Ben Burgis & Michael Review The Zizek Peterson Debate (TMBS 89)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- We review Zizek-Peterson debate.
This is free content from the weekly edition of TMBS. To support the Michael Brooks Show on Patreon and receive hours of weekly members-only content, subscribe at Patreon.com/tmbs
Follow The Michael Brooks Show and crew on twitter: @TMBSfm @_michaelbrooks @mattlech @davidslavick @davidgriscom
I was a Peterson fan that, following this debate, engaged with Marxism and learned a lot
Also, it isn't binary. One can recognize that Peterson has weak arguments and wrong positions even without knowing anything about Marxism.
Me too, he looked like an ill informed child
Jordan Peterson is arguably the biggest hack of this generation
Peterson doesn't understand Marxism or Postmodernism. He constantly falsely conflates the two
Man will I miss these Brooks/Burgis crossovers :(
Great summary of the "debate". I've been a hardcore JBP fan for years but recently I've been feeling pretty skeptical on some of his more dodgy rhetoric (the make-up thing for instance). Listening to person talk about psychology and personal responsibly had some real utility in my psychological well being and even helped me manage a period of intense conflict between my father and brother. Unfortunately this lead me to place more trust JBP then he deserved and I took him at his word when he spoke about areas outside of his area of expertise (Philosophy and History in particular). I read a handful of book off his reading list and although some of them went over my head(niche), I found some real joy in engaging with classical literature. I read some Jung and even JBP's favorite book, the gulag archipelago.
Peterson's talk about the Postmodern-Neo-Marxist types was really appealing to me because of an experience that I had in middle school. I joined a feminist after school club as an excuse to walk home with my girlfriend who was also a member. The teacher was a black women and a recent college grad. I wasn't seriously engaging with the class and the teacher probably didn't like me being there. After a few weeks of attending I said something really dumb about wanting to be the leader of a troop of pickpockets, which was on my mind after reading the thief lord. The teacher chose to interpret this as me expressing a desire to own slaves, when in reality I just wanted people to see me as good at something.
I was extremely triggered by this comment. It completely tarnished my view of activism and made me sustainable to anti-progressive messaging and it took quite a while to realize I was still angry with this person all these years later and was letting it influence my view of left wing politics. As a result Peterson version of Marxism was very easy for me to latch onto. I think on some very fringe level, that Peterson doesn't do a good job explaining, there is a valid criticism of people becoming involved in politics to vindicate a bias against white people or the wealthy. This criticism certainly flows both ways however and untimely people getting into politic because of a hatred of the poor and minority is a vastly larger issue.
zizek did a great job in this debate. JBP brought nothing to the table in the first half and in the second half regarding happiness much of what zizek offered mirrored the psychological advise that kept me lessening to Peterson. Zizek acknowledged that in some cases the motivations of people who purport to advocate for racial and economic equality is predicated on deeply held bias against people in power, which dispelled the trance that Peterson had over me. When then spoke about the problems of capitalism peterson couldn't defend it at all beyond appealed to tradition. Suddenly everything held so dear about JBP could be seen in a new light.
I can't wait to dive into zizek work but unfortunately from what I've read online there's a ton of background reading to understand this stuff. I don't really understand Marxism because most of my political knowledge come from Right-Wing TH-cam (lol) but I'm gonna make a serious effort to do the reading. I imagine In a years time I'll probably call myself a Marxist. Matt expressed some doubts over whether this would change any JBP fan's minds and I was already starting to distance myself from before this debate but I couldn't have asked for a better excuse to jump ship than this debate.
Jordan Peterson has 0 understanding of Marxism. Less than someone who just read a high school textbook. Nor does he know anything about the history of the USSR even though he apparently collects Soviet memorabilia. Glad you stop listening to this hack. He’s a true nutcase and a dangerous one too.
JP is the living embodiment of the quote "What is great isn't new and what is new isn't great."
Welcome comrade ;)
i used to like his stuff too, and he's a shrink so his work on that is legit..what turned me away was when he started talking about religion, and he never spoke about the far right, not to mention his affiliation to people with extreme right views, this made me skeptical
Josh if you're watching Michael Brooks clips you're well on your way to a better understanding. I loved your comment, and am sure that you'll find your way to what you're looking for. Keep it up!
Please do Ben Shapiro on BBC. He was ripped apart.
He ripped himself apart. He could have (I would say easily, but probably not very easily) defended himself. He genuinely believes in those things. Why not give the true, right wing answer.
BBC has a way of ripping us all apart sometimes... 😌🙃
Ben Shitpiro DESTROYS himself with FEELINGS and STRAWMANS!!! REKT EPIC STYLE!!!!!REEEEEEEEEEEE
He wasn’t ripped apart.
He committed seppuku.
eh. I'm going to go ahead and say he was ripped apart. At least, it wasn't a self inflicted injury. His interviewer challenged him in a way that Shapiro often challenges people, and there isn't a great defense for the tactic (that I know of anyway).
Peterson literally pulled the high school freshman move of stalling on preparation and doing his book report the night before, and did a terrible amateurish job of presenting even his own juvenile analysis.
And this is the towering intellectual people demand that I watch thousands of hours of youtube videos to understand? He can't even be bothered to read anything by the actual fucking guy he is debating.
he's straight up pathetic
The simple truth is Peterson is just not a very intelligent.
@Khaled Rapp Not this time tho. I think some of his fans finally caught up with his charlatanry.
Yeah, I have never taken him seriously.
Why would Peterson a creature of TH-cam be expected by his illiterate followers to read?
Its kind of a meaningless distinction. Personal responsibility includes social solidarity.
Yeah, I hate this retarded false dichotomy neoliberalism/McCarthyism espouses.
And social solidarity immediately admits personal responsibility. One must be a dialectical thinker.
Just compare this to Chompsky versus William F. Buckley. The "intellectual" right has experienced quite the brain drain.
I like that Peterson is also Mickey Mouse. Lol
kermit the frog
JP is such a whiner - he's always saying how unfair it is but yet he says that things are unfair and pull yourself up by the bootstraps? He has a whiney voice too.
I always feel a need to wipe my face when listening to Zizek
Zizek looked like a paternal figure to Peterson in this debate. Look how Peterson is inclined towards him, like interested and baffled. He's listening to daddy.
Maybe he wants to learn - an alien concept on the left, perhaps?
th-cam.com/video/vXaQLT8V638/w-d-xo.html
Ian Clark then I suppose Zizek knew so much since birth. He never took the time to “learn” hahaha
@@iankclark ah yes, the monolith that is "the left" simply does not wish to learn, but also the rest of us have something to learn from a public leftist intellectual! these two things make alot of sense in conjunction with one another! i beg of you, ian, please explain to me how it is that one learns something substantive from one who does not wish to learn (seeing as this is a seemingly impossible task--although im willing to...learn--, you do have a second option: admit that this was a stupid comment)
Peterson fans will see this and think that Zizek talks funny so Peterson owned him. >.
I'm not sure if I missed it but I need more Zizek impersonations from Michael
David Griscom's analysis was great.
I’ve been a fan of Zizek for a while now and mostly just paid attention to his talks and writing because they’re entertaining. He rarely offers any solutions and mostly just deals with chaos but that’s exactly the type of thinker that needed to go up against Peterson. Unfortunately Peterson has a great deal of followers who aren’t thinkers. I’m only basing this off of the commentary I’ve see from a lot of his followers.
Just to be clear I’m not anti Peterson and believe he has some quality things to say outside of his views on the culture war and social justice.
Missing Michael every day
Your show has become much much better since you started taking it more seriously and I see your subscribers are growing very fast so congratulations!
I agree. RIP Michael Books.
Not to mention the irony of going around lecturing others on getting there house in order then having to be put in a medically induced coma for benzo addiction.
Everytime Michael does the Peterson voice my dog looks at the speaker , with ears up and head bobbing , fucking funny !!!!!!
Please only have Ben on in studio. The audio and chemistry is so much better
LittleLargeMouth I liked the contributions of the other two. I think Ben was into them joining in too
Comrade Mandela has triggered me!
Peterson was likable in the debate because he couldn't help respecting Zizek.
I think what was the thing that stood out to me more than anything in that 'debate' was the way Peterson acted, I have never seen him give any left leaning opposition any respect, but in this case he did. He always plays the serious faced outraged 'authority. Zizek is a marxist, who often jokes about Stalinist techniques etc, things that Peterson is apparently disgusted by in any other situations but strangely not in this one? I think he is a pure narcissist, he acted like, yes I am finally in a debate worthy of my stature. Which ofcourse he was not , he was humiliated in many ways. I thing Zizek was bewildered by the nativity of his argument. But played it beautifully.
Can we stop talking about Peterson? I am just so sick of this guy and his general fame is degrading and his die hard sycophants will never abandon him anyway so it just seems pointless to me.
It was just wonderful to see someone berate Jordan Peterson.
I like the koto/hip-hop theme tune to these videos.
Personal humiliation comes to Peterson's fans because they are personally invested in Peterson's agenda, not intellectually invested in agreeing with his arguments. Exposing him as a cult leader is also important, although I agree Zizek was strategically precise with the depth of his criticism for a debate of this magnitude.
Problem is when you label his entire fanbase as cult following you cause the rational thinkers who actually follow him to be avoidant of the values that you may demonstrate. But, I will take it with a pinch of salt, I understand there are people on the right who attack any form of a socialistic idea as communism and I guess you are just the equivalent for the left.
@@independentthought3162 Is this a more elaborate version of the "no you" trope? It sure looks like it.
Peterson is demonstrably wrong on many of the core assumptions he makes to build his world view. In spite of that, some people keep avidly consuming his products or mindlessly adhering to whatever conclusions he makes on top of his wrongful assumptions, which is a pretty damning demonstration of cult-like behavior.
Of course, the left isn't immune to that kind of thing, but I never claimed it to be. However, if you think I'm engaging some form of cult behaviour, at least give me some clue about why do you think so. Else, it's just a "no you" rebuttal. Funny, but ultimately pointless.
@@MephLeo Holy fuck I just spent 20 mins typing a response only to fucking press cancel.........
So much respect to you great people for your honest analysis and the Real Journalism, Salute.
hahahaha.... best troll ever... you are trolling, right?
@@iankclark You are trolling, that is right.
Ehsan Khaibar I respect Zizek equally to Peterson as important voices against the status quo. They are both heroic in my eyes even though they see through a different lens. What I noticed is that at the debate his fans were unable to prevent themselves from acting in a fawning manner even though Zizek specifically asked them not to. Likewise in this video and more so in the prior video on the debate it’s all about having a good laugh at the opponent. Real journalists? JP may be a fool in some ways but he’s a very wise fool for reasons I won’t go into here.
can someone explain that 'tea or coffee, yes please' joke?
I think in the context of this conversation it means that choices are not always binary. A lot of people say you often have to choose one thing or another in certain situations. For instance some people say you must choose either capitalism or socialism. When most economies in the world are mixed economies. Hope that helps.
You can have both, you dont have to chose..
It's a comment on how our simpleton societies have pigeonholed everything into false dichotomies.
@@robertstan298 thanks, so, I guess, the "yes, please" part mocks it by reducing it to a single yes?
@tiglath pileser
I'm sorry but if you believe that we have nothing further to discuss.
damn
Came here from 'The Dragon that Didn't Do His Homework'.
RIP Michael.
In answer to the question posed at about the 12:00 mark, about creating the "false" image of commodity, and why we do that...well, that, in a nutshell, is language and "meaning" in general. When we say "chair" we create a false image of a chair...no such chair exists, and there isn't one thing that can be said to be the chair...the chair referred to is many things and no thing...it doesn't exist. And yet, stipulating its existence is necessary for the purpose of tasks we wish to perform, so we abide by the misrepresentation. Now, you might say that it is necessary, then, to keep in mind that every noun we use, unless we are being very specific, and, perhaps pointing to a specific chair when we issue some command about that specific chair by saying something to the effect of "Take up that chair and walk", is a fiction and doesn't really exists, and this is probably right, but impossible. But under these rarified circumstances, certainly, we should remind ourselves of this peculiar nature of language, that it must, for the purposes of communication, misrepresent the facts of our existence. I imagine something of this nature is true regarding commodification. That the true nature things, which is veiled as matter of utility for the most part, but must be, periodically, well, that veil must be lifted from time to time if we are to examine the true nature of our existence, from time to time, but then must be dropped again if we are to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Just imagine getting pummeled by the person who voiced Sylvester The Cat on Looney Tunes. Poor Kermet.
Both of these people are horrible public speakers. It says something that Zizek did so well, when he's got that lisp.
Wow...this clip wasn’t one sided or biased at all. And thank god they didn’t cherry pick the points that supported their perspective.
This was the beginning of the end for Peter Boner Boy.
Anyone who wears a Red Sox hat is a friend of mine.
why are you making this high pitched voice to ridicule peterson? It almost looks like you are trying to say that one of his 'problems' is that he has a 'feminine' pitch...maybe it is not it but it is one possible interpretation no?
Its just hilarious that a dude like peterson who always wants manliness talks like kermit the frog
Peterson has met his hand flailing match
More like, Slavoj Jeez laweezek
Getting his ass kicked agrees with him. i'm in tears
This conversation reminds me of Niell Simons play, movie, tv show "the Odd Couple " Oscar Madison is fed up with his prissy roommate Felix Unger and berates him. Shouting how he's sick of this and sick of that. Felix calmly eats his pasta trying to ignore the abuse. Oscar, becomes increasingly frustrated and shouts "aren't you going to say anything!!!?" "You're just going to sit there and eat your spaghetti!!?" Felix begins to chuckle and shakes his head because Oscar is just so dumb. He turns and says " it's linguine " This is the paltry criticism of Jordan Peterson's Marxist understanding. His Cathy Newman interview destroyed all leftist constituencies going forward. So ....yeah.....they fuc*ing hate him. It's linguine!!!
The fact these people have to pick that spot of a 3 hour debate, and on top of it show a fraction of one of the people in said debate. Probably, and I'm just throwing this out there, is so biased they're really not even worth watching because it will just pollute your mind.
You're also making a huge logical fallacy by assuming that Peterson says you need to have your house in perfect order before changing the economic system. He doesn't. He just says, if you are going to try to change the world, but don't have your house in any semblance of order. Why should anyone take you seriously? You're missing the deeper point of it. Which I think boils down to this. It's good to at least try to practice what you preach. That's the message. He says ALL THE TIME, that they are metaphors and not to be taken 100% seriously. So, so many people make this mistake, and is why they lose when trying to debate this issue.
John Doe 1. This isn’t a 5-hour program that has time to go through the entire debate. They necessarily had to pick a 2 minute segment due to time constraints.
2. Peterson is interpreted by the majority of his acolytes (like myself, formally) as advocating personal development over working towards social change. Since we never become anything close to perfect in our lives, this delays social action indefinitely. Life is a continual process of cleaning your room, and his philosophy (and politics) breeds exactly the social apathy and loneliness that he has dedicated his life to fighting for many people. Not everyone has the same nuanced interpretation as you, and I would not say Michael Brooks and Burgis would disagree with you either in their interpretation. You have to see the implication of Peterson’s point here in connection to his anti-activist, anti-socialist politics
@@danilthorstensson8902 again, that isn't what Peterson has ever said, and you're simply going off of what other people with an agenda have said about him.
You're taking it literally and that's not how it is meant to be taken. In fact, the first paragraph of that chapter says so very clearly. It has nothing to do with your actual room being clean. It's a metaphor for life.
Again, he's simply saying that you should think twice about trying to change the world when your own life is in complete disarray. First, if you can't solve those minor problems, the odds you can efficiently go after a problem like complex world economic systems is slim to none. Then, and I asked this already, if your life is completely fucked up in every possible way. Why should anyone take you seriously about a more complex issue?
You're taking this as something of an order, and not a map. Peterson is saying, if you want to attempt to save the world, here is what I believe to be the most efficient way of doing that.
Honestly, I think you're going off more what people say he says, instead of simply going off what he says directly. People are biased. So, getting as close to the source of the information is crucial. Lest you want to play a game of telephone with the media. Especially on issues like this.
I don't think he's saying you must have your life in perfect order if you want to change the world. I think he's saying, if you want to change the world, here is a good place to begin doing that.
Zisek actually debated this exact point with Peterson for quite a long time during their little meet up. It's not nearly as simply as you want it to be.
John Doe I understand that he isn’t literally saying to clean your room: it’s part of a larger, more abstract “sorting out” of your life, like you said. We don’t disagree on Peterson’s injunction. Where we disagree, and where Zizek had a problem with Peterson, is with this primary emphasis on individual betterment before any sort of social activism.
No one on the Left is saying that people shouldn’t work to improve their lives in the moment and moving into the future. They are saying that political activism is an integral part of “sorting yourself out,” and that since improving yourself to the point where you feel competent enough to change the world is a multi-year, even multi-decade project, political activism (and Peterson would agree with me here - and look at his comment sections when he brings this up) is indefinitely postponed in favor of individualized work. The Left argues that you can walk and chew gum at the same time. For instance, many Peterson fans’ problems are due to being antisocial and avoiding building relationships. A huge swath of the Western world struggles with loneliness and a lack of meaning, as do many Peterson fans. Taking part in a political struggle - which necessarily means joining organizations and building solidarity with others and building new relationships - is a great way to “clean your room.” Political solidarity (and the greater meaning that comes with dedicating yourself to an issue or political movement you believe in), especially in this time, is one of the best ways to build social skills and to find friendship and meaning.
No one is saying to neglect your drug addiction, or to do nothing about your video game usage, or what have you. The point is that too many Peterson fans (and again, you can see this in his comment sections and communities) disparage activism even though it is one of the best ways that you can grow as a person, especially on the grounds of meaning, comraderie, and friendship. Lastly, since improving yourself to the point where you feel like you can competently change the world is such a long process, if everyone improved themselves just on the individual level, nothing would change in our society. I don’t know what your class, race, gender, etc. is, but some people cannot afford to go with the status quo for much longer. Again, this doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do everything you can to improve yourself on the individual level, of course you should. But the implication of Peterson’s rhetoric is that very few people actually have the credentials - psychologically or otherwise - to change the world, which limits mass movements to basically our society’s supermen.
One last thing is that I think this is why most of Peterson’s fans are conservative or right-liberal as opposed to left-wing: his philosophy inherently supports the status quo and disparages mass movements. Just look at how often he rails against activists. As far as I understand, he has never talked about the positive effects of workers movements or any other mass movement (or he very rarely does). This rubs off on people, and it is why Peterson is universally considered to be a conservative thinker on the Left, even if he calls himself a liberal.
(EDIT) And if you self-consciously realize that you aren’t worthy enough to take part in a social movement once you join: quit! Simply as that. At least give it a try and see if your life and psyche is simulteneously improved while you take part in a meaningful movement to you. If you are a reactionary, no one is forcing you to join BLM or the workers movement. Join some anti-abortion group or a BLM counter-protest, or what have you, and see if it improves your life. Understand that you are just one person and that you won’t be making monumental world-historical decisions as being an intern on a political campaign: there is not much reason to worry about being “competent enough.”
Again, I will reiterate that Peterson’s philosophy meshes very easily with reactions against progressivism and makes his supporters confirm their beliefs and stereotypes that activists are stupid, lazy, overly idealistic, and just politically wrong. This is I think the crux of the issue with people on a subconscious level: it’s an intellectualized confirmation of conservatives’ beliefs about progressive social movements, which they feel are misguided for various reasons, some reasons much more defensible than others. You have to see how Peterson’s views breed reaction and complacency, even just because Peterson never, ever says to take part in these “destabilizing” social movements. It all comes down to his personal politics and those of his supporters.
@@danilthorstensson8902 I just don't think it really rules out working on larger, social issues as well. In his words, I think it's more of a hierchy. You can work on both.
@@kension333Peterson, like all reactionaries, is advocating for normalization, so that the individual no longer presents a threat to the social order. By telling people how to live within the context of the current social order, because success is typical a marker of one’s conformity to social trends, he is effectively engaging in anti-revolutionary praxis. Also, it’s somewhat embarrassing how you fail to realize that your interpretation of Peterson’s argument is a clear ad hominem. If someone who doesn’t have their house in order critiques society, why does their personal life have any bearing on the validity of their arguments? It might be true that responsible individuals are necessary for any Revolution to gain traction in a society. People like Lenin were extremely meticulous and conscientious, both in their words and their actions, but it’s also highly dishonest to gloss over the fact that those most critical of society are going to be the ones who find it the most difficult to keep their individual houses in order, precisely because of adverse external conditions.
Why did they not play Peterson's response? Also if they watched the debate they would have noticed that the two agreed on more than they disagreed.
Does anyone in this comment section have a job and not live in their mom’s basement?
Kevin Shipp someone is mad that Peterson was disappointing in this discussion
I work more than full tome and support 3 kids. My family does fine. I don’t want equality for selfish reasons. I want for everyone to have a chance at a quality life. There are plenty of videos of dudes bashing sjw’s fro their moms basements if you just go over to Peterson’s channel.
You are super disgusting kevin grow up
I immediately fall asleep when I hear either of them talk
@@Ay0ubM Omg you're so pretentious lol. Their words bore me.
Hahaha I live in a third world country and I can tell you for a fact that there's no hope of improving situations here unless everyone in this country started to get their individual acts together. Society is comprised of individuals and the members of a society is corrupt, no amount of activism (or democracy or social discourse) is going to make a difference. The reason is because even if (good) people are promoted to a position of power (which some recently have) the same old sh*t happens.
I can totally understand why Peterson promotes the idea of setting your household in order before looking at the bigger problems in the world. The reason is that your household is within your power to set right; the problems of the greater society are only possible to be casually discussed by privileged people like those in this video. People in third world countries struggle to survive, casual chatting of politics and social issues are irrelevant for the majority of the people here. Additionally, prioritizing social issues over personal issues can allow certain people to blame their personal failings on the society as a whole. This is why straightening out yourself is still the best bet even if you lived in a place like North Korea.
If you think any political discourse is going to make a difference in tyrannical countries like North Korea, you've simply taken western prosperity and culture for granted. Dissenters are killed here, without a trial or news coverage. The perpetrators never gets trialed. Peterson understands that civility and tolerance is not the default condition of human societies.
Plenty of you white people are too accustomed to the prosperity of modern western societies that you think political left and right and discussing about theories and ideology is fundamentally accessible and the right thing for everyone in the world to do. No matter, the corona virus has popped your bloated economies and I'm betting most of you privilege people have no idea what is coming. You can tell me about your political leanings, theories and ideology in the coming years when your country devolves back to what 3rd world countries are like. I'm guessing something like hurricane Katrina, but on a national scale, hahaha.
Lol good luck with your revolution of individuals.
@@danilthorstensson8902 good luck with your social activism.
@@siewkimng1085I’m sorry. At what point did they completely dismiss the need for personal responsibility. They said that each one is coessential. They are employing a dialectical method of analysis instead of deductive logic chains, where one draws conclusions by moving from higher-order concepts to subordinate propositions. Also, America’s Covid recovery has been something of a miracle. The dollar is extremely strong, inflation has been curbed, and we completely avoided a recession.
@@michaelsieger9133 hahahaha keep living your dream.
Please give a single example of a person who could be helped in ANY WAY by telling him that the problems of his life are caused by society. Even if the person lives in North Korea.
Had damn this show is bad!
Learn to write. Parade your idiocy later.