Zizek: seems like a nob

[Left]

From his recent Guardian article:

In Europe, the ground floor of a building is counted as zero, so the floor above it is the first floor, while in the US, the first floor is on street level. This trivial difference indicates a profound ideological gap: Europeans are aware that, before counting starts – before decisions or choices are made – there has to be a ground of tradition, a zero level that is always already given and, as such, cannot be counted. While the US, a land with no proper historical tradition, presumes that one can begin directly with self-legislated freedom – the past is erased. What the US has to learn to take into account is the foundation of the "freedom to choose".

ffs

This kind of thing is why no one takes philosophy seriously.

 

[Mapped]

Saw that film at the LFF. I liked some of the examples and there were soe funny bits. But it was 3hrs of listening to him wittering on on-screen, and that was a bit much. We left before the Q&A. My wife hated it, she called it 'Macdonalds philosphy'

 

[butchersapron]

From his recent Guardian article:



ffs

This kind of thing is why no one takes philosophy seriously.

Can you give us some examples of stuff that would make people 'take philosophy seriously' and make a case as to why they should take philosophy seriously?

 

[Left]

Can you give us some examples of stuff that would make people 'take philosophy seriously' and make a case as to why they should take philosophy seriously?

I'm not a philosopher, but if I were I would mention the scientific method and set theory as two of philosophy's greatest achievements.

As far as contemporary philosophy goes, I can't answer your question.

 

[butchersapron]

I didn't quite ask for philosophy's greatest achievements though - i asked for the sort of 'thing' that would make people take philosophy seriously.

I didn't ask about contemporary philosophy either. I asked for an argument why people should take philosophy seriously.

 

[Left]

I don't really understand what you're getting at. I didn't say people should take philosophy seriously, I just gave an example of why many people don't.

However, given that every academic discipline has its roots in philosophy, it seems silly to dismiss it as a whole.

 

[8ball]

A certain degree of competence in logic and metaphysics is useful if you want to get to the other side of the street in one piece.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't really understand what you're getting at. I didn't say people should take philosophy seriously, I just gave an example of why many people don't.

However, given that every academic discipline has its roots in philosophy, it seems silly to dismiss it as a whole.

Ok, why and how is that an example of why many people don't take philosophy seriously?

They don't, but why would that be a good reason not to dismiss philosophy entire?

 

[8ball]

Many people don't take anything seriously bar their immediate physical needs, football, shopping and celebrity reality television programmes.

Doesn't render everything else in the world redundant.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I had written a long post about Zizek, with some references, but lost it after hitting send |:< then my attention was drawn to other topics in the thread. . .

IMO, there is no consciousness prior to the perception/use of symbols. So, closely connected with 'language', yes?

And philosophy is essential as a mode of reflection, at a certain distance from a world of fragmented disciplines whilst being relevant to many of them. Social theory stems from political philosophy, for example, and then there's immanence in physics etc.. Makes things a little bit interesting anyway.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

From his recent Guardian article:



ffs

This kind of thing is why no one takes philosophy seriously.

That extract from Zizek's article makes perfect sense within the context of the rest of the piece on Obama and the problems he had in getting a compromise deal for some basic healthcare. Taken out of context it loses its meaning. The whole article is itself set in the larger context of the serious problems of capitalism and the our understanding of it. That is a perfectly reasonable subject for philosophy, the study of ideas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/13/obama-ground-floor-thinking

 

[phildwyer]

philosophy, the study of ideas.

The love of wisdom, not ¨the study of ideas.¨ A rather different thang.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

You old Romantic you.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Chomsky slams Zizek and Lacan:

 

[articul8]

playfulness, theatricality, pleasure in the absurd - all missing in old man Chomsky.

 

[butchersapron]

Do you know why he's old?

 

[Dillinger4]

Do you know why he's old?

he has been aged by the weight of his knowledge.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Chomsky slams Zizek and Lacan:

Interviewer not quite able to think on his feet - he'd already covered the second question in his answer to the first.

I think quite a lot of people take Zizek seriously in an attempt not to look stupid, but then when challenged to say what they get from Zizek, they are suddenly confronted by the opposite problem. The interviewer dodged Chomsky's own question in that regard.

 

[Knotted]

playfulness, theatricality, pleasure in the absurd - all missing in old man Chomsky.

Present in Tim Vine though.

 

[audiotech]

Zizek understands perfectly well and puts across clearly that it's a crisis of captalism and those who think to make it any "purer", as some were arguing in the Communist bloc about the Communist system back in his youthful days will not solve the crisis this way. It's the logic of the system that's the problem. Furthermore, he's honest and pessimistic and sees no way out, but notes that 'capitalism has "enormous elasticity" to push its way through a crisis'. His conclusion? 'To see what happens, but neither the market, nor the state will bring a solution. Humanity will have to Invent a new way of living. with "solidarity and discipline"'. He also rightly attacks the moralistic answers to complex issues that the "left" put forward, nevertheless 'it's only the radical left that can provide a "good theory" to what went wrong with Communism'. "The left will have to begin from the beginning" and that is the "problem" he argues. In comparison, I'm not clear on what Chomsky says about what to do now and in the future?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Humanity will have to Invent a new way of living. with "solidarity and discipline"'.

Sounds as empty and vacuous as Che Guevara's 'New Man'.

Problem with 'let's see what happens' is that we are not outsiders to the process. We are within it. By adopting an attitude of wait and see, you are affecting the outcome.

 

[audiotech]

In Brazil in April of this year on the 'limits and contradictions of capitalism and the renewal of communism'. He opens with criticisms of Chavez, Chomsky's friend, and notes that Chavez died on the very day that Stalin died:

 

[butchersapron]

In Brazil in April of this year on the 'limits and contradictions of capitalism and the renewal of communism'. He opens with criticisms of Chavez, Chomsky's friend, and notes that Chavez died on the very day that Stalin died:

Chavez's friend? You might want to check that.

 

[audiotech]

Sounds as empty and vacuous as Che Guevara's 'New Man'.

Problem with 'let's see what happens' is that we are not outsiders to the process. We are within it. By adopting an attitude of wait and see, you are affecting the outcome.

On the contrary, Zizek recognizes that class struggle continues and today also the large demonstrations taking place world-wide, but 'no organised movement exists', nevertheless, he argues for spaces now to act and to, as stated, for the radical left ("problematic" admittedly) to have a discourse on what went wrong with Communism and to begin from the beginning. To organise at a local level for the widest possible participation of local people and communities, to discuss things, organise themselves etc. Warns against being "pushed towards violence", which he see's as a "sign of impotence".

Edit: Neolibralism is "not homogeneous", nor omnipotent and you do not have to "obey". Again, 'spaces exist within the present global system, so think and do something.'

 

[audiotech]

Chavez's friend? You might want to check that.

I did take that as stated, if that's Zizek "posturing" then I'll accept this.

 

[Frumious B.]

He's overrated. He doesn't care for blowjobs or bumsex. The same shortcoming of that other great thinker the Dalai Lama. As he said to the Telegraph, "one hole, not three".

 

[articul8]

Do you know why he's old?

Is this a gag set up? No, tell me, why is he old....?

 

[butchersapron]

Because he was born in 1928.

 

[Pickman's model]

In Brazil in April of this year on the 'limits and contradictions of capitalism and the renewal of communism'. He opens with criticisms of Chavez, Chomsky's friend, and notes that Chavez died on the very day that Stalin died:

not wanting to piss on your parade but stalin died in 1953 and chavez didn't.

 

[audiotech]

Well shiver me timbers, same day and month as, Ioseb Besarionis je J̌uḡašvili, different year. a number 3 in both years.