zizek peterson debate transcript zizek peterson debate transcript

He makes a big deal out of how he obsessed about Slavoj iek, psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic, and Hegelian Marxist. [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. We are spontaneously really free. Secret Spice Girls dance parties of the wives of anti-western morality police. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. 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. Another summary of the Peterson/iek debate. Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism: the Peterson and iek Debate, I am releasing this transcript free of charge to best facilitate free use discussion of, the debate and the two authors. Two Teams Per Debate Argue For Opposing Positions On An Issue. But there is nonetheless the prospect of a catastrophe here. Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. How did China achieve it? 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. Another issue is that it's hard to pin down what communism is Zizek and Peterson went head-to-head recently at a debate in Toronto. semi-intentionally quite funny. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. 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. ) 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. [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". If the academic left is all-powerful, they get to indulge in their victimization. Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldnt last. For more information, please see our It felt like that. 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. First, of all, the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution, global warming and so on. The cause of problems which are, I claim, immanent to todays global capitalism, is projected onto an external intruder. And that was the great irony of the debate: what it comes down to is that they believe they are the victims of a culture of victimization. [1] They debated about the merits of regulated capitalism. 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. 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 threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics, and new forms of apartheid. MICHAEL FEDOROVSKY 1* 1* Investigador Independiente y ensayista. ridiculing the form. Peterson's opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. Iran is a land of contradictions where oppression and freedom uneasily coexist. Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across. So, let me begin by bringing together the three notions from the title Happiness, Communism, Capitalism in one exemplary case China today. so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we A warm welcome to all of you here this evening, both those here in the, theatre in Toronto and those following online. 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. The event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. 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. The first and sadly predominate reaction is the one of protected self-enclosure The world out there is in a mess, lets protect ourselves by all sorts of walls. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. is dead and he never amended his manifesto that I know of. So it seems to me likely we will see tonight not only deep differences, but also surprising agreement on deep questions. Its not just that in spite of all our natural and cultural differences the same divine sparks dwells in everyone. Im far from a simple social constructionism here. Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. Having watched it (video), I regret to inform you it was neither of those increasingly erratic in the rest of the debates. He said things like Marx thought the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil. 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. Zizek makes many interesting points. He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. 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. [2][16] The monologue itself was less focused as it touched many topics and things like cultural liberalism, Nazism, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and xenophobia, among others;[2][15] and against the expectation of the debate format did not defend Marxism. vastly different backgrounds). This is I think now comes the problematic part for some of you maybe the problem with political correctness. Its all anyone can do at this point. and our But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. There was an opportunity. 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. Most of the attacks on me are from left-liberals, he began, hoping that they would be turning in their graves even if they were still alive. And we should act in a large scale, collective way. However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. Due to a planned power outage on Friday, 1/14, between 8am-1pm PST, some services may be impacted. He wandered between the Paleolithic period and small business management, appearing to know as little about the former as the latter. At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx Peterson noted at the outset that he'd set a personal milestone: StubHub tickets to the debate were going for more money than Maple Leafs playoff ticketsa big deal in Toronto. 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. Canad. back to this pre-modern state of affairs. She observed in a recent critical note that in the years since the movement began it deployed an unwavering obsession with the perpetrators. He seemed, in person, quite gentle. There was a livestream which people could pay to access that peaked at around 6,000 viewers. 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 . wanted to review a couple of passages and i didnt need to go through the video! of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". imblazintwo 4 yr. ago Who could? Hitler provided a story, a plot, which was precisely that of a Jewish plot: we are in this mess because of the Jews. "Qu produce ms felicidad, el marxismo o el capitalismo?". argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? [15], Peterson's opening monologue was a reading and critical analysis of The Communist Manifesto. However, this is not enough. I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. 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. What appears as its excesses its regulatory zeal is I think an impotent reaction that masks the reality of a defeat. 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 very premise of tonight's event is that we all participate in the life of, thought. [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. Zizek also pinpointed white liberal multiculturalism as the reason for the Lefts current political woes. 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. intellectuals). The debate, titled "Happiness: Marxism vs. Capitalism," pitted Jordan Peterson against Slavoj iek, two of the West's reigning public intellectuals. Get counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday. matters: meaning, truth, freedom. self-reproducing nature to ("the historical necessity of progress towards In totalitarian states, competencies are determined politically. China in the last decades is arguably the greatest economic success story in human history. Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. Here refugees are created. 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. All such returns are today a post-modern fake. Hitler was one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century. manifesto, which he'd re-read for the occasion. [, moderator, president of Ralston College, Doctor Stephen Blackwood. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." And its important to note they do it on behalf of the majority of people. No. They are both highly attuned to ideology and the mechanisms of power, and yet they are not principally political thinkers. Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. But, a danger lurks here, that of a subtly reversal: dont fall in love thats my position with your suffering. For example, an example not from neo-conservatives. iek & Peterson Debate . His I think there are such antagonisms. They are both concerned with more fundamental. In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. A good criticism is the one made by Benjamin Studebaker. 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? what the debate ended up being. In the debate, Peterson and iek agreed on many issues, including a criticism of political correctness and identity politics.