/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17250651]

Was this a joke? Nothing of substance was said by either one and almost any difference of opinion they had was only nominal

[Anonymous No.17250659]

>>17250651
You mean semantical

[Anonymous No.17250660]

welcome to 21st century intellectualism

completely performative and packaged for your easy consumption

[Anonymous No.17250668]

>>17250651
Peterson is not a philosopher and was obviously exposed but the whole thing was wack, the audience chanting as if their watching reality tv stars go at it and the topics and direction of the discussion was also so obviously bad. Their was no direction nothing no issues presented just two autist throwing zingers back and forth at eachother to put on a show for the audience. In the Chomsky Foucault debate the audience is dead silent and the two go through various topics with development from both sides slowly understanding the others position.

[Anonymous No.17250669]

>>17250651
Hard for anything substantial to be said when Peterson came without even a basic knowledge of marxism or Zizek or any other subject they discussed. Zizek was forced to sit there explaining things to him.

[Anonymous No.17250680]

>>17250651
Peterson is an uninteresting pop psychologist. I would prefer to see Žižek debating someone on the right who actually has interesting things to say, like Eric Striker, Kevin MacDonald or Greg Johnson.

[Anonymous No.17250687]

>>17250651
sorry, I only watch Peter Hitchens owning libs on youtube

[Anonymous No.17250783]

>>17250651
But doesn't this make it interesting in its own right. Start with Peterson. He says Struggle is eternal and so cannot be conflated with capitalism. Marx and Engels say the history of the world is the history of class struggle. So it is nothing that only pertains to capitalism. Already his first fucking point is idiotic. Then he goes on to say that hierarchies are natural. OK but first of all what do we have to do with lobsters and secondly this doesnt mean that we should design the hierarchies so that they work best for everyone. I think already the first 10 Minutes of Peterson talking competely disqualify him.

[Anonymous No.17250795]

>>17250783
I think he was on drugs this debate or obviously stressed out he looked so shaken up on nearly everything that was thrown at him. I don't think he would have done as bad otherwise or at least not made himself look retarded

[Anonymous No.17250809]

>>17250651
hey, at least Peterson has good taste in bottled water

[Anonymous No.17250868]

>>17250795
he was on drugs in every public appearance for years, all his most famous talks and lectures were done binged on drugs. he probably doesn't even remember writing 12 rules he was so out of it, when he submitted a second version of it to his publishers they explained he already released it, and he got so mad he flipped the publishers desk over. eventually they agreed to release it as "12 more rules for life"

[Anonymous No.17250931]

>>17250651
Probably because Peterson literally started the debate by outing himself as an absolute hack.

[Anonymous No.17251021]

Stop listening to "intellectuals".

[Anonymous No.17251391]

>>17250651
1.Peterson for some reason didn't read Zizek before. Zizek is not you typical ortodox Marxist. He is more like a left-progressivist. Most of Zizek's ideas came to life after him reading Sloterijks Critique of cynical reason. He just added his own left flavour.
2.There views are very close to each other.
3.Zizek didn't answer what he thinks about Petersons definition of Cultural Marxism. It was almost 3 hours in, so they were tired. That was the only worthwhile question but it wasn't discussed.

[Anonymous No.17251435]

>>17250651

[Anonymous No.17251936]

>>17251435
ted should have stuck to math, his social commentary is legitimately retarded.

[Anonymous No.17251954]

if zizek wanted to go hard he could have but it would unironically be like beating up a special needs child. peterson lacked even basic knowledge of marxism and postmodernism and zizek tried the best he could from refraining on hammering him for that

[Anonymous No.17252547]

>>17251435
Correct version

[Anonymous No.17252568]

>>17251954
Yes, Ive read the communist manifesto and Michael Foo Co. It says here that we wish to destroy the white race and sissify white bois for BBC.

[Anonymous No.17252570]

>>17252547
>>17251435
they´re both puppets of the establishment, no need to fight

[Anonymous No.17252577]

>>17252568
rude

[Anonymous No.17252581]

>>17252570
Of course they are, i just had the peterson version saved

[Anonymous No.17252586]

>>17252581
>>17252570
>>17252547
>>17251435
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQChjCBCm3k&t=24s

[Anonymous No.17252611]

Peterson showed up to the debate like a high schooler doing a book report the night before its do. This was legit like a kid doing a powerpoint about communism for his social studies class. You're coming to debate one of the biggest names in philosophy armed only with a pamphlet written for peasants?

Couldn't even talk about the labor theory of value?
I'd give him more credit if he went full /pol/tard ranting about Frankfurt School subverting the West or whatever. At least then he'd be able to name names.

[Anonymous No.17252612]

>>17251936
he is correct (and based). name one material change in the last 50 years that was achieved through humanities discourse.

[Anonymous No.17252633]

>one of them finishes a sentence
>burgers clap and roar as if they were at a football game
pottery

[Anonymous No.17252676]

>>17250868
underrated

>>17252611
this basically sums it up, Memerson famously announced months before that he'd read some of Zizeks books to prepare for the event, and instead came utterly unprepared, but still tried to keep up the charade and give his fanclub the epic showdown they paid for. I guess it makes sense since he was clearly overstretching himself, but it's still not a good look.

[Anonymous No.17252693]

What was so bad about anything Peterson said?

Everytime this debate comes up, its typically Zizek people mad he didn't read his books.

[Anonymous No.17252744]

>>17252693
it was supposed to be a debate, nigger. Peterson failed to engage Zizek on his own terms and further a productive dialogue between his own traditionalist responsibility thing and Zizeks position, meaning he missed the opportunity to diminish the discursive divide, and by that token he failed to live up to his own standards of revivifying and updating tradition by engaging with new information. Recycling the same (from my perspective basically valid) arguments against classical Marxism yet again isn't good enough.

[Anonymous No.17252746]

>>17250651
This was the outcome of having two people who’s thoughts are so far from another that they had to search out something to discuss.

Peterson’s Xanax addiction is on full display here. I know this from experience, even if he’d read marx’s literature (which he admitted never having read) he’d never remember the material, or be able to discuss it coherently.

He’s pretty fucking high.

[Anonymous No.17252773]

>>17252744
>it was supposed to be a debate
About Marxism, not Zizek or his philosophy

If we have to read his books in order to even talk about it, then we're already beyond any productivity.
It's a debate, it has an audience that it should hopefully be easily interpretable for.

[Anonymous No.17252780]

>>17250651
Professor Jordan Peterson seemed starstruck.

[Anonymous No.17252788]

>>17252773
>quotes half a sentence
>ignores the bulk of my argument
look, you're doing exactly what memerson did. you think 'marxism' today means "let's do what Marx said to do in the communist manifesto"?

[Anonymous No.17252801]

>>17252788
>quotes half a sentence
I quoted 87.5% of a sentence ignoring the curse word.
Have you realized you're the disingenuous one yet?

[Anonymous No.17252804]

>its the hegelian dialectic of ideology submersing us and so on and so on this old jewish joke about the farmer illustrates my point
>and thats the bloody thing about these dang marxists man they just dont get it we need to get to the root of our civilization and save the dragons rescue our father and be the hero

[Anonymous No.17252811]

>>17252801
>he missed the opportunity to diminish the discursive divide, and by that token he failed to live up to his own standards of revivifying and updating tradition by engaging with new information.
read you double-nigger

[Anonymous No.17252817]

>>17251936
I haven't seen anything Ted has said that is wrong. The way he went about things was wrong, but you can't deny that he spoke a lot of truth

[Anonymous No.17252831]

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKsMBu6SH-M

[Anonymous No.17252871]

>>17252811
I don't still dont understand why he's obligated to go read Zizek.

You wanted something more depthful okay, based on Peterson already having already read formed some kind of counterargument or response to Zizek's idea.
I haven't read any Zizek, that shit wouldn't mean anything to me.
I don't know anything about his brand of marxism.
And the discussion would then be centered about Zizek's perspective on marxism.
I don't care about that.

I just laugh at him because he sounds like Daffy Duck.

[Anonymous No.17252899]

[Anonymous No.17252917]

>>17252871
The issue here is that you don't seem to be interested in knowledge or intellectual discussion but rather just want sports entertainment where there's a clear "winner" dunking on the other guy that you can holler for as part of "your team"

[Anonymous No.17252935]

>>17250783
>>17250783
the point about lobsters is that we diverged from that a fuckton of time ago and we share sinilar reward systems in our brain when it comes to competiton and winning/losing. this means the struggle in the heirarchy isnt just ideaology its several millions years of biology

im no neurosientists and many of the neuroscientists i have seen try to do a takedown are either dishonest or autistically missing the bigger point peterson was making.

ive done some research into this independently and id guess that hes sort of right biologically but it doesnt really mean anything. everything is colored by biology but the system we live in is in no way in accordance ot our biological reality. it twists our basic drives in so many ways as to be nonbiological and inhuman

[Anonymous No.17252964]

>>17252917
That doesn't really logically follow.
Just because I'm not prepared for or interested some hyper-depthful analysis of Zizek, doesn't mean I don't want anything.

I wanted something accessible about a very broad topic.
And I got it.
Obviously thats difficult to do so the end result is relatively shallow to your expectations, but I saw in brief the distinction between Peterson's and Zizek's perspectives on Marxism and nominal arguments against the other.

[Anonymous No.17253034]

>>17252935
yes, it's a peak american common-sense empirical argument. as humans start to modify their dna and become wireheads it will fall flat completely.
there's a good philosophical case for the structural necessity of hierarchical structures though, and I think the lobster example is just meant to serve as an illustration of the principle of the eye and the pyramid, to speak symbolically.

[Anonymous No.17253038]

>*sniiiiifff*
>*wipes (((nose)))*
>and so on
This simply can’t be refuted

[Anonymous No.17253100]

>>17253038
>r-roughly speaking, that's a bad idea, bucko!

[Anonymous No.17253186]

>>17250651
lods of emone

[Anonymous No.17253373]

>>17250651
There wasn't anything to argue about. Peterson showed up ready to talk about happiness under Marxism, since this was in the name of the event. He started off at square one, passed it over to Zizek, then Zizek basically threw that all away and refused to defend Marxism at all. Then it turned into a tepid discussion between a guy reiterating his old points and a guy who clearly just wanted to shake shit up and see what came of it. People keep talking about the "Who are these postmodern neo-Marxists" bit as if it was some kind of a fatal zinger, when the ststement was immediately proceeded eith "I know which people you're talking sbout." Their biggest conflicts were over words, not even the actual ideas. It was fucking nothing.

[Anonymous No.17253471]

>>17252586
what the fuck

[Anonymous No.17253655]

>This thread