My Take on the ** GREAT DEBATE ** (Zizek/Peterson): Initial comments.

I think it was excellent. Yeah, it was a little let down for all the hype, but the encounter itself was great.

Before I start in, here’s a couple few other people’s ideas on it.

I like that both these videographers admit that they don’t know very much about either Zizek and Peterson. ok. grains of salt.

This guy has a kind of equivocal attitude upon it, and generally thinks it was thought provoking and good overall:


This guy —

well, you be the judge.


And here is The Guardian’s editorial commentAnd here is THE GUARDIAN’s editorial take.

Oh, and wait, here’s the analysis that really gets to the heart of the debate. Here is an example of what the debate was about, if anyone missed it.



I take on the guardian first: WWE smack down: thats what this guy wanted for his dollar. Great. Intellectual GIANT, this guy.  Obviously he was not listening to the debate for anything which would constitute significance for humanity.

Nick Fuentes:  Yeah, ok.  Very conventional thinker and commentators who admittedly does not know anything about philosophy, but indeed had a very sensible, if limited, view upon what actually occurred. And it only took him nearly a long as the debate itself to tell us about how arrogant he is.

The first vid guy:  as I said, he equivocates.

Yeah, ok , it wasn’t really a debate, and it was more a discussion.  I am wondering how many philosophical debates these guys have seen.  This isn’t debate club.

In fact, it appears to me that this small sample of three, one of which is assumed knowledgeable of the debaters, missed the debate.

And Im gonna dig into the Guardian dude, Stephen Marche, a little.  It appears to me that this guy (of the three) is deserving of the most shit giving, because obviously he doesn’t give any craps about philosophy nor was he really understanding what the hell Zizek and Peterson were doing, what was actually occurring in the debate. If this is all the Guardian has got, they really need to get someone else on the philosophy part. Maybe I should get a job on the Guardian as their philosophical correspondent. Any votes ??

Oh, and then the last guy, in The Stranger article: Can anyone say “postmodern religious congregant”?  I think this post of mine will tell you what I mean: The postmodern condition: Google is Manipulating You – Putting You in Their “Filter Bubble. (Well maybe that is the wrong post to explain what I mean by PM religion. I got one somewhere though.) Id say that this opinion attempts too much and is most likely the kind of view Zizek was trying to critique in this debate with Peterson.  One should keep in mind that when one discusses philosophy at this level they have stepped outside of debate club.  Can I say “debate club” again?  Debate club.  Debate club accomplishes something else, something other that what this debate was really about.  Again, one can  look into my earlier post for my argument about The Two Routes.


Yes. The beginning started a little weird. We knew it would. We know that Peterson’s approach might be a little — how shall we say — geeky? Like he thought this was going to be debate club. But then with Zizek’s opening he could see that this discussion/ debate was actually going to have some meat to it.  From how Peterson then responded, one could tell Zizek’s opening threw him off; it took him a couple minutes to get his bearings. And thats what I like about Zizek: He’s no bullshit. And I think Peterson also; despite my opinion about him (which I will talk about shortly, though maybe another post, if not my past ones), he gives only one or two fuks also, and I think this is why the discussion was so great:

They simply did not give a shit about the typical politic hype sandwich that everyone wants to eat. They are not the kind of people who give in to what people want or expect.  Beautiful; these guys actually had a philosophical debate. They were actually discussing what is represented by Nick and Stephen, actually addressing what is usually perpetuated as “philosophy and politics”, actually getting down to some significances of out current state.

The issue is that one needs to have at least attempted to encounter the state of things in order to have seen and understood what these two guys were talking about. This is pointed out in both their ending statements:

Peterson: He hopes that everyone will see how communication takes place.

Zizek: Think. Or, At least attempt to stop playing the naive political games.

But of course, the common folk will not have this.  They want WWF Smack Down.

All right. Ok..

The nay sayers got their rights to have their own opinion, of course.  But it does not mean that know what they are talking about.

You’ll have to wait for my further analysis in another post.

But who the feeeuuuge. am I?


— I kinda disappointed with the Guardian dude.  Im a little kind of embarrassed for the Guardian now.  hhmf. It kinda shows that even the Guardian is not what it is supposed to be; my opinion of the paper just fell a few notches, I think. Quite flat thinking.

I am wondering what substance he was looking for. His accusations and general sullenness for lack of answer or entertainment shows that they were talking about people just like him.

I don’t think it was the debate that was lacking, i think it was the listeners.



Zizek’s Confused: The Work of Dissemination of the Problem to be Communicated.

Interesting POST over at Neotenionos. Another person taking on the persistent accusation of Slavoj Zizek’s apparent opacity; basically, many people find Zizek’s discourses confusing and some accuse him of being obscure on purpose.

One of the main issues I deal with in my work concerns how it is possible that I intuitively understand certain philosophical authors that are usually and widely known to be dense and difficult to understand. I have no special ability, am perhaps (above) average intelligence, have no special or advanced education, am a slow reader and not very well read (compared to some). For all purposes of consideration, I am an above average musician, and hardly a scholar. How is it that for me certain authors, Zizek included, are not difficult to understand, and in fact, read to me often enough as obvious? Again, I emphasize that I have had no special instruction. I have had only a couple general lower level undergraduate philosophy classes; I was an anthropology major. I read little or no philosophy when I was young, let alone read anything.

In simple terms I think it is not Zizek that is being obscure but the reader/listener who automatically ‘reads’ discourse in a certain manner where Zizek’s discourses must necessarily be complex and difficult.

I submit to the open mind: This is the issue that informs Zizek toward his ability and appearance. This is not to say that he is like me in these particular instances, but that he is like me in the situation of having been granted a view that informs his presentations, how and in what manner he presents himself. It is special because it becomes apparent that very few people have this particular view, and so when one speaks of it, one has to be very careful to speak in a manner that does not offend (like I am probably offending) the listener (this is the meaning of the offense in the Kierkegaardian sense); this care thus is not a choice but an imperative of discourse (in the Kantian sense). In general, Zizek takes his position intact as opposed to problematic, and so uses his situation within a particular context of the situation itself, such that what might be a certain subjective substance cannot be found: In a manner of speaking, he is entirely act. What is problematic is the problem: No subject may appear, or rather, the appearance of the subject is already problematic, as Zizek says somewhere, it is always a subject of…politics, ideology, discourse…whatever.

I will stop there for the passage.

Further; I do not say this of myself to exalt myself in the eyes of others. Exactly the opposite: I say it as a matter of fact, and in fact, it is a fact that I have difficulty with; it is a fact that I am incredulous toward. This disbelief accompanied by the situation as it is presented to me, amounts thus to the whole issue of philosophy. If there are other issues, then they are necessarily subordinate to this first issue, what other more than a few authors have called first philosophy.

I would reject the suggestion that I am some sort of savant or genius, yet, likewise, I can hold my own with any accredited philosopher (given certain conditions, such as, one cannot hold their accreditation to be a mark that places them within proximity to privileged knowledge in the conversation). How did this come about? Some people would say that I don’t really know these philosophers, that I am delusional and misguided. To them I would say, well lets talk about it and we will find out. Yet it is evident that the postmodern condition usually prevents such discussion because the conditions of value and veracity have already been established for what may be accepted. Strangely enough, it is only the condition that is not confined by postmodern mis-appropriations that is able to dispel this odd coincidence.

The dynamic of my philosophical considerations are in this blog and my books, and the re-presentation of philosophy is in my music.