Slavoj Zizek is a left-wing philosopher and political scientist. Zizek is a philosopher whom also happens to be very funny. His sense of humor is extremely rare and unorthodox. I was watching a piece which is posted on YouTube titled: “Julian Assange’s The World Tomorrow: Slavoj Zizek & David Horowitz (E2)” and I think that it is appropriate and I cannot help but to comment on it. Just for a basic background: I do not have much experience in the formal world of any political studies. However, I am privileged enough to have a lot of personal experience with both the conservative right-wing philosophies and the progressive left-wing of politics. I grew up in a conservative house, in conservative right-wing, Zionist communities. As of around about 2012 I have joined, researched and been active in much more left-wing groups and studied extremely left-wing, idealism and secular movements. First off in university I was first introduced to progressive, secular philosophies. I consider myself to have been awakened from the slumber of terrible conservatism which my parents subscribe to still to this day. Everyday, individuals invest so much emotion into politics do to the practical applications of the serious matters which politicians are involved in.
I am use to being very creative and resourceful. I consider myself to be very smart in the realm of philosophy. Since I believe that I have a firm grasp on the complex world of politics allow me to give a solution. I find it funny that the world of politics seems so heated yet, if one sits down and is to think critically, one might find that if one goes left-wing enough, into the realm of fascism then one will ‘pop out’ on the extreme right-wing among the crazy religious individuals who rant about the end times. I would like to give a brief diagram of the political world. The following is a spectrum of the generic conventional policies of the left and right wings:
Ideal utopian Marxist freedom Anarchism Center ‘Realist’
Religious fundamentalism
Realistically, this would be much more circular and might even be spherical. There is a solution. Justly and naturally people have their emotions so heavily invested that their emotions cloud their logic.
I think that individuals have lacked the motivation to pursue real solutions. Individuals generally fear truth through knowledge.
I think that the fact is clear cut that the left is correct when one is looking at a civilization in an ideal scenario. When one looks at the anthropological ‘real world’ it is clear that the left- wing philosophies cannot be attained. We saw this in the nineteenth and twentieth Centuries. First off, one point was made that both the left (Marxism, Liberalism, Stalinism, Leninism, etc.) as well as deistic religions are some sort of hope for redemption. Individuals who are more secular on the left wish for justice to prevail just as those on the right (e.g. Zionism, Evangelism, Lutheranism, etc.) seek justice through some sort of a god.
The prime argument is between Zizek and Assange versus Horwitz, a former leftist. The argument is based on the assumption that human beings are, naturally warlike beings. Therefore real world peace can never be attained. The claim is then followed up by the question of: who should rule the species of human beings to keep them in check? This is a difficult question to answer from a pure political perspective. However, Zizek and Assange ask, why can a place of a free market of ideas and services sand goods not exist? Who should ‘rule’ the world if not the USA? Horwitz suggests that the people in America do not want war they want to live free with opportunities and just have fun and not have to think or worry too much.
The truth is that the extreme left wing is guilty of being too naive and the right wing fanatics are simply too pessimistic about, ‘real life’. As human beings, we have to recognize multiple issues if we wish to live for the benefit of our children and their children. Important issues include stopping any individuals from becoming too powerful and there must exist a new group of people (call this an “oligarchy” if you wish) whom are responsible for the well being of individuals aside from themselves. “Oneself” is an element of “every human being”. Nationalism is dangerous, and certain tenets of secular law must be upheld at all times. A new system must also be introduced to help prevent fraud or the manipulation of other (important) people. On a couple of final notes I would like to ask: Could or will anything ever change, or shall human beings always be greedy, selfish pigs who have to fight others who are not apart of their own ingroups? Evolution is still happening and, may I remind anyone contemplating this that paradigm shifts are rare but not impossible. The possibilities are hopes and we do not need totalitarianism any longer, will the human race survive to see this day, wake up and realise that there can be a god and individuals can be free to believe in their own religions without being killed?
The truth of the matter is that human beings naturally create exclusive groups in which relationships get established then families get formed and so on and so forth. There exists a sad truth today, as more corporations are deviating more to have tendencies of monopolies, the political spectrum has gone so far to the right wing. Today a Marxist in America would be left wing and a Marxist in 1980 would likely have been an individual who is much more extreme than today. However, selfishness too wanes and waxes in concentration. In the 1960s, for instance, the mainstream of individuals believed in a new age, peaceful cultural movement and experimented with consciousness awareness. Greed absolutely existed in the time of the 1960s; however it was not so epidemic and it was predominantly so widespread. The nature of the market is also an obvious factor for human behaviour. Would it not be a mistake to give up and just expect to be miserable in the world and accept the notion that humans are war mongers? It would certainly be a grave mistake to trust anyone. However, the human race has survived likely because of a keen intuitive sense. We are still vulnerable animals. Human beings must not live a life which fundamentally is full of fear and doubt. We must learn to understand our children and the next generation of human beings, not because we must share feelings etc but because the only way which individuals shall attain a life which is full of quality is by understanding the human conditions of the time. Psychoanalysis greatly helps to learn about the hidden desires and fears of human beings. This is too often swept under the rug. Everyone ought to be educated about their own fears and true desires.
When individuals learn about a system of faith which they know that they can trust then the debate of spirituality can be put aside as a mere anxiety of the human condition which scientists shall learn to treat for good.
Here is the link to the entertaining conversation:
Site Title 