O absoluto frágil: ou Por que vale a pena lutar pelo legado cristão?

by Slavoj Žižek

O absoluto frágil mostra como o cristianismo e o marxismo podem estar lado a lado na luta contra o fundamentalismo e defende que o legado cristão teria um núcleo subversivo essencial para a constituição de uma política de emancipação universal. O filósofo traz o materialismo à luz dos dias atuais, sem perder de vista "a história espectral que assombra o espaço da tradição religiosa judaica" e a importância da filosofia de Hegel para uma análise do capitalismo contemporâneo. Um ensaio ousado, que fez com que Terry Eagleton chamasse seu autor de "um ativista intelectual frenético, que sempre parece estar em seis lugares do planeta ao mesmo tempo, como Sócrates pós-esteróides".

Conhecido pela originalidade de seu pensamento crítico, o filósofo esloveno Slavoj Žižek parte aqui de uma abordagem desafiadora para discutir o fundamentalismo e a violência praticada em nome deste. Na tentativa de entender como a espectralidade funciona na ideologia, o autor analisa as narrativas bíblicas à luz do marxismo e do cristianismo sob o argumento de que ambos "deveriam lutar do mesmo lado da barricada contra o furioso ataque dos novos espiritualismos". Sem se submeter ao espírito de uma época que se considera pós-secular, Žižek faz uma crítica de dentro das religiões islâmica, judaica e cristã para mostrar como o conceito fenomenológico de sacrifício e a figura freudiana do Deus-Pai podem ser usados para entender os conflitos étnicos e culturais que vivemos hoje.

"Como devemos interpretar medidas administrativas como a do Estado francês, que proibiu jovens muçulmanas de usar o hijab nas escolas?" "E por que as mulheres no Islã são uma presença tão traumática, um escândalo tão ontológico, que precisam ser veladas?" Não há uma resposta fácil para essas questões ¬– daí a recusa do autor a reduzir acontecimentos como a exposição do islã à modernização ocidental ou a desintegração da Iugoslávia e a defesa do humanismo militarista à crença de que é com a tolerância que se combate o ódio.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Psychoanalysis, Christianity, Theology, Theory

253 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2000

About the author

Slavoj Žižek is a Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic.

He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).

Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.

In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."

Reviews

[Goatboy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow - Top Zizek for me for sure (although I couldn't tell you exactly why). Maybe I just read it at the right time. Maybe the world around me has shifted just so, so that this work feels incredibly timely in its explorations. Zizek does his usual jumping around but for whatever reason this time every jump seemed to make sense. When you spend your day not being able to wait to get back to a critical theory book you know you've stumbled on to something just for you.

[Jonfaith · Rating 3 out of 5]

In such miraculous but extremely fragile moments, another dimension transpires through our reality. As such, the Absolute is easily corroded; it slips all too easily through our fingers and must be handled as carefully as a butterfly,

Once again a tumult of thought leaves me throttled by the ghost of Lacan. His work and ideas are my nemesis. The blockages taunt me and usually are usually resolved with this specter pushing me into the bushes and maybe delivering a kick in my ribs. I do love Slavoj but I need to strengthen my foundation in Lacan to pursue these with aplomb.

[Grace · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this, then put it away, then read it again, then put it away, then read it again, and I've finally achieved a solid conclusion: this book is garbage. As the title states, The Fragile Absolute is an argument that the "Christian legacy" is worth fighting for, that it has a radical kernel that should be cherished and protected against the dual forces of Christian fundamentalism and (presumably) liberal secularism. Now a good half of the book has more or less nothing to do with this argument. On first glance this is a disorganized mess of a book, starting with a thesis and refusing to argue for it for 100 or more pages. On closer examination, Žižek does actually back up his thesis. The crux of his argument seems to be that there is something radical about St. Paul's notion of agape (frequently glossed as love), that Paul suggests that we can reach universality and "unplug" from social systems through agape, perhaps similar to how communism attempts a sort of universality that will wash away national, racial, gendered, etc. distinctions. Žižek ends with an extended metaphor from The Shawshank Redemption: he likens radical political projects to the sublime music the prisoners hear in that movie, that we must fight for the glimpses of the Beyond of capitalism.

I have two main problems with this. The first is an issue with the universality and the second is an issue with Žižek's politics that I can glean from this book. Žižek suggests that the radical core of Christianity is its attempts at universality:

"Christianity (and, in its own way, Buddhism) introduced into this global balanced cosmic Order a principle that is totally foreign to it, a principle which, measured by the standards of pagan
cosmology, cannot but appear as a monstrous distortion: the principle according to which each individual has immediate access to universality (of nirvana, of the Holy Spirit, or, today, of human Rights and freedoms): I can participate in this universal dimension directly, irrespective of my special place within the global social order. For that reason, Buddha's followers form a community of people who, in one way or another, have broken with the hierarchy of the social order and started to treat it as fundamentally irrelevant: in his choice of disciples, Buddha pointedly ignored castes and (after some hesitation, true) even sexual difference. And do not Christ's scandalous words from Saint Luke's Gospel point in the same direction: 'If anyone come to me and does not hate his father and his mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple' (14: 26). Here, of course, we are not dealing with a simple brutal hatred demanded by a cruel and jealous God: family relations stand here metaphorically for the entire sociosymbolic network, for any particular ethnic 'substance' that determines our place in the global Order of Things. The 'hatred' enjoined by Christ is not, therefore, a kind of pseudo-dialectical opposite to love, but a direct expression of what Saint Paul, in Corinthians I 13, with unsurpassable power, describes as agape, the key intermediary term between faith and hope: It is love [agape] itself that enjoins us to 'unplug' from the organic community into which we were born - or, as Paul puts it, for a Christian, there are neither men nor women, neither Jews nor Greeks.... No wonder that, for those fully identified with the Jewish 'national substance', as well as for the Greek philosophers and the proponents of the global Roman Empire, the appearance of Christ was a ridiculous and/or traumatic scandal."

However, besides the fact that Žižek's sketch of "pagan" religions is essentially fiction, it is Christianity's grasp at universality that is one of its most heavily criticized features. See for example Indigenous philosopher Vine Deloria's critique of Christianity in God Is Red. If, after all, there are neither Jews nor Greeks under Christianity, then surely are there equally neither Anishinaabeg nor Lakota. Žižek may praise Christianity's universality, but it's difficult to praise its logical conclusion - the Catholic Church's operation of genocidal residential schools in Canada, the very goal of which was to eliminate the 'Indian-ness' of Indigenous people - as radical.

Furthermore, Žižek's politics that he derives from his central insight are simultaneously utopian and drearily reformist. Žižek never endorses any positive political projects in the book; all projects from liberal democracy to (especially) state socialism are decried as fundamentally failing to move beyond capitalism. What we are offered is the sort of post-leftist axiom that every revolutionary action should give us a glimpse of our ideal world. I'm not necessarily Ms. Pragmatist, but this is undeniably utopian. And yet Žižek argues that part of revolutionary politics is killing your darlings, as Sethe killed her child in Toni Morrison's Beloved. But what worth is a revolutionary politics that starts in a place of defeatism? What does that offer us? If we must give up the search for unalienated labour, what's the point?

I'd make a more elegant conclusion but basically this book is bad lol. Even if we accept Christianity has a radical core, what is the application of this? That we should incorporate Christianity into our politics? Again the problem of Christianity's missionary aspect comes up. What right does Žižek have to suggest we must extend the reach of Christianity in Turtle Island - assuredly a colonialist suggestion. I just do not get this book's purpose other than to be provocative.

[Ronald Morton · Rating 4 out of 5]

What we should do in order to penetrate the underlying ‘fundamental fantasy' is to stage these two fantasies together: to confront ourselves with the unbearable ideal couple of a male ape copulating with a female cyborg, the fantasmatic support of the 'normal’ couple of man and woman copulating.

I'm actually not going to provide context for that quote. There is no context which improves upon it, so I'm going to open with it, and just kind of leave it there.

You know you're reading Žižek when the author goes from Christianity, to Marxism, to lambasting Eastern European racism (with fascinating allusions to imaginary cartography), to discussing The Phantom Menace, to "Hegelian". All within the first 8 pages of the book. Keep being you Žižek.

But, of course, for all his fascinating tics - part of why one reads Žižek is for the ride - Žižek also reminds us frequently of the other reason why we read him: he's frequently, bluntly, dead on.

All the talk about foreigners stealing work from us, or about the threat they represent to our Western values, should not deceive us: on closer examination, it soon becomes clear that this talk provides a rather superficial secondary rationalization. The answer we ultimately obtain from a skinhead is that it makes him feel good to beat up foreigners; that their presence disturbs him . . . .

Now, mind you, this book is 16 years old, but the strength of thought contained with remains relevant today. A lot of the real strength of his thought continues to be his ability to continuously reinterpret Marxism through a modern filter, and frequently makes it a thing to be desired. Which is a dangerous idea here in the states - or at least one that is feared, even if it's just from ignorance or taught through oligarchical propaganda - but let's be honest: shit isn't getting any better.

Despite the description of the book, it takes nearly 100 pages before Christianity is covered in any real depth (which I actually liked, as I didn't enjoy the premise that Žižek lays out in the introduction, and was happy it took a long time, meandering through a great number of topics and asides, before Žižek really gets to his overall thesis), and the idea of the Fragile Absolute isn't really broached until less than 30 pages remain in the book. So, really, it's your pretty typical Žižek meander - it's not focused enough to stand out from his typical output, but it's still worth reading.

Because, overall, Žižek is simply fun to read, and needs little else to recommend him for those who are on his wavelength. Apparently I am. See opening quote. There might be something wrong with me.

[Jared Colley · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title of this work is kind of misleading. He discusses Christianity at the opening and picks it back up towards the end. His interests are strictly Materialist - once again appropriating Paul as a subversive, radical figure in the context of an oppressive Roman Empire. He sees statements like "there are neither men nor women, neither Jews nor Greeks" as more importantly functioning for disruptive political purposes in a certain historical situation. His comments on Christ's relation to the Law are very insightful regardless of one's beliefs. He writes:

"When we obey the Law, we do so as part of a desperate strategy to fight against our desire to transgress it, so the more rigorously we obey the Law, the more we bear witness to the fact that, deep within ourselves, we feel the pressure of the desire to indulge in sin. The superego feeling of guilt is therefore right: the more we obey the Law, the more we are guilty, because this obedience, in effect, is a defence against our sinful desire; and in Christianity, the desire (intention) to sin equals the act itself....as Saint Paul makes clear, the Christian stance, at its most radical, involves precisely the suspension of the vicious cycle of Law and its transgressive desire..."

[Ana · Rating 1 out of 5]

In the name of the Father Lacan, and of the Son Marx, and of the Holy Spirit Hegel. Amen.

[Benjamin Griffin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm enjoying the dizzing postmodernity of this because i'm having an actual engagement with religion and the religious at the moment.

In the past it all seem like so much abstract hooey-- totally failing to address the realities of class, race and gender.

Maybe i grew up? Maybe i mellowed? Maybe I found religion? I really don't know yet.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Now that's the stuff. This is Zizek in fine form. As usual, I won't claim to have fully digested every page, but there's plenty on which to chew.

If you're wavering between reading this one or his _On Belief_, I'd go with this one. He covers similar ground, but this one hangs together better. (I think I'd say the same w/r/t The Puppet and the Dwarf, but it's been so long since I read that one it's a little hard to compare.)

If nothing else Zizek gets you in the habit of refusing the easy view of something, looking for a way to turn it on its head or ear or keister. We all need more of that.

[Kuszma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Első körben azt akartam írni értékelés gyanánt, hogy: ühüm. Meg hogy: hááát… De győzött a grafománia, ez az úri betegség. Sajnálom, ha valakit ezzel elszomorítottam, az most lapozzon nyugodtan.

Szóval. Zizek könyve valóban akrobatikus teljesítmény, egy szellemi salto mortale védőháló nélkül, miközben a cirkusz porondján hemzsegnek a kiéhezett oroszlánok. Tulajdonképpen megkísérel freudi (sőt: lacani*) alapokra felépíteni egy olyan konstrukciót, ami a végén a kereszténységben csúcsosodik ki. Bár jelen van a szövegben a szabadpiac- és multikulturalizmus-kritika**, de őszintén szólva én többre számítottam, annak fényében, hogy a szlovén úr állítólag az újmarxizmus reprezentánsa. Ehelyett jött a pszichoanalitikus gyökerű érveléstechnika, amivel szemben voltak fenntartásaim – és ez távol is tartott némiképp a szövegtől. Zizek módszerét nagyjából a következőképpen tudnám vázolni: először is egy negatív aktusból pozitív aktust csinál (pl. az anorexiás nem nem eszik semmit, hanem Semmit eszik, érezzük a jelentésbeli szakadékot a kettő között, ugye?). Ez már aktív cselekvés, lehet vele valamit kezdeni. Aztán a lehetségesből általánosíthatót csinál – különösen idegesítő volt, amikor irodalmi és filmművészeti jelenségekből vont le messzemenő következtetéseket. Elfogadom, hogy ez egy filozófus számára esetleg járható út, de mivel Zizek társadalmi eseményeket magyaráz vele, meglehetősen ingatagnak éreztem***. Ráadásul nagyon piszkálta a csőrömet, hogy mintha tendenciózusan egy halmazban kezelné a New Age-szerű álspirituális tanokat a liberalizmussal és a multikulturalizmussal, és én nem találtam nyomát e könyvben, hogy ezt kellően megindokolta volna.

A könyv tulajdonképpen a 187. oldalon kezdődött el számomra. Itt vonódik be a játékba a kereszténység, mégpedig elsősorban (és naná) Pál levelein keresztül értelmezve. Zizek első alapvetése, hogy amíg a judaizmus az elfojtás vallása****, addig a kereszténység a megvallásé – ezt szépen leszögezi, hogy aztán megcáfolja. (Ez a „nem ilyen egyszerű ez”-játék amúgy igen sokszor borzolja az olvasó idegeit.) Jézus ugyanis a leegyszerűsítő elképzeléssel ellentétben nem felpuhította a zsidó törvényeket, hanem épp ellenkezőleg: szigorított azokon azzal, hogy bensővé tette őket. A krisztusi parancs szerint az is bűn, ha bűnös vággyal nézünk egy asszonyra, vagyis nem csupán a tett, hanem a gondolat is az – ez a nézet némiképp visszaköszön a híres páli passzusból is a cimbalomról meg a szeretetről. Ez az elfojtás valami elképesztő energiát termel – ráadásul a kereszténység egy radikális gesztussal szakít azzal a hittel, hogy a Kozmoszban az egyensúlyi helyzet az optimális. Ő szándéka szerint felborítaná ezt az egyensúlyt, mert deklarált célja, hogy elérje az Abszolútumot, a legfőbb jót, a világ szövetén átsejlő csodát. És itt ugrik ki Marx a bokorból, a püspök úr pedig rémülten felsikolt. Mert ez a radikalizmus nem más, mint maga a forradalom, az univerzum rendjének könyörtelen felrúgása, és ezek után bármilyen ideológia vagy elmélet, ami kevesebbet akar ennél a forradalomnál, az langyos lábvíz csupán. (Hát így valahogy. Leegyszerűsítő voltam, persze. Próbáltam volna nem az lenni. Így éjfélkor.)

Hogy sikerült-e átugrania a szakadékot Zizeknek, azt nem tudom… Úgy sejtem, a Vatikán továbbra sem fog repesni az ötletért, hogy egy freudizmusra épített talapzaton találkozzon össze a marxizmussal – bár a kereszténység gyakran kacérkodott már a baloldallal, de ezt mindig valami társadalmi aktivitáson keresztül tette. Másrészt rosszmájúan hadd jegyezzem meg, a dolog gyakorlati oldalát tekintve is elkésett kicsit Zizek ezzel a nagy összeolvasztással, mert mi magyarok ugye megint gyorsabbak voltunk: nézzük csak meg, mennyi volt marxista ül a keresztényeink között a parlamentben! Összességében különös könyv volt ez, igazi hullámvasút: néha lelkesedtem tőle, néha meg csak csóváltam a fejem, mindenesetre felettébb inspiráló passzusokat leltem benne. És esetenként még élveztem is.

* Jacques Lacan, pszichoanalitikus, aki radikalizálta Freud tanait. Radikalizálni Freudot! Hát erre aztán felszisszen minden konzervatív honpolgár! Megjegyzem, a gall a név- és tárgymutatóban 31 jelölést kapott, ezzel szemben Jézus 13-at, Marx 11-et, és Freud is csak 16-ot. Ez azért jelent valamit.
** Ugyanakkor ezekre Zizek nem a nacionalizmus válaszát tartja elfogadhatónak. Ami azt illeti, ha valami jobban idegesíti (e könyv szerint), mint a multikulturalizmus, az épp a nacionalizmus. Engem meg a baloldaliságnál idegesít jobban a nacionalizmus – ez Zizek és köztem a közös nevező.
*** Durkheim szerint társadalmi eseményeket csak társadalmi eseményekkel magyarázhatunk – ezt a mondatot nem nagyon tudtam a maga kizárólagosságában elfogadni, de így Zizek után rögtön nem tűnik akkora hülyeségnek.
**** A zizeki univerzumban az elfojtás nem egyértelműen negatív fogalom, mert a „fedő alatt” rengeteg energiát termel, ilyen értelemben a zsidó túlélés egyik záloga is.

[Paula Melchor]

No es tan divertido como el de Terry Eagleton

[Aung Sett Kyaw Min · Rating 2 out of 5]

The dramatis personae of this play are "Oriental spirituality", "Lacanian Psychoanalysis" and the "Holy Ghost", with "Capitalism" and "Marxism" as the supporting cast. The preface should be read last. The actual book is only about 50 pages in length. The rest of the discussion, one would assume, is meant to acclimatize the reader to the kind of dialectical 'tensions' and 'reversals' that constitute the main theses of the last chapters of the book.
In one such thesis, Zizek enjoins us to not give up our spectres/traumas. Why? Because the present is a fleeting materialization of the "ghosts of the past generations" and the "outcome of the crushed potentials for the future that were contained in the past", and it is in this precise sense that the past is still alive in and through us (the past the condition of possibility of the present/transcendental, not empirical past). The past is still essentially incomplete, and being coterminous with the present, remains to be redeemed. For Zizek, the 'Holy Ghost' is an aspect, among others, of the Christian legacy that should be preserved. In Christian 'agape' the old Testament injunction is 'love one's neighbor' is transformed into a love which has the effect of decoupling oneself along with the community of believers from the social body, in effect, announcing the rupture with the old (the old being the pagan universe of infinite exchanges and cyclic returns). And 'Holy Ghost' could potentially denote this earthly, revolutionary collective (i.e. an association of free producers) that emerges as the resolution of the unbearable self-contradictions of Capitalism. In effect, Zizek proffers a materialist rendition of the 'Holy Ghost', which is plausible but far from uncontroversial.
One of the shortcomings of Zizek's ambitious theorizing in this book is that he does not always distinguish Buddhism from what he calls the Oriental spirituality of Hinduism. Sometimes he seems to treat Buddhism as a fellow traveler alongside Christianity and Lacanian Psychoanalysis, praising Buddha's revolutionary break with the Hindu cosmology of everything being in the right place. Other times he is content to write off Buddhism as the declaration that the desire is false and the extinction of desire (void) is the truth and the Absolute. Somebody should inform Zizek that the Mahayana tradition is abound with anecdotal teachings on how the Absolute can 'inhere' but only fleetingly in appearance rather than as a bedrock behind appearance. However, I would grant Zizek's point that the psychoanalysis' challenge to Buddhism--how did the rupture from the impersonal Void take place, giving rise to sentient beings with the capacity to desire? --remains to be unanswered and maybe even answerable within the limits of Buddhism.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zizek of course makes for fascinating reading. He is refreshingly non-left in a lot of his thinking. Here he spends a lot of time talking about movies, Croatian jokes, and Lacan. It is dense, entertaining, and provocative, which is all I really ask of him. His interaction with Christian thought is notable as a trend in contemporary thought, but as James K. A. Smith just pointed out in a Books and Culture review, we (Christians) have to be careful to watch out for what these thinkers throw out when they appropriate our legacy. Zizek makes some interesting inroads into the concept of Law and the Christian sublation of it, but at the same time I'm pretty sure he's only interested in Christianity as a spur to political action. Which is fine in itself, of course, but that's not all Christianity is!

[Kyle · Rating 2 out of 5]

One of my least favorite so far of Zizek's. I had such high hopes for the Christianity and Marxist synthesis that getting bogged down in all the Lacan just to have a few snippets of prospects for Christianity kinda saddened me. Not to mention the structure was odd. Random chapters which would bring open prospects of interest which were just never answered sadly. I really just don't know what I was supposed to get out of this book. It seemed so structureless, random and hodge-podge. Silly me wanted a concrete message out of Zizek.

[Ana Luiza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eu não seria leviana de afirmar que "entendi" muito do que acabei de ler, mas tudo o que de fato coube no meu horizonte de sentido foi tão maravilhosamente desorientante que, de fato, não me é dado descrever os efeitos surtidos sobre o que ali já estava. "Não-sei-o-que-pensar-nem-dizer-só-sentir" et cetera e tal. E tal.
Que leitura absolutamente sensacional.

[Yasmin Freire · Rating 4 out of 5]

A leitura de Zizek é confusa pela sua imensa facilidade em tratar da semelhança de tópicos aparentemente livres de convergências. Pode não ser um de seus textos acadêmicos, mas, para um aproveitamento completo da leitura, é necessário um conhecimento prévio de Lacan, Heidegger e Hegel.
O prefácio da boi tempo é um desserviço à todo o escrito do autor. Ressentido.

[CR · Rating 4 out of 5]

Phenomenal, lucid.

[Jake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Typical Zizek. I'm obviously a fan, but also get why my friends didn't like my recommendation. He's got the academic language mixed with pop culture references and vulgar jokes. If you want a philosophical analysis of how Christians who are not really Christians but are St. Paulians compare to Marxists who are not really Marxists but are really Leninists and then a probe into the meaning of Coca-Cola, a drink that tastes like shit and doesn't quench your thirst but just makes you want more Coke and how does this relate to the modern economic system etc then this is your guy. Plus he throws in some Keanu Reeves movies and stuff like that. He's the best. Plus, years after this book was written, he made Jordan B. Peterson look like the prig he is in their stupid so-called youtube "debate" (he was too quick on his toes for a guy that wished he lived in 1952).

[Iman · Rating 2 out of 5]

congrats to anyone who understands whatever the fuck this man is on about

[Karl Hallbjörnsson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is more like a 2,5 for me, it was thrilling in the uniquely Zizekian way, funny and outrageous, as per usual — but only seldom did I feel like I was encountering something new, only now and then did I really feel something spark. It's still pretty good though, and for its shortness I'd probably recommend it to fans of this Slovenian Diogenes

[nasrin · Rating 4 out of 5]

In _The Fragile Absolute_, Zizek presents his argument in his usual hyperkinetic and engaging style, but I feel like this was more of a 3 and a half star read for me rather than a solid 4 star experience (I'll round up anyway). The reason for this is because I have read other books by Zizek that were more satisfying. He visited many of the same principles in _The Fragile Absolute_ that I have encountered in his other books while tweaking them a bit in different directions. He didn't go quite as far as I've witnessed in some of his other work, hence the not-quite-satisfied feeling I had at the end. I did find his commentary on the tension between Judaism and Christianity fascinating (i.e. his assessment of the way in which Jewish tradition has subverted the "spirit" of religious law by reading it literally in opposition to the Christian stance of adhering strictly to the "spirit" of doctrine--Zizek's (psycho)analyzes this convincingly), and I'm always a sucker for Zizek's application of Lacanian theory to all sorts of surprising phenomena. I think my favorite bit occurred near the end when Zizek speaks of the revolutionary potential of "shooting at oneself"--he best fleshes this out in his example of Medea. At any rate, if I were to recommend reading Zizek to someone new to his ideas, this isn't the book I'd claim as my favorite. However, since I love reading Zizek I still ended up enjoying this book.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this the best out of the Essential Zizek series because it's the least repetitive and centers around Zizek's prescriptions going forward (and not around his diagnoses and analyses of problems). Don't get me wrong: all Zizek is repetitive (within and between books), and you have multiple opportunities to experience deja vu if you've read a few Zizek books going into this one. But repetition is necessary for Zizek's philosophy, and as this is half the size of the other 3 "Essential" books (and, again, the most prescriptive), this is kept to a relative (for Zizek) minimum here.

What is it Zizek prescribes? What else? Love. Love as work. Love as a duty (like Kant). Not a mirrored projecting of yourself onto others, but a love that defies your inner tendencies to withdraw from the truly alien. The sort of love that turns the other cheek in an effort to break the cycle of violence. Nothing new in that sense, and Zizek makes a mostly psychoanalytical case here. As an artist, his use of paradox and reversals is perfect for inspiring me.

[V]

This book is ostensible about reconciling Marxism and Christianity, but in reality it is mostly neo-Freudian analysis of pop culture, with a few asides on politics or religion. Zizek is incapable of actually making a coherent argument and this book lacks any structure whatsoever. He does have several interesting insights here and there, like how liberal ideology denies political agency for victims of oppression, but if you were actually interested in the purported topic of the book, be warned.

[Donald · Rating 3 out of 5]

The sections that actually discussed Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) were interesting and provocative, but 1/2 the book was random Zizekisms that did not add to the book at all and had little or nothing to do with the subject.

[Tibor Jánosi-Mózes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nagyon izgalmas olvasmány volt, de sokszor az izgalmat csak a megfogalmazás szavatolta. Žižek - más kortárs filozófusokhoz hasonlóan - hajlamos túlgondolni bizonyos összefüggéseket, pontosabban hajlamos arra, hogy ne a jelen ismeretei alapján revideáljon nézőpontokat, hanem a korábbiakra építse tovább a sajátjait, amelyeket így struktúrájukban bizonytalanná teszi.

Ha napjaink tudományos ismeretei teljesen kiszorulnak egy filozófiai értekezésből, akkor könnyen belefuthatunk olyan teljesen idejét múlt kifejezésekbe, mint a "halálösztön", vagy szembe találhatjuk magunkat a "jelen" filozófiai fejtegetésébe, pedig egyik sem létezik (evolúcióbiológi és kvantummechanikai ismeretek nélkül ezekbe a körökbe kár belefutni még úgy is, hogy szimbolikusan közelítjük meg a dolgokat, minimum tisztázni kellene előtte a tényeket, mert így egy picit olyan érzése van az embernek, mint amikor a színházban egy csodálatos telefonos dialógus jelenetét nézve, feltűnik, hogy a telefonvezeték be sincs dugva, ugye érthető?).
Aztán az értekezés egyik esszenciális elemét amely a "szubjektum önmaga megismerhetetlenségének" paradoxonjait is fejtegeti, megint fából vaskarika, mert a szerző számára olyan mintha ismeretlen lenne a rendszerelmélet, ami az egész dialektikus vesszőfutást a témában egy kardcsapással oldja meg mintegy okafogyottá téve az egész boncolgatást, annak szükségtelensége okán.

Ezeket a szerintem nem mellékes dolgokat leszámítva csudajó olvasmány és szívből ajánlhatom bárkinek, a fordítóknak külön köszönet, hogy ilyen szép munkát végztek!

Korunk nacionalitásának perverziói, a napjaink hedonista és megengedő, posztmodern, reflexív társadalma, a visszájukra fordított érvek, az egyház antagonisztikus működése, az eredendő bűn retroaktív projekciói szinkron antagonista diakron narratívaként, a paradigmaváltás mint egyetlen objektív lehetőség stb. stb. témák kiváló sodrást adnak a műnek!

[axegrinder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disclaimer: In preparation to reading the book one should have a glimpse of philosophy, largely Lacan and Freud, but also heavily Hegel, Schelling and Heidegger. There are some minor references to Kierkegaard and Kant also and it's best to have a general overview of these. The reason I am saying this is that Žižek employs complex vocabulary throwing us at deep waters, there is rarely explanation etc.

The book takes on very interesting subjects which sometimes only loosely relate to the general idea of Christian tradition. Other times - it presents very interesting supplementary ideas.

A lot of the content is dense and terse in vocabulary, and ideas not too transparent to grasp at first. Žižek typically explains such views in a very technical approach, and then dissects them in a surgical way, the way accessible to a person without grounding in psychoanalysis. Having said that, there could more explanation and dissection of these; there are some mind blowing questions and theses that could be elaborated, with accounting for additional pages in the book (if this was written Jordan Peterson way, the book would probably end up three times its current size).

Žižek has a different tactic - he requires you to think hard. There is no easy question, nor easy answer to anything. Every "yes" and "no" has a deeper analytic symbolic meaning that describes the truth, the reality and the motive.

[Einzige · Rating 2 out of 5]

A specialist book written with just enough quips and spots of simple insight to lure in an unsuspecting reader. Unless you are fairly comfortable with figures like Lacan, Hegel and a gaggle of French philosophers you are in for a bad time. An example:

"One can now see what the Lacanian answer is to the Derridan insistence on how 'however it[the category of the subject] is modified, however it is endowed with consciousness or unconsciousness, it will refer, by the entire thread of its history to the substantiality of a presence unperturbed by accidents, or to the identity of the proper/selfsame in the presence of the self-relationship: this substantiality is not that of the subject itself , but that of its objectual counterpoint, of an excremental remainder/trash which precisely sustains the Subject qua empty/void/nonsubstantial."

[Bobby · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read a lot of philosophy in college, and double majored in it (and CS). As far as academic philosophy goes, this book is not pleasant to read. It seems almost intentionally inscrutable and haphazard. There's no system to the argument or chapters. It's just a stream of consciousness. He argues for communism at first, with some reasonable points against globalism and capitalism, but with no cogent alternative. And the constant references to Lacan, to someone not familiar with him, make much of the content superfluous. I read this for an atheist's view on integrating Christian ideas with skepticism and reason. What I got is an incoherent joyride between esoteric psychoanalysis and philosophy, with some pop culture references thrown in. I tried, but am not a fan of this guy.

[MM1990 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Czytając Slavoja Żiżka zastanawiam się zawsze, czy nie lepiej jednak sięgnąć po prostu po Zygmunta Freuda i Jacquesa Lacana? Słoweński filozof odwołuje się do nich na tyle często, że zasadniczo w jego tekstach wydaje się być niewiele jego własnych przemyśleń... Dosyć zabawne jest zresztą kurczowe trzymanie się Freuda, którego psychoanaliza uważana jest za przestarzałą, a niektóre poglądy od początku wzbudzały kontrowersje jako nienaukowe.

Sam "Kruchy absolut" jest pozycją dosyć męczącą, wyraźnie przeintelektualizowaną i odbiegającą znacząco od tytułowego tematu. Żiżkowi o wiele lepiej wychodzi jednak opowiadanie kawałów w ramach walki z polityczną poprawnością, niż filozofowanie na poważne tematy...

[Thai Divone · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was a gamble. I needed some extra literature for a seminar I'm writing, and asking for recommendations in a reading group, someone mentioned this one. For much of the book, I was sure that he mentioned it by mistake, but in the last third everything came together, and suddenly all felt natural and right. For me, the only reason for complaining - the book appearing, at first, not what I needed for the seminar – wasn't really that of a turn off: "even" those parts are so illuminating, by themselves, that I can't really complain at all. In short, I am highly satisfied and highly grateful. It turned out even better than I've expected.

[Rodrigo Domínguez · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5

As usual, Zizek has several brilliant insights but the common critique weighs specially here: he's too all over the place, struggling to connect them into a cohesive narrative. The first half of the book doesn't even mention Christianity, and just feature a recollection of Zizek's example-infused Hegelian-Lacanian ideas which he repeats in previous and posterior books.

When he finally does reach the core, he does deliver some very theoretically rigorous analysis of Christianity, but lacks the precision and structure of someone like Badiou. Sometimes this can be his strengh as a thinker, but this particular book is right to remain one of his less spectacular works.