Curious to hear what yall think is the best secondary literature on Zizek/within Zizek’s philosophical field. I’ve read some work from Todd McGowan which I enjoy.
Link to the post: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8W8vras/
I’m reading his book “The Paid Pipers of Western Marxism” right now, and the targets of the book so far (I just started reading the preface to be clear) are post-modernists and post-structuralists such as Derrida & Foucault along with Western Marxists such as Adorno and so on. Gabriel Rockhill famously wrote a scathing polemical article against Žižek, calling him “Capitalism’s Court Jester” and critiquing him for not being anti-imperialist enough and too pro-NATO while also misquoting him heavily in various bad faith ways. As much as I think Rockhill majorly missed the mark in his article, I think this book is going to be an interesting perspective since I’m very entrenched in Žižek, so it’ll be interesting to read someone who views him in less favorable light. Has anyone else read his new book? Interestingly enough, both him and Žižek have essentially made similar arguments against liberalism, arguing that it is, if anything, the other side of the coin of Fascism (Rockhill formulates it more so in terms of good cop, bad cop).
I know
Think about this before you downvote me and think I am an insane conspiracy theorist. The entire music genre of rap has been slowly evolving more and more into a rage sound, to the point where prominent artists like Ken Carson are saying "no matter what I make, they gon' call it RAGE". What I find fascinating is that the first ever word written in Western tradition is the word RAGE in Homer's Iliad. "RAGE Sing, Goddess, Achilles' rage...". Does this mean that Rage Rap is actually, in fact, the culmination of all of Western culture and is the actualization and full-circle moment realization of all Western culture as such? Meaning that Rage rap is the pinnacle of all history and culture in the entire Western tradition, from the Iliad to now?
Simple as that. Whenever I see the video of him being assassinated online I feel reminded of how hateful and horrible he was and feel at peace that he’s no longer here spreading hate. If I ever feel bad all it takes is seeing literally any clip of Charlie Kirk debating and I’m reminded of why he had to go.
Just curious if anyone has read it and would love to know other people’s thoughts on the book!
I can’t stop thinking about it. I can’t stop because I know behind my thin wall is simply the life’s of the other people on the other side and I know if I broke a hole in the wall it’d be so clear. The world is built upon lies since we put up walls as if that divides us knowing very well the other people are simply there less than a foot away hearing me seeing me in the potentiality of the negation the door immanent to the being in itself of the wall but if it develops into the fullness of the concept the wall becomes for itself being a hole in the connected flows and the people become other in-and-through the walls becoming. To summarize the people are here always everywhere we are here in space separated by the LIE of the wall. The lie or the wall is the ontological primacy of it. The wall blocks the truth of human being and intersubjectivity of existences
Forgive me if this is a naive question or even comes off as absurd due to my likely misunderstanding of Hegel’s project here. I have been reading the Phenomenology of Spirit slowly and repeatedly, gradually working my way through the book while reading secondary literature and authors that transform Hegel’s thought like Zizek. The section I’m currently focusing on is the Stoicism skepticism unhappy consciousness section, and while I find this progression very interesting, Hegel’s arguments for Stoicism as not having content often worry me when it comes to my own Stoic practices. I mean, is it not true for Stoicism that they cannot give any content to the words they cling to, ultimately leading to them becoming tiresome as Hegel says? Should I understand this part of the Phenomenology as Hegel’s critique of the actual historically understood philosophy of Stoicism or something more conceptual like a shape of consciousness or something? Can one find value in Stoic principles while engaging and largely agreeing with Hegel’s philosophical project understood through people like Zizek with his use of Lacan?