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.” We welcome applications to contribute to UnHerd – please fill out the form below including examples of your previously published work. Please report metadata errors at the source library. If there are multiple source libraries, know that we pull metadata from top to bottom, so the first one might be sufficient. 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.

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

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. A philosopher with comprehensive reach has to be superior to one that is not. A one armed paperhanger might struggle. 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.

On a more serious note, there is one minor detail about this work I simply don't understand, and it's the following: 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. In fact the Empire made a bigger mistake a bit later and MittelEuropeans have paid for that since, many times over.

Surplus-Enjoyment (豆瓣) - 豆瓣读书 Surplus-Enjoyment (豆瓣) - 豆瓣读书

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.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 ... 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.