Видео

It's so funny that they are on the phone talking to each other. Mfs before the invention of Zoom

I have been coming to this since 2014. Listened to the whole five hours on multiple long drives. True Classic!

in my view this is all a lot of piffle. The liar paradox as per Quine (I prefer that iteration) "this statement is false" employs a set definition, if that is the proper terminology, as the subject noun, i.e., "statement" in "this statement is false" but it is devoid of members. It is from this that the self-reference arises. Were it instead, “this statement that the sky is green is false” would eliminate the self-reference and the paradoxical function. But this “paradox” also not only defies the theories of language and logic by Frege, Russell, et. al., but I believe that it also challenges the context in which some measure of set theory is discussed. “This statement is false”, stated to be a “crisis of thought by Quine”, a truly sophomoric claim, can only be consider both true and false at once which defies the law of logic of non-contradiction. Words are proxies for concepts and entities which are impositions within materiality independent of our awareness and thus, upon our awareness which is in essence, the effect of their imposition. If we see a rock and all agree to call it a rock, the meaning and functionality of the term is obvious, in keeping with the purpose of language and the logic which is its reflection, all the modern gobeldy gook like “paraconsistent logic” notwithstanding. Were we to see no rock but utter without cause, “strizzlestock is godeicle”, we would have made a statement which is meaningless. Why? No information was conveyed which is the essential function of language and logic, the reason for this discussion. The logic (the structure of language) which was the only means to the formulation of the statement, “this statement is false”, was then defied in its very expression. If such discussions of the science and philosophy of language are conducted by that language, it thus cannot be denied by them. Likewise, one cannot “appeal to truths to define a position which denies the existence of truth” which is what is being proposed here. For clarity, consider… The first version of the liar’s paradox of which I am aware is of the ancient Greeks in which a Cretan stated that “all Cretans were liars”. We must assume this to have been true to facilitate the paradox or like with Quines’ version above, what was the point? However, that he too (the speaker) was a Cretan, he would also have been a liar and could not have stated truthfully that all Cretans were liars, thus the paradox. Though somewhat clever, this is actually not paradoxical at all for it wholly depends upon the notion that all Cretans could only have been always liars “if” it were assumed that each and everything any Cretan “could have said” could have been a lie, this change in the context of the consideration of the paradox required in this case. The original context was simply not possible. Were a Cretan to have said “I am”, or “I am speaking (to you or about you), or I am a Cretan”, by definition it could not have been a lie, i.e., it would have been necessarily true. Therefore, by claiming that all Cretans were liars, by the logic of the paradox’s very definition, and the structure from which the paradoxical function arose, they could have been (universally) liars only when it was possible to lie (the new context). Thus, the Cretan who claimed that all Cretans were liars was necessarily telling the truth (which he was forced to do by virtue of the formulation and purpose of the paradox), it being one of those statements which in context of the presentation of the paradox considered in that immediately above, had to be true “if” the necessary premise of the paradox were to remain in effect, i.e., that “all Cretans were liars (when it was possible to lie)”, which was the whole point of the exercise. So the paradox fails. As with a rock, it cannot be both here and there at once. Materiality does not permit it. So too with the realm of the abstract which is a one to one reflection of it. Materiality contains all and the only contextual referents from which abstractions are formulated. Due to this interrelationship, contradictions cannot exist and so there are no paradoxes which are anything but sophistry, i.e., the abuse of logic and language, clever, some of them to be sure, but just so much nonsense. What do you think?

I never read or listened to Žižek. The first thing I hear is the fallacious and mendacious claim that Chomsky is a genocide denier and a Khmer Rouge supporter. Go read the chapter on Cambodia in Chomsky and Herman's Political Economy of Human Rights, on which these false accusations are based. I won't read or listen to Žižek again.

This hits differently in the Deutschland language. Das alles ist.

❤❤❤❤❤❤MANJO

Zizek is talking right past the criticism. Chompsky said that Zizek has no content in his theory & instead makes intellectual sounding platitudes. Lucky there's none of that going on here! 😂

who still listening in 2024

Zizek Sucks

I'd shiver at the idea of getting a letter of recommendation from this man.

What a clown

Chomsky is a retard

Wuddup, homies.

My only wish is that ALL Librevox recordings might be in the public domain |-;

the morning after, how this will effect my ordinary life.. what a great critique against many things, especially metaphysics.

Es una gran pena que las traducciones al ESPAÑOL 🇪🇸 de estas interesantes películas sean tan MALAS...😞😞😞😞😞😞

Zizek talking about Yu-gi-oh, never knew i needed that in my life, but i did

To the Kripke’s ahhhhhh > Zizeck’s sniff?

Good narration but the nose whistling drove me nearly mad

He was poisoned. A letter sent to ALEXANDER the third was on his secretary’s desk. The secretary saw that it was from a nobleman complaining to the Tzar , that Tchaikovsky was having an affair with his son. The secretary was a colleague of TCHAIKOVSKY, FROM the days they were in the School of Juris Prudence. A court of honor was held to which Tchaikovsky was invited. If the letter got to the Tzar it would disgrace the school. The only way to prevent the letter from reaching the Tzar was if Tchaikovsky committed suicide. It was all arranged, with the Tzar’s doctor administered arsenic in doses to mimic cholera until his death. This only came to light after glasnost and the fall of the Soviet’s fall.

Tchaikovsky 💘

It might be useful to consider this clue as that which it is, a clue. There are only a single in terms limited number of language versions which have a considerably useful amount of vague references in number in order to make use off. If and when current existence is considered, such number is less than the possible original one. Within such language versions there is only a very precise way of one being able to fully make use of such possible vague references, and such a precise way, regards the total within being of one within a particular language version. A, any and all possible combinations of language versions as far back as Latin, such possible number of vague references which can be made use off, reduces drastically all the way to none existing. Unless one uses a vague reference, on top of a vague reference, on top of a vague reference, on top of a vague reference and so on..., as a possible initial vague reference. In doing so, results will be available and plenty, and then the usual blank phase will availably present itself also, making all the possible results derived through, (at their best), a set, a vague deduced consequential set. One which even a bacteria can arrive at, as an observable proof. The difference is, bacteria is firmly based within a very strong corrolation, whereas a set based on a vague references, on top of a vague, on top of a vague, and so on... Is as strongly corrolated as lego pieces. That. Is your problem.

I don't really think Chomsky cares about this dude, he really just talked about him when he was directly asked about him, and the interviewer kept asking "what do you think about Zizek's works", so he answered, what is very clear: There is no work, he is just a poser. It's very simple, Chomsky nailed it, this guy is nothing more than a poser, he has no work, no real content, he is just image, voice, and basic social media comment section rage talking points, there's nothing there. Two hundred years from now, Chomsky is gonna be talked about for his work and ideas as much as we talk about most great philosophers in history, from Socrates to Nietzsche... This Zizek dude will be nowhere to be found. But you know, you're free to skirm if you love him, I mean, ALL he does (and why he has any fame now) is to comfort the weak minded and the fools, so, you know, understandable really, sad, but understandable. History is the biggest filter of BS, and this dumbo will be filtered as what he is, just a basic poser, without any content aside from providing comfort with the most basic BS.

Chomsky is not a serious figure, except in linguistics, where he is dead wrong about everything.

as far as I understand nietzsche, he was just another Nazi

Putnam always underwhelmed me

2:05 bookmark

Zizek is an embarrassment. A total nut case and a waste of time.

Nature goes on forever for everyone and everything to return as everyone and everything an infinite number of times through evolutionary processes. 🌌

ENTP is never going to be able to understand an INFJ. Zizek sounds too angry to be using his intellect correctly imo

“ Violently opposed”. Ok, chill dude and talk slower ffs

This is good lads, but I'm not hearing a single.

1:45:46 Crazy how he brings this up presumably *right* before scientists actually literally discovered the Higgs Boson (on July 4, 2012). At any rate, this lecture was posted on RUclips in September of that year, so I’m assuming he delivered it at least a few months before then. Dang, pretty wild :)

Zizek is a charlatan, a self important actor who pretends to be a philosopher, but has not published anything of any significance

An excellent diagnostician. Di- agnostic!!! A double lie. Or the death of not knowing?

His point about Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge is drawn from mainstream American media and is a complete fabrication. Chomsky never denied the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge. He simply contextualized them, and demonstrated how they were used by an opportunistic media who A) ignored the atrocities when it was the United States and its allies who were commiting them (and destroying Cambodia to an extent that some deaths under the Khmer Rouge due to malnutrition and other factors were spill-overs. There were more deaths here than under the KR, and the indiscriminate attacks on peasants led to a sympathetic base for the Khmer Rouge) and B) silently re-adjusted their stance when, after Vietnam invaded and ousted Pol Pot, the United States SUPPORTED Pol Pot and the KR in their attacks from the West-aligned Thai border.

Thanks

That’s insane like no one does them on flat

Chomsky destroyed these theory posers like Zizek.

ok, so this dude wants a "will to power " so many times but talks aobut life being a give up moment 2:47:14

These guys talked about life while it was happening along side of them. It passed them by and we began a new era when they finally finished their long winded speeches.I hope you learned at least something from these men.

WOW

He flattened Chomsky! That makes me happy.

7:52 preface 23:59 The problem of socrates

So basically... Chomsky: Zizek is full of unverifiable gibberish and is essentially a glorified charlatan. Zizek: Chomsky is narrow-minded focused on empirical, "microscopic" facts and fails to build an umbrella of theory that could explain reality as a whole. Both sides have obvious problems, and these two men could (and should) try to see more in each other.

Revisiting my playlists

I think Žižek is dancing around a particular definition of fascism which relies on the idea that the enemies of the state are both powerful and weak simultaneously. Particularly in regards to left wing people, the idea is floated around that they are weak and pathetic and also that they have infiltrated political institutions and are waiting for a time to strike.

Zizek is an asshole. Chomsky is off limits.

Only just found this narrator. You sound almost exactly like me 😮

45:42 Krishna issues a similar command to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita when He commands him to slaughter his own family who is on the opposing army