Why does Holla Forums like Zizek so much?

...

huh?

Probably not tho.

Because he is a meme philosopher and this is a meme forum.

Both are products of this time.

thought this interview was a train wreck tbh

Only because there an 0riely tier reporter. Zizek was the clear victor for anyone who doesnt share the views of the reporter.

I don't share the views of the reporter but Zizek appeared to be tripping over himself at points

Zizek usually seems to be incapable of expressing his ideas in a clear and succinct way.

Doesn't help when you have some liberal journalist who knows he can get away with any dig and not face any kind of back lash

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

Zizek is a neurotic nerd who probably got bullied at school. Anybody who goes to imageboards identifies with him.

You got problems with neurotic nerds who got bullied at school, chad?

...

I quite enjoyed his little rant on how every normal person would fucking hate living in an anarchist commune.

GOD DAMN IT, LET ZIZEK SPEAK!

...

Read him and find out.

Hint: Lacanian psychoanalysis is rooted in structuralism (a Marxist, materialist theoretical framework) and it is fundamentally cause-oriented as opposed to effect-oriented.

Good one.

youtube.com/watch?v=FRTsInTXAgk

Those dreamy eyes.

You can still agree with a theorists analysis and not with his solution. I think Marx had a lot of important things to say but obviously as an anarchist I disagree with his solutions. Zizek isn't even as solution focused as most socialist/communist thinkers as much as he is trying to diagnose what is wrong with the current capitalist paradigm and why we cant see past it.

Psychoanalysis (and by extension structuralism) isn't really rooted in Marxism or historical materialism. Its rooted in Freud, who was anti-communist and Lacan who was also not a Marxist.

marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1953/onmarx/on-marxism.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpellation_(philosophy)

Personal qualms have no bearing on the theories said individuals raise.

Furthermore, while Lacan himself was also certainly not a communist, he was directly involved in the formulation of structuralist theory with Althusser (an actual Marxist communist) and shared a more than vocal opposition to capitalism. He also while advocating (a return to) Freud, violently revised many of his theories, notably replacing many idealist concepts with Saussurean linguistical theory (another incredibly crypto-materialist thing).

It is ultimately said that Lacan's non-vocal support for communism may be tied to 1) his refusal to adhere to communism as a consistent and unified movement complete with its own ideals, 2) his tactical avoiding of explicitly associating himself with subversive movements as to safely build on and develop a clinical psychoanalytical foundation and 3) his own "nihilist" tendencies towards the human condition, to which he himself had many vague solutions which were perhaps in a sense even more interesting than the communist hypothesis (see: his correspondence with Badiou, Althusser).

Now how about you actually read that book I posted (you can be done in half a day) and truly challenge yourself to bring up a proper rebuttal. I'm actually interested in people's takes on it, as I myself am only recently introduced to Lacan and need more disciplined minds to process any eventual usefulness.

Didn't realize that because Marxists made use of psychoanalysis that means that psychoanalysis is Marxist. I also didn't realize that even though Freud was anti-communist, that the science he founded was actually deeply routed in Marxist theory.

They're fucking lemmings, and transparency is limited.

Also I did read that book. It has nothing to do with Marxism, so I'm lost as to what point you were trying to make.

I'm sure you're a rugged individualist who has formulated all your opinions invariant of any social pressure.

Ideology like this is why Zizek is necessary.

To assume that everyone deep down would rather be one way is projection.

Projection would only work in this case if both sides had near or equal validity. Individualism is a dream and a common one spread around in our culture to justify the current system. Us being influenced by social forces to a heavier degree then we wish to admit or realize is not. People that pretend individualism to buck a perceived trend or real one without an actual reason don't impress me and I'm your father, go to sleep.

You can't be this psychotic. This is literally gaslighting.

If I was gas lighting I'd bring much better flammables than that.

...

I thought a moderator was supposed to ask questions and lead the interview, not talk down on their guest.

That video is an unintentional masterpiece displaying the animosity between liberals and leftists. To liberals it's more important to uphold the status quo than anything else.

Actually I've seen much more contrarian hate for Zizek in the past month or two than I have seen support. He used to be a Holla Forums icon, now he's only brought up to be mocked.

He is, objectively, A GOD.

He opened my eyes tbh

Lots of things I disliked (like consumerism) weren't things I recognized as inherent to capitalism.

Medhi Hassan is such a clown he makes Richard Dawkins look like a great intellectual.
youtube.com/watch?v=U0Xn60Zw03A

this is best thing I have seen in this year so far

He used to be a complete meme. Then people started taking him seriously.

It is his show, Zizek was a guest on it. And Zizek said some dumb stuff, tried to evade, and probably would have gotten away with it if the host didn't press him.

consumerism isn't inherent to capitalism

I implied quite literally that it isn't Marxist, but that it's philosophically materialist and thus all of its useful theories like coming into being, Saussurean-Lacanian linguistics, interpellation, etc. are useful and completely congruent with the Marxist (dialectical materialist) worldview, and by extension prove to build upon otherwise shoddy or incomplete ideas like Marx's "false consciousness" by attributing to it the very basis of what constitutes consciousness to begin with, and the materialist take on ideological formation not only onto itself, but via the materially-generated structural creation of ideological apparatuses. This is the basis of Zizek's so elucidating take on modern phenomena; his use of Lacan to "patch up" the places where Marx's dialectical materialism, while revolutionary, was still either insufficient or a little too "vulgar" in cheating its way beyond the more reducible casualties of matter.

So,
the only way you could have taken anything of what I said as literally implying this is if you took my mentions of the links between actual Lacanians and Marxists as anything more than just that: links. It's just interesting to mention, is all.

In that consumerism can occur outside of capitalism, but that consumerism is not like in capitalism one of the necessary ideological designs to keep it operative as efficiently as possible. This is why consumerism more and more enters being, and why we can but observe it as it intensifies and finds new ways to express itself. Capitalism cannot rid itself of dead labor without fetishizing the commodities it produces primarly for exchange.

Question for you Lacanists, while I make use of psychoanalytic concepts like projection, do you ever make use of notions such as cognitive dissonance, psychometrics, and the like? Under your phantasy system, would I.Q. simply be declared a bourgeois vulgarity and disposed of entirely? It's quite funny to me that I can think of nothing so stereotypically inherently bourgeois as Lacanian speculation. I'd posit it's Zizek's weakness.

Not a psychoanalytic concept, at least not a Lacanian one, and the thing coming closest to it is very different in that it doesn't pretend to link but a single function to it.

Just "dissonance".

Trying to quantify the human mind into a scale prepurports a need to create (mutating, but read on) minima and maxima, which themselves come from a need to do more than just approximate, but to categorize human intelligence as a metaphysical category, not a discursive (dialectical) one, n.b. Lacan's self-titled dialectization.

No. Notions of "bourgeois" themselves are worthless if you uphold the universality of a concept (intellectual quotience), and it is quite ironically Stalin who decried psychoanalysis as bourgeois because Trotsky developed an appreciation for it (can't have anything Trotsky like in my kingdom now, can I?), to himself push for the most crypto-logicist discipline ever: Soviet psychology.

To get back to Autism Level: it is discarded in psychoanalysis not on the principle that it is not a psychoanalytic concept or that it was raised by the wrong group of people (if you actually read Lacan you find out that this is retarded), but because it holds literally no analytical value for the analysand or the analyst whatsoever as a concept.

Notes on the subject of capital and its actual effect on the happiness industry modern psychiatry:
youtube.com/watch?v=vtfBl79hs-M
melbournelacanian.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/notes-on-mental-health-and-neoliberalism/
qz.com/762734/freudian-psychoanalysis-is-so-popular-in-argentina-even-prisoners-go-once-a-week/

Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely deeply critical of modern psychiatry as well, I'd go so far as to claim most of its constructs are not even """scientifically""" valid, by its own standards, even taking out the problem of a purely autistic science of mind impoverished of phenomenology. And probably much moreso than of psychoanalysis which I see as kind of harmless. (If you must know, I am more aiming for syncresis, there's too much arbitrary specialization and its a bottleneck in the discourse.) It isn't either/or. I'm more cautiously skeptical of Lacan, I'd be willing to give him another chance though.

I was under the impression it came from Freud, technically "transference", though could be wrong.

Cool sounds interesting. I disagree strongly that concepts derivative from so-called quantitative sciences are not dialectical though! Or that you must use them strictly in the context and confines of their own discourses, rather than freeing them to do other work.

Yes, I didn't think it would be value in therapy. But various psychometric measures have value in a much wider range of applications. Not all repressive and diabolically (even ontologically) neoliberal.

Thanks for the post.

Then why adhere to any kind of method of the mind that is instrinsically born from principles of normativity that then need to be corrected or gravitated towards (modern psychiatry is literally this)? There is no real discpline that is not psychonalysis that doesn't fall into these traps, or it heavily borrows from it (even DSM psychiatry informs itself on Freudian concepts lolz, as shit as it may be).

Final link above shows you that psychoanalysis, where it is most prevalent, directly makes those under analysis relatively better off in their own words, not statistics, and even statistics show bottom of the barrel prescriptive drug use, its side effects (both physical, mental and social), etc. In this way it is ltierally harmless.

You'll have to elucidate what this is then or what its content resembles, lest you just want to say "not A, not B, but my snowflake".

Then read PDF I posted ITT above. No better start to it.

Transference is what I was alluding to, but it is as I said so radically different that you can't really compare. And this is without mentioning Lacan's refining of the theory of transference.

The problem is that practice proves that the limits of at least modern psychiatry reconfirm a boundary restriction by in every application bowing down to normativity.

Give me any worth in placing a person on a scale that is in and of itself not universal or even close to more than statistical.

All cognitive and psychological science, taken with a lot of grains of salt informed by all your auxiliary learning =/= bio-bio-bio psychiatry =/= gutter DSM shills. You're on the easy mode critiques of a vast discipline. Ignoring it is folly. Just because the scientists themselves invested in these disciplines often appear like scientistic wantwits, doesn't mean you have to succumb to "vulgar" scientism by informing yourself. I just want science and theory to intersect more. It's like you guys all got BTFO by Sokal's weak ass b8 25 years ago and never recovered (rather than getting revenge by learning science and trolling them back, infinitely more satisfying than taking pot shots from afar.)

Let me put it this way and as I alluded to in other threads: what psychoanalysis can begin to have a theory of psychedelic drug mediated activity in the visual cortex, via serotonergic secondary messenger modulatory cascade?

Doesn't work like that, I can't do it, only we can. Seriously though I suppose I could flesh something like this out in detail but it would eat into my shitposting time.

I'll try come back with some examples and make this concrete next thread rather than just throwing out allusions, to elaborate on psychometry etc. I guess I will have to give Lacan another go, as is only fair. It was years ago but I remember being pissed off reading Ecrits, it felt like a caricature of what some analytic might think conty was, and was skeptical based on the description of his own practice. I'll check your links, when I get a chance fam.

You said that psychoanalysis was rooted in structuralism, which was Marxist. This is not the case. There were structuralist Marxist – that much is correct. But that's not strictly what structuralism referred to, especially in the context of Marxism, since structuralist marxists like Althusser incorporated Lacan's work into his own and not the other way around.

Just one other point, there's numerous devastating critiques of the medical psychiatric industry, but all you Foucaldian/Lacanians need to go to the psychiatric institution and see deep shcizophrenic psychosis and the instant transformation when they apply a D2 blocker. The problem was after they made the initial big chem discoveries aorund the 50's/60's they basically coasted on that ever since, and getting better only in extremely fine increments, oh that and the industry can often be almost comically evil on a par with tobacco.

He is the best

Why does Chomsky hate him so much?
youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

Zizek on him:
youtube.com/watch?v=1tLz_9xmLKI

Because liberals hate actual leftists.

Zizek said that Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge so Chomsky said that Zizek wasn't a real intellectual
it was a funny beef

Chomsky upheld the real science of Brother Number One.

Most of the things he says are right.

lol wut.

Zizek makes some decent hegelian analysis of current events

I'm not a big fan of his lacanian gibberish though. But I sometimes listen to his lectures of his books if i can find them on audiobook while i lift.

he's a cutie.

I frankly think both of these clowns are up their own assholes. I've never heard anything particularly enlightening come out of the mouths of either that I didn't already know or hadn't already considered. At least Zizek is entertaining in small doses though. Chomsky's has such a scraggly old voice now that listening to him is just exhausting (and frustrating when you realize he didn't say anything profound).

jesus christ

does anyone know that zizek quote,about revolutions

where a revolution redeems all those failed revolutions.
and the dead revolutionaires whoes souls wander the earth. can be happy know?