Talk:Slavoj Žižek/Archive 2

Slavoj Žižek & Glyn Daly, Conversations with Žižek
I think this book should be mentioned. But where do I put it? In the bibliography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariborchan (talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Zizek on Chavez
I was just wondering, when Zizek said that "those resisting the state (in Venezuela) are the big capitalists, fox hunters and the Bill Gates of the world", was he saying this prior to the popular riots, or after they took place? It would be interesting to know what he thinks of Chavez now, the no-longer-demigod Chavez, the Chavez who is more hated in the slums than in upper class salons? Anyone have a clue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.73.145 (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?
It seems like 79.77.145.209 has made a few strange edits... Can someone rollback these? Cheers Stephen LaPorte (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Ontology section
Although ZenSufi's version was not perfect it was a better introduction than what replaced it. Also those same points were repeated later in the article. Mention of Althusser is dated as well. I have reverted to ZenSufi's version. DocFaustRoll

Life and Work
I added reference to the DVD publication of 'The Pervert's Guide to Cinema'. --Christofono 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Christianity
Didn't Zizek write a book or essay called, "The Perverse Core of Christianity"? If so I don't see it in the bibliography. --Teetotaler
 * It is the subtitle of The Puppet and the Dwarf. Skarioffszky 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Feminism
Maybe a word could be said on his reading of Otto Weininger and of his interpretation of Lacan concerning feminism ? Lapaz 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Style
I find this article completely unreadable. Whoever wrote it was trying to write a dissertation to God in Arameic, then transliterated it when it was rejected for human consumption. If you can't explain something, you don't understand it.

Major problems with this article
I agree with the below criticism that the material, especially on the "formation of the subject," should be better referenced. I also think that the explanations of the real, the imaginary, and the symbolic are actually highly interpretive and not encyclopedic -- possibly why they are unreferenced. Whoever wrote them is not describing Zizek's positions in any clear way but rather interpreting Zizek and Lacan on subject formation. Furthermore, the explanations are badly written (I've seen much bettter exegeses of Lacanian theory, i.e. consult the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Zizek). Instead of these sketchy interpretations of subject formation in Zizek/Lacan, we should include a section like "Appropriation of Lacan," and discuss Zizek's unique mode of appropriation and deployment of Lacanian theory and leave the exegesis of Lacanian theory itself to Lacan's wiki article. It should be noted that committed Lacanian psychoanalysts generally do not take Zizek as Lacanian, because Zizek is using Lacan in his own, far-from-Lacanian, project of cultural analysis/critique. In general this article should more clearly discuss Zizek's (changing) positions and his methods, rather than technically interpreting his problematic Lacaniansm. We need someone familiar with Zizek's works in English and with Lacan to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.217.165 (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, I think the article would not lose anything if the sections on the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary were completely removed. The introductory section on the formation of the subject does not require the subsequent in-depth explanations of the real, the symbolic and the imaginary. As a new Wikipedian, I will wait and see if anyone else agrees with me, and then I would be willing to remove those sections and do a general polish on the other sections. infotainmentnihilist, 13:23, 6 June 2006 (GMT)


 * I strongly oppose such removal. I agree that there is something a bit off in the selection bias of those topics; some editor found those topics ones s/he wanted to address, and it gives the false impression that those are the universal or primary concepts Zizek uses (they're definitely important, but so are some others).  But the discussions themselves are perfectly reasonable, and relatively good.  However, if that discussion were taken out, we'd be left with a really emaciated biography stub, which is hardly a good goal.  Instead, I think Infotainmentnihilist's efforts could much better be spent adding a section (or a few) on other important Zizekian concepts to balance the discussion.  LotLE × talk  16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Although, of course, adding more sections will inevitably increase the length of an already quite lengthy article. As for aspects of Zizek's thought which I think could be added, I propose: his work on the decline of the paternal function and his anti-essentialist approach to class struggle. However, I think these belong to the sections on postmodernism and politics respectively. infotainmentnihilist, 12:29, 7 June (GMT)


 * Sorry, I just re-read the sections on postmodernism and politics, and I think the fleeting reference to the decline of the paternal function and the couple of sentences on class struggle are sufficient. In any case, I intend to write a separate article on the decline of the paternal function relatively soon and I will add a link once that's done.infotainmentnihilist, 13:00, 7 June (GMT)


 * I wouldn't say the article is "lengthy" now. It's 34k, which is hardly the longest bio, even of academics.  Moreover, about half the article is just bibliographic items (either book info, or links to articles), which is worth having but not the same thing as narrative description.  So somewhere less than 20k describing Zizek's thought, biography, etc.


 * Well... just because something's covered fleetingly doesn't mean it might not be fleshed out a bit more. Whether or not to add subsections or just paragraphs isn't too important.  And moreover, I'm not against condensing the Real/Symbolic/Imaginary stuff a bit, if you feel like you can do so without losing the gist of the presentation.  The current descriptions do have a bit of that "college paper" feel to them... not a bad college paper, but a little different from the best encyclopedia tone.


 * I guess I'm modestly "inclusionists" as the WP habits go. I prefer to add more material to a topic, then refactor it into child/sibling articles as it grows, to follow summary style and WP:SIZE. I'm not nearly as absolutist in such an attitude as many editors: some things are definitely not worth including on WP at all; and more words is not better in itself.  Moreover, I thought that an earlier draft that had more words about semi-notable critics than it did about Zizek and his thought itself, showed a bad undue weight unbalance.  But even that was solved (IMO) by refactoring the critics stuff into a child article rather than simply deleting it (though some of it was pretty contentious and POV; but I helped tone it down).  But should the presentation of Zizek's own thought grow longer than WP:SIZE suggests (still a long way to go), we can always factor out a child on "Zizek's use of Lacanian concepts" or something like that, then have the main bio just point briefly to that side discussion.  LotLE × talk  12:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section on metaphysics which both foreshadows the later stuff on the Symbolic, the Real and the Imaginary and highlights some of the differences between Zizek and Lacan. It also foreshadows the sections on postmodernism and politics too. I will try to do a polish on those later sections tomorrow. infotainmentnihilist, 15:40, 7 June (GMT)


 * Thanks to LotLE for the polish on the metaphysics section - very useful and sensible edits! As you will know, Zizek's writing style often makes it hard to pin him down to a particular philosophical claim; he frequently leaves open the possible defence that he is merely explicating Lacan and Hegel for us, rather than actually putting forward the thesis as his own. However, the reference in the Canning interview I have cited is the most explicit defence of German Idealism I am aware of in Zizek's own words. infotainmentnihilist, 16:22, 8 June 2006 (GMT)


 * I must strongly object to the metaphysics section. It seem rather un-encylopedic; the encyclopedia, it seems to me, should seek to introduce the lay reader to a particular subject, not throw him into a mess of philosphical terminology.  In addition, I think it's totally off the mark to begin the section with the claim that some argue that Zizek is an idealist.  In many places, including the recent The Parallax View, Zizek states that his project is to resurrect dialectical materialism.  Although Zizek is certainly a Hegelian, we must also remember that he is a Marxist, and Marx builds upon Feuerbach's claim that Hegelian Idealism is standing on its head.  Zizek, in The Parallax View, proposes an alternative definition of the idealist/materialist split.  Rather than created in the mind versus created outside of the mind from material (and one can immediately see the Cartesian presuppositions in this doxatic definition), Zizek reads the split in a Lacanian and Heideggerian fashion.  He explains that idealism presupposes a totalizing All, the idea that we can somehow think the whole of the world.  Materialism, on the contrary, claims that there is something fundamentally unthinkable (the Real, more or less, but not yet conceived parallaxically).  That is, there is a sort of gap running through reality which is what allows us to conceive of things in the first place.  This borrowing of meaning (the idea that some meaning must always be assumed for anything to mean anything) or in Heideggerian terms, the ontological cut in the ontic, is eventually where Zizek locates the unphenomenalizable death drive and is what gives us our subjectivity (or "free will," perhaps, if you prefer).  Zizek is proposing what he calls a "materialist theology," which is a reading of Kierkegaard in non-totalizing terms (the non-All) in order to use his ideas in a materialist fashion, which contradicts the assertion that Zizek is an idealist.  It seems to me that the metaphysics section needs a major rewrite, but I'd like to hear your thoughts first. Zensufi 03:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like the metaphysics section either now, as I agree that it probably belongs to a specific POV reading of Zizek which is focussed on specific texts and a specific period of his career. I vote for either complete deletion or a rewrite (along the more up-to-date, contemporary lines that you have proposed). I must admit, however, that I am less familiar with this more recent work, and wouldn't be up to doing the rewrite myself. infotainmentnihilist 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. It seems to me much of the article needs a rewrite, because if you don't know philosophy it doesn't make any sense.  I'll work on the metaphysics section and see what I can do with it in the next few days. Zensufi 12:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you did an good job with the rewrite. It is much more credible now. I was the one who added that he called himself a "materialist" and was gearing up to rewrite this as no one could claim credibly that he is an idealist. My one nitpick would be that we need an introductory graph that just comes out and says he is an idiosyncratic "materialist." I've done just that. I prefer ontology here but your mileage may vary. DocFaustRoll 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right about calling it ontology rather than metaphysics. I've gone ahead and changed it.  You also made a good comment on my talk page about the idea that we should perhaps talk about Zizek's earlier metaphysical approaches before jumping into parallax.  I disagree.  Parallax is Zizek's first systematic treatment of ontology, and furthermore I think we see these same ideas adumbrated in his earlier texts.  I don't think we can consider Zizek an ontological philosopher per se until his most recent work even if there is some discussion of ontology previously.  Unless there are significant differences in his earlier work, I think we should let parallax be the major focus of the ontology section.  On the other hand, considering that Zizek is primarily a cultural and political philosopher, it might make sense to put this stuff towards the top of the article and leave ontology for later.  How can ontology possibly be the first thing we discuss regarding a Marxist Lacanian?  Unfortunately, the article is still pretty nasty.  The ontology section is still guilty of not making much sense unless you have a decent background in philosophy. Zensufi 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [Edit: I'm also a bit bothered by the fact that I seem to portray Zizek as a non-atheist philosopher, as if he doesn't reject God and acts sort of like Paul Tillich.  I really don't know what to do with this example, because it exactly explains the split between materialism and idealism.  Marxism and atheism is difficult, especially given that comment in Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts where he implies that atheism presupposes the same conception of man as theism and that what's really needed is the additional step of aufhebung.  I'm not sure what to do.]


 * I think you are right on to emphasize parallax here. Not only because it is an explicit attempt to engage ontology, but also because ziz keeps changing and updating his thinking. The last word is the best here. He has made some of the same engagements with ontology before nonetheless as he did in his book on Deleuze, and that may be a clue as to why the emphasis on ontology. I vote for leaving ontology at the top here as it is also a familiar item on many philosopher pages and will offer a quick hit on where he stands. You have definitely made some improvements. Let's see what else we can do. My earlier point was just that some intro sentence should be in place as it is now. Also, thanks for the copy edit. I was lost between existent and extant. ;-) DocFaustRoll 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

ZenSufi's emphasis on Marxism in discussion of how to place Zizek is, I think, good and in fact less misleading than the emphasis on Lacan. I agree that more improvements can be made as well. DocFaustRoll 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

ZenSufi, I actually agree with your point that the emphasis on theology was too much for an entry that perhaps should go into materialism and reductionist materialism, although I want to keep some of your entry as I think it gets at his work. DocFaustRoll 02:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Audio Pronunciation
The pronunciation is correct, but when I listen to the file I don't hear to the end of the last name. Does anyone else have this problem? Zensufi 09:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. The final "k" is not heard at all. It should, however, be clearly pronounced. Sanjin Vukojevic 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case I will delete it until we find a correct audio file. Zensufi 23:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Slovenian, but that's how HE pronounced his name. If you watch the documentary, Zizek!, there is a TV interview where the presenter asks if he pronounced his name correct, and Zizek pronounces it back to him. That's probably as close as you'll get at the correct prononciation. On what ground are you saying that you need to hear the K? If anyone think they know how to pronounce it, please record yourself and post a link here on the talk page. I'm getting curious. :) Here's the audio file for those who want to listen to it, and can confirm if it's correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Slavoj_Zizek.ogg NoiZy 03:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that file Zizek himself speaking? (I've heard him speak, but am not certain if that's his voice). While I cannot really speak to Slovenian pronunciation, the file doesn't sound obviously truncated to me. Instead it just sounds like an unreleased K (IPA "K?") to me.  LotLE × talk  04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the larger context from which I took that audio clip. Listen for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zizek_interview.ogg NoiZy 05:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now it's obvious that because of cutting from the original .ogg file the final "k" has been lost. The "k" should be pronounced as in "link", or "Bullock". Trust me, this comes from 15 years of living and schooling in Slovenia. Anyway, even if you pronounced the name without it, there would be no misunderstanding about the identity of the subject and would suffice for every Slovenian. :-) Sanjin Vukojevic 12:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. So if we do have the audio file, it should include the pronunciation of the final "k".  I saw the documentary too, and I promise you he pronounces the final "k". Zensufi 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll leave it to the experts. Hope you can replace it with an appropriate clip. NoiZy 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is something of minor philosophical import in this issue in that the Ziz has said that he does not want English speakers to attempt to pronounce his name correctly, but rather with a Z as in Ziz and a hard k. Something about disregarding pretention and getting to the point of a discussion DocFaustRoll 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this humorous tidbit?Frank Zamjatin (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From now on I shall call him "Slavoj, my boy" or "Comrade." Zensufi 21:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Laibach and NSK
Some mention should be made of his affiliation of NSK and Laibach. He edited, and wrote the introduction for, Interrogation Machine, a critical analysis of NSK. He was also interviewed in A film from Slovenia, a documentary about Laibach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.12.102 (talk • contribs)

critiques of zizek
I think this should be merged into this page, because it seems to be giving undue weight to his critics. Few thinkers have pages devoted to critiques of them. Jimmyq2305 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This was factored out precisely to avoid undue weight in this biography. Far less harm is done to the bio by a separate discussion of criticsm than is by having half the article devoted to distinctly non-notable critics.  LotLE × talk  04:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Concur with Lulu on this one. both the primary page and the critics page could use improvement as well. DocFaustRoll 05:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, it needs to be either a) completely done away with or b) changed into something semireputable. having a separate page that is basically a david bordwell manifesto republished on wiki is unconscionable. honestly, and im sure you would agree, there needs to be a wide scale investigation as to NPOV regarding the content of the pages of continental philosophers as compared to those of analytics. sartre has a criticism section. nietzche has a detailed discussion of critiques of his views, heidegger has separate sections for nazi and non-nazi related critiques; wittgenstein has no criticism section (and portrays him as wholly analytic), bertrand russell has no criticism section, nor does george edward moore, gottlob frege, rudolph carnap, willard van orman quine or any canonical analytic figure. Nevertheless, their criticisms of continental philosophers are always on the continental thinkers article. This critiques article is not scholarship, its a pamphlet. ive flagged it and noted it, and if i dont hear from anyone who is going to defend it, im going to gut it, merge it, and replace all of the current references with serious critics of zizek that would be useful to someone interested in zizek. Jimmyq2305 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah... I strongly agree. If you look at my efforts (last March or so) to get the Zizek criticisms made slightly less doggerel, and then eventually spun off to where they cause less undue weight, you'll see the enormous number of hours I've poured into this.  Moreover, still worse is the fact that many/most of the "criticisms" sections of continental philosophers are purely ad hominem insults, along the lines of Sokal's complaints that it "must be bad because I don't understand it".  In this respect, the Zizek criticisms aren't quite as bad as those of Butler, Irigaray, Kristeva, etc (although those are three that I've made efforts to get to suck less): Bordwell is "special pleading", but at least he's nominally in one of the right fields to engage in the discussion.


 * But really the solution here is just to make the criticisms child article suck less. And I see, Jimmyq2305, that you've made some effort in that regard (though I no longer have the child watchlisted).  Still, in practical terms, readers who are interested in Zizek, but not yet knowledgeable, will come to this main bio first.  And I think the main bio is "pretty good".  Not without room for improvement, but overall relatively fair and well written.  LotLE × talk  14:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimmy, for whatever it is worth, I understand your concern re analytic versus continental philosophers. However, strategically and practically, editing and work must be page by page and subject by subject. If you want to add a critiques of Wittgenstein section or page, please do, as there is tremendous material on that subject. Having a critics section or subpage is valuable in that it allows for the presentation of multiple points of view on any subject.
 * I agree with Lulu that the main page is improving here, and that the subpage needs some serious work. Let me take a crack at it. DocFaustRoll 17:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of Zizek
The pictures of Zizek in this article are quite low quality, and capture him in an ugly fashion. I really think they should be replaced with something nicer and/or of higher quality. I don't think anybody would appreciate having themselves in ugly poses (in my opinion of ugly - in fact the picture of him lecturing isn't ugly but only very low quality, yet the one of him sitting I'd say is truly ugly) placed in such a widely-seen encyclopedia as Wikipedia. Does anybody else agree with this? It's just something I thought should be noted and considered. &mdash;165.228.129.11 05:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can provide GFDL or PD images of better quality, we would love to use them. LotLE × talk  14:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that free-use is heavily preferred, but I have discovered this, if anyone wants to use it (I'm not sure whether it's totally necessary, unlike in Tank Man or Campbell's Soup Cans for example.) --Estrellador* 19:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia photo copyright policy, but I like the link you provide to the Zizek pic. It would be a lot nicer than the one that's up right now. Pschelden 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Somebody, please remove those pictures and put something nicer there. They are of low quality and quite ugly - demeaning to the man's public image. Though I must admit that it is difficult to find pictures of Slavoj of a high quality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Covervalid (talk • contribs) 12:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * As always, better pictures with proper copyright terms are very welcomed. We simply cannot use photos in violation of their copyright, however.  LotLE × talk  15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I too would really like to see a better quality photo of Zizek. I  believe the use of photos freely provided to promote ZIZEK! would qualify as Non-free promotional fair use.  This high quality photo, which would be credited to Kate Milford of Zeitgeist films, is particularly nice.  Are there any objections to this?  Riot Hero 01:28, 01 July 2007 (UTC)

The pictures from the film certainly seem to be better quality. If added to article, some explicit tie to the film should be indicated, such as in the image caption. For fair-use purposes, a still from the film is relevant to discussion of the film itself, but not per se to discussion of its subject matter. However, the film is discussed in the article (as it should be); let's just make the use rationale evident in the text. LotLE × talk 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Lisp?
I'm not a student of Slavoj Žižek, but after listening to a featurette he contributed to, he appears to speak with a rather pronounced lisp, beyond his "accent". Whilst it in no part compares to the information of his life's work, it is certainly a noticeable trait. Should any mention be made to it in this article? Vampus 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am neither his student, though have recently been watching videos of him speaking in English on YouTube. I thought it was his accent, but now on closer inspection, and on inspection of him speaking in French in which he is supposedly much more fluent in speech though I am unsure (all from videos on YouTube); I notice that it really is quite a prominent lisp and not merely his accent.


 * I believe that it's definitely notable and definitely should be noted, though how would one incorporate it into the article? One cannot simply randomly throw in after some paragraph: "p.s. he has a prominent lisp". Where is one to put such comments, and how is one to comment without sounding slanderous? If it is to be commented on it should be commented on in some constructive way. &mdash;Completely Insane 12:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The crucial thing to keep in mind is WP:RS. If a citable source mentions Zizek's lisp (assuming he has one; I also just thought his sibilants were a Slovenian thing), we can include that.  But our personal interpretation of his accent/speech pattern is WP:OR.  LotLE × talk  21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've found a few links which make reference to his (apparent) lisp, though you may have to be the judge as to how they came to these conclusions., , . My conclusions were drawn after listening to two featurettes he contributed to for the DVD release of Children of Men. Vampus 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Zizek's personal life
Zizek is not longer married to Analia Hounie, the Argentinean model. Also to state that he is fluent in Serbo-Croatian, English and French seems irrelevant to the article. These two references should be deleted. Bobbyperou 4:56, 16 April (UTC)

When were they divorced? Do you have a link to a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axisnote (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have edited the article to indicate this. Whoever previously deleted the statement shouldn't have, they should have merely modified it.


 * As for the irrelevance of his multilingualism, this is entirely false. Of course it is relevant, such traits are very important (for example he is able to, and has, propagated his philosophy much more due to having these familiarities; not to mention that knowing so many languages is also indicative to some degree of a person's character), and noting them is not against precedent of other Wikipedia articles. But indeed in its present place it may seem a little strange, and perhaps a special section (following the example and style of other biographical articles) should be created where all this information about his personal life is to be housed (i.e. his multilingualism, marriage(s), etc).


 * These things are definitely notable. Just because they seem strange in an article which principally talks about academics is no argument. Despite the fact that an encyclopedic article is initially created due to the achievement of a person (or some other facet) and not the "trifles" of their everyday lives, such trifles do have tremendous effect on a person and are thus important and interesting. One does not merely want to state what a person has done, but also to set the context of their lives. &mdash;Completely Insane 09:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Catalog quote
The article had this alleged A&F catalog description by Zizek:


 * An example from this catalogue: "Duds, duds, get 'em while they're hot.  I wouldn't wear that shirt except for maybe on laundry day.  This past week, I went through three more dress shirts than usual; one I spilled coffee on, one got really sweaty in the metro.  I hate the metro sometimes, but, hey, you got to get around.  The other one got stuck in the back of my dresser drawer.  As usual, it's all about ergonomics.  I didn't much like that shirt anyways, but I should really stop putting them in my dresser.  Iron, iron, ion, oiron.  Repetitive motion.  Getting bloody calluses, and maybe carpal tunnel.  My teeth have been hurting lately, too."

I dunno... this really doesn't read much like Zizek to me. It looks much more like someone's amateurish effort to parody him to me. I could be wrong, but it definitely shouldn't be there without some verifiable citation.

I'm not sure such a long quote from what would have to be considered minor writing belongs in the article, even if true... but it definitely doesn't if false. LotLE × talk 14:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Zizek's Ontology
A week ago I changed the contents of Zizek's ontology. The reason being the absurdity of the former text. It really read like a back cover brochure. I would very much appreciate that whoever reverted to that nonsense gives an explanation. Bobbyperou 09:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bobby, I reverted that. Your change both repeated things that you also added elswhere in the article, and your change was not clear. You offered no clear introduction. Also your description of Zizek's ontology looks a little dated. I don't see Althusser for example mentioned once in Parallax. The section is certainly worth improving, but not by completely removing the old text and putting your own in there. Perhaps you could try some minor edits. ZenSufi wrote this a number of months ago. DocFaustRoll 16:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Doc, I wish first to apologize for my bluntness back to April 20, perhaps I should have taken a more diplomatic way to express my views. Well, as to Zizek's ontology let me assure that it is well accepted in academic circles the perception of his (Zizek's) three main categories: the Cartesian subject, ideology (revised) and the Lacanian Real. The concept of hegemony for instance recurs in "The Parallax View" (especially when he addresses the Master-Signifier) and in the same book he posits Spinoza as a anti-Cartesian. You begin your exposition by saying that "Zizek's ontology is an "idiosyncratic materialism". Well, what do you mean by "idiosyncratic materialism"? or that Zizek "engages contemporary theories of ontology and epistemology, emphasizing discontinuities and contradictions within existing systems of thought"? You should elaborate on that because - and please don't get upset - otherwise they sound empty and show a lack of articulation (and maybe understanding?). What if you do a different page titled "The Parallax View"? As to you arguing that "The Sublime Object" or any other work from the 90s /early 2000 is outdated, please reconsider your "reasoning"... So, I don't know if "Zizek's ontology" will eventually get to the stage of mediation, in the meantime I'll do some minor edits, as you suggest, trying to accomodate the various interest and also trying to write less cryptic and more "legible". Last but not least let me remind what Zizek says in "Parallax": Materialism means that the reality I see is never "whole" - not because a large part of it eludes me, but because it contains a stain, a blind spot, which signals my inclusion in it. Best, Bobbyperou 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bobby,

Absolutely no offence taken. I only ask you for some rigor. I agree that the word "idiosyncratic" is imprecise. That is a useful criticism. I or you should change that.

However, we need some cites for your contributions. What is this vague "reference" to "academic circles"? Unless you are prepared to mention your academic background and specific department of study, that comes off as weak reaching for authority. Your contributions to Zizek should at this point tighten the article and improve upon it, not add to the mess. The Deleuze page is a good model.

Furthermore, you still do not directly address ontology with your mention of three main categories of (what?) in Zizek. Again, please look at the Deleuze page for a model in which several people came to shared agreement (with citation) about how to clearly explain his metaphysics and his politics in different sections.

You seem to be parroting a weak summary of some areas of inquiry for Zizek and then you appear to be unskillfully stuffing that summary into a section that is inappropriate for that summary.

If you are going to meaninfully contribute, you should provide citations and you should apply the relevance test to your contributions. DocFaustRoll 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Doc, I'll look at Deleuze for a model and we'll see from there. By the way there are two Zizek's that refer to Lacan and Deleuze in the web (they will be published next year in Germany).Bobbyperou 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we can both come to some concord and collaborate on this entry. Every one of your points is a valid mention of some aspect of Zizek's work. I merely question whether they all belong in the ontology subsection and what prominence they should be given when judged agains his most current formulations and most current articulations. I see that you have worked on the Badiou page. For the last decade, Ziz's collaboration with Badiou and Agamben has been central to his work. A mention of Badiou would be relevant. I would prefer to use wikipedia convention and discuss any changes with you before I modify the ontology section again. I am reading Parallax myself now, so I can contribute something from my reading of his latest summa of his thinking. DocFaustRoll 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many "levels".
Too many levels were previously used in this article. One should not go beyond "===" -- it is poor practice. Pretty much all other articles I have seen about philosophers, or anything for that matter, are thus. It screws up the contents' appearance (check the article's history). And is additionally just plainly ugly and confusing. &mdash;Panelhurry 07:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The link to this page seems not to be workig properly; you can see that from the address bar above.

Rosa Lichtenstein 01:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

orthodox lacanian stalinist
Zizek's self-description is quoted in the first section of the article without regard for his highly ironic rhetorical style. Were someone unacquainted with Zizek to take this description literally, it would almost certainly lead to a perception of Zizek widely off the mark. This quote should either be qualified or moved farther down in the article. (For more on what Zizek *may* mean when he refers to Stalin, see the New Yorker article entitled "The Marx Brother". For example, "Stalin, on the other hand, functions for Zizek as a kind of stock gag.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.24.199 (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Zizek personally states (in the documentary "Zizek!") that his sarcasm (as he calls it) in using this phrase is partly to conceal that fact that he is being serious. He adds that the shock caused is here politically necessary to reclaim certain concepts traditionally associated with the left but that were later appropriated by mid-20th century fascism. Dawnfrenzy 08:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * like what specifically? mass murder? Or is he referring to the fact that the left is usually associated nowadays with peace protests and anti-war raving, as opposed to action and radical revolutionaries? Can someone add a section to the article about his views on violence. He recently wrote a book on it, and while I've yet to read it, I'm sure many of you Zizekheads have done so already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.73.145 (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the entry on Zizek rather shy in addressing his political stance, particularly his position regarding Stalin, Lenin, violence and totalitarianism. It could be the consequence of his willing ambiguity to locate himself in the political spectrum. The quotation above by Dawnfrenzy is very telling: Zizek states he uses sarcasm to avoid the criticism that an ordinary remark supporting Stalinism would cause. On this topic a reading of his Introduction to 'Robespierre' and to his 'Lenin' are very relevant.

Influence still
What the heck is going on with all the mostly anonymous semi-vandals who insert rather gratuitous "influences" in Zizek's infobox? This is just so annoying.

The latest was Alain Badieu. A perfectly good philospher whom Zizek read, of course. In that past it's been Kierkegaard; also an excellent thinker, whom Zizek mentions passingly in a couple books. Or Philip K. Dick has appeared a bunch (ditto, good fiction writer whom Zizek read). I think some folks like Foucault, Baudrilard, Kant, and so on jumped in here also.

What I would suggest as a rather clear and obvious criteria is that any alleged influence whose influence is not specifically addressed in the body of the article has no place in the infobox as such. Yes, Zizek has read (and writes about) hundreds of different thinkers in the course of his books... all of them are "influences" in some trite sense. But the infobox is for no more than a half-dozen most central influences. LotLE × talk 05:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall Clarity of the section on Ontology
I would like to provide some comments on the clairty of this section. I am not a scholar of Zizek, but am very knowledgable in other areas of philosophy and have researched for over 4 years now, These following comments are not without justification. I study philosophy full time (Phenomenology and Contemporary Analytic Philosophy of Mind) and it seems who has ever written the subject of ontology has thrown about some faily big words without perhaps understanding their meaning in philosophy. For starters, Sentence 1: "Žižek's ontology posits a return to the category of the Cartesian subject; a return to the category of ideology; and a return to the notion of the Lacanian Real."

The notion of the Cartesian subject is clear enough. But answer me, What is "The Category of Ideology" Ideology! As an Ontology! How can "Ideology" exist? Like we can talk of ideology most definately! But its not an ontological category such as Rocks, Stones, Human Beings, Thoughts, Time etc etc. If Zizek argues this, that needs to be made clear, because the way that sentence is written is total gobldygook. The Lacanian Real.... it might well be ontological..... but that needs to be justified. Most practising philosophers would have no clue what the Lacanian Real is, less how it relates to ontology!!!!!!!

I think the rest of it makes sense well enough, in an undergraduate essay sort of way, which is fine. The clarity of the writing is hopeless but one with enough background knowledge could figure it out. But I think that what needs to happen is to not make an already obtruse writer more obtruse, but a clarification of his ideas and a tone that is not so assuming of prerequisite knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.70.149 (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that it could be tweaked for better clarity. Zizek's conception of ontology is different from the standard definition of ontology/has a particular Lacanian context/derivation. Ontology--the study of being--is predicated on the Lacanian concept of the"other." In Lacan, this is petit objet a and the Big Other, which have a function in ordering the symbolic (society itself)--hence ontology is ideological in Lacan/Zizek. (Huge oversimplification, but, attempt at explanation).-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

--the following, from bullet point # 2 under ontology is not a viable english sentence: "It can be argued however that Žižek's most original aspect comes from its insistence that a Lacanian model of the barred or split subject, because of its stipulation that individuals' deepest motives are unconscious, can be used to demonstrate that ideology has less become irrelevant today than revealed its deeper truth (see Matthew Sharpe, Slavoj Žižek.)"76.14.67.219 (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge bibliography
Well, we all know that Žižek has written absurdly many books, and even more articles. Someone recently added (via copying and touching up the French version) a whole bunch of article references. While these are nice to have in some sense, I don't think they're really encyclopedic; WP ain't an academic CV, but rather a discussion and summary of a thinker. It seems a bit wrong for the French Wikipedia, but I don't edit that.

What I wish we could do was point readers, with a single external link, to such a comprehensive bibliography. I don't know if that exists out in the world. If not, I'm reluctant to just delete all the refs, but still feel like that's the right thing to do. WP:NOT just a collection of facts (or citations). LotLE × talk 22:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who transferred the links. I just skimmed the WP:NOT and found the section you were probably referring to about NOT collecting links. It's sad because I actually do use wikipedia as a resource to find articles and such written by the people covered, so this kind of huge bibliography is a goldmine for me. If anyone can find a link to an external database, or if anyone wants to make this huge bibliography into an external database and link to it (*thinks wishfully*), that would be awesome... Also, I've noticed that there are some wikipedia pages that are just big lists (e.g., List of nineteenth-century British periodicals). This is probably a faux pas, but can we just make a List of articles by Slavoj Žižek page and add the disputed section to it?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a child article like you suggest is a good approach. If "List of articles" doesn't get AfD'd, a non-verbose link to it would be great for this article.  I'd be happy to host the bibliography on my own website, which would make it external, but my site doesn't really meet WP:RS (I'm just a guy with a domain name, not a research institution, newspaper, whatever).  LotLE × talk  23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So I created that article here: List of articles by Slavoj Žižek, but I'm thinking I'll leave the bibliography up on this article until it looks like the List article will stay for good or go. Speaking of, is there a way to find out one way or another whether the article I just created is WP acceptable? Thanks for the help and input on all of this!--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and feel free to just delete those extra articles and add the link to that List if you (or anyone) feel(s) confident about it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The only way to really know whether the child article will stick around is to see if it gets nominated for AfD, and if it does, what the consensus is. That said, I'll do the moving now.  If the child has a problem, we'll worry about that when the time comes (I'd vote keep, FWIW).  LotLE × talk  01:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Misreading WP:CRIT
I had not noticed that an editor had, without any discussion, merged the "Critiques" article into this one a couple weeks ago. This is definitely a very bad idea, as it creates a gross WP:UNDUE weight in this article. Moreover, the justification in the edit comment about WP:CRIT is a dramatic misreading of that essay... what the essay warns about is criticism sections firstly, which the editor stuck in at huge length. Given how we've recently split off the (very long) bibliography, I think we can move the article towards something closer to WP:SUMMARY style. Splitting off bits is the way to do that.

I'm not unaware of the WP:COATRACK or WP:FORK issue with the Critiques child article, but I think a neutral tone can be maintained there. Unlike in the case of politicians, or actors, or singers, philosophers really do live in the medium of critique, so having a child isn't so inherently POV as it would be for those other types of WP:LIVING persons. LotLE × talk 08:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merging Critiques of Slavoj Zizek into this article was a good idea; 'Critiques of Slavoj Zizek' is not a subject that is notable enough to deserve its own article. Skoojal (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I might vote delete if you AfD'd it.... but I would definitely not ever allow insertion of material completely irrelevant to biography. "Criticism" sections are a real scourge on WP biographies, and quickly destroy good articles with infinite "me-too-ism" where every random grad student who says something critical of a thinker (or other public figure) suddenly becomes "balance."


 * Please try to remember that biographies on WP are biographies! If something doesn't help readers understand who a profiled person is, it has no place in an biographic article. A limited amount on critical reception, if worked into the main flow can sometimes be valuable; but coatracks to hang every bit of nastiness towards a bio figure who pops out of the woodwork reduces WP to a tabloid.  LotLE × talk  04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposing to delete Critiques of Slavoj Zizek is a good idea; I'll probably do just that. Thank you for the suggestion. And believe it or not, I take your point about criticism sections. Skoojal (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Useless to Lay Reader, And Perhaps Useless
I'm a reasonably intelligent person with two advanced degrees (neither of which are in Philosophy), but couldn't understand 90% of the section on Ontology and several of the sections that follow. In my experience with the fields I am familiar with, the inability to explain what is important without jargon or self-reference usually means that the speaker doesn't understand the topic as well as he or she thinks.

Regardless of whether that is the case here, I question the utility of including in Wikipedia a discussion that could only be of interest to specialists in the field (if them). At a minimum, how about an attempt to describe what about Žižek's work and writing make him notable and somehow place his ideas in the context of other historical and/or contemporary thinkers.

Random example: “The defense of the category of the subject involves first a vindication of the notion of subjectivity for an adequate descriptive political theory” Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this means something to someone, then it can be written in such a way that it can be comprehended by a lay reader. --66.28.243.126 (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello! I haven't read through the ontology section simply because it's tedious, so I agree that some historical context and placement might liven up the writing. As for the alleged obfuscation, I'm not so sure. The quote you give seems pretty straightforward to me: "If you're trying to include the category of the subject in your political theory, you're going to have to argue for the notion of subjectivity, since subjects are those who experience subjectivity." That's a drawn out paraphrase, and as such I think the original is fine since it saves space. I'm not arguing the section is crystal, though. I'm sure there's plenty of iffy material. Hopefully people will adjust it as needed.
 * Oh, and as to the "what about Žižek's work make him notable?", that may be fairly difficult to answer. A lot of philosophers are popular because they're fun and surprising to read, not because they're all that important in answering "the tough questions of philosophy." Many philosophers create new questions, and that makes it hard to place them in a continuum (e.g., "Then Žižek provided an interesting answer to the Mind-Body paradox"; well what if he created the mind-body paradox?). In the end, I think most people just think he's really fun. It's like asking, "what's the notability of baseball?"
 * Just some thoughts.--Heyitspeter (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Like the orginal editor, I find the prose in parts of this article to be incomprehensible. Either it badly needs a rewrite or a separate article on an introduction to Žižeks' thought is neccessary. (There is a precedent for this - both the articles on Special relativity and General relativity have such articles here and here respectively. Autarch (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re the sentence cited by User:66.28.243.126 ("The defense of the category of the subject involves first a vindication of the notion of subjectivity for an adequate descriptive political theory"), I agree that it doesn't belong in this article, which is directed at general readers. If it asserts as a fact that there can be no political theory without admitting the reality of subjectivity, then there is no need to make the point here. (Anyway, "vindication of the notion" is an imprecise way to state it.) If on the other hand Žižek is taking sides in a dispute — as seems to be the case — then that needs to be stated, and the dispute described from a neutral point of view. That's not what I'm getting from this article. It needs more information, and less learnedness. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that much of the theoretical prose could be improved. However, I also think the hope expressed by some readers that the theory become accessible to general/lay readers is more-or-less impossible to fulfill.  Žižek works in some technical areas whose debates are fairly specific to scholars of those areas; we can't explain the whole background of e.g. trends in Lacanian theory in this article (though we should provide relevant wikilinks).
 * I think that the material "above the fold" is quite general. We are told generally what Žižek's reputation and basic biography is, and we are given links to other thinkers and schools that he relates to.  The "Early life" stuff is also pretty generic biography that a lay reader can easily understand.  When it gets to the theory stuff, yeah it gets murky.  But a reader has already been given the gist before reading that far, and doesn't suffer if she stops reading there.
 * As a comparison, I might point to a wholly different technical article like Weak interaction. As a non-physicist, I am given a good general story in the lead; after that the rest of the article is pretty much incomprehensible to me.  That's not a criticism though, I don't expect the details to have a "beginners" version that skips all the mathematical and experimental complexity.  That's what I get "above the fold".  LotLE × talk  19:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And speaking as someone who's had access to wikipedia while progressing into the fold, here is another example. This article (on kurtosis) was useful in my intro statistics classes, and it became more and more useful as I became more and more advanced, insofar as it contained the material that had been incomprehensible to me at one time. We could do with a better "introduction" I suppose - hopefully within this selfsame article - but removing difficult material seems questionable.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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 -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)

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)

Image
Kudos to whoever provided the photo. It alludes to the (I think) important biographical fact of his incessant gesticulation while speaking, without being pejorative or making him look "like a paedophile" (something he has mentioned being wary of). Ebenheaven (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Kkolozova (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Alenka Zupancic could not have become Slavoj's friend and colleague in the late 70 since she was about 10 years old then; so, I have removed her nameKkolozova (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Analia Hounie
"(...) Argentine model and Lacanian scholar Analia Hounie." Zizek did marry this lady, I do not question this statement. If confirmation is required, you can check here: http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/28536695/ACTING-UP for references to an article from "New Humanist," January 2008, by John Clark confirming it. I do not question that she is a model, as it is also stated in the aforementioned article. However, "Lacanian scholar"? Are you joking? Her name appears in association with one (1) and ONLY ONE book, which is in fact a sort of transcript of Zizek's lecture/s in Buenos Aires. She is, in fact, only credited as "Compiladora" (Compiler, not even editor). See here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Violencia-Acto-Conferencias-Buenos-Espacios/dp/9501265420/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268613971&sr=1-1 and here: http://www.libreriapaidos.com/libros/0/950126542.asp She marries a Lacanian scholar and all of a sudden she is one? Please, amend this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.193.239 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 81.99.193.239 (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

List articles by date, like for books?
Similar to the lost for books, can somebody help list/categorise articles based on year of publication? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.128.75 (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree Tsinfandel (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Serbo Croatian
Please remove the mention of Serbo-Croatian, as this language does not exist. There are two languages: Serbian and Croatian. Thank you. 93.139.0.219 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croation is a language. It is written in two different alphabets, but is denoted, by all linguists, as one language. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.84.38 (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on Taylor, Paul (2010) "Zizek and the Media"
Text to go in Section 6 - Critical Introductions to Zizek and to say:

Paul A. Taylor. Zizek And The Media (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010).


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. One of the reasons for this page's semi-protection was spam-linking, so I don't think it would be appropriate to add this without discussion.  AJ  Cham  08:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. The Amazon link to the book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Zizek-Media-Paul-Taylor/dp/074564368X The author: http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/details.cfm?id=17 Paimproviser (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paimproviser (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So how does one go about establishing the consensus needed to have this inserted into a semi-protected article?Paimproviser (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed the title from "edit requested" Paimproviser (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"notoriety" vs "fame"
A lot of people seem to be unaware of this, but "notoriety" does not mean "fame." It means being famous in a negative way. A criminal or a pseudo-celebrity is notorious (usually "for" follows the word). I've changed the word to make the entry more neutral, although "fame" isn't totally neutral either. Evangeline (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "well-known"? Jaque Hammer (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I have proposed merging Critiques of Slavoj Žižek here. It would give more balance and substance to this article. And anyone who makes his or her way through this article as it is would not be daunted by a little extra material. Jaque Hammer (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will merge the articles this afternoon if no one objects. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Žižek is also an avid Falconer
this is a joke.

the reference picture does not show slavoj zizek. there are no other references to this claim to be found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvo101 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Coke (cocaine)
Zizek denies the usage of coke http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2009/10/today-interview-capitalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.233.131.18 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section
I've queried the complete removal of this section: Accusations of fascism and antisemitism at this user page, wondering if the removal was excessive or flimsily based. I'd appreciate comments here or there. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the whole of the section is a pretty gross violation of WP:BLP in being little other than a personal attack on Zizek (albeit one sourced to someone; but for a public and controversial intellectual, you can always find someone who will say something excessively negative). There may be some way to incorporate a small part of it back into the article without the attack title, but the "Criticism/Critique" section itself seems to veer pretty badly off the cliff of WP:UNDUE weight. 76.170.68.189 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the somewhat elaborated rationale. I guess I'll have to dig further in, if I'm to recover some, all or any of the edit. That won't be now but maybe later. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What a mess--need references and plagiarism from other wiki-articles?
First of all, the whole section on "Thought" needs to either reference specific books or needs to use quotes. Secondly, the whole second on "The Real" seems to be plagiarized right off the Jacques Lacan page. Vientelibro (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

wow i wonder if *any* of this is reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.182.30 (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops didn't see someone already caught this. The Symbolic section is too. http://www.lacan.com/zizekchro1.htm They should be removed until someone can write an actual entry. --24.61.191.94 (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"A return to The German Ideology"?
In ontology there's a statement
 * While Žižek posits a return to the category of the Cartesian subject, a return to The German Ideology, and a return to Lacan, he does so in a way that undercuts their foundations and re-energizes their potential.

The link The German Ideology is to Marx'es book The German Ideology where he criticises "The German Ideology". The link didn't make sense, so I substituted it for German idealism, where Žižek is extensively mentioned. But I might be wrong: since Žižek is from a post-Marxist country, maybe he really propones what he calls The German Ideology. If I'm wrong, please be WP:BOLD. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Every talk I've heard, Zizek is scathing about Marx's early text 'The German Ideology'. He has written books on the German Idealists (Schelling, Fichte, Hegel) so the reference is to that. But I wouldn't say 'return' to but 'reappropriation of insights from German Idealism' 175.39.15.250 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 21 April 2012 demetrius

Ongoing revisions
Perhaps folks notice that I've been slowly reworking the "Thought" section. I think my changes are good, but it would be great to hear what others think. We should seek to (justifiably!) remove those ugly tags, ASAP.

Going to rewrite the major remaining section. Also going to take the last paragraph of the first section—you know, the one that starts with "Žižek tries to sidestep relativism by claiming that there is a diagonal ontological cut across apparently incommensurable discourses..."—and fold those ideas into other sections.

We might also create a new section called "Politics" or maybe ("Žižek's politics") to describe SZ's positions on major political issues. This could make the article more interesting and useful. It would also draw some of the content from the lengthy "Life" section. Heck, we could do a similar thing for "Žižek on culture": it's what he's best known for and, again, could help to make the material more accessible.

Love, groupuscule (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nostalgia for American imperialism graph in "Party" section
I don't understand the paragraph on nostalgia for American imperialism in the "centralized party" section. The topic sentence says that he made his nostalgia clear, but the qualification at the end says it does not mean that he has nostalgia. If this needs to be read in a different way, then someone needs to edit the graph to clarify what it should mean. If this confused reading is the only one possible, however, then it should probably be cut. Archivingcontext (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying the said graph under question. It is clear now. However, it seems misplaced. The section is focused on Zizek's call for a central party as the apparatus to replace the neo-liberal state. I don't think he agrees with someone like Nail Ferguson that the US is that party. The graph is more of Z just pontificating on the changing global situation; the views here espoused cannot represent the constancy on his position of revolution. Delete? 111.235.214.79 (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Although it does not appear to fit in this section as it stands, but perhaps it could be moved to another section. Archivingcontext (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Move "in documentaries" section under "Notes"
The "In documentaries" section continues to grow, but the content is more of a reference rather than explication of the man or his ideas. I propose moving it under "Notes" at the end of the article. Archivingcontext (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV/Refimprove - Thought
The section called "Thought" needs a lot of work. The material it contains needs to be expressed in a neutral manner. It needs simplified to assist readers who do not study philosophy, and it needs more inline citations. I'm adding the NPOV and Refimprove tags. These should be removed only when that section's content is expressed neutrally, and when the sources are verified and cited, respectively.

Example of NPOV problem: "..he does so in a way that undercuts their foundations and re-energizes their potential."

Fennasnogothrim (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How do folks feel about the article, particularly the "Thought" section, as it is now? Can we remove (some of) these tags? If not, what specifically needs work? groupuscule (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we can safely remove neutrality tag. The technical tag is deserved until we further copy edit and condense the section. The citations need to be strengthened, as it appears that many citations are inline citations, which need to be fully referenced and properly formatted. Other comments about what we need to do on the section.
 * We need a better introduction to the thought section. The two graphs are contradictory and don't really tell the reader anything. Can we get some substance in there?
 * Ontology section doesn't need number points, as 2 and 3 are the same topic and should be in their own graph.
 * Ontology section should be condensed.
 * Change Big Other section to an "On Ideology" section, bringing the discussion of ideology currently under Ontology down here.
 * Atheism and religion section doesn't really add much, i.e. I don't see this as a core of Zizek's thought.
 * Archivingcontext (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

On the exciting controversial 'trajectories' section:
Let's talk about it please? I really don't have strong feelings about it but I sense that something is wrong when my watchlist shows a huge chunk of text been continually deleted and restored. It does read a little like an essay. Maybe we could talk about who is making the claims about parallels between Z's work and others? Maybe we could diversify the section a bit to make it about Z's relationship to other philosophers in general? We shouldn't have to fight about this. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for initiating a discussion on this matter. (Apologies for the late response as I am traveling.) My position is that every thinker is situated in a historical context, and an encyclopedia article on that thinker should give some indication of that context as well as the parallels of contemporary thought or different trajectories of their ideas. (The May '68 generation are particularly fascinating in this regard due to the number of different ideas and trajectories that arose among them--if I am biased then it is to this group.) Thus, the idea behind the section under discussion is to situate Zizek and draw parallels and trajectories of his thought in relation to his contemporaries. The first graph of the section attempts to do some of the situating and brings in Badiou to do so, while the other two graphs trace a trajectory of an alternative path taken by Unger.
 * I am all in favor of diversifying the section, and welcome others to contribute. The trick, however, is to avoid original research. The two articles of scholarship on Zizek and his contemporaries I had at hand are what this section is based on, and they are cited in the first sentence. These are from peer reviewed philosophy and law journals that cannot be confined to a minority opinion. Further contributions should also adhere to this strict standard of references.
 * Lastly, I will work on editing the tone and citing the scholarship on the matter rather than the primary sources of the thinkers themselves. Ça va? Archivingcontext (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There is great value in placing a thinker in the context of his/her contemporaries - this sheds greater light on the thinker being discussed while broadening the reader's knowledge by introducing him to other.related thinkers. So I think this section would be brilliant if it is kept and possibly add other relevant thinkers. Doinggreatthings (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Revisions
I was inspired this morning and made a series of revision on the article in order to address concerns expressed on the talk pages and in the tags in the article. I did take a heavy read pen to a lot of material that I thought was either obfuscating the subject or just not adding anything to the article. Given that some of those tags have been up for years, I suggest using the talk pages here to address any concerns with my revisions rather than just undoing or reverting changes. I am completely open to discussing and improving this article. Archivingcontext (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And can we remove those tags now? Archivingcontext (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A record
This is the worst sentence I have ever seen on Wikipedia: "Žižek tries to sidestep relativism by claiming that there is a diagonal ontological cut across apparently incommensurable discourses, which points to their intersubjectivity."&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ability to produce such a sentence will gain you employment in most academic institutions.98.110.35.22 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Pat Pending
 * Haha--sounds like a Steve Martin comic routine from the 70s. Thanks for pointing it out--we can all use a good laugh here from time to time. Gandydancer (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

New section--"Public life"
I've put some popular, as opposed to academic, stuff into a new section. Yopienso (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede 2
I've just restored some disputed info to the lede that is well-cited by multiple RSs. Please do not revert without discussion here. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted it, per discussion elsewhere. I'd have discussed here, too, if you hadn't written your second sentence William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this information in the article. I'm not an expert but the opinions expressed in the sources seems more appropriate than that of WFC.   Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

[E/c]
 * Thanks for engaging. [This was originally to WMC; after the edit conflict, it is also to Gandydancer.] Please undo your revert unless you present a cogent reason for deleting quotes from RSs. Here are some excerpts from a review by Terry Eagleton:


 * In The Sublime Object of Ideology, Zizek sees ideological power as resting finally on the libidinal rather than the conceptual, on the way we hug our chains rather than the way we entertain beliefs. At the root of meaning, for both Freud and Lacan, there is always a sustaining residue of non-sense. [Yopienso thought WMC would like that bit. Hyphen in original.]


 * Zizek illustrates the point with the story of a man faking insanity in order to escape conscription, whose ‘psychosis’ takes the form of rummaging obsessively through a pile of documents saying, ‘That’s not it, that’s not it!’ When the doctors, convinced by this frenetic performance, finally present him with a certificate of exemption, he exclaims: ‘That’s it!’ What looked like the result of his behaviour was actually the cause of it, and this reversal of cause and effect is a staple of psychoanalytic theory which Zizek expounds – as he expounds everything else – with extraordinary brio and élan.


 * He is, in fact, the most formidably brilliant exponent of psychoanalysis, indeed of cultural theory in general, to have emerged in Europe for some decades.


 * If the only topic psychoanalysis recognises is enjoyment, the same might finally be said of Zizek the writer. His books have an enviable knack of making Kant or Kierkegaard sound riotously exciting; his writing bristles with difficulties but never serves up a turgid sentence. The demotic companionability of his style is an implicit rebuke to the high-minded terrorism of so much French theory. Lacan may insist that the analyst is an empty signifier, that he holds no secret key to the patient’s unhappiness, but his posturing rhetoric belies any such disavowal. ‘Enjoy!’ is Zizek’s implicit injunction to the reader, as he shifts within a single chapter from Mozart to time travel, hysteria to Judaism, Marx to Marlboro ads, while managing somehow to sustain a coherent argument. In his case too, however, form and content are subtly at variance. The mercurial sparkle of his work is at odds with its bleak, mechanically recurrent content, for which enjoyment, in the Real, is where we encounter the least delectable truths of all.


 * Michael Sharpe has written a peer-reviewed overview of Zizek's philosophy at the IEP.


 * I believe this gives more than adequate support for the recently deleted quotes. Yopienso (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I followed this confrontation the last time around and it was my impression the WFC was being extremely arrogant, but this subject is so far out of my area that I did not speak up.  I do believe that it needs to be discussed and not be deleted just because one editor thinks its bull shit. Again, I don't have a lot of knowledge of philosophy, but from what I do know, the information seemed to be accurate. Gandydancer (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the deleted quotes add anything to the article. They don't really tell us much about the man or his thought. Rather, they are opinions stated in sympathetic articles or publications, and which could be found on any subject. (As a contrast, we would not place derogatory statements about him in the lede although they are aplenty.) It seems to me, that the task of a good lede is to balance pertinent information about the subject with enough emphasis on his importance to give the reader a sense of who the subject is and why he is important. This task is better served by trying to show as much (much as the IEP piece does that is cited above), rather than pulling a quote or two out of a lauding publication to do so. So, is there something else that we can find to add to the lede that might do this work for us? Archivingcontext (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input. I would like to see the word "leftist" restored and the second paragraph opening with the name Zizek instead of the pronoun he. The first helps orient a reader who doesn't know anything about Zizek's philosophy, while the second is merely stylistic. I do not like the final sentence of the lede as it stands: He has continued to develop his status as a confrontational intellectual, although the phrase "confrontational intellectual" is apt. I would go for something like, "Zizek is known as a confrontational intellectual; Terry Eagleton has called him "formidably brilliant." The first part is descriptive; the second lets the reader know he's respected by the intelligentsia and not a crank. Yopienso (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have read that many or even most readers of Wikipedia get no further than the lead and I am not that sort of Wikipedia reader--except for this and a very few other articles. I usually read the article, the links and some of the sources.  I just don't like philosophy, it was torture in college...my mind just does not work that way.  The lead as it now reads is meaningless to me--it says nothing.  Even if the above, "Zizek is known as a confrontational intellectual; Terry Eagleton has called him "formidably brilliant." were added it would not help me much--who's Eagleton and what's a "confrontational intellectual"?  It may irritate some editors to think that an editor wants the article dumbed down and that perhaps I should read the philosophy article before I criticize this one.  Etc.  Perhaps, though I obviously don't agree.


 * On the other hand, this information, "He has been called "one of the world's best known public intellectuals,"[4][5] and "the thinker of choice for Europe's young intellectual vanguard."[6]" was meaningful to me. I've heard him speak a few times and I liked him.  If he had been my college philosophy teacher I would have liked it.  Archivingcontext said, "Rather, they are opinions stated in sympathetic articles or publications, and which could be found on any subject. (As a contrast, we would not place derogatory statements about him in the lede although they are aplenty.)"  I don't see the addition as being approving or disapproving of him but rather a statement regarding his popularity, an important question/answer for me and which right off the bat gave me a couple of sources to read that were the type of information I was actually looking for rather than much of the information contained in our article.   Anyway, I may revert the article since no editor should think that they are so special that they need not bother with the article talk page to discuss changes with other editors. Gandydancer (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I see your point and think your concerns are valid. We should really then extract the kernal the offending sentences and build them into their own paragraph on the significance of the subject. In this way, I suggest we rewrite the lede entirely to give a better picture of the subject, his influence, and his significance. What I propose is the following:
 * opening graph with a straightforward statement of who he is and what he does.
 * second graph discussing his thought and ideas.
 * third graph on his significance.


 * In doing this we should try to keep balanced and avoid talking up the subject or giving him undue weight. The problem that WMC and others have is that the quotes lend themselves to "puffery." I have been accused of this as well and am still trying to find the right balance in the expression of the importance of the subject and doing so in a neutral manner. Archivingcontext (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please proceed. I already put in more time here than I can afford. For a guideline, you may wish to look at the Richard Dawkins lede, which seems to me free of puffery. Well down into the article is "In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007,[138] and he was ranked 20th in The Daily Telegraph's 2007 list of 100 greatest living geniuses.[139] He was awarded the Deschner Award, named after German anti-clerical author Karlheinz Deschner.[140]" Yesterday I did not notice Zizek's listing on Foreign Policy's top 100 is at the bottom of the "Academic life" section. That would be a possible place to add quotes about his fame; any that could be found about notoriety would also be appropriate. I'm suggesting this from the angle of a user who hears Zizek's name and comes to Wikipedia to find out who the guy is, what he thinks, and what people who count think about him. A new section, "Critical reception," or some such, may be advisable. Yopienso (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refraim from giving others permissions as though you were the page owner. As to FP, the article says 2012, not 2007. Yet the link given doesn't lead me to SZ William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2007 is from the well-written Dawkins BLP I'm suggesting as a model. The link works for me just fine. It's currently footnote #18, "The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers". Foreign Policy. 26 November 2012. Archived from the original on 28 November 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012." Here's a direct link. I don't know why some kind of mark-up shows a dead url; I just clicked on the hyper-linked title and the FP list came right up to SZ, #92. Yopienso (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added in probably an over-copious quote from FP to the lede, opting not to insert the word "leftist." The quote is intended to inform the reader quickly and succinctly just what sort of a philosopher Zizek is. I believe it addresses the "nonsense" aspect mentioned by several editors. Yopienso (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with "leftist" in the lede, although it is a somewhat fluid term and can mean different things in different contexts (see N Bobbio 1996). The block quote is a bit distracting in that it breaks the flow of the article; we should try to rephrase it to capture the meaning but not have to have a block quote there in the lede. I will try to work on this coming days... Archivingcontext (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Templates/tags
Could the template on over-technicality be moved to the "Thought" section? Yopienso (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I reworked most of the article and rewrote the thought section a few weeks ago in order to address the concerns of both templates. If others feel the issues have been addressed and there are no other objections, I suggest we take them down. Archivingcontext (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo
@ IP 92.96.252.38--I think the other photo of Zizek is more appropriate for the article. This one makes him look wild, which he may be, but I think in a BLP we don't want to do that. Yopienso (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The other photo is better. Archivingcontext (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, WFCs choice was not encyclopedic. I have changed it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes/questions
Thanks to all for the good work you are doing to help people like me understand the article! I am reading the criticism section because I'm wondering about the "he's all hype" comments. I don't want to get suckered in! I thought I was off to a really good start when I found the comments that "Holbo" made, but alas I was unable to download more than a teaser.

I have been looking into and do want to learn more about this very long sentence (and hopefully rewrite it for easier understanding):


 * If its symbolic expression is denied, collective trauma can develop into full scale post-traumatic disorder and attachment to violence (Stockholm syndrome), and in fact, as predicted by the cited Frantz Fanon, the Slovenian Littoral where Žižek's mother came from, was subjected to the Fascist repression of Slovene minority in Italy (1920-1947) for 20 years during the forced Italianization period, and later during the Fascist occupation of the Province of Ljubljana, the Italian war crimes committed against civil population were not symbolically and legally processed, only the German ones were processed in the Nuremberg Trials, because the British government prevented extradition of the Italian colonial war criminals to Yugoslavia, Greece and Ethiopia, since Pietro Badoglio, who was also on the list, was seen by British as a guarantee of an anti-communist post-war Italy.

Is Gray saying this or is "Wikipedia" saying it? Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help in getting the page into shape, it has been a long time coming! That passage you cite is a mess. It appears to be the obtuse prose of a Wikipedian. It should be rewritten or deleted, as it borders on nonsense.
 * On this note, the entire criticism section should be condensed or some subsections collapsed into each other. To have so many subheadings detracts from what the core of the article should be focused on--the man and his thought. Archivingcontext (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, what the critics have to say can be helpful to form an opinion (when one knows nothing), but one then needs to form some sort of opinion of the critics as well! If someone does not even have an article I wonder how much weight to give their opinion...  BTW, the "nonsense" paragraph--I wonder if it stood out as interesting to me because it actually isn't about philosophy? :-) It seems to be more about psychology.  I do know a fair amount about psychology and the statements do not seem quite correct to me--though it's hard to say because I can't figure out what they're getting at. Gandydancer (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just read Slovenia's history--poor Slovenia, what an awful time they had of it. However, it is my impression that the information most likely should be removed from the article unless someone can find a reasonable connection. Gandydancer (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a reasonable connection. Let me explain. Since I am not a native English speaker I apologize for my English (and my obtuse prose mentioned above). Now, having said that, I also do not know how familiar you are with the findings in the field of transgenerational trauma and to what extent you accept those findings as factually correct, but if you do, you should be able to see the connection. Žižek's mother's community was traumatized by Fascist violence and this is now reflected in his acceptance of violence in his theory as was noted by John Gray. I'd appreciate if you would leave - but by all means you can improve the prose - this connection in the article together with the Gray's criticism. Thank you. -- DancingPhilosopher ( talk ) 13:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism" section
I want to take a scalpel to the "criticism" section. It reads like a list of different people expressing different opinions about the man without any real coherency or addition to the article. I propose the following: Archivingcontext (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * bringing all the stuff about Marxism under the "ambiguity" subsection and cutting this down to fit thematically into a critique and not focused on what certain people said.
 * cut the violence section
 * move the philosophy readings and argument style under a single section to focus on questions of his rigor.


 * I "butchered" the criticism section myself and moved above mentioned violence to Life. Now, if your subconscious hasn't done it already, try reading (my previous) sentence literally. See? OMG, God (read The Other) really seems to exist! ;- ) -- DancingPhilosopher  ( talk ) 14:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Unger's special guest appearance in the lede?
As already said here, I wonder how come Unger gets into the lede about Ž, while Žižek gets no such "special guest" treatment in article about Unger? DancingPhilosopher ( talk ) 14:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Archivingcontext: I quote you "But I would not object to removing Unger from the Zizek lede." According to this, I will once again do what you said you would not object to. Your recent action seems to be in cognitive dissonance with your words. P.S. Sorry, I didn't notice that you did remove Unger from the lede, which is fine. -- DancingPhilosopher ( talk ) 09:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But you still insist on unequal treatment of the two by inserting implicit criticism via comparing Ž with other contemporaries in the lede, while, on other hand, the Unger's article is spared of any unfavorable comparison with his contemporaries in the lede. The only comparison there is a favorable one, citing Richard Rorty's opinion of him. I have no other choice but to object to such an unequal treatment of the two. -- DancingPhilosopher ( talk ) 09:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a rather petty exchange. Criticism is productive. Doinggreatthings (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only agree with you that "criticism is productive" (however, I disagree that this particular article on Ž should be an exception in that it should contain criticism and comparison in its lede, I have looked at some other philosophers here on Wikipedia and most of them are not criticized right away in lede). I disagree with your disqualifying the above content as "petty exchange". DancingPhilosopher  ( talk ) 14:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a bit of activity and talk about the lede some months ago, with the main complaint being that it did not provide enough context to inform the uninformed about who this guy is. I made some changes in effort to address those concerns; the addition of the contextualization of Z in relation to other things added by Doinggreatthings I thought also helped address these concerns. I don't see it as a criticism but a contextualization. Perhaps if you think it comes off as too critical we could work on revising the language. Overall, however, I think that it serves to introduce Z and contrast him to his contemporaries. As for the Unger page, well, I agree with you that a similar section could also be added there, which could include a similar contextualization mentioning a comparison with Z. It looks like there has been activity on the lede there recently, so I will try to get a chance to go back over and see what should be done. Archivingcontext (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism in Introduction
I'm removing the following two sentences from the introduction for what I think are obvious reasons.

He also made money to get through college as an extra in the Die Hard series. His inspirations come from Tupac, 2 Chainz, and Miley Cyrus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldNewEnglander (talk • contribs) 02:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Two NPOV concerns under the 'Life' section
My first concern is, under sub-section 'Political life', the second paragraph mentions a joking statement made by Žižek regarding support of SYRIZA. The sentence immediately following says:

Trying to politically discredit SYRIZA as endorsing totalitarian past, its right-wing opponent which itself made a controversial decision to allow someone who was described in The Guardian as an "axe-wielding fascist" in his youth to be a minister in its government, claimed Žižek should be understood literally, not ironically.

While the "axe-wielding fascist" part does have a source, it seems wholly POV and just plain irrelevant to a section that's supposed to be part of an objectively-written bio. Here is my proposed replacement (in context):

''Similarly, he jokingly made the following comment in May 2013, during the Subversive Festival: "If they don’t support SYRIZA then, in my vision of the democratic future, all these people will get from me [is] a first-class one-way ticket to [a] gulag." In response, the right-wing New Democracy party claimed Žižek's comments should be understood literally, not ironically.''

My second concern relates to the photograph to the left of the 'Public life' sub-section. Its caption states, "Over the course of 25 years, Žižek was able to go from academic ghettoization to attending worldwide conferences and being a premier speaker on theory; he is pictured here at a 2009 lecture in Poland"

Well, okay, that may be true, but it doesn't belong under a photograph. (Also, is "ghettoization" even an appropriate word?) A photograph's caption should state the person's name and where they were or what they were doing at that moment.

I propose we reduce the caption to simply: Slavoj Žižek, pictured here at a 2009 lecture in Poland.

Adam9389 (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If nobody responds to my contentions by the end of the week, I'll just assume nobody cares one way or the other, and I'll go ahead and make the changes. Adam9389 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2013 (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" that "the truth of something is always outside it."?Lestrade (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Your problem with the statement amounts to personal research. It is irrelevant if German Idealist such as Kant actually advocated such a position or not. What matter is If Slavoj Zizek actually advocates this reading or not. I suggest this be given a needs citation. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "At its most basic," German Idealism wanted to replace the old concept of "God" with the new concept of the "Absolute." This is the point of view of a famous philosopher of that time. It is not my personal research. "&hellip;[T]he professors of philosophy&hellip;were placed in conspicuous embarrassment by Kant’s critique of speculative theology, for they had, from early times, recognized it as their special calling to demonstrate the existence and attributes of God, and to make Him the chief subject of their philosophizing. When, therefore, Scripture teaches that God nourishes the ravens in the field, I must also add that He feeds the professors of philosophy in their chairs. Even nowadays, they assert with perfect coolness that the Absolute (well-known as the new-fangled title for God) and its relation to the world is the proper subject of philosophy&hellip;." (Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy," § 13) Where does a contributor to the article get the uninformative idea that, "At its most basic, German idealism believes that the truth of something could be found in itself"? Furthermore, no information is conveyed by the sentence: "For Žižek, the fundamental insight of German idealism is that the truth of something is always outside it." Are we concerned with the inside and outside of things, objects, and persons? If not, do the statements refer to the veridical correspondence between abstract concepts and concrete perceptions? (Boldface italics added for emphasis)Lestrade (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Lestrade

Atheist
Judging from his views and comments about Christianity and religion in general, couldn't he be considered more of an antitheist than an atheist? DMJohnston (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You appear to be referring to the agnostic vs. atheist distinction. There's no difference in the terms given unless you define one. Have "First as Tragedy, Then as Farce", will perhaps post something here or in the article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Antireligious" of course does have a meaning distinct from being an atheist and some but not all atheists are anti-religious. Finished the title above finding it hypothetical of Nitzan's Differential accumulation thesis applied to the current historical moment with no salient original thesis, so taking a dismissive posture here and reviewing DA. It's odd for this page to be protected. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He may call himself an atheist, but if he also calls himself a "Christian" anything, he can't possibly be an atheist. Atheism is the rejection of all claims of the existence of the divine, Christianity is belief in the claim that Jesus is or was a divine being (either in part or in whole); the positions are mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.211.203 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * He could identify himself as Christian and still not believe in the objective reality of God or the divinity of Jesus. Some people consider themselves to be Christians to the extent that they subscribe to the beneficial aspects of Christian doctrine as spelled out in Scripture. Others don't necessarily even think strict adherence the literal letter of Scripture is entirely essential to identify as Christian. As an example, Freeman Dyson is a churchgoer who identifies himself as a Christian; but, as he puts it, "To me, good works are more important than theology." He doesn't clearly think the reality of God or of Jesus is as important as the values encoded in words attributed to them. He says of himself, "I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian." As I recall, in 'The Pervert's Guide to Ideology', Žižek says that he considers the subtext of Christianity to be atheistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Žižek taking a clear stand on Marxism?
There seems to be a tremendous amount of confusion surrounding Žižek's relation to Marxism — both within this Wikipedia article and more generally. This certainly relates to Žižek's numerous ironic and ambiguous references to Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Marx, among others. However, I think with Less Than Nothing (2012) his stance has become significantly clearer.

I'm going to summarize a number of key points on Marx and Marxism which Žizek makes in the Interlude entitled "Marx as a Reader of Hegel, Hegel as a Reader of Marx" (Less Than Nothing 241-64): (1a) Marx made the mistake of thinking that "unleashed productivity" was an ideal "independent of...capitalist social formation"; (1b) moreover, "instrumental reason," as such, is a component of the capitalist social formation. (2) Precisely because Marx's communism was meant to solve capitalist-generated antagonisms, it is actually the dream of capitalism. (3a) Despite Marx's failure in other aspects, his "critique of political economy" nevertheless survives; (3b) the task today is to repeat the critique of political economy without mistaking Marxian communism as its sole outcome. (4) To seek a "balanced, (self-)restrained society" is to fail to break out of the "capitalist horizon." (5) Hegel is necessary to think these problems to their conclusions. (And I can provide quotations for all these points if others think the topic is worth taking up.)

Here I'll put forward a brief formulation of Žižek's position towards Marxism: It is necessary for theorists today to repeat Marx's "critique of political economy"; however, Marx's notion of communism as the end-result of this critique is part-and-parcel of the capitalist horizon because it seeks to resolve the capitalist antagonisms while retaining the instrumental reason of "unleashed productivity." Hegel fits into this formulation as the thinker whose mode of thought allows us to think Capital In-itself as "an abstract monster which moves and mediates itself, parasitizing the activity of actual, really existing individuals" (LTN 258). (Yes, that last quotation is wildly unclear. It makes more sense in context but I wanted to throw it in for some Žižek-ian color.)

There is, of course, more to be said about Marx's critique, Hegel's role in Žižek's repetition of the critique, and Capital's "embodiment of the Hegelian Spirit," but... I feel like this is still something that ought to find its place in the Wiki article. Ž's role as a widely influential thinker of late capitalism and a former card-carrying member of the Marxist party means that his current relation to the Marxist project is incredibly significant. I'm not sure where this all could fit into the current page — maybe in the Political Thought and the Postmodern Subject section? perhaps in its own section? I was actually inspired to write this up by the Ambiguity and lack of alternative section. I'm not a regular editor on Wiki (obviously the IP address instead of username gives that away) but I care about Ž's work and would like to see it taken up seriously in a widely read source like this one. — Gabriel Thomas, 7 June 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.169.232.85 (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism of White Nationalist source
I'm unsure if it warrants inclusion where it was but it is still pretty significant. Maybe it should have a section later in the article space? --90.200.211.46 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Before somebody says anything like "it threatens WP:BLP to call the source White Nationalist" we list American Renaissance as having been "described as a white supremacist publication" on our article so it is entirely valid --90.200.211.46 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Another source --90.200.211.46 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Does anybody have a copy of the article itself? It would be useful to put it into context. Zizek himself has apologised and explained his reasoning but it's still quite extensive plagiarism, even if he didn't know the source --80.193.191.143 (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why isn't Zizek's response mentioned in the article? It offers quite a different view on the issue: "A friend told me about Kevin Macdonald’s theories, and I asked him to send me a brief resume. The friend send [sic] it to me, assuring me that I can use it freely since it merely resumes another’s line of thought. Consequently, I did just that – and I sincerely apologize for not knowing that my friend’s resume was largely borrowed from Stanley Hornbeck’s review of Macdonald’s book. […] As any reader can quickly establish, the problematic passages are purely informative, a report on another’s theory for which I have no affinity whatsoever […] In no way can I thus be accused of plagiarizing another’s line of thought, of »stealing ideas.« I nonetheless deeply regret the incident." 77.188.25.164 (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Could someone rewrite this sentence who understands it?
It is:

Trying to politically discredit SYRIZA as endorsing totalitarian past, its right-wing opponent which itself made a controversial decision to allow someone who was described in The Guardian as an "axe-wielding fascist" in his youth to be a minister in its government,[16] claimed Žižek should be understood literally, not ironically.


 * That sentence is meant to be taken ironically, not literally. 38.115.185.4 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)HelenChicago

I would perhaps try, but its meaning(s) is unclear. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanamizu (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section
The "criticism" section is actually twice longer than the section on his actual work. The quote from the plagiarism sub-section seems only there to emphasize his grammar mistakes: (sic) (sic) etc. I think this article would gain from being rewritten a bit by people who are not so obviously taking the man for a clown. 83.250.15.239 (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I did some work on the lead and trimmed down some of the overtly biased criticism, but there's plenty left to add/trim/recontextualize, especially regarding the section on his thought.User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * the entire criticism section needs to be rewritten, or condensed into a single sentence. What's there not is not a philosophical critique. Baldersmash (talk)

Unger's special section?
Unger does not deserve a whole section (called Trajectories and parallels of Žižek's thought) for his criticism of Ž's necessiatarianism. A sentence about his criticism that has been moved to the Criticism section will do. -- DancingPhilosopher ( talk ) 14:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We had a debate on this last October and came to a WP:Consensus. In short, the section is not about Unger, but rather the different trajectories taken. It is meant to contextualize--to provide a short intellectual history of the thinker. You may have grounds to challenge this, but then the debate should be reopen here. I will restore the edits until we reach another consensus. Yes? Archivingcontext (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No contextualizing (or comparing one thinker to others) is value free, i.e. free of (implicit) evaluation/criticism - therefore it should be in Criticism section where I put it.-- DancingPhilosopher ( talk ) 10:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In response I would say that no presentation of a thinker's views in any form including an encyclopedia entry are value free. Nonetheless, would a compromise be to make this contextualization section its own subsection under the criticism section--it does not really fit under the "lack of alternatives" subsection? (I'll get back to you later on the other point you raise about the lede.) Archivingcontext (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see the compromise you propose as a good middle-ground that will communicate to a reader both what you and me wanted to to be communicated. I especially appreciate that we -- on a meta-communicative level -- agree we each have a valid point to communicate. And, consequently, that we are able to refrain from (dis-)qualifying each other's messages as "petty exchanges" - thank you. And another thing, I probably will not be able to respond until next Tuesday, 2nd April.) DancingPhilosopher  ( talk ) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes made. I wrote an extra sentence for the "criticism" section lede to introduce the "new" sub-section. I put this new subsection first, although it may work better after the "lack of alternatives" subsection. See what you think. Archivingcontext (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't typically contribute to wikipedia, but I had to figure out what was going on with this Unger section. It's listed under "Criticism," but I'm not sure if it has much to do with Zizek at all. While one might very well write an essay comparing different "trajectories" for thinkers like Zizek, Badiou, and Unger, I don't see what business it has in an encyclopedic entry. Sure, it's "relevant," but it's no more relevant than if I were to add a section that began: "Zizek and his commitments to psychoanalysis and German Idealism represent one trajectory among several others, and his trajectory is starkly contrasted with that of Donald Davidson. Coming from very different traditions and using very different historical and otherwise philosophical references, these two trajectories are best compared by blah blah blah etc." Okay, that might be stretching it, but wouldn't that also be a "path not trodden by philosophers like Badiou and Zizek"? Unger's relevance here is that they both work on politics, Hegel, and Marx. But we could reasonably justify substituting *any* such political philosopher, if that is the case. Althusser wrote on Hegel and Marx. So did Adorno. So does Laclau. So does Buckmorss. It's hard to find a leftist theorist who doesn't meet those criteria. However you dress it up, this is a section on Unger--to claim that it's "really" about different trajectories taken or not taken by Zizek is to implicitly justify putting in ANY trajectory on ANY subject. Billy67.160.130.132 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The short answer is WP:V. If there is relevant literature on the topics that you cite above then they could very well be included in the article. This section on "trajectories," however, captures the core of the contemporary debate about alternatives and the side that Zizek advocates and makes the focus of his politics. Not only is it discussed in the literature on issue, but also helps explain where Zizek is coming from. Archivingcontext (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed down this section to include what seems like the only contextual information necessary for the criticism/comparison to be made, which excluded several full sentences explicitly dedicated to advertising Unger's own ideas in isolation from any critical comparison, and subsequently added it to the "lack of alternatives" section, as this is ultimately what Unger's criticism amounts to.urs145 (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Critiques of Zizek
Why is this section here? I understand the importance of having critical thought about authors and how people should know it, but why does it make such a large portion of the entire article? I think that it would be better to make its own page again (I realise that it was merged from before) or to just remove it entirely since it doesn't add much to the content itself, it just says that some people disagree with him. DoomLexus (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

-- Yes there should be more of his actual ideas as well as this criticism section. Can anyone add them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.230.175 (talk)

Life
He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault.

''Žižek completed his PhD at Ljubljana in 1981 on German Idealism, and between 1981 and 1985 studied in Paris under Jacques Alain Miller, Lacan’s son-in-law. In this period, Žižek wrote a second dissertation, a Lacanian reading of Hegel, Marx and Kripke.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.162.206 (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if/where he was teaching these days. I knew he'd spent time at a number of Big Name U.S. universities, but couldn't find mention of them or of where he is now. ~E$ 18:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik a hanson (talk • contribs)

Praise, Criticism in Latin America section
What in the ever-loving heck is going on in this section? Did somebody just run it through Google Translate?

"Though news of terrorist attacks horrorize social imaginary, nobody can escape to their atractiveness.[81][82][83][84]"

Good thing this claim is backed up by four sources. Now if only we knew what the claim is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.201.115 (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed it for now. --Malerooster (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Structure
I have restructed this a bit to separate out his work from his biography. Probably 99% of readers just want to know what are his key ideas, not where he went to school or details of personal life, so the work section should go at the top like this. There seems to be a lot more biography here that philosophical ideas though, and the ones that are here are impossible for me to read or understand (and I have published philosophy papers myself). If there is any coherent structure to them, then could someone knowledgable try to structure the Thought section more coherently, and break it down into clearer key points ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.230.175 (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Name and pronunciation
As a native Slovenian speaker I'd just like to point out that the Slovenian IPA is slightly off. The standard pronunciation is ˈʒi.ʒək.

2A02:C7D:8E9C:C200:EDB6:6151:D353:52E4 (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Slavoj Žižek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,55
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003180147/http://www.slovenskapomlad.si/1?id=103 to http://www.slovenskapomlad.si/1?id=103
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.delo.si/zgodbe/sobotnapriloga/slavoj-zizek-bog-daj-da-bi-ciniki-na-oblasti-res-vedeli-kaj-pocnejo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slavoj Žižek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003180230/http://www.slovenskapomlad.si/2?id=20 to http://www.slovenskapomlad.si/2?id=20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:48, 7 December 2017 (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)


 * I was also puzzled by the omission of Žižek's nationality. The Slovenian version of the article describes him quite simply as a Slovenian philosopher ("slovenski filozof"), and the Dutch version also says he's a Slovenian sociologist, philosopher, psychoanalyst and cultural critic ("een Sloveense socioloog, filosoof, psychoanalyticus en cultuurcriticus"). Perhaps it's his own preference, but in that case why is his nationality mentioned in other languages?89.212.50.177 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible source of one of his jokes...
All information I know of in reference to his joke about the man who believes himself to be a grain of seed is anecdotal. There is, however, this book (published in 1966) Le Latin sans Peine which provides the joke in latin. As he knows Latin, and speaks French very well, it is possible that he came into contact with this book in Paris (it is relatively common here, both in bookshops and libraries).

The joke starts at line 4 until line 9 starting on the page in the link below.

https://archive.org/details/DesessardLatinSansPeine1page/page/n103/mode/2up Pauchjo (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm removing a bunch of names from the "influences" section
I'm going to remove some names from this section since it's too long to be useful and many of the names are irrelevant. Please feel free to add them back in if I removed them inappropriately. This is also a good place to discuss future changes to this section.

Here are the names I'm removing:

Darwin -- not an important philosophical influence, not sure why this is here in the first place.

Heidegger -- Zizek was a heideggerian before his first book (sublime object) and heidegger is no longer an important influence to his philosophy

Mao and Stalin -- I don't think zizek typically references either of these authors much, so these shouldn't be here. Compiling a book containing their writings does not count.

Nietzsche -- I have never read zizek interpreting nietzsche through his own philosophy and his thought is not particularly nietzschean.

Russel -- I don't see any reason for this to be here

Deleuze -- although he wrote a critical book about deleuze, zizek is not at all a deleuzian.Baldersmash (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

my god!
and so on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.218.201 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * this is spamBaldersmash (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Gilles Deleuze
One major omission of the wikipage on Zizek is his engagement with the thought of Gilles Deleuze, who has been a major influence on his thinking.

In fact, there is not even any mention to him. Which is surprising given that one of Zizek's most cited work is 'Organs Without Bodies: On Deleuze and Consequences'.

See: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=zizek&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

This needs to be addressed. Does anyone care to pick up this glove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogura Sarute (talk • contribs) 02:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * it's just this one book though. Not zizek's main concern. Baldersmash (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Chomsky vs. Zizek
Surprised there is no mention of the debate or exchange of words between these two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 10:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * this is just a handful of remarks, largely dismissive on chomsky's part. doesn't seem like something that needs to be included. Baldersmash (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.--Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic
What does that mean? Why not replace idiosyncratic simply by authentic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.113.44 (talk • contribs)


 * Those two words mean different things. Here are their definitions:
 * idiosyncratic
 * authentic
 * It is perfectly possible to be idiosyncratic in an inauthentic way (which is exactly what a lot of performative edgelords are) or to be authentic without being particularly idiosyncratic at all, i.e. to be authentically quite bland. Zizek is both idiosyncratic and, as far as I can tell, authentic but that doesn't make them both the same thing. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed (same unsigned user) but in the field of thought, authentic should be awarded more meaning, more principled, as in authentic thinking (self-achieved thinking). It is hard to think of someone bland as being an authentic thinker (though I guess it is possible). Idiosyncratic in this context I think is not particularly helpful, it doesn't really carry meaning. It's like meaning eccentric but not saying it to avoid sounding disobliging. I am not particularly adept to what Zizek says but I think he can be said to be an authentic thinker. I felt it is more meaningful than saying he has an "idiosyncratic style".

authentic (adj.) mid-14c., autentik, "authoritative, duly authorized" (a sense now obsolete), from Old French autentique "authentic; canonical" (13c., Modern French authentique) and directly from Medieval Latin authenticus, from Greek authentikos "original, genuine, principal," from authentes "one acting on one's own authority," from autos "self" (see auto-) + hentes "doer, being," from PIE root *sene- (2) "to accomplish, achieve." Sense of "real, entitled to acceptance as factual" is first recorded mid-14c.

Traditionally in modern use, authentic implies that the contents of the thing in question correspond to the facts and are not fictitious (hence "trustworthy, reliable"); while genuine implies that the reputed author is the real one and that we have it as it left the author's hand (hence "unadulterated"); but this is not always maintained: "The distinction which the 18th c. apologists attempted to establish between genuine and authentic ... does not agree well with the etymology of the latter word, and is not now recognized" [OED].

Idiosyncrasy

The term "idiosyncrasy" originates from Greek ἰδιοσυγκρασία idiosynkrasía, "a peculiar temperament, habit of body"[3] (from ἴδιος idios, "one's own", σύν syn, "with" and κρᾶσις krasis, "blend of the four humors" (temperament)) or literally "particular mingling".

Frankly, my point I guess is that idiosyncratic here is reductive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.113.44 (talk)