I became a muslim last night

[DotCommunist]

Nah it's just an essay meant to reassert a kind of materialist kernel within Christianity against the new age Buddhism and the like which whilst superficially claiming to more materialist are infact deeply idealist. It's essentially a continuation of the work of Bloch and Benjamin and I think Zizek uses it quite well to illustrate key parts of his thought.

Interesting. Link me the essay if it's online anywhere, and I shall give it a read.

Sounds dangerously heretical

 

[revol68]

How clear is it that Zizek considers it fiction?

And if he does consider it fiction, why is he engaging with it?

The fact he is an ardent materialist who enjoys ranting about fence sitting agnostics and the like and more generally the whole thrust of his work that argues the universe is essentially absurd chaos given meaning and order by human subjectivity.

Why shouldn't people engage with works of fiction, they can often shed more light on the issues than simple fact, there's a long tradition of political readings of fiction, from Greek myths through Frankenstein to Horror movies etc.

The fact of course that Christianity has been the prism through which nearly 2000 years of western/european culture has been refracted means that it's pretty damn significant and certainly worth engaging with.

 

[cesare]

The fact he is an ardent materialist who enjoys ranting about fence sitting agnostics and the like and more generally the whole thrust of his work that argues the universe is essentially absurd chaos given meaning and order by human subjectivity.

Why shouldn't people engage with works of fiction, they can often shed more light on the issues than simple fact, there's a long tradition of political readings of fiction, from Greek myths through Frankenstein to Horror movies etc.

The fact of course that Christianity has been the prism through which nearly 2000 years of western/european culture has been refracted means that it's pretty damn significant and certainly worth engaging with.

I definitely think that Christianity (amongst other major organised religions) is worth engaging with, for the profit making aspect if nothing else - hence my interest. But I'm a fence sitting agnostic and reductive materialism jars for me.

So why did he pick Christianity?

(And what's the title of this essay?)

 

[revol68]

Interesting. Link me the essay if it's online anywhere, and I shall give it a read.

Sounds dangerously heretical

It's a very long essay, a book infact,

this well worth getting, though there are shorter essays outlining the broader issues out there, here's one on that Buddhist shit and another on Chesterton and Hegel.

Haven't read that last one yet but I imagine it's arguing much the same as he does in the "Puppet and the Dwarve" about the radical nature of Chesterton's orthodoxy.

 

[cesare]

It's a very long essay, a book infact,

this well worth getting, though there are shorter essays outlining the broader issues out there, here's one on that Buddhist shit and another on Chesterton and Hegel.

Haven't read that last one yet but I imagine it's arguing much the same as he does in the "Puppet and the Dwarve" about the radical nature of Chesterton's orthodoxy.

Zizek's curious affinity with Christianity, which has become something of a dogma among his more zealous followers, is given a 'sort of' sustained treatment in this work. But it is less a theoretical investigation and more a series of witty, counter intuitive deductions about Christianity. All of which, as usual for Zizek, makes it makes a fun and breezy read.

He takes down Buddhism, Hinduism and new ageism, and uses Christianity to illustrate their deficiencies. Although this is all sounds pretty radical to the politically correct reader in the 21st century, scratch beneath the surface and you find a lot of the arguments are just Hegel's rehashed from the 'Philosophy of History.'

As always with Zizek it is hard to be too critical about such an impassioned and well written work. But the lack of sustainment, ontological investigation, and even (more unusually) originality, makes this a lesser work in his canon.

*waits for phil*

 

[cesare]

Ah, OK, I get you now, cheers. They are quite interesting though ... largest order in the RC church and yet the ones that have held firm against the Vatican the most (my impression). It almost seems as if they are of the church but also outside it.

Coming back to this ... I've always previously described them as the pope's police force, but I'm now starting to think of them as the pope's internal audit function.

And button's just reminded me that the now defunct position of devil's advocate was always given to a Jesuit, which kind of reinforces that.

 

[revol68]

I definitely think that Christianity (amongst other major organised religions) is worth engaging with, for the profit making aspect if nothing else - hence my interest. But I'm a fence sitting agnostic and reductive materialism jars for me.

So why did he pick Christianity?

(And what's the title of this essay?)

Well being a fence sitting agnostic you are actually more than likely to be caught in a loop of desire and rejection with a reductive materialism, a non reductive materialism has no need for agnosticism at all, as it is a position of active engagement with the world rather than one of pseudo positivist observation.

Zizek's materialist reading of Christianity, much like Bloch's and Benjamin's, is precisely an attempt to move beyond reductive materialism, to not simply reject the everything within it as 'wrong' but to try and grasp materialist truths within it,

works of mass culture cannot be ideological without at one and the same time being implicitly or explicitly Utopian as well: they cannot manipulate unless they offer some genuine shred of content as a fantasy bribe to the public about to be so manipulated. Even the 'false consciousness' of so monstrous a phenomenon of Nazism was nourished by collective fantasies of a Utopian type, in 'socialist' as well as in nationalist guises. Our proposition about the drawing power of the works of mass culture has implied that such works cannot manage anxieties about the social order unless they have first revived them and given them some rudimentary expression; we will now suggest that anxiety and hope are two faces of the same collective consciousness, so that the works of mass culture, even if their function lies in the legitimation of the existing order -- or some worse one -- cannot do their job without deflecting in the latter's service the deepest and most fundamental hopes and fantasies of the collectivity, to which they can therefore, no matter in how distorted a fashion, be found to have given voice.

 

[cesare]

Well being a fence sitting agnostic you are actually more than likely to be caught in a loop of desire and rejection with a reductive materialism, a non reductive materialism has no need for agnosticism at all, as it is a position of active engagement with the world rather than one of pseudo positivist observation.

Zizek's materialist reading of Christianity, much like Bloch's and Benjamin's, is precisely an attempt to move beyond reductive materialism, to not simply reject the everything within it as 'wrong' but to try and grasp materialist truths within it,

Man! Why can't they write in plain English Jesus, wading though that is like wading through treacle. No wonder yer average person glazes over and the entire subject stays in the realms of academia and/or wannabe revolutionaries.

 

[revol68]

Man! Why can't they write in plain English Jesus, wading though that is like wading through treacle. No wonder yer average person glazes over and the entire subject stays in the realms of academia and/or wannabe revolutionaries.

That Bloch quote is pretty straight forward, you should try reading that mad fuck Hegel.

I also get really confused when Derrida and Foucault fan boys complain that Zizek is hard to read, I think he reads very well, he's just very conversationalist and goes off on trains of thought, but he isn't hard to grasp.

 

[DotCommunist]

It's a very long essay, a book infact,

this well worth getting, though there are shorter essays outlining the broader issues out there, here's one on that Buddhist shit and another on Chesterton and Hegel.

Haven't read that last one yet but I imagine it's arguing much the same as he does in the "Puppet and the Dwarve" about the radical nature of Chesterton's orthodoxy.

Christ the man takes some twisty paths, but then theorists always do (just read the one with the helpful star wars analogies no doubt done to draw the likes of me in).

I'm not sure I agree. I need to digest (and re-read!) the text before I make a judgement

 

[cesare]

That Bloch quote is pretty straight forward, you should try reading that mad fuck Hegel.

I also get really confused when Derrida and Foucault fan boys complain that Zizek is hard to read, I think he reads very well, he's just very conversationalist and goes off on trains of thought, but he isn't hard to grasp.

Nah I lost interest approaching the first colon and thought 'fuck this for a lark'. I don't like deep wading through detail to get to the concept, I prefer it the other way round. And much of this weighty stuff can be condensed down to a few paragraphs.

I'm now wondering if Zizek is philosophy's answer to Ben Goldacre?

 

[revol68]

Nah I lost interest approaching the first colon and thought 'fuck this for a lark'. I don't like deep wading through detail to get to the concept, I prefer it the other way round. And much of this weighty stuff can be condensed down to a few paragraphs.

I'm now wondering if Zizek is philosophy's answer to Ben Goldacre?

Yeah that's quite a good comparison.

I don't think there was a lot of detail in the Bloch quote, he was just giving an example to illustrate his concept, seems very logical to me.

 

[the button]

I'm now wondering if Zizek is philosophy's answer to Ben Goldacre?

I didn't know Ben Goldacre was married to an underwear model.

 

[revol68]

that's my boy!

 

[cesare]

Yeah that's quite a good comparison.

I don't think there was a lot of detail in the Bloch quote, he was just giving an example to illustrate his concept, seems very logical to me.

Ben Goldacre is an arrogant patronising cunt

 

[cesare]

Pmsl @ button

 

[revol68]

Ben Goldacre is an arrogant patronising cunt

No he is simply correct and doesn't feel the need to soften his arguments with a hundred and one empty caveats.

I'm fed up with smug patronising cunts pretending to be all humble, as if we are children who are to be engaging with in a different level, like it would be cruel to just directly say something is right or wrong.

I bet you love that cunt Rod "can't we both just be right" Liddle.

 

[tangentlama]

oh yeah and you know all that other fine stuff universal to the judeo christian isalmic tradition, like sexism, homophobia, irrational cultural practices and the general reactionary bullshit that it all is, is that all just fine, cos 'parts of it are a good lifestyle'?

I mean do you even believe in a interventionist god ffs?

You're the only irrational, reactionary bullshitter around here.

Maximillian Ping - good for you, good for your immediate family, good for your wider family. Good all round. Embrace it, don't fear it, and explore itijihad fully.

 

[revol68]

You're the only irrational, reactionary bullshitter around here.

Maximillian Ping - good for you, good for your immediate family, good for your wider family. Good all round. Embrace it, don't fear it, and explore itijihad fully.

Yeah Islam, a real progressive force.

 

[cesare]

No he is simply correct and doesn't feel the need to soften his arguments with a hundred and one empty caveats.

I'm fed up with smug patronising cunts pretending to be all humble, as if we are children who are to be engaging with in a different level, like it would be cruel to just directly say something is right or wrong.

I bet you love that cunt Rod "can't we both just be right" Liddle.

I don't know who Rod Liddle is.

But I'm reading Ben Goldacre's Bad Science at the moment, and he is severely hard work. Not the content so much as the style. He gives it that 'gentle reader, don't worry about a science lesson that you can't grasp' constant asides. I'd like to strangle him tbh.

 

[revol68]

I don't know who Rod Liddle is.

But I'm reading Ben Goldacre's Bad Science at the moment, and he is severely hard work. Not the content so much as the style. He gives it that 'gentle reader, don't worry about a science lesson that you can't grasp' constant asides. I'd like to strangle him tbh.

yeah but surely it's a good thing he doesn't bumble through such stuff when it's pretty much superflous to the main point.

he's always spot on though, especially his criticisms of the medicalisation of all sorts of social ills.

 

[tangentlama]

Yeah Islam, a real progressive force.

Could say the same about your so-called libertarianism - which is supposedly libertarian for you, but doesn't tolerate other peoples' freedom of thought, freedom of action, freedom to practice religion, etc.

If you only tolerate people who conform to your idea of libertarian, and judgmentally and aggressively lambast the freedoms which others embrace, then how are you a libertarian?

 

[revol68]

Could say the same about your so-called libertarianism - which is supposedly libertarian for you, but doesn't tolerate other peoples' freedom of thought, freedom of action, freedom to practice religion, etc.

If you only tolerate people who conform to your idea of libertarian, and judegmentally and aggressively lambast the freedoms which others embrace, then how are you a libertarian?

sorry are you retarded, have I banned anyone from going to a Mosque, have I sought to ban anyone from talking about certain things or blaspheming certain secular ideals?

the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of opinion is first and foremost the right to criticise, it is not some guarantee that you are free to go around believing anything you want without having it attacked or questioned.

to compare someone criticising the reactionary nature of organised religion to the oppression that such religions hold as central to themselves eg sexism, homophobia etc is to show yourself up as an idiot.

 

[cesare]

yeah but surely it's a good thing he doesn't bumble through such stuff when it's pretty much superflous to the main point.

he's always spot on though, especially his criticisms of the medicalisation of all sorts of social ills.

Nope, he might be circumventing the detail but the way he does it is patronising & also setting himself up as The Authority on these things which pisses me off.

It's quite weird that I started a thread on medicalisation before I'd even got to that part of his book (and still haven't reached there yet).

 

[tangentlama]

Yeah cos those religious types are soo delightfully mild mannered whilst condemning you to hell for pissing off the commands of their supernatural daddy figure.

Also I'm not shouting I post in this style on everything, from Man United to Big Brother.

So only revol68 is allowed to judge and condemn others to metaphoric hell for pissing off the commands of his ideological daddy figures? Wow. You're soooo enlightened. I'm in awe of your intellect. How can I be more like you?

 

[revol68]

So only revol68 is allowed to judge and condemn others to metaphoric hell for pissing off the commands of his ideological daddy figures? Wow. You're soooo enlightened. I'm in awe of your intellect. How can I be more like you?

Go away cretin, more intelligent people are having a discussion.

 

[cesare]

So only revol68 is allowed to judge and condemn others to metaphoric hell for pissing off the commands of his ideological daddy figures? Wow. You're soooo enlightened. I'm in awe of your intellect. How can I be more like you?

I didn't read him quite like that tbf.

But if he's a Zizek/Goldacre mindless devotee he could get quite irritating, granted.

 

[tangentlama]

sorry are you retarded, have I banned anyone from going to a Mosque, have I sought to ban anyone from talking about certain things or blaspheming certain secular ideals?

the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of opinion is first and foremost the right to criticise, it is not some guarantee that you are free to go around believing anything you want without having it attacked or questioned.

to compare someone criticising the reactionary nature of organised religion to the oppression that such religions hold as central to themselves eg sexism, homophobia etc is to show yourself up as an idiot.

I can assure you that sexism, homophobia etc, is a man-made phenomenon, and not central to my religion (Judaism) or to Islam.

In my synagogue, we were taught that love of G-d is central. We were taught that G-d shows love for us and we show our love for G-d through the covenant we make with G-d. That covenant is all-important and that covenant is central.

 

[revol68]

I didn't read him quite like that tbf.

But if he's a Zizek/Goldacre mindless devotee he could get quite irritating, granted.

I dunno you seem to have some sort of issues with imagining people are patronising you if they don't give a load of disingenuous qualifications and caveats to present themselves as simple humble folk, which to my mind is extremely patronising.

 

[revol68]

I can assure you that sexism, homophobia etc, is a man-made phenomenon, and not central to my religion (Judaism) or to Islam.

In my synagogue, we were taught that love of G-d is central. We were taught that G-d shows love for us and we show our love for G-d through the covenant we make with G-d. That covenant is all-important and that covenant is central.

I can assure you that your religion is a man made phenomenon and with no relation to beings with supernatural powers.

Also try reading your old testament dickhead, there's plenty of love in that.

Also the fact you engage in sill superstitions like substituting a - for the O in GOD only shows what a lot of superstitious wank it is.