Goddamn

>I can barely understand
>The most monstrum plebeian

>>8613026
pure ideology

>>8613026
>I can barely understand
He seriously isn't that difficult to understand if you wouldn't have been to lazy to get a modicum of understanding of the most basic marxist and psychoanalytic concepts. Apply yourself.

>>8613026
spooky shit

[sniffing intensifies]
Is there a Trump connection here

File: 96_max_stirner_by_foxinshadow-da698i0.jpg (110KB, 771x1037px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 771x1037px

>>8613349
this

Why assume the other is an idiot if it is you who don't understand him?

>>8613026
so read his books...?

>>8614610

Because I am the greatest genius to ever grace earth with my presence - I have perfect understanding of all things. Thus, if I do not understand, it is because they are nonsensical.

DUH.

Are you retarded by any chance?

>>8613026
lol ur dumb as fuck then

It's mostly Americans that say they don't get Zizek anyways.

File: 1476006196132.jpg (63KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 625x626px

>>8614628

>>8613026
mark hamill?

>>8613345
Yeah but who want to waste their time studying pseduoscience so as to understand a philosopher that isn't even relevant to contemporary philosophy or taken seriously by anyone in the field?

If you want to understand politics and political philosophy study shit like social choice theory (e.g. stuff related to Condorcet's Paradox, Arrows Impossibility theorem, the prisoners dilemma, etc.), and philosophers like John Rawls, Robert Nozick, H. L. A Hart, Ronald Dworkin, etc.

If you want to understand social philosophy, study the phenomenologists, sociology, and anthropology.

If you want to understand psychology, study (again) the phenomenologists, cognitive science, and neuroscience.

Why waste you're time studying pedantic, unrigorous, and unscientific thinkers like Freud, Lacan, or even Marx (although he's better than the other two).

If

>>8616348
Because science will be dead soon

>>8613349
Spooks are pure ideology

>>8616348
Freud and Marx had a major influence in world history.

No one gives a fuck about Robert Nozick.

>>8617259
>Freud and Marx had a major influence in world history.
Unfortunately.

>>8616348
do you want to be taken seriously in the field or do you want the truth anon?

>>8617573
What do you think is the worst book by Freud and what is the least horrible?

>>8614609
That's a zesty Max.

>>8616271
it's not bait it's a joke you fucking moron

>>8617614
Society and its Discontents
Moses and Monotheism

are the least horrible. In general his later works, where he turns his attention to culture, religion and philosophy, are much better than his early works like On Dreams and so on.

Freud wasn't a good psychologist by modern standarts, but an inspiring cultural theorist. The same goes for Marx - even though he isn't considered "scientific" by modern standards, his works and critiques of political economy, as well as historical-materialist philosophy in general, has a lot to teach us.

If you disagree with this you are blind to the inheritance of ideas in which we all live. You might as well apply yourself and study these things, because they are floating around like spectres whether you like them or not.

>>8616348
You want to study them because they are uncompromising thinkers who asked us to see the world as radically different from what we usually do. The things you mentioned are what I would expect psychology/sociology/economics departments to put on the reading list, but none it really radically challenges your common way of thinking (except for maybe phenomenology). These department will only serve you neutralized, neutered and tame stuff under the predicate of "rigorous" and "scientific, all the while entire worlds of imagination and thinking remains closed off to you. Good luck with this, and with your edgy ideology.

>>8613026
What do you guys think of the "Courtly Love" essay?

Do we like it?

I think it's p. interesting, especially the desire stuff and the political interpretation of The Crying Game, as it relates to Irish lib. (Though of course you could argue, and I sure many Irish anons would argue, that Zizek is unfairly commented on a situation he doesn't understand for the sake of his theory)

>>8618393
Zizek can usually just barely grasp the situation he's commenting on, he was basically clueless on buddhism when he decided to lecture people about it, delusional old fart

File: 835cfcccad79d072c59781d959a2b151.jpg (20KB, 348x471px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 348x471px

>>8618507
>usually just barely

>>8618393
>the political interpretation of The Crying Game, as it relates to Irish lib.
He does that in a sense. I think he misses the ideology of "Britain is so free and liberal and totally selfless", which is pretty hard to avoid with any reading.

>>8613026
style over substance: the philosopher

>>8619258
Cliche over quality the post.