Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Conversation With Julian Assange, Slavoj Zizek & Amy Goodman (Live)

livestream.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: A Conversation With Julian Assange, Slavoj Zizek & Amy Goodman (Live)

#11

Post by pjscott »

kingkawn wrote: post #10
127 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested. Can you offer any source for this claim? I was considering of reading some of his writings but if he has to offer no value, I'd rather know in advance.

Relying on academics' opinions of their peers as a measure of value is not going to serve you well.

Not all academic fields are so subjective. In math, science, engineering, and so on, it's entirely normal to build a good or bad reputation based on the actual quality of your work.

(Full disclosure: about a year ago, I came to the conclusion that Zizek was full of shit, and that his main real skills were sounding profound, avoiding testable claims of any consequence, and getting other people to venerate him. I can't remember the specifics, though, so take this with the usual salt grain.)

Re: A Conversation With Julian Assange, Slavoj Zizek & Amy Goodman (Live)

#12

Post by pwpwp »

127 wrote: post #9
Perceval wrote: post #6

I'm in a poli-sci department with a bunch of continental political theorists. I cannot stand Slavok Žižek. Probably the biggest living bullshit artist in political theory.

I'm interested. Can you offer any source for this claim? I was considering of reading some of his writings but if he has to offer no value, I'd rather know in advance.

Zizek is highly interesting and entertaining.

Many of his articles are collected here: http://www.lacan.com/frameziz.htm

Re: A Conversation With Julian Assange, Slavoj Zizek & Amy Goodman (Live)

#13

Post by andrewvc »

127 wrote: post #9
Perceval wrote: post #6

I'm in a poli-sci department with a bunch of continental political theorists. I cannot stand Slavok Žižek. Probably the biggest living bullshit artist in political theory.

I'm interested. Can you offer any source for this claim? I was considering of reading some of his writings but if he has to offer no value, I'd rather know in advance.

He's one of a whole family of postmodern bullshit artists, similar to lacan, derrida, etc.

Read up on the Sokal hoax if you want to learn more about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair .

Re: A Conversation With Julian Assange, Slavoj Zizek & Amy Goodman (Live)

#14

Post by katovatzschyn »

Perceval wrote: post #6

I'm in a poli-sci department with a bunch of continental political theorists. I cannot stand Slavok Žižek. Probably the biggest living bullshit artist in political theory.

Can you offer any criticisms or arguments to support the claim that Slavok is a "bullshit artist," outside of the claim itself, or your own qualifications to so easily dismiss a prominent and respected public intellectual who commands respect and has a severe and extensive resume?

Re: A Conversation With Julian Assange, Slavoj Zizek & Amy Goodman (Live)

#15

Post by Estragon »

andrewvc wrote: post #13
127 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested. Can you offer any source for this claim? I was considering of reading some of his writings but if he has to offer no value, I'd rather know in advance.

He's one of a whole family of postmodern bullshit artists, similar to lacan, derrida, etc. Read up on the Sokal hoax if you want to learn more about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair .

Tarring all of postmodern theory with the Sokal hoax brush is like claiming that all of medicine is a fraud because of the Thalidomide disaster. Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that your reasoning here is at least as lazy and flawed as you're implying post modern theory to be.

Re: A Conversation With Julian Assange, Slavoj Zizek & Amy Goodman (Live)

#16

Post by n3m6 »

pjscott wrote: post #11
kingkawn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relying on academics' opinions of their peers as a measure of value is not going to serve you well.

Not all academic fields are so subjective. In math, science, engineering, and so on, it's entirely normal to build a good or bad reputation based on the actual quality of your work. (Full disclosure: about a year ago, I came to the conclusion that Zizek was full of shit, and that his main real skills were sounding profound, avoiding testable claims of any consequence, and getting other people to venerate him. I can't…

He talks about a lot of stuff and offers his opinion, which I guess you should take with a grain of salt. His actual field of expertise is in Ideology, and there I believe he can offer quite a lot. Regarding him "sounding profound", I guess it must be because of the way continental philosophers construct sentences, and us not being able to relate to their terms.

If you thought he was bad, you should listen to someone like Derrida (he's dead btw).

Re: A Conversation With Julian Assange, Slavoj Zizek & Amy Goodman (Live)

#17

Post by blendergasket »

n3m6 wrote: post #16
pjscott wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all academic fields are so subjective. In math, science, engineering, and so on, it's entirely normal to build a good or bad reputation based on the actual quality of your work. (Full disclosure: about a year ago, I came to the conclusion that Zizek was full of shit, and that his main real skills were sounding profound, avoiding testable claims of any consequence, and getting other people to venerate him. I can't…

He talks about a lot of stuff and offers his opinion, which I guess you should take with a grain of salt. His actual field of expertise is in Ideology, and there I believe he can offer quite a lot. Regarding him "sounding profound", I guess it must be because of the way continental philosophers construct sentences, and us not being able to relate to their terms. If you thought he was bad, you should listen to someone…

Regarding Derrida, I think a lot of what he was writing about was the fundamental biases inherent in language and how people use it. To coax these out he had to write in a way as to not get stuck inside these biases and to reflect them back on themselves. Christian mystics and George Bataille wrote in this way.

Not that Derrida is necessarily a mystic, but I think when talking about the limits and inherent biases of language, straight, rational writing gets stuck in the same traps the writer is seeking to extricate himself from, both the post-modernists and mystical writers throughout history have dealt with this.

The bit of Derrida I read had a structural element to it, that added to the content.

Re: A Conversation With Julian Assange, Slavoj Zizek & Amy Goodman (Live)

#18

Post by andrewvc »

Estragon wrote: post #15
andrewvc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's one of a whole family of postmodern bullshit artists, similar to lacan, derrida, etc. Read up on the Sokal hoax if you want to learn more about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair .

Tarring all of postmodern theory with the Sokal hoax brush is like claiming that all of medicine is a fraud because of the Thalidomide disaster. Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that your reasoning here is at least as lazy and flawed as you're implying post modern theory to be.

The hoax itself didn't undermine it all. You could reasonably make the case that it Social Text was simply lazy and just published shit w/o reading it.

Reading about the hoax, however, is a good way to introduce people to what PoMo theory is, and the problems with it, as it introduces some important people and perhaps the biggest criticism of lit-crit (that being the emperor has no clothes).

I read quite a bit of PoMo stuff in college, kept waiting for a point for it all to make sense. Ultimately, I realized it was just a giant community of fakes and charlatans with little of value to say.

The problem with arguing with lit-crit types is you cannot argue on their terms. Their game is a game of empty words, built upon the ramblings of countless self-indulgent writers and pseudo-philosophers before them.

There's nothing in the way of reality to anchor anything they say, so anything can be said, and points are scored for the most convoluted explanations of.... well... nothing. It's downright embarrassing.

But don't believe me, go read some for yourself and decide.

Oh, and Estragon, there was actually nothing in the way of 'reasoning' in my original comment. I simply gave a quick opinion and a single link that those interested in it might find interesting. I'm not sure why you construed it as such.

Post reply on HN