[ SECRET POST #2729 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2729 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[killer is dead]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Lackadaisy]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Joe Trohman, Fall Out Boy]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Yowamushi Pedal]


__________________________________________________



06.
[How To Train Your Dragon 2]


__________________________________________________



07.
[A Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Fruit's Basket]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Community]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Rythian, a.k.a Joakim Hellstrand]


__________________________________________________



11.
[The Devil Wears Prada]


__________________________________________________



12.
[Night Court]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 057 secrets from Secret Submission Post #390.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Why did I read that?? (tw: multiple ick factors)

[feotakahari]

Your comment inspired me to look this guy up on Wikipedia. I actually understood his arguments as presented there--they're things like "Even if you dissected someone's brain, you wouldn't know what sort of person they are" and "The two-party system makes people think they have control, but it's really all controlled by corporations." Then I got to the part about "Criticism."

"The other path not trodden by thinkers like Žižek and Badiou is that of rethinking structural transformation and the construction of an alternative vision of social arrangements . . . For example, as a radical alternative to both Marx and Hegel, Unger offers a way of thinking about how the formative institutional and ideological structures of a society are established, and about how to reshape them. He proposes alternatives to the economic and political arrangements of contemporary societies, and argues that programmatic argument, rather than blueprints, should explore both the direction and the first steps of such changes . . . Žižek's refusal to present an alternative vision has led critics to accuse him of using unsustainable Marxist categories of analysis and having a 19th-century understanding of class. For example, Ernesto Laclau argued that "Žižek uses class as a sort of deus ex machina to play the role of the good guy against the multicultural devils."[30] The use of such analysis, however, is not systematic and draws on critical accounts of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as post-structuralism and Lacanian psychoanalysis."

I swear, this crap is to philosophy what the things Case's bosses say are to business. The only part of it that's even comprehensible is that folks say Zizek makes shit up, argues based on things that have been proven false, and deliberately misinterprets what other people meant.

Re: Why did I read that?? (tw: multiple ick factors)

[cushlamochree]

I know what you mean, but this specific example isn't TOO bad (especially if you just straight-up ignore the stuff about Unger, which I'm pretty sure is only in there because some superfan of Unger put it in there).

Essentially, what it's about is that Zizek is someone who acts like he still basically believes in revolutionary Marxism in a fairly classic sense. So the first part is about people (specifically Unger) accusing him of being trapped in an old-fashioned communism vs capitalism mindset, and the second part of it is people accusing him of failing to define what he's actually arguing, especially what his relation to classical Marxism is, and of using old-fashioned Marxist concepts that are no longer relevant in combination with a bunch of other systems of thought in ways that don't really fit together.

I mean, it's kind of true, in a way. The thing about Zizek is that he's almost a performance artist at times in addition to being a leftist thinker. He's really pretty ridiculous.