/lit/ - Literature

>>15909025
D&G are absolutely right though, at least in the sense that they use ideology. It doesn't really touch ideology in a more complex and broad sense like Zizek uses it, at least not in a way that truly undermines it, more in a way that compliments and explains how it functions.

What Hitler says is that abstract thought—whether it’s normative or whether it’s scientific—is inherently Jewish. There is in fact no way of thinking about the world, says Hitler, which allows us to see human beings as human beings. Any idea which allows us to see each other as human beings—whether it’s a social contract; whether it’s a legal contract; whether it’s working-class solidarity; whether it’s Christianity—all these ideas come from Jews. And so for people to be people, for people to return to their essence, for them to represent their race, as Hitler sees things, you have to strip away all those ideas. And the only way to strip away all those ideas is to eradicate the Jews. And if you eradicate the Jews, then the world snaps back into what Hitler sees as its primeval, correct state: Races struggles against each other, kill each other, starve each other to death, and try and take land.
- Timothy Snyder

Funny how Slavoj Zizek claims the very same thing, that the Jewish idea is disruptive, but he sees that as a good thing.
So we're just down to disagreeing over whether we value it as good or bad, but both nazi's and Zizekians agree on what Jews mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBa-pCmuBHU

Can you give some other examples of (pure) ideology where you're given a choice to (not) do it but you're (not) supposed to do it?

"NO! IT'S THE TOTAL OPPOSITE!"

Are our intuitions and gut feeling ever right?

>go to critique thread
>no actual critique

My god...