/lit/ - Literature

>>17126836
I've listened to a few of his lectures and not been convinced by his arguments, though I learnt quite a lot, and the Peterson "debate" was hilarious.

yeah, im a zizek chad, how could you tell?

I have read many of his books and I think he's by far the greatest living philosopher.

>>17126836
What philosophy?

>>17126904
but kripke is still alive

PURE IDEOLOGY AND SHO ON

>>17126836
I'm planning on reading him soon but so far I genuinely can't tell what this faggot even thinks, at least from his videos. Maybe it's just because he's a Hegelian and a Lacanian (peak obscurantist bs) but all I got from him was "ideology bad" (kinda?). Also that Marx is kinda gay and not as good as Hegel, or something like that.

Hes positively dangerous, like all communists.
Systems aren't the problem. Greed is the problem. If we don't change from the inside out nothing changes. History confirms this.

>>17126854

The debate didn't have a valid premise, no line of discourse occurred. It was sad seeing Peterson basically admit he didn't know what he was talking about. The tone turned over to admiring Zizek towards the end lmao

>>17126955
It almost felt like a set up.

>>17126854
The debate (if you can call it that) was fucking terrible and almost would have been a complete waste of time if it wasn't for Peterson literally exposing himself as a hack to everyone. It was truly embarrassing.

>>17126836
I don't care for philosophy at all.

>>17126955
>It was sad seeing Peterson basically admit he didn't know what he was talking about
i almost feel bad for the guy. dude comes on stage talking about the communist fucking manifesto, which he hadnt read since high school, and didnt have a clue about zizek's beliefs. He got absolutely exposed and then he OD'd on benzos or something and has been in and out of rehab for 2 years.

>>17126949
No, systems are definitely the problem.

Democracy is a sham and Oligarchy is running our societies and is responsible for corrupting and corroding them. The only thing that will help us reach the light at the end of the tunnel is for Monarchy to make a real return.

No proletariat bullshit like fascism or communism.

Real. Fucking. Absolute. Monarchy. It's the only way.

>>17127027
>it's totally gonna work this time bro!!!

>>17127027
Is Zizek pro monarchy?

>>17127027
Which sort of Monarchy? Priest King?

>>17127033
>>it's totally gonna work this time bro!!!
it worked for 6000 years and never failed, people just decided to try different things. democracy and commies on the other hand have been getting btfo ever since their inception

He's secretly a Christian or wishes he could gather the faith to be one. I'm 100% sure.

>>17127034
not absolute monarchy, but via Hegel, a particular individual who's job it is to sign his or her name, giving a symbolic and personal "I will it" to the machinations of the state.

>>17127045
I know you probably don't care about material measurements of success desu, but the world and all the people in it have been getting wealthier at a significantly faster place in the last couple of hundred years than the thousands previous. Also, modern absolutist monarchies like the Gulf States are shitholes and monarchies in places like Bhutan, Nepal, and Thailand (although this last one was gradual) had to disappear in the past half century because of complete incompetence by the monarch.

>>17127045
>monarchy never failed

>>17127063
being a hegelian is already crypto-christian (a.k.a believing in literal nonsense bullshit as a cope)

>>17126854
>>17126955
>>17126999
>>17127013

I dont reallyget this point. Maybe because lit is populated more with people from a philosophical bent ratherthan psychological, but to me, both seemed absolutely retarded rather than one “beating” another like you guys kinda imply zizek did to peterson.
What I got was BOTH of them were talking circles around each other. peterson giving more psychological questions wich Zizek obtusely rearanged and dodged and went on a tangential philosophical topic. then visa versa happening with zizek proposing a philosophical point that Peterson took as a psychological/more concrete question and likewise going on a tangent.

both seemed like absolute retardsthat kinda disregarded the lense through which a prompt is asked abd nothing really of value was produced besides people who only really have experience in one feild going “oh x absolutely owned y” with some petty “gotcha” phrase like “where are the comunists!” that really got peoples monkey brains rattling.

they were speaking absolutely disconnected jargon AT each other rather than trying to have a productive discussion WITH each other.

>>17127084
>I know you probably don't care about material measurements of success desu
seems like correlation and not causation. seems like the process of people getting wealthier really began in a time when monarchs still reigned, and the reasons people are wealthy now isnt necessarily due to democracy. but ultimately the human condition cant be quantified or judged by material value

>>17127108
>I dont reallyget
Stopped reading here. Learn to type.

>>17127027
This. Moldbug gets dismissed here all the time in a very flippant way but if you actually take the time to read his intro to unqualified reservations and digest it, there’s a lot to be learned. I’m not sure yet if monarchy is the way to go - I haven’t read enough yet- but it sure as fuck isn’t democracy

>>17127130
To your point, the rise of China shows you can have a fairly authoritarian government that embraces enough of capitalism to gain material wealth. The only evidence I've seen of democracy being good is that small country democracies are more likely to adopt good market policies than small country dictatorships.

>>17127160
>>17127168
Fuck off accfag

>>17127040
Rabbi King

>>17127130
>people were getting wealthier at a time when monarchies still reigned
I believe it was Fukuyama's "Political Order" books that said this (I know the board hates him because of his dumb work, but he actually writes some good stuff), but I think that it was a mix. It was partially that the growth of wealth created the end of monarchies and partially that the end of monarchies created the growth of wealth. This is part of the reason, for instance, why Britain started growing faster than the rest of the continent, because the financial policy of a democracy (or at least a republic) is better than an absolutist monarchy.
This also doesn't explain why modern monarchies are shit (like Gulf States, Bhutan, Nepal, etc.). Shouldn't they be extremely successful if monarchy is so great? And why Bhutan and Nepal feel the need to get rid of their monarchies if monarchy is so successful?

>>17127172
Not an accelerationist and I wouldn’t consider moldbug one either. What do you think that word means and why do you think what I said is an endorsement of it?

>>17127189
*spit*

>>17127172
Yarvin isn't accelerationist lmao

>>17127193
>Bhutan
>shit

>>17127194
>>17127206
He and the other schizo Land argue for accelerating capitalism and technology since it will naturally end in monarchism and technofascism or some schizo bullshit like that

>>17127286
I don't think you've really read Yarvin.

>>17127266
Are you seriously arguing that Bhutan (not just the monasteries of Bhutan but the whole country) is a desirable place to live.

>>17127286
I’ve never read Land but Moldbug never argues anything even close to what you’re saying. That’s what I meant by “people dismiss moldbug in a very flippant way.” I don’t know what it is about him that sticks between you guys’ buttcheeks, but you should really read him to at least find out what he thinks.

>>17127330
I am

>>17126836
All philosiphers are pseud entertaiment to me...

>>17126836
If they don't give names and dates in a call to action, then they're a psyop or charlatan.

>>17126854
>>17126955 (Checked)
>>17126999 (Checked)
>>17127013

I never actually watched the debate. What was it about and how badly did lobster boy do? I'm not even a fan of Zizek or communism/Hegelian dialectics in general. I just want go laugh at Mr. Kermit.

>>17127108
I think it has less to do w field and more to do w comeuppance. Peterson tries to come off as the guy w answers while Zizek doesn't and more particularly Peterson tries to come off as the "anti-postmodern jihad leader" and he set his sights on Zizek and missed.

>>17127494
It's mostly Peterson pontificating and Zizek having a conversation which turned mostly into rebuttals of what I've seen.

>>17127479

I’ve never found anything he has said Interesting but I like his personality so i watch the clips he has that show up in my recommended on YouTube. Never read him cause I’m not that interested

>>17127494
Zizek didn't exactly stunt on him, but he didn't have to. Peterson was conceptually lost, woefully unprepared, etc. Just watching his parts was embarrassing. Iirc Zizek engaged with him in a polite kind of awkward way that saved it from feeling like a kid getting curbstomped by Messi
>>17126904
Why do you say that?
Which books?
>>17126938
If you are judging based off of Peterson debate or random youtube videos, don't. He is an obscurantist, some of his ideas are mid, but the Zizek you get exposed to outside of his serious university lectures and books is different from the Zizek you get reading his books.
>>17126949
I don't disagree on the latter point but you have to appreciate that culture and law (state, institutional rules, etc) develop reflexively. Laws encourage culture (ex. laws with no punitive aspect that just declare a moral sentiment) and culture obviously encourages laws as well as shapes its enforcement. If nothing else laws can be good discursive devices for discussing culture and belief when they are reified and then disavowed while still being strictly enforced.
>>17127108
Zizek definitely could have hammered home the clear fact that peterson had no clue what he was talking about, so their aporetic dicking around and discussing other stuff I consider a product of his courtesy rather than being incapable of "winning"

>>17126836
He's actually a brilliant psychoanalyst

>>17127499
I think thats way too clean of a cut. From the beginning it seemed obvious that zizek wasnt there to answer questions which he very well could have while also getting his point across, but he intentionally went on tangents and kinda talked about whatever the fuck. And I do not buy that zizek doesnt come off as a guy without answers, his are just more abstract compared to petersons more concrete ones. both came off as trying to bait the other, not trying for much of a mutual development. zizek was just more circuitous in doing it.
>>17127146
sorry a broken spacebar and a lack of a space rattles you so much. My fault for not double checking, but really, its not exactly the twin towers grammar nazi.

Peterson needs to stay the hell away from politics or philosophy. His takes are milquetoast reactionary Christian conservative crap with some Jun to make it spicy at best.

>>17127548
I disagree with zizek being polite. he seemed more subversive and proding than anything, than latching onto shit that would rub it in while being surfacelevel “polite”. agreed Peterson did not know his shit, but Zizek explicitly zoned in on those topics and focused on it when they were not exactly necessary. i wouldnt say thats polite, thats a textbook rhetoric trap. pet was focusing on geneology and liniage of macro-movements (as postmodernism and marxism and shit are actually rather intersectional topics), but then Zizek lazer focused on specific philosophical routes (like most marxists have actually read hegel outside of elementary shit or if they are extremely into theory) that he himself is an expert in and versed, which made himself have a rhetorical home field advantage.

>>17127557
but he doesn't practice right?

>>17127172
>>17127286
Every time you post this drivel you look like an even bigger retard than before.

Land is a fanboy of Yarvin and the connection ends there. Yarvin is all about Machiavellianism and not Accelerationism. Learn the difference already you simpering midwit.

>>17127584
Funny thing is he is a classic liberal. The left moved so far he became a conservative to everyone ; however he denies being a conservative.

>>17127548
There's the superficial aspects: he's entertaining, daring, and exudes bonhomie; the aspects that feed into his work: he is a great dialectical thinker, his arguments are things of beauty how they often develop from a provocation into revelation, he's super widely read and brings it to his work, dialed into the theoretical milieu, the way he uses examples is spectacular, and so on; and there's his actual work: his work on ideology was inspired, but he has The reading of Hegel, reading Hegel through Lacan was a master stroke, and seems obvious in retrospect, but is so generative. He's right that most of philosophy after Hegel has been trying to crawl out of the abyss that the German idealists opened, and he's the only one who's taken Hegel further, able to think pure repetition and objet a...

Sublime Object, Looking Awry, The Puppet and the Dwarf, Interrogating the Real, The Neighbor, Violence, First as Tragedy, Less Than Nothing, and Hegel in a Wired Brain.

>>17127597
Reviewing my memories of skimming the debate, your reading seems totally plausible.
>>17127746
Generally agree, except for the german idealist abyss thing, however only really familiar with Hegel of that milieu.
Can you give me your take on hegel through Lacan and how that is productive. Reading shit like 'coke as object petit a' or stuff from economical-philosiphical spandrels I often think the Lacan is totally unnecessary.

>There is this джok that I tell often, forgive me if I am repeating myself. A джewish rabbi and merchant are in a temple together. The rabbi goes and says oh God I am nothing, I am not worthy of your presence. Then the merchant also goes, oh God I am nothing, and not worthy of you. Lastly a poor джewish man comes in and says, oh God I am also nothing. Then the джewish merchant says to the rabbi, who does this guy think he is who also thinks he is nothing?

>>17128003
nice

Do I turn to him in my deepest darkest moments of doubt? Of course not. Does he have some worthwhile things to say? Sometimes. Does him being funny or affable make this easier to appreciate? Yes. Does he strike me as a game changing intellect, no. Would I view his writings as a manual, no. Is he still worth the time, yes and no, depends.

>>17126920
Absolutely Based.

>>17126911
Kek

>>17127743
everybody participating in american democracy is a liberal, genius. the term leftist has never meant liberal.

the man shapes himself for the pseud entertainment market what do you expect

>>17127557
>brilliant psychoanalyst
Oxymoron
>>17127108
The debate ultimately vindicated every claim Chomsky ever made about theory and demonstrated the inadequacy of psychoanalysis to deal with anything.

>>17128223
>the term leftist has never meant liberal
It has certainly included liberals, especially when it was first used.

>>17127108
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIQp4KMwqwk