Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hoarmurath

BREAKING: Zizek schools Peterson on Basic Economics

Recommended Posts

Christ says to those who want to stone the woman taken in adultery, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone!” he is immediately hit by a stone, and then shouts back: “Mother! I asked you to stay at home!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Feanor said:

Christ says to those who want to stone the woman taken in adultery, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone!” he is immediately hit by a stone, and then shouts back: “Mother! I asked you to stay at home!”


"It is not just a question of seeing things (that is, social reality) as they 'really are," of throwing away the distorting spectacles of ideology; the main point is to see how the reality itself cannot reproduce itself without this so-called ideological mystification. The mask is not simply hiding the real state of things; the ideological distortion is written into its very essence... the moment we see it 'as it really is,' this being dissolves itself into nothingness or, more precisely, it changes into another kind of reality. That is why we must avoid simple metaphors of demasking, of throwing away the veils which are supposed to hide the naked reality."

Image result for zizek my god the ideology

Image result for zizek and so on meme

 

Edited by Hoarmurath
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ctrl-Shift-V folks. Learn it, love it. 

@Hoarmurath I doubt anyone is going to watch a 3 hour video. Do you have a TL;DR to share or an article that gives the run down of what was said? 

  • You need communism 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Abdel said:

 

@Hoarmurath I doubt anyone is going to watch a 3 hour video. Do you have a TL;DR to share or an article that gives the run down of what was said? 

I can find an article after my basketball game which is starting in 3 minutes and for which I haven't even gotten dressed yet, but the debate is actually only about 2 hours. It doesn't start until around 45 minutes into the video. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I hate watching videos of people talking. I can just read it, and much faster at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debate was framed around three concepts: capitalism (and its effect on human nature), communism (and its effect on human nature), and happiness (and its effect on human nature). There have been a number of articles published leading up to and after the debate, but these are the "best" I have seen around: 

[x] https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/20190404-peterson

(For a basic profile of both debaters)

[x] https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/03/05/39369540/nothing-is-a-greater-waste-of-time-than-the-planned-debate-between-jordan-peterson-and-slavoj-zizek
(For an understanding of what the debate was inevitably going to be about)

[x] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/jordan-peterson-slavoj-zizek-happiness-capitalism-marxism

(For a pretty lazy write-up of what was actually talked about)

 

There hasn't been a better editorial postmortem of the debate than the Guardians' written yet. Be the change I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Feanor said:

Yeah, I hate watching videos of people talking. I can just read it, and much faster at that.

Watching also means you're influenced by their style, tone, emotions, looks, etc. rather than solely the content of their arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, EagleMan said:

Watching also means you're influenced by their style, tone, emotions, looks, etc. rather than solely the content of their arguments.

Writing is also an influencing medium of communication. It suggests formality, authority, etc. Debate is not lesser than when done orally, it's just different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EagleMan said:

Watching also means you're influenced by their style, tone, emotions, looks, etc. rather than solely the content of their arguments.

 

This sounds like an argument in favor of reading over watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peterson’s interpretations of figures like jung and understanding of twentieth century psychologists is excellent, but the rest is show biz and profit drives. He’s a pseudo scientist in regards to his understanding of ideologies and his knowledge on economics comes down to “lul hey have you heard of the Pareto Distribution?”

 

That said I don’t think the idea of winning and losing in a debate leads to truely productive discussion. Make it about the ideas, not the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M3rkabo said:

Peterson’s interpretations of figures like jung and understanding of twentieth century psychologists is excellent

Are you high? Peterson doesn't have even a tenuous grasp on Freud, and certainly has no actionable understanding of Jung. Zizek referenced 'the Shadow' at one point in the debate, and Peterson just shook his head and nodded before launching back into his convoluted naturalist diatribe. Peterson is at *best* a pop-psychologist with no grasp on scholarship. I have seen graduate students teaching theory classes applying psychological methods with a firmer and much better understanding of basic concepts than Peterson possesses.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)

Edited by Hoarmurath
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since Ive seen someone try to dismiss someone's arguments simply by killing the messenger. Who am I kidding it happens everyday. 

 

He has a PhD in clinical psychology and has been teaching the subject for 20 years at a university level. I'm sure the graduate students you reference cant say the same. 

 

It would make a much more interesting conversation if you highlighted some of Peterson's arguments that you disagree with and why you disagree rather than attack the messenger and call those who agree with him "high".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hoarmurath said:

Are you high? Peterson doesn't have even a tenuous grasp on Freud, and certainly has no actionable understanding of Jung. Zizek referenced 'the Shadow' at one point in the debate, and Peterson just shook his head and nodded before launching back into his convoluted naturalist diatribe. Peterson is at *best* a pop-psychologist with no grasp on scholarship. I have seen graduate students teaching theory classes applying psychological methods with a firmer and much better understanding of basic concepts than Peterson possesses.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)

 

Lol, you are making me cringe so hard right now, you think that if Zizek didn't at least see Peterson as somewhat on his level he would've gotten into that stage with him? You understand why both of them were up there and you weren't, right?

 

Way to be a keyboard intellectual, In fact, Zizek had plenty of very easy to dismiss arguments on his initial thesis as well, he mentions how one of Capitalism's main flaws is that it promotes degeneracy, and let's take back that for a moment and try to understand what it implies, it implies (if you want to be realistic and understand that he was implying that there is a better model that does not have these issues), that Communism or any other alternative would've never brought the internet as such, and well, it simply isn't realistic, the initial undersea cable was placed in 1858, which was just 10 years after the communist manifesto was released, it simply was "too late" for it's own good, so you would need to accept the fact that the internet would eventually come for the simple fact that a very rudimentary example was already laid and proven to work. As such, let's look at the current climate, just take a look at social media for example, even if "social media" sites didn't exist under a private entity, they would most likely still exist under a public entity, simply because people have a need for communication, and thus we can conclude that things such as girls posting photos of their asses and getting more likes than them posting intelligent stuff is going to happen nonetheless. So no, communism is not the only model that would generate sexual degeneracy.

 

Now another point, he ends his thesis by saying how he sees the light at the end of the tunnel to be another train coming in and killing us all, well, if we're going to be apocalyptic about it, and see stuff that could probably happen, we should also see the other side of the argument shouldn't we? The whole argument about how we're destroying the planet is just ridiculous and how that is a perfect argument against capitalism, is just ridiculous, we will eventually die due to natural climate change, outside of capitalism accelerated climate change, we could also die from stuff such as meteors and other catastrophic events which will eventually happen, so we can easily conclude that Earth is not going to be our everlasting place of existence, we will eventually move on from Earth, and capitalism is the only model proven to enable progress on that front, SpaceX's incredible development is the biggest example. And once we escape Earth, the whole "destroying the ecosystem" becomes rubbish, because there are more planets out there than there will be humans in most likely thousands of years.

 

So again, the "core" problems of capitalism are nothing but rubbish, I however don't disagree that there could be other models tried (Andrew Yang's European approach isn't bad either), but pure communism is not one of them.

 

PSA: I'm not a career "Philosopher" or anything similar to that, I'm just pointing out that to me Zizek had as many flaws on his argument as did Peterson, and that is to be expected, this is just a debate, based on what they have in mind at the moment, in reality, it's moronic to believe that you can dismiss an argument or even worse, a person, without proper, decades long research, something which I believe that you have not done.

 

(I don't plan on replying again to this topic because I find it to be stupid outside of the link to the debate which I did see and found interesting). English is not my native language so I find it somewhat annoying to be replying to people who regurgitate college rhetoric.

Edited by WoAMapMaker
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hoarmurath Ok buddy, you’re now in talking out of your ass territory. Go read maps of meaning and come back because that was 2 lines of bullshit

Edited by M3rkabo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, WoAMapMaker said:

 

Lol, you are making me cringe so hard right now, you think that if Zizek didn't at least see Peterson as somewhat on his level he would've gotten into that stage with him? You understand why both of them were up there and you weren't, right?

 

Way to be a keyboard intellectual, In fact, Zizek had plenty of very easy to dismiss arguments on his initial thesis as well, he mentions how one of Capitalism's main flaws is that it promotes degeneracy, and let's take back that for a moment and try to understand what it implies, it implies (if you want to be realistic and understand that he was implying that there is a better model that does not have these issues), that Communism or any other alternative would've never brought the internet as such, and well, it simply isn't realistic, the initial undersea cable was placed in 1858, which was just 10 years after the communist manifesto was released, it simply was "too late" for it's own good, so you would need to accept the fact that the internet would eventually come for the simple fact that a very rudimentary example was already laid and proven to work. As such, let's look at the current climate, just take a look at social media for example, even if "social media" sites didn't exist under a private entity, they would most likely still exist under a public entity, simply because people have a need for communication, and thus we can conclude that things such as girls posting photos of their asses and getting more likes than them posting intelligent stuff is going to happen nonetheless. So no, communism is not the only model that would generate sexual degeneracy.

 

Now another point, he ends his thesis by saying how he sees the light at the end of the tunnel to be another train coming in and killing us all, well, if we're going to be apocalyptic about it, and see stuff that could probably happen, we should also see the other side of the argument shouldn't we? The whole argument about how we're destroying the planet is just ridiculous and how that is a perfect argument against capitalism, is just ridiculous, we will eventually die due to natural climate change, outside of capitalism accelerated climate change, we could also die from stuff such as meteors and other catastrophic events which will eventually happen, so we can easily conclude that Earth is not going to be our everlasting place of existence, we will eventually move on from Earth, and capitalism is the only model proven to enable progress on that front, SpaceX's incredible development is the biggest example. And once we escape Earth, the whole "destroying the ecosystem" becomes rubbish, because there are more planets out there than there will be humans in most likely thousands of years.

 

So again, the "core" problems of capitalism are nothing but rubbish, I however don't disagree that there could be other models tried (Andrew Yang's European approach isn't bad either), but pure communism is not one of them.

 

PSA: I'm not a career "Philosopher" or anything similar to that, I'm just pointing out that to me Zizek had as many flaws on his argument as did Peterson, and that is to be expected, this is just a debate, based on what they have in mind at the moment, in reality, it's moronic to believe that you can dismiss an argument or even worse, a person, without proper, decades long research, something which I believe that you have not done.

 

(I don't plan on replying again to this topic because I find it to be stupid outside of the link to the debate which I did see and found interesting). English is not my native language so I find it somewhat annoying to be replying to people who regurgitate college rhetoric.

 So what you're saying is that GOD ALMIGHTY gave mankind the earth to despoil, and ecology is FAKE NEWS?

 

You're entitled to your very wrong opinion, but you aren't allowed to tell other people they're wrong at an ad hominem level when they're not. Resources are not infinite and your garbage (quite literally) mentality is rooted in what I can only assume are deep-seeded problems you have with "the Left" writ large.

 

Go back to your basement and read some more Breitbart about how Elon Musk and Ron Paul will save us from ecological collapse.

 

Or you could read the only non-shit libertarian that exists, Noam Chomsky, and realize that Earth Strikers around the world disagree with your bullshit. 

 

 

 

>"I'm not a Philosopher"

That is CLEAR. Read a fucking book, jesus christ. 

 

3 hours ago, M3rkabo said:

@Hoarmurath Ok buddy, you’re now in talking out of your ass territory. Go read maps of meaning and come back because that was 2 lines of bullshit

No I'm not? Have you ever read anything by a psychologist that wasn't Jordan Peterson? Because reviews of this book are hilarious, from PsychologyToday:

"Scrutiny shows that Peterson’s Maps of Meaning is defective as a work of anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and politics."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201803/jordan-petersons-murky-maps-meaning

 

If you're interested in this topic, I highly suggest Jack Zipes, *The Brothers Grimm: From Enchanted Forests to the Modern World* for a brief survey of continental philosophy that doesn't fuck everything up and go with Joseph Campbell's understanding of the monomyth for every situation. 

Edited by Hoarmurath
  • Funny 1
  • Unimpressed 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hoarmurath said:

 

 So what you're saying is that GOD ALMIGHTY gave mankind the earth to despoil, and ecology is FAKE NEWS? 

 

You're entitled to your very wrong opinion, but you aren't allowed to tell other people they're wrong at an ad hominem level when they're not. Resources are not infinite and your garbage (quite literally) mentality is rooted in what I can only assume are deep-seeded problems you have with "the Left" writ large.

 

Go back to your basement and read some more Breitbart about how Elon Musk and Ron Paul will save us from ecological collapse.

 

Or you could read the only non-shit libertarian that exists, Noam Chomsky, and realize that Earth Strikers around the world disagree with your bullshit. 

 

 

 

>"I'm not a Philosopher"

That is CLEAR. Read a fucking book, jesus christ. 

 

No I'm not? Have you ever read anything by a psychologist that wasn't Jordan Peterson? Because reviews of this book are hilarious, from PsychologyToday:

"Scrutiny shows that Peterson’s Maps of Meaning is defective as a work of anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and politics."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201803/jordan-petersons-murky-maps-meaning

 

If you're interested in this topic, I highly suggest Jack Zipes, *The Brothers Grimm: From Enchanted Forests to the Modern World* for a brief survey of continental philosophy that doesn't fuck everything up and go with Joseph Campbell's understanding of the monomyth for every situation. 

 

First of all, nice ad hominem, clearly touched a nerve there, was it the line about regurgitating what your college professor taught you? second,I don't know where you got that from, I'm not even religious, you clearly are so biased that you can't see your own shit, I know I said I wasn't gonna keep replying but that part of your comment seemed so moronic to me, that not only did I stop reading whatever else you posted but it guaranteed a reply from me just to call you out, so I guess good luck with that.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WoAMapMaker said:

 

First of all, nice ad hominem, clearly touched a nerve there, was it the line about regurgitating what your college professor taught you? second,I don't know where you got that from, I'm not even religious, you clearly are so biased that you can't see your own shit, I know I said I wasn't gonna keep replying but that part of your comment seemed so moronic to me, that not only did I stop reading whatever else you posted but it guaranteed a reply from me just to call you out, so I guess good luck with that.

 

Yes, ignorant fucks do quite 'touch a nerve' when they claim that resources are infinite as justification for policies of total ecological ruin. Also calling out your ideas and sources as stupid and wrong is not ad hominem. That isn't how logical fallacies work. Secondly, I never said anything about you being religious. I made a joke about the IDEA you put forward, not you yourself.

 

And finally, no, being a graduate student in medieval history means most of my professors are not left commies like JBP would like you to believe. 

 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hoarmurath said:

 

Yes, ignorant fucks do quite 'touch a nerve' when they claim that resources are infinite as justification for policies of total ecological ruin. Also calling out your ideas and sources as stupid and wrong is not ad hominem. That isn't how logical fallacies work. Secondly, I never said anything about you being religious. I made a joke about the IDEA you put forward, not you yourself.

 

And finally, no, being a graduate student in medieval history means most of my professors are not left commies like JBP would like you to believe.  

 

 

 

Keep strawmanning dude, yeah, it's working great for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WoAMapMaker said:

 

Keep strawmanning dude, yeah, it's working great for you.

If you aren't going to address any ideas of substance and only want to troll/muckrake, please stop replying to this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think you're setting up this thread for a productive discussion @Hoarmurath given your behavior. I understand you've been on the receiving end of hostility as well but you started the fire and I dont see an end in sight where ee dont keep pouring fuel on it now that this tone has been established from the onset. 

 

If decorum and civility isnt returned I'll be forced to lock this thread, which would be a shame because I'm really looking forward to some of your arguments, but all I've seen are ad hominems and 'go read such and such'. If there is an argument to be made, make it yourself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on the original subject. I tried to listen to this debate on my drive today but turned it off in disgust and annoyance. Peterson strawman's hard, and even contradicts himself. The very idea of trying to argue about Marxism and communism based on simply a reading of the Communist Manifesto is incredibly foolish. An 18th century political pamphlet is not a foundational work of socioeconomic theory, and treating it as one is rather silly. He is also clearly unaware of the basics of Marxist thought. You can't argue against Marxism without studying Marxism and not look like an idiot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Feanor said:

Back on the original subject. I tried to listen to this debate on my drive today but turned it off in disgust and annoyance. Peterson strawman's hard, and even contradicts himself. The very idea of trying to argue about Marxism and communism based on simply a reading of the Communist Manifesto is incredibly foolish. An 18th century political pamphlet is not a foundational work of socioeconomic theory, and treating it as one is rather silly. He is also clearly unaware of the basics of Marxist thought. You can't argue against Marxism without studying Marxism and not look like an idiot.

In no world is reading the Communist Manifesto to be advocated as a method of understanding Marxism or the ideology of Karl Marx in his lifetime. It is akin to the mistakes of many mid-20th century socialist organizations, who found in the works of Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg the 'secret blueprint' to achieving revolution in one's own lifetime. Rather than understanding the principles on which the theory was based, and on which the great revolutionaries of the early 20th century based their praxis, instead these individuals promulgated published texts as unshakable dogmas for creating a vanguardistic party structure, therein creating the legacy by which communism is still judged (and very harshly) by the very same "postmodern" academics who JBP and his ilk so disdain. 

 

For a basic survey of Marxian economics, all three volumes of Das Kapital must be addressed before moving on to more advanced texts like the incomplete Grundrisse or The Eighteenth Brumaire. For Marxian economics after Marx, Hobsbawm and David Harvey remain mainstays in their respective fields (history and macro-economics).

 

I run a socialist reading group on discord (we also have a website and forum, but it's not much used). If there's anyone here that'd like to join that isn't gonna be reactionary troll type, feel free to shoot me a DM here or on discord. 

  • You need communism 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...