That would actually require effort, and let's be honest, most people, myself included, have nothing of value to add to an intellectual debate. Plus it's hard to disagree with most of his points because he never goes into details, only the broad strokes, so you can't really nitpick, and even if you did you would just be missing the core of the issue. That's why I always end up leaving his videos with a sense of passive agreement.
@@ChuckPalomo I agree. In these types of talks and conferences driven by qna that are pressed by time there's no room for details that can really be delved into or taken apart. However, I definitely think there is some room for discussion. I also think that his lectures are definitely the place to go for in depth ideas (also his books)
Man like Zizek. Always a treat. Perhaps philosophers should be more prominent in our society, and less of a luxury but more a necessity. A philosopher for every corner of society, bringing moral issues to the forefront and keeping the leaders in check.
philosopher? Where? You've got to be fair with me. I'll take you on any day of the week but I have to be able to understand you. I think the people who say they understand Zizek are lying to him.
Idk. Not a lot of philosophers out there who have a clue what they are talking about. The ones that are actually good usually do highly paid corporate or political work instead of public talks. That's the problem with philosophy. You can't be smart in a vacuum, you have to bog down and get deeply into the facts if you want to get things actually right instead of just offering something that sounds like a plausible explaination. Theories about the nature of truth and thinking only come into play at the very edge of our understanding, and even then only maybe.
volkbrecht, good for you. You caught up with them. The handwaver Peterson and the nosewiper zizek are two good examples of crap slingers posing as philosophers. A lot of young boobs have been ripped off by these con artists posing as gurus.
good point. so maybe we should allow all kinds of crapslingers to pose as philosophers so as to dumb down young people even further than they already are.
@@MusicaDelCaribe No, Peterson has an array of liberal intellectuals that agree with him and debate him. Nobody knows what this guy is trying to say. He is just the Atheist type that all the lazy thinkers gravitate towards
@@user-nc9pc3gr4c how is he an idiot? Clarify urself cause in ur opinion Jordan does not? XD did u see the slavoj vs Jordan debate? Most people no matter who u like knows slavoj gave Jordan some real work too do about a lot of things..
@@cbp117 I already clarified myself. This guy is a babbling idiot. Jordan is a very clear minded and well respected intellectual. And Jordan makes alot of sense when he speaks. I saw the debate and this babbling idiot made no sense.
Zizek makes a good point that those who considers themselves instruments of God's will can excuse themselves of anything; but you do not need to believe in a literal God for that to happen. We can be lazy and just point to Lenin, who acted as the agent of "history". All the same, it's a valid criticism that many people who LARP as traditionalist or conservative do not take their own stated values seriously. It applies to progressives as well. It's like wearing a sports team's uniform to show support, even though you don't play for the team.
@Veni Vidi Bitchy I'm unclear what you're referring to exactly, but I can say this - humans are not "goodness machines", nor are we "logic machines". We are fundamentally a species of tribal apes, who are adapted to survive in the wilderness in tightly knit groups. The modern world creates a dislocation between our instincts which worked in the evolutionary environment, and the environment we now actually find ourselves in, and it's very difficult to bridge that gap by pure strength of a "logical" system.
@Veni Vidi Bitchy Well, that is true. Though I would say, underneath apparent "logic" you usually find faith of some form, whether it's faith in God or Marx.
@@dionbridger5944 this is very reductive thinking. Sure, we're bands of tribal apes, but we also split the atom and developed quantum computing. We are capable of being better, evolving.
It was a genuinely good question. The answer to which is "yes, the left could learn that their ideology doesn't work". Zizek's answer is unsatisfactory: sure, modernity doesn't allow the stable existence of arbitrary transcendental values, but that is exactly why JP has become so popular ─ he has grounded these transcendental values in actual reality by erasing the distinction between the symbolic, traditionally understood to be "abstract", and the literal, traditionally understood to be "real". Well, technically, Jung did that a long time ago, but JP popularised this interpretation of the world, and it has clearly worked: his insights have genuinely helped millions of people to improve their lives. Why? Well, because these symbols are ACTUALLY grounded in objective reality. Religion isn't "useful fiction"; it's a cultural interpretation of an actual, existing transcendental reality. That's what the left can learn from the success of JP. And Zizek's characterisation of evil as being more spiritual than good is also misleading: it might _feel_ more meaningful at the time, but since a society based on evil is trivially unstable, all the perceived meaning will ultimately amount not nothing once society ─ and with it everything that makes evil meaningful ─ inevitably collapses. So you can really only be evil if you don't care that everything you do is ultimately meaningless. This makes it closely related to hedonism, which is also predicated on a disregard for the fact that one's actions are meaningless. The distinction that Zizek makes between hedonism and evil is very superficial, and in fact almost entirely irrelevant in this context given that postmodernism seeks to undermine notions of objective/ultimate meaning ─ which evil doesn't provide ─ not notions of personal meaning ─ which is the only thing that evil can provide.
@@u7angbe agreed. Total nuclear intelectual anal destruction with mom fingerbanging and tittyfiddling. That's basically the essence of discussion,especially among the wise.
He's hard to listen to ALL THE TIME. Where I come from you don't wipe your snotbox every five seconds while you're addressing an audience. He's impressing somebody. I don't know who. Definitely not me.
The value of the victory is determined by the value of your opponent. Much respect for both Mr. Zizek and Mr. Peterson. As a Chinese citizen, which is an identity my government is currently trying really hard to erase from our society, I cannot overstate how much I appreciate this type of talks\conversations\debates.
Russian here. I agree with you 100%. American people (and I blame no one) just do not understand how fortunate they are to have such an amazing culture and political system.
I like zizeck. He's a true ideas man. He disagrees with peterson on some points, but -rightly- knows that this is not an excuse to throw him out completely. I'm the same. On peterson and on others. I disagree with an aspect but will acknowledge where they make sense.
The idea of symbolism in stories is that its grounded in generations of human experience. The problem with post modernism is that your personal "truth" has to function in the real world and withstand the consequences of the real world. Hedonism and self truth will always lead to more authoritarianism because internal truth requires external validation. Its too weak to stand on its own.
I feel that the importance of stories comes down to a different reason. It's not that the stories of old are the ones we must abide by, it's that our stories however new they might be invariably find correlation with and can even be said to mimic the stories of old. The most important thing isn't the stories, it's the fact that they come from the same place, and although it is possible to fool people for a time with a false story, false stories eventually fail, just as how lies can only hold up for so long in the face of truth. Truth can be slow to act though, and perhaps that's why people look to other methods to obtain the speed at which we might need to react to more immediate problems.
Joke: "What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash? ... You get what you f**kin' deserve!"
@@jacobvanveit3437 just quoting "Joker". Sarcastically adding to the structute of "broke, woke... joke". Is Joker an incel hero? Sure. It's a movie that appeals to whiny entitled Whites. Where do you stand in relation to them?
OompaLoompaFu interesting! Didn’t realize it was a joker Joke. You bring up a valid point here. The joker could easily be an Incel! I will regard that movie now with a new light, having come to the conclusion that he very much could be an incel. Wasn’t really a narrative in the movie, but it is also creeping in the background somewhat. I wouldn’t necessarily point that him being white had anything to do with an incel nature, as there are many examples of incels being other nationalities. I would concede however, that minorities have a thicker skin when it comes to cultural differences and I’d say the norm, from the majority, would dictate an incel’s call to action, which in this case, the joker being a dysfunctional human against social norms, broke its rules and showed his true nature. His nature had been brewing for lifetime of failures and was ultimately a failure of his upbringing and environment. Parenting is so important! I try my hardest to be a role model for my kids. Cheers!
ZIZEK IS A BRILLIANT CLOWN WHO'S MAIN MOTIVATION FOR RUNNING AROUND THE WORLD IS FINANCING COCAIN HABBIT. HE IS BRILLIANT CAUSE HE MAKES DEEP OBSERVATIONS, BUT CLOWN CAUSE HE IS UNABLE TO MAKE CLEAR SYSTEM OUT OF THEM.
@@tristandesade8635 Are you telling me I can do drugs, and just spout deep shit in front of audiences for a living? Ahhhh an ounce of weed and all the time in the world to ramble.
You're allowed your criticism of society, this man deserves the same. When you no longer criticize and just gobble everything an ideologue spits it is nothing more than ideology, remain objective.
@@CosmicReapzZ OK, but these guys are just expressing disgust at him as a person, not really criticizing any idea. Also, Peterson is more of an ideologue, telling you what to do.
I quite agree with you, despite he look pretty destroy and full of nervous tics he has an aura, a kind of ethos. I thing this kind of abstract beauty besides ugliness really become concrete once painted by a master with oil and so on x) i would see him kind of painted like on that typical portait of Beethoven
I'm beginning to really enjoy Zizek, not only for his school of thought, but for all the high quality comments his videos produce. Definitely a more fun crowd than the Peterson types.
@@alexandruchristianapostol975 the true jordan peterson fans is found in the biblical series comments. every ones in search for the truth, so you would find a quality crowd. His political and psychological themed videos is where you find the ben shapiro fans who are the boring types
I came to the same conclusion Zizek stated in this video when I first got introduced to JP 2 years ago without any prior exposure to casual intellectual discourse. I was both appalled and amused that JP was so oblivious to the fact that he was also a living embodiment to the which he so critiqued in many aspects of his views, almost to allude to the Jungian element of a person failing to confront their shadow. Fast forward to today after having being exposed to more diverse povs and ideas, I wholeheartedly believe JP is a postmodernist in the fashion Zizek described in the video linked below of a person embodying and living out an idea they do not expressly uphold externally. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-u4NIfMc3onY.html
I mostly agree, but it really seems to me that JBP is not so oblivious to being a postmodernist, but rather pretends not to be one as a devil's advocate strategy in bad faith. In a debate with Sam Harris he started with a critique of postmodernism which Sam agreed with but JBP immediately became defensive against dismissing it, saying "now just wait a minute, we need to give the devil his dues because I think there's something of value there." When arguing for religious dogma, he devalues facts by painting them as empty objects by asking "where is the value located [in Elvis's guitar]?" Sam brought the conversation back to reality by acknowledging it's a given that people infer value, but dogma doesn't replace facts, reason, and empathy, and that the complete analogy is that people can fight over his previous example of Elton John's glass of water but Elton John was never here [on this stage]. Peterson seems to be motivated by some deep seeded resentment that may be rooted in disbelief of personal agency, likely facilitated by a grift easily believed by conservatives lacking critical thinking with a penchant for being unscrupulous.
Hello. While it is a good point indeed, I also agree that it doesn't do justice to Dostojevskij. I listened to Petersson's lecture on existentialism, where he states that Dostojevskij's genius is partly found in his ability to let different characters portray various strong arguments, which are then being battled, more or less, during the book. So, it might be unfair to say Dostojevskij supported all of them, himself.
I think Zizek gets it wrong though with Dostoyevsky if there isn't some further thought-chain I'm not seeing. The message in Crime and Punishment is exactly what Zizek is talking about god. We judge ourselves in terms with other people, and capability to ascend this comes with the pursue of some higher cause. In Raskolnikov's case, the god was Napoleon and other dictators he was admiring and when he abandoned this vision/god of his, he became again vulnerable to judgement of the society and other people.
Interersting! But: abandoned? Can you extend your thoughts, I'm most compelled to enjoy them! Indeed, Raskolnikov considered Napoleon to be above the judgement of others, perhaps godlike as such! Raskolnikov himself, seemed to posses the idea that his limits were only due to cowardice, and did he merely dare to... : would he evolve into a Napoleon! Then it was through his gods, that he was permitted to do harm, as an act of higher cause; of elevation above the herd, above the herd animal man, towards godlike omnipotence? Edit: godly->godlike
I see where he is coming from but I interpret it very differently. When Dostoevsky says “then everything is permitted” he means that there are not consequences for one’s actions (e.g murdering and not feeling the least of remorse). Just the basics of morality.
"You cannot say: 'I follow this because it is tradition.' That is the definition of modernity" I love this so much. It describes JP and his fans so well. None of his fans actually care about his biblical talk beyond it being a framing device to intellectualize their problems. They are all secular minded people. Adopting religion for the sake of following tradition would only create an illusion of morality.
You shouldn’t generalize his fanbase like that. Based on the way that you wrote that comment it’s obvious that you have a biased view on JP. He never tries to teach anything in those lectures, he’s just sharing his interpretation on the psychology behind the stories in the Bible. Most of it is spot on as well! I agree that some people may do what you claim but certainly not ALL.
@@baldendoboriqua6391 "He never tries to teach anything in those lectures, he’s just sharing his interpretation on the psychology behind the stories in the Bible" This is a naive way of looking at things. You're stripping away responsibility from his actions by implying that he has no ideology behind his words and that he is just there to discuss and share views on things that are subjective.
MAN! Do you know how many people who listens carefully to Jordan Peterson? Do you know how many people who have turned their lives around listening to him? He is saying stuff like: "Clean your room, because the world is a mess." A lot of people today are nosediving into som kind of meaningless oblivion because of the left-wing postmodern, nihilistic, feminist, marxist agenda, that every possible meaning agenda these days is of equal value, but at the same time, there is none. It really destroys people when we organize our societies after these principles. He is not saying anything to just give people a intellectual explanation of their pains and problems.
@@DakanFluff most people go to his venues just to get the opportunity to see him speak in person. It’s like a concert. You are assigning an arbitrary “responsiblity” to his lectures. Dr. Peterson doesn’t owe us anything. I wasn’t “implying” anything, if you actually watch and pay attention to his lectures for more than 20 minutes; you’ll hear one of his many verbal disclaimers, saying exactly what I just said.
I completely disagree. He's speaking complete nonsense. I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about. He's not making any coherent points. "Evil is more spiritual than good" "Conservatives are Post-Modernists" Complete babble. The only valid thing he might have said is that political correctness could not equate to hedonism. But even that is arguably incorrect and is kind of an irrelevant point to make.
You might also check out the article by Nathan Robinson in Current Affairs. Not a facile hit piece (like the one in NYT) by any stretch. I found it a potent and well thought-out critique.
@@aramkaizer7903 A lot. Really a lot. As long as he talks about psychology it's very interesting, on almost any other topic he's clueless. Did you watch him debate Sam Harris?
What I got from Peterson was: - Be rational and take responsibility - Responsibility brings meaning to life - christianity and religion can be completely deconstructed and explained as evolutionary psychology Very valuable lessons, which led me to almost the oposite of his politics, which I find misguided, ignorant and irrational. Which contributed to me devoting a lot of my life to animal rights and going into the humanities in uni, which has brought me meaning, friendships, jobs, community, self respect and hopefully my influence makes the world a slightly better place to be born, no matter what body one is born into. I asked myself "what is MOST important in the world, today? What is the BEST thing I can spend my time doing?". The answer was clear. So, thanks, in a way, Peterson..
I think Dr. Peterson would be happy to hear that you have found meaning in your life. I don’t think he would be upset that you happen to disagree with him. If anything, Peterson respects diversity of thought. His opinions are his own and he makes a pretty damn good case for why he thinks what he does. He’s not an ideologue. He’s smarter than what most people give him credit for. He understands the complexity of the world.
@@ChazinSthl I don't agree with you. I don't think Peterson wants the people who listen to him to think for themselves, I think he wants them to think like him and that he tries (or at least tried) to scare them into thinking like him. 'O you don't want to accept the concepts I present to you? Do you want to go to metaphorical HELL?' In that sense I think he's an ideologue as well, although he created his own ideology. So maybe that just makes him a thinker, those guys always agree vehemently with themselves. But I don't like the way he sells his stories. It seems sometimes that Peterson's philosophy is a way of reconciling Christianity with Nietzsche's critique of it, namely that it is a negation of the will or something like that. In that Peterson is trying to show that Christianity is in fact compatible with the will to power, as some sort of practical philosophy to climb the hierarchies of society. There may be some truth to it but I think it's a pretty perverse way of looking at a religion you deem to have value.
Hearing this as I work and its hard to pay attention as it is, but the sniffing goddamit I hear the sniffling more than the questions being answered. LOL still worth listening to though.
"I represent God, therefore everything is permitted" and "If there is no God, then everything is permitted" aren't mutually exclusive statements. The concept of something being God-willed is nebulous; therefore asserting oneself as an agent, regardless of what actions are being justified, is an open game. This is a very easy argument to make and doesn't require much thought; it's almost lazy. However, it's a philosophically arguable position that morality is phenomenological and thematic over time; moving into a post-religious society may therefore represent a destabilization of normative ethics once embodied within an institution (i.e. a church). For someone with metaphysical sensitivities that accept the idea of a universal ethic, someone who situates the materialist aspect of the argument within institutions (with regard to them being fallible representatives that attempt to embody meta-ethical principles), the idea that the removal, or usurpation, of that institution is representative of a widening abyss makes perfect sense. An assertion of conceptual ownership of God and/or God-willed doesn't negate that aspect of the void being alluded to by Dostoevsky (and Peterson).
Yeah, I think Dostoevsky even criticized that very notion which Zizek alludes to with The Grand Inquisitor, where he presents the very institution that regulates morality as morally bankrupt by necessity. His implied answer (or at least I think that's what Alyosha's character was supposed to represent in the book) to the apparent contradiction resided, as you said, in the belief in a higher level of ethics that's universal and above the more materialistic aspects, and is therefore incorruptible and eternal, no matter what institutions, whether religious or secular, embody morality in a given historic period. So basically the question of morality resides in each individual's personal relationship with God, it's up to us to uncover the underlying truth of the universe. It's not really a good answer but at least it avoids the problem posed by those 2 statements.
I feel like alot of people think JP is defending the idea of there being a godly being rather than the idea of there being an intrinsic transcending value in the individual which to acknowledge and harness is the intention of the religious scriptures.
Nicoladen What on earth is 'intrinsic transcending value' unless God, a personal Being of supreme intelligence, has created us and assigned such value to us? What 'religious scriptures' do you have in mind? One must distinguish between the Word of God, which is the Bible, and counterfeits of all kinds. But the specificity of Biblical revelation is a scandal which many do not wish to accept. Why should Israel receive the revelation and not China? After all, China is more populous. How is it that there is only one Son of God? But the Bible explains these issues clearly.
I belive that because of the hegemony of liberalism, the majority is stuck in idealistic solutions, and it's postmodern af. Be it liberal proggresives or libertarians, even the western left is stuck in it.
Lets expand this thinking, is the individual searching for a idealistic solution postmodern? Are people who search for a meaning trying to cling to the past when its already been disintegrated? (Nietzsche: God is dead quote). What is the way forward if not to fall back on old ideas of race, IQ, conspiracies, or hyper liberal ideals? All this is super confusing tbh, been struggling with it for years.
@@osamabinobama4954 I see it as we are raised in a individualistic ideology, so that is why we only see individualistic solutions. Also so much that in need of collective solutions, it's still because of like "self interest" and to safeguard to still be a liberal individual. If that explains anything?
@@osamabinobama4954 The solution is just to do what you can do well,and that's it. Learn a trade,maybe. Most people in the past didn't even had an education and started working at 14 years old. Perhaps they were happier back then,nowdays our generation has the opportunity to do ANYTHING ad yet they're constantly dissatisfied,makes you think about missed oppurtunities. Also,it is a lie that wealth=happiness. People nedd a purpose in their life.
@@osamabinobama4954 When Nietzsche said God is dead, we killed him, what makes anyone think that rather than having no God, he wasn't replaced with something else to worship instead? It amazes me more people don't ask that question. This is core to the modern fantasy of a world without belief, everyone believes in something and denying they don't is perhaps an even greater delusion than our forebears many of which understood the perverseness of the church.
I thought I could get through it by closing my eyes, but the audio turned out to be stomach-turning as well. Guess I'll just have to read a transcript.
A lot of people amidst this "online medium" forget the virtue of respecting one another, and they start acting like total clowns when they disrespect great people online. You could never do that face to face. And it shows the stupidity with which these people act when the "curtains are closed". For some of the followers of Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson, what the hell is wrong with you lot? You guys are disrespecting these two figures as if you're better than them yourselves. They have worked like crazy to get to where they are, and they're trying more than you, in the least, to make the world a better place with all that they've been able to accumulate. The disrespect is ugly, and idiotic.
I recommend leaving the narcissists alone. The attention seekers. The validation seekers. Everyone knows healing is out there. They have to choose to seek it. Arguing, fighting, or even paying attention to these people is going to drain you of Energy that could be put to better use somewhere else, or on someone else.
Honestly, most people don't understand either of these guys. They are punching way above where most people react, think, and believe. Peterson is better at reaching that group than Zizek, but Zizek is a trained philosopher, and philosophy is much harder for average people to understand. Both of them require an intermediate level background in philosophy/psychology/history and political science to even just get what they are talking about, let alone really understand what the disagreements are.
@@martinzarathustra8604 Yes that's part of the problem. People simultaneously misunderstand them and follow them like tribal leaders, and this partly explains the reasons of their behavior. An obvious example is what the channel owner decided to put on the thumbnail, all as an attempt to mock Peterson. The same thing happens with some of Peterson's followers and it's all contrary to what the two are actually attempting to teach. If you've seen their debate, you must've noticed the reactions of the listeners. They weren't there to learn, they were there to see who's gonna win, and that seems more like a tribal warfare rather than an intellectual discourse.
Take disrespect and trolling out of the equation, and 95% of YT and social media activity and content will magically evaporate. Social media are the group therapy of the 21st century. It is the main barrier to prevent the resentful, the sick and the brainwashed ones from overcoming their own cowardice and turning into real monsters.
People tend to forget that Peterson is a psychologist. His ideas are mainly psychoanalytic. Which means that when he makes a criticism, he looks at the unconscious drives that lead that person or ideology. And yes, postmodernism is a way of thinking that denies “meaning” and structures in any form. Well, this is “postmodern” part. And “neo-marxism” in Peterson’s mind includes a new religion - either in form of belief in historical dialectic or ideal of socialist utopia. So, Peterson means that even though this “postmodern neo-marxists” reject a set of values (which Peterson says “hierarchies”), hypocritically, they deify another ideology. Peterson wishes to create a structure of meaning. Look at the title of his first book: Maps of Meaning. His concern is the lack of “order” in today’s existentialist needs. In the process, postmodernism seems to the enemy of his point of view - in which he surely is not wrong. Zizek is a psychoanalyst too, but he is rather lacanian while Peterson is jungian. World perspectives are really different.
The idea that Dostojevsky said in some books that without God everything would be permitted, was not originally taught by Dostojevsjy but by Fichte. That was an idea wich some intellectuals was debated in the first half of the 19th century. I more think that Dostojevsky was debating this idea than expressing a view. He himself told that his main purpose was to make an objective view of the time he was living in.
Yes, isn't this what the protagonist in 'Crime and Punishment' says? Is that where it comes from? I mean that doesn't necessarily mean that Doestoevsky believed it himself.
@@davidd854I could be wrong as I haven't watched peterson in ages but doesn't he interpret it as without God everything is permissible? Because he himself is an atheist who choses to act as if God exists.
@@AllThatsLeft24 No I don't think that's correct. I don't think Peterson sees himself as an atheist although I think he mostly spreads a sort of intellectualized idea of God. I feel like his focus on God as important for your life is mostly in order to reduce (mainly your own) suffering. Suffering seems to be what scares him the most.
@@davidd854 I know he doesnt think of himself as one. Im saying he is an aithest. I watched some of his stuff again. And he says he thinks we have a hierarchy of values and at the top is divine. And he says we use fiction to understand this and God is the ultimate main character or something like that i forget the exact wording. That means he doesnt think God is real. He also said in a debate with Sam Harris that he acts as if god exists which also means he doesnt think god is real or atleast hes not sure. Alex Oconnor has a great video about Peterson and he discusses this in the first few minutes. I would recommend watching that
@@AllThatsLeft24 I'm not watching the video, I suggest you type out the most important points. For the rest, you say: He says he acts is if god exists --> he doesn't think god is real god is decribed through fiction and god plays a role in this fiction--> he doesn't think god is real Neither of those arguments are valid. He answered himself that to the question whether he believes in god his answer would be 40 hours long. Which is the length of time of his Maps of Meaning series on youtube. In his Maps of Meaning book Peterson disginguishes between something like mutually perceptible truth ('objective', material, scientific) and something like ethical truth, which is like a truth about how you should live your life. I think his thought on God focuses on this second domain. I'm not sure if this worldview is fitting for a healthy person but that's how he describes it I think. I'm not really aware of Alex Oconnor but I think he's an arguing atheist and those guys usually try to show that god does not exist somewhere in this material world. So if that's the case it does not apply to Peterson's description of God, and also not to that of the Catholic church.
Hedonism, in it's primal form, leads to breeding and interbreeding between and within cultures. Every culture, invasive or not, used it throughout history. Not meaningless at all, you can see the results everywhere today.
Hedonism is a luxury, it always existed but only elites throughout history have been able to live it at the expense of the masses, it’s not good or bad but rather a thing of sustainability
Imagine your feeling when you realize the context on the image is family orientated, created by his daughter.. while your imagination fills in the blanks creating alternative motives that i assume more closely align with western movies directed by Adam Sandler
Real quick = Postmodernism -> Baudrillard -> there is an object reality. It exists. Through the sheer physical law that two entities cannot simultaneously occupy the same space, all individual consciousness is limited in first person data to that which it is capable of perceiving in the first person. No other entity can experience this exact same set of data in the first person. Therefore, collective understanding must be assembled through shared first hand data (second hand data) and our understanding of reality is through this simulated reality or second, third, fourth...hand data and this is filtered through that one unique consciousness which only an individual can possess. The end result is that there is an objective reality and then there is what we are able to perceive first hand (our piece of this) and then there is the simulation - a collection of multiple other tiers of data shared and acquired through many means. When we make decisions and form an understanding of the world based on this simulation and bring it into our first hand experience we are actually infecting the most clear experience of reality with subsequently less clear versions that come through less reliable sources essentially allowing the simulation to 'paint over,' the most clear version of our existence. Through this process people can be pulled out of their objective reality or clearest version into less clear or 'true,' simulations of reality (think of the simulation as simulated meaning). That is the basis of postmodernism. What that has to do with capitalism, marxism, socialism, politics, republicans, democrats, feminists, lgbt and all that other stuff I will never know other than Postmodernism is a small philosophical body of work in intellectual circles and the political folks of the day decided that they wanted to use it as their great big buggaboo. The fact that Marx came along before modernism, let along postmodernism, should inform you as to the charlatans on the left and right who are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
While you do seem to have an understanding of Baudrillard's work, your take is also incredible reductive of the scope of postmodernism, to the point that you conflate it with a constructivist epistemology. The point of postmodernism is not to say that each person interacts with reality in an individualized way, which would be more of kantian postulate. Postmodernism, as a philosophical field, treats truth as a historically-constructed process, which is heavily influenced by the process of domination and social change. If you remember Baudrillard's work, you'll see that is only in late stage capitalism that the true separation between the original and the sign exists, where the mass production of commodities and the loss of overarching meanings permeate reality. My point being that Baudrillard takes lots of inspiration from the subfields of Marxism that were so popular in the 60s. TL;DR: Postmodernism is not a niche philosophical position that only proposes a new way to understand the world around us, but also a heavily political stand that is built on historical and Marxist categories of domination, capitalism, and knowledge. Also, Baudrillard is not the only postmodernist author, so I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with the work of Foucault on the genealogy of knowledge, it's great stuff. CCK Philosophy on RU-vid too, incredible postmodernist channel.
@@joarhannes3592 Tarzan is aware of that. What he means is that in their previous debate they were (and continue to be) so unfamiliar with each other that they argued past each other. A much more interesting, and substantive debate could be had if they actually developed some familiarity witih one another.
@@Ezratal yeah I honestly had a hard time listening to it. I really like both of them, though. For different reasons. I guess I am a living contradiction.
@igor šajinović actually it's based more on whether or not they can form a coherent thought, and whether or not said thought has any practical bearing in reality, zizeck, it seems to me, is somewhat scatter brained as he defends his worship of an outdated idea that has killed more people than it has helped, but ya know, time will tell.
@@TeaParty1776 You're speaking ironically, I hope. By nature he's a feeler, not a thinker. As for the philosophers: (1st Corinthians 1:20-21) 'Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.'
@@marcusonesimus3400 > By nature he's a feeler, not a thinker. Is your post evidence? In one ,presumably unintended sense, you are correct. Man feels automatically, ie, naturally, but thinks volitionally. You have volitionally chosen evasion. The Bible is the product of your ideal, the unfocused mind.
