Slavoj Žižek on philosophy today | The madness of reality
Summary
Slavoj Žižek explores the contemporary role of philosophy in an age dominated by science, psychology, and artificial intelligence. He argues that philosophy’s primary function is not to provide definitive answers but to question the very frameworks through which problems are formulated. Using examples from ecology, feminism, and labor exploitation, Žižek demonstrates how philosophical analysis reveals hidden contradictions in our understanding of crises.
Žižek critiques modern capitalism’s “ingenious inventions,” such as platform companies like Uber that create false freedom by making workers compete against each other rather than against the company. He extends this analysis to ecological exploitation, unpaid domestic labor, and the ideological construction of social problems through figures like the “young unmarried mother” during the Thatcher era.
The conversation turns to science and philosophy, with Žižek discussing his debates with physicists like Carlo Rovelli and Roger Penrose. He emphasizes how quantum physics challenges traditional materialist assumptions and argues that science needs philosophy to avoid adopting “the worst vulgar philosophy.” Žižek connects this to broader historical questions, rejecting Marxist teleology in favor of a view where historical necessity emerges contingently from open situations.
Žižek expresses deep concerns about artificial intelligence and neural interfaces, suggesting they could fundamentally alter human subjectivity and freedom. He critiques the self-optimization industry and Steven Pinker’s rationalism, arguing that true rationality requires questioning its own presuppositions. Throughout the interview, Žižek employs dark humor as a philosophical tool to navigate the absurdities of contemporary reality.
Finally, Žižek reflects on his personal approach to work and happiness, describing himself as a “Protestant workaholic” who finds meaning in vocation rather than direct pursuit of happiness. He emphasizes the importance of having a purpose that justifies one’s existence, even as he acknowledges the increasing exhaustion of age.
Recommendations
Concepts
- Concrete universality — Hegelian concept where a particular case (like the ‘young unmarried mother’ under John Major) comes to embody and represent universal social problems.
- Dialectical materialism — Žižek’s philosophical approach that examines contradictions in social reality, questioning how problems are formulated and revealing hidden assumptions.
People
- Carlo Rovelli — Quantum physicist with whom Žižek had productive discussions about philosophy and science, particularly regarding quantum ontology and the end of Copenhagen orthodoxy.
- Alvaro Garcia Linera — Former Bolivian vice president under Evo Morales whose analysis showed traditional Marxist focus on working class exploitation no longer works in contemporary contexts.
- Yanis Varoufakis — Economist and friend who analyzes precarious work and new forms of exploitation in platform capitalism like Uber.
- David Graeber — Anthropologist whose analysis of Inca society demonstrated how winning historical narratives retroactively construct necessity from contingency.
- Rowan Williams — Former Archbishop of Canterbury and Žižek’s unexpected friend who shares his view that happiness should come from vocation rather than direct pursuit.
Topic Timeline
- 00:01:00 — The role of philosophy in contemporary society — Žižek introduces his view that philosophy cannot provide big answers but should question inherited concepts. He argues philosophers should examine how the formulation of problems (like ecological crises) is part of the problem itself, using examples from different ecological approaches.
- 00:03:30 — Critique of feminism and Me Too movement — Žižek expresses support for feminism while critiquing what he sees as upper-middle-class elements in “woke” culture. He argues the true horror for women isn’t Hollywood producers demanding sex for roles, but ordinary women trapped in loveless marriages with economic dependence and domestic burdens. He praises Evita Perón’s practical policy giving women menstrual leave as concrete material practice.
- 00:08:50 — New forms of exploitation in contemporary capitalism — Žižek discusses how traditional Marxist focus on factory workers is outdated when many have relative security. He identifies new forms of exploitation: ecological exploitation (destroying environments without exploiting people directly), unpaid domestic labor, and platform capitalism. He analyzes Uber’s model where drivers own means of production but compete against each other, creating false freedom.
- 00:12:15 — Ideological construction of social problems — Žižek explains how particular figures become “concrete universality” embodying social problems. He cites the example of the “young unmarried mother” under John Major’s government becoming the symbol of all societal ills. This demonstrates philosophy’s role in analyzing how ideological operations select specific cases to represent broader issues.
- 00:13:30 — Philosophy and science: quantum physics debates — Žižek contrasts his failed debate with Roger Penrose with his successful discussion with Carlo Rovelli. He argues scientists need philosophy to avoid adopting vulgar philosophical positions, like quantum physicists claiming observation constitutes reality. He suggests quantum physics challenges traditional materialism and requires rethinking human subjectivity.
- 00:16:45 — Rejecting historical teleology and progress narratives — Žižek critiques Marx’s progressive evolution toward communism, citing Stalin as evidence socialism and barbarism can coexist. He describes current history as an “open situation” of superposition where outcomes are contingent. Using David Graeber’s analysis of Inca society, he shows how winning tendencies retroactively construct narratives of necessity.
- 00:21:15 — Artificial intelligence and neural interfaces — Žižek expresses concern about AI creating a situation where “all the machine is working, we are out.” He fears neural interfaces like Elon Musk’s Neuralink could allow direct control of thinking, undermining traditional notions of freedom. He uses a dark joke about ideal sex becoming machines connecting while humans chat to illustrate alienation.
- 00:25:32 — Critique of rationality and Steven Pinker — Žižek argues rationalists often have private superstitions while publicly advocating rationality. He critiques Steven Pinker’s evolutionary explanation for consciousness, suggesting Pinker wrongly compares human metaphysical curiosity to a rabbit’s lack of interest in differential mathematics. Žižek emphasizes rationality must question its own presuppositions.
- 00:31:24 — The role of humor in philosophy — Žižek argues all philosophers except Heidegger use humor, noting Hegelian dialectics has the structure of a joke. He explains dark humor helps navigate today’s “crazy world” where terms are misused, citing Trump calling 59 refugees a “Holocaust” while ignoring Gaza. Humor reveals reflexive reversals immanent to philosophical thinking.
- 00:33:54 — Productivity, happiness, and vocation — Žižek rejects self-optimization routines, saying happiness should be a byproduct of vocation rather than direct pursuit. He describes himself as a “Protestant workaholic” who needs daily intellectual work to justify existence. He finds brief happiness only after finishing books, followed by extravagant but brief vacations before returning to work.
Episode Info
- Podcast: Philosophy For Our Times
- Author: IAI
- Category: Society & Culture Philosophy
- Published: 2025-10-20T23:00:00Z
- Duration: 00:38:03
References
- URL PocketCasts: https://pocketcasts.com/podcast/91d0f4a0-585b-0134-cf69-7b84bf375f4c/episode/5ff39d7c-d285-4b2a-8083-0d6b4dfd474a/
- Episode UUID: 5ff39d7c-d285-4b2a-8083-0d6b4dfd474a
Podcast Info
- Name: Philosophy For Our Times
- Type: episodic
- Site: https://art19.com/shows/philosophy-for-our-times
- UUID: 91d0f4a0-585b-0134-cf69-7b84bf375f4c
Transcript
[00:00:00] The new feudal agencies like Uber and so on, they claim we don’t exploit anyone.
[00:00:08] If you are an Uber driver, you own your means of production.
[00:00:12] You are given false freedom at the same time.
[00:00:15] I like this.
[00:00:17] You don’t perceive the company as your competitor, but other drivers.
[00:00:23] Hello and welcome to Philosophy for Our Times,
[00:00:25] bringing you the world’s leading thinkers on today’s biggest ideas.
[00:00:28] I’m Harry.
[00:00:29] And I’m Ali.
[00:00:30] And today we have a wonderful interview with the acclaimed philosopher Slavoj Žižek.
[00:00:34] So Ali, can you tell us any more about it?
[00:00:36] Well, it covers a lot of ground, as we all know, Žižek’s meandering style of conversation.
[00:00:42] He discusses AI, sex, Hegel, Marx, the future, Trump, and more.
[00:00:50] All sound like interesting topics.
[00:00:51] So let’s hand over to our interviewer, Charlie Barnum.
[00:01:00] Slavoj Žižek, welcome to How the Light Gets In.
[00:01:04] It’s an honor for me to be here.
[00:01:06] In an age where many say chat GPT can now outsmart humans,
[00:01:10] where science is often worshipped as the basis of knowledge,
[00:01:13] and advancement in behavior is studied under psychology,
[00:01:16] what’s the point of philosophy and how should we think about the role of philosophy today?
[00:01:21] I, as I always repeat, I don’t think philosophy can provide big answers.
[00:01:29] What?
[00:01:30] Philosophers can do, and I agree here even with real scientists,
[00:01:34] like yesterday Carlo Rovelli, who was here.
[00:01:40] You know, scientists often operate with a set of inherited traditional concepts.
[00:01:49] For example, precisely with quantum physics.
[00:01:53] What does it mean for our notion of time, of movement, and so on?
[00:01:58] Here, philosophy.
[00:02:00] Philosophy enters.
[00:02:01] Or in ecology.
[00:02:03] Yeah, abstractly we all admit we are in deep shit, blah, blah, with nature.
[00:02:10] But the task of philosophy is to raise the question to what extent is
[00:02:19] the way we formulate a problem part of the problem.
[00:02:23] What, for me, truly dialectical leftist whatever,
[00:02:30] philosopher would say to ecology is, let’s see, because you never perceive a crisis in a general way.
[00:02:38] Let’s see concretely and you immediately see.
[00:02:41] We have conservative ecologists who think, let’s return to old local communities and so on.
[00:02:48] We have state ecologists.
[00:02:50] They were very popular in East Germany, Soviet Union.
[00:02:53] We need a well-organized, almost totalitarian planned state.
[00:02:58] It didn’t work.
[00:03:00] We have capitalist ecologists, even some leftists, who claim you can simply regulate it by taxing more products and so on, all that.
[00:03:10] So my, as a philosopher, my point is not some divine platonic ideas, but very practical orientation.
[00:03:21] Okay, you are saying this.
[00:03:23] What does it mean in practice?
[00:03:26] Here, things may get me into trouble, but especially, for example,
[00:03:28] here, things may get me into trouble, but especially, for example,
[00:03:29] here, things may get me into trouble, but especially, for example,
[00:03:29] here, things may get me into trouble, but especially, for example,
[00:03:30] with regard to feminism.
[00:03:34] I think I can say this honestly, with all my bad jokes.
[00:03:39] Totally pro-feminist, but I always suspected that what we vaguely identify as woke or cancel culture and so on,
[00:03:53] that there is something, even upper middle class in it.
[00:03:59] and that the secret target are ordinary people.
[00:04:04] I know in the United States, in a typical discourse at a university,
[00:04:10] of course their secret target is, but you know, Hispanics, how they treat women.
[00:04:15] No, for me, struggle for, I always like to use this example.
[00:04:19] What I didn’t like at Me Too is, do you remember when it began,
[00:04:24] began to explode in public?
[00:04:29] It was focused usually on one scene.
[00:04:33] At a party or in a pub, you men try to pick up a woman,
[00:04:39] and when do you exert pressure on here, when do you go too far?
[00:04:44] And my argument, and so many women accept it,
[00:04:50] joyfully this is, listen, okay, okay,
[00:04:54] but for me, the tragedy is not if you are a rising movie star
[00:04:59] and the producer tells you, go to bed with me,
[00:05:03] otherwise you don’t get the role.
[00:05:05] Okay, it can hurt your career, but isn’t it the true horror?
[00:05:10] You know who said this once publicly?
[00:05:12] Your leftist actress, Kirsten Stewart.
[00:05:15] She said, but why just the two of them, producer and announcer?
[00:05:22] Look around.
[00:05:23] Imagine they’re ordinary cleaning ladies, secretaries, and so on.
[00:05:29] Imagine a woman.
[00:05:31] That’s my, you know, you are in early 30s.
[00:05:34] From a male chauvinist standpoint, you are, I’m sorry to say this,
[00:05:39] it’s not my, I prefer older women, but in the dirty sense,
[00:05:43] but you are losing your attraction.
[00:05:47] You have a husband who doesn’t hate you, but more and more ignores you.
[00:05:52] And then, of course,
[00:05:53] it’s this silent agreement you have to do a lot of job at home,
[00:06:01] and you don’t love him, he doesn’t love you,
[00:06:04] but since he earns at least more money,
[00:06:07] if you have two children, what hope is there for you?
[00:06:12] You cannot leave children.
[00:06:13] This is the true horror for me.
[00:06:15] You know, this everyday constellation.
[00:06:19] That’s why, although they were fascists,
[00:06:22] I don’t like Peronists.
[00:06:23] I don’t like the fascists in Argentina.
[00:06:25] But Evita Peron did one wonderful thing.
[00:06:27] Did you know this?
[00:06:29] In 1950, close to her death,
[00:06:31] it was the first country in the world,
[00:06:33] she introduced a law when women have period,
[00:06:39] if they are employed, two days free.
[00:06:42] You know, for me, ideology is not something abstract,
[00:06:46] are you she, they, or what.
[00:06:48] It’s this daily material practices, well,
[00:06:52] the true subordination and so on,
[00:06:55] and here we philosophers should enter, I think.
[00:06:59] So at the beginning, you said that the role of philosophy,
[00:07:02] or part of the role, is to deconstruct the way we think.
[00:07:05] I don’t like this term, but I get what you’re saying.
[00:07:07] Yes, deconstruct the way we think.
[00:07:08] Because I’m not a deconstructor.
[00:07:09] No, you’re not a deconstructor.
[00:07:10] I won’t accuse you of that.
[00:07:12] But it’s to find the problems with what we think,
[00:07:15] but you can keep finding problems that exist all the way down
[00:07:19] to the point at which you’re not really saying anything,
[00:07:21] or you can’t say anything,
[00:07:22] or you can’t say anything concrete.
[00:07:24] So how does your understanding of philosophy evolve in your life?
[00:07:28] No, no, I’ll be more precise.
[00:07:30] What we have to do is, like, we all agree, not all,
[00:07:34] there are people like Trump and so on who deny ecological crisis,
[00:07:39] but most of us hypocritically even agree there is an ecological crisis.
[00:07:47] The role of a philosopher is not this reduction,
[00:07:51] then you have to do the other way also.
[00:07:54] These daily practices, how women are treated,
[00:07:58] do they do the homework and so on, it’s again,
[00:08:02] and I will now hypocritically rely on a high authority,
[00:08:06] which will not be the guy who was here, Corbyn,
[00:08:09] but my good friend Alvaro Garcia Linera,
[00:08:12] the ex-Morales vice president.
[00:08:16] His, the whole success of the rule of Morales,
[00:08:20] was that they discovered that this standard Marxist focus
[00:08:24] on working class, exploited,
[00:08:27] no longer works in our countries.
[00:08:31] If you have a good position, they’re disappearing,
[00:08:35] permanent job as a factory,
[00:08:37] okay, formally you are exploited, blah, blah,
[00:08:40] but nonetheless, you have a certain level of life,
[00:08:43] you know you will be retired,
[00:08:45] you will get something, elementary health care and so on,
[00:08:50] it’s almost privileged to have this today.
[00:08:53] The big problem of working class today for me
[00:08:56] is not just Frederick Jameson,
[00:09:00] my just deceased good friend had this,
[00:09:02] that we should also talk about ecological exploitation,
[00:09:08] like what is happening with new forms of mining,
[00:09:11] where you don’t exploit any person,
[00:09:14] you just ruin their environment, no?
[00:09:16] It happens with Inuits in Canada, in Peru,
[00:09:19] in Peru and so on.
[00:09:21] So this form of exploitation,
[00:09:23] then the unpaid, implicit women,
[00:09:27] in the strict Marxist sense,
[00:09:29] who stays at home, does the work,
[00:09:31] they are not exploited in the formal sense.
[00:09:34] Exploitation means the capitalist,
[00:09:36] means the capitalist owns the means of production,
[00:09:39] but their unpaid work is crucial for the system.
[00:09:44] Without their unpaid work, the system wouldn’t function.
[00:09:48] My mega example is,
[00:09:51] this is where I up to a point agree with the guy
[00:09:54] who is I think already crawling around here,
[00:09:56] this means if I talk like this of him,
[00:09:59] that he is my friend,
[00:10:00] Yanis Varoufakis, no?
[00:10:02] That precarious work,
[00:10:05] and then these agencies,
[00:10:08] the new federal agencies like Uber and so on,
[00:10:11] they claim we don’t exploit anyone.
[00:10:14] If you are Uber driver,
[00:10:15] you own your means of production,
[00:10:17] you are given false freedom,
[00:10:20] at the same time, I like this,
[00:10:23] you don’t perceive the company as your competitor,
[00:10:27] but other drivers.
[00:10:29] So you know,
[00:10:31] it’s as if there is a struggle among workers themselves.
[00:10:36] This is the most ingenious invention of today’s capitalism.
[00:10:41] It’s more brutal uncertainty exploitation,
[00:10:45] but in the form of
[00:10:47] freedom,
[00:10:48] like as a guy who believes in this,
[00:10:50] explain to me,
[00:10:51] let’s say you have 5000 dollars,
[00:10:55] and you can freely decide,
[00:10:57] will you go to a holiday,
[00:10:59] will you put it into education of your son,
[00:11:02] will you whatever,
[00:11:03] you know,
[00:11:04] this ideology of
[00:11:06] we are all small capitalists.
[00:11:09] So it’s very,
[00:11:11] that’s my lesson,
[00:11:12] it’s very important
[00:11:14] in a complex social situation,
[00:11:16] which form
[00:11:20] do you put forward as the,
[00:11:24] sorry for this,
[00:11:25] almost salinist term,
[00:11:27] as the typical one.
[00:11:29] You know where it was wonderful
[00:11:31] ideological operation here,
[00:11:33] you are too young to remember
[00:11:35] when Thatcher was followed by John Major.
[00:11:38] You remember all of a sudden,
[00:11:42] when financial crisis so-called began,
[00:11:45] one specific figure was elevated into
[00:11:49] what I call in Hegelian terms,
[00:11:51] concrete universality.
[00:11:53] A particular case which embodied
[00:11:56] what conservatives are about,
[00:11:58] young unmarried mother, woman.
[00:12:03] There is violence among the young people,
[00:12:06] yeah, because she’s not married,
[00:12:08] cannot control the child.
[00:12:09] People are on drugs,
[00:12:11] yes, because she didn’t control them
[00:12:13] and so on.
[00:12:14] All of a sudden,
[00:12:15] this figure of a young unmarried mother
[00:12:19] became the symbol of all that is wrong.
[00:12:23] This is, I think,
[00:12:25] most that philosophy can and should do.
[00:12:29] We’ve talked about the role of philosophy
[00:12:31] in politics,
[00:12:32] but I want to talk a little bit about
[00:12:33] the role of philosophy in science.
[00:12:35] So you’ve recently taken part in panels
[00:12:38] with people like Roger Penrose,
[00:12:40] Sean Carroll,
[00:12:41] That’s right.
[00:12:42] Roger Penrose was a total
[00:12:44] failure, unfortunately,
[00:12:46] because we simply,
[00:12:47] and it’s my guilt,
[00:12:49] they, by they have been Sabine Hosenthalder
[00:12:51] and Roger Penrose,
[00:12:53] they were narrowly in their space.
[00:12:56] And I, like, brutally attacked them
[00:12:59] with my generalities,
[00:13:01] but I agree.
[00:13:02] Sorry to interrupt.
[00:13:03] No, no, it’s fine,
[00:13:04] but more recently, Carlo Rovelli.
[00:13:06] I’m just wondering why…
[00:13:07] Oh, there is, as you can see,
[00:13:09] could see yesterday,
[00:13:10] there is a difference,
[00:13:11] there is instant love,
[00:13:12] you know this.
[00:13:13] What have you learnt from those debates
[00:13:18] or what are you seeking to…
[00:13:19] A lot.
[00:13:20] And what are you seeking maybe
[00:13:21] to teach people if you are?
[00:13:23] No, no, no, I’m not,
[00:13:25] I’m not that arrogant philosopher
[00:13:28] who knows better than themselves
[00:13:30] what and so on.
[00:13:32] Up to a point,
[00:13:34] I can do what Rovelli himself admits.
[00:13:39] Rovelli knows with all his good conscience,
[00:13:43] that he and his colleagues,
[00:13:44] Lee Smalling,
[00:13:45] his…
[00:13:46] Which is the political terms.
[00:13:48] Partner, lover, significant other,
[00:13:51] Francesca Vidotto and so on.
[00:13:53] They are aware that the time
[00:13:55] of Copenhagen orthodoxy is over.
[00:13:58] Copenhagen orthodoxy meant
[00:14:01] don’t even think about ontological question,
[00:14:04] shut up and calculate, you know.
[00:14:07] But today it became necessary
[00:14:09] to raise the question,
[00:14:11] what is the status of waiting,
[00:14:13] function. And at this point, the worst kind of philosophy enters. Many scientists, I don’t
[00:14:24] criticize them for what they are doing, but for how often they adopt the worst vulgar
[00:14:30] philosophy. Like you have many quantum physicists who claim that was what Carlo was attacking
[00:14:36] yesterday. Observation only constitutes reality, so we are back in subject. That’s one point.
[00:14:43] Second, much more important point is the basic philosophical one. I try to remain a materialist,
[00:14:53] but I think that to really account for human subjectivity, you cannot do it within the
[00:15:01] frame of this old notion of materialism, which is a very primitive one. Empty space and look,
[00:15:07] look, small balls of matter fly there. Here, I think, quantum physics, that’s a very
[00:15:13] fundamental single view. It’s not very cool. You can’t solve the whole puzzle to solve
[00:15:16] the whole problem. You have to explain it. Really, even, free unused arrived time,
[00:15:41] you can now understand what you’re saying and to how your organisations fare.
[00:15:43] If you apply the basic model I simplified to the utmost of quantum mechanics, which is this idea of superpositions of state, and then collapse, which is a contingent collapse, and attached with this, the notion of hologram. Which means, at every moment. In everyarsion of responsibilities,
[00:15:43] after we have a collapse, we’re both trial and error. When we meet, which is Hitler explode,
[00:15:44] Other alternatives don’t simply disappear,
[00:15:47] but they are retroactively constructed
[00:15:51] as part of a new narrative,
[00:15:54] this idea of changing the past,
[00:15:56] not magically, what happened, happened,
[00:15:59] but part of a…
[00:15:59] This is what we should apply today to history.
[00:16:03] With all my respect for Marx,
[00:16:06] where I’m critical of Marx
[00:16:08] is that there still is very strongly present
[00:16:13] a kind of progressive evolution or teleology,
[00:16:18] you know, like he’s open, we may screw it up,
[00:16:22] but basically history is moving towards socialism,
[00:16:27] communism, whatever you say, no?
[00:16:29] And it’s not even enough what Rosa Luxemburg said,
[00:16:33] everybody relates to the future will be socialism or barbarism.
[00:16:38] No, Stalin proves that it can be both at the same time.
[00:16:42] No, sorry.
[00:16:43] To go back, we are today in a situation
[00:16:45] where we, precisely in a situation of superpositions,
[00:16:50] it’s an open situation.
[00:16:52] Maybe a new barbarism will prevail
[00:16:55] where there will be islands of relative safety
[00:16:58] and in other parts of the world,
[00:17:00] what happens now, I know very well the situation,
[00:17:03] it may surprise you,
[00:17:04] in Democratic Republic of Congo,
[00:17:08] Congo and not so much Rwanda, but Sudan,
[00:17:12] not La Salle.
[00:17:13] Companies are, sorry, society is in decay there.
[00:17:18] So I think that we cannot rely on any higher historical necessity.
[00:17:25] We live in an open situation.
[00:17:29] It’s up to us.
[00:17:31] History is not predetermined.
[00:17:34] You’re talking about the predetermination of history.
[00:17:36] In 1989, you said the ideology of progress
[00:17:39] is the greatest obstacle to truly progressing.
[00:17:42] And more recently,
[00:17:43] you wrote a series of essays called Against Progress.
[00:17:46] What’s the problem that you have with progress?
[00:17:49] At a couple of levels.
[00:17:52] First, I think progress is not a global notion.
[00:17:56] You absolutely should avoid this idea, you know,
[00:18:00] stones, minerals, crystals, plants, animals, then humans.
[00:18:08] No, I’m not saying these narratives are wrong.
[00:18:12] No, I’m not saying these narratives are wrong.
[00:18:12] I’m saying that they are constructed always retroactively.
[00:18:18] When one orientation wins, it rewrites history.
[00:18:22] Marx is here ambiguous.
[00:18:25] But at some point in Grundrisse, he’s on the right track.
[00:18:30] You know, when he said that this sounds very teleological,
[00:18:35] you know, that the anatomy of a man is key to the anatomy of the ape.
[00:18:41] No, this doesn’t mean.
[00:18:43] Man was the natural goal of development.
[00:18:46] He meant quite by chance, out of apes or whoever, humans developed.
[00:18:53] And once we are humans, the past appears to us as progressive.
[00:19:01] Marx says the same about capitalism.
[00:19:03] It offers us a clue of all past history, but he is very clear.
[00:19:10] He says,
[00:19:11] But the fact that capitalism happened in Europe, etc.,
[00:19:14] it could not have happened.
[00:19:16] And you would have a totally different story and so on.
[00:19:19] I like this idea of how, and I, since I’m still a shitty male chauvinist romantic,
[00:19:26] my favorite example here is love.
[00:19:29] How it’s a little bit like love.
[00:19:31] You know, you walk on the street, you sleep on a banana, a lady helps you.
[00:19:36] Oh, maybe it’s the love of your life.
[00:19:39] And then, of course,
[00:19:41] you retroactively reconstructed everything was predestined all the life I was waiting to meet you.
[00:19:48] Yes, you should say this once it happens.
[00:19:51] And that’s for me also the deepest aspect of Hegelian dialectics.
[00:19:58] It’s not that everything is necessary.
[00:20:00] It’s that in a complex situation, when one tendency wins, it establishes itself as necessary.
[00:20:10] Necessity.
[00:20:11] Necessity is always a contingent category.
[00:20:14] What in a certain situation prevails as a necessity is contingent.
[00:20:22] You know whom I like here?
[00:20:23] He is very close to quantum physics.
[00:20:27] You know the guy who unfortunately died?
[00:20:29] David Graeber.
[00:20:31] His famous analysis, for example, of Inca society.
[00:20:35] How they said it’s not just this sacrificing children, brutality.
[00:20:40] No.
[00:20:41] It’s a totally opposite, much more in our terms, democratic tendency.
[00:20:47] And this is my idea about, going back nonetheless to your question, about progress.
[00:20:56] Always, we should be obsessed by this.
[00:20:59] Always raise the question who paid the price of the progress.
[00:21:04] This brings me back even with your, I think you mentioned this before,
[00:21:10] artificial intelligence.
[00:21:11] This brings me back even with your, I think you mentioned this before, artificial intelligence.
[00:21:11] And so on.
[00:21:12] It’s a mega great thing.
[00:21:15] But look what is already happening.
[00:21:19] And I’m not saying it’s necessarily a catastrophe.
[00:21:22] Do you know that all around the world they are measuring IQ?
[00:21:27] And I don’t want to enter into this problem.
[00:21:29] I know it’s real.
[00:21:30] Are there implicitly racist criteria?
[00:21:33] The point is just that they are measuring it all the time in the same way.
[00:21:39] Do you know that according to…
[00:21:40] Do you know that according to…
[00:21:40] Do you know that according to…
[00:21:40] Do you know that according to…
[00:21:40] Do you know that according to…
[00:21:41] Do you know that according to…
[00:21:41] Do you know that according to all data from India, South Africa, United States,
[00:21:46] till 2010, the average IQ was slightly getting up.
[00:21:54] After 2010, we are getting more and more stupid.
[00:21:57] Why?
[00:21:58] And here is my, the danger that I see.
[00:22:01] It’s at the same time an incredible plasticity and so on.
[00:22:05] But you know the joke, everybody knows it,
[00:22:08] that I used what would be ideal sex today.
[00:22:11] But you know the joke, everybody knows it, that I used what would be ideal sex today.
[00:22:11] But you know the joke, everybody knows it, that I used what would be ideal sex today.
[00:22:11] It should be a lady, sorry, none of you, I don’t want to insult you.
[00:22:15] We have a date, we say, yes, we will do it.
[00:22:18] But what happens?
[00:22:19] I come, you come with your plastic electric dildo.
[00:22:22] I come with the plastic vagina.
[00:22:26] And what we do is, that’s for me ideal sex today.
[00:22:31] We sit down, you put your dildo into my vagina.
[00:22:36] We reconnect them and they are buzzing.
[00:22:39] And we can say, wonderful.
[00:22:41] The machine is doing sex.
[00:22:43] We can now have a nice chat, drink tea.
[00:22:45] Isn’t something same doing today?
[00:22:49] It’s horrible what is happening in academia.
[00:22:52] You have all these free access journals.
[00:22:55] But you know how they function?
[00:22:58] Already some people suspect the majority of texts are written by chat.
[00:23:04] TPT.
[00:23:05] Then many of these journals use chat, they fake review.
[00:23:11] Use chat, TPT to review the text and then the so-called readers, quite a lot of them use chat, TPT to read the review and give you a one-page summary or whatever.
[00:23:27] So all the machine is working, we are out.
[00:23:31] Now, does this simply mean maybe it’s not bad?
[00:23:35] We can reflect, do nice things, listen to music.
[00:23:40] No, because this…
[00:23:41] The other side of this machines are doing is that machines are also including us.
[00:23:47] Like my real fear, I wrote a book on it, is what Elon Musk calls neural link, but Zuckerberg is also doing it.
[00:23:57] This frightens me.
[00:23:59] Maybe it will not be so bad.
[00:24:02] Just know this idea of a direct link between not just my brain, the flow of my thoughts.
[00:24:09] And?
[00:24:11] The digital machine.
[00:24:13] This means that the one who controls the machine can, up to a point, literally control my thinking, implant it and so on.
[00:24:24] And our basic notion of freedom is, and it’s good, I am here in my thoughts, I am free.
[00:24:32] Reality is out there.
[00:24:34] This will no longer hold.
[00:24:37] And sorry for being a dirty old man.
[00:24:40] But this will be horrible for sex, you know.
[00:24:44] Let’s say I exchange glances with some potential partner.
[00:24:49] No flirting, no.
[00:24:51] We just, our brains are connected.
[00:24:53] Yes, yes, okay, we both want and so on.
[00:24:56] It will do something.
[00:24:58] I’m too stupid to predict what.
[00:25:01] But I really think that those who claim we are entering into a post-human era are right here.
[00:25:09] I’m not saying that.
[00:25:10] I’m not just a pessimist that we will be robots and so on.
[00:25:14] I don’t know what.
[00:25:15] I only think that some of the basic presuppositions, automatic, of being a human being will have to be rethought.
[00:25:25] So you think Steven Pinker’s notion that you can use rationality to achieve progress is just completely off the cards?
[00:25:32] You know, I am all for rationality.
[00:25:35] I’m very even Eurocentric and so on.
[00:25:39] But, you know, it’s so typical that precisely people who refer to rationality are usually then in their private life so full of superstitions, madness and so on and so on.
[00:25:58] For example, in Slovenia there was a group of people who tried to do this Celtic mysticism.
[00:26:06] Build some sacred sword which will…
[00:26:08] They were all quantum scientists, biologists and so on, you know.
[00:26:14] No, I think that precisely to maintain its rationality, science needs philosophy, otherwise it gets lost.
[00:26:26] The point is here, more generally, definition of rationality.
[00:26:31] What do you mean by rationality?
[00:26:33] It’s just this instrumental rationality.
[00:26:36] I want this.
[00:26:37] For example, I want pleasure, eat, sex and so on.
[00:26:42] Here, the philosophical aspect of psychoanalysis becomes very important.
[00:26:47] I think, as a Freudian, that the most stupid element in American constitution is that famous, you know, pursuit of happiness.
[00:26:58] No.
[00:26:59] If there is a definition of human being is we are beings who systematically self-sabotage their pursuit of happiness.
[00:27:05] So we have to ask, what do you…
[00:27:12] If you are just a rationalist, you usually just presuppose that if you proceed in a rational way, problems will be so blah, blah, blah.
[00:27:23] But what does it mean to be rational?
[00:27:28] How do you, as a rationalist, answer the debate that I had yesterday with Lawson?
[00:27:34] No.
[00:27:35] Like, plurality of truth and so on and so on.
[00:27:40] What would you say as a rationalist?
[00:27:42] If you are an honest rationalist, you should accept the result that every rational logic has some implicit presuppositions.
[00:27:58] Like, if you say only in a rational way, we can reach peace and happiness.
[00:28:03] Oh, oh, oh, what do you mean by happiness?
[00:28:06] Do we…
[00:28:07] What do you mean by peace?
[00:28:08] Do we want peace at all?
[00:28:10] And so on.
[00:28:11] So in this sense, I am even for more rationality.
[00:28:15] Just rationality is authentically a dialectical notion.
[00:28:20] It has to, not just in this common sense, question itself.
[00:28:25] Question its presuppositions.
[00:28:27] As a philosopher, I always ask, but what is already said?
[00:28:32] What is already secretly implied in what you are saying?
[00:28:37] And an elementary philosophical approach tells you immediately that.
[00:28:43] Rationalists…
[00:28:44] For example, I will give an example which, because of which, Steven Pinker himself, I know, he doesn’t like me.
[00:28:53] In Madame Redouce, I attacked him when he tries to explain why we don’t understand.
[00:29:01] Understand how our consciousness arrives, emerged.
[00:29:07] And he gives a simple evolutionary answer, which is maybe up to a point correct.
[00:29:13] That consciousness, the problems our mind is equipped to deal with, are problems of survival.
[00:29:23] Like, we have a good mind to flirt, to cheat, to lie in sexual seduction.
[00:29:30] Or to collaborate with others.
[00:29:33] So that’s what our mind can do.
[00:29:35] But sorry, to know how our mind works is not part of our evolutionary program.
[00:29:42] We don’t need it.
[00:29:43] And then he uses a totally wrong metaphor.
[00:29:47] He says, in the same way that a rabbit cannot understand differential mathematics, because it’s not in the scope of its survival.
[00:29:57] You know?
[00:29:58] For the same reason.
[00:29:59] We.
[00:30:00] Cannot.
[00:30:01] Understand.
[00:30:02] Our mind.
[00:30:03] And so on.
[00:30:04] My problem.
[00:30:05] Yeah, but a rabbit also doesn’t care about differential mathematics.
[00:30:09] Why?
[00:30:10] In all the history of humanity, we are obsessed with so-called impossible metaphysical questions.
[00:30:17] And it turned out this to be very productive for science itself.
[00:30:22] What began as metaphysical speculation, you go down.
[00:30:28] That’s why I celebrate quantum mechanics and relativity theory.
[00:30:34] They even speak in a very nice way of experimental metaphysics.
[00:30:38] Look, till 100 years ago, the question like, do we have a free will?
[00:30:43] Is the universe infinite or not?
[00:30:47] These were metaphysical questions.
[00:30:49] Now they are experimental questions of quantum ontology and so on.
[00:30:55] So again, I’m absolutely…
[00:30:57] I treat myself as a Eurocentrist, proudly.
[00:31:02] But Eurocentrist in this reflective sense of doubting all the time, questioning your
[00:31:08] presuppositions.
[00:31:11] And to move on to something slightly different, you’re well known for using humor, as you
[00:31:16] have done in this interview, to express your point.
[00:31:18] Getting darker and darker.
[00:31:19] Getting darker and darker.
[00:31:20] But what is the role of humor in philosophy?
[00:31:24] First, I will tell you that.
[00:31:27] All philosophers are usually quite good of humor.
[00:31:34] I know, but I still think he’s a serious guy in philosophy.
[00:31:39] I know some specialists who read all of Heidegger, Martin Heidegger’s letters.
[00:31:46] He is the only guy in whose letters, not just big written books, you do not find not even
[00:31:55] one humorous remark.
[00:31:57] The only one that I found is after Heidegger met Jacques Lacan.
[00:32:02] And you know how he characterized Lacan.
[00:32:05] It’s not a big joke, but an element.
[00:32:07] This is a psychiatrist who himself obviously needs a psychiatrist.
[00:32:12] So I think that, especially Hegel, Hegelian dialectics has the structure of a joke.
[00:32:24] This is the joke I used yesterday.
[00:32:26] It’s very Hegelian.
[00:32:28] About, you know, Trump as God, God turns around.
[00:32:32] And there is a moment of reflexive reversal, comical reversal, which is for me, immanent
[00:32:41] to philosophy.
[00:32:44] And today I use it because what is happening today?
[00:32:49] When terms are so misused.
[00:32:51] Did you know?
[00:32:52] When was it?
[00:32:53] A week or two ago.
[00:32:54] When Trump, United States accepted 59 refugees from South Africa and they claim it’s Holocaust
[00:33:05] there.
[00:33:06] Sorry.
[00:33:07] Fifty nine people took their luggage, flew to.
[00:33:10] That’s Holocaust.
[00:33:11] And what?
[00:33:12] And Gaza is not Holocaust or what?
[00:33:15] We live in such a crazy world where it’s not simply the situation is serious, crazy.
[00:33:23] So that we don’t get crazy.
[00:33:25] Let’s use dark humor.
[00:33:26] There is literally a humor, dark humor in the sense of crazy reversals, which is part
[00:33:35] of our reality today.
[00:33:37] And my final question with the rise of the self-optimization and self-improvement industry,
[00:33:43] it’s a very fast growing market.
[00:33:45] You yourself have written dozens of books, hundreds of articles and attend hundreds of
[00:33:50] events.
[00:33:51] Do you have a daily routine for productivity?
[00:33:54] No.
[00:33:55] First, I must tell you, I have one rule.
[00:33:58] It’s very traditional.
[00:33:59] That’s why of the people here, apart from Jeremy Corbyn, you know who is my best friend?
[00:34:04] You will never guess.
[00:34:06] Rowan Williams.
[00:34:08] Because we deeply agree on this.
[00:34:11] And I’m a materialist.
[00:34:12] He pretends to be not, but I think he is.
[00:34:16] You know, this idea that this will sound so horrible.
[00:34:20] I believe in a spiritual sense of life.
[00:34:24] But I don’t think you should posit happiness as your direct goal.
[00:34:31] You should have a vocation.
[00:34:35] My God, I’m ready to die.
[00:34:37] I have to do this.
[00:34:38] And then you should invite him.
[00:34:42] He hates me, but he’s intelligent.
[00:34:44] A Norwegian theorist of action.
[00:34:47] John.
[00:34:48] Just J-O-N.
[00:34:49] O-N.
[00:34:50] Elster.
[00:34:51] He developed a wonderful theory of states which are necessarily a byproduct.
[00:34:59] Like, for example, if I want to act with dignity, it should be shown in how I act.
[00:35:08] If I say, don’t you see I have dignity?
[00:35:11] It’s ridiculous.
[00:35:13] And so I think happiness is something like that.
[00:35:16] If you strive directly for happiness, you ruin it.
[00:35:19] And I try to follow it.
[00:35:22] I’m a total workaholic.
[00:35:24] So if you ask me, are there…
[00:35:27] This is almost tragic, but it’s literally true.
[00:35:30] Are there moments when I feel somewhere close to happiness?
[00:35:34] Yes.
[00:35:35] When I finish a book, which I think, I may be wrong, it’s good, the manuscript, not then.
[00:35:42] Then I have to make a plan, some basic notes, what the next book will be.
[00:35:48] And at that point, I can say for a week or two, let’s go off and do something totally crazy.
[00:35:56] This is something crazy.
[00:35:57] With my son, we go to…
[00:35:59] It’s better not to say.
[00:36:01] I was in, you know, that sale like Burj Al Arab, Burj Al Arab Hotel in Dubai.
[00:36:09] I was there.
[00:36:11] I was in Singapore in the most expensive hotel.
[00:36:14] I just do it for a couple of days.
[00:36:16] This is as much as I tolerate.
[00:36:18] But already there, in the last days, I tell my son, go and play video games.
[00:36:23] So my idea is that, unfortunately, that’s my big problem.
[00:36:28] I’m getting old and tired.
[00:36:31] And since I’m absolutely a Protestant, also at the level of sexuality, you know, we have a joke.
[00:36:37] I don’t know where you, British, whatever you are, British church feet.
[00:36:43] My idea is that both in Catholicism and Protestantism,
[00:36:46] everything is permitted.
[00:36:48] Just in Catholicism, you should confess it at the end of the week.
[00:36:52] In Protestantism, you should feel guilty a little bit.
[00:36:55] What I want to say is that I’m absolutely a Protestant in the sense that I literally cannot fall asleep
[00:37:04] if the day was lost and I didn’t do some work.
[00:37:08] By work, for me, of course, I mean reading, writing.
[00:37:11] I need minimum one hour and a half.
[00:37:14] If not, then in an hour and a half.
[00:37:16] But in the latest way, I think if God comes, what will I tell him?
[00:37:21] My existence is not justified.
[00:37:24] Slavoj Žižek, thank you very much.
[00:37:26] I was honored to be here.
[00:37:28] Thank you very much.
[00:37:30] We did this bullshit.
[00:37:31] Fuck you.
[00:37:32] Fuck off.
[00:37:33] Okay.
[00:37:34] Thank you for listening to Philosophy For Our Times.
[00:37:36] We hope you enjoyed this interview with Slavoj Žižek.
[00:37:39] I’m sure it was incredibly thought-provoking, as it was for us.
[00:37:43] And be sure to check in next week
[00:37:45] for more videos, debates, podcasts
[00:37:48] from the world’s leading thinkers
[00:37:50] on today’s biggest ideas on ii.tv.
[00:37:53] And before the end of the year is out,
[00:37:55] we’ll have a fresh new interview with Žižek.
[00:37:58] So stay tuned for that as well.
[00:38:00] Bye.
[00:38:01] Bye.