Marxism: Zizek/Peterson: Official Video
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2024
- I posted this yesterday, but the volume was too low, so now it's been raised.
On February, April 19, 2019, I debated Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek in Toronto, April 19 at the Sony Centre. Dr. Zizek is a Slovenian philosopher and professor at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, whose works on cultural studies, psychoanalysis and, above all, for the purposes of our debate, Marxism, are world-renowned. The topic? Happiness: Marxism vs Capitalism. This is the official video. Many bootlegs have already been released, but that seems inevitable given our current state of technological capability.
I started with a critique of The Communist Manifesto, which is the central revolutionary document of the Marxist movement (rather than addressing, say, Zizek's work, which wasn't what the debate was about).
It wasn't so obvious for the rest of the discussion that Marxism, per se, comprised the central topic of discussion.
Watch for yourself.
A good article, I think, on Zizek: www.iep.utm.ed...
-- SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL --
Donations: www.jordanbpet...
Merchandise: teespring.com/...
-- BOOKS --
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterso...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterso...
-- LINKS --
Website: jordanbpeterso...
12 Rules for Life Tour: jordanbpeterso...
Blog: jordanbpeterso...
Podcast: jordanbpeterso...
Reading List: jordanbpeterso...
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
-- PRODUCTS --
Personality Course: www.jordanbpet...
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring....
Understand Myself personality test: understandmyse...
Merchandise: teespring.com/...
Peterson the Archetypal Dad vs Zizek the Archetypal Uncle
Porçay this was hilarious. Zizek does seem like that uncle that always makes shit hit the fan at family gatherings
Aga sen burda napiyon la
PERFECT
Brilliant analogy !
BRILLIANT
The audience seems to think this was a rap battle.
Bring back ebr
Greg0516
It’s just a cat’s opinion.
What a disgrace to debate culture and maybe science in general
Both of these guys have a cult of personality that follows them around everywhere... this was bound to happen
So true. That’s because the media has basically turned politics INTO that.
This is gold. It wasn't a debate, but more of a talk between two points of view that may be able to work together. The loser there was the childish audience.
The childish audience and Petersons credibility. He’s never studied communism in his life. That was terrible
@@ddmddmd What's wrong with Peterson's idea of communism?
@@raccoonduck5406 That's not was his post stated. Peterson here uses classic arguments against China, N Korea, Russia & Cuba but fails to acknowledge modern successful socialist states. Socialism is evolving like capitalism but he missed on some positive points. He's also Canadian & should make mention of beneficial social programs adopted outside of the US by capitalist allies.
@@jasonphilc what? give me an example of "successful" socialist countries, please?
@@ddmddmd WHAT!? yes he did.. what are you talking about? have you ever watched anything from jbp?
On behalf of the human race.
I'm so sorry these thinkers had to endure this audience.
@@Element905 Well, he is one of the few Peterson respects and I'd go as far as to say admire, despite having such a different agenda. Peterson even often quotes Zizek in a ''I've learned a point from him, he really made me reconsider stuff'' way
@@Element905 I guess I don't completely get your point because of a language barrier. However, Zizek is on of the few that never settles at a final verdict and keeps asking more questions and digging deeper and not being satisfied with any answer. Altho it's not very appealing to most of the people, because people loves final verdicts and simple resolutions, this is what philosophy is. It really reminds me of Aristoteles (I mean, the most from all the modern-day well known similar speakers)
On behalf of insulting half of humanity, don't call zizek a thinker in any capacity.
@@user-rb8bl3gs9k what would you call him?
peterson is not a thinker😂😭
Finally something that the left and right can agree on. Worst debate audience ever.
**agrees in fascist**
Ýyty8yu7u879yt9y8y York uttermost die in 9ten that Yutaka truthster yttrium. The trittst, I 7ten 8ten mit der technischen Tschüß trotz tt
Canadian Chads
@@hanz2904 He already said "right"
@@Horny_Fruit_Flies oh i thought he was reffering to moderates lol.
Audience: WOOOO!!!
Zizek: please, dont turn this into a simple minded competition, we are here to debate serious issues
Audience: WOOOO!!!!
@Jaques Studly yeah, zizek handled the debate terribly, but so did Peterson. Pretty much every single general point Peterson made on marxism in his opening statement was completely wrong or totally misrepresentative, which isnt a suprise really since the most preparation he did for critiquing an entire ideology was reading a pamphlet.
@Covington Bigglesworth nope
@Covington Bigglesworth neither has peterson. His arguements sucked and he doesnt know anything about marxism
@@confusedarmchairphilosopher maybe you're right, but you definetly aren't lucky, because i saw your comment was posted 10 hours ago.
Give me some examples, that confirm your opinion on both the participants.
By "you aren't lucky" i mean that i will ask you questions now and i won't stop until your anwsers will satisfy me.
Zizek basically telling Peterson to tell more jokes is so wholesome 😂
I wish zizek had more facts
@@ratm23471 so youre one of the trashy audience members huh?
@@ratm23471 the more facts doens't mean your argmuent the more cohenrent and relevant.
i'm not sure that's possible. Peterson strikes me as someone without a sense of humor
@@SeanMacdonald_CodeMonk his podcasts with Theo Von or his podcast episode with his son reveals it quickly. Quite a shame that the intellectual conversations rarely bring it out of him.
This is beautiful. Imagine if our "democratically elected" representatives actually had to debate their worth in this manner.
the problem with democracy is no one would be bothered enough to listen
Funny thing is, they used to do it. The JFK vs Nixon debate was like that.
But you still had people being complete dicks in debates, even back then. There was this one clip but I can't find it.
Really as long as you have a good moderator, it's possible. But media companies think it runs on too long lol.
It should be expected and normal…
that is how it should work in theory: communists, liberals and conservatives, all highly motivated to serve the society, struggling for hours and witth good arguments to find the best compromise for how things should be done tomorrow - and then actually do what they decided (and not the opposite or nothing)
so far the theory...
@@kennethguitarfiend4493 Damn right, but hey... I remember a time where I couldn't access anything like this. At least there's that.
The conclusion is clear: We live in a society
Now who would have thought?
We do, if you think about it...
@@theauntless And we don't, if you think about it lol
Boomers react to memes in this thread
Hahahha
People who whoop during a philosophy discussion will be sent to the gulags.
Joey Humble The Whooplag Archipelago
I think it's because it's gone from being considered dry and boring (like politics), to being a form of entertainment and team-competition (like politics, although in some places, that was almost always a team-competition), so it will attract a much wider audience. Kinda like how gaming used to be something "losers" and nerds did, but with the implementation of online multiplayer and gaming generally becoming a larger and larger industry, it suddenly began attracting extraverted people, who could now use the games as means to socialize while having fun, soooo... again, much wider "audience" in that now too... For better and for worse, lol.
Wow that made me literally laugh out loud.
Bloody slack jawed hippies.Not a beret among them.
Lmao
It was quite a shock to to know that Heinrich Himmler, the architect of the holocaust, carried the Bhagvad Gita everywhere he went. Zizek mentions how Hemler used the eastern concept of detachment from this material world as a tool to make German soldiers do horrible things without feeling remorseful.
Military powers in Japan used Zen Buddhist techniques to do the same. Zizek mentioned the book Zen at War where this issue is discussed.
Prof. Zizek humor is infectious and so spot on.
@@FG-fc1yz I wouldn't have minded it though, but thanks again
Could you please give some source material? Would appreciate it
@@milanmarinkovic2382 Zen at War by Brian Daizen
Detachment adaptive behaviour is inherent in children of neglect or abuse. It is not the books that caused the dehumanisation. It was the faulty perception & the inability for the reader to understand nuance & allegory.
Towards the 2 hour mark, the debating was just so cooperative and so civil it gave me the fuzzies. Wish I could find a debate club to join but there are none
8:35 - host's speech
15:03 - Peterson's speech starts
Review on Communism Manifesto:
20:29 - on viewing history as economic class struggle
25:57 - on unclear division between social classes
28:48 - on dictatorship of the proletariat
32:12 - on why decentralized economy seems more effective
33:51 - on idea of critisizing profit
36:48 - on idea of super-productiveness of socialist society
39:32 - on notion of the manifesto, that capitalism is the most productive documented system
42:24 - breaking argument, that rich get richer and poor get poorer
46:31 - Zizek's speech starts
47:21 - on state of modern China
48:30 - on finding higher cause in life
49:57 - on the fact, that we can't appeal to traditional athority anymore
51:48 - on ideology making people do horible things
53:29 - on not making suffering instant justification of your personal philosophy
54:38 - on need for jealousy to sustain self identity (precisely, making up stories about external intruder, to justify your own failues/drawbacks/etc.)
1:00:26 - on renunciation (not letting others have something; also, Zizek claims, that modern capitalism is incorporated the wrong egalitarianism)
1:03:53 - critique of capitalism's evaluation of competency and it's hierarchical system (also, discussion of natural evolution)
1:06:58 - on unwilling of democracy to give up power to a group of competent experts
1:08:20 - on master figure, that pushes people to be free; on pain of freedom and choice; on autority as something, not tied directly to competence; on separation of expertise and political power
1:10:30 - speech about incompetency of large groups of people and inability of modern democracy and capitalism to solve global problems (e. g. ecological issues, modern apartheid, etc.)
1:19:55 - Zizek shames audience of treating debate as some kind of cheap competition
1:20:53 - Peterson's response starts
1:22:09 - on problems of capitalism
1:23:30 - on capitalism pushing everyting to economical competition (also, claim that earning more money past the certain level won't make a person happier)
1:25:33 - on possibility, that capitalism contains a fatal threat for humanity
1:28:53 - quick notions on a lot of Zizek's claims
1:30:32 - on necessity of individual responsibility in a healthy society
1:33:08 - Zizek's response starts; notion on deep subjectivity of hapiness
1:38:52 - on Comunist Manifesto
1:40:00 - on egalitatianism, global ecology problems, modern apartheid
1:42:52 - on pessimism, and unreliable human nature
1:45:36 - story about slovenian farmer (top!)
1:46:46 - Peterson's question about why Zizek, given his originality of thought, so strongly binds himself to marxism
1:49:10 - Zizek's defense of Marx
1:50:48 - claiming himself as Hegelian
1:53:22 - Peterson's and Zizek's debate on if today's radical leftists can be called marxist
2:04:47 - host's question about true human hapiness; Peterson's response about adopting responsibility and expanding your own capacities
Zizek:
2:10:00 - on authentic love as sudden catastrophy
2:11:06 - on divinity in christianity and christian God as an atheist
2:13:31 - critique of Peterson's individualist ideas
Peterson:
2:16:09 - mercifullness of idea of God as an atheist
2:18:08 - on agreement in pshychiatric society, that exposure to upleasancy deeply helps individuals
2:19:30 - defense of individualism through pessimistic picture of life
2:22:03 - on solving global soscietal problem when adressing personal one
Zizek:
2:24:57 - about ideology even in slightest things
2:27:49 - on doublethink of modern ideology
Peterson:
2:29:55 - finding deep feeling of doing things right
2:32:10 - on not lying as a way of improoving life
Zizek:
2:36:00 - on ideology of alienating yourself from reality (in order to be able to do horible things)
2:40:58 - host's question about what will people incorporate out of this debate and response from both doctors
Thanks
Bravo!
Andrew's Quest u the goat 🐐
+ +
I've not watched much of it, but thank you .
i want a sitcom where these two live together
TIDY YOUR ROOM!
don’t you mean OUR room?
Khrishan Solanki magic
Underrated comment.
Zizek: I will share half of this lobster with you for supper, even though I caught it.
Bert and Ernie?
The Communist Manifesto was intended as a short read meant directly for industrial workers so the fact that Peterson chooses to focus most of his argument about Marx on this while claiming things about Marx’s work(such as certain classes are good and bad or ignoring that the prologue to Marx’s thoughts on labor IS that of human existence and thought beyond economics) is either disingenuous or he simply just never read Marx at all.
Even if he didn’t-It would’ve been superfluous in this day and age. At the end of the day, you know a tree by it’s fruit. And Quite frankly, there *is* no decoupling Marxism from it’s continual horrible failure as an ethical philosophy. Honestly it should humble the Marxists if they’d only take the hint instead of projecting ignorance- *it’s them that don’t understand.* we know what you believe, it’s despicable and absurd. The end
Gulag? Cultural Revolution un Red China? North Korea, China, Soviet famines? Death Farms in Cambodia?
Do you have any empathy to the ones who lost in communist countries for nothing?
@@wolfiefink He obviously hasn’t read Marx. My guess is he’s read right-wing “take-downs” of Marx and just regurgitates their straw men arguments.
I watched it in its entirety. Thank you both for existing and presenting this to me. I don't worry too much about the crowd. The crowd will be the crowd. Listeners will be listeners.
They should have done this as a pure conversation with no crowd
@Zooman to be fair to Zizek, JBP charges more than twice as much in speaking fees. to be fair to JBP, he's more than twice as in demand as Zizek (plus was / is more ill, thus theoretically it costs him more).
to be fair to everyone, Zizek's the anti-capitalist who still is willing to profit heavily from capitalism when it benefits him. Which is fine: that's the idea! He's just a lying capitalist.
and to be fair to the aware, JBP gets called Red Skull [read: "literally Hitler"] by the media, while it simultaneously begs for more Zizekism.
to be fair to the truth, not that Zizek is bad or Peterson is perfect
it just is: they're capitalists
Sad part about politic, you go to talk to another party, you're traitor to that group. and this video is trying to say please don't do that, it's jsut lazy way to judge anything without thinking.
But people are like that for the most part.
@I Must Bust i humbly disagree. You can't take part in a system you disagree with and not be a hypocrite, with the exception of not having a choice.
Example: you are a hypocrite if you claim to be pro-liberty but you support an authoritarian regime, unless of course that regime is forcing you to support it by threat of force.
You are a hypocrite if you claim to be against handouts but you take government subsidies, unless of course the alternative is starving, or some other severe consequence.
You are a hypocrite if you claim to want to help the poor, but personally make no effort of helping them, out of nothing but convenience. (Say, if you could donate 1000$ without endangering your financial situation, which includes savings for the future, but instead you choose not to because you only said it to look good on twitter)
you are a hypocrite if you claim to be against capitalism but you don't redistribute your wealth to others more deserving, unless it would endanger your own survival.
@@degamispoudegamis People live in things called societies, the fact that some try to change them doesn't imply that they should live with solar energy while they do. It's a very very simple concept.
@@TransRoofKorean The capitalism that Zizek opposes is not about people making money from ticket sales. The capitalism that he opposes is the one in which a person can be born into wealth, sit on the couch their whole life contributing nothing to society, and yet earn millions of dollars annually from other people's work. It's the element of worker exploitation that is the focus.
I would pay for the non-clap version of this
in this case even communists would
Or for them to edit the damn thing at all.
The worst case would be that our official desires come true.
... or nationalize the non-clap version
I would pay you to go back to sleep
What an enlightening listen. They seem to agree on so much, but the core disagreement wasn't even about structure or economy or theology. It really felt like it was optimism vs pessimism, which is fascinating.
A very astute observation! I also agree with the message of your RUclips-handle. 🙂🦎
Respect for both of them. This was the most beautiful conversation I have seen. It was pure beauty. This is truly art. We are so lucky to share the same moment in life with them, to have them alive to enlight our minds.
You should read the republic
@@AhhsvsvHhehe Absolutely!
Wow this years wrestlemania has gotten really academic.
Underrated comment
HAH! A PERSON OF CLASS IS UPON US! 🤭🤭
Lmaoo
One looks like he rolled out of bed... the other looks a professional
@@barbikinkin Judging books by their covers is not the smartest thing to do...
“So on and so on” vs “roughly speaking “
virtually
it's something like that
More like *grunt grunt sniff sniff*
It's more complicated than that.
"As far as I'm concerned".
Ahhh the worst thing about this debate is that it was entirely too short and Jordan and Zizek need to have a podcast episode or 3 together. Wow. I love seeing JP get challenged by an honest and respectful intellect so he can articulate his ideas clearly.
JP got challenged? He is a fraud.
@@wirdjadochnichts proof?
@@sharoonaftab8894 Thats a stupid question, if u think he is not do your own research. The comment above was written by another person mistaking petersons intellect and his articulacy for academic qualities. Thats why i call him a fraud. For someone who constantly calls himself a sientist he got very poor skills in understanding and using sientific studies. He got an opinion and then he looks for studys to somehow justify it.
@@wirdjadochnichts and he finds the studies out of thin air ?
@@sharoonaftab8894 There all kinds of studies. What he does ist cherry picking the ones that help with his argument and ignoring studies that dont. Also he has misinterpreted a lot of studies and ignored the conclusion that was drawn by the sientists that conducted the study.
That is not what a sientist does, or at least not what a sientist should do if he takes his work seriously.
One of the greatest conversations that I’ve ever had the pleasure of listening to, and very respectful of each other’s point of view. Definitely how we all should represent ourselves in life.
Shame peterson can't act like this anymore. Daily Wire fucked him up good.
"Don't fall in love with your suffering. Never presume that your suffering in itself is a proof of your authenticity." - Zizek
His first ques of speech impediment were brutal but he has a voice for sure
One of the most insightful things I've ever heard... ironically from a Marxist (or Hegelianist, or whatever Zizek thinks he is!)
what does he mean by authenticity in this quote? i think i need a better understanding. I jut heard about Zizek and that quote is actually quite interesting.
@@iqdusk5551 I think, If u suffer that doesn't mean you are authentic.
@@attor90 yes but what would be another word for that? real, or genuine. which authentic?
The bravest moment was when Peterson shook Zizek's hand after watching him wipe his nose with it for two and half hours. But I guess that was pre-covid.
@@Gizmo1869 lol
@@Gizmo1869 why is the idea that it's a global conspiracy more believable than the idea that china's shit treatment of animals lead to a virus?
Emergency Exit because it’s about more than just the virus, it’s about crashing the economy, it’s about social conditioning, mandated shutdown of many businesses deemed “unessential” but Walmart stays open, mandated masks, and probably mandated vaccines eventually with mandated immunity identification, it’s all part of a new world order power move, many people see it
@@Gizmo1869 the reason walmart is open is because they're a huge multinat that doesn't give a fuck, and how the hell would any of that be useful to this new world order
@@Gizmo1869 Sorry I thought you were joking. Didn't mean to make fun of you. I think it's a laughable idea, but I don't want to demean anyone personally for sharing their ideas, no matter how silly they may seem.
3 years later and this debate still means to me more than a thousand FIFA world cups. And I'm a Brazilian, take that into consideration.
I did and im sad to hear that u havent done proper research on Peterson after 3 Years. He is a fraud and Zizek is not taking him seriously. Hes just there because people want him to be.
The fact that you used that example was a dead giveaway 😉
u'd trade your world cups for this debate? highly doubt that
@@jjrc7424 football is meaningless
I was like yeah that is normal, but then I read Brazilian part than I was like, anime level shocked.
*A very useful and necessary debate. Apart from the audience a pleasure and very civilized.*
This kind of debate just didn't need an audience
that wasnt a debate. Dude wrote his entire speech on a piece of paper and read it out loud.
@@Patrk38 i think this shouldn't affect the value of one's arguments
@@MOperator it shows that he is more interested in making a speech than having a conversation or a debate.
@@MOperator love when someone use the mind, good answer. You must heard the format, not see it as you don’t have ears. Ear the ideas.
@@MOperator @Nate_B Did either of you watch the video at all and have either of you ever watched a real debate in your lives? This is literally how you do a formal debate: you have a topic, both speakers first give their case in relation to the topic (i.e. not to each other, i.e. a speech) and then there is discussion afterwards. They even explained the format of the debate IN the video and yet you still both somehow ignore it.. and speaking of ignorance, even if you both missed that part of the video, it is still very ignorant to assume that just because JBP gave his speech first that Zizek has to immediately respond to it.
Zizek: "Don't treat this as a cheap competition, we're trying to confront some serious issues here"
Audience: WOOOOOOOOOO **CLAPPING INTENSIFIES**
Lol
@Stuart Murphy same, how about that left tho lolololololol jk tho I hate both of them but I'm not a centrist I dont know what I believe oh god please help me
💯 😂
@Hannibal B Isnt that what a bunch of rich (___)ish people have been trying to do to Trump the last 4yrs?
@@iwannabethekid34xc which ones are you talking about zo base your claim on? Can you give names and sources to support your claim?
In this debate you can see that Jordan doesn't know anything about communism
Communism was very successful...................................
I don’t know anything about kindergarten geometry but I’m ready to debate an expert.
Seriously though. Communism is an intellectual scam that creates literal armies of useful fools that are easily dominated by opportunistic tyrants without a moral compass. *I just described communism like I might describe a tree* now I could talk about the philosophy, about the fractal branches, the intricate cellulose walls of billions of cells.. *but it’s just a tree* I know it’s a tree I don’t care about your boring explanations. And just like a tree... *communism can’t go anywhere*
Perhaps a parasite analogy would’ve been better illustration but you get the idea
Gulag? Cultural Revolution un Red China? North Korea, China, Soviet famines? Death Farms in Cambodia?
Do you have any empathy to the ones who lost in communist countries for nothing?
They truly are an odd couple that seem to enjoy each other’s company. That was beautiful . Thank you to both
Slavoj and Jordan: Let’s talk
People: this standup is hilarious
They got introduced like boxers and you expect people to treat this like a class debate. The tone is set at the start and the tone was a weird one
Right? When Slavoj bashed Trump the crowd cheered like a bunch of trained seals. It's like a Bill Maher audience.
many dumb hypster kids thinnking they are attending some kind of show.
Right tho, like what happened? It was really weird. I understand these guys need to get paid, but gawd I wished it was recorded Joe Rogen podcast style. Though I concede Joe doesn’t do a good job with moderating multiple divergent views among guest. These guys would be good one on one with each other.
@@bleack8701 I think it's because you get more bums on seats that way, which is telling.
I was watching this whole thing waiting for Ben Shapiro to jump on the stage and scream "let's say, hypothetically, we live in a society!" as security rushes the stage
take the commas out lol. he doesn't make any pauses.
Gold. Though I don't think Shapiro is in the same league as these guys.
@@jeffhughes7104 Shapiro is way younger tho. 50 year old Shapiro might be in the same league
@@Charles-gk7xx no fucking way, he's kinda smart but he's not nearly as smart as either peterson or zizek
@@Charles-gk7xx Nah, Shapiro falls short of most intellectuals that he would care to consider peers. He's far too dogmatic, you never see him trying to learn from an exchange that isn't with someone who doesn't already agree with him.
Peterson seems like a freshman only quoting Marx on the communist manifesto.
I never read the book on scientology, but I'd be confident to expose their BS after reading the back cover on the toilet 😪
*You see: you don't need to study a conman's lexicon, you need only to bring attention to the mechanism of the scam.*
Comparing work of some of the greatest philosifers abd economists, who are still taught about and debated today, with scientology…
Difficult for non native speaker, but one of the most intriguing and fascinating discourses on youtube. Respectfull, no personal offences, listening to each other, delightful.
Zizek was to my opinion the most open-minded of the two. If these two men would work together, they could produce some beautiful books. Chestertons 'Orthodoxy' is one of my favorites. Finding peace with God through the cross of Jesus is an eternal blessing. I wish this to both men, and all viewers!
No shirt is too itchy for Slavoj, No tie too tight for Jordan.
Ziz..k is an opiate abuser.
That's very clear to me, as having been a heroin addict for over two decades.
I was thinking exactly the same mate!
@@georgebotelho288 Hes OCD. Rafael Nadal does exactly the same thing
@@georgebotelho288 he has tics my guy
Lols
Žižek: "Don't fall in love with your suffering. Never presume that your suffering is in itself a proof of your authenticity". This is one of the most existential things I've heard in a long time.
Regardless if I agree with the rest, that statement hit home.
I'll be the audience, if you don't mind. Ahem.....WOOOOOOOOOO
Koreans lol
To be fair it’s not so existential. He’s a Lacanian, so he’s really leaning in the direction of saying something like, “desire has no ultimate end and that we should give up our fantasies.” Existentialism and Lacanian theory are at odds if I’m not wrong.
Timestamp please?
"Never presume that your suffering, is in itself, proof of your authenticity". Amen Zizek, amen.
Do you have a timestamp for this quote ? Thanks a bunch !
Just started studying psychology this year after watching my this when it came out, apparently there is a fair amount of evidence that happiness will rarely come if you actively pursue it, meaning Zizek was probably correct in his second remarks.
Look up some of his interviews. He often says, that happiness is something to be afraid of.
@@wirdjadochnichts what why?
@@luck3yp0rk93 "Happiness was never important. The problem is that we don't know what we really want. What makes us happy is not to get what we want. But to dream about it. Happiness is for opportunists. So I think that the only life of deep satisfaction is a life of eternal struggle, especially struggle with oneself. If you want to remain happy, just remain stupid. Authentic masters are never happy; happiness is a category of slaves.” Zizek
I don’t think you’re familiar with Peterson who state to pursue responsibility and happiness comes as a byproduct. Same. Exact same.
@@TheCuratorIsHere so true, happiness should be pursued indirectly. I get immeasurable happiness/joy/pleasure in making my wife, nieces, and dogs happy.
"we have a strict zero-tolerance policy for any heckling or disruptions."
Audience: WOoOooOoOO
The audience need to clean their rooms and get their bloody acts together
They're beyond annoying.
@@fawnieee so r you commenting ur lousy intolerance to simple cheering... Get a life BUDDY!
@@calebt4yahweh210 Sooo Y r YOUUUU commenting ur LouZy OpiNiOn DUUUUUH....Talk about hypocrisy.
@@calebt4yahweh210 Oh mY GUouHD, cAN’t yOu TAkE a CoMmEnt uN-SeRIoUsLy?
Welcome and rules: 7:50
Introductions: 8:30
Jordan B. Peterson's opening statement: 14:59
Slavoj Zizek's opening statement: 46:16
Thanks for the time stamp!
You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks for your efforts.
>tfw the opening statements are 30 minutes apart
Thank God you did this sir
Blessed are the ones who put the timestamps.
How did nobody offer Zizek a tissue in 2 hours?
This debate made me hate capitalism. Not because of the arguments just because of the ads I was interrupted by and forced to suffer through every 5 minutes.
Nah, that's monopoly ads, RUclips is a dictatorship 😂😂
It's 2022! If you dont use Adblock, then it's on you.
its your choice to consume this free product, dont watch it then, problem solved. The consumer has all the power and resposibility in Capitalism. U complain but ure still supporting.
The most reddit audience in existence
@Hungry Microwave Yes 100%, but can we really pretend to be a perfectly rational observers? Personally I dont rate action against me and mine the same as the other side of the horshoe.
Also Im not actually nazbol lmao
Underrated comment.
Reddit is unironically a Marxist medium.
@@RiseAndFall_ I dont think they would like marx's social opinions very much
@Olli Koskiniemi Ironically as Zizek says 'this is serious' the audience not accepting his directing the audience to do something and clapping anyway is exactly the kind of thing Zisek would himself do.
Producers: So how many bottles of water do you guys need on stage?
Peterson and Zizek: Yes
It feels so weird to me to see all those bottles on the table: the green ones' brand is an italian one (I'm italian as well).
This the magic of globalization.
SiboWoW always wondered if peterson requested pellegrino specifically (instead of evian) since there weren’t any on zizek’s side 🧐
@@sadieperry he drinks it a lot
"Yech"
That's your only takeaway? You deserve to be in the audience.
2:30 S.Z. “I want solicited from you to tell a joke “
After two years I think I will watch once in a while this debate for the rest of my life, like a piece of art and profound knowledge.
Peterson chose to adress the communist Manifesto instead of das Kapital. That says a lot.
His first argument is literally based on idealism, the idea that an idea comes from nothing. (Simplified)
Had he studied Marx and dialectical materialism that wouldn't happen 🤡
His second argument is literally a fallacy, he is literally appealing to nature wtf?
The class struggle is not a thing exclusive to capitalism "hierto so far the history of mankind is the history of class struggle"
Then he appeals to the fact that we are born defenseless and lonely in a harsh environment.
Marx literally explained how our environments and our physiological necessities are the force behind our mode of production.
Then he says it's hard to divide who's the opressor and who's the oppressed. Its not, if you own the means of production and you employ someone , you're the opressor.
Even if small.
Then he goes on about historical revisionism about the October revolution .
Has nobody sheds tears for the dead confederates nobody should for white army and foreigner invasors .
Then he mentions good and evil but had he read Marx would know that he makes no moral judgement at all.
Then he distorts what the proletariat dictatorship really is. It means only those who work hold political power.
Then he distorts what profit is.
Profit is not needed AT ALL.
That's capitalist thinking .
Profit is theft because the owner takes advantage of the workers fragile position in order to buy their work force for the minimum they can. Marx also shows how the production forces and relationships lead to a lose lose situation for the workers (read lonharbeit und kapital)
Then he mentions utopia failing to understand that what Marx proposed is called scientific socialism instead of utopian socialism that preceded Marx
Then he mentions Dostoievski as if it was relevant. In socialism nobody will have nothing handed to them.
He mentions the violent revolution, Marx also explained why it would be violent.
The bourgeoisie class won't give up on their privileges without a fight.
That happened in Chile with Allende for example.
Then he literally invented facts.
Socialist China has lifted 800M people from poverty. Actually if you take China out of the equation, poverty has gotten worse
He recurrently uses multiple fallacies.
He is an imposter
Marx is considered the father of modern philosophy. Let that sink if you think Jordan bs peterson could ever criticize his work. Specially without reading it AT ALL
Only JP fanboys will think this was a respectful debate, their simple minds cannot comprehend zizek's passive aggressive and backhanded slamdunks. JP was willfully unprepared and destroyed.
That i see comment section , they are stupide
Yea dude! (edited) I especially love when he showed up to a discussion on the side of Marxism only not to defend its merits or elucidate the topic in any way!
In all seriousness this may have been the most interesting conversation these 2 could’ve had. Zizek is smart, but he is not wise.
god bless those people who did not applause throughout the talk..
I clapped at the computer screen
@@LETSTALKENTERTAINMENT it interrupts the flow, can be started before the statement is finished, and can be used as a weapon to suck time out of the debate/speech. It's just annoying for people at home who are not part of the energy in the room and can see the time being wasted.
@@j_freed I just didn't want any precious discussion time to be wasted.. Never asked for an essay on human behaviour
That is why Bill Marh show is so bad
I was there and clapped at appropriate times. You're welcome, for what it's worth hahaha
People treating this like a competition have it completely backwards. What you see are two people agreeing on certain problems and coming to potential solutions or conclusions from different perspectives and approaches. What we see here is potentially the most valuable thing to society you could hope. One perspective isn’t enough to fix our problems. The more conversations we have, the better.
I agree. Sadly we currently see the complete opposite happening, just look at the US...
Yes, and then the audience ruins it for people who realizes this is a meeting of great minds who genuinely want to help and pursue intellectual debate... the audience seems like they find it absolutely amazing how they are impeding the exchanging of ideas and morals... i watched this as soon as it was posted and returned just now thinking "it couldn't have been so bad" but they really messed this up. I dont get their game. Was the audience drunk or die-hard anarchists? Why did they buy the damn tickets?
Yep
petersons perspective is dumbest shit i have ever heard the idea that individuals will solve global warming and we dont need no systematic changes is just dumb. this has nothing to do with christian values. hes just so out of touch zizek carried this conversation peterson has nothing to say and he knows this hes just trying to cash out
@@munlaiaspatlaia9588 shhh don't try to talk to the peterson people like adults, telling them to clean their rooms is pretty good advice actually :^)
I find Peterson difficult to listen to, I wish he'd at least try and understand the other side and not label everything he disagrees with the word Marxist as if it's synonymous with the word Evil
That's because he has very little understanding of Marxism. Most of his arguments are straw man logic, and his target of criticism (so-called "postmodernism" and "Marxist") is extremely vague. I mean, postmodernism is not something suggested by someone, but more of a trend in recent decades.
"the poor aren't getting poorer under capitalism" everybody laughed
Exactly
Well, they aren't. Historically, the world world is richer. Only in comparison to the modern richest can you see a bigger inequality.
@@brain0nfire you’re arguing semantics
@@hamburgerdan101 no I'm not. Statistics matter accordingly to the pool you apply it to. It's not just about a qualitative/relative label, it's also about the size of the pool.
A poor person nowadays has access to more luxuries than any roman emperor. That makes a modern poor person in many ways richer than a roman emperor.
But relatively to modern rich people the gap is widening.
@@brain0nfire What you're saying is not true, if you look at the most important time frame. It's about the second half of the 20th century and the 21th century so far. Most people have probably heard how their grand father was able to feed a family of seven with his coal mining job alone. The housing act of the 50s literally created a stronger middle class. College education was free back then. The fact that a couple has to work full time to feed their child and live pay check to pay check is horrible. Considering how politicians kept saying that there's more wealth in our current time and that our median income keeps growing is a joke if you happen to be stuck in that pay check to pay check existence. America has slight downwards social mobility eversince the 1980s. Homeless people are increasing and life expectancy is decreasing. The amount of housing owned by corporations as a way to make profit is increasing. We live in strange times and to compare it to the 19th century is not a sensible argument to be made.
Everyone in the audience: “dude, I swear the tickets said ‘Dave Chappelle and Joe Rogan’!”
@Bryce ‘Sen. Ted Cruz Ate My Son’ Furlong Are you racist or are you funny?
@@OttoKuus he thought he was being funny by being racist.
@@metaldude55ify Well i thought that was pretty funny.
@Bryce ‘Sen. Ted Cruz Ate My Son’ Furlong It wasn't, but it kinda tilts in that direction.
@Bryce ‘Sen. Ted Cruz Ate My Son’ Furlong by touching their fragile and sensitive nerve XD
Damn audience. They dare interrupt the king lobster and the intelligent seizure.
Edward Black one of the funniest comments I’ve seen, well done.
Good one
the intelligent seizure, oh wow 😂😂
stole emre bothers comment
😂😂😂😂😂😂
As a JBP fan and not knowing what to expect from this debate, this was such an engaging and thought provoking listen. I thoroughly enjoyed this and will have to explore more of Zizek’s thoughts and works.
Peterson chose to adress the communist Manifesto instead of das Kapital. That says a lot.
His first argument is literally based on idealism, the idea that an idea comes from nothing. (Simplified)
Had he studied Marx and dialectical materialism that wouldn't happen 🤡
His second argument is literally a fallacy, he is literally appealing to nature wtf?
The class struggle is not a thing exclusive to capitalism "hierto so far the history of mankind is the history of class struggle"
Then he appeals to the fact that we are born defenseless and lonely in a harsh environment.
Marx literally explained how our environments and our physiological necessities are the force behind our mode of production.
Then he says it's hard to divide who's the opressor and who's the oppressed. Its not, if you own the means of production and you employ someone , you're the opressor.
Even if small.
Then he goes on about historical revisionism about the October revolution .
Has nobody sheds tears for the dead confederates nobody should for white army and foreigner invasors .
Then he mentions good and evil but had he read Marx would know that he makes no moral judgement at all.
Then he distorts what the proletariat dictatorship really is. It means only those who work hold political power.
Then he distorts what profit is.
Profit is not needed AT ALL.
That's capitalist thinking .
Profit is theft because the owner takes advantage of the workers fragile position in order to buy their work force for the minimum they can. Marx also shows how the production forces and relationships lead to a lose lose situation for the workers (read lonharbeit und kapital)
Then he mentions utopia failing to understand that what Marx proposed is called scientific socialism instead of utopian socialism that preceded Marx
Then he mentions Dostoievski as if it was relevant. In socialism nobody will have nothing handed to them.
He mentions the violent revolution, Marx also explained why it would be violent.
The bourgeoisie class won't give up on their privileges without a fight.
That happened in Chile with Allende for example.
Then he literally invented facts.
Socialist China has lifted 800M people from poverty. Actually if you take China out of the equation, poverty has gotten worse
He recurrently uses multiple fallacies.
He is an imposter
Marx is considered the father of modern philosophy. Let that sink if you think Jordan bs peterson could ever criticize his work. Specially without reading it AT ALL
Peterson choose to adress a manifesto intended to explain basic concepts to the uneducated sweatshop workers or the 19th century, thats how poor is Petersons understanding of communism.
@@joelrios3704 I thought you might have known that Communist manifesto was directed at outlining the FUNDAMENTAL tenets of communism. You're so stupid that you didnt even realise that "the uneducated sweatshop workers [of] the 19th century" were exactly the people stupid enough to think communism would work lol, guess we know where youd be in the 1800's mate...
@@sharkaspree8148 nice adhominems buddy, let me know when you have an actual valid point, you might want to educate yourself while you are at it.
@@joelrios3704 Bro...... Please read the first books on capital by Karl Marx, they can take you 14 hours to finish, but if you do it, you will be mor opened minded
I love how the two differ so greatly yet have they take the time to actually think and ponder and assess what they've been confronted with rather than desperately trying to rebuttal and roast. Debated should be like this, working to figure out a higher truth rather than simply tearing the other down for the audience like some show.
The audience on the other hand... not only is the constant applause a sign of the toxic tribalism at work here, it basically shows that none of them are really thinking, or even listening for that matter. Shame.
8:35 starts introductions
14:25 debate rules
15:10 JBP opening remarks
46:14 Zizek opening remarks
1:19:50 end of Zizek. Begin JBP reply
1:27:30 The Simon-Ehrlich wager
1:33:00 Zizek returns!
1:46:20 Speakers ask each other questions
2:04:45 Moderator asks question about happiness (both speakers say happiness is a byproduct of action, not a state of being)
2:10:20 Zizek says love is the same as happiness, a byproduct of action, not a state of being
2:41:00 Speakers state what they hope the audience got from the conversation
People like you are the real mvps💪🏾
Thank you! Useful info.
thank you!
Best comment here
Real MVP.
Destiny got destroyed in this debate.
Well yeah, Destiny... idk. He'd be a lot smarter if he wasn't a social dem, the most pathetic type of politics. He'd be a cool libertarian.
pepeLaugh
@@martymcfly88mph35 no lol
@@martymcfly88mph35 what's your ideology?
Destiny is the type of lib Slavoj constantly rants about
Never fall in love with your suffering ... one of the best quotes i've ever heard
Life is suffering
@@iampiyushsingh7544 you missed the point
WHAT A TREAT ! Both of them have seriously challenged my point of view in some of my key beliefs/convinctions. I've bookmarked some points:
1. Zizek: religion/philosophy can be used to make good people do horrible things (ex. Himmel used to read Zen books)
2. Zizek: Jesus suffered so much he reached atheism
3. Peterson: trying to change the world before changing yourself/your situation can be a form of escaping your personal responsibilty and delegating your problems to other people
4. Peterson: Post-modernist philosophers of the 1960s like M. Foucault and J. Derrida replaced the bourgeois class with a more vague identity group, but the narrative that there are bad oppressors and good oppressed has never changed.
(My comment to n. 4: in the Ancien Régime the hierarchical relationship was not denied at all, anyone who reads medieval texts understands very well that hierarchy is told in many different ways, the difference is that it is justified with different motivations, especially religious ones. The break is the French Revolution, which started from the idea that the aristocrats had lost all credibility as leaders and had become parasitic oppressors).
Everytime the crowd cheers Zizek dies a little on the inside
... The crowd also cheered for Zizek point of view for at least 50% of the time. It was a very good debate and discussion.
@@kaboomcanuck2 yes but he didn't like how their disscution was transformed into a show
@@b0dab9 yet he willingly particicpated. Feigned
@@vmidge9807 so?
@@vmidge9807 he wanted to have a debate without audience participation 🤷🏼♂️
Me, listening to Zizek's and Peterson's arguments: "Maybe there is hope for humanity after all."
Me, listening to the audience: "Hmm. Maybe not."
😂😂😂
😂
Tali Gore ...hahahaha....an awesome post...peace
George Carlin was right about the difference between the individuals and the group.
@@thebandofbastards4934 Totally agree! There is something good in every person as an individual; but I have always distrusted and hated collectivity in all its manifestations. It seems that, as soon as people gather into groups, the lowest common denominator takes over, the lowest instincts take over, evil comes out; people cease to think for themselves and everything that makes them good individually is suppressed for the sake of consensus. Probably all the atrocities committed by human beings thoughout history can be put down to group thinking. It's rather a peculiar position to be in to love humans and hate humanity, but that's where I feel myself to be haha.
On the matter of Peterson's association of Marxism to Postmodernism, Zizek destroys Peterson. However, I wonder why Zizek does not confront Peterson's simplistic and ideologically biased analysis of Marxism in the latter's introductory speech. What is more embarassing and annoying is that Peterson admits having read the Marxist manifesto when he was 18!!
Well, how the h**ll do you critique postmodernism as neomarxist when you have such a limited perception of marxism (note that the marxist manifesto is not even a theory book).
1:19:55 - Zizek shames audience of treating debate as some kind of cheap competition and literally says dont applause
audience applauds hysterically
They are part of the applauding hierarchy.
audience is the reason...good debates don't exist
@@period5304 They do, are called podcasts!
@@00hn34 yeah
kain kabil at 12:20 he’s already visibly irritable about the applause.
"So on and so on" vs "It's something like that"
Haha, yeah! "..and so on and so on.." vs "..because that's technically impossible.."
“Roughly speaking”
I object to the part where Zizek says: Dalai Lama promotes the pursuit of happiness and pleasure. It's more that your true nature is happy(ness). It's also very clear in Buddhism that the very pursuit for happiness must be given up in order to reach it. This indicates that one should indeed not get what he desires.
So, perhaps, with some more open minded and broader investigation, you might come across more commonalities between Buddhism and Psycho-analysis.
In addition to that, Zizek states that instead of pursuing happiness, one should find a more meaningful cause in life. This is true but don't act like Buddhism doesn't see this. There are a lot of problems to solve. Buddhism just helps people discover their ultimate nature so peace can be brought from within everyone instead of something being imposed trough regulations. You should have at least some respect for this view, Zizek.
So, coming back to the first point of critique on Zizek, when one is truly happy, what is there to do other then maintain this happiness? Or bring about happiness in the world around you? Any objection to this argument, means you haven't discovered your happiness yet.
Surely, Zizek, this world is in chaos. But I think you see organising this chaos too much as a burden instead of a pleasure; after all your organising is bringing about happiness.
Also, I have something to say about the part where Peterson states that people will always be looking to have the adventure of their lives. In Buddhism adventure isn't taken away. It just states that before going on adventure, make sure you prepared well. This means: truly know yourself. And when one truly knows oneself, one might ask what is the purpose of a wild adventure when it will only harm you on the long run? Your body is to be charished and not to be used like some crash dummy from time to time. So do your Yoga and meditation. Maybe some Shaolin Kung Fu and feel life. Feel nature. Feel good; feel God.
Reconnect. Reconsile.
May you realize you are peace itself🙏❤️
Very bold of Peterson to post this video where he shows he has no idea what he is talking about
Bolder than you posting a comment doing the same thing 😂😂
changed my political views ten times during the debate
Oh man, I laughed at your comment because I know exactly what you mean despite it being a joke. I think its part of being intellectually honest and being willing to follow an argument that doesnt agree with an existing belief to its logical conclusion. Along the way, it can seem that a convincing argument is correct. But its this leaving room for allowing the possibleity you might be wrong that lets in the light of truth.
@@Canadian_Eh_I Yeah, I agree:) Also, it's quite easy to be open-minded with them because you naturally assume that they both have fine things to say
@@Canadian_Eh_I no it just means you have no truly thought out opinion of your own so you can pursuaded by any argument for any side as long as it sounds right.
@@Mitch-Cumstein hella cringe comment bro, you'll rejoice when you finally understand that you don't just have to stick to one black and white viewpoint your whole life. Acknowledging and understand and even agreeing with someone when they explain their reasoning for a certain issue or topic is the beauty of politics and social discussion
@@JuiceBarMEIGHT ok bro
Asking Zizek if he's a communist or a marxist, is like asking Peterson if he believes in god.
He is openly a communist.
Peterson actually gave a good, detailed explanation on his stance (finally!) -- search for "Who dares say he believes in God?"
He's a hkqxkhzqkhegelian more than a marxhkqzkhist
@@Random_Number One of his best videos!
He was a liberal member of the former Yugoslav communist party and he frequently talks about how he refers to himself as 'communist' and 'socialist' in order to 'stir things up a bit'. You can see it in his call for 'improving capitalism' in this video.
Sylvester the cat Vs Kermit the Frog.
The second peterson says something to the effect of "Its like Marx never even considered nature" ...just admit you didnt read the book
Zizek didn’t defend it though. And instead of calling himself a Marxist he criticized elements of its Naïveté. He probably never read the twilight series either- bunch of nonsense regardless.
You're not supposed to applaud at these kind of debates
true, unfortunately we are in 2019 the society of the show where most of the people here are for the show like it's a boxing match, after here they will go back to their phones and tweet and put useless information on social media till they are old and die! most of the people here are dead already, they are clapping cause without reacting they don't pay attention to anything even to themselves.
@@koppanine3001 interesting how America elected a president that reflects exactly what you've described. I guess that Trump was a good choice after all.
@Estwing Bear another day, another conservatard owned epic style.
The applauding made me cringe a little
Estwing Bear I guess you don’t understand context, it’s coo
The audience wanted a fight that was never going to take place. Instead what ensued was a polite and well thought-out discussion.
Jack Klachian yes, they wanted blood in the same way the Roman’s wanted to see blood in The Coliseum.
Audience can't reach the level
So great with these two, who, you can imagine, could well have spent the next four hours continuing this discussion over a few cognacs.
There is nothing more beautiful then two intelectuals from the opposite sides of the political spectrum finding moments of agreement
Peterson chose to adress the communist Manifesto instead of das Kapital, Marx opus Magnum. That says a lot.
His first argument is literally based on idealism, the idea that an idea comes from nothing. (Simplified)
Had he studied Marx and dialectical materialism that wouldn't happen 🤡
His second argument is literally a fallacy, he is literally appealing to nature wtf?
The class struggle is not a thing exclusive to capitalism "hierto so far the history of mankind is the history of class struggle"
Then he appeals to the fact that we are born defenseless and lonely in a harsh environment.
Marx literally explained how our environments and our physiological necessities are the force behind our mode of production.
Then he says it's hard to divide who's the opressor and who's the oppressed. Its not, if you own the means of production and you employ someone , you're the opressor.
Even if small.
Then he goes on about historical revisionism about the October revolution .
Has nobody sheds tears for the dead confederates nobody should for white army and foreigner invasors .
Then he mentions good and evil but had he read Marx would know that he makes no moral judgement at all.
Then he distorts what the proletariat dictatorship really is. It means only those who work hold political power.
Then he distorts what profit is.
Profit is not needed AT ALL.
That's capitalist thinking .
Profit is theft because the owner takes advantage of the workers fragile position in order to buy their work force for the minimum they can. Marx also shows how the production forces and relationships lead to a lose lose situation for the workers (read lonharbeit und kapital)
Then he mentions utopia failing to understand that what Marx proposed is called scientific socialism instead of utopian socialism that preceded Marx
Then he mentions Dostoievski as if it was relevant. In socialism nobody will have nothing handed to them.
He mentions the violent revolution, Marx also explained why it would be violent.
The bourgeoisie class won't give up on their privileges without a fight.
That happened in Chile with Allende for example.
Then he literally invented facts.
Socialist China has lifted 800M people from poverty. Actually if you take China out of the equation, poverty has gotten worse
He recurrently uses multiple fallacies.
He is an imposter
Marx is considered the father of modern philosophy. Let that sink if you think Jordan bs peterson could ever criticize his work. Specially without reading it AT ALL
If you were jp why would you post this
*Zizek to crowd* : please don't clap
*Crowd* : proceeds to clap
@Comrade ChernobylKathy Newman : so.....um......
.....are you saying you want women to be silent?!
Makes sense cause you should generally do the opposite that a communist says you should.
@@DVHeld wisdom for the ages
@@thegreataugust327 its Zizek so she would probably be on her knees saying yes daddy.
@Comrade Chernobyl LOL
Both of these men are amazing but I laughed out loud when I wondered: What would it sound if a Slavic Daffy Duck and Canadian Kermit had a debate?
that's well funny bro
You're dethpicable!
Reported hate crime
That made me laugh out loud as well
Zizek sounds like he has shit in his mouth the entire time. Very hard to understand.
I'm just going to listen to the audio and pretend it's Sylvester the cat versus Kermit the frog.
Dude you killed me.
This video has gotten like 5 good comments and this is one of them
Did Petterson ever read Marxs? Cause like there's more than 2 classes and he never attributed a moral level too Capitalism he simply documented its tendencies and made predictions of where it would end up arguing against anarchist and conservatives.
Nah he probably just saw all the hundreds of millions of people murdered by Marxists in the past century and thought, “I’m good”
"Guys stop clapping this is serious!"
*claps in agreement*
dude, zizek is 70 here... I never thought he was so much older than Jordan. I wish to have such energy and wit at his age.
wow i wouldve never guessed he would be that old
@@mutd789hgmlkrt7 yup, he is now 72
Crazy! He appears much younger to me.
@@Inbraneinthememsane he's not fit, he just doesnt look his age.
Well yeah, the guy dedicated his life to thinking his way out of doing any work. If your only stressor was selling revarnished ideals to college kids you'd be looking younger too.
Peterson doesnt understand Marx at all.
Such a pleasure to listen to both charismatic thinkers. Thank you for your dialogue! It's a treasure ❤️
I was waiting for the part the moderate will say :"but first,a word from our sponsor, Raid Shadow Legend"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I laughed so hard I woke up my roomate at 3 A"M good job
He says it towards end of video
killed it!
XD
"so on" vs "that's that"
that can be translated into "im too dumb to understand anything so i waste my time picking these catch phrases and comment about it here so everybody else knows im dumb"
@@roye6961 rude
No not rude, not politically correct either, but the truth.
Please ! Could we have more conversations like this !!!
This audience is immature and beyond frustrating. Keep your mouths shut, it's not a football game or comedy stand up routine.
It will be nice to finally listen to this debate with a proper audio. No more JBP sounding like Optimus Prime and Zizek sounding like a Bond villain from the 60s.
Thank you Jordan, Son of Peter.
Audio is still terrible.
Zizek needs a fuckin de-esser and a pop filter I think.
Thing is, Zizek always sounds like a Bond villain from the 60s.
and jordan still sounds like kermit :D
@@retiredshitposter1062 Really? Methinks you watched too many kiddie shows.
I was waiting for Zizek to do my favorite move, the double handed sniff followed by facepalm combo
wow
*IL VENTO D ORO PLAYS FURIOUSLY*
That comment is so much under the belt line yet so comical.... I cried laughing!
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@Yetipfote does anyone else notice that it is indicative of opiate abuse?
I've seen many of professor peterson's debates but I've never seen him so much enjoying the opponent.
He was getting schooled 🙃
Peterson chose to adress the communist Manifesto instead of das Kapital. That says a lot.
His first argument is literally based on idealism, the idea that an idea comes from nothing. (Simplified)
Had he studied Marx and dialectical materialism that wouldn't happen 🤡
His second argument is literally a fallacy, he is literally appealing to nature wtf?
The class struggle is not a thing exclusive to capitalism "hierto so far the history of mankind is the history of class struggle"
Then he appeals to the fact that we are born defenseless and lonely in a harsh environment.
Marx literally explained how our environments and our physiological necessities are the force behind our mode of production.
Then he says it's hard to divide who's the opressor and who's the oppressed. Its not, if you own the means of production and you employ someone , you're the opressor.
Even if small.
Then he goes on about historical revisionism about the October revolution .
Has nobody sheds tears for the dead confederates nobody should for white army and foreigner invasors .
Then he mentions good and evil but had he read Marx would know that he makes no moral judgement at all.
Then he distorts what the proletariat dictatorship really is. It means only those who work hold political power.
Then he distorts what profit is.
Profit is not needed AT ALL.
That's capitalist thinking .
Profit is theft because the owner takes advantage of the workers fragile position in order to buy their work force for the minimum they can. Marx also shows how the production forces and relationships lead to a lose lose situation for the workers (read lonharbeit und kapital)
Then he mentions utopia failing to understand that what Marx proposed is called scientific socialism instead of utopian socialism that preceded Marx
Then he mentions Dostoievski as if it was relevant. In socialism nobody will have nothing handed to them.
He mentions the violent revolution, Marx also explained why it would be violent.
The bourgeoisie class won't give up on their privileges without a fight.
That happened in Chile with Allende for example.
Then he literally invented facts.
Socialist China has lifted 800M people from poverty. Actually if you take China out of the equation, poverty has gotten worse
He recurrently uses multiple fallacies.
He is an imposter
Marx is considered the father of modern philosophy. Let that sink if you think Jordan bs peterson could ever criticize his work. Specially without reading it AT ALL
This conversation is one of those graces you've both mentioned. Thank you.
One might think that. Jordan Peterson is a fraud. The fact that some people still mistake him for an intellectual still baffles me. Talking about a large variety of topics and being articulate doesnt make u an intellectual. Also constantly calling yourself a sientist and reading one or two studys doesnt make you a sientist. He may be a good psychiatrist (i cant tell), but he should stay away from economics and politics. If you read this and disagree because you bought one of his books and feel enlightend, do a 30 min research and then comment.
@@wirdjadochnichts Firstly, a person who is not capable of some proper spelling shouldn't be lecturing on what is academic or what not. Secondly, I haven't read his books, but those of Zizek. You might not be aware of, but both gentlemen are academic thinkers and have been at some point lecturing at prestigious universities. You may think what you want about them, you're entitled to your opinion, it's just that facts won't change because of that.
@@gborsonello Iam from germany and still learning english, but i have no trouble understanding them.
I wasnt claiming that he is not academic and i dont think that only academics should be allowed to talk about these topics.
What bothers me is his poor unserstanding of how to interpret sientific data.
People seem to be so impressed by his titles that they dont bother to question his methods. Also the topics he often talks about are not relatet to what he is teaching at universities.
@@wirdjadochnichts so, again, you are entitled to your opinion. Anyone can decide where and how to engage in the subjects they want. Just like you are doing.
Grussen aus Niederland.
@@gborsonello bro tried to be dunk of his spelling and nothing else lmao
I'm a Canadian/Toronto resident. Thank you for this thoughtful debate and for a well spent 3 hours. I applaud you. Silently. In my head.
Very underrated comment
7:50 For the beginning of the event. You're welcome.
I don't know either one but before they even spoke I could tell which one was the the socialist and which was the capitalist just by their hair cut and attire.
@@waynet2165 why is this not a main comment but a reply?
@@GeoffreyHellington Not sure - I hope this is not a problem
@@waynet2165 I'm sorry, but it is simply inexcusable
Why on earth did they leave 7 minutes of nothing.
How refreshing it is to see 2 adults with different views on a topic be polite to one another and be willing to hear the other out and have an intelligent discussion without the incessant bombardments of ad-hominems, and other such childish bullshit that we see all too much nowadays when 2 opposing views clash with one another.
If all conversations we had were devoid of this narcissistic, self-righteous one-sidedness, we could perhaps start taking steps forward and mature as a society, but alas, we are humans and thus imperfect; to expect this wishful-thinking to come to fruition any time soon is futile at best.
The loud moneky-laughter during key moments beautifully reveals the immaturity of Peterson's haters
JP: "I'm gonna destroy all his Marxist beliefs."
Zizek: *agrees with him*
JP: *surprised Pikachu face*
Best comment so far xD
I was also quite shocked when Zizek disagreed with Marx in a debate where he's defending marxism. Still, respect to Zizek for acknowledging the critiques of Marx.
I’d love to just hear these guys have chat with each other...I think they’re on the same page for a lot of this!
@@Etazoz Die you hear Zizek for the first time?
I think that Dr. Peterson didn't know where Zizek stood. I think this conversation would of been more helpful if Zizek went first (in my opinion).
Never cringed harder in my life than at this audience applauding titles.
WOOOOOOOOO
Yeeeeaaah you have a degree wooooo
so painful to listen to ^^ Like it's a wrestling match OMG! (1:19:50)
@@SirClaymore94 omg no one else has degree AHHHHHH OMG WOOOOO
well i cringed harder when the cheered murder/violent revolution
This is like Aristotle vs Diogenes debate and I'm so grateful it happened during my lifetime.
Clearly some of the audiences had trouble interpreting human emotion. Dr. Peterson and Dr. Zizek shows clear signs of unsatisfaction and distraction when the crowd cheers. Yet, they continue to release their hysterical laughter. What a shame.
So annoying
Laughter is a natural way of dealing with an embarrassing situation.
And you also know how much they cheered for JP. I wonder who is being disrespectful 🙄🙄🙄🤔🤔🤔
They cant see the faces
It says this is at the “Sony center” whatever that is. So maybe it’s just normal people attending who aren’t normally interested in lectures or debates and don’t understand the etiquette
Soviet daffy duck debates canadian kermit the frog.
Actually fax
Absolute on point, laughed so fucking hard at this. Astute observation.
you nailed it!
The perfect comment
Not so perfect, but still plausible.