/lit/ - Literature

>>10939159
>a thread about material appearances, the shadowplay of aesthetics as concerns the cover of a book
>pic related, the cave I'll never leave

>>9180790

>ywn line these hacks up and machine gun then down

feels bad lad

I don't think there has ever been in a time in my life that I wasn't in love with a 16 year old girl.

>>7167087

>this is the retard I got into a long winded argument about economic policy with the other day

I feel legit trick'd

>there will never be a button you can press to send all marxists to Pluto

>>6121756

>can't decide

>>3829307

We've had this discussion a hundred times.

Hegel and Zizek both belong to an infamous trend in philosophy that has been around for a great long while.

They're both hazy thinkers and their language reflects that. Their profundity is simulated. Zizek's 'The Real' is Hegel's 'Absolute' smuggled back into philosophy under a different name. This trick has been pulled many times by a number of philosophers.

Both men represent an intellectual mire. You can easy spend your whole life running in place to their melody and get absolutely nowhere. Both are great for entertaining university children who are more interested in giving airs than actually understanding philosophical concepts. Kant is dense, but Hegel is actively obscure. Zizek rants about things that have never been significant to serious philosophers and never will. He's a culture critic dressed in the robes of contemporary philosopher. Hegel is useful as a magnifying glass of all the ways in which philosophy can become knotted and impotent, paralyzed under the sheer weight of its own abstractions.

I'd advise anyone to steer clear of both like the plague, but if you want to waste your time and energy trying to wring a dry cloth, go ahead.

>Author's name three times as large as the title of the work on the cover

At least it's clear where the focus lies