/lit/ - Literature

>>5952031
dont
and there it is

Im no zizek expert but doesn't he believe that ideology structures reality? Wouldn't everything be considered pure ideology to him or does he just mean that in the example he is talking about its obvious?

Suravuoi jijeku-chan

>>5952342
do the Japanese pronounce western names as they are written or as they actually sound (if they know how they actually sound)

>please help me win my nobel prize in literature

Do your own homework OP.

>>5952350
as they sound
what the fuck do you mean "as they are written" as roman characters are written, they pronounce them?
they actually get closer to the original greek than english does, for example

>>5952350
everybody tries to pronounce the names how they sound, usually with some bastardizing
afaik japanese has a syllable based pronunciation so they pronounce words not by sounds as we but by syllables, of which they have a limited number, therefore these "jijeku" (not sure if a japanese would transliterate it that way but probably in a similar sounding), when they use 'romaji' i.e. latin alphabet they write down the stuff phonetically, i.e. how it should be pronounced, they also have their own hiragana and katakana syllable alphabets which are phonetic too and kanji i.e. chinese hieroglyphs which are obviously aren't phonetic
i don't really know much of their language though

>>5952036
exactly, never let yourself get pinned down; weasel your way out of anything.

>>5952031

completely unfalsifiable

>>5952031
Ideologies are things that we don't know we know.

fucking retards ITT.

Pure ideology is a sort of overly tinted glass that obscures reality itself. Ideology, moderated on a scale, is the amount of tinting that happens. Obviously some amount of tinting has to happen to form any opinions at all.

>>5952854
Aside from watching a Perverts Guide to Ideology.

if i remember correctly usually he uses the phrase in the context of someone or something doing a given thing for no real reasonable or practical end. it is only an expression of the ideology and that's it.

>>5952031

The Communist Manifesto

>>5952868
It would be like wearing critique of Ideology glasses.

The idea is to reject the notion that we live in a post ideological age by pointing to things that appear innocuous and revealing their ideological underpinning, so something that you might look at and say "thish ish pure ideology my god" would be something in the culture which represents fully the ideology of today without anyone recognising it.

Watch the They Live segment of the perverts
guide to ideology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMRM_bfCBig

Pure ideology is believing something not because it has practical value, but just because its part of your worldview.

Language is just a web of interconnected ideologies whose boundaries blur through having common elements. How do you guys seriously not know this yet

Bowing a claim has no basis, but making it anyway because it's what your favorite ideology says is true.

>>5952031
zey know that itz not true yet zey do it

>>5952335
he doesn't mean it in the epistemological sense of reality, rather that ideology structures our subjectivity

>>5952854
Thank you. I'd seen something similar to this posted but couldn't get the wording. Thanks for the concise answer. I can now proclaim "this ish pure ideologie, my god" with pride.

>>5955027
except experience structures our "subjectivity". So he is making a claim about reality.

Where do I start with Zizek? What's the book in which he defines the concept of "ideology"?

>>5955397

>experience structures our subjectivity

What are the structures of experience around which our subjectivity is formed?

>>5955461
>continental philosopher defining the terms he uses
Good luck with that one.

>>5955470
Our sense data.

>>5955486

How does sense data give us the structures that arise in experience and form our subjectivity?

Life is too short to even think about these things.

>>5952031
A fervently held belief system with no contacts in reality whatsoever.

>>5955461
Just read Althusser, Lacan, and Hegel on your own. He's adding nothing new.

>>5955502
Our "subjectivity" is formed around sense data. It is the structure that gives rise to experience by the definition of experience.

>>5955536

How can we ascertain the truth value of a claim made about experience without referring to experience itself? How can we be sure that our experience correlates in a direct way with data of any kind, let alone an assumption of 'sense data' as some quantified abstract we can attach meaning to? Is the subject that which experiences a structural totality as defined by some kind of ordering of biological or neurological data? In this sense are we referring to a subject at all, or is this subject merely the relation of data to experience? Are these relations dynamic? Algorithmic? Saying that sense data is the structural base of all experience is a leap, isn't it?

>>5955579
You can't make a claim about experience without referring to experience, that is a contradiction.

Our experience is our sense data. We perceive the relations of sense data with thought.

>>5955620

>Our experience is our sense data.

Can you elaborate or, at least, demonstrate why this is necessarily so?

>We perceive the relations of sense data with thought.

How can you be sure thought has any contingent relation to sense data?

>>5955657
Is someone seriously denying that consciousness has any relevance to our subjectivity?

>>5955670

I'm denying that consciousness is a direct correlate with sensory data as understood empirically

>>5955680
Seems like you're playing at semantics then. We begin with the phantasms, only later do things like language and socialization shape us.

>>5955692

We are never, from birth, outside of language and socialization

>>5955697
Maybe not socialization, but language, yes. I think newborn babies have terrible hearing and sight, and they can hardly focus on an object for long. They also have shit memory, so their experience is always being reduced back to mere phantasm.

I'm not denying that socialization and language are of great importance in understanding human subjective experience, but how can you deny that they precede empirical experience? How do you think they are accessed to begin with?

>>5955697
Really? What if a woman on a desert island dies alone immediately after giving birth to a child that never hears a word in its life and never interacts with another human being?

>>5955712

>how can you deny that they precede empirical experience?

I'm not, I'm saying that empirical experience is defined a priori by the structures of socialization and language, by necessity. There is no experience outside of language, there is nothing outside of language.

>>5955714

All of this child's experience will be defined by its relation to the social order, in this case the absence of a normative social order structures the experiential language of the child

>>5955712
The more relevant question is how can someone who cannot form the English sentence that he is attempting to form think he has the right to speak about language anyway?
This other guy is not denying that language precedes empirical experience. You are. You are obviously too addled / stoned / pre-adolescent to pay attention to whether you are writing the word 'deny' or 'affirm'.
In other words, pretty much par for the course for a Zizek thread - of which there are currently three on the front page.
Honestly, why don't you eager edgy high-school kids stick to talking about his beard or his beer-belly or what movies you would like to see him in instead of following your hero into the realms of talking about shit you are just not qualified to talk about?

>>5955738
So a lack of order is order?

>>5955750
That's a lot of anger for someone who just wrote a tldr shitpost

You're obviously too stupid/stoned to read the conversation in its entirety, so you resort to using assumptions based on your sparse readings of zizek to fill in the gaps of this conversation.

>>5955750

>>5955765

Precisely. I'd go further, and so would Lacan, and say that all order is exactly this response to a lack

here are my interpretations:

marx: "they do not know it, but they are doing it."

here marx is describing how wage workers often believe they are doing something meaningful when they are really just reproducing the conditions for their own exploitation under capitalism.

zizek says our age is one where "we know it, but do it anyway"

zizek doesn't assume the naivete of the proletariat as marx assumes. zizek also says that ideology is constituted in a psychological process theorized by lacan.

my own view of ideology takes from zizek but is more broad for my own personal amusement. i say "my god, pure ideology" whenever someone's belief system commits them to logical extremes, precludes other ways of seeing an issue, or especially when they drift into conspiratorial extrapolation/delusion.

of course my view is just another iteration of ideology

>>5955770
Once again you demonstrate tremendous reverence for this topic of 'language' that seems to lie so close to your heart.
To describe my post as 'tl;dr' - four lines; too much for your language-enamoured mind? - implies that you just didn't read it.
And as to your counter-accusations to the effect that I haven't read enough Zizek and haven't read this whole thread
(a) you, I and everyone else knows that you have zero grounds for any assumption regarding how much Zizek I have read
and
(b) I don't have to have read the rest of the thread for my point about the post I commented on to be entirely valid: it is deeply semantically confused and/or sloppy and I for one would not descend to having the travesty of a discussion about language with anyone who had written such a thing.

>>5955805
kek can i save this post for my fedora folder?

>>5955805
Mate you can't even into basic grammar.

>tfw the dude who takes over your argument starts ruining it

Why do I spend my time here

>>5955750
>front page
Go back to reddit

>>5955860
The only thing I find interesting about these Zizek threads is the hilarious rapidity with which the jumped-up little shits who are parroting their lecturers' blether about 'the ontological constitutivity of discourse' one minute descend to junior-high /b/tard pwning and baiting when they are called out on their half-digested pseudo-philosophical bullshit.

I am 'fedora' because I write articulate sentences.

I 'can't even into' basic grammar (/b/tardy image macro attached) because......um, sorry I'm obviously failing to notice any 'because' here that would make your assertion about my grammatical shortcomings into anything other than groundless butthurt flailing.

And finally: 'go back to reddit' - the all-purpose 4chan insult that means nothing but 'you're not as edgy as us'.

I don't want to be as edgy as you, kid. All I want is to urge you to shut up for a year or two and learn something about language, socialization, perception etc before you go shooting your mouth off about them under the sheltering wing of a cynical charlatan barely less ignorant than yourselves.

>>5955805
>I don't need context to engage in a conversation
That's enough 4chan for one day, I'm out.

Pure ideology is just a fancy term for being up your own ass

>>5956163
>writes paragraphs in reply to short sentences
>types like reddit
>addresses five people, only manages to reply to one post
>can't into basic dank memes
8/10

>>5956178
You are indeed. And your fragile little adolescent would-be-intellectual ego is protected for the day.

Glad to see that you have grasped, in any case, that the 'you can't criticize me unless you know the context' thing is an all-purpose escape chute that can be used anywhere at any time.

'You can't criticize my confusion of 'assert' and 'deny' unless you have read the whole thread."

"Well, I don't see why not but OK, I have read the whole thread"

"Ah but you can't understand the thread unless you have read the whole of Zizek."

"Well, let's say I have."

"Ah but you can't understand Zizek unless you have read the whole of Lacan."

"Let's say I have done that too."

"Ah but you can't understand Lacan unless you have read the whole of Heidegger, Hegel, classical Chinese poetry blah blah...."

As I say, you have clearly at least grasped that, if you carry on like this long enough, your interlocutor will have, at some point, to admit that he hasn't read every text written anywhere in the world any time in the past three thousand years - at which point you can gleefully exclaim:

"Then you can't say that I confused the words 'affirm' and 'deny'! I am STILL the smartest! No backsies! You're so 4Chan! So I"m OUT!"

>>5956299
I pity you but if it makes you feel any better, Kant was a virgin too.

>>5956227
OK, kid, since you can obviously only handle short sentences (despite all the verbiage in this thread about 'the semiotic's precedence over the empirical' etc)

suck my dick, you vain stupid puffed-up little prick.

I think I've just about hit the apposite level there for these stupid Zizek threads full of junior-high-schoolers trying to sound like post-Nietzschian sophisticates.

>>5956329
No one is taking you seriously and you derailed the thread completely.
>commit seppuku