Jacques Lacan

I'm still only in the 1800s.
I'll answer in autumn.

>>9633919
Because /lit/ are for the vast majority existentialist atheists (or "Atheist/Post-Christians") and Lacans approach to the mind incorporates these presuppositions into a coherent framework for understanding the mind and desire.
Most critics who simply dismiss him outright I have found just simply have not had the ability or willingness to actually engage with his work at all so their dismissals are meaningless.

He viewed himself as a continuation of Freud's work and the exact differences between them are rather complex and debatable.
Jung is a joke, no discernable talent especially when viewed from a Lacanian perspective his ideas were ludicrous.

>>9633919
Pure fraud, can't be excused by historical relevance like Freud or aesthetics like Jung and therefore not remotely worth engaging with

>>9634045
Lacan may have been an atheist, but you'd never have guessed it from his writings/lectures. He repeatedly discusses the pathologies associated with atheism.

Most famous:

"If there is no god, then nothing is permitted"

In the context of a discussion of the weird neurotic-allergic obsessiveness of atheists towards all things moral.

>>9634282
>Jung
>Aesthetics

Wut? It always seemed to me that Jung kinda took an amalgam of Neoplatonism, some unnamed kind of Gnosticism, and Christianity, watered them all down, and blended them together, without explicitly acknowledging his sources.

That said, I don't want to sound anti-Jung because he was more interesting than 98% of psychological theorists out there.

>>9634045
>Jung is a joke

Why is he so influential and popular today among your average pleb compared to Freud? Everything he thought was from Freud plus a bunch of stupid crap.

I guess I'm happy about that, because the masses can fucking eat shit.

>>9634557

Lol. Pretty sure Freud is more influential, at least as a joke. Jung definitely fills the role of wisemanphilosophermagus for a lot of people, especially those afraid of any kind of theism.

>>9633919
Lacan was very well-versed in philosophy (unlike Freud, who denied having read much philosophy), specifically Hegel, who is also quite popular on /lit/, and who is similarly dense. Lacan also references literature in interesting ways, and also focuses heavily on language in his theories of the unconscious, it makes sense he would be popular on a board of writers and people who analyze and discuss literature.

>>9634557
>Why is he so influential and popular today among your average pleb compared to Freud?

Most people have no idea who Carl Jung is, but they know who Freud is. Psychoanalysis, as much as people associate it with things like the Oedipus complex, cigar-as-penis, and Freudian slips, is considered crazy, esoteric, and outdated by the masses anyways, they don't differentiate between Freudianism, Jungianism, Lacanianism, Adlerian thought or any other psychoanalytic school or derivation.

>>9634828
wrong dude. wrong.

Hero's journey, archetypes, personality types, collective unconscious. All this shit is rampant today, like taught in grade school English rampant. You see people everywhere talking about synchronicities and Myers Briggs.

I'd bet .2 BTC if a study was done on Freud and Jungs influence on the popular discourse Jung would come out waaaay on top

>>9634557

>plus a bunch of stupid crap.

Look out. Intellectual heavy hitter on deck.

>>9634519
That's bullshit. Lacan was preaching to priests, used concepts such as The Name of the Father, advocated reading the texts of the Church's fathers as preparation for analysis, invented the triad known as the Borromean Knot (found on the confessional box as it was Carlos Borromeo who invented it and the knot was on his family's sigil), had a jesuit as the vice-president, etc.

He wasn't a fraud in the sense of not having actual content since he had plenty of interesting concepts, but he was an opportunist who died a millionaire due to short sessions and shilling to christians despite having been a bit of a womanizer.

If you engage with him just be like Zizek and make his concepts work for you.

>>9635528
You're a deluded retard. Jung didn't invent the idea of archtypes or synchronicity. These are ancient mysticism that can be seen fully developed in Ancient Greece among others. All Jung did was try and give them psychological legitimacy.

>>9635542
>died a millionaire due to short sessions

Dude you realize if you book an hour with an analyst he has committed to that hour even if it ends super early?
You can call him lazy but he wasn't making any extra money from that

>>9635563
You're totally wrong, retard. Not even gonna bother breaking down the nonsense you just spouted.

>>9635571
Well that's convenient

>>9635570
Maybe, but I'm not sure that was the case with Lacan. He supposedly had a very large number of patients per day, far more than it was possible with the rules you metioned. Besides, the few Parisian Lacanians I know of do it as well, one of them bragged about having 30 patients a day.

>>9635576
All I'm gonna say is that's as stupid as saying Sophocles invented the Oedipus complex. You're either mentally deficient or know nothing about history.

>>9635589
Fag.