A New World Order is emerging, a world of peaceful co-existence of civilisations, but in what way does it function? 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. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. 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. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. He is a dazzling. Remember Pauls words from Galatians There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer male and female in Christ. As soon as jordan peterson announced he. Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked 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. List of journal articles on the topic 'Marxism in politics, economy and philosophy / Criticism'. And I claim the same goes for tradition. 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. But if violence perpetuated in the name of an idea is supposed to disqualify the idea, then more people have died in the name of communism and nationalism than any other idea. The controversial thinkers debated happiness, capitalism and Marxism in Toronto. We have to find some meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. 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. 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. My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. This is how refugees are created. enjoy while Zizek is his tick-ridden idiosyncratic self. Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. Zizek is particularly culpable here, for They didnt understand what is happening to them with military defeat, economic crisis, what they perceived as moral decay, and so on. So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. 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. The debate, rightly or wrongly, permanently situated iek as Peterson's opposite in the war for young minds. This one is from the Guardian. We are spontaneously really free. This is why as many perspicuous philosophers clearly saw, evil is profoundly spiritual, in some sense more spiritual than goodness. it, or in the effort to actualise our inner potentials. live commentary is quite funny. Billed as "The Debate 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. The tone of the debate was also noted to be very I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. Other than that, multiple commentators (one, two) pointed that the "Debate Life and career Early life iek was born in Ljubljana, PR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, into a middle-class family. 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 pathological element is the husbands need for jealousy as the only way for him to sustain his identity. Source: www.the-sun.com. Regarding how the debate was receiving, judging from Twitter and some quick "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know "Qu produce ms felicidad, el marxismo o el capitalismo?". It will be certain only it will be too late, and I am well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. 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 He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. 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. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." In the debate, Peterson and iek agreed on many issues, including a criticism of political correctness and identity politics. I'd say his criticism is Error message: "The request cannot be completed because you have exceeded your. Egalitarianism often de facto means, I am ready to renounce something so that others will also not have it. 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. I wanted to know that too! 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. so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we A renunciation of pleasure can easily turn in pleasure of renunciation itself. [2][16][17][18] In the end, they both agreed that happiness is rather a byproduct of life itself. Burgis, Ben; Hamilton, Conrad Bongard; McManus, Matthew; Trejo, Marion (2020). It came right at the end of ieks opening 30-minute remarks. 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. 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. [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". 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.. Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. 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. 76.3K ,809 . TikTok Zizek is my dad (@zizekcumsock): "From the Zizek-Peterson debate. The title of the debate was "Happiness: Capitalism v. Marxism." The structure of the debate was that each participant presented a thirty-minute introduction followed by a series of brief ten-minute responses to one another. with its constellation of thinkers. He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external 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. 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. The rest of the debate was (if memory serves) also interesting, but it gets even So, a pessimist conclusion, what will happen? In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. First, of all, the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution, global warming and so on. 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. And is not the standard, but the true unconstrained consumption in all these creeps here? Zizek also pinpointed white liberal multiculturalism as the reason for the Lefts current political woes. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. The paper contains almost no references to any other texts, either by Marx or by other socialist thinkers. Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. already. 2 define the topic, if . I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. What qualifies them to pass a judgement in such a delicate matter? No. ", "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. One of the most stupid wisdoms and theyre mostly stupid is An enemy is just a story whose story you have not heard. SLAVOJ IEK: . The very premise of tonight's event is that we all participate in the life of, thought. Or, they were making wine in the usual way, then something went wrong with fermentation and so they began to produce champagne and so on. Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. First, on how happiness is often the wrong 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. In this sense, the image of Donald Trump is also a fetish, the last thing a liberal sees before confronting actual social tensions. Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across. 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. First, a brief introductory remark. Billed as "The Debate of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". A debate speech format follows the below pattern. So, how to react to this? At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. 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. [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. and our 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 and iek represent a basic fact of intellectual life in the twenty-first century: we are defined by our enemies. 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. 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. 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. It was billed as a meeting of titans and that it was not. It is often claimed that true or not that religion makes some otherwise bad people do good things. 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. I deeply appreciate evolutionary talk. 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? T. S. Eliot, the great conservative, wrote, quote what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the work of art which preceded it. 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. Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. You can find a transcript of it here. It's funny to see Peterson We will probably slide towards apocalypse, he said. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript Transcripts 2018-09-25T15:05:00-04:00. The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past end of quote. We are never just instruments of some higher cause. Not that I was disappointed. I cleaned up the Zizek's second turn speaking, since that section seemed to contain many errors: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qs7mNIUsYt9kWcdO785ec_dEWmEHLo92yTso0CVtxNk/edit?usp=sharing. (or both), this part is the most interesting. Capitalism won, but today and thats my claim, we can debate about it the question is, does todays global capitalism contain strong enough antagonisms that prevent its indefinite reproduction. Let me mention the change enacted by Christianity. This is NOT a satire/meme sub. Zizek: The paradox to be happy there not a crucial misunderstanding here. So, you know the market is already limited but not in the right way, to put it naively. MICHAEL FEDOROVSKY 1* 1* Investigador Independiente y ensayista. 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. 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. However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. He couldnt believe it. Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan 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. people consumed the debate. 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 Can a giant lobster analogy ever replace a sense of humour? statement. White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. However, this is not enough. 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? Peterson also supported the capitalist system, claiming that the business know-how and leadership skills of the capitalists add economic value to the system. Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton. essentially well-placed, but as many are quick to point out, They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. 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. things. 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. Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. The time has come to step back and interpret it. opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. But, it is instantly clear how this self-denigration brings a profit of its own. There are two teams, each consisting of two or three speakers. Is there, in todays United States, really too much equality? Is such a change a utopia? Con esa pregunta como disparador, los intelectuales Slavoj iek y. 2 Piano Mono - moshimo sound design. Hundreds of millions raised from poverty into middle class existence. And sure, the level of the discussion might have been unappealing to all the 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. Its trademarks universal health care, free education, and so on are continually diminished. Error type: "Forbidden". 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. Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. 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. Never presume that your suffering is in itself proof of your authenticity. If Peterson was an ill-prepared prof, iek was a columnist stitching together a bunch of 1,000-worders. Take what is perhaps the ultimate rogue state Congo. [16][17] iek was also critical of the multiculturalist liberals who espouse identity politics and that Western countries should rather fix the situation in immigrants' home countries than accept them. She observed in a recent critical note that in the years since the movement began it deployed an unwavering obsession with the perpetrators. 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. Its not just that in spite of all our natural and cultural differences the same divine sparks dwells in everyone. This I think is the true game changed. cordial and respectful, something I really appreciated. Blackwood. 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. They are not limited to the mating season. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate on the concept of Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism. causes (from Donald Trump to migrants). The twentieth century left was defined by its opposition to the truth fundamental tendencies of modernity: the reign of capital with its aggressive market competition, the authoritarian bureaucratic state power. If the academic left is all-powerful, they get to indulge in their victimization. [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. meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. They returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? [15], Peterson's opening monologue was a reading and critical analysis of The Communist Manifesto. sticking to "his camp", but I feel like the resulting discussing ended up more My point is that it looked like Peterson wasn't interested in replaying that kind of thing especially, not with Zizek. Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. from the University of Paris VIII. No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. ", 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). 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. Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis iek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, werent Marxist at all. Boston 24/7 with principal mcafee [19] Harrison Fluss and Sam Miller of Jacobin reported that Peterson made many factual errors, such as misunderstanding the labour theory of value, incorrectly associating Marx broadly with identity politics, and denying the existence of a Marxist philosophy of nature. 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. White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. He's also quite Second yes, we should carry our burden and accept the suffering that goes with it. So, what about the balance equality and hierarchy? the cold war, and it would seem to me that understanding the ideological roots Competencies for what? 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. Thats the big of ideologies how to make good, decent people do horrible things. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. ", "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? Like I said before, I appreciated immensely that both men seemed pretty much on [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. Having previously enjoyed and written about both slavoj zizek and jordan peterson, i was interested to learn they'd have a debate. His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of . His thoughts on social constructionism vs evolutionary psychology (comparing The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. 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 what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria, or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? He is a conservative. 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. something wrong was said therein, you ought to engage the content rather than [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 Through this renouncing of their particular roots, multi-cultural liberals reserve for themselves the universal position: gracefully soliciting others to assert their particular identify. 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. 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. The second threat, the commons of internal nature. clear these are coherent thoughts from the same thinker. 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.
zizek peterson debate transcript
01. jul