The opportunity of opening and of freeing the intellectual dialogue in French Continental Philosophy was missed yet again when Laruelle stole Bachelard’s idea of a philosophy of “non” (erroneously translated as a philosophy of no) but ignored Bachelard, and when questioned said that his concept of non-philosophy owed nothing to Bachelard. Once again the context was truncated and distorted and the dialogue reduced and closed.
Bachelard brought a wider context, including an openness to Jung. Every time Zizek can he declares his hostility and contempt for Jung and damns Deleuze for having similar ideas or having been influenced by Jung’s ideas, but it is obvious that he knows almost nothing about Jung’s work and even less about the post-Jungians.
Zizek is acting to confine the discussion to a very limited number of thinkers that he has studied and about whom he feels comfortable giving us lessons. He refuses to leave his comfort zone for a wider discussion.
It is understandable, but smug and lazy, for French thinkers who grew up intellectually in the period under the hegemony of Lacan not to seek out ideas elsewhere. But for someone who comes from elsewhere to adopt the prejudices of the thinkers he has come to study shows a criminal narrowness of spirit.