Prove to me that Slavoj Zizek is NOT a complete fraud.

[Anonymous No.13218173]

If this is peak performance, truly dark times are awaiting us, fellow /lit/lets.

[Anonymous No.13218207]

>>13218173
He isn't a 'fraud' per se, part of what makes him good is that his interpretations of high and low culture are entertaining, if a little predictable. He has said many important things (the same things perhaps a little too often), but he's also very much trapped in a deadlock between hegel and lacan and offers little in the way of direction, though he's right that we should not look to philosophers for answers. He undermines himself about as much as he points out the faults in the logic of others.

[Anonymous No.13218215]

Can't say. I can't understand what him because he sniffles too much.

[Anonymous No.13218217]

Read his work and pose an argument against him brainlet, you're trying to do philosophy

[Anonymous No.13218228]

>>13218217
which of his works I should read first?

[Anonymous No.13218233]

>>13218207
Maybe I'm wrong but my impression is that he's primarily dealing with dialectical materialism and not with Hegelian dialectics. Thus he's inevitably drawn to Marxism and his marxist? interpretations of the modern society and theeconomy are not only outdated but at best naive.

[Anonymous No.13218238]

>>13218217
By Zeus, you are right!

[Anonymous No.13218262]

>>13218217
I can't really pose any specific arguments against him for the simple reaosn that I did not deal with his works beyond the superficial level. Considering the plenitude of different philosophers, he definitely does not belong to the group of those that I would personally prioritize. Am I now justified in criticizing him. As a matter of fact, the sheer amount of references/quotations/citations especially by leftists makes me think so, yes and up until now every discussion which I've heard points to the direction that Zizek provides easy pseudosolutions for hard problems.

[Anonymous No.13218263]

>>13218233
Nah, he's only a marxist in the sense that most of the things he says operate via a critique of capitalism, and that's what gets him airtime. He doesn't buy into the idea that capitalism can or will be overthrown by communism. If you've read any of his books you'd know that most of them talk about Hegel in much greater depth than Marx

[Anonymous No.13218379]

>>13218263
>the idea that capitalism can or will be overthrown by communism
what does the word communism mean to you