"== Picture == 

 This image is awful, so dark one can't see his features..    

 == Yugoslavia == 
 I have changed ""born in Ljubljana, Yugoslavia (now Slovenia)"" to ""born to Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of Yugoslavia"".  The reason is that Ljubljana has always been part of Slovenia, because Slovenia already existed before it became independent (and indeed was recognized as a constituent republic of Yugoslavia).  I have also added Zizek's latest book to the list.  By the way, for which political party (if any) did Zizek stand for President?  This would be interesting to know.  He seems to be a Marxist-Leninist, though I don't know if this is stated anywhere explicitly. 

 : I'm almost positive that this was the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia. For a while he was considered their ideologist, although of course the party is now much more centered that it used to be; left-wing of what is now the LDS party originated back from Union of the Socialist Youth of Slovenia, but then it got merged with several slightly-right-of-them parties and it also rules Slovenia for 12 years, which also moved the party to the center.    

 == Slovenian pronounciation == 

 Please, can somebody who knows Slovenian put out some sort of pronounciation for Žižek? I'm from Sweden and everyone seems to have their own why of saying it. I'm pronouncing it ""gee-jack"", but I think I may be wrong. -) 
 :I've heard it pronounced by Slovenes and I am quite certain the ž-s are Voiced postalveolar fricatives (like the ""s"" in English ""treasure"": ""Zheezhack"")   
 David you are correct. We pronuance ž as in english word treasure. So Žižek is prounanced zheezhack. 

 == Philosophy == 

 There's enough here to whet one's appetite for Lacan and Zizek's psychoanalytic, cultural, and political insights, but there appears to be no mention of Zizek's indebtedness to Marx or, more importantly, Hegel.  And what about his later obsessions with Christianity and Paul?  This needs to place Zizek squarely (or roundly) within a more philosophical context. 

 :Indeed. This article is too liberal and postmodern by far. I don't have the time now to make any formal claims of NPOV. But consider notice given. 

 :  

 Major problems in defining Zizek's terms: 

 The symbolic real  the signifier reduced to a meaningless formula (as in quantum physics, which like every science grasps at the real but only produces barely comprehensible concepts) The example assumes open hostility toward science, and implies that concepts that Zizek doesn't understand are impossible for everyone to comprehend. 

 The real real  a horrific thing, that which conveys the sense of horror in horror films This assumes that other theorists haven't explained the operation of horror films using alternate analytical methods. Such as Noel Carroll's cognitive psychology approach. 

 The imaginary real   an unfathomable something that permeates things as a trace of the sublime. This form of the real becomes perceptible in the film The Full Monty, for instance, in the fact that in stripping the unemployed protagonists disrobe completely; in other words, through this extra gesture of voluntary degradation something else, of the order of the sublime, becomes visible. This is a piece of sophomoric film interpretation that is not supported by any evidence. If someone else interpreted the film differently, would that change the meaning of the term? 

 I propose that a Zizekian try and explain these terms without reverting to undergraduate film interpretation, or without displaying contempt for an analytical method that they don't understand. 

 == Critique == 

 any good criticism on him? I have read an article by Alberto Moreiras (Children of Light) on him but wish to seek some other sources (perhaps dialogues with Badiou, some of which are on www.egs.edu)... 

  

 A new user added the following ""critique"".  S/he first did so as an anon, then started an account to add it.  Frankly, as far as I can tell, it seems to be gibberish that only barely uses some words from Zizek.  But maybe I'm being ungenerous.  Does this make sense to anyone else? Clearly, the hyperbole words like ""most potent"" and ""formidable"" need to go; but after that, is there any kernel of meaningful comment here? Well, also the ""primary antagonist"" being someone I've never heard of (but who apparently does exist, according to Google: John Holbo is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the National University of Singapore; 1999 Ph.D. from Berkeley). 
 NEWLI