Please, let me break it down to you: 1) Zizek is NOT saying one should let one's house untidy, but simply that we can have it both ways: not just set our house in order, but ALSO try to change the world in the meantime. They should not be mutually exclusive things. Zizek's house itself is meticulously tidy (just look at his VICE interview). The argument that Zizek is just trying to justify his own mess at his house is not only a nonsense, but childish; 2) Zizek is just saying that real change does not begin with personal responsibility (like Gandhi thought with his famous "be yourself the change you want to see in the world"), but by addressing the way society itself reproduces itself. Individual responsibility, for Zizek, is an ideological trick whose ultimate aim is precisely to AVOID radical change, a false bargain. His example of ecology goes in the same direction: the more we are told we are personally responsible for ecological catastrophies, the less mega changes in the way the system reproduces itself are made. You're welcome. :)
@@okuyasu4033 I'm not sure if that was Ivo's point, and I would agree that individual action is not likely to make a big difference for such concerns. Maybe I misunderstood but I took him to mean even legislation would be unable to help, when really it can.
@@Makaneek5060I don’t think it was just legislation I think it was due to the fact that the ozone hole had the potential to grow and cause the same problems it had caused in Australia across the globe. The possibility that you could get skin cancer so easily anywhere now forced the change not mainly just the legislation
This is the only time I think I've ever tried to wipe the inside of the screen of my smartphone. Why does he look like a homeless person trying to defend his right to sleep in a vacant house's bath tub?
That's actually a healthy debate. Kudos to both parties. I wish people were able to do this wholeheartedly with the intent of gathering more life experience and learn a thing or two.
Peterson and Zizek showed ultimate professionalism during this debate. Both were incredibly respectful even in spite of the 7th grade audience members repeated sophomoric interruptions.
Jordan Peterson was a joke, he admitted that he didn't even bother engaging with the literature in preparation for this debate. If you did that at even an undergraduate level, you would expect to be expelled from all future debates. What a pathetic sophist.
@@lisztdylan7846 Yeah he's a fucking moron. Is this news to you? His sophomoric, veiled christianity bullshit is responsible for delaying our inevitable attainment of Socialist utopia by at least a couple of years. Have you read his book? If you haven't, congrats, don't.
The thumbnail for this video was made with the pure and obvious intention of misrepresenting the discussion between Peterson and Zizek. Both individuals displayed nothing but patience, focus, and respect for one another.
@@RatafakTehPlachta It's people like _YOU_ and your ilk that are the problem with society. Anyone who argues against free speech is at the root of social issues and this is simple fact. No one of any societal importance cares about your feelings being hurt by the fact that people disagree with you, even if they do so wrongly.
@@kooldudematt1 and may i see, my good sir, where did i actually argue against free speech? im all for it. part of the free speech is to disagree with the fact that someone who pampers to a neo nazi audience gets public space and gets to influence the minds of young people - fragile and easily manipulated. that is my opinion. that is me expressing my free speech. you have a problem with that, maybe you have a problem with free speech. you only yell free speech when it suits you and it is in alignment with your world view, well, some bad news for you, society doesnt work like that. meaningful boundaries based on sound arguments will always be a thing, thank fuck. and again, my feelings? bold assumptions, since nowhere in my previous statement have i said anything about feelings. societal importance? like who? president of the universe papa jordan? get a hold of yourself, you sound hysterical
@@RatafakTehPlachta Care to explain what part of anything that Jordan said here caters to a Neo-Nazi audience ? Or is it that you just like to throw around the term "Neo-Nazi" without understanding it's meaning and application ? The fact that Jordan is sitting there side-by-side with an individual who almost completely disagrees with everything he stands for and having a civilised discussion, kind of proves that he is the exact opposite of a Neo-Nazi. Because Nazis (or Neo-Nazis) were never known for their tolerance or patience.
Jordan’s main point is basically control all the things you can control to the best of your ability and that will position yourself best to deal with things you can’t control.
This is *exactly* the problem I have with many people in my generation (Milennials). They are looking to the government and to society for their wellbeing. No one will ever give a fuck about you as much as you care about you (okay, maybe your mom or somethin). Your responsibility is to make due with what you got. Most people are expecting a clean house without first cleaning their room. Sure, society might shit on you but they're always gonna do that and, many times, they won't be held to account for it. Nevertheless, you have to continue, because you want a clean room. Separate yourself from the people harming you and clean your rooms till your house gets clean.
@@benjiusofficial doesn't make anything true. What is the ”right thing“ to do? Is it what Peterson wants or what others want? Even all mothers will have a different kind of caring, what is a different order to any house, clean to any house?
@@user-yk5xu8gr1e Beyond a single person's ability**. Being beaten half to death by a cop for no reason is ultimately a personal problem, but maybe you should ask why this is happening in the first place before you sign up for martial arts classes.
Actually it might work to some extent only the other way round. But more likely by taking social problems seriously, you create additional personal problems to yourself 😅To solve social problems through taking seriously personal problems is not possible, unless you are so powerful to do it. Let's say Hitler after seized power in 1933 could solve social problems by solving his own problems, however the problem was that he himself was lifted to power by those social problems. He was in a way their product.
@@dlee73 Or you'll hold protests and marches after your little brother is murdered by government officials, and then people will ask you why you aren't cleaning your room
@@auralit8 maybe you should ask why that happened to your brother. Or maybe you should ask why you weren't there for your brother to stop that situation from happening. Was your brother on drugs? Depressed? Angry? Did you talk to him? Did you try to help? Maybe you were estranged, and could have reached out. It's very easy to blame others. It's very easy to blame the government. However, what could you have done? I think that's a question that one shouldn't ignore. You need to take responsibility first. I'm not saying that bad things don't happen. I'm just saying that you can speak with truth when you come from that perspective.
Hi @@bernie2124. I think the emphasis that a lot of people are placing right now on personal responsibility is a coping mechanism. It ties into the "just world hypothesis," which you can google if you're interested. The thing is that if there's always some way you can take personal responsibility, it inoculates you psychologically against the threat of a cruel, unpredictable, and often unjust world. I think the desire for that psychological security makes many people callous.
I find so sad that there are so much people who view this debate as a puerile attempt from either part to "obliterate" the other, and not as the lesson on civil and productive debate that it is. This type of debate is the stuff that human progress is made of.
No, no! I think about the contribution, the amalgamation that the clashes/skirmishes of those brilliant minds create! the perspective! Ah! it's very very very intriguing!
Unfortunately there are certain topics we can't debate. Just ask the ADL. Until there is zero censorship and 100% scientific transparency, we'll remain stagnant.
I think Peterson eventually answered the question perfectly. Zizek: "Why do you say 'put your house in order?' What if it is in that order because of society?" Peterson: "That is why we start with our house. It is not seperate from society, so if we can fix our house, we can get some insight on how to fix society."
I honestly think Zizek's argument here was weak to begin with. What if my life is a mess for reasons out of my control. Who can say with all certainty that they have full autonomy and control of their situation. Do concepts as abstract as freedom, will and autonomy even exist? We can't know for sure. That doesn't mean we should be doomed to not do anything, even if it's pointless and we are just deceiving ourselves when we strive to better ourselves and the world
the "put your house in order" argument is valid if its used properly. on a general note you should follow it. however, there are many situations where the problem is withing a higher structure and working on your house here is doomed to fail or far too slow. also it should not be used to shut down someones argument. there are many people who can produce valuable stuff, despite not getting along with their own life. i even think peterson is part of that but thats just my feeling.
@@BuGGyBoBerl I agree partially with what you said, in that, as advice is one to be pragmatic about life. But as a statement describing how the human being interacts with it's environment is very accurate. What action or what kind of interaction can we have if it doesn't, as insignificant as it might be, begin with a conviction to pursue the needs of our own? I'm not saying we are voracious and stupidly egoistic creatures, that's a completely different topic. I'm saying we always are irremediably tied to ourselves. And the microcosmos we have in our heads is nothing but a fraction of the bigger there's outside. I think this is the logic behind Peterson's argument, I don't know if he is aware of it though. Even caring exclusively about te bigger problems means caring about yours, but not covertly so
@@drg8034 well it depends on how you define caring about yours and caring about the bigger problems. it also depends on how philosophical you want to get here. im well aware that taking care of your own situation first have practical and psychological reasons. however i still think its just a general guideline and not an absolute statement. take climate change. this topic isnt solved by "take care of your business" first. sure, you have to do that too, but this isnt even close to being sufficient. actually, its a good example of distraction strategies people use for their interest. individualizing of big problems so they can keep going according to their interests. as said, if you define protesting and efforts regarding climate change politics also as caring about yours, then we have different definitions but i would agree. i just think its not an absolute to care about yourself first (not about egoism here) because 1. some problems need more than that and 2. its sometimes used as a avoiding strategy.
Zizek: Society is fucked up for so and so reasons. What happens when you clean your room and you’re still stuck in North Korea Peterson: He thinks localism and individualism will be superior. Because the Bible and his archetypal narrative about redeeming fallen humanity. Zizek is right, the answer is yes, please. Both cleaning your room and helping to democratically involve yourself in the transformation of society. Peterson argues for a false Libertarian utopia that cannot solve the global problems we face like Climate Change (he’s a denier), and really has no existing form of localism that actually exists. It seems to only empower what’s already there, strong multi-national corporations who would benefit from the reduction of government institutions.
@@DZ-yk2ew most climate change deniers dont actually deny that the climate is changing. What they argue agains tis the fear mongering death cult that have turned it into the next apocalypse. Just look at who's funding all the groups and who has all their money in green energy and renewable shit. We're not going to die and our western societies have the greatest level of hygene and cleanliness that we have ever had comparitively speaking to the population. The problem with that as well is that 99% of the time when people replace tyrants, they replace them with another tyrant because they have no other model of the world except of what they know. When you can set yourself in order you can then go on to take responsibility to lead the revolution to greater things rather than go out and do the same shit as the dictator you just usurped.
@@MrJabbothehut don’t play that dumb ass game with me. We are obviously referring to anthropogenic climate change, that human activity is having permanent damage on the climate and ecology. The whole world of experts is a death cult? You’re a fucking goner mate, no sense in reasoning with delusional conspiracy theorists who don’t know the science. People like you and Peterson merely need to be defeated, the debate is over on this issue.
@@DZ-yk2ew woah you sound really not angry and speaking/acting out of pure fear. You must be a blast to know irl. I didnt say the whole world of experts. I said that those who screech that the world is going to end are using completely unreliable models and suggesting completely stupid methods without even realising how much progress has been made in cleaning up our societies. You my friend probably live every day in fear and negativity because youve worked yourself up to the point where you have nothing better to do than worry about the weather when you know barely jackshit of how unreliable climate models are and how industries and markets work and drive progress. Guess what, there are more trees on planet earth now than there were 100 years ago. We recycle way more now and are infinitely more efficient and less wateful than 100 years ago. Go complain to the chinese about your climate cult but leave me and others the fuck alone with your doomsday bullshit.
Yeah, the point is that since the personal problem stems from a social problem, you would solve the personal problem by solving a social problem. But no matter how many clean rooms there are, there will be a space outside of those rooms that is still filthy, because in the end, a lot of the problems we have are in the fucking hallways.
I think a lot of Jordan fans here missed Zizek’s point. Jordan says, “You don’t have the right to try and fix society until you fix your own personal life,” and Zizek says, “Why not do both at the same time, since a portion of my personal problems _cannot be fixed_ without fixing society.” Zizek is not saying we shouldn’t work on ourselves. Rather, he’s calling Jordan out for saying that people shouldn’t try to change society until their lives are in order. Well, how much order? When do we know we are sorted out enough to move on to social problems? What is the objective criteria? Zizek has a very good point.
I believe Peterson's answer has well answered Zizek's critic. Peterson is all about creating narratives, experiences and the knowledge that build towards a change first in one's life and then, having recognised problems in the small realm of our life, it is possible to change the bigger. In this specific case, as for most of his speeches, Peterson seems to provide practical advice to his problems, while Zizek simply ends by justifying the inability to change through this unbeatable agent that is society. And one is a psychologist and the other a philosopher. I would rather listen to the critics of the latter and the solutions of the former.
Be wise in the little things before you partake in trying to change bigger things. It’s that simple. The way I see it, we’ve all got a lot to learn and every day should be a lesson, but there is definitely a certain degree of wisdom, patience, and understanding that is needed before you decide you want to fix the world. In this instance, Peterson explains it as first sorting out your household in a metaphorical sense. It makes perfect sense. We don’t deploy our children out into the world to fix world problems, we put them through school and we teach them basic morals and responsibilities beforehand. The world would catch fire if we threw them in blind. The same could be applied to an adult wanting to fix larger issues - deal within yourself and your household first and then deal with the rest once you have the basics down. Most people, don’t. They jump right in, their intentions are typically not in the right place and they don’t have an understanding of how things particularly work and why they work the way that they do. That isn’t wise. Not to say anyone will ever be “perfect”, but there is a certain degree of wisdom one should reach before they decide they want to challenge and change larger issues. Proceed with caution, essentially. That’s completely reasonable and I don’t think someone should tackle larger issues while still becoming acquainted with smaller ones. With that, I must humbly disagree with Zizek’s rhetoric.
Yes, guys, I get Peterson’s point. But if you just focus on your own personal issues, there are going to be plenty of other people (personal lives in order or not) who take social issues into their own hands, whether on the side of the establishment or counter-establishment. So, isn’t it sort of like sticking your head in the sand to focus solely on your personal life? As Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
What you learn in school (to listen to each other, discuss and let others finish) and eventually profit from having different truths to center and focus a problem from different angles towards the center is a big difference to the debates on a lot of political exchanging journalism platforms, where they fight for which truth wins, because only one is allowed to exist and therefore move to left or right and are not balanced.
Lot of people missing Zizek's point, I would say. He is not stating that it's just society's fault that your house is in disorder; he is stating that your personal problems and/or bad decisions are NOT the only cause why your house may not be in order. It would be pretty naive (and perhaps even dangerous) to suggest that your problems stem exclusively from you. Indeed, sociopolitical environments can have a tremendous impact in how your 'room' looks like. This does not mean that one should use the old excuse of 'this country's a ruin, so of course my life is miserable'. As in any philosophical debate, Zizek is challenging - and these challenges are necessary.
darkanguiel -Peterson, unlike some commenters, understood his point and either countered it, refined his point, or agreed with Zizek’s point and expanded on it to show how it agreed with his view. Peterson’s point is to find a place to focus and move out from that, and since you can control your behavior, that is where you will learn about making successful decisions and making corrections will be easier which will in turn create confidence for addressing those issues outside of the self.
@@chadmwilliams89 A dangerously wrong, but somewhat popular view. First define "society". It doesn't matter what form (save defining it as "an unchangeable thing", another easily disproved claim) that takes, it is still possible for an individual to affect change within or upon it. Look no further than Zizek for proof, though there are many examples both good and bad.
It's alot more effective to fix your own issues than others for many reasons and if society did that as a whole each individual did it then many of the issues the bigger issues in the society group would automatically start being fixed. It's a very simple concept and that's why it's gained so much traction from so many so fast
SHAME - the image of Zizek supposedly sticking his middle finger up to Peterson is so NOT representative of this debate. This is one of the most respectful debates imaginable, where both debaters were so open to listen to one and other. Although the full debate is over two and a half hours, it is very much worth watching.
I think peterson has this perspective as he is primarily a psychologist, not a sociologist. Hence, his point is centred around overcoming psychological or psychiatric imperfections first and only then you tackle the bigger picture of what is wrong with society. Zizek is a sociologist and hence, he views the world as sociological systems and taking action means confronting societal ills. I think both speakers are right to a certain extent.
Zizek is not a sociologist... He has extensive understandings of and experience with psychoanalysis. He is one of the most educated intellectuals of psychoanalysis alive.
A true psychologist, understands that the individual does not exist as a monad, but as a being in intimate and constitutive relationship with the Other. In any case, from the perspective of the poorest psychology, Peterson's argument (the "rule") is a fallacy. That is, in the perspective of being "primarily a psychologist" he is also wrong (Sorry if there are mistakes, it is not my native language).
I think I’ve heard that phrase maybe 2 years ago and since then I still think it’s the most terrifying phrase (in a good way) if we make the necessary changes.
“The light that you discover in your life is proportionate to the level of darkness you’re willing to forthrightly confront.” I’m gonna let that one sink in for a bit.
@@zicokahuroa3660 That seems about right, where "light" is true contentment and "darkness" is everything that separates you from that contentment. In order to have absolute contentment, you need to have successfully navigated through the entirety of your own personal "hell," which is a gargantuan task. At least that's my takeaway.
Light is the polar flip of dark and all polarities need each other to exist.until you know the duality of a subject you can only know up to half of its nature
@@zicokahuroa3660 to better convey what i mean, i like the way Allen Watts put it .you cannot have a background without a foreground you cannot have good without bad dark without light or a wave without a crest.an in its nature you can only know part of anything by looking at one of its angles.our conscious egos have driven us to unnatural conclusions and expectations.the dark will never defeat the light they cannot be without each other.its for these same reason love is so close to hate and all passion is just a color
JP: "Exposure therapy is what everyone and your mother agrees on" Also JP on Fox News: "GET YOUR CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOLS THAT TEACH ABOUT GENDER THEY WILL CATCH ON FIRE!!!!!" lol
well exposure therapy is for fears, nobody is afraid of gays they just think it's wrong for kids. thats like saying lets teach kids how to murder or grape each other in class and someone objects and you say it's exposure therapy. the exposure therapy is for an IRRATIONAL fear. fear of sexualizing kids is a rational fear
@@DoctorP007 Being gay is wrong for kids? Yeah, how about you skip sexual education and resort to marrying people off into unhappy relationships they don't feel attracted to. Because apparently, a 14 year old heterosexual can express their desire but when a gay one does it or is encouraged to, it's wrong and they should wait until adulthood. Great take.
@@evolution__snow6784No clean you’re room is find you’re inner flaws recognize them work on them so you can work of society. Even if you are in Korea, for example if you are in a Dictatorship and you’re being indoctrinated by a certain idea you need to clean you’re room. But what does that men ?; It means identify that you’re being indoctrinated , find the flaws do you’re homework fix you’re self and try to fix society for example or try to make the best of the situation. Some times beating the system is almost impossible so you need to reinvent yourself, find meaning in that society and make it the best you can. An example of not cleaning you’re room is the great number of voters that don’t find there inner flaws of their thinking or morality but want to fix society not knowing what they really want. And I am with Zizek in this, I have a pessimist view on the people. People are lazy to really inform themselves. And they make lazy assumptions or accusations.
The ecology example was an EXCELLENT example!! They encourage individual to recycle, but yet it is the major corporations causing the majority of the global pollution.
They've created a society of corporatism where at the personal level you would look stupid playing your part saving the environment. I've tried this at my workplace minimizing the printing of papers and I was literally about to lose my job. They now force you to wear the silly environmentally deadly masks and they can take disciplinary actions if not complied but when it comes to environment they care hell, rather they've created useless Audit procedures which compel you to exploit nature and rape ethics.
@@lola1987fudgeyouu yeah... like Jordan had said.. I am not saying there is no domain for public/social acts in your life but you have to first set your house in order before going for reorganising the world ... Start change from individual smaller level then proceed towards higher purpose...
@David Winehouse i dont have stats on me but last time I looked into individual pollution vs corporate one it was comically low....our actions trully have barely noticeable effect on the issue at hand (it got even worse when china stopped accepting recycled materials because its cheaper for them to make new plastic than to process recycling now..so In many regions even tho you throw plastic bottles into a specific "recycling bit" company that collects trash will toss it into the same pile....reason why they are not announcing this is that, it will be hard af to train people to recycle)....regardless, we as a individuals have little to no impact on this issue, its all in hands of corporations.
Omg, I thought that I have made my google account in dutch or something that's why youtube tries to put dutch subtitles on zhizhek, but no, it's like that for everyone hahahaha it's so funny because i can agree that zhizhek speaks as Dutch is written xD
That guy should be careful because he would encourage a supper unhealthy 800 pound man to become arrogant enough to go to a gym and demand a job while he cannot even walk up the steps and is to big to pass thorough the door of the same gym. Smh, Good thing uncle Jordan set him straight!!!!! Geezzzee
Zizek point is no matter how many RUclips motivational videos, no matter how many psychological books they read, no matter if you tell someone that is lazy, if that person is in a system like North Korea, there is nothing that can be done. Zizek is saying the problem is systematic from the core. Peterson is saying that the problem is the individual. Zizek proposes to do both because without fixing the system, the individual progress will be fairly limited no matter how much motivation or psychology we apply to them.
Zizek is correct a person can work his ass to death, but if the system he/she lives doesn't reward this person's effort, it's worthless, then when this person gets old and sick, he/she will be thrown to the junk yard.
Peterson's solution is both as well. But an individual will have a much higher success rate of changing society in the right way if they can routinely clean their room and maintain cleanliness of their room. It breeds competence and order, which JP considers to be ESSENTIAL _foundations_ needed in one's life before they can tackle larger societal problems. You need a collective of people able to actually change their environments in a perceptible manner consistently to lead the charge for social change, is JP's argument. That starts with being able to set a small facet of their life in ordec consistently (cleaning your room and maintaining its cleanliness).
@@Un1234l Well without a systematic change the individual change is useless. Let me give you an example. Let's say somebody is thrown into a cell with no food. This cell represents society. Under Peterson's ideal if this person is starving is because he or she is lazy or unproductive. The reality is that you can blame someone all day long, someone in a cell without food, tell them they have to get "their shit together", but food won't magically appear even if they decide to be productive. If someone in North Korea wants to have a successful restaurant, I don't care if he has his shit together according to Peterson, he will fail. I disagree with you and Peterson with the last argument. I believe you have as a collective to be aware as problem and compromise to solve it, because no individual can overthrow a corrupt government. We will disagree all day long perhaps because you have strong beliefs but my suggestion is to go to North Korea and try be successful. Peterson is very comfortable talking in the first world.
@@johndoedoe88 No one's saying you don't try to change anything, or that there will ALWAYS be a way out... He's also mostly speaking specifically about these middle class people not in a totalitarian environment (who in fact live in a democratic society with equal opportunity for all), who prioritize going for radical social justice changes rather than setting order in their own lives first, and then building upon that competence to see what they can or cannot change, whether due to competence issues or systematic barriers in place. Completely different environment: people who have too much idealism and not enough experience trying to naively change things. But let's suppose you're arguing within the confines of this environment: surely big systematic changes have a bigger impact than individual changes? Yes of course, but big systematic changes always have BIG consequences, good or bad, and no one should be in charge of these big changes that will dramatically shift society _until they have a good track record of showing us they know what they're doing._ Like never leaving a rookie restaurant dishwasher in charge of handling the cooking, leading the team, managing of orders, and keeping the restaurant on track and in order. There is a wealth of experience, skill, and wisdom needed before they can be tasked with leading a change in the restaurant, in terms of food, management, etc. Otherwise they can and SHOULD only realistically change what's happening at the dishwasher level, because they have no insight into what the rest of the restaurant is doing or how it operates. _If they want to lead bigger changes, they should first become intimately familiar and competent with the other roles in the restaurant before they cause potential disarray._ It's also similar to having a sheltered monarch with no advisors creating laws vs a well-cultured, well-studied monarch who has lived among the people and with great advisors creating laws. If, for example, the rookie dishwasher just decides to successfully lobby that all orders must be made only as they come to ensure maximum freshness, higher food quality, that will definitely lead to big changes, and maybe even higher quality food on account of the proven principle that fresh food tastes best, but this dishwasher fails to realize that their solution is not feasible on a time basis, causes undue extra stress on the cooks and servers, results in longer wait and cook times and thus slower service that turns away customers, creates a smaller menu of feasible orders; and even the fact that making ALL orders as they come is beneficially negligible in many cases. Such a rookie didn't have the experience and insight to see why their proposed solution is good or bad, or even feasible. But even within the confines of your prison/totalitarian/famine scenario, the person with the most composure and orderliness has the most _potential_ and capability to change things, RELATIVE to his peers. IF an opportunity is to arise, it's the person who has his shit together who is most likely to really cause a change. Peterson would also argue that in such an oppressive environment, of COURSE some things would be impossible to change. That's his entire position on WHY you should clean your room first, to see what is and what isn't impossible, "[paraphrased] because to change big social structures is bloody difficult and complicated, man. If you can't even consistently keep order in a small domain of your life, and it constantly falls into chaos under your watch, what makes you think you can create and maintain order when tasked with social systems and social structures that are MUCH more complex than cleaning your room?" Again, he has ALWAYS argued that big social changes are harder than what these middle class idealists naively believe. But if a person were put in an environment that gives them the opportunity to create social change (i.e. non-totalitarian, equal opportunity democratic society), then gaining competence in small things and building upon that competence, gaining insight into how things operate, is the way you best bring about those changes. If you're in a famine, totalitarian, or tightly regulated environment like North Korea, he'd say "tough luck, man," because he KNOWS realistically there's such few opportunities in such cases and it'd be a MUCH more difficult task for anybody to change things from within. But even still, given a person in such an environment, the one able to consistently set order in a small area of their life through a building of competence, is the one most likely to change things, if given the opportunity, not the one who's all talk and no results. They are more psychologically resilient, capable, and have insider knowledge about how things work, and thus how things can be changed, IF things can be changed at all. TL;DR: He NEVER stated that ANYONE can and WILL topple oppressive totalitarian societies by first cleaning their rooms, or that doing so will find a solution to famine, which are much more engrained and complex social problems; he's just stating that in an environment where you can change things, being able to consistently keep one's room clean gives the person the right foundation to build upon, and fosters in them the right mindset that they should first see what they are capable of exerting control over, and see if they can first exert control over a smaller domain, then working up to more complex domains, enacting changes there and seeing their effects on a smaller scale before they are tasked with things on a larger scale. Like a student electrician vs multi-decade nuclear reactor electrician. Or municipal leader vs provincial, vs federal, vs prime minister/president.
This is not a debate. Zizek is an academic who has dedicated his career to philosophy and psychoanalysis and political theory snd Peterson is an ego psych culture war boy who thinks misunderstanding a book is a critique. This was Zizek babysitting
@@livengoodjames7406 Well for starters the book he claims to have read and that he brandished repeatedly as a prop. That's the book. If you watched the debate you'd know which one. Can you say it?
Both make good points here... Zizek: maybe society messed us up with rules and systems that cause problems in our life and in turn cause depression, hate, resentment and interpersonal problems... Peterson: If we accept that life is tough and not always fair, we will do considerably better in creating our own road map to a better place for ourselves and learning from our own tactical and interpersonal mistakes... When we own and solve our own solvable problems we will be better equipped to set examples for others and thereby better qualified to build or help with larger societal problems...
Yeah, I feel like both perspectives make sense. Yet both perspectives blame the other for being short-sighted, simply because they start off at different points.
@@joshbaino3087 Well I think his point is directed more towards a more optimistic perspective of how you should do all that's in your power to set your own being in order and then repercute positively on others. Because it's true all those important people are troubled themselves but that doesn't necessarily they don't have a minimum order in their lives because they're important for a reason. And Jordan being troubled himself also shows the change you can make by doing your best to set yourself up even when you have depression or other problems. The main point should be something like "Set your house in order as you possibly can even if it's still a mess and then go outside to solve the problems of society that is affecting your own personal life"
@@joshbaino3087 No I think as always you can't just say Peterson good Zizek bad and viceversa you can extract good points from both as every good argument. It's right that there are elements outside of the reaches of the individual but the message as I said and think is that you must do whatever you can. Your point I think is that that isn't our solution to everything at every moment but I think that depending on how you see it it's indeed the solution to our problems because yes, it isn't perfect. But that's what we've got. And since the collectiveness is built on the individual one should always start fixing the base on which it's constructed. You can understand those ciments as external forces which is true but that's the point of setting yourself up. So imo the conclusion is that while the most important thing is to do what Dr. Peterson said, you should always be aware of Zizek's words and know that there are forces outside of your knowledge and that you can't fix just individually. What matter is to make things better so we're only gonna focus on that the individualization is a good plan for us all even if the idea of the transcendant it's still there
@@joshbaino3087 But not saying that you should ignore everything outside yourself tho. Just saying that fixing yourself is generally more important so you have to be aware always of the larger picture too. It's just a good presumption that whenever something goes wrong YOU can fix it because this way you increase your "efficiency". No matter how lil you apport by doing so really, it matters that it's better and it will depend on the person alone if the effort is worth it. But yeah but see even if the bigger picture isn't much affected it is always good to have where you part from well consolidated. Of course the bigger picture problems have to be tackled too but like we're both saying some of those are external forces we don't posses power on. Where they and you and I differ imo it's that Peterson is proposing the best possible solution while not the perfect one but Zizek is trying to find a clear answer to everything. Individualization will fix all society's problems? Of course it'll not, but it's a very good base and tool. And also important to know that Individualization doesn't equal to close yourself up from the outside imo it just means "think for yourself" or something on the same line
Screw that click-baity thumbnail. I hope everyone realizes that this is amazing. Having two individuals of this kind of intelligence in an actual conversation and free for everyone to watch. I think they're having a blast! I think Zizek is having a blast because he is a pure thinking machine who's interest in thinking about the problems is higher than the temptation to arrive at any particular conclusion. And Peterson must have given him new perspectives to think from because I could not Imagine this man sitting quietly and listening for so long. Also I think Peterson really enjoyed this conversation because it must be so refreshing, soo much more rewarding to have a civil, focused and productive conversation, with someone equally intelligent I would say, who is also interested in the truth rather than A truth. We need more of this, much more, and less "Zizek crushes Peterson on X subject" or "Peterson obliterates Sam Harris on Y subject". If you think that's what it's about you're missing the point.
Thanks dude. I've watched this entire debate and it's so much more than clean your room. I think JBP fans who are only fond of his so called destruction videos are missing the crux of what JBP is all about. It's unfortunate. I hope they get him/his message someday.
Exactly! I do love Peterson even if I'm an atheist that doesn't mean we can't appreciate others opinions, agreeing with them or disagreeing as long as are doing it in a"civilized" way! That's what a debate is all about
George, your thought provoking, perhaps newly understood inclusion is what all this free thought is about. and, yes, if people thought more about how perfectly our uniquness as individuals works WITH and toward the common good and LESS about how we have the chance to call conquered or crushed, we'd have less North Koreas and more South Koreas. God bless the first amendment and capitalism.
@@androgynousmaggot9389 I'm a Christian, and as much as I hope you come to know Jesus as your savior, I cannot begin to tell you how important your voice is in the exchange of ideas. As much as I hate for you (but completely understand) your doubt in God, I think I understand why you lean toward doubting his existence rather than affirming it. Im no Bible beater but I wish I could hear your story. if you can message me on this feel free to.
Very true its not about the winning individual within the conversation , whats important are the questions brought up from such debate and how we intellectually pick them apart. I agree fully being able to listen to such intellectuals without paying a fee is quite the thing in its self. Thought provoking both men are the height of critical thinking, if each of us takes a positive from this its not who won, we all win from the knowledge both men hold. Its the fact we take away things to question and expand ones own thinking brain with guidance from greatness for free 😁
It took Peterson a minute but the main gist of his answer is around 6:40. Basically, set yourself in order so that when trying to solve much broader problems, you can do so in a more productive and responsible way.
LUF LUOS Lol you made yourself look like one of those “sound smart” guys and then failed. Abir wasn’t saying Paul is not being clear, in fact he’s saying the opposite. He’s being clear with what he understood. He’s literally talking about interpretation.
What a wonderful and rare setting. I miss debates like these so damn much. The contention, the value, the language, the thought process, everything just exudes pure passion and intelligence from both sides. Zezek is such a good piece of chaos and thought-provoking energy and Peterson with his passionate aspiration to speak orderly, eloquently and truthfully. Both are amazing. You could see Zezek trying his utmost to confine his point into a good package that is worth contending with. You could also see Peterson wrestling with all the vocab and knowledge in his head to put out an answer that is worthy of the question. You know every time I see Peterson's habits and body language when answering questions, I'm always jealous. Within his brief silence when he is formulating an answer, you could almost see him looking within himself, searching very carefully and attentively through his knowledge and expertise, picking the exact right words to respond with, then almost simultaneously but slightly before every word he says, you could feel a process of self-debate and curation to guarantee that every word uttered is necessary and adds value to is being said. There are no fillers or spiced up vocab than many intellectuals fall in the habit of using. His statements end being pure essence of his collective cabacity as an educator, guide, intellectual and at the base of it all, a clinical psychologist. While respect is said to be earned, in Peterson's case, you could see it being demanded and rightfully given.
Excellent comment and one of the very few I fully agree with. The full momentum of Zizek's electrifying intensity alongside his incisive yet well-meaning skepticism is a force to be reckoned with. One can see Peterson keeping track of every idea and implication, interpreting and identifying the substance Zizek tries to pinpoint and there is a tranquil sharpness in his eyes, one that appears to tell me that Peterson is trying to locate exactly how his inner architecture can accomodate the query and there is a silent assurance that it's there somewhere, because he has been honest to himself and very exact about what needed to be done at all times.
Mom, when I take out the trash, the trash symbolized your broken dreams and hopes. So I will no longer be doing the dirty work you need to do. So that you can overcome the trials and adversity I'm your life. You will thank me later mother.
Very rare when Peterson meets someone who is actually an intellectual, who somewhat and quite a bit is able to debate his own subjects, so he is honored, so much so he can't help it.
@@dreadstunlock Indeed, but is it just me, or does JP have a very different tone when addressing people who he may believe (most likely believes imo) are not on his intellectual level? At least to my mind he can be rather curt at times; almost for effect. I still agree with a lot of his arguments mind.
@@AnthonyDonnellyTT I think it is because he is delighted and excited to finally have the debate with someone who challenges him intellectually on such a high level when usually he looks as if he is cold to other people he dabates. He probably just tries to be objective and professional. Maybe he sometimes is too hard on people but I would be like it too because of listening over and over the same arguments and often stupid opinions of some people.
dude is full of shit like all these help self gurus.... probably had asshole parents. when shit hits the fan, it benzo time for people like him. his whole message is basically "you need to toughen up"... just he basic abusive parents shit.
Nobody is perfect and nobody gets there house in order. They can do there best through the utmost unpredictable battles. What Jordan teaches is how to manage life positively and intelligently rationally through life's battles. Thank you J. P
I see a lot of people in the comments talking down about Slavoj's questions, but I think they're actually brilliant questions, and they got a brilliant answer. I don't think anyone should be shamed for asking questions, it's incredibly important.
Well, Zizek is a philosopher and a dreamer but not a realistic person. He has no idea about the real humans and the human nature. He lives in the world of ideas and philosophy but not in the true facts.
@@tomek1867 I can't say I know much about him, but I think when it comes to emotions and behaviour, there are very few facts, a lot of it is purely philosophical and I think he had a good point. Some people are in particularly difficult situations that make it a lot more tricky to "set your house in order" than others, who's to say that there's not someone in a situation that makes it *impossible*?
@@MichaelRRyan Well, human nature is as it is and that is a fact whether we like it or not; biology rules human behavior: instincts etc. Philosophy is a kind of fairy tale. The United States was founded on taking land from and extermination of Native Americans. It is the same with human nature: greed and greed and again greed and of course domination.
@@tomek1867 of course it's fact, everything is as far as we can tell, but no one knows the facts of how we act. Psychology is a field of theories, and there are very few, if any hard facts, and any psychologist could tell you that. Philosophy is not so much fairytales, it's a field that focuses a lot on how we *should* act, how we should live to feel fulfilled. We as humans have our biological motivations, but we also have the ability to go against them and think with logic instead, which is why a field focusing on *how* to live is so important
IDK, I feel like this says more about the expectations of the viewer. Anyone mildly familiar with Zizek will know he's not going to be literally shouting aggressively/angrily at a person but instead having an intelligent discussion, basically, with perhaps some jokes and at most a little fun sarcasm.
Well a challenge isn't something evil, it is just that. I think it actually hit on point this time. You don't even have to disagree with someone to challange them. For example if i challange a friend in her/his beliefs. It is just used as another word to instigate discussion.
So Zizeck is actually speaking in practical terms. I dont understand why people are calling him an "idealist". He's saying that people can do both at the same time and that sometimes the solution is one that is best attacked from the outside in. It's a way of saying that when one lives in place that is inherently shit due to things out of their own control, i.e. north korea, "cleaning your room" can at times be a largely fruitless and redundant endeavor as the systems outside of your control just fuck it up again. I understand that their is a certain personal responsibility that everyone has to themselves, but that certainly goes up to a point. As Zizeck intelligently points out, Peterson himself is not in his room cleaning it up, but he's out here trying to clean the world up, in a sense, because he believes there is a lacking in the system that cleaning his room will not fix, quite paradoxically.
Having double standards is not really paradoxical, just dishonest. It's something you say to people when you want them to shut up because you despise them, not some sort of life principle.
@@OneLine122 I would say the OP merely presented Zizek's argument but did not show how that actually applies in Peterson's life. Peterson is changing the world yes, through advice such as "cleaning up your room". Although Zizek's argument does show up a paradoxical uselessness in Peterson's advice, it doesn't mean he has double standards. Rather he is has already cleaned his room and now is telling you the benefits of cleaning your own room. That more or less follows something I learned from him that you change the world starting with yourself, but of course if you have changed, then the world needs exposure to you in order to learn how change itself.
@@neighbor472 He has ranted on other occasions about how annoyed he is by student activists, who were only recently children, and have no experience in solving problems in their personal lives or in their local communities, and yet who already believe they know how to fix the world at the largest scales of governance (e.g. implement communism). So it's not far-fetched to think that "set your house in order before you criticize the world" is meant to try to undermine these activists/protesters.
I think a more useful interpretation of "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world" is that you should (metaphorically) clean your room until it is as clean as it can get in your social context. That is, if society is limiting you, due to systemic racism or sexism or predatory capitalism or whatever, then at least take yourself to that limit, whatever it is, so that you understand exactly how the institutions are limiting you. If you are poor, before you blame capitalism, or racism if you are a person of color, or sexism if you are a woman, you had better first check if you are blowing all of your money on drugs or alcohol, or if you are showing up late to work and thereby getting yourself fired or demoted; only once you are putting in a good faith effort to succeed can you be taken seriously when you say that you are being held back by an unjust system.
Man, I could listen to debates like this for hours. Pure intellectual debate where both sides give one another the opportunity to express everything that they want to say without cutting in and changing the trajectory of the debate in a mindless fashion.
I agree, but it is kind of off putting that there are no longer discussions like this with very attentive audiences. I recently watched the Foucault Chomsky debate and not only was it as respectful as this through a language barrier but the audience didn't give a standing ovation each time their favorite guy made a point, let alone really clap at all.
@SebkarpO :: My admiration for your deep interest in "debates like this for hours. Pure intellectual debate ..." It reminded me of my own likes :: _Man, I could listen to opera for hours._
Simplistic thinking, my friend. Simple people don’t understand that a debate’s goal is not to be the victor or loser, but to have two perspectives and understandings of varying ideologies (in this case). It’s a sad reality we live in, the 21st century. Our minds no longer have room to grow because when the common individual in society is approached with varying opposing topics, they take it as a challenge rather than something new to possibly learn. Closed minded, tunnel vision. High defense. That isn’t what this is and it’s lovely. It’s intellectual. It’s understanding, it’s open, it’s willing to listen and to possibly learn.
Unfortunately that is the current climate in the society plus an enormous dose of not having the ability to critical thinking or debate. Luckily for the world there are people who understand and who can debate respectfully as those two JP and SŽ demonstrate!
I just had a long scroll through the top comments and couldn't find anyone saying there was a winner or a loser. There's a guy saying "An excellent critique of Peterson followed by an excellent defence" which has a bunch of people agreeing with him, lots of comments about Zizek rubbing his nose... I sorted the comments by 'new' and found ONE guy saying "Peterson destroyed Zizek", which is clearly a JP fanboy that loves those "Peterson OWNS some lady" videos. This comment had 1 like and I had to dig HARD to find it.
Well, while I am a person who advocates for nuance in all things, the reality is that Jordan Peterson’s opinions and ideas are, in general, wrong and bad.
Well he's an intellectual he has a doctorate degree and wrote a couple of self help books but there are thousands of self help books and undeniably he has issues of his own depression,dietary, drug addict, controlling and he started out advocating for free speech but he has not just offended LGBTQ minority groups but women too and that's half the population so young men that he targets as his audience are getting bad advice if they parrot his attitude toward women they will be rejected incels. Sure we like a guy that does the dishes and makes his bed but not one that treats us as inferior then expects us to breed with them and be abused.
The thing is zizek posed no threat to Jordan's view points they all related to it, only case he made was I dont think your way works because I'm pessimistic, I'm not buying that he is a real intellectual he is just a highly functional argumentative person without the capacity to find a moral solution so he takes the lazy way out which is to have everyone ruled by a dictator.
Not necessarily, sometimes . This are different ideologies. You either believe ir are in line with one or the other. I choose the latter, Dr. Peterson. I personally didnt learn, grow, or made me question my current way or life from Zizek words. Dont get me wrong, I understand what his saying, his points, I just completely disagree with that way of view. Personally for me Dr. Peterson's way has brought meaning into my life. I mean I no longer fear death, I live every day in a state of mind of love, joy, compassion, gratitude and humility. Are some days bad, yes, do I get sad sometimes yes, does shit hit the fan sometimes, yes but my overall view and look in life of life is a complete 180. For the first time in my life I'm genuinely happy.
@@b3hemoth448 see there is an exception so there cant be any deeper truth to what Peterson says right? Its just flys over ppls heads what he jordan is really saying.
Naahh Zizek moves his hands too much. The way he delivers his point is intimidating. He simply can not accept to clean his room, one has to start at something.
Zizek made the same points a lazy child would make. He doesn't understand the point of being disciplined & he rather blame society for all his problems. We are a product of our environment but the first step to a better life & change is to learn discipline .
Electrono9 I’ve never once made fun of Trump’s appearance, because that’s pointless. Why would you denounce someone’s points because they don’t fit your vain definition of ‘intelligence’? You are literally defining a political philosopher because of the stereotypes you associate with his ethnicity. It is utterly baffling that you don’t have the self awareness to realize that.
Electrono9 Please tell me how your racial association of Slovenian people isn’t racially charged. I would love to hear it. Don’t try to pull the fucking ‘you made it about race’ card.
@Electrono9 I really think Zizek is one of the few people who has asked Jordan solid, good questions that might need to be answered by Jordan to bring his ideas to the ground level. I think the questions Zizek put forth were partly to test Jordan on how he could in a satisfactory manner explain the correlation between the individual and the whole. Zizek also understands his reasoning afterwards etc. Zizek is the type of person who should debate Jordan, he knows what he says, he knows what Jordan says, he reflects properly and you can tell that Jordan likes to debate him.
@roven 08 No one said or claimed that Peterson is a philosopher, he is a psychologist and he bases his work around that. I don't see how simplifying things for the general mass is a bad thing. Andi wouldn't compare Peterson to the average psych 101 professor, read Maps of Meaning or 12 Rules for Life and you can see why.
Zizek says "why must we correct ourselves before we criticize the world, if the reason why we're a way is the world"? And my answer is, because the world isn't the reason. If you think that you are at the mercy of the world, then you have no reason to be good. Anything that happens to you is arbitrary and you have no control over it. Which is simply not true. There is such a thing as will. So don't be shit if you're gonna trashtalk the toilet. Be water.
Zizek and Peterson is literally on the same boat. What I am seeing from this debate is that Zizek is constantly trying to help Peterson to let loose of himself and become much aggressive and go on the strategically-offensive against his "enemies" in this theory.
I dont see that he killed him in anything. Zizek is just asking with questions, like usual balkanik communist who wants to make other in insecurity with questions. Peterson gave all answers like high power.
@@UncleDaniel ...Loss of jobs, heightened poverty and starvation... millions of deaths... growing political tensions seemingly not easing... I meant, these times are actually really bad relatively speaking to the way things were last year and the few years before that.
No the position is that if each of us takes care of our neighbor, cleans our house, brings others to this ethos, then all will work out. One doesn’t need grand schemes to fix the world according to one’s own utopian dictates. This is the point of Peterson’s position.
I think Jordan's idea about "setting your own House in order" is not about how to make the world a better place, but rather how to achieve a well-being within ourselves without shifting blame on society.
Well his point is that if you learn to set your house in order then you partially learn to set all other similar problems in order. For example the relationship with your partner he gave.
Zizek made it clear that your well-being is very likely to depend on your environment. He made an extreme example of North Korea where people are constantly deprived of basic human rights. Sure, they can clean a room, go to bed in time. But how does it help with being executed for having a wrong book on your shelf?
@@DearConnor It’s not that people can’t be oppressed by larger society, but how can a person improve society if he doesn’t take care of his own self first.
“What is the measure of good health in a world that is profoundly sick?” I admire his point. Most neglect to acknowledge the norms of society and how crooked they are.
@@gavielrodriguez9258 Peterson makes a very personal point. We all get it, but might not be comfortable accepting it. It took him a great deal to answer a simple question, though; the question was not simple.
Whut?? How in the world could you ever recognize a world that is profoundly sick if you don't have an idea of what it means to be rightly oriented and healthy??? Sickness inherently points toward the healthy. It is inherently an inversion of what should be, of what is good. The statement answers itself.
and then again you cannot straighten a crooked line just from the edges because knots may form, you have to apply yourself locally. Make incremental steps and you got yourself a straight line
@Quasimodo UltraKanake came here to really verify the misinformation in the thumbnail....just finished watching the debate and nothing like it happened
Peterson's argument essentially boils down to "fix yourself and you will make the world a slightly better place". It's not wrong; it's just incredibly simplistic. It's precisely because people fought, marched, organized, changed people's hearts and minds, voted, and sometimes even died, that we have labor rights, women's rights, democracy, minority rights, secularism etc. For a guy that screeches about western civilization all the time, he sure doesn't know much about how it was created. Finally, he claims otherwise, but his argument is always built around the idea that you have to either choose between self-improvement and activism, when in reality most people are capable of both. ... Not to mention how much of a conservative activist he himself has become these past few years. What a clown. Just like most of his fans.
@@Yourlittlehomie1998 Yeah, from my perspective, the herd-applause mentality is more present in North American culture. We like to reduce debates and discourse to egotistical rebuffs.
The click bait is so unnecessary. The full debate was very enlightening. These two great minds described what mutual respect and sharing intellectual understanding means inspite of immense disagreements.
Ostento Nihil anybody who can’t answer the question about belief in a God, directly, is a fraud and disingenuous and a charlatan, it’s just my humble opinion! He contradicts himself on a regular basis and he seems to endear himself to insecure men which is quite disconcerting, that’s why! 😜
@@BURRRRPPPPPOOP What do you mean by "Cannot answer the question about belief in God?" I need precision here. Whether or not one contradicts oneself is not a suffice determination of one's ingenuity. Nietzsche was notorious for some contradictions of his, yet he remains one of the most profound and sacred thinkers of our times. Same goes for Kant and the supposed contradiction of his transcendental method. Does the proclaimed contradictions make these wise men charlatans? The patterns of your logic seem to say, yes.
@@jokerxxx354 That's true. You live in a society that allows you to own lots of useless shit that gets piled up in your room. If you slept on a dirt floor and worked in a rice paddy all day, you wouldn't have to worry about it. (This is sarcasm, it is honest to God not that hard to clean up your room, and I'm dead serious when I say it makes you feel better. I do it because it actually improves my mood a lot.)
All of Jordan Peterson's fans only argument against zizek in this comment section is that he looks, talks, and acts weird. Which is very childish and nonsensical.
Both had very convincing arguments. Everyone praises the civil manner in which they conducted themselves. Sure, that's a standard you can use. And it must feel like a breath of fresh air if you spend a lot of time on social media. To me, a great debate is when what you've heard makes you want to order your own thoughts and come up with a reply as if you could join the debate. The following is what I came up with. A truly scary obstacle will make it tempting to get caught up in deflecting your energy and time towards inconsequential goals. Given this general mechanism by which the mind protects itself, the individual and the social arenas do not present equal risks. When choosing your battles, you have to take into account that you are way more likely to get lost and achieve nothing if you focus on social problems. This is because it is vastly more difficult to take meaniningful action on a social level than on an individual one. You have way more control on what you do than on what others do. Before you go on the offensive, you have to actively protect yourself against getting sidetracked. It doesn't mean that focusing on your personal problems won't get you sidetracked. Navel-gazing is a real risk. But you do have to make a choice whenever one option presents a lower risk of getting lost in meaningless action. And picking between the social and the personal is one of those choices. What matters is that you strengthen the ability to not lose focus whenever you have the chance. Because you will need that ability when things get really scary.
You make a good point, and I believe that emphasizes Peterson's focus on how it plays out in clinical situations. In my opinion as a mental health therapist, I have seen many cases where there is a truly unjust situation someone is stuck in (abuse, difficult relationships, bullying) and sometimes, especially with children, they are incapable of just removing themselves from the situation or magically having a new job with a nicer boss. Sometimes the most you can do is help them work on themselves to be more resilient in the face of difficult circumstances. It increases their wisdom, insight into themselves, and sometimes that can translate into insight regarding other people's suffering, thus increasing their own patience towards others.
This is an excellent point well made in my opinion, and helped me verbalise some thought I have had alot around this subject. Thanks for putting across your thoughts into the pool, I greatly appreciate it.
@@josephzicaro9913 I can understand how it can seem like Jordan's replies and speeches have become "overcomplicated". With the tremendous amounts of perspective that he has amassed from reading extensively and also through his experience listening to people as a clinical psychologist, it can seem really complicated for you to grasp his ideas, especially because of his way of answering questions, that are enriched with multiple takes on a single problem viewed from many different angles, and his way of explaining ideas with the use of archetypal models. But the onus is really on us, to keep our powers of comprehension updated, and not really expect him to dumb down his way of presenting his ideas to the world.
@@lloydstevens2148 that seems like severe psychological weakness if you allow someones outward appearance to influence how much you are willing to listen to them. he's 71 and holds several degrees as well as a doctorate. i don't think someone having a tic constitutes saying such things about a philosophy researcher, but hey that's why hes up there and we're down here in the comments!
Peterson's long reply of psychological mumbo-jumbo didn't really address Zizek's challenge. He just basically doubled down on his own perspective. Peterson's privileged background and the fact that he has only psychoanalyzed rich people who can afford it distorts his view, preventing him from addressing the reality that some people can't get "their house in order" because the corrupt system of greed and exploitation, which allows the existence of a small group of the privileged, like him, keeps those people who can't get their house in order in a state or condition of neo-slavery. No amount of introspection can help people in that state get out of it. By the way, Peterson is very slick, his "professionalism, facing Zizek and quietly, patiently waiting for his turn, distracted and impressed everybody, so that everybody, as least as reflected by the comments I wasted my time reading, seems to be awed by the style while ignoring, probably because they don't understand it, the substance of his argument.
@@madjack7777 Because Zizek intentionally didn't engage Peterson's argument, he just spoke directly to Peterson's fans to show that you don't have to be political correct to be leftist. It was an intervention, not a conversation. If Zizek would've dealt with the topic at hand, and put on a Marxist hat, he would've devastated Peterson. Peterson's entire monologue about both Marxism , as well as the manifesto was factually, objectively, incorrect. Almost every sentence. No need to be a marxist to see that. Peterson just doesn't seem to debate anyone but liberals, so he has no pressure to correct anything he says. The only times Zizek slipped up and corrected him was by mentioning the Gothe Program where Marx explicitly rejects equality of outcome and explains why it is wrong and cant work. I think he may also have mentioned the Paris Commune, which was the only form of government that Marx (and many contemporaries) endorsed, and was very democratic and decentralized. This basic understanding of, and endorsement of marxism and socialism is what Zizek's critique of marxism comes after. So Peterson thinks for example that they both see Stalinism as an outgrowth of Marxism, but Zizek essentially thinks what Marxists have though since Stalin's time: Stalinism was the right wing counter to marxism, not marxism going too far. Zizek is a Marxist . He simply has his own critique of it, going back to Hegel, but the point of that criticism is to update and renew it. Zizek knows that capitalist experiments failed for 1000 years before it finally succeeded. He doesn't see our time as the end of history like Peterson does.
I agree, he's also great at interviews. Not many people can master that art. You let the person completely get to their point while you either remember or take notes. Either way, it's a quality of high IQ. Is also how you tell who wins a debate. Typically the person who is the calmest while letting the other person rant is the winner. The loser typically interrupts and cuts people off.
@@gameragamera656 no, he was taking anxiety medicine and quit. If you look into it you can't just quit without problems. You can stop opiates and have a rough few weeks but anxiety meds can kill you by seizures. He's supposed to be making some appearances soon.
I've known people trying to get off of anti anxiety meds. And it was rough and dangerous. When I heard about Petersen's problem I wasn't surprised. He was going through a rough time. His wife was found to have a terminal illness, his daughter was having health problems, and he was under fire publicly from his detractors. That's a TON of stress. I think anyone would be having a rough time. Glad he is doing better.
I’ve been listening to Peterson for a couple of years now. He is mostly a good speaker, but he can hold onto rather inconceivable beliefs, especially when it comes to religion. Other than that, yes, he is a wicked listener. He never really misunderstands his opponents position and tries to resonate with it as much as he can, while retaining his own argument and opinion.
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
I'd prefer a t-shirt with "And so on and so on"
I remember when this debate first happened, I looked at the comment section and saw "Kermit the Frog v.s Donald Duck" and haven't been the same since
LMAOOO
That mental image doesnt ruin this discussion.
Id anything, it just made it better. 😁😁
@@Wavemaninawe It definitely does
I wish there was a LMAO LOLOLOLOL button on YT.
OMG 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 AHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA
I have never seen someone so upset about being told to clean his room
well,it would mean he has less time to attack decent folk...
Hes not upset its passion...
he honestly seems like his house is really dirty
high in neuroticism
Mom: clean your room its a mess
Me:
Zizek sounds like he’s talking through dimensions
None of which is ours
@@myronkipa2530 😂😂😂😂
That's because he actually is
sounds more like he speaks from inside of trash bin ... where he belongs
@@Petrhrabal its funny to imagine the satisfied impression on your face when you hit send on such a moronic comment hehehe
Please, let me break it down to you:
1) Zizek is NOT saying one should let one's house untidy, but simply that we can have it both ways: not just set our house in order, but ALSO try to change the world in the meantime. They should not be mutually exclusive things. Zizek's house itself is meticulously tidy (just look at his VICE interview). The argument that Zizek is just trying to justify his own mess at his house is not only a nonsense, but childish;
2) Zizek is just saying that real change does not begin with personal responsibility (like Gandhi thought with his famous "be yourself the change you want to see in the world"), but by addressing the way society itself reproduces itself. Individual responsibility, for Zizek, is an ideological trick whose ultimate aim is precisely to AVOID radical change, a false bargain. His example of ecology goes in the same direction: the more we are told we are personally responsible for ecological catastrophies, the less mega changes in the way the system reproduces itself are made.
You're welcome. :)
I see but counterpoint, people have fixed ecological disasters before. The hole in the ozone layer is in much better shape than 30 years ago.
Because this changes on used gases on industries doesn't break the economy. The challenge we face today need profound changes on society
@@Makaneek5060
that wasn’t individual action that solved it though though, i believe it was heavily legislated in the montreal protocol
@@okuyasu4033 I'm not sure if that was Ivo's point, and I would agree that individual action is not likely to make a big difference for such concerns. Maybe I misunderstood but I took him to mean even legislation would be unable to help, when really it can.
@@Makaneek5060I don’t think it was just legislation I think it was due to the fact that the ozone hole had the potential to grow and cause the same problems it had caused in Australia across the globe. The possibility that you could get skin cancer so easily anywhere now forced the change not mainly just the legislation
His voice tricks my brain into thinking I'm being sprayed with water
Never heard about lisping ?
@@싸넬동지-7성담배 I listened to this as a podcast. Thought it was a text to speech at first 😂😂🤣🤣
This is the only time I think I've ever tried to wipe the inside of the screen of my smartphone.
Why does he look like a homeless person trying to defend his right to sleep in a vacant house's bath tub?
@Anderson Silva 😂🤣☠️ best comment ever. Thank you
@Ra Li I don't think he can even understand himself.
His accent is so strong that the subtitles are in another language
And yet.....you can understand it all 😂
😂😂
Such an underrated comment 😂
Hahaha fuck
OMG yes 😂
"and so on and so on" vs "roughly speaking"
Jaajaja brilliant
Hahahahhaa
Yadayadayada...
I believe 'and so on and so on' is the winner of the debate
"or whatever, whatever.."
That's actually a healthy debate. Kudos to both parties. I wish people were able to do this wholeheartedly with the intent of gathering more life experience and learn a thing or two.
Peterson didn't even bother to read Marx. Peterson is a clown, this was not a debate but a pitiful attempt to grab some fame from JP
I think Zizek and Peterson are both honest people.
They have to be legitment in talk, example someone's who want to debate earth flat
"actually"
@@jamesmcinnis208 would you like to elaborate?
Peterson and Zizek showed ultimate professionalism during this debate. Both were incredibly respectful even in spite of the 7th grade audience members repeated sophomoric interruptions.
Yep - i just saw another clip and the whooping totally turned me off. But this was quite an interesting exchange.
Those 7th grades are better behaved than the students who attend these harry potter academies, that are called universities.
Right on. Then again, it`s not all that surprising that a leftist and a centrist could be so agreeable.
Jordan Peterson was a joke, he admitted that he didn't even bother engaging with the literature in preparation for this debate. If you did that at even an undergraduate level, you would expect to be expelled from all future debates. What a pathetic sophist.
@@lisztdylan7846 Yeah he's a fucking moron. Is this news to you? His sophomoric, veiled christianity bullshit is responsible for delaying our inevitable attainment of Socialist utopia by at least a couple of years. Have you read his book? If you haven't, congrats, don't.
The thumbnail for this video was made with the pure and obvious intention of misrepresenting the discussion between Peterson and Zizek. Both individuals displayed nothing but patience, focus, and respect for one another.
one individual also displayed an alt right audience. oh sorry, nazi*, was a typo
exactly, now we must downvote
@@RatafakTehPlachta It's people like _YOU_ and your ilk that are the problem with society. Anyone who argues against free speech is at the root of social issues and this is simple fact. No one of any societal importance cares about your feelings being hurt by the fact that people disagree with you, even if they do so wrongly.
@@kooldudematt1 and may i see, my good sir, where did i actually argue against free speech? im all for it. part of the free speech is to disagree with the fact that someone who pampers to a neo nazi audience gets public space and gets to influence the minds of young people - fragile and easily manipulated. that is my opinion. that is me expressing my free speech. you have a problem with that, maybe you have a problem with free speech. you only yell free speech when it suits you and it is in alignment with your world view, well, some bad news for you, society doesnt work like that. meaningful boundaries based on sound arguments will always be a thing, thank fuck. and again, my feelings? bold assumptions, since nowhere in my previous statement have i said anything about feelings. societal importance? like who? president of the universe papa jordan? get a hold of yourself, you sound hysterical
@@RatafakTehPlachta Care to explain what part of anything that Jordan said here caters to a Neo-Nazi audience ? Or is it that you just like to throw around the term "Neo-Nazi" without understanding it's meaning and application ? The fact that Jordan is sitting there side-by-side with an individual who almost completely disagrees with everything he stands for and having a civilised discussion, kind of proves that he is the exact opposite of a Neo-Nazi. Because Nazis (or Neo-Nazis) were never known for their tolerance or patience.
I can imagine young zizek saying this when his mother tells him to clean his room lol
...or to blow his nose....
What a poor mother she spends her salary on towels
@@sendmeyourlocation1145 dude I'm dying 🤣🤣🤣🤣
If you've ever seen both their living spaces, you would know that Zizek is significantly tidier than Peterson
@In Sterquiliniis Invenitur Well, it was Yugoslavia when he was born
He has a point. It crossed my mind too. "be what you want to see in the world" is not easy when the worlds full of clowns.
You are seemingly no different from the masses you are referring to.
Peterson is the CLOWN with a drug problem .
twas never about being easy. just being achievable with proper effort. let's go put in some effort
What you want to see- not what you see.
Once you learn that the clowns are there to entertain, nothing bothers, you still stick cleaning your room you can't change that
Jordan’s main point is basically control all the things you can control to the best of your ability and that will position yourself best to deal with things you can’t control.
Underrated comment
And people get so mad lmao
This is *exactly* the problem I have with many people in my generation (Milennials). They are looking to the government and to society for their wellbeing. No one will ever give a fuck about you as much as you care about you (okay, maybe your mom or somethin). Your responsibility is to make due with what you got. Most people are expecting a clean house without first cleaning their room. Sure, society might shit on you but they're always gonna do that and, many times, they won't be held to account for it. Nevertheless, you have to continue, because you want a clean room. Separate yourself from the people harming you and clean your rooms till your house gets clean.
Yes, may be this his point but doesn't make it reality.
@@benjiusofficial doesn't make anything true.
What is the ”right thing“ to do? Is it what Peterson wants or what others want? Even all mothers will have a different kind of caring, what is a different order to any house, clean to any house?
Mom: clean your room
Me: I must say I'm Hegelian here
hahah
You need to turn the room in itself into a room for yourself.
@Yonis Ali still you must persevere and take up your responsibility in the face of hardship.
Mom: then you must sublate your room into a clean one
This guy's got built in reverb and delay/echo.
Hahahahaha nice
Zizek 2120 Audio Processor mixer
Echoboy by Zizek
He could be a nice addition to my rig 😎
I can hear some overdrive goin on too...
7:04 "If you take a personal problem seriously enough, you will simultaneously solve a social problem." - Carl Jung
If only was that easy. Material conditions also matters, that's why it's so difficult to change the world.
@@OsvaldoBayerista because some personal problem are beyond human capacity to solve…
@@user-yk5xu8gr1e Beyond a single person's ability**. Being beaten half to death by a cop for no reason is ultimately a personal problem, but maybe you should ask why this is happening in the first place before you sign up for martial arts classes.
Actually it might work to some extent only the other way round. But more likely by taking social problems seriously, you create additional personal problems to yourself 😅To solve social problems through taking seriously personal problems is not possible, unless you are so powerful to do it. Let's say Hitler after seized power in 1933 could solve social problems by solving his own problems, however the problem was that he himself was lifted to power by those social problems. He was in a way their product.
And if you give a social problem the modicum of effort it will have exponential effect on everyone
I wish this debate had happened in 2020 (i.e. without that goddamn audience).
Same.
Talk about annoying People...
Innit. You shouldn’t be whooping and hollering and clapping at a philosophical debate. It debases the whole thing.
@@williameggly145 how…
hahah good one
Mom : Clean your room.
Me: But the society...
Then you'll hold protest and marches outside because you were forced to clean your room
@@dlee73 Or you'll hold protests and marches after your little brother is murdered by government officials, and then people will ask you why you aren't cleaning your room
my room my choice!
@@auralit8 maybe you should ask why that happened to your brother. Or maybe you should ask why you weren't there for your brother to stop that situation from happening. Was your brother on drugs? Depressed? Angry? Did you talk to him? Did you try to help? Maybe you were estranged, and could have reached out. It's very easy to blame others. It's very easy to blame the government. However, what could you have done? I think that's a question that one shouldn't ignore. You need to take responsibility first. I'm not saying that bad things don't happen. I'm just saying that you can speak with truth when you come from that perspective.
Hi @@bernie2124. I think the emphasis that a lot of people are placing right now on personal responsibility is a coping mechanism. It ties into the "just world hypothesis," which you can google if you're interested.
The thing is that if there's always some way you can take personal responsibility, it inoculates you psychologically against the threat of a cruel, unpredictable, and often unjust world. I think the desire for that psychological security makes many people callous.
I find so sad that there are so much people who view this debate as a puerile attempt from either part to "obliterate" the other, and not as the lesson on civil and productive debate that it is. This type of debate is the stuff that human progress is made of.
Agreed. Great debate.
No, no! I think about the contribution, the amalgamation that the clashes/skirmishes of those brilliant minds create! the perspective!
Ah! it's very very very intriguing!
Peterson not being familiar about Marxism opens him up for ridicule,he didn't study for the exam.
Exactly, it's much more of a phylosophical discussion than a debate
Unfortunately there are certain topics we can't debate. Just ask the ADL. Until there is zero censorship and 100% scientific transparency, we'll remain stagnant.
A valid question with a thoughtful answer. This was a great interview
Great one indeed 🙌🙌
Clickbait thumbnail.
I had the feeling that was the case and that intuition is what baited me into clicking to see if I was right. The fisherman always wins.
I do think it's a distasteful and immature thumbnail
@@MixMastaCopyCat Ah are you American? You not know the dielectic significance of the Middle finger as Hegel once put it "Fuck you daddy"
k
@@MixMastaCopyCat what do you expect from a youtube channel that dubs themself "RaDiCaL rEvOLuTiOn" 😂
Zizek wipes his nose exactly 57 times in this 10 minute clip
@nah bdy nah I was just high
@@TheALLVEGAS hahahahaah
at this point, we can agree its a tic
Bruto
@@TheALLVEGAS Must be some bad weed to give a shit about such stupid things. Must have synergized with your adderal you loser LOL.
I think Peterson eventually answered the question perfectly.
Zizek: "Why do you say 'put your house in order?' What if it is in that order because of society?"
Peterson: "That is why we start with our house. It is not seperate from society, so if we can fix our house, we can get some insight on how to fix society."
I honestly think Zizek's argument here was weak to begin with. What if my life is a mess for reasons out of my control. Who can say with all certainty that they have full autonomy and control of their situation. Do concepts as abstract as freedom, will and autonomy even exist? We can't know for sure. That doesn't mean we should be doomed to not do anything, even if it's pointless and we are just deceiving ourselves when we strive to better ourselves and the world
the "put your house in order" argument is valid if its used properly. on a general note you should follow it. however, there are many situations where the problem is withing a higher structure and working on your house here is doomed to fail or far too slow. also it should not be used to shut down someones argument. there are many people who can produce valuable stuff, despite not getting along with their own life. i even think peterson is part of that but thats just my feeling.
That's exactly what I thought. It took him a while to get there though
@@BuGGyBoBerl I agree partially with what you said, in that, as advice is one to be pragmatic about life. But as a statement describing how the human being interacts with it's environment is very accurate. What action or what kind of interaction can we have if it doesn't, as insignificant as it might be, begin with a conviction to pursue the needs of our own? I'm not saying we are voracious and stupidly egoistic creatures, that's a completely different topic. I'm saying we always are irremediably tied to ourselves. And the microcosmos we have in our heads is nothing but a fraction of the bigger there's outside. I think this is the logic behind Peterson's argument, I don't know if he is aware of it though. Even caring exclusively about te bigger problems means caring about yours, but not covertly so
@@drg8034 well it depends on how you define caring about yours and caring about the bigger problems. it also depends on how philosophical you want to get here.
im well aware that taking care of your own situation first have practical and psychological reasons.
however i still think its just a general guideline and not an absolute statement.
take climate change. this topic isnt solved by "take care of your business" first. sure, you have to do that too, but this isnt even close to being sufficient. actually, its a good example of distraction strategies people use for their interest. individualizing of big problems so they can keep going according to their interests.
as said, if you define protesting and efforts regarding climate change politics also as caring about yours, then we have different definitions but i would agree.
i just think its not an absolute to care about yourself first (not about egoism here) because 1. some problems need more than that and 2. its sometimes used as a avoiding strategy.
JP is a professional fortune cookie wisdom generator
Jordan: clean your room
Zizek: my room is messy because of society
Zizek: Society is fucked up for so and so reasons. What happens when you clean your room and you’re still stuck in North Korea
Peterson: He thinks localism and individualism will be superior. Because the Bible and his archetypal narrative about redeeming fallen humanity.
Zizek is right, the answer is yes, please. Both cleaning your room and helping to democratically involve yourself in the transformation of society. Peterson argues for a false Libertarian utopia that cannot solve the global problems we face like Climate Change (he’s a denier), and really has no existing form of localism that actually exists. It seems to only empower what’s already there, strong multi-national corporations who would benefit from the reduction of government institutions.
@@DZ-yk2ew most climate change deniers dont actually deny that the climate is changing. What they argue agains tis the fear mongering death cult that have turned it into the next apocalypse. Just look at who's funding all the groups and who has all their money in green energy and renewable shit. We're not going to die and our western societies have the greatest level of hygene and cleanliness that we have ever had comparitively speaking to the population. The problem with that as well is that 99% of the time when people replace tyrants, they replace them with another tyrant because they have no other model of the world except of what they know. When you can set yourself in order you can then go on to take responsibility to lead the revolution to greater things rather than go out and do the same shit as the dictator you just usurped.
@@MrJabbothehut don’t play that dumb ass game with me. We are obviously referring to anthropogenic climate change, that human activity is having permanent damage on the climate and ecology. The whole world of experts is a death cult? You’re a fucking goner mate, no sense in reasoning with delusional conspiracy theorists who don’t know the science. People like you and Peterson merely need to be defeated, the debate is over on this issue.
@@MrJabbothehut hygiene and cleanliness? Holy shit you’re a useless moron.
@@DZ-yk2ew woah you sound really not angry and speaking/acting out of pure fear. You must be a blast to know irl. I didnt say the whole world of experts. I said that those who screech that the world is going to end are using completely unreliable models and suggesting completely stupid methods without even realising how much progress has been made in cleaning up our societies. You my friend probably live every day in fear and negativity because youve worked yourself up to the point where you have nothing better to do than worry about the weather when you know barely jackshit of how unreliable climate models are and how industries and markets work and drive progress. Guess what, there are more trees on planet earth now than there were 100 years ago. We recycle way more now and are infinitely more efficient and less wateful than 100 years ago. Go complain to the chinese about your climate cult but leave me and others the fuck alone with your doomsday bullshit.
"if you take a personal problem seriously enough, you will simultaneously solve a social problem" -Jung
Spot on
Say that to a guy in north korea.
That's what the Incel movement is all about.
Yeah, the point is that since the personal problem stems from a social problem, you would solve the personal problem by solving a social problem.
But no matter how many clean rooms there are, there will be a space outside of those rooms that is still filthy, because in the end, a lot of the problems we have are in the fucking hallways.
@@jajjfajsidjoigfe lol.
I think a lot of Jordan fans here missed Zizek’s point. Jordan says, “You don’t have the right to try and fix society until you fix your own personal life,” and Zizek says, “Why not do both at the same time, since a portion of my personal problems _cannot be fixed_ without fixing society.”
Zizek is not saying we shouldn’t work on ourselves. Rather, he’s calling Jordan out for saying that people shouldn’t try to change society until their lives are in order. Well, how much order? When do we know we are sorted out enough to move on to social problems? What is the objective criteria? Zizek has a very good point.
Zizek is not intelligent in so far as his argument in favor of the need to fix society. His solutions, or suggestions, such as they exist, are empty.
I believe Peterson's answer has well answered Zizek's critic. Peterson is all about creating narratives, experiences and the knowledge that build towards a change first in one's life and then, having recognised problems in the small realm of our life, it is possible to change the bigger.
In this specific case, as for most of his speeches, Peterson seems to provide practical advice to his problems, while Zizek simply ends by justifying the inability to change through this unbeatable agent that is society.
And one is a psychologist and the other a philosopher. I would rather listen to the critics of the latter and the solutions of the former.
Peterson responds by saying you'd better figure out how that light sabre works before you attempt to slay dragons in the real world.
Be wise in the little things before you partake in trying to change bigger things. It’s that simple. The way I see it, we’ve all got a lot to learn and every day should be a lesson, but there is definitely a certain degree of wisdom, patience, and understanding that is needed before you decide you want to fix the world. In this instance, Peterson explains it as first sorting out your household in a metaphorical sense. It makes perfect sense. We don’t deploy our children out into the world to fix world problems, we put them through school and we teach them basic morals and responsibilities beforehand. The world would catch fire if we threw them in blind. The same could be applied to an adult wanting to fix larger issues - deal within yourself and your household first and then deal with the rest once you have the basics down. Most people, don’t. They jump right in, their intentions are typically not in the right place and they don’t have an understanding of how things particularly work and why they work the way that they do. That isn’t wise. Not to say anyone will ever be “perfect”, but there is a certain degree of wisdom one should reach before they decide they want to challenge and change larger issues. Proceed with caution, essentially. That’s completely reasonable and I don’t think someone should tackle larger issues while still becoming acquainted with smaller ones. With that, I must humbly disagree with Zizek’s rhetoric.
Yes, guys, I get Peterson’s point. But if you just focus on your own personal issues, there are going to be plenty of other people (personal lives in order or not) who take social issues into their own hands, whether on the side of the establishment or counter-establishment.
So, isn’t it sort of like sticking your head in the sand to focus solely on your personal life? As Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
What you learn in school (to listen to each other, discuss and let others finish) and eventually profit from having different truths to center and focus a problem from different angles towards the center is a big difference to the debates on a lot of political exchanging journalism platforms, where they fight for which truth wins, because only one is allowed to exist and therefore move to left or right and are not balanced.
I'm gonna go out on a limb, and say that the guy in the middle is much dryer on his left side.
A lot less slippery too
🤣
Genuinely found it hard to pay attention to what he was spraying......I mean saying.
Imagine having a argument with that man in 2020
Mr Nice guy . Hahahahaha.
And alot dumber and/or filled with deep seated daddy issues
"You have unfairly tasked me with three difficult questions."
"That's life"
Not really.
Life is not usually being questioned , on stage, by a blovating conflationist.
@@cindysmith765 it was funny, get off your high horse doctor.
@@cindysmith765 Ughh. Please jog on you bore.
@@dipthongthathongthongthong9691 not an argument
@@joshuadougall2544 correct
Lot of people missing Zizek's point, I would say. He is not stating that it's just society's fault that your house is in disorder; he is stating that your personal problems and/or bad decisions are NOT the only cause why your house may not be in order. It would be pretty naive (and perhaps even dangerous) to suggest that your problems stem exclusively from you.
Indeed, sociopolitical environments can have a tremendous impact in how your 'room' looks like. This does not mean that one should use the old excuse of 'this country's a ruin, so of course my life is miserable'. As in any philosophical debate, Zizek is challenging - and these challenges are necessary.
darkanguiel -Peterson, unlike some commenters, understood his point and either countered it, refined his point, or agreed with Zizek’s point and expanded on it to show how it agreed with his view. Peterson’s point is to find a place to focus and move out from that, and since you can control your behavior, that is where you will learn about making successful decisions and making corrections will be easier which will in turn create confidence for addressing those issues outside of the self.
You can't control society though. The only changes you can make are in your personal life.
@@chadmwilliams89 A dangerously wrong, but somewhat popular view. First define "society". It doesn't matter what form (save defining it as "an unchangeable thing", another easily disproved claim) that takes, it is still possible for an individual to affect change within or upon it. Look no further than Zizek for proof, though there are many examples both good and bad.
It's alot more effective to fix your own issues than others for many reasons and if society did that as a whole each individual did it then many of the issues the bigger issues in the society group would automatically start being fixed. It's a very simple concept and that's why it's gained so much traction from so many so fast
Fix what you have agency of then move on to the ones you don't.
Its nice to hear Peterson back when he was sane...
He’s still sane lol
What do you mean by that
He is still sane
He was already insane back then
Mom: Clean your room!
Zizek: *Conducts an entire orchestra out of frustration*
🤦♂
Lmao
Peterson: but what do you mean by 'clean'?
That’s because he is slob and his house a disaster. Seen the documentary. It’s disgusting.
🤣🤣🤣
SHAME - the image of Zizek supposedly sticking his middle finger up to Peterson is so NOT representative of this debate. This is one of the most respectful debates imaginable, where both debaters were so open to listen to one and other. Although the full debate is over two and a half hours, it is very much worth watching.
Watch as ____________ DESTROYS ____________!!!!!!
Senzational clickbait > real journalism
When you ad censorship to all that you get a mess
It's more of like a friendly fuck you. For being right. Like dammit fuck you.
Uyi Oip I mean it isn’t really a fuck you at all cuz he doesn’t give Peterson the middle finger at all. It’s part of his example
@@callumdavis8307 that's how the post is depicting it. It's representative of this little quarrel they have
When my mom told me, clean your room..!!
I automatically become a zizek (o_Ó)
I would advise against that. Even Zizek doesn't want to be a Zizek.
and started spitting everywhere 😂😂
i wish i were half as good a rhetorician as zizek.
:))
"Accept the unjustness of your tortured mortality". Wow, what a line to start my weekend.
I think peterson has this perspective as he is primarily a psychologist, not a sociologist. Hence, his point is centred around overcoming psychological or psychiatric imperfections first and only then you tackle the bigger picture of what is wrong with society. Zizek is a sociologist and hence, he views the world as sociological systems and taking action means confronting societal ills.
I think both speakers are right to a certain extent.
If you look more closely at Zizek, you will find that he is neither.
Zizek is not a sociologist... He has extensive understandings of and experience with psychoanalysis. He is one of the most educated intellectuals of psychoanalysis alive.
A true psychologist, understands that the individual does not exist as a monad, but as a being in intimate and constitutive relationship with the Other. In any case, from the perspective of the poorest psychology, Peterson's argument (the "rule") is a fallacy. That is, in the perspective of being "primarily a psychologist" he is also wrong (Sorry if there are mistakes, it is not my native language).
Exactly! But I believe zizek ends up more accurate in the long term, as individual behavior tends to be negligible compared to the collective.
Parker Johnson
It is individuals that affect the group.
Old Buddhist saying "How you do anything is how you do everything"
I stay with the Bible that Just say you are a sinner.
I think I’ve heard that phrase maybe 2 years ago and since then I still think it’s the most terrifying phrase (in a good way) if we make the necessary changes.
There is a Brazillian saying: "dont be a shithead"
That’s a wise statement.
If you can't do your room, don't do the world
- Confucius
“The light that you discover in your life is proportionate to the level of darkness you’re willing to forthrightly confront.” I’m gonna let that one sink in for a bit.
Scott Hutchison so basically he means the reward is the same as the risk?
@@zicokahuroa3660 That seems about right, where "light" is true contentment and "darkness" is everything that separates you from that contentment. In order to have absolute contentment, you need to have successfully navigated through the entirety of your own personal "hell," which is a gargantuan task. At least that's my takeaway.
Light is the polar flip of dark and all polarities need each other to exist.until you know the duality of a subject you can only know up to half of its nature
Doc Silver what’s your point?
@@zicokahuroa3660 to better convey what i mean, i like the way Allen Watts put it .you cannot have a background without a foreground you cannot have good without bad dark without light or a wave without a crest.an in its nature you can only know part of anything by looking at one of its angles.our conscious egos have driven us to unnatural conclusions and expectations.the dark will never defeat the light they cannot be without each other.its for these same reason love is so close to hate and all passion is just a color
JP: "Exposure therapy is what everyone and your mother agrees on"
Also JP on Fox News: "GET YOUR CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOLS THAT TEACH ABOUT GENDER THEY WILL CATCH ON FIRE!!!!!" lol
well exposure therapy is for fears, nobody is afraid of gays they just think it's wrong for kids. thats like saying lets teach kids how to murder or grape each other in class and someone objects and you say it's exposure therapy. the exposure therapy is for an IRRATIONAL fear. fear of sexualizing kids is a rational fear
@@DoctorP007"it's wrong for kids"
@@pied6485 yea thats what most people think
@@DoctorP007Because it IS wrong. Telling a tomboy girl she actually may be a boy is nuts.
@@DoctorP007 Being gay is wrong for kids? Yeah, how about you skip sexual education and resort to marrying people off into unhappy relationships they don't feel attracted to. Because apparently, a 14 year old heterosexual can express their desire but when a gay one does it or is encouraged to, it's wrong and they should wait until adulthood. Great take.
I like that neither of them seem genuinely upset, just passionate about the points they’re making.
Peterson: clean your room
Zizek: and i took that personally
Hahaha yup
No he said: lets clean society
@@evolution__snow6784 they both did actually
@@iansantos3808 no Peterson says clean your room, like the clip you just watched said
@@evolution__snow6784No clean you’re room is find you’re inner flaws recognize them work on them so you can work of society. Even if you are in Korea, for example if you are in a Dictatorship and you’re being indoctrinated by a certain idea you need to clean you’re room. But what does that men ?; It means identify that you’re being indoctrinated , find the flaws do you’re homework fix you’re self and try to fix society for example or try to make the best of the situation. Some times beating the system is almost impossible so you need to reinvent yourself, find meaning in that society and make it the best you can. An example of not cleaning you’re room is the great number of voters that don’t find there inner flaws of their thinking or morality but want to fix society not knowing what they really want. And I am with Zizek in this, I have a pessimist view on the people. People are lazy to really inform themselves. And they make lazy assumptions or accusations.
The ecology example was an EXCELLENT example!! They encourage individual to recycle, but yet it is the major corporations causing the majority of the global pollution.
They've created a society of corporatism where at the personal level you would look stupid playing your part saving the environment. I've tried this at my workplace minimizing the printing of papers and I was literally about to lose my job. They now force you to wear the silly environmentally deadly masks and they can take disciplinary actions if not complied but when it comes to environment they care hell, rather they've created useless Audit procedures which compel you to exploit nature and rape ethics.
Corporations consist of “individuals”...
@@lola1987fudgeyouu yeah... like Jordan had said.. I am not saying there is no domain for public/social acts in your life but you have to first set your house in order before going for reorganising the world ...
Start change from individual smaller level then proceed towards higher purpose...
@@lola1987fudgeyouu well according to Seaspiracy it isn't even corporations but fishing boats that's causing the whole problem.
@David Winehouse i dont have stats on me but last time I looked into individual pollution vs corporate one it was comically low....our actions trully have barely noticeable effect on the issue at hand (it got even worse when china stopped accepting recycled materials because its cheaper for them to make new plastic than to process recycling now..so In many regions even tho you throw plastic bottles into a specific "recycling bit" company that collects trash will toss it into the same pile....reason why they are not announcing this is that, it will be hard af to train people to recycle)....regardless, we as a individuals have little to no impact on this issue, its all in hands of corporations.
Set your house in order while you change the world.
How his nose is still on his face is a mystery...
Cocain?
First we have to look into how he produces cocaine from his fingertips.
He has Tourette’s lol
He’s very ill. Let’s see how you behave after a stroke. You could have one any day, humorously of course.
Herion
*Peterson calmly wipes spit from his face then replies*
😂
@Psychonaut show us more of your shitty character
@Gus Lulu BRUHHHHH 😂😂😂😂😂
I shouldn't laugh at that tho, it's mean.
😂
Low hanging fruit. Lame
me: *activates subtitles to understand Zizek*
Subtitles: voor die knie of your slogan signore boek hierover
The subtitles are confusing for everybody. It looks like nonsensical Dutch, filled with some random English.
Omg, I thought that I have made my google account in dutch or something that's why youtube tries to put dutch subtitles on zhizhek, but no, it's like that for everyone hahahaha it's so funny because i can agree that zhizhek speaks as Dutch is written xD
@@andrepretorius4702 dankie
@@andrepretorius4702 nee fok, lees dit n bietjie. Dis n mengelmoes v alles wat geen sin maak nie.
That guy should be careful because he would encourage a supper unhealthy 800 pound man to become arrogant enough to go to a gym and demand a job while he cannot even walk up the steps and is to big to pass thorough the door of the same gym. Smh, Good thing uncle Jordan set him straight!!!!! Geezzzee
Zizek point is no matter how many RUclips motivational videos, no matter how many psychological books they read, no matter if you tell someone that is lazy, if that person is in a system like North Korea, there is nothing that can be done. Zizek is saying the problem is systematic from the core. Peterson is saying that the problem is the individual. Zizek proposes to do both because without fixing the system, the individual progress will be fairly limited no matter how much motivation or psychology we apply to them.
Zizek is correct a person can work his ass to death, but if the system he/she lives doesn't reward this person's effort, it's worthless, then when this person gets old and sick, he/she will be thrown to the junk yard.
Peterson's solution is both as well. But an individual will have a much higher success rate of changing society in the right way if they can routinely clean their room and maintain cleanliness of their room. It breeds competence and order, which JP considers to be ESSENTIAL _foundations_ needed in one's life before they can tackle larger societal problems.
You need a collective of people able to actually change their environments in a perceptible manner consistently to lead the charge for social change, is JP's argument. That starts with being able to set a small facet of their life in ordec consistently (cleaning your room and maintaining its cleanliness).
@@Un1234l Well without a systematic change the individual change is useless. Let me give you an example. Let's say somebody is thrown into a cell with no food. This cell represents society. Under Peterson's ideal if this person is starving is because he or she is lazy or unproductive. The reality is that you can blame someone all day long, someone in a cell without food, tell them they have to get "their shit together", but food won't magically appear even if they decide to be productive. If someone in North Korea wants to have a successful restaurant, I don't care if he has his shit together according to Peterson, he will fail. I disagree with you and Peterson with the last argument. I believe you have as a collective to be aware as problem and compromise to solve it, because no individual can overthrow a corrupt government. We will disagree all day long perhaps because you have strong beliefs but my suggestion is to go to North Korea and try be successful. Peterson is very comfortable talking in the first world.
@@johndoedoe88
No one's saying you don't try to change anything, or that there will ALWAYS be a way out...
He's also mostly speaking specifically about these middle class people not in a totalitarian environment (who in fact live in a democratic society with equal opportunity for all), who prioritize going for radical social justice changes rather than setting order in their own lives first, and then building upon that competence to see what they can or cannot change, whether due to competence issues or systematic barriers in place. Completely different environment: people who have too much idealism and not enough experience trying to naively change things.
But let's suppose you're arguing within the confines of this environment: surely big systematic changes have a bigger impact than individual changes? Yes of course, but big systematic changes always have BIG consequences, good or bad, and no one should be in charge of these big changes that will dramatically shift society _until they have a good track record of showing us they know what they're doing._
Like never leaving a rookie restaurant dishwasher in charge of handling the cooking, leading the team, managing of orders, and keeping the restaurant on track and in order. There is a wealth of experience, skill, and wisdom needed before they can be tasked with leading a change in the restaurant, in terms of food, management, etc. Otherwise they can and SHOULD only realistically change what's happening at the dishwasher level, because they have no insight into what the rest of the restaurant is doing or how it operates. _If they want to lead bigger changes, they should first become intimately familiar and competent with the other roles in the restaurant before they cause potential disarray._ It's also similar to having a sheltered monarch with no advisors creating laws vs a well-cultured, well-studied monarch who has lived among the people and with great advisors creating laws.
If, for example, the rookie dishwasher just decides to successfully lobby that all orders must be made only as they come to ensure maximum freshness, higher food quality, that will definitely lead to big changes, and maybe even higher quality food on account of the proven principle that fresh food tastes best, but this dishwasher fails to realize that their solution is not feasible on a time basis, causes undue extra stress on the cooks and servers, results in longer wait and cook times and thus slower service that turns away customers, creates a smaller menu of feasible orders; and even the fact that making ALL orders as they come is beneficially negligible in many cases. Such a rookie didn't have the experience and insight to see why their proposed solution is good or bad, or even feasible.
But even within the confines of your prison/totalitarian/famine scenario, the person with the most composure and orderliness has the most _potential_ and capability to change things, RELATIVE to his peers. IF an opportunity is to arise, it's the person who has his shit together who is most likely to really cause a change.
Peterson would also argue that in such an oppressive environment, of COURSE some things would be impossible to change. That's his entire position on WHY you should clean your room first, to see what is and what isn't impossible, "[paraphrased] because to change big social structures is bloody difficult and complicated, man. If you can't even consistently keep order in a small domain of your life, and it constantly falls into chaos under your watch, what makes you think you can create and maintain order when tasked with social systems and social structures that are MUCH more complex than cleaning your room?"
Again, he has ALWAYS argued that big social changes are harder than what these middle class idealists naively believe. But if a person were put in an environment that gives them the opportunity to create social change (i.e. non-totalitarian, equal opportunity democratic society), then gaining competence in small things and building upon that competence, gaining insight into how things operate, is the way you best bring about those changes.
If you're in a famine, totalitarian, or tightly regulated environment like North Korea, he'd say "tough luck, man," because he KNOWS realistically there's such few opportunities in such cases and it'd be a MUCH more difficult task for anybody to change things from within. But even still, given a person in such an environment, the one able to consistently set order in a small area of their life through a building of competence, is the one most likely to change things, if given the opportunity, not the one who's all talk and no results. They are more psychologically resilient, capable, and have insider knowledge about how things work, and thus how things can be changed, IF things can be changed at all.
TL;DR: He NEVER stated that ANYONE can and WILL topple oppressive totalitarian societies by first cleaning their rooms, or that doing so will find a solution to famine, which are much more engrained and complex social problems; he's just stating that in an environment where you can change things, being able to consistently keep one's room clean gives the person the right foundation to build upon, and fosters in them the right mindset that they should first see what they are capable of exerting control over, and see if they can first exert control over a smaller domain, then working up to more complex domains, enacting changes there and seeing their effects on a smaller scale before they are tasked with things on a larger scale.
Like a student electrician vs multi-decade nuclear reactor electrician. Or municipal leader vs provincial, vs federal, vs prime minister/president.
But imagine if everyone in North Korea tried to clean their room.
I expected JP to be completely soaked in spit by the time the camera turned to him.
Hahahaha That’s hilarious 😂
The echo AND the lisp... ☔😳 too much
🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂
😂😆😅😝😜🤐😁😎😂😢😆
My uncle, a professor at Cornell, loves to say this: we academics argue so much because the stakes are so small.
@Chrystal Blu I would disagree to a certain extent. They do influence the thoughts and behaviors, especially of young people.
🤣
Yeah, your uncle isn't a professor
Your uncle, we academics, is irrelevant. Those who can do, those who cannot teach! Yay Cornell teacher who knows all but,... huhh ya nothing!
@@gerardjayetileke4373 Indeed, Captain Obvious.
This is not a debate. Zizek is an academic who has dedicated his career to philosophy and psychoanalysis and political theory snd Peterson is an ego psych culture war boy who thinks misunderstanding a book is a critique. This was Zizek babysitting
Which book(s) has Peterson misunderstood?
@@livengoodjames7406 Well for starters the book he claims to have read and that he brandished repeatedly as a prop. That's the book. If you watched the debate you'd know which one. Can you say it?
Both make good points here... Zizek: maybe society messed us up with rules and systems that cause problems in our life and in turn cause depression, hate, resentment and interpersonal problems... Peterson: If we accept that life is tough and not always fair, we will do considerably better in creating our own road map to a better place for ourselves and learning from our own tactical and interpersonal mistakes... When we own and solve our own solvable problems we will be better equipped to set examples for others and thereby better qualified to build or help with larger societal problems...
Yeah, I feel like both perspectives make sense. Yet both perspectives blame the other for being short-sighted, simply because they start off at different points.
@@joshbaino3087 Well I think his point is directed more towards a more optimistic perspective of how you should do all that's in your power to set your own being in order and then repercute positively on others.
Because it's true all those important people are troubled themselves but that doesn't necessarily they don't have a minimum order in their lives because they're important for a reason.
And Jordan being troubled himself also shows the change you can make by doing your best to set yourself up even when you have depression or other problems.
The main point should be something like "Set your house in order as you possibly can even if it's still a mess and then go outside to solve the problems of society that is affecting your own personal life"
He can’t make a point if he can’t even speak
@@joshbaino3087 No I think as always you can't just say Peterson good Zizek bad and viceversa you can extract good points from both as every good argument. It's right that there are elements outside of the reaches of the individual but the message as I said and think is that you must do whatever you can. Your point I think is that that isn't our solution to everything at every moment but I think that depending on how you see it it's indeed the solution to our problems because yes, it isn't perfect. But that's what we've got. And since the collectiveness is built on the individual one should always start fixing the base on which it's constructed. You can understand those ciments as external forces which is true but that's the point of setting yourself up.
So imo the conclusion is that while the most important thing is to do what Dr. Peterson said, you should always be aware of Zizek's words and know that there are forces outside of your knowledge and that you can't fix just individually.
What matter is to make things better so we're only gonna focus on that the individualization is a good plan for us all even if the idea of the transcendant it's still there
@@joshbaino3087 But not saying that you should ignore everything outside yourself tho. Just saying that fixing yourself is generally more important so you have to be aware always of the larger picture too. It's just a good presumption that whenever something goes wrong YOU can fix it because this way you increase your "efficiency". No matter how lil you apport by doing so really, it matters that it's better and it will depend on the person alone if the effort is worth it.
But yeah but see even if the bigger picture isn't much affected it is always good to have where you part from well consolidated. Of course the bigger picture problems have to be tackled too but like we're both saying some of those are external forces we don't posses power on.
Where they and you and I differ imo it's that Peterson is proposing the best possible solution while not the perfect one but Zizek is trying to find a clear answer to everything.
Individualization will fix all society's problems? Of course it'll not, but it's a very good base and tool. And also important to know that Individualization doesn't equal to close yourself up from the outside imo it just means "think for yourself" or something on the same line
Screw that click-baity thumbnail. I hope everyone realizes that this is amazing. Having two individuals of this kind of intelligence in an actual conversation and free for everyone to watch. I think they're having a blast!
I think Zizek is having a blast because he is a pure thinking machine who's interest in thinking about the problems is higher than the temptation to arrive at any particular conclusion. And Peterson must have given him new perspectives to think from because I could not Imagine this man sitting quietly and listening for so long. Also I think Peterson really enjoyed this conversation because it must be so refreshing, soo much more rewarding to have a civil, focused and productive conversation, with someone equally intelligent I would say, who is also interested in the truth rather than A truth.
We need more of this, much more, and less "Zizek crushes Peterson on X subject" or "Peterson obliterates Sam Harris on Y subject". If you think that's what it's about you're missing the point.
Thanks dude. I've watched this entire debate and it's so much more than clean your room. I think JBP fans who are only fond of his so called destruction videos are missing the crux of what JBP is all about. It's unfortunate. I hope they get him/his message someday.
Exactly! I do love Peterson even if I'm an atheist that doesn't mean we can't appreciate others opinions, agreeing with them or disagreeing as long as are doing it in a"civilized" way! That's what a debate is all about
George, your thought provoking, perhaps newly understood inclusion is what all this free thought is about. and, yes, if people thought more about how perfectly our uniquness as individuals works WITH and toward the common good and LESS about how we have the chance to call conquered or crushed, we'd have less North Koreas and more South Koreas. God bless the first amendment and capitalism.
@@androgynousmaggot9389 I'm a Christian, and as much as I hope you come to know Jesus as your savior, I cannot begin to tell you how important your voice is in the exchange of ideas. As much as I hate for you (but completely understand) your doubt in God, I think I understand why you lean toward doubting his existence rather than affirming it. Im no Bible beater but I wish I could hear your story. if you can message me on this feel free to.
Very true its not about the winning individual within the conversation , whats important are the questions brought up from such debate and how we intellectually pick them apart. I agree fully being able to listen to such intellectuals without paying a fee is quite the thing in its self.
Thought provoking both men are the height of critical thinking, if each of us takes a positive from this its not who won, we all win from the knowledge both men hold. Its the fact we take away things to question and expand ones own thinking brain with guidance from greatness for free 😁
It took Peterson a minute but the main gist of his answer is around 6:40. Basically, set yourself in order so that when trying to solve much broader problems, you can do so in a more productive and responsible way.
That's the part you could understand - you mean.
@@AbirHasanDipu Could you share with us the part you understood?
@@ConsumeristScroffa he understands faaark all. Just one of those "sound smart" guys. What paul said was perfectly clear
LUF LUOS Lol you made yourself look like one of those “sound smart” guys and then failed. Abir wasn’t saying Paul is not being clear, in fact he’s saying the opposite. He’s being clear with what he understood. He’s literally talking about interpretation.
@@AnonURnot true story 👌 add dragons next time aye
What a wonderful and rare setting. I miss debates like these so damn much. The contention, the value, the language, the thought process, everything just exudes pure passion and intelligence from both sides. Zezek is such a good piece of chaos and thought-provoking energy and Peterson with his passionate aspiration to speak orderly, eloquently and truthfully. Both are amazing. You could see Zezek trying his utmost to confine his point into a good package that is worth contending with. You could also see Peterson wrestling with all the vocab and knowledge in his head to put out an answer that is worthy of the question. You know every time I see Peterson's habits and body language when answering questions, I'm always jealous. Within his brief silence when he is formulating an answer, you could almost see him looking within himself, searching very carefully and attentively through his knowledge and expertise, picking the exact right words to respond with, then almost simultaneously but slightly before every word he says, you could feel a process of self-debate and curation to guarantee that every word uttered is necessary and adds value to is being said. There are no fillers or spiced up vocab than many intellectuals fall in the habit of using. His statements end being pure essence of his collective cabacity as an educator, guide, intellectual and at the base of it all, a clinical psychologist. While respect is said to be earned, in Peterson's case, you could see it being demanded and rightfully given.
What a crack of sh*t.
Excellent comment and one of the very few I fully agree with. The full momentum of Zizek's electrifying intensity alongside his incisive yet well-meaning skepticism is a force to be reckoned with. One can see Peterson keeping track of every idea and implication, interpreting and identifying the substance Zizek tries to pinpoint and there is a tranquil sharpness in his eyes, one that appears to tell me that Peterson is trying to locate exactly how his inner architecture can accomodate the query and there is a silent assurance that it's there somewhere, because he has been honest to himself and very exact about what needed to be done at all times.
One thing is CLEAR-this man’s house is NOT in order.
No-the tweeker’s.
@Bertie Selsdon zizek looks like the biggest crackhead in history tho
Adam Joskowicz , nor is his mouth
@Andrew Scott they are probably in the Same good ol blow
It's as clean as his nose brother Adam
"Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean." - Goethe
Problem is people will sweep their dirt onto your doorstep.
"Let the Domino's trucks get stuck in traffic, ALL our pizzas will be free."
- Bill Hicks
@@bink You Legend hahahahah
mujaku: "division of labor will delegate sweeping to sweepers, and the nation will be clean AND WEALTHY." Adam Smith
@@daedalosmaycry Hicks fan I presume?
Jesus, imagine how he acted as a child when his mom asked him to take the garbage out.
During those times I don't think he did
🤣🤣🤣
It is out of context click bait
Mom, when I take out the trash, the trash symbolized your broken dreams and hopes. So I will no longer be doing the dirty work you need to do. So that you can overcome the trials and adversity I'm your life. You will thank me later mother.
@@GodofLovers 😂😂
Nice excerpt🎉 do you know the minute from the full video interview?
No joke, thats the first time i saw Peterson laughing "warmly"😂
Very rare when Peterson meets someone who is actually an intellectual, who somewhat and quite a bit is able to debate his own subjects, so he is honored, so much so he can't help it.
@@dreadstunlock totally agree 👌
@@dreadstunlock Indeed, but is it just me, or does JP have a very different tone when addressing people who he may believe (most likely believes imo) are not on his intellectual level? At least to my mind he can be rather curt at times; almost for effect. I still agree with a lot of his arguments mind.
@@AnthonyDonnellyTT I think it is because he is delighted and excited to finally have the debate with someone who challenges him intellectually on such a high level when usually he looks as if he is cold to other people he dabates. He probably just tries to be objective and professional. Maybe he sometimes is too hard on people but I would be like it too because of listening over and over the same arguments and often stupid opinions of some people.
@@dreadstunlock intellectuals tend to stay away from him and prefer to involve in more progressive conversations
"The light that you discover in your life is proportionate to the amount of the darkness you are willing to forthrightly confront." 4:46
and theres no necessary upper limit to that :)
dude is full of shit like all these help self gurus.... probably had asshole parents. when shit hits the fan, it benzo time for people like him.
his whole message is basically "you need to toughen up"... just he basic abusive parents shit.
@@nobodynowhere5213 try being more quiet, at least we won't know just how ignorant you are
@@bonniethomas7235 no it's fo bullshit wisdom speaking without saying anything
@@nobodynowhere5213 I bet your room isnt in order.
More like this, RUclips Algorithm. More like this.
@jay Peterson all hail the RUclips algorithm
Hahahahaha
Yes. Yes yes
Nobody is perfect and nobody gets there house in order. They can do there best through the utmost unpredictable battles. What Jordan teaches is how to manage life positively and intelligently rationally through life's battles. Thank you J. P
I see a lot of people in the comments talking down about Slavoj's questions, but I think they're actually brilliant questions, and they got a brilliant answer. I don't think anyone should be shamed for asking questions, it's incredibly important.
Yup. There aren't any dumb questions to ask, only dumb answers to answer
Well, Zizek is a philosopher and a dreamer but not a realistic person. He has no idea about the real humans and the human nature. He lives in the world of ideas and philosophy but not in the true facts.
@@tomek1867 I can't say I know much about him, but I think when it comes to emotions and behaviour, there are very few facts, a lot of it is purely philosophical and I think he had a good point. Some people are in particularly difficult situations that make it a lot more tricky to "set your house in order" than others, who's to say that there's not someone in a situation that makes it *impossible*?
@@MichaelRRyan Well, human nature is as it is and that is a fact whether we like it or not; biology rules human behavior: instincts etc. Philosophy is a kind of fairy tale. The United States was founded on taking land from and extermination of Native Americans. It is the same with human nature: greed and greed and again greed and of course domination.
@@tomek1867 of course it's fact, everything is as far as we can tell, but no one knows the facts of how we act. Psychology is a field of theories, and there are very few, if any hard facts, and any psychologist could tell you that. Philosophy is not so much fairytales, it's a field that focuses a lot on how we *should* act, how we should live to feel fulfilled. We as humans have our biological motivations, but we also have the ability to go against them and think with logic instead, which is why a field focusing on *how* to live is so important
the thumbnail is extremely deceptive, the entire discussion was very civil.
agreed. They just had a disagreement thats all. Every one should learn from them how to lead a civil life.
On the other hand. 💊I'm sharing Acts 2:38 with anyone who wants it bless
Extremely misleading thumbnail. But that’s life nowadays
IDK, I feel like this says more about the expectations of the viewer. Anyone mildly familiar with Zizek will know he's not going to be literally shouting aggressively/angrily at a person but instead having an intelligent discussion, basically, with perhaps some jokes and at most a little fun sarcasm.
Well a challenge isn't something evil, it is just that. I think it actually hit on point this time. You don't even have to disagree with someone to challange them. For example if i challange a friend in her/his beliefs. It is just used as another word to instigate discussion.
So Zizeck is actually speaking in practical terms. I dont understand why people are calling him an "idealist". He's saying that people can do both at the same time and that sometimes the solution is one that is best attacked from the outside in. It's a way of saying that when one lives in place that is inherently shit due to things out of their own control, i.e. north korea, "cleaning your room" can at times be a largely fruitless and redundant endeavor as the systems outside of your control just fuck it up again. I understand that their is a certain personal responsibility that everyone has to themselves, but that certainly goes up to a point. As Zizeck intelligently points out, Peterson himself is not in his room cleaning it up, but he's out here trying to clean the world up, in a sense, because he believes there is a lacking in the system that cleaning his room will not fix, quite paradoxically.
Having double standards is not really paradoxical, just dishonest.
It's something you say to people when you want them to shut up because you despise them, not some sort of life principle.
OneLine i really dont see that
@@OneLine122 I would say the OP merely presented Zizek's argument but did not show how that actually applies in Peterson's life. Peterson is changing the world yes, through advice such as "cleaning up your room". Although Zizek's argument does show up a paradoxical uselessness in Peterson's advice, it doesn't mean he has double standards.
Rather he is has already cleaned his room and now is telling you the benefits of cleaning your own room. That more or less follows something I learned from him that you change the world starting with yourself, but of course if you have changed, then the world needs exposure to you in order to learn how change itself.
@@neighbor472 He has ranted on other occasions about how annoyed he is by student activists, who were only recently children, and have no experience in solving problems in their personal lives or in their local communities, and yet who already believe they know how to fix the world at the largest scales of governance (e.g. implement communism). So it's not far-fetched to think that "set your house in order before you criticize the world" is meant to try to undermine these activists/protesters.
I think a more useful interpretation of "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world" is that you should (metaphorically) clean your room until it is as clean as it can get in your social context. That is, if society is limiting you, due to systemic racism or sexism or predatory capitalism or whatever, then at least take yourself to that limit, whatever it is, so that you understand exactly how the institutions are limiting you. If you are poor, before you blame capitalism, or racism if you are a person of color, or sexism if you are a woman, you had better first check if you are blowing all of your money on drugs or alcohol, or if you are showing up late to work and thereby getting yourself fired or demoted; only once you are putting in a good faith effort to succeed can you be taken seriously when you say that you are being held back by an unjust system.
Man, I could listen to debates like this for hours. Pure intellectual debate where both sides give one another the opportunity to express everything that they want to say without cutting in and changing the trajectory of the debate in a mindless fashion.
I agree, but it is kind of off putting that there are no longer discussions like this with very attentive audiences. I recently watched the Foucault Chomsky debate and not only was it as respectful as this through a language barrier but the audience didn't give a standing ovation each time their favorite guy made a point, let alone really clap at all.
do it.
1 more o then the other but alright man
Peterson strategy is to ridicule his opponent with the ad hominem fallacy "clean your room."
He's not an intellectual. He's a manipulator.
@SebkarpO ::
My admiration for your deep interest in "debates like this for hours. Pure intellectual debate ..."
It reminded me of my own likes ::
_Man, I could listen to opera for hours._
Just seems like a healthy, passionate discussion to me.
I know! People are just reducing it to a "us vs them" mentality
These youtube titles are ridiculous
@@NoVisionGuy Well he quite literally did challenge Dr. Peterson, did he not? They describe it as so in the actual discussion. LOL
@@VicSellsPeace my bad, I've seen too many thumbnails that I automatically assume titles get dramatic, this kind of thumbnail is one of em
it actually exposes the pseudo intellectualism of Peterson.
Now I know what Sylvester the Cat would sound like with a Russian accent.
It is a Russian accent.
@@ukaszszczepaniak1338 It is slovenian accent but we slavs have very similar accents
@@liltrump799 And your people have vays of making people talk?
@@joeyselder5693 no
@@liltrump799 Yes, I made a mistake. I was going to write "It is NOT a Russian accent".
Why do people in the comments seem to think that this is some sort of competition with a winner and loser?
Simplistic thinking, my friend. Simple people don’t understand that a debate’s goal is not to be the victor or loser, but to have two perspectives and understandings of varying ideologies (in this case). It’s a sad reality we live in, the 21st century. Our minds no longer have room to grow because when the common individual in society is approached with varying opposing topics, they take it as a challenge rather than something new to possibly learn. Closed minded, tunnel vision. High defense. That isn’t what this is and it’s lovely. It’s intellectual. It’s understanding, it’s open, it’s willing to listen and to possibly learn.
Unfortunately that is the current climate in the society plus an enormous dose of not having the ability to critical thinking or debate. Luckily for the world there are people who understand and who can debate respectfully as those two JP and SŽ demonstrate!
I just had a long scroll through the top comments and couldn't find anyone saying there was a winner or a loser. There's a guy saying "An excellent critique of Peterson followed by an excellent defence" which has a bunch of people agreeing with him, lots of comments about Zizek rubbing his nose...
I sorted the comments by 'new' and found ONE guy saying "Peterson destroyed Zizek", which is clearly a JP fanboy that loves those "Peterson OWNS some lady" videos.
This comment had 1 like and I had to dig HARD to find it.
Well, while I am a person who advocates for nuance in all things, the reality is that Jordan Peterson’s opinions and ideas are, in general, wrong and bad.
@@peepeepoopooman9771
"Always assume the person in front of you may know something you don't" JBP
Well he's an intellectual he has a doctorate degree and wrote a couple of self help books but there are thousands of self help books and undeniably he has issues of his own depression,dietary, drug addict, controlling and he started out advocating for free speech but he has not just offended LGBTQ minority groups but women too and that's half the population so young men that he targets as his audience are getting bad advice if they parrot his attitude toward women they will be rejected incels. Sure we like a guy that does the dishes and makes his bed but not one that treats us as inferior then expects us to breed with them and be abused.
mom: “clean your room”
me:
Patrick Notstar underrated comment lol
Both made valid points. Zizek posed good questions and Peterson a good answer. Can learn from both, what a surprise.
The thing is zizek posed no threat to Jordan's view points they all related to it, only case he made was I dont think your way works because I'm pessimistic, I'm not buying that he is a real intellectual he is just a highly functional argumentative person without the capacity to find a moral solution so he takes the lazy way out which is to have everyone ruled by a dictator.
Not necessarily, sometimes . This are different ideologies. You either believe ir are in line with one or the other. I choose the latter, Dr. Peterson. I personally didnt learn, grow, or made me question my current way or life from Zizek words.
Dont get me wrong, I understand what his saying, his points, I just completely disagree with that way of view. Personally for me Dr. Peterson's way has brought meaning into my life. I mean I no longer fear death, I live every day in a state of mind of love, joy, compassion, gratitude and humility. Are some days bad, yes, do I get sad sometimes yes, does shit hit the fan sometimes, yes but my overall view and look in life of life is a complete 180. For the first time in my life I'm genuinely happy.
@@b3hemoth448 see there is an exception so there cant be any deeper truth to what Peterson says right? Its just flys over ppls heads what he jordan is really saying.
Naahh Zizek moves his hands too much. The way he delivers his point is intimidating. He simply can not accept to clean his room, one has to start at something.
Zizek made the same points a lazy child would make. He doesn't understand the point of being disciplined & he rather blame society for all his problems. We are a product of our environment but the first step to a better life & change is to learn discipline .
Zizek is clearly intelligent. Shame that people concentrate on his appearance and the way he talks rather that what he says.
Electrono9
I’ve never once made fun of Trump’s appearance, because that’s pointless. Why would you denounce someone’s points because they don’t fit your vain definition of ‘intelligence’? You are literally defining a political philosopher because of the stereotypes you associate with his ethnicity. It is utterly baffling that you don’t have the self awareness to realize that.
Electrono9
Please tell me how your racial association of Slovenian people isn’t racially charged. I would love to hear it.
Don’t try to pull the fucking ‘you made it about race’ card.
@Electrono9 bruh stop humiliating yourself plz
@Electrono9 I really think Zizek is one of the few people who has asked Jordan solid, good questions that might need to be answered by Jordan to bring his ideas to the ground level. I think the questions Zizek put forth were partly to test Jordan on how he could in a satisfactory manner explain the correlation between the individual and the whole. Zizek also understands his reasoning afterwards etc.
Zizek is the type of person who should debate Jordan, he knows what he says, he knows what Jordan says, he reflects properly and you can tell that Jordan likes to debate him.
@roven 08 No one said or claimed that Peterson is a philosopher, he is a psychologist and he bases his work around that. I don't see how simplifying things for the general mass is a bad thing.
Andi wouldn't compare Peterson to the average psych 101 professor, read Maps of Meaning or 12 Rules for Life and you can see why.
Zizek says "why must we correct ourselves before we criticize the world, if the reason why we're a way is the world"? And my answer is, because the world isn't the reason. If you think that you are at the mercy of the world, then you have no reason to be good. Anything that happens to you is arbitrary and you have no control over it. Which is simply not true. There is such a thing as will. So don't be shit if you're gonna trashtalk the toilet. Be water.
Braindead?
Agreed.
> There is such a thing as will.
"Free will" it is called.
The amount of respect that Dr.Peterson has for Zizek shows in his lectures and references to Zizek.
Zizek and Peterson is literally on the same boat. What I am seeing from this debate is that Zizek is constantly trying to help Peterson to let loose of himself and become much aggressive and go on the strategically-offensive against his "enemies" in this theory.
Zizek destroyed Peterson here. Anything else is a romantic view.
I dont see that he killed him in anything. Zizek is just asking with questions, like usual balkanik communist who wants to make other in insecurity with questions. Peterson gave all answers like high power.
@@ctrldelete1763 👍🏼
@@ctrldelete1763 that's not the point of a debate, you sophistic pedant
Remember people! During these difficult times, it's important to wash your hands as many times as Zizek wipes his nose :D
Mature
Difficult? Distancing, higiene, masks, less people outside. This times arent that bad
@@UncleDaniel ...Loss of jobs, heightened poverty and starvation... millions of deaths... growing political tensions seemingly not easing... I meant, these times are actually really bad relatively speaking to the way things were last year and the few years before that.
Mature whatever. "Wipes his nose..." I caught that too. HA!!
Cocaine is a hell of a drug
Jabba the hut vs kurmit the frog
But with their ideologies switched lol
dudeee
Boss nass more like it
More like Daffy duck vs Kermit the frog.
Sylvester the cat vs. Kermit the frog!
No the position is that if each of us takes care of our neighbor, cleans our house, brings others to this ethos, then all will work out. One doesn’t need grand schemes to fix the world according to one’s own utopian dictates. This is the point of Peterson’s position.
I think Jordan's idea about "setting your own House in order" is not about how to make the world a better place, but rather how to achieve a well-being within ourselves without shifting blame on society.
Yeah, don't put the blame on others but also the radical neo-post-modernist-leftist-abstract-marxists are killing western civilization.
Well his point is that if you learn to set your house in order then you partially learn to set all other similar problems in order. For example the relationship with your partner he gave.
Yes, he is mainly a psychologist, not a philosophical thinker
Zizek made it clear that your well-being is very likely to depend on your environment. He made an extreme example of North Korea where people are constantly deprived of basic human rights. Sure, they can clean a room, go to bed in time. But how does it help with being executed for having a wrong book on your shelf?
@@DearConnor It’s not that people can’t be oppressed by larger society, but how can a person improve society if he doesn’t take care of his own self first.
“What is the measure of good health in a world that is profoundly sick?”
I admire his point. Most neglect to acknowledge the norms of society and how crooked they are.
@@gavielrodriguez9258 Peterson makes a very personal point. We all get it, but might not be comfortable accepting it. It took him a great deal to answer a simple question, though; the question was not simple.
Whut?? How in the world could you ever recognize a world that is profoundly sick if you don't have an idea of what it means to be rightly oriented and healthy??? Sickness inherently points toward the healthy. It is inherently an inversion of what should be, of what is good. The statement answers itself.
and then again you cannot straighten a crooked line just from the edges because knots may form, you have to apply yourself locally. Make incremental steps and you got yourself a straight line
That means that society is inferior to the society that's doing better
Well many would say the answer is Christ or God
Like the exchange. Dislike the misleading, click-bait title screen.
And yet it brought you here
@Quasimodo UltraKanake came here to really verify the misinformation in the thumbnail....just finished watching the debate and nothing like it happened
It's some top tier memery bud
????? where is the click bait? the title perfectly reflects the content.
Foreal! I wanted to see him flip the audience offf
Peterson's argument essentially boils down to "fix yourself and you will make the world a slightly better place". It's not wrong; it's just incredibly simplistic.
It's precisely because people fought, marched, organized, changed people's hearts and minds, voted, and sometimes even died, that we have labor rights, women's rights, democracy, minority rights, secularism etc. For a guy that screeches about western civilization all the time, he sure doesn't know much about how it was created.
Finally, he claims otherwise, but his argument is always built around the idea that you have to either choose between self-improvement and activism, when in reality most people are capable of both.
... Not to mention how much of a conservative activist he himself has become these past few years. What a clown. Just like most of his fans.
Someone should do a looney tunes parody of this with Sylvester and Marvin the Martian.
You sir, have won the internet!!! 😂. I love the comment.
Oh my goodness I hadn't even heard Jordan Peterson yet in this video and died laughing. 😆☠️
🤣🤣 that would be epic!!
Your comment is gold.. 🤣
My God I was crying imagining this. I still can't stop laughing
Amazing discussion, insufferable audience.
Nba game
That's the problem with audiences composed of fans present to cheer their champion instead of people actually interested in the discussion.
@@Yourlittlehomie1998 Yeah, from my perspective, the herd-applause mentality is more present in North American culture. We like to reduce debates and discourse to egotistical rebuffs.
If Sylvester was a person
Lol
Sthukeriin thukitash
Haha! HA!
I was just assuming he is fresh out of getting some wisdom teeth pulled.
@@MustafaKulle what if you're Dad spoke like this
Hows a man that doesn't have his own damn "house" right gonna make the world better?
The click bait is so unnecessary. The full debate was very enlightening. These two great minds described what mutual respect and sharing intellectual understanding means inspite of immense disagreements.
Peterson is not a great mind!
I think you mean one great mind and a Canadian Bar-tard who sounds like Kermit the frog*
@@BURRRRPPPPPOOP Why?
Ostento Nihil anybody who can’t answer the question about belief in a God, directly, is a fraud and disingenuous and a charlatan, it’s just my humble opinion! He contradicts himself on a regular basis and he seems to endear himself to insecure men which is quite disconcerting, that’s why! 😜
@@BURRRRPPPPPOOP What do you mean by "Cannot answer the question about belief in God?" I need precision here. Whether or not one contradicts oneself is not a suffice determination of one's ingenuity. Nietzsche was notorious for some contradictions of his, yet he remains one of the most profound and sacred thinkers of our times. Same goes for Kant and the supposed contradiction of his transcendental method. Does the proclaimed contradictions make these wise men charlatans? The patterns of your logic seem to say, yes.
Remember kids: It's societies fault your room is a mess!
XXI century kid's excuses 😂
It certainly can be.
@@kaga13 You don't get any dessert until you clean your room young man.
Isac Silva its no excuse, its descriptive statement.
@@jokerxxx354 That's true. You live in a society that allows you to own lots of useless shit that gets piled up in your room. If you slept on a dirt floor and worked in a rice paddy all day, you wouldn't have to worry about it.
(This is sarcasm, it is honest to God not that hard to clean up your room, and I'm dead serious when I say it makes you feel better. I do it because it actually improves my mood a lot.)
This comment section gave me cancer.
I had a good laugh actually
All of Jordan Peterson's fans only argument against zizek in this comment section is that he looks, talks, and acts weird. Which is very childish and nonsensical.
@@comradezvezda Not really. Yes it is mostly in jest, but as you should know living in modern society, appearances mean everything.
Chainheart Machine that’s not a good excuse for shitty behavior.
@@85MasterV So he should spend hundreds of a good suit for what? Impressions for who? He can dress however he likes.
Both had very convincing arguments. Everyone praises the civil manner in which they conducted themselves. Sure, that's a standard you can use. And it must feel like a breath of fresh air if you spend a lot of time on social media. To me, a great debate is when what you've heard makes you want to order your own thoughts and come up with a reply as if you could join the debate. The following is what I came up with. A truly scary obstacle will make it tempting to get caught up in deflecting your energy and time towards inconsequential goals. Given this general mechanism by which the mind protects itself, the individual and the social arenas do not present equal risks. When choosing your battles, you have to take into account that you are way more likely to get lost and achieve nothing if you focus on social problems. This is because it is vastly more difficult to take meaniningful action on a social level than on an individual one. You have way more control on what you do than on what others do. Before you go on the offensive, you have to actively protect yourself against getting sidetracked. It doesn't mean that focusing on your personal problems won't get you sidetracked. Navel-gazing is a real risk. But you do have to make a choice whenever one option presents a lower risk of getting lost in meaningless action. And picking between the social and the personal is one of those choices. What matters is that you strengthen the ability to not lose focus whenever you have the chance. Because you will need that ability when things get really scary.
Well put
You make a good point, and I believe that emphasizes Peterson's focus on how it plays out in clinical situations. In my opinion as a mental health therapist, I have seen many cases where there is a truly unjust situation someone is stuck in (abuse, difficult relationships, bullying) and sometimes, especially with children, they are incapable of just removing themselves from the situation or magically having a new job with a nicer boss. Sometimes the most you can do is help them work on themselves to be more resilient in the face of difficult circumstances. It increases their wisdom, insight into themselves, and sometimes that can translate into insight regarding other people's suffering, thus increasing their own patience towards others.
This is an excellent point well made in my opinion, and helped me verbalise some thought I have had alot around this subject. Thanks for putting across your thoughts into the pool, I greatly appreciate it.
Peterson points are 100% fallacies.
Zizek is simply impressive how good he can visualize his ideas with words without overcomplicating it..
It's very impressive that you can understand him.
@@chrishall2594 it just needs a little effort, don't stick on his pronunciation 🙄
@@chrishall2594 it’s really not that hard
And Peterson's replies and speeches have become very overcomplicated over the years.
@@josephzicaro9913 I can understand how it can seem like Jordan's replies and speeches have become "overcomplicated". With the tremendous amounts of perspective that he has amassed from reading extensively and also through his experience listening to people as a clinical psychologist, it can seem really complicated for you to grasp his ideas, especially because of his way of answering questions, that are enriched with multiple takes on a single problem viewed from many different angles, and his way of explaining ideas with the use of archetypal models. But the onus is really on us, to keep our powers of comprehension updated, and not really expect him to dumb down his way of presenting his ideas to the world.
"All the coke cans aside", and rubs his nose.
Ahhh the famous coke philosophy
Why go there? 🤣🤣🤣
David Pearson because you can 😆
What a twitching mess! Looks like a homeless person on meth. And you expect me to take you seriously?
@@lloydstevens2148 that seems like severe psychological weakness if you allow someones outward appearance to influence how much you are willing to listen to them. he's 71 and holds several degrees as well as a doctorate. i don't think someone having a tic constitutes saying such things about a philosophy researcher, but hey that's why hes up there and we're down here in the comments!
Organizing your room organizes your thoughts because your room is an extension of your identity.
Nice way of putting it.
That's probably the most succinct explanation of JP's point I've ever seen
Some top notch bullshit right there
@@gdounito Why?
@@gdounito please elaborate, why?
Peterson's long reply of psychological mumbo-jumbo didn't really address Zizek's challenge. He just basically doubled down on his own perspective. Peterson's privileged background and the fact that he has only psychoanalyzed rich people who can afford it distorts his view, preventing him from addressing the reality that some people can't get "their house in order" because the corrupt system of greed and exploitation, which allows the existence of a small group of the privileged, like him, keeps those people who can't get their house in order in a state or condition of neo-slavery. No amount of introspection can help people in that state get out of it.
By the way, Peterson is very slick, his "professionalism, facing Zizek and quietly, patiently waiting for his turn, distracted and impressed everybody, so that everybody, as least as reflected by the comments I wasted my time reading, seems to be awed by the style while ignoring, probably because they don't understand it, the substance of his argument.
The thumbnail is a bit misleading since the whole discussion was very healthy and the two really understood eachother's viewpoint
peterson really did not though
It is bait🎣
It's a joke about the fact it was so civil and a warm discussion
@@emilianosintarias7337 Interesting, why did Peterson not understand Zizek's point of view?
@@madjack7777 Because Zizek intentionally didn't engage Peterson's argument, he just spoke directly to Peterson's fans to show that you don't have to be political correct to be leftist.
It was an intervention, not a conversation. If Zizek would've dealt with the topic at hand, and put on a Marxist hat, he would've devastated Peterson.
Peterson's entire monologue about both Marxism , as well as the manifesto was factually, objectively, incorrect. Almost every sentence. No need to be a marxist to see that. Peterson just doesn't seem to debate anyone but liberals, so he has no pressure to correct anything he says.
The only times Zizek slipped up and corrected him was by mentioning the Gothe Program where Marx explicitly rejects equality of outcome and explains why it is wrong and cant work. I think he may also have mentioned the Paris Commune, which was the only form of government that Marx (and many contemporaries) endorsed, and was very democratic and decentralized.
This basic understanding of, and endorsement of marxism and socialism is what Zizek's critique of marxism comes after. So Peterson thinks for example that they both see Stalinism as an outgrowth of Marxism, but Zizek essentially thinks what Marxists have though since Stalin's time: Stalinism was the right wing counter to marxism, not marxism going too far.
Zizek is a Marxist . He simply has his own critique of it, going back to Hegel, but the point of that criticism is to update and renew it. Zizek knows that capitalist experiments failed for 1000 years before it finally succeeded. He doesn't see our time as the end of history like Peterson does.
Peterson never disturbs when someone speaks ! He is a brilliant listener !
I agree, he's also great at interviews. Not many people can master that art. You let the person completely get to their point while you either remember or take notes. Either way, it's a quality of high IQ.
Is also how you tell who wins a debate. Typically the person who is the calmest while letting the other person rant is the winner. The loser typically interrupts and cuts people off.
Isnt he addicted to opiates
@@gameragamera656 no, he was taking anxiety medicine and quit. If you look into it you can't just quit without problems. You can stop opiates and have a rough few weeks but anxiety meds can kill you by seizures. He's supposed to be making some appearances soon.
I've known people trying to get off of anti anxiety meds. And it was rough and dangerous. When I heard about Petersen's problem I wasn't surprised. He was going through a rough time. His wife was found to have a terminal illness, his daughter was having health problems, and he was under fire publicly from his detractors. That's a TON of stress. I think anyone would be having a rough time.
Glad he is doing better.
I’ve been listening to Peterson for a couple of years now. He is mostly a good speaker, but he can hold onto rather inconceivable beliefs, especially when it comes to religion. Other than that, yes, he is a wicked listener. He never really misunderstands his opponents position and tries to resonate with it as much as he can, while retaining his own argument and opinion.
I saw the whole debate. It wasn’t a challenge, it was more of a legitimate question he made and Jordan answered him just fine.
😂 😂 Jordan fan boy spotted!!!
@@samreplete1842 spotted*
@@samreplete1842 Fanboy? Lol.
@@samreplete1842 you sound like you were in the audience
I’m a major Jordan fan boy. What’s the problem?