How is psychoanalysis not the most giant cope ever?

[Anonymous No.18443683]

>We cannot escape from the clutches of Fate, but we also cannot escape from the burden of responsibility into Fate. Is this not why psychoanalysis is exemplary of our predicament? Yes, we are decentered, caught in a foreign cobweb, over-determined by unconscious mechanism; yes, I am "spoken" more than speaking, the unconscious Other speaks through me, but simply assuming this fact (in the sense of rejecting any responsibility) is also false, a case of self-deception. Psychoanalysis makes me even more responsible than traditional morality does; it makes me responsible even for what is beyond my (conscious) control.

>What this means is that the dimension of subjectivity (in the sense of free autonomous agency) is irreducible: we cannot get rid of it. Modern scientific naturalism and Buddhism effectively complement each other: although they may appear radically opposed (cold scientific rationalism versus the ethereal Buddhist spirituality), they are united in their rejection of the Self as a free responsible agent. But the impasses of these two positions show that the Event each of them stands for -- the Event of the radical naturalization of humans in brain sciences, the Event of Enlightenmet, of entering Nirvana, in Buddhism -- ultimately fails: the true Event is the Event of subjectivity itself, illusory as it may be.

Oooo Ahhhhhh yeeaaaah traverse the fantasy. It's just the same fatalism but somehow superior because it is detached. "Do not simply confront reality the way it is, but shatter the very foundations of real reality as it is, realize its inconsistency and know that it is less real than the fantasy of symbolic illusion." Massive cope. Identify with the fantasy as a reaction to the negativity and voidness of reality.

[Anonymous No.18443696]

didn't read

[Anonymous No.18443704]

Its pseudoscientific crap, just opinion pieces written by Jews and frenchmen

[Anonymous No.18443712]

>>18443683
Psychoanalysis has never been anything but astrology for materialists.

[Anonymous No.18443732]

>>18443683
>although they may appear radically opposed (cold scientific rationalism versus the ethereal Buddhist spirituality), they are united in their rejection of the Self as a free responsible agent.
Wrong. They are united in the emptiness that is both nirvana and samsara, the latter its essence and the former its expression through the eternal hunger of an ouroboric will.

>Yes, we are decentered, caught in a foreign cobweb, over-determined by unconscious mechanism.
True, but also false as this mechanism was exposed as what it truly is. It defeats the incessant dyadic, dialectical, process of meaning that is differentiation. The surplus of meaning that ends up creating and destroying itself is given its true meaning in what Christ reveals, in the new order which encompasses those differences and fills them with a love which surpasses this knowledge.

[Anonymous No.18443992]

>>18443732
Scientific naturalism is united with ethereal Buddhist spirituality are united in the emptiness that is both nirvana and samsara? And boy former and latter do you mean nirvana and samsara, or scientism and Buddhism? Your thoughts are very intriguing I just don't want to get lost.

[Anonymous No.18444003]

>>18443683
>Modern scientific naturalism and Buddhism effectively complement each other
What a retard. I can't believe actual academics can get away with running their mouths like this,

[Anonymous No.18444027]

>>18443683
>Identify with the fantasy as a reaction to the negativity and voidness of reality.
It's a decent way to sum up the mentality of the soi and manchild phenomenon. I guess Zizek is ultimately just a fat philosophic manchild himself. It's strange that he calls himself a Hegelian yet rejects the object for the pure subject (fantasy).

[Anonymous No.18444038]

Lacanians are pseuds
>Can Topology be considered as a metaphor in its use in psychoanalysis? Lacan at first says no, then in his typical fashion of saying the same thing and its opposite, from one year to the next, or within the same seminar, says yes: “the efforts I am making to bring you a topology areto account(my Italics) for a form to allows us to conceive of these anomalies which are ours, concerning those problems of inside and outside” (Seminar 13, 8 June 1966). So Topology is and is not a metaphor! This statementis more logically consistent than appears at first, if you place it on a moebius strip, that is inside a non Euclidian logic, where the principle of noncontradiction is not part of the initial axioms. Charles Peirce had elaborated such a logic, which he called Logic of the vague. Nowadays, it would be calledFuzzy Logic.

[Anonymous No.18444069]

>>18444038
>Reject the law of non-contradiction
>return to monke

[Anonymous No.18444103]

>>18443992
Just realized I made a little mistake there.
By ''the latter its essence and the former its expression'' read ''the former (nirvana) its essence and the latter (samsara) its expression...''.
The nature/essence of all things being emptiness, like emptiness in its purity being nirvana, is also understandable as samsara's dualistic semiotic of meaning: being real and illusion, having meaning and being meaningless, being full (multiplicity) and empty (oneness). I should and will work on exploring more deeply and better, in a less convoluted and terse way, these are still fresh thoughts. But you can help me by asking me what is eluding you here.

[Anonymous No.18444165]

Zizek taught me how to play with words and concepts and twist them into anything I want while also still sounding like a major pseud, which impressed the normies. I don’t care if he’s right or wrong when everything he says or writes is, at the very least, something interesting to think about.

[Anonymous No.18444193]

Am I retarded if I didn't understand the first sentence ?

[Anonymous No.18444258]

>>18443683
>What this means is that the dimension of subjectivity (in the sense of free autonomous agency) is irreducible
So where is the explanation for it. I don't get how, in the mind of whoever wrote this, psychoanalysis, unlike science and buddhism, makes us responsible. From the excerpt this seems like just an assertion.

[Anonymous No.18444348]

>>18443683
Both psychoanalysis and marxism are neurotic jewish nonsense and the fact that they are the pillars of the modern left speaks volumes.

[Anonymous No.18444356]

>>18444348

Correctomundo.

[Anonymous No.18444390]

>>18443683

Why not take "reality" for its word and throw it in the trash?

[Anonymous No.18444406]

>>18444193
we cannot escape the fate - the world is deterministic and we cannot evade that in a sense. But we can not also do the opposite, appeal to higher forces that fully determine our life (history for marxists, inherently unjust world for incels). Zizek holds these two positions - determinism and free will to be in a certain sense complimentary, not opposing. That's contrary to common view, because it looks at positions trough dialectical relations and not as if they were separate.

[Anonymous No.18444422]

>>18444258
You must understand that *sniff* in psychanaleesis, we have a covert splitting of the subjecteef and objecteef perceptions of reality into an obscured, non-Euclidean framework, for exampell, one could imagine a mobius strip with an emanatory representation layered upon it. The objecteef, if we go back to Kant we could say the "noumenal", perception of reality exists within the inner layer of subjectivity, however being that it is indeed the objecteef, we cannot perceive it, our subjectivity being merely the outer layer of thise non-Euclidean framework. *adjusts shirt* but psychoanalysees insists that the core of our personality, what is REALLY real in us, comes from that unperceivable noumenal core which, whilst it is difficult to ascertain except through introspection, *sniff* is the real you which has given freedom to that subjecteef emanation.

[Anonymous No.18444922]

>>18443683
>they are united in their rejection of the Self as a free responsible agent.
Well Buddhism knows entering the Nirvana as the only act of free will.

>the Event of Enlightenmet, of entering Nirvana, in Buddhism -- ultimately fails: the true Event is the Event of subjectivity itself, illusory as it may be.
Humanity obtains all thought from Nirvana, all willpower; all joy. Yet all thought is somewhat defective, all willpower is to be trumped and all joy could be somehow stronger. In this pursuit humanity seeks Nirvana more often, until he resides in it, completely and deservedly having forgotten the materialistic fruits it could bear him. He is above enlightened, he is - an Arahat.

[Anonymous No.18444934]

>cope
Literally every single thing that isn't death itself is a coping strategy for the fact that we will all inevitably die. I fucking hate "cope." It's literally fucking meaningless.

[Anonymous No.18444962]

>>18444934
You need to eat more meat and honey and stay hydrated.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGjuRwx_Y8

[Anonymous No.18444975]

>>18444348
>>18443712
>>18443704
have sex incel.

[Anonymous No.18445022]

>>18444348
psychoanalysis is mostly rejected by the modern left and marxism is rejected completely. you either live in some fantasy world or you're too stupid to see beyond appearances, confusing mere aesthetic performance with being genuinely based on something. the modern left is based on bourgeois progressivism tinged with occasional superficial appropriation of marxism with the goal of undermining any independent proletarian movement and integrating it into the bourgeois state

[Anonymous No.18445179]

>>18445022
>the modern left is based on bourgeois progressivism tinged with occasional superficial appropriation of marxism with the goal of undermining any independent proletarian movement and integrating it into the bourgeois state
You just described Marxism to a T. Marx and Engels were both bourgeois appropriators.

[Anonymous No.18445203]

>>18444422
*sniffs* nice dubs

[Anonymous No.18445385]

>>18445022
>the modern left is based on bourgeois progressivism tinged with occasional superficial appropriation of marxism with the goal of undermining any independent proletarian movement and integrating it into the bourgeois state
You are retarded.

[Anonymous No.18445768]

You've misunderstood Zizek if you think he, of all people, is in the business of selling you copes.

[Anonymous No.18445808]

>>18445022
>psychoanalysis is mostly rejected by the modern left
No it isn't. The ideas of internalized homophobia, sexism, etc. are psychoanalysis.