Zizek’s INCONTINENCE OF THE VOID (2): Deleuze/Zizek parallel or parallax

Zizek’s reply to his critics has important points in common with Deleuze’s “apology” in “Letter to a Harsh Critic”. In particular, both reject negative psycho-social interpretations of their person and work as malevolent, attempts to imprison them in stereotypes and to judge them by criteria that make it impossible to understand what they are saying.

There is the critic of identitarian thought, the appeal to a counter-tradition of philosophy, the method of immanent subversion (Deleuze’s immanent “buggery”), the refusal both of deconstructionist strictures against metaphysical thought and of pre-critical ontologies, an attempt to elaborate a non-standard philosophy, i.e. one that does not conform to the “dogmatic” image of thought.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Zizek’s INCONTINENCE OF THE VOID (2): Deleuze/Zizek parallel or parallax

  1. Philip Beitchman says:

    Interesting, and ingenious; but I think who perhaps you call Laruelle’s disciples do a better job of clarifying their differences and even some underlying accord; see M. Gracieuse, Laruelle facing Deleuze, in Laruelle and Non-Philosophy, ed. Mullarkey and Smith; also S. Lesueur, Pensee Machine, in Homo Ex Machina, FL ed. Like to hear your take.

    Like

  2. landzek says:

    I would even say ‘dogmatic’. I’d be a little more honest and say ‘usual’.

    it should be apparent that intelligence and education is not a unilateral quality , these activities do not connote a standard that is true, but only a standard of political efficiency. I find often that people with more education than me (PhD etc) and who I consider intelligent in general interaction, are incapable of understanding concepts that appear to me routine.

    In fact, often enough they hold their letters and ability to be presumed and for and by which to be presumed upon, such that any concept that is obviously beyond them is automatically and ‘obviously’ false or not true by virtue of the fact that their area accounts for all areas.

    I am also an ass and I think we should recognize that the 19th century ideal of a university where various departments can interact to create a total progressive human ‘luz’ is a religious fantasy . 😄

    But that’s not to say that we should not study things; only that just because you think you are a philosopher and can speak the jargon doesn’t mean you grasp the concept.

    But I am a pessimistic optimist: the failures are what get us places. .

    Like

  3. landzek says:

    Oh. I mean. I would Not say..

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s