He doesn't even get to a point in the end, he completely trails off and forgets what he's talking about with absolutely no conclusion.

The difference is that Sam Harris is possibly the most reasonable person you will ever get to listen to - and Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher of entertainment, he attempts to break things down into things they're not!

The only argument you could have against Sam Harris' reasonable assertions is that we should use something other than reason to decide what the most reasonable positions are, which would just be dumb.

>> ^HadouKen24:

I don't think that's quite what he means. "Faith and trust, at least in an interpersonal context," is insufficient for torture to be ruled out as a possibility. There are individuals in whom we cannot and should not have faith and trust, as Zizek understands (and points out later in the lecture, in the example of Hitler).
That said, I don't think it's all that clear how his criticism of Harris actually does work. He never quite makes explicit the logical connection between the concept of the "Neighbor" and the impermissibility of torture. After this video, he gets lost in a rabbit trail explaining what the Neighbor means and how it relates both to modern politics and the illusion of really connecting with others.
I think he may have intended to point out a problem with reducing ethical behavior to a set of scientific principles, since, after all, we're free individuals (and thus Neighbors), and such calculations are inconsistent with freedom.
Or he maybe he just thought that the torture Harris is talking about is another instance of demonizing the Other. Who knows?
One of my philosophy professors used get lost and fail to complete his arguments like this. He's a brilliant guy, and I almost never missed taking a class with him, but his lectures could drive you nuts sometimes.




You're right (especially about his talking style)

...the "need for promises", and "the Neighbor" have nothing per se to do with torture, it's rather with Harris comments on faith.


From this:
http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/zizek8.html

"Consequently, what Harris aims at with his imagined "truth pill" is nothing less than the abolition of the dimension of the Neighbor: the tortured subject is no longer a Neighbor, but an object whose pain is neutralized, reduced to a property that has to be dealt with in a rational utilitarian calculus (so much pain is tolerable if it prevents a much greater amount of pain) - what disappears here is the abyss of the infinity that pertains to a subject. It is thus significant that the book which argues for torture is also the book entitled The End of Belief - not, however, in the obvious sense of "You see, it is only our belief in God, the divine in junction to love your neighbor, that ultimately prevents us from torturing people!", but in a much more radical sense. Another subject (and, ultimately, subject as such) is for Lacan not something directly given, but a "presupposition," something presumed, an object of belief - how can I ever be sure that what I see in front of me is another subject, not a depthless flat biological machine?

My interpolation -

it all has to do with the fact that you can discus weather a chair in front of you really exists, but in the end everyone can go home and have a cup of tea, without agreeing, thats why epistemology is easy, we can all believe in crazy things like "matter" or "god" without there being a real problem. But when we asks the question - is this in front of me a Man, a Person, you have to say Yes, emphatically. You have to say "I believe".

You're point about Hitler is also right, but lets say you have Hitler in a basement, If you're a normal being you really wouldn't like hearing the screams of a man in pain, seeing pain in another Person, even if he is Hitler, because let's face it, he was a Man.

What Harris is saying is that this can be dealt with (science is not the problem, you could imagine it without a "pill")by removing the spastic screams - even if it is just a theoretical supposition. It's not about the impermissibility of torture, as far as I can see, it's about how we perceive the lump of flesh in front of us. Harris is not only destroying it's "infinite dimension" but also our ability to see it and feel it. You can torture Hitler, but the least you could experience the horror of the process


Any way, thats my thoughts...
Who's up for some enchillada?

>> ^bluecliff:
Zizek attacks the very act of discussing torture as a possibility
what is fundamentally wrong with Harris - according to Zizek - is "that we need promises", i.e faith and trust, at least in an interpersonal context


I don't think that's quite what he means. "Faith and trust, at least in an interpersonal context," is insufficient for torture to be ruled out as a possibility. There are individuals in whom we cannot and should not have faith and trust, as Zizek understands (and points out later in the lecture, in the example of Hitler).

That said, I don't think it's all that clear how his criticism of Harris actually does work. He never quite makes explicit the logical connection between the concept of the "Neighbor" and the impermissibility of torture. After this video, he gets lost in a rabbit trail explaining what the Neighbor means and how it relates both to modern politics and the illusion of really connecting with others.

I think he may have intended to point out a problem with reducing ethical behavior to a set of scientific principles, since, after all, we're free individuals (and thus Neighbors), and such calculations are inconsistent with freedom.

Or he maybe he just thought that the torture Harris is talking about is another instance of demonizing the Other. Who knows?

One of my philosophy professors used get lost and fail to complete his arguments like this. He's a brilliant guy, and I almost never missed taking a class with him, but his lectures could drive you nuts sometimes.

^

>> ^Bidouleroux:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Without God, there is no good or evil. Everything is permitted.
Lol. The mushrooms you're smoking must be really good. While we're making blanket statements, Slavoj Zizek said exactly the opposite, that with God, everything is permitted. Why? Because God provides a small number of very general rules. Everything else is fair game. And then you realize God didn't provide an interpretation of how and when to apply those few rules, so now everything becomes fair game!
Without belief in a Higher Power, the only supernatural being man can emulate is the devil. Even history's greatest monsters thought of themselves as good people doing what they knew to be best.
Way to try and wrest your beliefs on the rest of the (sane) world. Without belief in a higher power there is no "devil" to emulate. You fail at basic categorical logic since your devil is himself a higher power (an angel). Atheists are atheist about all gods and "higher beings", whatever you call them. They thus can't emulate them per se, but only emulate the characteristic behaviors ascribed to those entities by religious morons like you. Those behaviors are human, they are universal: they existed before religion and even before language, and they will unfortunately continue to exist for a long time.
It's easy to make such proclamations when one is enjoying life and in good health. Those suffering through no fault of their own might not see it that way.
They might not see it your way either, so stfu.
Or read both. Religion is an intertwined driving force throughout history, in a world that demands meaning.
Only sane sentence in your whole post, bravo.
To be an atheist is to believe that Hitler and Mother Teresa are now both equally dust and nothingness.
Let's see here... "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Gen 3:19) Oh, I guess you didn't read that? It's kind of near the beginning though. As for me I think Hitler, by showing us the darkest side of humanity and uniting the rest of the world against him has done a much better service to the world than the prayers of Mother Teresa or anyone else ever did. And if you really read history, you would know the Spanish Inquisition was more like Nazi Germany than anything else in recorded time.
If people were capable of crystalline reasoning and not tricked by their own hearts, there would be no need to acknowledge a Higher Power.
This could be true if a higher, benevolent power spoke directly to us all at the same time. But as it is now, the representatives of that higher power are human and thus are bound to be "tricked by their own hearts" and incapable of crystalline reasoning. What they say is bound to be tainted by "humanity" even if they received a message from higher up (this is even truer if you think all lay people can be representatives of the higher power, like the protestant churches). Thus, whether or not there is really a higher being is a moot point. What matters is that some people truly believe in this illogical bullshit, for better or (mostly) for worse.

What I said here is probably beyond your comprehension, but I thought it would do some good to someone (starting with me).


This is the problem with religious freaks. They don't even know their own Bible. Hypocrites every one of them, IMHO.

In the words of one of my favorite movies, quantumushroom: "You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting."

>> ^quantumushroom:
Without God, there is no good or evil. Everything is permitted.

Lol. The mushrooms you're smoking must be really good. While we're making blanket statements, Slavoj Zizek said exactly the opposite, that with God, everything is permitted. Why? Because God provides a small number of very general rules. Everything else is fair game. And then you realize God didn't provide an interpretation of how and when to apply those few rules, so now everything becomes fair game!

Without belief in a Higher Power, the only supernatural being man can emulate is the devil. Even history's greatest monsters thought of themselves as good people doing what they knew to be best.

Way to try and wrest your beliefs on the rest of the (sane) world. Without belief in a higher power there is no "devil" to emulate. You fail at basic categorical logic since your devil is himself a higher power (an angel). Atheists are atheist about all gods and "higher beings", whatever you call them. They thus can't emulate them per se, but only emulate the characteristic behaviors ascribed to those entities by religious morons like you. Those behaviors are human, they are universal: they existed before religion and even before language, and they will unfortunately continue to exist for a long time.

It's easy to make such proclamations when one is enjoying life and in good health. Those suffering through no fault of their own might not see it that way.

They might not see it your way either, so stfu.

Or read both. Religion is an intertwined driving force throughout history, in a world that demands meaning.

Only sane sentence in your whole post, bravo.

To be an atheist is to believe that Hitler and Mother Teresa are now both equally dust and nothingness.

Let's see here... "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Gen 3:19) Oh, I guess you didn't read that? It's kind of near the beginning though. As for me I think Hitler, by showing us the darkest side of humanity and uniting the rest of the world against him has done a much better service to the world than the prayers of Mother Teresa or anyone else ever did. And if you really read history, you would know the Spanish Inquisition was more like Nazi Germany than anything else in recorded time.

If people were capable of crystalline reasoning and not tricked by their own hearts, there would be no need to acknowledge a Higher Power.

This could be true if a higher, benevolent power spoke directly to us all at the same time. But as it is now, the representatives of that higher power are human and thus are bound to be "tricked by their own hearts" and incapable of crystalline reasoning. What they say is bound to be tainted by "humanity" even if they received a message from higher up (this is even truer if you think all lay people can be representatives of the higher power, like the protestant churches). Thus, whether or not there is really a higher being is a moot point. What matters is that some people truly believe in this illogical bullshit, for better or (mostly) for worse.


What I said here is probably beyond your comprehension, but I thought it would do some good to someone (starting with me).

Slavoj Žižek links

a Slovene marxist-oriented cultural theorist and a global philosophy pop star, Lacanian Slavoj Žižek talks in his own special way (we don't understand him either if that helps) about a wide range of topics: from american foreign policy, occupation of Iraq and the middle-East to political left and civil movements (even mentions Hillary and Barack - he's for Obama, obviously but doubts he can really change things), a false notion of tolerance in society, the crisis of capitalism and failure of the left among other things which all seem kinda meaningless when you take a look at his super-hot-argentinian-supermodel wife

>> ^my15minutes:
elephant philosophy?

LOL

I don't have excuses, I just don't have a life so I come here more often than is good for any human being. My first experience here was of bannination for self-linking, so I guess you don't have an excuse either. You knew I was a bastard and you reinstated my account anyway so now you're stuck with me and my Slovenian folk music posts and pop philosophy. Serves you right!

documentary on Slavoj Žižek

Always fun to hear Slavoj Zizek. Fabrizio Eva gave an interesting interview as well, I wonder how they came across him. One beef I had was at the very last statement by Lovelock -- biological evolution in humans is not relevant on the generational time scale. The fact that Lovelock has nine grandchildren means he contributed to the population explosion, and should not make him proud.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'society, utopia' to 'society, utopia, naomi klein, slavoj zizek, fabrizio eva' - edited by fissionchips

also check this post from member fissionchips

There's another video I posted some time ago but it died in the queue. It's from Sophie Fiennes' documentary Perverts Guide to Cinema.