/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10692005]

Zizek vs Peterson when

[Anonymous No.10692011]

>>10692005
>Zizek vs Peterson
He will get destroyed

[Anonymous No.10692025]

>>10692011
Zizek would

[Anonymous No.10692033]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html

What is this a crossover episode?

[Anonymous No.10692036]

>>10692011
Zizek gets wrecked by Will Self and Jordan by Sam Harris
It's the battle of the handicapped

[Anonymous No.10692037]

What happened?

[Anonymous No.10692045]

[Anonymous No.10692049]

>>10692005
You know what I like about Peterson? He doesn't know much about postmodernism yet that doesn't stop him of being so fucking smug whenever he shits on it. That's a Chad's move.

[Anonymous No.10692050]

>>10692011
I prefer ZIzek, but I don't think either one would get destroyed. Peterson will want to progress step by step, Zizek will make use of his retarded rhetoric where he jumps through five or six paradoxes and somehow ends back up at basic bitch liberalism.

I'm curious to read his article, though. If it's not focusing on the Peterson's anti-feminist stuff, it should be a good read.

[Anonymous No.10692057]

>>10692049
>u don kno nuffin bout postmodernism

[Anonymous No.10692065]

>>10692033
>not only is he often relying on unverified theories
I don't like Memerson but this is pretty funny coming from a Lacanian psychoanalyst.

[Anonymous No.10692077]

>>10692005
I'm heavily conflicted. I like Zizek but hate his fanbase, and I dislike Peterson most of the time and despise his fanbase. Since neither of them is really a proper academic anymore (not to deny that Slavoj has written some great theory whereas Peterson's writing is meh) and they've taken on the role of a public provacateur I think Peterson is having a more positive discernible impact on media discourse about academia in that he is drawing attention to the dominance in select fields of academia (and even more importantly in university administrations) of Social Justice theory (CRT, Queer Theory, etc.) and the contradictions of many of those theories (which in themselves are simplistic and abusive misreadings of post-structuralism and related theory). At the same time I hate his abuse of the term "post-modernism" and how his dismissal of so much he doesn't understand out of hand contradicts with his deep love for and defense of more classical parts of the canon that are often poorly understood or misrepresented, Jung, the Bible, etc. Although as a Russian studies grad I don't appreciate his analysis of Dostoevsky which like most western analyses often misses the mark by quite a bit, ignoring historical specificity of the texts in favor some kind of reductive universal psychologism.

[Anonymous No.10692078]

I'm reading his article and it's horrible so far, have a read yourself:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html

[Anonymous No.10692098]

>>10692078
Why would you say it's horrible? I found it pretty spot on, besides what I said in >>10692065

[Anonymous No.10692110]

>>10692036
>Zizek gets wrecked by Will Self
What?

[Anonymous No.10692119]

>>10692005
>zizek and peterson debate

best timeline

[Anonymous No.10692122]

>>10692098
He says Peterson speaks half truths yet when he adresses half truths he talks about fake immigrant rapes etc, Peterson hardly ever talks about immigration, and he has never said anything about immigrant rape gangs.
Most of the article is fluff, his only strong point is about the inconsistencies of the liberal project, why not focus more on that?
>>10692110
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OAWRinR6GM

[Anonymous No.10692124]

>>10692078
>muh horseshoe theory

Absolute hack.

[Anonymous No.10692133]

>>10692122
>Most of the article is fluff,
Parts of the article border on libel.

[Anonymous No.10692135]

>>10692077
>not a proper academic

Peterson is one of the most cited people in his field, and still retains his position at UoT? What do you mean by this?

Also describe how Peterson has misinterpreted Jung and/or the Bible

[Anonymous No.10692136]

>>10692078
>The same holds for how, today, the anti-immigrant populists deal with the “problem” of the refugees: they approach it in the atmosphere of fear, of the incoming struggle against the “Islamification” of Europe, and they get caught in a series of obvious absurdities. For them, refugees who flee terror are equalised with the terrorists they are escaping from, oblivious to the obvious fact that, while there are probably among the refugees also terrorists, rapists, criminals and so on, the large majority are desperate people looking for a better life.
This is very naive. Poor muslim refugees aren't liked because they come from a different, more barbaric culture and when they come in masses they create their own ghettos and have trouble living that culture behind. They are too conservative even for conservatives. Of course Zizek knows that perfectly well and he's just playing dumb.

[Anonymous No.10692144]

>>10692136
>leaving* that culture behind

[Anonymous No.10692146]

>>10692135
being an academic doesn't mean publishing scientific papers it means writing word salad justifying communism.

[Anonymous No.10692147]

>>10692045
>Canadian

[Anonymous No.10692159]

>>10692147
Yeah, but at least he's not European.

[Anonymous No.10692176]

>>10692078
>all these anons puling that peterson strawmans the left and postmodernism
>the very first attack from "serious" thinker from one of those camps fits peterson's descriptions to tee

Zizek writes about how the Peterson is winning because the left's house is not in order, but articles like this are the reason why.

[Anonymous No.10692194]

>>10692176
You’re right, I’ve never seen such an appalling interpretation of Peterson’s work. I almost didn’t believe that Zizek had wrote it at first.

[Anonymous No.10692198]

>>10692050
>basic bitch liberalism.

Christ you are retarded

[Anonymous No.10692199]

>>10692122
>He says Peterson speaks half truths yet when he adresses half truths he talks about fake immigrant rapes etc, Peterson hardly ever talks about immigration
He was explaining (in a somewhat convoluted manner) why according to him Peterson is having such a resonance, he isn't accusing Peterson of being a racist wtf
>his only strong point is about the inconsistencies of the liberal project
This is what selective bias does to your brain. He, I say it again, was talking about why according to him Peterson is having such a relevance.
>Peterson addresses what many of us feel goes wrong in the PC universe of obsessive regulation – the problem with him does not reside in his theories but in the partial truths that sustain them
Reread the article, I agree it wasn't very good but you completely missed the point.

[Anonymous No.10692204]

>>10692005
Sounds like an awful debate.

[Anonymous No.10692207]

Zizek being intellectually dishonest as alway
Even a brainlet like Peterson would show his hackery in a debate

[Anonymous No.10692209]

>>10692045
>excellent speaker
>sounds like Kermit the frog

[Anonymous No.10692212]

Is Zizek really relevant anymore? What's he done in the last couple years?

[Anonymous No.10692213]

>>10692078
>says peterson is "beloved of the alt right"
>no other mention of 'alt right'
>every comment is written by alt-righters complaining that peterson is being called a member of the alt right

so what you're saying is ...