So, last week I mentioned Zizek to one of my professors and he's

File: b02de63449b85e7beff30b6f3c05cd62815f1060.jpg (38KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x500px

>>9726596
>professors

The academia is an even bigger joke than pop-philosophers like Zizek.

File: maxresdefault-1.jpg (128KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1280x720px

>>9726596

What about Zizek interests you? I agree with him that you shouldn't, Zizek is the perfect example of the cancer that is eating academia: constant decontextualization, non-verifiable ideas, and an almost religious devotion to marxism.

>>9726637

His viewpoints on culture which mirror the ever-growing scepticism towards authority in a neo-liberalist world. I don't take him seriously as a philosopher and wouldn't expect the Philosophy department to do so. I've only read his recent books which obviously talk more about dysfunction in society than anything approaching philosophy.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned him tbqh.

Also, that's a still from Sans Soleil. I like that film because it illicits a viewpoint of two different cultures very much at the opposite ends of the spectrum. You have the hyper-accelerated world of Japan contrasted with traditionalist Guinneau-Bissau. Nice kino lad.

>>9726596
>they fucking hate him

You mean (((they)))

>>9726637
>non-verifiable ideas

How the fuck do you "verify" a philosophic proposition you sperglord?

You mean people toiling away in relative obscurity are envious of those who've outperformed them in the same profession??

I just spent an hour formulating a coherent response hoping not to embarrass myself.

File: hplovecraftprinter.jpg (16KB, 214x317px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 214x317px

Is cosmicism a real philosophy or simply some negative nihilism rebranded by scifi pseuds who are memeing on Youtube?

>>9726692
1. write it down
2. put it in an envelope
3. send it to my address
4. in 2-4 weeks I'll send a reply verifying it for you

>>9726596

Lol what pleb uni do you go to?

All my professors are published authors and I read their books in my free time so I can show up to their office hours and have at least a somewhat stimulating discussion and without fail every time Zizek appears in the bibliography

>>9726692

He's a bug man who pretends he only thinks in terms of hard core empirical testability.
I swear to God this is the worst type of person on the planet.
how dumb do you have to be to still be getting memed by 17th century philosophy, jesus christ

he's certainly not taken seriously in British academia (apart from certain cesspits like essex university).

He's a performer. not an academic.

>>9726865

>academics can't be amusing

really made me think

>>9726865
ah yes, cesspits like goldsmiths, birkbeck, and warwick

File: Chomsky_0.jpg (1MB, 3800x2374px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3800x2374px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

CHARLATAN

>>9726854
>r/iamverysmart

>>9726839
kek

>>9726865
>British academia

Ahahahahahahahahahaha

zizek is the man, I saw his movie about that "obey" movie and I agreed 100 percent

>>9726916
>Literally the only relevant universities in Europe

>>9727082
>I'm the smartest man with downsyndrome

>(or if so, that I should be able to refute everything he says).
Well? Are you able to?

>>9726596
Where are you from OP?

>>9726692
>>9726860
Of course you can verify a philosophical argument.

File: chopper2_[2].jpg (135KB, 747x408px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 747x408px

>>9726873
>polytechnics

>>9726865
Hmm, not true. He's mates with Terry Eagleton. The family get copies of his books for Christmas. Signed, I hope.

Also, he did a talk in Oxford that was massively oversubscrived, and it wasn't just populated by students. Lots of students, but not just students.

>>9727082
Yeah, no. Continental universities look down upon British universities. You don't know what you're talking about.

>>9726596
post your professor's emssage.

Post your professor's nudes

File: 1491042032862.jpg (138KB, 511x800px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 511x800px

I'm doing a BA majoring in literature and philosophy and have had three different academic staff assign Zizek as a required reading, in both fields.
Are you American? American Education seems like a joke desu

>>9727154
Is that Eric Bana playing Chopper Reed? I loved that movie

>>9726596
>they fucking hate him.

who is they? is this something about the jews?

>>9727143

No you can't.

Canadian here.

I had a critical theory prof who loved Zizek and Yecarthy. On the first day of class he told us that bit that Zizek says about liberals and recycling and Starbucks.

File: 1469545961965.png (179KB, 578x242px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 578x242px

>>9727608

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-14 at 2.40.32 PM.png (611KB, 720x524px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 720x524px

>>9726682


I think for most people he works as a nice gateway toward getting into sociopolitical topics. HIs main issue is that he regurgitates marxist ideology while trying to be as obtuse and ambiguous as Lacan, which is perfect for him because it allows him to go on circles. Given his new fame, he's also generating quite the capital with this films and books which serves as a nice counterpoint to the obvious sham he is.

I honestly don't think that you could get much from him that you couldn't get from reading other classic writers like Foucault or Derrida.

And thanks, it's one of my favorites.

>>9726692

I'm not sure in what century you reside, but we do not need any more armchair guessing about the world. You don't strike me as particularly bright, so I'll be brief: if you say that something is true about the world, you should be able to show me that it is, or at least make a model based on evidence suggesting its validity. You cannot pull bullshit out of your ass and pretend its true, and we don't have to, we're not in the 19th century anymore.

>>9727649
>I'm not sure in what century you reside, but we do not need any more armchair guessing about the world. You don't strike me as particularly bright, so I'll be brief: if you say that something is true about the world, you should be able to show me that it is, or at least make a model based on evidence suggesting its validity. You cannot pull bullshit out of your ass and pretend its true, and we don't have to, we're not in the 19th century anymore.

Pure ideology.

the only people who really dislike zizek are liberals of both the left and right who should hold a meeting in a concentration camp

>>9726596
*wipes nose and sniffs* SUFFERIN SUCCOTASH!

>>9726601
So who then to your mind is not a joke?

>Ah...Ah!...*wipes nose*....ah ok...well...*pucks shirt with both hands*....ah!...you see....da szhing about me...is dat...well.... dere IS an old...marxist...joke...man is LIVING in....ukraine...

>>9726596

Well Zizek is certainly taken more seriously and has made more of an impact than your philosophy professor who is unknown outside their own department so I think he'll have the last laugh when the history of philosophy is written.

>>9726596
>le mumbling marxist who loves capitalism

I really cant figure you leftist retards out. Half of you are post-structural neomarxist ancom apes who see fit to destroy malls and flip cop cars over when you see someone richer than you, and the other half of you do nothing but sit in the corner and mumble about dah dayuhlecktix and post epick *sniff* memes everywhere.

When will you idiots adopt a coherent value system?

>>9727839
nice false flag JIDF

>>9727825
Not really. He has a "pop" impact sure, but not an academic one. Apparent impact means nothing as to the quality and content of one's actual work. He has an influence on the gneeral non-academics and Facebook commenters but little more than that.

>>9727649
>HIs main issue is that he regurgitates marxist ideology

Have you read Zizek at all? He's not even a materialist. He has literally said that dialectical materialism is one of the craziest (as in, most obviously wrong) theories he's ever heard. He may borrow bits and pieces from Marx but he's about as far as you can get from an orthodox Marxist.

> while trying to be as obtuse and ambiguous as Lacan

There are a lot of writers in the continental tradition you can rightly criticize for being intentionally obfuscatory. Zizek is not among them. He is confusing to you because you are either (1) and idiot, or (2) have no knowledge of the history of European philosophy.

If you have a BA in philosophy and took a few courses on the history of philosophy you should have no problem understanding Zizek, assuming you start with his earlier works, since his latter works develop off his earlier.

Say what you want about Zizek, personally I think his political writing is sloppy and bears a seemingly arbitrary relation to his theory, but when you criticize him for being "obtuse and ambiguous" you immediately out yourself as a retard incapable of understanding a relatively straightforward writer.

>>9727839
fuck off jordan

>>9726894
lol I think this is an underrated "public intellectual" beef tbqh

>>9728006
this post reminded me how much I want Peterson vs Zizek

>>9728708
peterson would start out smug and end up in tears.

>>9726933
>I saw his movie about that "obey" movie and I agreed 100 percent
You're a prime example of his followers and you probably don't even see anything wrong with your post.

>>9727965
>There are a lot of writers in the continental tradition you can rightly criticize for being intentionally obfuscatory. Zizek is not among them. He is confusing to you because you are either (1) and idiot, or (2) have no knowledge of the history of European philosophy.
I'm not that guy but there are many acomplished people who say the same thing about Zizek so "you're just too stupid to get him" is not a great argument (it's pretty childish anyway).

>>9728708
I think they'd agree on almost everything while their respective fanbases would continue bashing their heads in.

>>9728734
>I think they'd agree on almost everything
This is what peterson fans think.

>>9726894
Related video: "Vice Meets Superstar Communist Zizek"

It boggles my mind that Zizek fanboys aren't ridiculed on this board with the same fervour as Rupi Kaur or Amy Schumer.

>>9727593
Kek'd

>>9727965
Zizek had a bit of a feud with Laclau because Zizek held, and still holds, onto Marxist a priori formulas such as class struggle. I wouldn't say he's really that far removed from Marx. Which is fine, Laclau and Mouffe's radical democracy can have many risks such as the more extreme examples of identity politics which go against any form of universality. Of course Marxism has an explicit anti-philosophical side (but then again so does every important philosopher ever), but it still sounds better to me to claim that someone's opinion should be discarded for being bourgeois ideology rather than it being race or sex privilege'd ideology because the latter aren't as contingent as the first category. But I'm bumbling, every decent leftist understands that reversing the roles solves nothing.

>>9728738
What would they disagree on?
>the left caused the current right-wing populism, it's not because of bad people seeking an outlet
>capitalism isn't a great system but the alternatives provided by the left are even worse
>political correctness is a cancer
Both of them say these things.
Also, both of them aren't serious thinkers interested in a stringent theory but mostly performance activists riding a wave of disenfranchised bitter millennials (I say that without any negative judgment).

>>9728750
You can't tell because you're an intellectual midget who follows the hivemind of pussy bitches who go for the easiest targets and can't tell the difference between what appears gimmicky and has substance and what is gimmicky and has no substance.

>>9727663
This.

Also, this almost Oedipal desire for approval is pathetic. Zizek is far from perfect, but there's nothing preventing someone from taking what he finds useful in his work and not worrying about whether some autistic long forgotten professor thinks about him. And there are a lot of useful concepts in Zizek in spite of, or perhaps because of the dubious Lacanian influence.

>>9728761
Yes, I am the intellectual midget following a hivemind of pussy bitches while you - among with the 800.000 viewers of the Vice video - are the opposite.
Take a deep breath and see if you can find the irony in your statement.

>>9728767
Don't you think you're misrepresenting the rejection of Zizek a bit?
I mean, I agree that it's stupid to base your opinion on anyone on whether your professors like him - but the main criticism of Zizek is simply that there is no philosophical work that anyone can take from. It's just pop slogans and speculation. Good stuff if you want to fuel a protest but simply useless in any serious discussion, let alone in academia (old academia that is, you don't need to be alt-right to realise it has changed since the 1950s).

I like Zizek by the way, although calling him a con artist definitely isn't completely wrong.

>>9728760
The points you brought up are superficial and agreed on by anyone who isn't a total fucking idiot. They fundamentally disagree with one another, if you look at who they draw from, zizek - freud/lacan/marx and peterson - neechee/jung/assorted fiction they are diametrically opposed. It'd be interesting on a celebrity academics battle level sure but when you delve deeper peterson doesn't have much substance which is why he appeals to people who tend to be against academia in general.

>performance activists
>disenfranchised bitter millenials
That really only applies to peterson.

>>9727701
laughed for a full minute senpai, ty.

>>9728771
Your post makes no sense until the ending when it also makes no sense. Like I said, intellectual midget, stick to posting in rupi kaur/amy schumer hate threads.

>>9727825
Without the dirty jokes, the funny accent and mannerisms he'd be a literal nobody.
I don't mind him overall, but let's be real for a minute.

>>9728760
Off the top of my head:

> Zizek, like many Lacanians, dislikes Jung and considers him a psychotic (he was, but that's beside the point)
> Zizek still wants some global change and better global treaties, not so sure about Peterson
> Zizek wants the left to take power wherever possible and to fight for every right (such as Obamacare), not sure about Peterson since he's openly conservative
> Zizek is pro-LGBTQ+etc. on the Lacanian basis that sexual identity is violently painful for those not fitting the description (more or less everyone to some degree or another), not so sure about Peterson
> Sexual difference for Zizek is mostly based on unconscious symbolic structures rather than genetics, not so sure about Peterson
> Zizek wants more immigrants provided that it is controlled using the army and that rich arab countries are forced to take their share of the burden, not so sure about Peterson
> Zizek is worried about the freedom we have not being sufficient (we lack true political freedom), not sure about Peterson

There's probably more. I wouldn't say that they're in agreement even though there's nothing wrong with leftists and conservatives having thinga in common. Zizek is a bit conservative when it comes to public order.

>>9728793
Amazing rebuttal, I now see your intellectual superiority.

>>9728804
Sarcasm is the refuge for the intellectually and emotionally defunct.

>>9728782
> the main criticism of Zizek is simply that there is no philosophical work that anyone can take from. It's just pop slogans and speculation. Good stuff if you want to fuel a protest but simply useless in any serious discussion, let alone in academia (old academia that is, you don't need to be alt-right to realise it has changed since the 1950s).


No, because it is related to what I said about taking what you find useful from his work. I don't know what people expect from philosophy, you can't just perform a controlled survey study which shows that 9 out of 10 people are suffering from pure ideology *sniff*. Besides, his concepts aren't hidden and his pop explanations and jokes are the bonus rather than the central point (even though style is a central point for any Lacanian). It's simply an unfair criticism no different than stating that Zizek has green hair and shoots lasers from his eyes. And again, Zizek has plenty of shortcomings and weak points, but that doesn't make his work contentless nor isolated from the continental tradition.

>>9728815
While pure ad hominem without any substance, followed by "haha you intellectual midget, can't address the substance, huh?" showcases exceptional intellectual capability.

>>9728835
My posts were pretty accurate in describing your intellectual midgetry and cowardice, so it actually had a lot of substance relating to the subject; you. You responded with a failed comparison fueled by your misunderstanding of what irony is followed by the classic 14-year old teenage girl insult "ohh you're soooo smart." So yes you're a fucking moron.

>>9728824
>but that doesn't make his work contentless
But that is the entire point. Many people think his work is entirely devoid of any content that goes beyond obscure waffling or pop philosophy.

You can disagree of course and philosophy not being too empirical makes it easy to turn it into an eye of the beholder matter. But I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone who doesn't admit that Zizek's fame comes almost exlusively from his mannerism, use of modern media and pop appeal to slacktivists rather than any dry, serious theory that added substance to the minds of his peers.

>>9728844
Take a step back from the screen and consider whether your reaction to someone not liking your youtube hero isn't a little over the top. What on earth went wrong in your life.

>>9728854
>P-please stop posting
Just close your browser my man.

>>9728849
> Many people think his work is entirely devoid of any content that goes beyond obscure waffling or pop philosophy.

Many people also have never read him or listened to him for more than 5 minutes. It doesn't mean anything even if it is true.


> philosophy not being too empirical makes it easy to turn it into an eye of the beholder matter.

True, but any decent philosopher accounts for this theoretically. It is perfectly fine to ask, for example, "does Zizek's notion of ideology not include his own discourse?".


> Zizek's fame

Popular fame isn't the same as academic fame, one can have both. You are correct imo concerning Zizek's academic fame, but this does not make his work without content. If anything Zizek wrote about anything and everything, including the entire philosophical tradition up to him. I feel like we're moving goalposts here...

File: z.png (741KB, 755x638px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 755x638px

WE

>>9726637
>he clings to the spook of verifiability

>>9728796
>Zizek is pro-LGBTQ+etc
No he's not. He literally says that radical love(true love) is monogamous.

>>9726791
It's an actual philosophy, but not much of one.

>ITT: people whose opinion on Zizek is entirely based on his youtube videos
I bet no one here has read a single philosophical work of his, including myself.

>>9729498
I may have phrased that a bit blunt. He is for certain aspects of LGBTQ+ including the authenticity of gender struggle. Polyamory is indeed something he goes against insofar as love is concerned. Is polyamory a part of LGBTQ+? I don't know much about the movement aside from the fact that they keep adding letters and signs to the name.

>>9729567
I admit I never read one cover to cover, but I have read quite a bit of his work in passing (including articles). It isn't all that different from his Youtube videos, but if you look for concepts rather than jokes there's substance to those videos as well.

>>9726854

Guy used to teach at Oxbridge.

>>9727082
Literally can't into continental philosophy

>>9727649

>I think for most people he works as a nice gateway toward getting into sociopolitical topics.

OP here. I agree, and it's explicitly what I said to him in response. The reason for our discourse was because I said I was interested in studying further on modern topics betwixt philosophy and sociology. Zizek came up as an example.

>Foucault

He took issue with him too.

File: 6d4.jpg (241KB, 1180x1204px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1180x1204px

>>9727965

Oh yes, either I'm clearly an idiot for not liking him, or am completely unaware of European history. Let me break this down for you:

1) If you think that there isn't a grave semantic and referential issue in his writing, I'd argue that you are the idiot. For real, get on track with his videos, podcasts, interviews (anywhere he makes an interaction with another human being) and you'll see the needless semantic mess he makes out of all his topics. A big issue is that his ideas are virtually non-arguable, seeing as how he'll start parading about how you're ideology is affecting your understanding of the world and of his ideas, which ends with an emperor's new clothes sort of argument, kinda like yours. I want to point out, so as to not get your brain in a tangle, that I don't mean that he's singularly the only human being to be like this. However, it's annoying that he is like this because he's a well known public figure, and one whose intellect is barely respected by any intellectual, but massively accepted by college BAs desperate to be deep.

2) I said he regurgitates marxist ideology, didn't say he categorically embraces it. I think it's pretty clear that most of his books, and most of his conversations, revolve around some conflict in the world as seen from a select marxist perspective.

3) Worse yet, all his arguments are dichotomies that need not be; it's usually oppressor vs oppressed, dream vs reality, being awake vs being asleep, etc. If you constantly need to limit, or categorize, every phenomena into solely two options, I'd argue again, that you are the idiot.

4) To be clear again, I don't think he's useless, as I said in my previous post, he has some good ideas and can serve as a gateway into deeper, more nuanced, conversations on certain topics for a lot of people. However, most of what he says should be obvious to just about anybody who has had any sort of formal education on how society and culture works. It isn't anything new, it hasn't ever been.

>>9729567
Well if you've read him you would have realized that most of his books/articles are exactly like his videos

The only exception i can think of is The Sublime Object of Ideology

>>9726596

I like zizek as a personality and i enjoy his movie analysis critique

I've tried reading one of his books but fuck that convoluted shit


I like his occasional talks, but mostly i'm into his film analysis

/ Irrelevant comment

>>9730227
>I've tried reading one of his books but fuck that convoluted shit

Did you try one of his academic ones that are loaded with philosophical jargon? Because he has written a lot of pop books for a general audience (that's actually his main output)

>>9730231

I read *event* published by penguin books *duh

Idk i'm sure if you have some dedication and get into it, i'm sure it's comprehensible

Still i rather listen to his talks and film stuff mainly

>>9726596

One professor, one anecdote, one datum does not an appraisal of the group make.

There are whole journals about his work. May it yet be true that contemporaries have honestly tired of Zizek, exactly as we tire of fidget spinners or of Joyce, exactly because they are "memes"? Of course. But the whole point of a meme is that when you seriously go looking for supporters, you will easily find them. And this because the meme is itself popular.

One section of the academy's distate for Zizek is not enough to conclude that academia in general hates Zizek. However deserving Zizek might be of such.

>>9726596
Zizek is a vegetarian why the fuck would you take him seriously?

>>9727701

ive only ever seen a couple of short clips of him but god damn is this disgusting freak unable to communicate effectively

he just makes disgusting bacon sizzling noises with his mouth and apparently he's just a self contradictory joke and should only be taken as seriously as his ability to speak clearly

for what purpose anyone pays this freak attention, who knows. he's like the ronda rousey of philosophy it seems. you know in the back of your head he is a joke, and that's why people talk about him so much

>>9727649
>I'm not sure in what century you reside, but we do not need any more armchair guessing about the world. You don't strike me as particularly bright, so I'll be brief: if you say that something is true about the world, you should be able to show me that it is, or at least make a model based on evidence suggesting its validity. You cannot pull bullshit out of your ass and pretend its true, and we don't have to, we're not in the 19th century anymore.
Individuality and individual experiences are irrational and have no basis in pure proof, but we rely on those all the time. By discounting so many unprovable things worthless you are basically calling art and philosophy worthless as well.

>>9726596
academics are PETTY, small souled bugmen. i dont even like zizek but i know exactly the kind of thing that you're talking about.

do NOT go into academia unless you want to become something less than a man.

>>9728760
>>9728796
Zizek, like he does with almost everyone, claims that Jung was a secret Hegelian.
I get the impression from Peterson that he is pretty much fine with keeping the status quo but wants to roll back leftism a bit.
I think Petersons view on the LGBTQ+ would probably be keeping with a more binary understanding of gender with everything beyond Lesbian, Gay and Bi being overdiagnosed by youth confused by postmodern thinking.
Peterson would say that sex differences are based on genetics and upbringing, he often cites studies and schools of thought that indicate this. However, he would also accept the existence of the unconscious as having a fundamental importance to the subject and having some clinical merit.
Peterson is worried about the dangers to political freedoms we already possess, particularly freedom of speech, not sure on how deep his political thoughts go.

Peterson uses Solzhenitsyn as one of his primary sources for criticising communism in practice I have heard Zizek in a number of his lectures dismissing Solzhenitsyn outright. One of the main differences I see is that Peterson uses peer-reviewed studies to back up his assertions Zizek does not.

>>9727693
Himself, and only himself.

>>9727825
That's probably not even true, college professors in things like history, politics and philosophy often do a lot in their own fields. Some much more than others, yes, but assuming that about a professor you don't even know the name of is just stupid.

>>9727839
>When will you idiots adopt a coherent value system?
Death to fascists, down with capitalism, down with SNLY and the Law of Value. Good enough for you?

>>9732715
>I think a coherent value system is just things I am opposed to

>>9732715
>Death to fascism, freedom to the nation

a nice moto

>>9732715
Why though?

Zizek tukaj, reci tvojemu profesorju;

Odjebi kapitalist stari

>>9726596
Did they substantiate their objections at all?

I mean, Zizek is a self declared pervert in his presentation of self, it's weird to think such hostility exists without something intelligible behind it.

File: tumblr_n07e6nDJKB1s1rh30o2_400.gif (896KB, 377x357px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 377x357px

>>9733126
>Zizek is a self declared pervert in his presentation of self
he isn't and he hates that the films had that title to attract normies

he has some bullshit lacanian theory that says that perverts believe in the status quo, they just play the obverse of it, and that you have to speak from a hysteric position to truly subvert the system

i believe it's just bullshit and it's one of the small winks and small vacuous concessions he gives towards women so that they can feel adored and he can get away with stuff that normal men can't

i mean he can already get away with a lot of stuff that normal men can't by simply playing "le balkan crazy old guy", but small winks like that also help

>>9726682
Sans Soleil is probably in my top 5 favorite films. It's unlike anything else I've ever seen.

>>9726596
>to send me a forthright rebuttal of my interest
post it here

File: farron.jpg (304KB, 1147x1999px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1147x1999px

One of my professors called Zizek "almost alt-right"

File: lmaoing.jpg (21KB, 130x184px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 130x184px

>>9728870
You got BTFO on several occasions and that guy wasn't even trying. Congrats.

>>9733324
Things that never happened general?

I'm a self proclaimed Alt-Rightist and I consider Zizek to be one of us. Spout all of your oh so nuanced and elaborate refutations against that all you want. The fact of the matter is that we are in this fight together.

>>9733366
>doesn't know what accelerationism is

>>9733366
Zizek repeatedly said he wants more immigrants. If that's the Alt-Right position then sieg heil!

>>9727500
Pity British universities smash them all in rankings but no matter.

>>9733366
>>9733324
I actually sort of agree. The "Alt Right" insofar as it actually exists is mostly made up of people like Richard Spencer who's basically a NatBol. The movement is implicitly anti-capitalist because Capitalism is seen as a sort of "Jewish" construct to justify the erasure of racial/national identity in the name of globalization and GDP growth.

The way I'd put it is more that the "Alt Right" is more like Zizek than they are like Pat Buchanan or Buckley, or even old school white supremacists like Rockwell. The iconoclastic and nihilistic attitudes of the movement strike me as distinctly postmodern and very, very much at odds with the traditional American Right, which values "Principles" (at least on paper) above all other things. The Alt Right doesn't have principles, they have an objective and tactics, and they are entirely willing to perform naked acts of sophistry to reach them, which is something I also associate with Zizek.

The chief difference is that they deliberately couch their ideas in more relatable language than other people of their actual political leanings, if you listen to TRS for example Mike Enoch is perfectly capable of conversing about dialectics in an intellectually rigorous manner, but they never bother with it because nobody on the Right actually cares about the philosophic underpinnings of any of their movements, they care about getting what they want--in this case essentially Centrist to even Center-Left racial Ultranationalism.

>>9733366
He's alt-right in so far as he's falseflagging as a stalinist to make the left look bad. He's been quite successful at it.

>>9733381
The free movement of peoples is an intrinsically Capitalist idea. It literally facilitates exploitation and that's the only way in which it is beneficial for a society--and certainly the only reason anyone encourages it aside from moral posturing.

You literally cannot be Left Wing and endorse such idiocy. It's the purest sort of neoliberal reductionist shell-gaming.

I wish he'd cut down on the amphetamines for interviews.

>>9726637
>an almost religious devotion to marxism.
buddy his "marxism" is just lacan with a class-lense

File: quine.jpg (21KB, 349x388px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 349x388px

>>9727649
>I'm not sure in what century you reside, but we do not need any more armchair guessing about the world. You don't strike me as particularly bright, so I'll be brief: if you say that something is true about the world, you should be able to show me that it is, or at least make a model based on evidence suggesting its validity. You cannot pull bullshit out of your ass and pretend its true, and we don't have to, we're not in the 19th century anymore.
>verification is what makes things meaningful

>>9734643
>still living in the pre-truth era
get with the times, pleb

>>9733405
>The free movement of peoples is an intrinsically Capitalist idea.
Not that guy, but IIRC Zizek endorses military assisted immigration. He literally said he would be in favor of the military forcibly moving the immigrants into Europe. Furthermore, he suggested that the state should get the money needed to feed/shelter the immigrants from everyone's bank accounts. However, he was against forcing the people to like immigrants, or asking them to shelter the immigrants in their own houses.
So he's against free movement, but pro immigration.

>>9734665
is this some form of accelerationism?

>>9734678
I wonder what Zizek would think of Nick Land. Land is almost a living embodiment of everything he hates.

>>9734678
I think the only thing he's going to accelerate is people realizing the heroin finally got him good.

>>9729498
>LGBT+ people can't be monogamous
nigger my neighbours (two men) have been married for about the same amount of time as my parents, what the fuck does monogamy has to do with anything.

>>9726682
Japan is actually a very traditional country in many respects, though. They may have a completely computerized stock market but they still use goddamned fax machines.

>>9734678
>>9734682
>is this some form of accelerationism?
no, he is just one of the last leftists fascinated by big government, which is kind of refreshing after all the magical local community bullshit even if it's scary

in the same line, he also kind of likes David Harvey's military Keynesianism ideas, so it probably bleeds into his thought from that

>>9732600
>>9732600
>Peterson uses peer-reviewed studies to back up his assertions Zizek does not.
Are you absolutely retarded? How the fuck does one write a book on philosophy without using "peer-reviewed" studies? Do you think the "Bibliography" chapter of books is just recommendations on books you might like if you're reading this? Or you'll tell me philosophy essays and books aren't peer-reviewed?

>>9727649
>if you say that something is true about the world, you should be able to show me that it is, or at least make a model based on evidence suggesting its validity.

Always amazes me to see plebs stuck THIS deep in metaphysics. You are everything that's wrong with the world. There's a difference between truth and correct representation.

did op ever post his professor's objections? can't read all this shit

>>9726596
Zizek is better than most Marx cock sucking left writers, Kropotkin is still the goat

>>9734728
Cool it man, no need to act hysterical. It was meant to be peer reviewed psychology papers as what you are citing is a summation from the previous paragraph, notably the third or fourth line. As far as I am aware Zizek does not cite neuroscience and psychological studies outside of Psychoanalysis on a regular basis to prove is points.

>>9734665
>He literally said he would be in favor of the military forcibly moving the immigrants into Europe. Furthermore, he suggested that the state should get the money needed to feed/shelter the immigrants from everyone's bank accounts.

I refuse to believe Zizek meant this literally, he tends to be pretty ironic in his proposed solutions; this is like some kind of hyper-Stalinist.

>However, he was against forcing the people to like immigrants

This isn't even a policy that can be debated, how is it possible to force someone to like someone else?

>>9733153
>he isn't and he hates that the films had that title to attract normies
but
>>9733153
>you have to speak from a hysteric position to truly subvert the system
Isn't that the same thing though? You need to aggrandize your presentation somehow to make it effective? Sounds like you just made some shit up anon.

>>9733364
Obviously I have no way to prove it, but maybe if I contextualise it a little you might believe me:

We were having a one-to-one meeting about my dissertation on irony. We were talking about alt-right figures who use irony to shield a sincere intent (postirony). I brought up using Zizek's theory in my dissertation and he said "I would be careful about taking Zizek too seriously. A lot of the things he has said are not too far from alt-right."

Basically he was calling Zizek a provacateur. His University profile says that he once taught Gender Studies at another university, so my guess is he took umbridge with Zizek's views on trans issues.

Not too far of a stretch, is it?

File: matheme.gif (4KB, 351x256px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 351x256px

>>9736597
>Isn't that the same thing though? You need to aggrandize your presentation somehow to make it effective? Sounds like you just made some shit up anon.
for lacanians hysteria is some weird concept, same as perversion, not normal words that normies understand. so it has nothing to do with aggrandizing his presentation. I am not sure how do you even relate hysteria with self-aggrandizing even using the normie definition of hysteria.

i won't pretend i understand lacanian psychoanalysis, but just read this if you want to take zizek at his word:
http://www.lacan.com/zizfour.htm

>>9730202
I think the greatest evidence of what you're saying is in an interview he did recently in which the anchor asked him what he would do instead to change the things he complains about and he proceeds to repeat his verbal gymnastics until he gets pressed again (at which point he simply says he does not know).

>>9727839
>When will you idiots adopt a coherent value system?
Probably right about the time their masters move to cull them (too late)

>>9726596
Mention Nick Land to your professor next time and tell us the results.

>>9738009
*blank face* who?