Can somebody please explain Zizek's concept of ideology to a newfag?
Can somebody please explain Zizek's concept of ideology to a newfag?
Watch this it's 3 minutes
A cosmology that surrounds you and that affect the context you give to everything you experience.
And so on
,and so on
I've tried to express this clearly and with the context you need to understand Zizek's conception of ideology. I'm not a great writier, so If anything's unclear pls ask about it.
Knowledge is expressed symbolically (it's expressed in language), and it's shared between people (it's intersubjective). The symbolic order consists of signs (i.e. names) and their differences relative to other signs. The imaginary order is sorta the opposite of the symbolic order because it's mainly characterized by identification, and relates signs to a subject's body. In other words, the imaginary gives content to the symbolic, and is how a subject immediately experiences the world. Take the act of driving a car to get an intuition of why identification is related to immediacy: when you're driving you naturally view the car as an extension of your body.
Basically ideology is the imaginary counterpart to knowledge. If knowledge is a shared way of understanding the world, then ideology is the way that one's understanding of the world is experienced.
But what if the opposite were true?
You joke, but there's actually some merit to Zizek's method of inverting different shit. It's a good question. What if we didn't consider ideology as something that universally gives context to one's experiences, but instead as something that removed context in order to make our experience of the Real less traumatic? Clearly this must be the case.
all left handed people are potential prostitutes
It's easy to make anything sound profound this way.
If that's the case, we should be glad for the ideology, it serves as opium. 'Cause the real is fucking horrible. (of course I get that the joke is that by said therapeutic function, ideology keeps us back from trying to change the terrible real that is in fact largely inflicted upon us by x)
It is easy to make profound observations this way, and a lot of Zizek's work is dedicated to explaining why this form of analysis is as effective as it is.
If you want the TL;DR I think this could do
There are some recs of literature in the thread as well
That guy doesn't even understand what he's 'explaining'.
This is possibly the worst "explanation" of Zizek I've ever seen. The person has no clue what they're talking about.
This is truly the worst comic to ever exist.
Heyo, been thinking on this and this seems like the thread.
Is the deal sort of that we can't put "objective truth" into language since it's beyond language? One way I think of it is that our normal way of thinking about "knowledge" implies subject-object in the following way: [subject] knows [object]. For example, [I] know [2+2=4]. We are able to think this way because of our perception of ourselves as discrete people knowing a language and verifying our "knowledge" with other people.
Yet at the same time, no one really knows anything since we do not know what the universe is. It's trivial to say "deny this" and punch me in the face, but at the same time we know that no expert can really say what any object is, since any object (including us of course) is made of matter which we ultimately don't understand.
So, is the problem of ideology that any worldview you put into words falls into this trap of basing itself on the opinion of some other person who speaks your language, as opposed to what is "really" the case? Yet it seems there is a double-bind: what I've just said is that we can't "know" anything, so all our language and articulated beliefs are meaningless. Yet, we obviously act like we know things and there's the problem of establishing world communism to attend to… so how do we justify a worldview since we want one when we're smart enough to understand (heh) that the truth is not of the order subject-object the way we normally think of it?
I think this line of reasoning is powerful in that it shows that world change must be related to each person's spontaneous experience of what it means to be themselves, but on the other hand the fact that the world is beyond language has implications for 1) our ability to find the understanding, motivation, and means for decisive world historical action, and 2) the ultimate ability of this action to address this fundamental fact (ha) of the cosmos.
So we could establish world communism, perfect technology, subsume the universe, break time, get bored and create simulations of old conflicts and boom! That's actually where we are right now. At the same time, while we dither on about "meaning" the real world is out there and our "enemies" are making gainz.
Just wanted to posit this conception/problematic to you all in case someone has interesting thoughts on it
I think that you've run into the third of Lacan's three orders here: the Real. The Real order is that part of experience which is neither symbolic nor imaginary. The Real is impossible to imagine, and it's impossible to integrate into the symbolic order. The Real order's unintelligibly makes it essentially traumatic.
Getting punched in the face is a good example of this since it resists description, this shows what the Real is like considered in imaginary terms. Then you talk about the impossibility of "knowing" anything since language has no meaning in-itself. This is what the real is like considered in symbolic terms, it's pure anxiety.
And to cap it all off you end with a perfect example of ideological fantasy (technocommunism), which you use here as a means to escape the anxiety induced by this encounter, and in it we can see a trace of the real in real terms; a glimpse of the sublime, in other words. Wew.
"Anything he doesn't like"
This reflects my understanding of Lacan's real as well. But the real would be present in any situation, from the concentration camps to FALC. One horn of my problematic is certainly this one (lel): given that the real is this huge problem to all knowledge in all cases, how do we make the case for doing one thing over another? A lacanian or at least non-repressive ethics.
What about the idea that our current flawed reality could be a manifestation of the highest fantasy? I.e. that whatever we want to happen, it could lead to the simulation or repetition of this level of the world for some reason- hence the big project is already accomplished in a way.
This would be a way, not around, but deeper into the anxious trauma, since we would be deprived of the signifiers which structure our experience there (our individuality, trustworthiness of sensory data, the shame of inadequacy, and so on).
But sticking to the level you pointed out, it makes it seem like anything trying to get out of pure traumatic anxiety is childish. Is this your position? If not, do we have to fantasize? So, when you said technocommunism is an ideological fantasy, is this to negate it as a possible structuring symbol?
At last I truly see….
This is the funniest shit. Any more?
Woman has no penis, whatever.