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. Peterson retreats into the integrity of character and Judeo-Christian values as he sees them. 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. enjoy while Zizek is his tick-ridden idiosyncratic self. The mere dumb presence of the celebrities on the stage mattered vastly more than anything they said, naturally. 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. iek & Peterson Debate . And that was basically it. It can well secretly invert the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others. Watching him, I was amazed that anyone had ever taken him seriously enough to hate him. 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. First, a brief introductory remark. please join me in welcoming to the stage Doctor Slavoj iek and Doctor Jordan Peterson. El debate entre iek y Peterson se produjo en Toronto, Canad. Really? The debate, rightly or wrongly, permanently situated iek as Peterson's opposite in the war for young minds. At least Marxism is closed off now that Marx Warlords who rule provinces there are always dealing with Western companies, selling them minerals where would our computers be without coltan from Congo? 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. This I think is the true game changed. This means something, but nature I think we should never forget this is not a stable hierarchical system but full of improvisations. But, it is instantly clear how this self-denigration brings a profit of its own. I've talked to (which, unfortunately were more fanboys than rigorous So, let me begin by bringing together the three notions from the title Happiness, Communism, Capitalism in one exemplary case China today. Email: [email protected] Resumen: La presente colaboracin es una resea sobre el debate llevado a cabo entre los intelectuales de izquierda y derecha, The threat of ecological catastrophe, the consequence of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics, and new forms of apartheid. The time has come to step back and interpret it. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. If you're curious, here's the timestamp for the joke. Zizek and Peterson sell books for cash, but cash is just what you need for the real prize: the minds of men. 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. [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. 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. His remarks were just as rambling as Petersons, veering from Trump and Sanders to Dostoevsky to the refugee crisis to the aesthetics of Nazism. Rules for Life, as if there were such things. It has been said of the debate that " nothing is a greater waste of time ." Tickets to the livestream are $14.95, and admission to the venue itself was running as high as $1,500. Regarding to the Peterson-Zizek debate as a whole, yes, I would recommend a listen. 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 size and scope of his fame registers more or less exactly the loathing for identity politics in the general populace, because it certainly isnt on the quality of his books that his reputation resides. Zizek makes many interesting points. A New World Order is emerging, a world of peaceful co-existence of civilisations, but in what way does it function? His charge against Peterson's argument is followed with how he thinks Zizek So as I saw it, the task of this debate was to at least clarify our differences."[24]. But market success is also not innocent and neutral as a regulatory of the social recognition of competencies. Copyright 2007-2023 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved. It was billed as a meeting of titans and that it was not. 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. List of journal articles on the topic 'Marxism in politics, economy and philosophy / Criticism'. Related research topic ideas. Not that I was disappointed. In a similar way, the Alt-Right obsession with cultural Marxism expresses the rejection to confront that phenomenon they criticise as the attack of the cultural Marxist plot moral degradation, sexual promiscuity, consumerist hedonism, and so on are the outcomes of the immanent dynamic of capitalist societies. 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. He gave a minor history of the French critical theorists who transposed categories of class oppression for group oppression in the 1960s. This is I think now comes the problematic part for some of you maybe the problem with political correctness. 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. First by admitting we are in a deep mess. But, a danger lurks here, that of a subtly reversal: dont fall in love thats my position with your suffering. 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. He acknowledged that unrestricted capitalism can cause its own problems and tends to make the rich richer, but to him the poor are also better off financially under such an arrangement. They were making in the usual way, but the cheese got rotten and infected, smelling bad, and they said, oh my god, look, we have our own original French cheese. 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 I did see the debate of the century, the debate of our century. The same true for how today in Europe the anti-immigrant populists deal with the refugees. They are both concerned with more fundamental. Zizek also pinpointed white liberal multiculturalism as the reason for the Lefts current political woes. The pathological element is the husbands need for jealousy as the only way for him to sustain his identity. [1] They debated about the merits of regulated capitalism. How did China achieve it? Iran is a land of contradictions where oppression and freedom uneasily coexist. Peterson's more practically-oriented style also made his arguments a bit more approachable to non-academics. They dont mention communism to legitimise their rule, they prefer the old Confucian notion of a harmonious society. The strange bronze artifact perplexed scholars for more than a century, including how it traveled so far from home. It Was In This Opening Argument That Zizek Effectively Won The Debate To The Extent It Was A Debate At All. 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. They are both highly attuned to ideology and the mechanisms of power, and yet they are not principally political thinkers. 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. ) 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 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. [1][14] Its topic was which "political-economic model provided the great opportunity for human happiness: capitalism or Marxism". And its important to note they do it on behalf of the majority of people. Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender, "Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Zizek each draw fans at sold-out debate", "The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj iek", "How Anti-Leftism Has Made Jordan Peterson a Mark for Fascist Propaganda", "There Is No One to Cheer for in the Potential Battle Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek", "Why do people find Jordan Peterson so convincing? He couldnt believe it. 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. A warm welcome to all of you here this evening, both those here in the, theatre in Toronto and those following online. For more information, please see our 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. The debate can best be seen as a collection of interesting ideas from both Transcripts | Jordan Peterson An archive of transcribed public lectures, interviews, podcasts, and YouTube videos. Peterson's opening remarks were disappointing even for his fans in the audience. Democratic freedom, rapturous religion, and newspapers created a hotbed for social experimentation in 19th-century America. What if secretly they know she would kill her child again. Burgis, Ben; Hamilton, Conrad Bongard; McManus, Matthew; Trejo, Marion (2020). Aspen Ideas Festival: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars Transcript Transcripts 2018-09-25T15:05:00-04:00. I think there are such antagonisms. Its all anyone can do at this point. 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. This is a pity, because Peterson made an argument I have seen many times, one which is incredibly easy to beat." This is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value. In the 1920s many Germans experienced their situation as a confused mess. They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer.. This Was An Interesting Debate. Peterson has risen to fame on the basis of his refusal to pay the usual fealties to political correctness. Second on how modernity is characterized by the absence of authority (and The paper contains a close reading of the Manifesto. And I must agree. Other commentators opted for snide, which I think is sad although the linked {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. Who could? In fact, this was a surprise for many, but both men tended to agree a whole lot, Scholarly publications with full text pdf download. Blackwood. In the end Peterson-iek was less of a heavyweight boxing match than a WWE Grand Slam. Cookie Notice Billed as "The Debate of the Century", its official title was "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism". The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. Error message: "The request cannot be completed because you have exceeded your. I crunched some numbers to find out", "Best academic steel-cage match ever? 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. Second yes, we should carry our burden and accept the suffering that goes with it. Neither can face the reality or the future. I call this the tankie-bashing bit. Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis Transcript Dr. Jordan Peterson 2019-05-17T08:28:01-04:00. This is NOT a satire/meme sub. clear these are coherent thoughts from the same thinker. Most of the attacks on me are now precisely from left liberals. something wrong was said therein, you ought to engage the content rather than What does this mean? Web second presidential debate: The event will be broadcast live across. 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. 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. manifesto, which he'd re-read for the occasion. interesting because of it. matters: meaning, truth, freedom. Egalitarianism often de facto means, I am ready to renounce something so that others will also not have it. I wanted to know that too! [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. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech. 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. Hitler was one of the greatest storytellers of the 20th century. Then once you factor in the notion that much of Marxism is . Scientific data seems, to me at least, abundant enough. 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. Zizek and Peterson went head-to-head recently at a debate in Toronto. 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. Next point one should stop blaming hedonist egotism for our woes. This is again not a moral reproach. Last night, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj iek debated each other at the Sony Centre in Toronto. 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. White, multi-culturalist liberals embody the lie of identity politics. That snapped him back into his skill set: self-defense. The tone of the debate was also noted to be very It's quite interesting, but it's not The Peterson-iek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil. 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. 76.3K ,809 . TikTok Zizek is my dad (@zizekcumsock): "From the Zizek-Peterson debate. 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. Good evening and welcome to the Sony Center for Performing Arts. El denominado "Debate del siglo" entre el filsofo y socilogo esloveno Slavoj iek y el psiclogo canadiense Jordan Peterson, fue uno de los eventos intelectuales de mayor trascendencia del ltimo tiempo. Presidential debate 2020 RECAP What happened in the first election from www.the-sun.com. Posted on August 20, 2021 by David Roman. Pity Jordan Peterson. either, but points a problem with capitalism on what Marx called "commons" (I The past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past end of quote. A big deal, with huge numbers, and really very little underneath. Still, that criticism would be salutary for most "communists" So, a pessimist conclusion, what will happen? more disjointed. Why do I still cling to this cursed name when I know and fully admit that the 20th century Communist project in all its failure, how it failed, giving birth to new forms of murderous terror. Why would the proletariat be more capable of leading? consist just in searching for happiness, no matter how much we spiritualise 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. Once traditional authority loses its substantial power, it is not possible to return to it. I would like to refer to a classic Daniel Bell, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism written back in 1976, where the author argues that the unbounded drive of modern capitalism undermines the moral foundations of the original protestant ethics. should have replied to defend communism. There are two teams, each consisting of two or three speakers. With anti-Semitism, we are approaching the topic of telling stories. I cannot but notice the [] Ippolit Belinski April 30, 2019 Videos. They returned to their natural subject: who is the enemy? and our I hope reading the debate will help me understand the arguments better. 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. We will probably slide towards apocalypse, he said. "[1][6] According to Matthew Sharpe writing for The Conversation, .mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 40px}.mw-parser-output .templatequote .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;padding-left:1.6em;margin-top:0}, the term 'cultural Marxism' moved into the media mainstream around 2016, when psychologist Jordan Peterson was protesting a Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender. And here applies the same logic to Christ himself. attacking the manifesto isn't perhaps attacking Communism or even Marxism as its 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. Other than that, multiple commentators (one, two) pointed that the "Debate opinions), and that the debate was cordial, even mutually admirative at times. The solution is not for the rich Western countries to receive all immigrants, but somehow to try to change the situation which creates massive waves of immigration, and we are completely in this. And what about foreign interventions in Iraq and Syria, or by our proxies like Saudi Arabia in Yemen? 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. Because the left doesn't have its own house in order", "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? The paper contains almost no references to any other texts, either by Marx or by other socialist thinkers. I'd say this reminds me a lot of what I've seen from him He too finished his remarks with a critique of political correctness, which he described as the world of impotence that masks pure defeat. Zizek's opening statement is probably the most interesting part of the debate. Source: www.the-sun.com. [Scattered Audience applause and cheers]Both Doctor iek and Peterson transcend their titles, their disciplines, and the academy, just as this debatewe hopewill transcend purely economic questions by situating those in the frame 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. Does Donald Trump stand for traditional values? Last week, Peterson announced that he and Zizek would be meeting on stage at the Sony Centre in Toronto for a debate called "Happiness: Capitalism v. Marxism." Apparently the two men are. The statement has some interesting ideas though, including the statement that The truth lies outside in what we do. self-reproducing nature to ("the historical necessity of progress towards This is why as many perspicuous philosophers clearly saw, evil is profoundly spiritual, in some sense more spiritual than goodness. In our daily lives, we pretend to desire things which we do not really desire, so that ultimately the worst thing that can happen is to get what we officially desire.