But what do y'all think?
― Tim, Thursday, 30 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― alext, Thursday, 30 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Josh, Thursday, 30 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― mark s, Thursday, 30 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
His style is exactly glib enough for my taste. Connections
between Marx and the Marx Brothers are CHEAP but also
I like him, but then I'm a bugger for a bit of post-Althusserian
Lacanian-Marxism. And anyone who hates Heidegger and can't be doing
with Derrida can't be all bad. He is also responsible for my liking
of Zlatko Zahovic and the Slovenian football team. Mind you, his
article in the latest London Review of Books was a bit pisspoor. His
one on the Matrix was ded ded good though.
Was also the day when Chesterfield wuz robbed in the FA Cup Semi-
final in 1997. Memories...
― Nathan Barley, Thursday, 30 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― anthony, Thursday, 30 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― mandee, Thursday, 30 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― the pinefox, Thursday, 30 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Mandee, Thursday, 30 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Momus, Thursday, 30 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Hegemon, Friday, 31 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sterling Clover, Friday, 31 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― mark s, Friday, 31 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Momus, Friday, 31 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 31 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Mandee, Friday, 31 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
*sobs* a lot
I'd tried to erase that day from my memory, thanks a lot Barley!!!
― chris, Friday, 31 May 2002 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
zizek is a leninist, a means-to-an-ends kind of guy, so his stance here is unexpected.
of 24: "It is here that we encounter the series' ideological lie: in spite of the CTU's ruthlessness, its agents, especially Bauer, are warm human beings - loving, caught in the emotional dilemmas of ordinary people."
which begs the question: well, can't ruthless people also be loving fathers? s/z's answer is:
"As Arendt says, the fact that they are able to retain any normality while committing such acts is the ultimate confirmation of moral depravity."
i can't help finding his paradoxes (and there are umpteen more in the article) a bit fortune cookie. isn't the ultimate confirmation of moral depravity the morally depraved act itself? likewise, do we need his thoughts on 'why is cheney telling us this' -- isn't the fact of torture enough?
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 09:58 (fourteen years ago) link
― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Monday, 3 April 2006 10:43 (fourteen years ago) link
But the main point is fairly straightforward. The means-to-an-end argument, when it comes to torture, boils down to "do what you need to do, then pay the price later." But by implying that torture has no price for those who practice it, legal or emotional, 24 to some extent moves the issue beyond mere means-to-an-end - there's no longer any moral balancing going on at all. It simply becomes "this is what we do." Torture becomes unfortunate but no longer morally troubling. The notion that this somehow goes to a person's guilt and depravity is popularly accepted in the entrenchment of the consideration of remorse as a mitigating factor in sentencing for crimes.
It's basically the same argument w/r/t Cheney openly justifying what was formerly tacitly permitted: this does violence to the notion that there is a price to be paid for these actions, that there is a price that should be paid. The point is not merely to bring formerly hidden acts out into the open, but to disrupt and overturn the systems of understandings that necessitated the acts be hidden. A government which has to hide its torture is one which submits to the notion that, strictly speaking, what is being done is wrong. And there is always the possibility that the torture will be publicly exposed, resulting in loss of face and power for the ruling government.
The hiding at least pays lipservice to the notion that what is happening is morally reprehensible (as Mac says on Commander In Chief, "I don't want to hear that he was tortured"). What is changed in publicly announcing the use of torture is not necessarily the seriousness of the acts of torture committed (which, perhaps in the short-term, does not increase), but the system of morality within which that act is situated, and the system of power relationships. The Government says "you can no longer hold your avowed distaste for torture over me"; if the public does nothing at this stage, it effectively acknowledges "I accept your use of the torture as morally defensible."
I think that the ramifications for "society" in this are pretty huge, and that it's therefore right for Zizek to argue that the consideration of the moral depravity of an act can go beyond the act itself and extend to how it is framed in discourse.
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 3 April 2006 13:56 (fourteen years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 3 April 2006 14:21 (fourteen years ago) link
― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Monday, 3 April 2006 14:23 (fourteen years ago) link
I wouldn't go that far because I haven't really gotten to the "make your own zizekian argument" stage. But yeah his stuff (esp. these sorts of arguments) feels very familiar now, you sort of know where it's going immediately.
Yeah he is very repetitive, and not just in terms of overall approach but in terms of specific detail - the analogy of the husband and the wife who have the tacit agreement w/r/t his infidelity is in half a dozen other books by him. For me it's really all about the world-building of the first two big books (The Sublime Object and For They Know Not What They Do).
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 3 April 2006 14:53 (fourteen years ago) link
(of course, he also coasts in other things too, but then that's more an element of not seeing himself as a "theoretician" so much as a sort of gadfly polemicist)
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 3 April 2006 15:02 (fourteen years ago) link
But cool that he'd thought enough about it to come up with that one perfect phrase.
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 3 April 2006 15:21 (fourteen years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 3 April 2006 15:30 (fourteen years ago) link
― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Saturday, 13 May 2006 14:08 (fourteen years ago) link
excellent combination of bad faith and projection, well done.
― banriquit, Saturday, 19 April 2008 12:16 (twelve years ago) link
it would be kind of interesting to see him deploy that argument w/r/t palestine though, also not an independent state pre-1948, etc etc etc
― banriquit, Saturday, 19 April 2008 12:18 (twelve years ago) link
I agree that he is too understanding of China's policies, but I thought this paragraph was spot-on:
One of the main reasons so many people in the West participate in the protests against China is ideological: Tibetan Buddhism, deftly propagated by the Dalai Lama, is one of the chief points of reference for the hedonist New Age spirituality that has become so popular in recent times. Tibet has become a mythic entity onto which we project our dreams. When people mourn the loss of an authentic Tibetan way of life, it isn’t because they care about real Tibetans: what they want from Tibetans is that they be authentically spiritual for us, so that we can continue playing our crazy consumerist game. ‘Si vous êtes pris dans le rêve de l’autre,’ Gilles Deleuze wrote, ‘vous êtes foutu.’ The protesters against China are right to counter the Beijing Olympic motto – ‘One World, One Dream’ – with ‘One World, Many Dreams’. But they should be aware that they are imprisoning Tibetans in their own dream.
There are other peoples the Chinese central government has oppressed as well, such as the Uyghurs, but since they don't have evoke similar imagery in Westerners as the Tibetans do, and don't have a charismatic leader like the Dalai Lama, they are mostly ignored. (Also, the Uyghurs happen to be mostly muslims, which of course makes them less likely to get much Western support.)
― Tuomas, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:15 (twelve years ago) link
The difference is, though, that the Israeli government has done little if nothing to develop the Palestinian areas. I'm not trying to defend China here, but the two situations aren't that easily comparable.
― Tuomas, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:20 (twelve years ago) link
oh that bit about new-age hippies was what i meant by 'projection'; i suppose it might be true of some people who are actively pro-tibet, but most people seem to be against the occupation on more liberal grounds. just as many people who broadly support the palestinian cause might not be so keen on hamas.
zizek doesn't actually advance any evidence of this syndrome, anyway:
When people mourn the loss of an authentic Tibetan way of life, it isn’t because they care about real Tibetans: what they want from Tibetans is that they be authentically spiritual for us, so that we can continue playing our crazy consumerist game.
is just a standard zizek-y paradox. i'm sure he's used it before, conjoining it with the line from 'to be or not to be'; "the poles do the camping, we do the concentrating."
i'm not saying palestine corresponds with tibet 1:1, but zizek's take on it is likely to be 180 degress from his take here -- namely that the occupier is right, and the vocal support for a religio-nationalist cause is wrong.
― banriquit, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:26 (twelve years ago) link
Tibetan Buddhism, deftly propagated by the Dalai Lama, is one of the chief points of reference for the hedonist New Age spirituality that has become so popular in recent times.
This is bullshit as regards specifically Tibetan Buddhism, which strikes me as being way too particularist to offer much to New Age thinking. The Dalai Lama's charisma and media savvy has done far more to keep Tibet in the public consciousness of Western liberals. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of anti-Chinese government protests are grounded in issues other than Tibet. Amnesty's campaigns are one obvious example.
― Noodle Vague, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:29 (twelve years ago) link
Plenty of Stalin apologists argued that he was only liquidating horrible reactionaries, too.
― Noodle Vague, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:30 (twelve years ago) link
Yes to the Dalai Lama's media profile keeping it in public consciousness - linked to strong idea of Tibet as a separate occupied country, a profile that abkhazia, dagestan, kurdistan, don't have - kosovo being the anomaly here (but western govts wanted kosovar independence, rather than western people - so a bit of a red herring?)
Aren't Uyghar's in a minority in Xianjiang?
― laxalt, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:39 (twelve years ago) link
laxalt, by that i'm guessing you think none of these countries deserve independence? pretty blatantly in the case of kosovo.
― banriquit, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:41 (twelve years ago) link
bringing the opinion of 'western people' is a huge red herring, really, but i'd have thought those western people who have heard of kosovo will generally recall why its independence from serbia could be seen as a good thing for the people of kosovo.
― banriquit, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:43 (twelve years ago) link
No that isn't what I mean. (also wether Western Govt's wanted Kosovar independence or not shouldn't make that independence any more or less desirable per se)
I'm not suggesting any of these countries either deserve or don't deserve independence (just that western policy towards Kosovo was unusual as the usual state of affairs is to preseve integrity of the nation state).
Its more that I was trying to suggest that Tibet has a higher profile as an actual occupied state in western minds, whereas the others are probably thought of as regions - and that itself must be at least partially responsible for pro-Tibetan feeling in the west.
― laxalt, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:46 (twelve years ago) link
Surely one of the Kosovans' core claims to independence is that Kosova corresponds to what a nation-state is supposed to be?
― Noodle Vague, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:50 (twelve years ago) link
yeah, undeniably. though again: palestine is fairly prominent in the west. those other places barely even register as names, kurdistan excepted. i think there's some kind of insinuation threaded through this line -- i don't know what it is exactly, but my main reaction is 'so what?'
western policy towards Kosovo was unusual as the usual state of affairs is to preseve integrity of the nation state
greater serbia wasn't a nation state. plus the west had been operating in the former yugoslavia pre-1999. plus it was the west (germany) that encouraged its break-up.
― banriquit, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:51 (twelve years ago) link
I'm curious as to why Zizek is someone you guys read/talk about? Is he someone you read in school, and if so in what course of study? Or is he a big public intellectual in the UK or Australia or somewhere, and in those places public intellectuals are taken seriously? I'm just ignorant but curious, not trying to be snarky.
― Euler, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:52 (twelve years ago) link
-- Euler, Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:52 PM (7 seconds ago) Bookmark Link
he's definitely a prominent public intellectual -- ie he doesn't just address a specialist philosophy audience. (there is a q-mark over what his specialism is, perhaps.)
there've been about four films made about him, he gets new yorker profiles done on him, he gets into the LRB, guardian, etc, and he publishes a lot.
he's achieved this mostly post-9/11 and i was at uni before then and anyway he doesn't have much to say on my subject (history).
as for public intellectuals being taken seriously -- britain has often perceived itself as not giving intellectuals their due, in comparison with france where they alledgedly have a bigger public profile.
― banriquit, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:57 (twelve years ago) link
i dunno it seems pretty plausible that his general slovenliness explains pretty much everything― j., Sunday, July 13, 2014 9:47 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― j., Sunday, July 13, 2014 9:47 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this is as much an alibi for him as a genuine cause of anything.
― I dunno. (amateurist), Monday, 14 July 2014 05:04 (six years ago) link
what is a genuine cause
― everybody loves lana del raymond (s.clover), Monday, 14 July 2014 15:33 (six years ago) link
fuck you :)
― I dunno. (amateurist), Monday, 14 July 2014 23:55 (six years ago) link
iunno. that smiley doesn't feel so genuine to me.
― everybody loves lana del raymond (s.clover), Tuesday, 15 July 2014 02:07 (six years ago) link
The first thing that such a "fundamentalist" view cannot see is how a foreign gaze is inscribed into the very establishment of "our" identity. Say, Argentinean identity formed itself in the middle of 19th century, when its main mythical motifs were established (the gaucho melancholy, etc.); however, all these motifs were already formulated in the memoirs European travelers a couple of decades earlier – what this means is that, from the very beginning, the Argentinean ideological self-identity relied on an alienating identification with the Other’s gaze. The same holds even more for modern Greece: Athens were in 1800 a provincial peasant village of 10.000 inhabitants, they were not even the first capital of independent Greece. It was under the pressure of Western powers (mostly Germany and England) that the capital was moved to Athens where a series of neoclassic government buildings were constructed by Western architects; it was also the Westerners, fascinated by the Antiquity, who installed in Greeks the sense of continuity with Ancient Greece. Modern Greece thus literally arose as the materialization of the Other’s fantasy, and, since the right of fantasy is the fundamental right, should one not draw from it the extremely non-PC conclusion that not only should Germany and England return to Greece the ancient monuments they plundered and which are now displayed in the Pergamon Museum and the British Museum – Greeks should even voluntarily offer to Germany and Greece whatever old monuments they still possess, since these monuments only have value for the Western ideological fantasy.
― Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Sunday, 20 July 2014 22:44 (six years ago) link
The "plaigiarism" controversy seems overblown. The disputed passages are just summaries of other books, it's not like he plagiarized a white supremacist's ideas as the headlines suggest
― Treeship, Thursday, 7 August 2014 02:49 (six years ago) link
it's been fun seeing academic types be all 'gotcha! the p-word!!!!' and just look like goobers tho
― mattresslessness, Thursday, 7 August 2014 03:06 (six years ago) link
as a plagiarism controversy it's pretty dumb but i'm all for calling out his working methods. big surprise that producing like half a million words a year results in shoddy, repetitive work.
― Merdeyeux, Thursday, 7 August 2014 03:20 (six years ago) link
huge surprise hence the necessary calling out?
― mattresslessness, Thursday, 7 August 2014 03:28 (six years ago) link
the more people point out that he produces a lot of useless shit the more chance there is of him taking any heed and ever producing anything of worth again. maybe.
― Merdeyeux, Thursday, 7 August 2014 03:37 (six years ago) link
but then it's kinda just the plight of every celeb academic. he just amplifies it.
― Merdeyeux, Thursday, 7 August 2014 03:38 (six years ago) link
I was reading an older book ("contingency, hegemony, solidarity") and his contributions are very notable for their repetitiveness -- not only within the book but within his whole body of work. he's a very formulaic writer and I think there's rapidly diminishing returns with his stuff.
― ryan, Thursday, 7 August 2014 11:42 (six years ago) link
or what merdeyeux said
he has a lot of books that have come out and will come out this year
― markers, Thursday, 7 August 2014 15:49 (six years ago) link
he's definitely the philosopher i've read the most of at this point
― markers, Thursday, 7 August 2014 15:50 (six years ago) link
"Signed by Slavoj Žižek and a friend" - whatever that means. it doesn't read like his voice at all.
― Mordy, Monday, 25 August 2014 21:57 (six years ago) link
ht treesh: http://www.theguardian.com/books/live/2014/oct/06/slavoj-zizek-webchat-absolute-recoil
But this is not all the truth. There are multiple signs that something new is possible. Let me conclude with one example. Free downloading. Aren't we almost entering communism there? Even DVDs are disappearing. I think capitalism will not be able to integrate so-called intellectual property. Intellectual achievements are in their very nature communists, able to circulate freely. And this free availability of products is already opening up a non-capitalist space, even if it is the product of the most advanced capitalism. Again, just look for the signs. There are signs of an alternative. We just have to be patient and wait. We should act, but not in the old Marxist way that we are instruments of higher historical necessity. We should fight all our struggles, against sexism here, racism there, and so on. But we should nonetheless keep open a sense of risk. There is always a mystery in political activity. You think you are engaged in a big project and nothing comes out of it. But often you make just a small demand, and if you insist on it, everything changes. We cannot master in advance the consequences of our acts. We should act and keep our mind open.So let me finish with a militaristic phrase from Napoleon: on attack, then we shall see. That should be our motto.
So let me finish with a militaristic phrase from Napoleon: on attack, then we shall see. That should be our motto.
― Mordy, Saturday, 25 October 2014 22:05 (six years ago) link
― big WHOIS aka the nameserver (s.clover), Friday, 25 December 2015 00:28 (four years ago) link
― flopson, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 14:15 (four years ago) link
― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 22 August 2016 16:17 (four years ago) link
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/10/slavoj-zizek-we-are-all-basically-evil-egotistical-disgustingI hate politically correct arrogance. With black friends, in contrast to politically correct white guys, I establish real contact. How? Through dirty stories, dirty jokes. When you visit a foreign country, you play PC games about your interesting food or music, but how do you become really friendly? You exchange a small obscenity.
Yes humour is important for bonding, no it doesn't have to be dick jokes. I wonder if over-generalising from personal experience is humanity's worst trait (after selfishness, xenophobia, and a bottomless capacity for violence).
― the year of diving languorously (ledge), Sunday, 11 December 2016 14:16 (three years ago) link
Also fun: the accelerationist gets accelerated every time he touches his face
― THE SKURJ OF FAKE NEWS. (kingfish), Tuesday, 20 December 2016 17:26 (three years ago) link
― THE SKURJ OF FAKE NEWS. (kingfish), Tuesday, 20 December 2016 17:39 (three years ago) link
― mark s, Monday, 1 January 2018 23:37 (two years ago) link
― global tetrahedron, Tuesday, 2 January 2018 00:00 (two years ago) link
― mark s, Tuesday, 2 January 2018 00:03 (two years ago) link
Oh no: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrSUGgfM4Q4
― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Sunday, 11 March 2018 09:08 (two years ago) link
― calzino, Sunday, 24 March 2019 10:06 (one year ago) link
Everyone evil n egotistical: that's why I love Zizek (and Haneke). Both have a deep rooted belief that we're not that good.
― nathom, Sunday, 24 March 2019 10:37 (one year ago) link
the fabled backstory here -- true or not who can say! -- is that he looks as if he's beaten up bcz he had been, by the brothers of the bride when sz tried to weasel out of the wedding :D
enjoy yr symptom!
― mark s, Sunday, 24 March 2019 10:42 (one year ago) link
he is fumbling in his pocket with a concealed taser.
― calzino, Sunday, 24 March 2019 10:49 (one year ago) link
Not sure how an in-law-to-be beatdown is gonna convince you to *go thru* with a wedding
― Helel Cool J (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 24 March 2019 10:55 (one year ago) link
i think it also involved being frogmarched to the altar
― mark s, Sunday, 24 March 2019 11:07 (one year ago) link
no shotgun no credibility
― Helel Cool J (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 24 March 2019 11:08 (one year ago) link
we are in agreement tbh
― mark s, Sunday, 24 March 2019 11:27 (one year ago) link
Feels like they watched Game of Thrones. Lol
― nathom, Sunday, 24 March 2019 15:12 (one year ago) link
in an alternate universe zizek plays detective crockett in miami vice
― affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Sunday, 24 March 2019 15:28 (one year ago) link
A local linguist is found dead in a puddle of black ooze. Suspicion falls on Midsomer Stanton’s ice cream van driver, angry that all-encompassing whiteness might threaten the world ending with a whimper rather than a bang.— Midsomer Murders Bot (@midsomerplots) March 18, 2019
― mark s, Sunday, 24 March 2019 16:57 (one year ago) link
mesmerized by this video of slavoj žižek absolutely demolishing two hot dogs pic.twitter.com/grNOIPfEQn— Nick Usen (@nickusen) April 16, 2019
― mfktz (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Thursday, 18 April 2019 12:31 (one year ago) link
― xyzzzz__, Thursday, 18 April 2019 12:40 (one year ago) link
So stoked to watch this
― flappy bird, Saturday, 20 April 2019 05:14 (one year ago) link
Not going to watch this (my masochism has limits). Sounds like they were having two monologues side by side rather than a debate.
― Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Saturday, 20 April 2019 07:29 (one year ago) link
Live debate is bullshit
― findom haddie (jim in vancouver), Saturday, 20 April 2019 07:31 (one year ago) link
lest we forget
remember in 2011 when the white radical left lined up to denounce the black riot as feral, incoherent, mindless? here’s Zizek and David Harvey back then pic.twitter.com/ZJVxWq5r5e— hannah (@nanpansky) June 4, 2020
― hip posts without flaggadocio (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 4 June 2020 11:35 (five months ago) link
I had a feeling Owen Jones was often bad back then but couldn't quite remember why, but knew it was more than just his early hostility to Corbynism and his terrible books!
― calzino, Thursday, 4 June 2020 12:39 (five months ago) link
whenever he's actually deigned to take a concrete position on something specific it's always been some basic liberal and/or conservative bullshit, with marxist/hegelian rhetoric thrown in to appease those who still want to believe he's a revolutionary. "no message to deliver" fuck off back to the academy you pearl clutching hack
these celebrity leftists always turn out like this, he & chomsky are way more similar than different in this regard
― 1312 (Left), Thursday, 4 June 2020 13:18 (five months ago) link
this guy has always had seriously dodgy views on race (as well as gender, sexuality etc) which "the white radical left" has been way too keen on obfuscating/excusing
― 1312 (Left), Thursday, 4 June 2020 13:22 (five months ago) link
motherfuck him and hegel
Zizek. Apparently the new frontier of emancipatory philosophy is “indigenous people couldn’t understand their genocide as being wrong without western theory.” Impressive! pic.twitter.com/6chPxe3aCH— Ben Miller (@benwritesthings) July 4, 2020
― If you choose too long a name, your new display name will be truncated in (Left), Saturday, 4 July 2020 19:03 (four months ago) link
celebrity leftist here casually writing liberal-fascist defend-western-values screeds for russian state media
fox news levels of empathy for the police here
― If you choose too long a name, your new display name will be truncated in (Left), Saturday, 4 July 2020 19:24 (four months ago) link
happy international men's day pic.twitter.com/no1MZGamwU— zo (@gramscifancam) November 19, 2020
― early-Woolf semantic prosody (Hadrian VIII), Thursday, 19 November 2020 19:28 (one week ago) link