/lit/ - Literature

STOP BULLYING

Wrong board

>>12820542
Sorry, forgot Zizek and Peterson weren't authors.

semi serious question : why do we take someone seriously that is so insufferable to listen to / watch? He is a grotesque individual with crippling nervous twitches / an inaudible lisp that makes him painfully hard to listen to. The grown man is a slob and is less capable of speech than a literal retard. He is clearly smart but obese. How are there not semi - normal people that could fill the void so that we wouldn't have to deal with someone so fucking ugly and detestable in all ways?

>>12820529

>>12820519
Something distinctly pathetic about this post.

>>12820585
if you aren't captivated by Slavoj's bonkers stream of consciousness and bottomless repository of both historical and pop cultural references (from inside and outside the iron curtain), why the fuck are you on a polynesian embroidery forum

>>12820585
Are you American by any chance?

>>12820733
>bottomless repository of both historical and pop cultural references

The films he chose for his Pervert's guide are very entry-level.

>>12820751
Almost like they were chosen to be entry level because the film itself is supposed to be an entry level intro to his philosophy

>>12820751
>Pervert's guide
which one? Cinema had quite a few things I had never seen, like can you really say everyone's watched Kubanskie Kasaki? But really he's not interested in picking meaningful films, he's not ever really analyzing the film itself. He's analyzing the cultural role of the film, its place in society -- not why should you watch this film, but rather why did people watch this film to begin with. When he analyzes stuff like Kung-Fu Panda it's not because he likes the film, it's because he is interested in the role that the film plays in our culture.

>>12820585
>inaudible lisp
Are you detecting this lisp by smell alone, anon?

>>12820585
bait

>>12820585
>less capable of speech than a literal retard.
What???
>How are there not semi - normal people that could fill the void
Normal people are boring and not as recognizable.

>meme pop w autotune vs classical cellist who could kill with one note
why are you guys bullying peterson this way

https://youtu.be/MTtwrqtBI00

Žižek talks a little about the debate here (i think its that part before they leave the car)
But the tldr is:
>they both decided on a non-biased moderator
>both will first present their thesis, then later the retaliations to the other
>Žižek knows that Peterson is a better speaker than him, also beacuase he throws this books and research papers that he hasnt read it
> He hopes to at least convert some of the Peterson"s followers

>>12823786
>Žižek knows that Peterson is a better speaker than him, also beacuase he throws this books and research papers that he hasnt read it

Peterson is only a better speaker because he is more "coherent" whereas Zizek goes on tangents but connects them to his point.

>>12820519
They'll just interpret it as the cartoon version of moral relativism they think every philosophy since Rousseau is.

JP: "You see, this thing is like that movie from Disney, the Little Mermaid..."

SZ: "Do you know that one oscure movie from Kosovo during the soviet regime? The one about -sniffs- the satanic orgy? oh, forget it. This is like that old joke about genital mulitation"

>>12824272
more like
>Pinocchio vs. Kung Fu Panda

>>12824288

why do you need to insult Pinocchio?

>>12824291
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6LL4JAP0mM

>>12824288
>Kung Fu Panda

why zizek is kf panda?

>>12824344
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCD3hg6OEQw

Im pretty sure both are major pseuds

>>12824349

>>12823791
I know and i agree completly, but Im really suprised Žižek thinks of himself that way, considering his knoweledge

>>12820519
can someone nutshell Zizek's philosophy for me?
I really wanna go into this debate as unbiased as possible but I can't help but agree with >>12820585 anon. It's a pretty much unanimously predicted that Zizek is gonna beat Peterson but I honestly don't have any idea what Zizek is about and I hate listening to his voice.

I don't like either of these fags but at least zizek is funny and seems "insane" like any coke abusing dildo fucking marxist unlike peterstein who probably is behind the canadian native woman kidknappings, leader of a cult and fucking his daughter. I just hope the commentary around the debate is explosive and we get some choice memes.

>>12824307

Jesus fucking Christ, this is just embarrassing. People actually listen to this fucking idiot?

>>12824698
lacan=good
marx=good
capitalism=bad

>>12824746
don't read the comments

>>12824698
>taking either of them seriously
Both are intellectual jokes, zizek wins by default just by being funny.

>>12824769
>zizek wins by default just by being funny.

>>12820585

the Peterson - Harris debate was a snoozer.

>>12824698
>>12824725

you might get something out of it by knowing Zizek's works but at this point you're better off hoping this is what it is meant to be, which is a glorious shitfest.

Zizek talks about the debate here at 13:30.
He's admitting Peterson is a good and better debater.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTtwrqtBI00

>>12824698
here's a direct unbiased comparison
https://youtu.be/no-RXORNFH8

>>12824698
reality is incomplete, there is "something" literally "missing" from the universe

>>12820605
petersons hair makes me uncomfortable. its like this greasy combover disaster.

>>12825086
hair transplant

>>12820519
Half of those during Jan and Feb are mine because I was fucking around with the Google API and searched for Zizek every time I wanted to test shit out.

>>12824833
>>12823786

>>12825131
It looks like plugs in that pic. Maybe this is why peterson needs to scream his platitudes over spewtube?

Peterson will loose but his fans will think he's won and the blind will continue to follow the blind.

Zizek will win but stupid people won't be convinced and zizek supporters will feel like everyone who sees Peterson for the charlatan he is will have lost by engaging him in his pseudo, mystical, archetypal bullshit.

I hope they both lose.

>>12826085
>Zizek will win

>>12826049
I think I realize why you guys hate self-help: There's basically nothing that you can say as life advice that wouldn't be a platitude because people are all too different to help universally.

>>12820519
they'll talk past one another, zizek will be humorous and make subtle cuck jokes using lacanian concepts. peterson will be dour and pale due to his diet, lean really far back in his seat, and try to bring up the gulag archipelego as many times as he can. neither side will "win" but the titles of youtube clips will try to editorialize it that way

>>12824725
>at least zizek seems insane
>Peterson is probably a leader of a cult, behind kidnappings of women, and fucking his daughter
Why do you like zizek better?

>>12824747
That's about it, really.

>>12824698
For starters, I cannot recommend enough his entry on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You could read it in a sitting or two and it outlines all of the basic aspects of his thought. If you're inexperienced with philosophy you might have trouble understanding some of it but thats sort of the thing with Zizek - whereas Peterson is known for dumbing down a lot of philosophy for his readers (in a bad way mostly) Zizek is the absolute opposite. Hegel and Lacan are two of the most obtuse thinkers in philosophy (Marx is far easier) and he draws on them non-stop.

tl;dr read his IEP entry and then read one of his books that are more pop culture oriented - I would recommend "First As Tragedy, Then As Farce." If you want a look at what his serious academic work looks like read the first chapter of "Sublime Object of Ideology" which is about 45-50 pages.

>>12820519
This will be EPIC!!

>>12826651
Who can wait for the Lacan jokes though?

>>12826651
Which side ever does win when Peterson is in a debate? I think your mostly correct though.

>>12820585
I read this post 5 times and I still can’t tell if you’re talking about Slavoj or Peterson

Zizek-chads will think Zizek won, Peterson-virgins will think Peterson won.
In reality there was no debate because they kept talking past each other, Peterson not understanding what Zizek was trying to say; Zizek not getting that Peterson doesn't understand him.

>>12826114
>Peterson will participate in the first place
Peterson will just zone out, yell some platitudes and then Zizek will adress and shit on them before going of on a tangent about Lacan's connection to Hegelian fisting.

>>12820585
thought you were talking about peterson at first

>>12824833
me on the right ;)

academic elite trashes zizek, but this debate is going to pretty much cement him as one of the top philosophers of his time period that even normal faggots will know his name

if there is one thing z and peterson have in common is that they are publicity whores. Zizek just hides it better because he is a commie

>>12827364
The virgin platonian platitude vs the chad zizekian I N S I G H T

>>12824349
*schniff*

The undisputed best Zizek-clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33kAMeHVzBA

>>12825131
>Imagine being this insecure while at the same time peddling self help bullshit to people

I don't think Peterson is going to "lose" that easily. Zizek's incel article had to blatantly misrepresent Peterson's comment on enforced monogamy to do anything with it.
>>12827343
>Peterson
>slob

Come on.

>>12820519
Prediction: They will both completely talk past each other and each sides fan base will think their side won.

>>12827488
>You're just misrepresenting him.
Fuck off you waste of oxygen

>>12827560
That's exactly what Zizek did though. His incel analysis wasnt even that good the whole article was something he whipped out in 5 minutes.

>>12827605
Too busy masturbating to Lacan to give it any valuable thought, I mean I don't blame him, who cares about incels anyway really.

>>12827436
*blocks ur path*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDYLYYKNruY

>>12827750
based as fuck

>>12824833
>Muslim style of debating
What did he mean by this?

>>12827605
Incels should not be given any intake of their own in the debate around incels because they are too caught up in their own ideology to maintain any sane distance through which to analyse their own condition.

But that is besides the point because Zizek's analysis of incels was not the point of the previous comment, it was the supposed mischaracterisation of Peterson. Which hardly occured, at least not until Peterson stept back from his original position way after the fact.

>>12827471
He's a public figure, appearance is important.

>>12827794
No. Peterson had already precised what he meant by enforced monogomy at that point yet Zizek still chose to go with the hysteric feminist interpretation of the expression.

in my eyes an overweight guy who believes in communism can never be a winner

>>12820585
Holy shit, I just looked him up and you're absolutely right. The man can not pronounce a single word without slobbering all over it. One of the most disgusting speakers I've ever listened to although I suppose that is par for the course with Marxists.

>>12827847
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZUCemb2plE
Jesus christ this is giving me anxiety, one single mechanical error with his mouth and all that saliva is going to come flying out. And he keeps sticking out his tongue. Why is he hissing at the interviewer?

The debate's subject is so boring

>>12820519
Why longnose have special feast just for longnose, if tribe so bad? Why Jordung go to feast?

>>12827847
based newshitter

>>12827835
Mate, this literaly does not change the fact that Peterson backtracked on the idea of enforced monogamy but simply didn't want to admit that he originally did advocate for enforced monogamy. The 'hysteric feminist interpretation' is literaly the correct one.

The reason is simple: why would he call for monogamy enforced through social norms when this is already widely the case in European and Anglo cultures?
It is pretty clear that he meant to insinuate at the VERY LEAST strong social rejection of people who have out of relationship sex but simply backtracked when he figured out that it was too insane for his centrist liberal followers so he created a second meaning for them to hold onto while still leaving enough room for the right wing nuts to say "Yeah, yeah Jeeb I get what you're saying: 'enforced social norms' ".

>>12827843
>>12827847
>>12827856
You people are the same morons who will bitch all about ad hominems when people call you out for the mentally deficient fucks you are.

this thread belongs on reddit

please kill yourselves, all of you

>>12827965
except me

>>12827963
>talks about ad hominems
>proceeds to call people names

aren't you all... forgetting someone?

>>12827794
>Incels should not be given any intake of their own in the debate around incels
is LARPing as a left-wing totalitarian any fun? I imagine you get some great (you)s

>>12827998
who

>>12824349
What drugs is this guy taking

>>12828005
Mate, believing that people who think that all women are evil whores who want to get fucked by only black men and 'chads' are probably not exactly all that okay in the head and/or are able to argue about something with some rational distance isn't a far left idea by any strech of the imagination.
It's actually pretty much the consensus out of chanboards or other sites where there's a lot of incels.

Get offline, sign up for some social activities or classes, meet some girls (or dudes if you're into that sorta thing) and return to real life. Then you are free to give your input about incels but until that point comes any input you give is pretty much worthless outside of diagnosing possible pathologies contributing to your inceldom.

>>12827969
I am honestly not sure if you're making a joke by 'proving my point' or if you're actually just proving my point.

In case it's the latter I'll spell it out so it can get through that thick skull: In my comment the thing I am referring to is the fact that 'centrists' like to use (incorrectly) accusations of ad hominem a lot when you call them a moron, yet these same people will use actual ad hominems to discredit their opponent.

Ad hominem isn't when you get called a moron, it's when people call you a moron and say that's why your argument is shit, I however do not use an ad hominem because I call you people morons BECAUSE your arguments are shit.

>>12828203
Your argument is invalid because you need to go back

>>12828203
so you don't think the person making the argument is relevant to if the argument has value? if someone makes the argument that eating one orange a day stops you getting cancer then later gets cancer that wouldn't effect if their argument is valid? I never even used insults to devalue his argument I said I could never consider him to be a winner because of the choices he makes

>>12828220
Wut, your example isn't even pertaining to the character of the person like an ad hominem is. It's not even a valid use of induction.
>>12828219
>I'm replying to you with an obvious ad hominem attack so whatever you can possibly reply with is automatically either sjw freaking out at a joke or someone who is gullible.

>>12828233
if someone makes the argument that eating one orange a day stops you getting cancer then later gets cancer that wouldn't effect if their argument is valid?

>>12828240
No, that is not what would invalidate their argument because a conclusion through induction can not be drawn from a single example.

>>12828252
it would if they go from a point of definitive like they did i.e no one who eats an orange once per day get cancer, if the person making that argument gets cancer then it disproves the argument

>>12828260
Yes, if that would be the statement made and they would then get cancer then that would disprove their claim. But this still has no bearing at all on ad hominems because in this case the 'ad hominem' attack (which this wouldn't be) would be "You say x does not happen if a person does y, yet you did y and x did happen" this is clearly not an ad hominem attack and more a simple syllogism. The fact that this concerns the man himself does not concern us here because in our argument we do not address him as 'the person who made the statement' but as 'the subject in our reasoning'.

>>12828282
>>12828260
Anyway, I'm sure there's very accesible introductory books to logic and reasoning and/or philosophy that could explain this way better than me so I would suggest picking up one of those instead of listening to strangers on 4chan.

>>12828282
ok glad you understand now to dumb it down finally
attacking the person to avoid the argument = ad hominem

attacking the argument through the person =/= ad hominem

so him being lazy is a legitimate reason to invalidate the fact he thinks communism is good since communism rewards lazy people

>>12828295
I have done my best so much to show why these two things are not the same and yet you refuse to think and prefer to engage in downright aggressive stupidity. What you are doing is reducing what I said so much that it is a downright incorrect bastardisation.

Have you even finished high school???

>>12828302
so you don't think the fact he's lazy could effect his motive and objectivity in regards to communism?

>>12828295
Lets just assume you are just a high school kid with the potential to learn and not a downright retard for now.
compare the case of the orange man and zizek (assuming he is indeed lazy and communism does rewards laziness, two things you provide no argumentation for either).

Orange man:
1. If a person does x (eating oranges daily) then y happens (not getting cancer)
2. a person (the person making claim 1) did x but y did not happen.
3. These two claims are contradictory and we know step 2 is correct so step 1 is wrong and thus the original argument is.

Zizek:
1. communism is good
2. The person who made claim 1 is lazy, which communism rewards
3. communism can be either good or bad, the person being rewarded by communism does not necesarily mean that claim 1 is faulty.

Do you see the cocksucking difference???

>>12828326
>Do you see the cocksucking difference???
yes, but do you see that using someone personal life to question the motive and intention behind their argument isn't an ad hominem, hopefully you can stop being so emotional and process why you were wrong to say I used an ad hominem

>>12828326
>>12828305
Your examples aren't analogues how can you not see that? And the fact that his thinking is influenced by his laziness (assuming '1 book a year Zizek' is lazy and that communism 'rewards' 'laziness') does not undermine the value of all the arguments he puts forth towards towards why we should move to socialism.

Again: how bloody underage are you???

>>12828342
>Again: how bloody underage are you???
I'm not lad just a bit bored, but IF I was wouldn't using my age as a counter point to what I said be an ad hominem, not a hypocrite are you?

>>12828333
Mate, it literally is you fucking mong. You did not just adress his possible motivations to get to a conclusion, you made a conclusion based on motives he could or couldn't have.
How are you this retarded, and yet I'm the irrational one, where did you graduate? Fucking Prager university?

>>12828353
Mate how can you so agressively refuse to get anything??? How does one become this fucking dense??? If they ever find the center of the universe it's gonna be your sodding head cause that shit's the densest object in the fucking world.

>>12828360
I know I was wrong lad, I knew I was wrong from the start again, I was just bored, stop being so emotional and using ad hominems like 'you're a highschooler' 'you're dense'

>>12820519
>After Zizek wins
Zizek has literally admitted to being afraid and they won't debate directly, just speak separately and never have any direct contact

>>12827954
You're just being a dishonest cunt

>why would he call for monogamy enforced through social norms when this is already widely the case in European and Anglo cultures?

Because he was talking about what could be done to alleviate the incel question and believe that enforced monogamy can help do so. He didn't even call for monogamy, he simply stated a fact.

>>12827954
>when this is already widely the case in European and Anglo cultures
even Zizek theorizes that patriarchal authority is not anymore the underlying subjectivity of capitalism and that Butlerian fluidity fits much better the current demands of the marked for constant change and consumption

so i don't think Zizek would conflict with Peterson at that point

>>12820552
>those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer
Spastic

>>12820519
Is Petersson familiar with Lacan, at least on a surface level? I mean there are plenty of Lacanian psychoanalysts if you just do some googling.
Its the only way i can imagine this debate being interesting is if they discuss psychology.

>>12828427
they won't talk to each other, they will give a speech and then answer public questions

>>12823786
it's at 12:50

>>12824307
Can we get a comp of peterson crying vids?

>>12828462
they will talk to each other for 10 minutes

>>12828506
they won't, they will give a 10 minute response to the other's lecture, but they won't speak directly to each other

>>12828497
that would be literally all of his vids

>>12828188
may all be statistically true, but you still have to evaluate ideas on their own merit, and not on the basis that you believe the person who has them belongs to the wrong class.

>>12827255
ty anon

they already debated a year ago and it was pretty even
https://youtu.be/43vRoD8GnIY

>>12828745
fucking lol

>>12828745
fuck you

>>12828745
>Slavoj looking at the floor reading a script
>'peterson' is just able to talk without the need for a script
christ

Starting to think philosophy is more for people who like words and ideas than actual investigation into the true nature of things.

>>12820519
Really looking forward to Peterson's cult deciding that classical Marxism is OK, but the Postmodernist Stalinist Neomarxists are DEFINITELY REAL and no power structures can be questioned until we stop them.
Expect lots of shitty posts about how anything they end up liking about Ziz isn't the real Red Menace

just been watching the vice interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS_Lzo4S8lA
>literally compares himself to the joker
>I scare myself
>can't sit still
>lisp
>overweight
he seems smart but the way he acts and talks about himself is like an edgy teenager

Make no mistake, both are on the level of pop philosophy normie cringebait

>>12829020
>literally compares himself to the joker
you can compare yourself to anyone with an infinite amount of different reasons you dumbass fucking brainlet. if i were to say,
>im being a bit like hitler here because im painting dogs
>haHA look at this retard comparing himself to hitler!!
its like do you not understand english you dumb fucking cunt, im not just "comparing myself to hitler" as that phrase implies, im taking a single reminiscent aspect of a large character and comparing it to something ive done

>>12829098
yeah and you can compare yourself to the Joker with an infinite amount of cringe

>>12829098
it's weird that you focused in on the joker bit, did you used to compare yourself to the joker in highschool?

No one takes marxism seriously, especially normies realise it always led to totalitarianism. I'm sure zizekfags will still fap to it tho.

>>12829146
Do I need to go full autism on ths?

>>12827488
He is an emotional slob to say nothing of his mediocre outfits he picked out of a wrinkly GQ magazine he read at the dentist’s igloo that one time

>>12828985
Zizek is barely a communist except for memes

>>12829149
everytime you speak you go full autism

>>12829282
He’s doing pretty well lately, I just hope he packs on some more weight for his health and takes up something like meditation

>>12830969
>Almost became the president of Yugoslavia
Are you saying sniffboy could have been the next Tito? We need to go back, holy shit is this the worst timeline

Peterson is basically one step up from a pop psychology Youtuber and his juvenile fanbase will not be able to engage in all the theoretical frameworks Zizek will inevitably start throwing around. Expect literal anti-intellectualism and attacks on Zizek's character and mannerisms.

>>12830905
does he? he was on fire for a while, even in his mediocrity, but he seems to have run out of material and just been repeating memes for the last 2 years

>>12830989
he ran for the liberal party, zizek being a commie is just a meme

>>12831049
>theoretical frameworks Zizek
kek, it's almost as if you believe it

>>12831137
He seems to be a commie but not a Marxist-Leninist. I mean what kind of liberal quotes Das kapital and writes articles from Maoist perspective?

>>12831133
I was actually just referring to his appearance. I agree with you, my personal opinion is that what he does is valuable for a specific demographic that’s in need of pragmatic guidance and being pushed in the direction of realizing the value of the metaphysical, philosophy, art, and literature. It gets derailed with politics and how he asserts complete security within his beliefs. It would be better if he could recognize his own limitations and calm down, so that he doesn’t feel the need to comment on every single thing he’s faced with. He’s kind of like an angsty adolescent with somewhat pure intentions that’s in possession of incredibly valuable ideas, but fails to see how unknowledgeable he is.
Btw I’m not claiming to be better than jp, I see myself in a similar seat, although I’m not secure enough to think I have pure intentions

>After Zizek wins
>wins

the virgin debate vs. the chad dialectic

>>12820733
i miss that meme so much
but im not a memester myself so occasional posts like this will have to do

thank you anon

>>12831211
he is just memeing for fun, his actual policy suggestions are just run of the mill liberal globalism, but being a bit less retarded about the issues that arise from it that your average elite

>>12831235
i think his biggest value is watching leftists getting all buttblasted about a literal self-help guru

The funniest thing I’ve seen here was just a badly shopped image of Zizek with the words DEELDO written at the bottom, not sure why I found it so funny. Does anyone have it? Schniff

>>12831133
He seems to actually be doing well now, on his most recent Joe Rogan interview he said that he's been touring nonstop and it's been much more fulfilling than constantly engaging with journos trying to play 'gotcha', which he said started to take a toll on his mental health.

>>12831425
i couldn't watch more than 5 minutes of his last Rogan, i usually last like 20 listening to the guy, but this time he just started by crying about young men thanking him which i have already seem him do too often and it was kind of cringy and felt insincere