Lacan and Logic

>>8901898

You're responding to the claims made by people who are incapable of reading Lacan. Nobody worth responding to would claim he's actually a hack.

I do think he uses red herrings to throw people off track very deliberately though. But I can't think of any examples and I'll be honest regarding the fact that quite a lot of Lacan is beyond me

Side note: I once got marked down in a uni essay because I referenced Lacan without including the feminist critique of his ideas. And the part of Lacan I reference had nothing to do with the Oedipus Complex, which I assume is the part feminists have a problem with.

Anyone want to bitch about academia?

>>8901938
>red herrings to throw people off track very deliberately

well he admits that he prefers the way into the text to be difficult somewhere. but yeah. there's times where i'll read half a page and have no idea what he's talking about, and then the next page he picks up a point from before the digression. sometimes within the sentence too. he loves to squeeze a whole new concept in between emdashes lol.

i never get marks off on papers. i literally can't remember the last time i got less than an A on a paper. so i can't exactly emphasize. but your teacher sounds very hackish.

>>8901950
empathize*

>>8901950
>i never get marks off on papers. i literally can't remember the last time i got less than an A on a paper. so i can't exactly emphasize.

This was completely unnecessary faggot

>>8901973

it's also completely true

>>8901950

Yeah, but I'm more meaning that I think he includes ideas that are... "empty" if that makes sense. Like he'll include ideas that are supposed to throw you off the train of reasoning. I'm gonna be really vague describing this cuz I've had a few drinks and I can't be fucked hunting through the "Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious" for the bit I'm referencing, but there's a part I think where he's describing his ideas about the Saussurean formula and he includes this bizarre passage of wordplay that I can't really remember cuz it's been ages since I've read it. But I remember reading it over and over, trying to fit it into his overall argument and eventually deciding he'd put it in there just to throw people off. But maybe I'm wrong, thought there have been a few times I've felt that way reading Lacan, and I'm very sympathetic to his ideas generally.

And yeah, the essay incident was a strange one, because knowing the teacher, they were very knowledgeable in many respects, but I think Lacan was a personal bug-bear for them (they were clearly someone who was sort of not fond of gender roles, male but turned up wearing make-up etc. to teach, which I really don't care about at all, but I think in that case, they let their personal life influence their marking in a pretty unprofessional way, because of their views about gender.) Was still an A, but got marked down one of the boundaries within the A grade. So I thought it wasn't worth making a big deal over and it normally wouldn't bug me at all, but it irritated me cuz I put a huge amount of effort into it and was pretty proud of it, and their reason for not giving a higher mark was so weak. But I really don't want to seem like a grade-psycho so it's whatever.

>>8901898
Is it this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_and_hats_puzzle

I can't be bothered to solve it, but I'm aware that Lacan liked logic puzzles (including the parrots one). I don't see why this proves anything about him (unless that's the joke) except that he was interested in many things.

As far as I know, Lacan's point was that there is a certain temporality (so to speak) to logic in that one can only express a certainty once certain conditions have been fulfilled.

It was similar to what Deleuze, in his courses, was saying about Descartes. Namely, that his Meditations had this important and often neglected element of progress (once certain steps have been taken, new concepts are opened to discussion which previously could not be approached directly and retain the same sense).

god i love lacan

psychoanalysis is so fucking on-point. it really is. it's the only thing more narcissistic than ideology and criticism. i love you OP for posting this

>>8901938
>tfw wrote an essay on feminine jouissance and my female teacher gave me an A

makes u think

>>8901898
Reach around and take off disc as quickly as possible then run through the door

>>8902001
Lacan is pretty weird when it comes to gender though. Sure, he uses Masculine and Feminine (Father and Mother, Man and Woman, etc.), but it is always in some symbolic (and thus non-imaginary) sense. It makes it really difficult to understand him when it comes to "queer" situations that don't really fit on some single play of male and female (like a biological female that identifies as male, etc.), but rather imply a plurality of possibly contradicting positions concerning the same person at the same moment in time (someone who doesn't fit in any gender or fits in several). I'm sure there's some way to account for these things, but in my experience, psychoanalysts are content to just mumble "insufficiently castrated" and move on. I don't mean to rant, but at times it really does feel, like Deleuze says, as if psychoanalysis makes it impossible for analysands to truly speak despite being a talking cure.

>>8901898

I don't think Lacan, or most thinkers of the French Theory are hacks, but that one college girl that cites Derrida 8 times in her essay on one of Tarantino's film to talk about ''space'' and ''gender'' is absolutely a fucking hack.

>>8902258
A guy would never do that

>>8902258
I ranted about this in another thread today actually. The main problem with these thinkers is how badly their ideas are communicated to humanities students. Thus, your Tarantino-girl.

File: who-know-do-not-speak.jpg (51KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x400px

>>8902222
>but at times it really does feel, like Deleuze says, as if psychoanalysis makes it impossible for analysands to truly speak despite being a talking cure

semi-serious question: isn't it that talking itself is overrated? if talking is both the disease and the cure, then isn't silent awareness of your own symptom just the thing?

to be able to shut the fuck up and be capable of a shared silence with a loved one would seem to me to be the point of an analysis, if it's not enlightenment itself. right?

to me i think the fact is that people think talking is the point. i really think silence is the point, the capacity to be able to do stuff and think things and not feel the need to talk about them. but maybe that's just my own dingbat reading

don't take pic related too seriously, but i do think there's an element of truth in this. what if the point of analysis was just to help people to live without feeling the need to speak? isn't talking itself the problem?

File: silence-quotes.jpg (26KB, 736x588px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 736x588px

>>8902279
here's a better quote.

isn't it just the case that people are addicted to talking (or, in my case, shitposting?) isn't the point to be able to shut the fuck up?

>tfw this is what i have been trying to accomplish my whole life, live without having to explain myself or smile politely while others explain themselves

>>8902222
There's only two genders though

>>8902279
>what if the point of analysis was just to help people to live without feeling the need to speak? isn't talking itself the problem?
I recently came upon this Sadhguru talk where he discusses that you can't use intellect to dissect being. There's no use to learn something when there's nothing to learn about it, he said that existence predates thinking.
It's a very mystic sort of thinking but the whole 'seeing reality as it is' appeals to the practical side of me. Whenever I see anyone trying to confuse the issue and make mountains out of molehills I try to reduce the question to 'what is he really trying to say?'
I can't get past the point where philosophical debate doesn't turn into a wank of whose concept or system is more complex when the real world and the science behind how the mind works suggests that all beliefs are learned. If that is the case, and all beliefs are incorrect, the correct answer is to defy beliefs and concentrate solely on the reality in front of you.
Anyone have another viewpoint?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQn8X4FbpTM
one of the guru's talks. I usually can't stand guru types.

>>8901898

is that logical problem some kind of joke?

3 of us, 3 white placards, 2 black. places placards, only black remain, i must have white because we all have white because we are three and white are three and there are no whites left so i have white.

>>8902354

''existence predates thinking.''

Hello Sartre.

>>8902354

these eastern philosophies have as a fundamental quality a presumption that at his core man is nothing. interesting they were able to discover this with a cognitive faculty and then use this discovery via cognition to assert that you cannot cognate being. western thought gives man a bit more to work with by saying hes an image, and behind that image is god or whatever.

man as image cannot look within and find answers, he must pull from within and actualize without (via art) to self reflect. a novel does not contain within its pages meaning, man, by using the novel as a mirror, sees meaning brought to the surface from within him by the novel.

those who try to derive a complex system of understanding are too caught in the socraten (apollonian) mode of self knowledge, and eastern thought has the opposite problem in rejecting the apollonian and elevate the dionysian.

you must radically unify this duality, good luck anon.

>>8902372

seeing the two whites across from you, how can you be certain you do not have one of the two remaining black disks?

>>8902372
The prisoner doesn't know the colour of the remaining discs, he only knows what he can see (a white disc on each of his fellow prisoners)

File: houellebecq3.jpg (405KB, 1200x843px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1200x843px

>>8902460
>>8901898
The answer is in this situation it is impossible for any single prisoner to go forward and announce he knows with logical certainty that he has the answer.

All three prisoners seeing this can conclude they all have white

>>8902445

you're overhasty in

1. suggesting that the unity of apollo and dionysius is symmetrical

2. identifying socrates with apollo.

for the first you have to remember what nietzsche saw as the respective formal embodiments of each spirit. apollo found himself in the unitary figure of the tragic hero, while dionysius was manifested through the audience's projection of itself into the chorus. the tragic payoff was the moment when the chorus felt the hero's pain, thus transmuting it in a sensuous, pleasurable form back to the audience. tragedy as form may have endured, but the tragic moment was brief, a fulguration of emotion and force. don't underestimate the rhetoric throughout the Birth of the instantaneousness of the tragic—it was a flash both in history and in the local time of the performance.

the second problem is a properly dialectical one, and can be fairly reduced to the passage of quantity into quality. i'll explain historically: the radical leap from competitive market capitalism to monopoly capitalism in the early 20th century started first simply as the logical consequence of capitalist accumulation. as the capital held by individual firms grew, those firms themselves inflated and push others out of the market. eventually however that market shrunk, so you see an expansion of those firms out of those markets. this precipitates first intra-industrially, with the buying up of other firms, then extra-industrially, with horizontal integration, and finally internationally, with the expansion overseas of the great banking, railroad, and oil giants. this last reflects a change not only in the quantity of accumulation, but in the quality of capitalist relations—we have entered a new stage of the logic of capitalism, where the dominant factor is no longer market competition but competition among monopolies for control OF markets.

likewise with apollo transforming into socrates. at a certain point of formal accumulation, form itself breaches its own boundaries and becomes socratic doubt, logical inquiry, and dialectic. form continues to refine itself until it explodes out into the questioning of form as such.

i think the Birth is Nietzsche's greatest work.

>>8902460
>>8902462

certainty, no. but i can accuse the prison guard of being a colorist and desiring to withold all the black discs.

or i can appeal to human desire for order / consistency and declare that keeping the whites together separate from the blacks would appeal to his reasonable faculties or perhaps a subconscious preference.

i can assume the black discs are worth some amount of $ and he wished to abscond with them for profit.

these might be statistically based but if pressed i could dance around the statistical quality of these appeals.

also the 3 white 2 black setup is lame.

>>8902512
>impossible to determine with certainty
>certainly uncertain we must agree problem solvd

...

>>8902512
I'm a Lacanian by the way, so maybe that's why I could get it and these other plebs couldn't

>>8902534
sorry, it's not that the markets shrunk, its that they were too small for the firms. i let dialectics get ahead of me

>>8902512
>>8902538

yeah, that's sort of the answer lacan gives, in that formally it bears the same result. but the reasoning behind that result is not based on uncertainty. on the contrary lacan's prisoners become very assertive.

in any case your solution would result in all three being hanged, because basing an answer on the likelihood of uncertainty indicating this or that is a probabilistic one, so you have not satisfied the guard's conditions.

keep going, i think you can work it out.

>>8902534

dont take the socratic analogy too far, im using it more to illustrate modern mans obsession with self knowledge via empirical methods such as science (apollo) vs a spiritual/extrasensual connection with the one (diony), which can be achieved during either a pure expression of will: performing music, preferably extemporaneously; and perhaps good sex. i cant fathom other methods of deindividuating without chalking it up to lmaodrugs. so maybe drugs too. this is going a little beyond birth (which im 2/3 through) and applying it to a personal ideology.

its the socrates:modern man analogy im making, not socrates:apollo. and modern mans rejection of the dionysian urges within himself as easily found in our cultural rejection of divine madness (mental health industrialization) and our current sexuality.

i dont particularly think the unity would be symmetrical, nor do i think it was implicit in my previous post, unless you equate "radically unify" with "unify equally". and i dont think its a leap to identify socrates with a qualitatively apollonian mode of thinking, considering fred makes the comparison on multiple occasions.

>>8902636

sorry if i was overhasty in my reading of your post, then, but chalk it up to polemics for the sake of stimulation.

i actually tend to think modern man in his consumptive (read: sphere of circulation) life is excessively dionysian, though this is certainly as a compensation for the overwhelming socrates you rightly identify in productive (i.e., "scientific") life. though this is nothing new—what i think nietzsche has to tell us about this attempted resolution of the circulation/production contradiction is that the symmetry sought after is not dialectical, and so can only end up chasing its own tale. it's like working yourself to dust for the weekend, going ballistic through it, then showing up monday hungover and having missed emails, or whatever. trying balance them (quantitatively) cannot get you anywhere.

but i do have to disagree with the static association of socrates with dionysius. for on the one hand nietzsche implies in the birth the socrates suffered from an excess of apollo, at the expense of dionysius—but can we not turn this on its head, and suggest that there is a sort of dionysian jouissance at work in that excessive formalization, that dogged, questioning pursuit of ideal truth, that stubborn death drive that made socrates lust for hemlock in pursuit of ethical consistency? and here we must betray nietzsche's letter to be consistent with his spirit: i see the emergence of socrates in this text less as a collapse of tragedy than as a dialectical expansion of it, less anti-tragic than post-tragic, in the sense that postmodernism is not anti-modern, but an intensification and reversal of those tendencies.

>>8902512
Since no one is coming forward and making a conclusion all you can deduce is that there isn't 'two black' discs, which you already knew because you could see there discs.

There could still be one black disc, your's withou anyone being able to come to an conclusion. So the fact that no one is coming to a conclusion doesn't actually help you.

>>8902693
>static association of socrates with dionysius.

with apollo*

fuck

>>8902695

keep going! think more about the fact that no one is coming to a conclusion. what else might this signify?

>>8902701

yes yes IF WE CAN COMMUNICATE, which i didnt think we could, i can via questioning determine we all are uncertain about whether we have a /black/ disc, and i can determine that given there are only two black discs, we wouldnt all 3 be uncertain about having a black disc. but i didnt think this would work given there were 2 black discs, but rethinking if one of us was uncertain we couldnt be certain about all having white, but given we are all uncertain i can deduce with certainty that we all have white thus i have white.

>>8902695
>There could still be one black disc, your's withou anyone being able to come to an conclusion. So the fact that no one is coming to a conclusion doesn't actually help you.
No actually I considered this. If there was one black disc the person who observes a black and a white disc and yet no one going forward would have to conclude he has a white disc.
Which would in turn give the answer to the individual with the other white disc, which would give the answer to the one with the black disc.

>>8902701
Ok so prisoner one has to think do I have black or white? Unknown. Let me assume I have black. Now he must think from the perspective of prisoner two, who prisoner 1 knows has white but this fact is not known to prisoner two. If prisoner two was looking at prisoner 1 in black and if he too had black then prisoner 3 would know for sure. But since prisoner 3 does not know for sure we can assume prisoner two has white. Any prisoner can do this abd come to the same conclusion.

Doesn't completely make sense to me when I think about it a little more but not sure what else can be said.

>>8902730

You're closest to Lacan's solution. I'll post it now.

>After having contemplated one another for a certain time, the three subjects take a few steps together and pass side by side through the doorway. Each of them then separately furnishes a similar response which can be expressed thus:

>"I am a white, and here is how I know it: as my companions were whites, I thought that, had I been a black, each of them would have been able to infer the following: `If I too am a black, the other would have necessarily realized straight away that he was a white and would have left immediately; therefore I am not a black'. And both would have left together, convinced that they were whites. As they did nothing of the kind, I must be a white like them. At that, I made for the door to make my conclusion known."

>All three thus exited simultaneously, armed with the same reasons for concluding.

>>8902746
Thanks. I was close.

>>8902746
This is still based on probability, it only pretends to be deduction

What a sham

>>8902746
How is this different than my answer >>8902512 ?

>>8902168
Dude, thanks, your snub on Lacan allowed me to understand a lot of Deleuzean shit I've been dealing with. Thanks, this is why I love /lit/

>>8902758
How is that probability?

>>8902746

now the problem with this becomes that his reasoning is based on no one making a move. how can they all then make a move TOGETHER if their CERTAINTY ITSELF is based on mutual hesitation?

>>8902189

J'ai plaisir à faire ce.

>>8902765
It's not you just weren't clear about the process that goes through the prisoners mind in order for him to get to 'I have white'

>>8902758
Everything is probability on a certain level you clutz. It assumes a certainty in observing an uncertainty in others which is fair given they are motivated to get out first.

You can just as easily say you can't know for certain whether you are really seeing the colour white and not just an illusion of the colour white

>>8902780

like i said, the result is the same. but the problem asks also for the prisoner's reasoning, and yours was probabilistic.

>>8902770
>each of them would have been able to infer the following

>each of them probably*

>the other would have necessarily realized straight away

>the other would have probably*

If this isn't probability than economics is a strict hard science that just happens to not work all the time for some odd reason.

>>8902794

you're simply incorrect in making those changes.

>>8902783
>Everything is probability on a certain level you clutz.

That's false. I just like clarity in my puzzles, but I guess continentals wouldn't understand

>>8902800
>you're simply incorrect in making those changes.

So all agents are rational?

You should go tell all the economists and generals. They just have been incorrect all this time on game theory and such.

>>8902693

but the nondialectical aspect of this problem of a/d duality unification is precisely why it requires a radical unification, that, if my previous attempts at unifying any duality are worth a whistle, is impossible to do without committing a dire injustice to both.

but thats not even the fun paragraph

even given the flip is his dogged pursuit...................................

its a nice way to unify without doing a major injustice to both tendencies....

id like to ask a personal question, do you have a degree/what in and was this reading of nietzsches introduction of socrates into this text provided by a professor or is it due perhaps to your depth of understanding of the text once enough context was gotten via reading related texts. i feel i had inklings of this when niet quoted socrates in phaedo about playing music.

for if socrates had played music he would have been who nietzsche was trying to be

or perhaps from an interpretive essay.

I think a more interesting question is how, for the purposes of this problem, Lacan requires (desires) the complete divorce of logic from probability, which is arguably a subset of logic.

>>8902806
>That's false.

No it isn't. We're getting Cartesian now. There's no such thing as absolute certainty in observation but I guess analytics haven't even read Descartes

Did his therapy actually ever help anyone?

>>8902794
>>8902806
>>8902814
see >>8902783

You can break the problem with a Humean argument against causal law pretty easily, but that doesn't make it a solution.

>>8902820

i just graduated with my ba in english. a younger, naiver me wrote a paper using what i had then conceived of as nietzsche's aesthetic calculus of a/d to furnish a prediction as to what happens after the cliffhanger ending in Pynchon's Lot 49. basically the idea was that Oedipa represents an apollonian agent trying to formalize an increasingly dionysian san francisco, and is doomed to be rebuffed every time. so the best guess as to the identity of the secret bidder is that it will be "just another clue."

i came to both texts basically on my own, though i think pynchon was recommended by a prof.

so i did a lot of research on the Birth so i could summarize its contents intelligently, and the main thrust of the argument has stuck with me ever since. i then turned to reading anti-oedipus for a while, and enjoyed thinking about apollo/dionysius in terms of the modulations deleuze and guattari walk paranoia/schizophrenia through in that work. after a while i just came to know it very well, and readings—some good, some bad, some interesting, some dull—just sort of pop up, like finding new subtleties when reciting a memorized poem.

so to answer your question it's a combination of things.

>>8902856
>i just graduated with my ba in english. a younger, naiver me wrote a paper using what i had then conceived of as nietzsche's aesthetic calculus of a/d to furnish a prediction as to what happens after the cliffhanger ending in Pynchon's Lot 49. basically the idea was that Oedipa represents an apollonian agent trying to formalize an increasingly dionysian san francisco, and is doomed to be rebuffed every time. so the best guess as to the identity of the secret bidder is that it will be "just another clue."

and as for this, i think this "new reading" of socrates would have something to say to the younger me who wrote that paper!

>>8902827
>There's no such thing as absolute certainty in observation

Is not the same as

>Everything is probability on a certain level you clutz.

Not my fault you aren't consistent and clear

Further, you just admitted that what Lacan needed, an answer not based on probability, is not possible

A sham

>>8902863
Oh you're not a serious person, whatever

>>8902856
You don't have to bring up Hume and I'm not bringing up his argument against causation. I'm just pointing out that this puzzle specifically saying "don't give a conclusion based on probability" makes it a sham because the prisoner is forced to use induction and not deduction to figure this out.

File: 1477195268470.png (195KB, 417x578px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 417x578px

>>8902876

>>8902856

its fucking fascinating ty

>>8902544
Here's my take, with a focus on perspective.

Prisoner A sees Prisoner B and Prisoner C with two white hats. He has to entertain two situations: do I have a black or white hat?

If prisoner A was to entertain that he may have a black hat, then B would logically see A with a black hat and C with a white. If that were the case, B could work out his color by the response of C looking at both theirs, an easy answer for C to know he's white by the two only blacks being visible, or, crucially, in his lack of answer, confirmation that B must then be white. Prisoner A could then conclude that he could not then have a black hat, because that would mean C or B would be able to figure out their own hat. Over time, it would become more and more unbearably obvious to A (and at this point we will hold that A is not mutually exclusive to "A", B could just have easily been "A" and the result would be the same, in fact, is the same to all of them as they apply the equal but privileged reality of a second viewpoint). So to any of the prisoners it becomes certain that there is only one situation that has no way of providing any of the prisoners a way of showing their hat, which is white, and this lack of a solution becomes the solution, and this solution becomes more apparent with their inability to find an alternative. It becomes like one of those trick questions where the answer is that there isn't one, but in this case, that's the answer's very logic, and that logic is provable silence. Of course, it's hedge on the assumption that all of the prisoners are behaving rationally - if C was color blind the experiment would fall apart. So I'm not sure how "logically" provable the experiment even is, more like, logically assumptive.

Am I correct here?

>>8903914
yes, and you've highlighted the two crucial points of lacan's proof

1. that you can only solve the problem if you admit A, B, and C are purely heuristic, a device for the observer, and that in situ each prisoner considers himself A and the others B/C

2. that the proof is based on B/C observing A's hesitation, and vice versa

>>8902222
>Lacan is pretty weird when it comes to gender though

There is only the male gender in Lacans works. Woman don't know what they want.

>>8903914
good work

>>8901898
do you have more of these?

>>8904520
I don't get it why that thing is repeated so often. In psychoanalysis nobody knows nothing. Men are just as prone to confusing the object cause of desire, object [small] a, with [empirical] objects of desire and getting into a cycle of desire, failure, disappointment, repetition as anyone else.

The place where it truly gets complicated is when talking about women as non-all and stuff like that, those theories feel almost mystical at times, even when Zizek explains them.

what should i read first from him and what are prerequisites?

>>8904854
What i do not get is why women love to dab in psychology where they hear about being shitty

>>8904913
Lacan makes references in his work to philosophers and writers throughout the canon so you should not feel the need to ever be fully prepared.

For most purposes an understanding of the terminology of Freud and Sausserian Linguistics are what you'll need to read him. A background in French philosophy of his period also helps a great deal.

>>8904913

Don't bother.

Disregard all post-1900 philosophy.

>>8905010
>>>/r/steampunk

>>8905018
>>>/r/20thCenturyFrenchHacks

>Sokal and Bricmont
you mean the people who tried to trick a journal but were caught in the act, so lied about the events and then wrote a book congratulating themselves for not exposing something that doesn't exist?

someone hit me with some more logical puzzles

>>8905026
>>8905010
Seriously though how can you declare all 20th century thought is redudent. Where do you believe things went wrong?

>>8905059

>Where do you believe things went wrong?

With everyone who claimed to be influenced by Nietzsche whilst disregarding his most radical/unsavoury ideas.

is he marxist?

>>8905126
Basically yes, though not in a naive sense of the term.

File: 00.jpg (84KB, 644x408px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 644x408px

"ooga booga women don't know what they want and I give therapy sessions while getting my nails done."

proustian nihilism is boring and distracts from better problems/questions posed in the 20th century

>>8905126
Related slightly to lacan
>really fucked up sleep cycle
>listening a lot of videos on youtube on philosophers trying to sleep
>very little material on lacan and about 80% is zizek rambling or in french
>he literally spends two hours in one video talking about his usual stories and not explaining a single idea from lacan
>a fat dude with a cigar and a tupac poster describes lacan better in two short videos than 10hours+ zizek videos

Why is he such a fucking hack?

"YOU ARE PATHETIC AND WILL BE ALONE FOREVER. NOW PAY ME!"

lol only a deluded marxist who doesnt understand money would hype a guy who's entire career was a ploy to seduce women with bullshit

>>8905100
>whilst disregarding his most radical/unsavoury ideas.

What are these?

>>8905179
hacks attract other hacks

lacan and marx are real easy to write about, zizek, too, must publish or perish

>>8905179
Zizek is a philosopher not an educator, what do you expect? His interest isn't in giving people fundamental introductory courses, when he speaks he assumes an audience that is already well read in the theory he discusses

File: teehee.png (8KB, 473x500px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 473x500px

>>8905187

>Zizek is a philosopher

>>8905180
>>8905174
Not arguments. Tell me where you actually disagree with Lacan rather than just posturing contentless disagreement

>>8905190
Tell me where he fails to qualify for that definition?

>>8905192
freud has been debunked countless times

>>8905210
Has he, such as when?

>>8905210

Strawmen have been debunked. Most of the people attacking Freud and Freudian theory have no idea what psychoanalysis is actually like.

>>8905212
>>8905220
he literally writes about how he sneaks naps in his therapy sessions

each session would have cost $450 euros today

>>8905220
im not challenging you so dont yell at me when I ask what it actually is? In short

reminder that there's no oedipal complex in sophocles' play

sorry if i hurt your feelings

>>8905240
If I was an old wealthy woman in Vienna in 1910 I'd be very alarmed

>>8905250
>Freud, Lacan, and psychoanalysis in general irrevocably BTFO

can someone explain lacan to me, as a guy who has read read heidegger, piaget, foucault, freud, levi-strauss, saussure, and a dozen other fucking related things and still never come across a reasonable description of lacan's project

it's always either too general or too jargony, and again i am fine reading jargon as long as i can get some taste of the meat behind it

>>8905266
His project is in the simplest terms an attempt to understand and map the structure of mind.

>>8905266
to elaborate more on what i mean by it being too general, when lacan is explained to me as a kind of psychologistic genetic/constructivist epistemology (or ontology, or umwelt, or lebenswelt, or lebensform, or whatever the fuck you want), i just don't see how that's sufficiently distinct from a handful of other things

when sufficient detail is added to make it seem distinct, it crosses over into areas where someone like piaget is much better anyway - and it especially crosses that fuzzy threshold where anglo scholars can start thinking about falsifying it using quantitative methods (and i'm normally very hostile to the "CAN WE QUANTIFY IT? CAN WE QUANTIFY IT??? UNFALSIFIABLE!!!" mindset)

when it's described as a kind of structuralism it seems derivative as fuck, OK so it's just a structural ontology who cares then

when it's described as clinical practice or a form of hermeneutic psychoanalysis it immediately spanks of the typical 1960s wellness cult+guru syndrome, with an extra seasoning of parisian celebrity-intellectual worship and sprinkles of "structuralism is the human science to end all human sciences!" typical french neo-positivism

i've seen freud, derrida, even kristeva used reasonably profitably as concrete methodologies in the human sciences, i've seen structuralism and foucault used profitably, i've seen results generated by these methods, whatever you might think of how the methods merely adumbrate the results. i've read the most abstruse french theorists on false consciousness and seen their methodologies produce results. why is lacan different? why can't anyone DO anything with lacan other than waver decenteredly between 7 different lacans, all of which are shit?

>>8905296
yeah but that's also kant, every single neo-kantian, husserl, freud, jung, cognitive science, and some guy named gary (me)

why can't someone show me what the fuck he's actually doing

File: lacanlouvain.png (77KB, 451x303px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 451x303px

>>8905300
>>8905308
Your dilemna here is ironically a very Lacanian one.
You're demanding a kernal of his project and dismissing presentations of it whenever it approaches other established discourses. The pure Lacan is what you're asking about.
There's no operating principle of his project other than mapping the psyche because the subject is ultimately in his view not a monolithic describable entity. It ultimately can only be described in self referencial and relational terms because that is the necessary limitation of language.

To describe "what the fuck he is doing" is to venture past the possibility of descriptive reason.

>>8905266
basically freud with "there is no self"

>>8905346

wow. not even close.

>>8905334
i understand that and i don't mean to accuse you of a gnomic evasion here but i'm familiar with this because i've read sixty thousand hours of hermeneutics and phenomenology from scheleirmacher to dilthey to collingwood and gadamer and wittgenstein's use of technique and training rather than any simplistic one-to-one epistemology of logical atomism, i am well-versed in the dialectical dialogue of dialogical discourse

given the fact that i've read pretty much everything AROUND lacan for 300 years, shouldn't my horizon be chomping at the bit to merge with his like sarek

i'm ready for Verstehen

>>8905346
>>8905358
the game is afoot

>“He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying. That’s the obscurantism part. And then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.”

>>8905365
Well I take it then it sounds as if you are tremendously more well read than I am outside Lacan. So what is your frustration?
If you want to see the application of his theory I recommend you look towards either Lacanian readings of fiction or case studies and make of the merits of its use what you will.

>>8902279
>pic related
>a double-bind used to control the peasant populace in china
>now passed around as wisdom among the newly proletarianized mass of the west to cement the return to feudalism
pottery

>>8905358
that's exactly what it is and why harold bloom hates lacan

freud with "no self" and more misogyny

OOGA BOOGA THE MIND IS A DONUT

HE HAS NEVER BEEN PROVED WRONG

>>8905390
so Freud with schopenhauer/heidegger

>>8905377
i have tried that and it reads like Junior Freudian monographs from the 80s where people are like
>You see, the problem with Angel is, his father's penis. So, Buffy is Elektra, and that's my whole book. Thanks

i'm more interested in lacan's philosophical anthropology as something other than one apercu about the social-structural construction of the self ("there is no self, maaan!" - 37 other contemporary philosophers) that he got from wallon

>>8905394
THANK YOU

>>8905388
Lacan never makes any assertion close to there is "no self". Bloom is a hack

File: 002-4.png (676KB, 1080x449px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 1080x449px

> it's a "that guy who spent 15 years reading Lacan and needs to defend a philosopher no one cares about time and time again on 4chan thinking that if other people 'haven't read Lacan' then Lacan is correct thread

reminder that lacan stole all his ideas from proust

>>8905410
BTFO

Ironically, this poster is a better psychoanalyst than Lacan

>>8905405
yes he does

no self, just linguistic habits

ooga booga women are too dumb to express what turns them on sexually

ooga booga lacanians have all realized that they need catholicism but they themselves argued against it!

Lacan is wordy and cannot untie the Gordian Knot of his narrative any more than any philosopher can because he doesn't realize he is in one.
Everything is a story. There is no reality, only a representation that has proven useful to be believed because it allows you to get what you desire (also a story) without stopping, even if that desire is just to continue making the story.

The World is unknowable, but it does judge your narrative for usefulness. You recursively make your narrative with taps that steer you towards one that is useful because it gets you what you want, from simply moving without what you believe to be obstacles, to acting in concert with what you believe to be others.

In the narrative universe of the physical world, he sets up a story that is constrained by the stories that have been useful in the past that are his representation.

as >>8903914 took the perspective of any one of the prisoners as having the same information available, he assumes the representation of invariance.

You could also exhaust the possible combinations and see:
w w w
b w w
b b w
as the only arrangements.
Therefore, the actions of b b w would be someone getting up, while the action of b w w and w w w would be that no one moved and unsolvable unless someone volunteered to stay.

But all of this is a story. If the story of one of the prisoners was that he was a shaman, and was in another universe, or more believable, was insane, and didn't understand the warden, then the entire thing falls apart.

Reality does not exist. You build your representation of the universe as a narrative.
The brain is a sense organ that senses itself, then senses itself sensing itself. Just because the story is useful to be believed, doesn’t make it any less a story. Just because it is a story, doesn’t mean it is not useful to be believed.
The true nature of the World isn’t even a question you can ask without a story, and the representation is not a simulation because that implies a story as well. Even action is a story, for without a story, you could not differentiate action from a story of randomness.

It's much more complex than this, but all philosophers fail before they start by not having a philosophical perspective that can see itself. They cannot make a story from that includes the story making process that makes the story making process.

That's what I believe Lacan was trying to say, but was too deep in the representation to see it as such, and so he just babbles.

lacan is empirically wrong

>>8905420
I recommend you release frustration by screaming into a pillow or some other method that doesn't distract other people

File: wew son.jpg (55KB, 556x434px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 556x434px

>2016
>Taking the School of Resentment seriously

>>8905430
I feel like there's a rule on /lit/ where the longer a thread exists, there is a exponentially increasing chance it will devolve into /pol/tards posturing.

The half-life of decent discussion.

> it's a "Jacques Lacan takes 5 minutes to read a couple short sentences of Proust will placing retarded accents on words and random pauses between in order to woo the intellectuals who will immediately think it's a brilliant commentary on structuralism" youtube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mImbHxmMmdE

>>8905443

>Implying I'm a /pol/tard

Stop getting triggered by Pepe and Trump, you fucking autist.

I like how you ignored that Bloom's School of Resentment critique is entirely valid.

File: 235434.jpg-r_640_600-b_1_D6D6D6-f_jpg-q_x-xxyxx.jpg (37KB, 640x435px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x435px

> it's a "Jacques Lacan came to my university to give a lecture, takes a long time to adjust his clothes and to set up his typists who will record his speech and once he's ready, he literally walks off the stage without saying a word but somehow I just need to spend 10 years overlooking his retarded style and convince myself that there's real substance in his work and I didn't choose a wrong career" epiphany

lacanians deserve our pity

>>8905446
>>Implying I'm a /pol/tard

When you make obnoxious snides in the form of frogposts you may as well be

>>8905446
except bloom is entirely freudian

File: Top kek m8].gif (2MB, 300x174px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x174px

>>8905444

>That video

N-NO Y-YOU DONT GET IT

THE MIND IS LITERALLY A DONUT

LIKE ITS ACTUALLY A FUCKING DONUT ITS NOT A METAPHOR

>>8905458

>Confirmed for never having read anything he wrote about Freud

reminder that he literally held 2 minute long "therapy" sessions while getting a manicure

reminder that he convinced his idiot followers that being able to end a "therapy" session abruptly and randomly was good for the patient and not just that Lacan didn't give a flying fuck

>>8905466
bloom is ts eliot + freud

>>8905430
Lacan is a conservative.

>>8905476
It can be both good for the patient and Lacan not giving a fuck

>>8905476
> randomly

Well they believed that it was not random, but rather ending on an important note so that the patient is forced to reflect on this sudden cut and produce something new and meaningful for the next session. Whether it was an excuse to slack on the job or not is a different story.

>>8902168
>>8902768


Why do we never discuss Deleuze on here? Good post dude.

>>8905525
There's been a lot of good Deleuze threads in recent months actually.

>>8905423
So are you saying the subjectivty of truth makes everything is a delusion?

I think decades of positivist jerkoffs like Sokal crying "charlatan" has inoculated some people against realizing that Lacan was manifestly, nakedly, a charismatic fraud.

Call me a Lacan truther. I think the accounts of him overbilling and otherwise defrauding his patients are well known, as is his unrepentant plagiarism of Henri Wallon. It's inarguable that his success had much to do with his enormous personal magnetism and charisma, which so enthralled his epigones, that near the end of his life, they tried to interpret his senile aphasic episodes as containing some deeper, wordless theoretical significance. I am firmly convinced that Lacan's primary motivation was not academic or scholarly contribution of any kind, but the pursuit of adulation and self-aggrandizement.

>>8907322

>I think decades of positivist jerkoffs like Sokal crying "charlatan" has inoculated some people against realizing that Lacan was manifestly, nakedly, a charismatic fraud.

This. However much people try to convince me that Lacan was legit, one Youtube video says more than their posts and books ever will.

Take >>8905444, for example. The air that he affects is not atypical - portraying himself as some sort of prophet, who wants his audience to hang upon his every word. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a cultist, but he definitely shares some tendencies.

>>8907354
I would go that far -- at the distance of 35 some-odd years I give Lacan an armchair diagnosis as a pathological narcissist, who in another time and place might have been a Jim Jones or Da Free John, but instead found his narcissistic outlet first as a psychotherapist and then as a public intellectual. You're absolutely correct to point how how affected and self-consciously performative his speech style is. I strongly he suspect he picked up his public speaking skill from Alexandre Kojève, who held seminars that Lacan attended as a young man and were by all accounts electrifying.

I'm not sure if I can find it anymore but there's a great account from Zizek where he describes Lacan's narcicissm. I mean, it's not like Lacanians are unaware that he was a bit of a fraud, they just think he still came up with some good ideas/methods.

>>8905501
>>8905512
hahahahaha oh shit you guys are beyond saving

>>8907322
no shit

he was a womanizing dandy and not much else

>>8907666
>it's not like Lacanians are unaware that he was a bit of a fraud, they just think he still came up with some good ideas/methods.

they need to keep their jobs

they discover lacan is a fraud and then...

"oh, well, you know, none of that matters because the substance is actually really, really, like, REAAAALLY good"

>>8907677
Cmon, it's not like Lacan being a hack is a fucking secret you find out years after studying him, a look at his biography is pretty evident.

>>8901898
Daily reminder that only continental philosophers and sociologists (in other words, hacks) take Lacanian psychoanalysis seriously

>>8905423
>Reality does not exist. You build your representation of the universe as a narrative.
>The brain is a sense organ that senses itself, then senses itself sensing itself. Just because the story is useful to be believed, doesn’t make it any less a story. Just because it is a story, doesn’t mean it is not useful to be believed.
>The true nature of the World isn’t even a question you can ask without a story, and the representation is not a simulation because that implies a story as well. Even action is a story, for without a story, you could not differentiate action from a story of randomness.
Any recommended reading for a more in-depth a explanation of this?

All this talk on Lacan on Women has me going No, No, No, Just Stop. Especially that professor who marked the anon down toward the beginning of the thread.

I've had a prof, woman prof, btw, who is a devout Freudian/Lacanian (and feminist, by most definitions, but she also generally dislikes what masquerades under that label) who is of the opinion that Lacan re: women is generally misunderstood as well. She loves to explain that it all comes down to the position of The Phallus in Lacan vs. in Freud.

Freud misunderstood women, says Lacan, because for him, women were characterized by a "lack" of the Phallus, who will always try to find a man in possession of Phallus to fill this lack.

What Lacan does to modify that position is that he says no, it is actually Man that lacks. Man lacks the imaginary Phallus because it was deprived of him in the Symbolic act of Castration. What this means is that in coupling, it is actually Man who seeks the Phallus, who seeks to complete his lack.

Woman never had the Phallus and is not Castrated. There is an essay of Lacan's where he does some tricky dick mathemagic and comes up with that Woman actually **IS** the Phallus-- it is Woman man seeks to possess in his lack, for one, and for two, in the eyes of both child boy and girl, it is The Mother that the child views as "Complete" and Whole (ie without lack), so while the boy goes through his whole castration drama the Woman grows into the Complete contiguous Mother, or, the Imaginary Phallus itself.

I am explaining all this from memory, but I would be happy to dig out the essay where he explains all this if anyone is interested.

tl;dr, people who think Lacan is bad for women are idiots because Lacan is if anything "better for women" than men. But all this competitive positioning nonsense is retarded anyway, so if you think like that, you must go back: to tumblr

>>8908612
Important to note: Phallus is NOT a penis.

Man lacks the phallus despite having a biological penis. The penis is in the realm of the Symbolic, and if you like, in the realm of the Real, whereas the Phallus is Imaginary.

>>8908620
>needing to point this out
lacanbabbies everybody

>>8908612
blah blah blah women are in love with themselves and cant express it and they dont know what happens to themselves when they're seduced/aroused

why cant lacanians just be frank?

>>8908612
> dude, Lacan isn't a womanizing hack, he's a white knight!

lacanian damage control is cringe

File: isnt_it.jpg (160KB, 472x329px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 472x329px

>>8908612
you realize second-wave feminism was 99% an attempt to prove lacan wrong by finding a language to express what the fuck it is women want? kristeva, cixous, irigaray, etc

no one is saying Lacan is "bad for women" only that he was first and foremost a womanizer who would be considered a misogynist by feminists today and in the 70s. the point is you shouldn't take an obscurantist hack seriously unless your only goal is to pick up women and you shouldn't act like there's any other redeeming quality in lacan

>>8907666
But if Lacan was a fraud, then his ideas and methods are part and parcel of his (highly developed) narcissistic strategy to win fame and approval. You can't separate one from the other. It's not as if he was a psychoanalyst who just happened to be an egomaniac. His turgid, obscurantist psychoanalytic work was precisely what he used to maintain the façade that he was a respectable academic. "Just reading for the ideas" means you're still getting suckered by him, 36 years after he died.

>>8909535
> "Just reading for the ideas" means you're still getting suckered by him, 36 years after he died.


What? You could read Marx without being a communist, why can't the same be said for Lacan? Reading him for his ideas does not mean giving all of them credit, but rather picking what's interesting and useful. Concepts such as the inverted [Saussurian] Signifier or "the subject supposed to know", as well as formulas such as "never give way on your desire" or "Sade was a Kantian" can be useful and very interesting if properly understood.

>>8908620
> Man lacks the phallus despite having a biological penis. The penis is in the realm of the Symbolic, and if you like, in the realm of the Real, whereas the Phallus is Imaginary.

Not sure what you mean. The penis is imaginary in the sense that it is an image and perhaps real in the sense that it is a biological organ to which we do not have access unmediated (either as perception or as will). Are you saying that it is Symbolic in the Freudian sense of Castration Complex / Penis Envy, etc.? But doesn't that make it into Phallus precisely? Besides, Lacan as far as I know talks about both Imaginary Phallus and Symbolic Phallus, neither being he organ as far as I understand.

>>8910982
>muh word games

>>8905410
haven't really bothered with lacan but proust is my favorite novelist. can you explain how lacan is indebted to proust?

>>8911145
Most writers from that period were heavily influenced by Proust's concepts such as partial objects and forced movements. They go well with Freudian concepts such as phallus and death drive. Deleuze was more indebted to Proust than Lacan was as far as I can tell.

>>8908471

It's just a lot of babble, my dude.

https://youtu.be/bJemN7zGhF0

Isn't it still going to be a coin toss from whomever's perspective we're taking, given the possibility of and therefore subjective indeterminacy of BWW. A will see B considering himself and C, and hesitating, meaning A, regarding his own hat/disc given B, cannot determine the color. A will then see C considering himself and B, also hesitating, which doesn't give really A any new information--the color of his own hat/disc is still indeterminable, as both B and C would be hesitating if EITHER WWW or BWW was the case, as as A cannot take their perspective, he is left wondering if he is the one with the black disc/hat, or if he actually has a white hat/disc as well.

This isn't explained well, but am I making sense? Hesitation in the other prisoners is not an airtight indicator of personal hat/disc color.

>>8908612
as an educated person do you actually believe all this shit you just typed

>>8911229

To expand: each might think the other two are hesitating because they take them to be in a different conundrum than themselves. Both scenarios, BWW and WWW, beget uncertainty as to ones own hat/disc color, and so will beget hesitation from each prisoner and because of this, the subjective possibility of one's hat being either color can never be resolved.

>>8901898
It is a simple problem

One prisoner, seeing that the other two prisoner's have white discs, would understand that

1. There are only 3 remaining discs
3. If the disc on his back is black, then that means that only 1/3 of the discs remaining are black
4. if the disc on his back is white, then 2/3 of the remaining are black. (this is true)

Exploring possibilities:
Say 3 is true, what does this imply?
Well that means the two remaining are black and white, but would also mean that another around him would see black on his back and white on someone else's.
Let's continue from this prisoner's perspective
Now we have a theoretical perspective of someone who can see a prisoner with a black disc on their back and a white disc. They now have to assume that the 3 remaining discs are either 2 white and one black or 2 black and one white. If they have a white one on their back, then that means that the other black is left out.
This does not definiteness prove anything though, so if the second theoretical prisoner has a black on his back than the (theoretical) theoretical perspective of the third prisoner would see 2 blacks on either back which would mean he has a white. This means that logically speaking, it is impossible for any one prisoner to have a black on their back, because we know that they can see the other two have whites. I hope that makes sense.

>>8901898
>It is popular on /lit/ to claim Lacan is a foolish hack. These claims, buttressed powerfully by the authority of Sokal and Bricmont, tend to defuse any possibility of discussing the French analyst before it gets itself off the ground.

Read what you wrote. You can't even express yourself clearly.

Why the fuck should I listen to you or your apologies for that fucking stupid hack?

>>8901938
>Nobody worth responding to would claim he's actually a hack.

great way to shut off all criticism and retreat forever into the comfiness of your totally ineffectual ivory tower bubble. get a fucking life man

>>8904913
Don't bother. He's an obscurantist fraud.

>>8905192
What is there to disagree with?

All that I can untangle from his purposefully unreadable writing (which, by the way, is a giant "fuck you" to anyone who isn't a feminized nu-male who gets turned on by punishment from big daddy logos) is that there are three "registers" (whatever the fuck that means) to our perceptions of reality (already you can tell that we're already too vague to be of any use to anybody, might as well kill us now):

1. Imaginary:

What (you think) is.

2. Symbolic:

What (you think) ought to be.

3. Real

What (REALLY) is.

And that's perfectly inoffensive. It's a little boring, but it's a somewhat elegant way of slicing up a post-kantian world.

Oh, and of course none of these registers are really TRULY anything that we just said they were--no, that would be way too simple, and we academics love to safeguard themselves against actually fucking saying anything of any significance to anybody, god forbid.

Oh yeah, and there's also the mirror stage, the mythical (not that it matters, I'm sure you're going to explain away it's broadness and vagueness using some verbal feint or sleight of hand) moment where a babby sees a mirror and realizes that it's not a bunch of feelings and images floating around but a real cohesive being. This epiphany moment (which speaks to the very soul of every narcissistic, navel-gazing froggie cunt) is so YUGE that it follows you around forever cause it was somehow such a big deal that babby was actually babby (oh, and of course, it's just an unspoken given that every infant sees a mirror, even in pre-industrial societies and antiquity, in the same way that Freud's theory assumes that there are no orphans or people with gay dads or one parent or whatever).

Regardless of my criticisms of the non-universality of these supposedly universal experiences, I fail to see how these myths have any value beyond a purely poetic one.

And if they were just poetry, then they should have been clearer, and more poetic.

>>8905266
you're a fool, in a very noble medieval sense

why on earth do you read shit if you don't understand it? do you like wasting time or feeling stupid? why fritter away your god-given gifts of reason and reading comprehension like that?

>>8905496
ya maybe to an infinitely far left faggit, yes.

but look at Glenn Beck, Donald Trump, or even fucking Milo Yannniapolos and tell me again that Lacan (the guy who doesn't believe that we can understand reality) is a conservative

>>8907374
>pathological narcissist
>narcissistic outlet

you are right, but you have been taken in by an even larger charlatan... guess who!

>>8909130
iktf. I feel the meat of the stuff is like 10 to 15 words, tops

>>8911145
its the same "you are pathetic and will be alone forever" tripe

read beckett's book on proust if you dont believe me

>>8911813
> the guy who doesn't believe that we can understand reality

Precisely why he is a conservative. He believes that "reality" (as opposed to the "real") cannot be separated from our fantasies of it and the only change possible is at that level because a radical change (revolution) would mean dissonance between individual fantasies and official (state, academic, etc.) fantasy and therefore into a repressive bureaucracy. As an added bonus, Deleuze even says that psychoanalysts speak "priestly" and reactive about desire (always showing its worst sides).


>>8911801
Not that I disagree, but there is a bit more to it than that. Imaginary includes "is" and "ought" because both are schematisms (images, formulas, etc. of what the world is or should be). The Imaginary is something of an overloaded term because it contains all sensation as well (all perception rather), internal or external.

The Symbolic is the most dubious Lacanian concept since it involves only the unconscious (having effects in experience, but never being made obvious by experience. always requiring interpretation). The Symbolic is basically the background of all activity, creating all relationships between Imaginary phenomena and therefore making possible things such as authority, that are not reduced to images, but rather imply a certain relationship with images. Deleuze & Guattari make fun of psychoanalysis on this point because although the Symbolic sounds like something deep and important, psychoanalysts are unable to treat it as such and always revert to "mommy" and "daddy" for everything. Why is a certain philosopher nihilistic? Daddy issues, he clearly had a trouble with authority. Or mommy issues, he clearly had problems with desire and therefore libidinal investment (hence the world meaning nothing), etc. There are endless combinations, which is why there is no precision in these things as far as I know (but then again I'm not a psychoanalyst, maybe there is more to it than that).

The Real isn't just what really is, but also excess among other things. So for example, the Symbolic Real (because the three registers intertwine so you get not just S, R, I, but also SI, SR, IR, etc.) is that which cannot be integrated into authority for example. You get the surface of authority (dress code, directives, etc.) and then all kinds of phenomena that seem outside of it and maybe even make it impossible, but in fact are closely related to it and even sustain it. Zizek exemplifies this with obscene army march songs.


> babby sees a mirror and realizes that it's not a bunch of feelings and images floating around but a real cohesive being
> oh, and of course, it's just an unspoken given that every infant sees a mirror, even in pre-industrial societies and antiquity

As far as I know, Lacan's point was related to the way the child internalizes the fact that his movements correspond to those in the mirror. A body of water or someone's eyes works just as well.

>>8911801
(continued from >>8912032)

> Freud's theory assumes that there are no orphans or people with gay dads or one parent or whatever

The point is not about fathers and mothers, but Father figures and Mother figures.

File: 1b5.png (93KB, 331x429px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 331x429px

>>8905365
>Hermeneutics

>>8907666
Does it amount to an "everything is a mask therefore it's ok to wear a fancy one" sort of thing? Because Zizek's usual response and it's not that great.