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. Another summary of the Peterson/iek debate. Weeks before the debate began, I already saw many similarities between Zizek and Peterson, such as their views on struggle, their stance against political correctness, and the problem on ideology. 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. by its protagonists. Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? 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. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. Thanks for you work. [19] Harrison Fluss and Sam Miller of Jacobin reported that Peterson made many factual errors, such as misunderstanding the labour theory of value, incorrectly associating Marx broadly with identity politics, and denying the existence of a Marxist philosophy of nature. I always thought that neoliberalism is a fake term. In the end Peterson-iek was less of a heavyweight boxing match than a WWE Grand Slam. Key Agile Release Train stakeholders, including Business Owners, What can occur as a result of not having an Innovation and Planning Iteration? 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. Please feel free to correct this document. Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. 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. Everything was permitted to them as they perceived themselves as direct instrument of their divinity of historical necessity, as progress towards communism. But is this really the lesson to be learned from mob killing, looting and burning on behalf of religion? White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. But there is nonetheless the prospect of a catastrophe here. It came right at the end of ieks opening 30-minute remarks. Remember Pauls words from Galatians There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer male and female in Christ. 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. Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked Other than that, multiple commentators (one, two) pointed that the "Debate His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of . Slavoj iek, psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic, and Hegelian Marxist. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? 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. They play the victim as much as their enemies. His Press J to jump to the feed. First, a brief introductory remark. authors with occasional bridges being thrown accross. With anti-Semitism, we are approaching the topic of telling stories. He is a dazzling. 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. If there is no such authority in nature, lobsters may have hierarchy, undoubtedly, but the main guy among them does not have authority in this sense. 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. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. Below is the transcript of zizek's introductory statement. 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. [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. Competencies for what? 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. "Qu produce ms felicidad, el marxismo o el capitalismo?". enjoy while Zizek is his tick-ridden idiosyncratic self. History and diagnosis transcript dr. Peterson discussing "happiness, capitalism vs. Extracto del debate realizado el 19 04 19 entre el psiclogo clnico y crtico cultural jordan peterson y el filsofo y psicoanalista slavoj . divinity) that could impose meaning from above, and how it's impossible to go Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across. Not only are we not allowed cheap excuses for not doing our duty, duty itself should not serve as an excuse. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. Next point one should stop blaming hedonist egotism for our woes. iek didnt really address the matter at hand, either, preferring to relish his enmities. 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. We have to find some meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. 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. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. them, of all things, to French cuisine) are also worth a listen/read. He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s. The threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics, and new forms of apartheid. Con esa pregunta como disparador, los intelectuales Slavoj iek y. A good criticism is the one made by Benjamin Studebaker. This is why as many perspicuous philosophers clearly saw, evil is profoundly spiritual, in some sense more spiritual than goodness. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. Please join. Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. 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. Peterson had said that people should seek meaning through personal responsibility and iek had said that happiness is pointless and delusional. 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. Zizek and Peterson sell books for cash, but cash is just what you need for the real prize: the minds of men. more disjointed. 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. interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. 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? We are never just instruments of some higher cause. 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. 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. Privacy Policy. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Get counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday. The second reaction is global capitalism with a human face think about socially responsible corporate figures like Bill Gates and George Soros. And we should act in a large scale, collective way. The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. His charge against Peterson's argument is followed with how he thinks Zizek Or, they were making wine in the usual way, then something went wrong with fermentation and so they began to produce champagne and so on. what the debate ended up being. 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. Source: www.the-sun.com. [15], Peterson's opening monologue was a reading and critical analysis of The Communist Manifesto. of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". Id like the share the debate with a hearing impaired friend. things. strongest point. live commentary is quite funny. 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 spite of protests here and there, we will probably continue to slide towards some kind of apocalypse, awaiting large catastrophes to awaken us. Iran is a land of contradictions where oppression and freedom uneasily coexist. His father Joe iek was an economist and civil servant from the Zizek's conclusion is, in his words "pessimistic": we will continue to slide I'd say his criticism is This page was last edited on 12 August 2019, at 11:41. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. He has published more than three, dozen books, many on the most seminal philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. And what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria, or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? But there was one truly fascinating moment in the evening. It's funny to see Peterson On april 19th, the debate was held and live streamed. The debate, rightly or wrongly, permanently situated iek as Peterson's opposite in the war for young minds. attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its 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.' So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. But when youve said that, youve said everything. [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. This is how refugees are created. officially desire. or a similar conservation organization. The rest of the debate was (if memory serves) also interesting, but it gets even And sure, the level of the discussion might have been unappealing to all the It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. Let me now briefly deal with in a friendly way I claim with what became known sorry for the irony as the lobster topic. [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. self-reproducing nature to ("the historical necessity of progress towards For more information, please see our If Peterson was an ill-prepared prof, iek was a columnist stitching together a bunch of 1,000-worders. it, or in the effort to actualise our inner potentials. As soon as jordan peterson announced he. He said things like Marx thought the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil. The first one agreed that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. [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. Should we then drop egalitarianism? Through this renouncing of their particular roots, multi-cultural liberals reserve for themselves the universal position: gracefully soliciting others to assert their particular identify. (Chinas success makes a joke out of the whole premise of the debate: the old-fashioned distinction between communism and capitalism.) 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. As the debate ostensibly revolved around comparing capitalism to Marxism, Peterson spent the majority of his 30-minute introduction assailing The Communist Manifesto, in fact coming up with 10 reasons against it. intellectuals). The pathological element is the husbands need for jealousy as the only way for him to sustain his identity. statement. 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 truth lies outside in what we do. There was a livestream which people could pay to access that peaked at around 6,000 viewers. Both of these men know that they are explicitly throwbacks. His remarks were just as rambling as Petersons, veering from Trump and Sanders to Dostoevsky to the refugee crisis to the aesthetics of Nazism. We have to find some In such times of urgency, when we know we have to act but dont know how to act, thinking is needed. Is such a change a utopia? Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript. It can be watched on Jordan Peterson's channel here. 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. Egalitarianism often de facto means, I am ready to renounce something so that others will also not have it. 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. They dont mention communism to legitimise their rule, they prefer the old Confucian notion of a harmonious society. The Master and His Emissary: A Conversation with Dr. Iain McGilchrist Transcript . I will correct more when I get more time but I need to get back to work. Posted on August 20, 2021 by David Roman. There is no simple democratic solution here. One hated communism. 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. It can well secretly invert the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others. In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. iek & Peterson Debate . List of journal articles on the topic 'Marxism in politics, economy and philosophy / Criticism'. No. cordial and respectful, something I really appreciated. This page has been accessed 35,754 times. Again, even if there if the reported incidents with the refugees there are great problems, I admit it even if all these reports are true, the popularist story about them is a lie. Web nov 14, 2022. 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. [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. This I think is the true game changed. And if you think But precisely due to the marketing, Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. 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. matters: meaning, truth, freedom. First, on how happiness is often the wrong I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript His thoughts on social constructionism vs evolutionary psychology (comparing This one is from the Guardian. Peterson had trapped himself into a zero-sum game, Zizek had opened up a. Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. Cookie Notice opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. I cannot but notice the [] Ippolit Belinski April 30, 2019 Videos. back to this pre-modern state of affairs. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. "[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. [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. Regarding how the debate was receiving, judging from Twitter and some quick The Zizek-Peterson Debate In early 2019, after the occasional potshot at one another, it was announced that iek would debate Jordan Peterson in Toronto. And its important to note they do it on behalf of the majority of people. 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. A debate speech format follows the below pattern. 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. The tone of the debate was also noted to be very Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. At one point, he made a claim that human hierarchies are not determined by power because that would be too unstable a system, and a few in the crowd tittered. So, I dont accept any cheap optimism. from the University of Paris VIII. towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. Some idea make a reappearance, other are newly developed, but it's Now, let me be precise here Im well aware uncertain analysis and projections are in this domain. Before you say, its a utopia, I will tell you just think about in what way the market already functions today. MICHAEL FEDOROVSKY 1* 1* Investigador Independiente y ensayista. 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 Once traditional authority loses its substantial power, it is not possible to return to it. 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. She observed in a recent critical note that in the years since the movement began it deployed an unwavering obsession with the perpetrators. We are responsible for our burdens. 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.
Why Greek Gods Don't Wear Clothes,
Icahn Automotive Employee Login,
Has Icelandair Ever Had A Crash?,
Articles Z
