The Most Important Moment in Jordan Peterson-Zizek Debate 

Aroused Pineapple 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 got em!!

Lol

OMFG this is hilarious!😂😂😂

..more like Baloo vs Bagheera?

Wow!

they are

@@jimmyhopkins1316 2 edgy 4 moi

Typical Americans

They thought they were attending the Jerry Springer show

It's okay to laugh when someone says something funny.

I can barely understand the guy and then you have to think about what he is saying on top of it .

i doubt he ever had a counterpart like mr zizek before. both highly intelligent AND educated persons on different sides of the political spectrum, and it applies to mr zizek too. he usually has easier debates.

@@dronel1637 Peterson may be a psych professor, but he definitely isn't educated in what he's talking about.

@@ncrtrooper1782 lmao

you seem to be struggling with santances, yourself

in other words, Slovene. a language that literally stems from the vast trunk of Indo-European languages that, further down the line, branches off into the families of the ones you mention. I know this is a pretty dry & clinical response to a statement that was originally probably intended at least partly in jest, so let me leave you with this… “69” hahahah lol, do U get it? ‘Cause like, “69” haha nicee

Pesshimitsh.

@@AwesometownUSA bro why you trying so hard to finish your sentence you created a subordinate clause but no main clause 😂😂😂😂

Slovenian language is Slavic but definitely has been under the influence of the Italian and German language maybe even French when Napoleon made Slovenia his puppet country after he defeated the Austro Hungarians

@@kimilsung2608 yeah it’s a Slavic language but Slovenia even borders Italy

God had to give him a lisp or his words would actually begin to shape and mold our 3dimensional reality

And he is a wizard. He is casting spells with his hands.

Imagine what his voice be like while speaking his first language which is Slovenian, Instead of English. It would sound like he was speaking.ha

@@WolverineXOXO He placed 5th in an election for Slovenia's 4-seat presidency in Slovenia's 1990 election, receiving 431,206 votes (The 3rd and 4th place candidates received 454,633 votes and 453,626 respectively, and won seats). In other words, he's had his share of popularity in Slovenia historically - though today, he is most well-known for his philosophical and academic contributions.

JP is in AWE. He's so powerful he's got jp feeling Marxism.

In the Netherlands evian is drunk by the bourgeois college students

@@akaaoife2312 You are further proving my point ;)

@@akaaoife2312 I jest.

And what's Evian backwards? Coincedence!?

@@clappedoutmotor MINDBLOWN

Totally bro, Peterson only read the communist manifesto and thats all his preparation for this debate. Zizek came with heavy artillery and Peterson with a rusted knife

I saw the entire debate at the time, the part when Zizek ask about names to Peterson. Peterson struggled for minutes to mention at least one name. It was not included in ths video unfortunately

We should never subestimare anyone, even the weakest kid can become dangerous as we see in the news with the school shootings.

peterson recognized social media can group delusional people together to form strong invisible minorities and he commented on that before, with antifa. main point is that the vast majority of people who claim to be marxists enter the category of dumb moralists that Zizek describes. Jordan peterson sees them as a threat, Zizek thinks that the shallowness of their beliefs renders them weak, but we all know that this is a completely untrue statement, especially today.

But I would say that would be a false perception on Zizek's part. Ironically I might share his point of view that the so-called SJWs are putting issues on the agenda that are less important than the "struggle between classes". But these issues ARE on the agenda; honestly, what gets more attention these days: gender equality or minimum wages? In fact, being "woke" has become an opportunity for corporations (e.g. supporting quotae in their boards, offsetting their carbon footprint and so on...). Ofc, this is mostly true to that extent that the costs don't outweigh the perceived benefits. I would even say that when it comes to climate protection, some activists are more adverse towards "common people" than towards "the upper 1 percent" in that their protests affect for instance people who commute to work. Maybe that is why Zizek does not support these "hyper moralists" because in his opinion, they avert attention from the "big issues".

Zizek seems to be bound by perceptions of the ideal then. Peterson grounds those "impotent moralists" as dangerous because well, they are. Idiots end up leading people through sheer confidence all the time.

I speculate that, because the 20th Century totalitarian Marxists focused on the domain of socioeconomic striation rather than normative conceptions of masculinity or sex, they still had an implicit respect for conventional masculine images of heroism (hence the figure of the Strongman rising wherever they went). Consequently, they appear more directly menacing or intimidating, because they match the implicit understanding of what a fierce combatant looks like. The SJW types do not share in this imagery because they are fundamentally founded on the dismantling of such concepts and visuals: consequently, they tend toward an effeminate passive-aggressive and petulant image. They appear weaker or impotent because they despise the very concept of conventional strength. In this fashion, they are often written-off as mere laughingstocks or annoyances at worst; the problem is that their caustic ideology of every cultural convention being "tyrannical"(including -- or rather especially -- the figure of the masculine Strongman) is not taken seriously enough. Indeed in the horrifying wake of actual Strongmen in the 20th Century (particularly the fascists), many are probably quite sympathetic to the criticism that brutish masculinity ought to be curbed. But the ideology itself is so corrosive that it doesn't stop with curbing, it goes all the way to demanding a fundamental weakening of conventional masculinity altogether. In some ways, it's a deeper level of radical revolution than the Marxists, who only ever criticized culture as an adjunct to the larger problem of economic oppression (though don't get me wrong, the Marxist attack on culture in places like Maoist China was still absolutely brutal and horrifying).

Sure, it was Zizek who stood up to the PC mob. How about philosophers, especially who claim to have the same ideology as Antifa,BLM and many political activists, stand up and challenge every person who claims to be a Marxist, while pushing societal destruction and decay? Go "True scotsman" in the corners from which you were pulled out. The mainstream activists don't see any interest, or challenge, in Zizek, or his niche supporters.

@@manubishe You are conflating Marxism as Marx and Marxists define it with how your sources define Marxism.

@@josephmendez6217 I'm calling out the true Scotsmen to declare their peers, and name the pretenders. Professors, who identify as Marxists, along with activists, who do the same, should be called out by "the most prominent Marxist philosopher", since non-marxist public isn't obliged to differentiate between the pretenders, and whoever you name as the true Marxists. Do better.

@@manubishe Yeah, that doesn't work when there are source materials.

@@josephmendez6217 calling out BLM activists, and university professors, as Marxist pretenders, doesn't work when there are source materials (that's left unexplained)?

@Kuo Maxis "Kuo Maxis" when he doesnt know what marxism is:

@Kuo Maxis peterson just doesnt know what marxism is, and thats it. no need to attack zizek

@Kuo Maxis He literally asked Peterson to name a post-modern neo-Marxist and Peterson couldn't name a single one because they literally do not exist. Peterson just took two things he dislikes but which are totally incompatible, mashed them together, and uses it as a blanket term to mean "anything I disagree with."

@Kuo Maxis Well the problem with defining anything 'vaguely' marxist AS 'marxist' is that it's hard to argue against something so vague. Some marxists believe something, others don't- so saying that "I don't agree with marxists" makes your stance feel vague and irrational.

Zizek is from a ex Marxists country that force though Marxism in schools so he has had greater exposure than Peterson simply because Petersen us from Canada where Marxism was not mandatory

No there was some attempts by entrapment done by zizek in this debate but he failed.

@@kevincorrigan1754 He did not. The one fact he brought up he had to immediately back away from after being called out by Zizek since that wasn't actually evidence of a prominent agenda by academia to introduce Marxism, and then he had to reformulate the meaning of Marxism which is an economic critique specifically related between the working people and the elite, and somehow apply that to this narrative of today's oppressor vs oppressed, with the issue no longer being of class but race and sex and gender identity. That is not what Marxism is about. And Zizek called him out on his bullshit.

@@kevincorrigan1754 hahahahahaha!!! Wow. You really didn't understand a single thing.

There really wasn't a debate. JP came in with the wrong text and Zizek charitably didn't destroy him.

This is not refreshing. This is an attempt to appear 'refreshing' and genuine, but is neither. Zizek's work isn't serious. He serves mainly as fodder for reactionary types like Peterson. My prediction is that you won't ever see Peterson sit down and discuss economic or political issues with true scholars such as Hedges, Wolff, Chomsky or West. His disingenuous talking points would be uncovered in 5-mins.

@@christiancrane5072 Your pfp made my day

@@christiancrane5072 angry people are not marxists. they can scream whatever but you should take your thoughts to a deeper level

@@christiancrane5072 associating with Marxism at the very superficial level like wearing a shirt does not make them Marxists. Marx enthusiasts at best, but that argument you put forward is sad.

@@christiancrane5072 and I’d agree with you. They’re the following that give entirely decent ideologies (when properly understood) a bad name.

@@christiancrane5072 they’re not Marxists, they’re anarchists which people like Marx, Engels and Lenin critiqued

Peterson thinks that the bible was a) the first book ever written and b) anti authoritian He's just throwing shit at a wall

Use not align?

he's a lost cause.

The best works by Marx has the word "critique" in their titles. Notice Peterson (and other so-called "critics") ignore these works, and use the lowest hanging fruit, the "Manifesto"......

@@michaeltrebych7275 fr “Bible of communism manifesto” Capital is the equivalent of his Bible but that’s too long and boring and critical… Would rather read a propaganda piece like the manifesto

He's holding notes bruh

@@tituschhangte1217 He’s also writing down Peterson's point to remember

Laptops are there to spy on you

@Revert im not yusuf but wdym?

@Revert He did and ur just mad

@Andrii Shumskyi He leaves lots of references in some of his works true (that's what essays are about anyway), but I don't find it hard to follow overall, not in this video at least.

Slavoj is great but his inability to be concise or to package things as a product is why Peterson makes millions a year and Slavoj gets thousands of young people trying to be his friend as his main form of appreciation of his work. Slavoj going on a four hour tangent makes a good video, but nobody watches it until the end unless they're a philosophy major trying to prove that they're capable. Slavoj's videos about ideology are brilliant and accessible to most anyone. I wish he viewed this as an accomplishment instead of something to be ashamed of or above.

@@AMpufnstuf well that's probably where it lies: They are still in different (lapses might occur) academic domains through stage or subject. Stage because Zizek is a much more serious veteran academic [PhD, Post-Docs, books, etc..] Academia isn't more profitable than entertainment. He seems like he's enjoying himself but there's no way to really know.

@@AMpufnstuf LOl at Peterson being concise or making a point.

Well, i've got a few of zizek's books, don't try to depict him like this incredible intellectual...he as most pholosophers is stuck in an ancient world of thoughts...an old theoretical world separated from empirical factual evidence that has given us communism socialism and many many other nasty ideas.

Flawless

Spot on

Man, that’s pretty deep. And accurate AF. Like how right-wing authoritarians don’t give a flying f@&* about “civility” or “fairness” until they are the ones getting screwed. Look how cops and their BackTheBlue bootlickers treat those who are harassed & targeted by them. And how cops leak information to the press to smear “enemies” in lawsuits or upcoming trials. But when cops are caught on video doing heinous sh-t all of a sudden the cops & their bootlickers start moralizing about how wrong it is to “jump to conclusions” and judge them without all the evidence. And then they start in with the concern trolling about “lack of civility” and how unfair & immoral it is to suggest that cops would lie. When they are losing they immediately jump to this tactic.

@@mikeappleget482 Not only that but they love to blame the victims and deflect their asses off even when the REAL FACTS show the cop is dead wrong. These right wing people are a cancer to society.

@@mikeappleget482 Imagine calling people who support the police because joggers are burning down their livelihoods "bootlickers".

It's funny how it seems to be more pronounced with his nervous tics when he speaks in a foreign language or there's a large crowd watching him give a talk. You should go look up his debates when he ran for the presidency of Slovenia. No nervous tics or jittery spasms there.

@@lameduck3105 he suffers from anxiety and so public speaking indeed is a struggle for him

@@samwellick1706 According to himself his tics are caused by neuroticism and not anxiety. Given his immense public presence and speaking in front of large crowds, I doubt he suffers from social anxiety.

Jordan got ripped apart in this and it was brutal. It would have been more entertaining had someone a bit stronger than Jordan show.

@@lameduck3105 you cannot be neurotic without anxiety

Hey, we all have male role models. Confidence, all on it's own, is attractive.

he clearly didn't. He just heard he is a marxist and was surprised to find a man who could criticize marxists better than himself

He also thought the communist manifest represents Marc economic theory and probably has never read even a single page of the capital

@@Laura-gd4ku Dude argues nature isn't mentioned in Marxism because he only ever read the manifesto. That is just super arrogant or ignorant. Marx his whole theory is about our struggle with nature and how we structure and organize our relationships with nature through ownership and labor etc. Peterson literally doesn't know anything about Marxism.

@@mclovin9165 Haha yes thats so insane. And how he basically equates marx with post modernisn while marx's philosophy is entirely modern and based on materialism is also hilarious. He really is the definition of the stupid persons idea of a smart person.

@@mclovin9165 stalin and lenin knew everything about it and look at the outcome

Well said.

Because our culture is currently extremely polarized by people whose brains have snapped by a certain election. Hopefully they’ll calm down soon and become more rational

I'm admittedly a guy who agrees with Peterson's notions, but you're right. This isn't a competition, we (or at least my intellectual betters)are trying to figure out a decent plan to move towards a more harmonious existence for us all.

Kudos for JP for turning up but he did seem a little out if his depth here. I'm sorry but he just did

@@acch20 He was completely out of his depth and it's intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. Marxism and politics in general is outside his field, and even then he did such a tiny amount of preparation that he was setting himself up to look silly

Honestly, if these are your point to why Zizek "clearly won" I think they are kinda weak. Peterson refers to and sites trends in academic thought in regards to postmodernism and Marxism, he doesn't need to start naming people. Peterson never claims that you can solve all problems of the world with your own actions nor that your own actions will always have the same impact in all places in your life. He says that there can be much merit in setting your own life in order when you can in order to start bettering the world around you. As such I think Peterson won this debate regardless of the criticism in regards to "how little he was prepared" as he pretty much gave good arguments at the topic at hand and him and Zizek actually agreed on a variety of topics.

@@lefterismagkoutas4430 so, you just chose to ignore everything I mentioned in my comment and just say how much you love Peterson and that no matter what the argument you just think he’s right? Have you read any of Zizek’s books?

Yeah Peterson's work is clearly aimed at Syrians...

@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 they clearly addressed at least two of your main points while you failed to respond in any meaningful way.

@@lefterismagkoutas4430 you’re so ignorant it’s wild,like do you just go through life not understanding anything? Absolutely fascinating.

Yes. Overwhelming (and obnoxious imo) vagueness is his biggest flaw but is also his biggest selling point. Unfortunately a lot of his audience will just miss any form if vagueness due to their lack of complete understanding in the first place. The whole shtick is a complete replica of the emperors new clothes a lot of the time

That's because Peterson is not a philosopher, or at least not a very good or intellectually honest one. These "post-modern neo-marxist" bogeymen are the crux of his entire career, ask him to define "post-modernism" or "neo-marxism" and he will do his very best to avoid specifics.

He’s very similar to Alex Jones in this regard. Speaks quickly, large concepts that he addresses only vaguely, but everything is scary and impending. He’s selling fear and asking him for exact info details his ability to strike terror in the hearts of his followers. It’s that fear that’s so important though because that’s what motivates his consumer base

@@midnitecoffee9485 Exactly. My biggest problem just like with AJ, is that the vague spew is often prefaced by a simple statement that gets his audience to understand where he stands on the issue immediately. No examples in mind but it seems if they're asked i.e "What are your thoughts on X?". The response would then be "Well I Think it's absolutely ridiculous, see .. [insert 4 minute long messy and unclear argumentation]". His fans won't need to understand the argumentation since they already agree with his position which he clarified early on.

I think JP generally looks at things from a broader lense. He looks for patterns & themes moreso than specificities and instances. He finds similarities in the themes, and he continues to watch them to see if they'll continue to behave in ways which are predictable and reflective of one another. He looks underneath the surface because the true nature of things aren't always as they seem, or as they say. Whereas, somethings actions can reveal a deeper layer of the true identity of its nature

😂😂

That's in character.

It never happened

This is kind of random, but the "Nobody: , Subject: X" meme is exactly the sort of thing which I think would excite Zizek. The idea that the premise of the joke is absence itself, as in a lack of context, and that the punchline is without cause and is not a reaction to anything before it, is an interesting philosophical condition. That it establishes nothingness as the setup for the joke, which at best can be assumed to be the current state of affairs but in all likelihood isn't referencing anything, is peculiar and probably what makes the meme so popular.

@@ExperienceLOS7713 I always disliked this meme for it's general abundance and randomness. It just generalizes the authors view as an objective one. What about all the people who laugh and clap hysterically (and I really hate that, don't get me wrong), and all the people who did that before. When I look at other debates, TV shows and whatnot, I see tons of people laughing and clapping hysterically at worse things than this. At some points I even wonder if I am the only in this world who thinks, that you should never interrupt a speech, a discussion or something similar by applauding and by this expressing your assent. So instead of making this an unfunny meme, I'd like to just say: "Oh my F***** god, why can't all these idiots just shut up and le the men talk. No one cares if you likes his or her statement. We are here to listen to a debate and the exchange of thoughts and views. You may clap in the end after everyone, I wanted to listen in the first place, is finished talking. By clapping before, you're just wasting everyones time." So I guess what I want to critizize about that meme is that it's obvious, no one (in one's right mind) would laugh hysterically during zizeks arguments. The same works for all the other memes so why not cut the useless "nobody: " part? Maybe it's because I wasn't there when the meme spread and became popular but I just think it's stupid. I really like your explanation though, it's the first time, I think something's dumb and smart at the same time :)

Wouldn't the audience be everybody tho

I’m pretty sure they offered LSD at the entrance. They went mental from the get go

And foaming at the mouth

😂🤣cuteee

That's the gayest post I've ever seen and I fw it.

It would be the "debate Utopia if there was no interrupting audience there

a lot of people replied intelligently to my comment. But more important than that is that I was able to be my own 69th comment like on 4/20. all counter arguments are now invalid.

@@GistOfItMedia nicee. “69” hell yea

Finally a nice soothing comment

Like sanity at the mercy of insanity. How sick, doomed shamefully weak and miserable a situation that is.

Best comment

😂😂nice one

When you believe your own bullshit vs question your own bullshit .

Ahahahahaha. Yeah, Zizek rubs his nose way too much. JP is supposedly off benzos, but who knows

I watched the full debate. It was a good exchange. Zizek would call you a fool for reducing and dismissing Jordan Peterson’s position so rudely.

@@tristan8041 even if he called me that doesn't make it untrue

@@Ebbelwoy correct. It just probably means it’s untrue.

@@tristan8041 I watched the full debate. Peterson was strawmanning Marx by constantly pointing to the Communist manifesto which was a call to arms for busy factory workers without much education, because it must have been the only thing he had read before debating a self-described Marxist who's spend decades studying Marx's work. If Zizek was a youtube debate bro, JP would go home absolutely humiliated. Instead it ended up being Zizek's free-form rambling occasionally interrupted by JP trying and failing to say something smart or interesting.

@@vaylard9474 it was a debate. Peterson didn’t straw man he simply formed a digestible thesis regarding why he thinks capitalism is superior to communism. Zizek’s “free form rambling” didn’t even come close to addressing a focused opinion that could actually be debated against. Which is why Jordan Peterson was lost. The debate was called “Capitalism, Communism and Happiness.” Peterson having a less complex understanding of Marxism than Zizek means nothing. Because Peterson was defending capitalism. And Zizek was defending I don’t know what because he didn’t even take a position. Aside from “tHaTs NoT rEaL mArXiSm.” Also Marx’s most famous piece of writing is called “the communist manifesto.” How is it Peterson’s fault that it fails to convey its headlining ideology. If Zizek read something called “the capitalist manifesto” and it doesn’t explain the goal of capitalism clearly that’s not his fault. (Manifesto- a public declaration of policy and aims, especially one issued before an election by a political party or candidate.) I guess Marx just didn’t know what the word manifesto means.

Stfu he is an hero who could beat high school guys in a debate with his charisma 😂

@@trollingone1 who?

25% of the academia in the humanities identify as Marxist. He literally responded to his question right away.

Yeah, Peterson ended up backtracking several thousand kilometres and saying "Oh...well, what I mean is, the people I'm complaining about have something vaguely in common with Marxists in as much as they don't like oppression...and ehhh....I think it's a CATASTROPHE!"

Stop being a cheerleader, its bad for you.

academia is entirely left wing... i mean to deny this is absolutely stupid, at least 25% as JP said out and out and admit and the smarter ones hide it

@@DP-ly3zx might want to look u the definition of “cheerleader” and “complaint”

yeah but without an audience please

Watch (or listen )the Sam Harris podcast. Very insightful and thought provoking. The Lex Friedman one is a bit less intellectual, more of a variety one, but still worth it, And if you just wanna relax on your bed, but are not in the mood for music there is Joe Rogan. (This is not meant as an insult to Mr Rogan)

@@glitchquitch Friedman 😂

Like…universities?

JP didn't invent the term stupid. It existed years before when RU-vidrs were discussing the crap ideologues who inspired the term. JP just adopted it cause that was the audience that discovered him. Be a little more thorough in your research.

@@Hadoken. invented or not, he popularised it for certain, and my point still stands entirely

@@frost9681 He didn’t popularize it to the people who began following him, most already knew the term. He popularized it to the people who didn’t know him, oppose him, and many times even if they have valid points in some things, totally misrepresent him making it evident that they don’t read or listen to him but to some 2nd hand source that has done the characterization and misrepresentation already. That makes those types zealots with carrots in their ears and blinders over their eyes. That having been said, your point stands only if we take it that from an economic viewpoint, then term is conflicting, yes. But that’s not the point of view Peterson or the people he found were characterized as such have, making your point senseless or disingenuous. It’s like racing cars and you come out last and say “your characterization of me as coming in last is wrong because from an ecological standpoint my car was the most ecological in the race so there”. No one in these discussions JP found himself in (because that’s what happened, Sargon of Akkad brought him to prominence when he interviewed him immediately after the hubbub around those videos about bill C16, the consequences of which he was quite correct by the way) was talking about or worrying about the economic dimension and analysis of anything. The discussions were around race, gender, sex, etc all the hallmarks of the protesting and nagging of the then prominent internet activists from Anita Sarkeesian to your average purple haired political lesbian. These people called themselves Marxists. These people also called themselves post modernists given they were critiquing and protesting on the basis of post modernist thinkers’ analyses around such issues. If there is any contradiction in the characterization ideologically it’s the fault of the activists, not those who called them a term. That having been said, when Zizek almost without resistance seems to be accepting the ideas of all the political Minotaurs of the so-called LGBT spearheads to appear humane (as if every one of these political actors is really what they say they are or as if they have been voted as representatives of anything) and the blatant contradictions as well as immediate consequences of these ideas are being felt in real life even down to the form of young kids being indoctrinated into believing they definitely are this or that to the point of chopping stuff off their bodies because some are adamant that say, a trans woman is a real woman, which isn’t only an insane contradiction but also a physical and biological impossibility and has immense consequences now that many are beginning to treat is as dogma, the complaint about the characterization “post modern neo Marxist”, which even Zizek has stated he knows what Peterson means by it, is pitifully laughable given that at best one needs to have dabbed quite a bit into philosophy to even care about the possible problem with the term (meaning less 1% of humanity gives a fuck), let alone that if you’re an idiot who believes politically correct euphemisms are ok as well as shit like “trans women are real women and hence can have abortions” then the adopting of the terms to characterize something totally different to their original meaning ought not to bother you. But of course that means that then Zizek would have to be intellectually honest on that point, which he isn’t. He is at others and he’s got interesting ideas along with his theatrics, but his complaint and “own” is revealed for the utter bullshit it is after two seconds. His real victory over Peterson is that he managed to have people look him up. Peterson’s self own was that he believed his position too firmly and went in understanding only the communist manifesto, which is an understandable idea given 97% of the people who characterize themselves as marxists or socialists probably have only read that and nothing else so, of course that’s what you’re gonna critique. But that still made him look unprepared, weak and not at a good enough point to be able to support a position firmly without being thrown into unknown waters, outside the scope of the debate.

@@Hadoken. did you know 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

@@dalgcais It all depends on which side of that 97% you're on.

Why would you throw your life away like that?

naaaah dude, you do a fat line - that’s whassup

I throw up instead. Every single time.

Died several times from playing this drinking game.... but realized that Nietzsche's eternal recurrence is real (hence I can post this!) lol

@@MrSmiley81092 I could've dominated the meta-lobster hierarchy but was dumb and decided to play such a suicidal drinking game!

Wtf do u mean

That's true for 99.9% of humans, you included

You are assuming he is mostly molded by history; Quite the assumption.

Highly agree. This is a huge problem with North American thinkers. Zizek can look at how his culture affects him and his perspective and references it, when you are at the center it is hard to try to reflect. Peterson is classic paternalizing North American who thinks he knows everything but knows almost nothing about anything outside of where he is from.

"Jordan B. Petersons biggest problem is that he´s uncable" you could have stopped there. And this was before he became a drug addict.

Didn't see him struggling tho, especially against someone who is verbally difficult to understand when he talks let alone then you have to comprehend what he's saying... by the way you don't need to tell me you're gay or lesbian, only those people are against JP and once again, we don't need to know your orientation.

@@Darkes336 wow. Your logic is incredible. I didn't even know I was homosexual until your amazing IQ and deductive capabilities showed me. So if you can guess my orientation from me not liking JP, I can guess what you are from your comment: and from your comment, I think you are an idiot. And we don't need to know that you are an idiot.

@@Darkes336 Bro, way to out yourself as small minded lmao

@@bricknolty5478 Brick Nolty? more like bRick and Nolty ?😂

@@Darkes336 nice ad hominem, simpleton

Basically Peterson thinks that Marxism is when people talk about oppression, so identity politics is Marxism because it talks about oppression. Its nothing to do with economic socialism in his mind, somehow, or atleast only when he wants it to be. It’s actually brain dead and I’m glad he finally got pulled up on the verbal spew that is “post modern neo Marxism”

I think because whats at stake for the social justice types is a society without hierarchy. And how can you have no hierarchy if there moeney isn't equally distributed.

Marxists are very clearly anti-postmodernism. Look up Vivek Chibber on the topic, for example.

Marxism has no identity theory it’s class based

@rhys williams a class in the Marxist sense is not based on identity it’s a social relation to the means of production. Marx does not say the class does not vary in itself, he actually says the exact opposite but that the members of the class can have different identities but what makes them a class is again their relation to the means of production. Peterson simply doesn’t understand the fundamental basics of Marxist theory, if he would than he would understand that Marx himself specifies his notion of ‚all history is the history of class struggle‘ in his later writings

The whole argument is that Marxism and Post Modernists share the same paradigm. It's not really that difficult to understand. Now, weather you agree with this or not is a different matter, but in that case an explanation should be provided.

If you don't know what a paradigm is, it's the lenses through you see the world and the method you apply in order to understand it.

@@aramismanzie462 Except… it’s not. Post modernism is an outlook on life based on subjectivity and scepticism of everything; it rejects the very idea of truth, ideology and even the material world. Marxism is a socio-economic explanation based on materialism. They are completely different things. Jordan Peterson may be a good psychologist but he is too postmodern to have any real grasp on traditional politics and philosophy. That’s the biggest irony. He IS just another postmodern, internet sensation and not a well read, traditional academic. That’s also why he has the perspective that he does - he only knows about other sensational liberal thinkers of his calibre and doesn’t know real, serious left wing thinkers. When he met Zizek he was mesmerised and that says a lot. Can you imagine him in conversation with Chomsky, Baudrillard, Bookchin etc? He would feel extremely depressed and insignificant if he were in their presence because they would act as a mirror and show him who he really is - a very basic, internet sensation.

@@newleft2254 yep, you fail to acknowledge what a paradigm is. You just replied saying that Marxism and Post Modernism are two very different things. Indeed. What they share tho is an underlaying paradigm. Also, I wouldn't regard someone that negates the genocides in Jugoslavia as "great".

@@aramismanzie462 bro you did not just have this well thought out and crafted essay placed in front of you and that’s the response? “You didn’t follow where I was guiding the conversation so you have failed 😏” bro, I am not confused on what a paradigm is, we all understand it, I think you have a fundamental lack of understanding of actual Marx just like Peterson and so just like him you allude to some connection but can make none because you don’t even know real Marx, just the idea of Marx that Peterson has told you exists within these “cultural marxists” take it from me, from neither a commie nor a peterson supporter, you guys need to stop commenting and talking about this, especially with real marxists like zizek, you never look good doing it smh

Lithuania? He is slovenian born in Yugoslavia.. just sayin'

Sorry! I forgot to add ~ ~ keyboard !!!

A negativist Marxist shouldn't be a Marxist in the first place since most of Marx theories are based in beliefs that people will behave in a positive manner, are base in assumptions and assumptions are the Mother of all f ups.

@@heathcliffearnshaw1403 You can edit it.

Wouldn’t he better fit with the former not the latter?

OldManFrank Haha I think so too

Like Sylvester the cat

No actually I think he just really interested in what he has to say

@@sxfxcn0993 I think he is interested in Zizek as a potential patient, he feigns interest in Zizek's narrative whilst working out the personality

@@garylake8654 you know Zizek is from a similar school of thought as Peterson right? while JP follows Jung, Zizek follows the ideas of Lacan; a student of Freud.

@@sirvanghazi9429 I am always fascinated when someone addresses me and ends a statment with the word 'right', it shows someone who is not confident in their position and is seeking affirmation. I am afraid as I have not studied Freud or Jung in any great depth, so I cant help you by agreeing, that said, thank you for the information, I will now observe to see if other people have similar views on their common ground. I loved this exchange, I enjoyed the narratives flowing from both individuals, however, the body language would have fascinated Freud and Jung, that is an observation that I am fairly confident about, not that we could ever prove it of course, that said, the body language fascinated me.

@@garylake8654 you have to be dense to think I was asking you a question. I began the sentence with "you know" and not "do you know if". it was was more of rhetorical statement than a question.

I mean, it was a stupid question, so attributing importance to it isn't appropriate.

@@PlaguedByEarthstupid question? Why?

@@PlaguedByEarthJP was the only stupid thing there at the time..

Peterson: more like stumbling crackhead.

Im guessing the middle finder goes to the people clapping and laughing in the audience, which probably would have included you and your army of nine year-olds lol

Plato can be defined as socialist by The Republic.

@@negritoojosclaros I didn't mean their opinions more just an example of two great minds who conflict meeting

@@spencerlee4410 oh sorry 🚶‍♂️

If Peterson’s our equivalent of Plato then we are screwed.

@@jackdomanski6758 oh i’m well aware he isn’t on that level. as i said in the second half i more mean the meeting of the minds aswell as the public format it is being done in. i only chose plato and diogenes because they were two intellects of their time who often debated in auditoriums not because of their respective qualities to zizek or peterson

vs the Virgin Peterson

😂😂

this comment deserves to be pinned

Not in a million years with that lisp.

@@thegreenmage6956 I giggled, and felt bad after.

I’m in the same boat right now. 😂

Well one is a grifter meming an intellectual.. The other one is an actual intellectual

I enjoy both of their views, Peterson as said earlier in the main video, is a clinical psychologist whilst Zizek is a philosopher and psychoanalyst, both can philosophize about socio-economic aspects and both can hold positive views (wether of each other or of their own ideals) so i feel especially with any form of content that provides you with education and critical thinking such as this video, is to not compare this with a sport, there is no “right team” there are a plethora of ideas, and there are you, you take these ideas, and you form your own basis of information. That is THE adult and mature and correct way to digest videos of grand intellectuality such as these. All sides have a silver lining, take them and fill your cup with silver my friend.

@@karammarji1943 thank you for that. Its nice to hear someone that is not biased and emotionally compromised.We are lacking this kind of mature outlook today.

I agree but i can’t ignore the fact that one guy is on the stage thanks to his charisma and the other one really knows shit

I've always gained more insight by having honest discussions with people as opposed to ego fueled debates. Few people seem to possess the humility to truly engage with an opposing argument or position.

Enjoy the journey!

I am now sure that I won't read any crap from Zizek. This was one of the most crappy segments by the way, just saying.

You were looking at it right before!! At that time you had more context because you had just watched it. This clip of it is ok and all but certainly doesn’t summarize the debate by any means, but rather enunciates what was perhaps either a high point or a low point, depending on Zizek’s intent at this particular point. Just look into the comments he made on Jordan and Jordan’s fan base after the debate and the comments he made about his motivation for turning up to it. He was on some type of talk/radio show in his home country. He discusses how he purposefully Leaves Out that which the audience would find disturbing or distasteful. He also talks about his distain for Peterson and his fan base (or at least the ones that he doesn’t convert). He talked about how uninformed Peterson was, and is, about Marxism (with an anything but warmth in his demeanor) and how unintelligent Jordan is. He rails against the ‘fact’ that the unintelligent American masses flock to Peterson in order to support their biases. Seriously, I originally felt the same as you regarding Zizek after watching the full debate (while retaining a healthy portion of skepticism). But after finding this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FWEwvlFmluA.html ,and it prompting me to do more research, I realized the deceitful type of person zizek is. P.S - this video is only part of what he said, you can probably find the rest pretty easily on google.

@@hermes11th who + asked

Welcome to exactly what Peterson, people like Peterson, and capitalists do when teaching about Marxism.

@@freddie5687 the fact that it was a debate indicates otherwise...but if debates aren't competitions then houses arent buildings, and im ok with that, just let the rest of the world know

watch in Jesus H. Christ that was brutal.

@@deviltype7578 was it

Well, that was Zizek's first move for this debate. I watched the whole of it and the first argument of Peterson was completely ignored by Zizek, who on its place started to agree with a lot of Peterson's usual points and telling jokes. I'm sure he couldn't give a real counterargument. Peterson even says, surprised by Zizek's actions, that he "thought it was a debate". After that, it became much more of a conversation, than anything else. A conversation with clear disagreements that were never solved.

Henry Silva Bello I think you misunderstand why Žižek did that, Peterson’s opening argument was so uninformed and baseless it was truly so easy to break it apart. I could do it if you want.

Zizek

@@AerialView But then we must also admit, Zizek is entirely outside of what Jordan refers to, when he says "post-modern neomarxists". Zizek has been disowned by that crowd exactly for being critical of the narratives within it. Jordan still hasn't adequately explained how marxist thought dominates modern academia, as he claims, or how the alleged interplay between it and these pomo idpolitical movements work. The only study I could find that somewhat resembles what Jordan was talking about, is one from 2006 that concluded less than three percent of professors in the US self identified as marxist, with the majority of them confined within the social sciences departments, constituting about 18% (a good deal less than the 25% claimed by Jordan). Besides some rather questionable methodology, the study still doesn't describe how this supposedly affects the curriculum, or the extent of alleged indoctrination. All in all, there's not a lot of substance behind JBP's words. It's a cold war bogeyman he's making a lot of money from, and he made it abundantly clear in this debate, he really isn't well versed in marxist theory or litterature.

@@AerialView zizek and explains how he's closer to a different political philosophy then Marxism.

Some of my professors are just the way Peterson describes it And they are depressed

This daffy duck sounding moron would qualify

He is consciously and purposefully deceitful.

@@hermes11th cope harder

@@hermes11th cry and shit yourself

Money is just a representation of value created in society. If you have a lot of money you had to create value in society to get it, either by trading your time (regular job) taking on risk (investing money into a business and risking bankruptcy) or other ways that’s gain money (value added). You can then use this (usually) hard earned money to create a business that benefits society, such as a coffee shop. You can also decide to pay your employees $1. Sounds pretty bad until you realize this person isn’t the only one in the market, other business will compete and offer to pay much higher, this business owner will have no employees and lose his money as he is no longer providing enough value to society. This free choice, value oriented and competitiveness is at the core of free market capitalism. The evil occurs when someone says “You have to work for $1 and you have no choice” which is at the core of many alternative systems

@@LividLobster But money isn't a representation of value created in society. Two examples: one, if a worker creates $15 an hour of value for a company, the employer WILL NOT hire that worker for $15 an hour because it isn't profitable. So the value that worker creates to society does NOT go to the worker who created the value, but rather it is split between the worker and the employer, who provided no value to society in this scenario other than happening to own the means of production (which could just as easily be collectively owned by the workers with no employer involved). The second example is that the United States' debt grows at an absurdly high rate every year, yet our society doesn't lose value as a consequence. If money truly represented value created in society, debt would not make any conceptual sense, as a person going into debt would cause society to somehow lose value as a whole, when in reality money is not a representation of anything but simply a medium by which goods and services can be exchanged.

That's .. not capitalism...

the light side of this is that guy on top.. employs workers and pays them.. thus creating jobs for those that need to earn an income.. the darkside of this is money economics.. were in an inflationary cycle which is not the employers fault its the banking systems fault as they move money that actually has no value and produce more of it.. and when you add the investor into the mix the employer themself becomes a slave to the investor.. and the investor only wants one thing profits and that effects you in the end as the employee as the employer has no choice but to accomidate more profits by working you harder and paying you less.. this is croney capitalism..

@@malcolmcertain9971 Obviously you've never owned a business, and probably never will. An enterprise isn't just a sumatory of productive individuals. If the owner doesnt provide a sustainable strategy, the business will go bankrupt, regardless the potential value each employee might add. Thats exactly why when Marxists politics give employees the control of the business they worked their entire lifes, it goes bankrupt almost always.

Wow dude you even used shapiro as a nail in the coffin to cement your point, if i were a die hard conservative fan boy i'd be speechless as to what to say to counter you.

Although I agree with you, I think he brings up a good point. I don’t think Zizek is as accesible to society as Peterson has been, and I think that proves the point he was getting at. Sure, intellectually, Zizek may have gone unchallenged in that particular response from Peterson, but as to how it relates/matters on a wide scale, Peterson brings up a solid point about Zizek associating himself with an idea that many parts of society immediately disregard.

Yeah, it's funny how everytime a liberal like Peterson defends capitalism they do it either by the most milquetoast middle class moralism about property rights, or they do it by referencing the wealth created by it. Meanwhile they just conveniently ignore all the people who were murdered by Pinkertons in the 19th century just for asking for a pay raise, or the suicide nets hanging around the Foxxconn buildings in China, or the fact that Western capitalists sell genetically modified crops to third world farmers designed to fail after 1 season. Apparently the atrocities constantly carried out as a result of the greed of international capitalists doesn't make Peterson disassociate himself from capitalism, but everyone else should disavow Marxist theory because of Stalinist Russia.

No because saying that we should look at what negatively effects men in society like circumcision and fight that. But that’s very different from men’s rights activists who are not organized to end male circumcision they are organized to go into areas where women are fighting to stop fgm and spam the discussion with yelling about circumcision. This is not an effective way to end male circumcision because that’s not the goal of men’s activists, it’s men organized to attack feminism.

Feminism does acknowledge men face negative societal pressures and suffer as a result of it.

I think it gives him an edge... people are less likely to mock or ridicule a successful person that has some kind of disability. As for everyday life though it really must be difficult.

Dr. Martin L Roberts ✓ if anything I’d say they’re more likely to mock and discredit him

Cara Wood I couldn't listen to him for more than 10 mins.

@@thebigredwagonhis lisp was enough to intellectually dismantle JP though..

Fire We can be thankful for these lighthouses of intellectuality in times of superficialities and implicit censorship.

@@Falcodevienna well said. It would be nice to see more of this :(

@@ElectroIsMyReligion intentions are irrelevant to consequences

I think many were frustrated because it was clear that Peterson, who has partly built a reputation (and arguably a career) on criticizing Marxism, has a very limited understanding of Marxism, let alone post-modernism. His entire argument for this "debate" was based on a reading of the Communist Manifesto, which Zizek rightfully pointed out is a simplified doctrine and does not exemplify why so many academics identified with Marxism in the first place.

Jordon Peterson is an absolute idiot oh absolutely was a debate lol

No it clearly wasn't what you think it was

That wasn't a jab. Zizek was being literal and clarifying his removal from an attacking position. He was saying that he's not throwing jabs

@@jordanmadrigal919 This is in-fact the classic way that Zizek then immediately throws a jab. He provides the polite correct etiquette that disarms the audience and subject, and then immediately moves in to make a jab.

Regardless of whether it was or wasn't a jab, it was a perfectly legitimate jab to make considering Peterson's demonstrable lack of understanding of Marxism. I feel as if he read the Communist Manifesto and then proceeded to believe he understood Marxism as if Marx and Engels didn't write a ton of othet books on the subject.

@Sports Guru As I'm sure you're fully aware, Marxism is a subject encompassing a plethora of different ideas and concepts. You'll have to be more specific.

Yes, it is. Zizek said it himself it's much more profound and complex

The real Marxism excuse. I heard a bunch of Casa Pound Italian Fascists once say that real Fascism is just a critique of Liberalism and that real Fascism has never been tried. They were wrong and so are you.

@@StephanieTips No it isn't, it's Plato all over again, same castle in the sky that Diogenes mocked.

@@jbagger331 "Real Capitalism has never been tried" - every 10-15 years when Capitalist markets crash in a fire explosion of doom or fails to deal with a serious crysis

Thats closer to what a debate should look like, a word-boxing match, "this guy destroys feminists", calling that a debate is a prostitution of the concept.

well atleast he actually did what you nearly wont find anny body doing, "being humbled" the first and at this point in time only debate where he was outside his depth. no debate has ever happened where JP has not had more than 60% of a say in the debate. Plus this man being legit one of the only eksampels of a man atually apologizing and changing his opinion when facts are presented

@@SimpleDimple0u0 I don’t know where to start regarding all the arguments you made in your comment.. I have to admit that you got some valid points, while some of your other arguments (to me atleast) honestly had little to no merit and were based on false assumption and a somewhat flawed logic.. First of all Zizek isnt anymore of a “character” than JP is. I think it was highly disrespectful and arrogant that JP labelled Zizek as that (regardless of his intentions). Listen, I’m not in line with Zizek’s philosophical worldview or ideological agenda. You don’t have to be a socialist or communist to admit that Zizek did way better in this debate.. But It’s hard (not to say almost Impossible) to refute, regardless of your political affiliation, that Zizek schooled JP on Marxism.. Obviously he’s way more educated and knowledgeable about the subject that JP. JP is a doctor psychology, while Zizek is a philosopher and sociologist - They come from two very different academic fields. So the outcome is not that surprising. You made the argument that this wasn’t a mental fight, but an exchange of ideas.. I respectfully disagree: the initial premise of the debate was in fact a “mental fight” or a battle of ideologies. And since it was a debate and not merely an “academic conversation” is there bound to be a victor - and it were Zizek. No offense but I think your own political bias and partisanship are inhibiting you from truly being objective - which is highly unfortunate in this case.

@@ElectroIsMyReligion I am baffled. Zizek agreed on the benefits of capitalism, denied being a Marxist and told some anectodes and jokes while Peterson tried to logically structure the chaotic statements of Zizek in a more profound way in order to include it in an actual meaningful acting of the individual.

@@SimpleDimple0u0 I agree with you :)

Saying "name one person" doesn't make you superior.

Something north koreans or soviets can't enjoy. Wonder why..

The objective of fair society ultimately destroys freedom no? The only society that is truly free is one where everyone is dead.

@@onemonsterceo no, anarchocomunists want a society of concencus were people are able to work for a common goal in groups to produce everything needed for society Anyway I am not an anarchist btw I am a marxist not because I want a fairer or freer or more democratic society (but I do belive in democracy just not as an ideal) but because capitalism is not working and people are starving

@@felipedaiber2991 capitalism lifted so many people out of poverty while Marxism was the cause starvation and death for millions. Capitalism works vastly better and the historically evidence is so large that I didn't think anybody would make your argument.

@@onemonsterceo yes capitalism is better than mercantilism and that one is better than feudalism yet even if I belive a comunist nation should be democratic and I despise the figure of stalin the Soviet Union turned a backwards country ravaged by several wars and with little to no industry into the second world superpower in less than two decades If that is not an economic succes then there is not such thing as an economic succes

@@felipedaiber2991 It was not sustainable prosperity. It relied on the central planners being smart enough to succeed which only works for short periods during the reign of a smart individual. If the successor to the country is not as capable the economy falls back to ruins. Capitalism is a fail proof system where one incompetent leader will eventually be replaced by a more competent one through competition. Also it is impossible for a communist country to not have dictatorship. The people in communist countries do not even have property rights, which is the basis for all rights. If the people do not have rights to property, the government that has all the property rights get all the power. With no civilian power to keep the government in check, dictatorship is inevitable.

he follows his own ego as if it were a disembodied deity . he is seriously mentally ill .

lol

How ironic, since duffy duck following is generally based of adorant highschoolers.

Peterson is a messianic clown. I hope he goes away soon. Tedious cunt.

@@DP-ly3zx Zizek is a rambling slob, just like Marx who stank of piss and was a cunt.

Looked like zizek just got heated for no reason. Both of them are just arguing over semantics and I think Peterson acknowledges it.

@@Justinsalehtv nice defence when you get "destroyed".

Well Peterson doesn’t need to read 1000+ pages of bullshit to know what the morality is

@@aaronosrs you don't need to read at all to know what morality is. it's what your mom tells you in your young ages.

@@aaronosrs Millenia of philosophical history would disagree. And claims of moral philosophy without theoretical background makes for an argument sans reason. It's arrogant to argue that something is bullshit when people smarter and more hard-working than both of us dedicate their whole careers to said 1000+ pages of bullshit. Even a credible Hegel critic (likewise, presumedly smarter and more hard-working than both of us) reads said bullshit.

On the surface. Zizek later proudly admits that he was consciously and purposefully being deceitful to Peterson and audience. You were looking at it right before!! This clip of it is ok and all but certainly doesn’t summarize the debate by any means, but rather enunciates what was perhaps either a high point or a low point, depending on Zizek’s intent at this particular point. Just look into the comments he made on Jordan and Jordan’s fan base after the debate and the comments he made about his motivation for turning up to it. He was on some type of talk/radio show in his home country. He discusses how he purposefully Leaves Out that which the audience would find disturbing or distasteful. He also talks about his distain for Peterson and his fan base (or at least the ones that he doesn’t convert). He talked about how uninformed Peterson was, and is, about Marxism (with an anything but warmth in his demeanor) and how unintelligent Jordan is. He rails against the ‘fact’ that the unintelligent American masses flock to Peterson in order to support their biases. Seriously, I originally felt the same as you regarding Zizek after watching the full debate (while retaining a healthy portion of skepticism). But after finding this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FWEwvlFmluA.html ,and it prompting me to do more research, I realized the deceitful type of person zizek is. P.S - this video is only part of what he said, you can probably find the rest pretty easily on google

@@hermes11th Hey, did you know Jordan Peterson has admitted he has read no Marx?

@@hermes11th Eh, Zizak was correct though. Peterson appeals to frail people who overestimate their own intelligence. His arguments are so ill-formed as to not be worthy of considered rebuttal, Zizek humoured the audience.

@@hermes11th What is wrong with that. Zizek is mostly right about Peterson.

I think that the best capitalists are the ones with the greatest moral intelligence. Truly serving the customer and fitting their exact needs will make both of their lives better. A capitalists that wishes to survive must serve the customer and adapt to the times. If his goal is to rip off the customer he is only diluting himself in the future. Elon musk producing electric cars creates abundance for himself and the entire world with a superior moral product of ev cars compared to the gas powered cars. It's a win win.

But yes I do agree that the greed and self serving attitudes of capitalism create a psychopathic animalistic atmosphere that lacks higher character and values.

Oh come on! Free market, liberterian ethics and supremacy of law go hand in hand. A true free market supporter would know that serving customer in innovative ways is the most important thing for development. I am not talking about some giant capitalist bosses, no. I am talking about human freedom, free markets, creativity and so on.

@@MCJOHNSON95 Except almost every capitalist, at least all the ones that get rich, cheat, lie or abuse workers. Elon Musk is a great example of a man abusing workers, selling incomplete products and being partially responsible for child workers and inhumane work conditions in third world countries.

And you're too dumb to make a comment on either

By actual marxist he means "not a college kid"

@@user-zi4wx3uw1y Yes

What would Greta say

@Ronald Rump I dislike Peterson because every time i see a fragment of him or read something he wrote, it's either bullshit, disingenuous or a racist/fascist dogwhistle. Not to mention the totally idiotic lobster argument.

@@akaaoife2312 you sound like you dont clean your room. What a angry guy ahahahaha go get laid yah fook

Thank. You.

Boaz Henstra I follow one rule concerning you people. That is, if you think JP’s example of a creature with a social hierarchy, is an argument, you’re an idiot. It’s simply that, an example that social hierarchies existed before society did. It doesn’t mean anything beyond that. It’s to show that hierarchies are not purely a social construction. That’s the full extent of it.

you love peterson?

You “love Peterson”. Que?

really weird

Thanks Nikos. I appreciate it.

Yes, we should learn from Peterson on this. He looked like he's genuinely interested in what Zizek had to say.

Because sharing views on both sides is contradictory

@@paulsoroka621 Just because someone has a view that is contradictory to yours doesn't mean that there will be no benefit in listening to them and learning from them.

need to watch out for echo chambers :3

@@paulsoroka621 lol, no it's not. The whole point of science is to listen to people with different ideas. Now obviously this Internet cordial discussion between these two men of letters is no science, but that ideal should be held as the highest mark. "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that" -John Stuart Mill

He is like Don Quixote but deluded himself in thinking that he is some sort of expert in philosophy and politics.

Grifter. Just another grifter. He has a larger vocabulary and some mental agility, but Peterson is just another grifter.

@Adrien Melody Adrien, that was you. This man did not say anything new or revolutionary that changed your life; YOU experienced a transformation and made that internal shift an external one by your OWN discipline and hard work. Peterson was not the element that triggered your breakthrough. You did. Take some credit since that guy already took your money.

@Adrien Melody of course if you want something that “works” even How to win friends and influence people by Dale Carnegie is a good book but some of us don’t want something that “just works” we want something that can give a satisfying account of why it works and this is where self help books are weak. they might get you out of the mess you are in but they don’t give you a true idea of what exactly they are doing, why it works and where is it taking you in the grand scheme of things.

@@DR-hy6is Well said. I kind of like how you put it.

Neither is zizek? Zizek is just repeating over and over like a child instead of listening closely. "Gib me name..." blablabla this whole topic is bigger than "say a name". Zizek wants to discuss about the perfect definition and not the phenomenon. I really get why peterson is struggeling when the opponent is calling this movement a result of defeat. Its not.

Welcome to academic philosophy. All you gotta do to be a doctor of philosophy is have an opinion and convince others you do too.

You are a king of body language analysis

Fully disagree, the man is intently listening, literally his whole body is turned towards him and focused on him. He is immersing himself so he can answer adequately....if this is your body language reading and conclusion, I bet you don't do that well with the ladies