Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Zizek: seems like a nob

No-one's disputing that Heidegger was further entrenched in nazi ideology than Foucault was with the Iranian Revolution though?
 
gave a misleading impression, I grant you. But the first claim is accurate, and the net effect of dejudification was to make people vulnerable later down the line unless they could flee Nazi rule.
 
cesare said:
No-one's disputing that Heidegger was further entrenched in nazi ideology than Foucault was with the Iranian Revolution though?
Click to expand...
It's difficult to say with Heidegger. Certainly he talked the talk for a while, but he did drop out of active participation very quickly.
 
Santino said:
It's difficult to say with Heidegger. Certainly he talked the talk for a while, but he did drop out of active participation very quickly.
Click to expand...
Ah, ok, cheers. I'll take a read of the PDF that Butchers linked to as well (although 325 pages, eek).
 
Seems a bit odd to use an eg from 1976. If I were arguing that someone was wrong all the time, I'd pick the most recent eg I could think of. I'd also give more than one eg ideally to show the 'all the time bit'.

Reads to me like he's only got that one eg.
 
interesting that the way he talks there is pretty straightforward reasoned way (despite maybe how crap said reasoning was as pointed out above) and not like the way he writes which is mainly what i think chomsky was attacking - its almost like hes confirmed pretty much what chomksy has said by virtue of him being able to explain his ideas in a pretty straightforward manner..
 
Zizek hits back
What is that about, again, the academy and Chomsky and so on? Well with all deep respect that I do have for Chomsky, my first point is that Chomsky, who always emphasizes how one has to be empirical, accurate, not just some crazy Lacanian speculations and so on… well I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empirically wrong in his descriptions in his whatever! Let’s look… I remember when he defended this demonstration of Khmer Rouge. And he wrote a couple of texts claiming: No, this is Western propaganda. Khmer Rouge are not as horrible as that.” And when later he was compelled to admit that Khmer Rouge were not the nicest guys in the Universe and so on, his defense was quite shocking for me. It was that “No, with the data that we had at that point, I was right. At that point we didn’t yet know enough, so… you know.” But I totally reject this line of reasoning.​
For example, concerning Stalinism. The point is not that you have to know, you have photo evidence of gulag or whatever. My God you just have to listen to the public discourse of Stalinism, of Khmer Rouge, to get it that something terrifyingly pathological is going on there. For example, Khmer Rouge: Even if we have no data about their prisons and so on, isn’t it in a perverse way almost fascinating to have a regime which in the first two years (’75 to ’77) behaved towards itself, treated itself, as illegal? You know the regime was nameless. It was called “Angka,” an organization — not communist party of Cambodia — an organization. Leaders were nameless. If you ask “Who is my leader?” your head was chopped off immediately and so on.​
Okay, next point about Chomsky, you know the consequence of this attitude of his empirical and so on — and that’s my basic difference with him — and precisely Corey Robinson and some other people talking with him recently confirmed this to me. His idea is today that cynicism of those in power is so open that we don’t need any critique of ideology, you reach symptomatically between the lines, everything is cynically openly admitted. We just have to bring out the facts of people. Like “This company is profiting in Iraq” and so on and so on. Here I violently disagree.​
First, more than ever today, our daily life is ideology. how can you doubt ideology when recntly I think Paul Krugman published a relatively good text where he demonstrated how this idea of austerity, this is not even good bourgeois economic theory! It’s a kind of a primordial, common-sense magical thinking when you confront a crisis, “Oh, we must have done something wrong, we spent too much so let’s economize and so on and so on.”​
My second point, cynicists are those who are most prone to fall into illusions. Cynicists are not people who see things the way they really are and so on. Think about 2008 and the ongoing financial crisis. It was not cooked up in some crazy welfare state; social democrats who are spending too much. The crisis exploded because of activity of those other cynicists who precisely thought “screw human rights, screw dignity, all that maters is,” and so on and so on.​
So as this “problem” of are we studying the facts enough I claim emphatically more than ever “no” today. And as to popularity, I get a little bit annoyed with this idea that we with our deep sophisms are really hegemonic in the humanities. Are people crazy? I mean we are always marginal. No, what is for me real academic hegemony: it’s brutal. Who can get academic posts? Who can get grants, foundations and so on? We are totally marginalized here. I mean look at my position: “Oh yeah, you are a mega-star in United States.” Well, I would like to be because I would like power to brutally use it! But I am far from that. I react so like this because a couple of days ago I got a letter from a friend in United States for whom I wrote a letter of recommendation, and he told me “I didn’t get the job, not in spite of your letter but because of your letter!” He had a spy in the committee and this spy told him “You almost got it, but then somebody says “Oh, if Žižek recommends him it must be something terribly wrong with him.”​
So I claim that all these “how popular we are” is really a mask of… remember the large majority of academia are these gray either cognitivists or historians blah blah… and you don’t see them but they are the power. They are the power. On the other hand, why are they in power worried? Because you know… don’t exaggerate this leftist paranoia idea that ”we can all be recuperated” and so on and so on. No! I still quite naively believe in the efficiency of theoretical thinking. It’s not as simple as to recuperate everything in. But you know there are different strategies of how to contain us. I must say that I maybe am not innocent in this, because people like to say about me, “Oh, go and listen to him, he is an amusing clown blah blah blah.” This is another way to say “Don’t take it seriously.”​
Click to expand...
​
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Seems a bit odd to use an eg from 1976. If I were arguing that someone was wrong all the time, I'd pick the most recent eg I could think of. I'd also give more than one eg ideally to show the 'all the time bit'.

Reads to me like he's only got that one eg.
Click to expand...

and all zizek is doing is proving chomksys point really, that theorising is only really worthwhile when it can be put into propositions that can have a verifiable truth value established. In this case Chomksy put foward a proposition that had truth value of false.

Its really hard to see what Zizek is saying here, beyond saying that a critique of ideology is neccesary. Fair enough, but does it have to be done so in referentially opaque language, and if so why? Zizek in the above does not appear to answer that question which basiclly means he has not addressed Chomskys contention in the slightest where he (chomsky)stated:

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.

http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/slavoj-zizek-responds-to-noam-chomsky.html

Also, where did Chomsky say that a critique of ideology wasn't neccesary? I cant see that anywhere in the youtube video. Seems a bit strawmannish of our friend Zizek..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Peek Freans
  • Poll Poll
Aliens. A quick show of hands. Seems silly but...
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
274
Views
4K
2hats
2hats
Cloo
What would the world be like now if more online services/platforms had started charging early on?
2
Replies
34
Views
877
BigMoaner
BigMoaner
Aladdin
Obscure or unique History Questions you would like answered by the Brains of Urban
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
Spandex
Spandex
danny la rouge
  • Poll Poll
Is there such a thing as “Protestant theology”?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
177
Views
1K
Humberto
Humberto
dessiato
Why not a female pope? Is it just misogyny?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
212
Views
6K
Humberto
Humberto
Back
Top Bottom