Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Right, so this is why I make the comment that you speak of philosophy as ethics.

Philosophy is more meta than this: understanding reasons for looking at anything, even philosophy itself, as “for” anything, or even if it is “for” anything at all - not implying it isn’t, just meaning that there are all kinds of understandings.

You, are being a Utilitarian, fairly straight forward from your argument thus far…
“How long will the same sense of use last?” is your question - a good question for that particular field of questioning. I am sure this is not all you are, but this is the vein along which you are arguing so far.

As I was going to say, that surreptitious75 said first, science expands the how, not the why.
Although, with its advancements in explorations of the brain, it even appears to be answering the “how” of “why” itself…

Yes, or for reason, which minimises values in order to more accurately map them to reality: ultimately a valuation to minimise valuation, allowing the potential for either increased subsequent valuation or otherwise. I am reminded of the Nietzschean metaphor of taking a step backward - perhaps in order to jump forward further.

This is where the dialectical construction of “reality” comes in: emerging from both observation and the lack of sense-making of certain observations in the context of others - that may result in such counter-observational conclusions as the human being considering the “without the human being”. We all learn this, from around six years old when we learn theory of mind: that things may be running about without our seeing them running about - and it turns out that doing so models and predicts observations (taken within the context of dialectically conceived “reality”) far more truly than necessarily denying a human being running about when there is no human being around to see them running about. Not saying you should do either, I’m just sticking with the clarification of what “reason” is - which is not to do with absolute, but relative consistency.

I have no doubt that many men abandon reason as soon as it ceases to coincide with their interest - and there may very well be short term benefits, at least seemingly, for them to do so. This is no argument against the use of reason being a more successful strategy, but more of an argument affirming the irrational tendencies of some men…

This sophomoric tangent is a little annoying. Suffice to say that there is no “just subjective” when all is subjective - only when there is an objective to be superior, which to a subjectivist there isn’t.

So there’s no connect between each side of the argument and you are each speaking past one another - pointless.

It’s consent violation and approach escalation, too.

But c’mon, deebo, stall him out. Stop bullying the nigga.

Sophmorish eh?

That’s silluottes last defense ?

When you have 4 people calling you a worthless price of shit because you believe:

In order for something to exist in some way, it must exist in some way.

You see where their true loyalty lies.

Crap.

The excrement that doesn’t even replenish soil or mold

Replying to myself here.

The reason that you’ll never win the subjectivist debate:

I believe I exist.

You’re existence is only subjective, not to be taken seriously.

Do you “subjectivists” (because I know you really aren’t subjectivists) want the full wrath of what you proport to be?

No.

You don’t.

You drag anyone who cares about anything through hell on earth by always responding “but that’s just subjective”

But when it happens to you “its just subjective”, you all kick and moan and whine and scream when someone does it to you.

Provide evidence for this or else retract the statement and then apologise for making false accusations
I dont think that anyone has actually said this but even if they did why does it matter what they think ?
What some one thinks about me is none of my business and the same should also be true for you as well

Names:

You, serendipper, iambiguous, silloutte

All of you have stated as proclaimed subjectivists, that the phrase “in order for something to exist in some way, something must exist in some way”

Is worthless and meaningless.

Not being a subjectivist: this is much more a serious charge against me and all of humanity itself

No evidence then for anyone calling you a worthless piece of shit as I thought because no one did
This is a philosophy forum where all ideas are taken apart so if you dont like it why are you here ?
And I dont call myself either a subjectivist or an objectivist so those descriptions dont apply to me

Is not worthless and meaningless but it is a tautology so it is only trivially true
But I dont actually remember saying anything like this so it doesnt apply to me

No it’s the first I’ve had to say on the topic, and just an observation not a defense because there was no offense.

You’re not a worthless piece of shit, where did I call you that? If you wanna believe that about yourself then that’s on you. Or perhaps you are just looking for reassurance that you aren’t one, just because some people don’t agree with you.

“Just subjective” is sophomoric, that’s all I’m saying: because it’s facile to avoid thinking through anyone else’s position other than your own. All it does is show a gap in your own understanding.

Where did I proclaim Subjectivism? My actual position is more nuanced than that. Sounds like surreptitious75 is saying the same thing - and Seren isn’t even here.

No. I’ve not stated this, nor do I think it’s worthless and meaningless. Well, I mean repeating a statement again as a reason for the first time is tautologous so it lacks worth and meaning in that sense, but without saying it twice “something exists in some way” is perfectly compatible with both Subjectivism and Objectivism - and many other positions besides…

You would do well to come to understand why this is for positions other than your own - it would advance you as a philosopher.

I’m not saying “but that’s just subjective” to anything… Things can be said to be subjective when otherwise claimed to be objective, sure, but that’s not the same as saying it’s trivial. Subjective isn’t “just” trivial, it’s of the same importance - just not independent of a subject.

This is actually relevant to a mention of Wittgenstein by Guide earlier in this thread, that “to do philosophy. One must include the human being.” I actually amended this statement, but I guess you didn’t read that did you?

You seem hysterical so I’d recommend calming down if you want to have a proper discussion on Subjectivism versus Objectivism - and maybe then even moving past the whole false dichotomy that you’re getting so worked up about.

Sillouette,

Instead of making a large post addressing all your point, which I will do if need be, I’ll address one point.

You argue that my statement, “in order for something to be true in some way, that something must be true in some way”

Is merely definitional in the contexts of subjects.

My question to you, how can we formulate definitional truths without accessing objective formulas in reality, without it “just being subjective”

There is a reason for me using the word “just”

When something is objective, nobody says “well, that’s just objective”

The popular nomenclature for subjectivity is actually, “well, that’s just subjective”

You’re redefining the nomenclature with zero effort or explanation

I’m going to tell you something you’ll find far fetched.

When I preside over hearings in the spirit world, and I’ve had this occasion many times.

The defense of the subjectivist is that it’s only subjective that they exist or did anything which the proceedings are about.

And I say, well, you can be subjective in a subjective soul prison.

And the court laughs.

Funnily enough, for someone who loathes the Bible, in revelations, the greatest sin is indifference.

That is the path of the self refuting nonchalantness of the subjectivist. The Holy Spirit is actually otherwise known as the spirit of truth, and subjectivism is a slowly acting poison of spirit that rots it to nothing.

People flock to it because they have a neurotic terror of being “caught”. This neurosis eventually and ironically turns then into the evil that they otherwise wouldn’t have become.

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

Oh. Nice.

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

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2F4D57JGQQ[/youtube]