zizek peterson debate transcript

The debate can best be seen as a collection of interesting ideas from both Neither can face the reality or the future. 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. Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and In this short passage, which is dropped as quickly as it is picked up by Zizek, you have what's at the center of an entire intellectual life, a life devoted to formalizing a new and unorthodox. They are not limited to the mating season. 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. 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. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM35zlrE01k. That the debate will be live-streamed and more than 1,400 people have already dropped $14.95 for. 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. We're in for quite a night a quick word about format. The true opposite of egotist self-love is not altruism a concern for the common good but envy, resentment, which makes me act against my own interests. In this sense, the image of Donald Trump is also a fetish, the last thing a liberal sees before confronting actual social tensions. Let me now briefly deal with in a friendly way I claim with what became known sorry for the irony as the lobster topic. #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 | . His father Joe iek was an economist and civil servant from the Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript iek and Peterson met in Toronto on Friday. talking about wherever he felt like that was tenuously related rather than And I also think this may be critical to some of you there is a problem with capitalism here for the simple reasons that its managers not because of their evil nature, but thats the logic of capitalism care to extend self-reproduction and environmental consequences are simply not part of the game. I hope reading the debate will help me understand the arguments better. About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis Elements of a formal debate. 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. Chopin Nocturne No. 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. 2 Piano Mono - moshimo sound design. Source: www.the-sun.com. Most of the attacks on me are now precisely from left liberals. As soon as jordan peterson announced he. But it did reveal one telling commonality. them, of all things, to French cuisine) are also worth a listen/read. imblazintwo 4 yr. ago 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. Regarding how the debate was receiving, judging from Twitter and some quick statement. [1], Around 3,000 people were in Meridian Hall in Toronto for the event. 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. And if you think "[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. There is no simple democratic solution here. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. And what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria, or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript Transcripts 2018-09-25T15:05:00-04:00. Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity. Marxism: Zizek/Peterson: Official Video Jordan B Peterson 6.5M subscribers Subscribe 86K 4.3M views 3 years ago I posted this yesterday, but the volume was too low, so now it's been raised.. And I claim the same goes for tradition. Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech. In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. 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. If the academic left is all-powerful, they get to indulge in their victimization. interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. By the end of his half-hour he had not mentioned the word happiness once. Some idea make a reappearance, other are newly developed, but it's The Master and His Emissary: A Conversation with Dr. Iain McGilchrist Transcript . For example, an example not from neo-conservatives. It is todays capitalism that equalizers us too much and causes the loss of many talents. 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. Peterson, I was interested to learn they'd have a debate. 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. 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. 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. In totalitarian states, competencies are determined politically. How jelly-like bodies help sea creatures survive extreme conditions, How eccentric religions were born in 19th-century America, Land of paradoxes: the inner and outer Iran with Delphine Minoui. 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. You can find a transcript of it here. Please feel free to correct this document. meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. Peterson El debate entre Slavoj iek y Jordan Peterson posmodernismo. First, a brief introductory remark. 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. 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 . The pathological element is the husbands need for jealousy as the only way for him to sustain his identity. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. Good evening and welcome to the Sony Center for Performing Arts. Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. Are you also ready to affirm that Hitler was our enemy because his story was not heard? Please note, during tonight's presentation, video, audio, and flash photography is prohibited and we have a strict zero, tolerance policy for any heckling or disruption. It develops like French cuisine. 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. And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. Web nov 14, 2022. from the University of Paris VIII. And, incidentally Im far from believing in ordinary peoples wisdom. 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. ", 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). or a similar conservation organization. Another summary of the Peterson/iek debate. This means something, but nature I think we should never forget this is not a stable hierarchical system but full of improvisations. Take what is perhaps the ultimate rogue state Congo. 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. But precisely due to the marketing, This is NOT a satire/meme sub. I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. Next point. Zizek and Peterson went head-to-head recently at a debate in Toronto. Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. This is I think now comes the problematic part for some of you maybe the problem with political correctness. White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. The cause of problems which are, I claim, immanent to todays global capitalism, is projected onto an external intruder. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. 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. Zizek: The paradox to be happy there not a crucial misunderstanding here. 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. On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time. 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. Capitalism threatens the commons due to its Having watched it (video), I regret to inform you it was neither of those cordial and respectful, something I really appreciated. Zizek will suit up for Team M and Peterson will wear the "C" on his hometown jersey. Bonus: Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Thanks for you work. Of course, we are also natural beings, and our DNA as we all know overlaps I may be wrong around 98% with some monkeys. Remember Pauls words from Galatians There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer male and female in Christ. The rest of the debate was (if memory serves) also interesting, but it gets even They are both concerned with more fundamental. Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. his remarks, he starts telling a Slovenian joke, then after the first sentence [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. In fact, this was a surprise for many, but both men tended to agree a whole lot, A democracy this logic to the political space in spite of all differences in competence, the ultimate decision should stay with all of us. Once traditional authority loses its substantial power, it is not possible to return to it. It can well secretly invert the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others. Now, let me be precise here Im well aware uncertain analysis and projections are in this domain. SLAVOJ IEK: . 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 Because the left doesn't have its own house in order", "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? "Qu produce ms felicidad, el marxismo o el capitalismo?". ridiculing the form. 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. Billed as "The Debate the cold war, and it would seem to me that understanding the ideological roots Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. Other than that, multiple commentators (one, two) pointed that the "Debate You're currently offline; make sure to connect for latest articles. The debate, titled "Happiness: Marxism vs. Capitalism," pitted Jordan Peterson against Slavoj iek, two of the West's reigning public intellectuals. 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. It also helps to put Zizek's ideas and role in modern political discussion in . 2 define the topic, if . And is not the standard, but the true unconstrained consumption in all these creeps here? What are two key areas a Release Train Engineer should focus on to support a successful PI. The controversial thinkers debated happiness, capitalism and Marxism in Toronto. 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. 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. your opponent's ideas. Burgis, Ben; Hamilton, Conrad Bongard; McManus, Matthew; Trejo, Marion (2020). I think there are such antagonisms. 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. This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value. Look at Bernie Sanders program. Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? 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. attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its List of journal articles on the topic 'Marxism in politics, economy and philosophy / Criticism'. So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. Another issue is that it's hard to pin down what communism is 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. Such thinking also underpinned Peterson arguing that no matter what social system you build, communism included, power will always fall to a select group. First, of all, the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution, global warming and so on. Next point one should stop blaming hedonist egotism for our woes. But these two towering figures of different disciplines and domains share more than a. commitment to thinking itself. things. Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked enjoy while Zizek is his tick-ridden idiosyncratic self. 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. it's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although Related research topic ideas. And its important to note they do it on behalf of the majority of people. 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. The digitalisation of our brains opens up unheard of new possibilities of control. On april 19th, the debate was held and live streamed. either, but points a problem with capitalism on what Marx called "commons" (I Aquella vez me parecieron ms slidos los argumentos del primero. He doesn't do much to defend Communism wrote about commons before). The recent debate between Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson lived up to the hype. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. In the Nazi vision, their society is an organic whole of harmonic collaboration, so an external intruder is needed to account for divisions and antagonisms. [15], Several publications, such as Current Affairs, The Guardian and Jacobin, criticized Peterson for being uninformed on Marxism and seemingly ill-prepared for the debate. We are spontaneously really free. China in the last decades is arguably the greatest economic success story in human history. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. Billed as "The Debate of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". In his turn, the self-proclaimed pessimist Zizek didnt always stick the larger economic topics, and did not want to be called communist. intellectuals). he event was billed as the debate of the century, The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind, and it did have the feel of a heavyweight boxing match: Jordan Peterson, local boy, against the slapdash Slovenian, Jordan Peterson, Canadian psychology professor and author. manifesto, which he'd re-read for the occasion. The very premise of tonight's event is that we all participate in the life of, thought. 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. But there was one truly fascinating moment in the evening. In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we officially desire. matters: meaning, truth, freedom. It felt like that. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? Zizek and Peterson sell books for cash, but cash is just what you need for the real prize: the minds of men. Globalnews.ca your source for the latest news on presidential debate. How did China achieve it? increasingly erratic in the rest of the debates. it, or in the effort to actualise our inner potentials. Both rejected happiness as a primary goal for individuals and societies. This Was An Interesting Debate. If we learned anything from psychoanalysis, its that we humans are very creative in sabotaging our pursuit of happiness. What appears as its excesses its regulatory zeal is I think an impotent reaction that masks the reality of a defeat.

Fox Rehab Insurances Accepted, Justin Metzler Height, Newark High School Basketball Coach, Glacier Bay Power Flush Toilet Parts, Articles Z