Which is why I think it is worth deconstructing. It encapsulates all the worst geostrategic misconceptions of Western intellectuals at the moment. Zizek, who is supposedly an expert on ideology and propaganda, and has even written and starred in a couple of documentaries on the subject, seems now to be utterly blind to his own susceptibility to propaganda.
Playing games with the lives of Ukrainians — and risking nuclear war — simply to 'weaken' Russia is, Chomsky notes, 'morally horrendous.
But the only one dwelling in the world of the imaginary is Zizek and those who think like him. It derives from a political and moral worldview. It opposes the militarism of competitive, resource-hungry nation-states.
It opposes the war industries that not only destroy whole countries but risk global nuclear annihilation in advancing their interests. It opposes the profit motive for a war that has incentivised a global elite to continue investing in planet-wide rape and pillage rather than addressing a looming ecological catastrophe.
Instead, he prefers to take a detour into cod psychology, telling us that Russian president Vladimir Putin sees himself as Peter the Great. Putin will not be satisfied simply with regaining the parts of Ukraine that historically belonged to Russia and have always provided its navy with its only access to the Black Sea. No, the Russian president is hell-bent on global conquest.
And Europe is next — or so Zizek argues. Not least, we must address the glaring cognitive dissonance at the heart of the Western, NATO-inspired discourse on Ukraine, something Zizek refuses to do. How can Russia be so weak it has managed only to subdue small parts of Ukraine at great military cost, while it is at the same time a military superpower poised to take over the whole of Europe? The US war lobby is so massively bloated that it would be simply astonishing if it didn't have a usually covert finger prised into every major conflict zone on the planet — and a strong vested interest in perpetuating those conflicts too pic.
Because there is no in-between, no intermediate state: either a country is sovereign, or it is a colony, no matter what the colonies are called. The U. US military bases around the world. military-industrial complex is essentially the same as U. concerns in the s about the Soviet Union filling Cuba with its nuclear missiles. Both Russia and the U. It is just that the U. sphere now encircles the globe through many hundreds of overseas military bases. By contrast, the West cries to the heavens when Russia secures a single military base in Crimea.
The US has military bases around the world. The rest of the world has 30 outside of its own borders. We may not like the sentiments Putin is espousing, but they are not especially his. They are the reality of the framework of modern military power the West was intimately involved in creating. It was our centuries of colonialism — our greed and theft — that divided the world into the sovereign and the colonized.
Putin is simply stating that Russia needs to act in ways that ensure it remains sovereign, rather than joining the colonized. It's disturbing how many people are peddling the idea that Nato is a 'defensive alliance'.
Actually, Nato is a central pillar of the highly lucrative war industries. But Zizek has the bit between his teeth. He now singles out Russia because it is maneuvering to exploit the consequences of global warming, such as new trade routes opened up by a thawing Arctic.
But what does he imagine? Does he presume the policy hawks in Washington, or their satraps in Europe, have missed all this and are simply putting their feet up? Ukraine is the latest front in a long-running war for resource control on a dying planet. It is another battleground in the renewed great power game that the U. revived by expanding NATO across Eastern Europe in one pincer movement and then bolstered it with its wars and proxy wars across the Middle East. Those who advocate less support for Ukraine and more pressure on it to negotiate, inclusive of accepting painful territorial renunciations, like to repeat that Ukraine simply cannot win the war against Russia.
True, but I see exactly in this the greatness of Ukrainian resistance. But that is not the issue we in the West need to consider when Kyiv demands we arm its resistance.
The question of whether Ukrainians can win, or whether they will be slaughtered, is highly pertinent to deciding whether we in the West should help drag out the war, using Ukrainians as cannon fodder, to no purpose other than our being able to marvel as spectators at their heroism.
And arming a futile, if valiant, Ukrainian struggle against Russia to weaken Moscow must be judged in the context that we risk backing Russia into a geostrategic corner — as we have been doing for more than two decades — from which, we may surmise, Moscow could ultimately decide to extricate itself by resorting to nuclear weapons.
Having propelled himself into an intellectual cul de sac, Zizek switches tack. He suddenly changes the terms of the debate entirely. Having completely ignored the U. role in bringing us to this point, he now observes:.
Not just Ukraine, Europe itself is becoming the place of the proxy war between [the] U. There are only two ways for Europe to step out of this place: to play the game of neutrality — a short-cut to catastrophe — or to become an autonomous agent. So, we are in a U. Well, from everything Zizek has previously asserted in the piece, it seems such autonomy must be expressed by silently agreeing to the U. pumping Ukraine full of weapons to fight Russia in a proxy war that is really about weakening Russia rather than saving Ukraine.
Only a world-renowned philosopher could bring us to such an intellectually and morally barren place. But the concern here is not that Ukraine is playing into the arms of the war industries. It is that Western populations are being played by their leaders — and intellectuals like Zizek — so that they can be delivered, once again, into the arms of the military-industrial complex. Most fascinating thing about the Ukraine war is the sheer number of top strategic thinkers who warned for years that it was coming if we continued down the same path.
No-one listened to them and here we are. Small compilation 🧵 of these warnings, from Kissinger to Mearsheimer. Those debates should have taken place when the U. Or when NATO flirted with offering Ukraine membership 14 years ago. Or when the U. meddled in the ousting of the elected government of Ukraine in And, perhaps, one should risk the hypothesis that this is what changes with the Kantian revolution: in the pre-Kantian universe, humans were simply humans, beings of reason, fighting the excesses of animal lusts and divine madness, while only with Kant and German Idealism, the excess to be fought is absolutely immanent, the very core of subjectivity itself which is why, with German Idealism, the metaphor for the core of subjectivity is Night, "Night of the World," in contrast to the Enlightenment notion of the Light of Reason fighting the darkness around.
In Kafka's Metamorphosis , Gregor Samsa's sister Grete designates her brother-turned-insect a monster - the German word used is ein Untier , an inanimal, in a strict symmetry to inhuman. What we get here is the opposite of inhuman: an animal which, while remaining animal, is not really animal - the excess over the animal in animal, the traumatic core of animality, that can only emerge "as such" in a human which became animal.
In a mysterious subchapter of his Critique of Practical Reason entitled "Of the Wise Adaptation of Man's Cognitive Faculties to His Practical Vocation," Kant endeavors to answer the question of what would happen to us if we were to gain access to the noumenal domain, to the Ding an sich:.
instead of the conflict which now the moral disposition has to wage with inclinations and in which, after some defeats, moral strength of mind may be gradually won, God and eternity in their awful majesty would stand unceasingly before our eyes. The moral worth of actions, on which alone the worth of the person and even of the world depends in the eyes of supreme wisdom, would not exist at all.
The conduct of man, so long as his nature remained as it is now, would be changed into mere mechanism, where, as in a puppet show, everything would gesticulate well but no life would be found in the figures. In short, the direct access to the noumenal domain would deprive us of the very "spontaneity" which forms the kernel of transcendental freedom: it would turn us into lifeless automata, or, to put it in today's terms, into "thinking machines.
If we discard its inconsistency how could fear and lifeless gesticulation coexist? Our freedom persists only in a space IN BETWEEN the phenomenal and the noumenal. It is therefore not that Kant simply limited causality to the phenomenal domain in order to be able to assert that, at the noumenal level, we are free autonomous agents: we are only free insofar as our horizon is that of the phenomenal, insofar as the noumenal domain remains inaccessible to us.
Is the way out of this predicament to assert that we are free insofar as we ARE noumenally autonomous, BUT our cognitive perspective remains constrained to the phenomenal level?
In this case, we ARE really free" at the noumenal level, but our freedom would be meaningless in we were also to have the cognitive insight into the noumenal domain, since that insight would always determine our choices - who WOULD choose evil, when confronted with the fact that the price of doing evil will be the divine punishment?
However, does this imagined case not provide us with the only consequent answer to the question what would a truly free act be," a free act for a noumenal entity, an act of true noumenal freedom?
It would be to KNOW all the inexorable horrible consequences of choosing the evil, and nonetheless to choose it. This would have been a truly non-pathological" act, an act of acting with no regard for one's pathological interests Kant's own formulations are here misleading, since he often identifies the transcendental subject with the noumenal I whose phenomenal appearance is the empirical "person," thus shirking from his radical insight into how the transcendental subject is a pure formal-structural function beyond the opposition of the noumenal and the phenomenal.
The philosophical consequences of this Kantian parallax are fully explored in the notion of ontological difference, the focus of Heidegger's entire thought, which can only be properly grasped against the background of the motif of finitude.
This doxa is deeply misleading. With regard to the notion of ontological difference as the difference between WHAT things are and the fact THAT they are, the doxa says that the mistake of metaphysics is to subordinate being to some presupposed essence sense, goal, arché embodied in the highest entity, while ontological difference "de-essentializes" beings, setting them free from their enslavement to Essence, letting-them-be in their an-archic freedom - prior to any "what-for?
However, if this were Heidegger's thesis, then Sartre, in his Nausea, would also outline ontological difference at its most radical - does he not describe there the experience of the stupid and meaningless inertia of being at its most disgusting, indifferent to all our human meanings and projects?
For Heidegger, in contrast to Sartre, "ontological difference" is, rather, the difference between the entities' stupid being-there, their senseless reality, and their horizon of meaning. There is a link between ontological and sexual difference conceived in a purely formal-transcendental way, along the lines of Lacan's "formulas of sexuation," of course.
Ontological difference is not between the Whole of beings and their Outside, as if there is a Super-Ground of the All. In this precise sense, ontological difference is linked to finitude Heidegger's original insight and link to Kant , which means that Being is the horizon of finitude which prevents us from conceiving beings in their All.
Being cuts from within beings: ontological difference is not the "mega-difference" between All of beings and something more fundamental, it is always also that which makes the domain of beings itself "non-all. Because truth is in itself non-all, inconsistent, "antagonistic," every telling of "all the Truth" has to rely on an exception, on a secret that is withheld; the opposite case, the telling of non-all truth, does not imply that we keep some part of truth secret - its obverse is that there is nothing we did not tell.
Insofar as it is grounded in the finitude of humans, ontological difference is that which makes a totalization of "All of beings" impossible - ontological difference means that the field of reality is finite.
Therein resides the paradox: the difference between beings in their totality and their Being precisely "misses the difference" and reduces Being to another "higher" Entity.
However, the limitation of Kant was that he was not able to fully assume this paradox of finitude as constitutive of the ontological horizon: ultimately, he reduced transcendental horizon to a way reality appears to a finite being man , with all of it located into a wider encompassing realm of noumenal reality.
Hegel is thus not external to Kant: the problem with Kant was that he produced the shift but was not able, for structural reasons, to formulate it explicitly - he "knew" that the place of freedom is effectively not noumenal, but the gap between phenomenal and noumenal; AND he could not put it so explicitly, since, if he were to do it, his transcendental edifice would have collapsed. However, WITHOUT this implicit "knowledge," there would also have been no transcendental dimension, so that one is forced to conclude that, far from being a stable consistent position, the dimension of the Kantian "transcendental" can only sustain itself in a fragile balance between the said and the unsaid, through producing something the full consequences of which we refuse to articulate, to "posit as such.
Recall Claude Levi-Strauss's exemplary analysis, from his Structural Anthropology , of the spatial disposition of buildings in the Winnebago, one of the Great Lake tribes, might be of some help here.
Both perceive the village as a circle; but for one sub-group, there is within this circle another circle of central houses, so that we have two concentric circles, while for the other sub-group, the circle is split into two by a clear dividing line. The two perceptions of the ground-plan are simply two mutually exclusive endeavors to cope with this traumatic antagonism, to heal its wound via the imposition of a balanced symbolic structure.
It is here that one can see it what precise sense the Real intervenes through anamorphosis. We have first the "actual," "objective," arrangement of the houses, and then its two different symbolizations which both distort in an anamorphic way the actual arrangement.
However, the "real" is here not the actual arrangement, but the traumatic core of some social antagonism which distorts the tribe members' view of the actual arrangement of the houses in their village.
More precisely, the Real is ultimately the very shift of perspective from the first to the second standpoint. Recall the old well-known Adorno's analysis of the antagonistic character of the notion of society: in a first approach, the split between the two notions of society Anglo-Saxon individualistic-nominalistic and Durkheimian organicist notion of society as a totality which preexists individuals seems irreducible, we seem to be dealing with a true Kantian antinomy which cannot be resolved via a higher "dialectical synthesis," and which elevates society into an inaccessible Thing-in-itself; however, in a second approach, one should merely take not of how this radical antinomy which seems to preclude our access to the Thing ALREADY IS THE THING ITSELF - the fundamental feature of today's society IS the irreconcilable antagonism between Totality and the individual.
What this means is that, ultimately, the status of the Real is purely parallactic and, as such, non-substantial: is has no substantial density in itself, it is just a gap between two points of perspective, perceptible only in the shift from the one to the other.
The parallax Real is thus opposed to the standard Lacanian notion of the Real as that which "always returns at its place," i. In a first move, the Real is the impossible hard core which we cannot confront directly, but only through the lenses of a multitude of symbolic fictions, virtual formations.
In a second move, this very hard core is purely virtual, actually non-existing, an X which can be reconstructed only retroactively, from the multitude of symbolic formations which are "all that there actually is.
There are two main versions of this passage which is still one of the great dividing lines among philosophers: those - mostly of the analytic orientation - who think that Kant is the last one who "makes sense," and that the post-Kantian turn of German Idealism is one of the greatest catastrophes, regressions into meaningless speculation, in the history of philosophy, and those for whom the post-Kantian speculative-historical approach is the highest achievement of philosophy : 1.
Click Here to sign up for our newsletter FOLLOW ON SOCIAL MEDIA. Writing Tips Hemingway Fitzgerald Stephen King Ray Bradbury William Zinsser Kurt Vonnegut Toni Morrison Edgar Allan Poe Margaret Atwood David Ogilvy Steinbeck Billy Wilder.
Archive All posts by date. Michel Foucault Sun Ra at UC Berkeley Richard Feynman Joseph Campbell Carl Sagan Margaret Atwood Jorge Luis Borges Leonard Bernstein Richard Dawkins Buckminster Fuller Walter Kaufmann on Existentialism Jacques Lacan Roland Barthes Nobel Lectures by Writers Toni Morrison Bertrand Russell Oxford Philosophy Lectures. Advertise With Us. Great Recordings T. Eliot Reads Waste Land Sylvia Plath - Ariel Joyce Reads Ulysses Joyce - Finnegans Wake Patti Smith Reads Virginia Woolf Albert Einstein Charles Bukowski Bill Murray Hemingway Fitzgerald Reads Shakespeare William Faulkner Flannery O'Connor Tolkien - The Hobbit Allen Ginsberg - Howl W.
B Yeats Ezra Pound Dylan Thomas Anne Sexton John Cheever David Foster Wallace. Book Lists By Neil deGrasse Tyson Ernest Hemingway F. Scott Fitzgerald Allen Ginsberg Patti Smith Brian Eno Henry Miller Christopher Hitchens Joseph Brodsky W. Auden Donald Barthelme Carl Sagan David Bowie Samuel Beckett Art Garfunkel Marilyn Monroe Jorge Luis Borges Picks by Female Creatives. Favorite Movies Kubrick Kurosawa's Tarantino Scorsese Tarkovsky David Lynch Werner Herzog Woody Allen Wes Anderson Luis Buñuel Roger Ebert Susan Sontag Scorsese Foreign Films Philosophy Films.
We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent.
You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary Necessary. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website.
Allow inessential cookies for: Analytics site-wide. Advertisement internet-wide. Personalization site-wide. Remember Me? What's New? Advanced Search. Groups Relationships Dating site for social phobia. Dating sites for swimmers. Women dating more than one. Dating site for social phobia. Discussion Tools Mark This Discussion Read. Kerry90 - , AM. mcmaster dating site cincinnati women looking for men online dating in kingston white christian men looking for black women online dating for wealthy people love awake free online dating india service telephone numbers metro dating website how to email dating website free dating website uk reviews find love at 61 telephone numbers free dating website sweden write yourself dating sites free dating sites grand rapids michigan asian women dating jewish men how much does it cost to start a dating website girls looking for men in cyprus women seeking help sexting examples for her to him women looking for latino men women seeking men in wb dating sites for juggalettes dating sites on android turn key dating website women seeking men ct woman seeking relationship ivory towers dating site how to date like a lady men uniform dating website bro 0 Thanks, 0 Likes.
fusion dating website online dating email tips for men online dating service in uk lunch dating service tinder date on valentines day online dating by music telephone numbers largest lds dating sites online dating free sites australia sudanese women looking for men free current dating sites good places to meet women online rock climbing dating site filipino dating service great free dating websites dating sites for high school students completely free dating sites ireland free dating sites for musicians marriage minded dating website when does jess start dating nick fish at sea dating site online dating oklahoma city totally free spanish dating sites Austin - Texas free dating sites vegan dating service online chatting lahore telephone numbers samoan men dating black women dating sites for people with disabilities dating sites for actors best free dating websites free dating websites middlesbrough eharmony dating website importan 0 Thanks, 0 Likes.
my boyfriend online dating sites women dating narcissist sexting paragraphs for her dating service beer commercial online dating Pittsburgh - Pennsylvania looking for short hair cuts for women telephone numbers fun online dating games online chatting using java tinder date 3 jaar is zoosk a dating site women seeking men on skype telephone numbers free dating websites nyc find my 1st love totally free dating sites nz punjabi girl viber number fully free dating sites india example of first message on dating site barney start dating robin free dating by zodiac sign online dating orissa dating sites advantages and disadvantages women looking for women in south africa free dating asheville nc free joomla dating extension online dating czech republic slavoj zizek online dating south american women dating sites Jackson - Mississippi free dating sites men seeking women orlando dating websites ireland fish dating website brighton dating s 0 Thanks, 0 Likes.
advantages of online dating find love free online dating messages why am i still single show dating sites wealthy singles speed dating reviews melbourne sign up for free dating sites european ladies looking for men tinder vs dating websites online chatting tools where can i find women who want to get pregnant telephone numbers dating service ashley cat owner dating site free dating sites for medical professionals dating website jargon looking for military men to date dating women medellin online dating name generator best dating site twenty somethings girls looking for men philippines first email dating site dating women after divorce top ten free dating sites new online free dating site in usa online dating free toronto online dating websites - tips jamaican dating sites free Frisco - Texas free dating sites people lie on online dating sites best hpv dating sites online dating when to ask out best dating site sweden dating websi 0 Thanks, 0 Likes.
Contact Us Official Aruba Homepage Archive Privacy Statement Terms of Service Top. All times are GMT The time now is PM. Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.
The answer is: the parallax object. The common definition of parallax is: the apparent displacement of an object (the shift of its position against a background), caused by a change Missing: online dating Slavoj Žižek (b. ) is a Slovenian-born philosopher and psychoanalyst. He is a professor of philosophy at The European Graduate School / EGS, a senior researcher at the Institute for Missing: online dating · Zizek is shy to ask where almost a decade of all the training, military hardware and money went. Scot Ritter concluded that Ukrainian military initially was better trained and Missing: online dating · Dating site for social phobia. Dating sites for swimmers. Women dating more than one ; Dear Aruba forum member, registrations to the forum are now activated again! To start The big Other between violence and civility Slavoj Zizek The ‘universal exception’, according to Lacan, is the [ ] Slavoj Žižek April 1, Books. Zizek’s jokes in The Universal blogger.comg: online dating · Slavoj Žižek on Synthetic Sex and "Being Yourself"Watch the newest video from Big Think: blogger.com Big Think Edge for exclusive videos ... read more
I think so, the answer is yes these are values of Russophobia and hatred to Russia fascist EU seems to desperately fights to uphold today. KMD, Začeti od začetka. It is nothing more than evasion. Organs Without Bodies: On Deleuze and Consequences, Žižek, Slavoj.And the younger crowd is even worse, zizek online dating. ISBN: Organs Without Bodies: On Deleuze and Consequences, Žižek, Slavoj, zizek online dating. Recall the old well-known Adorno's analysis of the antagonistic character of the notion of society: in a first approach, the split between the two notions of society Anglo-Saxon individualistic-nominalistic and Durkheimian organicist notion of society as a totality which preexists individuals seems irreducible, we zizek online dating to be dealing with a true Kantian antinomy which cannot be resolved via a higher "dialectical synthesis," and which elevates society into an inaccessible Thing-in-itself; however, in a second approach, one should merely take not of how this radical antinomy which seems to preclude our access to the Thing ALREADY IS THE THING ITSELF - the fundamental feature of today's society IS the irreconcilable antagonism between Totality and the individual. The Abyss of Freedom: Ages of the World, Žižek, Slavoj. Or when Kyiv integrated neo-Nazi groups into the Ukrainian army and engaged in a civil war against the Russian parts of its own populace.