A general question I can't even begin to answer but I wanted to toss it to the community after I came across this interesting interpretation/reply:

"I do think that yes, we can simply just shift our desire to another based on the fact that we feel like it is our duty to society. That does not mean that it is the user's own volition that is changing that desire, but rather it is the user's underlying desire for desire [that] has changed what the user desires, not the user that has changed it. It's important to call back to what Žižek says about how "We don't really want what we think we desire."

Since Žižek uses Lacan's psychoanalytic theory, he believes that our unconscious and desire are both structured by language. It is of Žižek's belief that Ideology, via shaping the Symbolic Order (language, society, culture etc.) is what determines how we observe reality, how we observe and conceptualize objects. It is the dominant Ideology that shapes our understanding and reality of the world in many more ways then we realize unless we question it through Hegelian dialetics (to oversimplify it, it is to think in a way that considers all perspectives. How could you do it? It is to question the fundamentals of it, to view it from a micro perspective and think of the wider implications of what it is that you think, considering the contradictions between opposing views in an attempt to synthesize them to reach an agreement that would be logical ).

There is a first to understand is the user's superego imposes that the user has an imperative to jouissance (Enjoy!). However, this superego is basically your internal moral police, it demands that you must constantly Enjoy! If you are not taking pleasure, you are doing something wrong, but if you are taking pleasure, it is not enough! This imperative to jouissance is from the big Other (a personification of the Symbolic Order), that is society. Late stage capitalism exploits this really well with the use of Ideology. Instead of jouissance, this used to be prohibition (that is the imperative to follow the law), but it shifted due to societal change with the influence of utilitarianism and hedonism. The cause for the user's desire is the unobtainable object that is the 'object petit a' - the object that is the projection of the user's lack of. It is an object that represents the cause of desire.

There is also the option to try to traverse the fantasy, an experience that is painful and traumatic, but necessary to emancipate oneself, that is for the user to dialectically think to themselves and figure out as to the influence that Ideology has in the way that it structures your unconscious and your desires.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding of your examples of what Žižek might think in that scenario of liking philosophy. If I were to go through your example, it should be restructured like this.

I as a subject like philosophy.

Why do I like philosophy possibly? It gives me pleasure

Why does it give me pleasure? It is because I aspire and want to be a great thinker.

Why do I aspire and want to be a great thinker? Because it is my duty!

Why is it my duty? Because I want to do good in society?

Why do I want to do good in society? What is good?

This synthesis where we ask what even is the basic concept of good at first glance seems to be a basic question, but rather it is difficult to answer in that we don't know as to what moral authority that decides what is defined as 'good'. This is when we realize that we do it because Ideology has influenced us that we gain value in society and that we can find our true self from being considered a great thinker, what we actually desire is validation from the big Other and that is what we ultimately gain pleasure from. That is the objet petit a, we chase the obtainment of this object for the belief that it is what will give us validation from the big Order (society/God/whatever the personification of the big Other can be). The cycle of jouissance is sustained by the pleasure you gain from the validation of society (as Ideology tells you that being a great thinker is cool and has great value to society), BUT you feel guilty because you haven't reached being a great thinker which is what you think your goal is.

The user then feels like if Ideology is what has influenced me all this time, how can I be my true self if I am blind to reality because of Ideology? How can I be happy and enjoy life? Maybe I can change Ideology to be able to access my 'true' self.

It can lead you to the following: Does this mean that you should try your best to Ideology tells you to do in defiance of Ideology? No, that is Ideology at work. It wants you to have the illusion of choice, to make it feel like you as, the individual, are in control of your own reality and Ideology, and are able to challenge and change the system simply by defying it; it absolves you of a guilty conscience by feeling like you are doing something by defying it. This is what can pacify a person from making meaningful action. For example, I am using my agency to put this piece of recyclable drink into the bin, I am making the world a better place by doing the right thing. Another example, is that I do not use 'bad' word. This lets me be able to judge and shame other people who use 'bad' word so that I feel morally righteous.

This is exactly what Ideology wants you to do, to give yourself permission to enjoy Ideology. You feel like you are morally superior to other people and that can be enough to placate your anger to not want to destroy the system as a whole. That is for the seeking of validation from the big Other.

What if I just do it anyway, but instead of feeling guilty for it from the superego's imperative to Enjoy! has told me to, but instead take pride in the suffering that ideology has effectively imposed on me and do it anyway? No, "you should not be falling in love with your suffering. The identification with suffering is not proof that you are an authentic person." To do so, would be to see yourself as a powerful martyr and to find meaning in it when there isn't. That again, is Ideology at work.

Are we only left with being a cynic then? No.

Žižek suggests instead thinks we should, once the user recognizes what our fundamental fantasy is, that is to figure out what does the big Other actually want from the user.

Once we figure out what our fundamental fantasy is, it is then realize that we have no true self inside. What we think of as the true self is just the Ideal-Ego, the imaginary perfect self-image that can't ever be achieved (again, following from before, we don't know what we actually desire, the desire of that desire is what sustains our desire. It is not a fixed goalpost as we will always desire more and more). It is the masks (the Ego) that we wear that often reveal more truth than what our inside self is. It is through the masks that we wear that we have our intersubjective experiences.

Once we give this up, we are then okay to be content with the the fact and realization that we as subjects are imperfect, there is no need to chase happiness, and that there is no object petit a that we have to fantasize on reaching, we are freer. It is the constant questioning of our reality can we be our authentic self and free from feeling shit about a random fantasy that needs the validation from another larger Other. That in itself is liberating, it is to not be cynical from this, but instead you are brought closer to your truth of desire (your drive) that yes, can cause us to suffer, but it is what will fulfill you nonetheless. It can still be what you were doing before, it's the freedom in that it doesn't matter whether it's futile or not, you do it anyway."
—NeverDefyADonut

no sub required version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lTsqi5cUt7RD3mPBAUzE2NtC5nGeZ74_LBKpY2wgFIk/edit?usp=sharing

We are certainly entertained

No paywall here — https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o5VUUoCZuq4QFYR1rf2cBx1H6J5mAsA3hbI-RIogKX4/edit?usp=sharing

The United States is transforming from a two-party political system into one comprising establishment Republicans, establishment Democrats, alt-right populists, and democratic socialists. In confronting all those who will try to derail him, New York’s mayor-elect will need to keep this big picture in mind.

Zupančič's work is beyond interesting, and the general sentiment sounds nice...but this could really be utter psychobabble potentially. Wanted to post for others' thoughts either way

Non-Paywalled — https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R-hL0Igt-b3Sj24YRlsPpGS7Eu8Bo1cuDRvTCsPso-g/edit?usp=sharing

Trump does business like war, and war like business.

Do we need new words to indicate positive peace vs negative peace?

"Kafka himself pointed out how the ultimate secret of the Law is that it does not exist—another case of what Lacan called the inexistence of the big Other. This inexistence, of course, does not simply reduce the Law to an empty imaginary chimera; it rather makes it into an impossible Real, a void which nonetheless functions, exerts influence, causes effects, curves the symbolic space."
–Slavoj Žižek

The system works, but not because of a hidden logic. It works because of the void. The endless deferral, the lack of a final answer, is the engine of the system. The lack of a final guarantee is what keeps the subjects frantically trying to find one. The void causes anxiety, paranoia, obsession, and submission. It shapes our behavior. We obey the law not because we understand its origin, but because we are terrified of the senseless, arbitrary power that its absence implies.

Just as a massive object like a black hole curves spacetime, the void of the Real (the inexistence of the Big Other) warps the entire symbolic universe around it. All our laws, beliefs, and social structures are bent and distorted by the fact that they have no authentic foundation. We are constantly trying to cover over this hole with meaning, but the hole's gravitational pull is what determines the shape of our efforts.

We are all, in a sense, living our lives in relation to a "Big Other" that we assume exists, not realizing that its power over us stems from its very inexistence.

Jacques Lacan is a notoriously obscure thinker. This video focuses on his attempt to bring philosophy (specifically, German Idealism) into psychoanalysis.

What truly died on the cross?