[ 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: 106 KB, 460x271, zizek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2927989 No.2927989[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

So why is he a charlatan?

>> No.2927994

Is he?

>> No.2927992

>>2927989
Because he's more popular with the left than Noamchomsky and Noamchomsky is jelly as fuck. So he perpetrated the myth that Zizek is a Charlatan

>> No.2927997

Because he claims to be a charlatan when he clearly isn't

>> No.2928048

Because geniuses are always scorned and laughed at.

>> No.2928051

He talks a lot and says so little.
He can talk for 10 minutes to end up "because reality means something".
He has the hint of genius but i always wonder why he doesn't just go to the damn point instead of making supposition of this and that and in the end sometimes not even giving his point.
Bunch of rambling sometimes...

>> No.2928054

>>2928051
2deep4u

>> No.2928059

>>2928054
Br-cause, In supposition, deepness is, in a matter of terms, subjective to what we can perceive of our own reality.
If we, for example, deny that our reality is not subjective, we can, of course, concur that everything is deep for ourselves.

>> No.2928062

I call him Slavoj Šašek, šašek being the Czech word for buffoon or clown.

>> No.2928077

Because only about ten per cent of what he says isn't vague waffle.

I'm serious, either I am completely stupid and just don't get it, or he is way 2deep4me, or I am right. Listen to his 'love is evil' stuff, he has a basic idea, but hops, skips and jumps from love to evil and you have no idea what the fuck he means. chomsky is far better at articulating himself.

>> No.2928105

I've read three of his books and watched a few internet lectures and came away with nothing apart from thinking he's coke head with a crap sense of humour. Nothing has stuck in my head at all - not even Derrida gives so little in exchange for that effort.

Not only that, he's the epitome of try hard edginess.

>>2928048

That does occasionally happen, but fakers and self-publicisers are laughed at more often. If it isn't centre stage, genius is just as likely to pootle along quietly receiving plaudits but not being fully recognised for its strength. Either that or be near completely hidden, like Blake, Dickinson, Nietzsche, Kafka.

>> No.2928112

>>2928051
Mightt Gott mebey joo know *sniff* joo need to read hish booksh joo know.

His talks are entertaining but his books have the proper stuff.

>> No.2928133

He's not a charlatan, he's a troll.

He's the Armond White of philosophy.

>> No.2928144

>>2928133

He's the ice tea mixed with lemonade of philosophy?

>> No.2928193

I just read his With Or Without Passion, and I feel dirty for actually having enjoyed it.

>> No.2928219

>>2928144
That's an Arnold Palmer.

He's more like that Pulitzer Prize sticker on a book that you think you can peel off, but it's actually printed onto the cover of the book.

>> No.2928224

He isn't. It's an empty insult used by those who are quite jelly.

>> No.2928242

>>2928133
I assumed that was Foucault