Slavoj Zizek - Jordan Peterson, Cultural Marxism & the West

[@iwouldprefernotto49]

If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here: i-would-prefer-not-to.com

[@alejandrobasaldua5930]

"Roughly speaking" vs. "And so on and so on" Who would win?

[@NickPilmeyer]

Who's next? You decide!! EPIC RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY!

[@jonigazeboize_ziri6737]

Draw, but his followers will pretend that he won.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

Zombie Nietzsche will rise from the grave and clunk their heads together, sounding a great "GONG!" to declare the birth of the Superman.

[@nccmax]

there will be no winner, it will be pure entertainment. and that is ok, we are allowed a little fun from time to time.

[@craigbee]

Alejandro Basaldúa “I claim” declares a draw

[@_Sam_-zh7sw]

I dont understand why people want to associate themselves with one philosopher. this is not sports. like they just go to youtube videos to dislike. Do they even care to think on what the opposite party has to say?

[@adaptedvinyl]

It may be preferable to see the philosophers playing sports: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXbCaXigpN2MbbM

[@akallstar5]

w b dumb comment. I don’t root for them like a sports team I just already have a pretty entrenched opinion as I’ve listened to both sides enough already. The same applies to many Here.

[@dorobo81]

Peterson is not a philosopher

[@akallstar5]

dorobo81 yes he is. he’s a psychologist and a philosopher.

[@bathtubbarracuda2581]

@@akallstar5 Peterson nerds to roleplay as a philosopher so he can get his Patreon donations. All he does is sell reductionist takes on works he has had little to no direct contact with.

[@punchgod]

Peterson fans finding zizek hard to understand is so fitting. I cant imagine how confusing it must be coming into contact with a Hegelian when you’re at the cognitive level where Peterson’s neoliberalism is “mind blowing”.

[@Coastpsych_fi99]

It’s hilarious when they met leftists that aren’t basically woke neoliberals.

[@forgetfulpriestiv14]

People find him hard to understand because he has a severe lisp alongside a thick accent and the breathing problem he has. It's not because the subject manor is too hard to understand, he is too hard to listen to clearly. I'm honestly trying to listen to his points and so much of it is lost because you can tell what he is saying half the time

[@punchgod]

@@forgetfulpriestiv14 you realise he has writing, yes? like 70 books? theres a whole world outside youtube pal

[@forgetfulpriestiv14]

@@punchgod I've heard enough of him where he actually said two years into Trump's presidency that Hitler would have been better then Trump. I honestly couldn't believe I heard him say that, the guys a nut case

[@punchgod]

@@forgetfulpriestiv14 yeah you'd probably have a hard time with his books. any continental philosophy for that matter. have fun on youtube

[@chelseapoet3664]

Ideology is a hell of a drug, folks.

[@agustinruiz7129]

You're god damn right, but here we are listening. Saludos.

[@patrickpritchard1498]

Every ideaology in the world, the Puritans are annoying as fuck. The two most dangerous organizations in history are government and religion. They both revolve around ideaology.

[@Zmej420BlazeIt]

The funny thing is how much Zizek talks about people's ideology. I think that he forgets to watch for his own.

[@fellowcitizen]

Yes, Jordan Peterson is derrided for opposing certain ideologies, yet he often acknowledges that these ideologies have their place and that elements are accurate or useful. He opposes dogma and IDEOLOGUES. So many people are offended that he opposes neo-marxism, yet it is the neo-marxists (with a "t" not an "m") which he opposes, not their ideology per se, but rather how and why it is conducted. He also acknowledges that many of them are duped and are well-meaning, and that only some are bona fide manipulators. Self-deception is his concern.

[@adamantiuscloudcat1799]

@@Zmej420BlazeIt There are differences. There are ruling ideologies. Such as moral christianism, that Nietzsche so fervently attacked, there are extreme right wing ideologies, consumerist ideologies linked to free market capitalism and so on and so on. Obviously he points out ruling ideologies. I find particularly interesting that in many of his perspectives he may even side with conservatives and liberals the same maintaining a foot on his hegelian basis.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

Anybody else care to see Zizek and Peterson debate Lacanian psychology vs Jungian psychology?

[@AB-ok7hu]

no. they just want to spit over each others biases.

[@MicahMicahel]

Peterson has said he will debate him but Zizek won't do it!

[@mypartyisprivate8693]

Honestly, I'm unfamiliar with this kind of accent. No hate, but I'd need subtitles haha

[@YowTubey]

@@MicahMicahel What makes you think he wouldn't do it? Zizek is a very layed back kind of guy (unlike Peterson). I can see him sitting for a chat with Peterson and then inviting him out for drinks.

[@FailedAragorn]

@@MicahMicahel every time someone competent is booked to debate Peterson, Peterson raises the fees so that the hosts don't want to pay. So you should translate "marxists don't want to debate me" to "marxists aren't made of money and probably have better things to do most of the time."

[@ShroomRPG]

"humans are doomed, my gott" Greatest quote of our age

[@gvidalq]

The amount of saliva Zizek carries within his body is outstanding

[@soraandmypronounsarebleepb3173]

its the cock that is making him snivil like that. Clearly on cock.

[@aaaak4]

If you cant refute his argument and go after the man. You lost.

[@aaaak4]

@Jay Blake hi guy who can't argue

[@aaaak4]

@Jay Blake I'm still waiting for your argument

[@aaaak4]

@Jay Blake still waiting

[@digiulio]

I feel like a lot of people are misunderstanding his point about wisdom - He was saying that wisdom is normally utilized to keep people stuck in their societal roles and that advice cannot be given holistically in exploitative systems because it will always set out to maintain the status quo. Wisdom is relative to the conditions around it. he brings up jesus and plato to say that they were not "wise" and in many ways rebels in the sense that they did not follow the paths laid out for them.

[@digiulio]

@Emmerich August Wisdom is relative to its own conditions because wisdom is born out of the current surroundings (like Žižek said wisdom can come from the occurrence of certain events - people will obtain a different wisdom if a risk succeeds or fails.) The event happens and wisdom is drawn from that. But this is precisely why wisdom is bad because corrupted system will produce corrupted wisdom that will aim to sustain the status quo. When he says wisdom he doesn't mean simple advice, he means a collective, dogmatic attitude of a society that is pushed upon every person. I only mention Plato because he mentioned him but he as well obviously viewed the world skeptically, or else we wouldn't have ideas like the theory of forms.

[@KucheKlizma]

I think he holds an opinion on wisdom in some ways similar to Nietzsche in zarathustra (whom he's claimed to dislike in the past). "Of all that is written, I love only what a person has written with his blood. Write with blood, and you will find that blood is spirit." I think blood refers metaphorically to deep personal experiences, passions, commitments and so on here, not literal blood. As in trying to fix a hung Windows Server at your IT job and finally finding a solution, in a way signifying all the figurative banging of your head against the wall you've had to go through as "blood" you've spilled, although maybe not the bext example. This can even go well with a Jung quote, with whom Zizek disagreed in this video, as he painted Peterson as "Jungian" - though I'm not sure if that was an attack on Jung in his entirety or rather an attack on pseudoscience, pop-science and the self-help industry or Jungian dogmatism. - "One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious." I refer to those two quotes to point that in a sense that when Zizek says that all wisdom is bad perhaps there's a paradox in that not all wisdom is bad, but perhaps all wisdom that is not earned is bad per Nietzsche. So ironically perhaps people who take wisdom from those who give wisdom end up with no wisdom of the type that was offered overtly in the end. But perhaps they earn the wisdom that you do not obtain wisdom in such a way. Ironically then they did gain wisdom in some other form in this process. Similarly I'm not sure when he uses "holistic" in the prejorative if he refers to holism in a holistic sense, or if he's talking about panaceas, miracle cures and so on. I personally think a holistic perspective can be quite valuable, but in the sense of the reductionism vs anti-reductionism (holism) debate and not in the sense of all-encompasing dogmatism. So in a sense holistic can be good if it allows some with a highly reductionist view to become more eclectic? Which I think circles back to Plato? Sorry for the casual necroposting, but I think it's an interesting topic to think on.

[@1ohtaf1]

I think you are the one misunderstanding him, he simply and clearly states that wisdom is stupidity by definition as it is completely opportunistic, and provides an example where the same collection of proverbs can construe a single endeavour as both wise or unwise dependent on its success or failure.

[@digiulio]

@@1ohtaf1 necroposting lol but anyway did you not listen to the rest of the video? he talks about the part that wisdom plays in a highly ordered society that seeks to keep people in their particular role. that figures like jesus or plato were in reality un-wise because they disrupted this sense of balance.

[@PrimoSchnevi]

3:18 "I am not saying that you should get Boris Johnson as Prime Minister"

[@benehasler]

Aged like fine wine

[@funbigly]

Too bad for Zizek. Yet again.

[@Wuppie62]

@@funbigly Not only for Zizek. Boris Johnson now has Covid-19. Lets hope it makes him realise that we need to unite internationally instead of a permanent lock-down and think you can survive and thrive by retreating on an island.

[@funbigly]

@@Wuppie62 might come as news to you but most industrialized countries are in lockdowns of one kind or another. Might also come as news to you, that Covid19 came from ANOTHER country thanks to your international "unity" with communism.

[@Wuppie62]

@@funbigly Excuse me, Einstein, how exactly is it my fault that pests, plague, spanish flue, sars, cow desease, aids, corona, and many other viruses and deseases through the millennia in history have originated in many different parts of the world, spreaded and didn't respect arbitrary drawn lines on maps, classes, and ideologies? You must have some kind of brain damaging virus in your skull, or were you born this stupid?

[@withoutleaders]

Does a massive line of coke at 0:42 seconds in preparation of giving answer.

[@angelo7217]

/ scuffedworldorder 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@drillerdave]

💀

[@lookbovine]

3:03

[@ricardovargas678]

60s-70s > Huntington vs Said Foucault vs Chomsky Today > Hegelian meme vs Clean Room Man

[@Mrgruntastic]

Ricardo Vargas Huntington 🤮

[@brianstorm597]

lmao

[@hanswurst8873]

3:33 Jordan Peterson is spelled "druggy pitiful" in the subtitle

[@PedroPedroAbrunhosa]

brilliant find

[@teyton90]

LMFAO what the hell :D :D

[@seansliger1]

Aged well I see haha

[@aldhizak]

Loooooollll

[@tophan5146]

Zizek level of misunderstanding is gross. 5:10 "I think he became famous for his brutal reaction to some transgender people's idea of gender pronouns" This is TOTALLY WRONG. Peterson never was against transgender people or against gender pronouns. What he was against was that Canada passed the law that COMPELS YOU to use these gender pronouns. This is violation of Free Speech. Never previously in our western world there was a law that makes you say some words - and if you don't say them then it's a crime that can be prosecuted. It's crazy! And now that is the law in Canada. Peterson's only issue was with FREE SPEECH. In fact, he received a ton of letters from transgender people and overwhelming majority supports Peterson. 3:40 "he can't talk about women and marriage without mentioning lobsters" Peterson brings up lobster to show that hierarchies are not social constructs. Even organism so primitive as lobsters organise themselves in hierarchies - this is not something that "male oppressors" created to exploit the world. It has NOTHING to do with women or marriage. Btw. Peterson is not advocating inequality, he recognises that it is the problem, it's just that you cannot reduce inequality to "toxic male tyranny" as so many loud alt-left people are saying, it's much more complex problem that has it roots in nature. 4:34 Zizek is misquoting him again, in fact Peterson himself very often brings up the fact that regardless of inequality of wealth, the absolute levels of standards of living around the world are rapidly going up, poverty is disappearing etc

[@lupo-femme]

He never said Peterson was against transgender people or against their pronouns, he only said that he thinks he (Peterson) became famous for his brutal reaction to some transgender people's idea of gender pronouns. This is only expressing what he believes Peterson became famous for, and in no way mentions that Peterson was against it, nor he afirms it. Stop being so triggered, jeez.

[@tophan5146]

@Juno X You have a good point

[@shmeet]

Juno X _____________He used the word "brutal". That's usually a negative judgement, although not always. But looking at his comments as a whole i think it's safe to say he doesn't like JP very much and that he did mean it in at least a misleading way.

[@kookverslaving]

That law would not compel anyone to use the correct gender pronoun tho. Blatant lie ;)

[@kookverslaving]

In fact, he received a ton of letters from transgender people and overwhelming majority supports Peterson [citation needed]

[@sammonroe3985]

This guy won't stop making crazy beats.

[@sarahloffler1872]

Hahahahahahahhaha! Funny! omg he would love your comment!

[@jonathanFX12]

Damn there’s a lot of angry lobsters in these comments.

[@kd7087]

I found one thing really weird about this. He said that Peterson providing wisdom to young children is bad. Peterson's main claim is to take responsibility for your actions. Is it really that bad, I mean it helped me a lot as it did to a lot of people to achieve a lot more than I could have before.

[@kd7087]

@@lowsodium9388 but can collective action really be taken when people are not ready to take responsibility and just shift blame?

[@kd7087]

@@lowsodium9388 also isn't zizek also furthering his own political agenda here. I mean history is the best judge and it clearly shows that capitalism is the most successful ideology yet and socialism and Marxism are failures

[@kd7087]

@@lowsodium9388 but the left does do that by playing identity politics. Hence individuals are not ready to take responsibility as they have a scapegoat for everything. They can blame the patriarchy or the system for something that's not present, hence you see the problem. I would like ask you to give examples of any robust welfare states that have even come close to the level of achievement of the US

[@kd7087]

@@lowsodium9388 it's not about GDP it's about power influence culture everything. The US is by far the biggest and most relevant country ever. Don't tell me you think Sweden and Germany can compete with the US in any way

[@dabas-12]

you would find fifty uncles like this at any random family get together 😂

[@arya3528]

Aditya Dabas I am that weird uncle

[@chiefrabbi6735]

@@arya3528 *begins to talk about hegel’s dialectic theory at family meet*

[@musicloverkathy]

@@chiefrabbi6735 hahaha. I love that. 💘

[@musicloverkathy]

I'd give anything for an uncle like him. He's so fascinating and enthusiastic. He's truly one of a kind.

[@ivanjeremy6529]

Plato and Jesus aren't wise man, they are rebel in their society - Zizek

[@oh_rhythm]

That's what he was saying? Shit, I couldn't understand his point. Did he mean that wisdom is like juvenile and goes against real smarts, that is about stability and shit?

[@ShounakSen]

@@oh_rhythm I think he's saying wisdom is an opportunist phenomena and that marxists would view situations as a result of productive forces and situations rather than individual actions that pretty much dependent on the former

[@chilldude30]

I lost all respect for Peterson when he refused to debate Richard Wolff

[@Orgotheonemancult]

To be fair, he responded to Wolff's offer with a piece he had previously written about the Soviet Union and Wolff's response was basically 'that was a long time ago, just ignore it.' Not a strong indicator for Wolff's integrity. Kind of disgusting.

[@musicgaines7170]

Petty up tight shit

[@chase34124]

@@Orgotheonemancult Nah, that punk pussied out. Richard Wolff could out debate him any day of the week.

[@ArthurDubinsky]

@@chase34124 richard wolff couldnt debate a joe rogan, he would end up sounding like alex jones

[@chase34124]

@@ArthurDubinsky Yet your boy Jordan Peterson couldn't debate him. Probably cause his narrative doesn't stack up because he knows nothing about political philosophy or economic systems.

[@jaymanxv]

"And so on and so on", sniff sniff

[@bayreuth79]

A popular proverb isn't the same thing as wisdom.

[@rossmillington8700]

I can't help but love them both, they do seem to talk past each other a bit but would be really great to hear them have a conversation

[@davidjairala69]

And sure as shit it was an incredible conversation both ways.

[@mrrohitjadhav470]

@@davidjairala69 your wish came true

[@RagnarB175]

Philosopher? He doesn't understand Plato, and his comments on wisdom are eye opening. Why would you attempt to undermine wisdom unless you were selling something unwise?

[@RagnarB175]

@Jay BlakeNot totally. I admire Zizek, but I admire Plato first. Did you catch the debate last night? I'm a Peterson fan, but Zizek gets my vote.

[@wp6007]

He is undermining wisdom because it's useless

[@newsrealwithjoeniall6319]

How did this guy ever get the title of 'philosopher'?

[@mickrussom]

some school bestowed the title upon him?

[@DeflatingAtheism]

Once philosophy bracketed out metaphysics, philosophers abandoned any aspiration to totality or universality. Therefore, any rambling-on about sufficiently abstract matters without any clearly defined starting points or end points can qualify as philosophy.

[@Baghuul]

In post modernism, you create your own truths, its easy to hand out all sorts of titles in this world view. Hes a bum at best. He peddles this vague marxoid nonsense charging several thousand for lectures.

[@Guuliann]

Um by writing at least one or two books on the subject since the 80's. Publishing a self help book does not make Peterson a philosopher nor does making youtube videos circle jerking about christianity.

[@toddharig8142]

Wow, you guys are starting to sound like the peterson "haters" that you seem to dislike so much. Now you understand what we're thinking :)

[@erhan6095]

youtube translates 'jordan peterson' as 'druggy pitiful' from Zizek's pronunciation.

[@rick2517]

The AI knows too much

[@FranciscoSilva-mk9tu]

He approaches an interesting point: the so called "cultural marxism" is not marxist at all.

[@alibobali4032]

Which is ridiculous, isn't it? That this term has been used so successfully by Peterson to represent any kind of progressive social change, and yet the term itself is so flawed as to be ridiculous that it means anything at all. It's very much just a dogwhistle term imo. I think there's evidence everywhere of that being the case.

[@Corum95]

Right. I am starting to wonder wether Peterson's and other conservative intellectuals' undbridled ranting against Marxism on the rise should be considered authentic paranoia.

[@matthewkopp2391]

Marcuse and Adorno and others from the Frankfurt school accused capitalist society of manipulation, propaganda, and creating one dimensional people incapable of rational and moral discernment. Marcuse specifically also accused certain aspects of the right wing of a totalitarianism that should not be tolerated. So even in the early days the John Birch Society appropriated the same narrative and turned it against the Frankfurt School and Marcuse specifically. Adorno for example criticized popular Hollywood films as a type of propaganda. Since then many Hollywood films are criticized as cultural Marxism when in reality it is cultural capitalism and making millions of dollars. Cultural Marxism originated as a completely Macheavellian type conspiracy theory. Accuse your opponent of your greatest flaws. And now it is completely absurd because so very few people read Marx, and contemporary left identity politics is completely ignorant of Marxist theory that „cultural Marxism“ is an utter mind bending absurdity. As for as I am concerned Peterson effectively polluted serious thoughtful discourse through gaslighting everyone with a conspiracy theory.

[@professorplum2531]

While identity politics are counter to marxism, cultural marxism uses all the marxist theories applied to identity. This term has been around long before Peterson. I find it to be a good label, the main parallels are inarguable imo. I understand why it pisses marxists off though, the whole ideology is about class instead regardless of dentity. But that's why it's "cultural marxism" not "marxism".

[@Vekikev1]

@@alibobali4032 "to represent any kind of progressive social change" what is so progressive about leftists? Is it the trans hogwash? or the destroy western civilisation because it's offensive to minorities hogwash?

[@seriekekomo]

Am I the only one who understands his sentences but doesn't understand where he is going with all of this??

[@atlanta2076]

Nope. He never gets to a point.

[@jackburgin9067]

Speaks a lot but says nothing

[@chelseapoet3664]

I bought a book of his and it was by far the most boring of all the philosophy books I have read. A lot of wind and very little new or of substance.

[@theuberman7170]

He just doesn't say what you want.

[@theeJordanTaylor]

That's philosophy for you.

[@jekeydaniel7276]

Make up your own minds about Zizek and Peterson just by comparing how they talk about each other. 1. Zizek on Peterson on the 10th of November in Cambridge: at 4:22 "I'll quote someone here who is also my enemy, Steven Pinker..". So for Zizek Peterson and Pinker they're both enemies. At 7:40 "Here I react like Goebbels, I pull out my guns..." (A side note: I can not comprehend why are remarks like this accepted from leftists while if anyone more right leaning would say a similar "joke" he would be labeled as a fascist and there would be a huge media attack.) 2. Peterson on the possibility to have a debate with Zizek, in Ljubljana, Slovenia on the 18th of November: "kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXLEfqSNapKEkLM" at 24:27/25:10 "I think it would be very interesting to have a discussion with Zizek, so if that can be arranged that could happen."

[@jojomcmudak5379]

Are you mad cause we just Joseph Stalin on you? Peterson dodge any serious debate, he has comfortable cloak of "wisdom" to fool young alienated whites with messy rooms that give him 5 digit revenue from patreon account. .

[@MysteryPuke]

And Zizek in writing has also accepted a debate. Now regarding his quips about enemies and guns, isn't Jordan Peterson a big anti PC activist? Or does PC serve as a gun to use at your discretion while being denied to others? Get a grip dude.

[@cheezball19]

didnt peterson threatened to slap one of his critics while zizek is saying it as a joke...

[@kalash_nikov]

@@jojomcmudak5379 Guys, guys, guys... didn't you forget to *tip* your fedoras?

[@YowTubey]

Lol. Nice fedora, lobster boy.

[@Matiyahu]

Wow, nothing much said here. Just a superficial dismissal and, really, misunderstanding of Peterson.

[@mickrussom]

he doubts peterson's FACTS. zizek is a pathetic NPC

[@vaclavwalach8172]

haha, no

[@4grammaton]

That's why it's important to have a debate (or really any kind of talk) to clear up misunderstandings, which Zizek is prepared to do for free, and which Peterson will only do for 50000 dollars, despite saying that no Marxist will debate him.

[@McBignLargeBJ64]

@@mickrussom good lord its like you guys cant come up with even one original thought. its the same tired sentences again and again and again. calling people NPCs while you yourself are repeating identical talking points by 99% of your rightwing youtubers you follow is "NPC" behavior by your logic too

[@Sujad]

@@McBignLargeBJ64 Why should he bother? You're side was calling everyone that didn't toe your line Russian bots for two whole years. Not even a full month of people referring you as NPCs and you break down like a Lada that's trying to do anything other than sit still.

[@fj0m]

It is not true that Jordan Peterson only talks about women and marriage using analogies with other animals. For example, about marriage, he says that marriage is for the children, not the couple, and he doenst use any analogies with other animals to support his argument, he says it is about being more mature. Another example, about women, he says that feminism is about power, not rights. I dont agree with him, but still he doesnt talk about other animals and stuff to support what he is saying. He uses analogies with other animals to talk about biology and hierarchy. I think Zizek is mad with Peterson for showing how stupid is the communist manifesto.

[@huburgalula4031]

ed sheeran on 6:25

[@VendPrekmurec]

I wanted to write the same comment!

[@DS-yg4qs]

Fuck... hahahahahaha

[@RajparaShubham]

Epitome of chaos, this guy.

[@beefknuckles]

Clean your room, incel.

[@jakekhawaja]

Shubham Rajpara Peterson’s acolytes probably haven’t even heard of Lacan. You should investigate Lacan’s rejection of essential reduction in the form of myth, for which he asserts there is a subliminal symbolic structure situated at the level of the unconscious. Peterson hasn’t done this as is quite evident from his childish treatment of Lacan. Of course, Lacanians like Zizek and others, we predominately tend to oppose most of Jung, but even then, you can learn about Jungian psychology from Jung himself and from serious Jungians (not Peterson). When you call him the “epitome of chaos,” do you even know what that means or are you just repeating some stupid sophism from Peterson? A Lacanian would tell you that fantasy is supported by a symbolic structure, not the other way around, and that the Real is defined by an impasse of formalization, a radical impossibility inscribed into the symbolic itself, etc. and all statements within rational discourse leave their subliminal signifying chains absent. Consequently, all attempts at symbolizing the Real will be “chaotic.” The unconscious doesn’t try to push anything into the conscious, desire is a limitation on jouissance and vice versa. The imaginary and symbolic are in constant antagonism. If you try to ascertain certainty and lucidity in your articulations, you invariably abandon truth. The point I’m trying to make is that Peterson clearly isn’t familiar with this argument, and for you to simply predicate “chaos,” to a philosopher whose immanent theoretical background, pertinent to even this ad hominem remark, you probably are unaware of (especially since Peterson himself doesn’t understand it), is incredibly disingenuous.

[@RM-tj6ju]

beefknuckles what a typically moronic response

[@brobertfx]

so none of u are triggered by the "rape joke" at the begging ?

[@chapter_black3234]

Peterson started from so many false premises that he should be discredited by this point. He's just some guy that boys take advice from because they have deadbeat dads and Peterson is willing to validate their fears of women at the same time as justifying his existence via simplistic advice that a mother would give

[@forgetfulpriestiv14]

This is such an ignorant and dishonest take. I don't know what lectures of Peterson's that you are refering to that encourages men to fear women. He uses very well understood concepts in biology and psychology that have been the standard for decades. The fact this guy can't understand that animals and humans share the same chemicals in their brains and the chemicals have the same reaction in a human brain as they do in an animal brain. This man is such a typical liberal shill that has to ignore the most basic facts to make his flawed ideology work

[@DenDenDevil]

Zizek says a lot of stuff with apparently no goal and then explains everything he meant in the last sentence. It's understandable but so damn confusing

[@whoever_81]

True. Chaotic would be an understatement.

[@Pow3rGaming]

He's overrated. Obviously.

[@MicahMicahel]

He has a kind of messy cuteness. I think people respond to that. Sort of like the Dali Lama... if he wasn't cute, nobody would think he was so profound.

[@stevenoviedo541]

And I think I could be a disadvantage if a Zizek/Peterson debate were to take place. Although both tend to circle around the questions they get ask. Due to their opposite world views it would make Peterson seem more "on point".

[@DenDenDevil]

Please no hate on my man Zizek. He's not the best but he's far from overrated. His culture is immense and his grasp on contemporary times is remarkable. And I share almost nothing with him since I disregard psychoanalysis in toto.

[@masterluxu1]

The senate is 2 per state. The house is by population. The first 2 minutes made no sense what so ever.

[@heywsupitswill]

What was Zizek’s actual critique of Peterson’s ideas here? It sounded like a bunch of unsubstantiated claims rooted in a postmodern ideology. Zizek’s style of critique sounds like a bunch of historical framing and sweeping assertions that aren’t backed up by any strong logic or empirical observations. He’s either misrepresenting Peterson, or simply not offering much of a knock down critique. I’d love to hear someone offer a real critique of Peterson’s ideas, without resorting to attacks on his motives/character or without misrepresenting him (which is admittedly very easy to do as his ideas can be slippery)

[@TheGoodKid808]

Will Spruill if you listen closely he is very clear, he even counted the critiques. 1) He questions Peterson's "scientific facts" 2) the analogy between man and animals 3) the idea of cultural marxism All backed with examples and explanations.

[@spahbed7150]

"""""""Postmodern ideology""""""

[@edg2726]

Zizek is anti postmodern. You just use postmodernism as synonymous with cultural Marxism, which is apparently also liberalism, which is nihilism. It's baffling.

[@tabinekoman]

Peterson vs zizek "Oraoraoraora" "mudamudamuda"

[@handreieiacasa]

Why nobody has ever thought of this, just perfect

[@Sincerely_MrX]

Peterson is Jotaro fasho

[@kitosjek9541]

@@Sincerely_MrX don't remember jotaro overdosing

[@Eric-eq3jx]

Zizek keeps misquoting Peterson and misrepresenting his representation of jungian theory, I wonder if zizek has read the gulag archipelago and Solzhenitsyn’s critique of communism and Marxism, saying Marxism was inevitable to turn to communism

[@wp6007]

The Gulag Archipelago is listed as fiction

[@Angel-cu5mf]

"wisdom is stupidity" -Zizek in a nutshell

[@merkabah2]

good quote by our ŽeeŽ

[@zosia8308]

It's a stupid quote. He doesn't like wisdom, because he doesn't know what it is.

[@funbigly]

More proof Marxists just spout clever plausibilities, completely divorced from reality

[@zosia8308]

@@funbigly , ... You are right, cultural Marxists spout clever plausibilities, but are completely divorced from reality. The Long March Through Institutions has deprived universities of teachers with wisdom. Cultural Marxists (no doubt, some of them useful idiots) have taken over our universities and are now brainwashing students, subsequently crippling them intellectually. Now universities are breeding people that can't think logically, they are being taught how to memorize, not how to think. Those students are now adults, that have children of their own. So now it's not just our teaches brainwashing and crippling our society, but parents as well. ... Today idiots are being given titles, just because they know how to use intelligent words and can sound intelligent, but in reality, speak absolute nonsense.

[@Wuppie62]

@@zosia8308 You're proof of Zizek's point about Peterson and his cult of followers. Thank you.

[@jacobreichert8808]

After that video I am not very hyped about the upcoming discussion between Peterson and Zizek. Zizek does not understand or does not care about anything Peterson said. I am sad now.

[@mayankgoyal5264]

@@stefaniastanoaie6616 True, he didn't present any real counter argument. Just cherry picked some lines and blah blah blah.

[@MultiPsol]

What you dont understand is that, in philosophy, you dont need to counter the argument of the your oponent in his terms. Why is important to critic the wisdom the way Zizek did? Because in his line of thought, the Wisdom takes place as a way to maintain social order, it is just a way of legitimizing ideology, Zizek thought isnt simplistic "Is X wrong or right?", he tries to understand why did we even ask this question.

[@MultiPsol]

Do you even know what zizek means by Ideology? I will say what zizek mean when he talks of wisdom as opportunistic. He says it is a form of conformism, it adapt to any situation because it means nothing, ans because of it is "useful" ans "real" it may appear beyond cristicism. I'm not surprised that you just took a word I said "social order" and constructed an argument like "oh but things needs to be in order", of course, they do, but what i'am talking about is that it ia changable, the ideology may say "but thats the reality, the ways thing are, you cant change it", but you can, thats not the only ans very problem of ideology, maybe nether with wisdom, because i'm taling in very simplistic and ridiculous terminology, but if you expect to understand zizek's thought you cant do it by only whatching a 10min video.

[@phoeberose1107]

Zizek is going to wipe the floor - he's actually read the texts Peterson is critiquing. he is more rambling but better read

[@ILoveMagic15]

Zizek's understanding of Peterson is so superficial, it's laughable.

[@AEFic]

"Peterson said this about this election, would you agree" Zizek: "Here's what I hate about Peterson... " Never listens to original question.

[@AEFic]

But yeah, Peterson and Zizek seem to me both more celebrities than anything else. Very little understanding of other people's philosophies. I'm not very informed on all their works, I may be totally wrong, but that's my impression so far.

[@ILoveMagic15]

@@AEFic I love the irony of you accusing them of having very little understanding of other people's philosophies while you admit in the next sentence that you yourself have very little understanding of their philosophies. :)

[@AEFic]

@@ILoveMagic15 Yeah it's mostly through second hand analysis. In other words, I have seen criticisms of each of them, pointing out how their interpretations differ from text they're mentioning. I haven't had the time to delve into either and prefer to be upfront about it

[@lolcatjunior]

Cultural marxism is a complete myth. What is there to understand?

[@darthvader-ey4xw]

I watched the debate and Zizek destroyed Perterson

[@cicerogsuphoesdown7723]

darth vader yeah he kind of did

[@Wisstihrwas]

As i saw it, zizek had the upper hand with most arguments. It shows just from begining when jp is surprised because his openee completely misses zizek. It just shows that he is one step ahead in all of this. The only point jp had the upper hand is, when they talked about happiness and a approach to it. I guess there jps attitude of 'top doing wrong thing and aim higher' could be seen as a solid advice. But happiness itself doesnt really qualify actions. Does it? To give you a brutal, but clear example: i'm pretty sure the nazis where kind if happy killing jews. At least its what they seem to strive for.

[@SupernalOne]

Haha, the closed caption function misheard Jordan Peterson as druggy pitiful

[@renanyano338]

Brian Ferguson has shown a solid point on this issue of violence. Saying that if we go backwards we will find that the beggining of warfare is related to the colonization. Before that the evidence on the existence of warfare is low. In that case, yes, we live in a much more violent society today.

[@abelpeter9658]

He just called the Lord a ‘Madman’. Damn.

[@Lee-wr2ts]

this channel seems to cut the clips to fit their own views wich in some cases completely detaches žižeks sentences from their meaning

[@Bulhakas]

People need to learn about federalism when they complain about states with different population numbers having the same number of votes.

[@jockmoron]

I think they understand federalism perfectly well. But it's strange that the USA is always complaining about the UN, one country, one vote, when the US doesn't get its own way, yet in their own country they have basically the same system, except this is one state, two votes. But as long as Republicans gain from this system, it's not going to be changed.

[@mariog1490]

@@jockmoron right but there’s the house as well. The real US critique is it’s lack of monarchy as a meta representation. Instead it seems like every president is god.

[@scottmatthew1058]

And you leftists think that Peterson makes no sense? This guy is barely stringing coherent ideas together.

[@atari_k1]

What he said isn't true, Jordan and pinker agreed specifically on how times are better now

[@DaFieFie]

Did they? Because it's hard to get Jordan to say anything concrete and clearly. He's too busy trying to make his statements as vague as possible.

[@yodayodayoda326]

Can someone please explain why Slavoj doesn't want to be called professor? Thank you.

[@Pentiumium]

Love how Zizek's followers call out Peterson's followers for aggressive behaviour that they are quilty of themselves.

[@Tarnov]

Fuckng hell being a materialist idealist is my new favorite Zizek thing

[@otofori9802]

i would like to see them fight in the same card with conor vs khabib

[@diegocalderon2292]

6:20 isn’t that Gramsci? or am I wrong?

[@TheAvianos]

Jordan Petersson declared just a week ago that they are agreeing to the terms of a debate and that included him first reading all Slavoj's major works. Consider how serious Jordan takes if he is doing all this. He clearly understand that he stands on potentially unstable ground and will do major homework in preparation for the battle to come. Yes, they are enemy's in viewpoint and will battle it out in public forum, just like Aristotle, Plato and Sokrates did - And have their ideas tested in, possibly, mortal combat! Who knows, maybe they will learn from each-other and both come out better men!

[@Mish844]

Finally, I was starting to question Peterson's honesty ever since Wolfy said Peterson refused.

[@mechkota]

@@Mish844 How there goin to debate? Wolf is a economist. I cant see how you can link intersectional feminism surplus value theory!

[@adrianhoseini1334]

What we got instead was a superficial understanding of marx by jordan peterson. He litterally prepared by reading some of the communist manifesto

[@n.aioli3950]

this comment aged like milk

[@jirojhasuo2ndgrandcompany745]

Long story short. JBP didnt read anything except for the Commie Manifesto lol

[@aaron4820]

These two need to get together to have a dialogue, not a debate, just a dialogue, any honest person can see his critique of Peterson is from someone who's barely read through the headlines. It's kind of disappointing to see from Zizek actually.

[@ricsouza5011]

Loved the jab at Chomsky for his superficial Godwin argument

[@alkazaryyy]

Zizek really should ake some advice from Peterson's book of wisdom ( a concept he throws out the window without proper justification) : BE PRECISE IN YOUR SPEECH. WHy? Because the types of advice Peterson gives his readers are well grounded in psychological research and his own vast experience as a clinical psychologist. Not some kind of easy interchangeable "words of wisdom" as he describes it here. Peterson does not give easy answers like some kind of fortune cookie, he asks people to look within and do some transformative inner work. "By your fruit you shall know them", as the saying goes, and the positive consequences seen in the wake of Jordan Peterson speaks for itself. Zizek also seem to be one of these people unable, or unwilling, to properly understand Peterson's comparison of the lobster.

[@leo9753]

Funny, I think he is quite understandable for someone who had a stroke... But yea he should just take some advice from Jordan "No I didn't say that" Peterson about precise speech. Can you explain why the lobster comparison isn't just complete BS, as he first completly misunderstood the paper he got his idea from and secondly what do lobsters have to do with the way we as humans function. If you'd compare us to bonobos or other primates, I'd atleast see some merit.

[@FunkyFyreMunky]

@@leo9753 The comparison to the lobsters is due to how primative the species is. It's remain mostly unchanged for 140 million years. The point is that a creature so ancient and pimative with such simple social interactions with each other still develop heirarchies. His point was that heirarchies are so ingrained in life from such a primative point in the development of life, that to call it a purely social construct is absurd.

[@leo9753]

@@FunkyFyreMunky First of all, Peterson makes way too many mistakes when reading scientific studies to use it for such a strong claim. Many examples of that are discussed here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGaqaH2Jn5uMfbM Second, I don't see how you can claim it has any bearing on the social hierarchies of human societies. Yes, if someone would be claiming that all hierarchies, including those in the animal kingdom, are a social constructs, you could use this to refute them. But on any point regarding hierachies in our human society, this is nothing but a naturalistic fallacy. If you'd want to argue any point about humans, your whole work is still ahead of you. I feel like it's similar to how from finding a rational argument to being a deist, there should be a lot of work in front of you to rationalize being a theist.

[@lordzutroy8465]

@@leo9753 It just shows the connectiveness between social hierachies and the serotonin release in your Brain which very highly influence your behaviour in life and by that in your social evironment . It looks to be the same in mostly every species with a nervous system. Whats so hard to understand about this? The understanding of this has nothing to do with philosophy. You better seek a neuroscientist to talk about this than the nonsense video of those guys you posted. Its no naturalistic fallacy as ive read quite some time as he is not deeming it as GOOD. It just IS and by that we have to deal with it.

[@gogogomes7025]

3:22 you shouldn't get Boris Johnson as prime minister... oh boi

[@PearsAreOkay]

The worst part is you can't debate a sophist

[@samuraisteve2775]

He took a lot of time to say nothing. I hope it is a language barrier, because half way through I am typing this and moving on. Over half way through and he had not said anything. He was correct to reject the honor Professor.

[@ericthiede9712]

I'm with you...as I struggle to focus, all I can think is all the Zizek fans listening and promoting from their capitalism produced smartphones.

[@dorobo81]

Oh he crushed Peterson in just ten minutes. Try listening where he goes for hours on more challenging topics :)

[@CoinBahd]

@@ericthiede9712 You criticize society, yet you continue to live in it. Libtards exposed as hippocrites

[@brandonszpot8948]

He’s not that hard to follow...

[@catchywatchy7086]

He debated Peterson and roasted him...he even wore the same t-shirt he wore here..

[@KentTallKid]

This guy is basically bastardizing so many philosophies that he doesn't agree with. It is easy to argue against something if you change the meaning of it before you debate it. It's much more difficult to actually argue against something as it exists. Seems pretty shallow in my opinion. I'm still waiting for this guy to convince me.

[@danieldominguez6208]

Electoral college system is not an injustice. It was design not to be a democracy. The founding fathers did not like "mob rule", hence why small populated states have more electoral power , while simultaneously having the same congressional power compared to larger populated states. (i.e. Two senators). If it were a direct democracy bigger states like ca, and New York will dominate the presidential elections. Which in my opinion is an injustice that 2 states can largely determine the election for everyone else. It is not perfect, but I firmly agree with the reasoning.

[@eudaemxnia2481]

He talks a whole lot but doesn’t really say much. Im kinda disappointed.

[@GOMFER11]

Who is in charge this channel?

[@faraday8280]

This man needs some speech therapy. I had the same speech impediment, but he is not even trying to sound normal.

[@uwotm8634]

It's not an impediment, he has tourettes, which has gotten worse as he's grown older

[@austntexan]

@@uwotm8634 Wow. You're saying he doesn't have a speech impediment? It doesn't matter where it came from. It's still a speech impediment. More post-modern thought process right here. Reality is actually reality. Jesus, you people are tedious.

[@wp6007]

cope

[@blazhajdinjak1413]

Actually a very poor argumentation of Slavoj Žižek. Jordan Peterson isn't saying that a man should not act unnaturally but that the cultural system should not force him to act that way for due to his biological determination men would not feel adopted an therefore free. Man's unnatural act shoud not be forced (wherever that is possible) but should be a choice of his free will. If you want a society to live willingly in an unnatural system, you would have to change the societie's genetic ambivalence and i am afraid the only way to do so is rather questionable (do I have to say, who tried to do it in history?). On my opinion mr. Peterson is trying to remind us about that ...

[@k525rebcsi]

His interpretation of Plato is... weird, but I liked it!

[@abhaymishra30]

Mum was sitting beside me when he blurted out the "Did I rape your mother" part. Watching Zizek is now more dangerous than watching porn, geez.

[@Jebcbeb]

It seems like zizek only talks about ideology. He even represents wisdom as interchangeable proverbs instead of a study of why things have worked. His example was like "if someone poked themselves in the eye and it gave them super vision, I could say "nothing ventured nothing gained". If he went blind I'd say "only a fool risks what he has for something he doesn't need". Therefore wisdom is dumb". Instead of saying "wisdom is the transmission of viable ideas that are the best bet to an acceptable life"

[@mrage22r]

I always thought Peterson’s point about the lobsters was just that hierarchies exist on a biological level therefore it’s silly to say it’s purely a social construct (independent of biological predisposition). Don’t scientists do tests on animals to simulate how drugs, for example, might work in humans? Not because they are projecting animal traits onto humans, but because humans and animals share enough biology in common to understand how we react to drugs, etc.

[@MultiPsol]

What you dont see is the implicit thought of Peterson when he says that. What was the point of saying it? Proofing that Hierarchies exists? Duh, who negates that? Of course it does, even anarchists arent againt all hierarchies, what was implicit is that there is a natural way that society is organized and because it is natural you cant be againt it, thats the pseudo scientific view.

[@lordzutroy8465]

@@MultiPsol He just points out what these hierarchys do to the individual in the neurological scale. He doesnt say you cant be against it, he just points out how it is and how to deal with it to help create a healthy society. There is no judging. Thats just amazing how people keep repeating bullshit about someone they dont even understand. Just Stop claiming thinks YOU interpret to discredit someone you dont like. Better go with the facts.

[@freedomwatch3991]

What's his point about the senate having 2 senators per state ?

[@DanHowardMtl]

Well in the 1st minute I disagree with Zizek on State representation. He doesn't seem to understand that the alternative would be that federal representation would all be from LA and New York and other big population centers. Regions need representation. Montana's needs are very different from California's.

[@mclkr9174]

This doesn't make sense - the alternative is not federal representation. There is no singular alternative. We can switch to a decentralized model, a communal model, literally any new type of government. Direct democracy, Anarchism, literally anything.

[@DanHowardMtl]

@@mclkr9174 Wow. You must be genius saying something that says nothing. You do understand that most of the populations live in cities, right? Did you not learn math in school?

[@mclkr9174]

@@DanHowardMtl What does that have to do with governance?

[@DanHowardMtl]

@@mclkr9174 Are you really this dense?

[@wouterm8145]

I personally think that you should see the whole of the European Union as the equivalent of the USA. However, we have sovereign rule on much smaller levels. The USA is so big that centralized rule is much harder than on a smaller, European state scale. An American equivalent would be if California and New York became their own countries and so on and so on...

[@fezzpop8410]

After listening to this I learned absolutely nothing and highly suspect he is trying to gain popularity off of JP haters. He calls JP shallow and yet never dives deep into anything himself. This is nothing more than pandering to what a certain group of people want to hear.

[@tophan5146]

zizek understending of peterson is so shallow, it's like he only read some news headlines.

[@davidalemany]

Tophan Tophan Exactly.

[@Qtown20]

How so?

[@rallarmann89]

JP is shallow...

[@tophan5146]

@Qtown20 5:10 "I think he became famous for his brutal reaction to some transgender people's idea of gender pronouns" This is TOTALLY WRONG. Peterson never was against transgender people or against gender pronouns. What he was against was that Canada passed the law that COMPELS YOU to use these gender pronouns. This is violation of Free Speech. Never previously in our western world there was a law that makes you say some words - and if you don't say them then it's a crime that can be prosecuted. It's crazy! And now that is the law in Canada. Peterson's only issue was with FREE SPEECH. In fact, he received a ton of letters from transgender people and overwhelming majority supports Peterson. 3:40 "he can't talk about women and marriage without mentioning lobsters" Peterson brings up lobster to show that hierarchies are not social constructs. Even organism so primitive as lobsters organise themselves in hierarchies - this is not something that "male oppressors" created to exploit the world. It has NOTHING to do with women or marriage. Btw. Peterson is not advocating inequality, he recognises that it is the problem, it's just that you cannot reduce inequality to "toxic male tyranny" as so many loud alt-left people are saying, it's much more complex problem that has it roots in nature. 4:34 Zizek is misquoting him again, in fact Peterson himself very often brings up the fact that regardless of inequality of wealth, the absolute levels of standards of living around the world are rapidly going up, poverty is disappearing etc

[@nevenrogic7606]

Well, what would you expect, it's not that like Peterson reads Žižeks books in detail, I have nothing against them both, but I just want to say that how would they concentrate on their work if they respond correctly to every oponent..Žižek and Peterson are talking about similar things but from two differrent points of view, they can't just fully concentrate on one another, or at every theoretical oponents. It would be better if they had discussion or debate so they can exchange ideas.

[@beatriceportinari4621]

I wonder what he would be like on valium?

[@dancelittlesquire]

Put on annotation subtitles on at 3:32 "Druggy Pitiful" haha

[@BobsiPringlez]

I saw that - killed me

[@ramblinbob1918]

I don’t really understand slavoj viewpoint, his definition of wisdom seems odd and narrow. Are Jordan Peterson and Slavoj both giving advice and their view based on their fields of expertise? And while I have heard of the Frankfurt school and it’s influence, I have never heard Peterson espouse the belief that stalin and Lenin funded the cultural Marxism movement, if I am wrong please redirect me. Where does he actually disagree with Jordan Peterson?

[@ramblinbob1918]

@Elevendy Eleven I am sorry I don't understand the Neo Con reference. Is it that he is a neocon or that he doesn't use neocon arguments? or Both? Anyways so the criticism is that he invokes a term used by conspiracy theorist? I pulled this from rationalWiki, its by no means a scholarly source, but it shouldn't be biased I don't think towards left-wing or liberal thinking. "Cultural Marxism generally refers to one of two things: First - extremely rarely - "cultural Marxism" (lower C, upper M) refers to an obscure critique of popular culture by the Frankfurt School, framing culture as being imposed by a capitalist culture industry and consumed passively by the masses." Plus (the term) cultural marxism has also become much more mainstream to mean marxist influence on society spawned by the frankfurt school, thats how most conservatives use that term. I think to say that Jordan Peterson advocates the conspiracy theory you'd have to successfully argue that he believes the explicit purpose of the Frankfurt school was to undermine and destroy western civilization.

[@vaibhavuniyal1842]

Prof. Peterson is a decent observer of current times but he is quite ignorant when it comes to Philosophy and Political Science.

[@Conserpov]

Yep. Peterson talking about Marxism is same as Ray Comfort talking about evolution.

[@mackenziebowles2443]

in depth you're right. I still think he gets enough of the gist of certain things though. If he didn't just short hand so sweepingly when he used the terms 'post modernism' and 'Marxists' and was a bit more specific he still identifies valid problems with these movements. When he uses those terms he more or less means how these 2 philosophies (post modernism is quite diverse yes) are practiced in the real world. If he was more specific in saying then there wouldn't be much controversy in those aspects of his thought. He's weak as a strict philosopher. I do agree there. I just find that he's never that spectacularly wrong. Like the Nietzsche thing. People are horrified that he seems to use Nietzsche as a Christian apologist (though he really doesn't). I get their point but I don't think he's being that loosey goosey there.

[@Conserpov]

@@mackenziebowles2443 _> If he didn't just short hand so sweepingly when he used the terms 'post modernism' and 'Marxists' and was a bit more specific he still identifies valid problems with these movements._ Jordan Peterson does not talk about Marxism or Marxist movement in any way, shape or form. He mislabels post-modernist crap "Marxism". Despite the fact this crap is explicitly anti-Marxist, is divisive and heavily backed by Capitalist banks and transnational corporations (e.g. Google). This is same as Ray Comfort slapping "evolution" label on a crocoduck. Being "specific" won't help when such a blatant strawman is used, completely disingenuously.

[@Stbuster31]

Yes, Peterson is very naive when it comes to political science, obviously his misrepresentation of the Left. He thinks progressives are the leaders of political correctness and warped identity politics, whereas that's really the center Liberals. Progressives are focused on economic, class and environmental issues and the Liberals (Neoliberals) have a far more postmodernist foundation. Peterson's main argument is always pointing that socialism, communism and Marxism (he likes to group them all together sometimes with little to no nuance like any Fox News talking head) failed in the 20th century, which is such a shallow and egregious misrepresentation. He then has gender based attacks that explain the outcomes of more egalitarian States in the Democratic Socialistic countries, which is also silly. He really breezes over the real pitfalls of capitalism and always has lame defenses for why inequality is necessary and biological. He should stick to psychology, something of which I think he has great insight for. But he's essentially propagandizing for the right and the real progressives are getting hurt by needing to deal with another front of attacks.

[@Conserpov]

@Stefan S _> Left-wing Cultural Marxist_ The problem with you indoctrinated people - uncritically parroting cliches, without any thinking. News flash: they are actually Right-wing, and "Cultural Marxists" is a fake label specifically designed to confuse idiots.

[@commodorecode1404]

Plato was exactly a seeker of wisdom,and the title philosopher means lover of wisdom,wtf is he saying?

[@rjwasser8312]

This is just a few observations - and keep in mind that while I disagree with Zizek on an ideological basis I do respect him for his convictions and methodological approach to Marxism. Zizek is what I refer to as an "ideal" marxist, which is to say that he actually understands his own ideology and isn't afraid to take his own ilk to task if they're found wanting (how very soviet). The problem with that is the manner and extent to which the west teaches marxist theory in the academy, which is to say that they promulgate a series of missteps that Zizek himself denounces on a variety of occasions (the economic imbalance of 'white privilege' and 'victimhood' culture for example). This tells me that neither he, nor Peterson listen to each other extensively . . . if they had they'd catch these oddly similar quibbles in contemporary marxist theory. Anecdotally I can confirm this - the oppressor v. oppressed narrative has never been more popular in my department (english, for example) even though it mischaracterizes the theory at every single step, redistributing he economics of the social order along with it. Anyhoo . . . his view on Peterson is also skewed - all I need to do is point to Zizek's insistence that Peterson "wants to be a wise" guy by floating 'proverbs' from Jung when the situation is appropriate, which is a serious misrepresentation of both Peterson and Jung. I'm beginning to wonder whether these two, outside of discussing potential moral failings of individuals, could have a productive conversation about the best direction for the category "human" - one operates at the societal level almost entirely and one is individualistic to a fault. There're been rumors floating about for a bit about a possible debate between the two - I think the best possible outcome from that might be the two of them conceding some validity to the other's point of view (ala Harris v. Peterson). Oh and the Pinker thing - Peterson is the first to point out that by and large we're in the best time ever in recorded humanity, by and large. I can't remember the context of that conversation off the top of my head but it was a very specific concern he was airing, not a general attitude about violence in the world. Again, Zizek and Peterson seem to ironically see eye to eye on tha topic even if they're not realizing it.

[@joselucasotero1]

Very good comment, distilled my thoughts exactly! Thanks.

[@fieserfactsack9635]

Pls record peterson and zizek talking for hours. Im drawn to both, each other focuses on the part the otherone oversees.

[@mehran7449]

I really really wanted to hear a Peterson critique but this is just strawmanning and misinterpretation of his words

[@MicahMicahel]

Mehran Jamro Me too! I look for take downs but they always misrepresent. This Zizek guy gets a lot of attention. He’s such a sloppy thinker that it’s hard not to think he’s an idiot. Maybe he used to be smart? Maybe his ideas only ‘work’ when they aren’t challenged?

[@neila.b.5614]

Can anyone please explain the entirety of what he’s saying like I’m a 10 year old? What I got is he doesn’t like “wisdom” because it simplifies the complexity of decision making with our lives, like there’s an absolute answer to life’s problems. Idk man 🤷🏻‍♂️ anyone care to enlighten me

[@wp6007]

His point on wisdom is that you can find wisdom in favor of any actions. Like the example he gave was taking a risk, you profit, the wisdom of taking risk = good is true, you fail, the wisdom of taking risk = bad is true. So he is saying wisdom is useless.

[@bodyych]

Imagine that You are in real emotional problems. Who would You like to help You - Żiżek or Peterson...

[@4grammaton]

They can't help me; I have to help myself, and both of them would agree on that. Listening to both of them has been useful, but Zizek has taught me more things that I hadn't thought of myself.

[@johnsmithers9715]

​@Stefan S Because doctors prescribing medication to millions isn't causing ANY problems is it!!!

[@phorestpsy216]

@Stefan S Jordan Peterson is a psychologist, not a psychiatrist, so he actually can't prescribe medications.

[@k525rebcsi]

Zizek. Because my emotional problem is that I do not understand Hegel simetimes

[@mickrussom]

peterson. you want the truth? the npc soyboi snowflake cucks cant handle the truth.

[@g2trashtxd781]

The debate is happening bois

[@schmoukiz]

Disgusting to watch, appalling to hear.

[@cloudwizard7694]

HIs points aren't even that good and he really is revolting.

[@emirozdemir2037]

@@cloudwizard7694 good. he is a philosopher not a fake posturing writer of self help books

[@cloudwizard7694]

@@emirozdemir2037 You're saying Peterson isn't a philosopher, as in he preaches life philosophy to people? Zizek isn't even a good philosopher.

[@emirozdemir2037]

​@@cloudwizard7694what is "life philosophy" ? thats just self-help. There is a reason why Peterson isnt taught in colleges and Zizek is. Philosophy isnt about "points" this is not a not a high school debate. I can tell you've never read a word from Zizek

[@cloudwizard7694]

​@@emirozdemir2037 Zizek's "philosophy" doesn't really manifest into anything bigger, it's just mumbojumbo that alot of philosophers critisize him for. As for Peterson, he clearly states how many things manifest into political phenomenas and societal things. That's why it's philosophy, regardless of how you want to reduce it to a lesser intellectual sounding term. And I couldn't care less for you "I can tell you've never read..." if you don't understand the philosophical content of Peterson.

[@nilsblondon2289]

Has Peterson ever used the term, "Cultural Marxism"? I've never heard him say it in any of his videos or arguments. And does Peterson speak about how brutal and violent the world is today? From what I've seen, he states the counter, which is that we're currently living in a time of relative peace and prosperity of which man has never known, and that we should be grateful for it. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

[@lookbovine]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWjIkHWXjbpmo6M Interviewer says you call cultural Marxism neo-Marxism and he agrees. Many lectures regurgitate and revolve around his fake history of neo-Marxism.

[@seanmoran6510]

So is he a Marxist at heart between all the snot and mucus it’s hard to tell ? And he rejects wisdom? This just sounded like utter jibber jabber to me I have to agree with Sir Roger Struton about this guy

[@OmarDelawar]

Dude your comment, I swear I never laughed so hard in my live hahahahaha

[@seanmoran6510]

300bpm No Revolutionary France!

[@ravercorum20]

Wow a rape joke and no one is frothing at the mouth and are actually listening to what he has to say. I feel like I traveled back in time to a more sensible period in history, this doesn't feel like 2018 England to me at all.

[@hieronyma_]

There’s a lot of Jordan Peterson losers in the comments here.

[@kd7087]

I found this guy to be a little.....off. I mean he says Peterson giving wisdom is screwed but he himself says stuff like don't act think. Peterson says take responsibility. I mean you're criticizing someone for something that you already do yourself.

[@Dan-zz1lm]

*lobsters

[@Dan-zz1lm]

@@Pow3rGaming lol tell us how you really feel tho

[@georgemichaels9511]

Sorry we’re not brainwashed SJWs like you losers. KEK and MAGA FOREVER!

[@Dan-zz1lm]

Richard Wilson get em rich

[@sonofode902]

Wisdom is stupidity... Right, now i can see why I can not resonate with this dude mind. He acts smart, masqurading his argument with snorts and rubbing nose, sporadic, unsettled, grasping for a clear argument. No wonder why the brainwased drawned at him.

[@itierney]

I genuinely have no idea why anyone takes Slavoj Zizek seriously.

[@punchgod]

Have you heard of philosophy?

[@zero6627]

well, they are going to have a debate in April, this is going to be interesting.

[@martynjames5963]

I like listening to this guy as he clearly explains / pushes the Marxist agenda and makes it clear what he is doing. Most Marxists craft their conversations in a more clandestine language. His openness is welcome, though I am not in agreement.

[@StefanTravis]

_"the Marxist agenda" Please entertain us by saying what you think you mean by this.

[@Greasy__Bear]

The reason for the Senate is simple. Why should the many be able to enslave the few?