Slavoj Žižek's "First as Tragedy, Then as Farce"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 січ 2021
- In this episode, I present Slavoj Žižek's "First as Farce, Then as Tragedy." I'm hard on Žižek here, but in any case this text serves as a good introduction to his philosophy.
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links.
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.p...
Thumbnail photo credit: Antonio Olmos/The Observer
Hey David! It might be useful for your listeners to check out Gerry Coulter’s piece on how Zizek’s radicality is lapped by Baudrillard’s notion of terrorism. It’s on the Baudrillard Studies journal homepage.
Good idea!
Good idea!
27:26 Keep in mind that many Communists outside the Soviet Union and East Asia were indeed black and overlapped with pan Africanism to a degree. And for the US many of the US Communist party were black.
As a big Zizek fan its always intreasting to hear critisism of his work. Some good points! This will definetly help me understad the book better and go into it more skepticle.
I think you're criticisms are misplaced. He's saying that non-western epistemologies have been obliterated by colonialism and imperialism. Any remaining 'tradition' is only a nostalgia for a long-lost plenitude that cannot be regained, and any phantasmatic claim to having retained some pure non-western epistemology or tradition only works to prop up colonial power. The radical decolonial move is to understand that anything that is articulable falls within western/colonial epistemology, but modernity itself is non-all and is ripe for rereading. For example, indigenous scholars in the US are forced to articulate their claims through the language of 'land' and 'sovereignty.' These are western categories that did not exist in indigenous epistemology, and the nostalgia for them is a purely virtual object created by colonization itself. To me the 9/11 comparison makes no sense and I don't feel like you're being fidelitous to his whole philosophy.
"British colonization of India created the conditions for the double liberation of India: from the constraints of its own tradition as well as from colonization itself" (116). He continues, it is important "to admit the positive effect of colonization" (117). I see nothing here about sorrow for a lost tradition; only the celebration of its loss. Indeed, the same is seen in much of the Marxist tradition. Some strange sophistry you're conducting to argue otherwise.
@@TheoryPhilosophy Indeed. Zizek's main problem is trying to use an imminent framework of Hegelian Logic that seems to be futile thus far, it makes him run into all these paradoxes and contingencies that plagued Nietzsche as well.
@@TheoryPhilosophy What Zizek is saying is not a blindfolded celebration of colonisation and its obvious ills. He's saying colonialism on the surface is terrible, but pre-colonisation in India was no picnic due to the caste system, I presume. So colonialism came into India destroyed the unjust tradition of social control of the caste system, which emancipated Indians somewhat, then the new colonial system of control fell apart leaving a freer India all things considered, despite the collateral damage, which I assume is dialectically unavoidable The shit hit the fan, but the shit was already in the room and so things may be better as the worst thing occured, colonialism, but it destroyed some parts of oppressive tradition, and itself! opening up new possibilities of higher social order, ad infinitum.
Zizek's position, in essence, is you can't make an omelette without cracking eggs -- Capitalism has to collide with communism to bring about higher social order that is yet unknown. (Is this not the story of Christ?)
And to offer my critique of Slavoj, is this logic of social/economic developmental order not Buddhist? e.g the cycle of reincarnation, which he derides often as a balm to individuals under capitalism helping maintain the system, when instead, something more subtle is occuring, individual alterations in subjectivity mirroring the process of social progression/reincarnation, people are Christian turn to Buddhism, Christianity fails, Buddhism, too, and one is left with secular mindfulness and Jesus as a role-model. The old, the new -- the good parts of old and new; classic Hegel, thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Dang it, Slavoj's a communist Hegelian, get it?
@@TheoryPhilosophy”sorrow for a lost tradition” is the kind of ideological bullshit that Zizek critiques. No wonder you don’t like him.
Yeah My Boi Slavoj Zizek!
Would love to hear Slavoj thoughts on El hoyo!
Thank you for reviewing a Zizek book!
your criticism of zizek is spot on, lovely video
"Give 750billion to bankers so people can eat"? What kind of logic is that? You give food to people so they can eat.
That's it I'm becoming a patron
What Zizek is saying is not a blindfolded celebration of colonisation and its obvious ills. He's saying colonialism on the surface is terrible, but pre-colonisation in India was no picnic due to the caste system, I presume. So colonialism came into India destroyed the unjust tradition of social control of the caste system, which emancipated Indians somewhat, then the new colonial system of control fell apart leaving a freer India all things considered, despite the collateral damage, which I assume is dialectically unavoidable The shit hit the fan, but the shit was already in the room and so things may be better as the worst thing occured, colonialism, but it destroyed some parts of oppressive tradition, and itself! opening up new possibilities of higher social order, ad infinitum.
Zizek's position, in essence, is you can't make an omelette without cracking eggs -- Capitalism has to collide with communism to bring about higher social order that is yet unknown. (Is this not the story of Christ?)
And to offer my critique of Slavoj, is this logic of social/economic developmental order not Buddhist? e.g the cycle of reincarnation, which he derides often as a balm to individuals under capitalism helping maintain the system, when instead, something more subtle is occuring, individual alterations in subjectivity mirroring the process of social progression/reincarnation, people are Christian turn to Buddhism, Christianity fails, Buddhism, too, and one is left with secular mindfulness and Jesus as a role-model. The old, the new -- the good parts of old and new; classic Hegel, thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Dang it, Slavoj's a communist Hegelian, get it?
wait but share the tik tok with us or the name of the user! I think theirs value in understanding how the nordic countries arent framework to follow
Messing up words is a YT trick for generating interaction. See it works.
Great episode! I really appreciated your asides about white superiority and saviorism
omg please revive your intro OwO
Zi! You need to sniff while discussing Z.
Omg, i just realized i was a zizek fan boy, I’ve never engaged with criticism of his work before, i need to stop idealizing
Beware 0 Philosophers least your machinations lead to the humiliation of your philosophy in the annihilation of the body of your Public.
it would be a good idea for the presenter and Mr. Zizek to spend a couple of years in N Korea
Zizek was born and lived in a communist country lol.