Rules

I am having a bit of problem with understanding his point would you help me understand it? He continues with: "To put it succinctly: a political standpoint can be quite accurate ('true') as to its objective content, yet thoroughly ideological; and, vice versa, the idea that a political standpoint gives of its social content can prove totally wrong, yet there is absolutely nothing 'ideological' about it. With regard to the 'factual truth', the position of Neues Forum -- taking the disintegration of the Communist regime as the opening-up of a way to invent some new form of social space that would reach beyond the confines of capitalism -- was doubtless illusory. Opposing Neues Forum were, forces who put all their bets on the quickest possible annexation to West Germany -- that is to say, of their country's inclusion in the world capitalist system; for them, the people around Neues Forum were nothing but a bunch of heroic daydreamers. This position proved accurate -- yet it was none the less thoroughly ideological. Why? The conformist adoption of the West German model implied an ideological belief in the unproblematic, non-antagonistic functioning of the late-capitalist 'social state', where's the first stance, although illusory as to its factual content (its 'enunciated'), attested, by means of its 'scandalous' and exorbitant position of enunciation, to an awareness of the antagonism that pertains to late capitalism. This is one way to conceive of the Lacanian thesis according to which truth has the structure of a fiction; in those confused months of the passage of 'really existing socialism' into capitalism, the fiction of a 'third way' was the only point at which social antagonism was not obliterated. Herein lies one of the tasks of the 'postmodern' critique of ideology: to designate the elements within an existing social order which -- in the guise of 'fiction', that is, of 'Utopian' narratives of possible but failed alternative histories -- point towards the system's antagonistic character, and thus 'estrange' us to the self-evidence of its established identity."

It seems that every leftist theorist these days has something to say against generative AI in the name of saving "humanity." Zizek's own work on AI has been somewhat ambiguous but he's Zizek.

I understand why social theorists hate Big Tech, I understand hating capitalism, but where are the new materialists, object oriented ontologists, posthumanist, agential realists here to provide their optimistic rebuttal to Big Tech? Was all that talk about the agency of the non material just a LARP? Was Karen Barad just writing things that sounded nice? Was Donna Haraway just a meme? To see Judith Butler unironically invoke logocentrism after spending a career building off Derrida's work makes me think that none of these social theorists ever believed anything they said.

To me, anti-tech populism (as opposed to anti-Big Tech populism, which is based) is the epitome of Capitalist Realism. Fisher rolls in his grave.

I wanted to ask if anyone has engaged with Lacan’s topological approach and, if so, whether they (or he) have explored discrete topology or solely Euclidean topology? If you know of any textual passages where Lacan addresses discrete topology, I would be very grateful!

It's the part where he talks about the many and the One on page 105, and the entire chapter of "Against False Awakenings" - mostly his dislike against "they" being a default pronoun, but the chapter just confuses me a bit in general (it's probably from sleep deprivation)

I am looking for a Zizek statement in an article where he says something along these lines (gibberish from my side, since I don't remember the exact words but remember it's meaning and concluding point in my mind):

"This being part of an online community where I give up my identity is false, where all differences are magically eradicated, where we all are equal. The true potential for emancipation is our grounding in our substantial belonging, from where one can emerge and stand for a universality".

I hope these words convey something. I know it's gibberish, but if I could remember the exact words I could have searched for and found the article. So that's why looking for help. It's definitely an article that I remember reading online.

Im 15 and im trying to get into zizek. I’m familiar with a lot of his ideas and views since my mom has been preaching them to me since i was a child but reading him is something else completely. I started with Violence and im about half way through. I do understand a lot of what hes saying but I’ll be honest there are large chunks of the book where i just tap out because i literally have no fucking idea what is going on. Anytime he mentions Hegel, Lacan and to a lesser extent Freud i just give up and wait for him to start speaking English again. I was wondering if anyone has any advice/knows any recourses that could help me better understand all the references he makes. One of my moms friends who knows zizek personally and has worked with him recommended some sort of guide to lacan but im wondering if yall have any other advice/book recommendations.

Hello.
Hoping this is relevant to discourse, I share here the link to an article from our online magazine. I am trying to read Turing's work on Subjectivity/Thought from a Lacanian-Structuralist lens. Any feedback is much appreciated. Thank you.

"I Search, Therefore I am": Turing, Lacan & Subjectivity; Cogito, Issue 7.

https://medium.com/@cogitansres56/i-search-therefore-i-am-turing-lacan-subjectivity-aad3451c3d0d

Slavoj is often introduced as professor of German at New York University. I’ve seen him interviewed in German speaking media and he often listens to German questions and replies in English. What’s going on here? What is the professor of German position?

I've watched almost every Zizek interview, public talk, podcast online but I've never read any of his books. I really enjoy his references to jokes from the soviet union or his time in the army, it always helps me understand what he means. Is it similar in the books? I think I'll start with Freedom a Disease without Cure

I’ve taken interest in the last days in zizek’s theory of secular Christianity and have trouble understanding how Christianity is a precursor to atheism which is an idea I got from studying his work

Hi everyone, I often read zizek and realize that I can't understand some passages because I lack in some conceptual instruments. I'm talking about some, more advanced, lacanian concept (like not-all or not-every I don't know the English translation). So, to fill into my gaps, I decided to buy some text that talk about this topic (lacanian concept used in philosophy). I think there is a Zizek's book titled something like "How to read Lacan" or Simply "read Lacan", but I don't know if it is what I'm searching for. Any suggestions? Thanks for your help<3

Surely it’s hard to imagine Zizek scrolling thru Instagram, posting selfies and giving likes on it; how funny would that be to see?

I read an article of him criticizing Susan Sontags’ “liberal” critique that Leni was a fascist even before her Triumph of the Will phase. But I must say here that I agree with Susan Sontag’s assertion of her completely, there is also a german documentary on Leni that came out months ago (the investigators had access to her personal belongings and correspondences) and completely exposed any remaining myth around her. Its like watching Albert “the good nazi” Speer fiasco all over again.

Against thinkers who privileged the universal (essence, the suprasensorial, the infinite) and thinkers who privileged the particular (appearance, the sensorial, the finite), Hegel famously affirmed both:

That is, the particular comes first in the order of being, and the universal comes first in the order of explanation. (BEISER, 2005) This is the meaning of how "the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk":

1. Before an Event (dusk), from the perspective of the present, it must appear by pure chance, ex nihilo, out of nowhere, in a way that is irreducible and breaks the chain of cause and effect. This is the space of free will, of deontological ethics, of revolutionary projects. (Before dusk, the owl of Minerva, philosophy, cannot yet spread its wings)
2. After an Event, from the perspective of it being past, it must appear as the culmination that all the history prior to that point had been building towards, as a predestined and predetermined outcome. This is the space of determinism, of a posteriori making sense of things. (After dusk, it is possible to spread wings, for philosophy to make sense of what appeared once as pure chance)

This solves the philosophical opposition between universal and particular by making them two stages of a same underlying notion, displaced and connected only by temporality.

But this is not the only way to integrate Time into the notion and reconcile universal with particular. My question here is whether there is a thinker who did it the opposite way (the universal comes first in the order of being, and the particular comes first in the order of explanation)? Or, if Hegel already did it, where exactly?

I find this concept especially clarifying if you associate (1) with how Zizek often describes the Real, and (2) with how he describes the Symbolic (though that may be reductive) so I'd like to know more about it. Thanks in advance!

I have recently started reading Zizek's essay on Eurocentrism and I am going through a tough time trying to understand the Hegelian references. Is there a complimentary work I can read side by side to understand some of the arguments he is making?

I’ve been following Zizek for some time now. I started with his documentaries, lectures, and interviews, then onto some his books. Currently I’m about halfway through Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (with the help of Greg Sadler’s lectures), partly so that I can better understand Zizek’s philosophy.

I also have a corporate day job, which I don’t really like. Sometimes I feel that my life is stuck in a loop, and I often thought that learning philosophy might provide a way to break out of this loop.

But I can’t help but wonder: what if I’m simply ‘consuming’ these philosophical content for my own pleasure, and nothing more? What if my armchair study of all these radical ideas is simply a way for me to make my day job more bearable, to sustain my petit bourgeois lifestyle, and to ensure that things stay the same?

How do you guys deal with this kind of thing? (E.g. are you actively engaged in politics and/or community groups? If so, how to you ensure it's not just another way to keep things as they are so that no real change happens?)

I have read the Sublime object of ideology (last chapter excluded , will do so in some time). I am briefly familiar with the major Lacanian concepts (graph of desire , RSI , ego ideal-ideal ego, objet - a etc.) and I am somewhat familar with Hegel too. I want a read that dives deeper into more abstract concepts (feminine vs masculine discourse, four discourses, lacans topology, L schema, etc.) and want to understand hegels logic and how he overcomes the law of non contradiction and his work on identity and self consciousness.

Basically I want something very dense and rigourous with as little political and economic fluff possible (I know his system doesn't work like that but still). Rn I'm confused between these works :Tarrying with the negative , For they know not what they do , Sex and the failed absolute and Hegel in a wired brain. I know the former two are Hegel dense but the later two connect more to external disciplines which I also value.

What do you guys suggest? Or should I just pick up the Lacanian subject by Bruce Fink or some text by Badiou.

Hi! I come from a background of mostly philosophy/German Idealism and want to see what Zizek is all about. I've heard all kinds of things about his reading of Hegel but I haven't engaged with it much seeing as the one (1) book I've tried reading from him is very psychoanalysis heavy. What's his most 'Hegel Heavy' book?

Hey guys, does anyone know if Zizek discusses British Empiricism in any article or chapter of his books?