The Žižek Reticulum
I gave his name the little u's for the thread title, but from here on out, he's Zizek.
So I'm starting The Sublime Object of Ideology by Slavoj Zizek. (Pronounced 'Slaa-voy JsheeJek) and shi'iz complicated. A few pages into the preface, I met with confusion over objects and substance-subjects relating to Hegel's theory on shitting out an apple and something to do with Lacan that would likely be more familiar if I'd read original work by either of them. So as I continue, I'll be trying to gather more about them internetwise and see where things go from there.
Two places where I've met with resistance so far I've marked with torn pieces of paper and will reread.
As I started, I considered highlighting stuff that I thought was important, but I quickly realized that I'd end up just skimming each letter with marker. This book will require multiple readings, if I get through in one piece.
Here's something. Page XX, preface:
"With regard to material reality, the ontological proof of God's existence should thus be turned around: the existence of material reality bears witness to the fact that the Notion is not fully actualized. Things 'materialy exist' not when they meet certain requirements, but when they fail to meet them - material reality is such a sign of imperfection."
I think I half get it...maybe that's as far as its supposed to go?
So he's saying that the ontological argument is a sort of disproof because existence in reality constitutes imperfection? But how does that stretch to say material existence is based on a failure to meet requirements? Why are perfection requirements a condition of existence? Do they not exist separate of human desire or view of perfection?
I see perfection as a human perception, not necessary one way or another for something's existence. What do I need to know to see it any other way? Atoms seem perect enough in that that don't tend to spontaneously combust, what could be more perfect about them that is not simply a product of my human desire?
My knowledge of Hegel extends to what I've read in basic philosophy books, his ideas of the dialectic, theories competing and one emerges victorious, progressing history forward towards freedom, etc.
Lacan, I know nothing about outside of him being a psychoanalyst. I've read online he's seen as a post-structuralist. I'm not exactly sure what that means. I believe structuralism is an idea that behavior of humans, or whatever, is shaped by the structure in which is operates, like Marxism believing control by the bourgeoisie enables the proleteriat to work the fields ignorant of their exploitation. I think this way of seeing things should extend beyond Marxism and seems to strike the branches through some sociological studies of human behavior.
That's what I've been taught in criminology about structural marxism, anyways. I kinda liked the idea, even though I'm not a Marxist, the blame the system idea is often ignored because it should not be taken as truth for having been alleged. But that doesn't mean there's no truth in it.
Zizek ends the intro in this way (page XXX):
"The aim of this book is thus threefold:
To serve as an introduction to some fundemental concepts to Lacanian psychoanalysis: against the distorted picture of Lacan as belonging to the field of 'post-structuralism'..."
Then Zizek is against this 'post-structural' view that I don't fully understand anyways. Awesome.
I feel I should know more, but I'll give it a spin either way.
If you want more stuff about Zizek, type his name in on youtube. There's a docu that's pretty interesting simply called, "Zizek!" in 5 parts. Also, he eats meat, good man.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."