Zero Squared Special: After Zizek vs. Peterson

Apr 30th, 2019 | By | Category: Articles, Zero Squared

Nikos Sotirakopoulos and Ashley Frawley join Doug in this special, mostly unedited, episode of the Zero Squared podcast. This was recorded on the fly as a way to have a quick conversation about the Zizek vs. Peterson debate and, as a way to continue the debate. Nikos is a committed Randian while Ashley Frawley and Doug are both Marxists.

Hope you enjoy this conversation/debate. It is being released for everyone.

If you enjoy the Zero Books podcast consider listening to the Inside Zero books podcast on Patreon!
Tags: , , , , ,

2 Comments to “Zero Squared Special: After Zizek vs. Peterson”

  1. dmf says:

    in more recent lectures Zizek explains his take that it wasn’t really a debate offers a bit more about his philosophical differences with Peterson and then outlines some of the issues he thinks will take a new world order to address:
    https://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2019/04/slavoj-zizek-disorder-under-heaven-nomadic-proletarians-no-thanks/

  2. dmf says:

    Peterson did offer a definition along the lines of “postmodernism” as the oppressed being the bearers (if not the embodiment) of Rightness which he wrongly attributed to Derrida and Foucault, unfortunately rather than correct him Zizek changed the subject by saying that he rejects Foucault for a kind of incrementalism rather than being a revolutionary (would be interesting to know what he thinks of Foucault’s support of the Iranian revolution).

    On the question of Marx and knowledge/knowing you should interview Ray Brassier
    http://crisiscritique.org/2018h/brassier.pdf
    “Abstract: Marx’s distinction between concrete-in-thought and concretein-reality does not invoke a conceptual or empirical difference but a
    difference-in-act. This difference is verified in social practice rather
    than in thought. The actuality of practice verifies that of thought without
    there being a metaphysical correspondence between them. While
    thought can adequately represent the structure of practice, there is no
    similarity or resemblance between the structure of thought (what is
    concrete-in-thought) and that of practice (concrete-in-reality). What
    is concrete-in-reality is a practical act whose nature does not reveal
    itself either to those executing it or to the theoretical consciousness
    that takes the consciousness of practitioners as its starting point.
    This has ramifications for Marx’s critique of reification as well as his
    distinction between ‘living’ and ‘dead’ labour. I argue that Marx’s critique
    of reification is epistemological, not ontological, and that the contrast
    between objectivating and objectified labour is not a metaphysical
    contrast between authentic and inauthentic existence or between lived
    and represented experience. Rather, it is a formal contrast between
    unconscious (unvalidated) practice and conscious (socially validated)
    activity. Nevertheless, this contrast has an ontological premise: the
    actuality of the exchange abstraction depends upon an act that is not
    actually exchanged (socially valorized). “

Leave a Comment