/lit/ - Literature

Jordan Peterson for guys who dont take showers & resent being told to

>>17020336
...and who read

>>17020331
*SNIFF*

>>17020336
Yes

>>17020346
Read a real Marxist Lacanian like Castoriadis or Laclau

>>17020389
>isms and empty namedrops
Should have just made a frogpost, retarded pseud.

>>17020346
Lol no

What does he actually believe? Everything I've heard about him just makes it seem like he acknowledges that communism has been disastrous in the past and that we should just go slower or rethink it all or something.

>>17020428
>actually believing in things

>>17020331
I hate every fake Nazi bastard on this board

>>17020398
What is there to say about Zizek? He's a dumbass teleologist that adds nothing new to Marxist thought or alternatives to capitalism. Moreover, he self-plagiarizes and basically rehashes the same meaningless ideas in all of his books. You should really read Castoriadis. He actually understood Lacan, and writes nuanced Marxist theory that both takes into account structuralist forces and individuality. He's a Lacanian anti-Lacanian, which, if you'd actually read and understood Lacan's Four Fundamental Concepts, is how Lacan wanted his students to proceed.

>>17020428
Nothing. He's basically an accelerationist he's so useless.

>>17020461
The fuck are you talking about?

>>17020491
Take your meds, retard

>>17020428
This is exactly the problem. It's obscene!
It reminds of an old yugoslavian joke about a priest.

>>17020331
>What you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven’t the slightest idea. I don’t see anything there that should be influential.
How did he recover from this?

>>17020516
You don't even have the vocabulary to talk to me retard

>>17020524
It's like that poor Jew that wants to be self-deprecating, woah what a phenomena that is!

>>17020583
BTFO

>>17020491
>no actual meaningful input
>Zizek bad read this read that
Again, next time just make a frogpost.

>>17020428
Hes mostly renowned for his Lacanian reading of Hegel, he develops this into his notion of ontological incompleteness. put simply: hes investigating how reality has to be structured to give rise to subjectivity. according to him there is no objective frame of reference, but neither are we stuck in perpetual subjectivity.
we can know the Absolute only through the crack that our subjectivity forms with reality. its not just that there is an Absolute beyond our reach and we can just see some small hints through the cracks in reason, its precisely these cracks in reason that constitute the Absolute. Thats his core theoretical stuff, he keeps developping it in more detail throughout his career, his most recent work on the heavy theory is 'sex and the failed absolute.

besides that he also uses this hegel-lacan framework to criticise ideology which he developped in one of his earlier books 'the sublime object of ideology'. thats the stuff he gets most meme'd for because it is political i guess.

and then he does some talks where he does some silly jokes and hes the hee hee funny man but nobody really follows what hes trying to say cause nobody actually fucking reads his books

>>17020331
>>17020389
>>17020491
Wasn't Lacan just another professional bullshitter like Freud that had no evidence for any of his claims? Why should I care about what Lacanians think?

>>17020583
Not to defend the sniffing slobvenian, but Schmuel Chumpsky talking about vain pseudery is deliciously ironic.

>>17020650
If you aren't gonna actually talk about theory just close the tab my man.

>>17020675
Yeah I guess if you don't care about dialectical thought you shouldn't read Lacanians. Ostensibly all modern theorists are influenced by Lacan.

>>17020671
This. Sublime Object of Ideology and Tarrying With the Negative were good books, but beyond that he does nothing new. He's a pop-academic that is basically philosophy royalty so he just churns out books and gives le funny lectures.

>>17020871
>If you aren't gonna actually talk about theory just close the tab my man.
You have so far said absolutely nothing of substance. All your posts are pseud handwaving and namedropping without any factual critique or salient counterpoints.

>>17020331

>>17020921
Like I said, he offers no alternatives to capitlaism and there's no real praxis that could stem from his theory. That makes him useless as a Marxist. How about YOU drum up a counter-argument to THAT. I think you're a Twitter guy that likes Zizek for sycophantic reasons. Go jerk off to the red scare girls or whatever it is you do. Online freak.

>>17020336
that's based

>>17021062
>he offers no alternatives to capitlaism and there's no real praxis that could stem from his theory
All true. None of it is actual critique of his work though.
>I think you're a Twitter guy that likes Zizek for sycophantic reasons
I don't care about him one way or the other. It's just funny to see you squirm like a pseud you are when called out.

>>17021230

no ones take him too seriously hes just the funny dialectical ideology man