I thought a reasonable amount of the written precis made sense. And, given the eternal difficulty of understanding this guy’s speech, it’s nice to have that precis.
I understood every word perfectly (except one: he mispronounced mores (mor-es) as morse.. ) All in all I thought his taje was valid, valuable, realistic and insightful..
Not seen the video, but I remember some of his produce on the Spectator, so I wanted to make sure it would be worth watching the interview. It looks like I will give it a wide berth, then.
Jam Las
1 year ago
Global cooperation and controls for the greater good sound enticing when looking from the bottom up ‘for someone’ to do this but from the top down, history shows over again this is open to abuse. Recent events are not reassuring. Evolution of democratic processes are needed with all interests genuinely engaged freely and leadership with vision.
I think you may be confusing cooperation with a dictatorial approach. Given the ambivalence of the UK (at best) on EU cooperation I guess the concept may be alien to you? Still UK scientists are lamenting the loss of cooperation with EU scientists of all disciplines.. without cooperation the climate crisis, international relations, pandemics etc cannot be controlled. Surely you must see that? Cooperation os crucial to oir very survival!
Jack B. Nimble
1 year ago
Would communist purists be satisfied with equating communism with cooperation? Seems a little sanguine to me.
Political and even religious systems are all too often infiltrated by non-believers who see all such systems as gravy trains for their greed and megalomania. Corrupted in this way people are turned off the basic and right-thinking essence of such systems. In linguistic terms of course comune-ism is cooperation within the comunity. Big problems require big (supranational) solutions. Of coourse all problems should be solved at the lowest practicable level but huge problems do need Earth-wide communism in that sense.
Greg Moreison
1 year ago
He appears to suggest ‘as a joke’ that the Left in the US should assassinate conservative supreme court judges, as some sort of a solution. And then he reckons everyone else is a fascist. For an intellectual that doesn’t seem a very intelligent position.
Yes. That was revealing. He excused himself as making ‘a kind of joke’ …
A. Hitler ( oh dear this is transgressing some kind of rhetorical rule for idiots) also had ‘reasons’. Should Mr Zizek get a pass for “a kind of joke”?
With power and his own Wannsee conference, he wouldn’t need the chuckles
A philosopher with comprehensive reach has to be superior to one that is not. A one armed paperhanger might struggle.
Mr Zizek is a MittelEuropean and with his missing arm is making the same mistake Dostoevsky thought Austria would make when he wrote Diary of a Writer.
In fact the Empire made a bigger mistake a bit later and MittelEuropeans have paid for that since, many times over.
He fears Russia so he attacks Christianity. This does not compute except that he can’t attack Russia. His thinking does not lead, it follows.
I will put my money on both of those, Christianity first, Russia second, and nothing on his views.
Richard Craven
1 year ago
“If you read not only what the Russians are doing, but their ideology, it is explicitly something that one cannot but designate, not even in this purely abstract term, but a form of neo-fascism.”
First time I’ve ever agreed with this poltroon.
Yes, you can’t argue with that statement. But it doesn’t take any special insight to observe the fascistic nature of Putin’s regime, and indeed of many regimes around the world. Given their persecution of political opponents and the censorship of those that don’t support it, the Biden regime is going the same way.
I disagree. Many ‘ordinary’ folk will assume this must be a communist approach whereas in reality it is, as we all agree, classic fascism: the opposite!
I had never heard of Zizek until this interview. A little Googling tells me he is one of the most famous living philosophers.
I can’t tell whether he is a profound thinker struggling to express his complex ideas, or yet another “public intellectual” more interested in being controversial and cultivating an audience. At times he seems profound, but if I replay that part of the interview his ideas, when stripped of jargon, seem commonplace. I’m not a philosopher so I really wouldn’t know.
Kudos to Flo Read for trying to herd this particular cat.
Surely the essence of philosophy is about simple commonsense ideas (too often taken for granted) that need to be scrutinised in order to be validated. I wouldn’t make that criticism. The objective was to enquire into his take on various current existential threats: not to have him prove his ideas in philosophical terms?
Keith J
1 year ago
I read one of Zizek’s books (Like a Thief in Broad Daylight) a couple of years ago, because it was recommended in reviews. Despite a couple of paragraphs which I thought contained some brilliant insights, I came away thinking that most of the ideas in the book were insane. I was wondering whether I was missing something and ought to read some of his other works. Now I know. Thank you Unherd for saving me 20 quid at Waterstones.
Bear in mind the fact that he speaks on an insane world! Perhaps a different kind of insanity is the antidote?? Personally I doubt it but I’m no expert..
Gee. There are still guys being given the pulpit who believe that, if you re-jigger the language of Communism ( “communism” ) it’s really not so bad, and really the inevitable direction the world must travel. This is on a par with the claptrap that sees Jesus as some sort of proto-Communist. Blather.
None of the above makes any sense whatsoever.
I thought a reasonable amount of the written precis made sense. And, given the eternal difficulty of understanding this guy’s speech, it’s nice to have that precis.
Ordinarily he’s almost unintelligible
I understood every word perfectly (except one: he mispronounced mores (mor-es) as morse.. ) All in all I thought his taje was valid, valuable, realistic and insightful..
Sadly, not so much of the actual interview made sense. He’s just another idiot with TDS.
Not seen the video, but I remember some of his produce on the Spectator, so I wanted to make sure it would be worth watching the interview. It looks like I will give it a wide berth, then.
Global cooperation and controls for the greater good sound enticing when looking from the bottom up ‘for someone’ to do this but from the top down, history shows over again this is open to abuse. Recent events are not reassuring. Evolution of democratic processes are needed with all interests genuinely engaged freely and leadership with vision.
I think you may be confusing cooperation with a dictatorial approach. Given the ambivalence of the UK (at best) on EU cooperation I guess the concept may be alien to you? Still UK scientists are lamenting the loss of cooperation with EU scientists of all disciplines.. without cooperation the climate crisis, international relations, pandemics etc cannot be controlled. Surely you must see that? Cooperation os crucial to oir very survival!
Would communist purists be satisfied with equating communism with cooperation? Seems a little sanguine to me.
Political and even religious systems are all too often infiltrated by non-believers who see all such systems as gravy trains for their greed and megalomania. Corrupted in this way people are turned off the basic and right-thinking essence of such systems. In linguistic terms of course comune-ism is cooperation within the comunity. Big problems require big (supranational) solutions. Of coourse all problems should be solved at the lowest practicable level but huge problems do need Earth-wide communism in that sense.
He appears to suggest ‘as a joke’ that the Left in the US should assassinate conservative supreme court judges, as some sort of a solution. And then he reckons everyone else is a fascist. For an intellectual that doesn’t seem a very intelligent position.
Yes. That was revealing. He excused himself as making ‘a kind of joke’ …
A. Hitler ( oh dear this is transgressing some kind of rhetorical rule for idiots) also had ‘reasons’. Should Mr Zizek get a pass for “a kind of joke”?
With power and his own Wannsee conference, he wouldn’t need the chuckles
A philosopher with comprehensive reach has to be superior to one that is not. A one armed paperhanger might struggle.
Mr Zizek is a MittelEuropean and with his missing arm is making the same mistake Dostoevsky thought Austria would make when he wrote Diary of a Writer.
In fact the Empire made a bigger mistake a bit later and MittelEuropeans have paid for that since, many times over.
He fears Russia so he attacks Christianity. This does not compute except that he can’t attack Russia. His thinking does not lead, it follows.
I will put my money on both of those, Christianity first, Russia second, and nothing on his views.
“If you read not only what the Russians are doing, but their ideology, it is explicitly something that one cannot but designate, not even in this purely abstract term, but a form of neo-fascism.”
First time I’ve ever agreed with this poltroon.
Yes, you can’t argue with that statement. But it doesn’t take any special insight to observe the fascistic nature of Putin’s regime, and indeed of many regimes around the world. Given their persecution of political opponents and the censorship of those that don’t support it, the Biden regime is going the same way.
I couldn’t agree more.
I disagree. Many ‘ordinary’ folk will assume this must be a communist approach whereas in reality it is, as we all agree, classic fascism: the opposite!
Agreed. It is beyond doubt ar this point I feel.
I had never heard of Zizek until this interview. A little Googling tells me he is one of the most famous living philosophers.
I can’t tell whether he is a profound thinker struggling to express his complex ideas, or yet another “public intellectual” more interested in being controversial and cultivating an audience. At times he seems profound, but if I replay that part of the interview his ideas, when stripped of jargon, seem commonplace. I’m not a philosopher so I really wouldn’t know.
Kudos to Flo Read for trying to herd this particular cat.
Surely the essence of philosophy is about simple commonsense ideas (too often taken for granted) that need to be scrutinised in order to be validated. I wouldn’t make that criticism. The objective was to enquire into his take on various current existential threats: not to have him prove his ideas in philosophical terms?
I read one of Zizek’s books (Like a Thief in Broad Daylight) a couple of years ago, because it was recommended in reviews. Despite a couple of paragraphs which I thought contained some brilliant insights, I came away thinking that most of the ideas in the book were insane. I was wondering whether I was missing something and ought to read some of his other works. Now I know. Thank you Unherd for saving me 20 quid at Waterstones.
Bear in mind the fact that he speaks on an insane world! Perhaps a different kind of insanity is the antidote?? Personally I doubt it but I’m no expert..
Skip to 30:00ff before you commit anymore time
Very good idea. Why does anyone take this clown seriously?
Do you have any arguments to counter his assertions or is that the sum total your contribution??
Crazy
Nice summary.
Gee. There are still guys being given the pulpit who believe that, if you re-jigger the language of Communism ( “communism” ) it’s really not so bad, and really the inevitable direction the world must travel. This is on a par with the claptrap that sees Jesus as some sort of proto-Communist. Blather.