Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

An amateur psychologist? Sure - pretty much everyone. I mean in their professional capacities and in their primary areas of interest and proven expertise.

I’m not so sure he’s finding another angle, he’s just changing the subject. He’s a big fan of analogy “it’s like…”, and whenever you try and pin him down he’ll go off on a tangent to his initial analogy because he feels like what he’s trying to explain “it’s complicated, man, it’s really complicated”. All he’s really doing is exposing his lack of ability to condense his understanding, often an indication that it isn’t a sufficient understanding - which is good in a way. He openly acknowledges that he’s debating at the edge of his understanding, and has no fear in presenting it. More people should do this when they are at the edge of their understanding, rather than insisting that they aren’t and trying to hide it to save face. The problem is that it’s not the edge of understanding for someone like Sam Harris, or even that Dillahunty guy, for whom I previously lacked respect due to the capacity in which I was made aware of him (his debate performance was clearer in orders of magnitude than the mess of his show where he’s dealing with obvious morons). He actually might throw my ranking into question, because I would class him as another competent and not advanced, yet he was still able to crush Peterson’s “advanced” thinking. I guess my categories aren’t mutually exclusive and overlap somewhat.

Zizek will also turn to analogy, particularly in the form of his jokes, which I love, but they are all convergent, not divergent. I’ve racked up literally hundreds of hours listening to each of them… how sad haha.

Peterson changed when I showed him VO.
He got a lot angrier, I must say.

Oh man, Dillahunty is definitely genius-level.

FWD to 36:00 (or backup a couple minutes for context)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL8LREmbDi0[/youtube]

“And as to whether or not we can know anything, the only demonstration that I can give is that I wrote this rebuttal ahead of time.” [Audience laughs] A mic-drop moment.

You’re right about Peterson: he’s lack-luster, and if I never hear him again, that’s perfectly fine.

I’m not aware of that Zizek fella. Perhaps I should be?

Woah.

That IS a good one… :astonished:

I wouldn’t say lack-luster as straight-up as you have - I think he has value, but I too will be perfectly fine if I never hear from him again.

I’m half surprised, yet half not. He’s a prominent leftist, but hails from the EU and probably falls short of the American standards for superficial aesthetics (and media bias).

By that, I mean if you can get past what I might naively suggest is a speech impediment, it might just be his Slovene accent, his ticks, sweatiness - his ideosyncracies in general - the guy is more than worth your time if you can keep up with the erratic (but as I said, convergent) structure of his points. There’s plenty of material out there - mostly commentary on contemporary issues drawing primarily from Lacan, Hegel and Marx.

I still can’t believe Chomsky flew under my radar for so long. I checked out Zizek briefly and I can get past his idiosyncrasies just fine. Thanks for the tip. If there is anyone else or anything else you’d suspect my being interested in, feel free to pass it along. :slight_smile:

you’ve only just now discovered zizek, serendipper? he’s like a rock star, comedian, narcissist (“i am a monster, i claim”), philosophical virtuoso and master psychoanalyst of capitalist/consumerist culture rolled into one, dude… how could you have missed him? watch this one (the whole series if you can).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06f5c0k1K3k[/youtube]

Missing the obvious is what I’m best at :smiley:

Rattle snakes, bishops hiding in corners… I don’t know I’m still alive :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m on it.

Update:

More of Zizek’s hideous, though charismatic, clowneries, in the most substantive and repulsive form, discrediting him and showing him to be a weak mind, shows in his recent talk of “pseudo science”. The man has no judgment concerning European science, is a basket case, living in a hamper, a kind of rat biting a hole in the wicker of a Soviet materialist Marxist ideological black out, peeking an ugly lascivious snout out for a sniff of sham fresh air (while continuing to bandy about Soviet bosh which he never got loose of due to having a weak mind). And what he refers to as “pseudo-science”, whatever that may mean, is a comparison concerning the way hormones function in different strata of animal life. A perfectly sensible subject matter. Zizek, a clever mind who appeals to those without the ability to think: infinite bluff of an academic theorist.

Supplement:

Sam Harris, a bore shock jock who appeals to illiterate persons of no culture, but who has the equipage of the strong self-reserved confidence of a magician. Wholly ignorant of Western thought and its history in any serious sense. Absurdly whimpered that he knew Richard Rorty as though that excused his lack of a serious knowledge of Pragmatism (and, as though Rorty, one among the many, were the very epitomized core of this American thinking). Idiotic American bloc demagogic appeal to the state educated multitude in its most elementary nakedness. Not so fraudulent, nor as wholly unable to think, as booboise beloved scientism posterboy Dawkins.

I eagerly await the beginnings of an argument.

Oh, I agree that Dawkins indulges in Scientism: the tertiary horseman, below Hitchens and above Dennett.

You have learned the simpleton patois of scientism, the wretched vox populi. Now, you must learn one day, that this kind of childishness is only good for mechanical dealings. For humans can’t be treated as cannon balls. It harms reasoning to forbid its power scope. Then, the result is, that one becomes dependent on rules, fallacies and various prosthetic means of “thinking” and “judging”, which more order one than serve the mind. However, beside from the current age, and its problems, due to the race of lethal missiles ahead of the power to think, which you must study decades to grasp, what I would recommend is that you read a decent piece of literature. Plato, a magnificent stylist, will help whet your apatite for the joy derived from the wink of language. Poor denizen of Galilean decay!

Your fraudulent obnoxiousness has lied, since I gave a reason. Though, not Zizek, who merely says “pseudos”!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/youtube]

The judgment stands, despite inarticulate popular outcry. Very few people have strong minds, Zizek is surely not one of them.

What do you think logic is for?
Do you really think that certain people can only think from one logical proposition to the next? In reality pretty much everyone thinks without restraint, myself included, only if they wish to communicate their thoughts meaningfully they can either systematise what they’ve thought, after they’ve thought it, into a form that others can make sense of, or they can just throw out raw thoughts through whatever means. The latter can be artistic expression, it can rely on the interpretation of others, it can be nonsense. By all means indulge in the latter, but if you go by the former you can construct ideas that actually make reliable sense of our senses - even formulate cogent argument and predict things with more than random success. The Apollonian versus the Dionysian, if you like. Perhaps you are a die-hard devotee of the latter - there is nothing inherently wrong with embracing nonsense and irrationality. Art has value, no question, but it does not have the same value as rational analysis and accurate, reliable communication.

This is what logic is for, and if you wish to explore the details on a precise, communicable level to build something that lasts independently of the expression of the day and contemporary tastes, perhaps some Galilean decay would do you good! The reality is that you rely on whatever you might call the sensible, rational, logical form of thinking in your everyday social life - assuming you have one and aren’t completely dependent on others to interact for you. Maybe you’re still a child? Which everyone was once. In as far as anyone is embedded in the real world, and with the capacity to create beyond the transitory, they will learn to formulate their thought, however previously unshackled it was, into something that is not fallacious.

As such, on a forum of communication that values the wisdom not only in the arts but also the sciences, your excuse from logical consistency is denied.

Likely, it ('s reason debtre) is because the sophists wanted to play a game with the Megarians et others. And, then, later, the Christians. Ergo, they needed “rules”.

Exacto! Genauification. Now your simplicity is not in a herd of lies, but sensibly betraying itself to our naked consideration of you foul unworthiness!

However, what if others, too, had the same crude thoughts? Ergo, were “human” upon the same mistake. Why expand the hoop of the beings with direct “given” (es gibt) “thereness”? why not, instead, drill into truth!

I would name these concepts, not ideas. This is a cruel trick on a man such as Plato, who despised idiot concepts. Ideas, that is, direct knowledge of being as it is, the only authority, being for the anthropos, or hominem (human). If, many words, than, concepts. Abstraction. After two thousand years, “ideal types”.

However, at bottom, this means solopsism as “life” (ergo, anti-Descartesianismaficationelifaction, el sid), that is, total identification with everyone and everything, and form. Ergo, being and beings.

This is derivative, if I may say so without offending you to your being, of rationality as some value. I.e, I think ratio as the source of the answer to: How to live?, or, How to carry out predictive vert-frei science, or, &c., then, find some “romantic” departure from that project.

This misses the point outright, e.g., the destruction of science! Of the tradition, in the attempt to make politics formulaic, Hobbesian. this attempt failed. The result is still with us, your education, namely, all you know, as did the Maoist or Stalinist child, is a thing to be overcome. This is very hard to achieve.

Not at all about “art”. Art and techne are the same thing historically. Science was degraded, became, mere art. Mere technology.

“Art”, as art for art sake, or as economics + poltics = “art world” may be “neutral”, e.g., something one scarcely cares about. That is self-evident, many don’t give a damn about present day “art”. Art, in the traditional sense, you don’t understand this, means, something learned, ergo = LEARNABLE, rather than nature. REASON was understood as an art in the middle ages (cf. recta ratio, right reason [concerning the law of a country]).

Child {you must see = you honestly are very poorly informed, one studies these matters for decades]. “Logic” has many meanings. The most recent has to do with “symbolic logic”, e.g., mere “rules” = “math”. You are naked unaware of the history of thought = WHAT THOUGTHIS WHAT YOU ARE!. If you are not infinitely rude I can show you, but I am not your nurse to waste time constantly on unnecessary polemics.

This is a notion of math as a concept. As in Stephen Wolfram.

Now, I’ve studied all this much more thoroughly than you. This means: I am not your fucking nurse. If you don’t believe it I don’t care. Get lost then if you want to “debate”. I am of AT LEAST sound mental capacity, likely much higher, so that means, whatever you think is certainly wrong, because you have less data to work with. You are a baby in thought. The gods have forgoten to sing over your cradle, and so, your language is dumbness and American bloc music.

A sufficiently obscured argument, such that nobody can quite understand, can never be faulted, eh?
You can always pull the “you’re too dumb to understand” card this way.
Seems pretty cowardly, no wonder you have such a high opinion of yourself, all protected in your self-made bubble.
I bet you don’t even dare be understood else we all realise how full of shit you really are.

But this way, you can claim mental capacity to whatever degree you like without ever actually having to say anything at all or even know what you’re talking about!

Either you are choosing the most autistic standard of self-evaluation possible, or you are a sophist.

I’ll be generous and go with the latter for now, and you can continue to go ahead and tell yourself how brilliant you are, “if only others were smart enough to understand” what you’ve intentionally prevented them from understanding.

Or have I been too rude for you to be willing to stoop down and nurse anyone or anything now, “Soliphist”? I’d be so sad if I had :cry:

I can’t edit one of my previous posts anymore - the Rationality Rules guy is Stephen Woodford, not Simon.

I guess his channel title suggests he’s just another rule-follower with his dumb, childlike, perfectly comprehensible rationality. If only he would reel off impenetrable nonsense claiming to be profound - then he would be as advanced as “Guide”.

Aquinas and the medievals thought ratio, reason, was the essence of the human being, and that through it human beings could come to the mind of god. And therein might achieve rational life, a measured goodness, as an ordering of our will to action. But, what is the excuse for fetishizing rationality today when nobody believes that? Reason exists, it’s a tool for making instruments and for manipulating our fellows, this is the real accepted belief. The rest is a fetishism of impotent private “subjective” convictions. Who cares what conclusions reason comes to? It’s not a serious thing to make these kind of analyses, it’s a babyish game which may, here and there, be sincerely believed in as are shallow thoughtless political views, and it relies on all sorts of vacant and busted assumptions. It’s a thing for burial. This kind of modern and passing conceptions such as “objective existence” taken as the word of a revilation for all practical purposes. All the arguments of people like this are based essentially on “autistic” presuppositions of this sort. It’s a kind of demagoguery founded in what we’ve picked up in school, through the state compulsory education which is based on the best professors could do fifty years ago, or whenever the concepts came to power. It’s not a worthy pursuit for a serious person, self respecting, who would attempt to learn the scrutinizing of reality. It’s an aping of a received wisdom. It is a belief, demanded by the prevailing tradition. It is closer, therby, to what was fought against, by the thinkers who polemized against institutional religion (that is when it was still a real power, e.g., the Kulturkampf, one of its final victories before its down going in the essential respect, long after it had been for three centuries weeded out of the educated classes ever since Hobbes’ work in 1650), its dogmas, than to thought or philosophy in any serious sense.

We have here a comprehensive problem, a global difficulty. The circumstance isn’t that individual students are not intelligent, or even that “analytic philosophy” is mere “problem solving”, but, rather, the whole approach in the countries dominated by capitalism, in the Western bloc, which is increasingly planetary, is simply “autistic” (“continental philosophy” just as much) or unserious, the training is personal and petty, the proffesorite is generally incompetent to teach philosophy in any serious sense, they don’t know what it is. I remind you of the infinitely trenchant remark of Hannah Ardent (circa 1950, in paraphrase): the American hasn’t an inkling of what philosophy is (the German of what politics is). what is sought is the technological essence, in the service of economy through concerning its military needs, achievable through a certain form of education. There is a race to power which can not be stopped, since each country must be able to hold its own in the world or become a servant. The global university, its elite schools in America and the UK, is not concerned with philosophy/wisdom as philosophy, but with philosophy as a petty individual academic concern subordinate to what we have long called science, the Galilean science, now planetary. It presupposes the authority of this European science, the part of philosophy now in power. It presupposes the general existential nihilism of the each one has the right to interpret existence in their own way. It has no, can produce in its product, young consumers and programmers, no serious grasp of its place in the history of thought, and how it is floating about on uninterrupted presuppositions of a radical and comprehensive character which are the intransigent support of it spontaneous ends.

So reason is an outdated practice, founded in ideas that no longer hold.

It merely lets us build things and persuade those under its spell.

I remember rebelling against reason myself a few years ago for a long time, and people here would ridicule me, but irrationality is a perfectly choosable choice - and I still don’t deny that now. You claim superiority through looking past the methods you were taught at school, well you’re not the only one who did that.

Your reasoning here is that, given reasons such as you present, one would do better to abandon reason - and this is the exact reason why I found such reasoning to be invalid: it is in itself reasoning. How can you argue against reason while at the same time appealing to it? You can say anything you like, even in the most abstruse syntax and semantics, but as soon as it makes sense you validate reason. You appeal “to the rules”.
But hey, you’re arguing against reason, so even though you’re appealing to reason, you can deny that you are and not be in violation of being free from reason because there are no rules. You can say whatever you want, whatever comes to mind, whatever you think - fuck reason, you’re free from that. However, the effectiveness of this relies on others similarly rejecting reason such that they either agree with you because of whatever comes to their mind, or they don’t. It’s a gamble - there’s no reason to agree or disagree with you, it’s all cathartic expression. You win as much as you lose and nothing is built any more than it is destroyed - you’re just you and that’s that.

Like I said, it’s a perfectly choosable choice.

But what else does reason accomplish? Consider the illusions of simply taking things at face value - as you do when you pay no regard to “the rules” of reasoning. They will fail you. Reason will navigate you around them, predictive power goes through the roof and you will overpower all the free spirits who are so superior such as yourself. These mere instruments that you bring up are the same that you use to communicate with us here, they run the daily things that you take for granted, they found all the systems and work methods that found the running of the daily life of yourself and the entire society in which you live. They allowed electricity, mechanical utility, sewage systems, running water - how pathetic and outdated reason is!

These fucking reasonable retards!

A particular interpretation of what we have long been in the habit of calling reason no longer appeals to reason. It’s different. You’re failing to explain, in simple terms, what reason names. So that we know what we are doing and talking about. What we are thoughtlessly taking for granted, or seizing upon in order to interpret, or approaching in order to let it call to us so that we can become its respondents.

In the tradition, which is still with us as the contemporary, there is, here and there, a high point which spills down on all the other points. From there, reason is meant to stand above and outside experience, and when undeceived by eristics it comes to the absolute truth. Now listen: this absolute truth, the wild and fabulous phrase, is synonymous with the calm and average talk about “objective reality”. This requires one to think. There are a great many points like this one, unthought in the usual rigmarole of grad students, academics, and persons on intellectual shows appealing to the state trained popular multitude. They are all the time abstractedly wondering about in old language, and that means old thoughts, not genuinely understood by themselves.

It is not at all clear what reason names. Even in the simplest sense. We have a discussion, a discussion surely is not only reasonable. It is called in Plato “dialectic”, in Aristotle logic and dialectic are synonyms. With the Romans dialectic is named, but in the medievals there is talk of something like disputation, and there all manner of informal logic develops, in a special circumstance of communal research towards the truth amidst fellow Catholics, in our own time logic names mathematics, symbolic logic, it is just rules (free of “metaphysics”, thus infinitely valuable to the academic who can be sure it is right, it is right, for it is right bey definition, like rules of a foolish game to waste the time). There is syllogism, and rules of drawing inference, at times this is called reason. Man’s essence, what differentiates him from all things that exist, is said to be reason (ratio). Is the intellect identical to reason, reason in what sense? In a simple sense, for example, one can say that drawing inference is something that belongs to all human minds, so long as there is no deception in the data of experience. And yet, if that is all reason is, why would we have so much trouble with disputations, with contest in speech? why would not each person, sharing reason alike, be as a matching punch card, and say the same as each other?

These kinds of question man has often answered, though they are difficult to sort out, they all do find answers with certain authorities. These authorities are not mere authorities, but thoughts in the tradition. A history, empirical data of what humans have thought. Of what we still think in transformed form. We are the past of thought. If we are serious we can not go about assuming to know all these things in a popular appeal to a mere word already set down for us in a dictionary. Our knowing is a somnambulist inside us, acting us out. Assumed, superficially in the popular mind, to carry the valence of the unqualified good.