Hi, it would be to much to ask for the dates of the talks? I think I just saw two talks of Zizek in Hegel in inversed order. Anyway, as usual thanks a lot for your work.
No Slavoj, you need to read closely. The theory of the event as evanescent is dropped: the site is what 'flashes' in its paradoxical appearance. The event is not linked also to consequences, and marks the line of change from modification to the strong singularity. And this concerns the consequences of the event, insofar as they explain the effect on the inexistent: if the inexistent gathers maximal intensity after the site's appearing then it was an event. Zizek can't afford to be this sloppy.
@Krelianx it's pretty clear that you don't know what you're talking about so you decide to hide behind clever wording and syntax. try explaining your point in reference to pop culture, if you can't do that then you know that you actually don't have a point at all.
Hi, it would be to much to ask for the dates of the talks? I think I just saw two talks of Zizek in Hegel in inversed order. Anyway, as usual thanks a lot for your work.
tsuresuregusa 1 year ago
No Slavoj, you need to read closely. The theory of the event as evanescent is dropped: the site is what 'flashes' in its paradoxical appearance. The event is not linked also to consequences, and marks the line of change from modification to the strong singularity. And this concerns the consequences of the event, insofar as they explain the effect on the inexistent: if the inexistent gathers maximal intensity after the site's appearing then it was an event. Zizek can't afford to be this sloppy.
Krelianx 1 year ago
@Krelianx it's pretty clear that you don't know what you're talking about so you decide to hide behind clever wording and syntax. try explaining your point in reference to pop culture, if you can't do that then you know that you actually don't have a point at all.
zvexevz 1 year ago