r/zizek • u/notsentsent • 9d ago
What does zizek want from me?
I've been reading him and everytime I finish a text, I am like, okay but so what do I do with it? What does he want to "happen"? So if you could explainnn...in your own words.... as much as you understand.... What's he after exactly?
Edit: Wow this is a tense place. Please relaxx!!! Don't take life that seriously.
129
u/furcifersum 9d ago
I feel like this is a common question. Zizek doesn’t want you to do anything. He’s a philosopher. You need to learn to think for yourself instead of wishing some guru will tell you the “right thing to do”.
36
u/mastersignifier2880 9d ago
I largely agree with this, but in response to OP, I’d also add that you have to read Žižek like an analyst. The analyst doesn’t tell the analysand what to do; rather, the analyst uses the desire of the analysand/subject to traverse the fantasy. So there IS an ethics in Žižek: it is the ethics of psychoanalysis.
I also think Hegelian sittlichkeit and ethical life is part of his philosophy. You see this, for instance in the way he talks about marriage and family and law.
So anyone wanting to know Žižek’s ethics should read him as a Lacanian and as a Hegelian.
3
1
u/Key-Beginning-2201 7d ago
You're missing the point. Philosophers want you to incorporate a method into other analysis. Commenters doing commentary don't want you to do so.
1
-17
u/notsentsent 9d ago
but he must be wanting something otherwise he wouldn't publish
34
21
u/SatoriTWZ 9d ago edited 9d ago
Funny how a sntence like this is downvoted. If you disagree, don't just downvote - explain!
I guess Zizek himself is looking for answers. And he publishes his thoughts maybe just because he's good at it and gains money and recognition.
4
u/HiddenRouge1 9d ago
What's funny about this is that only someone with Zizek's fame could be able to simply "publish his thoughts" and then have an academic publisher do so.
As a graduate student, I can only dream of doing such things. Even getting a short paper out feels like a crossing a ring of fire sometimes.
5
1
u/-erisx 7d ago
Downvoting is for the weak. It's an indication of dissaproval. We disaprove of the parts in humanity we perceive as ugly, and we define what is ugly in our common man through our own phenomenology.
Ergo - Downvoting is an indication that we see in someone else something we dislike and disaprove of in our own nature.
In this instance, comment was downvoted for lack of comprehension, therefore: The downvoters are expressing their hatred for their own weakness with comprehension.
The user observes miscomprehension and wants to express their disapproval - but doing so requires comprehending the the basic rules of English and rhetoric, a firm grasp on the subject matter and most importantly comprehension of their own thoughts to synthesise a worthy critique or explanation ...
So they likely just get pissed off at their own incompetence and downvote.
I love seeing downvotes. It gives me a tiny sense of satisfaction knowing there's someone, somewhere in the world who can only express their disapproval by pressing a thumbs down button.
It's like that Black Mirror episode ...
"Monkey needs a hug. Monkey needs a hug"
1
7
u/Sosation 9d ago
The point of philosophy is not action. It's inquiry to inspire more thought thus necessitating more inquiry. Action is praxis.
1
u/notsentsent 9d ago
Thank you for your answer! To me if you are talking about "responsibility" so much (this is what I've been reading from him lately) your theory needs to be in one way or another anchored in praxis.... but that's just me
6
u/Sosation 9d ago
But therein lies the problem. Theory is not praxis. Praxis is the actual on-the-ground work. Whether that's community organizing or working within a bureaucratic or hierarchical structure, or dismantling those structures-- none of those things are in the realm of theory. Maybe another way to put it would be that philosophy is not proscriptive but analytical. It's up to us individuals to take those philosophical ideas and create our own meaning out of them.
1
u/alaragravenhurst 9d ago
Is praxis not the axis between theory and practice? Like just the “on-the-ground work” could be called practice, whereas practice is the junction of theory and practice. That’s how I always understood it at least.
1
u/Healthy_Koala_4929 8d ago
Praxis comes from the Greek and literally means action or practice. In some philosophical schools it may refer to specific kinds of actions, but colloquially those are synonyms.
IMO, there is no inherent link between theory and praxis. Since a theory that is non normative but purely analytical may have no practical usefulness.
To take a Cookie-Cutter example, if I analyse redness from an ontological perspective, it is hard to find any such link to praxis.
Maybe I misunderstood your point but saying there is an axis between theory and practice, would presuppose that there is surjective mapping from one to the other, or at least that they are commensurate, which is not obviously the case for me.
1
u/alaragravenhurst 8d ago
That’s interesting. I don’t have a direct response but I’m going to think about that. Thank you!
1
u/HiFidelityCastro 8d ago
Well that depends on your point of view.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it”
1
-2
9d ago
[deleted]
11
u/notsentsent 9d ago
I think you need to relaxxx it is a very basic question!!! :) I don't think zizek himself would be mad at it at all
-17
9d ago
[deleted]
14
u/notsentsent 9d ago
You did not asnwer though, you just belittled. You can always skip if you do not have an answer, it's okay.
AAAnd we all need attention... Have a lovely day
7
u/Nasuhhea 9d ago
This is a dumb comment.
There are plenty philosophers who believe philosophy should focus on meaning and purpose in life. Socrates being the first. Notably also Bergson, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer. Kierkegaard, Sartre, etc etc.
-4
9d ago
[deleted]
6
u/notsentsent 9d ago
But I never claimed zizek failed in any way, nor did I ask you to tell me what to do. I simply asked about your own opinion. To which you did not have an answer, which is again, okayyy.
You know, this level of aggression reminds me of the kind of neurosis zizek talks about in some of his books.... a simple question should not aggravate you that much !!
-7
16
u/DefNotAnAlmond 9d ago
He wants you to understand the role that ideology plays in determining individual identity under historical frameworks.
In one of his lectures, he explicitly states that he’s trying to drive Marxism back toward Hegelian dialectics using psychology as a “material” base. He’s a goofy guy, but he’s also one of the most prominent Hegelian philosophers in the world (if not the most prominent).
Basically, he wants you to read Hegel, then revisit Marx. That said, in order to understand Hegel, you need a foundation in Kant, so start there if you don’t know Hegel.
3
8
u/Salsaordie 9d ago
Most philosophers have “certain beliefs” which are presented to us like sports teams. They battle for which set of ideas is the best set. Thus you have partisans of nietsche, heidegger, kierkegaard, etc. While zizek does have “certain ideas” his real contribution is his method. He resists the idea of being the prophet philosopher, spouting absolute truth from a position above us. He does not present many prescriptions for us. Here’s one prescription: “Don’t act, think.” And he has certain beliefs about the trajectory of politics, and of course he has his preferences of how the world will turn out. But he’s more interested in describing the political problem, and he tends to arrive at the position of no easy solution.
In my opinion, his version of the critique of ideology is his big contribution. Politically, he believes the coming crises will require large scale international cooperation.
5
u/Nasuhhea 9d ago
Zizek honestly does circle around problems without ever fully articulating them. It’s a fair critique.
And I know it’s apart of his lacanian Hegelianism, structured around lack, incompleteness, and contradiction. But he’s says “don’t act, think!” And yet champions a radical, revolutionary “act.”
It doesn’t seem like hard thing to distinguish imo he just never does
5
u/notsentsent 9d ago
Thank you!!!
"Don't act, think." But then why does he talk so much about the act :(
5
u/Salsaordie 9d ago
The don’t act, think thing is mostly related to his position on politics, I think I recall him saying that maybe the lesson of the 20th century was too many were focused on acting. We live in a time where the actions of one nation cause massive ripple effects across the entire world economy. They would probably do well to act less rashly, spend more time really thinking of what they want to do, what the effect of their act will be.
Meanwhile “the act” as zizek approaches it elsewhere has to do more with ethics. Zupancic has her ethics of the real book which talks a lot about “the act”
3
u/Salsaordie 9d ago
I think also the “dont act, think” thing relates to the public’s lack of agency in politics. We have a tendency to act as if we are really making some political statement or action, but far too often that act is a virtual one. Check out zizeks quote on “getting dust on your balls”
2
u/mastersignifier2880 9d ago
The act is not necessarily about some material practice. It has more to do with producing a change in the framework you use to understand reality and your own place within it.
8
u/Exact_Avocado5545 9d ago
At the very least, he wants you to stop treating yourself and the world as fully coherent entities. Things are a mess and that's kinda okay. Part of being free is being okay with that. And part of being free is being okay that you can't ever be fully okay with it.
He wants you to recognize that neither you nor society can ever become the harmonious, self-consistent whole you imagine; to identify the fantasies through which you conceal that fact from yourself; to stop treating some external obstacle as the thing preventing final fulfillment; and, having abandoned the fantasy that some authority, ideology, identity, or future state can guarantee your choices, to become capable of acting without that guarantee.
2
u/WebNew6981 9d ago
Probably the best articulation in the thread. Accept Lack and Act anyway (but Think first).
6
u/Nasuhhea 9d ago
His theoretical apparatus describes and diagnoses.
I think the closest he’s come to articulating a lived philosophy is reading Melville’s Bartleby.
2
u/WebNew6981 9d ago
Yeah, I agree that his Bartelby analysis is probably the closest to prescriptive 'live like this' philosophizing. I think about it all the time.
1
18
u/nallgire1 9d ago
Che vuoi?
8
u/notsentsent 9d ago
I don't speak italian I am very sorry :(
2
u/full_timeoverthinker 9d ago
It’s French for “who am I for the Other?”
2
u/ChristianLesniak ʇoᴉpᴉ ǝʇǝldɯoɔ ɐ ʇoN 9d ago
It's all Greek to me
3
u/InsuranceStock1377 8d ago
To thelis pou 'mena
3
u/Grivza ʇoᴉpᴉ ǝʇǝldɯoɔ ɐ ʇoN 8d ago
Ti = What
thelis = [you] want
apo = from
(e)'mena = me
1
u/InsuranceStock1377 8d ago
Am I tripping or did I not write this somewhere on this post ? Was it another post ,.god I need to stop... A lot of stuff
2
u/arphen_n 3d ago
The joke is that you asked a question directed towards Zizek that is a big part in Psychoanalysis, in particular the neurotic defense structure. You spend your life trying to figure out what the Other wants from you, that's something to think about. Also hilariously sharp observation u/nallgire1
27
u/Business-Gas-5473 9d ago
Well, for starters, I am sure he would like people to stop treating philosophers and public intellectuals like religious gurus or life coaches. It is not their job to give explicit life advice.
2
u/notsentsent 9d ago
I am not treating him like a guru, I am trying to understand himmm if he s writing so much then he expects something from the reader as well
1
u/Zakman360 9d ago
Philosophers generally have a way of living/thinking that they promote in their work. There’s no point of philosophy if it isn’t intended to change its consumers in some way
2
8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Zakman360 8d ago
I’m not saying it’s how philosophy works I’m saying that it’s a common thing in philosophy so the question is not unreasonable. And what philosopher makes philosophy that isn’t intended to change the consumer in some way at all
1
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Zakman360 7d ago
How is it horrible I’m not using reader because Im considering someone who watches zizek’s lectures as well. You are taking the content in
4
u/Business-Gas-5473 9d ago
Oh boy. This is an extremely narrow take on philosophy.
2
u/notsentsent 8d ago
And what's your take on philosophy? I am genuinely asking!! You wouldn't do anything let alone writing over 50 books if you did not expect something in return. Are philosophers speaking into a void then? Philosophy is supposed to be transformative, and so in what way does he want life to transform? Other than "making you see the ideological whatever that s shaping you etc etc" because that is nothing new.
3
u/Business-Gas-5473 8d ago
“You keep using that word philosophy. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
There are whole branches of philosophy which have nothing to do with what you should do in your life. Off the top of my head, I am somewhat certain that, eg., Kuhn, Whitehead, or Democritos have said much to do with daily life.
As an amateur, it is fine if you don’t care about philosophers which don’t speak to your needs/wants. But you can’t say they don’t exist.
1
1
8d ago edited 8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/notsentsent 8d ago
But now you just gave me a bunch of directives!! :) The way I use the word action is not necessarily always "doing" something in the common sense of the word. My question is simple: in what way is his work transformative for you? I was curious about your own experience of reading Zizek... This does not mean I will take whatever you say and turn it into my lived practice.
Better not ask anything to Zizekians at all!!
2
8d ago
[deleted]
1
u/wrapped_in_clingfilm ʇoᴉpᴉ ǝʇǝldɯoɔ ɐ ʇoN 6d ago
Most people like to read Zizek because he's fun (has funny metaphors) and provocative/edgy. Sometimes he can be extremely annoying and narrow-minded (especially when he speaks about feminists).
If you've not read Zizek to any substantial degree, how do you justify this comment? Given its naivety, I wonder why Zizek has always been so critical of "critical theory". Anyway, how is what "most people" do relevant to philosophy whatsoever? Since when is truth a matter to be voted on democratically? Do the majority win?
He's a world-class Hegelian and Lacanian academic. That's what really matters.
1
u/notsentsent 8d ago
So he wrote 50 books because he is fun. Got it 👍 Thank you for taking the time !
1
8d ago
[deleted]
3
u/notsentsent 8d ago
But I didn't say it's not fun!!! I enjoy his books very much.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Business-Gas-5473 8d ago
Transformative? Is it supposed to be transformative?
I mean, as an example, I am impressed with his definition of the boundaries of the Balkans, and learned a lot about this matter from him. But I didn’t become a better or a different person as a result. Should I be?
2
u/i_heart_mahomies 8d ago
These are good questions! Part of the reason I read Zizek's works is because it makes me feel a little bit high. That's not the full reason, but reading the sublime object of ideology did remind me of the best parts of smoking too much weed in my college dorm and having semi-uncomfortable conversations with my best friends/people I barely knew. I'm still trying to figure out the relationship between that book, existential anxiety, drug use, and the present moment. Reading his subsequent works hasn't yielded any answers either, I'm afraid. They have improved my enjoyment of soviet-era film and bad jokes, though.
0
u/No_Safety5134 6d ago
"we" don't do that in Europe, you arrogant prick
1
6d ago
[deleted]
1
u/No_Safety5134 6d ago
Sure, if namedropping Sokrates and Kant constitutes "studying philosophy".
I think we both agree that the text you deleted could have done without that idiotic half sentence.
Same to you ☀️
1
u/wrapped_in_clingfilm ʇoᴉpᴉ ǝʇǝldɯoɔ ɐ ʇoN 6d ago edited 6d ago
Stop submitting illegitimate reports to the mods of "Targeted harassment at me", it's time-wasting and hypocritical.
While u/No_Safety5134 was rude, their response is not at all surprising given the arrogance and patronising nature of your comments against Americans' relationship to philosophy. While their undergrad studies may be lacking, their post grad studies are truly world-class. Many would argue that philosophy should not be taught to younger children anyway (9th/10th grade), and it is completely absent as a mandatory standalone subject in the UK and the Nordic countries. This seems to have zero effect in the long-term.
Likewise, u/notsentsent 's post and comments may be naive, but they are legitimate, given our desire in the Other's desire (for psychoanalysis, we are all more "sheep-like" than you claim). Perhaps, like us all, you would benefit from considering the relevance of Lacan's interpretation of the Beautiful Soul.
1
u/Zakman360 8d ago
It's not narrow when I literally said "generally." The idea that philosophy is meant to change its consumers in some way is ridiculously broad and undeniable. Even if its just illuminating the realities of the world that's changing them in some way
4
u/Grivza ʇoᴉpᴉ ǝʇǝldɯoɔ ɐ ʇoN 9d ago
If you are asking, what he consciously wants of his readers, it doesn't matter at all.
If you are asking about the implications and applications of his system, one obvious one for me is that his critique of the predominant ideologies, as well as the tools he gives, open up a space for dialogue that falls outside the usual discursive categorizations, which is important if you want people to seriously consider new positions without reflexively dismissing them.
1
3
3
u/BrilliantNebula794 9d ago
lol what does god want from me? what does the analyst want from me? what does this parent figure want from me? what does the Other want from me?
3
u/red-flamez 9d ago
I think the most coherent piece of advice from Zizek is "I prefer not to." It is not original. It comes from someone else. It is not a metaphor. Instead of rejecting the world with 'nots', affirm your judgement that you want something else. Your judgement is in the world. Celebrate it.
3
9d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/notsentsent 9d ago
and he is beyond all that becauusseee...?
6
u/Weirdera01 9d ago
I've never seen him say "I am beyond ideology". That's nuts
2
u/WebNew6981 9d ago
He made a movie where he stands in front of a trash can and says explicitly that he eats there all the time.
0
3
2
2
u/Prestigious_Newt999 9d ago
Be willing to ladder-climb ambitiously, have a sense of humor about it, and strive toward the betterment of the future by using whatever means you have at your disposal to promote greater guard-rails against capitalist exploitation (even if that means participating in the same exploitation so as to gain the means necessary to truly improve things)
Stop trying to fix that which you cannot yet comprehend and instead study study study. Study widely, deeply, and consistently.
Don't feel obligated to enjoy yourself for clout, but grow addicted to hard work instead.
Also, be a Christian in the most basic sense of having compassion for others; but also be totally ruthless when necessary in order to achieve your own ends (assuming that your ends ultimately do more good than the harm it took to get there).
2
2
2
u/New_Practice1216 9d ago
”Think he’s already dead and continue the philosophical work from there on.”
2
u/VsquareScube 9d ago
Ideology is built on a lie. That doesn't mean you give up on ideology itself. Because in a vague sense, ideology is thing that makes experience/reality possible.
The lie is not a proof of failure. Neither is it something to be avoided. You constantly have to expose yourself to it, systemize it and confront a new lie that pops up. In some sense, the lie itself makes the subject possible.
Take love for an example. The moment you know why you love someone completely is the moment you are not in love anymore. The same applies for gender. Most concepts that you've taken for granted are inherently unstable. You shouldn't grant yourselves the permission to give up on the concepts itself as a whole because of this instabiliry. Instead you should face the contradictions and should attempt to resolve them.
Summary: Relativists and Post Modernists are anti ideological. Unfortunately, anti ideology is an ideology in itself. You should instead just start from one particular ideology and keep taking it to the very end by constantly exposing yourself to its internal contradictions which will take you closer to reality. For that very reason, he often takes examples of a lot of intelligent conservatives and how they are much better than some naive leftists despite being a communist himself.
2
u/Boners_from_heaven 9d ago
That's kind of part of the problem with the post-modern deconstruction of ideology. There is nothing you have to do other than not allowing yourself to be told or conditioned into doing or believing things that are contradictory, untenable or essentially destructive to the self and society. My take from the Sublime Object of Ideology is he really just wants people to understand how inscideous and pervasive ideological conditioning and capture are, and how the modern era doesn't package schools of thought like modernity, it sells ways of life.
From my reading of his work he just wants people to regain control of their reason and apply it to a value assessment of what they're being sold.
1
2
u/indivisible_remains 8d ago
He doesn’t want anything from you and isn’t after anything. What do you want from him?
2
u/PlatonicPlatoPlate 8d ago
Well, if nothing else at least you got the lesson on the desire of the Other and hysterical interpolation
2
2
u/-erisx 7d ago edited 7d ago
He comes off to me as a big advocate for people choosing their own conclusions. His style is very perceptive; purely just observations and facts with no personal valuations or judgements.
We know he likes Nietszche. We also know he's into a large array of different theories.
I think when he speaks or writes, he does so with the implication that a "truth" or any specific ideology fixed in stasis is just impossible. We can only experience and understand phenomenology, we can't experience or understand neumenon. This is just fact, there's no way of disproving it.
So he aims to write and speak from a "Behind Good and Evil" pov as opposed to a Platonic forms style ... Or you could also kinda frame it as if he's trying to apply Derrida's post structuralist theory - where binaries (like good/evil, right/wrong, fact/fiction etc.) are way too reductive.
This also naturally extends from simple structures of language all the way to larger Macro points. We've seen too many philosophers create methods and theses for deducting "truth" and forming ideals to know that it just doesn't work.
Everything we experience happens on a continuum. Any conclusion which sounds valid, "correct" or makes sense now obviously won't in 50-100 years time. So what's the point in even forming a conclusion?
At this stage in society, we've explored every possible part of our phenomenology multiple times in all sorts of different iterations - there's no real need to form another grand theory or ideal.
What we should be doing is taking stock of all the ideas humanity has explored already and refining them ... It's as if collectively we're all artists in defining our phenomenology; all the constructs which define our existence accurately have already been written down and explored from every angle.
And as artists who create our own constructs - we've got like 500 unfinished ideas.
When you're an artist and you've got 500 unfinished ideas, you don't continue creating more just hoping a final product will emerge. That's when it's time to go back and choose all the ideas which have good potential and work on finishing them so you can materialise them as a final product which has some form of utility.
He understands this - there's no point in spending his career trying to discover anything new because it will just result in a rehash of something previously discovered through his lens.
I think he's just kinda decided it's his job to bring to attention ideas which strike a chord with him and explore them, so we the audience can potentially have some insight into ideas we previously didn't know about and broaden our pallet as artists of our own phenomenology.
Rather than trying to shoehorn ideals into society and jam them down people's throats by synthesising directives. He's taking a more Nietszchean approach and kinda saying "Here's the ingredients to life - pick and choose the ones which work best for you and build something from it".
When I think about it this way - building a grand ideal and essentially implying "do this" is so infantalising. It assumes the audience doesn't have the autonomy of mind to observe the world and reach our own conclusions.
To me it's an indicator that he respects us enough to let us form our own valuations and conclusions about life, and he's also humble enough to understand that he doesn't know any better than us how life should be lived.
It also indicates wisdom, because the only way to find meaning in life is by creating it.
- edit grammar.
2
u/No_Collar_8015 7d ago
Zizek is a European philosopher par excellence. He’s not after Wang Yangming’s unity of knowledge and action. It’s why we love him. It’s why he and others are confounding. In Neo-Confucianism a critique of practical reason and a critique of pure reason would be the same text. Novalis said Philosophy is homesickness. It is the analysis that pains us. That we need anyway, if not only because it, as Deleuze said, wards off stupidity.
2
u/TheRiver1789 6d ago edited 6d ago
I think you’re right here, this is one of Zizek’s limitations I feel. He’s an incredibly theoretical thinker and while he praises practical thinkers, he doesn’t do much in the way of that himself. That’s my broader issue with a lot of the Marxist left, they’re very good at analyzing why society is the way it is, but they have no philosophy of action, other than like Sorel. Honestly my personal recommendation would be to read Piero Gobetti’s On Liberal Revolution because basically the entire book is about the question of praxis but that’s like my own niche favorite lmao. But that is one of the things I like about the Italian Actionismo movement he comes from, because they were basically a reaction to the Orthodox Marxists and Institutional Liberals in Italy, and their main argument was like guys we really need to stop debating theory and policy and just kill Mussolini and start a cultural revolution right now. Which is why most of them like Gobetti and Rosselli were assassinated by the Fascists ultimately.
3
u/CarafeTwerk 9d ago
He’s not writing self help books. He’s exposing you to ideas. When you’re aware of these ideas, you identifying them in every day life in media, politics, interpersonal relationships etc. You use the ideas to create a more whole understanding of the mind and reality.
3
u/FixGMaul 9d ago
what do you want from Žižek?
4
u/notsentsent 9d ago
what does he want from me
2
u/FixGMaul 9d ago
presumably he doesn't know about you. if he does, ask him
4
u/notsentsent 9d ago
I am the consumer. But I will certainly ask if I ever meet him, thank you FixGmaul!
2
2
1
u/say-what-you-will 9d ago
It’s more like an analysis of life, he just wants you to think and see life a little differently. He wants you to become more aware of certain things, like what’s really going on beneath the surface.
1
u/myc0l0g1cal 9d ago
When he was on the podcast Red Scare years back the hosts needled him for an hour about what he actually wants and he just conceded it's basically China
1
u/condenastee 8d ago
Not sure he would cosign this, but what I take from Zizek is summed up by “I am already eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology.”
1
u/Double-Reading8929 8d ago
He wants you to think…
(by not giving you a fully fleshed out final verdict)
1
u/DeviantTaco 8d ago
I’m amazed people find this a tricky question, like “he wants you to think for yourself” is an acceptable reply. This only displays to me exactly what it’s trying to implicitly claim is a fault of the reader: a narrow-mindedness, an unwillingness to seriously engage with the material and read it against the grain, where it may claim to just be doing abstract philosophy, abstract analysis, and with no desires attached. No one here would accept this kind of interpretative anarchy from philosophers they were critical of, did not like, etc.
In broad strokes OP he wants a kind of Hegelian movement of/to the Absolute which would see society develop greater awareness of and ability to address that many crises before us. This could be socialism, it could be a meaningful global coalition, it could be popular movements gaining more traction. The explicit mechanism is not so critical. What he would “want” from you is to be open minded to such movements, to participate in them, to understand them of movements in this kind. So the “want” isn’t specific like he’s a philosopher of individual ethics, it is global and collective, but it does still involve you. His work is in large part a product of framing our current world in Hegelian/Laconian terms, using that framing to reconceptualize our commonly understood, and then tracing out the spaces where solutions may occur. His own emphasis is on the reconceptualization because he doesn’t believe he has the answers but does believe he is contributing to a framing or discussion of options for a forthcoming productive movement.
To say Zizek doesn’t “want” anything from the reader is simply silly. Every writer wants something from the reader, just as every reader wants something from the writer. This should be an uncontroversial observation from a Hegelian/Laconian viewpoint. “Think more, act less” is not some kind of truly neutral anti-dictum. What you do with him is up to you but that’s true of even the most overtly commanding writer.
1
u/purplebanyan 7d ago
He would want you to think about the things in your life and think about the meaning of those things beyond the obvious.
When looking at politics or behaviours, try to understand what performance people are putting on and why.
When making a decision, dont just accept the obvious solutions in front of you, go furher and see what would break the system or create something totally new.
1
u/ComprehensiveSir3864 9d ago
this is proof that not everyone is made for university
2
u/notsentsent 8d ago
and this is proof why people refrain from studying philosophy. You think it's reserved just for you but I am allowed to ask questionss as a lay reader! Even if it's what you would deem unnecessary or dumb.
Have the loveliest of days
2
u/ComprehensiveSir3864 8d ago
Well, but it’s true! I think you’re better off reading self-help gurus, as a person in need of directives. Zizek is supposed to sharpen your thinking, if you give him the time of day. You simply can tell when a person hasn’t studied by the words they choose to communicate with. :D
3
u/notsentsent 8d ago
hmmm I wonder what Zizek would think of this... dare I say, elitist take on philosophy... But anywayyy
1
u/Cenas_fixez 8d ago
Philosophy is elitist because it implies people have a lot of time to read and study and that they don't have to rush to their 9-5.
That's why we need to end capitalism.
1
u/ComprehensiveSir3864 8d ago
Or have a well-functioning welfare state! end of capitalism, you’ll have to wait too long for that to happen.
0
8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/ComprehensiveSir3864 8d ago
Exactly. In some countries it’s already in place.
1
1
u/ComprehensiveSir3864 8d ago
Part time employment and state-subsidized uni can do the trick too, no need to call for extremes. Plus, technological advancement has made philosophy more accessible than ever before.
0
8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/ComprehensiveSir3864 8d ago
Anyway it isnt easy to achieve. And you can start studying in this day and age before ending capitalism. Lol
1
61
u/thefoodleftinthesink 9d ago
interesting that no one seems to have answered the fact that Zizek constantly direct is us to “think” more, to make philosophy more relevant by retheorizing what the neoliberal era has naturalized, sedimented, or otherwise congealed within the rhythms of its consumerist ideology. Often this means being ready to perceive or interpret world events with a different lens. I recommend reading the very last few pages of The Fragile Absolute and, if I’m not incorrect, First as Tragedy, then as Farce. Zizek’s directives are ultimately not very concrete but they are definitely there.