I sometimes like Jordon Peterson, and I sometimes like Slavoj Zizek. There are points to disagree with in Zizek's arguments - but he has not got a coke habit (the issue of drugs was addressed in an interview.) People should drop that lie, even if they like Peterson and hate this guy.
@@bigbaba1111 You are ABSOLUTELY wrong. th-cam.com/video/cU1LhcEh8Ms/w-d-xo.html an since you are here and will benefiit of leraning something. This too th-cam.com/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/w-d-xo.html
Zizek is right in criticizing Peterson's abuse of data and facts from the animal world in order to explain human problems and societal conflicts. However, he is completely wrong on the issue of cultural marxism. The idea that the catholic religion represented the biggest obstacle for the victory of communism in Europe (in particular, in Italy) was developed by the great Italian marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci. He thought that the Communist Party and its doctrine had to substitute the Catholic Church and the Christian Credo. Maybe Peterson is wrong about Adorno and the Frankfurters, I cannot say, but the claim is completely correct if related to Gramsci, that at the moment is widely more influent than the Frankfurters.
"great Italian marxist philosopher" Using great before Marxist is a sure way to lose respect. There's nothing great about a philosophy that is directly responsible for the death of millions.
I suspect, people who are not of above average intelligence will view Zizek as crazy. Quite truthfully, he’s beyond the box presented by many people. He’s not crazy, he’s just smarter than most people which are a potential audience and it can be hard to understand him given his relatively higher intelligence and his own language barrier, seeing as English is not his strongest language. I refrain from saying first language because even people with English as their first language can and often are weak in it and it can occur that someone with English as their second or even third language is more fluent. I should add, Spanish is my first language and my English and Spanish are equally as strong. In the same way I can make this self observation, I can observe my intelligence as being adequate enough to understand Zizek’s points and make the prior statements on the relative intelligence of his audience.
First to see Unfortunately for you, I don’t really watch cartoons. Your cynicism isn’t appreciated and you should probably not respond any further unless you plan to show some respect.
Montana has always had 2 senators, like every other state, but most of the time it's one Democrat and one Republican, so thats a really bad example for him to use. Also, who gives a shit that California has more people? It also has way more problems. They get populace power in the House of Representitives, but to also have it in the Senate would mean people in rural states get zero say in Federal Politics. States are their own governments, and the beauty of America is the simple fact that you can move to a state where the people and the local laws reflect your own values, not the values of a bunch of Californians.
Zizek mentions that Peterson uses pseudoscience with the reference to lobsters (Vox also claims Petersons usage of this is unscientific). He then talks philosophically about Petersons presuppositions with regards hierarchy to give an alternate perspective. Following that Zizek talks about Petersons conversation with Steven Pinker to question his "facts" where Peterson claims that things in society are getting worse while they clearly are getting better, which is the subject of Pinkers new book. And finally then Zizek ridiculed the concept of cultural Marxism.
Giggleman If you actually read into Peterson’s work about that, you’ll quickly find out that zizek was oversimplifying Peterson’s comparison. It’s not a comparison about humans to lobsters, actually. It’s a very specific evolutionary comparison of most the animal kingdom-which is verifiably demonstrable.
Lol I've held my beliefs since far before Bernie's neoliberal ass ran. He and I don't even agree on much. And zizek is an actual philosopher and academic. Peterson is a joke
Spoken like someone who has no knowledge of academia. Overton window has shifted so far right that basic views like "no one should starve" are now "radically" left
why dont you go see his maps of meaning lecture series and obviously criticise him after that, even more viciously. but just hollow statements dnt make your argument objectively smart.
Peterson has a habit of taking a subjective opinion, presenting it as fact, and then wildly extrapolating it to apply to anything that confirms his preconceived notions of the world, which basically consist of standard culturally Christian values and garden variety self-help tips. Further, he is always extremely vague with his statements and relies on suggestion and implication so he can then accuse people of "putting words in his mouth" whenever they state clearly what he is obviously implying. He said himself that he chooses his words very carefully and this is actually quite true. He is a master of rhetoric if nothing else and is quite adept at maneuvering debate opponents into his semantic traps. He pretty much makes a living off claiming to be constantly misrepresented. However, while he is able to maintain plausible deniability as to whether or not he is a fascist, it is obvious that many of his followers are indeed avowed fascists. I'm sure he knows this and exploits it to the fullest extent. Hence, the reliance on vague suggestion and implication. People listening to him speak can hear whatever it is they want to hear, which I suspect is the reason why he has become so successful. Also, his explanations of various concepts and ideologies are often outrageously simplistic or just plain incorrect. I'm not sure if he really believes some of the things he says or if he misrepresents these ideas intentionally. For example, his criticism of so-called postmodern Marxist identity politics is ridiculous to anybody with a background in politics or philosophy because Marxism is a thoroughly modernist ideology, not postmodern. I know that probably sounds like an incredibly petty distinction, and it might be for most practical applications, but to any serious student of philosophy or politics it is actually very important to understand Marxism as a materialistic theory that seeks essentially to describe all of human history in one unifying theory, much like Darwinism, another modernist concept, does with biology. Postmodernism rejects the idea that anything can be classified this way. It does away with rationality, empiricism, and objective notions of truth and reality. In other words, modernism seeks to eradicate anything that would hold back progress while postmodernism asks if there is any such thing as progress at all. So honestly, the term "Postmodern-Marxism" is an oxymoron. I know this sounds like nitpicking but it really is important if you want to really get to the bottom of his belief system. However, the most troubling thing about Peterson is his embrace of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory. This is literally something right out of the Nazi playbook, the original Nazis, not Neo-Nazis. The only difference is that back then they called it "Cultural Bolshevism". In both cases, it is basically used to denounce anything contrary to traditional values and ways of thinking. Ultimately, it is applied to anything remotely avant-garde or boundary pushing in cultural terms or anything left of center in political terms. It is an ideological curse word meant to discredit any opponent without needing to analyze their positions, much like the words "fascism" or "socialism" are thrown around so loosely. At its darkest root, Cultural Marxism/Bolshevism describes a Jewish/globalist plot to undermine Western values through degenerate art and radical infiltration of the education system. Its roots are deeply Anti-Semitic even if not all people who agree with some or all of its tenets are consciously aware of that. One more thing to note about Peterson and his frequent references to Jungian psychology, is that many of those theories were either debunked or fell out of the mainstream (for good reasons) long ago. However, much like his views on religion or traditional gender roles, these things cannot be empirically dis-proven either. So again, you cannot technically call him a liar when he brings up far-fetched Jungian ideas like the "collective unconscious" and its supposedly universal symbols and archetypes that guide and influence us all. Or even less credible, synchronicity, which holds that there are meaningful events that are not coincidences so long as they appear to be connected. It borders on magical thinking and belief in the paranormal. Not something you would expect from somebody who claims to be as rational as Jordan Peterson does... Anyway, I didn't initially intend to write so much. Those are just a few of my thoughts on everybody's favorite Canadian celebrity academic.
I fear this upcoming debate will be flawed. Technically flawed. I fear the language barrier will usurp any points that he makes. I would rather read Zizek. I think he's more eloquent in print. Peterson will have the home language advantage and and the listener will gravitate toward him. I presume Zizek understands what he's getting himself into. Cheers to Peterson for giving a great mind like Zizek a chair at the international dais.
It doesn't matter if the population is 1000s, millions or billions. In a federal democracy, there shall be only 1 representative from your colony to address your grievances. Just because there are 10-15 children in your house, you won't demand for extra fathers and mothers. Would you? A parliament is supposed to be a parliament and not some 3rd world fish market.
Man 've done a lot of Cocaine before but I've never done so much to make my entire mouth numb. And the sniffing, lol the drips he has must be fucking massive yet he can't feel any of it due to the numbing lmao. All jokes aside, does he have a speech impediment of some kind? The few vids I've seen are all similar
He starts with a discussion of Congressional representation. He does know that larger states have more representation in the House of Representatives, doesn't he? He does know that the Connecticut Plan, which was offered by Roger Sherman, deftly solved the problem of representation by way of a bicameral Congress, right?
It's worth comparing the two attitudes towards each other. 1. Zizek on Peterson (on the 10th of November in Cambridge): at 4:22 "I'll quote someone here who is also my enemy, Steven Pinker..". So for Zizek Peterson and Pinker they're both enemies. At 7:40 "Here I react like Goebbels, I pull out my guns..." (A side note: I can not comprehend why are remarks like this accepted from leftists while if anyone more right leaning would say a similar "joke" he would be labeled as a fascist and there would be a huge media attack.) 2. Peterson on the possibility to have a debate with Zizek, (in Ljubljana, Slovenia on the 18th of November): "th-cam.com/video/sAaMqW5-QZQ/w-d-xo.html" at 24:27/25:10 "I think it would be very interesting to have a discussion with Zizek, so if that can be arranged that could happen."
If it makes you feel better, Zizek has been accused of being a Fascist, and a Stalinist, and a dangerous revolutionary, and a counter-revolutionary, and pretty much everything else under the sun.
probably because when people from the right say it they actual mean it. this last week has seen right wing pundits saying nothing gives them "more joy than seeing immigrants choking on tear gas" spoken without irony.
@@mtklima Please. Zizek isn't a debater, he doesn't bring anything substantive to the table. Even Chomsky has pointed this out. JBP doesn't need to have a sit down with Zizek, but has offered to do so twice. Zizek keeps trash talking, but can't back it up and certainly won't show up when called out. If you are going to smack talk, be prepared to back it up when you are called out. On this, Zizek fails miserably.
@Christ724 yes I agree, and my prediction was wrong. Nothing Peterson said was new to me, and Zizek raised several interesting points worth exploring. I look forward to youtubers’ analysis clips. I’d much prefer a Dave Rubin-like discussion with this pair. That would bring far more value to the table.
This is what Socrates might have been like, only faster
@SunlightDivisor I'm not sure if I'd like to know why you have that opinion... he seems to have a legit grip on what's wrong with todays ideologies
SunlightDivisor if he believes what he’s saying then he’s not a liar.
"i react like geobbels, i pull out my gun"
beautiful
Interviewer: What do you think of jordan peterson?
Zizek: ssccchhhssssccccchhhhhhhssssssccccchhhhh
Why does Cambridge Union not own any side tables or coffee tables for jugs of water?
**SNIFF**
Too much cocaine.
The phlegm is strong in this one ...
I wonder what Zizek's views are on Benzoylmethylecgonine.
I sometimes like Jordon Peterson, and I sometimes like Slavoj Zizek. There are points to disagree with in Zizek's arguments - but he has not got a coke habit (the issue of drugs was addressed in an interview.) People should drop that lie, even if they like Peterson and hate this guy.
He's definitely not a well man.
I think that was just a joke.
Peterson is the one with the drug habit.
Haha. He's quite right about Peterson.
wrong. JP never said that human behavior is only biological. he blames the postmodernists for totally ignoring the biological aspect of humanity.
@@bigbaba1111 fuck off with your biology
@@bigbaba1111 You are ABSOLUTELY wrong.
th-cam.com/video/cU1LhcEh8Ms/w-d-xo.html
an since you are here and will benefiit of leraning something.
This too th-cam.com/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/w-d-xo.html
Such a humble man
Zizek is right on point.
Straight up Bond villian, this guy.
Zizek is right in criticizing Peterson's abuse of data and facts from the animal world in order to explain human problems and societal conflicts. However, he is completely wrong on the issue of cultural marxism. The idea that the catholic religion represented the biggest obstacle for the victory of communism in Europe (in particular, in Italy) was developed by the great Italian marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci. He thought that the Communist Party and its doctrine had to substitute the Catholic Church and the Christian Credo. Maybe Peterson is wrong about Adorno and the Frankfurters, I cannot say, but the claim is completely correct if related to Gramsci, that at the moment is widely more influent than the Frankfurters.
"great Italian marxist philosopher" Using great before Marxist is a sure way to lose respect. There's nothing great about a philosophy that is directly responsible for the death of millions.
@@postmodernprophet3491lol
I suspect, people who are not of above average intelligence will view Zizek as crazy.
Quite truthfully, he’s beyond the box presented by many people. He’s not crazy, he’s just smarter than most people which are a potential audience and it can be hard to understand him given his relatively higher intelligence and his own language barrier, seeing as English is not his strongest language.
I refrain from saying first language because even people with English as their first language can and often are weak in it and it can occur that someone with English as their second or even third language is more fluent.
I should add, Spanish is my first language and my English and Spanish are equally as strong. In the same way I can make this self observation, I can observe my intelligence as being adequate enough to understand Zizek’s points and make the prior statements on the relative intelligence of his audience.
DreadARCHIVE -, I bet you’re the only one who really understands Rick&Morty too.
First to see
Unfortunately for you, I don’t really watch cartoons. Your cynicism isn’t appreciated and you should probably not respond any further unless you plan to show some respect.
@@firsttosee7481 lmaoo
youtube sucks
This two needs to debate.
Rrrrrelative
Montana has always had 2 senators, like every other state, but most of the time it's one Democrat and one Republican, so thats a really bad example for him to use. Also, who gives a shit that California has more people? It also has way more problems. They get populace power in the House of Representitives, but to also have it in the Senate would mean people in rural states get zero say in Federal Politics. States are their own governments, and the beauty of America is the simple fact that you can move to a state where the people and the local laws reflect your own values, not the values of a bunch of Californians.
5:00 Zizek on Pinker
Zizek, you talk for seven minutes and say virtually nothing.
James Laver how profound are your conversations? 🤨 the guy brings up some interesting points
@@Regulification Yes very profound. He announces he disagrees with Peterson. Is this all the communist champion can bring up?
Zizek mentions that Peterson uses pseudoscience with the reference to lobsters (Vox also claims Petersons usage of this is unscientific). He then talks philosophically about Petersons presuppositions with regards hierarchy to give an alternate perspective. Following that Zizek talks about Petersons conversation with Steven Pinker to question his "facts" where Peterson claims that things in society are getting worse while they clearly are getting better, which is the subject of Pinkers new book. And finally then Zizek ridiculed the concept of cultural Marxism.
@james laver 100% agree with you.
Giggleman
If you actually read into Peterson’s work about that, you’ll quickly find out that zizek was oversimplifying Peterson’s comparison. It’s not a comparison about humans to lobsters, actually. It’s a very specific evolutionary comparison of most the animal kingdom-which is verifiably demonstrable.
That dude is coked out.
It's tick mate...
The only reason right wingers prefer JP is because he validates their beliefs. Zizhek is objectively smarter.
Lol I've held my beliefs since far before Bernie's neoliberal ass ran. He and I don't even agree on much. And zizek is an actual philosopher and academic. Peterson is a joke
Peterson pushes conservative Judeo-christian cultural attitudes. I don't know where else that belongs BUT the right.
Spoken like someone who has no knowledge of academia. Overton window has shifted so far right that basic views like "no one should starve" are now "radically" left
why dont you go see his maps of meaning lecture series and obviously criticise him after that, even more viciously. but just hollow statements dnt make your argument objectively smart.
Peterson has a habit of taking a subjective opinion, presenting it as fact, and then wildly extrapolating it to apply to anything that confirms his preconceived notions of the world, which basically consist of standard culturally Christian values and garden variety self-help tips. Further, he is always extremely vague with his statements and relies on suggestion and implication so he can then accuse people of "putting words in his mouth" whenever they state clearly what he is obviously implying. He said himself that he chooses his words very carefully and this is actually quite true. He is a master of rhetoric if nothing else and is quite adept at maneuvering debate opponents into his semantic traps. He pretty much makes a living off claiming to be constantly misrepresented. However, while he is able to maintain plausible deniability as to whether or not he is a fascist, it is obvious that many of his followers are indeed avowed fascists. I'm sure he knows this and exploits it to the fullest extent. Hence, the reliance on vague suggestion and implication. People listening to him speak can hear whatever it is they want to hear, which I suspect is the reason why he has become so successful.
Also, his explanations of various concepts and ideologies are often outrageously simplistic or just plain incorrect. I'm not sure if he really believes some of the things he says or if he misrepresents these ideas intentionally. For example, his criticism of so-called postmodern Marxist identity politics is ridiculous to anybody with a background in politics or philosophy because Marxism is a thoroughly modernist ideology, not postmodern. I know that probably sounds like an incredibly petty distinction, and it might be for most practical applications, but to any serious student of philosophy or politics it is actually very important to understand Marxism as a materialistic theory that seeks essentially to describe all of human history in one unifying theory, much like Darwinism, another modernist concept, does with biology. Postmodernism rejects the idea that anything can be classified this way. It does away with rationality, empiricism, and objective notions of truth and reality. In other words, modernism seeks to eradicate anything that would hold back progress while postmodernism asks if there is any such thing as progress at all. So honestly, the term "Postmodern-Marxism" is an oxymoron. I know this sounds like nitpicking but it really is important if you want to really get to the bottom of his belief system.
However, the most troubling thing about Peterson is his embrace of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory. This is literally something right out of the Nazi playbook, the original Nazis, not Neo-Nazis. The only difference is that back then they called it "Cultural Bolshevism". In both cases, it is basically used to denounce anything contrary to traditional values and ways of thinking. Ultimately, it is applied to anything remotely avant-garde or boundary pushing in cultural terms or anything left of center in political terms. It is an ideological curse word meant to discredit any opponent without needing to analyze their positions, much like the words "fascism" or "socialism" are thrown around so loosely. At its darkest root, Cultural Marxism/Bolshevism describes a Jewish/globalist plot to undermine Western values through degenerate art and radical infiltration of the education system. Its roots are deeply Anti-Semitic even if not all people who agree with some or all of its tenets are consciously aware of that.
One more thing to note about Peterson and his frequent references to Jungian psychology, is that many of those theories were either debunked or fell out of the mainstream (for good reasons) long ago. However, much like his views on religion or traditional gender roles, these things cannot be empirically dis-proven either. So again, you cannot technically call him a liar when he brings up far-fetched Jungian ideas like the "collective unconscious" and its supposedly universal symbols and archetypes that guide and influence us all. Or even less credible, synchronicity, which holds that there are meaningful events that are not coincidences so long as they appear to be connected. It borders on magical thinking and belief in the paranormal. Not something you would expect from somebody who claims to be as rational as Jordan Peterson does...
Anyway, I didn't initially intend to write so much. Those are just a few of my thoughts on everybody's favorite Canadian celebrity academic.
Slavoj Cokek
I fear this upcoming debate will be flawed. Technically flawed. I fear the language barrier will usurp any points that he makes. I would rather read Zizek. I think he's more eloquent in print. Peterson will have the home language advantage and and the listener will gravitate toward him. I presume Zizek understands what he's getting himself into. Cheers to Peterson for giving a great mind like Zizek a chair at the international dais.
spot on
Just look at the comment section. People think he's a cokehead. Then again, the average TH-cam person likes Peterson to a high degree.
@@theobuniel9643 not at all, many hate him even many right wing any who can tolerate his sniffy nose love Zizek
Yeah ... I'm having a hard time following him. Though some of it is the language, I think most of is his style.
I don't think language will be a huge barrier. Zizek has a strong accent but he speaks English rather well.
It doesn't matter if the population is 1000s, millions or billions. In a federal democracy, there shall be only 1 representative from your colony to address your grievances.
Just because there are 10-15 children in your house, you won't demand for extra fathers and mothers. Would you?
A parliament is supposed to be a parliament and not some 3rd world fish market.
1:53 Lmaooo aight that's enough.... that's where I turn the video off
Man 've done a lot of Cocaine before but I've never done so much to make my entire mouth numb. And the sniffing, lol the drips he has must be fucking massive yet he can't feel any of it due to the numbing lmao.
All jokes aside, does he have a speech impediment of some kind? The few vids I've seen are all similar
What's going on with his nose?!
Coke
The actual answer is that he has a cleft palate or something similar, it is a defect of some kind, not a coke habit lol.
disgusting in behaviour, disgusting in thoughts
He starts with a discussion of Congressional representation. He does know that larger states have more representation in the House of Representatives, doesn't he? He does know that the Connecticut Plan, which was offered by Roger Sherman, deftly solved the problem of representation by way of a bicameral Congress, right?
It's worth comparing the two attitudes towards each other.
1. Zizek on Peterson (on the 10th of November in Cambridge): at 4:22 "I'll quote someone here who is also my enemy, Steven Pinker..". So for Zizek Peterson and Pinker they're both enemies. At 7:40 "Here I react like Goebbels, I pull out my guns..." (A side note: I can not comprehend why are remarks like this accepted from leftists while if anyone more right leaning would say a similar "joke" he would be labeled as a fascist and there would be a huge media attack.)
2. Peterson on the possibility to have a debate with Zizek, (in Ljubljana, Slovenia on the 18th of November): "th-cam.com/video/sAaMqW5-QZQ/w-d-xo.html" at 24:27/25:10 "I think it would be very interesting to have a discussion with Zizek, so if that can be arranged that could happen."
If it makes you feel better, Zizek has been accused of being a Fascist, and a Stalinist, and a dangerous revolutionary, and a counter-revolutionary, and pretty much everything else under the sun.
What’s your point?
He thinks Peterson is an enemy, as in he is a right winger with shitty ideas.
Zizek is provocative, hence his Goebbels comment.
probably because when people from the right say it they actual mean it. this last week has seen right wing pundits saying nothing gives them "more joy than seeing immigrants choking on tear gas" spoken without irony.
Jp is a joke. For him it would be an honor to debate zizek. For zizek it would be a waste of time.
@@mtklima Please. Zizek isn't a debater, he doesn't bring anything substantive to the table. Even Chomsky has pointed this out. JBP doesn't need to have a sit down with Zizek, but has offered to do so twice. Zizek keeps trash talking, but can't back it up and certainly won't show up when called out. If you are going to smack talk, be prepared to back it up when you are called out. On this, Zizek fails miserably.
I understand what he saying but not the best argument I've heard ....if him&peterson were pollies i know who i'd vote for
I predict JBP will play to benefit everyone and develop ideas, but Zizek will be totally outclassed. Zizek is a curiosity. Peterson has meaning.
LOL JP fanbots are really funny.
kt cool what do you mean to say, exactly? Such a condescending remark says a lot about you but let’s give you the benefit of doubt, so come on then.
Lady Oscar interesting. False in what way? A single aspect would suffice to qualify such a lazy rebuttal.
Lol.
@Christ724 yes I agree, and my prediction was wrong. Nothing Peterson said was new to me, and Zizek raised several interesting points worth exploring. I look forward to youtubers’ analysis clips.
I’d much prefer a Dave Rubin-like discussion with this pair. That would bring far more value to the table.