• PaulWall [he/him]
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    it would take too long an too much effort to understand. if you want to know the work i’m referencing it’s “the sublime object of ideology”

    • RandomWords [he/him]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      jesus christ, learn to put your fucking ideas into words or you obviously don't understand them mother fucker.

      • PaulWall [he/him]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        i did you just don’t agree with me and so i don’t want to have to give you a proof which would require much more length than me just giving you my idea as i’ve already done

        • RandomWords [he/him]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 years ago

          if you already did, they didn't seem to provide any knowledge that contradicts the points i've voiced. so if you can't back them up then all you've got is some guys name.

          • PaulWall [he/him]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            no i said what i thought ideology to be and you disagreed, in order for me to convince you we would have to have a long dialogue that i don’t desire having with you because you don’t have the background knowledge to make it worthwhile. it would literally just be me explains the sublime object of ideology to you, and that’s not something i care to do

              • PaulWall [he/him]
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 years ago

                it’s not really a theoretically significant term to be honest. i’d imagine zizek is using it to convey the sense that ideology isn’t literally a direct object of our senses but is instead the way in which objects are configured within our senses. again it’s not really a technical term though.