I like Slavoj Žižek

He's a terrible speaker. I listen to him once in Ljubljana.

This is easier to understand than his way of speaking

youtube.com/watch?v=4Qh9ppFOKbo

>Slovenian dialect from Idrija
>50% of Slovenes can't understand shit what is being said

I like him, too.

HE seems like a very insightful guy, but I don't have it in me to really dig into the work of someone so indebted to Lacan.

He a bullshitter

Attached: 91.jpg (850x400, 49K)

anyone is capable of doing bad things. you're not an inherently good person.
and you've never thought about torturing someone because you've never been in a position where someone has hurt you enough to make you feel that way, presumably because you're upper or middle class.

That was the naivete that stopped Einstein from believing in QM

Like most other pseudo-intellectuals today he has no self distance and can't see why he would ever be wrong about anything.

He's an entertaining clown, same as Jordan Peterson and all the other retards catering to suburban college kids humor, but they can't be taken seriously. They're good to watch for laughs during a coffee break.

The difference is: Slavoj KNOWS this and rolls with it, while guys like Peterson really seem to believe they're somewhat enabled to selling their trash as relevant. But in the end of the day, they're all the same corrupt baby boomer scum exploiting the younger generations with their 'educational institutions' etc.Burn them all.

Attached: 00b97101a35b4d17e957552eea131c43.jpg (236x235, 10K)

That's a lie.

No, it's just that our society has such an infatuation with intellectuals that no one wants to hold them accountable.

Wow, so many wrongs in one sentence.
>our
HURR WE COLLECTIVE WE STRONK HURR

>intellectuals
>anyone that quotes and/or parrots old books and/or uses words that are not frequently used in casual language is an 'intellectual'
Because that's what these fucktards are.

>society has such an infatuation with intellectuals
That is simply not true. Well, if by 'intellectuals' you mean people like Zizek, Peterson & Co then maybe yes, but scientifically relevant people (especially from fields of cultural studies) don't even get to speak in public, let alone for financial compensation.

They're given the ultimate say and influence over the system responsible for organizing our society. Whatever lack of fame and money they may have, they make up for it with wildly disproportionate amounts of power.

This is bullshit. I would just kill him. Torture is pathologically sadistic. Why not just kill and get it over with?

>They're given the ultimate say and influence over the system responsible for organizing our society
Fucking idiot you are. Probably another 'intellectual'...

The greatest thinkers tended to be bum ass broke peasant motherfuckers who lived mediocre lives until their death. The ones deciding over society are those with the most connections, status, wealth and willingness to kill. Just because humans processes are more complex, doesn't mean they don't adhere to the same natural principles of the animal world.

how do you know what you'd do?

What? He has to torture him to get info on the kidnapper, dumb fuck.

my character is not pathological in that way.

Would be nice if he didn't repeat himself constantly.

im worried for his constant sniffs

he is fun to watch and then I just lost in prosody
still, I keep watching
he keeps talking

Attached: shawshannky.jpg (630x348, 33K)

It's actually true and i don't even believe in relativity.

>i don't even believe in relativity
Fucking retard.

Technically *sniff* you cannot HATE me *sniff*. What you hate is the ca-pi-ta-list schystem *sniff*. And you are schared by the id-E-a of communischem, as it pertainsch to your life as it is *sniff* and so and so forsch.

I bought 3 of his kindle books on Amazon. Ijust finished the Refugees Terror one and enjoyed it, going to start The courage of hopelessness soon however Less than nothing was really hard for me to absorb. I stopped at 5 percent of the book and just started reading his other ones that are easier to understand and are not 1100 pages long.

Hey could you explain Penrose diagrams simply?

He's ok. He's as lost as most 4channers, for good reason too. You'd be lost if you looked at ideology like he does.

nice

If you can explain it at all, you've submitted to an ideology and it's delusion.

Attached: 1532965684062.png (870x1174, 76K)

You can, but does it communicate what it truly is well enough to someone?
That's the question that Zizek asks.

Fucking straight-faced Lacanians make for shit metaphysicsians desu

bazinga

Noam Chomsky calls it posturing. He too hates it when you can't explain things in words where the average person can understand it. The problem is people read slavojs books such as less than nothing and walk away with it gaining nothing and are lost. If you read his other books he makes it easier enough to where you can understand it. like migrants, that basically if you gave them the chance to go to some Scandinavian country instead of France for example, they would do it because of better gibs, and that liberals shouldn't be rescuing them and that these people have different lives and that maybe just maybe they don't want to assimilate, and that they want to go their own way and this brings conflict.

There is knowing reality, then there is describing reality to another person. People do not think the same thing about any single thing. But at the same time, we balance that subjectiveness with collective objectiveness. Then there is the perspective that both are completely wrong.

How do you balance subjectiveness, objectiveness and both being incorrect?

I wonder how much Slavoj makes selling his books.

I honestly don't think he cares.

Why would he take bites from both hotdogs without finishing either? Doesn't it make more sense to eat one whole and then the other, thereby giving you a free hand while you eat the second hotdog?

By not positing objectivity as privileged (a'la Bergson) and rejecting the notion of "error" and "incorrect" as a dogmatic stop-gap to thinking

>By not positing objectivity as privileged (a'la Bergson) and rejecting the notion of "error" and "incorrect" as a dogmatic stop-gap to thinking
I need to read more perhaps...

Attached: 1546823763727.jpg (665x574, 39K)

Also as much as I'd love a hearty Marxist showdown I'm afraid I have to tell you "fuck you read my (read: Deleuze's book" and go to sleep

Check out Deleuze's book on Bergson and Chapter III of Difference and Repetition. Both recs are generally lucid and readable without any prereqs. Total of 150 pages. Good hunting!

Where should I start with him? What's useful background reading? I'm mostly interested in his take on consumerist ideology

>notion of "error" and "incorrect" as a dogmatic stop-gap to thinking
But words are tools. If they don't do the job you want, something is at error or is incorrect...

>The image of thought is Deleuze’s characterisation of what comes before thinking: that which philosophy implicitly presupposes and explicitly projects, a prephilosophical and natural and hence dogmatic image of what thinking is. The dogmatic image supposes that what thought wants, wants both materially and wilfully, is the true. Morality leads us to presuppose this. It is pre-supposed in the sense that everybody knows what it means to think, as though it were common sense. We all have this common picture of what it means to think. It’s an image in which subject and object and being and beings are already assigned their proper place and relation one to the other. And so long as philosophy holds to this image it does not matter what it goes on to think conceptually. If the image of thought guides the creation of concepts then those concepts will be part of the same image projected. Moreover, it is the supposition of a natural capacity to think in this way that permits philosophy to claim to begin without suppositions. It is a supposition which is endowed with the power to undercut the conditions of the present moment and its attendant perversions.

this is honestly a little silly. i understand the sentiment but there is no combination of words that can make you a world class violinist. knowledge isn't so simple.

The most important thing before getting into Deleuze is to understand the concept of the dogmatic image of thought. If you see the world is to be done in a certain way, your thinking will yield the same. For Deleuze, our first task is to break/rupture this dogmatic image and to replace it with something that's as non-distorting as possible at its base. Note that this doesn't exclude the previous dogmatic image as always invalid and bad, but merely pointing out that philosophy does not function well enough when constrained. Essentially an admittance of the existence error or negativity at the base of thought will necessarily cut you off from some of the answers.All modes of thought can be instrumentally useful. This includes stupidity, paradox ect.
This french pseudointellectual jargon is precicely an attempt to shock you out of the common modes of thinking.

Apologies for taking the easy way out and digging up some of my old posts but it's 4 am which is about 2 hours too late for metaphysics

If you want more in depth, fuck you, read his book Chapter III of Difference and Repetition

>Philosophic science is often treated with contempt by those who imagine and say-although they have not made any effort to come to grips with it-that they already understand what philosophy is all about quite spontaneously, and that they are able to do philosophy and to judge it just by holding on to what they have learnt at a very ordinary level, in particular from their religious feelings. In the case of the other sciences, we admit that one has to have studied them in order to know about them, and that one is only entitled to judge them in virtue of a studied acquaintance. We admit that in order to make a shoe, one has to have learnt and practiced how to do it, even though everyone of us has the required measure in his own feet, and we all have hands with a natural aptitude for the trade in question. It is only for doing philosophy that study, learning, and effort of this kind is supposedly not needed

t. delusional chimp

the reasons for your disbelief are...?

So an absolute all knowing image of thought?

Glorified movie reviewer.

How will I holiday at will under communism? Will the state pay for it?

Sample passage:

>In 1804, towards the end of his life, Kant wrote that the two hinges on which his entire thought turns are the ideality of space and time and the reality of the concept of freedom. Kant's opposition to the common -sense attitude is clear here: for common-sense naturalism, space and time are real (real objects and processes "are" in space and time, space and time are not merely the transcendental horizon of our experience of reality), while freedom is ideal (a form of the self-perception of our conscious Self with, perhaps, no foundation in basic reality where only matter really exists). For Kant, on the contrary, space and time are ideal (not properties of things in themselves, but forms of perception imposed on phenomena by the transcendental Self), while freedom is real in the most radical (even Lacanian) sense; freedom is an inexplicable, "irrational;' unaccountable "fact of reason;' a Real which disturbs our notion of (phenomenal) spatio-temporal reality as governed by natural laws.

"Our movement through time is illustrated on this axis, and our movement through space (not in any particular direction) is illustrated on this axis. If we turn on a lightbulb here in this bottom corner, just some point in time and space, then as we move along the time axis, the light spreads out through space."

That sure was hard.

hes pretty funny honestly

He sucks. You libtards have that hobo. We on the right have Jonathan Bowden.

No, the ultimate goal is the DISSOLUTION of that image of thought.

where is that from?