So...

Lol what pleb uni do you go to?

All my professors are published authors and I read their books in my free time so I can show up to their office hours and have at least a somewhat stimulating discussion and without fail every time Zizek appears in the bibliography

He's a bug man who pretends he only thinks in terms of hard core empirical testability.
I swear to God this is the worst type of person on the planet.
how dumb do you have to be to still be getting memed by 17th century philosophy, jesus christ

he's certainly not taken seriously in British academia (apart from certain cesspits like essex university).

He's a performer. not an academic.

>academics can't be amusing

really made me think

ah yes, cesspits like goldsmiths, birkbeck, and warwick

youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

CHARLATAN

>r/iamverysmart

kek

>British academia

Ahahahahahahahahahaha

zizek is the man, I saw his movie about that "obey" movie and I agreed 100 percent

>Literally the only relevant universities in Europe

>I'm the smartest man with downsyndrome

>(or if so, that I should be able to refute everything he says).
Well? Are you able to?

Where are you from OP?

Of course you can verify a philosophical argument.

>polytechnics

Hmm, not true. He's mates with Terry Eagleton. The family get copies of his books for Christmas. Signed, I hope.

Also, he did a talk in Oxford that was massively oversubscrived, and it wasn't just populated by students. Lots of students, but not just students.

Yeah, no. Continental universities look down upon British universities. You don't know what you're talking about.

post your professor's emssage.

Post your professor's nudes

I'm doing a BA majoring in literature and philosophy and have had three different academic staff assign Zizek as a required reading, in both fields.
Are you American? American Education seems like a joke desu

Is that Eric Bana playing Chopper Reed? I loved that movie

>they fucking hate him.

who is they? is this something about the jews?

No you can't.

Canadian here.

I had a critical theory prof who loved Zizek and Yecarthy. On the first day of class he told us that bit that Zizek says about liberals and recycling and Starbucks.

...

I think for most people he works as a nice gateway toward getting into sociopolitical topics. HIs main issue is that he regurgitates marxist ideology while trying to be as obtuse and ambiguous as Lacan, which is perfect for him because it allows him to go on circles. Given his new fame, he's also generating quite the capital with this films and books which serves as a nice counterpoint to the obvious sham he is.

I honestly don't think that you could get much from him that you couldn't get from reading other classic writers like Foucault or Derrida.

And thanks, it's one of my favorites.

I'm not sure in what century you reside, but we do not need any more armchair guessing about the world. You don't strike me as particularly bright, so I'll be brief: if you say that something is true about the world, you should be able to show me that it is, or at least make a model based on evidence suggesting its validity. You cannot pull bullshit out of your ass and pretend its true, and we don't have to, we're not in the 19th century anymore.

>I'm not sure in what century you reside, but we do not need any more armchair guessing about the world. You don't strike me as particularly bright, so I'll be brief: if you say that something is true about the world, you should be able to show me that it is, or at least make a model based on evidence suggesting its validity. You cannot pull bullshit out of your ass and pretend its true, and we don't have to, we're not in the 19th century anymore.

Pure ideology.

the only people who really dislike zizek are liberals of both the left and right who should hold a meeting in a concentration camp

*wipes nose and sniffs* SUFFERIN SUCCOTASH!

So who then to your mind is not a joke?

>Ah...Ah!...*wipes nose*....ah ok...well...*pucks shirt with both hands*....ah!...you see....da szhing about me...is dat...well.... dere IS an old...marxist...joke...man is LIVING in....ukraine...

Well Zizek is certainly taken more seriously and has made more of an impact than your philosophy professor who is unknown outside their own department so I think he'll have the last laugh when the history of philosophy is written.

>le mumbling marxist who loves capitalism

I really cant figure you leftist retards out. Half of you are post-structural neomarxist ancom apes who see fit to destroy malls and flip cop cars over when you see someone richer than you, and the other half of you do nothing but sit in the corner and mumble about dah dayuhlecktix and post epick *sniff* memes everywhere.

When will you idiots adopt a coherent value system?

nice false flag JIDF

Not really. He has a "pop" impact sure, but not an academic one. Apparent impact means nothing as to the quality and content of one's actual work. He has an influence on the gneeral non-academics and Facebook commenters but little more than that.

>HIs main issue is that he regurgitates marxist ideology

Have you read Zizek at all? He's not even a materialist. He has literally said that dialectical materialism is one of the craziest (as in, most obviously wrong) theories he's ever heard. He may borrow bits and pieces from Marx but he's about as far as you can get from an orthodox Marxist.

> while trying to be as obtuse and ambiguous as Lacan

There are a lot of writers in the continental tradition you can rightly criticize for being intentionally obfuscatory. Zizek is not among them. He is confusing to you because you are either (1) and idiot, or (2) have no knowledge of the history of European philosophy.

If you have a BA in philosophy and took a few courses on the history of philosophy you should have no problem understanding Zizek, assuming you start with his earlier works, since his latter works develop off his earlier.

Say what you want about Zizek, personally I think his political writing is sloppy and bears a seemingly arbitrary relation to his theory, but when you criticize him for being "obtuse and ambiguous" you immediately out yourself as a retard incapable of understanding a relatively straightforward writer.

fuck off jordan

lol I think this is an underrated "public intellectual" beef tbqh

this post reminded me how much I want Peterson vs Zizek

peterson would start out smug and end up in tears.

>I saw his movie about that "obey" movie and I agreed 100 percent
You're a prime example of his followers and you probably don't even see anything wrong with your post.

>There are a lot of writers in the continental tradition you can rightly criticize for being intentionally obfuscatory. Zizek is not among them. He is confusing to you because you are either (1) and idiot, or (2) have no knowledge of the history of European philosophy.
I'm not that guy but there are many acomplished people who say the same thing about Zizek so "you're just too stupid to get him" is not a great argument (it's pretty childish anyway).

I think they'd agree on almost everything while their respective fanbases would continue bashing their heads in.

>I think they'd agree on almost everything
This is what peterson fans think.

Related video: "Vice Meets Superstar Communist Zizek"

It boggles my mind that Zizek fanboys aren't ridiculed on this board with the same fervour as Rupi Kaur or Amy Schumer.

Kek'd

Zizek had a bit of a feud with Laclau because Zizek held, and still holds, onto Marxist a priori formulas such as class struggle. I wouldn't say he's really that far removed from Marx. Which is fine, Laclau and Mouffe's radical democracy can have many risks such as the more extreme examples of identity politics which go against any form of universality. Of course Marxism has an explicit anti-philosophical side (but then again so does every important philosopher ever), but it still sounds better to me to claim that someone's opinion should be discarded for being bourgeois ideology rather than it being race or sex privilege'd ideology because the latter aren't as contingent as the first category. But I'm bumbling, every decent leftist understands that reversing the roles solves nothing.

What would they disagree on?
>the left caused the current right-wing populism, it's not because of bad people seeking an outlet
>capitalism isn't a great system but the alternatives provided by the left are even worse
>political correctness is a cancer
Both of them say these things.
Also, both of them aren't serious thinkers interested in a stringent theory but mostly performance activists riding a wave of disenfranchised bitter millennials (I say that without any negative judgment).

You can't tell because you're an intellectual midget who follows the hivemind of pussy bitches who go for the easiest targets and can't tell the difference between what appears gimmicky and has substance and what is gimmicky and has no substance.

This.

Also, this almost Oedipal desire for approval is pathetic. Zizek is far from perfect, but there's nothing preventing someone from taking what he finds useful in his work and not worrying about whether some autistic long forgotten professor thinks about him. And there are a lot of useful concepts in Zizek in spite of, or perhaps because of the dubious Lacanian influence.

Yes, I am the intellectual midget following a hivemind of pussy bitches while you - among with the 800.000 viewers of the Vice video - are the opposite.
Take a deep breath and see if you can find the irony in your statement.

Don't you think you're misrepresenting the rejection of Zizek a bit?
I mean, I agree that it's stupid to base your opinion on anyone on whether your professors like him - but the main criticism of Zizek is simply that there is no philosophical work that anyone can take from. It's just pop slogans and speculation. Good stuff if you want to fuel a protest but simply useless in any serious discussion, let alone in academia (old academia that is, you don't need to be alt-right to realise it has changed since the 1950s).

I like Zizek by the way, although calling him a con artist definitely isn't completely wrong.

The points you brought up are superficial and agreed on by anyone who isn't a total fucking idiot. They fundamentally disagree with one another, if you look at who they draw from, zizek - freud/lacan/marx and peterson - neechee/jung/assorted fiction they are diametrically opposed. It'd be interesting on a celebrity academics battle level sure but when you delve deeper peterson doesn't have much substance which is why he appeals to people who tend to be against academia in general.

>performance activists
>disenfranchised bitter millenials
That really only applies to peterson.

laughed for a full minute senpai, ty.

Your post makes no sense until the ending when it also makes no sense. Like I said, intellectual midget, stick to posting in rupi kaur/amy schumer hate threads.

Without the dirty jokes, the funny accent and mannerisms he'd be a literal nobody.
I don't mind him overall, but let's be real for a minute.

Off the top of my head:

> Zizek, like many Lacanians, dislikes Jung and considers him a psychotic (he was, but that's beside the point)
> Zizek still wants some global change and better global treaties, not so sure about Peterson
> Zizek wants the left to take power wherever possible and to fight for every right (such as Obamacare), not sure about Peterson since he's openly conservative
> Zizek is pro-LGBTQ+etc. on the Lacanian basis that sexual identity is violently painful for those not fitting the description (more or less everyone to some degree or another), not so sure about Peterson
> Sexual difference for Zizek is mostly based on unconscious symbolic structures rather than genetics, not so sure about Peterson
> Zizek wants more immigrants provided that it is controlled using the army and that rich arab countries are forced to take their share of the burden, not so sure about Peterson
> Zizek is worried about the freedom we have not being sufficient (we lack true political freedom), not sure about Peterson

There's probably more. I wouldn't say that they're in agreement even though there's nothing wrong with leftists and conservatives having thinga in common. Zizek is a bit conservative when it comes to public order.

Amazing rebuttal, I now see your intellectual superiority.

Sarcasm is the refuge for the intellectually and emotionally defunct.

> the main criticism of Zizek is simply that there is no philosophical work that anyone can take from. It's just pop slogans and speculation. Good stuff if you want to fuel a protest but simply useless in any serious discussion, let alone in academia (old academia that is, you don't need to be alt-right to realise it has changed since the 1950s).

No, because it is related to what I said about taking what you find useful from his work. I don't know what people expect from philosophy, you can't just perform a controlled survey study which shows that 9 out of 10 people are suffering from pure ideology *sniff*. Besides, his concepts aren't hidden and his pop explanations and jokes are the bonus rather than the central point (even though style is a central point for any Lacanian). It's simply an unfair criticism no different than stating that Zizek has green hair and shoots lasers from his eyes. And again, Zizek has plenty of shortcomings and weak points, but that doesn't make his work contentless nor isolated from the continental tradition.

While pure ad hominem without any substance, followed by "haha you intellectual midget, can't address the substance, huh?" showcases exceptional intellectual capability.

My posts were pretty accurate in describing your intellectual midgetry and cowardice, so it actually had a lot of substance relating to the subject; you. You responded with a failed comparison fueled by your misunderstanding of what irony is followed by the classic 14-year old teenage girl insult "ohh you're soooo smart." So yes you're a fucking moron.

>but that doesn't make his work contentless
But that is the entire point. Many people think his work is entirely devoid of any content that goes beyond obscure waffling or pop philosophy.

You can disagree of course and philosophy not being too empirical makes it easy to turn it into an eye of the beholder matter. But I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone who doesn't admit that Zizek's fame comes almost exlusively from his mannerism, use of modern media and pop appeal to slacktivists rather than any dry, serious theory that added substance to the minds of his peers.

Take a step back from the screen and consider whether your reaction to someone not liking your youtube hero isn't a little over the top. What on earth went wrong in your life.

>P-please stop posting
Just close your browser my man.

> Many people think his work is entirely devoid of any content that goes beyond obscure waffling or pop philosophy.

Many people also have never read him or listened to him for more than 5 minutes. It doesn't mean anything even if it is true.

> philosophy not being too empirical makes it easy to turn it into an eye of the beholder matter.

True, but any decent philosopher accounts for this theoretically. It is perfectly fine to ask, for example, "does Zizek's notion of ideology not include his own discourse?".

> Zizek's fame

Popular fame isn't the same as academic fame, one can have both. You are correct imo concerning Zizek's academic fame, but this does not make his work without content. If anything Zizek wrote about anything and everything, including the entire philosophical tradition up to him. I feel like we're moving goalposts here...

WE

>he clings to the spook of verifiability

>Zizek is pro-LGBTQ+etc
No he's not. He literally says that radical love(true love) is monogamous.

It's an actual philosophy, but not much of one.

>ITT: people whose opinion on Zizek is entirely based on his youtube videos
I bet no one here has read a single philosophical work of his, including myself.

I may have phrased that a bit blunt. He is for certain aspects of LGBTQ+ including the authenticity of gender struggle. Polyamory is indeed something he goes against insofar as love is concerned. Is polyamory a part of LGBTQ+? I don't know much about the movement aside from the fact that they keep adding letters and signs to the name.

I admit I never read one cover to cover, but I have read quite a bit of his work in passing (including articles). It isn't all that different from his Youtube videos, but if you look for concepts rather than jokes there's substance to those videos as well.

Guy used to teach at Oxbridge.

Literally can't into continental philosophy

>I think for most people he works as a nice gateway toward getting into sociopolitical topics.

OP here. I agree, and it's explicitly what I said to him in response. The reason for our discourse was because I said I was interested in studying further on modern topics betwixt philosophy and sociology. Zizek came up as an example.

>Foucault

He took issue with him too.

Oh yes, either I'm clearly an idiot for not liking him, or am completely unaware of European history. Let me break this down for you:

1) If you think that there isn't a grave semantic and referential issue in his writing, I'd argue that you are the idiot. For real, get on track with his videos, podcasts, interviews (anywhere he makes an interaction with another human being) and you'll see the needless semantic mess he makes out of all his topics. A big issue is that his ideas are virtually non-arguable, seeing as how he'll start parading about how you're ideology is affecting your understanding of the world and of his ideas, which ends with an emperor's new clothes sort of argument, kinda like yours. I want to point out, so as to not get your brain in a tangle, that I don't mean that he's singularly the only human being to be like this. However, it's annoying that he is like this because he's a well known public figure, and one whose intellect is barely respected by any intellectual, but massively accepted by college BAs desperate to be deep.

2) I said he regurgitates marxist ideology, didn't say he categorically embraces it. I think it's pretty clear that most of his books, and most of his conversations, revolve around some conflict in the world as seen from a select marxist perspective.

3) Worse yet, all his arguments are dichotomies that need not be; it's usually oppressor vs oppressed, dream vs reality, being awake vs being asleep, etc. If you constantly need to limit, or categorize, every phenomena into solely two options, I'd argue again, that you are the idiot.

4) To be clear again, I don't think he's useless, as I said in my previous post, he has some good ideas and can serve as a gateway into deeper, more nuanced, conversations on certain topics for a lot of people. However, most of what he says should be obvious to just about anybody who has had any sort of formal education on how society and culture works. It isn't anything new, it hasn't ever been.

Well if you've read him you would have realized that most of his books/articles are exactly like his videos

The only exception i can think of is The Sublime Object of Ideology

I like zizek as a personality and i enjoy his movie analysis critique

I've tried reading one of his books but fuck that convoluted shit

I like his occasional talks, but mostly i'm into his film analysis

/ Irrelevant comment

>I've tried reading one of his books but fuck that convoluted shit

Did you try one of his academic ones that are loaded with philosophical jargon? Because he has written a lot of pop books for a general audience (that's actually his main output)

I read *event* published by penguin books *duh

Idk i'm sure if you have some dedication and get into it, i'm sure it's comprehensible

Still i rather listen to his talks and film stuff mainly

One professor, one anecdote, one datum does not an appraisal of the group make.

There are whole journals about his work. May it yet be true that contemporaries have honestly tired of Zizek, exactly as we tire of fidget spinners or of Joyce, exactly because they are "memes"? Of course. But the whole point of a meme is that when you seriously go looking for supporters, you will easily find them. And this because the meme is itself popular.

One section of the academy's distate for Zizek is not enough to conclude that academia in general hates Zizek. However deserving Zizek might be of such.

Zizek is a vegetarian why the fuck would you take him seriously?

ive only ever seen a couple of short clips of him but god damn is this disgusting freak unable to communicate effectively

he just makes disgusting bacon sizzling noises with his mouth and apparently he's just a self contradictory joke and should only be taken as seriously as his ability to speak clearly

for what purpose anyone pays this freak attention, who knows. he's like the ronda rousey of philosophy it seems. you know in the back of your head he is a joke, and that's why people talk about him so much

>I'm not sure in what century you reside, but we do not need any more armchair guessing about the world. You don't strike me as particularly bright, so I'll be brief: if you say that something is true about the world, you should be able to show me that it is, or at least make a model based on evidence suggesting its validity. You cannot pull bullshit out of your ass and pretend its true, and we don't have to, we're not in the 19th century anymore.
Individuality and individual experiences are irrational and have no basis in pure proof, but we rely on those all the time. By discounting so many unprovable things worthless you are basically calling art and philosophy worthless as well.

academics are PETTY, small souled bugmen. i dont even like zizek but i know exactly the kind of thing that you're talking about.

do NOT go into academia unless you want to become something less than a man.

Zizek, like he does with almost everyone, claims that Jung was a secret Hegelian.
I get the impression from Peterson that he is pretty much fine with keeping the status quo but wants to roll back leftism a bit.
I think Petersons view on the LGBTQ+ would probably be keeping with a more binary understanding of gender with everything beyond Lesbian, Gay and Bi being overdiagnosed by youth confused by postmodern thinking.
Peterson would say that sex differences are based on genetics and upbringing, he often cites studies and schools of thought that indicate this. However, he would also accept the existence of the unconscious as having a fundamental importance to the subject and having some clinical merit.
Peterson is worried about the dangers to political freedoms we already possess, particularly freedom of speech, not sure on how deep his political thoughts go.

Peterson uses Solzhenitsyn as one of his primary sources for criticising communism in practice I have heard Zizek in a number of his lectures dismissing Solzhenitsyn outright. One of the main differences I see is that Peterson uses peer-reviewed studies to back up his assertions Zizek does not.

Himself, and only himself.

That's probably not even true, college professors in things like history, politics and philosophy often do a lot in their own fields. Some much more than others, yes, but assuming that about a professor you don't even know the name of is just stupid.

>When will you idiots adopt a coherent value system?
Death to fascists, down with capitalism, down with SNLY and the Law of Value. Good enough for you?

>I think a coherent value system is just things I am opposed to

>Death to fascism, freedom to the nation

a nice moto