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. Iran is a land of contradictions where oppression and freedom uneasily coexist. Not that I was disappointed. semi-intentionally quite funny. strongest point. Egalitarianism often de facto means, I am ready to renounce something so that others will also not have it. There was an opportunity. His12 Rules For Lifeis a global bestseller and his lectures and podcasts are followed by millions around the world. Below is the transcript of Zizek's introductory statement. The debate, titled "Happiness: Marxism vs. Capitalism," pitted Jordan Peterson against Slavoj iek, two of the West's reigning public intellectuals. First, a brief introductory remark. 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. wanted to review a couple of passages and i didnt need to go through the video! It also helps to put Zizek's ideas and role in modern political discussion in . 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. 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. It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. towards disaster, maybe some catastrophes can shake us out of our ruts. But Zizek was too busy complaining about identity politics and his status within academia to try. 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. For example, an example not from neo-conservatives. Did we really move too much in the direction of equality? Chopin Nocturne No. Let me mention the change enacted by Christianity. [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. By the end of his half-hour he had not mentioned the word happiness once. 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. Blackwood. Watching him, I was amazed that anyone had ever taken him seriously enough to hate him. Below is the transcript of zizek's introductory statement. 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. 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. meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. Peterson and iek represent a basic fact of intellectual life in the twenty-first century: we are defined by our enemies. Plus, the radical measures advocated by some ecologists can themselves trigger new catastrophes. 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. 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. 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? 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. (Chinas success makes a joke out of the whole premise of the debate: the old-fashioned distinction between communism and capitalism.) 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. "If you have a good theory, forget about the reality. enjoy while Zizek is his tick-ridden idiosyncratic self. 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. Everything was permitted to them as they perceived themselves as direct instrument of their divinity of historical necessity, as progress towards communism. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. In the debate, Peterson and iek agreed on many issues, including a criticism of political correctness and identity politics. Next point. 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. Believers call him God the Father. But can God be called a man? He seemed, in person, quite gentle. interesting because of it. Peterson and Zizek Debate - transcribed by John Li - [email protected] - 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. Its all anyone can do at this point. Its not just that in spite of all our natural and cultural differences the same divine sparks dwells in everyone. In spite of protests here and there, we will probably continue to slide towards some kind of apocalypse, awaiting large catastrophes to awaken us. Another summary of the Peterson/iek debate. Ideology, Logos & Belief with Transliminal Media . 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. Aquella vez me parecieron ms slidos los argumentos del primero. Is such a change a utopia? 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. His Really? Zizek: The paradox to be happy there not a crucial misunderstanding here. 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. 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. [1] They debated about the merits of regulated capitalism. "post-modern neo-marxists" and it's strange not to understand or at least know He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. On Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson: Nature, Culture, and the Displacement of Time. 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. 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. Modernity means that yes, we should carry the burden, but the main burden is freedom itself. people consumed the debate. I will correct more when I get more time but I need to get back to work. 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. 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 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. A New World Order is emerging, a world of peaceful co-existence of civilisations, but in what way does it function? Learn how your comment data is processed. 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. Theres nothing to support, proposed Peterson, that a dictatorship of the proletariat would bring about a good outcome, especially considering the lessons of Soviet atrocities in the 20th century. Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung He said that belief in God can legitimize the terror of those who claim to act on behalf of God. [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". Studebaker concludes that "Peterson didn't prepare. Thats the big of ideologies how to make good, decent people do horrible things. Remember Pauls words from Galatians There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer male and female in Christ. Globalnews.ca your source for the latest news on presidential debate. Born in France, Delphine Minoui lived in Tehran for 10 years to understand her grandparents country from the inside. imblazintwo 4 yr. ago essentially well-placed, but as many are quick to point out, First, of all, the commons of external nature, threatened by pollution, global warming and so on. Who could? Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. with only surface differences (some, though not all, could be chalked to their The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past end of quote. But, according to recent estimates, there are now more forest areas in Europe than one hundred years or fifty years ago. Hundreds of millions raised from poverty into middle class existence. In this sense, the image of Donald Trump is also a fetish, the last thing a liberal sees before confronting actual social tensions. 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 . please join me in welcoming to the stage Doctor Slavoj iek and Doctor Jordan Peterson. intellectuals). Come here for focussed discussion and debate on the Giant of Ljubljana, Slavoj iek and the Slovenian school of psychoanalytically informed philosophy. This is again not a moral reproach. Furthermore, I think that social power and authority cannot be directly grounded in competence. At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." [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. your opponent's ideas. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? Answer (1 of 5): Well, that 'debate' occurred in April of 2019. 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. Regarding how the debate was receiving, judging from Twitter and some quick Privacy Policy. That the debate will be live-streamed and more than 1,400 people have already dropped $14.95 for. I'd say his criticism is It's quite interesting, but it's not Tonight, "philosopher" Slavoj iek will debate "psychologist" Jordan Peterson in Toronto, ostensibly on the subject of Capitalism vs. Marxism. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. knowledgeable about communism. A big deal, with huge numbers, and really very little underneath. It felt like that. Because the left doesn't have its own house in order", "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? Peterson, I was interested to learn they'd have a debate. The threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics, and new forms of apartheid. Book deals for political prisoners still in jail. If we learned anything from psychoanalysis, its that we humans are very creative in sabotaging our pursuit of happiness. First, since we live in a modern era, we cannot simply refer to an unquestionable authority to confer a mission or task on us. "Qu produce ms felicidad, el marxismo o el capitalismo?". Most of the attacks on me are now precisely from left liberals. And if you think Hitler was one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century. First, on how happiness is often the wrong China in the last decades is arguably the greatest economic success story in human history. 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. manifesto, which he'd re-read for the occasion. Peterson had trapped himself into a zero-sum game, Zizek had opened up a. back to this pre-modern state of affairs. 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. Zizek is particularly culpable here, for [19] Harrison Fluss and Sam Miller of Jacobin reported that Peterson made many factual errors, such as misunderstanding the labour theory of value, incorrectly associating Marx broadly with identity politics, and denying the existence of a Marxist philosophy of nature. 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. wrote about commons before). Email: [email protected] Resumen: La presente colaboracin es una resea sobre el debate llevado a cabo entre los intelectuales de izquierda y derecha, He sees the rejections of some systemic failures of capitalism onto external 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. vastly different backgrounds). In our human universe, power, in the sense of exerting authority, is something much more mysterious, even irrational. The Master and His Emissary: A Conversation with Dr. Iain McGilchrist Transcript . He said things like Marx thought the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil. 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 - [email protected] - 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 [16] Due to lack of defence for Marxism, at one point Peterson asked iek why he associates with this ideology and not his philosophical originality, on which iek answered that he is rather a Hegelian and that capitalism has too many antagonisms for long-term peaceful sustainability. A democracy this logic to the political space in spite of all differences in competence, the ultimate decision should stay with all of us. So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. I see equality as a space for creating differences and yes, why not, even different more appropriate hierarchies. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM35zlrE01k. Peterson retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. 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! Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. You can find a transcript of it here. And that was basically it. Having watched it (video), I regret to inform you it was neither of those 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. Is there, in todays United States, really too much equality? First, a brief introductory remark. The event was billed as "the debate of the century", "The Rumble in the Realm of the Mind", and. Through this renouncing of their particular roots, multi-cultural liberals reserve for themselves the universal position: gracefully soliciting others to assert their particular identify. 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. So, how to act? iek & Peterson Debate . The recent debate between Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson lived up to the hype. his remarks, he starts telling a Slovenian joke, then after the first sentence So, a pessimist conclusion, what will happen? 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. Related research topic ideas. And what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria, or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? [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.