What do you think?
Rate this book
The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic?
A militant Marxist atheist and a “Radical Orthodox” Christian theologian square off on everything from the meaning of theology and Christ to the war machine of corporate mafia.
In this corner, philosopher Slavoj Žižek, a militant atheist who represents the critical-materialist stance against religion's illusions; in the other corner, “Radical Orthodox” theologian John Milbank, an influential and provocative thinker who argues that theology is the only foundation upon which knowledge, politics, and ethics can stand. In The Monstrosity of Christ, Žižek and Milbank go head to head for three rounds, employing an impressive arsenal of moves to advance their positions and press their respective advantages. By the closing bell, they have not only proven themselves worthy adversaries, they have shown that faith and reason are not simply and intractably opposed. Žižek has long been interested in the emancipatory potential offered by Christian theology. And Milbank, seeing global capitalism as the new century's greatest ethical challenge, has pushed his own ontology in more political and materialist directions.
Their debate in The Monstrosity of Christ concerns the future of religion, secularity, and political hope in light of a monsterful event—God becoming human. For the first time since Žižek's turn toward theology, we have a true debate between an atheist and a theologian about the very meaning of theology, Christ, the Church, the Holy Ghost, Universality, and the foundations of logic. The result goes far beyond the popularized atheist/theist point/counterpoint of recent books by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and others. Žižek begins, and Milbank answers, countering dialectics with “paradox.” The debate centers on the nature of and relation between paradox and parallax, between analogy and dialectics, between transcendent glory and liberation.
In this corner, philosopher Slavoj Žižek, a militant atheist who represents the critical-materialist stance against religion's illusions; in the other corner, “Radical Orthodox” theologian John Milbank, an influential and provocative thinker who argues that theology is the only foundation upon which knowledge, politics, and ethics can stand. In The Monstrosity of Christ, Žižek and Milbank go head to head for three rounds, employing an impressive arsenal of moves to advance their positions and press their respective advantages. By the closing bell, they have not only proven themselves worthy adversaries, they have shown that faith and reason are not simply and intractably opposed. Žižek has long been interested in the emancipatory potential offered by Christian theology. And Milbank, seeing global capitalism as the new century's greatest ethical challenge, has pushed his own ontology in more political and materialist directions.
Their debate in The Monstrosity of Christ concerns the future of religion, secularity, and political hope in light of a monsterful event—God becoming human. For the first time since Žižek's turn toward theology, we have a true debate between an atheist and a theologian about the very meaning of theology, Christ, the Church, the Holy Ghost, Universality, and the foundations of logic. The result goes far beyond the popularized atheist/theist point/counterpoint of recent books by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and others. Žižek begins, and Milbank answers, countering dialectics with “paradox.” The debate centers on the nature of and relation between paradox and parallax, between analogy and dialectics, between transcendent glory and liberation.
311 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2008
74 people are currently reading
1043 people want to read
About the author
Slavoj Žižek
638 books7,543 followersSlavoj 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."
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."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
October 23, 2014
We are dealing here yet again with the Lacanian logic of the non-All: God allows me to not to believe in vulgar miracles and to accept the basic rationality of the universe; without this exception, there is nothing I am not ready to believe.
My encounters with Žižek's theology God in Pain: Inversions of Apocalypse and The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity have been uniformly fecund. As a public atheist/private agnostic I felt the sway of his discussions without the cold "fuck off" of Mr Dawkins. That vibrant ease may have run aground with The Monstrosity of Christ. Perhaps the fault, if not my own dulardness, lies, instead, at its thematic core. Both Žižek and John Milbank parse Hegel in their debate over the role of theology in our times. Shooting from the hip, I would've gathered that Heidegger would've been the more reasoned choice, but then again I'm the one flailing about in the shallow end of the theoretical pool. This was a tough climb and I admit to being annoyed with Slavoj's impertinence and Milbank's uncertain forays into concepts, especially the notion of the dialectic.
The leading citation at the top is a response to Chesterton's notion that if one doesn't beleive in God, then one will beleive in anything. That is a statement of potential and pitfall.
My encounters with Žižek's theology God in Pain: Inversions of Apocalypse and The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity have been uniformly fecund. As a public atheist/private agnostic I felt the sway of his discussions without the cold "fuck off" of Mr Dawkins. That vibrant ease may have run aground with The Monstrosity of Christ. Perhaps the fault, if not my own dulardness, lies, instead, at its thematic core. Both Žižek and John Milbank parse Hegel in their debate over the role of theology in our times. Shooting from the hip, I would've gathered that Heidegger would've been the more reasoned choice, but then again I'm the one flailing about in the shallow end of the theoretical pool. This was a tough climb and I admit to being annoyed with Slavoj's impertinence and Milbank's uncertain forays into concepts, especially the notion of the dialectic.
The leading citation at the top is a response to Chesterton's notion that if one doesn't beleive in God, then one will beleive in anything. That is a statement of potential and pitfall.
August 26, 2020
Whatever may be said of its ideas, this book is just fun.
Theology is so much more enjoyable when you tack on the continental philosophy expansion pack. Steep learning curve, yes. But name-dropping is more than just a cheap dopamine hit for the nerds when it comes to this book.
It is hard to imagine circumstances which would bring John Milbank and Slavoj Zizek under the same roof. We have Creston Davis to thank for that. And while the three main essays may often become ponderous, they are written in good spirit with vitality and playful retorts.
Zizek is like Bataille. An atheistic theologian of the most interesting heterdox opinions. In characteristic fashion Zizek sees the true movements, gestures, and teachings of Christianity as the opposite of what it espouses. God who died to be born in us. True fundamentalism is indifferent to others. Law is not the opposite of love but its overextension. The irony is fun to consider though often damnable if taken to heart.
Milbank is Milbank. Pompous as they come though offers a few good points out of his pocket. He is probably the most astute defender of Thomism in response to even the latest potential attacks from Badiou, Deleuze, and Lacan. Urging a rejection of Scotist univocity and a return to participatory analogy. While the positions he defends are tiresome (Thomas is dead), his alacrity is still intellectually stimulating. But his metaphors suffer from philosophical myopia.
(He has an extended description of driving through a neighborhood in fog and makes sense of it through analogical vs univocal metaphysics. Almost put away the book after that.)
This exchange pioneers a large number of theological mind puzzles. If you like theology and have spent enough time in the toxins of continental thought, give this one a shot.
Theology is so much more enjoyable when you tack on the continental philosophy expansion pack. Steep learning curve, yes. But name-dropping is more than just a cheap dopamine hit for the nerds when it comes to this book.
It is hard to imagine circumstances which would bring John Milbank and Slavoj Zizek under the same roof. We have Creston Davis to thank for that. And while the three main essays may often become ponderous, they are written in good spirit with vitality and playful retorts.
Zizek is like Bataille. An atheistic theologian of the most interesting heterdox opinions. In characteristic fashion Zizek sees the true movements, gestures, and teachings of Christianity as the opposite of what it espouses. God who died to be born in us. True fundamentalism is indifferent to others. Law is not the opposite of love but its overextension. The irony is fun to consider though often damnable if taken to heart.
Milbank is Milbank. Pompous as they come though offers a few good points out of his pocket. He is probably the most astute defender of Thomism in response to even the latest potential attacks from Badiou, Deleuze, and Lacan. Urging a rejection of Scotist univocity and a return to participatory analogy. While the positions he defends are tiresome (Thomas is dead), his alacrity is still intellectually stimulating. But his metaphors suffer from philosophical myopia.
(He has an extended description of driving through a neighborhood in fog and makes sense of it through analogical vs univocal metaphysics. Almost put away the book after that.)
This exchange pioneers a large number of theological mind puzzles. If you like theology and have spent enough time in the toxins of continental thought, give this one a shot.
January 5, 2016
I wrote up a longer review, and then lost it to a browser crash.
To state it in brief, Zizek advocates a thoroughly nihilistic atheism by positing an ontology that arises out of a primordial void. What is real is the Lacanian "real", the non-all, the tear, the unobtainable, the negation that lies in the heart of truth itself.
Milbank takes a positive approach, in opposition to the negative dialectics of Zizek. He instead posits a positive, noncompetitive relationality as the fundamental truth of things. What we have are paradoxes, not ruthlessly self-negating contradictions, and at the ontological bottom is God as relationship, the Trinitarian God who unites the fleshly and the divine through the mediation of paradox.
And that's all I have to say about that.
To state it in brief, Zizek advocates a thoroughly nihilistic atheism by positing an ontology that arises out of a primordial void. What is real is the Lacanian "real", the non-all, the tear, the unobtainable, the negation that lies in the heart of truth itself.
Milbank takes a positive approach, in opposition to the negative dialectics of Zizek. He instead posits a positive, noncompetitive relationality as the fundamental truth of things. What we have are paradoxes, not ruthlessly self-negating contradictions, and at the ontological bottom is God as relationship, the Trinitarian God who unites the fleshly and the divine through the mediation of paradox.
And that's all I have to say about that.
April 19, 2022
This book perfectly encapsulates what a dialogue between a theist and an atheist ought to be.
It also kind of reveals why these brilliant debates rarely reach the popular level.
This book was released in 2009, during the height (if I recall) of the so-called “new atheists” - Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others. Their books were hitting the best-seller lists as they struck a nerve. Sadly, based on the ones I read as well as reviews by philosophers, they were more style than substance. They had flashy titles and were relentless in their attacks.
But they were basically evangelical books, more interested in gaining converts than promoting any sort of dialogue. To be fair, I cannot fault these atheist writers for this as Christians have had the market cornered on books of bad arguments written more to market their ideology than much else. Which was the response to the new atheists - books by Christians which, while some were good, were generally just written to assure their fellow Christians the big mean atheists weren’t going to hurt them.
If you want to read books by your team that make you feel smugly superior to other religious (or, I suppose, non-religious) teams, then those books are for you. What we get in this book is a deep dialogue between two brilliant thinkers - Slavoj Zizek and John Milbank. This is the sort of book, the sorts of arguments, theists and atheists ought to be having. Zizek takes theology seriously, clearly taking time to understand it. Milbank responds thoughtfully and profoundly, revealing his own depth of knowledge of philosophy and theology.
Here’s the problem - unless you’re relatively well-versed in philosophy, this book is beyond you. Its no easy read. I am rather well-read in theology and have a decent grasp of philosophical terminology and I was often feeling lost. Its one of those books where both writes name-drop (“this ties in well with Lacan’s argument…” or “this relates to William Desmond…”) which I, personally, find frustrating (if I want more names than I can remember, I’ll go read one of my 1,000 page fantasy novels!).
Don’t get me wrong - its a fantastic book. I had it on my shelf for a while and while working through Pete Rollins’ Atheism for Lent (which is a great program) we spent a day on Zizek. This reminded me of this book and also drove me to find a few of his lectures on religion. And Milbank is a theologian who I’ve learned from in the past (especially Theology and Social Theory). I underlined quite a lot in here.
But honestly, I kind of wanted the dumbed-down version. I mean, not like an elementary version. This is like graduate school level (maybe doctoral level) and I’d be happy with college level. Get rid of all the names (that’s what footnotes are for) and write for a wider audience. I say that because if more people would be much better off reading Milbank and Zizek than either Christian or atheist fundamentalists.
Overall then, if you’re into theology and philosophy then you’ll find a lot to like in this book. But again, this is way above anything on the popular level.
Perhaps the best thing for me is that I an renewed in my desire to read folks like Nicholas of Cusa, Meister Eckhart and a few others that Milbank references.
It also kind of reveals why these brilliant debates rarely reach the popular level.
This book was released in 2009, during the height (if I recall) of the so-called “new atheists” - Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others. Their books were hitting the best-seller lists as they struck a nerve. Sadly, based on the ones I read as well as reviews by philosophers, they were more style than substance. They had flashy titles and were relentless in their attacks.
But they were basically evangelical books, more interested in gaining converts than promoting any sort of dialogue. To be fair, I cannot fault these atheist writers for this as Christians have had the market cornered on books of bad arguments written more to market their ideology than much else. Which was the response to the new atheists - books by Christians which, while some were good, were generally just written to assure their fellow Christians the big mean atheists weren’t going to hurt them.
If you want to read books by your team that make you feel smugly superior to other religious (or, I suppose, non-religious) teams, then those books are for you. What we get in this book is a deep dialogue between two brilliant thinkers - Slavoj Zizek and John Milbank. This is the sort of book, the sorts of arguments, theists and atheists ought to be having. Zizek takes theology seriously, clearly taking time to understand it. Milbank responds thoughtfully and profoundly, revealing his own depth of knowledge of philosophy and theology.
Here’s the problem - unless you’re relatively well-versed in philosophy, this book is beyond you. Its no easy read. I am rather well-read in theology and have a decent grasp of philosophical terminology and I was often feeling lost. Its one of those books where both writes name-drop (“this ties in well with Lacan’s argument…” or “this relates to William Desmond…”) which I, personally, find frustrating (if I want more names than I can remember, I’ll go read one of my 1,000 page fantasy novels!).
Don’t get me wrong - its a fantastic book. I had it on my shelf for a while and while working through Pete Rollins’ Atheism for Lent (which is a great program) we spent a day on Zizek. This reminded me of this book and also drove me to find a few of his lectures on religion. And Milbank is a theologian who I’ve learned from in the past (especially Theology and Social Theory). I underlined quite a lot in here.
But honestly, I kind of wanted the dumbed-down version. I mean, not like an elementary version. This is like graduate school level (maybe doctoral level) and I’d be happy with college level. Get rid of all the names (that’s what footnotes are for) and write for a wider audience. I say that because if more people would be much better off reading Milbank and Zizek than either Christian or atheist fundamentalists.
Overall then, if you’re into theology and philosophy then you’ll find a lot to like in this book. But again, this is way above anything on the popular level.
Perhaps the best thing for me is that I an renewed in my desire to read folks like Nicholas of Cusa, Meister Eckhart and a few others that Milbank references.
December 31, 2011
This is by far the most interesting "atheist vs theist" debate I have ever read. Slavoj Žižek is at the for-front of the "theological turn" in much of contemporary continental philosophy. But he belongs not to the those who follow the "late Derrida" (John Caputo, Gianni Vattimo) etc. in using "theology" in order to formulate a quasi-theological approach to the "completely other," but rather to those such as Alain Badiou and Giorgio Agamben, who whose "theology" in order to formulate a radically nihilistic version of dialectical materialism. The alienation of late-capitalist society has to be overcome, on Žižek's account, by the "death of God" on the cross. What "death of God" reveals is that reality is "non-all" in the Lacanian sense, radically incomplete. It is precisely this incompleteness that opens up a space of revolutionary freedom apart from the closed system of secular-enlightenment reason. Perhaps the most interesting thing about Žižek's argument is the way in which he basically accepts the critique of Enlightenment reason formulated in Pope Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture: the nominalist-voluntarist "flattening" of reason leads to the alienation of secular liberalism. But Žižek disagrees with Pope Benedict's conclusion -- the solution as he sees it is not in a new opening of reason to the transcendent, but rather in a negation of the negation, in which "materialism" is saved by a nihilistic denial of material reality.
The Anglican theologian John Milbank replies, by arguing that Žižek is not radical enough: his negation-of-the-negation still stays within the trap of "secular reason" and thus cannot offer an adequate means of overcoming the waste-land of late capitalism. The real solution Milbank argues is in orthodox Christianity, which opens the possibility of rooting human life in a relation to its super-abundant source. The colapse of the "modern" myth of progress in the death-camps of the 20th century opens up, he argues, the possibility of a rejection of the modern limitation of reason to "the secular," and thus a recovery of a view of the world as analogical (or "metaxalogical") participation in the Divine, which is the only true "vision of peace."
I think Milbank's basic idea is right, but unfortunately he his hampered by an insufficient grasp of the Catholic alternative to nihilism. Milbank view is both too Platonist and too super-natural. He does not sufficiently understand the role of Aristotelian potency and the naturally intelligible order to God that Aquinas would see in nature itself even without supernatural grace. This leaves him open on the one hand to Žižek’s argument that, after all, Žižek’s account accords better with the paradoxical view of reality afforded by quantum mechanics, and on the other hand, to Žižek’s critique that Milbank’s vision of a subsidiarist state founded in the mediation of the supernatural amounts to “soft fascism.”
The Anglican theologian John Milbank replies, by arguing that Žižek is not radical enough: his negation-of-the-negation still stays within the trap of "secular reason" and thus cannot offer an adequate means of overcoming the waste-land of late capitalism. The real solution Milbank argues is in orthodox Christianity, which opens the possibility of rooting human life in a relation to its super-abundant source. The colapse of the "modern" myth of progress in the death-camps of the 20th century opens up, he argues, the possibility of a rejection of the modern limitation of reason to "the secular," and thus a recovery of a view of the world as analogical (or "metaxalogical") participation in the Divine, which is the only true "vision of peace."
I think Milbank's basic idea is right, but unfortunately he his hampered by an insufficient grasp of the Catholic alternative to nihilism. Milbank view is both too Platonist and too super-natural. He does not sufficiently understand the role of Aristotelian potency and the naturally intelligible order to God that Aquinas would see in nature itself even without supernatural grace. This leaves him open on the one hand to Žižek’s argument that, after all, Žižek’s account accords better with the paradoxical view of reality afforded by quantum mechanics, and on the other hand, to Žižek’s critique that Milbank’s vision of a subsidiarist state founded in the mediation of the supernatural amounts to “soft fascism.”
April 21, 2017
Žižek je u poslednjih desetak godina okupiran Hegelom pa je tako i ovde u centralnom planu on kao hrišćanski filozof i njegova sintagma o čudovišnosti Hrista koju je upotrebio na par mesta u jednom od svojih dela, a odnosi se na fenomen ulaženja Boga u smrtničko telo i odvajanje od samog sebe, što je nesvakidašnja pojava za jednu religiju, i dešava se samo u hrišćanstvu.
Međutim, Žižek ne bi bio Žižek kada nas ne bi zatrpao gomilom drugih autora i njihovih ideja u jednom kovitlacu citata, interpretacija, opovrgavanja i psihoanaliziranja. Imena koja dominiraju (osim Georga Vilhelma Fridriha) su G. K. Česterton, Alen Badju, Kant, Agata Kristi, Agota Krištof, Meri Šeli i muž joj Persi Biš, Šeling, Šiler, Šenberg i mnogi drugi. Da sam zločest napisao bih (jesam, i hoću) kako se ovde ogleda stara jugoslovenska škola smušenog pisanja, karakteristična za ovdašnje intelektualce, gde se obiljem nabacanog materijala prikrivaju neke perfidne tehnike, poput proizvođenja naizgled potpuno novih uvida pukim obrtanjem nečega drugog, dakle nije tako kao što je ovaj autor rekao, da B sledi iz A, već ŠTA AKO A sledi iz B?! Ili još jedan primer, a zapravo stara fora, ne poštujem ono što je neko napisao, i ne pokušavam da shvatim šta je zapravo želeo da kaže (jer tako valjda treba da teče komunikacija, pa i između suprotstavljenih intelektualaca), već u startu učitavam neko svoje viđenje, dakle totalni fristajling. Ovo se najočitije vidi u jednoj fusnoti o Delezu.
Ipak, ima ovde dosta toga dobrog i poučnog. Pitam se da li ću se ikada nakaniti da čitam tog prokletog Hegela, tog paklenog demona pisanja i rezonovanja. Znam samo da je Vilijam Džejms rekao kako ga je konačno razumeo tek kada ga je čitao pod dejstvom LSD-a.
Međutim, Žižek ne bi bio Žižek kada nas ne bi zatrpao gomilom drugih autora i njihovih ideja u jednom kovitlacu citata, interpretacija, opovrgavanja i psihoanaliziranja. Imena koja dominiraju (osim Georga Vilhelma Fridriha) su G. K. Česterton, Alen Badju, Kant, Agata Kristi, Agota Krištof, Meri Šeli i muž joj Persi Biš, Šeling, Šiler, Šenberg i mnogi drugi. Da sam zločest napisao bih (jesam, i hoću) kako se ovde ogleda stara jugoslovenska škola smušenog pisanja, karakteristična za ovdašnje intelektualce, gde se obiljem nabacanog materijala prikrivaju neke perfidne tehnike, poput proizvođenja naizgled potpuno novih uvida pukim obrtanjem nečega drugog, dakle nije tako kao što je ovaj autor rekao, da B sledi iz A, već ŠTA AKO A sledi iz B?! Ili još jedan primer, a zapravo stara fora, ne poštujem ono što je neko napisao, i ne pokušavam da shvatim šta je zapravo želeo da kaže (jer tako valjda treba da teče komunikacija, pa i između suprotstavljenih intelektualaca), već u startu učitavam neko svoje viđenje, dakle totalni fristajling. Ovo se najočitije vidi u jednoj fusnoti o Delezu.
Ipak, ima ovde dosta toga dobrog i poučnog. Pitam se da li ću se ikada nakaniti da čitam tog prokletog Hegela, tog paklenog demona pisanja i rezonovanja. Znam samo da je Vilijam Džejms rekao kako ga je konačno razumeo tek kada ga je čitao pod dejstvom LSD-a.
June 4, 2013
Struggling with this book but sticking it through even if it takes me awhile. The level of philosophical discussion is frankly above my head at this point in my life. This is a full blown academic debate between two brilliant thinkers. What little I am comprehending is stimulating and makes me want to blow some of the dust off and sharpen up my thinking.
6/3/13 Pick up, put down, pick back up. Finally hobbled through and for all Zizek's brilliance and quirky modes of expression, sometimes he is just incomprehensible. Maybe I just missed the point or perhaps the point gets lost while he is off chasing some other point. Milbank is brilliant and I will at some point look up some other things he has done.
At the conclusion, Zizek circles back to ethics in the light of a materialist stance and comes up with this disappointing statement:
"This is where I stand - how I would love to be: an ethical monster without empathy, doing what is to be done in a weird coincidence of blind spontaneity and reflexive distance, helping others while avoiding their disgusting proximity. With more people like this, the world would be a pleasant place in which sentimentality would be replaced by a cold and cruel passion."
Not my idea of a pleasant place.
6/3/13 Pick up, put down, pick back up. Finally hobbled through and for all Zizek's brilliance and quirky modes of expression, sometimes he is just incomprehensible. Maybe I just missed the point or perhaps the point gets lost while he is off chasing some other point. Milbank is brilliant and I will at some point look up some other things he has done.
At the conclusion, Zizek circles back to ethics in the light of a materialist stance and comes up with this disappointing statement:
"This is where I stand - how I would love to be: an ethical monster without empathy, doing what is to be done in a weird coincidence of blind spontaneity and reflexive distance, helping others while avoiding their disgusting proximity. With more people like this, the world would be a pleasant place in which sentimentality would be replaced by a cold and cruel passion."
Not my idea of a pleasant place.
April 18, 2023
သမရိုးကျ ဘုရား ရှိ ဘုရားမဲ့ ဒီဘိတ်တွေလို "religion sucks" ဆိုတာမျိုးတွေ "overabundance of holy bile scripture reference"လိုဟာမျိုးတွေ တွေ့ရမှာမဟုတ်ဘူး။ လူသားတွေရဲ့ သိမှု everyday practice မှာကိုက paradox တွေနဲ့ လည်ပတ်နေတယ် ဆိုတဲ့ premise မှာ ဇိဇက်က ဒိုင်ယာလက်တစ်ဘက်က defense လုပ်ပြီး သီအိုလိုဂျစ်ရှင်က မက်တာဇိုလိုဂျီ ရှုထောင့်ကနေ ခုခံချေပသွားတာ။(postmodern era မှာ chat gpt လိုမျိုး AI တွေ ရှိနေပေမယ့် chicken egg problem လိုမျိုး paradox အတွက် တိကျ ရေရာတဲ့ အဖြေမျိုးမရှိသေးဘူးမို့လား၊သို့သော် ambivalent ဖြစ်မှုကိုက postmodernism ရဲ့ ပြယုဂ်မဟုတ်ပေလော) ဇိဇက် ကတော့ pop culture reference ကနေစလို့ magnum opus reference တွေအဆုံး စီကာပတ်ကုံး ရှင်းသွားလို့ ဖတ်ရတာသွက်တယ်။ သီအိုလိုဂျီရှင်ရဲ့ ချေပ ထားတဲ့ အပိုင်းကတော့ ဖတ်ရတာ ပျင်းဖို့ကောင်းတယ်( အလယ်ခေတ် သီအိုလိုဂျီတွေကို ကောင်းကောင်းနားမလည်တာလဲ ပါတယ်) ဖီလိုဆိုဖီဆိုတာ "love of wisdom"လောက် သိတဲ့ကောင် က noob။ဇိဇက် ပြောသလို ကိုယ်ရှု မြင်ထားတဲ့ ရှုထောင့် ကိုယ်တိုင်ကိုက ပြဿနာ ဖြစ်နေနိုင်တာဘဲ မဟုတ်လား။ ခရစ်ယာန်ဘာသာနဲ့ တခြား ဘာသာတရားတွေနဲ့ ကွဲပြားနေတာက ခရစ်ယာန်သီအိုလိုဂျီ ထဲမှာကိုက emancipatory potential ရှိနေပြီး ဒီအရာ ကို politically transpose လုပ်နိုင်တယ် ဆိုတဲ့ အချက်ဘဲ ( marxism ကို နားလည်ချင်ရင် Christian eschatology ကိုအရင်လေ့လာရတယ် ဆိုတဲ့ cliché ကို လက်ဝဲတွေက dismiss လုပ်ချင်ကြတယ်) ကားတိုင်ပေါ်မှာ ခရစ်တော် သေဆုံးပြီး နောက် ယုံကြည်သူအစုအဝေးအပေါ် သန့်ရှင်းသော ဝိဉာဉ် ကြွရောက်လာတယ် ဆိုသလို ကွန်မြူနစ်လူ့အဖွဲ့အစည်း ပန်းတိုင်ရောက်ဖို့ရန် marxism ကို ကျော်လွန်သွားရမှာ ဖြစ်တယ်(မဟုတ်ရင် ပစ္စည်းမဲ့ အာဏာရှင် austere socialist dictatorship မှာဘဲ ဒစ်လည်နေမယ်)
December 7, 2013
Ultimately, I agree thoroughly with Caputo's review of this book. In case anyone is too lazy to look it up, I'll post it here:
"As I do not think that matter is ultimately the matter at issue for Milbank, or that Christ is the issue for Žižek, I am also overwhelmed by a compelling sense of how uncompelling is either view. What exactly is the compelling need we are under to agree with either one of these positions or to choose between them? Why do we have to love either one of these monsters? Why do we need the notion that at the metaphysical base of things there lies either a primordial peace or a primordial violence -- or a primordial anything, at least one that we could ever get our hands on? Why do the multiple repetitions of which our lives are woven need to be cast either as a downbeat and futile search that will be always frustrated or as underwritten by an uplifting metaphysics of participation? Why inscribe either absolute contradiction or absolute peace at the heart of things instead of ambience and ambiguity? Why chaos instead of the unsteady chaosmotic process of unprogrammed becoming? Why not see life as a joyful but risky business that may turn out well or badly, a repetition forwards in which I produce what I am repeating, in which I invent what I am discovering, but in which I am divested of any assurances about what lies up ahead -- let alone deep down at the metaphysical base of things? Žižek's notion of the contingency of necessity is close to this insight, but he insists on treating the Deep Trauma like some Metaphysical Meteor that cratered downtown Ljubljana. Is this not just the search for a transcendental signifier all over again? Why do we have to believe that something deep is out there but alas it is lost and we are hopelessly searching for it? That is repetition as reproduction. Why not rather say that by searching for it, it is there, produced by the repetition? The repetition is generative, engendering, positing something not merely as a dream but by the dream, the active dreaming of the dream, the dreaming up, which gathers momentum as we dream, repeat, desire, pray and weep, over the coming of something whose coming we are engendering, or is being engendered, as the very structure of desire. Dreaming is the pharmakon, a risky supplement, a joy that flows through our veins that is liable to poison us if we are not careful. Nothing is lost from which we have been traumatically cut off. This is just desire desiring, what desire does, how it works, its happy work, and if desire is a fault, it is a happy fault.
Why not adopt the post-metaphysical idea that gives up searching for all such primordial underlying somethings or other?" - John D. Caputo
"As I do not think that matter is ultimately the matter at issue for Milbank, or that Christ is the issue for Žižek, I am also overwhelmed by a compelling sense of how uncompelling is either view. What exactly is the compelling need we are under to agree with either one of these positions or to choose between them? Why do we have to love either one of these monsters? Why do we need the notion that at the metaphysical base of things there lies either a primordial peace or a primordial violence -- or a primordial anything, at least one that we could ever get our hands on? Why do the multiple repetitions of which our lives are woven need to be cast either as a downbeat and futile search that will be always frustrated or as underwritten by an uplifting metaphysics of participation? Why inscribe either absolute contradiction or absolute peace at the heart of things instead of ambience and ambiguity? Why chaos instead of the unsteady chaosmotic process of unprogrammed becoming? Why not see life as a joyful but risky business that may turn out well or badly, a repetition forwards in which I produce what I am repeating, in which I invent what I am discovering, but in which I am divested of any assurances about what lies up ahead -- let alone deep down at the metaphysical base of things? Žižek's notion of the contingency of necessity is close to this insight, but he insists on treating the Deep Trauma like some Metaphysical Meteor that cratered downtown Ljubljana. Is this not just the search for a transcendental signifier all over again? Why do we have to believe that something deep is out there but alas it is lost and we are hopelessly searching for it? That is repetition as reproduction. Why not rather say that by searching for it, it is there, produced by the repetition? The repetition is generative, engendering, positing something not merely as a dream but by the dream, the active dreaming of the dream, the dreaming up, which gathers momentum as we dream, repeat, desire, pray and weep, over the coming of something whose coming we are engendering, or is being engendered, as the very structure of desire. Dreaming is the pharmakon, a risky supplement, a joy that flows through our veins that is liable to poison us if we are not careful. Nothing is lost from which we have been traumatically cut off. This is just desire desiring, what desire does, how it works, its happy work, and if desire is a fault, it is a happy fault.
Why not adopt the post-metaphysical idea that gives up searching for all such primordial underlying somethings or other?" - John D. Caputo
February 11, 2017
I agree with a lot of reviewers of this book that this is the best Atheist vs. Theist debate I have ever read, but truly that is not saying much. Zizek gets what draws people to Christianity and why it has flourished as a social entity for so long despite having such a seemingly far-fetched conception of God. Milbank understands that while he can reason himself toward questioning materialistic reality and believing in God there is a point where reason can only give way to a leap of faith. Both thinkers have a coherent and appealing take on Christianity in my opinion. However, the central debate seems to me a trivial one. Christianity is a social dialectic and a spiritual paradox.
So why do I only give this three stars? Well, as much fun as Zizek is, and he is a lot of fun, he is bombastic and arrogant at times that undercuts his arguments. I get the idea that Milbank has thought his positions through a lot more but he is more than a little defensive about having to justify them. Large stretches of the book are boring, at the same time I underlined a lot of passages. Ultimately, I felt it settled nothing.
So why do I only give this three stars? Well, as much fun as Zizek is, and he is a lot of fun, he is bombastic and arrogant at times that undercuts his arguments. I get the idea that Milbank has thought his positions through a lot more but he is more than a little defensive about having to justify them. Large stretches of the book are boring, at the same time I underlined a lot of passages. Ultimately, I felt it settled nothing.
November 8, 2009
My buddy Noah analogized the Marxist atheist Zizek to john Milton and the Catholic theologian Milibank (who did write about half the book) to Wordsworth-- the former seeing a heroic individual against an indifferent cosmos and the latter seeing the world as a pleasant misty natural scene, as comfortable poets are apt to. Zizek and Milbank do have earnest disagreements (I had never even heard of Duns Scotus before), but are kind of back to back arguing for some benign authoritarian faith-based throwback society, going at it theologically completely via metaphysics and sort of both winding up saying that the other guy is too literal-minded and doesn't get that the universe is really all vibrating and multiple. And neither of them talk about love or sex or Godhead or justice or evil or apocalypse enough for my taste. But it's full of incredibly exciting moments-- most of them having to do with the writing of G.K. Chesterton, Meister Eckhart, and the author of the Book of Job.
August 9, 2014
This is genuinely one of the most fantastic books I have ever read. The content is riveting throughout; nearly every paragraph contains highly original analysis, insightful commentary on the work of other thinkers,and surprising connections drawn between seemingly disparate subject matters. In a sense, this very fact is the main weakness of the book; there is almost too much to take in; often it is difficult to recollect the broader argument once the end of a particularly fascinating aside is reached.
Personally, I feel that Millbank gets the better of the argument, but that Zizek's prose is more enjoyable and his thesis more original. Occasionally both authors are slightly too off-hand in the way they reference another thinker, neglecting to explain the work or idea in question in sufficient detail to make their remarks transparent to those who are not deeply familiar with the work of that particular author.
Other than these minor details, there is little to criticise about this work, other than perhaps that Millbank only contributes a reply to Zizek's initial essay, and is not allowed to rebut Zizek's rebuttal.
Personally, I feel that Millbank gets the better of the argument, but that Zizek's prose is more enjoyable and his thesis more original. Occasionally both authors are slightly too off-hand in the way they reference another thinker, neglecting to explain the work or idea in question in sufficient detail to make their remarks transparent to those who are not deeply familiar with the work of that particular author.
Other than these minor details, there is little to criticise about this work, other than perhaps that Millbank only contributes a reply to Zizek's initial essay, and is not allowed to rebut Zizek's rebuttal.
January 7, 2014
one of this book's most interesting part is Milbank's essay (110-233) in the middle that betrays his underlying Barthian theo-ontology:
In combating Žižek, he asserts that God's God's paradoxical presence in creation and kenotic manifestation in Christ indicate a way beyond secularism/finality/contingency/relativity altogether by reorienting/registering reality in and toward the infinite trinitarian life of God. It entitles the left project (or more precisely, in Milbank's favorite term, "out-narrate" the original Marxist left project) and calls Christians to transform the material world to become a reflection of the trinitarian harmony.
In combating Žižek, he asserts that God's God's paradoxical presence in creation and kenotic manifestation in Christ indicate a way beyond secularism/finality/contingency/relativity altogether by reorienting/registering reality in and toward the infinite trinitarian life of God. It entitles the left project (or more precisely, in Milbank's favorite term, "out-narrate" the original Marxist left project) and calls Christians to transform the material world to become a reflection of the trinitarian harmony.
February 18, 2010
Zizek, while interesting, seems to fall short of critically understanding theology (citing only Lossky). His postmodern materialist view is "debated" with Milbank's radical orthodoxy. By debated I mean they both do an excellent job of illustrating that within our postmodern context, dialogue is not as accessible as it once was--they spend most of their time trying to rebuke the thoughts of the other, and never really engage in anything other than overlapping monologues.
August 15, 2013
I'm only going to rate the Zizek side of this book. It was excellent in the same way God in Pain was, but unlike Boris Gunjevic in that work, there was only so much John Milbank I could take. I have read enough Zizek to know Milbank was severely misrepresenting his views. The third section of the book goes through all of these misreadings of Zizek. Zizek is NOT saying what Milbank thinks he is saying.
Read
April 23, 2009The man is wicked smart. And twitchy.
The crowd wore lost of plaid (in that tight-fitting, vegan-punk sort of way) and jackets with elbow patches (in that middle aged, academic sort of way).
Never a book I would read but it was interesting to hear his obtuse theories distilled into something I could swallow.
The crowd wore lost of plaid (in that tight-fitting, vegan-punk sort of way) and jackets with elbow patches (in that middle aged, academic sort of way).
Never a book I would read but it was interesting to hear his obtuse theories distilled into something I could swallow.
July 13, 2009
Zizek finally tackles theology head on, as if he knew what all those religious eggheads were praying for. This is one of his most coherent-to-the-layman books, which might piss off his more Lacanian fans (and the non-religious as well) but the message will be difficult for a lot of people to take. Yum.
April 27, 2009
a real workout. i hadn't properly stretched.
December 10, 2010
Almost impenetrable
Want to read
March 16, 2011Before reading this, I would just like to declare that it sounds like a pretty badass book.
May 28, 2011
LUPET.
June 5, 2016
A philosophical chew-through. Overall jejeune. Redeeming feature: theologian and atheo-Marxist agree that the cross of Jesus stands at the core of history and meaning.
June 16, 2017
Really hard going! The good bits are worth it though.
March 18, 2024
A dialogue between Žižek, an atheist dialectician, and Milbank, a Christian theologian. Sadly, I found little to justify the book as an actual reflection on Christ himself since he was oddly absent in not just the atheist's portions but the Christian author's. Thankfully, the reimagination of theology by Žižek was not fully confirmed by Milbank, who I am considering as less than orthodox after reading this book.
Essentially, Žižek's argument is that, while there is an established belief of God and Christ in the Christian tradition, this must be read through Lacanian psychology and Hegelian dialectics to deny what the text actually says and come up with the contrary idea that God is Himself a slave to His creation, i.e. the opposite of what we find in the Bible. He then proceeds, as many atheists do who outright deny Christian beliefs, to claim he is more orthodox in his fanciful conclusions than Christians are (annoyingly, Milbank reinforces this delusion). Some simple questions can dispel Žižek's opinion: Did Jesus rise from the dead? Is Jesus God? Does God exist? An affirmative answer to all questions yields a proper view of Christian theology whereas Žižek denied all three in his passages, thereby showing he is not heterodox as he claims, nor even a heretic, but an unbeliever.
Milbank should also not be left off the hook since he, similar to Žižek, tries to read Christian belief through modern philosophy and select mystical theologians to arrive at a position far from the catholic (lit. "universal") faith he claims to have. The proof is in the pudding where he relies on a recent philosophical term "metaxological" instead of seeing the faith as being paradoxical, which is the hallmark of Christian mysticism and doctrine, and dialectical, the hallmark of Christian scholasticism. Oddly enough, Milbank justifies this with his particular reading of Meister Eckhart (with some references to other figures like Nicholas of Cusa) who is by no means the foundation of catholic belief any way you look at the historical tradition of the Church. Milbank also disparages relatively Protestant branches of the Church despite Luther being greatly influenced by Eckhart and even providing a preface to his publication of Eckhart's works. Still, Luther is more catholic than Milbank presents himself to be here.
Essentially, Žižek's argument is that, while there is an established belief of God and Christ in the Christian tradition, this must be read through Lacanian psychology and Hegelian dialectics to deny what the text actually says and come up with the contrary idea that God is Himself a slave to His creation, i.e. the opposite of what we find in the Bible. He then proceeds, as many atheists do who outright deny Christian beliefs, to claim he is more orthodox in his fanciful conclusions than Christians are (annoyingly, Milbank reinforces this delusion). Some simple questions can dispel Žižek's opinion: Did Jesus rise from the dead? Is Jesus God? Does God exist? An affirmative answer to all questions yields a proper view of Christian theology whereas Žižek denied all three in his passages, thereby showing he is not heterodox as he claims, nor even a heretic, but an unbeliever.
Milbank should also not be left off the hook since he, similar to Žižek, tries to read Christian belief through modern philosophy and select mystical theologians to arrive at a position far from the catholic (lit. "universal") faith he claims to have. The proof is in the pudding where he relies on a recent philosophical term "metaxological" instead of seeing the faith as being paradoxical, which is the hallmark of Christian mysticism and doctrine, and dialectical, the hallmark of Christian scholasticism. Oddly enough, Milbank justifies this with his particular reading of Meister Eckhart (with some references to other figures like Nicholas of Cusa) who is by no means the foundation of catholic belief any way you look at the historical tradition of the Church. Milbank also disparages relatively Protestant branches of the Church despite Luther being greatly influenced by Eckhart and even providing a preface to his publication of Eckhart's works. Still, Luther is more catholic than Milbank presents himself to be here.
December 16, 2021
It's sort of exactly what it says it is. Talk of Christ's longest-lasting gestalt being that of a gored near-corpse. Reared as I was in the Irish-Catholic milieu, I can understand how Jesus might prevail upon us more as a writhing, scolding memento mori than a mindful and itinerant thinker and organizer. From there, though, you get into kinda "materiality of the signifier"-ish stuff pertaining to big time theological cha-cha about sorta word/flesh or transubstantial beefs that are beyond me and also not my thing.
And then Zizek is always going to talk about something revealing the throbbing obscenity underlining my throbbing and profane attachment to some other thing. And then Zizek is going to dazzle us by proving his point through a symptomatic reading of Police Academy 2. I don't imagine being offered time and space to read original Lacan any time soon, but wouldn't it be dreadful to figure out that Lacan is as Zizek's forever casting him, a harvester of sexualized finger traps and purveyor of below average cultural criticism and throb-porn? Well, shucks.
And then Zizek is always going to talk about something revealing the throbbing obscenity underlining my throbbing and profane attachment to some other thing. And then Zizek is going to dazzle us by proving his point through a symptomatic reading of Police Academy 2. I don't imagine being offered time and space to read original Lacan any time soon, but wouldn't it be dreadful to figure out that Lacan is as Zizek's forever casting him, a harvester of sexualized finger traps and purveyor of below average cultural criticism and throb-porn? Well, shucks.
June 7, 2024
Through this back-and-forth debate with Milbank, Zizek presents a radical and very heterodox understanding of the meaning of the "death of God on the cross" and its implications for the Christian. Following the actual death of God as the Father and the Son, only the third person, the Holy Spirit remains and is only found amongst the community of believers being the only site of its existence ( he argues the existence of the Holy Spirit is virtual, as it is only there in so far as we act as if it is, setting the groundwork for his plea for "Christian Atheism").
Referencing Badiou, GK Chesterton, Meister Eckhardt, Hegel, Heidegger and others, he also explores different conceptions of what the "material" entails, contigency and necessity, the death of God already happening in Judaism, where only the Letter of the Law remains, and much more which cannot be resumed in this review.
Though one can identify typical traits of Zizek's writing, inlcuding repetitive jokes and references found in his other works, The Monstrosity of Christ is perhaps one of his books where one can find a greater deal of originality and creative insight.
Referencing Badiou, GK Chesterton, Meister Eckhardt, Hegel, Heidegger and others, he also explores different conceptions of what the "material" entails, contigency and necessity, the death of God already happening in Judaism, where only the Letter of the Law remains, and much more which cannot be resumed in this review.
Though one can identify typical traits of Zizek's writing, inlcuding repetitive jokes and references found in his other works, The Monstrosity of Christ is perhaps one of his books where one can find a greater deal of originality and creative insight.
March 25, 2022
Editor’s introduction:
So if everyone just understood Hegel we could end global capitalism.
Zizek:
Proceeds to talk about GK Chesterton for 50 pages.
Millbank:
Actually, Zizek is a transcendentalist if you think about it.
Zizek:
Millbank is a soft-Fascist.
So if everyone just understood Hegel we could end global capitalism.
Zizek:
Proceeds to talk about GK Chesterton for 50 pages.
Millbank:
Actually, Zizek is a transcendentalist if you think about it.
Zizek:
Millbank is a soft-Fascist.
August 18, 2024
Best of Zizek’s thought on Christianity and religion. I like Milbank but his essay is boring. But how can you not be overshadowed by Zizek?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews