Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Steinfreo]

I just cant buy petersons justification of human hierarchies because monkey hierarchies, it seems flimsy, I thought they were both good though. It was entertaining as usual with Ziz, he went full hegelian though and was basically incomprehensible unless you were already a fan. Its the biggest problem with the left, they dont know how to present an argument to regular people, the people they need to connect with.

Jordan's opening was undergrad tier though, I mean he would have got an A but you can tell he doesnt read many things that he doesnt agree with already. Communist manifesto is pointless, Kapital is where the real marx s**t is. I read chapter one and almost killed myself it was so boring/confusing but you can tell thats where the stuff relevant to the present day is, the Communist manifesto is like a call to arms, more passion than real thought, he was a kid when he wrote it.

Jordan is such a likeable guy, its good you guys on the right have him, hes very good at what he does.

 

[yebiga]

I just cant buy petersons justification of human hierarchies because monkey hierarchies, it seems flimsy, I thought they were both good though. It was entertaining as usual with Ziz, he went full hegelian though and was basically incomprehensible unless you were already a fan. Its the biggest problem with the left, they dont know how to present an argument to regular people, the people they need to connect with.

Jordan's opening was undergrad tier though, I mean he would have got an A but you can tell he doesnt read many things that he doesnt agree with already. Communist manifesto is pointless, Kapital is where the real marx s**t is. I read chapter one and almost killed myself it was so boring/confusing but you can tell thats where the stuff relevant to the present day is, the Communist manifesto is like a call to arms, more passion than real thought, he was a kid when he wrote it.

Jordan is such a likeable guy, its good you guys on the right have him, hes very good at what he does.

I don't think of Jordan as of the right. He is conservative but its not exactly ideological. His conservatism is based on a personal morality.
And as Zizek insisted, at the very end of the debate: those damn post-modernists and politically correct identitarians aren't of the left either.
Zizek is a progressive and brilliant thinker but with no clear coherent world view - more than that is difficult to say, because as he cites Hegel: any decision is in some sense an error.

Too much is being made about Jordan's opening remarks on Marxism. Marx's work is now over 150 years old. And for 150 year Pro-Marxists have accused his detractors of failing to understand the brilliance of Marx's work. Well after 150 years you would think the pro-marxists would have learnt how to elucidate that brilliance. You would think at least one brilliant Marx idea could be made clear enough for all to understand. No chance.

Exactly, what kind of analysis did people expect Jordan would make? He covered the essential foundational thoughts underpinning communism. Now, I admit, JPs summary of Marxism was crude and self serving - but it is the opening salvo in a debate, after all. JP expected Zizek to start with a full court Marxist blitz. Zizek wasn't in for a confrontation and both men found loads of common ground.

 

[juzz88]

I've been a fan of both men for a long time, thoroughly enjoyed it. I was also very happy that in the end, it was a discussion more than a debate.

Both men were mature enough to put their egos aside and have a discussion about their beliefs, rather than try to defeat the other.

We need more of this if we are to progress as a species.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Hey there is no bigger fan of quality Ziz than me (about 1/5th of his books) but that “debate” was as predictable as WWE - JP was unprepared


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[FireKrakouer]

Capitalism wins hands down in the pursuit of happiness.

Marxists are a bunch of miserable, zero sum game campaigners.

We need a capitalism v Marxism debate conducted in speech that the layperson can understand. I nominate you to fly the flag for capitalism - just need to repeat the above post really!

 

[EasternTiger]

We need a capitalism v Marxism debate conducted in speech that the layperson can understand. I nominate you to fly the flag for capitalism - just need to repeat the above post really!

I accept your nomination and am up for the challenge.

I will 'fly the flag' for capitalism using words with no more than 5 letters.

To explain the stupidity of Marxism, I will use 4 letter words.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The major roadblock is there are no Marxists on here.

JP showed you can fake it till you make it though.

 

[Jibroni]

Thought Zizzy handled himself pretty well.

Eastern Europe 1
Canada. 0

 

[yebiga]

Thought Zizzy handled himself pretty well.

Eastern Europe 1
Canada. 0

Zizek didn't really touch on Marxism - the subject of the debate - but he certainly handled his nose. .
Zizek is possessed by a dozen ticks and as many demons.

In the end, Zizek possesses a progressive temperament and Peterson a conservative temperament. Where, Zizek has no unified world view or prescription, he epitomises free thinking and flights of brilliance; Peterson, has a detailed and scaffolded world view which prescribes personal responsibility. Therefore, if you are of a progressive persuasion, you will side with Zizek because he appeals to your predilection to avoid commitments. And Peterson will appeal to conservatives because he does call for personal responsibility.

This is entirely a temperamental distinction. In substance, as the debate revealed, there isn't much they disagree on substantively.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Zizek didn't really touch on Marxism - the subject of the debate - but he certainly handled his nose. .
Zizek is possessed by a dozen ticks and as many demons.

In the end, Zizek possesses a progressive temperament and Peterson a conservative temperament. Where, Zizek has no unified world view or prescription, he epitomises free thinking and flights of brilliance; Peterson, has a detailed and scaffolded world view which prescribes personal responsibility. Therefore, if you are of a progressive persuasion, you will side with Zizek because he appeals to your predilection to avoid commitments. And Peterson will appeal to conservatives because he does call for personal responsibility.

This is entirely a temperamental distinction. In substance, as the debate revealed, there isn't much they disagree on substantively.

He's self proclaimed Marxist and uses it as a tool of analysis in all his books - how is that not a "unified view of the world"

 

[yebiga]

He's self proclaimed Marxist and uses it as a tool of analysis in all his books - how is that not a "unified view of the world"

You either didn’t watch the “debate” or you didn’t understand what was said.

Zizek is a tepid Marxist who himself admits that Marxism - to paraphrase - is great on diagnosis poor on prescription.

Which anyone vaguely familiar with the subject acknowledges.

if you see it differently please elucidate what you and or Marx would like to see happen and how it is to be implemented?

I’m expecting crickets!
Or some a reiteration of class oppression.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It has no contemporary value unless it is viewed as a stream of psychological manipulation. The other parameters of it's application are no longer applicable. I do chortle when folks try to shoehorn it's stated goals and economics in to some type of modern relevance as a means to undermine Jordan bloody Peterson. It's an absurdity.

 

[ferball]

Have you listened to the lecture he gave on this topic to explain his reasoning? If so, what did you think?

I listened to him (JP) on that topic months ago. Suffice to say he doesn't know what post modernism is or how often he uses its techniques.

 

[ferball]

I don't listen to JPs political knobbery but he is a mildly interesting guy. I posted this on the North board and no one said nothing so i'm sticking it here.





I reckon he sounds like one of Brad Scotts' press conferences this year when he talks s**t about poltiics but if you listen to this lecture he sounds alive and into the subject in a way that's infectious and interesting.

Like it genuinely moves him.

 

[ShanDog]

I listened to him (JP) on that topic months ago. Suffice to say he doesn't know what post modernism is or how often he uses its techniques.

I'm aware there is a little irony in the way his talks and ideas can be strongly related to postmodern theory. I think the issue is that he hasn't articulated the issue well enough. I understand his points and largely agree with issues in academia and society related to postmodern influence, but people like James Lindsay (of the Grievance Studies hoax) managed to describe it MUCH better. Have you seen his take on it?

 

[ShanDog]

I don't listen to JPs political knobbery but he is a mildly interesting guy. I posted this on the North board and no one said nothing so i'm sticking it here.





I reckon he sounds like one of Brad Scotts' press conferences this year when he talks s**t about poltiics but if you listen to this lecture he sounds alive and into the subject in a way that's infectious and interesting.

Like it genuinely moves him.

Similar to how he talks about the psychological aspects of religion and the Bible. Thats still the most interesting of his work to me and what really got me "onto him" so to speak.

 

[ferball]

I don't usually think anything he says is much chop but since I saw that vid I've seen and read some of his psyche stuff and its like he's a different person. Intelligent, compassionate, articulate and with a real sense that he is trying to do something worthwhile.

He also gets a bit like that when talking about - I guess what he sees as his personal mission - giving some kind role modelling to young men.

And I'm not a fan of his at all. But I can definitely respect what he says about those things.

 

[ferball]

I'm aware there is a little irony in the way his talks and ideas can be strongly related to postmodern theory. I think the issue is that he hasn't articulated the issue well enough. I understand his points and largely agree with issues in academia and society related to postmodern influence, but people like James Lindsay (of the Grievance Studies hoax) managed to describe it MUCH better. Have you seen his take on it?

No. look tbh I don't really follow these debates. Most of these ideas are ones I've thought about decades agao and come to my on conclusions on.

Postmodernism is a philosophy that developed out of modern science in the first half of last century and the late 20th century as communications, psychedelic drugs and nuclear weapons became such dominant cultural drivers.

Niels Bohr was pretty important in the development of modern physics and here's some quotes of his that help illustrate what i'm getting at:

“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”

“It is the hallmark of any deep truth that its negation is also a deep truth”

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”

“The very nature of the quantum theory ... forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the claim of causality, the union of which characterizes the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and description, respectively.”

“Physics is not about how the world is, it is about what we can say about the world”

Those statements are influenced by his experimental work with physics. Physics is the science - everything else (in science anyway) is an extension of it.

Modern physics basically came to the conclusion that when we look really closely at the world what we see is one thing but our ability to interpret and describe it is another thing and not on the same level of "reality" as the observations. That what we see is too complex and intricate to be "fully described" by humans or even fully interpreted.

There are some experiments that clearly show the limits of perception.

For example the double split experiment. Supposedly it says light is either a wave or a particle but the truth is it actually says you can only test to see if light is a particle or a wave. But not both at the same time. This is because of the limit on our ability to perceive the world. Science doesn't use new methods to gather info about the world just extends our current ones. The uncertainty principle is another one. You can measure the position of a particle accurately but not its momentum or vice versa.

This is the point where post modernism, with all the uncertainty it brings, really began - those early 20th century physics experiments that Bohr had so much to do with.

 

[ferball]

And just for shits and giggles here are some of my favorite generalist Bohr quotes:

“An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.”

“Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself it’s own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it.”

“Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.”

and my favorite

“There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them.”

 

[ShanDog]

No. look tbh I don't really follow these debates. Most of these ideas are ones I've thought about decades agao and come to my on conclusions on.

Postmodernism is a philosophy that developed out of modern science in the first half of last century and the late 20th century as communications, psychedelic drugs and nuclear weapons became such dominant cultural drivers.

Niels Bohr was pretty important in the development of modern physics and here's some quotes of his that help illustrate what i'm getting at:

“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”

“It is the hallmark of any deep truth that its negation is also a deep truth”

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”

“The very nature of the quantum theory ... forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the claim of causality, the union of which characterizes the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and description, respectively.”

“Physics is not about how the world is, it is about what we can say about the world”

Those statements are influenced by his experimental work with physics. Physics is the science - everything else (in science anyway) is an extension of it.

Modern physics basically came to the conclusion that when we look really closely at the world what we see is one thing but our ability to interpret and describe it is another thing and not on the same level of "reality" as the observations. That what we see is too complex and intricate to be "fully described" by humans or even fully interpreted.

There are some experiments that clearly show the limits of perception.

For example the double split experiment. Supposedly it says light is either a wave or a particle but the truth is it actually says you can only test to see if light is a particle or a wave. But not both at the same time. This is because of the limit on our ability to perceive the world. Science doesn't use new methods to gather info about the world just extends our current ones. The uncertainty principle is another one. You can measure the position of a particle accurately but not its momentum or vice versa.

This is the point where post modernism, with all the uncertainty it brings, really began - those early 20th century physics experiments that Bohr had so much to do with.

This is really one branch of postmodern thought. There are many, such as postmodern literature, architecture and philosophy. What Peterson (and Lindsay et al) are referring to is the latter. The way it permeates sociological theories and other academic pursuits which then manifest in the public zeitgeist is the issue they take up. And it's not the fundamental philosophy that is the issue (as Peterson has said - they didn't get it ALL wrong), but the way it is applied. Lindsay is the one who articulates this very well by differentiating postmodern thought with something he calls "Applied Postmodernism". It's well worth looking him up on twitter or reading some of his essays on it.

 

[yebiga]

No. look tbh I don't really follow these debates. Most of these ideas are ones I've thought about decades agao and come to my on conclusions on.

Postmodernism is a philosophy that developed out of modern science in the first half of last century and the late 20th century as communications, psychedelic drugs and nuclear weapons became such dominant cultural drivers.

Niels Bohr was pretty important in the development of modern physics and here's some quotes of his that help illustrate what i'm getting at:

“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”

“It is the hallmark of any deep truth that its negation is also a deep truth”

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”

“The very nature of the quantum theory ... forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the claim of causality, the union of which characterizes the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and description, respectively.”

“Physics is not about how the world is, it is about what we can say about the world”

Those statements are influenced by his experimental work with physics. Physics is the science - everything else (in science anyway) is an extension of it.

Modern physics basically came to the conclusion that when we look really closely at the world what we see is one thing but our ability to interpret and describe it is another thing and not on the same level of "reality" as the observations. That what we see is too complex and intricate to be "fully described" by humans or even fully interpreted.

There are some experiments that clearly show the limits of perception.

For example the double split experiment. Supposedly it says light is either a wave or a particle but the truth is it actually says you can only test to see if light is a particle or a wave. But not both at the same time. This is because of the limit on our ability to perceive the world. Science doesn't use new methods to gather info about the world just extends our current ones. The uncertainty principle is another one. You can measure the position of a particle accurately but not its momentum or vice versa.

This is the point where post modernism, with all the uncertainty it brings, really began - those early 20th century physics experiments that Bohr had so much to do with.

You could well be right that these type of observations by physicists inspired post modernism.
But post modernism moved difficult and vague ideas from physics into domain of social sciences, humanities and politics. And with each expansion it lost touch with that wisdom, humility, awe and caution expressed by Bohr.

And ultimately, something grotesque and conceited is spawned which becomes an excuse to dismiss all traditional understanding - where any clown with out the least bit of effort, evidence or coherence feels their own petty emotions are a true representation of the entire universe.

 

[Steinfreo]

OK I watched the debate again, JP got slammed. Zizek was so pitch perfect in this debate, his primary goal was to dispel the boogey man concept of the post modern neo-marxist, he did that. That moment when Zizek asked where the marxists were and JP was speechless is iconic.

This debate made we like JP more, hes a thoughtful dude and this debate will change him and a bunch of his followers opinions of the contemporary lefts position. You can be a white young man, be proud and be a leftist.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

More red meat for the alt right hacks.

Jordy shared an article from a pizzagate type arguing censorship and demonetization from social media caused the type of violence seen in Christchurch.

Now, effects of censorship are fertile grounds for discussion. But he chose a writer not censored trying to explain away a mass murder who was not censored promoted by a movement whose writings and ramblings can be accessed via multiple platforms.

The article even has the tape over the mouth branding.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[yebiga]

OK I watched the debate again, JP got slammed. Zizek was so pitch perfect in this debate, his primary goal was to dispel the boogey man concept of the post modern neo-marxist, he did that. That moment when Zizek asked where the marxists were and JP was speechless is iconic.

This debate made we like JP more, hes a thoughtful dude and this debate will change him and a bunch of his followers opinions of the contemporary lefts position. You can be a white young man, be proud and be a leftist.

Couldn't disagree more - Zizek rambled. He makes interesting and fascinating points - but he is a bit of a marxist, more of a hegelian and lacanian. s**t he does know what he is - the physical ticks, his nose, his ear lobes they were saying one thing and they may have won the debate.

You need to re-watch that iconic moment - Zizek rambles on about a name - he wants just one contemporary marxist name.

JP gives him entire schools, organisations - Zizek drops the entire subject and his ticks take-over and we are back in the land of sparkling disconnected ideas.

 

[Steinfreo]

Couldn't disagree more - Zizek rambled. He makes interesting and fascinating points - but he is a bit of a marxist, more of a hegelian and lacanian. s**t he does know what he is - the physical ticks, his nose, his ear lobes they were saying one thing and they may have won the debate.

You need to re-watch that iconic moment - Zizek rambles on about a name - he wants just one contemporary marxist name.

JP gives him entire schools, organisations - Zizek drops the entire subject and his ticks take-over and we are back in the land of sparkling disconnected ideas.

I think people focus on Zizek's delivery to much and dont try to understand why he is sitting there in the first place. JP went in looking to confirm the existence of the liberal godless post modern cultural marxist, this is his wheelhouse, hes built his entire career on this boogie man as a prominent cultural conservative. The cultural marxist is his natural enemy, if the enemy doesnt exist then the cultural conservative has to start looking inwards to find the reasons why his own culture is 'deteriorating', and that is toooo spooky, he needs an enemy to blame.

Zizek already knows the the nature of the cultural marxist (fictious) so instead of playing into JPs argument and countering by blaming the Right for Trump blah blah blah he flipped it and attempted to get his opponent to perhaps look inwardly a little and ask themselves does this boogieman actually exist. Clearly JP gave a weak answer to this, one mumbled name and then dropped his head.

Zizek didnt what the prove the right are a bunch of monsters, Zizek wanted the right to look inward and self reflect on its role in western culture and perhaps see if their capitalist tendencies actually gel well with their cultural tendencies, and to see if those capitalist tendencies are actually a primary player in the in the dilution of western culture, infact far more detrimental than any purple haired lesbian scretching at a uni campus.

This is also why the dumb youtube liberal not really left left are mad at Zizeks position during the debate. they wanted fireworks, they wanted beat downs. coincidentally this is exactly what JP wanted to, it galvanizes the cultural conservatives boogie man. The right doesnt realised just how ****ed at weak the real left are right now. Look at these US elections its such a cluster* on the left, we are for sure getting a two term trump.