Talk:Critiques of Slavoj Žižek

message: Need redirection: Critiques of Slavoj Zizek
Has Zizek responded to any of these charges, or has anyone on his behalf?  I really dont know anything about david bordwell, and I could easily see zizek not responding to him, but if he has responded and it isnt on the page, wouldnt that be a NPOV violation?  Honestly, i think its a little odd that, apparently alone among theorists, Zizek has an entire entry devoted to critiques of him.  Especially one that includes at least a couple assertions on the part of the writer. "For a scientific formula to be valid it must - by definition - be meaningful, even if it requires specialised knowledge to be understandable. The fact that science is readily taught to adolescents suggests that it is comprehensible, even if the concepts seem to defy non-scientific 'logic'. Asserting that all science devolves to "barely comprehensible concepts" assumes that scientists are unable to take complex ideas and explain them in terms accessible to non-scientists. This is ironic given that Žižek frequently uses popular culture as examples or analogies (he very rarely explains the precise relationship) for theoretical concepts that he is unable to discuss on their own." -- all of this seems to be original.
[The author of this critique mentions an article by Harpham from "Critical Inquiry" entitled "Doing the Impossible: Slavoj Zizek and the End of Knowledge", but fails to mention that Zizek himself caustically responds to this critique in the same issue in a paper tited "Critical response: A symptom - of what?". This is obviously problematic - especially seeing that Harpham responds to Zizek's response... with a mere 2 paragraphs, that (effectively and literally) say "thank you so much for responding, It's great to have gotten your attention."]
Also, it seems to make a mountain out of the bordwell molehill.... Bordwell admits in his article that his critiques have not put much of a dent in lacanian film theory in general or zizek in particular, why does he get 2/3 of a wiki article that is redirected from the main zizek article?  
Im not a big fan of zizeks work my own self, but i think that this article is fairly obviously not NPOV and not particularly informative.  For every continental philosopher, there is an american pop scientist following them around shouting "gibberish! its all gibberish!"  This whole line of argument deserves, at maximum, one page devoted to it.
What I find ironic is that, while no one would allege that Zizeks reputation depends on his pronouncements on science (and the same is true, moreso even, of lacan), sokal, bricmont, bordwell et all have never had a bigger impact on academia than by 'exposing' them as 'self-promoting charlatans'.  What would these guys do if there were no incomprehensible european philosophes to spout gibberish for them to denounce.Jimmyq2305 02:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, as far as bordwell goes. Let's just scrap him entirely. as for this page, I think we should leave it, as the only way people will get here will be by the main zizek page, and that page is already long. DocFaustRoll 05:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that seems like a good idea.  Ill add some of laclau and butlers criticisms later on, when I find my copy of contingency, hegemony, universality and have some time to edit.Jimmyq2305 13:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  now, that sounds like an excellent idea. this could be critique in the sense of close reading. I'm a little occupied with real time work and other obligations to contribute too much right now. Perhaps in September. DocFaustRoll 22:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: "However by using academic humor itself as argumentative means to argue against its usage by Žižek, the Bordwell's criticism which can be categorized as meta academic humor, that is an academic humor about the academic humor (similar to meta-cognition or meta-emotion) is also logically self-contradicting which makes it even more humorous since his use of it as argumentative method contradicts Bordwell's conscious belief about both the usage of humor as argumentative method and academic humor as non-humor, making it a beautiful example of petit a, a contradictive leftover that was not consciously intended to be either of what it is, both the argumentative means and humorous at the same time."
Hopefully someone can rewrite the above so it is more intelligible and grammatically correct. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This statement needs a rewrite

message: I think this section which contains a quote from Adam Kirch's amateurish "critique" of Zizek should be deleted. If you've read the artice in its entirety you will realize that it is not a serious piece of criticism at all and is more just a series of absurd claims and falsely attributed quotes. Seeing that the rest of the content in this page is of a much more serious, professional and academic nature, this laughable quote from Kirch is completely out of place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvemoxes (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake Dialectic

message: I'm not entirely sure how to classify the critiques here, but they seem to have a somewhat random flavor, and don't sound hugely representative of the areas where there's actually been much of a sustained exchange, as opposed to a random article here and there. It also seems not to discuss areas that do seem to be active debates, such as Žižek's long-running feuds with post-colonial theory, queer studies, and similar areas of (mainly American) cultural studies (see e.g. this as a random example). --Delirium (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  somewhat odd selection of critiques 

message: The article cites lines from Al-Ahram by Hamid Dabashi. On examination of the article, the lines quoted don't refer to Zizek at all, but to Asad AbuKhalil (though there is a blistering critique of Zizek later on in the same article.) Personally, I don't see why this whole page isn't merged with the Zizek page, which has a pretty small and poorly-written and researched "critiques" section anyway. Seastrada (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Ahram Weekly excerpt/Merge 

message: In the article there is a statement "the influential Polish leftist journal Krytyka Polityczna". This information is imprecise. "Krytyka Polityczna" may be influential within the leftist intellectual milieu, but certainly it is not a widely recognized or read journal in Poland. I'm not aware of any sociological studies about how many people read "Krytyka Polityczna" or how often it is cited etc. Until any such studies are cited in the article, there shouldn't be "influential", just "the Polish leftist journal".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monosautos (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influential or not?