/lit/ - Literature

As always, magic.

every so often i think about getting some screencaps from the Chronicles of Riddick.. the part where he meets the Imam's daughter, Ziza, and asks her name. then i insert a shot of Zizek.. but frankly i don't know anything about this guy other than he's a hardcore postmodernist and therefore irrelevant.

>>5790771
my god,

*sniff* pure ideology... *shirt pull*

someone should do a caricature of zizek where he has his left hand in his nose and his right hand tearing off his ear

>captcha sohuman

>mfw a smiths song taught me how true this actually is

how does this fat nasty fuck get a girl let alone fucking models

>>5790830
Because of the object little a

>>5790771

moot talked about this masks thing in his own speeches

>>5790771
>Our inner truth is a lie we construct to be able to live with the misery of our actual lives
Could he logically or mathematically demonstrate how that is true?

>>5790906
>autist detected

>>5790907
Great argument, I'd better accept everything an authority tells me otherwise I might look like I have autism.

>>5790830
Women love nast fucks, especially the ones that do not understand logical reasoning.

>>5790771
"People are not persons".

>>5790910
>supreme logical thinking perfectly rational gentleman detected

>>5790930
>if you don't agree with all of Zizek's unfalsifiable nonsense you wear an old fashioned hat

>>5790932
>everything must be falsifiable or my mind breaks down

>>5790938
>all of Zizek's opinions are facts

>>5790932
Is falsificationism, actually, falsifiable?

>>5790945
Yes, obviously.

The argument is very good, the interview itself not so much, he looks more uncomfortable than usual and the guy doesn't seem to be getting what he is saying.

Even though I've seen it from him many times, this argument is a very important point in my opinion, because the contrary thought seems to be the norm. So much that it's not even an example of much controversy. People still think that the image we create for ourselves, specially in the digital age in which this debate usually rely, social media personas, role playing games, etc are not our true self, which is the one we present on the streets, with our family, colleagues and friends. This comes from two misconceptions, first that we are the most honest selves "irl" and second that the digital life is not a true life.

The most relevant notion here is that Lacanian fantasy he talks about, as a "constitutive lie" or to put it in other terms, "lying to ourselves". Truly lying. If our enemies are the ones whose story we don't know...In order to take ourselves off from the position of enemies (of ourselves), we must know our story. And what happends in the midst of this confusion, where we can't understand our own story, is that we are forced to build this story to tell ourselves so that we can live with ourselves.

>>5790998
>The argument is very good,

It's not, because he doesn't offer any definition of self to begin with. It's sophistry, rhetoric.

You are doing the same with vague, imprecise phrases like these:

> the image we create for ourselves
> our true self
> we must know our story

>>5791024
I'm not even sure what definitions would be required here. He'd need to define every psychoanalytic term in relation to the others to get there, that wlould make the whole interview about saying a ton of simple sentences in the most autistic way possible in order to communucate something you could just say in just a few phases in common speech.

>>5791024
Read Lacan and you'd understand, you autist.

and you'd probably have an aneurysm and die from all the unfalsifiable claims thus rendering me much happier

>>5791024
He is speaking from a context (who isn't?). Of course his terms are mainly hegelian, lacanian and marxist. He also plays with the common sense definitions, the very ones which are imprecise, "empty rhetoric", sophistry, etc. to shed new light over what they mean. What is this true self people talk about? That's exactly what he is debating. The definition people have is this moment in which you "open your heart" and "speak of your inner dreams and what you want" and that he argues that this is not a true self.

>cultural marxism

I laugh in all my STEM-tier superiority at you librul art faggots flipping burgers thinking about such pseudoscience.

Zizek always crescendos toward what you think is going to be some final, profound conclusion.

And he never gets there. Sure is a ride though.

>>5791084
>Read Lacan and you'd understand
About phalli and square roots of minus one?

>>5791051

Wittgenstein!

>>5791024
You realize he's a psychoanalyst speaking as a psychoanalyst, right? He doesn't have to define every psychonalytic term he uses, they're already defined and understood within his discourse, and if you weren't so autistic or trying so hard to troll you'd realize that and fuck off back to your anti-natalist circle-jerk.

>>5791107
>anti-natalist circle-jerk.
You're really on a personal crusade, aren't you?

>>5791109
I just like debating anti-natalist.

>>5791110
Anti-natalists*

>>5791110
Why would you even bring it up in a completely unrelated thread, though?

>>5790771
Pretty sure that's a critique of liberalism and the idea of authenticity or of inner self / truth about self. Foucault also criticized this a lot, although from a standpoint of his concept of power rather than psychoanalytically, which is kinda what Žižek seems to be doing here.
Basically, Foucault's idea is that our "personality" is nothing spontaneous or "ours" (what would that even mean?), it is produced by power and it is itself a flow of power. While Žižek seems to think that there *is* something he calls "our actuality" but that this can't be reached, we don't want to reach it and we shouldn't reach it, because it is too dangerous for us to do so (which is what Freud was already talking about) so we construct a false image of ourselves.

>>5791095
>this much cliche stuffed into one post

eric

>>5791116
I'm trying to turn it into an insult/I like shitposting.

This is such utter pap.

The idea that people are not their 'true' selves in the real world due to pressures of what they are supposed to be is everywhere in pop culture.
It's even an ad for Chanel Bleu for goodness sake.
Secondly, the mask on the internet... People are often mean and want to degrade people etc online but it's all on a screen and it's all of no consequence so to relate it to how they would act in real life if the conditions were 'right' doesn't mean much.

When fags here see some brutal video of a guy getting a bullet through the face online and type their first course of action is to do a trance remix of the video and use the noise of his skull shattering as the hook, that doesn't seem to me to necessarily be a better representation of how their authentic self would feel about that event in real life

>>5791103
I just hate you right now in a lot of misterious and magnificient ways.

>>5791167
>The idea that people are not their 'true' selves in the real world due to pressures of what they are supposed to be
He's not saying that at all. It's precisely a critique of that idea, that's the point. There's no authenticity, ever, anywhere, it is a false concept. There is no inner self, it does not exist. So he's not saying "oh we're so inauthentic we need to be more authentic", instead he's saying "it's a false problem and this idea of some inner self is a major part of our ideology". This idea is nothing new though, Adorno already wrote a whole book about it.

>>5791167
>real life

>>5791213
Which one?

>>5791213
well at 2 minutes that's what he is saying

>>5791095
>implying STEM can't be "liberal" (in the US sense of the word)
I suggest you go to slashdot and read the comments of the political articles

>implying "cultural marxism" comes from STEM people, and not just random retards that have never read a book in their lifes, let alone any kind of philosophy

>>5791228
The 'true' self is repressed/disavowed, unconscious desire/processes, not a fixed, stable ego.

>>5790771
Dude, i’m gonna type as sober as possible, that honestly looks fcking pathetic and disgusting compared to my philosophy. and I’m being one hundred percent serious. Sorry we dont repeat sht that was previously in lacan. you’re a fuking joke dude, and im dead fuking serious. get a real philosophy that has good ethics, drinks beer and wine and winecoolers and has a good fuking metaphysics, and has a million dollar house on the beach, im seriously.. dont ever post your fuking poverty philosophy on these forums ever the fuk again bro, and by bro i mean never my bro, fuking phaggot

>>5790909
dont think it matters for u either way

>>5790932
>unfalsifiable nonsense
EYY it's that le epic may may again

Doesn't the constitutive lie, if eventually merged with the self, become a contitutive truth (foucaultianly speaking)?

>>5793976
That's why I see this "lego blocks" of the self in a state of stasis in which they're not truths neither lies.

>>5791258
>Dude, i’m gonna type as sober as possible, that honestly looks fcking pathetic and disgusting compared to my philosophy. and I’m being one hundred percent serious. Sorry we dont repeat sht that was previously in lacan. you’re a fuking joke dude, and im dead fuking serious. get a real philosophy that has good ethics, drinks beer and wine and winecoolers and has a good fuking metaphysics, and has a million dollar house on the beach, im seriously.. dont ever post your fuking poverty philosophy on these forums ever the fuk again bro, and by bro i mean never my bro, fuking phaggot

Zizek is just a contrarian hipster, which is the reason he is so popular here.

>>5791251
proofs?

>>5794043
Your autism

>>5794059
>>Your autism

https://ore(dot)exeter(dot)ac(dot)uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/3135/VakirtziE(dot)pdf?sequence=3

>"people lie to themselves"

wow, he said a common sense cliche everyone knows in a few more words. BRAVO ZIZEK

>>5794079
show some fuckin respect, newfag

>>5791141
That's how I understood it as well, though maybe because his thoughts on our actuality are what drew me to Zizek

>>5794090


i got your respect right here

*unzips dick*

>>5794157
U got a zipper on ur dick? U're rather odd, m8

>>5790821
Which one?

>>5790906

>Could he logically or mathematically demonstrate how that is true?

Do you even philosophy? I bet you're one of those teenager fedoramen that believes any scientific demonstration is in any way "objective" or "accurate"

>>5794171

>>5790771
and so on and so on

>>5790909
>>5790906
*sniff* pure autishm and so on and so on

>>5790771

>>5790906
>>5790909
I honestly think this is a subjective matter, and thus can't be categorized through logical matters. It's really a matter of belief. Some will say that internal will and strife goes beyond the seemingly objective "misery" of the world. Some will say that the world isn't objectively miserable. Some will say that it is, and any internal truth or will is just a lie for escapism past that fact. It's all opinions based on personal experience. There's no use applying skepticism to it in my opinion. I could be wrong, but.

>>5794376
MAGNET BEER

>>5794043
There is no proven fixed stable ego, but there are clearly unknown desires observable to any human.

>>5790906
you can't mathematically or logically demonstrate your own experience, let alone emotions like misery. that isn't how subjectivity works

>i like this orange juice
>mathematically prove to me you are enjoying the orange juice or else you aren't telling the truth
>...

>>5790906
Are you really so blind as to not see that there are things which are not quantifiable?