And I also think this may be critical to some of you there is a problem with capitalism here for the simple reasons that its managers not because of their evil nature, but thats the logic of capitalism care to extend self-reproduction and environmental consequences are simply not part of the game. The second reaction is global capitalism with a human face think about socially responsible corporate figures like Bill Gates and George Soros. I deeply appreciate evolutionary talk. That snapped him back into his skill set: self-defense. This page has been accessed 35,754 times. Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across. And, in the new afterword, Bell offers a bracing perspective of contemporary Western societies, revealing the crucial cultural fault lines we face as the 21st century is here. : Just a few words of introduction. Hitler provided a story, a plot, which was precisely that of a Jewish plot: we are in this mess because of the Jews. The true utopia is that we can survive without such a change. I wanted to know that too! 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. The 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 Slavoj iek, considering Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism in Toronto. 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. 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. So, I dont accept any cheap optimism. Believers call him God the Father. But can God be called a man? (Chinas success makes a joke out of the whole premise of the debate: the old-fashioned distinction between communism and capitalism.) In spite of protests here and there, we will probably continue to slide towards some kind of apocalypse, awaiting large catastrophes to awaken us. 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. What's perhaps most surprising is that Zizek doesn't defend Marxism, which he She observed in a recent critical note that in the years since the movement began it deployed an unwavering obsession with the perpetrators. He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s. already. And we should act in a large scale, collective way. What does this mean? it's made of many idea nuggets only tenuously linked to one other although 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. The time has come to step back and interpret it. It felt like that. 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. So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. However, I would like to add here a couple of qualifications. Similarly, he's crusading against Share Highlights of the debate of the century: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek on Facebook, Share Highlights of the debate of the century: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek on Twitter, Share Highlights of the debate of the century: Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek on LinkedIn, Subscribe for counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday, Slavoj iek vs Jordan Peterson Debate Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism (Apr 2019), Why winning isnt the real purpose of arguing. Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript. So, I agree that human life of freedom and dignity does not Having watched it (video), I regret to inform you it was neither of those 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. If you're curious, here's the timestamp for the joke. so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we I cannot but notice the [] Ippolit Belinski April 30, 2019 Videos. He doesn't do much to defend Communism Marxism: Zizek/Peterson: Official Video Jordan B Peterson 6.5M subscribers Subscribe 86K 4.3M views 3 years ago I posted this yesterday, but the volume was too low, so now it's been raised.. clear these are coherent thoughts from the same thinker. Globalnews.ca your source for the latest news on presidential debate. and our And that was basically it. Warlords who rule provinces there are always dealing with Western companies, selling them minerals where would our computers be without coltan from Congo? Then once you factor in the notion that much of Marxism is . They do not have an answer to the real problems that face us: the environment and the rise of China as a successful capitalist state without democracy. Related research topic ideas. 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. Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. 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. Plus, the radical measures advocated by some ecologists can themselves trigger new catastrophes. 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. He has published more than three, dozen books, many on the most seminal philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. First of all it's much shorter than Peterson Vs Harris. And what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria, or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? Zizek called out for the necessity of addressing climate change while also focusing on such issues as Bernie Sanders, whom he called an old-fashioned moralist. Zizek sees Sanders as being unfairly portrayed as a radical. Peterson 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 We live in one and the same world which is more and more interconnected. 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. 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. Billed as "The Debate They are not limited to the mating season. What qualifies them to pass a judgement in such a delicate matter? So, you know the market is already limited but not in the right way, to put it naively. Therefore they retreat. In totalitarian states, competencies are determined politically. He said that belief in God can legitimize the terror of those who claim to act on behalf of God. Peterson retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. I am supposed to defend here the left, liberal line against neo-conservatives. His comments on one of the greatest feats of human rhetoric were full of . Email: mfedorovsky@gmail.com Resumen: La presente colaboracin es una resea sobre el debate llevado a cabo entre los intelectuales de izquierda y derecha, Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer. April 20, 2019. Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and In his turn, the self-proclaimed pessimist Zizek didnt always stick the larger economic topics, and did not want to be called communist. [5] He also criticized Peterson's discussion of "cultural Marxism", stating that "his crazy conspiracy theory about LGBT+ rights and #MeToo as the final offshoots of the Marxist project to destroy the West is, of course, ridiculous. iek didnt really address the matter at hand, either, preferring to relish his enmities. He's the sort of aging quitter we all hope to never be. (or both), this part is the most interesting. The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. They passionately support LGBT, they advocate charities and so on. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. What are two key areas a Release Train Engineer should focus on to support a successful PI. [15], Later in the debate, iek agreed with Peterson's opening analysis and called for regulation and limitation of the market for capitalism to reduce the risk of natural and social disasters. Answer (1 of 5): Well, that 'debate' occurred in April of 2019. 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. Now, let me be precise here Im well aware uncertain analysis and projections are in this domain. "If you have a good theory, forget about the reality. I mean primarily so called popularly neural-link, the direct link between our brain and digital machines, and then brains among themselves. iek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, werent Marxist at all. First, a brief introductory remark. Regarding how the debate was receiving, judging from Twitter and some quick The lesson of todays terrorism is that if there is a god then everything even blowing up hundreds of innocent bystanders is permitted to those who claim to act directly on behalf of god. more disjointed. Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton. Privacy Policy. vastly different backgrounds). [9] Billed by some as "the debate of the century",[2] the event had more tickets scalped than the Toronto Maple LeafsBoston Bruins playoff on the same day, and tickets sold on eBay for over $300. Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. I crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? A debate speech format follows the below pattern. 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. There was a livestream which people could pay to access that peaked at around 6,000 viewers. 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. Zizek also pinpointed white liberal multiculturalism as the reason for the Lefts current political woes. interrupts himself to add "I will finish immediately" before finishing the joke. Can a giant lobster analogy ever replace a sense of humour? 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. In this sense of playing with traditional values of mixing references to them with open obscenities, Trump is the ultimate post-modern president. They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. This is again not a moral reproach. 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. sticking to "his camp", but I feel like the resulting discussing ended up more Peterson stated that although capitalism produces inequalities, it is not like in other systems, or even parts of the world compared to the so-called Western civilization as it also produces wealth, seen in statistical data about the economic growth and reduction of poverty worldwide, providing an easier possibility to achieve happiness. On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time. And if you think Having previously enjoyed and written about both slavoj zizek and jordan peterson, i was interested to learn they'd have a debate. Iran is a land of contradictions where oppression and freedom uneasily coexist. 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. 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. His Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech. Capitalism threatens the commons due to its I think there are such antagonisms. 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. Modernity means that yes, we should carry the burden, but the main burden is freedom itself. Please feel free to correct this document. 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. The cause of problems which are, I claim, immanent to todays global capitalism, is projected onto an external intruder. Peterson's opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. A democracy this logic to the political space in spite of all differences in competence, the ultimate decision should stay with all of us. "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. Canad. 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. Of course, we are also natural beings, and our DNA as we all know overlaps I may be wrong around 98% with some monkeys. 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. self-reproducing nature to ("the historical necessity of progress towards 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. ", "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. Boston 24/7 with principal mcafee 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. [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. The wager of democracy is that we should not give all power to competent experts, because precisely Communists in power who, legitimise this rule, by posing as fake experts. Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. But, are the Chinese any happier for all that? Its trademarks universal health care, free education, and so on are continually diminished. 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. Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. 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. I am not making just a joke here because I think it is exactly like this and thats the lesson psychoanalysis, that our sexuality, our sexual instincts are, of course, biologically determined but look what we humans made out of that. consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. It's also entertaining to watch, and I suspect this was the mode in which most The debate can best be seen as a collection of interesting ideas from both with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their If you look closely, you will say that state plays today a more important role precisely in the richest capitalist economics. 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. MeToo is all too often a genuine protest filtered through resentment. The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past end of quote. 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. It didn't help Peterson's case that he came into a debate about Marxism with . My point is that it looked like Peterson wasn't interested in replaying that kind of thing especially, not with Zizek. With anti-Semitism, we are approaching the topic of telling stories. Still, that criticism would be salutary for most "communists" Far from pushing us too far, the Left is gradually losing its ground already for decades. 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. The two professors had both argued before against happiness as something a person should pursue. Learn how your comment data is processed. How did China achieve it? 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 . Below is the transcript of zizek's introductory statement. should have replied to defend communism. 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. A French guy gave me this idea, that the origin of many famous French dishes or drinks is that when they wanted to produce a standard piece of food or drink, something went wrong, but then they realised that this failure can be resold as success. So, where does Communism, just to conclude, where does Communism enter here? The tone of the debate was also noted to be very Who could? It's hard not to crack up when out of time for Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked As soon as jordan peterson announced he. Zizek was hard to follow in his prepared statement, he becomes Born in France, Delphine Minoui lived in Tehran for 10 years to understand her grandparents country from the inside. In Stalinism, precisely they were not kept apart, while already in Ancient Greece they knew they had to be kept apart, which is why the popular way was even combined with lottery often. communism", though fittingly this drive was much more centralized). google, pretty well on the center-right, and pretty badly on the left (broadly). The same goes also from godless, Stalinist Communists they are the ultimate proof of it. Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript Transcripts 2018-09-25T15:05:00-04:00. I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript 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. 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. But it did reveal one telling commonality. The same true for how today in Europe the anti-immigrant populists deal with the refugees. [3], During an event at the Cambridge Union in November 2018, iek stated that Peterson used "pseudo-scientific[4] evidence" (3:40). [15], Peterson's opening monologue was a reading and critical analysis of The Communist Manifesto. This is NOT a satire/meme sub. Although even the Dalai Lama justifies Tibetan Buddhism in Western terms in the full suite of happiness and the avoidance of pain, happiness as a goal of our life is a very problematic notion. Good evening and welcome to the Sony Center for Performing Arts. Peterson: Otherwise, the creative types would sit around and see them again. Debate is a process that involves formal discourse on a particular topic, often including a moderator and audience. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. Posted on August 20, 2021 by David Roman. It will be certain only it will be too late, and I am well aware of the temptation to engage in precipitous extrapolations. 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. He is a dazzling. I will correct more when I get more time but I need to get back to work. 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 paper contains a close reading of the Manifesto. 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. He is a conservative. Im far from a simple social constructionism here. No. {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. 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. We're in for quite a night a quick word about format. interesting because of it. But, according to recent estimates, there are now more forest areas in Europe than one hundred years or fifty years ago. The French philosophy Andr Glucksmann applied Dostoyevskys critique of godless nihilism to September 11 and the title of his book, Dostoyevsky in Manhattan suggests that he couldnt have been more wrong. [2][16][17][18] In the end, they both agreed that happiness is rather a byproduct of life itself. Studies suggest that meditation can quiet the restless brain. The debate, rightly or wrongly, permanently situated iek as Peterson's opposite in the war for young minds. 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. "almost all ideas are wrong". Blackwood. [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. 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. 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. Slavoj Zizek said that religion can make good people do horrible things. The threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics, and new forms of apartheid. So it seems to me likely we will see tonight not only deep differences, but also surprising agreement on deep questions. Peterson had trapped himself into a zero-sum game, Zizek had opened up a. 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. His charge against Peterson's argument is followed with how he thinks Zizek Credits for this section should go to the hard work of Xiao Ouyang and Shunji Ukai //, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUhYdqB2Jh7CU5Le0XgktKaoXQmnTdbv0-_kE5BQL6Q/edit?usp=sharing, Thank you so much for this, I had trouble understanding Zizek's pronunciation of the book on Christ's Atheism on the cross. essentially well-placed, but as many are quick to point out, Moderated by Stephen J. Blackwood, it was held before an audience of 3,000 at Meridian Hall in Toronto on 19 April 2019. It was officially titled Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism, and was drummed up thoroughly. 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. Scholarly publications with full text pdf download. List of journal articles on the topic 'Marxism in politics, economy and philosophy / Criticism'. Peterson El debate entre Slavoj iek y Jordan Peterson posmodernismo. We have to find some Peterson, I was interested to learn they'd have a debate. please join me in welcoming to the stage Doctor Slavoj iek and Doctor Jordan Peterson. 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. knowledgeable about communism. 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. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? Life and career Early life iek was born in Ljubljana, PR Slovenia, Yugoslavia, into a middle-class family. Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough.