What happens when the Hegelian dialectic remains implemented when the issue no longer exists? In fact, it begins to create its own injustice. Where social justice is no longer just in its traditional sense. Because id argue that's exactly what we're experiencing.
"It is a sign of a certain moral courage and... and... and it's a sign of a certain temperament and it makes you charismatic and attractive... and... and I just wanna smash it bro."
@the simp son he might have been in a bad shape already. We know, JP has been hospitalized all over Europe and in Russia for months. He even contracted coronavirus at a hospital there. Regardless, this interview did not do JP good. Žižek probably worsened his mental issues, displaying such supremacy over JP.
@@Xgenerati I don't see how zizek defeated jp? The debate seemed like a respectful exchange. I'm not well read in Marx nor familiar with zizek. Were there jokes I just didn't catch?
@@mookosh I don't think you missed anything - I saw what you saw. There are just too many idiots who can't appreciate a discussion without making it competitive. Also people seem to take JP's honesty in his responses as weakness and therefore 'defeat'. To me he just seems refreshingly open to others' opinions and eager to learn from discussions, even if it means being corrected, instead of hiding behind bravado and intellectual dishonesty in fear of being wrong.
@@danoliver3053 same. It seems like a lot of intellectual gatekeeping. "oh wow, how can jp criticize Marxism when he hasn't even read Marx! Lol what a fraud". Well the obvious answer is that people purporting to be Marxists have made his life intolerable and the writings of anti-Marxists, like the gulag archipelago have given historical context to his lived experience. If he's so ignorant, then he should be easy to "defeat" and I think what shines through is how much Peterson learned talked to an actual Marxist thinker about how you can be a Marxist without being the kinds of low tier thinkers you find in sociological academia. How actual Marxist philosophers aren't complete imbeciles. That's a good story to me. I still think zizek is wrong, but at least he's not completely off his rocker, and I think Peterson felt the same, commenting that zizek really harms himself by calling himself a Marxist instead of a zizekist because the zizek point of view is so much more reasonable than those expressed by Marx. Zizek himself endorsed this point by saying he considers himself more hegellian than [an orthodox] Marxist. Hegel is not the same as Marx. That admission indicates that zizek understands and perhaps agrees with Peterson that Marxism is insufficient. They differ in terms of how insufficient they find Marx, of course. Still I saw this as a great "debate". I wish more actual academics would do this kind of exchange rather than boycott Peterson out of principle. I know I've been turned on to zizek by the debate, I'm sure if other great thinkers stepped forward I might like them too.
He's a veritable orchestra of bodily tics. Once you get used to them and just concentrate on what he has to say he has a lot of good stuff to say. Still haven't worked out exactly where he's coming from as there seems to be a lot of observations with no coherent whole but that may be because I have not looked well enough into him.
He didn't say he's not a Marxist. He said, ”I describe myself more as a Hegelian.” If you read his book, you would know that Zizek got his influence from Hegel, Marx, Lacan, Freud, etc. He still believes that Marx’s critique of capitalism is actual today and still considers himself a communist because he thinks in the long term capitalism will not be able to confront problems we are facing (ecology, refugees, etc.). The title of your video is misleading.
Google não deixou eu colocar um nome maior que esse Well he wrote many books lol and you can find Marx, Hegel, or Lacan everywhere in those books. But of course, ”The Sublime Object of Ideology” is his masterpiece.
Google não deixou eu colocar um nome maior que esse Start with “Sublime Object of Ideology”. It’s his first and best book. He also started a more political phase with the books “Violence” and “First as Tragedy, Then as Farce”- I’d recommend you read them next.
@@bernardocorrea8010 not necessarily an argument but definitely a point if you say "Why do you still like a 170 year old theory?” while also using an even older theory whats the point of you saying it in the first place? asides from trying to sound smart in which it isnt
@@paulludwigewaldvonkleist4039 Pointless. Old or new, reasoning works with data. Youre making a judgemental value of something by its time. That isnt logic.
@@bernardocorrea8010 thats the point, its pointless. the statement itself that jp said is pointless, jp just wants to sound smart by making that statement while not bringing any value
Imagine basing much of your career as a public intellectual on loudly objecting to Marx and Marxists without even having fucking familiarized yourself with the basic literature on the subject.
@@rossleeson8626 This was a debate with between the contemporary "popular intellectuals" from the left political ideology (Zizek) and the right, or liberal conservative, ideology (Peterson). Zizek were supposed to defend the Marxist critique of capitalism, and Peterson were supposed to defend the capitalistic ideal, and furthermore critique the Marxist political and economic theory.
It's just bad audio from the publisher of this video.. There is another, a bit longer video, with better quality. Or it could be your phone, that is the problem. But yeah, I think Zizek should work on his speech impediment, especially considering he is a passionately and eager spokesman. And it can really annoy some, and can be a setback to the importance of the substance, when people are struggling with ignoring it and fully listen
Sure, but you are not acknowledging the accompanying respect and nuance. In good faith, to do so otherwise can easily fall into dichotomous thinking. Good observation though.
@@oliveronderisin5674If you actually take some time to listen to what he has to say it is quite apparent. Zizek has a lot of cool takes on how ideology functions within society, bringing together the ideas of Hegel, Marx, and Lacan. It helps to familiarize yourself with these three thinkers to better understand but he has to say. Sometimes he says things that are provocative and people get hung up on the words rather than the meaning, but I think a large part of that is their problem for not valuing substance over decor (Although even he would admit he's a bit of a chaotic provocateur in his speech). Zizek is also hilariously vulgar and anti-PC.... Whereas Peterson is just anti-PC with no humor to it.
I was just kidding, dialectics is when two Platonic ideals must compromise to synthesize a third ideal form between the two. Marx thought a revolution was the only way for the needs of labour to synthesize with the needs of capital. By seizing all capital lololololol
I feel like Peterson came into this debate thinking he was going to be arguing against some Marxist from Reddit rather than a public intellectual with nuanced and thought out ideas. Don't get me wrong Peterson is an extremely smart guy but coming into a debate with such a 2-dimensional view and almost strawman like view of the ideology he wants to attack seems kind of unwise.
"public intellectual with nuanced and thought out ideas." As Zizek said in the debate, neither of them are accepted in the mainstream academia, which should probably tell you about the state of mainstream academia. Besides the debate wasn't Peterson vs Zizek, it was Happiness: Marxism vs Capitalism; and to quote a commenter "an almost 3 hour recording and I missed the part were Zizek actually championed Marxism", so perhaps it's just simply a bad match up.
To be fair, most people build a straw man of Peterson as well. Nuanced intellectuals are unfortunately scarce, so it isn't hard to see why people get used to seeing the other side as 2-dimensional.
Even a Marxist from Reddit would ruin Peterson if they actually discussed Marxism. Peterson hasn't read any Marx. He hasn't even read Capital. The only thing he's read by Marx is the Communist Manifesto. He has NO CLUE what Marxism is as demonstrated by his neologism "postmodern neo-marxists" and what he defines that to be. I think he simply refuses to address Marx because it's more useful for him to strawman the blue-haired college SJWs as Marxists to grow his brand.
I think that they were pretty honest with each other, and yes, imho I saw even mutual respect... and that did not go well with more strict followers of one or the other.
Really? What I see here is Zizek being respectful and Peterson stunted after perceiving how inferior is his position here. I much doubt he'd remain civil if the positions were inverted.
Fine, but he has bumped into enough Marxists to be very wary of Marx. You can't completely strip Marx of responsibility for consistently producing followers who are so off the mark as to make Marxism into a ridiculous movement. Even if Marx himself didn't propose most of those ridiculous ideas that his followers adhere to.
I would love to see Peterson and Zizek have another discussion like this. Aside from the audience being extremely partisan (and sometimes the comment section for video clips of the debate) it seems like they had a very productive and interesting discussion.
@@huyochita5386 okay well in which area? in which fields would you classify him as charlatan? because there are cases to be made, for example: I take his knowledge and beliefs regarding politics and religion as biased towards keeping his current audience intact, but on the subject of his philosophical understanding he is very proficient and has helped many people. His clinical career where he helps victims of self destruction is honorable to say the least.
@@thecrimsonkid3574 Yes, but then again, he is public figure not because of his history as academic or work as clinical psychologists. He made a story for himself by opposing C-19 bill which added gender as protected class in Canadian Law. He is a charlatan because he applies the psychological expertise onto the sociological problems. He tries to fix systemic problems by applying the things he would say to a single person. Some of his views come close to being a conspiracy theory (the entire thing how failed Marxism then hid in universities and tried to secrectly implement its ideology in other ways). I believe that the things he says as a public figure do more harm than his work as psychologists, because he serves as starting point of radicalization for thousands (milions?) young males. His problem is specifically that he doesnt stick to what he is good at - psycholgy. Because as philosopher or sociologist he simply lacks knowledge, he proved that in this debate when he based his entire argument around Communist Manifesto, that he read IN PREPARATION for the debate (didnt stop him from going on crusade against Marxism)
peterson's question was the most elaborate backhanded compliment. Also he slipped a debatable affirmation regarding the intrinsic problems of communism vs capitalism without it being a part of the question, rendering it not up for answering. Very crass.
@@asdfasdf3989 Journalists try that nonsense on Peterson all the time (usually in a manner that is spectacularly unsuccessful) . It's a cheap tactic, and an inherently dishonest one we should always call out, regardless of which 'side' you find yourself.
I think Zizek is very kind here, not demeaning or insulting to this student who speaks with so much poise after reading a 70 page article on Marxism. Very kind indeed.
The three most important things you need to know about Marx and Marxism are: first of all, Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. It (communism) is inherent upon the destruction of both private AND state ownership and control, and he believed this was impossible unless followed by the entire planet. In other words, unless the entire planet is both stateless and void of private ownership, communism as Marx sees it has not yet been achieved. Thirdly, in order to get to this point, Marx believed there would be a transitionary period between capitalism and communism, which he called “the dictatorship of the proletariat”. Not an actual dictatorship, this meant the taking over of both the state and private entities by the working class, which Marx believed would shortly lead to the vanquishing of classes and all global hierarchies/hegemonies. In other words, Marx ultimately believed that if we let the working class take over all corporations and governments, they would eventually no longer be necessary, nor would fiat currency, and henceforth classes would no longer exist. Everyone would just go to work to go to work and provide each other with everything they needed, with no fiat currency to muddle up the picture. This is what Marx actually preached and you can understand how, knowing this, being told that a country like China, which has its own currency, 2 stock exchanges with 5+ trillion US dollar market caps and clear class discrepancy, is “communist” is pretty much the same as being told that the color red is blue. Increased or total state control of the markets is not communism, it is fascism. Abolishment of the market is communism.
But thanks to cucks like Lenin and the ussr, this “dictatorship of the proletariat” transitionary period somehow started getting called “socialism”, even though it clearly wasn’t, as state and private hierarchies and fiat currency still exist during this period. And then they ruined this transitionary period entirely by failing to actually let the proletariats run these institutions and began practicing full blown state capitalism. Most Americans think socialism = the dictatorship of the proletariat. It does not. The dictatorship of the proletariat, a concept they also heavily misunderstand in and of itself because of how much the process was butchered in the Russian revolution and even pre nazi Germany, is meant to be an extremely short transitionary period on the path to actual socialism. The reality is that what Marx really thought socialism was would work great, but the problem is, Marx didn’t really know how to successfully execute the transitionary period. He thought he did, and then it miserable failed in Paris in the 1840s, and later on in Germany and Russia as I already said. Still, to this day, no one truly knows how to execute the transitionary period, and each time a nations people have tried it has been brutally quashed by fascism. We should take solace in the fact that Bernie’s campaign didn’t make it further. If it did, Chris Matthews would likely turn out to be right, in that it would be akin to the rebirth of Nazi Germany, except, obviously, not at the hands of Bernie’s movement, but at the hands of the reactionaries’ response.
@@rbfabc the CCP is still in control of most big companies (owning at least half the shares) and is planning to transition to socialism by 2049 - maybe this is what the dictatorship of the proletariat has to look like for now
It is important to states that a dictatorship proletariat society, is still a society where the capitalists means of production exist. And when we seize the state, if we maintain the state in its burgeois structure will be no use for us. We need to abolish the standard army, standard police, standard institutions. Principally, we must descentralize the state, limited its powers to where is strictly necessary, following the example of the workers from Paris Commune. (Btw, sorry for the english)
@O'Shay Muir Agreed. There's room to criticize Lenin (as there is with anyone), but his actions meant that the material conditions of millions of people were improved (Lenin should not be blamed for things that he had no intention to carry out, and the USSR was better than the Tsars). His insights into 20th century capitalism and beyond still prove to be fantastic tools for understanding the world, and his work was always ultimately concerned with making people's lives better. Unfair, ahistorical, and purist critiques with the benefit of 100 years worth of hindsight is unhelpful and usually makes me think that the critic is LARPing a little bit
I get the sense that he is not a Durkheimian in the slightest, and rejects Weber's analysis of religion and capitalism, because a lot of contemporary academics don't really see Weber as a worthwhile read. I agree with you that it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on Weber and Durkheim, though!!!
@@nomad639 My cop out answer is to read the writings of anyone you feel like you can gain from. The reason I said Weber isn't viewed as worthwhile by a lot of professors and academics is because his central thesis on capitalism arising in the western world due to the religious influence of protestantism is now seen as sorely lacking more refined argumentation at best, and outright incorrect and vaguely imperialistic at worst. Obviously, one of the reasons capitalism arose in the western world was because the level of military power in Europe enabled colonial expansion and the accrual of material wealth that resulted from that (ironically, that military power resulted from religious conflicts within europe in many cases and not the essence of protestantism). Another reason is that state governments and even some trading companies in the late 18th and 19th centuries were organised in such a way as to quickly mobilise en masse to expand their reach. Marx, Durkheim and Weber are all worth reading, however, in my opinion. Gaining an understanding of the classical theorists of an academic discipline will provide a well-grounded context for you to explore foundational concepts and contemporary theory more easily, as well as assust you when engaging in debate. Worthwhile sociology (to me) would be: Goffman's research on stigma. Durkheim on The Dreyfus Affair. Marx's analysis on the structural contradictions and dynamics of capitalism. Judith Butler's work on gender. Slavoj Žižek on Violence (or any text advocating a broadening of the definition of violence to encompass more than just the immediate physical space). Contemporary social mobility research. Michel Foucault's study of madness in Europe. There are a lot more text's and authors worth mentioning, (and perhaps some more worthy of acknowledgement than what I listed) but that's an impromptu taxonomy of my view on "sociology's greatest hits". Long-winded reply, but I hope it helped.
I love how Peterson is portrayed as a person that values knowledge and intelligence while he admits he never read Marx and yet he passionately fights with marxism
This image he (Peterson) displays of himself - the "hard-thinking" knowledgable persona that is always very serious - imo is desgined for his primarly non-academic viewership that needs this impression of a well-mannered, respectfull and wise person to look up to him. People in academica don't really give a shit about that and don't mind listening to someone like Zizek. And I speak for most humanities students too I'd say when I cringed hard as he brought up the communist manifesto. Everyone knows that it's a piece of progaganda. It was written for the communist party during the 1848 - with coal-miners as its target audience how I like to say - as a literal political propaganda. Works like the capital or the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon are what actual Marxist sociologist base their work on. I'm neither a communist nor a Marxist but that's just common knowledge. This isn't even hate against Peterson. I genuiley like to watch/read some of his psychoanalytic and psychological works. A discussion with Zizek about Freud, Jung and Happiness in the Modern World could've been really interesting. But hell, if Marxism is not your field of expertise, don't have a two-hour discussion with someone that studied Marxism for years. Just not worth to be watched.
@@TheAlmightyAss I think Zizek was very respectful considering that Peterson does not do academic philosophy, and certainly doesn't debate like an academic.
If Peterson has watched some lectures of Zizek instead of relying on the "reputation" of Zizek, he wouldn't be surprised. Or even better: Peterson should read Zizek's books, Peterson looks like the reading type to me... 😉
I think the reality about highly intellectual discussions about philosophy-politics is that you can discuss like this if the rest of your life (bills to pay, work to do, surviving) allows it. A person who struggles to bring food on his/her table will care more about getting that damn food and less about the nature of marxism and hegelian social philosophy. That's to say that politics goes beyond a pure intellectual political doctrine and, in my opinion, cannot ignore practical problems. With that said, I feel very lucky I can allow myself to watch this wonderful debate between two great intellectuals.
The nice thing about RUclips is that someone like me, currently working part time at McDonalds, can still view serious (mostly) philosophical discussions on Marx, etc.
just because we're working class doesn't mean we're dumb.can not only view videos on topic but we can create our own.who work at McDonald's and a pizza placeregular people like usThe other nice thing about RUclips is=
proper english.that makes me look like I can't even speakGod damn talk to text. see it's the stupid cheap ass phone that doesn't follow what I'm saying
If you think about it, if you would have a system of control that's too complicated for most people to bother to understand, and you give them a lot of stuff that's more interesting to them, that would be a pretty succeful system in controlling people.
@@Kitajima2 life happens... this is exactly what peterson so often is talking about. The importent thing is to get back on your feet and oh boy he did. Whether you think the benzo addiction is his fault or not, being able to get back in the driverseat is incredible. I learned that with my cig addiction
Was Picasso most known for his childhood finger paintings? Were these the finger paintings that have caused over 100 million political deaths? If so, what little relevance would Picasso's new works have on them?
We need more variety of thought like Zizek and Peterson. I do not agree with either of them but can appreciate the breadth of conversation. That being said, the title was misleading to this video.
This is fascinating ! The Commentarians in this thread are very, very well-read & their ideological knowledge of the philosophers is so different from some other discussions on YT. It's all intellectually stimulating.
Slippery Slavoj Remember in old fighting games like Tekken or Soul Calibur, there was always a character that emulated styles? You never knew what you were going to fight until the round started? That’s Slavoj’s debate style. He slips out of topics and direct questions and he stays in ambiguities about what he really thinks. If everything is an intellectual game and everyone’s confused about the stakes, he didn’t make anyone’s life better, but at least he feels smart. “You thought this was about Marxism? You’re stupid, I’m a Hegelian.”
Slater Slater Is it my comment that brings this kind of vitriol out of you? If so, man, I’m sorry...my intention was not to make it all worst. I just don’t see Slavoj as helpful to what I want to build with my life. But I wish him well. It’s pretty fucked up what you wrote...
Slater Slater You implied Peterson’s medical situation was caused by his stupidity... And you showed zero sympathy for him or his family... Anyway, have a good day, bud.
You would expect one of the most popular “critics of Marxism” 🙄 to have at least read Capital volume 1. No, he has only read the communist manifesto. This man has only read 35-40 pages of Marx depending on the translation and the edition. Embarrassing.
Peterson obviously caught off guard by the term 'hegelian' says all about the intellectual astuteness of a guy who wrote one self-help book and became essentially the Deepak Chopra of the right.
@@notlengthy Is an appeal to authority all it takes for you people to get behind someone? You know that this means the opposite of what you think it means to be a fan of his.
@@notlengthy if Peterson was really a professor of philosophy at Harvard, It really tells more about the current state of Harvard rather then of Peterson.
I really like Peterson, and my appreciation for Zizek keeps on growing as I learn more about this quirky and confusing, yet fascinating character, and I have to admit his answer here was based as f.
@@darrenfleming7901 Ironically zizek describes himself as a cultural marxist, so it does in fact exist, just not in the way that people on the right think it does. The "cultural marxists" JBP and co. talk about are just liberals 99% of the time.
@@bubkabu Whad did Zizek answer? That he's not a marxist fundamentalist but that he's a marxist protestant? Who cares? The debate was marxism vs capitalism and Zizek didn't put any forward any arguments in favor of marxism.
That's the thing. JP isn't an expert on Marxism. His criticism of leftist ideas seems way more credible to me that the typical atheist criticizing religion in general though but that's not really saying much. It seems to me that JP isn't well-versed enough in the topic for a nuanced discussion.
Most people who are firmly left or right won't open their mind up the positive aspects of the other side. Biggest problem with this is that it can spiral out of control. The UK is a big example of that. The media supports the conservatives regardless of their failings, but all its done is convince the populace that despite how shit things are "at least labour aren't in". The UK now has an angry hate filled population that blames immigrants for everything, and has sections of society who applaud deaths of immigrants who drown trying to get in across the channel. Some are even convinced that fascism is a left wing philosophy. The UK right now is fucked as a nation, with an extremist government in power.....already started ticking off a few fascist boxes as well, how far do we have to go before people open their eyes.
Is that really much of a surprise? Some of the best critiques of Marxism came from the guys, that JP himself, says are ' Post-mordern Marxist'. People like Derrida and Focault who explicitly rejected such ideas and were one of the first in the new movement of Post-structuralism. Hell these Philosophers weren't even 'true' leftists. Most Marxist consider them 'not radical enough'.
@@Chorismos No, not very surprising. As you point out, insiders have an advantage due to their perspective for giving some types of criticism. Outsiders can rarely spot some things due to not having lived with the ideas and beliefs and as such have no first hand experience. That being said outsiders looking in from the outside can often say things that can't be as easily spotted looking from the inside out. Isn't this one of the core ideas behind the triangulation used in science as well? To bring together all the voices, perspectives, etc. to give a better approximation of what's actually going on? Just listening to one perspective like JP's isn't generally enough to grasp what's what.
J.P. is desperately trying to sound intelligent and interested with his "question". Forgetting is underlying doctrine (†) is 2000 yrs old. I would have tackled him at this point .•°
I can't get over how the crowd claps at the end of Peterson's question. Even if you are on his side and appreciate the inquiry, what about it was wortht of applause?
Funny how Peterson questions Zizek's adherence to an old school of thought like Marxism... while he can't stop himself talking about Christianity and Jung. 🤷🏽♂
Hey, the only comment chain where a dumb communist makes that argument and it ISN'T 100+ replies long - Peterson never states that's the only Marxist literature he read, simply assumed that if you're trying to distill your ideas into a pamphlet, you'll hyperfocus on the most solid parts of your ideology, instead of producing reactionary drivel. Speaking of, the debate went so well for Marxism, that Zizek didn't even attempt to defend it.
This discussion was the exact moment Peterson jumped the Shark. It went downhill from there to Benzodiazepine addict -> rehab -> COVID denialism -> mouthpiece for right-wing talking points -> complete assimilation into the conservative punditry
This debate and the Sam Harris serie should be the reason of JP's personal and intellectual collapse... I mean, he was reducted to the absurd. Now he is close to be a TV pastor than anything. 😢
The fact that Peterson is still taken seriously after his display in this conversation (I mean the entire almost 3 hours, not just this clip) really highlights the education problem we face in the western world. It's frankly embarrassing.
Peterson is a very inteligent guy, thing is he's talking outside his area of expertise, he's a clinical psychologist not an economist, sociologist or philosopher
@@franingegnieri1831 True enough. I think the problem becomes that when he talks about some other area of expertise he usually just sticks to some fixed narrow ideas, that are an interpretation of this area, but lack a broad and deep understanding, but are presented by Peterson as if they do have that.
Oh my god The ego marxists have. ‘I have all the right ideas’ People who disagree are uninformed. BRUH COMMUNISM KILLED THEIR OWN POPULATION AND LEFT THEM IN A FACIST STATE CONTROLLED BY ONE FAMILY. YALL DONT EVEN HAVE ELECTIONS YOU HAVE A DICTATOR
I only saw two parts of this exchange and I can tell it was an interesting event overall, but honestly, I would have put my money on Zizek being is polar opposite/arch enemy in their respective ideology. I was so wrong lol. The first part that I came across, thanks to RUclips's recommendation, Peterson was backing up is "clean up your room" thing and this has reverted to a really interesting counter-argument to Zizek's nihilistic criticism, I was like damn! I do see the Nietzschean influence in his approach. He does make a good existentialist and it seems it's more in his niche, epistemology speaking, that and psychoanalysis. But there is in no way Peterson could ever beat Zizak on the philosophical economic ground as many people get the wrong idea about Marxism (not one btw, I'm apolitical) but I feel the minute you evoke the term "cultural Marxism" you've already lost the debate.
Honestly think JP doesn't know that many things about existentialism, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky (my auto corrector doesn't allow me to change) etc. He uses them to reafirm his bias, but as somone else said its obvious he doesn't understand Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and the likes quite well. I'm a Ph.D student of Philosophy and psychoanalyst and even his approach to Jung is deeply wrong. It reminds me of how far the so called 'existential psychologists' are from simple names like Sartre or more complex ones like Heidegger and the russian literature. The whole idea of "growing up" "being a man" etc. makes sense in a world where everyone is lost and looking for gurus. It doesn't prove he has the answers, it proves people need a seemingly strong leader which Trump in the US, Bolsonaro in Brazil and the likes are the proof and result of.
@@Necroskull388 Stupid ignorant. ruclips.net/video/thKMQanb4z8/видео.html Gramsci: In the war for position, the working-class intelligentsia politically educate the working classes to perceive that the prevailing cultural norms are not natural and inevitable social conditions, and to recognize that the social constructs of bourgeois culture function as instruments of socio-economic domination, e.g. the institutions (state, church, and social strata), the conventions (custom and tradition), and beliefs (religions and ideologies), etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
@@hanmoehtet I think the problem lies in that 'Cultural Marxism' has since the mid-2010s become this catch all term for those on the right to denounce those on the left, without ever defining what it means. Among alt-right circles, 'Cultural Marxism' is used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle too.
I love both of these men, very insightful. The people in the comments saying that JP isn't well versed in Marx/Communism must be mad. And viewing this as a loss/win for either is a poor judgement, this is just an enlightening conversation where two intellectuals are sharing ideologies and viewpoints. I like that JP can admit when he learns something or when he is proven wrong, two giants on stage.
Retrospectively looking back on this comment, I will admit that JP is definitely not an expert on Marx. I appreciate that the comment hasn't aged too very well, I'm very young so i guess you live and you learn. Hindsight is always 20/20.
@@tralx5268ah yes because communism is heroine for the soulless masses filled with resentment. People with honour don’t follow communism since IT DOESNT WORK
@@donag787Holy shit true asf had a period where I pursued 'open-mindedness' and folded beliefs at even a single good counterpoint. What that ended up with was changing views bi-weekly and not really being in a position to take part in argument. Usually one can learn more from stoically defending something and hearing the counterpoints rather than letting people tell you what to think,
If only Peterson knew anything about Marx or Hegel... this may have been a more interesting discussion. Instead, we got a sparknotes interpretation of the Communist Manifesto devoid of context. Good job, Jordan!
Ppl try and say Zizek wiped the floor with Jordan just isnt true... I think this was supposed to be a debate but Zizek is so charming and wonderful and seems so harmless that it makes u think he WON when really their was no debate to begin with. And JP imo did an EXCELLENT JOB DISSECTING THE MANIFESTO. PPL CAN PRETEND HE DIDNT BUT they just didnt listen
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
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
it is all Gnostic bullshit Hermetic nonsense and magical Materialistic claptrap.
shirt
Aw man, a grift
What happens when the Hegelian dialectic remains implemented when the issue no longer exists? In fact, it begins to create its own injustice.
Where social justice is no longer just in its traditional sense. Because id argue that's exactly what we're experiencing.
Peterson sits like someone spilled a glass of water in his chair, and Zizek sounds like the rest of the water is in his mouth
You couldn’t be more accurate
This is good humor.
LOL, You're Good. Thanks For The Laugh
duuuuuude lmao
Virgin vs chad
The sexual tension is palpable
Marx liked to use the word "cleavage" a lot. though that might have been due to a iffy translation
Who isnt attracted to a real life kermit the frog?
@@Kriegtime101 Lobster Daddy Kermit
@@nemesiszer0708 high on Clonazepam.
"It is a sign of a certain moral courage and... and... and it's a sign of a certain temperament and it makes you charismatic and attractive... and... and I just wanna smash it bro."
Peterson's laptop: _Google page open:_ "What is communism?"
Zizek's paper: _Blank and covered in sweat._
You meant by Zizek snot mucus. Yikes!
Marx and Engels wrote a paper together trying to explain what is Communism. A sort of Communist manifesto, so to speak.
@@davidwuhrer6704 that was more of a manifesto for the German communist party at the time
@@jonhallowell4099 It focused mostly on Victorian England.
@@davidwuhrer6704 kinda, das kapital is better
I find it impressive that Professor Zizek is helping a student with their arguments on Marx. He is a true professor through and through!
@the simp son he might have been in a bad shape already. We know, JP has been hospitalized all over Europe and in Russia for months. He even contracted coronavirus at a hospital there.
Regardless, this interview did not do JP good. Žižek probably worsened his mental issues, displaying such supremacy over JP.
@@Xgenerati I don't see how zizek defeated jp? The debate seemed like a respectful exchange. I'm not well read in Marx nor familiar with zizek. Were there jokes I just didn't catch?
@@Xgenerati Right. Like when he had that apple-cider that kept him up for weeks before that debate with Matt Dillahunty lol
@@mookosh I don't think you missed anything - I saw what you saw. There are just too many idiots who can't appreciate a discussion without making it competitive.
Also people seem to take JP's honesty in his responses as weakness and therefore 'defeat'. To me he just seems refreshingly open to others' opinions and eager to learn from discussions, even if it means being corrected, instead of hiding behind bravado and intellectual dishonesty in fear of being wrong.
@@danoliver3053 same. It seems like a lot of intellectual gatekeeping. "oh wow, how can jp criticize Marxism when he hasn't even read Marx! Lol what a fraud".
Well the obvious answer is that people purporting to be Marxists have made his life intolerable and the writings of anti-Marxists, like the gulag archipelago have given historical context to his lived experience.
If he's so ignorant, then he should be easy to "defeat" and I think what shines through is how much Peterson learned talked to an actual Marxist thinker about how you can be a Marxist without being the kinds of low tier thinkers you find in sociological academia. How actual Marxist philosophers aren't complete imbeciles.
That's a good story to me.
I still think zizek is wrong, but at least he's not completely off his rocker, and I think Peterson felt the same, commenting that zizek really harms himself by calling himself a Marxist instead of a zizekist because the zizek point of view is so much more reasonable than those expressed by Marx.
Zizek himself endorsed this point by saying he considers himself more hegellian than [an orthodox] Marxist.
Hegel is not the same as Marx. That admission indicates that zizek understands and perhaps agrees with Peterson that Marxism is insufficient. They differ in terms of how insufficient they find Marx, of course.
Still I saw this as a great "debate". I wish more actual academics would do this kind of exchange rather than boycott Peterson out of principle. I know I've been turned on to zizek by the debate, I'm sure if other great thinkers stepped forward I might like them too.
I feel like Zizek looses about 1000 calories per minute whenever he's talking
Relfection, what a great record👍🏼
@@marcolampariello9705 Indeed
He's a veritable orchestra of bodily tics.
Once you get used to them and just concentrate on what he has to say he has a lot of good stuff to say. Still haven't worked out exactly where he's coming from as there seems to be a lot of observations with no coherent whole but that may be because I have not looked well enough into him.
He must eat heaps to balance it out and stay so fat
That's why he eats two hot dogs at a time
He didn't say he's not a Marxist. He said, ”I describe myself more as a Hegelian.” If you read his book, you would know that Zizek got his influence from Hegel, Marx, Lacan, Freud, etc. He still believes that Marx’s critique of capitalism is actual today and still considers himself a communist because he thinks in the long term capitalism will not be able to confront problems we are facing (ecology, refugees, etc.). The title of your video is misleading.
Thanks. Everyone upvote this because holy hell is that title misleading
which book are you referring to ?
Google não deixou eu colocar um nome maior que esse Well he wrote many books lol and you can find Marx, Hegel, or Lacan everywhere in those books. But of course, ”The Sublime Object of Ideology” is his masterpiece.
@@LeonWagg thank you very much, I haven't read Zizek yet so I was looking for a book to start
Google não deixou eu colocar um nome maior que esse Start with “Sublime Object of Ideology”. It’s his first and best book. He also started a more political phase with the books “Violence” and “First as Tragedy, Then as Farce”- I’d recommend you read them next.
"You know, I'm something of a Hegelian myself."
Jung... hmm hmmm...
"Hello, Fellow Hegelians."
god i hate clapping during debates, makes the debate in entirety unwatchable
Think of philosophy debates as early version of rap battle... It might help?
It wasn't a debate, it was a showcase of two pop-philosophers
It's a weird practice. It usually disrupts the flow of the speech and distracts the listeners
@@agfd5659 i mean... it’s not distracting the listeners if they’re the ones clapping.
@M.D. cope, rent free living in your head
0:35 Peterson admits his passionate love for Zizek.
It all makes sense now...
That's his style
Now kiss
@@mabimabi212 Now kith
@@Kitajima2 now kisch
When a man with a laptop encounters a racoon with a piece of paper the man with the laptop is dead
@Donutsin the butt
A Fistful of Dollars
Based
Bruh moment
Sorry but I didn't get it, pls explain.
“Why do you still like a 170 year old theory?” asks the man who drowns himself in New Testament scripture 🤣
That's a falacy
@@Don-uh1eb Agreed. Pointing out that something is old/out of fashion is no argument.
@@bernardocorrea8010 not necessarily an argument but definitely a point if you say "Why do you still like a 170 year old theory?” while also using an even older theory whats the point of you saying it in the first place? asides from trying to sound smart in which it isnt
@@paulludwigewaldvonkleist4039 Pointless. Old or new, reasoning works with data. Youre making a judgemental value of something by its time. That isnt logic.
@@bernardocorrea8010 thats the point, its pointless. the statement itself that jp said is pointless, jp just wants to sound smart by making that statement while not bringing any value
zizek is editing a paper this whole time
🤣🤣🤣
"I define myself more as a Hegelian." How did that become "I'm not a Marxist. I'm a Hegelian." Where's the nuance, guys?
welcome to youtube
Propaganda needs to etade nuance. Thats how the right moves forwatd. Peterson is a perfect example of it.
Seems like they changed it.
That's called "clickbait nuance".
Hegel is very distinct from Marx
Why is there 20 litres of bottled water on stage?
to control the fire they spit, literally when it comes to zizek lmao
evian sponsorship. now read evian backwards
The lights are so intense, the stage becomes uncomfortably hot. (Not a joke btw,)
A metaphor of the flood!
The water bottles are for zizek to replace the water that comes out of him every time hespeaks
Imagine preparing to debate someone like Zizek on Marxism and reading the communist manifesto twice as the foundation of your argument lmao.
A lot of anti-communists think that's the entirety of communism lol.
He hasn't just read the communist manifesto mate
@@tomblakemoremusic he barely read that it seams...
Yeah imagine reading the origins of communism on a debate about communism.. shocking 🥴
Imagine basing much of your career as a public intellectual on loudly objecting to Marx and Marxists without even having fucking familiarized yourself with the basic literature on the subject.
5:04 Super rare double handed beard scratch.
Combo
😂😂😂😂
Holy shit. The comedy is rich.
lol
this should be sold as an NFT.
The audio makes both their voices sound possessed by demons 😂
Or recorded at Sun Records 1950 something...
Possibly something having to do with low sample rates or noise reduction. Both of those can make an audio sound as if it was garbled or underwater.
Idk why this was recommended to me I have no clue what they’re talking about
JonezBB neither does anyone they just finished all the Hitchens videos mood miss-interpreted them massively and now are getting through Peterson’s.
@@rossleeson8626 This was a debate with between the contemporary "popular intellectuals" from the left political ideology (Zizek) and the right, or liberal conservative, ideology (Peterson). Zizek were supposed to defend the Marxist critique of capitalism, and Peterson were supposed to defend the capitalistic ideal, and furthermore critique the Marxist political and economic theory.
It's okay OP, I don't understand much either, all you can do is try; as long as you're trying to grow I think it's a good trait
youtube is subtly telling you that you are dumb
Neither do most edgy socialists or regressive conservatives
I just clicked to hear Zizek say "marxist"
lmfaoo
markszhishtsh
He turns it into a 10 syllable word
Markshlhkhsishkht
Marcks'hisht
I liked the applause for Hegel haha.
very strange wonder why
because they are idiots, 100 percent sure that they have not read Hegel
This audience has been clueless throughout, like a mistimed laugh track. They don't know what the hell is going on.
JUAN Aldasoro of course, no one has read Hegel.
@@punchgod Not even Hegel read Hegel.
Kermit vs Daffy Duck
Frog vs snail
Damn, and now I can't unimagine it.
Epic description 😂😂🤣
It's just bad audio from the publisher of this video..
There is another, a bit longer video, with better quality.
Or it could be your phone, that is the problem.
But yeah, I think Zizek should work on his speech impediment, especially considering he is a passionately and eager spokesman.
And it can really annoy some, and can be a setback to the importance of the substance, when people are struggling with ignoring it and fully listen
Omg this is so inappropriately appropriate
Peterson basically asked him in the most condescending way "you're a smart person, why are you a dumb communist? I can't wrap my head around it."
Its always the stupid student who’s mean to the prof
Sure, but you are not acknowledging the accompanying respect and nuance. In good faith, to do so otherwise can easily fall into dichotomous thinking. Good observation though.
Ora ora você aqui
@George Adept Nonsense. A lot of highly intelligent people are communists. Or nazists for that matter.
@George Adept True
He talks more like Hegel’s writing than Marx’s
A true Hegelian
Let´s face it. Peterson has no idea what Zizek is talking about.
Nobody has…
@@oliveronderisin5674 haha check mate
So do you
@@oliveronderisin5674It’s really not that difficult to follow if you’re at all familiar with the topics he’s talking about.
@@oliveronderisin5674If you actually take some time to listen to what he has to say it is quite apparent. Zizek has a lot of cool takes on how ideology functions within society, bringing together the ideas of Hegel, Marx, and Lacan. It helps to familiarize yourself with these three thinkers to better understand but he has to say. Sometimes he says things that are provocative and people get hung up on the words rather than the meaning, but I think a large part of that is their problem for not valuing substance over decor (Although even he would admit he's a bit of a chaotic provocateur in his speech). Zizek is also hilariously vulgar and anti-PC.... Whereas Peterson is just anti-PC with no humor to it.
The title is wrong and misleading. He said: I consider myself *more* as a Hegelian than a Marxist. He *is* emphatically still a Marxist.
@@LiMitZplus What an intelligent response!
Patavinity tanks
@@LiMitZplus What about tanks? Or are you incapable of spelling 'thanks'?
Didn’t zizek also say “Marx didn’t have a good understanding of social power” or something like this, zizek hardly defended Marx in this debate
brock charz Because the person attacking it didn’t know anything about it
zizek: i define myself more as a Hegelian
jp: chaos
Chaos dragon
Hegelian is easier to pronounce
The problem is that Hegelian means a lot of things because even philosophers can’t agree on a lot of what Hegel said.
Even Hegel doesn't get dialectics
Good point.
Right I didn’t really understand when Zizek referred to Marxism as ambiguous in comparison to Hegel. Both seem to be very open to interpretation.
I was just kidding, dialectics is when two Platonic ideals must compromise to synthesize a third ideal form between the two. Marx thought a revolution was the only way for the needs of labour to synthesize with the needs of capital. By seizing all capital lololololol
He is probably the most influential philosopher of western modernity. Being hegelian can mean a lot of things.
I feel like Peterson came into this debate thinking he was going to be arguing against some Marxist from Reddit rather than a public intellectual with nuanced and thought out ideas. Don't get me wrong Peterson is an extremely smart guy but coming into a debate with such a 2-dimensional view and almost strawman like view of the ideology he wants to attack seems kind of unwise.
Hubris will do that to you.
"public intellectual with nuanced and thought out ideas." As Zizek said in the debate, neither of them are accepted in the mainstream academia, which should probably tell you about the state of mainstream academia.
Besides the debate wasn't Peterson vs Zizek, it was Happiness: Marxism vs Capitalism; and to quote a commenter "an almost 3 hour recording and I missed the part were Zizek actually championed Marxism", so perhaps it's just simply a bad match up.
To be fair, most people build a straw man of Peterson as well. Nuanced intellectuals are unfortunately scarce, so it isn't hard to see why people get used to seeing the other side as 2-dimensional.
Blizz Grimmly that’s very true.
Even a Marxist from Reddit would ruin Peterson if they actually discussed Marxism. Peterson hasn't read any Marx. He hasn't even read Capital. The only thing he's read by Marx is the Communist Manifesto. He has NO CLUE what Marxism is as demonstrated by his neologism "postmodern neo-marxists" and what he defines that to be. I think he simply refuses to address Marx because it's more useful for him to strawman the blue-haired college SJWs as Marxists to grow his brand.
I think that they were pretty honest with each other, and yes, imho I saw even mutual respect... and that did not go well with more strict followers of one or the other.
Really? What I see here is Zizek being respectful and Peterson stunted after perceiving how inferior is his position here. I much doubt he'd remain civil if the positions were inverted.
'a mystery to me to ascribe yourself to an 180 yr old doctrine' says the promoter of Christianity as a guiding principle.
That's a pretty big misrepresentation
Christianity is ageless
Marxism on the other hand has to be adapted every 5 or 3 years.
@@algovorus en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity
@@theeyehead3437 If you're gonna play that game i'll give you something actually useful.
ruclips.net/video/2G3MsDh2ci8/видео.html
JP: I haven't read Marx, but why are you a Marxist?
Fine, but he has bumped into enough Marxists to be very wary of Marx. You can't completely strip Marx of responsibility for consistently producing followers who are so off the mark as to make Marxism into a ridiculous movement. Even if Marx himself didn't propose most of those ridiculous ideas that his followers adhere to.
Who told you he hasn't read?
@@nishanthgideon1485 He just read the communist manifesto (which is like, a very small book compared to the behemoth of Marx's works) for the debate.
@El Fenomeno How can you say such a brave and eloquent thing
@@nishanthgideon1485 Peterson said himself that he only read the communist manifesto a few days before the debate.
I would love to see Peterson and Zizek have another discussion like this. Aside from the audience being extremely partisan (and sometimes the comment section for video clips of the debate) it seems like they had a very productive and interesting discussion.
Underrated comment ^
Do you think that Peterson was googling "Who is Hegel?" on the laptop?
I don’t think he did.
why are people so quick to discount peterson like he isn’t obviously intelligent?
@@thecrimsonkid3574 because he is charlatan
@@huyochita5386 okay well in which area? in which fields would you classify him as charlatan? because there are cases to be made, for example: I take his knowledge and beliefs regarding politics and religion as biased towards keeping his current audience intact, but on the subject of his philosophical understanding he is very proficient and has helped many people. His clinical career where he helps victims of self destruction is honorable to say the least.
@@thecrimsonkid3574 Yes, but then again, he is public figure not because of his history as academic or work as clinical psychologists. He made a story for himself by opposing C-19 bill which added gender as protected class in Canadian Law.
He is a charlatan because he applies the psychological expertise onto the sociological problems. He tries to fix systemic problems by applying the things he would say to a single person.
Some of his views come close to being a conspiracy theory (the entire thing how failed Marxism then hid in universities and tried to secrectly implement its ideology in other ways).
I believe that the things he says as a public figure do more harm than his work as psychologists, because he serves as starting point of radicalization for thousands (milions?) young males.
His problem is specifically that he doesnt stick to what he is good at - psycholgy. Because as philosopher or sociologist he simply lacks knowledge, he proved that in this debate when he based his entire argument around Communist Manifesto, that he read IN PREPARATION for the debate (didnt stop him from going on crusade against Marxism)
peterson's question was the most elaborate backhanded compliment. Also he slipped a debatable affirmation regarding the intrinsic problems of communism vs capitalism without it being a part of the question, rendering it not up for answering. Very crass.
"Crass"? "Clever" or "tricky"yes, but idk about "crass".
@@asdfasdf3989 Pulling tricks in a serious argument doesn't strike me as very refined.
@@fernandoizu Tricks?
@@asdfasdf3989 Journalists try that nonsense on Peterson all the time (usually in a manner that is spectacularly unsuccessful) . It's a cheap tactic, and an inherently dishonest one we should always call out, regardless of which 'side' you find yourself.
this has to be the worst audience that i've seen on a serious debate...
Maury - "you are the Marxist"
Audience : chaos and havoc
I think Zizek is very kind here, not demeaning or insulting to this student who speaks with so much poise after reading a 70 page article on Marxism. Very kind indeed.
Or reading the gulag archepeligo
The three most important things you need to know about Marx and Marxism are: first of all, Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. It (communism) is inherent upon the destruction of both private AND state ownership and control, and he believed this was impossible unless followed by the entire planet. In other words, unless the entire planet is both stateless and void of private ownership, communism as Marx sees it has not yet been achieved. Thirdly, in order to get to this point, Marx believed there would be a transitionary period between capitalism and communism, which he called “the dictatorship of the proletariat”. Not an actual dictatorship, this meant the taking over of both the state and private entities by the working class, which Marx believed would shortly lead to the vanquishing of classes and all global hierarchies/hegemonies. In other words, Marx ultimately believed that if we let the working class take over all corporations and governments, they would eventually no longer be necessary, nor would fiat currency, and henceforth classes would no longer exist. Everyone would just go to work to go to work and provide each other with everything they needed, with no fiat currency to muddle up the picture. This is what Marx actually preached and you can understand how, knowing this, being told that a country like China, which has its own currency, 2 stock exchanges with 5+ trillion US dollar market caps and clear class discrepancy, is “communist” is pretty much the same as being told that the color red is blue. Increased or total state control of the markets is not communism, it is fascism. Abolishment of the market is communism.
But thanks to cucks like Lenin and the ussr, this “dictatorship of the proletariat” transitionary period somehow started getting called “socialism”, even though it clearly wasn’t, as state and private hierarchies and fiat currency still exist during this period. And then they ruined this transitionary period entirely by failing to actually let the proletariats run these institutions and began practicing full blown state capitalism. Most Americans think socialism = the dictatorship of the proletariat. It does not. The dictatorship of the proletariat, a concept they also heavily misunderstand in and of itself because of how much the process was butchered in the Russian revolution and even pre nazi Germany, is meant to be an extremely short transitionary period on the path to actual socialism. The reality is that what Marx really thought socialism was would work great, but the problem is, Marx didn’t really know how to successfully execute the transitionary period. He thought he did, and then it miserable failed in Paris in the 1840s, and later on in Germany and Russia as I already said. Still, to this day, no one truly knows how to execute the transitionary period, and each time a nations people have tried it has been brutally quashed by fascism. We should take solace in the fact that Bernie’s campaign didn’t make it further. If it did, Chris Matthews would likely turn out to be right, in that it would be akin to the rebirth of Nazi Germany, except, obviously, not at the hands of Bernie’s movement, but at the hands of the reactionaries’ response.
@@rbfabc the CCP is still in control of most big companies (owning at least half the shares) and is planning to transition to socialism by 2049 - maybe this is what the dictatorship of the proletariat has to look like for now
It is important to states that a dictatorship proletariat society, is still a society where the capitalists means of production exist. And when we seize the state, if we maintain the state in its burgeois structure will be no use for us. We need to abolish the standard army, standard police, standard institutions. Principally, we must descentralize the state, limited its powers to where is strictly necessary, following the example of the workers from Paris Commune. (Btw, sorry for the english)
Thank you!
@O'Shay Muir Agreed. There's room to criticize Lenin (as there is with anyone), but his actions meant that the material conditions of millions of people were improved (Lenin should not be blamed for things that he had no intention to carry out, and the USSR was better than the Tsars). His insights into 20th century capitalism and beyond still prove to be fantastic tools for understanding the world, and his work was always ultimately concerned with making people's lives better. Unfair, ahistorical, and purist critiques with the benefit of 100 years worth of hindsight is unhelpful and usually makes me think that the critic is LARPing a little bit
And Peterson needs to read max weber, and Durkheim, great sociologists!
I get the sense that he is not a Durkheimian in the slightest, and rejects Weber's analysis of religion and capitalism, because a lot of contemporary academics don't really see Weber as a worthwhile read.
I agree with you that it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on Weber and Durkheim, though!!!
Peterson just needs to read. Anything.
Laurence Gagno and just read anything in general
@@oleksijm Jordan "read more" Peterson though
@@nomad639 My cop out answer is to read the writings of anyone you feel like you can gain from.
The reason I said Weber isn't viewed as worthwhile by a lot of professors and academics is because his central thesis on capitalism arising in the western world due to the religious influence of protestantism is now seen as sorely lacking more refined argumentation at best, and outright incorrect and vaguely imperialistic at worst. Obviously, one of the reasons capitalism arose in the western world was because the level of military power in Europe enabled colonial expansion and the accrual of material wealth that resulted from that (ironically, that military power resulted from religious conflicts within europe in many cases and not the essence of protestantism).
Another reason is that state governments and even some trading companies in the late 18th and 19th centuries were organised in such a way as to quickly mobilise en masse to expand their reach.
Marx, Durkheim and Weber are all worth reading, however, in my opinion. Gaining an understanding of the classical theorists of an academic discipline will provide a well-grounded context for you to explore foundational concepts and contemporary theory more easily, as well as assust you when engaging in debate.
Worthwhile sociology (to me) would be:
Goffman's research on stigma.
Durkheim on The Dreyfus Affair.
Marx's analysis on the structural contradictions and dynamics of capitalism.
Judith Butler's work on gender.
Slavoj Žižek on Violence (or any text advocating a broadening of the definition of violence to encompass more than just the immediate physical space).
Contemporary social mobility research.
Michel Foucault's study of madness in Europe.
There are a lot more text's and authors worth mentioning, (and perhaps some more worthy of acknowledgement than what I listed) but that's an impromptu taxonomy of my view on "sociology's greatest hits".
Long-winded reply, but I hope it helped.
I love how Peterson is portrayed as a person that values knowledge and intelligence while he admits he never read Marx and yet he passionately fights with marxism
@the moon if you criticise some theory or statement, the bare minimum you should do is read it
I don't need to know all the nuances of the flat earth or space is fake theory to tell you it's bs.
"he admits he never read Marx"
Damn polski, you're living in an alternate reality.
@@singami465 ?
This image he (Peterson) displays of himself - the "hard-thinking" knowledgable persona that is always very serious - imo is desgined for his primarly non-academic viewership that needs this impression of a well-mannered, respectfull and wise person to look up to him. People in academica don't really give a shit about that and don't mind listening to someone like Zizek.
And I speak for most humanities students too I'd say when I cringed hard as he brought up the communist manifesto. Everyone knows that it's a piece of progaganda. It was written for the communist party during the 1848 - with coal-miners as its target audience how I like to say - as a literal political propaganda. Works like the capital or the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon are what actual Marxist sociologist base their work on. I'm neither a communist nor a Marxist but that's just common knowledge.
This isn't even hate against Peterson. I genuiley like to watch/read some of his psychoanalytic and psychological works. A discussion with Zizek about Freud, Jung and Happiness in the Modern World could've been really interesting. But hell, if Marxism is not your field of expertise, don't have a two-hour discussion with someone that studied Marxism for years. Just not worth to be watched.
are they about to kiss rn 😏😏
enemies to lover arc
The fact that they respect each other while they cannot understand each other makes my day.
It seems to me like Zizek can very well understand Peterson and Peterson didn't do the required reading.
@Darnell Trump well of course jsit loking at your profile you would push an it right winged nosense.
@@ghfudrs93uuu 😂😂😂😂😂😂
I don't get the feeling that Zizek respects Peterson as an academic.
@@TheAlmightyAss I think Zizek was very respectful considering that Peterson does not do academic philosophy, and certainly doesn't debate like an academic.
If Peterson has watched some lectures of Zizek instead of relying on the "reputation" of Zizek, he wouldn't be surprised.
Or even better: Peterson should read Zizek's books, Peterson looks like the reading type to me... 😉
I think the reality about highly intellectual discussions about philosophy-politics is that you can discuss like this if the rest of your life (bills to pay, work to do, surviving) allows it.
A person who struggles to bring food on his/her table will care more about getting that damn food and less about the nature of marxism and hegelian social philosophy.
That's to say that politics goes beyond a pure intellectual political doctrine and, in my opinion, cannot ignore practical problems.
With that said, I feel very lucky I can allow myself to watch this wonderful debate between two great intellectuals.
The nice thing about RUclips is that someone like me, currently working part time at McDonalds, can still view serious (mostly) philosophical discussions on Marx, etc.
just because we're working class doesn't mean we're dumb.can not only view videos on topic but we can create our own.who work at McDonald's and a pizza placeregular people like usThe other nice thing about RUclips is=
proper english.that makes me look like I can't even speakGod damn talk to text. see it's the stupid cheap ass phone that doesn't follow what I'm saying
If you think about it, if you would have a system of control that's too complicated for most people to bother to understand, and you give them a lot of stuff that's more interesting to them, that would be a pretty succeful system in controlling people.
What are the practical problems? And what are the futile ones? And which is which? As you see its not so easy.
You sit and listen to discussions like this and then realize that nothing has changed...I'm just trying to put food on the table man...
Good on both these guys for doing this debate and having a fun time of it.
the legend has is that Peterson lost a million neurons after Zizek's response
He should have just been honest and admitted he’s a dialectical materialist.
there are people who aren’t dialectical materialists???
@@thatguyben7754 Yes, like Hegel
@@LittleMushroomGuy he is a dialectical materialist, but only retrospectively
@@JinjaOnHere Bruh, the distinction between 'materialism' and 'idealism' dosen't exist in Hegelianism.
Peterson doesn't understand philosophical frameworks and why people adopt them as ONE tool in their toolbox for analysis.
Maybe you can explain since you obviously do?
God this damn audience
The Virgin "clean your room" Vs The Chad "I would prefer not to"
What is wrong with being a virgin? It is a sad state to no clean your home and be proud of it.
@@westvirg304 its a joke
It's ironic because Zizek's room is so much cleaner than Peterson's room, based off streams. And Zizek isn't a benzo addict.
@@Kitajima2 life happens... this is exactly what peterson so often is talking about. The importent thing is to get back on your feet and oh boy he did. Whether you think the benzo addiction is his fault or not, being able to get back in the driverseat is incredible. I learned that with my cig addiction
@@Crystal-uh2gc I would have no issue with him if he simply described himself as the self-help author he is, but he doesn't really do that
When you bring paper and pen to laptop connected to wifi fight and still win
Holy shit I didn't know they had a debate this is gold
"I don't like Picasso", *after examining his childhood finger paintings*
Marx is cringe.
@@asdfasdf3989 ayep, so true
Very nice PFP . Long live Gonzo
Was Picasso most known for his childhood finger paintings? Were these the finger paintings that have caused over 100 million political deaths? If so, what little relevance would Picasso's new works have on them?
@@ganjaericco 100 mil deaths has been debunked repeatedly, and capitalism by same standards has killed many more
We need them to debate again..
Also.. I love how peterson is dealing with zizek like a psychotherapist sometimes.. Rather than an actual debator .
Zizek looks like someone who needs therapy.
@@yarpenzigrin1893
That's just your like.. ideology.. man..
and so on and so on.. 😂
We need more variety of thought like Zizek and Peterson. I do not agree with either of them but can appreciate the breadth of conversation.
That being said, the title was misleading to this video.
This is fascinating ! The Commentarians in this thread are very, very well-read & their ideological knowledge of the philosophers is so different from some other discussions on YT. It's all intellectually stimulating.
'and that makes you humorous and charismatic and attractive' well that took a turn...
SOMEBODY, WRITE A FAN FICTION!
Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek are the perfect couple to let some little truth emerge in a pop cultural mediated debate.
Definitely. Peterson greatly ignorant stances being debunked by an actual thinker and charismatic philosopher is a great way to expose truth.
Generally there is respect for both men in the comments, I appreciate all you guys 🤝
JUST KISS ALREADY
Where is the Asian girls Yaoi drawings of them ..
😳😳😳😳
Slippery Slavoj
Remember in old fighting games like Tekken or Soul Calibur, there was always a character that emulated styles? You never knew what you were going to fight until the round started?
That’s Slavoj’s debate style. He slips out of topics and direct questions and he stays in ambiguities about what he really thinks.
If everything is an intellectual game and everyone’s confused about the stakes, he didn’t make anyone’s life better, but at least he feels smart.
“You thought this was about Marxism? You’re stupid, I’m a Hegelian.”
Slater Slater
Is it my comment that brings this kind of vitriol out of you?
If so, man, I’m sorry...my intention was not to make it all worst.
I just don’t see Slavoj as helpful to what I want to build with my life. But I wish him well.
It’s pretty fucked up what you wrote...
Slater Slater
You implied Peterson’s medical situation was caused by his stupidity...
And you showed zero sympathy for him or his family...
Anyway, have a good day, bud.
You would expect one of the most popular “critics of Marxism” 🙄 to have at least read Capital volume 1. No, he has only read the communist manifesto. This man has only read 35-40 pages of Marx depending on the translation and the edition. Embarrassing.
2:10 I developed shyshtematicaly in my booksh critical inshight into many traditional markshist. Thish izh(is) sho(so). No doubt here
And so on and so on
Mark-shit-st
Thank You. Yes, yes Mr Zizek, Hegel, his philosophy isn't exosted yet in many aspects.
Imagine the conversations you will have with this guy when he’s high
Peterson obviously caught off guard by the term 'hegelian' says all about the intellectual astuteness of a guy who wrote one self-help book and became essentially the Deepak Chopra of the right.
He's successfully regurgitating the fashionable mix of
½Psychology ½ † Doctrine
Modern Guruism 🤮°
Well, im Not a Hegelian, im a Fichtean.
It’s like watching an Eagle lecture a Goldfish. The difference in perspective is astounding
I would like to see a tripartite conversation with Zizek, Peterson and maybe Curt Yavin or Nick Land.
It would have been nice to see Peterson's response
Was there a response? He asked a question about what Zizek thinks, and Zizek answered, so I wouldn't think a response is warranted.
1:36 debate between San Pellegrino and Evian
It was bold of Zizek to assume JP even knows who Hegel is
Lol.
🙄
Yeah a guy who taught philosophy at Harvard doesn't know who Hegel is... I think you're the one who doesn't know who Hegel is.
@@notlengthy Is an appeal to authority all it takes for you people to get behind someone? You know that this means the opposite of what you think it means to be a fan of his.
@@notlengthy if Peterson was really a professor of philosophy at Harvard, It really tells more about the current state of Harvard rather then of Peterson.
Never knew the guy that voiced “Sylvester” from “Sylvester and Tweety” was like this
Pinky and The Brain
Good to see the comments full of golden observation.
I really like Peterson, and my appreciation for Zizek keeps on growing as I learn more about this quirky and confusing, yet fascinating character, and I have to admit his answer here was based as f.
It was not hard to surprise Peterson. He came to the debate full of preconceptions, ready to debunk "cultural marxism".
It's almost like the name of the debate was "Marxism vs Capitalism".
@@singami465 yeah, but cultural marxism isn't marxism, and also it doesn't exist.
Sounds almost like something the Nazis made up...
Oh wait. It was
@@darrenfleming7901 Ironically zizek describes himself as a cultural marxist, so it does in fact exist, just not in the way that people on the right think it does. The "cultural marxists" JBP and co. talk about are just liberals 99% of the time.
@@singami465 🤦♂️
I feel like these two are arguing about different things based on their preconceptions of each other.
Peterson certainly did. Zizek just answered
@@bubkabu Whad did Zizek answer? That he's not a marxist fundamentalist but that he's a marxist protestant? Who cares? The debate was marxism vs capitalism and Zizek didn't put any forward any arguments in favor of marxism.
Zizek's voice in this audio quality reminds me of the guy talking at the beginning of Rammstein's Mein Teil video
That's the thing. JP isn't an expert on Marxism. His criticism of leftist ideas seems way more credible to me that the typical atheist criticizing religion in general though but that's not really saying much. It seems to me that JP isn't well-versed enough in the topic for a nuanced discussion.
Most people who are firmly left or right won't open their mind up the positive aspects of the other side. Biggest problem with this is that it can spiral out of control. The UK is a big example of that. The media supports the conservatives regardless of their failings, but all its done is convince the populace that despite how shit things are "at least labour aren't in". The UK now has an angry hate filled population that blames immigrants for everything, and has sections of society who applaud deaths of immigrants who drown trying to get in across the channel. Some are even convinced that fascism is a left wing philosophy. The UK right now is fucked as a nation, with an extremist government in power.....already started ticking off a few fascist boxes as well, how far do we have to go before people open their eyes.
Is that really much of a surprise?
Some of the best critiques of Marxism came from the guys, that JP himself, says are ' Post-mordern Marxist'. People like Derrida and Focault who explicitly rejected such ideas and were one of the first in the new movement of Post-structuralism. Hell these Philosophers weren't even 'true' leftists. Most Marxist consider them 'not radical enough'.
@@Chorismos No, not very surprising. As you point out, insiders have an advantage due to their perspective for giving some types of criticism. Outsiders can rarely spot some things due to not having lived with the ideas and beliefs and as such have no first hand experience. That being said outsiders looking in from the outside can often say things that can't be as easily spotted looking from the inside out. Isn't this one of the core ideas behind the triangulation used in science as well? To bring together all the voices, perspectives, etc. to give a better approximation of what's actually going on? Just listening to one perspective like JP's isn't generally enough to grasp what's what.
Aka, the moment Peterson realized he didn’t know what the fuck he was talking about.
What does it matter? Peterson has barely read Marx for it to matter.
J.P. is desperately trying to sound intelligent and interested with his "question".
Forgetting is underlying doctrine (†) is 2000 yrs old.
I would have tackled him at this point .•°
Cool but I hate the audience screaming like this is some kind of show. What the hell, man, does everything have to be a show to be appealing? smh
Americans being Americans
@@enoch2066 i was expecting the host to call a time-out and there to appear people on stage with t-shirt cannons😂
I can't get over how the crowd claps at the end of Peterson's question. Even if you are on his side and appreciate the inquiry, what about it was wortht of applause?
Thanks for slowing it down to 0.5 speed brother
Funny how Peterson questions Zizek's adherence to an old school of thought like Marxism... while he can't stop himself talking about Christianity and Jung. 🤷🏽♂
Peterson didn't even bother to read anything other than a 20 something page propaganda phamphlet and have the balls to call Zizek a mistery.
Agreed but it’s spelt mystery
If you knew anything about Peterson you'll know he would have read everything on these lunatic philosophers.
Mystery because he's absolutely irrelevant. Its actually a trustworthy insult
Hey, the only comment chain where a dumb communist makes that argument and it ISN'T 100+ replies long - Peterson never states that's the only Marxist literature he read, simply assumed that if you're trying to distill your ideas into a pamphlet, you'll hyperfocus on the most solid parts of your ideology, instead of producing reactionary drivel.
Speaking of, the debate went so well for Marxism, that Zizek didn't even attempt to defend it.
Yagi If your gonna criticize a philosopher as pretty much your entire career, you should probably read more than just a 20 page book
“I’m not what you think I am, I’m what I think I am...” gotta love that Benny hill
This discussion was the exact moment Peterson jumped the Shark. It went downhill from there to Benzodiazepine addict -> rehab -> COVID denialism -> mouthpiece for right-wing talking points -> complete assimilation into the conservative punditry
This debate and the Sam Harris serie should be the reason of JP's personal and intellectual collapse... I mean, he was reducted to the absurd. Now he is close to be a TV pastor than anything. 😢
Exactly... I used to admire him, but now he is just such a joke...
The fact that Peterson is still taken seriously after his display in this conversation (I mean the entire almost 3 hours, not just this clip) really highlights the education problem we face in the western world. It's frankly embarrassing.
Your level of intellect is far above that?
Peterson and Zizek spent the vast majority of it complimenting each other and agreeing. I guess neither should be taken seriously, then, eh?
"...a doctrine of 170 years old' says a guy who steadfastly believes in a doctrine that's over 2000 years old.
Comparing the bible and religious texts to marx child book just goes to show the kind of braindamage we deal with when talking to a marxist.
Virgin vs Chad : the final showdown
you can just see how well-read zizek is and how intellectually poor peterson is. it's night and day in terms of difference in intelligence (and wit).
Peterson is clever enough he's just too stuck inside his own worldview
Peterson is a very inteligent guy, thing is he's talking outside his area of expertise, he's a clinical psychologist not an economist, sociologist or philosopher
@@franingegnieri1831 True enough. I think the problem becomes that when he talks about some other area of expertise he usually just sticks to some fixed narrow ideas, that are an interpretation of this area, but lack a broad and deep understanding, but are presented by Peterson as if they do have that.
Oh my god The ego marxists have. ‘I have all the right ideas’ People who disagree are uninformed. BRUH COMMUNISM KILLED THEIR OWN POPULATION AND LEFT THEM IN A FACIST STATE CONTROLLED BY ONE FAMILY. YALL DONT EVEN HAVE ELECTIONS YOU HAVE A DICTATOR
Let's face it folks, thinking for yourself is difficult. That's why we have this comment section: to judge others.
Every silver lining has its cloud.
I only saw two parts of this exchange and I can tell it was an interesting event overall, but honestly, I would have put my money on Zizek being is polar opposite/arch enemy in their respective ideology. I was so wrong lol. The first part that I came across, thanks to RUclips's recommendation, Peterson was backing up is "clean up your room" thing and this has reverted to a really interesting counter-argument to Zizek's nihilistic criticism, I was like damn! I do see the Nietzschean influence in his approach. He does make a good existentialist and it seems it's more in his niche, epistemology speaking, that and psychoanalysis. But there is in no way Peterson could ever beat Zizak on the philosophical economic ground as many people get the wrong idea about Marxism (not one btw, I'm apolitical) but I feel the minute you evoke the term "cultural Marxism" you've already lost the debate.
Honestly think JP doesn't know that many things about existentialism, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky (my auto corrector doesn't allow me to change) etc. He uses them to reafirm his bias, but as somone else said its obvious he doesn't understand Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and the likes quite well. I'm a Ph.D student of Philosophy and psychoanalyst and even his approach to Jung is deeply wrong. It reminds me of how far the so called 'existential psychologists' are from simple names like Sartre or more complex ones like Heidegger and the russian literature. The whole idea of "growing up" "being a man" etc. makes sense in a world where everyone is lost and looking for gurus. It doesn't prove he has the answers, it proves people need a seemingly strong leader which Trump in the US, Bolsonaro in Brazil and the likes are the proof and result of.
How can you be apolitical? Our world is governed by politics.
@@hanmoehtet Cultural Marxism is a Nazi conspiracy theory and I’m not aware of Richard Wolf ever “confirming” it.
@@Necroskull388
Stupid ignorant.
ruclips.net/video/thKMQanb4z8/видео.html
Gramsci: In the war for position, the working-class intelligentsia politically educate the working classes to perceive that the prevailing cultural norms are not natural and inevitable social conditions, and to recognize that the social constructs of bourgeois culture function as instruments of socio-economic domination, e.g. the institutions (state, church, and social strata), the conventions (custom and tradition), and beliefs (religions and ideologies), etc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
@@hanmoehtet I think the problem lies in that 'Cultural Marxism' has since the mid-2010s become this catch all term for those on the right to denounce those on the left, without ever defining what it means. Among alt-right circles, 'Cultural Marxism' is used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle too.
I love both of these men, very insightful. The people in the comments saying that JP isn't well versed in Marx/Communism must be mad. And viewing this as a loss/win for either is a poor judgement, this is just an enlightening conversation where two intellectuals are sharing ideologies and viewpoints. I like that JP can admit when he learns something or when he is proven wrong, two giants on stage.
if jp is well versed in Marx he would be smart enough to not support capitalism.
Retrospectively looking back on this comment, I will admit that JP is definitely not an expert on Marx. I appreciate that the comment hasn't aged too very well, I'm very young so i guess you live and you learn. Hindsight is always 20/20.
@@tralx5268ah yes because communism is heroine for the soulless masses filled with resentment. People with honour don’t follow communism since IT DOESNT WORK
@@donag787Holy shit true asf
had a period where I pursued 'open-mindedness' and folded beliefs at even a single good counterpoint. What that ended up with was changing views bi-weekly and not really being in a position to take part in argument. Usually one can learn more from stoically defending something and hearing the counterpoints rather than letting people tell you what to think,
That's kind of a compliment to Zizek right there.
If only Peterson knew anything about Marx or Hegel... this may have been a more interesting discussion. Instead, we got a sparknotes interpretation of the Communist Manifesto devoid of context. Good job, Jordan!
Ppl try and say Zizek wiped the floor with Jordan just isnt true...
I think this was supposed to be a debate but Zizek is so charming and wonderful and seems so harmless that it makes u think he WON when really their was no debate to begin with.
And JP imo did an EXCELLENT JOB DISSECTING THE MANIFESTO. PPL CAN PRETEND HE DIDNT BUT they just didnt listen