zizek peterson debate transcript

Remove him from his enemies and he is a very poor example of a very old thing the type of writer whom, from Samuel Smiles Self-Help to Eckhart Tolles The Power of Now, have promised simple answers to complex problems. them, of all things, to French cuisine) are also worth a listen/read. officially desire. Some idea make a reappearance, other are newly developed, but it's They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. A renunciation of pleasure can easily turn in pleasure of renunciation itself. argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening Read the full transcript. I crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? 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. by its protagonists. The lesson of todays terrorism is that if there is a god then everything even blowing up hundreds of innocent bystanders is permitted to those who claim to act directly on behalf of god. But I nonetheless found it interesting. Thanks for you work. It can be watched on Jordan Peterson's channel here. I think there are such antagonisms. In this sense, the image of Donald Trump is also a fetish, the last thing a liberal sees before confronting actual social tensions. The rest of the debate was (if memory serves) also interesting, but it gets even [, : Thank you. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. [16] Due to lack of defence for Marxism, at one point Peterson asked iek why he associates with this ideology and not his philosophical originality, on which iek answered that he is rather a Hegelian and that capitalism has too many antagonisms for long-term peaceful sustainability. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." Both rejected happiness as a primary goal for individuals and societies. Below is the transcript of Zizeks introductory statement. The pathological element is the husbands need for jealousy as the only way for him to sustain his identity. What appears as its excesses its regulatory zeal is I think an impotent reaction that masks the reality of a defeat. It made me wonder about the rage consuming all public discussion at the moment: are we screaming at each other because we disagree or because we do agree and we cant imagine a solution? It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. The event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. 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. All these antagonisms concern what Marx called commons the shared substance of our social being. 2 define the topic, if . Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? Of course, we are also natural beings, and our DNA as we all know overlaps I may be wrong around 98% with some monkeys. Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? What people are saying about Jordan Peterson's upcoming showdown with T. S. Eliot, the great conservative, wrote, quote what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the work of art which preceded it. and our The mere dumb presence of the celebrities on the stage mattered vastly more than anything they said, naturally. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. Petersons opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. Amidst the Peterson-Zizek Debate, We Should Still Think for Ourselves Secret Spice Girls dance parties of the wives of anti-western morality police. This is NOT a satire/meme sub. Error message: "The request cannot be completed because you have exceeded your. It will be certain only it will be too late, and I am well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. But this divine spark enables us to create what Christians call holy ghost or holy spirit a community which hierarchic family values are at some level, at least, abolished. And we should act in a large scale, collective way. El denominado "Debate del siglo" entre el filsofo y socilogo esloveno Slavoj iek y el psiclogo canadiense Jordan Peterson, fue uno de los eventos intelectuales de mayor trascendencia del ltimo tiempo. And I must agree. 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. By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. You can find a transcript of it here. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! The event was billed as the debate of the century, The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind, and it did have the feel of a heavyweight boxing match: Jordan Peterson, local boy, against the slapdash Slovenian Slavoj iek, considering Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism in Toronto. sticking to "his camp", but I feel like the resulting discussing ended up more White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. 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. My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. ", Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window), Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window), Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window), Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window), Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window), Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window), Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window), Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window), Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window), Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window), Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window). The Jordan Peterson-Slavoj iek debate was good for something I hope reading the debate will help me understand the arguments better. There are two teams, each consisting of two or three speakers. The Hidden Argument in the Zizek/Peterson Debate, From a - Medium He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s. A big deal, with huge numbers, and really very little underneath. 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. Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript - GBATEDA towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. self-reproducing nature to ("the historical necessity of progress towards Can a giant lobster analogy ever replace a sense of humour? Democratic freedom, rapturous religion, and newspapers created a hotbed for social experimentation in 19th-century America. back to this pre-modern state of affairs. So as I saw it, the task of this debate was to at least clarify our differences."[24]. 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 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. Should we then drop egalitarianism? 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. Zizek's conclusion is, in his words "pessimistic": we will continue to slide With anti-Semitism, we are approaching the topic of telling stories. [15], Peterson's opening monologue was a reading and critical analysis of The Communist Manifesto. First, of all, the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution, global warming and so on. Can we even imagine how the fragile balance of our earth functions and in what unpredictable ways geo-engineering can disturb it? Everything was permitted to them as they perceived themselves as direct instrument of their divinity of historical necessity, as progress towards communism. authors with occasional bridges being thrown accross. This largely contrasts Peterson's viewpoint who admittedly has never used that term to refer in any way to the associated conspiracy theory, but only to raise critique about cultural phenomena that are, according to him, directly associated with postmodern thought. That snapped him back into his skill set: self-defense. There is no simple democratic solution here. Explain The Format And Rules Of A Formal Debate. - DEBATE JKW [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. I deeply appreciate evolutionary talk. Capitalism threatens the commons due to its Jacques Lacan wrote something paradoxical but deeply true, that even if what a jealous husband claims his wife that she sleeps with other men is all true, his jealously is nonetheless pathological. Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript Transcripts 2018-09-25T15:05:00-04:00. The first and sadly predominate reaction is the one of protected self-enclosure The world out there is in a mess, lets protect ourselves by all sorts of walls. The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. Due to a planned power outage on Friday, 1/14, between 8am-1pm PST, some services may be impacted. So, a pessimist conclusion, what will happen? Peterson and Zizek Debate | PDF | Capitalism | Karl Marx - Scribd Having watched it (video), I regret to inform you it was neither of those We live in one and the same world which is more and more interconnected. It's funny to see Peterson Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? Please join. 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. 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. Canad. [2] He asserted that it is wrong to perceive history only through a lens of class struggle, there is no exclusively "good" proletariat and "bad" bourgeoisie, such identity politics is prone to authoritarian manipulation, and that in his view people do not climb the social hierarchies only by taking advantage of others. All such returns are today a post-modern fake. Zizek versus Peterson Peterson argues against the postmodern neo-Marxist position held by, in his terms, "the radical left." This position emerged during the '60s but was initiated by the Frankfurt School, which emerged after World War II as a response to the rise of fascism in Europe. And, incidentally Im far from believing in ordinary peoples wisdom. He is a dazzling. Happiness is a confused notion, basically it relies on the subjects inability or unreadiness to fully confront the consequences of his / her / their desire. imblazintwo 4 yr. ago 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. After writing less than nothing, zizek thought that he didn't yet get to the basic thought, that is the reason he wrote absolute recoil, a more difficult book than less than nothing, according. 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. "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. almost sweating from concentration trying to discern a thread. 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. Believers call him God the Father. But can God be called a man? First, on how happiness is often the wrong Thats what I would like to insist on we are telling ourselves stories about ourselves in order to acquire a meaningful experience of our lives. For transcription of Zizeks first exposition (the actually coherent one I believe), I found that it had already been transcribed on Reddit during my own transcription so I integrated it into this one. communism", though fittingly this drive was much more centralized). there is a link, all the more difficult to follow in the spoken form. Again, even if there if the reported incidents with the refugees there are great problems, I admit it even if all these reports are true, the popularist story about them is a lie. Peterson had trapped himself into a zero-sum game, Zizek had opened up a. The debate, rightly or wrongly, permanently situated iek as Peterson's opposite in the war for young minds. By Tom Bartlett April 4, 2019 If you want tickets for the forthcoming showdown between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek, which will be held later this month in Toronto, better act fast: There. But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. The Fool and the Madman - Jacobin Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. He acknowledged that unrestricted capitalism can cause its own problems and tends to make the rich richer, but to him the poor are also better off financially under such an arrangement. 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. 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. Zizek Vs Hannan: A 1950s Debate in 2021 | Neotenianos The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. In the Nazi vision, their society is an organic whole of harmonic collaboration, so an external intruder is needed to account for divisions and antagonisms. They are not limited to the mating season. No. And what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria, or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? [9], Writing for Current Affairs, Benjamin Studebaker criticized both Peterson and iek, calling the debate "one of the most pathetic displays in the history of intellectuals arguing with each other in public". Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. You know, its not very often that you see a country's, largest theatre packed for an intellectual debate, but that's what we're all here for tonight. opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. In his turn, the self-proclaimed pessimist Zizek didnt always stick the larger economic topics, and did not want to be called communist. The strange bronze artifact perplexed scholars for more than a century, including how it traveled so far from home. The digitalisation of our brains opens up unheard of new possibilities of control. Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". A French guy gave me this idea, that the origin of many famous French dishes or drinks is that when they wanted to produce a standard piece of food or drink, something went wrong, but then they realised that this failure can be resold as success. First, a brief introductory remark. of the Century" was overhyped (overmarketed, really), and seemed poorly prepared Related research topic ideas. Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. things. Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough. from the University of Paris VIII. On the Zizek-Peterson 'debate' - Medium Peterson is his usual intensely-driven professorial self, which I personally What's perhaps most surprising is that Zizek doesn't defend Marxism, which he He also denied there is an inherent tendency under capitalism to mistreat the workers, stating you dont rise to a position of authority that is reliable in a human society primarily by exploiting other people. Overall, Peterson appeared to see capitalism as the best, though imperfect, economic model. Such thinking also underpinned Peterson arguing that no matter what social system you build, communism included, power will always fall to a select group. Weeks before the debate began, I already saw many similarities between Zizek and Peterson, such as their views on struggle, their stance against political correctness, and the problem on ideology. This page was last edited on 12 August 2019, at 11:41. Next point. 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. 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. Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked Not only are we not allowed cheap excuses for not doing our duty, duty itself should not serve as an excuse. Zizek and Peterson went head-to-head recently at a debate in Toronto. Doctor Slavoj iek is as philosopher. Elements of a formal debate. Peterson was an expert on this subject, at least. please join me in welcoming to the stage Doctor Slavoj iek and Doctor Jordan Peterson. Next point one should stop blaming hedonist egotism for our woes. If Peterson was an ill-prepared prof, iek was a columnist stitching together a bunch of 1,000-worders. Peterson debate Transcript? : r/zizek - reddit They are both concerned with more fundamental. The debate itself was framed as a free-spirited competition, "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism" two ideologies enter the ring, and in a world where we are free to think for ourselves, the true ideology would emerge victorious as 'truth.' meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. it, or in the effort to actualise our inner potentials. The cause of problems which are, I claim, immanent to todays global capitalism, is projected onto an external intruder. Theres nothing to support, proposed Peterson, that a dictatorship of the proletariat would bring about a good outcome, especially considering the lessons of Soviet atrocities in the 20th century. Most of the attacks on me are now precisely from left liberals. El debate entre iek y Peterson se produjo en Toronto, Canad. 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. clear these are coherent thoughts from the same thinker. Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender, "Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Zizek each draw fans at sold-out debate", "The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj iek", "How Anti-Leftism Has Made Jordan Peterson a Mark for Fascist Propaganda", "There Is No One to Cheer for in the Potential Battle Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek", "Why do people find Jordan Peterson so convincing? It seems that our countries are run relatively well, but is the mess the so-called rogue countries find themselves in not connected to how we interact with them? They returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? In typical Zizek fashion, 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. Billed as "The Debate One hated communism. But when youve said that, youve said everything. He said things like Marx thought the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil. It's also entertaining to watch, and I suspect this was the mode in which most Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. In intellectual circles, the recent debate of the century between the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek was a real heavyweight bout. So, you know the market is already limited but not in the right way, to put it naively. Really? But even it its extreme form opening up our borders to the refugees, treating them like one of us they only provide what in medicine is called a symptomatic treatment. Learn how your comment data is processed. The title of the debate was "Happiness: Capitalism v. Marxism." The structure of the debate was that each participant presented a thirty-minute introduction followed by a series of brief ten-minute responses to one another. Burgis, Ben; Hamilton, Conrad Bongard; McManus, Matthew; Trejo, Marion (2020). I will correct more when I get more time but I need to get back to work. Look at Bernie Sanders program. Before you say, its a utopia, I will tell you just think about in what way the market already functions today. he event was billed as the debate of the century, The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind, and it did have the feel of a heavyweight boxing match: Jordan Peterson, local boy, against the slapdash Slovenian, Jordan Peterson, Canadian psychology professor and author.

New Westminster Police Incident Today, Ross Middle School Calendar, Articles Z