Essential zizekcore

Are you Ginjeet?

I think he would classify them as lumpenproletariat. There is an argument to be made either way, which is why it's so important to recognize solidarity among the proletariat for the lumpenproletariat as solidarity for itself.

After all, the worker of one generation becomes the NEET of the next.

That took a weirdly anarcho-idpol twist at the end. Not sure if I'd agree with their conclusions on postmodernism.

Anyone got more of these books?

First as Tragedy, Then as Farce

The book ends with post-marxism. This is sort of where Zizek begins. His project throughout the 90s was to re-assert the primacy of class struggle, against post-marxism's multiplicity of causes. He was in continuous debate with Laclau then. His first book The Sublime Object of Ideology deals with this tangentially.

The Year of Dreaming Dangerously

Event: A philosophical journey through a concept

bookzz.org/md5/C51A7196E4CBB501F875663E118EE279

Honestly I think it turns into full-blown Cold War propaganda after the part about October 1917

Bruce Fink - A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis

I can't believe I bothered to read this liberal shit cover to cover

As I said here the reason I posted it is because to understand why Zizek is necessary for our time, we must understand the philosophical thought of our time. The postmodern position is sort of the default position of the everyday woke intellectual.

Zizek challenges that, undermines that and re-asserts the primacy of class struggle. That's why Zizek, I believe, is so important for us – the reason why I made this thread.

You really should start people off with the pervert's guide to ideology. It's a good introduction to Zizekian basics.

Holy shit this is a meme right?

...

The Sublime Object of Ideology

Zizek and Politics: A Critical Introduction

apriorist subjective unempirical bullshit core

butthurt positivists, pls

Tarrying with the Negative

The Indivisible Remainder

The Parallax View

What is a positivist? I heard David Harvey mention positivism and I see the term thrown around here from time to time but I don't know what it means.

Zizek is like Stephen Fry, a dumb persons idea of what an intelligent person is.

Positivism refers generally to the idea that knowledge comes from confirmation. So we can only say we know something if it's been confirmed as true by empirical observation. It's largely discredited in philosophy now because of the impossibility in confirming really anything in that way (even science, while it relies on empirical observation, is essentially inductive, we don't confirm).
On top of that, you can't confirm the principle which says you ought to confirm things, so it doesn't hold up at all.

...

That's pretty interesting, thanks.

A lot of communist ni🅱️🅱️as whom'st are still unconvinced of Lacan need to read p.119-124 of this PDF. In it, Adrian Johnston argues and quite meticulously displays that Lacan, at least the "old" Lacan (who is most relevant today and in Zizek), was effectively a materialist philosophical.

philosophically*

For philosophy, I think a good study method is bombard yourself with the information many times, force yourself to process it many times and in different ways. So I like video and audio formats a lot: sometimes I can't focus on a book, but can handle a talk, and the talk will help me process the books I read previously. The Pervert's Guides are great.

This is a good series, the stuff he did for European Graduate School:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeGESIHJQbKI_wgJs8TOx59QmlH22WG4p
It is reasonably non-repetitive, since its a series of lectures for the same place.

Is this actually real?

bump

sociolog.rs.ba/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/socioloski_godisnjak_11.pdf
page 77 for a good summary of zizek

jfc did the tankie fucking need to allure to an anti-semitic text to smear him.

Is this channel Holla Forums approved or should I be weary about it?
youtube.com/channel/UCzv9YIqe3CJkzbqunZ4sjMQ

There's a lot of Zizek related youtube channels popping up. But it's usually the same content rehosted.

I personally prefer Zizekian Studies (youtube.com/channel/UCkd1iKSCgfsK2xpIDExhg9A/videos) but they haven't posted anything for a few months.

One more thing, the Zizek lectures on EGS are excellent.

youtube.com/user/egsvideo

hello can i spend my life referencing a fraudulent psychologist and still be considered a really smart commie guy?

See

Stop posting Zizek. He is a racist who claims that transgenders are superior to everyone else.

If he meant traps, then he was right

Why are all these people getting triggered over a simple Zizek thread?

You gotta have them from time to time. Honestly when I came here I was surprised there aren't more. Instead it's always the guy who says some bs about trans people and a couple other spaghetti spillers.

They used to be much more frequent

This was posted on the discord. Might be of interest.

The politics of alienation and separation… From Hegel to Marx

Zizek said that bs about trans people though.

Bump

such as?

I think it's a reference to "The Sexual Is Political" article that the Chapo Trap House guys annotated on genius.

genius.it/10189922/thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-sexual-is-political/

click on the highlighted sentences to see their comments.

Holy shit those comments are cringeworthy. Are they deliberately trying to misunderstand him?

Yeah, it's annoying commentary, but a bit deserved. This style of writing, which is what they're mainly attacking it seems, is common however with philosophers.. Voicing criticism is correct, but as you state they seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the argument and committing the same sin Zizek does in that they intentionally put style over function, to drive home a point of their own. For example

Which is taken at face value and criticized for implying that transgender people merely exist to sustain an ideology. This is obviously not what Zizek would say or mean, but he is intentionally misunderstood to mean it because of his sensationalist phrasing. If he were to reformulate to something such as "So-called postgenderism is one of the visions that emerges from the social phenomenon as the result of transgender people inevitably disrupting the social order" it would be much clear, but wouldn't sound as crisp, of course.

Just misplaced and absolutely moronic are the comments though that only seek to to elicit some kind of drama or reaction when it is most inappropriate, such as at

and

You make a good point. Zizek seems to have a big problem with making vague statements that inevitably get misunderstood as being racist, sexist, whatever (especially when people are already inclined to read it that way because someone else told them it is). I think the way they criticise the text is entirely the wrong way to go about it, and it ends up reading like another Chapo reading series of some conservative pundit's opinion piece, which is not what this is. It feels like they had a completely different idea of what the article was meant to be than what it actually was, and they let their biases get in the way of actually getting a clear reading and not just peddling the "Slavoj Zizek is a racist" meme.

Is it a problem though? I'm 100% sure Zizek always does it on purpose.

Well it is a problem if you actually want to be understood

I don't think the problem is that Zizek is being especially vague. The issue here is more likely with the Chapo crew. For all their irony, the dry boys have an absolute hair trigger when it comes to all things gender. It's a bit weird, probably has to do with their liberal cultural background (see: episode where they go over the questionnaire of "how out of touch are you with the WWC"). That's why they are misreading him, because it is their weak spot.

So, the whole episode kind of gets better from there on.

Zizek reads the annotations on genius and writes a reply, which is then annotated again by Sam Kriss.

genius.it/10224204/thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics

FFS, this is why we need to teach reading comprehension in schools.

3 degrees of leftism.

you guys chose this grave to die in lol

It's "hill to die on", faggot.

/ourgoy/

im quoting doom paul faggot

communism BTFO

I don't recall any doom paul macros saying that, the closest thing would be pic related.

Here's a better version.

I have yet to see an instance of zizek being misunderstood that isn't 100% the misunderstander's fault.

i'm not reading this thought because it looks incredibly autistic

...

Yeah fair enough.

It's literally the last page of the book

Not to mention positivism is a current of thought that died in the 1800s. The fact po-mo dummies use the same method of reasoning at times demonstrates the incoherence of their "thought"

Zizek's latest interview on borders and migration. April 8 2017

youtube.com/watch?v=fngeoATGcFU

good stuff

Into the trash it goes
Lacan is pompous garbage devoid of sense

no you

As someone with basic notions of topology, reading Lacan hurts my very soul

Elaborate please

He uses math technical terms as buzzwords without explaning or even understanding them. He's making analogies without justification or even explanation.
He's (perhaps deliberatly so) unclear, verbose, and likes to show off his mad math skills, (he once said he had been using "the most recent findings in topology" - he was not) and imo Psychoanalysis as a whole is pseudoscience, useful for helping to establish new concepts but baseless on its own.

Cry more. Here's an actual mathematician's evaluation of Badiou's work – someone who gets the same baseless criticisms as Lacan for using the conceptual apparatus of mathematics.

Psychoanalysis, just like philosophy doesn't claim to be a science. According to your approach everything is illegitimate source of knowledge or praxis outside of the sciences.

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=D4E04359C82E7F31E4CE0922F6AF32DF

Philosophy has a strong methodology and claim falsifiability.
Psychoanalysis has an extremely weak methodology (except maybe Dolto), claims to be non-falsifiable.

Your link doesn't mean shit either.

Lacan is impossible to understand clearly by design.

You are talking about (the most autistic section) of the analytical school, and even in that case their presuppositions and terminology are not exempt from dubiousness and criticism.

It shows how mathematicians who actually care to deal with continental material (i.e. not the Sokal-types) are not as dismissive of it, and in fact can corroborate it.

It's ok to stay dumb. For everyone else, there's pdf related.

No, it doesn't. Only certain schools of the philosophy of science does.

Wew lad

You're entitled to your opinions, but sorry if I don't believe my penis is an imaginary number

Why are you even in this thread if you're not going to argue in good faith?

Where is Ginjeet when you need him?

Who is Ginjeet?

has anyone actually read this? it's not really a criticism of zizek's thoughts but a retarded comparison of some of zizek's arguments/personal history to propaganda. ultimately it says that zizek resembles these propoaganda techniques so he must be a cryptonazi fash booj psyop.

tankies must be real fucking smoothbrained if they consider molly klein to be any sort of leader lol

one of the Freud-fags or maybe The Freudfag, I dunno,

I don't see how that's bad faith - Lacan litteraly said that.

I think Lacan should not be exempt from critique just because he's a "philosopher" and just because I am "too dumb to understand".
1) Psychoanalysis often claims to be a science when it is obviously not.
2) Lacan's math is unjustified and unprecise. If you want to draw a parallel between your theory and topology, you should precise why the parellel is justified and what are the limits. Lacan does neither : he insists at length that his work is exactly like mathematics, without going beyond the definitions most of the time. He is also using a rather advanced level of math, with only a tenous grasp of it.

Nobody is offended when philosophers uses terms like "parallel", "tangeant" or other basic math things because they use them right and because it make their texts clearer.

When Lacan uses his algebra, he does not make his text clearer, quite the opposite - and perhaps on purpose.

Which brings 3) it's not because a text is hard it's always deep. Rousseau is easy to read and brings interesting points. Kant might be an autistic mess, but he uses comprehensive examples and his use of technical terms is justified. Marx's excellent economical and historical analysis makes him much more powerful.

Lacan is all style, no substance. The interesting points he does make, occasionaly, do not prevent a critique on his lack of intellectual rigour.

4) More generaly, and totally not related to Lacan, I don't think revolt for revolt's sake should be encouraged. The adverse effects of capitalism can clearly be measured, analysed, and the system itself can be criticised with rigour and eloquence. Philosophy, much like insurrection, is an art, and like all arts it has its own laws.

1) Where? Lacan once spoke as a conjentural science, obviously distinguishing it from science as understood today.

This is how anyone who's spent even a couple of minutes investigating psychoanalysis can tell you're full of shit. Psychoanalysis, starting with Freud, but emphasized by Lacan, was always explicitly against calling itself a science.

Now we can tell you haven't read Marx either.

English isn't my native language. I may have missused the word "economical", I meant it as "talks about economics".

Das Kapital clearly describes what a capitalist economy and society is. I consider stuff like "Labour theory of value" to be economics.

Freud was adament his theory was a science. I assumed Lacan's position would be the same. I apologise for being wrong here.

Pardon my austism then, but if it isn't a science, then what is it ? An ideological program ? Witty word plays (with mathematical symbols throwed in) ? Something that basically boils down to "you can't know ANYTHING" ?

I don't know where you get this from especially since both of them made their theories of the mind, Lacan on top of Freud. Of course there are things you can't know. Unless you mean something else, but you ought to explain that.

Psychoanalysis, I believe lies in the space between philosophy and science, while being neither.

Try reading some Paganism psychoanalysis before making ridiculous statements

lacanonline.com/index/2010/07/what-is-psychoanalysis/

Yeah, that explains why it so quickly degenerated into typical talking points against socialism. The first 40 pages would be relatively educational for someone entirely unfamiliar with Marx, otherwise.

Here is a review that cites what prominent mathematicians who actually reviewed Lacan have to say about him:

physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html
No, it is utter garbage and the only reason you people are growing an interest in it is because Zizek in his pop-philosophy talks propagates him.
Furthermore, the practice is basically a secular rehash of the Catholic confession event where you confess your sins. It is totalitarian and ugly.
Deleuze was right.

spikemagazine.com/the-sokal-hoax.php

As far as I see, this one hasn't been posted yet.

This was a nice recent Zizek video.

youtube.com/watch?v=OhMycybHkuI

(he isn't that great at "debates" like this, in the sense that he just rambles on a bit too much. But both he and Harman manage to say some interesting things.)

given how triggered they got Zizek seems to have nailed the issue right on the head

This is a wonderful thread.
I can't find a download for "The Courage of Hopelessness", I guess because it's so new? It'd be great if someone had it.

It's not out yet. It's coming out in May.

Since, this thread is also now a Lacanian thread, this is an introduction to key concepts in Lacan.

Key Concepts in Lacanian Psychoanalysis edited by Dany Nobus

Derrida's response to the whole thing

critical-theory.com/read-derridas-response-sokal-affair/

Sokal didn't criticise Derrida though.

His criticism was about most one thing : philosophers using Mathematics and Physics as just another stylistic tool, making witty puns with it and calling it profound.

He theorises that the cause behind that is a desire to sound deep while not saying anything meanigful. And I don't see any "rebuttal" of Sokal attacking this specific point, nobody explains what Lacan tricky math actually means.

See the first row of pic related ; both columns mean the exact same thing.

And
Which means "for all x, we have phi(x)."
Which can be assumed to mean "there exists an x, which doesn't verify phi(x)". Since the symbols are not legal, it's just guesswork.

Lastly, try to see things from his point of view : he works to understand the world and he sees loads of philosophers with little to no background on the subject saying "thats not real" and abusing several important concepts, for example Gödel's theorem. They never justify it clearly, and when they justify it, they shroud it in vagueness.

To an untrained eye, most of the literature he criticised appears to be witty word plays and defilement of maths and physics. Instead of acting all offended, maybe you should aim to be clearer - nobody is offended when you use vocabulary like "parallels" or "tangent" because it helps the reader instead of confusing him.

Lastly, it was Social Text which titled their issue "Science War", not Sokal himself.

WHO COULD HAVE THUNK IT!

It should be noted that Sokal's beef was only with postmodernists and that he had no issue with philosophy in general. In fact, he was a major critic of that liberal cunt Karl Popper.

Yeah. As a STEM guy, most people's opinion of philosophy (and most of political theory) here is either "I'm too dumb for that" (thanks postmoderns) or "They are humanities people, I can't be bothered to care about their garbage" (again, thanks postmoderns).

The end result is terrible for leftism. It's seen at best as a curiosity for "special people" like me who are interested in philosophy, or at worst as a pseudo-scientific ideology that is just "factually wrong, man".

All these men and women turn to liberalism by default, sometimes with a little flavour of """social""" democracy to appease their consciences.

Why do you think postmodernism is even a big deal to begin with? It's an ideal tool to foster anti-intellectualism and uncritical acceptance of the status quo, which is why it was allowed to replace the old left in academia after they all got arrested for wrongthink.

It might also have something to do with the fact that most leftist groups today are more concerned with ideological purity and dreaming up their personal flavour of utopia instead of doing any actual work.

He did in his books, and Derrida is the quintessential postmodern philosopher.

The diagram is not a mathematical equation nor a logical proof. It's a diagram – to illustrate a point about the relationship between objet petit a and subjet. No one is preventing anybody from using Greek symbols to illustrate a point. You have to know what you're talking about to make a coherent reply.

Postmodernism is part of philosophy whether you like it or not. It's always the case that people who bring up Sokal or postmodernism doesn't know what they're talking about.

He criticise Deleuze, Debray, Lacan. Note Derrida.

I don't criticse the diagram since I have no clue what's on it. I criticise the first line of the picture, with the logical expressions.

Those are not greek symbols. Those are mathematical symbols forming first-order logical statements.

I talk about one thing and you say I attack another. Please answer to what I criticise and not something else. Thank you.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

While you wait, read Zizek's old article on Lenin:

Repeating Lenin marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm

So ideology means a false conscience, right?
I was wandering how to use "ideology" in a daily conversation and this query came to me:
What's the word for the state of not having an ideology?
Is "ideology" synonym with Stirner's "spook"? Like can I call stuff like morality or human nature an ideology like spookposters do?

How the fuck is that an explanation of the least element of a partial order? Can't you just say "it's the unique element (if it exists) such that no element is strictly smaller than it"? Why the fuck does Badiou talk about intensity and capacity? How does that quote has anything to do with partial orders?

.pdf page 194 "Schema of Sexuation"

Zizek discussing the schema:
youtu.be/7HpuDmTqWaI?t=2145

Ideology is a whole system or beliefs more or less impermeable to any information that could contradict it.
At best you can be aware of your own ideology.

The spook on the other hand, is more submitting yourself to one single, abstract idea, like you're being possessed by said thought.

Is Zizek to Holla Forums what Molymeme is to Holla Forums?

So ideology is comparable to Gramsci's super structure more than Stirner's spooks?

not really. most people here don't understand the majority of what he says, others are just in it for the memes. there's not the same literal cult surrounding him that you see with molyneux and his disciples. also, he's a serious academic and not a fukn youtuber babby lol

Ideology means different things for different theorists.
Zizek's conception of it is opposite to Marx's in most ways.
See: youtube.com/watch?v=5Ch5ZCGi0PQ

No. A spook is a superstition, as in a baseless belief that results in behavior that ultimately, because it's baseless, goes against your self interest.

Ideology is a set of beliefs that are ingrained into one's psychology; it results from culture.

Ideology can have positive or negative effects on your life and can work or hinder your self interest, whereas a spook is always detrimental.

There is no escape from ideology, I'm afraid, but even being aware that something is ideology goes a long way.

Way more. Superstructure and ideology are almost the same thing.

A superstructure is a cultural context, it incorporates both ideology and spooks. A spook, you might say, is a possible ingredient of an ideology.

Should I watch all of The Pervert's Guide?

So there isn't a word for being free from ideology because such thing isn't possible, that's terrifying
What kind of relationship do Zizek and Gramsci have? has Gramsci influenced zizek or they reached a similar conclusion by accident?

Totes fam, it's good stuff. If you liked that clip you'll like the rest of it.

You can only enter another ideology when you exit one. It's the way your brain works. At least as far as the argument goes, that is. Zizek is a psychoanalitic philosopher, a lot of his work deals with Lacan.

Well they're both radical left philosophers, Zizek studied his works as well as many others before him did. Gramsci helped shape a lot of radical leftist contemporary philosophy.

The "introduction" Zizek did for this book is really good. I recommend reading it - it is only about 25 pages long, then Mao's texts start. It is basically some analysis of Stalinism and Mao, possibly tracing some of their failure's theoretical roots. Some disagreement with Badiou as well. Though of course, as is usual with Zizek, describing the content of the text is hard in terms such as these: he briefly touches a lot of topics, but in a very insightful way.

So communism is an ideology too
I had this idea of being class conscious as being free from ideology
I dunno what to think now.

The "Zizekian" notion of ideology is a very, very broad one, so it may confuse one if one is used to thinking of "ideology" as meaning something else. The more basic marxist view of ideology as "false consciousness" is simply a different notion.

If I'm explaining the concept to people who aren't very philosophically inclined, I'm almost willing to describe as meaning something most people would mean when they say worldview. Except slightly more collective and subconscious.

Ideology does often work against us, but it is - in Zizek's view - how we structure our reality. There's no way to get rid of having something like that, and that is hardly bad news. The point is to critique ideology, move it forward and so on.

nope, it means you're savvy to the fact that you're being fucked.

this, and that's what marxism's always been about since the very start.

dunno if you're still around but this post sheds some light on what zizek means by ideology:

Interesting

That is from this book in this thread

Fash here, /ZizekGen/ what does Zizek suggest we do with our society?

I've heard him a couple times speak of V for Vendetta 2 being his greatest dream and even heard him speak of Lenin. But what is his agenda? What does the man want?

Is there any reason to root for him to succeed?

He doesn't have a specific plan. He mostly complains about how we don't have a plan and we should struggle to find one, by first abandoning all the ideas of the 20th century (like Marxism-Leninism, Social Democracy and local direct democracy).

Does he drop any tips that could illustrate what he thinks could be satisfactory?

Zizek has risen the point that the social democrat welfare that was fought and lot in the 20th century should stay on the 20th century
As socialists we should forget about public healthcare or education we need to demand worker's self management ASAP

Zizek has stated that the disintegrating modern wellfare state is something worth fighting to preserve.

Well, I mean.. It's better than privatizing fire departments, again!

Bump

Some all time great Zizek videos.

Markets without substance youtube.com/watch?v=K2JpW2Ar7M0

On death drive youtube.com/watch?v=uBd2r4YeQxs

Euthanasia of tolerant reason youtube.com/watch?v=jjOXGbNCjyE

The reality of the virtual youtube.com/watch?v=LuG8ElyirC0

Different figures of the big other youtube.com/watch?v=_7a3DVx_X1M

The big other and the event of subjectivity youtube.com/watch?v=7aYDwHNlmb4

Marx and Hegel youtube.com/watch?v=7lpUTmvQLb8

The Hegelian wound youtube.com/watch?v=DRsrYi-wXro

What the liberal left doesn't want to hear youtube.com/watch?v=k6pyufzQs4I

So you knew he was just framing the opposition's argument but you posted it to make it look like it was Zizek's argument anyway? Kys faggot

To Marx and Gramsci (who coined class conciousness) you CAN excape ideology, since ideology is the bougeoisie's tool to keep themselves in power by shaping the superstructure. False conscience as you said in the previous post.

Zizek's conception of ideology is only tangencial to marx and is more raw philosophy on an individual level than a framework to explain history and society.
It has more to do with Lacan and structuralism and critical theory than with Marxism.

So being class conscious is being free from ideology for Marx and Gramsci but not for Zizek

The reality of the virtual is really helpful for any beginner, by the way. Since he focuses on a few parts of his Lacanianism rather than applying his theory to random subjects.

He has two opinions about it:
1. It is or at least was good and to a degree successful (in some countries)
2. It cannot be preserved without more radical changes. The reasons are the usual: can't tax heavy with the free movement of capital, and in general, such small "local" solutions can't fix global problems like global warming.

So maybe from that we can draw that we should be ready to radicalise TO protect the welfare state, because it was good but is starting to fail, and neoliberal "add more market" / "privatise some parts of it" "pragmatic solutions" really don't work. It is utopianism to want to just continue on like before, and so on, and for that reason we should resurrect the real utopia, radicalise, go even more left in the welfare states, etc.

Is she on her knees or what

Fuck off

Holy shit

Does anyone have that image where Zizek talks about political correctness creating a 'deaf culture' out of being deaf.
Or know what work it came from?

The ten planks of neo-liberalism.

Guardian review of Zizek's upcoming book The Courage of Hopelessness. theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/28/courage-of-hopelessness-slavoj-zizek-review

It's a terrible review that just rehashes from another terrible review by John Gray, and then attempts to paint Zizek as calling for violence. Guardian is bottom of the barrel tier now, with his they are treating leftists these days.

/ourguy/ weighs in on the French election

archive.is/c7O70

...

If you live in europe this is your life. Other yuros will confirm.

Austrian here. Can confirm.

youtube.com/watch?v=YaxYKk-R8I0&feature=youtu.be&t=1978
Why are they so cute, bros?

I know it's not exactly Zizek but does anyone have Virtue and Terror

Don't have it.

But found the Introduction by Zizek to the book

engl376-vonmorze.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/Zizek - Robespierre.pdf

i bet none of you have this zizek pic. i screencapped it from youtube :P

Why should I read sniff man?

because he gives you a way out of pomo leftism.

someone put devil horns on him and paint him red, ffs

explain, what does Zizek offer that the post-structuralists don't.

Deleuze thinks one can experience and sense without interpretation/phantasm. What's zizek's answer to this?

Deleuze was anti-Lacanian and Zizek is Lacanian, in the sense that subjectivities are constructed through the interplay of lack, desire and discourse. Deleuze good back to Hume to create a new pre-Kantian metaphysics. Lacan and Zizek are firmly in the post-Kantian continental tradition. The gap between Hume and Kant is sort of unbridgeable.

Zizek's jokes

...

Zizek is like Zen, you can't understand him, you must feel him.

bump

They won't let me cycle anymore. Will I be able to afford the tax?

New interview with Channel4

youtube.com/watch?v=xN2ZGSX0cIE

The pain is real

bumping

...

...

He's coming tonight

Really? God damn, why did I only check the thread now…I didn't expect there'd be other Austrians on Holla Forums after all my Austrian politics threads got little response but good to know. We're comin', bucko.
I took a bus all the way from Graz, and was there all alone. Would have been nice to talk with someone
Did you enjoy his talk?
lmao

I enjoyed his talk a lot, it was one of the most entertaining talks about the refugee crisis. Loved the dick joke about Kurz.
Did you also get a signature?

But how the fuck did we not meet?
I also came here by bus.
From Graz.

I guess we will have reanimate your Austria thread.

that makes three of us. I wasn't quick enough to get a ticket for him though, feels bad.

top lel, what the actual fuck? You gotta be kidding me…
Are you living in Graz?

No. Absolute STATE of me. I thought he wasn't going to do a book signing so I only brought me Kindle with me. But maybe next time he'll be in Austria. H-hopefully.
So good.
Where did you sit?

Let's do that. I guess what's going on at the moment will provide enough material.

wew, Austrian Holla Forums growing stronger.

it is happening again

Yup. Moved here about a year ago to study.

In the Theater Akzent. Could not get a ticket for the big hall anymore, but at least he visited us before doing his talk.
Loved his German, by the way.

Right now it looks to me like Kurz wants to establish a centralised party with him as the only person with real power in it.

I'm curious if anyone could make a marxist analysis of our current politics.

Awesome. I'm living in a town 'near' Graz but spend most of my time there. m8, we have got to meet someday…and then plan the takeover of the KPÖ :^)
He did? That's nice of him.
I actually got a ticket for the big hall and got a great seat as well. I was on screen a few times as well lol.

I'll make a thread tomorrow if you're down. Where we can discuss how people unironically fall for Kurz smh.

Sounds like a plan to me. We should probably outsource our discussion anyway. It's getting a little too general for zizekcore, even though he loves discourses himself.

We COULD try to organise a meetup in the area, maybe via aforementioned thread.

bump for more about upcoming zizek lectures

What are they? Anyone has the link to the zizek calendar?

...

is this the lecture you guys went to ?

youtube.com/watch?v=aNlW3HnNqlk

Slavoj Žižek: Populism as a way to disavow social antagonism, May 24, 2017

youtube.com/watch?v=Dx1m_d_kOHI

That's some really sneaky fascism they've got going there.

More Zizek videos from this month

youtube.com/watch?v=t8f41HqGbnA

Slavoj Zizek and Will Self in Conversation: Dangerous Ideas

His latest book released this month.

Slavoj Zizek – The Courage of Hopelessness: An Year of Acting Dangerously.

I liked this. Will Self acting like a dickhead but it was entertaining.

Holla Forums, plz

thanks, m8

wtf is this shit lmao

wtf is up with that Pervert's Guide to Ideology link? I got a shit ton of sketchy lookin popups from it.

get an ad blocker, its a streaming site that doesn't care about copyright, or at least looks the other way.

Zizek - How to Reasonably Believe in God

(from March of this year).

youtube.com/watch?v=FjnlvlMa84Y

You're the man now, dog.

gentle bump

Yes.

Thank you :)

Bump

A critical review of Zizek's last book on Lenin Revolution at the Gates links.org.au/node/1500

Ooh boi
Ooh boi

>Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal is a journal for a post-Cold War left. It is a journal that rejects the Stalinist distortion of the socialist project
ooh boi

There is not that much of a difference, Stalin was a faithful Leninist.

finally I'm getting started with slavoj

started with wat?

now this, my lads, is what i call living dangerously

Added a couple of Zizeks to my list. Maybe one day I'll have the motivation to read at more than a snails pace and actually get to them.

There's so much thread sliding these day, I've to bump a thread everyday to keep it alive. It used to be, we could bump a thread every once in a while and not worry about it too much.

what did he mean by this

Keep reading. He basically says you can't claim primacy of class struggle *over* other struggles, but class stugle comes to be as a *determinate in the last instance* (in an Althusserian way).

bump again

...

Zizek at the meltdown festival

youtube.com/watch?v=EVl3T4e9rvQ

Is that the full thing?

New article by Zizek

The secret to Corbyn's success was rejecting PC culture as much as he rejected rabble-rousing populism

independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-success-general-election-theresa-may-pc-culture-reject-populism-a7785611.html

I can't wait for red washed liberals and tankies alike to REEEE about his bit on "PC dogma." Zizek is gettin' old. We can all feel it.

It's already happening. Check out Sam Kriss' latest tweets…

No response, just bants. Why do these people think that "Current Year" is an actual argument?

youtube.com/watch?v=g2D_ShYfC6M

tl;dw?

basically same as this article

...

Can someone explain what Zizek what trying to say in the bureaucracy bit of the courage of hopelessness?

Why does RT have him on as a guest so often? Why is it that RT in the west is so left-wing? absolutely subversive?

Yeah I read a bunch, they're ok but lots of them are kind of weird, my favourites were the ones on political philosophy and baudrillard.

bumping

bump

New Birkbeck lectures (podcast series).

part 1 Ideology as augmented reality backdoorbroadcasting.net/2017/05/slavoj-zizek-you-have-to-be-stupid-to-see-that-ideology-in-daily-life-1/

part 2 Reality as constricted ideology backdoorbroadcasting.net/2017/05/slavoj-zizek-you-have-to-be-stupid-to-see-that-ideology-in-daily-life-2/

Check their archive. They have more Zizek lectures from previous years.

bbk.ac.uk/bih/podcasts

currently reading the parallax view, and he's making things difficult

is death drive the element that cognitive sciences don't address, and therefore negates their legitimacy, or is it the psychoanalytic contribution to the larger scientific psychological project? i know he addresses this question specifically, but i can't understand his answer yet.

Lacan:

1997 → 2007 → 1995:
mega.nz/#F!DJdkhYTR!gNrR2Hm7we5O0dyfwBHG0g

Study help:
mega.nz/#F!eUlWRQxR!9LG4fzKLvNTiM0CKgUjqvA

Find a Lacanian analyst:
lacanonline.com/index/find-a-lacanian-psychoanalyst/

bump again

Any user be so kind and point me to the most important works from Zizek about religion (and Christianity)?

Here's a summary in hip infographic format

The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity

:^)

Thanks, much appreciated. inb4 I'm too dumb to understand it.

bump

Anyone have a pdf of Event?

Badiou's Being and Event, or Zizek's Event or his Event: A Philosophical Journey Through A Concept?

In any case, you can find them on libgen.io

Zizek got posted twice this week on /r/youtubehaiku – it's seems there's some recognition/acceptance of z memes there:
reddit.com/r/youtubehaiku/comments/6ilq44/poetry_the_border_between_the_balkans_and_europe/

reddit.com/r/youtubehaiku/comments/6igd0k/poetry_vegetarianism_exposed_by_philosopher/

Zizek's Event: A Philosophical Journey. I already checked Libgen and there's only epub.

German article by Zizek.

nzz.ch/feuilleton/slavoj-iek-ueber-peter-sloterdijk-die-revolution-findet-doch-statt-nur-anders-ld.1302786

Translation
zizektimes.com/2017/06/slavoj-zizek-about-peter-sloterdijk.html?m=1

how does this help me literally at all

i'm plenty familiar with lacan, i'm asking about a zizek chapter

when did he start his unholy bromance with Peter sloterdjik?
I remember reading one of his older books and he was roasting him hard

Recent European movements are working to get rid of the left – Corbyn should beware their underhanded tactics

independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-emmanuel-macron-france-labour-europe-brexit-get-rid-of-left-beware-a7808346.html

youtube.com/watch?v=uECJIf25cgs
Brittish conservative politician quotes Zizek.

Who is this clown?

bump

youtube.com/watch?v=2OYSMWJafAI

He started off making the case and in the middle of it all drifted away into politics. There are a number of questions that can be raised with Zizek's thesis. I just wish for a more serious discussion around this.

1. Alienation – Zizek seems to suggest alienation is desirable is some cases. I want to know whether it is possible to free ourselves entirely of alienation. Because large societies would need mediating structures of some kind, these would inevitably produce alienation. Perhaps the best that one can hope for is to reduce alienation?

2. The mode of bureaucracy – not all bureaucracies are created equal. Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify what exactly is it that we talking about?

bump

While I do enjoy his talks, sometimes it would be great if there was a moderator around to keep him in check.

he's right sometimes though: youtube.com/watch?v=fk6DKMlDgRY

…Jesus fucking Christ

He is an entertainer pretending to be a philosopher.

Only someone who has never read anything by him would say this.

But what if the opposite is true?

t. Gnome Chomsky

"Computers are Stupid" – Zizek

youtube.com/watch?v=gOEMKPQVuJk

bump

I haven't read anything by Zizek yet, but I did just watch "The Pervert's Guide To Ideology". My impression so far is that his conception of ideology as a material force is an application of the concept of the floating signifier to the commodity form, and what meaning we put into it in turn is a reflection of our personal reaction to inescapable domination by social authorities. Is this wrong?

The point about the floating signifier (I think Zizek discusses this in relation to the Jaws movie) is that it's how a floating signifier gains the status of the point de capiton, or quilting point, through aggregation of numerous significations into one thing (the shark stands in for the many numerous evils of society). This is not the fundamental form of ideology. It's just one aspect of it.

I don't know what you're referring to, but he constantly refers to Stolterdjik as his "good friend".

Sloterdjik and Zizek is what this world needs 2bh

I don't know how people generally feel about this book, but I can't stand it. Zizek makes a ton of assertions about beliefs, rewrites Christianity to the point where it doesn't resemble anything like actually-existing-Christianity, and does not ever engage with the historical/truth claims of Christianity - instead for him, none of it really happens and no one, except fundamentalists, believe in the God of Abraham. I think it's an untenable thesis and I kind of hate the book.

Wow, you all try to understand zizek but NO ONE FUCKING MENTIONS FREUD?

Holla Forums, you are spooked. Very, very spooked. Abandon positivism. Embrace psychoanalysis with all its faults and wrongdoings. Take Freud. Enlighten yourself.

As Zizek points out anti-semites and the zionist far-right constantly finds common ground.

rt.com/news/395911-soros-netanyahu-orban-billboard/

...

Thank you for saving it. Mods are fucking fags.

Zizek on hypersensitivity youtube.com/watch?v=6xKqSA3E2E8

"Marx was not a philosopher"

youtube.com/watch?v=YQvD2JJBNCs

Read Lukacs you fuck head. Positivism is alive and dominates all aspects of academic discourse. Fucking Pragmatists. "Order and Progress" asshole.

Reading Violence as my first Zizek book at the moment. Really enjoying it so far even though I'm a bit of a brainlet so don't understand some of the bits. Did have my lunchtime reading session interrupted by an invasion of school children today though which was a bit shit.

where's Zizek's Foreword to Terrorism and Communism when you need it? Anyone?

I gotchu fam

In order to leverage the concept of Geist without breaking the conditioning of his marxian brainlet readers he's transmutated the functional manifestations of geist into 'ideology' just to put it somehow more close to marx in the readers mind. It's the old commie switch-a-roo.
I have followed Zizek since around 2008 as a kind of anti-pattern, like, this is what I would be like if I didn't properly absorb the lessons of the stoics. What I've gotten from him is this high-art/comedy game of trying to build an ever expanding framework of bullshit to keep yourself attached to a logos which shifts away from Marx at every turn.

To put it another way, god is at the top of the scaffolding of a building, he has taken the princess (the will of the proletariat) and Zizek must scratch, sniff, and deontologize his way up the structure in order to free her. It would play a lot like Catharine.
Catharine, by the way, is a video game which gives you Freudian theory with a little less of that 'literotica' thing into which Freud slips. In so far as Zizek references Freud, it's more than sufficient.

thanks a lot

The URL doesn't work for me. Is this the case for anybody else?

That server seems to have gone offline.

b-ok.org/md5/FF89D9D516FE1088F4A0D49E6A3EA727

if you want to download a book just use ligben.io

New zizek lecture (just audio tho)

Lessons from "Airpocalypse", 30. June 2017

youtube.com/watch?v=m7dh7b_DgWk

New Zizek article

Elections, Popular Pressure, and Inertia

thephilosophicalsalon.com/elections-popular-pressure-and-inertia/

It would've been nice if he explained what the "trap" of direct democracy was.

He develops this line of thinking sometime after the failure of OWS and Arab Spring, both of which he was fully supportive of. He had mild criticisms in this book, The Year of Dreaming Dangerously , but doesn't develop it fully, and it was still written in the enthusiastic mode.

He goes into a bit more length in this video, but it still not fully formed. youtube.com/watch?v=dhnLqAUdYKk

Part of the problem is a philosophical one, as I understand it. Direct Democracy is presented to us as a dis-alienating solution. Zizek is suspicious of such claims, and believes it is impossible to have a situation that is not alienating in some way. All we can manage is minimize or reduce alienation. He even sees value in some amount of alienation.