He does not critizise Zizek. He comments on the reception. This might be what is getting to the people commenting. But again this could prove the point that there is an unfortunate level of over-identification going on...
As an answer to the lecturer's "Zizek's Lacan is not Lacan's Lacan" one might be tempted to paraphrase Lacan by noting that "there is no Lacan's Lacan's."
First he criticizes Zizek for lack of originality, and then he turns around and criticizes Zizek for lack of orthodoxy. You can't have it both ways. If Zizek is not orthodox, it follows that he must be in some way original. Indeed, this same idiotic "critique" could have been leveled at Lacan with regard to his use (or creative misuse) of Freud. In the end, this lecture comes across as little more than petty academic carping.
Zizek is only repeating Lacan's idea with a pseudo-dialectics. If one has to read Lacan, why not from the original. Zizek's version is not recommended.
Who cares if Zizek is "an original thinker" and more of a "bricoleur"? A lot of this criticism is not a criticism of Zizek's ideas, but a criticism of Zizek's reception. Also there is statement of the obvious: Zizek's Lacan is not Lacan's Lacan.... Well, yeah, read the source texts.
What an awful representation of Zizek's ideas - I suggest you actually read Zizek or watch some of the many lectures on the internet.
TenderHistoryInRust 11 months ago
"Zizek!" really was awful.
Harpakhrad11 2 years ago
He does not critizise Zizek. He comments on the reception. This might be what is getting to the people commenting. But again this could prove the point that there is an unfortunate level of over-identification going on...
TheatetustheGreat 3 years ago
As an answer to the lecturer's "Zizek's Lacan is not Lacan's Lacan" one might be tempted to paraphrase Lacan by noting that "there is no Lacan's Lacan's."
Climacus11 3 years ago
Opinions of people on the internet<Academics
coldstatic 4 years ago
First he criticizes Zizek for lack of originality, and then he turns around and criticizes Zizek for lack of orthodoxy. You can't have it both ways. If Zizek is not orthodox, it follows that he must be in some way original. Indeed, this same idiotic "critique" could have been leveled at Lacan with regard to his use (or creative misuse) of Freud. In the end, this lecture comes across as little more than petty academic carping.
pgk7285 4 years ago
Comment removed
yowhatitlooklike 4 years ago
Zizek gets most of his interpretations wrong. He is a sloppy thinker. He does tell great dirty jokes. So what.
VinkoNoah 2 years ago
Comment removed
yowhatitlooklike 4 years ago
Zizek is only repeating Lacan's idea with a pseudo-dialectics. If one has to read Lacan, why not from the original. Zizek's version is not recommended.
sajabhaba 4 years ago
Comment removed
yowhatitlooklike 4 years ago
Who cares if Zizek is "an original thinker" and more of a "bricoleur"? A lot of this criticism is not a criticism of Zizek's ideas, but a criticism of Zizek's reception. Also there is statement of the obvious: Zizek's Lacan is not Lacan's Lacan.... Well, yeah, read the source texts.
bloodedbythought 4 years ago
I have a feeling this guy doesn't like Zizek. All intelectual -of course- use previous theories to enrich and support their own.
calamaro70 4 years ago