People, check out this Lucid and enticing essay. My own opposition to Zizek is entirely attitudinal, notional, unsystematic and probably unfair. I don't like bad manners and bad politics, simple as that, and all I really hear there that I resonate with so far is Lacan. But I try to follow and I try to understand. This is a clarification and a parti prise that gives me some purchase. I very much want to hear other people engage with it, especially those who really love Zizek, l ike my colleages at Philosophpy Portal and Theory Underground. I think there may be more to Z's repetition than this but I can't see it myself. Bear of very little brain here. So thank you for this, Rafael, and let the games begin.
I repent about Zizek. I just listened and will listen again to his talk on Job and ideology on YouTube and I disagree with much, especially the devolution of the Holy Spirit into a mere collective but I also found much to learn from and much to admire, Including a capacity for compassion I had not seen. I don’t know why my affection for bad boys did not kick in here previously but I am calling it in now. Apologies Slavoj . I wasn’t listening.
It appears to me that there are category errors in your reading of Žižek, and indeed the entire psychoanalytic edifice upon which his mode of enquiry is based.
Far from Žižek’s Event, as you argue, being “constitutively closed off to itself” I regard it as terrifyingly (sometimes tragically? Irreconcilably? Horrifically?) open to itself, often vertiginous in its depths, but not logically incomplete/incompletable. The symbolic register for such an Event is the orifice, the wound, the cunt, the cave, the labyrinth, the inferno, etc. But not the endless abyss or infinite regress; not a mis-en-a byme of infinite fracture, fragmentation or projection.
In my reading of Žižek, I come via Lacan-in-proximity-to-surrealism, with reference to other psychoanalytic thought and marxisms. The idea of the Contra, of contradiction, is not based in simple oppositional forces, binary or obverse difference (‘Big Difference’ you might say) but the contrary (the non-identical, you might say). It is the contrary that opens to the possibility of slippage, Bataille’s idea of the informe. This nuance is huge in the way we understand negation.
To be fair, the conversation is meaningless, irrelevant, and contributes nothing significant to the world, unless high verbal iq wordcel games are significant.
We know how he receives taxpayers' money for no work. He admited that and cynically said how stupid the state is. In Slovenia, he is known as an extremely crooked person.
Zizek fails to understand absence as the interiority of excess, and lack as the phenomenology of saturated relation. Its annoying and totally misinterprets hegel, specifically Logic.
"Ainsi, presque tout est imitation. L'idée des Lettres persanes est prise de celle de l'Espion turc. Le Boiardo a imité le Pulci, l'Arioste a imité le Boiardo. Les esprits les plus originaux empruntent les uns des autres. Michel Cervantes fait un fou de son don Quichotte; mais Roland est-il autre chose qu'un fou? Il serait difficile de décider si la chevalerie errante est plus tournée en ridicule par les peintures grotesques de Cervantes que par la féconde imagination de l'Arioste. Métastase a pris la plupart de ses opéras dans nos tragédies françaises. Plusieurs auteurs anglais nous ont copiés, et n'en ont rien dit. Il en est des livres comme du feu de nos foyers; on va prendre ce feu chez son voisin, on l'allume chez soi, on le communique à d'autres, et il appartient à tous."
Perhaps this erudite essay on Zizek's repetition compulsion qua post-Marxist philosophy, would have a made for an interesting segue into Chatgpt as a Deleuzian difference/repetition machine, as is all translation, etc, etc. Philosophers as varied as Bergson, Benjamin, Derrida,, and indeed Zizek have hinted at an intuitive belief in the reality of naturally occurring telepathy. In the latter's case another form, perhaps the defining form, of repetition become difference, a sort confessional compulsion that, whether as pseudo telepathy or telepathy tout court hints at the primeval origins of human communication and perhaps extending to primate mentality as well. This was ostensibly said by Talleyrand, but would it not have suited Nietzsche or indeed Socrates up to Wittgenstein and beyond, albeit for differing reasons?: "La parole a été donnée à l’homme pour déguiser sa pensée." Not least of all from himself? So that truth, as parole, itself becomes a sort of non-collapsible unvanquishable miracle, not so dissimilar from the true movement of subatomic particles according to theories of quantum physics?
For the record, Difference does not ‘a priori’ precede Identity (Deleuze) nor is everything different from itself just because it has to be different to everything ‘else’ to be anything at all (Hegel); identity and difference are ‘a priori’ two sides of the same coin, opposite but complementary ways of expressing the same Law (of identity). This is precisely the point at which Hegel erred, misconstruing the basic logic of double negation as incomplete negation, which reduces much of his system to triviality (at best): that everything is part of the same world, and changes in time.
It is true, as most Hegelian scholars are coming to realise, that Hegel indeed avows a certain internal contradiction to being itself, its self-negating formula. It is therefore likely that it is Deleuze who is most clearly mistaken on the topic of Hegel (which is fathomable considering that he barely cites Hegel, and that his knowledge of Hegelian philosophy would be plagued by the excessive oversimplification of Kojève’s version of Hegel). Yet Žižek does not acknowledge this discrepancy, but rather remains duped as the the meaning of his own reading of Hegel, or to the fact that Žižek’s Hegel could be nearly anyone else’s philosophy (suggested by his endless tendency to performatively agree with his opponents, even the most reactionary ones, in debates). This is undoubtedly one of the greatest problems with Žižek: he seems to misunderstand the very essence of the repetition he deploys, or more precisely to deprive this deployment of any essential internal logic.
I don't follow here - isn't it generally accepted that it's on account of Zizek that 'most Hegelian scholars' are coming to accept that Hegel 'avows a certain internal contradiction to being itself' - and if so, how can it be that Zizek doesn't acknowledge 'the discrepancy' (or by discrepancy you mean Deleuze's misreading of Hegel?). The fact that Zizek's Hegel 'could be nearly anyone's philosophy' also seems to 'contradict' Zizek's own influence on the transformation of Hegel studies (to focus on the internal contradictory), and I'm not sure his 'debate agreement strategy' is significant - as you note, it's performative, and I think quite specific Hegelian (in that one feature of the arguments 'in the Hegelian' mode is a kind of psychotic inclusivity - but that very inclusivity is very specific - both to Hegel and Zizek -
None of his meandering speeches have ever made sense to me. One could accuse me of “just not getting it, man,” but the best ideas are the most easily communicated and readily understood. If your words can’t move the masses, then they’re just intricate noise.
I don't think the engagement with reactionary politics is an ignorance on Z's part, but rather a commitment to an aspect of his Hegelianism, through which dialectics is understood and acted out by taking the "other side" seriously and undermining it by its own grounds. Perhaps this is an overly biased take as someone who was pulled out of the depths of neo-Jungian conservatism/liberalism years ago primarily through the influence of Z's engagement with Jordan Peterson, but to me it seems like an philosophically sound and politically radical practice that is underappreciated by the general Left, at least in United States. Why play into the conservative caricatures of Leftism when you can engage with them in such a way that your position will be respected enough to actually be considered? Let me know if you think I'm wrong, though.
There’s a sentence here about the event as mathematico-ontologically grounded series as opposed to the event as supplement that begins with a modifying phrase that doesn’t refer to its subject. Nonsense is terrorism
I would have an issue with Rafael’s criticism about Zizek’s lack of internal logic in his repetition. The way Zizek sees the world (according to my Zizek reading) is patalogical. The way he structures his philosophy is not offering a new series to the world but always castrate it through thinking between this pathalogical holes. So he doesnt offer any solution but he offers a logic though. I call it Left. Everything he does (from his basic ethics, to critics of nerolink, or his engagement with modern science today) is a project to rething the LEFT in a broader sense. The only non liberal and non conservative solution is to involve in asking the question of left ( and yet it is still question ). The answers carry its weight. And Zizek doing good so far to re-present (not represent) the left today.
If I had anytime for this guy, the convoluted subject of your post, I am sure I would agree with your take on him till your last word. But I decided long ago that there is nothing to gain by attempting to follow Zizek’s pseudo-Hegelian emcumbrance of torturous writing. Since I have no time for him, I wish your take on him is a take-down.
He doesnt show enough skin
People, check out this Lucid and enticing essay. My own opposition to Zizek is entirely attitudinal, notional, unsystematic and probably unfair. I don't like bad manners and bad politics, simple as that, and all I really hear there that I resonate with so far is Lacan. But I try to follow and I try to understand. This is a clarification and a parti prise that gives me some purchase. I very much want to hear other people engage with it, especially those who really love Zizek, l ike my colleages at Philosophpy Portal and Theory Underground. I think there may be more to Z's repetition than this but I can't see it myself. Bear of very little brain here. So thank you for this, Rafael, and let the games begin.
I repent about Zizek. I just listened and will listen again to his talk on Job and ideology on YouTube and I disagree with much, especially the devolution of the Holy Spirit into a mere collective but I also found much to learn from and much to admire, Including a capacity for compassion I had not seen. I don’t know why my affection for bad boys did not kick in here previously but I am calling it in now. Apologies Slavoj . I wasn’t listening.
It appears to me that there are category errors in your reading of Žižek, and indeed the entire psychoanalytic edifice upon which his mode of enquiry is based.
Far from Žižek’s Event, as you argue, being “constitutively closed off to itself” I regard it as terrifyingly (sometimes tragically? Irreconcilably? Horrifically?) open to itself, often vertiginous in its depths, but not logically incomplete/incompletable. The symbolic register for such an Event is the orifice, the wound, the cunt, the cave, the labyrinth, the inferno, etc. But not the endless abyss or infinite regress; not a mis-en-a byme of infinite fracture, fragmentation or projection.
In my reading of Žižek, I come via Lacan-in-proximity-to-surrealism, with reference to other psychoanalytic thought and marxisms. The idea of the Contra, of contradiction, is not based in simple oppositional forces, binary or obverse difference (‘Big Difference’ you might say) but the contrary (the non-identical, you might say). It is the contrary that opens to the possibility of slippage, Bataille’s idea of the informe. This nuance is huge in the way we understand negation.
Most people here in Slovenia don‘t really know much about his work lol
That contributes nothing to this conversation lol
It's just a remark to calling it "A Slovenian End to Ontology and Politics"
But I guess it's to be expected when a country has few world-famous people. I dunno.
To be fair, the conversation is meaningless, irrelevant, and contributes nothing significant to the world, unless high verbal iq wordcel games are significant.
We know how he receives taxpayers' money for no work. He admited that and cynically said how stupid the state is. In Slovenia, he is known as an extremely crooked person.
Zizek fails to understand absence as the interiority of excess, and lack as the phenomenology of saturated relation. Its annoying and totally misinterprets hegel, specifically Logic.
"Ainsi, presque tout est imitation. L'idée des Lettres persanes est prise de celle de l'Espion turc. Le Boiardo a imité le Pulci, l'Arioste a imité le Boiardo. Les esprits les plus originaux empruntent les uns des autres. Michel Cervantes fait un fou de son don Quichotte; mais Roland est-il autre chose qu'un fou? Il serait difficile de décider si la chevalerie errante est plus tournée en ridicule par les peintures grotesques de Cervantes que par la féconde imagination de l'Arioste. Métastase a pris la plupart de ses opéras dans nos tragédies françaises. Plusieurs auteurs anglais nous ont copiés, et n'en ont rien dit. Il en est des livres comme du feu de nos foyers; on va prendre ce feu chez son voisin, on l'allume chez soi, on le communique à d'autres, et il appartient à tous."
Perhaps this erudite essay on Zizek's repetition compulsion qua post-Marxist philosophy, would have a made for an interesting segue into Chatgpt as a Deleuzian difference/repetition machine, as is all translation, etc, etc. Philosophers as varied as Bergson, Benjamin, Derrida,, and indeed Zizek have hinted at an intuitive belief in the reality of naturally occurring telepathy. In the latter's case another form, perhaps the defining form, of repetition become difference, a sort confessional compulsion that, whether as pseudo telepathy or telepathy tout court hints at the primeval origins of human communication and perhaps extending to primate mentality as well. This was ostensibly said by Talleyrand, but would it not have suited Nietzsche or indeed Socrates up to Wittgenstein and beyond, albeit for differing reasons?: "La parole a été donnée à l’homme pour déguiser sa pensée." Not least of all from himself? So that truth, as parole, itself becomes a sort of non-collapsible unvanquishable miracle, not so dissimilar from the true movement of subatomic particles according to theories of quantum physics?
For the record, Difference does not ‘a priori’ precede Identity (Deleuze) nor is everything different from itself just because it has to be different to everything ‘else’ to be anything at all (Hegel); identity and difference are ‘a priori’ two sides of the same coin, opposite but complementary ways of expressing the same Law (of identity). This is precisely the point at which Hegel erred, misconstruing the basic logic of double negation as incomplete negation, which reduces much of his system to triviality (at best): that everything is part of the same world, and changes in time.
It is true, as most Hegelian scholars are coming to realise, that Hegel indeed avows a certain internal contradiction to being itself, its self-negating formula. It is therefore likely that it is Deleuze who is most clearly mistaken on the topic of Hegel (which is fathomable considering that he barely cites Hegel, and that his knowledge of Hegelian philosophy would be plagued by the excessive oversimplification of Kojève’s version of Hegel). Yet Žižek does not acknowledge this discrepancy, but rather remains duped as the the meaning of his own reading of Hegel, or to the fact that Žižek’s Hegel could be nearly anyone else’s philosophy (suggested by his endless tendency to performatively agree with his opponents, even the most reactionary ones, in debates). This is undoubtedly one of the greatest problems with Žižek: he seems to misunderstand the very essence of the repetition he deploys, or more precisely to deprive this deployment of any essential internal logic.
I don't follow here - isn't it generally accepted that it's on account of Zizek that 'most Hegelian scholars' are coming to accept that Hegel 'avows a certain internal contradiction to being itself' - and if so, how can it be that Zizek doesn't acknowledge 'the discrepancy' (or by discrepancy you mean Deleuze's misreading of Hegel?). The fact that Zizek's Hegel 'could be nearly anyone's philosophy' also seems to 'contradict' Zizek's own influence on the transformation of Hegel studies (to focus on the internal contradictory), and I'm not sure his 'debate agreement strategy' is significant - as you note, it's performative, and I think quite specific Hegelian (in that one feature of the arguments 'in the Hegelian' mode is a kind of psychotic inclusivity - but that very inclusivity is very specific - both to Hegel and Zizek -
This is gibberish
Please do tell me more
None of his meandering speeches have ever made sense to me. One could accuse me of “just not getting it, man,” but the best ideas are the most easily communicated and readily understood. If your words can’t move the masses, then they’re just intricate noise.
At first I thought this was a parody of his writing
I don't think the engagement with reactionary politics is an ignorance on Z's part, but rather a commitment to an aspect of his Hegelianism, through which dialectics is understood and acted out by taking the "other side" seriously and undermining it by its own grounds. Perhaps this is an overly biased take as someone who was pulled out of the depths of neo-Jungian conservatism/liberalism years ago primarily through the influence of Z's engagement with Jordan Peterson, but to me it seems like an philosophically sound and politically radical practice that is underappreciated by the general Left, at least in United States. Why play into the conservative caricatures of Leftism when you can engage with them in such a way that your position will be respected enough to actually be considered? Let me know if you think I'm wrong, though.
There’s a sentence here about the event as mathematico-ontologically grounded series as opposed to the event as supplement that begins with a modifying phrase that doesn’t refer to its subject. Nonsense is terrorism
I would have an issue with Rafael’s criticism about Zizek’s lack of internal logic in his repetition. The way Zizek sees the world (according to my Zizek reading) is patalogical. The way he structures his philosophy is not offering a new series to the world but always castrate it through thinking between this pathalogical holes. So he doesnt offer any solution but he offers a logic though. I call it Left. Everything he does (from his basic ethics, to critics of nerolink, or his engagement with modern science today) is a project to rething the LEFT in a broader sense. The only non liberal and non conservative solution is to involve in asking the question of left ( and yet it is still question ). The answers carry its weight. And Zizek doing good so far to re-present (not represent) the left today.
If I had anytime for this guy, the convoluted subject of your post, I am sure I would agree with your take on him till your last word. But I decided long ago that there is nothing to gain by attempting to follow Zizek’s pseudo-Hegelian emcumbrance of torturous writing. Since I have no time for him, I wish your take on him is a take-down.
https://open.substack.com/pub/lawrencegray/p/the-eternal-playground