[B][video=youtube;4uh5MB17v9A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uh5MB17v9A[/video]
Slavoj Zizek[/B] is a philosopher from the former yugoslav state of Slovenia. He uses Lacanian psychoanalysis, Marxism, and Alfred Hitchcock (along with other movies) to make points on the function of [I]Ideology[/I], or the system of ideas and viewpoints that make sense of the world, masking the social relations they serve to protect.
He is funny, and sort of an intellectual outsider. While a lot of philosophers have been professor of this at whatever university, chair of the whatever department at that university, Zizek is simply Zizek. He is normally hated by a lot of postmodernists, conservatives, liberals, communists, Nazis, and other -ists. He ran for President in Slovenia's first presidential election in 1990, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenian_presidential_election,_1990"]winning 36% of the votes[/URL], but not enough to win the elction.
Vice met him a small time ago. Watch these videos and see what you think
[video=youtube;XS_Lzo4S8lA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS_Lzo4S8lA[/video]
[video=youtube;U88jj6PSD7w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88jj6PSD7w&feature=kp[/video]
[video=youtube;hpAMbpQ8J7g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g[/video]
[quote]He uses [B]Lacanian psychoanalysis[/B], [B]Marxism[/B], and Alfred Hitchcock (along with other movies) to make points on the function of Ideology, or the system of ideas and viewpoints that make sense of the world, masking the social relations they serve to protect.[/quote]
Are these meant to be points in his favor?
Slavoj Zizek is my spirit animal
[QUOTE=Boku no Haram;44982601]Are these meant to be points in his favor?[/QUOTE]
Two outdated theories of psychology and sociology, kept alive largely because people find them interesting and ignore the fundamental problems within them.
[editline]3rd June 2014[/editline]
I'm also not fond of his "charity degrades and demoralizes" argument, and then claiming that it's the so fabled "last stage in capitalism". A century ago, Lenin claimed that the First World War and Colonialism was the last stage of Capitalism. In a hundred years from now, there will be new philosophers proclaiming we have entered the "last stage of capitalism".
Zizek is ambiguous and uses arguments that smell more rhetorical than logical (and so on and so on).
"We don't want what we think we desire". (From his video about the man dreaming of his mistress) Then what do we want? How do we find out what we want? Is there something we /should/ want? This is just a shit statement sorry.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44982792]Two outdated theories of psychology and sociology, kept alive largely because people find them interesting and ignore the fundamental problems within them.
[editline]3rd June 2014[/editline]
I'm also not fond of his "charity degrades and demoralizes" argument, and then claiming that it's the so fabled "last stage in capitalism". A century ago, Lenin claimed that the First World War and Colonialism was the last stage of Capitalism. In a hundred years from now, there will be new philosophers proclaiming we have entered the "last stage of capitalism".
Zizek is ambiguous and uses arguments that smell more rhetorical than logical (and so on and so on).
"We don't want what we think we desire". Then what do we want? How do we find out what we want? Is there something we /should/ want? This is just a shit statement sorry.[/QUOTE]
my god, pure ideology
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44982792]Two outdated theories of psychology and sociology, kept alive largely because people find them interesting and ignore the fundamental problems within them.[/quote]
I'm not advocating for them here, but the rhetoric people use to decry psychoanalysis is flawed. They state that freud/Lacan were "disproved", but instead were denied the status of "scientific" by (what was at the time) the more american/british notion of "science" (in that Psychoanalysis cannot be proven or disproven as it's not grounded on material evidence). The problem here is that only freud ever claimed psychoanalysis to be a science. Psychoanalysts since him will say "yes, I understand that psychoanalysis is not scientific; however, is science the only thing that we can use to add meaning to our lives?" I've heard psychoanalysis described less as a scientific model of the mind and more as a language that humans can use to give meaning to something that cannot be adequately described using only scientific terms (note: This is not to say that science cannot understand the mind, but instead to say that there is no [i]meaning[/i] to the mind in scientific terms)
[quote]I'm also not fond of his "charity degrades and demoralizes" argument, and then claiming that it's the so fabled "last stage in capitalism". A century ago, Lenin claimed that the First World War and Colonialism was the last stage of Capitalism. In a hundred years from now, there will be new philosophers proclaiming we have entered the "last stage of capitalism".[/quote]
The charity comment is less making a moral judgment on charity, but instead is trying to demonstrate how the things that we think of as subversive are instead playing (and paying) right back into the system that we pretend we're sticking it to. He's not saying don't donate to charity, but instead to think about what you're really doing when you're donating.
[quote]Zizek is ambiguous and uses arguments that smell more rhetorical than logical (and so on and so on).[/quote]
He's been accused of making up words and such to make himself sound more intelligent, but the words he uses aren't really his own. They're well established terms in continental philosophy. Most people simply don't have enough of a background in the history of continental philosophy to understand people like him.
[quote]"We don't want what we think we desire". (From his video about the man dreaming of his mistress) Then what do we want? How do we find out what we want? Is there something we /should/ want?[/QUOTE]
that's sort of the mystery of life. he's not saying what you [b]do[/b] want, he's saying that you want things insofar as you don't have them. Based on the syntax of that statement alone, it's impossible to want something you already have.
The important thing to note about zizek is that he's not offering any solutions are answers, but really just wants to "diagnose" how ideology functions
[QUOTE=proboardslol;44983413]The problem here is that only freud ever claimed psychoanalysis to be a science. Psychoanalysts since him will say "yes, I understand that psychoanalysis is not scientific; however, is science the only thing that we can use to add meaning to our lives?" I've heard psychoanalysis described less as a scientific model of the mind and more as a language that humans can use to give meaning to something that cannot be adequately described using only scientific terms (note: This is not to say that science cannot understand the mind, but instead to say that there is no [i]meaning[/i] to the mind in scientific terms)[/quote]
Unless you are actually practicing science, you don't misuse scientific terms. In what ways is science limited but Psychoanalysis is not, and why should we take the conclusions of Psychoanalysis seriously. How does it reach these conclusions about human behaviour?
[quote]The charity comment is less making a moral judgment on charity, but instead is trying to demonstrate how the things that we think of as subversive are instead playing (and paying) right back into the system that we pretend we're sticking it to. He's not saying don't donate to charity, but instead to think about what you're really doing when you're donating.[/quote]
And by implication, in order to destroy the system, you opt out of charity entirely and increase human suffering so as to bring about some form of major paradigm shift in society.
[quote]He's been accused of making up words and such to make himself sound more intelligent, but the words he uses aren't really his own. They're well established terms in continental philosophy. Most people simply don't have enough of a background in the history of continental philosophy to understand people like him.[/quote]
I generally like Enlightenment and Anglosphere Philosophy. Ideally you shouldn't have to have a major background in philosophy in order to understand somebodies ideas, especially if the argument is vague.
[quote]that's sort of the mystery of life. he's not saying what you [b]do[/b] want, he's saying that you want things insofar as you don't have them. Based on the syntax of that statement alone, it's impossible to want something you already have.[/quote]
I grant you this. However in the wider argument he was making in the video, he was saying "people do not desire happiness". I disagree with this view in that happiness may not be entirely defined the way he seems to think it is. Happiness can range from an emotion to a state of being or living life in a fulfilling and satisfying way.
[quote]The important thing to note about zizek is that he's not offering any solutions are answers, but really just wants to "diagnose" how ideology functions[/QUOTE]
In what way precisely? A ideology is seemingly a general viewpoint of looking at the world I suppose.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44983792]Unless you are actually practicing science, you don't misuse scientific terms. In what ways is science limited but Psychoanalysis is not, and why should we take the conclusions of Psychoanalysis seriously. How does it reach these conclusions about human behaviour?[/QUOTE]
Science is limited to the material world. Psychoanalysis is more of one of many possible narratives to view something by.
[quote]And by implication, in order to destroy the system, you opt out of charity entirely and increase human suffering so as to bring about some form of major paradigm shift in society.[/quote]
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that people donate because it makes them feel good. Companies have incorporated donations into their commodities to make people feel redeemed for being a consumer. The problem is that this charity simply doesn't solve to root problem, and by donating their money, people will now feel redeemed and no longer feel guilty when they hear about starving african kids
[quote]I generally like Enlightenment and Anglosphere Philosophy. Ideally you shouldn't have to have a major background in philosophy in order to understand somebodies ideas, especially if the argument is vague.[/quote]
Anglosphere philosophy != continental philosophy
[quote]
In what way precisely? A ideology is seemingly a general viewpoint of looking at the world I suppose.[/quote]
Ideology is used here in the marxist sense. It's not like we think of as a defined, codified ideology, but basically "how things work in society without us really knowing about it". Marx put it: "they do it, but they do not know they are doing it". However, Zizek says instead that ideology is no longer based on pulling some mask over the proletarians eyes with religion or opium or alcohol like Marx said. Instead, Zizek says "They know it, but they do it anyways". He talks about psychoanalytic "disavowal", which is essentially where a person recognizes a fact as true in their mind, but doesn't act accordingly. He gives the example of ecology. He says that everybody knows that pollution is a terrible thing and global warming is doing irreversible damage to the ecosystem and we should drive better cars and recycle, but nobody actually KNOWS the damage. Hence, we still waste, don't recycle, drive bad cars, etc. because we can't see the waste piling up around us.
He puts it like this in the video:
[video=youtube;iGCfiv1xtoU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGCfiv1xtoU[/video]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;44984874]Science is limited to the material world. Psychoanalysis is more of one of many possible narratives to view something by.[/quote]
And what are the arguments in its favour?
[quote]No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that people donate because it makes them feel good. Companies have incorporated donations into their commodities to make people feel redeemed for being a consumer. The problem is that this charity simply doesn't solve to root problem, and by donating their money, people will now feel redeemed and no longer feel guilty when they hear about starving african kids.[/quote]
Yet there are loads of charities to tackle this? The ones which set up water wells or introduce agricultural practices or set up lending services to the poor starving Africans? Not every charity consists of consistently sending food aid to a country and keeping them on the brink of death.
[quote]Anglosphere philosophy != continental philosophy.[/quote]
I prefer anglosphere philosophy. I tried continental but it's just a bloody mess. It often goes towards "history is essential, and you therefore must have a knowledge of history in order to further better your understanding of reality"
Why can't I just do philosophy without reference to the historical/cultural/economic/etc context?
[quote]Ideology is used here in the marxist sense. It's not like we think of as a defined, codified ideology, but basically "how things work in society without us really knowing about it". Marx put it: "they do it, but they do not know they are doing it". However, Zizek says instead that ideology is no longer based on pulling some mask over the proletarians eyes with religion or opium or alcohol like Marx said. Instead, Zizek says "They know it, but they do it anyways". He talks about psychoanalytic "disavowal", which is essentially where a person recognizes a fact as true in their mind, but doesn't act accordingly. He gives the example of ecology. He says that everybody knows that pollution is a terrible thing and global warming is doing irreversible damage to the ecosystem and we should drive better cars and recycle, but nobody actually KNOWS the damage. Hence, we still waste, don't recycle, drive bad cars, etc. because we can't see the waste piling up around us.[/quote]
But people are actually doing these things?
Recycling is going up, bicycles are popular, people are trying to opt for walking more. Is it really a case that people know it causes that much damage, or is it because they don't think climate change is much of a big deal?
Certainly a lot of people hate the idea of climate change and pretend it doesn't exist.
"They know it, but do it anyways" doesn't really seem to work there. Humans are capable of exercising reason.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44984996]And what are the arguments in its favour?[/quote]
The specific arguments in its favor are verrrry numerous since psychoanalysis means of lot of things. But to put it briefly, while science is heavily based on materialism and empiricism, psychoanalysis takes its roots in both Hegel's dialectics and Nietzsche/Schopenhauer's philosophy of will. The epistemology of modern science can be described as positivism while the epistemology of psychoanalysis can be described as phenomenology[/quote]
[quote]Yet there are loads of charities to tackle this? The ones which set up water wells or introduce agricultural practices or set up lending services to the poor starving Africans? Not every charity consists of consistently sending food aid to a country and keeping them on the brink of death.[/quote]
We could sit here and argue about this charity vs. that charity and pull up some tables and data on how much which charity donates to what and how, but that's failing to see the forest for the trees. Zizek was simply using this as an example. The larger point he's trying to make is that things that we once considered to be anti-consumerist or even subversive are now packaged into consumerism itself and sold back to us, so we get the experience of subversity without any of the actual political change. I'm sure this is something that isn't too out there for someone to agree with; just look at the che guevarra t-shirt owners. Or think of people who share something on facebook as a form of activism or put a petition on whitehouse.gov.
[quote]I prefer anglosphere philosophy. I tried continental but it's just a bloody mess. It often goes towards "history is essential, and you therefore must have a knowledge of history in order to further better your understanding of reality"
Why can't I just do philosophy without reference to the historical/cultural/economic/etc context?
[/quote]
I'm not advocating for continental philosophy, I'm just saying that someone who hasn't studied it a lot will have a hard time getting at zizek.
[quote]But people are actually doing these things?
Recycling is going up, bicycles are popular, people are trying to opt for walking more. Is it really a case that people know it causes that much damage, or is it because they don't think climate change is much of a big deal?
Certainly a lot of people hate the idea of climate change and pretend it doesn't exist.
"They know it, but do it anyways" doesn't really seem to work there. Humans are capable of exercising reason.[/QUOTE]
This is another case of the forest for the trees. He cares little about ecology or the environment; an attitude which has gotten him in trouble, because unlike his peers, he doesn't give a shit about modern feminism or LGBT rights movement. The broader point he's trying to make is political. For example, it is very VERY common to hate government, to hate congress, to hate the president, etc. You could say that humans are capable of exercising reason, but despite all of our cynicism, we keep re-electing the same people. we say to ourselves all of our utopian ideals about how it should be and blah blah blah but then we have to come back to reality and choose between 2 parties. Then we criticize the system for the way it is even though we're the reason why it is that way.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44983792]And by implication, in order to destroy the system, you opt out of charity entirely and increase human suffering so as to bring about some form of major paradigm shift in society.[/quote]
Who said anything about destroying a system? He's talking about the hypocrisy of charity.
[quote]I generally like Enlightenment and Anglosphere Philosophy. Ideally you shouldn't have to have a major background in philosophy in order to understand somebodies ideas, especially if the argument is vague.[/quote]
"I want everything handed to me on a platter"
You need to study philosophy in order to actually figure out what things really are vague and what things are actually meaningful but you're just too pleb to understand.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44984996]I prefer anglosphere philosophy. I tried continental but it's just a bloody mess. It often goes towards "history is essential, and you therefore must have a knowledge of history in order to further better your understanding of reality"
Why can't I just do philosophy without reference to the historical/cultural/economic/etc context?[/quote]
Because not all philosophy is spergy formal logic.
Hell, it's a bad idea to do formal logic or math without knowing the context. You have to understand the reasoning that folks like Russel and Whitehead did when developing Principia Mathematica, and how much of a shock it was when Godel overturned the whole paradigm, to give just one example. You can't just dive into the axioms and expect to grok the whole field of knowledge.
[quote]But people are actually doing these things?
Recycling is going up, bicycles are popular, people are trying to opt for walking more. Is it really a case that people know it causes that much damage, or is it because they don't think climate change is much of a big deal?[/quote]
No, these are the things they do to signal that they care. It's exactly like the charity thing - it's conspicuous consumption, but you're "consuming" do-gooding.
[quote]"They know it, but do it anyways" doesn't really seem to work there. Humans are capable of exercising reason.[/QUOTE]
Remarkable how rare it is.
Also, Zizek once wrote a series of Ads for Abercrombie and Fitch's back to school catalogue
[url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/36429575/A-F-2003-Back-to-School[/url]
[editline]3rd June 2014[/editline]
And he also married and divorced Fashion Model Analia Hounie
[img]http://www.mladina.si/media/www/slike.old/clanki/200408/analia_hounie_01_display.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.perfil.com/__export/1309027989000/sites/diarioperfil/img/2011/06/espectaculos/0625_lady_gaga_g1.jpg_1853027552.jpg[/img]
[editline]3rd June 2014[/editline]
and he's been in a few movies about him
[video=youtube;Rs_yvBAYyp4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs_yvBAYyp4[/video]
How can you forget this joke:
[video=youtube;XEnkDEgALGI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnkDEgALGI[/video]
[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnkDEgALGI"]Also the joke has been used in this song.[/URL]
I just want to delete this post but don't know how, sorry
[QUOTE=proboardslol;44985096]psychoanalysis takes its roots in both Hegel's dialectics and Nietzsche/Schopenhauer's philosophy of will. The epistemology of modern science can be described as positivism while the epistemology of psychoanalysis can be described as phenomenology[/quote]
Yes, and I very much don't like the ideas of Hegel and Nietzsche. Why should Hegel's dialectical method be used for instance?
[quote]The larger point he's trying to make is that things that we once considered to be anti-consumerist or even subversive are now packaged into consumerism itself and sold back to us, so we get the experience of subversity without any of the actual political change. I'm sure this is something that isn't too out there for someone to agree with; just look at the che guevarra t-shirt owners. Or think of people who share something on facebook as a form of activism or put a petition on whitehouse.gov.[/quote]
But if these activities went from being subversive to becoming integrated into a part of society, does that not imply change elsewhere? People are generally more aware of the worlds problems now than they used to be, and people are still doing subversive things. True the symbols may have become products of some company, but remember that this doesn't really stop people from creating new ways to be subversive and instigate political change. Political change is still steadily happening, and is generally supported by the population.
[quote]The broader point he's trying to make is political. For example, it is very VERY common to hate government, to hate congress, to hate the president, etc. You could say that humans are capable of exercising reason, but despite all of our cynicism, we keep re-electing the same people. we say to ourselves all of our utopian ideals about how it should be and blah blah blah but then we have to come back to reality and choose between 2 parties. Then we criticize the system for the way it is even though we're the reason why it is that way.[/QUOTE]
People aren't reason machines, but the point is that humans /are/ capable of reason at least some of the time. People may hate government or congress or the president, but these things aren't fixed and immutable. These institutions gradually change over time as new ideas come about, and even heavily unpopular ones eventually will force a change once enough rational minds are focused on it.
The antislavery movements, feminism, LGBT, etc all tended to begin in some wealthy persons drawing room or coffee shop. They took a little while to get going, but once the ideas spread and had the weight of the population behind it helps to bring beneficial change. We may have an imperfect system, but at least it is capable of being able to fix its own flaws.
[editline]3rd June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boku no Haram;44986372]"I want everything handed to me on a platter"
You need to study philosophy in order to actually figure out what things really are vague and what things are actually meaningful but you're just too pleb to understand.[/quote]
A knowledge of philosophy is a good idea always, but it does not mean you should have to read the works of every philosopher before the one you wish to study. The philosopher should ideally set out his arguments in a way so that you should be able to understand them without an over reliance on reference to other philosophers.
[quote]Because not all philosophy is spergy formal logic.
Hell, it's a bad idea to do formal logic or math without knowing the context. You have to understand the reasoning that folks like Russel and Whitehead did when developing Principia Mathematica, and how much of a shock it was when Godel overturned the whole paradigm, to give just one example. You can't just dive into the axioms and expect to grok the whole field of knowledge.[/quote]
I think we're not on the same thing here. It's not so much the reasoning or that, but it's the fact that in continental philosophy, there is an excessive focus on history. Russel and Whitehead could develop the Principia Mathematica without reference to a hundred other philosophers and the historical context of the day. They could do it without creating a theory of history, or reference to the historical origins.
Looking at the historical origin of something can help, but you don't need to know it in order to do philosophy.
[quote]No, these are the things they do to signal that they care. It's exactly like the charity thing - it's conspicuous consumption, but you're "consuming" do-gooding.[/quote]
But unlike a band-aid, these reflect trends in consumer demand. People may be consuming the idea of "doing good", but there is tangible change as a result of it.
[quote]Remarkable how rare it is.[/QUOTE]
Some people can be fools all the time, and all people can be fools some of the time, but not everyone can be all the time.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44987280]A knowledge of philosophy is a good idea always, but it does not mean you should have to read the works of every philosopher before the one you wish to study. The philosopher should ideally set out his arguments in a way so that you should be able to understand them without an over reliance on reference to other philosophers.
I think we're not on the same thing here. It's not so much the reasoning or that, but it's the fact that in continental philosophy, there is an excessive focus on history. Russel and Whitehead could develop the Principia Mathematica without reference to a hundred other philosophers and the historical context of the day. They could do it without creating a theory of history, or reference to the historical origins.
Looking at the historical origin of something can help, but you don't need to know it in order to do philosophy.[/quote]
So you're saying the Greeks could have come up with axiomatic set theory just on their own? Give me a break.
And yes, you really really need to know history in order to do philosophy properly. You need to learn from previous thinker's mistakes, you need to know whether you're not just retreading well-known ground, and it gives you humility and a sense of perspective. Lone iconoclasts deriving large chunks of philosophy without reference to previous thinkers sounds noble in theory, but in reality what you get is Ayn Rand.
It's ironic, because this is really a dualistic way of thinking. The idea that one can detach one's reasoning faculties, retreat inside one's skull and start thinking in a pure white room of perfect objective emptiness. A separation of mind, and matter and context. You should know you can't do that.
[quote]But unlike a band-aid, these reflect trends in consumer demand. People may be consuming the idea of "doing good", but there is tangible change as a result of it.[/quote]
And often it ends up doing great harm, see [url]http://www.giantflightlessbirds.com/2011/10/the-great-penguin-sweater-fiasco/[/url] , or all the aid we've sent that ended up in the pockets of third-world dictators and putting local farmers out of business.
Also any Robin Hanson essay ever on charity.
Y'all should check out his second film [I]A Pervert's Guide to Ideology[/I] on Netflix. He provides examples of his ideas in popular films in concise and understandable ways. It's not exactly intended for the layperson, but a few of the points would be understood by a good listener.
I wanna buy all of Zizek's Verso books, but I don't have the money :(.
I love Zizek. I don't always agree with everything he says, but he is super entertaining and incredibly intelligent.
[QUOTE=Mr Affinity;45042024]Y'all should check out his second film [I]A Pervert's Guide to Ideology[/I] on Netflix. He provides examples of his ideas in popular films in concise and understandable ways. It's not exactly intended for the layperson, but a few of the points would be understood by a good listener.
I wanna buy all of Zizek's Verso books, but I don't have the money :(.[/QUOTE]
I think he would prefer it if you got access to his books any other way than buying them.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;44986913]Also, Zizek once wrote a series of Ads for Abercrombie and Fitch's back to school catalogue
[url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/36429575/A-F-2003-Back-to-School[/url]
[editline]3rd June 2014[/editline]
And he also married and divorced Fashion Model Analia Hounie
[img]http://www.mladina.si/media/www/slike.old/clanki/200408/analia_hounie_01_display.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.perfil.com/__export/1309027989000/sites/diarioperfil/img/2011/06/espectaculos/0625_lady_gaga_g1.jpg_1853027552.jpg[/img]
[editline]3rd June 2014[/editline]
and he's been in a few movies about him
[video=youtube;Rs_yvBAYyp4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs_yvBAYyp4[/video][/QUOTE]
she wasn't good enough for him
Internet celebrities wohoo
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
