mingtp
|
For Grufty Jim
Aug 28, 2010, 09:25
|
Just thought you'd like to know that there's a 2 page interview in this week's issue of New Scientist with Slavoj Žižek about his new book.
From what I can tell his new book (Living in the End Times) describes four elements of the apocalypse (in the revelatory rather than catastrophic sense) in terms of the demise of Western capitalism.
Interestingly, the article says he's been described as "the most dangerous philosopher in the West".
Thanks for turning me on to Žižek Grufty, I don't agree with a fair bit of what he says, but I do like the 'cut of his jib'.
Peace
Ming
|
grufty jim
|
Edited Aug 30, 2010, 01:04
Re: For Grufty Jim
Aug 28, 2010, 17:46
|
|
Glad you're digging him, migtp. I first encountered Slavoj Žižek when I began studying Lacan (I don't think I'd have ever got my head 'round Lacan without the help of Žižek's books). Like yourself, I certainly don't agree with every utterance he makes, and I get the feeling that he occasionally says things more to provoke a response than because he believes them to be true (which is a perfectly valid philosophical approach, so long as you don't overuse it and drown your meaning in too much noise). All the same, despite my reservations at times, he's clearly possessed of a real wisdom and insight and is one of the most important thinkers alive today.
|
mingtp
|
Re: For Grufty Jim
Aug 28, 2010, 18:19
|
|
I studied Lacan too back in the day - wasn't it him who came up with the witty term "hommelette" to describe a neo-nate's unconscious? I'm sure that was Lacan?
|
PMM
|
Re: For Grufty Jim
Aug 29, 2010, 23:31
|
|
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727751.100-slavoj-zizek-wake-up-and-smell-the-apocalypse.html?full=true
|
mingtp
|
Re: For Grufty Jim
Aug 30, 2010, 01:21
|
|
PMM wrote:
That's the one, thanks PMM.
|
stray
|
Edited Aug 31, 2010, 11:44
Re: For Grufty Jim
Aug 31, 2010, 11:33
|
|
grufty jim wrote: and I get the feeling that he occasionally says things more to provoke a response than because he believes them to be true (which is a perfectly valid philosophical approach,
That's the problem, and while it is a valid philosophical approach (though actually it isn't, but it's complicated and I'm guessing/hoping you are horribly oversimplifying there too Jim) there are valid ways of taking that approach also. Very little, arguably none, of his work is philosophy. At best his work is an exercise in rhetoric, and at worst it's extraordinarily simplistic sophistry.
For example, I've heard him argue that the 'Final Solution' was the (and is the) only rational solution to the jewish problem. He does this without stopping to say 'hang on, is there/was there a Jewish problem' properly (I know what he said fully, I've had to listen to and read an awful lot of his 'work'). He never really addresses what a problem actually is, properly (in a philosophical sense), or anything epistemological in general tbh, in anything approaching a philosophical approach. Everything he says (apart from his work on Lacan, which is solid), being as it is rhetoric is easily deconstructed to what it is, which is ugly and mostly biased polemic. Nowt wrong with that at all, but lets not call it philosophy.
Most (actually, come on stray, the word is ALL, I've not found anything to counter this in his work, so I'm using the academic 'most' here) of his insights have a shit load of prior art that is wholly better researched and argued, usually to the contrary. He is entirely about self promotion through shock, see the Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue for a good example, and his laughable and revealing defence of it.
The reason why he is 'the most dangerous philosopher in the world' is because people who really should know better take him seriously. Its just rhetoric people, it ain't philosophy.
He isn't a philosopher he's a very naughty boy. He is to philosophy what Stalin was to communism. (See what I did there ? That's a proper Žižek joke that is). Yeah sometimes you can find yourself agreeing with him, cos even the wrong theory can produce the right results sometimes. Any philosophy needs a foundational base, axioms if you will (oversimplifying here), it's not enough just to be a gobby self promoting rhetorician.
|
mingtp
|
Re: For Grufty Jim
Aug 31, 2010, 12:19
|
|
stray wrote: For example, I've heard him argue that the 'Final Solution' was the (and is the) only rational solution to the jewish problem.
Really? Fuck!
|
stray
|
Re: For Grufty Jim
Aug 31, 2010, 12:33
|
“The only true solution to the ‘Jewish Question’ is the ‘final solution’
(their annihilation) because Jews ... are the ultimate obstacle to the ‘final solution’ of
History itself, to the overcoming of divisions in an all-encompassing unity and
flexibility”? - In defence of lost causes. If you actually find any lectures where he defends this it just gets worse. I don't keep zizek links, in the spirit of Zizek I purge and annihilate them ;)
Saying that
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24709155/Zizek-is-Crazy-A2-CAP-K has extracts that are a good start. Page 5 is an easy way into some of what is wrong with him.
|
stray
|
Edited Aug 31, 2010, 12:49
Re: For Grufty Jim
Aug 31, 2010, 12:46
|
Rhetoric. That's what it is, it is it's own reward. It's a simple tool, like sophistry, use it and you will be internally consistent, but only within the issues that you are choosing to deal with to the point you've decided to go to. Try it with other issues to another point and there's a damn good chance you'll stop being consistent with what you said earlier. This is one of the reasons we bother with philosophy, so that we don't end up just being smug little cognitively dissonant cocks.
Edit : Also being selective and revisionist about history is just plain lazy.
|
grufty jim
|
Edited Aug 31, 2010, 13:57
Re: For Grufty Jim
Aug 31, 2010, 13:57
|
Unfortunately I don't have much time to discuss this right now (leaving for a couple of weeks in Serbia tomorrow morning). What I will do is to repeat the fact that I'm not defending Zizek in general. His work on Lacan is superb (and I'll staunchly defend that statement) and that really forms the majority of my knowledge of him. However, I have also been mightily impressed by his talks on global consumerism and the inherent psychosis of The Market.
I'm completely unaware of his statements about The Final Solution, and I accept that much of what he has to say drifts far closer to political rhetoric than philosophy (excluding, as I say, his books on Lacan which in my view provide essential insight into a difficult writer... a deliberately difficult writer in fact, but that's a tangent).
Anyway, from what I know of Zizek (and I accept my knowledge is limited) he's saying some important things louder than anyone else. My own work on the psychosis of The Market, for instance, is probably more coherent than Zizek's, but it hasn't been widely read and doesn't get hundreds of thousands of hits on YouTube.
He's a lightning-rod... perhaps not terribly illuminating, but one that's drawing attention to an area I think requires it.
I also think his film, "A Pervert's Guide to Cinema" makes great viewing.
|
