Žižek and Dupuy: Religion, Secularism, and Political Belonging - Nov. 1, 2014 Interview
Interview · Portland Center for Public Humanities ·
2014-11-01 · 1:05:43 · 9,307 words
with John Vignaux Smyth, Jean-Pierre Dupuy, Marsha, Medavoy
religion-theologycommunism-socialismideologycinema-art-culturephilosophy-general
Žižek explores the collision of historical epochs and the resulting linguistic dissonance, using anecdotes from ex-Yugoslavia to illustrate how political and religious discourses invert each other. He argues for a 'negative communism' that accepts catastrophe as inevitable, drawing on Walter Benjamin's 'emergency break' rather than teleological Marxism. The discussion extends to a rigorous theological reading of Christianity, positing that the Holy Spirit (egalitarian community) constitutes the true resurrection, rejecting literal zombie-like returns. He concludes by redefining Christian love as active, divisive struggle against the 'Western Buddhism' of passive tolerance.
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
The dialectical trick where the sacred/religious, which should be above the political, turns around to become constitutive of the political state itself.
The gap between religion and power is not a sign of decay but is constitutive of the state's functioning, as seen in Antigone.
A form of communism that rejects teleological trust in the working class or Stalinist return, instead accepting catastrophe as inevitable and pulling the 'emergency break' on history.
as “emergency break”
Walter Benjamin's metaphor for halting the 'train of history' moving forward, which Žižek adopts as the proper political task.
as “optimal corruption”
The idea that religion is necessary to make good people do bad things, requiring a transcendent monstrous vision to violate ethical norms.
A Girardian concept referenced in the context of collective murder and divine sacrifice, where the sacrifice paradoxically serves to sustain the social order.
as “Holy Spirit as return”
The claim that the Holy Spirit (egalitarian community) is the actual resurrection of Christ, making literal zombie-like returns a 'mistake of perspective'.
Lacan's concept where the object is no longer an entity but a topological term of turning around the void, bringing satisfaction through the loop itself.
Žižek's pejorative term for the dominant liberal ideology of passive tolerance, inner distance, and non-confrontational living, contrasted with active Christian struggle.
The idea that we cannot think outside language, but must think 'in language against language,' torturing it to squeeze out truth rather than letting it 'speak' naturally.
Stories he reaches for 3
Heinrich Himmler's speech to Nazi officers claiming that 'it takes a really great man to sacrifice his soul to do horrible things for the cause,' which Žižek cites as the logic of optimal corruption.
“it takes a really great man to sacrifice his soul to do horrible things for the cause”
Slovene communists exploited a Virgin Mary apparition for tourism, but attacked a local priest for calling it superstition, arguing that proclaiming it a miracle was his 'economic duty' to the state.
“duty economic to help is to proclaim this is a miracle”
A novel published years before the movie featured a ship named 'Titan' hitting an iceberg, suggesting that catastrophic events are 'in the air' as expectations, though Žižek rejects the 'they had it coming' fatalism.
“it is as if it was in the air”
Works invoked 12
Antigone play
Used to illustrate the constitutive gap between religion and power.
Fight Club film
Cited for the scene where the protagonist strikes his boss, illustrating subversive action.
The Matrix film
Referenced for its title 'Welcome to the Desert of the Real' and themes of reality.
Titanic film
Referenced in the anecdote about the novel 'Titan' hitting the iceberg.
Žižek's own book, referencing The Matrix, discussing how catastrophic events are 'in the air'.
Left Behind book
Series by Tim LaHaye, representing the fatalistic 'they had it coming' view Žižek rejects.
Alien film
David Lynch's 'Alien' (likely referring to 'Dune' or Lynch's general style, but transcript says 'Alien tree' and 'cloning resurrecting'), treated as a masterpiece on drive.
Gospel of John book
The only gospel close to anti-semitism, but also the one closest to the idea of the Holy Spirit as return.
Buddhist Statues (Bamiyan) artwork
Bombing of statues by Taliban, used to critique 'cultural respect'.
First Three Seconds book
Book by Stephen Weinberg, cited for the quote about religion making good people do bad things.
Himmler's Posen Speech other
Heinrich Himmler's speech to Nazi officers, reprinted as a classic text illustrating optimal corruption.
Walter Benjamin's essay, cited for distinguishing formal language from human language.
People invoked 40
Brett Ratner negative
Director of a movie (likely 'Return of the Dead' or similar) using apocalyptic quotes in a horror sense.
Fred Jensen positive
Friend who pointed out the constitutive split between religion and power in Antigone.
Naomi Wolf positive
Liberal feminist who noted how rigid PC approaches a market negotiation model.
Kim positive
Provoked by Žižek to state his position; they agree on the pessimistic/catastrophic view.
Radovan Karadžić negative
Serbian leader and poet who laid the ground for slaughter, illustrating the link between poetry and totalitarianism.
Edward Norton positive
Actor in Fight Club who strikes his boss, illustrating subversive action.
René Girard positive
Follows Girard's view on collective murder and anti-sacrifice.
Theodor W. Adorno negative
Agrees with Adorno that the origin of totalitarianism is the philosophical notion of totality, which Žižek rejects.
Emmanuel Levinas negative
Disagrees with Levinas's claim that the origin of totalitarianism is the philosophical notion of totality.
Jacques Lacan positive
Referenced for the concept of 'object l' and the object of drive.
Francis Fukuyama negative
Žižek notes Fukuyama is no longer a 'Fukuyama guy' and rejects his model.
David Lynch positive
Žižek agrees with Lynch's treatment of the 'drive' and cloning/resurrection themes.
Christopher Nolan negative
Žižek thinks Nolan is overestimated.
Adolf Eichmann negative
Claimed to be a Kantian following Hitler's voice as ethical duty, which Žižek refutes.
Jesus Christ positive
Central figure; Žižek offers a radical reading of his teachings, particularly regarding the Holy Spirit and love.
Alain Badiou positive
Emphasizes that the 20th century is over and we cannot return to Stalinism.
Adolf Hitler negative
Eichmann claimed Hitler's voice was the voice of ethical duty, which Žižek rejects.
Julian Assange positive
Showed Žižek the Swedish consent form document.
Pat Robertson negative
American pervert/evangelist, grouped with LaHaye for fatalistic views.
Leonardo DiCaprio positive
Actor in Titanic, referenced in the Titanic anecdote.
Taliban negative
Bombing Buddhist statues; Žižek ironically suggests they showed more respect than cultural tourism.
Heinrich Himmler positive
Cited for his speech on sacrificing one's soul for a cause, which illustrates the logic of optimal corruption.
Elfriede Jelinek positive
Austrian writer Žižek dislikes personally but quotes for her statement that 'language spontaneously is lying'.
Brad Pitt positive
Actor in Fight Club.
Martin Heidegger negative
Disagrees with Heidegger's idea to 'let language speak'; argues for thinking 'against language'.
Richard Gere negative
Associated with 'Western Buddhism' and the popular, tolerant lifestyle Žižek critiques.
Tim LaHaye negative
American pervert/author of 'Left Behind' series, whom Žižek rejects for the 'they had it coming' fatalism.
Hannah Arendt negative
Friendly criticism: she comes too close to endorsing Eichmann's claim that following Hitler was his ethical duty.
Walter Benjamin positive
Adopted Benjamin's 'emergency break' metaphor for political action.
Stéphen Weinberger positive
Quantum cosmologist whose quote about religion making good people do bad things Žižek often quotes.
Søren Kierkegaard positive
Cited for the crazy idea that true Christian love is loving the neighbor as oneself.
Sophocles positive
Author of Antigone, used to illustrate the constitutive gap between religion and power.
Plato positive
Described as an 'old Platonic guy' who adds poetry to the discussion of totalitarianism.
Karl Marx positive
Agrees with Marx that capitalism has self-destructive dynamics, but rejects his teleological trust in the working class.
Paul the Apostle positive
Žižek rejects 'historicizing Christians' who blame Paul for corruption; he believes Paul is still central.
Sigmund Freud positive
Referenced regarding 'object l' (object cause of desire) and the object of drive.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Central figure; Žižek links his dialectic of imminent reversal to Antigone and theology.
Immanuel Kant positive
Claims we should be Kantians regarding responsibility for the cause itself, not just the action.
The Buddha negative
Associated with 'Western Buddhism' and the sword of mercy, which Žižek contrasts with Christ's sword of division.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky positive
Referenced via 'Welcome to the Desert of the Real' (Matrix reference) and general literary allusions.
Transcript 179 turns
Slavoj Žižek
for minutes.
for minutes.
Moderator
thank you very much. you keep it the whole time.
thank you very much. you keep it the whole time.
John Vignaux Smyth
no, no,.
no, no,.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
thank you.
thank you.
Slavoj Žižek
no, what we were talking about, my most sublime experiences are when two historical epochs collide so that you talk about something new, but you have only the old language. like, sorry, and we just two minutes. in ex-yugoslavia, when communism was already falling apart. this is my favorite anecdote. a student radio which was dissident, anti-communist invited an old communist, the true cadre, you know like. and this guy terribly wanted to please the young generation. you know, like, and they of course asked him stupid questions like, what's your relation to sexuality and so on. so this guy knew he had to say something positive about it. but the only language he disposed of was the old and he did something wonderful. i sentences like touching women between their legs, it's a great instigation for my struggle for socialism and so on. you know, like praising sex, but in the communist jargon. i love this moment, you know, when two languages, another story than why look at that. you know, you may remember it. in the 80s there was this great miracle in bosnia, Međugorje. virgin mary appeared. in bosnia, communists were hardliners. so they didn't want to exploit it commercially, which was a catastrophe, because italian travel agents earned billions. in slovenia, communists were really business-oriented. so there was a small statue close to airport of ljubljana, of virgin mary, which started to do what they are supposed to do, a little bit of blood, moving and so on. so slovene communists were delighted. we will build a hotel, their business. and so on, and then a catastrophe happened. the local priest in whose domain this happened wrote a text claiming, no, this is not an authentic miracle, this is superstition. and then i have it. i wonder, in the communist weekly journal, they attacked this priest for non-patriotic behavior. like, fuck you, you're... duty economic to help is to proclaim this is a miracle. who are you to play some atheist games here on i talk too much stop
no, what we were talking about, my most sublime experiences are when two historical epochs collide so that you talk about something new, but you have only the old language. like, sorry, and we just two minutes. in ex-yugoslavia, when communism was already falling apart. this is my favorite anecdote. a student radio which was dissident, anti-communist invited an old communist, the true cadre, you know like. and this guy terribly wanted to please the young generation. you know, like, and they of course asked him stupid questions like, what's your relation to sexuality and so on. so this guy knew he had to say something positive about it. but the only language he disposed of was the old and he did something wonderful. i sentences like touching women between their legs, it's a great instigation for my struggle for socialism and so on. you know, like praising sex, but in the communist jargon. i love this moment, you know, when two languages, another story than why look at that. you know, you may remember it. in the 80s there was this great miracle in bosnia, Međugorje. virgin mary appeared. in bosnia, communists were hardliners. so they didn't want to exploit it commercially, which was a catastrophe, because italian travel agents earned billions. in slovenia, communists were really business-oriented. so there was a small statue close to airport of ljubljana, of virgin mary, which started to do what they are supposed to do, a little bit of blood, moving and so on. so slovene communists were delighted. we will build a hotel, their business. and so on, and then a catastrophe happened. the local priest in whose domain this happened wrote a text claiming, no, this is not an authentic miracle, this is superstition. and then i have it. i wonder, in the communist weekly journal, they attacked this priest for non-patriotic behavior. like, fuck you, you're... duty economic to help is to proclaim this is a miracle. who are you to play some atheist games here on i talk too much stop
Moderator
so we're reconvening this morning and picking up where we left off last night. this is the event sponsored by chcr. and time is short, so i'm not going to use time for an introduction, but let's go to the first question, which is by one of our hosts. John Vignaux Smyth will be going around the room as much as time permits with questions for jean-pierre and slavoy.
so we're reconvening this morning and picking up where we left off last night. this is the event sponsored by chcr. and time is short, so i'm not going to use time for an introduction, but let's go to the first question, which is by one of our hosts. John Vignaux Smyth will be going around the room as much as time permits with questions for jean-pierre and slavoy.
Slavoj Žižek
but he should have more time because i talked too much yesterday.
but he should have more time because i talked too much yesterday.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no, no. so
no, no. so
Slavoj Žižek
who are you to say no? you are not.
who are you to say no? you are not.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
nobody means's a matter of density of. contents you can okay talk you mean to
nobody means's a matter of density of. contents you can okay talk you mean to
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
you.
you.
Slavoj Žižek
in one sentence.
in one sentence.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no
no
Slavoj Žižek
den i in half.
den i in half.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no,, no, not you, not you. but i mean
no,, no, not you, not you. but i mean
Moderator
so our first question is from one of our hosts, John Vignaux Smyth.
so our first question is from one of our hosts, John Vignaux Smyth.
John Vignaux Smyth
i'll leap into it with so little time. savoy, recently you have said about the mark of the sacred by jean-pierre that in an enlightened, well-organized state, this book should be printed and freely distributed in all schools.
i'll leap into it with so little time. savoy, recently you have said about the mark of the sacred by jean-pierre that in an enlightened, well-organized state, this book should be printed and freely distributed in all schools.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
at... this. st.
at... this. st.
John Vignaux Smyth
his dreams, you know.
his dreams, you know.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
except that i won't have any fees then. that's a problem actually.
except that i won't have any fees then. that's a problem actually.
Slavoj Žižek
we will see here how serious you are against capital, no? you want, as they say, to have a cake and to eat it. no exactly. sorry.
we will see here how serious you are against capital, no? you want, as they say, to have a cake and to eat it. no exactly. sorry.
John Vignaux Smyth
and are also pointed sort of combining state with the sacred there. could you explain, you've explained already a little bit why you think his work is so important, and could you perhaps add something about what you call, i think in less than nothing, the limitations of his approach when it comes to things like class antagonism?
and are also pointed sort of combining state with the sacred there. could you explain, you've explained already a little bit why you think his work is so important, and could you perhaps add something about what you call, i think in less than nothing, the limitations of his approach when it comes to things like class antagonism?
Slavoj Žižek
no, okay, very briefly. first, i would have to speak for half an hour, so i will just clearly emphasize one aspect, not the central one, that i admired with you and that i was immediately ready to link with hegel. this idea of the imminent reversal, like in principle, the sacred in the sense of religious should be above the political, but within in the political, it turns around. and this is what, in a way the elementary trick of hegel's dialectic. and this is also how we should read antigone. my friend fred jensen pointed out that this split that we see in antigone between this religious divinities antigone and the political aspect creon is not a mark of a decay of some original greek state, but it's constitutive the state. antigone is not a play which signals that the state is falling apart, but it's the you have to have that gap between religion and power precisely to have the state functioning. it's constitutive of the state. so this is one aspect which i developed in detail which i find incredible is to this agreement yep. i'm at a loss here because let me just show my card. of course, the way i use the terms is to annoy people. did you notice that all my last big books, the subtitle of each one is something to do with dialectical materialism. now, i'm the first one to know that, if there ever was a totally ridiculous philosophy, totally useless, it's dialectical materialism. no? so so a little bit more seriously, i think the difference is not... so great, you remember when yesterday i provoked kim with the question like, fuck off, tell me where you stand. and i agree with his answer. i'm a very strange communist. i'm a negative communist. i think commons are our problem today. commons in the sense of i enumerated them. for example, it's clear that capitalism will not be able to solve the problem in the way we have it today of intellectual property is destroying. we are almost anti-communism there. or financial flow or for example, ecology, new forms of apartheid. that's the basic fact of me today. the more capitalism is global, the more new walls are emerging. so i'm only saying we have problems and the fukuyama model will not work. and incidentally, fukuyama himself, the last time i met him, is no longer a fukuyama guy. but i don't have a clear solution. i'm certainly totally sure that, as my friend Alain Badiou emphasizes, the 20th century is over. we cannot simply return neither to stalinist communism. and like you, and here i'm here, open. i enlightened catastrophes like you all we can say is that if we let things flow the way they are moving now we are approaching what? well even hollywood knows it did you notice how all the big latest hits of hollywood are some dystopian movies about a society with extreme class struggle hunger games elysium and so on and all i see is your model. we have to accept in precise terms that you described it catastrophe as inevitable and then maybe who knows how to do something without any clear formula. i like here napoleon you know on attaque et puis on le verra that's all we can do i agree with marx that capitalism has a self-destructive dynamics. i don't think that at least in marx's term, his model of work class as universal which will appear as an agent works. i no longer have this teleological trust. i'm more on walter benjamin's side. you know when benjamin said in one of his memoir passages that referring to this unfortunate model of the train of history that today the task is not to be on the train of history moving forward but to pull the emergency break you know. so here i'm not now to squeeze out but here i think that like, may i turn this to a question? for you. you obviously do locate the problem in also global capitalist dynamics.
no, okay, very briefly. first, i would have to speak for half an hour, so i will just clearly emphasize one aspect, not the central one, that i admired with you and that i was immediately ready to link with hegel. this idea of the imminent reversal, like in principle, the sacred in the sense of religious should be above the political, but within in the political, it turns around. and this is what, in a way the elementary trick of hegel's dialectic. and this is also how we should read antigone. my friend fred jensen pointed out that this split that we see in antigone between this religious divinities antigone and the political aspect creon is not a mark of a decay of some original greek state, but it's constitutive the state. antigone is not a play which signals that the state is falling apart, but it's the you have to have that gap between religion and power precisely to have the state functioning. it's constitutive of the state. so this is one aspect which i developed in detail which i find incredible is to this agreement yep. i'm at a loss here because let me just show my card. of course, the way i use the terms is to annoy people. did you notice that all my last big books, the subtitle of each one is something to do with dialectical materialism. now, i'm the first one to know that, if there ever was a totally ridiculous philosophy, totally useless, it's dialectical materialism. no? so so a little bit more seriously, i think the difference is not... so great, you remember when yesterday i provoked kim with the question like, fuck off, tell me where you stand. and i agree with his answer. i'm a very strange communist. i'm a negative communist. i think commons are our problem today. commons in the sense of i enumerated them. for example, it's clear that capitalism will not be able to solve the problem in the way we have it today of intellectual property is destroying. we are almost anti-communism there. or financial flow or for example, ecology, new forms of apartheid. that's the basic fact of me today. the more capitalism is global, the more new walls are emerging. so i'm only saying we have problems and the fukuyama model will not work. and incidentally, fukuyama himself, the last time i met him, is no longer a fukuyama guy. but i don't have a clear solution. i'm certainly totally sure that, as my friend Alain Badiou emphasizes, the 20th century is over. we cannot simply return neither to stalinist communism. and like you, and here i'm here, open. i enlightened catastrophes like you all we can say is that if we let things flow the way they are moving now we are approaching what? well even hollywood knows it did you notice how all the big latest hits of hollywood are some dystopian movies about a society with extreme class struggle hunger games elysium and so on and all i see is your model. we have to accept in precise terms that you described it catastrophe as inevitable and then maybe who knows how to do something without any clear formula. i like here napoleon you know on attaque et puis on le verra that's all we can do i agree with marx that capitalism has a self-destructive dynamics. i don't think that at least in marx's term, his model of work class as universal which will appear as an agent works. i no longer have this teleological trust. i'm more on walter benjamin's side. you know when benjamin said in one of his memoir passages that referring to this unfortunate model of the train of history that today the task is not to be on the train of history moving forward but to pull the emergency break you know. so here i'm not now to squeeze out but here i think that like, may i turn this to a question? for you. you obviously do locate the problem in also global capitalist dynamics.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
what does this mean for you politically? it's the same question as yesterday. how can we overcome capitalism? or is it the pessimist answer you gave yesterday and it's also my that
what does this mean for you politically? it's the same question as yesterday. how can we overcome capitalism? or is it the pessimist answer you gave yesterday and it's also my that
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
i don't see a clear agenda what kind of political party we should constitute a global movement. what i only radically oppose is, as i hinted yesterday, is this third world. bullshit, you know some local culture there which resist and so on. they are the worst. if there is something very easy to do for capitalism, it's to swallow. damn. today's global capitalism is not we all eat hamburgers. we all have our small cultures. what unites us is the market. i talk too much, please.
i don't see a clear agenda what kind of political party we should constitute a global movement. what i only radically oppose is, as i hinted yesterday, is this third world. bullshit, you know some local culture there which resist and so on. they are the worst. if there is something very easy to do for capitalism, it's to swallow. damn. today's global capitalism is not we all eat hamburgers. we all have our small cultures. what unites us is the market. i talk too much, please.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah.
yeah.
Marsha
well. how to move beyond capitalism.
well. how to move beyond capitalism.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
this is a question i've never really asked myself.
this is a question i've never really asked myself.
Marsha
you but you imply that we should do it.
you but you imply that we should do it.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yes, of course. but in my case, in my own personal life, although the problems are absolutely global, we agree on that, i do it piecemeal. and while keeping in mind... that this avoids a lot of very important problems. deeply committed in a series of actions that are not political in a sense, in the stupid sense.
yes, of course. but in my case, in my own personal life, although the problems are absolutely global, we agree on that, i do it piecemeal. and while keeping in mind... that this avoids a lot of very important problems. deeply committed in a series of actions that are not political in a sense, in the stupid sense.
Marsha
yep
yep
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
belonging to a political party. that's why i said yesterday, i was referring to my country, there is not one single political offer which might correspond to what i'd like to happen. a series of examples, but there is nothing original in that. i'm the s'm... i've accepted a position which gives me a lot of influence although backstage. i'm chairing the ethics committee of the french high authority of... on nuclear safety and security. as you may know, um french electricity is 80% of french electricity is produced in nuclear power plant. and so we have lots of experts. we are present and i went there three times each to chernobyl and fukushima. um... and, um... and in my personal itinerary when i was young. man i was an anti-nuclear activist. today today have in mind climate change and when you put these two things together you have a serious problem.
belonging to a political party. that's why i said yesterday, i was referring to my country, there is not one single political offer which might correspond to what i'd like to happen. a series of examples, but there is nothing original in that. i'm the s'm... i've accepted a position which gives me a lot of influence although backstage. i'm chairing the ethics committee of the french high authority of... on nuclear safety and security. as you may know, um french electricity is 80% of french electricity is produced in nuclear power plant. and so we have lots of experts. we are present and i went there three times each to chernobyl and fukushima. um... and, um... and in my personal itinerary when i was young. man i was an anti-nuclear activist. today today have in mind climate change and when you put these two things together you have a serious problem.
Marsha
yes
yes
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
if we want to i mean just a figure among many others if we want to avoid a major major climatic disaster before the end of this century. we have to restrain ourselves. i mean, when i say we, humankind. we have to refrain from extracting from the ground more than one third. of the remaining fossil resources coal, gas and
if we want to i mean just a figure among many others if we want to avoid a major major climatic disaster before the end of this century. we have to restrain ourselves. i mean, when i say we, humankind. we have to refrain from extracting from the ground more than one third. of the remaining fossil resources coal, gas and
Marsha
and oil. yeah
and oil. yeah
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
including what is called which is so successful and apparently here, how do you call it
including what is called which is so successful and apparently here, how do you call it
Marsha
fracking.
fracking.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no but the uh the uh the thing itself uh sh.
no but the uh the uh the thing itself uh sh.
Marsha
sh g.
sh g.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
thank thank you. um... uh so i'm trying to solve. those problems which take the form of dilemmas or quasi-impossibilities. i'm also a member of the french section of the ipcc, international panel on climate change. this is my in sense political commitment. in the given the word political um not the traditional sense of political parties, but of action in the city. this is backstage. very few people know about it and but i don't care if i can change the world. piecemeal but piecemeal at the same time those problems are absolutely fundamental. because if really there is not a scarcity of fossil resources, as everyone keeps repeating. but an overabundance. the market can. well, let's suppose that the market can do what it's supposed to do, namely allocate scarce resources. but here we are not dealing with the case of scarcity. while dealing with the case. of overabundance. there are three times too many. fossil resources. so how do you solve that problem? not with the market. so in itself, this example shows i mean, illustrates a radical critique. of what the market can do and cannot do, etc. i could multiply the number of illustrations of what i'm trying to do most of the time backstage. but maybe we'll move on to our next question if we could. marsha.
thank thank you. um... uh so i'm trying to solve. those problems which take the form of dilemmas or quasi-impossibilities. i'm also a member of the french section of the ipcc, international panel on climate change. this is my in sense political commitment. in the given the word political um not the traditional sense of political parties, but of action in the city. this is backstage. very few people know about it and but i don't care if i can change the world. piecemeal but piecemeal at the same time those problems are absolutely fundamental. because if really there is not a scarcity of fossil resources, as everyone keeps repeating. but an overabundance. the market can. well, let's suppose that the market can do what it's supposed to do, namely allocate scarce resources. but here we are not dealing with the case of scarcity. while dealing with the case. of overabundance. there are three times too many. fossil resources. so how do you solve that problem? not with the market. so in itself, this example shows i mean, illustrates a radical critique. of what the market can do and cannot do, etc. i could multiply the number of illustrations of what i'm trying to do most of the time backstage. but maybe we'll move on to our next question if we could. marsha.
Marsha
well this actually follows up on savoy's question to you. i appreciate the pragmatic places where you're intervening to kind of in very of localized climate change is clearly.
well this actually follows up on savoy's question to you. i appreciate the pragmatic places where you're intervening to kind of in very of localized climate change is clearly.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah, it's not.
yeah, it's not.
Marsha
but'm also interested in the abstract way that you approach.
but'm also interested in the abstract way that you approach.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
oh yes, of course.
oh yes, of course.
Marsha
and in this book, you critique what you call economystification. the way a mystified, theologized understanding of the economy is coming to replace the political. realm.
and in this book, you critique what you call economystification. the way a mystified, theologized understanding of the economy is coming to replace the political. realm.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah.
yeah.
Marsha
as the arena where we accept that somehow in thinking economically, we will do a better job of solving our problems than if we engage with the more traditional political realm. i think it's a brilliant critique and very convincing. the question for you in articulating such a critique. do you see yourself as carrying the enlightenment goal further of trying to demystify the world by taking the demystification of god, transpose to the political realm, now transpose to the economy? are you trying to demystify, kind of unmask the theological elements in the way that we worship the economy?
as the arena where we accept that somehow in thinking economically, we will do a better job of solving our problems than if we engage with the more traditional political realm. i think it's a brilliant critique and very convincing. the question for you in articulating such a critique. do you see yourself as carrying the enlightenment goal further of trying to demystify the world by taking the demystification of god, transpose to the political realm, now transpose to the economy? are you trying to demystify, kind of unmask the theological elements in the way that we worship the economy?
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yes.
yes.
Marsha
and... okay, so so so that's you would articulate your project that way. in in that case though i'm i'm curious how you understand and attempt to kind of apply that. rationality to the economy. given the way that you tend to construct political action in terms of mobilization of.
and... okay, so so so that's you would articulate your project that way. in in that case though i'm i'm curious how you understand and attempt to kind of apply that. rationality to the economy. given the way that you tend to construct political action in terms of mobilization of.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
mm-h.
mm-h.
Marsha
do you believe for example, with the kind of the non dupes error, like
do you believe for example, with the kind of the non dupes error, like
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah.
yeah.
Marsha
is it possible to unmask?
is it possible to unmask?
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
but okay. you know, this abstract dimension, of course, it's mine, that's my flesh, what i'm made of, the stuff i'm made of, my formation, etc., etc. but you know what? these patterns, which when you see them drawn on a board or etc., which look highly abstract. they are. almost all of them, if not all of them, in slavo. i don't like that guy too much to whom you refer and well, you know when i discovered günter anders's work, it's not translated into english, which is a scandal. it's more and more translated into french and i'm instrumental in that translating, editing, etc. günter anders was one of the three they are called heidegger's children. the three of them. the other two are hannah arendt, much more famous, and hans siononas. we already mentioned Hans Jonas. so the three of them are german jews. students of a nazi philosopher. and their relationship with heidegger. i i mean, they didn't have the same evolution. as you know, hannahnd had a special relationship with her master anyway. of the three, gunther anders is the less... no, and the less famous in particular because it's not translated. um... but when i discovered his work, friend of mine. i almost sued him i almost sued him because had i found there the everything, all those abstract elements i was trying to put forward. and then i realized that he wrote these things in the 50s and 60s so i couldn't really, i was not yeah. so i refr. the same with jean-jacques, except with slavoy, except that in that case i might have sued him because these works were more or less contemporary. no, but i'm kidding of course. but i mean, no, what is extraordinary is when you realize kindred spirit, i mean that there are kindred spirits yeah. let me take an example to be less abstract precisely. in this book here, that's the only one i have in a book form. all the others are here. i have 20 books. i've not read them. sorry, they are here in my ipad, amazon, etc. okay, kindle. that's the only one i have because it doesn't exist in kindle form, strangely enough. no, no, okay. um... so there is a beautiful passage, funny, about political correctness in this book. and seduction. okay, how do you put together in america seduction and political correctness? my little knowledge of the american world, i know at least 10 cases of professors, i mean, of... married couples who once were professor and student. so something might happen.
but okay. you know, this abstract dimension, of course, it's mine, that's my flesh, what i'm made of, the stuff i'm made of, my formation, etc., etc. but you know what? these patterns, which when you see them drawn on a board or etc., which look highly abstract. they are. almost all of them, if not all of them, in slavo. i don't like that guy too much to whom you refer and well, you know when i discovered günter anders's work, it's not translated into english, which is a scandal. it's more and more translated into french and i'm instrumental in that translating, editing, etc. günter anders was one of the three they are called heidegger's children. the three of them. the other two are hannah arendt, much more famous, and hans siononas. we already mentioned Hans Jonas. so the three of them are german jews. students of a nazi philosopher. and their relationship with heidegger. i i mean, they didn't have the same evolution. as you know, hannahnd had a special relationship with her master anyway. of the three, gunther anders is the less... no, and the less famous in particular because it's not translated. um... but when i discovered his work, friend of mine. i almost sued him i almost sued him because had i found there the everything, all those abstract elements i was trying to put forward. and then i realized that he wrote these things in the 50s and 60s so i couldn't really, i was not yeah. so i refr. the same with jean-jacques, except with slavoy, except that in that case i might have sued him because these works were more or less contemporary. no, but i'm kidding of course. but i mean, no, what is extraordinary is when you realize kindred spirit, i mean that there are kindred spirits yeah. let me take an example to be less abstract precisely. in this book here, that's the only one i have in a book form. all the others are here. i have 20 books. i've not read them. sorry, they are here in my ipad, amazon, etc. okay, kindle. that's the only one i have because it doesn't exist in kindle form, strangely enough. no, no, okay. um... so there is a beautiful passage, funny, about political correctness in this book. and seduction. okay, how do you put together in america seduction and political correctness? my little knowledge of the american world, i know at least 10 cases of professors, i mean, of... married couples who once were professor and student. so something might happen.
Marsha
if.
if.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no no, no, no, no, no no, no, no, no, no, no. i'm too coward. i'm too coward.. but precisely, i had not read what you say about this. so i mean, it's paradoxical and you might want to explain it better than i do. but okay, um there is a prohibition. you don't try to seduce your female student, well, i suppose it's heterosexual world,. you don't try to seduce your female student. but if you cross the line, nevertheless. and attempt something like say there are two cases she accepts and for instance you get married or not by the way but um sorry i said she refuses and then she might sue you etc etc bad things happen or she might accept your seduction. if that is the case, if that is the case. retrospectively one can say that there was no line crossed. there was no line crossed. it's not that the line has been crossed and it doesn't matter anymore. there has never been any line that us crossed. and slavoy, you know, where i found this kind of metaphysics of time in bergson, yeah inson.
no no, no, no, no, no no, no, no, no, no, no. i'm too coward. i'm too coward.. but precisely, i had not read what you say about this. so i mean, it's paradoxical and you might want to explain it better than i do. but okay, um there is a prohibition. you don't try to seduce your female student, well, i suppose it's heterosexual world,. you don't try to seduce your female student. but if you cross the line, nevertheless. and attempt something like say there are two cases she accepts and for instance you get married or not by the way but um sorry i said she refuses and then she might sue you etc etc bad things happen or she might accept your seduction. if that is the case, if that is the case. retrospectively one can say that there was no line crossed. there was no line crossed. it's not that the line has been crossed and it doesn't matter anymore. there has never been any line that us crossed. and slavoy, you know, where i found this kind of metaphysics of time in bergson, yeah inson.
Slavoj Žižek
exactly.
exactly.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
and also in the philosophy of quantum mechanics but that's why okay let's keep to the so... it's not that the, again, it's... changing the past. okay, listen, one more example there was a line. and it's not that there is no longer a line. it becomes true that there never was a lie. you understand the huge difference. it's in bergson and his most famous student, jean-paul sartre,. okay, so these are abstract figures. and depending on the talent of the writer, and saboy has an incredible talent. you make it accessible to anyone and i think anyone can understand although it's shocking it's shocking this idea that you can change the past, i mean, it's a... but you cannot change it causally, that's what said. and savoy goes so far as to say that in a world where political correctness is very strong, um this i've just described, it is more than a phenomenon. is older, stronger. it's precisely in a world where you have these radical prohibitions that they can disappear. it's not disappear in the sense that they are no longer there. in the sense that they were never there. okay, this is the abstract kind of pattern that i'm interested in. but i do it in my own terms, writing, etc. and slavia has this incredible talent of making them concrete by taking lots of examples drawn from daily life. that's your incredible talent, i may say.
and also in the philosophy of quantum mechanics but that's why okay let's keep to the so... it's not that the, again, it's... changing the past. okay, listen, one more example there was a line. and it's not that there is no longer a line. it becomes true that there never was a lie. you understand the huge difference. it's in bergson and his most famous student, jean-paul sartre,. okay, so these are abstract figures. and depending on the talent of the writer, and saboy has an incredible talent. you make it accessible to anyone and i think anyone can understand although it's shocking it's shocking this idea that you can change the past, i mean, it's a... but you cannot change it causally, that's what said. and savoy goes so far as to say that in a world where political correctness is very strong, um this i've just described, it is more than a phenomenon. is older, stronger. it's precisely in a world where you have these radical prohibitions that they can disappear. it's not disappear in the sense that they are no longer there. in the sense that they were never there. okay, this is the abstract kind of pattern that i'm interested in. but i do it in my own terms, writing, etc. and slavia has this incredible talent of making them concrete by taking lots of examples drawn from daily life. that's your incredible talent, i may say.
Slavoj Žižek
okay. can i briefly reply to you but with total agreement and at the same time connect i found this example so interesting because you know what's my problem here? that up. without this dialectic of taking a risk, crossing the line, and then retroactively hoping that the line will retroactively disappear. der ich no proper. process of seduction. at some point someone has to make a gesture where you take a risk. either you will be accused so now then debating with my friends, i tried to force them to imagine a purely politically correct seduction. and i got a clear answer. it would have looked weirdly is a pure market. a contract a correct way would be for me to put it for her, we negotiate and so on, and so that you don't think that i'm kidding. julian assange showed me such a document already exists in sweden, which is the ultimate politically correct country. they had this problem. you know, what's so nice is that even things can retroactively become rape in sweden. in their law it says that if let's say we, i don't want to be accused then of harassing you any, okay, the beautiful lady here where there is no one. we flirt terribly, then we both want to go to bed. no problem here. i just know that she hates, let's say, catholics i'm a catholic. so to make it easier, i fake to her, i tell her i'm a protestant. i lie. and we go to bed, wonderful time, blah blah. i'm not kidding. two weeks later, she discovers that i lied to her that i am a catholic. not only she can prosecute me, but even if she dragged me to bed, i become formally rapist. and to prevent d. and assange showed me the document. it's not yet the law, maybe they're not so crazy, but it already circulates in political circles there a kind of a... forum to fill in. let's say i'm flirting with a lady. we want to do it but just to make it sure it's a forum. name, date of birth, religion, education, do you have aids, any illness? we both sign it up. we can do whatever we want. i find this vision pretty horrible and even some liberal, not left-wing feminists, like not naomi klein, the other one, naomi wolf, already made this point of how at its most rigid, inflexible, political correctness approaches a pure market negotiation model. which is why now the other thing where you that you ask, i would i am here, but this is a subtle point we don't have time to go into it. i am pro-enlightenment to the end as it were so i want to ask you probably i'm not the only one how the only problem i have with you, but i see ambiguity ich. if one looks these blururb-like condensations of what they put on cover on your books. it may sound as if you are pleading. or... demanding proposing some kind of that's how it is put there return to the sacred. i find can you clarify your position here? is it?
okay. can i briefly reply to you but with total agreement and at the same time connect i found this example so interesting because you know what's my problem here? that up. without this dialectic of taking a risk, crossing the line, and then retroactively hoping that the line will retroactively disappear. der ich no proper. process of seduction. at some point someone has to make a gesture where you take a risk. either you will be accused so now then debating with my friends, i tried to force them to imagine a purely politically correct seduction. and i got a clear answer. it would have looked weirdly is a pure market. a contract a correct way would be for me to put it for her, we negotiate and so on, and so that you don't think that i'm kidding. julian assange showed me such a document already exists in sweden, which is the ultimate politically correct country. they had this problem. you know, what's so nice is that even things can retroactively become rape in sweden. in their law it says that if let's say we, i don't want to be accused then of harassing you any, okay, the beautiful lady here where there is no one. we flirt terribly, then we both want to go to bed. no problem here. i just know that she hates, let's say, catholics i'm a catholic. so to make it easier, i fake to her, i tell her i'm a protestant. i lie. and we go to bed, wonderful time, blah blah. i'm not kidding. two weeks later, she discovers that i lied to her that i am a catholic. not only she can prosecute me, but even if she dragged me to bed, i become formally rapist. and to prevent d. and assange showed me the document. it's not yet the law, maybe they're not so crazy, but it already circulates in political circles there a kind of a... forum to fill in. let's say i'm flirting with a lady. we want to do it but just to make it sure it's a forum. name, date of birth, religion, education, do you have aids, any illness? we both sign it up. we can do whatever we want. i find this vision pretty horrible and even some liberal, not left-wing feminists, like not naomi klein, the other one, naomi wolf, already made this point of how at its most rigid, inflexible, political correctness approaches a pure market negotiation model. which is why now the other thing where you that you ask, i would i am here, but this is a subtle point we don't have time to go into it. i am pro-enlightenment to the end as it were so i want to ask you probably i'm not the only one how the only problem i have with you, but i see ambiguity ich. if one looks these blururb-like condensations of what they put on cover on your books. it may sound as if you are pleading. or... demanding proposing some kind of that's how it is put there return to the sacred. i find can you clarify your position here? is it?
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
because.
because.
Slavoj Žižek
i don't
i don't
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
follow you here if one no no, no, no, no no, no, bro, yes. and even in the french, i mean, not even, especially in the french version, i was accused of. i mean yes, yes.
follow you here if one no no, no, no, no no, no, bro, yes. and even in the french, i mean, not even, especially in the french version, i was accused of. i mean yes, yes.
Slavoj Žižek
you as an accusation.
you as an accusation.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no, no, no, no, not at all. what i'm saying is that it's not one more book on the, i mean, i'm talking of the mark of the sacred, one more book on how to reconcile faith and reason, etc. it's the book is intended just to show there is no agenda in a sense, but to show. that this question, there is a preliminary question or issue, which is to realize how much what we call rationality, and i think i take up six domains, economic rationality military or strategic rationality. science and technology. political okay yeah there are two um that what we call rationalité. is not undermined but is full or is pregnant is fraught fraught. with a good measure. of the logic of the sacred. yeah. so it's not one pure reason. uh trying to uh... there are several versions in the usual story, trying to enter into a dialogue with... with religion as it is or theology, etc etc. re... reason is always already contaminated by the logic of the sacred. that's what i call the mark of the sacred. to detect the mark of the sacred, whatever i mean by that. in what appears to be the height of rationality.
no, no, no, no, not at all. what i'm saying is that it's not one more book on the, i mean, i'm talking of the mark of the sacred, one more book on how to reconcile faith and reason, etc. it's the book is intended just to show there is no agenda in a sense, but to show. that this question, there is a preliminary question or issue, which is to realize how much what we call rationality, and i think i take up six domains, economic rationality military or strategic rationality. science and technology. political okay yeah there are two um that what we call rationalité. is not undermined but is full or is pregnant is fraught fraught. with a good measure. of the logic of the sacred. yeah. so it's not one pure reason. uh trying to uh... there are several versions in the usual story, trying to enter into a dialogue with... with religion as it is or theology, etc etc. re... reason is always already contaminated by the logic of the sacred. that's what i call the mark of the sacred. to detect the mark of the sacred, whatever i mean by that. in what appears to be the height of rationality.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah.
yeah.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
um... and i'll do that in six different domains. okay so it's again, it's is approach. no, no, no, no. thank you very much for this question.
um... and i'll do that in six different domains. okay so it's again, it's is approach. no, no, no, no. thank you very much for this question.
Slavoj Žižek
yep. because in france.
yep. because in france.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
i mean, the public discussion of my book in france was precisely made very difficult for me because most readers, it must be my fault, i mean, the reader is always right in principle. most readers understood that interpretation, that i'm advocating a return to the sacred. actually, it's not that i would be against. it's, for me, it's nonsense. i mean, there is no way. and because... because everything is contaminated, not by the sacred. put like the christian message. and now i have a question for you. which is in a sense very simple. your interpretation of christianity is so strong, so beautiful.
i mean, the public discussion of my book in france was precisely made very difficult for me because most readers, it must be my fault, i mean, the reader is always right in principle. most readers understood that interpretation, that i'm advocating a return to the sacred. actually, it's not that i would be against. it's, for me, it's nonsense. i mean, there is no way. and because... because everything is contaminated, not by the sacred. put like the christian message. and now i have a question for you. which is in a sense very simple. your interpretation of christianity is so strong, so beautiful.
Slavoj Žižek
so powerful.
so powerful.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
that why
that why
Slavoj Žižek
when you praise me like this, i already see you behind your back sharping the knife. no no no no. no, no, no.
when you praise me like this, i already see you behind your back sharping the knife. no no no no. no, no, no.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no, no. no, because i forgot to add that it's mine too. so if i were appraising you, okay, we.
no, no. no, because i forgot to add that it's mine too. so if i were appraising you, okay, we.
Slavoj Žižek
i. prraising.
i. prraising.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah. why don't you take the ultimate step? which is to become a christian.
yeah. why don't you take the ultimate step? which is to become a christian.
Slavoj Žižek
. because i mean is christian. and i mean quite seriously, it's not some cheap postmodern joke. for me, literally, the only way to be a consequent atheist is to go through that christian moment, father, why have you forsaken me and so on. you know, as i repeated yesterday, it's not enough for us not to believe. the chicken, the self-transcendent moment should not believe.
. because i mean is christian. and i mean quite seriously, it's not some cheap postmodern joke. for me, literally, the only way to be a consequent atheist is to go through that christian moment, father, why have you forsaken me and so on. you know, as i repeated yesterday, it's not enough for us not to believe. the chicken, the self-transcendent moment should not believe.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
liter.
liter.
Slavoj Žižek
there's the problem and i see this in this the absolute uniqueness of christianity.
there's the problem and i see this in this the absolute uniqueness of christianity.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah, i can absolutely relate to that. but then i have another question. it seems to me, but again, i've not read everything that you wrote, that, and i'm hasting to say that in a sense i like that, although it's we are not on facebook liking not liking you speak almost never, from what i've read, about... the resurrection. and you speak about the passion of christ. and for me... the key element in christianity is the passion of christ, much more than resurrection. okay, and now i have a series of sub-questions. why, i mean, actually you almost say it in this book at the beginning. yesterday you considered several possibilities how to interpret the passion of christ one would be god father sacrifice his son, the usual story. or what else? or christ sacrificed himself in a sense, gave his life for
yeah, i can absolutely relate to that. but then i have another question. it seems to me, but again, i've not read everything that you wrote, that, and i'm hasting to say that in a sense i like that, although it's we are not on facebook liking not liking you speak almost never, from what i've read, about... the resurrection. and you speak about the passion of christ. and for me... the key element in christianity is the passion of christ, much more than resurrection. okay, and now i have a series of sub-questions. why, i mean, actually you almost say it in this book at the beginning. yesterday you considered several possibilities how to interpret the passion of christ one would be god father sacrifice his son, the usual story. or what else? or christ sacrificed himself in a sense, gave his life for
Slavoj Žižek
the salvation of the world. or the most obscene gnostic reading, which i like, that if you accept the premise that god is a limited stupid guy, that sacrificing his son is a way, and i like this reading also, i don't take it too seriously, but it's's beautiful, that it's god's apology to humans. sorry that i screwed it so up the world with creation, i can just give you. because otherwise you must know this. this was a big problem in early centuries of christianity. why does god have to sacrifice his son? why? because people usually answer me because there was sin and so on. sins have to be paid. no, this idea that above god there is some kind of sense of cosmic justice that even god has to obey, this is pagan idea. so then the other popular version was that it's deal with the devil. here that god makes a deal with the devil. i give you my son if you give a chance to what i'm trying to tell you sorry for interrupting you is that this why divine sacrifice this is a big problem in christianity, not even resolved today. yeah, but now there is a third version, third interpretation.
the salvation of the world. or the most obscene gnostic reading, which i like, that if you accept the premise that god is a limited stupid guy, that sacrificing his son is a way, and i like this reading also, i don't take it too seriously, but it's's beautiful, that it's god's apology to humans. sorry that i screwed it so up the world with creation, i can just give you. because otherwise you must know this. this was a big problem in early centuries of christianity. why does god have to sacrifice his son? why? because people usually answer me because there was sin and so on. sins have to be paid. no, this idea that above god there is some kind of sense of cosmic justice that even god has to obey, this is pagan idea. so then the other popular version was that it's deal with the devil. here that god makes a deal with the devil. i give you my son if you give a chance to what i'm trying to tell you sorry for interrupting you is that this why divine sacrifice this is a big problem in christianity, not even resolved today. yeah, but now there is a third version, third interpretation.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
which you mentioned in passing at the beginning of this book. and...
which you mentioned in passing at the beginning of this book. and...
Slavoj Žižek
which is yours or what you like that one or yours? no, your book. i know, i know, but you had the third version.
which is yours or what you like that one or yours? no, your book. i know, i know, but you had the third version.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
the third version, which is mine to be sure. it's that jesus' death on the cross. was a sacrifice. in the anthropological sense of the term, that is a collective murder. independently of jesus or his father's will or his desire, etc., it was a collective murder. and let me take an illustration of that. the problem with the interpretation of what happened on 9-11 in new york city and washington is that... let me take the french reaction to that. the day after, le monde, the very important french newspaper, titled we are all americans, but a month later, there were people like baudrillard and others who said, who wrote articles saying they had it coming, the americans, they deserved it. and they added even what's his name, the founder of nouvelle observateur,, pied noir. uh said the same um um after all, we shouldn't hasten to condemn these guys, the 19 guys of -11, too fast. because after all, they gave their lives. for their cause. they sacrificed themselves. that sounds christian. so in order but it's absolutely it's a perversion of of christianity. illich used to say ivan illich and also rené girard, so by the way, both of them now or in the past, full-blown christians. used to refer to the old latin formula corruptio optimi. pess that is the corruption of the best is a and they explain, like cheserton, by the way, the modern world as being shaped by the christian message, but the corrupt version of the christian message. and the corrupt version of the christian message in this case is precisely to consider that if you sacrifice your life, like the people, the guys, the terrorists of 9-11, then it's hard to condemn you. but what i propose is to say that 9-11 was a collective murder and that mm jesus fashioned on the christ was also it was a sacrifice. in the anthropological sense, i, a collective murder.
the third version, which is mine to be sure. it's that jesus' death on the cross. was a sacrifice. in the anthropological sense of the term, that is a collective murder. independently of jesus or his father's will or his desire, etc., it was a collective murder. and let me take an illustration of that. the problem with the interpretation of what happened on 9-11 in new york city and washington is that... let me take the french reaction to that. the day after, le monde, the very important french newspaper, titled we are all americans, but a month later, there were people like baudrillard and others who said, who wrote articles saying they had it coming, the americans, they deserved it. and they added even what's his name, the founder of nouvelle observateur,, pied noir. uh said the same um um after all, we shouldn't hasten to condemn these guys, the 19 guys of -11, too fast. because after all, they gave their lives. for their cause. they sacrificed themselves. that sounds christian. so in order but it's absolutely it's a perversion of of christianity. illich used to say ivan illich and also rené girard, so by the way, both of them now or in the past, full-blown christians. used to refer to the old latin formula corruptio optimi. pess that is the corruption of the best is a and they explain, like cheserton, by the way, the modern world as being shaped by the christian message, but the corrupt version of the christian message. and the corrupt version of the christian message in this case is precisely to consider that if you sacrifice your life, like the people, the guys, the terrorists of 9-11, then it's hard to condemn you. but what i propose is to say that 9-11 was a collective murder and that mm jesus fashioned on the christ was also it was a sacrifice. in the anthropological sense, i, a collective murder.
Slavoj Žižek
okay, i'll tell you where very deeply, first about that had it coming moment. also i also wrote a very short book, welcome to the desert of the real, obvious reference to the matrix movie. but there i try to think both aspects together. on the one hand, it is true that it's the same as with, i always like this example, titanic. do you know, one almost gets superstitious, that four or five years ago, sorry, before titanic was sung, there was a novel. in which tells the story of a hyper mega luxurious sheep. which gets hits the iceberg and gets sunk and in the novel the name of the sheep is titan. so it is as if it was in the air. only in this sense they had it coming, that obviously what happened, even if it was shocking. was somehow in the air as an expectation.
okay, i'll tell you where very deeply, first about that had it coming moment. also i also wrote a very short book, welcome to the desert of the real, obvious reference to the matrix movie. but there i try to think both aspects together. on the one hand, it is true that it's the same as with, i always like this example, titanic. do you know, one almost gets superstitious, that four or five years ago, sorry, before titanic was sung, there was a novel. in which tells the story of a hyper mega luxurious sheep. which gets hits the iceberg and gets sunk and in the novel the name of the sheep is titan. so it is as if it was in the air. only in this sense they had it coming, that obviously what happened, even if it was shocking. was somehow in the air as an expectation.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
excellent.
excellent.
Slavoj Žižek
that's as far as i go. but in no way would i play this game where incidentally, baudar joins hands with the utmost american perverts that i like. you know, pat robert, this is my secret if you want to know what i'm reading privately.
that's as far as i go. but in no way would i play this game where incidentally, baudar joins hands with the utmost american perverts that i like. you know, pat robert, this is my secret if you want to know what i'm reading privately.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
back
back
Slavoj Žižek
robertson then those left behind jerks you know Tim LaHaye and so on all that who said the same thing? yes, yes, i know, i know. so i totally reject that. now, let's go to the more important point. i like very much what you said that the... optimal corruption is corruption of the good. corruption of the good. i often quote, i think it was that stephen weinberg of the first three seconds, the quantum sorry the quantum cosmologist who i don't agree with him totally. my god, i wrote three, four books celebrating the emancipatory core of christianity. but nonetheless, there is an element of truth in what he says there. he said very simply that without religion, good people would have been doing good things and bad people bad things. but you need something like religion to make good people do bad things. and this is my personal experience. also, i would just as an old platonic guy add poetry. it gave me to think how, you know, Radovan Karadžić is a poet, leader of ser. and then i noticed that if you go to rwanda, i discovered Karadžić there. i quote his name in some of my books. there was a big national poet who for two decades laid the ground for that to slaughter and so on. that is to say, because i'm sick and tired that we philosophers are accused usually you know, like, like even here i disagree with Levinas, who said, and even adorno thinks the same that the origin of political totalitarianism is the philosophical notion of totality. you know, like we philosophers with our total rational visions, we lay the foundations. i say, but what about po? every totalitarian system, they need a poet or a religious thinker, mythologist, because again, to make good people do bad things, you need some kind of a transcendent monstrous vision. which then allows you. to feel great, noble, precisely by violating elementary ethical norms. you know who? it should be reprinted as a classic. one of the most monstrous texts that i know, the famous heinrich himmler speech in posen poznan to nazi officers, where he basically says, every idiot can sacrifice his life for a high cause. but it takes a really great man to sacrifice his soul to do horrible things for the cause. and that's the true greatness. and you can find the same logic, although i don't put them on the same level, not at all, in stalinism. i remember how in the end of 20s, when this most terrible thing happened, which was the true revolution, much more radical than october revolution, the forced collectivization of farms. and how they prepared communist cadre to do it. the idea was, beware, you will be doing horrible things there. you will see farmers' children starving and so on. but the true ethical greatness is to do it. so here i would follow your line if i got it between the lines that nonetheless following girard, okay. it's a collective murder, but nonetheless, you know what girard says about it, that it's nonetheless more paradoxical. is that it's an anti-sacrifice at the same time christ. s. to end
robertson then those left behind jerks you know Tim LaHaye and so on all that who said the same thing? yes, yes, i know, i know. so i totally reject that. now, let's go to the more important point. i like very much what you said that the... optimal corruption is corruption of the good. corruption of the good. i often quote, i think it was that stephen weinberg of the first three seconds, the quantum sorry the quantum cosmologist who i don't agree with him totally. my god, i wrote three, four books celebrating the emancipatory core of christianity. but nonetheless, there is an element of truth in what he says there. he said very simply that without religion, good people would have been doing good things and bad people bad things. but you need something like religion to make good people do bad things. and this is my personal experience. also, i would just as an old platonic guy add poetry. it gave me to think how, you know, Radovan Karadžić is a poet, leader of ser. and then i noticed that if you go to rwanda, i discovered Karadžić there. i quote his name in some of my books. there was a big national poet who for two decades laid the ground for that to slaughter and so on. that is to say, because i'm sick and tired that we philosophers are accused usually you know, like, like even here i disagree with Levinas, who said, and even adorno thinks the same that the origin of political totalitarianism is the philosophical notion of totality. you know, like we philosophers with our total rational visions, we lay the foundations. i say, but what about po? every totalitarian system, they need a poet or a religious thinker, mythologist, because again, to make good people do bad things, you need some kind of a transcendent monstrous vision. which then allows you. to feel great, noble, precisely by violating elementary ethical norms. you know who? it should be reprinted as a classic. one of the most monstrous texts that i know, the famous heinrich himmler speech in posen poznan to nazi officers, where he basically says, every idiot can sacrifice his life for a high cause. but it takes a really great man to sacrifice his soul to do horrible things for the cause. and that's the true greatness. and you can find the same logic, although i don't put them on the same level, not at all, in stalinism. i remember how in the end of 20s, when this most terrible thing happened, which was the true revolution, much more radical than october revolution, the forced collectivization of farms. and how they prepared communist cadre to do it. the idea was, beware, you will be doing horrible things there. you will see farmers' children starving and so on. but the true ethical greatness is to do it. so here i would follow your line if i got it between the lines that nonetheless following girard, okay. it's a collective murder, but nonetheless, you know what girard says about it, that it's nonetheless more paradoxical. is that it's an anti-sacrifice at the same time christ. s. to end
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
it changes. that's a fr girard.
it changes. that's a fr girard.
Slavoj Žižek
really you change his mind.
really you change his mind.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
oh yes, completely.
oh yes, completely.
Slavoj Žižek
get my hands on me in a good stalinist way he will change his mind.
get my hands on me in a good stalinist way he will change his mind.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
it was to agree with you. to change his mind on this and now he's completely unable to speak.
it was to agree with you. to change his mind on this and now he's completely unable to speak.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, because again, i think this guy will read what you said, you know. the the most tricky sacrifice is to. sacrifice yourself. for a cause, even if it's as if and that's almost a definition of perversion, as if by sacrificing for the cause, you can redeem the cause. you know, so i claim that here we should be kantians. you are not just responsible in the sense of let's do anything for the cause. you are also responsible for the cause itself. i think that what authentic christian and also kant's ethic prohibits is to use the cause is an excuse. you know, when you can say, oh, it's horrible what i'm doing, but fuck it, it's for a stalinist communist, it's a historical necessity, whatever. no, you never are allowed to use... one can even put it in tautological terms, to use doing duty as an excuse to do duty. you have to be absolutely responsible for it. and here, that would be my... friendly criticism of hannah arendt. here, i think she comes too close to somehow endorsing critically of course. you know when eichmann said, oh, i was a kantian. for me. the voice of hitler was the voice of ethical duty. i just followed my duty. no, you cannot say this. you cannot blame the big other. you are totally responsible also for your duty. that's why, to go to the return, the question of resurrection. i'm here, maybe i'm simplistic and so on. but i think all the stuff of christ returning afterwards, it's a kind of a zombie obscene version. if i were to be a christian, i would burn those what are the last texts of the bible? apocalyptic stuff but my stalinist universe already the gospel of john kind of a... disappears you should notice reading closely that it's the gospel of john which is the first one the only of the gospels which comes close to anti-semitism even already it's the dangerous one so my point is i follow here the bible you know the crucial point for me is when disciples ask christ, how will will we know when you will return? and he gives a simple beautiful answer. when there will be love between the two of you. i am there. i will return. for me, holy spirit is already a return. it's a pure obscenity to look for something more, some living dead like christ coming up and returning. holy spirit is it. nothing more. and holy spirit it's clear. it's for me. now i provoke you, the proto forum of communist party. in what sense? you know when christ says, the famous, he's with his disciples and somebody comes and says, oh, your mother is there, blah blah and he says, no, my family is here. and all that stuff about if you don't hate your father, mother, you're not my follower. no, it's not some stupid sadism. i think that when christ mentions their mother, father, it's simply a shortcut for social hierarchy. i think he is not saying. hate your father, but hate your father insofar as he stands for symbolic hierarchy of a social order. the hope, the really good news of holy spirit is that an egalitarian emancipatory community which bypasses social hierarchy is possible. that's the really great news. so i get this for me, resurrection is holy spirit already. it's a total mistake of perspective to look for some something more some creepy guy coming out of grave again. maybe it's too simplistic reading, but anyway.
yeah, because again, i think this guy will read what you said, you know. the the most tricky sacrifice is to. sacrifice yourself. for a cause, even if it's as if and that's almost a definition of perversion, as if by sacrificing for the cause, you can redeem the cause. you know, so i claim that here we should be kantians. you are not just responsible in the sense of let's do anything for the cause. you are also responsible for the cause itself. i think that what authentic christian and also kant's ethic prohibits is to use the cause is an excuse. you know, when you can say, oh, it's horrible what i'm doing, but fuck it, it's for a stalinist communist, it's a historical necessity, whatever. no, you never are allowed to use... one can even put it in tautological terms, to use doing duty as an excuse to do duty. you have to be absolutely responsible for it. and here, that would be my... friendly criticism of hannah arendt. here, i think she comes too close to somehow endorsing critically of course. you know when eichmann said, oh, i was a kantian. for me. the voice of hitler was the voice of ethical duty. i just followed my duty. no, you cannot say this. you cannot blame the big other. you are totally responsible also for your duty. that's why, to go to the return, the question of resurrection. i'm here, maybe i'm simplistic and so on. but i think all the stuff of christ returning afterwards, it's a kind of a zombie obscene version. if i were to be a christian, i would burn those what are the last texts of the bible? apocalyptic stuff but my stalinist universe already the gospel of john kind of a... disappears you should notice reading closely that it's the gospel of john which is the first one the only of the gospels which comes close to anti-semitism even already it's the dangerous one so my point is i follow here the bible you know the crucial point for me is when disciples ask christ, how will will we know when you will return? and he gives a simple beautiful answer. when there will be love between the two of you. i am there. i will return. for me, holy spirit is already a return. it's a pure obscenity to look for something more, some living dead like christ coming up and returning. holy spirit is it. nothing more. and holy spirit it's clear. it's for me. now i provoke you, the proto forum of communist party. in what sense? you know when christ says, the famous, he's with his disciples and somebody comes and says, oh, your mother is there, blah blah and he says, no, my family is here. and all that stuff about if you don't hate your father, mother, you're not my follower. no, it's not some stupid sadism. i think that when christ mentions their mother, father, it's simply a shortcut for social hierarchy. i think he is not saying. hate your father, but hate your father insofar as he stands for symbolic hierarchy of a social order. the hope, the really good news of holy spirit is that an egalitarian emancipatory community which bypasses social hierarchy is possible. that's the really great news. so i get this for me, resurrection is holy spirit already. it's a total mistake of perspective to look for some something more some creepy guy coming out of grave again. maybe it's too simplistic reading, but anyway.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
that's what you confirmed what i was simply surmising. that resurrection for you is not certainly not the hinge. i okay, it is, but it already happened. it is there in hope okay, but it's a different. yes, it's not the zombie story. it although there is something beautiful in this zombie story, it's that the disciples do not recognize him and he has exactly the same traits, features. than before and they do not recognize him. okay.
that's what you confirmed what i was simply surmising. that resurrection for you is not certainly not the hinge. i okay, it is, but it already happened. it is there in hope okay, but it's a different. yes, it's not the zombie story. it although there is something beautiful in this zombie story, it's that the disciples do not recognize him and he has exactly the same traits, features. than before and they do not recognize him. okay.
Slavoj Žižek
i know, i know. and also, do you know this is why i like, there was a remake of romero, one of those movies. uh return of the debt whatever where it uses a certain quote from apocalyptic which is for me extremely obscene. it speaks about resurrection of the dead and it describes it precisely in the sense of horror movies. like graves will be open, dead people will arise and so on and so on. i think there is in hegelian sense there is a kind of a mistake of perspective.
i know, i know. and also, do you know this is why i like, there was a remake of romero, one of those movies. uh return of the debt whatever where it uses a certain quote from apocalyptic which is for me extremely obscene. it speaks about resurrection of the dead and it describes it precisely in the sense of horror movies. like graves will be open, dead people will arise and so on and so on. i think there is in hegelian sense there is a kind of a mistake of perspective.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
but you find that already in jeremiah, for instance. jeremiah, the prophet. yeah, yeah. i don... the death, the resurrection in the death valley, i mean. no you don not okay sorry they are not a christian yeah.
but you find that already in jeremiah, for instance. jeremiah, the prophet. yeah, yeah. i don... the death, the resurrection in the death valley, i mean. no you don not okay sorry they are not a christian yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
they tend to be, but they are not.
they tend to be, but they are not.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no christian or jews because after all jeremiah it's in the old testament. but okay, doesn't matter.
no christian or jews because after all jeremiah it's in the old testament. but okay, doesn't matter.
Slavoj Žižek
well
well
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no no, but i just want to illustrate what... what slavoy said, that's why i always thought that david fincher was a great movie maker because his first movie illustrates exactly the point you made a few minutes ago.
no no, but i just want to illustrate what... what slavoy said, that's why i always thought that david fincher was a great movie maker because his first movie illustrates exactly the point you made a few minutes ago.
Slavoj Žižek
alien.
alien.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
seven. no, but didn
seven. no, but didn
Slavoj Žižek
he do before one it plays with exactly the same logic yeah and i think it's a masterpiece although it was a failure alien tree you remember that true he did that it's incredibly good yes i agree and it goes precisely into this cloning resurrecting exactly
he do before one it plays with exactly the same logic yeah and i think it's a masterpiece although it was a failure alien tree you remember that true he did that it's incredibly good yes i agree and it goes precisely into this cloning resurrecting exactly
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
but seven, you remember the theme. the kevin spacey who once more incarnate embodies evil, not as evil as in house of cards. no, no, no, no, that's. other. yeah, but as in the usual suspects by david singer. binger.
but seven, you remember the theme. the kevin spacey who once more incarnate embodies evil, not as evil as in house of cards. no, no, no, no, that's. other. yeah, but as in the usual suspects by david singer. binger.
Slavoj Žižek
right
right
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
great movie.
great movie.
Slavoj Žižek
this is.
this is.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
also a great movie. but anyway, so the seven seven, that means the seven
also a great movie. but anyway, so the seven seven, that means the seven
Slavoj Žižek
yes.
yes.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
and the devil, that is kevin spacey, sacrifices his life because he is killed. out of brad pitt's envy because he killed his white f you remember nice he movie. bre doesn't get that his own death of kevin is in
and the devil, that is kevin spacey, sacrifices his life because he is killed. out of brad pitt's envy because he killed his white f you remember nice he movie. bre doesn't get that his own death of kevin is in
Slavoj Žižek
it.
it.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
exactly you know exactly.
exactly you know exactly.
Slavoj Žižek
yes,. so you too. i mean, we love cinema.
yes,. so you too. i mean, we love cinema.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
so yeah, sorry.
so yeah, sorry.
Slavoj Žižek
i think christopher nolan is overestimated. i think that yes, yes.
i think christopher nolan is overestimated. i think that yes, yes.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
i think
i think
Slavoj Žižek
the david team tradition.
the david team tradition.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
question.
question.
Questioner
so i think this continues it, and that is maybe trying to tease out a little bit the difference, but i think it's related to what you guys were just saying, and that is the way in which you would both read lan's notion of drive and desire differently. it seems like slavo, you would see the star in that world being internalized, whereas, it's important to have that star externally in the form of desire for the purpose of creating the rituals.
so i think this continues it, and that is maybe trying to tease out a little bit the difference, but i think it's related to what you guys were just saying, and that is the way in which you would both read lan's notion of drive and desire differently. it seems like slavo, you would see the star in that world being internalized, whereas, it's important to have that star externally in the form of desire for the purpose of creating the rituals.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
except that desire, as i said yesterday, the etymology of the word desire means the absence of the star, the, privative, deprivation, desiderare in latin, siderider. s what are the words in english that come from. see there.
except that desire, as i said yesterday, the etymology of the word desire means the absence of the star, the, privative, deprivation, desiderare in latin, siderider. s what are the words in english that come from. see there.
Slavoj Žižek
okay, anyway.
okay, anyway.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
cedation when you are stunned you don't say you are struck by a star. okay.
cedation when you are stunned you don't say you are struck by a star. okay.
Slavoj Žižek
anyway, and see there in in the
anyway, and see there in in the
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
in greek means star. so desire. they see, are deprived of thislam. it's the absence of the star that guides you in a sense
in greek means star. so desire. they see, are deprived of thislam. it's the absence of the star that guides you in a sense
Slavoj Žižek
but i think that precisely here i'm on his side, that with drive. with drive, this is the big lian theological problem. lecon says that object l' object is object cause of desire, but also the object of drive. so how do they... different and i think that it's in the drive that in a way the object is no longer. an entity but just become the topological term of turning around. so in a way, you accept the void. you no longer are running after an object, but... running around the void in itself brings satisfaction and so on. so i don't think that here you would, i mean, i appreciate your you being paid by reactionary forces for trying to an edge between the two of us. you will be when we take power, you will be able to explain this to secret police write confession no, but quite seriously, i am bothered by this because now i will be frank. i'm not idealizing us a couple. there are differences, but it's difficult to locate them.
but i think that precisely here i'm on his side, that with drive. with drive, this is the big lian theological problem. lecon says that object l' object is object cause of desire, but also the object of drive. so how do they... different and i think that it's in the drive that in a way the object is no longer. an entity but just become the topological term of turning around. so in a way, you accept the void. you no longer are running after an object, but... running around the void in itself brings satisfaction and so on. so i don't think that here you would, i mean, i appreciate your you being paid by reactionary forces for trying to an edge between the two of us. you will be when we take power, you will be able to explain this to secret police write confession no, but quite seriously, i am bothered by this because now i will be frank. i'm not idealizing us a couple. there are differences, but it's difficult to locate them.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no. i i look close
no. i i look close
Slavoj Žižek
idea
idea
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
it's not there. in terms of inferences, i noted down here in the last page of the book that your marks was my ilich. your lacan wajira. your vertigo. was and still is my vertigo. your argentina for me is brazil. agree my hegel your hegel is for me david k. lewis theory of possible worlds and counterfactual.
it's not there. in terms of inferences, i noted down here in the last page of the book that your marks was my ilich. your lacan wajira. your vertigo. was and still is my vertigo. your argentina for me is brazil. agree my hegel your hegel is for me david k. lewis theory of possible worlds and counterfactual.
Slavoj Žižek
a great one.
a great one.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah, yeah, yeah. and my christianity is yours, i would say. um and you know, anyway, even if i wanted to be a catholic, i couldn't because of the last five popes at least, because i'm a divorced man. living, living in sin, living... living maritally.
yeah, yeah, yeah. and my christianity is yours, i would say. um and you know, anyway, even if i wanted to be a catholic, i couldn't because of the last five popes at least, because i'm a divorced man. living, living in sin, living... living maritally.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, but you don't work for the best definition you must have heard a joke. there is a truth in it. we say in my country between protestantism and catholicism. in both systems you can do absolutely whatever you want. in catholicism you only have to confess it every week. in protestantism you have to feel a little bit bad and guilty. yes it's okay no, but seriously, i am absolutely maybe this is our difference. i don't know that if i were to choose between protestantism and catholicism well, uh... i'm for. in protestantism you have predestination. and without predestination, this stupid, obscene idea that you're good
yeah, but you don't work for the best definition you must have heard a joke. there is a truth in it. we say in my country between protestantism and catholicism. in both systems you can do absolutely whatever you want. in catholicism you only have to confess it every week. in protestantism you have to feel a little bit bad and guilty. yes it's okay no, but seriously, i am absolutely maybe this is our difference. i don't know that if i were to choose between protestantism and catholicism well, uh... i'm for. in protestantism you have predestination. and without predestination, this stupid, obscene idea that you're good
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
okay.
okay.
Slavoj Žižek
help
help
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
this is an option again, i agree with you. if i had to choose, if it were possible, it made sense. but i will choose if did that
this is an option again, i agree with you. if i had to choose, if it were possible, it made sense. but i will choose if did that
Slavoj Žižek
that jean.
that jean.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
where.
where.
Slavoj Žižek
the only catholic
the only catholic
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
but.
but.
Slavoj Žižek
also for a predis
also for a predis
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
exactly. absolutely true. so i'm a pascalian, a quasi protestant. i might be a jew too, if i had to choose, let's say, my destiny precisely, my past.
exactly. absolutely true. so i'm a pascalian, a quasi protestant. i might be a jew too, if i had to choose, let's say, my destiny precisely, my past.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, but you know what i don't like about the jew, sorry, now i will be again accused of anti-seemitmitism, that even if we play all these kafka games, messiah will arrive too late, will not. they still... they are too much future oriented. what i like is this pessimist message. it already happened, fuck it, it's over, you know. this is what i like about christianity. it's not again bullshitting us with some... messianic moment nothing will happen what happened it's already happened it already happened we are in deep shit
yeah, but you know what i don't like about the jew, sorry, now i will be again accused of anti-seemitmitism, that even if we play all these kafka games, messiah will arrive too late, will not. they still... they are too much future oriented. what i like is this pessimist message. it already happened, fuck it, it's over, you know. this is what i like about christianity. it's not again bullshitting us with some... messianic moment nothing will happen what happened it's already happened it already happened we are in deep shit
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yeah yeah. by the way, that should lead to your questions, sir. yeah yeah, we have two questions. it was you.
yeah yeah. by the way, that should lead to your questions, sir. yeah yeah, we have two questions. it was you.
Audience Member
oh.
oh.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no. know know you.
no. know know you.
Slavoj Žižek
you.
you.
Audience Member
mm
mm
Slavoj Žižek
not the arab terrorists there because all isis people have beard like you.
not the arab terrorists there because all isis people have beard like you.
Audience Member
i. specific.
i. specific.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
and let's not forget your questions.
and let's not forget your questions.
Audience Member
this is respect to a project that i've undertaken about repposed churches, what's being done with church architectures. you saying should be turned into grain silos or palaces of.
this is respect to a project that i've undertaken about repposed churches, what's being done with church architectures. you saying should be turned into grain silos or palaces of.
Slavoj Žižek
this is a bad taste style globe. you know this.
this is a bad taste style globe. you know this.
Audience Member
so this was in 2002. could you elaborate on this thought? have your thoughts on this changed any in recent times? and how would you see extraneous church architecture best used?
so this was in 2002. could you elaborate on this thought? have your thoughts on this changed any in recent times? and how would you see extraneous church architecture best used?
Slavoj Žižek
the only, okay, i will just give you very briefly a paradoxical, crazy answer. i will say that, and i've written about it,... the most horrible, what i always hated is the obscenity of this cultural tor. what beautiful ancient monument. you treat them as dead. there is nothing, i wrote, you remember when taliban were bombing those buddhist statues? but at least for them, this was a threat, one religion fighting another. in a way, they showed more respect to buddhism than this cultural approach, you know, oh, what a beautiful monument to human inventiveness. i am just afraid of this cultural respect. you know, this is, i think, the worst thing you can do. and maybe can i, because we are approaching the end, just briefly answer your question, the first directed at me. working through christianity suffering christ conclude that difficult human love is the core of our being. okay, very briefly, yes, but and my but how to how to... define this difficult human. uh like here i am at the same time a kierke guardian or whatever you want and kierkegaard said some so crazy things like when he said the true christian love for a neighbor is you should love him as if he is that you know that no my point is this man how to unite this and i think it's not simply you have this and that. uh. you know when christ says you know if you have a shirt, sell it buy weapon. i bring i don't bring peace i bring the sword the sword and so on in what sense? but not in some pseudo-buddhist sense of you know, the short of mercy. for me, christian love is an extremely engaged position of active struggle. it brings division. it's not love as unity it's love that brings division and that's important more than ever today when the predominant dominant ideology is what we usually refer what i ironically refer to as western buddhism you know this richard gear stuff you know slightly basically that's why it's so popular you can just go on living at this you just should do it with a little bit of inner distance and so on you know no i think that this message of christ. again. to unite. to redefine love as a position of active engagement. i ich a forum of love. this is for me crucial how to define it today. in this sense, i'm not saying we should all be just that suffering christ, but don't forget the other christ with all those paradoxical statements. sorry if i can add.
the only, okay, i will just give you very briefly a paradoxical, crazy answer. i will say that, and i've written about it,... the most horrible, what i always hated is the obscenity of this cultural tor. what beautiful ancient monument. you treat them as dead. there is nothing, i wrote, you remember when taliban were bombing those buddhist statues? but at least for them, this was a threat, one religion fighting another. in a way, they showed more respect to buddhism than this cultural approach, you know, oh, what a beautiful monument to human inventiveness. i am just afraid of this cultural respect. you know, this is, i think, the worst thing you can do. and maybe can i, because we are approaching the end, just briefly answer your question, the first directed at me. working through christianity suffering christ conclude that difficult human love is the core of our being. okay, very briefly, yes, but and my but how to how to... define this difficult human. uh like here i am at the same time a kierke guardian or whatever you want and kierkegaard said some so crazy things like when he said the true christian love for a neighbor is you should love him as if he is that you know that no my point is this man how to unite this and i think it's not simply you have this and that. uh. you know when christ says you know if you have a shirt, sell it buy weapon. i bring i don't bring peace i bring the sword the sword and so on in what sense? but not in some pseudo-buddhist sense of you know, the short of mercy. for me, christian love is an extremely engaged position of active struggle. it brings division. it's not love as unity it's love that brings division and that's important more than ever today when the predominant dominant ideology is what we usually refer what i ironically refer to as western buddhism you know this richard gear stuff you know slightly basically that's why it's so popular you can just go on living at this you just should do it with a little bit of inner distance and so on you know no i think that this message of christ. again. to unite. to redefine love as a position of active engagement. i ich a forum of love. this is for me crucial how to define it today. in this sense, i'm not saying we should all be just that suffering christ, but don't forget the other christ with all those paradoxical statements. sorry if i can add.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
test one illustration of what you've just said, the turning the other cheek, it's exactly that. it's not a peace tool at all. it's to destabilize. your adversary. i mean, he expecting you to strike back. and you turn the other cheek. so for two three seconds is's completely...
test one illustration of what you've just said, the turning the other cheek, it's exactly that. it's not a peace tool at all. it's to destabilize. your adversary. i mean, he expecting you to strike back. and you turn the other cheek. so for two three seconds is's completely...
Slavoj Žižek
uh
uh
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
powerless. and that's when you start.
powerless. and that's when you start.
Slavoj Žižek
it's the same as, sorry, another movie that i hope we like. how is that one? again with brett pete fight club. the most shocking scene then, you remember when ed norton approaches his boss and instead of hitting him, he strikes back at him. and it's the most painful, incredibly subversive thing. that's the way we should follow.
it's the same as, sorry, another movie that i hope we like. how is that one? again with brett pete fight club. the most shocking scene then, you remember when ed norton approaches his boss and instead of hitting him, he strikes back at him. and it's the most painful, incredibly subversive thing. that's the way we should follow.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
the usual suspects too, that's in one of your books, when kaiser soze kills his own family. the terrorists are there, and then they are completely destabilized. but if we can, we'll take one last question from me medoy.
the usual suspects too, that's in one of your books, when kaiser soze kills his own family. the terrorists are there, and then they are completely destabilized. but if we can, we'll take one last question from me medoy.
Medavoy
yeah just wanted to ask one question which has to do with the way that much of your discussion has revolved around the specificity of christianity. because i think, you know, and this might be one place where perhaps there's a difference between the two.
yeah just wanted to ask one question which has to do with the way that much of your discussion has revolved around the specificity of christianity. because i think, you know, and this might be one place where perhaps there's a difference between the two.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
thank. yeah.
thank. yeah.
Medavoy
the sacred is a certain kind of formal abstraction, like say language. and it seems to me that slavboy, what you keep returning to is a kind of an interest in one particular language, say not english, is to language as christianity is to the sacred, a particular instantiation. and i know you've said a couple of times that you have to go through christianity of this version in order to arrive at the secular. there's a version of that could be true. one must go through sort of the theological forms of christianity in order to have a modern state, right? because the state is modeled on the theology of sovereignty. or perhaps the market, again, as a sort of a natural law that's derived from a certain kind of sort of christian project. but if that's the case, it seems to me that that analysis actually does tend to presuppose a fixed past, a particular pathway that leads to a sort of the secular world of the state and the market. and so the question i have, which comes out of, say, the other work that's been going on in the relsec project, in other sites where people are thinking very hard about other forms of religiosity about islam.
the sacred is a certain kind of formal abstraction, like say language. and it seems to me that slavboy, what you keep returning to is a kind of an interest in one particular language, say not english, is to language as christianity is to the sacred, a particular instantiation. and i know you've said a couple of times that you have to go through christianity of this version in order to arrive at the secular. there's a version of that could be true. one must go through sort of the theological forms of christianity in order to have a modern state, right? because the state is modeled on the theology of sovereignty. or perhaps the market, again, as a sort of a natural law that's derived from a certain kind of sort of christian project. but if that's the case, it seems to me that that analysis actually does tend to presuppose a fixed past, a particular pathway that leads to a sort of the secular world of the state and the market. and so the question i have, which comes out of, say, the other work that's been going on in the relsec project, in other sites where people are thinking very hard about other forms of religiosity about islam.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
mm-hmm.
mm-hmm.
Medavoy
buddhism, about hinduism, and are asking the question whether in fact there are pathways through sort of like alternative particularities and histories of the sacred that nevertheless can converge with the sort of say, the kind of theology, secular theology of the market, the secular theology of the state that we have. that know that we're kind of contending with, where it doesn't really matter what you make into the endogenous endpoint. it doesn't have to be christian in form. it could take some other form so long as it sort of produces the sort of outcome you interested in. so i'm just sort of putting that out there. does christianity really matter at all? or can anything be substituted in as a kind of a?
buddhism, about hinduism, and are asking the question whether in fact there are pathways through sort of like alternative particularities and histories of the sacred that nevertheless can converge with the sort of say, the kind of theology, secular theology of the market, the secular theology of the state that we have. that know that we're kind of contending with, where it doesn't really matter what you make into the endogenous endpoint. it doesn't have to be christian in form. it could take some other form so long as it sort of produces the sort of outcome you interested in. so i'm just sort of putting that out there. does christianity really matter at all? or can anything be substituted in as a kind of a?
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no
no
Slavoj Žižek
okay, please.
okay, please.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
then you have the conclusion.
then you have the conclusion.
Slavoj Žižek
worth okay, my god fuck it. i have to run to the airport. i don't here i just state my position. no, i think again, not at the level of content, but at the very formal level. there is something unique in... christianity but so when you mention this presupposition and so on. here i think two things. first if there is a title for which i would be ready to kill, that i find one in walter benjamin is the title of his essay. on language in general and specifically human language because this doesn't mean there are general languages of stars, of animals and among no, there is only one language but we have to distinguish the purely formal aspect and human language and into this gap i locate when you talk about language. hegel knew this clearly and the austrian writer i found her too tasteless, i even don't like her, elfrieda jelinek. she nonetheless said something wonderful, which i repeatedly quote. she said that language spontaneously is lying. we have to torture language make to squeeze out the truth out of it. and here would be my formal problem with at least a tendency heidegger as if you know. allow, let the language speak and so on. no, i think it's wrong to look for some deeper truth in language. language, we cannot think outside language. only within, but we have to think in language against language. and my only point would be this one to you. it's not only christianity. the problem would already have been judaism. i think that christianity is inherently linked to judaism. it's only possible against the background of judaism and i think an incredible break happens already in. judaism, but we don't have time now to go into this.
worth okay, my god fuck it. i have to run to the airport. i don't here i just state my position. no, i think again, not at the level of content, but at the very formal level. there is something unique in... christianity but so when you mention this presupposition and so on. here i think two things. first if there is a title for which i would be ready to kill, that i find one in walter benjamin is the title of his essay. on language in general and specifically human language because this doesn't mean there are general languages of stars, of animals and among no, there is only one language but we have to distinguish the purely formal aspect and human language and into this gap i locate when you talk about language. hegel knew this clearly and the austrian writer i found her too tasteless, i even don't like her, elfrieda jelinek. she nonetheless said something wonderful, which i repeatedly quote. she said that language spontaneously is lying. we have to torture language make to squeeze out the truth out of it. and here would be my formal problem with at least a tendency heidegger as if you know. allow, let the language speak and so on. no, i think it's wrong to look for some deeper truth in language. language, we cannot think outside language. only within, but we have to think in language against language. and my only point would be this one to you. it's not only christianity. the problem would already have been judaism. i think that christianity is inherently linked to judaism. it's only possible against the background of judaism and i think an incredible break happens already in. judaism, but we don't have time now to go into this.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
but one sentence to it's i think i, but probably slavoy, i don't know, belong to a tradition where you find names like durkheim, tocqueville. uh... max weber, of course, etc. which contends that christianity is the and of religions. it's the end of religions. max weber about protestantism said that it was responsible for the entzauber der welt, disenchantment, but literally it means the elimination of magic, zauber, zauberflöter, the magic flute. uh dis of the world, etc. um... so there is something absolutely specific. about christianity. i fully agree. and it could not have been replaced by anything else. um but maybe, okay, we have no time now. for me, the revelation is the... which in greek as you know the word revelation it's in greek it's apocalypse apocalypse means revelation doesn't mean the big bang at the end. revelation. is the passion of the christ, precisely. not his resurrection or whatever. it's a passion of christ. what did we learn from that? um but this message, unfortunately, was corrupted, as we were saying.
but one sentence to it's i think i, but probably slavoy, i don't know, belong to a tradition where you find names like durkheim, tocqueville. uh... max weber, of course, etc. which contends that christianity is the and of religions. it's the end of religions. max weber about protestantism said that it was responsible for the entzauber der welt, disenchantment, but literally it means the elimination of magic, zauber, zauberflöter, the magic flute. uh dis of the world, etc. um... so there is something absolutely specific. about christianity. i fully agree. and it could not have been replaced by anything else. um but maybe, okay, we have no time now. for me, the revelation is the... which in greek as you know the word revelation it's in greek it's apocalypse apocalypse means revelation doesn't mean the big bang at the end. revelation. is the passion of the christ, precisely. not his resurrection or whatever. it's a passion of christ. what did we learn from that? um but this message, unfortunately, was corrupted, as we were saying.
Slavoj Žižek
but not, i hope we agree with here, i nonetheless don't follow the idea which is now popular with so-called historicizing christians that it's like aslan zilot now that it's the original christ and then paul is the big bad guy. no, i think paul is still is.
but not, i hope we agree with here, i nonetheless don't follow the idea which is now popular with so-called historicizing christians that it's like aslan zilot now that it's the original christ and then paul is the big bad guy. no, i think paul is still is.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
yes, yes.
yes, yes.
Slavoj Žižek
corruption happens afterwards. yeah yeah yeah.
corruption happens afterwards. yeah yeah yeah.
Medavoy
but just to get back to be as specific as possible, do you think econystification actually is dependent upon the specificities of a christian theology? or could it take...
but just to get back to be as specific as possible, do you think econystification actually is dependent upon the specificities of a christian theology? or could it take...
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
no, my thesis is actually in the new book is... that um the economy. as the same relationship to violence than the sacred had. but it doesn't mean that the economy is sacred. no. and this relationship is a relationship of ambivalence. and i use, i resort to the play on words to contain to contain means at the same time to have within oneself and to keep in check, to stem. so the economy contains violence. it's it's violent, but it's also... it keeps to some extent or it used to keep violence in check. in the same way, or the same way, not in the same way, but the same role as the sacred plaid. by containing violence in the yeah. violence and the sacred, so now it's the economy and the sacred. when i say, oh no, we have no time to talk about that. sorry. um
no, my thesis is actually in the new book is... that um the economy. as the same relationship to violence than the sacred had. but it doesn't mean that the economy is sacred. no. and this relationship is a relationship of ambivalence. and i use, i resort to the play on words to contain to contain means at the same time to have within oneself and to keep in check, to stem. so the economy contains violence. it's it's violent, but it's also... it keeps to some extent or it used to keep violence in check. in the same way, or the same way, not in the same way, but the same role as the sacred plaid. by containing violence in the yeah. violence and the sacred, so now it's the economy and the sacred. when i say, oh no, we have no time to talk about that. sorry. um
Slavoj Žižek
i'm so sorry, so i propose the only solution because we have so many things to say, that fuck it, we come back again.
i'm so sorry, so i propose the only solution because we have so many things to say, that fuck it, we come back again.
Medavoy
the you.
the you.