The Moment Slavoj Zizek Blew Jordan Peterson's Mind
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- An excerpt from Jordan Peterson's speech at an Independent Institute event held on May 2, 2019, in San Francisco.
Jordan Peterson talks about the most memorable moment from his debate with Slavoj Zizek.
The full video can be found here: • The Meaning and Realit...
Zizek blew my mind twice in their debate. #1 when he said that our most accepted beliefs are also our least challenged ones #2 rejection of pleasure can slowly turn into pleasure from rejection (pain)
Can you tell me what blew jordan's mind? I am unable to decipher that "dain" statement which he made. Can you please explain it to me?
@@paulgodson798 no clue what he's on about, I've found value in many things that he's said but sometimes it feels a lot like he's just saying random things with fancy words
@@davidaIano oh but i think he really meant something, his English is quite complex.
@@paulgodson798 oh yea I have no doubt that he has a big vocabulary and it does seem to me that his mind really is blown in this video. My point is that surely not 100% of everything he's said is wisdom, I'm just saying that he's human and like us he makes mistakes, his mistakes however are hard to see because he's very eloquent and he defends them well. Some people seem to think that everything that comes from his mouth is gospel.
what he said is this: the human suffering is so big, that if christ himself experiences it, he would doubt his own existence, you know, because when something so bad happens to us we always come to the same conclusion, "god does not exist, if he did he would never let this happen to me", etc etc.
Zizek is very much a Marxist, and an extremely good one. A good Marxist is not someone who religiously follows everything Marx wrote, a good Marxist is someone who applies Marx's ideas into modern society and modifies them where need be. Marx himself acknowledged that his ideas are conditional and based on the material conditions at the time. Zizek applies Marx's ideas and develops them. He is a good Marxist.
Well said
Well stated indeed
What exactly is a Marxist?
@@tonywilthshire308 Someone who follows the principles put out in Marx's writings
@@tonywilthshire308 Yo he JUST said what a Marxist is
JP had a year to prepare for this debate and he read the communist manifesto
How do you know he had a year to prepare?
lmao
@@titocristobal5573 we know because the challenge was very public like a year beforehand. marxists like douglas lane, richard wolff & of course, zizek all got pretty tired of his "postmodern neo-marxist" line very fast lmao (all of whom, btw, wanted to debate him... but he only accepted zizek, sadly)
@@3looming314 thanks
@@Gallowglass7 the challenges were public by many marxists like a year earlier. JP didn't accept the challenges until much later, which is when i assume you're talking about?
No disrespect to JP but Zizek is on another level when it comes to blowing minds. If JP is a professor, Zizek is a force of nature...
i feel like zizek is what peterson (and his fans) think he is. they both have that broad psycho-analytic/religious/political/philosophical way of thinking, except zizek actually seems capable of intellectually engaging with what he talks about and peterson just filters whatever he sees through an ideological lens
its not
bot have ideas and perpectives in diferent issues on humanity, the same zizek said that and trow this comments to the garbage
@@bee-nf5bj Peterson in my view cannot seem to go beyond Jung. And like Jung, I think he had trouble seeing beyond ideology. That's not to say that studying Jung isn't interesting, especially in a psychoanalytic/philosophical context. But where Hegel bases his views on Hegel, Lacan, Marx... He isn't afraid to step out its bounds, to expand, to mold and mesh these ideas together. Imo, Peterson can't seem to do that. Watch him speak about Jung, he cannot get over his insights. He seems unable to think beyond it or criticize it.
And he walked on water, and he stood there and the divine light emitted off his anus...
They fight a lot because both of them are anti ideologicals, you see, they agree in some fields, specially zizek when it comes to being anti political correctness or being against liberation of drugs, another example is how JP agrees a lot with zizek's view on how capitalism exploits every single one of us and with his clinic psychology he tries to show us some things, tips for surviving in modern society and how it messes up with us, specially for young adults entering the job Market
Zizek is amazing, unfortunately many people are unable to approach him because of the memes surrounding him.
I discovered him by way of memes
yeah i think that makes him more approachable
i just wish i was smarter ,i feel out of depth with him most of him and what he reference in Hegel and Lucan i cant find copies to read and my main way of learning is go back to what people are referencing , but he seems to great and i agreed with some of what i do understand its just the rest that i need some help with.
He's okay, compared to normal public intellectual or main stream like say JP, yes he is amazing, but when you dive into the actual subjects he really isn't all that great at all, and in reality is quite low on the totem poll compared with other philosophers/thinkers/intellectuals... there really ,Amy more who blow him out if the water no problem/no questions asked aka without any doubts what so ever.... With that all being said, I still do like him though, and very much for his style lol, love how he talks and how he brings about the points he makes, has a very effective style of dishing out slam dunks.... this "debate" with JP was utterly embarrassing for JP as Zizek destroyed him and quite literally made a fool of him, truly exposing JP for the fraud that he is. I'm sure JP makes for a greater teacher in a class room (I've watched too many of his class room lectures btw... )and he seems to do great in that arena, but he is no philosopher and certainly not a public intellectual (at least not a real one though when you compare him to the ppl on the news you see every night he certainly would come across as one, but this is simply due to the fact that the ppl you see in major/mainstream media are quite literally some of the dumbest ppl on the planet and are no more than actors/ performance artists (being generous w/ that term, since they really don't deserve that much respect even...) keep reading and diving deeper into the many domains of inquiry that the human mind has been able to explore! Cheers
He's more approachable as the funny schniff man
When Zizek says "I'm more hegelian than marxist" he doesn't say he's not a marxist, Marx was hegelian in the first place. It just means that the conclusions given by analyzing Hegel between Zizek and Marx are different, but Zizek is indeed a marxist in the moment he applies these notions in a historical socio-political landscape on a materialist perspective. The point is that they're not polar opposite, in the contrary what Zizek tries to say (that Peterson didn't really get I think) is that you can't criticize Marx without knowing Hegel. That's what put Peterson in a struggling position I think. It's not like marxism was born out of nowhere, every current of thought of continental philosophy puts its roots in hegelianism. Zizek just critizes the interpretation of Hegel by Marx, and he feels he's more near to his own interpretation which is considerable more near to the original hegelian perspective than the one given by Marx, but it's not like he's condoning Marx from a totally opposite perspective
Zizek probably studied Marx and returned on the basics of hegelianism with the notions he had about more modern psychoanalytic and analytical notions (like many other philosophers did from the 50s and on), that demonstrates that hegelianism is more correct than marxism on certain topics. But it's not like Ayn Rand saying "marxism is bullshit", it's a completely different standpoint from Zizek. Zizek still comes as a scholar of the Hegelian left, while Peterson and others can say they are indirect scholars of the hegelian right. That would be an interesting debate, returning on the base of hegelianism and talking about hegelian left and hegelian right, which would obviously bring up an analysis on Marxist current of thought in a brighter way, way more on point and way more specifically critical. If Peterson wasn't so fed up on his own beliefs in a religious way and was more conscious of his knowledge and counterarguments, he surely would've put a way more interesting debate. It's not about being right or wrong at this point, is about understanding why we think in a way or another. For how the debate between Zizek and Peterson went it was absolutely useless, and hadn't give me anything I didn't know beforehand, I haven't learned anything new about Zizek or Peterson nor it had me some questions answered, and that's Peterson's fault, 'cause he was so astonishingly predictable on his arguments against marxism that even talking about them was a waste of time. He wasn't insightful about anything he said, he just decided to go on on his political agenda without challenging himself in any significant way. It actually suprised me how much unprepared Peterson was. You can't defend him on this one.
Hegel is one of the most incomprehensible philosophers ever. Heavily opaque. I’m always skeptical of anyone who says they understand him
@@brutanedda3107 in case you may want to go deep in Peterson's critique of Marxism, he had a recent talk with an Austrian economic professor, he was predictable on a lot of his statements, but there are a couple of really interesting analysis that worth it
look man all i know is communism=bad
@@horacio373 who pray tell was this austrian economic professor?
The guy went on a debate with Zizek and only read the communist manifesto... and he go on and tell people to read more...
exactly haha
Its a manipulative trick to demand that your opponents become an expert in the field they criticise. If you focus on the psychological underpinnings you don't need to read more than the communist manifesto to see clearly on display all you need to know. I read Das Kapital and it was a total waste of my time- expanding on the complexities of a resentful ideology does not transform it into something else.
And what are those psychological underpinnings that makes you able to "understand" so fully the marxist ideology?
And nobody asked him to become an expert
James H Or, you could just know what you’re talking about. Seems like a good idea to have some understanding of what you criticize. Only fools would argue otherwise.
Frankly Jordan Peterson did neither study nor understood Marxism and to be honest it wasn't much of a debate. The most striking part of the entire discussion, according to Jordan Peterson, was the moment Slavoj Zizek talked about the Christian passion and Christ crusified. Also probably the only moment Jordan Peterson deeply understood Slavoj Zizek. It would be far more interesting to hear them both talking about life and and changing ideas about philosophical and psychological issues.
What a ridiculous statement. Zizek obviously doesn't understand jp's psychological arguments and philosophical path through Nietzsche and Jung (the realm of knowledge is not just hegel and marxism, you and your friends should know better), how can one not understand that to change the world for the better you "need to set your house in order first"...it's ludicrous...this is why so many leftists fall into the trap of authoritarian regime poiesis. how can demigod zizek fail to understand it? Lol
To me the best argument to dismantle all this thesis of jp bejng destroyed by zizek is that the latter didn't even debate on marxism and its core values, not because he spared jp from humiliation, but because marxism is from a rational not brainwashed point of view a stupid shifting ideology based on hartred and laziness displayed by frustrated academics who would like to lead the masses but are strangled by the capitalist economic system in which they tend to be totally irrelevant. On top of that they have a difficult time to cope with reality with their lack of accountability and backbone and are most of the time probably beaten by their wives. Last but not least they hate ideological diversity and different opinions.
And this is why they respond so peevishly to jp's arguments with ad hominem
@@flvflv4712 The debate was sold under Marxism vs Capitalism. Perhaps not the best subject with these two combatants. If you are not familiar with a subject it is difficult. That being said I do not mean to be derogatory to Peterson. Peterson has ideas and thoughts that many appreciate. It would be more interesting to hear them both discussing around a subject they both are mastering. I also think your comment is exposing yourself with the retoric you choose to display.
@@flvflv4712 Wow what a load of crap. Peterson doesn't even understand Nietzsche, he only gets his beloved Jung. Boys who love Peterson should take an introductory course into philosophy.
One of Zizek's philosophical apprentices, Alenka Zupancic wrote a whole book on Nietzsche. This academic left of which you do not know anything is FAR SUPERIOR to what you're defending here.
Peterson's "philosophy" is just this self-help for lazy conformists and racists who do not want to examine their lives, their point of view, who want to continue being hateful little bitches and push the American 50's on everyone, blaming jews and cultural neo-marxists for the changes and problems in society. Learn the goddamn perspectives already.
Peterson is just being super emotional after reading Nietzsche and Frankl (and Solzhenytzyn, lol as if he gives a fuck about all those people who had died in Gulags. People like him are thankful to Stalin for all those millions of dead, gives you a weapon). But his supporters are only glad to have some talker on their side. Typical right-wingers.
@DODO MCGuy exactly, I am just too tired. People who aren't finding their way to the left, are just that, simple racists without any good will. Kantian Good Will = rationality and freedom but people are like children from the book "Lord of the flies".
@@lostintime519 all your arguments lead to a BIG question...WHO?
who says the academic left is far superior (you are already an idiot even to think in those terms)? Who says jp doesn't understand Nietzsche? Nietzsche himself? All your arguments are a colossal arrogant ab auctoritate. "I am sick of this and sick of that"...who cares what you are sick of? For being such a mind, such a marvellous example of the leftist intelligentcija, your logos is pretty shallow.
From my point of view, you and zizek can say what you want, philosophy and philosophers are greatly overrated, i wouldn't even debate with leftists on this theoretical ground, i would talk about historical perspectives and political pragmatic issues. In theory you can hide your idiocy and you hypocrisy, especially if you label as ignorant anybody who doesn't share your opinion, but not when things get factual.
So i would ask for example "why are you so concerned and obsessed with racism?" And then this would lead to the hypocrisy of the left and its pathological intollerance to ideological dissidence.
By the way your reference to the evergreen ideological shield of racism is trivial.
I always tried to teach my "fellow philosophers" at uni that even Einstein's assumptions needed to be proven in empirical form... you can't read 100 books and simply believe you know everything about life and humanity. Not at all. Probably you end up being a socialist simp who can't even find his d!ck, who calls anybody outside of his ideological sect a fascist, who advocated for equality and freedom but justifies mass murders for the sake of dogma, a kid who comes from wealthy middle class and doesn't understand what living and being accountable really is.
When you grow up you will understand hopefully...
Slavoj Zizek is genuinely creative
yes
Hes an incredible mind of our time. But when you think about it, what Marx, Zizek and others are saying is so... "Obvious". Yeah, we should be in control of our lives, our jobs, the resources. And everyone else should be as well.
“Zizek wasn’t a Marxist. I know what a real Marxist is. It’s a scary man that goes ooga booga booga” - Peterson
But zizek isn’t a Marxist by his own account lol
It's a man who rewrites your laws, erases your history and exploits your children for his own religion.
@@manubishe you mean like a catholic?
This comment had me rolling.
Yeah, that's what the man himself said.
The complete silence of the Peterson audience when he in a honest way said how Zizek dazzles him with an opinion is shocking. I loved it.
Other than a couple giggles, they were silent the whole time.
They are usually silent
@@alguldandoce7982 those who seek leaning, listen.
The silence is because they don’t understand as they’re retarded.
@@nclxmefozd6264 based answer
The problem with Jordan is that he thinks Marxist critique is the Communist Manifesto. The manifesto is a political pamphlet/book, if you want to know what Marxism is, read On Capital, which I doubt Jordan has ever read.
The Paris Manuscripts could be better
@@jkd4998 yeah but there is the whole sea of Marx. There is your young Marx and his Manuscripts of 1844 and there's your old Marx and his Capital which he wrote in the London library.
@@lostintime519 I was just tryin' to say that the foundation of Marx's capital could be better understood with Paris Manuscripts unless there was a total change 'conversion' on his thought.
@@jkd4998 I agree but I've heard that Marx was a humanist in his younger years
@Ralf Noya, what is On Capital? Who's the author? Can't find the book
I find it mind blowing that jordan peterson was out there calling people post-modern neo-marxists without any understanding of the most basic marxist literature
That's what almost all anti Communists and right wing people do . The people who cry most about these things understand it the least
What is actually Marxists? Been talking to anlot of people in universities, been reading a pot of sources, even here on this video's comment section, people somehow can't agree on one thing as to what Marxism is. One guy even mentioned that it's fluid and if you call yourself Marxist, you've already failed being a Marxist. Is Marxist a philosphy or a political ideology?
I genuinely want to know because I constantly find contradicting answers anytime I try to ask about it or look it up.
@@titocristobal5573 it’s tough to identify perfectly. I’d suggest checking out what dr Richard Wolff has to say about it because he actually IS a Marxist and has studied Marxism for many years, regardless as to whether you agree with his beliefs themselves I think he’s a good example of someone you can safely label as a Marxist. Marxists seem to mostly be disciples of marx’s strain of thought though they can clash against it at times; in modern times, the word has truly been muddled and confused. While inherently political because it’s systematically focused, there’s not much in Marxism itself that prioritizes the roles of a state, it’s primarily about the rights of workers and democratization of the work force as well as the abolition of the class system, an analysis of said class system which criticizes capitalism yadda yadda yadda
@@seankelly378 It doesn't work anyways so why to think so much about something that is useless?
@@MrMadmaggot ahahahahaah spot the Peterson fanboy
Zizek is a Marxist in the sense that he is in a tradition of thought that includes and is influenced by Marx, not in the sense that he is a dogmatic defender of everything Marx ever said or wrote.
You'll find that most Marxists are like that, and it's very important to understand that if you're going to be presenting "Marxism" as some kind of existential threat.
He is a very original thinker, but his thought does orbit Marx, Lacan and Hegel. To wildly oversimply his thesis, he believes that Hegel's system has too simple a conception of the human being without enough interrogation of the psychological paradoxes that we struggle with in our nature, and that Lacan has too pessimistic a view of the possibilities for genuine freedom and progress. So each of these systems of thought can be improved by reading them through one another's frameworks: If you read Lacan's concept of the human subject through Hegel's Dialectic, or if you steal Lacans subject and put it into Hegel's philosophical system, then you can solve the problems in both systems and reconcile the inherent tragedy of the human condition with the possibility for genuine progress and freedom within a human society.
The commitment to Marxism is more of a statement of intent for the emancipatory political project that he believes is necessary to realise that freedom.
Peterson believes in a very cartoonish vision of what marxism is that when Zizek used a real marxist framework Peterson was endlessly baffled.
Wow
@@danielrazo450 by cartoonish you mean he takes the words at their definition and interprets them to their logical conclusion.
@@andrewstarr8062 No they mean that he hasn't even read any of the literature.
@@justrandomguy5010 Because they are in a tradition of thought that includes and is influenced by Marx.
In the same way that Peterson is a Jungian.
the thing is, if Peterson had actually taken more time to read Marx, he would have understood that even MARX wouldn't have stood by the entire contents of the Communist Manifesto.... lol. He really didn't understand the extent to which Marxist philosophy had developed within Marx's own lifetime, let along in the subsequent century
If anyone wonders why marxists are always so busy "self-critting", it is because not even Marx himself took what he said as dogma. Marxism is not a revelation, it is an infinite project where concepts are in a permanent state of being re-evaluated, re-contextualized, re-interpreted, re-applied. The materialist lesson of marxism is that it sees its own logic as historical and defying what is called atemporal logic (putting forth a set of propositions which then are confirmed or denied by their logical consequences AS LONG AS those propositions do not change). Rather, the propositions are never final. Marxism is much more like a fidelity towards the kind of human blossoming that is not yet fully expressed in capitalism. And it is here that communism and christianity find a kind of meeting point in Zizek's thought (insofar both are defined as a certain fidelity rather than a set of propositions).
No...this is the critic the left puts forth all the time...as usual leftist marxist socialist and the entire taxonomy fail to grasp what jp is saying and go ad hominem on his lack of education (as if the have an epistemological superpower to state precisely who has knowledge on somenthing and who doesn't lol).
Peterson underlines how much of marx's thinking and work is undermined by false premises...these are not little details, but the big foundations of marxism.
I understand that throughout the centuries marxists have shifted skin in a desperate attempt to remain relevant and adapt to changing economic e social conditions...but this old game of running from ideological responsability is quite annoing, zizek is not a marxist, marxism is not marxism, socialism is not socialism.
...Yeah i get it...
@@snoski2697 this is total relativism, it's the way by which social and political disasters are set aside as "not socialism". It's the mechanism by which ideologues can cope without guilt with the empirical consequences of erroneous philosophical speculation. It's saying that marxism is everything you want it to be whenever you need it.
But.marxists are not capitalists nor individualists...so what have the "marxists" in common? Well some of this shared theoretical baggage is precisely made of what jp rightfully dismantled
To be fair Marx is most famous for his communist manifesto. Although I know there is much more to Marx than just further oppression by the proletariat. Marx was remarkable at critiquing capitalism which has man faults but I think that is where his insight ends. He doesn’t lay out a plan for the future, he only opens our eyes to the problem we all face.
Does the audience think they're at a standup show?
They are.
They are.
They are.
Apparently
it's just the Peterson audience..
It seems everything Jordan Peterson thinks, Zizek has thought about it and thought beyond it. Gilbert Ryle once said of Bernard Williams: “he understands what you're going to say better than you understand it yourself, and sees all the possible objections to it, and all the possible answers to all the possible objections, before you've got to the end of your own sentence." I think that’s the intellectual disparity we’re dealing with here, with all respect to Peterson.
This is how i study
As well holy shit
I learn something,i then try to destroy the concept
By whatever weakness it has, and see how the legs of each concept offer to one another
I then rebuild each concept in my own mind
And put the worst thing people could say about it
See how strong it stands
......idk if it makes sense
Its like learning and undoing at the same time just how i study
@@Satyred That's just becoming a chess player hahaha. Very good way to study, i think is more efficient than others.
@@ZekePluz Efficient, but exhaustive and elapsing of time
@@emmanueloluga9770 Well, you can't have every possitive aspect. That simply doesn't exist.
You can choose another way, faster and lighter, but not that efficient if your situation requires it.
@@ZekePluz True that
"Turned out that he wasn't [a Marxist]." Oh, but he is. It's just that Peterson doesn't understand Marx on any deep level nor cares do to so, that's what perplexed him. The communist manifesto was a document that Marx, as an activist, coauthored with Engels specifically for the general public at that specific time and more specifically for the revolutionaries in need of a guideline and some quick education on theory. Far from being a fair representation of any of the works that Marx made over his long and prolific career.
@Lord Typesalot language is a confusing thing. What Slavoj likely meant is that he would much sooner label himself a Hegelian than a Marxist. This is because his personal philosophy is inspired more by Lacan and Hegel, rather than skipping Hegel and going straight to Marx. Fundamental aspects of Marxism (historical materialism and dialectics) are adaptations from Hegel's dialectics, and Zizek is a Hegelian heavily informed by Marxism
Whether a Marxist or not, Zizek is someone who takes Marx very seriously, which is in itself a challenge to Peterson's dismissive attitude.
To categorize him as a Marxist would be to understand zizek and one thing I know about zizek, he don't not want to be understood whatsoever! This isn't a new idea, Nietzsche himself stated that his biggest fear was to be understood!
Marx didn't immediately claim authorship to it, either. It was meant to be a "document arising from the grassroots". After all, he then went to work for Horace Greeley at the Tribune (who would later found the Republican party)
Very well said. Thank you.
"The suffering that characterizes individual human life is so intense that even if God himself deigns to undergo it, it will test his faith to the point where he will not believe in his own existence. " -- Peterson paraphrasing Zizek
Except that Jesus was taking on every sin of humanity past present and future when he said that, a little more than what the average individual takes on in their life. Clever snarky quote though.
@@MartyrLoserKing He doubted before he went to hell. Just a human being crucified.
@@MartyrLoserKing what u talking about jesus lived very happy life and he isn't even real.
He didn't have a dad so he would be xx chromosomes to maybe gay or women.
@@MartyrLoserKing That was metaphorical. It’s not as if he had to endure the weight of mankind. And even so he’s God in human form.
@@MartyrLoserKing Didn't Jesus literally beg God "to let this cup pass over me" before hi did so?
"If there is a God, He will have to beg for my forgiveness"
Words written on the walls inside of Auschwitz during the Holocaust
“Relinquish all strong views”
All strong views, whether right or wrong, are a prison. It seems zizek understands this and it caught JP off guard
I should watch this debate again, I missed a lot of things apparently
Zizek doesn't believe in this. He says himself that he is a supporter of dogmatic approaches and that some things are without question. An example he uses a lot is "Would you like to live in a society where it is up to a democratic approach whether or not women should be raped? No, that is not up to debate and a a man who implies that a women would like it has automatically classified himself as an idiot".
He has also said this is why he likes Greta Thunberg, not because of her views per se, but because of her dogmatic approach in taking no questions for attempting to secure her own future. When Zizek talks about Antigone, he talks about how Antigone just wants to bury her brother and tells Creon to fuck off about the political situation.
Zizek's whole philosophical project is a critique on Ideology which doesn't presuppose having no strong views and can lead to very strong views. If anything he has expresssed more sympathy for dogmatism than having no strong views at all.
A prison that you actively choose to stay in is called a fort.
No way, man. Truth is absolute and is no prison.
@@JoshAllenberg Haha. I like that one!
That's because Marxism is not the communist manifesto neither identity politics... Marxism is an economy approach, critique and view of capitalism and is spread on three different books that constitute "The Capital"...
Thanks Ricardo! True. This guy's ignorance just shines when he starts talking about "the Marxists".... His fame is only a product of how ignorant the world of liberals is... they're so stupid that he seems brilliant.
absolutely. marx recognised our current predicament without prejudice, and he foresaw the collective economy on the future horizon
@@BroZap1 Yes, but I also think that he is one of the best thinkers we have today, he fights back identity politics and the woke bullshit really well, but his notion about Marxism is deeply touched by cold war propaganda, but I think it's not his fault. Remember, just like Noam Chomsky said a few years ago, during the cold war the USSR overused Marx's image to the point of ruining it, and as a capitalistic country, the USA loved it and both agreed on that thus deviating the notion of Marxism of its origin...
They didnt know , Communist manifesto is just zine lol
Marxism is economics, historical analysis, and philosophy that’s what makes it special
"To achieve success you have to believe in yourself" - Santa Claus
Lol
Wow
actually loled hehe
Claus really was one of the most intelligent people to ever exist.
Finally someone in this comment section with some sense
All the zizek groupies commenting 😘
You expected him to defend it because you have only ever been in alleged "debates" with easy targets like students and journalists Peterson, you have never even had a discussion with an academic before. All it shows is you don't even know what an academic does.
I really don’t think Peterson could fathom Zizek’s thoughts.
I'm trying to get into Žižek's philosophy. I've seen a lot of his lectures but they don't give much coherent information. Can you give me a starting point?
@adam fraser You misunderstood me. I'm already into philsophy. I've already learned it for two years. I started at ancient greek philosophy. I'm only trying to get into Žižek.
@@szilveszterforgo8776 why are u asking a random commenter lol
@@DarkArcticTV because it's the internet. Who are you?
That kind of thinking and excessive idolization is the reason as to why Zizek isn't taken as seriously as he deserves to be.
However, there is one account: "God, why have you forsaken me?" but, also a second: "God, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Zizek blew JP's mind, but GK Chesterton blew Zizek's mind. He got that from the truly amazing book Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton. I think people are mistaking this as an original idea from Zizek.
indeed, Zizek had already explored this in "Monstrosity of Christ," in which he had already mentioned his debt to Chesterton.
Regardless, it’s a profoundly stupid idea: that in a world where humans remain unshaken to death, God himself would be shaken. By definition, God is better than all men in every way…
So, why does this stupid idea impress anyone? My guess: they simply are not thinking.
@@mikesouza6545 Jesus both God in the fleah and entirely human, one of the a mysteries of Christiandom. I think its very profound, Ive never heard this perspective and still thinking about it.
@@mikesouza6545 Put yourself in that position - on the cross, having been betrayed by everyone including your "father" - then see how un-shaken you are.
Every time I even glance at Chesterton, I get uneasy. Like noticing deep water, or a cliffs edge uncomfortably near. I don't think I am intimidated AND thrilled as much by any author.
I have respect for Peterson and the help he's given people, including me. Given the way most people are about losing a debate, he handled it pretty well at least after the fact. if it were Ben Shapiro he would've just called Slavoj a hack and continued to spew dumb bullshit.
I need a Shapiro slavoj debate now
@@yerdasellsavon9232 same
Shapiro is the source of the problem when it comes to modern right wingers in debates, insulting someone isn’t an argument, it means nothing, it just shows that you have no rebuttal so you had to resort to something like “LiBtArD” along with the lack of acting independently from where you got your political views from (although it is true, saying “facts don’t care about your feelings” or other things Shapiro fans say all the time that he has said just shows that you don’t look at politics from your own perspective but your ideologies perspective) causes some major problems
@@leek6927 Shapiro has not once called someone a “libtard” during a debate. I challenge you to actually watch him debate. He can poke fun at the liberal idiots and call them names all he wants on his shows because he has the right to do so and it’s not that obvious that he’s wrong in most cases.
@@Dollapfin I've no idea why people listen to Shapiro. He brings nothing to the table. Some More News have a video displaying this, that maybe nobody should take Shapiro seriously about anything.
You people don’t understand the point of the conversation. He didn’t have the substantial time to study Zizeks work. He was arguing against Marxism, not Zizekism.
Zizekism doesn't exist, if anything Zizek is a representative of continental philosophy, more precisely the lacanian psychology students of Ljubljana of the 70s. His philosophy has its roots in leftist hegelianism in relationship with notions of freudian analysis, which makes sense to call him a marxist 'cause marxism is originated by leftist hegelianism while Lacan was a freudian psychologist. But it's a stretch to say that Zizek invented a new form of philosophy, we can't call it Zizekism, any philosophical wave it's not born by the mind of one man, it's always a result of a socio-political context in a specific historical period.
What Peterson could've do was to talk about psychology with Zizek, both being psychologists. But he apparently didn't knew, and tried to face Zizek on a subject he was at most ignorant about.
He had a year
At least Peterson has the humility to say he 1.) learned something and 2.) praises its brilliance, something most of his egomaniacal haters have never done in their entire lives.
Well sometimes the humility and proclaiming that one learned something and praising someones briliance can be other form of narcisism but well it does not have to be.
@@mapafius lol you haters always have to find a way to strawmanize Peterson. Saying that praising your opponent is somehow narcissistic, I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but seems pretty stupid.
@@juliansoto2651 I am not a hater. I dont hate him, to be honest I dont even follow him enough to know enough about him to criticize him or anything.
And I believe self-criticism can be narcisistic if it is just to demonstrate ones ability for self-criticism, gain attention or anything simmilar.
Actually for example "white-guilt" is seen by some as exact example of false narcistic self-criticism that may seem to promote relief of oppresion and bring equality but in fact it may be another form of self-promoting and patronazing. I guess, if I were following Peterson, I would surely find some base I would agree on and then probably some things I would not. I would agree with him probably with the criticism of political corectness. I would probably not agree with the way he uses the term "neomarxism" for example. I would probably not find promising idea of his project "12 rules for life" although I dont see any problem with the notion of getting oneself together and taking responsibility of life. And I believe his lectures about mythology and psychological archetypes may be partially interesting although again I dont know, if I would profoundly agree with conclusions he would make or with the way he applies them on today situation. But here I react only on that what I know about him from my public discurse. (I am not even from usa, and here he is only in minor focus)
Okay, my response may be seen as an attack and in fact, it was little bit provocation but on the other side, it is just expresion of my genuine scepticism. I know, scepticism be better acompanied with curiosity, friendliness and openess. So sorry for that.
Truer words have not been uttered...
@@mapafius I loved the debate itself, i feel like people go into listening to it looking for person destroys said other person. while those videos are fun, the beauty is when its not one destroys the other. That real genuine knowledge/insight can be generated if we let two opposing idea's combat each other. Peterson does criticize Marxism a fair amount but it has merit through historic events. Ultimately I would suggest read more of his stuff or watch the lectures if some of it interests you and not let his view on Marx discourage that. I intend on doing the same with Zizek.
Also I agree with your original comment about people using self-criticism in a narcisistic manner. People need to be vigilant about that. it's understandable if your first impression is based off of his comments on marxism. If you do happen to see this and have suggested reads on Marx I'm open to them.
I think a lot of people don’t understand that people like jp and zizek can have “debates” without hating each other, or going into said “debate” and having the goal of humiliating the other one. They are academics and philosophers etc.
They just want to learn and expand their horizons. YOU PEOPLE watching are manifesting hate and decisiveness. Just cause you disagree with each other does not mean one wins and the other loses. Things aren’t black or white.
debates are defined by winners and losers dummy😂 i get what you’re saying about having conversations with people with opposing views but that’s different from having a formal debate lol. another idiot with the internet so many of y’all man
Peterson demonstrated in his "debate" with Zizek how little he actually knows about Marxism.
Marxism is evil reincarnated as a philosophy. It has never worked and never will, not much to debate there
@@user-zv7yb4yp9g the marxism understander has logged on
@@onkeltodor7601 My family has lived under communism, that’s all I have to understand.
@@user-zv7yb4yp9g no they haven't. all "communist" or "socialist" countries were state capitalist, and they didn't even claim to be anything else. where is your family from?
@@onkeltodor7601 I’m trying to find the proper words to say this respectfully but I’m gonna straight up say it, you people are delusional. This is quite comical, according to you all the fully communist countries weren’t communist hahahah. Hoxha was a renowned Marxist-Leninist and you’re probably typing this from a comfy bed in the US. Hence, I’m not wasting anymore of my time here
i found the debate they had very interesting. not because of the debate itself or its topics but about the fuss we had around it.
it was a prime example that we want to make everything into a show. both are declared to the best or at least one of the best intellectuals (which is weird per se) and then we had a show of 2 sides battling each other. it was basically a cult and tribal scenery.. you could see people booing and clapping like madman in the discussion when someone said a "comeback" phrase. just ridiculous.
not too much about actual arguments but who "wins" it and who had the best "destruction" moments. (not by the participants but the audience).
True. I wish I could finally see the day when 2 galaxybrains such as yourself battle each other in the ring of ideas, and free us peasants from our mortal shells.
@@prowder1 i see you got the point
Well it's what happens when you have a working philosopher debating a hack self-help author.
Watching a debate purely for the spectacle, or to see one side "triumph" over the other to feed our primitive tribalistic needs of having our side come out on top, is undermining the whole point of a public debate.
The idea is to go into it with an open yet skeptical mind, and to take from the debate that which best tracks logically and rationally.
@@scroopynooperz9051 that would be the best way to do it. this is also why i think this discussion was a failure for the public.
Regarding Zizek's point about suffering, JP doesn't seem to understand that the whole point of Marx's critique was based on noticing the brutal conditions of workers and the desire to alleviate that needless suffering.
that wasn't his point at all. if zizek is operating within the mythology of Christianity, the suffering of christ is necessary and any attempt to avoid it is impossible. meaning there is no way marxism could alleviate it. notice how zizek abandons marx and doesn't defend him at all in the debate and even mocks him? we need something better than marx
Does JP believe Jesus was/is the creator of the universe or just a guy with an interesting philosophy?
@@notlengthy Well Zizek is really a Hegelian and uses Marx to understand the current situation of capitalism to go back to Hegel.
Zizek saw the crucifix of Christ as an alleviation of the mysterious ideologies that were so demanding in the Old Testaments. In a way, the atheism Zizek extracts from Christianity is that the death of Christ serves as the negation of God and can only be found through going through the process of Christ (Christianity).
@@glouconx983 from what someone who hasn't watched the guy in year can understand, he views stories from the bible as deep wisdom we can carefully extract universal truths about the human condition from. I don't know his beliefs about Jesus specifically, but his overall view of the bible might give a clue to that.
@@glouconx983 to add on to that, he talks a fair amount about natural selection and the like in a fashion that seems like he believes it, or at least believes its applications to psychology
Zizek: I’m not a real communist
Zizek’s audience: *cheers for bloody revolution*
Zizek is a communist through and through, he is distrustful of our liberal capitalist system. He belives that jordan is a utopianist/wishful thinking to think that we can make slow progressive change and everything will be alright. He believes we need power beyond nationalities to solve the incoming crisis (climatechange, Bio tech, etc). He believes social democrats in Europe and bernie sanders are good but pesimistically think that it is far from enough. We are facing crisis and Slavoj believes that it should be a chance to finally make a change (problem is what form of change no one knows). Screaming for bloody revolution is definitely not something him or his follower advocates, he even warns you to think more rather than take mindless actions. What he definitely is not is a 20th century communist apologist, he believes that those are tragic catastrophy and nothing good whatsoever came from it.
I may not be a communist myself and disagree with zizek here and there, but jordan peterson's criticism on marxism doesn't have much leg to stand on since he doesen't know much about marxism outside of his short political pamphlet. This is why a lot of leftist (not the liberal entirely focused on pronouns and identity) find it irritating when peterson comments on something he doesn't know.
those cheers are not call for revolution, those are the internet cheering for a slam dunk.
Reminds me of that Monty python sketch....I'm not your messiah 😂😂😂
@@deadmeme2403 No, that was his audience at the debate event. Jordan Peterson was criticising communism, he got to the part where he talked about a violent revolution and murdering the rich, and Zizeks audience cheered. That's not "the internet", that's Zizek's ticket-buying fans in the flesh cheering for bloody revolution. And Zizek, by the way, did absolutely nothing to condemn their actions.
@@SpeedfreakUK I remember that part and i thought it was just sarcasm goading at petersons simplistic view on marxists. Zizek and his follower (and other marxist for that matter) hates this simplistic view on marxism, peterson seem to think that all marxits are a bunch of simple moralist who wants social justice and bloody revolution. Contrary to what you might think Zizek obviously did not enjoy any of the cheering for or against him whatsoever.
He really wish to show peterson that leftist are not all petty, that the left has actual serious ideas which JP was totally not aware of (the crowd really was not helping with those childish cheering). Zizek wants to show marxism from an actual marxist philosopher not from edgy confused undergrads.
Peterson is not a philosopher for a living and he probably too busy helping people doing great psychiatric work to know what Hegel have to do with Marx ( i think people should stop beating him up for that), but seeing him go on and on about "postmodern neo marxist" is as irritating as having zizek as your therapist.
I'd rather a bloody revolution for the end of 20 million deaths every year due to profiteering than continue to rape pillage exploit and destroy the world and its communities for profit
He is a non naive progressive Marxist. You don't have to accept everything associated with Marx to be Marxist. He(Marx) was a good analyst of capitalism. I like his theory of alienation. I do not agree with his idea that humans are essentially productive. It seems Iike a misunderstanding of Epicurus where he advocated productive association with others in communities to achieve a lasting fruitful happiness. And Marx got hung up on the "productive" part.
We are essentially habit forming hedonists who by nature takes the path of least resistance to pleasure you in the now.
Well said
I'd counter that there exists a spectrum of expression of productivity where people lie on, and where people emotionally need to fit on that spectrum can vary. So there are schizoid personality disorder people who have no desire or need to feel productive on one side, and there's people who have a compulsive drive to produce practical and artistic works on the other. You can argue that the drive to search for the feeling of usefulness and productiveness is an extension of hedonism, but I'd argue it's much more strongly tied to an aversion to pain or boredom (people often choose to feel pain over feeling bored, that is how much our minds abhor it). But understanding that there are non-productive peoples _and that it is okay_ that they are as such is an important development I think in any Marxist thought.
in fact, it's a mistake to view Marxism as an ideology that one can subscribe to
He’s a speak and spell who pretends to be a Marxist because it’s wrong.
I can't help but see either end of the spectrum as simplistic. If we are primarily productive by nature, how do we explain how the majority of people spend their time outside of what is demanded? If we are primarily habit forming hedonists that only care about the "now", how do we explain cathedrals, the existence of the US, great symphonies?
Actuelly both zizek and Jordan are 2 off my favorite persons to listen too. I dont agree or need to agree with everything they say but they have lnteresting arguments and opinions.
They both have helped ME find happiness. Peterson as a "come on man get off your ass and do something" motivator and Zizek as "chhhhhhhhappiness isnt really a thing" pragmatist hahahhaa
I agree way more with Zizek, but he's pretty much my least favourite person to listen to :D
You don't understand Zizek if you can listen to what Peterson says without getting annoyed at his stupidity.
@@LMvdB02 What the hell do you mean, many of the things they say are of the same ilk. Peterson isn't stupid, he just exaggerates or conflates some of the time.
@@Daniel-ox1sb "some"...
TBF, arriving on stage to debate Zizek with only a casual glance at the Communist Manifesto in order to debate Communism will blow most peoples minds.
I’ve continued to read through several comments from people who say he doesn’t understand Marxism but I have yet to see anyone explain exactly what he doesn’t understand about it.
You wouldn’t understand it
@@juanjose2240 great reply. That seems to be about the most you can get out of the average person who supports Marxist ideology. I would like to see how Marxism could possibly be utilized “properly” given that it is apparently so immensely complicated that it can’t even be explained. We have seen the consequences of its utilization in the past. When those are brought up to marxists it seems that many believe several of the catastrophic events didn’t even happen or place the blame elsewhere. I see several people especially the Chinese claim that the horrific events caused by Mao are merely western propaganda. So it appears that many marxists can’t even agree on what happened in the past nor explain their own doctrine. That’s not much of a sales pitch to someone who would like to understand what Marxism truly was, is, and will become.
Just read Marx yourself :)
@@maxdehoyos9920 so the Marxists are commenting that Jordan knows nothing about Marxism because he just read Marx and your reply is to just read Marx. Okay.
@@LexicalNoScope dude his “you wouldn’t understand” is the most comically pseudo intellectual comment ever 😂
This comment section is full of Zizek Warriors. Even thought Peterson is pointing out the brilliance of his audience-projected rival.
It's worth mentioning that when Jesus says "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" he is in fact referencing a Psalm, Psalm 22, which begins with those same words. The psalm, if you read it, goes on to prophesy the crucifixion. ("...they have pierced my hands and feet...they cast lots for my clothing") and the psalm ends with victory, describing how the nations will worship God. The Psalm ends with the words "...he has done it." (ESV) which parallel Jesus' own words right before dying, "It is finished." So this heartbroken cry is also much more to those who know the psalm, and is declaring much more than just his pain.
How do you know that Psalm 22 wasn't added after the event? I could write a book in 10 - 20 years, mentioning everything I predicted which I simply added after. I agree with Zizek. That Jesus doubted, and realized that religions were made up.
The psalms are in the old testaments.
@@formalino That's right. When Jesus came, the new testament wasn't written yet.
@@thomasrush4550 Saying something and it happened is not a prophecy. Nor does the bible claim that it was a prophecy. Especially when something so general is said that it applies to anyone. How many people were crucified before Jesus? but when it happened to Jesus then it became a prophecy? Doesn't make sense to me. There are a gazillion examples we can look to from the past where someone said something and it happened. Answer me this: How can religions claim that god loves you, while god provides no evidence of her existence, and then god burns you for all eternity for not believing in her existence?
Jordan is a framework for life kinda guy. Zizek is showing you where you are being manipulated without you knowing kinda guy.
Zizek also talks about the incongruency of everything that's been fed to us
Do you recommend a good starting point on Zizek to understand what you’re inferring here? I’ve new to him. Is there a good lecture, book, etc. to start with to understand his perspective?
the problem here seems to be that peterson has no actual grasp of marx or marxism, and therefore encountering a marxist who isn't a stawman that he's made up to argue against will necessarily "blow his mind"
No not really, Slavoj is an incredible mind.
@@stewartsmith5698 both are true. Peterson has a habit of classifying things into categories in a way that's suitable to him, more often than not he will just do split between arbitrary good and bad then just dump whatever he doesn't agree into the bad category and do some hand waving explanation which includes lobsters about how he is right. "postmodern marxists" (quite an oxymoron) often get this treatment and his followers eat it up
It takes a brilliant and humble man to recognize another people's intelligence like this.
hahahaaha he's not honest... Zizek revealed JP's huge ignorance and this "recognition" is the only way to "reduce damage" of what people discovered: JP is nothing else than a anti-marxist prejudiced asshole.
Your comment is exactly whay JP wanted to get with this "recognition"...
@@nikemaul well your words are not very nice but true😂
@@nikemaul He's a lot more than 'anti-marxist'. He has encouraged several people to get their lives back on track and my own life after discovering his work and deep diving in on them is a testament to that.
He has plenty of interesting things to say about the world. To reduce him to an 'anti-marxist A hole' is just totally dishonest. Who isn't prejudiced. The very fact that you went as far as to call him that shows that you're prejudiced against anti-marxism. Everyone's identity is built on some form of prejudice or the other, your willingness to get those ideas challenged and your willingness to modify them after you realize the holes in your ideas distinguishes you from the rest of the muck. Sure he might have lost the debate. Should that mean everything he has ever said be of no value? C'mon broaden the horizons of your sight a little bit more. Insulting somebody over subject matters that you don't quite understand as well as the two gentlemen in question highlights the kind of ignorant disconnection you have going on there.
I suggest you to watch more of JBP to arrive at a more informed conclusion. You'll find out a lot more about him. You may not agree with everything but you'll also come to see that what he talks about does make sense and he's not just going about spewing nonsense.
@@nikemaul People that attack JBP like this are literally not even part of the conversation. Zizek was nice to JBP, got mad at people that were being snide towards JBP in the audience, and I haven’t heard him have any ill will towards him since.
@@nikemaul better than being a Marxist prejudiced asshole.
i watched the debate. JP has read a few pages of the Manifesto. Not even all of it. He was uninformed about Marxism..
You know that for sure, or you just assumed?
@@shefchenko111 Peterson literally confessed it himself. Who would have thought. The biggest so called critique of marxism knows nothing about it and read only the manifesto, a pamphlet to rile up the working class, twice in his life.
@@mclovin9165 And that's your argument? He has only read the manifesto twice? So tell me all about the criteria to KNOW about the marxism, please.
@@shefchenko111 Well for an example, many of his critiques are critiques Marx and Engels themselves make in literally every other piece of work. So just reading a fucking pamphlet isn't good enough understanding a broad and generation old way of philosophy, analyzing etc.
@@shefchenko111 There aren't criterias but if you think reading the communist manifesto is enough, then I have some bad bad news for you dude.
This guy is one of the great charlatans of our time. How a university ever hired him is beyond me. I totally get why Zizek had the discussion, but it was hardly a "debate." A Hegelian/Lacanian communist philosopher trying to discuss ideas while an internet charlatan "criticizes" Marx's least important writing, a small pamphlet of political activism. An educated person would know this, of course, and would consider Marx's thought to be exemplified by his analysis in Das Kapital, for example, or German Ideology. But there are many things internet charlatans do not know.
The suffering that characterizes human life is so intense that even if God himself danes to undergo it, it will test his faith to the point where he will not believe in his own existence.
What does he mean by this
@@ericjarecki5743 I don’t think there’s really too much to dig under the surface of that statement except to point out that a key aspect of the human condition is intense pain and the inevitable shattering of the most solid and entrenched beliefs. That if god himself who knows he exists experienced our condition he would be so shaken by the experience as to doubt that he himself was god. Or that he would be so racked by the experience as to have a have a crisis of faith in his own abilities of creation as god.
I wonder it also, maybe that life is so hard that even god wouldn’t believe what we humans have to carry? And when he realizes it he doesn’t believe in his own existence because , why would he create a world with so much suffering for each individual? Someone please fill in and help me understand here hehe
jesus is the son of god, not god himself, no? so how does this statement he said make any sense
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" also means that even if you put yourself fully into your life's work and give it all you've got, there will come a time when you lose all faith in yourself and your project and fully believe you've made a massive, life-size mistake.
If, as Jordan often says, the key thing in life is having something sufficiently meaningful to make the pain and suffering worthwhile and bearable, then that moment when you lose all faith in your project is when you lose the meaning of your life's work and the pain and suffering become fully realised and unbearable.
However, the story of Christ's passion shows that, at that time, it is too late to back out, and so you can only proceed, without hope and in full suffering. And it is beyond that moment, when all is lost, that your final victory lies. (And btw, that is why it takes great courage to live a fully committed life.)
Peace to all, have a nice day.
The communist manifesto is the only book by Marx JP has ever read. So he came to the debate unqualified and unprepared.
JP read The Communist Manifesto, The Gulag Archipelago of Solzhenitsyn and Crime and Punishment of Dostoevsky and believes he is a specialist for Russia, communism etc., etc.....
The level of armchair here...
:p
A lot of Redditors commenting on this video as if they studied Marxism under Marx himself.
@@titocristobal5573 It's all about attitude. :p
@@titocristobal5573 he barely read the communist manifesto, he was entirely uninformed on marxism
@@yerdasellsavon9232 tell me your source.
Translation: I decided to debate Zizek without googling the fact that primarily Zizek is a Lacanian Psychoanalyst, a Hegelian, and a Neo-Marxist in line with Adorno and Horkheimer. I decided to reach for the lowest hanging fruit a forward a shallow reading of the communist manifesto. A moment in the debate that was really striking to me was when Zizek used a unique religious metaphor (not an argument) to hyperbolize individual human suffering.
That’s the most interesting moment to him because that’s what he’s built his worldview on.
@@AnimeMovement very selective listening
@@anzamanto4407 Not at all. Just because he finds that the most interesting doesn’t mean he didn’t listen to the rest.
Even though I am sure JP did not mean to do so, but he really exposed his own bias here in quite a clear manner. He heard what he wished to hear and ignored what he was not equipped or willing to understand.
"Christ is crucified and cries out to God that he's been forsaken. The suffering that characterizes human life is so intense that even if God himself deigns to undergo it he would test his faith to the point that he would not believe in his own existence."
I'm speechless. I don't know what to do with this knowledge.
thank you for typing it. it didn't click for me while hearing it, but reading it, I Get it now. yeah, I agree, interesting point
There’s a mistake in this thought. It doesn’t refer the fundamental thought of Christianity that Jesus taught but he himself struggled with it in the end. And that is John 20:29 "…blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.". When Christ cried out to God that he’s been forsaken, he fulfilled what the whole story is about. He still believed in his existence, but cried out about why God isn’t protecting him at this moment. This is the struggle many people have and why they lose their faith, especially today. You know it’s actually funny because this is the point many atheists bring up "why is there suffering in the world if there is a god". But we christians struggle with the same question to the point that our whole religion is based on that moment on the cross. It’s not an atheist question, it’s actually a christian one. Yet, we still believe like Jesus taught in John 20:29.
I laughed when JP was trying to google basic stuff about the communist manifesto
Sure, because laughter is a mechanism for covering intelectual insecurities.
@@juanpablosanchezaveleyra6454 The Communist Manifesto is a tiny little pamphlet that presupposes an understanding of Communism from Marx's other writings.
That Jordan didn't know this is some serious egg on face
@@eatme982 Agreed, because JP is a medical psychologist and his knowledge on economy and politics is limited compared to Zizek. Does that take his credentials and accomplishments out? Very insecure pseudo intellectuals that follow Zizek to cover for their insecurities might wish to think so, in order to feel superior piggy backing on Zizeks intelect.
But laughing, and even worst, wording out how "much I laughed" at a very accomplished academic is still very pathetic.
This "debate" was pointless and whoever organized this was absolutely clueless on what Zizek is all about and about their strengths and limitations, we have to also accept that Zizek knew nothing about JPs position, he actually agreed with him when he realized they where talking about the same thing, just that JP was absolutely butchering and missusing the term "neomarxist", it all came down to the appropriation and missuse of that word... besides that, they pretty much stand for the same thing
@@juanpablosanchezaveleyra6454 It wouldn't matter that JP is a medical psychologist given that his existence in the political/news sphere has nothing to do with his degree and everything to do with his political views.
Zizek didn't agree with JP, only his use of dialectics (though I maybe wrong, I haven't watched their debate since it happened).
JP, as a political figure and an educated one at that, failed to do the most basic research on the literature he was supposedly analyzing and only analyzed the most basic version of the text.
This reflects very badly on Peterson and his ability to comment on these issues. I won't say he has no valuable insight, only that this level of research is telling.
"He told me something I'd never thought about before". No Jorpy, he told you a lot of things you haven't thought about before. Because that's what happens when you debate the real deal, and when you debate unprepared.
“Žižek was supposed to be a Marxist scholar and he wasn’t Marxist at all”
No dude, he uses Marxism to analyse History, that’s Marxist Scholar.
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" also means that even if you put yourself fully into your life's work and give it all you've got, there will come a time when you lose all faith in yourself and your project and fully believe you've made a massive mistake.
If, as Jordan often says, the key thing in life is having something sufficiently meaningful to make the pain and suffering worthwhile and bearable, then that moment when you lose all faith in your project is when you lose the meaning of your life's work and the pain and suffering become fully realised and unbearable.
However, the story of Christ's passion shows that, at that time, it is too late to back out, and so you can only proceed, without hope and in full suffering. And it is beyond that moment, when all is lost, that your final victory lies. (And btw, that is why it takes great courage to live a fully committed life.)
Peace to all, have a nice day.
Read psalm 22. Jesus spoke the beginning passage of the Jewish psalm 22 written 1000 years before his birth. Read the whole thing.
It kinda reminds me of they "hero Journey" ora they hero cycle
Zizek’s insight mirrors language from GK Chesterton:
That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already, but that God could have His back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents forever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point -- and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologize in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in the terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.
I find theological speculation very engaging, but in this instance, would it not be common sense to suggest that since God was incarnate in the human body of Jesus, it was the human, not the divine, persona, which felt abandoned in its agony?
That’s because Zizek is pretty clear that Chesterton is his favorite theologian
@@rosemaryallen2128 I’m generally skeptical of dicing humans by mind/body/spirit categories, and more so of segmenting Christ into a set of personas. It’s just beyond me to understand which distinctions are essential vs artificial constructs to help us better understand the complexity of a whole person. Perhaps that was part of Chesterton’s point-that “divinity” (whatever that means in essence) clothed in weakness was able to experience true doubt, demonstrate true courage, and ultimately relate to humanity as no other divinity could. I’m not sure how much I buy the punchline given a host of anthropomorphic gods, but I always enjoyed how Chesterton packaged his thoughts on the passion.
@@john6510 I know hardly anything about Zizek, but that's really cool to hear. Thanks
@@michaelcochran6260 You might like the approach to Christ in the Anglo-Saxon poem 'The Dream of the Rood'. It's a fine antidote to the appalling sentimentality which bedevils most religious art.
Everyone in the comments being passive aggressive towards jp is hilarious.
The question I would like to ask these people is "Who hurt you?"
True
You seem offended by that
@@user-dc9oq2pr6v ok.
Professor Peterson's admission that he was hoping to put his opponent in a position to defend something dogmatically rather than acknowledge its failings points to his tendency to go for the gotcha rather than debate in good faith.
This is what happens when a person becomes popular on a topic which he/she is unqualified.
Neither Zizek nor Peterson have ever claimed to be a theologian. That shouldn't prevent two academics from sharing their own religious interpretations
@@ballball6832 whenever something bad happens in this world, seems like most of the time, it is caused by "religious interpretations". Maybe we should stop that to grow as human beings.
@@BoraDemircan Spirituality is a core part of our shared history, which for the most part, provides a great deal of comfort, community and meaning. What could possibly replace that.
Allegiance to political tribes, soulless capitalism and pop-culture?
This comment section seems to be riddled by criticism of Peterson's understanding of Marxism. However short his understanding might fall, he has taken the best he can from the conversations he has had to understand the world as a whole, better. If that doesn't reinforce his respectability, and Zizek's for being able to point that out, then you have taken the wrong idea out of this debate. At the end of the day, both Zizek and Peterson agreed on that these conversations are the important ones to be had, not for either glory and victory, but for (our) general understanding.
it’s funny how all these people in the comment section defend communism and attack Peterson yet they’re writing these comments from America while laying in their comfy beds in a capitalist society. They’ve never experienced the decay and miserableness of being in a communist state yet they defend it, it’s a crazy timeline we’re living in
If you want a better understanding of Marx, just read Marx. Read the communist manifesto and one more book and you will have a greater understanding than JP ever will, with his lack of curiosity.
You have Peterson's habit of droning on about nothing to hide obvious stupidity. Why has he never read Marx but believes he can debate a well known Marxist on Marxism?
'Glory or victory' ffs. The pretentiousness of it is too much to handle.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 Eh, I'm basically just saying this isn't a conversation to pick sides on. Was hardly even a debate. Just two smart guys talking about important stuff
Peterson demonstrates he wasn't listening well here. Zizek clarified twice that he was quoting Chesterton. Also I think characterizing it as "if God takes on the experience of human suffering it will test his faith to the point that he will begin to doubt his own existence" is perhaps a little liberal with what was actually said, which was more specifically "God himself becomes an atheist." A more honest or intelligent man than Peterson would likely note what Zizek had actually said before advancing his own interpretation of what it means--not because his interpretation is necessarily wrong (I have no reason to believe that it is, just perhaps a little unwieldy) but because "God himself becomes an atheist" could mean several things beyond what Peterson understands it to mean.
As a fellow academic, I wish my peers were all as invested in their ideas as Dr. Peterson is in his. Zizek didn't say precisely what was inferred here- Dr. Peterson has added his own flavor to things- but the emotion in his voice at around 2:05, when making the essential point, makes it all worth it. I disagree with Dr. Peterson on a lot, maybe even on the majority of things, but I appreciate the enormity of his contribution and wish my colleagues would all give as much of a damn as he so clearly does. Agree or disagree, we need more academics like him.
“I ended up criticizing the communist manifesto” bro you legit didnt even read it 😂😂😂
when he says: "i thought he was a marxist", he really means: "i thought he was the enemy."
no.. it means he thought he was a marxist.
@@thelolmaster1997 JP talks about how Marxists are the enemy so...
I understood it more as he thought Zizek would be a radical with Marxism but ended up realizing Zizek was a wise man not a radical
@@javierlozanoguiler722 yes, he went into this discussion like into a debate club meeting, and ended up realizing zizek is a real philosopher.
@@Communistgun they are lol
They both missed the fact that Jesus words "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me", are a reference to Psalm 22, and not a momentary lack of faith under pain.
This is a common interpretation, but compared to the idea of doubt within divinity it's very unsatisfactory.
Why would he even pick that sentence in particular? Why those exact words?
@@Selver93 because those are the first words of the Psalm and that is how the Psalms were referenced in that time period. There were no chapter or verse numbers at that time, they were added much later. They used first phrase as the name of the psalm. We do the same still for prayers. I.e. we call it the "Our Father", "Hail Mary", "Glory Be", etc.
@@kirkfrancis5009 all of this is fair but you're not contending with why that prayer in particular. If I am in a really bad place and decide to quote Hamlet then would your interpretation be that I'm just really excited about heading to the theatre or that I'm expressing a deeper yearning?
@@Selver93 if you read psalm 22 you will see why that prayer in particular. It is a prophecy of the very thing that is happening to him at that moment. The psalm describes his crucifixtion in detail, written at least 600 years earlier, and shows how he will still praise God. It's a prayer of trusting God under great suffering. Jesus often made statements to show which prophecies he was fulfilling, this is one of them.
@@kirkfrancis5009 That doesn't make sense. Psalm 22 is a human pleading to god. Jesus is supposed to BE god. Zizek's interpretation holds up.
One more thing very similar to what you said zizek said is that,
Had marx been present in today's era, even he wouldn't have been a Marxist!
It's because Marxism is not to believe in the written ideologies of marx blindly and stick through it regardless of the situation.
Marxism is concrete analysis of concrete conditions and situations. It vary!
And zizek is indeed a beautiful Marxist.
Peterson got his mind blown when he listened to a mere tangent of Zizek's thought, imagine if he had actually put some effort and read something other than the communist manifesto, his brain will probably melt.
"The suffering that characterizes individual human life is so intense that even if God himself deigns to undergo it, it will test his faith to the point where he will not believe in his own existence."
Zizek didn't defend Marxism in the same way a boxer won't box you if you show up to the gym NEVER having boxed before.
He just goes jogging with you instead.
The manifesto deserves praise. That's all
The first 10 minutes of it alone cut through a lifetime of bullshit so clarifyingly that I immediately became a marxist
Im a Fan of Both .
But Peterson was More respectful afterwards. That speaks for him.
The people who are calling JP a clown completely lose the point. And don't know the courage that one must have to accept publicly that you have been bested and have learned about it. And that is independent from whatever belief you have.
Slavoj Zizek = professional philosopher whose intellect is on some higher plane, while Peterson is just unfit to argue on the same level as Zizek. Peterson’s thing is called pop psychology. That is not me saying I agree with Zizek on all things, but he is obviously many moves ahead in any debate.
Peterson is a Psychoanalyst and professor who works with clients who want and need psychological help and teaches psychological topics and philosophies. Slavoj Zizek is (from what I understand at least) is akin to a philospher-economist who leans towards an egalitarian view even if he is considered as a philosopher of Communism.
Those two people have very different fields and on an argument where the topic is about the critique of a certain philosphy of economics, the philosopher-economist will come out looking more sensible. Of course Peterson would look like he isn't on the same level as Zizek because the two are on very different fields. The topic at hand is more inclined to Zizek's works.
@@titocristobal5573 You're all over this thread and like Peterson, you don't research shit to make any statements, you just base yourself off loose hints and guesses you assemble and call it a day. Zizek probably forgot more of psychology than JPB will ever learn, Zizek's a lacanian and, as the debate demonstrated, is on another level in terms of reading, not to mention understanding.
zizek professional scam artist and peterson only part time scam artist so zizek superior
Amazing to see him being seemingly genuine for a minute instead of his usual pandering to the far right and how much he just struggles to understand something that he was put in a place to try to refute or at least subvert. I don't know how I feel about the debate itself or whether it was an effective maneuver for Zizek to try and win over the support of JP fans but one thing I think it definitely did was completely expose the lack of true philosophical foundation behind Jordan Peterson's "philosophy".
Well said
I think if someone never questioned his belief doesn't really understand what his belief is about
Jokes on Peterson. Zizek just wrote a pamphlet entitled The Relevance of the Communist Manifesto.
It’s Psalm 22, which begins with the line. “my God, my God why have you forsaken me”. Go read it Jordan.
"Why hast thou forsaken me" is a callback to Psalms 22, in which David prophesied the crucifixion of Christ.
Like something in the marvel universe? With editors and a common language and medium and ownership over a 50 year period?
This video has some interesting comments between leftists and rightees? (Don't know how to label them tbh), I recommend you to read all the comments with an open mind and no predisposition to any side. I really love Jordan Peterson but, I'm trying my best to read and understand detractors also, it was really interesting hope you all try it!
These zizek fans are way more toxic than I expected. Y'all realize just saying "zizek>jbp" doesn't make it so, this man is not chuck Norris.
To be fair, object permanence would blow Jordan Petersons mind
For the record GK Chesteron, the wise, jovial, lay Catholic theologian and writer, made this point over a century ago. So either Zizek also came to this conclusion or he borrowed it (without citation) from Chesterton.
Chesterton's quote was, " Let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.”
Zizek did cite Chesterton, Peterson just seems to have not noticed.
Never heard of this interpretation of Christ's words at the cross.
The one I've heard, and seems to make much more sense to me, is that Christ bore the sins of the world on himself at the cross. Sin is separation from God, so in that instant, unfathomably, God the son was sperated from God the father, and so cried out "why have you forsaken me?"
That’s what he’s saying though in a way. Sin is nearly unbearable. We all live in sin that’s human suffering. Jesus barely could stand to be human. So we should give ourselves a break once in a while.
That observation Zizek made of God blew my mind
*Dictionary*
Deign:
do something that one considers to be beneath one's dignity.
"she did not deign to answer the maid's question"
The absurdity that characterizes this comment section is so intense that even if Zizek read the comments with Jordan Peterson together at a Joe Rogan podcast, it would test their faith in humanity to the point where they would not believe in its existence
While an interesting take, that passage is often incorrectly taken literally. Jesus only ever referred to God as "Father", not "God". In that instance while on the cross, Jesus was referencing Psalms 22 (the insignificance of which I'm still exploring; obvious parallels withstanding).
to truly understand the desire of communism you have to understand the inherent contradictions of capitalism outlined in Das Kapital.
only reading the communist manifesto is intellectually lazy
Your very name is a contradiction. You're like Zorba the Buddha.
@@koalabear1984 what are you babbling about? Buddhism is originally very non-statis, as in THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT. To achieve Moksha and then enlightenment. Atman = nothingness. The self is a total illusion.
Hard to say that aligns with anything other than anarcho-socialism.
@@R1ckr011 and communism is originally not evil lol
Das Kapital made me unlearn the brainwashing of neo classical school, which in fact did occur to me as contradictions (in a very naive unanalytical way ofc) in 8th grade when I delved into economics, even though I am just finished w volume 1.
Others in this comment section have said reading Das Capital isn't enough to understand Marxism either and were saying that people need to read newer books. How do we argue with that?
JP is like a middle school boy in front of Zizek
Oh Peterson, if you want to debate a Marxist who wants to defend Marxism, you should get the debate with Richard Wolff going instead of just indirectly screaming at him in a video
Imagine Micheal Parenti vs Peterson. My goodness would Kermit be humiliated lol
Peterson would eat Richard Wolff alive, Richard is no match for Peterson.
@@deadastrophysicist1201 richard would destroy him
@@xxxxxx-kk7mh You're entitled to your opinion.
@@deadastrophysicist1201 its a fact.
What sucks is that he whole notion of god doubting his own existence because of the amount of irredeemable pain in the world or in himself, is so logically coherent to Christ, that it baffles the mind to think that Jordan, someone who claims to understand the death of god precisely, never actually figured it out until he looked at it through a more compassionate view.
The death of god doesn’t make you a stronger person! It makes you realize that your suffering will encounter pouts of absurdity! And to cover up this absurdity with meaning is ideology!! The very thing Jordan preaches against!
Of course god would stop believing if he saw so much suffering!! And of course you’d be an idiot to claim that god holds all things when even god itself doesn’t believe that!
I’m glad Jordan saw that!
I haven't seen anyone comment this yet, but Bible scholars would mention that these words of Christ are from Psalm 22, the first lines. If you read it, it begins with prophetic phrases like "they have pierced my hands and feet", "they divided my garments among them", and laments of suffering. Then the rest of the psalm praises the Lord, and is actually a grateful statement of faith: "And when I cried out to him, he heeded me", "and my soul will live for him, and my offspring will serve him". Personally I think that's a lot more enlightening than what Zisek said.
The issue is that many people, especially from the US, reduce Marx to the communist manifesto. This was not even an analytical publication, but a call to revolution Marx wrote in his 20s at a time of colonialism, poverty and extreme inequality. They don't realize that Marx wrote more than 30 other works after that with much more analytical depth, and much more careful consideration of capitalism. Many of the ideas he developed there were outright brilliant (although not all of them). THAT is why many academics like Marx
so this is the conlusion:
marxism and of course communism and socialism either as a theory or as practice is growing. but the anti-marxism framework about marxism is still the same as in cold war era. how dare you call yourself anti-marxism without change your framework? it is self-defeating dude.
If the base of Marxism is wrong, why the rest would be ok? That's illogical. If you want to discuss some ideas, discuss them individually, but they aren't Marxism.
@@Ernesto_Gehrke
The "base" of Marxism developed rapidly even within Marx's lifetime. Indeed Capital, for as longwinded and all encompassing as it tries to be, still is essentially another revision that Marx wanted to improve upon. The reason it is so often referred to as a science is because the theory must change with the material conditions, and the material conditions change with the times. So it is always developing based off of the latest data of the world.
It's genuinely difficult for me to understand Zizek because of his accent. I should probably read his texts to get a better idea of the man.
I would say it’s difficult to understand the dialectic not the accent. But reading the texts should definitely help understanding the points he is making. I have often difficulties as well but I wouldn’t blame his accent.
@AceKingston No, it's his accent.
I have the same issue with an Italian friend who I'd rather text than to have a phone call with, because of her thick accent. No dialectics there.
It's the accent and the lateral lisp.
Honestly it helps just listen to him as much as you can… to get used to his voice and accent. I know it sounds like a useless thing to mention, but it helped me to discern certain things that he portrays.
His texts are very loaded too. Good luck!
Why are people so desperate to insult Peterson? Even if you consider him a diluted intellectual he's helped countless real people change their lives for the better and possibly start them on the path of self reflection and thinking. You'd do well to remember this if all you care about is if he got "destroyed" by someone you happen to be a fan of.
They are bothered by his popularity, but fail to see why he’s popular in the first place. JBP clearly resonates with many people
Classic Jordan Peterson: make an assumption then cut the path.
that doesn't sound like a good thing. or is?
Yes well no wonder, that jp was shaking the first 30 minutes (when zizek didnt respond to him at all in opening speech) the debate was serious philosophy vs "the world is a dragon and it wants to eat you".
That honestly sounds like something Žižek might say right before "on the otherhand, and just to provoke you..."
zizek didn't defend marxism or communism at all, in fact, he abandoned them completely. jpb wins the debate by points, and leftie redditor commies lose harder
@@notlengthy listen to some post interviews with zizek he said that he on purpose didnt attack jp and instead tried to show his fans that there is another way to do it and even better his openjng speech was directed at his followers. If zizek would take this debate seriously jp would have hard time following.
@@andrej8498 so Zizek still lost the debate, got it.
Peterson finds it funny that as an academic he arrived to a debate not having read the work of his opponent. Peterson blows my mind!
Fuck reading Zizeks work. The mad didn't even read Marx. He has been throwing a fit about Marxism for decades while barely understanding what it is.
I wish more of his followers could consider this lol