Comments on: Zizek and Critchley http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2008/05/26/zizek-and-critchley/ A Bulletin Board for Continental Philosophy, History of Philosophy and More… Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:11:13 -0500 hourly 1 By: matt http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2008/05/26/zizek-and-critchley/comment-page-1/#comment-48638 matt Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:01:32 +0000 http://www.continental-philosophy.org/?p=760#comment-48638 Yes, what Adam said. Yes, what Adam said.

]]> By: Adam Proctor http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2008/05/26/zizek-and-critchley/comment-page-1/#comment-48390 Adam Proctor Wed, 28 May 2008 21:31:52 +0000 http://www.continental-philosophy.org/?p=760#comment-48390 Zizek's inability to accept (or understand, as I take it) Critchley's "infinite demand" lies with his total rejection to even begin to apprehend the thought of thinkers like Derrida and Levinas -- and I might add, Heidegger is always looking on from within. Time and time again, in work after work, Zizek fails (miserably) to properly respond (responsibly) and contend with the complex issues of undecidability, im-possibility, and the aporias--especially as presented by an irreducible otherness--that these thinker's work presents. As Critchley indicates, Zizek is wholly dismissive at every turn. Zizek has much to say, and I truly am intrigued by some of his work, but his lack of scholarly responsibility (such a troubled concept! I'll use it anyhow) bothers me greatly. Zizek’s inability to accept (or understand, as I take it) Critchley’s “infinite demand” lies with his total rejection to even begin to apprehend the thought of thinkers like Derrida and Levinas — and I might add, Heidegger is always looking on from within. Time and time again, in work after work, Zizek fails (miserably) to properly respond (responsibly) and contend with the complex issues of undecidability, im-possibility, and the aporias–especially as presented by an irreducible otherness–that these thinker’s work presents. As Critchley indicates, Zizek is wholly dismissive at every turn. Zizek has much to say, and I truly am intrigued by some of his work, but his lack of scholarly responsibility (such a troubled concept! I’ll use it anyhow) bothers me greatly.

]]> By: Nathan A. Franklin http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2008/05/26/zizek-and-critchley/comment-page-1/#comment-48386 Nathan A. Franklin Wed, 28 May 2008 18:15:17 +0000 http://www.continental-philosophy.org/?p=760#comment-48386 Michael, I experienced a similar stream of contradiction apropos his Democracy Now didactic sign off. However, his main criticism against Critchley is precisely how to avoid the 'infinitely demanding' framework--that is, Zizek's 'withdraw and think' thesis is a counterbalance to the 'infinitely demanding' notion championed by Critchley and presumably other leftists. Michael,

I experienced a similar stream of contradiction apropos his Democracy Now didactic sign off. However, his main criticism against Critchley is precisely how to avoid the ‘infinitely demanding’ framework–that is, Zizek’s ‘withdraw and think’ thesis is a counterbalance to the ‘infinitely demanding’ notion championed by Critchley and presumably other leftists.

]]> By: Ian M. http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2008/05/26/zizek-and-critchley/comment-page-1/#comment-48367 Ian M. Wed, 28 May 2008 02:42:08 +0000 http://www.continental-philosophy.org/?p=760#comment-48367 I remember reading Critchley's response and thinking, 'Well, finally someone is saying it...' I'll be curious if Zizek responds, though Critchley's probably right, it's doubtful. I remember reading Critchley’s response and thinking, ‘Well, finally someone is saying it…’ I’ll be curious if Zizek responds, though Critchley’s probably right, it’s doubtful.

]]> By: Michael Paul Stevens http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2008/05/26/zizek-and-critchley/comment-page-1/#comment-48363 Michael Paul Stevens Tue, 27 May 2008 22:44:01 +0000 http://www.continental-philosophy.org/?p=760#comment-48363 interesting that in his interview with Amy Goodman Zizek calls on the left to "withdraw and think" in order to better get a grip on world situations. yet his review of Critchley's book chastises him, along with so-called post-modernism, of sitting back and implicitly surrendering to the establishment. it seems to me, from having only read Zizek's review as well as Critchley's reply, that Critchley is doing more to sustain a critical interpretation of what both thinkers admit is the gaining permanency of global capitalism. interesting that in his interview with Amy Goodman Zizek calls on the left to “withdraw and think” in order to better get a grip on world situations. yet his review of Critchley’s book chastises him, along with so-called post-modernism, of sitting back and implicitly surrendering to the establishment. it seems to me, from having only read Zizek’s review as well as Critchley’s reply, that Critchley is doing more to sustain a critical interpretation of what both thinkers admit is the gaining permanency of global capitalism.

]]>