Crustacean Jung vs Cocaine Hegel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78BFFq_8XvM

I like Peterson (though I wouldn't call myself a fan) but I gotta admit that Zizek kinda crushed him. Peterson was thoroughly surprised by some of Zizek's standpoints and he couldn't really deal with that ("what kind of Marxist are you????"). Also Peterson tailored his opening speech to an average audience while Zizek went full blown philosopher. They also both agreed on many things which probably disappointed the stupid part of the audience who expected some sort of epic zingers.

I keep seeing bootleg versions of this stream, I even bookmarked some but is there no official one?

Crustacean Jung vs Cocaine Hegel

^ LOL.

meme plz.

No way would watch the debate, might watch Alt's.

I think that a reasonable point at which one stops being taken seriously as an intellectual should be when one spends the better part of a decade railing against "marxism" and then has to look up the very basics of marxism for a debate against a marxist.

(Well, realistically, it's when you become famous by blatantly lying about what a law meant to protect your students from discrimination will do, but at this point who's counting?)

Most of what Peterson says falls somewhere on the deepity spectrum - as Dennett puts it, a deepity is a statement meant to sound profound where what is true is trivial, and what is profound is false or meaningless - and the fact even his fans think he came off worse for wear in this debate can only be seen as a good thing.

"

Xavderion wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78BFFq_8XvM

I like Peterson (though I wouldn't call myself a fan) but I gotta admit that Zizek kinda crushed him. Peterson was thoroughly surprised by some of Zizek's standpoints and he couldn't really deal with that ("what kind of Marxist are you????"). Also Peterson tailored his opening speech to an average audience while Zizek went full blown philosopher. They also both agreed on many things which probably disappointed the stupid part of the audience who expected some sort of epic zingers.

Same, I like Peterson. I have some major disagreements with a few of his views, mostly because I'm an atheist, but he says a lot of positive advice for people to follow.

Take responsibility for your decisions, work your way to your goals.

The big problem I saw with the debate was that Peterson had the wrong idea of where Zizek was coming from, and gradually backed off, once he talked to Zizek more.

It'd been a lot better if they both didn't have such long 30-minute opening statements. They could have sorted all those misconceptions in that hour and actually talked straight to their points of contention.

I guess the good thing was that for most people it was a good introduction into what Marxism is, what it seeks to do, and its shortcomings, but for the rest of us familiar with Marxism. It was a bit meh.

Nothing, we haven't heard about before.

"

JohnGrammaticus wrote:

I keep seeing bootleg versions of this stream, I even bookmarked some but is there no official one?

Well, there was an official one, but it may be behind a paywall.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Entertaining farce. Looks like they both had fun, but neither seemed to expect to need to win. Which, of course, they didn't. It was an exhibition fight, at best.

If you go into discussions thinking they're fights, there really isn't much point in having them at all. Every hope of meaningful, honest interaction goes out the window when it becomes a battle and the fight or flight response takes over the reigns.

Maybe that's why you can't see any societal value in (as you call it) "pandering to would-be alphas lost in the post-factual woods" or still consider the idea that having something in common with crustaceans is absurd (or at the very least absurd enough to put in a snide remark), even though every lifeform on the planet is related in a family tree of genes and we have nearly a third of our DNA in common with a goddamn fungus we put in dough to make bread light and fluffy.

...

Anyhow, it's always pleasing to see a discussion that doesn't degrade into a debate.

"

Upandatem wrote:

still consider the idea that having something in common with crustaceans is absurd (or at the very least absurd enough to put in a snide remark), even though every lifeform on the planet is related in a family tree of genes and we have nearly a third of our DNA in common with a goddamn fungus we put in dough to make bread light and fluffy.

It's silly and worth mocking because humans are not lobsters and do not share the social heirarchies of lobsters. This is what I meant by "deepities". The true part ("stand up straight and people will respect you more") is trivial; the profound part ("consider the lobster") is absurd. It's mocked because it's both wrong and dangerous to see human social interactions as a constant battle to be "head lobster", in the same way it's wrong and dangerous to see human social interactions as a constant battle to be the "alpha wolf". The veneer of "respectability" (with absolutely gigantic quote marks) granted by the kind of evopsych you'd expect from a stoned freshman who doesn't know the first thing about lobsters, wolves, or sociology is just obnoxious.

The veneer of "respectability" (with absolutely gigantic quote marks) granted by the kind of evopsych you'd expect from a stoned freshman who doesn't know the first thing about lobsters, wolves, or sociology is just obnoxious.

There's a lot of big words here. Perhaps one day you and I will sit down for a real chat.

"

totalbackline wrote:

There's a lot of big words here.

I'm gonna be honest, between Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules For Life I can't tell if I should be surprised or not at a Peterson fan complaining about big words.