You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
fast-paced
As much as I like philosophy, I can't always bring myself to read the source text when it weighs in at hundreds of dense pages. Before getting that invested, I like to spend some time on wikipedia (dating before moving in together). This book is a good speed date with Slavoj Zizek.
Zizek's name has popped up in several of the political philosophy books I've read this year so when I saw this at the book store, I figured it might be an OK way to get a basic sense for Zizek's main ideas. It was! Pound for pound, this book packs a lot of good digestible info for the every-person.
I've not spent much time with Lacan's work, but Zizek rely's on the 'big Other' in his formulations of how subjects are influenced by Capitalism, Religion, etc.
I probably need more time with Zizek's thoughts on 'immoral ethics' and his idea of strict adherence to your inner desire (not your fantasy desires?). I understand this from a 'desire defying the law' (Antigone retrieving her brother's body in direct defiance of the ruler's order, or revolutionary ethics in defiance of what one feels is unjust), but I feel like there's a logical flaw when it comes to reconciling strictly following one's desires and the manipulating effect that the big Other and superego has on one's desires. One could—I could—spend a lifetime trying to work out which desires are in me because of societal ideological influence, and even then still not know for certain. I'm probably missing something (this book is only a basic overview of Zizek's philosophies after all).
*Edit: after rereading parts of this, I think his point is more about a sort of sticktoitiveness when it comes to what you were after. As examples, the book talks about analyses of Don Giovanni and Carmen and Antigone following their desires and accepting the consequences, not spontaneously changing their course based on what feels best at the moment. Similarly, the book talks about Robespierre and Stalin who, though some may disagree!, represent a sort of sticktuitiveness with regards to their original revolutionary quests. I suppose the idea Zizek is supporting here is more about realizing we are dealing with the super-ego and the big other, with that consciousness in place deciding what we desire, and then sticking to it! Personally, I can see some elements of admiration in people who are true to their 'selves' ('shooters shoot' like we said about Kobe!), but idk if that's necessarily a great society to live in because I don't feel the same way when 'shooters' shoot guns at innocent people based on their desire to police a certain group...
I'll be mulling this over for a while
Zizek's name has popped up in several of the political philosophy books I've read this year so when I saw this at the book store, I figured it might be an OK way to get a basic sense for Zizek's main ideas. It was! Pound for pound, this book packs a lot of good digestible info for the every-person.
I've not spent much time with Lacan's work, but Zizek rely's on the 'big Other' in his formulations of how subjects are influenced by Capitalism, Religion, etc.
I probably need more time with Zizek's thoughts on 'immoral ethics' and his idea of strict adherence to your inner desire (not your fantasy desires?). I understand this from a 'desire defying the law' (Antigone retrieving her brother's body in direct defiance of the ruler's order, or revolutionary ethics in defiance of what one feels is unjust), but I feel like there's a logical flaw when it comes to reconciling strictly following one's desires and the manipulating effect that the big Other and superego has on one's desires. One could—I could—spend a lifetime trying to work out which desires are in me because of societal ideological influence, and even then still not know for certain. I'm probably missing something (this book is only a basic overview of Zizek's philosophies after all).
*Edit: after rereading parts of this, I think his point is more about a sort of sticktoitiveness when it comes to what you were after. As examples, the book talks about analyses of Don Giovanni and Carmen and Antigone following their desires and accepting the consequences, not spontaneously changing their course based on what feels best at the moment. Similarly, the book talks about Robespierre and Stalin who, though some may disagree!, represent a sort of sticktuitiveness with regards to their original revolutionary quests. I suppose the idea Zizek is supporting here is more about realizing we are dealing with the super-ego and the big other, with that consciousness in place deciding what we desire, and then sticking to it! Personally, I can see some elements of admiration in people who are true to their 'selves' ('shooters shoot' like we said about Kobe!), but idk if that's necessarily a great society to live in because I don't feel the same way when 'shooters' shoot guns at innocent people based on their desire to police a certain group...
I'll be mulling this over for a while
challenging
funny
informative
fast-paced
informative
lighthearted
fast-paced