Of obscurantism

[revol68]

Oh and can you just concede that even if you think his argument about violence is full of shit (it isn't though) it is not obscurist wank.

Also yes I realise you didn't smugly quote the thing about subjectivity and the universal, that was that jumped up economics fuck wit wolverscatti or whatever his no mark name is, so for that I apologise.

 

[Diamond]

Look dickhead if you actually have something approaching a proper criticism please make it, because so far you've just shown yourself up as one ignorant muthafucka.

You know what, considering you've failed to grasp my basic point, which I've spelled out twice for you, and considering that you're misrepresenting that same point in order to contrive the argument that you want to have, and not ignoring the fact that you're a belligerent little so and so who always ends up calling the other person a cunt, happy in the arrogance of your own certainty, I think I'd rather not.

 

[revol68]

You know what, considering you've failed to grasp my basic point, which I've spelled out twice for you, and considering that you're misrepresenting that same point in order to contrive the argument that you want to have, and not ignoring the fact that you're a belligerent little so and so who always ends up calling the other person a cunt, happy in the arrogance of your own certainty, I think I'd rather not.

I've grasped your point perfectly, you take issue with Zizek's use of violence which you feel is too far from the everday understanding of it, unfortunately for you that in no way counters Zizek's fundamental point which is precisely a critique of this everyday understanding of 'violence' which is not something neutral or natural but the product of liberal capitalist ideology that works to ensure the smooth reproduction of the status quo.

If I have in anyway misunderstood or misrepresented your point I am more than happy for you to put me right.

 

[In Bloom]

Well, yeah I broadly disagree with that line of thinking but that's not really my point as I made clear in my post.

I'm more interested in how Zizek tries to camouflage his book by manipulating the word violence to repackage his jumbled, mostly incoherent thoughts on a wide range of subjects into a neat, trendy little book with a very chichi image of some handsome young student launching a stone on the front.

And to be lectured on wit from revol...why don't you just get your cock out again and be done with it.

Well if he manages to explain that by "violence" he doesn't just mean the everyday definition of violence right at the begining of the book, then it's not really "camouflage", is it?

 

[kyser_soze]

If someone were to simply pick up that paragraph and read it, they wouldn't get what Zizek is saying. IMO he's couched a relatively straighforward concept in a needlessly complex way gramatically - altho with Zizek you can never tell if he's doing it as some kind of joke or to keep the reader on their toes...which is what the thread is about...

 

[Random]

I'm more interested in how Zizek tries to camouflage his book by manipulating the word violence to repackage his jumbled, mostly incoherent thoughts on a wide range of subjects into a neat, trendy little book with a very chichi image of some handsome young student launching a stone on the front.

It's hardly likely that Zizek chooses the pictures or the design for his books, you know?

And the other point is that his definitions of violence aren't very unusual - for about a hundred years mainstream socialism has been calling attention to the 'peaceful' violence of everyday capitalism. Ken Livingstone made some similar quote about it a few years ago, in fact, which shows the extent it's part of mainstream political and moral discourse.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yeah, as a linguistic tool to motivate people to take up arms against capitalism (which surely is the aim of making people think/aware (depending on your outlook) that they are under constant violent attack by the simple existance of capitalism) it's pretty much gone to the dogs tho...perhaps a semantic rethink is on order...what would mean the same thing, but wouldn't have to bypass the filter violence=physical act upon the person?

 

[Wolveryeti]

That's re-heated Hegelian dialectic.

But what does it mean? What point is he making?

 

[kyser_soze]

But what does it mean? What point is he making?

That the universal and the singular are bound together, and that one cannot exists without the other to make it real.

So you need one thing to make everything, and everything to make one thing. Or something like that. It read better in German