Will Zizek be remembered in the same way Hegel is, or is he just a "pop" philosopher?

i think there's a kind of young marx / old marx divide thing going on with zizek. his earlier stuff like the sublime object of ideology are the more serious, rigorous philosophy texts, while the newer stuff (the films as well) are more accessible pop phil

Not much, but he constantly triggers the liberal pseudo-left with his hot opinions, and that makes him based.

He can't win either way. When he does "serious" stuff he gets lambasted as an ivory tower intellectual. When he does more accessible stuff, he's mocked for insufficient rigour or triviality.

i think both have their merits, he's made what i think are probably genuine contributions to his field (even if the synthesis of hegel, marx, and lacan is a small niche), while through his films and more accessible work, even his public image (sniffles, etc), i'm sure he's also exposed and pushed a lot more people to the left

What do you mean? He already is. The future is in the past.

forgot muh fag flag

this

It's hard to know how a philosophers popularity will be gauged long term. It's possible he will fizzle out immediately after he dies, but it's also possible two hundred years from now a small part of his philosophy will be a pivotal part of one philosophers or a social movements philosophy and he sees a renaissance or two based on that. Or maybe his influence will be more consistently enduring. Maybe Zizek will be seen as everything wrong with "brosocialism" when the Sargon nightmare occurs and Tumblrites start censoring history. We cant know until it happens.

I should state that one thing in Zizek's favor is that he is tied to Marxism and as long as that is an enduring idea, he will at least have some minor relevance going on simply for that reason alone. New Marxist philosophers get their chops by examining the old ways and ideas of those before them, so that will keep him around in the same way people like Gramsci, Adorno, Althusser etc are still relevant.

absolutely noone is hegel tier maybe except plato.

but anyways no contemporary philosopher takes marxism as seriously as zizek does/has. aside form maybe like ranciere no "public intellectual" has really pushed dialectical readings of current events/pop culture as much zizek has. don't agree with all of his thinking but i gotta respect the hell out of a guy who's about to drop a book on lenin in 2017. he'll endure.

How can you say that when Less than Nothing & Absolute Recoil were written only a couple of years ago?

I honestly think Zizek is representative of a 21st century leftist awakening. He hasn't expressed too many economic opinions from what I've seen or read, it's all dialectics, but he's said many many times the left has to strategize the way we look at the dynamics between the state and capitalism as an ideology.

Stating such things as
The 20th century is over

And
Communism has become the object of desire to communist. (Video about perfection and how our idea of not is a self perpetuating farce)

P U R E I D E O L O G Y

i agree w/r/t the fact that he never really addresses political economy. i appreciate that zizek doesn’t make the mistake of focusing all his ire on the state, while ignoring the pseudo-spontaneity of the market/culture.

but i feel like an area he's lacking as a marxist philosopher is the way in which economic organization, as well as superstructural organization, needs to be addressed

Hegel stands on his own, Zizek is derivative.

rofl, so not at all? I think it's time to leave the leftist bubble if you really think hegel, who most people here haven't read, has any impact on the cultural memories of the world.

That's being nice, his ideas and methods are pseudo-science.

If people had the capacity to understand this he would be remembered. Yes I'm too lazy to write it again.

How do I understand this?! I want to know send the necessary literature!

read hegel

Read Zizek

do you think philosophers are only worthwhile if they're responsible for memes like "gott ist tott" or something

You can do that just jump in to his work like that…

I made a thread (>>1477932) that deals with "the Ontological Incompleteness that emerges in the guise of the Subject" somewhat.

The post your referring to deals with a broad range of subjects that you would need to get your head around to understand

...

here

Less Than Nothing.
And of course all the necessary theory that precedes it: Lacan, Althusser, Freud, Frankfurter Schule, Heidegger, Marx, Hegel, Kant, Descartes, Plato…
I mean, you don't absolutely need to have read them, I began reading it without having read most of what I mentioned (but thats why I decided to major in Philosophy though) but you should've grasped their ideas firmly.
A lacanian psychoanalyst, one that is not a therapist prick and recognizes Z's contributions to lacanian theory, is a recomendation. Believe me, analysis is a great way to effectively, not only theoretically, free your mind of the predicates that make so hard the comprehension of phrases like "there is no sexual relationship" or "the big Other doesn't exist" or "the Suprasensible is appearance qua appearance".