Jacques Lacan

>>9633432
*?

>>9633432
Take the redpill and drop all continental philosophy, marxism, and psychoanalysis which are all wrong.

Go for Moldbug, Hitler, and Evola. We have to reclaim our white lands

File: Hol Up.jpg (152KB, 972x705px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 972x705px

>>9633432
Get A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis by Bruce Fink

File: 9780820311302-us-300.jpg (31KB, 300x458px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x458px

>>9633432
not a meme, worth reading. this is a good intro.

>>9633444
you can still read continental phil and be redpilled.

File: foucault08.jpg (61KB, 349x470px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 349x470px

>>9633444
>not realizing continental philosophy lets you be redpilled without people even knowing

File: e0a66982177ea373270e69b9b4cb9e84.jpg (29KB, 523x372px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 523x372px

>>9633534
this. young foucault looks like just a regular dude

then he got into philosophy and he became a sadomasochistic god of discourse torture surveillance and punishment and his hair knew the kinds of thoughts he was having and was like fuck this we're outta here

>>9633432
There was a thread yesterday if that may help you :
>>9626199

>>9633466
>>9633477
>>9633524
>>9633582
Thank you all. My question is rather which of his books should I read first.

>>9633665

Anika Lemaire's book is very good in that it situations Lacan less against Freud as against Structuralism and linguistics of which Lemaire provides a fairly straightforward and scholarly literature review.

>>9633432

In my opinion, it'd be best to just start with seminar I or II, having already read the texts on Freud.

Most Lacanian commentators have some kind of agenda they try to read into him.

Fink is good, but better when taken with a huge grain of salt.

>>9633477


>>9633444

>>9633534

Why would you want to take anypill? Redpill/bluepill are just systems of indoctrination. The fact that it's bitten from a wachowski brothers/sisters movie should send up warning signals. Truth isn't a drug.

>>9633847
>Redpill/bluepill are just systems of indoctrination.

Because the redpill is a metaphor for not being indoctrinated retard

>>9633847
thank you

>The fact that it's bitten from a wachowski brothers/sisters movie should send up warning signals.
kek. it should

>>9633869

The reverse of indoctrination is still indoctrination...

Reality always has more than two sides.

Can someone familiar with Lacan please describe his basic epistemology to me? Or the basic epistemology of psychoanalysis in general?

I am more familiar with transcendental philosophy and phenomenology and I never know "where I'm supposed to be starting," in terms of mental contents, when I think psychoanalytically. How much of it purports to be a real, descriptive, depth psychology? What do psychoanalysts take themselves to be doing that is different from a fairly psychologistic transcendental philosophy, for example?

>>9633999
>Reality always has more than two sides.

No it doesn't you fucking idiot. Go read Lacan and get up to scratch on the Real

>>9634012
>What do psychoanalysts take themselves to be doing that is different from a fairly psychologistic transcendental philosophy, for example?

Nothing, that's the entire point

>>9634021

>No support of statement
>No works cited
>Swearing
>Intelligence-based insult

Sad...

>>9634012

Lacan consistently criticizes philosophers (although he also refers to them a lot). In seminar II, I believe, he tends to call them "dentists".

Psychoanalysis, as per Lacan's reading is more about mistakes and absences, disruptions in discourse which refer to an originary presence, which always remains nebulous. Even if one did have a phallus, one wouldn't just whip it out and wave it around unless one wanted it to get lopped off. He discusses this in his analysis of Cupid and Psyche in the Seminar on Transference. As soon as Psyche learns what's going on, she drops the lantern and cupid gets what's coming to him.

In Husserl, one is still approaching a formalizable truth which is an explication of an informal, unclear reality. Lacan likes formalism too (hence, mathemes), but these are themselves supposed to be genetic (he made them up). They're not archetypes or forms that he merely discovered. The (in)famous four discourses describe ways that communication/exchange is interrupted, not encouraged.

>>9633544
>his hair knew the kinds of thoughts he was having and was like fuck this we're outta here

Topkek

File: 305182.png (55KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 700x700px

>>9633847
>truth isn't a drug

that's where you're wrong kiddo

>>9634314

OK, you got me. But what kind of intoxication? Are we stuck saying that it can't be a good kind of intoxication, and must be morally neutral?

>>9634496
>intoxication

Poison.

>>9634065
>Psychoanalysis, as per Lacan's reading is more about mistakes and absences, disruptions in discourse which refer to an originary presence,
>communication/exchange is interrupted, not encouraged.
>these are themselves supposed to be genetic (he made them up).

So why isn't deconstruction or Deleuzian philosophy much superior to it, inasmuch as both of them drop psychoanalysis as well?

I still don't understand the epistemology of Lacanian psychoanalysis, then. What privileges the methods of the analyst as opposed to the philosopher? What privileges the constructs of Lacan, over anyone else's?

Continental philosophy seems silly to me. It also seems to be the source of a lot of cognitively dissonant ideologies, like the SJWisms and critical theorists who currently infest universities.

Redpill me on continental philosophy.

>>9634765
it's gay and so is reading, forget about books and literature and get out of this faggy board before you turn homo

>>9634751
>What privileges the methods of the analyst as opposed to the philosopher?

The analyst deals with transference. This is the essence of the analytic relationship. Ever get into a transferential relationship with a philosopher? Most of the time, it's not pretty.

>So why isn't deconstruction or Deleuzian philosophy much superior to it, inasmuch as both of them drop psychoanalysis as well?

As far as I'm aware, both Deleuze and Derrida acknowledged heavy influence of Freud. In his magnum opii (Difference and Repetition and Logic of Sense), Deleuze also shows influence of Lacan. I also read in a biography of Deleuze that Lacan praised Difference and Repetition.

It's only in Deleuze's work with Guattari, which, imho, is garbage, that psychoanalysis is denigrated. Derrida could in some ways be interpreted as universalizing the psychoanalytic interpretative method, having subtracted the metaphysical residues. However, it was these very residues which allowed for Psychoanalysis to have the effects that it did.

TL;DR: Deleuze and Derrida are heavily influenced by Psychoanalysis. They're both lots of fun to read about, but ultimately Psychoanalysis is more useful.

>>9634765
Start with the Greeks, I mean Hegel/Fichte/Schelling

>>9634782
>The analyst deals with transference.

So you're defending actual therapeutic psychoanalysis, which I guess is fine. I'd probably still disagree with you on that, but that's another topic altogether so it's not a big deal here.

>As far as I'm aware, both Deleuze and Derrida acknowledged heavy influence of Freud.

Sure, and Heidegger, and Spinoza, and everybody else. But that's not what we're talking about. To use the analogy, we'd be talking about whether Deleuze is carrying out a Spinozist project because he was influenced by Spinoza.

Clearly he isn't, but that's not even the point either. My point is basically this:
>subtracted the metaphysical residues. However, it was these very residues which allowed for Psychoanalysis to have the effects that it did.

So, what are those "metaphysical residues?" What is the "[thing that] allow[s] psychoanalysis to be effective?" It's the "thing" that I'm interested in. What is it that makes psychoanalysis useful, outside a therapeutic context? In a philosophical context? In a social theoretical context?

>>9634826
I'm not the person you are replying to, but transference and practice of analysis actually are the core of the job. Theory always comes in a second time, and again it's to enlighten the practice. Psychoanalysis only as an intellectualism is I think quite a blindness.

>>9634772
I feel like there's some crucial information we're both missing here.

>>9634807
I will, thank you, but I'm curious what your opinions are.

>>9634826
>So you're defending actual therapeutic psychoanalysis

This statement is confusing to me. What is Psychoanalysis if not a form of therapy? Freud didn't know or care at all about Philosophy and openly admitted so. He cared about psychopathology, and this is where he shines. The oedipus complex, for instance, is not a reality, but a systematic delusion.

>what are those "metaphysical residues?" What is the "[thing that] allow[s] psychoanalysis to be effective?"

You're talking to me like I know everything. I'm guessing you have a problem with hysteria. Ha! Anyway, sorry... It's storming very hard where I am and I'm thus getting nervous.

Anyway, how would I know this "thing"...?

As I noted above, Freud didn't give a rip about metaphysics. Neither did Lacan. They both tended to ridicule anybody who did. Metaphysics, for both of them, was a form of pathology, as far as I can tell. We all conjure up structures to suit our own personal proclivities, and protect ourselves from "reality". They both made careers out of delineating common and recurrent structures.

Ever notice how when people try to be "random", they tend to fall into certain patterns? Like that.

>>9634864

The problem is not continental philosophy, it's materialism, jaded professors, and people dragging their personal pathologies out for public approval.

I have a feeling you're baiting though, so out with whatever it is you want to say.

>>9634859
This.

>>9634906
Well, that would be you projecting then. Thanks for the reading list anyway.

>>9634874
No worries at all and I hope I'm not coming across like an asshole here. I am just genuinely curious. I don't even have answers to basic questions like this:
>The oedipus complex, for instance, is not a reality, but a systematic delusion.

I honestly don't know what Freud really thought, let alone what Lacan did. Like, what does this mean? A delusion for whom?

Is the oedipus complex a "structure" within the (un)conscious mind? Is it at least "real" insofar as its sublimated "logic," it's somehow-intelligible impulses to action, *are* somehow intelligible, to the "deluded" person who holds them? This:

>We all conjure up structures to suit our own personal proclivities, and protect ourselves from "reality". They both made careers out of delineating common and recurrent structures.

This seems to be exactly that metaphysical commitment: "These structures are really real, inside the mind so diagnosed."

But everything does this, these days. Nietzsche's second nature, Marx's false consciousness, Foucauldian genealogy or hermeneutics of the self, Heidegger's destruction and Derrida's deconstruction, etc. Lots of things. What about Lacan in particular really makes him so useful? If Lacan is more or less a "hermeneutic of suspicion," like these other guys, aimed at remedying or understanding (at least to some degree) structures of sublimation or false consciousness, what about his methods is particularly useful?

Is it just transference? Then why all the descriptive apparatus?! What about the DESCRIPTIVE apparatus, i.e., as social scientists and critics apply it to society at large, is more "right" than any other hermeneutic of suspicion?

That's what I can never understand.

>>9634859
That I would kind of understand, at least. But social theorists seem to be the major Lacanian camp. I knew some professor of classics who was a mirror theorist type, applying it all over the place to people who have been dead for thousands of years. And of course there's Zizek.

>>9634918
>whose delusion is oedipus?

The developing child's, and the regressed neurotic's.

>Is it at least "real" insofar as its sublimated "logic," it's somehow-intelligible impulses to action, *are* somehow intelligible, to the "deluded" person who holds them?

This structure is not something which is held or remembered, as we see in platonism. It's the location of a fundamental and insurmountable inadequacy. It has nothing to do with the mind and everything to do with its lack in aborted meaning-structures that recur.

This isn't about suspicion, but about pathology itself. Freud's thought was essentially an attempt to make sense of that which is itself senseless.

>>9634948
>This structure is not something which is held or remembered
>aborted meaning-structures that recur.

I guess I don't understand what "aborted" or "recur" mean in contradistinction to being "held" (presumably consciously and reflectively?). Also don't understand what "meaning" means in this context.

Is there anything I can read on exactly this topic, on the metaphysics of consciousness that you're describing right here? I know the likely answer is "8 works of Freud and Seminars 3, 8, and 9 of Lacan" but I mean something more like a secondary source that is reasonably accessible.

I'm not a newbie to continental philosophy so I can read at a reasonably high level of complexity as long as the source is thoroughgoing. I just want the conceptual architectonic of psychoanalysis - I want to know its ontological commitments (e.g., "thought contains or is influenced by 'structures'").

>>9634920
I don't really read that literature so I can't say much about it. Some of my philosophy professors sometimes took some elements from Lacan and it was interesting, but as I said it sounded quite "offset" from a psychoanalytic consideration which is more practice based.

Regarding your other post >>9634918 :
The descriptive apparatus in Lacan is not so much about a social utility, it's an "utility" for the patient (and this word of "utility" is not the best, Freud showed worst symptoms also have an "utility" in psychic economy). Some developments are enlightening on social scale, but it also comes from a clinician practice to begin with (it's not out of the blue as a consideration on the social world). All the things about "to cease on one's desire" quite fit with a lot of people life : it's the easiest thing to do (by example, working 8 to 5 everyday in a hated job with a wilted life. If you were to talk about eternal return, you'd choose not to be born again). These developments are deeply subversive on a political point of view. The developments about the Four Discourses are also interesting (discourse of the master, of the university, of the hysteric, of the analyst if you want to look it up). Again, the political implications are enormous, but I'm not well-read enough to resume what all of this is about, maybe someone else will.

The "usefulness" of Lacan in psychoanalysis is said by his advocates and himself to be a return to Freud's discovery. He considered US and British psychoanalysis to be engulfed in ego-psychology (privileging the "I" and abandoning more or less the unconsciousness) and in counter-transference "passion" (this is not his word, it's mine, I don't know how to better talk about it). If I wanted to badly caricature this counter-transference "passion", that would be a story as such : "My patient tells me this, I feel that, why? Let's write an entire article about how I associate on this and why I feel that way. Anyway nobody cares about the patient". So, kind of a narcissism problem with the analyst, but the problem is deeper than that. You can find that especially in Ecrits : "The freudian thing, or Sense of the return to Freud in psychoanalysis". He asked himself about what should be the analyst's desire in a cure (you can find that in the Ecrits : "Direction of the cure and principles of its power").
The major shift from Freud to Lacan was an interest and a development on the question of desire (developments on the concept of the "objet a"), where Freud was more talking about drives. But once again it's a bad caricature and I'm not cultured enough to talk about it.

>>9635042
Also, since I was talking about "usefulness", you can explicitly find in "The freudian thing or Sense of the return to Freud in psychoanalysis" the following attack :

" But its practice in the American sphere has so summarily degenerated into a means of obtaining "success"* and into a mode of demanding "happiness" that it must be pointed out that this constitutes a repudiation of psychoanalysis, a repudiation that occurs among too many of its adherents due to the pure and simple fact that they have never wanted to know anything about Freud's discovery, and that they will never know anything about it, even in the way implied by repression: for what is at work here is the mechanism of systematic misrecognition insofar as it simulates delusion, even in its group forms. "

>>9633544
Fucking lel

>>9635019

Walter Davis, I think, does a decent job covering it in his book on "Inwardness and Existence". Also my thesis, desu.

You actually remind me of someone who was on my committee....

>>9634948
Could you please explain more thoroughly ?

>>9636888
Dunno what you want explained. You didn't specify anything and everything as it's been laid out seems to be perfectly clear to me.

>>9636972
not that guy but count me as the third person who has no idea what the fuck youre saying in that other post

you use a bunch of terms without explaining them

>>9633544
if there is any justice in the world this will be in every /lit/ humor thread

>>9636972
I have clues about what you're talking because I read some psychoanalysis, but you talk quite like I knew everything you're talking about, which I don't! As >>9635019 and probably >>9637000 , I don't get the part :
>aborted meaning-structures that recur

>>9637020 here
>>9636972
Now that I think of it, are you talking about fixations/regressions ?

>>9637020
"Aborted meaning structures that recur". Freud describes development as a progression through a series of complexes. If one doesn't resolve each developmental complex, life continues to move forward, and the person will continue to return to this unresolved stage. Kinda like if you're never toilet-trained, you might be able to develop other aspects of your life, but you will continue to return to that as an unresolved issue, if only because life necessarily demands that you will have it figured out. Complexes are like that.

Case in point: oedipus complex. Freud is often said to claim that "we all wanna slam our mums and kill our dads" or something like that. This is a misrepresentation. What Freud said is that there is a specific stage of development where this desire is what we use to structure our world. For obvious reasons, if we don't move beyond this stage, we become pathological/mentally ill.

What Lacan did is that he showed how these structures (e.g. the oedipus complex) can be identified even on the surface of language. Take the collapse of metaphor, for instance. If one says "the early bird gets the worm", but actually believes that a worm is somehow related to his or her reward, it's clear that something has gone wrong. The signifier and the signified are being merged.

Similarly, any desire to return to one's origins can be seen as a manifestation of the oedipus complex.

>>9637244
Very much more clear, thank you! I get it right about fixations the first time I guess.

>The signifier and the signified are being merged.
Isn't that what Lacan calls craziness per se? Taking the word literally for what it is

>>9637261

Yes, this is what leads to psychosis. If I forget or refuse to acknowledge that symbols are symbols, life becomes incomprehensible VERY quickly. Also leads to paranoia because symbols seems to impose on one's life/spirit/whatever.

>>9633847
At least there's anon's like you.

There's hope for /lit/ yet.

>>9633444
lol

>>9633444

I unironically like those authors, but I still laughed out loud at this post.