web site hit counter The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?

Availability: Ready to download

With typical brio and boldness, Slavoj Žižek argues in The Fragile Absolute that the subversive core of the Christian legacy is much too precious to be left to the fundamentalists. Here is a fitting contribution from a Marxist to the 2000th anniversary of one who was well aware that to practice love in our world is to bring in the sword and fire.


Compare

With typical brio and boldness, Slavoj Žižek argues in The Fragile Absolute that the subversive core of the Christian legacy is much too precious to be left to the fundamentalists. Here is a fitting contribution from a Marxist to the 2000th anniversary of one who was well aware that to practice love in our world is to bring in the sword and fire.

30 review for The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?

  1. 5 out of 5

    Khashayar Mohammadi

    Fantastic book. Extremely entertaining and humurous. I recommend having a bowl of popcorn at hand; but thats as far as Žižek goes. he is a great entertainer, eloquently psychoanalyzing absurd moments that barely have a connection with each other and compiling them into a book. I really enjoyed reading the book, but after a while his futile yet clever word reversal gets repetitive. "Xness of Y is considered Aness of B while beneath the structure one can clearly see Bness of A" ad infinitum, intercu Fantastic book. Extremely entertaining and humurous. I recommend having a bowl of popcorn at hand; but thats as far as Žižek goes. he is a great entertainer, eloquently psychoanalyzing absurd moments that barely have a connection with each other and compiling them into a book. I really enjoyed reading the book, but after a while his futile yet clever word reversal gets repetitive. "Xness of Y is considered Aness of B while beneath the structure one can clearly see Bness of A" ad infinitum, intercut by schizophrenic dialogues between him and his favorite buddies: Marx, Hegel and Lacan. I adore Žižek's mind, but his incoherent ramblings generate no content whatsoever.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Jonfaith

    In such miraculous but extremely fragile moments, another dimension transpires through our reality. As such, the Absolute is easily corroded; it slips all too easily through our fingers and must be handled as carefully as a butterfly, Once again a tumult of thought leaves me throttled by the ghost of Lacan. His work and ideas are my nemesis. The blockages taunt me and usually are usually resolved with this specter pushing me into the bushes and maybe delivering a kick in my ribs. I do love Slavo In such miraculous but extremely fragile moments, another dimension transpires through our reality. As such, the Absolute is easily corroded; it slips all too easily through our fingers and must be handled as carefully as a butterfly, Once again a tumult of thought leaves me throttled by the ghost of Lacan. His work and ideas are my nemesis. The blockages taunt me and usually are usually resolved with this specter pushing me into the bushes and maybe delivering a kick in my ribs. I do love Slavoj but I need to strengthen my foundation in Lacan to pursue these with aplomb.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Ronald Morton

    What we should do in order to penetrate the underlying ‘fundamental fantasy' is to stage these two fantasies together: to confront ourselves with the unbearable ideal couple of a male ape copulating with a female cyborg, the fantasmatic support of the 'normal’ couple of man and woman copulating. I'm actually not going to provide context for that quote. There is no context which improves upon it, so I'm going to open with it, and just kind of leave it there. You know you're reading Žižek when the What we should do in order to penetrate the underlying ‘fundamental fantasy' is to stage these two fantasies together: to confront ourselves with the unbearable ideal couple of a male ape copulating with a female cyborg, the fantasmatic support of the 'normal’ couple of man and woman copulating. I'm actually not going to provide context for that quote. There is no context which improves upon it, so I'm going to open with it, and just kind of leave it there. You know you're reading Žižek when the author goes from Christianity, to Marxism, to lambasting Eastern European racism (with fascinating allusions to imaginary cartography), to discussing The Phantom Menace, to "Hegelian". All within the first 8 pages of the book. Keep being you Žižek. But, of course, for all his fascinating tics - part of why one reads Žižek is for the ride - Žižek also reminds us frequently of the other reason why we read him: he's frequently, bluntly, dead on. All the talk about foreigners stealing work from us, or about the threat they represent to our Western values, should not deceive us: on closer examination, it soon becomes clear that this talk provides a rather superficial secondary rationalization. The answer we ultimately obtain from a skinhead is that it makes him feel good to beat up foreigners; that their presence disturbs him . . . . Now, mind you, this book is 16 years old, but the strength of thought contained with remains relevant today. A lot of the real strength of his thought continues to be his ability to continuously reinterpret Marxism through a modern filter, and frequently makes it a thing to be desired. Which is a dangerous idea here in the states - or at least one that is feared, even if it's just from ignorance or taught through oligarchical propaganda - but let's be honest: shit isn't getting any better. Despite the description of the book, it takes nearly 100 pages before Christianity is covered in any real depth (which I actually liked, as I didn't enjoy the premise that Žižek lays out in the introduction, and was happy it took a long time, meandering through a great number of topics and asides, before Žižek really gets to his overall thesis), and the idea of the Fragile Absolute isn't really broached until less than 30 pages remain in the book. So, really, it's your pretty typical Žižek meander - it's not focused enough to stand out from his typical output, but it's still worth reading. Because, overall, Žižek is simply fun to read, and needs little else to recommend him for those who are on his wavelength. Apparently I am. See opening quote. There might be something wrong with me.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Eric

    I have an uneasy relationship with Zizek's work. His misreadings of Derrida are productive but frustrating. Similarly, when he discusses "postmodern" thought, he usually takes the bottom of the barrel to be representative of the whole. However, his readings of Lacan, pop culture, and, in the case of this book, Christianity are provocative and insightful. I did think the length of The Fragile Absolute was a problem as it seemed like he frequently jumped to a new topic as soon as his discussion wa I have an uneasy relationship with Zizek's work. His misreadings of Derrida are productive but frustrating. Similarly, when he discusses "postmodern" thought, he usually takes the bottom of the barrel to be representative of the whole. However, his readings of Lacan, pop culture, and, in the case of this book, Christianity are provocative and insightful. I did think the length of The Fragile Absolute was a problem as it seemed like he frequently jumped to a new topic as soon as his discussion was really gaining steam. Nonetheless, it's certainly worth a read, and the length of the book might actually be a plus for someone who isn't sure if they want to read his stuff.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Jared Colley

    The title of this work is kind of misleading. He discusses Christianity at the opening and picks it back up towards the end. His interests are strictly Materialist - once again appropriating Paul as a subversive, radical figure in the context of an oppressive Roman Empire. He sees statements like "there are neither men nor women, neither Jews nor Greeks" as more importantly functioning for disruptive political purposes in a certain historical situation. His comments on Christ's relation to the L The title of this work is kind of misleading. He discusses Christianity at the opening and picks it back up towards the end. His interests are strictly Materialist - once again appropriating Paul as a subversive, radical figure in the context of an oppressive Roman Empire. He sees statements like "there are neither men nor women, neither Jews nor Greeks" as more importantly functioning for disruptive political purposes in a certain historical situation. His comments on Christ's relation to the Law are very insightful regardless of one's beliefs. He writes: "When we obey the Law, we do so as part of a desperate strategy to fight against our desire to transgress it, so the more rigorously we obey the Law, the more we bear witness to the fact that, deep within ourselves, we feel the pressure of the desire to indulge in sin. The superego feeling of guilt is therefore right: the more we obey the Law, the more we are guilty, because this obedience, in effect, is a defence against our sinful desire; and in Christianity, the desire (intention) to sin equals the act itself....as Saint Paul makes clear, the Christian stance, at its most radical, involves precisely the suspension of the vicious cycle of Law and its transgressive desire..."

  6. 4 out of 5

    Benjamin Griffin

    I'm enjoying the dizzing postmodernity of this because i'm having an actual engagement with religion and the religious at the moment. In the past it all seem like so much abstract hooey-- totally failing to address the realities of class, race and gender. Maybe i grew up? Maybe i mellowed? Maybe I found religion? I really don't know yet.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Ana

    In the name of the Father Lacan, and of the Son Marx, and of the Holy Spirit Hegel. Amen.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Grace

    I read this, then put it away, then read it again, then put it away, then read it again, and I've finally achieved a solid conclusion: this book is garbage. As the title states, The Fragile Absolute is an argument that the "Christian legacy" is worth fighting for, that it has a radical kernel that should be cherished and protected against the dual forces of Christian fundamentalism and (presumably) liberal secularism. Now a good half of the book has more or less nothing to do with this argument. I read this, then put it away, then read it again, then put it away, then read it again, and I've finally achieved a solid conclusion: this book is garbage. As the title states, The Fragile Absolute is an argument that the "Christian legacy" is worth fighting for, that it has a radical kernel that should be cherished and protected against the dual forces of Christian fundamentalism and (presumably) liberal secularism. Now a good half of the book has more or less nothing to do with this argument. On first glance this is a disorganized mess of a book, starting with a thesis and refusing to argue for it for 100 or more pages. On closer examination, Žižek does actually back up his thesis. The crux of his argument seems to be that there is something radical about St. Paul's notion of agape (frequently glossed as love), that Paul suggests that we can reach universality and "unplug" from social systems through agape, perhaps similar to how communism attempts a sort of universality that will wash away national, racial, gendered, etc. distinctions. Žižek ends with an extended metaphor from The Shawshank Redemption: he likens radical political projects to the sublime music the prisoners hear in that movie, that we must fight for the glimpses of the Beyond of capitalism. I have two main problems with this. The first is an issue with the universality and the second is an issue with Žižek's politics that I can glean from this book. Žižek suggests that the radical core of Christianity is its attempts at universality: "Christianity (and, in its own way, Buddhism) introduced into this global balanced cosmic Order a principle that is totally foreign to it, a principle which, measured by the standards of pagan cosmology, cannot but appear as a monstrous distortion: the principle according to which each individual has immediate access to universality (of nirvana, of the Holy Spirit, or, today, of human Rights and freedoms): I can participate in this universal dimension directly, irrespective of my special place within the global social order. For that reason, Buddha's followers form a community of people who, in one way or another, have broken with the hierarchy of the social order and started to treat it as fundamentally irrelevant: in his choice of disciples, Buddha pointedly ignored castes and (after some hesitation, true) even sexual difference. And do not Christ's scandalous words from Saint Luke's Gospel point in the same direction: 'If anyone come to me and does not hate his father and his mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple' (14: 26). Here, of course, we are not dealing with a simple brutal hatred demanded by a cruel and jealous God: family relations stand here metaphorically for the entire sociosymbolic network, for any particular ethnic 'substance' that determines our place in the global Order of Things. The 'hatred' enjoined by Christ is not, therefore, a kind of pseudo-dialectical opposite to love, but a direct expression of what Saint Paul, in Corinthians I 13, with unsurpassable power, describes as agape, the key intermediary term between faith and hope: It is love [agape] itself that enjoins us to 'unplug' from the organic community into which we were born - or, as Paul puts it, for a Christian, there are neither men nor women, neither Jews nor Greeks.... No wonder that, for those fully identified with the Jewish 'national substance', as well as for the Greek philosophers and the proponents of the global Roman Empire, the appearance of Christ was a ridiculous and/or traumatic scandal." However, besides the fact that Žižek's sketch of "pagan" religions is essentially fiction, it is Christianity's grasp at universality that is one of its most heavily criticized features. See for example Indigenous philosopher Vine Deloria's critique of Christianity in God Is Red. If, after all, there are neither Jews nor Greeks under Christianity, then surely are there equally neither Anishinaabeg nor Lakota. Žižek may praise Christianity's universality, but it's difficult to praise its logical conclusion - the Catholic Church's operation of genocidal residential schools in Canada, the very goal of which was to eliminate the 'Indian-ness' of Indigenous people - as radical. Furthermore, Žižek's politics that he derives from his central insight are simultaneously utopian and drearily reformist. Žižek never endorses any positive political projects in the book; all projects from liberal democracy to (especially) state socialism are decried as fundamentally failing to move beyond capitalism. What we are offered is the sort of post-leftist axiom that every revolutionary action should give us a glimpse of our ideal world. I'm not necessarily Ms. Pragmatist, but this is undeniably utopian. And yet Žižek argues that part of revolutionary politics is killing your darlings, as Sethe killed her child in Toni Morrison's Beloved. But what worth is a revolutionary politics that starts in a place of defeatism? What does that offer us? If we must give up the search for unalienated labour, what's the point? I'd make a more elegant conclusion but basically this book is bad lol. Even if we accept Christianity has a radical core, what is the application of this? That we should incorporate Christianity into our politics? Again the problem of Christianity's missionary aspect comes up. What right does Žižek have to suggest we must extend the reach of Christianity in Turtle Island - assuredly a colonialist suggestion. I just do not get this book's purpose other than to be provocative.

  9. 5 out of 5

    David

    Now that's the stuff. This is Zizek in fine form. As usual, I won't claim to have fully digested every page, but there's plenty on which to chew. If you're wavering between reading this one or his _On Belief_, I'd go with this one. He covers similar ground, but this one hangs together better. (I think I'd say the same w/r/t The Puppet and the Dwarf, but it's been so long since I read that one it's a little hard to compare.) If nothing else Zizek gets you in the habit of refusing the easy view of s Now that's the stuff. This is Zizek in fine form. As usual, I won't claim to have fully digested every page, but there's plenty on which to chew. If you're wavering between reading this one or his _On Belief_, I'd go with this one. He covers similar ground, but this one hangs together better. (I think I'd say the same w/r/t The Puppet and the Dwarf, but it's been so long since I read that one it's a little hard to compare.) If nothing else Zizek gets you in the habit of refusing the easy view of something, looking for a way to turn it on its head or ear or keister. We all need more of that.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Andrew

    Zizek of course makes for fascinating reading. He is refreshingly non-left in a lot of his thinking. Here he spends a lot of time talking about movies, Croatian jokes, and Lacan. It is dense, entertaining, and provocative, which is all I really ask of him. His interaction with Christian thought is notable as a trend in contemporary thought, but as James K. A. Smith just pointed out in a Books and Culture review, we (Christians) have to be careful to watch out for what these thinkers throw out wh Zizek of course makes for fascinating reading. He is refreshingly non-left in a lot of his thinking. Here he spends a lot of time talking about movies, Croatian jokes, and Lacan. It is dense, entertaining, and provocative, which is all I really ask of him. His interaction with Christian thought is notable as a trend in contemporary thought, but as James K. A. Smith just pointed out in a Books and Culture review, we (Christians) have to be careful to watch out for what these thinkers throw out when they appropriate our legacy. Zizek makes some interesting inroads into the concept of Law and the Christian sublation of it, but at the same time I'm pretty sure he's only interested in Christianity as a spur to political action. Which is fine in itself, of course, but that's not all Christianity is!

  11. 5 out of 5

    Kyle

    One of my least favorite so far of Zizek's. I had such high hopes for the Christianity and Marxist synthesis that getting bogged down in all the Lacan just to have a few snippets of prospects for Christianity kinda saddened me. Not to mention the structure was odd. Random chapters which would bring open prospects of interest which were just never answered sadly. I really just don't know what I was supposed to get out of this book. It seemed so structureless, random and hodge-podge. Silly me want One of my least favorite so far of Zizek's. I had such high hopes for the Christianity and Marxist synthesis that getting bogged down in all the Lacan just to have a few snippets of prospects for Christianity kinda saddened me. Not to mention the structure was odd. Random chapters which would bring open prospects of interest which were just never answered sadly. I really just don't know what I was supposed to get out of this book. It seemed so structureless, random and hodge-podge. Silly me wanted a concrete message out of Zizek.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Chandra

    Phenomenal, lucid.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Jake

    Typical Zizek. I'm obviously a fan, but also get why my friends didn't like my recommendation. He's got the academic language mixed with pop culture references and vulgar jokes. If you want a philosophical analysis of how Christians who are not really Christians but are St. Paulians compare to Marxists who are not really Marxists but are really Leninists and then a probe into the meaning of Coca-Cola, a drink that tastes like shit and doesn't quench your thirst but just makes you want more Coke Typical Zizek. I'm obviously a fan, but also get why my friends didn't like my recommendation. He's got the academic language mixed with pop culture references and vulgar jokes. If you want a philosophical analysis of how Christians who are not really Christians but are St. Paulians compare to Marxists who are not really Marxists but are really Leninists and then a probe into the meaning of Coca-Cola, a drink that tastes like shit and doesn't quench your thirst but just makes you want more Coke and how does this relate to the modern economic system etc then this is your guy. Plus he throws in some Keanu Reeves movies and stuff like that. He's the best. Plus, years after this book was written, he made Jordan B. Peterson look like the prig he is in their stupid so-called youtube "debate" (he was too quick on his toes for a guy that wished he lived in 1952).

  14. 5 out of 5

    Karl Hallbjörnsson

    This is more like a 2,5 for me, it was thrilling in the uniquely Zizekian way, funny and outrageous, as per usual — but only seldom did I feel like I was encountering something new, only now and then did I really feel something spark. It's still pretty good though, and for its shortness I'd probably recommend it to fans of this Slovenian Diogenes

  15. 5 out of 5

    nasrin

    In _The Fragile Absolute_, Zizek presents his argument in his usual hyperkinetic and engaging style, but I feel like this was more of a 3 and a half star read for me rather than a solid 4 star experience (I'll round up anyway). The reason for this is because I have read other books by Zizek that were more satisfying. He visited many of the same principles in _The Fragile Absolute_ that I have encountered in his other books while tweaking them a bit in different directions. He didn't go quite as In _The Fragile Absolute_, Zizek presents his argument in his usual hyperkinetic and engaging style, but I feel like this was more of a 3 and a half star read for me rather than a solid 4 star experience (I'll round up anyway). The reason for this is because I have read other books by Zizek that were more satisfying. He visited many of the same principles in _The Fragile Absolute_ that I have encountered in his other books while tweaking them a bit in different directions. He didn't go quite as far as I've witnessed in some of his other work, hence the not-quite-satisfied feeling I had at the end. I did find his commentary on the tension between Judaism and Christianity fascinating (i.e. his assessment of the way in which Jewish tradition has subverted the "spirit" of religious law by reading it literally in opposition to the Christian stance of adhering strictly to the "spirit" of doctrine--Zizek's (psycho)analyzes this convincingly), and I'm always a sucker for Zizek's application of Lacanian theory to all sorts of surprising phenomena. I think my favorite bit occurred near the end when Zizek speaks of the revolutionary potential of "shooting at oneself"--he best fleshes this out in his example of Medea. At any rate, if I were to recommend reading Zizek to someone new to his ideas, this isn't the book I'd claim as my favorite. However, since I love reading Zizek I still ended up enjoying this book.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Robert

    I liked this the best out of the Essential Zizek series because it's the least repetitive and centers around Zizek's prescriptions going forward (and not around his diagnoses and analyses of problems). Don't get me wrong: all Zizek is repetitive (within and between books), and you have multiple opportunities to experience deja vu if you've read a few Zizek books going into this one. But repetition is necessary for Zizek's philosophy, and as this is half the size of the other 3 "Essential" books I liked this the best out of the Essential Zizek series because it's the least repetitive and centers around Zizek's prescriptions going forward (and not around his diagnoses and analyses of problems). Don't get me wrong: all Zizek is repetitive (within and between books), and you have multiple opportunities to experience deja vu if you've read a few Zizek books going into this one. But repetition is necessary for Zizek's philosophy, and as this is half the size of the other 3 "Essential" books (and, again, the most prescriptive), this is kept to a relative (for Zizek) minimum here. What is it Zizek prescribes? What else? Love. Love as work. Love as a duty (like Kant). Not a mirrored projecting of yourself onto others, but a love that defies your inner tendencies to withdraw from the truly alien. The sort of love that turns the other cheek in an effort to break the cycle of violence. Nothing new in that sense, and Zizek makes a mostly psychoanalytical case here. As an artist, his use of paradox and reversals is perfect for inspiring me.

  17. 5 out of 5

    V

    This book is ostensible about reconciling Marxism and Christianity, but in reality it is mostly neo-Freudian analysis of pop culture, with a few asides on politics or religion. Zizek is incapable of actually making a coherent argument and this book lacks any structure whatsoever. He does have several interesting insights here and there, like how liberal ideology denies political agency for victims of oppression, but if you were actually interested in the purported topic of the book, be warned.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Donald

    The sections that actually discussed Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) were interesting and provocative, but 1/2 the book was random Zizekisms that did not add to the book at all and had little or nothing to do with the subject.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Maciej Sitko

    Disclaimer: In preparation to reading the book one should have a glimpse of philosophy, largely Lacan and Freud, but also heavily Hegel, Schelling and Heidegger. There are some minor references to Kierkegaard and Kant also and it's best to have a general overview of these. The reason I am saying this is that Žižek employs complex vocabulary throwing us at deep waters, there is rarely explanation etc. The book takes on very interesting subjects which sometimes only loosely relate to the general id Disclaimer: In preparation to reading the book one should have a glimpse of philosophy, largely Lacan and Freud, but also heavily Hegel, Schelling and Heidegger. There are some minor references to Kierkegaard and Kant also and it's best to have a general overview of these. The reason I am saying this is that Žižek employs complex vocabulary throwing us at deep waters, there is rarely explanation etc. The book takes on very interesting subjects which sometimes only loosely relate to the general idea of Christian tradition. Other times - it presents very interesting supplementary ideas. A lot of the content is dense and terse in vocabulary, and ideas not too transparent to grasp at first. Žižek typically explains such views in a very technical approach, and then dissects them in a surgical way, the way accessible to a person without grounding in psychoanalysis. Having said that, there could more explanation and dissection of these; there are some mind blowing questions and theses that could be elaborated, with accounting for additional pages in the book (if this was written Jordan Peterson way, the book would probably end up three times its current size). Žižek has a different tactic - he requires you to think hard. There is no easy question, nor easy answer to anything. Every "yes" and "no" has a deeper analytic symbolic meaning that describes the truth, the reality and the motive.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Einzige

    A specialist book written with just enough quips and spots of simple insight to lure in an unsuspecting reader. Unless you are fairly comfortable with figures like Lacan, Hegel and a gaggle of French philosophers you are in for a bad time. An example: "One can now see what the Lacanian answer is to the Derridan insistence on how 'however it[the category of the subject] is modified, however it is endowed with consciousness or unconsciousness, it will refer, by the entire thread of its history to A specialist book written with just enough quips and spots of simple insight to lure in an unsuspecting reader. Unless you are fairly comfortable with figures like Lacan, Hegel and a gaggle of French philosophers you are in for a bad time. An example: "One can now see what the Lacanian answer is to the Derridan insistence on how 'however it[the category of the subject] is modified, however it is endowed with consciousness or unconsciousness, it will refer, by the entire thread of its history to the substantiality of a presence unperturbed by accidents, or to the identity of the proper/selfsame in the presence of the self-relationship: this substantiality is not that of the subject itself , but that of its objectual counterpoint, of an excremental remainder/trash which precisely sustains the Subject qua empty/void/nonsubstantial."

  21. 5 out of 5

    Thai Divone

    This book was a gamble. I needed some extra literature for a seminar I'm writing, and asking for recommendations in a reading group, someone mentioned this one. For much of the book, I was sure that he mentioned it by mistake, but in the last third everything came together, and suddenly all felt natural and right. For me, the only reason for complaining - the book appearing, at first, not what I needed for the seminar – wasn't really that of a turn off: "even" those parts are so illuminating, by This book was a gamble. I needed some extra literature for a seminar I'm writing, and asking for recommendations in a reading group, someone mentioned this one. For much of the book, I was sure that he mentioned it by mistake, but in the last third everything came together, and suddenly all felt natural and right. For me, the only reason for complaining - the book appearing, at first, not what I needed for the seminar – wasn't really that of a turn off: "even" those parts are so illuminating, by themselves, that I can't really complain at all. In short, I am highly satisfied and highly grateful. It turned out even better than I've expected.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Rodrigo Domínguez

    3.5/5 As usual, Zizek has several brilliant insights but the common critique weighs specially here: he's too all over the place, struggling to connect them into a cohesive narrative. The first half of the book doesn't even mention Christianity, and just feature a recollection of Zizek's example-infused Hegelian-Lacanian ideas which he repeats in previous and posterior books. When he finally does reach the core, he does deliver some very theoretically rigorous analysis of Christianity, but lacks t 3.5/5 As usual, Zizek has several brilliant insights but the common critique weighs specially here: he's too all over the place, struggling to connect them into a cohesive narrative. The first half of the book doesn't even mention Christianity, and just feature a recollection of Zizek's example-infused Hegelian-Lacanian ideas which he repeats in previous and posterior books. When he finally does reach the core, he does deliver some very theoretically rigorous analysis of Christianity, but lacks the precision and structure of someone like Badiou. Sometimes this can be his strengh as a thinker, but this particular book is right to remain one of his less spectacular works.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Braden Siemens

    If you want to read Zizek, first read Hegel, Marx, and Lacan. This will make reading Zizek much easier. This book was interesting in its psychoanalytic/Marxian interpretation of Christianity as a type of destroyer of the 'master signifier'; as that which breaks the vicious cycle between law and transgression instigated by the superego and ultimately allowing humans to face their own lack and in doing so move into a new Real of the Other in the fleeting/fragile absolute which is agape. If you did If you want to read Zizek, first read Hegel, Marx, and Lacan. This will make reading Zizek much easier. This book was interesting in its psychoanalytic/Marxian interpretation of Christianity as a type of destroyer of the 'master signifier'; as that which breaks the vicious cycle between law and transgression instigated by the superego and ultimately allowing humans to face their own lack and in doing so move into a new Real of the Other in the fleeting/fragile absolute which is agape. If you didn't quite understand that, then take my advice and read Lacan and Hegel first.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Gregory Walter

    I love Žižek and his work but I had a difficult time with this book. Žižek draws a lot from Lacan and I know very little of the Lacanian school of psychoanalytic thought so I wasn't able to enjoy the book as much as I've enjoyed some other works of Žižek. However, the book does offer a lot engagement with Žižek's critiques of popular culture, world events, and religion even though most of it was beyond my understanding. 

  25. 4 out of 5

    Morgane

    for the first 2/3 of it I wasn't quite following along and considered giving up but suddenly it all fell into place and by the end I was moved to tears? I didn't expect that at all. I would say this book wasn't quite what I expected, but it's also ... not... *not* what I expected... anyway it's classic Žižek but with a surprising amount of heart. I'm glad I stuck with it.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Derek Brown

    Zizek (beautifully) brings it together at the end, but, until then, I wasn’t quite sure what this book had to do with Christianity.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Mati

    The one star reviews are fitting for that mess.

  28. 4 out of 5

    βαβυλών

    i want there to be a Least Favorite Authors section.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Ozgur Deniz

    A complex journey where you may get easily lost if you are seduced by zizek sidelines. You should know a bit of lacan to understand what going on ( even hegel, kant)

  30. 5 out of 5

    Alistar Flofsky

    "The authentic Christian legacy is much too precious to be left to the fundamentalist freaks."

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.