Видео

Es bastante sorprendente que no se haya hecho ningún comentario durante 13 años...

That gentleman acts like he came to give a lecture himself

Sexy man

6:30 lying as a normative way of existing certainly exists outside the clinic. Being caught up in a web of lies of a pathological liar in the workplace ended my job and forced me to take my employer to court over three years.

thanks for sharing, really appreciated 🙏

Play at 1.5 speed. And it's a better listen.

do we have a clear audio for this. i need it so badly

Привет из 2022

"detached" thinker? weigh your words better.

.

It would be great if we could be told what the texts under discussion were.

"Inconceivable" is a drastic and missleading overstatement. Plato surely didn't agree. Aristotle, who Plato didn't like much, did think that way. And claimed their was an essential difference between polis and village. The raising of the issue of the "city of pigs" shows that it is quite possible that polis or non-,polis was a secondary consideration. It's even so that the most lofty books take place beyond the City. Laws, Republic & Pheadrus. This guy has a good reputation, maybe he's good on Paul de Man, but I doubt he ever studied the Greek texts in a serious way.

Louder please! :(

Thanks you very much for shared this

She has a Phd in analysis, and philosophy also. She has also read Das Kapital.

prepared-unprepared lecture quote " real it's not simply something to that 44:23 we get to the beyond or representations 44:28 we aren't always involved whatever 44:32 beyond the layer of this involved but it 44:35 is this way sometimes again it's kind of 44:40 a sacrificial almost 44:43 attempt to formulate 44:46 passage to deliver some kind of ultimate 44:49 ordeal that will then take us through 44:52 the flames (this metaphor helps) to the real and I really 44:54 think this is not the best way to 44:56 although it should at some point like 44:58 all himself especially in the ethics of 45:00 psychoanalysis like attempted to 45:02 formulate the real and this does deemed 45:04 but this is seminar Seven 45:07 the one number I think 2455 so it's 45:13 changes those shifts considerably 45:15 without simply losing what he says there 45:19 its value of the tips it's really 45:22 constant attempt to rethink what exactly 45:26 is the real you know in siphoning so I 45:26 is the real you know in siphoning so I 45:29 wouldn't say 47:05 alright watch it when you have a logical 47:59 subject and XS like in subjective ation 48:03 of meaning except of a different logic 48:07 of more masculine form of XS yes I think 48:35 so 48:35 no you you gave me like like the full 48:37 range of association” Yes. The full range in associations. The real is what she is encountering as she undergoes a state of asphixiation. That moment of non-identity with herself as a teacher: constantly for an hr straight. She likes to have limiit experiences everyday in front of the classroom, and rip people off. r

How can you even release this stuff as representative of a place you would pay money in exchange for information?

not-all is a term from formal logic. It is like a more specific algebraic way of saying "incomplete" hence mortal.

If there is something that Nietzsche, and his sort of main influence Shoppenhauer, really disliked was the dense theories of Kant, and Hegel. They really remove themselves from any kind of dense modality of addressing the reader.

38:13min There is no femme, because the object constructed with which to identify as "the ideal woman" is constructed via two negations: "it is not the case (first negation) that there is a single woman that cannot be accounted for by the symbolic order. So, the output is not positive "Oh, but there is an exception. We can come up with what the ideal male would be" it is negative: it is an elevation, or, negation of the limits of what speech can account for. Hence women are more, as it were, identified with the symbolic order. But clearly fantasies of both are limits.

37:27min Identification. How each person responds to mortality, antagonism, difference aka castration. The do so by identifying with a specific fantasy contructed via language. The formula with which the fantasy for the generic term "men" is constructed will be paradoxical, because it is organized as in dream logic. Fantasy isomorphically related to dream logic. So, the generic term "male" will constructed "For al "x" (males) are exposed to the phallic function" aka I can accept I am mortal nevertheless "It is the case that there is one exception. There is a "male" that is not castrated/limited(mortal". If you combine the to phrases together you get clearly a contradiction, or, a fantasy formation. For the generic term women. Women can face mortality as well. But they have limits in facing it just like "males" so their fantasy is constructed through the logical formulas. "Not all of women can be accounted for by the symbolic order" so we are castrated/mortal vis a vi our knowledge about ourselves through speech. The common language we are born into. But, here is the contradiction "it is the case that there is not a single "x" that cannot be accounted for by speech". So, the second one denies the very same mortality the first one asserted. You put both together, and we get a fantasy formation. It is the way fantasies are construted to veil mortality. To not be asphyxiated by anxiety. But such modality has limits. Since they are constructed unconsciously and the person rushes to identify with it as it were.

26:04min Yeah, that is the same deal with Zizek "Well, I don´t have any time to develop it here at the moment but..." * "x".

27:10min It took some courage from that guy to jump in, and remind her of the Arsenal the contingent has. Like she needed some help, and he delivered so the intellectual exchange could continue. Like sexual difference is in "The Nietzschean Universe" that is intersting "Universe" like "who knows what is in it". I have read Nietzsche, and he is not that mysterious. If Nietzsche is like super difficult then forget about attempts at explaining Lacan. They should lecture on what they can explain. Not start every lecture with "Well, I have been doing this for like 20yrs, and you know, the check posted, and I am like, you know, this is like difficult, and I am really at a lost for words here. Like where do I even begin no?" Interesting interviewing process.

Putain on dirait rafarin Pourquoi pas un ou une bonne traducteur ?

@17:12 how to be an ass-man without being a proctologist....

this was magnificent

This is posted on my birth day...

at 8:30 when Zizek talks about the intensity... The only example that I have found that comes close to this is the scene in the Odessa File ( in the Book that is, the movie is less intense), where Roschmann is confronting a Jewish Woman at the Riga Concentration camp... that scene was approaching that level of intensity

A segmentarity of the body :-)

THis whole tetradic thing to truth (her quoted j-a miller) is exactly what Spinoza says "Truth is the standard both of itself and the false."

I can't

attended her lecture last month. Can t follow her because of her accent. Sounds to me like she couldn't pronounce anything worth spit

It's great that Ronell is so unconscious and treacherously exploitational that she talks about Valerie Solanas even thought she is supremely against anyone who is not wholly elitist and academic. What a massively plump bitch of a mercenary liar!

seventeen parts? Good god why?

Thanks for posting this great lecture!

Bracha Ettinger, I really like your accent. I like your work. :)

I dont get the end. If nirvana is immanent, how could anything go wrong in that "realm" as he sort of gestured. And when it comes to the fact that there is no agent, no self and so on, and that you therefore shouldnt have no problem with killing, can't you just as well refuse war or killing no matter the consequences? "The greater good" there is no such thing, since that would obviously belong to the realm of Samsara.

GOSH , YOU ARE REALY GREAT .

the return of the kulacks? we got the human genom project lets get em down! we do not risk a big terorr enymore.

Goddamnit Zizek, quit the BS and tell us some truth!

MANUEL DE LANDA. DELEUZE AND THE HISTORU OF PHILOSOPHY 2006 4/8 Uploaded on Apr 11, 2007 www.egs.edu/ Manuel DeLanda lecturing about the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, Henri Poincare, Albert Einstein, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, computer,science, logic, semantics, meaning, god, space, 3d, and the understanding of geometry and mathematics in an open lecture at European Graduate School EGS, Media and Communication Studies department program. Saas-Fee, Switzerland 2006. Manuel de Landa. MAR 05M 2014

Manuel DeLanda. Deleuze and the History of Philosophy 2006 1/8 Uploaded on Apr 10, 2007 www.egs.edu/ Manuel DeLanda lecturing about the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, Henri Poincare, Albert Einstein, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, computer,science, logic, semantics, meaning, god, space, 3d, and the understanding of geometry and mathematics in an open lecture at European Graduate School EGS, Media and Communication Studies department program. Saas-Fee, Switzerland 2006. Manuel de Landa. MAR 05, 2014

Is the afternoon class mentioned by Zizek in this video also on RUclips?

please be my grandmother :)

Attention Span , No, what he meant is that to be a leftist, you have to see what are the outcomes of a revolution on the cuban models, so that you don't idealize that kind of revolution.

I suppose the objection that was never raised here, but which is, it would seem, crucial, is this: There is already a confusion in the very distinction between "know that" and "know how". For "know how", there is no "knowledge" as such -- there is mere mimicry or imitation or habituation and so on. This is Aristotle's "techne". Knowledge, goes the counter-argument, just IS explicative and propositional. In order to know x *at all* it must be possible to give an "accounting" of how it is *that* x comes about. That is, knowledge is something determined by the intellectual effort to know by an investigative inquiry. A propositional articulation *that* "x is the case" is the result of an inquiry into x itself (the causal structure that determines x's occurrence as opposed to its non-occurrence). And this is Aristotle's "episteme". Now, the place of this business of "knowing how" is constitutive of, as the student was trying to articulate, a system of generating a propositional articulation of the "knowing that x is the case". That is to say, knowing how is the condition for the possibility of knowing that x is the case. And this resolves the confusions over the difference -- and, as usual, it is a confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions. Of course, on this view here (the counter-example I am supplying, which relies upon Aristotle to an extent), animals don't have even the *capacity* to know anything. Animals don't "know how" because the don't know at all. They, rather, do this or that, and imitate, and that's what their perceptual systems are good at doing. But animals often get lots of things "wrong" (horses running into burning barns, insects eating their mates' bodies after copulation) but of course, these are in some evolutionary sense, or from the standpoint of their purely psychically undetermined nervous systems, absolutely "right". Because of human beings' profound capacity for memory and reflexivity, which is certainly of a linguistic nature (and functions representationally), we can be said to properly "know" the world, and thus the uniqueness of the human -- the "animale rationes". We shouldn't loose sight of this. Language *is* constitutive of our being, and our being -- our capacity to know how in order to establish that conditions for the possibility of knowing that x is the case (by the giving of an account or "theory" of it) -- determines the conditions for knowledge as such. Only rational creatures can "know" which is also to say: to conceptually determine the world to be a certain way or other. This does not apply to animals (I want to claim). They build but build integrally; we build and build radically destructively, assertively, and imaginatively in a way that is absolutely alien to the rest of the natural world, animal kingdom and so on... It follows that there is a deep conceptual confusion in Prof. de Landa's view here. Why do we need the category of "knowledge" to extend to the animal and non-human world? The ecological notion of relational "affordance" cited can do just fine on its own, in connection with the wetware, hardware of animals. Language is a radically important phenomenon and most certainly is constitutive of "knowledge" as such (as I demonstrated above); it is a unique capacity -- but only for those with the structuration of a world though language. Now certainly, we are most likely not the only such creatures with this "rational" propositional capacity for knowledge. The more interesting question for me is not to democratize the category of "knowledge" so that all our fellow creatures get into it, but this: what are the bounds of the plasticity of the zones of sense-intensity, that allow for the possibility of knowing how (i.e., through the body), and how does our knowledge-field get territorialized by the predominance (for socio-cultural/contingent reasons) of just one such zone (say, the visual). Moreover, what would 'knowledge' be like if, for example, it wasn't the eye that was the master-form of signification for knowledge, but, rather, the ear or the tongue or the skin?

I'm in love!!!

an introductory lecture for those who are beginning their study of Hegel via Kojeve.

This is damn good.

Destroy the world, keep the photographs!