Slavoj Zizek: What I HATE About Jacques Lacan | Psychoanalysis

Slavoj Zizek talks about Jacques Lacan & the dislike he has for his outward persona when presenting Lacanian psychoanalysis which he see's as fake
Support me on Patreon (thank you!) / thoughtsonthinking

[@wokenpc4865]

normal person: watches the simpsons on their tv after a long day of work zizek: tv only has one channel, the lacan channel

[@Brewmaster757]

and he hates it lmao

[@nicanornunez9787]

He has to pay extra to get the Freud channel

[@PatrickBaele]

🤣

[@misscraycray777]

🤣😭

[@brianvanlijf6007]

lol

[@samthesomniator]

"I like philosophy as an anonymous job..." 😅😅 The struggle is real.

[@christosbinos8467]

"I believe in clear statements" That's rich coming from you Zizek 🤣

[@gamer-sama7769]

He believes in it, but I don’t think his mind is setup to do so. There’s obviously a lot going on in there, perhaps that’s the consequence of having such a stellar mind, that a mouth can only speak so much.

[@christosbinos8467]

@@gamer-sama7769 No, that is simply a poorly organized mind. Likely because he is too comfortable in his profitable veneer to change it. There were and are minds greater than Zizek's who had extreme clarity. Albert Einstein, Nietzche, Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, etc.

[@darkness2863]

@@christosbinos8467 big downvote

[@isaacwang1926]

@@gamer-sama7769 Wasn't that kind of what Lacan proposed? That people just can't ever articulate their internal being fully.

[@Synodalian]

@@isaacwang1926 While that's true psychologically, from a rhetorical standpoint that is absolutely ridiculous. I mean sure, there's only so much you can articulate, but there _are_ far better tools and structures you can rely on to better organize these systems of thought, especially considering how expansive and interdisciplinary they are. My problem with Zizek then isn't that his scope of social commentary is extremely wide, but that in every book I've read of his, it all comes across more as a stream of consciousness than a systematic elaboration with explicit implications. Not even his _Parallax View_ and _Less Than Nothing_ do this for me, which is why ultimately he's a very good source for introducing complex ideas in Continental Philosophy but actually atrocious as a guide when it finally comes time to _apply_ those ideas pragmatically.

[@hewasfuzzywuzzy3583]

Žižek is blunt, direct, and to the point. Granted, it's a long point but, he gets there. ...eventually. But if he does have a style it is that he always has more to say that he'd like to say. Which, is why, he always says, "If you want to know more on that, read my books. It's all there."

[@mltiago]

Lacan loved to mess with his public audience. I thing he used to make this proposital. As a way, as zizek puts it, to be like Moses, the second big patriarch of psychoanalysis and keep people talking about him and his work. In the beginning of his public life, he was far clearer but then he developed this persona. Besides that his work is fantastic and reformulated and amplified Freud works in an sophisticated and important way.

[@mattbritzius570]

I think he might just not like the French...

[@lukeduan6291]

arent we all?

[@arlesfranciscocordero391]

Is Zizek the son destined to repeat the father's mistakes? Or the son who as he grows older looks more like his lacanian father?

[@funnyhandle]

this is just a very 'Parisian French intellectual' affect of the era (1940s to 1980s). you see it in people like Jean Luc Godard, Foucault (though he was more ironic), Sartre, Deleuze a bit, Derrida never dropped this act well after even French intellectuals moved on. A wilful obscurantism and aloofness that is supposed to signal their great intellects. This was simply the habitus of that place and time. There is a wonderful moment in the documentary Sociology is a Contact Sport where a very affable and approachable Pierre Bourdieu receives a wilfully obscure letter from Godard. Bourdieu seems to have never adopted or already shed this particular post-war French intellectual affect and you see it collide as Bourdieu laughs away Godard's try-hard pretensions. It seems French intellectuals are largely over this affect and it's all the better.

[@snackz5181]

^ Underrated comment. It's very interesting to track this 'post-WWII' French intellectual mindset through these "great" French thinkers; what we see is blatant obscurantism. One only needs to open and read one of Derrida's books for 5 seconds to understand this. I find Lacan more interesting as he is so often quoted as being one of "the 20th century's greatest thinkers and writers", yet his work is riddled with obscurantism. I have read much of Carl Jung and love the accessibility of his admittedly dense work, and I love reading the ideas presented by analytical psychology and psychoanalysis, but it seems Lacan's work is almost purposely difficult to read. I'm truly curious if there are any of his ideas that hold much weight and water in this 21st century we now occupy.

[@MarcillaSmith]

By the same logic, I'm trying to be more performative with my facial tics

[@OsirusHandle]

@@snackz5181 Obscurantism is certainly a bit of obnoxious fun but it doesnt really signal anything other than pretentiousness. Foucualt and co, who did similar, were certainly not frauds. It does make them more difficult than they should be, though.

[@raginbakin1430]

@@OsirusHandle is it obscurantism? I see it more as an effort to use non-everyday language to signify concepts, frameworks of thinking, etc that subvert the language upheld by the dominant order of the day (AKA the “episteme”).

[@OsirusHandle]

@@raginbakin1430 There is an argument to constructing specialised language, eg. lacan demands certain words be kept in french or capitalised a certain way to indicate a "symbol" over a word, but as for subversion? Certainly, what was the "episteme" of foucaults day if not foucaults language.

[@ottodachat]

I got into Lacan back in the 1970s, lived in Paris and always regretted that I never attended any of his lectures, that is, if you could get a seat. But the one piece of work that always struck me was his analysis of Edgar A. Poe's the Purloined Letter, (from his Ecits) a must read and the best way to understand Lacan, and for his grandiosity in his lectures, perhaps it was a good thing I never attended, mais en tout cas, vive Lacan!

[@heraclitus9721]

He's criticizing him moving his hand, while doing the same but even worse in a way.

[@Waaazuuuubp]

not the gesture, but the persona behind it

[@gabatar5961]

@@Waaazuuuubp it’s just a different people , Lacan has a slower pace because of his need for thought organization. Which is comprehensible I think Zizek goes too communist when expecting for everyone to have to same mannerism for him to feel comfortable or at ease.

[@devenir730]

That´s the joke of the video.. he is critizing himself. Note that in this video he is not doing his hands and nose movements/noises. He is talking about Lacan and about him at the same time. He think that the gesture and the personality is fake in that sense. What truly matters is the content, the postulates of Lacan. The joke is that he is trying to do the same thing. He is trying to put his ideas as Lacan, conscious of the fakeness and the character thats made on himself.

[@guillermozalles9303]

i don't like his gestures... he said as he moved his hands in a blurr

[@jaxcipher4111]

r/wooooosh

[@455batuhan]

Holy shit! Zizek was way more understandable back then.

[@avastyer]

There's a great joke by Simon Munnery: Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living." Munnery: "How do you know?" Similarly, there is simply no way for Zizek or anyone else to know whether someone's style is pure ideology. He may apply this to himself of course. I don't like the way Lacan speaks, writes or carries himself either. But to suggest that it’s ideology at its purest, that is, Imaginary in the Lacanian, sense is to claim a knowledge Zizek pretends to disavow. A judgement, sure. Knowledge and truth? Zizek is the knowing subject supposed to know here,. Which is more ironic than his jokes.

[@markuslucifer]

You didn't understand his point.

[@avastyer]

Mark O thanks. I take it you mean Zizek’s point, not Lacan’s on Television. Er, how? Zizek is raging against the persona of the master, a role Lacan disavowed but evidently loved assuming. I agree with Zizek. It is concerning and very annoying at the very least. However, Zizek has his own outsized and masterly persona: the high-low culture hoover in which everything goes into the Lacanian-Hegelian dialectic. Trouble is, Z hasn’t read or seen half the things he claims to have. He recently recanted his opinion of Joker after admitting that he hadn’t seen it but still gave an analysis as if he had. That’s fine. Everyone does that a bit. I just don’t know why he feels the need to do it as he is already very well read etc. Maybe it’s because he is very involved in the discourse of the university - that’s phrase from Lacan. I’ll let you look it up. X

[@smhsophie]

this is blatant ideology you are spewing

[@avastyer]

@@smhsophie Upvoted!

[@gdhjdnsjsjdj]

​@@avastyer All due respect, I agree with you for the most part, but 1) is the example about Joker enough to support the claim that "Z hasn’t read or seen half the things he claims to have"? 2) Isn't this also the discourse of university: "he is very involved in the discourse of the university - that’s phrase from Lacan. I’ll let you look it up"? 3) I'm sorry, I cannot follow your exact point here: "there is simply no way for Zizek or anyone else to know whether someone's style is pure ideology. He may apply this to himself of course. I don't like the way Lacan speaks, writes or carries himself either. But to suggest that it’s ideology at its purest, that is, Imaginary in the Lacanian, sense is to claim a knowledge Zizek pretends to disavow. A judgement, sure. Knowledge and truth? Zizek is the knowing subject supposed to know here,. Which is more ironic than his jokes." Could you elaborate?

[@vlangvling1403]

"Petit a" 's function is at the same time very clear (cause of desire) AND impossible to express completely.

[@denvorsden7903]

Best reaction video on KZbin ❤❤❤.

[@LilVukie]

Does anyone know where I can find the original video from Zizek as well as the original video from Lacan.

[@Daniel_Ilyich]

Speaking of clarity, what is Zizek getting at here with his definition of the term Ideology?

[@kojak8403]

There is no clarity. He is trying to justify some quasi-dialectical reversal of meanings at their extreme sense into their opposites. This is one of the times Żiżek is just pulling off totally postmodern absurd bs, trying so hard to be such a deep intellectual, where in fact he's just blabbering yet again. "It is an anti-ideological act is to fully identify with the ideological image" - no it is not. It is illogical. Period.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

He’s basically saying that when we believe in some image of ourselves, some essence that is what it is independent of our actions-a real, true self with qualities that define us outside of our actions-identification with this image is the most dangerous ideology, as we are truly defined by our actions and not by this ideological image of who we are. This identification with the ideological self-image is so dangerous because it allows people to reconcile themselves to committing atrocities against other people by dissociating themselves from their actions and instead identifying with their ideological self-image. One example is soldiers who kill civilians then go home to their own families and even feel like honorable warriors, etc. Some struggle to go on with their own lives, as cracks in the ideological self-image and recognition of the true nature of their acts forces its way into conscious recognition. The most dangerous ones are those that can consistently commit atrocities without their ideological self-image being deflated (think of Hitler and his most enthusiastic, faithful Nazis).

[@N3UROM4NZER]

@@CrazyLinguiniLegs Totally agree with you. And I think what you said answers fully the intelligent objection of obscurity of @Koyak. But I think it helps a little if we underline a word Zizek is using, I think, ambiguously: ideology. "The most horrible anti-ideological act for me [...] is to fully identify with [your] ideological image". The first use of word "ideological" means ideal, true, and meant-to-be, in Enlightened terms of human modernity, progress, science, truth, justice, etc. I speak spanish natively, so I'm not sure, but I think is a fair use of the word. The second use of ideology means exactly what you are explaining: the fall of all these virtues I have said into a premanufactured and empty image which is manipulated by those in power, to justify war and all kind of human atrocities. I don´t think this ambiguity is a logical mistake, but rather a play of language, which gives more rethorical power to the argument, that's it. Philosophy is as close to science as it is to poetry, that´s the whole point of philosophy. On the other hand, I don't think Zizek's proposition is diallectical, and I agree with @Koyak maxime if we measure Zizek by the weight of his own words: "I don't like the absurd style of Lacan, but only his propositions", maybe because he is doing exactly the same thing: he is styling his speach, and Lacan's style is getting in the way.

[@N3UROM4NZER]

Maybe what Zizek is truly saying is just that he envies that Lacan was given a national TV show, or maybe I'm just high.

[@TheRocknrollmaniac]

@@kojak8403 I think what he tried to say, anti-ideology is an ideology in itself, and believing in it (in some kind of true essential self) is essentially identifying with one's (anti) ideological image. I see what you're trying to say, but I think these words do have some meaning.

[@kazohinia5751]

The "horrible" anti-ideological act of identifying fully with the imaginary self is horrible because it isn't really anti-ideological, it is embracing ideology.

[@Flatscores]

Im not convinced of this strategy myself, but you can see why Žižek would say this. If the ideological distortion is precicely the view that there is something authentic underneath the appearances. It is distruptive to THAT view to emphasize the lack of this authenticity. Perhaps the idea is to jolt then the people to action and immanent relations with the world, rather than retreating into the illusion of: “I know very well I act like this and that, but it is okay, since it is not my true self.” This goes well with Žižek’s criticism of belief in current capitalist system which he claims follows this logic.

[@nikitakozubenko]

​​​@@FlatscoresI agree with you. But why do you think he says that it is a truly horrible act? Is he making moral assessment? Many in the comments take it as that and thereby conclude that this full identification leads to the exact opposite of what you're saying, i.e. dissapearence of warm and fuzzy imaginary being inside will result in full on fascism. While I agree with you that he means that warm and fuzzy fantasy is exactly what is giving us needed distance for commiting horrible things. Maybe he is just using pompous language for the sake of it? Isn't it really works agains his argument? I would love to see this comment section if he said 'revolutinary' instead of 'horrible'. Maybe he has in mind a distinction between understanding that this 'real me' is a fantasy and completely abandoning this fantasy - which is scary?

[@davidwuhrer6704]

​@@nikitakozubenkoIdeology is not a bad thing to him. The horrible thing, essentially identity politics, is the undermining of the ideology by identifying with it. Quasi the map becoming the territory, or rather: the territory turning itself into a map. There was supposed to be a human being employing or espousing or extolling or practicing an ideology, but that individual vanishes, the ideology becoming the identity. So what is the point of the ideology then? A map that shows no territory but itself, as in that Stephen Wright joke about the actual size road map that takes forever to fold, is completely worthless.

[@shahradghaffari3666]

does anyone have the link to the full length video ?

[@capo_greco]

are you planning on making the proper attributions regarding where this clip comes from? @ThoughtsonThinking

[@cashkung6161]

lmao hes exactly like him its pretty funny

[@a-rod1527]

What does it say of a teacher who has to fake depth?

[@ManyDog]

This is what every French intellectual did

[@herstar9510]

"I hate him in a classical way."

[@josbfranco105]

¡Agradecería tanto una traducción al español!

[@eckhartmaister4404]

De donde eres?

[@dethkon]

What’s this from?

[@jamiparrish8806]

Ironic coming from someone who has such a persona

[@joerivetti]

No, it’s not.

[@heraclitus9721]

@@joerivetti Literally, Zizek acts as Lacan x10. It's very hypocritical.

[@Shimansaji]

A neurotic obsessive acting neurotic? What a hypocrite! NOT!

[@OsirusHandle]

@@heraclitus9721 Zizeks nowhere near as pretentious. He does have a fairly similar jerky personality in person though, I suppose thats necessary for any misanthropic person with many fans.

[@persona8991]

Where is this from

[@mpcc2022]

I agree with Zizek on style does not give credit to the philosophy but is only a seductive appearance at its best to persuade one to consider the propositions that the thinker purposes rather than being an indication of the validity or the reality of the propositions within in the presentation or style.

[@kojak8403]

ok, now rephrase it in a meaningful way

[@mpcc2022]

@@kojak8403 What do you mean?

[@kinolopes7145]

where is this from?

[@ThoughtsonThinking]

The film called: Zizek!

[@SyedShoaibMahmood]

Which movie was this?

[@ThoughtsonThinking]

Its called: "Zizek!" I Think it was made in the early two thousands

[@Daniel_Ilyich]

Is it available for viewing anywhere?

[@asbjrngammelgard9979]

The film with Lacan is called Télévision and can be found here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3eQhHiiosmCj5Y

[@SyedShoaibMahmood]

@@ThoughtsonThinking Thank you!!!!!!!!!

[@sarathgopinath3096]

Philosophy would be a fun anonymous job if the job is to analyze Zizek

[@TheJthom9]

Zizek is describing French philosophers who always embodied their work like a tortured artist

[@Stret173]

"i had enough of this"

[@mjolninja9358]

Dude Zizek has a Shark in his table

[@00oa4]

He has/had a young son, there's a great video of him analyzing all of his son's toys

[@maihuongnguyen2273]

This is an excellent video for my thinking!

[@athila.paixao]

02:13 The central idea of ideology

[@lorigulfnoldor2162]

Okay, you think it is pure fake, I do not think this way *shrug* Should we argue about it...?

[@lucasfc4587]

Hello! I have bing watched your videos a little and you content is awesome! Your editing skills are direct, and the images brought to the video really seems on point. I would like to do some constructive critic: it’s quite simple, speaking louder (maybe is the microphone) and with a faster pace, combined with a determined rhythm in your speech It’s not that I don’t like your content, the research you do is awesome and visible! But this may be dragging your subs, even with the huuuge amount of videos you have already created As an example, I suggest: Academy of Ideas, Pursuit of Wonder, and the best, Exurb1a (but he may not be exactly your style) Not trying to be picky or whatever, just see your potencial Best of luck!!

[@Onbekend1980]

I wonder why you would mind, it´s just an appearance. If he is not interested in his appearance, why is there a 4 minute video him jabbering about it... PUBLICLY.

[@gabatar5961]

It’s so meta you can see why Zizek is still stuck as a communist

[@Dino_Medici]

He hella says the truth when he says there’s not enough words lmfao

[@sbeerman1919]

Ty I love this scene

[@satsoksimelog7135]

what about you zizek ? do you have a mirror around ?

[@ganjaericco]

Although I disagree with Zizek on some fundamental points, he's so intelligent and analyses things in a way nobody else does. His point about ideology here I couldn't agree with more. I would actually love for him to speak to Peterson again, but this time more about how to prevent ideologues, and debate how their views on psychology can be used to prevent this rising tide of ideologies today.

[@MS-il3ht]

Yeas, brilliant. They might agree on way more than both of them though before

[@ganjaericco]

@@MS-il3ht Yeah, it would definitely be interesting to see their thoughts on current events.

[@dionisossolon2335]

Unfortunately Peterson would try to order something Zizek will completely change, and Peterson can't work like that. But supossing they do it and they actually prevent ideologies, they will immediately fail because that would become an ideology. You can't prevent people to "fully identify". That's the main problem with Peterson: a lot of people fully identifying with whatever he says. I believe Peterson is reinforcing the binary social problems he critizises so much. While Zizek is just a zen tornado: can't be duplicated.

[@Maziedivision]

I mean, there is a severe blind devotion to Peterson’s “beliefs “, so blind I doubt any of his followers have actually read post-modernist works much like Peterson himself . The problem with public intellectualism (KZbin lectures, social media presence, invitations on news broadcasts and the like) is that people -some at least ast- will take everything an intellectual says at face value, rejecting any fervent curiosity to do some studying for themselves. This blind devotion renders any meaningful debate impossible; there is no willingness to actually understand the other’s point of view, rather there is only an impatience to “destroy” someone else in refutation. Rhetoric itself as taken on such a hyperreal form- I don’t see how anything of any intellectual value could take place in another debate.

[@dionisossolon2335]

@@Maziedivision I agree. And the main point is that people don't realize that Peterson only justifies his beliefs, over and over again. But I don't think its devotion. People are lazy or they just need some information as means to an end. They are not devoted to an intelectual or a theory, they just use an argument and exploit it with friends, family, work to get soemthing else out of it. Media is perfect for them. The wise will hear a complete 2 hour talk with Joe Rogan, other will just read a title in some random note.

[@josevelasco216]

hahaha what? but isn´t Zizek exactly the same when he speaks? I always find a little fake how he starts with his analogies in order to have our attention... Zizek is a master of obscure statements haha

[@gamer-sama7769]

Seems like an almost Nietzchean critique, saying get rid of the fluff and get to the bottom of the matter

[@cifi5118]

Let us listen to Lacan pl

[@HybridHalfie]

yeah i get why chomsky hated this guy lol

[@fatimaezohra596]

جاك العبقري

[@cyper3690]

I love it when Slavoj Zizek is making fun of himself.

[@hesamnumani1631]

Love it!!!

[@ialone5751]

😅

[@blackpilledchad1927]

Zizek and a rant without strong arguments

[@rosenamdensuden]

Lacan’s ‘reality’ is an empty gesture yet containing a myriad of trite soap operas.

[@alexkoppany7229]

Lacan deez nuts

[@katakalyptica]

Who cares, what you hate, Slavoj? Zuerst kamen die Meisterdenker, dann die Meisterschwätzer

[@lukeduan6291]

lacan is a troll

[@usernameisalreadytaken4754]

I think the way they pronounce words is very similar...

[@rorysimpson8716]

Oh, no. The gibberish emitting charlatan doesn't like Lacan. What ever shall I do?

[@charles-valentinalkan5681]

Perhaps reevaluate your thinking, eh? Seems like you didn't quite do your philosophy homework, kiddo.

[@ranitafeliz2987]

q hater de mierda lo adoro

[@MrClockw3rk]

Fakes attract fakes

[@kostanabanjac4896]

So you object to his gesticulations and because of that, it’s all shit?! Perhaps when Žižekian analysis is a taught modality, one could consider your approach. Right now, not.

[@dianablackman4528]

He lost me at "animals have no soul." Evil.

[@jamiehovis7722]

animals dont have conception of their mortality thus no soul

[@javierforadori9204]

Lacan is a Freude, I do not contribute anything that is not already implicit in psychoanalysis, I create doodles that blindly follow their followers without questioning anything, in the best style of believers. I think his theory is a systematized delusion of this man who wanted to gain fame on the shoulders of people who did work seriously.