What does Yea Forums think of Will Self?

Call me a Selfie

Zizek's philosophical praxis
>For too long philosophers have changed the world, now it is time to step back and understand it
Will Self's philosophical praxis
>someone tell me who to vote for please

The epitome of cynical british pseudo-intellectualism.

yeah you better tell me who to vote for little bitch or ill embarrass you infront of everyone... bitch

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.png (1484x1220, 540K)

Attached: 1552640162389.jpg (602x602, 51K)

I was interested in him a few years ago after coming across his books. I watched a few of his talks and was impressed, but he likes to hear himself talk a bit much and he lost me with his political views. Any thing is worth a shot.

he’s pretty edgy, though the three of his books i tried to read sucked and he had no discernible talent intellectually, otherwise, Very much so a contemporary son of the UK, in that regard.

Best guy to consult come voting season. You don't have to unravel the Hegelian dialectics of popular movies or wrestle the primordial dragons of masculinity. He just comes out and says it.

Actually in their debate Zizek asked him who he was going to vote for and he couldn't tell him, he was in an absolute state.

10/10 haunted house elevator operator

I remember Zizek publicly endorsing Trump weeks before the election.

this is one of the funniest threads ive read in a long time my stomach hurts thanks guys

All those seething petersonfags in this itt.

the debate happened after that they were talking about a different election

also zizek's support of trump was more or less "i think neocons are wolves in sheeps clothing and are a bigger enemy to meaningful change", make from that what you will but if bernie gets elected then he might be onto something depending on where your political allegiance is

i think at least 3 quarters of the people are being ironic which is what makes it so funny, not taking petersonfags seriously enough to even reply but paraody their views instead

Trump is a neocon.
And my point was can you imagine a universe where a right wing opinion peddler supported a leftist candidate in any kind of " " way?

All I see is seething Zizek fags. Based Will.

Well a neocon minus war.

there are literally no petersonfags on this board. He has been relentlessly mocked by both the right and left factions since he first came to prominence. There are just zizek fans who clearly came here like a month ago sperging about his defeat of the losbter, which was almost entirely accomplished by Peterson's own incompetence and had nothing to do with Zizek's arguments.

>And my point was can you imagine a universe where a right wing opinion peddler supported a leftist candidate in any kind of " " way?
maybe not because they are incapable of nuanced opinion

>Trump is a neocon
i wont bother arguing with this since either way a neocon hawk like hillary sprinkles in populist, liberal social policy while appearing "strong" which does a better job at keeping the population happy. i think zizek's point is that if hillary were elected the whole real-social-democrat populist movement would be completely smothered. again, don't know if i agree but i don't think it's ridiculous at least

>be me
>browsing lit for years
>always a peterson thread on the front page
>literally no petersonfags
>mfw

not to mention i replied to some guy today and his response was "do you agree with peterson about the kulaks?" and I said "what in the flying fuck are you talking about?" and he said "ur an idiot. peterson is right"

Attached: 54364758_593060231199303_3591048565939503104_n.jpg (299x374, 12K)

i would like to read some of his books. i enjoyed his discussion with Zizek, even though it didn't really go anywhere

Arrogant sophist.

what is his type of irony called?

>pinstripes over a polo
Absolutely ghoulish

Wasn't he just a run-of-the-mill self-help author, barely on the level of Alain de Botton?

I enjoyed his Umbrella trilogy and the Book of Dave

Mark Lamarr > Will Self

Intuitively avoid him and his work. Don't really appreciate the "down & out in Norwich and Maida Vale" backstory considering how wealthy his family is, and don't have the time or energy to invest in a novel which tries so hard to dazzle and impress.

Mark Lamarr was based. I have a VHS of his stand-up show though and it is so terrible.

Bullshit, Will Self is the opposite of someone who just "comes out and says it".

Not really. He did not bring a sinlge point up and did nothing else but put Zizek in a corner to stand smug in front of him.
I cannot honestly comprehend how anyone would think that he came out of that as the superior thinker.

ERANU

Just more retard goylems falling for simple Jewish bait and switch tricks

The Next Jordan(tm) Memeson

Seems OK? Never read or watched anything with him. Sometimes I'm reminded he exists, like after this Peterson-Zizek affair, but will promply forget about him despite making a note of checking him out later.

He looks like a mix of Richard Dawson on a good day and Kolakowski on a bad day, and that is compelling to me.

Attached: will self smoking.png (300x180, 83K)

I think the point he did make, which went unanswered and is pretty fatal for Slavoj's writing in general, was the pointlessness of Lacan. Early on in that discussion he flat out says - hey, most of your writing is through the lens of a thinker nobody in the world needs or believes in, a once-fashionable irrelevance, and Zizek just had to shrug and be like, "hey, those were my 90's paychecks dude".

>he flat out says
what do you even respond to that though? it's slavoj's analytical framework of choice, it's not like his writings entirely hinge on lacan being right. he's taking lacan like marx takes hegel, in a way that lacan never meant himself to be taken

I think some sort of explanation of what Lacan brings to the table was in order and not just a shrug. I mean, you choose one framework over another, and if the one you've chosen is a farcical waste of space you have a problem.

I think the basic issue there, which the man can never answer to satisfaction, is the tension between what he was doing when he wrote his better books - namely being a jobbing academic in his niche - and his new career as a public intellectual.

I think some sort of explanation of what Lacan brings to the table was in order and not just a shrug. I mean, you choose one framework over another, and if the one you've chosen is a farcical waste of space you have a problem.
I don't think you've yet established that it matters at all. We wouldn't have expected Peterson to have come to the debate having read Hegel; it's fair enough to judge Marx by his own merits. I mean the very discussion we're having right now seems very removed from any substance that may or may not be in Zizek's works, which you seem to imply exists in the next sentence:
>I think the basic issue there, which the man can never answer to satisfaction, is the tension between what he was doing when he wrote his better books - namely being a jobbing academic in his niche - and his new career as a public intellectual.
So you're agreeing that his earlier works were better? Even though his first work ever, considered his "masterpiece" was "a provocative reconstruction of critical theory from Marx to Althusser, reinterpreted through the frame of Lacanian psychoanalysis". If you agree even remotely with this then I'm not seeing the issue here

oops forgot to greentext the first part ofc

You don't need to read Hegel to get Marx, but you do have to accept that a dialectic is a useful thought tool. The same goes for the Lacan vocabulary in Zizek.

As for the contrast between his academic and popular work, I think he was competent as a textual critic of Lacan, which is the sort of thing a professor can be paid to pull off. Here is a once popular thinker; what exactly did he mean. I think Zizek's argument that Lacan can actually be used as a key to other thinkers was never convincing and to judge by his reaction to Self he probably knows it.

His short stories are cool

>Here is a once popular thinker; what exactly did he mean.
His seminal work isn't analyzing what Lacan meant, it's using Lacan's framework. If you even look at the summary of the book, it's not concerned with Lacan at all. Lacan's actual merit is entirely irrelevant to the equation, and all of his books do this maybe save "How to Read Lacan". I don't know what you mean by "better academic writings" or by "he probably knows it". Will Self didn't prove anything in the "debate", that was entirely one-sided and concerned with asking entirely irrelevant questions

>You don't need to read Hegel to get Marx
If you think any work Zizek has ever done has any merit, especially his "masterpiece", then you are accepting the lens of Lacanian psychoanalysis as "a useful thought tool". And you don't need to have read Lacan to understand the Sublime Object either. It's the way Zizek approaches topics, which is already something everyone does differently in the first place.

Attached: download.jpg (208x139, 5K)

"We need to work together or the world will burn

"Wellll yesss slavooooy, we doooo... Buuuuut WHAAAAT do we DOOOOOO?"

"I.. I'm telling you, I don't know, I'm a philosophers who's aware that we need to think before we act this time bu-"

"AHA' PREPARATION, MUCH LEAS ACTION INSTEAD OF SMUG SELF-SATISFACTION! I KNEW YOU WERENT A REAL INTELLECTUAL! HES A FRAUD! HE DOESNT HAVE A PLAN TO SAVE THE WORLD AND EVERY HUMAN EVER ON IT! WHAT A PHOOOONY

>embarrass you infront of everyone
>embarrass you in front of some normal people who don't know better for one night, and also irony-poisoned, way-too-online retards forever.

He doesn't come out? Good, if he didn't I'd call him a Fag

Literal turbo jew who gets off on destroying Britain.

>My opinion on Zizek is based on my opinion of Peterson
>My opinion of Self is based on my opinion of Zizek, so my opinion of Self depends on my opinion of Peterson

Please, stop thinking like this. Think objectively rather than like a fanboy and making everything fit that narrative.

funny he sent his kids to a state school in south london, a very black area too. within weeks they are mercilessly bullied so he withdraws them and sends them to a private school.

Self is literally an anglo who is a product of the managerial class of Britain that LARPs as an edgelord. The guy shits on left wing politics and modernity (in the form of the internet) all the time

A smug douche. Insipid, onanistic prose. Detest him. Mean to Karl for no reason.

what kind of dog is that?

ironic this pic says smoking when the cig ain't lit

HA HA MINES A BIG MAC

I enjoyed seeing him rape Zizek in front of a live audience but I think Self's actual books are kind of shit...

>Not really. He did not bring a sinlge point up and did nothing else but put Zizek in a corner to stand smug in front of him.
>I cannot honestly comprehend how anyone would think that he came out of that as the superior thinker.
This is because Zizek didn't make a single point, and Will Self didn't let him off the hook, demanded specifics, answers, and elaboration. All Zizek could do was joke feebly and twist in the wind because like any so called communist, they fall apart under real scrutiny. Will Self just happened to be asshole enough not to fall for Zizek's affable shtick and pressed each and every matter -- this kills the communist.

Attached: brexitmuffin miss beatrice grant.webm (600x900, 2.86M)

>writes a gorillion books and articles and appears in as many interviews and debates
>all he can say is "people should think before they act"
You don't need to be a philosopher to know that
Zizek is just a charlatan and got exposed

Enough about him and Zizek. Can we discuss who won in his debate with pic related?

Attached: 200px-Karlhead.jpg (200x198, 11K)

ask irrelevant retarded questions and get irrelevant answers, what do you expect dumbass? zizek is the first person to say that he doesnt have answers, yet Will is smugly dabbing on him over it like he's making any sort of point

>When people ask me what to do with the economy, what the hell do I know? I think the task of people like me is not to provide answers but to ask the right questions.
-zizek

You can whine like a altright babby faggot all you want about this, but that doesn't change the fact that Will's questions were inherently irrelevant once you know a single thing about Zizek period

>E DOESNT HAVE A PLAN TO SAVE THE WORLD AND EVERY HUMAN EVER ON IT!
This wasn't what was demanded of him though. That's quite the hyperbolic strawman you just built. All that was asked of Zizek was to offer his actual position on something, he responded with platitudes and scatological humor.

>>You can whine like a altright babby faggot all you want about this, but that doesn't change the fact that Will's questions were inherently irrelevant once you know a single thing about Zizek period
Is that single thing that he's a fraud? Lmao, from his answers in that discussion with Self anyone would guess Zizek writes bumper stickers not treatise on Hegel.

Zizek is quite open about the fact that philosophy cannot provide answers, it can only provide the right questions to ask.
>What would the proper rate be for a progressive tax in Cornwall, Slavoj? Oh, you don't know? Where's your Hegel now, Slavoj?

>Zizek is quite open about the fact that philosophy cannot provide answers, it can only provide the right questions to ask.
Who can provide answers then?

questions with no answers are worse than worthless or meaningless since they waste time
which is apropos of Zizek, who is an obscurantist retard

You must be a philosopher.

>Is that single thing that he's a fraud? Lmao, from his answers in that discussion with Self anyone would guess Zizek writes bumper stickers not treatise on Hegel.
not an argument

Attached: 1555958150829.png (645x729, 116K)

nice question

see above

you sure got me there Molyneux

Depends on the question, obviously. Do you honestly think there should be a class of people called the "answer givers" or something? Tax rates should be the domain of economists, ect. Anyone who pretends to have the answers to everything can be immediately discounted as a hack, which is exactly (ironically) what Self thinks philosopher are. If Self is right, Zizek is a hack, if he's wrong, Zizek's not a philosopher, he's a "cultural critic". That debate was a mugs game.

any retard can ask questions, as proven here, and by Zizek
there's no reason to listen to either unless you're a rabid idiot who fell for their cult of personality and confuse their oral diarrhea for philosophy

Zizek literally gives lectures for a living, suggesting it's not his domain to provide answers is the height of obscurantist retardation. Consider killing yourself.

just pointing out an obvious fact, if you have an argument then make one otherwise

>not an argument

Attached: 1555955077918.jpg (379x250, 15K)

This is literally the Socratic method you moron, read Plato

>Zizek literally gives lectures for a living, suggesting it's not his domain to provide answers is the height of obscurantist retardation. Consider killing yourself.
actually the lectures are to get people to buy the books he writes. he writes books for a living. you have no idea what you are talking about, consider killing yourself

Attached: 1555885911586.jpg (398x376, 37K)

You want a sophist then, not a philosopher
>kys
why does philosophy anger you like this? did you get molested by your professor or something?

Really wish all the alt right faggots would fuck off back to /r/incels or whatever already.

It's also the philosophical equivalent of a 2 year old asking 'why' for everything. I don't sell tickets for 1,000$ a pop to see my toddle "debate".

>alt right

Attached: 1555372518893.png (434x524, 244K)

>socratic method
>philosophical equivalent of a 2 year old asking 'why' for everything
this is a high iq thread

>yeah bros fuck zizek fat man got owned!! why cant zizek tell me to clean my room like peterson can? why cant he give me the answers my life so desparately needs bros??

Attached: d90.png (644x800, 15K)

>ask why you should listen to this so called authority
>n-no, you're asking for a sophist! you hate philosuphyyy!
I guess I should have known better than to insist people ought to know what they are talking about here of all places. It's still alarming to me how readily people eat up and regurgitate this rubbish. It used to be that if you had nothing worth saying people wouldn't listen to you, substance mattered, but now every moron has a platform via the internet and are bent on eroding the meaning of meaning itself with their self-congratulatory screeching instead. Here, I'll contribute another frog image to the pyre of civilization.

Attached: 60588605.jpg (960x960, 75K)

Don't you think if communists were capable of giving real world answers that satisfy real world problems there'd be...communism? Somewhere? Sometime? Ever? Pointing out that they don't is the height of redundancy, I mean, fucking obviously.

>you dont like zizek? obviously you're a memerson-fag

Attached: 1471437574930.jpg (500x499, 20K)

>Love is a mighty god, and wonderful among gods and men, but especially wonderful in his birth. For he is the eldest of the gods, which is an honour to him; and a proof of his claim to this honour is, that of his parents there is no memorial; neither poet nor prose-writer has ever affirmed that he had any.
>Why?
>By Zeus, Socrates!

You're not wrong, you're just an asshole

>I guess I should have known better than to insist people ought to know what they are talking about here of all places. It's still alarming to me how readily people eat up and regurgitate this rubbish. It used to be that if you had nothing worth saying people wouldn't listen to you, substance mattered, but now every moron has a platform via the internet and are bent on eroding the meaning of meaning itself with their self-congratulatory screeching instead. Here, I'll contribute another frog image to the pyre of civilization.
the irony here is that all you retards have been doing is rambling like zizek does during his talks, not making any sort of coherent argument whatsoever. literally no one cares about your inner exposition

so now he's a communist. every retard yesterday was crying that he isn't. i'm glad you guys decided on something finally

pic related

Attached: 7i4goxy.jpg (640x822, 109K)

again, why do you (and Self) this some Slovenian philosopher should be the one making policy decisions in the UK? Why is some Hegelian-Marxist an expert on which member of Parliament Will Self should vote for? Philosophers have expertise, and obviously Zizek's expertise has nothing to do with the local voting praxis for the British people. Only a pseud would pretend to be an expert in places he isn't, and only a literal retard would demand answers from someone unqualified to give them and then get mad when they don't help you. I bet you bitch when a plumber comes over and wont help you rewire your electrical panel.

>I don't sell tickets for 1,000$ a pop to see my toddle "debate".
You would if people would actually buy the tickets lmao dumbfuck

>so now he's a communist. every retard yesterday was crying that he isn't. i'm glad you guys decided on something finally
I mean, if modern day China can be communism what can't? Are you harping about definitions? Do you also hate "bloody post modernists"?

>you dont like my 2 boring ecelebs?
>le enlightened centrist faec

Attached: 1473482778630.jpg (960x960, 91K)

>create false dichotomy
>why are you asking Zizek for X which no-one actually mentioned or asked
swing and a miss user

did you not watch the debate? he was literally pissed off Zizek didn't tell him who he should vote for.

Attached: 1510423809009.jpg (722x950, 81K)

I'm not a charlatan, so.

>if modern day China can be communism what can't? Are you harping about definitions? Do you also hate "bloody post modernists"
Are you actually retarded? Zizek's first words in the debate, and basically every talk he does, are about the spectacle of capitalism in China without democracy

All of that is non sequitur, autistic screeching that doesn't follow anything I said

waiting on an argument

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (697x512, 48K)

Has nothing to do with anything, the question is why should anyone listen to Zizek, or to put it in your terms, what is his field? I look forward to whatever nebulous obscurantist bullshit you offer next. You invoke plumbers as an example, but they actually DO something, they actually KNOW something USEFUL. What does Zizek offer? Do you need more caps to understand the argument HERE or ?...

Hegel? Lacan? Christian Theology? The notion of ideology? You can just look on his wikipedia page user you don't need me to tell you what his philosophical expertise is...

>pretending you wouldnt immediately sell out if there were a single person on this planet that would pay to see someone as retarded as you
and you know beside the fact zizek made $0 from ticket sales because he gave it all to charity but what do you know

>I look forward to whatever nebulous obscurantist bullshit you offer next
>literally asking a question and telling the person you are asking that you will immediately reject their answer
high iq takes all around boys

Attached: 1554843563146.png (585x585, 164K)

karl's unironically has a better wittgensteinian understanding of the tlp than self

This is will self at his peak. Very comfortable watch I warn you.

youtu.be/FQghUuH5n2M

>>I look forward to whatever nebulous obscurantist bullshit you offer next
>>literally asking a question and telling the person you are asking that you will immediately reject their answer
>high iq takes all around boys
Wow what a shock, dodges the argument against. A true scholar of Zizek.

there's a particular type of cold englishman (technically skilled, eager to impress) whose texts (regardless of subject matter) make my skin crawl, far more so than any consciously "edgy" american writer like bret easton ellis or kathy acker, who think that the key to making readers uneasy is pages and pages of endless genital mutilation or whatever

will self and martin amis are the two clearest living examples of this

Extreme levels of British passive aggression.

>too retarded to understand that you played yourself by admitting you dont give a shit about the answer to the entirely irrelevant question that you are asking
>a true scholar of zizek
nigger what the fuck are you talking about? who said anything about liking zizek? you're just brain-dead, you and I both know it, and it's comfy knowing you'll admit this to yourself later in the shower

Attached: feafeafeafeashts.jpg (600x600, 28K)

he raped zizek with facts and logic