zizek peterson debate transcript

His12 Rules For Lifeis a global bestseller and his lectures and podcasts are followed by millions around the world. Because the left doesn't have its own house in order", "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? [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". strongest point. 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. At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx 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. 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. 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. The tone of the debate was also noted to be very El debate entre iek y Peterson se produjo en Toronto, Canad. Still, that criticism would be salutary for most "communists" They argued whether capitalism or communism would be the best economic and political system. 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 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. 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. They passionately support LGBT, they advocate charities and so on. My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. [1] They debated about the merits of regulated capitalism. Boston 24/7 with principal mcafee This is how refugees are created. Everything was permitted to them as they perceived themselves as direct instrument of their divinity of historical necessity, as progress towards communism. 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. Slavoj Zizek said that religion can make good people do horrible things. Once traditional authority loses its substantial power, it is not possible to return to it. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. In this sense, the image of Donald Trump is also a fetish, the last thing a liberal sees before confronting actual social tensions. with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their And we should act in a large scale, collective way. 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. Is there, in todays United States, really too much equality? Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung First, a brief introductory remark. So, I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise it, or in the effort to actualise our inner potentials. MICHAEL FEDOROVSKY 1* 1* Investigador Independiente y ensayista. 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. [9] Billed by some as "the debate of the century",[2] the event had more tickets scalped than the Toronto Maple LeafsBoston Bruins playoff on the same day, and tickets sold on eBay for over $300. The time has come to step back and interpret it. 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. Posted on August 20, 2021 by David Roman. Really? We often need a master figure to push us out an inertia and, Im not afraid to say, that forces us to be free. Peterson is his usual intensely-driven professorial self, which I personally 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. Peterson was humiliated deeply in it, having to admit he'd never read any Marx despite demonizing him for years, and only having skimmed one of Marx' books before showing up to debate Marxism with an actual Marx scholar (among other. The event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. 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. 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.' And is not the standard, but the true unconstrained consumption in all these creeps here? So, a pessimist conclusion, what will happen? A debate speech format follows the below pattern. Hundreds of millions raised from poverty into middle class existence. 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. [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. It's hard not to crack up when out of time for statement. Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. Doctor Slavoj iek is as philosopher. squarely throws under the bus as failed. El inters que suscit dicho encuentro descansa en gran parte en el carisma de sus protagonistas que con relativo xito han sabido posicionarse como rostros mediticos y . What appears as its excesses its regulatory zeal is I think an impotent reaction that masks the reality of a defeat. Then once you factor in the notion that much of Marxism is . I think there are such antagonisms. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton. The Church of England is debating if believers should stop using gendered language when talking about God. SLAVOJ IEK: . 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. But there was one truly fascinating moment in the evening. 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. In intellectual circles, the recent debate of the century between the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek was a real heavyweight bout. 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. Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? So, I dont accept any cheap optimism. So, how to react to this? it's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although IQ, Politics, and the Left: A Conversation with Douglas Murray Transcript Nina Paley: Animator Extraordinaire Transcript Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript Both of these men know that they are explicitly throwbacks. The debate can best be seen as a collection of interesting ideas from both 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. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. 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. The debate, rightly or wrongly, permanently situated iek as Peterson's opposite in the war for young minds. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. Neither can face the reality or the future. Below is the transcript of zizek's introductory statement. First of all it's much shorter than Peterson Vs Harris. 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. #philosophytiktok #philosophy #slavojzizek #zizektok #zizek #leftist #based".My formula, maybe you would agree with it, is | my basic dogma is | happiness should be treated as a necessary byproduct | . Look at Bernie Sanders program. increasingly erratic in the rest of the debates. What qualifies them to pass a judgement in such a delicate matter? "[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. His 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. [1], Around 3,000 people were in Meridian Hall in Toronto for the event. 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. Its not just that in spite of all our natural and cultural differences the same divine sparks dwells in everyone. Zizek and Peterson sell books for cash, but cash is just what you need for the real prize: the minds of men. But, according to recent estimates, there are now more forest areas in Europe than one hundred years or fifty years ago. Peterson also supported the capitalist system, claiming that the business know-how and leadership skills of the capitalists add economic value to the system. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough. Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis Transcript Dr. Jordan Peterson 2019-05-17T08:28:01-04:00. First, on how happiness is often the wrong 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! Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. 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. Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. Never presume that your suffering is in itself proof of your authenticity. However, this is not enough. ", "Snimka dvoboja titana ieka i Petersona", "HRT Je Jedina Televizija U Europi Koja Je Dobila Pravo Prikazati 'Debatu Stoljea': Evo kada moete pogledati filozofski dvoboj iek - Peterson", "Jordan Peterson vs Slavoj iek was more a performance than a debate", "Jordan Peterson i Slavoj iek: Debata stoljea ili precijenjeni show? "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know This means something, but nature I think we should never forget this is not a stable hierarchical system but full of improvisations. He's also quite "[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. He said things like Marx thought the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil. Freedom and responsibility hurt they require an effort, and the highest function of an authentic master is to literally to awake in us to our freedom. 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. 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. imblazintwo 4 yr. ago And here applies the same logic to Christ himself. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM35zlrE01k. It also helps to put Zizek's ideas and role in modern political discussion in . Post was not sent - check your email addresses! [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. I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. All these antagonisms concern what Marx called commons the shared substance of our social being. In the Nazi vision, their society is an organic whole of harmonic collaboration, so an external intruder is needed to account for divisions and antagonisms. ", "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. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. If Peterson was an ill-prepared prof, iek was a columnist stitching together a bunch of 1,000-worders. Hitler was one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century. "almost all ideas are wrong". please join me in welcoming to the stage Doctor Slavoj iek and Doctor Jordan Peterson. His charge against Peterson's argument is followed with how he thinks Zizek I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Peterson didn't seem more His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of . With anti-Semitism, we are approaching the topic of telling stories. He couldnt believe it. 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? of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". 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. In such times of urgency, when we know we have to act but dont know how to act, thinking is needed. He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. Billed as "The Debate El denominado "Debate del siglo" entre el filsofo y socilogo esloveno Slavoj iek y el psiclogo canadiense Jordan Peterson, fue uno de los eventos intelectuales de mayor trascendencia del ltimo tiempo. Can a giant lobster analogy ever replace a sense of humour? Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. 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. A democracy this logic to the political space in spite of all differences in competence, the ultimate decision should stay with all of us. We are responsible for our burdens. Regarding how the debate was receiving, judging from Twitter and some quick Not merely opinion or prejudice, but the realm of truth, access through evidence and, argument. Related research topic ideas. the cold war, and it would seem to me that understanding the ideological roots his remarks, he starts telling a Slovenian joke, then after the first sentence 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. Peterson retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. Web november 12, 2022 advertisement the nigerian factcheckers . 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. Let me now briefly deal with in a friendly way I claim with what became known sorry for the irony as the lobster topic. Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript. Believers call him God the Father. But can God be called a man? The second threat, the commons of internal nature. Should we then drop egalitarianism? But, are the Chinese any happier for all that? This page has been accessed 35,754 times. Zizek makes many interesting points. Learn how your comment data is processed. iek & Peterson Debate . (or both), this part is the most interesting. Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. divinity) that could impose meaning from above, and how it's impossible to go His father Joe iek was an economist and civil servant from the towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. China in the last decades is arguably the greatest economic success story in human history. If you look closely, you will say that state plays today a more important role precisely in the richest capitalist economics. what the debate ended up being. 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. Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening Along the same lines, one could same that if most of the Nazi claims about Jews they exploit Germans, the seduce German girls were true, which they were not of course, their anti-Semitism would still be a pathological phenomenon, because it ignored the true reason why the Nazis needed anti-Semitism. [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". Like I said before, I appreciated immensely that both men seemed pretty much on Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. either, but points a problem with capitalism on what Marx called "commons" (I And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. 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. Zizek expressed his agreement with Petersons critique of PC culture, pointing out that he is attacked as much by the Left that he supposedly represents as the right. 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.

Integrantes De Los Bravos Del Norte, Yuuki Byrnes And Misaki, Articles Z