Difference between revisions of "A Lacanian Plea for Fundamentalism"
(Tag: Visual edit) |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== ‘A Lacanian Plea for Fundamentalism’ by Slavoj Žižek | 18. September 2000 | Audio == | == ‘A Lacanian Plea for Fundamentalism’ by Slavoj Žižek | 18. September 2000 | Audio == | ||
| − | {| | + | |
| + | [[Image:Lacanian.jpg|center]]<BR><BR> | ||
| + | {| style="width:400px;margin: auto;font-weight:bold;font-size:2.0em" | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | {{#widget:Html5mediaAudio | ||
| + | |url=http://theoryleaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Slavoj.%C5%BDi%C5%BEek.A.Lacanian.Plea_.For_.Fundamentalism.18.9.2000-TheoryLeaks.mp3}} | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | [https://mega.nz/#!Qm4QUYII!5jLYjuQKEARwQM782Pqk4a_xEpfiIfM2TAWuDVR-NRs DOWNLOAD] | + | | [https://mega.nz/#!Qm4QUYII!5jLYjuQKEARwQM782Pqk4a_xEpfiIfM2TAWuDVR-NRs DOWNLOAD] |
|} | |} | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | “Let me begin with a brief introduction to the [[notion]] of the so-called “big other” as the [[symbolic]] substance of [[being]], as it were [[the symbolic]] [[space]] within which we [[human]] beings dwell. [[People]] usually [[think]] [[about]] symbolic rules regulating [[social]] interaction, but I think it is much more productive to focus on [[another]] aspect of what [[Lacan]] calls the “big other”. The intricate cobweb of unwritten implicit rules. Their never explicitly stated, if you [[state]] [[them]] explicitly you even usually commit some kind of crime or violation. This is what always interest me, how what holds communities together are not [[explicit]] rules but the unwritten rules which are even prohibited to announce publicly. | |
| − | |||
| + | Now you will say that I’m exaggerating here. No I’m not. Imagine even the most totalitarian communities imaginable. The Stalinist [[regime]]. The [[real]] old one from the 30s. You would say but there everything was clear, no unwritten rules. Oh, their were. | ||
| − | + | Imagine a [[session]] of the central committee where someone stands up and starts to criticize [[Stalin]]. Now, everyone [[knows]] this was prohibited. But that’s the catch. Imagine someone else standing up and saying: ‘But listen, are you crazy? Don’t you [[know]] that it’s prohibited to criticize comrade Stalin?’ I [[claim]] the second one would be arrested earlier than the first one. Because although everybody knew that it’s prohibited to criticize Stalin, this [[prohibition]] itself was prohibited. The [[appearance]] had to be unconditionally maintained that it is allowed to criticize Stalin, but simply why criticize him since he’s so [[good]]. My point is that the appearance of a free [[choice]] had to be sustained…” | |
| − | + | {{SZA}} | |
| − | |||
| − | + | [[Category:Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek/Audio]] [[Category:Slavoj_Zizek/Audio]] | |
Latest revision as of 14:39, 30 June 2019
‘A Lacanian Plea for Fundamentalism’ by Slavoj Žižek | 18. September 2000 | Audio
| DOWNLOAD |
“Let me begin with a brief introduction to the notion of the so-called “big other” as the symbolic substance of being, as it were the symbolic space within which we human beings dwell. People usually think about symbolic rules regulating social interaction, but I think it is much more productive to focus on another aspect of what Lacan calls the “big other”. The intricate cobweb of unwritten implicit rules. Their never explicitly stated, if you state them explicitly you even usually commit some kind of crime or violation. This is what always interest me, how what holds communities together are not explicit rules but the unwritten rules which are even prohibited to announce publicly.
Now you will say that I’m exaggerating here. No I’m not. Imagine even the most totalitarian communities imaginable. The Stalinist regime. The real old one from the 30s. You would say but there everything was clear, no unwritten rules. Oh, their were.
Imagine a session of the central committee where someone stands up and starts to criticize Stalin. Now, everyone knows this was prohibited. But that’s the catch. Imagine someone else standing up and saying: ‘But listen, are you crazy? Don’t you know that it’s prohibited to criticize comrade Stalin?’ I claim the second one would be arrested earlier than the first one. Because although everybody knew that it’s prohibited to criticize Stalin, this prohibition itself was prohibited. The appearance had to be unconditionally maintained that it is allowed to criticize Stalin, but simply why criticize him since he’s so good. My point is that the appearance of a free choice had to be sustained…”
|
