Duel with language and the way Slavoj Žižek encoded Heidegger (First Segment) ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

Slavoj Žižek, the very controversial name on modern philosophy reminding his readers to think again Martin Heidegger‘s dissonance; that, Žižek thinks always forget to mention the “dark and torturing” experiences of “being” when it dwells with language. This Slovenian philosopher often and always has tried to convince his readers by pointing Heidegger’s one-sighted cacophony regarding language issue. In this context, his semi-old seminar paper on “Hegel versus Heidegger” is not a new cannonade for the readers who like Heidegger, and on the opposite who dislike him for his poetical regression. 

Žižek thinks Heidegger’s approach misleads readers to consider language a crucial factor for the “being”; his self-contradicted commentary just ignores the uncanny pain and suffering of “being” when it dwells with language. Not an abnormal fact, Lacan’s interpreter then frequently pressurized his readers to engage with language by forgetting all other beingness; since according to Žižek, language is the central point from where the philosophy of being has begins; that he believed not a mere means of the peaceful dwelling as Heidegger tried to mean it. 

Regarding Žižek, language compelled the “being” to make a dialogue with it; and this relation leads “being” transpires its pain and sufferings through dialectical ambiguities. Thus, we cannot mean it a peaceful coexistence; rather our relations with language are knaggy and sometimes it very difficult to read. Heidegger might consider this a peaceful conversation between “being and language” but their relation enclosed them to duel with each other. Žižek thinks this dueling lead “being” to experiencing anxiety and suffering largely and forced it to consider the home a dialectical abyssal for it. 

Dwel with language_10

The Guardian: Slavoj Zizek: ‘We are all basically evil, egotistical, disgusting’

… We dwell and duel with a paternal neurotic and that is language. Heidegger’s peaceful home bring the motherly fragrance to us, but this home is not a comfort zone for “being”. Žižek hired Lacan for the reminder and that is, —this home is paternal. It behaves like a sturdy father who is very persuasive to his attitude. This ambiguity makes this home dialectical and as well the reality of “being”.
… … …

That is why dwelling with language with dueling is neither a heavenly pleasure nor it a peaceful connection for the “being”. Heidegger persuaded his readers to consider language a home for human being where he is the guardian of it. Žižek stands reverse. He tried to disseminate the message, and that is, —language might be not like what Heidegger expects. Yes, “being” coexist with it, but the relation maybe not honeysuckle as Heidegger quotes to mean it. When we are talking about the language, we should remember the tension and anxious struggle between “being” and it; the discomfort always remained in the house where they coexist; and it might be true, we human beings are not the guardian of it

Suppose Heidegger always preferred and said “being throws” itself in this world. Žižek beckons the opposite for saying this, —look, it not “being” who throws itself; rather you can think like this, —it language which forced “being” to think that he is “thrown”. Thus, dwelling with language always appeared a challenging task for the human; it make-bound him to feel the dialectical ambiguities and as well dominates his entire beingness just like the guardian who guided his home-dwellers with paternity and commandment. 

This is Slavoj Žižek, a tricky word-maker and confident debater who know how to twist his opponent’s thoughts; sometimes he looked a perfect male chauvinist when he defends the great womanizer Lacan; or opposed Heidegger to say, his entire philosophical landscape a great misconduct with language. Heidegger by himself is for varied reasons looking uncomfortable, and his opponents never hesitate to mention him the promoter of male chauvinist Nazi Swastika. Anyway, Žižek himself bit exceptional to consider Heidegger’s Nazi chauvinism a fatal loss for him. In a sense the actual German Idealism have used on this paternity; alongside Freud and Lacan, their psychoanalysis also has projected the loss that an eternal paternity might lurk behind every “being” and fantasize it to act like this

Dwel with language_5

Fine art america.com: Portrait Of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is a painting by Jacob Schlesinger

… Žižek cannot accept it that led him to the “meta” abstraction of reality, he cannot accept Hegel’s meta-duality when he beckons like this: —“absolute” is the dialectical dialogue with Nothing; it appeared from Nothing and lost itself in Nothing; it the cause of this real world and to the parallel a cause of its own amorphous Nothingness.
… … …

Žižek often raised the question or pointing this in his lectures and articles that is, —why “being” feel orgasmic-excitement despite the humiliating pain when language raped it? Why this phantasmagoria captured “being” when it dwells and duel with language? Is it like living with phantasm that insists it (“being”) recall the history over again (?); or forced it to carry this? This peculiarity might lead Žižek to charge Heidegger why he forgets the negativity of language that might be the only tool to justify our beingness in this bizarre world. However, everybody knows who Žižek is. An interpreter of Lacan and the controversial propagandist of Hegel —it might represent his impotence as a provocateur; he provoked his readers to misread the philosopher’s texts for de-construction. 

Many among his contemporaries think Žižek is interesting for reading, but his reading reflects very little that one could consider deep to solve the fundamental problem of philosophy; it may “being, reality, language” and whatever is. He is not for them who are committed to going deeper; even very avid goes beyond the language to carry on the fundamental problems of philosophy with insightful thoughts. His blamers who do not like his political postures and hate his advocacy of Stalin, they treated him the charlatanry promoter of Marxism. Noam Chomsky thinks there was no difference between Lacan and his interpreter; both are a charlatan and destructive for real wisdom. Above all, he is the consistent opponent of Heidegger or which he thinks sounds like Heideggerian. 

Sometimes he hates himself when people labeling him as a philosopher, or they tagged his name with philosophical wordings, as Lacan hate philosophy in many extents. Anyway, Žižek might be necessary for readers when he de-construct Hegel by using Neo-Marxist signology; and alongside, beckons his antagonism to accept Martin Heidegger a comfortable “being” for the history of “being”. His de-construction of Hegel in light of Dialectical Realism might be uncomfortable to many Hegelians; especially who believed Žižek motivated his readers reading Hegel by forgetting the name of Hegel; which is like recognize the “being” without it essence. This tricky presentation maybe helped him to make his own edifice for promoting Neo-Marxism in all over the world. This man branded Neo-Marxism where Che Guevara and Žižek’s displayed in T-shirt and coffeepot. 

Dwel with language_2

Iai.tv.video: the laughing philosopher

… He is not for them who are committed to going deeper; even very avid goes beyond the language to carry on the fundamental problems of philosophy with insightful thoughts. His blamers who do not like his political postures and hate his advocacy of Stalin, they treated him the charlatanry promoter of Marxism. Noam Chomsky thinks there was no difference between Lacan and his interpreter; both are a charlatan and destructive for real wisdom. Above all, he is the consistent opponent of Heidegger or which he thinks sounds like Heideggerian.
… … …

Heidegger’s case is little different there. Žižek bothered very little about his Nazi connection; rather he represents him the ultimate totalitarian who biased himself through the wrong judgment of language by hiding its impact on “being”. To Žižek, Heidegger is a self-contradicted person who contradicts himself when he opposed Hegel or refuted Descartes in his “being and Time”. He himself obliged him to follow Descartes’ principles when he set his beingness of the “being” in a non-negotiable Da-sein state. Means he set a principle as Descartes once set the paradigm by uttering this: —“I think, therefore I am”. 

Heidegger set another paradigm by saying: —“being” can only talk when it stayed in the Da-sein because this is the pure state where being happened for beings. To the contrary, his Da-sein represents the always-presence state where the reality can rebegin but it never lost for a whole. If it true then why he classified “being” as “Originary” and “False” (?), by depending on the logic that from the Socrates-age language gradually lost its purity and today it is completely technologized by science; which is unable to express how the real beingness happened in a Da-sein state?

If every beginning is rebeginning then what be the necessity to renounce modernity and back to antiquity for searching the pure language? As Heidegger thinks, only this way “being” can talk and maintained its peaceful coexistence with language might be possible only this way. It sounds like a version-conflict, in where Heidegger is avid to catch the real version by renouncing current version of the reality treated it a falsification of “Originary”, which might be falsified by language. If language falsified the reality of “Da-sein” then how it coexists with “being” in the home? Rather, if we consider Heidegger-mentioned “being” with care then we should treat the existing version of reality an “Originary”; where the version appeared according to its own autonomy and now continued in the always-existed “Da-sein”; since he mentioned it “there”, which indicate ‘reality’s presence in the always-presence state of the “being”. 

Dwel with language_6

Braungardt.trialectics.com: Jacques Lacan  

… Heidegger by himself is for varied reasons looking uncomfortable, and his opponents never hesitate to mention him the promoter of male chauvinist Nazi Swastika. Anyway, Žižek himself bit exceptional to consider Heidegger’s Nazi chauvinism a fatal loss for him. In a sense the actual German Idealism have used on this paternity; alongside Freud and Lacan, their psychoanalysis also has projected the loss that an eternal paternity might lurk behind every “being” and fantasize it to act like this.
… … …

I am not sure Žižek raised above-mentioned question or not but it is clear Heidegger’s approach to language appeared disturbing to him; since this “meta” versification led our mind in remoteness; it led us to the God-like incorporeal world where all material sense just collapsed; where He and Lacan both are irrelevant; and, where everything is irrelevant except for the autonomous dwelling of “being” with language. Reasonable, Žižek cannot accept it that led him to the “meta” abstraction of reality, he cannot accept Hegel’s meta-duality when he beckons like this: —“absolute” is the dialectical dialogue with Nothing; it appeared from Nothing and lost itself in Nothing; it the cause of this real world and to the parallel a cause of its own amorphous Nothingness. Hegel said:

Nothing, pure nothing: it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content —undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is empty intuition and thought itself, and the same empty intuition or thought as pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being. [See; Science of Logic by G. W. Hegel]

Conjectural, why Žižek de-construct Hegel, or why he denounced Heidegger and treat him brutally to think, —his dwelling with language might be the worst reverberation where reality lost its minimum possibility that can help us to consider the conflict of interest between “being and language”. 

Heidegger’s “throwness of being” treated an always-constant event for being of the beings, but he failed to notice, the interaction between individual “being” always carry the risk that dialectical conflicts might indispensable for them; and except for this, they cannot “throw” them in the reality. Žižek considers it the weak point of Heidegger where the assumption is inevitable and that is, —“beings” can never unveil until they revealed them through the language. Language is the only organ for “being” through which it can talk, reveal and unveil itself to make its own recognition that it exists. This negativity of language is pivotal even for Heidegger, which he forgets when he left modernity and make his lonely journey to the pre-Socrates age. 

Dwel with language_8

Izquotes.com: Martin Heidegger on language

… language might be not like what Heidegger expects. Yes, “being” coexist with it, but the relation maybe not honeysuckle as Heidegger quotes to mean it. When we are talking about the language, we should remember the tension and anxious struggle between “being” and it; the discomfort always remained in the house where they coexist; and it might be true, we human beings are not the guardian of it.
… … …

It might have appeared a fault-line to Žižek when he dissects Heidegger. We dwell and duel with a paternal neurotic and that is language. Heidegger’s peaceful home bring the motherly fragrance to us, but this home is not a comfort zone for “being”. Žižek hired Lacan for the reminder and that is, —this home is paternal. It behaves like a sturdy father who is very persuasive to his attitude. This ambiguity makes this home dialectical and as well the reality of “being”.

Heidegger’s searching for originary beingness of the “being” in that context might the Utopia, it resonance poesis and tried to hide it in the antiquity. According to Žižek’s interpretation, Heidegger appeared there an escapist. Is it? If we want a plausible answer, it must be necessary for us to follow Heidegger’s explanation (with an enclosure of Hegelian discourse) before coming to any decision about the great mind of philosophy. The next chapter will try to highlight this matter along with Žižek’s tricks.
… … …

Dwel with language_3
Muftah.org: Self-Proclaimed Leftist Slavoj Žižek
… dwelling with language always appeared a challenging task for the human; it make-bound him to feel the dialectical ambiguities and as well dominates his entire beingness just like the guardian who guided his home-dwellers with paternity and commandment…

… Continued to the next chapter…

2 thoughts on “Duel with language and the way Slavoj Žižek encoded Heidegger (First Segment) ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

Comments are closed.