Zizek is to philosophy what Trump is to politics.
Donald Trump is a disaster for politics.
His views and policies on the environment alone make him a disaster not just for the USA, but for the whole of humanity.
His aggressiveness and irrationality are an ordeal for humanity.
We must start building a political alternative to him and make sure he is not re-elected in the USA in 2020.
He is an incompetent fool.
He is supposedly popular but is not really. His success was achieved at the expense of radically discrediting others rather than because of anything to his own credit.
Slavoj Zizek is to philosophy what Donald Trump is to politics.
He is also an incompetent fool. He is also supposed to be a creditable and popular figure but is not really anything of the kind.
People on the right are very pleased about Zizek's views and supposed popularity, because they can point to his stupidity and ridiculousness, but also to his popularity on the left, as an easy way to discredit the left and alternative politics in general.
He is a convenient way to mock and discredit any kind of large scale opposition to the capitalist West, since he is ambiguous in his attitude towards Stalin and Stalinism. Any alternative to the capitalist West can be portrayed historically as impossible and incoherent given the disastrous errors of Stalinism, as well as its contemporary manifestation in thinkers like Zizek. Zizek's and others on the left's ambiguity about the Soviet episode allows for people on the right to say that the left is in totality an alternative that his been tried and failed. Zizek serves as the icing on the cake of capitalism's supposed victory over the left at the end of the Cold War.
Zizek's vagueness is also something that works to the advantage of the right, since they can point to the lack of rigour and coherence on the left. His simultaneous criticism of the left and adherence to the left further weakens the position of the left.
Whether his vagueness, incoherence and provocative comments are deliberately intended to discredit the left and alternative politics in general is not really relevant.
That they do so is enough for us to make sure that we reject and ignore Zizek as a thinker, and look for others to hold out the hope of something better than what we have now, and to keep the flame of a political alternative alive.
In a similar way, Zizek's status as a "famous philosopher" allows those who, for whatever reason, would rather people did not philosophize or take an interest in philosophy to discredit, dismiss and write off philosophy as the province and concern of insubstantial buffoons and peddlars of nonsense.
Zizek is undoubtedly an insubstantial buffoon and a peddlar of nonsense, and he does a disservice to the status of philosophy.
Some examples of Zizek's blatant folly include the following assertions:
It is acceptable to vote for Trump;
Trump is a centrist;
Macron is the same as Le Pen;
There is no such thing as nature.
Donald Trump is a disaster for politics.
His views and policies on the environment alone make him a disaster not just for the USA, but for the whole of humanity.
His aggressiveness and irrationality are an ordeal for humanity.
We must start building a political alternative to him and make sure he is not re-elected in the USA in 2020.
He is an incompetent fool.
He is supposedly popular but is not really. His success was achieved at the expense of radically discrediting others rather than because of anything to his own credit.
Slavoj Zizek is to philosophy what Donald Trump is to politics.
He is also an incompetent fool. He is also supposed to be a creditable and popular figure but is not really anything of the kind.
People on the right are very pleased about Zizek's views and supposed popularity, because they can point to his stupidity and ridiculousness, but also to his popularity on the left, as an easy way to discredit the left and alternative politics in general.
He is a convenient way to mock and discredit any kind of large scale opposition to the capitalist West, since he is ambiguous in his attitude towards Stalin and Stalinism. Any alternative to the capitalist West can be portrayed historically as impossible and incoherent given the disastrous errors of Stalinism, as well as its contemporary manifestation in thinkers like Zizek. Zizek's and others on the left's ambiguity about the Soviet episode allows for people on the right to say that the left is in totality an alternative that his been tried and failed. Zizek serves as the icing on the cake of capitalism's supposed victory over the left at the end of the Cold War.
Zizek's vagueness is also something that works to the advantage of the right, since they can point to the lack of rigour and coherence on the left. His simultaneous criticism of the left and adherence to the left further weakens the position of the left.
Whether his vagueness, incoherence and provocative comments are deliberately intended to discredit the left and alternative politics in general is not really relevant.
That they do so is enough for us to make sure that we reject and ignore Zizek as a thinker, and look for others to hold out the hope of something better than what we have now, and to keep the flame of a political alternative alive.
In a similar way, Zizek's status as a "famous philosopher" allows those who, for whatever reason, would rather people did not philosophize or take an interest in philosophy to discredit, dismiss and write off philosophy as the province and concern of insubstantial buffoons and peddlars of nonsense.
Zizek is undoubtedly an insubstantial buffoon and a peddlar of nonsense, and he does a disservice to the status of philosophy.
Some examples of Zizek's blatant folly include the following assertions:
It is acceptable to vote for Trump;
Trump is a centrist;
Macron is the same as Le Pen;
There is no such thing as nature.