What are some of the things he believes?
What are some of the things he believes?
Bump, I see him all over this board.
He doesn't believe in anything.
He just critiques others.
Not sure, from what I've heard from him he just criticizes everything
he believes vidya is patrician, /lit/ btfo yet again
Lacan and Hegel
women have no penis
tulips look like vaginas
death penalty for sam harris and bernard henri levy
Since I arrived on this board I started to hate him. Why so many people love him?
Watch his movies and read his simpler books. The guy makes some very good points
He makes people feel intelligent without the reader needing to make any effort.
I love Zizek
He believes reality is incomplete in itself, and that the root of ideological division (different scapegoats) arises from the same split that gives rise to different conscious awarenesses. In ideology we name a scapegoat for the fundamental non consistency of reality. Truth is not unknowable, there is no unified truth
Isn't that post-modernism? I thought Holla Forums hated PoMo.
all of us are products of postmodernity, we abide by it whether or not we hate the Frankfurt School of Witchcraft & Wizardry.
Holla Forums even more so, with their beliefs of any source (Alex Jones etc) being better than educated journalists, the idea of Soros being behind everything, everyone they don't like is a Marxist etc.
Got any examples?
Bureacratic Socialism. I don't understand why anarchists like him. He is /ourguy/.
But what if the opposhit were troo?
Ha, before he gave that talk about bureaucratic socialism all the tankies were shitting on him for not defending 20th century communism. And I don't think most anarchists here like him, it's mostly me.
He is a profesional contrarian.
also Zizek has gotten into it with almost every contemporary postmodernist and makes fun of the more ridiculous ones like Judith Butler
Zizek, not Chomsky
Chomsky believes in old school anarcho-syndicalism.
He believes that fist fucking is a revolutionary act.
What does this even mean? How can reality be incomplete?
Zizek’s understanding of the postmodern can be characterized as an over-proximity of the Real. Zizek identifies various manifestations of this in postmodern culture, such as the technique of “filling in the gaps.” By way of “filling in the gaps” and “telling it all”, what we retreat from is the void as such, which is ultimately none other than the void of subjectivity (the Lacanian “barred subject”).
For Zizek, present society, or postmodernity, is based upon the demise in the authority of the big Other. Continuing the theorists of the contemporary risk society, who advocate the personal freedoms of choice or reflexivity, which have replaced this authority, Zizek argues that these theorists ignore the reflexivity at the heart of the subject. For Zizek, lacking the prohibitions of the big Other, in these conditions, the subject’s inherent reflexivity manifests itself in attachments to forms of subjection, paranoia and narcissism. In order to ameliorate these pathologies, Zizek proposes the need for a political act or revolution—one that will alter the conditions of possibility of postmodernity (which he identifies as capitalism—much the same way Jameson identifies it as the cultural logic of capitalism) and so give birth to a new type of Symbolic Order in which a new breed of subject can exist.
One key aspect of the universalization of reflexivity is the resulting disintegration of the big Other, the communal network of social institutions, customs and laws. For Zizek, the big Other was always dead, in the sense that it never existed in the first place as a material thing. All it ever was (and is) is a purely symbolic order. It means that we all engage in a minimum of idealization, disavowing the brute fact of the Real in favor of another Symbolic world behind it. Zizek expresses this disavowal in terms of an “as if”. In order to coexist with our neighbors we act “as if” they do not smell bad or look ridiculous. The big Other is then a kind of collective lie to which we all individually subscribe.
Paradoxically, then (and to add to your post), Zizek argues that the typical postmodern subject is one who displays an outright cynicism towards official institutions, yet at the same time believes in the existence of conspiracies and an unseen Other pulling the strings. This apparently contradictory coupling of cynicism and belief is strictly correlative to the demise of the big Other. Its disappearance causes us to construct an Other of the Other in order to escape the unbearable freedom its loss encumbers us with.
Do you think even people like Jordan Peterson have a strictly postmodernist worldview as well? His views on the postmodern neo-Marxists invading everything (while really it's just politically correct liberals) is a sort of postmodern psychosis? Is he exactly what he rails against for $$$?
I'm not well read enough to come to a conclusion about this tbh.
Almost all of his takes are postmodern in nature, yes.
Do you think he knows this and just ignores it while playing up to the neo-reactionaries who pay him to name the Jew, or is he just a dumb psychologist?
A combination of both, I suppose. I think he's very poorly read and quite misinformed but he knows it doesn't matter because the audience he's grifting is even more poorly read and misinformed.
I really want to see Zizek and Peterson have a conversation. I wonder how long it'd take Zizek to make Peterson cry.
That's better than being an autistic MUH MOTHERLAND tankie or a MUH CATALONIA anarkid
Pornography is a special lens through which to view the Spectacle.
Living in the end times is also a book anyone can read fairly easily.
its Hegelian malarkey
I know you're going to get triggered but:
actually, *sniff* here we should take step back and *pull the shirt* ask some important questions: why are you a tankie and why are you here in Holla Forums, and sho on sho on
I'm with Chomsky on this one. I see him as an entertainer and nothing more.
His take on le matrix is p dank, gives a classic example to gauge his reaxxion to
It's hard to know because he's a real life shitposter.
I mean anything seen here
has a 50/50 chance of being ironic.
If women have no penis are traps gay? What is his stance on the trap question?
People that hate Zizek are usually lifestylist children
nah. from what I've seen on here the Zizek haters tend to not even understand what he's saying at all
He's the best modern leftist tbh
Chomsky in my opinion is just a step above Michael Moores liberal horseshit, he hasnt provided anything of value to the left in more than a decade and then he goes on to discard Zizek and Lacan as "Posturing" and not actually interpreting what he sees as faults in psychoanalytic theory.
Don't listen to and .
Chomsky is the most important living intellectual, leftist or not.
"There are many different kinds of truth, and I don't mean that in a post modern way… [Goes on to bullshit about how whatever is practically useful MUST be true because I'm afraid of the real world and have to run away to the grossly oversimplified idealism of fairytales and religion]"
-Jordan 'Marxism has killed 10 quintillion and liberalism has never touched a fly' Peterson.
Also, I've tried and failed to actually pin down what specific Leftist tendency Zizek adheres to.
I mean he's def not a Marxist-Leninist, like some on here have claimed, he's referred to the USSR on numerous occasions as a failure. He's def not an Anarchist because I heard him give a crappy whine about how he cba to attend council organisations of decentralized planning committees (I mean he might have made a more substantial critique of anarchism but that's all I could find). He may very well be a Leftcom or Trotskyist, and I think he's said things to the effect of Accelerationism.
I also remember once hearing someone say that HE has said that he hated politics in general and participated in ideological discourse begrudgingly. I think he just identifies as a Communist cause he's read Marx and doesn't want to be accountable for the things which are going wrong in society, so doesn't really adhere to any actual movement of the past.
He mocked Trotskysists more than once.
Thank goodness, I was scared for a moment.
To be fair, you have to have a very high Autism Level to understand Slavoj Zizek. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of Althusserian dialectics, most of the discourse will go over a typical analyst's head. There's also Slavoj's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Fistfucking Pornography, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these youtube videos, to realize that they're not just thought-provoking - they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence most people truly ARE idiots, my god - of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Zizek's existential catchphrase "and so on", which itself is a cryptic reference to Lacan getting an egg fucked off his head. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those interpellated Stalinists scratching their heads in confusion as Zizek's sniffs unfold themselves. What fools… how I pity them. And yes by the way, the opposite is true, I DO have a Hegel tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only - And even they have to demonstrate that they're within five negations of my own negation (preferably subaltern) beforehand.
this is perfect
The toppest of keks.
The hottest of takes.