Thoughts on the Trashman? I'm your standard ☭TANKIE☭ ML, but sometimes his writings intrigue me. Other times they confuse the fuck out of me to the point where I'm fairly certain he isn't sure what he himself believes; his ramblings become contradictory after a while, I believe unbeknownst to him a majority of the time.
Is he just a meme, or has anyone gleaned anything useful from his writings? Fwiw, I got into him before he was plastered all over the 'net *schniff*
Other urls found in this thread:
eurotrib.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Inb4 Red Kahina shows up with her Crypto-Fascist accusations
TBH Zizek's batshit insane fanbase makes me hate Zizek.
Whooooooooo????
He's based.
His defense of robespierre in that one documentary about the french revolution along with pic related shifted my perspective on violence from an unfortunate necessity to something that is perpetually happening anyway which simply needs to be channeled towards hopefully constructed ends.
Ive not looked into him extensively but what i have read and seen of him was ok if you ask me. Contradictory thoughts are normal if he is an intellectual - he is simply developing perspectives. Cohesive viewpoints are a sign of laziness, since truth is ultimately unknowable, one must frantically try to construct viewpoints which are often at odds with each other in order to have a decent catalogue of lenses with which to analyze a situation.
This too i have learned from applying zizek to my own perspectives, it answers the 'what if im wrong' argument nicely; everyone is wrong, the most significant things in history were done by wrong people, at some point you must pick an idea and just go for it to see what happens. If you're ever really sure of yourself you are probably just a fanatic.
I forgot to add pic.
Twitter's favorite ML account now that Phil has fallen out of favor
He's pretty good at getting liberals to realize why civic protest and local democracy are memes, and why we need to capture state power. Ideally you need to immerse yourself in Marxist theory after watching his lectures though, since they'll only help up to a point.
reminder that he promoted SYRIZA
Before the elections SYRIZA was maduro tier
And even now they make some ok social policies
tho they are nothing more puppets of the bouj
he's basically an IRL troll right?
I don't see him as being a "philosopher" anyway
Mostly a meme, and he himself admitted he writes a lot of nonsense (eurotrib.com
If you're not interested in Hegel/Kant or Psychoanalysis (you should be) Zizek will probably just confuse the fuck out you.
The best lecture that Žižek ever gave, IMO, was "Love as a political category", which he gave at Subversive Festival in Zagreb. He presents a remarkably coherent argument here, compared to many of his talks.
youtube.com
In general, with Žižek I find that he rambles a lot of vague shit when he talks to liberals, but put him on a leftist conference and he's more limely to reveal his power level. It's pretty clear that he just doesn't give a shit with a lot of interviews for normie channels.
Does Zizek have an intro book on Hegel? He has that one on Lacan, and I know Less Than Zero is supposed to be all about Hegel.
This
MLs hate Kahina ever since she dabbed on China. Now instead of listening to the convoluted and correct ramblings of Kahina and Greaves everyone follows normie PSL accounts.
I've pretty consistently defended his work and theory here. I'll equally say that, while extremely engaging to those who are willing and interested, the stuff isn't for everyone. The problem is, the big Ž is a ride that has been going on a long time and, as such, has covered an enormous amount of ground with regards to what issues and phenomena he has covered and accounted for. There are definitely shortcomings and nebulous pieces, especially when he tries to render other schools of theory into universalism, but it all tends to work out pretty nicely - mostly.
The fan base can be absolutely batshit - as in, some of these people read no one BUT Zizek. There is a sort rabidity that they'll jump to defend and expound on every conceivable opportunity to do so. Opposite of them, a great deal of the critique I see levied against him here is shallow and contrived (e.g. , possibly). There's too much going on with some of his work that if a critic mentions a piece, or even a lecture (low-bar anyways), it can become extremely easy to discern whether or not they've read the piece or even understand it.
He's a cool dude who can sometimes make incredible insights into several fields, but if philosophy isn't your deal then don't sweat it.
Will you cut the balls of power?
Has anybody read Lenin 2017? How is it?
fucking worth it, the discussion of the nascent periods of revolutionary sentiment and how similar they are to contemporary conditions alone does enough to warrant a read. It's great and you need a minimum of interaction with the philosophy as a prerequisite
I bought it and liked it. Note that a majority of the book is just Lenin’s own work, only the introduction and conclusion are Zizek. But the introduction and conclusion are both relatively long, and quite interesting too.
brainlet analysis
c'mon, OP is at least being genuine in his inquiry, that's more than you usually get with posters here when it comes to theory and philosophy
It's very good. It explores Lenin's views very well in the introduction, even though most of the book is composed of the original texts of Lenin. I learned very important things from it.
"Revolution at the Gates" was trash. The original writings of Lenin were cool but Zizek's contribution in that book was just a bunch of incoherent word salad with barely any connection to the theme of the book.
He peaked in 2014 when his writings become a meme.
Now when he actually offers insight in actual politics, people rightfully call him a hack.
And now with his health (half of his face is paralyzed), people are more worried about his health than political stance.
If I don't understand something, I read the related literature and check the sourced material to get a better overview of the topic. The brainletism comes in when OP couldn't understand it then assumed Žižek is rambling and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Isn't that the same with every Zizek book? That it has nothing to do with its supposed title and is just a massive convoluted Zizek lecture you can find on YouTube?
That's literally exactly it. It was the first and only book by Zizek that I've read. It fucking sucked though. Is he just shitting out these books for the money? What's the point of promoting a book about Lenin, putting Lenin on the cover, filling the first half of the book with letters written by Lenin, and then just talking a bunch of nonsense about movies and pornography that has absolutely nothing to do with Lenin or Leninism? I don't get it.
Eh, most of its just rubbish. Nothing useful in there for any serious Marxist. He offers no solution to anything at all.
Honestly, is Zizek's rambling style any more comprehensible than the originals?
Read "Violence" and keep it at that, it has some valuable insights. The rest of his books are mostly the same.
Did he go down the road that all Marxist Humanists take which is being a Neocon?