Postmodernity
- Thread starter sodiumnightlife
- Start date
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
The quality of the debate should be judged by the content of posts, not the vociferousness of their delivery. Mr. Tea inadvertently admitted he willfully keeps himself ignorant of discussion topics while posting more than almost anyone else, purely to pursue silly internet vendettas! How does this make for good discussion?
Mr Tea: Seriously- please please at least read some of this stuff before commenting on it... otherwise you are literally no better than Hari, or, even worse, those religious fundamentalists who condemn some film or book without ever actually experiencing it
There's a shitload online, you have no excuse FFS... Its a simple matter of respect, basically. Although of course such automatic opinion generation is a function of web 2.0 (and we are all guilty of it a certain extent).
There's a shitload online, you have no excuse FFS... Its a simple matter of respect, basically. Although of course such automatic opinion generation is a function of web 2.0 (and we are all guilty of it a certain extent).
Last edited:
N
nomadologist
Guest
exactly. i'm reading the parallax view right now. zizek is awful when he talks about badiou, otherwise it's a great read even if i don't agree with him.
N
nomadologist
Guest
you sound just like this philosophy professor i had as an undergrad, professor winblad, who gave me an A when i missed over 5 seminars! he taught all of that oxford semantic analytic stuff and he always had some "thought experiment" like yours he would present to class, then laugh perversely while no one responded. one of them involved out-of-body expriences, so i talked about doing ketamine once and trying to get up and leave in a k hole and somehow saw myself from outside. after class he stopped me and giddily wrote out a list of 10 of his favorite books about k, which i still haven't read but i want to.
Would you like to elaborate why he's awful on Badiou exactly? (interested). Also have you read any Quentin Meillassoux (like Badiou he utilises post Cantorian set theory/transfinite number theory, but instead of applying it to humanity/truth he applies it to create a form of bizarre realism vis-a-vis the "old problem of induction"... with his theorem of absolute necessary contingency="the becoming chaos" and his use of the arche-fossil to attack the correlationist position...)
N
nomadologist
Guest
Well, first, I loathe Badiou's reading of Ereignis and Heidegger in general, and I don't like it when anyone appeals to Badiou's "evental site" shtick.
N
nomadologist
Guest
And no, never heard of Meillassoux but sounds interesting and I love late Heidegger and Derrida's Of Grammatology. The end.
Aha. So its not so much Zizek's handling of Badiou as Badiou himself then that attracts your ire? Badiou does spend a lot of his time bitching about the vast tracts of sophists and anti-philosophers (anti-philosopher if he's being vaguely kind of course)... Doesn't he consider Heidegger suspect cos he sutured philosophy to poetry or something... whereas for Badiou philosophy is about the assessment of the compossibility of Truths? That the Truth processes are the conditions of philosophy?
My issue with Badiou is not the situation-event-evental site-subject to truth-truth process structure, but rather how restrictive he is in deeming something "an event" or a "truth process"-- his total rejection of economics and his slightly peversely dogmatic politics for example.
Last edited:
http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/index ... "The International Journal of Zizek Studies"
If people are interested...
Try this article... http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/view/33/93 which attempts to explain why Zizek might not be such a laughing stock after all...
If people are interested...
Try this article... http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/view/33/93 which attempts to explain why Zizek might not be such a laughing stock after all...
Last edited:
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
"Zizek's dishevelled ursine affability has made him a highly successful counterpoint to the media's more typically urbane choice of representatives ranging from the precisely-coiffured representatives from U.S. think tanks to the more strategically unkempt Gallic hirsutism of such figures as Bernard Henri Levi."
This had to be as fun to write as it was to read!
swears
preppy-kei
No, seriously, I read up on simulation theory and it makes a lot of sense, very unsettling.
Although I have a friend doing a physics PHD who told me:
"Yeah, there's a lot of stuff like dark matter we can't figure out yet, so all these arrogant arseholes are saying it's rigged. They can't face the fact that we won't reach the "end" of physics until long after they've died, so they use get out clauses like this..."
I paraphrase but you get the idea.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
What was 'ironic' about it, Guybrush? [seriously]
The difficulty with the [need I have to repeat it - pomo] ideology you're advocating here is that it relegates all discussion to a bland spectator sport: let's give equal weight (indifference) to all views because then we'll never have to take a firm ethical position on anything (ie all discussion remaining exclusively in the realm of Fantasy); while all the time actually defending the status quo as the untouchable, unquestionable reality principle.
Vimothy said:
We'll stop calling you a racist when you stop flooding this forum with racist anti-Muslim war-mongering propaganda. Yes, we do indeed have different 'views': your views are racist and extremely destructive. Look, Vim, the internet has no shortage of forums where your 'views' will be appreciated, from neo-con to neo-fascist websites and forums. Why do you persist in trolling this forum other than to hijack and distort serious and informed discussion on pressing political issues? [Don't answer; we already know from perusing Machiavelli]. You're inherently blind to your own prejudices, though we live in hope that when you're mature enough, educated enough, exposed enough, to the world concerning which you still know very little, your - obvious - intelligence will finally alert you to how you've allowed yourself to be conned by over-eagerly internalising the rantings of a few right-wing propagandists.
Vimothy said:
Yes, you are indeed missing the subtext, as well as the text.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Surely you meant to say his 'tea'? But wouldn't you be accusing the reciprocal arrangement of being sexual harassment ... 'date' rape, even?
But then, like a 'true' Lacanian, your love-life is so perfectly desire-disciplined as to remain in the rarefied realm of the symbolic sublime ... [minus all the new-age acid shite, of course].
Welcome back, Nomad!
mistersloane
heavy heavy monster sound
Oh man don't make me laugh like that so early in the morning, it hurts.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Agreed--part of what I hate about Badiou's reading of Ereignis is that for some odd reason he seems to think events have to have "sites", which is definitely loaded with politics in way Heidegger did not intend and is a little too convenient for my taste.
N
nomadologist
Guest
If taking 10 hits of acid accidentally is date rape, consider me a victim.
I'm taking the charge of being a true Lacanian as a compliment.
can I ask a naive question as a non-initiate? what is all this theory meant to do? I can understand e.g. analytic philosophy: it is trying (at least some of it) to say what certain things mean, or what we do with them. this is a relatively straightforward objective and one that would surely seem trivial to some. should I take zizek, badiou etc as partly a reaction to this sort of thing? but ... what is the goal???? sorry, I just don't get it.