It really interests me why do you listen to people like Zizek...

Where are these plebbitors coming from?

people saying

penn_jillette.jpg

I like Zizek's lectures and TV appearances, they are a good intro to left thought, and they recomforted me before I discovered Holla Forums and felt like the only leftist who was suspicious of liberal idpol on Earth.

That said, I also think Zizek is a bad influence upon our youth. Instead of encouraging people curious about leftist theory to read relatively simple but insightful texts like those of the situationists or even Marx himself, he orients them towards two of the most incomprehensible philosophers of all-time, namely Hegel and Lacan.
Sure, he would tell you that he doesn't care if you are an idiot or whatever, kys and so on, and that's part of his appeal, but that's still bad. It makes people believe that to be a Marxist, you have to be the caricature of a 1960s post-structuralist philosopher.

In short, yeah he is a casualty of the 20th-century Parisian intellectual environment. No, he doesn't give a fuck about post-Chomskyan linguistics and cognitive science, because post-positivism and modern philosophy of science are bourgeois, I guess. It must be hard to read scientific papers when you spent your career reading "normaliens".

Hello friend, I assume you're not a "brainlet" here? How do you or anyone here explains Lacan's incorporation of Saussurean formalized language? What revelation made him believe that he must adopt some purposefully non-psychological formalism as a means of psychological inquiry? It's a principal question if one wants to absolve Zizek and the groundwork of his theory. Because I see a totalitarian undercurrent here.

t. Brainlet
Speaking Russian does not give you ability to speak cocking Polish. Speaking Slovenian does not give you the ability to speak Russian; which he does and has done interviews in several times.

No what I am saying is that to speak that many languages, you NEED a good understanding of linguistics.

this reminds me of a remark:
"With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, “He says so and so,” he always says, “You misunderstood me.” But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying, that’s the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.”

I’m not familiar with what you’re talking about but I’m not really sympathetic to lacan and only marginally so to Zizek. I gave a good back ground in linguistics though and your argument sounds reasonable to me if I understand it right. Could you recommend some readings that advance the same arguments in more complete ways?

Really? Where? I'm extremely interested since I speak Russian. I remember this "bloke" couldn't even properly translate his Stalin's poster that hangs on his wall.

This is fundamentally wrong. Again, linguistics =/= knowing many languages (which he doesn't, in fact). Do you know what the science of linguistics is concerned with?
Does working at a factory and performing many chemical procedures make you an analytical chemistry scientist?

Yes, there are some university papers, I'm not sure they're published on the Internet. Here's one of the more accessible:
users.clas.ufl.edu/nholland/lacan.htm

Bruv you can't work at a chemical factory without picking up basic chemistry, you can't study multiple languages without picking up linguistics.

Nigga's funny. He just blurts out every idea he has, and once in a while he says something useful. The rest of the time, at least it's good for a laugh.

Yah I found this one after searching on google. I haven’t finished it yet but it looks promising. Do you have any written by academics who specialize in linguistics though? I wouldn’t be surprised if such a paper is hard to find because I don’t think most contemporary linguists give a fuck about lacan but I’d appreciate it if you could suggest such a paper.

An informal understanding of linguistics, perhaps, and actually, I would argue that you rather gain it by experience and a bit of introspection, but of scientific linguistics, you don't.
There might be people at your local pub or among your friends who are very good at providing support and instilling a positive outlook on life in troubled people. These people are good informal clinical psychologists.
It doesn't mean at all that they can come up with elaborated theories and methods backed up with (more or less) solid arguments on how to alleviate mental suffering, like Freud, Lacan, the committee behind the DSM-V, and people who publish academic papers do. Same thing with linguistics.

Also, as implied, Serbo-Croat is very close to Slovenian, Zagreb is a couple of hours away from Ljubljana, and most Slovenians are good at foreign languages, or else they would stay very isolated from the rest of the world.
Most serious philosophers also know German, and I guess he learned a bit of Russian at school during the Cold War, but I doubt he is fluent in it.
He is better at languages than most people, sure, but nothing in that indicate that he have read papers about obscure languages with "object–verb–subject" as the dominant word order and shit like that, unlike Chomsky.

>he has read papers**
fuck this stupid english rule btw

Since Lacan was a psychoanalyst, they are mostly concerned with psycholinguistics, not always in English, and are not free
If you're so inclined I can point you towards it
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014385508000881

...

Chomsky is a linguistic genius and one of the biggest 20th century's scientists, whereas Zizek is a linguistic nobody compared with him.

Because you said so?

The global scientific community made him the most cited scientist, perhaps in history. Therefore it's the global scientific community's opinion. What do I have to do with this?

Stop your shitposting for a moment and take a look at this :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Linguistic_theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_grammar

Oh, and just to add something quickly to , the conceptualization of formal grammars, most notably of context-free grammars (or Type-2 grammars in Chomsky hierarchy) have been central to the development of high-level programming languages, which in turn tremendously boosted the development of software for computers.
Without Chomsky, you probably wouldn't have made a fool of yourself on this imageboard today.

Brainlet - the post.

Psychoanalysis is not psychology. If you don't know the difference you shouldn't make a thread with such bombastic claims.

Linguistics isn't like physics where a newer theory has possibly explanatory potential. The core claims of Saussure hasn't been – can not be – surpassed. If you have a positivistic account of linguistics you are a brainlet who tramples on grounds he does not know and probably shouldn't make threads like this.

It's not even a significant idea of his. His whole system could functions pretty well without the mirror stage.

kek, give us sources so we can laugh at you, please

There was only one linguistic revolution, Saussure's. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Linguistics isn't like chemistry or physics.

Oh, boo hoo!

* has possibly better explanatory potential

...

Not even Chomsky would call it that, you drooling moron.

Chomsky would protest vehemently calling him a "scientist". Do you have even the slightest idea about the topic you are trying to talk about?

Yes, I understand you're a psychoanalyst of are closely affiliated with psychoanalysis and structuralism. Unfortunately structuralism still didn't recover from its generativist critique and have deservedly fallen into obscurity, apart from some psychoanalytical and literary theorist sects. And I'm not going to point you towards these seminal papers, you know them as well as me if you claim to know the subject.
Your nervous insults and attacks on me won't help you if you're fundamentally wrong or at least extremely exotic, so don't bother if you have nothing new to say.

I couldn't care less "what Chomsky would do", cognitive science is not a science anymore?

So good that you have these "sources" that did the "debunking" for you so you don't have to bother to cite them or retell their main arguments in your own words.

It's a school of psychology, just like logical positivism is a school of philosophy, or the Austrian school or Marxism are to economics. Deal with it.
So basically, you are saying that there is no use in studying linguistics, all the people in this academic field are just pushing paper around and pretend to do intellectual work, Saussure discovered every tool possible to analyze language, and the rest of us should pack up our bags and go home, right?

So many signifiers, so little signified.

Source ? Meanwhile, most people see him as the founder of cognitive science.

Psychoanalysis isn't a school of psychology, this is not just factually incorrect, but historically as well. Modern psychology deviated from Freud and not the other way around, very much like modern economics deviated from Smith and Ricardo.

Le, shall I say, deal with it.

You have to be behind two dozen layers of ideology to think like this.

Found the "progressive"

I'd like to know in what manner do you absolve structuralism in the face of "Syntactic Structures" and transformational-generativism? All I see so far is your insults and bare aggressiveness.

There's no antagonism to be absolved in the first place.

Zizek isn't even a structuralist.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

S H I T T H R E A D
H
I
T

T
H
R
E
A
D

I don't understand your point. Smith and Ricardo were economists just like Hayek and Keynes, they just belonged to different schools.
Psychology is the study of the psyche, and psychoanalysis concerns itself with the psyche, no ? Why it isn't a part of the broader and larger field of psychology, as they both share the same object of study ? Why does it have to be a special snowflake thing ?

You have to be behind a thick layer of ideology to think it's worthless to apply the best scientific methods we currently have to the study of human behaviors and social phenomenons m8.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

S H I T T H R E A D

H

I

T

T

H

R

E

A

D

Thank you for your insightful contribution to this debate.

There's not even a proper debate in this fucking thread. There's just ignorant and uninformed opinions that are plainly wrong so stop pretending like your thread was a Mecca of high culture before I called you out on your fakery, you drooling mong.

very nasty sentence. this is indeed a shit thread.

Who was talking about antagonisms, I have no idea. I didn't mention this, you did first. Perhaps your intelligence benefits from "Syntactic Structures"?
Good for him, nonetheless he's heavily influenced by it as long as he proclaims to be an adherent of Freud and Lacan.
That would be most amusing, please do.
You tacitly suggest all the time that there's some hostility or some violent dialectic, which is simply not there indeed.

Do any of you morons have any arguments in the end or what ?
I mean just take fucking 10 minutes to explain to me why I'm wrong and why I am an idiot, godammit, get off your high horses. Tell me why you think I'm wrong, make me feel like an idiot. All you have to offer are boring, unoriginal insults, and this is indeed a shit thread.

It's called Literature and Cultural Studies students

Ty my uni has access so I’ll give it a read. I study linguistics but my department doesn’t do much with issues like this.