The audience seems to think this was a rap battle.

Finally something that the left and right can agree on. Worst debate audience ever.

On behalf of the human race. I'm so sorry these thinkers had to endure this audience.

Zizek basically telling Peterson to tell more jokes is so wholesome 😂

i want a sitcom where these two live together

The conclusion is clear: We live in a society

This is gold. It wasn't a debate, but more of a talk between two points of view that may be able to work together. The loser there was the childish audience.

This debate is pure beauty. From the bottom of my heart, I wish that people learn to debate without attacking themselves, even when their ideas are so different.

Wow this years wrestlemania has gotten really academic.

They should have done this as a pure conversation with no crowd

This is beautiful. Imagine if our "democratically elected" representatives actually had to debate their worth in this manner.

It was quite a shock to to know that Heinrich Himmler, the architect of the holocaust, carried the Bhagvad Gita everywhere he went. Zizek mentions how Hemler used the eastern concept of detachment from this material world as a tool to make German soldiers do horrible things without feeling remorseful. Military powers in Japan used Zen Buddhist techniques to do the same. Zizek mentioned the book Zen at War where this issue is discussed. Prof. Zizek humor is infectious and so spot on.

“So on and so on” vs “roughly speaking “

Audience: WOOOO!!! Zizek: please, dont turn this into a simple minded competition, we are here to debate serious issues Audience: WOOOO!!!!

Towards the 2 hour mark, the debating was just so cooperative and so civil it gave me the fuzzies. Wish I could find a debate club to join but there are none

I watched it in its entirety. Thank you both for existing and presenting this to me. I don't worry too much about the crowd. The crowd will be the crowd. Listeners will be listeners.

8:35 - host's speech 15:03 - Peterson's speech starts Review on Communism Manifesto: 20:29 - on viewing history as economic class struggle 25:57 - on unclear division between social classes 28:48 - on dictatorship of the proletariat 32:12 - on why decentralized economy seems more effective 33:51 - on idea of critisizing profit 36:48 - on idea of super-productiveness of socialist society 39:32 - on notion of the manifesto, that capitalism is the most productive documented system 42:24 - breaking argument, that rich get richer and poor get poorer 46:31 - Zizek's speech starts 47:21 - on state of modern China 48:30 - on finding higher cause in life 49:57 - on the fact, that we can't appeal to traditional athority anymore 51:48 - on ideology making people do horible things 53:29 - on not making suffering instant justification of your personal philosophy 54:38 - on need for jealousy to sustain self identity (precisely, making up stories about external intruder, to justify your own failues/drawbacks/etc.) 1:00:26 - on renunciation (not letting others have something; also, Zizek claims, that modern capitalism is incorporated the wrong egalitarianism) 1:03:53 - critique of capitalism's evaluation of competency and it's hierarchical system (also, discussion of natural evolution) 1:06:58 - on unwilling of democracy to give up power to a group of competent experts 1:08:20 - on master figure, that pushes people to be free; on pain of freedom and choice; on autority as something, not tied directly to competence; on separation of expertise and political power 1:10:30 - speech about incompetency of large groups of people and inability of modern democracy and capitalism to solve global problems (e. g. ecological issues, modern apartheid, etc.) 1:19:55 - Zizek shames audience of treating debate as some kind of cheap competition 1:20:53 - Peterson's response starts 1:22:09 - on problems of capitalism 1:23:30 - on capitalism pushing everyting to economical competition (also, claim that earning more money past the certain level won't make a person happier) 1:25:33 - on possibility, that capitalism contains a fatal threat for humanity 1:28:53 - quick notions on a lot of Zizek's claims 1:30:32 - on necessity of individual responsibility in a healthy society 1:33:08 - Zizek's response starts; notion on deep subjectivity of hapiness 1:38:52 - on Comunist Manifesto 1:40:00 - on egalitatianism, global ecology problems, modern apartheid 1:42:52 - on pessimism, and unreliable human nature 1:45:36 - story about slovenian farmer (top!) 1:46:46 - Peterson's question about why Zizek, given his originality of thought, so strongly binds himself to marxism 1:49:10 - Zizek's defense of Marx 1:50:48 - claiming himself as Hegelian 1:53:22 - Peterson's and Zizek's debate on if today's radical leftists can be called marxist 2:04:47 - host's question about true human hapiness; Peterson's response about adopting responsibility and expanding your own capacities Zizek: 2:10:00 - on authentic love as sudden catastrophy 2:11:06 - on divinity in christianity and christian God as an atheist 2:13:31 - critique of Peterson's individualist ideas Peterson: 2:16:09 - mercifullness of idea of God as an atheist 2:18:08 - on agreement in pshychiatric society, that exposure to upleasancy deeply helps individuals 2:19:30 - defense of individualism through pessimistic picture of life 2:22:03 - on solving global soscietal problem when adressing personal one Zizek: 2:24:57 - about ideology even in slightest things 2:27:49 - on doublethink of modern ideology Peterson: 2:29:55 - finding deep feeling of doing things right 2:32:10 - on not lying as a way of improoving life Zizek: 2:36:00 - on ideology of alienating yourself from reality (in order to be able to do horible things) 2:40:58 - host's question about what will people incorporate out of this debate and response from both doctors

I would pay for the non-clap version of this

"Never presume that your suffering, is in itself, proof of your authenticity". Amen Zizek, amen.

One of the greatest conversations that I’ve ever had the pleasure of listening to, and very respectful of each other’s point of view. Definitely how we all should represent ourselves in life.

People who whoop during a philosophy discussion will be sent to the gulags.

Peterson the Archetypal Dad vs Zizek the Archetypal Uncle

*A very useful and necessary debate. Apart from the audience a pleasure and very civilized.*

Difficult for non native speaker, but one of the most intriguing and fascinating discourses on youtube. Respectfull, no personal offences, listening to each other, delightful. Zizek was to my opinion the most open-minded of the two. If these two men would work together, they could produce some beautiful books. Chestertons 'Orthodoxy' is one of my favorites. Finding peace with God through the cross of Jesus is an eternal blessing. I wish this to both men, and all viewers!

The most reddit audience in existence

This kind of debate just didn't need an audience

They truly are an odd couple that seem to enjoy each other’s company. That was beautiful . Thank you to both

3 years later and this debate still means to me more than a thousand FIFA world cups. And I'm a Brazilian, take that into consideration.

Slavoj and Jordan: Let’s talk People: this standup is hilarious

No shirt is too itchy for Slavoj, No tie too tight for Jordan.

Respect for both of them. This was the most beautiful conversation I have seen. It was pure beauty. This is truly art. We are so lucky to share the same moment in life with them, to have them alive to enlight our minds.

What an enlightening listen. They seem to agree on so much, but the core disagreement wasn't even about structure or economy or theology. It really felt like it was optimism vs pessimism, which is fascinating.

"we have a strict zero-tolerance policy for any heckling or disruptions." Audience: WOoOooOoOO

Damn audience. They dare interrupt the king lobster and the intelligent seizure.

Ahhh the worst thing about this debate is that it was entirely too short and Jordan and Zizek need to have a podcast episode or 3 together. Wow. I love seeing JP get challenged by an honest and respectful intellect so he can articulate his ideas clearly.

The Communist Manifesto was intended as a short read meant directly for industrial workers so the fact that Peterson chooses to focus most of his argument about Marx on this while claiming things about Marx’s work(such as certain classes are good and bad or ignoring that the prologue to Marx’s thoughts on labor IS that of human existence and thought beyond economics) is either disingenuous or he simply just never read Marx at all.

I was watching this whole thing waiting for Ben Shapiro to jump on the stage and scream "let's say, hypothetically, we live in a society!" as security rushes the stage

Zizek: "Don't treat this as a cheap competition, we're trying to confront some serious issues here" Audience: WOOOOOOOOOO **CLAPPING INTENSIFIES**

So beautiful to read here all the comments and Realising how many intelligent people are here watching and talking about it

So glad I found this, it's so very enjoyable 1st class. They have the same body language that shows they are genuinely appreciate each other.

god bless those people who did not applause throughout the talk..

"So on and so on" vs "It's something like that"

This debate made me hate capitalism. Not because of the arguments just because of the ads I was interrupted by and forced to suffer through every 5 minutes.

Just started studying psychology this year after watching my this when it came out, apparently there is a fair amount of evidence that happiness will rarely come if you actively pursue it, meaning Zizek was probably correct in his second remarks.

Everyone in the audience: “dude, I swear the tickets said ‘Dave Chappelle and Joe Rogan’!”

The bravest moment was when Peterson shook Zizek's hand after watching him wipe his nose with it for two and half hours. But I guess that was pre-covid.

This conversation is one of those graces you've both mentioned. Thank you.

I legitimately think it would be wonderful to see a continuation of this conversation on Peterson's podcast without the added twist of a debate audience. Very interesting discussion.

"so on" vs "that's that"

Producers: So how many bottles of water do you guys need on stage? Peterson and Zizek: Yes

Such a pleasure to listen to both charismatic thinkers. Thank you for your dialogue! It's a treasure ❤️

I felt so happy after hearing this. Thank you both!

"Don't fall in love with your suffering. Never presume that your suffering in itself is a proof of your authenticity." - Zizek

Everytime the crowd cheers Zizek dies a little on the inside

2:30 S.Z. “I want solicited from you to tell a joke “ After two years I think I will watch once in a while this debate for the rest of my life, like a piece of art and profound knowledge.

Please ! Could we have more conversations like this !!!

1:19:55 - Zizek shames audience of treating debate as some kind of cheap competition and literally says dont applause audience applauds hysterically

Destiny got destroyed in this debate.

As a JBP fan and not knowing what to expect from this debate, this was such an engaging and thought provoking listen. I thoroughly enjoyed this and will have to explore more of Zizek’s thoughts and works.

I like how both of these men have so much respect for each other

7:50 For the beginning of the event. You're welcome.

Welcome and rules: 7:50 Introductions: 8:30 Jordan B. Peterson's opening statement: 14:59 Slavoj Zizek's opening statement: 46:16

I love how the two differ so greatly yet have they take the time to actually think and ponder and assess what they've been confronted with rather than desperately trying to rebuttal and roast. Debated should be like this, working to figure out a higher truth rather than simply tearing the other down for the audience like some show. The audience on the other hand... not only is the constant applause a sign of the toxic tribalism at work here, it basically shows that none of them are really thinking, or even listening for that matter. Shame.

"the poor aren't getting poorer under capitalism" everybody laughed

*Zizek to crowd* : please don't clap *Crowd* : proceeds to clap

8:35 starts introductions 14:25 debate rules 15:10 JBP opening remarks 46:14 Zizek opening remarks 1:19:50 end of Zizek. Begin JBP reply 1:27:30 The Simon-Ehrlich wager 1:33:00 Zizek returns! 1:46:20 Speakers ask each other questions 2:04:45 Moderator asks question about happiness (both speakers say happiness is a byproduct of action, not a state of being) 2:10:20 Zizek says love is the same as happiness, a byproduct of action, not a state of being 2:41:00 Speakers state what they hope the audience got from the conversation

Thank you so much for everything you do! Imagine having opposing views and still being polite gentlemen to each other; this is a world I'd like more of!

How did nobody offer Zizek a tissue in 2 hours?

You're not supposed to applaud at these kind of debates

The audience wanted a fight that was never going to take place. Instead what ensued was a polite and well thought-out discussion.

Never fall in love with your suffering ... one of the best quotes i've ever heard

This is like Aristotle vs Diogenes debate and I'm so grateful it happened during my lifetime.

I was waiting for the part the moderate will say :"but first,a word from our sponsor, Raid Shadow Legend"

JP vs. Zizek vs. the audience

A wealth of ideas that transcend the conversation.

There is nothing more beautiful then two intelectuals from the opposite sides of the political spectrum finding moments of agreement

Žižek: "Don't fall in love with your suffering. Never presume that your suffering is in itself a proof of your authenticity". This is one of the most existential things I've heard in a long time.

When a standup crowd shows up to a debate.

I'd love to see a more private conversation between these two. Truly.

How refreshing it is to see 2 adults with different views on a topic be polite to one another and be willing to hear the other out and have an intelligent discussion without the incessant bombardments of ad-hominems, and other such childish bullshit that we see all too much nowadays when 2 opposing views clash with one another. If all conversations we had were devoid of this narcissistic, self-righteous one-sidedness, we could perhaps start taking steps forward and mature as a society, but alas, we are humans and thus imperfect; to expect this wishful-thinking to come to fruition any time soon is futile at best.

I was waiting for Zizek to do my favorite move, the double handed sniff followed by facepalm combo

does the audience think they're attending a stand up show or something

how great is to cheer for doctorates , a great time to be alive and learn , thanks

What an amazing debate. Absolutely loved it!

Me, listening to Zizek's and Peterson's arguments: "Maybe there is hope for humanity after all." Me, listening to the audience: "Hmm. Maybe not."

dude, zizek is 70 here... I never thought he was so much older than Jordan. I wish to have such energy and wit at his age.

Can I invite these men to a dinner party? Great conversations are definitely something people take for granted!

Whenever Peterson talks it's always a bunch of words to say nothing at all

Asking Zizek if he's a communist or a marxist, is like asking Peterson if he believes in god.

Never cringed harder in my life than at this audience applauding titles.

A debate so good you need them to have a conversation in either one's podcast or show. Forget debating, we need the continuation in a more sophisticated space.

'The truth lies outside in what we do'

Both of these men are amazing but I laughed out loud when I wondered: What would it sound if a Slavic Daffy Duck and Canadian Kermit had a debate?

"Guys stop clapping this is serious!" *claps in agreement*

This needed to be a 1 on 1 podcast \debate . No audience and time limits

I've seen many of professor peterson's debates but I've never seen him so much enjoying the opponent.

People treating this like a competition have it completely backwards. What you see are two people agreeing on certain problems and coming to potential solutions or conclusions from different perspectives and approaches. What we see here is potentially the most valuable thing to society you could hope. One perspective isn’t enough to fix our problems. The more conversations we have, the better.

I wish political debates were conducted at this level...

WHAT A TREAT ! Both of them have seriously challenged my point of view in some of my key beliefs/convinctions. I've bookmarked some points: 1. Zizek: religion/philosophy can be used to make good people do horrible things (ex. Himmel used to read Zen books) 2. Zizek: Jesus suffered so much he reached atheism 3. Peterson: trying to change the world before changing yourself/your situation can be a form of escaping your personal responsibilty and delegating your problems to other people 4. Peterson: Post-modernist philosophers of the 1960s like M. Foucault and J. Derrida replaced the bourgeois class with a more vague identity group, but the narrative that there are bad oppressors and good oppressed has never changed. (My comment to n. 4: in the Ancien Régime the hierarchical relationship was not denied at all, anyone who reads medieval texts understands very well that hierarchy is told in many different ways, the difference is that it is justified with different motivations, especially religious ones. The break is the French Revolution, which started from the idea that the aristocrats had lost all credibility as leaders and had become parasitic oppressors).

I don't understand what they both are talking about or how they are trying to explain about the occurance of human behaviour,but i do understand that the way they think is extraordinary thinking, where it's hard for me to grasp what they are or how they are actually trying to implement into our heads . I am just amazed how they both have their own reasoning thinking in such a way that ,they both are so careful about each words they speak.