ZIZEK!

[Anonymous No.3133229]

By now I've listened to pretty much every lecture I can find and read a good number of articles, some political and some tending heavier towards theory. Where should I start with his books? There's so goddamn many . . .

[Anonymous No.3133235]

read none of them.
read Karl Popper. then cry for having wasted so much time on Zizek.

[Anonymous No.3133242]

>>3133235

i cant tell if you're trolling or not. karl popper? really? hahahahahahahahaha fuck off, liberal scum

[Anonymous No.3133255]

sublime object of ideaology and nothing else, its all redudancy after that

[Anonymous No.3133253]

>>3133242
>liberal..

wait wut?

[Anonymous No.3133257]

>>3133253

have YOU ever read karl popper? he was as liberal as they come, glad he's dead

[Anonymous No.3133266]

>attacks Popper for being liberal but reads Zizek

my face when

[Anonymous No.3133268]

the ticklish subject is god tier

[Anonymous No.3133271]

>>3133266
>authoritarian communism implied to be liberal

Are you American?

[Anonymous No.3133272]

>>3133266

zizek isn't liberal wtf are you retarded

[Anonymous No.3133277]

While listening to all his lectures, did you notice the absurd amount of contradictions and absurd verifications that frequently prove nothing?

Zizek = biggest pseudointellectual of our time

[Anonymous No.3133279]

>>3133277

2deep4u

[Anonymous No.3133288]

>>3133257
b-but.. Zizek is a marxist..

[Anonymous No.3133296]

>>3133288
Zizek is dead!?

holy shit yeah! made my day

[Anonymous No.3133299]

Zizek "marxist"

>talks about Christianity as a way to fight capitalism

you all been conned morans!

[Anonymous No.3133302]

>>3133296
>>3133299
I'm so confrused

[Anonymous No.3133303]

>>3133288

learn the difference between liberalism and leftism, you fucking chimps

[Anonymous No.3133308]

>>3133277
>still believes in noncontradicting rationalisms
>still believes in proof
>thinking intellectuals need to prove things and not contradict themselves
>post-nietzsche
>zis is preshisely why I shiggy and even sometimes add the diggy alsho and so on and so on

[Anonymous No.3133330]

>>thinking intellectuals need to prove things and not contradict themselves

have fun in lala land, don't forget to thank your pastor for his dick up your ass

[Anonymous No.3133331]

>>3133302
Zizek is like Nietzsche, he contradicts himself and because of that they have a tendency for self interpretation.

Fun read tough

[Anonymous No.3133334]

>>3133330
Somewhere in the future you too will realise the limits of rationalism and logic. Unless you stop thinking beyond your calculator, that is.

[Anonymous No.3133335]

< pic related

what Zizek wants you to do: become a christian.

Not Even Trollin

[Anonymous No.3133339]

>>3133334
limits of rationalism and logic are completely beside the point.

quit using strawman arguments.

[Anonymous No.3133341]

>>3133335
Buddhism might work as well and is more compatible with modern life.

[Anonymous No.3133343]

>>3133339
Quit thinking intellectuals need to prove things and have the obligation not to contradict themselves.

[Anonymous No.3133345]

>>3133331
>thinking Nietzsche contradicts himself
doyouevenread.jpg

>>3133229
Begin wherever you want, and don´t take him too seriously. Here´s his book on the cultural fallout of 9/11: http://www.lacan.com/desertsymf.htm

[Anonymous No.3133350]

>>3133345
"Everything is about heroes and great individuals and shit" - Nietzsche
"Heroes and great individuals and shit are bullshit science 4 lyfe positivism 4 life" - Nietzsche
"Perspectivism 4 life muh ubermensch" - nietzsche

[Anonymous No.3133378]

>>3133350
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.3133445]

Why is it that everyday I see Zizek threads on this board and so many are full of people who don't understand him at all. Everyone who's posted ITT thus far is either a troll or has no idea what Zizek is saying.

[Anonymous No.3133467]

>>3133345

desert of the real is great

[Anonymous No.3133516]

>>3133445
Zizek has said the same thing about most of his fans in general, it is to be expected I guess

[Anonymous No.3133530]

>>3133229
>By now I've listened to pretty much every lecture I can find and read a good number of articles, some political and some tending heavier towards theory.
>Nothing

pick two

[Anonymous No.3133550]

>>3133445
Saying that you "understand" Zizek is like saying you "understand" Armond White. You think you look cool, sophisticated, deep, and extremely edgy.

In reality you're not in on the joke.

[Anonymous No.3133558]

>>3133378
Read his Wagnerian/Schopenhauerian period books (birth of tragedy, untimely meditations) then the period where he breaks from them (human all too human, the dawn) after which he starts transitioning in zarathustra mode (gay science is the prelude of this) with zarathustra and the stuff beyond.

[Anonymous No.3133571]

One of you idiots arguing should actually answer OP's question.

[Anonymous No.3133579]

>>3133571
The Puppet and the Dwarf.

It's neither representative of his philosophy nor one of his best works, but is at least accessible.

[Anonymous No.3133603]

>>3133550
there's nothing edgy about zizek at all though

how much more orthodox can you get than marx, hegel and lacan (oh, and kant too)

the man is asking for a return of the cartesian subject for gods sake. zizek is anti-edgy

[Anonymous No.3133616]

zizek openly admits he only has a handful of books, out of the 50 or so published, worth reading. these books include; the sublime object, the ticklish subject, the parralax view and tarrying with the negative

[Anonymous No.3133621]

>The Sublime Object of Ideology

Is probably his only worthwhile text. Although, 'First as Tragedy, Then as Farce' isn't too bad either.

[Anonymous No.3133623]

>>3133603
>how much more orthodox can you get than marx, hegel and lacan (oh, and kant too)
That's what being edgy is.

[Anonymous No.3133638]

I enjoy when he speaks about common politics or culture. He has a very smart vision of present and past.
But I won't take seriously his more serious books or thoughts.

[Anonymous No.3133640]

>>3133603
The man has a picture of Stalin over his bed. He's edgier than a Hattori Hanzo sword.

[Anonymous No.3133723]

>>3133603
Well, Zizek is not an orthodox marxist. Not at all.
He's an orthodox socialdemocrat, with some looks of leninism.

[Anonymous No.3133752]

>>3133550
What part of "idealologies is bad u gaiz and they cuntrol your brains by making up a bunch of big scary Other shit that doesnt real" dont't you understand?

[Anonymous No.3133765]

>>3133723

sup hoxha

zizek a social democrat? what makes you say that? I've always thought he was, if not quite an orthodox marxist, at least still a radical leftist. I'm aware of his foray into slovenian politics in the early 90s but even he's gone on record denouncing whatever liberal leanings he once had.

[Anonymous No.3133768]

I would say go to Sublime Object of Ideology for a little more theory-oriented (and it's a good place to start regardless). I've read a lot of his stuff, but it does all blend together after a certain point. Tarrying with the Negative was quite good, too. For really accessible, media-criticism-type stuff, check out First as Tragedy, Then as Farce and Living in the End Times.
Basically look at when it was written: if it's earlier (80s-90s) it's probably going to be a bit more theory oriented and if it's more recent (aside from Less Than Nothing) then it's pretty straightforward.

[Anonymous No.3133776]

Please could somebody recommend a book to start with?

As asked for in the OP?

38 posts ago?


Please?

[Anonymous No.3133777]

>>3133765
He accept a lot of typical statements of democratic liberal society. Even though he laugh on it, but still clearly support it.
The most important subject is the concept of 'vanguard of the probletarians' which is one of the hard points of marxism-leninism (extreme left for dummies).
And there are a lot of stuff that clearly shows that he is with the ''new left parties'' such as Die Linke, Izquierda Unida and now Syriza.
All of them socialdemocratic parties, at least when they speak honestly.

[Anonymous No.3133779]

>>3133776

You can try looking above you.

[Anonymous No.3133787]

>>3133776

The Ticklish Subject is probably his most balanced and accessible work to date. He renders theory a bit easier to understand through the prism of concrete examples and politics etc etc, good, focused stuff, great entry way.

[Anonymous No.3133791]

>>3133623
>>3133603
>>3133550
>Arguing about whether he's edgy or not rather than discussing the validity of his ideas.

This is why real literature discussions never take place here.

[Anonymous No.3133799]

>>3133791
I feel you missed the point of >>3133550 (and by extension the entirety of Zizek's writing and persona).

[Anonymous No.3133811]

Baudrillard>Zizek>Deleuze>Foucault

[Anonymous No.3133818]

>>3133777

I've always sort of struggled on this bit, at least as far as his lectures have gone. I remember listening to one where someone asked Zizek question about the contradiction between his rhetoric on the need for an alternative outside the box of liberal-democratic institutions and support for parties like Syriza...his answer was pretty granular and paradoxical, I guess as is to be expected, but still...man, I'm having trouble even remembering exactly what he said, but he was stressing that it was different from social democratic incrementalism, i.e. "How about a few more rights for minorities? A little bit more regulation? etc"...fuck, the more I think about it the less I remember. I just recall being confused and having to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe someone else here knows what I'm referring to....I'll try to find the source again

[Anonymous No.3133822]

I'm trying to understand postmodern thought, are post like >>3133308 in any way representative? I'm reading Violence atm and it does seem that zizek just asserts overarching theories on the human condition without much basis at all, over and over returning to the idea of a contradiction giving an idea its 'being'. Am I missing as i can see how one can find contradiction in most situations/ideologies, but I've yet to read how zizek justifies that his 'map' is a proper representation of the terrain. Can anyone explain this?

[Anonymous No.3133824]

>>3133822
missing something,*

[Anonymous No.3133828]

>>3133777
Not that guy but he still doesn't consider himself a social democrat, he sees that type of political system as trying to give neoliberal capitalism a "human face" in the same way that the '68 rebellion in Prague wanted to create "socialism with a human face" as an alternative to Soviet style communism.

[Anonymous No.3133829]

>>3133822
>Can anyone explain this?

Yes, he's an entertainer and a troll, and that's how you must approach him.

[Anonymous No.3133847]

>>3133799
What point did I miss? That you can't understand him without being someone who just wants to look cool and "edgy." I think I got that point but just don't regard it as a very good one.

[Anonymous No.3133856]

Currently reading the Plague of Fantasies and he certanly reminds me the way post-modern writers write with his intertextual allusions, socio-cultural examples and the blending of the humanities.
While maybe politicaly he is contradictory and though he may not have a unified philosophical theory, he is certainly an orthodox Lacanian in every sense of term.

[Anonymous No.3133858]

>>3133828

so what makes SYRIZA any different from the traditional reformists? I don't know a lot about Greek politics, but what makes them so much more different from the ND when they're still operating within capitalist institutions? They may put more leftist pressure on the establishment but how is that relevant to radical solutions, i.e. striking at the root.

[Anonymous No.3133867]

>>3133856

those perceived parallels are mostly due to the word 'postmodernism's conflation with a lot lot of other vague, contemporary tropes. While the blending of high culture and low culture may be a classically 'postmodern' thing to do in an aesthetic sense, ala pynchon, it's quite a different thing from being postmodern in a Theoretical sense (capitalization intentional).

[Anonymous No.3133878]

>>3133867

Certainly. it seems to me he is atacking post-modernists in relation to their ideology and influence in the development of late-capitalism. However he is very much anti-narrativist like Habermas and I have noticed how Romanticism and German Idealism have a central focus in his interpative philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3133883]

>>3133878

*meant to say "unlike" Habermas who is a proponent of the enlighment ideals.

[Anonymous No.3133890]

>>3133858
SYRIZA is a coalition of leftist parties made up of both social democrats and more radical elements. I suppose you could support something more radical than that but they're the best option in terms of political parties in Greece for a radical leftist to support atm and as I said they are made up of more than just the reformist type of social democrat whom Zizek often distances himself from.

[Anonymous No.3133908]

>>3133890

I guess what I'm wondering is how does a party function radically from within the existing state apparatus? If a communist party is too constrained by the institution to move toward abolishing private property, for example, what's the point in the long-run?

genuinely interested, not concern trolling

[Anonymous No.3133991]

>>3133558
I see a certain development between his "periods", but I also see a deeper continuity going throughout the periods. To speak of Untimely Meditations, he has held fast to and further developed the basic theses of both Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life and Schopenhauer as Educator (and from what I know, also of the other two, but I cannot judge since I haven´t read those).

No, I don´t think Nietzsche is contradictory, as far as we speak of the fundamentals of his thought.

[Anonymous No.3134050]

>>3133856
>intertextual allusions

do you mean referencing hegel, lacan, or other philosophers? that's par for the philosophical/humanities course, it's nothing characteristically postmodern

>socio-cultural examples

this is called data.

>blending of the humanities

this is called "synthesis" in the hegelian sense. very modernist approach to knowledge, rather than post-modern

[Anonymous No.3134077]

>>3133818
>>3133828
>>3133858
Well, this would be an interesting point. I'm the guy who posted the Hohxa pic, and I consider myself near marxist-leninism, but let be clear, the fail of both authotitarian socialist and democratic socialism is obvious. And that's precisely what makes ''new left'' parties in continental europe so weak, they can't successfully propote an agenda which were both radical and understandable for so called middle class.
In my country, Spain, the conditions for a huge rise of left party like Syriza are true. But the message from the old communist party is not clear. It just goes around between the ideal communism and the sad truth of socialdemocracy.
And in that space, Zizek moves greatly.

[Anonymous No.3136593]

>>3133341
>Buddhism is more compatible with modern life [than Christianity].
>Petit Bourgeoisie actually believe this