/lit/ - Literature

>>17530087
Yeah but I can tell by your anime girl avatar that you bitch and throw a hissy fit even when legitimate uses of these terms come up. In fact Zizek himself is guilty of doing exactly this during the famous
>SHOW ME THE MARXISTS, MISTER PETERSON
Zizek is a marxist and the people who quote this epic btfo are marxists, and immediately after this zizek conceded and said he also knows exactly who Peterson is talking about and doesn't like them (liberals aren't leftists, nobody is leftist, leftists isn't Marxism, we aren't anything, you can't criticize us etc). Do you never grow tired of this bullshit?

>>16349909

>>15216386

>>13152216
>>13152250
lmao smooth brains

>>13136803
>I don't get it
reread it until you do

>>12963100
fair enough, have a zizek meme

>>12697682

>>12622074
You are like a little baby

>>8727507
I can't really give you anything else but how I got to where I am. Take that as you will. Again, I am not a professional, just a guy who is very into this stuff.

Step 1. Nietzsche. Read him until you're fucking sick of him. This will take a while, because he's that fucking awesome. Not just you, but your friends, family, and acquaintances should be sick of you talking about him too. Don't worry, they'll mostly soon stop talking to you. This happens. But imho (and it's very, very h) Nietzsche is the Sorcerer Supreme of this stuff. I don't think it's *so* insane to say that analysis is something like clinical existentialism, if that makes sense.

Step 2. Heidegger. Despite what Z claims, Lacan is I think fairly heavily influenced by Heidegger. For me there really is no substitute to hacking through Being and Time and wrestling with Heidegger's concept of *moods* - that our moods do not arise spontaneously from ourselves, but come to us from the world, and that the world is, as Heidegger writes, not a matter of indifference for us. Authenticity in the way that Heidegger describes is a kind of poetic ontology, being-towards-death, and here there is divergence from what Lacan is going to talk about. But for myself I have found the whole concept of analysis much more easy to think about now that I've spent some time digesting Heidegger and puzzling over these questions. I used to think it was just the butterflies in my stomach. Now I think there's more going on with the world than that. Zimmerman's book on Heidegger was good for me.

Step 3. Give Lacan a shot. Just read his essay on the Purloined Letter to see what he's trying to get at. Zizek is, for all his faults, a pretty fucking awesome exegete. Even something like the Pervert's Guides that he writes are illuminating if only because they're so goddamn consistent. Even if you disagree with him. I thought Less Than Nothing was pretty good. There's some other ways to go at it.

Step 4. Deleuze and Guattari. To see where the other side is at (and you may be done with the whole idea of analysis altogether afterwards). Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus are probably unlike anything else you will ever read in your life. Brian Massumi's book on this is really good.

Worth mentioning: you know who's not here? Freud himself. Personally I don't find Freud all that fun to read, but I will admit it's kind of ridiculous to say that. Nietzsche is great, and Heidegger is pretty awesome also. So that's what I would recommend.

(cont'd)

oedipus bump
>wipes nose on black t-shirt

Bump.

>>8075167

3. Which is the best abridged version of Summa Theologica? Or is it necessary to read all of it. I'm not that interested in early theology but would like to know about its influence.

>>8075167