A "file MD5" is a hash that gets computed from the file contents, and is reasonably unique based on that content. All shadow libraries that we have indexed on here primarily use MD5s to identify files. A. Hitler ( oh dear this is transgressing some kind of rhetorical rule for idiots) also had ‘reasons’. Should Mr Zizek get a pass for “a kind of joke”? 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). Don't the two concepts work at entirely different levels? While he makes the usual distinction between enjoyment and pleasure, and then mediates those in a second, Hegelian step, the object petit a and whatever excessive or surplus enjoyment, as developed in this book, shouldn't simply be equated, that reads as an obscuration of the entire issue for me.

Surplus-Enjoyment : A Guide For The Non-Perplexed - Google Books Surplus-Enjoyment : A Guide For The Non-Perplexed - Google Books

We welcome applications to contribute to UnHerd – please fill out the form below including examples of your previously published work. In fact the Empire made a bigger mistake a bit later and MittelEuropeans have paid for that since, many times over. If you read not only what the Russians are doing, but their ideology, it is explicitly something that one cannot but designate, not even in this purely abstract term, but a form of neo-fascism.”MD5 of a better version of this file (if applicable). Fill this in if there is another file that closely matches this file (same edition, same file extension if you can find one), which people should use instead of this file. If you know of a better version of this file outside of Anna’s Archive, then please upload it. Mr Zizek is a MittelEuropean and with his missing arm is making the same mistake Dostoevsky thought Austria would make when he wrote Diary of a Writer. Contemporary life is defined by excess. There must always be more, there is never enough. We need a surplus to what we need to be able to truly enjoy what we have. Slavoj Žižek’s guide to surplus (and why it’s enjoyable) begins by arguing that what is surplus to our needs is by its very nature unsubstantial and unnecessary. But, perversely, without this surplus, we wouldn’t be able to enjoy, what issubstantial and necessary. Indeed, without the surplus we wouldn’t be able to identify what was the perfect amount. More like 3 1/2 stars. Read enough Zizek (which I probably haven't) and you could probably predict his next book since certain parts of this book are pretty much repetitions of things he has said in previous works. The first part of the book is a bit of a drudge if you aren't a Marx fanatic (I am not), but Zizek has the occasionally sharp insight about climate change. Next, we get a lot of the repetitious parts about Freud and Lacan as well as more recent insights into gender ideology and PC culture. Pretty interesting for someone who has only read Sublime Object, but I imagine the Zizek obsessive has heard all these things before. Support authors: If you like this and can afford it, consider buying the original, or supporting the authors directly.

Surplus-Enjoyment: A Guide For The Non-Perplexed Surplus-Enjoyment: A Guide For The Non-Perplexed

There is desire and its object (or its cause) and then there is the enjoyment gained in the path of its maintainance. While I agree with Žižek's key insight here that enjoyment is always excessive, so surplus and enjoyment can be equated in this way, the object of desire itself is fundamentally at a different level as the derivation of enjoyment. A philosopher with comprehensive reach has to be superior to one that is not. A one armed paperhanger might struggle.

About the contributors

I can’t tell whether he is a profound thinker struggling to express his complex ideas, or yet another “public intellectual” more interested in being controversial and cultivating an audience. At times he seems profound, but if I replay that part of the interview his ideas, when stripped of jargon, seem commonplace. I’m not a philosopher so I really wouldn’t know. Contemporary life is defined by excess. There must always be more, there is never enough. We need a surplus to what we need to be able to truly enjoy what we have. Slavoj Žižek's guide to surplus (and why it's enjoyable) begins by arguing that what is surplus to our needs is by its very nature unsubstantial and unnecessary. But, perversely, without this surplus, we wouldn't be able to enjoy, what is substantial and necessary. Indeed, without the surplus we wouldn't be able to identify what was the perfect amount. I had never heard of Zizek until this interview. A little Googling tells me he is one of the most famous living philosophers.

Surplus-Enjoyment: A Guide For The Non-Perplexed: Žižek Surplus-Enjoyment: A Guide For The Non-Perplexed: Žižek

On a more serious note, there is one minor detail about this work I simply don't understand, and it's the following: Contemporary life is defined by excess. There must always be more, there is never enough. We need a surplus to what we need to be able to truly enjoy what we have. Slavoj Žižek's guide to surplus (and why it's enjoyable) begins by arguing that what is surplus to our needs is by its very nature unsubstantial and unnecessary. But, perversely, without this surplus, we wouldn't be able to enjoy what is substantial and necessary. Indeed, without the surplus we wouldn't be able to identify what was the perfect amount.The two are connected and related, but not in this equating direct way. While enjoyment is something that can be set in different libidinal schemes, Freud for example at a certain point framed it as directly a hydraulic system, the object itself is the paradoxical element in the machine which, instead of stopping it like a malfunctioning cog in mechanical terms, precisely keeps its going. Remember, one of the most disgusting events that I witnessed in the last year – I wasn’t there, I saw it on the media – was that Glasgow [COP 22] meeting against global warming. All that they said in principle was true. “We need global cooperation blah, blah, blah”. But nothing happens. For me, communism doesn’t mean I have a secret plan to nationalise or install gulags. It simply means, in some sense, we know what has to be done. Global cooperation, regulating the consumption of certain things such as oil, coal, beyond market necessities and so on. This will have to be done in one way or another. I call communism simply the system which will be able to do this.