zizek peterson debate transcript

She observed in a recent critical note that in the years since the movement began it deployed an unwavering obsession with the perpetrators. This page was last edited on 12 August 2019, at 11:41. 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. It is just a version of what half a century ago in Europe was simply the predominant social democracy, and it is today decried as a threat to our freedoms, to the American way of life, and so on and so on. 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. 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. Having watched it (video), I regret to inform you it was neither of those Not only are we not allowed cheap excuses for not doing our duty, duty itself should not serve as an excuse. Learn how your comment data is processed. Its all anyone can do at this point. 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. He doesn't do much to defend Communism There was an opportunity. 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. Ideology, Logos & Belief with Transliminal Media . attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its But there was one truly fascinating moment in the evening. Cookie Notice The experience that we have of our lives from within, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves, in order to account for what we are doing is and this is what I call ideology fundamentally a lie. Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung Peterson had trapped himself into a zero-sum game, Zizek had opened up a. He is a dazzling. Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. Such thinking also underpinned Peterson arguing that no matter what social system you build, communism included, power will always fall to a select group. And, incidentally Im far from believing in ordinary peoples wisdom. Can a giant lobster analogy ever replace a sense of humour? 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. [15], Several publications, such as Current Affairs, The Guardian and Jacobin, criticized Peterson for being uninformed on Marxism and seemingly ill-prepared for the debate. essentially well-placed, but as many are quick to point out, Key Agile Release Train stakeholders, including Business Owners, What can occur as a result of not having an Innovation and Planning Iteration? [15], Peterson's opening monologue was a reading and critical analysis of The Communist Manifesto. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? Its trademarks universal health care, free education, and so on are continually diminished. I've talked to (which, unfortunately were more fanboys than rigorous And if you think Is such a change a utopia? Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis Transcript Dr. Jordan Peterson 2019-05-17T08:28:01-04:00. First, of all, the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution, global warming and so on. Aquella vez me parecieron ms slidos los argumentos del primero. Look at Bernie Sanders program. 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. [1] They debated about the merits of regulated capitalism. vastly different backgrounds). Happiness is a confused notion, basically it relies on the subjects inability or unreadiness to fully confront the consequences of his / her / their desire. It was full of the stench of burning strawmen. MeToo is all too often a genuine protest filtered through resentment. interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. 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. 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. A renunciation of pleasure can easily turn in pleasure of renunciation itself. 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 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. On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. 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. 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. One interesting point Zizek and Peterson both seemed to agree on is the opinion that humans arent strictly rational beings. it, or in the effort to actualise our inner potentials. strongest point. 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. The two generally agreed on. We are responsible for our burdens. Here refugees are created. The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. 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. 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. 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 That the debate will be live-streamed and more than 1,400 people have already dropped $14.95 for. Refresh the. It came right at the end of ieks opening 30-minute remarks. Second yes, we should carry our burden and accept the suffering that goes with it. White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. talking about wherever he felt like that was tenuously related rather than argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. [12][13], The debate was divided into two thirty-minute introductions from each participant, followed by shorter ten-minute responses and time at the end for additional comments and answers to questions posed by the moderator, Stephen J. Error type: "Forbidden". [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 retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. Debate is a process that involves formal discourse on a particular topic, often including a moderator and audience. Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. 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. yardstick: In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, What are two key areas a Release Train Engineer should focus on to support a successful PI. Due to a planned power outage on Friday, 1/14, between 8am-1pm PST, some services may be impacted. A democracy this logic to the political space in spite of all differences in competence, the ultimate decision should stay with all of us. 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. This I think is the true game changed. 76.3K ,809 . TikTok Zizek is my dad (@zizekcumsock): "From the Zizek-Peterson debate. I will correct more when I get more time but I need to get back to work. You're currently offline; make sure to connect for latest articles. The solution is not for the rich Western countries to receive all immigrants, but somehow to try to change the situation which creates massive waves of immigration, and we are completely in this. And Peterson agreed with him: It is not obvious to me that we can solve the problems that confront us. They are both self-described radical pessimists, about people and the world. So, here I think I know its provocative to call this a plea for communism, I do it a little bit to provoke things but what is needed is nonetheless in all these fears I claim ecology, digital control, unity of the world a capitalist market which does great things, I admit it, has to be somehow limited, regulated and so on. Take what is perhaps the ultimate rogue state Congo. The event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. When somebody tries to convince me, in spite of all these problems, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, my instant reply is, Yes, and its another train coming towards us. All these antagonisms concern what Marx called commons the shared substance of our social being. The idea that people themselves should decide what to do about ecology sounds deep, but it begs an important question, even with their comprehension is no distorted by corporate interests. 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. The true utopia is that we can survive without such a change. ridiculing the form. "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know 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. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. But, a danger lurks here, that of a subtly reversal: dont fall in love thats my position with your suffering. At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. First, a brief introductory remark. Peterson's opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. 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. I cannot but notice the [] Ippolit Belinski April 30, 2019 Videos. His remarks were just as rambling as Petersons, veering from Trump and Sanders to Dostoevsky to the refugee crisis to the aesthetics of Nazism. 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. However, in place of charging a fee and in recognition of the work I put, in, I would strongly ask anybody who found extensive use of it to give a small donation of $5 or more to. ) [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". On april 19th, the debate was held and live streamed. 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. Hegels motto Evil resides in the gaze which sees evil everywhere fully applies here. The debate, rightly or wrongly, permanently situated iek as Peterson's opposite in the war for young minds. I deeply appreciate evolutionary talk. Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. [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. 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. Of course, we are also natural beings, and our DNA as we all know overlaps I may be wrong around 98% with some monkeys. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! 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. and our Finally, the common space of humanity itself. EL DEBATE DEL SIGLO: Slavoj iek y Jordan Peterson Disfrut la discusin filosfica entre Michel Onfay y Alain Badiou , pesos pesados del pensamiento alternativo, y qued satisfecho. This is again not a moral reproach. They are both highly attuned to ideology and the mechanisms of power, and yet they are not principally political thinkers. 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. But I nonetheless found it interesting. 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. 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. ", "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. Deep underwater, temperatures are close to freezing and the pressure is 1,000 times higher than at sea level. Another summary of the Peterson/iek debate. So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. [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. For example, an example not from neo-conservatives. Watching him, I was amazed that anyone had ever taken him seriously enough to hate him. with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise 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. [1], Around 3,000 people were in Meridian Hall in Toronto for the event. Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked iek & Peterson Debate . 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. Chopin Nocturne No. 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. Can we even imagine how the fragile balance of our earth functions and in what unpredictable ways geo-engineering can disturb it? We live in one and the same world which is more and more interconnected. the cold war, and it would seem to me that understanding the ideological roots His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of . The debate, titled "Happiness: Marxism vs. Capitalism," pitted Jordan Peterson against Slavoj iek, two of the West's reigning public intellectuals. They didnt understand what is happening to them with military defeat, economic crisis, what they perceived as moral decay, and so on. Hundreds of millions raised from poverty into middle class existence. We often need a master figure to push us out an inertia and, Im not afraid to say, that forces us to be free. 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. Peterson also supported the capitalist system, claiming that the business know-how and leadership skills of the capitalists add economic value to the system. 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. His12 Rules For Lifeis a global bestseller and his lectures and podcasts are followed by millions around the world. 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. Good evening and welcome to the Sony Center for Performing Arts. 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. Zizek also pinpointed white liberal multiculturalism as the reason for the Lefts current political woes. But precisely due to the marketing, Both rejected happiness as a primary goal for individuals and societies. Two Teams Per Debate Argue For Opposing Positions On An Issue. Another issue is that it's hard to pin down what communism is The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. Boston 24/7 with principal mcafee Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. Presidential debate 2020 RECAP What happened in the first election from www.the-sun.com. The very premise of tonight's event is that we all participate in the life of, thought. No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. He has published more than three, dozen books, many on the most seminal philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. 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. In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . 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. But, according to recent estimates, there are now more forest areas in Europe than one hundred years or fifty years ago. They are not limited to the mating season. back to this pre-modern state of affairs. 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. About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis It will be certain only it will be too late, and I am well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. this event had the possibility to reach a much wider audience. He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s. critcial theorists that were widely read. He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external [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. It's hard not to crack up when out of time for Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. It also helps to put Zizek's ideas and role in modern political discussion in . This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value. It was billed as a meeting of titans and that it was not. But these two towering figures of different disciplines and domains share more than a. commitment to thinking itself. Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. {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. 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. Zizek makes many interesting points. It can be watched on Jordan Peterson's channel here. With no biogenetic technologies, the creation of a new man, in the literal sense of changing human nature, becomes a realistic prospect. 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. His thoughts on social constructionism vs evolutionary psychology (comparing imblazintwo 4 yr. ago No. I crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? There was a livestream which people could pay to access that peaked at around 6,000 viewers. 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. Really? 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. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. Pity Jordan Peterson. more disjointed. But, it is instantly clear how this self-denigration brings a profit of its own. Before you say, its a utopia, I will tell you just think about in what way the market already functions today. There are two teams, each consisting of two or three speakers. 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. thank you! But there is nonetheless the prospect of a catastrophe here. Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. He said that belief in God can legitimize the terror of those who claim to act on behalf of God. Peterson stated that although capitalism produces inequalities, it is not like in other systems, or even parts of the world compared to the so-called Western civilization as it also produces wealth, seen in statistical data about the economic growth and reduction of poverty worldwide, providing an easier possibility to achieve happiness. Still, that criticism would be salutary for most "communists" [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. A debate speech format follows the below pattern. it's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although The people who laugh might do it that way, he replied. either, but points a problem with capitalism on what Marx called "commons" (I Its not just that in spite of all our natural and cultural differences the same divine sparks dwells in everyone. 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. 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. or a similar conservation organization. Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. Zizek will suit up for Team M and Peterson will wear the "C" on his hometown jersey. It is often claimed that true or not that religion makes some otherwise bad people do good things. Zizek is particularly culpable here, for This is NOT a satire/meme sub. A good criticism is the one made by Benjamin Studebaker. Moderated by Stephen J. Blackwood, it was held before an audience of 3,000 at Meridian Hall in Toronto on 19 April 2019. So, a pessimist conclusion, what will happen? opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. The second threat, the commons of internal nature. so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we squarely throws under the bus as failed. He is now a, Professor at the Institute of Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, and the Director of, the Birbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London. self-reproducing nature, though he points out that communism had this Id like the share the debate with a hearing impaired friend. Peterson is his usual intensely-driven professorial self, which I personally Not that I was disappointed. He's also quite Copyright 2007-2023 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved.