This happened outside the academic areas, that is, self-financed and self-managed this we see in the way in which the great cultural debate of two major thought forms today. For the curious on the philosophical theme they have listened to these two great thinkers, just as in the years where Focault and Sartre were mass intellectuals where their own intellectual centers were managed.

FUENTE

We had an event of two intellectuals a clinical psychiatrist and a philosophy. Why is it so important. A debate about the happiness in which one lodges if on the side of capitalism or socialism is one of the main topics.

A small biography

Jordan Peterson

He is a clinical psychiatrist who went viral for being a media intellectual, he has a couple of published books always open to interpretations of right-wing philosophy. Alternative right promotes psychoanalysis through progressive psychology has millions of followers is an extremely prominent figure.

Slavoj Žižek

An intellectual with a couple of titles and doctorates, with publications and author of more than 30 books is a strong intellectual, is a great coach of minds, presents ideas, is dirigible. Zizek is in the background where his ideas are structurally leftist intellectual who defends Hegel and Marxism.

You can not change people, but you can change the system so that people are not pushed to do certain things. ...

The debate was widely seen at the world level. The debate starts talking Peterson is here where you see that he was debating a titan (Zizek) and a person who is going up intellectually (Peterson), since he says he reread the communist manifesto a couple of days before, this represents a very superficial role since the manifesto was something for the workers to read in a basic way at the time, this lasts half an hour. However, it is a very content-rich debate. Zizek, being an extremely rare intellectual, reads a very dense text, explaining his postulate. His postulates that it is extremely complicated, it is difficult to digest it immediately.

FUENTE

It is noted that Peterson was not prepared for the complexity to start there is form versus background. There is a phrase of Nietzsche that says: That every book has to be read as an autobiography. Which means that everything is interpreted in the way that things are reflected starting from the person who reads what he tries to explain.

Zizek's work of ideological idealism as capitalist consumerism his criticism is extremely good. But in itself What is the good of the debate?

• There was a debate outside the academic field, creating content from individuals.

• We all won being an extremely respectful debate.

• A base is created so that these types of activities continue to be created.

• Thousands of people are motivated to study and train their minds through this type of events.

The debate lasts just over two hours, where you can see everything. This with subtitle already available little by little people were creating to translate all the content. Almost immediately.

This makes me proud to see many this kind of content.