/lit/ - Literature

>>6587932
>Be me
>Be freshman in intro to philosophy
>150 people or so in the clads
>1st day of class the professor introduces himself
>Old dude, Gandalfesque
>smashes a cell phone with a hammer to prove that he doesn't like phones
starts asking us questions and knocking down our answers by showing us their myriad contradictions, continuing to demand better answers from us even after we can't give good ones
>Read through the Meno and the Crito over the course of the 1st couple weeks
>Same thing every day, I start to hear his voice in my head when I think about how great science is ("but how can you say...?")
>Get to the Phaedo
>Professor is almost in tears on the lecture platform talking about how sad Socrates' death makes him every time he reads it
>Get into the dialogue
>We P.E.E. (a method analytics like to teach undergrads relating to the reading of a text and extracting arguments from it) Plato's argument
>It clearly isn't sound
>Do Descartes
>Whatever


>Week later
>Take shrooms
>The mind is everything
>Wonder how much my thoughts on the matter were influenced by class

>Two years later
>Read some Proclus
>Realize I've been a Platonist the whole time because of that reading of the Phaedo despite our not examining the true import of any of those concepts in any amount of detail
>MFW

Their texts might be soulless, but analytics have souls, anon. This language is just terrible.

But Wittgenstein didn't get Plato at all so it can't just be Anglos, I guess.

>>6567109
>>6567079
>mfw he turns out to be a monarchist after all that

>>6550139
Too many clauses in that sentence

>>6524341

Anti-Zizek thread, anyone?
>What you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven’t the slightest idea. I don’t see anything there that should be influential.

Here's a long article I found about Less Than Nothing. The author thinks that Zizek's reading of Hegel as a radically negative hunker postulating an ontologically incomplete reality has very little foundation in Hegel, and I have to say I agree. I've never quit bought Zizek's Hegelianism, it seems lime he wants to use a relatively respectable thinker to push his own bullshit views further.

Anyone have any other quality criticisms of Zizek? Preferably some that aren't posted often.