/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14285623]

who is our guy ?
and why is it slavoj žižek ?

[Anonymous No.14286201]

>The fundamentalist Islamic terror is NOT grounded in the terrorists' conviction of their superiority and in their desire to safeguard their cultural-religious identity from the onslaught of the global consumerist civilization: the problem with fundamentalists is not that we consider them inferior to us, but, rather, that THEY THEMSELVES secretly consider themselves inferior (like, obviously, Hitler himself felt towards Jews) - which is why our condescending Politically Correct assurances that we feel no superiority towards them only makes them more furious and feeds their resentment. The problem is not cultural difference (their effort to preserve their identity), but the opposite fact that the fundamentalists are already like us, that they secretly already internalized our standards and measure themselves by them. (This clearly goes for Dalai Lama who justifies the Tibetan Buddhism in WESTERN terms of the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain.) Paradoxically, what the fundamentalists really lack is precisely a dosage of "true" "racist" conviction into one's own superiority.

[Anonymous No.14286238]

>>14285623
>Be me
>Be university student
>"Anon, did you hear Zizek is coming to the university?"
>Interested, so end up going.
>Sit behind a bunch of dickhead communist types who spend the entire time before the talk laughing about evil right wingers
>ffs.jpg
>He comes on
>Front row of hall is instantly covered in spit
>Commies addicted to his every word
>Starts talking about the right wing
>ohherewego.gif
>"Well, actually, te rife haf a point when it comes to a lot of problems"
>Zizek starts going on about how Rotherham was a racially motivated crime, and how all the social justice shit is dumb.
>Goes on to say that censoring us doesn't work, but also that letting us speak also doesn't work.
>Says that' he doesn't have a solution to our politics.
>Everyone is dead silent. Shocked look on their faces.
>Pissing myself laughing
>mfw

He's based

[Anonymous No.14286707]

>But here, again, another problem arose: how to account for patients who have, beyond any doubt, gone through their fantasy, who have obtained distance from the fantasy‑framework of their reality, but whose key symptom still persists? How do we explain this fact? What do we do with a symptom, with this pathological formation, which persists not only beyond its interpretation, but even beyond fantasy? Lacan tried to answer this challenge with the concept of the sinthome, a neologism containing a set of associations (synthetic‑artificial man, synthesis between symptom and fantasy, Saint Thomas, the saint ... ). Symptom as sinthome is a certain signifying formation penetrated with enjoyment. It is a signifier as a bearer of jouis‑sens, enjoyment-in-sense. What we must bear in mind, here, is the radical ontological status of the symptom. Symptom, conceived as sinthome is literally our only substance, the only positive support of our being, the only point that gives consistency to the subject. In other words, the symptom is the way we‑the subject‑‑"avoid madness," the way we "choose something (the symptom‑formation) instead of nothing (radical psychotic autism, the destruction of the symbolic universe)" through the binding of our enjoyment to a certain signifying, symbolic formation which assures a minimum of consistency to our being in the world. If the symptom in this radical dimension is unbound, it means literally “the end of the world." The only alternative to the symptom is nothing: pure autism, a psychic suicide, surrendering to the death drive to the point of the total destruction of the symbolic universe. That is why the final Lacanian definition of the end of the psychoanalytical process is: identification with the symptom. The analysis achieves its end when the patient is able to recognize in the real of his symptom the only support of his being. That is how we must read Freud's wo es war, soll ich werden. You, the subject, must identify yourself with the place where your symptom already was. In its "pathological" particularity you must recognize the element which gives consistency to your being.