/lit/ - Literature

Based Zizek.

This wont happen because Peterson knows it will be his undoing.

>>11200975
this was like a month ago no one cares

I hope he does. Zizek will eat JBP alive

stop bullying him :(

Zizek would end JP.

>>11200991
this, he can't seem to ever debate an intellectual, yet claims to know more than everyone else.

>>11201117

>>11201205
>>11201117
>>11200975
no one gives a shit ur obsession w/ this dude is unhealthy. go talk abt it on twittereddit

>>11200975
An actual philosopher vs a psychologist with a wobbly idea of what philosophy is

Peterson’s SSRI taking ass would probably kys hisself if he would get confronted with 200 pounds of Hegelian warrior.

>>11201221
a continential philosopher that knows jung isnt worth pissing on to put a fire out, peterson is cancelled already

>>11201216
this
he hurts a lot of feefees and now everyone thinks Beardy McPseud is going to save them from the scary opinions
both of these people can't argue for shit

>>11200975
Zizek said he would next time he is in NY but they probably aren't.

>>11200975
>Liberalism was always an inconsistent project ridden with antagonisms and tensions.

Based Slavoj

>>11200975
It's interesting to see how low western standards are. Zizek was not allowed among the Yugoslavian academics because no one was taking him seriously, (him being a brain damaged and all), but he comes to Canada and everyone shows a microphone in his mouth, like they've seen a Jesus.

The worst part is that in Europe they sell western culture as this really progressive thing, when in reality not much has changed since the times of snake oil salesmen. Any charlatan can trick gullible Canadian people into believing anything.

It's honestly really sad.

>>11201250
Peterson is a genius.

>>11201262
every word of this post made me cringe

Zizek is follower of Lacan, that on it's ownshows how bad he is

>>11200975
Holy crap, Jordan Peterson would fucking rip Zizek to shreds. It would actually be physically painful to watch such a decimation of a man as all the precepts he's held over 50 years are fed into the blender of empiricism.

>>11201216
Hey, just some friendly advice. We have this phrase about cleaning your room. I bet your room could use some cleaning right now. remember you should always do that before criticizing people on 4chan!

Hope that was helpful, Peterson really helped me to clean up my life, so to speak, LOL. (I didnt actually clean up my life literally)

>>11200975
Peterson is married with two kids...

>>11201434
>the blender of empiricism
the fuck you talking about
zizek is a good public speaker but weak on details and debate
Peterson is obviously not a philosopher u retards, so why do you expect him to act like one
>much Hegel
>muh psychology

>>11201158
>>11201192
i don't disagree but zizek would probably be very polite and jovial and charitable in his interpretations of whatever peterson says like he usually is. he's not going to humiliate peterson like everyone wants him to

>>11200975
Zizek looks drunk as fuck in that photo.
Well, he always looks drunk as fuck.

>>11201434
Lmao like a guy who lives and breathes this shit every day doesn't know what empiricism is. Fuckin buffoon

>>11200975
Zizek is just angry because he's nowhere near as popular and influential as he wanted to be. Then he sees someone like Peterson (who is 14 years younger than him) achieve a level of influence, fame and success Zizek could only dream of in a relatively short amount of time - imagine how much this must have wounded the old man's ego. In the true spirit of a Marxist, he now wishes to debate Peterson - no, not because he wishes to exchange ideas publicly - he simply wants leech off of a portion of Peterson's fame.

I say Peterson should not debate this man and let him die a semi-irrelevant Marxist with an array of word-salad books in his bibliography that no-one cares to read.

>>11201450
epic satire dude. you definitely arent obsessed

>>11201551
You sound extremely bitter. Zizek's article was extremely polite and dignified, just because you view everything as a cynical self-absorbed power play doesn't mean everything is. Zizek sounds like an intellectual wanting to politely debate another intellectual in good and impersonal fun.

>>11201551
>Zizek is just angry
zero proof

>>11201551
peterson literally started it by challenging a twitter bot that tweets zizek quotes to a debate

>>11201585
The most polite and dignified turd, is still a turd, and so is zizek.

>>11201551
>he's nowhere near as popular and influential as he wanted to be.
he's the most famous continental philosopher alive today

Peterson only cites jung, neechee, frued and "judeo-christianity".

Zizek only cites lacan, alain badiou, stalin and hollywood cinema.

Would be interesting.

>>11201686
if zizek is a turd then he is a meaty strong one whose smell you feel in the back of your throat the rest of the day and whose sheer size troubles your thoughts with questions like "how was I able to squeeze THAT out of myself?"
peterson, on the other hand, is a skidmark

>>11201757
Bro.. Peterson is respected professor and a clinical psychologist that has helped thousands of people. zizek is literally nobody.

>>11200975
Does anyone have that video posted on /lit/ a while back of a guy doing a very talented and hilarious impersonation or a Zizek v Peterson debate?

Take this video in return https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eL94sCAsPPg

>>11201776
kek, who is big bird?

>>11201776
Found it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43vRoD8GnIY

>>11201793
Holly shit!

>>11201767
lol he's respected for his work with addicts, not for the other shit he blubbers about
it's like calling someone who grows daisies while any other flower turns out looking like a damp squid a botanical mastermind

and let's not pretend him helping people is at all important to anyone who's masturbating to his videos, it's all about transsexuals and sjws

>>11201816
>he's respected for his work with addicts.

I know that, but i was talking about Peterson. Who cares what zizek is known for.

>>11201816
Why so triggered?

>Stirner will never rip a new one on shitterson
why live

>>11201839

>>11201833
Pretty sure zizek has publish 40+ books and has 5 films. Peterson on the other hand has 2 books and some youtube videos.

Zizek has more popularity and has far more citation than peterson, whilst being relevent since the 1970s.

>>11201551
>the mind of the fanatic
why do you write as is peterson is your favourite sports team? People like you shouldnt be on /lit/.

>>11200975
>proper debate
Neither have the ability to do so.
Peterson is, in essence, a collection of vague appeals.
Zizek is, in essence, disingenuous leaps of preferred/random conclusions bidden by empty reasoning and roundabout rhetoric. Zizek isn't like this academically, but as a public """"intellectual"""" he is.

>>11201337
And what if no one takes this post seriously (you being a buzzwording half-thinker and all), then as soon as other buzzword posters similar to you show up here, they read your comment and suddenly feel exhilarated, like they've seen a Jesus? What does this mean for the validity of what you are saying?

You guys know Zizek is dying of cancer and a bunch of other shit right?

>OP didn't post the debate that happened in March
what a faggot
here it is friends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43vRoD8GnIY

I love Zizek but everything he can say has already been said. He has been rehashing himself since the 90s

>>11201418
He's not a follower of Lacan the man as such.... he's a proponent of reading Lacanian theory by reinterpreting it through Hegelian philosophy and contemporary political events.

>>11201473
Because he precisely *does* pretend to be a philosopher-- at least a political philosopher

>>11201551
Those replying to you are right; for one thing, Zizek
is one of the least prone-to-resentment popular academics around, and for another, he really is one of the most popular. He has no reason to be bitter about anything.

>>11202549
Already posted kys

>>11202603
Consider closing the Internet off for a few days.

>>11201767
>Zizek is literally nobody
Mate Zizek is the single one alive philosopher people who aren't into philosophy know about, you are severely underestimating his influence, overestimating Kermit's or the most likely scenario, both.

>>11202625
Consider reading a thread before touching it with your jam-sticky hands. Child!

>>11202545
This.

I fear that even if he gets better, he will be too weak to do anything. Hope he's into defenestration cause that's the philosophical way to die, falling from the heaven of ideas once your time ran out (mostly due to bodily neglect).

>>11201485
This. Glad to see someone itt actually watched Zizek videos for once.

You don't want Zizek debating Peterson.
He won't try to "DESTROY" him as many Youtube videos would imply after the fact.

The most likely outcome would be both engaging in civil discourse, Zizek most likely having better arguments (since Peterson seems to do nothing but repeat his Maps of Meaning thesis ad nauseam), but the general public not understanding what Zizek is saying and thus replying with sarcastic remarks and memes, thus only making you angry.

>>11202721
>I'm maybe freezing to death, but you will not get rid of me; all the ice in the world cannot kill a true idea.

>people siding with kermit over our favourite coke addict
And this is how you know that the old /lit/ population is now a minority

>>11202767
old /lit/ were leftist scum.

>>11202773
Haha yeah the board is so much better now :)

>>11202785
Correct.

>>11202790
upvote

>>11202545
He does?

>>11202740
This, Zizek will just use a lot of jargon and make sense for those who can understand it but Peterson will use it against him, since the "I can't understand them so they're wrong" is his main argument against the evil postmodernists

People should just let the Peterson fad die already

>>11202805
He spoke up about in a recent video. I think he has heart trouble on top of all those things as well

>>11202815
>Bloom will survive mr žniff

>>11202740
>>11202806
Zizek spoonfeeds like crazy though, his entire career bouls down to explaining a few concepts through countless examples of cinematic or everyday practice. The original concepts may be difficult, but Zizek's take on them isn't. He does have some weird stuff though, like sexual difference in ontology instead of speculative realism or other forms of realism.

>>11202805
Yes. He mentioned it at the start of his latest conference at Zizek Studies. Kidney cancer, heart problems, diabetes, prostate trouble, nerve paralysis on his face... hopefully the problems start cancelling each other out somehow or he's doomed.

>>11202806
He really does not strawman postmodernism like you claim. It's not a coherent body of work, it doesn't integrate into a grand narrative because it denies grand narratives. Petersons whole approach is to argue that the human race has for a long time depended on grand narratives, and in fact still uses them even when denying such (you cannot not have an overarching worldview). This is why he makes fun of the allegiance between postmodernists and Marxists, not because ALL postmodernists are Marxists, but because it's illogical that ANYONE can claim to be both a postmodernist and sustain any other ideology at all. Anyway, none of this is to deny the fact that people have made very complex cases for postmodernism, it's just that they are irrelevant because Petersons argument is that any explicit attempt to take away a grand narrative is foolish from the get go: details of the attempt don't matter. It's like saying that someone doesn't pay attention to the detailed arguments against procreation, they are irrelevant we need to fuck to survive.

>>11201205
>>11201117

>>11202829
A HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA druggie idiot shitbag scum.
>hurrr durrr I use drugs to grow my consciousness huuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>let me sell my soul to some random old man who gives me advice about how to live huuurrrrrrrrrrrrr
Jesus christ, what a lame ass human being amirite?

>>11202839
A HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA hyperbolic idiot meme-infested scum
>hurrr durrr I use retarded hyperbolic language to distort what others say
Jesus christ, what a lame ass human being amirite?

>>11202823
Damn, that sucks. I guess we should start mourning

>>11202850
That's it! That's exactly how stupid you look!

>>11202545
>>11202823
link?

>>11202858
That's it! That's exactly how stupid you look!

>>11201197
can you post such a debate?

>>11202867
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5jSfjDY8sY

imagine a preening self-serious guy like jordan peterson being this sanguine in the face of his own mortality

>>11200975
Peterson is a retarded fucking hack, he can't even talk real philosophy.
No respect for him.

>>11202826
Well thanks for caring to elaborate, but is it really his main argument against postmodernists? Who are those marxist postmodernists then? Lyotard made those claims about grand narratives, he might also speak about Habermas too (who wrote a lot about legitimity) but although those two drew heavily on marxist theory they were not actual, orthodox marxists. They also didn't wanted to distrust all grand narratives, they only argued that there was a distrust. Maybe he speaks about foucault, derrida and so on but again they were not in favour of communism (maybe during their youth but that was the cool thing to do at the time). You can't be "postmodern" and marxist at the same time, everybody agree on that, but if you do you choose marxism arbitrarily, knowing that historical materialism is not a great eternal idea in the sky

>>11202545
WTF what

>>11202949
He may be gone but he is still in our hearts.

>>11202880
He would be crying why trying misinterpreting some nietzsche quote on death

>>11202955
blubbering while trying to say pic related and then pivoting to the age old philosophical discussion: antz vs a bug's life

>>11202826
>it's illogical that ANYONE can claim to be both a postmodernist and sustain any other ideology at all
Ideology is a performative act. It is not underpinned by some universal logic, lest one is driven by the ideology of mathematics abstracted from the human condition.

Marxism cannot be a universally sustainable ideology, neither can any other. Peterson's definition of grand narratives and truth are ironically quite slippery themselves (something he seems to not like about PoMo folks), allowing him to shoehorn deeper underlying emotions into arguments that pretend to have the veneer of logic. In fact, much of this nonsensical debate rests on parties using inconsistent and divergent definitions that do not match each other. This sentence alone
>Petersons whole approach is to argue that the human race has for a long time depended on grand narratives, and in fact still uses them even when denying such

requires agreement on what "grand", "narrative", "depended", "uses", "denying" et cetera precisely mean and how these underlying concepts link together. If there is any disagree in how they are being used then different conclusions are reached and neither is right or wrong, but either party can puff their chest and act as if they are the logical ones.

>>11201117
what's the rumi?

>>11201158
Zizek can't debate (he got raped by will self on stage), and neither can Peterson. They would just grandstand past each other

Jordan Peterson vs Nick Land