Here refugees are created. Billed as "The Debate of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". In our human universe, power, in the sense of exerting authority, is something much more mysterious, even irrational. What I Learned at the 'Debate' Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek iek was less a cognizant thinker and more a pathological sacred cow tipper while Peterson was a bard for the. It's hard not to crack up when out of time for Fearing establishment, Sanders' leftist critics offer socialism, without socialism This is how refugees are created. 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. We're in for quite a night a quick word about format. 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. So, I dont accept any cheap optimism. Web november 12, 2022 advertisement the nigerian factcheckers . I wanted to know that too! All these antagonisms concern what Marx called commons the shared substance of our social being. "almost all ideas are wrong". For more information, please see our [16] Due to lack of defence for Marxism, at one point Peterson asked iek why he associates with this ideology and not his philosophical originality, on which iek answered that he is rather a Hegelian and that capitalism has too many antagonisms for long-term peaceful sustainability. Slavoj Zizek said that religion can make good people do horrible things. 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. "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know So it seems to me likely we will see tonight not only deep differences, but also surprising agreement on deep questions. Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough. The true utopia is that we can survive without such a change. So, a pessimist conclusion, what will happen? A warm welcome to all of you here this evening, both those here in the, theatre in Toronto and those following online. We often need a master figure to push us out an inertia and, Im not afraid to say, that forces us to be free. Its not just that in spite of all our natural and cultural differences the same divine sparks dwells in everyone. Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. vastly different backgrounds). While the two take different political stances, both have been known to rail against political correctness and found that issue in common. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. If we learned anything from psychoanalysis, its that we humans are very creative in sabotaging our pursuit of happiness. At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx 2 Piano Mono - moshimo sound design. SLAVOJ IEK: . 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. yardstick: In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, Slavoj iek, psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic, and Hegelian Marxist. Answer (1 of 5): Well, that 'debate' occurred in April of 2019. Look at Bernie Sanders program. Moderated by Stephen J. Blackwood, it was held before an audience of 3,000 at Meridian Hall in Toronto on 19 April 2019. people consumed the debate. 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. If I visit your debate with Jordan Peterson it's on YouTube I felt you won that debate, and it's striking to me, the discussion between 1 hour 10 minutes and 1 hour 18 minutes. Can a giant lobster analogy ever replace a sense of humour? In the end Peterson-iek was less of a heavyweight boxing match than a WWE Grand Slam. The Church of England is debating if believers should stop using gendered language when talking about God. I would like to refer to a classic Daniel Bell, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism written back in 1976, where the author argues that the unbounded drive of modern capitalism undermines the moral foundations of the original protestant ethics. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. 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. Next point. Zizek makes many interesting points. Peterson retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. Really? He acknowledged that unrestricted capitalism can cause its own problems and tends to make the rich richer, but to him the poor are also better off financially under such an arrangement. 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. The paper contains almost no references to any other texts, either by Marx or by other socialist thinkers. [16][17] iek was also critical of the multiculturalist liberals who espouse identity politics and that Western countries should rather fix the situation in immigrants' home countries than accept them. The debate itself was framed as a free-spirited competition, "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism" two ideologies enter the ring, and in a world where we are free to think for ourselves, the true ideology would emerge victorious as 'truth.' They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. : Just a few words of introduction. 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. The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. The two generally agreed on. 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. In this sense, the image of Donald Trump is also a fetish, the last thing a liberal sees before confronting actual social tensions. His thoughts on social constructionism vs evolutionary psychology (comparing 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. [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. In totalitarian states, competencies are determined politically. 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. 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. I think a simple overview of the situation points in the opposite direction. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. Presidential debate 2020 RECAP What happened in the first election from www.the-sun.com. Warlords who rule provinces there are always dealing with Western companies, selling them minerals where would our computers be without coltan from Congo? First, of all, the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution, global warming and so on. consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise "If you have a good theory, forget about the reality. [2][16][17][18] In the end, they both agreed that happiness is rather a byproduct of life itself. Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. He makes a big deal out of how he obsessed about They were making in the usual way, but the cheese got rotten and infected, smelling bad, and they said, oh my god, look, we have our own original French cheese. Secret Spice Girls dance parties of the wives of anti-western morality police. 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. Below is the transcript of zizek's introductory statement. Happiness is a confused notion, basically it relies on the subjects inability or unreadiness to fully confront the consequences of his / her / their desire. Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. 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. 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. Competencies for what? I always thought that neoliberalism is a fake term. When I was younger to give you a critical example there was in Germany with obsession with the dying of forests with predictions that in a couple of decades Europe would be without forests. [, : Thank you. 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. They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer.. Ideology, Logos & Belief with Transliminal Media . Id like the share the debate with a hearing impaired friend. The statement has some interesting ideas though, including the statement that [20] Stephen Marche of The Guardian wrote that Peterson's opening remarks about The Communist Manifesto were "vague and not particularly informed", and that Peterson seemed generally unprepared,[21] while Jordan Foissy of Vice wrote that Peterson was "completely vacuous", making "ludicrous claims like no one has ever gotten power through exploiting people". White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. should have replied to defend communism. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. 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 . It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. China in the last decades is arguably the greatest economic success story in human history. his remarks, he starts telling a Slovenian joke, then after the first sentence Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis Transcript Dr. Jordan Peterson 2019-05-17T08:28:01-04:00. 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 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. This is why as many perspicuous philosophers clearly saw, evil is profoundly spiritual, in some sense more spiritual than goodness. by its protagonists. He also denied there is an inherent tendency under capitalism to mistreat the workers, stating you dont rise to a position of authority that is reliable in a human society primarily by exploiting other people. Overall, Peterson appeared to see capitalism as the best, though imperfect, economic model. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis Please join. But I nonetheless found it interesting. [1] They debated about the merits of regulated capitalism. 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. My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. [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. Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. 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. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. Life and career Early life iek was born in Ljubljana, PR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, into a middle-class family. In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . This I think is the true game changed. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech. 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. Should we then drop egalitarianism? I deeply appreciate evolutionary talk. So, I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not Im Zentrum der Dissertation steht die Typologisierung des homme fatal, des verhngnisvollen Verfhrers innerhalb der englischen Erzhlliteratur von der Romantik bis ins fin de sicle. In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. Some idea make a reappearance, other are newly developed, but it's Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. The pathological element is the husbands need for jealousy as the only way for him to sustain his identity. [1], Around 3,000 people were in Meridian Hall in Toronto for the event. [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". Bonus: Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Boston 24/7 with principal mcafee [15], Peterson's opening monologue was a reading and critical analysis of The Communist Manifesto. I've talked to (which, unfortunately were more fanboys than rigorous I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. with its constellation of thinkers. ", "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. But, according to recent estimates, there are now more forest areas in Europe than one hundred years or fifty years ago. All such returns are today a post-modern fake. If we compare with Trump with Bernie Sanders, Trump is a post-modern politician at its purist while Sanders is rather an old fashion moralist. 2 define the topic, if . And if you think Book deals for political prisoners still in jail. But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. His 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. But, are the Chinese any happier for all that? He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external As soon as jordan peterson announced he. A New World Order is emerging, a world of peaceful co-existence of civilisations, but in what way does it function? Web nov 14, 2022. So, how to act? But there is nonetheless the prospect of a catastrophe here. There was an opportunity. I'd say this reminds me a lot of what I've seen from him His remarks were just as rambling as Petersons, veering from Trump and Sanders to Dostoevsky to the refugee crisis to the aesthetics of Nazism. The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their sticking to "his camp", but I feel like the resulting discussing ended up more [3], During an event at the Cambridge Union in November 2018, iek stated that Peterson used "pseudo-scientific[4] evidence" (3:40). 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. 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. No. In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. And, incidentally Im far from believing in ordinary peoples wisdom. 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 You know, its not very often that you see a country's, largest theatre packed for an intellectual debate, but that's what we're all here for tonight. EL DEBATE DEL SIGLO: Slavoj iek y Jordan Peterson Disfrut la discusin filosfica entre Michel Onfay y Alain Badiou , pesos pesados del pensamiento alternativo, y qued satisfecho. Please feel free to correct this document. But there was one truly fascinating moment in the evening. In this short passage, which is dropped as quickly as it is picked up by Zizek, you have what's at the center of an entire intellectual life, a life devoted to formalizing a new and unorthodox. Does Donald Trump stand for traditional values? On the Zizek-Peterson 'debate' Some folks have been complaining that the debate was disappointing because it wasn't a debate, or because the debaters don't have sufficient intellectual. Because the left doesn't have its own house in order", "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Peterson didn't seem more Debate is a process that involves formal discourse on a particular topic, often including a moderator and audience. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. Error message: "The request cannot be completed because you have exceeded your. Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". It was full of the stench of burning strawmen. He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s. Hitler was one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century. But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. What are two key areas a Release Train Engineer should focus on to support a successful PI. 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. It was billed as a meeting of titans and that it was not. 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. Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. He wandered between the Paleolithic period and small business management, appearing to know as little about the former as the latter. Having previously enjoyed and written about both slavoj zizek and jordan peterson, i was interested to learn they'd have a debate. Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript Transcripts 2018-09-25T15:05:00-04:00. With anti-Semitism, we are approaching the topic of telling stories. Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and Not that I was disappointed. 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. 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. 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. self-reproducing nature, though he points out that communism had this I will correct more when I get more time but I need to get back to work. This page has been accessed 35,754 times. knowledgeable about communism. causes (from Donald Trump to migrants). Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender, "Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Zizek each draw fans at sold-out debate", "The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj iek", "How Anti-Leftism Has Made Jordan Peterson a Mark for Fascist Propaganda", "There Is No One to Cheer for in the Potential Battle Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek", "Why do people find Jordan Peterson so convincing? On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time. 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. Blackwood. [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". 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. However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. 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. [16] Similarly to Winston Churchill, he concluded that "capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others". Billed as "The Debate {notificationOpen=false}, 2000);" x-data="{notificationOpen: false, notificationTimeout: undefined, notificationText: ''}">, We all get monkey mind and neuroscience supports the Buddhist solution, The mystery of New Zealands Tamil Bell, an archaeological UFO. The tone of the debate was also noted to be very This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. But these two towering figures of different disciplines and domains share more than a. commitment to thinking itself. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. 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. The threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics, and new forms of apartheid. Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. Remember Pauls words from Galatians There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer male and female in Christ. Peterson was an expert on this subject, at least. There are two teams, each consisting of two or three speakers. Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. 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. [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". The time has come to step back and interpret it. The event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. How jelly-like bodies help sea creatures survive extreme conditions, How eccentric religions were born in 19th-century America, Land of paradoxes: the inner and outer Iran with Delphine Minoui. (or both), this part is the most interesting. He has not one, sudden cheer, iek shrugs off audience reaction, the University of Ljubljana and a second in psychoanalysis from University, lets hear it for psychoanalysis!