Žižek is an example of how politics and affective positioning are prior to serious reflection. First he positions himself politically and economically, then he tailors an "objective", philosophical rationalisation according to this. Psychoanalysis is something quite different. Mattias is faithful to the psychoanalytic discourse, so he do…
Žižek is an example of how politics and affective positioning are prior to serious reflection. First he positions himself politically and economically, then he tailors an "objective", philosophical rationalisation according to this. Psychoanalysis is something quite different. Mattias is faithful to the psychoanalytic discourse, so he does not divide the world into binary oppositions, but seeks the truth of their positions in all the sides that are presented. While Žižek has already abandoned this project, so we can only read his symptoms rather than the theory. Otherwise, you have misunderstood Desmet; in your reflection you should go back to phenomenology, for example to Husserl. The point is important: science becomes problematic when it assumes a certain place in discourses and when it becomes an (imaginary) "world view". But all reading (especially in the field of epistemology and philosophy of science) is ultimately meaningless if one is psychologically incapable of recognising propaganda and cult mechanisms. Read Fromm, Lacan or Merleau-Ponty and you will see that resonance is above all a different attitude towards the world - and not "new age". Attitude that does not deny one's own situatedness in it. A person who does not have it does not recognise how the situation is changing, how neoliberalism is a thing of the past. The old conceptual spectacles have made you stop being creative (resonating) in conceptualising what is actually happening.
Žižek is an example of how politics and affective positioning are prior to serious reflection. First he positions himself politically and economically, then he tailors an "objective", philosophical rationalisation according to this. Psychoanalysis is something quite different. Mattias is faithful to the psychoanalytic discourse, so he does not divide the world into binary oppositions, but seeks the truth of their positions in all the sides that are presented. While Žižek has already abandoned this project, so we can only read his symptoms rather than the theory. Otherwise, you have misunderstood Desmet; in your reflection you should go back to phenomenology, for example to Husserl. The point is important: science becomes problematic when it assumes a certain place in discourses and when it becomes an (imaginary) "world view". But all reading (especially in the field of epistemology and philosophy of science) is ultimately meaningless if one is psychologically incapable of recognising propaganda and cult mechanisms. Read Fromm, Lacan or Merleau-Ponty and you will see that resonance is above all a different attitude towards the world - and not "new age". Attitude that does not deny one's own situatedness in it. A person who does not have it does not recognise how the situation is changing, how neoliberalism is a thing of the past. The old conceptual spectacles have made you stop being creative (resonating) in conceptualising what is actually happening.