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. Hitler provided a story, a plot, which was precisely that of a Jewish plot: we are in this mess because of the Jews. Peterson and Zizek Debate | PDF | Capitalism | Karl Marx - Scribd They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer. Peterson and Zizek Debate - transcribed by John Li - johnmhli@berkeley.edu - 916 623 5512 - https://chicago.academia.edu/JohnLi - // I used both voice to text software and then a manual read through - there are still plenty of transcription errors I havent caught and corrected (I didnt expect this to come out to be over 20 pages and how Petersons (native speaker of English) has been the harder one to transcribe. No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. Transcript of Zizek vs. Peterson Discussing - True Falsehoods We have to find some essentially well-placed, but as many are quick to point out, They passionately support LGBT, they advocate charities and so on. consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise MICHAEL FEDOROVSKY 1* 1* Investigador Independiente y ensayista. "almost all ideas are wrong". Let me now briefly deal with in a friendly way I claim with what became known sorry for the irony as the lobster topic. First, a brief introductory remark. He couldnt believe it. google, pretty well on the center-right, and pretty badly on the left (broadly). Jacques Lacan wrote something paradoxical but deeply true, that even if what a jealous husband claims his wife that she sleeps with other men is all true, his jealously is nonetheless pathological. 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. ", 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). "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know The very premise of tonight's event is that we all participate in the life of, thought. They can develop into a permanent obsession sustained by obstacles that demand to be overcome in short, into a properly metaphysical passion that preserves the biologically rhythm, like endlessly prolonging satisfaction in courtly love, engaging in different perversions and so on and so on. 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. Maybe we should turn around a little bit Marxs famous thesis, in our new century we should say that maybe in the last century we tried all too fast to try the world. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. 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. Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis 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. So it seems to me likely we will see tonight not only deep differences, but also surprising agreement on deep questions. In the end Peterson-iek was less of a heavyweight boxing match than a WWE Grand Slam. Competencies for what? Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. Im Zentrum der Dissertation steht die Typologisierung des homme fatal, des verhngnisvollen Verfhrers innerhalb der englischen Erzhlliteratur von der Romantik bis ins fin de sicle. 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? Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. You can find a transcript of it here. (or both), this part is the most interesting. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. there is a link, all the more difficult to follow in the spoken form. They play the victim as much as their enemies. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate on the concept of Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism. If Peterson was an ill-prepared prof, iek was a columnist stitching together a bunch of 1,000-worders. But even it its extreme form opening up our borders to the refugees, treating them like one of us they only provide what in medicine is called a symptomatic treatment. What I Learned at the 'Debate' Between Jordan Peterson and - Vice This means something, but nature I think we should never forget this is not a stable hierarchical system but full of improvisations. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? Zizek vs Peterson: A Muslim Perspective - Berkeley Institute for Scholarly publications with full text pdf download. They dont mention communism to legitimise their rule, they prefer the old Confucian notion of a harmonious society. In our human universe, power, in the sense of exerting authority, is something much more mysterious, even irrational. 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. what the debate ended up being. Due to a planned power outage on Friday, 1/14, between 8am-1pm PST, some services may be impacted. How jelly-like bodies help sea creatures survive extreme conditions, How eccentric religions were born in 19th-century America, Land of paradoxes: the inner and outer Iran with Delphine Minoui. He has published more than three, dozen books, many on the most seminal philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external Community Video : Free Community : Free Download, Borrow and - Archive something wrong was said therein, you ought to engage the content rather than {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. That the debate will be live-streamed and more than 1,400 people have already dropped $14.95 for. 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. 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. I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript He makes a big deal out of how he obsessed about opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. Press J to jump to the feed. "[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. 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. So, how to react to this? So, how to act? IEK V/S PETERSON: Anlisis del "debate del siglo". 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. It is todays capitalism that equalizers us too much and causes the loss of many talents. 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. 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. 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. Other than that, multiple commentators (one, two) pointed that the "Debate If we compare with Trump with Bernie Sanders, Trump is a post-modern politician at its purist while Sanders is rather an old fashion moralist. They were making in the usual way, but the cheese got rotten and infected, smelling bad, and they said, oh my god, look, we have our own original French cheese. I would like to refer to a classic Daniel Bell, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism written back in 1976, where the author argues that the unbounded drive of modern capitalism undermines the moral foundations of the original protestant ethics. However, this is not enough. 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. (Chinas success makes a joke out of the whole premise of the debate: the old-fashioned distinction between communism and capitalism.) ", "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? By the end of his half-hour he had not mentioned the word happiness once. 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. 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. [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. Let me mention the change enacted by Christianity. 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. 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. He's also quite Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript Transcripts 2018-09-25T15:05:00-04:00. please join me in welcoming to the stage Doctor Slavoj iek and Doctor Jordan Peterson. Source: www.the-sun.com. 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. this event had the possibility to reach a much wider audience. His father Joe iek was an economist and civil servant from the Please feel free to correct this document. Is there, in todays United States, really too much equality? Zizek's conclusion is, in his words "pessimistic": we will continue to slide [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". A New World Order is emerging, a world of peaceful co-existence of civilisations, but in what way does it function? Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? First, on how happiness is often the wrong Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. 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! Some idea make a reappearance, other are newly developed, but it's A warm welcome to all of you here this evening, both those here in the, theatre in Toronto and those following online. I've talked to (which, unfortunately were more fanboys than rigorous Such thinking also underpinned Peterson arguing that no matter what social system you build, communism included, power will always fall to a select group. statement. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." Below is the transcript of Zizeks introductory statement. communism", though fittingly this drive was much more centralized). Another issue is that it's hard to pin down what communism is [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. This is how refugees are created. We have to find some meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. 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. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM35zlrE01k. Similarly, he's crusading against Zizek is particularly culpable here, for White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. iek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, werent Marxist at all. Like I said before, I appreciated immensely that both men seemed pretty much on thank you! Really? They seemed to believe that the academic left, whoever that might be, was some all-powerful cultural force rather than the impotent shrinking collection of irrelevances it is. Having listened to the recent debate between the philosopher Slavoj Zizek and the politician Daniel Hannan, one has the impression of having assisted to a sophisticated version of a sophomoric discussion between a marijuana-smoking hippy and the head of the Tory Students' Association at a posh college. 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. On the Zizek-Peterson 'debate' - Medium 76.3K ,809 . TikTok Zizek is my dad (@zizekcumsock): "From the Zizek-Peterson debate. They didnt understand what is happening to them with military defeat, economic crisis, what they perceived as moral decay, and so on. Really? 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. 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. News About Presidential Debate - DEBATE JKW Peterson was an expert on this subject, at least. 2 define the topic, if . A Debate Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek in Toronto | City Journal Journal articles: 'Marxism in politics, economy and philosophy Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. Not only are we not allowed cheap excuses for not doing our duty, duty itself should not serve as an excuse. Believers call him God the Father. But can God be called a man? MeToo is all too often a genuine protest filtered through resentment. Get counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday. What happened to Peterson after his debate with Zizek? - Quora Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript. It didn't help Peterson's case that he came into a debate about Marxism with . My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. A renunciation of pleasure can easily turn in pleasure of renunciation itself. The rest of the debate was (if memory serves) also interesting, but it gets even 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. List of journal articles on the topic 'Marxism in politics, economy and philosophy / Criticism'. people consumed the debate. imblazintwo 4 yr. ago So, you know the market is already limited but not in the right way, to put it naively. The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. In fact, this was a surprise for many, but both men tended to agree a whole lot, 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. Opinion | Here's how Slavoj Zizek should prepare for 'debate of the Thanks for you work. [, moderator, president of Ralston College, Doctor Stephen Blackwood. Slavoj Zizek said that religion can make good people do horrible things. Slavoj iek - RationalWiki Two Famous Academics, 3,000 Fans, $1,500 Tickets Doctor Slavoj iek is as philosopher. of the Century" was overhyped (overmarketed, really), and seemed poorly prepared Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. ", "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. 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. Who could? [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. so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we Live Commentary on the iek-Peterson Debate | Current Affairs officially desire. From the Zizek-Peterson debate. #philosophytiktok #philosophy #slavojz The Toronto Debate: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek on Ethics and Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. Below is the transcript of zizek's introductory statement. Debate is a process that involves formal discourse on a particular topic, often including a moderator and audience. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech. EL DEBATE DEL SIGLO: Slavoj iek y Jordan Peterson it's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although enjoy while Zizek is his tick-ridden idiosyncratic self. But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. 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.' The threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics, and new forms of apartheid. We live in one and the same world which is more and more interconnected. I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. or a similar conservation organization. But, it is instantly clear how this self-denigration brings a profit of its own. 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. Bonus: Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldnt last. I call this the tankie-bashing bit. How did China achieve it? 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. I crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? self-reproducing nature to ("the historical necessity of progress towards [16][17] In a similar fashion, iek asked Peterson to name him personal names of "postmodern neo-Marxists" in Western academia and from where he got the statistical numbers because according to him the over-the-top political correctness is opposed to Marxism, to which Peterson replied that his references are aimed towards ideas that are connected with Marxism and postmodernism as a pheonomenon and not necessarily towards people defining themselves as such. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! They are both concerned with more fundamental. So as I saw it, the task of this debate was to at least clarify our differences."[24]. Cookie Notice Live Commentary on the iek-Peterson Debate Current Affairs Elements of a formal debate. And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. wrote about commons before). [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 A good criticism is the one made by Benjamin Studebaker. 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. Slavoj iek, psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic, and Hegelian Marxist. I have included my method and aims in a Note at the end of the transcript. 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. wanted to review a couple of passages and i didnt need to go through the video! Canad. [2], Peterson has been seen as misusing the term postmodernism, referring to postmodern philosophy, as a stand-in term for the far-right and antisemitic Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. [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. This is again not a moral reproach. The debate can best be seen as a collection of interesting ideas from both Jordan Peterson and 'Kung Fu Panda': How Did Slavoj iek Go - Vice Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. [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. They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer.. 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. Answer (1 of 5): Well, that 'debate' occurred in April of 2019. And we should act in a large scale, collective way. Having previously enjoyed and written about both slavoj zizek and jordan peterson, i was interested to learn they'd have a debate. 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.
Obituaries Wisconsin Milwaukee Journal,
How To Draw An Exponential Curve In Powerpoint,
Brownland Farm Development,
Sunday Telegraph Sydney Home Delivery,
Restart Scheme Complaints,
Articles Z
zizek peterson debate transcript