Rules

Are there any videos or parts of his books that discuss his views on anarchist societies and movements?

Has he ever discussed the concepts of mutual aid and free association?

Do you think he would support a society that is a decentralised federation of free communities?

Thought-experiment: if Zizek were to debate an anarchist, who would it be and what would that conversation be like.

I know he goes into a critique of postmodernism, saying that we should have a grand narrative, but could the future we envision be anarchist?

He also loved V for Vendetta (which was originally written by Alan Moore, an anarchist) and always jokes about what society would look like after the revolution. Anarchists have stuff to say about that. Has he ever engaged with their work?

Also has he ever voiced support for anarchist groups?

Your mask is amazing. I wish you could've seen me in mine. Ain't it funny? All everyone wants to do is unmask you, but they're missing the point. You and I both know I'm looking at the real you right now. My mask allowed me to be myself completely. No shame, no limits.

• Riddler, The Batman

Wearing a mask can thus be a strange thing: sometimes, more often than we tend to believe, there is more truth in the mask that in what we assume to be our "real self.”

• Zizek

Surprised that Zizek didn't comment on this, probably didn't watch the movie.

Lacan has a concept called "the subject supposed to know" and Zizek likes to contrast this with his "subject supposed to believe", like in his Santa Claus joke, for example.

I wonder what the applications of this are when it comes to the placebo effect. Normally, we think that the placebo effect functions through the belief of the subject in the experimental trial. That is, I take a sugar pill and I believe it is a real medicine, and therefore it works only through my belief. However, what if it's not me who needs to believe? What if it's the subject supposed to believe? Let's say I knowingly take a placebo pill, but I lie to all my friends and family that it's an antidepressant, and everyone other than me believes that it's a real pill while only I know that it's placebo. Would it still work?

Somewhere he talks about how physics sees a rose as elementary particles and electromagnetic forces, unable to deal with the concept of life, while a biologist leaves the enigmatic notion of a flower’s life intact. Each represents a parallax shift. I'm pretty sure its not in The Parallax View. Anyone know?

LISTEN HERE!

This week we're joined by Slavoj Žižek!

We discuss his new book, Christian Atheism, Judith Butler, Trump, the Mafia, how Quantum Physics helps us read history, and where to find a good diner in New York.

To access to many more episodes and support the podcast,join our Patreon here!

Enjoy!

#zizekandsoon

...with t-shirt ads. Please don't reply to them, do report them (both to reddit and to the sub's mods). Auto mod has been set to not allow posts or comments with below 5 comment karma for the time being.

Bad editing. Probably the worse I’ve seen in a Zizek book. More than a few cases of simply bad grammar, wrong words, and at least one case of a repeated sentence in the same paragraph. It reminds me of Business Secrets of the Pharaohs for any Peep Show fans out there.

Not to take away from the content of the book though, which is an interesting read and not clumsy like the editing.

Also, he responded to a comment in this subreddit again, but not the same one he mentioned in his latest talk which was already referenced here a couple weeks ago, so that’s cool to know that one of the best known and active philosophers of today scours Reddit for criticism of his work.

I have two questions for my fellow readers.

1. If you had to recommend either Freedom: A Disease Without Cure or Living in the End Times, which would you recommend? - P.S., I have read some other books by Žižek including Sublime Object.

2. Is Living in the Ends Times dated or is it still relevant to today's environmental?

For anyone who doesn't know them they are this (neo?)marxist indigenous group in Chiapas Mexico who rebeled against the government in te 90s and from then on started their own no money no police self governments. And they are still active to this day. They are very politicaly active and try to encourage anti-capitalist left.

Imagine someone's fundamental fantasy being like a movie. In order to 'traverse the fantasy', you must watch the movie until the end. You cannot simply step out of the fantasy, you must 'finish it', so to speak. Let's say the movie is 2 hours. You watch the first 119 minutes, and by the time you get to the last minute, you replay the last minute over and over again to infinity. The end point of traversing the fantasy is not being outside of it, but repeating the end-point of the fantasy over and over again (the death drive).

Is this a good way to put it or am I completely misunderstanding it?

I'm seeking a quote from Zizek that maybe one of you know: he equates "monsters" or "the monstrous" with ideologues, fundamentalists, and true believers. Something along those lines. Am certain I saw it in a video clip. Have been trying to hunt it down for days. Thanks!

“If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth.”

• Dostoevsky

And Tolstoys response to his “excommunication” is fantasticly pertinent: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/My_Reply_to_the_Synod

Edit: found this

So I was going through the following post on reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/talesfromtechsupport/s/ED6JoV7suG

I have had a bit of a similar experience trying to code. Like it's difficult for me to make things work, even though there are instructions etc. Things just don't seem to work out without any apparent reasons many times, while for others it works easily (could be a cognitive bias) and I have felt frustrated. I have often thought, why me? I think maybe countless others have encountered similar phenomenon.

What's interesting is the (ironic) comments such as people having 'different genes' or 'pray to the tech god/IT god' etc. And it sounded amusing to me.

It's as if even the things that are supposed to be the most logical or scientific have interaction with humans in such a way that we have to invent ways to deal with their irrationality and impenetrability.

Now, in our modernity, there has been a mainstreaming of skepticism, conspiracy theories about vaccines, 5G, etc all over the world (not only in the west, even here in India). Modern inventions whose earlier versions were lauded as revolutionary, bringing development, safety, education, etc.

Now, I remember zizek saying something along the lines (don't quote me on this): "In the past people used to think and talk about metaphysical questions in their past time. But today people have to confront these questions in their daily lives, everyday". And I fully agree with this. Wherever I look around me there's the political situation, economic situation, cultural situation that has to be analysed. Another Zizek quote I remember: "Today, it's not 'disorder under heaven', rather it's the heaven that's under disorder. And I fully agree with this statement too.

On a related note (or not) I think the following article is worth a read where Zizek mentions something profound from "La Marque du sacré":

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-bourgeoisie

That's why I would like to ask, how does interacting with different things in our lives affects our lives? Like internet, pc, smartphones, telephones, cars (modern) etc. Because I feel like it really does affect a person and it varies by quite a margin between different people (as mentioned in the post).

I think I vaguely remember some Marxist mention of interaction of people with objects, correct me if I am wrong here (or point out the source, if any).

Any of your thoughts, pointers to texts/authors or even Zizek's writings and talks would be very much helpful.

I know he goes over this in Organs without Bodies but I'd like to know what you all know about it before I decide to read it. I'm specifically interested in his tensions with Anti-Oedipus and also about the perceived archetype of the radical chic Deleuzian.

Anyone have any opinions on his readings of Zizek?

Want to read this essay but it is behind a paywall. Can anyone with access to the essay help me out?

https://www.compactmag.com/article/happy-birthday-kant-you-lousy-sadist/?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaZFy85mSXRsSQpmtfhZmL6p_LCFmUbk-wqTDeqhW9VWK5grDz_ziNJdbs8_aem_AR9TuXiYwgLUaYJ9Wg9K6SQjEKk-8J-zr_vJZnjrGqgp1nUraK6lWy4a6nPV9PKQSEI2YviWYAzdx8hmWozwODer

In a recent lecture, Žižek mentions that he is no longer good friends with Badiou due to political disagreements. Does anybody know what this is about?

Sorry if the quote isn't accurate: it was something like the separation between personal, social, something like that. I want to find out what sort of thoeretical insight was he then pointing to? Was it for example something in Lacan, where the perception of the Symbolic (a "social thing") is also a part of the way the Imaginary (of an individual) constitutes itself?

Jennifer Friedlander on Zizek:

Prior to her spirits lifting in the wake of Melancholia’s imminence, how was Justine’s psychic melancholia serving her? Žižek contends that, ‘against Freud, one should assert the conceptual and ethical primacy of melancholia’.24 In opposition to the mourner, who integrates loss into the symbolic realm, the melancholic remains faithful to the ‘remainder’ that cannot be integrated. As Lacan puts it, in melancholia, the mourning process ‘doesn’t come to a conclusion because the object takes the helm ... [the object] triumphs’.25 But, Žižek points out, the melancholic confuses ‘loss’ and ‘lack’, in that the object that appears lost is really not an object at all, let alone one that the subject possessed. What the subject misses is the constitutive lack that no object had ever fulfilled. Since the object that appears to have been lost was not only never had, but also never existed, the mode of honouring it takes the form of deception. For Žižek, this melancholic deceit occurs in both form and degree: melancholics treat ‘an object that we still fully possess as if this object is already lost’ and the magnitude of their mourning can be characterized as ‘a faked spectacle of the excessive’.26

I'm currently about a quarter/ one third in and frankly I'm feeling like an idiot. it's the first philosophical book I've ever read and I feel like i shouldn't have started with this book. there are many references to other philosophers, authors, books, theories, etc. which I haven't hear of/ explored before. also, I started reading it without paying much attention to what I was reading so I often found myself just thinking wait... what is he talking about right now? so what's the deal? should've I just been taking notes and stuff and really focusing on what's written or should I read some other theory before this one?

I’m just getting into zizek, but I thought this could be an interesting remark.

I've watched the Oscar winner movie some days ago and felt it would be very interesting to hear what Slavoj has to say about this film focused on the family life of the man in charge of Auschwitz.

I don't know if he's spoken about it, his last opinions on movies were about Oppenheimer and Barbie as far as I'm concerned.

Also, could you share some of his views about the Holocaust? It's hard to search for the word and get references in Youtube and other media.

Thanks!

I have read several of his works, which makes me familiar with his theorization of Luther's "excrement" metaphor and the radical freedom of predestination, and the latter is usually attributed to Calvin. However, I have never come across any further, more detailed analysis on the differences of Luther and Calvin (like, Luther was ambiguous on mysticism and took the God as "posterior" while Calvin was the opposite), it seems Zizek is aware of these but never has put them into clear theorization.

I am really expecting a Lacanian critique on this topic.