it is all Gnostic bullshit Hermetic nonsense and magical Materialistic claptrap.

shirt

Aw man, a grift

What happens when the Hegelian dialectic remains implemented when the issue no longer exists? In fact, it begins to create its own injustice. Where social justice is no longer just in its traditional sense. Because id argue that's exactly what we're experiencing.

You couldn’t be more accurate

This is good humor.

LOL, You're Good. Thanks For The Laugh

duuuuuude lmao

Virgin vs chad

Marx liked to use the word "cleavage" a lot. though that might have been due to a iffy translation

Who isnt attracted to a real life kermit the frog?

@@Kriegtime101 Lobster Daddy Kermit

@@nemesiszer0708 high on Clonazepam.

"It is a sign of a certain moral courage and... and... and it's a sign of a certain temperament and it makes you charismatic and attractive... and... and I just wanna smash it bro."

You meant by Zizek snot mucus. Yikes!

Marx and Engels wrote a paper together trying to explain what is Communism. A sort of Communist manifesto, so to speak.

@@davidwuhrer6704 that was more of a manifesto for the German communist party at the time

@@jonhallowell4099 It focused mostly on Victorian England.

@@davidwuhrer6704 kinda, das kapital is better

Jung... hmm hmmm...

"Hello, Fellow Hegelians."

Relfection, what a great record👍🏼

@@marcolampariello9705 Indeed

He's a veritable orchestra of bodily tics. Once you get used to them and just concentrate on what he has to say he has a lot of good stuff to say. Still haven't worked out exactly where he's coming from as there seems to be a lot of observations with no coherent whole but that may be because I have not looked well enough into him.

He must eat heaps to balance it out and stay so fat

That's why he eats two hot dogs at a time

Thanks. Everyone upvote this because holy hell is that title misleading

which book are you referring to ?

Google não deixou eu colocar um nome maior que esse Well he wrote many books lol and you can find Marx, Hegel, or Lacan everywhere in those books. But of course, ”The Sublime Object of Ideology” is his masterpiece.

@@LeonWagg thank you very much, I haven't read Zizek yet so I was looking for a book to start

Google não deixou eu colocar um nome maior que esse Start with “Sublime Object of Ideology”. It’s his first and best book. He also started a more political phase with the books “Violence” and “First as Tragedy, Then as Farce”- I’d recommend you read them next.

Combo

😂😂😂😂

Holy shit. The comedy is rich.

lol

this should be sold as an NFT.

@the simp son he might have been in a bad shape already. We know, JP has been hospitalized all over Europe and in Russia for months. He even contracted coronavirus at a hospital there. Regardless, this interview did not do JP good. Žižek probably worsened his mental issues, displaying such supremacy over JP.

@@Xgenerati I don't see how zizek defeated jp? The debate seemed like a respectful exchange. I'm not well read in Marx nor familiar with zizek. Were there jokes I just didn't catch?

@@Xgenerati Right. Like when he had that apple-cider that kept him up for weeks before that debate with Matt Dillahunty lol

@@mookosh I don't think you missed anything - I saw what you saw. There are just too many idiots who can't appreciate a discussion without making it competitive. Also people seem to take JP's honesty in his responses as weakness and therefore 'defeat'. To me he just seems refreshingly open to others' opinions and eager to learn from discussions, even if it means being corrected, instead of hiding behind bravado and intellectual dishonesty in fear of being wrong.

@@danoliver3053 same. It seems like a lot of intellectual gatekeeping. "oh wow, how can jp criticize Marxism when he hasn't even read Marx! Lol what a fraud". Well the obvious answer is that people purporting to be Marxists have made his life intolerable and the writings of anti-Marxists, like the gulag archipelago have given historical context to his lived experience. If he's so ignorant, then he should be easy to "defeat" and I think what shines through is how much Peterson learned talked to an actual Marxist thinker about how you can be a Marxist without being the kinds of low tier thinkers you find in sociological academia. How actual Marxist philosophers aren't complete imbeciles. That's a good story to me. I still think zizek is wrong, but at least he's not completely off his rocker, and I think Peterson felt the same, commenting that zizek really harms himself by calling himself a Marxist instead of a zizekist because the zizek point of view is so much more reasonable than those expressed by Marx. Zizek himself endorsed this point by saying he considers himself more hegellian than [an orthodox] Marxist. Hegel is not the same as Marx. That admission indicates that zizek understands and perhaps agrees with Peterson that Marxism is insufficient. They differ in terms of how insufficient they find Marx, of course. Still I saw this as a great "debate". I wish more actual academics would do this kind of exchange rather than boycott Peterson out of principle. I know I've been turned on to zizek by the debate, I'm sure if other great thinkers stepped forward I might like them too.

to control the fire they spit, literally when it comes to zizek lmao

evian sponsorship. now read evian backwards

The lights are so intense, the stage becomes uncomfortably hot. (Not a joke btw,)

A metaphor of the flood!

The water bottles are for zizek to replace the water that comes out of him every time hespeaks

🤣🤣🤣

welcome to youtube

Propaganda needs to etade nuance. Thats how the right moves forwatd. Peterson is a perfect example of it.

Seems like they changed it.

That's called "clickbait nuance".

Hegel is very distinct from Marx

Think of philosophy debates as early version of rap battle... It might help?

It wasn't a debate, it was a showcase of two pop-philosophers

It's a weird practice. It usually disrupts the flow of the speech and distracts the listeners

@@agfd5659 i mean... it’s not distracting the listeners if they’re the ones clapping.

@M.D. cope, rent free living in your head

That's a falacy

@@Don-uh1eb Agreed. Pointing out that something is old/out of fashion is no argument.

@@bernardocorrea8010 not necessarily an argument but definitely a point if you say "Why do you still like a 170 year old theory?” while also using an even older theory whats the point of you saying it in the first place? asides from trying to sound smart in which it isnt

@@paulludwigewaldvonkleist4039 Pointless. Old or new, reasoning works with data. Youre making a judgemental value of something by its time. That isnt logic.

@@bernardocorrea8010 thats the point, its pointless. the statement itself that jp said is pointless, jp just wants to sound smart by making that statement while not bringing any value

@Donutsin the butt

A Fistful of Dollars

Based

Bruh moment

Sorry but I didn't get it, pls explain.

It all makes sense now...

That's his style

Now kiss

@@mabimabi212 Now kith

@@Kitajima2 now kisch

Or recorded at Sun Records 1950 something...

Possibly something having to do with low sample rates or noise reduction. Both of those can make an audio sound as if it was garbled or underwater.

A lot of anti-communists think that's the entirety of communism lol.

He hasn't just read the communist manifesto mate

@@tomblakemoremusic he barely read that it seams...

Yeah imagine reading the origins of communism on a debate about communism.. shocking 🥴

Imagine basing much of your career as a public intellectual on loudly objecting to Marx and Marxists without even having fucking familiarized yourself with the basic literature on the subject.

Frog vs snail

Damn, and now I can't unimagine it.

Epic description 😂😂🤣

It's just bad audio from the publisher of this video.. There is another, a bit longer video, with better quality. Or it could be your phone, that is the problem. But yeah, I think Zizek should work on his speech impediment, especially considering he is a passionately and eager spokesman. And it can really annoy some, and can be a setback to the importance of the substance, when people are struggling with ignoring it and fully listen

Omg this is so inappropriately appropriate

JonezBB neither does anyone they just finished all the Hitchens videos mood miss-interpreted them massively and now are getting through Peterson’s.

@@rossleeson8626 This was a debate with between the contemporary "popular intellectuals" from the left political ideology (Zizek) and the right, or liberal conservative, ideology (Peterson). Zizek were supposed to defend the Marxist critique of capitalism, and Peterson were supposed to defend the capitalistic ideal, and furthermore critique the Marxist political and economic theory.

It's okay OP, I don't understand much either, all you can do is try; as long as you're trying to grow I think it's a good trait

youtube is subtly telling you that you are dumb

Neither do most edgy socialists or regressive conservatives

lmfaoo

markszhishtsh

He turns it into a 10 syllable word

Markshlhkhsishkht

Marcks'hisht

very strange wonder why

because they are idiots, 100 percent sure that they have not read Hegel

This audience has been clueless throughout, like a mistimed laugh track. They don't know what the hell is going on.

JUAN Aldasoro of course, no one has read Hegel.

@@punchgod Not even Hegel read Hegel.

Its always the stupid student who’s mean to the prof

Sure, but you are not acknowledging the accompanying respect and nuance. In good faith, to do so otherwise can easily fall into dichotomous thinking. Good observation though.

Ora ora você aqui

@George Adept Nonsense. A lot of highly intelligent people are communists. Or nazists for that matter.

@George Adept True

@@LiMitZplus What an intelligent response!

Patavinity tanks

@@LiMitZplus What about tanks? Or are you incapable of spelling 'thanks'?

Didn’t zizek also say “Marx didn’t have a good understanding of social power” or something like this, zizek hardly defended Marx in this debate

brock charz Because the person attacking it didn’t know anything about it

A true Hegelian

Hubris will do that to you.

"public intellectual with nuanced and thought out ideas." As Zizek said in the debate, neither of them are accepted in the mainstream academia, which should probably tell you about the state of mainstream academia. Besides the debate wasn't Peterson vs Zizek, it was Happiness: Marxism vs Capitalism; and to quote a commenter "an almost 3 hour recording and I missed the part were Zizek actually championed Marxism", so perhaps it's just simply a bad match up.

To be fair, most people build a straw man of Peterson as well. Nuanced intellectuals are unfortunately scarce, so it isn't hard to see why people get used to seeing the other side as 2-dimensional.

Blizz Grimmly that’s very true.

Even a Marxist from Reddit would ruin Peterson if they actually discussed Marxism. Peterson hasn't read any Marx. He hasn't even read Capital. The only thing he's read by Marx is the Communist Manifesto. He has NO CLUE what Marxism is as demonstrated by his neologism "postmodern neo-marxists" and what he defines that to be. I think he simply refuses to address Marx because it's more useful for him to strawman the blue-haired college SJWs as Marxists to grow his brand.

Nobody has…

@@oliveronderisin5674 haha check mate

So do you

@@oliveronderisin5674It’s really not that difficult to follow if you’re at all familiar with the topics he’s talking about.

​@@oliveronderisin5674If you actually take some time to listen to what he has to say it is quite apparent. Zizek has a lot of cool takes on how ideology functions within society, bringing together the ideas of Hegel, Marx, and Lacan. It helps to familiarize yourself with these three thinkers to better understand but he has to say. Sometimes he says things that are provocative and people get hung up on the words rather than the meaning, but I think a large part of that is their problem for not valuing substance over decor (Although even he would admit he's a bit of a chaotic provocateur in his speech). Zizek is also hilariously vulgar and anti-PC.... Whereas Peterson is just anti-PC with no humor to it.

I don’t think he did.

why are people so quick to discount peterson like he isn’t obviously intelligent?

@@thecrimsonkid3574 because he is charlatan

@@huyochita5386 okay well in which area? in which fields would you classify him as charlatan? because there are cases to be made, for example: I take his knowledge and beliefs regarding politics and religion as biased towards keeping his current audience intact, but on the subject of his philosophical understanding he is very proficient and has helped many people. His clinical career where he helps victims of self destruction is honorable to say the least.

@@thecrimsonkid3574 Yes, but then again, he is public figure not because of his history as academic or work as clinical psychologists. He made a story for himself by opposing C-19 bill which added gender as protected class in Canadian Law. He is a charlatan because he applies the psychological expertise onto the sociological problems. He tries to fix systemic problems by applying the things he would say to a single person. Some of his views come close to being a conspiracy theory (the entire thing how failed Marxism then hid in universities and tried to secrectly implement its ideology in other ways). I believe that the things he says as a public figure do more harm than his work as psychologists, because he serves as starting point of radicalization for thousands (milions?) young males. His problem is specifically that he doesnt stick to what he is good at - psycholgy. Because as philosopher or sociologist he simply lacks knowledge, he proved that in this debate when he based his entire argument around Communist Manifesto, that he read IN PREPARATION for the debate (didnt stop him from going on crusade against Marxism)

Even Hegel doesn't get dialectics

Good point.

Right I didn’t really understand when Zizek referred to Marxism as ambiguous in comparison to Hegel. Both seem to be very open to interpretation.

I was just kidding, dialectics is when two Platonic ideals must compromise to synthesize a third ideal form between the two. Marx thought a revolution was the only way for the needs of labour to synthesize with the needs of capital. By seizing all capital lololololol

He is probably the most influential philosopher of western modernity. Being hegelian can mean a lot of things.

Chaos dragon

Hegelian is easier to pronounce

@the moon if you criticise some theory or statement, the bare minimum you should do is read it

I don't need to know all the nuances of the flat earth or space is fake theory to tell you it's bs.

"he admits he never read Marx" Damn polski, you're living in an alternate reality.

@@singami465 ?

This image he (Peterson) displays of himself - the "hard-thinking" knowledgable persona that is always very serious - imo is desgined for his primarly non-academic viewership that needs this impression of a well-mannered, respectfull and wise person to look up to him. People in academica don't really give a shit about that and don't mind listening to someone like Zizek. And I speak for most humanities students too I'd say when I cringed hard as he brought up the communist manifesto. Everyone knows that it's a piece of progaganda. It was written for the communist party during the 1848 - with coal-miners as its target audience how I like to say - as a literal political propaganda. Works like the capital or the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon are what actual Marxist sociologist base their work on. I'm neither a communist nor a Marxist but that's just common knowledge. This isn't even hate against Peterson. I genuiley like to watch/read some of his psychoanalytic and psychological works. A discussion with Zizek about Freud, Jung and Happiness in the Modern World could've been really interesting. But hell, if Marxism is not your field of expertise, don't have a two-hour discussion with someone that studied Marxism for years. Just not worth to be watched.

That's a pretty big misrepresentation

Christianity is ageless

Marxism on the other hand has to be adapted every 5 or 3 years.

@@dimebagforever251 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

@@theeyehead3437 If you're gonna play that game i'll give you something actually useful. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aK1jgNZ1zZjHmWw.html

But thanks to cucks like Lenin and the ussr, this “dictatorship of the proletariat” transitionary period somehow started getting called “socialism”, even though it clearly wasn’t, as state and private hierarchies and fiat currency still exist during this period. And then they ruined this transitionary period entirely by failing to actually let the proletariats run these institutions and began practicing full blown state capitalism. Most Americans think socialism = the dictatorship of the proletariat. It does not. The dictatorship of the proletariat, a concept they also heavily misunderstand in and of itself because of how much the process was butchered in the Russian revolution and even pre nazi Germany, is meant to be an extremely short transitionary period on the path to actual socialism. The reality is that what Marx really thought socialism was would work great, but the problem is, Marx didn’t really know how to successfully execute the transitionary period. He thought he did, and then it miserable failed in Paris in the 1840s, and later on in Germany and Russia as I already said. Still, to this day, no one truly knows how to execute the transitionary period, and each time a nations people have tried it has been brutally quashed by fascism. We should take solace in the fact that Bernie’s campaign didn’t make it further. If it did, Chris Matthews would likely turn out to be right, in that it would be akin to the rebirth of Nazi Germany, except, obviously, not at the hands of Bernie’s movement, but at the hands of the reactionaries’ response.

@@rbfabc the CCP is still in control of most big companies (owning at least half the shares) and is planning to transition to socialism by 2049 - maybe this is what the dictatorship of the proletariat has to look like for now

It is important to states that a dictatorship proletariat society, is still a society where the capitalists means of production exist. And when we seize the state, if we maintain the state in its burgeois structure will be no use for us. We need to abolish the standard army, standard police, standard institutions. Principally, we must descentralize the state, limited its powers to where is strictly necessary, following the example of the workers from Paris Commune. (Btw, sorry for the english)

Thank you!

@O'Shay Muir Agreed. There's room to criticize Lenin (as there is with anyone), but his actions meant that the material conditions of millions of people were improved (Lenin should not be blamed for things that he had no intention to carry out, and the USSR was better than the Tsars). His insights into 20th century capitalism and beyond still prove to be fantastic tools for understanding the world, and his work was always ultimately concerned with making people's lives better. Unfair, ahistorical, and purist critiques with the benefit of 100 years worth of hindsight is unhelpful and usually makes me think that the critic is LARPing a little bit

Fine, but he has bumped into enough Marxists to be very wary of Marx. You can't completely strip Marx of responsibility for consistently producing followers who are so off the mark as to make Marxism into a ridiculous movement. Even if Marx himself didn't propose most of those ridiculous ideas that his followers adhere to.

Who told you he hasn't read?

@@nishanthgideon1485 He just read the communist manifesto (which is like, a very small book compared to the behemoth of Marx's works) for the debate.

@El Fenomeno How can you say such a brave and eloquent thing

@@nishanthgideon1485 Peterson said himself that he only read the communist manifesto a few days before the debate.

Maury - "you are the Marxist" Audience : chaos and havoc

enemies to lover arc

Really? What I see here is Zizek being respectful and Peterson stunted after perceiving how inferior is his position here. I much doubt he'd remain civil if the positions were inverted.

Maybe you can explain since you obviously do?

Underrated comment ^

Marx is cringe.

@@asdfasdf3989 ayep, so true

Very nice PFP . Long live Gonzo

Was Picasso most known for his childhood finger paintings? Were these the finger paintings that have caused over 100 million political deaths? If so, what little relevance would Picasso's new works have on them?

@@ganjaericco 100 mil deaths has been debunked repeatedly, and capitalism by same standards has killed many more

It seems to me like Zizek can very well understand Peterson and Peterson didn't do the required reading.

@Darnell Trump well of course jsit loking at your profile you would push an it right winged nosense.

@@ghfudrs93uuu 😂😂😂😂😂😂

I don't get the feeling that Zizek respects Peterson as an academic.

@@TheAlmightyAss I think Zizek was very respectful considering that Peterson does not do academic philosophy, and certainly doesn't debate like an academic.

"Crass"? "Clever" or "tricky"yes, but idk about "crass".

@@asdfasdf3989 Pulling tricks in a serious argument doesn't strike me as very refined.

@@fernandoizu Tricks?

@@asdfasdf3989 Journalists try that nonsense on Peterson all the time (usually in a manner that is spectacularly unsuccessful) . It's a cheap tactic, and an inherently dishonest one we should always call out, regardless of which 'side' you find yourself.

I get the sense that he is not a Durkheimian in the slightest, and rejects Weber's analysis of religion and capitalism, because a lot of contemporary academics don't really see Weber as a worthwhile read. I agree with you that it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on Weber and Durkheim, though!!!

Peterson just needs to read. Anything.

Laurence Gagno and just read anything in general

@@oleksijm Jordan "read more" Peterson though

@@nomad639 My cop out answer is to read the writings of anyone you feel like you can gain from. The reason I said Weber isn't viewed as worthwhile by a lot of professors and academics is because his central thesis on capitalism arising in the western world due to the religious influence of protestantism is now seen as sorely lacking more refined argumentation at best, and outright incorrect and vaguely imperialistic at worst. Obviously, one of the reasons capitalism arose in the western world was because the level of military power in Europe enabled colonial expansion and the accrual of material wealth that resulted from that (ironically, that military power resulted from religious conflicts within europe in many cases and not the essence of protestantism). Another reason is that state governments and even some trading companies in the late 18th and 19th centuries were organised in such a way as to quickly mobilise en masse to expand their reach. Marx, Durkheim and Weber are all worth reading, however, in my opinion. Gaining an understanding of the classical theorists of an academic discipline will provide a well-grounded context for you to explore foundational concepts and contemporary theory more easily, as well as assust you when engaging in debate. Worthwhile sociology (to me) would be: Goffman's research on stigma. Durkheim on The Dreyfus Affair. Marx's analysis on the structural contradictions and dynamics of capitalism. Judith Butler's work on gender. Slavoj Žižek on Violence (or any text advocating a broadening of the definition of violence to encompass more than just the immediate physical space). Contemporary social mobility research. Michel Foucault's study of madness in Europe. There are a lot more text's and authors worth mentioning, (and perhaps some more worthy of acknowledgement than what I listed) but that's an impromptu taxonomy of my view on "sociology's greatest hits". Long-winded reply, but I hope it helped.

Agreed but it’s spelt mystery

If you knew anything about Peterson you'll know he would have read everything on these lunatic philosophers.

Mystery because he's absolutely irrelevant. Its actually a trustworthy insult

Hey, the only comment chain where a dumb communist makes that argument and it ISN'T 100+ replies long - Peterson never states that's the only Marxist literature he read, simply assumed that if you're trying to distill your ideas into a pamphlet, you'll hyperfocus on the most solid parts of your ideology, instead of producing reactionary drivel. Speaking of, the debate went so well for Marxism, that Zizek didn't even attempt to defend it.

Yagi If your gonna criticize a philosopher as pretty much your entire career, you should probably read more than just a 20 page book

What is wrong with being a virgin? It is a sad state to no clean your home and be proud of it.

@@westvirg304 its a joke

It's ironic because Zizek's room is so much cleaner than Peterson's room, based off streams. And Zizek isn't a benzo addict.

@@Kitajima2 life happens... this is exactly what peterson so often is talking about. The importent thing is to get back on your feet and oh boy he did. Whether you think the benzo addiction is his fault or not, being able to get back in the driverseat is incredible. I learned that with my cig addiction

@@Crystal-uh2gc I would have no issue with him if he simply described himself as the self-help author he is, but he doesn't really do that

It's almost like the name of the debate was "Marxism vs Capitalism".

@@singami465 yeah, but cultural marxism isn't marxism, and also it doesn't exist.

Sounds almost like something the Nazis made up... Oh wait. It was

@@darrenfleming7901 Ironically zizek describes himself as a cultural marxist, so it does in fact exist, just not in the way that people on the right think it does. The "cultural marxists" JBP and co. talk about are just liberals 99% of the time.

@@singami465 🤦‍♂️

Where is the Asian girls Yaoi drawings of them ..

😳😳😳😳

there are people who aren’t dialectical materialists???

@@thatguyben7754 Yes, like Hegel

@@LittleMushroomGuy he is a dialectical materialist, but only retrospectively

@@JinjaOnHere Bruh, the distinction between 'materialism' and 'idealism' dosen't exist in Hegelianism.

SOMEBODY, WRITE A FAN FICTION!

Americans being Americans

​@@enoch2066 i was expecting the host to call a time-out and there to appear people on stage with t-shirt cannons😂

J.P. is desperately trying to sound intelligent and interested with his "question". Forgetting is underlying doctrine (†) is 2000 yrs old. I would have tackled him at this point .•°

The nice thing about KZfaq is that someone like me, currently working part time at McDonalds, can still view serious (mostly) philosophical discussions on Marx, etc.

just because we're working class doesn't mean we're dumb.can not only view videos on topic but we can create our own.who work at McDonald's and a pizza placeregular people like usThe other nice thing about KZfaq is=

proper english.that makes me look like I can't even speakGod damn talk to text. see it's the stupid cheap ass phone that doesn't follow what I'm saying

If you think about it, if you would have a system of control that's too complicated for most people to bother to understand, and you give them a lot of stuff that's more interesting to them, that would be a pretty succeful system in controlling people.

What are the practical problems? And what are the futile ones? And which is which? As you see its not so easy.

Exactly... I used to admire him, but now he is just such a joke...

Most people who are firmly left or right won't open their mind up the positive aspects of the other side. Biggest problem with this is that it can spiral out of control. The UK is a big example of that. The media supports the conservatives regardless of their failings, but all its done is convince the populace that despite how shit things are "at least labour aren't in". The UK now has an angry hate filled population that blames immigrants for everything, and has sections of society who applaud deaths of immigrants who drown trying to get in across the channel. Some are even convinced that fascism is a left wing philosophy. The UK right now is fucked as a nation, with an extremist government in power.....already started ticking off a few fascist boxes as well, how far do we have to go before people open their eyes.

Is that really much of a surprise? Some of the best critiques of Marxism came from the guys, that JP himself, says are ' Post-mordern Marxist'. People like Derrida and Focault who explicitly rejected such ideas and were one of the first in the new movement of Post-structuralism. Hell these Philosophers weren't even 'true' leftists. Most Marxist consider them 'not radical enough'.

@@Chorismos No, not very surprising. As you point out, insiders have an advantage due to their perspective for giving some types of criticism. Outsiders can rarely spot some things due to not having lived with the ideas and beliefs and as such have no first hand experience. That being said outsiders looking in from the outside can often say things that can't be as easily spotted looking from the inside out. Isn't this one of the core ideas behind the triangulation used in science as well? To bring together all the voices, perspectives, etc. to give a better approximation of what's actually going on? Just listening to one perspective like JP's isn't generally enough to grasp what's what.

Slater Slater Is it my comment that brings this kind of vitriol out of you? If so, man, I’m sorry...my intention was not to make it all worst. I just don’t see Slavoj as helpful to what I want to build with my life. But I wish him well. It’s pretty fucked up what you wrote...

Slater Slater You implied Peterson’s medical situation was caused by his stupidity... And you showed zero sympathy for him or his family... Anyway, have a good day, bud.

Or reading the gulag archepeligo

And so on and so on

Mark-shit-st

read the damn books

Comparing the bible and religious texts to marx child book just goes to show the kind of braindamage we deal with when talking to a marxist.

He realised socrates' saying: All I know is I know nothing. He shouldve done more research about collectivist ideology

Definitely. Peterson greatly ignorant stances being debunked by an actual thinker and charismatic philosopher is a great way to expose truth.

he sure was lol, that just show us how hypocrite is marxism that even the autor didnt do what he claimed to be

@@joaotavares078 have u read marx? Marx said that in a context that his ideas were being used by people who called themselves marxists, but he himself didnt agree with them so then he said that he was not a marxist. Do you think liberals still praise what adam smith praised? Lol people like marx and smith made theories for the time they were on, using those theories in literal sense now would be stupid, but desconsidering it also would be, so intelectuals, from the right and from the left, use the theories of old intelectuals to create new theories for the present world. If people followed intelectuals strictly, we would still be in some kind of greece or roma, or even some kind of middle age shit.

@@CarangaGA bet he would have and iphone and watch the nba nowadays

thats why buda and jesus are immortal, because 2000-3000 years later people will follow their teachings literally. Do what i say and what i do

in some years nobody will talk about marx os mises. thats why people get so frustrated. nothing that they say will be so vivid 1000 years in the futere

Lol.

🙄

Yeah a guy who taught philosophy at Harvard doesn't know who Hegel is... I think you're the one who doesn't know who Hegel is.

@@notlengthy Is an appeal to authority all it takes for you people to get behind someone? You know that this means the opposite of what you think it means to be a fan of his.

​@@notlengthy if Peterson was really a professor of philosophy at Harvard, It really tells more about the current state of Harvard rather then of Peterson.

Peterson certainly did. Zizek just answered

@@bubkabu Whad did Zizek answer? That he's not a marxist fundamentalist but that he's a marxist protestant? Who cares? The debate was marxism vs capitalism and Zizek didn't put any forward any arguments in favor of marxism.

Peterson is clever enough he's just too stuck inside his own worldview

Peterson is a very inteligent guy, thing is he's talking outside his area of expertise, he's a clinical psychologist not an economist, sociologist or philosopher

@@franingegnieri1831 True enough. I think the problem becomes that when he talks about some other area of expertise he usually just sticks to some fixed narrow ideas, that are an interpretation of this area, but lack a broad and deep understanding, but are presented by Peterson as if they do have that.

Oh my god The ego marxists have. ‘I have all the right ideas’ People who disagree are uninformed. BRUH COMMUNISM KILLED THEIR OWN POPULATION AND LEFT THEM IN A FACIST STATE CONTROLLED BY ONE FAMILY. YALL DONT EVEN HAVE ELECTIONS YOU HAVE A DICTATOR

YES! A FELLOW ANARCHO-TRANSHUMANIST!!!

Shut up.

No one actually working on AI describes it as a revolution. No one that actually matters at least. Stop expecting it to be some magical utopian thing

@@MinecraftMasterNo1 gpt3 is just a hype? On the other hand, how will be gpt-10? What about 5g, iot, and neuralink?

@@jakecostanza802 GPT-3 is overrated. We pick out the one good output from 10 thousand terrible ones and call it a success. Unless there are some fundamental changes to the underlying algorithm, you can only add so many parameters before you get rapidly diminishing returns. GPT-3 has processed basically all of the data there is on the public Internet and it's still a spectacular failure. We need way more efficient neural networks before we even dream of ever reaching true AI.

He's successfully regurgitating the fashionable mix of ½Psychology ½ † Doctrine Modern Guruism 🤮°

Was there a response? He asked a question about what Zizek thinks, and Zizek answered, so I wouldn't think a response is warranted.

Pinky and The Brain

Many people who are engaged in an extreme-right political view agree with some of Marx's ideas concerning economy

I mean, most of the ones who truly understood Marx are not Marxists whatsoever. Marx was indeed the first one to discuss his own body of work...

Narxes You don’t have to agree with every single thesis Marx wrote to be a Marxist.

@@wearealreadydeadfam8214 you might be a owenite though

Wes G No. I think a truly socialist economy transitioning into a communist mode of production is possible. And should be pursued as a goal. Even if it isn’t ever achieved. I’m a god damn Marxist. Marx explains what’s happening in 2020 better than most intellectuals today can. But he was clearly wrong about proletariat revolution being inevitable. Capitalism will collapse. But their dystopian state-run Silicon Valley fueled hell scape will still call itself capitalism. That’s most likely, but not inevitable.

As a Marxist Leninist, I agree with you, but to say that Zizek doesn't believe in class struggle is simply incorrect. Zizek, whatever you think of the guy, is better than left-liberals who double down on identity as a means to avoid class. Zizek said it himself that liberal ignores political-economic issues to focus on cultural struggle is a catastrophe. Zizek is a materialist, but what he tries to do is a reversal of Marx’s materialism back to Hegel. He thinks it's possible to find radical materialist aspects in Hegel. I don't agree with him, though. He still believes in a post-capitalist society, but he said he has no idea how to get there lmao.

@@LeonWagg I do have lot's of ideological similarities with zizek( like being a Post-Marxist), but I fail to see how he is a materialist. To be a Hegelian is to view things through a spirit. A Hegelian views history and Dialectics differently from how a Marxist Communist sees these concepts. in other terms, how is Zizek a Materialist? If it's possible for a Hegelian to be a Materialist, then Marx truly left the Young/Left Hegelians.

@@LeonWagg You are right about how he is better than the stupid swarms of intersectional Leftist( Like Angela Davis).

You should read Absolute Recoil and Less than nothing (Absolute Recoil is better, Less than nothing is pretty much a pain in the ass), where Zizek tries to reinvent Marx’s dialectical materialism by grounded it in Hegel’s Logic and other German Idealist like Schelling. He said in his book that he's a committed materialist, but for him, it is necessary to go beyond the common approach of dialectical materialism in traditional Marxism. Philosopher Adrian Johnston even wrote the book called ”A New German Idealism: Hegel, Žižek, and Dialectical Materialism accusing Zizek of being a materialist without matter. lol

@@neo-jacobin6170 is it still possible to be an idealist considering the today's knowledge about physics, psychology and biology? I am new to Hegel and really unsure whether I misunderstand his philosophy or it is actually a little outdated.