Jordan Peterson & Slavoj Zizek- "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 апр 2019
- On April 19th, 2019, psychologist Jordan Peterson debated philosopher Slavoj Žižek in Toronto on the topic "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism", The debate was held in front of a sold-out audience.
These people didn't come for a debate, they wanted wrestlemania.
And you’re above all that, I’m sure.
I'll admit I came bc of the memes. But having a certain lightheartedness about stuff has really helped the cultural problems across the western world in my opinion. Stunted dialogue has been overcome thanks to meme culture. Nothing like a shitpost to break the ice and let people interact outside their bubbles on the same plane. Sure it's important to take things seriously, but having people from the "opposing" sides join in a shared event is a good step to making hardened fronts more malleable.
If partisans of opposing sides can make each other laugh, then there's a spark of hope for coming together from both sides. Mind the killjoys, they are not to be trusted.
@Franz Meier >> Agree. Just watching the end of the 20th century/beginning of the 21st are deadly serious ideologues. Marxism/communism, Nazism, fascism, socialism...All forms of collectivism. Mao/China, Lenin-Stalin/Russia, Hitler/Germany, Pol Pot/Cambodia, Castro/Cuba, Ceausescu/Roumanis
@Franz Meier >> Wanted to add Jung il to the 3rd generation/North Korea. Etc., Also wanted to add that hundreds of millions dead due to these dictators and despots. Ideologies that became more important than individuals. So, yes, a lighter touch is the better way to go.
@Kalash >> My "kind?" There you go. You've already got "an us vs them" mindset. You're on your way.
Zizek : Stop cheering. This is important debate.
*Crowd cheers
Yeah the audience was really immature
Kermit the Frog vs. Cookie Monster. Nice.
I actually came back to this comment after I realized how great it is
Crowd still confused: "I thought I'd see these two going for each other's jugulars."
Peterson and Zizek: slowly fade away into the sunset holding hands.
It's a blessing to have so many interesting conversations nowadays to check out and at the same time it's the curse of platforms like youtube that make many people think a productive discussion would be like a kind of wrestling match where someone must be "owned" or is "destroyed".
The winner is the viewer, when you have new insights, new arguments against or for your own point of view.
Even if a person, or oneself, clearly dominates a discussion / debate, it is always more productive to allow the other person to still have room for their view, to remain friendly, and to show honest respect. Of course with honest I do not mean arrogant or condescending. People will deny facts, even if they are true, logically, important, if you're an asshole.
Maybe because they're both striving for the same goal which is happiness.
i want a netflix series of those 2 talking
Zizek had the whole dictionnary printed on 1 peice of paper😂
Zizek: interrupts Peterson. Proceeds to violently agree with him.
I dont think you have to agree with someone to appriciate their original thought. These two men are heroes to me. Yet they can't be more different from eachother. Very inspiring. Thank you.
Perhaps if you got yourself an education you might realise that the day of the hero is long, long gone.
This is a great debate/discussion between two mature intellectuals, a model for the means by which differences of opinion should be approached with a goal of, if not resolution, at least mutual respect and tolerance.
Unfortunately, that requires intellectuals and disposition of the tribalistic dichotomies that currently envelope the current socio-economic clashes, that are upheld as the be all and end all, of all discourse.
Download this talk before it's too late. The other video here on youtube that had some 38K likes have literally just now been claimed by DV Media and is no longer available.
Somebody wrote timecodes for that one, what a shame
Ah I was wondering what happened? I was halfway through and then it disappeared.
hey thnx a lot man. i did it
i hate when knowledge is becoming a comodity for the rich
knowledge should be free
Tina Hosseini Petersen disagrees with you.
Zizek quoting Metallica haha !
"Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel
Is just a freight train coming your way" No leaf Clover - Metallica
This is one of the best debates I have seen in recent years. I mean what else can you ask for? Two completely polar intellectuals going to the heart of today's issue with modern media and societal happiness at large and agreeing on an intellectual level on the profound truths behind the façade. It was not a battle of egos but rather reaching an understanding to a very complex set of problems humanity is facing. We have become so used to this 'I am right and you're a nazi if you disagree with me' narrative that we never actually stop to consider that we agree on many of the dire times that face us, just not on a common solution. If we would bitch less about being correct an focus more on seeing how we can solve the damn problem by adopting our responsibilities with ourselves and our responsibility within the collective, then things would be working toward being solved quicker than they are now.
And mind you- I am also entirely against communism, and yet I thought Dr. Zizek's argument was stellar and engaging. I've had a complicated relationship in my mind with his figure, but at least he is smart enough to accept the damage that Communism has brought upon the world, while still holding his ground on his views against the wretched consumerism that unbridled Capitalism creates. Being honest in that way is admirable, and I wish that the left would use more of this logic (and read a bit about what the fuck kind of ideology is that they support) instead of resorting to emotional arguments which could get a lot of people in trouble in the long run.
This seems like a good faith analysis, so I'll reply in kind. I think the first part of the critique is interesting - because its obvious when you get beyond the superficial promotion of this debate as some form of mortal clash between radically opposed ideologies, that there would be points of confluence. I think, tentatively, that even those on the alt-right - once they've jettisoned the facile and juvenile thinking of an identitarianism that mirrors their sjw opposites, may eventually come round to realise that their grievances derive primarily from economic exploitation. However, I don't think Peterson's reply to Zizek's question was adequate. It was exactly the only question I had for him as well. How is the academic culture of American and western universities, with their preoccupation with identity politics, in any way marxist AND postmodern. This association is facile, unintelligible and completely ignores the philosophical genealogies of both positions. At first I thought Peterson was making this absurd cultural marxism/post-modernism equivalency argument deliberately to ride the wave of reactionary anti-intellectualism that has brought him fame and recognition - however after hearing his answer, its clear he's genuinely confused and ill-informed. In no way does the post-modernist intellectual culture of identity politics in the academy reflect any form of cultural 'marxism'. This an absurd proposition. it is, as Zizek noted, an expression of liberal (democratic) hyper-moralisation, and a retreat from the terrain of actual revolutionary thought- its an expression of impotence, a consolation. This is 'the left' that you and many others have constructed - they have no interest in dismantling capitalism, and are not communists. They are more concerned with recognition by the Big Other of capitalist society - they went to catered to as consumers; more representation, more consumer products, more everything that will make them forget that system they tacitly accept will bring them nothing but misery.
@@rabdouglas3018 So the fact that 25% of social scientists went right over your head and Zizek´s too.
These questions are not important at all..We have so much bigger problems in this world today.Politics is just representer of human soul-when it changes,politics is changed too..And yet,they are talking about past,spending time digging graveyards,with not enough sharpened eyes to see pure bones..
Only worth thing was that one side is bad and the other one is apsolute good..The idea that I thought of hundreds of times..of which Nietzsche had told us..Really not understanding these people lost in transience,enthustiasted about public,clapping crowd,money and faculties(who would else be crazy to let the third guy to list those things as success)..
@@the_billionaire_way You talk a lot but say nothing. Maybe you should go and try to become a Politician.
Could someone re-upload this with the audience muted?
I dare Zizek to say sassafras
You're a piece of shit.
kernelsanders szchaszchafrrraszch *wipes saliva off face*
kernelsanders funny
And yet with his lisp or speech impediment or whatever is causing his over abundance of saliva; he could blow away 95 % of the world in critical thinking and intellectual dialogue !
I’ll take a two piece extra crispy with a side of coleslaw Kernel !!!!
Damn, I thought watching this would be like reading through a math textbook, but it was surprising pleasant to listen to. I enjoyed it thoroughly, found several points made very interesting, and even found myself laughing at some well made jokes. Thank you to everyone involved in making this happen.
Such a kind and spirited debate. :)
The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored inquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientist will call 'The problem of happiness' - in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude. Aldous Huxley 1946
The audience think they're watching married with children.
Haha..What a good show!
This debate was not in the same depth by both speakers. Žižek went couple of layers deeper. So if i would want to conclude, which of the two people looks happier to me It is Žižek. He looks to me less concerned about his mimic, looks, appearance, wealth. So i would like to have what Žižek is having :). Based on comparing this two speakers.
Well if you call "depth" the act of wandering and not finishing a point on the subject I can give you that.
Gabriel Couto you are correct. I rather dont stick to a point, since i think that most of the points that humans stuck to changed to shit anyway so why should we be so obsessed whith sticking to a point. I dont like shit.
Appearance is not everything. Behind the scenes, and when he's not being compared to HITLER, Peterson could be a happier person. And in the past he was much, much happier. I remember a live stream where he briefly mentioned his wife and his face went beaming.
I'm not paying as much attention to him anymore, mainly due to his religion injections, and my getting annoyed at his fallacious Appeal to Fiction, but now he looks washed out.
Think you've totally missed the point here.
So you based yourself on appearances.
Žižek had a friend in Rome by the name of biggus dickus.
Stil worth it with subtitles. He got some good points.
🤣🤣🤣
@Ywe 88 Watch "The Life of Brian".
Yeah my pea brain was working hard enough to try process the actual content of his words let alone the actual words. But can’t blame him, it’d be his second language so who am I to criticise.
@@ssmidy7500
I speak 3 languages and I'm not a public speaker. Maybe he has the same speech impediment when speaking russian as well...
onpsxmember yeah good point didn’t consider that
Integrity and respect are the two words I carry from this debate
and a useless conversation about pseudo philosophical applications.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 wut? A friend of mine translated "pseudo-intellectual" to me as basically translating to thought processes that are not leftist, but unfortunately don't know the meaning of "pseudo philosophical" yet.
@@udopadrik9971 pseudo intellectual has nothing to do with political affiliation.
Its the empty rhetoric performance aiming to impress the ignorant.
Here is a really good definition
" pseudointellectual (plural pseudointellectuals) A person who claims proficiency in scholarly or artistic activities while lacking in-depth knowledge or critical understanding. A person who pretends to be of greater intelligence than he or she in fact is."
@@udopadrik9971 Now about pseudo philosophy, I will present Richard Carriers definition.
"PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY IS...Philosophy that:
- relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion.
- relies on factually false or undemonstrated premises, by ignoring one of the six basic steps of philosophy.
-promotes a worldview as a technical application or a solution.
-And isn't corrected when noted.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Well, to be fair, by defining "pseudo-intellectual" my friend probably was saying how it was usually used in every-day circumstances. It's sort of an "end all statement", that doesn't seem to need any explanation. From some point intellectuals are just "pseudo-intellectuals" and their words and ideas don't matter, and just the label of "pseudo-intellectual" without any explanation, is to render all of their deeds not valuable enough to consider at all.
Although, haven't seen "pseudo-intellectual" pop up in this comment section, have seen it used to describe Dr. Peterson multiple times, so will just post my follow-up question here. Is the communication with general populace automatically dumb or useless, or does the act of trying to "appeal" to them, make the whole effort valueless? The trying to appeal to them part seems problematic to me, some people try to appeal to people by not communicating and just dealing in things "people wouldn't understand", to seem deep and get their credit for that in specific or not so specific crowds. It's a proven way to get chicks to notice You. My problem is, how would one go about and determining if someone is just appealing to the population with fancy words? And to what extent communication is at all possible without appealing to the people you are communicating with?
The next debate we need is between Zizek and radical leftists
Zizek is a radical leftist, he is just an intelligent person with common sense, what all leftists must be.
@@davidfigueiredo9456 doesn't the concept of commom sense negate radicalism, just cause he's as dar left as you're willing to go doesn't by any means make him radical.
Ig Uana hmm i dont think so, radical leftist is more like a perjorative term today, bue the concept of being radical is opposing fiercly the status Squo, in this sense, so yeah, i think u can be a radical and have a lot of Common sente, but, like everyone else, most of the times im wrong.
@@davidfigueiredo9456 definitely one of the most revisionist communist thinkers out there though
Ig Uana yeah definetly agree with you there
There should be more people like him, although his intellect is a very rare thing
one of my favorite debate.
I needed that. 🙂
Big fan of Peterson, gained a lot of respect for Zizek. Lovely conversation, very refreshing.
Twat..the venn diagram for being a big fan of JP and living through a computer or being an incel is a circle
@@mowad9405 Your comment was very thoughtful and not remotely a symptom of being a pathetic and bitter human being
@@joe-un1ky thanks bro! Ditto
@@mowad9405I know this sounds revolutionary, but you don't have to be a moron just because everyone else isn't as miserable as you.
@@luki907 how is saying JP is a bad actor, aggrandized self help guru with reactionary, weird, socially detached fandom make me miserable? Here a better revolutionary idea: don't make idols of morons
Who are these people? The crowd I mean. I'm only at Zizeks introduction and that crowd is embarrasing themselves.
everybody quickly mirror this video before they delete it
Everybody here is bitching and moaning about the audience cheering like this debate is a sports match.
You guys honestly fail to see that this means that the common person is getting more involved in thought debates.
This is a very good thing for society at large.
At those ticket prices I wouldn't say these people were that 'common'.
The Cat he means it’s not just typical intellectual types. Which is good because more people should engage with these ideas.
Eh, engagement doesn't mean much. Research on political partisans shows you don't change your mind during debates, at best you rate the other side neutrally.
More engagement can mean bigger echo chambers.
The crowd applauding is seriously annoying. They show just how superficial most people's understanding really is.
If you would have been there, you also would have applauded if someone deserved it, either for a joke, a wisdom or a sharp critic...
at 2:09:18 what´s the book that Zizek mentions?
Wow interesting debate
Is there a way to mute the crowd
Is there a transcript in text form somewhere ? I did not manage to find one yet anywhere... ?
You know that bit when Zizek claps when the people claps at him but Peterson don´t, he just stands and recive the aplause, is a total different position, the message of Zizek is "I´m one of you... and so on". I´m not saying one is better than the other. Is in this type of ditails when you see the freudian universal abstraction difference between the two.
Perspective is everything
Take a drink every time Zizek touches his nose.
Or each time he licks his mouth..
too much cocaine or amphetamines
You're gonna get people killed with this game.
Or his shirt
amazing.
Whoa, whoa. Jordan Peterson vs Slavoj Zizek??? That is fucking epic, thank you.
China!! I didn't mean to celebrate it. It worries me terribly. My God, is this our future?
@Shuan He call me naive but As an ethic Chinese I think it would be great if China dominated the world. Hail victory.
Kieran Rob, nah bro. Sucks to live in China.
That's somewhat sad and a bit disturbing that the absolutely simple things told by Slavoj Žižek are seen as something enlightening to the most of the people in the audience. It's as if most of the people choose to not see the truth and just want to be blinded by the media without even trying to think, hear or investigate certain constructs further.
Peterson's criticism of Marx's critique profit, abstract labour and decision making sort of flies in the face of the Animal Farm phenomena. Animal Farm gives a very clear mechanism of how capitalistic tyranny propagates if left unchecked. His criticism of a general lack of mechanism for anything - even for how the proleteriat is to assume control of a complex economy - is very valid. But to expect a complete and coherent strategy from just a manifesto is a bit much. As someone who studied in a Marxian school of economics, I can concur that generally there is more about what is wrong than about how to fix things in Marxian theory. Indeed, the literature is limited on how to bring about the conditions in which economic inequality & social iniquity can be obviated. The Neo-Marxian & heterodox schools of economics are however now beginning to fill these gaps.
What strikes me above all about the debate that I don't think is apparent in any of the reflections on it is, the work Zizek does is not about giving answers to problems like Peterson does.
For him It is imperative for your personal freedom to be trusted to arrive at something 'freely', what he calls being forced to be free, out of complicit and happy unfreedom, by the necessities and truths that are out there.
It's important to understand, for example, why Zizek didn't respond to Petersons reading of the Communist Manifesto. It's his job to reveal how the way questions are asked can be a part of the problem they relate to. The way Peterson frames his questions is where the fundamental difference lies. The fact they both target the left liberal establishment ivory tower does not give them as much common ground as you would think. Although Peterson recognizes existential and religious problems (finally) within the sort of liberal circles, (before it was Dawkins and Hitchens with their fundamentalist atheism, a zealous and childish world view), he still frames it as if he needs an imaginary spectre of a 'Marxist' to sustain his ego, his assaults etc. Zizek does not need this, because this is ideology that he has learned to identify his whole life, just like antisemitism in Nazi times and before; essentialist narriatives that create an external threat as a cover for the inner contradictions that re-produce the situation through their constant repetition.
For example, my critique of Peterson is he is a defender of a certain capitalist social order, but he problematizes things like growing gender dysphoria, the power plays of women in the workplace, the behaviour of academics, in a way that really does the same thing: the question really should be what is it in the capitalist social order within which westerners live that leads to these problems. He seems to me a capitalist ideologue who benefits from the decays of capitalism, lost boys, dissolution of patriarchal order and authority. And the joke is.. Marx, members of the Frankfurt School, Marcell Mauss, Levi Strauss, Jaq Lacan, all themselves in the shadow of Hegel, have developoed incredible insight into how these problems arise from within in ways that simply grow more relevant while the youtube market of ideas is still like.. centuries behind.. One simple quote, from Marx, not one of the american academics who claim to be Marxist but who benefit from the comforts of a neoliberal institution "All that is solid melts into air under capitalism". (think here: solid, lets say lobsteresque, 'natural' relationships like family relations, marriage relations, sex relations, power relations).
In light of this, to me Peterson projects this fantasy of a stable social order when commodity exchange is the stage in human history where precicely these things stop mattering in the ways they did. If he wants to criticize these things why the external threats of nobody academics who no one reads other than other academics, when the symptoms of the
proliferations of images that bombard us to 'be ourselves' 'make something of ourselves' 'be our own people' 'climb up to the top' show THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE MARKET IS TO RUPTURE CONVENTIONAL 'LOBSTER' HIERARCHIES. The IDW criticize equality. But so did Marx; he is not an
egalitarian. What the IDW cannot see, like a blind spot, is that we are all equal IN THE EYES OF THE MARKET. That's why the workforce was opened up to women.. the market didn't care about culture. it needed workers. So why do the IDW not see just how blind their operations are?
You're saying Peterson, and those like him on the new right, are fighting the effects of commidification yet upholding the cause of the commidification, i.e. capitalism.
This is so true.Thank you for this thoughful observation.
Many "post-modern" thinkers have given us an excellent framework by which to understand the very post-Death of God landscape Peterson describes we're in, yet he attacks them because they preferred much of this landscape, instead of appreciating the interpretive framework independent of their preferences.
Are you familiar with any Neo-Absolutist arguments from a post-modern perspective? I'd recommend you check out RUclipsr TrueDilTom, who makes precisely such arguments.
@Abe Mitchell "I DoNt LiKe YoUr GrAmMar"
Lol this is a RUclips comment. This is the internet. Embrace the autism.
You offered 0 substance in your reply, only High School English teacher level derps.
"IDW" stands for Intellectual Dark Web, a group of RUclipsrs/podcasters that were named such by a well-known NYT (this stands for New York Times, by the way) article.
Obviously the OP's (original poster) comment was not for the likes of you. It was intended for those more familiar with JBP (Jordan B. Peterson) and his associated internet crowd, and those with a deeper understanding of the ideologies that influence them.
Any semantic and/or grammatical critique of this comment will confirm you being a beta-male boomer.
Abe Mitchell ha ha. it's a copypasta so the format was a little scrambled but i stand by my points. It's not my fault you're more interested the in surface than the logic.
I was writing in a sort of flow to get my thoughts out in the open. I can put very clearly what I mean, although it is already implicit. For someone who read the words there is no discussion of the points, so i wonder if you are really reading... Just a childish, you likey me likey.
Peterson decries the effects of the system he defends and offloads the 'true cause' from within to without, as kiniving envious academics in some sort of high school reading of Nietzsche.
For his issues, Marx was right about this: capitalism is the point in history that the lobster hierarchy in humans loses all relevance. The fact the individual can rupture hierarchy and self make is intrinsic to that. Yes echoes of previous modes of exchange exist within commodity exchange. But they are oft hollowed out and rendered nothing but surface, what tradition is to religion etc.
The by product of this hierarchy shattering moment the market establishes is the dissolution of other 'natural' relationships like man-woman, or self-gender role. I won't go into it but if you're remotely interested do yourself a favour and read about it. You didn't address this point.
@Abe Mitchell or, to simply quote my 'garbled mess', i'd like you to respond to this fundamental flaw in Peterson's thought:
"In light of this, to me Peterson projects this fantasy of a stable social order when commodity exchange is the stage in human history where precicely these things stop mattering in the ways they did. If he wants to criticize these things why the external threats of nobody academics who no one reads other than other academics, when the symptoms of the proliferations of images that bombard us to 'be ourselves' 'make something of ourselves' 'be our own people' 'climb up to the top' show THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE MARKET IS TO RUPTURE CONVENTIONAL 'LOBSTER' HIERARCHIES. "
Oh and IDW is the Intellectual Dark Web, to answer your question.
P.S:
My very first point is how Zizek is not interested in giving answers to morons. Yet you proceed to give the ususal 'oh he didn't answer this and he has no answers for that' fuck you! did you understand nothing! are you so happy in your complicit unfreedom? jesus christ! if Zizek attacks good! what good can come of this sort of idiocy? Looking for answers from others is the ultimate stupidity...
@@EVROPAEAESTHETICA
Thank you for clearly reading and interacting with the logic of my comment. It's not supposed to be perfect but it raises what I think is a serious question. And I appreciate your point about how Peterson also decries frameworks established by postmodern writers rather than appreciating their significance. I wouldn't exclude the possibility he even benefits from them.. his relativism and existentialism aren't his own. The quite literal replacement of God with the market as a moment in western history requires serious interpretation.
I spent last night exploring TDT's channel and found myself interested overall. The subjects explored are more serious than many on youtubes 'market of ideas'. But I'm not infatuated.
I think I'll follow, as it relates to a problem I have been thinking about but, I don't think it goes far enough.
The return to a sort of acceptance of the necessity of authority is definately a difficult question especially after the death of the signifier of authority.. the great opening that makes for establishing true freedom.. Neo Absolutism seems to opt for accepting the need for central authority. I understand it in the context that, for true freedom to exist you need a high functioning background to allow that freedom. Otherwise there is only survival. My intervention is that this authority should have no anthropomorphic qualities.
Also on a return to some primordial truth (in your case central authority(?)), humanity doesn't begin with the invention of class divisions. It begins in a more free, autonomous and co-operative fashion. Language, the Gift, Art. They necessarily preceed the market and the city. It was with rise of fixed settlements and cities that the consolidation of wealth and power began classifying people in such a way. But 'Isonomic' societies have existed, although they are rare. I would prefer an infrastructure that facilitates Isonomia over some form of absolute monarchy, although i admit there would need to be a relationship between a global political body and the generation of individual freedom. The manner these issues are resolved is crucial!
Came here for Jordan Peterson, midway into the video I'm supporting both of them. We'll see how it evolves for the rest of the video but damn these people are so amazing to listen to.
What is the word he says after mentioning Jean Piaget at 2:27:47, "Jean Piaget and his idea of xxxxx states"??
Equilibriated?
@2:09:20 - What book is Zizek referring to? Something Orthodox? Small book? Anyone?
Chesterton - Orthodoxy
i love how they love to hate JBP, and Zizek not really gave them the desired satisfaction
Peterson: „ Not just (Marxist) Revolution, but bloody violent revolution.“ Marxists in the audience cheer. Peterson nods incredulously. 22:45
David Jerome Putnam scary
Political systems are replaced through violence sorry that your feelings got hurt
@@diavasmamevroxi For me, it's just Peterson thinking "Aha, things haven't changed since the Russian Revolution or the rise of the Nazi (=national-socialist) Hitler Youth (who are very similar to the rude Antifa now)."
@@DavidJeromePutnam Bro the russian revolution had nothing to do with hitler youth, the tsar was just picking randoms and excecuting them for being revolutionaries and gunning down whoever opposed him, Hitler just excecuted people just because he believed in conspiracy theories. One was revolution for freedom and the other was revolution for genocide. Just cringing in the thought of a revolution is moronic, the only reason the US exists is because of a revolution
@@diavasmamevroxi he never said it had to do with one another
The audience members who attempted to "clap a competition" were acting like children, especially since both speakers basically agree. One wonders what the clapper-competition section of the audience were doing listening to philosophy since they don't seem to have the character necessary to begin thinking outside of themselves to analyze and understand human character. Thankfully, Slavoj set them straight. In 2019, Slavoj (around 1:47) states that he doesn't believe the element of the culture who we call Leftists, have any genuine will to change society. In 2021, it's very clear that they are.
2:32:32 that moment when yo tell a really good joke, but no one gets it.
I don't as well. Can you elaborate?
The audience shouldnt holler and hoot. This is a debate damn you
Turn on closed caption!!!
It's on.
@@TruthspeakOfficial Thanks!
@Igor RIzvić I'm deaf -- by turning on the subtitle, I would be able to "listen" to what they have to say. So, I don't have to groan about it and face the inaccessibility to the great thinkers. (Note, there was no cc but now it's turned on!)
@Igor RIzvić No problem, I could mean the other way around! :p (Sometimes it does help the viewers to read and listen at the same time and not to assume what is being said over jargons.)
@@Tagraff I do know one thing, that you're right about that, but I've just got one question: What am I going to do with all these potatoes?
Where can i find the transcritp?
Who won?
Slavoj, lay off the blow a bit my man. :)
*Sniff*
- Slavoj Zizek
Whats the book Slavoj ask Jordan to look into? @ 2:09:19
chesterton orthodoxy
What's the book on christianity that zizk recommands? Something orthodoxy?
I thought I heard him say "Western Orthodoxy" but I can't find the book anywhere
please, someone give us the text that was read by Zizek - i cannot bear his "s"
Still a better love story than Twilight.
.
.
.
.
There, I just had to say it. As if it wasn't obvious already.
Why is the audio so bad?
You're getting two voices, the actual natural voice of the speaker, and the voice projected by speakers from their microphones
@@CunkGungler Yeah but why? No other speech on youtube have this. Fail.
16:30 warren buffet disagrees. in an interview for the new york times, he said that the primary conflict is rich vs poor. he also said that his class began the war and will win it.
P.s. Previous comment Informed by Peter Joseph
I just watched the intro. And I am horonoed. I have hope in humanity....
I wish Peterson wouldn't have only chosen Marx to read. His problems are with postmodernism, which is a large umbrella, many postmodernists oppose marxism. He should've read Foucalt, Derrida or Beudrillard to start. I myself adhere to postmodernist thinking, but disagree with marx' material dialectic.
Edit: he referenced Foucalt and Derrida, but I dont think he truly understood them. Especially derrida, considering derrida would've opposed idpol and the direction some postmodernists took.
He undestands Nietzsche at a very high level, you really think he can't undestand Derrida? Lol
@@Arcanaa can you direct me to some of his Vids where he discusses Derrida and Beudrillard? Or, should I just type "Peterson" followed by one of their names?
@@saulzapata3408 yes I do think that. Understanding one 19th century existentialist philosopher (assuming he understands him accurately) does not imply an understanding of 20th century Postmodern philosophers. I understand Kierkegaard very well, far more than most, yet I wouldn't use that to justify my understanding of anyone else.
Lyotards postmodern condition an incredulity toward metanarratives was itself a metanarrative. Derrida's proclamation that nothing lies outside the text yet he wrote extensive texts with objective claims. I wish Peterson would have addressed the astounding hypocrisy of the postmodern thinkers. When you even lightly probe their ideas they fall like a house of cards.
I think Gramsci is the one he should read when it comes to the marriage between the modern left and marxist doctrine.
Has peterson even read critique of hegel's philosophy of right? There, Marx shows an awarness of problems outside economy primarely religion and politics. Regarding the supposed dismissal of nature, marx is a materialist, in thesis on feuerbach he makes it very clear to what extent the materiality of a society is a reflexion of our ontology, of the way we concieve our being. In general, peterson lacks a rigorous understanding of marx, it seems he just read the manifesto, misunderstood it and somehow thinks he can even talk about something he clearly does not understand.
where is the part of zizek about the light at the end of the tunnel being another train? i'm looking for it but i can't take another 2 hours of petersons brabble
1:11:56
I think Dr. Peterson is describing Venezuela. Zizek is providing a rational for the politics of envy.
JP really didn't understand anything about the Communist Manifesto and the conditions of that time
It was worth waiting for.
I'd this the official highest def version? I'm saving myself for that
I would certainly hope not, the audio is quite bad
Sold out, yeah but no money for a good microphone and a decent audio guy....ever heard of a De-Esser or EQ at all????
Do you ever hears about Illuminator who is from Slovenia, like Zizek is? If those 2 would have an intellectual conversation with Illuminator would looks like if they are two little minions in conversation with the wise man. Especially that goes for Peterson, Zizek a little more mature in more developed. Did you know Zizek was already 2 times challenged to have a public conversation with Illuminator but he has no balls and not enough brain to accept that, because he knows he is no match to Illuminator, even Illuminator is friendly to him.
Illuminator from The L.A.M. He is known well in some closed circles but not yet so much openly in global. Zizek knows him and Illuminator's Wisdom is even his inspiration in some fields of his thesis. But as the celebrity intellectual he pushes his own name and he does not dare to publicly admit he is influenced by Illuminator's philosophy, how less to have an open public debate with Illuminator. That potential debate would be much more interesting as this Zizek vs Peterson debate is, but it would be also with much more humor and spirit and Zizek would be there as a little boy in conversation wiith a wise man, and Illuminator is friendly toward Zizek, don't worry. So, now you know, make some search and maybe even ask Zizek how is about Illuminator who is from Slovenia too, like he is, inside global intellectual mainstream less known, but of the much higher strata as Zizek or anyone other in the present is.
Inevitable. Thank god for thinking.
the sound is so horrible
I'm sure that everything slavoj said was well researched and he had a legitimate point but I can't understand anything he's saying cause of that lisp
1:27:06
I have feeling Peterson got prepared like 5th grade student.
Did he read Marx and Elgens?
engels
The worst thing about this long debate are the regressive overall concept about society. The old duality socialism-capitalism is all there is
Peterson's last remark, that the best way to help the poor especially in Africa is to implement free market capitalism is crazy. The reason Africa so poor is because of free market capitalism. Colonialism, the IMF, the extractive industries like oil and mining.
"sancrosact".
those horrible laughs come from a certain group of people ... it reminds me of the beginning, where JP says that the tickets were sold a very high price online .. feel free to interpret this the way you want
The Christ in cross-atheism thing, slavoj said, blew my mind. I wish i could grasp it more. 🤧
Timestamp? I think i missed it
Franz Meier 2:03:58-2:05:40
Also see later how impressed Jordan was, learning this new angle of thought.
Two remarkable gentlemen.
Without much Ego one is able to discuss to know.
Ideas are not stones to throw but to construct.
allah aşkına türkçeye çevirsin biri yıl 2020 oldu hala aşkı memnu izliyoruz toplumca
Easter miracle
Mort Sahl is the greatest, and funniest..
oh god the introduction
worst crowd ever.
I spy with my little eye
Run Boiz! He's found us...
@@DualAlliance1 Where Marxists are found, im around
@@spode1921 Slav is one of the good ones xD well... for a marxist
er... im only a few mins in, but JBP seems to be saying hierarchies tend to dispossess the {downline} but are required for efficiency of problem solving. ... yeah, and this is the point, we CAN have that problem solution hierarchy without a class hierarchy... can't we?
Came to think
ended up laughing
laugh... because didnt want to cry! My God, is this our future? duel of the century? an people payed for this actually!??
evian vs san pelegrino
This feels like a conversation not a debate.
Because Peterson didn't make his homework. You should check Milton for a person that can defend capitalism better.
It's pretty much not a debate. Zizek was not willing to defend Marxism, and Peterson is not the best person to defend capitalism.
So it all boiled down to some beliefs of achieving happiness instead of the debate of ideology effect on it.
@@bielgaucho_real you are 10000% right.
I'm a leftist, but those people, for god's sake. This is so rude to Peterson, it is a debate of ideas, not a stupid children´s fight.
As much as I like Peterson he repeats himself too much at times. Maybe Zizek is like that as well but I'm not familiar with his ideas at all. Was cool to listen to anyways!
are they flirting
The gloss over Buddhism was deeply disappointing. I hope one of them has deeper thoughts on the core philosophical themes of Buddhism, such as Sunyata and Anatta, than what was expressed here. It is certainly true that an experience of underlying emptiness and selflessness can be used nihilistically. Likewise, it is also true that the principles of Darwinism, for example, can and have been abused. But I'm sure they agree that an argument from consequence is not a valid argument. The truth is found wherever it is found--nevermind how it can be abused. Zizek seems almost to hint at what I would argue is a Buddhish rendering of the Chrsitian myth. The sacrifice of the self-concept in Anatta is also reflected in Christ on the cross. There is still so much rich analysis to be had on the topic, but Peterson (and most Western philosophers) consistently disappoints in his failure to integrate the absolute, underlying emptiness and not-self into the relative self structure.
They consistently disappoint in their analysis of Buddhist, Jain and Hindu philosophy.
@@saikat93ify Well neither have any expertise on it, so I wouldn't look for their pronouncements on it...
Neither are linear or logical enough for me.
Jordan Peterson did not rock his first reply to Slavoj
🙂🙂
When you don't understand post modernism and think Foucault was a marxist.
Que los inviten al Sálvame
22:44 i choked