How can one man be so right about everything?

op why did you post an image of a cock and type penis nine times

>>2609210
1/10

File: Lacan2.jpg (19KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x365px

Just because I don't think psychoanalysts deserve more than 1 thread at a time...has anyone read Lacan and gotten anything of worth from him?

I picked up Ecrits from the library. Thumbed through and the guy is hard to understand and seems to be somewhat disappointing when any idea is unearthed. I figure I'm either looking at his stuff the wrong way or hes just negligible.

What should I read to in2 Lacan? Is he worth the time?

>>2609210
>sexualize my mother
>in a dream

oh man Freud you genius how did you know?

>>2609273
Is it the same Lacan that was so influential in epistemology?

There is actually a clinical guide someone wrote up based on Lacan that I have read a little, and lays out some of his thought in plain language.

He honestly has some interesting thoughts about psychoses from what I have read, in that,
when we are seeking to help ourselves through psychotherapy, we do not actually want to change despite the fact we go to seek help.
The idea that we invest energy in keeping up our psychoses, and do not want to change this homeostasis is a pretty interesting idea and helped me take a better look at myself.

Here is a copy if you are interested,

https://mega.nz/#!x8gFjRjA!xq3yho7pJqNybK1-jpdIkhDWzgv9mOxDCurI7lDoQFw

>>2609301
Thanks man, I'll get to reading! I figured he couldn't just be good-for-nothing - I usually try to not throw any popular thinkers away so readily given that they must be acclaimed for at least one good reason. Maybe its because of the translation between French and English that makes it so hard....French seems to be the hardest to turn into attractive English.

>>2609284
Idk, I don't think he did pure epistemic work. Any epistemology he influenced would've been through his psychiatric practice.

"Dude, penis, lmao!" - Sigmund Freud

>>2609953
"I want to fuck your mom lol." - Sigmund Freud

>>2609273
Point with him is this.

He didn't believed in knowledge.

Understanding as a principle was flawded from conception, because turth wasn't a monolitch estructure that you could bound and meassure, but a by product of your enviromental circumstances.

Under the lens of psychoanalysis, the people showed themselves as small and petty, but the things they believed in, instead of reflecting this acted as the opposite.

People made ideologies to reflect their inner weakness reversed.

So, if you lack self control and are violent you want an authoritarian goverment to impose you the opposite.

The big other then, acts as your polar opposite making it intellectually dishonest, people hide from themselves and from their subconscious becuase they are ultimately afraid, and they turn this fear unto others to reflect what they will really do.