Slavoj Žižek: What Is the Best Religion for Capitalism?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 07. 2024
- In a lecture Slavoj Žižek gives one of the most interesting insights into how spirituality and capitalism currently acts and will likely act in the future. With the sociological precedent of Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Žižek's answer on what spirituality fits capitalism best might surprise you. (It surprised me.)
This entire channel is funded by you all. If this channel is something you enjoy, anything helps: / epochphilosophy
If you want to support the channel for free, use the amazon affiliate link, this helps us IMMENSELY: amzn.to/32hdeQB
Watch the stream:
Twitch► / epochphilosophy
Join our community on Discord:
/ discord
Socials:
Twitter► / epochphilosophy
Instagram► / epochphilosophy
Devin Nash: / @devinnash
Time Stamp:
Intro: 0:00
Spirituality in Capitalism: 1:25
Buddhist Form: 3:39
Emergence of New Self-Help: 6:15
What Capitalism Really is: 8:17
A Message: 11:06
Hello friends! I was able to get this video out much sooner than initially expected! I found Žižek's insight on this very question really fascinating and wanted to convey these ideas in video form. As always, we are pretty much only fan-funded, as a ton of my videos are constantly de-monetized or have very limited monetization. Patreon allows me to survive and continue to make these videos. If you really enjoy this stuff, please consider pledging a couple dollars a month: www.patreon.com/epochphilosophy
I don't trust fals prophets in this FASCIST pseudo economy.Capitalism is religion-money.Žižek is fals left prophet who betrayed Yugoslavia and communism itself.WHAT SPIRITUALITY IN FASCIST CAPITALIST PSEUDO ECONOMY!? This is retarded and evil and i say this as a human being and not man made buddha or jesus
Hey my man, trust, your channel will grow, this is one of the most professional (in the best sense of the term) philosophy channel (without mysticism) on CZcams, keep up the good work we appreciate your work
It's not entirely the same as Buddhism, but I've noticed that Stoicism has also been making a comeback as well. Stoicism seems to also preach a kind of radical acceptance of life circumstances and acceptance that the only thing you have control over are your own thoughts. I think that resonates with people today, certainly myself, since we are part of an incomprehensibly large global network.
Stoicism is catholic morality secularized
HotSkull not quite. With the right juices flowing, stoicism can easily turn into Marxism. The stoic god is Nature. If we are participants in nature, then you immediately have room for a Marxian dialectic and ultimately a utopia.
Contrastingly, the Catholic god is transcendent - thus, looking for reform for the sake of utopia on earth is blasphemy. This (among a few other reasons) is why liberation theology was declared heretical.
Stoicism is also favored by many silicon valley elites. It is easy to apply Stoic thought to justify your wealth. "I accept that I am a billionaire, those that aren't should try to be one or just accept their predicament (even if I'm the one keeping them down)"
@@odysseas1629 So Japan is Nihilist w/ hints of Shintoism??
That's a Hegel youth topic that not many people know about, but you were very lucid in conceptualizing it in our times, thanks for the comment. In Hegel's critique of Christianity, he clearly recognizes that the collapse of the Ancient city and the emergence of the Roman empire inveterate expansion shaped the Spirit, turning society into a indistinct collection of individuals "atomized" in their own individuality, with no prospect of seeing each other as a totality other than their own property. The spitted spirit of the Romans gave the ideal territory for the establishment of both stoicism and a more delicate religious configuration, which told man that human nature is "naturally" sinful, which naturally gave them relief....taking Horkheimer as a example, the objective idiocy of thinking leads to subjectivity, which tends to replace critical thinking with stereotyped forms of thinking. Reason is relegated both as a convenient tool for the occasion and as an object of fanatical worship (also contextual). That is why, in our time, people no longer argue, but just scream what they think is a objective content, which, in their own way, seems "objective" and obvious in itself (like racial realism, which ideology killed the most, candidate x or y, and so on).
Epoch finishes editing video. Wait- *adds dust into background* - perfect.
That's right.
I've been reading McMindfulness and the author mentions Zizek briefly! Highly recommend the book. It's written by someone who is Buddhist so his argument is that is stripped Buddhism of morality such as neoliberalism does more or less. It's not actually an attack on Buddhism.
westerners had adulterated buddhism over and over again.
Buddhism's emphasis on flux and lack of personhood stands against current capitalism's emphasis on person. The "religion" of current capitalism is in fact romanticism, which emphasizes the concept of a separate self-contained entity - the person. This is why current capitalism accommodates liberalism, fascism and socialism alike. Because it accommodates any kind of conception so long that is based on concept of person - the person can be an owner (liberalism), the person can belong to a particular racial, religious, sexual or ethnic group (fascism), the person can be a worker (socialism). Current capitalism and Romanticism have emerged and persisted together for the past 250 years.
Yeah, Zizek seems to specifically be calling out Western "Buddhism" which saw the "self" in "self-enlightenment" and ran with it to the endzone without actually understanding the religion.
Lol no. The concepts of individuals having identity-markers is something that's existed in one form or another is something that's existed throughout all of human history, and the specific concept of the property-owning liberal citizen is a direct product of the Enlightenment, which is itself the intellectual wing of the rise of capitalism. Romanticism has always emerged as an avant-garde movement subsequent to and within the dominance of Enlightenment liberalism, and it has always functioned as a reaction to and a critique of that orthodoxy. This is because what is unique about the Romantic self is that it is defined by its individual imaginative, affective, creative, and relational capacities and NOT its place within an eternal feudal hierarchy (the Feudal self) or a fungible socioeconomic hierarchy (the Capitalist-Enlightenment self). This is why the Romantics have always been associated with and involved in politics of radical liberation (think Shelley's support for the labor movement, or Beethoven's Republicanism, or Emerson's abolitionism) and this is why socialism (which, by the way, is incompatible with capitalism; what you're thinking of is social democracy) has emerged out of Romantic movements and circles.
Today's predominant ideology stands for the abandonment of ideologies, painting our contemporary world as post-ideological. Of course this is far from the truth as this sentiment stands as an ideology in and of itself. So, today where no ideology "should" be taken seriously where does Buddhism stand? Taking a superficial look at Buddhism, we find a very compatible capitalist subject. The pacifistic, individualistic approach of the subject and his disconnection from the reality of suffering, constitute the perfect conformity. It surely fits better than Christianity, where you have to at least pretend that you care about the universal suffering.
@@grivza I would have to disagree with Christianity not fitting the capitalist ideology as well. It verbatim follows the concept Althusser talks about in Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses where there are subjects being subjected to the Subject. In Christianity the subjects are the followers and the Subject is obviously God. This fits with the capitalist ideology we are constantly bombarded with, which forces us to conceptualize ourselves as subjects under the Subject of our boss, the market, etc. In both instances your entire reality is predicated on your relationship to, and existence within, that system of subjugation.
Why is the predominant understanding of Buddhism in 'leftist' channels the very bourgeoisie, elitist and statist Zen Buddhism rather than the folk Buddhism that is rooted in the authentic lived experience of the common folk?
"He understands that life will take care of him in some way, and the value that he provides will return to him." idk who Devin Nash is but yikes
Yikes indeed. This quote is the absolute essence of this entire new Buddhist-consumerist formation of spirituality.
This is identical to prosperity gospel "seed planting" minus the veneer of Chistendom.
It is self-help scam: it just doesn't work that way.
Looks like "The Secret" is making a comeback
Great channel, great work! I'm officially a new fan ;)
great video. always looking for more zizek content
You had me at Zizek.
@Space Monkey yeah exactly, i never understood people who don't understand him, he's a genius philosopher that i watch his lectures on regular basis, it's when i feel fed-up with regular philosophy scriptura that I watch zizek to love philosophy again
nice video dude.
the last time i heard Max Weber's foundational work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, referenced was over a decade ago.
underrated channel, thanks for the video :)
Thanks so much, friend. And the pleasure is all mine!
Really interesting discussion, love watching these vids where I haven't really considered the question.
Hey man, I just wanted to tell you that this is becoming one of the most interesting channels.
Love the philosophy and ways Zizek approaches the concept of capitalism.
The vibe of the video is very good, not too long, not too short. And it leaves some interesting questions.
Sorry for spelling mistakes, if any. Greets, Belgium, Brussels (the hellhole you guys call it right?)
Love your videos, and thank you for all the hard work. Hope this criticism is helpful. I'm distracted by the overuse of qualifiers: very, extremely, ultimately, and so on. I think omitting them would improve the videos.
Second that.
Great content!!
Great video ! Subbed
beautiful, thank you.
You blow my mind man..keep doing this stuff😍
really interesting analysis
Very well done video
That elasticity and ability to incorporate things with revolutionary potential that you mentioned, is discussed by Mark Fisher aswell in his book Capitalist Realism
Thanks so much.
Fabulous video
this is absolutely amazing man
Impressive, subbed
Hey amazing video. I know this is like a month after so don't know if you'll see this but the contemporary theologian Kathryn Tanner has a great book 'Christianity and the New Spirit of Capitalism'. The title is a play on Weber and what she tries to do is show how Christian thought and life is not only opposed to new capitalism (finance-dominated) but actually cuts directly across it.
id say true buddhism (and i guess taoism to an extend too) itself was developped as a result of the realization of the inability of material wealth to bring inner satisfaction to the individual.
a perverted version could compliment capitalist development, but i think that spread of any type of buddhist/taoist spiritual movement that just remotely resembles the original movements would not only be possibly the most constructive way for the individual to deal with the psychologically detrimental effects of modern 'immortal' capitalism, it might also be the most efficient way of making it dissolve.
the heart of capitalism is no longer the enslavement to production, rather it is now the enslavement to consumption. these philosophies will likely result in a reduced desire for consumption and if spread widely enough they will probably cause the capitalist economy to collapse.
Wow sir..keep making comments.
Buddhism would poison the idea of consumption entirely.
The problem with Buddhism is that it would also deemphasize consumption, and within the consciousness of most people seed the idea of leisure. Really Buddhism is an incredibly leisurely religion, one that could only exist in abundant states. But it would in effect end capitalism.
Honestly, the same thing has happened to christianity insofar as at it's key figure, Jesus, was generally very left wing. The work of people like Tolstoy and Dorothy Day make it pretty clear how it's been reterritorialized into capitalist ideology
Max The Protestants are very different however. As in there is no Buddhist sect that is similarly compatible with an economic system as Protestantism is with Capitalism.
Buddhism was developed more as an answer to the rigid Vedic class* hierarchy. As such, in its historical development, it exalted merchants (who in Vedic society were considered lower than kings, nobles, etc) and this later turned into an exaltation the accumulation of wealth and money. “True Buddhism” is one of the most capitalist-sympathetic religions imo. It is quite literally a virtue to simply make money.
*edit: changed from caste cause that was wrong.
Very Nice video
Very good, especially with Marcuse and subsequent turn 🙌
Thanks!
very enjoyable video. capitalism completely goes against the Buddhist ethic of non-attachment, non-clinging, and compassion (to others, to nature, to self), etc. one thing you got wrong is that the state religion of imperial japan is actually Shinto (along with the idea that the emperor is a descendant of the sun god--thus legitimizing violence); it's popular, but it's also a completely different belief system from Buddhism.
i don't think most people who proclaim to be Buddhists are anything of the sort. it can be fitted into capitalism very well because in modern practice, it has these "new age spirituality" aspects, is completely vague, repeats buzzwords like "mindfulness," appears "exotic," and doesn't require any commitment. also, i imagine simply signaling these hip new things to other people has its own value.
but, ultimately, i agree with zizek on this. capitalism is great at gutting and incorporating everything into itself and selling it back to you. i've seen a big increase in people talking about "meditation apps" which provide short guided meditations (they're also all over youtube), which are intended to provide quick stress-reduction/relaxation. this all goes along very well with the hectic capitalist lifestyle.
Thanks for the praise. Albeit, I'm not mistaking Buddhism for Shintoism whatsoever. Buddhism in Japan (not Shintoism) has a long history. The more relevant current Buddhism is the essentialist Buddhism taught by D.T. Suzuki. He was the one aligned with Japanese Imperialism, and when asked about the death from imperialism (because of the contradictory violent nature with Buddhism) he rationalized murder with being apart of a cosmic dance, where the individual doesn't matter. This is what I briefly mentioned in the video. Thus murder just happened in a cosmic sense, and individuals had nothing to do with it. (He seriously made this argument.) There's a lot of literature on huge fascist and essentialist ties with Buddhist secs in Japan.
@@epochphilosophy You might enjoy reading Ernest Becker's (yup that one) book, 'a rational critique of zen'. It's quite an enlightening read on the totalitarian undertones of the Zen tradition and how it is a perfect complement to Confucianism.
Killing it
"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. (...) The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."
-Dalai Lama
"Traditional economists emphasize importance to maximizing profits and individual gains, while the underlying principle of Buddhist economics is to minimize suffering (losses) for all living or non-living things. Studies conducted by Buddhist economists correlates that human beings show greater sensitivity to loss than to gains, and concluded that people should concentrate more on reducing the former"
-Wikipedia on Buddhist economics
Marxism is not a finished economic project, it's not utopian socialism, it's first and foremost an study of Capitalism, secondly a political work for its superation into a more equitative society. Only this last can be considered "moral", but it's rather the objective interest of the vast majority, and Marxism believes (based on Hegelian dialectics) that materialist dialectic between classes, historically documented, will produce that. It'd be too complex to explain how but basically is about the formation of an educated and interconnected proletarian class inside and under Capitalism. This real society eventually finds Capitalism useless and burdening (even a menace for the survival of the human species) and dumps it for something better, of course not easily but it should be that way.
In any case, even if we treat Marxism as a "religion", it cannot be integrated into Capitalism because of its very antagonistic nature. Religions are to keep the flock quiet, not to agitate them against the shepherds.
Thanks man for doing this, please more and more zîzek
Good stuff. Double comment for the algorithm
Hell ya thanks dad
Yet another banger :)
I'm very interested in the intersection between religion and ideology. Historically some popular leftists thinkers seemed to think a secular movement is ideal, but I wonder if that's necessarily true?
Thank you my friend. I'm inclined to agree with secularism as well. Although, being an atheist myself, the older I get, the more agnostic I am about religion as a whole. There's an entire subreddit called r/RadicalChristianity that is full of Christian socialists. Which is pretty cool.
Me gusta que los vídeos de este canal tengan subtítulos en español
Feliz de proporcionar. Me gusta ser lo mas accesible posible. Lo siento, mi espanol es muy malo lol
got a prager u ad on this video. lovely
When watching this video I was putting my self in the shoes of an incredibly wealthy capitalist. And I thought “Well time slowly seep in Buddhism into the personal lives of every individual through institutions and such,” “Tuis way those pesky proletariat won’t cause to much of a fuss lest conflict with their core beliefs”.
A prescription would be great
Excellent videos. Do you use the buy me a coffee platform?
if budism is the best religion for capitalism what would theoretically be the best for socialism?
Good question. There's no way I would have been able to come to similar concussions as Zizek on capitalism. My answer would be nowhere near as creative and insightful. I would argue the only truly compatible spirituality for socialism is a lack-there-of; namely atheism. But, what do I know? Someone might be able to give a better answer.
Jesus was a Socialist. Sikhism works well, too. Although, my inner Jreg (and my other beliefs) say Transhumanism even though it's not a religion. Yet.
Buddhism? Just because the nihilism of Capital and the post god world has twisted and warped Buddhism doesn't mean there isn't great value in its traditions. Zizek doesn't condemn Buddhism as a whole, he specifically attacks the shallow Western self help guru form propagated by modern society. I think, of the major world religions, Buddhism's lack of attachment to the material world, and focus on freeing people from suffering through work and personal acceptance of reality lends itself very well to socialism. Without an idea of how to transcend individual desire/interest idk how to get people to embrace a project that might not work, which considering how hard the left has been punted in the dick the last few years seems like a reality anyone on our side needs to contend with. A willingness to empty oneself, even from an atheistic perspective, seems very valuable on this front.
islamic sufism
Read "Fragile Absolute" by Žižek. He presents there that we can use Christianity as a force to fight against capitalism.
So Protestant Buddhism?
Daoism/Taoism is, however, not buddhism. In this video they are presented as generally the same thing but they are, at the very core, very different religion-philosophies. Daoism is focused on enjoying life while buddhism is about destruction of the self. Sure, there is zen buddhism, wich blend the two, but I did not hear this mentioned.
It has nothing to do with Buddhism in fact. It is a much more ancient religion, probably a leftover of the primeval Neolithic "fertility cults", whose echoes we find everywhere: Gaia-Eros (Greek oldest layer, incl. their source: Chaos, equivalent to the Dao), Mari-Sugaar (Basque religion), Hel-Jormungadr (Norse deep layer), Yoni-Lingam or Shakti-Shiva (Hindu deep layer, still active).
@@LuisAldamiz Um, I think you are exagerating a bit there. The only major culture influence we know of wich spread that wide in early history is the indo-european one.
If I am wrong, could you provide references? It would be interesting to learn more in that case.
@@torbjornlekberg7756 - I'm not saying that any one single culture spread so widely, at least not upfront. I have my own doubts about the possible of origin of what I sometimes dub "gender binary monotheism".
Although Vasconic (i.e. first mainline European Neolithic) could account for the European part, it could never account for the Oriental (Indian and Central-East Asian) ones. At least not directly.
Hence I have two hypotheses: (1) the religion was common in Neolithic West Asia and spread from there in various directions. (Neolithic West Asia was not ethno-linguistically homogeneous, all the opposite: very plural, but could have got some partial religious homogeneity maybe).
(2) It actually originated in Europe within the wider Vasconic culture (that around 6000 years ago was dominant in all the subcontinent west of the Warsaw-Kiev line, with exceptions in the Thessaly-Serbia area alone and maybe some other lesser pockets hard to discern) and spread Eastwards with Megalithism. As you may know (hopefully), Dolmenic Megalithism originated in Western Europe (Portugal, Brittany), spread in Western and Central Europe first (Neolithic), in the Western Mediterranean later (Chalcolithic), to West Asia (from Caucasus to Yemen, with likely center in Syria-Jordan) in the Bronze Age and to India and parts of East Asia (Korea notably) in the Iron Age already. It is clearly not associated to Indoeuropeans at all.
I tend to favor the latter but unsure.
@@LuisAldamiz Very interesting. For one, I had no idea that dolmenic megalithism was practiced in Asia at all. Or that this was the english name of that burial custom (here in Sweden we simply call them 'dös').
How does all this connect to daoism, tho? Are there customs connected with the material findings?
@@torbjornlekberg7756 - I don't know how it is connected or if it is connected at all. I just notice a pattern of common "binarist" beliefs (often buried under Indoeuropean and Semitic beliefs of later times) and I wonder how such a scattered "unity" may have happened.
I explained the two hypotheses that I consider plausible. I know not much more, sorry. What I do know is that in much of Europe and also in India the notion of two forces female and male, goddess and god, yoni and lingam, yin and yang ultimately, are or were probably perceived as the source of everything. In the Basque case I and others reconstruct the ancient religion as a "fertility cult" in which the goddess and the god (Mari and Sugaar) mate on Friday nights, the same night in which the "witches" (sorginak = creators, ancient priestess surely) had their akelarreak ("sabbats"), which had some sexual symbolism or practices as well. We see some of that also in other cultures not anymore Vasconic, especially in the deepest Greek mythological layers and possibly in some archaeological elements. The divine mating probably resulted in the inception of Odei (the storm cloud, later partly synchretized with Celtic Teutates as "Eate"), which fertilized the fields (but could also bring damnation in the form of hail, etc.) This is not necessarily the only interpretation that they had, oral mythology tends to have variations, but to me at least it seems the most core belief.
It was clearly a chthonic and not celestial religion, the sky behaves as corridor no home of the gods, which reside in caves, usually in the locally "holy" mountain. Also I'm quite certain that Greek Gaia (Mother Earth) is a Vasconic name, because in Basque "gai" (nominative: "gaia") means "matter, substance" and also "potential" (gai izan = to be able, ezkon-gai = fiance(e), where ezkon-du = to marry, etc., it is even in the particle "why": zer-gai-tik, literally "by capacity of what"), so Gaia in Vasconic should have that double meaning of "potential matter", "enabling substance", which is incidentally a very agrarian concept and is not at all inconsistent with what Gaia is in Greek mythology.
More confusing is what happens with the male side, which in Basque mythology is Suga(a)r (male snake or flame of fire, depending on how you cut the word: suge-ar or su-gar, possibly a wordplay). It's generally mentioned as snake or dragon and seems equal to Mari (the goddess, maybe amari = mother as profession, or emari = gift) but is less celebrated in the legends (less common). Spanish anti-patriarchal and anarchist philosopher Casilda Rodrigáñez theorized that the dragon-slayer legends (first of which are Apollo's and Thor's, actually snake-slayers) imply that the ancient male divinity (and by extension many conquered men) was slayed in order to enslave or tame the female divinity and subjugate her to the patriarchal order. She then turns Ceres and Persephone, and many other female goddesses, including surely Artemis (Artz-ume or Arkume per a linguist friend of mine: bear cub in Basque, includentally kume and cub seem cognates and they mean the same) and maybe even Athena, Aphrodite... who knows? The ultimate taming happens in Christianity, when she's turned into Mary (mother of "God" but subordinated like never before).
Another book I found interesting was one by a French Tantrist who claimed (and IMO could be right) that European menhirs, isolated standing stones, obelisks of sorts, much like their Indian counterparts are lingams (representations of male sexuality in a sacred context), the yoni being Earth itself (as also happens in India). This is the strongest clue I have to favor the Megalithic model over the Neolithic one but maybe is a mix of both. I can't say.
I can look for some references if you are really interested but some will be in Basque, Spanish or French unavoidably.
buddhism just fits so perfect with the hyperindividualism of today's capitalism - you have to improve yourself to become enlighted, do meditation, learn, etc.. so don't worry about big complex things, you have to look into yourself. with christianity at least there was the community within religion, the holy spirit is the community of believers. you don't have that with buddhism, or at least not with the self help western buddhism that Zizek is talking about here. so I would totally agree with him and you here. also great channel, just found you and now you have one more subscriber
Wow wow wow, I hope you don't think buddhism is essentially this though. This sounds a lot like MCbuddhism.
If anyone here happens to know spanish, I'd recommend the work of Sandino Núñez. His thoughts around the true nature of capitalism are spot on.
Is there a paper of book in wich Zizek (or anybody else) delves into this relationship between western Buddhism and capitalism?
I had considered this exact thought very recently. That Buddhism fits the need for the time. That we are forced to mold ourselves/adapt into the direction of the 4th industrial revolution.
Would love to see some Foucalt here. Also, this is by far the most underrated channel in all of youtube.
Thank you so much my friend! Praise like this makes it all worth it. I would also really love to do a video on Madness and Civilization. If this is something you really enjoy and want to help this channel survive, consider pledging just a couple bucks a month: www.patreon.com/epochphilosophy
New subscriber here bro
Yo, thanks so much! Glad to have you on board. If you enjoy the channel, consider pledging just a couple bucks a month on Patreon. It keeps the lights on for me: www.patreon.com/epochphilosophy
I must friendly disagree here with one of my favourite authors and philosophers, Žižek. I agree about his thesis on Buddhism, but not about the one on Taoism, because Taoism is the pure "I would prefer not to" ethics. If i follow the Taoist principles, when I don't want to obey my boss or the capitalist system, I just don't do it, Taoism is about not giving a f*ck about authority, patriarchy and whatever causes pressure to oneself.
Buddhism jives with globalization better than it does capitalism. I think thats the more relevant focus. Buddhism's teachings fit better with a many-sided, interconnected world. Capitalism is just the means by which this came about.
Catholicism jives better with Globalization. 'If you don't follow along, you will end up in Hell'. ' If you don't follow along you are a big ot R word' . German Protestantism is Capitalism w/ Hayek.
Love to slavoj zizek from india ,yes religion and its doctrines are more about dealing with their more idealistic founders and make them in a way more palatable to the masses,to satisfy their egos of the heart. This has happened with buddhism and christianity alike that maybe today they almost are entirely different to viewpoints of the actual individuals themselves ,for buddha we have a lot of evidence by comparing the early buddhisms pali majuscripts with the later mahayana schools of thoughts manuscripts ,u would almots find them like not the same at all just like we have a whole research on biblical criticism comparing earlier manuscripts with later fabrications ( although they thought they were not fabricating ,just like ancient version of what they call today a writers insight like james cameron had with batman transforming him into something like the dark knight).
Thanks for the video, but be mindful of how many times you say ultimately. Looking forward to more
I wonder if Dan Simmons wasn't into something powerful when he describes Zen Gnosticism as the ideal religion of the Hegemony of Man (the galactic, capitalistic/technocratic society dated to the 27th Century) in his Hyperion Cantos.
You should have more subscribers!
11:28 i died there 😂
Essentially, the Protestant Work Ethic was useful for the developing stage of Capitalism, which required a Social Darwinist individual competitivness and focus on individual work to act as a force which would allow Capitalism to grow. But that stage of Capitalism is over, and we are in the Maintaining stage, in which the building of Capitalism and the social classes has been completed and now must be maintained. Due to the inherent sufferings and material poverty brought about by Capitalism and Class, the system is inherently unstable and naturally probe to the radicalization of the Working Class. So, the new ideology needed to maintain it is one which would make the Worker as undesiring of better material conditions and accepting of their crappy state as possible. Enter Buddhism, or rather Buddhism as practice without understanding, a religion which teaches you to reject desire and become at peace with your current state. This is perfect for the Maintaining stage because it needs workers to essentially be drones who are not motivated to overcome their crappy conditions but rather accept them and perform their actions to maintain they Capitalist system.
That’s it!
Good videos, arguably one of the best edited ones on the subject matter. However, these days I am not quite fulfilled by Zizek or these type of channels because while they do respect Hegel and socialism, they are still conforming to capitalist ideals. One of the important takeaway from Kant+Hegel was that it takes a minimum of 2 independents to think.
There are only 2 ways you can do this. Either it should be a complex abstract art form, such that everyone who listens to it gets newer meanings out of it. Another one is that the listener gets actively involved through, say a sort of a stream. Only the former might work on CZcams, because CZcams as such doesn't empower the listener to intervene except comments, even in streams and thus it can never be like a real discussion or learning group.
But these kind of videos end up unfortunately becoming ideological factories themselves.
But don't get me wrong. I just said I don't feel quite fulfilled. It is always better to watch these channels than the random garbage
I'm a M.Div student at a noteworthy conservative evangelical seminary. I notice a trend of a small but interesting number of students who are conservative in theology (hold to the inerrancy of scripture, the divinity of Christ, atonement by penal substitution, conservative on questions of sexuality, etc) growing increasingly skeptical of capitalism. The peculiar injustices of late capitalism seem to jar some students who take the Bible very seriously because the patterns of behavior which are requisite for capitalism defy Christian ethics. That starts the process, but the bigger divide comes from the ontological challenge. In Christianity, there are things which much be decried because God hates them, and things which must be praised because God loves them. This stickiness of value is in direct opposition to the ontology of value that late capitalism requires, that things are praise worthy insofar as they allow the ever-accelerating accumulation of capital. Belief in a non-market God who has the final say on the worth of all things produces friction that is undesirable for capitalism. There is an imperfection of the fit on both sides that is eased by the internalized world of Buddhism, it seems like.
Didn't expect to see the scuffed podcast LULW
I appreciate the thought put into it, but for historic and playing les to the realities, and more to the will to wishful thinking, has Zizek considered Mormonism ?
I agree with your main thesis that capitalism’s lack of care for values or meaning would be most compatible with detached religious philosophies, but how is that turning Weber’s theory on its own head? Marx turned Hegel’s theory on its head by claiming that it is not ideas that shape the material world, but that it is the material world that shapes ideas. I don’t quite see the swapping between the cause and effect from Weber’s thesis in yours/zizeks
IMO, it sounds like a simulacrum of buddhism
That's it.
A better analysis should be how Confucian and Buddhist based societies where more receptive to Marxism than their western counterparts...From an ethical standpoint, Confucian and Buddhist based societies have completely sublimated a concept of self/ social responsibility that can be discerned from their respective populations cooperation and response to the COVID-19 pandemic and their deliberate acquiescence before the enforcing of their respective governments health/lockdown policies, albeit having hierarchical structures in place. These societies, btw, have not entered what in the west is called the new normal, they have basically returned to the normality of pre-COVID 19 existence, through government and collective social effort.
Please also Indonesian subtitles
I'd agree in that Buddhism is not very dogmatic and so it's easy for a system like capitalism to suck it into its own worldview.
However I never have liked the way in which people use that term 'capitalism'. For me I agree with French philosopher Jean Pierre Dupuy who says that the issue of modernity isn't capitalism, but its the 'de-sacrilsation' of culture and the failing attempt to make the economy sacred. Meaning that capitalism is a symptom of a broader phenomenon. Because the issue for me is that when we use capitalism as a term to describe the modern world we are buying into the Capitalist/Marxist way of thinking. That economics precedes all else and is the key to understanding our situation. This is why capitalism and Marxism are really not that different they both try to sacrilse the economy. This is why religion disintegrates when it approaches modernity, and so the the key is in creating a cartoon religion, one that looks and feels like religion but is really a mockery of it. This is why Buddhism could work because it can be adapted to the economic modes of thought but I would argue new age religion could do this even better because it gives you a pick and mix system that caters itself perfectly to individualism. And then add gnostic ideas of self-transcendence and you've got the best system.
I was waiting for this video to say anything interesting but it never arrived
“Buddha wouldn’t have been ok with imperial japan.”
Jesus wouldn’t have been ok with colonialism.
Jesus would have been pissed with the Romans writing religions texts on his life.
@@leighfoulkes7297 ???Are you referring to the documents of the New Testament? That doesnt make sense, Jesus explicitly stated in both the gospel of Matthew and Luke that his disciples were to spread his word, and that the apostles had authority to perform miracles in their own way. This is further corroborated in the book of Acts, especially in the day of Pentecost. Otherwise Christ would have written a text himself, but he never did, which is probably for the better.
@Radev4 Im pretty sure every knows he was jewish. Also his technical name being yeshua is irrelevant to anything. Also the texts were not all written 40 years after his death. His death was in 30 AD. letters of Paul and the book of James were all written in the early 50s. Thats a maximum of just 20ish years, which is incrediby close for ancient documents. (the earliest writings of say Confucius or Alexander the Great are over a century later) Also, we know about the writings of Johns disciple Polycarp and other extrabiblical sources that indicate an even earlier dating than that. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the apostles would not have willingly gone to their gruesome deaths if they were fabricating a false story, they were in a unique position to know whether or not Christ was who he claimed to be. Especially Paul of Tarsus, who was literally persecuting Christians and a respected roman official for the Jewish Sanhedrin. The claim that "we know nothing about Jesus's life" is historically untrue.
@Radev4
Ok you addressed alot of issues so im going to post a long comment sorry for the dump...
I dont think his name matters. Im aware of his middle eastern heritage, I just dont think when discussing things like God, petty things like race and hair color are of any relative importance. Obviously Jesus was brown lol. Im just saying whether or not hes God kinda usurps his hair color.
"Half of the Pauline Epistles are forgeries"... I dont know what your talking about here, where are you getting this source from. We might not know who the author of say Hebrews is or James is, but thats not relevant. What matters in a theological sense is the content itself. And besides the point, the letters of most of Pauls writings like Philemon are undisputed. And the reason I bring up Paul is because Paul (being earlier than the gospels) refers to "Scripture" in corinthians and thessalosians, indicating that this information was already being circulated around the time of the event.
Also your right about Polycarp I was thinking of Joseph Of Arimathea, pardon my mistake Im mostly just working off memory from previous study so I didnt bother to look it up, but yeah ur right Polycarp was later. I meant Joseph of Arimathea lol.
"Scholars agree that Acts is mostly a fabrication, which is obvious considering how much ridiculous supernatural it purports"..."often with magical/"miraculous" elements,"...
Ok well first when you say Scholars agree, Im assuming you mean Non Christians scholars right? Like bart erhman or Reza Aslan. But people like N.T Wright ( who i recommend) and Dan Wallace and William Lane Craig certaintly dont agree with that.
It seems to me that your objection to the historical claims are not rooted with the historicity of the claims themselves, but rather a philosophical rejection of miracles and the existence of God. But those two arent the same thing.
I mean look im not a muslim right, but Mohhamed existed and the writings on him are very reliable. You dont have to be a christian to see that the NT is a deeply reliable source, even more so than a plurality of ancient and late antiquity documents.
Like I said, your objection is a philosophical one, not a historical one... its stilla a valid objection but not the right category.
Also I would go into the contradictions point you made, but my comment is already long enough lol.
@Language and Programming Channel Colonialism however is not justified because it infringes upon basic human rights. These basic human rights are the moral law of the universe that we all know and share, and so by turning away from them and their creator (God) we shouldnt expect to not receive punishment. This punishment by the way is inflicted upon ourselves. So unlike colonialism, the commands of God were just.
Besides the point, the above paragraph is ultimately irrelevant anyways considering that the whole point of the Israelite conquest in the land of Caanan was a part of the now defunct Old covenant to cultivate a time and place in which God could inhabit the flesh of people throught manifestation of the Word in Jesus Christ, who established the New Covenant. So while Jesus is the incarnation of the Old testament, and therefore the "same god", it should be noted that he therefore had divine authorite over scripture, and created a new covenant altogther, one of peace and loving your neighbor.
So no, in no way shape or form can anyone remotely educated on the topic of christian theology claim that Jesus would have endorsed colonialism.
Fantastic vid! However, I would not mix up Taoism with Buddhism. I definitely see how this applies to commercialized Buddhism, but it has no relation to Taoism. Taoism is literally about non-action, going with nature, etc.. I can see how the cooption of Buddhist ideas like meditation, mindfulness, and discipline are swallowed by late capitalist gurus though. Shinto and Hinduism arguably have a lot more in common with Buddhism than Taoism does. That being said, like any religion, some Taoist ideas have been commercialized by capital, such as the hippyish spirituality (which was definitely the case by the boomer hippie movement, which you could say was a good and bad thing).
I'm grateful that he actually said not authentic Buddhism. You would not believe how many people think of Buddhism in the wrong way.
Buenaaaa
1:20
People shouldn’t trick themselves to think capitalism will end in this lifetime . Capitalism ending is dependent on technology, full stop . We may be able to reach socialism faster , but that stage would still be quite long considering we are entering a long stage of isolation and contraction until we get to space or have a green revolution, two things that might happen because they are incentived.
And at the end .... boom.... capital flowing to your channel.
Great video!
Couple things. You used the terms "Taoist/daoist" and "Taoism/daoism" as synonyms for Buddhism when Tao and Buddhism are distinct and philosophically contrasting ideologies. I don't know if this is a mistake carried over from zizek as in the clip you used, he does the same, but it makes this whole concept less clear. Taoism is the idea that one must become "one" with "the way" or tao by following disciplines that could, for the sake of brevity, be summarized as don't become an obstacle for the things happening around you.
Buddhism on the other hand, doesn't argue for resigning oneself to the machinations of the universe, but rather finding methods to move through the universe which are well intentioned and done with compassion for all things.
Secondly, tao te Ching, Or the key text of taoism, is a much more meaningfully related base text from which modern "western" self help is based. It's, in my opinion, an atomizing and deeply individualistic philosophy which focuses on how you can become better by falling more in-line and accepting your place in the universe, whatever that is, and being "the best" of whatever that is. So grind harder, bro. Basically.
This is to say, I think the core tennants of Buddhism, removed from their religiosity become more beneficial towards anti-capitalism than the converse. The eightfold noble path and so on.
Yes It is distinct, Zizek totally knows this as well as creator of this video probably does. The reason why they speak about them almost interchangable in this video is because of both being westernized in simmilar fashion.
@@martinpavlicek2299 I disagree.
@@xxnarnarnarxx Why? You dont think that buddhism became superficially imitated in west and used for those self help teachers and apps etc? I am not trying to discuss true buddhism or true taoism so I am not trying to tell my opinions on those. But according to my experience buddhist terminology and aesthetics and imitation of it is much bigger thing on west than is with taoism, which is also a thing. Or dont you think that superficial imitation of buddhism is a thing on the west? Do you often go to correct western people on internet about true buddhism being opposite to taoism? If so than this itself could be proof to you that common western guys and self-help proponents aproach them as same... All I say is that Zizek and the author of the video are capable to think about both as separate entities but they see they are both interchangeably sterilized in west and bleding with capitalism.
Daoism is not individualistic nor is it about adapting to the status quo. It is not "grind harder bro". It is about acting in accordance to the nature of things, and the nature being the way of the Tao. Capitalism is inherently against the natural flow of things, against Tao.
I am considered lucky to be born in an upper-middle class family ... but I kept thinking why are those lower down just brushed off as "unlucky" and nothing much has been done systemically to lift them into a middle class collective? Are there really not enough to go around?
very
Perhaps just as the proletariat are the last dialectically / historically class for itself, the class to usher in true communism, similarly, Buddhism is the last ascetic element of history, the one which creates the inner conditions within the subject in capitalism appropriate to transforming capitalism as well as offering salvation in a world of suffering.Of course, this can all be cooped by Capitalist ideology.
Make science your religion
Not what people who use the scientific method say, but the method as a way to understand everything as something to devoutly practice
ahaha many triggered Buddhists here, I'd imagine because science and Buddhism are so compatible
Read "Universe in a Single Atom"
Jesus said “to the least among you, you do to me”. If the capitalist is the most morally bankrupt character, to them we are to identify, according to Christianity
I believe in mewanism...
Who is mewanism bro??
@@SciToonimals It is a traditional religion of Tibet ... it later spread in Sri Lanka ..
I have not heard of a traditional religion in Tibet with such a name. Can you explain it to me?
@@SciToonimals dude he is a kinda philosopher and comrade who support to youth and LGBTQ+ community in our country !
I wouldn't necessarily look into religions to find a new religion. I would look for a current that sustains capitalism and overconsumption, that relies on its subjects, I'd look more into new religions such as feminism.
Buddhist teaching: fuck external world and materialism
Zizek: That goes perfectly well with capitalism
"The ordinary person has no interest in general truths. The genius on the contrary overlooks and neglects what is commonplace."
Arthur Schopenhauer ( 1788 - 1860 )
Schopenhauer is one of the most cringe philosophers I've encountered, I am sorry but it's true. Pessimism is a personal failure.
@@wp6007
Lol! And a great genius with an IQ of about 180 W;P.
@@sherlockholmeslives.1605 Idk he is probably high iq? But like I don't think that matters. I thought a few things he wrote were decent for the time, but overall he is just the equivalent of an annoying depressed person.
@@wp6007
That may be true but philosophy brains at university level greatly respect the man's thinking. He may have been up his own arse, like Wagner and Hegel but the world owes these people something?!
@@sherlockholmeslives.1605 I like Hegel a lot
Sam Harris?
People using a Nazi ideology others not call a religious ideology or violent criminals !
The perfectly plastic opiate of the masses!
It's interesting that nothing whatsoever contained by these self help gurus is actionable at all to the people who "need" it the most. I even see my bosses (low level managers, basically working class but LARPing as petty bourgeois) watching what are basically modern digital psychic readings, (oh this happened so be prepared for god to send you adversity type stuff) kinda fusing Christian, Bhuddist, New-Age and Nietzschean rhetoric while not having any objective content whatsoever, it's purely meant to conjure a subjective experience, not as an opiate of the masses, it's more of an amphetamine of the masses.
I believe that Atheism is the future. We should stop focusing on unnecessary things (like feminism, racism, dumb culture and so on) and instead try to maximize efficiency on every aspect of life so that we can move forward faster and achieve goals that can't be achieved in today's climate.
When you don't experience sexism or racism yourself which is why think these are dumb .
@@maxd3783 I don't experience racism? Bruh, I live in R.Macedonia, and our government treats us the Macedonians like second class citizens, while giving protected status to the minorities (especially to the Albanians).
Zizek would know--in '98 & '99 he was running on a pro capitalist platform.
Protestants what is their problem?
Capitalism is its own religion - it’s the worship of Money. Money is the ultimate God of capitalism. Christianity is the very antithesis of capitalism. Jesus denounced the love of money. He denounced the rich. He denounced the worship of Mammon. He rejected worldly power. Marx said that Judaism - not Christianity- was the religion of capitalism, because Judaism was focused on worldly success and not on eternity. See Marx on The Jewish Question.
I disagree, capitalism is not fragile, it is one of the most anti-fragile systems the world has ever seen. Just the individuals that keep the machine working through their artificially crafted desires are fragile. Very important.
Buddhism is just same any other believe .
...because it will provide you with a better code of etihics. It's not as difficult as you are making it. Learn more about Theravada Buddhism.
...what you are missing is how the police-state supports the capitalist system, and unless you are going to redesign the national LEGAL CODES, then nothing is going to change. Capitalists made the nations laws. Unless you scrap that archaic constitution and derivative laws.... nothing ever will change.
Werner Sombart countered Max Weber his argument with his book: The Jews and modern Capitalism.
Okay.. but Daoist ethics have little to do with Buddhism. That is a very (ironically) Western way to view East Asian thought.
The Three Teachings of Chinese philosophy are Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. There's a great overlaps between the three, and Daoist ethics incorporates much of Buddhist ideas.
@@vvee4725 Sorry but Daoist ethics and Buddhist ethics are often at odds with each other. I am a Buddhist, I have lived in Korea, China and Japan for a combined total of 7 years. I have many friends whom are experts on East Asian thought, and I am also honored to have credentials in this field. Sorry, but I am informing you now that the ethics of the Dao de jing (aka Tao Te Ching) and the Zhuangzi are completely unrelated to those of the Dhammaphadda or the Lotus Sutra. Of course you will see some syncretism here and there, but sects differentiate their traditions, especially in China.
@@nicoarmin8997 Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they're the same or interchangeable, but I think what Zizek is referring to is the syncretic milieu of Buddhism in the context of Taoism, and not the Buddhism in the context of Vedic/Hinduism. That's all.
@@vvee4725 I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In fact, it just sounds like westernized orientalism to me. Care to elaborate?
@@nicoarmin8997 where I come from, we Chinese don't make much distinction between Taoist and Buddhist. About 80% of us are Buddhist on the census but most just practice traditional Chinese practices and some are actually closer to Taoist. Keep in mind most people aren't experts on religion and philosophy.
Your claims may apply to some form of “western buddhism” - but this, and other later forms of buddhism, are really not buddhism at all. If you look at Theravada buddhism, which is supposed to be the original canon, you see that the teaching was not really meant for lay people. Taking up the teacher entailed becoming a monk which, as far as I’m concerned, is probably the most radical way someone could manifest the “i would prefer not to” motto that zizek endorses. Its not about “becoming one with the world” as you say, it’s about letting go of the world. Monks are literally not supposed to acquire money at all. Its the opposite of being a consumer - the whole point of abstaining from pleasure in buddhism is to stop addictions to sensory experiences. I think Zizek should look into the core teaching of buddhism, at the pali canon, to get a better picture of what buddhism really is. Or he needs to specify that he talks about perverted offshoots of buddhism…