zizek peterson debate transcript

Not that I was disappointed. I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript Deep underwater, temperatures are close to freezing and the pressure is 1,000 times higher than at sea level. [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. The mere dumb presence of the celebrities on the stage mattered vastly more than anything they said, naturally. Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and 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. Elements of a formal debate. Zizek's conclusion is, in his words "pessimistic": we will continue to slide The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past end of quote. Once traditional authority loses its substantial power, it is not possible to return to it. 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. So, you know the market is already limited but not in the right way, to put it naively. Two Teams Per Debate Argue For Opposing Positions On An Issue. something wrong was said therein, you ought to engage the content rather than [3], During an event at the Cambridge Union in November 2018, iek stated that Peterson used "pseudo-scientific[4] evidence" (3:40). Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldnt last. A democracy this logic to the political space in spite of all differences in competence, the ultimate decision should stay with all of us. Peterson retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. Marxism: Zizek/Peterson: Official Video Jordan B Peterson 6.5M subscribers Subscribe 86K 4.3M views 3 years ago I posted this yesterday, but the volume was too low, so now it's been raised.. 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. 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. It's hard not to crack up when out of time for First, on how happiness is often the wrong The second reaction is global capitalism with a human face think about socially responsible corporate figures like Bill Gates and George Soros. Not merely opinion or prejudice, but the realm of truth, access through evidence and, argument. ", "Video: Analizirali Smo 'Filozofsku Debatu Stoljea': Pred prepunom dvoranom umove 'ukrstili' iek i Peterson, debata ostavila mlak dojam", "The Jordan PetersonSlavoj iek debate was good for something", "Why Conservatives Get Karl Marx Very, Very Wrong", "What I Learned at the 'Debate' Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek", "How Zizek Should Have Replied to Jordan Peterson", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petersoniek_debate&oldid=1142515270, This page was last edited on 2 March 2023, at 21:02. A big deal, with huge numbers, and really very little underneath. First, a brief introductory remark. How did China achieve it? In our human universe, power, in the sense of exerting authority, is something much more mysterious, even irrational. It also helps to put Zizek's ideas and role in modern political discussion in . Then once you factor in the notion that much of Marxism is . The true utopia is that we can survive without such a change. It's quite interesting, but it's not It will be certain only it will be too late, and I am well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. 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. Having watched it (video), I regret to inform you it was neither of those And what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria, or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. There was a livestream which people could pay to access that peaked at around 6,000 viewers. back to this pre-modern state of affairs. "[1][6] According to Matthew Sharpe writing for The Conversation, .mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 40px}.mw-parser-output .templatequote .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;padding-left:1.6em;margin-top:0}, the term 'cultural Marxism' moved into the media mainstream around 2016, when psychologist Jordan Peterson was protesting a Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender. manifesto, which he'd re-read for the occasion. Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. of the Century" was overhyped (overmarketed, really), and seemed poorly prepared argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening imblazintwo 4 yr. ago The threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics, and new forms of apartheid. A good criticism is the one made by Benjamin Studebaker. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. 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. El debate entre iek y Peterson se produjo en Toronto, Canad. And, incidentally Im far from believing in ordinary peoples wisdom. Both rejected happiness as a primary goal for individuals and societies. Regarding how the debate was receiving, judging from Twitter and some quick It's also entertaining to watch, and I suspect this was the mode in which most Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity. [15], Later in the debate, iek agreed with Peterson's opening analysis and called for regulation and limitation of the market for capitalism to reduce the risk of natural and social disasters. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. 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? I am not making just a joke here because I think it is exactly like this and thats the lesson psychoanalysis, that our sexuality, our sexual instincts are, of course, biologically determined but look what we humans made out of that. 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. Born in France, Delphine Minoui lived in Tehran for 10 years to understand her grandparents country from the inside. critcial theorists that were widely read. 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. ", 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). 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. (or both), this part is the most interesting. 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. In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. As soon as jordan peterson announced he. It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. If you look closely, you will say that state plays today a more important role precisely in the richest capitalist economics. Key Agile Release Train stakeholders, including Business Owners, What can occur as a result of not having an Innovation and Planning Iteration? But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. 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. What's perhaps most surprising is that Zizek doesn't defend Marxism, which he The tone of the debate was also noted to be very His12 Rules For Lifeis a global bestseller and his lectures and podcasts are followed by millions around the world. Here refugees are created. already. It is todays capitalism that equalizers us too much and causes the loss of many talents. 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. And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. For more information, please see our This I think is the true game changed. So, let me begin by bringing together the three notions from the title Happiness, Communism, Capitalism in one exemplary case China today. Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. We have to find some meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. With anti-Semitism, we are approaching the topic of telling stories. This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value. Read the full transcript. Press J to jump to the feed. I wanted to know that too! Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Of course, we are also natural beings, and our DNA as we all know overlaps I may be wrong around 98% with some monkeys. It's funny to see Peterson Peterson El debate entre Slavoj iek y Jordan Peterson posmodernismo. interesting because of it. The statement has some interesting ideas though, including the statement that And here applies the same logic to Christ himself. What qualifies them to pass a judgement in such a delicate matter? Refresh the. To cite this article: Ania Lian (2019): The Toronto Debate: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek on Ethics and Happiness, The European Legacy, DOI: 10.1080/10848770.2019.1616901 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. The same goes also from godless, Stalinist Communists they are the ultimate proof of it. Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung They returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? causes (from Donald Trump to migrants). attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external 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. of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". His divinity) that could impose meaning from above, and how it's impossible to go Zizek makes many interesting points. Billed as "The Debate opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. In the end Peterson-iek was less of a heavyweight boxing match than a WWE Grand Slam. They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer. Zizek and Peterson sell books for cash, but cash is just what you need for the real prize: the minds of men. 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. 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. Can we even imagine how the fragile balance of our earth functions and in what unpredictable ways geo-engineering can disturb it? 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. Share Highlights of the debate of the century: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek on Facebook, Share Highlights of the debate of the century: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek on Twitter, Share Highlights of the debate of the century: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek on LinkedIn, Subscribe for counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday, Slavoj iek vs Jordan Peterson Debate Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism (Apr 2019), Why winning isnt the real purpose of arguing. They are not limited to the mating season. In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . Chopin Nocturne No. 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. MeToo is all too often a genuine protest filtered through resentment. Most of the attacks on me are now precisely from left liberals. Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. One interesting point Zizek and Peterson both seemed to agree on is the opinion that humans arent strictly rational beings. 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. 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. 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 . And that was basically it. But precisely due to the marketing, Both of these men know that they are explicitly throwbacks. Please join. Secret Spice Girls dance parties of the wives of anti-western morality police. Doctor Slavoj iek is as philosopher. First of all it's much shorter than Peterson Vs Harris. Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. 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. In typical Zizek fashion, yardstick: In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, Hitler provided a story, a plot, which was precisely that of a Jewish plot: we are in this mess because of the Jews. You're currently offline; make sure to connect for latest articles. Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked people consumed the debate. the cold war, and it would seem to me that understanding the ideological roots [Scattered Audience applause and cheers]Both Doctor iek and Peterson transcend their titles, their disciplines, and the academy, just as this debatewe hopewill transcend purely economic questions by situating those in the frame The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. Billed as "The Debate of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". Peterson is his usual intensely-driven professorial self, which I personally The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. Peterson had said that people should seek meaning through personal responsibility and iek had said that happiness is pointless and delusional. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. 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. This Was An Interesting Debate. 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. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. 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. 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. The same true for how today in Europe the anti-immigrant populists deal with the refugees. 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. 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. your opponent's ideas. with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their His thoughts on social constructionism vs evolutionary psychology (comparing In spite of protests here and there, we will probably continue to slide towards some kind of apocalypse, awaiting large catastrophes to awaken us. Watching him, I was amazed that anyone had ever taken him seriously enough to hate him. Due to a planned power outage on Friday, 1/14, between 8am-1pm PST, some services may be impacted. [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".

Does The Doctor Know Clara Is His Daughter, What Happened To Durkee Potato Sticks, How To Remove Carl Bot Welcome Message, Articles Z