Denkverbot

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:Jeste li gledali debatu Peterson vs Žižek?
Tražim komentare po internetu :)

jo sun od segutra imo za asimilirati dvi utakmice, i tek sa sun poče to...više posla nego kad rodin..

Upravo čitam članak o sinoćnjoj debati :
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/live-commentary-on-the-zizek-peterson-debate

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:Jeste li gledali debatu Peterson vs Žižek?
Tražim komentare po internetu :)

jo sun od segutra imo za asimilirati dvi utakmice, i tek sa sun poče to...više posla nego kad rodin..

Upravo čitam neki članak o sinoćnjoj debati :
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/live-commentary-on-the-zizek-peterson-debate

pa jesi pogljedala?

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:Jeste li gledali debatu Peterson vs Žižek?
Tražim komentare po internetu :)

jo sun od segutra imo za asimilirati dvi utakmice, i tek sa sun poče to...više posla nego kad rodin..

Upravo čitam neki članak o sinoćnjoj debati :
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/live-commentary-on-the-zizek-peterson-debate

n

pa jesi pogljedala?

Nisam ali hoću. Trenutno nemam vremena (puno posla danas) pa uz brzinsku kavu utažujem znatiželju.
Hoćeš li prenijeti svoje viđenje?
Ja ću sutra - prekosutra pogledati pa iznijeti svoje.

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:Jeste li gledali debatu Peterson vs Žižek?
Tražim komentare po internetu :)

jo sun od segutra imo za asimilirati dvi utakmice, i tek sa sun poče to...više posla nego kad rodin..

Upravo čitam neki članak o sinoćnjoj debati :
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/live-commentary-on-the-zizek-peterson-debate

n

pa jesi pogljedala?

Nisam ali hoću. Trenutno nemam vremena (puno posla danas) pa uz brzinsku kavu utažujem znatiželju.
Hoćeš li prenijeti svoje viđenje?
Ja ću sutra - prekosutra pogledati pa iznijeti svoje.

Pa to je ko da prvo pogljedoš rezultat pa unda pojdeš gljedati utakmicu... 

Naravski, analiza večeras

stvarno mi je smijesno gledati komentar dogadjaja prije nego sto se pogleda sam dogadjaj, kao da prvo trazimo sta cemo misliti o necem, pa tek onda idemo se zapravo upoznati s tim.. strah od vlastitog suda?

Bit ce voli spoilere.. :D

Nasla sam debaticu. Pogledam tijekom dana. Tri sata? Fiju fic!





Slavoj Žižek is a Slovenian philosopher. He is a professor at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana and international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities of the University of London.He works in subjects including continental philosophy, political theory, cultural studies, psychoanalysis, film criticism, Marxism, Hegelianism and theology.

In 1989, Žižek published his first English text, The Sublime Object of Ideology, in which he departed from traditional Marxist theory to develop a materialist conception of ideology that drew heavily on Lacanian psychoanalysis and Hegelian idealism. His early theoretical work became increasingly eclectic and political in the 1990s, dealing frequently in the critical analysis of disparate forms of popular culture and making him a popular figure of the academic left. A critic of capitalism, neoliberalism and political correctness, Žižek calls himself a political radical, and his work has been characterized as challenging orthodoxies of both the political right and the social-liberal universities.

Žižek’s idiosyncratic style, popular academic works, frequent magazine op-eds, and critical assimilation of high and low culture have gained him international influence, and a substantial audience outside academe. In 2012, Foreign Policy listed Žižek on its list of Top 100 Global Thinkers, calling him “a celebrity philosopher”

Jordan B. Peterson is a clinical psychologist, cultural critic, former Harvard Professor, and currently a professor at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are the psychology of religion and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance. Dr. Peterson has published over one hundred scientific papers, as well as authored Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, and the bestselling 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos (January 2018). At Harvard, he was nominated for the prestigious Levinson Teaching Prize, and has been regarded as one of three of University of Toronto’s truly life changing professors. His classroom lectures on mythology and psychology were so well received that they were turned into a popular 13-part series on TVO. Dr. Peterson’s YouTube Channel has over 1.5 million subscribers, with videos averaging 1 million views, features his university and public lectures, responses to polarizing political crises of today and interviews with experts.

Jordan B. Peterson and his colleagues have produced online programs aimed at helping people understand their personalities and improve their lives. He has appeared on news sources such as BBC, Channel 4, as well as several popular podcasts and shows, including the Joe Rogan Experience, Under the Skin with Russell Brand, The Rubin Report, and many more. He has been featured in GQ, The New York Times, Esquire, and The New Yorker amoung many other publications.

kic wrote:
stvarno mi je smijesno gledati komentar dogadjaja prije nego sto se pogleda sam dogadjaj, kao da prvo trazimo sta cemo misliti o necem, pa tek onda idemo se zapravo upoznati s tim.. strah od vlastitog suda?

A možda prelako padate pod tuđe utjecaje? :)

mativka wrote:

kic wrote:
stvarno mi je smijesno gledati komentar dogadjaja prije nego sto se pogleda sam dogadjaj, kao da prvo trazimo sta cemo misliti o necem, pa tek onda idemo se zapravo upoznati s tim.. strah od vlastitog suda?

A možda prelako padate pod tuđe utjecaje? :)

tko mi?

Upravo slusam Petersonovo izlaganje. A slatkica... Secira Komunisticki manifest. Bojim se da ce ga Zizek sazvakat' i ispljunut'...

Usput, samo izlaganje krece od 44 minute. Uvod od 37e. Imate i live chat. :)

mativka wrote:

kic wrote:
stvarno mi je smijesno gledati komentar dogadjaja prije nego sto se pogleda sam dogadjaj, kao da prvo trazimo sta cemo misliti o necem, pa tek onda idemo se zapravo upoznati s tim.. strah od vlastitog suda?

A možda prelako padate pod tuđe utjecaje? :)

Pa ti ides traziti i citati tuđa mišljenja...koliko vidim i jedina si

violator wrote:Upravo slusam Petersonovo izlaganje. A slatkica... Secira Komunisticki manifest. Bojim se da ce ga Zizek sazvakat' i ispljunut'...

Usput, samo izlaganje krece od 44 minute. Uvod od 37e. Imate i live chat. :)

Bas mi ga je sad nekako zao. :( Ocekivala sam ipak vise s njegove strane. Je li ga jednostavno trema pojela ili on fakat nista ne razumije?

kic wrote:

mativka wrote:

kic wrote:
stvarno mi je smijesno gledati komentar dogadjaja prije nego sto se pogleda sam dogadjaj, kao da prvo trazimo sta cemo misliti o necem, pa tek onda idemo se zapravo upoznati s tim.. strah od vlastitog suda?

A možda prelako padate pod tuđe utjecaje? :)

tko mi?

pa ne znam na koga si mislio dok si pisao taj post...
evo kopirati ću ti što si napisao:
"kao da prvo trazimo sta cemo misliti o necem, pa tek onda idemo se zapravo upoznati s tim.."

Noor wrote:

mativka wrote:

kic wrote:
stvarno mi je smijesno gledati komentar dogadjaja prije nego sto se pogleda sam dogadjaj, kao da prvo trazimo sta cemo misliti o necem, pa tek onda idemo se zapravo upoznati s tim.. strah od vlastitog suda?

A možda prelako padate pod tuđe utjecaje? :)

Pa ti ides traziti i citati tuđa mišljenja...koliko vidim i jedina si

zanima me što drugi misle, no to ne znači da će to utjecati na moje mišljenje nakon što pogledam debatu.
poput filma, tebi se jedan glumac sviđa u filmu - meni neki drugi, zar bih trebala reći nakon što ti izjaviš da ti se sviđa: jaoooo i meni se on sviđa!

mativka wrote:

Noor wrote:

mativka wrote:

kic wrote:
stvarno mi je smijesno gledati komentar dogadjaja prije nego sto se pogleda sam dogadjaj, kao da prvo trazimo sta cemo misliti o necem, pa tek onda idemo se zapravo upoznati s tim.. strah od vlastitog suda?

A možda prelako padate pod tuđe utjecaje? :)

Pa ti ides traziti i citati tuđa mišljenja...koliko vidim i jedina si

zanima me što drugi misle, no to ne znači da će to utjecati na moje mišljenje nakon što pogledam debatu.
poput filma, tebi se jedan glumac sviđa u filmu - meni neki drugi, zar bih trebala reći nakon što ti izjaviš da ti se sviđa: jaoooo i meni se on sviđa!

neznam da li je ovo moje ponovno uskrsnuće pametno ali da će biti učinkovito sigurno hoće.

pederson vs žižek? pedersona je žižek guzio cijelo vrijeme te online komedije. nitko nije pobijedio oboje su pajaci. redikuli mada Slavoj ima mota i dosta se približio istini. no nije dovoljno jer da se pričalo o uzrocima a ne o posljedicama taj duell is't gonna to happen in the next 4 millenia. zašto? jer za svo zlo svijeta uzrok jesu psihopate sociopate i slične nakaze, ideologije are only the tools  psychopathes rules the world from begining. if you dare point your finger on them you are doomed forever.

Why We Deserved That Abysmal Jordan Peterson v. Slavoj Žižek Debate

From presidential debates to masturbatory stand-offs between self-aggrandizing personalities, we only tune in to public discourse to sate voyeuristic impulses, not intellectual ones.

After all, why should we treat an argument with an online troll like some ancient, sophisticated art form when our opponent's only goal is attention? The recent exchange between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek is the quintessential example of the vacuous, turgid prose that passes for public discourse these days. From presidential debates to masturbatory stand-offs between self-aggrandizing personalities, we only tune in to sate voyeuristic impulses, not intellectual ones.

How did we arrive at this moment, when arguing has become spectacle in the same way gladiatorial violence once was—a voyeuristic craving for war?

In the public, live-streamed event titled "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism," Peterson, a professor of clinical psychology and "bevested men's rights worship-object" faced off with Žižek, the Slovenian Marxist who's the "Elvis of cultural theory." Both men are self-fashioned renegades from academic tradition (despite Peterson having applied and received a fellowship from Cambridge University—which was rescinded after students staged a mass protest). Both men have strangely carved out reputations in mainstream culture by marketing their PhDs as kitschy taglines, selling their worldviews as irreverent satire (Žižek) or self-help philosophies (Peterson). Peterson's 12 Rules for Life is a best-seller meant to save "the masculine spirit under assault" and a codification of the self-inflated speeches he posts on YouTube for his hundreds of thousands of followers. Žižek wrote and starred in The Pervert's Guide to Ideology, a feature documentary comprised of iconic movie scenes onto which he superimposes footage of himself analyzing their Marxist undertones.

In truth, each man is a caricature of a public intellectual—entertainers rather than leaders. They both excel in provoking strong reactions from their detractors. To many, Peterson is nothing more than an anti-PC muppet come to life (imagine if Kermit got really into race science), while Žižek reminds some of a "raccoon who lived in a dumpster behind a university's library who was transformed into a human by a witch" (and thanks to his film career, you can watch him drown in Titanic).

Accordingly, the sold-out debate was nothing more than a spectacle of the two men performing their bits as eccentric academics—a particular celebrity niche (or "archetype," as Peterson might say) created by today's Intellectual Dark Web. The event was heavily promoted online, with ticket prices soaring as high as $1,500 thanks to sycophantic fans and over-hyped advertising through the event's website, Peterson's own YouTube channel, and a deluge of critical think-pieces lamenting the state of academia, public debate, and media itself. That's not to mention the buzz on Reddit and Twitter, ranging from laudations to ridicule.

At one point in the debate, Peterson even turned to Žižek and said, "You're a character. It's a sign of originality. It's a sign of moral courage." It was one of the man's many masturbatory comments, which included ranking himself and Žižek among the greatest "rebel" minds in Western critical theory.

So what was the point? Initially, Peterson took to Twitter to call out Žižek for an excoriating article he wrote for The Independent, in which he panned Peterson's inflated reputation as pseudo-intellectual nonsense: "His crazy conspiracy theory about LGBT+ rights and #MeToo as the final offshoots of the Marxist project to destroy the West is, of course, ridiculous." The final product was, at best, a pair of dull, oral book reports wherein they regurgitated their most tired points. At worst, it was the death of civil discourse—in that it repelled critical engagement through Peterson's condescending circumlocution and Žižek's frenetic jumps from point to point.

But what did we, as a society, do to deserve this?

To begin with, modern media killed the art of nuanced argumentation a long time ago. Sure, there was a time when debate was an art form—more than that, even, it was a public service. But the days of Aristotle's rhetoric, along with the belief in spirited, two-sided debate, was doomed by the advent of visual media, which quickly dominated our attention spans and dulled our appreciation of nuance. In the oft-cited example of the first televised presidential debates on September 26, 1960, Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy faced off in front of 70 million viewers. The next evening, The New York Times reviewed, "For the most part, the exchanges were distinguished by a suavity, earnestness and courtesy that suggested that the two men were more concerned about 'image projection' to their huge television audience than about scoring debating points." Still, the young, good-looking, and telegenic Kennedy was overwhelmingly considered the winner; he took office the following January. In contrast, Nixon was pale, sweaty, and recovering from recent illness (in addition to being over a decade older than Kennedy), but in retrospect he's largely regarded as having more substantive and thoughtful answers. Too bad he was ugly; America had to wait an extra eight years for Watergate.

In a similar debacle, anyone viewing the Peterson/Žižek debate inevitably tuned out Peterson's reedy voice and Žižek's slobbery jokes to take notice of the psychologist's tailored suit and the critic's disheveled polo. While Žižek attempted to give short dissertations on his every insight into happiness, Marxism, and capitalism, Peterson extended the same three points into litanies of statistics and mispronounced attacks on "absurd" and "bloody" "foolish" ideas like class struggle, inequality, and climate change. There were no winners in this "dark human low point" in public discourse.

Another reason we treat the act of debate as spectacle and performance is our irony-saturated culture, whose premiums on satire and cynicism preclude genuine, productive, and collaborative discussion. Writer and critic Hilton Als notes, "The majority of us are not whole individuals, because there is no such thing as a whole society." Today's most prominent minds are ranting talking heads on Fox News and cynical cultural critics spinning irony into a new form of sincerity. Public sentiment is driven by outrage and bad faith arguments. Even Congressional committee meetings are akin to daytime television: Nancy Pelosi is like the Democrats' version of Supernanny, while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a young, irate Judge Judy trying to arbitrate GOP idiocy. How could argument be a public good—a test of one's principles and thoughtful civil engagement—when you can just @ someone on Twitter?

But it's not all our fault. In a time when feeling alienated is such a universal experience, even language breaks down; now, we're making up words as we go, from "post-humanism" and "irony poisoning" to "subtweet." The very foundation of t language primes us to play dirty. In 1980, American philosopher George Lakoff and linguist Mark Turner upended the notion that linguists have nothing interesting to say when they published Metaphors We Live By. Its opening premise is that we, as a society, are predisposed to conflate disagreements with aggression: "Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war...We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack."

Currently, with our country at its most politically divided since the Civil War, Lakoff comes off as an observer of the obvious. He penned, "The ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor is one that we live by in this culture; it structures the actions we perform in arguing. Try to imagine a culture where arguments are not viewed in terms of war, where no one wins or loses, where there is no sense of attacking or defending, gaining or losing ground. Imagine a culture where an argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way." Of course we can't; we've seen too many presidential debates and Trumpian Twitter feuds.

But a culture that thrives on making mockeries of itself is without substance—without a future. By going through the motions of exchanging ideas with these facsimiles of public debate, we stifle ourselves and the hope of social progress. The revered and bloated French Marxist, Guy Debord, wrote in The Society of the Spectacle that deeply divided societies suffer the loss of their common language and their ability to communicate. He argues that the "self-destruction of society's former common language is opposed by its artificial reconstruction within the commodity spectacle, the illusory representation of nonlife." In effect, imagine a world where there are more imitations of ideas than genuine ideas—sounds like being irony poisoned by Twitter.

Of course, that's not to say the jokes aren't good, with descriptions of the Peterson/Žižek debate capturing the "dueling smells [of] Žižek's bread crusts forgotten in his pockets battling with Peterson's 100% meat sweats." But the instant gratification, the blood thirst for a fight, and the spectacle of outrage isn't worth the devolution of society's thought processes. The recycled jokes, pop psychology, and telegenics at play in Toronto's Sony Centre created what Žižek would call the ultimate postmodern debate: it was an injection of pure antagonism into modern life. With no purpose other than disruption and discontent, it was a performance of online celebrity and turning thought into a commodity. It was painful, but perfectly representative of our time.

mativka wrote:

Noor wrote:

mativka wrote:

kic wrote:
stvarno mi je smijesno gledati komentar dogadjaja prije nego sto se pogleda sam dogadjaj, kao da prvo trazimo sta cemo misliti o necem, pa tek onda idemo se zapravo upoznati s tim.. strah od vlastitog suda?

A možda prelako padate pod tuđe utjecaje? :)

Pa ti ides traziti i citati tuđa mišljenja...koliko vidim i jedina si

zanima me što drugi misle, no to ne znači da će to utjecati na moje mišljenje nakon što pogledam debatu.
poput filma, tebi se jedan glumac sviđa u filmu - meni neki drugi, zar bih trebala reći nakon što ti izjaviš da ti se sviđa: jaoooo i meni se on sviđa!

sve stima, ako si film odgledala i nakon toga donijela svoje misljenje
al kod tebe to ide naopako :)
kako god, svi imaju svoje veselje.

Gnječ wrote:pederson vs žižek? pedersona je žižek guzio cijelo vrijeme te online komedije. nitko nije pobijedio oboje su pajaci. redikuli mada Slavoj ima mota i dosta se približio istini. no nije dovoljno jer da se pričalo o uzrocima a ne o posljedicama taj duell is't gonna to happen in the next 4 millenia. zašto? jer za svo zlo svijeta uzrok jesu psihopate sociopate i slične nakaze, ideologije are only the tools  psychopathes rules the world from begining. if you dare point your finger on them you are doomed forever.

Jos nisam sve preslusala. Stadoh na polovici Zizekovog izlaganja, odnosno citanja eseja...


Vezano uz clanak koji si prilijepio, paaa to otprilike dodje kao nase citanje Abenovih i tvojih zajednickih monada, zar ne? :D



The recent exchange between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek is the quintessential example of the vacuous, turgid prose that passes for public discourse these days. From presidential debates to masturbatory stand-offs between self-aggrandizing personalities, we only tune in to sate voyeuristic impulses, not intellectual ones.


:p

violator wrote:

Gnječ wrote:pederson vs žižek? pedersona je žižek guzio cijelo vrijeme te online komedije. nitko nije pobijedio oboje su pajaci. redikuli mada Slavoj ima mota i dosta se približio istini. no nije dovoljno jer da se pričalo o uzrocima a ne o posljedicama taj duell is't gonna to happen in the next 4 millenia. zašto? jer za svo zlo svijeta uzrok jesu psihopate sociopate i slične nakaze, ideologije are only the tools  psychopathes rules the world from begining. if you dare point your finger on them you are doomed forever.

Jos nisam sve preslusala. Stadoh na polovici Zizekovog izlaganja, odnosno citanja eseja...


Vezano uz clanak koji si prilijepio, paaa to otprilike dodje kao nase citanje Abenovovih i tvojih zajednickih monada, zar ne? :D



The recent exchange between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek is the quintessential example of the vacuous, turgid prose that passes for public discourse these days. From presidential debates to masturbatory stand-offs between self-aggrandizing personalities, we only tune in to sate voyeuristic impulses, not intellectual ones.

paaaa....otprilike...yes...ja sam Slavoj aben je psihopatska Pederčina.

Da, vidi se da mu je Peterson drag. :) Ali fakat je ispalo smijesno. Kritiziras Marxa a jedino sto si procitao jest Manifest, a ni to nisi shvatio.

Ma i Zizek mi je bezveze. Mozda ce biti bolje kad si budu medjusobno replicirali.. Uglavnom, cini mi se da su obojica promasila temu.

violator wrote:Da, vidi se da mu je Peterson drag. :) Ali fakat je ispalo smijesno. Kritiziras Marxa a jedino sto si procitao jest Manifest, a ni to nisi shvatio.

Ma i Zizek mi je bezveze.  Mozda ce biti bolje kad si budu medjusobno replicirali.. Uglavnom, cini mi se da su obojica promasila temu.

čini mi se da ću tovarišu Slavoju poslat nekoliko podužih meilova kad me čopi inspiracija.