Incapable of exact thinking, steeped in the pseudoscientific orthodoxy of psychoanalysis, destroying the sane foundations of leftist argumentation and superfluously verbose beyond intelligibility, Zizek and his predecessor Lacan inexplicably continue to receive the attention of academics in the humanities. Other reviewers who have stamped this as a collection of technical works have simply been confused by the proliferation of referentially bankrupt verbiage with which every page is splattered: all of the "key notions" of this "thinker" are bereft of sense, are cognitively vacant. Put to the task, I have no doubt that Zizek couldn't even explain what he is referring to when he uses such curiously impossible phrases as, to make a random selection, "the medium of pure auto-affection embodying the presence-to-itself of the speaking subject." This tradition of trying to appear insightful by using arcane neologisms which, mysteriously, are too profound to be defined began with Heidegger and never seemed to stop in continental philosophy, which is precisely why neither Heidegger, nor Sartre, nor Foucault, nor Lacan, nor Derrida, nor Baudrillard, nor Lyotard, nor Deleuze, nor Zizek himself will be remembered seriously by future historians of ideas. There just aren't any ideas to record, only the flickerings of dim bulbs wishing to receive the deserved esteem of Hume or Kant, Russell or Wittgenstein, Kripke or Putnam. Incredibly, dissertations will be written on Zizek by intelligent individuals who, suffering from the mental analogue of an optical illusion, are duped into believing that they are studying something with content, something having an intelligible bearing on at least something familiar (nescio quid!). Entire courses will be taught on Zizek that begin with antiquated, unconfirmable Freudian conjectures and end with many an ostensibly sophisticated but vacuous flatus vocis and innumerable paradoxical conclusions that appear to undermine the assumptions of antecedent traditions but in a way which somehow resists paraphrase into lucid language. But this won't last. For your own sake, avoid Zizek and all of his antecedents in the continental tradition: staring at a wall for years will furnish more genuine intellectual substance than trying to make sense out of this sticky imbroglio of confusions. Instead, if you want to read philosophical works that will warrant the lasting attention of level-headed, mindful individuals, start reading Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, J. L. Austin, C. D. Broad, Carl Hempel, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, D. M. Armstrong, David Lewis, Noam Chomsky, J. J. C. Smart, W. v. O. Quine, John Searle, Michael Dummett, Saul Kripke, Evan Fales or Hilary Putnam. Relinquish the temptation to be hoodwinked by the trendy maundering of continental clowns. Or, if you prefer, go ahead and read Zizek to learn how not to write philosophy in the same way in which you would read a romance novel to learn how not to write a serious literary opus.