Zizek on HARDtalk
This, perhaps, is what happens when you mix Lecan, Baudrillard and Marx. An odd kind of nervous explosion. He apologises for himself at the end, which is strangely sweet.
Also somewhat a testimony to the failures of TV-show format in accommodating ‘serious’ philosophical thinking/talking. One side spends most of his time saying ‘but’, the other telling you to go read more, ‘to be more specific’. Is the TV-medium (the TV-show time slot; the 30-min slice, etc), in how it forces the quick answer/quick question dynamic of a dialogue really capable of providing the space for large ideas which inherently resist abstraction, reduction, simplification? Or is it simply the best we have, and is such a reduction thus the necessary side-effect (casualty) of ‘bringing philosophy to the people’ through television. And what of philosophy that cannot be reduced… thinking that refuses to be paraphrased? It is then forever isolated to its own kingdom of meaning, lost in the incapacity for systematic reduction? If ‘truth’ is nothing but simulacra, does that spell the death of ideas which do not ‘fit’ into media-vehicles?
This begs the question of Zizek’s new book: if the End-time is coming, and the new Communist moment is on us, will our media-form be able to ‘iron-out’ the implicit hierarchy of ‘philosophical ideas’ and ‘critical thinking’?
Or do we need a new philosophy, built not apart from media, but built through it, and by it?