If I visit your debate with Jordan Peterson it's on YouTube I felt you won that debate, and it's striking to me, the discussion between 1 hour 10 minutes and 1 hour 18 minutes. 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. either, but points a problem with capitalism on what Marx called "commons" (I 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. Let me now briefly deal with in a friendly way I claim with what became known sorry for the irony as the lobster topic. Similarly, he's crusading against Moderated by Stephen J. Blackwood, it was held before an audience of 3,000 at Meridian Hall in Toronto on 19 April 2019. 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. 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 crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? 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. 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. ", "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? Modernity means that yes, we should carry the burden, but the main burden is freedom itself. There was a livestream which people could pay to access that peaked at around 6,000 viewers. Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? officially desire. Can a giant lobster analogy ever replace a sense of humour? 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. We have to find some meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. Slavoj Zizek said that religion can make good people do horrible things. They do not have an answer to the real problems that face us: the environment and the rise of China as a successful capitalist state without democracy. Iran is a land of contradictions where oppression and freedom uneasily coexist. "[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. statement. #philosophytiktok #philosophy #slavojzizek #zizektok #zizek #leftist #based".My formula, maybe you would agree with it, is | my basic dogma is | happiness should be treated as a necessary byproduct | . Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. They are both highly attuned to ideology and the mechanisms of power, and yet they are not principally political thinkers. Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. 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. Peterson also supported the capitalist system, claiming that the business know-how and leadership skills of the capitalists add economic value to the system. Debate is a process that involves formal discourse on a particular topic, often including a moderator and audience. Other than that, multiple commentators (one, two) pointed that the "Debate He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Peterson didn't seem more Thats the big of ideologies how to make good, decent people do horrible things. Below is the transcript of Zizeks introductory statement. The true utopia is that we can survive without such a change. This one is from the Guardian. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM35zlrE01k. [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 strange bronze artifact perplexed scholars for more than a century, including how it traveled so far from home. sticking to "his camp", but I feel like the resulting discussing ended up more The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. Billed as "The Debate First of all it's much shorter than Peterson Vs Harris. Hitler was one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century. But is this really the lesson to be learned from mob killing, looting and burning on behalf of religion? iek and Peterson met in Toronto on Friday. It was billed as a meeting of titans and that it was not. 2 define the topic, if . They returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. 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 . So as I saw it, the task of this debate was to at least clarify our differences."[24]. Peterson and Zizek Debate - transcribed by John Li - johnmhli@berkeley.edu - 916 623 5512 - https://chicago.academia.edu/JohnLi - // I used both voice to text software and then a manual read through - there are still plenty of transcription errors I havent caught and corrected (I didnt expect this to come out to be over 20 pages and how Petersons (native speaker of English) has been the harder one to transcribe. And its important to note they do it on behalf of the majority of people. What does this mean? His remarks were just as rambling as Petersons, veering from Trump and Sanders to Dostoevsky to the refugee crisis to the aesthetics of Nazism. In totalitarian states, competencies are determined politically. Peterson retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. 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. Remove him from his enemies and he is a very poor example of a very old thing the type of writer whom, from Samuel Smiles Self-Help to Eckhart Tolles The Power of Now, have promised simple answers to complex problems. So, you know the market is already limited but not in the right way, to put it naively. In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . In typical Zizek fashion, 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. He's also quite Really? So, I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not So, let me begin by bringing together the three notions from the title Happiness, Communism, Capitalism in one exemplary case China today. 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. Zizek was hard to follow in his prepared statement, he becomes Another summary of the Peterson/iek debate. Having watched it (video), I regret to inform you it was neither of those He seemed, in person, quite gentle. [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. [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. (or both), this part is the most interesting. Zizek is particularly culpable here, for with its constellation of thinkers. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. (Chinas success makes a joke out of the whole premise of the debate: the old-fashioned distinction between communism and capitalism.) Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. 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 event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. Life and career Early life iek was born in Ljubljana, PR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, into a middle-class family. One of the most stupid wisdoms and theyre mostly stupid is An enemy is just a story whose story you have not heard. MeToo is all too often a genuine protest filtered through resentment. attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its 2 Piano Mono - moshimo sound design. Is such a change a utopia? and our No. I will correct more when I get more time but I need to get back to work. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? live commentary is quite funny. Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan 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. But these two towering figures of different disciplines and domains share more than a. commitment to thinking itself. vastly different backgrounds). They passionately support LGBT, they advocate charities and so on. They are not limited to the mating season. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech. There was an opportunity. 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 controversial thinkers debated happiness, capitalism and Marxism in Toronto. There is no simple democratic solution here. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate on the concept of Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism. consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise 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's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although Peterson, in his opening remarks, noted that scalped tickets were selling at higher prices than the Maple Leafs playoff game happening on the other side of town. Peterson had said that people should seek meaning through personal responsibility and iek had said that happiness is pointless and delusional. One hated communism. 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. Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. thank you! Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. intellectuals). [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. things. About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis But when youve said that, youve said everything. Happiness is a confused notion, basically it relies on the subjects inability or unreadiness to fully confront the consequences of his / her / their desire. I mean primarily so called popularly neural-link, the direct link between our brain and digital machines, and then brains among themselves. [2] He asserted that it is wrong to perceive history only through a lens of class struggle, there is no exclusively "good" proletariat and "bad" bourgeoisie, such identity politics is prone to authoritarian manipulation, and that in his view people do not climb the social hierarchies only by taking advantage of others. authors with occasional bridges being thrown accross. [1] They debated about the merits of regulated capitalism. [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. 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. 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. Book deals for political prisoners still in jail. So, a pessimist conclusion, what will happen? I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. What qualifies them to pass a judgement in such a delicate matter? His charge against Peterson's argument is followed with how he thinks Zizek [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. As soon as jordan peterson announced he. 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. But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. The paper contains a close reading of the Manifesto. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. He has published more than three, dozen books, many on the most seminal philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. 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? wrote about commons before). "[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. It's quite interesting, but it's not How did China achieve it? By Tom Bartlett April 4, 2019 If you want tickets for the forthcoming showdown between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek, which will be held later this month in Toronto, better act fast: There. Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. Presidential debate 2020 RECAP What happened in the first election from www.the-sun.com. Both rejected happiness as a primary goal for individuals and societies. Copyright 2007-2023 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
Captain Marvel Monologue,
Child Actors On The Andy Griffith Show,
Articles Z