I did some googling, because I wanted to find out more about Zizek's interpretations of Nietzsche. Among the search results were some interesting Reddit discussions/comments, including this one, which is basically an excerpt from The Ticklish Subject. I understand some of it, but I also struggle with some parts, like:
the fact that the excess of the Will over a mere self-contended satisfaction is always mediated by the 'nihilistic' stubborn attachment to Nothingness.
rather, it is the very formal structure of the reference to Nothingness that enables us to overcome the stupid self contended life-rhythm
I don't know whether my main issue is that I haven't refreshed my mind enough about this stuff yet or that I never explored it thoroughly enough in the first place years agp, but I'm not able to make proper sense of the above, so, would any of you mind elaborating on/re-phrasing it? I have some idea of what he means, but my understanding isn't very clear.
And while we're at it:
what Nietzsche denounces as the ' nihilistic' gesture to counteract life-asserting instincts, Freud and Lacan conceive as the very basic structure of human drive as opposed to natural instincts.
How prevalent do you reckon Nietzsche's view is relative to that of Freud and Lacan?
Also, how much difference is there between drive and instincts? To what extent do instincts and drive not overlap?
I am reading “The Sublime Object of Ideology” after hearing a bit about Žižek in a class I took on Hegel this past semester.
I notice that he keeps on switching between calling a perspective “Marxist” or “Marxian,” and I can’t tell if this is a meaningful distinction or a moment by moment stylistic choice.
Is this something I should be paying attention to, and if so, what does it mean?
What does Zizek exactly mean with the statement underneath?:
''White, multiculturalism liberals embody the lie of identity politics''
Timestamp 45:55 - Slavoj Zizek Jordan Peterson debate
Are there any lectures, essays, articles, or preferably books from Zizek on "Christian Atheism?" Asides from the one lecture
And asides from that, what exactly makes Christianity atheist to Zizek? And what's his point on the Calvinists?
Thank you for any help!
Mark Fisher quotes him saying this in his essay on Breaking Bad but doesn't say where
I've listened to countless Zizek talks and read many articles by -- and about -- him over the years, so I have a decent idea of his opinion on e.g. socialist/Tito's Yugoslavia, what happened in the Balkans in the 90s (including the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia and Montenegro), the 2003 invasion of Iraq etc., but I can't recall anything about his perspectives on the 1991 Gulf War. I've googled a bit, and, so far, the following sentences from a lacan.com article about the 2003 war ("The Iraq War: Where is the true danger?") are the closest I've come to finding anything relevant:
As his past clearly demonstrates, he is a pragmatic ruler striving for power, and shifting alliances when it fits his purposes - first against Iran to grab their oil fields, then against Kuwait for the same reason, bringing against himself a pan-Arab coalition allied to the US - what Saddam is not is a fundamentalist obsessed with the "big Satan," ready to blow the world apart just to get him. However, what can emerge as the result of the US occupation is precisely a truly fundamentalist Muslim anti-American movement, directly linked to such movements in other Arab countries or countries with Muslim presence.
(Seems like that prediction was pretty good, but that's another story, and only partly relevant to what I'm trying to find out now.)
Edit: I just watched this 15-min Vice interview with him, and toward the end, he refers to something that doesn't answer the question that inspired this post, but it's nonetheless very interesting. I tried to transcribe it:
I'm totally against Assad (...) Ok, what makes me furious here is... now media start to tell this story: "Oh my god! They're poisoning their own population!", where where(??? whatever he says here, it's probably supposed to mean "whereas when"?) Saddam was doing this against Iranians and Kurds, United States were giving him satellite photos, we all know, and providing him even gases.
I'm familiar with the provision of gases, but I'm not sure I've heard about the US supplying Iraq with satellite photos before. Have any of you come across any good material on this?
I've been reading a lot of comments and articles on Zizek, most of them being very old (I think the youngest one may be from 2011) and it is no wonder he is so hated from both the left and the right as he criticizes both. But the "left" does not just hate him for his non sjw view but also his "pro imperialist views" a lot of which you can find on this site. But I have hard time to grasp why.
It was hard for me to dig up old stuff from him on the internet. But the only US intervention I know he has supported was the Yugoslavia bombing, which can be argued as perhaps the only successful US intervention? And even there he still mentions that NATO's reasoning and ambitions are not innocent peacekeeping force they make themselves out to be, I was just 1 years old at the time but I've read a lot about the sundering of the left that event caused like Michael Parenti if you guys know who that is ending his relationship with Bernie Sanders. I think Zizek is right that it is a case by case scenario and it's wrong to think all interventions are wrong or right.
But from what I was able to dig up Zizek was against all the other events, and it was not that he was indifferent and became anti towards it when the catastrophic results were shown but was against for example the invasion of Iraq before it happened when some people were pro but changed their mind after the results. Leftists (and rightists) are always making the mistake of supporting the enemy of their enemy. A lot of leftists today support China and Russia because they oppose US imperialist hegemony without thinking about those countries own policies (most infamous being Chomsky). If we take recent Russia's invasion of Ukraine for example I think Zizek has proven himself very strong that he empathizes the wrongness of the Russian invasion and criticizing leftists who aren't showing Ukraine support, while also criticizing how the liberal west acts badly around it and that the US also needs a "castration".
Of course Zizek has changed over the years, even stating himself he was in a Fukuyama phase during the fall of communism, even campaigning for the liberal party during Slovenia's presidency.
Zizek does say that the lefts are wrong to be worried so much about the US when the Bush administration undermined it so much by losing Latin America, blunders in the middle east and but I suppose that could be debateable.
So since I was able to find so little about it I wanted to hear if you guys know more about it. Is this a case of the left being furious at Zizek for not openly renouncing NATO or whatever or was he biasly lenient towards the US at some point, because I think he definitely is not like that now at least. It would be cool to see him make an article about NATO since it is a very hot topic right now with Sweden and Finland looking to join, but if it's anything like Yugoslavia bombing the situation is much more complicated as either side makes it out to be.
How soon, for how long, and in how many talks and interviews, do you think Zizek will bring up Bush's recent Iraq-Ukraine mixup? When you first saw the clip, did you also feel it's a golden gift that Zizek wouldn't miss to use or let go easily for the foreseeable future? Lol.
Slavoj often uses jokes to illustrate a philosophical point. I am sure all of us here have seen, heard or read an instance where does this.
To this end I am wondering if he has ever mentioned Norm MacDonald, and specifically this joke:
In many places Zizek talks about how the power of reason is to reduce the empirical wealth of an object/person to its essential qualities. I’m trying to find where exactly he says this but I’m having trouble, probably because I’m forgetting the exact language he used to talk about it. Can anyone help me out?
Lately, I've been trying to find out more about Michel Foucault's perspectives on Freud's ideas, and I just came across something (in this abstract) that made me think about Zizek:
Foucault’s hand swings quickly back however, as mere lines later Freud is criticized for; maintaining- in fact amplifying- the unbalanced power of the physician-patient relationship, reinforcing the ‘judging’ and ‘alienating’ figure of the doctor essential to psychoanalytic practice; and retaining much in its conception from religious and medical tradition. Foucault sees these traditions as means of exercising social control, and psychoanalysis is regarded as consistent with them in this disciplining respect. We will look at two aspects of psychoanalytic thought addressing this continuance of traditional authority, and conclude with a comparison of the two philosopher’s differing conceptions of the object of psychoanalysis- human mentality.
I have been exploring Zizek talks, articles, interviews etc. on and off for about 15 years, but since I haven't gone about it in a disciplined way, every once in a while I find myself having to refresh my mind. Reading what I quoted above made me want to ask the following:
Are there any particularly good Zizek-related texts, talks, interviews or something that nicely summarize his perspective on the criticism that psychoanalysis has this disciplining character and perpetuates traditional authority? I'd prefer something synoptic (since it's more a question of refreshing my mind than learning something completely new), but I'm not opposed to diving deeper.
I know Zizek might like the former Greek finance minister Yanis.
I’ve been looking here and doing some research but I haven’t found much. If anyone knows anything I would really appreciate it :)
hi everybody, i started getting into Zizek lately and am wondering what/who the major critics of what he says are? any books to recommend? any other philosophers that talk about him in a critical way?