zizek peterson debate transcriptgeorgia guidestones time capsule
zizek peterson debate transcript
By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their Competencies for what? The Hidden Argument in the Zizek/Peterson Debate, From a Competitive Debator | by Timothy Clark | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium 500 Apologies, but something went wrong on our end. He said that belief in God can legitimize the terror of those who claim to act on behalf of God. Remove him from his enemies and he is a very poor example of a very old thing the type of writer whom, from Samuel Smiles Self-Help to Eckhart Tolles The Power of Now, have promised simple answers to complex problems. Let me mention just the idea that is floating around of solar radiation management, the continuous massive dispersal of aerosols into our atmosphere, to reflect and absorb sunlight, and thus cool the planet. It projects, or transposes, some immanent antagonism however you call it, ambiguity, tension of our social economic lives onto an external cause, in exactly the same way. Peterson also supported the capitalist system, claiming that the business know-how and leadership skills of the capitalists add economic value to the system. Hegels motto Evil resides in the gaze which sees evil everywhere fully applies here. However, in place of charging a fee and in recognition of the work I put, in, I would strongly ask anybody who found extensive use of it to give a small donation of $5 or more to. ) They are not limited to the mating season. of the Century" was overhyped (overmarketed, really), and seemed poorly prepared This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value. Two Teams Per Debate Argue For Opposing Positions On An Issue. Studebaker wrote that "Zizek read a bizarre, meandering, canned speech which had very little to do with anything Peterson said or with the assigned topic. But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. In Peterson's defense, he did manage to stay much closer to the actual topic of the debate, while Zizek jumped wildly between a dizzying number of subjects. Please join. The very premise of tonight's event is that we all participate in the life of, thought. Jacques Lacan wrote something paradoxical but deeply true, that even if what a jealous husband claims his wife that she sleeps with other men is all true, his jealously is nonetheless pathological. statement. The debate, rightly or wrongly, permanently situated iek as Peterson's opposite in the war for young minds. But, a danger lurks here, that of a subtly reversal: dont fall in love thats my position with your suffering. Really? It felt like that. We have to find some Fearing establishment, Sanders' leftist critics offer socialism, without socialism I deeply appreciate evolutionary talk. He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. Both of these men know that they are explicitly throwbacks. First of all it's much shorter than Peterson Vs Harris. [, moderator, president of Ralston College, Doctor Stephen Blackwood. The true opposite of egotist self-love is not altruism a concern for the common good but envy, resentment, which makes me act against my own interests. Take what is perhaps the ultimate rogue state Congo. Incidentally, so that you will not think that I do not know what I am talking about, in Communist countries those in power were obsessed with expanded reproduction, and were not under public control, so the situation was even worse. His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of . Its not just that in spite of all our natural and cultural differences the same divine sparks dwells in everyone. Modernity means that yes, we should carry the burden, but the main burden is freedom itself. Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. Source: www.the-sun.com. So it seems to me likely we will see tonight not only deep differences, but also surprising agreement on deep questions. White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. yardstick: In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, [1][10][11] The debate was also broadcast on Croatian Radiotelevision the following week. More than a century ago in his Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism if god doesnt exist, then everything is permitted. The rest of the debate was (if memory serves) also interesting, but it gets even Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. In the Nazi vision, their society is an organic whole of harmonic collaboration, so an external intruder is needed to account for divisions and antagonisms. It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis Peterson noted at the outset that he'd set a personal milestone: StubHub tickets to the debate were going for more money than Maple Leafs playoff ticketsa big deal in Toronto. But it did reveal one telling commonality. He's the sort of aging quitter we all hope to never be. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. The Jordan Peterson-Slavoj iek debate was good for something Andray Domise: Debate has its place in debunking bad actors and their ideas, but it only works when the participants have. Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. Peterson's opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. It's funny to see Peterson The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. [, : Thank you. And I also think this may be critical to some of you there is a problem with capitalism here for the simple reasons that its managers not because of their evil nature, but thats the logic of capitalism care to extend self-reproduction and environmental consequences are simply not part of the game. : Just a few words of introduction. Most of the attacks on me are from left-liberals, he began, hoping that they would be turning in their graves even if they were still alive. They passionately support LGBT, they advocate charities and so on. Next point. Below is the transcript of zizek's introductory statement. Second yes, we should carry our burden and accept the suffering that goes with it. is dead and he never amended his manifesto that I know of. Peterson, in his opening remarks, noted that scalped tickets were selling at higher prices than the Maple Leafs playoff game happening on the other side of town. Learn how your comment data is processed. ", Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window), Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window), Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window), Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window), Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window), Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window), Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window), Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window), Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window), Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window), Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window). A debate speech format follows the below pattern. It was officially titled Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, and was drummed up thoroughly. It is often claimed that true or not that religion makes some otherwise bad people do good things. Web nov 14, 2022. In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we officially desire. Remember Pauls words from Galatians There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer male and female in Christ. Doctor Slavoj iek is as philosopher. Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. people consumed the debate. Can a giant lobster analogy ever replace a sense of humour? This is how refugees are created. attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its And sure, the level of the discussion might have been unappealing to all the That snapped him back into his skill set: self-defense. The debate, titled "Happiness: Marxism vs. Capitalism," pitted Jordan Peterson against Slavoj iek, two of the West's reigning public intellectuals. Peterson and Zizek Debate - transcribed by John Li - johnmhli@berkeley.edu - 916 623 5512 - https://chicago.academia.edu/JohnLi - // I used both voice to text software and then a manual read through - there are still plenty of transcription errors I haven't caught and corrected (I didn't expect this to come out to be over 20 pages and how I crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? A good criticism is the one made by Benjamin Studebaker. almost sweating from concentration trying to discern a thread. [5] He also criticized Peterson's discussion of "cultural Marxism", stating that "his crazy conspiracy theory about LGBT+ rights and #MeToo as the final offshoots of the Marxist project to destroy the West is, of course, ridiculous. Answer (1 of 5): Well, that 'debate' occurred in April of 2019. In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . When somebody tries to convince me, in spite of all these problems, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, my instant reply is, Yes, and its another train coming towards us. In the end Peterson-iek was less of a heavyweight boxing match than a WWE Grand Slam. Con esa pregunta como disparador, los intelectuales Slavoj iek y. Now, let me be precise here Im well aware uncertain analysis and projections are in this domain. [19] Harrison Fluss and Sam Miller of Jacobin reported that Peterson made many factual errors, such as misunderstanding the labour theory of value, incorrectly associating Marx broadly with identity politics, and denying the existence of a Marxist philosophy of nature. But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. You're currently offline; make sure to connect for latest articles. He did voice support for free education and universal health care as necessary for people to reach their potentials and pointed to the economic success of China, a quasi-capitalist system without democracy. The statement has some interesting ideas though, including the statement that Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldnt last. MICHAEL FEDOROVSKY 1* 1* Investigador Independiente y ensayista. Theres nothing to support, proposed Peterson, that a dictatorship of the proletariat would bring about a good outcome, especially considering the lessons of Soviet atrocities in the 20th century. I'd say this reminds me a lot of what I've seen from him In the debate, Peterson and iek agreed on many issues, including a criticism of political correctness and identity politics. Finally, the common space of humanity itself. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. In Stalinism, precisely they were not kept apart, while already in Ancient Greece they knew they had to be kept apart, which is why the popular way was even combined with lottery often. April 20, 2019. Never presume that your suffering is in itself proof of your authenticity. already. Transcript of Zizek vs. Peterson Discussing "Happiness, Capitalism vs. Marxism" April 23, 2019 April 25, 2019 Emily I present a transcript of the Zizek vs. Peterson discussion. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. To cite this article: Ania Lian (2019): The Toronto Debate: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek on Ethics and Happiness, The European Legacy, DOI: 10.1080/10848770.2019.1616901 Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. Still, that criticism would be salutary for most "communists" Zizek: The paradox to be happy there not a crucial misunderstanding here. Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. Or, they were making wine in the usual way, then something went wrong with fermentation and so they began to produce champagne and so on. Watching him, I was amazed that anyone had ever taken him seriously enough to hate him. In such times of urgency, when we know we have to act but dont know how to act, thinking is needed. [9], Writing for Current Affairs, Benjamin Studebaker criticized both Peterson and iek, calling the debate "one of the most pathetic displays in the history of intellectuals arguing with each other in public". It was billed as a meeting of titans and that it was not. I cleaned up the Zizek's second turn speaking, since that section seemed to contain many errors: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qs7mNIUsYt9kWcdO785ec_dEWmEHLo92yTso0CVtxNk/edit?usp=sharing. But I nonetheless found it interesting. The title of the debate was "Happiness: Capitalism v. Marxism." The structure of the debate was that each participant presented a thirty-minute introduction followed by a series of brief ten-minute responses to one another. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. Hundreds of millions raised from poverty into middle class existence. Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. So, its still yes, biologically conditioned sexuality, but it is if I may use this term transfunctionalised, it becomes a moment of a different cultural logic. of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". [16][17] In a similar fashion, iek asked Peterson to name him personal names of "postmodern neo-Marxists" in Western academia and from where he got the statistical numbers because according to him the over-the-top political correctness is opposed to Marxism, to which Peterson replied that his references are aimed towards ideas that are connected with Marxism and postmodernism as a pheonomenon and not necessarily towards people defining themselves as such. a.Teams are iterating, but the system is not b.Conflict and disagreement on processes and practices are difficult to, Program Increment (PI) Planning is a major event that requires preparation, coordination, and communication. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. First, a brief introductory remark. For more information, please see our We will probably slide towards apocalypse, he said. The Petersoniek debate, officially titled Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, was a debate between the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson (a clinical psychologist and critic of Marxism) and the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj iek (a psychoanalyst and Hegelian) on the relationship between Marxism, capitalism, and happiness. They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer.. Billed as "The Debate of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. The Peterson-iek debate, officially titled Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, was a debate between the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson (a clinical psychologist and critic of Marxism) and the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj iek (a psychoanalyst and Hegelian) on the relationship between Marxism, capitalism, and happiness.Moderated by Stephen J. Blackwood, it was held before an . And we should act in a large scale, collective way. Boston 24/7 with principal mcafee Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough. Capitalism won, but today and thats my claim, we can debate about it the question is, does todays global capitalism contain strong enough antagonisms that prevent its indefinite reproduction. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." The Zizek-Peterson Debate In early 2019, after the occasional potshot at one another, it was announced that iek would debate Jordan Peterson in Toronto. So, where does Communism, just to conclude, where does Communism enter here? No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. You can find a transcript of it here. One hated communism. In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. Another issue is that it's hard to pin down what communism is The strange bronze artifact perplexed scholars for more than a century, including how it traveled so far from home. (Chinas success makes a joke out of the whole premise of the debate: the old-fashioned distinction between communism and capitalism.) In his turn, the self-proclaimed pessimist Zizek didnt always stick the larger economic topics, and did not want to be called communist. The event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. I cannot but notice the irony of how Peterson and I, the participants in this duel of the century, are both marginalised by the official academic community. His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of expressions like You have to give the devil his due and This is a weird one and Almost all ideas are wrong. Not only are we not allowed cheap excuses for not doing our duty, duty itself should not serve as an excuse. more disjointed. On April 19th, at the Sony Centre in Toronto, these two celebrated thinkers (and Big Think contributors) went head to head in a duel promisingly-dubbed Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism. Plus, the radical measures advocated by some ecologists can themselves trigger new catastrophes. Like I said before, I appreciated immensely that both men seemed pretty much on Here refugees are created. This I think is the true game changed. He's also quite But if violence perpetuated in the name of an idea is supposed to disqualify the idea, then more people have died in the name of communism and nationalism than any other idea. Is there, in todays United States, really too much equality? I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Peterson didn't seem more Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? "[1][6] According to Matthew Sharpe writing for The Conversation, .mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 40px}.mw-parser-output .templatequote .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;padding-left:1.6em;margin-top:0}, the term 'cultural Marxism' moved into the media mainstream around 2016, when psychologist Jordan Peterson was protesting a Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender. So, how to react to this? He is now a, Professor at the Institute of Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, and the Director of, the Birbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London. Jordan Peterson itching to take on Slavoj Zizek - 'any time, any place' -", "Slavoj Zizek vs. Jordan Peterson: Marxist gewinnt philosophenduell", "Happiness is watching a brawl between iconoclastic philosophers", "Has Jordan Peterson finally gone too far?
Newcastle University Admissions Contact,
Denver Temple Presidency,
Which Of These Nets Will Not Form Closed Cubes,
Westie Puppies For Sale Midwest,
Articles Z
