HEY YOU! Read slavoj zizek's latest book, Sex and The Failed Absolute. Graciously provided by anons at /leftypol/
pastebin.com
Quoting the introduction
>...many passages in this book are paraphrased from my previous work, for the obvious reason that the present book is an attempt to provide the basic ontological frame of my entire work—as close as I will ever get to presenting a philosophical system, an answer to “big” question about reality, freedom, etc.
HEY YOU! Read slavoj zizek's latest book, Sex and The Failed Absolute. Graciously provided by anons at /leftypol/
Blake Long
James Peterson
Theorem I outlines the fate of ontology in our era. With the new millennium, a whole series of new ontologies emerged on the public scene of philosophy as part of the anti-deconstructionist turn. All of them express the need for a breakout of deconstructionist endless self-reflexive probing, into a positive vision of what reality is: Deleuzian ontologies of multitudes and assemblages, Badiou’s logics of the worlds emerging out of the multiplicity of being, “new materialist” ontologies of a plural quasi-animist universe … The present book rejects this new ontological temptation. It is an easy way to succumb to the charms of a new ontological edifice full of thriving multitudes; however, along with Alenka Zupančič and others, I persist in the failure of every ontology, a failure that echoes the thwarted character of reality itself. This thwarted character can be discerned in the irreducible parallax gap between the ontic and the transcendental dimension: the notion of reality as a Whole of being and the notion of the transcendental horizon which always mediates our access to reality. Can we step behind this gap, to a more primordial dimension?
Theorem II is the key moment of the book—in some sense, everything is decided in it since it provides the answer to the deadlock in which Theorem I culminates: yes, one can step behind the parallax gap by way of redoubling it, by way of transposing it into the thing itself, and the terrain in which this redoubling takes place for us, humans, is that of sexuality—sexuality as our privileged contact with the Absolute. Following Lacan, sexuality is here understood as a force of negativity which disrupts every ontological edifice, and sexual difference is understood as a “pure” difference which implies a convoluted space that eludes any binary form. This notion of sexual difference is elaborated through a close reading of Kant’s antinomies of pure reason and the concomitant distinction between mathematical and dynamic Sublime. By way of asserting the irreducibly antinomic character of reason (“euthanasia of Reason”), Kant (unbeknownst to himself) sexualizes pure Reason, contaminates it with sexual difference.
Grayson Mitchell
Theorem III, the longest part of the book, articulates the contours of this convoluted space in its three main forms: those of the Möbius strip, the cross-cap, and the Klein bottle—a triad which echoes the basic triad of Hegel’s logic: being, essence, notion.5 The Möbius strip renders the continuous passage of a concept into its opposite (being passes into nothingness, quantity into quality, etc.). The cross-cap introduces a cut into this continuity, and this cut makes the relationship between the two opposites that of reflection: with the cross-cap, pure difference enters the stage, the difference between appearance and essence, a thing and its properties, cause and its effects, etc. With the Klein bottle, subjectivity enters: in it, the circle of reflexivity is brought to the Absolute, the cause becomes nothing but an effect of its effects, etc. (that’s why the Klein bottle cannot be rendered in three-dimensional space).6
Theorem IV recapitulates the basic philosophical motif of the book, that of the persistence of abstraction (of radical negativity which cannot be “sublated” into a subordinated moment of concrete totality) in its three figures: the excess of madness as a permanent ground of human reason, the excess of deadly sexual passion which poses a threat to any stable relationship, the excess of war which grounds the ethics of communal life. This negativity is what assemblage theory (or any other form of realist ontology) cannot fully take into account, and it is also what introduces into an assemblage the irreducible dimension of subjectivity.
Zachary Kelly
žižek's a hack
Ethan Walker
ANOTHER!!! BOOK ON CULTURAL THEORY FROM ZIZEK??? MY GOD, THE REVOLUTION IS BOUND TO HAPPEN ANY DAY NOW!! IF HE JUST WRITES HIS NEXT 6 OR 7 BOOKS ABOUT THE CRITICAL THEORY OF 1990s INFOMERCIALS, I THINK WE CAN FINALLY DO IT, WE CAN FINALLY GET THE WHEELS OF PRAXIS TURNING AGAIN!
THANK YOU ZIZEK!!! THANK YOU FOR WRITING THREE BOOKS PER YEAR OF POP CULTURAL COMMENTARY! YOUR LEGACY IS ASSURED! THE COMMUNIST UTOPIA WILL FOREVER REMEMBER YOUR NAME, ROOTLESS INTERNATIONAL JET-SETTER CELEBRITY CLERC DE TRAHISON WHOSE FANBASE IS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY WEALTHY COLLEGE KIDS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE MANAGERIAL CLASS!
THANK YOU FOR OCCUPYING AN IVORY TOWER SINECURE, RUBBING SHOULDERS WITH HIGH-PROFILE INVESTORS AND CULTURE INDUSTRY BANKROLLERS, AND COUNTER-INITIATING THOUSANDS OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZERS BY FEEDING THEM TRENDY "THEORY" WHICH HAD OBVIOUSLY BECOME A HIGH STATUS COMMODITY FOR RICH PEOPLE ALREADY WITH THE FAILURE OF MARCUSE AND THE '68 GENERATION!! THANK YOU FOR PROLONGING THE FAILURES OF THE NEW LEFT AND 1968 FOR ANOTHER FIFTY FUCKING YEARS!!!! YOU'RE GONNA BE TH EONE TO DO IT ZIZEK! REAL COMMUNISM STARTS HERE, WITH MY AMAZON PURCHASE OF YOUR TWO HUNDREDTH BOOOOOOOOOOOOOK!
Tyler Howard
Greetings from /pol/ remember to lurkers who might take that seriously, this board is full of i/l/lit/erates who cannot read a thing and don't know the difference between fichte and hegel
Interesting
I wonder how this relates to thephilosophicalsalon.com
I assume reading Zizek will be as interesting as always bbiab reading
Chase Clark
>THANK YOU FOR PROLONGING THE FAILURES OF THE NEW LEFT AND 1968 FOR ANOTHER FIFTY FUCKING YEARS!
shit pasta, not how this works
Jack Edwards
discord trannies go on /cgl/
Colton Bailey
i've read a dozen of žižeks books and nearly all of hegel, and i can tell you that žižek is a fuckign hack
James Evans
>he's read all if Hegel
how does absolute negation distinguish itself from concrete negation?
Jeremiah Miller
Haven't read it yet but I'm gonna get to it.
Jose Ortiz
>he's read all if Hegel
>all if Hegel
>all if Hegel
>all if Hegel
Jackson Taylor
While this is a bit harsh, consider that this guy is basically the Woody Allen of critical theory, if he stops writing these long boring books he will most certainly drop dead.
Eli Brooks
you know the "i" key and the "o" key are beside each other, right user?
Ryder Thomas
In the meantime is anyone willing to explain Zizek's idea of class antagonism?
I think he compared it to sexuality in that both are Real and resist symbolization. The impossibility of sexual relations and class relations causes a third element to pop up that belong to neither.
I thought the idea was interesting and i'd like to learn more about antagonism and how it relates to the Real.
Kevin Nelson
it's still a typo, and you didn't even delete your post and repost a corrected version, retard
Luke Peterson
Your a fagget
Nathaniel Collins
>you see all metaphysics fails
>except for my trendy metaphysics of sex xD
tell me why i shouldnt read heidegger instead
Nolan Brooks
>heh you fool! you made a typo! I no longer have to engage with the topic at hand!
okay user, you really do know your Hegel
Oliver Young
>delete your post and repost a corrected version
go back
(deleted and reposted)
Thanks for the gold kind stranger!
Samuel Walker
kek'd audibly
Kayden Anderson
why do /leftypol/ invaders always "smell" like reddit?
what is it about them that is instantly detectable?
Jayden Hall
that's called projection, electionfag
Xavier Young
you're defending /leftypol/, known redditors, but calling others "electionfags?" that's like stabbing yourself in the heart while swinging your sword at the enemy. even if you hit them, you still just admitted to being reddit.
it's not like it's in dispute by anyone here that /leftypol/ is a reddit cringefest. or do you dispute that? feel free to be evasive and not answer, i'll assume you don't dispute it
Christopher Miller
Behold the il/lit/erate, for him words do not mean things they are just nits to pick
>tell me why i shouldnt read heidegger instead
A name of a philosopher that sounds like cunt
Aiden Kelly
Well leftypol positions are permitted on Reddit, but pol positions are not. Leftypol was also very prone to censoring, like reddit.
Nicholas Hernandez
/leftypol/ was started here, by people on Yea Forums. which you would know if you had used this board at any point prior to 2016. I'm just calling out what I see.
Anthony Edwards
and people claim inceldom is a right wing thing
dude is basically a permavirgin
Jace Evans
cope
Angel Davis
He has children I think
Mason Bennett
Page 45 is very interesting
Kevin Hill
Its infuriating that Zizek basically tries to stick to dialectical materialism.
So Heidegger, Deleuze and Speculative Realism never happened? Why is this guy stuck in the neo-Hegelian play pen? Heidegger did a whole lecture on Schelling and ten pages in he says we must withdraw to the rift of immediate reality but focus on transcendental subjectivity. Heidegger was in fact very preoccupied in the rifts and features Schelling presents in the history of transcendental idealism, especially in the freedom essay. This dude on the other hand is trying to do what Lukács was doing 70 years ago. I love the guy but he is a broken record when it comes to arguments from the other side, he refuses to engage in depth with them.
Chase Ward
What? Zizek has engaged deeply with both Heidegger and Lukacs. His thrust of sticking to dialectical materialism is that it can be rematerialized, or made even more true to Marx's project, through a Hegelian-Lacanian reading. subjectivity isn't transcendental in that it exists based on positive forms or covered meanings, but that the gap of subjectivity is a product of the gap inherent to materialism itself.
Julian Rivera
yeah /leftypol/ had very erratic mods when it came to censoring/banning things they didn't like, i think a few were literally trannies even.
reddit status proved, good work.
Daniel Sullivan
fichte is a tree
hegel is a philosopher
dummy
Carson Diaz
What have you done to escape the racket?
Ryan Gray
>33 replies
>12 posters
Hudson Stewart
>Ontic is the
view of reality as a whole that we humans are part of; in this sense, today’s
cognitive sciences and evolutionary biology deploy how humanity, inclusive
of its cognitive capacities which enabled the rise of cognitive and
evolutionary sciences, gradually emerged out of the animal kingdom. A
transcendental-ontological rejoinder to this explanation is that it is ultimately
circular: it has to presuppose that the modern scientific approach to reality is
already here, since it is only through its lens that reality appears as an object
of scientific explanation. The scientific view of reality thus cannot really
account for its own emergence—but, similarly, the transcendental-ontological
approach cannot explain the fact of contingent external reality, so the gap
between the two is irreducible. Does this mean that the duality of ontic and
ontological is our last word, a fact beyond which we cannot reach?
>but, similarly, the transcendental-ontological
approach cannot explain the fact of contingent external reality
can someone explain why the transcendental-ontological approach can't explain contingent external reality
Andrew Baker
If you're looking for a more direct engagement with heidegger and deleuze you should read less than nothing. He co-opts all their ideas for hegel's use there.
Owen Powell
Blake Miller
In which he entirely misconstrues Deleuzes entire philosophy. Thats a terrible book , he basically has no arguments, basically says Deleuzean philosophy is followed by trendy hipsters and therefore not worth looking at.
Levi Thompson
>basically says Deleuzean philosophy is followed by trendy hipsters and therefore not worth looking at
Zizek is half a Deleuzian, his theory of the virtual is an explicitly Deleuzian model. Zizek got his PhD from Paris VIII, user. He only takes issue with the Capitalism and Schizophrenia series.
Oliver Thompson
He has a kid and has been married four times. Two of those times to women 30 years younger than him. But yeah sure... permavirgin
Cameron Jenkins
>m-my e-guru FUCKS PUSSY!! I bet you're a PETERSONFAg and not a BASED Zizekfag like me...
Zoomer e-celeb shit combined with cult mentality, interesting
Angel Sanchez
>the master-slave dialectic
Parker Flores
>basically says Deleuzean philosophy is followed by trendy hipsters and therefore not worth looking at.
Based and Hegelpilled
Andrew Hall
wouldn't the cult mentality lie in people needing to project their inceldom onto one of the most objectively chad philosophers?
Ayden Long
>if u no like capatalims why u have job? why u ware pants when pants made of capatalims?
thanks for the input retard
Ayden Nelson
>He claims that he wants to institute a violent revolution to crush capitalism.
>Casually partakes in it instead
Don't you have bankers to murder or something?
Cameron Wood
Feel too bad for you to make fun of you.
Angel Myers
That's the one everyone shits on him for, but it's mostly just partisan feuding ("you don't agree with Deleuze? Here's why I, thoroughly committed Deleuzian, find that impossible and a sign of ignorance...")
Joshua Robinson
he actually name drops Rupi Kaur the absolute madman
Brayden Hall
kek, I'm reading Sex and the Failed Absolute right now, haven't gotten to that part yet. What does he say?
Austin Moore
compares it to "word art" and mcdonalds ads
Jonathan Evans
truly /ourguy/
Lincoln Miller
savage
Jason Morales
>He thinks Fichte and Hegel are two separate people.
Joshua Morris
Aristotle was always right, right?
Daniel Cox
Yeah It kind of makes me sad. I have only read the intro so far and I was really hoping Zizek would go back and re-read some things and get over Hegel but he so far just seems to be repeating himself more strongly.
Connor Mitchell
And this is the worst part. It almost seems like he didn't actually read Difference and Repetition and just let Badiou tell him what he thought it was about.
Oliver Wright
capitalism destroys itself because of internal contradictions. murdering bankers does nothing to bring about its end faster.
Carter Johnson
>people who sit around all day are the real revolutionaries
Commies are so pathetic lmao
Logan Walker
hyuk
Kayden Barnes
>the present book is an attempt to provide the basic ontological frame of my entire work—as close as I will ever get to presenting a philosophical system, an answer to “big” question about reality, freedom, etc.
why do i not believe him?
Mason Wood
Holy based
Justin Brown
>revolutionaries
this is a Zizek tread
Xavier Brooks
>I'M GONNA SNIFFFF ACH GOTT I'M SNIFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINGGGGGGGGGGGGG AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH
Eli Wilson
Jaxson Hernandez
Zizek has repeatedly stated he doesn't think much of the Marxist mantra "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Isaac Harris
bump
Zachary Fisher
>The only way for us, humans, caught in the parallax gap, to break out of it isthrough the experience of sexuality which, in its very failure to achieve its goal,enables us to touch the dimension of the Absolute
What the fuck am I reading? Since when did he become a Tantric sex guru?