This guy incarnates all that is wrong with high intelligence (as opposed to "normal" intelligence and as opposed to "very high" intelligence). He has the ability to accumulate knowledge, but he's so hyperactive and arrogant that he never pauses to think rationally and figure out that what he's saying is removed from reality to the point of being flat out false if not absurd.
Post-modernism is the negation of one reality that is the common source of our intersubjectivity. It is a speculative narrative that makes interesting tales and musings and which may inspire... but that never accomplishes anything real. In other words, post-modernism is just bullshit that any asshole can make up on the spot and pretend to be true as long as it's not been proven false by somebody else. It is embracing logical fallacies and making yourself appear smart to anyone who's smart enough to point out your bullshit. Anecdotes are fallacies. Argument from ignorance is a fallacy. Argument from popularity is a fallacy. Zizek is just full of shit. As is psychoanalysis, which has fallen into the trashbin of history in all countries except France. Especially Lacanian psychoanalysis. Lacan was making shit up all the goddam time. He was receiving 80 patients... I mean "clients" every day. That's 5-10 minutes per patient. And he just had to play on words. Pure outrageous bullshit!
As for the beginning of his talk, Zizek seems to forget that in real life, without dating websites, seduction and simply maintaining a relationship are commodifications too. Through our appearance, our culture, our personality, we present an array of characteristics that will be evaluated by potential partners who will decide whether we're a good product for them or not.
His views are quite bland. I've read him argue that islamic terror comes from 'jealousy'.
He wrote a few interesting ideas on certain movies but beyond that, he's feels like the neil tyson of philosophy.
I dont see how he is arrogant, and hyperactivity doesn't just go away, its very common among those who are of high intelligence. You mention a number of fallacies, but that's Ad Hominem. Maybe he's not the best communicator, but thats why people write books. By the way, at the end of this talk he talks about "real life" too, I dont know if you made it that far. Those things are only commodifications if you look at it as a transaction, which is quite reductionist if you ask me. We reciprocate but its not merely for the sake of a transaction, its much more interpersonal than a mere transaction. We read one another's emotions and sensitivities and respond to them. We respond to minor, non-reciprocal cues and are affected by them. Regardless, nobody is asking you to take these ideas as fact. They're propositions and hypotheses.
Yes,he never explains why he thinks something. I am always waiting for that and it never comes. Its like he has the arguments in his mind but he wont tell them because this is not the time for that.
A lot of people just don't understand what influences Zizek properly and the prevailing views in the areas he discusses. Being their first exposure the perverse amount of subversion he is employing is lost on them.
Of course OP obviously doesn't understand postmodernism too. I however am not saying zizek is right but will OP be able to understand even that?
Why do you present the jealousy+hopelessness argument as evidently false?
It's a bummer than the third world below Europe has religious justification for disregarding the humanity of non-religious, but that's a choose tool for justification and not a cause they care about the west.
well educated, rational people without mental illnesses tend to the right libertarian side of the political spectrum. Marx and zizek are pretty much hot air compared to thinkers like rothbard or hayek
God this board is fucking hilarious sometimes.
here we have a typical statist. these primitive creatures are incapable of logic and rational thought. Hence, they must use adhominems, marxist gibberish and hysterical appeals to emotion.
>Validating logic and rational thought via assertion
>Dismissing ad hominem via ad hominem
There is some truth to it. He's right that the Western left are like 'Last Men'. But it all reads like a mother telling her child that everyone is picking on them in the school yard out of jealousy.
A covetous peoples fantasize about the West kneeling to them. The title of the religion is literally 'submit'; they need no other justification than a spiritual one to care about so-called heathens, Western or otherwise (they act the same way in poorer East Asian countries that they clamour to be influential in). Unlike Christianity or Buddhism, there is no divine mandate to spread Earthly laws by force. Here, however the West's relative wealth and power is of no consequence to them because it is, in the devout's mind, a devilish wealth and a leased power. Their way is the pinnacle of human goodness and must be shared even to the unwanting.
Zizek would never apply a jealousy+hopelessness argument in other contexts, like in the case of African-Americans and their political habits and social messages. This would undermine pride in a 'new radical left', the likes of which inspires him to write fanmail to Pussy Riot. These people do not want what the West has; this is the fundamental flaw of the leftist on this question. Hence, idiots who support open border immigration believe simply that, once refugees recognize Western values as something they always wanted, that 'they will assimilate while retaining some cultural differences for enrichment purposes'. The West is bending over backwards to include these people in their society and yet the attitudes persist. To return to the idea of a mother and child, it is like a mother spoiling her child with too many gifts so that none of them go appreciated. No amount of public assistance ever undoes the society's 'implicit bias' that exists in the hearts and minds of these brats. And so, the 2nd and 3rd generations on bind more tightly to what should by then be a foreign ideology and discover the must loved, by their leftist teachers, a rebellious identity only its not the one the educators expecting.
>Unlike Christianity or Buddhism, there is no divine mandate to spread Earthly laws by force.
I obviously meant, Unlike Christianity or BUddhism there IS a divine mandate to spread Earthly laws by force.
I know hyperactivity is common among gifted people. I'm part of a regional board of Mensa and highly active in another online community dedicated to high IQ. I'm not hyperactive myself, though. And that was not intended as an ad hominem. I'm criticizing his approach and his lack of reflection on the subject of truth. You can go see the exchanges between Noam Chomsky and Zizek. And invariably, Zizek seems hyperexcitable and he just didn't get it. His speculative narrative of just about any subject seems to satisfy him as much as if he was writing the truth.
I'm not too interested in your high IQ club. Good for you, if its true. I'm going to gloss over your criticism of Zizek. You should read one of his books, or watch one of his movies where he has time to fully flesh out his ideas on a subject. Otherwise, this discussion is basically about whether or not we like the way he talks. If we look at relationships in purely objective terms seduction is transaction and our bodies are a commodity. From an external perspective, sure this may be the case, but regardless we still perceive it subjectively, and if we enter a relationship seeing our partner as a commodity we will probably have some problems with communication and trust. You are presenting an objective view of relationships, which doesn't surprise me considering your self proclaimed high intelligence. However a relationship founded upon seduction as transaction will be extremely utilitarian and will end up with partners taking tabs on each other's every move. It's a useful way to analyze relationships from afar and to see how power dynamics work, but its not a good idea to take it so literally. Women aren't flattered when they are considered a commodity.
Do you have difficulties understanding him? Everything he said in that video is logical and expanded greatly upon in his introduction to Lacan. He thought throught everything he says, despite his way of speaking, everything he accumulates is getting processed beforehand.
>one reality that is the common source of our intersubjectivity
the subconscious is part of our reality, not a seperate one
>psychoanalysis, which has fallen into the trashbin of history
Freud, whose work is the foundation of all psychoanalysis, was proven wrong on many instances, thus the speculative element was always there.
>Lacan was making shit up all the goddam time
>seduction and simply maintaining a relationship are commodifications
I'd like to direct you to The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm. His point is that the capitalistic state of mind has warped our view on romance, reduced it to a mere exchange of economical and physiological perks, a measuring contest of sexual capital. Try to focus less on your loveability and more on your capacity to love