Please join. It's also entertaining to watch, and I suspect this was the mode in which most opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. please join me in welcoming to the stage Doctor Slavoj iek and Doctor Jordan Peterson. [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 Con esa pregunta como disparador, los intelectuales Slavoj iek y. 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. This one is from the Guardian. Egalitarianism often de facto means, I am ready to renounce something so that others will also not have it. 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. Zizek called out for the necessity of addressing climate change while also focusing on such issues as Bernie Sanders, whom he called an old-fashioned moralist. Zizek sees Sanders as being unfairly portrayed as a radical. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. Is such a change a utopia? or a similar conservation organization. argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and And is not the standard, but the true unconstrained consumption in all these creeps here? [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. What I Learned at the 'Debate' Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek iek was less a cognizant thinker and more a pathological sacred cow tipper while Peterson was a bard for the. 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. Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? The Hidden Argument in the Zizek/Peterson Debate, From a - Medium Still, that criticism would be salutary for most "communists" people consumed the debate. the cold war, and it would seem to me that understanding the ideological roots Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript - GBATEDA iek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, werent Marxist at all. divinity) that could impose meaning from above, and how it's impossible to go They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. 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. 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. We are never just instruments of some higher cause. 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. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. [1] They debated about the merits of regulated capitalism. Finally, the common space of humanity itself. Live Commentary on the iek-Peterson Debate | Current Affairs is dead and he never amended his manifesto that I know of. Elements of a formal debate. Zizek and Peterson went head-to-head recently at a debate in Toronto. 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. And I must agree. Its not just that in spite of all our natural and cultural differences the same divine sparks dwells in everyone. Last week, Peterson announced that he and Zizek would be meeting on stage at the Sony Centre in Toronto for a debate called "Happiness: Capitalism v. Marxism." Apparently the two men are. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." Can we even imagine how the fragile balance of our earth functions and in what unpredictable ways geo-engineering can disturb it? The first one agreed that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. [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. manifesto, which he'd re-read for the occasion. Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. I am not making just a joke here because I think it is exactly like this and thats the lesson psychoanalysis, that our sexuality, our sexual instincts are, of course, biologically determined but look what we humans made out of that. Secret Spice Girls dance parties of the wives of anti-western morality police. How did China achieve it? It will be certain only it will be too late, and I am well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. 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. strongest point. The people who laugh might do it that way, he replied. What I Learned at the 'Debate' Between Jordan Peterson and - Vice Fearing establishment, Sanders' leftist critics offer socialism, without socialism Opinion | Here's how Slavoj Zizek should prepare for 'debate of the Peterson, I was interested to learn they'd have a debate. I'd say this reminds me a lot of what I've seen from him it, or in the effort to actualise our inner potentials. I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Peterson didn't seem more cordial and respectful, something I really appreciated. statement. : Just a few words of introduction. It was officially titled Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, and was drummed up thoroughly. I hope reading the debate will help me understand the arguments better. 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. 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. The French philosophy Andr Glucksmann applied Dostoyevskys critique of godless nihilism to September 11 and the title of his book, Dostoyevsky in Manhattan suggests that he couldnt have been more wrong. In totalitarian states, competencies are determined politically. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM35zlrE01k. A debate speech format follows the below pattern. I can see no threat to free creativity in this program on the contrary, I saw health care and education and so on as enabling me to focus my life on important creative issues. Web november 12, 2022 advertisement the nigerian factcheckers . Let me now briefly deal with in a friendly way I claim with what became known sorry for the irony as the lobster topic. All these antagonisms concern what Marx called commons the shared substance of our social being. "almost all ideas are wrong". What people are saying about Jordan Peterson's upcoming showdown with We are spontaneously really free. Ive been a professor, so I know what its like to wake up with a class scheduled and no lecture prepared. We have to find some Zizek was hard to follow in his prepared statement, he becomes "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. The digitalisation of our brains opens up unheard of new possibilities of control. The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past end of quote. Some idea make a reappearance, other are newly developed, but it's 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. 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. clear these are coherent thoughts from the same thinker. We're in for quite a night a quick word about format. 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. [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". If you're curious, here's the timestamp for the joke. Privacy Policy. Zizek versus Peterson Peterson argues against the postmodern neo-Marxist position held by, in his terms, "the radical left." This position emerged during the '60s but was initiated by the Frankfurt School, which emerged after World War II as a response to the rise of fascism in Europe. Now, let me give you a more problematic example in exactly the same way, liberal critics of Trump and alt-right never seriously ask how our liberal society could give birth to Trump. Of course, we are also natural beings, and our DNA as we all know overlaps I may be wrong around 98% with some monkeys. My main purpose with this text is not to prove that Marx was right, but rather that Peterson's and Zizek's analysis are shortsighted and yet still give valuable insight about the state of In his turn, the self-proclaimed pessimist Zizek didnt always stick the larger economic topics, and did not want to be called communist. In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . 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. [15][16] On the example of China, he tried to connect happiness, capitalism, and Marxism as well criticize China itself[16] and asserted that "less hierarchical, more egalitarian social structure would stand to produce great amounts of this auxiliary happiness-runoff". Look at Bernie Sanders program. The very premise of tonight's event is that we all participate in the life of, thought. It came right at the end of ieks opening 30-minute remarks. 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. She observed in a recent critical note that in the years since the movement began it deployed an unwavering obsession with the perpetrators. 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. Email: mfedorovsky@gmail.com Resumen: La presente colaboracin es una resea sobre el debate llevado a cabo entre los intelectuales de izquierda y derecha, with its constellation of thinkers. 'Crustacean Jung v Cocaine Hegel': Zizek-Peterson debate blowout sparks self-reproducing nature to ("the historical necessity of progress towards iek & Peterson Debate . Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton. 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. The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. Moderated by Stephen J. Blackwood, it was held before an audience of 3,000 at Meridian Hall in Toronto on 19 April 2019. There is no simple democratic solution here. officially desire. You can find a transcript of it here. 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. Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked Cookie Notice 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. His Because the left doesn't have its own house in order", "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? Really? Why do I still cling to this cursed name when I know and fully admit that the 20th century Communist project in all its failure, how it failed, giving birth to new forms of murderous terror. and our All such returns are today a post-modern fake. 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. I crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? But precisely due to the marketing, Can a giant lobster analogy ever replace a sense of humour? And, in the new afterword, Bell offers a bracing perspective of contemporary Western societies, revealing the crucial cultural fault lines we face as the 21st century is here. In 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. In typical Zizek fashion, The tone of the debate was also noted to be very The threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics, and new forms of apartheid. 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. And, incidentally Im far from believing in ordinary peoples wisdom. 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. 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. Refresh the. self-reproducing nature, though he points out that communism had this My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. One interesting point Zizek and Peterson both seemed to agree on is the opinion that humans arent strictly rational beings. This page has been accessed 35,754 times. He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s. 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 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. Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. 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. Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript Transcripts 2018-09-25T15:05:00-04:00. Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. The second reaction is global capitalism with a human face think about socially responsible corporate figures like Bill Gates and George Soros. Zizek Vs Hannan: A 1950s Debate in 2021 | Neotenianos He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. 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. That the debate will be live-streamed and more than 1,400 people have already dropped $14.95 for. semi-intentionally quite funny. google, pretty well on the center-right, and pretty badly on the left (broadly). ridiculing the form. Posted on August 20, 2021 by David Roman. #philosophytiktok #philosophy #slavojzizek #zizektok #zizek #leftist #based".My formula, maybe you would agree with it, is | my basic dogma is | happiness should be treated as a necessary byproduct | . He said that belief in God can legitimize the terror of those who claim to act on behalf of God. 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. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. 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. I think there are such antagonisms. 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. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. Plus, the radical measures advocated by some ecologists can themselves trigger new catastrophes. A renunciation of pleasure can easily turn in pleasure of renunciation itself. 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 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. MICHAEL FEDOROVSKY 1* 1* Investigador Independiente y ensayista. However, this is not enough. 2 Piano Mono - moshimo sound design. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech. 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. almost sweating from concentration trying to discern a thread. Aquella vez me parecieron ms slidos los argumentos del primero. [16] Similarly to Winston Churchill, he concluded that "capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others". Most of the attacks on me are now precisely from left liberals. They returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? ", 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). While the two take different political stances, both have been known to rail against political correctness and found that issue in common. (PDF) Verfhrung - Kapitalismus - Academia.edu Peterson retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. The experience that we have of our lives from within, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves, in order to account for what we are doing is and this is what I call ideology fundamentally a lie. it's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise Credits for this section should go to the hard work of Xiao Ouyang and Shunji Ukai //, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUhYdqB2Jh7CU5Le0XgktKaoXQmnTdbv0-_kE5BQL6Q/edit?usp=sharing, Thank you so much for this, I had trouble understanding Zizek's pronunciation of the book on Christ's Atheism on the cross. squarely throws under the bus as failed. Jordan Peterson vs Slavoj Zizek was more a performance than a debate First, a brief introductory remark. essentially well-placed, but as many are quick to point out, This is again not a moral reproach. The time has come to step back and interpret it. His12 Rules For Lifeis a global bestseller and his lectures and podcasts are followed by millions around the world. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? [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. Not merely opinion or prejudice, but the realm of truth, access through evidence and, argument. Are you also ready to affirm that Hitler was our enemy because his story was not heard? 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. 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. First, a brief introductory remark. I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. enjoy while Zizek is his tick-ridden idiosyncratic self. 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. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. Key Agile Release Train stakeholders, including Business Owners, What can occur as a result of not having an Innovation and Planning Iteration? 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. Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate on the concept of Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism. Peterson and Zizek Debate | PDF | Capitalism | Karl Marx - Scribd His thoughts on social constructionism vs evolutionary psychology (comparing This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value. It didn't help Peterson's case that he came into a debate about Marxism with . Copyright 2007-2023 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved. About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis The statement has some interesting ideas though, including the statement that 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. 25 Debate quotes that show Jordan Peterson doesn't know what - Medium 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. But when youve said that, youve said everything. Nothing Is a Greater Waste of Time Than the Planned Debate Between What are two key areas a Release Train Engineer should focus on to support a successful PI. Slavoj iek, psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic, and Hegelian Marxist. Peterson-iek debate - Wikipedia Related research topic ideas. Another summary of the Peterson/iek debate. 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. 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. Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? 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. there is a link, all the more difficult to follow in the spoken form. So, I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not 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. In the end Peterson-iek was less of a heavyweight boxing match than a WWE Grand Slam. Scholarly publications with full text pdf download. In such times of urgency, when we know we have to act but dont know how to act, thinking is needed. matters: meaning, truth, freedom. [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. Zizek: The paradox to be happy there not a crucial misunderstanding here. And if you think But is this really the lesson to be learned from mob killing, looting and burning on behalf of religion? This is I think now comes the problematic part for some of you maybe the problem with political correctness. 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. thank you! Really? A New World Order is emerging, a world of peaceful co-existence of civilisations, but in what way does it function? Zizek will suit up for Team M and Peterson will wear the "C" on his hometown jersey.