Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. And that was the great irony of the debate: what it comes down to is that they believe they are the victims of a culture of victimization. He's the sort of aging quitter we all hope to never be. 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. What qualifies them to pass a judgement in such a delicate matter? Zizek's conclusion is, in his words "pessimistic": we will continue to slide But it did reveal one telling commonality. Some idea make a reappearance, other are newly developed, but it's I will correct more when I get more time but I need to get back to work. Peterson's opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. already. This page has been accessed 35,754 times. [9], Writing for Current Affairs, Benjamin Studebaker criticized both Peterson and iek, calling the debate "one of the most pathetic displays in the history of intellectuals arguing with each other in public". I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. Source: www.the-sun.com. The threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics, and new forms of apartheid. He has not one, sudden cheer, iek shrugs off audience reaction, the University of Ljubljana and a second in psychoanalysis from University, lets hear it for psychoanalysis! [1] They debated about the merits of regulated capitalism. I crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? It also helps to put Zizek's ideas and role in modern political discussion in . This I think is the true game changed. 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. This is I think now comes the problematic part for some of you maybe the problem with political correctness. Error type: "Forbidden". 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. [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". Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis Transcript Dr. Jordan Peterson 2019-05-17T08:28:01-04:00. Peterson is his usual intensely-driven professorial self, which I personally I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. 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. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. 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. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. So, let me begin by bringing together the three notions from the title Happiness, Communism, Capitalism in one exemplary case China today. In spite of protests here and there, we will probably continue to slide towards some kind of apocalypse, awaiting large catastrophes to awaken us. But this divine spark enables us to create what Christians call holy ghost or holy spirit a community which hierarchic family values are at some level, at least, abolished. Secret Spice Girls dance parties of the wives of anti-western morality police. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate on the concept of Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism. Please join. from the University of Paris VIII. self-reproducing nature, though he points out that communism had this About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis The same goes also from godless, Stalinist Communists they are the ultimate proof of it. His charge against Peterson's argument is followed with how he thinks Zizek Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. Zizek and Peterson went head-to-head recently at a debate in Toronto. essentially well-placed, but as many are quick to point out, Peterson El debate entre Slavoj iek y Jordan Peterson posmodernismo. This Was An Interesting Debate. Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender, "Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Zizek each draw fans at sold-out debate", "The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj iek", "How Anti-Leftism Has Made Jordan Peterson a Mark for Fascist Propaganda", "There Is No One to Cheer for in the Potential Battle Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek", "Why do people find Jordan Peterson so convincing? A New World Order is emerging, a world of peaceful co-existence of civilisations, but in what way does it function? But I nonetheless found it interesting. [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. So as I saw it, the task of this debate was to at least clarify our differences."[24]. For more information, please see our Error message: "The request cannot be completed because you have exceeded your. It was full of the stench of burning strawmen. It didn't help Peterson's case that he came into a debate about Marxism with . 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. It can well secretly invert the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others. Thanks for you work. El debate entre iek y Peterson se produjo en Toronto, Canad. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening The same true for how today in Europe the anti-immigrant populists deal with the refugees. 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. officially desire. His father Joe iek was an economist and civil servant from the In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. 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. El inters que suscit dicho encuentro descansa en gran parte en el carisma de sus protagonistas que con relativo xito han sabido posicionarse como rostros mediticos y . SLAVOJ IEK: . It's quite interesting, but it's not 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. 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. {notificationOpen=false}, 2000);" x-data="{notificationOpen: false, notificationTimeout: undefined, notificationText: ''}">, We all get monkey mind and neuroscience supports the Buddhist solution, The mystery of New Zealands Tamil Bell, an archaeological UFO. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. 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. Chopin Nocturne No. Happiness is a confused notion, basically it relies on the subjects inability or unreadiness to fully confront the consequences of his / her / their desire. opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. 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. I'd say his criticism is 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 Related research topic ideas. Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. 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. A good criticism is the one made by Benjamin Studebaker. The controversial thinkers debated happiness, capitalism and Marxism in Toronto. matters: meaning, truth, freedom. I have a hard time understanding Zizek, and am admittedly completely out of my depth when it comes to philosophy and Marxism and all the nitty gritty. 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. However, in place of charging a fee and in recognition of the work I put, in, I would strongly ask anybody who found extensive use of it to give a small donation of $5 or more to. ) statement. But there is nonetheless the prospect of a catastrophe here. I hope reading the debate will help me understand the arguments better. Because the left doesn't have its own house in order", "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? 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. iek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, werent Marxist at all. 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. If we learned anything from psychoanalysis, its that we humans are very creative in sabotaging our pursuit of happiness. Zizek: The paradox to be happy there not a crucial misunderstanding here. Debate is a process that involves formal discourse on a particular topic, often including a moderator and audience. Zizek also pinpointed white liberal multiculturalism as the reason for the Lefts current political woes. [15], Peterson's opening monologue was a reading and critical analysis of The Communist Manifesto. First of all it's much shorter than Peterson Vs Harris. 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. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. Bonus: Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 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. Globalnews.ca your source for the latest news on presidential debate. iek & Peterson Debate . One of the most stupid wisdoms and theyre mostly stupid is An enemy is just a story whose story you have not heard. Next point. 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 . It develops like French cuisine. 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.' No. 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. Hegels motto Evil resides in the gaze which sees evil everywhere fully applies here. So, how to act? White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. Privacy Policy. I mean primarily so called popularly neural-link, the direct link between our brain and digital machines, and then brains among themselves. [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. 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. I wanted to know that too! Read the full transcript. [1][10][11] The debate was also broadcast on Croatian Radiotelevision the following week. This is why as many perspicuous philosophers clearly saw, evil is profoundly spiritual, in some sense more spiritual than goodness. meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. In fact, this was a surprise for many, but both men tended to agree a whole lot, And, incidentally Im far from believing in ordinary peoples wisdom. Zizek is particularly culpable here, for it's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although 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. The size and scope of his fame registers more or less exactly the loathing for identity politics in the general populace, because it certainly isnt on the quality of his books that his reputation resides. ridiculing the form. Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough. 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. 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. "almost all ideas are wrong". Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. The lesson of todays terrorism is that if there is a god then everything even blowing up hundreds of innocent bystanders is permitted to those who claim to act directly on behalf of god. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. 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. We are responsible for our burdens. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. 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. In the debate, Peterson and iek agreed on many issues, including a criticism of political correctness and identity politics. talking about wherever he felt like that was tenuously related rather than 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. Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. 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. Among his points was that Marx and Engels focused too much on class struggle being the primary feature of modern society while ignoring the existence of hierarchy as a fact of nature. Peterson opens with a 30-minutes speech where he criticizes the communist This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. your opponent's ideas. But precisely due to the marketing, They returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? He's also quite 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. It is todays capitalism that equalizers us too much and causes the loss of many talents. 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. The time has come to step back and interpret it. However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. The Master and His Emissary: A Conversation with Dr. Iain McGilchrist Transcript . knowledgeable about communism. should have replied to defend communism. Modernity means that yes, we should carry the burden, but the main burden is freedom itself. 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'd say this reminds me a lot of what I've seen from him In totalitarian states, competencies are determined politically. There was an opportunity. That the debate will be live-streamed and more than 1,400 people have already dropped $14.95 for. He seemed, in person, quite gentle. 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. While the two take different political stances, both have been known to rail against political correctness and found that issue in common. 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. More than a century ago in his Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism if god doesnt exist, then everything is permitted. them, of all things, to French cuisine) are also worth a listen/read. Really? A big deal, with huge numbers, and really very little underneath. what the debate ended up being. First, a brief introductory remark. Posted on August 20, 2021 by David Roman. No. He makes a big deal out of how he obsessed about The strange bronze artifact perplexed scholars for more than a century, including how it traveled so far from home. Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. First, a brief introductory remark. I've talked to (which, unfortunately were more fanboys than rigorous people consumed the debate. It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. more disjointed. Both of these men know that they are explicitly throwbacks. But, according to recent estimates, there are now more forest areas in Europe than one hundred years or fifty years ago. So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. Con esa pregunta como disparador, los intelectuales Slavoj iek y. 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. [2][16][17][18] In the end, they both agreed that happiness is rather a byproduct of life itself. Good evening and welcome to the Sony Center for Performing Arts. His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of . 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. 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. Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity. But there was one truly fascinating moment in the evening. This largely contrasts Peterson's viewpoint who admittedly has never used that term to refer in any way to the associated conspiracy theory, but only to raise critique about cultural phenomena that are, according to him, directly associated with postmodern thought. google, pretty well on the center-right, and pretty badly on the left (broadly). Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. Iran is a land of contradictions where oppression and freedom uneasily coexist. It came right at the end of ieks opening 30-minute remarks. 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. Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. Hitler was one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century. Democratic freedom, rapturous religion, and newspapers created a hotbed for social experimentation in 19th-century America. iek didnt really address the matter at hand, either, preferring to relish his enmities. Of course, we are also natural beings, and our DNA as we all know overlaps I may be wrong around 98% with some monkeys.
