[ 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: 66 KB, 900x750, jacques-lacan-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22522095 No.22522095 [Reply] [Original]

Why do they put this hack alongside Deleuze? When his writing is so god awfuly pretentious boring and unreadable? Why does he think he's so much better than deleuze and guattari? Can someone please explain why the hell people respect this guy? Or at least what he means with all his psychology jargon. Goddamn freud and jung are at least straightforward with what they're saying. I got to be missing something.

>> No.22522107

>>22522095
im guessing the seminars were lit. the man is nothing but a memory.

>> No.22522108

Why is schizo analysis not a legitimate practice but psychoanalysis and it's totally arbitrary structure is still respected by thinkers?

>> No.22522252

>>22522107
He genuinely talks in circles for ten thousand pages and than claims to be the superior intellectual.

>> No.22522353
File: 1.27 MB, 1280x720, 1688244465250069.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22522353

>>22522095
>i actually have to think about what hes saying and put my own views on his own text instead of just reciting it like gospel, this is impregnable and cancer!
unironcally skill issue

>> No.22522385

>>22522353
>Panders to psuedointellectual gang of psychoanalyst nutjob theory.
>Tries to seem more profound than actually is
>Regurgitated nonsense that is painful to read

Deleuze says more in one sentence than this author can in an entire book. I swear to God he never gets to his point.

>> No.22522403
File: 71 KB, 230x230, 1683408199349224.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22522403

>>22522385
i know this is a foreign concept to most /lit/ users but if you truly are having such difficulty comprehending his work, have you possibly considered either reading another book or lecture from him? Or, god forbid! reading... secondary literature on him?!

>> No.22522432

>>22522403
I can handle reading about hegel Marx and dialectical materialsm fine. There is no lack of intellect, the text is simply impenetrable, even with a companion author such as zizek. His ideology as a whole is so distinctly more annoying and bourgeois than deleuze's post-modern revolution. But deluze is "unorthodox" despite being way ahead of his time. Anti-Oedipus is an actual book I want to read that is gripping and enthusing. Lacan is just posturing as an intellectual when he tries to shit on deleuze.

>> No.22522445

>>22522432
>i cant read this one notoriously hard to understand thinker
>i know, ill read another well known hard to understand mf explain him for 400 pages
please read todd mays secondary lit and/or read other secondary lit that isnt just from 1 person

>> No.22522459

He wasn't really a writer and his seminars aren't suited to be read like a book. Even then there are a lot of references he makes that were well known at the time but might need context now.

>> No.22522476
File: 272 KB, 720x1043, Screenshot_20230923-133618.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22522476

Anybody who truly thinks this guy is more profound than deleuze because of wordyness has truly been duped by a con man.

>> No.22522482

i only read his first Seminarium (technical Freud) and it went over my head yes, but i thought its probably because i am not intended audience (so psychology/psychotherapy/psychoanalysis/psychiatry students whatever).
He mentioned real clinical cases like example of wolf-boy and strategies to "cure him" and his interpretation why they worked, so maybe its not all bullshit. Its not really "normal" philosophy book, its more empirical i guess.

>> No.22522498

>>22522476
is that Kant or something near the end?

>> No.22522523

>>22522107
There are still plenty of Lacanians. It's not as popular in America but they're around