Diego seems really smart and well-read, no doubt, but like someone else here already said, I think I'd prefer Jared alone visiting this topic. I mean no offense, but Diego seems to me like he'd be more at home at the modern wisecrack, less nuance and balance in the intelectual approach on a given topic... more clearly and openly biased, which is not necessarily bad, but, again: I'd appreciate Jared alone discussing this.
Have you been out in the world? Have you met people? It usually doesn't take long to realize guys like Diego aren't as smart as they seem initially. They're just novel and brash so they seem like the must know more than us. And clearly he is well read. That doesn't mean he comes to the right conclusions.
Diego is what is known as a useful idiot. The guy has been corrected on his podcast by guest before who had PhDs on the subject... and he defaults back to whatever he read elsewhere by "who knows where" and then presents it as the new hotness. He got to step in into the lime light because he exposed another bafoon as a charlatan he was... but that's about it.
It is a commentary of our society that this could even be called a "debate" and why it has turned into the meme it currently has. Can anyone who values intellectual honesty look at JP's preparation and engagement and not be insulted? Regardless of how you feel about the person, he came entirely unprepared without any investigation or evaluation of the material he was debating. This individual is given a platform, and a pedestal by others, despite failing to meet the requirements of participating in a middle school debate.
I can't believe Peterson is taken seriously by anyone when it seems apparent that he hasn't read the source material of the thinkers he critiques. How can he think that this is acceptable? He must suffer from some kind of personality disorder.
Great talk, I appreciate bringing this topic back again. I do incline to think that you could a perceived empathy from Zizek towards Peterson as a person even tho he does not empathize towards his ideology, Zizek did enough for me to stand on top of the argument without attacking Peterson as a person which is my ideal way to win a debate.
This the absolute baseline for academic debate or discourse. The idea that one doesn't use ad hominem logical fallacies shouldn't be reason to discount them, it's decorum. The standard and expectations for discourse in this modern age is sad. JP was clearly not prepared for this debate, and it showed. Painfully. Zizek brought insight and analysis, and JP brought wishy washy platitudes.
Zizek: Capitalists sow the seeds of their own destruction. (Clears nose) And thus, capitalism is an inherently self-destructive system of economic governance. Peterson: *Clean your room and make your bed*
I do not think Peterson is a libertarian free market capitalist. In actuality, I do think he is supportive of regulating the markets. He just isn't a marxist. The clean your room and make your bed line was advice to lost and miserable men. You should not deride it like you do.
I’m only 15 minutes in…never heard of this guy Diego…”They are too far gone to be able to change their minds” is a really rich statement coming from him
Peterson was totally out of his element (because he's a pseudo-intellectual) and Zizek didn't win the debate because TRUE DEBATES ARE NOT MEANT TO BE WON. Peoole confuse whatever the heck verbal rhetorical sport their politicians make with a debate. A true debate is a method to compare and contrast ideas, and then try to derive conclusions from the crosspolination, not reaching synthesis but each side getting out enriched. The whole thing was a delight to watch because Zizek carried Peterson out of the confrontational destroy-each-other match cage that the internet set them up to. He simply rejected just being reduced to entertainment, talked some things that flew above Peterson's head, made some amiable chat and even rescued the really few and rare true things that Peterson might say (because it is untrue that a person is 100% right or 100% wrong). Now, I will go seek up that Chomsky-Foucault debate to see how they managed that. I haven't read/heard it actually.
His point about inflammation, you know that a lot of doctors for autoimmune inflammatory conditions recommend mediation, mindfulness, breathing exercises etc to improve a persons stress response, also a persons micro biome has been shown to change dependent on the negative or positive character of a persons thoughts.
I'm sorry, but I don't really see how Diego makes the jump from "the precursors which form ideas are originally sourced from material reality" to "ideas don't matter". Jared is right to say that the film The Matrix inspired him and altered his perception. The fact that The Matrix could not have existed without its necessary antecedent material conditions doesn't render it irrelevant. I don't see how materiality coming first in the dialectic negates the importance of ideation.
Yeah: Among others, "Dialectic Materialism" is a "friendly reminder " that the thinking Subject is not the omnipotent first and last thing of theory that it very often likes to be; even in Hegel's Process Philosophy that aimed very hard to transcend it; - it reflects on (material) conditions that lie outside itself. - If you really want to cancel that whole metaphysical construct, including the "classic" Subject/Object dualism , then you probably land rather close to Heidegger's theory of "Being", instead.
I haven't seen everything from Diego so I may be wrong, but I think he fully belives i'm determinism. So he makes the jump from materialism to determinism
You just have to look at the historical development of liberal thought and the commercial revolution in Medieval Europe. Relations of free labour preceded by hundreds of years the bourgeois revolutions and treatises on bourgeois ideology. But it’s origin is based in those changing conditions historically.
As to understanding & debating about Marx, I don’t know if you two were talking about the usefulness of Marx as a philosopher or as an economics writer. Marx may have several interesting philosophical ideas, & some can be very helpful for understanding some social issues like workers’ alienation from the impacts of their work. But as for economic ideas & content, it’s probably fine if one doesn’t fully understand all of Marx’s ideas when they can just compare real-world outcomes when systems stemming from his ideology are tried.
''But as for economic ideas & content, it’s probably fine if one doesn’t fully understand all of Marx’s ideas when they can just compare real-world outcomes when systems stemming from his ideology are tried.'' you cannot analyse theory solely by the derivatives. If you only looked at anything that stems from Marxist ideology, you would first have to prove that it derives from that ideology, which is always incredibly contentious and never worth the effort more than just analysing the ideas themselves. I absolutely would argue that anything that stems from Marxist economics is present in every modern-day society, from unions to social welfare to taxation
The first 5 minutes of this conversation Diego comes across like a jealous schoolboy when talking about Peterson. I cringed several times and it was really distracting to the serious conversation that Jared was attempting to have.
@@mrblump Peterson is a right wing reactionary hack that disseminates rebranded Nazi propaganda, so you can get stuffed. What do you think "cultural Marxism" is? It's the exact same crap as "Cultural Bolshevism (Kulturbolschewismus)." In addition to deliberately pandering to the far right and thus causing measurable harm to society, he is a charlatan of the highest order. I KNOW this is true because any time he speaks on a topic I know something about, he's wrong at best and deliberately dishonest at worst. He's also a horrible, unethical quack of a clinical psychologist. It's a crime that he's been allowed to keep his license thus far.
He is just a bussinesman who dreams of becoming an influencer. He uses "philosophy" to atack people, the trendy influencer, the trendy topic. He thinks attacking JP he can attract attention, been recognized as a "thinker"... Nobody respects him in Mexico, nowdays he is a meme - that's why he is looking outside. You can look for his golden chain adds
As a layman, not really acquainted with philosophy concepts or authors, I think trying to label or pinpoint Peterson's stance in any particular school of thought, and then showing him wrong by making clear the discrepancies and inconsistencies according to said schools of thought is not really useful, because in the end, Marxism and Marx as a figure himself have been co-opted time and time again by people that has commited historic atrocities. You can debate how much JP doesn't get Marx, or how few material he's read from or on him, but there are actual evil people out there using Marx and socialism as the branding for their populism, just because it brings an academic and scientific flair to their brute power-grabbing agenda. So pick on JP all you want (he had it coming for not preparing for that debate), but his misuse and misunderstanding of Marxist concepts (as you guys assert, I don't really know for sure) is inconsequential when compared to actual oppression of whole nations that result from leftist ideas used as Trojan horses by the bad guys to convince the poor majority to let them into power. Maybe JP just tried to take a shortcut and criticize the legacy of the Communist Manifesto in the very same angle I'm talking about, and while I'd admit that's not an elevated enough argument for a philosophic debate, I also think that going in circles about how Marx, Žižek, and all of these big names are great geniuses doesn't bring anything new to the question of happiness in a Capitalism vs. Marxism context. JP made the mistake of trying to frame his wariness of leftists as a philosophical argument, and I think you two guys are making the mistake of evaluating just academic correctness -or maybe that's the right response to the question "did JP do a good job in the debate?", but maybe it didn't needed a whole hour of reiteration.
man, if you read more, eventually you will come to the same conclusions as these guys here. Ive never read Marx or Hegel but I have read almost everything written by Nietzsche, and let me tell you, Peterson doesnt understand Nietzsche either. Peterson doesn't appear so wise when you've directly read the authors he namedrops
Zizek is a genius manipulating people: he gives them what they want so they melt deep in their heart, then he folds them into an origami puppy. I agree Zizek wasn't directly hard on him, but he basically put him on his knees taking notes. I've seen him dozens of times saying: oh yes i agree with such and such, what you said is totally true and goes on for several minutes like so then he appears to be changing the course of the conversation just to slowly prove how wrong his 'opponent' was. He even does more, he lets them talk long enough so he can pick up the mic for 45 minutes...
At 35:30 Diego speaks of Peterson's issue with drug abuse, it's very interesting because if you watch his older talks/classes he often gives his opinion as a psychoanalyst that if you have depression/mental problems you should really consider taking drugs (antidepressants and the like). An interesting American and psychoanalyst perspective of the normalization of drug abuse, which ultimately must have challenged his world view.
He still supports drugs for some people and some conditions that hasn't changed. But he was given the wrong thing with benzoes so I imagine he's advocating more research before taking whatever your doctor tells you.
Diego has many interesting and valuable insights regarding the material values of the world, but his insistent comndemning of metaphysical principles, and indeed the very existence of metaphysics is goddamn insufferable. The argument that metaphysical concepts existing solely as emergent of physical properties is so pointlessly reductive and nihilistic that I have to wonder what influences him to say anything at all. I feel that if we were to ask him why his voice matters, why marxism matters, and why material concerns even matter he'd have no meaningful answer, as subjectivity is just "liberal aesthetics".
I think that the debate happened, because Peterson was always repeating, that leftist do not want to debate him, but it was actually him avoiding debate. At one point he would seem fake if ever never he debated a leftist, so I guess he took on zizek because of his popularity.
Marxists, including Diego: “Marx never described communism” Marx, The Communist Manifesto: “Do the following. 1. Abolish Private Property 2. A Heavy progressive income tax. 3….” Again, I’m just a guy with an iPhone
You *are* just a guy with an iPhone. The preceding paragraph, aka, explanatory paragraph: Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be affected except by means of despotic (ie, NOT communism) inroads on the rights of property, and the conditions of bourgeois production…” Then Marx lists out the possible despotic inroads to change the material conditions of society to be amenable to communism, 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes….and so on, and so on. Hope that helps your essay/manifesto comprehension. 😁👍
@@Pop_Culture_Podcast And this is the circuitous route you are invoking as to how Marx explained communism? If someone made an equivalent argument on another topic, would you be satisfied? Don't forget we're discussing your choice of supporting evidence that Marx described communism. I'm merely pointing out it doesn't say what you think it does.
@@davespanksalot8413 just want to clear something up….your claim is that even tho Marx called for the (despotic) abolition of private capital, free education, agriculture armies etc etc, these things aren’t necessarily a part of Marx’ ultimate view of communism?
@@Pop_Culture_Podcast Is that really what I’m claiming? THIS is MY claim: the evidence you selected does not support your assertion that Marx did indeed describe communism. That’s it. Everything else you think I’m saying is coming straight from your mind, not mine.
Yes, ideas are material. I can know that the ice cream flavor I'm about to pick will be materially determined but it doesn't actually happen until I've "chosen" it for real, until I've indulged in my illusion of free choice. So, we have to act as though ideas/decisions cause things to happen even if we believe them to be epiphenomena. Where we theoretically only see correlation we are forced to act as if it were causation. Therefore, even a materialist must admit that *in some way* Revolutions are also "willed" into existence, or at the very least that we must act as if they were, i.e. that there is no pragmatic reason to fully deny the effect of ideas. That said, most people including Marxists do greatly overestimate the importance of ideas and decisions.
The “clean your room” thing is not “just focus on yourself”. I think it’s more of a progression of responsibility that you can handle. Start with something that is in control, like cleaning your room. Once you are able to be responsible for yourself, then you can take responsibility to help your family. Then your community, state, etc etc…. Otherwise, to me, you’re like a personal trainer who is fat and out of shape or the broke guy who gives money advice
Apropos of prioritising room cleaning, Beethoven managed to make a little bit of music having never cleaned his room in his life (slightly hyperbolic, but not by much) 😁 not making a point, really, just more of a fun fact.
@@doctafloactually, I think it's the other way around. JP says things that sound stupid and pretentious at first, because they're myths. But myths always have truth in them and are more effective to convince people than the truth (that's why one should always pay attention to conspiracy theories). On the other hand, Zizek tries to look a certain way in order to project this image of some sort of modern version of an "old sage from the woods". He looks exactly like a smart person would look in a Hollywood movie. Only a dishonest person would do that. Not to mention he's clearly manipulative and pretentious.
@@R.P.McMurphy i haven’t listened to enough Zizek or Zizek criticism to have an opinion on him. but Peterson, despite his only substantial professional background being in psychology and his frequent admonitions to stay in your lane when entering the public discourse, often makes wild claims in the fields of anthropology, government, theology, history, literature, etc. based on superficial connections between materials he lacks the expertise to fully understand. i’ve seen him taken to task for this by experts in those fields time and again - even his former mentor who brought him into high academia regrets having leant him that credibility. moreover, lots of people in my life (almost every single woman), instantly saw right through his schtick - it took me a few years to catch up; really until the comments that got him kicked off Twitter - but i eventually realized what was obvious to them all along: at his core, he’s a hateful, self-righteous megalomaniac who reasons backwards from his conclusions. i’m sure as a clinician and self-help guru he improved many people’s lives, and i got a kick out of his Jungian analysis of Genesis, unscholarly though it was, but I can’t stand this embittered culture warrior persona that’s subsumed the rest of him. with the mask off, he’s just another outrage peddler on the Daily Wire payroll
I don't agree with Peterson not diving deeper into Marx's work because he does not want to change his mind. The argument assumes that Peterson knows Marx's ideas are consistent and convincing. Maybe he could be fearful of challenging his own ideas. However, I think that Peterson does not go deeper into Marxism because he judge it because of its consequences or derivatives (e.g., being woke, today's left). 14:26 I think that we need to remember that Peterson is not a philosopher but a clinical psychologist in which ideas are judge by consequences and not by their truthfulness. I am more convinced by Jared who brought that Peterson said that it would be too risky to seriously consider communism.
there is no way to discus Peterson in a balanced way that is also fair. The man is overtly academically and intellectually bankrupt so anyone who argues for him is too; a balanced debate would inherently be dishonest since it would lend false weight to his claims.
Sounds like Diego is sayings that all possible ideas are active in the world at once, and it is the state of the physical world that raises up specific ideas.
I really really agree with the ending about conditions creating ideas and being unable to change minds with words when peoples literal brains aren't biologically open to deep thought. 80% of people are in emotional shackles or health related brainfog. The only real way to convince these people in any direction is to literally have the change happen in front of them or become a symbol (think Obama and Trump).
Wtf Jared apologizing 😂😂😂 Imean that rizarrin is a Portuguese immigrant living in Mexico. He doesn’t know thing about the cultural dinamics of the US. You have to focus on what the people is referring to when using one word instead of being cocky about how wrong they are and how well you know better. Shallow as always.
@@aruntomsan they didnt invite DIego cause he said and i quote: " Peterson is what a dumb person thinks is a smart person and Elon Musk too, Elon is what dumbass thinks its a smart person"
The most important thing I learned in this video is that Zima Blue is an adaptation of a book. Now here's a fun fact for you: Kevin Michael Richards voices Zima and also PRINCIPAL BRIAN LEWIS!!!!
10:00 About Peterson's lack of preparation for the debate; what you two didn't bring up was that Peterson was actually at the height of depression/anxiety then because of his wife's cancer diagnosis at the time. In his video April 2019 Q and A at 01:18:54 he answers the question "How have you prepared for your debate with Žižek? What are your goals for the conversation to be productive?" to which he admitted "Well, I haven't prepared enough." His wife Tammy was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2019 which she later survived, and Peterson got anxiety so bad up to the point that the summer of 2019 his doctor advised him to up his dose of benzodiazepines (we all know what happened after that); this was hypothesized to be the reason he was so ill-prepared. Not that this is an "excuse for his ignorance," but nonetheless relevant information.
That would be a valid point if a. The problem was that he performed exceptionally poorly in the debate and b. The points he tried to make during the debate were different than the points he usually made. Since he just repeated what he always says with his typical lack of justification, I can't see how that would change anything other than giving zizek extra points for being an absolute class act during the debate.
Money was involved. He should've dropped or rescheduled, which I am sure Zizek would've obliged. JP has no analytical knowledge of Marx's work. It's that simple. He hasn't demonstrated on any platform that his knowledge on the topic had grown.
@@diatarussoulbane To be fair, it wouldn't have been that easy -- It's quite clear it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. He would have been accused by everyone online as a coward, running away from debate, etc. Now he participated and did so poorly prepared. I do think the second half with the discussion between the two of them was entertaining, not just from Žižek's side, also from Peterson's. Some good genuine dialogue took place.
@@tmzFRM I'm honestly not sure if that's true. For instance, in his debate with Sam Harris, it's very clear he did his homework much better. Sure, he still made points that overlapped with his original position, but he had spent more time worrying about difficult counterarguments and preparing his own case well. I'm not sure why it couldn't have been similarly the case with Žižek. In his January 2019 Q&A he said: _"I've already downloaded about six of his books, because I really want to start understanding what he has to say and think before undertaking that."_ To me, it's quite clear he had so much going on right after that he never got to that -- I had 0 impression that he properly had read any of Žižek's books, stating in the March Q & A that _"I'm having a hard time slogging through [writing Beyond Order], my brain isn't as sharp as it could be."_ up to the point that in that April Q&A, after admitting he did not prepare enough, he just had the one day left: _"Well, I haven't prepared enough, but I've got tomorrow, you know, and you can do a lot with one day. I want to review some more of Žižek's TH-cam videos; I want to go through a couple of his books; I've got some good lists of what seems central."_ So, again not a proper excuse. But it's clear to me that he would have prepared better had the situation and his mental state been better.
@arono9304 this is precisely why its problematic. If he wanted to add to academic discourse he would've rescheduled. You don't cave to the jeers of the public for failing to entertain them when intellectual honesty is on the line. You do it the right way. As a peofessor of academia he should've known that. But its all public persona now.
1:07:37 I really hope both of you have seen that AI is far short of what it promised to be; it's machine learning and as such mimics speech. I can see that it will have a lot of use, and I understand that the Greeks had much to say about the origin of knowledge, the impossibility of learning, and so forth, but his instinct that it is incredible is incredible to me. It may be that his mind functions more as a machine-learning entity; I would subjectively say he often sounds like one in the way he puts words together that sound like arguments even though they are detached from reality or a true sense of cause and effect.
I heard from Peterson, the whole reason to talk about ideas is so the bad ideas die and people get to live. Yeah, Zizek basically called him out on the “room” argument. At some point your life is good enough that you can get out there and help others. I don’t know enough about this yet, is that the essence of dialectic thinking?
Great talk, small nitpick: "GDP ends up in the hands of the 1%", well economists correct me here, but GDP doesn't directly "end up in the hands" of anyone, it's not income. A rise in GDP is not a very good indicative of the improvement of people's lives, it just indicates more stuff/services being produced/provided and sold, which possibly leads to more stuff/services to go around in general. As technology and processes improve it becomes possible to produce/provide more, proponents of capitalism love to say the motive for profit is the driving force and love to ignore how incredibly inneficient that force is (mountains of material trash and rise of "bullshit jobs") and how it fails to properly distribute what is produced/provided.
If for some reason you ever do read my comments, Jared, don't worry too much. I was long a fan of Wisecrack, and I have a lot of respect for your intellect; I've learned a lot from your videos, and I am not here to denigrate your work. It was an interesting convo, and I gained from it in that I was able to put some criticism together that I hadn't before and because I found that, once again, IMO, these communist academics are articulate and persuasive but not convincing; they return to the same tactics again and again and ultimately have little to add to philosophical discussion.
I wonder, how many people -Americans in particular- is familiar with the sociopolitical genealogy of the term "wokeness" (i wonder as someone who is neither American, nor someone who knew that its history reaches way beyond Twitter - like, 100 years before twitter). Ps. 'A metamodernist who does not fall for Baudrillard' is an oxymoron ;P /thanks, once again, it was a decent hour
How I remember the debate: JP: There's a lot of presuppositions in Marxism, which, when put into practice, resulted in some of the worst economic catastrophes in history. SZ: Actually Marxism is much more nuanced than that (giving off some "real Marxism has never been tried" vibes)
Mister Bauer, I’ve been a big fan of you since your days with “wise cracked” and still enjoy your pov on most topics despite my lack of education or maybe because of it. Would you be interested in being on my podcast to flesh out some of your ideals/explain ideals to an audience that may not understand?
It's a delight to listen to you. And great motivation. After listening to you debate about subjects I don't fully know abou or understand, I feel like I am wasting my time with useless staff, when I could be reading more, gaining more knowledge and understanding this life better and being generally happier and more accomplished.
Depends on what you mean by being happier and more accomplished. IMO these guys may be happy the may feel accomplished. But I bet they have way less a grasp of the truth than they believe and they contribute little to society. People like this (ok I'm generalizing) it's seems to be about self satisfaction - for reading and thinking more than most others. Well...that's only actually of value if 1. You're actually right in the conclusions you come to after all this reading and thinking and 2. What use you put it to. Sitting around criticizing others because you're smarter? Ok. What's your proof? It's easy to sit around and persuade others how smart you are because you can cite all these other philosophers but its all theory it's not reality. Guys like this are the most dangerous because when they finally get to implement their ideas the human nature they ignored finally enters the picture and destroys everything. But because their pride and their egos have been so built up they will not face it. They'd let a bastardized version of their plan work if it meant tremendous suffering just to be able to say they were right. Well that's my take anyways.
This was pretty disappointing the way people constantly attack petersons character. You know im not sure how powerful these ideas are. I thought jared left wisecrack becausd it had become too ideological the same problems occured with show me the meaning. But i guess he was alwaya pro socialist. In the battle of ideas its pretty clear who is winning and i think its neccisary for people like this to exist on the fringes but ultimately i hooe these ideas die out and stay within the minority where they belong.
Imagine you have one scammer (Carlos Muñoz) and Diego. And then Diego just start puking a lot of memorized nonsense that is not relevant to the topic and the scammer guy is just like, ok fine I’ll sit here and listen. A lot of people hated the scammer but he was pretty famous, so the debate gave Ruzzarin a lot of TH-cam exposure and now Diego even makes thing for television.
100% the world shapes how clean my room is, before getting an office job despite having more time, more room would be more messy, clothes in piles, not put away in their ‘right’ places. Being poorer on time forced me to rationalise and economise my personal space to put things in order. As soon as work from home started, it fell apart.
Interesting discussion. There a plenty of points of contention for me however what surprised me was the mentioning of the Matrix as being a eye opening movie that produced questions etc. I remember some friends telling me they had the same experience at the time. When I eventually saw it I wasn’t taken in the least neither by the visuals, them being just more sophisticated versions of effects already available, and mostly by the “philosophical questions”, first and foremost because the notions of the “matrix” are philosophical questions that precede the movie by millennia and I was shocked that people hadn’t heard or even thought of them one their own, and second because every single idea pertaining to the movie from a philosophical and technological standpoint had already been thought of and explored by great science fiction writers decades earlier. There is literally nothing new in the matrix. All it is is just a collection of some ideas in a story coupled with the technology being at the right point to illustrate some visuals in a way that isn’t crude. It’s not that this has no value, far from it, but it’s nothing groundbreaking or even special. As a counter example on the visual part and the technology showing us things really never done before I’ll give King Kong, 1933. The story is the Beauty and the Beast story with a twist, only the beast falls for the beauty and it’s his downfall, literally. So not much originality there. In the visual department 90% of what is shown on screen didn’t exist before, as techniques, ideas or technology. Most of everything optical was a visual problem to be solved and due to the adamant persistence of the creator to stick as close to the concept drawings and attempt the impossible almost everything seen from an effect standpoint was invented during the creation of the movie, the techniques didn’t exist. You had a camera, paint and clay. Those coexisted for decades before King Kong. But no one dreamed of images and action of that kind and thus no one forced themselves to figure out how to use the materials and even invent new ones and new technologies just for the sake of a still frame or a shot. And from this movie alone the invention of methods that were used in movies for the next 70 years for effects came to existence. The Matrix has not one thing that comes close to this. How this relates to the discussion? Well it wasn’t the material relationships that forced the concepts to come forth in this case, but the concepts that forced a use of materials that existed and the invention of others that didn’t. It’s the concept that shaped the material here. Certainly this example may be rare and it’s specific impact more limited, but over time it becomes greater than at first. Similarly the invention of the wheel. It can be made of any material. But unless one perceives the physical ability of matter to roll and understand how that may be of use, and conceive of the wheel, the material will not matter. Nor does one’s interaction with it before hand. Humans had seen rocks and sticks roll infinite times before the first man in Sumer made a wheel. And for all we know maybe his prototype was made of mud. So material interactions might spawn most of the ideas, but every now and then it’s possible an idea spawns new material relations that open up the next branch of possibilities. There was no need for a King Kong and what it brought before some lunatic thought it up.
So much for steel manning Peterson. Bauer plays the lap dog to Diego. The first half of this is a waste of time. Diego in typical leftist fashion calls on ad hominem attacks to support his yapping. If that is your first line of defense then you have lost. Next Diego starts playing loose with definitions like liberalism and modernism and defines them to suit his argument. Again that's a loser. It does get more interesting during the second half. However the glaring problem with the discussion of Peterson and Zizek is that Peterson comes at the issues as a clinician who has lived through decades of human psychological problems. First hand accounts of listening to and solving all sorts of people issues and it is with that experience he comes to philosophers like Jesus, Nietzsche, Marx etc. That he doesn't really understand Marx in theory is of no moment though that's what Diego wants to hang his hat on and where Zizek is coming from. It's all mental exercise. Marx is really this or really that (so what!). And Peterson doesn't understand dialectical materialism and how it is different from Hegel (again so what). Yada yada. Who cares. Zizek has the luxury of the intellectual argument and yet is never down in the mud and solving real world problems like Peterson is. Peterson doesn't hide the fact that he gets in over his head at times and he does cast beyond himself but it is a learning experience. But these two Monday morning quarterbacking is a waste of time. Expand on Zizek fine. I got some of that amid the head-nodding and name calling. Expand on Peterson? None.
I have listened to both Zizek and Peterson. Buth have have something to contribute. I think Peterson and audience capture is correct. It also shows Peterson's blinds spot. Peterson has some good contributions, but not in this talk. If anything the conversation with Zizek showed this.
I definitely don't agree with you on everything, but your takes and discussions have been good ways to think my way through the day. It's not like I'm going to focus on tedium in front of me at work.
And ignorant, Peterson is Liberal Conservative (a centuries ideology, economically liberal and socially conservative) but Diego immediately says that combination doesn't make sense, something only someone who doesn't know anything outside of left-wing and right-wing mindset would say.
I want to make an AI-generated documentary about the making of an AI-generated movie. I don’t want anyone to see it. I just want everyone to talk about how terrible it must be. I think this is where art has to be headed now. 😂
To be conservative ideologically and liberal economically makes you a Liberal Conservative, an ideology that has existed for centuries, the black hair guy is so ignorant it hurts 🤕
9:50 As for Marx's amazing description of how capitalism works, he makes major mistakes that devalue his endeavor to the point he probably wouldn't have written it if he'd waited a few more years. His labor theory of value lay in ruins after the solutions to the water/diamond paradox (because extracting surplus labor as profit no longer made sense, nor did his ideas about labor and material machines), he failed to comprehend that foreign investment does not produce an inevitable collapse because he didn't understand current accounts and how trade deficits vs surpluses, etc. work, he put too much emphasis on material as the determiner of social conditions and motivations, and it offered no explanation for how competition creates continuous improvement and innovation, something that communism can't and hardly even intends to provide. These are very major flaws, and his works get attention far out of proportion to their value. IMO, the main reason they keep getting attention is because university professors don't understand the free market, have an entrenched, ideological viewpoint they can't change after so long (cough, cough, Diego, cough), and because they know it so well they are comfortable with it (and yes, too lazy to spread their wings and learn new things, exactly what Diego criticizes others for). This isn't to defend Peterson; I haven't even seen the debate, but to challenge the idea that Marx had any more than a few valid criticisms of capitalism, far short of a comprehensively valid critique.
Anyone who doesn't believe in a labor theory of value should not be taken seriously. Even if Marx's specific LTV were "debunked," the fact that labor is the greatest contributing factor in determining the price of two similar objects would still be true. A cheap, badly made chair is less expensive than a well made on because good materials require more intensive labor to get than bad ones, and well made crafts require more labor to make than badly made ones.
@@Abcdefg-tf7cu I wonder how many people have beaten their head against the wall trying to dislodge you from that benighted opinion. I won't be one of them. Not I, said the pig! 🐷😂
Love the conversation Jared. However at 25:38 he starts to jump the shark ideologically. He ties liberalism and neo-liberalism too tightly to one genealogy of ideas and sources, denying diversity within the liberal project. Saying that all liberalisms are the same is like saying all capitalists or communists or socialists are the same. There are inner differentiations and party schisms in all of the above, with orthodoxies and heresies in all them.
Ok, so I think the points being put forward in this video are very naïve and do not represent reality particularly well. What book/s might change my mind on this assuming that I'm open to other points of view, evidence, and arguments?
25:00 “Instead of Leftist, say liberal.” Leftists took over the term liberal (with the help of conservatives), where liberal really means someone who is basically a devotee of the Enlightenment. His history of the origin of “liberal” is wrong. It really has its roots in 17th century England, not Spain. He has developed a false etymology of sorts and cherry picked a part of Spanish history that, while it may also have the same word attached to it, is not classical liberalism. To try to detach Leftist, which means communist, and rename those same people liberals, who favor limited government, individualism, and the free market. The Spanish Constitution he refers to was written in 1812, (after the 17th century!) and was influenced by the Enlightenment, and it was not the source of it. The “liberal arts” term that he tosses is has nothing to do with any of this-it dates back to ancient Greece, with the first (in Latin) use of this term in the 12th century. This portion is just a confused admixture of terms that is intended to form a false picture. This semantic dishonesty is a hallmark of the Left and shows once again Diego’s intellectual dishonesty.
i love academic marxism and how they know it all, the base critic against them is simple how do you get ride of power money state without doing the same thing that all the comunist dictatorships in the 21st century and its all "capiralisms is bad" polution is because capitalism, sexism is because capitalism averything is capitalism, but there is no other option just deleting free market is going to some how be better, all bulshit
His claims concerning China and the records of central planning worldwide are ludicrous. The market reforms and economic zones were absolutely crucial. That book about Walmart being an excellent example of central planning to bring to a country is idiotic cope that couldn’t overcome Hayek still haunting/ mocking the whole book. ScubaSteve had a good video on it. Peterson was not someone to bring up on economics in the first place. Yet, the debate was put on by clueless liberals. Liberals not understanding that core aspects of liberalism belong carried further down the road of logical conclusions, is infuriatingly typical I agree. Swatting away the accusations that Marxist thinkers didn’t utilize and overlap with several of those downstream liberal developments is also as delusional as it is equally annoying. Marxism and liberalism agree on the concept that achieving some ultimate equality and freedom is desirable. Marxism simply sees liberalism as fundamentally unequipped, despite numerous thinkers still attempting to grab aspects of liberal derivative thought into their own mutated ideas in the process of “pushing forward.” The Marxist materialism reading of history and reality always struck me as an unintentional reflection of geographical determinism. With all of its flaws and aggressive blind spots. Also, I’ll be “self-entertaining” and say that perception of the material only matters by way of the higher receiving thoughts that grasp it. Like feeling and tasting a treat while also conceiving of that experience and thought. One is fundamentally incomplete or even blindsided without the other. His so-called “tools of criticism” are only provided and make sense from his stance because they work to establish and perpetuate a specific pre-suppositional view of analysis on how to view the world. Other contextualized tools of criticism yielding different results would simply be seen as a continued failed escape from entrapment in materialistic false ideology. His ideas really smash up against the wall on the personal topic of the matrix movie experience. He probably would’ve gotten a bit hostile, but it would’ve been funny and deserved to see him get more proper pushback. I could definitely see people like this unintentionally helping to make some of that a self-fulfilling prophecy. The zombie state seems to be real with too many people. Half joking.
23:32 "GDP means nothing if 90% of it ends up in the hands of the top 1%"--sure, IF--but this is a strawman because they have 25% of the wealth in the US now. So that's just a hypothetical, and he ignores a rock-solid empirical observation: the Pareto distribution, which is identical across all societies--all--yes, that means all--and all groups for that matter. That would temper his idea that communism can somehow defy that. This is another example of Diego's own cherry picking and intellectual dishonesty. I doubt he hasn't heard of the Pareto distribution, so he ignores it the same way he accuses Peterson of ignoring things that Diego supposed Peterson knows but can't change his mind on but is dug in too deep to change. That's the pot calling the kettle black.
Just imagine how distorted and biased your perception has to be to state to yourself and people onle that a Phd in Psychology has read 3 books in his life and think Zizek is a "real intelletual" when he is, in fact, a meme in the Philosophical community. I don't dislike Zizek, I don't share the criticism some do to him. But the total failure to see the paralelism between the two is a sign of an unmeasurable bias. This guy, Diego, should never ever ever strive away from talking about what he truly knows; that is: Marketing and Economics. He is not a Psychologist and reading Lacan, Freud and Zizek do not give you the credentials to have an educated opinion on Psychology.
@@ipilotaneva2586 that's true! He probably hasn't read anything about communism. That was evident. But Diego said: Hasn't read 3 books in his life. And that's totally impossible as a PhD. Don't get me wrong, as a Psychologist, JP is very hard to watch... I watched his lectures back in the day to study for some tests and they are great, when he talks about what he knows. On the other hand his views on politics are simplistic, childish and he states as facts premises that simple are not. He even seems to ignore everything he studied, cherry picking outdated information. Nevertheless it is necessary to understand that a Clinical Psychologist can't work on someone's quality of life under the assumption that there's no individual improvement to be had. We know, the "new generation", that materialist conditions sicken people, but we can only use that to design more efficient ways to improve an individual's life. We can't change the collective from our stand point. My postgrad thesis, for example, is about improving ADHD symptoms via healthy life habits, instead or drugs. Americans, for some reason, find this premise insulting even when the amount of evidence supporting the fact that it has the same or better results as Pharmacotherapy are just mind blowing. There's literally an economic interest in keeping people medicated and generalizing mental "disorders". The problem in JP is the extrapolation of individual Therapy to Philosophical assumptions. Like: cleaning your room. This is an actual thing studied in clinical Psychology and it works, a lot (in the context of individuals that SEEK Therapy). That doesn't mean that it works for every case, everywhere. That's absurd.
@@llTheJVlusicInMell JP has a long history of being wrong on almost every subject. Lobsters are not related to humans, heiarchies aren’t hardwired to humans, the meritocracy isn’t real, race and IQ does not indicate intellectual inferiority of certain races, IQ does not determine with absolute certainty the life someone will live, there isn’t some leftist conspiracy in all of the humanities, the Nazi’s were not engaged in “human compassion” when genociding disabled people, cultural neo-marxism is a rehash of cultural bolshevism which is Jew blaming, canada’s c-16 bill was to put transgender people in the list of the descriminated classes and not forcing people to use certain pronouns He’s literally on Prager U and the Daily wire
![⭐️( ลอยกระทง 2024 ) Ver. แดนซ์ Remix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rMWOLhgXUHc/mqdefault.jpg)
Zizek vs Peterson was FOUR YEARS ago??! Fucking hell.
And yes I also rewatch it for fun periodically.
Jared-Plastic Pills collab will be legendary
Diego seems really smart and well-read, no doubt, but like someone else here already said, I think I'd prefer Jared alone visiting this topic.
I mean no offense, but Diego seems to me like he'd be more at home at the modern wisecrack, less nuance and balance in the intelectual approach on a given topic... more clearly and openly biased, which is not necessarily bad, but, again: I'd appreciate Jared alone discussing this.
Ruzzarin is just bad, very bad. A lot of blah blah blah going off topic, nothing really new, not even good references.
The worst of him really gets out when talking about Peterson.
Have you been out in the world? Have you met people? It usually doesn't take long to realize guys like Diego aren't as smart as they seem initially. They're just novel and brash so they seem like the must know more than us. And clearly he is well read. That doesn't mean he comes to the right conclusions.
I agree.
Diego is what is known as a useful idiot. The guy has been corrected on his podcast by guest before who had PhDs on the subject... and he defaults back to whatever he read elsewhere by "who knows where" and then presents it as the new hotness.
He got to step in into the lime light because he exposed another bafoon as a charlatan he was... but that's about it.
It is a commentary of our society that this could even be called a "debate" and why it has turned into the meme it currently has. Can anyone who values intellectual honesty look at JP's preparation and engagement and not be insulted? Regardless of how you feel about the person, he came entirely unprepared without any investigation or evaluation of the material he was debating. This individual is given a platform, and a pedestal by others, despite failing to meet the requirements of participating in a middle school debate.
I can't believe Peterson is taken seriously by anyone when it seems apparent that he hasn't read the source material of the thinkers he critiques. How can he think that this is acceptable? He must suffer from some kind of personality disorder.
Great talk, I appreciate bringing this topic back again. I do incline to think that you could a perceived empathy from Zizek towards Peterson as a person even tho he does not empathize towards his ideology, Zizek did enough for me to stand on top of the argument without attacking Peterson as a person which is my ideal way to win a debate.
This the absolute baseline for academic debate or discourse. The idea that one doesn't use ad hominem logical fallacies shouldn't be reason to discount them, it's decorum. The standard and expectations for discourse in this modern age is sad. JP was clearly not prepared for this debate, and it showed. Painfully. Zizek brought insight and analysis, and JP brought wishy washy platitudes.
Zizek: Capitalists sow the seeds of their own destruction. (Clears nose) And thus, capitalism is an inherently self-destructive system of economic governance.
Peterson: *Clean your room and make your bed*
I do not think Peterson is a libertarian free market capitalist. In actuality, I do think he is supportive of regulating the markets. He just isn't a marxist.
The clean your room and make your bed line was advice to lost and miserable men. You should not deride it like you do.
@@RA-ie3ss Its joke, that relates to Peterson having nothing to say because he didnt prepare/read
@@RA-ie3ss It was general advice for people who struggle to control their lives. Start by controlling something small, like your bedroom.
@@UrelasirPeterson had a lot to say, and it was far more coherent than Zizek
@@goatzyemen2542 Nice joke mate. That or you are just blind and dumb.
Peterson was completely unprepared and was a joke.
I’m only 15 minutes in…never heard of this guy Diego…”They are too far gone to be able to change their minds” is a really rich statement coming from him
Peterson was totally out of his element (because he's a pseudo-intellectual) and Zizek didn't win the debate because TRUE DEBATES ARE NOT MEANT TO BE WON. Peoole confuse whatever the heck verbal rhetorical sport their politicians make with a debate. A true debate is a method to compare and contrast ideas, and then try to derive conclusions from the crosspolination, not reaching synthesis but each side getting out enriched.
The whole thing was a delight to watch because Zizek carried Peterson out of the confrontational destroy-each-other match cage that the internet set them up to. He simply rejected just being reduced to entertainment, talked some things that flew above Peterson's head, made some amiable chat and even rescued the really few and rare true things that Peterson might say (because it is untrue that a person is 100% right or 100% wrong).
Now, I will go seek up that Chomsky-Foucault debate to see how they managed that. I haven't read/heard it actually.
His point about inflammation, you know that a lot of doctors for autoimmune inflammatory conditions recommend mediation, mindfulness, breathing exercises etc to improve a persons stress response, also a persons micro biome has been shown to change dependent on the negative or positive character of a persons thoughts.
Omg. It's been 4 years? I remember it like it was yesterday. Time flies when you're suffering.
There’s something really funny about that
Living with the delusion of time IS suffering haha
😂
I'm sorry, but I don't really see how Diego makes the jump from "the precursors which form ideas are originally sourced from material reality" to "ideas don't matter". Jared is right to say that the film The Matrix inspired him and altered his perception. The fact that The Matrix could not have existed without its necessary antecedent material conditions doesn't render it irrelevant. I don't see how materiality coming first in the dialectic negates the importance of ideation.
Yeah: Among others, "Dialectic Materialism" is a "friendly reminder " that the thinking Subject is not the omnipotent first and last thing of theory that it very often likes to be; even in Hegel's Process Philosophy that aimed very hard to transcend it; - it reflects on (material) conditions that lie outside itself. - If you really want to cancel that whole metaphysical construct, including the "classic" Subject/Object dualism , then you probably land rather close to Heidegger's theory of "Being", instead.
I haven't seen everything from Diego so I may be wrong, but I think he fully belives i'm determinism. So he makes the jump from materialism to determinism
You just have to look at the historical development of liberal thought and the commercial revolution in Medieval Europe. Relations of free labour preceded by hundreds of years the bourgeois revolutions and treatises on bourgeois ideology. But it’s origin is based in those changing conditions historically.
As to understanding & debating about Marx, I don’t know if you two were talking about the usefulness of Marx as a philosopher or as an economics writer.
Marx may have several interesting philosophical ideas, & some can be very helpful for understanding some social issues like workers’ alienation from the impacts of their work.
But as for economic ideas & content, it’s probably fine if one doesn’t fully understand all of Marx’s ideas when they can just compare real-world outcomes when systems stemming from his ideology are tried.
''But as for economic ideas & content, it’s probably fine if one doesn’t fully understand all of Marx’s ideas when they can just compare real-world outcomes when systems stemming from his ideology are tried.'' you cannot analyse theory solely by the derivatives.
If you only looked at anything that stems from Marxist ideology, you would first have to prove that it derives from that ideology, which is always incredibly contentious and never worth the effort more than just analysing the ideas themselves.
I absolutely would argue that anything that stems from Marxist economics is present in every modern-day society, from unions to social welfare to taxation
The first 5 minutes of this conversation Diego comes across like a jealous schoolboy when talking about Peterson. I cringed several times and it was really distracting to the serious conversation that Jared was attempting to have.
You are just mad amigo
@@gaelvazquez4922 Got me.
@@mrblump Peterson is a right wing reactionary hack that disseminates rebranded Nazi propaganda, so you can get stuffed. What do you think "cultural Marxism" is? It's the exact same crap as "Cultural Bolshevism (Kulturbolschewismus)." In addition to deliberately pandering to the far right and thus causing measurable harm to society, he is a charlatan of the highest order. I KNOW this is true because any time he speaks on a topic I know something about, he's wrong at best and deliberately dishonest at worst.
He's also a horrible, unethical quack of a clinical psychologist. It's a crime that he's been allowed to keep his license thus far.
He is just a bussinesman who dreams of becoming an influencer. He uses "philosophy" to atack people, the trendy influencer, the trendy topic. He thinks attacking JP he can attract attention, been recognized as a "thinker"... Nobody respects him in Mexico, nowdays he is a meme - that's why he is looking outside. You can look for his golden chain adds
@@choronosdon’t forgot when he says “natural heiarchy” he’s arguing caste systems are innate and natural, tied to outdated ideas about race and IQ
As a layman, not really acquainted with philosophy concepts or authors, I think trying to label or pinpoint Peterson's stance in any particular school of thought, and then showing him wrong by making clear the discrepancies and inconsistencies according to said schools of thought is not really useful, because in the end, Marxism and Marx as a figure himself have been co-opted time and time again by people that has commited historic atrocities. You can debate how much JP doesn't get Marx, or how few material he's read from or on him, but there are actual evil people out there using Marx and socialism as the branding for their populism, just because it brings an academic and scientific flair to their brute power-grabbing agenda.
So pick on JP all you want (he had it coming for not preparing for that debate), but his misuse and misunderstanding of Marxist concepts (as you guys assert, I don't really know for sure) is inconsequential when compared to actual oppression of whole nations that result from leftist ideas used as Trojan horses by the bad guys to convince the poor majority to let them into power.
Maybe JP just tried to take a shortcut and criticize the legacy of the Communist Manifesto in the very same angle I'm talking about, and while I'd admit that's not an elevated enough argument for a philosophic debate, I also think that going in circles about how Marx, Žižek, and all of these big names are great geniuses doesn't bring anything new to the question of happiness in a Capitalism vs. Marxism context.
JP made the mistake of trying to frame his wariness of leftists as a philosophical argument, and I think you two guys are making the mistake of evaluating just academic correctness -or maybe that's the right response to the question "did JP do a good job in the debate?", but maybe it didn't needed a whole hour of reiteration.
man, if you read more, eventually you will come to the same conclusions as these guys here. Ive never read Marx or Hegel but I have read almost everything written by Nietzsche, and let me tell you, Peterson doesnt understand Nietzsche either. Peterson doesn't appear so wise when you've directly read the authors he namedrops
@@kevinbeck8836 XD I haven't read but I know the truth... that's why you are agree with this people... specially Ruzzarin, he is a joke in Mexico
He isn't inconsistent, these guys are just ignorant, Liberal Conservatism (economically liberal, socially conservative) has existed for centuries.
Zizek is a genius manipulating people: he gives them what they want so they melt deep in their heart, then he folds them into an origami puppy. I agree Zizek wasn't directly hard on him, but he basically put him on his knees taking notes. I've seen him dozens of times saying: oh yes i agree with such and such, what you said is totally true and goes on for several minutes like so then he appears to be changing the course of the conversation just to slowly prove how wrong his 'opponent' was. He even does more, he lets them talk long enough so he can pick up the mic for 45 minutes...
Man! As a mexican, seeing Diego with you is such a treat :D
dice puro choro , aparte es brasileño
Why?
Honestly... can't stand him.
I would think you'd be embarrassed.
At 35:30 Diego speaks of Peterson's issue with drug abuse, it's very interesting because if you watch his older talks/classes he often gives his opinion as a psychoanalyst that if you have depression/mental problems you should really consider taking drugs (antidepressants and the like). An interesting American and psychoanalyst perspective of the normalization of drug abuse, which ultimately must have challenged his world view.
He still supports drugs for some people and some conditions that hasn't changed. But he was given the wrong thing with benzoes so I imagine he's advocating more research before taking whatever your doctor tells you.
Diego has many interesting and valuable insights regarding the material values of the world, but his insistent comndemning of metaphysical principles, and indeed the very existence of metaphysics is goddamn insufferable. The argument that metaphysical concepts existing solely as emergent of physical properties is so pointlessly reductive and nihilistic that I have to wonder what influences him to say anything at all. I feel that if we were to ask him why his voice matters, why marxism matters, and why material concerns even matter he'd have no meaningful answer, as subjectivity is just "liberal aesthetics".
Hey Jared! Here from the wisecrack free seats 🙆♂️
You're an interesting person 🦔🇿🇦
I think that the debate happened, because Peterson was always repeating, that leftist do not want to debate him, but it was actually him avoiding debate. At one point he would seem fake if ever never he debated a leftist, so I guess he took on zizek because of his popularity.
Marxists, including Diego: “Marx never described communism”
Marx, The Communist Manifesto: “Do the following. 1. Abolish Private Property 2. A Heavy progressive income tax. 3….”
Again, I’m just a guy with an iPhone
You *are* just a guy with an iPhone.
The preceding paragraph, aka, explanatory paragraph: Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be affected except by means of despotic (ie, NOT communism) inroads on the rights of property, and the conditions of bourgeois production…” Then Marx lists out the possible despotic inroads to change the material conditions of society to be amenable to communism, 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes….and so on, and so on.
Hope that helps your essay/manifesto comprehension. 😁👍
@@davespanksalot8413 is the abolishing of private property not evidence that communism would not allow private property (capital)?
@@Pop_Culture_Podcast And this is the circuitous route you are invoking as to how Marx explained communism? If someone made an equivalent argument on another topic, would you be satisfied? Don't forget we're discussing your choice of supporting evidence that Marx described communism. I'm merely pointing out it doesn't say what you think it does.
@@davespanksalot8413 just want to clear something up….your claim is that even tho Marx called for the (despotic) abolition of private capital, free education, agriculture armies etc etc, these things aren’t necessarily a part of Marx’ ultimate view of communism?
@@Pop_Culture_Podcast Is that really what I’m claiming? THIS is MY claim: the evidence you selected does not support your assertion that Marx did indeed describe communism. That’s it. Everything else you think I’m saying is coming straight from your mind, not mine.
Yes, ideas are material. I can know that the ice cream flavor I'm about to pick will be materially determined but it doesn't actually happen until I've "chosen" it for real, until I've indulged in my illusion of free choice. So, we have to act as though ideas/decisions cause things to happen even if we believe them to be epiphenomena. Where we theoretically only see correlation we are forced to act as if it were causation. Therefore, even a materialist must admit that *in some way* Revolutions are also "willed" into existence, or at the very least that we must act as if they were, i.e. that there is no pragmatic reason to fully deny the effect of ideas.
That said, most people including Marxists do greatly overestimate the importance of ideas and decisions.
I said something similar but you were way more succinct, well done.
The “clean your room” thing is not “just focus on yourself”. I think it’s more of a progression of responsibility that you can handle. Start with something that is in control, like cleaning your room. Once you are able to be responsible for yourself, then you can take responsibility to help your family. Then your community, state, etc etc….
Otherwise, to me, you’re like a personal trainer who is fat and out of shape or the broke guy who gives money advice
Apropos of prioritising room cleaning, Beethoven managed to make a little bit of music having never cleaned his room in his life (slightly hyperbolic, but not by much) 😁 not making a point, really, just more of a fun fact.
“He takes himself way too seriously to be so dumb.” Perfect description of JP.
YES. i’ve heard him described as a dumb guy’s idea of what a smart guy is like
@@doctafloactually, I think it's the other way around. JP says things that sound stupid and pretentious at first, because they're myths. But myths always have truth in them and are more effective to convince people than the truth (that's why one should always pay attention to conspiracy theories).
On the other hand, Zizek tries to look a certain way in order to project this image of some sort of modern version of an "old sage from the woods". He looks exactly like a smart person would look in a Hollywood movie.
Only a dishonest person would do that. Not to mention he's clearly manipulative and pretentious.
@@R.P.McMurphy i haven’t listened to enough Zizek or Zizek criticism to have an opinion on him.
but Peterson, despite his only substantial professional background being in psychology and his frequent admonitions to stay in your lane when entering the public discourse, often makes wild claims in the fields of anthropology, government, theology, history, literature, etc. based on superficial connections between materials he lacks the expertise to fully understand. i’ve seen him taken to task for this by experts in those fields time and again - even his former mentor who brought him into high academia regrets having leant him that credibility.
moreover, lots of people in my life (almost every single woman), instantly saw right through his schtick - it took me a few years to catch up; really until the comments that got him kicked off Twitter - but i eventually realized what was obvious to them all along: at his core, he’s a hateful, self-righteous megalomaniac who reasons backwards from his conclusions.
i’m sure as a clinician and self-help guru he improved many people’s lives, and i got a kick out of his Jungian analysis of Genesis, unscholarly though it was, but I can’t stand this embittered culture warrior persona that’s subsumed the rest of him. with the mask off, he’s just another outrage peddler on the Daily Wire payroll
Give me an example of Peterson being dumb. If you don't mind.
@waynedurning8717 He did say "Climate change is everything". Last I checked the universe, i.e. everything, is 99.99% emptiness.
Nothing like grand sounding concepts to delude the mind haha
Are first I thought that was someone doing a zizek impression
These conversations are fantastically interesting. I really must look into what resources are good and unbiased for learning political theory
I don't agree with Peterson not diving deeper into Marx's work because he does not want to change his mind. The argument assumes that Peterson knows Marx's ideas are consistent and convincing. Maybe he could be fearful of challenging his own ideas. However, I think that Peterson does not go deeper into Marxism because he judge it because of its consequences or derivatives (e.g., being woke, today's left). 14:26 I think that we need to remember that Peterson is not a philosopher but a clinical psychologist in which ideas are judge by consequences and not by their truthfulness. I am more convinced by Jared who brought that Peterson said that it would be too risky to seriously consider communism.
Peterson knew he was under-prepared for the debate - he said so ahead of time. He knew he was just winging it. He’s not as dumb as he looks, SZ guys.
Definitely doesn’t feel like it’s already been a year since your last conversation, time is flying lol
A guy who despises Peterson vs. A guy who despises Peterson but pretends not to is not the balanced argument you think it is.
there is no way to discus Peterson in a balanced way that is also fair. The man is overtly academically and intellectually bankrupt so anyone who argues for him is too; a balanced debate would inherently be dishonest since it would lend false weight to his claims.
Anyone who likes Peterson isn’t a person worth ever listening to
I like the topuc and the guess, but I think the video's topic was forgotten due necesity of criticis free marker idiology (sorry for the bad english)
Broooo i watch both of you guys i cant believe this omggggg diego no mames sigue rompiendola
Sounds like Diego is sayings that all possible ideas are active in the world at once, and it is the state of the physical world that raises up specific ideas.
I really really agree with the ending about conditions creating ideas and being unable to change minds with words when peoples literal brains aren't biologically open to deep thought. 80% of people are in emotional shackles or health related brainfog. The only real way to convince these people in any direction is to literally have the change happen in front of them or become a symbol (think Obama and Trump).
there is something funny about watching this video about a '4-year old debate' 11 months after it came out
Wtf Jared apologizing 😂😂😂 Imean that rizarrin is a Portuguese immigrant living in Mexico. He doesn’t know thing about the cultural dinamics of the US. You have to focus on what the people is referring to when using one word instead of being cocky about how wrong they are and how well you know better. Shallow as always.
the definition of shallow is your comment.
The video about Steven pinker being an idiot at 23:00 is the @swoletariat. Great channel
What Love Death Robot Episode did Diego mention?
Zima Blue, Season 1 ep 14.
Even Jared felled for the expert fumes of rizarrin😂
hahahah i know, jared doesnt know about his last fume talking to technical about choosing suerox
Could you elaborate on what you mean?
@@aruntomsan
they didnt invite DIego cause he said and i quote: " Peterson is what a dumb person thinks is a smart person and Elon Musk too, Elon is what dumbass thinks its a smart person"
@@aruntomsan th-cam.com/users/shorts8ByvoOBb1Pc?feature=share
XD ruzzarin an expert... he is a joke in Mexico
The most important thing I learned in this video is that Zima Blue is an adaptation of a book. Now here's a fun fact for you: Kevin Michael Richards voices Zima and also PRINCIPAL BRIAN LEWIS!!!!
The peterson case has taught me how right wing people can wear a liberal mask 🦔🇿🇦
10:00 About Peterson's lack of preparation for the debate; what you two didn't bring up was that Peterson was actually at the height of depression/anxiety then because of his wife's cancer diagnosis at the time.
In his video April 2019 Q and A at 01:18:54 he answers the question "How have you prepared for your debate with Žižek? What are your goals for the conversation to be productive?" to which he admitted "Well, I haven't prepared enough."
His wife Tammy was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2019 which she later survived, and Peterson got anxiety so bad up to the point that the summer of 2019 his doctor advised him to up his dose of benzodiazepines (we all know what happened after that); this was hypothesized to be the reason he was so ill-prepared.
Not that this is an "excuse for his ignorance," but nonetheless relevant information.
That would be a valid point if
a. The problem was that he performed exceptionally poorly in the debate and
b. The points he tried to make during the debate were different than the points he usually made.
Since he just repeated what he always says with his typical lack of justification, I can't see how that would change anything other than giving zizek extra points for being an absolute class act during the debate.
Money was involved. He should've dropped or rescheduled, which I am sure Zizek would've obliged. JP has no analytical knowledge of Marx's work. It's that simple. He hasn't demonstrated on any platform that his knowledge on the topic had grown.
@@diatarussoulbane To be fair, it wouldn't have been that easy -- It's quite clear it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. He would have been accused by everyone online as a coward, running away from debate, etc.
Now he participated and did so poorly prepared. I do think the second half with the discussion between the two of them was entertaining, not just from Žižek's side, also from Peterson's. Some good genuine dialogue took place.
@@tmzFRM I'm honestly not sure if that's true. For instance, in his debate with Sam Harris, it's very clear he did his homework much better. Sure, he still made points that overlapped with his original position, but he had spent more time worrying about difficult counterarguments and preparing his own case well.
I'm not sure why it couldn't have been similarly the case with Žižek. In his January 2019 Q&A he said:
_"I've already downloaded about six of his books, because I really want to start understanding what he has to say and think before undertaking that."_
To me, it's quite clear he had so much going on right after that he never got to that -- I had 0 impression that he properly had read any of Žižek's books, stating in the March Q & A that
_"I'm having a hard time slogging through [writing Beyond Order], my brain isn't as sharp as it could be."_
up to the point that in that April Q&A, after admitting he did not prepare enough, he just had the one day left:
_"Well, I haven't prepared enough, but I've got tomorrow, you know, and you can do a lot with one day. I want to review some more of Žižek's TH-cam videos; I want to go through a couple of his books; I've got some good lists of what seems central."_
So, again not a proper excuse. But it's clear to me that he would have prepared better had the situation and his mental state been better.
@arono9304 this is precisely why its problematic. If he wanted to add to academic discourse he would've rescheduled. You don't cave to the jeers of the public for failing to entertain them when intellectual honesty is on the line. You do it the right way. As a peofessor of academia he should've known that. But its all public persona now.
Just watched the full Peterson vs. Zizek discussion. It was not on owning or destroying each other.
1:07:37 I really hope both of you have seen that AI is far short of what it promised to be; it's machine learning and as such mimics speech. I can see that it will have a lot of use, and I understand that the Greeks had much to say about the origin of knowledge, the impossibility of learning, and so forth, but his instinct that it is incredible is incredible to me. It may be that his mind functions more as a machine-learning entity; I would subjectively say he often sounds like one in the way he puts words together that sound like arguments even though they are detached from reality or a true sense of cause and effect.
Great job “steel manning” Peterson!
I heard from Peterson, the whole reason to talk about ideas is so the bad ideas die and people get to live.
Yeah, Zizek basically called him out on the “room” argument. At some point your life is good enough that you can get out there and help others. I don’t know enough about this yet, is that the essence of dialectic thinking?
Honestly watching this I feel like I have to wonder why I have watched Jared so enthusiastically in the past
Seriously the seriousness with which he takes this idiot makes want to unsubscribe
22:13 the referred video is on the channel “the swoletariat”
This guy says hes a hardcore material Marxist yet he really seems ideological. He got progressively worse.
Tbh I'd prefer to hear you speak on your own
Yup, same. That Diego guy was obnoxious. I going to give a another try... maybe..
Great talk, small nitpick: "GDP ends up in the hands of the 1%", well economists correct me here, but GDP doesn't directly "end up in the hands" of anyone, it's not income. A rise in GDP is not a very good indicative of the improvement of people's lives, it just indicates more stuff/services being produced/provided and sold, which possibly leads to more stuff/services to go around in general. As technology and processes improve it becomes possible to produce/provide more, proponents of capitalism love to say the motive for profit is the driving force and love to ignore how incredibly inneficient that force is (mountains of material trash and rise of "bullshit jobs") and how it fails to properly distribute what is produced/provided.
U had me@"liberalism is capitolism, not socialism; woke-culture is just libertarian self-fulfilling prophecy"..
If for some reason you ever do read my comments, Jared, don't worry too much. I was long a fan of Wisecrack, and I have a lot of respect for your intellect; I've learned a lot from your videos, and I am not here to denigrate your work. It was an interesting convo, and I gained from it in that I was able to put some criticism together that I hadn't before and because I found that, once again, IMO, these communist academics are articulate and persuasive but not convincing; they return to the same tactics again and again and ultimately have little to add to philosophical discussion.
goddamn I cant wait to listen to this
I wonder, how many people -Americans in particular- is familiar with the sociopolitical genealogy of the term "wokeness"
(i wonder as someone who is neither American, nor someone who knew that its history reaches way beyond Twitter - like, 100 years before twitter).
Ps. 'A metamodernist who does not fall for Baudrillard' is an oxymoron ;P
/thanks, once again, it was a decent hour
How I remember the debate:
JP: There's a lot of presuppositions in Marxism, which, when put into practice, resulted in some of the worst economic catastrophes in history.
SZ: Actually Marxism is much more nuanced than that (giving off some "real Marxism has never been tried" vibes)
more like peterson didn’t read any of marx and slavoj did so he did better in the debate
which “presupposition” do you think caused economic disaster?
No one seems to appreciate that the debate was about the difference between Dialectical Materialism vs Dialectical Idealism. Including the debators.
Wonder if Jared can speak spanish..... Puedes?... Sólo por curiosidad
Any book on the topics discussed? I am not familiar with nothing much.
Mister Bauer, I’ve been a big fan of you since your days with “wise cracked” and still enjoy your pov on most topics despite my lack of education or maybe because of it. Would you be interested in being on my podcast to flesh out some of your ideals/explain ideals to an audience that may not understand?
Yes, and as you know, so forth and so on
It's a delight to listen to you. And great motivation. After listening to you debate about subjects I don't fully know abou or understand, I feel like I am wasting my time with useless staff, when I could be reading more, gaining more knowledge and understanding this life better and being generally happier and more accomplished.
Depends on what you mean by being happier and more accomplished. IMO these guys may be happy the may feel accomplished. But I bet they have way less a grasp of the truth than they believe and they contribute little to society. People like this (ok I'm generalizing) it's seems to be about self satisfaction - for reading and thinking more than most others. Well...that's only actually of value if 1. You're actually right in the conclusions you come to after all this reading and thinking and 2. What use you put it to.
Sitting around criticizing others because you're smarter? Ok. What's your proof? It's easy to sit around and persuade others how smart you are because you can cite all these other philosophers but its all theory it's not reality. Guys like this are the most dangerous because when they finally get to implement their ideas the human nature they ignored finally enters the picture and destroys everything. But because their pride and their egos have been so built up they will not face it. They'd let a bastardized version of their plan work if it meant tremendous suffering just to be able to say they were right. Well that's my take anyways.
This was pretty disappointing the way people constantly attack petersons character. You know im not sure how powerful these ideas are. I thought jared left wisecrack becausd it had become too ideological the same problems occured with show me the meaning. But i guess he was alwaya pro socialist. In the battle of ideas its pretty clear who is winning and i think its neccisary for people like this to exist on the fringes but ultimately i hooe these ideas die out and stay within the minority where they belong.
Does anyone know what debate Diego was in that blew up online? Who did he debate? I'm asking cause I want to watch this.
Imagine you have one scammer (Carlos Muñoz) and Diego. And then Diego just start puking a lot of memorized nonsense that is not relevant to the topic and the scammer guy is just like, ok fine I’ll sit here and listen. A lot of people hated the scammer but he was pretty famous, so the debate gave Ruzzarin a lot of TH-cam exposure and now Diego even makes thing for television.
I would have loved if you guys talked a little bit more about Zizek.
100% the world shapes how clean my room is, before getting an office job despite having more time, more room would be more messy, clothes in piles, not put away in their ‘right’ places. Being poorer on time forced me to rationalise and economise my personal space to put things in order. As soon as work from home started, it fell apart.
My experience was the opposite of yours; I started working from home during the pandemic and my house is cleaner for it :)
Grande Diego, Grande Jared!
Interesting discussion. There a plenty of points of contention for me however what surprised me was the mentioning of the Matrix as being a eye opening movie that produced questions etc. I remember some friends telling me they had the same experience at the time. When I eventually saw it I wasn’t taken in the least neither by the visuals, them being just more sophisticated versions of effects already available, and mostly by the “philosophical questions”, first and foremost because the notions of the “matrix” are philosophical questions that precede the movie by millennia and I was shocked that people hadn’t heard or even thought of them one their own, and second because every single idea pertaining to the movie from a philosophical and technological standpoint had already been thought of and explored by great science fiction writers decades earlier. There is literally nothing new in the matrix. All it is is just a collection of some ideas in a story coupled with the technology being at the right point to illustrate some visuals in a way that isn’t crude. It’s not that this has no value, far from it, but it’s nothing groundbreaking or even special.
As a counter example on the visual part and the technology showing us things really never done before I’ll give King Kong, 1933. The story is the Beauty and the Beast story with a twist, only the beast falls for the beauty and it’s his downfall, literally. So not much originality there. In the visual department 90% of what is shown on screen didn’t exist before, as techniques, ideas or technology. Most of everything optical was a visual problem to be solved and due to the adamant persistence of the creator to stick as close to the concept drawings and attempt the impossible almost everything seen from an effect standpoint was invented during the creation of the movie, the techniques didn’t exist. You had a camera, paint and clay. Those coexisted for decades before King Kong. But no one dreamed of images and action of that kind and thus no one forced themselves to figure out how to use the materials and even invent new ones and new technologies just for the sake of a still frame or a shot. And from this movie alone the invention of methods that were used in movies for the next 70 years for effects came to existence. The Matrix has not one thing that comes close to this.
How this relates to the discussion? Well it wasn’t the material relationships that forced the concepts to come forth in this case, but the concepts that forced a use of materials that existed and the invention of others that didn’t. It’s the concept that shaped the material here.
Certainly this example may be rare and it’s specific impact more limited, but over time it becomes greater than at first. Similarly the invention of the wheel. It can be made of any material. But unless one perceives the physical ability of matter to roll and understand how that may be of use, and conceive of the wheel, the material will not matter. Nor does one’s interaction with it before hand. Humans had seen rocks and sticks roll infinite times before the first man in Sumer made a wheel. And for all we know maybe his prototype was made of mud.
So material interactions might spawn most of the ideas, but every now and then it’s possible an idea spawns new material relations that open up the next branch of possibilities. There was no need for a King Kong and what it brought before some lunatic thought it up.
So much for steel manning Peterson. Bauer plays the lap dog to Diego. The first half of this is a waste of time. Diego in typical leftist fashion calls on ad hominem attacks to support his yapping. If that is your first line of defense then you have lost. Next Diego starts playing loose with definitions like liberalism and modernism and defines them to suit his argument. Again that's a loser. It does get more interesting during the second half. However the glaring problem with the discussion of Peterson and Zizek is that Peterson comes at the issues as a clinician who has lived through decades of human psychological problems. First hand accounts of listening to and solving all sorts of people issues and it is with that experience he comes to philosophers like Jesus, Nietzsche, Marx etc. That he doesn't really understand Marx in theory is of no moment though that's what Diego wants to hang his hat on and where Zizek is coming from. It's all mental exercise. Marx is really this or really that (so what!). And Peterson doesn't understand dialectical materialism and how it is different from Hegel (again so what). Yada yada. Who cares. Zizek has the luxury of the intellectual argument and yet is never down in the mud and solving real world problems like Peterson is. Peterson doesn't hide the fact that he gets in over his head at times and he does cast beyond himself but it is a learning experience. But these two Monday morning quarterbacking is a waste of time. Expand on Zizek fine. I got some of that amid the head-nodding and name calling. Expand on Peterson? None.
Why is this so fun for us? What's wrong with me!!???! 😭
Great conversation
Glad to have Diego back on the show!
If you are rich enough you have an indoor air purification system bro - who needs to stop forest fires
Crowder’s not-evil twin
Can we admit that Zizek is really an anti-Marxist
I have listened to both Zizek and Peterson. Buth have have something to contribute. I think Peterson and audience capture is correct. It also shows Peterson's blinds spot. Peterson has some good contributions, but not in this talk. If anything the conversation with Zizek showed this.
Diego Ruzzarin a serious thinker! I love his 🧠 brain !
I definitely don't agree with you on everything, but your takes and discussions have been good ways to think my way through the day. It's not like I'm going to focus on tedium in front of me at work.
As a mexican I don’t like Diego’s style. He is very biased and gets kinda lost in the weeds of his own ideas. Very pretentious guy.
And ignorant, Peterson is Liberal Conservative (a centuries ideology, economically liberal and socially conservative) but Diego immediately says that combination doesn't make sense, something only someone who doesn't know anything outside of left-wing and right-wing mindset would say.
I want to make an AI-generated documentary about the making of an AI-generated movie. I don’t want anyone to see it. I just want everyone to talk about how terrible it must be. I think this is where art has to be headed now. 😂
To be conservative ideologically and liberal economically makes you a Liberal Conservative, an ideology that has existed for centuries, the black hair guy is so ignorant it hurts 🤕
9:50 As for Marx's amazing description of how capitalism works, he makes major mistakes that devalue his endeavor to the point he probably wouldn't have written it if he'd waited a few more years. His labor theory of value lay in ruins after the solutions to the water/diamond paradox (because extracting surplus labor as profit no longer made sense, nor did his ideas about labor and material machines), he failed to comprehend that foreign investment does not produce an inevitable collapse because he didn't understand current accounts and how trade deficits vs surpluses, etc. work, he put too much emphasis on material as the determiner of social conditions and motivations, and it offered no explanation for how competition creates continuous improvement and innovation, something that communism can't and hardly even intends to provide. These are very major flaws, and his works get attention far out of proportion to their value. IMO, the main reason they keep getting attention is because university professors don't understand the free market, have an entrenched, ideological viewpoint they can't change after so long (cough, cough, Diego, cough), and because they know it so well they are comfortable with it (and yes, too lazy to spread their wings and learn new things, exactly what Diego criticizes others for). This isn't to defend Peterson; I haven't even seen the debate, but to challenge the idea that Marx had any more than a few valid criticisms of capitalism, far short of a comprehensively valid critique.
Anyone who doesn't believe in a labor theory of value should not be taken seriously. Even if Marx's specific LTV were "debunked," the fact that labor is the greatest contributing factor in determining the price of two similar objects would still be true. A cheap, badly made chair is less expensive than a well made on because good materials require more intensive labor to get than bad ones, and well made crafts require more labor to make than badly made ones.
@@Abcdefg-tf7cu I wonder how many people have beaten their head against the wall trying to dislodge you from that benighted opinion. I won't be one of them. Not I, said the pig! 🐷😂
Love the conversation Jared. However at 25:38 he starts to jump the shark ideologically. He ties liberalism and neo-liberalism too tightly to one genealogy of ideas and sources, denying diversity within the liberal project. Saying that all liberalisms are the same is like saying all capitalists or communists or socialists are the same. There are inner differentiations and party schisms in all of the above, with orthodoxies and heresies in all them.
Ok, so I think the points being put forward in this video are very naïve and do not represent reality particularly well. What book/s might change my mind on this assuming that I'm open to other points of view, evidence, and arguments?
"debate"
At 32:25. Yes Jared Christianity worships a victim, but the spirit of the religion is not woke. Give and do not take. Turn the other cheek.
25:00 “Instead of Leftist, say liberal.” Leftists took over the term liberal (with the help of conservatives), where liberal really means someone who is basically a devotee of the Enlightenment. His history of the origin of “liberal” is wrong. It really has its roots in 17th century England, not Spain. He has developed a false etymology of sorts and cherry picked a part of Spanish history that, while it may also have the same word attached to it, is not classical liberalism. To try to detach Leftist, which means communist, and rename those same people liberals, who favor limited government, individualism, and the free market. The Spanish Constitution he refers to was written in 1812, (after the 17th century!) and was influenced by the Enlightenment, and it was not the source of it. The “liberal arts” term that he tosses is has nothing to do with any of this-it dates back to ancient Greece, with the first (in Latin) use of this term in the 12th century. This portion is just a confused admixture of terms that is intended to form a false picture. This semantic dishonesty is a hallmark of the Left and shows once again Diego’s intellectual dishonesty.
i love academic marxism and how they know it all, the base critic against them is simple how do you get ride of power money state without doing the same thing that all the comunist dictatorships in the 21st century and its all "capiralisms is bad" polution is because capitalism, sexism is because capitalism averything is capitalism, but there is no other option just deleting free market is going to some how be better, all bulshit
His claims concerning China and the records of central planning worldwide are ludicrous. The market reforms and economic zones were absolutely crucial. That book about Walmart being an excellent example of central planning to bring to a country is idiotic cope that couldn’t overcome Hayek still haunting/ mocking the whole book. ScubaSteve had a good video on it.
Peterson was not someone to bring up on economics in the first place. Yet, the debate was put on by clueless liberals.
Liberals not understanding that core aspects of liberalism belong carried further down the road of logical conclusions, is infuriatingly typical I agree.
Swatting away the accusations that Marxist thinkers didn’t utilize and overlap with several of those downstream liberal developments is also as delusional as it is equally annoying. Marxism and liberalism agree on the concept that achieving some ultimate equality and freedom is desirable. Marxism simply sees liberalism as fundamentally unequipped, despite numerous thinkers still attempting to grab aspects of liberal derivative thought into their own mutated ideas in the process of “pushing forward.”
The Marxist materialism reading of history and reality always struck me as an unintentional reflection of geographical determinism. With all of its flaws and aggressive blind spots. Also, I’ll be “self-entertaining” and say that perception of the material only matters by way of the higher receiving thoughts that grasp it. Like feeling and tasting a treat while also conceiving of that experience and thought. One is fundamentally incomplete or even blindsided without the other.
His so-called “tools of criticism” are only provided and make sense from his stance because they work to establish and perpetuate a specific pre-suppositional view of analysis on how to view the world. Other contextualized tools of criticism yielding different results would simply be seen as a continued failed escape from entrapment in materialistic false ideology.
His ideas really smash up against the wall on the personal topic of the matrix movie experience. He probably would’ve gotten a bit hostile, but it would’ve been funny and deserved to see him get more proper pushback.
I could definitely see people like this unintentionally helping to make some of that a self-fulfilling prophecy. The zombie state seems to be real with too many people. Half joking.
Peterson has a deep understanding of Stalinism, which he often calls Marxism.
25:00 ish
36:00 ish
23:32 "GDP means nothing if 90% of it ends up in the hands of the top 1%"--sure, IF--but this is a strawman because they have 25% of the wealth in the US now. So that's just a hypothetical, and he ignores a rock-solid empirical observation: the Pareto distribution, which is identical across all societies--all--yes, that means all--and all groups for that matter. That would temper his idea that communism can somehow defy that. This is another example of Diego's own cherry picking and intellectual dishonesty. I doubt he hasn't heard of the Pareto distribution, so he ignores it the same way he accuses Peterson of ignoring things that Diego supposed Peterson knows but can't change his mind on but is dug in too deep to change. That's the pot calling the kettle black.
Just imagine how distorted and biased your perception has to be to state to yourself and people onle that a Phd in Psychology has read 3 books in his life and think Zizek is a "real intelletual" when he is, in fact, a meme in the Philosophical community.
I don't dislike Zizek, I don't share the criticism some do to him. But the total failure to see the paralelism between the two is a sign of an unmeasurable bias.
This guy, Diego, should never ever ever strive away from talking about what he truly knows; that is: Marketing and Economics. He is not a Psychologist and reading Lacan, Freud and Zizek do not give you the credentials to have an educated opinion on Psychology.
Peterson has not read Marx. It was a debate about Marx
@@ipilotaneva2586 that's true! He probably hasn't read anything about communism. That was evident. But Diego said: Hasn't read 3 books in his life. And that's totally impossible as a PhD. Don't get me wrong, as a Psychologist, JP is very hard to watch... I watched his lectures back in the day to study for some tests and they are great, when he talks about what he knows. On the other hand his views on politics are simplistic, childish and he states as facts premises that simple are not. He even seems to ignore everything he studied, cherry picking outdated information. Nevertheless it is necessary to understand that a Clinical Psychologist can't work on someone's quality of life under the assumption that there's no individual improvement to be had. We know, the "new generation", that materialist conditions sicken people, but we can only use that to design more efficient ways to improve an individual's life. We can't change the collective from our stand point. My postgrad thesis, for example, is about improving ADHD symptoms via healthy life habits, instead or drugs. Americans, for some reason, find this premise insulting even when the amount of evidence supporting the fact that it has the same or better results as Pharmacotherapy are just mind blowing. There's literally an economic interest in keeping people medicated and generalizing mental "disorders".
The problem in JP is the extrapolation of individual Therapy to Philosophical assumptions. Like: cleaning your room. This is an actual thing studied in clinical Psychology and it works, a lot (in the context of individuals that SEEK Therapy). That doesn't mean that it works for every case, everywhere. That's absurd.
@@llTheJVlusicInMell JP has a long history of being wrong on almost every subject.
Lobsters are not related to humans, heiarchies aren’t hardwired to humans, the meritocracy isn’t real, race and IQ does not indicate intellectual inferiority of certain races, IQ does not determine with absolute certainty the life someone will live, there isn’t some leftist conspiracy in all of the humanities, the Nazi’s were not engaged in “human compassion” when genociding disabled people, cultural neo-marxism is a rehash of cultural bolshevism which is Jew blaming, canada’s c-16 bill was to put transgender people in the list of the descriminated classes and not forcing people to use certain pronouns
He’s literally on Prager U and the Daily wire
There is no such thing as wokism. That’s so alarming for a first sentence. Lmao.
It is a pleasure to listen to you guys!
43:52
Diego makes a lot of great points. And yes, they're paid too much to change their minds. Public intellectuals..
Diego really hates me I can tell (just a lib normie). why?