Ashley Story
Here, Slavoj Zizek discusses the mind according to Descartes, how the richness of personality is considered void to both him and Buddha (although in different ways), and how this is reflected in some observations of cognitive psychology.
Source
Slavoj Zizek – Buddha, Descartes and Steven Pinker
Just because Pinker speaks more clearly than you and has much more substance doesn't mean you should call him stupid, Zizek. Pinker has genius in him and is brilliant. By you questioning his intelligence it shows a lack of intelligence by YOU and definitely makes me question you more than I have before. You seem to speak gibberish sometimes and there's too much of a cult of personality built up around you. Pinkers' contributions to science and knowledge are far beyond yours.
Classic Zizek. :V
"I'm sorry to say but Pinker is plainly stupid" lol
But Why not ?? … before Philosophers and their work, Discuss one to each other about Who is the other from the view of the other?,The Hate about words relates to lands and citizens, Narcissism in others, The Existence or Non Existence of God(s), The News of War, Compassion, Religious debates, The Beliefs, The policies, Technologies, caricatures, the Profits and the laughs … Why not to check The Pedophiles behind the ProAbort Campaign and expose those to All the mankind??
Slavoj Žižek, please calm down and breath slowly and deeply . You always seems so agitated and nervous . … To understand Buddhist View you should practice mindfulness meditation .
How can freaking Pinker be stupid, he's a cognitive scientist, psychologist and linguist, in fact I'm sure Zizek can't hold a candle to Pinker
Capitalism has exploited and appropriated all religions for it's own ends, Buddhism is no exception.
Slavuj Pizdek 🙂
If we rid ourselves of the mask, in theory there would be the truth. But the mask serves to continue the human race. Nirvana maybe "the truth", but it refuses to acknowledge Maya in assisting the ego in being able to contradict itself ultimately. It refuses to acknowledge incarnation as anything other than a lie. It rejects birth, the mother and the generative dance of Maya. It is at war with the feminine, and ends, not wins, by self annihilation.
I presume Žižek is referring to the Cartesian feminist François Poulain de la Barre (1647-1723) at the beginning of this clip? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francois-barre/
Zizek, you are so st… 😉 – concepts of soul (psyche) and spirit (nous) are also asexual. And philosophical concept of God as absolute also… But yes – Descartes with his concept of asexual cogito is source of feminism…
"Rainessance is humanism celebrating of fullnes of humanity" – an important part of rainessance was a neoplatonism which stressed a concept of human as spiritual being (nous) and Absolute as its root.
"the wealth oh human bing is the mask of the void" – it is not void – in western culture – human is [unforunately: "was" – is better word] essentially his spirit (nous); spirit is deeply connected with source of inteligibility and not void. Zizek, you dont understand the most important part od western tradition of philosophy – the problem of intelligiblity (truth-beauty-goodnes) and how we as subjects are transcendentally contented with it (see Heraclitus' beatifull quote: "If you went in search of it, you would not find the boundaries of the soul, though you traveled every road-so deep is its logos. (DK22B45)").
So You are playing with concepts. Original concept of essence of humanity was a concept of spirit (nous/logos) as something transcendentally connected with platonic triad [truth-goodes-beauty = intelligibility]. But you are evaluating that concept by your marxist-materialist concept of wealth.
But Zizek… you are not alone, all Europe forgot that. However you as academic are responsible for that cultural amnesia of the West.
ahhh yeah na, Pinker is an intellectual juggernaut, you're a semi-celebrity internet meme. And you book on Iraq was stupid as fuck. You're okay with Saddams genocides, but lets not call those of us who aren't imperialists hey?
Pinker is dumb – because science is ultimately a dumb discipline. I don't mean that as an insult – but by its nature science has to be dumb. that is to think in prosaic reductive terms. Scientists lack imagination, emotion, creativity, the ability to think in symbolic terms – but by the same token, they are great at solving practical problems. In fact, you might say they operate something like computers – something of a paradox – intelligent/ dumb machines.
ah the Dialectic Materialism!
3:51 Spacial invertion of outside world into inside (realisations of every sensation) is one thing, but to inverse causality..?
Have many of you read Pinker ? I was taken aback by his casual connection between metaphoric violence in the Bible, as evidence of literal violence of the times. It's akin to me reading the Mahabharata, and counting deaths and sex acts, and casually linking them to 'reality'. Ancient historians don't employ such crude logic…how does Pinker get away with it? Mythic tales are quite different, in narrative. We can't read people with one eye as evidence paper airplanes blinding people, and poor surgical facilities…it has to be read metaphorically, as evidence of myopia, or tunnel thinking, or not seeing. The mythopoetic does not dance quite like the literal. How does a scientist elide those types of narrative structures so easily? I hope I'm mis-reading, as I'm just getting into Pinker. But this alarms me. (I'm on chapter 5-6 of better angels, and he hasn't addressed such hermeneutic clumsiness yet)
Can anyone please tell me what talk this was from?
He makes no sense here, and as evidence I point to the comments section where no one knows what the topic of discussion actually is and are spouting off their own poorly developed dogmas
Why does he sound like an autist