Redpill me on Slavoj Zizek. What concepts did he create/discover/think

File: how-to-be-a-hipster-girl.jpg (96KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 750x500px

>>2674180
its called irony bb

And so on...

>>2674180
Pure ideology

>>2674180
*sniffs*

>>2674180
Thats Mark Hamil

isn't that a pic of luuke skywalker though ?

>>2674180
*tucks shirt*

>>2674180
people here don't actually read, so you'll only get meme responses.

outside of memes, zizek is mostly popular because of the way he explains/rewrites the psychoanalysis of lacan, a notoriously difficult thinker that zizek rescued from obscurity. a lot of zizek's work is about reinventing the concept of ideology for this modern era where everything masquerades as post-ideological and apolitical. his most serious books are advanced readings of hegel, marx and lacan, with a christian component (but with a radical, christian-atheist bent where god became man and died, leaving us with total freedom).

if you had to pick one concept that zizek will be remembered for it would be his definition of ideology and the way it manifests itself in liberal capitalism.

File: zizek.jpg (32KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 615x409px

>>2674758
>>2674802
Ummm the image clearly states that it is Slavoj Zizek.

>>2674802
yes it is

>>2674613
Isn't that Stirner's gig?

>>2675032
Stirners only gig is "muh spooks" and "muh ego" unlike Stirner, zizek actually has depth.

>>2675042
riiiiiiìiiiight

File: Sam Harris.jpg (79KB, 600x761px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x761px

Bullshitter proven wrong by Sam Harris.

>>2675042
>unlike Stirner, zizek actually has depth

confirmed for never having read zizek, zizek is opposed to "depth"

>One should thus invert the usual opposition within which true art is “deep” and commercial kitsch superficial: the problem with kitsch is that it is all too “profound,” manipulating deep libidinal and ideological forces, while genuine art knows how to remain at the surface, how to subtract its subject from the “deeper” context of historical reality.

i mean, sure, zizek is more worthwhile than stirner but you still have to read him you pseud

>>2675067
Why postmodernfags insist on the most obscure verbose possible? Isn't their ideology that you can't trust authors because of their bias and thus need to deconstruct everything they say?

Do zizek and Lacan really expect us to deconstruct their desconctruction of others? Fuck me lad

>>2675076
if the paragraph i quoted seems obscure to you then you really haven't read much because in the world of philosophy zizek is lucid as fuck. kant is a hundred times more arcane. what i quoted has simple and unambiguous grammar and only uses common words (with the possible exception of "ideology", which has specific meaning to zizek).

you, on the other hand, throw around big words you don't understand. what is this "deconstruction"? because the way you use it makes it seem like you just mean "reading". yes, zizek expects you to read zizek.

>>2675129
ideology?
>a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths, or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order.

>>2676260
i'm not sure why you're quoting dictionary definitions at me when my point is that zizek uses the word in a way specific to him and contrary to dictionary definitions, making it the only term in that quote that's not immediately accessible to a layman.

>>2674180
does he have obsessive compulsive disorder?
he seems to have tics

>>2676374
if a word has a dictionary definition, why not use it like it is defined? It's uneccesairly confusing if you don't know he's using his own special definition. Words have meaning, if you want to convey some different meaning, make up your own words or something. Damn continental philosophers

>>2676434
>confusing if you don't know he's using his own special definition

it's almost like you need to read philosophers to understand them. i love philosophy virgins complaining how confused they are by all the philosophy they are not reading.

>>2675076
What's obscure about that quote? It seems pretty clear to me, and I'm no lover of pomo masturbation.

Just watch that one documentary. He explains it in laymans terms.

>>2675129
It obviously tries to appear more sophisticated than what it really is, yes.

Why can't he just say "true art has depth than commercial art hasn't"?