Try to read Zizek

dude, back the FUCK off. Never insult OP again.

There was a scene in perverts guide to cinema where he's on a boat in the middle of a lake, and instead of saying "I'm lost" he says "I have spontaneously misconstrued directions" That's when I turned off the TV.

>immediately starts using different definitions for common words
This is literally the common thread between most intellectuals in the sphere of communism.
They change the definitions of words so you can't argue with them. It's literally their fucking MO.

>>immediately starts using different definitions for common words
Maybe he's talking about something else than you think he is, if you're not familiar with philosophy, the context of the definitions will be lost to you.

He's using Hegelian definitions, mostly, I think. But it's annoying because, in the sciences, clarity is paramount, but Zizek is more concerned with spinning a tale than explaining his thesis.

>HE'S A COMMIE SO HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND EVERYTHING ABOUT IS PERFECT!

grow up

Capitalised nouns are used for emphasis as Concepts in their own right, like Law, Cause, Other, borrowing from psychoanalysis.

Different definitions? I don't see what you mean there.

Misunderstanding scientific theories... If anything he works by analogy, and this is the only way to explain things clearly, scientists themselves are the first to use goofy analogies and they use them all the time in their writing.

Now his prose isn't a work of art and isn't bon mots and it's written in enormous discipline and constancy and at a formal level is very thematically organised. Sorry if his discoursing isn't interesting to you.

>JustSimpletonThings

Zizek is a very likable and funny guy, but my gott he needs to be avoided and so on and so on!

But he's not just a funny guy.

He's to be taken intensely seriously.

>He's to be taken intensely seriously.
I cannot take him seriously, not because him being funny, but because I cannot take his foundations seriously

Something funny or unserious about Hegel and German philosophy and Freud and psychoanalysis to you? Because those are his two foundations (he's said it himself) Way to go dismissing the founders of our intellectual life and history.

>he is this anti-intellectual

>HE'S A COMMIE CULTURAL MARXIST POSTMODERNIST SO HE IS EVIL
nice try /pol/
read adorno

In the introduction of of The Sublime Object of Ideology he invokes string theory, but completely misunderstands it. Sad!

Psychoanalysis was discredited more than half a century ago.

your mom was discredited more than half a century ago

OK, brainlet.

Stop trying to turn me into one of you commie sjw faggots, fucker. Its not gonna work. Capitalism is the only economic system that lets us be free! The harder you work the higher in the system you are, it is perfect!

He simply uses it as an example of a field becoming more and more contrived in order to avoid changing the fundamentals and uses this as an analogy against contemporary social science, that's not even his opinion on string theory, he quotes an established physicist for that view.

Sounds like someone's a little threatened by the pretty in depth preface essay at the beginning of SOI...

>Wtf continentals don't know science
>žižek gives the view of a respected physicist in brief in order to borrow a concept
>wtf!!he can't do that!!

Give me a break.

>Completely misunderstands it
TIL Lee Smolin doesn't know physics but /pol/ does, thanks for this red pill

60PharmaCoins have been deposited into your account.

Thanks for your support.

----- American Psychiatric Association and your friends at Eli Lilly

He didn't quote him, he tried to explain string theory and fucked it up because he doesn't understand the theory at all.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a boogeyman.
Is this supposed to be an argument in support of psychoanalysis?

Psychoanalysis has been proven in repeated studies to be vastly more effective than any supposedly scientific drug or even CBT; and has a far more rigorous and extensive theoretical corpus and practice than any supposedly scientific psychology. So I don't think you know what you're attacking here, perhaps the popular media caricature of psychoanalysis.

When a discipline is in crisis, attempts are made to change or supplement its theses within the terms of its basic framework – a procedure one might call ‘Ptolemization’ (since when data poured in which clashed with Ptolemy’s earth-centred astronomy, his partisans introduced additional complications to account for the anomalies). But the true ‘Copernican’ revolution takes place when, instead of just adding complications and changing minor premises, the basic framework itself undergoes a transformation. So, when we are dealing with a self-professed ‘scientific revolution’, the question to ask is always: is this truly a Copernican revolution, or merely a Ptolemization of the old paradigm?

Two examples of Ptolemization: there are good reasons to claim that ‘string theory’, which claims to provide the foundations for a unified theory (a single theoretical framework describing the four fundamental interactions between subatomic particles that were previously explained separately by relativity theory or quantum physics), remains an attempt at Ptolemization, and that we are still waiting for a new beginning which will require an even more radical change in the basic presuppositions (something like abandoning time or space as the basic constituent of reality).1 Likewise, in social theory, there are good reasons to claim that all the ‘new paradigm’ proposals about the nature of the contemporary world (that we are entering a post-industrial society, a postmodern society, a risk society, an informational society . . . ) remain so many Ptolemizations of the ‘old paradigm’ of classic sociological models.

Footnotes

See Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company 2006.

Woah, SHOCKING!! What a total fraud! You red pilled me on this hack here. How dare he. Žižek just got
B
T
F
O
By this smarmy smartass user who supposedly knows String Theory, opened the first page of the preface and couldn't wait to come back to Veeky Forums to profess your hate for žižek, what an iconoclast you are, destroying such an author by reading only two introductory paragraphs of the first page of the preface to one of his books.

This is what Veeky Forums has become.

This man is correct.

>Anime
This is like you know a literature board
You guys already have your own board, faggot.

[citation needed]
>how dare someone show how little muh precious demigogue knows about scientific theory. Anyone who posts here must be as scientifically illiterate as me!

Ok you angsty little faggot, ants in your pants?

>/pol/

Lol, you've got nothing. That user totally destroyed you

How? One posted a baseless claim and one proved my point. Begone, brainlet.

>Begone, brainlet

Zizek has not given any of his opinions about the inner workings of string theory, rather he talked about the relationship between ST and physics at large.
That's not a misunderstanding of scientific theories, it's about understanding the context in which these theories take place.

>>Begone, brainlet

You just aren't smart enough for philosophy. Don't feel too bad, most STEMlords aren't.

If you think string theory claims to provide the foundations for a unified theory you are misinformed.

It's more a matter of learning a few more definitions of established words and terms. Otherwise it's easy to discern the quainthalf truths and sophistry that make up the bulk of Zizek's "work".

What are you even talking about now? Gone off topic to show off your dilettante knowledge, cretin?

Reread what you c/p'd from Zizek.

Fine enough if you don't like it, so fuck off and don't read him rather than coming here to score Zingers against some random author. Is this autism? Are you 15?

But that's the actual aim of string theory.

If you think that the sky is made of air you are misinformed.

>If you think string theory claims to provide the foundations for a unified theory you are misinformed.
That's exactly what the goal of string theory is. Whether or not is can be said to have achieved that goal is another matter (it hasn't, yet), but the goal of string theory is absolutely a theory of everything.

Why Did You Capitalise Zingers?
Shoo, shoo, brainlet.

>Veeky Forums wants to be taken seriously when posts like this exist

>you guys are stupid but I won't tell you why

How dare a creative writing and literature board not know the intricacies of physics.

Thinking everybody else shared your interests is a symptom of autism you know.

I wouldn't explain the non-existence of god to a 4 year old, why would I likewise crush you?

>All this teenage autism ITT

you've been exposed as illiterate. yield.

t. brainlet with no understanding of string theory

your projection of an imaginary toddler only serves to expose your insecurity about having a sub-adolescent intellectual life and capacity

i may not be a theoretical physicist, but at least i can read

>a/sci/berger reduced to nothing keeps fighting for superiority on Veeky Forums and climbs into string theory island as a last resort
>on a literature board
>in a žižek thread

Holy..... I want more

Your deflection of your scientific illiteracy shows your insecurity about your lack of manhood.
No you can't.

Scientists are just too stupid for philosophy. Theoretical physics is the domain of brainlets too stupid for Lacan, Deleuze and Guattari, and the like.

not for nothing but the fact that the user thinks the intricacies of string theory are at all relevant to zizeks argument in that preface beyond the context of theoretical stagnation generally is a plain example of illiteracy: for perhaps he can parse a sentence or even a paragraph, but he has amply demonstrated that after a few pages his ability to continually expand his comprehension completely breaks down—so he appeals to his wikipedian nuances of string theory and invents "fundamental flaws" in zizek's writing like "invented definitions" to avoid engaging the subject matter that is beyond his grasp.

In a thread about, in part, Zizek's inability to comprehend scientific theories.

>The harder you work the higher in the system you are,
Nothing wrong with this.

And of the proposed system capitalism is the only stable enough, unlike commienism.

More like Veeky Forumsducks' inability to understand Zizek.

>m-muh posturing charlatans are j-j-just too s-smart for you. S-so what if I owe my entire life t-to scientific advances, t-they d-don't tell me about Lacan's Big Other.

OK our little Einstein! One day people will care about your string theoretical train sets!

Zizek cared enough to attempt an explanation of it.

i don't owe theoretical physicists shit lol

Maybe Zizek is wrong.
What would you do without gravity?

no one is saying zizek is "too smart." i'm saying that you seem to be illiterate. it's not that anyone is too smart. it's that you're too dumb compared with everyone.

Those "charlatans" will give you a far better understanding of the world than any autistic scientific theory ever will. Scientists are just autistic slaves of global capitalism and should be ridiculed.

Again
>reading comprehension

I think you misread my post, brainlet.

are you asking me the practical benefit to my personal life of a semiclassical or quantum mechanical explanation of the force of gravity which will continue to operate without regard to its status as a scientific object? there is none.

False flaggers posing as the science-hating reality denying leftist strawman

Comprehended perfectly. You are wrong.
Autism.

this. let it be known that no one here is crusading against science, only against refusal to comprehend

but user physicists don't guarantee the existence of gravity! it continues to keep me near the earth with or without them!

Can you read?

why does STEM trigger so many leftards and sjws, as evident by taking a look at this thread?

Is it because philosophy can never achieve the same level of explanation and understanding of the world?

>It's a Veeky Forums /pol/ /v/ r/The_Donald loser wanders into Veeky Forums episode again

All the boogeymen at once!

We are all Veeky Forumsizens retard, this board is too irrelevant to be gate holder for /pol/ or Veeky Forums

>why does STEM trigger so many leftards and sjws, as evident by taking a look at this thread?
STEM isn't bad, scientism is bad. Many scientists are autistic enablers of global capitalism who simultaneously denigrate philosophy as a word game by charlatans with nothing to offer the world. Meanwhile, there is no shortage of charlatans in science, as shown by the existence of string theory, reproduction failures in psychology and biology, and so on.

Stop conflating the scientific method with politics, you identarian autist.

define scientism and why it's bad.

scientific method the base of science is a great, valuable tool for explaining the world and keeps on giving like never ending fountain

>Stop conflating the scientific method with politics, you identarian autist.
Not possible. Everything is political.

That's your autism.

Lack of reading comprehension and autistic sensationalist outbursts might 'trigger' people who actually read books and articles to learn about things rather than Veeky Forums and video games yes.

This little spat is nothing to do with science and everything to do with some low reading comprehension autistic's attempts to bash Le Leftists

Do you support third world immigration into European countries?

>autistic attempts to bash le leftist
holy shit I found the redditor now fuck off

A good example of scientism is when Sam Harris says that there are scientifically correct moral values.

What a corny little simile. Revulting.

*stifles laugh*

The scientific method is great when it comes to science.
What does it tell you about ethics? About how to set a government? About aesthetics?
Nothing, it only gives you more informations that you can use when doing philosophy, but that's it.

Scientism is exactly this: thinking that if it's not science it is not worth talking about, while ignoring that comtemporary science can't give any sort of answer to these questions.
You can wait 1000 years for neuroscience to complete epistemology, or 500 years for technology to solve all those problems that nowaday requires ethics. Too bad that we're in. 2017.

But that isn't scientific, so you can't call it "scientism".