The debates of Zizek and Chomsky raise a point like my own: Chomsky has a hard time with things like dialectic. Beyond that Zizek seems to speak a little too complacently from an era now gone. I spent the years of college and after struggling with but reverent to Freud, then suddenly in the late seventies culture changed gears and psychoanalysis was a goner. Thus, trying to create new foundations with it, and with Lacan simply don’t register in the minds of most living now in the US, at least. And Zizek’s take on buddhism seems naive now. How can you use historical materialism to debunk buddhism? Culture now, even on the left, has seem the diffusion of buddhism into the west and noone would waste time trying to debunk buddhism with scientism. Eh? People are doing that all the time. Like Sam Harris.
But these questions are forcing people to take up a new set of perspectives on basic reality questions. Trying to naturalize buddhism is gross misunderstanding. Buddhism is the one religion that has naturalized religion. But the nudniks current can’t see that scientism has denaturalized science by treating nature as a newtonian machine.
Zizek and his school are sometimes seen as charlatans. That’s unfair: Zizek is clearly so deeply into the Hegelian/Marxist mystique that he presumes too much and is incomprehensible. And the Hegelian foundation is too elusive for secure interpretation.
The coming praxis won’t linger on these questions. My style in Last and First Men was to avoid philosophizing and stick with the history where philosophies are taken wholesale, an ironic version of the dialectic as a field of diversity and its opposites in one theatre.