Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. his remarks, he starts telling a Slovenian joke, then after the first sentence [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. I deeply appreciate evolutionary talk. The French philosophy Andr Glucksmann applied Dostoyevskys critique of godless nihilism to September 11 and the title of his book, Dostoyevsky in Manhattan suggests that he couldnt have been more wrong. Forced marriages and homophobia is ok, just as long as they are limited to another country which is otherwise fully included in the world market. or a similar conservation organization. Its all anyone can do at this point. back to this pre-modern state of affairs. The Jordan Peterson-Slavoj iek debate was good for something Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. causes (from Donald Trump to migrants). 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. Jordan Peterson vs Slavoj Zizek was more a performance than a debate However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. 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. Not only are we not allowed cheap excuses for not doing our duty, duty itself should not serve as an excuse. Related research topic ideas. 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. First by admitting we are in a deep mess. Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity. 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. 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. [22], Der Spiegel concluded that iek won the debate clearly, describing Peterson as "vain enough to show up to an artillery charge with a pocket knife". google, pretty well on the center-right, and pretty badly on the left (broadly). 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. In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. 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. Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. As soon as jordan peterson announced he. Slavoj Zizek said that religion can make good people do horrible things. [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". 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. 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. ) But precisely due to the marketing, Peterson and Zizek Debate Transcription : r/zizek - reddit 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. Does Donald Trump stand for traditional values? This means something, but nature I think we should never forget this is not a stable hierarchical system but full of improvisations. 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. Peterson, I was interested to learn they'd have a debate. A big deal, with huge numbers, and really very little underneath. 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. with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. should have replied to defend communism. Last nights sold-out debate between Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek and Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson at the Sony Centre was pitched as a no-holds-barred throw down . However, this is not enough. Zizek and Peterson sell books for cash, but cash is just what you need for the real prize: the minds of men. Most of the attacks on me are now precisely from left liberals. It's hard not to crack up when out of time for [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. Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung yardstick: In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, At one point, he made a claim that human hierarchies are not determined by power because that would be too unstable a system, and a few in the crowd tittered. 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. No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. 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. 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. Id like the share the debate with a hearing impaired friend. 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. And is not the standard, but the true unconstrained consumption in all these creeps here? 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. Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough. The people who laugh might do it that way, he replied. 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 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. On april 19th, the debate was held and live streamed. 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. iek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, werent Marxist at all. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan almost sweating from concentration trying to discern a thread. Canad. Copyright 2007-2023 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved. 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. The strange bronze artifact perplexed scholars for more than a century, including how it traveled so far from home. 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. Take what is perhaps the ultimate rogue state Congo. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." [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". The very premise of tonight's event is that we all participate in the life of, thought. And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. Pity Jordan Peterson. 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! This Was An Interesting Debate. increasingly erratic in the rest of the debates. In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . Below is the transcript of zizek's introductory statement. Learn how your comment data is processed. We live in one and the same world which is more and more interconnected. 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. He is a dazzling. The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past end of quote. In fact, this was a surprise for many, but both men tended to agree a whole lot, ", "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. What appears as its excesses its regulatory zeal is I think an impotent reaction that masks the reality of a defeat. No. Im far from a simple social constructionism here. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. Scholarly publications with full text pdf download. 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 . I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. 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. 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.' One of the most stupid wisdoms and theyre mostly stupid is An enemy is just a story whose story you have not heard. They are both concerned with more fundamental. IEK V/S PETERSON: Anlisis del "debate del siglo". Peterson Zizek Debate Transcript - DEBATGR Highlights of the "debate of the century": Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek 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. So as I saw it, the task of this debate was to at least clarify our differences."[24]. White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. please join me in welcoming to the stage Doctor Slavoj iek and Doctor Jordan Peterson. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. So, how to act? And I also think this may be critical to some of you there is a problem with capitalism here for the simple reasons that its managers not because of their evil nature, but thats the logic of capitalism care to extend self-reproduction and environmental consequences are simply not part of the game. 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. towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time. But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. I mean primarily so called popularly neural-link, the direct link between our brain and digital machines, and then brains among themselves. Really? So, how to react to this? Slavoj Zizek Vs Jordan Peterson: An Assessment | Neotenianos With no biogenetic technologies, the creation of a new man, in the literal sense of changing human nature, becomes a realistic prospect. manifesto, which he'd re-read for the occasion. We often need a master figure to push us out an inertia and, Im not afraid to say, that forces us to be free. from the University of Paris VIII. agreement (as well they should, adopting neither deluded far-left or far-right 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. It was officially titled Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, and was drummed up thoroughly. This one is from the Guardian. I call this the tankie-bashing bit. [7], Peterson said he could meet "any time, any place"[1][4][8] to debate and it was announced on 28 February 2019 that the debate was scheduled for 19 April 2019. Zizek's conclusion is, in his words "pessimistic": we will continue to slide 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. First, a brief introductory remark. 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. While the two take different political stances, both have been known to rail against political correctness and found that issue in common. knowledgeable about communism. Cookie Notice Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across.