Reminder: Will Self made Slavoj Žižek look like a fool
Am watching.
He really did make Zizek look like a clown. Wow.
Zizek barely knows what to say at times, only platitudes.
- What do you believe in?
- (after ten hours of hesitation) I believe things will go bad!
Self was never arguing in good faith, his whole position was being too cool for school and mocking Zizeks effort while agreeing with every negative characteristic of society but being nothing but a Jew in a horses he neglects his own functional affirmation of the status quo
*a Jew in a horses skin
Will Self being a smug, mildly erudite, and overall posturing sophist has nothing to do with his being Jewish. You're right though hes a diiirty kike
He made him look like a fool. Just admit it guys. You're just as bad as the Petersonfags at the moment.
When I first watched this I lost all respect towards Will Self. He came off as someone coated in layers and layers of irony and dry humour. A pathetic stance to take in a debate, something you'd expect from a buffoon. He's not a serious thinker, writer or whatever. He's just your run of the mill hole-for-brain British.
>Self was never arguing in good faith
This is such a lazy take.
It wasn't very good looking for Zizek sure, but its because Self's goal was not to have a discussion and to learn something but just to troll and poke finger.
In case of the Peterson debate Zizek was a total opposite of Self and didnt use cheap troll tactics, even though if he wanted he could humilate Jordan.
Really? It seems like he's simply being a contrarian. Reminds me of this interview youtube.com
So why was Zizek unable to say what he believes in without sounding like a high school student?
>hurrr i believe everything is so bad you know i am pessimistic dont vote but you know we should still organize and use the fact that the world is chaotic right now in our favor so that we can perhaps create a movement and organize and then i and my lacanian friends will lead this movement and society will be great just like Bolivia yahooo
Is that your great philosopher? Lol. That's the stuff ANYONE on the left says all the time, and has been saying for 50 years at least.
He left Zizek speechless when talking about the composition of the elite too. You could see Zizek was feeling the pressure, very unable to think, unable to speak, unable to produce his mental processes in a natural and organized manner.
>he is asking daddy tough questions!
>that's so much trolling!
>that's so unfair!
Is Self Joker to Zizeks Batman?
>No, I'm no longer a socialist if to be one is to believe that a socialist utopia is attainable by some collective feat of will – but I remain a socialist, if 'socialism' is to be understood as an antipathy to vested interests and privileges neither deserved nor earned, and a strong desire for a genuinely egalitarian society.
>Nowadays I think in terms of compassionate pragmatism: I'll leave socialism to Žižek and the other bloviators.
Based. Zizek fags just mad that their daddy was btfo
No idea, I've never read Batman.
Batman was a 20th century Hegelian philosopher from the city of Gotham. He was mainly interested in maintaining the status quo. Joker, his greatest rival, refused to label himself in any way. He would use whatever he could to provoke Batman and test his philosophy. They were codependent in a way. Batman would gain new insight while trying to refute Jokers critique, while Joker would grow more devious in his attempts to sabotage the fundamental parts of Batmans philosophy. They were like two sides of the same coin. Speaking of coins, there was also Twoface, but that's a story for another time.
>Be some fat, ugly motherfucker
>Compesate by learning shit about Marx and Hegel
>Write books about what you think about their ideas, even come up with some of your own
>Succeed
>Get invited to give your opinion about current affairs
>Your "oponent" is some fancy and ironic englishman
>He doesn't debate, he just acts like he's the coolest guy in the room
>Crowd buys it
>Fancy ironic english man doesn't listen to anything you say
>Your knowledge is fucking worthless in this situation
>Get Mayweather'd by fancy ironic english man
>Crowd cheers
Why live
Is ironic detached Englishness the final boss of philosophy? Anything you come up with can be dismissed by a slight raise of an eyebrow and a wry whisper of 'of course you would think so'
Pretty much everyone makes Zizek look like a fool.
false. the only talent will self has is showing himself as he really is –a pompous idiot
>insanely loud high pitched HELLO
>closing tab in panic
too much
cringe
I like that he forced Zizek to talk about specifics. He's the only interviewer that I've seen force Slavoj to be direct about his positions.
> mentions SYRIZA
> be Greek
drops faster than a meteor rock
based, daily reminder that Zizek is just a normie globalist and just uses communist buzzwords so sound cool in front of academic audiences
Zizek debate strategy is always to be friendly, build rapport with the audience and adversary, and then tell a bunch of unconnected jokes and ingenious thought lines that have nothing to do with the topic at hand but make him sound like the smartest guy on the room. He basically conceded all of Peterson's points while making Peterson sound retarded (except the one about self-help, he got him good there)
too bad this strategy didn't work with Will Self because smug anglos are immune to rapport building
>he asks Zizek to expand on his bullshit, omg that's so impolite
COPE
Zizek doesn't like DESTROYING people with FACTS and LOGIC so quips are unfortunately effective against him.
also he doesn't like elaborating beyond some shallow platitudes
>asking a cynical critic of ideology what ideology he proposes people should blindly follow
Self just seems sort of smug and self satisfied, just keeps looking towards the audience for affirmation and emotion rather than actually engaging in the conversation.
>Zizek was feeling the pressure, very unable to think, unable to speak, unable to produce his mental processes in a natural and organized manner
Much like Diogenes and his encyclopaedic knowledge of cups astounded the wit of Plato's, the raw power of Will Self's nihilist irony simply CONFOUNDED Zizek.
>take
>daddy
>'> '
>normie
>COPE
>Rambling and half stepping your way to much the same, but much the worse, interpretation that Zizek has, which is to propose socialism "the day after"
ZIZEK BTFO
CAN MARXISM RECOVER
Do all the people in this thread actually watch and understand the clip, or did you all just gather what was happening from the ‘mood’?
zizek loves saying paradoxical and counterintuitive provocative lines, but he always does it to illustrate a point and he always has a rationale behind it. Will Self in this video was just saying banal pithy lines to deflect
I don't know who you are, but I love what you're doing
>Clip
>It's a full debate
did you?
So what? He was taken aback by Self's questions, who for his part avoided having to give any serious reply. Take the last bit, right before audience questions where he makes the brilliant assertion that "capitalism is not an ideology, it's just what people do," going on to assert that everything is a tool, before turning away from Zizek to answer an audience question and skipping over his rebuttal.
why can't we get someone like Will who will force Zizek for specifics but without being an insufferable pseud retard that doesn't apply the same standards to himself?
>clip
>debate is 1 hour, 17 minutes
Do you even know what you're talking about?
my utopia > your utopia
uh-huh, well that’s a load of nothing
No, he was trying to get something significant out of Zizek's mouth, but the fat fuck couldn't say it.
zizek doesn't need help looking like a fool
but will self is a obnoxious cunt
cutting off your interlocutor and then looking into the audience/camera with such a punchably smug face like you're the hobbit from the office is not debating
>capitalism is a tool, slavoj...
self no less an idiot than zizek and needs to neck himself immediately
Will Self is cunt. Just by this information, I know for a fact that Slavoj is superior.
I really don't mind Žižek being made to look like a fool, but Self's demeanor and way of speaking is absolutely insufferable. He's like a living stereotype of a pompous detached snob, a cuntish minor character from some sitcom who enjoys making others feel inferior for the sheer sport of it. I wouldn't stand 5 minutes of someone talking to me in this tone of voice before completely losing my shit.
>and overall posturing sophist has nothing to do with his being Jewish.
Sophistry is very similar to pilpul. You could say they are same behavioral traps, but for different people, and the jewish culture traditionally favors pilpul, whilst European dialogue culture has phases where it absolutely despises it or revels in it.
I think it's weird how some posts are viewing this as some sort of mental combat, like these people are going to 'destroy' each other with talking.
If their arguments have any value they should be able to stand on their own without challenge. Zizek has always been an entertainer to me, not a thinker. Peterson has always been someone trying evangelize psychology in an attempt to let people see their own value.
Neither are the type to 'destroy' each other in debate. When I think of being destroyed in a debate only Ben Shapiro comes to mind, and only because he has clear thinking, backs up his points well, and doesn't shift around when he states a beliefs.
All of that is good preparation for a discussion. I don't understand where people would see an intellectual grappling here.
>Zizek has always been an entertainer to me, not a thinker.
>Zizek has always been an entertainer to me, not a thinker
You sure sound like someone who has read any of his books.
/pol/ reads more books than Yea Forums.
If that was true then I would see their shitposts in threads about something besides youtube celebrities or twitter screenshots.
Evola, Jung, Hobbs, Hoppe, Spengler, Hitler and EMJ are well read by /pol/.
Hahah, it's quite cute that you actually believe this.
Once you ignore the subhumans, you'll realize this is true.
Everyone is talking about Self's demeanor rather than defending any of Zizek's arguments. As someone else pointed out, this is pretty weak...
/pol/ I don't think so but /fit/ does
>once you ignore most likely even more than 99% of the users, you will realize that /pol/ is actually very well read because they've familiarized themselves with sparknotes on a few baby's first reactionary writers
Okay, we've had our fun.
The notion of bad faith has always been a really lazy.claim. If your position can't stand up to rhetoric than it isn't worthwhile in the first place.
People don't usually appreciate shitposting irl, Self hasn't actually engaged with anything Zizek said.
This. Self thinks he’s smarter than everybody despite having a command of literarture and philosophy of an undergrad. Dude thinks he’s the reincarnation of Nietzsche or something and it is just terribly cringey. Try reading one of his books.
Zizek is too deep for Will Self.
A debate like this is not an abstract exchange of pure ideas, but also a performance. The way someone chooses to act and they way they treat their opponents/interlocutors has a bearing on how their contribution to the debate is evaluated. Self is perfectly right to press Zizek on his apparent inability to express any positive statements of pragmatic import, which doesn't absolve him from the fact that he comes off like a sneering piece of shit, leading some viewers to question the validity and sincerity of his intentions.
Also, let me point out the the whole format of this conversation is pretty ill-conceived. Zizek is pushed to the defensive from the very beginning with Self playing the role of a current affairs program host grilling a guest politician. There is a pre-arranged power structure with Zizek as someone who is the need to explain himself and Self as the voice of reasonable majority whose only responsibility is to prod the other guy.
I really enjoy the fact that literally the one time Will actually had to answer a single question himself near the end, he gave the most lackluster, bullshit answer and without allowing Zizek to respond in any way switched to taking questions from the audience, kek.
He looks like Ivan Illich
Not really a dunk, since Zizek explicitly never focused his writings on praxis, which is a legitimate position (which stems from Slavoj's affiliation to Hegelian philosophy).
That is as stupid as trying to discredit practical thinkers like Peter Singer by pointing out to the fact that he has never stated his opinion on the relationship between logic and metaphysics. Who cares?
Also, as many other users pointed out, Will Self is a really bad conversationalist. His costant appeals to the crowd are literal sophistry.
One last note: Will Self has never developed or accepted any practical/political system. All the criticism he directed to Zizek can also be applied to him, and to almost every other philosopher who has ever lived.
>One last note: Will Self has never developed or accepted any practical/political system. All the criticism he directed to Zizek can also be applied to him
Literally this, near the end of the debate Zizek asks him what he would do about his country selling weapons to the Saudis and his entire response amounts to 'well, I did oppose it', lmao.
there isn't a position in the world that can stand up to sly enough rhetoric
I don't care to defend zizek's position because they're both mongs
>When I think of being destroyed in a debate only Ben Shapiro comes to mind, and only because he has clear thinking, backs up his points well, and doesn't shift around when he states a beliefs.
>once you ignore most likely even more than 99% of the users, you will realize that Yea Forums is actually very well read because they've familiarized themselves with sparknotes on a few baby's first 20th century writers
Wow, this is easy
LOL FUCK PETERSON WILL SELF IS THE NEW RIGHT WING ICON
that was brutal not that self is a genius but he has some common sense and not philophtard
You have to be able to express earnestness in response, and Slavoj is too sloppy to do that.
zizek like most philosophers is an artist in that its not about stating facts or finding solutions but an art of sounding deep and silly theories,its why nobody educated will take philosophy seriously anymore
self has a plain realistic mind and isnt blinded by ideologies
>Will Self visiting grave of Franz Kafka
Scene where he roasts those globohome tourist and whole Prague kafka-exploitation thing is really funny.
He will always be ourguy. pynchonfaggs here should pay attention to his trilogy.
Self could have easily written bullshit novels like nick hornby or tony parsons and made a decent living from it... but he chose to go balls deep into high-modernism and write "Umberella" and instead make money from degrading himself as a "public intellectual", which is always a losing battle. He should be commended for this. He's a serious writer of serious literature
he does it consciously though. he seems to know that king is naked and all is lost in novel-writing business. bongland is not france, they have no respect for writers or artist, so whatever, you might as well whore your soul on the tely.
all brit interviewers sound like this, he isnt being snarky besides zizeks views should be tested from all angles
where to start with him, besides the trilogy?
What does Yea Forums think of Will Self's books. I haven't read him but I'm curious.
>no u
One can truly feel the weight of a hundred perused political tomes in this argument.
Self clearly dominates the debate, but he doesn't make any decent points himself and just strawmans Zizek, says le funny swear words to get laughs, and uses pretentious, dry similes and unfunny jokes.
book of dave is one of his most accessible and enjoyable novels. My idea of fun is also a favourite of mine. Umbrella is extraordinarily good but difficult as its written in stream of consciousness. When Umbrella was published it became clear that his writing was valuable on its own terms and not because he had a public persona in the media. But its not an easy read.
He's extraordinarily talented at reading his own audiobooks. I cannot emphasise this enough. Listening to him read some of book of dave or umbrella really helps you get into the swing of things if you're having trouble reading it.
The psychogeography columns he wrote for the independent are compiled into two books which are extremely readable and illustrated by Ralph Steadman of Hunter Thomson fame.
His public persona is difficult as he often plays a caricature of b a total wanker... but occasionally there's some gem appearances.
I realy rate this interview from the melbourne writer's festival that I listened to recently youtube.com
This fairly candid interview post brexit is depressing but good youtube.com
He's an arsehole in this but its still good youtube.com
He's a self-described socialist you fuckwit
thanks, I will check them out. that interview too.
Maybe i'm a brainlet but you humanity fags speak in in far too vague and personalized terms that you might as well speak different languages.
I heard this sentence uttered in the zizek peterson video, "the light you discover in your life is proportionate to the amount of darkness you're willing to forthrightly confront"
Does this actually mean something to you?
sounds like some kind of Paulo Coelho new age stuff
You have to get out of your comfort zone to learn.
I took that in the sense that there are demons in you, and only by identifying them can you get rid of them and experience better things.
yeah you're definitely a brainlet sorry m8
It means that by taking on responsibility you will grow and lead a more meaningful life. By confronting hardship and pain you find salvation. It is a true statement.
I'm impressed that Self anticipated Zizek's agitation for a global autocratic communist government per ecology well before that article he wrote a month ago.
Can‘t listen to Will Self without laughing for some reason.
No, he's pretty clearly a Fabian Autarkist, but that wasn't what he was trying to demonstrate with Zizek.
It's basically the depressed introverted faggot way of saying "be happy", it's just that he knows it would be a lie to say he's actually, fully happy.
I seems like every person who gets big talking about politics or philosophy just ends up looking like an idiot. Such a weird endeavor to make money off of. If you want to be a con artist so bad you might as well open up your church