/lit/ - Literature

You think he and Stallman would ever fuck?

*pulls shirt* MY GOD, ARE YOU AWARE WE ARE INTERPOLATED SUBJECTS OF PLEASURES

PURE
U
R
E

IDEOLOGY
D
E
O
L
O
G
Y

>>6454104
you don't have to agree with everything he writes but i like to read his books. dude knows a lot off stuff and comes up with interesting ideas. in any case good enough for /lit/.

I like his tangents, very controlled.

Most professors complain about tangents, he can use them positively.

He's a rightwing nationalist who pretends to be a leftist for the publishing deals, he's scum. Only American college students like him.

>>6454113
*pulls shirt* MY GOD *sniff* ARE YOU *blows nose* AWARE *cough cough cough sniff* PURE! *sneeze blows nose* WE ARE INTER*sniff*INTERPOLATED *shirt gets messy again* SUB- wait a moment *pulls shirt sniff fart cough sneeze* IDEOLOGY *sniff* SUBJECTS OF PLEASURES

>>6454148
>rightwing nationalist
>writes a 1056 page tome rehabilitating dialectical materialism
>rightwing

derp

>>6454162
>campaigned for the destruction of socialist yugoslavia
>stood for election for a rightwing nationalist party
>supports rightwing nationalists in ukraine
>not rightwing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80X0pbCV_t4

>>6454180
>Right wing
>Supports worker's strike in South Korea
>Joins Occupy wall street
And so on and so on

>>6454180
>right
>left

Come on guys this is the 21st Century

>>6454221
>Joins Occupy wall street

More evidence that he's not a communist.

>>6454246
if you didn't have solidarity with the oakland commune you're not a communist

>>6454266
/thread

>>6454266
>>6454323
oakland "commune" was just a bunch of crusty punks and common criminals and the homeless/mentally ill

>>6454266
>>6454323
If you support first worldist anarchist shite like occupy you're not a communist.

>>6454117

top kek

Is "Revolution at the Gate" good enough?

He's very easy to make fun of.

I haven't read any of his works.

I like the Pervert's Guide movies.

>>6454156
Waaaay under rated post

probably has steve sailer bookmarked

>>6454104
What's the last thing he'll do before he dies?

>>6454104
xD nice Zizek meme bro

>>6456005
I know xD Zizek memes are fucking hilarious lol

>>6456406
Sneeze

>>6456450
xD clever meme friendo

>>6456451
Sorry I couldn't help it, I'll go now

>>6454156
why is he doing all that, anyway? is it because he is nervous while talking or has he some kind of tics or something? whatever it is, i still like him and his documentaries.

Recently read In Defence of Lost Causes and was impressed with the wide range of philosophers, histories, and how he tries to "modernise" western liberalism [1]. His tangents vary between fun and annoying (one page: a different take on China's tries to control Buddha's reincarnations, three pages later: the music of Rammstein)

He's a meme on /lit/ based on his tics and his pop-culture documentaries, since /lit/ never reads. There's so much more to be found there.

[1] Some points repeated here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/slavoj-zizek-greatest-threat-to-europe-is-it-s-inertia-a-1023506.html

Pitically: a breath of fresh air
Intellectually: carbon monoxide

>>6454104
What i understand of Zizec's arguments:
All social and political change of the past was a result of tautologies i.e "this is right cause this is right", "this law is right because its law" or authority "I am the king so its right" and the the desire of all of us to be a clear part of a community.
We unconsciously needed something incoherent like "god" or "the nation" or "the people" to then give rise to authority figures that would pretend to serve these incoherent ideals in order for us all to be a part of a political community that believes in these things.
I.e. we desired to be unified and we did it by brainwashing ourselves into believing some imagined higher ideal and placing authority figures to enact laws and act to sustain these ideals.
Before ideology(which we all as communities created) acted by purely concealing the truth from you to fool you, or by forcing you to not be able to do something because "god forbade it".
Now our ideology has shapeshifted. It now works by making everyone be cynical and none believers in regular "pronounced" forms of ideology which we are aware of while at the same time accepting what authority figures tell us as they present it as inevitable.
i.e. we cynically laugh at being liberals or conservatives while the government does things it claims are above politics and we accept them as such, i.e. the "budget cuts are and inevitable evil".
The new ideology as Zizec sees it is making people proclaim there is no more ideology(yes but as we knew it before) and limiting political action only to the forms it had in the past while the political actions necessary to deal with novel event in the modern world are decided automatically, not even seriously talked about in politics, or proclaimed as inevitable.
The new ideology is the idea of a post ideological world.

So Zizec is saying that by realizing all of this we can reinvigorate ourselves politically and take control of what is happening?
i.e. that we need to realize that the teutologies we used to justify our earlier regimes were just the unconscious expression of our creative social will and now we have to understand it and change society, not for some unconscious incoherent ideal or boogymen, like "god" or some "inalienable" rights but consciously, while truly examining all the ills that still prevail in modern society and correcting them.
According to him we need to wake our subconscious creative desire to create and structure our community?

>>6454104
His film analysis is fun and it's the only one that made the fight scene in They Live make any sense.

I like his politics a bit, but he is a communism purely because he professes to wish for the NEET lifestlye, rathen than Anarchism which he see's as tedious.

Which means he isn't a communist, he want's a permanent state.

Which is ridikulus

>>6454117
Does Zizek have any children

i wish he were my dad

>>6454240
you simply have to pay attention to authoritarian and libertarian tendancies

left and right is still accurate, fedora tippers be past that yo

>>6458324
Thats great but give us new right and left solutions to global problems.

>>6458246
Zizek denies that he even has a coherent message, you can read him however you want. Stop using question marks, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's in this area. You should know this by now, it's postmodernism.

>>6454424
thank god for that, Bakunin forever

>>6458277
The fight scene in They Live doesn't need to be made sense of. It makes perfect sense on the screen: John Carpenter thought it was sweet so he left it in.

Now, obviously, there are a plethora of valid or invalid readings of the fight scene - but that's not the same as saying that there's some secret key to the fight scene that will make sense of it. It's not a puzzle, it's a sweet fight scene, whatever meaning any other reading adds to it.

>>6458411
I thought the fight scene was so long because the other guy was a famous wrestler at the time, so Carpenter made the scene longer for the fans?

>>6458425
I don't think it was specifically for wrestling fans, but yeah, Rowdy Roddy Piper was a pro wrestler.

>>6458397
>Bakunin forever

>>6458282
Yeah he's got a son

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54CeL2z9yrs

>>6458452
hehe he ish narshishishticelly amushed

>>6454104

Just bought The Parallax View, which is supposed to be his magnum opus according to him, and must say that while it's entertaining, it's hard to definitively call it philosopher, it's more like entertaining critical theory. His mind, much like the times on which it focuses, is frenetic, turbulent, juicy, and at times inconsistent. Why anyone would strictly adhere to his 'ideology' is beyond me, but he is a fun read.

who else slo in here?

>tfw bumping into zizek in the grocery store

>>6457243
Maybe he's just full of energy

>>6458411
The first time I saw that film the entire room of people were either giggling or scratching their heads.

It last so goddamn long, I refuse to believe it was a "sweet fight scene".

Fucking americans, you are why mainstream films can't be art.

>>6458498
the fact that it's 10 minutes long is exactly why it's fucking sweet

you're just not based

>>6458503
>people who claim to like films
>still masturbates to over the top, childish, violent television and films

You are the pleb that is ruining the west.

>>6458522
Nah. That shit's great.

Sorry not all film is conducted in an air of hushed reverence and self-conscious artistry, though. I mean, for sure that's where real quality comes from. I don't know why you'd want to have visually striking, colorful, fast-moving things in a visual medium. Seems pretty fucking stupid to me.

>>6458388
I think zizec is in fact what you might call a metamodernist. Post modernists are exactly those that said that there is no more ideology.

>>6458411
You dont get it. Do you image writers and directors to be doing their job from some transcendental parallel existence?
They are ingrained in the cultural milieu.
What they think of and how they make the movie comes with all the cultural baggage they carry.

>>6458542
You can still have action in cinema without childish levels of violence. The sort that actually engages you aesthetically, and are far more visually striking than guy with a gun mowing down hundreds of people.

Try Utopia, it has gun fights without being so infantile.

>>6458388
>>6458551
They are the post modern cynicals.

>>6458579
Its what ruined The Matrix.

>>6458522
who are you quoting good sir?

>>6458574
I'm not arguing against making readings of things like that.

I'm arguing against the specific language used / that model for what making a reading of something like They Live means. You can excavate something's meaning, but that's not the same as it being something that you need to make sense of.

>>6458579
I don't see why childish violence can't be aesthetically engaging or visually striking. You seem to care more about some imagined idea of maturity than about the actual characteristics of film, so idek man

>>6458592
So you mean that the director or script writer didnt mean for X scene to be symbolic and be analyzed?
So what. You cannot seperate a movie's interpretation with the directors/writers intent taken into account and without it being taken into account.
Do you realize that sometimes, especially in film making the final message of the film might only be fully solidified with the last take or even in post production? Or even during the marketing phase.

>>6458615
You know forget it. There is no final message. As you watch the film you become the de facto film maker.

>>6458615
I'm not arguing against interpretation

I'm arguing about the mentality we take towards interpretation and the language we use in doing it

And I guess broadly for the idea that the surface of a thing has as much validity as the underneath of it - the surface features of They Live are equally as real and as valid as any interpretation or analysis you make of it or any meaning you assign to it.

>>6458592
Unless the childishness of the violence is relevant to some form of commentary then it makes sense.

But childish violence for the sake of childishness is just that, childish.

>>6458584
I'm not

>>6458388
Where does he deny he has a coherent message? or did you just decide to make that up?

>>6458631
> the surface of a thing has as much validity as the underneath of it
ha?

>>6458635
Eh, so? I don't think childishness needs to be justified.

>>6458643
An interpretation claims to look underneath the surface of a thing in order to find its true meaning or validity.

For me, interpretations are not more valid than surfaces - that mindset is a mistake in thinking.

>>6458651
From a child, certainly not.

>>6458651
What does it mean to not interpret? Are you not human?

>>6458551
You keep spelling his name with a c so your opinion is irrelevant