[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 19 KB, 340x227, r926916_9677185[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4212407 No.4212407[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What's the stupidest thing this guy has ever said? I've watched a lot of his lectures, and I agree with most of his arguments. I'd rather not be unpleasantly surprised by his views. So I'm asking you guys.

>> No.4212408

>>4212407
it doesn't work like this

you should read his books if you want to be disillusioned with him. he can't write a book for shit. fun lectures though, i guess.

>> No.4212414

pick and choose

https://twitter.com/zizek_ebooks

on another note, i've been watching pervert's guide to ideology, and while it's mostly a rehash of a lot of his old arguments, it's quite nice to have these all together and with this amount of production value

>> No.4212442

>>4212407
He has dumb bourgeois political views but his explicitly held politics aren't really the point I suppose....those are mostly just his personal opinions, like asking a philosopher what his favorite ice cream flavor is.

>> No.4212506

>>4212442
>communists
kek
If you didn't spend your time trying to accuse each other of being bourgeois, maybe you would still be relevant in the West.

>> No.4212516

I can't stand his lectures anymore. Ge rarely says something new and even then it is just an island of oc in the middle on Rehash Ocean. What really concearns me is that this style seems quite popular in philosophy these days. Philosophy, at least in its continental variant, is basically "just stand there, look cool and say something witty and then something 2deep4u". I'm not gonna rant about empty posturing or postmodernist fraud or whatever, I'm just saying that too many philosophers don't take their courses and lectures seriously.

>> No.4212527

>>4212516
>Rehash Ocean
All good educators repeat themselves.

>> No.4212532

when he said that some times during sex he becomes conscious of the fact that he is mechanically thrusting like an animal, the the Universe is just like a big positively charged atom that is evil, and that children should be banned from going near flowers because they are very vulgar sex objects.
these might be "profound", but it really just reveals what kind of mental/emotional cripple he is.

>> No.4212534

>>4212527
yeah, but good things become more and more beautiful the more times you listen to them, whereas ugly things, like junk food, whose only appeal is a kind of sensual curiosity, become dull and even painful the more times you taste them

>> No.4212547

>>4212532
You dont feel silly sometimes having sex?

>> No.4212549

>>4212532
those things are funny and cool actually

>> No.4212551

>>4212547
lol youre assuming that dude ever has sex

>> No.4212562

>>4212551
yeah, I've never had sex

still, the reason people probably feel silly in sex is anxiety, a horror at being intimate with somebody, which is unhealthy.

>> No.4212570

>>4212562
He wasn't talking about some chronic condition.
Just the feeling of detachment that sometimes happen when you lose the fantasmatic support.
As in "not being in the mood anymore". It's nothing exceptional, I don't see why people have trouble with this notion.

>> No.4212589

>>4212570
that detachment is a result of the pornography/casual sex/masturbation culture which relies on, as you put it, "fantasmatic support" in order to sustain sexual arousal.
it's a sickness of the mind, and it leads to sickness of the body (erectile dysfunction)

>> No.4212598

>We men, at least in our standard phallogocentric mode of sexuality, even when we are doing it with the real women, we are effectively doing it with our fantasy. Woman is reduced to a masturbatory prop. Woman arouses us in so far as she enters our fantasy frame. With women, it's different. The true enjoyment is not in doing it but in telling about it afterwards. Of course, women do enjoy sex immediately, but I hope I'm permitted as a man to propose a daring hypothesis, that maybe, while they are doing it, they already enact or incorporate this minimal narrative distance, so that they are already observing themselves and narrativising it.

This is at least in my top 10 of "hello I'm Zizek, I'm an emotional cripple, what I think goes for the entire rest of the world", i.e., "top 10 stupid statements by Zizek"

>> No.4212627

>>4212589
>pornography/casual sex/masturbation culture which relies on, as you put it, "fantasmatic support"
How fucking new are you?
The fantasmatic frame is essential to sex, it has nothing to do with modern society. That's the reason for the rituals surrounding sex, to reinforce that world of fantasms.
This was observed and theorized a long time ago.

>yeah, I've never had sex
Obviously.

>> No.4212629

>>4212598
What part bothers you?
Most of our enjoyment is deeply linked to how we narrate it. There is no reason sex couldn't be included in that.

>> No.4212630

>>4212627
No, I agree, it's just that the pornography/casual sex/masturbation culture insists on ENDLESS VARIATION in the "fantasms", and boredom is the result.
Not that this didn't occur at all before modern society, because, as you said, it's a universal in sex - just that modern society exacerbates this more than many societies have.

>> No.4212634

>>4212630
>ENDLESS VARIATION in the "fantasms"
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
The sexualized pictures that fill our screens and magazine are all pretty similar and "vanilla".

>> No.4212639

>>4212630
contrast it with the view of sex in older Christian societies - where sex was a form of duty to the wife/husband and not just a form of pleasure. This encourages people not to view sex as a form of entertainment and judge how fulfilling sex is based on excitement and boredom. Not that people didn't get bored of having sex with their spouse in Christian society, just that they were trying to condition themselves not to, whereas our society conditions us TO get bored of having sex with our spouse, so its much more likely to happen and at a much quicker rate.

>> No.4212640

>>4212634
but there is endless variation in the women/man themselves, how they are dressed up (as a nurse, soldier, etc.), size and shape of sexual characteristics (e.g. breasts), hair style/colour, etc.

>> No.4212643

>>4212639
>Not that people didn't get bored of having sex with their spouse in Christian society, just that they were trying to condition themselves not to

Or rather, they weren't conditioning themselves not to get bored, but conditioning themselves not to think that the excitement/boredom dialectic was a necessary aspect of sex.

>> No.4212646

>>4212640
But in the end it's all the same pretty standard framework of "young appearance and light male domination".
There is much more to sexual fantasies than that, but it's actually very hidden in our modern society.

>> No.4212649

>>4212646
>There is much more to sexual fantasies than that, but it's actually very hidden in our modern society.

Not if you have access to the internet.

>> No.4212651

>>4212639
>>4212643
On that not, it should be noted that the Song of Song offers us a very early example of phantasmal framework.

"Behold, you are fair, my beloved; behold, you are fair; your eyes are [like] doves, from within your kerchief; your hair is like a flock of goats that streamed down from Mount Gilead.
2. Your teeth are like a flock of uniformly shaped [ewes] that came up from the washing, all of whom are perfect, and there is no bereavement among them.
3. Your lips are like a scarlet thread, and your speech is comely; your temple is like a split pomegranate from within your kerchief.
4. Your neck is like the Tower of David, built as a model; a thousand shields hanging on it, all the quivers of the mighty men."

This is what Zizek talks about when he talks about the support of phantasm.
Women are not ACTUALLY made of doves and thread and pomegranate and mighty towers. People are made of meat covered with sweat and other bodily excretions.
Nobody wants to actually think about that while making love. You idealize it one way or another.

>> No.4212657

>>4212651
>Women are not ACTUALLY made of doves and thread and pomegranate and mighty towers.

They are though. The idea that
>People are made of meat covered with sweat and other bodily excretions.
Isn't "reality", it's the IDEALISM of the scientists/cynics, they just like to pretend that their idealism, because it is vulgar idealism, is "more real" than prettier ideals. This is vanity.

>> No.4212660

>>4212407
Zizek thinks the world is based and revolves around pop-cultural phenomenas, and trough the use of his philosophy, he has become a communist, even though he grew up in a communist country and hates communism, and so forth and so forth.

That should pretty much do it.

>> No.4212671

>>4212657
>muh relativism
lol ok faggot let's admit that for a minute.
It doesn't change the point.
The picture of a naked woman in a medical manual, done with crude lighting, her standing straight with no expression, etc., will not arouse you.
The same woman in a lascivious pose, a smoother lighting, possibly panties or other accessories, will, however, arouse you.

Whether the medical picture is "the real one" or not matters not. What matters is indeed whether that woman enters or not your phantasm world.

>> No.4212681

>>4212671
> What matters is indeed whether that woman enters or not your phantasm world.

They both enter your "phantasm world", it's just that one is the spirit of the science, and the other is the spirit of eroticism. To say that the "phantasmal world" is only built of erotic phantoms is a bit silly.

>> No.4212682

>>4212681
You're discussing semantics.
The discussion was about sexuality, not the phantasmal support for the world in general.

>> No.4212683

>>4212671
also, when I said that women are made of doves, etc., I was being sincere.
Therefore, your accusation of relativism is false, because I do believe in an absolute Platonic form/ideal, "woman", which is, indeed, among other things, made up of doves, etc.

>> No.4212687

>>4212683
and the picture of "woman" that the scientists generate, and the picture of "woman" that the cynics generate, is not the picture of "woman" as such, it's a different form/ideal. In the scientists case it's the form of precision and "objectivity", the fact that a woman is implied in this case is just incidental, it may just as well be a bug or a tree or a stone or an atom.

>> No.4212688

>>4212683
Nonsense, Platonic idealism isn't a personal fantasy world.

>> No.4212692

>>4212687
>Platonic idealism
>it's dependent on the context and the person
What the fuck are you doing?

>> No.4212694

>>4212688
I agree, that's why I separate it from relativism and say that my attachment to Platonic idealism separates me from relativism, i.e. that reality is constructed in a "personal fantasy world".

>> No.4212697

>>4212692
No, the picture is separate from the scientists and the cynics themselves, it's just that those are the pictures/ideals that the scientists and cynics, in their scienceness and cynicness, contemplate.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "generate". They don't give birth to these ideals, these are just the ones that they are insist on.

>> No.4212702

To clarify, what he is calling the "phantasmal world" I am equating to Plato's "world of ideas".

>> No.4212715

Also, when I earlier: >>4212657 said this:
>Isn't "reality", it's the IDEALISM of the scientists/cynics, they just like to pretend that their idealism, because it is vulgar idealism, is "more real" than prettier ideals.

I didn't mean theirs was "vulgar idealism", but that there's was "a vulgar idealism", i.e. the ideal of the vulgar.
I noticed this mistake as soon as I reread the post but neglected to correct it straight away.

>> No.4212723

>>4212683
>that feelerino when you see a woman do something adorable/feminine and you become aware that you are contemplating the universal female