what do you think of slavoj zizek

[Anonymous No.11453267]

i don't like him

[Anonymous No.11453294]

>>11453267
unironically brilliant but people have a hard time getting over the tics, accent, dirty jokes, and labyrinthine tangents

[Anonymous No.11453297]

>>11453267
Get out.

>>11453294
This. Maybe the Lacanian stuff is over the top, but for the most part Zizek makes it work.

[Anonymous No.11453302]

>>11453267
those eye bags tell me he drinks way too much. how can i take him seriously.

[Anonymous No.11453308]

>>11453267
i'm not familiar with philosophy and politics and psychoanalysis and whatnot so his books would probably give me a headache

[Anonymous No.11453311]

>>11453302
He doesn't drink or smoke or do any kind of drugs. Sexual difference is what's killing him from within on a daily basis. Severe antinomies form throughout his entire body.

[Anonymous No.11453319]

>>11453308
Meh, he's made a career out of explaining everything in layman's terms using lots of examples from cinema and "darty joks *sniff*.

His work *wipes brow* was however *sniff* made to be watched on Youtube *tugs shirt, microphone static* and so on and so on. *tugs nose*

[Anonymous No.11453324]

>>11453294
how/why is he brilliant?
what do (You) like about him??? Huh???
please be very passionate about it, thanks
>>11453297
i am reading "the lacanian stuff" actually. what do u recommend to get me started? i honestly thought it was going to be .... something else

[Anonymous No.11453326]

Saw him once in a bar in Ljubljana (Petkovšek) with guests, was kinda star struck and stared at him a bit then went away.

Never read any of his work, some say he tries to make Lacan understandable for the average pleb so might give it a go.

[Anonymous No.11453333]

>>11453324
not about him, like.... which of his ideas resonate with you and why. how did they change u, impact u, etc.

[Anonymous No.11453336]

>>11453333
based

[Anonymous No.11453339]

>>11453326
to be honest i've read both lacan and lacan by zizek and i've found lacan more pleasant nd easy to read thn Z*zek..... yeah, but it could just be Me

[Anonymous No.11453341]

>>11453324
From Zizek you can read "How to read Lacan". It's not the best intro to Lacan, but it's a rather easy read.

[Anonymous No.11453350]

>>11453341
thank u. yes like i said before (see >>11453339)
i've read lacan, i want to get started on zizek becos i feel that disliking him is honoring him and i want to at least destroy him but DO NOT dislike him bc that'd give him more power y'know. so well i'll start w that, thank u (re-start bc i already started)

[Anonymous No.11453355]

>>11453339
>i've found lacan more pleasant nd easy to read thn Z*zek

Lacan's style is unbearable. His critics are absolutely right that he constantly pushes the answer to a later date with every sentence, constantly making you follow him like a pied piper hoping that some day you'll get it. Not saying it's all an act, because he deserved the influence he had on philosophers since he created many interesting concepts and had many catchy formulas, but his style definitely fit his theory (asymptotically approaching the real object of desire yet never reaching it).

[Anonymous No.11453371]

>>11453355
well fr some reason i like him more. i can't say i am deep into lacan's ass or whatever, neither on zizek's. from what i've read from both (nt much) i currently prefer lacan. still, i think, probably from a still ignorant perspective, both are overrated. i prefer fiona apple

[Anonymous No.11453381]

>>11453324
>>11453333
His analysis of Ideology from a framework of an inverted Marxist concept of false consciousness is by far the most worthwhile approach of today's cultural critics. The real good stuff comes with his Hegelian ontological-incompleteness -- basically he takes Marx to terms for his idealistic conception of materialism.

[Anonymous No.11453441]

>>11453267

Press s to spit on OP

[Anonymous No.11453447]

>>11453267
I like him. But I never take him seriously anymore.

[Anonymous No.11453507]

>>11453339
>i've found lacan more pleasant nd easy to read thn Z*zek

I don't believe you.

[Anonymous No.11453510]

>>11453441
ssssssssssss

[Anonymous No.11453551]

[Anonymous No.11453581]

>>11453311
Care to elaborate? What do you mean by "sexual difference"?

[Anonymous No.11453596]

>>11453581
The unsolvable deadlock, the real ontological antinomy, that created the sexes as an imperfect, always symptomatic, reaction to it.

Like when, in one of Zizek's jokes, Jesus puts his hand on Mary Magdalene's cunt, says "oh my God, what a horrible wound!" and heals (closes) it.

[Anonymous No.11453600]

>>11453596
based

[Anonymous No.11453785]

>>11453551
Made me kek. xD

[Anonymous No.11453799]

>He is notorious for contradicting himself, sometimes in one conversation, and, as even a supporter admits, from one book to another.

>He himself has described whole sections of at least one book as "bluff" and "bullshit" and, from his general record of changes of opinion, hoaxes, lies, etc. there's no reason to suppose that this is an isolated example.

https://www.eurotrib.com/story/2011/3/22/11186/1335

[Anonymous No.11453824]

>>11453267
he pretty much made me question capitalism

[Anonymous No.11453900]

>>11453799
Man that article is uncharitable. Not saying Zizek is some perfect yet misunderstood genius, but to deny someone any becoming (even just a change of opinion) or use of humor in their work (including interviews) is just ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.11453926]

>>11453267
A nonentity. Means absolutely nothing to me.

[Anonymous No.11453934]

>>11453926
loool

[Anonymous No.11453941]

>>11453926
Is Zizek's dead in this anon's eyes? NO! I claim instead *sniff* that this anon is dead in Zizek's eyes. *tuck shirt* Isn't that interesting?

[Anonymous No.11454040]

>>11453267
I don't understand whatever the fuck he's saying

[Anonymous No.11454055]

Read Adrian Johnston on Zizek. He presents him better than himself, and doesn’t stray off to pop culture.

[Anonymous No.11454161]

>>11453267
I've been to two talks involving Z, one with Stephen Grosz, the other with Will Self.

With Grosz, Zizek barely let the bloke speak. It was frustrating listening to his tangents.

With Self, Zizek was on the back foot a bit. Self doubted 80% of the audience knew wtf Z was chatting on about and kept asking 'So what are we going to dooo about it, what needs to happen Slavoj, what about all these middle class white folk with coltan in their pockets following you like some sort of lost rambling prophet?'. Which was a fair thing to ask, because nobody fucking knew.

The most entertaining part of the Zizek/Self talk was when the two exited the stage. Will self jumped off dramatically with a huge thump like a school bulling jumping in a puddle. Zizek on the other hand threw up his little arms in a weird sort of surrender 'you know me i'm a Hegelian' fashion, then proceeded to walk sideways down the steps provided, like the belle of the ball trying not to stand on the tail of her dress. I laughed hard.

[Anonymous No.11454180]

>>11453267
BIG MAN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YamAsbzPKA

[Anonymous No.11454196]

>>11453600
In any other century, this cunt would be in a gutter somewhere, talking to himself and playing with his own shit. Unfortunately in this postmodernist rodeo we find ourselves in, this lunacy is not only tolerated, but respected.

[Anonymous No.11454197]

>>11454161
Will was and is an annoying weirdo, the bad kind of excentric, but he was spot on with some of the stuff he reproached to Zizek. I just don't get why Zizek, Badiou and others can't allow even a bit of responsability to the individual. As if saying that smart consumption and voting with your wallet somehow cancels out any systematic and political (in the ordinary sense) concerns one might have. They're in part the ones that accuse anyone talking about such things of being Social Democrat sellouts and not radical enough (as they did with D&G and others) yet they act like those particular conservatives (more and more numerous it seems) who have to affirm every single consequence of capitalism, no matter how abhorrent, as being the best thing ever as if they fear that some asshole might call them communists and ruin their careers forever if they don't.

Sorry for the rant, just something I had to get off my chest.

[Anonymous No.11454210]

>>11454161
>then proceeded to walk sideways down the steps provided, like the belle of the ball trying not to stand on the tail of her dress

probably needs a hip replacement

[Anonymous No.11454225]

>>11454210
Probably, as a result from all the fucking he does

[Anonymous No.11454230]

*SNIFFS*
*PULLS T-SHIRT*

AND SO ON AND SO ON

[Anonymous No.11454233]

>>11454196
Go to bed grandpa. Making dirty jokes and exaggerated claims doesn't make you a psychotic. Zizek isn't even a postmodernist and has quite a few beliefs in commom with conservatives (for monogamy, anti-identity politics, skeptical about humanitarian claims for immigration, against the pedantic skepticism often associated with deconstruction and Derrida's followers etc.)

[Anonymous No.11454235]

>>11454197
Self is self admittedly verbose and lugubrious. He embraces the sort of brown heroin junkie elite inteligentsia stereotype and revels in it but yeah at least there was some kind of every day practicality in what he was asking.

Zizek knows he'd kill himself if he took responsibility, which is a sort of honourable deficiency. At least he's good with his kid.

[Anonymous No.11454237]

>>11454233
>commom
>mom

Damn, Freud was right once again.

[Anonymous No.11454245]

>>11454237
I think your attention to that particular misnomer denotes more about your own relationship with your mamma that anon's. Zizek does hold beliefs which would slot into conservatism and he's proud of that.

[Anonymous No.11454251]

>>11454245
than*

kys

[Anonymous No.11454254]

>>11454245
Actually I was replying to my own post in order to make a joke since we're in a Zizek thread. You're still right though.

[Anonymous No.11454267]

>>11454254
oh shit mindfuck what is real who am I

[Anonymous No.11454295]

>>11453294
He isn't brilliant. He is high dopamine individual which means he is more motivated.
This allows him to write and speak at length but in reality, he's really stupid. I doubt he has an IQ more than 130, and hence isn't brilliant. That is a word that describes few people.
This also is why he is predisposed to motor tics.

As far as unconventional, outside the box, or offering just a very different perspective, it is true. However, this is more the result of the academically unorthodox material that's been digested, and later regurgitated by him, than any inherent super-intelligence.
If he would have studies some run-of-the-mill field, or material or gone into medicine or anything like that, he wouldn't be note worthy at all.

[Anonymous No.11454298]

>>11454295
>This allows him to write and speak at length but in reality, he's really stupid.
(-really) not brilliant*

[Anonymous No.11454316]

>>11454295
Go to bed Jordan, you probably have some motivational podcast to be on soon.

[Anonymous No.11454324]

>>11454316
When you wrote this, what were you actually thinking this would mean? Are you implying that Jordan Peterson literally wrote this post? Clearly not. So then your argument is that the poster is like Jordan Peterson, or a fan? Why? Because he doesn't Zizek?

[Anonymous No.11454334]

>>11454324
Nah, you're right. Too much literal autism for it to be Peterson, but it's not that far off.

[Anonymous No.11454348]

>>11454316
Jordan Peterson isn't brilliant either and his material is even more insipid. I intensely dislike him.

[Anonymous No.11454363]

>>11454348
Not that I disagree with you on thi, but who do you consider genuinely brilliant in such fields?

[Anonymous No.11454366]

>>11454363
* on this

[Anonymous No.11454400]

>>11453267
I watched many of his videos, didn't read his books, but read his articles. I consider him very smart and well read. Most of all he can be entertaining/funny, especially with his comments on popular culture.

But at the end of the day I don't consider anything he says as "essential" or unique.
I also don't like the fact that he's so boring/safe when it comes to politics, his opinions are pretty much just boomer common sense. I know he could do better than that, but maybe he's just too old and wants to have a boring rest of his life and leave a calm future for his son(s).

[Anonymous No.11454403]

I've seen nothing of Zizek to suggest he is "brilliant' and a genius.

He's definitely smart, but that's about where I'd place him at. Nothing out of the ordinary. He's essentially at the top of the pack of normal people, but certainly not some 150+ IQ genius, sorry to say.

[Anonymous No.11454414]

>>11454363
I can't offer any contemporary examples of brilliant individuals who are in their prime. James Watson is an example of a living person that I would consider brilliant.
Brilliancy is rare.

[Anonymous No.11454418]

>>11453900
The trouble is that very use of humor seems to be able to handwave any issue or fault

[Anonymous No.11454430]

>>11454414
Fair enough, what about some historical examples? Not trying to debate, just curious about what kind of philosophers / psychologists you prefer if any.

[Anonymous No.11454479]

>>11454418
True, but it should still be approached honestly otherwise we're no different than those who want words and phrases banned altogether regardless of context.

[Anonymous No.11454516]

>>11453600
... I lose

[Anonymous No.11454593]

Retarded commie

[Anonymous No.11454708]

>>11454430
To give a limited few examples of brilliant individuals. Composers? Bach, Royer, Beethoven. Scientists? Newton, Oppenheimer, Mendeleev. Philosophers? Most of the figureheads of philosophy up until the 20th century were brilliant.
Even irrelevant nobodies I can recognize as brilliant. I read old medical journals, and the reasoning and hypotheses of the physicians was stellar even if wrong.
>Not trying to debate, just curious about what kind of philosophers / psychologists you prefer if any.
I believe we've spoken before around this same time of day a few months back? I'm partial to Kant and Schopenhauer lately.
I'm not satisfied with most psychologists to have a preference toward any or even a particular school. They are either too idealistic (eg Jung) or too mechanistic (eg Skinner).

[Anonymous No.11454832]

>>11454708
pseud

[Anonymous No.11455202]

>>11454348
He sounds like a pretty good clinical psychologist

[Anonymous No.11455226]

>>11454363
His musings on order and chaos can be dredged up from the most entry level of post-modernism literature, let alone philosophy which he apparently hasn't even really looked at.

Pure pseudery but I guess that's what passes for intelligence at The Intellectual Dark Web

[Anonymous No.11455275]

>>11455226
I sort of appreciate them to the extent that they remind me of Nietzsche, but they're certainly not very profound. Maybe if he went a bit more in-depth on things related to chaos theory.

[Anonymous No.11455604]

gimmicky youtube philosopher

[Anonymous No.11455624]

>>11453267
He's like the left wing version of Nick Land, he is wildly popular among academia but also just a meme tier person in every facet

A true enigma

[Anonymous No.11455738]

>>11453267
I like him a lot. He's knowledgeable, insightful, and animated. What's not to like?

[Anonymous No.11455743]

>>11454295
He IS brilliant. You would do better to be silent; you're really coming across like an adolescent.

[Anonymous No.11455748]

>>11455604

spotted the brainlet

[Anonymous No.11455799]

>>11453267

>what do you think of slavoj zizek
>i don't like him

Is liking, thinking ? I'm unironically wondering.

[Anonymous No.11455816]

I like him, but I disagree with him. No good can come from Marxism.

[Anonymous No.11455817]

I think he's ultimately a nihilistic shill, who knows fully well the stuff he espouses is bullshit, but knows if he says it he'll have some semblance of a career to support his boozing and whoring.

[Anonymous No.11455824]

[Anonymous No.11455826]

>>11455817
I don't know how you can possibly think this, and, ironically, your attitude comes across as far more pessimistic and nihilistic than anything I've ever heard Zizek say.

[Anonymous No.11456201]

I'm not joking, I spent 3 weeks watching his YouTube videos and I don't know remember Jack shit about what he talked bout. I just watched for the funny ticks.

[Anonymous No.11456257]

[Anonymous No.11456291]

>>Now what you have in the case of 4chan is a macabro expression of ideology similar to Yugoslavia in the 1980s. If you have not heard of the lasting fashion, like pepe the scatological toad in which past visions of uber and undermen are sublated in a surreal manner, you are told to go to ray-did or tumbler because you aren't part of the tribe and commune and so on and so on. *sniff* There is an old East German joke in which an engineer gets sent to Siberia and he tells his friend beforehand that in his letters all that is true will be written with blue ink and all that is not with red and so in the first letter what is written on red is that how great the Gulag is and how they get new clothes and women and so on - in red ink. Only thin that is missing is blue ink. If we see this in the case of 4chan *sniff*, this is precisely the case. We have all the red ink we want - mehmehs, endless jokes and freudian ironies which go a long way to show us a creative and modern men. But there are no memes to show true pain, the truth of 4chan which is that it does not hate the Other, but rather, itself to the point of it unable to consider crippling solitude without turning it to a joke of having "no gf" or drawing a comic of two fellows you have here in the illustration. These men eat up ideology, shit ideology and make nonsensical machines out of ideology so that they don't see ideology, but an entertaining process of alienation and so on.

[Anonymous No.11456315]

[Anonymous No.11457028]

>>11455743
>nu-uh! HE IS BRILLIANT.
>you're an adolescent!
Obviously relative to you he's brilliant. Objectively, however, he is not.

[Anonymous No.11457038]

>>11455202
There are good clinical psychologists, and he indeed likely is one.
Being a good clinical psychologist does not equate to genius.

[Anonymous No.11457080]

>>11457038
But it's something he could be brilliant at and he has elicited something of a furor around his work.

It's a question as to how true his latest revelation is though and too early to tell imo

[Anonymous No.11457249]

>>11453267
Love how he thinks, hate what he thinks.

[Anonymous No.11457355]

Ziz is the shiz

[Anonymous No.11457371]

He's a phony entertainer.

[Anonymous No.11457515]

>>11453596
>Jesus puts his hand on Mary Magdalene's cunt, says "oh my God, what a horrible wound!" and heals (closes) it.
Based Jesus

[Anonymous No.11457520]

>>11453900
>>11454418
Why are moderncels so autistic and need absolutely everything to be as clear-cut and transparent as possible?

[Anonymous No.11457556]

>>11457520
because moderncels are spiritual tadpoles whose inner depths mortify them, hence their trademark cartesian fetishization of truths that are universally agreed upon and are completely dry, insipid, and totally devoid of spiritual value as a consequence

moderncels are terrified by the paradoxes of subjectivity and so retreat into the paper houses of language to cope with this fear. notice their obsession with studies and "statistics", this need to bolster what any person with two fucking working eyes can see for themselves with reams of data and peer-review

[Anonymous No.11457891]

>>11455226
>his musings on order and chaos can be dredged up from the most entry level of post-modernism literature

Like what? I've seen this claimed dozens of time but the rare time someone give an exemple it's garbage.

[Anonymous No.11458152]

>>11453267
you're not alone

[Anonymous No.11458357]

>>11453267
Juden.

[Anonymous No.11458381]

>>11457556
t. low effort idiot hiding behind obscurity because challenging himself with rigorous thinking is too hard

[Anonymous No.11458427]

>>11453267
He's not amazing but I would rather interact with with him and his memers a hundred times before I even think about JP or any of the tards that meme him

[Anonymous No.11458487]

>>11453294
What does he even say? Every point he makes literally boils down to a negation of the term he sets out to elucidate. Contrarianism, negation, multiplicity, antinomy, nihilism are brainlet tier and only barely, scarcely worth entertaining as thoughts as a mental exercise. That there has been an entire philosophical school of people who can't get their heads out of this bullshite and think there is a point to any of it is sincerely disheartening. And I say all of this as a person who sincerely believe in negative theology to an *almost* religious degree

[Anonymous No.11458533]

>>11453551
this is my favorite meme of all time

[Anonymous No.11458938]

Is he unironically a virgin like he says in that vice video? Or is his virginity the same as his love for Stalin?

[Anonymous No.11458944]

>>11454196
he'd have been more famous in the 20th, 19th, or 18th centuries

[Anonymous No.11458948]

>>11458938
he's a virgin the way how sex is implied to magically mature a person, it hasn't for him

[Anonymous No.11458953]

>>11458487
This was chomsky's exact position on zizek

[Anonymous No.11459254]

>>11458938
He's had four wives and at least two kids so no.

[Anonymous No.11459274]

>>11454196
>whoa he mentioned a vulgar subject he must be LITERALLY INSANE

how intellectually sheltered are you? people really should start with the greeks if for no other reason than to read some aristophanes or something so they don't hold bizarre beliefs like "sexual vulgarity always resulted in expulsion from society from the beginning of time until 18 years ago"

[Anonymous No.11459282]

>>11455624
>He's like the left wing version of Nick Land, he is wildly popular among academia

what? nick land is primarily a blogger. where did you get the idea that he is "wildly popular in academia"? he's like a niche of a niche that's only well known because of his internet following.

[Anonymous No.11459292]

>>11455817
>dude talks constantly about the need for authentic ethical commitment
>he must believe in nothing!

that's a weird conclusion to reach.

[Anonymous No.11459317]

>>11453267
retarded surface-level pop """intellectual""" celebrity
still, can be interesting and insightful, but only on starting points. other than that he just hand-waves and says an author's name.

[Anonymous No.11459337]

>>11459317
OP said zizek, not peterson

[Anonymous No.11459387]

>>11458487
the man who rolls his eyes ends up looking at his brain rather than using it.

[Anonymous No.11459447]

>>11453267
He was in a live stream for Julian Assange recently. Pretty good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKqZNDD5xFE

[Anonymous No.11459457]

[Anonymous No.11459545]

>>11454295
>mentioning IQ as a way to compare brilliance

[Anonymous No.11459553]

>>11453267
I don’t really get him

Isn’t he just a Marxist? What’s special about him?

[Anonymous No.11459555]

>>11459553
He's also a Hegelian-Lacanian-Althusserian.

[Anonymous No.11459581]

So a post-structuralist Marxist with a dialectics fetish.

[Anonymous No.11459595]

He talks like a pig.

[Anonymous No.11459602]

>>11457891
pic related

[Anonymous No.11459612]

>>11459595
Yeah, I'm sure you speak far more eloquently than the greatest philosopher of our time.

[Anonymous No.11459619]

>>11454414
>DNA
Opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.11459649]

>>11459447
This guy is a filthy Marxist but damn he is interesting to listen to. I think his critiques of the centre left and mainstream politics are spot on.