Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:47 pm

promethean75 wrote:
When I preside over hearings in the spirit world,


i have a question. what do you guys do when the judge walks in and the bailiff says 'all rise'? aren't you guys already kinda floating or hovering or something? i mean you can't stand up because you've got no legs, and you can't be sitting because you don't have an ass either, right? whaddaya just float up a little when he says that?


The hearings are telepathic
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby promethean75 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:50 pm

Oh. Nice.
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Blasphemy for dummies

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:24 pm

So... many people have no clue what blasphemy is.

The Holy Spirit in the Bible is the "spirit of truth"

Since god is truth in th bible, blasphemy would be to call god a liar, whilst knowing this isn't true.

Ignorance is forgiven, but is also one of the three poisons that perpetuate suffering.

In Buddhism, blasphemy is tearing apart the order, fracturing the sangha.

It's the same concept as blasphemy in the Bible.

That's all blasphemy is.

Now in stating that; there are countless sins, which are not blasphemy. Sin in Buddhism is the absence of nirvana.

That's blasphemy for dummies
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Guide » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:38 pm

"While it can improve human life that is not its actual purpose
Which is the study of observable phenomena and nothing else."


Thus, it should no longer be presented as something good. Four hundred years of outmoded propaganda, thought up while it was still believed to be a project for improving life, still live on and mislead persons such as yourself to speak of "reason" and "rationality" where none exists. Also, it does not "observe", it hoists sample spaces on the phenomena, uses them in particular ways kept in being only by sustained interested projects of particular groups, institutions, of humans. You don't understand, or have an inkling, of the depth and momentous importance of the issue.

The issue is not stopping technical research, it is putting a stop to talk of its rationality, reason, and other wild vestigial notions. And, most of all, to the notion that it is simply bringing abut something good, which is the tacit publicly sayable (one might say, rather, it is for sustaining the commercial requirements of the United States through military development) belief behind all "science" propaganda and State sustained legally-enforced indoctrination.
Guide
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Silhouette » Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:58 pm

So this debate showed up on youtube a few days ago and I watched it.

The degree to which Peterson wasn't prepared was embarrassing, not in the sense that Zizek slaughtered him - Z actually only seemed interested in establishing common ground - but P clearly had no idea... at all in the slightest... what Zizek's positions were. He was actually surprised to find out later on that Zizek was "a character", as if that wasn't immediately apparent from being exposed to him for just a few minutes. Instead he just came into the debate assuming him to embody the same old strawman of "the left" that all vocal conservatives and/or alt-rightist mouthpieces construct based on the worst aspects of those whom they see to be worthy as their chosen opponents: the dumbest and loudest political activist types. The arranged scope of the debate (the topics of happiness, Marxism and Capitalism) and his opening remarks reflect just this, with Z presumably agreeing to these topics as a means to simply cover his usual points..., which actually turned out to be appropriate as the first glimpse into his positions that Peterson clearly needed. Zizek's opening remarks were disappointingly just him reading off a piece of paper in a rather uncompelling way, but it served its purpose as a polite "yeah, what you just said had literally zero applicability".

When it came to Peterson responding in realisation that he had no idea what he was up against, it then resumed to be each of them - as I predicted - struggling to stop talking about their favourite topics (Zizek in particular as always), as if first getting to know each other and establishing that each knows that the other now knows who they are. Z seemed to have put at least minimal effort into finding out a couple of core principles of P, making short work of things like "clean your room" by actually putting them into a wider context, but nothing of intellectual import seemed to come of just the one debate.

If anything good was to come out of it, it was to prove at least to Peterson that the left isn't as shallow as he has repeatedly, over and over insisted it to be, in his sheltered understanding of it. It was hilarious to find his preparation to combat Marxism consisted of finally actually "reading" something about it: albeit only The Communist Manifesto - basically the shortest cop-out taken by those who wish to get their first exposure to Marxism, only to be confronted with a superficial call to action from those who are already familiar with the extensive works of Marx and Engels, and who already understand the reasoning behind the positions advocated in the brief text.

One can only hope that this monumentally humbling experience ought to get through to Peterson and motivate him to rectify what I had already identified as his most crippling weakness - his misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Leftism and Marxism. As a decent enough thinker, there may be some hope for him, but given the identity and persona that he has developed since making a living out of being "anti-left", the average human psyche tends not to lend itself to such modesty and honestly. Having said that, it's probably a fools hope to think his ilk and followers would do the same - considering the characteristic level of integrity and intellectual capability of such types who simply want a strawman to tear apart and a tribe to bond with through doing so.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby promethean75 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:27 am

bravo post, dude. zizek is extremely difficult to follow because the connections he makes are not immediately obvious. he requires a bit of meditation to really understand the meaning. i've come to see him as a kind of Mcluhan of marxism who adds an element of psychoanalysis to the usual proto-marxian examination of capitalism/consumerism. the neat little individual contradictions he points out are not important by themselves, but as a collection of insights revealng the less obvious forces working behind the scenes, they are penetratingly powerful. he's got a very unique and nuanced approach to the hidden forces many other philosophers haven't seemed to discover. but because of his complexity, it's easy for some to dismiss him as an obscurantist. the lightbulb simply doesn't turn on for them.

here's an example of two of his brilliant little insights:



but did you notice the subtle smugness peterson displayed during the debate? this was to undermine zizek's superiority and indirectly suggest to an audience ignorant of the depth of zizek's points, that he's just an obnoxious rambler. peterson knew what he was doing; he could not win through argument, so he resorted to a metalanguage to gain the advantage. all peterson needed to do was roll his eyes a few times, and the audience would be won. these are the tactics that right wing flakes like him depend on. peterson hasn't a fraction of zizek's intellect.
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:29 am

Oh yes, Jordan Peterson, the world reknowned man who called all the women out in their shit (which he didn't even come close to) and then under the slightest pressure, begs the world to forgive him by saying that he now understands how hard it is to be a woman and that he apologizes.

Now, I say shit about men and women, much deeper than Jordan Peterson is capable of comprehending with that teeny brain of his.

Do I apologize, no, because unlike Jordan Peterson, I have something called "proof through contradiction", something far too difficult for his puny mind to comprehend. It does not suprize me in the least that he encountered a greater intellect than his.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby promethean75 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:51 am

go to 7:40. in two minutes you'll feel like you're listening to an amateur self-help audio book that tenth graders from a christian academy are assigned for homework. by now peterson is so lost and overwhelmed by zizek's mastery of the subject matter, all he can do is crawl his way through and hope that zizek is the only one in the room about to fall asleep listening to him struggle to say something interesting. when he finally manages to, it's some stupid, obvious truism that everyoe already knows... then zizek throws another spade and demolishes it; 'doing what we know is wrong for a greater good'. well no shit. save that christian moralizing on students who are actually looking for religious opiates on purpose. that shit doesn't fly for leftists who know the history of that poison and what purpose it's always served. not all prospective workers are that easily brainwashed, peter son. not anymore. this is the 21rst century. god is dead, and no matter how sharp you look in that evangelical suit, you ain't gonna beat zizek at anything other than male modeling for GQ magazine.

promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: surreptitious75