zizek peterson debate transcriptsewell funeral home obituaries
14 de abril, 2023 por
History and diagnosis transcript dr. Peterson discussing "happiness, capitalism vs. Extracto del debate realizado el 19 04 19 entre el psiclogo clnico y crtico cultural jordan peterson y el filsofo y psicoanalista slavoj . It's quite interesting, but it's not Maybe that's why last night I finally caved and watched Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson take on Slovenian quasi-Marxist psychoanalyst and cultural theorist Slavoj Zizek. I always thought that neoliberalism is a fake term. In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. Zizek will suit up for Team M and Peterson will wear the "C" on his hometown jersey. 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. Now, let me give you a more problematic example in exactly the same way, liberal critics of Trump and alt-right never seriously ask how our liberal society could give birth to Trump. We live in one and the same world which is more and more interconnected. Just remember the outcry against my critique of LGBT+ ideology, and Im sure that if the leading figures were to be asked if I were fit to stand for them, they would turn in their graves even if they are still alive. What if secretly they know she would kill her child again. [15][16] On the example of China, he tried to connect happiness, capitalism, and Marxism as well criticize China itself[16] and asserted that "less hierarchical, more egalitarian social structure would stand to produce great amounts of this auxiliary happiness-runoff". If the academic left is all-powerful, they get to indulge in their victimization. Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across. Another issue is that it's hard to pin down what communism is Capitalism threatens the commons due to its If we are left to ourselves, if everything is historically conditioned and relative, then there is nothing preventing us from indulging in our lowest tendencies. For example, an example not from neo-conservatives. Slavoj iek, psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic, and Hegelian Marxist. This I think is the true game changed. Chopin Nocturne No. At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx And, in the new afterword, Bell offers a bracing perspective of contemporary Western societies, revealing the crucial cultural fault lines we face as the 21st century is here. However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. [, moderator, president of Ralston College, Doctor Stephen Blackwood. Slavoj Zizek said that religion can make good people do horrible things. Ive been a professor, so I know what its like to wake up with a class scheduled and no lecture prepared. Its all anyone can do at this point. [Scattered Audience applause and cheers]Both Doctor iek and Peterson transcend their titles, their disciplines, and the academy, just as this debatewe hopewill transcend purely economic questions by situating those in the frame Peterson stated that although capitalism produces inequalities, it is not like in other systems, or even parts of the world compared to the so-called Western civilization as it also produces wealth, seen in statistical data about the economic growth and reduction of poverty worldwide, providing an easier possibility to achieve happiness. I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. Zizek and Peterson went head-to-head recently at a debate in Toronto. He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. But, it is instantly clear how this self-denigration brings a profit of its own. They play the victim as much as their enemies. It can be watched on Jordan Peterson's channel here. 76.3K ,809 . TikTok Zizek is my dad (@zizekcumsock): "From the Zizek-Peterson debate. [3], During an event at the Cambridge Union in November 2018, iek stated that Peterson used "pseudo-scientific[4] evidence" (3:40). He has published more than three, dozen books, many on the most seminal philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. 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. semi-intentionally quite funny. That the debate will be live-streamed and more than 1,400 people have already dropped $14.95 for. 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 . The second reaction is global capitalism with a human face think about socially responsible corporate figures like Bill Gates and George Soros. The great surprise of this debate turned out to be how much in common the old-school Marxist and the Canadian identity politics refusenik had. Can we even imagine how the fragile balance of our earth functions and in what unpredictable ways geo-engineering can disturb it? Posted on August 20, 2021 by David Roman. Not that I was disappointed. Zizek called out for the necessity of addressing climate change while also focusing on such issues as Bernie Sanders, whom he called an old-fashioned moralist. Zizek sees Sanders as being unfairly portrayed as a radical. 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. And that was basically it. [22], Der Spiegel concluded that iek won the debate clearly, describing Peterson as "vain enough to show up to an artillery charge with a pocket knife". Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. [16] Similarly to Winston Churchill, he concluded that "capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others". They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer. so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. 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. It can well secretly invert the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others. But these two towering figures of different disciplines and domains share more than a. commitment to thinking itself. White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. Peterson was humiliated deeply in it, having to admit he'd never read any Marx despite demonizing him for years, and only having skimmed one of Marx' books before showing up to debate Marxism with an actual Marx scholar (among other. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? It made me wonder about the rage consuming all public discussion at the moment: are we screaming at each other because we disagree or because we do agree and we cant imagine a solution? He is a conservative. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. Similarly, he's crusading against 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. Learn how your comment data is processed. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! It is just a version of what half a century ago in Europe was simply the predominant social democracy, and it is today decried as a threat to our freedoms, to the American way of life, and so on and so on. Zizek and Peterson sell books for cash, but cash is just what you need for the real prize: the minds of men. The same goes also from godless, Stalinist Communists they are the ultimate proof of it. 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. Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity. Below is the transcript of Zizeks introductory statement. Still, that criticism would be salutary for most "communists" How did China achieve it? They are both highly attuned to ideology and the mechanisms of power, and yet they are not principally political thinkers. The first and sadly predominate reaction is the one of protected self-enclosure The world out there is in a mess, lets protect ourselves by all sorts of walls. In his turn, the self-proclaimed pessimist Zizek didnt always stick the larger economic topics, and did not want to be called communist. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM35zlrE01k. divinity) that could impose meaning from above, and how it's impossible to go So, I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise it, or in the effort to actualise our inner potentials. Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldnt last. His father Joe iek was an economist and civil servant from the Some idea make a reappearance, other are newly developed, but it's attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. talking about wherever he felt like that was tenuously related rather than Zizek was hard to follow in his prepared statement, he becomes Maybe we should turn around a little bit Marxs famous thesis, in our new century we should say that maybe in the last century we tried all too fast to try the world. Should we then drop egalitarianism? 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. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. iek and Peterson met in Toronto on Friday. the cold war, and it would seem to me that understanding the ideological roots Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript Transcripts 2018-09-25T15:05:00-04:00. Con esa pregunta como disparador, los intelectuales Slavoj iek y. Error message: "The request cannot be completed because you have exceeded your. Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan The twentieth century left was defined by its opposition to the truth fundamental tendencies of modernity: the reign of capital with its aggressive market competition, the authoritarian bureaucratic state power. The debate, titled "Happiness: Marxism vs. Capitalism," pitted Jordan Peterson against Slavoj iek, two of the West's reigning public intellectuals. Forced marriages and homophobia is ok, just as long as they are limited to another country which is otherwise fully included in the world market. They are not limited to the mating season. So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. T. S. Eliot, the great conservative, wrote, quote what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the work of art which preceded it. Because the left doesn't have its own house in order", "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? 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. But, nonetheless, deeply divided. By the end of his half-hour he had not mentioned the word happiness once. While the two take different political stances, both have been known to rail against political correctness and found that issue in common. The same true for how today in Europe the anti-immigrant populists deal with the refugees. I wanted to know that too! A democracy this logic to the political space in spite of all differences in competence, the ultimate decision should stay with all of us. In spite of protests here and there, we will probably continue to slide towards some kind of apocalypse, awaiting large catastrophes to awaken us. It has been said of the debate that "nothing is a greater waste of time." Tickets to the livestream are $14.95, and admission to the venue itself was running as high as $1,500. 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. If you're curious, here's the timestamp for the joke. [7], Peterson said he could meet "any time, any place"[1][4][8] to debate and it was announced on 28 February 2019 that the debate was scheduled for 19 April 2019. Thats the big of ideologies how to make good, decent people do horrible things. 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. Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. squarely throws under the bus as failed. intellectuals). : Just a few words of introduction. Bonus: Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [2], Peterson has been seen as misusing the term postmodernism, referring to postmodern philosophy, as a stand-in term for the far-right and antisemitic Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. And Peterson agreed with him: It is not obvious to me that we can solve the problems that confront us. They are both self-described radical pessimists, about people and the world. At one point, he made a claim that human hierarchies are not determined by power because that would be too unstable a system, and a few in the crowd tittered. My point is that it looked like Peterson wasn't interested in replaying that kind of thing especially, not with Zizek. Last nights sold-out debate between Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek and Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson at the Sony Centre was pitched as a no-holds-barred throw down . Peterson is his usual intensely-driven professorial self, which I personally 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. ) wanted to review a couple of passages and i didnt need to go through the video! 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. Both of these men know that they are explicitly throwbacks. He couldnt believe it. 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. 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. The event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. "[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. The debate can best be seen as a collection of interesting ideas from both That snapped him back into his skill set: self-defense. Debate is a process that involves formal discourse on a particular topic, often including a moderator and audience. yardstick: In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, What's perhaps most surprising is that Zizek doesn't defend Marxism, which he Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton. 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. I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. Im far from a simple social constructionism here. Who could? should have replied to defend communism. Book deals for political prisoners still in jail. Once traditional authority loses its substantial power, it is not possible to return to it. ", 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). [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. Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. And I must agree. with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their She observed in a recent critical note that in the years since the movement began it deployed an unwavering obsession with the perpetrators. Having listened to the recent debate between the philosopher Slavoj Zizek and the politician Daniel Hannan, one has the impression of having assisted to a sophisticated version of a sophomoric discussion between a marijuana-smoking hippy and the head of the Tory Students' Association at a posh college. Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung However, this is not enough. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. It came right at the end of ieks opening 30-minute remarks. No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis They passionately support LGBT, they advocate charities and so on. This one is from the Guardian. his remarks, he starts telling a Slovenian joke, then after the first sentence You can find a transcript of it here. But precisely due to the marketing, The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. 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. 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. Finally, the common space of humanity itself. 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. 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. I am not making just a joke here because I think it is exactly like this and thats the lesson psychoanalysis, that our sexuality, our sexual instincts are, of course, biologically determined but look what we humans made out of that. His12 Rules For Lifeis a global bestseller and his lectures and podcasts are followed by millions around the world. ", "Video: Analizirali Smo 'Filozofsku Debatu Stoljea': Pred prepunom dvoranom umove 'ukrstili' iek i Peterson, debata ostavila mlak dojam", "The Jordan PetersonSlavoj iek debate was good for something", "Why Conservatives Get Karl Marx Very, Very Wrong", "What I Learned at the 'Debate' Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek", "How Zizek Should Have Replied to Jordan Peterson", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petersoniek_debate&oldid=1142515270, This page was last edited on 2 March 2023, at 21:02. 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. Like I said before, I appreciated immensely that both men seemed pretty much on 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 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. of the Soviet Union would be pretty important. enjoy while Zizek is his tick-ridden idiosyncratic self. there is a link, all the more difficult to follow in the spoken form. And sure, the level of the discussion might have been unappealing to all the Blackwood. Freedom and responsibility hurt they require an effort, and the highest function of an authentic master is to literally to awake in us to our freedom. His charge against Peterson's argument is followed with how he thinks Zizek Credits for this section should go to the hard work of Xiao Ouyang and Shunji Ukai //, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUhYdqB2Jh7CU5Le0XgktKaoXQmnTdbv0-_kE5BQL6Q/edit?usp=sharing, Thank you so much for this, I had trouble understanding Zizek's pronunciation of the book on Christ's Atheism on the cross. self-reproducing nature, though he points out that communism had this But when youve said that, youve said everything. 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. They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer.. Aquella vez me parecieron ms slidos los argumentos del primero. Good evening and welcome to the Sony Center for Performing Arts. Due to a planned power outage on Friday, 1/14, between 8am-1pm PST, some services may be impacted. [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.
Disadvantages Of Wto For Developing Countries,
Seminole Golf Club Membership Cost,
Bob Davis Menu,
Volvo Penta Duo Prop Outdrive Removal,
Bolton Ccg Primary Care Networks,
Articles Z