Philosophy | Tuesday, 26th July 2016

Fuck You Žižek!

Comments (6)

Got something to say? Please to leave a comment.

  • November 8, 2016 at 10:50 pm
    just one little issue about that Zabala guy from Barcelona... I would love to read what was it that he did not get from your essay. I remember bookmarking it and sharing it in social media, including sending it to my tutor at this UK uni. Spain is a very odd situation because it was there that the European Holy Roman Christian aristocrats take over after Rome colonies dissipated and managed to "re-conquer" the lands off the Al- Alandalus geographic and historic reality. By genociding and cleaning the races of Shephardi Jews and Arabs, they got also many many peoples who feigned the conversion and stayed etc. There is a whole feeling of being not either a Catalan ( which also belongs to the Frankish conquerors) or Castillian /Spanish. There is quite an interesting philosopher who talks a lot about this coordinates of fragmentations and how there is a real hispanic sediment that has also being victimised and erased by European supremacy. I guess that guy Zabala is the typical self subservient to a regime which happens a lot specially in very purist Catalan folks that are uber racist themselves and which to be French as once had been. There is many folks like us, that do not identify with this European hold in our civilisation. We feel southerners and mediterranean, we connect with our roots semitic and arab and we follow up Averroes and Ibn Arabí. There is an amazing wealth of philosophers and academics that are not interested whatsoever in defending Kant. One thing any way we know which is that eurocentric stance is based in france, germany and UK, in the case of Spain, the snob racist national catholic bunch.. but most of all this idea of superiority comes from either the French ( because their revolution and ideas of emancipation from Rome ) or by the protestants because of the same reason. Zizej is a boasting provocateur and he is really stupid, in this case he demonstrates that he as an East European subject, has nothing to do with all that Mediterranean deep wealth of ideas that where the ones who make up for a kind of renaissance, a times when even in Oxford, folks studied in Arab too. Before Kant and the monstrous dreams of Reason. 
  • September 7, 2016 at 11:41 am
    I find every thinker mention here pretty boring really.  I'll stick with Max Weber, Wittgenstein, Ernest Gellner, Perry Anderson.  There is no European philosophical mind  by the way.  And most of the post-colonial stuff comes from one place only: north american campuses.  
    • Geoff Garside
      September 9, 2016 at 7:02 am
      Geoff -- thanks to you and your obtuseness for demonstrating the need for this line of thought. You stick to whomever you want. We'll read them and ours as well. You can't perceive the limitations of the European perspective because you exist firmly within them.  You're likewise quite mistaken about where most of these critiques are coming from. You only see them as originating in US campuses because it's there that they gain visibility to your own limited field of perception.
      • C Diaz
        September 11, 2016 at 11:57 am
        The logic: "You, person A, can't perceive my, person B, perspective because you're not in it" says someone of perspective B about someone from a different perspective A. How can B tell that A has not accounted for B's perspective but dismissed it? How can B tell that A's opinion on B's perspective is valid or invalid, since B cannot, by his own admission, see himself and his arguments, B, from A's perspective?This divisive exclusionary claim is flawed.It might be true, but then nobody is in a position to be able to tell whether it is true, or just a matter of limited perspective.On the other hand it could be false. In which case it's legitimate for B to say, hey, have you thought of this from my perspective. So A needs to listen to B. But then B needs to listen to A again, rather than presume that A's comments will be invalid.It's quite possible that A could have simply made a mistake and that they are not onherently 'centric' to their power based cultural perspective.
      • C Diaz
        September 11, 2016 at 11:19 pm
        @ronmurp ironically, the 1st comment to this blog confirms C Diaz's assertion. Geoff responds with "I find every thinker mention [sic] here pretty boring really. I'll stick with Max Weber, [etc]." With no indication that Geoff has even read anything these thinkers have written, the mere mention of their names and a few quotations somehow leads him to conclude they're "pretty boring." He then hides behind a list of European thinkers as reason NOT to engage. This leads Geoff to contradict himself by saying the thinkers mentioned here are boring, when the essay directly engages with Weber in an affirmative manner. The very European thinker that Hamad says reveals the limits of European thought to be crossed is the same one Geoff uses as an excuse not to think <-- This  laziness, which simply refuses to engage and uses European thinkers as their unassailable justification for not engaging, is precisely the problem. While it's safe to say that Weber [and a number of other European intellectuals] would not support this, it does not deny how often they become the intellectual security blankets for people who simply hate to think that there's an outside to the province of Europe.
      • C Diaz
        September 11, 2016 at 11:28 pm
        One more thing: Certainly Zizek and Geoff aren't in the same category here. Zizek responds loves Fanon but doesn't follow Fanon's example. Yes, Fanon read Lacan & Hegel, but Fanon did so to surpass their original formulations by making people of the African diaspora, of the Arab world, & other groups subjects of thought in ways Lacan & certainly Hegel couldn't have imagined (and Hegel would've hated). Zizek reiterates (in useful ways) Lacan's and Hegel's ideas, but he doesn't transform them like Fanon, & doesn't need to, since Europe is Zizek's main subject. That's where Zizek's ideas can't maintain the universality he grants them. At least you used logic to play devil's advocate, in contrast to "pretty boring" a few scrolls above us.