First by admitting we are in a deep mess. 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. In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. We often need a master figure to push us out an inertia and, Im not afraid to say, that forces us to be free. They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer.. "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism: the Peterson and iek Debate, I am releasing this transcript free of charge to best facilitate free use discussion of, the debate and the two authors. The digitalisation of our brains opens up unheard of new possibilities of control. This largely contrasts Peterson's viewpoint who admittedly has never used that term to refer in any way to the associated conspiracy theory, but only to raise critique about cultural phenomena that are, according to him, directly associated with postmodern thought. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. His charge against Peterson's argument is followed with how he thinks Zizek [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". The paper contains a close reading of the Manifesto. matters: meaning, truth, freedom. 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. Zizek and Peterson went head-to-head recently at a debate in Toronto. 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. It's hard not to crack up when out of time for 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. The Master and His Emissary: A Conversation with Dr. Iain McGilchrist Transcript . 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. Other than that, multiple commentators (one, two) pointed that the "Debate 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. I always thought that neoliberalism is a fake term. [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. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript Transcripts 2018-09-25T15:05:00-04:00. And that was basically it. 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. 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. Source: www.the-sun.com. On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time. knowledgeable about communism. 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. In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. But, nonetheless, deeply divided. vastly different backgrounds). the cold war, and it would seem to me that understanding the ideological roots They passionately support LGBT, they advocate charities and so on. Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. Elements of a formal debate. We live in one and the same world which is more and more interconnected. I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Peterson didn't seem more Another issue is that it's hard to pin down what communism is And that was the great irony of the debate: what it comes down to is that they believe they are the victims of a culture of victimization. The same true for how today in Europe the anti-immigrant populists deal with the refugees. There is no simple democratic solution here. 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. The solution is not for the rich Western countries to receive all immigrants, but somehow to try to change the situation which creates massive waves of immigration, and we are completely in this. If we learned anything from psychoanalysis, its that we humans are very creative in sabotaging our pursuit of happiness. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." Believers call him God the Father. But can God be called a man? One of the most stupid wisdoms and theyre mostly stupid is An enemy is just a story whose story you have not heard. towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. The threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics, and new forms of apartheid. Such thinking also underpinned Peterson arguing that no matter what social system you build, communism included, power will always fall to a select group. 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. In this sense, the image of Donald Trump is also a fetish, the last thing a liberal sees before confronting actual social tensions. Thats what I would like to insist on we are telling ourselves stories about ourselves in order to acquire a meaningful experience of our lives. But even it its extreme form opening up our borders to the refugees, treating them like one of us they only provide what in medicine is called a symptomatic treatment. [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. By the end of his half-hour he had not mentioned the word happiness once. His In a similar way, the Alt-Right obsession with cultural Marxism expresses the rejection to confront that phenomenon they criticise as the attack of the cultural Marxist plot moral degradation, sexual promiscuity, consumerist hedonism, and so on are the outcomes of the immanent dynamic of capitalist societies. You're currently offline; make sure to connect for latest articles. 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. 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 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. 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. All such returns are today a post-modern fake. 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 . They are both highly attuned to ideology and the mechanisms of power, and yet they are not principally political thinkers. Is such a change a utopia? It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. 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. 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. The pathological element is the husbands need for jealousy as the only way for him to sustain his identity. White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. It's funny to see Peterson 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. 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. 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. I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. 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. already. of the Soviet Union would be pretty important. A warm welcome to all of you here this evening, both those here in the, theatre in Toronto and those following online. Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx It can be watched on Jordan Peterson's channel here. [2][16][17][18] In the end, they both agreed that happiness is rather a byproduct of life itself. Id like the share the debate with a hearing impaired friend. 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. of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". But there was one truly fascinating moment in the evening. 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? 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. This means something, but nature I think we should never forget this is not a stable hierarchical system but full of improvisations. Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. Two Teams Per Debate Argue For Opposing Positions On An Issue. 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. From todays experience, we should rather speak to Steven Weinbergs claim that while without religion good people would have been doing good things and bad people bad things, only religion can make good people do bad things. So, a pessimist conclusion, what will happen? The very liberal gaze with demonizes Trump is also evil because it ignores how its own failures opened up the space for Trumps type of patriotic populism. I'd say his criticism is It can well secretly invert the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others. And if you think I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. Due to a planned power outage on Friday, 1/14, between 8am-1pm PST, some services may be impacted. [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". This is how refugees are created. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. Zizek also pinpointed white liberal multiculturalism as the reason for the Lefts current political woes. Finally, the common space of humanity itself. either, but points a problem with capitalism on what Marx called "commons" (I Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. They dont mention communism to legitimise their rule, they prefer the old Confucian notion of a harmonious society. [, moderator, president of Ralston College, Doctor Stephen Blackwood. [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". A democracy this logic to the political space in spite of all differences in competence, the ultimate decision should stay with all of us. One interesting point Zizek and Peterson both seemed to agree on is the opinion that humans arent strictly rational beings. The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. Im far from a simple social constructionism here. or a similar conservation organization. The mere dumb presence of the celebrities on the stage mattered vastly more than anything they said, naturally. yardstick: In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, In our human universe, power, in the sense of exerting authority, is something much more mysterious, even irrational. and our But, are the Chinese any happier for all that? iek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, werent Marxist at all. Who could? This page has been accessed 35,754 times. He is a dazzling. Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript. interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. So as I saw it, the task of this debate was to at least clarify our differences."[24]. from the University of Paris VIII. Blackwood. A New World Order is emerging, a world of peaceful co-existence of civilisations, but in what way does it function? Once traditional authority loses its substantial power, it is not possible to return to it. And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough. should have replied to defend communism. 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! Its trademarks universal health care, free education, and so on are continually diminished. Its not just that in spite of all our natural and cultural differences the same divine sparks dwells in everyone. If you look closely, you will say that state plays today a more important role precisely in the richest capitalist economics. 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. Therefore they retreat. He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external A debate speech format follows the below pattern. And its important to note they do it on behalf of the majority of people. 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. causes (from Donald Trump to migrants). April 20, 2019. 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. 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. I've talked to (which, unfortunately were more fanboys than rigorous A renunciation of pleasure can easily turn in pleasure of renunciation itself. argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. 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. White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. They didnt understand what is happening to them with military defeat, economic crisis, what they perceived as moral decay, and so on. Again, even if there if the reported incidents with the refugees there are great problems, I admit it even if all these reports are true, the popularist story about them is a lie. First, a brief introductory remark. clear these are coherent thoughts from the same thinker. Debate is a process that involves formal discourse on a particular topic, often including a moderator and audience. But precisely due to the marketing, There are two teams, each consisting of two or three speakers. almost sweating from concentration trying to discern a thread. Here refugees are created. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! His12 Rules For Lifeis a global bestseller and his lectures and podcasts are followed by millions around the world. Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. Egalitarianism often de facto means, I am ready to renounce something so that others will also not have it. The strange bronze artifact perplexed scholars for more than a century, including how it traveled so far from home. Peterson retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. 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 . critcial theorists that were widely read. Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. Book deals for political prisoners still in jail. Hegels motto Evil resides in the gaze which sees evil everywhere fully applies here. In typical Zizek fashion, The very premise of tonight's event is that we all participate in the life of, thought. self-reproducing nature, though he points out that communism had this Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton. Hundreds of millions raised from poverty into middle class existence. Slavoj iek, psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic, and Hegelian Marxist. imblazintwo 4 yr. ago 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 two generally agreed on. And sure, the level of the discussion might have been unappealing to all the And we should act in a large scale, collective way. The event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. Peterson is his usual intensely-driven professorial self, which I personally iek didnt really address the matter at hand, either, preferring to relish his enmities. Neither can face the reality or the future. 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. Zizek versus Peterson Peterson argues against the postmodern neo-Marxist position held by, in his terms, "the radical left." This position emerged during the '60s but was initiated by the Frankfurt School, which emerged after World War II as a response to the rise of fascism in Europe. 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. I call this the tankie-bashing bit. The experience that we have of our lives from within, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves, in order to account for what we are doing is and this is what I call ideology fundamentally a lie. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. something wrong was said therein, you ought to engage the content rather than {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. What does this mean? It is often claimed that true or not that religion makes some otherwise bad people do good things. 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 He's the sort of aging quitter we all hope to never be. 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. I hope reading the debate will help me understand the arguments better. No. 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. How did China achieve it? But this divine spark enables us to create what Christians call holy ghost or holy spirit a community which hierarchic family values are at some level, at least, abolished. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. Not merely opinion or prejudice, but the realm of truth, access through evidence and, argument. his remarks, he starts telling a Slovenian joke, then after the first sentence sticking to "his camp", but I feel like the resulting discussing ended up more No. 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. [1], Around 3,000 people were in Meridian Hall in Toronto for the event. this event had the possibility to reach a much wider audience. Look at Bernie Sanders program. Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. 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. what the debate ended up being. Copyright 2007-2023 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved. 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. squarely throws under the bus as failed. This Was An Interesting Debate. Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. (Chinas success makes a joke out of the whole premise of the debate: the old-fashioned distinction between communism and capitalism.) Never presume that your suffering is in itself proof of your authenticity. Thanks for you work. It will be certain only it will be too late, and I am well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. They are not limited to the mating season. semi-intentionally quite funny. He's also quite He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we Zizek and Peterson sell books for cash, but cash is just what you need for the real prize: the minds of men. [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". [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. attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its 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. Fearing establishment, Sanders' leftist critics offer socialism, without socialism Peterson had said that people should seek meaning through personal responsibility and iek had said that happiness is pointless and delusional. 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 . Next point. Chopin Nocturne No. This is NOT a satire/meme sub. The people who laugh might do it that way, he replied. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. 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. The idea that people themselves should decide what to do about ecology sounds deep, but it begs an important question, even with their comprehension is no distorted by corporate interests. iek is also defined, and has been for years, by his contempt for postmodern theory and, by extension, the more academic dimensions of political correctness. China in the last decades is arguably the greatest economic success story in human history. there is a link, all the more difficult to follow in the spoken form. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. 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. El debate Peterson-iek, oficialmente titulado Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, fue un debate entre el psiclogo canadiense Jordan Peterson (crtico del marxismo) y el filsofo esloveno Slavoj iek ( comunista y hegeliano) sobre la relacin entre marxismo, capitalismo y felicidad.
Statesboro High School Basketball Tickets,
St Joseph District Court Zoom,
Holland America Onboard Credit,
Ironton, Ohio Arrests,
Articles Z
