Talk:Slavoj Žižek/Archive 1

message: This image is awful, so dark one can't see his features.. -- Viajero 16:04, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I have changed "born in Ljubljana, Yugoslavia (now Slovenia)" to "born to Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of Yugoslavia".  The reason is that Ljubljana has always been part of Slovenia, because Slovenia already existed before it became independent (and indeed was recognized as a constituent republic of Yugoslavia).  I have also added Zizek's latest book to the list.  By the way, for which political party (if any) did Zizek stand for President?  This would be interesting to know.  He seems to be a Marxist-Leninist, though I don't know if this is stated anywhere explicitly.
: I'm almost positive that this was the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia. For a while he was considered their ideologist, although of course the party is now much more centered that it used to be; left-wing of what is now the LDS party originated back from Union of the Socialist Youth of Slovenia, but then it got merged with several slightly-right-of-them parties and it also rules Slovenia for 12 years, which also moved the party to the center. --romanm (talk) 20:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugoslavia 

message: Please, can somebody who knows Slovenian put out some sort of pronounciation for Žižek? I'm from Sweden and everyone seems to have their own why of saying it. I'm pronouncing it "gee-jack", but I think I may be wrong. :-)
:I've heard it pronounced by Slovenes and I am quite certain the ž-s are Voiced postalveolar fricatives (like the "s" in English "treasure": "Zheezhack") David Sneek 06:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovenian pronounciation 

message: There's enough here to whet one's appetite for Lacan and Zizek's psychoanalytic, cultural, and political insights, but there appears to be no mention of Zizek's indebtedness to Marx or, more importantly, Hegel.  And what about his later obsessions with Christianity and Paul?  This needs to place Zizek squarely (or roundly) within a more philosophical context.
:Indeed. This article is too liberal and postmodern by far. I don't have the time now to make any formal claims of NPOV. But consider notice given.
:Pazouzou 21:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy 

message: "No specification of post-Capitalist social formation"
==== Notable ====
#
#
==== Not notable ====
# Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Holbo 

message: # Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not notable 

message: "Does not explain the problem he is trying to solve, freely associates between unrelated issues, argues without evidence, and expresses ideas poorly."
==== Notable ====
#
#
==== Not notable ====
# Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Bordwell 

message: # Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not notable 

message: "Zizek's assumption (argued without any evidence) that all aesthetic properties of films are culturally determined".
==== Notable ====
#
#
==== Not notable ====
# Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Bordwell 2 

message: # Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not notable 

message: "Flouts standards of reasonable argumentation"
==== Notable ====
#
#
==== Not notable ====
# Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harpham and O'Neil 

message: # Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not notable 

message: "Hostility and misunderstanding of science, assumption that concepts that he can not understand are impossible to understand for everyone else"
==== Notable ====
#
#
==== Not notable ====
# Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other academics 

message: # Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not notable 

message: You're being funny. Zizek constantly presents himself as knowing about films, therefore he is open to criticism by David Bordwell, someone who knows (a lot more) about films. Bordwell frequently responds directly to Zizek's wacky film ideas in print, most recently in his book Figures Traced In Light (2005) (pp. 260 - 264). ShowsOn 11:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bordwell by all means deserves an article (and has one).  Debates among thinkers can and should be presented in articles like film theory or film studies (or Debates about Hitchcock, if you like).  None of this organization question has anything to do with whether Zizek is right or wrong, or whether Bordwell is more right or more wrong.  A presentation of a given thinker/writer in their own biography must present the general outlines of their own line of thought, not pound into readers head the point that that thinker is wrong (nor that they are right). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, if Bordwell is right, then Zizek's entire intervention into cinema studies is suspect. Which brings into question why Zizek's disputed interpretations of films receive so much emphasis. If articles shouldn't pound into readers heads that Zizek is right, then it is mandatory that all references to film interpretations be removed from the article. They are all open to serious dispute, yet are currently presented as facts. This equates to a lot of head pounding going on in favour of Zizek. ShowsOn 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is precisely where ShowsOn/Ramanpotential clearly disagree with Wikipedia policy.  He/they think that an article needs to find the "truth" about film interpretation (or whatever topic).  And presumably, to his mind, Bordwell states the truth and Zizek states untruth.  Which is all very well and good: sounds like a good topic for a professional paper.  But Wikipedia's policy (especially WP:V and WP:NOR) states that an article must present Zizek's views in his article, not whatever the "truth" is (according to ShowsOn/Ramanpotential).  This article must not, may not, and does not present any "truth" about film interpretation, it simply summarizes Zizek's views. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I'm happy to abide by WP policy, provided the under-graduate level film interpretations receive sufficient criticism on the critique page, and so long as critics of Zizek aren't criticised for a) not having read or understood Zizek, and b) not being sufficiently qualified to criticise Zizek because they don't have degrees in philosophy. The later would be the same as me criticising Zizek for not having a degree in cinema studies.ShowsOn 08:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ShowsOn defense of Bordwell over Zizek