Jordan Peterson interview on C4

nkl12xtw5goz70

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As Zizek said to Peterson [paraphrasing] 'who are these people pushing Postmodern Neo-Marxism'?

Žižek is one of these people himself, his "philosophy" apparently being some kind of obscurantist synthesis of Marx, Hegel, and Jacques Lacan's gnomic psychoanalysis.

Here's an excerpt:

"The ultimate paradox of Christianity is obliterated in what poses today as melancholic, postsecular thought, the stance that finds its ultimate expression in a certain kind of Derridean appropriation of Levinas. In this, one fully concedes that modernist critique undermined the foundations of onto-theology, the notion of God as the supreme entity, and so forth. However, what if the ultimate outcome of this deconstructive gesture is to clear the slate for a new postdeconstructionist and indeconstructible form of spirituality, for the relationship to an unconditional Otherness that precedes ontology? What if the fundamental experience of the human subject is not that of the self-presence, of the force of dialectical mediation-appropriation of all Otherness, but that of a primordial passivity, sentience, of responding, of being infinitely indebted and responsible to the call of an Otherness that never acquires positive features but always remains withdrawn, the trace of its own absence?"

Maybe some of the Žižek fans can decipher the above and tell us what it means?

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

OP here.

Over two years on and still people are triggered by Peterson.
The guy afaik is in rehab and has been out of the public spotlight for more or less the past year, yet people are still triggered by him and his opinions?

He causes debate because he doesn't actually explain his opinions just makes statements and leaves them hanging there.

suicide_circus

word salad

nkl12xtw5goz70

20Cent wrote: »

He causes debate because he doesn't actually explain his opinions just makes statements and leaves them hanging there.

Care to take a crack at the Žižek passage above, 20Cent? Unless you can convince me otherwise, this feels like churning out reams of pseudo-profound verbiage. Peterson is far clearer.

20Cent

suicide_circus wrote: »

word salad

It's a journal article written for people who study critical thought in the arts and humanities not for a general audience. People who study that will understand it. Maybe he should get south park to make a version for the Peterson fans.

20Cent

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Care to take a crack at the Žižek passage above, 20Cent? Unless you can convince me otherwise, this feels like churning out reams of pseudo-profound verbiage. Peterson is far clearer.

Peterson is far clearer yes.
Simple even.


Whats your solution to the bathroom and changing room conundrum by the way you never said.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Whats your solution to the bathroom and changing room conundrum by the way you never said.

Hahaha..

nkl12xtw5goz70

20Cent wrote: »

It's a journal article written for people who study critical thought in the arts and humanities not for a general audience. People who study that will understand it.

I can guarantee you that they won't. It's designed to create the impression that the author is incredibly intelligent and profound — but in reality it's just obscurantist verbiage.

20Cent

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

I can guarantee you that they won't. It's designed to create the impression that the author is incredibly intelligent and profound — but in reality it's just obscurantist verbiage.

He is well respected in his field.
Take bits from any discipline journal and they will be making references and using words/language that are particular to that audience.

Anyway wouldn't be mocking him in favor of someone who uses lobsters as metaphors for humans different league. Like comparing Shakespeare to fox news.

nkl12xtw5goz70

20Cent wrote: »

He is well respected in his field.

Argument from authority.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what any of the above passage means. You're assuming, because he's allegedly "well respected in his field," that he's saying something more intelligent and meaningful than Peterson — when he's really just churning out nonsensical pseudo-profundities.

buried

The one thing I've always admired about Peterson was his capacity to discuss the darkest most chaotic nature of the universal human condition. That every single person on this planet was just a brain tissue tear away from going completely rogue and into the realms of absolute total Hell. This can happen to anyone. The brain is capable of all sorts of moves totally out of it's hosts ultimate control. Peterson has always discussed this fact. So credit is due to him there. You won't find many other people courting celebrity or fame that will actually say or discuss this.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

He causes debate because he doesn't actually explain his opinions just makes statements and leaves them hanging there.

What 'statement' has be made in the past few months?

20Cent

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Argument from authority.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what any of the above passage means. You're just assuming, because he's allegedly "well respected in his field," that he's saying something more intelligent and meaningful than Peterson — when he's really just churning out nonsensical pseudo-profundities.

Nothing alleged about it, he publishes many book, journal articles and films. He has had directorships of departments, professorships and many prizes. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's nonsense.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

What 'statement' has be made in the past few months?

Hasn't he been ill the last while, why say last few months?

For example he is asked about sexual harassment in the workplace. His reply is about women wearing makeup. The interviewer tries to ascertain what his answer means or what we should take from it, he doesn't.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Nothing alleged about it, he publishes many book, journal articles and films. He has had directorships of departments, professorships and many prizes. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's nonsense.

Aaarghh hahahahaha haha haha...

nkl12xtw5goz70

20Cent wrote: »

Nothing alleged about it, he publishes many book, journal articles and films. He has had directorships of departments, professorships and many prizes.

More appeals to authority.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's nonsense.

Michel Foucault himself said that Jacques Derrida practiced a method that he called obscurantisme terroriste, which he explained as follows: "[Derrida] writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying. That's the obscurantism part. And then when you criticize him, he can always say, 'You didn't understand me; you're an idiot.' That's the terrorism part."

Numerous so-called critical theorists have followed in Derrida's methodological footsteps, Žižek among them. The goal is to write so obscurely that one can create the impression of profundity, but can also avoid criticism by always being able to claim that the reader has misunderstood.

This is the type of neo-Marxist nonsense that Peterson is absolutely right to challenge.

20Cent

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

More appeals to authority.



Michel Foucault himself said that Jacques Derrida practiced a method that he called obscurantisme terroriste, which he explained as follows: "[Derrida] writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying. That's the obscurantism part. And then when you criticize him, he can always say, 'You didn't understand me; you're an idiot.' That's the terrorism part."

Numerous so-called critical theorists have followed in Derrida's methodological footsteps, Žižek among them. The goal is to write so obscurely that one can create the impression of profundity, but can also avoid criticism by always being able to claim that the reader has misunderstood.

This is the type of neo-Marxist nonsense that Peterson is absolutely right to challenge.

Success in his field is hardly an appeal to authority.

He has written other books in more simple plain terms that you might understand. They would be more accessible than the academic journals. As with any discipline.

nkl12xtw5goz70

20Cent wrote: »

Success in his field is hardly an appeal to authority.

Pointing out how many books he has written, professorships he has held, and prizes he has won is the very definition of appeal to authority.

He has written other books in more simple plain terms that you might understand.

So says the poster who refuses to explain even one sentence quoted above from this allegedly oh-so-brilliant professor.

20Cent

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Pointing out how many books he has written, professorships he has held, and prizes he has won is the very definition of appeal to authority.



So says the poster who refuses to explain even one sentence quoted above from this allegedly oh-so-brilliant professor.

Publications and citations are the normal judges for assessing an academics influence. Appeal to authority could be applied to anyone.

Any journal article will have field specific language in it and references the lay person won't understand. They are written for an audience versed in it.

nkl12xtw5goz70

buried wrote: »

The one thing I've always admired about Peterson was his capacity to discuss the darkest most chaotic nature of the universal human condition.

Agreed. He has spoken about the need to accept our tortured mortality. That's a trait we also see in Shakespeare, Milton, Dostoevsky, Dickinson, and other Western writers that the postmodern Marxists feel obliged to disparage.

The empty, pseudo-profound verbal diarrhoea offered up by arrogant ideologues like Žižek offers nothing whatsoever to anyone attempting to come to terms with the human condition.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tony EH wrote: »

More people discussing the issue? People feel that it's less of a taboo subject to broach and are willing to talk about it more openly.

And, frankly, the internet makes it seem more prevalent than it actually is.

However, I certainly don't believe that there are men getting their dicks chopped off cos they think it's a cool thing to do. Certainly not in any numbers anyway.

There indeed probably isn’t more men getting their genitals chopped off because that’s not required now with self ID (which we have in Ireland as far as I know). I posted a video in this thread of a transwoman who called herself a lesbian despite not having surgery or getting any type of treatment.

20Cent

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Agreed. He has spoken about the need to accept our tortured mortality. That's a trait we also see in Shakespeare, Milton, Dostoevsky, Dickinson, and other Western writers that the postmodern Marxists feel obliged to disparage.

The empty, pseudo-profound verbal diarrhoea offered up by arrogant ideologues like Žižek offers nothing whatsoever to anyone attempting to come to terms with the human condition.

For a fella that thinks Ayn Rand is a genius and an intellectual you will forgive me for not holding your opinions on books and ideas very highly.

Ah Zizek can be good at times..what I took from the debate between himself and Peterson was that they actually agreed on quite a bit, and both saw the common enemy as the political correct fascism encroaching on our culture, exemplified here by the likes of 20cent..

nkl12xtw5goz70

20Cent wrote: »

For a fella that thinks Ayn Rand is a genius and an intellectual you will forgive me for not holding your opinions on books and ideas very highly.

Great effort to change the subject — are you doing this because of your self-discrediting inability to explain one single sentence written by someone you assure us is a brilliant intellectual?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Argument from authority.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what any of the above passage means. You're assuming, because he's allegedly "well respected in his field," that he's saying something more intelligent and meaningful than Peterson — when he's really just churning out nonsensical pseudo-profundities.

People have made the same argument in defence of Peterson in this thread - “He has X number of journal articles written, he must know what he’s talking about” even though he speaks outside his area of expertise too.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah Zizek can be good at times..what I took from the debate between himself and Peterson was that they actually agreed on quite a bit, and both saw the common enemy as the political correct fascism encroaching on our culture, exemplified here by the likes of 20cent..

I don't think the law should compel people to use pronouns or whatever. Call people what you like and take whatever criticism results like a grown up.

Tidy your room as well before posting.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Aaarghh hahahahaha haha haha...

Second time you’re responded to somebody like this in this thread AND you have also claimed that anyone who criticises Peterson doesn’t understand him much like that poster has said about Zizek. Hypocrite, much?

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Tidy your room as well before posting.

Stop oppressing me!!

20Cent

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Great effort to change the subject — are you doing this because of your self-discrediting inability to explain one single sentence written by someone you assure us is a brilliant intellectual?

Not in the field so wouldn't understand that particular quote. It uses a lot of language and references I'm not familiar with like most journal articles. This is a very silly road to be going down by the way.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Stop oppressing me!!

Isn't that Peterson's argument?
That you shouldn't comment on society or anything unless your own life is in order. Bit ironic now all things considered.