[ 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: 67 KB, 900x750, jacques-lacan-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13029811 No.13029811 [Reply] [Original]

Name someone with a more incoherent (and pantsu on head retarded) philosophical system than Jacques Marie Émile Lacan

>> No.13029823
File: 25 KB, 339x382, christopher-langan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13029823

>> No.13029899

>>13029811

This guy is a fucking piece of shit

>> No.13029902

>>13029823
You might be right there. What a fucking meme IQ is.

>> No.13029905

>>13029811
i have a morbid fascination with this guy precisely because he's so obscurantist. it's like i want to believe his work has a bunch of deeper meaning, but can't quite shake the impression of intellectual bad faith he gives me

why does Zizek like him so much?

>> No.13029910

Deleuze and Derrida both are obscurantist assholes

>> No.13029952

>>13029811
>reads translations
>"WTF i can't understand anything? it must be HIS fault and not mine for being a monolingual pleb"

>> No.13029960

>>13029910
deleuze is at least an entertaining stylist. lacan and derrida are both turgid as fuck

>> No.13029998

>>13029823
I’m actually an unironic fan of Langan, his system seems a modernized hegelianism, with a sort of apparition of deleuze, (pluralism=monism). I’ve read the CTMU three times through, and his other published papers at least once over, and I’m left with nothing but praise. The CTMU deserves its share in Science, I see it one day as a system just as much accepted as ZFC set theory.

>> No.13030011

>>13029998
t. langan

>> No.13030291

>>13029998
>modernized hegelianism, with a sort of apparition of deleuze

Can you explain this please?

>> No.13030305

>>13029998
t. langage

>> No.13030318

>>13030291
it depends, how high is yout iq

>> No.13030332

>>13030318
i'm familiar with all three, know about langans CTMU. just go ahead and explain it nicely to me

don't overcomplicate it, explain what you mean by both deleuze and hegel in relation to langan

>> No.13030352

>>13029811
my professor uses his shitty framework for everything and I just have to politely go along with it to get good grades. fuck Lacan.

>> No.13030734

>>13029811
Solidified my choice of STEM because my undergraduate humanities courses were like >>13030352

>> No.13030764

>>13029823
Langan illustrates the failure of modern America to allow first rate minds to flourish and the triumph of the weak. Imagine a potential Mozart or Napoleon being stifled his whole life and being forced to do shit like clean bathrooms. It's fucking shameful.

Just fuck everything. Dismantle it and start over.

>> No.13031170

>>13029811

Derrida is MUCH worse.

>> No.13031551

>>13029952
French isn't German friend

>> No.13031617

deleuze
Nick Land
peterson

>> No.13033533

>>13029998
I never got into Deleuze or Langan, but is CTMU's Unbound Telesis (UBT) principle similar to Deleuze's plain of immanence?

>> No.13034960

>>13033533
how

>> No.13034967

>>13030764
If he is so smart then why can't he game the system?

>> No.13034980

>>13030764
Langan took a mail-in IQ test. He refuses to be tested again.

>> No.13035026

>>13034980
He got tested multiples times and infront of professionals. keep shilling tho

>> No.13035149
File: 9 KB, 229x250, 1556252412151.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13035149

>>13030764
This.

>> No.13035366

>>13029811
/thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbY864P0nuI

>> No.13035466

>>13035026
He's still unironically retarded tho. Literally a rainman. As soon as he opens his mouth about philosophy, complete and utter shit comes pouring forth. He should stick to his cubes with shapes on them

>> No.13035582

>>13035466
You are jealous because he actually has answers

>> No.13035610

>>13029823
Immediate /thread

>> No.13035617

Lacan's system is actually more scientific than most but he likes dressing it up to seem more exciting to people.

>> No.13035619

>>13035582
>Dude just create a technocracy run by an intellectual elite
>Nobody has thought of this before? Really? Not even Plato? Or Machiavelli? Or Nick Land?

>> No.13035628

>>13035619
He doesn't think those views anymore. I'm talking about CTMU anyway, not that.

>> No.13036414

I strongly recommend 'Jacques Lacan, Critical Evaluations in Cultural Theory', Routledge, NewYork, 2002. It's a collection of essays. If you don't get Lacan at all but are still able to read philosophy, it should make his 'system' much more intelligible.

>> No.13036428

>>13034967
Maybe it's vulgar to think that an intellect should always want to be victorious over the system. Does your post answer for Jesus, Buddha, Shakespeare, and Mozart? All of whom died essentially in a state of poverty?

>> No.13036440

>>13036428
Shakespeare was pretty affluent at his death.