Thoughts on Slavoj Zizek?
the last of a long chain of amusing charlatans. With any luck he will not create a lasting impact on the collective consciousness.
I generally think he knows what he's talking about. Says questionable things for various reasons. I think he knows his Hegel, Lacan, Marx, Freud, Foucault, Deleuze, and Derrida better than probably anyone reading here. Where he stands and creates his own position between them in debatable. His chapters in this book are pretty good, especially "Da Capo senza Fine" (I also quite like Butler's response as well). A lot of shit gets talked about him but he's a worthy philosopher.
Interesting and very intelligent character who says a lot of true things but probably deserves some of the criticism he gets, too. Too bad that /lit/ can't look behind the meme and instead of reading his books, people here just watch some youtube clips and make boring cocaine jokes.
Literally a memelord.
Millennial "academic" Celebrity #186356
He's a meme and a clown.
>>7943199
It is interesting that the radical left has just one major intellectual left - an unshaven and badly dressed Slovenian whose English accent is abysmal.
>>7943905
That charlatan has nothing to do with "the Left" - you clueless fuck.
>>7943889
Etchetera
no one gets it apparently
>>7943199
he's a leftist cuck. Real men are right wing
>>7943948
Yeah! Red, White And Blue!
>>7943951
GRRRR!
>>7943903
embarassing
>>7943948
>le cluck meme
>>7943973
Go, fetch me some golden apples!
>>7943199
One of the few trolls to reach the fabled Kaufman level.
>>7943946
This
ITT: Unsubstantiated ad-homs
>>7943939
*slurp slurp*
>>7943199
The real question is what does Slavoj Zizek think of me
>>7943199
He's quite good, has a rather clever way of writing and is actually a great speech-maker if you can get past the tics, accent, and so on. I think the way that he uses popular culture, like films, to illustrate the points he tries to make is absolutely genius.
The people that against him are generally against him because they've bought into a rabid ideology and can't separate themselves from it, such as:
>>7943948
>>7943948
he has gotten more pussy than you will ever get in your lifetime.
>>7943948
>real men are childless single men who masturbate to anime
wew.
>>7944265
Zizek must have a dick the size of the Burj Khalifa or something, this shit doesn't make sense
>>7944175
>being a degenerate and proud of it
leftist """""""logic"""""""", everyone
>>7944296
Gosh if you didn't know better you'd think that women don't value looks as much as men do or something
>>7944296
>girl being into famous, intellectual, ambitious, and successful man
Shocking, I know.
Go back to /r9k/ with your "Chad" theories
>>7944306
>>7944309
women are just as shallow as men if not more. not sure how you've been deluded into buying the trite narrative that every woman clams to like me for "their personality and intellect". it is something that they tell themselves and others to not appear shallow and vapid.
at least men are upfront about it. women on the other hand are dishonest with themselves and others and attempt to take some sort of high ground based on them not being "shallow" despite being nothing but that.
either you're both butthurt women who can't accept that or you've been cucked into believing the bullshit fed to you by women.
>>7944321
I am not talking about shallowness, and I'm not arguing your shitty men vs women /r9k/-tier resentment.
I am saying that it's not surprising that a woman would be attracted to a successful, ambitious, intelligent, funny, and famous academic.
>>7944321
I think the idea is that men value women as partial objects: the looks, the intelligence, the particular characteristics, anyway, some reduction of the whole
Women, on the other hand, see men more holistically, considering even things like social status, carreer success, social life etc,
You could say both these approachs are shallow, but to me they are just different
>>7944338
>Women, on the other hand, see men more holistically, considering even things like social status, carreer success, social life etc
If you say this shit on tumblr you are going to get fucking crucified m8
you are closer to identity politics, willingly ignoring a natural difference between the sexes
>>7944338
>women
>intelligence
lmao, women are idiotic in the head
>>7944346
Aw shit, was supposed to quote
>>7944342
>>7944347
Lol, you are so pathetic you didn't even get what I wrote
thanks for showing there is no possible discussion upfront
>>7944346
women are inferior to men spiritually, ethically, and existentially
>>7944337
fair enough. and i wasn't the original poster who you replied to.
>>7944338
sure. but they generally tend to claim that for them things like carreer success, social status, attractiveness don't matter which is dishonest and hypocritical because they generally focus a lot on these things. sure, every individual has their right to decide their partner based on whatever criteria they set but the two-facedness is generally more prevalent in women who want to come across as "not-shallow" by claiming to be more into personality than looks.
>>7944371
>they generally tend to claim that for them things like carreer success, social status, attractiveness don't matter
Go out and actually talk to women
>>7944321
Want to know how I know you're a faggot? You jumped from "Women don't value looks as much as men do" to "WELL THAT MEANS YOU MUST THINK WOMEN LIKE GUYS FOR THEIR PERSONALITY AND INTELLECT AND THAT THEY'RE LESS SHALLOW THAN MEN BECAUSE OF IT"
Jesus christ, stop treating everything that involves the genders as some sort of contest about which one is the shittiest about something. Men and women are different, get the fuck over it.
>>7944355
He's saying that men do not judge women after their intelligence since they do not have any to speak of.
>>7944380
women are fucking idiots, they're practically like children mentally.
they need a strong authoritative father figure like me to discipline them, and tell them what to do because they're quite frankly feebleminded in comparison to the average male
>>7944386
>like me
Anon.. Nah.
>>7943199
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=80X0pbCV_t4
This is all i think of when I see him.
>>7944386
This here people, is a perfect example of a man-child.
Philosophy is dead
Its sort of like the Emperors new Clothes, but the emperor doesnt even have any citizens in his kingdom anymore to impress or call him out
>>7944386
Even in attempting to shitpost, you still made me cringe trying to make people angry/cringe.
You have transcended cringyness, you are now, metacringe.
Attempting to de-rail shitposting with actual discussion.
One of Zizek's criticism of post-structuralists who follow in Nietzsche's footsteps (Foucault and Deleuze, specifically) is that their theoretical positions have not created revolutionary change. However, it seems the same could be said about Zizek. Is the criticism still valid if so? Is revolutionary change possible through theory as it exists now?
>>7943291
>I think he knows his Hegel, Lacan, Marx, Freud, Foucault, Deleuze, and Derrida better than probably anyone reading here.
Yeah that's a pretty safe assumption id say
>>7944302
>being such a prude faggot that you can have no fun whatsoever
>>7944902
Radical social change only ever happens through government change and government change only ever happens through power change and power change requires violence somewhere. Most theoretical thinkers do not approach this honestly. Theory and logic are there, but emotions and animal instincts were there first.
If this were not true, Zizek would use his logic and reason to stop touching his fucking nose and shirt all the fucking time. He's a walking anthesis of everything he discusses.
>>7943199
His accent pisses me off, I can't understand him when he speaks. Therefore, I do not like him, and if I saw him in real life, I'd probably throw a brick at his head.
>>7944306
they do, but they also value status/fame more than men do. attaining high status or fame is the one way unattractive men can get attractive women. otherwise women are even more discriminating in physical appearance than men are.
I am a right wing social conservative but I like the guy and always like to hear his talks. He's entertaining and smart even though I don't agree with some of his conclusions. I was pleasantly surprised by his opinion on the refugee crisis and his thoughts on Leitkultur.
>>7944477
That was fucking great. The "and so on and so on" got me.
>>7945381
So you're basically the worst of both worlds. Great.
>>7944302
When did /pol/ invade every board? Do they get paid to constantly shill /pol/ rhetoric in every even vaguely related topic?
/pol/ is like /sp/ used to be, only /sp/ would come to other boards to steal their "gets", and /pol/ just comes to shitpost.
>>7946067
thanks man
good christian that did nothing wrong
>>7943948
he is into fisting but not a cuck.
>>7944302
nice spook quotes
>>7943199
Everything you say about him is through the eyes of ideology.
>>7943948
do you not realize what board you're posting on
a weed that refuses to die
>>7945286
>Theory and logic are there, but emotions and animal instincts were there first.
that's not really the point tho, it's about the link between theory and praxis. From the "french theory" it's inherently impossible to draw a radical revolutionary praxis, only local resistence or invite to dialogue thorugh democratic means. Zizek tries, thorugh Hegelian means (which all those thinkers viewed with distrust) to reconsider the possibility of radical total change.
which are his good books?
>>7948557
First as Tragedy, Then as Farce is pretty good
>>7944839
>female """banter"""
>>7949045
nice """"spooks"""" there m8
>>7949050
can i eat your beard
>>7943948
there was actually a study that showed more leftist men were dominant as opposed to righties. seeing as you're on 4chan you're probably the bitch of some loud fat asshole.
>>7949275
>there was actually a study that showed more leftist men were dominant as opposed to righties.
this is what limp wristed proggie pajama bois actually believe
>>7948483
They view Hegelian means with distrust for a reason, a radical total change is fundamentally impossible because human beings are not plastic enough to endure such a change within the brief period of time (say one lifespan) that would be required to classify a change as radical.
Take the USSR for example. Initially it was all free love and shit, it was a truly countercultural revolution (insofar as one was possible given the necessity for an armed revolution) that in the end created a deeply confused people. In reaction to this, Stalin was able to grab power and through his brutality, enabled by the confusion and inaction of those around him, returned the soviet state to one that was fundamentally not too different from what had preceded it. The veneer of socialist ideology remained but the state had become completely authoritarian again.
Examine Weimar Germany for another example, the Nazis, the hyper-reactionaries that created a new state more similar to the monarchy which had been deposed than the 'democracy' that had followed. Examine Revolutionary Spain, which was killed in the cradle simply because its radically confused anarchist soldiers refused to follow orders while the well drilled fascists rolled over them. Examine Iraq today, which we have attempted to make into a democracy, and the reaction that has generated, which we see in ISIS.
Wise men have always been very suspicious of fast paced change for a very good reason, because of the deep existential confusion it causes. Some men are capable of making these transitions but most are left unable to cope. If there is to be truly enduring change it must be gradual, as gradual as the development of the old ideas that the new ones are replacing, and these old ideas took centuries between being concieved of and becoming adopted throughout the west. The fact that the pace of change is accelerating (for example, in 2000 there was not one country in the world where gay marriage was accepted, by 2015 most of the west had accepted it) is as such quite concerning to me, even those who fundamentally agree with the general direction of the change.
>>7949275
I believe the study showed that male bicep size was a strong predictor of political affiliation when controlled for class affiliation.
Those who were low class with large biceps and high class with small biceps were receptive to redistribution of wealth, while those with small biceps of the low class and large in the high were resistant to it.
Which illuminates some biases, considering most people on 4chan are either scrawny losers or upper middle class suburban pseudo-intellectuals.
>>7949614
I don't agree with one way or another or to put it better i haven't made up my mind, it's just that the left has to recognize that abandoning the radical emancipatory objective, and under the influx of those philosopher, trying to work on multiplicity, difference, identities, instead of economical factors, had led to losing ground on most of what was conquered before in terms of worker's rights, welfare etc. They did/are doing the work of the capital.
I personally don't believe in gradual change, but I also recognize the the violence the "propped" revolutions it becomes soon "institutionalized" and regular political practice.
>>7943199
I'm going to quote /lit/:
>A summary of Slavoj Zizek's achievements:
>he makes some good points
If you have been an academic all your life, a distinguished and famous professor, widely considered the most influential philosopher alive, and the most people can say about you is
>he has some good points
>>7949812
He hasn't "made some good points". He's just a clown.
>>7943905
>doesn't know anything about contemporary Leftism
>doesn't know Badiou, Butler, Deleuze, Agamben, Negri, Hardt, etc
>>7948321
Zizek, as an atheist, is more of a Christian than any fundamentalist Knight of Faith.
>>7944334
He actually wrote a play, a new interpretation of Antigone.
>>7949920
and thus he's a true believer.
>>7943903
This
>>7943206
Please don't import bad /tv/ memes to /lit/.
>>7943199
Honestly, I hit an inflection point somewhere along my path down to rightism. I used to love him when I was a communist, as I became more libertarian and in the very beginning stages of traditionalism I hated him, and now I'm coming back around to appreciating him again.
And say what you like about him, he probably has the best anecdote game in the business.
>>7949716
Those issues are important though, because what does it avail the black man if labor rights are strong, yet labor groups work to keep him out of the jobs that have these rights?
That was what happened under FDR, fundamentally. The NAACP was one of the most aggrieved agitators against the new deal because of the power it put into the hands of organized labor, which had an interest in keeping wages high and as such keeping blacks out of well paying work.
Granted over time this effect diminished, through the 1950s' black incomes rose faster than white incomes, almost twice as fast for some years. But this stalled out due to a combination of the introduction of hard drugs to the inner city and cynical Johnson administration policy aimed at creating an indentured political class.
Gradual change is the more reliable kind of change. Examine revolution after revolution and you'll see this to be true. Very, very few revolutions actually go well. The American revolution is pretty much the only unconditional success in that regard. Most other cases see countries losing ground on development after independence and often even see their political rights diminished. In much of Latin America, anticolonial revolutionaries often traded Spanish administration for neocolonial exploitation by Europe's other powers.
>>7950352
>libertarian
I'm feel very sorry for you Anon
>>7949309
nah truth needs no belief but keep on projecting your betadom through your need to affiliate yourself with a "manly" political belief because you have nothing else going for you personally. you probably tell people you like whiskey
>>7949631
it's not really about bicep size m8 sad to see /fit/ got you
>>7949631
Made me kek
>>7950450
t. low-test proggie numale
>>7950656
fact: the only people who actually get cucked are righties
>>7950366
It was a difficult time in my life but with the aid of God I saw my way through it.
the guy in the pic looks like he really is having hard time in the toilet. One can't be happy as long as he can't shit properly.
>>7949812
Seriously, look at the fucking level of discourse in this thread:
>LOL WHAT A MEME
>Everyone I don't like is a cuckold!
>Random /r9k/ bullshit about women for no reason
>Calling him a millenial even though he's over 60.
>"Philosophy" PFPFFFFPFFPTFT
>He's bad and I don't like him!
This place is a trash heap.
>>7943291
>I think he knows his Hegel, Lacan, Marx, Freud, Foucault, Deleuze, and Derrida better than probably anyone reading here.
If nothing else, you should watch his lesser known lectures. His knowledge of thinkers is incredibly extensive and with greater depth than people here will ever have.
>>7951026
>trash
You're probably trying to spell I D E O L O G Y
>>7943291
>Tfw someone gets caught on Hegel around zizek
Yeah, I'd be intimidated. He reads fucking everything and retains it
>>7944296
He has what we call the eastern European club.
Club as in large instrument for striking people with. I have a 6'8 polish cousin with a baseball bat he crams down one pant leg.
