Welt und Zeit—From Zizians to Zizekians, 22:39—5. March 2025

From the earliest rumblings of philosophical rumination on the nature of being, there has always dwelled a fascination with the exchanges between ruptures in social order and the structures of thought that attempt to subdue or master them. Yet in an era where so many convictions claim to grasp the meaning of world and time, we are confronted with a dawning phenomenon that introduces two distinct trajectories: on the one side, the cohort of those sometimes called Zizians, whose fervor and unrestrained pursuits reflect a radicalization of intellectual discourse; on the other side, the group now identified as Zizekians, a vast throng of thousands of middle-aged thinkers propelled by the provocative echoes of ontology as it has been refracted through key strands of contemporary theory. The elliptical arc spanning From Zizians to Zizekians seeks to untangle the complex relationship between philosophical contemplation and the phenomenon of terrorism, and probes the obscure territory from which the term “Zizeanism” might emerge, a notion that resonates against the backdrop of precarious times.

The tension between these two factions is not merely a difference of rhetorical style, nor is it limited to a question of political persuasion; it is, rather, an ontological schism that opens at the core of how modern humanity interprets the self in the face of world crises. On the surface, the Zizians cling to an unyielding and all-encompassing pursuit of absolute consistency in moral and theoretical convictions. Their vantage point can be described as hyper-rational, or perhaps even hyper-idealist: the attempt to carry every line of thought to its most literal conclusion, heedless of the pragmatic constraints that ordinarily temper ambition. Some might say this approach captures the spirit of absolute negativity, a stance where any compromise to the purity of one’s system must be eradicated. There is an echo, in their radical fervor, of a certain brand of asceticism: the moral posture that if the world cannot be radically transformed in keeping with some higher principle, then the world itself must be repudiated in all its flaws. Within this continuum, the Zizians see themselves as occupying a site of cosmic warfare: every lapse, every half-measure, every hesitation is denounced as collaboration with a decaying order. Perhaps it is this unwavering literalism that brings them into confrontation with the entire socio-political framework that the rest of us (even those deeply critical of the system) learn to navigate.

On the other hand, the Zizekians profess a lineage that superficially references a certain well-known thinker renowned for dissecting the illusions that sustain our symbolic frameworks. But their alignment goes beyond mere admiration. This new wave of Zizekianism emerges as a codified phenomenon: thousands of keen minds, mostly in their mid-thirties, scattered across continents, congealing into a loose but recognizable movement. Where Zizians attempt to close every logical gap with uncompromising dogma, Zizekians delight in the tensions, paradoxes, and irreconcilable contradictions at the heart of lived reality. Indeed, in a genealogical sense, Zizekianism inherits from a distinctive ontology the refusal to flatten the complexities of the Real into neat solutions; it accepts that the kernel of antagonism cannot be domesticated by a purely ethical or rational decree. This is not to say Zizekians renounce revolutionary fervor, but rather that they suspect direct leaps into absolute positions can pave the way toward monstrous outcomes, the very outcomes that ironically mirror what many rational theorists sought to avoid in the first place.

Yet these two currents collide most forcefully when it comes to the uneasy nexus of philosophy and terrorism. From the early days of the “war on terror,” launched after events like 9/11 and exacerbated by the subsequent interventions in Iraq and elsewhere, we have witnessed a rhetorical arms race: an accelerated discourse that justifies extreme measures on both sides of any existential divide. Philosophers have long wrestled with questions of violence and revolution, but the climate of recent decades—punctuated by mass surveillance, indefinite detentions, and drone strikes—brings a new urgency. Zizians might argue that every system that normalizes structural violence (through, say, neo-imperial wars or repressive legislation) calls forth a moral necessity of equally extreme confrontation. They interpret the illusions of moderation as masks for complicity in deeper atrocities. Observers might see in the Zizian approach an echo of those who place the entire edifice of modern democracy on trial, especially when they see the hypocrisy or the half-hidden appetite for dominating foreign lands in the name of civilization.

By contrast, Zizekians detect, in all these swirling vortexes, an irreducible dimension of the Real—an underside that rational or moral frameworks can never fully capture. They do not necessarily embrace terror; rather, they note how what we call terror can in certain contexts be the symptom of disavowed tensions in a global order that claims, cynically at times, to pursue freedom while its actions reveal structural forms of domination. The key difference, though, lies in the manner of interrogation: for Zizekians, there is typically an element of irony, of critical distance, of harnessing contradictions as a source of renewal and question rather than as a call to burn down everything in sight. In these collisions, we witness an instructive display of how two lines of thought can sprout from a shared dissatisfaction with the status quo, but end up diverging in ethical tone and practical expression.

It would be simplistic to reduce this polarity to naive radicalism on the one hand and cunning moderation on the other. Zizians are not purely naive; they demonstrate a formidable intellectual scope and an almost fanatical discipline in carrying out the implications of their beliefs. Meanwhile, Zizekians are hardly quietists; many among them engage vigorously in social critique, activism, and the forging of new interpretive frameworks. The core of their disagreement unfolds around the question of how an idea (or a whole system of ideas) relates to the messy, contradictory field we call reality. One vantage point sees that field as a tissue of illusions and moral compromise that must be shattered by unwavering principle, while the other vantage point, more ironically aware, insists that illusions cannot be wholly annihilated without risking the creation of new illusions that might be worse than the first. One might recall certain remarks from the domain of psychoanalytic theory, which propose that reality itself is structured around inevitable misrecognitions, and that it is precisely in the cracks of these misrecognitions that the potential for emancipatory change is found.

Meanwhile, we cannot ignore the way daily headlines across the globe seem to corroborate aspects of both positions. We see a resurgence of nationalist authoritarianisms, the lingering specter of terror organizations, the persistent disputes about who holds the moral right to intervene, and a swirl of technologies (including artificial intelligence) that accelerate the pace at which illusions and violent outbursts can multiply. The Zizians, in their darkest predictions, might say that the system is nearing its terminal crisis, and that only an unrelenting moral logic can preserve any hope for genuine ethical being—an intransigent vow against compromise. The Zizekians, in their more nuanced cynicism, might respond that every system that stands on the brink of collapse also reveals hidden potentials, and that the path to transformation can only be found by dwelling in the difficulty, even letting the contradiction speak rather than smothering it with pure principle.

Where does “Zizeanism” fit into this unfolding drama? Drawing from a contemporary narrative about a fringe breakaway circle known for radicalization, this notion appears to crystallize the moment when theoretical obsession leaps from the page into real-world, sometimes violent, acts. It is said to derive from an obscure attempt at forging a new paradigm of activism—one that claims to be wholly consistent and mathematically precise in its moral calculus, yet that runs the risk of replicating in miniature the very terror it aims to abolish. Taken literally, “Zizeanism” might be read as a misinterpretation of the lineage shaped by the original ontological critiques advanced decades prior, where the unstoppable impetus of reason becomes its own monstrous alternative to the illusions of ideology. By extension, when rational or philosophical discourse fails to factor in the messy complexity of desire, fantasy, and contradiction, it can produce zealots who believe that to enact their worldview fully is to forcibly reshape the domain of the real, no matter the cost.

Thus, the tragedy of certain forms of terrorism—whether they invoke politics, religion, or even the self-stylized rationalism of a new moral order—lies in the inability to harness contradiction productively. The impetus is always: purify the world, refine the premises, eradicate the polluting elements, and thereby free oneself of the perceived threat. It is precisely this impetus that Zizekians seek to deconstruct, not because they endorse the status quo, but because they sense that the most dangerous illusions are the ones that proclaim themselves entirely free of illusions. World history abounds with examples of how attempts at absolute purity can tip over into fanaticism, and fanaticism then devolves into cruelty. Looking at the present day, where wars rage and ideological showdowns intensify—be it in covert operations in the Middle East, military tensions in Eastern Europe, or domestic crises that pit security interests against civil liberties—these patterns are always near at hand.

It is also illuminating to trace the broad ramifications of these factions for how we conceive the passage of time. Welt und Zeit, after all, signals both the horizon of our collective historical predicament and the fleeting moment of each day’s new crisis. Zizians are quick to assert that time cannot wait and that our global community stands on a ticking clock about to ring the bell of irreversible catastrophe. They sense an urgency in the moral necessity of absolute solutions. Zizekians, however, suspect that every invocation of emergency can become a false justification for terrorizing others. If there is to be a reckoning with the illusions that structure our existence, it must come not through frantic leaps into moral absolutes but through sustained confrontation with the anxiety and contradictions that define being-in-the-world.

This vantage point, ironically enough, resonates even more powerfully with the ghosts of recent decades, in which the logic of “preventive warfare” or “preemptive strike” has wreaked havoc on entire populations. Thousands have been displaced or killed in the name of eradicating perceived threats. The next wave of radical reaction sees such hypocrisy, condemns it, and decides that all half-measures are complicity. The question is whether this condemnation becomes a pretext for an opposite terror, for an unstoppable engine of retribution. In the interplay of these extremes, it is neither the liberal democracy nor the radical purity that emerges victorious, but the question of what is left standing after illusions and illusions’ illusions have all exposed themselves. Perhaps only the delicate margin of subjectivity itself remains: the capacity to see that no solution can exonerate the subject from the complexities of the Real.

Meanwhile, the political events of our time push us to situate such questions not just in an abstract vacuum, but in an overlapping set of crises that span climate disasters, regional wars, waves of mass migration, and the encroachment of new digital forms of surveillance. Zizians rail against this state of affairs as proof that the system is doomed and anyone who tries to salvage it is a traitor. Zizekians respond that the system was always ephemeral, that illusions were always part of how we negotiated meaning, but that what is needed is not the final blow that breaks the system but the painstaking labor of forging, in the rubble of illusions, a different configuration. The wedge between the two arises precisely at the problem of whether contradiction can be endured or must be forcibly excised. If it must be excised, then the sword becomes the final arbiter, and history is replete with evidence that such a tactic spares no illusions, not even those cherished by the revolutionaries themselves.

Yet the presence of terror in the philosophical field disrupts tidy narratives about the pursuit of truth. If 9/11 and the subsequent militarized responses taught us anything, it is that the line between self-defense and aggression can be blurred by ideology. The raw images of towers falling in real-time unsettled the existential premises of a generation that believed it had, perhaps, reached the “end of history.” Those who champion the “war on terror” often brandish moral imperatives, just as certain extremist groups do in reverse. If the specter of terror merges with philosophical tropes, then indeed, we confront the possibility that no single vantage can insulate itself from charges of fanaticism. The real question becomes how one navigates the tension between unwavering passion and the acceptance that no vantage can ever be completely free of partial illusions and contradictions.

In this sense, “Zizeanism,” a term gleaned from the swirling testimonies and commentary on radicalized enclaves, stands as a cautionary tale for would-be utopians—reminding us that the gulf between theory and practice is easily traversed by illusions of moral invincibility. Yet ironically, the more consistent or rigorous the illusions claim to be, the more they risk fracturing beneath the weight of lived complexity. It is here that we see how Zizekians, for all their fervor, remain more aligned with the notion that any attempt to colonize the future with absolute correctness is doomed to replicate the repressive strategies of the present.

This dance of contradictions plays out against the stage of world affairs in which hegemonic powers claim the righteous mantle of liberty while ignoring the moral complexities of drone warfare or indefinite detention. Radical factions of all persuasions point to those contradictions as proof that moderate ideals have failed. From the vantage of Welt und Zeit, one begins to see these debates as playing out an epochal drama: in a world battered by pandemics, racial tensions, refugees fleeing entire swathes of uninhabitable terrain, and newly emergent threats, the friction between the compulsion for absolute purity and the acceptance of a cracked reality intensifies. Zizians see the cracks as a sign that the entire edifice must be demolished forthwith. Zizekians see the cracks as precisely the place to begin anew—though not in naive hope, but in the recognition that the greatest illusions are those that claim to have escaped illusion.

The story, then, is not merely about two sets of devotees debating arcane dogmas. It is about how these two camps model divergent responses to the political nightmares of our time: terrorism, imperial interventions, cultural conflicts, the manipulative illusions of global capitalism, and the existential dread that saturates every domain. Both groups, in their own ways, push us to confront what it means to live authentically in an era saturated by social media illusions, propaganda wars, and the paranoid suspicion that even your neighbor might be a hidden threat. In the final analysis, the difference lies in whether the moral apparatus can handle the inherent negativity that flows through the structure of reality, or if it must revert to purifying mania in the name of consistency. Indeed, from Zizians to Zizekians, we find ourselves entangled in a fundamental question: is the path to genuine liberation found in intensifying moral absolutes, or in acknowledging the irreducible paradoxes of subjectivity and the Symbolic order?

One might say that, in acknowledging those paradoxes, Zizekians preserve the possibility of revolution without succumbing to the tyranny of their own illusions. They acknowledge that the Real of suffering (seen in terrorism, war, economic devastation) will never be soothed by theoretical gestures alone. Meanwhile, Zizians, in their unwavering crusade, demonstrate that the pursuit of ethical perfection, if unmoored from the complexities of psychic drives and socio-political entanglements, can become a new brand of terror in its own right—especially under contemporary conditions, where the swirl of contradictory information and ongoing crises exacerbate existential urgency.

If we are to speak of the future of world and time, the shadow of “Zizeanism”—or any offshoot that claims unimpeachable moral or rational vantage—forces us to examine the uses and limits of philosophical passion. Indeed, we must question how easily the impetus to do good can twist into the impetus to annihilate that which is not wholly good. We must reckon with the role of illusions that are inherent to human coexistence. We must also understand that terrorism, as a political or ontological phenomenon, is never purely external: it haunts the interior of ideological systems wherever an unexamined purity demands universal submission.

Hence, by moving from Zizians to Zizekians, we unravel more than two factions. We confront the tension between a literal, fanatically consistent moral outlook, and a self-critical, paradoxical embrace of negativity. We glimpse how entire political discourses—about the war on terror, the ethics of violence, the illusions of democracy—pivot on whether or not we can accept the unmasterable dimension that lies at the heart of being. We see that those who would master this dimension at all costs risk creating the conditions for new forms of terror and oppression, even as they seek to overthrow the existing hegemony.

In that sense, the urgent question is whether the impetus toward radical transformation must always risk turning into a logic of destruction. Some might say that a faithful reading of certain ontological critiques, especially those associated with a well-known philosopher who shaped the background of Zizekian thought, shows us that the Real always returns to unseat any fantasy of pure mastery. Zizekians thus remain open to this permanent destabilizing force, believing that, paradoxically, it is only through confronting the irreducible remainder of contradiction that one can prevent the worst scenarios. Zizians, by contrast, see in that remainder an intolerable compromise. If the Real cannot be forced under a complete rational schema, then perhaps it is no place worth inhabiting. And so emerges the impetus that collides with institutions, whether those institutions are capitalist democracies or family structures. The war on terror, in this reading, is but a symptom of deeper illusions about moral clarity in a precarious age.

To speak at last of time itself: in a modernity replete with crises, time unfolds not merely as a linear progression of days, but as an intensification of existential weight. The two factions approach this intensification differently. One attempts to break free through unyielding principle, the other through a dance with paradox. In either case, the transformations we witness in the world—from geo-political wars to ideological spats over the nature of reality—remind us that philosophical stakes are never merely academic. Once an idea is lived to its fullest consequences, it can transform the face of human relations, sometimes violently. The unique drama of From Zizians to Zizekians is precisely the drama of how unbounded reason or unbounded critique might direct history toward unexpected extremes.

Even if it appears for a moment that those extremes are marginal—small groups with esoteric references or intellectual circles battling for moral high ground—they crystallize questions that loom for a broader public. Today’s political scene is saturated with large-scale illusions, whether about nationalism, unstoppable technology, or the grand illusions of corporate power. The planet, in its ecological fragility, begs for solutions that must be robust yet cannot be hammered out by moral tyranny. Tensions in Eastern Europe lay bare the immediate horrors of war that reconfigure entire alliances and resurrect old specters of ideological confrontation. Meanwhile, waves of protest throughout the globe show that many refuse to remain docile while the structures of power run their course. In this swirl of events, the story of Zizians and Zizekians becomes a parable: either we ascend toward a ferocious purity that might know no bounds, or we risk inhabiting the messy terrain of ongoing contradiction that might give birth to more enduring, if always precarious, forms of solidarity.

And so, this lengthy essay, dedicated to the reflection of a new realm in the world and time, rests upon this caution: that the impetus for radical intellectual clarity, though admirable in its ambition, can tilt into forms of fanaticism, and that the acceptance of radical negativity must not devolve into an apolitical shrug. We come to see how each pole might drift toward a destructive logic if it neglects the pressing realities of injustice, oppression, and violence. But we also come to see that any naive shortcut to moral perfection runs the same risk. The war on terror itself is, in many ways, a cautionary tale of how illusions about one’s righteous mission can spawn indefinite cycles of fear and retribution. The challenge for those who stand at the juncture of activism and philosophy—be they Zizekians, or otherwise—remains how to keep the fires of critique alive without igniting the conflagration of total destruction.

In a time when thousands of thinkers in their mid-thirties are galvanized by the promise of an interpretive framework that reclaims the excitement of direct confrontation with illusions, and another set of outliers pushes every precept to its extreme, the world stands as stage and participant in a drama of ideas. The notion of Zizeanism, drawn from contemporary stories of transformations gone awry, underscores how swiftly a community of thinkers can cross from theoretical speculation into destructive or self-destructive action. Meanwhile, the tapestry of international politics, with each day’s headlines, offers an unflinching background: the tragedies of refugee crises, conflicts over territorial sovereignty, clandestine paramilitary operations, state-sponsored oppression, and persistent global inequalities. Among all this, the question echoes: is the path to a genuine new epoch in Welt und Zeit found through the ascetic refusal of any compromise, or through a confrontation with the irreconcilable that ensures no dream of purity can claim omnipotence?

Therefore, the arc that spans From Zizians to Zizekians marks not just a difference of methodology but the shape of an imminent crossroads: does the future belong to those who scorn the illusions of partial freedoms so forcefully that they build illusions of their own, or to those who venture to inhabit paradox with enough lucidity to transform it from within? And how does terrorism—in the sense of both overt political acts and the symbolic terror of intangible policies—imprint itself on these theoretical divergences, warping them into new forms of radicalization or emancipatory critique?

All that is certain is that the world’s political events, from abrupt invasions to hidden conspiracies, from ideological fanaticisms to systems of exploitation, provide endless fuel for these two camps. In the months and years ahead, those who align with the unyielding thrust of the Zizians will claim they alone have the integrity to indict the entire edifice of complicity. Those affiliated with the Zizekians will argue that no consistent moral system can account for the remainders and distortions that define the Real, and that the path to genuine transformation cannot bypass these distortions with a single leap. Now, the center might or might not hold. The future is uncertain. But in this uncertainty rests the ultimate question that these two factions pose to our sense of Welt und Zeit: when illusions are stripped bare and time surges forward, will we choose the ballistic route of unwavering condemnation, or the critical route of wrestling with contradictions?

In the final reckoning, one might say that the difference between the two groups resides in their stance toward the chaos that undergirds reality. Perhaps it is only by traversing this chaos—by refusing the lure of any terrorizing short cut—that a new horizon can emerge. Yet the shape of that horizon remains unwritten. It will depend on how vigorously the intellectual movements of our era, from Zizians to Zizekians and beyond, learn to confront not just the illusions of others but also the illusions in themselves. If that confrontation fails, the cycle of terror in thought and politics may repeat indefinitely, ensuring that neither unshakable principle nor an acceptance of paradox alone can save us from an increasingly volatile world.

Simon Gros

Welt und Zeit—From Zizians to Zizekians, 22:39—5. March 2025

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Welt und Zeit—From Zizians to Zizekians, 22:39—5. March 2025

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply