What's the deal with Zizek? Is he a serious philosopher?
Yes. You should read his work, but get ready for a butt fucking in trying to understand what he's saying.
Yes, and a very good one.
He's like Marx. He's good at pointing out and predicting what is wrong especially with neoliberal capitalism, but his solution is "ehh"
>>1257308
I dunno, I'm down with his "TV's only play porno and hitchcock" thing.
>>1257268
He's a serious shitposter.
>>1257268
No.
But he makes some funny YouTube clips.
He'll stay in history as the first shitposter who shitposted his way through academia.
>>1257446
>He'll stay in history as the first shitposter who shitposted his way through academia.
HAHA, you don't have much experience with Academia.
He writes really serious philosophy shit and political commentary even, it's just that he also talks about popular culture and is an ironical marxist, and that's the aspect everyone focuses on.
You probably need to engage Hegel in order to comprehend his worldview.
>>1257446
His writing is really heavy Marxist stuff. There's a lot more to him than talking about movies and dildoes.
He's climb to fame might be that he read a fuckton of books and when he's faced with people he can't shut up for one second, spouting his opinions.
He's a good guy though, he does raise awareness on some topics and present them in a fresh approach.
>>1257268
>>1257268
I'm 90% certain the guy is just some average opinionated dude, not a serious philosopher, and further that threads about him are by him or someone closely associated with him.
>>1257268
Yes,and a very good one at that,but he is notoriously difficult to understand.
>>1257308
Kind of this.
>>1257565
>I'm 90% certain the guy is just some average opinionated dude, not a serious philosopher,
The man is an extensively published Philosophy PhD. He has an article on the IEP. There is a fucking peer reviewed journal called The International Journal of Žižek Studies.
If you're pretty sure this guy is just some average opinionated dude, your judgement is garbage.
>>1257268
"Seriousness" doesn't exist in the 21st century; we have reached the meme singularity and are now living in Infinite Jest.
RIP St. DFW
>>1257268
He is an entertaining speaker. That is all.
He has no real philosophy to speak of and his ideas are not particularly insightful.
I used to think he was a meme philosopher, but after watching his European graduate study lectures, I gained new found respect for him. He is indeed a very smart guy, but it is obvious he makes all of these jokes and references for accessibility. That's not exactly wrong, he is playing acedemic philosophy against itself, in a sense he is the "anti-Derrida".
Some of his books are indeed repetitive, except Sublime Object of Ideology which imo is his best.
>>1257268
>Is he a serious philosopher?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5yoqjABeBM
>>1257308
That's pretty worthy in itself
>>1258140
Zizek >>> Chomsky
>>1257268
He's not a philosopher, all he do for a living is recycling and paraphrasing Karl Marx works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s_LFTqA-ok
I think this video is extremely insightful, outside the whole fascists "don't have internal struggle" meme
>>1257268
*sniff*
>>1260566
So you're saying that Zizek is a sentient bag of cocaine?
There's even ideology even in the fucking toilet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXPyCY7jbs
he is a cuck that over intellectualizes for no reason other than to stroke his ego
also knows 0 about economics
embarrassing really
>>1257446
>forgetting hegle's metaphysics
>>1257278
if you do read sniff and rub your nose every 3 seconds for the real Zizek experiance
>>1260645
>also knows 0 about economics
To be fair, how many intellectuals do?
>>1257278
is it him struggling with english or him struggling with autism, open question
He core work is very good, don't be put off by his love of pop culture.
>>1260645
I once as a Marxist philosophy lecturer tell me that economics is used to justify capitalism
>>1260953
They're not wrong. Economics is chiefly just an analysis of capitalism without considering alternatives to the capitalist system.
Of course there is such a thing as Marxian economics so it's not just used to analyse and justify capitalism, but that's the main thing.
>>1260953
Economics is just a bunch of models, capitalism is justified because we can't find anything that works better in practice
>>1260953
>science doesn't support my conclusions so it's not legitimate
Fucking Marxists
>>1260959
>Economics is a science.
>>1260965
I find it curious that the whole "x isn't a real science" meme here is so strong. You see similar claims about psych. around here.
>>1260880
both
>>1260957
Socialist economics used to be a thing, but of course it died out so you are left with Keynesian and free-market economics, both of which recommend different economic policies. All economists today know that capitalism is the most efficient system.
>>1260967
Psychology is debateable on the count there's a strong medical application of it and generally has a more scientific approach to analysis than say sociology.
Economics however is not at all a science. It's basically 100% conceptual and grounds itself in a lot of assumptions then goes on to attach values to extremely abstract metrics. It is the exact opposite of scientific, it's on the same level as political science.
>>1260973
Socialist economics still exists. The biggest blow to happen to it was the downfall of the USSR, and as such the downfall of socialist economics as academic orthodoxy in that part of the world since they were no longer analysing a socialist economy anymore.
>>1260982
It's defined as a science everywhere.
>>1261004
A social science.
As is political science mind you.
>>1260957
And not many cosmologists study steady state theory anymore, but its not because of any great bias on there part
>>1261007
That's correct.
>>1260637
That's kinda neat, actually.
>>1257308
>, but his solution is "ehh"
As if you've read more than 3 books in your life ignoramus.
>>1260959
There are many schools of economics. Anyone who knows a damn thing about economics knows that the predominant and mainstream school is not only disconnected from reality, as they themselves admit, but functions in and builds upon a framework that had the nominal purpose of undermining Marx's critiques of the classical tradition and thus the capitalist mode of production. I'm referring here to Walras's general equilibrium and the marginal utility school that later developed into the contemporary neo-classical synthesis.
>>1260953
Economics is a science, but you have to go outside the mainstream to see it be scientific. Everything in vulgar economics that isn't MCT and MMT is a degenerate research programme.
>>1261007
>cosmology in the time of state-religion separation has political implications
bad analogy, begs the question
>>1261669
>you have to go outside the mainstream to see it be scientific
Ecological economics?
>>1257268
You cant be serious anything with that name.
>>1261681
Never actually engaged with that stuff, mostly just post-keynesian economics and historical/institutional schools.
>>1259061
>That's pretty worthy in itself
I don't need to read Marx or Zizek to see that.
>>1257268
He's the Molyneux of our time.
>>1261669
Technically in the light of genetic predispositions, the previous history of economics seems like a farce.
present-oriented agents will act different than future-oriented agents.
Anything than the study of agents in the field is mere sinecurism. It was in spite of everything that capital grew so massively over the past century, not because of "economics".
The carte blanche, that certain schools of economics have given states, has been disastrous. Of course as we've seen, states begets excuse makers in every field. Monarchies would have been envious of the level of control in our government.
It's like people trying to explain brain function in terms of just three chemicals (Dopamine, Serotonin, and (nor)epinephrine). The brain will work, even grow, under the stresses of whatever absurd plan of action is generated by such a pathetic skeleton structure of a model.
When people can't predict one person with any sort of reliability, how can anybody look to a person trying to predict the behaviors of millions of agents and be comfortable in an "explanation"? Of course beyond that which we see everyday in a market and for which evidence is generated day after day.
>>1257560
Žižek sounds and looks perfectly normal when speaking Slovenian or Serbo-Croatian.
But he's very hard to listen in English, no idea why. Maybe because it's a filthy language of liberal capitalism.
>>1257268
>>1257268
>>1257294
>>1262301
>>1262157
>>1262135
>>1262115
>>1262050
>>1261717
>>1261700
>>1261681
>>1261678
>>1261669
>>1261645
>>1261226
>>1261043
>>1261018
>>1261007
>>1261006
>>1261004
>>1260985
>>1260982
>>1260973
>>1260971
>>1260967
>>1260965
>>1260959
>>1260958
>>1260957
>>1260953
>>1260901
>>1260880
>>1260850
>>1260824
>>1260662
>>1260645
>>1260637
>>1260584
>>1260566
>>1259987
>>1259201
>>1259151
>>1259117
>>1259061
>>1258140
>>1258105
>>1258071
>>1258040
>>1258023
>>1257737
>>1257724
>>1257565
>>1257560
>>1257520
>>1257512
>>1257475
>>1257268
The only philo taken seriously now days is one with a gun the rest are jabbering cucks with no spine
>>1257268
>not analytic
>serious
"No."
>>1258140
How can you not love this guy?
>>1258140
>>1260637
>tfw based slavoj will die in my lifetime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtPghWHAQfs
I'm not super familiar with him but this video kind of almost seems like it sums up his ideas. Can anyone confirm?
>>1262135
I fucked up by writing my replies under the wrong reply tag, can you let me know what reply chain you are following if you are?
Anyhow I think it's more or less obvious without any sort of argumentation that some policies and institution are more positively correlated with capital accumulation. I do however think you're right in saying that in spite of these institutions capital would grow, definitely, I don't think that when you say 'not because of economics' you're being fair to what economics is. By that I mean if you're disagreeing with the fact that economics is a science, the fact that capital would grow without the study of how our economy works is pretty irrelevant, for one thing it assumes that the entirety of the discipline is making sure that this accumulation occurs.
>When people can't predict one person with any sort of reliability, how can anybody look to a person trying to predict the behaviors of millions of agents and be comfortable in an "explanation"? Of course beyond that which we see everyday in a market and for which evidence is generated day after day.
I don't want to be that guy but in quantum mechanics we simply evaluate expectation values, and this is the micro level, however at the macro level we are really good at modelling rocket trajectories so I think you're being a little dramatic about the failures of reductionism - I don't know what to say except that reductionism isn't science. I completely do not understand you in your last sentence after you mention being comfortable with an explanation, I mean you seem to be more or less discounting the leg on which any of the successes stand but I'm not sure if that's exactly it.
I have a question for you, why are you so concerned with the behaviour of individuals? The sort of game-theory-esque behaviourism approach? I'm not too familiar with and don't really care for everything that happens in microeconomics to be fair.
>>1260967
>It's got numbers so looks like a science to me
Flawless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM
Is he right?
>>1260850
very true, embarrassing desu
>>1262325
Holy shit this insane SJW propaganda
>>1262780
>Is he right?
No. Political Correctness critics more often than not just don't want their language to change. "Oh, no I can't say nigger anymore without strange looks. CENSORSHIP!! FIRST AMENDEMENT MUHHH FREEDUMMMM!!!!"
>>1263164
But that isn't the argument he makes. He says that racist jokes and banter can forge warm, sincere, personal friendships, while political correctness encourages cold, distant, insincere relationships, paralyzed by fear and uncertainty.
>>1263194
>He says that racist jokes and banter can forge warm, sincere, personal friendships, while political correctness encourages cold, distant, insincere relationships, paralyzed by fear and uncertainty.
That's an even more strange argument
>>1263226
It makes sense to me. If you can talk and joke about anything, then you have a more open, sincere, easygoing friendship. If some things are "off-limits", then there will always be a source of unease, something distancing you from close relationships. Instead of fostering a culture of restricting things that might offend people, it makes more sense to foster a culture of strengthening people so they aren't offended by anything
is he the Quentin Tarantino of Philosophy?
>>1263226
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-rHqbp4vE
>>1263021
As someone who's never read Zizek: how is that pamphlet wrong? Is it dishonest when it describes Zizek as "a self-described leftist who reaches fascist conclusions?"
>>1262780
>>1263164
Isn't his point basically that it doesn't matter whether you're called a nigger or a black person, when you're still impoverished and systematically oppressed and that PC culture just ends up blurring the real relations of power, making people docile and obedient?
Like his story with the friendly boss, who you should actually rebel against in some way, but can't because his perceived friendliness makes you feel guilty and that it would improper to question or defy him.
I don't think he thinks racism is not an issue at all, but just that people need to prioritize more.
>>1263350
He made this point as well as the one >>1263332 When he was talking about PC culture he focused more on making friends and so on but he transitioned into it by talking about unclear power relationships. It seems unfiltered communication was his main point he wanted to make but he also wanted to point out the point you made
>>1263350
It sounds like this argument works for accelerationism too. Capitalism should be accelerated and unhindered so that people can rebel against it. If you throw people bones with welfare or universal healthcare or whatever, it's the equivalent of being PC, you're just cloaking the hostility and making people more docile.
>>1263344
>Is it dishonest when it describes Zizek as "a self-described leftist who reaches fascist conclusions?"
Yes, it is entirely dishonest. It's SJW nonsense.
>>1263446
Many leftists do make this argument. The claim is that Social Democracy essentially allows Capitalism to limp on for an unnatural length by treating Capitalism's symptoms rather than the cause. Don't know if I buy it though
>>1263344
Yes, it is entirely dishonest.
>>1263350
Yes. Žižek believes PC-culture is just "gentrification" of the language (and the people)
>>1257268
Sometimes I feel that his thoughts are more like something anyone could come up with rather than a fully formed philosophy. He just says everything we already know, goes a little more in depth with it and accepts it instead of thinking of how it could be solved.
>>1261669
>Anyone who knows a damn thing about economics knows that the predominant and mainstream school is not only disconnected from reality, as they themselves admit
where do you guys get this stuff. any perceived division within economics only exists on wikipedia, debate forums, and from the mouths of the heterodox schools
what's more, good heterodox economics simply becomes, economics
- the austrian's theory of subjective value
- neokeynsians revealed preference
- the neoclassical synthesis
- etc etc
>>1262135
and congrats on obfuscating "human action is purposeful behavior"
>>1263226
This is actually one of his most lucid statements weirdly enough.
Which scenario sounds more like a genuinely amicable friendship? One where two guys can call each other niggers, faggots or cuckholds or whatever and it has no damaging effect on the relationship, or one where you must always be tip toeing around things and always carefully choosing what to say to eachother or you might trigger the other guy and get into a huge fight. When two people are comfortable enough around each other to completely ignore what is probably the biggest social taboo in western culture (commenting negatively on the other persons race or lifestyle choices) they are demonstrably closer than friends who remain respectful of each other at all times.
I forget his actual quote but its something along the lines of "you need that little touch of obscene interaction in order to facilitate true intimacy." and its been absolutely true in my personal experience.
>>1266094
>any perceived division within economics only exists on
Yeah, you only perceive the division on the fringes and within the very origins of mainstream academia - that is within the papers that generate the foundations for mainstream theory. It's disconnected from reality in the sense that their epistemological foundations are based in instrumentalism and at the same time empirical verification for their work is weak, and that's just verification. Imagine if economists discarded theories with falsification criteria. For this reason, mainstream economics - and here I mean based in general equilibrium, rational choice, marginal utility, is-lm and non-stock/flow consistent models - is just nonsense. One example is this, Hicks openly admitted that IS-LM was a broken theory yet even today Summers and Krugman use it and all of this is occurring 8 years after the GFC which they didn't see coming.
>what's more, good heterodox economics simply becomes, economics
They simply pick and choose without having to consider the implications because again, instrumentalism.
Maybe your point was that orthodoxy reigns stronger than I'm painting it, well yeah that's probably true but I don't consider orthodox economics to be good science. Still cracks are opening in the discipline day to day, Krugman seems to be moving towards looking at heterdox work with more and more.
>>1263344
Yes, how exactly is man like Žižek fascist? In his popular work he is a super memester and in his serious work he's a Hegelian-Marxist-Lacanina syncretist.
>>1268427
He cites conservative thinkers a bit too much.
>>1269541
that does not make someone fascist senpai. plus there's nothing wrong with eclecticism (imo at least) than sticking to an orthodox list of thinkers from the left or right which, in any case, is artificial considering the political circumstances these intellectuals existed and changing ideas of what left and right mean
>>1266094
Best post in this thread.
>>1260637
>literal shitposting
>>1263268
>>1266166
>>1270148
>>1268427
He criticizes modern feminism and liberal tolerance of immigration and religion and so fake leftist liberals hate him and call him a fascist.
>>1262325
He would be pretty cool if that were true, but I remember him as being a faggy liberal.
