Zizek’s positivist epistemology

[Knotted]

I think it's the key positivist distinction, at least in terms of social science methodology: one either describes or one explains with no possibility of reconciliation.

You can make a distinction without it being an absolute, irreconcilable distinction. It's like I can make a distinction between facts and values without it an absolute, irreconcilable distinction. I can make a distinction between provisional theories and unquestionable fact without making it an absolute, irreconcilable distinction. Engels isn't as bad as he is made to sound. You try him. Metaphysics versus dialectics.

 

[revol68]

Knotted do you have a trouble understanding how we can at once speak of something as a truth and the next as a value depending on the context or level of analysis.

 

[revol68]

I don't care if his comment is spot on or not. How does he justify it? How does he justify speaking on behalf of "marxists"? Which marxists? Where? Why? What the fuck is he on about? Pithy comment hinding behind non-existent "marxists" to give it weight. Do I have to do his theorising for him? Am I supposed to be writing his book for him? You've just written this bit for him. He doesn't mention crisis. He says "necessary outcome of its inner dynamics". Note that there is no element of history in this statement. It is a purely ahistorical mixing and matching of various concepts apparently at random and attributed to "Marxists". How am I suppose to tolerate a book this bad?

Eh, any Marxist worth the label will have such an analysis of Fascism, it's pretty much an orthodox analysis, opposed as it is to the retarded bourgeois analysis of "totalitarianism". He is using a historical matter to illuminate something in Heidegger's thought that makes him superior to those with a liberal approach to fascism that fail to grasp it's deep structural causes. There is no real history in the statement because the statement is about using assumed perspectives on fascism to a) criticise liberal analysis and then b) to later go on and show how Heidegger lacks the conviction to follow through with his radical analysis and so ended up cheerleading fascism.

I mean what is there you disagree with in the paragraph, do you not think fascism was the logical conclusion of capitalism? If so then you are a clown.

Along the same lines, Heidegger also denounces liberal-humanitarian demands for 'capitalism with a human face' as the unwillingness to confront the epochal truth in all its radicality. The parallel with the Bolsheviks is absolutely pertinent: what Heidegger shares with revolutionary Marxists is the notion that the system's truth emerges in its excess - that is to say, for Heidegger, as well as for Marxists, Fascism is not a simple aberration of 'normal' development of capitalism but the necessary outcome of its inner dynamics.

I mean it's pretty damn simple to follow and not in anyway a controversial point to anyone with a marxist analysis.

 

[Knotted]

Knotted do you have a trouble understanding how we can at once speak of something as a truth and the next as a value depending on the context or level of analysis.

Yes I do. I'm struggling to think of an example. If I think of an example it will be both a truth and a value simultaneously. I distrust any talk of levels. It's not the level of analysis its the use you put it to, the dynamic you are interested in.

Is Bob heroic? Is that fact? Is it a value? You could change your opinion of Bob's heroism by either finding out about a cowardly act Bob comitted or you could reassess what you regard as "heroic". But to say that Bob is heroic, you can't seperate fact from value.

To say that 2+3=5. You can say that's a fact. You don't have to do arithmetic that way and you might want to change it, but for the sake of accepting a public convention, you could still accept that 2+3=5.

 

[Knotted]

Eh, any Marxist worth the label will have such an analysis of Fascism, it's pretty much an orthodox analysis, opposed as it is to the retarded bourgeois analysis of "totalitarianism". He is using a historical matter to illuminate something in Heidegger's thought that makes him superior to those with a liberal approach to fascism that fail to grasp it's deep structural causes. There is no real history in the statement because the statement is about using assumed perspectives on fascism to a) criticise liberal analysis and then b) to later go on and show how Heidegger lacks the conviction to follow through with his radical analysis and so ended up cheerleading fascism.

I mean what is there you disagree with in the paragraph, do you not think fascism was the logical conclusion of capitalism? If so then you are a clown.

Oh please. Which Marxist has the analysis of Fascism being a NECESSARY outcome of capitalism's INNER DYNAMICS, with no reference to class struggle, no reference to the historical conditions, no reference to anything. Which Marxist talks at such an abstract level of generality? Where? Why? What the fuck is he on about?

See my edit on my post above. I explain why Zizek cannot but talk in this ahistoric antimarxist manner.

 

[Knotted]

And of course it wasn't the fucking logical conclusion of capitalism. It was a contingent outcome in history, like all other historical events. If the German masses had seized power before Hitler then that would have been the "logical conclusion of capitalism".

Can't you see how Zizek just drips with idealism?

 

[revol68]

Yes I do. I'm struggling to think of an example. If I think of an example it will be both a truth and a value simultaneously. I distrust any talk of levels. It's not the level of analysis its the use you put it to, the dynamic you are interested in.

Is Bob heroic? Is that fact? Is it a value? You could change your opinion of Bob's heroism by either finding out about a cowardly act Bob comitted or you could reassess what you regard as "heroic". But to say that Bob is heroic, you can't seperate fact from value.

To say that 2+3=5. You can say that's a fact. You don't have to do arithmetic that way and you might want to change it, but for the sake of accepting a public convention, you could still accept that 2+3=5.

But when we engage with people we all the time accept certain values as facts in order to progress the discussion, we could sit around dissecting the value laden nature of such and such 'fact' but more often than not we pay it no heed as the interesting discussion happens after such assumptions.

On the otherhand when might wish to show up a so called fact as nothing more than a deeply rooted ideological value and in that case.

It's a matter of context and Zizek's point is simply that for the vast majority of our communications and interactions with the world we happily or unthinkingly accept many things as facts which are at their root values, his other point is that various post structuralists have ended up with their heads up their arse as they feel the need to qualify every statement or truth claim with a ton of cavaets or scare quotes that makes them come across as impotent hand wringing ball bags and what we really need is a bit of intellectual balls, a willingness to assert things.

 

[revol68]

Oh please. Which Marxist has the analysis of Fascism being a NECESSARY outcome of capitalism's INNER DYNAMICS, with no reference to class struggle, no reference to the historical conditions, no reference to anything. Which Marxist talks at such an abstract level of generality? Where? Why? What the fuck is he on about?

See my edit on my post above. I explain why Zizek cannot but talk in this ahistoric antimarxist manner.

the class struggle and historical conditions are the inner dynamics of capitalism ffs.

And a Marxist who is simply using the historical example of differing analysis of fascism and the holocaust to make a point about a philosopher like Heideggar would talk at that level of generality, unless he wished to bury the point he was trying to make under a lot of irrelevant historical facts and details.

See this is where once again you fail to see the importance of different levels and context, Zizek is assuming the difference of the Marxist and Liberal analysis, he lays them out in a very short hand form because he assumes a) the reader isn't a retard and b) that the important point he is trying to drive at is the commonality between Heideggar and Marxists on the issue.

I am amazed that you have found something to take isssue with in the paragraph, especially such a rather superfluous one.

 

[revol68]

And of course it wasn't the fucking logical conclusion of capitalism. It was a contingent outcome in history, like all other historical events. If the German masses had seized power before Hitler then that would have been the "logical conclusion of capitalism".

Can't you see how Zizek just drips with idealism?

And capitalism isn't part of history, it's just some sort of static system?

I'm afraid it isn't Zizek that is the idealist.

 

[Knotted]

But when we engage with people we all the time accept certain values as facts in order to progress the discussion, we could sit around dissecting the value laden nature of such and such 'fact' but more often than not we pay it no heed as the interesting discussion happens after such assumptions.

Sure, that's pretty much what I said, even if I didn't say it clearly enough.

On the otherhand when might wish to show up a so called fact as nothing more than a deeply rooted ideological value and in that case.

It's a matter of context and Zizek's point is simply that for the vast majority of our communications and interactions with the world we happily or unthinkingly accept many things as facts which are at their root values, his other point is that various post structuralists have ended up with their heads up their arse as they feel the need to qualify every statement or truth claim with a ton of cavaets or scare quotes that makes them come across as impotent hand wringing ball bags and what we really need is a bit of intellectual balls, a willingness to assert things.

I've got no problem with that. This is Zizek at his most interesting.

But when it comes down to it his dissection of ideology is more opinion than theory. It's observation rather than any more systematic. He's quite open about this I think. He always starts with "I claim that..." It's all a bit throwaway. But I like it.

I should say I've no problem with posiitivist writings either. They can be thoughtful and insightful as well.

 

[Knotted]

And capitalism isn't part of history, it's just some sort of static system?

I'm afraid it isn't Zizek that is the idealist.

Did I say it wasn't?

OK let's treat this as a theory. How long does it take capitalism to realilse it's inner logic? A couple of centuries or so I suppose. Why does capitalism realise what is not it's inner logic after it's inner logic has been realised? Answers on a post card...

 

[revol68]

Where do you draw the line between opinion and theory? Is it not possible that the reason you think there is such a distinction in regards to Zizek because you haven't read any of his serious theory and so when he spouts pithy metaphors, soundbites and dirty jokes it comes across as kind of off the cuff and scattergun opinion rather than being tied back into his deeper theory which he has written at much detail on in many many books that you just haven't read.

 

[Knotted]

Where do you draw the line between opinion and theory? Is it not possible that the reason you think there is such a distinction in regards to Zizek because you haven't read any of his serious theory and so when he spouts pithy metaphors, soundbites and dirty jokes it comes across as kind of off the cuff and scattergun opinion rather than being tied back into his deeper theory which he has written at much detail on in many many books that you just haven't read.

I've read bits of his books now. It's just worse than I thought it would be and I didn't have high hopes in the first place. I'm fairly sure that I know Zizek as well you do now. Not because of what I've read, but the videos. They're better than the books.

Where do I draw the line between opinion and theory? It's to do with warrant. Theoretical statements are justified in one way or another. (That's not to say that everything that is justified is a theory, I'm not drawing the line I'm just sketching how I make the judgement in this case.)

 

[revol68]

Did I say it wasn't?

OK let's treat this as a theory. How long does it take capitalism to realilse it's inner logic? A couple of centuries or so I suppose. Why does capitalism realise what is not it's inner logic after it's inner logic has been realised? Answers on a post card...

When Zizek talks about the inner logic of capitalism, he is talking about it's basic drive for expansion and it's need to exploit and discipline labour, and this innner logic, the very basic core of capitalism leads to logical outcomes that are of course dependent on historical conditions, class struggle and imperialism, one of these logical outcomes in Europe of the 1930's was Fascism as a response to a militant working class and as a means to reassert major sections of capital. This is all very standard. Zizek is not talking about capitalism as some external platonic entity, rather he is simply using a short hand form to make a point and only an anal retentive savant or someone desperately trying to point score against him would take issue with it.

Afterall when we use capitalism as short hand aren't we doing the same as Zizek, afterall there isn't an actual body, or particular thing that is capitalism, it is in fact short hand for describing a generalised set of social relations.

 

[revol68]

I've read bits of his books now. It's just worse than I thought it would be and I didn't have high hopes in the first place. I'm fairly sure that I know Zizek as well you do now. Not because of what I've read, but the videos. They're better than the books.

Where do I draw the line between opinion and theory? It's to do with warrant. Theoretical statements are justified in one way or another. (That's not to say that everything that is justified is a theory, I'm not drawing the line I'm just sketching how I make the judgement in this case.)

Not to be rude but you haven't got a clue about Zizek's deeper lying theories, about the Real, Symbolic and Imaginary, about the subject as a void, an incompleteness. You take an isolated paragraph from The Ticklish Subject, which is seeking to discuss Heideggar's philosophy and how it's unwillingness to grasp the inherent void of the subject led him to fall into the pseudo radicalism of german fascism, and pathetically decide to act autistic and take issue with the fact he doesn't go into a ton of irrelevant historical detail or explain with a hundred and one cavaets what he actually means by "the logic of capitalism".

You have given a perfect example of the kind of constant qualifiying and over elaboration of things that should be taken as obvious assumptions that Zizek tears into post structuralists for.

 

[Knotted]

the class struggle and historical conditions are the inner dynamics of capitalism ffs.

And a Marxist who is simply using the historical example of differing analysis of fascism and the holocaust to make a point about a philosopher like Heideggar would talk at that level of generality, unless he wished to bury the point he was trying to make under a lot of irrelevant historical facts and details.

See this is where once again you fail to see the importance of different levels and context, Zizek is assuming the difference of the Marxist and Liberal analysis, he lays them out in a very short hand form because he assumes a) the reader isn't a retard and b) that the important point he is trying to drive at is the commonality between Heideggar and Marxists on the issue.

I am amazed that you have found something to take isssue with in the paragraph, especially such a rather superfluous one.

I'm perfectly well aware of what Zizek is doing. I've got no difficulties with it. It's just crap that's all.

I will think about this for days to come. In great irritation. It's torture for me to read this sort of thing.

I'll go through once more. You are simply wrong if you think that Zizek is saying that the inner logic of capitalism is class struggle and the historical conditions. Why? Because he is not talking about just Marxism. He is also talking about Heidegger who wouldn't see it in those terms. "The parrallel with the Bolsheviks is absolutely pertinent: what Heidegger shares with revolutionary Marxists...." Zizek has to use language that's appropriate to both Marxists on the one hand and Heidegger on the other. The fact that he falls on his face when doing so rather shows that there isn't a parrallel to be made.

Yes I accept that liberals will be different to both the Marxist and Heidegger. Yes I guessed that his point was to titilate the presumably liberal reader. This doesn't save the point he is failing to make.

 

[yield]

Desire: Drive = Truth: Knowledge By Slavoj Zizek 1997

Lacan obliges us to add that science is perhaps "real" in an even more radical sense: it is the first (and probably unique) case of a discourse that is strictly "nonhistorical" even in the Heideggerian sense of the historicity of the epochs of Being, i.e. epochs whose functioning is inherently indifferent to the historically determined horizons of the disclosure of Being.

Precisely insofar as science "doesn't think," it "knows", ignoring the dimension of truth, and is as such drive at its purest. Lacan's supplement to Heidegger would thus be: why should this utter "forgetting of Being" at work in modern science be perceived only as the greatest "danger? Does it not contain also a "liberating" dimension? Is not the suspension of ontological Truth in the unfettered functioning of science already a kind of "passing through" and "getting over" the metaphysical closure?

Žižek’s “Robespierre, or the ‘Divine Violence’ of Terror”
Originally published in Virtue and Terror, Verso 2007

Recall the lesson of the Hegelian “concrete universality” – imagine a philosophical debate between a hermeneutically, a deconstructionist and an analytic philosopher. What they sooner or later discover is that they do not simply occupy positions within a shared common space called “philosophy”: what distinguishes them is the very notion of what philosophy as such is, i.e., an analytic philosopher perceives the global field of philosophy and the respective differences between the participants differently than a hermeneutically: what is different among them are differences themselves, which is what renders their true differences in a first approach invisible – the gradual classificatory logic of “this is what we share, and here our differences begin” breaks down.

For today’s cognitivist analytic philosopher, with the cognitivist turn, philosophy finally reached the maturity of a serious reasoning, leaving behind metaphysical speculations. For a hermeneutically, analytic philosophy is, on the contrary, the end of philosophy, the final loss of true philosophical stance, the transformation of philosophy into another positive science.

 

[Knotted]

Not to be rude but you haven't got a clue about Zizek's deeper lying theories, about the Real, Symbolic and Imaginary, about the subject as a void, an incompleteness. You take an isolated paragraph from The Ticklish Subject, which is seeking to discuss Heideggar's philosophy and how it's unwillingness to grasp the inherent void of the subject led him to fall into the pseudo radicalism of german fascism, and pathetically decide to act autistic and take issue with the fact he doesn't go into a ton of irrelevant historical detail or explain with a hundred and one cavaets what he actually means by "the logic of capitalism".

You have given a perfect example of the kind of constant qualifiying and over elaboration of things that should be taken as obvious assumptions that Zizek tears into post structuralists for.

Why is this irritating me? He's lumping his nonsense onto Marxists. It's a fraudulent appropriation of Marxism. It's going to irritate me that is.

I'm sorry if I think it through. I'm very slow reader. I don't find reading technical books much harder than reading a light novel. I may as well think when I read. I don't just absorb. I think it through painfully slowly. When I wade in pigs swill I have linger longer than others do. I require quality reading matter. I will struggle to pick up a book after a passage like that.

 

[revol68]

I'm perfectly well aware of what Zizek is doing. I've got no difficulties with it. It's just crap that's all.

I will think about this for days to come. In great irritation. It's torture for me to read this sort of thing.

I'll go through once more. You are simply wrong if you think that Zizek is saying that the inner logic of capitalism is class struggle and the historical conditions. Why? Because he is not talking about just Marxism. He is also talking about Heidegger who wouldn't see it in those terms. "The parrallel with the Bolsheviks is absolutely pertinent: what Heidegger shares with revolutionary Marxists...." Zizek has to use language that's appropriate to both Marxists on the one hand and Heidegger on the other. The fact that he falls on his face when doing so rather shows that there isn't a parrallel to be made.

Yes I accept that liberals will be different to both the Marxist and Heidegger. Yes I guessed that his point was to titilate the presumably liberal reader. This doesn't save the point he is failing to make.

He's not saying Heidegger shares the same micro analysis of capitalism and subjectivity, fuck me many different strains of Marxism and anarchism are in deep disagreement regarding such matters. If you read on you would know that the problem with Heideggar is that his understanding of the inner logic of capitalism is deeply flawed, seeing it as an outcome of technology rather than of class struggle and it is because of this positing of capitalism as an external thing that splits a communal organic society rather than being the expression of a divided and class ridden society that leads him to embrace fascism.

If you had read on a bit more and followed the actual argument being made you would have soon grasped that Zizek was only highlighting the commonality between Marxist and Heideggar in order to then examine the difference.

 

[revol68]

Why is this irritating me? He's lumping his nonsense onto Marxists. It's a fraudulent appropriation of Marxism. It's going to irritate me that is.

I'm sorry if I think it through. I'm very slow reader. I don't find reading technical books much harder than reading a light novel. I may as well think when I read. I don't just absorb. I think it through painfully slowly. When I wade in pigs swill I have linger longer than others do. I require quality reading matter. I will struggle to pick up a book after a passage like that.

You are either deliberately setting out to not engage with Zizek in any sort of good faith and desire to understand him on his own terms or you are actually a bit thick.

I mean the paragraph you mining out of The Ticklish Subject, if you had continued on reading instead of thinking "Aha! I've caught him out here!" you'd have soon learnt that he goes onto discuss the key distinction between Heideggar's understanding of capitalism and a Marxist one.

 

[revol68]

Right just for a bit of light relief, does anyone fancy doing the autism spectrum test?

 

[Knotted]

Desire: Drive = Truth: Knowledge By Slavoj Zizek 1997

That's an interesting quote. It's seems to be an example of scientific instrumentalism. There is no truth to science, there is no history to its discourse. It's almost too easy to disagree. I don't think I am familiar enough with Heidegger to pick up on all the subtlities.

I'm quite averse to psychologising philosophy. I don't understand the Lacanianism, but I reject it. Science (and indeed politics) does not stand in a one to one relation with the psychological mindset of those who are practicing it.

I remember gorski telling me that science doesn't think. At least I now know where he got that from. It's scientists who think not "science" of course. And scientists can indeed think about about the philosophical foundations of their science. It's a pecululiarly obscure thing to say.

I'm not sure if I can cope with the Robespierre thing after that.

 

[Knotted]

He's not saying Heidegger shares the same micro analysis of capitalism and subjectivity, fuck me many different strains of Marxism and anarchism are in deep disagreement regarding such matters. If you read on you would know that the problem with Heideggar is that his understanding of the inner logic of capitalism is deeply flawed, seeing it as an outcome of technology rather than of class struggle and it is because of this positing of capitalism as an external thing that splits a communal organic society rather than being the expression of a divided and class ridden society that leads him to embrace fascism.

So there is a deep disagreement and a shallow agreement. So why is it absolutely pertinent if it is so shallow? I don't care for this deep/shallow thing. What is the shallow parallel. It's not there anymore than the supposed deep parallel.

What is this understanding of the inner logic of capitalism. Is it really the case that the Marxist and Heidegger are both interested in the same object but happen to have different understandings of that same object?

If you had read on a bit more and followed the actual argument being made you would have soon grasped that Zizek was only highlighting the commonality between Marxist and Heideggar in order to then examine the difference.

Zizek is nothing if predictable. I'm well aware that Zizek was highlighting a commonality in order to then examine the difference. I don't really care. The commanality wasn't there. In fact the difference won't be there either. There isn't a difference there is just difference.

 

[Knotted]

You are either deliberately setting out to not engage with Zizek in any sort of good faith and desire to understand him on his own terms or you are actually a bit thick.

I mean the paragraph you mining out of The Ticklish Subject, if you had continued on reading instead of thinking "Aha! I've caught him out here!" you'd have soon learnt that he goes onto discuss the key distinction between Heideggar's understanding of capitalism and a Marxist one.

I'm just illustrating to you what your demand that I read Zizek actually means. I'm not quote mining. It's just as far as I got and it made me give up.

 

[revol68]

So there is a deep disagreement and a shallow agreement. So why is it absolutely pertinent if it is so shallow? I don't care for this deep/shallow thing. What is the shallow parallel. It's not there anymore than the supposed deep parallel.

What is this understanding of the inner logic of capitalism. Is it really the case that the Marxist and Heidegger are both interested in the same object but happen to have different understandings of that same object?



Zizek is nothing if predictable. I'm well aware that Zizek was highlighting a commonality in order to then examine the difference. I don't really care. The commanality wasn't there. In fact the difference won't be there either. There isn't a difference there is just difference.

If you had actually read the whole chapter from The Ticklish Subject you would know that the wider point being made is that it is the failure to embrace the void at the centre of political ontology that led Heideggar to embrace the pseudo radicalism of fascism. That is that whilst he like the Marxist understood that fascism wasn't some alien evil that corrupted capitalism but rather was the product of it's inner logic, it was his failure to situate it's inner logic stemming from class struggle, and instead his holding onto the myth of an organic communality being divided by an external capitalism and it's motor 'technology' that led him to fascism. Essentially where the typical national socialist replaced a critique of a class society with the myth of the parasitical Jew banker preying on a unitary community (Germany), Heidegger replaced class society with an externalised capitalism driven by technology. The issue for both of them was their inability or reluctance to accept the absence of an organic communality.

 

[gorski]

Which [...] has the analysis of [...] with no reference to class struggle, no reference to the historical conditions, no reference to anything. Which [...] talks at such an abstract level of generality? Where? Why? What the fuck is he on about?

Actually, many a thinker and "thinker", especially philosophers in the Marx's sense of the word, would show no proper, serious, in-depth analysis of concrete circumstances, contextualising their little theory... It's much easier to try to sell any old bollocks as "Reason itself" and "no choice, no alternative" story, if you don't do it as one should......


Any old "pessimism" [or "optimism" for that matter] can be sold much easier like that... Any old politician can teach you that... And philosophers are always politicians as well... One way or another...

Critical Theory is trying to do "the right thing", though! That, one of its critics opined, puts it in an unenviable position of a dog chasing its own tail, trying to figure out how their context influenced them, while trying to think/explain/overcome the context itself...

 

[gorski]

I remember gorski telling me that science doesn't think. At least I now know where he got that from. It's scientists who think not "science" of course. And scientists can indeed think about about the philosophical foundations of their science. It's a pecululiarly obscure thing to say.

What is peculiar [but not at all obscure] is your recollection/understanding/interpretation of what I have said...

Straighten up, man...

 

[Knotted]

If you had actually read the whole chapter from The Ticklish Subject you would know that the wider point being made is that it is the failure to embrace the void at the centre of political ontology that led Heideggar to embrace the pseudo radicalism of fascism. That is that whilst he like the Marxist understood that fascism wasn't some alien evil that corrupted capitalism but rather was the product of it's inner logic, it was his failure to situate it's inner logic stemming from class struggle, and instead his holding onto the myth of an organic communality being divided by an external capitalism and it's motor 'technology' that led him to fascism. Essentially where the typical national socialist replaced a critique of a class society with the myth of the parasitical Jew banker preying on a unitary community (Germany), Heidegger replaced class society with an externalised capitalism driven by technology. The issue for both of them was their inability or reluctance to accept the absence of an organic communality.

Well I read the first few pages and I could see where it was going. Obviously Zizek wasn't interested in seeing Heidegger's philosophy as the product of Heidegger the man, rather he was interested in seeing the consequences of Heidegger's philosophy for Heidegger. An odd thing for a materialist to do, but quite normal for Nazi apologetics. I've heard all that before. Sure there were all these ex-Nazis around, and what could we do with them but give them back their old jobs etc...

Heidegger was always very right wing. His philosophy reflected his right wing views. He joined the Nazi party when they came to power. Many others did the same. There is no mystery. He also happened to be a very talented philosopher. There's no contradiction, no mystery.

 

[Knotted]

What is peculiar [but not at all obscure] is your recollection/understanding/interpretation of what I have said...

Straighten up, man...

I stand corrected.

 

[revol68]

Well I read the first few pages and I could see where it was going. Obviously Zizek wasn't interested in seeing Heidegger's philosophy as the product of Heidegger the man, rather he was interested in seeing the consequences of Heidegger's philosophy for Heidegger. An odd thing for a materialist to do, but quite normal for Nazi apologetics. I've heard all that before. Sure there were all these ex-Nazis around, and what could we do with them but give them back their old jobs etc...

Heidegger was always very right wing. His philosophy reflected his right wing views. He joined the Nazi party when they came to power. Many others did the same. There is no mystery. He also happened to be a very talented philosopher. There's no contradiction, no mystery.

This post is embarrassing, this is your rebuke of what Zizek lays out in that whole chapter? You imply Zizek is acting as an apologist for Heidegger because he seeks to locate some form of continuity between his philosophy and his Nazism, between his fixation on 'authenticity' and his celebration of Nazism as an authentic community?

your posts have descended into crude piss poor anti intellectualism now, you've had no response other than "Oh yeah, obviously I get that but like duh that's so obvious like it doesn't need saying", when infact you've misread and deliberately portrayed Zizek's argument at every junction.