Zizek: seems like a nob

[littlebabyjesus]

At the risk of over generalising - that's what continental philosophy tends to do, it glorifies the reader's prejudices.

That makes sense to me. Continental philosophy seems to me to be aiming at some kind of poetic truth, to be alluding towards something through metaphor. Perhaps that's why I keep not getting it - I don't expect that from philosophy. I expect something more rigorous, something Kant would approve.

So, for instance, when I hear a term like 'cracked reality', I expect something to do with theoretical physics. When I discover that it isn't a discussion at that level, I'm left wondering what kind of thing is under discussion, and discover that it appears to be a rather trivial thing, not to do with the ultimate nature of reality at all.

 

[Knotted]

So, for instance, when I hear a term like 'cracked reality', I expect something to do with theoretical physics.

I think it is something to do with theoretical physics. Zizek does discuss quantum mechanics (not very well it should be said) and he does like the Copenhagen interpretation and he does like the idea that reality is in some sense incomplete (like a computer game where the programmer has not worked out the unnecessary details) and yes this is an instance of pushing god bothering as politically radical.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In some ways that makes it even worse. Quantum mechanics - wooooooo.

Our access to 'reality' may be incomplete, but that's not the same as saying that reality itself is incomplete. I don't know, but I'd guess he's making the mistake of thinking of our perception as reality. Kant put that one to bed.

Mind you, Penrose thinks a similar thing, doesn't he, that the non-algorithmic nature of our thinking is rooted in quantum-level phenomena. As far as I know, he's never properly explained how, though. It's more of a hunch than anything else.

 

[revol68]

Our access to 'reality' may be incomplete, but that's not the same as saying that reality itself is incomplete. I don't know, but I'd guess he's making the mistake of thinking of our perception as reality. Kant put that one to bed.

I'm pretty certain Zizek is aware of such arguments...

why don't you actually read him instead of making such daft claims.

 

[Knotted]

Our access to 'reality' may be incomplete, but that's not the same as saying that reality itself is incomplete. I don't know, but I'd guess he's making the mistake of thinking of our perception as reality. Kant put that one to bed.

That's more or less right. It's Heisenberg's positivism (what we can measure is what is real) versus Bohr's more subtle neo-Kantianism. I can't remember what Zizek's position is exactly - but I do remember he hadn't grasped all the subtleties in any case.

Mind you, Penrose thinks a similar thing, doesn't he, that the non-algorithmic nature of our thinking is rooted in quantum-level phenomena. As far as I know, he's never properly explained how, though. It's more of a hunch than anything else.

I think you're mixing things up. Penrose is a realist who argues against the Copenhagen interpretation. Whether reality can be simulated algorithmically or not does not affect it's real character. The physics part of Penrose's argument is plausible, it's the biology part that's extremely dodgy.

 

[Knotted]

I should say that the nature of quantum mechanics and the question of determinism have no social or political consequences. These are questions of physics not politics. It's just silly to bring them up as part of a political/social theory.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm pretty certain Zizek is aware of such arguments...

why don't you actually read him instead of making such daft claims.

To clarify, the ideas as presented on this thread make no sense to me. Can you explain what he means by 'reality'?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I should say that the nature of quantum mechanics and the question of determinism have no social or political consequences. These are questions of physics not politics. It's just silly to bring them up as part of a political/social theory.

I agree.

 

[revol68]

I agree.

Zizek doesn't, he's pretty clear that he uses them only in a metaphorical sense, infact he's scathing of new age twats who seek to justify their shite through vague appeals to quantum physics.

Also regarding Zizek's idea of reality, it's not the Kantian thing in itself, quite the opposite, it's the world of knowledge, of constituted truths, ofcourse as a good Hegelian he is also interested in false truths, in what is true in them.For him reality is not some immediate thing that we seek to grasp but is actually always already mediated. Truth and reality aren't about stripping away layers to get at some unmediated thing in itself but rather are active processes.

 

[articul8]

There is a difference between 'the Real' and "reality" for Zizek though? The Real seems quite close to the Kantian noumenal tbf?

 

[revol68]

There is a difference between 'the Real' and "reality" for Zizek though? The Real seems quite close to the Kantian noumenal tbf?

that's kind of been my point, lbj has been treating Zizek's idea of reality for a thing in itself.

I don't think the real can be reduced to the thing in itself either, rather the real is the gap between the two, which is felt as a kind of symptom, a disruption of reality. In this way Zizek manages to engage with the richness of post structuralism without lapsing into an overegged textualism.

 

[love detective]

that's kind of been my point, lbj has been treating Zizek's idea of reality for a thing in itself.

He hasn't actually - quite the reverse in fact - he suggested that Zizek is 'making the mistake of thinking of our perception as reality' - which in Kantian terms is the 'opposite' of the thing in itself/noumenon, i.e. the phenomenon

In fact what lbj was getting at in terms of what he thinks Zizek thinks is reality is very similar to what you say below, i.e. it's a mediated thing, a synthesis of what is given to us via the senses and what we do with it via understanding/concepts/processing, something that we actually create for ourselves within ourselves (i.e. in the Kantian notion of how we produce our own experience, rather than it being wholey 'given' to us from outside)

Also regarding Zizek's idea of reality, it's not the Kantian thing in itself, quite the opposite, it's the world of knowledge, of constituted truths, ofcourse as a good Hegelian he is also interested in false truths, in what is true in them.For him reality is not some immediate thing that we seek to grasp but is actually always already mediated

So I would say what you have said there about Zizek, backs up LBJ's guess at what Zizek is all about. I can't comment much about Zizek as i've not read much of him, I have read a lot of Kant though - much more useful than hanging about on Zizek's coattails I would say

In this way Zizek manages to engage with the richness of post structuralism without lapsing into an overegged textualism.

i'll ask once again, to what end?

 

[revol68]

He hasn't actually - quite the reverse in fact - he suggested that Zizek is 'making the mistake of thinking of our perception as reality' - which in Kantian terms is the 'opposite' of the thing in itself/noumenon, i.e. the phenomenon

In fact what lbj was getting at in terms of what he thinks Zizek thinks is reality is very similar to what you say below, i.e. it's a mediated thing, a synthesis of what is given to us via the senses and what we do with it via understanding/concepts/processing, something that we actually create for ourselves within ourselves (i.e. in the Kantian notion of how we produce our own experience, rather than it being wholey 'given' to us from outside)



So I would say what you have said there about Zizek, backs up LBJ's guess at what Zizek is all about. I can't comment much about Zizek as i've not read much of him, I have read a lot of Kant though - much more useful than hanging about on Zizek's coattails I would say



i'll ask once again, to what end?

I mean he is mistaking Zizek's discussion of "reality" for a discussion for the thing in itself, hence him finding it absurd that Zizek can talk about gaps in reality etc.

The fact he suggests Zizek is making the error of mistaking our perception of reality is to really miss Zizek's point and absurdly suggest that Zizek is some sort of idiot unaware of the distinction. On the contrary Zizek is well aware of such a distinction and his whole point is to try and examine the relationship between them.

I mean do you think someone as well versed in german idealism isn't aware of Kant's argument, do you think Kant is the final word on such matters or rather opens a massive can of worms that continues on in Hegel, through Marx and on into the post structuralism.

As to what end, well Zizek is quite modest in what he thinks the role of such philosophising is, but certainly I think his own arguments are to resurrect a concept of subjectivity or the possibility of agency and radical action against the whole death of the subject proclaimed by post structuralism, and any concept of universalism, which was cast out as merely cover for euro/male centrism.

Do I think such arguments and debates are vital for TEH REVOLUTION!!!11!, of course not, neither is tight readings of Capital but they are interesting in themselves and can often help to throw new light on concrete issues.

 

[revol68]

basically Zizek is trying to rehabilitate the notion of subjectivity, to address it's deconstruction yet maintain the kernel of it, that of the possibility for radical action. He's basically busting out Marx's Theses on Feuerbach for modern readers and I reckon if you read a bit more of him you'd like him, he's pretty self deprecating about intellectuals and philosophy in general and a strong defender of science against those post structuralists who would reduce to just another form of power/knowledge.

 

[love detective]

I mean he is mistaking Zizek's discussion of "reality" for a discussion for the thing in itself, hence him finding it absurd that Zizek can talk about gaps in reality etc.

as i said in the last post, no he isn't - no one but you has mentioned the thing in itself though, lbj hasn't even inferred it from anything he's said

The fact he suggests Zizek is making the error of mistaking our perception of reality is to really miss Zizek's point

Not being funny, but what is Zizek's point? Ideally summed up in plain english if possible

As to what end, well Zizek is quite modest in what he thinks the role of such philosophising is, but certainly I think his own arguments are to resurrect a concept of subjectivity or the possibility of agency and radical action against the whole death of the subject proclaimed by post structuralism, and any concept of universalism, which was cast out as merely cover for euro/male centrism.

so basically he's arguing we can do stuff?

Do I think such arguments and debates are vital for TEH REVOLUTION!!!11!, of course not....but they are interesting in themselves and can often help to throw new light on concrete issues.

do you have a concrete example of an issue that Zizek's work has thrown new light on?

edit: posted the above before seeing your last post - also above comes across as a bit confrontational, just playing devils advocate a bit to try and get behind all the fuss

 

[butchersapron]

He is a fucking knob though, them idiots at his feet at that all night event like some pathetic black cows. He birthed them and then he milked them.

 

[love detective]

and he thinks they're idiots like the rest of us

 

[butchersapron]

Zizek - milk is made at night.

 

[revol68]

as i said in the last post, no he isn't - no one but you has mentioned the thing in itself though, lbj hasn't even inferred it from anything he's said



Not being funny, but what is Zizek's point? Ideally summed up in plain english if possible



so basically he's arguing we can do stuff?



do you have a concrete example of an issue that Zizek's work has thrown new light on?

LBJ said he finds Zizek's talk of gaps in reality and such absurd, which I replied to by pointing out that "reality" for Zizek is used in a specific manner, it is the world of our knowledge, senses and perception, it isn't some objective thing in itself.

LBJ replied by suggesting Zizek had made the error of mistaking how things are for how we perceive/come to know them, which is just a tad arrogant a suggestion, as if Zizek is some utter cretin unaware of such a distinction.

Well he's arguing we can do stuff that can radically change the political and social world, that emanicpatory politics are possible and not condemned to merely reproduce systems of power and domination. Furthermore he argues that such a radical and universal project is vital whilst the proliferation of various identity politics and single issues actually serve to maintain late capitalism, stuck as they are within it's base assumptions, at best tweaking various things around the edges without confronting capitalism at it's core, namely class struggle.

Well he has written some very good critiques of multiculturalism, humanitarian interventions and the inverted racism of liberalism, as well asa whole ton of other issues. He also engages quite a bit in the whole value form discussion in a couple of his books and tears apart the claims about structural antisemitism.

On many other things he also talks some shite eg Chavez and other leftist crap, but he's still an interesting writer and I find it odd not to mention pretty petty minded to be asked to justify a writer on the basis of "to what end", frankly it's crude, utilitarian bollocks and I can only imagine you are engaging in it to live up to your dour Scottish calvinist image .

 

[revol68]

He is a fucking knob though, them idiots at his feet at that all night event like some pathetic black cows. He birthed them and then he milked them.

I'm pretty certain he would admit to loathing them.

 

[revol68]

Zizek - milk is made at night.

only after the owl minerva has taken flight.

 

[Knotted]

Zizek doesn't, he's pretty clear that he uses them only in a metaphorical sense, infact he's scathing of new age twats who seek to justify their shite through vague appeals to quantum physics.

I don't think he uses quantum mechanics to directly justify his claims but he uses it to illustrate and exemplify his claims. I think that's how he operates in general and this is precisely the problem - he theorises like an orientalist. If you treat his ideas as proper theories and look at his claims and his evidence and what is explained by his theories then it all evaporates. It is rather predictions and characterisations based on pithy pronoucements sexed up by references to exotic (usually Lacanian or Hegelian) wisdom. Strip all the crap out and you are left with just the pithy pronoucements (and that's fine - they're quite good as far as they go). What he does is propagandise for a certain point of view. He uses Stalin's old trick, the amalgam, to make his philosophical opponents look compromised. This may appear to be some sort of Hegelian dialectical brilliance - it isn't it's Stalinistic propagandising brilliance. This is why revol brings up new age nonsense. It's because Zizek hits "scientistic" ways of looking at the world with the amalgam - look at what happened to David Bohm etc.

Also regarding Zizek's idea of reality, it's not the Kantian thing in itself, quite the opposite, it's the world of knowledge, of constituted truths, ofcourse as a good Hegelian he is also interested in false truths, in what is true in them.For him reality is not some immediate thing that we seek to grasp but is actually always already mediated. Truth and reality aren't about stripping away layers to get at some unmediated thing in itself but rather are active processes.

The thing that strikes me most about Zizek is how little interest he has in truth and reality. He's an atheist but the lack of a God is just a stupid fact, so let's talk theology. Is that Hegelian? I don't think so. In temperament it's the opposite of Hegel. It's an unresolved contradiction - having your cake and eating it. Hegel is almost fanatical in trying to resolve contradictions and put everything in order in one giant absolute whole. Despite Hegel's reputation he's very no nonsense but Zizek's a playful wee scamp. [Is temperament important to philosophy or is philosophy more about content than temper? I think philosophy is very much about temperament - different philosophers will see the same thing in different ways, with different moods.]

Zizek eclipses his influences. He "does violence" to them - which is basically Heidegger's sexed up term for "abusing for my own purposes".

 

[revol68]

also I like him cos he sticks the boot into the Frankfurt School for abandoning class struggle in favour of wankky critiques of instrumental reason and such.

only problem is now half the wankers who he was railing against who were stuck with their head up their arses reading Adbusters and misreading the Situations are now hanging off him, the cunts.

 

[love detective]

baby owl of minerva

 

[revol68]

I don't think he uses quantum mechanics to directly justify his claims but he uses it to illustrate and exemplify his claims. I think that's how he operates in general and this is precisely the problem - he theorises like an orientalist. If you treat his ideas as proper theories and look at his claims and his evidence and what is explained by his theories then it all evaporates. It is rather predictions and characterisations based on pithy pronoucements sexed up by references to exotic (usually Lacanian or Hegelian) wisdom. Strip all the crap out and you are left with just the pithy pronoucements (and that's fine - they're quite good as far as they go). What he does is propagandise for a certain point of view. He uses Stalin's old trick, the amalgam, to make his philosophical opponents look compromised. This may appear to be some sort of Hegelian dialectical brilliance - it isn't it's Stalinistic propagandising brilliance. This is why revol brings up new age nonsense. It's because Zizek hits "scientistic" ways of looking at the world with the amalgam - look at what happened to David Bohm etc.



The thing that strikes me most about Zizek is how little interest he has in truth and reality. He's an atheist but the lack of a God is just a stupid fact, so let's talk theology. Is that Hegelian? I don't think so. In temperament it's the opposite of Hegel. It's an unresolved contradiction - having your cake and eating it. Hegel is almost fanatical in trying to resolve contradictions and put everything in order in one giant absolute whole. Despite Hegel's reputation he's very no nonsense but Zizek's a playful wee scamp. [Is temperament important to philosophy or is philosophy more about content than temper? I think philosophy is very much about temperament - different philosophers will see the same thing in different ways, with different moods.]

Zizek eclipses his influences. He "does violence" to them - which is basically Heidegger's sexed up term for "abusing for my own purposes".

Zizek has never denied arguing from a specific point of view, infact he proudly proclaims it, on the contrary attacking those who refuse to come to admit their own ideology.

Your claim Zizek has little interest in truth and reality is baffling, i'd suggest it's the core of his work, and one of his longstanding projects is to rehabilitate a concept of truth that is neither frozen into some crude objective TRUTH or reduced to inane relativism, which is why for all his differences with Badiou he has respect for him. It's also why Zizek has been banging on about a return to Plato for quite some time. The only way you would imagine Zizek has little interest in truth, reality or fully examining contradictions is if you're knowledge of him was a couple of essays, video clips and some lectures. If you read his main books you'd recognise straight away that what made him stand out from the rest of the post structuralist academia was his concern for truth, for universalism and subjective agency.

 

[revol68]

I'm also aware this thread is making me look like some sort of Zizek fan boi, and that's annoying cos I think he's wrong on a great deal of things, just not the things people seem to be taking issue with him on in this thread.

 

[love detective]

Well he's arguing we can do stuff that can radically change the political and social world, that emanicpatory politics are possible and not condemned to merely reproduce systems of power and domination. Furthermore he argues that such a radical and universal project is vital whilst the proliferation of various identity politics and single issues actually serve to maintain late capitalism, stuck as they are within it's base assumptions, at best tweaking various things around the edges without confronting capitalism at it's core, namely class struggle.

but what's so profound or even novel about this? why do we need him to say what plenty others before him have said far more coherently and succinctly

I find it odd not to mention pretty petty minded to be asked to justify a writer on the basis of "to what end", frankly it's crude, utilitarian bollocks and I can only imagine you are engaging in it to live up to your dour Scottish calvinist image .

Well to be fair when i first asked to 'to what end' it was in response to a post of yours that said this:-

Zizek is attempting to bring back a kind of zombie cartesian subject in order to move political philosophy out of the navel gazing quietism brought on by the infinite loop of knowledge/power.

This is why Zizek for all his wank about Chavez or other leftist crap is the fucking daddy.

So you were setting him up as the 'fucking daddy' - you were saying he was attempting to do something, that seemed to me you saw as something particularly profound/revolutionary/novel/unique/useful (i.e. a move away from naval gazing), so in that context I find it a bit odd, not to mention pretty contradictory, that when challenged on what the purpose of him doing this was, the discussion slips back to something which suggests that to ask what the purpose of that something is, is crude utilitarian bollocks. You put him forward as attempting to do something that sounded like you thought useful, so I was merely asking you why you thought it was so and for what purpose he was doing it, and what so unique/novel/profound about it

 

[butchersapron]

also I like him cos he sticks the boot into the Frankfurt School for abandoning class struggle in favour of wankky critiques of instrumental reason and such.

only problem is now half the wankers who he was railing against who were stuck with their head up their arses reading Adbusters and misreading the Situations are now hanging off him, the cunts.

Well you've now got the other one defending a reading that is just frankfurt school.

 

[love detective]

It's also why Zizek has been banging on about a return to Plato for quite some time.

Yeah we need more Philosopher Kings

 

[Knotted]

You confuse interest in the theory of truth with interest in the truth itself. I think Zizek wants to theorise a form of non-relativistic reality which we have access to which is nevertheless quite unimportant and plays second fiddle to some sort of theological/Lacanian/Hegelian psychoscape (my words no Zizek's). It's very striking - you should watch some of his brilliant youtubery and put down his bloody awful books. He's very expressive - which as I say I think is very important in philosophy.

I think this is the reason why his politics falls so short of any satisfactory revolutionary outlook. Reality is where the fucking pain is. The fluffy stuff about Jesus is just escapism.