/lit/ - Literature

of course it's true, there is no such thing as loving or making love to 'another person'. you only have access to your experience as a hegemonic subject, wherein all others are reduced to a mystification, a fantasy that is created and perpetuated by your psyche

when you touch someone, you're only feeling yourself

>>6329845
prove it

>>6329845
>you're only feeling yourself
That presents the problem of "what is self".

>>6329850

using what metric?

>>6329856

that is a problem
perhaps it would be better to stick with the term 'subject' which is more apt

>>6329850
when you touch someone, you are not even feeling.

>>6329845
lol at this guy assuming that his experience is similar enough to anyone else's that he can make assumptions about theirs

just go fully you cannot know nuffin tbh

>>6329845

>there is no such thing as loving or making love to 'another person'.

lol at you guys who are so jaded that you seriously try to talk on behalf of every other person in matters of love.

just say "I personally don't feel this way". not "there is no such thing". it reads like a fucking cry for help.

>>6329850
This. THIS. THIS is the problem with all these sorts of vague Postmodern propositions that masquerade as profundity but are not. So you say you feel only yourself when you touch others? Fair enough; sounds like it may be true. But you can also say the opposite and it sounds perfectly plausible: when you touch yourself - aha! - you can interpret yourself only through the Other, and as such you actually feel only what others are feeling, and know nothing of your innermost self! Ah, well, that is quite a proposition - not terribly intuitive, but neither is its opposite! So that leaves the question: why should I believe either when the one claim and its converse both sound basically plausible? Perhaps we are merely confusing and muddling things, and there is really no conflict; perhaps the answer is simply the common sense one, and we are trying to fabricate a problem here where none exists, after all, and we cannot properly advance one side or another. In fact, this is not just perhaps - this is actually the case!

>>6329915

You need to consider the context behind these posts. If it reads like a particularly presumptuous or naive position then the post is more than likely being made by an adolescent who is still in that awkward stage where he feels like he has it all figured out.

Some get over themselves and grow past it, some stick with their confirmation bias as a means of desperate self-assurance.

The fact that humans can even create these concepts means that they have contact with an absolute truth, but I don't know of any philosophies that properly acknowledge that there are implications to that.

>>6329845
this kills the philosophy

>>6329915
>I'm unfamiliar with common terminology
Not our problem. BAs run about $40000 at the moment.

>>6329979

>i've turned myself into an anaemic curio of academia

tell us more about your thoughts on love, lol.

>>6329979
Oh - hahaha, so you claim I am just not familiar enough with the jargon - that is, I have not yet ascended the Mystery sufficiently so that I might glimpse on the Truth (or whatever word may be fashionable to capitalize among the bleeding edge of Continental thinkers)! Well, that loftiness of Mystery is an immensely convenient position in which to place yourself, but you know you can only be in it if you've actually attained it! So let's see, what terms of the Mystery might elude me in your post? Perhaps you claim I misunderstand the meaning of "hegemonic subject," but I assure you I have not - and indeed, a great deal of its meaning can be told from the context of your post, you dummy! I thought the point of these Mystery terms was that only the initiated could understand them! The point is defeated if you allude to its meaning actually in the post - you make a mockery of your Postmodern peerage, thou vulgar pleb! So it is quite clear we hear basically mean "sovereign subject," but with a certain added phenomenological sovereignty, so that we now feel urged to replace the milder "sovereign" with the overblown, Grecian "HEGEMON". So I guess we are here to understand that this is a bit of a solipsistic entity here, with a certain amount of control (or HEGEMONIA, as we may prefer) - or at least a feeling of control - over its own phenomenology. What a concept! Perhaps you think I misunderstand "psyche." But so do you, because "psyche" approaches the vaguest term in the English language. In fact, nobody understands it. So what is it? Where is the Mystery? How might I ascend? You direct me towards academia, but how will the doctors actually help me? Where am I to go?! What am I to do?! Am I forever to wallow in the swampy putridness, looking up with envy and longing at the lofty heights of the Postmodern Mystery? Derrida in adjutorium meum!

>>6329993
>tell us more about your thoughts on love, lol.
Lacan's largely useful, but the interior perception of the experience is what we act on and perceive.

Lift, get huge, buy a car, fuck chicks.

>>6330038
>no paragraphing, run together sentences, ALL CAPS

Unreadable tripe.

>>6330046

>Unreadable tripe.

If you're going to try and save face after getting circles styled around you at least try and commit to it, lol.

>uh that is u-u-unreadable o-okay p-please go away n-n-now

>>6330046

>Lacan

in the running with marx for worst fanbois ever

>>6329845

>being this much of a cartesian ontologist

this board requires Heidegger

>>6330046

Oh, come on, surely you, great Conqueror of Lacan, Caesar of Literature, can bear to read through just a little paragraph of unaesthetic text! Do it for me - the ignorant, the forlorn, the unwashed masses of poor and ignorant, yet to suckle on the sweet bosom of Father (or was it Mother?-- no matter!) Lacan! And I only inserted the caps in imitation of the excellent Postmodern style, whereby we emphasize our points with all range of techniques from capitalization, to crayons, to doodles of all sorts and sizes! Perhaps I was too brash and naive? perhaps I must refine my typography before I can engage in the highest discourses of the Mystery? But surely, surely the mystery is something more than mere typography! Please, o Hegemon, light me the way! What shall the doctors tell me in the University(keeping in mind I am actually working on a master's in philosophy at the moment, with a PhD to come)? Please, save me from my phenomenological and - evidently, more importantly - typographical ignorance!

>>6328476

>implying a relationship is founded on continual and unwavering interest.
>Implying "actual sex relationship" is not sustained on hundreds of chemical and social reasons and that the supposed "phantasmatic supplement" is even one of the most important of those.
>Implying fantasizing is voluntary
>implying committing to a diet cannot exist because you will think of food while you do it.
>implying lacan isn't a hack
>implying this is a dichotomy at all
>implying you fantasize about actual partners and not disembodies sexual parts

>>6330109

>chemical and social reasons

fucking dropped

hard

>>6330105

congrats, your brand of shitposting is among the most nauseating possible

>>6330247
How's that? And surely it is not so low as Lacanian psychoanalysis, which is in fact an intellectual "discipline" founded entirely on something analogous to shitposting.

>>6330242
social as in if your parents potty shaming you and making you unable to get an erection in front of someone.
maybe i should have said psychological, but i meant to say caused by people problems not ones you are born with.

not as in SJW social.

>>6330256

>Lacanian psychoanalysis, which is in fact an intellectual "discipline" founded entirely on something analogous to shitposting.

prove it.

>>6330282
Eh, I shall be the first to admit that such a blanket statement cannot be "proven," and should not be registered as a philosophical claim, but nonetheless it is, I think, far better than that monstrous vagueness you ejaculated in your first post in this thread. It is analogous to shitposting insofar as it travesties more serious concepts and styles from other disciplines (chiefly mathematics, but also concepts from more legitimate philosophy and psychology). Certainly it seems we should be urged to accept my claim instead of its converse, which is that only Lacanian psychoanalysis is NOT analogous to shitposting among the intellectual disciplines. I mean, even the bluntly ironic style of much Lacanian psychoanalysis, and its almost free admittance of obscurantism and travesty of the other disciplines, make it bear a yet closer affinity to shitposting. My statement may not strictly be true (though I think it certainly is), but at least I can come up with good reasons to posit it instead of its opposite. You cannot say the same.

But anyway, you never answered my question: what is, as you so bombastically put it, "nauseating" about my shitposting?

>>6330293
The quality of posts is very important to this community.

>>6329953
care to elaborate on that? I can conceive of concepts that don't exist.

>>6330304
Thank you for that platitude. Now if you excuse me, I plan now to consider myself quite secure in my victory over the Postmodern dragon once again.

>>6330308
>I can conceive of concepts that don't exist
This is what PoMos ACTUALLY BELIEVE

>>6330319
I suggest you read the rules.

>>6330308
It is physically impossible to stop believing in "being".

>>6330331
I suggest you read, in a more general sense.

>>6330337
belief=truth?

>>6330341
If it's impossible to believe otherwise, it's truth.

You're too young to understand. Clearly you are. You appear to be saying that internet wisdom precedes other kinds of wisdom.

>>6328476
Slapjob sleezedick isn't anyone to be quoted

>>6330293

how large is your fedora?

>>6330375
I suppose I can't very well gauge that, as at this point the meaning of the term "fedora" has, like so many 4chan terms, unfortunately been diluted to such an extent that it means virtually nothing at all other than something negative that is associated with social ineptitude and/or intellectual presumption (neither of these being traits I possess).

>>6330375
It's very large, like his dick.

>>6330385
*roll eyes*

>>6330385

yikes

>>6329915

There is nothing PoMo about this sort of phenomenal idealism. That is old as shit.

>>6330073

Or any phenomenological realist. Or any emergentist. Or any enactive phenomenologist. Or ...

Anyone but Heidegger.

>>6330354
I don't believe you.

>>6330437

same

>>6330264
>your parents potty shaming you and making you unable to get an erection
Topkek. American problems, I don't even.

>>6329915
>it travesties more serious concepts and styles from other disciplines (chiefly mathematics, but also concepts from more legitimate philosophy and psychology)
Lacan makes far more sense when you stop demanding 'proof' and start reading his extracts from other fields as rhetorical devices more than anything else. Lacan claims the unconscious is 'structured like a language'; surely one of the most profoundly subversive qualities of language is metonymy and metaphor, saying one thing via the signifier of another, something which can be achieved via any piece of language INCLUDING jargon from fields other than psychoanalysis?

>>6328476
>filename

topestet kekesk

>>6331558
>Lacan makes far more sense when you stop demanding 'proof' and start reading his extracts from other fields as rhetorical devices more than anything else
>rhetorical devices

>>6329845
That sounds like Berkeley mixed with buzzwords and with all the ontology and its implications removed.
Postmodernism is a fucking shell game, isn't it.

>>6329915
>>6330038
>>6330105
Holy shit I think you're being a little over the top and the fact that you tried this hard is kinda faggy but Jesus Christ that guy got roasted like some black twitter nigga

>>6331568
Literal sophistry.

>>6331568
Honestly, there's nothing I can say to convince you other than reading Lacan through a deconstructive lens. Far be it from me though to condemn the value of one branch of thought simply because it isn't congruent to my world view

>>6331640
>It's only good if you read it in a specific way that's created to make it good
Do you listen to the things you say?
If he can't make his point clearly and logically, then he's already failed rhetoric and it doesn't seem like there's much philosophical value in his works.

>>6331661
>philosophical value
I hope your parents beat you.

>>6331687
smdh man no chill

>>6331661
>It's only good if you read it in a specific way that's created to make it good
That isn't what a rhetorical device does, at least, not within the intricacies of contemporary theory. Also relying on dialectical practises of 'logical' points is just another way of making inadequate gestures towards an exterior system of logic which simply does not exist, particularly if we're talking about the phenomenological experience of 'entering' language, which is essentially what psychoanalysis concerns itself with.

>>6330308
god exists because we talk about him

>>6329845
Your consciousness only is self-aware when is confronted with another self-consciousness, through mutual recognition.

>>6331789
>self-consciousness
you have no proofs that this person has a self-consciousness ; it is only a pure humanist belief

>>6329915
But you only have access to some idea of the Other (the Other is not some mystical outside quality, rather a representation within your mind) because and through your subjectivity - which goes back to Slabjaw Cheezit's point. Read some more continental philosophy, dumbass.

>>6331802
Then you can't prove that yourself has a self-consciousness either.

>>6331586
But what would we do without all the post colonialism and queer theory professors?

>>6331586

>Postmodernism is a fucking shell game, isn't it.

>:^)

>>6329903
>just say "I personally don't feel this way"
Where do you think you are, the youtube comments section?

bump

Lacan fails on making language structures as positive and the inconscious linguistic. But these are at best the forms of inconscious productions not the inconscious itself.

>>6335656
>inconscious
you're pretty much right tho. The very fact that those representations are as such says a great deal about how the unconscious is manifested as a language, for it is only through vague signifiers that we can begin to make sense of it

What Lacan is talking about there is not that there is no sexual act, it is an act, the bodies are touching and all. The thing is that we identify those sensual experiences with certain concepts that make our dicks hard. When you look at porn, you get hard because of a blowjob or because you just saw a blowjob and the thought of a blowjob gets you hard? The thing is, in sex, it is just the same, the sensual experiences makes you think stuff and it is this stuff that makes you horny. And love is just the same, it is not the person that you love, but the image that you have of this person that you love (regardless of whether it matches or not with who the person is, this doesn't make sense to the discussion).

When Zizek says it is "cheating in your mind" and that your sex is "sustained by a phantasmatic supplement", it is not that you are having sex with woman A and thinking of woman B, but that you think this real and physical and fleshlike collection of acts that is woman A is the same as the symbolic and imaginary role that this sexual performance has in your mind which makes you horny.

>>6338642
So he's stating the blatantly obvious? That we all have models of reality that we take as truth?

>>6338658
Yes, he is stating just the obvious there, but the development of his work is more complicated. A great part of his thinking goes around uncovering how we are guided by these models of reality, how we take them as true, how they take us this or that way and so on. That is to say, how the symbolic world works in relation to this real impalpable world.

>>6338642
>When you look at porn, you get hard because of a blowjob or because you just saw a blowjob and the thought of a blowjob gets you hard?
I do not know. Sometimes, I just need to see the chick naked on the screen to be semi hard ; I do not even need to imagine me taking her.

>>6331755
>contemporary theory
This category is laughably broad and most people who use it are shitposters.

I get hard in looking at a very specific part of this photograph.

>>6340070
You need to "see" her, that's an image, that's an imagination. It's not something that can occur, but Lacan points out that it must occur. An imaginary experience of it is not a story that leads to the feeling, but the essence of this feeling.

>>6340176
>specific

Fetishism is nothing but veiled narcissism.

>>6340176

The feet?

>>6341973
>fetishism is nothing but thinly veiled narcissism

TLP is that you? Stop messing around on 4chan and get back to work on your book you big jerk

>>6341973
This >>6341999. It's very frustrating to see you make an insightful shipost every now an then while we're waiting for the fruit of several years of your efforts.

Don't tell me 4chan has swallowed you like so many others.

>>6341999
>>6342008
I honestly think TLP is dead.

>>6329953
That is the founding idea of Hegel's epistemology. That we have a connection to the Absolute tgrough which we interpret the contradicting elements of the world as still complete and finite objects. A rose might smell, and feel differently (for all senses give contradictionary data on its essence) but through dialectics we can establishes the synthesis of these messages which works us closer to revealing The Absolute, the core of everything.