Please, let me break it down to you: 1) Zizek is NOT saying one should let one's house untidy, but simply that we can have it both ways: not just set our house in order, but ALSO try to change the world in the meantime. They should not be mutually exclusive things. Zizek's house itself is meticulously tidy (just look at his VICE interview). The argument that Zizek is just trying to justify his own mess at his house is not only a nonsense, but childish; 2) Zizek is just saying that real change does not begin with personal responsibility (like Gandhi thought with his famous "be yourself the change you want to see in the world"), but by addressing the way society itself reproduces itself. Individual responsibility, for Zizek, is an ideological trick whose ultimate aim is precisely to AVOID radical change, a false bargain. His example of ecology goes in the same direction: the more we are told we are personally responsible for ecological catastrophies, the less mega changes in the way the system reproduces itself are made. You're welcome. :)
@@okuyasu4033 I'm not sure if that was Ivo's point, and I would agree that individual action is not likely to make a big difference for such concerns. Maybe I misunderstood but I took him to mean even legislation would be unable to help, when really it can.
@@Makaneek5060I don’t think it was just legislation I think it was due to the fact that the ozone hole had the potential to grow and cause the same problems it had caused in Australia across the globe. The possibility that you could get skin cancer so easily anywhere now forced the change not mainly just the legislation
That's actually a healthy debate. Kudos to both parties. I wish people were able to do this wholeheartedly with the intent of gathering more life experience and learn a thing or two.
This is the only time I think I've ever tried to wipe the inside of the screen of my smartphone. Why does he look like a homeless person trying to defend his right to sleep in a vacant house's bath tub?
@@user-yk5xu8gr1e Beyond a single person's ability**. Being beaten half to death by a cop for no reason is ultimately a personal problem, but maybe you should ask why this is happening in the first place before you sign up for martial arts classes.
Actually it might work to some extent only the other way round. But more likely by taking social problems seriously, you create additional personal problems to yourself 😅To solve social problems through taking seriously personal problems is not possible, unless you are so powerful to do it. Let's say Hitler after seized power in 1933 could solve social problems by solving his own problems, however the problem was that he himself was lifted to power by those social problems. He was in a way their product.
Having a messy room doesn't mean you're not a functional member of society, on the contrary, you can be even in the top 1 percent. but when you want to bring order to your room, you know you are capable of it. There's a difference between being able to do something but choosing not to do it, and not being able to do it even if you wanted to. Some people's psyches are so messy that they may be in such a bad state that they can't bring order to their room even if they wanted to.
The thumbnail for this video was made with the pure and obvious intention of misrepresenting the discussion between Peterson and Zizek. Both individuals displayed nothing but patience, focus, and respect for one another.
@@RatafakTehPlachta It's people like _YOU_ and your ilk that are the problem with society. Anyone who argues against free speech is at the root of social issues and this is simple fact. No one of any societal importance cares about your feelings being hurt by the fact that people disagree with you, even if they do so wrongly.
@@kooldudematt1 and may i see, my good sir, where did i actually argue against free speech? im all for it. part of the free speech is to disagree with the fact that someone who pampers to a neo nazi audience gets public space and gets to influence the minds of young people - fragile and easily manipulated. that is my opinion. that is me expressing my free speech. you have a problem with that, maybe you have a problem with free speech. you only yell free speech when it suits you and it is in alignment with your world view, well, some bad news for you, society doesnt work like that. meaningful boundaries based on sound arguments will always be a thing, thank fuck. and again, my feelings? bold assumptions, since nowhere in my previous statement have i said anything about feelings. societal importance? like who? president of the universe papa jordan? get a hold of yourself, you sound hysterical
@@RatafakTehPlachta Care to explain what part of anything that Jordan said here caters to a Neo-Nazi audience ? Or is it that you just like to throw around the term "Neo-Nazi" without understanding it's meaning and application ? The fact that Jordan is sitting there side-by-side with an individual who almost completely disagrees with everything he stands for and having a civilised discussion, kind of proves that he is the exact opposite of a Neo-Nazi. Because Nazis (or Neo-Nazis) were never known for their tolerance or patience.
I've always said that society is pretty sick but if you look after your own corner you can make that better. If everyone done this things would become a whole lot better.
Peterson and Zizek showed ultimate professionalism during this debate. Both were incredibly respectful even in spite of the 7th grade audience members repeated sophomoric interruptions.
Jordan Peterson was a joke, he admitted that he didn't even bother engaging with the literature in preparation for this debate. If you did that at even an undergraduate level, you would expect to be expelled from all future debates. What a pathetic sophist.
@@lisztdylan7846 Yeah he's a fucking moron. Is this news to you? His sophomoric, veiled christianity bullshit is responsible for delaying our inevitable attainment of Socialist utopia by at least a couple of years. Have you read his book? If you haven't, congrats, don't.
What a wonderful and rare setting. I miss debates like these so damn much. The contention, the value, the language, the thought process, everything just exudes pure passion and intelligence from both sides. Zezek is such a good piece of chaos and thought-provoking energy and Peterson with his passionate aspiration to speak orderly, eloquently and truthfully. Both are amazing. You could see Zezek trying his utmost to confine his point into a good package that is worth contending with. You could also see Peterson wrestling with all the vocab and knowledge in his head to put out an answer that is worthy of the question. You know every time I see Peterson's habits and body language when answering questions, I'm always jealous. Within his brief silence when he is formulating an answer, you could almost see him looking within himself, searching very carefully and attentively through his knowledge and expertise, picking the exact right words to respond with, then almost simultaneously but slightly before every word he says, you could feel a process of self-debate and curation to guarantee that every word uttered is necessary and adds value to is being said. There are no fillers or spiced up vocab than many intellectuals fall in the habit of using. His statements end being pure essence of his collective cabacity as an educator, guide, intellectual and at the base of it all, a clinical psychologist. While respect is said to be earned, in Peterson's case, you could see it being demanded and rightfully given.
Both had very convincing arguments. Everyone praises the civil manner in which they conducted themselves. Sure, that's a standard you can use. And it must feel like a breath of fresh air if you spend a lot of time on social media. To me, a great debate is when what you've heard makes you want to order your own thoughts and come up with a reply as if you could join the debate. The following is what I came up with. A truly scary obstacle will make it tempting to get caught up in deflecting your energy and time towards inconsequential goals. Given this general mechanism by which the mind protects itself, the individual and the social arenas do not present equal risks. When choosing your battles, you have to take into account that you are way more likely to get lost and achieve nothing if you focus on social problems. This is because it is vastly more difficult to take meaniningful action on a social level than on an individual one. You have way more control on what you do than on what others do. Before you go on the offensive, you have to actively protect yourself against getting sidetracked. It doesn't mean that focusing on your personal problems won't get you sidetracked. Navel-gazing is a real risk. But you do have to make a choice whenever one option presents a lower risk of getting lost in meaningless action. And picking between the social and the personal is one of those choices. What matters is that you strengthen the ability to not lose focus whenever you have the chance. Because you will need that ability when things get really scary.
You make a good point, and I believe that emphasizes Peterson's focus on how it plays out in clinical situations. In my opinion as a mental health therapist, I have seen many cases where there is a truly unjust situation someone is stuck in (abuse, difficult relationships, bullying) and sometimes, especially with children, they are incapable of just removing themselves from the situation or magically having a new job with a nicer boss. Sometimes the most you can do is help them work on themselves to be more resilient in the face of difficult circumstances. It increases their wisdom, insight into themselves, and sometimes that can translate into insight regarding other people's suffering, thus increasing their own patience towards others.
This is an excellent point well made in my opinion, and helped me verbalise some thought I have had alot around this subject. Thanks for putting across your thoughts into the pool, I greatly appreciate it.
@@dlee73 Or you'll hold protests and marches after your little brother is murdered by government officials, and then people will ask you why you aren't cleaning your room
@@auralit3624 maybe you should ask why that happened to your brother. Or maybe you should ask why you weren't there for your brother to stop that situation from happening. Was your brother on drugs? Depressed? Angry? Did you talk to him? Did you try to help? Maybe you were estranged, and could have reached out. It's very easy to blame others. It's very easy to blame the government. However, what could you have done? I think that's a question that one shouldn't ignore. You need to take responsibility first. I'm not saying that bad things don't happen. I'm just saying that you can speak with truth when you come from that perspective.
Hi @@bernie2124. I think the emphasis that a lot of people are placing right now on personal responsibility is a coping mechanism. It ties into the "just world hypothesis," which you can google if you're interested. The thing is that if there's always some way you can take personal responsibility, it inoculates you psychologically against the threat of a cruel, unpredictable, and often unjust world. I think the desire for that psychological security makes many people callous.
Maybe some people get themselves in order by trying to help save the world. I’d also say, that having your house in order can make you more effective at saving the world, on the flip side, with your house being in chaos, you have now another point of view to learn from, and are more rounded on what you understand.
That second sentence was honestly 85-90% of the point Peterson was making: If you can't get your own life in order, how do you expect to change anybody else's? Which is a simple concept honestly that people are overcomplicating for some reason.
Jordan’s main point is basically control all the things you can control to the best of your ability and that will position yourself best to deal with things you can’t control.
This is *exactly* the problem I have with many people in my generation (Milennials). They are looking to the government and to society for their wellbeing. No one will ever give a fuck about you as much as you care about you (okay, maybe your mom or somethin). Your responsibility is to make due with what you got. Most people are expecting a clean house without first cleaning their room. Sure, society might shit on you but they're always gonna do that and, many times, they won't be held to account for it. Nevertheless, you have to continue, because you want a clean room. Separate yourself from the people harming you and clean your rooms till your house gets clean.
@@baronvonbeandip doesn't make anything true. What is the ”right thing“ to do? Is it what Peterson wants or what others want? Even all mothers will have a different kind of caring, what is a different order to any house, clean to any house?
Zizek: Society is fucked up for so and so reasons. What happens when you clean your room and you’re still stuck in North Korea Peterson: He thinks localism and individualism will be superior. Because the Bible and his archetypal narrative about redeeming fallen humanity. Zizek is right, the answer is yes, please. Both cleaning your room and helping to democratically involve yourself in the transformation of society. Peterson argues for a false Libertarian utopia that cannot solve the global problems we face like Climate Change (he’s a denier), and really has no existing form of localism that actually exists. It seems to only empower what’s already there, strong multi-national corporations who would benefit from the reduction of government institutions.
@@DZ-yk2ew most climate change deniers dont actually deny that the climate is changing. What they argue agains tis the fear mongering death cult that have turned it into the next apocalypse. Just look at who's funding all the groups and who has all their money in green energy and renewable shit. We're not going to die and our western societies have the greatest level of hygene and cleanliness that we have ever had comparitively speaking to the population. The problem with that as well is that 99% of the time when people replace tyrants, they replace them with another tyrant because they have no other model of the world except of what they know. When you can set yourself in order you can then go on to take responsibility to lead the revolution to greater things rather than go out and do the same shit as the dictator you just usurped.
@@MrJabbothehut don’t play that dumb ass game with me. We are obviously referring to anthropogenic climate change, that human activity is having permanent damage on the climate and ecology. The whole world of experts is a death cult? You’re a fucking goner mate, no sense in reasoning with delusional conspiracy theorists who don’t know the science. People like you and Peterson merely need to be defeated, the debate is over on this issue.
@@DZ-yk2ew woah you sound really not angry and speaking/acting out of pure fear. You must be a blast to know irl. I didnt say the whole world of experts. I said that those who screech that the world is going to end are using completely unreliable models and suggesting completely stupid methods without even realising how much progress has been made in cleaning up our societies. You my friend probably live every day in fear and negativity because youve worked yourself up to the point where you have nothing better to do than worry about the weather when you know barely jackshit of how unreliable climate models are and how industries and markets work and drive progress. Guess what, there are more trees on planet earth now than there were 100 years ago. We recycle way more now and are infinitely more efficient and less wateful than 100 years ago. Go complain to the chinese about your climate cult but leave me and others the fuck alone with your doomsday bullshit.
What you learn in school (to listen to each other, discuss and let others finish) and eventually profit from having different truths to center and focus a problem from different angles towards the center is a big difference to the debates on a lot of political exchanging journalism platforms, where they fight for which truth wins, because only one is allowed to exist and therefore move to left or right and are not balanced.
I could understand it’s a two sided basis. Having your own life in order is beneficial to being able to control your life and be able to see the chaos in the world and where exactly it is, but the contrary to that is you may be born or through happenstance be put into a position where everything around you is chaotic and if only you could see that it can be peaceful you’d be able to find the motivation in yourslef to get your life together. I think it can ho both ways. They’re both taleneted and highly knowledgeable, so again it’s always going to be back and forth on what the right answer is.
I find so sad that there are so much people who view this debate as a puerile attempt from either part to "obliterate" the other, and not as the lesson on civil and productive debate that it is. This type of debate is the stuff that human progress is made of.
No, no! I think about the contribution, the amalgamation that the clashes/skirmishes of those brilliant minds create! the perspective! Ah! it's very very very intriguing!
Unfortunately there are certain topics we can't debate. Just ask the ADL. Until there is zero censorship and 100% scientific transparency, we'll remain stagnant.
I think I’ve heard that phrase maybe 2 years ago and since then I still think it’s the most terrifying phrase (in a good way) if we make the necessary changes.
Nobody is perfect and nobody gets there house in order. They can do there best through the utmost unpredictable battles. What Jordan teaches is how to manage life positively and intelligently rationally through life's battles. Thank you J. P
“The light that you discover in your life is proportionate to the level of darkness you’re willing to forthrightly confront.” I’m gonna let that one sink in for a bit.
@@zicokahuroa3660 That seems about right, where "light" is true contentment and "darkness" is everything that separates you from that contentment. In order to have absolute contentment, you need to have successfully navigated through the entirety of your own personal "hell," which is a gargantuan task. At least that's my takeaway.
Light is the polar flip of dark and all polarities need each other to exist.until you know the duality of a subject you can only know up to half of its nature
@@zicokahuroa3660 to better convey what i mean, i like the way Allen Watts put it .you cannot have a background without a foreground you cannot have good without bad dark without light or a wave without a crest.an in its nature you can only know part of anything by looking at one of its angles.our conscious egos have driven us to unnatural conclusions and expectations.the dark will never defeat the light they cannot be without each other.its for these same reason love is so close to hate and all passion is just a color
Man, I could listen to debates like this for hours. Pure intellectual debate where both sides give one another the opportunity to express everything that they want to say without cutting in and changing the trajectory of the debate in a mindless fashion.
I agree, but it is kind of off putting that there are no longer discussions like this with very attentive audiences. I recently watched the Foucault Chomsky debate and not only was it as respectful as this through a language barrier but the audience didn't give a standing ovation each time their favorite guy made a point, let alone really clap at all.
@SebkarpO :: My admiration for your deep interest in "debates like this for hours. Pure intellectual debate ..." It reminded me of my own likes :: _Man, I could listen to opera for hours._
SHAME - the image of Zizek supposedly sticking his middle finger up to Peterson is so NOT representative of this debate. This is one of the most respectful debates imaginable, where both debaters were so open to listen to one and other. Although the full debate is over two and a half hours, it is very much worth watching.
Yeah, the point is that since the personal problem stems from a social problem, you would solve the personal problem by solving a social problem. But no matter how many clean rooms there are, there will be a space outside of those rooms that is still filthy, because in the end, a lot of the problems we have are in the fucking hallways.
This was a beautiful debate, very respectful and interesting. Ironic that the "Radical Revolution" posting this here as a prize fight is exactly the kind of group-versus-group craziness that both speakers were deploring.
I think Peterson eventually answered the question perfectly. Zizek: "Why do you say 'put your house in order?' What if it is in that order because of society?" Peterson: "That is why we start with our house. It is not seperate from society, so if we can fix our house, we can get some insight on how to fix society."
I honestly think Zizek's argument here was weak to begin with. What if my life is a mess for reasons out of my control. Who can say with all certainty that they have full autonomy and control of their situation. Do concepts as abstract as freedom, will and autonomy even exist? We can't know for sure. That doesn't mean we should be doomed to not do anything, even if it's pointless and we are just deceiving ourselves when we strive to better ourselves and the world
lmfao that clearly tells you that u have understood nothing so is the person that replied to u with the name DRg. house and society is totally different ofc basement dwellers cant differentiate. peterson just toold an age old proverb and told it in his book those who are ignorant of such folks think this is some einstein lvl shit lol.
the "put your house in order" argument is valid if its used properly. on a general note you should follow it. however, there are many situations where the problem is withing a higher structure and working on your house here is doomed to fail or far too slow. also it should not be used to shut down someones argument. there are many people who can produce valuable stuff, despite not getting along with their own life. i even think peterson is part of that but thats just my feeling.
@@BuGGyBoBerl I agree partially with what you said, in that, as advice is one to be pragmatic about life. But as a statement describing how the human being interacts with it's environment is very accurate. What action or what kind of interaction can we have if it doesn't, as insignificant as it might be, begin with a conviction to pursue the needs of our own? I'm not saying we are voracious and stupidly egoistic creatures, that's a completely different topic. I'm saying we always are irremediably tied to ourselves. And the microcosmos we have in our heads is nothing but a fraction of the bigger there's outside. I think this is the logic behind Peterson's argument, I don't know if he is aware of it though. Even caring exclusively about te bigger problems means caring about yours, but not covertly so
You can get your house in order by paying closer attention to how you treat yourself, and how you treat others. Two roads that lead back to the same cleaner place. Considering how we treat each other plays an equal role in how we see and feel about ourselves. These two approaches are not at odds with each other:)
Omg, I thought that I have made my google account in dutch or something that's why youtube tries to put dutch subtitles on zhizhek, but no, it's like that for everyone hahahaha it's so funny because i can agree that zhizhek speaks as Dutch is written xD
It took Peterson a minute but the main gist of his answer is around 6:40. Basically, set yourself in order so that when trying to solve much broader problems, you can do so in a more productive and responsible way.
LUF LUOS Lol you made yourself look like one of those “sound smart” guys and then failed. Abir wasn’t saying Paul is not being clear, in fact he’s saying the opposite. He’s being clear with what he understood. He’s literally talking about interpretation.
Very rare when Peterson meets someone who is actually an intellectual, who somewhat and quite a bit is able to debate his own subjects, so he is honored, so much so he can't help it.
@@robertskensberg Indeed, but is it just me, or does JP have a very different tone when addressing people who he may believe (most likely believes imo) are not on his intellectual level? At least to my mind he can be rather curt at times; almost for effect. I still agree with a lot of his arguments mind.
@@AnthonyDonnellyTT I think it is because he is delighted and excited to finally have the debate with someone who challenges him intellectually on such a high level when usually he looks as if he is cold to other people he dabates. He probably just tries to be objective and professional. Maybe he sometimes is too hard on people but I would be like it too because of listening over and over the same arguments and often stupid opinions of some people.
I think a lot of Jordan fans here missed Zizek’s point. Jordan says, “You don’t have the right to try and fix society until you fix your own personal life,” and Zizek says, “Why not do both at the same time, since a portion of my personal problems _cannot be fixed_ without fixing society.” Zizek is not saying we shouldn’t work on ourselves. Rather, he’s calling Jordan out for saying that people shouldn’t try to change society until their lives are in order. Well, how much order? When do we know we are sorted out enough to move on to social problems? What is the objective criteria? Zizek has a very good point.
I believe Peterson's answer has well answered Zizek's critic. Peterson is all about creating narratives, experiences and the knowledge that build towards a change first in one's life and then, having recognised problems in the small realm of our life, it is possible to change the bigger. In this specific case, as for most of his speeches, Peterson seems to provide practical advice to his problems, while Zizek simply ends by justifying the inability to change through this unbeatable agent that is society. And one is a psychologist and the other a philosopher. I would rather listen to the critics of the latter and the solutions of the former.
Be wise in the little things before you partake in trying to change bigger things. It’s that simple. The way I see it, we’ve all got a lot to learn and every day should be a lesson, but there is definitely a certain degree of wisdom, patience, and understanding that is needed before you decide you want to fix the world. In this instance, Peterson explains it as first sorting out your household in a metaphorical sense. It makes perfect sense. We don’t deploy our children out into the world to fix world problems, we put them through school and we teach them basic morals and responsibilities beforehand. The world would catch fire if we threw them in blind. The same could be applied to an adult wanting to fix larger issues - deal within yourself and your household first and then deal with the rest once you have the basics down. Most people, don’t. They jump right in, their intentions are typically not in the right place and they don’t have an understanding of how things particularly work and why they work the way that they do. That isn’t wise. Not to say anyone will ever be “perfect”, but there is a certain degree of wisdom one should reach before they decide they want to challenge and change larger issues. Proceed with caution, essentially. That’s completely reasonable and I don’t think someone should tackle larger issues while still becoming acquainted with smaller ones. With that, I must humbly disagree with Zizek’s rhetoric.
Yes, guys, I get Peterson’s point. But if you just focus on your own personal issues, there are going to be plenty of other people (personal lives in order or not) who take social issues into their own hands, whether on the side of the establishment or counter-establishment. So, isn’t it sort of like sticking your head in the sand to focus solely on your personal life? As Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Well, it appears that Peterson is organized, hence, he has taken actions toward aiding others (society) in reorganizing their lives. Many individuals have fundamental issues, and he is assisting them in rectifying these challenges. For me addressing personal matters first before engaging in societal betterment make perfect sense. Once personal affairs are in order, we can then contribute to society,that is engaging in both endeavors simultaneously.
The reason you set your own house in order, is not just so that you have some semblance of order in your own life, it is to give an example to others, the benefits of what having order would be like in their lives. Whatever you do, you contribute to the reality of life. The world may be in utter chaos and in turmoil but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make an attempt to create order. It is for one’s own personal benefit, to see the effort first hand of someone going against the dysfunction of society because this gives the individual a mentality that things do not have to remain in this chaotic void of despair, even if it is seemingly a solitary effort.
The ecology example was an EXCELLENT example!! They encourage individual to recycle, but yet it is the major corporations causing the majority of the global pollution.
They've created a society of corporatism where at the personal level you would look stupid playing your part saving the environment. I've tried this at my workplace minimizing the printing of papers and I was literally about to lose my job. They now force you to wear the silly environmentally deadly masks and they can take disciplinary actions if not complied but when it comes to environment they care hell, rather they've created useless Audit procedures which compel you to exploit nature and rape ethics.
@@lola1987fudgeyouu yeah... like Jordan had said.. I am not saying there is no domain for public/social acts in your life but you have to first set your house in order before going for reorganising the world ... Start change from individual smaller level then proceed towards higher purpose...
@David Winehouse i dont have stats on me but last time I looked into individual pollution vs corporate one it was comically low....our actions trully have barely noticeable effect on the issue at hand (it got even worse when china stopped accepting recycled materials because its cheaper for them to make new plastic than to process recycling now..so In many regions even tho you throw plastic bottles into a specific "recycling bit" company that collects trash will toss it into the same pile....reason why they are not announcing this is that, it will be hard af to train people to recycle)....regardless, we as a individuals have little to no impact on this issue, its all in hands of corporations.
I think peterson has this perspective as he is primarily a psychologist, not a sociologist. Hence, his point is centred around overcoming psychological or psychiatric imperfections first and only then you tackle the bigger picture of what is wrong with society. Zizek is a sociologist and hence, he views the world as sociological systems and taking action means confronting societal ills. I think both speakers are right to a certain extent.
Zizek is not a sociologist... He has extensive understandings of and experience with psychoanalysis. He is one of the most educated intellectuals of psychoanalysis alive.
A true psychologist, understands that the individual does not exist as a monad, but as a being in intimate and constitutive relationship with the Other. In any case, from the perspective of the poorest psychology, Peterson's argument (the "rule") is a fallacy. That is, in the perspective of being "primarily a psychologist" he is also wrong (Sorry if there are mistakes, it is not my native language).
I didn't get Peterson's point at 8:50, he gives the example that is countering his argument. Recycling the cans is exactly trying to "set your house in order first".
Someday I hope I’ll see a long discussion between Dr Peterson and Eckhart Tolle. One loves filling the silence with the ideas in which he so deeply finds his identity. The other enjoys watching his own mind before speaking. It would be fascinating.
@@evolution__snow6784No clean you’re room is find you’re inner flaws recognize them work on them so you can work of society. Even if you are in Korea, for example if you are in a Dictatorship and you’re being indoctrinated by a certain idea you need to clean you’re room. But what does that men ?; It means identify that you’re being indoctrinated , find the flaws do you’re homework fix you’re self and try to fix society for example or try to make the best of the situation. Some times beating the system is almost impossible so you need to reinvent yourself, find meaning in that society and make it the best you can. An example of not cleaning you’re room is the great number of voters that don’t find there inner flaws of their thinking or morality but want to fix society not knowing what they really want. And I am with Zizek in this, I have a pessimist view on the people. People are lazy to really inform themselves. And they make lazy assumptions or accusations.
Lot of people missing Zizek's point, I would say. He is not stating that it's just society's fault that your house is in disorder; he is stating that your personal problems and/or bad decisions are NOT the only cause why your house may not be in order. It would be pretty naive (and perhaps even dangerous) to suggest that your problems stem exclusively from you. Indeed, sociopolitical environments can have a tremendous impact in how your 'room' looks like. This does not mean that one should use the old excuse of 'this country's a ruin, so of course my life is miserable'. As in any philosophical debate, Zizek is challenging - and these challenges are necessary.
darkanguiel -Peterson, unlike some commenters, understood his point and either countered it, refined his point, or agreed with Zizek’s point and expanded on it to show how it agreed with his view. Peterson’s point is to find a place to focus and move out from that, and since you can control your behavior, that is where you will learn about making successful decisions and making corrections will be easier which will in turn create confidence for addressing those issues outside of the self.
@@chadmwilliams89 A dangerously wrong, but somewhat popular view. First define "society". It doesn't matter what form (save defining it as "an unchangeable thing", another easily disproved claim) that takes, it is still possible for an individual to affect change within or upon it. Look no further than Zizek for proof, though there are many examples both good and bad.
It's alot more effective to fix your own issues than others for many reasons and if society did that as a whole each individual did it then many of the issues the bigger issues in the society group would automatically start being fixed. It's a very simple concept and that's why it's gained so much traction from so many so fast
Screw that click-baity thumbnail. I hope everyone realizes that this is amazing. Having two individuals of this kind of intelligence in an actual conversation and free for everyone to watch. I think they're having a blast! I think Zizek is having a blast because he is a pure thinking machine who's interest in thinking about the problems is higher than the temptation to arrive at any particular conclusion. And Peterson must have given him new perspectives to think from because I could not Imagine this man sitting quietly and listening for so long. Also I think Peterson really enjoyed this conversation because it must be so refreshing, soo much more rewarding to have a civil, focused and productive conversation, with someone equally intelligent I would say, who is also interested in the truth rather than A truth. We need more of this, much more, and less "Zizek crushes Peterson on X subject" or "Peterson obliterates Sam Harris on Y subject". If you think that's what it's about you're missing the point.
Thanks dude. I've watched this entire debate and it's so much more than clean your room. I think JBP fans who are only fond of his so called destruction videos are missing the crux of what JBP is all about. It's unfortunate. I hope they get him/his message someday.
Exactly! I do love Peterson even if I'm an atheist that doesn't mean we can't appreciate others opinions, agreeing with them or disagreeing as long as are doing it in a"civilized" way! That's what a debate is all about
George, your thought provoking, perhaps newly understood inclusion is what all this free thought is about. and, yes, if people thought more about how perfectly our uniquness as individuals works WITH and toward the common good and LESS about how we have the chance to call conquered or crushed, we'd have less North Koreas and more South Koreas. God bless the first amendment and capitalism.
@@androgynousmaggot9389 I'm a Christian, and as much as I hope you come to know Jesus as your savior, I cannot begin to tell you how important your voice is in the exchange of ideas. As much as I hate for you (but completely understand) your doubt in God, I think I understand why you lean toward doubting his existence rather than affirming it. Im no Bible beater but I wish I could hear your story. if you can message me on this feel free to.
Very true its not about the winning individual within the conversation , whats important are the questions brought up from such debate and how we intellectually pick them apart. I agree fully being able to listen to such intellectuals without paying a fee is quite the thing in its self. Thought provoking both men are the height of critical thinking, if each of us takes a positive from this its not who won, we all win from the knowledge both men hold. Its the fact we take away things to question and expand ones own thinking brain with guidance from greatness for free 😁
But the problem is you can not wait for personal perfection(because it doesn’t exist) before trying to help others with their problems if you are sympathetic
IDK, I feel like this says more about the expectations of the viewer. Anyone mildly familiar with Zizek will know he's not going to be literally shouting aggressively/angrily at a person but instead having an intelligent discussion, basically, with perhaps some jokes and at most a little fun sarcasm.
Well a challenge isn't something evil, it is just that. I think it actually hit on point this time. You don't even have to disagree with someone to challange them. For example if i challange a friend in her/his beliefs. It is just used as another word to instigate discussion.
All of Jordan Peterson's fans only argument against zizek in this comment section is that he looks, talks, and acts weird. Which is very childish and nonsensical.
dude is full of shit like all these help self gurus.... probably had asshole parents. when shit hits the fan, it benzo time for people like him. his whole message is basically "you need to toughen up"... just he basic abusive parents shit.
@@emmanuelatti86 Yeah, from my perspective, the herd-applause mentality is more present in North American culture. We like to reduce debates and discourse to egotistical rebuffs.
Zizek and Peterson is literally on the same boat. What I am seeing from this debate is that Zizek is constantly trying to help Peterson to let loose of himself and become much aggressive and go on the strategically-offensive against his "enemies" in this theory.
I dont see that he killed him in anything. Zizek is just asking with questions, like usual balkanik communist who wants to make other in insecurity with questions. Peterson gave all answers like high power.
These two are so good together. I love their intellectual back and forth. More please. P.S. The comments from the radical ideologues on both extremes are unbearable. "Peterson got destroyed" "Zizek got destroyed". Grow up, no one got "destroyed". We all learned something. If you're attentive enough and can listen to what they are actually saying that is...
