Zizek v Peterson Embarrassment

#1

Can these fools finally fuck off back to Academia?

They are useless, outdated and they bring nothing tangible to the table except alarmist nonsense. They only exist because of perceived threats and enemies. They are not particularly good at what they do (unless you consider rabble rousing a noble pursuit, I do but I am not passing my self off as a ‘great mind’).

Debate was a joke, a sad pathetic joke.

Probably could have had a more coherent one here. Weren’t these guys aware they were doing this? Peterson’s opening statement was so embarrassing.

14:57, 14:58, 14:59…

1 Like
The Jordan Peterson Thread
#2

Why did you think it was a joke? (I’ve yet to watch it).

#3

Peterson seemed horribly unprepared for his opening statement, it was flaccid and sad. He made idiotic facile analogies between Marx’s day and today that even a rube like me found odd. Zizek didn’t really deal with anything being discussed. lots of rambling and abandoned ideas.

Just a lot of boogiemaning the ‘far left’ which isn’t really a thing or a threat to anyone (unless your are in the ‘intellectual dark web’ then it is your fuel and your raison d’etre). They actually agreed a lot more than I expected.

They both seemed ill prepared and out of touch.

Not exactly ‘the debate of the century’

Its on youtube now, you can find a link.

I suggest they read ‘12 steps to debate preparation - how not to overhype a conversation before you shit the bed.’

#4

I’ll definitely take a look.

#5

it’s not getting good reviews apparently

#7

I thought he had some interesting insights. It seemed like about the kind of thing I’d expect from him, well thought out, and supported by historical and economic facts. Will watch the rest tomorrow probably. What analogies?

#8

Between the sound quality and his accent, I’m not really getting Slavoj Zizek. Gonna read some of the roundups instead.

#9

You lost me right there. You’re entitled to your opinion, so enjoy it.

1 Like
#10

you basically just say people you disagree with are idiots on every posts. BORING

#11

Well, idiots do tend to disagree with me, for some reason.

1 Like
#12

I wasn’t replying to you @rowland

The OP basically says the same things about everyone and everything he disagrees with.

1 Like
#13

I haven’t heard of this fight. What weight class do they box in?

1 Like
#14

Zizek is just another walking contradiction; he attacks ideology, but doesn’t consider his own atheism to be an ideology. This is high school fedoralord-level stuff. And he’s a sloppy neckbeard to boot. Listening to him is like reading Bertrand Russell on LSD. He makes good points re Chinese colonialism and Islam-Judaism vs Christianity though.

Peterson has his moments, but he’s not willing to go all the way and call globalists out for what they are. Always pulling his punches so as to not be dropped from the mainstream. Understandable I suppose in the new millennial milieu of consensus conformity. While cleaning up your room and standing up straight is good advice, he should stop there too. Like any psychologist, he seems to have entered the profession to figure out what’s wrong with himself and has no business telling other people, not in detail, how to behave. But he has been a good tool to shift the Overton window.

#15

not sure I agree …

Theism’ means ‘belief in a god or gods’. Believers usually sign up to the values and principles of a godly belief system: it’s an ideology. Theistic ideologies are commonly known as faiths or religions. Many ideologies have the suffix ‘ism’; for example, liberalism, socialism, and communism but, in the case of ‘atheism’, the ‘ism’ ending has merely been inherited from its root: ‘theism’. The prefix ‘a’ turns the meaning around to the negative, that is, ‘not a belief in a god’, so ‘atheism’ is as far from a faith or religion as it’s possible to get.

Atheism is not a belief system so that should end this right here, but theists will likely not be satisfied. They might point to the things atheists and religions have in common: religions form churches, atheists form associations; churches and atheist associations appoint members to formal roles such as bishop and president; church members give offerings, atheists pay subscriptions; churches hold services, atheist hold meetings. Churches and atheists both have literature they value and people they admire.

The problem is, these are superficial similarities and if they make atheism a religion, they make political parties and table tennis clubs religions too. That is obviously absurd.

There is one organization that makes it their job to decide which group is a religion and which is not, and that’s The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the USA. Religions receive highly favorable treatment in the USA and the IRS wants to avoid giving these advantages to organizations that are not genuine religions. So the IRS has a set of criteria they apply to any group claiming to be a religion. The primary criteria are listed below with how atheist groups qualify [shown in parenthesis].

  1. Distinct legal existence [Some atheist groups are legal entities.]
  2. Recognized creed and form of worship [No creed or forms of worship.]
  3. Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government [No ecclesiastical governance.]
  4. Formal code of doctrine and discipline [No doctrine.]
  5. Distinct religious history [No religious history.]
  6. Membership not associated with any other church or denomination [Atheists may join any number of atheist groups.]
  7. Organization of ordained ministers [No ministers of any kind.]
  8. Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study [No courses of study.]
  9. Literature of its own [No literature reserved for one group.]
  10. Established places of worship [No worship.]
  11. Regular religious services [No religious services.]
  12. Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young [No instructing the young.]
  13. Schools for the preparation of its members [No atheist schools.]

With only one criterion applicable to atheists (and that one all political parties and many clubs share), the IRS won’t be granting religious tax exemptions to atheist groups any time soon.

Theists might follow-up by asking why atheists bother to meet to talk about gods they do not believe in. There are several reasons atheists meet but none of them are to talk about gods they don’t believe in. A common reason, especially in very religious countries, is to find some time to socialize with like-minded people who are not preoccupied with religious beliefs.

In many cases, atheists meet as a reaction against religious intolerance, the infiltration of religious dogma into schools and legislation, or the entanglement of church and state. They meet to get organized in an attempt to combat these religious excesses.

Let’s spell this out, atheists have no beliefs in common, no gods of any kind, nothing they worship, no scripture, no shared values, and no dogma. They have no clergy, no schools, and no sacred buildings. The only thing all atheists share is a lack of belief in gods.

I tried to download a link but could not, anyway it’s , at least, debatable as to the concept of non-belief being an “ideology”

1 Like
#16

Organization =/= ideology.

If we were talking about agnosticism you’d have a point, but atheists believe there is no God (among other things), so they have beliefs and thus an ideology.

#17

That’s not accurate. Some atheists would say they “believe there is no God”, but most atheists simply lack belief in gods. Like everyone else, they have some beliefs, but in no way could such widely divergent beliefs be called an “ideology”. Sometimes people refer to the atheist or theist “worldview”, which is more accurate.

#18

Do you accept or reject acintyabedhabedha, the philosophy of “simultaneous difference and nondifference”? Even an a-acintyabedhabedhist has a philosophy, of a sort, however wicked and misguided it may be. Still, since he opposes acintyabedhabedha, this means he subconsciously knows to define himself in relation to acintyabedhabedha. How can you be so blinded by your own selfishness and sin?

#19

Peterson was raised nice, in a culture where you could get away with that. Now he’s in a larger world, where nice is contemptible weakness. He may need him a while to rid himself of the conditioning.

I think he wants to be more assertive but doesn’t have the requisite antisocial skills.

1 Like
#20

Well, we all have belief systems.

It’s what we do collectively. We believe in schools and education, governments, traffic laws etc. On and on, and we learn fast and renew or rewrite our beliefs, update them all the time. Generation Z is going to demand rapid social changes, for example. We made them that way.

I think what Peterson is warning of is this kind of rapid social/ideological change that results in rapid behavioral change on a massive…global, scale.

One ring to rule them all.

#21

Absence of belief in something” is the same as “believe in the absence of something”?

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters