Why is his ideology not an ideology?

uwot?

But people can improve their ideology. This is why I’m no longer have nazi beliefs.

He would be the first to tell you that he's operating under an ideology but his main criticisms are geared toward the pervasive and obfuscated nature of the ruling ideology.

In Marxism ideology means false conscience, Zizek fuses that with lacanian concepts where ideology means an all encompassing world view that more or less is not materialistic.

How is Marxism not a religion

I think he suggests that if we can never escape ideology than the only possible near-solution would be to build the most expansive yet consistent ideology which is the most productive, of which we can be as aware of as possible while acknowledging its limits and realizing there are other things that will always undermine aspects of our thinking, you retarded loser. Read a fucking book before accusing someone way smarter than you of being inconsistent in their thought.

he means consciousness, which in turn just means that people falsely perceive themselves and their place in their social structure

you faggot

this is unbelievably gay, you should be ashamed of how fucking dumb you are

he's critiquing "post-ideological pragmatists" who are actually liberals
he's not saying you shouldn't be ideological, he says that self-identified non-ideologues are subconsciously ideological

Gonna try to break this down into simple terms for you. Ideology is the imaginary counterpart to symbolic "knowledge". If knowledge is how you understand the world then ideology is how your understanding of the world is experienced in every moment. Zizek isn't claiming to be above ideology, you're misunderstanding his analysis of ideology. For Zizek ideology is a sublime object, and it's one he's absolutely obsessed with.

Apperanlty Chomsky considers him a pretender of some sorts. People say he’s expanded on social and leftist philosophy somehow. I saw a video of Chomsky contradicting these ideas, saying “where’s the contributions, I don’t see any” I’m paraphrasing though. Anyway the video I saw of Chomsky saying such things was the first time I personally heard of the man, and I haven’t read any of his work either.

I'm not sure le vote for the dems man is a great source

Chomsky has literally never been able to into continental philosophy.

Serious question. To Zizek was Stirner correct about 'spooks'? Are they and ideology the same concept?

there is some correlation, since spooks are fixed ideas and every ideology depends on them. consider liberal "rule of law", republican "liberty" or fascist "race"

This

All of you are assuming that "ideology" means the same thing as like Race or Class in a video game. Its not some customizable category and thinking it is is how you get 500 special snowflake leftist denominations to pick out of the discount bin

we are all eating from the trashcan all the time

He explicitly says that one can't escape ideology.

somebody explain this post

Ideology is like looking at everything through Pokemon Go

Except the pokemon are Jews and we're the Nazis.

I'm not a Nazi

user who made the post here. So knowledge is symbolic because it's experienced through language, whereas ideology is imaginary because it's experienced through images (i.e. our senses). Ideology is something that we experience imminently (i.e. viscerally, in the moment), and when you consider ideology as an "object" of philosophical study it has characteristics that are sublime (meaning it's immense/overwhelming, it makes you imminently aware of your limits). Ideology is responsible for much of the richness of lived experience, since it's how you understand the world in an imminent sense.

So Zizek plagiarized Heidegger?

No, while Heidegger and Zizek both tend to have a focus on phenomenology (to more or less of a degree), Zizek is anti-existentialist and more focused on the structure of subjectivity. Zizek is also more uncritically accepting of Hegelian and post-Hegelian philosophy than Heidegger is.

How did you ever come to that conclusion?

Every ideology has an object from which it derives it's authority. That object could be God, the market, a great man, information, etc. But regardless of what that object is, it isn't understood on a symbolic level, because it can't be. The object at the kernel of one's ideology needs to be sublime for it to be compelling. The conclusions that follow from one's ideological position are always filtered through one's ideology regardless of one's awareness of one's ideological position, so in other words, ideology is always experienced imminently.

I can follow you here, but the question still stands, how did you come to that conclusion? Isn't the point that these sort of "full-stops", be they a god, a principle like freedom or equality, or the interests of a certain class or race are never the real horizons of ideology? And if these sublime objects cannot be understood on a symbolic level, then how can you name them in the first place?
This seems like a tautology.

Sorry, I'm not doing a great job at conveying what I mean here. The idea is that the sublime object of an ideology is the kernel of an ideology; these objects are master signifiers (signifiers without a signified), meaning they don't refer to any distinct quality or demonstrable object in the world. It's precisely because the sublime object(s) at the kernel of an ideology consists of just a name that they can fill the role they do. Appeals to Things like "the people" or God depend on people treating these things as if they were concrete even though they aren't.

However, these Things aren't just floating signifiers. They have a meaning, and they contain an internal logic. It's this logic that determines the real horizons of an ideology.
That's because I was unclear. My point was that one always has a set of master signifiers that they use to give meaning to their experience of the world, and that people largely receive these from the social/political realm. It's because these signifiers are shared that we can even speak of ideologies and their effects on social relations.

I'm hardly an expert on Zizek though. If I'm being retarded I'd appreciate it if someone would please let me know, I'd like to correct that.

pointing out ideologies and people's refusal to do so isn't the same as just having one