J.Peterson & S.Zizek : The Happiness debate

[George Fil]

One of the most interesting things I have seen in a while. Peterson seems unable to grasp fully the collective responsibility and the complexity of society structure comparing to Zizek. Always see Peterson as a bright man debating easily Journalists and students, but seems he does not compare to the deepness of Zizek in politics and deep thinking.

 

I like how Zizek talks about false meaning and Japanese enlightenment propaganda they used in the past as an example.

 

Any of you guys seen it? What are your thoughts about it.

 

 

 

[purerogue]

I think J.Peterson  has better understanding of what he is talking about , S.Zizek is just jumping from one place to another amazed of how complicated it is, ofc there is allot of truth to what he says, but the problem is that he does not seem to fully  understand why and effect of it in larger scale. 

I am actually amazed on how much J.Peterson has  progressed in such short time. 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by purerogue

[RichardY]

Rubbish.

[SOUL]

Two of the most tedious speakers in my opinion on the same stage is barely tolerable for me but I listened to it nonetheless because of the significance of the event.

That being said  it wasn't surprising that Peterson offered the same tired ideological driven partisan rhetoric he is known for while Zizek at least offered a more nuanced and balanced criticism of both economic systems.

It also completely amazes me that Peterson can find such visceral disgust and suggest a moral failing from what he perceives as hypocrisies on left while completely ignoring them and often praising things in his ideological religious preference as he simultaneously criticizes in others.

Zizek appears to be coming from a more traditional philosophical viewpoint in that he offers his criticisms and praises on the merits of the ideas and not from a tribalist ideological bias the way Peterson does.

 As far as the happiness portion of it, it seems like both of them think that happiness is a byproduct of materialistic and ideological conditions that allow for it in an indirect way. Although sufficient needs iand meaning hasn't proven to be enough in bringing genuine well-being if our Western first world experience is any evidence.

So it was probably that the question posed in this debate wasn't suitable in providing a platform for these speakers to find a more  productive and salient way of addressing the nature of well-being or they are ill-equipped in their philosophy to address it in a way that departs from conventional wisdom which hasn't really been working anyway.

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by SOUL

[Leo Gura]

Lol

Blind leading the blind on stilts off a cliff.

[Adam M]

I was at this debate live as I live in Toronto...not that I particularly like either speaker but I just wanted to see what was going on...

 

My insights.

 

1. The audience claps at inappropriate times...suggesting that many people do not understand the academic jargon language that both speakers are very fluent in.

 

2. Both Peterson and Zizek are very stage yellow thinkers. At least in the cognitive line of development.

 

3. At one point they talk about "God" and both speakers completely miss the mark and have no clue what they're talking about.

 

4. When asked "How does one achieve happiness?" Peterson responds "By trying to act in accordance with what one believes to be the highest good and to be honest with others."

Like...what...

Hes partially correct but that's such dangerous advice to give to people...the ego can misuse thay advice so easily.

A better answer would be "Google actualized.org" 

LOL 

But then JP would lose many followers because if he starts to give any REAL happiness advice (meditation). Then all of his blue/ORANGE followers would hate him.

Side note: I'm pretty sure this guy just got off anti-depressants a few years ago...who are you to tell people how to be happy?

 

4b. Clearly Peterson is fully repressing stage green in his political, spiritual and emotional lines of development.

 

5. Zizek made some great meta-points about how any ideology can be used for evil...including the most pure ones like Zen Buddhism, unfortunately, these nuggets of wisdom clearly fall on deaf ears as the audience chuckles at the absurdity of zizek's description of "the enlightened state."

 

 

Overall: Both speakers have valuable insights and are both nuanced thinkers but unfortunately are too unconcious to be effective leaders and their followers lack the necessary epistemological framework to sort the wheat from the chaffe.

 

 

Side note: I was constantly getting the urge to get up on that stage and speak in layman's terms, so that people could understand... you'll see me up there one day... that's definitely my life purpose.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Adam M

[RichardY]

@Adam M

They're both tools of special interests, well paid and promoted for it. Atheism failed, so Jordan Peterson is their next guy. Cable TV, it's credibility is near dead, online video the future for the last decade plus.

Whether they're stage yellow green or whatever, they are not as smart as people from 300 years a go or more. Noam Chomsky, I would have thought of as yellow. These guys, even if they're green, there's got to be saner people out there somewhere. I would have thought of permaculturalists, surfer dudes, Outdoor pursuits type of people, Yoga instructors as more green. 

Szizek. "The issue is settled" a mixed economy both socialism and capitalism is best. The guy is an Atheist, evil does not exist in Atheism. Rape, murder, theft lying etc. Are not evil, they're just not good. Evil requires the supernatural, basic mechanics pleasure(good) and pain(not good). If I burn my hand with acid that's not good. If a person melts another's face with acid, with intent to destroy or defy the good, ultimately God, that's evil. 

Peterson. Truth is Darwinian.(Sam Harris debate).

If Genghis Khan were doing a talk, even if an awakened stage Red/Blue  he'd have more credibility. What is best in life great khan?

Aristotle lists a load of things that are crucial to happiness, survival basically. Health, Wealth, Family, Friends etc the basic stuff.

1 hour ago, Adam M said:

Side note: I was constantly getting the urge to get up on that stage and speak in layman's terms, so that people could understand... you'll see me up there one day... that's definitely my life purpose.

Could start today or next week. 5 minute YouTube videos or something as a start. I've thought about doing more to organise my thoughts. Not to gain attention par se.

Example Paul Joseph Watson.

Silly voice check.
Silly face.
Colourful. Thumbnail check.
Tempo.
Rhetoric.
Skip camera frames. More than the multiples TV off "Back to the Future".
Political....

The better channels have fewer subscribers more erudite, I like fewer but more hardcore philosophical videos if I can find them 30-45mins concentrated is my preference. I don't like political rhetorical ones at all, Left or Right, although more so left, though that's more mainstream left. Same old shit. Addictive to the Ego to some extent, collective(Left) or individualistic(Right).

But 500,000 to 1,000,000 views for less than a 10 minute video! Even a thousand is a lot of eyeballs.

 

2 hours ago, Adam M said:

4. When asked "How does one achieve happiness?" Peterson responds "By trying to act in accordance with what one believes to be the highest good and to be honest with others."

Like...what...

Hes partially correct but that's such dangerous advice to give to people...the ego can misuse thay advice so easily.

A better answer would be "Google actualized.org" 

LOL 

But then JP would lose many followers because if he starts to give any REAL happiness advice (meditation). Then all of his blue/ORANGE followers would hate him.

Side note: I'm pretty sure this guy just got off anti-depressants a few years ago...who are you to tell people how to be happy?

 

 

 

[Soul-lover 2020]

22 hours ago, George Fil said:

One of the most interesting things I have seen in a while. Peterson seems unable to grasp fully the collective responsibility and the complexity of society structure comparing to Zizek. Always see Peterson as a bright man debating easily Journalists and students, but seems he does not compare to the deepness of Zizek in politics and deep thinking.

 

I like how Zizek talks about false meaning and Japanese enlightenment propaganda they used in the past as an example.

 

Any of you guys seen it? What are your thoughts about it.

 

 

 

George Fil,

I've watched Jordan Petersen before.  I don't like the fact that some of his supporters worship him as though he was some kind of deity.  But what he says is interesting, and I have found myself agreeing with him 90%+ of the time.

I'll watch the video.

Andrea

 

[NorthRise]

I was waiting for this to get posted here and get a "less bias" view of things.

I haven't watched the debate yet mostly because I'm not sure I can sit through 3 hours of Zizek's lisp, but I couldn't get an accurate reading because Peterson's subreddit and r/ChapoTrapHouse are both blind to their own ignorance. 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

@NorthRise Why torture yourself with low-consciousness videos when so many high consciousness videos exist?

There is not enough time in the word to listen to every foolish debate on Youtube.

[NorthRise]

@Leo Gura that's a good point.

I guess I like to understand other people's perspectives even if they're extremely limited, but it's definitely a major distraction. 

I would to hear more from you on these issues. I know you've endorsed Bernie because you believe he's the next step in the spiral and I tend to agree. 

There are so many opinions out there on social and political issues that it's hard to differentiate insight vs. Ignorance. 

[iGhost]

 

Quote

 

Here's the debate in a nutshell

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, NorthRise said:

@Leo Gura

I guess I like to understand other people's perspectives even if they're extremely limited, but it's definitely a major distraction.

That is good. I support studying all kinds of perspectives.

Quote

There are so many opinions out there on social and political issues that it's hard to differentiate insight vs. Ignorance. 

I will do some meta politics topics in the future where we look at the fundamentals of what politics is, how it works, and how it fits with spirituality.

Those will be very powerful videos, unlike any political analysis you've ever seen. It will not be about any particular political candidates or partisan grabage.

[TheAvatarState]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I will do some meta politics topics in the future where we look at the fundamentals of what politics is, how it works, and how it fits with spirituality.

Those will be very powerful videos, unlike any political analysis you've ever seen. It will not be about any particular political candidates or partisan grabage.

Wow, this is a very interesting direction... I'll be looking forward to your ideas! 

[Vinnie]

 

[Soul-lover 2020]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@NorthRise Why torture yourself with low-consciousness videos when so many high consciousness videos exist?

There is not enough time in the word to listen to every foolish debate on Youtube.

Leo,

Even "foolish" debates can be revealing.  Complicate things and you'll lose yourself in a maze of confusion.  But keep them simple, and you won't go down the wrong path....

Andrea

[George Fil]

@Leo Gura

Leo: "In order to step up from a spiral dynamics stage, it would be beneficial to check the material of upper stage thinkers."

 *Me as green stage, watching Zizek- Peterson debate, who are Yellow stage thinkers"

Leo: 

[Leo Gura]

@George Fil It's too generous to call Peterson a stage Yellow thinker.

Zizek too is probably more Green than Yellow.