I regularly see threads on JP and Zizek but less commonly Jung and rarely Lacan.I have been reading Lacan on and off throughout the year and it has been pretty revelatory to me. If I were to try to take a stab at summarizing Lacan for anons that haven’t studied him, basically everything is fake and gay, anything not fake and gay is real, and >you are a subject beneath the fake and gay but not exactly a 1:1 product of the fake and gay. Your motif should be to recognize that to understand the real through anything fake and gay is impossible, therefore traverse the fake and gay knowing it’s fake and gay in accordance to your desire(TM). If anyone with more experience in Lacanian thought disagrees with my shit take, feel free to correct. Question: Why is Lacan not talked about as often as Freud and Jung are, or perhaps in general? Is his thought too subversive? Is it because he’s French? Pic related, worst mistake of my life
>>24950506It's because he's the worst prose-writer of the 20th century. Literally no one was worse at expressing his thoughts.
>>24950506My guess would be Lacan is still popular. The likeliest reason he isn't seen much here is due to some of his conclusions.>little o / Big O>little o has already been addressed>Big O is the hypothetical authority or order but it can't draw from pre-societal input>systemization is reducing what do you want to some sort of isomorphism with what do I want>endpoint established when there is an epistemic dud>the point, for convenience of language, is to examine why Big O has seemingly endless power.Think of Freud and Jung as metaphysicians, they're popular here because most anons are just looking for meta or in most cases looking to discharge meta. Many anons are still gaining mastery, there isn't much left on this one, so they haven't fully realized how Descartes works.
Well as the resident Jungfag on this board I speak about him because he has a lot to say. The depths of his insight are huge, and the implications of his discoveries are huge. Doing philosophy without knowing Jung is far more hamstringing than doing it without knowing Plato or Aristotle imo.The reason I haven't looked into Lacan is because his influence seems to solely be in being namedropped by French and French-adjacent academics. I've heard he builds on Freud, but Freud was already surpassed long ago and given the worthlessness of Sartre, Camus, de Beaviour, etc. who these academics also namedrop I don't see anything to attract me to Lacan.
>>24950626If you want to start with Lacan, I found the Cambridge Introduction to Lacan to be a great primer. I am better versed in Jungian thought than Lacanian, but I’ve found the Lacanian lens to be rather useful for me personally. Consider giving it a quick glance to see if it’s interesting to you.>>24950606Interestingly, Lacan would reject that there is a “meta” to be reached. Everything is symbols (which leads to the point you raised), quite interesting imo.
