Does anyone else find his speech impediment distracting? Lucky for him I guess, otherwise he'd have been sniffed out as the bullshitter he his long before now... 'there is no nature'? Come on- my fishtank is deeper than this tit.
I get a problem with the idealization of the system, I try to explain that, imagine a world in other system way, the taking of more of them, then the consumerism is a reality, so also the consumerism provides an environment conducive to unravel our unimaginable habits to the time to buy, the point that I would say is that we cannot idealise the capacity of development.
Darwin would called a dominance hegemonico of race, putting the point of zizeck: comes a stupid and makes one another can prevail over the same, it seems to me an idea sensible but i think we think in idealizing the capitalism, is to develop the theory of idiot compared to the ecosystem, of what we are talking about are of concrete facts as that gases of greenhouses producing such things, fc'S certain other in the ozone layer
, to what i mean is that idealize our human capacity compared to the ecosystem nor is a way to understand nor much less face a specific problem, the question that i do is: the system leads to solutions or is a system idiot capable of providing idiots Things
good points - needing to let go of a idealization of nature to really confront the threats the it itself, and not the threats to an idealization of it.
There was a decent overview of Zizek's recent work on Lenin's Tomb blogsite last week that demonstrated how he's moved away from a class-based political philosophy to a post-modern pluralism centred around the Schmittian notions of inclusion/exclusion. This fits much better into his Lacanian topology. But politically it's meaningless. I don't detect any relevance in what he's saying here for Marxism or Marx's critique of Feuerbach.
Post modern pluralism? I have no idea what you're talking about; if anything Zizek's jargon has shifted slightly towards Badiou's concepts from Logiques (which I think is a great thing). How did Feuerbach come into this again?
No, I have to agree with Phil. His "argument" has been boiled down to these counter-intuitive claims about the nature of reality and meaning, and he's constantly forcing himself into refuting the blatantly obvious simply for the sake of making counter-intuitive claims. It's performance art.
in this clip he's echoing lacan, hegel, marx , kant and schelling quite a bit. demystification of nature is part of the long tradition of the critique of ideology. you can hear echoes of marx's critique of feuerbach here. it's actually a nice 'counter-intuitive' twist on nature using some weapons from the 'anti-essentialist' toolbox. and have you read For they do not Know what they do? It's certainly a philosophical if not theoretical book. give it a try.
I can't believe this guy is considered an important philosopher! What happened to Philosophy when I wasn't looking? He's not even saying anything, let alone making an argument.
Does anyone else find his speech impediment distracting? Lucky for him I guess, otherwise he'd have been sniffed out as the bullshitter he his long before now... 'there is no nature'? Come on- my fishtank is deeper than this tit.
ech1dna 1 year ago
I get a problem with the idealization of the system, I try to explain that, imagine a world in other system way, the taking of more of them, then the consumerism is a reality, so also the consumerism provides an environment conducive to unravel our unimaginable habits to the time to buy, the point that I would say is that we cannot idealise the capacity of development.
julsdcr 2 years ago
Darwin would called a dominance hegemonico of race, putting the point of zizeck: comes a stupid and makes one another can prevail over the same, it seems to me an idea sensible but i think we think in idealizing the capitalism, is to develop the theory of idiot compared to the ecosystem, of what we are talking about are of concrete facts as that gases of greenhouses producing such things, fc'S certain other in the ozone layer
julsdcr 2 years ago
, to what i mean is that idealize our human capacity compared to the ecosystem nor is a way to understand nor much less face a specific problem, the question that i do is: the system leads to solutions or is a system idiot capable of providing idiots Things
julsdcr 2 years ago
I like this guy
AzathothianBrew 2 years ago
Zizek at his best walking in an active dump! New way to produce an academic lecture. Zizek on Love.
JaiNote 2 years ago
Comment removed
SingingRaven 2 years ago
good points - needing to let go of a idealization of nature to really confront the threats the it itself, and not the threats to an idealization of it.
beefman550 2 years ago
threat *TO it itself
beefman550 2 years ago
Zizek is on form here; I detect nothing of 'performance art' or any drift from class based politcal philosophy' in tis 10 minutes segment'
spitfirepilot 2 years ago 2
Hey conservatives:
Let's quote mine in Zizek and add him as a source that global warming is not happening at all and environmentalists are deluded Berkeley hippies.
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
Comment removed
julsdcr 2 years ago
"you can have half a hamburger, muffins and some juice"
foucauldian 2 years ago 2
Trash doesn't disappear, instead is shipped to Africa or China by the so called free countries of the West.
tristanXIV 2 years ago
There was a decent overview of Zizek's recent work on Lenin's Tomb blogsite last week that demonstrated how he's moved away from a class-based political philosophy to a post-modern pluralism centred around the Schmittian notions of inclusion/exclusion. This fits much better into his Lacanian topology. But politically it's meaningless. I don't detect any relevance in what he's saying here for Marxism or Marx's critique of Feuerbach.
filmsnoirs 2 years ago
Post modern pluralism? I have no idea what you're talking about; if anything Zizek's jargon has shifted slightly towards Badiou's concepts from Logiques (which I think is a great thing). How did Feuerbach come into this again?
Krelianx 2 years ago
No, I have to agree with Phil. His "argument" has been boiled down to these counter-intuitive claims about the nature of reality and meaning, and he's constantly forcing himself into refuting the blatantly obvious simply for the sake of making counter-intuitive claims. It's performance art.
filmsnoirs 2 years ago
in this clip he's echoing lacan, hegel, marx , kant and schelling quite a bit. demystification of nature is part of the long tradition of the critique of ideology. you can hear echoes of marx's critique of feuerbach here. it's actually a nice 'counter-intuitive' twist on nature using some weapons from the 'anti-essentialist' toolbox. and have you read For they do not Know what they do? It's certainly a philosophical if not theoretical book. give it a try.
shipwrecks09 2 years ago
What is the 'blatantly obvious' here?
Krelianx 2 years ago
No way Phil, i couldn't disagree more!
KleosAphthiton 2 years ago
I can't believe this guy is considered an important philosopher! What happened to Philosophy when I wasn't looking? He's not even saying anything, let alone making an argument.
ThePhilton88 2 years ago
it seems like you haven't read any of his works.
tristanXIV 2 years ago
You call this porn?! LOL
nenirouvelliv 2 years ago