[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 214 KB, 958x719, 1480797751791.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15216671 No.15216671 [Reply] [Original]

Zizek thread. Discuss his new book, interview, articles and so on and so on.

>> No.15216680

>>15216671
I have a question. In his infamous LGBT article Zizek writes this:

> I stand in front of standard bi-gender toilets with two doors, LADIES and GENTLEMEN, and I am caught up in anxiety, not recognizing myself in any of the two choices.

> Whatever choice I make, I will lose something, and this something is NOT what the other sex has. Both sexes together do not form a whole since something is irretrievably lost in the very division of sexes. We can even say that, in making the choice, I assume the loss of what the other sex doesn’t have, i.e., I have to renounce the illusion that the Other has that X which would fill in my lack. And one can well guess that transgenderism is ultimately an attempt to avoid (the anxiety of) castration: thanks to it, a flat space is created in which the multiple choices that I can make do not bear the mark of castration.

What does this mean? I have read the Sublime Object, and I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of objet petit a, but I don't really understand what he is saying here. When we make the choice to identify with a sex, we are accepting the loss of "what the other does not have." But don't we also already lack what the other does not have?

>> No.15216710

>>15216671
>I have to renounce the illusion that the Other has that X which would fill in my lack.
One has a cunt and a uterus and the other has a dick and testicles.
>What does this mean?
It means nothing. Its just horseshit spouted by a senile communist to try to appeal to and profit from a new generations insanity that he doesnt understand.

>> No.15217387

>>15216710
Ok, but what was he intending to mean

>> No.15217576

>>15216680
- every definition implies exclusion, 'this is this because it is not that'
- identification with anything implies negation of what it is not
- refusing to identify with either element of the dichotomy is an attempt to avoid the anxiety of this loss

>> No.15217869

>>15217576
Well you can't win em all *sniff*