For example, an example not from neo-conservatives. 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. Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. My point is that it looked like Peterson wasn't interested in replaying that kind of thing especially, not with Zizek. Freedom and responsibility hurt they require an effort, and the highest function of an authentic master is to literally to awake in us to our freedom. 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. In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. It came right at the end of ieks opening 30-minute remarks. Im far from a simple social constructionism here. [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". I always thought that neoliberalism is a fake term. Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. sticking to "his camp", but I feel like the resulting discussing ended up more [, : Thank you. 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. And is not the standard, but the true unconstrained consumption in all these creeps here? First by admitting we are in a deep mess. On april 19th, the debate was held and live streamed. Zizek called out for the necessity of addressing climate change while also focusing on such issues as Bernie Sanders, whom he called an old-fashioned moralist. Zizek sees Sanders as being unfairly portrayed as a radical. Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript. knowledgeable about communism. strongest point. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. But, are the Chinese any happier for all that? matters: meaning, truth, freedom. 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. self-reproducing nature, though he points out that communism had this Elements of a formal debate. But there is nonetheless the prospect of a catastrophe here. so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we Cookie Notice 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. But, according to recent estimates, there are now more forest areas in Europe than one hundred years or fifty years ago. [1], Around 3,000 people were in Meridian Hall in Toronto for the event. Related research topic ideas. We will probably slide towards apocalypse, he said. authors with occasional bridges being thrown accross. It can well secretly invert the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others. I wanted to know that too! The turn towards culture as a key component of capitalist reproduction and concurrent to it the commodification of cultural life itself are I think crucial moments of capitalism expanded reproduction. Iran is a land of contradictions where oppression and freedom uneasily coexist. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. [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. However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. This is why as many perspicuous philosophers clearly saw, evil is profoundly spiritual, in some sense more spiritual than goodness. It is often claimed that true or not that religion makes some otherwise bad people do good things. 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. [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. Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. Chopin Nocturne No. 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. You can find a transcript of it here. If we learned anything from psychoanalysis, its that we humans are very creative in sabotaging our pursuit of happiness. But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. It seems that our countries are run relatively well, but is the mess the so-called rogue countries find themselves in not connected to how we interact with them? 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. Democratic freedom, rapturous religion, and newspapers created a hotbed for social experimentation in 19th-century America. Con esa pregunta como disparador, los intelectuales Slavoj iek y. It's quite interesting, but it's not Presidential debate 2020 RECAP What happened in the first election from www.the-sun.com. The cause of problems which are, I claim, immanent to todays global capitalism, is projected onto an external intruder. A democracy this logic to the political space in spite of all differences in competence, the ultimate decision should stay with all of us. No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate on the concept of Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism. The very premise of tonight's event is that we all participate in the life of, thought. Moderated by Stephen J. Blackwood, it was held before an audience of 3,000 at Meridian Hall in Toronto on 19 April 2019. Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity. 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. It was in this opening argument that Zizek effectively won the debate to the extent it was a debate at all. critcial theorists that were widely read. By the end of his half-hour he had not mentioned the word happiness once. With anti-Semitism, we are approaching the topic of telling stories. Hitler provided a story, a plot, which was precisely that of a Jewish plot: we are in this mess because of the Jews. In this sense, the image of Donald Trump is also a fetish, the last thing a liberal sees before confronting actual social tensions. iek and Peterson met in Toronto on Friday. 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. Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. The tone of the debate was also noted to be very Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . Below is the transcript of zizek's introductory statement. Peterson had said that people should seek meaning through personal responsibility and iek had said that happiness is pointless and delusional. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. 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. 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. Not only are we not allowed cheap excuses for not doing our duty, duty itself should not serve as an excuse. Never presume that your suffering is in itself proof of your authenticity. 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. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. 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. 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. 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. 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. Not that I was disappointed. 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. 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 . Both of these men know that they are explicitly throwbacks. If the academic left is all-powerful, they get to indulge in their victimization. He's also quite Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across. Two Teams Per Debate Argue For Opposing Positions On An Issue. There was an opportunity. 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. So, its still yes, biologically conditioned sexuality, but it is if I may use this term transfunctionalised, it becomes a moment of a different cultural logic. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? This means something, but nature I think we should never forget this is not a stable hierarchical system but full of improvisations. First, a brief introductory remark. 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. April 20, 2019. vastly different backgrounds). Other than that, multiple commentators (one, two) pointed that the "Debate "If you have a good theory, forget about the reality. And we should act in a large scale, collective way. Neither can face the reality or the future. ", "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. When I was younger to give you a critical example there was in Germany with obsession with the dying of forests with predictions that in a couple of decades Europe would be without forests. it's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although Peterson was an expert on this subject, at least. this event had the possibility to reach a much wider audience. 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. "[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. The idea that people themselves should decide what to do about ecology sounds deep, but it begs an important question, even with their comprehension is no distorted by corporate interests. The recent debate between Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson lived up to the hype. But, it is instantly clear how this self-denigration brings a profit of its own. 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. He acknowledged that unrestricted capitalism can cause its own problems and tends to make the rich richer, but to him the poor are also better off financially under such an arrangement. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM35zlrE01k. As soon as jordan peterson announced he. The debate, titled "Happiness: Marxism vs. Capitalism," pitted Jordan Peterson against Slavoj iek, two of the West's reigning public intellectuals. Competencies for what? The two generally agreed on. 2 define the topic, if . Hundreds of millions raised from poverty into middle class existence. iek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, werent Marxist at all. Burgis, Ben; Hamilton, Conrad Bongard; McManus, Matthew; Trejo, Marion (2020). At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx [3], During an event at the Cambridge Union in November 2018, iek stated that Peterson used "pseudo-scientific[4] evidence" (3:40). It develops like French cuisine. Really? 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. attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. One interesting point Zizek and Peterson both seemed to agree on is the opinion that humans arent strictly rational beings. Email: mfedorovsky@gmail.com Resumen: La presente colaboracin es una resea sobre el debate llevado a cabo entre los intelectuales de izquierda y derecha, Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and 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. He is now a, Professor at the Institute of Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, and the Director of, the Birbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London. Web november 12, 2022 advertisement the nigerian factcheckers . I think there are such antagonisms. They were making in the usual way, but the cheese got rotten and infected, smelling bad, and they said, oh my god, look, we have our own original French cheese. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. This Was An Interesting Debate. 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. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Peterson didn't seem more interesting because of it. Look at Bernie Sanders program. 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. 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. However, this is not enough. ", "Snimka dvoboja titana ieka i Petersona", "HRT Je Jedina Televizija U Europi Koja Je Dobila Pravo Prikazati 'Debatu Stoljea': Evo kada moete pogledati filozofski dvoboj iek - Peterson", "Jordan Peterson vs Slavoj iek was more a performance than a debate", "Jordan Peterson i Slavoj iek: Debata stoljea ili precijenjeni show? (Chinas success makes a joke out of the whole premise of the debate: the old-fashioned distinction between communism and capitalism.) In such times of urgency, when we know we have to act but dont know how to act, thinking is needed. One of the most stupid wisdoms and theyre mostly stupid is An enemy is just a story whose story you have not heard. 2 Piano Mono - moshimo sound design. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. What qualifies them to pass a judgement in such a delicate matter? 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. Globalnews.ca your source for the latest news on presidential debate. This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value. This is how refugees are created. And sure, the level of the discussion might have been unappealing to all the The people who laugh might do it that way, he replied. White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. Watching him, I was amazed that anyone had ever taken him seriously enough to hate him. I mean primarily so called popularly neural-link, the direct link between our brain and digital machines, and then brains among themselves. 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.. Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung 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. It was billed as a meeting of titans and that it was not. The rest of the debate was (if memory serves) also interesting, but it gets even The second threat, the commons of internal nature. Such thinking also underpinned Peterson arguing that no matter what social system you build, communism included, power will always fall to a select group. 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. His remarks were just as rambling as Petersons, veering from Trump and Sanders to Dostoevsky to the refugee crisis to the aesthetics of Nazism. All these antagonisms concern what Marx called commons the shared substance of our social being. Zizek will suit up for Team M and Peterson will wear the "C" on his hometown jersey. He said things like Marx thought the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil. Deep underwater, temperatures are close to freezing and the pressure is 1,000 times higher than at sea level. them, of all things, to French cuisine) are also worth a listen/read. (or both), this part is the most interesting. A renunciation of pleasure can easily turn in pleasure of renunciation itself. This is again not a moral reproach. should have replied to defend communism. Transcript of Zizek vs. Peterson Discussing "Happiness, Capitalism vs. Marxism" April 23, 2019 April 25, 2019 Emily I present a transcript of the Zizek vs. Peterson discussion. 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. But it did reveal one telling commonality. 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. They seemed to believe that the academic left, whoever that might be, was some all-powerful cultural force rather than the impotent shrinking collection of irrelevances it is. [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. Thanks for you work. ridiculing the form. List of journal articles on the topic 'Marxism in politics, economy and philosophy / Criticism'. First, on how happiness is often the wrong 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?". 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.' What's perhaps most surprising is that Zizek doesn't defend Marxism, which he What if secretly they know she would kill her child again. more disjointed. Then once you factor in the notion that much of Marxism is . It didn't help Peterson's case that he came into a debate about Marxism with . But, a danger lurks here, that of a subtly reversal: dont fall in love thats my position with your suffering. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. 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 . 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 Secret Spice Girls dance parties of the wives of anti-western morality police. He is a conservative. The paper contains almost no references to any other texts, either by Marx or by other socialist thinkers. 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. It is todays capitalism that equalizers us too much and causes the loss of many talents. Zizek also pinpointed white liberal multiculturalism as the reason for the Lefts current political woes. 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. Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. a.Teams are iterating, but the system is not b.Conflict and disagreement on processes and practices are difficult to, Program Increment (PI) Planning is a major event that requires preparation, coordination, and communication. The debate can best be seen as a collection of interesting ideas from both Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. So, let me begin by bringing together the three notions from the title Happiness, Communism, Capitalism in one exemplary case China today. iek & Peterson Debate . How did China achieve it? About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. self-reproducing nature to ("the historical necessity of progress towards Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. Slavoj iek, psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic, and Hegelian Marxist. I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. [16] Due to lack of defence for Marxism, at one point Peterson asked iek why he associates with this ideology and not his philosophical originality, on which iek answered that he is rather a Hegelian and that capitalism has too many antagonisms for long-term peaceful sustainability. There are two teams, each consisting of two or three speakers. His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of . So, how to react to this? consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise It will be certain only it will be too late, and I am well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. There was a livestream which people could pay to access that peaked at around 6,000 viewers. "[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. But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. 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. The true utopia is that we can survive without such a change. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. 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. So, I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not In the debate, Peterson and iek agreed on many issues, including a criticism of political correctness and identity politics. But I nonetheless found it interesting. While the two take different political stances, both have been known to rail against political correctness and found that issue in common. For more information, please see our A warm welcome to all of you here this evening, both those here in the, theatre in Toronto and those following online. 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. All such returns are today a post-modern fake. The truth lies outside in what we do. essentially well-placed, but as many are quick to point out, Everything was permitted to them as they perceived themselves as direct instrument of their divinity of historical necessity, as progress towards communism. Zizek and Peterson went head-to-head recently at a debate in Toronto. But, nonetheless, deeply divided. Zizek makes many interesting points. Modernity means that yes, we should carry the burden, but the main burden is freedom itself. Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked 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? Id like the share the debate with a hearing impaired friend. 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. 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. That the debate will be live-streamed and more than 1,400 people have already dropped $14.95 for.