/lit/ - Literature

>I've always kinda hated Philosophy
>enlighten me
>sooper ADD

>>3925629
Exactly. I dumb y'all real smart. I'm not being the least bit pretentious, I'm honestly asking for a simple answer. But then again I guess it's much cooler to mock me. Great one, breh.

If OP wasn't a troll I'd tell him to read Wikipedia's article on Zizek

But he's a troll so I will simply ignore this thread

>>3925672
Well you're not ignoring the thread if you're posting here, regardless of that sage. Also I went on Wikipedia but there was a lot of shit written there and it's late and hot and I'm lazy and sleepy so I was hoping one of you nice fellas could help. I guess not.
Also, I'm not a troll. Muhfeels. ;__;

>>3925651
I'm not saying you are being pretentious, I'm saying you are acting actually dumb. If you are an ADD "pls enlighten me" fag, you have no use going for philosophy. And you can always just google him.

>>3925699
>you have no use going for philosophy

Absolutely 100% agree, I said that before. Sorry to burst your bubble but you're the dumb one if you didn't get that from my first post. I just wanted to know like the 3 main things about this dude because how popular he is on here and there's just no avoiding him so I might as well know the most basic stuff.

>>3925707
Google.

>>3925718
Thanks, that's real helpful, never would have crossed my mind.

>>3925720
Well then you have no idea how to use google to find information. Either that or you're incapable of reading enough about a topic to draw your own conclusions.

So I'm sorry, but the answer is still >google him
If twitter and facebook have limited your attention span, you can always find him on Youtube. Do you know how to search videos on Youtube, or do you need help with that too?

He is a contemporary philosopher and cultural critic working in the traditions of Marxism, Hegelianism and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

>>3925882
help me with that 2 pl0x I can only do teh birdy and facebookss

>>3925886
Thank you! Why is he so popular here? Also, I know Marx and Hegel but tbh no clue about Lacan.

>>3925892
He is popular here because he deliberately appeals to people with a knowledge of popular culture. He is the epitome of a pop philosopher.

>>3925892
>Why is he so popular here?

Because he's hilarious and often comes out with thought provoking sentiments or ways of interpreting current cultural events through his signature lens of analyzing ideology and discovering the ironies and contradictions that lurk beneath everyone's desire. He's very quotable and plays up his character for the camera's quite a lot, that of being a bungling soviet professor who just learned about lady gaga and would like to tell everyone why her latest song resembles Stalin's actions in 1936.

Lacan is really weird and built a complete, almost impenetrable mythology around his work that anybody unfamiliar with it will have no fucking clue what's going on, but it's basically an extension of Freud.

Lastly, The beats of a standard Ž routine run like this:

1. Remember this Looney Tunes bit?
2. It's a bit like this obscure event from revolutionary history, isn't it?
3. It's all because of this thing out of Freud (Lacan).
4. But not the stupid, obvious interpretation, which stupid left-wing activists believe because they are stupid children.
5. You can also see the same thing at work in this current event that everybody's talking about.
6. Surprisingly, the most revolutionary position to take vis-a-vis this current event is basically the same as the mainstream liberal position.
7. This is because of dialectics.

>>3925908
I would not call him a pop-philosopher because he does not deal with popular philosophy. Zizek's focus is within actually very dense anti-popular thinkers like Hegel. You will not find any common man on the street with any knowledge whatsoever of Hegel's slave/master dialectic, for example.

On the other hand, you're likely to find many people familiar with the works of Sam Harris or Dawkins. While they're not really philosophers at all, they're in fact the pop-philosophers; not someone as idiosyncratic and sense as Zizek.

>>3925927
I agree with you that Harris and Dawkins are not philosophers. Zizek is as 'pop' as one can be while remaining a philosopher.

>>3925932
>implying lacan was a pop-philosopher

>>3925932
Define 'pop' if you insist that he should be labeled as such.

>>3925932

He isn't "pop" he is just contental and therefore outside of mainstream academic philosophy. He is our generations Foucault.

You will read him in a lit-crit or film theory class not in a philosophy class.

>>3926023
> He is our generations Foucault.

No. You obviously know nothing about modern continental philosophy. Please stop talking.

And OP, Zizek is popular because he's easy to understand and says stuff that's ambiguous enough to fit his readers prefabricated ideologies. As a writer and speaker he is really good at making his readers or listeners feel clever.

>>3926058
How does Foucault differ significantly from Zizek in his thinking? I'm not trying to argue, as I presume you know what you're talking about, but I'm just generally interested. I know only that Foucalt was a follower of Nietzschean though, and Zizek is a Hegelian/Lacanian.

How do those two areas of areas of continental thought differ generally speaking?

>>3926058

not to be an internet tough guy but I'm actually a philosophy doctoral student at a VERY prestigous university and I work in critical theory...

He is like foucault inasmuch as they both write books for an intelligent general audience and engage with the public...That I all I meant, you little hasty generalizing viper.

bump

>>3926093
> I'm actually a philosophy doctoral student at a VERY prestigous university and I work in critical theory...

so? I have 3 phds and am considered the #1 philosophy expert in the country.

>>3925927

>Dawkins
>Not a pop philosopher

He uses basic-level logic to argue against metaphysical claims. How is that not philosophy?

>>3926093

>Yeah, I'm an ACTUAL philosophy student!

Come on. You know that there are plenty of people who actually HAVE their Ph.D. who are complete dumbasses.

>>3926265
Goddamn, your reading comprehension is awful.

>>3926284

Sorry, I was taking a steamy shit and read your post incorrectly.

>>3925606
Why does that image of Zizek exist?

>Fuck he's hard to look at.
You should see the wife he got. Never fails to make me rage.

>>3926297
>>>/b/

>>3926465

Oh, I'm sorry. References to basic human body functions aren't dignified enough for your ladylike eyes, are they? I guess /lit/ is a fan of holding their dick between their legs and dressing in women's underwear.

>>3925908
>>3925916

OP here, thank you guys, that was all I wanted. Leaving this post now. Won't delete because some of you seem to have a discussion going and shit.

>>3925916

Capped for posterity's sake.

pop-philosophy

He panders to the intellect of people that watch Mad Men, The Wire and Sopranos and make them feel good about themselves when they're really just wasting their lives in front of a tv-screen.

>>3925606

He's a comedian.

>>3925606

>>3925916
As a Marxist that Zizek routine was pretty fucking hilarious and true.

>>3925916
Examples of this routine?