4588686 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3g2zS6Tuk&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3g2zS6Tuk&feature=related[/url] The guy on the left is a former Jesuit Priest. I can never get a handle on Zizek. I don't know if I think he's brilliant or a con-man. He's pretty interesting in this one. THERE IS SOME CURSING THROUGHOUT HIS TALKING!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragon Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 I'm 15 minutes in and not finding him particularly convincing. I like Zizek, he's always interesting to watch, but I find it hard to believe that he stumped all these Catholic bishops and theologians with the question "why did Jesus have to die?" The answer is pretty simple: He could have forgiven us by a mere act of the will, but He takes on humanity and dies in an act of solidarity and love with humanity. "Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death". Given that Zizek is a communist I'm surprised he didn't pick up on the note of God's solidarity with His creation in the incarnation and death of Christ. I find it harder to believe his second claim about "I have not come to bring peace but the sword" having stumped bishops. Obviously Christ means that the decision to follow Christ will breed conflict between the Christian and his non-Christian friends and family members. If those questions don't stump a 21 year old uni student then I doubt they stump Catholic theologians and bishops. Zizek is pretty much like most modern philosophers I've encountered. They can be interesting, entertaining, but ultimately their philosophy is no longer about the search for Truth and reality. Most of it's just convoluted mental masturbation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragon Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 At 18 minutes now. Getting more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Aragon' timestamp='1345197587' post='2469064']Zizek is pretty much like most modern philosophers I've encountered. They can be interesting, entertaining, but ultimately their philosophy is no longer about the search for Truth and reality. Most of it's just convoluted mental masturbation. [/quote] To their credit (or perhaps to their detriment) they're just thinking with their worldview. The idea of a "search for Truth and reality" may have suited worldviews of older ages, but it hardly suits the modern worldview after the triumph of science in the 20th century. I'm sympathetic with the post-modernist idea, to some extent, trying to pull the rug out from underneath all certainties. I suppose one could see it as a new form of Socratic dialogue. But, in the end, I agree with you that it doesn't go anywhere. At the end of the day, people go on constructing "Truth and reality" however they want to, with a lot of different ways of rearranging recurring themes. One might say that is precisely the point of post-modernism, to deconstruct everything. But one has to construct SOMETHING. Our lives are not "the truth" or "the reality" and never will be. There is only one truth and reality, and that is Christ. But what can we do? We're stuck on this earth and we have to do the best we can with what we have, and at least try to walk the margins of truth and reality. Can't watch the video now, maybe later. Edited August 17, 2012 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Seriously? 'why did Jesus have to die?' is akin to 'when did you stop beating your wife?' Jesus did not HAVE to die. He CHOSE to die. Basic theology folks. I have no time for ex-Jesuit (or other) heretics.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1345258577' post='2469507'] Seriously? 'why did Jesus have to die?' is akin to 'when did you stop beating your wife?' Jesus did not HAVE to die. He CHOSE to die. Basic theology folks. I have no time for ex-Jesuit (or other) heretics.. [/quote] And why did he choose to die? To save mankind. And why did he need to die to save mankind? That's where things start to break down and that's what he was referring to, I believe. But I think you missed his larger point which wasn't really about the question but more to the attitude of the bishops to the basic narrative of their faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 again...you muddle the whole thing and create an argument where none exists by saying 'need'. He did not 'need' to. He chose to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1345258841' post='2469515'] again...you muddle the whole thing and create an argument where none exists by saying 'need'. He did not 'need' to. He chose to. [/quote] You're reading something in that isn't there. I didn't say that theology claims that Jesus needed to die, I said the normal answer begs the question, and the answer, including the one you indicated, is what breaks down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Tl;dw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 nope. the answer does not break down because the question is flawed. fix the question and you'll get a satisfactory answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r2Dtoo Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Ok, so I'm about 20 minutes into this, and I think I'm going to take a break and watch the rest of this later. My thoughts thus far... I think both Hasan and Aragon failed to realize Zizek's point of asking "Why did God have to die?" was actually to prove that the Christian God is a narcissist. I've heard this viewpoint before and it was interesting the first time, but ultimately, as an atheist I feel in depth personality analysis of someone's god is akin to doing the same with Frodo Baggins. Quaintness is only fun for the first five minutes, and just gets silly after that. What I did find interesting on the other hand was his interpretation of "Hate your father and your mother" to represent the social and political orders. Perhaps that is correct, but his immediate conclusion that this results in an egalitarian society is quite rash and fails to take into account the most of Christian history. I also found his association of the Holy Spirit with egalitarianism bizarre. People who come from communist countries are strange indeed. Then again so are the Evangelicals I know. It's interesting to see how much they both strangely have in common. Christianity is egalitarian, and the religion's history is irrelevant. Next thing you know he'll be wiping his nose and picking at his shirt in a Protestant charismatic congregation. Amusing take on the Book of Job. I've never read it, but seeing nihilism in it is quite rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now