In other words, what the subject engaged in a struggle perceives as the enemy, the external obstacle he has to overcome, is the materialization of the subject’s immanent inconsistency: the struggling subject needs the figure of the enemy to sustain the illusion of his own consistency, his very identity hinges on his opposing the enemy, so much so that his (eventual) victory amounts to his own defeat or disintegration. As Hegel likes to put it, in fighting the external enemy, one (unknowingly) fights one’s own essence. So, far from celebrating engaged struggle, Hegel’s point is rather that every embattled position, every taking of sides, has to rely on a necessary illusion (the illusion that, once the enemy is annihilated, I will achieve the full realization of my being). This brings us to what would have been a properly Hegelian notion of ideology: the misapprehension of the condition of possibility (of what is an inherent constituent of your position) as the condition of impossibility (as an obstacle which prevents your full realization)-the ideological subject is unable to grasp how his entire identity hinges on what he perceives as the disturbing obstacle.
Slavoj Zizek 2012 Less Than Nothing, page 200
— has First World War ended, or is it still going on?
why not? if “nation” reveals itself as the mathematical entity that it is.
where are all the historians :) or well, not-all historians will do
it might be nice if someone would be able to validly declare the end of WW1 in its 100th anniversary: 28 July 2014
historians my friend are blowing in the wind :)
you know in his masterclasses zizek was telling about a legend in the world war
legend of deserters in the first world war: 14:20 –> http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/archive/audio/2013_11_25/2013_11_25_Slavoj%20Zizek_talk.mp3
free human beings <— freedom has to do with randomness, randomness has to do with sampling, sampling has to do with "united nations": what is UN mathematically? what does it compute and how does it compute?
The Great War was not the traumatic break that shattered late nineteenth-century progressivism, but a reaction to the true threat to the established order: the explosion of vanguard art, science and politics that was undermining the established world-view (artistic modernism in literature—from Kafka to Joyce; in music—Schoenberg and Stravinsky; in painting—Picasso, Malevich, Kandinsky; psychoanalysis; relativity theory and quantum physics; the rise of Social Democracy …). This rupture—condensed in 1913, the annus mirabilis of the artistic vanguard—was so radical in its opening up of new spaces that, in our speculative historiography, it is tempting to claim that the outbreak of the Great War in 1914 was, from the “spiritual” standpoint, a reaction to this Event. Or, to paraphrase Hegel, the horror of World War I was the price humanity had to pay for the immortal artistic revolution of the years just prior to the war. In other words, we must invert the pseudo-profound insight according to which Schoenberg et al. prefigured the horrors of twentieth-century war: what if the true Event was 1913? It is crucial to focus on this intermediate explosive moment, between the complacency of the late nineteenth century and the catastrophe of World War I—1914 was not an awakening, but the forceful and violent return of a patriotic slumber destined to block the true awakening. The fact that the fascists and other patriots hated the vanguard entartete Kunst is not a marginal detail but a key feature of fascism.
Slavoj Zizek 2014 Absolute Recoil