There is no section in this forum explicitly devoted to blathering motormouths and some people do allege that Slavoj iek is a philosopher, so this is the place to slag him. I'll start: He takes Derrida and Lacan seriously.
(View video on YouTube)
-
- Information on this archive. See IIDB.org
-
-
Please join us on IIDB (iidb.org)
This is the archived Seculare Cafe forum. It is read only. If you would like to respond or otherwise revive a post or topic, please join us on the active forum: IIDB.
-
Slavoj iek
-
subsymbolic
- Posts: 13371
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
- Location: under the gnomon
I don't know about Lacan, but he isn't taking Derrida seriously. At the heart of Derrida's thought is the precise idea that you can't derive universal truths from the interpretations of artifacts, from texts to toilets. Actually, for Derrida, the design and function of a toilet must be considered an informative text.
However, like any other text, the creative act of interpreting it, as this chap does, will produce a potentially infinite set of interpretations, none of which can be judged better or worse than any other. Such is relativism.
That said, he's talking bollocks. French toilets are that way, because until very recently, most French toilets were nothing but a hole with little water beyond urine and gravity doing all the work, As a result the most common disposal was a soakaway until surprisingly recently. French toilets reflect that reality. English toilets follow the original Thomas Crapper design (and he was no philosopher) as the UK was the first to pipe water in and out - thus our sewer systems were designed to run on mixed wet sewerage with enough water to transport solid waste. Germans I know less about.
When it comes to shit, practicalities tend to trump everything else.
However, like any other text, the creative act of interpreting it, as this chap does, will produce a potentially infinite set of interpretations, none of which can be judged better or worse than any other. Such is relativism.
That said, he's talking bollocks. French toilets are that way, because until very recently, most French toilets were nothing but a hole with little water beyond urine and gravity doing all the work, As a result the most common disposal was a soakaway until surprisingly recently. French toilets reflect that reality. English toilets follow the original Thomas Crapper design (and he was no philosopher) as the UK was the first to pipe water in and out - thus our sewer systems were designed to run on mixed wet sewerage with enough water to transport solid waste. Germans I know less about.
When it comes to shit, practicalities tend to trump everything else.
-
subsymbolic
- Posts: 13371
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
- Location: under the gnomon
[quote=""lpetrich""]Any details? Where do you think that SZ goes wrong? Aside from taking Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida too seriously. BTW, what do you think is wrong with those two?[/quote]
Lucan followed Freud and it's pretty clear that Freud was systematically wrong about almost every metaphysical and empirical claim he made.
Derrida bought into the universal acid of absolute relativism. This is all very well, but like universal scepticism, there's no real way to stop it eating everything. As such, once you accept that all texts are relative and that there is nothing meaningful that isn't a text, you are left with no way of consistently arguing for your position over any other, however silly. Derrida makes a great show of deconstructing others' positions, but is curiously incurious about his own.
Lucan followed Freud and it's pretty clear that Freud was systematically wrong about almost every metaphysical and empirical claim he made.
Derrida bought into the universal acid of absolute relativism. This is all very well, but like universal scepticism, there's no real way to stop it eating everything. As such, once you accept that all texts are relative and that there is nothing meaningful that isn't a text, you are left with no way of consistently arguing for your position over any other, however silly. Derrida makes a great show of deconstructing others' positions, but is curiously incurious about his own.
-
Roo St. Gallus
- Posts: 8148
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
- Location: Cascadia
Hey, sub...Deconstruct your own stuff.
From what I've heard, Crapper was not an inventor. A quick stroll over to the wiki posting for Crapper has this: "The flushing toilet was invented by John Harington in 1596. Joseph Bramah of Yorkshire patented the first practical water closet in England in 1778. George Jennings in 1852 also took out a patent for the flush-out toilet. In a time when bathroom fixtures were barely spoken of, Crapper heavily promoted sanitary plumbing and pioneered the concept of the bathroom fittings showroom." That time was the late 19th century. Crapper was a late-comer and a merchant.
From what I've heard, Crapper was not an inventor. A quick stroll over to the wiki posting for Crapper has this: "The flushing toilet was invented by John Harington in 1596. Joseph Bramah of Yorkshire patented the first practical water closet in England in 1778. George Jennings in 1852 also took out a patent for the flush-out toilet. In a time when bathroom fixtures were barely spoken of, Crapper heavily promoted sanitary plumbing and pioneered the concept of the bathroom fittings showroom." That time was the late 19th century. Crapper was a late-comer and a merchant.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
-
subsymbolic
- Posts: 13371
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
- Location: under the gnomon
[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]Hey, sub...Deconstruct your own stuff.
From what I've heard, Crapper was not an inventor. A quick stroll over to the wiki posting for Crapper has this: "The flushing toilet was invented by John Harington in 1596. Joseph Bramah of Yorkshire patented the first practical water closet in England in 1778. George Jennings in 1852 also took out a patent for the flush-out toilet. In a time when bathroom fixtures were barely spoken of, Crapper heavily promoted sanitary plumbing and pioneered the concept of the bathroom fittings showroom." That time was the late 19th century. Crapper was a late-comer and a merchant.[/quote]
He certainly was. And it was this late comer who designed, manufactured and popularised the toilet design we actually use in the UK today; he didn't invent the tech, he didn't even perfect it much, but boy did he make sure it was his version that we ended up using. As opposed to the toilets designs that we don't.
I don't know why you even bother trying to troll me. It never goes as you want it to.
Oh, and look up what 'deconstruct' means...
From what I've heard, Crapper was not an inventor. A quick stroll over to the wiki posting for Crapper has this: "The flushing toilet was invented by John Harington in 1596. Joseph Bramah of Yorkshire patented the first practical water closet in England in 1778. George Jennings in 1852 also took out a patent for the flush-out toilet. In a time when bathroom fixtures were barely spoken of, Crapper heavily promoted sanitary plumbing and pioneered the concept of the bathroom fittings showroom." That time was the late 19th century. Crapper was a late-comer and a merchant.[/quote]
He certainly was. And it was this late comer who designed, manufactured and popularised the toilet design we actually use in the UK today; he didn't invent the tech, he didn't even perfect it much, but boy did he make sure it was his version that we ended up using. As opposed to the toilets designs that we don't.
I don't know why you even bother trying to troll me. It never goes as you want it to.
Oh, and look up what 'deconstruct' means...
Last edited by subsymbolic on Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
[quote=""subsymbolic""]I don't know about Lacan, but he isn't taking Derrida seriously. At the heart of Derrida's thought is the precise idea that you can't derive universal truths from the interpretations of artifacts, from texts to toilets. Actually, for Derrida, the design and function of a toilet must be considered an informative text.[/quote]
How is that supposed to be impossible?
How is that supposed to be impossible?
Squat toilets?That said, he's talking bollocks. French toilets are that way, because until very recently, most French toilets were nothing but a hole with little water beyond urine and gravity doing all the work.
-
subsymbolic
- Posts: 13371
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
- Location: under the gnomon
[quote=""lpetrich""]
Yup, squat toilets.
I'm not sure what you are asking in the other question.
How is that supposed to be impossible?subsymbolic;676847 wrote:I don't know about Lacan, but he isn't taking Derrida seriously. At the heart of Derrida's thought is the precise idea that you can't derive universal truths from the interpretations of artifacts, from texts to toilets. Actually, for Derrida, the design and function of a toilet must be considered an informative text.
Squat toilets?[/QUOTE]That said, he's talking bollocks. French toilets are that way, because until very recently, most French toilets were nothing but a hole with little water beyond urine and gravity doing all the work.
Yup, squat toilets.
I'm not sure what you are asking in the other question.
[quote=""subsymbolic""]
[/quote]
He even once called for a return to Freud.
This sort of thing seems more typical of religion rather than science. In the harder sciences, at least, people argue from theories rather than from their inventors. The main exception I know of is Farsight. He'd treat the works of Newton and Maxwell and Einstein and Minkowski and Feynman as inspired texts, while grossly misunderstanding them and ignoring anything in them that is contrary to his beliefs.
Lucan followed Freud and it's pretty clear that Freud was systematically wrong about almost every metaphysical and empirical claim he made.lpetrich;676848 wrote:Any details? Where do you think that SZ goes wrong? Aside from taking Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida too seriously. BTW, what do you think is wrong with those two?
[/quote]
He even once called for a return to Freud.
This sort of thing seems more typical of religion rather than science. In the harder sciences, at least, people argue from theories rather than from their inventors. The main exception I know of is Farsight. He'd treat the works of Newton and Maxwell and Einstein and Minkowski and Feynman as inspired texts, while grossly misunderstanding them and ignoring anything in them that is contrary to his beliefs.
He came out of literary criticism, but what works in literary criticism may not work elsewhere.Derrida bought into the universal acid of absolute relativism. This is all very well, but like universal scepticism, there's no real way to stop it eating everything. As such, once you accept that all texts are relative and that there is nothing meaningful that isn't a text, you are left with no way of consistently arguing for your position over any other, however silly. Derrida makes a great show of deconstructing others' positions, but is curiously incurious about his own.
-
subsymbolic
- Posts: 13371
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
- Location: under the gnomon
[quote=""lpetrich""]
This sort of thing seems more typical of religion rather than science. In the harder sciences, at least, people argue from theories rather than from their inventors. The main exception I know of is Farsight. He'd treat the works of Newton and Maxwell and Einstein and Minkowski and Feynman as inspired texts, while grossly misunderstanding them and ignoring anything in them that is contrary to his beliefs.
It doesn't even work in literary criticism. The moment you buy into absolute relativism as Derrida does, you systematically undercut your own position and any mechanism by which truth is established. Any idea is as good as any other.
That's the problem with global anything. It's always a universal acid and any idiot who proposes it never seems to notice that it can be applied to them as well as their target.
He even once called for a return to Freud.subsymbolic;676882 wrote:Lucan followed Freud and it's pretty clear that Freud was systematically wrong about almost every metaphysical and empirical claim he made.lpetrich;676848 wrote:Any details? Where do you think that SZ goes wrong? Aside from taking Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida too seriously. BTW, what do you think is wrong with those two?
This sort of thing seems more typical of religion rather than science. In the harder sciences, at least, people argue from theories rather than from their inventors. The main exception I know of is Farsight. He'd treat the works of Newton and Maxwell and Einstein and Minkowski and Feynman as inspired texts, while grossly misunderstanding them and ignoring anything in them that is contrary to his beliefs.
He came out of literary criticism, but what works in literary criticism may not work elsewhere.[/QUOTE]Derrida bought into the universal acid of absolute relativism. This is all very well, but like universal scepticism, there's no real way to stop it eating everything. As such, once you accept that all texts are relative and that there is nothing meaningful that isn't a text, you are left with no way of consistently arguing for your position over any other, however silly. Derrida makes a great show of deconstructing others' positions, but is curiously incurious about his own.
It doesn't even work in literary criticism. The moment you buy into absolute relativism as Derrida does, you systematically undercut your own position and any mechanism by which truth is established. Any idea is as good as any other.
That's the problem with global anything. It's always a universal acid and any idiot who proposes it never seems to notice that it can be applied to them as well as their target.