zizek peterson debate transcript

there is a link, all the more difficult to follow in the spoken form. There is no simple democratic solution here. He's also quite Having previously enjoyed and written about both slavoj zizek and jordan peterson, i was interested to learn they'd have a debate. The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past end of quote. If there is no such authority in nature, lobsters may have hierarchy, undoubtedly, but the main guy among them does not have authority in this sense. [19] Harrison Fluss and Sam Miller of Jacobin reported that Peterson made many factual errors, such as misunderstanding the labour theory of value, incorrectly associating Marx broadly with identity politics, and denying the existence of a Marxist philosophy of nature. The strange bronze artifact perplexed scholars for more than a century, including how it traveled so far from home. Maybe that's why last night I finally caved and watched Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson take on Slovenian quasi-Marxist psychoanalyst and cultural theorist Slavoj Zizek. Let me mention just the idea that is floating around of solar radiation management, the continuous massive dispersal of aerosols into our atmosphere, to reflect and absorb sunlight, and thus cool the planet. The Church of England is debating if believers should stop using gendered language when talking about God. On the Zizek-Peterson 'debate' Some folks have been complaining that the debate was disappointing because it wasn't a debate, or because the debaters don't have sufficient intellectual. Here is the original video extracted from https://www.jordanvsslavojdebate.com (livestream.com HLS source) using ffmpeg from Akamai CDN with the original audio and custom CC transcribed. Zizek: The paradox to be happy there not a crucial misunderstanding here. Having listened to the recent debate between the philosopher Slavoj Zizek and the politician Daniel Hannan, one has the impression of having assisted to a sophisticated version of a sophomoric discussion between a marijuana-smoking hippy and the head of the Tory Students' Association at a posh college. How jelly-like bodies help sea creatures survive extreme conditions, How eccentric religions were born in 19th-century America, Land of paradoxes: the inner and outer Iran with Delphine Minoui. The mere dumb presence of the celebrities on the stage mattered vastly more than anything they said, naturally. Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked Here refugees are created. The debate, rightly or wrongly, permanently situated iek as Peterson's opposite in the war for young minds. Are you also ready to affirm that Hitler was our enemy because his story was not heard? essentially well-placed, but as many are quick to point out, Related research topic ideas. His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of expressions like You have to give the devil his due and This is a weird one and Almost all ideas are wrong. I crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? That snapped him back into his skill set: self-defense. But if violence perpetuated in the name of an idea is supposed to disqualify the idea, then more people have died in the name of communism and nationalism than any other idea. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. The French philosophy Andr Glucksmann applied Dostoyevskys critique of godless nihilism to September 11 and the title of his book, Dostoyevsky in Manhattan suggests that he couldnt have been more wrong. When I was younger to give you a critical example there was in Germany with obsession with the dying of forests with predictions that in a couple of decades Europe would be without forests. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. And that was the great irony of the debate: what it comes down to is that they believe they are the victims of a culture of victimization. One hated communism. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. So, its still yes, biologically conditioned sexuality, but it is if I may use this term transfunctionalised, it becomes a moment of a different cultural logic. squarely throws under the bus as failed. The Zizek-Peterson Debate In early 2019, after the occasional potshot at one another, it was announced that iek would debate Jordan Peterson in Toronto. Zizek will suit up for Team M and Peterson will wear the "C" on his hometown jersey. Presidential debate 2020 RECAP What happened in the first election from www.the-sun.com. Christ was justified by the fact of being Gods son not by his competencies or capacities, as Kierkegaard put it Every good student of theology can put things better than Christ. agreement (as well they should, adopting neither deluded far-left or far-right Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. Peterson was humiliated deeply in it, having to admit he'd never read any Marx despite demonizing him for years, and only having skimmed one of Marx' books before showing up to debate Marxism with an actual Marx scholar (among other. The true opposite of egotist self-love is not altruism a concern for the common good but envy, resentment, which makes me act against my own interests. As the debate ostensibly revolved around comparing capitalism to Marxism, Peterson spent the majority of his 30-minute introduction assailing The Communist Manifesto, in fact coming up with 10 reasons against it. iek is also defined, and has been for years, by his contempt for postmodern theory and, by extension, the more academic dimensions of political correctness. Press J to jump to the feed. Kierkegaard, mine and everybodys favourite theologist, wrote If a child says he will obey his father because his father is a competent and good guy, this is an affront to fathers authority. He couldnt believe it. his remarks, he starts telling a Slovenian joke, then after the first sentence live commentary is quite funny. semi-intentionally quite funny. His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of . Boston 24/7 with principal mcafee By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. Not that I was disappointed. It's hard not to crack up when out of time for So, you know the market is already limited but not in the right way, to put it naively. And I also think this may be critical to some of you there is a problem with capitalism here for the simple reasons that its managers not because of their evil nature, but thats the logic of capitalism care to extend self-reproduction and environmental consequences are simply not part of the game. This Was An Interesting Debate. self-reproducing nature, though he points out that communism had this Capitalism won, but today and thats my claim, we can debate about it the question is, does todays global capitalism contain strong enough antagonisms that prevent its indefinite reproduction. White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. He doesn't do much to defend Communism imblazintwo 4 yr. ago Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. Having watched it (video), I regret to inform you it was neither of those Chopin Nocturne No. The two generally agreed on. We often need a master figure to push us out an inertia and, Im not afraid to say, that forces us to be free. We have to find some interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Peterson didn't seem more It also helps to put Zizek's ideas and role in modern political discussion in . El debate entre iek y Peterson se produjo en Toronto, Canad. [15][16] On the example of China, he tried to connect happiness, capitalism, and Marxism as well criticize China itself[16] and asserted that "less hierarchical, more egalitarian social structure would stand to produce great amounts of this auxiliary happiness-runoff". Peterson, in his opening remarks, noted that scalped tickets were selling at higher prices than the Maple Leafs playoff game happening on the other side of town. First by admitting we are in a deep mess. The size and scope of his fame registers more or less exactly the loathing for identity politics in the general populace, because it certainly isnt on the quality of his books that his reputation resides. Web nov 14, 2022. Two Teams Per Debate Argue For Opposing Positions On An Issue. [15], At the beginning of his opening monologue, iek noted avoidance to participate in the debate in the role of an opponent and that both were victims of left liberals. I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. And that was basically it. "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know more disjointed. More than a century ago in his Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism if god doesnt exist, then everything is permitted. [5] He also criticized Peterson's discussion of "cultural Marxism", stating that "his crazy conspiracy theory about LGBT+ rights and #MeToo as the final offshoots of the Marxist project to destroy the West is, of course, ridiculous. So, what about the balance equality and hierarchy? This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." A New World Order is emerging, a world of peaceful co-existence of civilisations, but in what way does it function? Hitler was one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century. Error type: "Forbidden". Furthermore, I find it very hard to ground todays inequalities as they are documented for example by Piketty in his book to ground todays inequalities in different competencies. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. Im Zentrum der Dissertation steht die Typologisierung des homme fatal, des verhngnisvollen Verfhrers innerhalb der englischen Erzhlliteratur von der Romantik bis ins fin de sicle. This one is from the Guardian. Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we officially desire. In Peterson's defense, he did manage to stay much closer to the actual topic of the debate, while Zizek jumped wildly between a dizzying number of subjects. They were making in the usual way, but the cheese got rotten and infected, smelling bad, and they said, oh my god, look, we have our own original French cheese. This is NOT a satire/meme sub. increasingly erratic in the rest of the debates. They are both highly attuned to ideology and the mechanisms of power, and yet they are not principally political thinkers. And sure, the level of the discussion might have been unappealing to all the I cannot but notice the irony of how Peterson and I, the participants in this duel of the century, are both marginalised by the official academic community. If we compare with Trump with Bernie Sanders, Trump is a post-modern politician at its purist while Sanders is rather an old fashion moralist. In Stalinism, precisely they were not kept apart, while already in Ancient Greece they knew they had to be kept apart, which is why the popular way was even combined with lottery often. Source: www.the-sun.com. The tone of the debate was also noted to be very Freedom and responsibility hurt they require an effort, and the highest function of an authentic master is to literally to awake in us to our freedom. Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? Why do I still cling to this cursed name when I know and fully admit that the 20th century Communist project in all its failure, how it failed, giving birth to new forms of murderous terror. If I visit your debate with Jordan Peterson it's on YouTube I felt you won that debate, and it's striking to me, the discussion between 1 hour 10 minutes and 1 hour 18 minutes. Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. But, it is instantly clear how this self-denigration brings a profit of its own. The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. Watching him, I was amazed that anyone had ever taken him seriously enough to hate him. back to this pre-modern state of affairs. Not merely opinion or prejudice, but the realm of truth, access through evidence and, argument. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. Remember Pauls words from Galatians There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer male and female in Christ. And here applies the same logic to Christ himself. A renunciation of pleasure can easily turn in pleasure of renunciation itself. meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. [16] Similarly to Winston Churchill, he concluded that "capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others". In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. the cold war, and it would seem to me that understanding the ideological roots cordial and respectful, something I really appreciated. They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. intellectuals). Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough. The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. Next point one should stop blaming hedonist egotism for our woes. It was full of the stench of burning strawmen. yardstick: In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, The second threat, the commons of internal nature. If the academic left is all-powerful, they get to indulge in their victimization. Zizek and Peterson sell books for cash, but cash is just what you need for the real prize: the minds of men. It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. The Jordan Peterson-Slavoj iek debate was good for something Andray Domise: Debate has its place in debunking bad actors and their ideas, but it only works when the participants have. knowledgeable about communism. Now, let me be precise here Im well aware uncertain analysis and projections are in this domain. His I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. And is not the standard, but the true unconstrained consumption in all these creeps here? Most of the attacks on me are from left-liberals, he began, hoping that they would be turning in their graves even if they were still alive. One of the most stupid wisdoms and theyre mostly stupid is An enemy is just a story whose story you have not heard. I have a hard time understanding Zizek, and am admittedly completely out of my depth when it comes to philosophy and Marxism and all the nitty gritty. With anti-Semitism, we are approaching the topic of telling stories. thank you! I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. In this sense, the image of Donald Trump is also a fetish, the last thing a liberal sees before confronting actual social tensions. But it did reveal one telling commonality. Jordan Peterson itching to take on Slavoj Zizek - 'any time, any place' -", "Slavoj Zizek vs. Jordan Peterson: Marxist gewinnt philosophenduell", "Happiness is watching a brawl between iconoclastic philosophers", "Has Jordan Peterson finally gone too far? The Hidden Argument in the Zizek/Peterson Debate, From a Competitive Debator | by Timothy Clark | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium 500 Apologies, but something went wrong on our end. He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. The Petersoniek debate, officially titled Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, was a debate between the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson (a clinical psychologist and critic of Marxism) and the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj iek (a psychoanalyst and Hegelian) on the relationship between Marxism, capitalism, and happiness. Both Zizek and Peterson transcend their titles, their disciplines, and the academy, just as this debate we hope will transcend purely economic questions by situating those in the frame of happiness of human flourishing itself. The pathological element is the husbands need for jealousy as the only way for him to sustain his identity. Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? Zizek also pinpointed white liberal multiculturalism as the reason for the Lefts current political woes. First, a brief introductory remark. On April 19th, at the Sony Centre in Toronto, these two celebrated thinkers (and Big Think contributors) went head to head in a duel promisingly-dubbed Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism. My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. Cookie Notice This is again not a moral reproach. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. Zizek expressed his agreement with Petersons critique of PC culture, pointing out that he is attacked as much by the Left that he supposedly represents as the right. List of journal articles on the topic 'Marxism in politics, economy and philosophy / Criticism'. Before you say, its a utopia, I will tell you just think about in what way the market already functions today. At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx Last week, Peterson announced that he and Zizek would be meeting on stage at the Sony Centre in Toronto for a debate called "Happiness: Capitalism v. Marxism." Apparently the two men are. If we are left to ourselves, if everything is historically conditioned and relative, then there is nothing preventing us from indulging in our lowest tendencies. Elements of a formal debate. There are two teams, each consisting of two or three speakers. The wager of democracy is that we should not give all power to competent experts, because precisely Communists in power who, legitimise this rule, by posing as fake experts. Life and career Early life iek was born in Ljubljana, PR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, into a middle-class family. It has been said of the debate that " nothing is a greater waste of time ." Tickets to the livestream are $14.95, and admission to the venue itself was running as high as $1,500. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across. First, of all, the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution, global warming and so on. The recent debate between Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson lived up to the hype. Really? They didnt understand what is happening to them with military defeat, economic crisis, what they perceived as moral decay, and so on. I cannot but notice the [] Ippolit Belinski April 30, 2019 Videos. I cleaned up the Zizek's second turn speaking, since that section seemed to contain many errors: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qs7mNIUsYt9kWcdO785ec_dEWmEHLo92yTso0CVtxNk/edit?usp=sharing. Among his points was that Marx and Engels focused too much on class struggle being the primary feature of modern society while ignoring the existence of hierarchy as a fact of nature. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM35zlrE01k. In spite of protests here and there, we will probably continue to slide towards some kind of apocalypse, awaiting large catastrophes to awaken us. If you're curious, here's the timestamp for the joke. From todays experience, we should rather speak to Steven Weinbergs claim that while without religion good people would have been doing good things and bad people bad things, only religion can make good people do bad things. In our human universe, power, in the sense of exerting authority, is something much more mysterious, even irrational. Forced marriages and homophobia is ok, just as long as they are limited to another country which is otherwise fully included in the world market. Canad. Next point. opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. Still, that criticism would be salutary for most "communists"

Micro Center California, Articles Z