Jordan Peterson vs Slavoj Zizek debate

Watch
cadaanshaydaan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
for anyone who watched it what were your thoughts????

personally, I couldn’t stomach it past the 15 minute mark.
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Fed up with seeing middle aged white dudes talking, I'm hanging on to see if Alexander Ocasio-cortez grows a pair and accepts Candice Owens offer of $100,000 to a charity of her choice to debate her. 🤔
1
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by Just my opinion)
Fed up with seeing middle aged white dudes talking, I'm hanging on to see if Alexander Ocasio-cortez grows a pair and accepts Candice Owens offer of $100,000 to a charity of her choice to debate her. 🤔
she refused 10 grand to debate ben shapiro, maybe 100k will get her? I think in reality she knows that for all her strengths (which to get to her position, she obviously has) I don't think quick verbal reasoning is one of them..
1
reply
BenK64
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Yeah. I skipped petersons opening statement because i already know his position, but i listened to Zizek's, who im not familiar with, and the rest of the debate from then on. Generally, i thought it got better as it went on. they agreed on a most topics, and I quite liked their philosophical discussion over what happiness is. Zizek is witty and quite funny. They both agree communism is a failed ideology (they both despise ideology itself) and both agree that unrestricted capitalism is failing. Though im really not sure what Zizek is proposing as an alternative.
0
reply
cadaanshaydaan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Just my opinion)
Fed up with seeing middle aged white dudes talking, I'm hanging on to see if Alexander Ocasio-cortez grows a pair and accepts Candice Owens offer of $100,000 to a charity of her choice to debate her. 🤔
what would they debate? I couldn’t find anything on google but tbh I don’t think their debate would be that interesting or even productive lol
1
reply
cadaanshaydaan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by BenK64)
Yeah. I skipped petersons opening statement because i already know his position, but i listened to Zizek's, who im not familiar with, and the rest of the debate from then on. Generally, i thought it got better as it went on. they agreed on a most topics, and I quite liked their philosophical discussion over what happiness is. Zizek is witty and quite funny. They both agree communism is a failed ideology (they both despise ideology itself) and both agree that unrestricted capitalism is failing. Though im really not sure what Zizek is proposing as an alternative.
i was disappointed that it wasnt an actual debate. I don’t mind the discussion format if they were exchanging ideas but from what i saw that didn’t be happen lol. Would you say it’s worth finishing?? Yea i definitely wouldn’t call Zizek a marxist. And everything Peterson said was inaccurate so that made his section incredibly entertaining if slightly tedious.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
Nah, find Zizek too difficult to watch. Difficult accent and ticks.
0
reply
BenK64
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by cadaanshaydaan)
i was disappointed that it wasnt an actual debate. I don’t mind the discussion format if they were exchanging ideas but from what i saw that didn’t be happen lol. Would you say it’s worth finishing?? Yea i definitely wouldn’t call Zizek a marxist. And everything Peterson said was inaccurate so that made his section incredibly entertaining if slightly tedious.
Yh I get what you mean. I personally prefer a conversational format, but it was billed has the ‘debate of the century’ which it just wasn’t. I must admit it did genuinely feel like Peterson was just winging it at the beginning, like he only worked on it the night before lol, but the discussion does get better and more in depth later on imo
0
reply
cadaanshaydaan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Notoriety)
Nah, find Zizek too difficult to watch. Difficult accent and ticks.
lol I agree watching him made me want to take up coke again.
(Original post by BenK64)
Yh I get what you mean. I personally prefer a conversational format, but it was billed has the ‘debate of the century’ which it just wasn’t. I must admit it did genuinely feel like Peterson was just winging it at the beginning, like he only worked on it the night before lol, but the discussion does get better and more in depth later on imo
the happiness bit sounds interesting I might just skip to that but yea Peterson definitely needs to go and reread Marx because half of the quotes and “failings” of Marx’s ideas were actual fatal misunderstandings of his ideas on JP’s part. Idk why Slavoj never engaged with his 10 points either that was disappointing lol
1
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
I'd enjoy watching them discussing movies together





anything else - probably not so much
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by cadaanshaydaan)
lol I agree watching him made me want to take up coke again.
Well, that escalated quickly.
1
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by Just my opinion)
Fed up with seeing middle aged white dudes talking, I'm hanging on to see if Alexander Ocasio-cortez grows a pair and accepts Candice Owens offer of $100,000 to a charity of her choice to debate her. 🤔
Something wrong with white people? and yeah it would be pretty funny to see a political joke try and debate literally anyone, I say we go for AOC vs Dianne abbot and turn it into some kind of circus where we laugh at idiots
1
reply
Gent2324
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
i can never make my mind up about jordan peterson, hes clearly very smart and says some incredibly intelligent stuff, but then he says he believes in noahs ark?
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Gent2324)
i can never make my mind up about jordan peterson, hes clearly very smart and says some incredibly intelligent stuff, but then he says he believes in noahs ark?
He is the best example of a pseudo-intellectual, he either says something that is obvious to pretty much everyone or that a certain group of people agrees with and then throws some obvious life advice in "Hey guys wow look how bad modern society is, can you belive this. Oh and by the way guys strive to do things better"

The saddest thing is he is hailed by some as an incredibly smart person, but that is only because there are so few genuinely smart political thinkers that something that 80 years ago would be considered normal is now some god like being.
1
reply
BenK64
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Gent2324)
i can never make my mind up about jordan peterson, hes clearly very smart and says some incredibly intelligent stuff, but then he says he believes in noahs ark?
It's quite frustrating how he clings on to religion. In this debate he criticizes Zizek for allying himself with Marxism when, as he puts it, he has enough original thought to separate himself from a doctrine that is 'rife with problems'. Yet Peterson does the exact same thing with religion when he calls himself a Christian. Not only is it blatantly untrue from a literal reading, but from a moral reading it is rife with unethical characters actions and judgments. Hes obsessed with the 'archetypal stories', but he himself frequently points out how these stories are retold across culture and in modern art and literature. There is no reason for religion to be the medium through which these stories are told, but he insists on the importance of religion in society in spite of all the damage it continues to do.
1
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
Would not do it if I were AOC. Not only are most of her talking points just headline grabbers, but Candice is a lot like Ben Shapiro - say a few trivial truths and then come up with the opinion all packaged as 'fact'. Hard to debate against that unless you have extensive knowledge of the topic and figures and are quick on your feet.
(Original post by Just my opinion)
Fed up with seeing middle aged white dudes talking, I'm hanging on to see if Alexander Ocasio-cortez grows a pair and accepts Candice Owens offer of $100,000 to a charity of her choice to debate her. 🤔
1
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
Why don't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10diTOvszYU
(Original post by Gent2324)
i can never make my mind up about jordan peterson, hes clearly very smart and says some incredibly intelligent stuff, but then he says he believes in noahs ark?
0
reply
Gent2324
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
oh dear...
are you not aware that if there was a flood over the entire world, there would be mountains of evidence of fossils and how the animals would rise upwards? please dont be ridiculous
0
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
oh dear ...
another modern man picking up a document written thousands of years ago and presuming to understand it immediately!
The bible itself shows that Noah's flood could not have been global.

Referring back to the original creation (Genesis 1) we read:

Psalm 104v5-9:
“Who laid the foundations of the earth...
Thou covered it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
At thy rebuke they fled; ...
They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.”

Similarly Proverbs 8v22-29
" . . . he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment"

Similarly Job 38v4-11:
"… And brake up for it (the Sea) my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?"

So, the flood of Genesis 6-7 refers to the region of the Earth God was dealing with ("the fertile crescent").

Genesis 8 begins: “God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged”
- If the flood were global, there would be no place for the waters to recede to!


(Original post by Gent2324)
oh dear...
are you not aware that if there was a flood over the entire world, there would be mountains of evidence of fossils and how the animals would rise upwards? please dont be ridiculous
Attached files
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (53)
17.67%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (83)
27.67%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (115)
38.33%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (39)
13%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (10)
3.33%

Watched Threads

View All