Full Lecture: Žižek vs. Jordan Peterson

Hi everyone, I’m this video I want to explain what I believe to be the most important moment in the Žižek/Peterson debate, and also introduce some of the key conceptual ideas Žižek has about Hegel, Lacan/Freud, and Marx.
You can read the essay of this lecture and support my work here: www.patreon.com/posts/8046383...
If you’d like to download all of my lectures + my ebook, please consider becoming a patron. This project is entirely patron/funded, so I want to say a huge thank you to everyone who keeps supporting me in keeping this channel alive.
Thank you so much,
Julian
Patreon: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian
#zizek #slavojzizek #jordanpeterson #jbp

[@WanderingExistence]

Zizek > Peterson
Zizek entertains a more cerebral level abstraction that is still able to inform the Real by telling us to look back and recontextualize our understanding of past ideas as our social environment and the parallaxic view of our present changes how we understand these ideas today. It's very 'self/socially-reflective' by understanding what lens we view things through today and allows us to extract new ideas out of thinkers who came before us. This also illuminates why Zizek doubles down on Hegel as he revisits him, in a sense, to extract different notions from Hegel than Marx could sheerly due to being/time. Which does makes him a strange Marxist indeed :P
Thanks, Julian, for making these videos intellectually stimulating and digestible. You definitely hit your mark.

[@dimosthenistserikis5901]

Looking forward to part two!

[@julianphilosophy]

If you’d like to become a patron, here are the tiers: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian
Tier 1: weekly q&a seminar + audio download/discord access ($5)
Tier 2: audio downloads for every lecture + edited transcripts for self-study ($10)
Tier 3: Masterclass video collection ($15)
Tier 4: Ebook ($25)

[@the_antiquark]

I don't consider Peterson a philosopher or an intellectual.

[@animefurry3508]

Peterson is a Sophist par excellence, engaged only in sales man ship over Truth and Progress. Using his knowledge to reinforce the cracks in a dying system, and people run to it blindly and wishing to be further blinded.

[@blender_wiki]

Puting this 2 adjectives in same sentence besides "Peterson" is already an offence to the human intelligence

[@blender_wiki]

Deceiving contents since few weeks. Maybe is time to go back to real philosophy and stop to making a pseudo intellectual talkshow?

[@ihavenojawandimustscream4681]

He's a psychologist, but certainly no philosopher.

[@andreitiberiovicgazdovici]

@@ihavenojawandimustscream4681with all due respect, Peterson may be a "psychologist," but even there his theses and beliefs have several gaps to say the least. The real problem is that he doesn't even talk about psychology anymore, but he speaks up and deals with practically anything: sociology, philosophy, history, religion... and when he touches on those topics... what can I say? It doesn't make us look good

[@bhashanathilakarathna2683]

Thanks for this Julian..and if you can, please name a book for beginners to understand philosophy concepts..

[@julianphilosophy]

It’s a bit expensive, so I’d recommend getting it second hand: but the ‘Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism’ is very good and useful

[@bhashanathilakarathna2683]

Thanks

[@fotiostriantas4673]

​@@julianphilosophy I disagree with your recommendation. It is an anthology and it is good however our friend here must have an introduction to basic philosophical concepts and the main philosophical streams of thought.
So I recommend Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder the 20th Anniversary edition if possible. It is like a novel but it is not simplistic at all , a great introduction recommended in European universities are the first year of every humanities department.
After that our friend he can read the anthology.

[@fotiostriantas4673]

You need some good foundations. In most European universities, Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder the 20th Anniversary edition , it is a must read before you deal with philosophy. It has everything you need as a beginning, it is very friendly to the reader, it is very well documented and written by an academic philosopher and it explains very well the basics of the most "important" schools of thought in historical order.
The form of the book, novel like, must non fool you. It will be a valuable guide in going deeper to philosophical concepts.
After you read it and comprehend it you can use the recommended anthology as a source for a better understanding.

[@nainfalak]

“The paralax view” needs its own lecturer.

[@MultiTeliot]

Does anyone know the title of the lecture that covers The Sublime Hysteric (as mentioned above)?

[@TheGinglymus]

How would Freud interpret your difficulty with saying interpretation?

[@iFastee]

great

[@animefurry3508]

The Peterson vs Dillahunty debate I think is similar in away to the Zizek vs Peterson debate in that they really seem to be working with completely different frameworks and so just spend the whole time talking past each other and avoiding the question everyone was there for.
And both in stubbornly holding to there absolute reconceived positions end up missing an actually opportunity to learn and change.

[@addammadd]

What you missed was that only one of the men in that discussion had actually read the works. Neither had any interest in engaging with the other’s positions for entirely different reasons. Peterson couldn’t engage with Zizek because he’s illiterate in Marxist theory. Zizek couldn’t engage with Peterson because he’s illiterate in bullshit posturing sophistry.

[@sirenejoudy-kf2xp]

Joining from mallorca spain 🥰

[@aosidh]

Funny, I was on Whidbey at the same time for a bday trip 🐱

[@dustinhessel9605]

Dallas Texas.

[@Vladimir-Struja]

does nietschzean konzept amor fati has something to do with "love your symptom"

[@steven5054]

Battle of the bullshitters! Lacan versus Jung!

[@RydSpyn]

I think the take on Peterson is misguided to say the least. The guy genuinely wanted to know why Zizek doesn't have a theory to his name, and why he continues to hold on to Marxism, even though it's been shown to fail in practice - a reasonable question from where Peterson was standing - and here it's presented as though Zizek acted like the one "opening his heart" to him. If anything, instead of shining light on Zizek's jovial attitude meant as an affront, one should offer Peterson the same honor, for whom a jovial conversation is precisely what the opposite supposedly is for Zizek. There was no demeaning attitude in Peterson except for the opening talk. If we follow the logic presented here, Zizek played along but "secretly" despised what was happening, while Peterson was genuinely interested in learning something; if anything, that's a bad look for Zizek. But I don't believe it to be true anyway. One should perhaps "learn to reject the hermeneutic temptation" and simply see it for what it was: Peterson got schooled in critical thinking and philosophy but was cool enough not to start a temper tantrum about it, and Zizek obliged and taught him something about his "world".