/lit/ - Literature

>>20790492
*Žniffs derogatorily*

>>20070363
This man is more famous than you’ll ever be. You’re a spectator and will never be recognised, whereas this fat slob has already made it.

zizek is stupid
he's fucking stupid
he's like a little boy
playing stalin
he says what anyone with 3/4ths of a brain thinks
unfortunately most people don't have even half a brain
so, as stupid as zizek is
he's still smarter than 100% of /lit/, excluding me, who is smarter than zizek

>>18398636
>Why are Continental Europeans susceptible to obscure and bullshit thinkers?
Because they themselves are obscure and bullshit thinkers.

Homewrecker

On a serious note, what is his strongest argument in two sentences? The first simplifies it, the second clears any misunderstandings, go.

>>12930177
>Be me
>Read OP's post
>mfw I'm a pseud now

How many young men's lives has he saved?

>>11819488
>And he goes on and on in the same vein, repeating how he doesn’t see anything to what I’m saying, how he cannot discern in my texts any traces of rational examination of facts, how my work displays empty posturing not to be taken seriously, etc. A weird statement, measured by his professed standards of respect for empirical facts and rational argumentation: there are no citations (which, in this case, can be excused, since we are dealing with a radio interview), but also not even the vaguest mentions of any of my ideas. Did he decode any of my “fancy words” and indicate how what one gets is “something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old”? There are no political references in his first attack (and in this domain, as far as I can see, I much more often than not agree with him). I did a couple of short political books on 9/11 (Welcome to the Desert of the Real), on the war in Iraq (Iraq: the Borrowed Kettle), on the 2008 financial meltdown (First as Tragedy, then as Farce), which appear to me written in a quite accessible way and dealing with quite a lot of facts—do they also contain nothing but empty posturing? In short, is Chomsky in his thorough dismissal of my work not doing exactly what he is accusing me of: clinging to the empty posture of total rejection with no further ado?

>*sniffs* vell yes, you see *rubs nose* dzere zeems to be *waves hand* some konfushion as to veder *rubs nose more rapidly* dis idea holds legitimateness

>What, however, if there is no puzzled look, but enthusiasm, when the yuppie reads about impersonal imitation of affects, about the communication of affective intensities beneath the level of meaning (“Yes, this is how I design my publicities!”), or when he reads about exploding the limits of self-contained subjectivity and directly coupling man to a machine (“This reminds me of my son’s favorite toy, the action-man that can turn into a car!”), or about the need to reinvent oneself permanently, opening oneself up to a multitude of desires that push us to the limit (“Is this not the aim of the virtual sex video game I am working on now? It is no longer a question of reproducing sexual bodily contact but of exploding the confines of established reality and imagining new, unheard-of intensive modes of sexual pleasures!”). There are, effectively, features that justify calling Deleuze the ideologist of late capitalism.

>'But which is the revolutionary path? Is there one? - To withdraw from the world market, as Samir Amin advises Third World countries to do, in a curious revival of the fascist "economic solution"? Or might it be to go in the opposite direction? To go still further, that is, in the movement of the market, of decoding and deterritorialization? For perhaps the flaws are not yet deterritorialized enough, not decoded enough, from the viewpoint of a theory and a practice of a highly schizophrenic character. Not to withdraw from the process, but to go further, to "accelerate the process". These prophetic lines of Deleuze and Guattari (which legitimized in advance all the theoretical and practical reversals that the new left in power would shortly make), undoubtedly constitute the most coherent philosophical formulation of the contemporary liberal programme (as can be seen by the practical use that someone like Toni Negri stubbornly continues to make use of them); one that corresponds, in sum to the historical moment at which, the major political and cultural practices to its unlimited development having been finally dispelled, liberalism can now turn on its own foundation and as a function of its own logic, becoming in this way 'actually existing liberalism'. Foucault wrote that 'one day the century will be Deleuzean'. He did not realize what truth there was in these words.

>Anti-Oedipus. A marxist of mechanical bent might remark that the well-known success this work enjoyed coincided exactly with the Trilateral Commission beginning its reflections on the new problems of 'governability' faced by contemporary capitalism. this is a point that Michel Clouscard already perceived, in his particular way, back in the 1970s.

I just wish he was still around us, I disagreed with his philosophy, but damn was he a likeable guy

RIP Zizek

>>9552252

viva
la
revolución

t. rupi kaur

>blocks your ideology

How could we possibly ever get out of ideology? If we did would it be for the better?

>>31140
something which can not be said for your ideology

>go to the gym
>it's a bunch of dilettantes posing for selfies
>go to the library
>it's a bunch of dilettantes posing for selfies

Where do I find /well-rounded citizens/ irl?

>Slovenian
>he's slovenly
poetry

>>8854610
>Not being a fucking idiot, of course I'm liberal
>when it's so pure the pureometer starts showing values higher than 100%

>>8661455

>>8564514
>Eros and Civilization

>>8335863
>lets do whats best for all

>>8243315
>all the president's men

>>8243320
>ethical consumption

>He is also a no-joke, for-real Stalinist, which in 2016 is a little like being a flat-earther.

>I thought he was more about the leninist-trotsky variant