[ 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: 323 KB, 290x240, Slobber Žižek.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4595731 No.4595731[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Do actual academics take Zizek seriously? If I brought him up to a PHI Prof, would he even know who he is?

>> No.4595733

>>4595731
>Do actual academics take Zizek seriously?
No

>If I brought him up to a PHI Prof, would he even know who he is?
Yes

>> No.4595774

It should be noted that actual academics aren't philosophers.

>> No.4595825

There is a talk of him in which he mentions that this one time he wrote a recommendation letter for a friend and that later the man called him back to say he didn't get the job and that it wasn't in spite of his letter, but because of his letter.

Zizek also uses that very notion of being taken as a clown to talk about it. Is he not to be taken seriously? Then why is there a real antagonism? That is, people take him seriously, as a "dangerous" man. And yet they still say he is "just a clown".

>> No.4595883

>>4595774
It should be noted that philosophers aren't actual academics.

>> No.4595902

>>4595825
dunno who calls him a dangerous man and why. His supporters are all limpwristed faggots.

>> No.4595904

I think he has a lot of neat ideas regarding religion and how capitalism's fundamentally a broken system that thrives off of waste and economic degeneration.

Like he's no Stirner, Nietzsche, or Marx; but he's not a horrible philosopher. What am I missing here that makes me retarded?

>> No.4595907

I can't not like him. He's entertaining. I don't agree with most of what he says, obviously, when it comes to Communism. But I don't really know what kind of Communist I am so maybe if I ever wake up a Maoist I'll hate his guts.

>> No.4595913

>>4595774
Some of 'em are. You didn't have philosophy professors at your university?

>> No.4595931

>>4595902
That's the point. No one talks, but they act as if he was. They don't act as if he was just a clown.

>> No.4595934

>>4595904
Being okay with mediocrity.

>> No.4595943

>>4595934
90% of all philosophers are mediocre ones. That doesn't mean they don't contribute to the overall discipline though...

>> No.4595948

He has written and collaborated with many respected academics over the years on a variety of subjects; of course he is.

>> No.4595951

>>4595943
What do you mean by contribute? Adding more writing about the topic the other 10% in your example already hammered out? Sure. Moving the discipline forward even an iota? Nope.

>> No.4595958

>>4595934
Almost every one who's ever lived was mediocre.

Except for Robert Greene

>> No.4595967

>>4595958
I agree. I'm mediocre as well, but I'm not going to encourage it or give it a free pass.

>> No.4595978

>>4595904
he's more of a cultural critic (not really but it's what he's pegged as by the news); he follows in the tradition of Sloterdijk, I think, and if you haven't heard of him it's just more reason Zizek needs to act like a clown with a brand and catch phrases and so on

>> No.4595990

>>4595951
Oh my mistake, I forgot that the last time I cracked open a good contemporary philosophy book the bibliography was actually full of pseudonyms used by the original author.