Slavoj Žižek

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Slavoj Zizek)
Jump to: navigation, search
Mark Hamill
Thinking hardly
or hardly thinking?

Icon philosophy.svg
Major trains of thought
The good, the bad
and the brain fart
Come to think of it
I already am eating from the trash can all the time. The name of this trash can is ideology. The material force of ideology makes me not see what I am effectively eating.
—Slavoj Žižek on ideology[1]

Slavoj Žižek (1949–) is a Slovene philosopher who has written numerous books about Lacan, Marx, and Hegel, peppering reams of copy with heavy interpretations of the most esoteric of Freudian thinkers with jokes about the Cold War, Alfred Hitchcock, and the difference between toilets in various European countries.

He went absolutely berserk when Occupy Wall Street happened, but he still has doubts about anarchism and thinks Hegel proves that a strong State is needed.

On religion[edit]

While Žižek's philosophy often draws heavily on Christian theology, he is a staunch defender of atheism.[2]

Žižek has also come out against conflating criticisms of Islam with Islamophobia, refusing to accept (quote): "prohibiting any critique of Islam as a case of ‘Islamophobia’".[3]

On Marxism[edit]

Slavoj Žižek identifies himself as a Marxist but argues that prizing action rather than thinking is a big error as it damages an ideology[4]. He also refuses the Marxist/Leninist Planned Economy, which suggests everything will become great until a period of industrialization that requires oppression. He says that all of those systems don't switch to a libertarian system after getting industrialized. [5]

On comparing "transgenderism" with interspecies marriage[edit]

In August 2016, Žižek wrote a terrible opinion piece for The Philosophical Salon called "The Sexual is Political", in which he wrote:[6]

And a similar tension is present in transgenderism. Transgender subjects who appear as transgressive, defying all prohibitions, simultaneously behave in a hyper-sensitive way insofar as they feel oppressed by enforced choice (“Why should I decide if I am man or woman?”) and need a place where they could recognize themselves. If they so proudly insist on their “trans-,” beyond all classification, why do they display such an urgent demand for a proper place? Why, when they find themselves in front of gendered toilets, don’t they act with heroic indifference–“I am transgendered, a bit of this and that, a man dressed as a woman, etc., so I can well choose whatever door I want!”? Furthermore, do “normal” heterosexuals not face a similar problem? Do they also not often find it difficult to recognize themselves in prescribed sexual identities? One could even say that “man” (or “woman”) is not a certain identity but more like a certain mode of avoiding an identity… And we can safely predict that new anti-discriminatory demands will emerge: why not marriages among multiple persons? What justifies the limitation to the binary form of marriage? Why not even a marriage with animals? After all we already know about the finesse of animal emotions. Is to exclude marriage with an animal not a clear case of “speciesism,” an unjust privileging of the human species?

Despite being a philosopher, he clearly does not understand what a slippery slope is: allowing transgender people to transition and be accepted for who they are, does not logically lead to bestiality.

External links[edit]