Why is it not allowed to like Žižek and Chomsky at the same time?
Why are they considered to be opposites of each other?
I've watched videos of them on YouTube a lot, but I haven't read anything so I don't quite get why you apparently have to choose between them as I like much of what both of them have to say.
Which Žižek and/or Chomsky book would you recommend to get first?
Also general Žižek and Chomsky thread
You don't have to choose between them, some faggots edited some clips of them saying dismissive, inflated, or false things about each other and it became a meme that they're absolute opposites whose differences can't be reconciled. Ultimately Chomsky is an analytic and Zizek is a continental philosopher. There isn't much between them other than the divide.
>>445573
I would reccomend that you fucking kill yourself, you piece of hippy trash.
>>445604
Sublime Object of Ideology and Interrogating the Real are good starting points for Zizek but you should know a few things about continental philosophy first. Chomsky, well I haven't read him but I've watched many of his speeches and debates and watched Manufacturing Consent, which is also a book and probably a good starting point.
>>445604
you start with zizek by reading hegel. and after hegel, you read lacan.
have fun
>>445604
And fucking proud, you piece'a shit.
>>445649
>I am ok with a small number of people making choices that exploit everyone else
>>445573
both of these goobers have 0 economic knowledge, it's embarrassing
should have stuck to linguistics chompers
>>445716
>Posts that text with a picture of Stalin
B8
Zizek is to philosophy like Michael Bay is to cinematography.
To this day I have no clue how Zizek became so influential.
>>445716
Well that's not a crippling lack of self-awareness or anything.
>>445828
So he's a good philosopher but a bad filmmaker?
>>445872
>Warmed over commie retread
>Good
Don't you have doors to knock on for Bernie Sanders?
>>445573
>Why is it not allowed to like Žižek and Chomsky at the same time?
But it is. I'm reading Žižek's new book Trouble In Paradise, it's pretty okay. Very light.
>>445712
considering that zizek is pretty much copying Hegel in its analysis of contemporary politics and society I would say that it sure helps to know how Hegel thinks, because thats exactly how Zizek thinks too
The Lacan part is mostly so that you can try to understand what the fuck Zizek is actually saying when he goes on his psichoanalysis autistic rants
>>445846
He made some movies ripe with meme potential
>>445884
Zizek isn't actually thinking like Hegel, though. He just talks about Hegel a lot. I've seen more condemnations of his reading of Hegel than anything else. Or are you just talking about recognizing the deadlock?
>>445890
read the comment quoted by the comment you quoted
>>445921
>Or are you just talking about recognizing the deadlock?
Something like that yeah.
I should've clarified the issue. He definitely doesnt think like Hegel, but he does use him a lot in his structure of thought.
>I've seen more condemnations of his reading of Hegel than anything else
Thats exactly why I recommended OP to read Hegel (or probably the best would be to read ABOUT Hegel).
>>445846
His retardation actually.
>>445573
Chomsky thinks human nature is inhering and is a moralistic liberal idealist (source: Foucault vs Chomsky on Proletarian morality).
Žižek proposes that within the surdetermination that the only inherent categories are those inhering in capitalist economic and psycho-sexual relations: ie cultural determination of the human. Žižek is intellectually an amoral revolutionary communist, but practically is a ball-cupper to keep them dust free.
>>445716
>chuckles councilly
That's silly and you know it.
I dislike them both.
>>445573
Chomsky is smarter, more focused, more correct. Zizek is more entertaining and more of a closet-Liberal.
>>447290
>Chomsky
>not always empirically wrong
>Zizek
>not closet fascist
>>445573
Zizek seems to be less of a marixst philosopher than he was. Or was he ever a marxist? or a philosopher to begin with?
>>445890
*rife
>>445573
On Palestine and On Anarchism are both pretty interesting reads regardless of political and ideological position, read On Anarchism alongside Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell
>>445573
Zizek is a philosopher, Chomsky is a linguist
Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship is bretty good but didn't Chomsky support Pol Pot and Mao? lmao
>>449585
my dude I can't tell if this is bait or not so if it is what makes you think that?
>>449597
No more bait than suggesting Chomsky is a crypto-Maoist
At least the Khmer Rouge thing is a popular meme
>>449601
>No more bait than suggesting Chomsky is a crypto-Maoist
Defending the Khmer Rouge pretty much makes you a crypto-Maoist tee bee eych.
>>449607
How did he defend the khmer rouge? Can you link?
>>449607
He was skeptical of initial claims of genocide because "le Western propaganda"
He's not a literal Pol Pot apologist
>>449621
>He was skeptical of initial claims of genocide because "le Western propaganda"
Yes, and that's because he is retarded. Dith Pran and Sydney Schanberg reported on that genocide completely indepentently, and he should've taken their word instead of being blinded by his retarded anarcho-syndicalism.
>>449621
He's continued to be skeptical, and continues to downplay the Genocide.
He thinks "Why do people care so much more about Pol Pot than Sukarno" is actually a good argument.
>>449667
Yes, he was wrong and retarded, but foolishness and incorrectness are not logically isomorphic with poor moral character.
If Chomsky were as informed as he generally is about world history, yet insisted on being a Maoist or some pro-Stalin vatnik, then he would certainly be morally insane. He denial of the genocide was mostly confirmation bias, rather than anything genuinely bizarre.
>>449692
>He's continued to be skeptical, and continues to downplay the Genocide.
PROOFS?
I don't personally like him too much, so I'm open to taking le veritable redpill.
>>449704
>I don't personally like him too much, so I'm open to taking le veritable redpill.
I don't know anything about him, why don't you like him?
>>449715
He derides capitalism to a point of comical absurdity and has made various edgy and incorrect predictions about corporate power (he believed the privatization of internet service would lead to some fascist stranglehold on information, a la modern China)
He provides virtually no praxis to his theory. A vicarious critic has the comfort of an observer, opposed to an actor.
>>449739
>He provides virtually no praxis to his theory.
Ludwig Von Mises detected.
>>449755
What?
All he does is praise capitalistic worker coops, which are a far cry from proper socialism.
>>449761
Saying the word "praxis" usually reminds me of Austrian School of Economics adherents.
>>449667
you can't even blame anarcho-syndicalism for that because anarcho-syndicalists would rightly assume that any powerful government would be doing horrible shit
chomsky always falls for the "support the lesser of two evils" meme and says things that outright contradict anarchism, that's what i meant, sortof unseriously with my original comment about mao and pol pot
>>449704
Not going to dig around too much, but here you go. Here he is in 1989.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuQ8Qb0ej38&feature=iv&src_vid=idy8m5V8uLI&annotation_id=annotation_2959030709
Noam Chomsky is literally /pol/ tier in his denial.
>>449777
I agree that I can't blame the ideology for that, but Chomsky's adherence to that ideology makes him cling to the idea that everything the West does/reports happening in the world is propaganda.
>>449775
"Praxis" in socialist circles means "OK genius, what do you want to do about all this shit."
How do we get from the theory to the practice.
Noam Chomsky basically offers "Buy my books, and enjoy smugness."
>>449794
but a consistent anarchist wouldn't use that idea to defend a communist party is what i'm saying
>>449790
He does himself a disservice in that video to be honest. He could just have easily said that genocide is abhorrent regardless of whether it's ordered by Pol Pot and Nuon Chea, or Henry Kissinger.
But still, he has to cling to the idea that it's worse when the West does it. I seriously don't understand, and I probably never will.
>>449814
>but a consistent anarchist wouldn't use that idea to defend a communist party is what i'm saying
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
>>449818
His ego is tied up in the matter now. Not just his sense of being smart and that, but his literal, his sense of who he is and what he wants out of the world, is too tied up in the matter.
Noam Chomsky doesn't just practice genocide denial, in the man's own mind, Noam Chomsky IS genocide denial.
>>445573
if you ask for "entry level" Chomsky, you should absolutely read Understandin Power, a book whose subtitle is The Indispensable Chomsky.
Is is a great book indeed, it is the transcripts of some seminars, conferences etc so he actually answers to people questions.
It is a fundamental book of Chomsky, also for a historical factor: those were conferences held in 98, the book was published in 2002. Those were the years of the Settle movement, with FLorence and Porto Alegre Social Forums and Genova G8 riots, and the global pacifit movemente against Bush wars. It was the last great protest culture, that ended up in blood, and Chomsky was probably the most representative thinker of that movement
I had an essay in a political thought module last year and I came across Zizeks work, and Chomskys popped up in modules surrounding international human rights conventions and modules with anything to do with American foreign policy
I read three Zizek books and had no idea what he was talking about, I got some of his parts on modern society and shit, Chomsky just seems to be EVERYTHING THE WEST HAS DONE IS BAD but he never mentioned anything that isn't Western and bad
I wouldnt argue they are opposites, Zizek is a confusing Marxist and Chomsky well fuck knows what he is
>>449607
You forget that lots of right-wing Cold Warriors supported the Khmer Rouge because Vietnam was at war with them
>>445581
I mean there is also the important distinction that Zizek is a Marxist and Chomsky is an Anarchist.
Not to say you can't like both, I personally do.
>>445573
You did this yesterday. Chomsky is a bourgeois norms moralist. Žižek is a bourgeois academic marxist.
The point is to cut them, then stab the Hun to death while your wife cuts his throat.
Žižek is a fucking faglord
/thread
>>449850
>I read three Zizek books and had no idea what he was talking about, I got some of his parts on modern society and shit, Chomsky just seems to be EVERYTHING THE WEST HAS DONE IS BAD but he never mentioned anything that isn't Western and bad
Zizek actually says that almost anything other than the West is bad and morally wrong. Especially asian hegelian capitalism post-Cold War.
>>445640
>have fun
kek
