[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 104 KB, 370x270, lcn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11373282 No.11373282 [Reply] [Original]

Where do I start with this guy. And is it worth it?

>> No.11373285

>>11373282
Whose this guy

>> No.11373298

Read Freud first

>> No.11373300

>>11373285
Lacan.

Also, I do have rudimentary knowledge about him and his works. As well as a bit of Psychoanalysis. Do I got back and read Freud?

>> No.11373306

>>11373282
Why do you want to read him in the first place?

>> No.11373319

>>11373306
To understand post-structuralism and post-modernism

>> No.11373325

>>11373306

Heard/looked into some of his ideas, seems interesting, I want to know more. One detail would be his topological conceptions of the psyche .

>> No.11373335

Seminar, VII

or maybe books that compare Lacan with Kant (it kinda helps understanding his "topological conceptions of the psyche", as u said - at least I found that kind of stuff helpful)

>> No.11373340

>>11373282
This is a good short overview of some of his thought. If you like what you're reading then dive right into his seminars and then Écrits. A general knowledge of psychoanalysis (mainly Freud) would also be very helpful. I'd recommend Interpretation of Dreams, Psychopathology of Every Day Life, Totem and Taboo, and Beyond the Pleasure Principle, all very good in their own right.

>> No.11373344
File: 28 KB, 322x499, zizek_howtoreadLacan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11373344

>>11373340
forgot pic

>> No.11373353

>>11373319
I don't think reading Lacan is good way to start? understanding post-structuralism and post-modernism, because Lacan is after all psychoanalyst and you should read him ONLY if you're interested in very serious conceptualization of psychoanalytical concepts
>>11373325
>Heard/looked into some of his ideas, seems interesting, I want to know more

then start reading about those ideas, start with his texts or secondary and etc. if you know what ideas precisely you want to know about I might help starting. And what do you mean by his topological conceptions of the psyche?

either way I would suggest anyone interested in Lacan to start with this interview, because it is probably the easiest text of his, which covers up a lot and gives you the gist of this man

http://braungardt.trialectics.com/projects/psychoanalysis/lacans-life/interview-jacques-lacan/

>> No.11373361

>>11373319
>reading a structuralist to understand post-structuralism

>> No.11373382

>>11373353

>And what do you mean by his topological conceptions of the psyche?

His triadic structure, and the graph of desire etc. Maybe I was phrasing it wrongly.

But this and some snippets from meme-man Zizek, is what got me interested. So, I guess I'd like to know more about the Symbolic, Real, Imaginary structure.

>> No.11373388

>>11373361
One thing that so called "post-structuralism" has showed is that some dichotomies are uneffective and false, distinction between structuralism and post-structuralism is one of these, because it encompasses the desire of something new and need of progress, which is something that postmodernism, structuralism, psychoanalysis is suspicious of.

>> No.11373417
File: 81 KB, 198x212, 1528773205775.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11373417

>>11373388
>One thing that so called "post-structuralism" has showed is that some dichotomies are uneffective and false

>> No.11373447

>>11373382
>But this and some snippets from meme-man Zizek, is what got me interested.

my response would be, as I have said, that you should read him only if you are seriously interested in psychoanalysis, because Lacan works with all of the psychoanalytical tradition. And about triad, he never really talks about these three dimensions in one place untill the very late seminars, so if you want to get to know imaginary read "The Mirror Stage as formative of the function of the I as revealed in psychoanalytic experience" from ecritcs, and if you want to get to know symbolic read The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis also found in ecrits. If you want to read seminars, I would suggest starting with seminar XI, because he gave it to a diverse public.

>> No.11373462

>>11373417
Any objections beside reaction image?

>> No.11373480

>>11373300
yes. lacan will ask you to read certain of freud's works during his seminars. i decided to read a few (intro lectures, psycjopathology of everyday life, interp of dreams, totem and taboo, and civ and its discontents) before starting on lacan's second seminar.

>> No.11373484

>>11373447
Alright, thanks.

>> No.11373488
File: 8 KB, 250x229, .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11373488

>2018
>psychoanalysis
>not even freud

>> No.11373494

Why do you people want to waste time with these French intellectuals (Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Saussure, Sartre) who are neither good with any science nor with any art (and not even philosophy)?

Seriously, you are gaining nothing with the effort to read the work of those people. You were better off by reading Tolstoy or Shakespeare or studying astronomy and geology than by reading those charlatans.

>> No.11373514

>>11373494
How is calling someone you don't understand charlatan still a thing on /lit/? And further, why do you have the need to go to these threads and write out these posts? Don't you have something better to do? It is suspicious. Psychoanalysis helps you to decipher suspicious things.

>> No.11373524

>>11373514

I made this post only.

And I read all of those guys - was forced to - in University (and understand them well enough, since I was able to ace the exams). But in the end it was a waste of time.

>>11373514
>And further, why do you have the need to go to these threads and write out these posts?

I dont like to witness undeserving people gaining credit.

>> No.11373532

>>11373462
Its an illogical position to even argue against, you're asking me to categorically argue for a categorical dismissal of categories
Your own position is in itself paradoxical and therefore not an argument

>> No.11373535

>>11373340
>>11373344
this book is awful

>> No.11373548

>>11373524
How are they not good with philosophy (seeing science and art as bad criterion, because they are not scientists and artists)? I want to hear your opinion on why no one should read them? Your subjective taste doesn't count.

>> No.11373555

>>11373535
Its literally just Zizek got told this would be a title for a book that would make money and he just copy and pasted some random shit

>> No.11373563

>>11373532
>you're asking me to categorically argue for a categorical dismissal of categories
No, I'm not, I said post-structuralists and postmodernists had doubts about some culturally determined dichotomies. They didn't talk about categorical dismissal of logical thinking. Read before you write.

>Your own position is in itself paradoxical and therefore not an argument
how so?