He was known for taking people others didn't think had a good prospect of analytic success, like people who had been in camps during the war and psychotics. You'd go to his country house and be part of a whole community of patients. I'm not partisan to Lacan and some of his behavior in the room was unorthodox, but I don't think I can say from what I know that he was severely at fault here from a clinical perspective.
Psychoanalyse is always wrong from a clinical perspective. Because there is nothing to analyze. Schizophrenics have something wrong with how their brain works not a moronic family conflict or some similar horseshit.
If you know anything about psychoanalysis, you'd know that they basically were the first ones to say that therapy isn't helpful for schizophrenic people. Genetics explain a lot of psychotic spectrum symptom expression, but not all of it, and with enough of the right environmental stressors everyone will decompensate eventually.
As far as I understand it, the Real is essentially what you get when you have a traumatic event. If you get raped, or your whole family is murdered in front of you. That’s the Real. But Lacan also said if you can describe the Real then you’ve already left it behind. So it’s hard to explain
Interesting, so kind of like raw, unmediated reality beyond any symbolic description? I wonder if there are subjective sensations that we all share but are impossible to convey in language, imagery or any other medium.
The easiest way to thing about it is as negative, yeah. It's not just trauma, although encounters with the real tend to be traumatic, but anything about the subjects' experience that's outside the imaginary or symbolic. So, whether it's death, biology, repetition, the drive, God, nothing can accurately capture our engagement with the real in a way that helps collapse it into something like "meaning."
All obstructionist style writers are pseuds hiding shit ideas behind needlessly complicated prose. Lacan, Hegel, and all others who participate in that style of writing are dog shit.
I'd expect to show up regularly and talk, like you would in any kind of analysis. The less you try to anticipate, and the more curious you are, the better.
>Neither are even in the top five.
Oh really? Let's see your list.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I won't argue semantics about the meaning of generation, let's say anyone that published some of their main works in the 60s-70s. Autism exercise like top ten anime betrayal lists but whatever, here are five names as they come up in my head without order >Gilbert Simondon >Jean Guitton >Georges Canguilhem >Gilles Deleuze >Ferdinand Alquié
There would be little difficulty pushing a list much further before having to name an idiot like Debord.
that which thinks is not in the state of non-thinking but until the non-thinking becomes a state of thinking then you shall see the thinking within the non-thinking.
Gay French homosexual
>Obese, puerile American
lol why though
right in general but wrong in specifics
Made up a bunch of inane shit to justify his neuroses
Best of the bunch,
Best psychoanalyst post-Freud no contest
that's like being the smartest person on IQfy
He is the most interesting of the french "postmodernists"
Lacan is often regarded as structuralist and post-structuralist, but not postmodernist.
He didn't believe in stoplights which is kinda based
>Le meme schemes
Funny guy
was this homie really licensed? i wonder if he talked to his patients like this
he fricked his patients too so i dont doubt it.
why did so many of his clients anhero?
He told them the truth. Most people aren’t ready for that
Source? I mean the type of people to go to therapy are never really mentally healthy individuals
He was known for taking people others didn't think had a good prospect of analytic success, like people who had been in camps during the war and psychotics. You'd go to his country house and be part of a whole community of patients. I'm not partisan to Lacan and some of his behavior in the room was unorthodox, but I don't think I can say from what I know that he was severely at fault here from a clinical perspective.
Psychoanalyse is always wrong from a clinical perspective. Because there is nothing to analyze. Schizophrenics have something wrong with how their brain works not a moronic family conflict or some similar horseshit.
If you know anything about psychoanalysis, you'd know that they basically were the first ones to say that therapy isn't helpful for schizophrenic people. Genetics explain a lot of psychotic spectrum symptom expression, but not all of it, and with enough of the right environmental stressors everyone will decompensate eventually.
Shit just posted the same image as a new thread asking what his Real is about, may as well ask here
As far as I understand it, the Real is essentially what you get when you have a traumatic event. If you get raped, or your whole family is murdered in front of you. That’s the Real. But Lacan also said if you can describe the Real then you’ve already left it behind. So it’s hard to explain
Interesting, so kind of like raw, unmediated reality beyond any symbolic description? I wonder if there are subjective sensations that we all share but are impossible to convey in language, imagery or any other medium.
The easiest way to thing about it is as negative, yeah. It's not just trauma, although encounters with the real tend to be traumatic, but anything about the subjects' experience that's outside the imaginary or symbolic. So, whether it's death, biology, repetition, the drive, God, nothing can accurately capture our engagement with the real in a way that helps collapse it into something like "meaning."
He didn't believe in red lights and would drive through them. Hes based af
He also refused to sign that AOC petition like all those other wacko french philosophers and has my respect for that
He ate grilled cheese off the radiator and never complained
One day when I learn French, I will do a great impression of him.
Good for nothing.
All obstructionist style writers are pseuds hiding shit ideas behind needlessly complicated prose. Lacan, Hegel, and all others who participate in that style of writing are dog shit.
Also, all Freudians are moronic.
Thinking of seeing a Lacanian psychoanalyst. What should I expect?
I'd expect to show up regularly and talk, like you would in any kind of analysis. The less you try to anticipate, and the more curious you are, the better.
That's not standardized but usually long silences and repetition of words you said
Snake is lacanian?
Neither are even in the top five.
>Neither are even in the top five.
Oh really? Let's see your list.
I won't argue semantics about the meaning of generation, let's say anyone that published some of their main works in the 60s-70s. Autism exercise like top ten anime betrayal lists but whatever, here are five names as they come up in my head without order
>Gilbert Simondon
>Jean Guitton
>Georges Canguilhem
>Gilles Deleuze
>Ferdinand Alquié
There would be little difficulty pushing a list much further before having to name an idiot like Debord.
that which thinks is not in the state of non-thinking but until the non-thinking becomes a state of thinking then you shall see the thinking within the non-thinking.
I can’t stand him.
The only French philosopher of his generation worth reading is Baudrillard.
Debord too
What is object petit a? Our drive for the desiring other we have lost?