I've just discovered zizek and I find that as autistic as he is he makes some good points. I want to read his stuff, where should I start?
>>7425825
First watch his movies, then read How to Read Lacan, then The Sublime Object of Ideology. Then just read whatever.
Don't forget to brush up on your Marx and Freud as well.
>>7425830
Will do. What do you think of him?
>>7425844
I think he's a fraud who's magnum opus - a synthesis of Lacan and Hegel, is retarded and bastardizes the thought of both thinkers. He's more of a weird mix of Hegelianism and Structuralism than he is a Marxist. Zizek's political tracts are almost entirely confused half-rants about things based entirely upon prejudice and psychoanalytical inference over any hard empirical evidence, which has its moments but tends to fall short when the inference isn't based on any, well, evidence. His actual politics are abysmal; Zizek is one of those people, you know, "radicals" who are so very "radical" because of all those people who are not as radical as Zizek says he is, when in reality, he's nothing but another Eurocommunist except with a fetish for Jacobinism.
Watch this don't read or watch anything else he says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA60L_NQYm0
>>7427547
capped for truth
>>7427568
I've never seen this guy before
What does this mean
>be me tonight
>browsing netflix
>see zizek cartoon face
>"is that zizek?"
>it's zizek
dammit /lit/...
parallax and end times
>>7427568
Why is he sweating?
>>7427785
name?
>>7427568
anyone have the "most dangerous man in the wild west?" video
a parody remake of this one
>>7427812
"the pervert's guide to ideology"
>>7427829
Seconding this.plashtic penishesh
Zizek will be full blown right wing in 5 years
mark my words
>>7428022
Nick Land please go
>>7427547
college-aged limp-wristed neo-revolutionary detected
>>7427547
>bastardizes the thought of Lacan
What's to bastardize?
>>7427829
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jpnLoBQgGw
>>7427547
>>>/undergrad/
the greeks
>>7428107
I know this is a meme, but where the fuck do I start? Homer? Plato? Can you link me to a comprehensive reading list please?
>>7428255
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub
>>7428262
>>7428281
Don't forget to read the literature. Plato references the Homeric Epics constantly. Read Fitzgerald, Lattimore, or Merrill.
>>7427547
>bastardizes the thought of both thinkers.
Not inherently a bad thing. Deleuze made a career out of doing that and the results were interesting.
>He's more of a weird mix of Hegelianism and Structuralism than he is a Marxist.
Maybe, this explains why his ambivalence (or maybe evolution of his thought) towards dialectical materialism: on the one hand he stays faithful to Marxist apriorism and on the other he admits that it might be a bit too deterministic. Still, I don't think this is a bad thing if done right, his return to Hegel includes Marxist thought in some way.
>Zizek's political tracts are almost entirely confused half-rants about things based entirely upon prejudice and psychoanalytical inference over any hard empirical evidence, which has its moments but tends to fall short when the inference isn't based on any, well, evidence.
His 2015 conferences were a bit more precise than his past ones so maybe there's hope. I don't disagree with you, but it seems to me like he presents his psychoanalytical appropriations more like inspirations rather than proof. Empirical evidence though is to be taken with a grain of salt however when it comes to philosophy, psychology, sociology, politics and the like. I'm not saying it should be dismissed or that it is misplaced, just that even in the empirical sciences there are plenty of disputes not just over interpretation, but also over the evidence itself as it is presented, especially when it comes to case studies and statistics. Many studies are deemed invalid due to new criteria, although I hate it when people turn this into an argument (psychoanalysts tend to do this quite often and it sounds like creationist talk: your way isn't perfect therefore mine is just as valid).
>Zizek is one of those people, you know, "radicals" who are so very "radical" because of all those people who are not as radical as Zizek says he is
Well that's not necessarily a bad thing though. It isn't a contest for who can be the most radical, even if we're just talking leftist radicalism.
>>7428022
Tell you what. I'll screencap this post and reply to it in 2020 calling you a faggot if you're wrong.
Haven't read anything of his or seen anything else, but I dig what he has to say in this video.
https://youtu.be/hpAMbpQ8J7g
