Talk:Slavoj Žižek

Hi, Mr. Žižek! Remember me? We talked on the phone when Natalie and I were at the Amsterdam train station... that was so awkward. I miss Natalie... I'm about to get my Phi degree...

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its subpage (Aug 2004) to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Redirect

Somebody who knows how simply has to make a redirect without all those little gnats all over the letters. I tried to link here from another article, but not having a Martian keyboard, I couldn't do it. This is the English-language Wikipedia, incidentally, in case anybody's confused. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Slavoj Zizek already redirects to this article (and has for some time). If you feel any other redirects are required, go ahead and create them. Terraxos (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Use cut and paste, and you can recreate the "Martian" characters without a special keyboard!93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

Uhmm

I removed the word 'Leninist' from the Lead section. I don't think it's sensible to describe his political stance in the Lead section with one word; when he's not jokingly referring to himself as a fascist or a Stalinist, he can be talking as a liberal leftist, Marxist, Leninist and whatnot. He's also opposed both anarchism and the State in the same talk -- overall his politics are ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulbous oxen (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Leninist" characterization adds far more smoke than fire. There are some comparatively narrow ways in which Z speaks positively of Lenin relative to some specific debates. But in many other ways, he is more sympathetic to the intellectual opponents of Lenin (within Marxist circles still, of course): e.g. he's more Luxemburgian relative to her disputes with Lenin.

I'm also not sure why the anon keeps trying to erase Hegel, who figures far more prominently than Lenin--perhaps even than Marx--in Z's work. Yes, in some odd way "Marxists are Hegelians"... except all the ones who are not because they reject or revise Hegel (oh... say Marx rejecting Hegel). LotLE×talk 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He has criticised Luxemburg for her reticence and argued passionately on the BBC recently that terror is politically virtuous. He is 100% Leninist, and I think he makes a good argument. Hegelian is very broad and includes a variety of sub-philosophies, but if you insist then fine. --84.67.155.170 (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Recently on the BBC" sure doesn't sounds like biographical perspective, but rather like WP:NEWS. In any case, "terror is politically virtuous" is very hard to find as a "Leninist" position... at least not in the sense that Lenin ever argued such a thing. I'm sure you can find some oddball CP<wherever>-ML group that might claim that position... but this just piles digressions upon artifice upon original research. LotLE×talk 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He made the same case in his introduction to Robespierre's "Virtue and Terror". Oh, and Lenin led something called the Red Terror. I have already stated that I'm not making a case for changing the article anymore, so please stop firing inaccurate information at me to bolster your "argument". --84.67.155.170 (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I watched him on a video on YouTube where he states himself as a Stalinist, and in another video where he shows where he lives and shows he has a picture of Stalin on his wall. I've read many of his writings, and I find him fascinating, and probably one of the most smartest people alive. In a way I kind of believe he is a Marxist in a very intellectual way, and Stalinist in a dark humour way, as well as praising Lenin. --Madkaffir (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The video where he says he's a Stalinist and shows he has a picture of Stalin on his wall is from the film 'Žižek!'. It's later followed (in the same film) with another clip in the same scene, where Žižek explains it. If I remember correctly, he also commented on the 'Žižek!' film and said that this was the only scene that was intentionally staged for the film. Statements like that are there to provoke, anyone familiar with his work probably knows that he's not a Stalinist. --TheMariborchan (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerning 'the Zachi Cohen controversy'

This is not a controversy at all, he's a random person claiming that Žižek stole his ideas. There is no proof for these claims and the person in question is said to have a history of such behaviour, he even made similar statements about Madonna. So I've taken the liberty of deleting the link to a video on 24ur.com since it's in my opinion not appropriate for this article. But the link seems to keep reappearing, and as long as it does I will delete it. (Zachi, if it's you adding the link and if you don't speak Slovene, than you should know that the video itself discredits you, so it's not really in your interest to spread it.) TheMariborchan (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Slavoj came to ISRAEL to Tel Aviv in 13/1/2003 he gave his regular lecture. Zachi Cohen asked him about this: Slavoj "The Gaze is generic to the Real". Zachi "what do you think of this and superposition in quantum physics". Slavoj "Oh my GOD it is interesting continue" Zachi "It is all about time-timeless" Then Zachi finished "psychoanalysis and Quantum Physics" Zachi sent it to slavoj E-MAIL after verifing with the assistant in the university that he got it. In 2005 Zachi continued with PAQP and send it again and Slavoj's assistent thanked Zachi over the phone. Now, read the Introduction of the Parallax View and p.200 - p.252 and read Zachi Cohen's PAQP

Now you promote Zizek at youtube - to you think you can edit in wikipedia ethically? And read this

RE: massage to slavoj zizek Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:24:24 +0200

I have no idea how to solve this problem.

Matjaz Hribar

---

Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 9:59 PM To: Hribar Matja‏ Subject: Fwd: massage to slavoj zizek

This is a wikipedia. To put additional information to articles, especially living persons, especially controversies, you should back them up with sources. (The 24ur.com video is not a proof in your defence, it's just describing your claim and then people talking in it basically discredit you.) The fact that I upload material to other internet sites in which Žižek prominently appears in no way conflicts with my activity on Wikipedia, so yes, I think I can edit Wikipedia as long as I remain within it's rules and the rule of Law. And the last part of your message makes no sense. What does someone named 'Matjaž Hribar' have anything to do with this? Did you just copy paste an email into this conversation? Why? Do you think that because someone from Slovenia sent you an email saying "I have no idea how to solve this problem.", that this is somekind of proof? Of what?

And just a side note. You claim to be versed in psychoanalysis to the extent of accusing Žižek of stealing your ideas. How is it then that you seem to be incapable of basic reflection on your internet activity? If what you claim would be true (that is, if Žižek would have stolen your ideas), then you would probably be smart enough to know that these kinds of accusations are very serious and should be dealt with through appropriate institutions. You are destroying your credibility and and perhaps even dignity with your activity. You made a YouTube video about my Wikipedia edit for chist's sake...

And please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes.

TheMariborchan (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor Error

The article has the name "Adrian Johnston" listed under the seventh full paragraph under the "Life" section. The link leads to a British musician. I do not believe this is correct as there is an Adrian Johnston who works as a professor of philosophy at the University of New Mexico who I know has written the stated book on Zizek.

So... I have no idea how to fix that or anything... figured it needed pointing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.5.17 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'll make DAB pages. If someone can actually write the aritcle on the Adrian Johnston of interest, that would help. LotLE×talk 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Heraclitus

If Heraclitus was called "the weeping philosopher", I would suggest Žižek be called "the sniffing philosopher." --Tsinfandel (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I suggest that the lede's first sentence as it stands now -- "...is a Hegelian philosopher, Lacanian theoretical psychoanalyst, Marxist political thinker, film theorist, and cultural critic" -- is overly detailed, unwieldy and confusing in its terminology. I have never understood this article's aversion to ascribing to Zizek a nationality. Perhaps somebody could explain it to me. I would suggest something like "...is a Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic working in the Hegelian and Lacanian traditions. He has made contributions to political theory, film theory, theoretical psychoanalysis, and cultural criticism." I realize this renders the last paragraph largely redundant, but something to this effect sounds more felicitous to me. Thoughts? Grunge6910 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the reworded lead as proposed by Grunge6910. LotLE×talk 07:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

German idealism

According to the article, At its most basic, German idealism believes that the truth of something could be found in itself. For Žižek, the fundamental insight of German idealism is that the truth of something is always outside it. This is very uninformative and seems to have nothing to do with German Idealism. After Kant had shown that the existence of God could not be proved, the German Idealists tried to rescue the concept of God by changing its designation from the word "God" to the word "Absolute." How do we go from that to Žižek's "fundamental insight"?Lestrade (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Lestrade