What do you think?
Rate this book
The Most Sublime Hysteric: Hegel with Lacan
Que savons-nous de Lacan ? Que savons-nous de Marx ? Que savons-nous de Kant ? Que savons-nous de la démocratie et du totalitarisme ? De la bureaucratie et de la servitude ? De la nécessité et de la contingence ? De la représentation et des images ? Du communisme et de la psychanalyse ? De la déconstruction et de la philosophie analytique ? Du Witz et du sérieux ? Que savons-nous qui n’en soit pas un cliché mille fois rebattu – ou une conviction trop confortable ? À travers une éblouissante lecture de Hegel, qui en bouleverse de part en part la compréhension, Slavoj Žižek dynamite tous les clichés et met à mal toutes les convictions pour proposer de nouvelles manières de répondre à ces questions. Nous avions fait de Hegel le penseur de l’abstraction et de la réaction, Žižek en fait celui du concret et de la révolution – la sienne, et celle à venir.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
About the author
Slavoj Žižek
588 books6,626 followersSlavoj Žižek is a Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic.
He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).
Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."
He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).
Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
Read
September 9, 2014The Most Sublime Hysteric: Hegel with Lacan is Žižek’s re-edited dissertation defended in 1982, originally titled “Philosophy Between the Symptom and the Fantasy.” The new title is better.
Chronological temptation would lead one to begin reading Žižek at the chronological beginning. But that might not make much sense ; because of course things gain their status and are only properly posited in their presuppositions retroactively, like the famous owl at dusk. Probably better to read something more fun, with more jokes and more operas and more films and more genre-novels and things like that that made him his elvis reputation. Chronologically maybe start with The Sublime Object of Ideology, which for all I know, probably covers similar territory as does this dissertation=book. Where ever you find it you’ll want a piece of Žižek reading Hegel with Lacan and vice versa. You won’t understand any of it.
Meanwhile, for the big=Ž detractors, a veryvery good reason to naught=read Žižek --: because you are already reading :: Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Fichte, Marx, Freud, Lacan, Hitchcock, Heidegger, Adorno, Althusser, Badiou, J.A. Miller, Deleuze, von Trier, Chesterton, &c &c &c......
Film :: I do rec the film “Zizek!” (2005) as an introduction. “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology” (2012) is pretty much crap. “The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema” might be a little better. The 2004 lecture-film “The Reality of the Virtual” is pretty good if you don’t mind lectures (which (naught=minding) would mark you as naught=pomo ; pomo hipsters hate lectures).
Unrelated, but it’s Oedipal :: My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama w/ Joe and Stevie and Eric.
Chronological temptation would lead one to begin reading Žižek at the chronological beginning. But that might not make much sense ; because of course things gain their status and are only properly posited in their presuppositions retroactively, like the famous owl at dusk. Probably better to read something more fun, with more jokes and more operas and more films and more genre-novels and things like that that made him his elvis reputation. Chronologically maybe start with The Sublime Object of Ideology, which for all I know, probably covers similar territory as does this dissertation=book. Where ever you find it you’ll want a piece of Žižek reading Hegel with Lacan and vice versa. You won’t understand any of it.
Meanwhile, for the big=Ž detractors, a veryvery good reason to naught=read Žižek --: because you are already reading :: Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Fichte, Marx, Freud, Lacan, Hitchcock, Heidegger, Adorno, Althusser, Badiou, J.A. Miller, Deleuze, von Trier, Chesterton, &c &c &c......
Film :: I do rec the film “Zizek!” (2005) as an introduction. “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology” (2012) is pretty much crap. “The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema” might be a little better. The 2004 lecture-film “The Reality of the Virtual” is pretty good if you don’t mind lectures (which (naught=minding) would mark you as naught=pomo ; pomo hipsters hate lectures).
Unrelated, but it’s Oedipal :: My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama w/ Joe and Stevie and Eric.
January 6, 2022
De filosofie van Zizek lijkt onmogelijk een beginpunt te hebben, toch komen steeds dezelfde thematieken terug. Vanuit de recursiviteit van Lacaniaanse logica van de betekenaar is dit dan ook niet ongegrond. Zizeks tweede doctoraat uit 1982 is recent uit het Frans vertaald en geeft toch een interessante aanvang om wijs te worden uit een aantal inspiratiebronnen. Als het ware met lussen komt Zizek steeds terug op de thema's die hier zijn uiteengezet; De lezing van Lacan door de bril van Hegel, invullingen van deze eigenzinnige logica binnen economie, ideologie en totalitarisme, post-structuralisme, en verrassend genoeg ook tegenover analytische taalfilosofie (Kripke, etc.). Het is meer systematisch, opbouwend en wat minder grappig en kleurrijk dan wat we gewoon zijn, wellicht door de sfeer van de Sorbonne waar het doctoraat werd behaald. Elke vorm van helderheid is bijzonder welkom natuurlijk, ik zie het dan ook als een werk om naar terug te grijpen.
March 10, 2019
La lectura de este libro fue un gran desafío. Me llevó muchísimo tiempo digerirlo y aun dedicándole tiempo y ganas, hubo capítulos que excedieron mi capacidad. Se necesita conocer a Lacan, Marx, Kant, Hegel, entre muchos otros; para poder seguir las conexiones que realiza Žižek. Los capítulos sobre cuestiones del lenguaje fueron los que pude aprovechar y disfruté muchísimo, porque de antemano conocía los planteos al respecto de Austin, Searle, Kripke, Derrida, Foucault.
Me voló la cabeza, particularmente, el segundo capítulo (La performatividad retroactiva o cómo lo necesario surge de lo contingente): "¿Cuál es el grano que completa el puñado? ¿Cuál es el pelo que al caer vuelve calvo a su dueño? La única respuesta posible incluye una suerte de inversión de la 'certeza anticipada' lacaniana: uno sólo puede constatar demasiado tarde, retrospectivamente, el hecho de que uno ya tiene ante sí un puñado de arena; el momento nunca es justo [...] Una determinación simbólica (el puñado de arena, por ejemplo) nunca coincide con la realidad en la sincronía pura; uno sólo puede comprobar après coup que el estado de cosas en cuestión estaba ya dado antes. La paradoja es, por supuesto, que ese 'antes', ese efecto de 'ya dado' surge retroactivamente de la determinación simbólica misma." (p. 33).
Creo que no es un libro para todo el mundo, pero sí amplísimo y del cual pueden aprovecharse distintas partes de manera independiente; aborda cuestiones históricas, socioculturales, socioeconómicas con un rigor filosófico y un manejo de autores y teóricos excepcional.
Me voló la cabeza, particularmente, el segundo capítulo (La performatividad retroactiva o cómo lo necesario surge de lo contingente): "¿Cuál es el grano que completa el puñado? ¿Cuál es el pelo que al caer vuelve calvo a su dueño? La única respuesta posible incluye una suerte de inversión de la 'certeza anticipada' lacaniana: uno sólo puede constatar demasiado tarde, retrospectivamente, el hecho de que uno ya tiene ante sí un puñado de arena; el momento nunca es justo [...] Una determinación simbólica (el puñado de arena, por ejemplo) nunca coincide con la realidad en la sincronía pura; uno sólo puede comprobar après coup que el estado de cosas en cuestión estaba ya dado antes. La paradoja es, por supuesto, que ese 'antes', ese efecto de 'ya dado' surge retroactivamente de la determinación simbólica misma." (p. 33).
Creo que no es un libro para todo el mundo, pero sí amplísimo y del cual pueden aprovecharse distintas partes de manera independiente; aborda cuestiones históricas, socioculturales, socioeconómicas con un rigor filosófico y un manejo de autores y teóricos excepcional.
January 6, 2024
After Less than Nothing I thought, well, Zizek can't top this. Sure, he wrote this before. And I've read almost all of Zizek's books up to Less than Nothing. So am I a fan? Not really. My biggest criticism of him is that he starts with a theoretical claim, goes through a bunch of examples and then ends with a theoretical claim. Its as if the self-fulfilling prophecy of his theoretical apparatus is enough to make the point. NO. It's not. Theory on its own is not really impressive. And finding a bunch of stuff that fits a structure you want to explicate doesn't mean that this structure is true.
So those are reasons for dismissing him. But this book reverses that in a way. Perhaps this is because he's wrote this to be a PhD thesis. So he has to explain something... well, in this he explains it. The unique linchpin is given in direct words. Hegel's dialectic is not its logical exo-skeleton but rather how he tries to include subjectivity within the frame of the changing dialectic. That is, Hegel's philosophy is about altering subjectivity within the changing dialectic. That fits with Lacan nicely and that seems to be enough. Is Marx good too? Well, Marx always seemed to be an add on, because Lacan and Marx were both influenced by Hegel.
There are parts in Less than Nothing and For They Know Not What They Do that seem to echo this. Also in Absolute Recoil and The Fragile Absolute there also seems to be some hint at this but Zizek's manner of presentation really underminded the value of this point for me because you always want to ask. Where am I going? What is this doing? What is this for? I don't think explicating theory for its own sake is good enough, but in an attempt to ground your position in the dialectic (or within Lacan's moebius) might be enough, for the analyst is meant to take you out and unsymbolize your phantasies, so that you can come to your own grounding and start making the choices over again, hopefully this time not being distracted by the BS that is the immanent logic of your own transcendental limits.
That's certainly worth it. So def. 5 starts. If there were 10 I would put 10. All the stars, give him all the stars... =p
So those are reasons for dismissing him. But this book reverses that in a way. Perhaps this is because he's wrote this to be a PhD thesis. So he has to explain something... well, in this he explains it. The unique linchpin is given in direct words. Hegel's dialectic is not its logical exo-skeleton but rather how he tries to include subjectivity within the frame of the changing dialectic. That is, Hegel's philosophy is about altering subjectivity within the changing dialectic. That fits with Lacan nicely and that seems to be enough. Is Marx good too? Well, Marx always seemed to be an add on, because Lacan and Marx were both influenced by Hegel.
There are parts in Less than Nothing and For They Know Not What They Do that seem to echo this. Also in Absolute Recoil and The Fragile Absolute there also seems to be some hint at this but Zizek's manner of presentation really underminded the value of this point for me because you always want to ask. Where am I going? What is this doing? What is this for? I don't think explicating theory for its own sake is good enough, but in an attempt to ground your position in the dialectic (or within Lacan's moebius) might be enough, for the analyst is meant to take you out and unsymbolize your phantasies, so that you can come to your own grounding and start making the choices over again, hopefully this time not being distracted by the BS that is the immanent logic of your own transcendental limits.
That's certainly worth it. So def. 5 starts. If there were 10 I would put 10. All the stars, give him all the stars... =p
August 12, 2022
Žižek analiza textos de Hegel y Lacan, la combinación de la filosofía y el psicoanálisis, dos ramas muy fuertes que analizan en profundidad los diferentes temas expuestos en el resumen.
RESUMEN:
¿Qué sabemos de Lacan? ¿Y de Marx? ¿De Kant? ¿De la democracia y del totalitarismo? ¿De la burocracia y de la servidumbre? ¿De la necesidad y la contingencia? ¿De la representación y las imágenes? ¿Del comunismo y el psicoanálisis? ¿De la deconstrucción y de la filosofía analítica? ¿Del Witz y de lo que es serio? ¿Qué sabemos que no sea un cliché, mil veces contradicho, o una convicción demasiado cómoda? A través de una fascinante lectura de Hegel, cuya comprensión transforma de hito en hito, Slavoj Žižek dinamita todos los clichés y desestabiliza todas las convicciones para proponer nuevas maneras de responder a estas preguntas. Hicimos de Hegel el pensador de la abstracción y la reacción; Žižek lo convierte en el de lo concreto y la revolución. La suya, y la que está por venir.
RESUMEN:
¿Qué sabemos de Lacan? ¿Y de Marx? ¿De Kant? ¿De la democracia y del totalitarismo? ¿De la burocracia y de la servidumbre? ¿De la necesidad y la contingencia? ¿De la representación y las imágenes? ¿Del comunismo y el psicoanálisis? ¿De la deconstrucción y de la filosofía analítica? ¿Del Witz y de lo que es serio? ¿Qué sabemos que no sea un cliché, mil veces contradicho, o una convicción demasiado cómoda? A través de una fascinante lectura de Hegel, cuya comprensión transforma de hito en hito, Slavoj Žižek dinamita todos los clichés y desestabiliza todas las convicciones para proponer nuevas maneras de responder a estas preguntas. Hicimos de Hegel el pensador de la abstracción y la reacción; Žižek lo convierte en el de lo concreto y la revolución. La suya, y la que está por venir.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews