Conventional Philosophy cannot accept what it cannot comprehend. Resonating back to Jean-Francois Lyotard, discourse does not connote a necessary communication accross a single category.
Terrence Blake over at Agent Swarm blog always has great analyses of what we could categorize as continental issues and goings on. And His comment on Zizek’s latest book further evidences his insightful ability.
I frame things along slightly different lines, though.
I have not read that book by Z but in reading Blake’s comments, it appears to me the same issue that I’ve been talking about for I think at least the past two years on this blog. This issue is the basis for which I came up with the term “conventional Philosophy”, but it falls in line with what Layotard talks about in his short essay “the postmodern condition“; in particular that knowledge will no longer be for the sake of knowledge itself nor for finding some truth of the matter, but that truth will precipitate out of the question and become an assumed ground of faith upon which knowledge will be qualified as to its truth-value or veracity, what L calls efficiency, and what Marxists might call Use-value. Only certain knowledge will be allowed; and this is what we are finding. Not as a command or some sort of rejection of claims, it is more founded in a complete inability and failure of communication such that these people that claim understanding are really entirely misunderstanding the point as well as the issue. There is no explaining to such people what you might really mean because this is the nature of the postmodern condition.
The static and linear manner by which conventional philosophy finds its ability for proposal is what’s lacking; to me it is the “ Big headed small minded “ who need to prove their legitimacy. So I agree, if Blake‘s essay can be taken at face value for conveying what’s true about Z book (which I assume it can, at least the first chapter he’s reviewing there ), with Zizek in principle : He really has no need to even address his accusers and naysayers, because they simply do not understand and in fact I would go so far to say that they are incapable of understanding despite their (probable) institutional lettering. We should let them go on to their own business but I know that authors such as Graham Harman and Slavoj Zizek make a living in that den of thieves, and I know that Z and indeed Harmon can hold her own, even while I think their activity in addressing these people might be somewhat mis placed.
(I am such a dork. 🤣)
The Common Humanity is a political theological dogma. A tenant of faith.