- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Ships from: Geneva, IL
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
"What matters is not so much that Žižek is endorsing a demythologized,disenchanted Christianity without transcendence, as that he is offering in the end (despite what he sometimes claims) a heterodox version of Christian belief."—John Milbank"To put it even more bluntly, my claim is that it is Milbank who is effectively guilty of heterodoxy, ultimately of a regression to paganism: in my atheism, I am more Christian than Milbank."—SlavojŽižekIn this corner, philosopher Slavoj Žižek, a militant atheist who represents the critical-materialist stance against religion's illusions; in the other corner, "RadicalOrthodox" 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 TheMonstrosity 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. Slavoj Žižek is a philosopher and cultural critic. He has published over thirty books, including Looking Awry, The Puppet and theDwarf, and The Parallax View (these three published by the MIT Press). John Milbank is an influential Christian theologian and the author of Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason and other books. Creston Davis, who conceived of this encounter, studied under both Žižek and Milbank.
Posted July 16, 2009
I'm thoroughly disappointed by the maze of evasive verbiage in this book. Neither Zizek not Milbank produced anything radical here!
Don't get deceived by Milbank anyway. Does his kind of #radical-orthodoxy helps at all in struggles against capitalist nihilism [or it's derivatives such as postmodernism]? Well - perhaps this is somewhat better in contrast with the far more deceptive #post-liberal-theology!
Anyway coming back to the very question - why this book at all? Perhaps because we believe that there is a need for resurrecting the #real and the #absolute from the mutilated and rotten body of postmodernism? A need that has been never so urgent as now, when an atmosphere of intellectual subterfuges is widespread (though I also agree that there were some useful contributions among the less pretentious participants).
Well - to me Zizek appears so dull - specially with his patchy knowledge about "Orthodoxy" and many other things - to make any positive impact. No positive comments for Milbank and his anti-materialist dilettantism anyway :-)
If the world was given to us as something "enigmatic and unintelligible", then what is the task of thought? Making it more enigmatic and more unintelligible - what this book does or the reverse? Well - the reverse is done in the sciences, and in serious commentary on human affairs. I don't know of any relevant contributions of theology (whether pro/anti-materialist) other than constructing vague ideas with vague images.
The book is much exaggerated, and you shouldn't take it seriously. There is no point taking Hegel or Eckhart that seriously as well.
1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted June 25, 2010
No text was provided for this review.