Check out these Peterson and Zizek books on Amazon! Peterson's "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief": geni.us/p2e8It Peterson's "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos": geni.us/BPjIIm Zizek's "The Sublime Object of Ideology": geni.us/5lIQ Zizek's "The Relevance of the Communist Manifesto": geni.us/n0zNJ5 Get Two Books FREE with a Free Audible Trial: amzn.to/313yfLe Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259 Checking out the affiliate links above helps me bring even more high quality videos by earning me a small commission! And if you have any suggestions for future content, make sure to subscribe on the Patreon page. Thank you for your support!
the debate was literally called happyiness ''marxism vs capitilism'' (zizek knew this for months) and when dr peterson spoke about how capitilism is not neccessarily good but better than marxism, zizek agreed lol, so how do some people think zizek won lol, he literally agreed marxism is not good, and sorry but marxism was not just about regulation, ....so i dont see zizek defending marxism at all
maxwell my point is atleast jbp actually defended his side of the argument, to which zizek had absolutely no counter argument, and just agreed, ...like, zizek did not defend Marxism at all, it really wasn’t a debate after that just a good conversation,
@@brockcharz2104 because Zizek is not dogmatic and he is an intellectual. Early form of Marxism and early form of capitalism isn't the same. it's more than a hundred years old book... nearly 200.
Zizek identified his position his position as a Hegelian Marxist and made his philosophical lineage clear. Would not have been honest for him to support an untenable position just to achieve points. The crisis of the moment is to great to win a debate for it's own sake.
Identity politics. I support a football team and that fullfills the needs of the primitive clan part of my brain. Hence less likely to be victimized by those peddling pseudointellectual politizised rhetoric packaged in a narrative finitely explaining the world.
It makes sense and I think it is still no worse than MMA fights. It brings deeper thoughts to general public in the same way that MMA brings some ethics to general brawlers.
@@Uplnenejhorsi have you gone to a heated soccer game, those things can get bloody. I think the us vs them sports like tribalism mentality can be very dangerous especially when the "team/political party" that won can dictate how the loser can live
Ugh. 35 seconds in: yawnsville. But Im American and grew up WWF so I'm ready for intellectual bloodbath soon as mayor Zzzz. from snore town stops yappin. I dont even kno who these hockey players are
@@chancellorfoote7961 well at the end the old man delivers a piledriver and throws the tall one straight into the ballroom floor, wailing like a mad cave elf of sorts.. took a minute but it got violent enough 2 👍🏾👍🏾 up
@@somenothing7914 which ones the old one? And who currently holds the title belt? And what's a cave elf, translate that euro-Tolkien nerd speak into American
When someone tries to convince me "There is a light at the end of the tunnel" My answer is "yes, and it is probably another train coming towards us" ~ GOAT Zizek
It's a fun reversal of the metpahro, but there's other turn of phrases that offer more hope. Maybe there's a turn not to far away and once that corner is reached the daylight with become so apparent
@@omardelmar what kind of ignorance and emptiness inhabits your skull, to think that there is something in the known social world you know more about than Slavoj Zizek? He wrote books about Enlightenment and how freedom was used as a conceptual weapon to kill millions since then.
@@ellisholden7247 I don't, I just pointed out that to say that someone doesn't know something about a topic when he wrote entire pieces about it is a blatant show of ignorance.
@@omardelmar hmm, i kindly disagree. I think enlightenment is not meant for happiness. It is meant for peace. Happiness is an emotion; just like sadness. If you base your life on an emotion, you will not fully live it. Life is a mix of all emotions, good and bad. So i think Zizek's meaning of "happiness is a byproduct" is simply stating that happiness is not an achievement, but rather something natural that comes by-which is true. Even if you get enlightened you will have bad days and good days. Enlightenment is by definition an awakening to mother earth. And if you awake you will realize there is nothing to be happy about (especially in these times). If you really think about it, animals are being tortured, people are homeless, inflation is everywhere. And you are telling me that i will be happy by enlightenment. I fear here that by definition, your "enlightenment" means dissociation to me. Enlightenment does not take away pain. Enlightenment is being in peace with all emotions. Happy or sad.
I like the fact that he let it be known, that even though he may disagree with Peterson they are basically brothers in arms in the fight of free thought and speech which gave me a level of respect for the man.
Before the debate started and the applause was off the charts it genuinely looked like Zizek was dying, like the crowd was stabbing a million knives into him
spoken by a truest introvert :) But for the first time in the West I encountered the crazy radical left.I escaped the torturous left in Poland and now heard them clap when Jordan mentioned the millions that were murdered by Stalin. I was terrified; talking about feeling unsafe!
How many times can you say "Marx says X", hear a Marxist say "no, he didn't", then respond "OK, well maybe he didn't exactly say that", before you remember that you haven't actually read Marx? I count 5 times, so far
@@freshrockpapa-e7799 ngl, marx wrote "das kapital" in alien, I tried reading that book for months, everyday, and it is a really, really, REALLY difficult book to understand.
It's Peterson who introduced me to Zizek but I have to admit that Zizek is a beast - insanely amazing thinker of our times. His ability to spice up his strong points with intelligent humor is something else.
Zizek does appear to be a man with a sharp intellect and comes off with a guenuiness. Sadly his jeering fans came off as worst then trump supporters they mock
@@tomwhitworth1560 I sincerely disagree. Peterson to me comes off as more stern and logical, Zizek seems more charismatic, but far, too idealistic and makes points just to reverse the points and say he doesn't support it or defend it, like what he did with China here. He's a philosopher, though, so that is to be expected, but he's not making any REAL points. In fact he mostly agrees with Peterson on many points, he then asks questions of why Peterson thinks of those points ina manner they seems to criticize him and his own defense of said points. To pull a Zizek, don't get me wrong, I. Ery much enjoy listening to him speak just as I do Peterson, he's a splendid writer, too, just Peterson, to me, makes far more sense. Plus, let's not forget the most important facts here; there is a hyper-liberalization being taught in higher level academic, and a start drop in conservative persona views and voices. There is, factually, a censoring of conservative views in all forms of.media right now and academia. The fer left calls STEM racist... There IS Marxist brainwashing occuring in colleges and I would know as I've seen and experienced it first hand. This IS INCREDIBLY dangerous to society and the learning of students. And so much hogwash is getting through to kids in academia this is causing a lot of disruption and disarray.
@@ABrokenSociety What evidence do you have that there is "brainwashing" Academics always argue and pit their points against one another to further refine their ideas and beliefs. That's how academics works. I think you're just upset that almost no academics support a right wing narrative. Just think for a second that this could be to do with something else rather than "brainwashing". Maybe your ideas just do not hold up to scrutiny as well. Peterson is a dude who wrote a book called "rules for life" while heavily addicted to benzos, which immediately raises several red flags about his honesty and intentions also.
I love how Peterson came in with very surface level points, likely to play the crowd and because of the people he is used to debating, and then Zizek comes up and raises the intellectual level to a place where 80% of the crowd doesn't even get what he is talking about. You can see that Peterson is obviously taken aback and has to shift his approach to meet Zizek on a semi-level playingfield. It's nice because for once you get to see debaters stop trying to convince the crowd and actually talk hard about really deeper concepts. I'll be the first to admit how ignorant I felt listening, but that's how you grow intellectually.
Ok fine, but let's be careful. I believe there's an infatuation with people who sound complex (for the mere sake of sounding complex). Let me explain. The confusion with that is if someone sounds more complex, well, they must be more knowledgeable because they've said so much in so much detail. The problem with that is you confuse *complex* with *sophisticated*. Being able to explain issues in a clear and coherent manner is an incredible skill and must not be looked down upon. Just because someone sounds "surface level", doesn't mean they're not 100% speaking truth. "Whatever cannot be said clearly is probably not being thought clearly either." - Peter Singer 2016
@@JessmanChicken86 except Zizek is widely regarded as the greatest philosopher in the world and thats across political beliefs and institutions. Its not just "using big words", he has a genuine understanding of the evolution of capitalist societies that is rarely discussed in the types of debates Peterson does. Theres plenty of topics that are too complex to be distilled into the short oneliners that your average person wants. We are talking about hundreds of years of human history across continents here, if you came expecting a simple answer then you aren't prepared for this level of debate.
@@JessmanChicken86 That's usually the complaint leveraged against Peterson. He's the dumb guy's smart guy, so he's able to punch up his speech to fool his demographic, but it works on no one else.
@@JessmanChicken86 You are actually describing most of Peterson‘s work with your first comment. Much of Peterson‘s newer work is just virtue signaling and vague gesturing
It's a debate, playing to the crowd is what you are supposed to do. The idea is to win over the crowd with your argument with limited time. Zizek's approach to provide an intellectual rebuttal would have lost much of the audience but obviously interested Peterson. This is what great debating is all about and I would love to see a long form discussion between these two, I think that would be extremely interesting.
He's spitting because he's a dishevelled and unkempt tramp who can't wait to abolish his own private property and go and sleep in a hollow log somewhere. Except he's just too busy at the moment writing books and articles and appearing on TV and reaping the financial benefits of capitalism while preaching about a Marxist existence which he is not voluntarily subjecting himself to. It's not even hypocrisy, it's hypercrisy.
@@alicedoors4826 zizek did say that he didn't want the audience cheering them on like it was some sports competition as they would deal with serious topics
@@doctordice2doctordice210 No idea what you're talking about, or trying to say. Bringing a laptop to debate, screams "I'm going to hit up Google when I get into trouble", though. If you're trying to put the substance of Zizek's arguments down on account of his looks or behavior, well - that's not a good look, either, lol. Either way: Peterson is a charlatan, and this debate was emblematic of that, to the point it continues to convert Peterson fans into Zizek ones, and stops people from listening to him immediately, to this day. I'm totally sympathetic to the arguments Jordan made surrounding the issue that gained him his fame, with the pronoun language law in Canada - but the man wrote about "getting your house in order", personal responsibility, self-control, etc., all while he taking enough benzodiazepines daily to put down an elephant. That really says it all.
@@JET7C0 I had just started listening to Peterson and agreeing with many things he said, until I saw this debate and the one with Sam Harris about god where he literally just rambles with no substance in his words. After that, I realized how ridiculous many of his arguments are, especially his political ones.
@@alyssajchase Great, and I'm glad - as if to further prove my point, right into the present: Peterson literally came out with a video very recently, after getting a big infusion of cash from a Trump 2024 campaign donor suggesting, I kid you not, that his distance, seeming indifference and even rudeness/distain towards his own supporters and "so-called everyday people" is actually _evidence he cares a great deal for them,_ because otherwise, _"it'd be too painful for him"_ to let his apparently massive empathy for the common man overwhelm him. To put it plainly: he's a fool if he truly thinks so, but much more likely is that Peterson is a craven hack who's just dancing for his uber-wealthy puppet masters, cucked by the very capitalism and hierarchies he worships, lol. I feel bad for the often working class, early twenty-something crowd of men that get into him, often because they're already coming from a vulnerable socioeconomic situation, and difficult home lives, only to be manipulated into giving views to, and enriching him. (One additional aside: he's continued to maintain, despite being _utterly wrong,_ neurologically-speaking, about something he insisted was true in his book re: lobsters and serotonin.)
I feel 90% of all audiences don't really care what the heck ideology they are talking about but applause just because they like or hate someone or finally hear a word that they understand.
Does everyone adhering to a ideology need to understand every nuance of it? If so, why? And how could that ever be the case, in a global sense? If your goals are to pander to all of humanity's intellectualism, and CONVINCE them through logic, you're never gonna get far
Oh deciphering his BS through his quacking and accent, I hear what he's saying, and a lot of it's bullcrap. Peterson comes from a point of actually understanding people from years as a clinical specialist, while Zizek is going off about what an ideal action from people would be only for Peterson to counter with experience with humans and human nature. Zizek can only retort with a false argument of appealing to the crowd. He's argues in circles.
@@somerandomguyfromtheintern480 human nature is far more complex than empirical evidence is able to argue for, this is why it's left up to the philosophers and theorists to decipher, and not the scientists.
No it’s not it’s just 2 dudes who went to university and built a following by speaking for lonely and socially awkward guys by feeding them anti-women and “it’s not your fault you don’t have a date” rhetoric
@@rasenpapi5653 What ? Many womens enjoy what these men have to say. This is an intellectual discussion. Stop it with your personal agenda. You are just wrong.
@@rasenpapi5653 greatly worded just horrendously wrong people. Maybe you could take this up with your socially awarded angst towards anything and anyone that leads you to be so ignorant.
LMAO at him saying Marx wasn’t trained to “think about thinking.” He was literally a student of Hegel who is primarily known for his ideas on thought processes, most famously the dialectic.
Marx studied under Bruno Baur, not Hegel. Marx is not, point in fact, a student of Hegel. Bruno was, but, heh, Bruno didn't teach people to think about thinking.
Lmfao that doesnt mean Marx could think. Literally read the dribble. Any dumbass can slide their way through these indoctrination machines. Moreso today than ever.
@Coom Lord xxxxxxxdixxxxxxîxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxîxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
@Coom Lord I like Peterson a lot but after the first statement Zicek it felt like a student were overwhelmed and thought his thoughts were fucking great
i'm actually better at debating in a second language, sounds like a brag but is kinda intuitive when you think about it; you get a more impersonal and disembodied relation to the language. i'm way more rambly and hedge-y in my mother's tongue
I can debate better in English (my second language) than in Spanish (first language) because my Spanish is mostly colloquial and my education since high school has all been in English. I trip over myself a lot when trying to use any proper academic terms in Spanish because most times I don't even know them.
@@ethanadamrose580 That's pretty bonkers, but I don't have such a hard time believing it. My French teacher speaks 4 languages (English, Spanish, French and Korean) and he's barely pushing 30, so I can see this dude knowing 5 or even more at his age for sure. Mad respect.
@@carlmart5797 had a similiar teacher! impressive that they chose to learn korean too, it's very impressive when someone is a polyglot in different language groups :-) Žižek is a philosophy scholar, and I know that many of them learn languages to better understand the original works. Esp considering he's a Hegel scholar
Zizek is A Marxist. But he does not represent all Marxism, similarly to how Peterson does not represent his moral and ethical stances. But just because Peterson might not have a problem with Zizek in particular, that does not mean he can't have a problem by Marxism NOT represented by Zizek.
@@BS-cc4ksand Zizek and those like Zizek, who apparently criticize and denigrate him, are in positions of power all over universities and governments yes? Where are the Marxists?
@@BS-cc4ks Have you really seen or talked to a true Marxist, in US, you would have a hard time finding one. Most Marxists I know just think the "neo-marxist" types as a result of post Cold-War political non-existence. The Soviets failed, the capital succeeded to topple down the resistence, and the intelectuals started to shift into post modernism to amalgamate themselves with capitalist system. They'd not take Peterson's so called adversaries as marxists anyway
That hardly says nothing! What exactly are you saying? You sound like a parrot! You heard someone say that; and you thought it sounded cool right? Whatever dude. On one hand, there could be a situation where the majority are wrong. On the other hand, the majority could be 100% correct. Leaving this stupid phrase as no formula for the truth. So what does this phrase you spew actually mean? Not a fuckin thing! Facts is where the truth appears. You won't find it in opinions.
@@freddyferrillo9704 this short statement shows that the amount of people cheering for something is independent of its validity. as simple as that. its often times used when someone thinks he is right because he has the majority.
What annoys me the most about the crowd is how sure of themselves they are. I’ve listened to this debate 6 times and still have difficulty fully understanding half the topics they talked about
@Karl Quetzacoatl I think it's more of a personal issue I have. I'm fairly introverted so I can't really imagine the headspace one has to be in to demonstrate how much they agree with an opinion on a complex topic aloud to the wider world, especially when it seems it doesn't really mean anything to do so.
Could it also be that the majority of people at this lecture actually understand the topics being discussed and you feel it's not possible since you needed to listen to it a few times to understand it's content? It could be that they process it faster. Everyone's different
Imagine thinking Marx never mentioned nature or man’s relationship with it. Lmao, it’s funny to think that Peterson thought he was gonna blow everyone’s mind with that “revelation.”
@@axelanderson2030he said that it’s hard to define people into groups and say one is better than another. Maybe power turns people corrupt and the lower class isn’t full of people who are completely good
It sounds like this debate was promoted as some kind of competition and the crowd came in wanting to support their side of the argument like they would a football match?
"He has a degree in philosophy from the university of Ljubljana" Crowd: YEEEEEAAAAHHHH WOOOhoooOO WOW YEAH!! 2:54 That's the exact moment Zizek realised what he has gotten himself into
@@TheAlison1456 Because it applies a factor of social approval / disapproval, of a popularity contest. Not necessarily for the debaters but the audience. Because audiences tend to trust the opinion of the masses rather than stand against popular opinion. Therefore there's an inclination to agree with the masses even if it's wrong.
@@TheAlison1456 if you have ever seen the inside of a actual university, you should be aware that that's just not the right moment to cheer and applaud. You make yourself look like a absolute ding-dong. It's a debate, not a wrestling death match. You sit down and listen. But that's the result of fucking online culture and "political" "debates" on youtube. It's only about flashy rhetoric gestures and OWNING people.
Ohhhh guess why the majority is leftist?! Socialists have been seen as "thinkers" because the only way to pleased their public by convincing socialism is good, is by using words or being a character. Easy for Jordan. He is clear and right by using facts.
You can see how uncomfortable zizek gets when the crowd cheers for him. He’s is completely detached he’s from the shouting match politics has become, and just wants to write books in his apartment 😭
I believe that is what Zizek comments to the moderator and Peterson when he pulls of his microphone at the end; how he is happy they all survived the ordeal and it is nonsense people are ecstatically cheering intending perhaps to humiliate. I think perhaps Zizek was cautious as to how the public confrontation could have endangered their public careers or produced intense emotive outcomes. This follows his point that both speakers are very popular, but academically very marginal. This popularity has led them to participate in a debate where they are pitted as a boxing match, polar opposites, enemies, etc. In a way this puts their precarious position on display; they are in the end entertainers, not 'proper' academics. At the core I believe Zizek simply wants to spread his message and make money doing what he wants to do, and does not particularly wish ill for Peterson. However, the popular 'sides' they have come to represent often do wish ill on the other (and both would see this as part of their legitimate conflicts); I believe that sensing this is why Zizek was at times uncomfortable and why he restated his message of 'don't act, but think!' and closed his statement addressing the left about not playing easy games. I think Zizek would advise for the left not to play the easy game of laughing at Peterson for always fighting his straw-man Marxist enemy, and for holding on to these regressive ideals without coming to terms with their obvious flaws, but instead to ask the question why it is that such a perhaps bankrupt position has become so popular, and why the left has not yet succeeded in getting through to these people, despite pointing out this bankruptcy clearly (as Zizek did by trying to explain how Ideology eats at some of the core claims of Peterson, exposing the problems within Peterson's grand narrative). I believe Zizek would argue the left also has no true 'big' answers yet, so the task is to think. Considering the dangers of Ideology he points out, at least this is a benign pursuit. In other places, not really in this video, Zizek argues that certain authoritarian influences of certain new phenomena in our society (bioengineering can lead to control, the digital ecosystem developing 'Big Tech', etc) requires a dedicated struggle by highly specialized people against its worst outcomes. And for these specialists to understand their task, the society requires a collective understanding of these tasks, which in turn requires a critique of Ideology, so society as a whole must allow for more rethinking and analysis. This is where he differs also from Peterson, who does not insist upon or emphasize this quest of collective rethinking, instead focusing on guiding and pushing the individual struggle with responsibilities and perhaps allowing for 'science' to facilitate this process. His position is a lot more optimist. It is here where I believe Zizek would argue that he misses how Ideology can perturb that advice that Peterson would give. Without this critique, you will mistake the light at the end of the tunnel for the oncoming train.
I love how all the comments are obsessing over their shared hatred for the audience. But let's be real. If we could "convert" TH-cam comments into a live performance, this audience would be a pretty good representation.
He speaks to this that his strategy for this "debate" was not to debate Peterson at all really, rather he wanted to show that what many are concerned with in the alt right are also concerns on the left, and that often the supposed left the right is fighting is a created shadow which belongs solely to the right
Yes, and I've seen a ton of other people saying the same. Peterson basically debated himself out of a chunk of adherents to his own ideas following them and Zizek gained a whole new audience, lol. I found a post on the Peterson subreddit where a guy said that after this debate, he just couldn't take him seriously anymore - that he was also disappointed Peterson literally just read the Communist Manifesto, and despite railing on Marxism or so-called "postmodern neo-Marxism" admitted he'd never read _a word of Marx_ until that debate, etc.
Jordan: no actually, there's a deviish snake in the sovietic view awaiting the time to bloody strike Slavoj: I dishagree buth you can'tch shimplify the shhrrrrovietic view- ... oh my ghod... there'sh Shpit all over the floor... Crowd cheers*
Peterson does not understand how to have serious discourse. Everybody is correct about the obtuse audience. I was hoping for a serious discourse to make Peterson look like the Bozo he is
@@stella3265 Yes, it seemed as though Peterson was expecting something completely different to be argued by Zizek. Sometimes he appeared surprised by Zizek's positions, as if he hadn't researched him very well.
@TREX LEX He has already the respect of millions. He was under an insane amount of stress - his wife was dying of cancer - he leaned on a commonly prescribed medication too hard. It is not necessary to insult such a great man who has sacrificed himself into the fire of leftism. No one is perfect.
@TREX LEX I do listen to what he says a lot .. and it a ll makes sense to me... It's very logical and conclusive and follows along with what's happening i n society. What are you on about? He's not preying on anyone, if he was preying on people, why would he "prey on us" enough to the point of needing benzodiazepine addiction to manage the stress of his life? He never claims to be perfect, life is imperfect by nature. I forgive him and he should forgive himself. What exactly is your issue here? That he was momentarily a hypocrit or something? That's not really a condemnable crime - i'm not into not listening to someone who is quite clearly motivating people who have no purpose or path in life - people don't just show up dumb and stupid, they show up because society and our parents and our education failed us. And he is filling in the gaps where they should have told us the cold hard truth about reality to prepare us for how awful it is. Honestly his lectures make me a bit depressed because he is so stern and honest about what he is describing that it often hits very hard. We don't always want the truth, many of us just want a sugar caoting sometimes but we need to know what we are missing and why society is behaving this way, why we as human beings behave this way. Why feminism is tricking women and empowering slut behavior for example - I needed to know that. I was, no I am, a filthy whore. I'm far past my prime, and men don't want me and I was always taught to just throw my body out there because it was supposed to be empowering and it was what men wanted. It isn't what men want at all. They want a partner they can respect. I didn't understand that until he said it . How is this taking advantage of my stupidity? He's literally just improving my stupid whore brain. It's sad, that i'm not going to be able to fulfill my own DNAs directive to be a mother... and it should be sad, because it was a part of my purpose that always felt like it was supposed to be there but I was always pushed in the other direction and told to wait and wait and wait and I waited to long, early onset menopause is a thing. And now I'm worthless in the dating realm... it's really shocking and hard to hear it but I needed to hear it. I needed to hear why men were just ... not sticking around... kicking me out the next day... because they don't want a older unfertile partner, they want a young fertile one, and I was stupid and misguided and young and dumb and thought what I was doing was good. And it's not that it isn't momentarily pleasurable still... its just that there has always been that hole in my soul missing ... and I needed to know why. He answered it so I thank him even if its too late for me and it makes me cry... I'm sorry your so angry at him for whatever reason. But I don't understand what your trying to say. Anxiety medication is highly addictive it operates on the same neurochemistry ethyl alcohol does, and its withdrawal is severely worse - so when you have a problem with it you actually do need to get legit medical help because Benzo withdrawal can cause quite deadly seizures due to the configuration of the GABA receptor units it binds to. We all make mistakes... it doesn't make everything he says wrong... hell.. i'm making mistakes with drugs right now, just to feel better cus writing this was sad... we're all just trying to feel bettter man, we want answers so we seek them out and he seems to provide a lot of legitamate ideas as to the failures of our society and its structure and how to deal with it. As a pharmacologist/biologist I can confirm his biological understanding of it is correct - we are serotonin based creatures, so are lobsters and all mammals are as well. That's why we test all our pharmaceuticals on mice and rats, because we can measure things like hope, and fairness in rats and mice - complex emotions and social structures and hierarchies are quite clear in their behaviors - we can make them swim longer and harder and give up less in an inescapable bucket of water with anti depressants, the forced swim test. Anti depressants provide a sincere feeling of hope that alleviates the rumination of depression and restores your mind to a stable state where you work on your self and not be bombarded with thoughts of suicide... :3
TREX LEX Listening to Dr Peterson helped me to deal with my anxiety; if this isn’t helpful in your world that is your prerogative. Sure he can get caught up in his thoughts but that’s a lot of knowledge to sift through in conversation. I don’t buy everything he talks about but that’s not the idea - even if it were one thing that you could relate to as an individual in need of guidance that could change your entire approach to life would you not put value on that? How much would it be worth to have a new sense of dealing with anxiety that has kept you back in life and now you can go out with increased confidence and overcome it? I’d say that’s worth its weight in gold. Then again, as Dr Peterson says, “don’t throw pearls to swine.”
@matteowinandy9027 being so poor that your access to basic needs is either very unstable, or not met. Primarily In the examples where said needs could be met if those in need simply had enough money.
To all those who are clapping. Someone is not less or more right about what is true because you applaud less or more. Just stop clapping, and listen and think instead.
@@ЏонМастерман Ok, and in capitalist society the subways, the streets, house facades and the internet is filled to the brink with messages that tell us what to think - ads. Ads everywhere with pictures of smiling people that say: Smile! Dont worry about politics! Shop more stuff! You will be happy if you shop more products! Dont forget to take your depressions pills! Fucking indoctrinated zombie. Thats what you are
I've spent the last two weeks reading a few different books by Zizek, listening to some of his lectures, watching his movie on ideology, and trying to understanding his perspective (including understanding how Lacan and Hegel influence his ideas), and my god, it adds layers upon layers of depth and meaning to everything he's saying and trying to condense and explain over this short back and forth. In some ways, Zizek and Peterson do agree, but they way they articulate it is much different and Zizek seems to understand more deeply the root of the antagonisms Peterson is trying to articulate.
it’s a great period of our lifetime as humans, when you can witness that philosophy is back in style like in the greek era. The people see these two guys as rockstars. Poetry and philosophy need this, even if people might find the crowd brutish and rude. I think it’s good to know that loud people are listening to this kind of rational thinking.
Despite me heavily disagreeing with both of these men, I can’t deny this was enjoyable to watch to some degree. There are greater minds imo and they’re probably some 30 some old person who reads philosophy and literature all day everyday day. Writes pieces in obscurity. They are not rockstars, because fame deteriorates mans ego. Regardless of intelligence, self-awareness, or humility.
@@chelronin7843 I also largely disagree with both them on multiple topics, however it is undeniable that these man have fame, anyone that's genuinely interested in philosophy should be happy that an entry level exists and its as popular as having 1.9 Mi viewers
@@knowneast5770 the communist manifesto is a short pamphlet for barely literate 19th century workers. Not some grand encapsulation of communist theory and socialist critique lol
The fact that Jordan's opening statement is essentially "I looked at this guys books but he wrote way too many of them so instead I'm going to take my whole first 30 minutes to attack one of the first texts of his ideology with the most mainstream and unoriginal arguments against it." Says a lot
This is a debate about Marxism so he went through then Marxist manifesto, that makes perfect sense. You were expecting him to read all of zizeks books in the space of a few weeks?
@@velenvskaelhas yes, I expect this subhuman hack to at least have read one of Zizek's books. Notice how my issue was that Peterson used 30 minutes of unoriginal, generic, anecdotal, debunked nonsense about communism, his reference to the manifesto has little to do with it. Though I didn't expect much, I wanted to see why my oponents view this guy as smart. The consensus still seems to be "he uses big words to say the dumb shit I believe." So, as an actual intelligent person, I think I'll leave his drivel where it belongs.
If you're in a debate about Marxism, then its sort of pertinent to read the mans books, or at least the basics of his philosophy, the German ideology or das capital for instance. The manifesto is a 30 page dumbed down basics for barely literate factory workers, and astonishing that Peterson even misunderstood that. @@velenvskaelhas
this isn't a debate on the specifics of the communist manifesto alone, its a debate on the wider marxist ideology, which is only scratched upon in the manifesto@@velenvskaelhas
Everything Zizek said in the opening was derivative of some other persons work. I have heard it all before and never heard of Zizek. His entire opening was a random collection of claims entirely irrelevant to the debate topic of Marxism vs. Free Market Capitalism. In fact, several of his unoriginal claims came from pro-capitalist sources. He conceeded the entire debate to Peterson by admitting Marxism was inferior.
@@selahanany5645 Isn't that like saying so-and-so isn't a traditional nazi? So what? A worse kind of marxist apologist. An insincere one. He is a marxist deprecating marxist. Essentially a hypocrite.
@@paoloernesto2591 I don't think you'd have trouble composing a long text that gives the same impression, so stop selling yourself short, it's not flattering. Also, you'll get used to Zizek's accent. Once you get past the lisp and the unapologetically slavic pronunciation he's actually speaking really cleanly.
@@michaelgraflmusic After listening to Zizec for some time, I understand him better. In fact his accent is quite similar to the Brazilian one. Many people even say that something in Portuguese resembles Eastern European languages. (I'm 🇧🇷)
Zizek appeared to be obnoxiously overbearing. Way out of his leage with Pettersen, who is well informed, extremley literate, and last but not least a very compasionate person. I wanted to to listen to the publics Q & A, I just couldn't bear Zizeks obnoxious rudnes in stealing time (lots) until the point where he finally realized he was dead in the water. Pettersen 10, Zizek 0 he( did not effektivley win one single point. In my opinion.
@@donaldolsen9571 Zizeks accomplishments speak for themselves, for a person that had read the communist manifesto to criticize an entire ideology is like reading a childrens book to criticize a literary movement. I think what you actually mean is that Petterson is more commercialable and quite structured on a public platform than Zizek is, and thats because Petterson is an influencer, a psycologist who thrived in his career due to his contraversial and preexisting takes on sensitive topics and became a public figure whilst Zizek is an academic, a person that has dedicated his life to understand theory and contribute so much to the scientific community. If you think Petterson made any reasonable remarks in this debate then this means you lack the basic understanding of simple arguments made in this video.
And yet, none of you could even spell Peterson's name correctly, so there's that. That aside, I didn't see anyone being obnoxious but rather intellectually honest and willing to explore ideas.
@@leedsdrumacademy So spelling his name incorrectly makes my point invalid? It pisses me off that people are criticizing Zizek just because of the way he talks and acts whilst having not even a basic understanding of what they are talking about. It's exactly the same people in the audience that are acting like it's some kind of MMA match.
He said everyone will be out of poverty by a certain year thanks to capitalism, then said that by out of poverty he means above $1.90 a day, as if that's a liveable wage LMAO. Baffles me that anyone takes him seriously 😭
@@platos23baffles me that you live such a privileged life relative to the avg human and are so ignorant of history that you can’t see how amazing that is.
Implying he's merely naive is far too kind to the snake Peterson. He's not naive. He's a liar profiting off of defending the status quo that made him rich and famous, just like the rest if the Capitalists.
I love how JP started his bit by sprinkling his speech with obvious honeypots that are supposed to trigger Zizek to waste his time arguing against, only for Zizek not to play and read his opening from a script.
You seem to be confused... Peterson doesn't "lay out honeypots", he's just doing a 30 minute short lecture on the gaps in Marxist theory. He's not even attacking anything Zizek says; he admitted his preparation with Zizek's work was essentially impossible due to the volume of his work and the time allotted. Why don't you continue burning down Greece and leave the thinking to the adults. (If Peterson had presented his preliminary argument 2nd, you'd accuse him of avoiding Zizek's statement by sticking to a prepared script.) Debates work in an orderly manner, maybe you're not familiar with the format.
Hah... this audience is so stupid. Zizek's first three statements: "I am being attacked by leftists due to my critique of LGBT ideologies" -- crickets, audience doesn't know how to react "China is a great success" -- crickets "Humans always sabotage their own happiness, they don't know what's good for them!" -- WHOOPS AND HOLLERS FROM THE STUDENTS! ROFL, this is all egghead technical gobbledygook, juuuust like the majority of continental philosophy. It's only for disaffected eggheads who relish in the sadness of their own failures and think burning the world down is a proper dialectical solution.
It's very interesting that Jordan opens by telling us how he struggled to read the communist manifesto. He had a whole existential crisis about how to read a book properly.
I thought it was a little bit weird but not particularly awkward. Is there something about Zizeks degrees that I’m missing or were you just saying that the audience should shut up (which I agree with)?
As an Iranian I would like to remind you of how lucky you are to be able to listen to two great minds debating on such important topics. It was my dream to attend one of the debates of Christopher Hitchens and I never got the chance. I know I may never get the chance to see Professor Dawkins or Dr. Peterson too. Don't be so vain to interrupt them with untimely laughs when they're trying so hard to remain focused and analyze everything...
Happiness cannot be found. It cannot be created. We spend and contort all for happiness. Like Dr. Viktor Frankl said, “...happiness comes only as a by product of living a meaning-full life.” If you want to be happy, live a meaning centered life and happiness will come.
Im being told; an I think shown; we are manifesting the world around us. So I begin to wonder if the belief in a balance of unhappiness an happiness an the belief in death an disease are not the actions which create them an prevent us from a return to paradise
@@UncleTehrarist all men are plagerizing. There is nothing new to a large extent. Can't wait for a new Wesley snipes blade movie even tho it's gonna be the 100,000th vampire story
I uploaded it in 4K too, but for some reason the 4K option isn't available yet. I always make sure to try to fix any video and audio issues for my uploads and have the best possible quality.
@@egontokessy1610 I tried my best to upscale the video to HD too. The video took like 55 hours to render, which makes me upset that there's no 4K option to watch yet.
Zizek's disdain for the praise had me rolling. The man just loves to talk about ideas and the intro was boring him. Jordan's Pause when he said "the bloody violent revolution and the overthrowing of existing social structures" and the crowd cheers was very telling that a lot of people just didn't get it. He couldn't hide his frustration with the crowd on that one.
@@chouayabdelali21 the wrong part is that China had massive success in the past 25 years but is was despite its autoritharian (formerly communist) system not because of it. Especially in the recent 5-10 years one can see how aweful the centralised part works. In the wake the mortgage crisis in 2009 exports tanked and to keep their face up so the people do not rebel they continued to push for high growth but with a system that is unsustainable 30% of their GDP today is the national real estate market - double to triple compared to western countries the value of a property in china has risen so that a standard apartment in a big citry is 50 times the yeearly wage of a normal working person compare that to like expensive US cities where it is 10 times the wage which is already a catastrophe No - china had success when they abolished communism and centralised decision making and now face problems again since they slide back into a dictatorship
@@1337Jogiwrong you can look at China and India both formerly centralised now free markets. The only difference being one is a democracy and the other is a authoritarian. Democracies are inefficient.
@@AllThatsLeft24first of all, inefficient is too strong of a word, lets say less efficient but u have to ask yourself why, because they care about people and their rights, u cant just commande people to go and build something unlike in autoritharian regimes
"When somebody tries to convince me that in spite of all the problems there is a light at the end of the tunnel my instant reply is yes and it's probably another train coming towards us." 1:10:40
I think he stole that line from Terry Pratchett (The Pratchett quote was something like "Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a flamethrower")
What's impressive is that English for Slavoj Žižek is 3rd or maybe even 4th language. Slovenian native language, Serbo-Croatian 2nd language. Depending on what school he went to he could have studied either English or German
Its amazing that 2.5 hours of deep philosophical discussion can fill theaters, have 3M youtube views, 12K comments and even people cheering in the public
TH-cam can be absolutely amazing sometimes. I grew up in the pre-internet days and can only imagine how it would have affected my childhood being able to watch content like this!
It was so wonderfully refreshing to watch two people debate while also making a strong effort to find common ground, makes jokes, and show respect for each other
It's a shame western society is not more thoroughlly encouraged at all educational and societal levels to think critically and be original but instead to become mouth peices for someone else's thoughts. This was a superb example of what can happen if two rational, emotionally intelligent people actually listen to the other without crying out some diatribe, emotionally charged drivel. Excellent.
Not clear from your comment which one you believe is the superior. But by the phrasing, ie. "someone" referring to that there's more than one / not that unique or full name for Peterson but not for Zizek - showing your familiarity with the latter caused you to distance him less, I assume you mean that Zizek > Peterson. If so, I'd disagree. Don't mistake Peterson's recent mainstream fame for him having mainstream ideas. Both great gentlemen.
@@WeatherGuruOSRS Clearly they meant Zizek is the superior intellectual. Jordan Peterson is the ''poor man's'' intellectual (as someone quite fittingly put it).
@@Rachel59435 I don't think he is, Peterson just became more mainstream and is capable of expressing himself in such way that more people can listen. Also, Peterson is much more active on visual media, hence attracting more. Being more niche, doesn't make what you say any more superior.
@@WeatherGuruOSRSthe guys a moron (I’m talking about jordan peterson) he can hardly read the things he wrote without having a near mental breakdown, also he doesn’t know what a milestone is
No disrespect, but this is probably the most immature audience that I came across. People, this is an intellectual debate that supposes to keep emotional behaviors out as much as possible. Hearing this audience "clap" at every single word of the intro is really childish. Things like, "Zizek is a professor of Philosophy" and the clap and noise begin! Wow.
Being Liberal.. is rooted in self image. They *have* to clap. Its Ego Stroking. If they were honest, it would defeat the purpose of being Liberal. Theres a reason Jordan Petersen is a Scientist, and Slavoh Zizek is a Philosopher. One is based in Critical Thinking, the other uses Subjective Reasoning.
Not only claps but cheers as well. I mean one thing is to clap in recognition of the achievements. Another thing is to blindly hype up the theater with loud and obnoxious cheers for everything that sounds even remotely intellectual. The crowd was annoying.
To be a fan of JP you have to be somewhat childish/infantile Mr ‘Tidy your room’ / Mr ‘Get treatment for addiction in RU because JP is a hack and talks the talk but can’t walk the walk’ Ask him if Canadian healthcare is better than the USA (he freezes like a deer in headlights every time )
This is the first time i watched this. I was able to follow Peterson's opening statement while looking through the comments, it was... embarassing. Zizek has me like a fish on a hook, struggling to chew everything he is throwing out. Eager to see how this develops, phenomenal.
That's just Zisek, his work is similarly hard to digest. I don't think that Petersons opening statement is necessarily embarrassing. He may not have much experience with Marxism, but his background in human psychology is leveraged to powerful effect. Certainly, his statement that Marx did not appear to account for the hierarchies present in the natural world is not to be ignored. How can we account for the fact that class dynamics exist in organisms as simple as ants? It poses the dangerous proposition that Marx sought to offerthrow human biology itself. I wouldn't say this is embarrassing, rather an insightful and succinct point on the psychology of a Marxist perspective.
To everyone talking about how Zizek "lost" the argument when he says china is a success story. Clearly this "success" is meant to be in capitalism terms.He explicitly terms it a dangerous phenomenon how nowadays democracy is not required for capitalism to flourish. Authoritarianism has successfully adapted to it. This is why he's of the opinion that we should aim for some sort of limitations in the capitalist structure
Great point. We must not let fear get in the way of entertaining ideas like this. You can think about this critically without betraying your own thoughts on the matter. Although, we should respect when a mind like this mulls over a problem like this for our benefit. They have the mental discipline to constantly retool their ideas. Methodical thought is time consuming and most don't engage in this behavior. Appreciating thinkers that deconstruct the world is paramount. Even if we disagree. Especially if it causes an emotional reaction within us. Those are the greatest moments for growth.
Yes, Zizek said China has elevated millions into the middle class via capitalism but the problem is China is beyond authoritarianism, they combine hard core communism with capitalism. In addition to being the worst human rights violators on the planet they just killed 4.5 million people (and counting) then shut down any serious inquiry into the Wuhan lab. In that way the Chi-Coms haven't changed very much since Mao's great famine of 1960. President Panda of China is just as evil. Unfortunately sellouts like Google and Zoom help the Chi-Coms limit what the average Chinese person can know and share with each other in a chat room.
Why would it be a circus? They were clearly enjoying an intellectual conversation, and there's nothing wrong with that. There were, most likely, people in the crowd who did not cheer nor applaud when they liked something (and I suppose you would fall into that category), but that doesn't mean that they are doing something wrong, and the passionate crowd is not doing something wrong either. Different people enjoy things in different ways.
This is a fascinating discussion to listen to post-pandemic and amid massive inflation. Slavoj’s pessimism for the economic system amid hardship is on point.
@@sashamacdonald4278 China is having a housing crisis multiple times worse than our 2010 crash. The current housing issue in the US was/is directly caused by the government. Has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. The government printed trillions of dollars in 2020 and 2021. Trump and Biden did this. The result is the highest inflation in 40+ years. Home builders have built too few new homes every year for the past 10 years greatly because it is so expensive and time consuming because of government over regulation. This caused a shortage and drove up prices. Free government money drove up prices further. Low government interest rates drove prices up as well. Then the government tried to fix their mistake by hiking interest rates and dropping the housing market through the floor. Every single problem can be directly tied to our incompetent government.
Oh my goodness, they are so polite to each other that it just melts my heart. They oppose each other in such a fine manner. If only all could agree/disagree so delicately and lightly.
Its what happens when 2 truly intellectual people try to have a civil debate about big ideas. Most of the “ugly” debates are generally people actively trying to make the other look bad, ad hominems, manipulating with strawmans, and aggressively pushing their ideology upon another. We need more people to have dialogues just like this.
@@BingoBangoBongoBOOM I think you put it perfectly, when you said "two ´truly´ intellectual people" because they both aknowledge the fact that they might be wrong and the other might be right. Doing so they are set on the same playingfield: They both seek truth but know they can only move on by falsification not by bragging about their ideology.
Usually, I don't comment on TH-cam posts like this one but I have to address the crowd. In an intellectual debate like this one, you have to stay quiet to understand what these two gentlemen are talking about unless you yourself are a philosopher who has a deep understanding. Cheering for the PhDs or just their persona is just ridiculous and shows that they view this debate not as an opportunity to learn something but rather as a battle of which is more intelligent or well-spoken ...
The people crowd just cheer when they hear a word or two that they think they understand and which reflects their chosen identity in the echo chambers that are their skulls.
It was a fine symposium and took me a few days just to get through it as Dante would say spirits rose and a heat of zeal surged. I can imagine Bill Nye, Noam Chomsky and Stephen Fry sharing some amazing insights. Unfortunately the crowd and the thumbnail is a true reflection of today's society.
People should learn that cheering during a debate shows that you really don't care for the debate but instead are only there to hear people uphold your beliefs and it really troubles me since it should instead be a time for listening and reflection upon one's own beliefs but also time to learn which sadly the audience doesn't feel the same
I am genuinely surprised and impressed that I watched 2 and a half hours of theoretical discussion and was actually RIVETED the entire time. I deeply, deeply wish that these were what played on 24 hour networks. And I am convinced we would all be better if they were.
It is available for FREE on TH-cam. Attempting to Force this type of Content to be consumed by the Masses may be considered a Paradox akin to the phrase “too much Information can be a bad thing”. Debates like these are viewed often-times by Individuals forced by Academic Pressures or those with a Genuine Desire to Consume, Absorb or Understand such High-Level Intellectual Discourse.🎓🎓🎓💯💯💯
The next stage after being "riveted" is to apply the mental tools you received from this exchange into figuring out for yourself why your proposed world is not the world we actually have. Grab yourself a rivet gun and put those rivets to good use! You are proposing an alternate course of human nature. How deep is the cut required to reshape the human project into your speculative configuration? What human neurological or social tissue receives the knife? What else would necessarily also change? And the kicker: Is your own laziness in not addressing these questions yourself under your own steam not merely the same thing that keeps others glued to CNN and Fox News playing out on a more abstract chess board? You've supplied a fantasy with no analysis. The difference from where I'm sitting is not obvious.
@@afterthesmash While I would love to change human nature - including my own, I think the words attributed to Lao Tzu when responding to Confucius ring most true: ( something to the effect of) if human nature is a certain way, no amount of books or laws will change that... The gist of Lao Tzu's meaning is that the more things change, the more they stay the same - humans still act rather primitively and tribally and the comments under this video about the silly reactions of the audience seems to prove exactly that. heck, some of the comments themselves prove that. Living your life as an example is the best way to teach or lead others. But, maybe that is what you were saying in so many words.
"The best things on television are its junk, and no one and nothing is seriously threatened by it. Besides, we do not measure a culture by its output of undisguised trivialities but by what it claims as significant. Therein is our problem, for television is at its most trivial and, therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important cultural conversations. The irony here is that this is what intellectuals and critics are constantly urging television to do." Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business In other words, if you're looking for important and intellectual information on TV, you're doing it wrong and it will most likely be turned into a water downed form of entertainment.
I love how Jordan's entire arguments against Marx is basically accusing Marx of not thinking about things he literally studied extensively and had mentioned many times in his writing.
"I only read a single pamphlet, so I don't know what Marx thinks about this, so I made up what I think Marx thinks about this, and its terrifying!" "Marx thinks the bourgeois are evil and the proletariats are good." No he doesn't. "Marx never considered man's fight with nature." Yes he did. "Marx never explained how a communist society would become hyper-productive." Yes he has. And my personal favorite: "If you exploit your workers, you won't get the maximum value out of them." "Getting the maximum value out of something (or someone)" is the literal definition of "exploit." This sentence is self contradictory. It's like saying: if you murder someone, you can't kill them. Nothing Peterson says about Marx or Marxism is true. By his own admission he relies heavily on inference. He doesn't know what Marx wrote because, again by his own admission, he has only read The Communist Manifesto. Given that many of the things Peterson states are left unexplained by Marx are, in fact, explained in the Manifesto, he clearly didn't read it that thoroughly. How Peterson, or his critique of Marxism, can be taken seriously after this, I don't know.
fr! it is insane that peterson was not laughed off of the stage during his opening remarks. in addition to just generally structuring his argument poorly and lying to the audience “i will explain; here is a tangent; i have explained” he in each of his points admits a total lack of knowledge on the topic. falsehood after falsehood after misconception after misconception, just playing into what the audience (presumably) thinks socialism is so that his points appear self-evident and rational
Yeah, Jordan's overall decision to talk about Marx instead of at least looking into some of Žižek's work made clear that Jordan was not prepared and will get stomped on. He knew that he wouldn't be able to at least match Žižek so he instantly went on the anti-communism, which is a pretty popular talking point. He waned Žižek to defend the communist manifesto so that he could at least get some people to not see him as a complete looser. Basically, he waned Žižek to defend unpopular opinions so that it would make Žižek look bad amongst the audience, even tho it's clear who was prepared for this event.
Exactly. Perfectly valid statement. He also said that just because you read something, doesn't mean you understand it, but he's got the gist of it. What's the problem?
Check out these Peterson and Zizek books on Amazon!
Peterson's "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief": geni.us/p2e8It
Peterson's "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos": geni.us/BPjIIm
Zizek's "The Sublime Object of Ideology": geni.us/5lIQ
Zizek's "The Relevance of the Communist Manifesto": geni.us/n0zNJ5
Get Two Books FREE with a Free Audible Trial: amzn.to/313yfLe
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259
Checking out the affiliate links above helps me bring even more high quality videos by earning me a small commission! And if you have any suggestions for future content, make sure to subscribe on the Patreon page. Thank you for your support!
peter need to do it so he can change people
the debate was literally called happyiness ''marxism vs capitilism'' (zizek knew this for months) and when dr peterson spoke about how capitilism is not neccessarily good but better than marxism, zizek agreed lol, so how do some people think zizek won lol, he literally agreed marxism is not good, and sorry but marxism was not just about regulation, ....so i dont see zizek defending marxism at all
maxwell my point is atleast jbp actually defended his side of the argument, to which zizek had absolutely no counter argument, and just agreed, ...like, zizek did not defend Marxism at all, it really wasn’t a debate after that just a good conversation,
@@brockcharz2104 because Zizek is not dogmatic and he is an intellectual. Early form of Marxism and early form of capitalism isn't the same. it's more than a hundred years old book... nearly 200.
Zizek identified his position his position as a Hegelian Marxist and made his philosophical lineage clear. Would not have been honest for him to support an untenable position just to achieve points. The crisis of the moment is to great to win a debate for it's own sake.
I think the crowd's constant cheering represents how people treat political ideologies like sports teams.
Identity politics. I support a football team and that fullfills the needs of the primitive clan part of my brain. Hence less likely to be victimized by those peddling pseudointellectual politizised rhetoric packaged in a narrative finitely explaining the world.
That's human nature, unfortunately.
That angers me deeply.
It makes sense and I think it is still no worse than MMA fights. It brings deeper thoughts to general public in the same way that MMA brings some ethics to general brawlers.
@@Uplnenejhorsi have you gone to a heated soccer game, those things can get bloody. I think the us vs them sports like tribalism mentality can be very dangerous especially when the "team/political party" that won can dictate how the loser can live
"Please don't applaud and cheer. We're here to confront serious issues." Crowd goes wild.
The human condition
They are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence.
@@lordelpus2099 ahh, the bliss of ignorance
@@akhmadkautsarak Yes, there is a light on, but nobody’s home.
Human Nature 🤣
Zizek & Peterson: Let's have an intellectual debate.
The crowd: LEEEEEEEEEET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUUUMBLEEEE
Ugh. 35 seconds in: yawnsville. But Im American and grew up WWF so I'm ready for intellectual bloodbath soon as mayor Zzzz. from snore town stops yappin. I dont even kno who these hockey players are
@@chancellorfoote7961 well at the end the old man delivers a piledriver and throws the tall one straight into the ballroom floor, wailing like a mad cave elf of sorts.. took a minute but it got violent enough 2 👍🏾👍🏾 up
@@somenothing7914 which ones the old one? And who currently holds the title belt? And what's a cave elf, translate that euro-Tolkien nerd speak into American
@@chancellorfoote7961 …. u seem highly educated for an idiot.. come on now u know what i mean. hold on ill b back
🤣👍🏾
When someone tries to convince me "There is a light at the end of the tunnel" My answer is "yes, and it is probably another train coming towards us" ~ GOAT Zizek
So basically romanticize pessimism and victimhood against the powers of the universe? No thanks
It's a fun reversal of the metpahro, but there's other turn of phrases that offer more hope. Maybe there's a turn not to far away and once that corner is reached the daylight with become so apparent
@@albertwardiCompletely misunderstood his point lol
@@albertwardidamn how can you be this far off lmao
@@bay0r How can someone be so off to defend Marxism in 2024, that's the real question.
I love how Zizek reminds everyone this debate is not a cheap competition but rather a inquiry into serious problems.
he kinda had me til Bernie.....
lol
Johnathan King then he never had you and you don’t know who Bernie is
"Oddly" reminding me of Hitchens
I cant believe people in the audience actually "wooooed" at points later after he said that like its fucking Jerry Springer
Two men, twelve bottles of water, two hours, no toilet. FIGHT !
Nice one
nice copypaste
there would definitely be a toilet somewhere nearby
I think Daffy won but Kermit brought up some great points...SUFFERING SUCCOTASH!
Lol
The person I hate the most in this debate is the audience.
mine is zizek
Hate?
@@andrewcox3686 Yes
Uohooooooooo 👏 👏 👏
It just makes me sad.
Peterson: "You have tasked me with three very difficult questions"
Zizek: "That's Life"
Gigachad of a man right there.
The crowd: 🗣🗣😱😱😱😱🙉🙉🐵🐵🐕🐻🐻❄🐻❄🦧🦧🐴🐴🐴🐴
@@qwe-de7xdbro especially that one person who woooos all the time 😂
"Happiness should be treated as a necessary byproduct. If you focus on it, you are lost."
- Zizek
Clearly he hasn’t heard of enlightenment, and there are many paths.
@@omardelmar what kind of ignorance and emptiness inhabits your skull, to think that there is something in the known social world you know more about than Slavoj Zizek? He wrote books about Enlightenment and how freedom was used as a conceptual weapon to kill millions since then.
@@Joe_wes He’s certainly intelligent but just take it back a bit. You shouldn’t accept anyone as the supreme authority over all knowledge.
@@ellisholden7247 I don't, I just pointed out that to say that someone doesn't know something about a topic when he wrote entire pieces about it is a blatant show of ignorance.
@@omardelmar hmm, i kindly disagree. I think enlightenment is not meant for happiness. It is meant for peace. Happiness is an emotion; just like sadness. If you base your life on an emotion, you will not fully live it. Life is a mix of all emotions, good and bad. So i think Zizek's meaning of "happiness is a byproduct" is simply stating that happiness is not an achievement, but rather something natural that comes by-which is true. Even if you get enlightened you will have bad days and good days. Enlightenment is by definition an awakening to mother earth. And if you awake you will realize there is nothing to be happy about (especially in these times). If you really think about it, animals are being tortured, people are homeless, inflation is everywhere. And you are telling me that i will be happy by enlightenment. I fear here that by definition, your "enlightenment" means dissociation to me. Enlightenment does not take away pain. Enlightenment is being in peace with all emotions. Happy or sad.
Love how zizek just got annoyed with the audience right off the bat
This comment made this debate at least 3 times more funny.
@@teluriox8200 Then you may not have gotten the point of the comment.
@@diggie9598 That may indeed be a possibility.
I like the fact that he let it be known, that even though he may disagree with Peterson they are basically brothers in arms in the fight of free thought and speech which gave me a level of respect for the man.
@@bigthetruth2995 this is a big truth. I instantly respected Zizek for that.
I love how Zizek was openly resenting the applause lol.
Because he's an adult thinking he's in from of a "Wiggles" audience
Well, because he is a proper Philosopher and not a Guy who is full of himself after right wing Frat-boys made him his hero like peterson.
😂😂😂
i love that there's a "lol" comment
Before the debate started and the applause was off the charts it genuinely looked like Zizek was dying, like the crowd was stabbing a million knives into him
Proud to see everyone in the comments knows what's up. There's hope.
I don't know about that, there's a lot of insufferable comments
Its great that people can understand your comment as defending their side
@@filiperosa7496haha yeah, guy has a future in politics and nothing else
would have been 10x better withouth an audience.
It's like a football match, watched in a pub. Really gets you going.
@@o-k9267 yea. just sad
spoken by a truest introvert :) But for the first time in the West I encountered the crazy radical left.I escaped the torturous left in Poland and now heard them clap when Jordan mentioned the millions that were murdered by Stalin. I was terrified; talking about feeling unsafe!
Since there's always a mental laugh-track running in my head when I hear Peterson speak, I really didn't mind the audience.
You only saying that because Peterson got slammed by the audience, usually that matters to the right? 🤔 What happened?
Judging by the audience, I thought this was a Bethesda E3 event.
It's not booing, so I can't see the similarity
⬆ buuuurn!
To be fair if either of these two mental giants are referenced in ES6 the game will be vastly improved.
You made my day Void ,))))
It's the same audience.
zizek's facial expressions to the audience clapping for him is so priceless
Zizek: "Wait, what? You guys agree with me???"
@@AnnyMus-rc2zh more like: "Are you watching football on your phone?"
@@UltraRicardopp more like "stfu"
He’s clapping to replicate the Stalinist position of ‘ we are all in this together ‘.
@@danvincent2600 Zizek, famous Stalinist
How many times can you say "Marx says X", hear a Marxist say "no, he didn't", then respond "OK, well maybe he didn't exactly say that", before you remember that you haven't actually read Marx?
I count 5 times, so far
Huh?
I count 0
0 times you filthy commie. Basically as much as the amount of times communism was successful.
@@bottlebeard That's because you haven't read Marx either
@@freshrockpapa-e7799 ngl, marx wrote "das kapital" in alien, I tried reading that book for months, everyday, and it is a really, really, REALLY difficult book to understand.
It's Peterson who introduced me to Zizek but I have to admit that Zizek is a beast - insanely amazing thinker of our times. His ability to spice up his strong points with intelligent humor is something else.
Zizek is cool
Peterson is cringe.
He has no real ideas
@@tomwhitworth1560 Based
Zizek does appear to be a man with a sharp intellect and comes off with a guenuiness.
Sadly his jeering fans came off as worst then trump supporters they mock
@@tomwhitworth1560 I sincerely disagree. Peterson to me comes off as more stern and logical, Zizek seems more charismatic, but far, too idealistic and makes points just to reverse the points and say he doesn't support it or defend it, like what he did with China here. He's a philosopher, though, so that is to be expected, but he's not making any REAL points. In fact he mostly agrees with Peterson on many points, he then asks questions of why Peterson thinks of those points ina manner they seems to criticize him and his own defense of said points.
To pull a Zizek, don't get me wrong, I. Ery much enjoy listening to him speak just as I do Peterson, he's a splendid writer, too, just Peterson, to me, makes far more sense.
Plus, let's not forget the most important facts here; there is a hyper-liberalization being taught in higher level academic, and a start drop in conservative persona views and voices. There is, factually, a censoring of conservative views in all forms of.media right now and academia. The fer left calls STEM racist... There IS Marxist brainwashing occuring in colleges and I would know as I've seen and experienced it first hand. This IS INCREDIBLY dangerous to society and the learning of students. And so much hogwash is getting through to kids in academia this is causing a lot of disruption and disarray.
@@ABrokenSociety What evidence do you have that there is "brainwashing"
Academics always argue and pit their points against one another to further refine their ideas and beliefs. That's how academics works. I think you're just upset that almost no academics support a right wing narrative.
Just think for a second that this could be to do with something else rather than "brainwashing". Maybe your ideas just do not hold up to scrutiny as well.
Peterson is a dude who wrote a book called "rules for life" while heavily addicted to benzos, which immediately raises several red flags about his honesty and intentions also.
This is a discussion, yet the audience behaves itself like it is at the rock concert or tech show.
They don't know any better. That's where modern culture has brought us.
@@ignitiondj4025 lol
I don't see a problem. This many people wouldn't attend discussions 40 years ago. The audience is obviously passionate. Big thumbs up from me :)
tech show ahhahaahh
@@jamesbeckett356 how are tech shows and debates even remotely similar ?
I love how Peterson came in with very surface level points, likely to play the crowd and because of the people he is used to debating, and then Zizek comes up and raises the intellectual level to a place where 80% of the crowd doesn't even get what he is talking about. You can see that Peterson is obviously taken aback and has to shift his approach to meet Zizek on a semi-level playingfield. It's nice because for once you get to see debaters stop trying to convince the crowd and actually talk hard about really deeper concepts. I'll be the first to admit how ignorant I felt listening, but that's how you grow intellectually.
Ok fine, but let's be careful. I believe there's an infatuation with people who sound complex (for the mere sake of sounding complex). Let me explain.
The confusion with that is if someone sounds more complex, well, they must be more knowledgeable because they've said so much in so much detail. The problem with that is you confuse *complex* with *sophisticated*. Being able to explain issues in a clear and coherent manner is an incredible skill and must not be looked down upon. Just because someone sounds "surface level", doesn't mean they're not 100% speaking truth.
"Whatever cannot be said clearly is probably not being thought clearly either." - Peter Singer 2016
@@JessmanChicken86 except Zizek is widely regarded as the greatest philosopher in the world and thats across political beliefs and institutions. Its not just "using big words", he has a genuine understanding of the evolution of capitalist societies that is rarely discussed in the types of debates Peterson does. Theres plenty of topics that are too complex to be distilled into the short oneliners that your average person wants. We are talking about hundreds of years of human history across continents here, if you came expecting a simple answer then you aren't prepared for this level of debate.
@@JessmanChicken86 That's usually the complaint leveraged against Peterson. He's the dumb guy's smart guy, so he's able to punch up his speech to fool his demographic, but it works on no one else.
@@JessmanChicken86 You are actually describing most of Peterson‘s work with your first comment. Much of Peterson‘s newer work is just virtue signaling and vague gesturing
It's a debate, playing to the crowd is what you are supposed to do. The idea is to win over the crowd with your argument with limited time. Zizek's approach to provide an intellectual rebuttal would have lost much of the audience but obviously interested Peterson. This is what great debating is all about and I would love to see a long form discussion between these two, I think that would be extremely interesting.
Žižek takes "spitting facts" on whole different level.
Like spitting untold facts?
@@h.h8766I thought like literally spitting because of his accent lol
He's spitting because he's a dishevelled and unkempt tramp who can't wait to abolish his own private property and go and sleep in a hollow log somewhere. Except he's just too busy at the moment writing books and articles and appearing on TV and reaping the financial benefits of capitalism while preaching about a Marxist existence which he is not voluntarily subjecting himself to. It's not even hypocrisy, it's hypercrisy.
@@ChessdumyTV thats not his accent, thats just some excess saliva
Im so bored with this comment being under every video of hos
Both of these dudes feeling embarrassed to be there when they hear the audience going bananas over their credentials lol
Lol you're giving Peterson too much credit, he loves it! Zizek could care less.
@@alicedoors4826 couldn’t care less*
@@kimjongun5172 good point, thanks!
@@alicedoors4826 zizek did say that he didn't want the audience cheering them on like it was some sports competition as they would deal with serious topics
@@aceman0000099 lol that's what I said...
It would be entertaining to hear zizek and peterson speaking to each other drunk.
tqaztec Lololol
It would be entertaining to understand what zizek is saying
@@Booyamakashi half is sniffing
And keep in mind ...that Zizek is not a native speaker ...so when drunk his Slovenian would come out hehe
Listen to Zizek at 1.5 speed. Its like a yayo fever dream
Nothing featuring Slavoj should ever be considered ‘clean audio’
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
@Digonto why?
@@bigkuriboh3814 high pitch voice
@@daviddavtyan6585 that's a reach.
People like you should only watch haters you relate to. Debate is to enlighten you but you obviously have a closed mind.
Had a feeling this was going to be good when I saw Peterson with his laptop and Zizek with his papers.
Yeah, having a laptop in a debate is not a great look, lol. He couldn't even come up with names of prominent supposedly Marxist academics.
@@JET7C0 “not a good look” zizek’s entire gimmick and personality, let’s be honest here lmfao
@@doctordice2doctordice210 No idea what you're talking about, or trying to say. Bringing a laptop to debate, screams "I'm going to hit up Google when I get into trouble", though. If you're trying to put the substance of Zizek's arguments down on account of his looks or behavior, well - that's not a good look, either, lol.
Either way: Peterson is a charlatan, and this debate was emblematic of that, to the point it continues to convert Peterson fans into Zizek ones, and stops people from listening to him immediately, to this day. I'm totally sympathetic to the arguments Jordan made surrounding the issue that gained him his fame, with the pronoun language law in Canada - but the man wrote about "getting your house in order", personal responsibility, self-control, etc., all while he taking enough benzodiazepines daily to put down an elephant. That really says it all.
@@JET7C0 I had just started listening to Peterson and agreeing with many things he said, until I saw this debate and the one with Sam Harris about god where he literally just rambles with no substance in his words. After that, I realized how ridiculous many of his arguments are, especially his political ones.
@@alyssajchase Great, and I'm glad - as if to further prove my point, right into the present: Peterson literally came out with a video very recently, after getting a big infusion of cash from a Trump 2024 campaign donor suggesting, I kid you not, that his distance, seeming indifference and even rudeness/distain towards his own supporters and "so-called everyday people" is actually _evidence he cares a great deal for them,_ because otherwise, _"it'd be too painful for him"_ to let his apparently massive empathy for the common man overwhelm him.
To put it plainly: he's a fool if he truly thinks so, but much more likely is that Peterson is a craven hack who's just dancing for his uber-wealthy puppet masters, cucked by the very capitalism and hierarchies he worships, lol. I feel bad for the often working class, early twenty-something crowd of men that get into him, often because they're already coming from a vulnerable socioeconomic situation, and difficult home lives, only to be manipulated into giving views to, and enriching him.
(One additional aside: he's continued to maintain, despite being _utterly wrong,_ neurologically-speaking, about something he insisted was true in his book re: lobsters and serotonin.)
6:30 Jordan Peterson (Opening)
37:45 Slavoj Zizek (Opening)
Mvp
This needs to be voted to the top
Thank you
I feel 90% of all audiences don't really care what the heck ideology they are talking about but applause just because they like or hate someone or finally hear a word that they understand.
What do you get from it?
@@subhuman3408 he gets it from the fact that he wants to feel smarter than 90% of the audiences.
Does everyone adhering to a ideology need to understand every nuance of it? If so, why? And how could that ever be the case, in a global sense? If your goals are to pander to all of humanity's intellectualism, and CONVINCE them through logic, you're never gonna get far
Oh deciphering his BS through his quacking and accent, I hear what he's saying, and a lot of it's bullcrap. Peterson comes from a point of actually understanding people from years as a clinical specialist, while Zizek is going off about what an ideal action from people would be only for Peterson to counter with experience with humans and human nature. Zizek can only retort with a false argument of appealing to the crowd. He's argues in circles.
@@somerandomguyfromtheintern480 human nature is far more complex than empirical evidence is able to argue for, this is why it's left up to the philosophers and theorists to decipher, and not the scientists.
Thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. The fact that we're able to watch this for free on TH-cam is such an huge privilege.
No it’s not it’s just 2 dudes who went to university and built a following by speaking for lonely and socially awkward guys by feeding them anti-women and “it’s not your fault you don’t have a date” rhetoric
@@rasenpapi5653 What ? Many womens enjoy what these men have to say. This is an intellectual discussion. Stop it with your personal agenda. You are just wrong.
Capitalism provides that privilege.
@@jamespearson00 you can critique a society whilst still living in it 💀
@@rasenpapi5653 greatly worded just horrendously wrong people. Maybe you could take this up with your socially awarded angst towards anything and anyone that leads you to be so ignorant.
LMAO at him saying Marx wasn’t trained to “think about thinking.” He was literally a student of Hegel who is primarily known for his ideas on thought processes, most famously the dialectic.
he never read marx , otherwise he wont ever say something like that
Marx studied under Bruno Baur, not Hegel. Marx is not, point in fact, a student of Hegel. Bruno was, but, heh, Bruno didn't teach people to think about thinking.
Lmfao that doesnt mean Marx could think. Literally read the dribble. Any dumbass can slide their way through these indoctrination machines. Moreso today than ever.
@@BS-cc4ksMarx was heavily influenced by Hegel, he wasn't literally taught by Hegel but he still learned from his work
@@a.hassanhale3326 Arguable. VERY arguable. Baur took Hegel's teachings into his own direction.
Ah so this is where they got the crowd noises for Big Bang Theory from
You sound like a great person
@@Vanirvis you sound like a weirdo
One of the best interviews with Zizak I advice everyone to watch this here is the link:
th-cam.com/video/CLGy129CmCQ/w-d-xo.html
If i remember correctly all the laughing in sitcom are really old and they are all dead :)
@@furgendaz2874 it was a joke dude
I love how Zizek ignores the crowd and continues to speak over their obnoxious cheers and jeers. Great discussion.
I also love how he procedes to completly ignore Peterson's opening argument instead of beating him over the head with a complete volume of the Capital
@Coom Lord xxxxxxxdixxxxxxîxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxîxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
@Coom Lord I like Peterson a lot but after the first statement Zicek it felt like a student were overwhelmed and thought his thoughts were fucking great
@@aurelius8180 yeah not to be rude but it's super unclear which of them you're talking about
@@ghfudrs93uuu lol opening argument, that's rich
Imagine debating like this in your second language
i'm actually better at debating in a second language, sounds like a brag but is kinda intuitive when you think about it; you get a more impersonal and disembodied relation to the language. i'm way more rambly and hedge-y in my mother's tongue
@@sorrycantspeakfrenchYep, that's a psychology fact. people tend to reason far more effectively in non-native language.
I can debate better in English (my second language) than in Spanish (first language) because my Spanish is mostly colloquial and my education since high school has all been in English. I trip over myself a lot when trying to use any proper academic terms in Spanish because most times I don't even know them.
@@ethanadamrose580 That's pretty bonkers, but I don't have such a hard time believing it. My French teacher speaks 4 languages (English, Spanish, French and Korean) and he's barely pushing 30, so I can see this dude knowing 5 or even more at his age for sure. Mad respect.
@@carlmart5797 had a similiar teacher! impressive that they chose to learn korean too, it's very impressive when someone is a polyglot in different language groups :-) Žižek is a philosophy scholar, and I know that many of them learn languages to better understand the original works. Esp considering he's a Hegel scholar
"Who is the Marxist here?" Zizek points out that Peterson is fighting shadows at that point. He needs to sharpen the thing that he deems the enemy.
Zizek is A Marxist. But he does not represent all Marxism, similarly to how Peterson does not represent his moral and ethical stances. But just because Peterson might not have a problem with Zizek in particular, that does not mean he can't have a problem by Marxism NOT represented by Zizek.
@@BS-cc4ksand Zizek and those like Zizek, who apparently criticize and denigrate him, are in positions of power all over universities and governments yes?
Where are the Marxists?
@@BS-cc4ks Have you really seen or talked to a true Marxist, in US, you would have a hard time finding one.
Most Marxists I know just think the "neo-marxist" types as a result of post Cold-War political non-existence. The Soviets failed, the capital succeeded to topple down the resistence, and the intelectuals started to shift into post modernism to amalgamate themselves with capitalist system.
They'd not take Peterson's so called adversaries as marxists anyway
@@BS-cc4ksHe still wrong about Marx and the basics of Marxism
@@BS-cc4ksI don't think Zizek is a marxist. He literally said that marxists are too naive
“Don’t confuse the truth with the opinion of the majority.” Jean Cocteau
Oooh, nice one!
the majority of people paying for slaughterhouse "product" yea
Don't confuse temporary sacrifice for a lifetime of fulfillment.
That hardly says nothing! What exactly are you saying? You sound like a parrot! You heard someone say that; and you thought it sounded cool right? Whatever dude.
On one hand, there could be a situation where the majority are wrong. On the other hand, the majority could be 100% correct. Leaving this stupid phrase as no formula for the truth. So what does this phrase you spew actually mean? Not a fuckin thing!
Facts is where the truth appears. You won't find it in opinions.
@@freddyferrillo9704 this short statement shows that the amount of people cheering for something is independent of its validity. as simple as that. its often times used when someone thinks he is right because he has the majority.
What annoys me the most about the crowd is how sure of themselves they are. I’ve listened to this debate 6 times and still have difficulty fully understanding half the topics they talked about
I'm so happy I read this comment, the honesty is just refreshing
Welcome to the arrogance of higher learning. It's sad that, instead of critical thinking, universities foster arrogance and an air of superiority.
@Karl Quetzacoatl I think it's more of a personal issue I have. I'm fairly introverted so I can't really imagine the headspace one has to be in to demonstrate how much they agree with an opinion on a complex topic aloud to the wider world, especially when it seems it doesn't really mean anything to do so.
Could it also be that the majority of people at this lecture actually understand the topics being discussed and you feel it's not possible since you needed to listen to it a few times to understand it's content? It could be that they process it faster. Everyone's different
@@alexdmrgs Absolutely
I almost though they would start hyping up the audience:
“GOOD EVENING, TORONTOOOO!!
ARE YOU READY TO ROCK?!”
Thats why people paid more than the Leafs playoff brother. hahaha
"Let's Get Ready to Rumble!"
lol it would be so surreal to watch that
Is that line from mcgregor vs mayweather conference?
Rock over London
Rock on, Chicago
Wheaties, breakfast of champions
Imagine thinking Marx never mentioned nature or man’s relationship with it. Lmao, it’s funny to think that Peterson thought he was gonna blow everyone’s mind with that “revelation.”
He never read Marx. I am no Marxist but he is pretty schadenfraude.
He also called Marx a "narcissistic thinker" and said something about an "evil bourgeoise" and "good proletariat"
Shut it shmucks your not even a pimple on JPs ass so tuck yourself in and go NITE NITE
@@axelanderson2030he said that it’s hard to define people into groups and say one is better than another. Maybe power turns people corrupt and the lower class isn’t full of people who are completely good
So, how did Marx mention nature and man's relationship with it?
The audience is easily the worst part of this debate. I was yelling for them to shut up so many times.
half the time they had no clue what they were clapping for -__-
It sounds like this debate was promoted as some kind of competition and the crowd came in wanting to support their side of the argument like they would a football match?
I feel like quiet laughing when they tell a joke is acceptable as well quiet clapping after they finish the speech but they were just.....
Your comment here is the same as their noise; as mine.
Freedom of speech. Don't like it? Leave the room.
"He has a degree in philosophy from the university of Ljubljana"
Crowd: YEEEEEAAAAHHHH WOOOhoooOO WOW YEAH!!
2:54 That's the exact moment Zizek realised what he has gotten himself into
😂👌
haha... he hates it, especially intimate gestures in social interaction, like someone cheeers for him or hugs him out of respect
Isn't that what the practice of public debate has been since the Greek times? What's the problem here?
@@TheAlison1456 Because it applies a factor of social approval / disapproval, of a popularity contest. Not necessarily for the debaters but the audience. Because audiences tend to trust the opinion of the masses rather than stand against popular opinion. Therefore there's an inclination to agree with the masses even if it's wrong.
@@TheAlison1456 if you have ever seen the inside of a actual university, you should be aware that that's just not the right moment to cheer and applaud. You make yourself look like a absolute ding-dong. It's a debate, not a wrestling death match. You sit down and listen.
But that's the result of fucking online culture and "political" "debates" on youtube. It's only about flashy rhetoric gestures and OWNING people.
Slavoj: "Please, stop clapping!"
Crowd: [claps agressively]
Ohhhh guess why the majority is leftist?! Socialists have been seen as "thinkers" because the only way to pleased their public by convincing socialism is good, is by using words or being a character. Easy for Jordan. He is clear and right by using facts.
At least they were only clapping. Look what happened in the U.S.’s Capitol Hill, on 6 January 2021. I don’t think these people were Slovak supporters.
@@JC_inc no, it's worse... they are democrats.
@@punisher6001 wat
@@punisher6001 Hahaha you're an idiot
You can see how uncomfortable zizek gets when the crowd cheers for him. He’s is completely detached he’s from the shouting match politics has become, and just wants to write books in his apartment 😭
I believe that is what Zizek comments to the moderator and Peterson when he pulls of his microphone at the end; how he is happy they all survived the ordeal and it is nonsense people are ecstatically cheering intending perhaps to humiliate.
I think perhaps Zizek was cautious as to how the public confrontation could have endangered their public careers or produced intense emotive outcomes. This follows his point that both speakers are very popular, but academically very marginal. This popularity has led them to participate in a debate where they are pitted as a boxing match, polar opposites, enemies, etc. In a way this puts their precarious position on display; they are in the end entertainers, not 'proper' academics. At the core I believe Zizek simply wants to spread his message and make money doing what he wants to do, and does not particularly wish ill for Peterson. However, the popular 'sides' they have come to represent often do wish ill on the other (and both would see this as part of their legitimate conflicts); I believe that sensing this is why Zizek was at times uncomfortable and why he restated his message of 'don't act, but think!' and closed his statement addressing the left about not playing easy games.
I think Zizek would advise for the left not to play the easy game of laughing at Peterson for always fighting his straw-man Marxist enemy, and for holding on to these regressive ideals without coming to terms with their obvious flaws, but instead to ask the question why it is that such a perhaps bankrupt position has become so popular, and why the left has not yet succeeded in getting through to these people, despite pointing out this bankruptcy clearly (as Zizek did by trying to explain how Ideology eats at some of the core claims of Peterson, exposing the problems within Peterson's grand narrative). I believe Zizek would argue the left also has no true 'big' answers yet, so the task is to think. Considering the dangers of Ideology he points out, at least this is a benign pursuit. In other places, not really in this video, Zizek argues that certain authoritarian influences of certain new phenomena in our society (bioengineering can lead to control, the digital ecosystem developing 'Big Tech', etc) requires a dedicated struggle by highly specialized people against its worst outcomes. And for these specialists to understand their task, the society requires a collective understanding of these tasks, which in turn requires a critique of Ideology, so society as a whole must allow for more rethinking and analysis.
This is where he differs also from Peterson, who does not insist upon or emphasize this quest of collective rethinking, instead focusing on guiding and pushing the individual struggle with responsibilities and perhaps allowing for 'science' to facilitate this process. His position is a lot more optimist. It is here where I believe Zizek would argue that he misses how Ideology can perturb that advice that Peterson would give. Without this critique, you will mistake the light at the end of the tunnel for the oncoming train.
@@michaelm8265 basadisimo hermano
Holy glaze
I’ve read word salad before, but “michaelm’s” comment above takes the prize. Yeesh…
@@davidmajor1508 It's okay if you can't read big words, but you should accept your own inadequacies rather than blame other people for them.
Nobody: "A terrorist group has surrounded the building and threatens to kill us all...!!!"
This crowd: "Woooohoooo...YEAH!.....woooohoooooo...."
the goose about which is talked, shouts ...
lol
How can they cheer what no one said?
@@julianolima3500 truly a deep question, one that will perplex the philosophers of ages to come.
"Woooohoooo...YEAH!.....woooohoooooo....", the crowd screamed calmly.
I love how all the comments are obsessing over their shared hatred for the audience. But let's be real. If we could "convert" TH-cam comments into a live performance, this audience would be a pretty good representation.
lol true
fair but id still hate it lol
Far worse actually.
None of the comments interrupt anyone's speech.
Seriously, ive been scrolling for fucking miles trying to find some actual discussion, but it’s all just “audience bad haha” we get it
A great conversation.
And Slavoj Žižek forewarned: "Don't take it as a cheap competition."
He won with that statement alone.
I love your comment, only a cheap competition could be won by one line. Beautiful irony. @@billy6044
@@billy6044the fact that you wrote "won" shows that you missed the original commenters and zizeks point
i hope you were being ironic
@@-jg9pi whoosh
@@billy6044 darn..
This debate was a big part of me getting out of the alt-right pipeline. Hats off to Ziziek!
i can't understand him. he just yaps
He speaks to this that his strategy for this "debate" was not to debate Peterson at all really, rather he wanted to show that what many are concerned with in the alt right are also concerns on the left, and that often the supposed left the right is fighting is a created shadow which belongs solely to the right
Yes, and I've seen a ton of other people saying the same. Peterson basically debated himself out of a chunk of adherents to his own ideas following them and Zizek gained a whole new audience, lol. I found a post on the Peterson subreddit where a guy said that after this debate, he just couldn't take him seriously anymore - that he was also disappointed Peterson literally just read the Communist Manifesto, and despite railing on Marxism or so-called "postmodern neo-Marxism" admitted he'd never read _a word of Marx_ until that debate, etc.
proud if you for getting out! 😁
@@JET7C0what? Peterson said explicitly in the debate that he HAD read it before. But that he reread it for this
"Intellectual debate between thinkers" - *crowd cheers and yells in the background*
I mean it's two pop stars so
@@teethmuffin4694 haha true
Jordan: no actually, there's a deviish snake in the sovietic view awaiting the time to bloody strike
Slavoj: I dishagree buth you can'tch shimplify the shhrrrrovietic view-
... oh my ghod... there'sh Shpit all over the floor...
Crowd cheers*
Peterson does not understand how to have serious discourse. Everybody is correct about the obtuse audience. I was hoping for a serious discourse to make Peterson look like the Bozo he is
@@stella3265 Yes, it seemed as though Peterson was expecting something completely different to be argued by Zizek. Sometimes he appeared surprised by Zizek's positions, as if he hadn't researched him very well.
This audience is infuriating. Way to hijack an interesting debate and reduce it to a sports match
@TREX LEX what a disgusting comment. No validity & no respect for those who suffered from addiction. For shame unto you!
@TREX LEX He has already the respect of millions. He was under an insane amount of stress - his wife was dying of cancer - he leaned on a commonly prescribed medication too hard. It is not necessary to insult such a great man who has sacrificed himself into the fire of leftism. No one is perfect.
@TREX LEX I do listen to what he says a lot .. and it a ll makes sense to me... It's very logical and conclusive and follows along with what's happening i n society. What are you on about?
He's not preying on anyone, if he was preying on people, why would he "prey on us" enough to the point of needing benzodiazepine addiction to manage the stress of his life?
He never claims to be perfect, life is imperfect by nature. I forgive him and he should forgive himself. What exactly is your issue here? That he was momentarily a hypocrit or something? That's not really a condemnable crime - i'm not into not listening to someone who is quite clearly motivating people who have no purpose or path in life - people don't just show up dumb and stupid, they show up because society and our parents and our education failed us.
And he is filling in the gaps where they should have told us the cold hard truth about reality to prepare us for how awful it is. Honestly his lectures make me a bit depressed because he is so stern and honest about what he is describing that it often hits very hard. We don't always want the truth, many of us just want a sugar caoting sometimes but we need to know what we are missing and why society is behaving this way, why we as human beings behave this way.
Why feminism is tricking women and empowering slut behavior for example - I needed to know that. I was, no I am, a filthy whore. I'm far past my prime, and men don't want me and I was always taught to just throw my body out there because it was supposed to be empowering and it was what men wanted. It isn't what men want at all.
They want a partner they can respect. I didn't understand that until he said it .
How is this taking advantage of my stupidity? He's literally just improving my stupid whore brain. It's sad, that i'm not going to be able to fulfill my own DNAs directive to be a mother... and it should be sad, because it was a part of my purpose that always felt like it was supposed to be there but I was always pushed in the other direction and told to wait and wait and wait and I waited to long, early onset menopause is a thing. And now I'm worthless in the dating realm... it's really shocking and hard to hear it but I needed to hear it. I needed to hear why men were just ... not sticking around... kicking me out the next day... because they don't want a older unfertile partner, they want a young fertile one, and I was stupid and misguided and young and dumb and thought what I was doing was good. And it's not that it isn't momentarily pleasurable still... its just that there has always been that hole in my soul missing ... and I needed to know why. He answered it so I thank him even if its too late for me and it makes me cry...
I'm sorry your so angry at him for whatever reason. But I don't understand what your trying to say. Anxiety medication is highly addictive it operates on the same neurochemistry ethyl alcohol does, and its withdrawal is severely worse - so when you have a problem with it you actually do need to get legit medical help because Benzo withdrawal can cause quite deadly seizures due to the configuration of the GABA receptor units it binds to. We all make mistakes... it doesn't make everything he says wrong... hell.. i'm making mistakes with drugs right now, just to feel better cus writing this was sad... we're all just trying to feel bettter man, we want answers so we seek them out and he seems to provide a lot of legitamate ideas as to the failures of our society and its structure and how to deal with it. As a pharmacologist/biologist I can confirm his biological understanding of it is correct - we are serotonin based creatures, so are lobsters and all mammals are as well. That's why we test all our pharmaceuticals on mice and rats, because we can measure things like hope, and fairness in rats and mice - complex emotions and social structures and hierarchies are quite clear in their behaviors - we can make them swim longer and harder and give up less in an inescapable bucket of water with anti depressants, the forced swim test. Anti depressants provide a sincere feeling of hope that alleviates the rumination of depression and restores your mind to a stable state where you work on your self and not be bombarded with thoughts of suicide...
:3
TREX LEX Listening to Dr Peterson helped me to deal with my anxiety; if this isn’t helpful in your world that is your prerogative. Sure he can get caught up in his thoughts but that’s a lot of knowledge to sift through in conversation. I don’t buy everything he talks about but that’s not the idea - even if it were one thing that you could relate to as an individual in need of guidance that could change your entire approach to life would you not put value on that? How much would it be worth to have a new sense of dealing with anxiety that has kept you back in life and now you can go out with increased confidence and overcome it? I’d say that’s worth its weight in gold. Then again, as Dr Peterson says, “don’t throw pearls to swine.”
@TREX LEX I don't particularly care for either of them. The clapping was pretty obnoxious from both sides.
Zizek: Please don't clap and cheer
Crowd: YES, WHOOOOO, "Clapping"
The old Stalinist ploy of clapping with your supporters
Jordan Peterson comment about capitalism ending poverty by 2030 has not aged well
Yes it has. Read a book
@matteowinandy9027
my guy... elaborate please. I'd love to hear how we're 7 years out from poverty being a thing of the past
@@ikeharris7234 define poverty
@matteowinandy9027 being so poor that your access to basic needs is either very unstable, or not met. Primarily In the examples where said needs could be met if those in need simply had enough money.
@@matteow101no it doesn't, go outside
This is the stuff we need TH-cam for. So thanks.
I totally agree. A chance to hear ideas discussed at length by people interested in ideas
No. Both these guys are bullshitting, better go watch Chomsky or Sowell for more clearer views although I agree with neither of the two I suggested.
just found this in my recommendations thanks for this upload
best place for pseudo intellectualism i agree
@@mator2339 Sowell is trash, might as well listen to Fox news
Žižek using 10% of his power.
Could’ve fooled me he had a wet mouth slurring and coughing. What a slob. Drunk slob.
That was fixed fight, I assume
@@DimitryCheniche you’re so retarded that you make Jordan Peterson seem like an intellectual
"It is not a rethorycal question to say that you are an idiot and dont know what you are talking about"
zizek
That's his max
To all those who are clapping. Someone is not less or more right about what is true because you applaud less or more. Just stop clapping, and listen and think instead.
Yeah there very reactive
Yeah, you commies really have a history of encouraging people think for themselves, thanks.
@@ЏонМастерман lul
I mean sure, but I would have clapped for both, it's just so god damn entertaining and informative.
@@ЏонМастерман Ok, and in capitalist society the subways, the streets, house facades and the internet is filled to the brink with messages that tell us what to think - ads. Ads everywhere with pictures of smiling people that say: Smile! Dont worry about politics! Shop more stuff! You will be happy if you shop more products! Dont forget to take your depressions pills! Fucking indoctrinated zombie. Thats what you are
I've spent the last two weeks reading a few different books by Zizek, listening to some of his lectures, watching his movie on ideology, and trying to understanding his perspective (including understanding how Lacan and Hegel influence his ideas), and my god, it adds layers upon layers of depth and meaning to everything he's saying and trying to condense and explain over this short back and forth. In some ways, Zizek and Peterson do agree, but they way they articulate it is much different and Zizek seems to understand more deeply the root of the antagonisms Peterson is trying to articulate.
it’s a great period of our lifetime as humans, when you can witness that philosophy is back in style like in the greek era. The people see these two guys as rockstars. Poetry and philosophy need this, even if people might find the crowd brutish and rude. I think it’s good to know that loud people are listening to this kind of rational thinking.
@@JohnnyBGoode-xn9mo yes god?
if philosophy is not only appealing to the quiet and intellectual kind, I think it’s a good thing. Being more stoic about a situation is awesome.
that's a very sweet observation. i like this attitude!
Despite me heavily disagreeing with both of these men, I can’t deny this was enjoyable to watch to some degree. There are greater minds imo and they’re probably some 30 some old person who reads philosophy and literature all day everyday day. Writes pieces in obscurity. They are not rockstars, because fame deteriorates mans ego. Regardless of intelligence, self-awareness, or humility.
@@chelronin7843 I also largely disagree with both them on multiple topics, however it is undeniable that these man have fame, anyone that's genuinely interested in philosophy should be happy that an entry level exists and its as popular as having 1.9 Mi viewers
This was 2 people critiquing Marxism, one has read it, other has googled about it
Considering Jordan literally based his argument around his reading of the book, I’m assuming you mean Slavoj just googled it?
@@knowneast5770 no. The other way around.
@SwallowingTheRabbitWhole You'll see, it's obvious.
@@knowneast5770 the communist manifesto is a short pamphlet for barely literate 19th century workers. Not some grand encapsulation of communist theory and socialist critique lol
@@straightasarainbow5344 The critique of socialism is das kapital
The crowd seems to be from a sitcom audience, they cheer on every little thing.
They clapped at “capitalism” lol
They're excited I suppose.
They definitely cheapened the whole of the thing
Audience full of sycophants clapping like trained seals at Zizek's incoherent ramblings
Stupid is as stupid does.
The fact that Jordan's opening statement is essentially "I looked at this guys books but he wrote way too many of them so instead I'm going to take my whole first 30 minutes to attack one of the first texts of his ideology with the most mainstream and unoriginal arguments against it." Says a lot
This is a debate about Marxism so he went through then Marxist manifesto, that makes perfect sense. You were expecting him to read all of zizeks books in the space of a few weeks?
@@velenvskaelhas yes, I expect this subhuman hack to at least have read one of Zizek's books. Notice how my issue was that Peterson used 30 minutes of unoriginal, generic, anecdotal, debunked nonsense about communism, his reference to the manifesto has little to do with it. Though I didn't expect much, I wanted to see why my oponents view this guy as smart. The consensus still seems to be "he uses big words to say the dumb shit I believe." So, as an actual intelligent person, I think I'll leave his drivel where it belongs.
If you're in a debate about Marxism, then its sort of pertinent to read the mans books, or at least the basics of his philosophy, the German ideology or das capital for instance. The manifesto is a 30 page dumbed down basics for barely literate factory workers, and astonishing that Peterson even misunderstood that. @@velenvskaelhas
@@Ellis_Newton why would you need to read his other books to debate the manifesto?
this isn't a debate on the specifics of the communist manifesto alone, its a debate on the wider marxist ideology, which is only scratched upon in the manifesto@@velenvskaelhas
Źižek is an incredibly original thinker and philosopher. Awesome.
He just called him original because it's not the Marxist he expected.
Everything Zizek said in the opening was derivative of some other persons work. I have heard it all before and never heard of Zizek. His entire opening was a random collection of claims entirely irrelevant to the debate topic of Marxism vs. Free Market Capitalism. In fact, several of his unoriginal claims came from pro-capitalist sources. He conceeded the entire debate to Peterson by admitting Marxism was inferior.
Dude all he did was quote other people's works
@@brianmacker1288 Zizek isnt a traditional marxist, if you wanted someone to defend that, you should have brought a marxist like Proffessor Wolff.
@@selahanany5645 Isn't that like saying so-and-so isn't a traditional nazi? So what? A worse kind of marxist apologist. An insincere one. He is a marxist deprecating marxist. Essentially a hypocrite.
Not being a native English speaker, I'm already used to JP's accent, but as for Zizek, my battle to understand him has just begun.
You write like a native English speaker
@@karimrahim451 Thanks! Short texts may give that impression.
@@paoloernesto2591 I don't think you'd have trouble composing a long text that gives the same impression, so stop selling yourself short, it's not flattering. Also, you'll get used to Zizek's accent. Once you get past the lisp and the unapologetically slavic pronunciation he's actually speaking really cleanly.
@@michaelgraflmusic After listening to Zizec for some time, I understand him better. In fact his accent is quite similar to the Brazilian one. Many people even say that something in Portuguese resembles Eastern European languages. (I'm 🇧🇷)
Being Polish I can understand Zizek well, like his accent is obviously thick but I'm used to something similar enough.
I love how embarrassed Zizek is when they cheer his qualifications….
Zizek appeared to be obnoxiously overbearing. Way out of his leage with Pettersen, who is well informed, extremley literate, and last but not least a very compasionate person. I wanted to to listen to the publics Q & A, I just couldn't bear Zizeks obnoxious rudnes in stealing time (lots) until the point where he finally realized he was dead in the water. Pettersen 10, Zizek 0 he( did not effektivley win one single point. In my opinion.
@@donaldolsen9571 Zizeks accomplishments speak for themselves, for a person that had read the communist manifesto to criticize an entire ideology is like reading a childrens book to criticize a literary movement. I think what you actually mean is that Petterson is more commercialable and quite structured on a public platform than Zizek is, and thats because Petterson is an influencer, a psycologist who thrived in his career due to his contraversial and preexisting takes on sensitive topics and became a public figure whilst Zizek is an academic, a person that has dedicated his life to understand theory and contribute so much to the scientific community. If you think Petterson made any reasonable remarks in this debate then this means you lack the basic understanding of simple arguments made in this video.
And yet, none of you could even spell Peterson's name correctly, so there's that.
That aside, I didn't see anyone being obnoxious but rather intellectually honest and willing to explore ideas.
@@leedsdrumacademy So spelling his name incorrectly makes my point invalid? It pisses me off that people are criticizing Zizek just because of the way he talks and acts whilst having not even a basic understanding of what they are talking about.
It's exactly the same people in the audience that are acting like it's some kind of MMA match.
@@suicidalsatan2085 The spelling remark was a joke - evidently I don't take intellectual debate as seriously as you do. :)
It's funny how the left is criticized for being idealistic, yet here comes Jordan with the most sunny and pleasant view of capitalism imaginable.
He said everyone will be out of poverty by a certain year thanks to capitalism, then said that by out of poverty he means above $1.90 a day, as if that's a liveable wage LMAO. Baffles me that anyone takes him seriously 😭
@@platos23baffles me that you live such a privileged life relative to the avg human and are so ignorant of history that you can’t see how amazing that is.
Implying he's merely naive is far too kind to the snake Peterson. He's not naive. He's a liar profiting off of defending the status quo that made him rich and famous, just like the rest if the Capitalists.
@@platos23what system would you implement to get people into the middle class without robbing from the rich
Who the shite called the left idealistic?
I felt zizek's embarrassment when they cheered his credentials lol
Lowkey he doesn’t have to be that awkward about it
🤕
Why be coy? Honest acceptance of this adulation is ….OK. It is a byproduct of his work. Peterson manages it quite well, with grace. Naturally.
@@kittyadams3061 addulation is an obstacle for discourse. now how should one respond in that situation i do not really know, i would say ignore it.
@@asddjs4995 dude you talk about social issues and people go "YEAAAAAAAAH WOOOOH BABY" Like stfu please
I love how JP started his bit by sprinkling his speech with obvious honeypots that are supposed to trigger Zizek to waste his time arguing against, only for Zizek not to play and read his opening from a script.
I may be wrong…. But it looks like a blank sheet
He realized his whole allotted time would be taken up with dismantling the obvious strawman Peterson set up and thought it not worth the trouble.
You seem to be confused... Peterson doesn't "lay out honeypots", he's just doing a 30 minute short lecture on the gaps in Marxist theory. He's not even attacking anything Zizek says; he admitted his preparation with Zizek's work was essentially impossible due to the volume of his work and the time allotted. Why don't you continue burning down Greece and leave the thinking to the adults. (If Peterson had presented his preliminary argument 2nd, you'd accuse him of avoiding Zizek's statement by sticking to a prepared script.) Debates work in an orderly manner, maybe you're not familiar with the format.
Hah... this audience is so stupid.
Zizek's first three statements:
"I am being attacked by leftists due to my critique of LGBT ideologies" -- crickets, audience doesn't know how to react
"China is a great success" -- crickets
"Humans always sabotage their own happiness, they don't know what's good for them!" -- WHOOPS AND HOLLERS FROM THE STUDENTS! ROFL, this is all egghead technical gobbledygook, juuuust like the majority of continental philosophy. It's only for disaffected eggheads who relish in the sadness of their own failures and think burning the world down is a proper dialectical solution.
@@mercster cry about it
Jordan Peterson’s opening is a first year uni essay done the night before
is this an insult?
@@bigboat8329 I think it is
@@bigboat8329 well, I'd assume he probably didn't mean it as a compliment. ha ha
quite true. He critiques these types of essays in one of his talks. There is no originality to it whatsoever
😂😂😂
It's very interesting that Jordan opens by telling us how he struggled to read the communist manifesto. He had a whole existential crisis about how to read a book properly.
One thing I know for sure, out of all philosophers, Slavoj Zizek has the itchiest nose.
Cocaine
Didn't he have a stroke?
It's super unerving to watch post covid
It's a tic
Someone else here pointed out that he has Tourette's Syndrome.
The audience cheering about Zizek's degrees was quite awkward
he wasn't taking Peterson's side, he had the contempt in his eyes, there's no doubt over the fact that people who love Peterson are racists.
Lostintime wtf are you on about? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I thought it was a little bit weird but not particularly awkward. Is there something about Zizeks degrees that I’m missing or were you just saying that the audience should shut up (which I agree with)?
Lostintime there are also numerous people who love him that aren’t racist
@@carmelopearman5721 haha but why can't they just continue searching for better ideas, mm?
'You are all individuals!' "Yes, we are all individuals!" - Life of Brian
lol
Is that you my friend? Biggus dikkuss??
“I’m not…”
“Shhh!”
Question everything, even the guy who tells you to question everything.
"You are all different!" - "Not me!"
As an Iranian I would like to remind you of how lucky you are to be able to listen to two great minds debating on such important topics. It was my dream to attend one of the debates of Christopher Hitchens and I never got the chance. I know I may never get the chance to see Professor Dawkins or Dr. Peterson too. Don't be so vain to interrupt them with untimely laughs when they're trying so hard to remain focused and analyze everything...
1:28:30 "Happiness should be treated as a necessary by-product. If you focus on it, you are lost". Brilliant.
True
Happiness cannot be found. It cannot be created. We spend and contort all for happiness. Like Dr. Viktor Frankl said, “...happiness comes only as a by product of living a meaning-full life.” If you want to be happy, live a meaning centered life and happiness will come.
if he didnt reference ancient chinese wisdom then he is plaigiarising sorry i cant spell yik...
Im being told; an I think shown; we are manifesting the world around us. So I begin to wonder if the belief in a balance of unhappiness an happiness an the belief in death an disease are not the actions which create them an prevent us from a return to paradise
@@UncleTehrarist all men are plagerizing. There is nothing new to a large extent. Can't wait for a new Wesley snipes blade movie even tho it's gonna be the 100,000th vampire story
God bless you for uploading a clean audio version.
I uploaded it in 4K too, but for some reason the 4K option isn't available yet. I always make sure to try to fix any video and audio issues for my uploads and have the best possible quality.
@@ManufacturingIntellect Seriously dude, thank you!!! The others sucked so much especially when Zizek came on. I couldn't stand the sound.
@@egontokessy1610 I tried my best to upscale the video to HD too. The video took like 55 hours to render, which makes me upset that there's no 4K option to watch yet.
the sounds get's screwed again at @1:27:00, but just for a while.
@@ManufacturingIntellect Well I like it so it's all good with me ;).
Zizek's disdain for the praise had me rolling. The man just loves to talk about ideas and the intro was boring him.
Jordan's Pause when he said "the bloody violent revolution and the overthrowing of existing social structures" and the crowd cheers was very telling that a lot of people just didn't get it. He couldn't hide his frustration with the crowd on that one.
Those were definitely Zizek fans because you never see that at a Peterson lecture
Real Staf they were zizek fans lol
victoria zabaras are you serious?
Ever wonder it could be because Peterson encourages such behavior.
Lev M wow... big brain time
Žižek’s opening statement was one of the best i’ve ever heard (and i’ve watched a silly amount of debates)
I hope you don't mean his china satement because that was the first thing he said o the topic and it was already wrong.
@@chouayabdelali21 the wrong part is that China had massive success in the past 25 years but is was despite its autoritharian (formerly communist) system not because of it.
Especially in the recent 5-10 years one can see how aweful the centralised part works.
In the wake the mortgage crisis in 2009 exports tanked and to keep their face up so the people do not rebel they continued to push for high growth but with a system that is unsustainable
30% of their GDP today is the national real estate market - double to triple compared to western countries
the value of a property in china has risen so that a standard apartment in a big citry is 50 times the yeearly wage of a normal working person
compare that to like expensive US cities where it is 10 times the wage which is already a catastrophe
No - china had success when they abolished communism and centralised decision making and now face problems again since they slide back into a dictatorship
@@1337Jogiu know shit abt china
@@1337Jogiwrong you can look at China and India both formerly centralised now free markets. The only difference being one is a democracy and the other is a authoritarian. Democracies are inefficient.
@@AllThatsLeft24first of all, inefficient is too strong of a word, lets say less efficient but u have to ask yourself why, because they care about people and their rights, u cant just commande people to go and build something unlike in autoritharian regimes
Zizek: "Apocalypse is inevitable"
Audience: HAHAHAHAHA
Immediately I check date on this video. Another train is coming and we ain't woken up yet
Zizek is right on this one no matter what happens, because the sun will expand in 4 billion years and torch the planet
They must be gen z
Hahahaha
Ehh well it probably is tbh
"When somebody tries to convince me that in spite of all the problems there is a light at the end of the tunnel my instant reply is yes and it's probably another train coming towards us." 1:10:40
I really loved this line. It stood out to me as well.
The light of fascism
@@psychologicalsuccess3476 Zizek's final words warn against the laziness of fascist labelling.
I think he stole that line from Terry Pratchett (The Pratchett quote was something like "Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a flamethrower")
What's impressive is that English for Slavoj Žižek is 3rd or maybe even 4th language. Slovenian native language, Serbo-Croatian 2nd language. Depending on what school he went to he could have studied either English or German
I know he speaks French, German and Slovenian
And he seems to know some french as well.
@@SamuelHauptmannvanDam He did his second PhD in Université Paris VIII so yeah
He is fluent in Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, English, French and German, and there are some videos where he also speaks Spanish but not fluent
Thank you, I am immensely grateful for the fact that this gem is available for free online. It is my most favorite debate to witness. Thank you 🙏🏻
th-cam.com/video/n7O_9708RmU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zBlyGZp746gpAkEP
Its amazing that 2.5 hours of deep philosophical discussion can fill theaters, have 3M youtube views, 12K comments and even people cheering in the public
TH-cam can be absolutely amazing sometimes. I grew up in the pre-internet days and can only imagine how it would have affected my childhood being able to watch content like this!
*1.25 hours of deep philosophical discussion and 1.25 hours of JP farting his way thru a thinker he hasn't read, much less understood
None of this is “deep philosophical discussion.”
@@KilgoreTroutAsf you're salty af nobody has time to read boring leftist theory. You need to get laid
@@KilgoreTroutAsf and that comment is how civil discourse dies.
I believe the audience was told to clap every time they stop understanding what the speaker is saying.
👏 this the one
Pfffft... I was drinking water yo. Can't be doing that to me lmao
this checks out.... there was a LOT of clapping.. lol
boss
Exactly my thoughts he explains how & why it doesn't work then they proceed to celebrate it like why are they clapping 🤨
It was so wonderfully refreshing to watch two people debate while also making a strong effort to find common ground, makes jokes, and show respect for each other
Intelligent people will always look to find the truth in what another person is saying, stupid people will look for the falsehoods.
It's a shame western society is not more thoroughlly encouraged at all educational and societal levels to think critically and be original but instead to become mouth peices for someone else's thoughts. This was a superb example of what can happen if two rational, emotionally intelligent people actually listen to the other without crying out some diatribe, emotionally charged drivel. Excellent.
i find all that chummy shit to be a waste
@@jordochappers7430
Your comment defines the far right & the far left.
@@Avi-tc2ym How so?
I'm sitting here wondering how someone like Jordan Peterson was billed as the equivalent of Zizek.
Not clear from your comment which one you believe is the superior.
But by the phrasing, ie. "someone" referring to that there's more than one / not that unique or full name for Peterson but not for Zizek - showing your familiarity with the latter caused you to distance him less, I assume you mean that Zizek > Peterson.
If so, I'd disagree. Don't mistake Peterson's recent mainstream fame for him having mainstream ideas.
Both great gentlemen.
@@WeatherGuruOSRS You try so pathetically hard, someone does not mean more then one, sit ur impotent ass down
@@WeatherGuruOSRS Clearly they meant Zizek is the superior intellectual. Jordan Peterson is the ''poor man's'' intellectual (as someone quite fittingly put it).
@@Rachel59435 I don't think he is, Peterson just became more mainstream and is capable of expressing himself in such way that more people can listen. Also, Peterson is much more active on visual media, hence attracting more.
Being more niche, doesn't make what you say any more superior.
@@WeatherGuruOSRSthe guys a moron (I’m talking about jordan peterson) he can hardly read the things he wrote without having a near mental breakdown, also he doesn’t know what a milestone is
No disrespect, but this is probably the most immature audience that I came across. People, this is an intellectual debate that supposes to keep emotional behaviors out as much as possible. Hearing this audience "clap" at every single word of the intro is really childish. Things like, "Zizek is a professor of Philosophy" and the clap and noise begin! Wow.
Being Liberal.. is rooted in self image. They *have* to clap. Its Ego Stroking. If they were honest, it would defeat the purpose of being Liberal.
Theres a reason Jordan Petersen is a Scientist, and Slavoh Zizek is a Philosopher. One is based in Critical Thinking, the other uses Subjective Reasoning.
You could tell both Zizek and Peterson were SO annoyed with the audience...and so was I tbh.
@@bartacomuskidd775 lmfao assuming makes an ass out of you and me
Not only claps but cheers as well. I mean one thing is to clap in recognition of the achievements. Another thing is to blindly hype up the theater with loud and obnoxious cheers for everything that sounds even remotely intellectual. The crowd was annoying.
To be a fan of JP you have to be somewhat childish/infantile
Mr ‘Tidy your room’ / Mr ‘Get treatment for addiction in RU because JP is a hack and talks the talk but can’t walk the walk’
Ask him if Canadian healthcare is better than the USA (he freezes like a deer in headlights every time )
Every time Zizek tugs on his shirt another bottle of water is brought onto the stage.
It’s amazing how well Peterson keeps his focus on Zizek’s words and is not the least bit distracted by his shirt tugging. I failed miserably!
As someone once said "When a wise man points at the moon, an idiot looks at his finger. ". Be better. Look past it...
@@chriss790 I only look at water bottles.
@@Thinknappythoughts Bet you chase shiny objects too.
@Jamahl Steinberg I know. Very lucky.
I was worried about the crowd thinking like they were watching a rap battle which is not.
Crowd sucked but those boys were spittin
This is the first time i watched this. I was able to follow Peterson's opening statement while looking through the comments, it was... embarassing. Zizek has me like a fish on a hook, struggling to chew everything he is throwing out. Eager to see how this develops, phenomenal.
try to listen to it multiple times, slowed down or maybe try and read the transcription? also pause multiple times so you can digest it
@@catherinejanet5806 the transcription is the best road for me personally! It is good to spread tips for accessibility, thank you friend
@@catherinejanet5806???? Reread what they said
@@shinigamicthulu6225 reading or watching hard to digest things multiple times really helps in my experience
That's just Zisek, his work is similarly hard to digest. I don't think that Petersons opening statement is necessarily embarrassing. He may not have much experience with Marxism, but his background in human psychology is leveraged to powerful effect. Certainly, his statement that Marx did not appear to account for the hierarchies present in the natural world is not to be ignored. How can we account for the fact that class dynamics exist in organisms as simple as ants? It poses the dangerous proposition that Marx sought to offerthrow human biology itself. I wouldn't say this is embarrassing, rather an insightful and succinct point on the psychology of a Marxist perspective.
imagine reading the communist manifesto once and thinking you can take on a post-marxist philosohper in a debate
Imagine taking Destiny takes and commenting them as if they're your own.
@@postdeliberately5641Why would you impugn someone for not reading enough when you can't even come up with your own takes.
That might be ridiculous if you weren't all that intelligent to start off with but that's not the case here so your point is lost.
Imagine listening to this and not hearing Peterson read it a few times and critically not with infatuation
@@SCP1471 Impugn is a big word. I’m proud of you.
To everyone talking about how Zizek "lost" the argument when he says china is a success story. Clearly this "success" is meant to be in capitalism terms.He explicitly terms it a dangerous phenomenon how nowadays democracy is not required for capitalism to flourish. Authoritarianism has successfully adapted to it. This is why he's of the opinion that we should aim for some sort of limitations in the capitalist structure
Great point. We must not let fear get in the way of entertaining ideas like this. You can think about this critically without betraying your own thoughts on the matter. Although, we should respect when a mind like this mulls over a problem like this for our benefit. They have the mental discipline to constantly retool their ideas. Methodical thought is time consuming and most don't engage in this behavior. Appreciating thinkers that deconstruct the world is paramount. Even if we disagree. Especially if it causes an emotional reaction within us. Those are the greatest moments for growth.
Maybe we should somehow aim at some sort of way to limit authoritarianism.
Wow you explained that perfectly.
@Captain Fgt creating resentment and strife is just more of the same.
Yes, Zizek said China has elevated millions into the middle class via capitalism but the problem is China is beyond authoritarianism, they combine hard core communism with capitalism. In addition to being the worst human rights violators on the planet they just killed 4.5 million people (and counting) then shut down any serious inquiry into the Wuhan lab. In that way the Chi-Coms haven't changed very much since Mao's great famine of 1960. President Panda of China is just as evil. Unfortunately sellouts like Google and Zoom help the Chi-Coms limit what the average Chinese person can know and share with each other in a chat room.
Someone tell the audience that this ain’t a circus!
right? freaks me out, those 'late to the meal'
it's the Peterson crowd treating this like a SNL show
@@Yuuseki Sure it must be them, you enlightened soul...
@@Yuuseki That's obviously untrue, because there were many times Slavoj made a point an the audience roared.
Why would it be a circus? They were clearly enjoying an intellectual conversation, and there's nothing wrong with that. There were, most likely, people in the crowd who did not cheer nor applaud when they liked something (and I suppose you would fall into that category), but that doesn't mean that they are doing something wrong, and the passionate crowd is not doing something wrong either.
Different people enjoy things in different ways.
"Renunciation of pleasure, can turn into pleasure of renunciation itself."
Zizek looking like "are you here to cheer or are you here to think?"
I love how thoroughly nauseous Slavoj looks when he's being introduced.
3:45 when he puts his hand up to this mouth lmaooo
He always looks a little nauseous 😆. It's a part of his charm.
@@marinazolotic4347
At least in this case he's defending communism I believe. That would make anyone woozy.
@n3rdm4n oh look, a moron.
@@n3rdm4n true :D nobody sane would defend that.
This is a fascinating discussion to listen to post-pandemic and amid massive inflation. Slavoj’s pessimism for the economic system amid hardship is on point.
China is literally in the middle of a housing crisis no?
@@dunno7932 tell me u didn’t watch the video without telling me
and he still makes jokes!
No idea about China, North America sure is though.
@@sashamacdonald4278 China is having a housing crisis multiple times worse than our 2010 crash. The current housing issue in the US was/is directly caused by the government. Has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. The government printed trillions of dollars in 2020 and 2021. Trump and Biden did this. The result is the highest inflation in 40+ years. Home builders have built too few new homes every year for the past 10 years greatly because it is so expensive and time consuming because of government over regulation. This caused a shortage and drove up prices. Free government money drove up prices further. Low government interest rates drove prices up as well. Then the government tried to fix their mistake by hiking interest rates and dropping the housing market through the floor. Every single problem can be directly tied to our incompetent government.
Peterson: "I got schooled today but I didn't learn anything."
Zizek: "Class dismissed."
Oh my goodness, they are so polite to each other that it just melts my heart. They oppose each other in such a fine manner. If only all could agree/disagree so delicately and lightly.
It's refreshing, and that's a catastrophe.
Wtf?
Its what happens when 2 truly intellectual people try to have a civil debate about big ideas. Most of the “ugly” debates are generally people actively trying to make the other look bad, ad hominems, manipulating with strawmans, and aggressively pushing their ideology upon another. We need more people to have dialogues just like this.
@@BingoBangoBongoBOOM I think you put it perfectly, when you said "two ´truly´ intellectual people" because they both aknowledge the fact that they might be wrong and the other might be right. Doing so they are set on the same playingfield: They both seek truth but know they can only move on by falsification not by bragging about their ideology.
It all depends
Zizek facepalming around 03:00 already told that this audience is going to be a tough one...
Usually, I don't comment on TH-cam posts like this one but I have to address the crowd. In an intellectual debate like this one, you have to stay quiet to understand what these two gentlemen are talking about unless you yourself are a philosopher who has a deep understanding. Cheering for the PhDs or just their persona is just ridiculous and shows that they view this debate not as an opportunity to learn something but rather as a battle of which is more intelligent or well-spoken ...
The people crowd just cheer when they hear a word or two that they think they understand and which reflects their chosen identity in the echo chambers that are their skulls.
It was a fine symposium and took me a few days just to get through it as Dante would say spirits rose and a heat of zeal surged. I can imagine Bill Nye, Noam Chomsky and Stephen Fry sharing some amazing insights. Unfortunately the crowd and the thumbnail is a true reflection of today's society.
@@bryanmukherjee7601Bill Nye...
People should learn that cheering during a debate shows that you really don't care for the debate but instead are only there to hear people uphold your beliefs and it really troubles me since it should instead be a time for listening and reflection upon one's own beliefs but also time to learn which sadly the audience doesn't feel the same
It reminds me of growing up in churches 😒
Exactly. The point of a debate isn't to convince others, it's to make your own views more informed
Debates are not for learning. Studying is. Enrolling in a lecture or a course is. Debates have always been for entertainment.
@@lucyferos205crazy...crazy... you're insane
I am genuinely surprised and impressed that I watched 2 and a half hours of theoretical discussion and was actually RIVETED the entire time. I deeply, deeply wish that these were what played on 24 hour networks. And I am convinced we would all be better if they were.
It is available for FREE on TH-cam.
Attempting to Force this type of Content to be consumed by the Masses may be considered a Paradox akin to the phrase “too much Information can be a bad thing”.
Debates like these are viewed often-times by Individuals forced by Academic Pressures or those with a Genuine Desire to Consume, Absorb or Understand such High-Level Intellectual Discourse.🎓🎓🎓💯💯💯
The next stage after being "riveted" is to apply the mental tools you received from this exchange into figuring out for yourself why your proposed world is not the world we actually have. Grab yourself a rivet gun and put those rivets to good use!
You are proposing an alternate course of human nature. How deep is the cut required to reshape the human project into your speculative configuration? What human neurological or social tissue receives the knife? What else would necessarily also change?
And the kicker: Is your own laziness in not addressing these questions yourself under your own steam not merely the same thing that keeps others glued to CNN and Fox News playing out on a more abstract chess board?
You've supplied a fantasy with no analysis. The difference from where I'm sitting is not obvious.
@@afterthesmash While I would love to change human nature - including my own, I think the words attributed to Lao Tzu when responding to Confucius ring most true: ( something to the effect of) if human nature is a certain way, no amount of books or laws will change that...
The gist of Lao Tzu's meaning is that the more things change, the more they stay the same - humans still act rather primitively and tribally and the comments under this video about the silly reactions of the audience seems to prove exactly that. heck, some of the comments themselves prove that.
Living your life as an example is the best way to teach or lead others.
But, maybe that is what you were saying in so many words.
@@afterthesmash lol u mad
"The best things on television are its junk, and no one and nothing is seriously threatened by it. Besides, we do not measure a culture by its output of undisguised trivialities but by what it claims as significant. Therein is our problem, for television is at its most trivial and, therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important cultural conversations. The irony here is that this is what intellectuals and critics are constantly urging television to do."
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
In other words, if you're looking for important and intellectual information on TV, you're doing it wrong and it will most likely be turned into a water downed form of entertainment.
I love how Jordan's entire arguments against Marx is basically accusing Marx of not thinking about things he literally studied extensively and had mentioned many times in his writing.
"I only read a single pamphlet, so I don't know what Marx thinks about this, so I made up what I think Marx thinks about this, and its terrifying!"
"Marx thinks the bourgeois are evil and the proletariats are good." No he doesn't.
"Marx never considered man's fight with nature." Yes he did.
"Marx never explained how a communist society would become hyper-productive." Yes he has.
And my personal favorite: "If you exploit your workers, you won't get the maximum value out of them." "Getting the maximum value out of something (or someone)" is the literal definition of "exploit." This sentence is self contradictory. It's like saying: if you murder someone, you can't kill them.
Nothing Peterson says about Marx or Marxism is true. By his own admission he relies heavily on inference. He doesn't know what Marx wrote because, again by his own admission, he has only read The Communist Manifesto. Given that many of the things Peterson states are left unexplained by Marx are, in fact, explained in the Manifesto, he clearly didn't read it that thoroughly. How Peterson, or his critique of Marxism, can be taken seriously after this, I don't know.
@@VoonNBuddies and yet his ideas got millions killed...
@@VoonNBuddies so why is Marxism proven a bad system over and over?
fr! it is insane that peterson was not laughed off of the stage during his opening remarks. in addition to just generally structuring his argument poorly and lying to the audience “i will explain; here is a tangent; i have explained” he in each of his points admits a total lack of knowledge on the topic. falsehood after falsehood after misconception after misconception, just playing into what the audience (presumably) thinks socialism is so that his points appear self-evident and rational
Yeah, Jordan's overall decision to talk about Marx instead of at least looking into some of Žižek's work made clear that Jordan was not prepared and will get stomped on. He knew that he wouldn't be able to at least match Žižek so he instantly went on the anti-communism, which is a pretty popular talking point. He waned Žižek to defend the communist manifesto so that he could at least get some people to not see him as a complete looser. Basically, he waned Žižek to defend unpopular opinions so that it would make Žižek look bad amongst the audience, even tho it's clear who was prepared for this event.
“I read the Communist Manifesto, so I pretty much got the gist of it.”
"Nazis ideas are bad because they killed people" has exactly the same tone to it. Do you think it makes sense?
@@yarpenzigrin1893 we are not the same
@@jimmythethird5514 Yeah, communists and nazis are on the same level of evil.
Exactly. Perfectly valid statement. He also said that just because you read something, doesn't mean you understand it, but he's got the gist of it. What's the problem?
@@lephenomene1308 he is shallow and understands nothing. That’s the problem