|
rudatron posted:when people ask for 'meaning in their lives', they're specifically asking for an inherent, underlying significance to their life, that transcends appearances. It has to be outside of yourself, singular, and unbiased ie, not subjective. Therefore, it has to be objective. If it weren't, you couldn't claim it was transcendent, because it's relative to each person. This doesn't exist, so the OP's question is badly formed. In extremely Zizek voice, "but my gott, *schnniff*, what if the opposite is true? what if, instead of conceiving of "philosophical" meaning as something that transcends appearances, we perceive that it is precisely appearances as appearances that represent the ultimate horizon of "philosophical" meaning itself? That is, rather than implicitly conceiving the eternally asymptomatic approach of objective truth as a fault within the universe that reveal to us an ever imminent Void demanding of us a spurious nihilism, we instead view this impossibility of access to direct truth as in fact constitutive and guaranteeing of our radical freedom as subjects? Without which we would have to admit a world where we were puppets acting out a divine determinism unbeknownst to us, as automata."
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
almost there posted:In extremely Zizek voice, Is this the Anti-Life Equation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 08:44
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Is this the Anti-Life Equation? for platonic idealism, yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
" I am "in" God in my very distance from him." Is the most straight forward way he has said it. It's in quite a bit of theology too, because of Hegel / Luther. Edit: it's sin and grace btw Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:for platonic idealism, yes Nah, it is to go further than the question of the dialectic of idealism vs materialism, making the distinction irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Nah, it is to go further than the question of the dialectic of idealism vs materialism, making the distinction irrelevant. Nah, poster's still right to bring up Platonic idealism. People often mistake the "postmodern" debate (if there can even be said to be such a thing) with the ancient debate of Plato vs. the sophists (albeit one complicated by institutional power). It's true that Zizek's basic spiritual standpoint is as you mentioned, you know, that "I am in God my very distance from Him", but also with the caveat that God (one of the names-of-the-Father) never really existed but is, and has always been, a stand-in for the lack that marks the emergence of the signifier (why Adam & Eve perceive themselves as naked, lacking, after tasting the fruit of This & That, or, badly translated, of Good & Evil). That said, Zizek's big innovation is not in siding with either Plato or Gorgias in the debate, but instead a matter of viewing the processual nature of the gap constitutive of that debate (which is, indeed, a matter of dialectic) as the ultimate horizon of meaning. Thus put, the inability to "know God" opens up the realm for Politics (effectively the name for all such dialectical gaps since they are unknowable Real caught up in "non-relationships") and the knowledge that the closest to truth we can approach is not via any singular position, but by vacillating all possible semblances that non-relationship can take and taking into account all possible subjects, their minimal differences from one another, and eventually encircling the unknowability of that Real within the Hegelian frame of Absolute Knowing (which is really a matter of understanding the "reflextivity of desire", which is where Zizek's Hegel-Lacanianism comes into play). Now, the crucial point is not that all truths are equally valid, but that the position of the subject practicing Absolute Knowing (i.e. accounting for all possible subjects in relation to a non-relationship) is itself the only really truthful one. The idea is that this "un-sexed" position in relation to the Real , incidentally one who's position most resembles that of the analyst's, is the only one that allows Politics to take place in an "unideological" way. This means that such a subject can adopt any one position as is most useful (it's literally impossible to act without ideology), but in doing can't help but simultaneously mark the lack in it and in other positions and in so doing are given the chance to "allow politics to be" without the stodgy Master signifier or entropy of the state as it is traditionally understood. The closest example of a state test driving this principle was Mao's China during the Cultural Revolution, so let's hope Zizek and crew have given us the proper ideological training to prevent that from happening again. almost there fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, the only true meaning of life is "42." In other words, I acknowledge that I exist, that I perceive other people and objects to exist, and that I acknowledge that nothing makes sense most of the time. Does that make me dumb, smart, or just average? I don't know. And I don't care. I will continue to exist until I die. Until then, I will attempt to continue to exist until I have no reason to do so or an outside force eliminates my bloodline. Why think about it too much? I'd rather spend my days collecting welfare checks, getting girls pregnant, collecting MORE welfare checks, drinking Budweiser, watching Netflix, driving around in an expensive SUV with gold rimz, guzzling Brawndo, and otherwise being a menace 2 society. I try to avoid using words that have more than 3 syllables, or grammatically correct English because I don't want people accusing me of being a human being. I look forward to the days when my descendants can literally have super low IQ's and still find a way to survive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
almost there posted:Now, the crucial point is not that all truths are equally valid, but that the position of the subject practicing Absolute Knowing (i.e. accounting for all possible subjects in relation to a non-relationship) is itself the only really truthful one. The idea is that this "un-sexed" position in relation to the Real , incidentally one who's position most resembles that of the analyst's, is the only one that allows Politics to take place in an "unideological" way. This means that such a subject can adopt any one position as is most useful (it's literally impossible to act without ideology), but in doing can't help but simultaneously mark the lack in it and in other positions and in so doing are given the chance to "allow politics to be" without the stodgy Master signifier or entropy of the state as it is traditionally understood. The closest example of a state test driving this principle was Mao's China during the Cultural Revolution, so let's hope Zizek and crew have given us the proper ideological training to prevent that from happening again. Alternatively one can look at what he's describing and see that it's just the theological circle / ellipse and the positions are the existential question and the Real. Here's what I don't get about Less than Nothing, how do you drop a line like "nothing cannot be said to exist" which is very clearly referencing "God cannot be said to be" without mentioning a single time Tillich. Especially when it's very clear Christian existentialism and Death of God are things being addressed in the book and it's expansive scope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Alternatively one can look at what he's describing and see that it's just the theological circle / ellipse and the positions are the existential question and the Real. I've wondered the same thing myself and the only explanation I can think of is that Zizek is purely interested in a Hegelian reading of Christianity and invoking Tillich complicates that. Like, the only time Zizek will invoke anybody other than Hegel when talking on Christianity is GK Chesterton, and even then its usually only to use the plot for the very Hegelian "Man Who was Thursday" in order to make a point. That said, I couldn't tell you what his particular beef with Tillich is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
I kind of want to ask him and I have since I read it. I wonder if he'd respond to an unsolicited email or letter from a nobody.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I kind of want to ask him and I have since I read it. I wonder if he'd respond to an unsolicited email or letter from a nobody. Chomsky does; I've met people who got a reply from him. Not that what one popular academic does means that another will do the same, but it is worth a shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 23:18
|
|
