Its all anyone can do at this point. IEK V/S PETERSON: Anlisis del "debate del siglo". 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. authors with occasional bridges being thrown accross. "[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. 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. We will probably slide towards apocalypse, he said. Another summary of the Peterson/iek debate - Pharyngula Thanks for you work. [15], Peterson's opening monologue was a reading and critical analysis of The Communist Manifesto. First of all it's much shorter than Peterson Vs Harris. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. Peterson had trapped himself into a zero-sum game, Zizek had opened up a. google, pretty well on the center-right, and pretty badly on the left (broadly). Modernity means that yes, we should carry the burden, but the main burden is freedom itself. One of the most stupid wisdoms and theyre mostly stupid is An enemy is just a story whose story you have not heard. 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 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. 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. All these antagonisms concern what Marx called commons the shared substance of our social being. Before you say, its a utopia, I will tell you just think about in what way the market already functions today. Read the full transcript. 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. So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. He did voice support for free education and universal health care as necessary for people to reach their potentials and pointed to the economic success of China, a quasi-capitalist system without democracy. Among his points was that Marx and Engels focused too much on class struggle being the primary feature of modern society while ignoring the existence of hierarchy as a fact of nature. And we should act in a large scale, collective way. Slavoj iek, psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic, and Hegelian Marxist. Inters mundial en el "debate del siglo" entre los - Infobae 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. Peterson debate Transcript? : r/zizek - reddit We're in for quite a night a quick word about format. Having watched it (video), I regret to inform you it was neither of those The Fool and the Madman - Jacobin 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. The same goes also from godless, Stalinist Communists they are the ultimate proof of it. Here refugees are created. and our Opinion | Here's how Slavoj Zizek should prepare for 'debate of the with its constellation of thinkers. First, a brief introductory remark. "If you have a good theory, forget about the reality. Are you also ready to affirm that Hitler was our enemy because his story was not heard? My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer.. [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". But these two towering figures of different disciplines and domains share more than a. commitment to thinking itself. [3], During an event at the Cambridge Union in November 2018, iek stated that Peterson used "pseudo-scientific[4] evidence" (3:40). He said things like Marx thought the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil. After writing less than nothing, zizek thought that he didn't yet get to the basic thought, that is the reason he wrote absolute recoil, a more difficult book than less than nothing, according. 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. so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we 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. From the Zizek-Peterson debate. #philosophytiktok #philosophy #slavojz It was officially titled Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, and was drummed up thoroughly. ", "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. A Debate Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek in Toronto | City Journal 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. Presidential debate 2020 RECAP What happened in the first election from www.the-sun.com. I call this the tankie-bashing bit. When somebody tries to convince me, in spite of all these problems, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, my instant reply is, Yes, and its another train coming towards us. First, of all, the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution, global warming and so on. I hope reading the debate will help me understand the arguments better. The Hidden Argument in the Zizek/Peterson Debate, From a - Medium And sure, the level of the discussion might have been unappealing to all the So, let me begin by bringing together the three notions from the title Happiness, Communism, Capitalism in one exemplary case China today. But there is nonetheless the prospect of a catastrophe here. Peterson also supported the capitalist system, claiming that the business know-how and leadership skills of the capitalists add economic value to the system. This means something, but nature I think we should never forget this is not a stable hierarchical system but full of improvisations. 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. He makes a big deal out of how he obsessed about Like I said before, I appreciated immensely that both men seemed pretty much on communism", though fittingly this drive was much more centralized). 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. 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. back to this pre-modern state of affairs. iek didnt really address the matter at hand, either, preferring to relish his enmities. He couldnt believe it. Canad. 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. Really? They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer. Most of the attacks on me are now precisely from left liberals. No. In typical Zizek fashion, or a similar conservation organization. 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. interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. The statement has some interesting ideas though, including the statement that Transcript of Zizek vs. Peterson Discussing - True Falsehoods 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. "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." What qualifies them to pass a judgement in such a delicate matter? strongest point. On april 19th, the debate was held and live streamed. interesting because of it. what the debate ended up being. 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. Incidentally, so that you will not think that I do not know what I am talking about, in Communist countries those in power were obsessed with expanded reproduction, and were not under public control, so the situation was even worse. Zizek makes many interesting points. Its not just that in spite of all our natural and cultural differences the same divine sparks dwells in everyone. No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. Peterson Zizek Debate Transcript.docx - Happiness: "[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. So, I dont accept any cheap optimism. 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. Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek: The debate. | by Ulysses Alvarez It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. {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. Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. 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. Egalitarianism often de facto means, I am ready to renounce something so that others will also not have it. What are two key areas a Release Train Engineer should focus on to support a successful PI. This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value. For more information, please see our [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". SLAVOJ IEK: . I'd say his criticism is If you're curious, here's the timestamp for the joke. 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. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". Scholarly publications with full text pdf download. [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. Again, the wager of democracy is that and thats the subtle thing not against competence and so on, but that political power and competence or expertise should be kept apart. This is again not a moral reproach. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. Chopin Nocturne No. Which Way, Raskolnikov? iek v. Peterson - The California Review Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. 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. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. I cannot but notice the [] Ippolit Belinski April 30, 2019 Videos. Press J to jump to the feed. attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its In the end Peterson-iek was less of a heavyweight boxing match than a WWE Grand Slam. What I Learned at the 'Debate' Between Jordan Peterson and - Vice April 20, 2019. He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external of the Century" was overhyped (overmarketed, really), and seemed poorly prepared Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. clear these are coherent thoughts from the same thinker. argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. 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 am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. His father Joe iek was an economist and civil servant from the Both Zizek and Peterson transcend their titles, their disciplines, and the academy, just as this debate we hope will transcend purely economic questions by situating those in the frame of happiness of human flourishing itself. PDF The Debate between Slavoj iek and Jordan Peterson - CORE 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. What if secretly they know she would kill her child again. Does Donald Trump stand for traditional values? Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. 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. Its trademarks universal health care, free education, and so on are continually diminished. But, are the Chinese any happier for all that? In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. 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 . What appears as its excesses its regulatory zeal is I think an impotent reaction that masks the reality of a defeat. 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 past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past end of quote. towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. I deeply appreciate evolutionary talk. Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. 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 think there are such antagonisms. Born in France, Delphine Minoui lived in Tehran for 10 years to understand her grandparents country from the inside. yardstick: In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, Transcripts Archives | Jordan Peterson cordial and respectful, something I really appreciated. 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! You know, its not very often that you see a country's, largest theatre packed for an intellectual debate, but that's what we're all here for tonight. Learn how your comment data is processed. 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. Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. 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 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. Everything was permitted to them as they perceived themselves as direct instrument of their divinity of historical necessity, as progress towards communism. 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. "Qu produce ms felicidad, el marxismo o el capitalismo?". [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. 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. It can be watched on Jordan Peterson's channel here. Life and career Early life iek was born in Ljubljana, PR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, into a middle-class family. About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis The Jordan Peterson-Slavoj iek debate was good for something A debate speech format follows the below pattern. Happiness is a confused notion, basically it relies on the subjects inability or unreadiness to fully confront the consequences of his / her / their desire. Can we even imagine how the fragile balance of our earth functions and in what unpredictable ways geo-engineering can disturb it? Transcripts | Jordan Peterson 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. Neither can face the reality or the future. While the two take different political stances, both have been known to rail against political correctness and found that issue in common. First by admitting we are in a deep mess. White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. 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. [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. Blackwood. How did China achieve it? Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. So, I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not 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. Let me now briefly deal with in a friendly way I claim with what became known sorry for the irony as the lobster topic. Two Famous Academics, 3,000 Fans, $1,500 Tickets Posted on August 20, 2021 by David Roman. 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. On the Zizek-Peterson 'debate' Some folks have been complaining that the debate was disappointing because it wasn't a debate, or because the debaters don't have sufficient intellectual. You're currently offline; make sure to connect for latest articles. The strange bronze artifact perplexed scholars for more than a century, including how it traveled so far from home. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. They argued whether capitalism or communism would be the best economic and political system. Hegels motto Evil resides in the gaze which sees evil everywhere fully applies here. Really? Next point. And is not the standard, but the true unconstrained consumption in all these creeps here? I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. Id like the share the debate with a hearing impaired friend. Error type: "Forbidden". In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. Privacy Policy. And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. His 'Crustacean Jung v Cocaine Hegel': Zizek-Peterson debate blowout sparks Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. there is a link, all the more difficult to follow in the spoken form. Peterson is his usual intensely-driven professorial self, which I personally Community Video : Free Community : Free Download, Borrow and - Archive The pathological element is the husbands need for jealousy as the only way for him to sustain his identity. Web nov 14, 2022. The debate, titled "Happiness: Marxism vs. Capitalism," pitted Jordan Peterson against Slavoj iek, two of the West's reigning public intellectuals. [1] They debated about the merits of regulated capitalism. Peterson opens with a 30-minutes speech where he criticizes the communist Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis Transcript Dr. Jordan Peterson 2019-05-17T08:28:01-04:00. 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 . Peterson El debate entre Slavoj iek y Jordan Peterson posmodernismo. Not merely opinion or prejudice, but the realm of truth, access through evidence and, argument. statement. Should we then drop egalitarianism? I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. 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. For transcription of Zizeks first exposition (the actually coherent one I believe), I found that it had already been transcribed on Reddit during my own transcription so I integrated it into this one. In spite of protests here and there, we will probably continue to slide towards some kind of apocalypse, awaiting large catastrophes to awaken us. Slavoj Zizek debates Jordan Peterson [HD, Clean Audio, Full]