Daily reminder that you cannot win in intellectual discourses

>win in debates

This is so fucking true

What's so bad about hypocrisy anyway? 'Yeah, but you don't actually mean/do that' seems a pretty clear case of ad hominem to me. Shouldn't the status of the speaker be irrelevant?

>>7492095
In moral arguments it calls into question the courage of ones convictions

>>7492214
maybe in antiquated discourse, but for our complex, contemporary age where the mythological Hamlet reigns, uncertainty is far more of a moral virtue than we might realise

dick = square root -1

>>7492240
no it's not

>>7492392
wrong

>>7491825
I love this picture of him because the eye in the light makes him seem to be smiling slyly but the eye in the shadow makes him seem sociopathic and deranged.

File: LFCeline.jpg (40KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x600px

>>7493754

I read Roundinesco's biography

he is a complete fucking psychopath

L Ron Hubbard doesn't even come close

>>7493775
Wasn't that biographer supposed to be on his side?

The square root of minus one is an erect wiener

>>7493781
exactly

imagine you've a sympathetic biographer and you still come across as a complete charlatan, hypocrite, and scumbag

>>7492392
>>7493941
i don't get this, i'm admittedly not super familiar with lacan, but the whole "a phallus is the square root of -1" thing really doesn't make sense to me, can someone explain it?

>>7494000
One of his infamous mathemes. Just as imaginary numbers help keep planes in the air despite being 'imaginary', the phallus systematically structures society under something which has observable and reproducible effects (such as internalised gender roles and their performative nature), but it is still fundamentally of non-presence.

If you want to get really technical, you could break it down like this:
real numbers - 'the real'
complex numbers - 'the symbolic'
imaginary numbers - 'the imaginary'

the phallus resides in the third domain, but just as a complex (symbolic) number is expressed by a+bi where a and b are real numbers, it is still structured by an imaginary 'unit' (pun very much intended). this means any and all experience of the real (IE. units a and b) is dependent on an imaginary unit to which we can then create a function for a complex number and be able to sustain it within the symbolic.

>>7494532
I think I have more questions now than I originally did

>>7494571
Basically, Lacan just appropriates concepts from whatever field he sees fit, and then uses them as representational demonstrations of his own ideas. He's not speaking objectively or literally but in metaphor, because if the unconscious is (as he claims) structured like a language then there really isn't any way of representing it other than through an act of metonymy (IE. willies and numbers).

How is Lacan a hypocrite? Do you even understand what hypocrisy is?

File: fedn.jpg (42KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x720px

"Do I contradict myself? very well I contradict myself, I am large and contain multitudes."

>>7495478
Murderer: don't murder people, it's terrible.
You: why should I listen to you m'sir, what you say to do and what you do yourself are two different things ;-)


World class logic

>>7492095
>What's so bad about hypocrisy anyway?
Integrity is one of the highest human virtues, and this world is in deep need of it.

We have not just become two-faced, but thousand-faced.