Slavoj Zizek in person

yea man, crawl back into your retard hole were you belong you retard.

*commits suicide because of bullying*

  On 11/14/2013 at 3:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

I think Zizek is intelligent enough but I think he's purposely obtuse. I've read Being and Nothingness and Finnegans Wake and they were crystal clear next to Zizek's ramblings.

 

 

The point of language is communication and--like Tom Jenkinson--it seems like Zizek prioritizes expensive-sounding language over actual communication.

It's tempting to arrive at this conclusion, that he is purposely obtuse, but I think he is pretty sincere about trying to be intelligible and clear. It's crazy but if you look at some other writers that fall under the "critical theory/sociology/semiotics", such as Jameson, Derrida, Lacan, Butler, whatever, he comes off as relatively accessible. (I tired reading that big book about Postmodernism by Jameson, and it was barely intelligible to me at times. I felt no need to try to finish it.) With Zizek, yeah here and there I'll have to look up some French term or what Hegel was all about, but otherwise, I find his stuff pretty interesting.

Apparently there has been a minor beef between him and Noam Chomsky over this very issue of readability/accessibility and the political left. (Chomsky saying its all theoretical, self-indulgent posturing, Zizek claiming that we need more than bare empiricism to understand why people do certain things hence the need for critical theory). It's mostly bickering but I also think it brings up an interesting question: what's the point of insightful analysis of society if most people can't grasp it?

I like that Zizek does op-eds and interviews and movies and stuff because otherwise most of these [supposedly] bright thinkers never really reach an audience outside academia and a few elitists here and there.

  On 11/14/2013 at 6:00 AM, LARRY said:

 

  On 11/14/2013 at 3:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

I think Zizek is intelligent enough but I think he's purposely obtuse. I've read Being and Nothingness and Finnegans Wake and they were crystal clear next to Zizek's ramblings.

 

 

The point of language is communication and--like Tom Jenkinson--it seems like Zizek prioritizes expensive-sounding language over actual communication.

 

It's tempting to arrive at this conclusion, that he is purposely obtuse, but I think he is pretty sincere about trying to be intelligible and clear. It's crazy but if you look at some other writers that fall under the "critical theory/sociology/semiotics", such as Jameson, Derrida, Lacan, Butler, whatever, he comes off as relatively accessible. (I tired reading that big book about Postmodernism by Jameson, and it was barely intelligible to me at times. I felt no need to try to finish it.) With Zizek, yeah here and there I'll have to look up some French term or what Hegel was all about, but otherwise, I find his stuff pretty interesting.

 

Apparently there has been a minor beef between him and Noam Chomsky over this very issue of readability/accessibility and the political left. (Chomsky saying its all theoretical, self-indulgent posturing, Zizek claiming that we need more than bare empiricism to understand why people do certain things hence the need for critical theory). It's mostly bickering but I also think it brings up an interesting question: what's the point of insightful analysis of society if most people can't grasp it?

 

I like that Zizek does op-eds and interviews and movies and stuff because otherwise most of these [supposedly] bright thinkers never really reach an audience outside academia and a few elitists here and there.

Chomsky makes a very good point. There is little reason to harp so much on pure theory, aside from academic cleverness really. Actually Chomsky is a great example of someone who is able to convey complex ideas in a casual conversational manner.

Maybe I would agree with Zizek on literally everything he says, but the bloated rhetoric is just so exhausting that I just can't take him in large doses. Ironically his response to Chomsky's criticism is painfully overwrought. It's like c'mon, talk like a normal person, I dare you.

i saw him give a talk, i did not get all the references so a lot of it went over my head but i still enjoyed trying to understand the ideas and it was great for writing down names to research, but just watching him talk was just as entertaining to listening to him talk.

I'm gonna backpeddle a bit and say that yes I definitely do like him. He's a bright dude and I agree with almost all of his politics and roughly half of his attitudes about culture. I think I just begrudge him his recursive grammar and thick accent and academic language, which makes it harder for me to get on his wavelength.

I just finished The Perverts Guide to Ideology. The bit after the credits made me lol.

  On 11/14/2013 at 5:46 PM, LimpyLoo said:

I'm gonna backpeddle a bit and say that yes I definitely do like him. He's a bright dude and I agree with almost all of his politics and roughly half of his attitudes about culture. I think I just begrudge him his recursive grammar and thick accent and academic language, which makes it harder for me to get on his wavelength.

I have too much to say on this subject but you are not at all the only person that thinks this in academia or otherwise. I always have trouble stating specifically what it is that I find disagreeable, but essentially I would say that it has to do with a lack of structured argumentation. Yes he says some amazing things, but often lacks specific subpoints for that argumentation. Instead he rambles on to the next argument. The problem with this is that it conveniently allows the person employing this tactic to a kind of philosophical "Gish-gallop", where if you demand follow up elucidation on a rather profound statement, you are immediately assumed to either "have not gotten it", or referred to innumerable other philosophers, theoreticians, cultural phenomena, etc with yet even more expansive statements. Essentially the answer to a question never ends, and I'm not going to denigrate more postmodern or Hegelian defenses of that strategy, but suffice to say there IS something legitimate in Chomsky's criticism. If you are saying everything, you are saying nothing. I also find it somewhat disturbing as to how much his celebrity automatically lends to his "legitimacy" in a lot of faux-intellectual eyes. People that worship at the altar of Zizek never find anything in the least problematic in any of his five billion books.

Personally I find Zizek to be a fantastic lecturer, but not so much a writer.

Yeah, I sort of agree with SR4. I think Zizek is worthwhile, because nobody else is trying to do what he does, but he tends to ramble in an inconsistent way. I don't think he's obscure or that he uses "academic language", though (why is this bad anyway? so philosophers can't use philosophic language? besides, those who criticise the language of certain philosophers are usually into analytic stuff the first tenet of which is to use ultra-academic language which can't mean anything else than some technical meaning. university is full of idiots who think anything written after kant must be shit if they have to think more than 5 minutes about it - and once they've declared anyone from heidegger to deleuze to be shit, they don't read anything by them and carry on. this is like criticising autechre because they don't make top 10 singles, and the fact remains that analytic philosophers consistently fail at translating to "plain language" the supposedly obscured theses of the thinkers they criticise. that said i'd be happy if lacan was as clear as zizek is.) In fact I think he's extremely accessible, the problem comes when you read him as a philosopher.

As for the Chomsky vs Zizek thing, I think Chomsky is full of shit, the thing is Zizek's reply is quite weak too, getting lost in that "but oh, you supported the Khmer Rouge" bollocks.

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:36 PM, poblequadrat said:

Yeah, I sort of agree with SR4. I think Zizek is worthwhile, because nobody else is trying to do what he does

what's so unique about what he does ?

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:49 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:36 PM, poblequadrat said:

Yeah, I sort of agree with SR4. I think Zizek is worthwhile, because nobody else is trying to do what he does

what's so unique about what he does ?

 

He talks smart.

I like how he relates cultural ideology to their chosen style of toilets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXPyCY7jbs

Also, for real. Is this guy on cocaine?

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:49 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:36 PM, poblequadrat said:

Yeah, I sort of agree with SR4. I think Zizek is worthwhile, because nobody else is trying to do what he does

what's so unique about what he does ?

 

I've already said it two or three times before, but saving structural Marxism by turning away from Spinoza and towards Hegel is an original move. In a sense he's much closer to the original Lacanian Marxism than Badiou, Rancière, Balibar and so on are nowadays. I really think you need a notion of what Althusser's disciples where up to just before 68 to get what Zizek is attempting to do - and after that, yeah, he's not too consistent and gets lost, and I get endlessly frustrated at him because of this.

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:55 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:49 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:36 PM, poblequadrat said:

Yeah, I sort of agree with SR4. I think Zizek is worthwhile, because nobody else is trying to do what he does

what's so unique about what he does ?

 

 

He talks smart.

 

you haven't read much contemporary philosophy have you

  On 11/15/2013 at 5:00 PM, poblequadrat said:

 

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:55 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:49 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:36 PM, poblequadrat said:

Yeah, I sort of agree with SR4. I think Zizek is worthwhile, because nobody else is trying to do what he does

what's so unique about what he does ?

 

 

He talks smart.

 

 

you haven't read much contemporary philosophy have you

 

Wow

go fuck yourself bro

  On 11/15/2013 at 4:52 PM, poblequadrat said:

 

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:49 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/14/2013 at 11:36 PM, poblequadrat said:

Yeah, I sort of agree with SR4. I think Zizek is worthwhile, because nobody else is trying to do what he does

what's so unique about what he does ?

 

 

I've already said it two or three times before, but saving structural Marxism by turning away from Spinoza and towards Hegel is an original move. In a sense he's much closer to the original Lacanian Marxism than Badiou, Rancière, Balibar and so on are nowadays. I really think you need a notion of what Althusser's disciples where up to just before 68 to get what Zizek is attempting to do - and after that, yeah, he's not too consistent and gets lost, and I get endlessly frustrated at him because of this.

 

oh ok, that's way beyond me. thought you had something more general in mind.

Well, in the realm of popular culture, he's somewhat "new" in the sense of philosophical celebrity. His sense of communism is far more oriented towards the cultural turn than the linguistic-Freudians or Frankfurt School guys that were super popular in the 60s.

So from a philosophical point of view, he is new in the way he diverts from Hegel and even Lacan in determining the natures of whats known as the "big Other", and applying it to very specific elements of popular culture. People like Adorno or Marceuse, Lukacs and some others have addressed this on the periphery (ie. theories of "cultural manufacturing" or "totalitarian democracy"), but it's right in the forefront for Zizek (hence his Perverts Guides to X, etc.)

But I think what is important is understanding why he is culturally relevant, and I think a lot of that has to do with the 40 plus years after Foucault and the major Continentals. Plus his psychoanalysis of popular film and music in terms of ideology manifesting a reality is really really engaging, and draws a lot of people into philosophy that might otherwise not be interested.

What irks me on that point is that many of those same people simply stop at Zizek, instead of further exploring the boundaries.

take away the stuttering, verbal tics, arm flailing and speech impediment, gorgeous looks

now whats left?

  On 11/15/2013 at 5:40 PM, skibby said:

take away the stuttering, verbal tics, arm flailing and speech impediment, gorgeous looks

 

now whats left?

  On 11/15/2013 at 5:40 PM, skibby said:

take away the stuttering, verbal tics, arm flailing and speech impediment, gorgeous looks

 

now whats left?

Don't forget the cocaine-ish sniffing and nose-touching

which, I'll be honest, I think I'd like him more if he had a "sneeze" habit

Let's Play Zizuku!

cool. i attented one of his lectures that he enexfuckingspectedly held at this local college in my home town of winter park, fl. one of my friends was assigned to go as part of his class and i said fuck yeah, and just tagged along. it was free and public, of course and he was talking and taking autographs/photo memories afterwards. i made him sign an adbuster mag, lol. i just told him i dont own any of his books but m behaviorally intrigued by you (high embellishment), but sommethin along those lines.... he was very loving and sweaty yes .

my friend asked him a very specific question which kind of threw me off; "What advice would you give to a generation of teenagers in an abyss of nihilism in the nest of the bourgeois - the United States?"

i was all thinking, what the feck is that melodrama, and slavoj just said like a boss;

"Learn how sometimes only a small lie can save a larger truth, how sometime only violence can save peace, how sometimes only betrayal can save a true friendship."

yoooo our best friend had just recently passed too, on the real, and it sort of hit us both pretty hard...

this is him saying it:

man i haven't dumped like this is some time...

  On 11/16/2013 at 6:31 AM, impotentwhitecapitalist said:

 

"Learn how sometimes only a small lie can save a larger truth, how sometime only violence can save peace, how sometimes only betrayal can save a true friendship."

 

 

Wait, is he pro obama?

  On 11/16/2013 at 6:57 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/16/2013 at 6:31 AM, impotentwhitecapitalist said:

 

"Learn how sometimes only a small lie can save a larger truth, how sometime only violence can save peace, how sometimes only betrayal can save a true friendship."

 

Wait, is he pro obama?

Boom Shacka Lacka Boom

i don't know, man maybe you should ask him yourself