I saw some of this guys books in the return bin at my university.
It's just word vomit right?
>>7785740
>i live in the trash can of ideology
90% of it is. 9% of it is insightful. 1% is gold.
>>7785742
>He thinks he can get out of the trashcan
>>7785740
>I saw some of this guys books in the return bin at my university.
The only thing wrong with this sentence is that 'return' is not 'trash'
slavoj zizek is a meme for people to laugh at, even outside of /lit/
the only people who read his stuff for the purpose of analysing and applying it are other leftist academic circlejerkers with no grasp of reality
its purely self indulgent rambling, or simple concepts explained with lots of word salad
>>7785740
I guess it could be considered word vomit if your vocabulary is so limited as to not understand what he's saying.
He makes great points in his books. I don't agree with all of them of course.
>>7785822
No, I'm better than you and OP is right.
>>7785740
This is a separate post I made elsewhere on this site. But, it also pertains to this discussion, so I'll drop it here, too:
Zizek is talking about how people act in certain ways in cultural systems because they are being manipulated by ideology. We create ideals in our heads (which we interpret to be true). These ideals then motivate us to do things because we find meaning in them.
Ideology makes us act based on things we find meaningful (even though meaning is simply a social construction brought about by ideology).
Ideology is like the strings on a puppet. The puppet thinks he is moving of his own accord, when, in fact, he is being manipulated by ideology.
As Zizek states (and I am paraphrasing): Ideology is the shit we flush down the toilet. We all have different kinds of shits (different relative things we interpret to be true), but all of them are still just shit; and they should be flushed down the sewers just the same. This is what he also means when he talks about the trashcan of ideology.
>>7785740
ITT: People who haven't read any Zizek. Seriously guys you're dissing a top-notch thinker just because you saw some youtube videos of him talking funny. Read his shit. Start with The Sublime Object og Ideology.
>>7786002
>Sublime Object of Ideology
Shocked more people don't recommend this. It's one of his earliest; but, still, one of his best books.
The only book of his my library has is For They Know Not What They Do. Is that worth reading? In the foreword he claims that it's better than some other work he's written (that I don't remember the name of, but I've seen it on some chart on here) and that that other book is mostly a mem.
>>7786002
I've read his shit, and its shit. Bunk of the highest order. Obscurantist garbage.
I do think Zizek makes a lot of assumptions that probably aren't true even if I somewhat agree with his Hegelian Lacanism.
I'm not a Nazi, but this is one of the cases where Hitler was right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIdY_FqWurw
>>7785762
>1% is gold
So... the jokes?
>>7786568
no that's part of the 90% trash. sure, it might be entertaining, but you forget them in five minutes.
>>7785982
i think ideals are not created by us in our heads, but created by our subjectivities interacting with systems of references/symbols/simulations, and that is how we become objects ourselves.
next, since ideology is false consciousness, which is impossible b/c everything is defined by its other, and there is no consciousness, only simulacrum/constructed simulations based on referents, copies of things that never exist and all that, we cannot have ideology at all, and there is nothing to flush.
>>7787428
thank you, jean baudrillard
I've only read some of his articles, because his books at a glance look perilously close to being that one overly academic hufflepuff ivory tower bullshit.
His articles probably distill his reasoning in the best way, since they seem to have a point his hyper abstract books lack. He has written a bunch for The Guardian. Recommended reading. His take on the Syrian refugee situation is also interesting.
One of his articles, for example, was I guess what you might call a "deconstruction" of ISIS. The way he did if sure seemed clever, and I thought he made a good point. Something about it was counterintuitive and edgy though, as most of his statements are.
>>7787433
well what are you possibly going to flush and what are you possible going to keep, that exists within your 'self' that is still from the Real? the only Real is that there isn't any, and that is all there is to keep, and how could you go back from that?
>>7787439
jacques lacan, too?
P.S. There is a Real. We just can't talk about it accurately with words. Like a mathematical limit, we can come close to it, but never attain it.
>>7787441
Somehow Jameson and Zizek figure Marxism finds us the Real, and they are a damn ways smarter than I'll ever be. Is the Real when you realize no one lines up in the longest line at the grocery store? everyone will keep the lines about equal by choosing the shortest? (teehee guess whose ideas im using now)
>>7787465
this guy?
http://www.duq.edu/academics/faculty/tom-eyers
>>7787474
no, Garfinkel.
btw what are these Eyers types, that summarize and repeat what the real authors write, what are they called? It is like academic journalism or something?
>>7787493
>academic journalism
academicscholar.
>>7787499
riight
>>7785982
Newfag here:
What is the difference between that and spooks?
>>7788101
ideology is a spook.
>>7786224
You're confusing him with some other "notable postmodernist thinkers", especially the french ones. Perhaps you meant Derrida or Lacan or Deleuze or Foucalt?
