/lit/ - Literature

>>7055481

He's a continental.
Leftist.
Plagiarist.

It's literally a recipe for disaster.

>>7055489
Because neoconservative analytics who are 100% original are all beacons of pure reason

exact moment pls OP, I don't want to watch the whole thing

That's not what happens, though. Wittgenstein and Descartes have a good deal in common, as far as the quest for certainty goes, and he explicitly says that not all cognitivists are idiots.

>>7055547
>?t=1h51m22s
F-

>>7055547
Part starts at 1:51:30. OP tried to do a time marker but it didn't work in the embed.

>>7055588
Worked for me

>>7055586
>>7055588
Thanks

>>7055481
>Near the end he just starts calling cognitivists idiots
No he doesn't.

>>7055481
LMBO what is he actually saying??????????

how will this nonsense ever increase human understanding of anything???


LMBO

>>7055662
I meant individual cognitivists and philosophers, not the entire field. But still, he does state that the field in general is kinda worthless.

>>7055675
>>>/b/
Off with you fool.

>>7055481
Why doesn't Zizek just ramble on but really exaggerate whatever that fucking slurping sound is, so that no one can understand what he is saying and thus can avoid looking foolish? Then afterwards say he was having an attack if the sniffs, or didn't have enough water or something. It's what I'd do if I had a convenient speech impediment.

>>7055686
You're intentionally misinterpreting/exaggerating his claims, faggot

>>7055748
Wat? fucking how?

>>7055765
At no point does he say that cognitivism is useless.

>>7055481
uh, when do they laugh, when does he struggle to answer the question, where does he call them idiots. I watched it and didn't hear any of this.

>>7055806
oh, it happened like a second after I posted this at 1:56. He didn't even say all of them were idiots, just some of them while others were intellegent

>>7055481
Torontonians are retards

>>7055776
"I meant individual cognitivists and philosophers, not the entire field."
https://youtu.be/kugiufHh800?t=1h56m30s

Anyways he says that their is some truth in the field, but not that the field itself is truth.
I wouldn't exactly say that I'm "misinterpreting," but it could be argued that I am "exaggerating."

>>7055806
The questioner and his friend simile and laugh when he stutters to answer at the beginning.
He calls specific cognitivists idiots.

can someone give me tldr of the question?

please tell me he didn't really just get btfo by a canadian

>>7055841
Your exaggeration is a misinterpretation.

this is my first time listening to this guy talk and I cant stand his voice.

>>7055560
>Wittgenstein and Descartes have a good deal in common
Agreed, but a majority of post-enlightenment philosophy relies on Cartesianism thought (Everyone from Foucault to Chomsky, kek). I feel that mostly due to time Zizek simply focuses on Decorate instead of Wittgenstein. Still I think because of the time constraint he doesn't have time to pull back to the Wittgenstein point.

>>7055861
How? Because I think "worthless" may be a bit extreme in describing his position towards cognitivist thought, but it still keeps within Zizek's general stance towards the subject.

So again, I think my point is an exaggeration, but not extreme enough to qualify as a misinterpretation.

>>7055885
I wish he would talk about Wittgenstein more in general. He occasionally acts like he's read the Tractatus but I've never heard him go in depth on the man who killed Hegel.

>>7055904
He doesn't think it's worthless. He explicitly says that only some cognitivism are idiots. He doesn't throw away the entire school of thought, and he doesn't use the word worthless.

I don't understand the graduate student well enough to know whether or not that's a germane response, but at least he admits that he's bluffing and doesn't understand so he's just going to ramble

>rambles
>*sniff*
>...feminism
>*sweats*

Literally why do you faggots worship this guy?

Intellectual bullying and intellectual bigotry actually exist. My dear lord.

I don't understand modern "continental" philosophy at all. It seems like some blend of literary criticism, Marxist social theory, performance art, and posturing. It's not clear to me what, if anything, they're trying to argue, and it seems like extensive background knowledge in the philosophical tradition is necessary to understand these people. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort.

>>7056415
Naw it's worth it. If nothing else, being in deep philosophical debate is kinda the equivalent of debating over Star Wars; You can quickly cover points by using words only the "in-group" know, and at any point while talking you can imagine how classy and sophisticated you look while engaged in debate.

>>7055481

>>7055489
there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those, especially plagiarism. Its philosophy, not some money making scheme

What does Lacan have to do with Hegel? is it mostly the master-slave/understanding your own consciousness in terms of others?

>>7056492

>Its philosophy, not some money making scheme

Except analytics don't understand that because they're the same crowd that self-identifies as libertarian.

>>7056470
Underrated meme
>>7056492
The plagiarism thing is a misunderstanding, anyway.

>>7056503
Reminder that Searle supported the invasion of Iraq for the most mainstream reasons conceivable

>>7056502
congrats you just figured out that Zizek is a pretentious hack

>>7056502
>What does Lacan have to do with Hegel?
Nothing.
>is it mostly the master-slave/understanding your own consciousness in terms of others?
That's almost all there is to Hegel. Lacan adds nothing substantial to him. Neither does Zizek, for that matter, unless atheism counts (it doesn't).

>>7055481
Am I the only who understands nothing he says half the time?

He just goes on and on and on about no sense..

>You see the Cartesian ideology is like x movie that relies on self indulged gratification of sexual pretenses, where people of another race like this joke back in soviet union....*sniff*.... so with wittingstein we can see that the ideology of post imperative capitalism is generating a revolutionary force behind the facets of post modern thought like a dick in a v ago and so on and so on...

Jesus christ.

It's meaningless I know but I believe that Zizek is most exposed as a fraud in that he has the most developed memes elegantly and crudely reducing him to the clown he is.

He's probably going through coke withdrawals.

I like how he snuck a shot a pinker in there.

ass

Every fucking thread about Zizek is like this.

"Waah I don't understand him, it must be bullshit!"

Go read a fucking book you morons.

>>7055481
WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? WHAT CARTESIAN POSITION? WHAT WITTGENSTEIN? WHAT?

FUCKING OBSCURANTIST SHIT!

>>7056512
Searle is the quintessential hack.

>>7056718
I don't understand what he's talking about either. I was considering starting to learn some philosophy--starting with the Greeks, even--but now I don't know. I fear if I can't understand what the fuck this guy is babbling about, I may be too old and retarded to start learning something like this.

>>7056470
Strong, powerful meme. Noble meme!

>>7055481
nah

>the Desert of Post-Ideology

Wow literally the most Zizekian title possible

what's with this attitude around here that philosophy 'ought' to be understandable by anyone in the world, especially by people without even so passing an interest as to understand what is meant by 'the cogito?' seriously, if you understand the cogito and even just do some really surface level wiki-reading on various responses and interpretations of the Cartesian subject, you can for the most part keep up with Zizek. he's not going to hold your hand in his talks; you're expected (and this where he is especially Lacanian in a pedagogical sense) to do your homework if he drops names and concepts you aren't familiar with.

>>7058900
For what philosophy is, one could argue that it sure as hell OUGHT to be ostensibly self-explanatory to at least a certain extent. It isn't a science. There's no science to it, in fact. There's just a loose synthesis of various concepts from various thinkers, none of which are definite or meaningful outside of the playpen of philosophy. It's absolutely obscurantist and masturbatory to insist on constant name dropping and jargon from all over the place to convey a point that could be made in plain language. It isn't like I'm asking for a picture book, but this certainly shouldn't merit more jargon than several standardized terms to be used across various lines of thought.

Unfortunately, if there's one thing philosophers love more than making unsubstantiated conjecture, it's making up their own pet terms to go along with them.

>>7058900
The point of philosophy is to clarify the way things are by clearing a space for ideas to present themselves to thought. If a discourse fails to do this, it falls short of the task of philosophy. If you think that obscurantism is the same thing as esotericism, you're a fool.

>>7055841
they're laughing at his joke

I thought the sniffing was just from coke use but every time before he does and grabs his nose, he gives his shirt/collar a tug. It looks like OCD

>>7058929
Except he's talking about simply bothering to be familiar with the some of the simplest and most common philosophical concept. If you're not ready to do at least this, you're simply not interested in philosophy.

If you think clarity is the same thing as spoonfeeding you're a fool.

>>7056415
>extensive background knowledge in the philosophical tradition is necessary to understand these people

As is the case in all serious fields of study. Why do analytics think they can read continentals just like that.

>>7058954
The way Zizek talks about Cartesian subjectivity is kind of confusing. The Continental tradition in general uses the word 'subject' in so many ways that it's hard to keep it straight a lot of the time.

>>7055481
>20 minutes of the video is him saying 'any so on' and snorting

>>7055524
>Anyone who isn't a leftist is a neo-conservite

>>7055524
>Anyone who isn't a leftist is a neoconservative.

>>7055481
I can't stand Zizek most of the time, I see him as a great populariser of others and an obscurantist of his own work, however none of what OP says is even remotely true.

>>7055847
Harkening back to the topic of human subjectivity and "the void" (not knowing everything about your brain) Z touched on from the Hegelian perspective earlier, the questioner wanted to know Z's thoughts on how Wittgenstein's almost Kantian approach (or the path cognitive science took up to explain categories of the mind) would apply to the same topic.

There are no wrong answers to your own opinion.

>>7059043
GULAG time, shitlord!

>>7058925
>>7058929
i can see why you two have issues with continental philosophy; your reading comprehension is deplorable. i wasn't advocating obscurantism. i was arguing against it as something that even exists. there are only bad/uneducated readers. i disagree completely with the idea that philosophy 'ought' to communicate 'simple' ideas -- if you want that, read a fucking self help book. philosophy is not 'how to live your life' or whatever -- it's concepts, and the critique of those concepts, and if you're especially ambitious, it's the application of those concepts to cultural matters. zizek's books quite eloquently do all three, but for the most part you can leave that least bit to the critics and the grad students trying to get published. you can't expect him to define basic terms essential to the discourse community in a two hour lecture. introducing a layman-- christ, that could take two hours on its own, and he still wouldn't know jack shit.

>>7055847
Q: Is the field of cognitive science a "philosophy of the mind" killer that will give us all the answers of human subjectivity?
A: Probably not because mind is highly malleable and has safeguards and tricks to stop us from reaching nirvana.

>>7059106
You're claiming that obscurantism doesn't exist, that every author is equally understandable, and that only readers can be wrong?
By the way, my little bit about creating a clearing was a blatant nod to Heidegger. I don't have an issue with Continental philosophy, I have an issue with people who don't even try to make themselves comprehensible.

>>7059142
my claim is simply that the way philosophy is practiced is inherently iterative, and if you can't be assed to at least read the 'bottlenecks' then labeling academic rigor and dense style 'obscurantism' is simply a convenient way of Othering and de-utilitizing any material you don't understand.

>>7059201
>Othering

>>7059217
The concept of the Other is pretty well known. If you want to have a general idea of the philosophy behind it (and don't want to read in-depth Freudian literature), just read The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir.

>>7059201
>othering

>>7059224
too late they're triggered

>>7055481
nah

>>7059201
Name a few bottlenecks.

>>7059217
>>7059226
>>7059231
it's just too easy

>>7059224
The Other is a necessary part of our perception of the True, that is, the Whole. Everyone 'others' something all the time. What's your point, exactly? What's wrong with acknowledging that the Other is Other when it and I aren't yet subsumed in a higher unity?

>>7059244
Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, to start. Looking backward, Kant is helpful to solidify Freud (and Nietzsche to some extent). Descartes of course. Literally just read your meme thinkers. Really, it's no different from 4chan -- if you know the old memes, the new ones are fun.

>>7059256
>No mention of the Greeks
>No mention of Leibniz, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, or Schopenhauer
>No mention of any analytic philosophers, not even Wittgenstein


>Literally just read your meme thinkers. Really, it's no different from 4chan
>Implying philosophy is just the regurgitation and alteration of concepts

>>7058979
> The Continental tradition

The Continental tradition is a wrap-up category that includes everything except analytic philosophy. Of course people are going to use words with nuances or different meanings. I don't see how you would hope or want to "keep it straight" when reading hundreds of thinkers accross a dozen traditions. I don't even how you would try to be up to date with everything in Continental tradition right now. That's like wanting to know all European language and complaining there are too many words.

>>7059256
>Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, to start
>Kant is helpful to solidify Freud
There are people who genuinely think that this is a list of the definitive philosophers

>>7059264
Chinese philosophy is continental philosophy?

>>7059249
>What's wrong with acknowledging that the Other is Other when it and I aren't yet subsumed in a higher unity?
Because if you put a concept which is knowable under "the other", it is just plan intellectual laziness.
I project the other on a group or society since I don't have the time nor intelligence to completely 100% understand the concept of a mass group of people(literally billions). But you are also projecting The Other on things you haven't read and don't know, but are knowable.

So you can't just use the excuse "Oh well I I'm too retarded to read this philosophical text; I'll just project the Other on it so I can form my idea of what it is."

Zizek uses a shit ton a references to Descartes' work in his answering of the question, (which is justified because the questioner clearly had an understanding of Cartesian thought) and you clearly haven't read any of the base material. So you can't simply say that your projection is justified because you don't know what Zizek is saying and you are forced to fill in the gap with the Other. Just read a fucking book.

>>7059260
Part of his point was precisely that you simply need to do a bit of homework to understand cotemporary philosphy, so yes, not all important philosophers being a must-read in every case is pretty consistent with his point.

Also "regurgitation and alteration of concepts" is vague as fuck and could very well be used to describe philosophy. All the philosophers you mentioned just read other philosophers, ruminated on their concepts, then altered or criticized them.

Finally, I find your omission of Latin Hellenic philosophy, Medieval Arab philosophy and Middle Age scholastic philosophy very triggering. As you see, there is no end to the "read further" rabbit hole. If the point is to be able to converse with contemporary philosophy, the guys mentioned in >>7059256 do the job.

>>7059265
Yes, and there are people who think E.L James should get a Nobel prize, but that wasn't the point being made, so why mention it ?

>>7059269
Technically it's philosophy stemming from continental territory, so yes :^)

Now if you have an example of a proeminent Chinese thinker who doesn't draw heavily from the Western tradition (which nowaday is divided by some into "analytics" and "not-analytics") feel free to mention it.

>>7056503

>Except analytics don't understand that because they're the same crowd that self-identifies as libertarian.

Except the vast majority of analytics aren't libertarian.
Why do continentals lie so frequently?

>>7059279
I've read the Meditations multiple times. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I didn't understand what he was talking about, I just said it was a little bit unclear and confusing. I even went so far as to compare the Cartesian quest for certainty to Wittgenstein's quest. The connection Zizek makes is pretty clear. I'm unsure what makes you think that the only possible reason someone could criticize a style as erratic as Zizek's is stupidity, I see an unwillingness to accept the existence of bullshit as a better indicator of the phenomenon.
>>7059282
Freud wasn't even a philosopher, and Marx was an economist and a political radical more than a philosopher. Nietzsche is a sharp break with the tradition as it existed before him. I'm just saying that this is a very biased and basically inadequate list of 'bottleneck' philosophers. A better list would include a few premodern names.
>As you see, there is no end to the "read further" rabbit hole. If the point is to be able to converse with contemporary philosophy, the guys mentioned in >>7059256 # do the job.
That isn't the point. The point is to understand philosophy.

Well, duh. Ever notice how he always tells the same jokes and gives the same examples over and over again. This is why his books are better than his live events

>>7059287
Kongzi, Laozi, Mozi, Xunzi, the list goes on...

>>7059296
I'm arguing with you over the concept of the Other, and its over use. I assumed you were using the Other as a tool to dodge actually engaging in philosophical text by simply assuming what the text is about, clearly now I realize that you don't actually believe this.
Which brings up the question, why did you assume I don't agree with statements like:
>The Other is a necessary part of our perception of the True, that is, the Whole.
yep
>Everyone 'others' something all the time
Yes, but a majority of the time said "othering" is unjustified.
>What's your point, exactly?
A kid just posted a meme frog and said ">othering" I was trying to explain the concept to the anon.
>What's wrong with acknowledging that the Other is Other when it and I aren't yet subsumed in a higher unity?
Nothing, which is why I used the example of a mass community as a just use of the concept of "Other." I'm simply believe that the Other is normally miss used as a way to not engage with texts and philosophical debate, and as a way to distance one's self from actually learning about an idea.

>I'm unsure what makes you think that the only possible reason someone could criticize a style as erratic as Zizek's is stupidity, I see an unwillingness to accept the existence of bullshit as a better indicator of the phenomenon
Not saying that, I think Zizek is a master bullshiter, we agree.

>>7056415
What you're calling 'continental' philosophy is actually just critical theory, which deals with literary criticism, marxist theory, feminist theory, psychoanalysis, anthropology and quite a few others I've failed to name as a collective school of enquiry. It might seem a little indulgent, but all its really doing is treating each and every exemplary bit of material (literature, politics, media, economics etc.) as textual and capable of sustaining multiple interpretations, each offering an alternative facet of truth to the next. Its good to learn simply because its a fascinating way of looking at the world

>>7059354
I assumed you didn't agree with those statements because I thought you were using the concept of the Other to argue that no philosopher has been wrong and that everyone who says that one has been wrong has been blided by otherness. Now I see that I misunderstood you.
>I'm simply believe that the Other is normally miss used as a way to not engage with texts and philosophical debate, and as a way to distance one's self from actually learning about an idea.
I basically agree if I understand what you're trying to say, but could you clarify what you mean by this?

Does the sniffing/shirt pull rate increase?
Can't watch on my phone

>>7056415
stop pretending to be Chomsky, Jesus Christ

>>7059394
>pretending
>He doesn't know Chomsky shitpost here

>>7059399
It's true he does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEuV7DMKess&list=PL310B837099D81746

>ghandi is more violent than hitler
>zizek rambles on and on about nothing
>everyone puts their poker face, nod pretending like they understand

I don't really know about the question raised at the end, but this is a lecture I feel most of /lit/ would find interesting given it's recent obsession with "post-irony"
Just wanted to say.

You guys really care about this retarded bullshit? Read a book or something. You act all big in regards to philosophy but your fixation on someone "getting served" betrays your supposed intelligence and maturity. Go get drunk and laid, wisdom doesn't come in your 20s no matter how hard you force it.

>>7059296
>Freud wasn't even a philosopher, and Marx was an economist and a political radical more than a philosopher.
holy shit this guy; yes, Marx was a philosopher, have you even fucking read him? you don't even have to read his works, just a two paragraph biography and you'll see, "in 1841, Marx obtained his doctorate in philosophy, having presented a thesis on post-Aristotelian Greek philosophy"

and Freud not only is a philosopher, but he's Freud; you have to understand him regardless in order to understand those after him

>>7059469
how old are you?

>>7059422
pure autism; he doesn't define violence as bloodshed or loss of human lives
he explains what's he means

>>7059492
I didn't deny that Marx was a philosopher, I said that he was primarily a radical and an economist.
The equation of psychoanalysis with philosophy has been one of the most grievous mistakes in the history of Western thought. Yes, some psychoanalytic propositions carry philosophical weight, but not all psychoanalytic claims are philosophical.

>>7059558
Psychoanalsis is pure quackery. It doesn't heal the sick, and it sure as fuck doesn't answer any fundamental questions about our lives.

>this thread

>>7059591
That isn't an actual argument.
Replace psychoanalysis with Stephen Hawking's black hole theory.

>>7059656
There's nothing to argue about. It's a joke and I can't imagine why such intelligent people can still believe this voodoo shit.

>>7059656
That theory isn't supposed to heal the sick, and it's based on observable evidence in the material world, not neurotics' descriptions of their half-recalled dreams.

Zizek uses Freud and Lacan philosophically, so it's important to understand the philosophical implications of their concepts. Nietzsche provides a lens by which psychoanalysis becomes productive to understanding. Marx's applications of Hegelian historicism to political economy bridges the gap between philosophical argumentation and ''material" concerns.

>>7059596
that movie is over 10 years old

>>7059749
didn't Lacan use Hegel though?

>>7059749
And?

>>7059749
Zizek doesn't read much through a Nietzschean lens. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

>>7059819
He enjoys reinterpreting Neetski, especially his "God is dead" idea.

>>7055481
Who calls Kripke crazy?

how does he gtfo's zizek?