General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
I like Zizek. He trivializes, dumbs down a lot of angles coming from Continental philosophy, French philosophy that is, of the last 60 years. So it makes a lot of that more scholarly and difficult to understand stuff more accessible to people who like to read readable text. Often times these previous authors, IMO, are in it for some kind of mental masturbation; they write in circles, by this I do not mean the hermeneutic circle of going from a detail to the big picture to the detail back again, zooming in and out, but in circles as opposed to linear text that people are with normal sense of logic read.
Defenders of this circle-writing say that they only say the things precisely - and it's the price they have to pay. I say bullshit. Write linear, *******. If it is super difficult to understand the first time reading it, and the concept is very simple, then it's poorly written. Most scientific classics are really simply written, because the authors are geniuses. Back to Zizek. He takes away those circles and plays a role of making these lines of thought accessible to everyone. This is what I appreciate about the man. He also is fairly interesting with his chosen topics. But there is something superficial about him I cannot quite realize, perhaps too much trivializing things. It's always a bad sign when dickheads praise someone, and that someone is actually calling the dickheads dickheads. Meaning that the dickheads don't even get it. It's not Zizek's fault, but it's annoying regardless. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|