Slavoj Zizek Talks About His Debate With Jordan Peterson 

My question was, why didn’t you fuck this guy up, and he gave a brilliant answer, or several

haha, I'm sure he would say it's a contradictory dialectal approach to talking about a topic

@@pharder1234 the truly dialectical approach is to demonstrate how off-topic the given topic is!

omg did you skip the first 10 minutes and completely miss the segue way?? are ya under 25? I'm finding people under 25 don't quite have all the philosophical technical linguo to fully comprehend him. if you're OVER 25... are you not versed in philosophy at all???

@@veronicarodriguez8094 I am happy to report that an exception to the rule only serves as solid evidence for how all-encompassing that rule really was

I’ll take bets with anyone who disagrees with this assertion

Lol.

That's why we love him

Rot Eye Alm ssssss haying eeersss ...

There is planned space for those who intend to expand etc

lol what a public service. We need you to time stamp all this guy's rants.

hahhahahahahha

If you put your 🏠 in order, you'd burn it even more.And so on..... But I'm more of the pesimist here🇰🇵

One of the best comments out here on YT.

Magnificent

Brilliant.

HAHA

I only see beta's.

Look the other direction Zizek is Communist Benjamin Button

Manipulation defines him. Zizek I believe is driven to only create havoc on the mind because he can't find peace in his.

@@BrandonDeft I’d say Zizek is persuasive, not manipulative

@@BrandonDeft You’re an idiot. The point of philosophy isn’t to find mental peace. It’s to find good arguments and answers. That’s why Peterson is a psychologist and not a philosopher.

@@michaelwu7678 woah woah, look at you making such bold claims. Would you say that all of the helenistic era schools of philosophy (such as the sceptics, epicureans, stoics...) were not, in fact, practicing philosophy?

@@erinelriverwind8554 Some of them were; some of them weren’t. Remember, this is before distinctions existed between philosophy and many other fields of inquiry. Stoic propositional logic or Epicurean atomism could still be considered philosophy proper, falling under the sub-branches of logic and metaphysics, respectively. But prescriptive practices to reach states of Ataraxia would obviously be considered psychology today, not philosophy. We don’t live in the 3rd century BC anymore; if you want to get serious about philosophy, you’re gonna have to make these distinctions.

yes but his followers are full of snakes with poison bites

@@PCH12r So far I agree with you. This interview has shown it, too. Slavoj has an amazing intellect and he can entertain all sorts of ideas. He was not afraid of Jordan Peterson, he was not afraid to agree with his ideas, when they made sense to him, and disagree, when they didn't. These other 3 guys on the podcasts, however... Maybe they are not fan-boys, but they sure behave like ones. Everything seems quite binary with them: "left - good, right - bad", "Zizek - good, Peterson - bad", "Those who follow Jordan Peterson are confused". It's the same standard narrow way of thinking, that is so prevalent on the left: "Our way is correct, everybody else is confused, no thought deviations are tolerated". That is not how Slavoj Zizek behaves. At the end of the debate, he encouraged people on the left to think more and to not be afraid of critical thinking. It seems that few people listened to him. Also, in the beginning of the podcast they made fun of some questions addressed to dr. Peterson and even showed a clip of a question, but not Jordan's response. What are you afraid of? If you think that his answers are so self evidently faulty, why not show them to people? Why instead pass on your second hand judgement of them? Because that's what the left often does: think as we do, do not think for yourself. Don't you guys see, that the reason people turn away from the left or do not join the left is not people like Jordan Peterson, it's actually you. You turn people away by your own attitude.

Calm the hell down, dude. These people are Zizek’s friends; they mostly agree with him theoretically. Russell even co-author many texts and books with Zizek. The left is not a football team; you don't need to “join” the left; you just need to have certain philosophical and political beliefs that align with the left to be a leftist, so if you turn away from the left simply because some people who call themselves leftists are acting weird then I don't think you have a strong belief in the first place. You can still be a leftist and criticize other leftists (Zizek is the example here). Also, they did a full analysis of the debate on this channel so watch it first before going around saying they are afraid of Peterson. Btw Zizek does seem to have a good laugh at Peterson’s knowledge on Marxism lmao.

@@LeonWagg Valid points. Thanks

*And so on and so on.

I guess you missed the moment during the Zizek-Peterson debate (I think the beginning of Zizek’s opening statement, if my memory serves and his opening came after Peterson’s), where Zizek says, “it’s crazy, but I agree with most of what you say.” It’s kinda hard to sustain the line that Peterson was underprepared when one of the world’s foremost Marxist philosophers agrees with Peterson’s scan of Marxism/Communism.

@@misterparadise9542 Peterson exposed himself as unprepared at the very beginning when he said that he was surprised by the depth and breadth of Marx's work and so only read the manifesto in preparation for the debate. Like, yeah, Marx's work is extensive. Peterson didn't know that?

@@heraclitusblacking1293 I believe he referenced the extensiveness of *Zizek*’s work, and then he speaks about the Manifesto. Peterson’s lack of preparation is a canard that leftist commentators perpetuate. Again, when a leading Marxist philosopher says in that same debate that he agrees with much that Peterson says about Marxism, Peterson cannot in fairness be called unprepared. His knowledge of communism as practiced in the Soviet Union comes out of a deep knowledge of writers like Solzhenitsyn-there are more ways of learning about communism than through the collected works of Marx. Btw, I’ve heard Burgis and McManus speak extensively about Peterson, and neither seems to have read *12 Rules* very closely. They tend to seize on isolated comments he’s made in videos-or if reacting to something in *12 Rules*, they’ll cite a single sentence out of context, the standard way of misrepresenting someone, showing that they have read only to seize on passages they deem objectionable, but not in any way to weigh and consider what Peterson has to say. There’s an irony here that these same people-and you-reproach Peterson’s lack of preparation. Did Peterson say Marx’s work was extensive, or Zizek’s, or both; it could be that he said it of the work of both, b/c I distinctly remember him saying it of Zizek’s work. Neither of us can reproach anyone else’s lack of preparation unless we’re prepared to go back and listen and fact check ourselves-Burgis and McManus are simple hypocrites when they get their knickers in a twist over what they imagine Peterson has or hasn’t read, when they cannot even read *12 Rules* and set their comments about Peterson fairly within context.

Yes, it starts at the 16:00 mark of the debate, and it’s as I recall it above-Zizek’s works are extensive, I familiarized mysefl to the extent possible, and I read the Manifesto, Peterson said. If Peterson’s prep matters, so does yours, and so does mine. We all have to be individually responsible. With respect, @Heraclitus Blacklog, set your own house in order. B/c you’ve now invented a new canard-Peterson didn’t know that Marx’s works were extensive, something he (obviously) never said. As I say in a comment made separately to this video, this basic technique that you’re using is called gaslighting.

@@misterparadise9542 Do Peterson fans follow courses to be this verbose?

How do you think slavoj feels? Or he might be moving in or out.

@@redmed10 I bet it's intentional, like the space is a metaphor for his willingness to listen and process new information. However, that is one big built-in space, so who knows.

@@doodoobrn slavoj doing a psyop? No that could NEVER happen, he’s way too neurotypical to even entertain such an idea

That's the only thing about him that causes others to feel envy.... I bet it's what he boasts about when chatting girls up on tinder 😂.

@@Aleeeks101 probably lol

@Anthony Timmers damn, sounds like you really like market democracy-I do not (lol).

@Anthony Timmers damn bruther, color me communist cause I do not fw the free market 🚫🧢 No but seriously it sounds like you’re glorifying feudalism in your defense of capitalism. Because that is widely the form capitalism inherits. Feudalism. P.S. don’t get too heated or nothing I’d kiss you on the lips irl.

Idk Russell's background looks dope

And it lived up to it. Thanks, Ben, Matt, Russell, Forrest, and most importantly Zizek.

@@VarnVlog hello c Derick varn :-)

“Hey, man you want an apple” “no, cause eventually it’ll be a core” -mitch hedberg

Just intellectuals? Are non-intellectuals more free from that?

@@TheAlison1456 When I refer to intellectuals I refer to people with no tangible or practical skills, who live in a bubble of safely, and spend their days thinking about theories and can drop dense academic jargon on you. When the time comes, those people are utterly useless. Most of the time, their "knowledge" is simply an elaborate self justification they impose on the world. Nowadays we have intellectuals and academics to spare, what we lack is people who can actually do things.

@@robdog114 You're right. A lack of "skin in the game" is at fault for that. I don't know what the solution would be.

i feel like every video i ever see of zizek is like this and i can never understand a word he says

Lmao, I noticed too. Everyone of them has a bookshelf directly across the camera

only betas use bookshelves, real men shoot them into pieces and carry them round in their pockets

@@fratertaciturnus4356 no, real men have shelves of manuscripts and scrolls

Yeah

Well noticed. Only Prof Mattias Desmet is man enough not to use that ploy. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uLDpZ8daIVM.html

Are you familiar with socialist literature? I am also a Jordan Peterson fan, and I'm looking to extend some sort of ground to socialism, but it's impossible if it means "bloody revolution".

@@TheAlison1456 I’m not especially familiar. I have read some Marx and Engels, long ago. But that’s why I listen to podcasts like this, hoping for some genuine insight from people who do know that literature. But so far, I’ve been disappointed: they really don’t have much to say about Peterson.

@@misterparadise9542 I recommend the channel ShortFatOtaku/Devtrospective. He talks about radical leftism and rightism and what they're wrong about. Sadly he doesn't explicitly talk about his philosophical stances towards issues raised by non-radicals, but his centrist approach to politics have made me reconsider my approach as well. He's a force for good in our divisive times.

That was a Livestream.

My life became so much easier when I realised that Peterson is absolutely chocked full of shit

@@stopwritingthatreplyjohnat6638 easy life doesnt require much effort, you can just devalue your standards and, for example, just call reflections you dont like 'full of shit'. You can find blind spots in any claim, I certainly try and do see blind spots in JBP, Chomsky, Harris, Hitchens and so on. But the approach you presented doesnt seem very conscious.

Chesterton orthodoxy

Looks like books.

@@andreudedonato1147 omg i don't even know what that means. but i did just hear Boris talking about covid mecca in the U.K. same place or no?

@@SofaKingShit yeah... some look like records too ever wonder what he listens to? *humming Beethoven's ninth*

@@veronicarodriguez8094 catholic apologist author from the early 1900’s who was a contemporary of C.S. Lewis. His 3 apologies (heretics, orthodoxy and everlasting man) are basically gold standard Christian apologetics.

So understand the enemy so you can defeat your enemy? Is that the point? It almost sounds like he added specificity to something Sun Tzu probably said about understanding your enemy. And we probably can all agree: hitler was an enemy of humanity. It is a worthwhile endeavor to understand evil, if you can stomach it.

Trust me, Hitler had No artistic talent. Justifying the H.man is a.dangerous walk on the wire. He was a monstrosity and mentally deeply disturbed. The results stand for themselves.

same question for me. I'm certain I wasn't watching a livestream.

I also feel a zizek deja vu.

Yes, it was a livestream, but the interview with Zizek was in video form within the livestream, as Zizek lives in another country and the time the livestream was held at was at ~04:00 in his country.

Most humans need a filter to ''materialize" what Hegel intended - in my 20's I suspected he really had nothing to say. I just wasn't smart enough. Zizek is about as good a filter for Hegels thoughts as I've found

Which of Hegels ideas? pretty sure you dont know what you are talking about.

@@danielwilson2221 He said Hegelian ideas rather than Hegel's ideas, maybe there's a difference, don't know.

@@caskinfg Its the internet, whatever that guy thinks is inconsequential, I certainly don't care what he's 'pretty sure' of. To you however I'll give an example, in Zizeks latest book "Hegel in a Wired Brain" he contrasts Hegels idea [in contradiction to Fichte] of the impracticality of the State as the organizing Principle and therefore sanctioned with comprehensive surveillance. The connection with our current state only became apparent to me through the filter of Zizeks interpretation that this precise point is now immanent. What I meant in my response was that if the gentleman failed to see the relevance of Hegelian ideas he could come at them indirectly through someone who has parsed the implications or in Zizeks case hybridized them to amplify their significance. Frankly I've had the same problem with Aquinas - whose genius is unquestionable except every time I pick up his Treatise on Human Nature I can't but wonder what the fuss is about lol

Would be interesting to hear who you don't consider to be clowns. How did you even find yourself in the comments of a video of a clown?

I say we need to be moderate on abortion and not support late term abortion. Anti and pro abortion extremism alienates the working class.

@@shogun7p7 I think that is a reasonable position that I also happen to agree with. But I don’t think evangelicals will ever be satisfied with it, and that is a non-insignificant chunk of the working class to say the least. Somehow Catholics and the black church have a workaround on this that I don’t fully understand.

My position is that we should encourage the antichoicers to focus on the causes of abortion and thus greatly reduce the number, because after all women will seek abortions no matter what. Most of them would agree we need more birth control and less poverty. I'm not very knowledgable on the abortion issue but this is what I tell my mom. We should combat the problems which lead women to seek abortion. Sex education should be a priority. you're right about it being an important subject in this instance but I think most of the outrage on behalf of the lower class people who could vote either way is performative though. I dont believe that many of them actually care about it. The ones that REALLY care about it are the white nationalists who are afraid that whites will be bred out of existence. If the economic need of these people were being met I doubt they would very much give a damn about legal abortions. I'm against third trimester abortions except for in the case of rape incest birth defects, I must add. Who isnt really? No one is pro abortion. We should also educate people on the issue of autonomy and the road down which prohibition leads. Women must have autonomy over their bodies. It's a basic issue of freedom. As long as women have access to birth control and early pregnancy options the number of abortions could be very greatly reduced I suspect

@@LukeMcGuireoides agreed

@@LukeMcGuireoides I agree, if economic issues were taken care of it would be much less of a problem, but how do we get them on board in the first place? how would you build a coalition with people who are firmly anti-choice right now, without converting them to the other side of the issue? Is it even possible?

you would too if you had contracted the same medical condition