Slavoj Zizek

@DrZoidberg phil,

No, I have not read it (yet). I do know a little on his philosophies though. I got interested in him because of a movie in which he commits public suicide. How do you like his work so far?

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

No, I have not read it (yet). I do know a little on his philosophies though. I got interested in him because of a movie in which he commits public suicide. How do you like his work so far?

You mean his euthanasia centre for people in metaphysical crisis from the film Zizek!?

I think he rocks. I've yet to read anything that didn't make me loudly exclaim.... "f u c k you're right you bastard!!!" My hair stands on end everytime I read him. But I find it hard work. He doesn't make life easy for the reader. Its so convoluted. That's why I'm looking for somebody here to hold my hand.

edit: I think word censoring is lame. We're all adults here. I'm convinced that nothing keeps adolescents away more effectively than philosophy. Meaning conveys rudeness, not selection of words.

@DrZoidberg phil,

Yeah, I ent the euthanasia centre. It cracked me up. I think it is remarkable to speak on such serious matters with the kind of humor Zizek has...albeit a bit depressive now and again.

P.S. You should relay the feedback on the censoring to Justin. I bet he'd be happy with the feedback.

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Yeah, I ent the euthanasia centre. It cracked me up. I think it is remarkable to speak on such serious matters with the kind of humor Zizek has...albeit a bit depressive now and again.

I think he was serious. But all good humour always is, isn't it?

@DrZoidberg phil,

As Charly Chaplin said: Real humor is a laugh inside a tear.

@DrZoidberg phil,

DrZoidberg wrote:

edit: I think word censoring is lame. We're all adults here. I'm convinced that nothing keeps adolescents away more effectively than philosophy. Meaning conveys rudeness, not selection of words.

Well said. Something adolescents and children are far more drawn to is the television, and it has a lot worse than a philo forum could ever provide. I admit that my piece in the creative writing forum has its fair share of profanity (only when necessary), but the content is far more adult than the 'swear' words.

As to the philosopher, Zizek sounds interesting but I am more into ancient philosophy and then a broad spectrum of thinkers from the 18, 19, 20th Centuries. I tend to prefer my philosophers to be dead.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

As to the philosopher, Zizek sounds interesting but I am more into ancient philosophy and then a broad spectrum of thinkers from the 18, 19, 20th Centuries. I tend to prefer my philosophers to be dead.

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

It always seemed like when he came up in my anthropology courses we spoke of him like he was dead. I guess you live a hundred years and people begin to forget you are still alive.

@Theaetetus,

As they say in the philosophy department:

"The only good philosopher is a dead philosopher!"

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

Well said. Something adolescents and children are far more drawn to is the television, and it has a lot worse than a philo forum could ever provide. I admit that my piece in the creative writing forum has its fair share of profanity (only when necessary), but the content is far more adult than the 'swear' words.

As to the philosopher, Zizek sounds interesting but I am more into ancient philosophy and then a broad spectrum of thinkers from the 18, 19, 20th Centuries. I tend to prefer my philosophers to be dead.

Well, I guess this is what sets historical studies apart from contemporary. I mean, you don't drive a T-Ford do you? There's a huge difference between reading philosophy for historical interest and understanding our world now. Every philosophy who has ever lived has built upon those that came after. If you want to learn about the ancients, modern philosophy does a great job analysing it.

@DrZoidberg phil,

DrZoidberg;20305 wrote:

Well, I guess this is what sets historical studies apart from contemporary. I mean, you don't drive a T-Ford do you? There's a huge difference between reading philosophy for historical interest and understanding our world now. Every philosophy who has ever lived has built upon those that came after. If you want to learn about the ancients, modern philosophy does a great job analysing it.

I read Zizek very hopefully about two or three years ago. Now I'd rather read Bruce Fink if I want to do any thinking about Lacanian topics. At least I think Zizek was riffing on Lacanian topics. I certainly looked that way in the books about learning via movies. The Zizek riff on the Matrix line "welcome to the desert of the real"...strikes me as kind of vacuous and totally bogus.
First of all, the Lacanian Real is not particularly desert-like. Moreover, if you've been in any real deserts -- well they are no more Lacanian than say barn yards.

@Sorryel,

I think that perhaps, in their own pretentious way, the Wachowski brothers were using Lacan correctly. After all they are not total idiots. What I mean is one can read the film as an "real fantasy" in the sense that "id fantasy" or "id machine" is often used to describe episodes in films i.e. Zizek on Solaris (The creature from inner space) etc... So we are now being shown something we could not possibly be shown, an inexplicable wasteland or a desert.

A kind of Enlightenment described on the screen through cinematic metaphor. Oh, so that is what the real is like? Amazing!

Irony aside, one of the great strengths in Zizek is making content out of anything, he is not fussy and elitist.

What I am wondering is how does Zizek (or any intelligent person) defend the argument he begins in the BBC movie Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution. Unfortunately removed from youtube. Zizek was arguing, or as he puts it "I claim that" if a man trembles or is afraid before the court it is a true sign of his guilt. Simon Schama was arguing the other side, albeit in a somewhat pathetic mode.

What is this about?

@DrZoidberg phil,

DrZoidberg;20204 wrote:

You mean his euthanasia centre for people in metaphysical crisis from the film Zizek!?

I think he rocks. I've yet to read anything that didn't make me loudly exclaim.... "f u c k you're right you bastard!!!" My hair stands on end everytime I read him. But I find it hard work. He doesn't make life easy for the reader. Its so convoluted. That's why I'm looking for somebody here to hold my hand.

edit: I think word censoring is lame. We're all adults here. I'm convinced that nothing keeps adolescents away more effectively than philosophy. Meaning conveys rudeness, not selection of words.

[offtopic]

Hi Zoidberg. I didn't know that you had come over too. That makes us four so far from FRDB. (That I know of.) Welcome.

Yes, the word censoring is pointless. But I reckon that the lead-admin is an american. You know how it goes over there.. :sarcastic:

@Emil,

Emil;104441 wrote:

[offtopic]

Hi Zoidberg. I didn't know that you had come over too. That makes us four so far from FRDB. (That I know of.) Welcome.

Yes, the word censoring is pointless. But I reckon that the lead-admin is an american. You know how it goes over there.. :sarcastic:

Word censoring is sort of pointless and wouldn't be needed at all if people could communicate without the use of barracks language and we had no x rated spam on the internet.

Yes, the lead admin is American and apologizes for the use of word filtering but it's a common thing among many respectable forums. Feel free to use the philosophy forums on MySpace.com if you feel the need use barracks language or circumventing the censorship utility.

@DrZoidberg phil,

I've just recently finished The Ticklish Subject by Zizek. It's good stuff. I like experiencing thru Zizek the likes of Lacan, Hegel, Marx, etc.

@DrZoidberg phil,

I look at Zizek's writings with respect and care, although I have just begun to read his studies with the "Sublime Object of Ideology". (The first book of Zizek that is recommended to begin with.) There are two main reasons behind my respect towards Zizek as a political thinker. On the one hand, his subjects of study constitute my main research interests in political theory: Marx, Hegel, Lacan, French Revolution, Terror, Robespierre, Totalitarianism etc. The importance of Zizek derives from his theoretical ability to study these subjects by relating them to our contemporary society, events such as 9/11 or the Iraqi War. On the other hand, I like his personality as a political thinker. I am really obsessed with an unappeasable anger toward arrogance of most of the academicians. These guys, especially those who have not produced anything of value yet, with reference to the intrinsic relationship between knowledge and power, mostly act like they are above the society. (Even Nietzsche once said roughly that my age could not understand me, my prospective students were not born yet. But, his point is different and that's also Nietzsche.) Zizek is different and I think he follows the tradition of Marx in this respect. (Show no mercy in writing, but follow a humble life.) (Humbleness does not mean a poor life here of course.) (I had the chance to observe his personality in one of his conferences at my university in Turkey.)

In the Philosophy forum, I think we should open a special post on Zizek's writings where we can discuss whether he has a contribution to political thought.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;20258 wrote:

It always seemed like when he came up in my anthropology courses we spoke of him like he was dead. I guess you live a hundred years and people begin to forget you are still alive.

Its only because for every anthro student who was ever forced to read Structural Anthropology it seemed to take a 100 years.

As for Zizek, he is more of a cultural theorist than a philosopher, but If I were a woman I would have his babies.

@GoshisDead,

Zizek is great. I've read the Ticklish Subject and it's just good. He made Lacan worth studying for me. Also improved my appreciation of Hegel, just as Kojeve did. Have you seen his new wife? He's a pimp. Not a bad life. Here's something that tied into another thread.

Hegel distinguished between discursive Understanding and Reason which was capable of seeing unity-in-difference. I just bumped into this passage by Zizek (The Ticklish Subject):

"For Hegel, Reason is not another, "higher" capacity than Understanding; what defines Understanding is the very illusion that, beyond it, there is another domain (either the ineffable Mystical or Reason) which eludes its discursive grasp. In short, to get from Understanding to Reason, one does not have to add anything, but on the contrary, to subtract something: what Hegel calls Reason is Understanding itself, bereft of the illusion that there is something Beyond it."

@DrZoidberg phil,

From the Pervert's Guide to Cinema

YouTube - Clip from The Pervert's Guide To Cinema: Part 1

Philosophy Forum

Slavoj Zizek

Quick Links

My Account

able2know