Slovene version: www.delo.si/index.php?sv_path=41,104,124833

     by seba on March 16, 2006 at 9:59 am

This guy has a lot of interesting stuff to say. I’m not saying I agree with all of it, but he raises valid point!

     by Katja on March 16, 2006 at 11:05 am

Yeah, well, the people of Delo have some problems with accurate reading:Žižek (NYT): "Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow."Delo: "Žižek piše, da kršÄ?anski, muslimanski in hindujski fundamentalisti le zlorabljajo in sprevraÄ?ajo plemenito duhovno sporoÄ?ilo njihovih ver."

     by Luka on March 16, 2006 at 12:36 pm

I love this. That is exactly what I’ve been saying for years now: not all but most believers in organized religions are hypocrits… they do good deeds to get something in return.  Somekind of a free-trade with morality: "Give me paradise and I’ll believe in you." The true essence of morality is spot on in this article. Yet ironically it’s useless. Preaching to Fundamentalists is like banging one’s head against a brick wall hoping it’d collapse. All you’ll end up is a concusion. Or decapitation.

     by freddie on March 16, 2006 at 12:38 pm

simply amazing how quickly the debate on the article in the delo link strays from the actual article and degenerates into an all out full scale flame war. pigheadedness is a bitch…

     by Cornelius on March 16, 2006 at 12:45 pm

Cornelius: "Pigheadedness is a bitch…"Indeed, but it’s also Slovenia’s national sport

     by Luka on March 16, 2006 at 12:57 pm

Well, one has to keep in mind that Slavoj likes to provoke. I mean, he is lucid and undoubtedly one of the great philosophers of our time. But I honestly cannot agree with the last two paragraphs. Things are not black or white - that’s a bushist way of thinking. IMHO it’s not about hurting one’s religious feelings, but about respecting one’s beliefs. You know the old definition that the freedom of one ends where freedom of another begins… But what Zizek proposes is in essence an atheistic logic - relativism is sine qua non for atheism, whereas belief in absolute truth is necesary for any religious belief.Religion obviously does not conform to critical analysis. It like trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum. It just doesn’t work. What is needed now is extreme tolerance by all "parties". Fundamentalists of any persuasion (yes, even the atheist ones) are lately gaining ground, claiming that they (and only they) know the truth. Talking…. we have to talk and debate things. I’m not a religious person. But I will do my damnest to try to understand someone who is religious. And if I do something that offends this person, I will apologize. Not because I’m patronizing him/her, but because I hurt another human being. And if I feel that the other person is overreacting, I will try to explain my point of view - for I too have beliefs.If only people would not feel so insecure and wouldn’t impose their beliefs on others. What if we’re all wrong?

     by pengovsky on March 16, 2006 at 2:34 pm

@pengovsky: Oh, no, I feel a flaming debate rising. Actually, the last two paragraphs are the only ones which I agree completely with:  "While a true atheist has no need to boost his own stance by provoking believers with blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem of the Muhammad caricatures to one of respect for other’s beliefs. Respect for other’s beliefs as the highest value can mean only one of two things: either we treat the other in a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the relativist stance of multiple "regimes of truth," disqualifying as violent imposition any clear insistence on truth. What, however, about submitting Islam — together with all other religions — to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as serious adults responsible for their beliefs."pengovsky: "Religion obviously does not conform to critical analysis." Of course it doesn’t. But this is certenely not a reason for not submitting it to (critical analysis, that is).pengovsky: "What is needed now is extreme tolerance by all "parties"." OMG! Well, at least I can save myself by saying that I’m against extremism in any form. I’m more for moderate tolerance. (And I’m getting more and more moderate as times goes by).pengovsky: "And if I do something that offends this person, I will apologize. Not because I’m patronizing him/her, but because I hurt another human being." Hhhm … doesn’t "extreme tolerance", which is so "needed", imply not being offended by actions that are not intentionally offensive? Example: I may offend a hindu by eating "goveja juha" or watching the "corrida". Should I apologize? I don’t think so (at least when I’m not doing this in India).

     by Luka on March 16, 2006 at 3:18 pm

btw, for those of you, who can read slovene, here’s marko crnkovic’s take on the article: www.dnevnik.si/clanek.asp?id=170538

     by Cornelius on March 16, 2006 at 3:46 pm

pengovsky: We probably ARE all wrong. And atheism accepts that possibility. The virtue of atheism is simply that it doesn’t claim it knows everything there is to know about life and universe (although agnosticism takes that idea even further). What I think Zizek was trying express is the art of coexisting. "Agree to disagree" kind of logic.

     by freddie on March 16, 2006 at 3:50 pm

Freddie made a good point. Actually, I believe that the "agree to disagree" logic is a conditio sine qua non for any productive debate between people of different convictions. And although Žižek is often percieved as a radical, extremist itd. author, a careful reading of his texts reveale a sensible thinker, who is very well capable of writing about, say, theological stuff from a Christian point of view. in short: I like the guy (although I often completely disagree with his points). And I like him precisely because he’s always prepared to put truth (that is: what he, through his critical analysis, percieves as truth) before anything other: respect, political corectness, convenience, other’s feelings etc. … That’s why he’d never be a good polititian …

     by Luka on March 16, 2006 at 4:28 pm

I’m not going to say much except to add that I have a problem when someone tries to tell me what I believe is WRONG.  I can never fully understand any religion that tries to tear down another’s system of beliefs – I know that I would never try to do that to anyone else solely so I can ‘prove’ that I am correct.    There is no winner in such an argument.  I think that some people play the victim or evangelize simply because it makes them feel that much more superior and secure in their own belief, and for no other reason.It’s when religious beliefs collide (“You’re a “______” on a holy “______” site – now you’ve made it unclean!” etc) that we run into trouble.  About ten years ago for work I used to travel frequently with some buyers from Saudi Arabia.  Very often we would negotiate purchases from companies having Jewish representatives at a show.  It was just business – no one brought up religion, even though many of these people were obviously orthodox Jews, and my clients were obviously Arabic.  One of the Saudis, Akram, used to say “We’re all cousins anyway.”  (Although when we sent them a shipment of globes we had to have someone take a permanent marker and get rid of Israel)  But I digress… …My point is that I think it’s such a shame that some of us can’t get along since a lot of these religions all have the same roots anyway.  It’s just a matter of how some groups’ history continued and their beliefs evolved that created these differences, and it’s almost inconceivable to me that these differences cannot be respected.

     by Susan on March 16, 2006 at 5:18 pm

@freedie: this may be semantics, but atheism only denies the existence of a omnipotent entitiy. It does not do anything else. @Luka: I think you’d agree that the cartoons of Muhammad and eating goveja juha are two slightly different things. And you yourself said that you might reconsider that while in India. Why? The cartoons of Muhammad were intentionally offensive. So it is absolutely ridiculous that the "freedom-of-speech" argument was used. As for Zizek putting the truth first, I believe it only proves my point (if there ever was any) - just as the religions he so critisizes, he also seeks truth. In that respect atheism and theism (religions) are no differend. Only the modus operandi is different.Logic dictates that atheism is therefore no better (or worse) than any other religion. It has in fact become a religion unto itself.And by "submitting Islam — together with all other religions — to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis?" is a highly arrogant presumtion that only critical analysis gives all the answers. What Zizek’s text tells me does not really concern religion. Instead it tells me that Zizek (like the Danish Yllands Posten daily) is unable to shake loose the Euro-centric attitude which is - truth be said - borne out of christian-atheist struggle that has been raging on since the days of the Reinassance.But Zizek forgest that Islam is not Christianity and that there are numerous other factors to be taken into account when one tries to understand Islam and Muslims today. Instead he proposes (in essence) that Islam be exposed to the set of rules  that are in effect in the western world today. That simply cannot be done. THAT is a recipy for disaster.

     by pengovsky on March 16, 2006 at 6:50 pm

@pengovsky: hhm … I don’t remember mentioning anything about cartoons …"It is a highly arrogant presumtion that only critical analysis gives all the answers." I don’t think Å½ižek wants critical analysis to "give all the anwsers": as a matter of fact, I have a feeling he xpects it only to be critically analytic That’s why I also believe your statement that "what Zizek’s text tells me does not really concern religion." misses its point: if he wanted to say something on religion, he’d write a theological treatise; instead, he wanted to say something about that concerns our world and the possibilities of a tolerant co-habitation within this secular phrame. This in fact does "tell us that Zizek is unable (or should we say unwilling?) to shake loose the Euro-centric attitude", but I’m not sure how is this something to be blamed of? (Isn’t philosophy as such -as well as theology- a truly and thouroughly western concept? How can he be, as a philosopher, non-europo-centric, and why shouldn’t he be?)

     by Luka on March 16, 2006 at 7:52 pm

Granted, you didn’t mention cartoons, but Zizek did - indeed he built his text on that particular row. Obviously philosophy and theology are not western concepts. Islam is the very proof of that. Need I remind you of Confucianism, Taoism and other philosophical concepts that are "indigineous" to Asia? It might me that I wasn’t entirely clear in my last post. I don’t hold Zizek’s secular views as such agains him. But the fact is that we (Westerners, if you will) - who have been living with the dihothomy between secular and religious for some 500 years now, expect Islam (in this case) to conform to the same set of rules that it took us half a millenium to create - and we are still creating them. Muslim religion was never an "equal partner" in this process and thus it is thoroughly unfair of (secular) Westerners to expect it to play by the same set of rules (values, if you will) that has evolved in the Chirstian-secular tug of war. Now that Islam has joined the game, the rules will have to be adapted. And I fail to see Zizek proposing that.

     by pengovsky on March 16, 2006 at 9:30 pm

"Žižek vs. The Lord"Who won? Should I read it or wait for the movie? 

     by lemuel kolkava on March 16, 2006 at 9:58 pm

Pengovsky: "Obviously philosophy and theology are not western concepts." OK, I may have exaggerated with theology: Islamic theology is in fact in fact quite close to the Christian one (how wouldn’t it it be, since Mohammed stole almost everything from the Bible). But I have to insist that philosophy is a western concept. Of course, there have existed wise men in the East (and who knows, maybe they were wiser than Westerners), but being wise is not yet philosophy. In fact, philosophy is such a Western concept (with a very clearly traceble and unified tradition) that calling Confucious or Lao-Tze philosophers is anEuro-centric act; did they call themselves philosophers? Do they call them philosophers? I don’t think so."It is thoroughly unfair of (secular) Westerners to expect it to play by the same set of rules (values, if you will) that has evolved in the Chirstian-secular tug of war." I actually do agree with you on that one: I just don’t see how is this in contrast with Žižek’s writing. I don’t expect the relation between State and Religion in, say, Malasyia to be regulated as I please … but that doesn’t mean that I can’t analyse Islam as I please and draw schetches of Mohammed in my newspapers? Or does it?What Žižek is saying, is that we cannot put tolerance as the highest value, because … well, because- read the quote above.

     by Luka on March 16, 2006 at 10:59 pm

pengovsky: several scholars of asian studies argue that the term “philosophy” is mis-aplied when it’s used to refer to taoism, buddhism, confucianism and so on. these are, of course, schools of thought, and do share some similarities to “western philosophy” as we know it. the asian schools of thought differ from their european counterparts in many fundamental aspects though, such as perception of reality, time or logic. indeed, the chinese word for philosophy is a fairly recent addition to the language - up until modern times confucianism or buddhism were never percieved as philosophical schools, but merely as councils of wise elders. this is not to say that the asian schools of thought are any less significant than the european ones, i’m just pointing out that philosophy as a science is, as luka stated, an intrinsicaly european invention.
lemuel: i hear nothing is really resolved until “ŽvTL Part three: The Son of Žižek”.

     by Cornelius on March 16, 2006 at 11:09 pm

To me atheism is a religion, not much different from christianity or hinduism (in the respect of non-provability of their main philosophical stance). And it is an old idea too, one can read about some remnants of atheist thought in ancient literature like mahAbhArata (it is named lokayata philosophy). Atheism per se has no value to me (for instance as a religion imposed by state or by education, medical science etc…) Btw, the body count of atheist religion is by millions higher than the body count of all religions together. Only in a secular state where it manages to present itself as a opposing position of catholic wish for a theocratic state, it gains some value. So if I would value anything of modern European tradition, it would be secularism, not atheism. Yes, any religion, including muslim (as well as materialist-atheism), should be submitted to critical analysis - their believes, their social practices, etc every ascpect of it. Hopefully also islam will evolve under such pressure, but it is a fight that will mainly have to be fought inside islamic states and thought. Usually one can hear about 3 monotheist religions that believe in the same god. This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Even the Bible doesn’t teach the about the same god (compare the god of the old testament and the God of Jesus). Not to mention the Koran and its Alah, who is just another vengeful bully, not much different from some Ares - oh, yeah, he is the only one, who cares.Up to now it seems, the sufism is a deviation of islam and the assasins give the true interpretation of Koran. @Luka: I may offend a hindu by eating "goveja juha" or watching the "corrida". Should I apologize? I don’t think so (at least when I’m not doing this in India).You would offend a hindu fundamentalist (maybe), but not a hindu, a hindu probably couldn’t care less about what you are doing. Maybe they don’t have corridas in India (not sure), but they have the "a bunch of crazy people running before mad bulls" shows… ;)And I have heard (and seen on TV too), about much worse forms of celebration in both countries in Spain and India (worse = inhumane). @Luka: Isn’t philosophy as such -as well as theology- a truly and thouroughly western concept? How can he be, as a philosopher, non-europo-centric, and why shouldn’t he be?No. (And neither is science.) There were many Indian philosophers of various philosophic schools (and religions) long before Greeks, only todays philosophical books are still largely eurocentrist. saMkhya is generally considered the oldest Indian vedic-based philosophy. Their term is daršana - dRš means ‘to see’ and daršana is a ‘pogled’, ‘a view’ - a world view. If you thought that Demokrit was the first who spoke about atomist theory, you are wrong, it was saMkhya. Also there are other views, like nyaya (logic), yoga, mimaMsa, vedanta, non-vedic - jain philosophy and atheist philosophy and probably a few more. Maybe confucianism or buddhism were not percieved as philosophical schools (don’t know), but the Indian ones were just that, competing schools, with declared world-view, literary tradition and works, proponents, oposers, criticism, verbal competition and disputes, new developments, etc…  

     by Nikolaj on March 17, 2006 at 4:02 pm

Luka - I was very interested in that point you raised where you implied that there was a problems with the Delo translation.  Would you be able to summarise the differences?  I don’t read Slovene.   

     by looby on March 18, 2006 at 9:43 pm

@looby: The article in Delo is not a translation, it’s just a summary. And they’ve summarized the part where Žižek writes:"Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow."as"Žižek writes that Christian, Muslim and Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual message of their creeds." 

     by Luka on March 19, 2006 at 2:02 am

@Niko: I’ve written the part about the Hindus and the Beef soup just to point out the exaggeration of Pengovsky’s point of view.Regarding Indian philosophy, you are probably right (I don’t know much on the matter). But nevertheless, when we today talk of philosophy, we have in mind a unified and easily traceble western tradition, with a single source. This is what we call philosophy, with the Greeks providing both the name and its basic relationship towards other (religious, social, political etc.) practices; regardless of other (relevant) thinkers in other traditions. When a school of very influent Indian philosophers will arise and they will base their thinking both on western tradition and Indian traditions, then (and only then) we will be able to say that philosophy has ceased to be an exquisitly western concept.

     by Luka on March 19, 2006 at 2:18 am

@Luka: I’ve written the part about the Hindus and the Beef soup just to point out the exaggeration of Pengovsky’s point of view.I just wanted to refine your statement to make it more precise.@Luka: Regarding Indian philosophy, you are probably right (I don’t know much on the matter). I have put some excerpts about Indian science and philosophy here (check for instance III.2.6.3 Discussion of philosophical import - in mahAbhASya - a commentary on pANinis grammar of Sanskrit). Of course, the problem is that when Greeks discuss types (Socrates?), that is called philosophy; when Indians do, that is at best called "school of thought", but more often it is called voodoo (or new age). When Kierkegaard defines stages of life it is philosophy, when various ancient Indian thinkers do the same thing it again isn’t. @Luka: But nevertheless, when we today talk of philosophy, we have in mind a unified and easily traceble western tradition, with a single source. What were the connections between ancient Greeks and other peoples (Persians, Indians)? Single source in Persia? Or India? How much did the Greeks borrow from them? (ÄŒedomir VeljaÄ?iÄ? has one nice book about the question, also translated into Slovene - original title is ‘Filozofija istoÄ?nih naroda’, his bibliography is here). There is no such thing as single source in the field of philosophy. @Luka: This is what we call philosophy, with the Greeks providing both the name and its basic relationship towards other (religious, social, political etc.) practices; regardless of other (relevant) thinkers in other traditions. Name is irrelevant. If it has wheels and I must pedal to move, it is a bycicle, no matter if someone else calles it ‘chicken’ or ‘dvonožno guralo’. @Luka: When a school of very influent Indian philosophers will arise and they will base their thinking both on western tradition and Indian traditions, then (and only then) we will be able to say that philosophy has ceased to be an exquisitly western concept. You failed to see that modern philosophers were already largely influenced by and picked up or modelled some of their theories on Indian traditions. Even if I would accept the Greek origin of philosophy (but I don’t), at this point it stopped being an exclusively western concept. Why must it be based on both? Why someone who bases his thought on non-western tradition only, wouldn’t be considered a philosopher and his views philosophy? Was Radhakrishnan a philosopher (bibliography), although he is not so well known as for instance Nietsche?

     by Nikolaj on March 20, 2006 at 12:43 pm

Lemuel: you are wondering who won?

     by jaKa on March 21, 2006 at 10:58 am

Running of the bulls in India (Jallikattu): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallikattu

     by Nikolaj on April 25, 2006 at 2:26 pm