|
He has a few 'inconsistencies' that tend to gall analytic-leaning sorts; he's also a problematiser of postmodernism. He's also non-systematic (although he's almost drudgingly repetitious in his Lacan/ Hegel/ Marx 'trinitarianism' trope).
What Zizek does that very few do is to be a sort of platform, a lens for philosophy in popular culture; his writings on 9/11 or Big Brother (in, I think, 'welcome to the desert of the real') are compelling arguments written at times when resistance to cultural hegemony was sorely lacking from leftist academics. What he doesn't do is try and imbue popular positions with unnecessary gravitas.
He was also heavily involved with the NSK at one point, which also included everyone's favourite 'postmodern' industrialists, Laibach.
I can understand why someone would say he was 'meaningless', but I've very rarely encountered that sort of thinking that doesn't also dismiss postmodernism or poststructuralism out of hand (Zizek is neither). I don't know the guy you're talking about, but I tend to find that the sort of people who dismiss Zizek also dismiss Lacan, which is entirely foolhardy in my book. Did he structure his argument beyond 'it's meaningless'?
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Savage Clone
Last time I was in Chicago I spent an hour in a Nazi submarine with a banjo player.
|
|