Can anyone explain Zizek? What the fuck has Freud got to do with Marx?

They were both German.

Read Lacan.

File: Reich-W.jpg (18KB, 215x260px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 215x260px

Looks like somebody didn't read his history of philosophy.

Nothing, continentals like pseudoscientific garbage so they just merge the worst parts of marx with psychoanalysis.
And zizek is an attention whore who enjoys being controversial.

>>9122822

>read a charlatan

Makes sense. Charlatans do combo's of impossible things all the time.

>>9122808
From what I remember reading the first few pages of his most famous book (never read beyond that), both Freud and Marx brought into conceptualisation the concept of the 'symptom' and that is not for us to examine what lays behind what we are examining, dreams for example but that we ought to investigate the dream itself and why it occurs.

>>9122808
Marxist critique of ideology drawn from readings of popular culture, focalised through a lacanian perspective.

>>9122831
>Nothing, continentals like pseudoscientific garbage

Stopped reading right there. You're one of those retards that actually thinks science and non-science can be demarcated.

>>9122831
This.

>>9122840
>I'm too dumb to understand him so he's a charlatan

ok.

>>9122857
Cool, next time you get sick try homeopathy instead of medicine, we can't really tell which one is more valid after all :^)

>>9122871
I believe one is more valid, that isn't to say one *is* move valid.

>What the fuck has Freud got to do with Marx?

>https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=691002
>Paul Ricoeur famously dubbed that great triumvirate of late nineteenth - and early twentieth-century thought - Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud - "the school of suspicion," by which he meant those thinkers who taught us to regard with suspicion our conscious understandings and experience, whether the deliverances of ordinary psychological introspection about one's desires ("I really want to be rich!"), or the moral categories political leaders and ordinary citizens apply to themselves and the social world they inhabit ("an inheritance tax is an immoral death tax!"). "Beneath" or "behind" the surface lay causal forces that explained the conscious phenomena precisely because they laid bare the true meaning of those phenomena: I don't really want lots of money, I want the love I never got as a child; survivors have no moral claim on an inheritance, but it is in the interests of the ruling classes that we believe they do; and so on.

>>9122866

He fucking charged people a significant amount of cash for his short as fuck sessions just because he was "hon hon hon" le fabuleux psychoanalyst, n'est pas?
Fuck you.

>>9122878

bad move, bb

appeal to efficacy in the face of uncertainty, not indeterminacy as such

>>9122897
implying you wouldn't take free money if you could

lmao, nice try pal

>>9122816
No, they weren't. They were Jewish.

>>9122878
Answered like a true continental.
If we define its validity as its chance to fullfil its role (aka to cure your sickness), the one with extensive research proving its success in controlled experiments is objectively more valid than the one proving the opposite. But whatever, arguing with you retards is pointless, it always derives into solipsism.

>>9122899
>he hasn't read on certainty

lol

>>9122897
>he charged MONEY to do his JOB

>>9122908
I'm not a continental, retard.

Superstition is the belief in the causal nexus.

In other words, read Hume you fucking retard.

>>9122909

i have. where do you see an inconsistency between my recommendation and w's collection of deathbed scribblings?

>>9122911

Charlatans do jobs yes, like scamming the fuck out of you.
But nice of you to defend him, your cultural hero. Can't do anything wrong because he is the historical name "Lacan". I'm sure if he fucked a kid you'd put it "in context", you fucking team playing son of a bitch.

read kuhn

>>9122918
Only accepting logical deductions implies solipsism, which is exactly what I said.

"Another great Lacan scam was his “variable-length session”, a fancy way to justify bilking his therapy patients out of money. Throughout his life, Lacan slowly decreased the time he spent with each patient; what began as nearly an hour of psychoanalysis later dwindled to only a few minutes. The whole affair was extremely lucrative, with Lacan charging between 300-500 Francs in the late 1970s. And, if you were an aspiring student of Lacan, you too were required to pay to get on his couch."

Yup. Charlatan.
But don't expect /lit/ to see the scam in this.

>>9122892
Ty

>>9122937
>>9122930
>lemme just ignore his contributions to philosophy, linguistics and psychoanalysis (becayse i don't get it lol) to talk about this minor controversial detail of his business practices instead

>>9122937
Chomsky knew him personally.
>Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in a while but quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan, just posturing before the television cameras the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential I haven’t the slightest idea I dont see anything that should be influential
>Some of the people in these cults (which is what they look like to me) I’ve met: Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible — he speaking French, me English); Lacan (who I met several times and considered an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I’ve discussed it in print); Kristeva (who I met only briefly during the period when she was a fervent Maoist); and others.

>>9122947

Maybe we should talk about L. Ron Hubbard his contributions to charity as well, instead of focussing on the scams that happen with and within Scientology?

File: 1418802502366.png (36KB, 666x408px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 666x408px

>continentals
Not even once.

>Lacan was a known scam artist
>"h-he made contributions to philosophy because of his cultish following trapped in his scams"

Aaaah. Ok. Seems like I should take those contributions very seriously then.

"One of Lacan's students happened to be Felix Guattari, who, with French philosopher Gilles Deleuze, would eventually become famous for being one of Lacan’s greatest critics. Guattari was originally part of the Lacanian cult, a star student who paid for the privilege of driving Lacan home after his seminar. It was, Lacan argued, a part of the psychoanalysis."

LMFAO
Continentals are fucking gold.

>>9122983
>>9122972
>>9122959
>>9122958
>>9122937

Going to go out on a limb and assume you haven't read Écrits.

>b-but look at all these facts I got from Wikipedia!

>>9123005

You should read Joseph Smith too.
His contribution to religion was extremely profound after he read golden plates in a hat.

>>9122983
>Guattari was originally part of the Lacanian cult, a star student who paid for the privilege of driving Lacan home after his seminar. It was, Lacan argued, a part of the psychoanalysis.

Girardfag get in here and justify this shit

You almost had me reading Lacan and now I'm backing out again

File: 1382037068335.jpg (60KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x375px

>>9122983
That is incredible.

>>9123017
>justify this shit

it was just bantz m8

>>9123017

You should read it like most systems of ideas which emerge from Charles Manson tier figures: entertain them and draw your own conclusions. Don't become a /lit/tard who gets personally offended when their cultural hero gets shown for the scumbag he actually was.

It seems like the birthers of ideas are, a lot of the time, a bunch of thieves, scumbags and charlatans. Tricksters in a way. So take it with a grain of salt and never ever allow yourself to become part of a team with "noble pursuits".

>>9122808
What is libidinal economy?

>>9122905
And you're a meme.

Most people are just too dumb to understand Lacan, D&G, and the like. They're among the greatest geniuses to have ever lived.