Lacanfags btfo'd

lacanfags btfo'd

Other urls found in this thread:

Fight! fight! fight!

Brainlet here, why a piece about Freud is BTFOing Lacan?

The real question is

Why can't you?







on the other hand, some parts of the article were hilarious


Lacans greatest contribution is that of a non-didactic philosopher, not a clinical scientist. So long as the philosophical divide of conscious and unconscious, unhindered by critique or postulation, endure - then Lacanian psychoanalysis as a philosophical process does in kind/

So if we find a way to scientifically account for the emergence of consciousness from the interactions of the various components of the brain, you insufferably obtuse and useless Lacan-fellators will finally shut the fuck up?

It wouldn't matter, precisely because you'll never be able to account for the sheer volume of multiplicities in consciousness, as it's a philosophical issue and not a purely scientific one. The assumption that all of potential thought can be effectively reduced, where one is left with naught but deontology is, itself, a philosophical position - albeit, a transcendental one. In all candor, this scientistic predilection you have, that you'll solve consciousness as a matter of empirical resolve, is a philosophical inquiry as well.

If you intend to shirk the whole of the modern body of Marxian philosophy, as it does not fit the contours of a sutured science, that would be a terrible loss. I'd remind you that Science as a process does not create truth on its own, it provides the quantitative developments upon which philosophy and reason develop a corpus that reifies the conceptions of science within itself. There is an awful lot that you're going to throw away with your petulant wailing, more than your pedantic hostile disposition towards Jacques Lacan

well memed. this softening of lacan's gotta go

If that is actually your understanding of Lacan, you know pretty much zero about his canon. In fact, I'd wager you know next to nothing if not nothing itself. Read Zupančič, or even just the editorials of Lacan' conflict with the French societies for clinical psychoanalysis.

come on now, we both know that this was over a dispute about appropriate clinical practice. one grounded in theory, yes, but he was excommunicated first and foremost over his clinical practice. literally the worst point you could have made

more and more i'm convinced that people who haven't undergone an analysis shouldn't be allowed to talk about it. it's not that you're completely wrong, i mean usually you are, but you types always treat lacan himself as the lacan of zizek/zupancic/dolar/etc. they're two very different things.

just ask yourself the question, if lacan's whole project was purely oriented towards some philosophical horizon as you seem to be claiming, why would he always make reference to the clinic in his seminars AND continue clinical practice throughout his entire career? what the fuck is psychoanalysis if not fundamentally a practice, WHAT ON EARTH is psychoanalysis if it isn't centered on the relationship between analyst and analysand? there is no lacan "outside" of the clinic. to say otherwise is to completely discredit and neuter literally his entire career.

this "lacan was really a philosopher" garbage is nothing more than cowardice in the face of just how radical psychoanalysis really is in opposition to popular psychology and our society in general. if lacan isn't grounded in clinical practice (he, of course, is), he truly would be charlatan, just some idiot talking out of his ass, much like yourself.

the mark of any good analyst!

what do you think of lacan then?


he, directly or not, informs basically all of my academic work

wow, so, what do you think of the article then?

Why are lacanian psychiatrists so horrible to autists?

it's the same utter garbage as every other criticism of psychoanalysis by bourgeois psychologists. it's not worth literally anyone's time who takes this matter seriously.

honestly, anyone who rejects psychoanalysis based on these awful "debunkings" has no right to make fun of people who spout any anti-communist propaganda, it's literally the exact same level of childishness that they're uncritically accepting. i mean, you read the article too, what the fuck did it really say?

literally no other intellectual figure has such petty fucking """"criticism"""" get taken seriously in an academic setting, except maybe marx, which should tell us plenty. the entire fucking piece reads like a teenage girl trying to make the friend she's mad at look bad.

not a SINGLE piece of criticism, which at least i've seen, made against psychoanalysis (outside of criticism by analysts themselves) has ever read freud in a serious manner, i have literally no doubt. he addressed every single point the ""offense"" has made against him at this point a century ago, yet for some reason it has yet to sink in. it's almost as if there's something about psychoanalysis which is subversive to bourgeois ideology.

because they're vulgar empiricists, or in other words, reactionaries. their ideological universe is literally incapable of dealing with psychoanalytic theory

The point being made was the point of divorce from common clinicians practice, not its absence - it's here where the theoretic grounding of the science of consciousness is divorced from the realm of vulgar empirical exegesis and conceived within the sphere of philosophical and psychoanalytic intervention.

I said greatest contribution, not only contribution. The point wasn't negligence towards the considerate number of insights of his clinical psychoanalysis.

I'm not sure from where this borderline paranoiac outburst came from, though you seem to far more akin to a vitriol-spewing pedant than you might intend yourself to be. I'd save some degree of acerbic irony for you, but you've made it clear thus far that you're more concerned with sharpening the barbs of wit on the end of truncated and staccato sentences than engage in any manner of polemic or discursive interaction. If what you gleaned from my statement was: "Psychoanalysis is philosophy" , I'm sorry but you read it completely wrong. I think it has major implications and interventions in philosophy, as well as the vast majority of conscious and unconscious spheres, but that it functions as a truth process - separating its singular ontology (non-axiomatic, "Ontology is the discourse of the master") from that of philosophy.

We're no different here, I was not implying a scientistic categorization or contouring of psychoanalysis, I was merely saying that even were the assertions of the OP true in their full right, the corollary statements are pathological in origin and have no bearing on the other longstanding implications of Lacan. I responded to you initially thinking you were intending to reconcile Lacan with the clinical traditions that functioned as the "orthopedists of the unconscious" , and I apologize for mis-recognizing you in this regard

I follow this up by saying that being that psychoanalysis functions as a truth process, it does not produce truths of its own without the aperture of some philosophical discourse which reifies that which it conceives in the form of a symbolic (or to the contrary, universal) register. Psychoanalysis, thus, as a part of science, along with the other truth processes, functions as the preface to being as event or the act of philosophy. They don't function monistically but rather as a necessary dialectic - describing and recording a totality (abstract or not). This is why I find the juncture of psychoanalysis and philosophy so interesting, and ofttimes see them as more porous than I should afford them as two independent processes

With this seriousness requiring that one accepts freudian a-priori's.
It's psycho-analytic theory that is doing the harm, it cannot fit autism in its paradigms and therefor seeks scapegoats.

What manner of accusation could emerge against Freud that does not amount to an objection to his recalcitrance in the face of the "proper order"? Freud does not seek, in his analyses, to reshuffle an order of understanding, but raise critical interventions into the emergence of a necessary order and how this functions on an subject-to-subject basis.

The user you're responding to thought you were referring to the other person, not the actual case of psychoanalytic dispute. In the same vein as the accusations in the OP, one could equally say this film is discredited in its editorial representation of the analysts involved; however, this isn't the point to be made. Regardless of the nature of clinical psychoanalysis, whose predominant departure was the rendering of practice and theory immutably separate, in comparison to the practice of Freud and Lacanian psychoanalysis. Like said at the end, the "orthopedists of the unconscious", the point of psychoanalysis is not the bare organization and reshuffling of desire and ego, but to intervene and interact with the otherwise axiomatic supposition that there is a unilinear order that represents a universal. You're misrepresenting psychoanalysis' far more radical emancipatory potential by sublimating the whole practice within sutured clinical practice.

I'm not against psycho analysis since I know exactly 0 shit about it, but… what the fuck? I'm not the guy you responded to

Also, the tagline of that movie is "autistes sans frontieres" and that is fucking hilarious

He was making a reference, thinking user was calling me an autist, not actual people with autism

Ah sorry misanderstood

Now without begging the question please.

This is precisely the problem with psycho-analysis, it is never psycho-analysis itself that is lacking, it can only ever be misunderstood. According to psycho-analysis, psycho-analysis is correct, so if you understand psycho-analysis, you understand it is infallible and can only be criticised using the internal logic that holds this presumption.

That's because as a science of cognition, psychoanalysis is not a means of orientation or a goal - it is always an inquisitive and syllogistic process. It cannot be wrong in its assumptions precisely in that it makes NO ESSENTIAL ASSUMPTIONS on the proper or necessary being. This whole notion of an inherent negativity of psychoanalytic being is predicated by the assumption that the goal of psychoanalysis is a complete and consummate being, when this is exactly the opposite of its intention. Your exegesis of the origins and historicity of psychoanalysis leaves much to be desired in that it totally forgets that the only contours of the practice are in relation to the essential assumptions of ideology, culture, economics, etc. and how they shape or limit the emergence of a subject or ego - in this way, it functions quite handily as a cognitive science but also as a philosophical successor to the interrogation of abstract totality in Hegel.

Also of note is the evolutionary discourse of Lacanian psychoanalysis, which, while retaining its fidelity to its Freudian origin, has evolved and actively acclimated to address the teleological principles and developments in all public spheres without relying on a monistic axiom to unify its thought, thus it functions as an instance of a singular universal, both as a means of inquiry and critical philosophical interest. As opposed to the cathexis of other pseudosciences and symbolic orders, which endure exactly in the manner you described - the necessary denial and rendering non-valent of superfluous or essential negativities; curiously similar to your treatment of psychoanalytic practice and its philosophical interventions, huh?

Fucking hell you're pointlessly difficult to read. Would it kill you to communicate your ideas in clear, concise sentences?

I apologize, English isn't my first language, so I always figure if I talk non-formally that I make many mistakes in orthography.

My point being that psychoanalysis effectively functions as a science of cognition, in its manners of evolutionary non-axiomatic discourse, whose only relation to essentialism is in that which it critiques in culture and the other public spheres. This point also gives it its critical link to Marxian philosophy, in that psychoanalysis is an excellent means of exposing contradictions in ideological constructs, both structural and subjective. It has managed to do this without succumbing to either the sacrifice of its origins in Freud, the becoming of a transcendental ideology, or losing its radical, emancipatory flare. I make mention at the end that it does not needlessly obsess itself with the contradictions and trying to rectify them as some fluke or mistake, as it assumes contradictions to be a fundamental part of trying to assert a collective symbolic order, which psychoanalysis is based around interrogating.

you're a bit of a retard yourself aren't you? He was clearly talking about the lacanian psychiatrists

Geez I just woke up when I wrote that shit and already said sorry calm your tits fag

Would you respond to slanderous hit piece articles on Marx that intentionally misrepresent his work?

Psychoanalysis is just as resistant to being incorporated to philosophy as to science while it can inform both. That you write down psychoanalytic praxis so easily is laughable.

>lacanian psychiatrists
There are none, there can't be, just like there can't be revolutionary parliamentarians.

That sounds like a massive adhominem

Good God. Imagine being a pretentious faggot, like this guy.

i think it's better to write with simpler language if you can. Lacan and his followers are already notoriously difficult to understand to the point of being dismissed because of his obscurity. So when people defend psychoanalysis with similarly difficult language, it doesn't really help the person trying to learn why he's wrong to dismiss ot. It kind of reinforces the attitude they already have.

This thread is dumb as shit.

an adhominem can be a perfectly valid reason to dismiss the case someone, even if it it is never logically valid


You can dismiss someone without engaging with their arguments. Like, for example, I can reject Nazism without engaging with Nazi arguments. I'm fact i would be wasting my time if I did.

no bulli :'🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
You're right. I always make it joke that one of the more popular works on Lacanian theory and practice is called, "Against Understanding". It's just very hard when the whole practice is so thoroughly esoteric in the eyes of most people

It's one of the most lucidly written works lately on Lacanian praxis. You should already know this if you've been lurking this board more than a few months: ideology works by providing you with easy answers to your predicament. This is a kind of understanding you have about the world and you are certain of it.

The book – with which you are not familiar beyond its title it seems – shows clinical cases and argues how clinical praxis can go wrong if the analyst has such preconceived understanding of the patient (his symptoms, the meaning of his utterances, etc.) or if the analyst is prone towards meaning making.

Okay, we've already done this once. Read the thing you've responded to, where I say I make jokes about it being named as such, in that it represents how most people approach Lacanian practice, regardless of its being wrong: AS OBFUSCATORY, literally what made direct reference to, NOT as my experience with the work and its canon.

Fuck off it was a joke, you’re taking posting on a Mongolian finger painting forum way too seriously

My bad, I was just skimming this thread not paying much attention to it.

In this case quite the opposite.

You're good, dude. I understand how aggravating it can be to see prominent figures of an appreciated medium slandered or misrepresented in such a fashion, considering that's the basis of this whole thread.

:( Sorry for the mean words, friendo

All is forgiven, christfriend.

It's a very good article (and the people who feel the strongest urge to dismiss it out of hand are those who would benefit the most from reading it), but let's leave Lacan out of the discussion. He died in 1981, so he couldn't have known more than a homeopathic dose of the content of the letters between Freud and Martha Bernays that form a crucial part of the book that is reviewed here:

It appears that Freud literally made up stories about his patients and that we have his admission in his own private correspondence. You can't go through a list of instances of somebody faking things, nodding your head throughout – "So he faked this, so he faked that, aha, aha; oh that was also made up, hmm…" – and then, when you reach a short statement at the end calling him a con, which is just a summary of all that, shake your head and shout ad hominem.

Conceptualizing and reconceptualizing a theoretical edifice based on your patients' ills that are to be systematically incorporated to said edifice is just ordinary theoretical work complicated by the fact that there's no preceding 'science' on which Freud could rely on. Portraying this as forgery is wilful ignorance not just of psychoanalysis but of the general process of development of disciplines.