The Sublime Object of Ideology Quotes
The Sublime Object of Ideology
by
Slavoj Žižek6,123 ratings, 4.07 average rating, 449 reviews
The Sublime Object of Ideology Quotes
Showing 1-5 of 5
“Money is precisely an object whose status depends on how we 'think' about it: if people no longer treat this piece of metal as money, if they no longer 'believe' in it as money, it no longer is money.”
― The Sublime Object of Ideology
― The Sublime Object of Ideology
“(...) even if we do not take things seriously, even if we keep an ironical distance, we are still doing them.”
― The Sublime Object of Ideology
― The Sublime Object of Ideology
“To articulate more precisely the way in which the Lacanian phallic signifier
entails the impossibility of metalanguage, let us return to the poststructuralist understanding of the idea that 'there is no metalanguage'.
Its starting point is the fact that the zero level of all metalanguages - natural, ordinary language - is simultaneously the last interpretative framework of all of them: it is the ultimate metalanguage. Ordinary language is its own metalanguage. It is self-referential; the place of an incessant
auto-reflexive movement. In this conceptualization one does not mention
the object too much. Usually, one gets rid of it simply by pointing out how 'reality' is already structured through the medium of language. In this way post-structuralists can calmly abandon themselves to the infinite
self-interpretative play of language. 'There is no metalanguange' is actually
taken to mean its exact opposite: that there is no pure object-language, any
language that would function as a purely transparent medium for the
designation of pre-given reality. Every 'objective' statement about things
includes some kind of self-distance, a rebounding of the signifier from its
'literal meaning'. In short, language is always saying, more or less, something other than what it means to say.”
― The Sublime Object of Ideology
entails the impossibility of metalanguage, let us return to the poststructuralist understanding of the idea that 'there is no metalanguage'.
Its starting point is the fact that the zero level of all metalanguages - natural, ordinary language - is simultaneously the last interpretative framework of all of them: it is the ultimate metalanguage. Ordinary language is its own metalanguage. It is self-referential; the place of an incessant
auto-reflexive movement. In this conceptualization one does not mention
the object too much. Usually, one gets rid of it simply by pointing out how 'reality' is already structured through the medium of language. In this way post-structuralists can calmly abandon themselves to the infinite
self-interpretative play of language. 'There is no metalanguange' is actually
taken to mean its exact opposite: that there is no pure object-language, any
language that would function as a purely transparent medium for the
designation of pre-given reality. Every 'objective' statement about things
includes some kind of self-distance, a rebounding of the signifier from its
'literal meaning'. In short, language is always saying, more or less, something other than what it means to say.”
― The Sublime Object of Ideology
“Σε ένα σύμπαν όπου όλοι αναζητάμε το αληθινό πρόσωπο κάτω από το προσωπείο, ο καλύτερος τρόπος να παραπλανήσουμε είναι να φορέσουμε το προσωπείο της ίδιας της αλήθειας”
― The Sublime Object of Ideology
― The Sublime Object of Ideology
“The theoretical intelligence of the form of dreams does not consist in penetrating from the manifest content to its 'hidden kernel', to the latent dream-thoughts; it consists in the answer to the question: why have the latent dream-thoughts assumed such a form, why were they transposed into the form of a dream? … Herein, then, lies the basic misunderstanding: if we seek the 'secret of the dream' in the latent content hidden by the manifest text, we are doomed to disappointment: all we find is some entirely 'normal' - albeit usually unpleasant - thought, the nature of which is mostly non-sexual and definitely not 'unconscious.’ … This is why we should not reduce the interpretation of dreams, or symptoms in general, to the retranslation of the 'latent dream-thought' into the 'normal', everyday common language of inter-subjective communication ... The structure is always triple; there are always three elements at work: the manifest dream-text, the latent dream-content or thought and the unconscious desire articulated in a dream. This desire attaches itself to the dream, it intercalates itself in the interspace between the latent thought and the manifest text; it is therefore not 'more concealed, deeper' in relation to the latent thought, it is decidedly more ‘on the surface', consisting entirely of the signifier's mechanisms, of the treatment to which the latent thought is submitted. In other words, its only place is in the form of the 'dream': the real subject matter of the dream (the unconscious desire) articulates itself in the dream-work, in the elaboration of its 'latent content'. As is often the case with Freud, what he formulates as an empirical observation … announces a fundamental, universal principle: 'The form of a dream or the form in which it is dreamt is used with quite surprising frequency for representing its concealed subject matter'. … This, then, is the basic paradox of the dream: the unconscious desire, that which is supposedly its most hidden kernel, articulates itself precisely through the dissimulation work of the 'kernel' of a dream, its latent thought, through the work of disguising this content-kernel by means of translation into the dream-rebus.”
― The Sublime Object of Ideology
― The Sublime Object of Ideology
