Well, Zizek does tend to draw such reactions as RD's. I think it is worth reading his articles occasionally. That is the beauty of the internet, I only pay for it with eyestrain and connection times.
I think there is the issues of 1. People brought up in the philosophical traditions of anglo-analytic and American pragmatism react strongly against the Hegel-Idealism-Phenomenology-Existentalism-Poststructuralism lines of philosophical descent. Why is Marx dismissed in the anglo-analytic tradition? Not because he works in political economy, but more like because he ontologically he is an objective idealist? When someone like Deleuze engages the work of Hume and claims to stake out a postmodern empiricism, would most who reject the Heglian line even try to understand? 2. The issue that Zizek is trying to get at, which is much larger than philosophy as an academic pursuit , which is in the wikipedia article is stated as: >Knowing that we are being "lied" >to is hardly the stuff of revolution when ideology is not, and never >has been, simply a matter of consciousness (cynicism, irony, and so >on), of subject positions, but is the very stuff of everyday praxis >itself. The cynics and ironists, not to mention the deconstructionists >et al., may know that reality is an "ideological construction" — some >have even read their Lacan and Derrida — but in their daily practice, >caught up in an apparently unalterable world of exchange-values >(capital), they do their part to sustain that construction in any >case. I don't think Zizek is original in pointing this out. To the extent that it may be true of our post-modern existence, what difference does it make who pointed it out first? CJ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
