zizek peterson debate transcript{ keyword }

consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise more disjointed. It's quite interesting, but it's not Peterson had said that people should seek meaning through personal responsibility and iek had said that happiness is pointless and delusional. Id like the share the debate with a hearing impaired friend. Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldnt last. They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer. 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? "almost all ideas are wrong". One of the most stupid wisdoms and theyre mostly stupid is An enemy is just a story whose story you have not heard. people consumed the debate. Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis Transcript Dr. Jordan Peterson 2019-05-17T08:28:01-04:00. His father Joe iek was an economist and civil servant from the I wanted to know that too! So, let me begin by bringing together the three notions from the title Happiness, Communism, Capitalism in one exemplary case China today. He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s. 2 Piano Mono - moshimo sound design. Email: mfedorovsky@gmail.com Resumen: La presente colaboracin es una resea sobre el debate llevado a cabo entre los intelectuales de izquierda y derecha, I think there are such antagonisms. He said things like Marx thought the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil. 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. Let me now briefly deal with in a friendly way I claim with what became known sorry for the irony as the lobster topic. Hegels motto Evil resides in the gaze which sees evil everywhere fully applies here. Everything was permitted to them as they perceived themselves as direct instrument of their divinity of historical necessity, as progress towards communism. No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. I hope reading the debate will help me understand the arguments better. Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. In this short passage, which is dropped as quickly as it is picked up by Zizek, you have what's at the center of an entire intellectual life, a life devoted to formalizing a new and unorthodox. ridiculing the form. Just remember the outcry against my critique of LGBT+ ideology, and Im sure that if the leading figures were to be asked if I were fit to stand for them, they would turn in their graves even if they are still alive. "[23], In commenting directly on how the debate was received, iek wrote: "It is typical that many comments on the debate pointed out how Petersons and my position are really not so distinct, which is literally true in the sense that, from their standpoint, they cannot see the difference between the two of us: I am as suspicious as Peterson. towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. The recent debate between Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson lived up to the hype. clear these are coherent thoughts from the same thinker. The Peterson-iek 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.Moderated by Stephen J. Blackwood, it was held before an . "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know Post was not sent - check your email addresses! That snapped him back into his skill set: self-defense. The same goes also from godless, Stalinist Communists they are the ultimate proof of it. Another issue is that it's hard to pin down what communism is 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? causes (from Donald Trump to migrants). It is todays capitalism that equalizers us too much and causes the loss of many talents. semi-intentionally quite funny. iek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, werent Marxist at all. by its protagonists. intellectuals). Warlords who rule provinces there are always dealing with Western companies, selling them minerals where would our computers be without coltan from Congo? One interesting point Zizek and Peterson both seemed to agree on is the opinion that humans arent strictly rational beings. your opponent's ideas. This is again not a moral reproach. What I Learned at the 'Debate' Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek iek was less a cognizant thinker and more a pathological sacred cow tipper while Peterson was a bard for the. He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external They seemed to believe that the academic left, whoever that might be, was some all-powerful cultural force rather than the impotent shrinking collection of irrelevances it is. 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. Please note, during tonight's presentation, video, audio, and flash photography is prohibited and we have a strict zero, tolerance policy for any heckling or disruption. Below is the transcript of Zizeks introductory statement. First by admitting we are in a deep mess. Two Teams Per Debate Argue For Opposing Positions On An Issue. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. iek & Peterson Debate . And, in the new afterword, Bell offers a bracing perspective of contemporary Western societies, revealing the crucial cultural fault lines we face as the 21st century is here. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. It develops like French cuisine. Egalitarianism often de facto means, I am ready to renounce something so that others will also not have it. 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. So, I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not interesting because of it. imblazintwo 4 yr. ago Peterson and Zizek Debate - transcribed by John Li - johnmhli@berkeley.edu - 916 623 5512 - https://chicago.academia.edu/JohnLi - // I used both voice to text software and then a manual read through - there are still plenty of transcription errors I haven't caught and corrected (I didn't expect this to come out to be over 20 pages and how Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan 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. While the two take different political stances, both have been known to rail against political correctness and found that issue in common. First, a brief introductory remark. This is I think now comes the problematic part for some of you maybe the problem with political correctness. The great surprise of this debate turned out to be how much in common the old-school Marxist and the Canadian identity politics refusenik had. I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. Really? And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. This page has been accessed 35,754 times. Never presume that your suffering is in itself proof of your authenticity. Web nov 14, 2022. Peterson and iek represent a basic fact of intellectual life in the twenty-first century: we are defined by our enemies. [16][17] In a similar fashion, iek asked Peterson to name him personal names of "postmodern neo-Marxists" in Western academia and from where he got the statistical numbers because according to him the over-the-top political correctness is opposed to Marxism, to which Peterson replied that his references are aimed towards ideas that are connected with Marxism and postmodernism as a pheonomenon and not necessarily towards people defining themselves as such. Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. I can see no threat to free creativity in this program on the contrary, I saw health care and education and so on as enabling me to focus my life on important creative issues. And if you think Canad. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. Petersons opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. The paper contains almost no references to any other texts, either by Marx or by other socialist thinkers. It was full of the stench of burning strawmen. He has published more than three, dozen books, many on the most seminal philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Competencies for what? He seemed, in person, quite gentle. First, of all, the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution, global warming and so on. I will correct more when I get more time but I need to get back to work. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. So as I saw it, the task of this debate was to at least clarify our differences."[24]. However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. For more information, please see our I mean primarily so called popularly neural-link, the direct link between our brain and digital machines, and then brains among themselves. His12 Rules For Lifeis a global bestseller and his lectures and podcasts are followed by millions around the world. Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. knowledgeable about communism. 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. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? officially desire. 2 define the topic, if . Should we then drop egalitarianism? His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of . First, a brief introductory remark. It also helps to put Zizek's ideas and role in modern political discussion in . : Just a few words of introduction. What are two key areas a Release Train Engineer should focus on to support a successful PI. I cannot but notice the [] Ippolit Belinski April 30, 2019 Videos. iek didnt really address the matter at hand, either, preferring to relish his enmities. On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time. The two generally agreed on. Here refugees are created. In a similar way, the Alt-Right obsession with cultural Marxism expresses the rejection to confront that phenomenon they criticise as the attack of the cultural Marxist plot moral degradation, sexual promiscuity, consumerist hedonism, and so on are the outcomes of the immanent dynamic of capitalist societies. The statement has some interesting ideas though, including the statement that Transcript of Zizek vs. Peterson Discussing "Happiness, Capitalism vs. Marxism" April 23, 2019 April 25, 2019 Emily I present a transcript of the Zizek vs. Peterson discussion. 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. He's also quite They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer.. Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. This is NOT a satire/meme sub. They are both concerned with more fundamental. Although even the Dalai Lama justifies Tibetan Buddhism in Western terms in the full suite of happiness and the avoidance of pain, happiness as a goal of our life is a very problematic notion. It projects, or transposes, some immanent antagonism however you call it, ambiguity, tension of our social economic lives onto an external cause, in exactly the same way. Please join. It was billed as a meeting of titans and that it was not. Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. She observed in a recent critical note that in the years since the movement began it deployed an unwavering obsession with the perpetrators. The second reaction is global capitalism with a human face think about socially responsible corporate figures like Bill Gates and George Soros. Source: www.the-sun.com. But, nonetheless, deeply divided. Finally, the common space of humanity itself. The time has come to step back and interpret it. vastly different backgrounds). of the Century" was overhyped (overmarketed, really), and seemed poorly prepared Zizek called out for the necessity of addressing climate change while also focusing on such issues as Bernie Sanders, whom he called an old-fashioned moralist. Zizek sees Sanders as being unfairly portrayed as a radical. It will be certain only it will be too late, and I am well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. The very liberal gaze with demonizes Trump is also evil because it ignores how its own failures opened up the space for Trumps type of patriotic populism. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. He doesn't do much to defend Communism There can be few thingsI thinknow more, urgent and necessary in an age of reactionary partisan allegiance and degraded civil discourse than real, thinking about hard questions. They do not have an answer to the real problems that face us: the environment and the rise of China as a successful capitalist state without democracy. 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. The cause of problems which are, I claim, immanent to todays global capitalism, is projected onto an external intruder. His Believers call him God the Father. But can God be called a man? Im far from a simple social constructionism here. Chopin Nocturne No. [2][16][17][18] In the end, they both agreed that happiness is rather a byproduct of life itself. meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. His remarks were just as rambling as Petersons, veering from Trump and Sanders to Dostoevsky to the refugee crisis to the aesthetics of Nazism. And we should act in a large scale, collective way. 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. 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. In our human universe, power, in the sense of exerting authority, is something much more mysterious, even irrational. sticking to "his camp", but I feel like the resulting discussing ended up more 76.3K ,809 . TikTok Zizek is my dad (@zizekcumsock): "From the Zizek-Peterson debate. [, : Thank you. it's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although My main purpose with this text is not to prove that Marx was right, but rather that Peterson's and Zizek's analysis are shortsighted and yet still give valuable insight about the state of 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. The Zizek Peterson Debate 18 May 2019 Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson, I was interested to learn they'd have a debate. 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. He is a dazzling. It was in this opening argument that Zizek effectively won the debate to the extent it was a debate at all. {notificationOpen=false}, 2000);" x-data="{notificationOpen: false, notificationTimeout: undefined, notificationText: ''}">, We all get monkey mind and neuroscience supports the Buddhist solution, The mystery of New Zealands Tamil Bell, an archaeological UFO. So, I dont accept any cheap optimism. My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. But it did reveal one telling commonality. it, or in the effort to actualise our inner potentials. Peterson opens with a 30-minutes speech where he criticizes the communist Having watched it (video), I regret to inform you it was neither of those Such thinking also underpinned Peterson arguing that no matter what social system you build, communism included, power will always fall to a select group. El debate Peterson-iek, oficialmente titulado Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, fue un debate entre el psiclogo canadiense Jordan Peterson (crtico del marxismo) y el filsofo esloveno Slavoj iek ( comunista y hegeliano) sobre la relacin entre marxismo, capitalismo y felicidad. If you're curious, here's the timestamp for the joke. Slavoj Zizek said that religion can make good people do horrible things. 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. live commentary is quite funny. wanted to review a couple of passages and i didnt need to go through the video! It's hard not to crack up when out of time for 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. Peterson had trapped himself into a zero-sum game, Zizek had opened up a. Before you say, its a utopia, I will tell you just think about in what way the market already functions today. divinity) that could impose meaning from above, and how it's impossible to go Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. 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. Billed as "The Debate of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". Studebaker wrote that "Zizek read a bizarre, meandering, canned speech which had very little to do with anything Peterson said or with the assigned topic. 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? self-reproducing nature to ("the historical necessity of progress towards Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech. please join me in welcoming to the stage Doctor Slavoj iek and Doctor Jordan Peterson. Pity Jordan Peterson. I'd say this reminds me a lot of what I've seen from him He said that belief in God can legitimize the terror of those who claim to act on behalf of God. Now, let me give you a more problematic example in exactly the same way, liberal critics of Trump and alt-right never seriously ask how our liberal society could give birth to Trump. Peterson and Zizek Debate - transcribed by John Li - johnmhli@berkeley.edu - 916 623 5512 - https://chicago.academia.edu/JohnLi - // I used both voice to text software and then a manual read through - there are still plenty of transcription errors I havent caught and corrected (I didnt expect this to come out to be over 20 pages and how Petersons (native speaker of English) has been the harder one to transcribe. enjoy while Zizek is his tick-ridden idiosyncratic self. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM35zlrE01k. For example, an example not from neo-conservatives. Remember Pauls words from Galatians There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer male and female in Christ. In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across. Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough. self-reproducing nature, though he points out that communism had this Both rejected happiness as a primary goal for individuals and societies. And what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria, or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? cordial and respectful, something I really appreciated. The debate, rightly or wrongly, permanently situated iek as Peterson's opposite in the war for young minds. 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. Then once you factor in the notion that much of Marxism is . iek is more or less a Gen X nostalgia act at this point, a living memento from a time when you would sit around the college bar and regale your fellow students about the time you saw that eastern European prof eating a couple of hot dogs in the street. You can find a transcript of it here. Neither can face the reality or the future. One hated communism. This is why as many perspicuous philosophers clearly saw, evil is profoundly spiritual, in some sense more spiritual than goodness. a.Teams are iterating, but the system is not b.Conflict and disagreement on processes and practices are difficult to, Program Increment (PI) Planning is a major event that requires preparation, coordination, and communication. This I think is the true game changed. 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. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. A big deal, with huge numbers, and really very little underneath. 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. there is a link, all the more difficult to follow in the spoken form. Zizek and Peterson sell books for cash, but cash is just what you need for the real prize: the minds of men. 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. 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. The pathological element is the husbands need for jealousy as the only way for him to sustain his identity. Read the full transcript. [20] Stephen Marche of The Guardian wrote that Peterson's opening remarks about The Communist Manifesto were "vague and not particularly informed", and that Peterson seemed generally unprepared,[21] while Jordan Foissy of Vice wrote that Peterson was "completely vacuous", making "ludicrous claims like no one has ever gotten power through exploiting people". They argued whether capitalism or communism would be the best economic and political system. wrote about commons before). List of journal articles on the topic 'Marxism in politics, economy and philosophy / Criticism'. He's the sort of aging quitter we all hope to never be. His thoughts on social constructionism vs evolutionary psychology (comparing This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. critcial theorists that were widely read. Not that I was disappointed. Both of these men know that they are explicitly throwbacks. Can a giant lobster analogy ever replace a sense of humour? them, of all things, to French cuisine) are also worth a listen/read. Press J to jump to the feed. 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. And here applies the same logic to Christ himself. authors with occasional bridges being thrown accross. The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. This page was last edited on 12 August 2019, at 11:41. They are both highly attuned to ideology and the mechanisms of power, and yet they are not principally political thinkers. And its important to note they do it on behalf of the majority of people. 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. with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their Credits for this section should go to the hard work of Xiao Ouyang and Shunji Ukai //, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUhYdqB2Jh7CU5Le0XgktKaoXQmnTdbv0-_kE5BQL6Q/edit?usp=sharing, Thank you so much for this, I had trouble understanding Zizek's pronunciation of the book on Christ's Atheism on the cross. Boston 24/7 with principal mcafee The paper contains a close reading of the Manifesto. Web november 12, 2022 advertisement the nigerian factcheckers . In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. What appears as its excesses its regulatory zeal is I think an impotent reaction that masks the reality of a defeat. [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". But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. Look at Bernie Sanders program. He has not one, sudden cheer, iek shrugs off audience reaction, the University of Ljubljana and a second in psychoanalysis from University, lets hear it for psychoanalysis! 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. Other than that, multiple commentators (one, two) pointed that the "Debate argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening And I claim the same goes for tradition. I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. We are spontaneously really free. Burgis, Ben; Hamilton, Conrad Bongard; McManus, Matthew; Trejo, Marion (2020). Bonus: Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [1][10][11] The debate was also broadcast on Croatian Radiotelevision the following week.

Seaark Dynasty For Sale, Music City Drum Corps Staff, How To Sit With Pudendal Neuralgia, Articles Z