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.
Lacan is the comp. lit. survival outpost for German Idealists who cant read German.
>>24950626I’ve heard bits from Jung that made sense to me, but never sat right. And I think I know why now: psychiatrists borrow the authority of the poet without the poet’s vocation (calling).
>>24950725Iirc is was X where he goes through anxiety. You're right in the sense this is all made up, it's literally whatever you've created to convince yourself you need a sexual partner. No matter how many paradoxes you work through you eventually hit objet. Everyone has this though, theoretically pre-Lacanian ideas can still apply. Big O is usually why he ends up being popular with all of those other thinkers. Big O is the imaginary symbolic order or hypothetical authority that still excludes jouissance of other. Lacan couldn't create it without borrowing from a schematic that's Hegelian in some ways. So instead of a floating truth value system (Lacan rejects this) you get a sort of desirous paradox with floating values. This makes it popular to a wide variety of people. You can substitute a car in or frankly anything really and start using Big O. The catch is that whatever has been assigned doesn't have this applied value, you enter a register loop, objet is just objet you invented the values. At some point this is realized and whatever your left with is whatever your left with. There might still be a coherence loop, realization doesn't end the sequence arbitrarily, but the realization can't be reversed.
>>24950506forgive me, but what is so special about Lacan other than him mystifying and turning eternal the bourgeois patriarchical family?
>>24950725Useful how? What problems does he solve? What truths does he reveal?>>24951038Jungian thought explains poetry, and art in general, better than any other form of artistic interpretation ever produced. It gives honest explanation while keeping all the richness and, if anything, enhancing the profundity.
>>24951973Can you give an example? I've always found Jung's theories, pardon for being so blunt, dumb and superficial as fuck.
>>24951973Anyone not a poet has no business explaining poetry - but that’s not what I meant. Poetry as the Greeks knew it when they adopted the drama as a cleansing rite of religion, is a form of psychotherapy - poets essentially being the descendants of witch doctors and priestesses.
>>24952029It partially is, and Jung incorporated that into his practice. But Greek poets also acted as general voices of truth to the public, which Jung also did, and sometimes as shameless aggrandisers for money, which Jung didn't. Idk how you can have any knowledge of Jung and not know that he's a modern version of a medicine man.>>24952015There are plenty of case studies you can read. Volume 15 of the collected works is the most obvious, and there are analyses of art all throughout his works from Longfellow to Goethe to Dante. Von Franz's analysis of The Little Prince in The Problem With The Puer Aeternus is very good too. On what basis do you find it dumb and superficial? Do you actually understand what it's about?
