I encourage you to watch the video or read the transcript I can see no threat to free creativity in this program on the contrary, I saw health care and education and so on as enabling me to focus my life on important creative issues. 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. 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 Two Teams Per Debate Argue For Opposing Positions On An Issue. And I claim the same goes for tradition. 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. Warlords who rule provinces there are always dealing with Western companies, selling them minerals where would our computers be without coltan from Congo? 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. Elements of a formal debate. iek & Peterson Debate - Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism (transcript The controversial thinkers debated happiness, capitalism and Marxism in Toronto. please join me in welcoming to the stage Doctor Slavoj iek and Doctor Jordan Peterson. Deep underwater, temperatures are close to freezing and the pressure is 1,000 times higher than at sea level. 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. Scholarly publications with full text pdf download. meaningful cause beyond the mere struggle for pleasurable survival. 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. And they both agreed, could not have agreed more, that it was all the fault of the academic left. 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. statement. 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. Peterson El debate entre Slavoj iek y Jordan Peterson posmodernismo. This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value. knowledgeable about communism. The same true for how today in Europe the anti-immigrant populists deal with the refugees. Todays China combines these two features in its extreme form strong, totalitarian state, state-wide capitalist dynamics. I always thought that neoliberalism is a fake term. Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and live commentary is quite funny. And we should act in a large scale, collective way. We are never just instruments of some higher cause. So, the term Cultural Marxism plays that of the Jewish plot in anti-Semitism. In totalitarian states, competencies are determined politically. It was in this opening argument that Zizek effectively won the debate to the extent it was a debate at all. Bonus: Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zizek on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Error type: "Forbidden". He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s. Slavoj iek on His Stubborn Attachment to Communism (Ep. 84 - BONUS) [16][17] iek was also critical of the multiculturalist liberals who espouse identity politics and that Western countries should rather fix the situation in immigrants' home countries than accept them. Aquella vez me parecieron ms slidos los argumentos del primero. 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. Zizek makes many interesting points. Let me now briefly deal with in a friendly way I claim with what became known sorry for the irony as the lobster topic. In such times of urgency, when we know we have to act but dont know how to act, thinking is needed. Therefore they retreat. 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 and Peterson went head-to-head recently at a debate in Toronto. It can well secretly invert the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others. 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. This one is from the Guardian. But I nonetheless found it interesting. 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. is dead and he never amended his manifesto that I know of. 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. [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". 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. Refresh the. Billed as "The Debate of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". 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. Jacques Lacan:Seminars - No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we Are you also ready to affirm that Hitler was our enemy because his story was not heard? 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. We often need a master figure to push us out an inertia and, Im not afraid to say, that forces us to be free. 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.. ridiculing the form. Peterson debate Transcript? : r/zizek - reddit 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. She observed in a recent critical note that in the years since the movement began it deployed an unwavering obsession with the perpetrators. manifesto, which he'd re-read for the occasion. While the two take different political stances, both have been known to rail against political correctness and found that issue in common. Transcripts | Jordan Peterson The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Having previously enjoyed and written about both Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Then once you factor in the notion that much of Marxism is . Competencies for what? It was full of the stench of burning strawmen. The digitalisation of our brains opens up unheard of new possibilities of control. This means something, but nature I think we should never forget this is not a stable hierarchical system but full of improvisations. Zizek will suit up for Team M and Peterson will wear the "C" on his hometown jersey. Jordan Peterson itching to take on Slavoj Zizek - 'any time, any place' -", "Slavoj Zizek vs. Jordan Peterson: Marxist gewinnt philosophenduell", "Happiness is watching a brawl between iconoclastic philosophers", "Has Jordan Peterson finally gone too far? Really? Conservative thinkers claim that the origin of our crisis is the loss of our reliance on some transcendent divinity. So as I saw it, the task of this debate was to at least clarify our differences."[24]. This is again not a moral reproach. Die Analyse dieser Figur findet mit starkem Bezug zur Etablierung In fact, this was a surprise for many, but both men tended to agree a whole lot, White, left liberals love to denigrate their own culture and claim euro-centrism for our evils. MeToo is all too often a genuine protest filtered through resentment. His From the Zizek-Peterson debate. #philosophytiktok #philosophy #slavojz My hero is here a black lady, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo campaign more than a decade ago. Zizek Peterson Debate Transcript - GBATEDA 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. The paper contains a long digression about all the reasons the Soviet Union was terrible. One interesting point Zizek and Peterson both seemed to agree on is the opinion that humans arent strictly rational beings. In that part of the discussion, you say that you calling yourself a Communist is a bit of a provocation . Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. The Jordan Peterson-Slavoj iek debate was good for something 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. What qualifies them to pass a judgement in such a delicate matter? They were a vague and not particularly informed (by his own admission) reading of The Communist Manifesto. We are spontaneously really free. 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 . SLAVOJ IEK: . Equality can also mean and thats the equality I advocate creating the space for as many as possible individuals to develop their different potentials. 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. The Master and His Emissary: A Conversation with Dr. Iain McGilchrist Transcript . cordial and respectful, something I really appreciated. I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. something wrong was said therein, you ought to engage the content rather than About No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis And what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria, or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? Web november 12, 2022 advertisement the nigerian factcheckers . Slavoj iek - Wikizero.com Thanks for you work. Fearing establishment, Sanders' leftist critics offer socialism, without socialism The strange bronze artifact perplexed scholars for more than a century, including how it traveled so far from home. ", "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. 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. Unfortunately, this brief moment of confrontation of their shared failure couldnt last. 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. 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. The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. Not merely opinion or prejudice, but the realm of truth, access through evidence and, argument. Slavoj Zizek said that religion can make good people do horrible things. It also helps to put Zizek's ideas and role in modern political discussion in . It felt like that. Instead they often engage in self-destructive behavior. "If you have a good theory, forget about the reality. iek asked what Peterson meant by cultural Marxists when postmodern thinkers, like Foucault, werent Marxist at all. talking about wherever he felt like that was tenuously related rather than So, a pessimist conclusion, what will happen? Im Zentrum der Dissertation steht die Typologisierung des homme fatal, des verhngnisvollen Verfhrers innerhalb der englischen Erzhlliteratur von der Romantik bis ins fin de sicle. them, of all things, to French cuisine) are also worth a listen/read. this event had the possibility to reach a much wider audience. 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. Doctor Slavoj iek is as philosopher. I deeply appreciate evolutionary talk. 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. vastly different backgrounds). 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. You can find a transcript of it here. It seems that our countries are run relatively well, but is the mess the so-called rogue countries find themselves in not connected to how we interact with them? Some idea make a reappearance, other are newly developed, but it's Opinion | Here's how Slavoj Zizek should prepare for 'debate of the Hegels motto Evil resides in the gaze which sees evil everywhere fully applies here. First by admitting we are in a deep mess. Take what is perhaps the ultimate rogue state Congo. Capitalism threatens the commons due to its 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. I cannot but notice the [] Ippolit Belinski April 30, 2019 Videos. Kierkegaard, mine and everybodys favourite theologist, wrote If a child says he will obey his father because his father is a competent and good guy, this is an affront to fathers authority. 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. 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. 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. Peterson opens with a 30-minutes speech where he criticizes the communist In the debate, Peterson and iek agreed on many issues, including a criticism of political correctness and identity politics. However, this is not enough. It develops like French cuisine. They returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? Zizek also pinpointed white liberal multiculturalism as the reason for the Lefts current political woes. I think there are such antagonisms. (Chinas success makes a joke out of the whole premise of the debate: the old-fashioned distinction between communism and capitalism.) Highlights of the "debate of the century": Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek 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. communism", though fittingly this drive was much more centralized). Not only are we not allowed cheap excuses for not doing our duty, duty itself should not serve as an excuse. Two Famous Academics, 3,000 Fans, $1,500 Tickets Another summary of the Peterson/iek debate - Pharyngula 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 .