This is the thread where we talk about Slavoj Zizek...

making him a construction worker i guess

Rolling Philosophy

hm, how would you describe what he does? critical theory?

― Mordy, Wednesday, June 16, 2010 6:18 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

"a masterful synthesis of the best work in political sociology and political economy"

=>> political socio-economics

political socio-economics = philosophy!

he didnt do that work--he just constructed the synthesis--making him at best a synthesizer

a synthesizer like barthes -- ROLAND

omg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjEtmZZvGZA

i've always been a fan of this particular "zlavodge zhezhek" interview

"YOU'RE LIKE THE DENNIS LEARY OF SLOVENIA!"
"YES."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/jun/27/slavoj-zizek-living-end-times

“My God, I am the last person to know the answer to these questions,” he says, looking genuinely dismayed. “But, really, I am now thinking there is so much pressure on me to perform. I am getting really bored with it. I am a thinker, but people all the time want this kind of shitty political interventions: the books, the talks, the discussions and so forth.” He sighs and closes his eyes and seems to deflate before my eyes. “I will tell you my problem openly and for this my publisher will hate me. All the talk and the writing about politics, this is not where my heart is. No. I have been sidetracked. I really mean this.”

He opens a copy of Living in the End Times, and finds the contents page. “I will tell you the truth now,” he says, pointing to the first chapter, then the second. “Bullshit. Some more bullshit. Blah, blah, blah.” He flicks furiously through the pages. “Chapter 3, where I try to read Marx anew, is maybe OK. I like this part where I analyse Kafka’s last story and here where I use the community of outcasts in the TV series Heroes as a model for the communist collective. But, this section, the Architectural Parallax, this is pure bluff. Also the part where I analyse Avatar, the movie, that is also pure bluff. When I wrote it, I had not even seen the film, but I am a good Hegelian. If you have a good theory, forget about the reality.”

Why, then, given that he does not like most of his books and does not have any enthusiasm for the lecture circuit, does he not call a stop to the Žižek show? “I am doing that right now!” he shouts. “I am writing a mega-book about Hegel with regard to Plato, Kant and maybe Heidegger. Already, this Hegel book is 700 pages. It is a true work of love. This is my true life’s work. Even Lacan is just a tool for me to read Hegel. For me, always it is Hegel, Hegel, Hegel,” he says, sighing again. “But people just want the shitty politics.”

fair enuf.

LOL

I'm actually digging living in end times. it's a lot of fun

hah, see, how can you not like this guy?

it's mainly his asswad stans i dislike

even the biggest fans of his I've met fully accept that he talks shit half the time, I guess I've done well steering clear of the baduns.

his, uh, posting style, has really taken off. i guess it's not entirely him -- it's a tradition of hegelian/dialectical thought, and i get a similar vibe from some other cultural/philosophical marxist thinkers. but he's the current model. so saying something that [something completely paradoxical] is 'precisely' the case is something he and his followers do a lot, but they aren't the first.

ah yes, the preciselys and exactlys are always good for wtfs and lols.

ok @ zizek being interviewed about this bk on Newsnight...

wow that quote is great. i hope he titles that book "Hegel Hegel Hegel" and i will promise to read it.

shane danielsen is a bit of a blowhard, but he's on-point here:

http://www.indiewire.com/article/shane_danielsen_among_the_grifters/

and yeah it does sort of relate to hegel and avatar

tbf, Zizek didn't pretend to see Avatar, he admitted upfront that he didn't see it and his points on the film were about as meaningful as the arguments of a lot of people who had seen it. also, he wasn't rendering critical judgement about whether it was good or not, just discussing the incredibly obvious and well-worn plot.

he admitted upfront that he didn't see it

i don't think he did:

http://www.newstatesman.com/film/2010/03/avatar-reality-love-couple-sex

the point is, the plot may be transformed by the treatment (it wasn't)

hmmm. somehow he let people know. when i saw the link to the piece, the link mentioned Zizek hadn't seen the film.

(nb i saw the link right when the piece came out)

he mentioned it in cahiers du cinema. dunno when that came out in relation to the new statesman piece. n e ways, it's a question of ethics. coz of course i wouldn't talk about hegel w/o having read every last word of the motherfucker.

lol, really? cause i think everyone who has talked about hegel has done so without reading every word of his

no not really! jeez, srsly. have seen 'the abyss' tho.

lol, i thought u were joking but imbedded in context of jerks who review movies without seeing them, it's hard to tell

fwiw, someone should review Zizek not yet published Hegel book

lol yes brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

Argh, I fact-checked an article about Zizek the other day. I'm sure his stuff is fun to think about, but it's not easily summarized.

watched that animation (and the David Harvey one, which was also p. good) with my friend the other day. but then we got really weirded out when we went to the website for 'Cognitive Media' (the company that produces these things) and saw a bunch of testimonials from BP and GE execs about how well their presentations went over... sorta funny.

Great profile pieces about Zizek: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,705164,00.html

What is increasingly emerging as the central human right in late-capitalist societies is the right not to be harassed, which is the right to be kept at a safe distance from others. A terrorist whose deadly plans should be prevented belongs in Guantánamo, the empty zone exempted from the rule of law; a fundamentalist ideologist should be silenced because he spreads hatred. Such people are toxic subjects who disturb my peace.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/03/immigration-policy-roma-rightwing-europe

nice leap from 'people don't want to be blown up' to 'people want terrorists locked up without charge.'

n e ways, kinda fatuous all round really, but interesting (in this context) to see the full-blown christian bit at the end

I don't think Zizek is condemning the impulse to lock terrorists up, but locating these individuals in this extrageographic space, outside the country, an "empty zone exempted from the rule of law," it's that we can't even imprison them in our nation-state midst. their very proximity is "toxic" and disturbs the peace (obv this is referring to imprisonment because a terrorist act wouldn't just be 'disturbing the peace').

yeah there's nothing wrong with criticizing guantanamo. it's a p mainstream position! but conflating the desire not to be harassed (which i don't think *is* being advanced as a 'central human right but whatevs) with guantanamo is effed up. in the real world we do lock up irl terrorists after jury trials. he's yoking two things together, but while we're there, yeah, terrorists are kind of toxic. if fundamentalist ideologists are really so hated and marginalized, how the fuck does he explain glenn beck (or, you know, himself?).

Well, I haven't gotten a chance to read the whole thing, but Zizek's general thing is that toxicity isn't a bad thing. He's praised terrorists before for mounting serious challenges to the hegemony + stuff like that, so I imagine this will to not be bothered isn't a net "good thing."

He's praised terrorists before for mounting serious challenges to the hegemony

ah

mm

k

hope they challenge his hegemony tbrr

there is nothing a priori wrong with praising acts of terrorism. sometimes it is absolutely necessary.

you can just replace your spare parts if you get blown up though :(

we are not robots.

however, we do believe that in the in the machine there is much to emulate. and soon when the technology has advanced enough we shall merge with the machine.

hegemony mayne

DANGER WILL ROBINSON

until then, terrorist acts will be occasionally be called for. not necessarily with bombs, however. nor with computer viruses. it will be a terrorism of ideas.

memerrorism, we call it.

we, robots

yeah i think dom tried that, look where it got him xp