>A genius neuroscientist
>OWNED Noam Chomsky over email
>Can empirically determine moral absolutes
>Basically really smart
>Made Chomsky look like a bitch on the internet
>Doesn't even believe in God because he's a real scientist
That's what I'm talking about.
>If property is a natural, absolute, imprescriptible, and inalienable right, why, in all ages, has there been so much speculation as to its origin? — for this is one of its distinguishing characteristics. The origin of a natural right! Good God! who ever inquired into the origin of the rights of liberty, security, or equality?
I'm told that Marxists have a somewhat different and more specialized definition of what ideology is. And so maybe that's why he can write hundreds of pages mapping it out and dissecting it -- while the rest of us can just explain it in a sentence.
But. I've never actually read Zizek. Where is a good place to start?
to actually understand him, Lacan and Hegel
to just kind of float along in a daze, not really understanding any of the arguments he's making and just reading to maybe spout a dictum or two of his at a dinner party (as film students do with all continental philosophers) any of his works should be fine.
My top 5 Western philosophers:
- Giambattista Vico
- Jon Stewart
- Johann Georg Hamann
Lacan is a legit fraud. Any amount of time you spend on him is time wasted. He should be studied in the same way L Ron Hubbard is. Zizek just likes him because he (was) fashionable and provides him a framework with which to go on absurd unprovable sexualised tangents.
You don't need to skip because he's very current and captures in a retarded way, certain crystallizations of our current culture. But you should under no circumstances take him seriously.
unfortunately to the poster interested in Zizek I completely agree with this post about Lacan. Lacan was extremely influential in french philosophical circles (he almost co-authored a book with Kojeve) where he freely borrowed concepts from philosophy to add to his own strange convoluted form of psychoanalysis. the whole of his written works (excluding his famous lectures) are found in a work called "Ecrits" which is a recent translation by Bruce Fink. The best introduction to Lacan however is through secondary sources (AVOID ZIZEK HOWEVER), or by tediously co-referencing the index in Ecrits to the basic concepts of his system and coming up a terminological lexicon based on his own usage. He literally just made shit up. He was one of the figures vigorously attacked by Alan Sokal for spouting nonsensical garbage about science and for some reason randomly appropriation concepts from mathematical topology to explain anxiety (I'm serious) Derrida at least had a mildly positive influence by dissuading the seriousness of the humanities in what is a "soft" enterprise but Lacan is legitimately L Ron Hubbard tier
Read this in Zizek's voice with all the sniffs and everything
Never had a favorite but I enjoyed Hume a lot as well as Nietzsche
>inb4 tipped fedora
Please god don't let this be like /lit/ in which negative judgements are made (most of the time without really realizing it) about authors and philosophers based on their popularity/appeal to "normies". Zizek is fine and even though no one's mentioned him, (I'm sure if someone did, they'd be mocked) Camus is good too.
Not that much into philosophy, so honest question: what concepts did Zizek develop? He's mostly known from me and the rest of the pleb as a popular philosopher. Does he actually have original works?
Either Cicero or Schopenhauer. I go between nihilism and stoicism
Honest answer, I've only seen his movies, I'm waiting to read him until I've tackled Deleuze. I highly enjoy his interpretations of movies though, he finds very specific themes and instead of claiming it is the director embedding deep messages in the film, he claims these can be found in the director's work because the director was a "slave" to ideologies as well, it's only natural it would appear in the art
Aristotle is really the person who got me going in philosophy. I believe its because i came from reading Plato to reading Aristotle so i had the "shock" of seeing how much bullshit Plato was throwing out.
But David Hume is a close second for me at the moment.
It wasn't that, when I originally started reading Aristotle I believed Plato was considered the is all be all of knowledge. In my mind Aristotle came along with the collective knowledge of everyone before him and knocked Plato off his high horse. More than that, this man is a paragon of an intellectual who I really aspire to match.
>Was so good at philosophy that an entire nation put his ideas about government into practice.
>Today is worshiped as the founder of a pseudo-religion, despite never claiming to be a prophet or the Son of God.
>Believed that government should lead by example, not by fear.
>Emphasized the importance of an education
Certainly the best Eastern philosopher to ever exist.
Buddha was a rich cunt.
>"Oh, the world is like, really bad"
>"Oh, I know, I will seclude myself and try to block reality, instead of trying to make a better tomorrow"
Makes you realize why so many libtards join the religion.
Half her talent came from taking the Heidegger bratwurst DESU
Making a better world of itself, not just of your own. You could try to help crime (or whatever other issue), instead of making a fool of yourself and belief that everything is alright because you are at peace with yourself.
Pic and Leibniz.
Descartes has a sweet spot but is still below.
He taught me all I needed to know about my pessimism and antinatalism that I didn't get from Schopenhauer.
Basically that Ideology isn't something that we people hold and practice, but that ideology can be found materialized, and works as a vessel that we pour meaning and antagonisms into. Or am I completely wrong?
I know he's not always considered a Philosopher, but I sure do. I enjoy his writing, though it is occasionally too obsessed with the minutiae of his arguments, and I just love who he was as a person.
What do you mean by this?
He's goat. I was suspicious at first, but he's so high above the others it fives vertigo. Came to him more or less by chance reading how Godel considered him the goat along with Leibniz (which I already knew).