Slavoj Zizek noted the importance of his film in “The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema.” I highly recommend the film and “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology” as an explanation of our current world systems.
The article is also weak. They Live works because it's so stripped down, almost a fable. But as a serious look at modernity, there's not much there. The idea that "the rich are aliens" is creepy. It mainly serves to make their murder morally permissible.
When he engages the public, or whatever you find on youtube which is what I suspect you've seen of him based on your impression, he does indeed joke around a lot. But this has to do with his inherent distaste for 'preaching'. He's no fan of climbing on a pedestal and pretending to speak from a position of authority, he's said himself he's always considered that authoritarian.
Well respected by some and not others. Lacan as a philosopher has boosters and detractors...much like Zizek (and every other philosopher). I'm with the detractors.
I've read 1.5 of his books (not the one you mentioned) and I tried to watch an academic lecture on youtube. I've read various secondary sources (which are mostly highly critical and I found convincing).
Your argument comes down to "anyone who doesn't think highly of Zizek is dumb/hasn't read him/doesn't understand him". It's so low effort.
> When he engages the public, or whatever you find on youtube which is what I suspect you've seen of him based on your impression, he does indeed joke around a lot. But this has to do with his inherent distaste for 'preaching'.
I have no problem with intellectuals making jokes. Zizek isn't funny.
> But this has to do with his inherent distaste for 'preaching'. He's no fan of climbing on a pedestal and pretending to speak from a position of authority, he's said himself he's always considered that authoritarian.
Most people who "don't like to preach" end up, you know, not preaching.
One hopes you can muster this ardent sympathy for the millions of people killed in wars that the rich started and by healthcare deficiencies that the rich have arranged over the last several decades.
Rich people are, in fact, human. They are drawn from the general population.
It ain't poor people buying politicians, starting wars and pushing propaganda though the media.
That the proletariat must rise up and overthrow the bourgeois
Marx's argument is "structural". The contradictions of a capitalist economy and society are the problem. The bourgeois are a symptom of that, not the cause. Killing all the bourgeois wouldn't solve the problem in itself, a radical restructuring of society is required.
Most definitely and I think he'd agree.
> There's not a lot of substance in his many (is he at 100 yet?) books.
Which books specifically of his are you speaking about?
> It's ironic that someone who rails against capitalism publishes at such a frenetic rate while covering the same ground.
He himself has said that he makes a good slave, he just needs to know who his master is.
How many of his ~70 books am I required to read before forming an opinion? I've read one and a half, the one being one of his "philosophical" books and the half being a more accessible political one. I'm confident that no one who has anyhting to say writes like that.
Give me Chomsky, give me Butler, give me Rorty. I don't have to agree to appreciate a thinker but I have to be convinced there's thinking going on.
> He himself has said that he makes a good slave, he just needs to know who his master is.
This clowning bullshit is a good reason not to take him seriously. Bad jokes are perhaps Zizek's greatest sin. I can forgive anyone almost anything if they're funny. But no, it's dud after dud.
I like to follow the rule that I only talk about things which I know about. I think it's a pretty good rule. So I personally wouldn't talk about an entire person's collection from such a limited introduction because it would feel a tad bit hasty to me. Instead, I would talk about the works that I had read--this might prove difficult if you can't recall the names.
> This clowning bullshit is a good reason not to take him seriously.
It's a dad-joke that he told at a talk. Heaven forbid the man try and add some levity to situations.
> It's a dad-joke that he told at a talk. Heaven forbid the man try and add some levity to situations.
It's not funny. Anyway, like I said, it's a performance. The fact that you (and he) would agree with that judgement doesn't make it any less damning. I watched part of a lecture he did on youtube. Absolutely unwatchable. If he has a point he's unable to communicate it. But the real point is mystifying the audience, creating the impression that they're witnessing a genius thinking out loud, and the terrible jokes don't help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHP1OwivAL0 if anyone is "interested". Notice Avital Ronell (sex offender and NYU professor) introducing him. It's bizarre how Zizek bullies her through the starting of the lecture while playing it off as a joke between friends.
You can do whatever you want. But commenting on the entire bibliography when you have read less than 2.5% of it seems premature. Just say that everything you've read of him lacks substance rather than everything he wrote?
By all means, form an opinion that the man and his book and a half that you went through aren't for you, but I just think it's deeply anti-intellectual to discredit the entire collection of work he's put out. You're discrediting books that you likely don't have the requisite knowledge to review which is the problem that I take with it.
> The fact that you (and he) would agree with that judgement doesn't make it any less damning.
What's damning about it? I really don't get this part.
Or read John Gray on Zizek: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/07/12/violent-visions-...
It's not like these critiques are uncommon or hard to find.
What I find more "curious" is the backlash you get for criticizing Zizek. Somehow I don't think I'd get any backlash for forming a positive opinion after reading only "2.5% of his books" but apparently it's "anti-intellectual" to form a negative one.