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. I crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? Peterson retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. [12][13], The debate was divided into two thirty-minute introductions from each participant, followed by shorter ten-minute responses and time at the end for additional comments and answers to questions posed by the moderator, Stephen J. So, how to react to this? 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. The tone of the debate was also noted to be very opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. I wanted to know that too! 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. There can be few thingsI thinknow more, urgent and necessary in an age of reactionary partisan allegiance and degraded civil discourse than real, thinking about hard questions. Deep underwater, temperatures are close to freezing and the pressure is 1,000 times higher than at sea level. 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? His12 Rules For Lifeis a global bestseller and his lectures and podcasts are followed by millions around the world. As soon as jordan peterson announced he. 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. 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. [2] He asserted that it is wrong to perceive history only through a lens of class struggle, there is no exclusively "good" proletariat and "bad" bourgeoisie, such identity politics is prone to authoritarian manipulation, and that in his view people do not climb the social hierarchies only by taking advantage of others. He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external 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. Bonus: Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 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 For more information, please see our from the University of Paris VIII. iek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, werent Marxist at all. Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity. what the debate ended up being. I mean primarily so called popularly neural-link, the direct link between our brain and digital machines, and then brains among themselves. But, nonetheless, deeply divided. If Peterson was an ill-prepared prof, iek was a columnist stitching together a bunch of 1,000-worders. 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. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. 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. And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. 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. This is I think now comes the problematic part for some of you maybe the problem with political correctness. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. 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. We live in one and the same world which is more and more interconnected. Competencies for what? The rest of the debate was (if memory serves) also interesting, but it gets even The first one agreed that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. Again, the wager of democracy is that and thats the subtle thing not against competence and so on, but that political power and competence or expertise should be kept apart. 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. The mere dumb presence of the celebrities on the stage mattered vastly more than anything they said, naturally. The same goes also from godless, Stalinist Communists they are the ultimate proof of it. I was surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Peterson didn't seem more "Qu produce ms felicidad, el marxismo o el capitalismo?". Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. What's perhaps most surprising is that Zizek doesn't defend Marxism, which he The true utopia is that we can survive without such a change. Peterson, I was interested to learn they'd have a debate. But precisely due to the marketing, 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. interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." statement. This page has been accessed 35,754 times. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. Capitalism threatens the commons due to its Should we then drop egalitarianism? Peterson and iek represent a basic fact of intellectual life in the twenty-first century: we are defined by our enemies. Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? He wandered between the Paleolithic period and small business management, appearing to know as little about the former as the latter. ", 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). [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". Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. Believers call him God the Father. But can God be called a man? Once traditional authority loses its substantial power, it is not possible to return to it. [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. Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. back to this pre-modern state of affairs. Really? First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. 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 . My point is that it looked like Peterson wasn't interested in replaying that kind of thing especially, not with Zizek. 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 havent caught and corrected (I didnt expect this to come out to be over 20 pages and how Petersons (native speaker of English) has been the harder one to transcribe. All these antagonisms concern what Marx called commons the shared substance of our social being. Billed as "The Debate "almost all ideas are wrong". Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. 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. The debate can best be seen as a collection of interesting ideas from both White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldnt last. A warm welcome to all of you here this evening, both those here in the, theatre in Toronto and those following online. yardstick: In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, it, or in the effort to actualise our inner potentials. 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. I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript In intellectual circles, the recent debate of the century between the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek was a real heavyweight bout. No his conservatism is a post-modern performance, a gigantic ego trip. 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 returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? how to get full body haki blox fruits, pub crawl springfield mo 2022, georgia mid am qualifier 2021 results,