What happens when the Hegelian dialectic remains implemented when the issue no longer exists? In fact, it begins to create its own injustice. Where social justice is no longer just in its traditional sense. Because id argue that's exactly what we're experiencing.
@@Kitajima2 life happens... this is exactly what peterson so often is talking about. The importent thing is to get back on your feet and oh boy he did. Whether you think the benzo addiction is his fault or not, being able to get back in the driverseat is incredible. I learned that with my cig addiction
I think that they were pretty honest with each other, and yes, imho I saw even mutual respect... and that did not go well with more strict followers of one or the other.
Really? What I see here is Zizek being respectful and Peterson stunted after perceiving how inferior is his position here. I much doubt he'd remain civil if the positions were inverted.
The three most important things you need to know about Marx and Marxism are: first of all, Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. It (communism) is inherent upon the destruction of both private AND state ownership and control, and he believed this was impossible unless followed by the entire planet. In other words, unless the entire planet is both stateless and void of private ownership, communism as Marx sees it has not yet been achieved. Thirdly, in order to get to this point, Marx believed there would be a transitionary period between capitalism and communism, which he called “the dictatorship of the proletariat”. Not an actual dictatorship, this meant the taking over of both the state and private entities by the working class, which Marx believed would shortly lead to the vanquishing of classes and all global hierarchies/hegemonies. In other words, Marx ultimately believed that if we let the working class take over all corporations and governments, they would eventually no longer be necessary, nor would fiat currency, and henceforth classes would no longer exist. Everyone would just go to work to go to work and provide each other with everything they needed, with no fiat currency to muddle up the picture. This is what Marx actually preached and you can understand how, knowing this, being told that a country like China, which has its own currency, 2 stock exchanges with 5+ trillion US dollar market caps and clear class discrepancy, is “communist” is pretty much the same as being told that the color red is blue. Increased or total state control of the markets is not communism, it is fascism. Abolishment of the market is communism.
But thanks to cucks like Lenin and the ussr, this “dictatorship of the proletariat” transitionary period somehow started getting called “socialism”, even though it clearly wasn’t, as state and private hierarchies and fiat currency still exist during this period. And then they ruined this transitionary period entirely by failing to actually let the proletariats run these institutions and began practicing full blown state capitalism. Most Americans think socialism = the dictatorship of the proletariat. It does not. The dictatorship of the proletariat, a concept they also heavily misunderstand in and of itself because of how much the process was butchered in the Russian revolution and even pre nazi Germany, is meant to be an extremely short transitionary period on the path to actual socialism. The reality is that what Marx really thought socialism was would work great, but the problem is, Marx didn’t really know how to successfully execute the transitionary period. He thought he did, and then it miserable failed in Paris in the 1840s, and later on in Germany and Russia as I already said. Still, to this day, no one truly knows how to execute the transitionary period, and each time a nations people have tried it has been brutally quashed by fascism. We should take solace in the fact that Bernie’s campaign didn’t make it further. If it did, Chris Matthews would likely turn out to be right, in that it would be akin to the rebirth of Nazi Germany, except, obviously, not at the hands of Bernie’s movement, but at the hands of the reactionaries’ response.
@@rbfabc the CCP is still in control of most big companies (owning at least half the shares) and is planning to transition to socialism by 2049 - maybe this is what the dictatorship of the proletariat has to look like for now
It is important to states that a dictatorship proletariat society, is still a society where the capitalists means of production exist. And when we seize the state, if we maintain the state in its burgeois structure will be no use for us. We need to abolish the standard army, standard police, standard institutions. Principally, we must descentralize the state, limited its powers to where is strictly necessary, following the example of the workers from Paris Commune. (Btw, sorry for the english)
@O'Shay Muir Agreed. There's room to criticize Lenin (as there is with anyone), but his actions meant that the material conditions of millions of people were improved (Lenin should not be blamed for things that he had no intention to carry out, and the USSR was better than the Tsars). His insights into 20th century capitalism and beyond still prove to be fantastic tools for understanding the world, and his work was always ultimately concerned with making people's lives better. Unfair, ahistorical, and purist critiques with the benefit of 100 years worth of hindsight is unhelpful and usually makes me think that the critic is LARPing a little bit
The fact that Peterson is still taken seriously after his display in this conversation (I mean the entire almost 3 hours, not just this clip) really highlights the education problem we face in the western world. It's frankly embarrassing.
If only Peterson knew anything about Marx or Hegel... this may have been a more interesting discussion. Instead, we got a sparknotes interpretation of the Communist Manifesto devoid of context. Good job, Jordan!
Of course, and everyone is saying how stupid Jordan is, and how little he knows about marxism. They're pretending to be more intelligent than JP, when in reality they've got.. maybe a third of his intelligence.
@@Elias-ru5xk Or maybe people are inteligent enough to understand Peterson when he says that he has only read the Communist Manifesto in preparation for a debate about Marxism, which is not taking the debate seriously. And you don't need to be an expert in Marxism to see the that either.
@@Elias-ru5xk You mean Zizek? I'll give you that this debate wasn't very productive, but as far as I'm concerned, it was about Marxism vs capitalistic ideas. Not about Peterson. Zizek is a HUGE expert on the topic. Peterson didn't bring any serious arguments because he didn't prepare himself seriously for the debate. It's that simple.
@@Solaire_of_Astora13 Yea, that's true. I have to agree. But he could have criticized Peterson's views, why capitalism is necessary from a psychological standpoint.
Didn't he contradict himself when he first presented the Hegelian openness and avoidance of the teleological element in Marxism and then at the end mentions that we need radical openness to know where we're going? Doesn't that radical openness actually refer to a process of transformation without the pretence of knowing exactly where you're going?
Z said that he was most interested in Das Kapital and the outlining of the contradictions of capitalism, which were and are readily observable. I would argue that despite the teleological aspect of Marx used in the political sense, it still can be read in a very open way, and has been by many writers. If you consider Marx concept of alienation and the idea of moving out of alienation as the teleological goal rather than "communism", then dialectical materialism can still be radically open, and I think people like Marcuse and now Mate have pointed that out. One of my Freudian psychology teachers grew up in Yugoslavia and there was a combination of Freudian and Marx dialectical materialism as psychology there. I read only a little of Zizek in the 90's, but being that Zizek is inspired by both Freud and Marx and Hegel, it is likely he is more interested in psychological ideas of Marx.
He "knows where he's going" by choosing the renounce of teleology, while in this path everything else is unsure. This is not a teleological step, but a renounce on teleology.
You know, when the proverbial fire gets a bit hotter under the proverbial feet, and I am faced with eventual, real life consequences of my convictions, I tend to pick up Hegel a bit more, and let Marx sit on the shelf. You know. Like one does in those circumstances. I really don't understand what the fuss is about.
Agreed. I respect both, and ultimately respect Peterson for have a positive influence on the lives on many people. But they can’t compare. Zizek is a scholar. Peterson is a media personality.
@@juanaldasoro8670 oh just a guy with a high intellect and many degrees who your not aware of because he is not on MSM. Most of his Covid 19 you tube episodes have been "mysteriously" removed by Boobtube.
I don't agree with either of them. The debate is really about the axiomatic assumptions on which the rest of our conclusions are based. It boils down to the question of if "the world conforms to the mind" or if the "mind conforms to the world." Plato already answered this question, but neither of Zizek nor Peterson seem capable of understanding the answer. What a shame.
"It is a sign of a certain moral courage and... and... and it's a sign of a certain temperament and it makes you charismatic and attractive... and... and I just wanna smash it bro."
He's a veritable orchestra of bodily tics. Once you get used to them and just concentrate on what he has to say he has a lot of good stuff to say. Still haven't worked out exactly where he's coming from as there seems to be a lot of observations with no coherent whole but that may be because I have not looked well enough into him.
He didn't say he's not a Marxist. He said, ”I describe myself more as a Hegelian.” If you read his book, you would know that Zizek got his influence from Hegel, Marx, Lacan, Freud, etc. He still believes that Marx’s critique of capitalism is actual today and still considers himself a communist because he thinks in the long term capitalism will not be able to confront problems we are facing (ecology, refugees, etc.). The title of your video is misleading.
Google não deixou eu colocar um nome maior que esse Well he wrote many books lol and you can find Marx, Hegel, or Lacan everywhere in those books. But of course, ”The Sublime Object of Ideology” is his masterpiece.
Google não deixou eu colocar um nome maior que esse Start with “Sublime Object of Ideology”. It’s his first and best book. He also started a more political phase with the books “Violence” and “First as Tragedy, Then as Farce”- I’d recommend you read them next.
@the simp son he might have been in a bad shape already. We know, JP has been hospitalized all over Europe and in Russia for months. He even contracted coronavirus at a hospital there. Regardless, this interview did not do JP good. Žižek probably worsened his mental issues, displaying such supremacy over JP.
@@Xgenerati I don't see how zizek defeated jp? The debate seemed like a respectful exchange. I'm not well read in Marx nor familiar with zizek. Were there jokes I just didn't catch?
@@mookosh I don't think you missed anything - I saw what you saw. There are just too many idiots who can't appreciate a discussion without making it competitive. Also people seem to take JP's honesty in his responses as weakness and therefore 'defeat'. To me he just seems refreshingly open to others' opinions and eager to learn from discussions, even if it means being corrected, instead of hiding behind bravado and intellectual dishonesty in fear of being wrong.
@@danoliver3053 same. It seems like a lot of intellectual gatekeeping. "oh wow, how can jp criticize Marxism when he hasn't even read Marx! Lol what a fraud". Well the obvious answer is that people purporting to be Marxists have made his life intolerable and the writings of anti-Marxists, like the gulag archipelago have given historical context to his lived experience. If he's so ignorant, then he should be easy to "defeat" and I think what shines through is how much Peterson learned talked to an actual Marxist thinker about how you can be a Marxist without being the kinds of low tier thinkers you find in sociological academia. How actual Marxist philosophers aren't complete imbeciles. That's a good story to me. I still think zizek is wrong, but at least he's not completely off his rocker, and I think Peterson felt the same, commenting that zizek really harms himself by calling himself a Marxist instead of a zizekist because the zizek point of view is so much more reasonable than those expressed by Marx. Zizek himself endorsed this point by saying he considers himself more hegellian than [an orthodox] Marxist. Hegel is not the same as Marx. That admission indicates that zizek understands and perhaps agrees with Peterson that Marxism is insufficient. They differ in terms of how insufficient they find Marx, of course. Still I saw this as a great "debate". I wish more actual academics would do this kind of exchange rather than boycott Peterson out of principle. I know I've been turned on to zizek by the debate, I'm sure if other great thinkers stepped forward I might like them too.
It's just bad audio from the publisher of this video.. There is another, a bit longer video, with better quality. Or it could be your phone, that is the problem. But yeah, I think Zizek should work on his speech impediment, especially considering he is a passionately and eager spokesman. And it can really annoy some, and can be a setback to the importance of the substance, when people are struggling with ignoring it and fully listen
@@bernardocorrea8010 not necessarily an argument but definitely a point if you say "Why do you still like a 170 year old theory?” while also using an even older theory whats the point of you saying it in the first place? asides from trying to sound smart in which it isnt
@@paulludwigewaldvonkleist4039 Pointless. Old or new, reasoning works with data. Youre making a judgemental value of something by its time. That isnt logic.
@@bernardocorrea8010 thats the point, its pointless. the statement itself that jp said is pointless, jp just wants to sound smart by making that statement while not bringing any value
Imagine basing much of your career as a public intellectual on loudly objecting to Marx and Marxists without even having fucking familiarized yourself with the basic literature on the subject.
@@rossleeson8626 This was a debate with between the contemporary "popular intellectuals" from the left political ideology (Zizek) and the right, or liberal conservative, ideology (Peterson). Zizek were supposed to defend the Marxist critique of capitalism, and Peterson were supposed to defend the capitalistic ideal, and furthermore critique the Marxist political and economic theory.
@@oliveronderisin5674If you actually take some time to listen to what he has to say it is quite apparent. Zizek has a lot of cool takes on how ideology functions within society, bringing together the ideas of Hegel, Marx, and Lacan. It helps to familiarize yourself with these three thinkers to better understand but he has to say. Sometimes he says things that are provocative and people get hung up on the words rather than the meaning, but I think a large part of that is their problem for not valuing substance over decor (Although even he would admit he's a bit of a chaotic provocateur in his speech). Zizek is also hilariously vulgar and anti-PC.... Whereas Peterson is just anti-PC with no humor to it.
Sure, but you are not acknowledging the accompanying respect and nuance. In good faith, to do so otherwise can easily fall into dichotomous thinking. Good observation though.
@@huyochita5386 okay well in which area? in which fields would you classify him as charlatan? because there are cases to be made, for example: I take his knowledge and beliefs regarding politics and religion as biased towards keeping his current audience intact, but on the subject of his philosophical understanding he is very proficient and has helped many people. His clinical career where he helps victims of self destruction is honorable to say the least.
@@thecrimsonkid3574 Yes, but then again, he is public figure not because of his history as academic or work as clinical psychologists. He made a story for himself by opposing C-19 bill which added gender as protected class in Canadian Law. He is a charlatan because he applies the psychological expertise onto the sociological problems. He tries to fix systemic problems by applying the things he would say to a single person. Some of his views come close to being a conspiracy theory (the entire thing how failed Marxism then hid in universities and tried to secrectly implement its ideology in other ways). I believe that the things he says as a public figure do more harm than his work as psychologists, because he serves as starting point of radicalization for thousands (milions?) young males. His problem is specifically that he doesnt stick to what he is good at - psycholgy. Because as philosopher or sociologist he simply lacks knowledge, he proved that in this debate when he based his entire argument around Communist Manifesto, that he read IN PREPARATION for the debate (didnt stop him from going on crusade against Marxism)
I feel like Peterson came into this debate thinking he was going to be arguing against some Marxist from Reddit rather than a public intellectual with nuanced and thought out ideas. Don't get me wrong Peterson is an extremely smart guy but coming into a debate with such a 2-dimensional view and almost strawman like view of the ideology he wants to attack seems kind of unwise.
"public intellectual with nuanced and thought out ideas." As Zizek said in the debate, neither of them are accepted in the mainstream academia, which should probably tell you about the state of mainstream academia. Besides the debate wasn't Peterson vs Zizek, it was Happiness: Marxism vs Capitalism; and to quote a commenter "an almost 3 hour recording and I missed the part were Zizek actually championed Marxism", so perhaps it's just simply a bad match up.
To be fair, most people build a straw man of Peterson as well. Nuanced intellectuals are unfortunately scarce, so it isn't hard to see why people get used to seeing the other side as 2-dimensional.
Even a Marxist from Reddit would ruin Peterson if they actually discussed Marxism. Peterson hasn't read any Marx. He hasn't even read Capital. The only thing he's read by Marx is the Communist Manifesto. He has NO CLUE what Marxism is as demonstrated by his neologism "postmodern neo-marxists" and what he defines that to be. I think he simply refuses to address Marx because it's more useful for him to strawman the blue-haired college SJWs as Marxists to grow his brand.
I was just kidding, dialectics is when two Platonic ideals must compromise to synthesize a third ideal form between the two. Marx thought a revolution was the only way for the needs of labour to synthesize with the needs of capital. By seizing all capital lololololol
Fine, but he has bumped into enough Marxists to be very wary of Marx. You can't completely strip Marx of responsibility for consistently producing followers who are so off the mark as to make Marxism into a ridiculous movement. Even if Marx himself didn't propose most of those ridiculous ideas that his followers adhere to.
I love how Peterson is portrayed as a person that values knowledge and intelligence while he admits he never read Marx and yet he passionately fights with marxism
This image he (Peterson) displays of himself - the "hard-thinking" knowledgable persona that is always very serious - imo is desgined for his primarly non-academic viewership that needs this impression of a well-mannered, respectfull and wise person to look up to him. People in academica don't really give a shit about that and don't mind listening to someone like Zizek. And I speak for most humanities students too I'd say when I cringed hard as he brought up the communist manifesto. Everyone knows that it's a piece of progaganda. It was written for the communist party during the 1848 - with coal-miners as its target audience how I like to say - as a literal political propaganda. Works like the capital or the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon are what actual Marxist sociologist base their work on. I'm neither a communist nor a Marxist but that's just common knowledge. This isn't even hate against Peterson. I genuiley like to watch/read some of his psychoanalytic and psychological works. A discussion with Zizek about Freud, Jung and Happiness in the Modern World could've been really interesting. But hell, if Marxism is not your field of expertise, don't have a two-hour discussion with someone that studied Marxism for years. Just not worth to be watched.
@@theeyehead3437 If you're gonna play that game i'll give you something actually useful. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2G3MsDh2ci8.html
Was Picasso most known for his childhood finger paintings? Were these the finger paintings that have caused over 100 million political deaths? If so, what little relevance would Picasso's new works have on them?
J.P. is desperately trying to sound intelligent and interested with his "question". Forgetting is underlying doctrine (†) is 2000 yrs old. I would have tackled him at this point .•°
Peterson’s fumbling around Zizek being somewhere between a Marxist and a complete original is hilarious and shows how poorly read Peterson truly is. Many established figures in philosophy bash Zizek specifically on the grounds that there is nothing original about him - he just takes Hegel and Lacan and dresses their ideas in funny contemporary costumes. I still really enjoy Zizek sometimes because his message actually gets out there - I really value *effectiveness* alongside originality and quality of ideas, and Zizek is well known and somewhat articulate. But Peterson doesn’t know what Marxism is, and he doesn’t know what philosophy is. Anyone on the planet is entitled to discuss ideas, but you *actually have to read and understand other people’s ideas to be qualified to talk about the history of ideas*.
That's the thing. JP isn't an expert on Marxism. His criticism of leftist ideas seems way more credible to me that the typical atheist criticizing religion in general though but that's not really saying much. It seems to me that JP isn't well-versed enough in the topic for a nuanced discussion.
Most people who are firmly left or right won't open their mind up the positive aspects of the other side. Biggest problem with this is that it can spiral out of control. The UK is a big example of that. The media supports the conservatives regardless of their failings, but all its done is convince the populace that despite how shit things are "at least labour aren't in". The UK now has an angry hate filled population that blames immigrants for everything, and has sections of society who applaud deaths of immigrants who drown trying to get in across the channel. Some are even convinced that fascism is a left wing philosophy. The UK right now is fucked as a nation, with an extremist government in power.....already started ticking off a few fascist boxes as well, how far do we have to go before people open their eyes.
Is that really much of a surprise? Some of the best critiques of Marxism came from the guys, that JP himself, says are ' Post-mordern Marxist'. People like Derrida and Focault who explicitly rejected such ideas and were one of the first in the new movement of Post-structuralism. Hell these Philosophers weren't even 'true' leftists. Most Marxist consider them 'not radical enough'.
@@Chorismos No, not very surprising. As you point out, insiders have an advantage due to their perspective for giving some types of criticism. Outsiders can rarely spot some things due to not having lived with the ideas and beliefs and as such have no first hand experience. That being said outsiders looking in from the outside can often say things that can't be as easily spotted looking from the inside out. Isn't this one of the core ideas behind the triangulation used in science as well? To bring together all the voices, perspectives, etc. to give a better approximation of what's actually going on? Just listening to one perspective like JP's isn't generally enough to grasp what's what.
@@TheAlmightyAss I think Zizek was very respectful considering that Peterson does not do academic philosophy, and certainly doesn't debate like an academic.
Hey, the only comment chain where a dumb communist makes that argument and it ISN'T 100+ replies long - Peterson never states that's the only Marxist literature he read, simply assumed that if you're trying to distill your ideas into a pamphlet, you'll hyperfocus on the most solid parts of your ideology, instead of producing reactionary drivel. Speaking of, the debate went so well for Marxism, that Zizek didn't even attempt to defend it.
peterson's question was the most elaborate backhanded compliment. Also he slipped a debatable affirmation regarding the intrinsic problems of communism vs capitalism without it being a part of the question, rendering it not up for answering. Very crass.
@@asdfasdf3989 Journalists try that nonsense on Peterson all the time (usually in a manner that is spectacularly unsuccessful) . It's a cheap tactic, and an inherently dishonest one we should always call out, regardless of which 'side' you find yourself.
@@notlengthy Is an appeal to authority all it takes for you people to get behind someone? You know that this means the opposite of what you think it means to be a fan of his.
@@notlengthy if Peterson was really a professor of philosophy at Harvard, It really tells more about the current state of Harvard rather then of Peterson.
If Peterson has watched some lectures of Zizek instead of relying on the "reputation" of Zizek, he wouldn't be surprised. Or even better: Peterson should read Zizek's books, Peterson looks like the reading type to me... 😉
This debate and the Sam Harris serie should be the reason of JP's personal and intellectual collapse... I mean, he was reducted to the absurd. Now he is close to be a TV pastor than anything. 😢
Funny how Peterson questions Zizek's adherence to an old school of thought like Marxism... while he can't stop himself talking about Christianity and Jung. 🤷🏽♂
I would love to see Peterson and Zizek have another discussion like this. Aside from the audience being extremely partisan (and sometimes the comment section for video clips of the debate) it seems like they had a very productive and interesting discussion.
I get the sense that he is not a Durkheimian in the slightest, and rejects Weber's analysis of religion and capitalism, because a lot of contemporary academics don't really see Weber as a worthwhile read. I agree with you that it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on Weber and Durkheim, though!!!
@@nomad639 My cop out answer is to read the writings of anyone you feel like you can gain from. The reason I said Weber isn't viewed as worthwhile by a lot of professors and academics is because his central thesis on capitalism arising in the western world due to the religious influence of protestantism is now seen as sorely lacking more refined argumentation at best, and outright incorrect and vaguely imperialistic at worst. Obviously, one of the reasons capitalism arose in the western world was because the level of military power in Europe enabled colonial expansion and the accrual of material wealth that resulted from that (ironically, that military power resulted from religious conflicts within europe in many cases and not the essence of protestantism). Another reason is that state governments and even some trading companies in the late 18th and 19th centuries were organised in such a way as to quickly mobilise en masse to expand their reach. Marx, Durkheim and Weber are all worth reading, however, in my opinion. Gaining an understanding of the classical theorists of an academic discipline will provide a well-grounded context for you to explore foundational concepts and contemporary theory more easily, as well as assust you when engaging in debate. Worthwhile sociology (to me) would be: Goffman's research on stigma. Durkheim on The Dreyfus Affair. Marx's analysis on the structural contradictions and dynamics of capitalism. Judith Butler's work on gender. Slavoj Žižek on Violence (or any text advocating a broadening of the definition of violence to encompass more than just the immediate physical space). Contemporary social mobility research. Michel Foucault's study of madness in Europe. There are a lot more text's and authors worth mentioning, (and perhaps some more worthy of acknowledgement than what I listed) but that's an impromptu taxonomy of my view on "sociology's greatest hits". Long-winded reply, but I hope it helped.
I think Zizek is very kind here, not demeaning or insulting to this student who speaks with so much poise after reading a 70 page article on Marxism. Very kind indeed.
@@darrenfleming7901 Ironically zizek describes himself as a cultural marxist, so it does in fact exist, just not in the way that people on the right think it does. The "cultural marxists" JBP and co. talk about are just liberals 99% of the time.
Slippery Slavoj Remember in old fighting games like Tekken or Soul Calibur, there was always a character that emulated styles? You never knew what you were going to fight until the round started? That’s Slavoj’s debate style. He slips out of topics and direct questions and he stays in ambiguities about what he really thinks. If everything is an intellectual game and everyone’s confused about the stakes, he didn’t make anyone’s life better, but at least he feels smart. “You thought this was about Marxism? You’re stupid, I’m a Hegelian.”
Slater Slater Is it my comment that brings this kind of vitriol out of you? If so, man, I’m sorry...my intention was not to make it all worst. I just don’t see Slavoj as helpful to what I want to build with my life. But I wish him well. It’s pretty fucked up what you wrote...
Slater Slater You implied Peterson’s medical situation was caused by his stupidity... And you showed zero sympathy for him or his family... Anyway, have a good day, bud.
@@joaotavares078 have u read marx? Marx said that in a context that his ideas were being used by people who called themselves marxists, but he himself didnt agree with them so then he said that he was not a marxist. Do you think liberals still praise what adam smith praised? Lol people like marx and smith made theories for the time they were on, using those theories in literal sense now would be stupid, but desconsidering it also would be, so intelectuals, from the right and from the left, use the theories of old intelectuals to create new theories for the present world. If people followed intelectuals strictly, we would still be in some kind of greece or roma, or even some kind of middle age shit.
in some years nobody will talk about marx os mises. thats why people get so frustrated. nothing that they say will be so vivid 1000 years in the futere
Fuck me, sometimes I watch so much stupid garbage for such a long time that I have to rewind the video 50 times to even understand what's happening when intelligent people are talking because my attention span is just so utterly crippled... Apparently the youtube algorithm recognized my decline and suddenly floods my recommended videos with this kind of stuff... Thanks for caring,overlords of the realm of flickering images, one more week and I might have reached a point where I thought that Big Bang Theory is clever and well written
Peterson is a very inteligent guy, thing is he's talking outside his area of expertise, he's a clinical psychologist not an economist, sociologist or philosopher
@@franingegnieri1831 True enough. I think the problem becomes that when he talks about some other area of expertise he usually just sticks to some fixed narrow ideas, that are an interpretation of this area, but lack a broad and deep understanding, but are presented by Peterson as if they do have that.
Oh my god The ego marxists have. ‘I have all the right ideas’ People who disagree are uninformed. BRUH COMMUNISM KILLED THEIR OWN POPULATION AND LEFT THEM IN A FACIST STATE CONTROLLED BY ONE FAMILY. YALL DONT EVEN HAVE ELECTIONS YOU HAVE A DICTATOR
Peterson obviously caught off guard by the term 'hegelian' says all about the intellectual astuteness of a guy who wrote one self-help book and became essentially the Deepak Chopra of the right.
Wes G No. I think a truly socialist economy transitioning into a communist mode of production is possible. And should be pursued as a goal. Even if it isn’t ever achieved. I’m a god damn Marxist. Marx explains what’s happening in 2020 better than most intellectuals today can. But he was clearly wrong about proletariat revolution being inevitable. Capitalism will collapse. But their dystopian state-run Silicon Valley fueled hell scape will still call itself capitalism. That’s most likely, but not inevitable.
You would expect one of the most popular “critics of Marxism” 🙄 to have at least read Capital volume 1. No, he has only read the communist manifesto. This man has only read 35-40 pages of Marx depending on the translation and the edition. Embarrassing.
@@jakecostanza802 GPT-3 is overrated. We pick out the one good output from 10 thousand terrible ones and call it a success. Unless there are some fundamental changes to the underlying algorithm, you can only add so many parameters before you get rapidly diminishing returns. GPT-3 has processed basically all of the data there is on the public Internet and it's still a spectacular failure. We need way more efficient neural networks before we even dream of ever reaching true AI.
I can't get over how the crowd claps at the end of Peterson's question. Even if you are on his side and appreciate the inquiry, what about it was wortht of applause?
