it's to show, you know, maud must be 80 and harold is maybe 20. so radical. and he falls in love with her. how it sexual love or no, it's love love. she opens his world. he's in a very constrained family environment. his mom is rich. she's constantly trying to give him presents like a jaguar which he converts into a hearse. you would enjoyed this film, i think. i'm least. again.
Slavoj Žižek
else.
else.
Host
it
it
Slavoj Žižek
interesting movie because one of my absolutely favorite hollywood movies did you see also hal ashby? being there? yeah, yeah.
interesting movie because one of my absolutely favorite hollywood movies did you see also hal ashby? being there? yeah, yeah.
Host
that's
that's
Slavoj Žižek
the
the
Host
ultimately
ultimately
Slavoj Žižek
about transference how a complete idiot if you find yourself at the right place yes it produces magic and so on. i like the situation how then the guy says total platitudes and they are overinterpretedted as wise instruction into politics and so on and so on. that's the reality of our lives. i think it's one of the most radical wonderful movies.
about transference how a complete idiot if you find yourself at the right place yes it produces magic and so on. i like the situation how then the guy says total platitudes and they are overinterpretedted as wise instruction into politics and so on and so on. that's the reality of our lives. i think it's one of the most radical wonderful movies.
Host
it's incredible. yeah, it's peter sellers and it's based on a book by an eastern european poet yeah.
it's incredible. yeah, it's peter sellers and it's based on a book by an eastern european poet yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
then there is another role, it's i think shirley maclaine.
then there is another role, it's i think shirley maclaine.
Host
yes, yes, yes. yeah, and he he's a gardener with limited mental capacity. and everyone thinks he's a genius because he speaks in sort of zen koans, which are not no.
yes, yes, yes. yeah, and he he's a gardener with limited mental capacity. and everyone thinks he's a genius because he speaks in sort of zen koans, which are not no.
Slavoj Žižek
the is that they are common sense statements, but because he occupies the position of a genius, they are interpreted as
the is that they are common sense statements, but because he occupies the position of a genius, they are interpreted as
Host
and you feel that...
and you feel that...
Slavoj Žižek
but that defines much of our
but that defines much of our
Host
intellectual life.
intellectual life.
Slavoj Žižek
maybe not in such an extreme
maybe not in such an extreme
Host
way back.
way back.
Slavoj Žižek
so much depends on how you are interpreted. i often notice this. when people take me seriously as a philosopher, i say something vulgar, they look something from it. from other people, i can develop what i think is, well, a nice line of thought, they dismiss it as meaningless and so on. so much depends on this horizon of expectation, how you approach it.
so much depends on how you are interpreted. i often notice this. when people take me seriously as a philosopher, i say something vulgar, they look something from it. from other people, i can develop what i think is, well, a nice line of thought, they dismiss it as meaningless and so on. so much depends on this horizon of expectation, how you approach it.
Host
yeah, how do you feel about this weird, like, i keep seeing this, the elvis of philosophy. that seems incredibly insulting.
yeah, how do you feel about this weird, like, i keep seeing this, the elvis of philosophy. that seems incredibly insulting.
Slavoj Žižek
again and again i protest to my publishers, please don't do this. yeah. and it just sticks to it's.
again and again i protest to my publishers, please don't do this. yeah. and it just sticks to it's.
Host
mis of
mis of
Slavoj Žižek
we. what is that?
we. what is that?
Host
obviously a serious
obviously a serious
Slavoj Žižek
alle.
alle.
Host
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
but that's why when people tell me how does it feel you are a star of philosophy, i claim no. being called star of philosophy popular is a refined way to attack me. it's a way to say, oh, you are a funny guy, but not too serious but i stop.
but that's why when people tell me how does it feel you are a star of philosophy, i claim no. being called star of philosophy popular is a refined way to attack me. it's a way to say, oh, you are a funny guy, but not too serious but i stop.
Host
who cares yeah, yeah, you have to right.
who cares yeah, yeah, you have to right.
Slavoj Žižek
how could you?
how could you?
Host
there.
there.