/lit/ - Literature

>>11141264
Materialism means that the reality I see is never "while" h not because a large part of it eludes me, but because it contains a stain, a blind spot, which indicates my inclusion in it.

That only an observer situated on the moon can make factual observations of life on earth

>>11141264
He's talking about the ontological incompleteness of reality

Word soup from a pompous retard. It means less than nothing.

>>11141290
fedora.jpg

>>11141296
Try Jordan Peterson if you want intellectuality without postmodern word farts

>>11141264
jesus christ OP is fucking incompetent and this board is filled with retards
>>11141269
>>11141290
>>11141296
disgusting

>>11141306
it really is

>>11141290
>it truly is the Sublime object of ideology..
Oh my

>>11141264
Is zizek smarter then 99 percent of the people posting on lit?

>>11141567
Without a doubt.

>>11141567
I'd put the number far higher

>>11141264
>the reality I see is never "while" h not because a large

Incase retards get confused this should say "whole" but it got mutated in the transcription

>>11141264

In laymans terms, I'd say he means this:

Materialism means that you derive your life's value from the material things that exist in your possesion.
But for you to asses if you have surrounded yourself with enough material things, you would need to stand outside of this material existence or believesystem.
Since for you to have a satisfication due to materialism, you need to be both, the one who accumulates and the one who assesses, you can't find satisfaction within this vicious circle.

The result is a neverending repetition of accumulation->failure to feel whole/satisfied->accumulation.

Think of it as a painter who wants to make stilllife-picture with himself at the center. But the same painter has no memory and can only asses the things infront of him/his eyes.
The moment he feels like the stillife has a good composition, he leaves the frame and goes to paint it. But now there is a huge gap in between all those items arranged that would be filled by him.
So he goes ahead to put more/other things into the ensamble.
And repeats the same at nauseum.
Never achieveing his "masterpiece"

At least that's my interpretation of what he means.

>>11141701
>Materialism means that you derive your life's value from the material things that exist in your possesion.
wew lad take a phil 101 course then try your luck again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

What pretentious drivel

>>11141723
he misinterpreted materialism but the amnesic painter is a good image. Kind of illustrates Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The subject can never be the object of its own knowledge because it is inscribed in that very act of seeing. The object is disclosed only by its minim difference with itself that makes that self-disclosure possible.

>>11141739
Zizek is pretty much one of the least pretentious contemporary philosophers

>>11141264
my interpretation: because you exist, your picture of the world is limited by your capability to see it, and because you are limited this way, you can conclude from that that you exist. although I don't know if he's necessarily making an argument for materialism and not just describing the argument.

>>11141276
this

>>11141701
>Materialism means that you derive your life's value from the material things that exist in your possesion.

This is bait right

>>11141723

I didn't and I won't. I will now know the distinction though.
Thanks for the input anyway.

>>11141804
Listen to him you fucking ignoramous. You're a babbling old lady

>>11141780
Right, the cut that discloses the world to itself is necessarily limiting of that world.

>>11141804
>I didn't
I could have guessed
>I won't
Never change, /lit/

>>11141826
Must be cool to life in a world where you can just "join a philosophy 101" course at a university, while not haveing to deal with the economical reality of haveing to sustain you and yours.

>never change, children
Maybe consider growing up, though

Thanks for the worthwhile input again.

>>11141871
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2J7wSuFRl8&list=PL1132D5151BD8926A

Here's an actual Yale Philosophy Introduction course for free on youtube. Go watch it all and come back when you're half educated

>>11141871
I never called you a child lmao. You know that you can find plenty of philosophy courses online right? For free? You could watch Sadler videos and get an undergrad understanding of philosophy in a couple years if you really apply yourself.

>>11141264
i think he want to say materialism include an understanding more profound of the role of the observer.
and its a plain and childish lie.

he is too attached to the term. he is here an old man defending his heroes in a posmodern era what for some reason he wants to join in.

>redoubling of myself as standing both outside and inside MY picture
if you think a little, you can see this is bullshit.

>>11141932
No, I don't think it is

>>11141264
okay after re-reading a few times he means that materialism is incomplete because on can never self insert inside the material world. you always have to think of the "external" world as opposed to the internal, but you can't think of the external+"yourself thinking about the external."

In this sense the "yourself thinking about the external" is the blind spot he's talking about.

Now someone give me a cookie.

>>11141942
maybe its not bullshit. but is not materialism.

>>11141959
but materialism never call that a "blind spot" and never will be.
he is talking about the materialism he would want to see at best.

>>11141977
No hablo espanol. Learn to speak English before talking about philosophy you don't understand, fucking third world idiot

>>11141959
Right, the identity between self and the world is only revealed by their difference in/as the act of observation. You inscribe your difference (from this unity) into this unity by being the very site of its (self-)disclosure. As the subject you are the other outside of itself, but as the other you can't stand outside of this relation, which is ultimately only a self-relation.

>>11141962
You do realize terms have different meanings in different contexts. I know you're illiterate and only have the pop culture definition of materialism in your head but in Philosophy materialism has a far older and nuanced meaning.

Fuck me, so many brainlets in this thread I'm playing kindergarten teacher

>>11141977
Well it's pretty dumb pragmatically.

But if you think of an infinite being that has all the knowledge in the world he would have to know his own self simultaneously to knowing the whole universe. And then he'd have to know his own self knowing his own self and it would necessitate an infinite recursion of knowing. If that infinite loop is impossible then a "complete" material knowledge of the world would be unattainable.

>>11141916

I know you didn't
But I did call you one. Could also call you a rich person without a care for the basic needs of our day, but I found it more likely that you're some kid or halfgrown in university.

Turns out you can find everything for free on the internet if you look hard enough. You can also learn everything if you invest enough time into it.
That much we agree on.

It's just that you fail to realize the issue that time is not, in fact, worthless when you have to sustain you and a family you hold dear, since you have to take up responsibilities that take up time aswell.
Now, if you'd be a grown human bean, you'd consider that I might actually be into philosophy and actually do try to selfeducate myself in the fields that interest me, while following my profession.
But you didn't, did you.

No
What you did, is project your lifesituation, a student/kid jerking it instead of useing his time productivly, onto me.

Bonusround:
Consider that me being here and contributeing something is me engageing with philosophy.
And while posts like this

>>11141276
>>11141932
>>11141746

help me and others like me.

While post like yours and
>>11141782
>>11141807
>>11141826

Do not and simply express a need for blind lashing out to assert your own superiority.

Thanks for the links

>>11141991
>which is ultimately only a self-relation.
this is not materialism. he is lying.

>>11142016
It's dialectical materialism, his explicit position

>>11142011
When a dog shits on the carpet you need to rub its nose in it

>>11142021
Just talk about ideas ya fuckin' posturing cunt

>>11142024
if you don’t punish idiocy with vicious selection it will proliferate and choke the life out of a thriving community of any kind throughout nature.

>>11141999
without materialism the concept of "knowledge" is different. you dont have to "know" nothing.

>>11142019
in the OP he is saying just materialism.
i suppose you are right but try to debunk "historical or dialectic materialism" is too hard and, ironically, too political...

>>11142011
>Could also call you a rich person
I'm poor as fuck and paying off student loans anon; you make an awful lot of assumptions. I worked full time when I went to school too, so don't give me this bullshit about responsibility and family; I don't come from wealth and help out my ailing father wherever I can. The difference is I genuinely care about philosophy and will dedicate any effort I can muster into my practice. You have enough time to shitpost on /lit/ without any background knowledge of the topic, but no time to go on one of the philosophical encyclopedia and search "materialism". Go play armchair psychologist on reddit you fucking mutt.

>>11142011
>human bean
never mind you're trolling, good one anon lmao fuckin got me

>>11142046
are you trying to say that materialism dont suppose the reality like something outside of "you"?.

>>11141993
>redoubling of myself as standing both outside and inside MY picture
you understand this imply that you are inside your picture always?.
maybe there is a methaphysical materialism, but dont go fucking and bragging with your knowledge big man.

>>11142046

So far I mostly came into contact with Zizek in an "anti-capitalist" context, so I assumed materialism in this exceprt to be linked to this aswell.
So I gave my two cents on something while browsing the world wide web on a site I come to shitpost at.

While you didn't do much beyound talking about how crappy what I wrote was, not giveing your own opinion or anything really.

So, lets just say that you have your truth of being someone who genuinely cares for philosophy and shows it by not contributeing anything and instead blindly lashing out.
While I have my truth of you just being an angry kid in a "possibly" grown body, looking to lash out at someone to feel a modicum of selfworth.

And until we meet in RL, we both can continue to live them.

>>11142096
I said wew lad and linked you to a philosophic definition of materialism. You got upset like any human bean would.

>>11141804
>this is the person you argue with on /lit/

>>11141264
>Materialism means that the reality I see is never "whole", not because a large part of it eludes me, but because it contains a stain, a blind spot, which indicates my inclusion in it.
Zizek's materialism is literally Hegel's idealism but backwards, I have never felt so much disgust in my entire life.

>>11142104


>>11141723
I thanked you for that.
What is rubbing me the wrong way is your way of delivering that information.
Like I said here >>11142011

The issue is that if you'd care for philosophy you'd engage in spreading and proliferateing it into people like me, who enter it from outside of the field.
But you don't. You sole see it as a way to assert your superiority. Why you'd do that is a matter of speculation, as you managed to point out.
But that you do it, is a fact.

In any case, I've spend enough time on a bitter person.
Enjoy your time here. Brace for reallife impact.

>>11142132
>if you'd care for philosophy you'd engage in spreading and proliferateing it into people like me, who enter it from outside of the field.
>gently to protect my feels
>on 4chan

>>11142145
are you theosophyposter? you have got to be the most bitter posturing pseud cunt on this site

>>11142145
It's not about feels.
It's about pointing it out with information that adds to it. Like I said here >>11142011

I can derive something to learn from what the dudes first people said. Even from your wiki-link aludeing to the fact, that I had the wrong context for materialism.

But for most of your posts you just spit vitriol for the sake of spitting it, without exposeing anything of your own.
The mark of a small mind.
Talking about what other people say without adding anything yourself.

I know you won't admit to it now. Maybe never.
But eventually you might come around to your folly.

he's arguing for a metaphysical object small a that gives potential for the illusion of subjectivity

Not sure whether he is actually saying this exactly but it seems like he is just taking the problem that materialism can't for the life of it account for the existence of the subjective experience of any observer (which is the sine qua non in which materialism is secretly based, and this failure is perennially repressed by it) and claiming that this problem itself is the defining feature of materialism, thereby pretending that he has somehow solved the problem (which he hasn't, cos it isn't).

>>11141301

>>11142857
No he is taking for granted the fact that no philosophy can account for itself (as was the problem of the German Idealists after noticing that Kant's system had not accounted for itself).
What he is saying is Materialism is either simply preferable or at most a first principle, an axiom (idk where this is from so no context...) Because:
>Materialism means that the reality I see is never "whole", not because a large part of it eludes me, but because it contains a stain, a blind spot, which indicates my inclusion in it.

He likes 'theories' or 'things' that represent the lack i.e. Lacan.

>posters don't even know (or are pretending not to know) what 'materialism' is referring to
>get mad when this gets pointed out

weewwwwwwww

>>11141264
>how can I confuse idiots into thinking I'm saying something profound
>I know, I'll employ words irrationally, with no respect for intelligibility or grammatical convention.

The man is a fucking pleb, this shouldn't be surprising to anyone though, as he is an avowed Marxist, which translates to "batshit insane".

daily reminder that Zizek wants you to pay reparations for niggers

>>11141701
dumbest thing i've read here probably ever

>>11141301

>>11144692
Give a retard a string of random words, and they'll find it profound.

The lower one's IQ, the more likely they are to pretend they understand unintelligible nonsense.

This phenomenon effectively explains the prevalence of postmodern Marxists like Zizek, as well as all other televangelist type scam artists.

>>11141701
>Materialism means that you derive your life's value from the material things that exist in your possesion.
That's not what materialism means in philosophy, in this context he's talking about the materialist/idealist distinction.
Quote:
"“Idealism” in the Marxist context means to analyze a historical/political event (or series of events) in terms of what is ideal, or in terms of ideas about reality. “Materialism” in the Marxist context, however, means to analyze a historical/political event (or series of events) in terms of the actual conditions that were (or are) present during said event (or series of events). More specifically, it means to analyze events in terms of the historical, political, social, cultural, and most importantly, economic context in which they actually take place."

>>11144698
We should

>>11141264
He means hegel was right

>calling zizek a postmodernist

any other /irony/ aficionados here?

>>11142158
>>11142168
Get off of /lit/ if you want to be coddled. Why are newfags so fucking whining?

>>11144932
They're deeply insecure about their low IQ and cavernous ignorance and want it to be everyone elses fault

>Materialism? Oh you mean like buying stuff!

Imagine being this stupid

>>11144728
> i can't understand it
> that must mean everybody else is pretending
Heh...

>>11141264
thinly veiled solipsism

>>11146059
Its the exact opposite actually

>>11146074
>opposite
what's the opposite of solipsism?

>rather, it resides in the reflexive twist by means of which I myself am included in the picture constituted by me - it is this reflexive short circuit, this necessary redoubling of myself as standing both outside and inside my picture
As far as I'm concerned it's nonsense unless he describes how this "reflexive twist" happens

>>11144692
What he says makes perfect sense. My reality is always-already distorted by my inclusion in it, there's no neutral objective frame I can access as a subject within reality because there any and all frames are always distorted by the subject that is there to perceive it

>>11146170
Hegal

>>11146219
Literally just look in a mirror bro

>>11146411
what's a hegal?

>>11141264
>such an assertion presupposes that my position of enunciation is that of an external observer who can grasp the whole of reality
wrong, only that you can grasp the fact of the existence of such a reality, not its actual content

>>11146454
At that point you have zero ability to assert reality has a materialist nature, you're merely at Kant's transcendentalism

>>11146407
>My reality is always-already distorted by my inclusion in it, there's no neutral objective frame I can access as a subject within reality because there any and all frames are always distorted by the subject that is there to perceive it
he, like the fucking buffoon he is, is saying this assumption is materialism. thats the problem.

>>11146568
No, his position is dialectical materialism

>>11146572
dialectical materialism accept his subjectvity?.

>>11141264
honestly isnt that hard to understand if you actually try to see what he is saying and not merely look at the words he writes

that said materialism is still garbage lmao@him

>>11146572
No its idealism

>>11146709
>that said materialism is still garbage lmao@him

Whats the alternative?

>>11146716
No, it isn't

>>11146728
dialectical materialism is not this notion of subjectivity either. he is just trying to rebrand a "friendly materialism".

>>11144804
You should

>>11146770
Yeah it is, as he specifically formulates it. Muh labels

>>11146816
what dialectical materialism accept this
>there's no neutral objective frame I can access
dialectical materialism is the relations betweens frames, is not the negation of the knowledge of this frames.

>>11146909
The relations between frames = not neutral by definition.

>>11146924
that is the contradiction. dont look at me.
dialectical materialism dont say: hey, this is impossible to know, this is just a random assumption and a total subjective idea from my part. (like zizek try to say in this rambling...)

>they should do, but dont do it.

>>11146984
No, he's not saying that at all.

>>11147016
>all frames are always distorted by the subject that is there to perceive it
what is this to you?. (i know is not literally what zizek say, but i asume is your poster...)

>>11147058
He's not a relativist though

>>11147118
zizek can consider himself shit, hes a buffoon.
he dont want to APPEAR like a subjectivist, but the logical conclusión of what he said is subjectivism or at least an infinite suspiction about all forms of materialism.
but he write that and even blushed a little.

>>11148209
it's honestly not really his fault you're extrapolating an entire position out of one paragraph

>>11148209
fair point. but the guy is denying zizek is making a subjectivist position in that paragraph.

>>11148214
sorry >>11148281

>>11142011
>takes the time to write up a lengthy response not because he's educated in the subject, but because his inklings just feel right
>misinterprets an obvious reference to one of the most relevant philosophical terms in today's debates
>refuses to educate himself further when called out for being undeniably wrong
>wastes even more of his time on a screed lauding responsible use of time
>expects praise for his "engagement with philosophy" when his contribution has been nothing more than a worthless mistake
there is no shame in being ignorant of philosophy, but there is a shame in thinking that your input is valuable or welcome when you are entirely ignorant of the subject. you've done nothing but mislead yourself and others, and your indignant response to your critics shows that your main goal is to impress others without actually cultivating the knowledge you claim. ironically, philosophy would help you avoid embarrassments like these, but it's clear that you'll never be a serious student of the subject if this is your reaction to being wrong.

one of the worst posts i've ever seen on /lit/