I remember very well when I first saw him in Laibach/NSK documentary PREDICTIONS OF FIRE (if someone has not seen it, I REALLY recommend to view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT_-g0Anez0 ) back in the 90's, this Zizek character stood out as kind of neurotic rambling philosopher who was putting many things into perspective quite well. With unmistaken style of broken english language.
During the years I came across him once in a while, but now he really is perhaps my favorite communist!
Couple short pieces:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvjGOncSyHM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ
And those who want to dig deeper into his quite interesting visions as well as usefullness of those in basically any ehm.. "radical"(?) thinking, will find plenty.
Documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiLFV-xtZ0E
And you will nowadays find hours and hours of his speeches from youtube.
total genious
I have read everything i could find of him in Italian/English.
Discovered him when I was working in comics and I was deeply searching for actual critical articles not written by zinesters.
His mix of Marz&Lacan didn't close his eyes and is just a beginning.
Definitely one of the commies to re-discover for those who don't know much.
Check also some works by Bordiga (quite difficult), Althusser and of course Gramsci.
Some great provocative Zizek quotes:
"Nazism was not radical enough, it did not dare to disturb the basic structure of the modern capitalist social space (which is why it had to invent and focus on destroying an external enemy, Jews). This is why one should oppose the fascination with Hitler according to which Hitler was, of course, a bad guy, responsible for the death of millions–but he definitely had balls, he pursued with iron will what he wanted. ... This point is not only ethically repulsive, but simply wrong: no, Hitler did not 'have the balls' to really change things; he did not really act, all his actions were fundamentally reactions, i.e., he acted so that nothing would really change, he stages a big spectacle of Revolution so that the capitalist order could survive."
"Liberal attitudes towards the other are characterized both by respect for otherness, openness to it, and an obsessive fear of harassment. In
short, the other is welcomed insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as it is not really the other. Tolerance thus coincides with its opposite.
My duty to be tolerant towards the other effectively means that I should not get too close to him or her, not intrude into his space—in short, that I should respect his intolerance towards my over-proximity. This is increasingly emerging as the central human right of advanced capitalist society:
the right not to be 'harassed', that is, to be kept at a safe distance from others" (from 'Against Human Rights')
"In other words, multiculturalism is a disavowed, inverted, self-referential form of racism, a 'racism with a distance'—it 'respects' the Other's identity, conceiving the Other as a self-enclosed 'authentic' community towards which he, the multiculturalist, maintains a distance rendered
possible by his privileged universal position. Multiculturalism is a racism which empties its own position of all positive content (the multiculturalist is not a direct racist, he doesn't oppose to the Other the particular values of his own culture), but nonetheless retains this position as the privileged empty point of universality from which one is able to appreciate (and depreciate) properly other particular cultures—the multiculturalist respect for the Other's specificity is the very form of asserting one's own superiority"
I also enjoy some of Jacques Camatte's leftist theory although the English translations are sometimes difficult to follow and my French isn't very good.
I have not read his books. Probably should. Listened several hours of lectures and watched documents. Also was today reading one of the many Laibach books and it included few of his quotes.
He explains in some of the pieces that many of his statements are filled with irony, that what he says, is to be taken as as such. Therefore, for the simple mind, some of the statements that in could be questions in presented via irony, are seen as somewhat political statements, which they may not be.
Like, the above mentioned nazi revolution for capitalism to survive - you can take a look in Mein Kampf or other books on topic which conclude that marxism didn't really make any revolution, merely offer bastard son for capitalism. Meaning, the materialistic worldview. Certainly he could come with something better than that, I'm sure.
I have not looked if any of his works have been translated into Finnish, but as far as english material goes, I'm more fascinated by the way he expresses himself, with all the body movements, rubbing his nose in ever 5 seconds, wiping his hair about ever 2nd time he rubs his nose, etc.. than to read the same in text. His way of pronouncing english is extremely easy to follow for me - even easier than properly spoken english.
There's a book in finnish called Heidegger, Zizek ja vallankumous.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 14, 2013, 08:41:46 PM
Like, the above mentioned nazi revolution for capitalism to survive - you can take a look in Mein Kampf or other books on topic which conclude that marxism didn't really make any revolution, merely offer bastard son for capitalism. Meaning, the materialistic worldview. Certainly he could come with something better than that, I'm sure.
I have not looked if any of his works have been translated into Finnish, but as far as english material goes, I'm more fascinated by the way he expresses himself, with all the body movements, rubbing his nose in ever 5 seconds, wiping his hair about ever 2nd time he rubs his nose, etc.. than to read the same in text. His way of pronouncing english is extremely easy to follow for me - even easier than properly spoken english.
He does also say that the entire twentieth century's attempts at communism were nothing but a failure - many of the outmoded old-school left hate him for that. Of course he was also campaigning for the end of state socialism in Yugoslavia many years ago. The people I know personally who lived through the early 90s in the area are still traumatised, both Serbians and Bosnians. It was a fucking horrible situation for ordinary people or non-political artists caught up in that mess.
Yes his voice and mannerisms are fascinating. I imagine this guy spitting out a whole basin full of phlegm from his throat every morning.
If the ultra-radical revolution he claims to desire happened, of course he'd lose his fees from lectures and books, he'd lose his academic tenures, lose his sense of prestige and being a public figure. No wonder he says he wants people to think rather than act!
Zizek must have the itchiest nose ever.
Quote from: Vigilante Ecstasy on March 15, 2013, 02:03:20 AM
Zizek must have the itchiest nose ever.
- or the world's most expensive cocaine habit ?
Quote from: HongKongGoolagong on March 15, 2013, 12:10:48 AM
He does also say that the entire twentieth century's attempts at communism were nothing but a failure - many of the outmoded old-school left hate him for that. Of course he was also campaigning for the end of state socialism in Yugoslavia many years ago. The people I know personally who lived through the early 90s in the area are still traumatised, both Serbians and Bosnians. It was a fucking horrible situation for ordinary people or non-political artists caught up in that mess.
If the ultra-radical revolution he claims to desire happened, of course he'd lose his fees from lectures and books, he'd lose his academic tenures, lose his sense of prestige and being a public figure. No wonder he says he wants people to think rather than act!
This is true. I didn't mean his observation was incorrect from the perspective he had, but in same ways as many communist see capitalism and national socialism offer the "same thing", there is very similar logic of where from perspective of NS the materialist worldviews (marxism/capitalism) represent the same thing AND from perspective of capitalism, authoritarian and politically disturbing ideas of communism and national socialism represent the "same thing" opposed to it.
Of course every tumult comes with misfortune and suffering for the ordinary people, but as Zizek easily explains, we've reached the level where so many things indicate that things have gone too far. It results re-evaluation of values and political ideas. Most likely, this would not mean more freedom and more excess of pleasures or any kind. But some sort of suffering and misfortune from capitalist point of view.
I think what he says about people to think rather than act is very true. He explains it very well, showing examples. And this is what has been one of my distastes of "semi-leftist" lifestyle activists. Where it's all basically just bohemian lifestyle. Guys taking part in every demonstration against this and that subject, dreaming of new equal world, but the strategy is attempt of finetuning the existing system. But many of the problems (if you want to call them that) are intrinsic qualities of the system. And unless there are massive ideological directions changed, this finetuning simply won't give any real results.
I don't remember what of the many talks included this his logic of using term "communism". He laughs saying its a "slight" understatement to say people have prejudice when they hear such word, due the history. But it is simply used to indicate that he is not talking of simply finetuning the existing model (like social-democrats or such), but
changing it. I think this same is easy to apply on for example fascism or national socialism. It carries baggage even heavier. One could say that no man with any sort of sense would want to carry such extra baggage, but it might be necessary to make clear, that aim is not to finetune the existing bourgeois right wing capitalism, but something else. Yet still, conclude that it is not attempt to re-create all the mistakes and horrors of the history, but critical evaluation of politics, intentions, potential results etc. Make evaluation of usefulness of tactics, terminology, etc.
Props for thread. Food for thought. Personally I have only seen material of him online and read some texts and articles. So far it have been interesting reads. If anyone have any good recommendations on his books please feel free to mention a few, or other radical philosophers. As Mikko pointed out Zizek might be labelled radical in the circles he moves, I'd appreciate pointers on texts and writers that truly are in the trenches - at least from our point of view.
New York Public Library LIVE:
Nathaniel Rich in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek: Worst-Case Scenarios.
http://www.nypl.org/events/programs/2013/04/08/nathaniel-rich?nref=56896 (http://www.nypl.org/events/programs/2013/04/08/nathaniel-rich?nref=56896)
This one is really impressive person. Actually I am not a big fan of him or anything in philosophy that is connected to Marxism (exception would be Hegel), but I am surrounded with my study-friends that are big fans of this philosopher and others connected to him. Sometimes I have a feeling that he is exploiting philosophy in the methods of capitalism to criticize capitalism itself (his huge talent on blitz-impressions). On one hand I admire him, on another - he is a hypocrite with huge talent that helps him to be such a good hypocrite.
Actually to understand this guy (in talking and writing) you must have, at least average, background of Freud, Hegel, Lacan (this one is fundamentally important) and Marx studies.
Quote from: HongKongGoolagong on March 14, 2013, 06:47:22 PM
I also enjoy some of Jacques Camatte's leftist theory although the English translations are sometimes difficult to follow and my French isn't very good.
Camatte's 'On Organization' is an absolute must read. But yeah, finding a good translation is tough. The Camatte stuff I have is atrociously translated, but still well worth the read.
I think it's not necessary to scare potentially interested people by saying that it would be fundamentally important to understand works /theories of Lacan, Marx or Hegel etc to get things out of Zizek.
Maybe even the opposite? Of course it's useful to know terminology and the usual key ideas, that you don't always fall off the thought pattern if he mentions few basic philosophical concepts without elaborating it any further. But, I think one of his goals might be, to popularize and to explain these ideas with more understandable manner. To make their ideas make sense for.. ehm, common people?
Hegel would be certainly very interesting topic of discussion, but I'm thinking "noise forum", hah, as good as it could be, is still very limited in possibilities what it could bring to discussion of ultimate key figures of western philosophy what should be probably things you've been taught at school... ? Or do they? I don't know how education works in different countries. In one hand, I have my doubts if german idealism would hit the schooling program in... for example usa.. before very special university level..? But certainly very much european, very much topic of old industrial. And if someone concludes they know absolutely nothing who is this Hegel character, I recommend to start with google..!
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 17, 2013, 08:36:33 PM
I think it's not necessary to scare potentially interested people by saying that it would be fundamentally important to understand works /theories of Lacan, Marx or Hegel etc to get things out of Zizek.
Maybe even the opposite? Of course it's useful to know terminology and the usual key ideas, that you don't always fall off the thought pattern if he mentions few basic philosophical concepts without elaborating it any further. But, I think one of his goals might be, to popularize and to explain these ideas with more understandable manner. To make their ideas make sense for.. ehm, common people?
Hegel would be certainly very interesting topic of discussion, but I'm thinking "noise forum", hah, as good as it could be, is still very limited in possibilities what it could bring to discussion of ultimate key figures of western philosophy what should be probably things you've been taught at school... ? Or do they? I don't know how education works in different countries. In one hand, I have my doubts if german idealism would hit the schooling program in... for example usa.. before very special university level..? But certainly very much european, very much topic of old industrial. And if someone concludes they know absolutely nothing who is this Hegel character, I recommend to start with google..!
You're right on this one, if we talk about scaring people that might be interested. I look into it from my every-day-bread point of view, but yes you can understand Zizek without authors mentioned, but still, I think that person can't do it deeply enough (of course you need to be willing to do that...rarely people are motivated to give themselves such a brainwork) if you don't know those philosophers I mentioned earlier. I don't know, I am kind of strict when talking about this, but lets leave it as it is for now.
And yes yes yes - Hegel! it is
a priori mandatory philosopher. I am starting to study his works now (I was doing it for a lot of times, but that studies were not constructive enough). And I think Hegel is really "not welcome" in schools and believe me or not it is politics to blame (and of course complexity of Hegels writings must not be forgotten). People still makes simple reductions Hegel=Marx=Bolsheviks (and they sometimes do the same with Plato in the way that they blame his works of being inspiration of totalitarianism and even national-socialism. bullshit).
Anyway we need to admit that
german idealism with the Hegel up in front is the key to the European reasoning and intelectual heritage; this topic is hot now more then ever, even if someone is trying to deny it. If someone is into discussing these authors or topics - I am in.
As for me, I am writing my masters degree final paper on connections and modifications that were established
between Hegel and Sartre and
in Sartre's works. And I can tell you - it is damn fundamental and interesting (Hegel and Sartre).
Of course Hegel would disgust anyone who considers individual overtly important. And that's one of reasons he is so essential in modern times, when he basically offers this opposite current.
Putting Hegel together with Marxism might turn off people, so could be very easy to quickly remind that he represents german idealism. Marxism is basically opposite, being materialist worldview (some would call it realism). The fact that Hegel would present State as ultimate form of spirit, would be of course repulsive for individualists, but it's influence is extremely wide.
Looking from Finnish perspective, JV Snellman for example, follows very much of his footsteps. Finlands national philosopher is one to thank to be one of the most powerful "fennomans" of 1800's, with strong role in developing language, own currency etc.
That accepting idea that State is the highest form of spirit, may lead to totalitarianism, is true. It may lead to other things as well. We can only see it when we see end result. I may like Hegel, yet I often prefer those who just took key elements of his works and proceeded further. Perhaps good way of seeing the spirit in movement or transition, taking shapes and forms.
I'm pretty divided on Zizek, though, perhaps less so than I am for the other pop-P.M.ists. Unfortunately I landed on Baudrillard before Debord, and I'll admit that in my formative years I really felt there was something to the general Post-Marxian, Post-Freudian, Post-Saussurean line of critique, but I've grown skeptical of the value of the synthesis of largely discredited ideas beyond being "works of art (for art's sake)"
I still revisit a handful of works by Freud and Marx (Civilization And It's Discontents, the sections on alienation and Hegel in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, and Capital, to name but a few) but I strongly think that these currents paint themselves into a corner if they fail to acknowledge the more empirical insights coming out of fields like sociobiology/evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, anthropology, genetics etc.
I admire Zizek's style, as I'm sure most of his fans here do too, but I disagree with him on so much, and sometimes I think that there is perhaps very little there beyond style. I can't fathom that consciousness is opaque, when we've recently reconstructed sound and vision as it is reconstructed in the brain (primitively at best, but the field is still in it's infancy) and all sorts of other advancements with fMRI and SPECT and whatnot. My thoughts on this are more inline with the eliminativism of Feyerabend, though not the strong form of that position taken up by Paul and Patricia Churchland. Alas, all of this is speculative in theory and practice, and the taking of strong positions one way or the other seems premature, to me. I've also been a lifelong student of Surrealism, and I see contradiction as a fertile ground for growth, not a fault. What's needed is a synthesis that takes into account new ideas and concepts, not a rehashing of ideas that more or less stopped developing decades ago.
Hegel is certainly important, if only as a starting point for modern radical thought, as is Feuerbach and some of the other Young Hegelians, as well as some of the much less well known names on the Hegelian right, but Stirner (who was also one of the Young Hegelians, albeit the black sheep of the bunch) in my opinion anyway, destroyed much of their ideology a long time ago. Still, one wouldn't learn much from Stirner's polemic if they had no basis in the Hegelian modes of reasoning that it was attacking, which again, underscores the importance of Hegel as a starting point. Furthermore, many critics have pointed out the Hegelian character of Stirner's own critique of the Hegelians.
EDIT: I should add that I'm generally skeptical of any kind of totalizing unity of thought coming from the natural sciences alone, just as I am skeptical of the same coming from continental philosophy. Still, science has shown itself to be useful in answering certain kinds of questions, and those answers should be incorporated into a totalizing critique. I'm a romanticist at heart, but perhaps we need a kind of analytical-romanticism.
also: I should add that I favour Nietzsche, Stirner, Kierkegaard, even Heidegger to Hegel.
FINALLY: I'd take Zizek's communism over these guys: http://revcom.us/a/256/vilifying_communism_and_accommodating_imperialism-en.html ANY FUCKING DAY OF THE WEEK!!!
Quote from: redswordwhiteplough on March 14, 2013, 11:29:45 PM
There's a book in finnish called Heidegger, Zizek ja vallankumous.
Very good book! Took while to buy it, and doesn't appear to be kind of book to hit the discount bin, so just went for the regular priced edition.
This book is more about Heidegger than Zizek. Basically the name says it all: "Heidegger, Zizek and revolution". It observes most of all revolutionary spirit in Heidegger and mirrored through support or criticism of Zizek. Both of these guys representing the idea of necessity that philosophy is not removed from life. That it's not just theory or understanding existence, but invades into concrete human life and politics. It observes criticism towards Heidegger from vast number of sources and different philosophical stands. While it is surprisingly objective and neutral about national socialism (what obviously comes up in case of Heidegger) it does present some tough questions and criticism towards everybody, exposing fragile parts of all mentioned people.
However, the key to whole book is the notion of philosophy and understanding of life as integral part of life, as opposed to separating the two for sake of "pure philosophy". Recommended!
Book exists only in Finnish.
While going up north couple weeks ago, found from bookstore another finnish language Zizek book:
POLITIIKKAA, IDIOOTTI! - vastakkainasetteluja Zizekin kanssa.
Part of the finnish left pamphlet series "into". Operated by Voima newspaper related staff. Book contains translations of various Zizek pieces, which most of all - like name suggests ("Politics, idiot!") steps back from current post-political tendency back to strong oppositions and basic roots of politics. Besides 84 pages of selected pieces, there is 50 pages interview (exclusive for the book) and perhaps very good idea for such educational book, additional appendix with short information of various people and terms mentioned in the book. Cheap and neat. Same series of books includes some works of Pentti Linkola, but most of all appears to be pretty much just rubbish. This book, however, is good one.
ive ripped a bunch of his lectures from youtube into mp3s. very cool guy!
The Pervert's Guide to IdeologyQuoteSynopsis
Cultural theorist superstar Slavoj Žižek re-teams with director Sophie Fiennes ("The Pervert's Guide to Cinema") for another wildly entertaining romp through the crossroads of cinema and philosophy. With infectious zeal and a voracious appetite for popular culture, Žižek literally goes inside some truly epochal movies, all the better to explore and expose how they reinforce prevailing ideologies. As the ideology that undergirds our cinematic fantasies is revealed, striking associations emerge: What hidden Catholic teachings lurk at the heart of "The Sound of Music?" What are the fascist political dimensions of "Jaws?" "Taxi Driver," "Zabriskie Point," "The Searchers," "The Dark Knight," John Carpenter's "They Live," and propaganda epics from Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia all inform Žižek's stimulating, provocative and often hilarious psychoanalytic-cinematic rant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUKbhKV7Ia8
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on July 22, 2013, 05:14:58 PM
Quote from: redswordwhiteplough on March 14, 2013, 11:29:45 PM
There's a book in finnish called Heidegger, Zizek ja vallankumous.
Very good book! Took while to buy it, and doesn't appear to be kind of book to hit the discount bin, so just went for the regular priced edition.
This book is more about Heidegger than Zizek. Basically the name says it all: "Heidegger, Zizek and revolution". It observes most of all revolutionary spirit in Heidegger and mirrored through support or criticism of Zizek. Both of these guys representing the idea of necessity that philosophy is not removed from life. That it's not just theory or understanding existence, but invades into concrete human life and politics. It observes criticism towards Heidegger from vast number of sources and different philosophical stands. While it is surprisingly objective and neutral about national socialism (what obviously comes up in case of Heidegger) it does present some tough questions and criticism towards everybody, exposing fragile parts of all mentioned people.
However, the key to whole book is the notion of philosophy and understanding of life as integral part of life, as opposed to separating the two for sake of "pure philosophy". Recommended!
Book exists only in Finnish.
Update! This book is actually now available in english!
https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/perspectives-of-critical-theory-and-education/heidegger-zizek-and-revolution/
Why did Martin Heidegger, the giant of continental philosophy, believe in 1933 that Hitler is the future of Europe? And why does Slavoj Žižek, "the most dangerous philosopher in the West", support Heidegger's right wing militancy?
Heidegger and Žižek are not only erudite thinkers on human being but also incorrigible revolutionaries who even after the catastrophic failures of their favourite revolutions – the October revolution for Žižek and the National Socialist revolution for Heidegger – want to overcome capitalism; undemocratically, if necessary. The two share a spirited and sophisticated rejection of the liberalist worldview and the social order based on it. The problem is not that liberalism is factually wrong, but rather that it is ethically bad. Both argue for building and educating a new collective based on human finitude and communality. In the tradition of the Enlightenment, Žižek advocates a universalist revolution, whereas Heidegger sees the transformation rooted in particular historical existence, inviting a bewildering array of mutually exclusive criticisms and apologies of his view. The crisis that Heidegger and Žižek want to address is still here, but their unquestioned Europocentrism sets a dark cloud over the whole idea of revolution.Few chapters free PDF found in link above..
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 18, 2013, 08:59:49 AM
Putting Hegel together with Marxism might turn off people, so could be very easy to quickly remind that he represents german idealism. Marxism is basically opposite, being materialist worldview (some would call it realism). The fact that Hegel would present State as ultimate form of spirit, would be of course repulsive for individualists, but it's influence is extremely wide.
I think the crucial link between Hegel and Marx is Max Stirner, who most people just read as a 'do-whatever-you-want' individualist anarchist, which is a serious misreading. Stirner's book is primarily an attack on the 'Young Hegelians,' Feuerbach chief among them. Feuerbach's book, 'The Essence of Christianity,' says that our idea of God is really just the superlative of all 'good' human traits; knowledge, benevolence, etc. Stirner says that this idea is full of shit, and that Feuerbach has merely swapped 'God' for 'Man' (with a capital 'M'!). When Stirner says we have to ignore and be contemptuous of all 'higher concepts,' he's not trying to make us 'more free' or anything like that. It's an argument against Hegel, where the Idea trumps everything. Stirner says there are no ideas that take precedence over the immediate fact of being.
Stirner thus ruins idealism for Marx personally, leading to his embrace of materialism, and Marx devotes hundreds of pages of 'The German Ideology' to destroying Stirner.
I never read any of Zizek books but enjoyed a lot of his videos on Youtube. I thought the Laibach one kinda explains the aesthetics behind Industrial and PE somehow. The documentary on ideology was fun to watch too. I'm a fan of Marxist literature myself but I would rather talk about Georges Sorel than other Marxist figures.
I've never actually read Sorel's work either but this guy is such a myterious figure. He started as a marxist revolutionary but made his own wierd version that praises violence and stresses the impotance of myths, wrote books that would make him the father of Fascism. I heard that Mussolini (also from a marxist background) studied his works. Has anybody read the works of Sorel?
ZIZEK:
http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/migrants-racists-and-the-left/18395#.V1Pu2chpvCT
That is full of great quotes!
"My time in the US taught me that it can also have a very clear class dimension. For many middle-class academics and liberals, harassment means they cannot really stand the presence of vulgar, aggressive, ordinary people. Crying harassment is a way for the upper-middle classes – academics, intellectuals and liberals – to keep their distance from ordinary people."
That's always been the standard. The fucking middle class just can't handle being called cunts, even if they are cunts.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on June 05, 2016, 12:43:25 PM
http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/migrants-racists-and-the-left/18395#.V1Pu2chpvCT
I can only read this with the imagination of his expressions and strange movements in my head.
Today, early in the morning I watched an 1 hour interview with Zizek on TV which roughly translates as 'Down with the ideology'.
At the end he said that he just has to talk uninterrupted and continuously, because he has something like an inferiority complex, and in doing so the other has no time to realize that he is talking bullshit.
Quote from: Andrew McIntosh on June 05, 2016, 04:26:12 PM
That's always been the standard. The fucking middle class just can't handle being called cunts, even if they are cunts.
so true!
Hegel is definitely on my list. Reading around I noticed Bataille attended all of Alexandre Kojève's lectures on Hegel for enlightenment. Kojève's lectures were compiled in the book "Introduction to the Reading of Hegel". I will probably follow that up with "Hegel: A Guide for the Perplexed" and then actually read The Phenomenology of Spirit. If anyone is looking to sift over his works all online databases like Wikipedia are pretty shit. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a great page. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/#SubObjSpi
I've lost all faith in Zizek during the Covid crisis. He used to take reliably hardline stances that were courageous and earned him obscene levels of derision from Western liberal media. I was very happy when, in 2016, he endorsed Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils against Hilary Clinton. He was right, of course.
But Since Covid has started, Zizek has loudly cheered on all the insane measures that were taken. He started espousing a fundamentally false belief that Covid would stress the mode of production enough that the ruling class would have no choice but to start redistributing its wealth. That never happened. Instead, Covid was incessantly fear mongered and used to justify the largest erosion of civil liberties regarding speech, expression, and labor in modern history. When Covid proved itself to be infinitely less dangerous than was initially warned about, Zizek doubled down in his stance.
Quote from: AdamLehrerImageMaker on March 07, 2022, 05:11:24 PM
He started espousing a fundamentally false belief that Covid would stress the mode of production enough that the ruling class would have no choice but to start redistributing its wealth.
Deep down he is just a Marxist (i.e. wrong), I guess.
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 07, 2022, 05:50:05 PM
Deep down
Deep down? haha.. If that traditionally means something that is kind of hidden from outsiders...
There is couple of books in Finnish. Zizek visited Finland in past, but is not widely familiar with society or history of country. I recall watching some interview with him, where he would turn down opportunity to reply about some questions, since he did not have the knowledge to really analyze it. This was interesting, since especially in times like this, everybody is expert in everything - and to recognize a bit of intellect, may be exactly moment when someone concludes something in lines of "can't comment on that, don't know enough of it".
When he was in Finland, he did compare societies to great artists, who develop creativity, that goes into very specific peak point, and when it reaches that, there is nothing new to offer. Of course this, could be perhaps asked does this apply to Zizek as artists? As he sometimes comes up as spoken word artist, with specific style and method. We know what he does, and what can be expected. What is the NEW thing in his book, that come out basically annually?
Quote from: AdamLehrerImageMaker on March 07, 2022, 05:11:24 PM
But Since Covid has started, Zizek has loudly cheered on all the insane measures that were taken. He started espousing a fundamentally false belief that Covid would stress the mode of production enough that the ruling class would have no choice but to start redistributing its wealth. That never happened. Instead, Covid was incessantly fear mongered and used to justify the largest erosion of civil liberties regarding speech, expression, and labor in modern history. When Covid proved itself to be infinitely less dangerous than was initially warned about, Zizek doubled down in his stance.
Regardless of how one feels about the restrictions, covid was amazing example, how a lot of things, what were considered impossible to do, were done. In moment when impossible comes possible, no wonder there would be agenda to push.
Like right now, I doubt anyone would be praising what's going on in east-europe. However, since it
is happening and will effect great deal of things most people have taken as granted, unwilling for change, unwilling to even consider options. Now, that the shock is there, and suddenly it is necessary to re-organize energy, defense, logistics, etc etc. We may be looking at things, that were formerly both unthinkable, and undoable, but suddenly is revealed that can, will and must be done.
One can look covid restrictions and other things as bleak dystopian development, but there is also other angle. Showing that things can be done, when there is motivation for it. If we have seen that
business as usual, is what causes the problems and for long time, nation states seemed stagnant and impotent to do anything about it. I ain't saying what has been done, is good, but I say it has proven, that things can be done. Unthinkable and unrealistic is option when one just considers that there may be other ways than is currently going on. Putting those questions back on table, when the society is aimlessly messing around with no relevant direction or ideal.
Agree with all this Mikko, for sure. Covid was a particularly surreal manufactured crisis.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 08, 2022, 09:18:28 AM
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 07, 2022, 05:50:05 PM
Deep down
Deep down? haha.. If that traditionally means something that is kind of hidden from outsiders...
Yes, haha. I was joking, of course - what I was trying to get across is that despite any pretensions to be something more/different from/beyond traditional Marxism, he still is one at the core. (Which is probably painfully obvious! - I only know him from memes!)
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 08, 2022, 07:27:53 PM
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 08, 2022, 09:18:28 AM
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 07, 2022, 05:50:05 PM
Deep down
Deep down? haha.. If that traditionally means something that is kind of hidden from outsiders...
Yes, haha. I was joking, of course - what I was trying to get across is that despite any pretensions to be something more/different from/beyond traditional Marxism, he still is one at the core. (Which is probably painfully obvious! - I only know him from memes!)
libtards gonna libtard, for sure... i learned a lot from him over the years but left academics always disappoint, at some point.
Quote from: AdamLehrerImageMaker on March 09, 2022, 03:45:27 AM
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 08, 2022, 07:27:53 PM
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 08, 2022, 09:18:28 AM
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 07, 2022, 05:50:05 PM
Deep down
Deep down? haha.. If that traditionally means something that is kind of hidden from outsiders...
Yes, haha. I was joking, of course - what I was trying to get across is that despite any pretensions to be something more/different from/beyond traditional Marxism, he still is one at the core. (Which is probably painfully obvious! - I only know him from memes!)
libtards gonna libtard, for sure... i learned a lot from him over the years but left academics always disappoint, at some point.
Yes, they all tend to end up with the same conclusions after a while. Still, he seems important/interesting enough - any particular book by him that is worth checking out first?
What is the same conclusion?
I mean, Zizek is self proclaimed stalinist. Which of course, is a bit joke, but in other hand, isn't. His critic for liberal west is often furious. His stand against "sjw types", liberals, overservations of gender politics, immigration, and so on, has shocked many left leaning people probably as much as the "crypto-endorsement" of Trump. His anti-moralist stance is often in such radical opposition to contemporary left, I do wonder what is "same conclusion"?
I'd say you can't understand Zizek from "memes". It would be pointless to discuss about his philosophy or ideas based on memes. But it is almost as easy to get the real deal. There is TONS of lectures of his online. He talks the same things he puts into books, but added neurotic stand up comedy type of angle keeps it both funny, and often enlightening. Same for interviews. Go to youtube, write Zizek, and you'll find months worth of lectures and interviews.
Like the hated and praised superstar Jordan Peterson was in many occasions in their debate, made such a fool by Zizek. While Peterson fairly casually manages to deal with any feminist critic, there are occasions when Zizeks observations render him speechless.
Popularity of Zizek is probably because of using popular culture examples as means of explanation of ideas, vastly more people get it, as opposed to be dry academic jargon focusing on difficult terminology.
I am sure, it is most of all the terminology, that renders most of political discussion obsolete. Especially between americans and european. Political system and terms have so different meaning, plus the societies are so different that what appears as pure communism in eyes of many americans, over here, is not.
As example, lets say suggestion of rich needing to start distribute their wealth for sake of not as much about social justice, but for sake of stability of society so they can keep their riches. Simple things, like free or affordable healthcare for citizen, funded by taxation of those who have money (meaning pretty much everybody, yet over here also progressive tax meaning rich pay more, unless they make some arrangements...). It is selfish move from rich really. If lower classes have enough to get by and life satisfactory lives, the rich do not need to live imprisoned in their gated mansions, with bodyguards.
There was newish' stand up comedy by american black comedian. One of his jokes about covid was, that blacks been asking restorations for long long time. Always been concluded that there is no money. Covid happens, and suddenly money is given out, billions and billions, like they say over there.. He was amazed. There is money, but we are not given. He suggested very luring transaction. As distribution of wealth, all they want, is free healthcare. In return, whites can call them niggers.
American audience laughed. I don't know if the Finns looking at it from TV laughed or did they ask themselves... didn't we already fill our part of this deal.. so....? ;)
So, if one like the jokes, combined with politics & philopsophy, Zizek is your guy to go to. Regardless if you are left & right. I would assume, if one get "pissed off" or "annoyed" about someone having different idea, maybe the philosophy ain't the area where one should focus.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 09, 2022, 09:12:59 AM
What is the same conclusion?
I mean, Zizek is self proclaimed stalinist. Which of course, is a bit joke, but in other hand, isn't. His critic for liberal west is often furious. His stand against "sjw types", liberals, overservations of gender politics, immigration, and so on, has shocked many left leaning people probably as much as the "crypto-endorsement" of Trump. His anti-moralist stance is often in such radical opposition to contemporary left, I do wonder what is "same conclusion"?
I'd say you can't understand Zizek from "memes". It would be pointless to discuss about his philosophy or ideas based on memes. But it is almost as easy to get the real deal. There is TONS of lectures of his online. He talks the same things he puts into books, but added neurotic stand up comedy type of angle keeps it both funny, and often enlightening. Same for interviews. Go to youtube, write Zizek, and you'll find months worth of lectures and interviews.
Like the hated and praised superstar Jordan Peterson was in many occasions in their debate, made such a fool by Zizek. While Peterson fairly casually manages to deal with any feminist critic, there are occasions when Zizeks observations render him speechless.
Popularity of Zizek is probably because of using popular culture examples as means of explanation of ideas, vastly more people get it, as opposed to be dry academic jargon focusing on difficult terminology.
I am sure, it is most of all the terminology, that renders most of political discussion obsolete. Especially between americans and european. Political system and terms have so different meaning, plus the societies are so different that what appears as pure communism in eyes of many americans, over here, is not.
As example, lets say suggestion of rich needing to start distribute their wealth for sake of not as much about social justice, but for sake of stability of society so they can keep their riches. Simple things, like free or affordable healthcare for citizen, funded by taxation of those who have money (meaning pretty much everybody, yet over here also progressive tax meaning rich pay more, unless they make some arrangements...). It is selfish move from rich really. If lower classes have enough to get by and life satisfactory lives, the rich do not need to live imprisoned in their gated mansions, with bodyguards.
There was newish' stand up comedy by american black comedian. One of his jokes about covid was, that blacks been asking restorations for long long time. Always been concluded that there is no money. Covid happens, and suddenly money is given out, billions and billions, like they say over there.. He was amazed. There is money, but we are not given. He suggested very luring transaction. As distribution of wealth, all they want, is free healthcare. In return, whites can call them niggers.
American audience laughed. I don't know if the Finns looking at it from TV laughed or did they ask themselves... didn't we already fill our part of this deal.. so....? ;)
So, if one like the jokes, combined with politics & philopsophy, Zizek is your guy to go to. Regardless if you are left & right. I would assume, if one get "pissed off" or "annoyed" about someone having different idea, maybe the philosophy ain't the area where one should focus.
My second comment was directed against liberal academics in general rather than Zizek - the people whose conclusions almost always end up with some uncritical combination of racism/capitalism/colonialism/patriarchy being the root of all problems.
From my limited understanding, though, he views the "SJW issues" as all being misunderstandings of (or developments from) the fundamental problem, which is global capitalism? (In the sense that racial issues can all be reduced down to labor dynamics, for instance.)
The interesting thing about memes, for me, though is that while they do not allow you to understand the man himself, they do give you a good idea of what people think of him. And one thing that I have gotten from them, is that many tend to emphasize the image of Zizek as a provocateur. Based on what has been said above, it sounds like that he is, at his core, more of a traditional Marxist - hence my initial confusion/joke about him.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 09, 2022, 09:12:59 AM
What is the same conclusion?
I mean, Zizek is self proclaimed stalinist. Which of course, is a bit joke, but in other hand, isn't. His critic for liberal west is often furious. His stand against "sjw types", liberals, overservations of gender politics, immigration, and so on, has shocked many left leaning people probably as much as the "crypto-endorsement" of Trump. His anti-moralist stance is often in such radical opposition to contemporary left, I do wonder what is "same conclusion"?
I'd say you can't understand Zizek from "memes". It would be pointless to discuss about his philosophy or ideas based on memes. But it is almost as easy to get the real deal. There is TONS of lectures of his online. He talks the same things he puts into books, but added neurotic stand up comedy type of angle keeps it both funny, and often enlightening. Same for interviews. Go to youtube, write Zizek, and you'll find months worth of lectures and interviews.
Like the hated and praised superstar Jordan Peterson was in many occasions in their debate, made such a fool by Zizek. While Peterson fairly casually manages to deal with any feminist critic, there are occasions when Zizeks observations render him speechless.
Popularity of Zizek is probably because of using popular culture examples as means of explanation of ideas, vastly more people get it, as opposed to be dry academic jargon focusing on difficult terminology.
I am sure, it is most of all the terminology, that renders most of political discussion obsolete. Especially between americans and european. Political system and terms have so different meaning, plus the societies are so different that what appears as pure communism in eyes of many americans, over here, is not.
As example, lets say suggestion of rich needing to start distribute their wealth for sake of not as much about social justice, but for sake of stability of society so they can keep their riches. Simple things, like free or affordable healthcare for citizen, funded by taxation of those who have money (meaning pretty much everybody, yet over here also progressive tax meaning rich pay more, unless they make some arrangements...). It is selfish move from rich really. If lower classes have enough to get by and life satisfactory lives, the rich do not need to live imprisoned in their gated mansions, with bodyguards.
There was newish' stand up comedy by american black comedian. One of his jokes about covid was, that blacks been asking restorations for long long time. Always been concluded that there is no money. Covid happens, and suddenly money is given out, billions and billions, like they say over there.. He was amazed. There is money, but we are not given. He suggested very luring transaction. As distribution of wealth, all they want, is free healthcare. In return, whites can call them niggers.
American audience laughed. I don't know if the Finns looking at it from TV laughed or did they ask themselves... didn't we already fill our part of this deal.. so....? ;)
So, if one like the jokes, combined with politics & philopsophy, Zizek is your guy to go to. Regardless if you are left & right. I would assume, if one get "pissed off" or "annoyed" about someone having different idea, maybe the philosophy ain't the area where one should focus.
Like I said, I loved and still love a lot of Zizek's books. The Sublime Object of Ideology and the Parallax View especially are books that I have read multiple times and tried to extrapolate as much insight as possible from.
My disappointment in Zizek will not take away from the knowledge his writing has imbued in me. My disappointment merely stems from the fact that, for the vast majority of his career, he was known for taking principled, hardline Marxist stances that put him at odds with the clowns that compose the western left. Especially on issues related to gender and political correctness. But reading his stuff about Covid has really blown me away, even now that the virus has shown itself to have a mortality rate under .9 percent, he has refused to adjust his viewpoint on the thing. Because of that, he's now become a regular figure in the whole infrastructure of the leftist infotainment sphere, it just all seems very much unlike him. Here is an article where they are celebrating Zizek for having been "tamed" by Covid.
I'm probably projecting to a degree, given the admiration I had for Zizek for so long. It's just a bummer when thinkers that you've come to associate with principled free thought start eating the mainstream propaganda lines.
But who knows? Perhaps he'll write a book that floors me in the way that Parallax View did, and I'll be a fan again.
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 09, 2022, 05:58:00 AM
Quote from: AdamLehrerImageMaker on March 09, 2022, 03:45:27 AM
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 08, 2022, 07:27:53 PM
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 08, 2022, 09:18:28 AM
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 07, 2022, 05:50:05 PM
Deep down
Deep down? haha.. If that traditionally means something that is kind of hidden from outsiders...
Yes, haha. I was joking, of course - what I was trying to get across is that despite any pretensions to be something more/different from/beyond traditional Marxism, he still is one at the core. (Which is probably painfully obvious! - I only know him from memes!)
libtards gonna libtard, for sure... i learned a lot from him over the years but left academics always disappoint, at some point.
Yes, they all tend to end up with the same conclusions after a while. Still, he seems important/interesting enough - any particular book by him that is worth checking out first?
Yeah, Sublime Object of Ideology and Parallax View. Those are the ones I've gotten the most out of.
Quote from: AdamLehrerImageMaker on March 09, 2022, 11:01:08 PM
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 09, 2022, 05:58:00 AM
Quote from: AdamLehrerImageMaker on March 09, 2022, 03:45:27 AM
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 08, 2022, 07:27:53 PM
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 08, 2022, 09:18:28 AM
Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 07, 2022, 05:50:05 PM
Deep down
Deep down? haha.. If that traditionally means something that is kind of hidden from outsiders...
Yes, haha. I was joking, of course - what I was trying to get across is that despite any pretensions to be something more/different from/beyond traditional Marxism, he still is one at the core. (Which is probably painfully obvious! - I only know him from memes!)
libtards gonna libtard, for sure... i learned a lot from him over the years but left academics always disappoint, at some point.
Yes, they all tend to end up with the same conclusions after a while. Still, he seems important/interesting enough - any particular book by him that is worth checking out first?
Yeah, Sublime Object of Ideology and Parallax View. Those are the ones I've gotten the most out of.
Sounds good. I have read the early Marx, but not any of the more developed theory (yet I still have a shelf of books on Marxism...). It sounds like Zizek will be an interesting place to begin catching up on what I have missed.