Is Žižek a serious philosopher or a stand up comedian? Or both? — Tom Storm

Both. :smirk:

Is his work on Hegel or Lacan useful?

Maybe for 'idealists in analysis' ...

Can he really be considered a Hegelo-Lacanian?

Lacanian-Hegelian Marxist (and so on and so on...)

Where would he sit in the context of a post-modern tradition and what would be his most significant works?

I don't think Žižek is p0m0 at all. For me, his most philosophically significant works are these:

• The Sublime Object of Ideology
• The Parallax View
• Incontinence of the Void

I've read (though not finished) over a dozen more, but these have stayed with me. Worth chewing over. I find Žižek insufferable and infectious, especially youtubes of his lectures & interviews.

Nice answer. I appreciate it. Thanks for the reading list. :pray:

He is certainly entertaining if nothing else.

I don’t see much of interest, in what I’ve read. Seems like a lot of fluff. Maybe I’m wrong or am missing something.

No one seems to discuss his ideas or contributions, although he’s published books. Always makes me a little suspicious, but perhaps the ideas are so complex that it’s difficult to simplify. I know this is often the case with Heidegger and Hegel, so who knows.

No one seems to discuss his ideas or contributions, although he’s published books. — Mikie

Yes, that's kind of what I was wondering about.

No one seems to discuss his ideas or contributions, — Mikie

Not true. E. g.

https://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/zizekcentre/
https://zizekstudies.org

Is Žižek a serious philosopher or a stand up comedian? Or both? — Tom Storm

He's a serious philosopher who made the "mistake" of having a sense of humour, being entertaining, and relating his work to everyday life.

I don’t see much of interest, in what I’ve read. Seems like a lot of fluff. — Mikie

I think it would be very difficult on reading and understanding one of his books to come to that conclusion. I've fully read "Violence", "Enjoy your Symptom", and "How to Read Lacan" so far, as well as much of "the Parallax View" and "the Sublime Object of ldeology". You'd really have to dismiss a lot of modern philosophy, not just German Idealism and Lacan, not to find substance there.

Anyhow, no one has to like him. I know e.g. (our distinguished upcoming guest speaker) Chomsky doesn't. But he's not just taking the Mick.

He's a serious philosopher who made the "mistake" of having a sense of humour, being entertaining, and relating his work to everyday life. — Baden

Ha! He seems very likable.

I think it would be very difficult on reading and understanding one of his books to come to that conclusion. I've fully read "Violence", "Enjoy your Symptom", and "How to Read Lacan" so far, as well as much of "the Parallax View" and "the Sublime Object of ldeology". — Baden

Interesting. Would it be fair to say he is a divisive figure?

I'm never going to get into Lacan or Hegel - it's just not an interest of mine and I am too old - does he have a useful reading of these guys?

Would it be fair to say he is a divisive figure? — Tom Storm

The only fellow academic of major standing that I know of and respect highly who outright rejects him is Chomsky. Big names like Judith Butler, Alain Badiou, and Peter Sloterdijk seem to share a friendly, mutually respectful, rivalry.

Edit: Politically, he is somewhat divisive. A lot of that is based on media silliness though.

I'm never going to get into Lacan or Hegel - it's just not an interest of mine and I am too old - does he have a useful reading of these guys? — Tom Storm

Definitely demystified Lacan for me. Not so sure about the Hegel stuff. At least I wouldn't recommend him as a route into Hegel as he I think he potentially is into Lacan, judging by what I've read.

Cool, thanks. Yeah, I heard him say that Butler is a 'good friend' of his.

Not true. E. g.

https://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/zizekcentre/
https://zizekstudies.org — Baden

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

The only fellow academic of major standing that I know of and respect highly who outright rejects him is Chomsky. — Baden

If that’s true that’s interesting. Between Chomsky’s comments and a number of lectures/debates I’ve watched, and some SEP reading, I’ve formed an opinion— but it’s true that in order to really give someone a chance you should at least read one of their major works. Based on the interest on here alone, I’ll have to do so this year. I’ll be happy to be wrong.

In any case, he’s not a climate denier and seems to reject capitalism, so he’s certainly not doing any harm, in my view.

In any case, he’s not a climate denier and seems to reject capitalism, so he’s certainly not doing any harm, in my view. — Mikie

:lol:

If that’s true that’s interesting. Between Chomsky’s comments and a number of lectures/debates I’ve watched, and some SEP reading. — Mikie

As for him being an academic of status: I mean he gets invited for lecture series, teaches a popular lecture course at the European Graduate School, is prolific. I think he gets used in media studies courses as well - I remember him coming up in a lecture series I watched on that years ago. He does turn up in courses.

Also, if you believe Google scholar's citation count, Zizek's book "Violence" has 7 times the citations of Chalmer's paper "The Hard Problem of Consciousness". He's definitely worth a read.

:up:

He's entertaining and provides some interesting observations on certain curious or strange phenomenon. Contrary to others here, although I have read his Less Than Nothing and one of his essay collection books (forgetting the name now), I find his lectures to be better. In fact, I notice little distinction between long lectures and reading his stuff.

He has drawbacks: his scholarship is quite bad; he is prone to exaggeration and even makes things up(!) and he has a tendency to want to complicate or extend a certain type of "Hegelian logic" way beyond specific instances in which such a counter-intuitive way of thinking may be of use or of interest.

Roger Scruton was not a fan of Zizek, nor is Pinker, though most of us can say Pinker has his own issues.

On the other hand, Varoufakis and Cornel West think well of him, and these are serious people.

So, it's a mixed bag, for me he is not as bad as Mikie puts it, but he does have serious flaws, beyond the usual "we are all humans" complaint.

He has drawbacks: his scholarship is quite bad; he is prone to exaggeration — Manuel

That's true. I've wondered about some of his examples and found on checking he's misrepresented and / or misinterpreted something.

On the other hand, Varoufakis and Cornel West think well of him, and these are serious people. — Manuel

:up:

He has drawbacks: his scholarship is quite bad; he is prone to exaggeration and even makes things up(!) and he has a tendency to want to complicate or extend a certain type of "Hegelian logic" way beyond specific instances in which such a counter-intuitive way of thinking may be of use or of interest. — Manuel

:yikes:

So, it's a mixed bag, — Manuel

Thanks. The lectures are quite interesting to watch (I've probably seen a dozen or so) but I often find at the end of them I haven't been left with anything much.

Thanks. The lectures are quite interesting to watch (I've probably seen a dozen or so) but I often find at the end of them I haven't been left with anything much. — Tom Storm

Exactly, same thing happened to me. Granted, some are more interesting than others, but one is often left with the feeling that although much was said, sometimes amusingly, there wasn't much content.

And so on and so on ...

"Post-subjective anti-capitalism" :eyes:

I WOULD PREFER NOT TO.

:sweat: