Slavoj Zizek debates Jordan Peterson [HD, Clean Audio, Full]

Debate? More like performance review

🤠💜

Peterson sucked in his debate vs Zizek and I never watched Peterson since.

I have many areas of disagreement with them both, particularly Peterson, but this is probably the most interesting debate I've seen since Hitchens v Hitchens.

to boil down Marx' work to a pamphlet, which btw was meant to for 19th century workers, makes any critique this guys says about his work kinda meaningless

while the Manifesto has a few interesting theoretical points it is at the end of the day just that... a pamphlet/manifesto

wanna critique Marx on his economics? read das kapital, his many esseys or at least his critique of political economy
even if you wanna go into politics at teh very least read the 18th Brumaire... or even his newspaper articles

Zizek knows Marxist theory very well, he kmust have been rolling his eyes internally

and the manifesto has a point where its ripe for strong political criticism because it's where Marx' theory reaches his most dangerous point, but ofc the guy didn't understand that

I see Peterson as more pragmatic and Zizek as more critical. Where was zizek's ideas on how society should work? It's like he dodged the entire debate by criticism of everything and endorsement of pessimism.

It was joyful to hear them. Both in Norway years ago and when I’m rewatching it now.

this was probably the most well spent 2 hours of my life. Or was it ?

This aged so poorly for JP

Peterson another Trump lover

What do you call the action of pretending something is better than oneself or that something is more difficult than it is so that everything I may say is automatically “good enough” or seemingly better than I was capable? Bc Peterson does that in every single debate.

Just 2 hours of nothing. One moron spent an hour condemning Marx’s pamphlet (!) from the 19th century with 5-fold digested claims, another was babbling inarticulately with jokes about German toilets.

JORDAN GOAT

Increase in the temperature of the earth and all the forest fires in 2023 is a new reality since this debate. Replacing old growth trees with twice as many Pine trees = a loss in diversity and marks a decline in the health of our forests. Quality trumps quantity in regard to forestation.

When Christ cried out to His Father He was crying out in His humanity. Nevertheless He cried out to God. Atheist don't cry out to God.
They cry out to Darwin...🤨

I see Zizek as someone with a lot of original thoughts and ideas. Jordan Peterson seems like a robot who studied history very well and tries to find some justification to keep the history ball rolling. I think we have to detach from all history this means religion, nations, traditions and culture. Realizing that we ALL are just born into a history river that keeps flowing since the calendar started. So who are we, if we are not our history? Just a human being with a common sense.

very nice conversation, i hope i will be able to talk like you both do, to some degree, in the future

It is genuinely hilarious for Peterson to critique the manifesto for making claims as "self evident" and "unquestioned" when he literally has not read any of the texts that develop these ideas. Thats like saying a philosophers work is flawed because their wikipedia page doesn't critically engage with their points enough

The more I watch the funnier this gets. Peterson claiming that the marx, the materialist, completely ignores nature?? Then says we struggle from birth coming into the world as starving and lonesome. Funnily enough Jordan, marx has used this exact argument, that of hunger and survival, to explain why we are natural beings.

Funny... Peterson speaks and I hear the Koch brothers BS.

Peterson exposed this man here. Great to see

If I had no other knowledge of Peterson and how he behaves outside of debate halls, I would find him to be an intellect, making interesting points, a reasonable person. But I KNOW that outside of this he's a crazy person. Raging against women and "others", spouting hysterical lies, and dissolving into tears. So he's two people, and it feels like his histrionics are for duping the weak minded? I wonder if his droves of young, male followers know or care?

Comes a fraud in a bar and meets ... Another fraud

JP persists at blathering as a style. He dodges and drops pronouncements with while claiming no need for explaining because it is crazy, foolish, unbelievable….. etc. JP is full of sound and fury, signifying very little worth listening 5 minutes much less 30 minutes.

Comments reminded me once again how people like to think they know. Very interesting conversation, thanks both

This was a wonderful discussion between two very intelligent people who clearly came into the debate with respect for one another. Unlike some comments online, these two individuals engaged in a thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas.

As someone who has recently become enthralled with Jordan Peterson's work, I found it interesting to learn that he also questions everything he understands. This is an important quality for anyone seeking to understand the world around them. We must always ask ourselves, "Is there an alternative to this way of thinking?"

In my own personal view, one cannot exist without the other. Just as light cannot exist without darkness, opposing viewpoints are both necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the world.

I listened to this discussion not because I am politically motivated, but because I want to understand people who hold different views from Jordan Peterson. My goal is to formulate my own perspective that is not biased by what I have heard from Peterson so far.

I listened to this discussion with respect for both men, both of whom I believe are incredibly intelligent. To me, knowledge is power, and I listened with curiosity as they formed their arguments. Both men based their arguments on "known truths," which I cannot explain or articulate but understand intuitively. In my mind, these intuitive understandings are the essence of truth.

However, I must say that my respect for Peterson has grown. I will continue to seek out debates he has had with people who hold different views from him. This will help me to develop my own understanding of the world and see whether Peterson's perspective aligns with my own truth.

One of the most fascinating conversations I have seen Peterson have was with Donald Hoffman, another individual I enjoy learning from. I could not differentiate who I most aligned with in that discussion as I deeply enjoy both of their work.

While JP's arguments resonated more strongly with me in this particular conversation with Žižek, from my understanding, neither individual claims to possess absolute truth. Like all of us, they are simply humans navigating the complexities of the world and seeking to understand their place within it.

Although I found Peterson's perspective more compelling in this particular discussion with Žižek, it does not mean that he is definitively correct. Peterson himself does not claim to be infallible. He is simply a human being trying to make sense of the world around him, just like the rest of us.

I believe that respectful dialogue between people with diverse viewpoints is essential for understanding the world and ourselves. By listening to and learning from others, we can develop our own unique perspectives and come closer to discovering the truth. this discussion has been a valuable learning experience for me. It has encouraged me to embrace intellectual curiosity and remain open to questioning and exploring different perspectives. This journey of self-discovery is essential for developing a well-rounded understanding of the world and ourselves.

Clown "Social Media Clout" Peterson vs. Real Academic Philosopher

Damn, Peterson made a fool out of himself!
My man used PragerU to learn about Marx 😆

Drinking game: take a shot every time peterson says big problem and every time zizek says desire

Not only are these two outstanding intellectuals but also without doubt have the most recognisable voices of the early 20's

jordan Petersn is such a pathetic explicit figure that his arguments are laughable

Peterson had a cogent argument. Let’s be clear

I like to imagine they went for whiskies after.

Peterson's approach to Marx must be the worst ever. Still can't believe how terribly clumsy it was...

Jordanstarts with "No one has made as many conceptual errors as Marx" A completely meaningless,comment Only an opinion, and a rather unsupported one

Smart old man with complex thought Vs Less smart old man with less complex thought. Let's go!!!

I think it's important to point out that this debate occurred because Peterson put out an open challenge to marxist a academics to debate him.

A psychologist debates on politics, climate, and whatever comes his way, not because he's educated because he's famous. Peterson opening up with "tickets sold" is enough foreshadowing into what this man is. He has no understanding of Marxism. He's a social media influencer, and if anyone thinks otherwise, your mother is a lobster. While my favorite minecraft spider; zizek, is the only voice of reason in this whole conversation.

Zizek is an intellectual who is pitted against a pretender .
Witness a pseudo debate here where arguments went at tangents

The irony of the comments... After such a formal debate where both sides made valid points, the comments are still a bunch of 16yr olds trolling by saying their side won.... If you have a side then ofc you will think you won.... The real winner is the ones that had no side and learned something.

People who point problems never bringing a solution think they are awesome because they receive the applause of the idiots when they do so.

Presenting logical conclusions is using manipulation techniques according to Zizek. The guy is a fraud from beginning to end. How a person who can't even follow debate rules and appeals to ad hominem every time he can't contest an argument be called a doctor?

Zizek is a great debater interrupter.

Capitalism needs to be tamed and "limited" like Zizek says. But is the State the answer?

Barely three minute into his open statement and Peterson says ''reading Zizek would've been too long and difficult so instead, I read the communist manifesto'', only to acknowledge a minute later that this really short paper was never meant as a piece of theory. I don't like simply taking sides but honestly, the debate ended there.