@uberkogle don't you think there are many people who know more than "jack shit" about philosophy but are terrible people who know a lot about a useless philosophy? I guess it depends on what you mean by philosophy. Knowing about philosophy doesn't necessarily make someone better. I think we should be more concerned with a learned philosopher who doesn't live according to his philosophy, than an honest simple person who never learned a lick...
It's a shame Ziek how did not turn up and join the debate. Easy to be right if you do not debate the points....? I would have thought a proper debate would have been exciting?
@@evenruderanger7617 Funny that you'd say that... It reminds of what a certain Austrian man with an odd love for Hugo Boss attire and an odd distaste for certain ethnic minorities would preach about the intellectuals of his time...
Except wealth filters to the top of any system. It's an old practice that tribal chiefs, at least in northern America, would hold massive parties as a way to redistribute wealth. Every society can come up with their own solution but it only works if its by choice, not mandate. I am not angry at rich people who give to charity, I get angry at charities who don't use their funds for much besides advertising.
@@impancaking “Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.” Clement Attlee.
@@blackphoenix8932 'charity given freely is great, charity given at the whim of the state not always so' - me People can offset tax with charity, at every economic level. I give to charity and my income is less than 40,000 a year because I don't think my government gives to the charities I like to. That's my choice. If the charity is set up as a tax scam, then it should be reported and dismantled otherwise I have no problem with people choosing where their money goes. Autonomy all the way. That is not a radical stance. If Zizek gave his away its still charity, just not an organised one. Would love to know where it went.
@@blackphoenix8932 p.s. a lot of government programs waste money on administration just like organisations do. At least I can research and choose where my money goes.
Slavoj Zizek, in a restaurant, he examines the menu... Waiter; Can I take your order Sir ? Zizek; I shall have the steak, SNIFF, with the potatoes onions mushrooms and so on Waiter; Certainly Sir and how would you like Chef to cook that steak for you ? Zizek; Dialectically
@@yerhing6406 Zizek; My god, no! Let's say first you serve steak raw or half-raw. Then of course I complain - "How is it so raw, I cannot eat this, are you trying to poison me and so on and so on." Then you take it back to chef, you say - "Are you trying to poison customer and so on?" - Head chef takes it personally, gets very upset, leaves job. You put steak in oven, cook it yourself. "Uh" Then you bring it back. Now comes an edible steak, I can eat this. But here comes the paradox of the steak...
Honestly, the host wasn't good. In conversations between JP and Sam Harris, the moderator was Brett Weinstein, and he was a completely different type of host. He actually moderated the debate very well and asked both participants very excellent questions
That either means that how he formulates his views and arguments are hard to understand and require a lot of context (research) OR You've been subjected to his views long enough that they just naturally make more sense. The latter one is bad. It typically makes you tunnel-visioned and blind-sighted to any cons of the views and arguments.
@Gabriel Terrero You mean being tunnel-visioned and blind-sighted? Oh well, you typically just have to force yourself to look at stuff from many sources, or more precisely: The opposite that you "like". An example would be if you're a liberal, you'd watch some content and new from conservative sources. That way you know what's the narrative on both sides and how it gets twisted. You'll get a better idea of the subject AND how these groups form their narratives. It will feel REALLY weird at first, you'll scoff at bunch of these things and get kinda frustrated, but maybe a week later you'll start getting used to it. Now you have opened your mind to more things, more possibilities, more perspectives.
Though I think Zizek is brilliant, unfortunately he makes the error of not accurately representing Peterson's ideas when criticizing them. To paraphrase: if Peterson is so competent and academia is a hierarchy of competence, doesn't its rejection of him prove that he must be incompetent? Gotcha!! Peterson's assertion that hierarchies in capitalist society are hierarchies of competence is more complex than presented here by Zizek. Peterson says that hierarchies of competence tend towards corruption over time, especially if the legitimacy of that hierarchy is not constantly being challenged (challenging the legitimacy of established hierarchies is the correct function of the left in a capitalist society, according to Peterson). So Peterson's rejection by Canadian academia can be easily explained by the fact that (again in his view) academia, particularly the social sciences, has been corrupted by "postmodern neo-Marxists" and is no longer a functioning hierarchy of competence ...and so on and so on (sniff)...
Indeed. Zizek misrepresents the psychoanalytic archetypes of women as chaos. While tension of dual representation can be seen as well: women are creation, men destruction, women are selection, men options, the foundational archetype of woman-as-nature and man-as-challenger of nature remain as a common thread, and only in that sense can be perceived as feminine chaos (communist, lawless, generative) and masculine order (fascist, fastidious, restrictive). Overall, Zizek is not a fastidious thinker. He is rather sophistical in his judgements and proclamations (not all French haute cuisine is based on fermentation/rotting, for example, as he states: French onion soup, chicken Kiev). That is a trait required of a philosopher who believes communist dictatorship is a necessary step toward utopia.
So, according to Peterson, members of academia, as being at the top of the hierarchy of education, should never be Marxist (and that being actually the case is highly debatable) because the role of the left should always be to oppose the hierarchy and keep it in check without actually ever gaining systematic control? So the left is reserved to those at the bottom of his hierarchy forever opposing it...? I mean, that's a neat description of the current function of a capitalist system, why should it be like that though? The system should continue for the sake of the function of the system? Now, when it comes to Zizek's argument, this is what he said, "He should agree that, American and Canadian academia, your power there [the power structure in American and Canadian academia] is definitively not based in competence..." Zizek is criticizing academia, he's actually taking Peterson's side somewhat. The critic is not that Peterson should not consider himself competent for being rejected by academia, but that if Peterson considers himself competent, then the hierarchy in academia is not based on competence if that hierarchy rejects Peterson. That would, ironically, put Peterson on the bottom opposing the current hierarchy, functioning as the 'left.' Then, Zizek continues, "...to succeed as a banker, yes you have to be competent, but competent for what? For cheating..." The overall point: you shouldn't justify the status quo with itself and what it arbitrarily defines as competence.
@@Lambda_Ovine Zizek is a sophist. Sophistry helps if you are a Marxist because Marxism doesn't work. Peterson makes a claim that hierarchy of competence evolved because it was selected as improving survival. In emergent systems high competence hierarchies improve efficiency over other less competent ones. Zizek's cheating bankers may accrue more wealth temporarily but they will not continue in the profession because their reputations will have been marred so they no new business. Moreover they run a high risk of being caught and tried and ruined. Cheating bankers do not belong in a hierarchy of competence that lasts.
If the capitalist system in which we live is no longer a functioning hierarchy of competence, (which it clearly isn't) then doesnt this 1. explain why postmodern neo marxist theory dominates the discussion in academia according to Peterson's own assertions. In other words, its doing its job of challenging the competecy and legitimacy of the capitalist hierarchy yes? 2. And because academia is also hopelessly tied to this larger incompetent hierarchy of the capitalist system, isnt that a better explanation for its own internal failures and contradictions? I think so. 3. Isnt it more accurate to say that JP rejected Canadian academia, not the other way around, and therefore, he rejected the legitimacy of the dominance hierarchy within academia ONLY, rather than challenging the larger illegitimacy and incompetency of the capitalist hierarchy which he actually defends, and in that sense, coming off as a hypocrite in the long run? I think so. And doesn't this also explain why Zizek (who has been criticizing the larger illegitimate capitalist hierarchy his whole career) came off better in the debate? I think it does.
The naval battle of Salamis was the pivotal battle of the second Persian Invasion. The Peloponnesian War, famously chronicled by Thucydides, was the quarrel between Athens and Sparta that polarized the entire subcontinent, a generation later.
I feel like with this debate we missed a potentially much more interesting debates on Jung versus Lacan, both of which Zizek and Peterson have referred to a either a genius or entirely nonsensical.
There must be Jacque Lacan versus Joseph Campbell (which is more of what Peterson represents than Jung’s original work) debate out there somewhere, if only in their traditions
Fans of zizek say Peterson miss-characterizes zizeks arguement. Fans of Peterson say zizek miss-characterizes Petersons arguement. Both seem to not be understanding eachother. This is kind of a bummer. I hope more conversations can be had to explore both interpretations and come to better understandings.
@@downeybill um... Actual philosophers and economists clearly favored one over the other... The one who actually knew what he was talking about. Not the one who had a third grader's understanding of Marxism. I mean, isn't that obvious? The person who doesn't know the topic lost. Not to mention in other interviews, Zizek has gone on record to say that Peterson is clearly an idiot. He's just being nice here.
@@dxcSOUL did you really just say that according to you there was a winner in a debate? If so, then you weren't listening properly. Even the host, as bad as he was imho, rightly ended by saying that it was an unfinished conversation. Not only there was still much more ground to cover, there was also a lot of agreement between the two. Do not dichotomize something that wasn't meant to be dichotomized. Zizek himself kept saying that he sees it as a conversation and not a debate, and it's not just politeness, he was honest But I do agree that Peterson's understanding of marxism was rather shallow. Nonetheless, it didn't even end up mattering later in the debate at all. Have you actually watched the whole thing carefully?
@@karolakkolo123 Peterson came out in another video admitting he didn't know what he was talking about with regard to Marx and that he was surprised to find Zizek was Hegelian and not marxist. But seriously you cant compare Zizek who has written about 40 books to Peterson who has written two self help books and one book full of bullshit. It might not have been a debate but Zizek is definitely correct about about everything he mentioned in the discussion while Peterson is kind of making shit up as he goes along.
I’m not sure why people aren’t getting this. masculinity represent order and tyranny and the feminine represents nature, and chaos IN MYTHOLOGY it’s not to be taken literally. The way people keep referencing this I feel like I missed something.
In beyond good and evil Nietzsche offers a ciritique of exactly this pseudo philosophy. He claims that most ideology is fundamentlly subjective. Ofcourse the feminine is chatoic/mysterious to the men who invented that distinction. For a woman the masculine is chaotic/nysterious. This kind of wisdom is pure stuidity
Alpine Skilift whether or not the ancient symbolic representations of order and chaos are considered obtuse by relatively modern standards is another debate entirely. The point is, this seems to be the way ancient peoples chose to represent the nature of the world as they understood it and all I see Peterson doing is trying to decode the meaning behind these story’s by getting into their headspace.
@@NoName-qi7vx The only thing that's stupid is attaching more meaning to symbolical categories than necessary. You could say the ror represents order and rar represents chaos - both are to be found in every human being alike - and it would have the same meaning as the statement above
Thankyou!! It's ridiculous. He is trying to find the meaning in these old terms that are found almost universally across cultures and applies some things we've figured out more recently, for example the kind of brain matter between men and women differ, women have more connections/white matter, men have more myelination/grey matter (less connections).
Zizek has some interesting inconventional insights, but most of the time he is just pandering to left wing narratives. Peterson has tons of insights but after you digest most of his lectures you don't feel the same spark. They are both unique. Too bad zizek is a communist, although i think making opposition to capitalism is a good thing, but that's not the world we live in, it's much complicated and nuanced to see it through 19 and 20th century lens.
We missed something that could have benefited us all portraying these 2 as ideological enemies. Listening to lectures from both it surprises me how often their paths aline.
Its very strange to me when people hear "our brains and bodies work a certain way so it makes sense that we'd have trends in society/demographics" and they respond "so you're saying we MUST do only what our bodies and brain are hard wired to do?!" Its so stupid.
Yes, it is stupid. No, nobody is responding like that. Yes, it is hardwired, because we have millions of years of evolution where only those instincts held us alive and only few relative years of culture and civilisation. Civilisation is a novelty within humanity, you have to deal with remnants of reptile brain in your head. Unfortunately those remnants are far older than parts of your brain that allow you to think creatively and in abstracts, plus all your thoughts and impulses must first go through them before they reach your consciousness. Overall it is stronger than you think, because it is working BEFORE you even think at all. And that is the core of the argument. If our brains and bodies work a certain way, and this way is similar to animals, then any claims that social structure or hierarchy as artifical and cultural concept, are false. We are existing with need to have hierarchy as a biological thing, not just economic, sociological or political. It's our instinct to gather in groups and create social ladder. Exact nature of society is different thing, but the very idea of it is deep within us.
@7th808s They don't have to. History proves it. You will not win with your animal instinct so easily. You can fight against your nature on individual level, and you can even emerge victorious after hard, conscious and long struggle. Demanding the same on whole society or even small groups of humans is, in fact, futile.
@7th808s And what does it prove, exactly? It was done before already. In Ancient Greece and Rome homosexualism was accepted too, on some terms at least. Then it ceased for almost 2000 years. What guarantee do you have this history won't repeat? None. Besides, I wouldn't be so happy about "multiple" countries with supposed acceptance of gay people. For instance take a look on California, where majority of people were against same-sex marriages and it was decision of Supreme Court that ruled otherwise. Situation is the same in many places, and it's not entirely acceptance when almost half population isn't ok with that.
@7th808s Do you like eating food ? I'm going to guess that you do. What do you like to eat ? Do you like eating meat, grains and vegetables or do you like eating dirt, rocks and sand ? Why accept this status quo ? Rebel against your lizard brain !
I don't quite understand the point on human mating- some birds and even insects have crazily unnecessarily complex mating rituals, it doesn't change the fact that these evolved, as in biologically, and not because they thought it up. Also, the Peloponnesian war was between athens and sparta, not between the greeks and the persians, just saying.
I think he means human courting is not so much biological pre determined anymore (, like the other animals you use as examples.) He uses apes sexual behavior versus human behavior, countering Peterson serotine driven lobster argument. and refernces on females wearing make up, high heels etc.
Simply put, the fact that there are fetishes and these are the abstraction of pleasure emanated from our subconscious goes against the motion of pure sexual drive like an animal does
A change in biological nature tends to lead to difference in perception=thought. If a birds is horny n knows its mating time, she or he prolly thought it. Think of it as puberty but differently for different species, it varies.
that debate was about ''marxism'' ....and the havoc his followers ''marxists'' have wrecked, .....it was NOT about every single word marx ever said, .......and peterson argued his side well, to which zizek just agreed with peterson and distanced himself from marx lol, zizek also said ''marx did not have a good theory on how social power exist'' .....so zizek did not really defend marx well at all, .....these people are deluded lmao
@@GCKelloch You always have a choice, your just to cowardice to make yours. Actions define the person GCKelloch, not words. Start living by action, then you actually change the world. You would rather "sleep with the enemy" while stabbing them in the back. Nice choice! ...but can I assure you, from a psychological point of view, that tells me a lot about you already. Tell me, to enforce the "new Utopia" would you be willing to kill people like me, people that wont be subjugated to your ideology? Or would you be more humane, and just have me "re-educated"? In other words...how will you make 7.5 billion people think just like you?
@@GCKelloch Fine...whatever. Honestly its like talking to "hand puppet" with Karl's arm up your arse. I love debating Marxists cause I know exactly what their going to say and when. But I have a question for YOU...GCKelloch, not Marx, ok... Answer me this, and I ask this sincerely... You obviously want to bring in a form of political ideology that's 'Marxist' in nature. That means you will have to redistribute wealth. For arguments sake...if you become the 'leader of the world tomorrow', how would actually implement your plan? Without murder and incarceration? How would you stop it from turning into a bloody totalitarian resume like every other attempt in the 20th century? (Humans will be humans, apes will be apes! That's where you seem to negate the importance of human psychology...we are 3 billion year old life forms! We weren't dropped off here by Aliens last week...) I mean, if you don't have a plan to bring forth your ideas into 'actions', then youre really just a bag of hot air? Correct?
The order and chaos thing I get, but Jordans view on it is Jungian; Anima(feminine) and Animus(masculine), which are archetypal ways of looking at it. When he talks about order and chaos he means that women usually have a more artistic and creative temperament, which in definition more chaotic, also the fact that they experience negative emotions quicker and men represent a more ordered and "cold" temperament. He was not wrong in what he said, he just missed the point.
I could never understand anything that this guy says. It's like the meaning behind his words does not unfold in my brain. It tries, but can never "connect the two dots" I've listened to him a few times and I can say zero about the way he thinks
Dude you gotta really pay attention. Also it'd help if you read some Marx. There are basic ideas he doesn't go into full detail on because people in his circle(including Peterson) are already very familiar with. Just a tip. He's a brilliant guy.
I heard multiple times Zizeck say he is not a Marxist, according to him in an interview in Valuetainment he states that he is a crtical thinker and finds Engels and Marx too ambiguouse, calls himself a communist but he isn´t one in the classical sense, that by itself is somewhat confusing but I still enjoy listening his ideas time to time, though not alot sticks. My opinion about the manifesto (since its the only book I read by Marx) is that it needs an alternative title, more like the manifesto of the closeted envious , it can fill your heart with anger with a very one sided and simplified view of reality.
To be fair, Peterson doesn't say men are order and women chaos (he even actively refutes it). He means masculinity / femininity. This doesn't say anything about the bodies these "forces" take hold of.
@@rugbyguy59 Then it's hard to explain transgender people who go through a lot of pain acting against(!) their social conditioning. Unless you think it's merely a mental illness. If not, there have to be something like extrinsic gender forces (quasi essentialist). Since I know transgender people and their stories I tend to believe the latter.
@@ohjein He rose to prominence with his objections to a bill that basically just said, "we recognize transgender people and can maybe refer to them by their trans rather than their birth pronouns."
@@myselfapretend I know, but even if it nowadays doesn't seem that way most people can be right about some things and wrong about others. And the compelled speech thing is a whole other topic.
he said he forgot about the point about competence and hierarchy but he totally did make it.... it was the most, destructive part of the debate I was there.... it flew over the heads of all the peterson fan boys.
He is, and often you can listen to large portions without really understanding him. However, he often repeats his jokes, theories etc. And after a while he becomes easier to understand
@BON Moody I am a genius too and so are you in that case. If you do not have any context it doesn't matter if you are ignorant or smart , the results are the same.
@@SaintJames14 You must be stupid as stupid gets if you believe that bullshit. Most of the serious academics laugh at him. He does not even have an argument for them to respond to. But you do not know these things because you only get to see the noise, never any contexts with Zizek.
I like Zizek a lot but the “lobster” debate he still made a cheap shot as it was not petersons intent to argue for biological determinism but for the existence of ingrained hierarchies going as back as several hundred million years. This to show that inequality/hierarchies are not a recent social construct but inherent in human & animal nature. Now what to do with that is a different story. I mean his argument against biological determination has some substance but it was totally misplaced and it seemed Zizek has guided his opinion on what Peterson meant on this topic by some left-leaning individuals rather than actually what Peterson said. 2nd, again I like Zizek but Petersons reaction after the debate had way more class than Zizek's reaction.
You must have to some extent misunderstood Zizek, what he meant was probably the following: although hierarchies are as ancient as lobsters, the hierarchy that characterizes human society today is in itself totally different from the hierarchy of lobsters. Lobsters set their hierarchy by dueling with each other (which change the amount of chemical substance in their neurological systems), it is purely a matter of competence: whoever has a bigger fist/claw get to become the king. The logic of human hierarchy is a totally different one: A man is a king insofar as his people recognize him as a king, as if with such seemingly superfluous and meaningless belongings as a scepter and a crown he is conferred upon some kind of magical aura which makes him be at the top of the social hierarchy. Zizek's own example is more convincing: A father has authority for his child, simply because he's the child's father, it is not because the father has fought his way through thousands of fathers to prove that he is the most competent father and is qualified to have authority. In human society, the authority of a master does not trace its source to the characteristics of the master and sustain itself in a positivistic way, the master has authority simply because, so to speak, he just does. That's probably Zizek's critique of Peterson's lobster topic. Yes, the chemical substance in our brain that suggests our hierarchical position is the same with that of lobster's, but the cause that determines hierarchical positions is totally different between human and lobsters.
9:14 I have seen so many people, intellects at that misunderstanding Peterson here. Chao is often seen by them as this bad thing, and when Peterson alludes women to chaos, they think he is attaching them to their idea of chaos. However this is absolutely wrong, Peterson in his maps of meaning lectures explains how human being view the world and correct their frame of operating in their world. Here's the main point, he says women are chaos because chaos gives birth to things, chaos is the thing that makes the naive hero competent, it gives birth to the new frame. He also repetitively says in his lectures that the best way to operate in the world is to have the forces of chaos and order balanced (not one dominating the other), which is the flow state that Taoist talk about.
I watched the original debate earlier and I was really impressed by the amicability of both Zizek and Peterson and openness to discuss their ideas. Even though I have been previously unimpressed with communism and Marxism, Zizek intrigued me into feeling perhaps I need to do more reading, find out more about his work and be open to rethinking my original thoughts on these ideologies. Which is one of the reasons I clicked on this video. Only to come to find that this is the exact tactic that he used quite disingenuously. How characteristic of left leaning individuals to not argue their points on the merit of the ideology, but to manipulate people giving you the benefit of the doubt and then brag about it afterwards, and to denigrate your opponents points of view behind their back when you had the opportunity to challenge them to their face. I don’t agree with all of Jordan Peterson’s theories, but I have never seen him pull underhanded shit like this.
This comment! I've experienced this. When I've given an overtly belligerent, "unreasonable", person the benefit of the doubt and been completely open and they just whisked it around like that. It's incredible. What they don't realize is that I know exactly what they have done. They don't learn anything and progress is not made. My species!
Zizek is talking about his philosophy, or certain parts of it at least. That is not "unfair". It's not like this is some sort of sport where they compete with each other inside the ring or whatever. Zizek is not "cheating" or talking badly about Peterson "behind his back" just because he answers questions about a debate he had with him. They are not friends or enemies, they are two intellectuals (if you can call Peterson that) who have very different ideas, and they can talk about their debate and about each others opinions whenever they want or like in this case, when they get asked about it. I don't understand the problem here and I don't see any connection here to "the left" and so on
i dont think this is a typically left leaning thing, i think zizek did this and for this reason you should be disappointed in him, as am i, a communist. i do believe the debate was a disingenuous waste of time, but i believe jordan peterson did pull some very intellectually dishonest shit as he """"critiqued"""" marx without even bothering to fully read the manifesto and fools his audience into believing he has a point by working his way up to conclusions from propositions which are already wrong. either way, shit debate. but i don't know why you think this is a left leaning thing to do. disingenuous debates/people exist in both sides, and i've seen plenty of right-wing "commentators" basically emotionally bully 'opponents' in debates and pretending that they have won on the merit of ideology. so if anything this is a thing anyone can do, and it sucks. all in all, even through Peterson's dishonesty and stupidity, Zizek ruined the debate by pretending to be merciful and giving up on actually responding to peterson.
"Men is order, woman is disorder". This is not what Peterson said nor what he meant. To understand this issue you would have to watch some of his lectures on human mating, the femininity, and his Jungian aproach to human sexuality.
@@ildesu789 I'm guessing you're a typical 14 year old know it all atheist, given that you said your opinion as if it was a fact and you did not gave any basis or evidence for it. So I won't even bother in responding your statement.
That's the basic implication of what he's saying. You can try to back out of it by weak protests that femininity is different from the female, but it still uses the female to define itself. Jung has some interesting ideas but he's also *horrendously* wrong about mythology more often than not.
I made the conscious decision to look into Zizek and listen to him speak because I’ve been consuming a lot of Peterson lately but for the life of me I can’t pull a complete thought from any of his work so far. It seems to be all rambling with a lot of backtracking to make sure you understood the point which he didn’t really make. I just don’t get it, he lists faults but never offers suggestions. I’ve no doubt he has a great mind and he’s well respected so what am I missing here?
I had the same conclusion a year ago, forgot about Zizek, came back and realized that Zizek doesn't address the audience the same way as Peterson because Zizek's serious work is in his books, and papers, and in the majority of his yt content/interviews, he's mostly rifting and going on tangents and making solid points whilst being cheeky. Peterson as a lecturer and teacher with his materials and yt content is structured to build your understanding of his ideas and build from there, so he's actively trying to be accessible.
its a big distinction that at the end Zizek says "men are and women are" as far as Im concerned Jordan says masculine and feminine not woman or men, Jordan seems to imply more that the masculine within a person and the feminine within a person compels them to act certain ways and that they tend to be opposing forces
Jordan was catapulted to fame after a woke battle in his native Canada. (Wokeism really is low hanging fruit.) A gifted clinician who should know better decided he was a polymath and authority in all things cultural. Jordan at best is a cautionary tale on the downside of celebrity.
@@dnbqup his arguments against Peterson’s lobster argument was weak af. Peterson Never Said That our hierarchy’s are fair or based on universal competence, he claimed that we humans and all other humans are based on hierarchy’s and that we shouldn’t try to build system which ignore such a huge core part of our psyche
@@friedrichzizek6700 but the hierarchy is not inherent to us but based on power. As such, if we continue on this hierarchy nonsense without justification, we will continue our ways of war and destroying ourselves.
cheap and petty.. not Zizek .. the whole look who won and taking little snipet's as if they prove or substantiate any thing .. I prefer Zizek in long form with out is peons .. clipping away at his coat tails
Agree. I listen and watch and see two great minds sharing mutual immense respect. They attack ideas of the other, not the man, being beyond such pettiness. Would that more viewers adopted this. To be more agreed with one of the men is not to have to demean the intellect or character of the other.
LOL! Well we all waited to hear some philosophical brilliance from Zizek, but it never materialized! He was on the defense so badly he didn't take on even one of Peterson's assertions, instead engaging in sophistry: "who are these communists? ...name one?" LOL, a very cheap rhetorical distraction...as if everyone but he and two other people are the only real communists in the intellectual world...WHAT AN INTELLECTUAL FRAUD! This is why leftists lust for power, their ideas can't stand up to scrutiny! LOL...You fools!
He doesn't successfully addresss the lobster argument, and his refutation was all over the place. Basically Zizek posits that at least a part of human behavior can not be predetermined by our animal biology because "some things can be transfunctionalized into having new functions" (like rotten food can be turned into top cuisine or sexual foreplay can be turned into the main focus of love, then dopamine/serotonin release could be used for new, less animalistic functions!). However, these examples he gives for transfunctionalization are complex, emergent systems of thought, not the very structure of thought at the neurological level. The fact that one can deliberately modify complex thought systems like courtship and business strategies does not mean one can modify the base neurology that sustains thought process itself, you are just using that basic neurology to adapt to new arising challenges. Of course, we already know we can adapt our emergent thought, that's the whole point of thinking: adapting to new situations. But our neurology is the TOOL we use to adapt, not the part that adapts. The French chef is still trying to make money, to afford his consumption, to trigger his reward system under a new environment situation: lose of his business assets. The courtship lover (which arose in the Middle Ages) is still trying to get female attention, to receive emotional affection, to trigger oxytocin and the reward system, just adapted to a new social situation where casual sex is socially forbidden or even punished. Adapting your strategies does not mean you are overwriting the underlying basic structure the strategies are based on. Dopamine will always trigger when you win, anticipate and receive rewards, serotonin will always trigger when you sense you escalated positions on a hierarchy you care about. That can not be purposely transfunctionalized because it is not conscious, not even unconscious, neurotransmitters work at the molecular level, and then that emerges into subconsciousness. Peterson is not arguing in favor of hard determinism (he is actually against it if you've seen his lectures), he is not saying we can not adapt new strategies! He is just saying that WHEN we design those new strategies, we must not overlook the basic neurology they are based on. For example, you can not try to design a new political system based on absolute equality when we have a serotonin system that rewards hierarchical ascension, such political system will always see hierarchical dispute arising here and there continuously, expressed in different forms. This animal molecular biology predates conscious thought by a LOT of evolutionary time. You can use this old tool in new ways to make a better, happier world, but you won't be able to change the tool. Not unless you change our genetic structure, by waiting millions of years of natural selection miraculously favoring equality, or speeding up the process by genociding the most hierarchy-driven people for countless generations, or perform gene editing to turn ourselves into a hivemind species.
I think fetishes goes against this notion man, they do no accomplish any reproductive function, they do not function based on competition and are instead based on a social structure, its the abstraction of sexual pleasure, purely psychological.
The idea that Communism is a system of absolute equality is a liberal pastiche. Engels himself said in Anti-Dühring, “the real content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity.” Communism as a system is not about equality, it is about freedom.
I like Zizek in that I think he's after honest inquiry. Even though i'm a right wing libertarian, his insights are quite penetrating. I will up-front state that I like Peterson more and that Zizek missed the entire point of the debate, which was on the *effects* of Marxism, not a debate on the theory of Marxism itself. It was an act of humility and good faith on Peterson's part to let him morph the debate into that topic. What I really don't like about him is that he doesn't see the real, omnipotent threat of political correctness. I know that he totally understands the power it holds by the way he talks, but he doesn't seem to believe that he's a prime target for it and completely loses the plot in seemingly thinking that he's insulating himself against it somehow. He thinks that he's going to somehow dodge it because he's adopted the ridiculous logic of 'trigger warnings' and so forth... but all he's doing is ceding the language to its proponents. There is NO synthesis to this, we're just slowly converging to the central tenets of critical theory. Move by move, they come to dominate the board of this chess game that we call 'allowed speech'. He doesn't understand that his ability to even provide honest inquiry is in real danger.
@@NonsenseFabricator ??? It has the power to tell hard science what is right and wrong. It's not just limited to the domain of 'lol u said the n word'.
@@Spardeous "political correctness" is a purely derogatory term that began as satire and became a bogeyman that the right wing has lived in fear of since 1990. You're so obsessed with being victims that someone telling you that you should be more polite is an "omnipotent threat."
@@NonsenseFabricator You're either uninformed or just stupid. Both Zizek and Chomsky have came out against political correctness. Zizek is strongly anti-PC.
Yeah I didn't get that either. He was disagreeing with Peterson, but then gave that which seemed contradictory. Anywhere else where he goes into that topic? I feel like Slavoj is just wrong there, men and women have different roles which are not social constructions this is undeniable. Clearly the purpose of the husband is different than that of the wife to use Aristotle's forms. True of the animal kingdom as well as humans.
@@NobuhikuObayashi right, he did say that. However, what exactly about it is chauvinistic? The point is the animal kingdom is populated with 50/50 ratio between men and women, so there is balance. Neither can flourish without the other coz absolute order is fascism and absolute chaos is anarchy
"everyone is chauvinistic" does not follow from "a chauvinistic thing is true". Just for one thing, not everybody necessarily believes it. Also, there must be a difference between a fact being chauvinistic and a person being chauvinistic
As long as you’re approaching with a critical eye you should be able to pick out ideas that are well formed and ignore anything superfluous. It’s a practice in excavation. Don’t let the human spewing the words distract you.
Zizek is brilliant but i can never get anything solid or useful from him...he criticizes or make an analysis but never comes with suggestion or atleast thats as far i csn comprehend him..Any i rather benefit from "cleaning my room" than continue being depressed "so on and so on"
This freedom to be an extremely inteligent communist professor in America and eloquently support his views while dignifyinly sniffing in a foreign accent.
Can't help but notice Zizek is criticizing his pathologized version of Peterson's ideas after the fact rather than during the debate. Definitely not a sign of good character.
Maybe someone can seriously explain this to me because I do not understand this idea at all: JP (and some, if not most, of his fans and also right wingers) says that Marxism is taking over social sciences. Can someone explain to me why this is so bad? The question sounds stupid but I want you (before answering) to really think about it without using themes like: Stalin bad, Mao bad, Lenin bad etc. I understand Stalinism, Leninism etc.
Not Marxism, radical left is taking over social sciences. It's definitely bad that any side (left or right) takes over in an authoritarian manner. Free speech is getting banned. That's absolutely reprehensible.
@@increditheclub7598 But how has it taken over in an authoritarian manner? If leftist theories have stayed for so long and developed, how has it been an authoritarian takeover?
ive never even heard zizek talk about economic communism before, then again it seems like the only thing communists talk about is criticism of capitalism
Marx himself was a critic of capitalism and didn't say all the answers were obvious. And that's what Peterson and people like him will never understand because they think it's some sort of hard line selling points. Like capitalism there are many forms of socialism/communism. For example New Zealand isn't the same form of capitalism as the USA, hell even china has the most free market. But like slavery and feudalism every economic system is born and dies.
Zizek is great! unfortunately it seems that neither peterson nor his fb can even grasp what he is explaining. they are so caught up in (peterson's) their ideology that they and himself became blind to new ideas outside their comfort zone
I came into the debate unfamiliar with Zizek and a casual fan of Peterson because of his stance on identity politics and his willingness to confront unsavory ideas while generally disagreeing with his conclusions as I'm a leftist. I came away a fan of Zizek as he has the same qualities I like about Peterson while also sharing my political views and philosophy and elaborating them in an insightful and well-considered way. A lot of the ideology that's being touted as left-wing these days seems absurd and alienating to me and Peterson was one of the few well articulated "voices of reason" on that subject I could find. What a relief it was to find an intellectual lefty in Zizek who shares these feelings without the troublesome bullshit of Petersons other assumptions and right-wing bias. What Zizek did wasn't lost on all Peterson's fans. (though I'm not sure I'd still consider myself a peterson fan as Zizek scratches the same itch but far better)
What is he explaining? I find Zizek’s communications sloppy and incoherent, maybe you can help me understand. As for Peterson’s ideology, you could sum it up by saying “reject ideology”. So, how can new ideas be outside that “comfort zone”?
@@downeybill Peterson rejects ideology? I mean, I guess he does say something like that sometimes, but it is so obviously not true. It could only seem true to someone who agrees with his (very strident and well-articulated) ideology
He provides new ways of thinking about a large number of topics, and I suppose he wants those who consume his work to come to their own conclusions. I'm sure he's tried to formulate a specific ideal structure of moral, social and cultural organisation, like many other philosophers, and he's probably torn it to shreds himself and realised that it's futile and arrogant. Ultimately, Zizek just takes the standard liberal 'examine your own biases' and takes it to a much higher and more interesting level, allowing it as a tool for self-awareness and cultural awareness
Sorry, half the time he talks rambling things that aren’t that smart or insightful. He needs to to focus on communicating a thought from start to finish clearly without going on a tangent or just saying Hegelian or some jargonistic philosophical terminology. He also didn’t have the courage to say any of this to JP at the time, he just rolled over and showed his belly and now rewriting the script like he outsmarted him. Rubbish. Sorry dude, i’m calling you out ... and so on and so on
Hate to say it but Žižek has a few points he attacks where he come in with a lack of understanding as well as his ego was far too involved. I feel like thinks he won something ?
LOL, he lost very badly, he avoided taking on any of Peterson's points about the philosophical underpinnings of communism. Instead he decides he's not actually going to take on Peterson's points about communism, and rather just does the typical deflection of "woe is the world, and all the poor bastards who think they are happy" LOL, a debate with any leftist inevitably turns into their complaining about everybody in the middle class, and those who aspire to it. Peterson nailed it right out of the gate and Žižek couldn't deny it, so he did the only thing he could, and that is to talk on Peterson as if he had never heard these points about communism before, and laughably challenge Peterson on his assertion that the university is filled with communist of every stripe. "Who are these communists...give me some names?!" ; "Where is this research?!" these are juvenile rhetorical tactics to distract from the arguments. And the best part...French food...I guess Žižek has never had Slavic food! LOL!!!
I love the counter argument to the comment that Zizek speaks in random unclear points is; arh that's because you are too stupid, or you need to listen to him for many many hours, making the same points etc - probably some truth in this and an interesting argument. However, My preference is for someone to form their argument and points in a way that can be clearly understood?
He is a Slovene speaking in depth about massively complicated matters. It seems like he doesn't like to paraphrase. I'm sure you could take your time to understand his arguments instead of assuming you should just understand it all at once. Maybe I misunderstood or misrepresented you, but don't you think that if you 'studied' his arguments you could gain some understanding? Why should he have to simplify his speech for your (assumed) laziness?
@@DS-ti3nt I did not say; I did not understand; I understand him all too well, probably better than Zizek himself; its as you say all those lazy stupid people... I mean Jordon also does not like to para phrase but the words and ideas are understandable and logical, of course still open to debate if they have merit; personally I have found them rather useful in my own life. I agree Zizek ideas are a bit more nuance although I think there is room to speak in a clearer manner - of course this may be difficult in a 2nd language. I think there is merit in some of Zizek ideas... some just don't seem to make sense from a logical point of view, i.e. following his train of thought, sentences don't follow that well, sometimes
@@DS-ti3nt I did not say; I did not understand; I understand him all too well, probably better than Zizek himself; its as you say all those lazy stupid people... I mean Jordon also does not like to paraphrase but the words and ideas are understandable and logical, of course still open to debate if they have merit; personally, I have found them rather useful in my own life. I agree Zizek ideas are a bit more nuance although I think there is room to speak in a clearer manner - of course, this may be difficult in a 2nd language. I think there is merit in some of Zizek ideas... some just don't seem to make sense from a logical point of view, i.e. following his train of thought, sentences don't follow that well, sometimes
Clearly Jordan Peterson seems relevant to Zizek by the fact that he is busy discussing him. I dont hear Peterson discussing Zizek much. Zizek seem to win arguments in hindsight instead of in the moment.
LOL, Zizek decides he's not actually going to take on Peterson's points about communism, and rather just does the typical deflection of "woe is the world, and all the poor bastards who think they are happy" LOL, a debate with any leftist inevitably turns into their complaining about everybody in the middle class, and those who aspire to it. Peterson nailed it right out of the gate and Zizek couldn't deny it, so he did the only thing he could, and that is to talk on Peterson as if he had never heard these points about communism before, and laughably challenge Peterson on his assertion that the university is filled with communist of every stripe. "Who are these communists...give me some names?!" ; "Where is this research?!" these are juvenile rhetorical tactics to distract from the arguments. And the best part...French food...I guess Zizek has never had Slavic food! LOL!!!
Listening to Zizek closely, you see that every assertion he make is based on an utterly incomplete observation, and just reinforces the idea that leftist "thinkers", don't ever get to the second stage of examining their own thinking...although they spend plenty of time examining everyone else's to the point of a bad conclusion. Even the point he makes here about Peterson being isolated in academia...REALLY, he didn't hear Peterson talk about his clinical practice he runs on a for profit basis? What a jackass...too funny!
Zizek purposefully avoided arguing against peterson on marxism because peterson has no understanding of the concept. He admidts to not have read the works of Marx (except for the manifesto). How can you argue with someone about an entire school of thought when they have no understanding of it at all. It would be like me arguing with an Astrophysicist about quantum mechanics when i have little to no knowledge on physics as a whole. What i mean by this is that Jordan peterson has little to no understanding of social, cultural and (particularly) economic forces and how these things affect day to day living. Jordan's arguments against marxism are childish nonsense and status quo perpetuating rhetoric dressed up in fancy language about heirarchies and the 'natural order.' Had peterson been a preist in the middle ages He probably would have told those toiling in the feild that their condition was the natural order of things. He is historically, socially, economically and philosophocally illiterate. He masks this by using vague enough language so that when he does get called out on his nonsense he can say, "Thats not what i meant!" Then procced to paint that person as a 'postmodern neo-marxist sjw type.' Peterson is a charlatan masquerading as an intelligent and insightful thinker. He has of nothing value to add to public discourse. Perhaps that says that our public discourse is vapid and unsophisticated. Perhaps peterson is a symptom of a disease, a cultural illness.
I think Peterson 'bought' the misconception of Zizek being a Marxist, while Zizek asked 'who's a marxist? where are these marxists?. Zizek didn't debate Peterson's points on Marxism because he claimed to not be one. I'm not familiar enough with Zizek to tell if that was an honest reply.
These types of debates, especially in the context of here where Peterson wanted to destroy a Marxist is never a clash of ideas. It’s more like a boxing match where people want to see their guy smash the other with “facts” and “logic”. As Zizek says, his main aim was to show his audience something different about Communists, that they want what you want. I’m sure Richard Wolff could have gone in and addressed it very much in this style of proving all of Peterson’s points about Marxism wrong, but at the end of it Peterson’s fans would have just rationalised it in a way to show Peterson winning. Now they are stuck in a situation where they are all agreeing completely with a Marxist.
Very arrogant to argue that you are too stupid to argue with; which is clearly not the case; I watched the debate and wondered why Zizek never made any real argument... his points random, at least to me
@@SOLOcan Nailed it. When people see any genuine critique on their idol, they immediately go on the defensive because they have identified so much with him, it becomes an attack also on themselves. We give higher authority to beliefs than to reason, and because it is painful to let go of them we often defend them even when presented with a a multitude of counter-evidence.
I always enjoy Zisek, but he can be a blowhard (not that Peterson can't) and he isn't always familiar with his subject - as, he joked in another interview, Peterson wasn't familiar with Hegel. If Peterson quoted a neuroscientist with whom Zisek wasn't familiar, he'd have nothing to say. Courtly love was economically and biologically based. It was an affect of the economic system of promogeniture, in which the eldest son inherited the entire estate of a rich father, and all the remaining sons had to hit the road and find some other way to live. Because they were essentially poor and landless, fine ladies wouldn't look at them, though they might even be "noble born.". The second sons were forced to look from afar, and (in literature) wrote ballads and fought dragons from that place. It wasn't some kind of weird delayed gratification, as Zisek claims in this clip. Courtly love was a literary trope invented to describe this dynamic. Believe me, the first son wasn't waiting to put hands on his bride, nor were the second sons some kind of incels as they made their way through the world. Everybody was gettin' after it. I'm not going to get into how bad was primogeniture. Maybe it was just a greedy conspiracy between father and son, to cut not only out the less fortunate generally, but their own kin from their amassed wealth. Maybe it had some biological basis, at least psychologically. I can't speak to that. My point is that Zisek has no idea what he's talking about there. He just blubbers his lips and snots his faking way through. Like I said, I enjoy him. I'm wondering if Peterson's shaking hands had anything to do with his drug addiction? Zisek could not have known about it, but I hope he'll take less satisfaction in it now that he does.
But Peterson is the one sticking his nose in politics/philosophy and making grand claims about "marxism". He should be familiar with Hegel. I mean maybe if he was having some kind of interview with the guy, discussing ideas, whatever - but this was a debate.
@@marisa7976 What is politics/philosophy? Is that some kind of degree program? Zizek is "sticking his nose in" as much as Peterson is. I don't agree that Peterson doesn't know who Hegel is - that's just an unsupported claim Zizek made. I provided you a concrete example of how Zizek blathers about things he doesn't understand. You came back with subjective statements about how Peterson isn't allowed to have an opinion and what subjects he "should" know. Maybe that's how they do things in your "politics/philosophy" class.
Funny you mention courtly love. In the actual literature of courtly love, idolizing a far superior woman who you could never touch and would perform all kinds of acts of courage and service for was lionized. If you want to justify that biologically, knock yourself out, but you're going to have a hell of a time of it
@@merrynightwanderer9728 Not biological - economic. In literature, we not only read the works, but read and write criticism of the works. In this case, I didn't perform the criticism - it's simply the mainstream understanding, from Marxists to feminists and everyone in between. And it's common sense.
@@quikmart1 Primogeniture is no explanation for why chaste, distant, worshipful love became lionized in the literature and song of *all* classes, lol. Why not macho fantasies about seizing ladies? Plus real marriage had little to do with love to begin with. Courtly love was a collective fantasy for rich folks in the middle ages; primogenture only explains one portion of the origins. You can't explain why courtly love, which is anti-conventional-evopsych in every possible way, became popular in this era with biology and economics - the values it espouses clearly need a primarily cultural explanation. "Common sense" is the explanation people give when they can't come up with proper logical argumentation.
It pissed me off when he said that he hate charitis. Wealthy people are not obligated to justify anything. Words he says are very harmful. Imagine that someone based on these words decides not to donate to charities.
I love them both. They are facisnating and made me think a lot. I wrote down almost everything they recommend and write down what they say. It's like they understand and misunderstand each other at the same time. Zizek as a philosopher challenges himself and others by so many tools to be completely engaged in everything and does not give a clear answer that and Peterson is just trying to to talk psychologically most of the timd because his main objective is to give psychological analysis to people because his career as a clinical psychologist does still matter to him. It's not that one of them is right or wrong. It's just that they are aiming for one thing but look at thing veeery differently.
These were some of the weakest comments I've heard from Zizek in a while. He must be loosing his touch. At around 5-6 min in there are some totally incoherent ramblings about things not connected with the issue at hand (French cuisine, chivalry, what have you), then a childish attack on American/Canadian academia that nobody will take seriously, then "bankers...competent for what"...oh Slavoj, this was not your finest hour.
This is the problem with many intellectuals on the left, they think they are better and more intellectual and everyone else. Zizek, and the woman he speaks with as well. A sense of grandiosity. Its a huge turnoff.
@@rugbyguy59 Weeellll, I kinda like the late Christopher Hitchens, especially after the slam-dunk of the Catholic Church. I don't think 'all of them' are dumb, most are tho.
Idk, but I kinda lost respect for Zizek. In this video, instead of trying to prove a point, he is just shitting and ranting on Peterson. Wtf. C’mon dude.
The debate with Peterson was a lot of nothing, his debate with Will Self was much better... if only for the fact it made me say.."who the hell is this Will Self guy?" And then look into it.
That first point is such edgelord provocateur nonsense. Just because some rich assholes use charity as an excuse to hoard wealth doesn’t mean the rest of us oughtn’t give to causes we think are important.
This guy is so much in love with himself. Talking about himself talking to somebody? Hahaha! 🤧 He wouldn’t do that if he really thought he has won the debate. Simple psychology.
Jordon was paying a compliment by suggesting Zizek was unique enough to create his own philosophies instead of identifying with Markism or other... I think went over the head of Zizek and all his supporters
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
"It wasn't a serious debate, we just talked beside each other."
In front of a noisy obnoxious crowd.
@uberkogle Agreed. I prefer it when debates are done behind closed doors, with just the two people debating plus cameraman.
@uberkogle don't you think there are many people who know more than "jack shit" about philosophy but are terrible people who know a lot about a useless philosophy? I guess it depends on what you mean by philosophy. Knowing about philosophy doesn't necessarily make someone better. I think we should be more concerned with a learned philosopher who doesn't live according to his philosophy, than an honest simple person who never learned a lick...
It's a shame Ziek how did not turn up and join the debate. Easy to be right if you do not debate the points....? I would have thought a proper debate would have been exciting?
Tribes
@@evenruderanger7617 Funny that you'd say that... It reminds of what a certain Austrian man with an odd love for Hugo Boss attire and an odd distaste for certain ethnic minorities would preach about the intellectuals of his time...
*"Charity is how rich people justify their wealth."*
Underrated.
Except wealth filters to the top of any system. It's an old practice that tribal chiefs, at least in northern America, would hold massive parties as a way to redistribute wealth. Every society can come up with their own solution but it only works if its by choice, not mandate.
I am not angry at rich people who give to charity, I get angry at charities who don't use their funds for much besides advertising.
Or in otherwords 'overrated'
@@impancaking “Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.”
Clement Attlee.
@@blackphoenix8932 'charity given freely is great, charity given at the whim of the state not always so' - me
People can offset tax with charity, at every economic level. I give to charity and my income is less than 40,000 a year because I don't think my government gives to the charities I like to. That's my choice. If the charity is set up as a tax scam, then it should be reported and dismantled otherwise I have no problem with people choosing where their money goes. Autonomy all the way. That is not a radical stance. If Zizek gave his away its still charity, just not an organised one. Would love to know where it went.
@@blackphoenix8932 p.s. a lot of government programs waste money on administration just like organisations do. At least I can research and choose where my money goes.
For all his jokes, I sometimes forget just how astute Zizek actually is.
That’s a nice way to say “dick head”
@@videowhat614 rather a dickhead than a right-wing puppet
Slavoj Zizek, in a restaurant, he examines the menu...
Waiter; Can I take your order Sir ?
Zizek; I shall have the steak, SNIFF, with the potatoes onions mushrooms and so on
Waiter; Certainly Sir and how would you like Chef to cook that steak for you ?
Zizek; Dialectically
One side of it rare and the other well-done?
Waiter: And to drink?
Zizek: Some f*cking fruit juice.
Whoever isn’t reading this in there head imaging the noise of spit leaving their month needs help
Genius
@@yerhing6406 Zizek; My god, no! Let's say first you serve steak raw or half-raw. Then of course I complain - "How is it so raw, I cannot eat this, are you trying to poison me and so on and so on." Then you take it back to chef, you say - "Are you trying to poison customer and so on?" - Head chef takes it personally, gets very upset, leaves job. You put steak in oven, cook it yourself. "Uh" Then you bring it back. Now comes an edible steak, I can eat this. But here comes the paradox of the steak...
Personally I think we'd get more out of an reading email thread between the two than we did the 'debate'
Honestly, the host wasn't good. In conversations between JP and Sam Harris, the moderator was Brett Weinstein, and he was a completely different type of host. He actually moderated the debate very well and asked both participants very excellent questions
true of 'debate'
He's starting to make more and more sense to me.
What is he saying on the first thing?
More sense and so on and so on
That either means that how he formulates his views and arguments are hard to understand and require a lot of context (research)
OR
You've been subjected to his views long enough that they just naturally make more sense.
The latter one is bad. It typically makes you tunnel-visioned and blind-sighted to any cons of the views and arguments.
@Gabriel Terrero You mean being tunnel-visioned and blind-sighted?
Oh well, you typically just have to force yourself to look at stuff from many sources, or more precisely: The opposite that you "like".
An example would be if you're a liberal, you'd watch some content and new from conservative sources. That way you know what's the narrative on both sides and how it gets twisted. You'll get a better idea of the subject AND how these groups form their narratives.
It will feel REALLY weird at first, you'll scoff at bunch of these things and get kinda frustrated, but maybe a week later you'll start getting used to it. Now you have opened your mind to more things, more possibilities, more perspectives.
@Crocoduck What's that emoji? Why does he have a blue eggplant in front of him?
Though I think Zizek is brilliant, unfortunately he makes the error of not accurately representing Peterson's ideas when criticizing them. To paraphrase: if Peterson is so competent and academia is a hierarchy of competence, doesn't its rejection of him prove that he must be incompetent? Gotcha!!
Peterson's assertion that hierarchies in capitalist society are hierarchies of competence is more complex than presented here by Zizek.
Peterson says that hierarchies of competence tend towards corruption over time, especially if the legitimacy of that hierarchy is not constantly being challenged (challenging the legitimacy of established hierarchies is the correct function of the left in a capitalist society, according to Peterson). So Peterson's rejection by Canadian academia can be easily explained by the fact that (again in his view) academia, particularly the social sciences, has been corrupted by "postmodern neo-Marxists" and is no longer a functioning hierarchy of competence ...and so on and so on (sniff)...
Indeed. Zizek misrepresents the psychoanalytic archetypes of women as chaos. While tension of dual representation can be seen as well: women are creation, men destruction, women are selection, men options, the foundational archetype of woman-as-nature and man-as-challenger of nature remain as a common thread, and only in that sense can be perceived as feminine chaos (communist, lawless, generative) and masculine order (fascist, fastidious, restrictive). Overall, Zizek is not a fastidious thinker. He is rather sophistical in his judgements and proclamations (not all French haute cuisine is based on fermentation/rotting, for example, as he states: French onion soup, chicken Kiev). That is a trait required of a philosopher who believes communist dictatorship is a necessary step toward utopia.
This is why I can't take the left seriously. Some random guy on TH-cam understands and explains both positions better than this "brilliant" leftist
So, according to Peterson, members of academia, as being at the top of the hierarchy of education, should never be Marxist (and that being actually the case is highly debatable) because the role of the left should always be to oppose the hierarchy and keep it in check without actually ever gaining systematic control? So the left is reserved to those at the bottom of his hierarchy forever opposing it...? I mean, that's a neat description of the current function of a capitalist system, why should it be like that though? The system should continue for the sake of the function of the system?
Now, when it comes to Zizek's argument, this is what he said, "He should agree that, American and Canadian academia, your power there [the power structure in American and Canadian academia] is definitively not based in competence..." Zizek is criticizing academia, he's actually taking Peterson's side somewhat. The critic is not that Peterson should not consider himself competent for being rejected by academia, but that if Peterson considers himself competent, then the hierarchy in academia is not based on competence if that hierarchy rejects Peterson. That would, ironically, put Peterson on the bottom opposing the current hierarchy, functioning as the 'left.' Then, Zizek continues, "...to succeed as a banker, yes you have to be competent, but competent for what? For cheating..." The overall point: you shouldn't justify the status quo with itself and what it arbitrarily defines as competence.
@@Lambda_Ovine Zizek is a sophist. Sophistry helps if you are a Marxist because Marxism doesn't work. Peterson makes a claim that hierarchy of competence evolved because it was selected as improving survival. In emergent systems high competence hierarchies improve efficiency over other less competent ones. Zizek's cheating bankers may accrue more wealth temporarily but they will not continue in the profession because their reputations will have been marred so they no new business. Moreover they run a high risk of being caught and tried and ruined. Cheating bankers do not belong in a hierarchy of competence that lasts.
If the capitalist system in which we live is no longer a functioning hierarchy of competence, (which it clearly isn't) then doesnt this 1. explain why postmodern neo marxist theory dominates the discussion in academia according to Peterson's own assertions. In other words, its doing its job of challenging the competecy and legitimacy of the capitalist hierarchy yes? 2. And because academia is also hopelessly tied to this larger incompetent hierarchy of the capitalist system, isnt that a better explanation for its own internal failures and contradictions? I think so. 3. Isnt it more accurate to say that JP rejected Canadian academia, not the other way around, and therefore, he rejected the legitimacy of the dominance hierarchy within academia ONLY, rather than challenging the larger illegitimacy and incompetency of the capitalist hierarchy which he actually defends, and in that sense, coming off as a hypocrite in the long run? I think so. And doesn't this also explain why Zizek (who has been criticizing the larger illegitimate capitalist hierarchy his whole career) came off better in the debate? I think it does.
The naval battle of Salamis was the pivotal battle of the second Persian Invasion.
The Peloponnesian War, famously chronicled by Thucydides, was the quarrel between Athens and Sparta that polarized the entire subcontinent, a generation later.
Greek here. Around 8:30. That was the Greco-Persian wars, not the Peloponnesian.
Άσε ρε
@Space Monkey I simply meant to clear that up, not criticise his point. It's been three months so I couldn't answer you :)
Great upload-rates recently! Keep up the great work!
I feel like with this debate we missed a potentially much more interesting debates on Jung versus Lacan, both of which Zizek and Peterson have referred to a either a genius or entirely nonsensical.
There must be Jacque Lacan versus Joseph Campbell (which is more of what Peterson represents than Jung’s original work) debate out there somewhere, if only in their traditions
Fans of zizek say Peterson miss-characterizes zizeks arguement. Fans of Peterson say zizek miss-characterizes Petersons arguement. Both seem to not be understanding eachother. This is kind of a bummer. I hope more conversations can be had to explore both interpretations and come to better understandings.
Peterson and Zizek seemed to understand and appreciate each other during their discussion. It’s their fans who made claims about winning and losing.
@@downeybill Exactly, the fans both during the debate and in the comments are so bloody annoying
@@downeybill um... Actual philosophers and economists clearly favored one over the other... The one who actually knew what he was talking about. Not the one who had a third grader's understanding of Marxism. I mean, isn't that obvious? The person who doesn't know the topic lost. Not to mention in other interviews, Zizek has gone on record to say that Peterson is clearly an idiot. He's just being nice here.
@@dxcSOUL did you really just say that according to you there was a winner in a debate? If so, then you weren't listening properly. Even the host, as bad as he was imho, rightly ended by saying that it was an unfinished conversation. Not only there was still much more ground to cover, there was also a lot of agreement between the two. Do not dichotomize something that wasn't meant to be dichotomized. Zizek himself kept saying that he sees it as a conversation and not a debate, and it's not just politeness, he was honest
But I do agree that Peterson's understanding of marxism was rather shallow. Nonetheless, it didn't even end up mattering later in the debate at all. Have you actually watched the whole thing carefully?
@@karolakkolo123 Peterson came out in another video admitting he didn't know what he was talking about with regard to Marx and that he was surprised to find Zizek was Hegelian and not marxist. But seriously you cant compare Zizek who has written about 40 books to Peterson who has written two self help books and one book full of bullshit. It might not have been a debate but Zizek is definitely correct about about everything he mentioned in the discussion while Peterson is kind of making shit up as he goes along.
I’m not sure why people aren’t getting this. masculinity represent order and tyranny and the feminine represents nature, and chaos IN MYTHOLOGY it’s not to be taken literally.
The way people keep referencing this I feel like I missed something.
In beyond good and evil Nietzsche offers a ciritique of exactly this pseudo philosophy. He claims that most ideology is fundamentlly subjective. Ofcourse the feminine is chatoic/mysterious to the men who invented that distinction. For a woman the masculine is chaotic/nysterious. This kind of wisdom is pure stuidity
Alpine Skilift whether or not the ancient symbolic representations of order and chaos are considered obtuse by relatively modern standards is another debate entirely. The point is, this seems to be the way ancient peoples chose to represent the nature of the world as they understood it and all I see Peterson doing is trying to decode the meaning behind these story’s by getting into their headspace.
@@NoName-qi7vx The only thing that's stupid is attaching more meaning to symbolical categories than necessary. You could say the ror represents order and rar represents chaos - both are to be found in every human being alike - and it would have the same meaning as the statement above
It is still idiocy
Thankyou!! It's ridiculous. He is trying to find the meaning in these old terms that are found almost universally across cultures and applies some things we've figured out more recently, for example the kind of brain matter between men and women differ, women have more connections/white matter, men have more myelination/grey matter (less connections).
Is it weird to love those two gentlemen both? They both are fascinating in their own way
And they both speak against political correctness. They really agree on a lot of stuff
Agreed
Zizek has some interesting inconventional insights, but most of the time he is just pandering to left wing narratives. Peterson has tons of insights but after you digest most of his lectures you don't feel the same spark. They are both unique. Too bad zizek is a communist, although i think making opposition to capitalism is a good thing, but that's not the world we live in, it's much complicated and nuanced to see it through 19 and 20th century lens.
Same - I love living in a world with both of them.
They are mirror images
We missed something that could have benefited us all portraying these 2 as ideological enemies. Listening to lectures from both it surprises me how often their paths aline.
Same. I think, they defend the same ideas on a large scale, just from different angles
Same ideas? Are you joking?
Same ideas? Lmao
@@someguyslastname8487 100% the same ideas lol its just that zizek has the lefty cover so he gets away with it without faux outrage
@@4x4r974 understand the material and idealist dialectic, you will see how wrong you are
Its very strange to me when people hear "our brains and bodies work a certain way so it makes sense that we'd have trends in society/demographics" and they respond "so you're saying we MUST do only what our bodies and brain are hard wired to do?!" Its so stupid.
Yes, it is stupid. No, nobody is responding like that. Yes, it is hardwired, because we have millions of years of evolution where only those instincts held us alive and only few relative years of culture and civilisation. Civilisation is a novelty within humanity, you have to deal with remnants of reptile brain in your head. Unfortunately those remnants are far older than parts of your brain that allow you to think creatively and in abstracts, plus all your thoughts and impulses must first go through them before they reach your consciousness. Overall it is stronger than you think, because it is working BEFORE you even think at all.
And that is the core of the argument. If our brains and bodies work a certain way, and this way is similar to animals, then any claims that social structure or hierarchy as artifical and cultural concept, are false. We are existing with need to have hierarchy as a biological thing, not just economic, sociological or political. It's our instinct to gather in groups and create social ladder. Exact nature of society is different thing, but the very idea of it is deep within us.
@7th808s They don't have to. History proves it.
You will not win with your animal instinct so easily. You can fight against your nature on individual level, and you can even emerge victorious after hard, conscious and long struggle. Demanding the same on whole society or even small groups of humans is, in fact, futile.
@7th808s And what does it prove, exactly? It was done before already. In Ancient Greece and Rome homosexualism was accepted too, on some terms at least. Then it ceased for almost 2000 years. What guarantee do you have this history won't repeat? None.
Besides, I wouldn't be so happy about "multiple" countries with supposed acceptance of gay people. For instance take a look on California, where majority of people were against same-sex marriages and it was decision of Supreme Court that ruled otherwise. Situation is the same in many places, and it's not entirely acceptance when almost half population isn't ok with that.
I think the whole struggle of humanity is to transcend those biological constraints
@7th808s Do you like eating food ? I'm going to guess that you do. What do you like to eat ? Do you like eating meat, grains and vegetables or do you like eating dirt, rocks and sand ?
Why accept this status quo ? Rebel against your lizard brain !
I don't quite understand the point on human mating- some birds and even insects have crazily unnecessarily complex mating rituals, it doesn't change the fact that these evolved, as in biologically, and not because they thought it up.
Also, the Peloponnesian war was between athens and sparta, not between the greeks and the persians, just saying.
I think he means human courting is not so much biological pre determined anymore (, like the other animals you use as examples.) He uses apes sexual behavior versus human behavior, countering Peterson serotine driven lobster argument. and refernces on females wearing make up, high heels etc.
Simply put, the fact that there are fetishes and these are the abstraction of pleasure emanated from our subconscious goes against the motion of pure sexual drive like an animal does
A change in biological nature tends to lead to difference in perception=thought. If a birds is horny n knows its mating time, she or he prolly thought it. Think of it as puberty but differently for different species, it varies.
I would love a longer debate, even if it’s just a series of debates. 🙏
that debate was about ''marxism'' ....and the havoc his followers ''marxists'' have wrecked, .....it was NOT about every single word marx ever said, .......and peterson argued his side well, to which zizek just agreed with peterson and distanced himself from marx lol, zizek also said ''marx did not have a good theory on how social power exist'' .....so zizek did not really defend marx well at all, .....these people are deluded lmao
@@GCKelloch You always have a choice, your just to cowardice to make yours. Actions define the person GCKelloch, not words. Start living by action, then you actually change the world. You would rather "sleep with the enemy" while stabbing them in the back. Nice choice! ...but can I assure you, from a psychological point of view, that tells me a lot about you already.
Tell me, to enforce the "new Utopia" would you be willing to kill people like me, people that wont be subjugated to your ideology?
Or would you be more humane, and just have me "re-educated"? In other words...how will you make 7.5 billion people think just like you?
@@GCKelloch Fine...whatever. Honestly its like talking to "hand puppet" with Karl's arm up your arse. I love debating Marxists cause I know exactly what their going to say and when.
But I have a question for YOU...GCKelloch, not Marx, ok...
Answer me this, and I ask this sincerely...
You obviously want to bring in a form of political ideology that's 'Marxist' in nature. That means you will have to redistribute wealth. For arguments sake...if you become the 'leader of the world tomorrow', how would actually implement your plan? Without murder and incarceration? How would you stop it from turning into a bloody totalitarian resume like every other attempt in the 20th century? (Humans will be humans, apes will be apes! That's where you seem to negate the importance of human psychology...we are 3 billion year old life forms! We weren't dropped off here by Aliens last week...)
I mean, if you don't have a plan to bring forth your ideas into 'actions', then youre really just a bag of hot air? Correct?
The order and chaos thing I get, but Jordans view on it is Jungian; Anima(feminine) and Animus(masculine), which are archetypal ways of looking at it. When he talks about order and chaos he means that women usually have a more artistic and creative temperament, which in definition more chaotic, also the fact that they experience negative emotions quicker and men represent a more ordered and "cold" temperament. He was not wrong in what he said, he just missed the point.
I could never understand anything that this guy says. It's like the meaning behind his words does not unfold in my brain. It tries, but can never "connect the two dots"
I've listened to him a few times and I can say zero about the way he thinks
Dude you gotta really pay attention. Also it'd help if you read some Marx. There are basic ideas he doesn't go into full detail on because people in his circle(including Peterson) are already very familiar with. Just a tip. He's a brilliant guy.
I heard multiple times Zizeck say he is not a Marxist, according to him in an interview in Valuetainment he states that he is a crtical thinker and finds Engels and Marx too ambiguouse, calls himself a communist but he isn´t one in the classical sense, that by itself is somewhat confusing but I still enjoy listening his ideas time to time, though not alot sticks. My opinion about the manifesto (since its the only book I read by Marx) is that it needs an alternative title, more like the manifesto of the closeted envious , it can fill your heart with anger with a very one sided and simplified view of reality.
@@calebh6115 If Peterson is familiar with them, then he's lying to his audience.
To be fair, Peterson doesn't say men are order and women chaos (he even actively refutes it). He means masculinity / femininity. This doesn't say anything about the bodies these "forces" take hold of.
Uh. Yes he does. He propelled into fame by doing just that.
@@rugbyguy59 Then it's hard to explain transgender people who go through a lot of pain acting against(!) their social conditioning. Unless you think it's merely a mental illness. If not, there have to be something like extrinsic gender forces (quasi essentialist). Since I know transgender people and their stories I tend to believe the latter.
@@ohjein He rose to prominence with his objections to a bill that basically just said, "we recognize transgender people and can maybe refer to them by their trans rather than their birth pronouns."
@@myselfapretend I know, but even if it nowadays doesn't seem that way most people can be right about some things and wrong about others. And the compelled speech thing is a whole other topic.
@@ohjein What does being transgender have to do with the proposal that masculinity is order and femininity chaos?
8:00 what is she saying ? Peloponnesian war and salamis were years apart
She is unbearable as an interviewer....
She just wanted to sound intellectually competent
he said he forgot about the point about competence and hierarchy but he totally did make it.... it was the most, destructive part of the debate
I was there.... it flew over the heads of all the peterson fan boys.
I can never understand Zizek is trying to say. He is all over the place
He is, and often you can listen to large portions without really understanding him. However, he often repeats his jokes, theories etc. And after a while he becomes easier to understand
@BON Moody I am a genius too and so are you in that case. If you do not have any context it doesn't matter if you are ignorant or smart , the results are the same.
It's because you have to understand Lacan and Hegel to understand Žižek.
Zizek is one of the easiest people to understand outside of his sniffing. You're just dense.
@@SaintJames14 You must be stupid as stupid gets if you believe that bullshit. Most of the serious academics laugh at him. He does not even have an argument for them to respond to. But you do not know these things because you only get to see the noise, never any contexts with Zizek.
I like Zizek a lot but the “lobster” debate he still made a cheap shot as it was not petersons intent to argue for biological determinism but for the existence of ingrained hierarchies going as back as several hundred million years. This to show that inequality/hierarchies are not a recent social construct but inherent in human & animal nature. Now what to do with that is a different story. I mean his argument against biological determination has some substance but it was totally misplaced and it seemed Zizek has guided his opinion on what Peterson meant on this topic by some left-leaning individuals rather than actually what Peterson said.
2nd, again I like Zizek but Petersons reaction after the debate had way more class than Zizek's reaction.
You must have to some extent misunderstood Zizek, what he meant was probably the following: although hierarchies are as ancient as lobsters, the hierarchy that characterizes human society today is in itself totally different from the hierarchy of lobsters. Lobsters set their hierarchy by dueling with each other (which change the amount of chemical substance in their neurological systems), it is purely a matter of competence: whoever has a bigger fist/claw get to become the king. The logic of human hierarchy is a totally different one: A man is a king insofar as his people recognize him as a king, as if with such seemingly superfluous and meaningless belongings as a scepter and a crown he is conferred upon some kind of magical aura which makes him be at the top of the social hierarchy. Zizek's own example is more convincing: A father has authority for his child, simply because he's the child's father, it is not because the father has fought his way through thousands of fathers to prove that he is the most competent father and is qualified to have authority. In human society, the authority of a master does not trace its source to the characteristics of the master and sustain itself in a positivistic way, the master has authority simply because, so to speak, he just does.
That's probably Zizek's critique of Peterson's lobster topic. Yes, the chemical substance in our brain that suggests our hierarchical position is the same with that of lobster's, but the cause that determines hierarchical positions is totally different between human and lobsters.
9:14 I have seen so many people, intellects at that misunderstanding Peterson here. Chao is often seen by them as this bad thing, and when Peterson alludes women to chaos, they think he is attaching them to their idea of chaos. However this is absolutely wrong, Peterson in his maps of meaning lectures explains how human being view the world and correct their frame of operating in their world. Here's the main point, he says women are chaos because chaos gives birth to things, chaos is the thing that makes the naive hero competent, it gives birth to the new frame. He also repetitively says in his lectures that the best way to operate in the world is to have the forces of chaos and order balanced (not one dominating the other), which is the flow state that Taoist talk about.
I watched the original debate earlier and I was really impressed by the amicability of both Zizek and Peterson and openness to discuss their ideas. Even though I have been previously unimpressed with communism and Marxism, Zizek intrigued me into feeling perhaps I need to do more reading, find out more about his work and be open to rethinking my original thoughts on these ideologies. Which is one of the reasons I clicked on this video. Only to come to find that this is the exact tactic that he used quite disingenuously. How characteristic of left leaning individuals to not argue their points on the merit of the ideology, but to manipulate people giving you the benefit of the doubt and then brag about it afterwards, and to denigrate your opponents points of view behind their back when you had the opportunity to challenge them to their face. I don’t agree with all of Jordan Peterson’s theories, but I have never seen him pull underhanded shit like this.
This comment! I've experienced this. When I've given an overtly belligerent, "unreasonable", person the benefit of the doubt and been completely open and they just whisked it around like that. It's incredible. What they don't realize is that I know exactly what they have done. They don't learn anything and progress is not made. My species!
This comment is a bullseye. How insanely accurate.
Zizek is talking about his philosophy, or certain parts of it at least. That is not "unfair". It's not like this is some sort of sport where they compete with each other inside the ring or whatever. Zizek is not "cheating" or talking badly about Peterson "behind his back" just because he answers questions about a debate he had with him. They are not friends or enemies, they are two intellectuals (if you can call Peterson that) who have very different ideas, and they can talk about their debate and about each others opinions whenever they want or like in this case, when they get asked about it. I don't understand the problem here and I don't see any connection here to "the left" and so on
i dont think this is a typically left leaning thing, i think zizek did this and for this reason you should be disappointed in him, as am i, a communist. i do believe the debate was a disingenuous waste of time, but i believe jordan peterson did pull some very intellectually dishonest shit as he """"critiqued"""" marx without even bothering to fully read the manifesto and fools his audience into believing he has a point by working his way up to conclusions from propositions which are already wrong. either way, shit debate. but i don't know why you think this is a left leaning thing to do. disingenuous debates/people exist in both sides, and i've seen plenty of right-wing "commentators" basically emotionally bully 'opponents' in debates and pretending that they have won on the merit of ideology. so if anything this is a thing anyone can do, and it sucks. all in all, even through Peterson's dishonesty and stupidity, Zizek ruined the debate by pretending to be merciful and giving up on actually responding to peterson.
"Exceptions are never the rule and majority is not always right"...
"Men is order, woman is disorder". This is not what Peterson said nor what he meant. To understand this issue you would have to watch some of his lectures on human mating, the femininity, and his Jungian aproach to human sexuality.
The thing about jung is that he's flat out wrong.
@@ildesu789 I'm guessing you're a typical 14 year old know it all atheist, given that you said your opinion as if it was a fact and you did not gave any basis or evidence for it.
So I won't even bother in responding your statement.
@@yepsan95 yes I am 14 how did you know.
That's the basic implication of what he's saying. You can try to back out of it by weak protests that femininity is different from the female, but it still uses the female to define itself. Jung has some interesting ideas but he's also *horrendously* wrong about mythology more often than not.
Where's the full?
I made the conscious decision to look into Zizek and listen to him speak because I’ve been consuming a lot of Peterson lately but for the life of me I can’t pull a complete thought from any of his work so far. It seems to be all rambling with a lot of backtracking to make sure you understood the point which he didn’t really make. I just don’t get it, he lists faults but never offers suggestions. I’ve no doubt he has a great mind and he’s well respected so what am I missing here?
I had the same conclusion a year ago, forgot about Zizek, came back and realized that Zizek doesn't address the audience the same way as Peterson because Zizek's serious work is in his books, and papers, and in the majority of his yt content/interviews, he's mostly rifting and going on tangents and making solid points whilst being cheeky. Peterson as a lecturer and teacher with his materials and yt content is structured to build your understanding of his ideas and build from there, so he's actively trying to be accessible.
@@davidfu8174 is there one of his books or papers you could recommend for someone that casually wants to check out what he is about?
@@tdolan500 absolute recoil
This is like witnessing the fight between the right aNd left hemispheres of a genious
its a big distinction that at the end Zizek says "men are and women are" as far as Im concerned Jordan says masculine and feminine not woman or men, Jordan seems to imply more that the masculine within a person and the feminine within a person compels them to act certain ways and that they tend to be opposing forces
Zizek has the idea, Jordan explains it
I mean at the end thats what jbp means.
Jordan was catapulted to fame after a woke battle in his native Canada. (Wokeism really is low hanging fruit.) A gifted clinician who should know better decided he was a polymath and authority in all things cultural. Jordan at best is a cautionary tale on the downside of celebrity.
Now that the lobster man is back, can we have a second debate? I want to see if Peterson learned anything from Žižek since the last debate.
I like Zizek, but the way he's been talking about the debate shows his pettiness
Pettiness how? I only hear valid criticisms.
@@dnbqup his arguments against Peterson’s lobster argument was weak af. Peterson Never Said That our hierarchy’s are fair or based on universal competence, he claimed that we humans and all other humans are based on hierarchy’s and that we shouldn’t try to build system which ignore such a huge core part of our psyche
He is a petty person, that's what makes him so funny
@@friedrichzizek6700 th-cam.com/video/P4SDBVaUboc/w-d-xo.html
just saying it worked before
@@friedrichzizek6700 but the hierarchy is not inherent to us but based on power. As such, if we continue on this hierarchy nonsense without justification, we will continue our ways of war and destroying ourselves.
cheap and petty.. not Zizek .. the whole look who won and taking little snipet's as if they prove or substantiate any thing .. I prefer Zizek in long form with out is peons .. clipping away at his coat tails
Agree. I listen and watch and see two great minds sharing mutual immense respect. They attack ideas of the other, not the man, being beyond such pettiness. Would that more viewers adopted this. To be more agreed with one of the men is not to have to demean the intellect or character of the other.
Can't argue with a guy who holds a PhD in Heidegger. Peterson is a psychologist not a philosopher or a logician.
LOL! Well we all waited to hear some philosophical brilliance from Zizek, but it never materialized! He was on the defense so badly he didn't take on even one of Peterson's assertions, instead engaging in sophistry: "who are these communists? ...name one?" LOL, a very cheap rhetorical distraction...as if everyone but he and two other people are the only real communists in the intellectual world...WHAT AN INTELLECTUAL FRAUD! This is why leftists lust for power, their ideas can't stand up to scrutiny! LOL...You fools!
Zizek has 2 phds
He doesn't successfully addresss the lobster argument, and his refutation was all over the place. Basically Zizek posits that at least a part of human behavior can not be predetermined by our animal biology because "some things can be transfunctionalized into having new functions" (like rotten food can be turned into top cuisine or sexual foreplay can be turned into the main focus of love, then dopamine/serotonin release could be used for new, less animalistic functions!). However, these examples he gives for transfunctionalization are complex, emergent systems of thought, not the very structure of thought at the neurological level. The fact that one can deliberately modify complex thought systems like courtship and business strategies does not mean one can modify the base neurology that sustains thought process itself, you are just using that basic neurology to adapt to new arising challenges. Of course, we already know we can adapt our emergent thought, that's the whole point of thinking: adapting to new situations. But our neurology is the TOOL we use to adapt, not the part that adapts. The French chef is still trying to make money, to afford his consumption, to trigger his reward system under a new environment situation: lose of his business assets. The courtship lover (which arose in the Middle Ages) is still trying to get female attention, to receive emotional affection, to trigger oxytocin and the reward system, just adapted to a new social situation where casual sex is socially forbidden or even punished. Adapting your strategies does not mean you are overwriting the underlying basic structure the strategies are based on. Dopamine will always trigger when you win, anticipate and receive rewards, serotonin will always trigger when you sense you escalated positions on a hierarchy you care about. That can not be purposely transfunctionalized because it is not conscious, not even unconscious, neurotransmitters work at the molecular level, and then that emerges into subconsciousness.
Peterson is not arguing in favor of hard determinism (he is actually against it if you've seen his lectures), he is not saying we can not adapt new strategies! He is just saying that WHEN we design those new strategies, we must not overlook the basic neurology they are based on. For example, you can not try to design a new political system based on absolute equality when we have a serotonin system that rewards hierarchical ascension, such political system will always see hierarchical dispute arising here and there continuously, expressed in different forms. This animal molecular biology predates conscious thought by a LOT of evolutionary time. You can use this old tool in new ways to make a better, happier world, but you won't be able to change the tool. Not unless you change our genetic structure, by waiting millions of years of natural selection miraculously favoring equality, or speeding up the process by genociding the most hierarchy-driven people for countless generations, or perform gene editing to turn ourselves into a hivemind species.
I think fetishes goes against this notion man, they do no accomplish any reproductive function, they do not function based on competition and are instead based on a social structure, its the abstraction of sexual pleasure, purely psychological.
The idea that Communism is a system of absolute equality is a liberal pastiche. Engels himself said in Anti-Dühring, “the real content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity.”
Communism as a system is not about equality, it is about freedom.
I like Zizek in that I think he's after honest inquiry. Even though i'm a right wing libertarian, his insights are quite penetrating. I will up-front state that I like Peterson more and that Zizek missed the entire point of the debate, which was on the *effects* of Marxism, not a debate on the theory of Marxism itself. It was an act of humility and good faith on Peterson's part to let him morph the debate into that topic.
What I really don't like about him is that he doesn't see the real, omnipotent threat of political correctness. I know that he totally understands the power it holds by the way he talks, but he doesn't seem to believe that he's a prime target for it and completely loses the plot in seemingly thinking that he's insulating himself against it somehow. He thinks that he's going to somehow dodge it because he's adopted the ridiculous logic of 'trigger warnings' and so forth... but all he's doing is ceding the language to its proponents. There is NO synthesis to this, we're just slowly converging to the central tenets of critical theory. Move by move, they come to dominate the board of this chess game that we call 'allowed speech'.
He doesn't understand that his ability to even provide honest inquiry is in real danger.
"the real, omnipotent threat of political correctness"
lol. Impossible to take this seriously.
@@NonsenseFabricator ???
It has the power to tell hard science what is right and wrong. It's not just limited to the domain of 'lol u said the n word'.
@@Spardeous "political correctness" is a purely derogatory term that began as satire and became a bogeyman that the right wing has lived in fear of since 1990.
You're so obsessed with being victims that someone telling you that you should be more polite is an "omnipotent threat."
(lol at the idea that "hard science" can answer ethical questions)
@@NonsenseFabricator You're either uninformed or just stupid. Both Zizek and Chomsky have came out against political correctness. Zizek is strongly anti-PC.
What’s this audio from?
Zizek: It is chauvinistic that men and woman have different tension but it is also true.
So everyone is chauvinistic? What?
Yeah I didn't get that either. He was disagreeing with Peterson, but then gave that which seemed contradictory. Anywhere else where he goes into that topic? I feel like Slavoj is just wrong there, men and women have different roles which are not social constructions this is undeniable. Clearly the purpose of the husband is different than that of the wife to use Aristotle's forms. True of the animal kingdom as well as humans.
He never said that
He said the idea that men represent order and women chaos is slightly chauvinistic, not that the idea that they have different tensions is
@@NobuhikuObayashi right, he did say that. However, what exactly about it is chauvinistic? The point is the animal kingdom is populated with 50/50 ratio between men and women, so there is balance. Neither can flourish without the other coz absolute order is fascism and absolute chaos is anarchy
"everyone is chauvinistic" does not follow from "a chauvinistic thing is true".
Just for one thing, not everybody necessarily believes it. Also, there must be a difference between a fact being chauvinistic and a person being chauvinistic
7:36
Jizek life just got shortened by trauma
Why do we turn to narcissists for help dealing with crises that are caused by narcissists?
Yeah I get that too. The more I hear him, the further up himself he seems to be.
clearly the only way to evaluate the words a public figure puts out is to meet with them yourself.
As long as you’re approaching with a critical eye you should be able to pick out ideas that are well formed and ignore anything superfluous. It’s a practice in excavation. Don’t let the human spewing the words distract you.
the spewing is pretty distracting tbh. He would make a great Cobra Commander
Zizek is brilliant but i can never get anything solid or useful from him...he criticizes or make an analysis but never comes with suggestion or atleast thats as far i csn comprehend him..Any i rather benefit from "cleaning my room" than continue being depressed "so on and so on"
He really took Peterson out of context in a lot of the things he said, what a shame.
I didn't hear anything out of context. Which part are you referring to?
This freedom to be an extremely inteligent communist professor in America and eloquently support his views while dignifyinly sniffing in a foreign accent.
Everyone is right and the winner, in their own mind...
This guy is the truth.
Can't help but notice Zizek is criticizing his pathologized version of Peterson's ideas after the fact rather than during the debate. Definitely not a sign of good character.
Maybe someone can seriously explain this to me because I do not understand this idea at all:
JP (and some, if not most, of his fans and also right wingers) says that Marxism is taking over social sciences. Can someone explain to me why this is so bad? The question sounds stupid but I want you (before answering) to really think about it without using themes like: Stalin bad, Mao bad, Lenin bad etc. I understand Stalinism, Leninism etc.
Not Marxism, radical left is taking over social sciences. It's definitely bad that any side (left or right) takes over in an authoritarian manner. Free speech is getting banned. That's absolutely reprehensible.
@@increditheclub7598 But how has it taken over in an authoritarian manner? If leftist theories have stayed for so long and developed, how has it been an authoritarian takeover?
How I think I sound after a gram of cocaine
I’ve never heard Peterson mention the debate afterwards. Zizek can’t stop banging on about it. I love him but JBP is living rent-free in his head
Does he not? th-cam.com/video/j6-oTBxHWuI/w-d-xo.html
well he's being asked about it and peterson did mention it but really theres not much to say on his part other than how unprepared he was
He got asked a question about it and reflects on it. That's not rent free.
Peterson has been in drug rehab in Russia
Peterson hasn't mentioned it because his career went utterly down the drain
At 8:25 you can hear him racking lines.
This debate clearly showed that Zizek, despite being a legend in its own peculiar way, is fundamentally wrong. And Peterson is not.
It is so wasteful to treat Zizek and Peterson as gladiators in the popular arena of tribal ideological cockfights.
ive never even heard zizek talk about economic communism before, then again it seems like the only thing communists talk about is criticism of capitalism
Marx himself was a critic of capitalism and didn't say all the answers were obvious. And that's what Peterson and people like him will never understand because they think it's some sort of hard line selling points. Like capitalism there are many forms of socialism/communism. For example New Zealand isn't the same form of capitalism as the USA, hell even china has the most free market. But like slavery and feudalism every economic system is born and dies.
You just haven't been searching hard enough, it's all there, just hidden and suppressed behind all the nonsense. Search up Paul Cockshott and Hakim.
Bingo! When you have nothing to offer, straw man your critics.
SORRY ZIZEK, THE DEBATE WASN'T ABOUT YOU (1:45) !
Uhm--- Not all french cuisine is a messup turned into something good. What was wrong with Burgundy? Geez.
Slavoj Zizek Reflections on the Jordan Peterson debate: "I looked like a slob and sounded like a babbling idiot."
Zizek is great! unfortunately it seems that neither peterson nor his fb can even grasp what he is explaining. they are so caught up in (peterson's) their ideology that they and himself became blind to new ideas outside their comfort zone
Wtf are u assuming xD ? did u listen to this guy or JP? Assumptions assumptions
I came into the debate unfamiliar with Zizek and a casual fan of Peterson because of his stance on identity politics and his willingness to confront unsavory ideas while generally disagreeing with his conclusions as I'm a leftist. I came away a fan of Zizek as he has the same qualities I like about Peterson while also sharing my political views and philosophy and elaborating them in an insightful and well-considered way.
A lot of the ideology that's being touted as left-wing these days seems absurd and alienating to me and Peterson was one of the few well articulated "voices of reason" on that subject I could find. What a relief it was to find an intellectual lefty in Zizek who shares these feelings without the troublesome bullshit of Petersons other assumptions and right-wing bias. What Zizek did wasn't lost on all Peterson's fans. (though I'm not sure I'd still consider myself a peterson fan as Zizek scratches the same itch but far better)
What is he explaining? I find Zizek’s communications sloppy and incoherent, maybe you can help me understand. As for Peterson’s ideology, you could sum it up by saying “reject ideology”. So, how can new ideas be outside that “comfort zone”?
@@downeybill Peterson rejects ideology? I mean, I guess he does say something like that sometimes, but it is so obviously not true. It could only seem true to someone who agrees with his (very strident and well-articulated) ideology
Advisors, rofl.
listening to slavoj is like swilling mouthwash, a little bit is very refreshing but pretty soon i need to spit it out and get on with my day
The uploaded left out some very nasty comments which zizek made in this interview toward Peterson. As well as zizeks motivation for the debate.
What did he say? i can't find it
Like Hegel, Zizek uses a wide range of prose and technical jargon when he speaks/writes, but utterly fails to come to any coherent conclusions
He provides new ways of thinking about a large number of topics, and I suppose he wants those who consume his work to come to their own conclusions. I'm sure he's tried to formulate a specific ideal structure of moral, social and cultural organisation, like many other philosophers, and he's probably torn it to shreds himself and realised that it's futile and arrogant. Ultimately, Zizek just takes the standard liberal 'examine your own biases' and takes it to a much higher and more interesting level, allowing it as a tool for self-awareness and cultural awareness
i think hes trying to imitate hegel thats why his speaking isnt chronological
He interrupted for the passion of driving the point and so on
And so on. Why cant he concentrate and finish his sentence.
If I remember right, it's a common thing to say in Slovakia. Like, how we about the word like.
I heard a lot more of Zizek conceding to petersons points than I did counter points
Sorry, half the time he talks rambling things that aren’t that smart or insightful. He needs to to focus on communicating a thought from start to finish clearly without going on a tangent or just saying Hegelian or some jargonistic philosophical terminology. He also didn’t have the courage to say any of this to JP at the time, he just rolled over and showed his belly and now rewriting the script like he outsmarted him. Rubbish. Sorry dude, i’m calling you out ... and so on and so on
what debate did you watch?
Hate to say it but Žižek has a few points he attacks where he come in with a lack of understanding as well as his ego was far too involved. I feel like thinks he won something ?
LOL, he lost very badly, he avoided taking on any of Peterson's points about the philosophical underpinnings of communism. Instead he decides he's not actually going to take on Peterson's points about communism, and rather just does the typical deflection of "woe is the world, and all the poor bastards who think they are happy" LOL, a debate with any leftist inevitably turns into their complaining about everybody in the middle class, and those who aspire to it. Peterson nailed it right out of the gate and Žižek couldn't deny it, so he did the only thing he could, and that is to talk on Peterson as if he had never heard these points about communism before, and laughably challenge Peterson on his assertion that the university is filled with communist of every stripe. "Who are these communists...give me some names?!" ; "Where is this research?!" these are juvenile rhetorical tactics to distract from the arguments. And the best part...French food...I guess Žižek has never had Slavic food! LOL!!!
9:04 jajajaja Zizek at it's Best
I love the counter argument to the comment that Zizek speaks in random unclear points is; arh that's because you are too stupid, or you need to listen to him for many many hours, making the same points etc - probably some truth in this and an interesting argument. However,
My preference is for someone to form their argument and points in a way that can be clearly understood?
He is a Slovene speaking in depth about massively complicated matters. It seems like he doesn't like to paraphrase. I'm sure you could take your time to understand his arguments instead of assuming you should just understand it all at once. Maybe I misunderstood or misrepresented you, but don't you think that if you 'studied' his arguments you could gain some understanding? Why should he have to simplify his speech for your (assumed) laziness?
@@DS-ti3nt I did not say; I did not understand; I understand him all too well, probably better than Zizek himself; its as you say all those lazy stupid people... I mean Jordon also does not like to para phrase but the words and ideas are understandable and logical, of course still open to debate if they have merit; personally I have found them rather useful in my own life.
I agree Zizek ideas are a bit more nuance although I think there is room to speak in a clearer manner - of course this may be difficult in a 2nd language.
I think there is merit in some of Zizek ideas... some just don't seem to make sense from a logical point of view, i.e. following his train of thought, sentences don't follow that well, sometimes
@@mzippardy1345 sry i did not read i replied to someone else not u
@@DS-ti3nt Michael and M Zippardy are one in the same... not sure why I ended up with two google accounts; I think one is prime, so is me !
@@DS-ti3nt I did not say; I did not understand; I understand him all too well, probably better than Zizek himself; its as you say all those lazy stupid people... I mean Jordon also does not like to paraphrase but the words and ideas are understandable and logical, of course still open to debate if they have merit; personally, I have found them rather useful in my own life.
I agree Zizek ideas are a bit more nuance although I think there is room to speak in a clearer manner - of course, this may be difficult in a 2nd language.
I think there is merit in some of Zizek ideas... some just don't seem to make sense from a logical point of view, i.e. following his train of thought, sentences don't follow that well, sometimes
Clearly Jordan Peterson seems relevant to Zizek by the fact that he is busy discussing him. I dont hear Peterson discussing Zizek much. Zizek seem to win arguments in hindsight instead of in the moment.
LOL, Zizek decides he's not actually going to take on Peterson's points about communism, and rather just does the typical deflection of "woe is the world, and all the poor bastards who think they are happy" LOL, a debate with any leftist inevitably turns into their complaining about everybody in the middle class, and those who aspire to it. Peterson nailed it right out of the gate and Zizek couldn't deny it, so he did the only thing he could, and that is to talk on Peterson as if he had never heard these points about communism before, and laughably challenge Peterson on his assertion that the university is filled with communist of every stripe. "Who are these communists...give me some names?!" ; "Where is this research?!" these are juvenile rhetorical tactics to distract from the arguments. And the best part...French food...I guess Zizek has never had Slavic food! LOL!!!
Listening to Zizek closely, you see that every assertion he make is based on an utterly incomplete observation, and just reinforces the idea that leftist "thinkers", don't ever get to the second stage of examining their own thinking...although they spend plenty of time examining everyone else's to the point of a bad conclusion. Even the point he makes here about Peterson being isolated in academia...REALLY, he didn't hear Peterson talk about his clinical practice he runs on a for profit basis? What a jackass...too funny!
Zizek purposefully avoided arguing against peterson on marxism because peterson has no understanding of the concept. He admidts to not have read the works of Marx (except for the manifesto).
How can you argue with someone about an entire school of thought when they have no understanding of it at all. It would be like me arguing with an Astrophysicist about quantum mechanics when i have little to no knowledge on physics as a whole.
What i mean by this is that Jordan peterson has little to no understanding of social, cultural and (particularly) economic forces and how these things affect day to day living.
Jordan's arguments against marxism are childish nonsense and status quo perpetuating rhetoric dressed up in fancy language about heirarchies and the 'natural order.'
Had peterson been a preist in the middle ages He probably would have told those toiling in the feild that their condition was the natural order of things. He is historically, socially, economically and philosophocally illiterate.
He masks this by using vague enough language so that when he does get called out on his nonsense he can say, "Thats not what i meant!" Then procced to paint that person as a 'postmodern neo-marxist sjw type.'
Peterson is a charlatan masquerading as an intelligent and insightful thinker. He has of nothing value to add to public discourse.
Perhaps that says that our public discourse is vapid and unsophisticated. Perhaps peterson is a symptom of a disease, a cultural illness.
You really don't understand Peterson. Its a shame. What i do read from what your wrote suggests incredible arrogance. Good day.
I met many a Paterson during my time studying at uni, afterwhich I developed a phrase that would encapsulate their being - "academic wank"
I think Peterson 'bought' the misconception of Zizek being a Marxist, while Zizek asked 'who's a marxist? where are these marxists?. Zizek didn't debate Peterson's points on Marxism because he claimed to not be one. I'm not familiar enough with Zizek to tell if that was an honest reply.
@@shoTgun_YTI guess it goes both ways
@@shoTgun_YT Zizek understands marxism however he thinks we should return to hegalianism.
Before we do it, bam bam
It would have been better if Zizek were honest in his talk with Jordan. I wanted to see a real clash of ideas not a clash of egos.
These types of debates, especially in the context of here where Peterson wanted to destroy a Marxist is never a clash of ideas. It’s more like a boxing match where people want to see their guy smash the other with “facts” and “logic”.
As Zizek says, his main aim was to show his audience something different about Communists, that they want what you want.
I’m sure Richard Wolff could have gone in and addressed it very much in this style of proving all of Peterson’s points about Marxism wrong, but at the end of it Peterson’s fans would have just rationalised it in a way to show Peterson winning.
Now they are stuck in a situation where they are all agreeing completely with a Marxist.
Very arrogant to argue that you are too stupid to argue with; which is clearly not the case; I watched the debate and wondered why Zizek never made any real argument... his points random, at least to me
@@SOLOcan Nailed it. When people see any genuine critique on their idol, they immediately go on the defensive because they have identified so much with him, it becomes an attack also on themselves. We give higher authority to beliefs than to reason, and because it is painful to let go of them we often defend them even when presented with a a multitude of counter-evidence.
Lai gets it. If you wanted a clash of ideas, you don't look for debate you hold a dialectic.
Socratic at least
@@SaintJames14 hehe we're talking about Zizek, it has to be Hegelian
Peterson won the debate.
world is flat
Nope
Absolutely skewering him. The swagger.
I always enjoy Zisek, but he can be a blowhard (not that Peterson can't) and he isn't always familiar with his subject - as, he joked in another interview, Peterson wasn't familiar with Hegel. If Peterson quoted a neuroscientist with whom Zisek wasn't familiar, he'd have nothing to say.
Courtly love was economically and biologically based. It was an affect of the economic system of promogeniture, in which the eldest son inherited the entire estate of a rich father, and all the remaining sons had to hit the road and find some other way to live. Because they were essentially poor and landless, fine ladies wouldn't look at them, though they might even be "noble born.". The second sons were forced to look from afar, and (in literature) wrote ballads and fought dragons from that place. It wasn't some kind of weird delayed gratification, as Zisek claims in this clip. Courtly love was a literary trope invented to describe this dynamic. Believe me, the first son wasn't waiting to put hands on his bride, nor were the second sons some kind of incels as they made their way through the world. Everybody was gettin' after it.
I'm not going to get into how bad was primogeniture. Maybe it was just a greedy conspiracy between father and son, to cut not only out the less fortunate generally, but their own kin from their amassed wealth. Maybe it had some biological basis, at least psychologically. I can't speak to that. My point is that Zisek has no idea what he's talking about there. He just blubbers his lips and snots his faking way through. Like I said, I enjoy him.
I'm wondering if Peterson's shaking hands had anything to do with his drug addiction? Zisek could not have known about it, but I hope he'll take less satisfaction in it now that he does.
But Peterson is the one sticking his nose in politics/philosophy and making grand claims about "marxism". He should be familiar with Hegel. I mean maybe if he was having some kind of interview with the guy, discussing ideas, whatever - but this was a debate.
@@marisa7976 What is politics/philosophy? Is that some kind of degree program? Zizek is "sticking his nose in" as much as Peterson is. I don't agree that Peterson doesn't know who Hegel is - that's just an unsupported claim Zizek made. I provided you a concrete example of how Zizek blathers about things he doesn't understand. You came back with subjective statements about how Peterson isn't allowed to have an opinion and what subjects he "should" know. Maybe that's how they do things in your "politics/philosophy" class.
Funny you mention courtly love. In the actual literature of courtly love, idolizing a far superior woman who you could never touch and would perform all kinds of acts of courage and service for was lionized. If you want to justify that biologically, knock yourself out, but you're going to have a hell of a time of it
@@merrynightwanderer9728 Not biological - economic. In literature, we not only read the works, but read and write criticism of the works. In this case, I didn't perform the criticism - it's simply the mainstream understanding, from Marxists to feminists and everyone in between. And it's common sense.
@@quikmart1 Primogeniture is no explanation for why chaste, distant, worshipful love became lionized in the literature and song of *all* classes, lol. Why not macho fantasies about seizing ladies? Plus real marriage had little to do with love to begin with. Courtly love was a collective fantasy for rich folks in the middle ages; primogenture only explains one portion of the origins.
You can't explain why courtly love, which is anti-conventional-evopsych in every possible way, became popular in this era with biology and economics - the values it espouses clearly need a primarily cultural explanation.
"Common sense" is the explanation people give when they can't come up with proper logical argumentation.
It pissed me off when he said that he hate charitis. Wealthy people are not obligated to justify anything. Words he says are very harmful. Imagine that someone based on these words decides not to donate to charities.
he looks like marx unshaven and plainly dressed
More convincing without Jordon their to counter contradictions... a one-way argument; my favourite, I always win LOL
I love them both. They are facisnating and made me think a lot. I wrote down almost everything they recommend and write down what they say. It's like they understand and misunderstand each other at the same time. Zizek as a philosopher challenges himself and others by so many tools to be completely engaged in everything and does not give a clear answer that and Peterson is just trying to to talk psychologically most of the timd because his main objective is to give psychological analysis to people because his career as a clinical psychologist does still matter to him. It's not that one of them is right or wrong. It's just that they are aiming for one thing but look at thing veeery differently.
hope that means u do check out the grundrisse and the 18th brumaire of louis bonaparte!
@@Kriskazam I hope to understand what you mean here😂
7:35 Zizek going wild
These were some of the weakest comments I've heard from Zizek in a while. He must be loosing his touch. At around 5-6 min in there are some totally incoherent ramblings about things not connected with the issue at hand (French cuisine, chivalry, what have you), then a childish attack on American/Canadian academia that nobody will take seriously, then "bankers...competent for what"...oh Slavoj, this was not your finest hour.
Note how this is a compilation of short fragments taken from a much longer interview..
This is the problem with many intellectuals on the left, they think they are better and more intellectual and everyone else. Zizek, and the woman he speaks with as well. A sense of grandiosity. Its a huge turnoff.
How come slavo is not intellictual darkweb?
Cause it's a dumb name
Dumb name and they are idiots
You are not allowed in, if you had sex before.
@@rugbyguy59 Weeellll, I kinda like the late Christopher Hitchens, especially after the slam-dunk of the Catholic Church. I don't think 'all of them' are dumb, most are tho.
Bc Zizek is serious and not some fucking journo controlled op
Jordan earn $350k to $680k for speech or debate
Zizck $0k
Sources?
Hahaha, you made those numbers up!
@@downeybill nop
I'm not sure Zizek gets Peterson as much as he thinks he does
Idk, but I kinda lost respect for Zizek.
In this video, instead of trying to prove a point, he is just shitting and ranting on Peterson. Wtf.
C’mon dude.
That's a natural determination when someone criticizes your hero.
The debate with Peterson was a lot of nothing, his debate with Will Self was much better... if only for the fact it made me say.."who the hell is this Will Self guy?" And then look into it.
What frigging language is zizek speaking?
That first point is such edgelord provocateur nonsense. Just because some rich assholes use charity as an excuse to hoard wealth doesn’t mean the rest of us oughtn’t give to causes we think are important.
This guy is so much in love with himself. Talking about himself talking to somebody? Hahaha! 🤧
He wouldn’t do that if he really thought he has won the debate. Simple psychology.
Donald Duck said what?
He said u suck dicks and are unfunny, donald knows best.
But you are unfortunately no mystery for me.. lol
Jordon was paying a compliment by suggesting Zizek was unique enough to create his own philosophies instead of identifying with Markism or other... I think went over the head of Zizek and all his supporters
@@michaels3708 Zizek got the compliment, but couldn't in all honesty repay it...
7:37 slavoj bout to bust