Tfw too dumb to understand zizek

Its not subconscious. Its not anything. Yeah old games used to have set rules, but they weren't serialized in a comic wear they? They didn't have to make some new bullshit every week (I think Yu-Gi-Oh was a new chapter each week?) to keep people interested. There are some anime and manga where the fighting, games or whatever form of engagement the characters get into does have a subtext of commentary in wider society, but Yu-Gi-Oh isn't one of them. Sometimes, a cigar really is just a cigar.

why does he need all these words to say that yu gi oh cards differ from eachother?

I love zizek and I WILL defend him!

too bad you're too stupid to understand zizek!

you're just as bad as this guy:

>That's true, but it doesn't mean the way Yu-Gi-Oh plays fast and loose with its rules means its a fucking commentary on society.

Yu-Gi-Oh is part of society dude

A cigar is never just a cigar

He's saying that yugioh is different from other games in that all the cards introduce rules that are specific to the individual card as opposed to "normal" games where the rules are set beforehand. Obviously a reference to societal norms etc.

Yeah, but its not saying what Zizek thinks its saying. At most you could glean from it that capitalism forces Yu-Gi-Oh to keep readers engaged and therefore must ignore the finite and closed games of the past and constantly come up with new rules.

Sometimes, tobacco wrapped in tobacco leaves with the intention of being inhaled through smoke is just tobacco wrapped in tobacco leaves with the intention of being inhaled through smoke. Its just a fact of life.

>Its just a fact of life.

Except it isn't, thats just a fact of life. There's no such thing as a pure motivation. Our minds and decisions are always the product of a vast array of competing and synergizing notions and drives competing and working with each other.

A cigar is never just a cigar, and a cigar is always just a cigar. There's no mid-point between the two

>There's no such thing as a pure motivation

There are. A pure motivation is something done to avoid pain. Eating, sleeping, sex and so forth. That's why hedonism is the only scientific and objective ethical framework.

>Our minds and decisions are always the product of a vast array of competing and synergizing notions and drives competing and working with each other.

Absolutely true. But that doesn't mean the physical world is dissolved. A cigar is a cigar no matter what you want to call it or interpret it as.

those digits

>That's why hedonism is the only scientific and objective ethical framework.

Psychoanlysis is largely based on the pleasure principal so there is no contradiction there. Most everything in Freud and Lacan can be traced down to pleasure and pain but you see the problem is that there are different pleasures and pains, there are even enjoyed pains and unenjoyed pleasures. Its messy and rarely ever so direct and simple as pavalovian association.
To that end I'd argue a cigar is a perfect contradiction of that notion of pleasure, there is very little actual inherent pleasure in smoking a cigar especially as a first time trying the activity, its existence as a commodity is based on people learning to enjoy it through its symbolic associations and even taking pleasure in the very pain it causes.

>Its messy and rarely ever so direct and simple as pavalovian association.

That's correct, and I've been a believer that one framework such as hedonism can explain or be the ultimate axiom for ethics and philosophy. You need multiple axioms and multiple frameworks to form a coherent and useful view. The cigar is a cigar. But you are also right in examining the relationship between man and the cigar, they're not mutually exclusive.

I don't know if I like him or not

Ok but then I don't think we're actually in much of a disagreement. Psychoanlysis is ultimately a profoundly materialist tradition. Infact much of its interest has always been towards how to account for activity from seemingly otherwise rational individuals whose activity seems to wildly contradict any sense of gain or profit such is the case often in self destructive and hysterical activity.
Its not aiming to replace pleasure with the symbolic, its displaying pleasure in the symbolic itself.

>individuals whose activity seems to wildly contradict any sense of gain or profit such is the case often in self destructive and hysterical activity.

I don't believe there is any individual who doesn't act in a way that is internally consistent and logical to themselves. Whether they just do horrible or destructive things because they get pleasure from it, or because they have an ideological motive, no-one acts in a way doesn't make sense to them.

>no-one acts in a way doesn't make sense to them.

Totally disagree

What's this from? I can't find the source anywhere

*sniff*

He's not saying the game is a commentary, it's saying it functions in a similar way.

>thanks to zizek you can now cite anime in your papers
Based

actully tcgs do have overarching sets of rules to which new printed cards must conform in their rules text. unless the frame rules are changed, there is therefore a finite number of possible combinations of what a new card can possibly do, accounting for limits on rules text.

nhinet.org/pickus21-1.pdf
refute this