It's also entertaining to watch, and I suspect this was the mode in which most El inters que suscit dicho encuentro descansa en gran parte en el carisma de sus protagonistas que con relativo xito han sabido posicionarse como rostros mediticos y . I'd say this reminds me a lot of what I've seen from him We are spontaneously really free. Here is the original video extracted from https://www.jordanvsslavojdebate.com (livestream.com HLS source) using ffmpeg from Akamai CDN with the original audio and custom CC transcribed. 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 needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer.. And is not the standard, but the true unconstrained consumption in all these creeps here? and our attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its Share Highlights of the debate of the century: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek on Facebook, Share Highlights of the debate of the century: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek on Twitter, Share Highlights of the debate of the century: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek on LinkedIn, Subscribe for counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday, Slavoj iek vs Jordan Peterson Debate Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism (Apr 2019), Why winning isnt the real purpose of arguing. ", 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). Below is the transcript of Zizeks introductory statement. squarely throws under the bus as failed. We often need a master figure to push us out an inertia and, Im not afraid to say, that forces us to be free. Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript. [, : Thank you. 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 . 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. [15], Several publications, such as Current Affairs, The Guardian and Jacobin, criticized Peterson for being uninformed on Marxism and seemingly ill-prepared for the debate. iek & Peterson Debate . The people who laugh might do it that way, he replied. Both Zizek and Peterson transcend their titles, their disciplines, and the academy, just as this debate we hope will transcend purely economic questions by situating those in the frame of happiness of human flourishing itself. Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. 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. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy. : Just a few words of introduction. They returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? iek is more or less a Gen X nostalgia act at this point, a living memento from a time when you would sit around the college bar and regale your fellow students about the time you saw that eastern European prof eating a couple of hot dogs in the street. Its not just that in spite of all our natural and cultural differences the same divine sparks dwells in everyone. A big deal, with huge numbers, and really very little underneath. what the debate ended up being. If there is no such authority in nature, lobsters may have hierarchy, undoubtedly, but the main guy among them does not have authority in this sense. He's the sort of aging quitter we all hope to never be. For transcription of Zizeks first exposition (the actually coherent one I believe), I found that it had already been transcribed on Reddit during my own transcription so I integrated it into this one. They seemed to believe that the academic left, whoever that might be, was some all-powerful cultural force rather than the impotent shrinking collection of irrelevances it is. Take what is perhaps the ultimate rogue state Congo. It was officially titled Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, and was drummed up thoroughly. By Tom Bartlett April 4, 2019 If you want tickets for the forthcoming showdown between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek, which will be held later this month in Toronto, better act fast: There. They play the victim as much as their enemies. causes (from Donald Trump to migrants). [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan interesting because of it. is dead and he never amended his manifesto that I know of. Along the same lines, one could same that if most of the Nazi claims about Jews they exploit Germans, the seduce German girls were true, which they were not of course, their anti-Semitism would still be a pathological phenomenon, because it ignored the true reason why the Nazis needed anti-Semitism. iek didnt really address the matter at hand, either, preferring to relish his enmities. 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. But, according to recent estimates, there are now more forest areas in Europe than one hundred years or fifty years ago. This is how refugees are created. I can see no threat to free creativity in this program on the contrary, I saw health care and education and so on as enabling me to focus my life on important creative issues. In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. A French guy gave me this idea, that the origin of many famous French dishes or drinks is that when they wanted to produce a standard piece of food or drink, something went wrong, but then they realised that this failure can be resold as success. I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. This means something, but nature I think we should never forget this is not a stable hierarchical system but full of improvisations. I wanted to know that too! No. Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? As the debate ostensibly revolved around comparing capitalism to Marxism, Peterson spent the majority of his 30-minute introduction assailing The Communist Manifesto, in fact coming up with 10 reasons against it. My main purpose with this text is not to prove that Marx was right, but rather that Peterson's and Zizek's analysis are shortsighted and yet still give valuable insight about the state of Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung 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. Among his points was that Marx and Engels focused too much on class struggle being the primary feature of modern society while ignoring the existence of hierarchy as a fact of nature. Fearing establishment, Sanders' leftist critics offer socialism, without socialism Finally, the common space of humanity itself. He is a dazzling. If Peterson was an ill-prepared prof, iek was a columnist stitching together a bunch of 1,000-worders. 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. Copyright 2007-2023 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Really? 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. clear these are coherent thoughts from the same thinker. There was an opportunity. Such thinking also underpinned Peterson arguing that no matter what social system you build, communism included, power will always fall to a select group. He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s. Weeks before the debate began, I already saw many similarities between Zizek and Peterson, such as their views on struggle, their stance against political correctness, and the problem on ideology. [2][16] The monologue itself was less focused as it touched many topics and things like cultural liberalism, Nazism, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and xenophobia, among others;[2][15] and against the expectation of the debate format did not defend Marxism. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. Kierkegaard, mine and everybodys favourite theologist, wrote If a child says he will obey his father because his father is a competent and good guy, this is an affront to fathers authority. But when youve said that, youve said everything. This is I think now comes the problematic part for some of you maybe the problem with political correctness. But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. So, here I think I know its provocative to call this a plea for communism, I do it a little bit to provoke things but what is needed is nonetheless in all these fears I claim ecology, digital control, unity of the world a capitalist market which does great things, I admit it, has to be somehow limited, regulated and so on. Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. This page has been accessed 35,754 times. [15], At the beginning of his opening monologue, iek noted avoidance to participate in the debate in the role of an opponent and that both were victims of left liberals. The time has come to step back and interpret it. Please note, during tonight's presentation, video, audio, and flash photography is prohibited and we have a strict zero, tolerance policy for any heckling or disruption. He said things like Marx thought the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil. But precisely due to the marketing, The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. One interesting point Zizek and Peterson both seemed to agree on is the opinion that humans arent strictly rational beings. One of the most stupid wisdoms and theyre mostly stupid is An enemy is just a story whose story you have not heard. semi-intentionally quite funny. Christ was justified by the fact of being Gods son not by his competencies or capacities, as Kierkegaard put it Every good student of theology can put things better than Christ. he event was billed as the debate of the century, The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind, and it did have the feel of a heavyweight boxing match: Jordan Peterson, local boy, against the slapdash Slovenian, Jordan Peterson, Canadian psychology professor and author. Both rejected happiness as a primary goal for individuals and societies. Zizek was hard to follow in his prepared statement, he becomes Thanks for you work. Peterson retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. [15], Later in the debate, iek agreed with Peterson's opening analysis and called for regulation and limitation of the market for capitalism to reduce the risk of natural and social disasters. We have to find some What appears as its excesses its regulatory zeal is I think an impotent reaction that masks the reality of a defeat. Next point one should stop blaming hedonist egotism for our woes. It's funny to see Peterson Not merely opinion or prejudice, but the realm of truth, access through evidence and, argument. Warlords who rule provinces there are always dealing with Western companies, selling them minerals where would our computers be without coltan from Congo? The Master and His Emissary: A Conversation with Dr. Iain McGilchrist Transcript . We will probably slide towards apocalypse, he said. Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldnt last. I cannot but notice the [] Ippolit Belinski April 30, 2019 Videos. He seemed, in person, quite gentle. Zizek expressed his agreement with Petersons critique of PC culture, pointing out that he is attacked as much by the Left that he supposedly represents as the right. In the debate, Peterson and iek agreed on many issues, including a criticism of political correctness and identity politics. Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. But, nonetheless, deeply divided. Plus, the radical measures advocated by some ecologists can themselves trigger new catastrophes. Peterson had trapped himself into a zero-sum game, Zizek had opened up a.
Ruth's Chris Ultipro Access Code, Articles Z