Is he wrong?

Is there any way we can get Peterson and Zizek in the same room together?

That would not be funny, pit him against Nick Lad Tbh

>allowing this picture to be taken
how much money was involved?

Everythingsh *shniff* gow-eeng tu sheet. Zhurfor, our eemp air eet teev ish prcsheisly zhee dialecteek of sheet. Zhat ish, vee veel du absho lute lee nushing.

>He's actually barely read in academia, all college students I've met who were into him were in post-grad, but most were psychoanalysts and professors.

Read his work in literary theory course. Prof positioned him right after we finished Foucault.

This thread "is he wrong?" Is fucking ludicrous. His recent work is all about pop culture, and he covers so much content you can't boil his ideologies down to a single phrase. I read his recent book, and a lot of it is just frenzied prose, thought-vomit--always jumping from one genre to the next, a movie or song or meme or slang term will be referenced all in one sentence.

Zizék is best when he talks about abstraction. 'Love is evil' is always an interesting video essay of his I like to revisit. He would have been successful in cannon if his work focused on classics, on the romantics, maybe deconstructing the chivalry and sexual repression in the Baltics.

But his narcissism and desire for affection in the public sphere turned him toward pop culture: queer readings of Lady Gaga and the semantic tendencies of modern politicians. He is a genius with a fragmented need to be read and be feared. He's a disappointment.

At first, Peterson would criticize Zizek for being a "bloody marxist", and Zizek would shoot back with "'pure ideology!' *sniff*", but then for the rest of the debate they would go back and forth about whether Jung or Lacan is the better psychoanalyst.

>a disappointment

So he is wrong about stuff? Not sure I understand.

user is disappointed that what Zizek is talking about now will later be regarded as the cultural quality of our epoch. And it reflects badly on how that user imagines his lifetime and society. So he'd rather Zizek stick to mocking dead people so we can all feel good about ourselves.
Zizek has written about 10000000 essays about this.

Is thinking supposed to only function as critique of the dead? How unfortunate it must be to figure out "What went wrong" only after the fact - after my dick is clamped tight in my jaw. Perhaps if I thought about now I could have a working weiner (which is the name of my post punk nu-male band: The Working Weiners)

chomsky-tier characterization

>pomo appeal
Confirmed for not actually knowing what Zizek is about.

I was just at that store this afternoon

Some really weird fucking people work there (and at the cafe across the hall)

there is no sexual relation

this

i'd pay 100 dollars to see this debate.

that will just end in a lot of SNIFF

youtu.be/hg7qdowoemo

Watch this and tell me he is not the immaculate vision of genius. He was never wrong.

>you'll never find a bookstore with that many good LoA titles in one location
why live
fuck they have the whole fucking Roth set and the Updike set right there

>This thread "is he wrong?" Is fucking ludicrous.
The only thing that ludicrous is how much of a pseud you are to write a long, reddit-spaced post about everything superficial about Zizek while obviously having no clue what he's actually trying to say which can be very simply explained as a positive philosophical claim and which absolute informs all his work.

But it's also obvious to me you're a fucking child, so it's really not fair of me to single you out.

Why does he always hold bags like a woman?

because its comfortable and he's secure with his masculinity unlike you.

>zizek is in this thread

I'd rather see a debate between Slavoj Zizek and Aleksandr Dugin.

Peterson would just say a bunch of bullshit while Zizek stammers on about how stupid Peterson is.

He looks like the most retarded and degenerate leftist ever existed. If you read his books or watch him on youtube you are a worthless 21st century memeboi.

Zizek and Sloterdijk

This. It would be very anticlimactic

I'd pay to see that.

to be fair most leftists LOOK far more retarded and degenerate than zizek

>implying pic related is ''left''

Both the alt-right and the new left are entrenched in the same idpol cesspool. Lib-left practically isn't left at all.

Why does Zizek never mention Ancient Greek philosophers?

youtube.com/watch?v=gVyhqhApiNk

Here ya go. But of course the guy already spreads himself too thin; it's not his focus.

alt-right are subhumans also but that pic is definitely a snapshot of the contemporary left

I encourage everyone to watch his interview with Charlie Rose.

>Slavoj Zizek talking about Plato vs Aristotle and Totalitarianism
>talk ends up being barely related to Plato or Aristotle instead devolving into a bunch of disparate political and social anecdotes throughout history that he happens to recall

every time.

...

No they'd be dumpier and unshaven user

>the Revolution was effected to pursue Marxist dogma. But how did the Politburo view this dogma? From my first presence at Politburo sessions my attention had been drawn to the irony of the term "trained Marxist." It was clear that it really meant "garrulous oaf."

>At times it was even worse than that. The Peoples' Commissar for Finances, Sokolnikov, who was undertaking monetary reform, submitted to the Politburo the nomination of Professor Yurovsky as member of the Narkomfin board and head of the department of foreign exhange. Yurovsky was not a communist, and he was unknown to the Politburo. One of the members asked, "I hope he's not a Marxist?" Sokolnikov hastened to reply, "No, oh, no. In the foreign exchange department one must know how to work, not chatter." The Politburo approved the nomination at once.

>I soon understand all the nuances of the attitude of the communist leaders toward Marxist theory. As practitioners and pragmatists governing the state, they realized the complete uselessness of Marxism in the field of comprehension and organization of the economy. Thus their skeptical and ironic attitude toward "trained Marxists." Inversely, they appreciated greatly the explosive emotional force of this Marxism which brought them to power in Russia and would bring them to power over the entire world (they hoped, not without reason). In sum, as a science Marxism was nonsense. As a revolutionary tool to control the masses it was irreplacable.

It's like Socrates meets hobo rapist

>looks for problems in literally everything; never looks for the goodness in things; full of ideas and is clearly self-destructive

Even Zizek says people shouldn't listen to him. (theguardian.com/culture/2012/jun/10/slavoj-zizek-humanity-ok-people-boring)

Old Slavic mystics mumbling at each other

Peterson is a joke who deals with "problems" that the American youth cares today but most real philosophers deem irrelevant

I highly doubt Zizek would debate someone about feminism, gender politics and other shit tier 21st century topics. Debating American politics is like fishing in the barrel with a shot gun
American politics is a joke

ayy lmao

They're basically the same person, so it wouldn't be that interesting.

Nick Land on the other hand, is the only true anglo supremacist left, him going up against ANY continental would be entertaining, but especially one like Zizek.

for
you

His political writings are shit (as he himself has admitted), but his purely philosophical writings are pretty interesting.

it was going to happen but sloterdijk had an accident

Why is he so often photographed with bags? I don't think I even have a single photograph of myself carrying a bag.

The bag is a cultural icon in Eastern Europe, reminding us of the time spent queueing for groceries back in the 80s and cheap vodka in brown bags and so on.

>politics of the world superpower is a joke
Its not like you have a superiority complex or anything, saying something so patently ridiculous.

Yes pls.

>all leftists nowadays look like trans people
epic

rocking the chris chan i see

Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you.

Transexual gender pronouns is not the politics of America dipshit. Its a fringe issue that only touchy weirdos on either end of the political spectrum obsess about

lol yup

They're not even the weirdest people on that campus, either.

>my gott what is this dasein bullshit and sho on? To say that each narod has its own dasein or whatever is pure ideology, our current predicament more than ever requires, I claim, a new form of universality and sho on.

>This is the error of modernity, it is universality that reveals itself as "ideology." It is the ideology of George Soros, of the Swamp, of the globalists. Under the ideology of universalism man is turned into an exchangeable gear on the capitalist machine. It is the contention of The Fourth Political Theory that only a return to the solar values of Tradition can revert this process.

>ugly nazi who lives in a dump has a qt gf
>I don't
masculinity was a mistake

>But what is this solar tradition or whatever? I got in lots of problems with my leftist friends for saying, you know, "the problem with Hitler is that he wasn't radical enough", and my gott, this is exactly what I mean, Sure we can return to tradition, we'll be sufi or whatever, in the end our relations of production don't change at all

>Marxism, as one of the three political ideologies of modernity, has already been defeated. Today to speak of "relations of production" and similar Marxist terminology its simulacrum. If one is to investigate the true source of capitalism we find its origins on that which Guenon calls the "reign of quantity", it is something immanent to modernity itself. Even if Marxists had won the ideological battle of the 20th century the outcome would have been the same. This is why we must go beyond modernity, beyond post-modernity, and it is by recovering Tradition that we begin to find answers to our problems.

>go beyond by going back.

heh, nice meme ideology dugin.

lol love how everyone is so anti-globalist all of a sudden and muh ancient tradition.

and how is that counter ideology? how does he know that beyond is not also a wanting twoards or ideology of nextness.

>mfw defusing capital by decategorising then deunitizing humanity so as to do away with cosmic salvation
psssh…no thin universel…kids…

Romanticism was always a strong ideological core of many anti-modernity and anti-universalist ideologies.
Nazism had a strong romatic tradition (Goebbels wrote a paper of German Romanticism ffk) in the sense they looked up to the distant past as a option to the increasing modern world around them, with they considered decadent.
Romanticism is less about mah boi getting pussy and more about mah boi 'n' mah grill in green fields listening to folk songs and wearing tunics like the ancient ones, while bathing in the sunlight of Apollo and drinking Baco's wine.
Usualy when you want to counter something you need other thing who is usualy the opossite. By going back to traditions and the past, you have a strong and easely accecible thing to yourself against the modernity and its inovations.
This isent some pragmatical political manouvering (sometimes it is, but not only), this is a mixture of lounging for a time where thing seemed to be certain and feeling of nostalgia to a past that was in theory, better. To return to the roots so to say, a thing all of us at some point in our life wish to do, specialy when our presente seen so bad.

>masculinity was a mistake
geez, really joggles my noggins...

Is there some special terminology at play or does he genuinely believe we can recover 'Tradition'?
Sounds like another diamond dozen Russian mystic in any case.

is this like "whats in my bag" for books. id totally watch that shit.

>does violence ever solve anything?
>yes, everything
He's not wrong.

He's wrong instead, because violence solves things only in the most critical situations, not always. 90% of the times we solve problems with diplomacy, it's just natural.

>90% of the times we solve problems with diplomacy, it's just natural.
They could still be solved with violence though.

>Chris, I'm you from the future. Remember these words: "Kill the ideology, save Sonichu"

He's right about some stuff and wrong about others. He's an aggrandizing provocateur, but as a liberterian, I don't think that's a bad thing. Probably shrewd action.

Anyways what I think he is right and wrong

>The Big Other
He's right there is no big other
>The General Will
He's wrong and the Jacobins used this notion to murder their political rivals. Lenin/Stalin and all marxist use this nasty concept for mass slaughter. Individual/Natural rights have to always be respected.

Zizek doesn't really believe in the inherent good of democracy or a general will