Zizek thread

I'll share this: youtube.com/watch?v=RnTQhIRcrno. This is one of the better videos Zizek's put out, I think, seems to contain, hint at, or preempt a surprising amount of his ideas. I read somewhere the basic idea of his ridiculously long book on Hegel is essentially in this too, but I suppose I'll never know because reading 1100 pages of Zizek isn't on the menu. Also the best point is made right at the start. Who's excited about virtual reality? Everyone. But reality is terrible, absolutely loathsome; what could be less appealing than trying to simulate something so awful?

And a question: could Zizek be described as metamodern? I'm just getting (re)aquainted with the term, so bear with me. As I understand it metamodernism is characterised in art and philosophy by a locating in between modernist sincerity and postmodern cynicism. I think of the phrase "joking-not joking." Or "serious-not serious." This kind of makes sense with a lot of Zizek's provactive statements, such as his ambiguous positions on Stalin. I think he'd either qualify as metamodern, or metamodern is a misnomer and I'd be tempted to regress to the position that he's postmodern and truly everyone is. This because postmodernity is symptomatic of historical conditions from which we have yet to emerge (we live postmodernity), and as such it's never a question of personal style.

I'm convinced even Rafiq's inner voice head sounds like this.

Violence wears out it's welcome. Zizek has trouble making any straight forwards point in it, imo.

How do you even make those accent marks without copy/paste?

Can we get some good Zizek pdfs in here?

Ye

Zizek take on immigration
youtube.com/watch?v=J5qEmvL-D0w
Post this when trots or red liberals try to shill their trash here

If you're using Windows, there's a program called charmap that will show you the Alt+Key Combo to make any UTF character. It's already installed on your system, you don't gotta' download shit famalam.

For example,
Ž = Alt+0142
ž = Alt+0158

In Linux, I believe Gucharmap (for GNOME) and KCharSelect (for KDE) is the equivalent.

...

That's an actually decent guide for a starter, imo.

Have a pdf of "The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic?" by Zizek and Milbank.

It's pretty good, but I really am not a fan of Zizek's pop-political books. He himself says his heart isn't really in them, that his publishers push him to write "shitty political interventions". And they're not very rigorous philosophically, like his other books are. So it might give the wrong impression of his actual beliefs.

Short article by Zizek on the Korean nuclear tension

rt.com/op-edge/402959-korean-nuclear-christie-apocalypse-zizek/

Anyone?

surprise, it's shit. Fuck Zizek.

SEETHING

In how you've defined metamodern, I'd agree with you. But then again, why the need to define him as metamodern or as anything else?

I agree that the article is shit but why don't you like Zizek?

He's funny to listen to but he's usually wrong about everything. If you actually listen to him, he typically just advocates socdem bullshit with a tinge of fascism and a veneer of Leninism.

...

Could you elaborate on this?

Part of Zizek's whole gimmick is that he mixes in right-wing criticisms of left politics.

Stop this

perhapsh i can offer you some fucking fruit joosh in theesh trying timesh?

so essentially he's a regular old socdem. left fig leaf of fascism.

It's true tho.

Post some then

lel

stop posting like this and read rafiq and zizek

Looking Awry - An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture

...

Lacanain theory and therapy > Zizekian memes and political analysis
Prove. Me. Wrong.
Hint: you can't

Rafiq is so good. Wonder what he is up to now

That video was taken down. Does anyone have an alternate link?

I'm not sure which video it was. Was it this one?
youtube.com/watch?v=c1xJTXkwEJ4

I can't

He sounds really cultish tbh.

Seems to be part of this lecture: youtube.com/watch?v=k6pyufzQs4I
Or at least thats what my limited search seemed to indicate, it also indicates that the excerpt was 13 minutes long.

Any pointers to in which work(s) Zizek explictly criticizes Foucault or were any 'Zizekian' expands on the difference between them?

I enjoy both, and I'm aware Foucault was highly influential on Althusser and Cahiers pour l’Analyse so I'd like the see were they differ specifically.

Here's a brilliant site for Cahiers pour l’Analyse btw, which also serves as a great glossary and map for reoccurring concepts within French Thought cahiers.kingston.ac.uk/

Anyone got some more recent Zizek pdfs? Like some of his work from the early 2010's onward?

Reminder that if you haven't read this entire post you can't talk about Zizek:
alphonsevanworden.tumblr.com/post/146430343445/the-protocols-of-the-learned-lacanian-of/amp

Is this actually any good?

Have The Courage of Hopelessnes, my man.

Reminder that that whole text's central claim, that Zizek made the first translation of Protocols into Slovene and that he's an anti-semite, are the product of Molly Klein's ("she" is the author of that piece) fabrications, and that aside from that all "critiques" of his theory are worthless: thecharnelhouse.org/2015/06/24/in-defense-of-slavoj-zizek/.

Zizek is postmodernist garbage

and i thought the whole nazbol thing was just a dumbass meme picking on an absurdity
but this place really is the absurdity itself

How new can one man be smh

2015 and i regret every single day i look at the state of people considering themself "left" and even more class-concious than the already insufferable open liberals

is Zizek actually a fascist?

many of his points really sound like the points that populist right wingers make

No.

No, he's not. What gives you that impression?

I don't know why people act like they don't understand where this comes from. When Zizek says things like: "I'm against multiculturalism, I'm against transgenderism, Ghandi was more violent than Hitler, his clash of cultures argument wrt Syrian refugees, etc". Like how people still confused when people think he has right wing beliefs.

...

Maybe those people should either read what he wrote or listen closer.

I do understand where this comes from, I just didn't want to assume you were a brainlet that doesn't read or understand Zizek, but it looks like that was silly of me.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/03/immigration-policy-roma-rightwing-europe

I'm not the same guy. I just think it's silly to pretend like you don't get the misunderstanding.

I'm not pretending dumb ass. Zizek isn't a fascist and I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and offering him a chance to explain his position instead of just assuming he believes the ignorant shit you posted.

thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-sexual-is-political/

I don't think the article can be well excerpted, at least not from my phone. Anyway, that Zizek is against "transgenderism" is false bordering on a lie.

newrepublic.com/article/62376/disputations-who-are-you-calling-anti-semitic

inthesetimes.com/article/18385/slavoj-zizek-european-refugee-crisis-and-global-capitalism

Here is a rare Zizek, and Nick Land's edgy reaction to it as he realized he will never be taken seriously by anyone relevant but weird leftists and cynical nerds who watched too much Serial Experiment Lain.

Sleeper Comrade Farage at it again.

Bump

...

God forbid philosophers try to be funny and interesting, right? Did you read that paper?

It has no abstract.

Not all papers have abstracts. Regardless you didn't answer my question. Did you read it or not?

Does anyone know about zizeks stance that reality itself is inconsistent and how that maps onto actual current understandings of physics? If someone knows current science ontology but not zizeks stance I can say more (mostly pulling from end of absolute recoil)

His argument is only that reality is inconsistent in a symbolic sense, so I'm not sure if there's very much interaction with scientific ontology other than a broad rejection of scientific realism. I'd be interested in someone knowledgeable to answer this too tbh.

Why?

Roughly speaking, scientific realism is the belief that the world that science describes is real. The assertion that reality is inconsistent and that it cannot be totalized conflicts with this belief.