Jordan Peterson vs Slavoj Zizek is happening

Bread and games

NEXT OCTOBER
thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics-concerning-an-engagement-with-jordan-peterson/#_edn1

Zizek's response to the criticism of Peterson in LABR was the first thing I've ever read from him and I actually like the points he brought up so I may have to look further into it. As for the debate itself I hope he destroys Peterson because JP is an insufferable cunt about just about everything.

LIBERALIST POWERHOUSE SARGOY OF MOSSAD WEIGHS IN

How do you pronounce it?

>Soygon of Afraud is getting involved
Shit, it really is gonna happen.

zi zek

youtube.com/watch?v=4uh5MB17v9A
youtube.com/watch?v=FOamb-37yiI
no one knows mate

>klakoy klikek
I'm dying, please send aid

>the jealously that arrives from cuckoldry is completely pathological
It's almost like men have to care more about being cheated on because there's nothing ensuring that the kid they're raising is actually theirs. It's not like the kid is incubated in a man's stomach for 9 months.

zhee-zhek

Slah-vodge Fucked-If-I-Know

Its almost like you invest in the relationship, so see it trashed feels not so good? Im really fedup with this cuck culture

Not as bad as pronouncing 'jacques' like 'jaks'

there is a fat boy in the corner

>Sargon
So it is fucking nothing then?

How is it, jaCC?

When Zizek speaks of this feeling being pathological he is not implying anything about its potentiality for being harmful or not to any other aspect of your life. Actually he makes it very clear that it is a problem-in-itself *regardless* if it is right to feel it or not. Likewise for anti-semitism, it is "problematic" even if by all means you are right in some instance or the other to have such feelings. Not being able to depart your reaction to something, to the something, is always pathological, with nothing being implied here that you should be healing it, or that the something itself is wrong.

>everything is pathological goy give me your money

so this is the power of psychoanalysis

>feeling emotions is pathological
Wow its like a psyop on general population. Being human is bad, wew

Not very versed in Zizek's work. Someone want to give a rundown or link to a video that shows it off?

That fucking video.
Just give up reading and return to /pol/.

*something severely wrong about buddhism

...

So Marxist philosophical and political commentator? Sounds like it would be a good discussion actually.

I know Veeky Forums is often very left-leaning and will probably take his side here, but what is the general view of him not compared to Peterson?

that chart is stupid since it doesn't have his only serious academic output "The Sublime Object of Ideology" the rest are joke books to make money

the general view is that Peterson is out of his league intellectually, but that Zizek is too far off the deep end for any fruitful discussion between them

Its jeejek but as in Jacques or Jean

depends on how the debate gets framed, zizek's silly freudian bullshit is not going to be any match for a practicing harvard trained psychologist, on the other hand if zizek can make it about obscure derrida quotes or something he might be able to win

youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ

SLAV OI, this next letter isn't in English. Dzji dzjek sound.

No it is thinking his wife is cheating. Even if she's cheating, the previous unprovoked thought of thinking his wife was cheating was indeed pathological.

lol
Truth at last.

Peterson didn't even read most of the western canon. He's a public speaker.
I get the impression he barely even read religious texts, which would have helped greatly with his jungian-like classes. He should have stayed with his statistics honestly, not very Veeky Forums at all.

>Even if she's cheating, the previous unprovoked thought of thinking his wife was cheating was indeed pathological.
this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever read. The biological cost of cheating for men is disproportionately high, which explains their "pathology." You don't explain this perfectly reasonable form of anxiety away by dismissing it as a pathology.

>Jack's La Can
>Zizek

Sargon isn't very cultured is he

is this supposed to be insightful? who doesn't think this? is this why he's so popular? because he tells people what they want to here? wow, communism failed so lets think up a new idea, wow man, no way, only everyone who isn't a crusty stalinist agrees with this, its not insightful

t. room cleaner

That's his pop-philosophy
Here's some good shit
youtu.be/JmIMMoeu6Is

It is pathological but its understandable. The pathology is indeed required, but again it's pathological. The man will always think of wife cheating when she's away.

Not him but I don't think it's about being anxious about the idea. In this case the person is making up paranoid fantasies there's no indications of in his own mind.

thats a bit too far, sure he fails philosophy 101 but still generally there are some things wrong with racial/gender politics

>doesn't understand basic theory
Just go back to your containment board.

the sad part is this is the chomsly-foucault of our generation, west def. declining

>In this case the person is making up paranoid fantasies there's no indications of in his own mind.
When something statistically occurs in 50% of all relationships, being afraid that it's occurring is the furthest thing from paranoid.

I hate le sniff man but I don't have enough faith in Peterson to see him come out winning.

you guys are incredibly bad at arguing. I get why you re so keen on censorship lmao

It isn't required to believe your partner is cheating.

buth ave you read locke

You don't understand the argument itself.

No that's retarded.

Zyzz-ehk

>top 10 anime battles

why is this happening, btw? in which ways, or even in which issues, their ideologies clash?

they're both guys who sell pop books to pseuds so it's a great marketing opportunity, their publishers are probably owned by the same holding company

Just meme magic doing its work.

>1 in 2 chance of something occurring
>being worried that it's occurring is "retarded"
what a world we live in

Kind of have to agree here. I've seen Peterson form decent arguments, but in a live debate he doesn't seem to do as well. I'm really just hoping it is interesting more than anything. It sounds like their philosophies are different enough that finding common ground might be a struggle. If they can get past that then it should be enjoyable.

>worrying about the hypothetical
Jesus would literally flip your table over.

zizek wrote an article shitting on peterson because hes super jealous of petersons fame.

Zizek is an established contemporary intellectual, JP,regardless of what you think of him, is just some guy that got famous because of the anti-sjw movement. However Zizek doesn't really debate so much as have discussions with people whereas JP is much more aggressive and straightforward with his communication. This will probably be on par with Ben Stiller vs JP, maybe a bit more memey.

I'mma need a source because that seems very high. Aren't we still at a ~40% divorce rate in the west, and most of those don't involve cheating, so it should be at most ~20% of marriages involve cheating.

well he whipped that bbc journalists ass, but journalists are credulous bottom feeders hired for the ability to uncritical repeat the ruling class narrative, so against a marxist it's not going to be so straightforward knocking down neoliberal talking points

must to the horror of le sniffs acolytes and groupies they'll probably just end up agreeing on most of it, zizek rarely says anything radical, just because he thows in some marx quotes he general just says common sense stuff that any sanders supporter would find sensible

You mean when he whipped Cathy Newman? She was a fucking embarrassment, and i think an average /pol/tard might be a match for her.

This will be the most inefficient debate of all time

Peterson already agrees with Zizek, he just doesn't know it yet

yeah but what is zizek going to say that's different?

i want to make sam harris watch it with a blood pressure monitor on

No one's arguing that it's okay to be paranoid about it no matter what, only that it's okay to be paranoid about it in reasonable circumstances.

i've never seen zizek promote trannyism or bash males or whatever, so i don't even get what they're supposed to be disagreeing about, it's just spectacle to sell books

wtf zizek is a marxist ?

trustify.info/blog/infidelity-statistics-2017

1/3 of married people admit to cheating. No indication of the real number is lower or higher than that

Well unlike Newman he's smart enough to pass as a real intellectual to middlebrows. I imagine he's a much more efficient sophist.

not really, he just quotes marx a lot for lefty cred, but then the stuff he actually advocates is neoliberal, like in that clip someone posted where he's like "we as marxist should stop trying to change the world and just spend more time thinking" i mean that's "sensible" and also completely goldman sachs approved, if u notice he used a lot of spooky marxist quotes but then ultimately shit on occupy wall street

I agree that the reason he got famous was a bit absurd, but he is one of the most cited clinical psychologists in the world, so you can't really just dismiss him like that. Also I never said he was particularly great, only that the discussion would be interesting, as he finally gets to debate an actual neo-Marxists.

I don't really know that that counts. She didn't really have any decent arguments at all. Anytime he is matched with someone he seems to not perform quite as well as just speaking alone.

The reality is that Peterson probably doesn't know anything about Zizek other than he is a self-declared proponent of Marxism and that rustles him enough to angrily taunt a twitter bot. Hopefully this debate happens so people who see Peterson as the daddy they never had realize that Peterson is empty aside from the self help and start reading real philosophy.

Zizek is only funny because he makes me think in weird ways.

Peterson is boring and repetitive, you've read 1 of his works, you've read all of them. Hes self help.

Someone needs to clean their room.

>Hes self help.

psychology is "self-help: the field" what did u expect

>I take everything at face value and never read a single thing Marx wrote
Zizek is a self-declared Marxist and fulfills that promise in every way. Just because he doesn't fit the new labels of "post-modernist" and "neo-marxist" doesn't mean he is faking it. He quotes Marx in just about every video/lecture/book and still believes Socialism will come back in a big way (although in a newly reformed and almost unrecognizable modern way) to stop capitalism from destroying itself.

how does he make u think in "weird ways"? by telling u neoliberal shit that you would dismiss if it came from jeffrey sachs but since it's coming from a "marxist" ur like gosh let me consider this

advocating the welfare state isn't marxist its liberal

jesus fucking christ, among women its significantly higher there've been studies from the upper middle classes where it hits upwards of 50-60% in the last 3 years. If we include young couples, unmarried, its really fucking bad. Getting into a relationship with snapchat, IG and tindr in existence is one of the dumbest things you could possibly do. The only protection you have is breaking into your SO's profiles, watching them like a hawk, befriending all their friends and keeping tabs on them by proxy, having a large circle of trusted friends she socializes within who will inform on her and belittle/demean her for being a slut. That's it, there is nothing else one can do

Stop, you are becoming a parody of yourself.

Agreed, but there is an easy explaination:

Clinical psychology is to help people with seriously messed up lives. He's repetitive because he's constantly trying to reach them.

Philosophy is trying to get people to think in new ways. He gets you to think in new ways because, well, philosophy.

That being said, if you want something interesting by Peterson I did actually enjoy his biblical series. He does a great job analysing each story.

smash your teeth on a countertop and don't bother replying

who cares.

>MFW I peak on LSD, Xanax, and a hit of Weed right when Peterson talks about Marduk who spoke magical words

Sorry to trigger you

People who don't want to raise other people's kids

l*ftoid:
>fat
>unhealthy
>unkempt
>ugly
>balding
>cross-eyed

right-winger:
>handsome
>thin
>well dressed
>nice hair
>piercing gaze

why is it always like this? who do l*ftoids have to look like stereotypical untermenschen?