Slavoj Zizek — Michel Foucault & Free Will

[iwouldprefernotto]

If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:

[daniileliseev]

Reminds me of a Buddhist saying: "Once you speak about the unity of things, you have already divided them".

[GHa-yzbw]

He says "but" thrice in one sentence. Is that a some kind of hegelian negation?

[williambaker]

Great channel. I love the selection of concepts. Zizek rambles in such a way that his point gets completely lost. These 5 - 10 minute segments make the best of him.

[mathiasmas]

I think the point is: reflecting about what the question of free will means is far more interesting, relevant (and important) then thinking about what the answer might be. There's way more relevant knowledge in questioning the question itself then in trying to answer the question. For me the question: "why do we (human beings) think the question of free will is a fundamental question?" is more fundamental then "is there a free will?"

[onxiaftw]

the deeper he gets the sniffing intensifies

[pelahale]

Acquaint yourself with William James' take on it as argument from first movers concept. Here's my take: When examined retrospectively, one can argue that there is no free will, as one can forge numerous connections between first movements and resulting movements. But life is not lived in retrospect, but prospectively. One may argue that all prospective movements were created by prior causes, but at the point of motion prospectively, one is free to disregard all that came before and move contrary-wise. This is the infinite free will.

[lorettagreen]

I’m not sure I agree with Zizeks interpretation of Habermas, he’s a pragmatist and also doesn’t think you can transcend the ontological gap and ask how things really are... but he was interest in practice and its results, discourse ethics doesn’t produce absolute truth it, but a sort of practical truth. A lot of his work is kind of retooling liberalism and it’s legal and political philosophy with pragmatic instead of transcendental justifications. now that I think of it I can see why zizek thinks it’s BS. But habermas is older and lived through fascism ... so we can understand why he was attached to principles of liberalism because of the social practices like civil rights and due process were products of that ideology.

[hilmar]

0:01 Yes. I have the impression that Chomsky underestimated Foucault, because he raises exactly that question that makes clear that he is in this episteme already.

[michaeldao]

This is brilliant, I think F would approve of this summary of the problems of episteme

[sirdidimus]

Interesting... Philosophy aside, until 0:15 he speaks unusually clear. After he grabbed his nose he immediately started speaking ins lisps.

[teddayer]

I don t understand anything. As usual.

[calebmundle]

What discourse(s) make(s) it such that the question of “free will, ” whatever one might mean by that, is so important and consistently posed? Ethics, religion…?

[luizfernandodesa]

Opposition isn't necessarily negation

[sgt]

I think I'm beginning to get it. EVERY question you can ask already has (subconscious?) assumptions contained within. The very concepts which the question uses pre-frame reality.

I can see how this critique of concepts, theories, and paradigms makes sense.

However, what about raw direct experience. I see a colour for example that I label "red". How can I be wrong about that?

[WallsClips]

I wonder how many times Slavoj has touched his nose throughout his life compared to the average person

[usernameryan]

If you watch on 1.5x speed, the nasal sound isn’t so bad

[brothajack]

Yes....freewill vs determinism, whats the answer?
Answer is, the formatting of the question is wrong to begin with. Wrong question.

[khalidlaanani]

That s what you call critical realism, we always see 'truth' from a particular position which we are doubly assigned by language first and social structure/formation second...

[MarcioLisboa]

In other words: To Zizek, we as humans are limited by our senses to not be capable to ever answer that question. (of free will and determinism)