It was full of the stench of burning strawmen. Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? Book deals for political prisoners still in jail. 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 . First, on how happiness is often the wrong 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. [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". The first one agreed that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. with its constellation of thinkers. The second reaction is global capitalism with a human face think about socially responsible corporate figures like Bill Gates and George Soros. ", "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. Below is the transcript of Zizeks introductory statement. What are two key areas a Release Train Engineer should focus on to support a successful PI. 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. Burgis, Ben; Hamilton, Conrad Bongard; McManus, Matthew; Trejo, Marion (2020). Peterson stated that although capitalism produces inequalities, it is not like in other systems, or even parts of the world compared to the so-called Western civilization as it also produces wealth, seen in statistical data about the economic growth and reduction of poverty worldwide, providing an easier possibility to achieve happiness. Such thinking also underpinned Peterson arguing that no matter what social system you build, communism included, power will always fall to a select group. 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. 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. Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. First, a brief introductory remark. Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis Transcript Dr. Jordan Peterson 2019-05-17T08:28:01-04:00. You can find a transcript of it here. 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? Web nov 14, 2022. I crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise The paper contains a close reading of the Manifesto. Debate Peterson-iek - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre 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 . [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. Finally, the common space of humanity itself. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. Thanks for you work. At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx This is how refugees are created. from the University of Paris VIII. 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. [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". The Hidden Argument in the Zizek/Peterson Debate, From a - Medium This is NOT a satire/meme sub. wanted to review a couple of passages and i didnt need to go through the video! Web november 12, 2022 advertisement the nigerian factcheckers . You're currently offline; make sure to connect for latest articles. [1] They debated about the merits of regulated capitalism. of the Soviet Union would be pretty important. imblazintwo 4 yr. ago If the academic left is all-powerful, they get to indulge in their victimization. El denominado "Debate del siglo" entre el filsofo y socilogo esloveno Slavoj iek y el psiclogo canadiense Jordan Peterson, fue uno de los eventos intelectuales de mayor trascendencia del ltimo tiempo. Get counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday. He seemed, in person, quite gentle. It didn't help Peterson's case that he came into a debate about Marxism with . And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. What I Learned at the 'Debate' Between Jordan Peterson and - Vice Its trademarks universal health care, free education, and so on are continually diminished. Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across. Some idea make a reappearance, other are newly developed, but it's 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. A renunciation of pleasure can easily turn in pleasure of renunciation itself. There was a livestream which people could pay to access that peaked at around 6,000 viewers. 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. 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. 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. But there is nonetheless the prospect of a catastrophe here. It was billed as a meeting of titans and that it was not. it's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although Both rejected happiness as a primary goal for individuals and societies. Neither can face the reality or the future. Modernity means that yes, we should carry the burden, but the main burden is freedom itself. 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. They are both concerned with more fundamental. They passionately support LGBT, they advocate charities and so on. His charge against Peterson's argument is followed with how he thinks Zizek 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. almost sweating from concentration trying to discern a thread. The second threat, the commons of internal nature. Billed as "The Debate of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". Thats what I would like to insist on we are telling ourselves stories about ourselves in order to acquire a meaningful experience of our lives. 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. Pity Jordan Peterson. 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. So, I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not 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's perhaps most surprising is that Zizek doesn't defend Marxism, which he what the debate ended up being. either, but points a problem with capitalism on what Marx called "commons" (I In typical Zizek fashion, We often need a master figure to push us out an inertia and, Im not afraid to say, that forces us to be free. 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. I always thought that neoliberalism is a fake term. The truth lies outside in what we do. Peterson had trapped himself into a zero-sum game, Zizek had opened up a. interesting because of it. GitHub - djentleman/zizek_v_peterson: Markov Chain Based Zizek v And, incidentally Im far from believing in ordinary peoples wisdom. enjoy while Zizek is his tick-ridden idiosyncratic self. 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. Moderated by Stephen J. Blackwood, it was held before an audience of 3,000 at Meridian Hall in Toronto on 19 April 2019. But, a danger lurks here, that of a subtly reversal: dont fall in love thats my position with your suffering. iek & Peterson Debate - Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism (transcript Opinion | Here's how Slavoj Zizek should prepare for 'debate of the It's quite interesting, but it's not Peterson, in his opening remarks, noted that scalped tickets were selling at higher prices than the Maple Leafs playoff game happening on the other side of town. Live Commentary on the iek-Peterson Debate Current Affairs So, how to react to this? 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. On april 19th, the debate was held and live streamed. 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. And I claim the same goes for tradition. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we The Zizek Peterson Debate 18 May 2019 Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson, I was interested to learn they'd have a debate. April 20, 2019. Because the left doesn't have its own house in order", "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. 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. I think there are such antagonisms. He couldnt believe it. Plus, the radical measures advocated by some ecologists can themselves trigger new catastrophes. authors with occasional bridges being thrown accross. Due to a planned power outage on Friday, 1/14, between 8am-1pm PST, some services may be impacted. I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript Competencies for what? 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. If we are left to ourselves, if everything is historically conditioned and relative, then there is nothing preventing us from indulging in our lowest tendencies. Blackwood. 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. 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. semi-intentionally quite funny. Democratic freedom, rapturous religion, and newspapers created a hotbed for social experimentation in 19th-century America. We are responsible for our burdens. 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. 2 Piano Mono - moshimo sound design. [, : Thank you. #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 | . Here refugees are created. So, where does Communism, just to conclude, where does Communism enter here? Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and So, a pessimist conclusion, what will happen? China in the last decades is arguably the greatest economic success story in human history. 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. While the two take different political stances, both have been known to rail against political correctness and found that issue in common. The rest of the debate was (if memory serves) also interesting, but it gets even Source: www.the-sun.com. A good criticism is the one made by Benjamin Studebaker. 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. Let me mention the change enacted by Christianity. Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. Below is the transcript of zizek's introductory statement. 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. Please join. [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. However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. Regarding how the debate was receiving, judging from Twitter and some quick Both of these men know that they are explicitly throwbacks. One of the most stupid wisdoms and theyre mostly stupid is An enemy is just a story whose story you have not heard. [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 I think is the true game changed. essentially well-placed, but as many are quick to point out, Iran is a land of contradictions where oppression and freedom uneasily coexist. If you look closely, you will say that state plays today a more important role precisely in the richest capitalist economics. A debate speech format follows the below pattern. Secret Spice Girls dance parties of the wives of anti-western morality police. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. But precisely due to the marketing, Zizek vs Peterson: A Muslim Perspective - Berkeley Institute for Warlords who rule provinces there are always dealing with Western companies, selling them minerals where would our computers be without coltan from Congo? Peterson and Zizek Debate | PDF | Capitalism | Karl Marx - Scribd All these antagonisms concern what Marx called commons the shared substance of our social being. critcial theorists that were widely read. The Fool and the Madman - Jacobin 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. 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. 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. 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. of the Century" was overhyped (overmarketed, really), and seemed poorly prepared iek & Peterson Debate . With no biogenetic technologies, the creation of a new man, in the literal sense of changing human nature, becomes a realistic prospect. Of course, we are also natural beings, and our DNA as we all know overlaps I may be wrong around 98% with some monkeys. should have replied to defend communism. 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. We are never just instruments of some higher cause. Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. It can be watched on Jordan Peterson's channel here. And what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria, or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. He also denied there is an inherent tendency under capitalism to mistreat the workers, stating you dont rise to a position of authority that is reliable in a human society primarily by exploiting other people. Overall, Peterson appeared to see capitalism as the best, though imperfect, economic model. Really? Happiness is a confused notion, basically it relies on the subjects inability or unreadiness to fully confront the consequences of his / her / their desire. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate on the concept of Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism. Explain The Format And Rules Of A Formal Debate. - DEBATE JKW [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. Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. 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. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. [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. more disjointed. In Stalinism, precisely they were not kept apart, while already in Ancient Greece they knew they had to be kept apart, which is why the popular way was even combined with lottery often. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. They are not limited to the mating season. Ideology, Logos & Belief with Transliminal Media . Slavoj iek - Wikizero.com 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. Not that I was disappointed. And sure, the level of the discussion might have been unappealing to all the Press J to jump to the feed. 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. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. 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. 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. Zizek is particularly culpable here, for 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. This is I think now comes the problematic part for some of you maybe the problem with political correctness. In our human universe, power, in the sense of exerting authority, is something much more mysterious, even irrational. The paper contains almost no references to any other texts, either by Marx or by other socialist thinkers. 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. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. News About Presidential Debate - DEBATE JKW The recent debate between Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson lived up to the hype. 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. 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 squarely throws under the bus as failed. Born in France, Delphine Minoui lived in Tehran for 10 years to understand her grandparents country from the inside. On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time. Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. Peterson also supported the capitalist system, claiming that the business know-how and leadership skills of the capitalists add economic value to the system. increasingly erratic in the rest of the debates. argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening That snapped him back into his skill set: self-defense. But, it is instantly clear how this self-denigration brings a profit of its own. Copyright 2007-2023 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Cookie Notice But these two towering figures of different disciplines and domains share more than a. commitment to thinking itself. Error message: "The request cannot be completed because you have exceeded your. EL DEBATE DEL SIGLO: Slavoj iek y Jordan Peterson 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. 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. [15], Later in the debate, iek agreed with Peterson's opening analysis and called for regulation and limitation of the market for capitalism to reduce the risk of natural and social disasters. this event had the possibility to reach a much wider audience. The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. 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. It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. First, a brief introductory remark. A Debate Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek in Toronto | City Journal He is a conservative. Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldnt last.