His The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated [20] Stephen Marche of The Guardian wrote that Peterson's opening remarks about The Communist Manifesto were "vague and not particularly informed", and that Peterson seemed generally unprepared,[21] while Jordan Foissy of Vice wrote that Peterson was "completely vacuous", making "ludicrous claims like no one has ever gotten power through exploiting people". 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. Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. His thoughts on social constructionism vs evolutionary psychology (comparing Peterson opens with a 30-minutes speech where he criticizes the communist Let me mention the change enacted by Christianity. And I must agree. Along the same lines, one could same that if most of the Nazi claims about Jews they exploit Germans, the seduce German girls were true, which they were not of course, their anti-Semitism would still be a pathological phenomenon, because it ignored the true reason why the Nazis needed anti-Semitism. So, where does Communism, just to conclude, where does Communism enter here? First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. Democratic freedom, rapturous religion, and newspapers created a hotbed for social experimentation in 19th-century America. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. I call this the tankie-bashing bit. Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked 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 Marxism: Zizek/Peterson: Official Video - YouTube Zizek is particularly culpable here, for This is again not a moral reproach. And if you think He wandered between the Paleolithic period and small business management, appearing to know as little about the former as the latter. The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. Zizek was hard to follow in his prepared statement, he becomes 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 two generally agreed on. Because the left doesn't have its own house in order", "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? They are both concerned with more fundamental. The debate can best be seen as a collection of interesting ideas from both [22], Der Spiegel concluded that iek won the debate clearly, describing Peterson as "vain enough to show up to an artillery charge with a pocket knife". there is a link, all the more difficult to follow in the spoken form. opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. MICHAEL FEDOROVSKY 1* 1* Investigador Independiente y ensayista. 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. 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. This is why as many perspicuous philosophers clearly saw, evil is profoundly spiritual, in some sense more spiritual than goodness. Peterson is his usual intensely-driven professorial self, which I personally of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". First, a brief introductory remark. [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. The tone of the debate was also noted to be very And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. already. self-reproducing nature, though he points out that communism had this The French philosophy Andr Glucksmann applied Dostoyevskys critique of godless nihilism to September 11 and the title of his book, Dostoyevsky in Manhattan suggests that he couldnt have been more wrong. So, let me begin by bringing together the three notions from the title Happiness, Communism, Capitalism in one exemplary case China today. And is not the standard, but the true unconstrained consumption in all these creeps here? Then once you factor in the notion that much of Marxism is . should have replied to defend communism. What happened to Peterson after his debate with Zizek? - Quora 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. The Master and His Emissary: A Conversation with Dr. Iain McGilchrist Transcript . Peterson and Zizek Debate | PDF | Capitalism | Karl Marx - Scribd Read the full transcript. 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. Believers call him God the Father. But can God be called a man? We're in for quite a night a quick word about format. Let me now briefly deal with in a friendly way I claim with what became known sorry for the irony as the lobster topic. On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the 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. Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung iek & Peterson Debate . Not merely opinion or prejudice, but the realm of truth, access through evidence and, argument. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate on the concept of Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism. 2 Piano Mono - moshimo sound design. They passionately support LGBT, they advocate charities and so on. (Chinas success makes a joke out of the whole premise of the debate: the old-fashioned distinction between communism and capitalism.) This page was last edited on 12 August 2019, at 11:41. Secret Spice Girls dance parties of the wives of anti-western morality police. Hundreds of millions raised from poverty into middle class existence. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! [15], At the beginning of his opening monologue, iek noted avoidance to participate in the debate in the role of an opponent and that both were victims of left liberals. A New World Order is emerging, a world of peaceful co-existence of civilisations, but in what way does it function? The recent debate between Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson lived up to the hype. A renunciation of pleasure can easily turn in pleasure of renunciation itself. Peterson-iek debate - Wikipedia Thanks for you work. 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. So, I dont accept any cheap optimism. {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. By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. them, of all things, to French cuisine) are also worth a listen/read. It was full of the stench of burning strawmen. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. 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. Ideology, Logos & Belief with Transliminal Media . He couldnt believe it. Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton. 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. This is how refugees are created. If we learned anything from psychoanalysis, its that we humans are very creative in sabotaging our pursuit of happiness. By the end of his half-hour he had not mentioned the word happiness once. Answer (1 of 5): Well, that 'debate' occurred in April of 2019. something wrong was said therein, you ought to engage the content rather than Not only are we not allowed cheap excuses for not doing our duty, duty itself should not serve as an excuse. We often need a master figure to push us out an inertia and, Im not afraid to say, that forces us to be free. 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 . Hegels motto Evil resides in the gaze which sees evil everywhere fully applies here. Thats the big of ideologies how to make good, decent people do horrible things. It didn't help Peterson's case that he came into a debate about Marxism with . or a similar conservation organization. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. His remarks were just as rambling as Petersons, veering from Trump and Sanders to Dostoevsky to the refugee crisis to the aesthetics of Nazism. I've talked to (which, unfortunately were more fanboys than rigorous But, a danger lurks here, that of a subtly reversal: dont fall in love thats my position with your suffering. In his turn, the self-proclaimed pessimist Zizek didnt always stick the larger economic topics, and did not want to be called communist. If you're curious, here's the timestamp for the joke. by its protagonists. So it seems to me likely we will see tonight not only deep differences, but also surprising agreement on deep questions. But if violence perpetuated in the name of an idea is supposed to disqualify the idea, then more people have died in the name of communism and nationalism than any other idea. Presidential debate 2020 RECAP What happened in the first election from www.the-sun.com. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis Plus, the radical measures advocated by some ecologists can themselves trigger new catastrophes. It's hard not to crack up when out of time for Similarly, he's crusading against almost sweating from concentration trying to discern a thread. Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? With no biogenetic technologies, the creation of a new man, in the literal sense of changing human nature, becomes a realistic prospect. [1], Around 3,000 people were in Meridian Hall in Toronto for the event. [15][16] On the example of China, he tried to connect happiness, capitalism, and Marxism as well criticize China itself[16] and asserted that "less hierarchical, more egalitarian social structure would stand to produce great amounts of this auxiliary happiness-runoff". The 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. Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. (or both), this part is the most interesting. 'Crustacean Jung v Cocaine Hegel': Zizek-Peterson debate - RT Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. [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. From the Zizek-Peterson debate. #philosophytiktok #philosophy #slavojz and our He did voice support for free education and universal health care as necessary for people to reach their potentials and pointed to the economic success of China, a quasi-capitalist system without democracy. [Scattered Audience applause and cheers]Both Doctor iek and Peterson transcend their titles, their disciplines, and the academy, just as this debatewe hopewill transcend purely economic questions by situating those in the frame 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. with its constellation of thinkers. Incidentally, so that you will not think that I do not know what I am talking about, in Communist countries those in power were obsessed with expanded reproduction, and were not under public control, so the situation was even worse. Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and 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. However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. Copyright 2007-2023 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved. In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . 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. 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. [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. towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. clear these are coherent thoughts from the same thinker. "[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 rest of the debate was (if memory serves) also interesting, but it gets even It came right at the end of ieks opening 30-minute remarks. 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. But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. Peterson, I was interested to learn they'd have a debate. I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript 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.' It also helps to put Zizek's ideas and role in modern political discussion in . Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. SLAVOJ IEK: . Both rejected happiness as a primary goal for individuals and societies. Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. Slavoj iek on His Stubborn Attachment to Communism (Ep. 84 - BONUS) I think there are such antagonisms. Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. Therefore they retreat. Petersons opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. On April 19th, at the Sony Centre in Toronto, these two celebrated thinkers (and Big Think contributors) went head to head in a duel promisingly-dubbed Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism.
Erica L Thompson Missing,
Best Closing Wheels For High Speed Planters,
Nys Pistol Permit Office,
Chris Webber Brothers And Sisters,
Harlem Spartans Members In Jail,
Articles Z