Zizek

[Anonymous No.14310665]

What the fuck is his problem? Don't dumb it down into some vague shit.

[Anonymous No.14310900]

Petty-bourgeois retard who's a serial academic masturbator.

[Anonymous No.14310991]

>>14310665
>Don't dumb it down into some vague shit.

People who can't see through Zizek need it broken down, because they've outed themselves as literal, unthinking zoo animals.

Zizek is the philosophical equivalent of responding to every argument you don't like with "no u" and expecting to be taken seriously. If you point out that his argument is "no u", his acolytes will accuse you of being incapable of understanding Zizek and suggest you read a long line of Marxist literature to understand him.

He's the immortal god of pseuds and people who follow him make nihilists look like tolerable, rational people who have a sensible worldview and coherent philosophy.

He's what everyone on /lit/ (myself included) wishes they could be. He trolls professionally, so hard that he will be remembered for it long after his death.

[Anonymous No.14311070]

>>14310665
he is a bit of a modern socrates, which i quite like about him, he’s a good social critic, but probably his downfall is the outcome of being a perspectivist (parallax) and maintaining a marxist universalism. being an anti-capitalist but maintaining a psychoanalytic conception of desire. Ok, you hate capitalism, don’t forget that fact, but also don’t act on it, because it’s not what you want. There’s literally no way out of his conception of reality

[Anonymous No.14311078]

ANOTHER!!! ARTICLE ON CULTURAL THEORY FROM ZIZEK??? MY GOD, THE REVOLUTION IS BOUND TO HAPPEN ANY DAY NOW!! IF HE JUST WRITES HIS NEXT 6 OR 7 ARTICLES ABOUT THE CRITICAL THEORY OF 1990s INFOMERCIALS, I THINK WE CAN FINALLY DO IT, WE CAN FINALLY GET THE WHEELS OF PRAXIS TURNING AGAIN!

THANK YOU ZIZEK!!! THANK YOU FOR WRITING THREE BOOKS PER YEAR OF POP CULTURAL COMMENTARY! YOUR LEGACY IS ASSURED! THE COMMUNIST UTOPIA WILL FOREVER REMEMBER YOUR NAME, ROOTLESS INTERNATIONAL JET-SETTER CELEBRITY CLERC DE TRAHISON WHOSE FANBASE IS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY WEALTHY COLLEGE KIDS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE MANAGERIAL CLASS!

THANK YOU FOR OCCUPYING AN IVORY TOWER SINECURE, RUBBING SHOULDERS WITH HIGH-PROFILE INVESTORS AND CULTURE INDUSTRY BANKROLLERS, AND COUNTER-INITIATING THOUSANDS OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZERS BY FEEDING THEM TRENDY "THEORY" WHICH HAD OBVIOUSLY BECOME A HIGH STATUS COMMODITY FOR RICH PEOPLE ALREADY WITH THE FAILURE OF MARCUSE AND THE '68 GENERATION!! THANK YOU FOR PROLONGING THE FAILURES OF THE NEW LEFT AND 1968 FOR ANOTHER FIFTY FUCKING YEARS!!!! YOU'RE GONNA BE TH EONE TO DO IT ZIZEK! REAL COMMUNISM STARTS HERE, WITH MY AMAZON PURCHASE OF YOUR TWO HUNDREDTH BOOOOOOOOOOOOOK!

[Anonymous No.14311107]

pseud

[Anonymous No.14311162]

>>14310665
He's a grifter. I don't even say this as an edgy statement, he literally admitted to bluffing, when he wasn't familiar with the topic at hand.
Maybe deep down he wants to redpill people, let them know that liberal arts academia is a joke.

That said, he's sometimes insightful and entertaining. But I'd like him more if he just let loose and didn't pander to liberal leftists so much.

[Anonymous No.14311952]

>>14310991
Lol he actually posted this, lmao he thinks it's good.

[Anonymous No.14311977]

>>14311078
There will never be another communist revolution.
How does this make you feel?

[Anonymous No.14312541]

reminder Will Self bodied this fool

[Anonymous No.14312553]

cocaine

[Anonymous No.14312595]

>>14310665
Zizek is essentially a traditional Marxist who's realized that the experiment failed and the future is liberal capitalists trying to suppress the ultraviolent shadow of fascism with Mickey Mouse Coca Cola blue jeans. When I say "traditional" Marxist, I mean a Marxist in the vein of the Eastern Bloc as opposed to the heroin-addicted capitalist stormtroopers you see running around under the title of Antifa, who could be said to be "NeoMarxist". Now, because Zizek knows that the Left failed their chance to show the world what they had and he knows that nobody on the Left at this point in time has any realistic course for the Left to take that will lead anywhere different, he's essentially just given into being a grifter. He knows he won't fulfill Marx and nobody else alive will, so he might as well make some money whoring himself out to left-of-center liberal magazines for half-baked Twitter-tier takes.

[Anonymous No.14312650]

>>14310991
>>14311078
>>14311162
>>14312595
wow cool takes I can tell you really understand his theory, totally not posturing at all
OP just watch the Perverts Guides

[Anonymous No.14312694]

>>14312650
Nothing I said contradicts his theory, in fact it's entirely in line with it. OP didn't ask to explain his ideas, he asked what his problem was and I explained it >>14312595

[Anonymous No.14312705]

>>14312595
Nah sorry kid, you have a way to go yet before you flush out all the nonsensical crap that's accumulated in your brain from reading Chomsky. You got it all ass-backwards.

Zizek was a grifter from the start. He got in on the whole "critical theory" con-game in the early 80s, when it looked like the way to make a name for yourself was to come up with some version of Marxism that was even more deviant and kinky and unrecognizable as continuous with the ideas of Marx than the last deviant, kinky version of Marxism that had been thought up somewhere in the Latin Quarter. You had to keep trying to get even farther away from crude, stupid, ultra-literal Communist Party "dialectical materialism" than Gramsci, or Adorno, or Althusser, or Deleuze had - while still, of course, remaining unmistakably "one of the good people", i.e. " a man of the left".
But by around 1990 Zizek really found himself in a bind. Turns out he had just come along TOO LATE. People ten or twenty or thirty years younger than him had already staked out and occupied just about every possible variant of weirdo, super-subtle post- and para- and meta-Marxism that could be thought of. HE DIDN'T HAVE A BRAND OF HIS OWN AND COULDN'T MAKE ONE! There was just nothing "new" left to do.
And it was just at THAT point, kid, that he had the brilliant idea of TURNING HIMSELF INTO what you are ignorantly convinced he was all along: the most traditional of "traditional Marxists". Around 1995, he suddenly started using terms like "dictatorship of the proletariat" which your average Parisian intellectual was soooo far beyond it was a joke. BUT THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GRIFT. All the old Leninist-Stalinist stuff he now started mixing in with the super-sophisticated Lacanianism was SO OLD IT WAS NEW. He had his own personal BRAND at last.
The rest is history. It's also fucking disgusting.

[Anonymous No.14312720]

>>14312595
nah he’s not really a traditional marxist at all, he just calls himself a communist for shock value. as far as politics is concerned he’s closest to Greens

he’s basically a one man think tank for a new green UN regulatory body for otherwise unbridled capitalist nationstates

all his psychoanalysis is about pointing to the fact A) conscious consumerism doesn’t work, B) fascism is pathological and doesn’t fix what it aims to fix

[Anonymous No.14312742]

>>14312720
>as far as politics is concerned he’s closest to Greens
wat the fuck is happening itt

[Anonymous No.14312768]

>>14310665
He wants to kill liberals

[Anonymous No.14312784]

>>14312742
he could be an ecofascist.

authoritarianism
anti-liberalism
world domination
ecowarrior

most likely outcome

[Anonymous No.14312793]

Speech impediment.

[Anonymous No.14312796]

>>14312784
might be one of the dumbest takes I've heard on Zizek so good work anon

[Anonymous No.14312801]

>>14312796
no joke. i don’t think you’ve been listening to a word he says

[Anonymous No.14312897]

>>14312801
>writes a 1000 page magnum opus on Hegel and dialectical materialism
>hmmm I think he's an ecofascist

[Anonymous No.14312930]

>>14312897
Radical Emancipatory Environmental Universalist

how about that?

[Anonymous No.14313179]

>>14312595
I agree with this anon, but mostly with this other one >>14312793

[Anonymous No.14313205]

>>14311078
please someone make a vocaroo of this

[Anonymous No.14313215]

>>14312930
why are you so hung up on enviromentalism? it is not an important part of his theory at all. in fact, he is highly critical of modern environmentalism which seeks to find harmony with nature, he says "if nature is our mother she is a dirty bitch of a mother"

[Anonymous No.14313272]

>>14311070
this is why he had such a problem with Deleuze

[Anonymous No.14313287]

>>14310665
Honestly, I kind of like him, even respect him. I'm not aligned with his philosophy, in fact I'm more on the libertarian side, but it's certainly refreshing to see a socialist/Marxist who recognizes the problems of how Marxist regimes have been implemented in the past. He makes some insightful observations at the very least.

[Anonymous No.14313291]

>>14313215
i'm just fucking around, mainly. i like the guy. his critique of environmentalism is in service of environmentalism though. nature as a dirty bitch and conservationism/conscious consumerism is a doomed attempt to deal with it

>>14313272
exactly, he basically refused to deal with deleuze on deleuzian terms, because it tramples over his own ideas on fascism as pathological 'lack'.

I think Deleuzes idea of paranoia is a much better analogy for reactionary tendencies. It quite demonstrable

[Anonymous No.14314058]

>>14312705
>you have a way to go yet before you flush out all the nonsensical crap that's accumulated in your brain from reading Chomsky
Stopped reading here, I've never read anything by Chomsky and I despise him so fuck off faggot everything you say is wrong.

>>14312720
>as far as politics is concerned he’s closest to Greens
Low iq take what the fuck are you on.

[Anonymous No.14314114]

Lumpenprole who doesn't want to admit he subscribes to post-modernist Lacanian bullshit

[Anonymous No.14314118]

Zizek refuses the glasses himself. Milquetoast, pampered academician posing as somehow "dangerous".

[Anonymous No.14314163]

>>14313272
>>14313291
give me a qrd on delousian desire & paranoia

[Anonymous No.14314241]

>>14314163
flows of desire move over a body, a body is territorialized by organs which restrict and direct flows of desire. deterritorialization (schizophrenitization) is the removal of organs from the body (body without organs). where the body is deterritorialized, it is in turn reterritorialized (paranoia). the twin poles of schizophrenia and paranoia draw the limits of the process of deterritorialization

[Anonymous No.14314266]

>>14310991
No u

[Anonymous No.14314287]

>>14312784

[Anonymous No.14314345]

>>14314163
as quickly and as retardedly as i can: for deleuze desire is revolutionary, it isn't based on lack, but a productive force. Through experimenting with desire you can unlock new modes of being (while remaining aware, this is a risky business, and maybe even fatal). a simple analogy i think of is ADHD, kid can't concentrate, wants to move body, modernity wants to stifle and medicate so the body becomes productive, but what if there's a rationality to this desire to escape confinement?

the opposite of desire (or, creativity), is paranoia. Paranoia closes down everything creative. Fascist states don't create anything, only destroy. Capitalism is constantly prophecising its own imminent destruction through climate change, yet is inherently paranoid about anything that isn't free market capitalism, it demonises anything that isn't this-right-now, destroys cults, brands people insane. etc etc etc

contrasted with Zizek, where you can't trust your desires, 'thats capitalism', "deleuze is capitalism", and fascism is just the communist struggle in reverse.

[Anonymous No.14314363]

>>14314345
>a simple analogy i think of is ADHD
>not schizophrenia
what the fuck anon

[Anonymous No.14314367]

>>14314345
>fascists were all uncreative
wrong tho

[Anonymous No.14314375]

>>14314363
doesn't have to be literally schizophrenia

also, i'm attempting to not use deleuzian terms as often as i possibly can

[Anonymous No.14314382]

>>14314375
why draw an analogy to disorders at all if you were going to avoid the word schizophrenia lmao

[Anonymous No.14314384]

>>14314367
not talking about your favourite brand of fascists, you might notice the meaning of the word shifts with deleuze & guattari, they target the 'fascist within all of us'

[Anonymous No.14314400]

>>14314382
>flows of desire move over a body, a body is territorialized by organs which restrict and direct flows of desire. deterritorialization (schizophrenitization) is the removal of organs from the body (body without organs). where the body is deterritorialized, it is in turn reterritorialized (paranoia). the twin poles of schizophrenia and paranoia draw the limits of the process of deterritorialization

how do you think a non-initiated person would understand any of this?

[Anonymous No.14314407]

>>14314400
they asked for a qrd not an eli5

[Anonymous No.14314418]

>>14314407
i'm pretty sure anyone who asks for a qrd of deleuze is gonna wish they got an eli5

[Anonymous No.14314438]

>>14314241
then what about paranoid schizophrenia? one of the most common varieties.

[Anonymous No.14314456]

>>14314438
it's not really about literal schizophrenia. it's about the way schizo's interpret a multitude of inputs, a multitude of possibilities, as opposed to the neurotic who is always restricts, unifies, 'fascistly' stuck in loop, tidying up the place, getting angry that it's got all fucking messy again, OCD (but not literal OCD)

[Anonymous No.14314495]

>>14314456
so schizos freely speculate while paranoiacs anally systematize, is that what they're trying to say? to free yourself from microfascism just go hog wild on flights of the imagination dude and don't worry about that stifling logical consistency?

[Anonymous No.14314523]

>>14314495
you might be amazed to find out philosophy is a way of stating the obvious and hiding behind terms such as Become a Body without Organs Deterritorialising on a Plane of Pure Immanance

when you make it simple, it’s exactly that

[Anonymous No.14314565]

>>14314523
there needs to be more philosophical populists who boil it down for the masses

[Anonymous No.14314908]

>>14314523
no, not really
>>14314438
Deleuze say de- and reterritorialization (schizophrenia and paranoia) cannot be easily distinguished from one another, which is why the paranoid schizophrenics are actually a pretty good model. The model of the fascist might be the catatonic schizophrenic, although I think the naive binary between fascism and schizophrenia is not the best reading of Deleuze. What Deleuze is trying to understand in relation to fascism is the fact it is based on desire, the people wanted authoritarianism, they wanted subjugation.
>Reich is at his profoundest as a thinker when he refuses to accept ignorance or illusion on the part of the masses as an explanation of fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desires into account, an explanation formulated in terms of desire: no, the masses were not innocent dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire of the masses that needs to be accounted for.

[Anonymous No.14315038]

>>14314523
>>14314908
true. i should have also said (i think i did somewhere) that its not completely without risks or limits, this creative desire.

becoming a body without organs is an ideal, but is basically advised against fully acheiving. it’s like a continuation of Nietzsche’s dionysus, life as ecstatic tragedy, and we all know how Nietzsche ended up, perhaps he truly became a Body without Organs in the end

but then, whats the opposite? a utilitarian?

>The man who is guided by concepts and abstractions only succeeds by such means in warding off misfortune, without ever gaining any happiness for himself from these abstractions. And while he aims for the greatest possible freedom from pain, the intuitive man, standing in the midst of a culture, already reaps from his intuition a harvest of continually inflowing illumination, cheer, and redemption-in addition to obtaining a defense against misfortune. To be sure, he suffers more intensely, when he suffers; he even suffers more frequently, since he does not understand how to learn from experience and keeps falling over and over again into the same ditch. He is then just as irrational in sorrow as he is in happiness: he cries aloud and will not be consoled. How differently the stoical man who learns from experience and governs himself by concepts is affected by the same misfortunes! This man, who at other times seeks nothing but sincerity, truth, freedom from deception, and protection against ensnaring surprise attacks, now executes a masterpiece of deception: he executes his masterpiece of deception in misfortune, as the other type of man executes his in times of happiness. He wears no quivering and changeable human face, but, as it were, a mask with dignified, symmetrical features. He does not cry; he does not even alter his voice. When a real storm cloud thunders above him, he wraps himself in his cloak, and with slow steps he walks from beneath it

[Anonymous No.14316511]

>>14315038
is deleuze describing with paranoia rtly the same phenomenon that other authors like Schumpeter call the tendency for "rationalization" of the human mind under capitalism?

[Anonymous No.14316532]

>>14316511
if you mean the greentext, i should clarify it's taken from Nietzsche

not heard of Schumpeter, i'll look him up. thanks!

[Anonymous No.14316549]

>>14313287
One of those is definitely Mark Hamil, but I can't tell which.

[Anonymous No.14316569]

>>14310665
OCD
Tourette's

[Anonymous No.14316848]

>>14316569
>OCD
so we can finally agree that he's an Ecofascist who can barely control his body

[Anonymous No.14316878]

>>14311162
>grifter

What does your word man? Con-man? Why/from where has it suddenly entered internet lingo?

[Anonymous No.14316950]

>>14311162
>grifter

What does this word mean? A con-man? Why/from where has it suddenly entered internet lingo?

[Anonymous No.14317594]

>>14313287

[Anonymous No.14317607]

>>14316950
>Why/from where has it suddenly entered internet lingo?
It's just chapo leftist slang.
They're just retards.

[Anonymous No.14317727]

>>14317594
Bottom mid is Hamil I think

[Anonymous No.14317759]

>>14310900
fpbp

[Anonymous No.14318015]

He's undoubtedly a nazbol leading the ancient occult crypto-fascist infiltration in academia through memetic guerrilla, implanting redpills in the mind of the left leaning youth. This information becomes obvious to the ones that are successfully affected by Zizek's linguistic spell (learned from Hegel) due to their pre-existing soul disposition. Naturally, most people are not able to intercept his secret teachings and know only of the most exoteric layers (which are remarked in most Zizek discussion threads, such as this).
"Those born inside the mythos have no need to understand it, those born outside it have no capability to."

[Anonymous No.14318229]

>>14317727
Fuck I knew that but used the wrong color I fucked up

[Anonymous No.14318351]

>>14310991
>Zizek is the philosophical equivalent of responding to every argument you don't like with "no u" and expecting to be taken seriously. If you point out that his argument is "no u", his acolytes will accuse you of being incapable of understanding Zizek and suggest you read a long line of Marxist literature to understand him.
Damn, I never knew he said any of that. Which page, and from which book, are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.14318370]

>>14314495
>just go hog wild on flights of the imagination dude and don't worry about that stifling logical consistency?
The distinction between wisdom and caution is a crucial one. It means that to the question “What happened ?”, to the accusation that Anti-Oedipus made many victims, the answer will not be “sorry, we feel responsible for the many who were defeated in this battle, now we are wiser and sound the retreat from the battle ground”. Deleuze and Guattari do not address those who would anticipate regrets and excuses anyway. They do not discuss with them. They address only those to which the need must be conveyed for caution, for affirmative, step by step, productive experimentation, against the temptation of precipitation.
>“How can we convey how easy it is and the extent to which we do it every day ? And how necessary caution is, the art of dosages, since overdose is a danger. You don’t do it with a sledgehammer, you use a very fine file. (…) You do not reach the Body without organs by wildly destratifying. That is why we encountered the paradox of those emptied and dreary bodies : they had emptied themselves of their organs instead of looking for the point at which they could patiently and momentarily dismantle the organization of the organs we call the organism.” (TP, 160).

[Anonymous No.14318542]

>>14316950
It's a somewhat more folksy(mid-1900s American) way to say a scam artist or con-man, it has the connotation that it's low-level, inelegant or petty fraud

[Anonymous No.14318572]

>>14311977
There are mini revolutions going on in the world as we speak, it isn't a stretch to imagine a big one following a set ideology.

[Anonymous No.14318577]

>>14318572
they aren't communist and will never be

[Anonymous No.14319221]

>>14318370
>You don’t do it with a sledgehammer, you use a very fine file.
so they are saying Neetch went mad cus he philosophised with a Hammer when he should have used a lady's nail file? Truth is a woman, after all.

this thread got me reading Zizek on Spinoza, he has a habit of proving Spinoza right, only to start using absolute mental acrobatics to wedge in Freudian pseudoscience cope.

>So what is Spinoza? He is effectively the philosopher of Substance, and at a precise historical moment: AFTER Descartes. For that reason, he is able to draw all (unexpected, for most of us) consequences from it. Substance means, first of all, that there is no mediation between the attributes: each attribute (thoughts, bodies...) is infinite in itself, it has no outer limit where it would touch another attribute - "substance" is the very name for this absolutely neutral medium of the multitude of attributes. This lack of mediation is the same as the lack of subjectivity, because subject IS such a mediation: it ex-sists in/through what Deleuze, in The Logic of Sense, called the "dark precursor," the mediator between the two different series, the point of suture between them. So what is missing in Spinoza is the elementary "twist" of dialectical inversion which characterizes negativity, the inversion by means of which the very renunciation to desire turns into desire of renunciation, etc. What is unthinkable for him is what Freud called "death drive": the idea that conatus is based on a fundamental act of self-sabotaging.

[Anonymous No.14319340]

>>14319221
This is an absolutely brilliant treatment of Spinoza. I'm not usually a fan of Zizek, but introducing negativity into the mediation of the infinite (a la Hegel), not through Hegelian negation but instead Freudian death drive as a "dark precursor" to Spinozian conatus. It's a direct metaphysicalization of Freud. Even if it's empty speculation, you can't deny it's an incredibly novel one.

[Anonymous No.14319353]

>>14318572
Lol

[Anonymous No.14319399]

https://youtu.be/bgPqk8-HPGQ

A video of an invited talk was uploaded 2 days ago and it's a series of the right winged talking point and he still tries to sell it as left.

[Anonymous No.14319416]

>>14319399
yeah, the left is in such embarrassingly dire straits their big celebrity theoretician is not only a hyper-neurotic slob but also now cryptofascist

[Anonymous No.14319756]

>>14318351
nice

[Anonymous No.14320564]

>>14312595
>thinks people call themselves Antifa even though it's praxis, not an organization
>thinks "neo marxists" are a thing
>rest of the post is nonsensical wordvomit
you get the gulag, buddy

[Anonymous No.14320576]

>>14319353
Good

[Anonymous No.14320587]

>>14312541
will self's whole point was that zizek should basically tell us what to do, which of course zizek is (rightfully) unwilling to do. that """"debate"""" was a farce

[Anonymous No.14320595]

>>14318015
go on...

[Anonymous No.14320605]

>>14320587
Philosophy does ask what is the good life and what is a communist without any praxis?

[Anonymous No.14320638]

>>14319340
yes i suppose a metaphysicalisation of Freud is quite clever.

i also suppose super massive black holes to be an anal fixation of some kind, and that god killed jesus on a cross when he started to notice how much he had a hard-on for his own mother

[Anonymous No.14320684]

>>14320638
come back after you know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.14320697]

>>14320684
i truly believe the universe is a repressed libido

[Anonymous No.14320762]

>>14320564
>leftist street gangs don't proclaim to be antifascist
>21st century idpol liberals are the same as russian bolsheviks
>can't even make up with a 3rd point of contention
liberal af no matter who wins you'll lose