Jacque Lacan

This man and his theories are being thrown around far too frequently but I don't think anyone here (including myself), save for a few, knows anything about him. The only reason we know about him is because Zizek bases his thought on Lacan.

Why is he being pushed so much on this board? How does he relate to leftist theory, whether economic or otherwise? Why should anyone read Lacan to begin with and how does he differentiate from other psychological theories?

I have that one introduction book by Fink, which I am yet to read, but nothing else. Freudposter, or anyone with a MEGA/mediafire link or some PDFs, please share more.

Other urls found in this thread:


His critique of the subject is useful to explain the ruling ideology


thank you

So anyone care to explain Lacan at least somewhat in-depth? For the rest of the board and the newcomers who might stumble upon Freudposter.

He mixed Freudian ideas with structuralism and later some post structuralism.

What this means in a practical sense is he restated Freudian ideas in the most shocking and contrarian ways possible.

Say I'm a female student I go up to Lacan and ask him what he thinks of Oedipus? His response would be "We aren't currently fucking… You know that right? Men have no penis inside or outside of the text."

he sounds like a fucking hack pun not intended

I would recommend Lacan for Beginners, which also introduces Freud and psychoanalysis, as the absolute 1st book.

It's because that arab who hates porn and the lelinist freudfag are triggered by Stirner.

He is? Hardly notice it.

Zizek correctly identifies that there is a lot of value in Lacanian psychoanalysis for the communist movement, because he provides very good analytical insight into the popular psyche and its influence vis a vis symbolic structures of the prevailing ideology. That PDF you posted is an introduction to clinical psychoanalysis, but also provides for what is the most solid and comprehensive introduction to Lacan you'll find.

He never pretends that any kind of theory of the mind is or can be a science.

Epic shitposts, 10/10.

Leader's works are generally good, and that's a decent introduction, but Leader's very much a humanist and he gives his own spin (which Fink's introduction does not have).

Don't know much about him but muslamic gommie's posts are always accompanied by homoerotic lewds.

It's more that they see more value in Lacanian psychoanalysis than Stirner, which I agree with. I don't see any value in Stirner at all to begin with, but yeah.

As well as a deep seeded hatred for trannsexuals, apparently they're exclusively of the propertied class.

Still talking muslamic gommie here? I think, if he follows the Lacanian stance on transsexuals and transgenders, it's more that he cloaks the very non-abrasive and non-transphobic stance in a bunch of irony and intentional hyperbole just to troll, as per board culture.

Speaking of which, consider giving it a read here: e-flux.com/journal/32/68246/sexual-difference-and-ontology/. Zupancic's critique of the gender idea is not just hers, but covers the basic gist of the Lacanian stance on gender entirely. The same stance Zizek shares, although Zizek's is very outreaching to them.

thanks for the answers

anyone have pic related in PDF? I really need it

Just a reminder that anyone that shittalks Lacanian Psychoanalysis is an anti-revolutionary Porky shill.

Lacan is pretty good, I'm halfway through the Bruce Fink book and enjoying his thought. Looking back on my teenage years, I recall myself having the same fantasies and exhibition the same behaviour Lacan talks about.

I've been hunting for it myself, and although frequently there are new books on psychoanalysis added on libgen, this one has yet to appear on it. Consider joining me in doing another search for it every few weeks @ gen.lib.rus.ec.

Lacan is, for Žižek at least, a return to Hegel. After having read a little bit of Lacan it's very easy to see him in the Phenomenology of Spirit. The excellent that the book begins and ends with is 'picture-thinking,' 'snapshot-consciousnesss,' or as it is sometimes better translated as 're-presentation.' Well, whatever translation we use of vorstellen it will usually just come out to mean 'placed or taken away from.' The implication here is that what you set before you is a picture in your mind's eye, so to speak. For Hegel this picture is literally to be understood as re-presentation, that is, we present to ourselves something that we had previously experienced via our senses. I see an object, then hold an image or picture of this in my memory. This process of internalization is done by faculty of memory, which then re-presents this image to my mind when I think of it.
For Hegel, before humans had language, we had picture-thoughts. Language then allowed us to fix these thoughts to exterior objects, which stabilized them. This also allowed us to share representations of these representations, words which represent our picture thoughts. Of course, if everyone has different words this won't work, so society negotiates language. While we can never be sure that our picture-thoughts really the same as anyone else's, language allows us to at least have exchangeable tokens which can help us to at least coordinate the exterior aspects whereby we organize picture-thoughts in the public domain. This is here why Lacan differentiates 'the imaginary' from 'the symbolic,' and where he emphasizes the distinction between picture-thinking and language. And most people would agree that there's a big difference between the verbal, narrated, interior monologue that goes on in our heads, and the play of images, some defined, other hazy and non-specific, the famed stream of consciousness of which the verbal, our inner speech, is just one aspect.
Going back to Hegel, Lacan notes that in and beyond language, we are still in the realm of picture-thinking, of re-presentation. Because even linguistically mediated forms of picture-thinking, no matter how abstract (let's say we agree on the same definition of a term like Being), are still grounded and dominated by the logic of images, even if now routed through and to some extent reworked by language from without.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, once can easily see why Žižek and so many others use Lacanian psychoanalysis to look at cinema, and are always challenging the audience to consider what it would mean to do philosophy cinematically, that is, to make it move.

The problem*

This is also quite a good resume re: Zizek and Lacan.

Good post.

I don't know much about Lacan…and i don't want to.
I had a fucking teacher in university that i absolutely hated, and it's very hard for me to hate someone, but i absolutely hated that teacher, i wanted to punch him in the face. Anways, he always talking and quoting someone in classes, because that's the type of fucker he is, always quoting someone and talking about how much better he was than everybody else. But there was 3 people he quoted the most…Zizek, Lacan and Hannah Arendt. So fuck them! If a turd with eyes like him enjoyed so much this 3 individuals, it means they are shit and don't have anything interesting to add.
Fuck you Lacan, Fuck you Zizek, Fuck you Hannah Arendt

It's not even remotely reasonable but unfortunately I also have been put off from lacan due to the islamig gommunism idpol poster.

I at least bothered to actually read people like Stirner, engaged with their ideas and their adherents, etc. before discarding them.

Jesus Christ.

You're not doing yourself any favours by dismissing a philosophy because an unlikeable professor enjoyed them. You don't even know if they were quoted out of context util you read their work.

I never said I won't read it. Just that when the only connection I can make to the name is "brought up by that annoying guy on Holla Forums" I can hardly fault myself for deciding to recently pick up stirner over lacan.

You need therapy, son.

I never understood why Marx was so in to Hegel. It seems like this guy's philosophy is anything but leftist, and almost completely opposed to materialism. He was even a Christian.

What is it about Hegel that was so attractive to Marx? Just the fact that he had him as a philosophy lecturer?

A philosophical theory has no inherent political orientation. Philosophy can be used to justify or accompany politics, but that is not its main function.

Also, Hegel was far from a right winger in his time: jacobinmag.com/2016/07/hegel-bastille-day-burke-french-revolution/

Marx revived materialism by synthesizing Hegel's dialectical method with materialism (the French and English materialists).


You honestly just need to actually start reading more than just the Wikipedia pages and School of Life videos on philosophy imho.

I have to admit that I was speaking from very limited knowledge, it's just something that's bothered me for a while.

I have taken out a book on Hegel by David Lamb, I'll have a read of it.

Thanks though.

this is a good reason to not like something just how ad hominem isn't a valid logical fallacy.


how is he idpol?

Holy shit thank you fam.

thank you kind user

Just one last question:

What the fuck is jouissance in Lacan's terms?


A loss of satisfaction, stemming from subjugating the self to the "Others" demand. The pleasure you find in your symptoms to compensate for the loss of satisfaction is what Lacan refers to a "jouissance".

ok, if you mean "Other" as in the way Zizek uses it I understand
please elaborate

I mean other as in the Lacanian sense, as in an outside entity (it could be real, like your parents or symbolic like language) that plays a formative role in the child's development.

Lacan takes the alternate route of most psycho-whatevers, and posits that people don't want to get better. The symptoms they develop are the unconscious way of dealing with the castration they feel, and it's only when a breakdown occurs and these symptoms are unable to function properly that a patient seeks an analyst.


So a spook!

Zizek uses it in the way Lacan uses it, which quite evidently you do not fully understand.

Consequences of one's condition that are experienced as unpleasant.

Not really, no. A spook is an ideal you let govern you conciously, Lacan is more focused on how language and parenting structure the unconscious. But on a side note, yes a Lacanian would reject Stirners conception of the ego.

I honestly forgot to type the word "kinda" in between there

legit question, how would a Lacanian treat le not argument man?


Either way, it's always important to re-stress that Zizek borrows quite a lot from Lacanian psychoanalysis. Since Zizek is arguably the most popular contemporary figure on the board that's especially important, and why reading some Lacan can't hurt.

Probe his unconscious as analysand and probably find out that his DEFOO is the consequence of a repressed household antagonism. You can read about this process in the OP's PDF (clinical Lacanian psychoanalysis).

Good place to start

This is good.


Marx never had Hegel as a lecturer. Hegel was attractive to Marx because of Hegel's observation on reality as an autodynamic complex of processes, to put it succinctly.

Nice thread.

This has a good blend of the Marx

He is an interesting lad, got into him thanks to post-anarchism and post-left anarchism. Got slightly into him because of Freudpost his criticism of Stirner and actually found out his criticism is several layers of irony with Lacan. But hye litteraly no body here, not rebel, yui, AW or any intellectual understands Stirner.

What did he mean by this? Seriously.

Good collection of Fink mix of clinical and social anaylsis

Stirner’s self is not really the ego misleadingly translated from Freud’s work. Rather, it is the subject as we understand it in the Lacanian tradition. Stirner’s subject, his creative nothing, is grounded on something absent or missing from the normative abstractions governing daily life. It is a subject which forces its way into the appearances of the world – it makes room for itself in the world, by forcing itself as truth. It is a subject based on nothing which, at its creative moment, forces itself in opposition to the deceptive process of suturing. Stirner reminds us that we must not avoid acknowledging the subject as this creative element missing from symbolic life. Put differently, at the heart of all appearances, spooks, normative abstractions, and so on, there stands something which can not be contained or captured, something which exceeds all attempts to suture it, and something which is, from the standpoint of the world of comforting appearances, properly traumatic.

Bump for Lacan.

Part 2 of Fink's

This is superb, that subject is still a spook when spoken about using dualistic language. From Zen and other studies i understand what he's driving at but you can't go write a philosophical paper about it

Ryoko is a spook.


The life that Lacan talks about here is not our day-to-day lives, replete with the little dramas of our jobs, friends, and family relationships, but the excess of life commensurate with going beyond the pleasure principle. Life itself, as he describes it at one point, is simply an “apparatus of jouissance”.

“If the paths to jouissance have something in them that dies out, that tends to make them impassable, prohibition, if I may say so, becomes its all-terrain vehicle, its half-track truck, that gets it out of the circuitous routes that lead man back in a roundabout way toward the rut of a short and well-trodden satisfaction”

A great paper talking about the impact of captialist discourse on neurosis and pyschosis



He is useful for understanding ideology and analyzing society, but its hardly a complete political theory in of itself and those who you use him as such are the worst sort of autists.

thanks for that

Who even does this, even ITT or on the board? The few philosophers who invoke Lacanian psychoanalysis never do so while using him as a model, simply as a tool.

it happens every time there's a stirner vs lacan debate. Lest we forget it was the lacanians who were declaring that individuals don't exist and that we are all slaves to society by virtue of having language. Real philosophers, sure, they don't do that. Zizek mixes his analysis with Marxism and German Idealism. If he didn't, there would be no point to anything he said.


This is a gross reduction of Lacan's imperative, which states that society is shaped by language and that we can thus not choose "not having a duty" as it will always fall back on the grid of opportunities language (mediating and incumbent force) enables us to chose from, and then the ones the Symbolic actually makes visible for us within a specific societal fabric.

And yes, this is theory; one of value to understanding the world and how it works via human language. The point is to theorize praxis over this, not model anything after this simple worldview and to keep it in its current form or w/e. Lacan does not say that we can do nothing, nor does Zizek, nor does Zupancic, nor does Leader, etc.

I should have archived the thread, but yes, that did happen.

Your drawn caricature archives your understanding for us well.

I do not mean this as hyperbole. I completely agree with

This is the proper use of Lacan. But there are those on this board, something tells me you included, who take structuralism far too far.

Going back to
it looks like that you couldn't take much from those discussions because some fundamental misunderstandings of the terminology employed. For starters, the subject (of Lacan, but for philosophy in general) isn't the same as the individual (of liberalism, or of neoclassical economics). See ch.8 of libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=DEC723A8A9A39AE02F375A482DF43A97 for a very short tl;dr.

I would also say that the lacanians were hardly doing a good job interpreting Stirner's ego/individual, which also is not the same as the individual of liberalism or neo-classical economics. Stirner's individualism isn't methodological individualism, yet lacanians keep treating it like it is. I care not for the subject, as I fail to see how its relevant to anything beyond analysis. What I find the most stupid is people who hold up lacan as some sort of disproving of individualism and egoism, as if pointing out that our will, desires and interests are influenced by society suddenly means they don't exist!

I think we appreciate the different frameworks of subject that Stirner and Lacan employ but I don't feel that we can't learn from them through contrast.

I certainly would not discredit the importance of the subject beyond anaylsis as that is often where political action dependent from the self can be created.

I recommend the attached .pdf as a good example of fruitful comparison between both.

Even if some Lacanians are more dogmatic with the structuring impact of language on the construction of the subject, we only need to look at hysteria or paranoia for examples of the egos ability to be beyond a limiting framework of language.

That PDF is only the first two pages

although it looks interesting, do you have a link to the whole thing or something?


much obliged