Slavoj Zizek on the adoration of Jordan Peterson

Post Reply New Topic

Jordan Peterson might claim that women's subconcious secretly craves domination and no one bats an eye. Peterson critisizes make-up(buy some more consumers, you aren't presentable without it) and everyone loses their minds

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jor ... 08301.html

The way I read it he very carefully papered over any discussion of exact details of what Jordan Peterson actually talks about, suggested that if he's attempting to deal with blurry categories it's somehow unacademic or less credible, and while he was much more polite than Cathy Newman he spent so many hundred words mostly dissecting a straw man.

Bret and Eric Weinstein were together on the Rubin Report recently and listening to that interview they were both discussing Jordan. I think Eric had some concerns about him upfront, was concerned that he had a lot of great ideas but would routinely hit a sour note somewhere in the midst of it, and it was Bret - speaking as a biologist - who suggested that what Jordan was discussing is actually coming on to firmer and firmer ground and that he's clearly on to something both useful and deeply correct. it will be interesting to see if Jordan eventually finds other public figures, like Bret, who can help him comb through the contents of his ideas more clearly or even remove some of the dross (and JP's far from an ideologue - he's thankful when someone can successfully cut some of his ideas down to size or show him where he's incorrect on something).

I really think our intellectual future in the west won't be for slouches though, and drive-by suggestions of 'he or she is too blurry to have any idea what they're talking about', let alone vague discussions of what might or might not mark pathologies, won't cut muster anymore as serious or credible criticique. That's more a relic of a decadent and dying legacy media.

This was a ridiculous article...

I would say the author him/herself is a brilliant example of why jordan is so popular.
The author either doesn't understand jordan's views, or actively tries to misrepresent them.

You can't just say his views are anti factual, without giving conrete examples.

I'm not a jordan petterson fanboy, but lazy attempts at trying to damage his credibility like this, definitely make me like him more.

This is a pretty good rebuttal to his interview with VICE. Haven't heard him talk about the Zizek article but I'm sure it would catch at least some of these criticisms.
(15:47)