Apparently his work on Lacan and Hegel is super influential but I only know about him because of his pop culture rants and political commentary.
>>25614845He was cool in the mid 00s then just kept saying the same thing and writing the same thing for like a decade and a half.
It is worth reading but he is not good for beginners in some ways; I myself get filtered by about half of the Lacan references. He’s entertaining but could give the false idea that philosophy is performance art in a way if you don’t go into the “basement” as itvwere of his mind - German Idealism.
>>25614845I was so blindedYou literally just but a label on it that I didn't likeThe Hegel of Hegeldamn
>>25614845BEST PHILOSPHER OF ALL TIME
>>25614845>Marxist/CommieGee, I wonder...
>>25614845The Parallax View is probably his best book. His political content, like most political content, ages fast. Welcome to the Desert of the Real is probably still worth a read, but the one on occupy wall st is now skippable. The Hegel brain book was decent but I'm not even sure he still subscribes to this one. Enjoy Your Symptom was good, and probably still relevant given how everyone claims psychological disorders as part of identity. At some point he subscribed to the Zizek thought industry complex. You can always just read Hegel and Lacan and you can read Zizek. Iirc he didn't fully undergo a psychoanalysis, and I can't fault him for that, so he's not an official Analyst (capital A). I don't think he wants to, Lacan is a cultural critique treasure trove to him. If you are interested in reading Lacan I would avoid his how to read Lacan book. He (Zizek) recommended starting with him (Zizek) or changed his view to this at some point. There's basically 2 Lacans in Lacan's material, the Ecrit requires you to know pretty much all of what Lacan was referring to, for Zizek this may not be an issue, for you it will be. The lectures are almost completely different in style, Lacan is almost philological on some of it, but some of his points don't require you to know all of the previous book. Lacan also offers some Hegelian esque commentaries on certain topics. His net of references is far reaching, but he straightforwardly says he doesn't have time and just makes an elucidation in most cases. You can take him on his word or go look for yourself. If neither of these is palatable for you then don't waste your time. The seminar Freud, Hegel, and The Machine could provide someone like Zizek years worth of material, same goes for the Discourse of the Master.
>>25614845Just read Lacan. Pick one of Lacan's most influential papers or seminars and take the time to read it and read past the surface of scrambled language, then you'll know that he's a fraud and anyone who discusses him is also a fraud and you will be able to suppress genuine laughter any time Lacan or Žižek is mentioned by someone with a straight face.
>>25615546>His political content, like most political content, ages fast.It doesn't.
>>25614845Yeah just read Kristeva and Marx instead.
If you think about it, Zizek being le funny sniffing man is proof of his intelligence. We know he can be a "serious" philosopher when he wants to be, but he's figured out that the way to be truly influential in the modern world is to make himself a living meme. He's done it, and it's worked: I can't think of a single other philosopher who's got such a salient pop culturee presence. I have to give him his props for it, honestly. He's played the game and won it.
>>25615391He's not though.
>>25614845He doesn't have a philosophy, he just reacts to things.
>>25616915He does have a joke book. The joke about the German guy going to Russia may have been why it was banned there. The something to nothing joke was also good. Nothing to nothing and something to something > something to nothing or nothing to something. The one about Marx wanting a wife, Engels a mistress, and Lenin both but winding up alone was good. Some are dated, like calls to hell being local instead of long distance. Some of them are too abstract to really count as jokes imo, like the one about truth being an event and how a fiancé can't be late, that one wasn't funny.Otherwise yes, if a philosopher is to make a living at philosophy then Zizek and Land are likely outcomes, you have to make money off of, you, it's kind of like self employment. Otherwise don't skip the math and logic, limit the metaphysics time to hit the gym as well.
>>25614845He destroyed that faggot peterson in their debate, that makes him based. But no
>>25614845he's never said a single intelligent thing, so no
>>25614845Yes, but you don't have to read through all of it.Sublime Object, Less Than Nothing and Parallax View should be enough.Everything else is optional.
>>25614845He's pretty good as an introduction.For a lot of things actually. Not just philosophy.Psychoanalysis, economic analysis, cinema, comedy you name it.
>>25617284Uh-huh
