Hi guys, newfag into politics here

hi guys, newfag into politics here
I just want to know why does (almost) everyone hate him?

Attached: slovaj.jpg (200x256, 26K)

He says hateful things. It is actually a quote from him that the job of a philosopher is to demonstrate how the very way in which we approach a problem, can be a problem in itself. He is deeply pessimistic and attacks every side in any issue he contemplates, probably in purpose to tip the balance. He also reviews movies he admittedly didn't watch and impute his world view on them (he does the same with Hegel and has completely wrapped up his personal project over Hegel's in his book about Hegel).

TL;DR: he puts himself in a position to be hated, and in doing that, you'll find him very entertaining and perhaps clarifying of many issues

Claiming to be a marxist and a psychoanalyst in the 21st century is like saying that you are an astrologist who frequently practices alchemy. Also, his books and lectures are the collections of non-related anecdotes. Can someone tell me what kind of novel ideas/insights did Zizek introduce?

He's a plagiarizer, Google it.
Also majority of the YouTube content that is posted about him is lame ass pop phil, shit which normies love to eat. Almost all of which is trash and why lots of people both like and dislike him. Read his books if you want an unbiased view on what he's about, I'm sure it'll be better than asking lit.

He’s a fucking bitter narcissist who takes communist and Marxist political opinions simply because he scorns anyone who made a life for themselves through money or meaning

> through money or meaning
Bourgeois… easy on the make-beliefs.

As he says again and again, the fact that people constantly, even triumphantly proclaim Psychoanalysis to be dead, considering it’s incredibly marginal status, might imply to us that they still view it as threatening. I don’t engage with flat earthers because they’re views are marginal and unimportant, people who are into truely ‘outdated’ modes in science are just ignored.
After Anti-Oedipus it was widely seen that Lacanianism was dead in the water and people in Western Europe basically gave up on Lacan. In communist Yugoslavia, Zizek did not get the message.

He supports the fundamental emancipatory project of Marxism, but he came to see that when Marx turned Hegel on his head, turning from idealism to materialism, Marx lost the ability to say anything profound about subjectivity or ideology, which is a huge problem because ideology is the principle thing keeping workers under the power of capitalism, rather than direct force.

Marx believed that Ideology was simply “false consciousness”, basically ‘they do it because they know not what they are doing’.

Zizek says that today this model just does not apply. He has that in late capitalism or postmodernity or whatever we want to call it, the subject is cynical. When we consume, we know we are engaging in an unethical system, we know we are constantly facilitating abuses, and sweatshops and so on, yet we still consume all the same. This is an inversion of the Marxist notion, instead it is ‘we know what we are doing, and yet we do it anyways’. He points to ironic detachment as a way we can separate ourselves from our own actions, while still doing them. Capitalism doesn’t care what is in our heads, it only cares that we continue to purchase.


So Zizek’s project is essential this; in order to recover Marxism, we need to build a Marxist Theory of subjectivity. Things like ethnic conflict, nationalism, racism, and a lot of gender trouble come from issues of identity, or in other words they lay in the realm of subjectivity, being that the formation of identity is subjectivity par excellence. Zizek sees in Lacan a fundamentally materialist theory of the subject, one which incorporates the fundamental insights of the post-structuralist period, without completely effacing any notion of the subject as is the case in somebody like Derrida. Zizek also see in German idealism a period of the richest theorizing about subjectivity, but he is at odds with its idealism. His answer is that the only way to recover the gems of German Philosophy is to repeat it, but read through Lacan, and then Lacan through idealism, dialectically building up to a new theory of subjectivity, and from there to ideology.

He then puts this theory of ideology to work, using it explain the rise of nationalism in Eastern Europe during the 90s, to examine the roots of anti-semitism, and especially to talk about the relations between men and women.

Buddy, he’s managed to play the attention economy and made himself rich by doing philosophy, literally who else has managed to become rich via philosophy?

He also talks about capitalisms ability to preempt all resistance by incorporating all anti-capitalism into its ideological structure and commodifying it’s symbols. Anti-capitalists, or at least critics of capitalism are best selling authors, michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Zizek himself, even Das Kapital is a constant on the Amazon best sellers list on economics and political categories.

Everybody knows the “awful truth” of our society, we don’t trust our public institions, we don’t trust our media, we know that our economy is built on what is tandemount to slave labour in the third world, but all the same we still go through the motions exactly as we always have. This is ideology par excellence for Zizek.

>I just want to know why does (almost) everyone hate him?
He's funny to bully because he has strange mannerisms.

narcicist leftist that doesn't really has an opinion about anything beyond sounding edgy and "liberating"

his theory is good, read his theory books, watch his videos for meme entertaining but his politics are garbage tier

Attached: 1e8b923e6638641d910d2315845851fd.jpg (550x550, 28K)

>psychoanalysis never helped anybody
>it's actually ok, because helping is not the objective of psychoanalysis
everything is so convenient when you can redefine it in your own terms so that a defeat is still a victory

>He also talks about capitalisms ability to preempt all resistance by incorporating all anti-capitalism into its ideological structure
and capitalism manages that without even having anybody intentionally doing it, not sure how are you going to fight against that without murdering everybody, and leftist theory has been a laughingstock since the fall of the soviet union or even before that

He's a genius of marketing himself, he portrays two completely different personalities, in his books he's a serious thinker in the continental tradition, and in his lectures he's a comedy cultural critic and pseudo marxist funny guy. His reinterpretation of Hegel back into Marxism, his analyses of revolutionary violence and his innovative ontology will definitely remain influential in continental philosophy

>in his books he's a serious thinker in the continental tradition

Attached: tETqJ02.jpg (688x634, 100K)

Not that guy, but actually I don't think this is meant as a competition at all. Rather than that poster I'd prefer using the much more concrete comparison of psychoanalysis to homeopathy.

Homeopathy as actual treatment is completely defunct yet mobilizes a billionaire market of exploitation, with snake oil salesmen aplenty selling miracle bottles of water to unknowing, despaired people who buy into the placebo. Even as academics "fight" against the spread of homeopathy, the very pharmaceutical industry that also promotes the conventional means of medication, simultaneously funds splinter businesses involving New Age alternative treatments of which homeopathy is just one.

You see, this is where the "triumphant proclamations" come in. No such thing is done to denigrate homeopathy. People call it stupid only to a level where they know the evidence points to it being placebo, because the evidence is there to begin with. In spite of its heavy funding, the theory has already been falsified long ago by hundreds of attempts to make it work or seeing it at work. With psychoanalysis, things are much more subtle, because of the very nature of the problem. In many ways psychoanalysis is, indeed, much closer to philosophy because it seeks to show how the very way with which you look at problems might represent problems in itself. It is in this manner that (and even most proper therapists would claim the same) yes, psychoanalysis is not there to help you with problems, it is there merely to help yourself, a subtle but important difference. No terms are being redefined here, and no claims to a victory is being made because we have not yet settled what does it mean to "win".

Regardless also of our own internet discussion of course, psychoanalysis as treatment is even more widespread than homeopathy (hiding under the large umbrella of "therapy") and in fact the problem of the mind is so far away from our current scientific endeavors (to the point that some people would even claim it's not a scientific problem at all), that it's not going the way of homeopathy or flat-earth anytime soon.

i'm not so much against psychoanalysis when it comes to theory, but as a therapeutic practice you can still evaluate it empirically even if the basis is not empirical, with things like % of patients killing themselves

to me it seems like many of the authors want to treat psychoanalysis as theory, while still checking into the "romantic" aura of fixing people's minds, but without having to seriously evaluate what real outcomes it produces, so you can always justify when it doesn't work in your own terms

He is an obscurantist in debates, and his views amount "consumer capitalism sucks, we need a leninist vanguard! also, eww immigrants".

Also, for all the conceptual problems of Psychoanalysis, it had an empirical efficacy basically comparable to any other type of therapy, which is to say, largely mixed, not particularly positive.

yes, he is a meme, but he doesn't hate migrants, he is just a globalist and believes how the current migration was handled was bad optics for the globalist project

also, they smell a little bit

his nose and his face don't work anymore