Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[goyacobol]

I just watched the Zizek/Peterson debate last night after receiving a link shared by beetlemaniac. I have to agree with all of you that it was very surprising how much they were in agreement (think they were surprised too). It was more like a dialog than a debate. It was almost like two intellectual friends having a fireside chat (although a rather animated one).

I just had a few thoughts as I watched. Admittedly Zizek has a few neurotic "tics/twitches" like touching his nose pulling at his shirt and being generally excited and animated but I have noticed this with other "intellecuals" too. Ignoring those idiosyncrasies I found his thinking to be very interesting and valid on many points.

Zizek shows that he has been influenced by much more than just Marxism mentioning Hegel, Bhaghavata, Zen buddists, D.T. Suzuki ( I have to kill you - but it’s an illusion - cosmic illusion). He realizes Marxism can serve a terrible cause as Peterson points out.
He hopes people will think for themselves and not just be PC….no simplistic thinking.

Peterson seemed to be very attentive and actually listened to Zizek before formulating his answers and questions. They both had thoughtful questions as the dialog continued. It was more like an intelligent conversation.

Peterson hopes the audience will see the value of different views without identification with ideologies and live with the differences.

The moderator says it is an unfinished conversation and hopefully that will lead to another interesting "dialog".

Although Zizek says he is an atheist he sounds much more like an agnostic. And as others mention he's not even a convincing Marxist (which is OK by me). I found myself really agreeing with Zizek on many points.

Peterson attacked Marxism but later kind of apologized for his attack because he found Zizek to be such an independent and critical thinker.

Their exchange was a thing to behold.

I just wonder how the conversation would have gone if either believed in reincarnation and had an inkling of 4D.

 

[luc]

Me too, I really liked the conversation. Both seemed very nervous in their opening statements, not knowing exactly how to deal with each other, but the discussion afterwards got better and better. I also had the impression that both Zizek and Peterson actually came to really like and respect each other!

I found that Zizek made some good points, for example about ideology where he describes the ponorological process of perverting ideas for evil purposes (he didn't use the term ponerology of course). Also, what he said about God (based on a certain theologian) was fascinating - that even God feels powerless and in grievance given the human madness. It kind of goes against the naive idea of an all-powerful, all-good God. What he said about Hegel and his "dialectical contradiction" that the fall of mankind also bears within it the creation of the very paradise that it fell from was very interesting too. Didn't know that, but that jives with the Cs' cyclical cosmology, i.e. "us in the future" are the ones who can "fall" and so on.

I hope they'll talk again and skip the introductory remarks and just go straight to dialogue. And I hope that those among Peterson's followers who are tempted into too much black and white thinking regarding capitalism/free market vs. socialism or are tempted by a rather unsophisticated "new conservative" ideology have gained some new perspective. And I hope some of those among Zizek's young followers who are tempted by SJWism and a naive revolutionary spirit have learned a thing from Peterson about personal responsibility and that he isn't the rightwing-villain many leftists proclaim he is.

 

[Scottie]

I found that Zizek made some good points, for example about ideology where he describes the ponorological process of perverting ideas for evil purposes (he didn't use the term ponerology of course). Also, what he said about God (based on a certain theologian) was fascinating - that even God feels powerless and in grievance given the human madness. It kind of goes against the naive idea of an all-powerful, all-good God.

Yeah, that part was pretty interesting... The idea that Jesus died on the cross, and was basically depressed and had given up hope and had doubts at that time.

It's like: the idea that the son of god who actually IS god doubts "himself" because this reality is just SO crappy... Well, somehow, that's almost inspiring. Because the reality is that this world is quite a handful at times...

Kinda ties in to the thread about near-death and after-death experiences.

 

[whitecoast]

Yeah, that part was pretty interesting... The idea that Jesus died on the cross, and was basically depressed and had given up hope and had doubts at that time.

It's like: the idea that the son of god who actually IS god doubts "himself" because this reality is just SO crappy... Well, somehow, that's almost inspiring. Because the reality is that this world is quite a handful at times...

Kinda ties in to the thread about near-death and after-death experiences.

Yeah. The story Zizek related was from a theological work of G.K. Chesterton. The Distributist is also a large fan of his. I’m definitely adding him to my theology reading list.

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

I also enjoyed the "debate". The content was good and they both made well thought points, -although in my opinion Peterson presented his ideas perhaps more coherently- but even more important, I think, was the decency and mutual respect shown towards the other side. This made possible that they both were able to found common ground in the topics, and thus, explore them more and make the nuances more visible.

And the fact that this totally common way of interacting (at least in non-controversial topics) is something that needs to be applauded speaks volumes about the atmosphere in our society today. The media and politicians are trying hard to make us to believe that it's the norm to have continous division and tension between any opposing groups, whether they're liberal and conservative, socialist and capitalist or religious and secular ideas. The underlying message is that it's useless to exchange ideas, since ultimately it's all just cynical power games - "survival of the fittest" on the level of ideology.

Yet in reality for example the tendency to have certain political orientation and moral experience can be affected by permanent psychological factors like temperament, -making them relatively unchangeable- so the only stable option for people and their society to survive would be in keeping the "line open" and to aim towards honest, civil dialogue between ideas and points of view - mentally "sparring" each other in order that these different angles to perceive reality would become as objective as possible.

So kudos to both Žižek and Peterson for showing example how to do this.

 

[Voyageur]

Thought it was a fascinating discussion that did not turn out to the food that many left-leftists (and perhaps its converse) were hoping for based on the set up of the 'debate' question which would, in principle, tend to garner such opposing views. Following Žižek's opening, Peterson really thought about what he had said as he listened intently and seemed somewhat surprised (yeah, people have more in common - these guys probably do) and a reset of the whole discussion seemed to take place. Thought this a remarkable adjustment for them both and a testament to both their thinking.

Both Peterson and Žižek, OSIT, gained from listening to each other, and as others have said, it seems to have gone over the heads and expectations of outcomes of people based on the arguments I've seen afterwards.

Subtly, Žižek brings up ecology and both agree on the basics without getting into the nuts and bolts of where it has gone: put more plainly, they probably can both see how it has been hijacked to its present narrative state of global C02'ness. Žižek also brings up Iraq, Syria and Yemen - without needing to open it up for expansion, and for people who have been following these things Žižek is clearly pointing out how unconscionable it all is. Peterson does not go the political route here, and yet he acknowledged the underlining actions at work - acknowledging the unfettered runaway trains of any systems (Capitalist or Marxist as example for the debate discussion) that produce such horrid conditions of what history has shown.

It was mentioned above (goyacobol) that Žižek seemed more of the agnostic than atheist perhaps. luc and Scottie expand on a few things Žižek mentioned (good/evil and God), and had caught that too - with the "near-death and after-death experiences' thread in mind. For Žižek, what he ultimately believes, and I don't know, may be in conflict to some extent as he is clearly a thinking man with eyes to see and something deeper within.

So kudos to both Žižek and Peterson...

Yes, I think so!

 

[genero81]

It took me several viewings to get through it, but I'm glad I did. Of course I'm a fan of Peterson, but there's a lot positive to say about Zizek. He said from the beginning that this was not about winning a competition but to discuss some very important issues facing the world and the human race. And then he proceeded to offer his best in that regard. Here were two very intelligent people who have learned to think for themselves; who have both done work on themselves enough to recognize the difference between what constitutes a higher integrated personality and what is just a lower level smorgasbord of mimicked social norms. It's interesting to note how higher personality development invariably involves concerning oneself with the bigger picture. Happiness is a byproduct of meaning. Meaning is found when one extends oneself to include one's family and one's society as a concern/ responsibility. What did G say? Something about how the study of man should coincide with the study of the world.

The world could definitely use more serious discussions like this. Bravo!

 

[Alejo]

It took me several viewings to get through it, but I'm glad I did. Of course I'm a fan of Peterson, but there's a lot positive to say about Zizek. He said from the beginning that this was not about winning a competition but to discuss some very important issues facing the world and the human race. And then he proceeded to offer his best in that regard. Here were two very intelligent people who have learned to think for themselves; who have both done work on themselves enough to recognize the difference between what constitutes a higher integrated personality and what is just a lower level smorgasbord of mimicked social norms. It's interesting to note how higher personality development invariably involves concerning oneself with the bigger picture. Happiness is a byproduct of meaning. Meaning is found when one extends oneself to include one's family and one's society as a concern/ responsibility. What did G say? Something about how the study of man should coincide with the study of the world.

The world could definitely use more serious discussions like this. Bravo!

Yes,

That was my take on it, I think most people were expecting a debate a la Munk debates or even one much like the ones he had with Sam Harris, the fact that it went in such a different direction it didn’t feel like a debate at all, it felt like the beginning of a long discussion about complex issues.

I was rather pleased to witness Peterson be disarmed by Zizek, because I think even he thought it was going to be a very different evening. So the initial credit goes to Zizek, but Peterson responded in the best way possible and that’s what made this such an interesting conversation.

I didn’t find myself looking to find which points were agreeable or disagreeable, but rather agreeing with both and very interested in seeing what the response was as it felt like both of them had sincere will to progress towards an answer.

It wasn’t a oneupmanship evening, it was the kind of conversation that Peterson has described in the past where if the goal is clear the small “defeats” one suffers are trivial.

 

[Joe]

Zizek makes and interesting point when he says that while conservatives blame 'post-modern neo marxists' for the degradation of traditional morality, when it may well be that it is capitalism (and the materialism that goes with it) that has done most to destroy traditional morality.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

It took me several viewings to get through it, but I'm glad I did. Of course I'm a fan of Peterson, but there's a lot positive to say about Zizek. He said from the beginning that this was not about winning a competition but to discuss some very important issues facing the world and the human race. And then he proceeded to offer his best in that regard. Here were two very intelligent people who have learned to think for themselves; who have both done work on themselves enough to recognize the difference between what constitutes a higher integrated personality and what is just a lower level smorgasbord of mimicked social norms. It's interesting to note how higher personality development invariably involves concerning oneself with the bigger picture. Happiness is a byproduct of meaning. Meaning is found when one extends oneself to include one's family and one's society as a concern/ responsibility. What did G say? Something about how the study of man should coincide with the study of the world.

The world could definitely use more serious discussions like this. Bravo!

We watched this for our latest FOTCM meetup in NC, and it was worth it! Even though Peterson's critique of the Communist Manifesto wasn't really relevant for the subsequent discussion with Zizek, it was still great to hear and made for a good supplement to Ponerology.

Aside from reading a few of Zizek's editorials for RT, the only other thing of his that I've watched was a documentary. I think it might have been 'The Pervert's Guide to Ideology', but I'm not sure. If there's one thing I don't really like about Zizek, it's his infatuation with Lacan. Luckily, he didn't focus on Lacan in his talk with Peterson. And luckily, he was just as eccentric as he usually is. I found him pretty entertaining. And the man knows how to tell a joke! ;)

Near the end I thought they both made some semi-good criticisms of each other. Zizek challenged Peterson to name some "post-modern neo-Marxists". I could see his point, but at the same time I think it was a bit nit-picky and just semantics. His point was that the so-called postmodern neo-Marxists aren't Marxists, so why use the word? And even if they are, they're nobodies, because nobody knows their names. Peterson's point was that they may not be Marxists, but their ideology has a very similar shape as Marxism. Rather than class, they focus on other dimensions of oppressor/oppressed. Zizek could agree with that, just not with the label of Marxism.

One thing Peterson didn't mention was that even if there aren't any prominent Marxists, there are PLENTY of Marxists. Just look at all the socialist movements brandishing hammer and sickle flags. There are plenty of naive young communist supporters of Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao, etc. They may not be influential academics, but they're politically active.

Peterson's criticism of Zizek: Why call himself a Marxist if he disagrees with so much about Marx? If I remember correctly, Zizek said he basically called himself a Marxist to be provocative. And if there's any way in which he actually is a Marxist, it's because he agrees with Marx's critique of capitalism. Not sure those are the best reasons...

Anyways, we'll be discussing the 'debate' on the next MindMatters!

 

[luc]

Zizek makes and interesting point when he says that while conservatives blame 'post-modern neo marxists' for the degradation of traditional morality, when it may well be that it is capitalism (and the materialism that goes with it) that has done most to destroy traditional morality.

Yep, and I thought that it's all about how you define these things. Because it turned out that Peterson and Zizek are actually very close in many ways. Ya know, one man's postmodern neo-marxism is another man's capitalism, and one man's marxism is another man's critique of ideological possession.

For example, for all the toxic "deconstructivism" of the postmodernists, these people had a spot-on critique of how the media and public discourse distracts people away from deeper questions, pits them against each other and turns them into dumb and intellectually lazy consumers. That's basically a "neo-marxist" critique of the Powers that Be. But you could arrive at the same conclusion from a critique of marxist-postmodern ideology à la Peterson: Postmodern group-think encourages envy, resentment and shallowness and turns people into cellphone-addicted ideological zombies who think they are entitled to everything.

Talk about pathological types using ideologies (Marxism, capitalism, postmodernism etc.) to mess with our heads so that we don't understand each other anymore!

In reality, it's about the deeper "undercurrents" going on in society, politics, human development and so on, not labels or "schools of thought". But you find that out only if you actually talk and listen to each other - going beyond all these labels being thrown around. I found it fascinating to see how so many things between Peterson/Zizek kind of merged once they started talking.

 

[Joe]

Near the end I thought they both made some semi-good criticisms of each other. Zizek challenged Peterson to name some "post-modern neo-Marxists". I could see his point, but at the same time I think it was a bit nit-picky and just semantics. His point was that the so-called postmodern neo-Marxists aren't Marxists, so why use the word? And even if they are, they're nobodies, because nobody knows their names. Peterson's point was that they may not be Marxists, but their ideology has a very similar shape as Marxism. Rather than class, they focus on other dimensions of oppressor/oppressed. Zizek could agree with that, just not with the label of Marxism.

One thing Peterson didn't mention was that even if there aren't any prominent Marxists, there are PLENTY of Marxists. Just look at all the socialist movements brandishing hammer and sickle flags. There are plenty of naive young communist supporters of Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao, etc. They may not be influential academics, but they're politically active.

The point I think Peterson should have made and Zizek should already understand is that the vast majority of the SJWs who style themselves as Marxists have no real idea what Marxism is, except in the broad strokes. They latch on to "class struggle" and interpret in a simplistic way in service to their own subjective ends. So even if a thorough and detailed reading of Marx doesn't advocate - or can't honestly or technically be interpreted as advocating - for destructive envy of the 'haves', it was sort of disingenuous of Zizek to not understand that none of the SJWs have any idea or care 'what Marxism is really about'. So Peterson's point stands, hoards of SJWs are taking from Marxism the idea that hierarchy is inherently evil and the 'class struggle' should be enjoined. If Marxism isn't to be blamed for that (if only for not being clear enough) then who is?

 

[Joe]

For example, for all the toxic "deconstructivism" of the postmodernists, these people had a spot-on critique of how the media and public discourse distracts people away from deeper questions, pits them against each other and turns them into dumb and intellectually lazy consumers. That's basically a "neo-marxist" critique of the Powers that Be. But you could arrive at the same conclusion from a critique of marxist-postmodern ideology à la Peterson: Postmodern group-think encourages envy, resentment and shallowness and turns people into cellphone-addicted ideological zombies who think they are entitled to everything.

Yeah, it's almost as if post-modern neo-marxism and rampant materialist capitalism have combined in an 'unholy alliance' that ensnares the vast majority. There clearly is a program for everyone, but not so much because it is crafted by some evil powers, but because people have such a strong tendency to want to fit themselves into an 'in group', and once they've done that they'll fight to the last for 'their side'.

 

[genero81]

Yeah, it's almost as if post-modern neo-marxism and rampant materialist capitalism have combined in an 'unholy alliance' that ensnares the vast majority. There clearly is a program for everyone, but not so much because it is crafted by some evil powers, but because people have such a strong tendency to want to fit themselves into an 'in group', and once they've done that they'll fight to the last for 'their side'.

Right, instead of coming into there own as an individual who cares enough about the world to start thinking for themselves.

 

[Aeneas]

The point I think Peterson should have made and Zizek should already understand is that the vast majority of the SJWs who style themselves as Marxists have no real idea what Marxism is, except in the broad strokes. They latch on to "class struggle" and interpret in a simplistic way in service to their own subjective ends. So even if a thorough and detailed reading of Marx doesn't advocate - or can't honestly or technically be interpreted as advocating - for destructive envy of the 'haves', it was sort of disingenuous of Zizek to not understand that none of the SJWs have any idea or care 'what Marxism is really about'. So Peterson's point stands, hoards of SJWs are taking from Marxism the idea that hierarchy is inherently evil and the 'class struggle' should be enjoined. If Marxism isn't to be blamed for that (if only for not being clear enough) then who is?

I found it to be a bit nitpicking too from Zizeks side and a bit of a trap, even if not so intended. Stephen Hicks in his book "Explaining Postmodernism writes quite a bit about how the marxist in the 50'ies and 60'ies migrated from class struggle issues to environmentalism, feminism, gender, etc. This is described quite a bit in chapter five, called The crisis of socialism. Here is a map from there that illustrates it:


From the book:

One was manifest in the splintering of the monolithic Marxist movement into many sub-movements emphasizing the socialism of sex, race and ethnic identity. Such movements abandoned the universalistic conception of human interests implicit in seeking a collective consciousness of the international proletariat.

The nuances that Zizek might have found in Marx in not what most of the postmodernists will see. It will instead be things such as the Marx's Communist Manifesto that will be rallied around.