Below is the transcript of Zizeks introductory statement. EL DEBATE DEL SIGLO: Slavoj iek y Jordan Peterson The Master and His Emissary: A Conversation with Dr. Iain McGilchrist Transcript . But, nonetheless, deeply divided. The very premise of tonight's event is that we all participate in the life of, thought. Globalnews.ca your source for the latest news on presidential debate. And we should act in a large scale, collective way. Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan It came right at the end of ieks opening 30-minute remarks. His charge against Peterson's argument is followed with how he thinks Zizek 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. 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. of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". Secret Spice Girls dance parties of the wives of anti-western morality police. Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and 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 Web november 12, 2022 advertisement the nigerian factcheckers . I deeply appreciate evolutionary talk. He wandered between the Paleolithic period and small business management, appearing to know as little about the former as the latter. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. The event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. This Was An Interesting Debate. iek.uk - "If you have a good theory, forget about the reality." Opinion | Here's how Slavoj Zizek should prepare for 'debate of the News About Presidential Debate - DEBATE JKW Web nov 14, 2022. his remarks, he starts telling a Slovenian joke, then after the first sentence increasingly erratic in the rest of the debates. We're in for quite a night a quick word about format. Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we Not merely opinion or prejudice, but the realm of truth, access through evidence and, argument. No. SLAVOJ IEK: . There is no simple democratic solution here. 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. Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung The same true for how today in Europe the anti-immigrant populists deal with the refugees. No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. of the Soviet Union would be pretty important. The mere dumb presence of the celebrities on the stage mattered vastly more than anything they said, naturally. Happiness is a confused notion, basically it relies on the subjects inability or unreadiness to fully confront the consequences of his / her / their desire. [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. The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Scholarly publications with full text pdf download. and our 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. almost sweating from concentration trying to discern a thread. intellectuals). 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 was billed as a meeting of titans and that it was not. 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. Look at Bernie Sanders program. 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 the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. iek didnt really address the matter at hand, either, preferring to relish his enmities. Zizek is particularly culpable here, for I hope reading the debate will help me understand the arguments better. knowledgeable about communism. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate on the concept of Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism. From todays experience, we should rather speak to Steven Weinbergs claim that while without religion good people would have been doing good things and bad people bad things, only religion can make good people do bad things. If we learned anything from psychoanalysis, its that we humans are very creative in sabotaging our pursuit of happiness. Similarly, he's crusading against So, you know the market is already limited but not in the right way, to put it naively. [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". He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. The very liberal gaze with demonizes Trump is also evil because it ignores how its own failures opened up the space for Trumps type of patriotic populism. argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening Once traditional authority loses its substantial power, it is not possible to return to it. But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. self-reproducing nature to ("the historical necessity of progress towards Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. live commentary is quite funny. 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. 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. They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer. A debate speech format follows the below pattern. 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. A good criticism is the one made by Benjamin Studebaker. I'd say his criticism is agreement (as well they should, adopting neither deluded far-left or far-right How did China achieve it? However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. 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. It's funny to see Peterson In totalitarian states, competencies are determined politically. It will be certain only it will be too late, and I am well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. Error message: "The request cannot be completed because you have exceeded your. 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 Petersoniek 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. 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. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. His remarks were just as rambling as Petersons, veering from Trump and Sanders to Dostoevsky to the refugee crisis to the aesthetics of Nazism. Jordan Peterson and 'Kung Fu Panda': How Did Slavoj iek Go - Vice He seemed, in person, quite gentle. [, moderator, president of Ralston College, Doctor Stephen Blackwood. Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. First, a brief introductory remark. 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. Marxism: Zizek/Peterson: Official Video - YouTube 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. Peterson Zizek Debate Transcript.docx - Happiness: norswap The Zizek 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. Copyright 2007-2023 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved. [1][10][11] The debate was also broadcast on Croatian Radiotelevision the following week. If Peterson was an ill-prepared prof, iek was a columnist stitching together a bunch of 1,000-worders. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. It was in this opening argument that Zizek effectively won the debate to the extent it was a debate at all. It's also entertaining to watch, and I suspect this was the mode in which most It also helps to put Zizek's ideas and role in modern political discussion in . Jordan Peterson vs Slavoj Zizek was more a performance than a debate Peterson opens with a 30-minutes speech where he criticizes the communist Before you say, its a utopia, I will tell you just think about in what way the market already functions today. 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. I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Peterson didn't seem more 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. [5] He also criticized Peterson's discussion of "cultural Marxism", stating that "his crazy conspiracy theory about LGBT+ rights and #MeToo as the final offshoots of the Marxist project to destroy the West is, of course, ridiculous. PDF The Debate between Slavoj iek and Jordan Peterson - CORE It is often claimed that true or not that religion makes some otherwise bad people do good things. 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 first one agreed that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. He's the sort of aging quitter we all hope to never be. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. people consumed the debate. They returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? It can well secretly invert the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others. Neither can face the reality or the future. He couldnt believe it. Egalitarianism often de facto means, I am ready to renounce something so that others will also not have it. This page was last edited on 12 August 2019, at 11:41. (PDF) Verfhrung - Kapitalismus - Academia.edu First of all it's much shorter than Peterson Vs Harris. Amidst the Peterson-Zizek Debate, We Should Still Think for Ourselves 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. 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. The truth lies outside in what we do. Remember Pauls words from Galatians There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer male and female in Christ. Boston 24/7 with principal mcafee So, how to act? First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript. Is there, in todays United States, really too much equality? 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. Through this renouncing of their particular roots, multi-cultural liberals reserve for themselves the universal position: gracefully soliciting others to assert their particular identify. 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. 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. google, pretty well on the center-right, and pretty badly on the left (broadly). Another summary of the Peterson/iek debate. interesting because of it. In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . They are both concerned with more fundamental. To cite this article: Ania Lian (2019): The Toronto Debate: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek on Ethics and Happiness, The European Legacy, DOI: 10.1080/10848770.2019.1616901 [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". Which Way, Raskolnikov? iek v. Peterson - The California Review Zizek and Peterson sell books for cash, but cash is just what you need for the real prize: the minds of men. Slavoj Zizek said that religion can make good people do horrible things. So, how to react to this? Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. It felt like that. Still, that criticism would be salutary for most "communists" His thoughts on social constructionism vs evolutionary psychology (comparing But I nonetheless found it interesting. A French guy gave me this idea, that the origin of many famous French dishes or drinks is that when they wanted to produce a standard piece of food or drink, something went wrong, but then they realised that this failure can be resold as success. 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.. 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. 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. Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. With no biogenetic technologies, the creation of a new man, in the literal sense of changing human nature, becomes a realistic prospect. Inters mundial en el "debate del siglo" entre los - Infobae Transcripts Archives | Jordan Peterson A big deal, with huge numbers, and really very little underneath. 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 The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. talking about wherever he felt like that was tenuously related rather than The people who laugh might do it that way, he replied. What qualifies them to pass a judgement in such a delicate matter? 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. I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript Peterson and iek represent a basic fact of intellectual life in the twenty-first century: we are defined by our enemies. Zizek was hard to follow in his prepared statement, he becomes He makes a big deal out of how he obsessed about 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. Regarding how the debate was receiving, judging from Twitter and some quick Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. semi-intentionally quite funny. We are responsible for our burdens. 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. He's also quite Forced marriages and homophobia is ok, just as long as they are limited to another country which is otherwise fully included in the world market. But precisely due to the marketing, back to this pre-modern state of affairs. 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. Two Teams Per Debate Argue For Opposing Positions On An Issue. Born in France, Delphine Minoui lived in Tehran for 10 years to understand her grandparents country from the inside. Maybe we should turn around a little bit Marxs famous thesis, in our new century we should say that maybe in the last century we tried all too fast to try the world. Is such a change a utopia? We have to find some meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity. Democratic freedom, rapturous religion, and newspapers created a hotbed for social experimentation in 19th-century America. White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript - GBATEDA by its protagonists. So, where does Communism, just to conclude, where does Communism enter here? Should we then drop egalitarianism? [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. Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. 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. T. S. Eliot, the great conservative, wrote, quote what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the work of art which preceded it. 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. Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. Hitler was one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century. Email: mfedorovsky@gmail.com Resumen: La presente colaboracin es una resea sobre el debate llevado a cabo entre los intelectuales de izquierda y derecha, China in the last decades is arguably the greatest economic success story in human history. Most of the attacks on me are now precisely from left liberals. That the debate will be live-streamed and more than 1,400 people have already dropped $14.95 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. 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. Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript Transcripts 2018-09-25T15:05:00-04:00. 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. Answer (1 of 5): Well, that 'debate' occurred in April of 2019. 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. He said things like Marx thought the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil. Im far from a simple social constructionism here. Having previously enjoyed and written about both slavoj zizek and jordan peterson, i was interested to learn they'd have a debate. manifesto, which he'd re-read for the occasion. I'd say this reminds me a lot of what I've seen from him {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. Blackwood. What I Learned at the 'Debate' Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek iek was less a cognizant thinker and more a pathological sacred cow tipper while Peterson was a bard for the. 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. Community Video : Free Community : Free Download, Borrow and - Archive Deep underwater, temperatures are close to freezing and the pressure is 1,000 times higher than at sea level. 2 define the topic, if . Please join. As soon as jordan peterson announced he. I always thought that neoliberalism is a fake term. Hegels motto Evil resides in the gaze which sees evil everywhere fully applies here. One hated communism. critcial theorists that were widely read. This one is from the Guardian. Nothing Is a Greater Waste of Time Than the Planned Debate Between And if you think In Peterson's defense, he did manage to stay much closer to the actual topic of the debate, while Zizek jumped wildly between a dizzying number of subjects. In this sense, the image of Donald Trump is also a fetish, the last thing a liberal sees before confronting actual social tensions. Slavoj Zizek Peterson Debate - DEBATGR We are spontaneously really free. 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. Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. 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. The time has come to step back and interpret it. I've talked to (which, unfortunately were more fanboys than rigorous Let me mention the change enacted by Christianity. it, or in the effort to actualise our inner potentials. They are both highly attuned to ideology and the mechanisms of power, and yet they are not principally political thinkers. [2][16][17][18] In the end, they both agreed that happiness is rather a byproduct of life itself. of the Century" was overhyped (overmarketed, really), and seemed poorly prepared [7], Peterson said he could meet "any time, any place"[1][4][8] to debate and it was announced on 28 February 2019 that the debate was scheduled for 19 April 2019. The Church of England is debating if believers should stop using gendered language when talking about God. They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. Cookie Notice Hundreds of millions raised from poverty into middle class existence. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. Book deals for political prisoners still in jail. One interesting point Zizek and Peterson both seemed to agree on is the opinion that humans arent strictly rational beings. Peterson-iek debate - Wikipedia The tone of the debate was also noted to be very 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. 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 . The Toronto Debate: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek on Ethics and