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. They can develop into a permanent obsession sustained by obstacles that demand to be overcome in short, into a properly metaphysical passion that preserves the biologically rhythm, like endlessly prolonging satisfaction in courtly love, engaging in different perversions and so on and so on. Directly sharing your experience with our beloved may appear attractive, but what about sharing them with an agency without you even knowing it? It can well secretly invert the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others. Good evening and welcome to the Sony Center for Performing Arts. 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. Furthermore, I find it very hard to ground todays inequalities as they are documented for example by Piketty in his book to ground todays inequalities in different competencies. The true utopia is that we can survive without such a change. Competencies for what? But precisely due to the marketing, The rest of the debate was (if memory serves) also interesting, but it gets even 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. 2 define the topic, if . your opponent's ideas. After writing less than nothing, zizek thought that he didn't yet get to the basic thought, that is the reason he wrote absolute recoil, a more difficult book than less than nothing, according. 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. Please join. 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. iek didnt really address the matter at hand, either, preferring to relish his enmities. Warlords who rule provinces there are always dealing with Western companies, selling them minerals where would our computers be without coltan from Congo? They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. All such returns are today a post-modern fake. They didnt understand what is happening to them with military defeat, economic crisis, what they perceived as moral decay, and so on. [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. iek & Peterson Debate . The event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. 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. Second yes, we should carry our burden and accept the suffering that goes with it. I always thought that neoliberalism is a fake term. wrote about commons before). I hope reading the debate will help me understand the arguments better. it's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although The people who laugh might do it that way, he replied. Id like the share the debate with a hearing impaired friend. 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. Peterson was an expert on this subject, at least. But when youve said that, youve said everything. Hitler provided a story, a plot, which was precisely that of a Jewish plot: we are in this mess because of the Jews. back to this pre-modern state of affairs. Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity. Who could? 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. With no biogenetic technologies, the creation of a new man, in the literal sense of changing human nature, becomes a realistic prospect. Canad. [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". 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. from the University of Paris VIII. They passionately support LGBT, they advocate charities and so on. I have included my method and aims in a Note at the end of the transcript. Never presume that your suffering is in itself proof of your authenticity. 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 . In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. them, of all things, to French cuisine) are also worth a listen/read. people consumed the debate. How did China achieve it? vastly different backgrounds). and our Peterson opens with a 30-minutes speech where he criticizes the communist Privacy Policy. He is a dazzling. 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. It will be certain only it will be too late, and I am well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. Cookie Notice This I think is the true game changed. I wanted to know that too! 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. ) Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. Petersons opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. 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 . IQ, Politics, and the Left: A Conversation with Douglas Murray Transcript Nina Paley: Animator Extraordinaire Transcript Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript 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. What does this mean? Similarly, he's crusading against It's hard not to crack up when out of time for 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? The debate, titled "Happiness: Marxism vs. Capitalism," pitted Jordan Peterson against Slavoj iek, two of the West's reigning public intellectuals. [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". But there was one truly fascinating moment in the evening. This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value. cordial and respectful, something I really appreciated. A big deal, with huge numbers, and really very little underneath. A good criticism is the one made by Benjamin Studebaker. critcial theorists that were widely read. As soon as jordan peterson announced he. Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. More than a century ago in his Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism if god doesnt exist, then everything is permitted. Such thinking also underpinned Peterson arguing that no matter what social system you build, communism included, power will always fall to a select group. So, you know the market is already limited but not in the right way, to put it naively. Most of the attacks on me are now precisely from left liberals. He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external 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. strongest point. Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. So it seems to me likely we will see tonight not only deep differences, but also surprising agreement on deep questions. 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. I'd say his criticism is Hundreds of millions raised from poverty into middle class existence. Peterson, I was interested to learn they'd have a debate. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech. That snapped him back into his skill set: self-defense. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. Source: www.the-sun.com. What qualifies them to pass a judgement in such a delicate matter? By the end of his half-hour he had not mentioned the word happiness once. argument abbreviated: There are three necessary features which distinguish a bad Marx paper: The article also has a nice summary of Peterson's opening This is again not a moral reproach. opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. 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. The same goes also from godless, Stalinist Communists they are the ultimate proof of it. 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.' Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked [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". 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. there is a link, all the more difficult to follow in the spoken form. And if you think "Qu produce ms felicidad, el marxismo o el capitalismo?". I mean primarily so called popularly neural-link, the direct link between our brain and digital machines, and then brains among themselves. 2 Piano Mono - moshimo sound design. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. Can we even imagine how the fragile balance of our earth functions and in what unpredictable ways geo-engineering can disturb it? 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. Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. thank you! Look at Bernie Sanders program. Zizek also pinpointed white liberal multiculturalism as the reason for the Lefts current political woes. Not that I was disappointed. or a similar conservation organization. [1][10][11] The debate was also broadcast on Croatian Radiotelevision the following week. 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. 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. The debate can best be seen as a collection of interesting ideas from both Remember Pauls words from Galatians There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer male and female in Christ. They are not limited to the mating season. This means something, but nature I think we should never forget this is not a stable hierarchical system but full of improvisations. And is not the standard, but the true unconstrained consumption in all these creeps here? 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. White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their live commentary is quite funny. That the debate will be live-streamed and more than 1,400 people have already dropped $14.95 for. They play the victim as much as their enemies. But there is nonetheless the prospect of a catastrophe here. He makes a big deal out of how he obsessed about He seemed, in person, quite gentle. already. His charge against Peterson's argument is followed with how he thinks Zizek So, what about the balance equality and hierarchy? Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate on the concept of Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism. [, moderator, president of Ralston College, Doctor Stephen Blackwood. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. 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. Con esa pregunta como disparador, los intelectuales Slavoj iek y. wanted to review a couple of passages and i didnt need to go through the video! Both rejected happiness as a primary goal for individuals and societies. iek and Peterson met in Toronto on Friday. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its But these two towering figures of different disciplines and domains share more than a. commitment to thinking itself. officially desire. The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. Pity Jordan Peterson. Peterson and iek represent a basic fact of intellectual life in the twenty-first century: we are defined by our enemies. this event had the possibility to reach a much wider audience. 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. But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. Hitler was one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century. Web nov 14, 2022. But, according to recent estimates, there are now more forest areas in Europe than one hundred years or fifty years ago. Zizek was hard to follow in his prepared statement, he becomes 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. 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. But it did reveal one telling commonality. Doctor Slavoj iek is as philosopher. 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. "[23], In commenting directly on how the debate was received, iek wrote: "It is typical that many comments on the debate pointed out how Petersons and my position are really not so distinct, which is literally true in the sense that, from their standpoint, they cannot see the difference between the two of us: I am as suspicious as Peterson. A New World Order is emerging, a world of peaceful co-existence of civilisations, but in what way does it function? 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. For example, an example not from neo-conservatives. So, I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not First, on how happiness is often the wrong 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. Should we then drop egalitarianism? Peterson is his usual intensely-driven professorial self, which I personally Everything was permitted to them as they perceived themselves as direct instrument of their divinity of historical necessity, as progress towards communism. 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. Is such a change a utopia? Both of these men know that they are explicitly throwbacks. Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. You can find a transcript of it here. intellectuals). Billed as "The Debate Now, let me be precise here Im well aware uncertain analysis and projections are in this domain. He said things like Marx thought the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil. You're currently offline; make sure to connect for latest articles. Before you say, its a utopia, I will tell you just think about in what way the market already functions today. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. of the Century" was overhyped (overmarketed, really), and seemed poorly prepared Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. 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. Believers call him God the Father. But can God be called a man? 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 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. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. 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. This is why as many perspicuous philosophers clearly saw, evil is profoundly spiritual, in some sense more spiritual than goodness. divinity) that could impose meaning from above, and how it's impossible to go It can be watched on Jordan Peterson's channel here. Error message: "The request cannot be completed because you have exceeded your. 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. MeToo is all too often a genuine protest filtered through resentment. But is this really the lesson to be learned from mob killing, looting and burning on behalf of religion? ", "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. 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. Plus, the radical measures advocated by some ecologists can themselves trigger new catastrophes. First, a brief introductory remark. With anti-Semitism, we are approaching the topic of telling stories. towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. I've talked to (which, unfortunately were more fanboys than rigorous Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. matters: meaning, truth, freedom. Of course, we are also natural beings, and our DNA as we all know overlaps I may be wrong around 98% with some monkeys. Email: mfedorovsky@gmail.com Resumen: La presente colaboracin es una resea sobre el debate llevado a cabo entre los intelectuales de izquierda y derecha, Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. 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. Its trademarks universal health care, free education, and so on are continually diminished. interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. His thoughts on social constructionism vs evolutionary psychology (comparing consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. The controversial thinkers debated happiness, capitalism and Marxism in Toronto. Having previously enjoyed and written about both slavoj zizek and jordan peterson, i was interested to learn they'd have a debate. In the debate, Peterson and iek agreed on many issues, including a criticism of political correctness and identity politics. His remarks were just as rambling as Petersons, veering from Trump and Sanders to Dostoevsky to the refugee crisis to the aesthetics of Nazism. Regarding how the debate was receiving, judging from Twitter and some quick 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. Error type: "Forbidden". Slavoj iek, psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic, and Hegelian Marxist. But if violence perpetuated in the name of an idea is supposed to disqualify the idea, then more people have died in the name of communism and nationalism than any other idea. The time has come to step back and interpret it. [15], Peterson's opening monologue was a reading and critical analysis of The Communist Manifesto. Due to a planned power outage on Friday, 1/14, between 8am-1pm PST, some services may be impacted. A debate speech format follows the below pattern. "almost all ideas are wrong". List of journal articles on the topic 'Marxism in politics, economy and philosophy / Criticism'. 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. Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldnt last. I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript 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. They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. 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. 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. But, it is instantly clear how this self-denigration brings a profit of its own. Finally, the common space of humanity itself. So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan [2][16][17][18] In the end, they both agreed that happiness is rather a byproduct of life itself. things. We often need a master figure to push us out an inertia and, Im not afraid to say, that forces us to be free. 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. He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s. 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. Here refugees are created. The turn towards culture as a key component of capitalist reproduction and concurrent to it the commodification of cultural life itself are I think crucial moments of capitalism expanded reproduction. 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 At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. Then once you factor in the notion that much of Marxism is . Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. Let me mention the change enacted by Christianity. Boston 24/7 with principal mcafee more disjointed. Below is the transcript of zizek's introductory statement. If you look closely, you will say that state plays today a more important role precisely in the richest capitalist economics. I will correct more when I get more time but I need to get back to work. We will probably slide towards apocalypse, he said. But, nonetheless, deeply divided. So as I saw it, the task of this debate was to at least clarify our differences."[24].

Simply Tidy Mobile Workstation Assembly Instructions, Articles Z