Lacan thread

I see what it is that you "think" your conclusions take you to, my dearest fellow, but I must respectfully disagree. Only a limited, average intelligence could perhaps come to such a repugnant plateau in the dialectical unfolding of man's thought... Jung's insights.. though imaginative and lending to a deeper understanding of man's archetypes.. betrays a misunderstanding of Jouissance that no doubts exposes a Swiss understanding of the world.. (those swiss, thinking "mechanics" of the psyche as only a Swiss watchmaker could!!).. your terms betray your metaphoric and analogical network to be... trapped in a mechanical-ratiocination complex.. if you were to castrate your phallocentric dreamscapes... you would come to understand the kabbalistic freudianisms and lacanian madness to be.. the perfect reflection of Geist...

I have neglected to mention however.. the Schizoanalysis of Deleuze and Guattari... but that material perhaps evades your simple comprehension..

10/10 kek'd out loud

>mfw jung starts singing during our session

Preach!

Keep going droog
Tell us what you know

perhaps.. the Darkness inherent in the fractal Nature of Man's Unconscious... perhaps within that symbolic Darkness.. we could encounter.. The Real.. but not insofar as we would only grasp The Imaginary of The Real, or even The Symbolic of The Real.. perhaps, beyond the Sublimity of The Real Real.. therein lies.. a Subsubconscious™. A Realm yet unexplored by even the titanic likes of Lacan (that Frenchman.. a Libertine of the Imaginative Realm) or Freud.. (The True Author of Austrian Modernism!! Musil and Kraus be Damned!) But my Research is written in a Language yet Unspoken within Minerva's Tower.. Though the Owl flies at Night from her Battlements.. Yet I shall continue... the Shinichi Mochizuki of Psychoanalysis.. the Teichmüller of Trauma.. Plumbing the number fields and elliptic curves of the human mind..

10/10

>man created society, not the other way around
So is "man" just an unchanging abstract entity? Are there not any changes in society from generation to generation? Does "man" have control over the thing he's created?

...

Take society. Remove all humans. What is left?

is this the radical taking to the end of psychoanalysis?

L m a o thats the best (you) I ever got

No, telepathy and orgone are.

houses and piggies

what's oregano?

Sounds like post-Baudrillardism (Baudrillard deconstructed with the methods of Baudrillard)

Banter aside, Lacan, Deleuze, Freud and Guattari were all manchildren. Lacan and D&G had a little fight after the publication of Anti Oedipe, which d&g wrote in secrecy like schoolboys. Freud was mad that Jung rejected his pathological 'psychoanalysis'. I know two lacanian analysts, one is quite old and completely mental because of death anxiety, the other infinitely pretentious. That's the power of freudian analysis and its derivatives.
Jung is the wise monk eyeing the philistines below, while freud and his clique are painfully pulling on their dick to invoke awe upon their peers. Psychoanalysts who couldn't get through the most basic mental barriers.

always lol at that quote of D&G when meeting actual schizos and freaking out at the crazies, can't deal with them at all, i guess philosophical schizos are easier to handle

He is the worst of the worst. A champion of nonsense. Note that you must be very careful not to insult him if you want to ever bed a french or argentinian cutie.
>Other critics have dismissed Lacan's work wholesale. François Roustang called it an "incoherent system of pseudo-scientific gibberish", and quoted linguist Noam Chomsky's opinion that Lacan was an "amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan".[108] The former Lacanian analyst, Dylan Evans, eventually dismissed Lacanianism as lacking a sound scientific basis and as harming rather than helping patients, and has criticized Lacan's followers for treating his writings as "holy writ".[39] Richard Webster has decried what he sees as Lacan's obscurity, arrogance, and the resultant "Cult of Lacan".[109] Others have been more forceful still, describing him as "The Shrink from Hell"[110][111] and listing the many associates—from lovers and family to colleagues, patients, and editors—left damaged in his wake.

>left damaged in his wake
he was a literal chad irl
>posting sokal
sokal was btfo by derrida

>he was a literal chad irl
Any charismatic cult leader is a type of chad. A chad for retards, yes, but a still a chad
>derrida
Don't make me laugh. That philosophical midget cant btfo an ant

> Sokal

Who?

I think everybody knows that psychobabble is just that, psychobabble. Of course this is Veeky Forums, so I might be wrong.

>Lacan and Freud have great insights into man and society. Extroverted insights if you will. But their extroverted attitude limits them in fully understanding the mechanics of the psyche.

...

...

>In this brief excerpt from a December, 2012 interview with Veterans Unplugged, Chomsky is asked about the ideas of Slavoj Žižek, Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida. The M.I.T. scholar, who elsewhere has described some of those figures and their followers as "cults," doesn't mince words:
>What you're referring to is what's called "theory." And when I said I'm not interested in theory, what I meant is, I'm not interested in posturing--using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there's no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can't. So I'm not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don't see anything to what he's saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven't the slightest idea. I don't see anything there that should be influential.
Ruins you're pomo fun

>something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old.

Wow he actually said this

Analytic and Continental philosophers hate each other, more news at 7

>What is that about, again, the academy and Chomsky and so on? Well with all deep respect that I do have for Chomsky, my first point is that Chomsky who always emphasises how one has to be empirical, accurate, not just some crazy Lacanian speculations and so on… well I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empirically wrong in his descriptions in his whatever! Let’s look… I remember when he defended against this demonization of Khmer Rouge. And he wrote a couple of texts claiming: “no this is western propaganda. Khmer Rouge are not as horrible as that.” And when later he was compelled to admit that Khmer Rouge were not the nicest guys in the universe and so on, his defence was quite shocking for me. It was that “no, with the data that we had at that point, I was right. At that point we didn’t yet know enough, so… you know” but I totally reject this line of reasoning.

there's another clip of Chomsky complaining about the exact opposite, he states that TV interviews are set up to be too short so you can't substantiate claims against the status quo because there isn't enough time to present evidence

Chomsky isn't analytic autism-general though

Yes and he's correct

>Zizek
"In thish moment *sniff*, by means of pershonal feelings and sho on *swish*, I am in what Lacan would call the jouissance. But not becauje, you know, of any phony liberalism and totalitarianist ideology. Political, buddhism materialism and sho on. No, no *snort*... But becauje, you see, *swallows fly* of marxshist dialectic in the sense of the foucaultian genealogical method, *tugs shirt* there is this *sniff* enlightened shuffering that comes with tolerance, genocide, *unintentional voiced linguolabial trill* anti semitism, analogous to *wipes nose* some religious prophecy *sweats profusely* and sho on! *snort*"

Holy fuck this isn't a meme quote he really said that

>Chomsky isn't analytic autism-general though

He absolutely is though, he's just not good at it so falls back on the tradition without understanding it himself. The worst form of dilettante. Zizek for all you may want to criticize him for is actually a philosopher and understands the school he comes from