/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11153640]

>There is no "primordial" duality of poles in the first place, only the inherent gap of the One ... the primordial gap is thus not the polar opposition of two principles (masculine and feminine, light and dark, opening and closure...) but the minimal gap between an element and itself, the Void of its own place of inscription.

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11153650]

>>11153640
"I'm a rambling madman. Be sure to stay away from Hegel unless you want to end up like me, kids!"

[Anonymous No.11153672]

>>11153640
shut up you stupid coot

[Anonymous No.11153701]

>>11153640
"hurr durr I desperately need to drone out Hegel and Lacan in order to be somewhat relevant"

[Anonymous No.11153778]

I'm pretty sure by "the void" and "the inherent gap" he is referring to his ongoing fascination with the human sphincter.

[Anonymous No.11153782]

>>11153650
>>11153672
>>11153701
love seeing philosophy piss people off when they don't get it

[Anonymous No.11153787]

>>11153782
Not everyone is as concerned with intellectual posturing as you are, bruv

[Anonymous No.11153795]

>>11153701
Zizek is for edgy noobs, and you're a pretentious bitch.

[Anonymous No.11153813]

>>11153640
when the two poles (difference and equivalence) are contorted into their most extreme forms, they essentially meet in the middle (or rather fall into each other) as they lose the polarity necessary for maintaining their opposition. A system becomes absolutely differentiated only when all internal antagonisms are obliterated, effectively making all individual elements equivalent to each other with respect to their outside. The obverse can be said for an absolutely equivalent system: it imposes the distinction of "us" and "them" as an immanent judgement from the outside, effectively reproducing difference as the transcendental reality.

I think what ZIzek is talking about is very useful in explaining his attitudes towards both the so-called "tolerant" left and the far-right nationalist movements across the globe. An individual who promotes an inclusive (absolutely differentiated) society will claim something along the lines like "all human beings are my siblings"; a statement which obscures the violent exclusion of those who do not adhere to the cultural practise of tolerance, the underlying kernel of truth being "all those who are not my brothers are not even human". So the "minimal gap between an element and itself" is not the immediate difference between polar oppositions, but rather the pure difference between one pole and its complete lack of definition without the other.

[Anonymous No.11153878]

>>11153813
good post desu

[Anonymous No.11153923]

>>11153782
>>11153813
As previously said, Zizek basically plunders Hegel's systematic philosophy. I'm not pissed by what he actually writes as I deeply admire the Master of Jena, I just cannot understand the roots of his academic success, since he's never been able to pull out any truly original concept from his philosophic activity, I can't see how his work could be considered a landmark when he literally applies Hegel's categories to our time without advancing human understanding, just as many other more obscure professors around the globe. Anyway, good post.

[Anonymous No.11153946]

>>11153778
the human sphincter is everything you twat

[Anonymous No.11154041]

>>11153923
>he literally applies Hegel's categories to our time without advancing human understanding
I'd say that's a little unfair. Most of his success comes from the unholy alliance of his methodology between marxism and lacanian psychoanalysis, rather than the simple fact that these disparate fields require a dialectical (hegelian) approach in order to make sense of them. Even if he doesn't necessarily innovate on what Lacan has already discussed (sexuation, joissance, object petit a, etc), he reworks them to show how they can be used to explore the dynamic relations of political power, as well as sex.