Thoughts on Lacanian psychoanalysis? Is there anything there, or is it just snake oil?

File: 19 KB, 500x365, Lacan2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jun 13 11:21:33 2015 No.6683644 [Reply] [Original]

Thoughts on Lacanian psychoanalysis? Is there anything there, or is it just snake oil?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 11:26:54 2015 No.6683659 >>6683644 Truisms (including "sounds-true-enough-isms")+ Esoteric mode of presentation + 10-20% mysterious word salad for flavour = Lacanian psychoanalysis

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 11:27:27 2015 No.6683662 >>6683644 Mmmh, delicious snake oil.

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Sat Jun 13 11:30:19 2015 No.6683669 >>6683644 Ça parle dans l'Autre :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 11:33:33 2015 No.6683675 >>6683644 there are good threads about him where the theory is explained

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 11:45:35 2015 No.6683690 The entire field of psycnoanalysis is pseudoscientific bullshit, and there is absolutely nothing of value to be found wading through all that horse shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 11:50:14 2015 No.6683701 >>6683690 This gets old. Psychoanalysis isn't pseudoscience because it doesn't even pretend or aim to be a science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 11:55:00 2015 No.6683706 >>6683701 Call it what you want, it's trash.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 11:56:32 2015 No.6683710 >>6683701 That and psychiatry, which is "scientifically" based tends to be even more terrible. A psychiatrist's solution to everything is to drug you into oblivion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 11:57:19 2015 No.6683712 i think it's extremely fascinating, when i'm stoned.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 15:20:03 2015 No.6684353 >>6683706 A better descriptive would be mysticism, and you're certainly ill-equipped to wrestle with mysticism if your only move against it is "this ain't science, buddy"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 15:37:47 2015 No.6684390 >>6684353 How does Lacan's being a crypto-mystic make Lacan's theories better?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 15:45:01 2015 No.6684413 >>6683710 I didn't know Tom Cruise posted on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 17:25:13 2015 No.6684713 >>6683644 "...during his seminars Lacan sometimes mused about how high his analysands could count." -S. Schneiderman 1983, 2.

Anonymous Sat Jun 13 17:41:41 2015 No.6684772

>>6684390
If Lacan is a crypto-mystic, then he is not a 'scientist' not a formal and orthodox psychologist and in general not a person that you have any right to be angry or disappointed with for not adhering to any formal requirements you're otherwise used to when reading dry texts by accredited professionals.

You'll certainly have a better time processing his writing as a curiosity and a personal mental exercise on your part as opposed to wanting him to play Chomsky or Gould.

Anonymous Sat Jun 13 17:46:36 2015 No.6684784

>>6684772
But why should any practitioner of psychoanalysis or psychiatry, which are medical fields, take any of his theories seriously? You realize that people apply these theories to reality, and that if they're wrong this wrongness has material and personal consequences, right?

Anonymous Sat Jun 13 19:39:35 2015 No.6685056

>>6684784
This. I have no idea how someone could apply that the image of the image of the phallus is analogically similar to the square root of -1.

Don't get me wrong, I like Lacan and see his value as a philosopher, but there seems to be a gap (no pun intended) between the philosophical part (symbolic-imaginary-real, phantasm, signifiers etc.) and the "you want to fuck the equivalent of a maternal figure, but the daddy figure's name castrates you and keeps your SRI together so you only have access to partial objects and fucking your mom won't therefore solve anything" bit. Not sure why we should presuppose that Freud was mostly right and then pretend that we're criticizing him only a little bit (maybe Lacan just did it so he could appeal to authority).

Anonymous Sat Jun 13 20:35:33 2015 No.6685192

>>6685056
>there seems to be a gap (no pun intended) between the philosophical part (symbolic-imaginary-real, phantasm, signifiers etc.) and the "you want to fuck the equivalent of a maternal figure etc etc"

There isn't a gap, that's kinda the point of Lacan. The paternal figures of oedipus aren't references to your relationship with your actual mother and father, but rather the coming-into-being of the subject; the name-of-the-father is the domain of the symbolic, (law, authority, language etc.) while the mother hypothetically assumes the role of the objet petit a (the unattainable object of desire, the movement of 'I want to fuck my mum') within the imaginary during the infant's development so the child is capable of social interaction. The only issue is that, even if you 'kill' your dad and fuck your mum, or accept his law and don't fuck your mum, either way it results in your castration - you either don't get what you really want and are castrated by your unfulfilled desire, or because you've overthrown the law of your father, you no longer have any reference point as to what exactly is the 'right' thing for you to desire. It's almost a bit like the way the square of a negative number will always have a positive value, who'd have thought it?

To be honest, the oedipus complex is profoundly outdated. Guattari (a disciple of Lacan) along with Deleuze tore it to shreds not long ago, recognising that the movement of the analyst reading oedipus within the subject was a castrating move in itself.

Anonymous Sat Jun 13 20:40:17 2015 No.6685205

>>6684413
I'm not a scientologist or anything. I just know from personal experience that shrinks tend to just throw drugs at everything even when they admit to not exactly knowing what the problem is. That and most of the drugs they prescribe either have terrible side effects, don't work, or are a stopgap measure at best.

Modern psychiatry is still in a phase where it's about as effectual overall as the medical quackery of the middle ages.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 21:13:31 2015 No.6685305 >>6683644 boy John green really let himself go

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 21:28:49 2015 No.6685357 >>6683710 My father is a psychiatrist. That's only half-true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 21:32:33 2015 No.6685380 >>6685357 >half true Because the other half is trying to fix the effects of said drugs

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 13 22:31:46 2015 No.6685588 >>6685305 kek'd

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 07:18:48 2015 No.6686858

>>6685192
Yes, I understand the part you explained, but I meant that I don't really see why we should believe that the Oedipal situation is connected to the rest of the stuff. It does make Lacan a unique thinker, but is he right? I, like many of his readers, can't really see all desire being in a necessary connection to the Oedipal moment(s), at least not in the way that he described it (hysterical and obsessional neurosis especially). The whole thing seems far fetched is what I'm saying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 07:31:12 2015 No.6686890 File: 225 KB, 600x1024, Screenshot_2015-02-21-18-26-28.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6683675 ta da

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 09:11:44 2015 No.6687118

>>6686858
I'm a critical theorist, so psychoanalytic practise for me (especially Lacanian psychoanalysis) isn't so much a system of psychotherapeutic treatment as it is an enquiry into the mediation of desire from the earliest possible point in the life of the subject. Since Lacan believes that that moment is our entrance into language, and typically the first tentative steps into speaking are informed by paternal figures (a child's first words are almost always an address to its parents), it isn't that difficult to envision how desire is socially/linguistically mediated even at the earliest familial arrangement.

Why specifically, though, is it arranged to the allegorical order of the oedipus myth? It has been so difficult to conquer the oedipus, not because of its accuracy in identifying the functioning of desire, but because of its apparent universality; everyone has (or had) a mother and father, everyone is conscious of the inhibitions imposed on their desire (either self-imposed or out of respect for the paternal authority), and everyone feels dissatisfaction when their desire is allegedly accomplished (such as clawing one's eyes out).

The myth is in fact an entirely arbitrary allegory, and its value is contingent on whether or not the subject is capable of tracing their neurosis in such a way that it leads them back to the issue of familial relations (and, by oedipal extension, the issue of language). Even if the family was never the problem, its representational value as desire arranged and informed by language allows the subject to experience a resolution of sorts: thesis (father), antithesis (mother) and synthesis (me).

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 09:16:10 2015 No.6687136 File: 111 KB, 680x585, 1433249889568.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6687118 >I'm a critical theorist

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 09:17:40 2015 No.6687142 >>6687118 Why the need to 'conquer' Oedipus? Is it just some kind of obsession with progress? I genuinely don't understand what the criteria are that tell critical theorists that one thinker has 'moved beyond' another.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 09:18:46 2015 No.6687144

>>6687118
Just to add, I'd highly recommend reading JL Austen's essay on performatives, as well as researching Deleuze and Guattari's distinction between machinic assemblages and collective assemblages of enunciation. While the latter is a certainly very challenging, the former manages to deal with the issue effortlessly, if in a little more simplistic way.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 09:33:12 2015 No.6687177

>>6687142
Because being in-itself cannot be reduced down to the experience of language, which is what the Lacanian oedipus attempts to do. Lets say we have a square napkin, and that it represents the as-yet unoedipalised consciousness. Fold it in half, left hand top corner to right hand bottom corner, and you have a triangle - the subject is now oedipalised. If you continue to fold the napkin corner to corner, it will always remain a triangle, no matter what happens to it; but what of the pre-oedipal consciousness, what of being before language, what of the completely unfolded napkin?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 09:40:23 2015 No.6687201 >>6687177 Why do you think Lacan is correct?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 09:41:37 2015 No.6687207 >>6687177 Nice metaphor, too bad those don't prove anything.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 10:48:13 2015 No.6687406

>>6687201
Correct about what? If anything I find his oedipal trinity profoundly inadequate, but his process of analysis was rooted in structural/post-structural linguistic philosophy and therefore I can't really condemned him for talking about the subject's entry into language or oedipus which is and always will be an allegory.

>>6687207
>"It is as if a tablecloth were being folded, as if its 4(+n) corners were reduced to 3 (+1, to designate the transcendent factor performing the operation). From that moment it is a foregone conclusion that the collective agents will be interpreted as derivatives of, or substitutes for, parental figures, in a system of equivalence that rediscovers everywhere the father, the mother and the ego... There we have a faulty use of the conjunctive synthesis, leading to the statement "so it was your father, so it was your mother..." - Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-oedipus

All it takes is a little bit of reading dude, either of my earlier posts or of writers who could explain it far better than I ever could. Also
>looking for proof in psychoanalysis

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 11:52:21 2015 No.6687559 >>6687406 But again, >>6684784.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 12:22:28 2015 No.6687635 >>6687406 Why privilege Lacan over Freud, though? As you admit, psychoanalysis isn't about being correct.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 13:04:13 2015 No.6687726

>>6687559
>psychoanalysis
>a medical field
Despite the fact that psychoanalysis is a facinating topic for me, even I wouldn't go that far. My interest in it is, first and foremost, textual; I'm not concerned about its applications in psychiatric treatment, which even I agree can occasionally be incredibly misleading and even dangerous to the subject.

>>6687635
Where did I admit anything of the sort? You broadly asked me if Lacan was correct, and I explained what I take from him and where my opinions differ.

Like I said earlier in this post, I'm more interested in psychoanalysis as a practise of textual enquiry. Freud was certainly very intelligent, but he kinda screwed himself over in chaining all economy of desire to oedipus, whereas Lacan appropriates post-structural approaches towards language into his writings alongside psychoanalytic jargon. Oedipus becomes less of an inherent, personal disorder and more like the necessary discursive conditions for sexuality and desire to develop. Even though Lacan still deals with Oedipal development as something required (which I personally disagree with), he is aware of a pre-oedipal stage, however brief it may be, where consciousness (to an extent) still exists, but before the subject has entered into language. Lacan still isn't 100% correct but he's certainly more correct than Freud was, or at least, less wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 13:34:38 2015 No.6687821 File: 371 KB, 791x720, 1434243193528.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6687635 >2015 >falling this hard to sophists

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 13:42:44 2015 No.6687848 >>6687821 >2015 >still thinking that humanity has a collective knowledge well that prevents us from having to learn the same things each generation

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 13:52:04 2015 No.6687873 >>6687848 >implying I am a Jungian sophist Or in your beloved Anna Freud's sophistic words, are you projecting? Oh, you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 13:57:09 2015 No.6687885 >>6687873 you seemed to have missread Jung at some point, he never assumed people would obtain magic knowledge. The well of previous learning is accessed by searching for it, like, reading and stuff.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 14:13:53 2015 No.6687927 >>6687885 I have no idea what you two are talking about, but it sounds interesting. What is this well and why do you think that it / it doesn't exist? And yes I can usw Google, but these things are rarely well (heh) understood through random searches.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 14:26:21 2015 No.6687965 He stole all his ideas from Proust.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 14:34:35 2015 No.6688006 >>6686890 >and so on kek

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 14:41:40 2015 No.6688039 With whom, and what book exactly do I start with psychoanalysis? What should I avoid, look more critically at, and why?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 14:42:13 2015 No.6688044 >>6687927 Bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 14:43:05 2015 No.6688049 It's a fascinating religion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 14:52:02 2015 No.6688088 >>6687821 >2015 >still thinks the sophistry/philosophy is anything other than the metaphysical closure

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 14:54:17 2015 No.6688100 >>6687848 >2015 >doesn't know about tertiary memory and can't account for technological progress

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 15:10:47 2015 No.6688184 >>6687965 this

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 15:27:39 2015 No.6688270 >>6688088 >2015 >regarding any post-modernist bullshit as truth

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 16:15:32 2015 No.6688453

>>6687726
>even I wouldn't go that far.
Why not? Psychoanalytic clinics treat patients. Zizek treats patients with Lacanian techniques. The fact that you use these theories to interpret texts doesn't change the fact that others use it for other purposes.
>whereas Lacan appropriates post-structural approaches towards language into his writings alongside psychoanalytic jargon.
Why is that necessarily a good thing? Poststructuralism is cancerous.
>Oedipus becomes less of an inherent, personal disorder and more like the necessary discursive conditions for sexuality and desire to develop.
I've read parts of Anti-Oedipus, I understand where you think Freud fell short, but I have a couple questions.
1) What makes you think Lacan actually solves these problems in a meaningful way? 2) What makes you think

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 17:09:54 2015 No.6688646 >>6688453 >Psychoanalytic clinics treat patients. Good luck treating schizophrenics, borderline girls and anorexics. "Treating" some people without goals in life isn't in the same league as treating actual psychiatric patients.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 19:20:31 2015 No.6689110 >>6687177 that'd be the real, and if you're still "in the real," that's what Lacan calls psychosis.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 19:23:26 2015 No.6689119 >>6688646 this. if anyone wants to know how fucked "treating" people with psychosis is read "the divided self" how we "treat" these people is doping them. but its still interesting to understand how people got so fucked, naturally or caused.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 19:40:23 2015 No.6689163 >>6688646 So what? People without goals in life can fuck up their lives if they take bad advice to heart.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 20:24:09 2015 No.6689300 >>6683701 neither does scientology

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 20:39:48 2015 No.6689367

>>6689119
Have you ever listened the term "functional magnetic resonance imaging"? It is well established by now that schizophrenia is an actual disease that affects the brain cortex and the diencephalon, fucking imbecile. There is no psychological cause but an actual organic one.
Also, doping people has an actual scientific basis supported by actual evidence and clinical trials, unlike psychoanalysis.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 20:44:13 2015 No.6689381 >>6689119 >naturally or caused How is nature not a cause?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 20:44:22 2015 No.6689384 >>6689367 Psychoanalysis is well-established as effective.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 20:45:22 2015 No.6689387 >>6689384 Lacanian psychoanalysis isn't, except by Lacanians, who take pride in being a controversial minority.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 21:00:28 2015 No.6689456 >>6689367 Wouldn't a Lacanian just tell you that the cause is still a psychological one, even if the symptoms are organic as well?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 21:01:46 2015 No.6689462 >>6689456 That would be contrary to empirical evidence. After a certain point, a theorist's opinion about what's happening ceases to be important. Sometimes people are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 21:01:56 2015 No.6689463 >>6689387 Is there really a big difference between Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis as far as the clinical is concerned though? There shouldn't be much of a difference except for fixed sessions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 21:04:31 2015 No.6689473 >>6689462 I don't know anything about the matter sadly. What exactly is the empirical evidence exactly if it's so obvious that it is entirely organic in nature?

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 21:07:37 2015 No.6689480

>>6689463
The methodologies and aims are different, as evidenced by the fact that Lacanian distinguish themselves from Freudians as loudly as possible whenever they can. See this thread.
>>6689473
See >>6689367. If there's empirical evidence that schizophrenia is a consequence of biological causes, then treat schizophrenia without addressing its biological causes of schizophrenia is irrational.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 21:15:50 2015 No.6689525 >>6689480 In a little drunk, sorry for the way this post was worded

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 21:17:02 2015 No.6689531

>>6689480
Well that's what I'm asking basically, what is the evidence? fMRI scans show that the disease has organic consequences (something about neuronal axons getting destroyed during psychotic episodes or something iirc, I'm no expert), but does that clearly indicate that the causes of the disease are purely biological? The disease is, unless you disagree on this point, more than just the psychotic episodes (even if it is only directly manifested in them). I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the empirical evidence isn't as obvious of an indication as it seems.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 21:55:40 2015 No.6689739

>>6683644
Terrible psychologist, but he wrote some interesting ideas. Everything he said can be found elsewhere of course (In structuralism, mythical eastern religions), but he was the first to try to seriously demarcate and apply those ideas to the human subconscious and a system of psychotherapy.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 21:58:32 2015 No.6689761

>>6684784
>>6685056
People that take Lacan's ideas, especially the more batshit ones (his Math memes) for face value will definitely miss out on his broader and more applicable ideas.

>>6685192
This. I had a really really hard time accepting Lacan's ideas until I realized they weren't literal. People get way too focused on his Symbolic Order and terms without trying to understand the nitty gritty and practical of what he means.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:00:22 2015 No.6689774

>>6689110
The real would be those dainty, annoying folds and crinkles in the napkin that don't allow it to fold right.

>>6689367
I wouldn't recommend psychoanalysis for anyone that is actually mentally ill. Maybe so for people with fake made-up illnesses like Autism or ADHD, or any "Personality Disorder" that is.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:04:18 2015 No.6689793
File: 214 KB, 400x399, frodo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If the important stage of self-identification and realization of your selfhood and separation from your Mother and per-linguistic self happens when you see yourself in a mirror, than how do blind people develop?

If the unconscious is structured like a language than how do Deaf people who can hear nothing structure their unconscious? Does their mind just, somehow word up their unconscious anyway even without being able to hear or understand real words? What about natives who only speak in clicks or weird morse code-esque languages think subconsciously?

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:10:00 2015 No.6689822

>>6689793
This part about his ideas always bugged me. The way Lacan's theories jump from all of Saussure's work straight to the mind. It's the same problem with Freud who states one's psyche development is formatted by the oedipus complex, he puts his entire line of work on that one outlandish theory but takes it as a priori to affirm all his ideas. Despite no real evidence or any sort of empirical observations proving this to be correct.

So Lacanians, if you have to tell me that the unconscious is structured like a language I'm not just going to take the for face value. I'd have to ask "Okay...how? Can you prove that?"

If not, than what are any of your theories backing on exactly?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:15:36 2015 No.6689854 >>6689793 MAURICE MERLEAU-PONTY A U R I C E M E R L E A U - P O N T Y Lacan is still a hack who fucked his work up though.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:17:38 2015 No.6689859
File: 95 KB, 408x335, 2015-New-Sexy-Shiny-Fashion-Black-Faux-leather-Mittens-font-b-Glove-b-font-font-b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

On the subject of fetishes,

>"In Lacan's first approach to the subject of fetishism, in 1956, he argues that fetishism is a particularly important area of study and bemoans its neglect by his contemporaries.

>He stresses that the equivalence between the fetish and the maternal phallus can only be understood by reference to linguistic transformations, and not by reference to "vague analogies in the visual field" such as comparisons between fur and pubic hair."[2] "

Can someone give me an honest explanation behind fetishes? Freud says they're replacements for the mother's phallus and help shield from the ordeal of castration anxiety. Lacan says however that Fetishes are a function of language to explain and bring that disavowal as a defense mechanism against said castration.

Well which is it? These are nice and impressive platitudes, but really help to explain anything regarding what a real-life masturbatory, erection-inducing, erotic fetish is.

They don't say anything meaningful about Dickgirls or Genderbending, Latex, Transformations, Furries, Mind Control or anything currently on /d/, other than shallow interpretations like
"Well MAYBE you were just raped by a clown as a kid! Hahaha, you had a traumatic sexual experience, it all makes sense! You're mind is just DEFENDING itself with these arousing fantasies!"

Considering all the Fetishes I have, I must've been a poster child for Trauma to still be defending my subconscious from all of them.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:21:53 2015 No.6689874

Lacan is fucking great for Literary theory and Film criticism.

Just don't apply him to real life, like people or actual Psychology however. Yeah he don't work so well with that. They don't really have any real application for affirming or evaluating the human experience.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:29:45 2015 No.6689906 File: 7 KB, 320x239, 1412220847206.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6689874 >Just don't apply him to real life, like people or actual Psychology however. Yeah >His entire line of work is in Psychology >Not applicable as a psychologist

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:32:21 2015 No.6689915 >>6689906 the fate of every psychologist ever.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:40:25 2015 No.6689944

"The libido's charge of energy. Freud often described the functioning of psychosexual energies in mechanical terms, influenced perhaps by the dominance of the steam engine at the end of the nineteenth century. He often described the libido as the producer of energies that, if blocked, required release in other ways. If an individual is frustrated in his or her desires, Freud often represented that frustration as a blockage of energies that would then build up and require release in other ways: for example, by way of regression and the "re-cathecting" of former positions (ie. fixation at the oral or anal phase and the enjoyment of former sexual objects ["object-cathexes"], including auto-eroticism). When the ego blocks such efforts to discharge one's cathexis by way of regression, i.e. when the ego wishes to repress such desires, Freud uses the term "anti-cathexis" or counter-charge. Like a steam engine, the libido's cathexis then builds up until it finds alternative outlets, which can lead to sublimation or to the formation of sometimes disabling symptoms."

Psychology, atleast from a Freudian or Lacanian viewpoint is locked in primitive 19th century pseudoscience. The fact that it still affirms in ideas like the Libido, "Psychic Energies" and sexual drives (something we've evaluated thoroughly with science, and found closely to be related with genes, neurotransmitters and androgen's effecting pre-natal development at birth) should show you that it's outdated and effectively worthless.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:45:29 2015 No.6689962 >>6689944 Freud did rip off Plato's tripartite soul.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:45:47 2015 No.6689963 >>6689944 Oh fucking great, here come the STEMfags to tell us that humans are reducible to quantum spreadsheets. Found that Gay Gene yet huh Fedora tipper?

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:47:24 2015 No.6689969

>>6689944
But the libido and all those things you stated aren't important to Lacan's theories at all. Lacan's body of work doesn't even depend on anything biological, it's all metaphoric and symbolism. You're just over-simplifying things without understanding their ontology.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:49:34 2015 No.6689978

>>6689963
Alright tell me than, what does Psychoanalyst tell that's meaningful about homosexuality. Speak of the pot calling the kettle black, when most analyst leave variable sexualities out altogether. Must be hard to incorporate them when they don't fit into their purple prose automaton theories of human sexuality huh.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:49:56 2015 No.6689979 >>6689969 > all that stuff that proves Lacan wrong doesn't matter > it's a metaphor!

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:51:36 2015 No.6689986
File: 38 KB, 625x504, 1264c9f620e5f490e005320d658fa9fba9433ff25eca4744cd58238699183556.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6689978
>Must be hard to incorporate them when they don't fit into their purple prose automaton theories of human sexuality huh
This is some advanced retardation right here.

Bet you weren't aware Freud wrote entire letters on the subject and praised the gays. They're perfectly accounted for and accepted within psychology dumbshit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:53:12 2015 No.6689988 >>6689979 What's a matter, you cannot into metaphors brah? I bet you think the Mirror stage is about actual mirrors too.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:54:33 2015 No.6689993

>>6689978
Lacan sez women become lesbians because they literally can't imagine themselves feeling beautiful with another man and if they can imagine themselves in a narrative where a man makes them feel beautiful they will return to heterosexuality. They turn to homosexuality because it's just a reversion to infancy/adolescence when they're still entirely in love with themselves and haven't learn to see other things as heightening their own sense of beauty. Heterosexuality is learned in women. Homosexuality is not really a thing, just a kind of social grooming. Natural state of women is more like autosexuality.

Male homosexuality is different. It's more a real commitment. Women just want compliments.

I should have included a trigger warning?

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:56:43 2015 No.6689997

>>6689986
That's not my point at all. Within the psychological framework of all the analyst one takes into account the "Normal" sexual development based on some fanfiction about infants developing a sexual attraction/grudge against their parents and theory that going into adulthood they learn to transfer this attraction/grudge into healthy sexual/social development. But it still assumes from the start that this fanfic is with a heterosexual, and when people point out that homosexual would be an exception and ask how this would affect them Psychologist cannot give a response. It's kind of important if your whole theory is trashed because a kid doesn't fall in love with his mama and likes guys, right? Wouldn't you agree?

This isn't even going into the whole plothole in the fic involving Orphans or those raised by same-sex parents.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:57:00 2015 No.6690000

>>6689988
It's Lacanian damage control.

Point out how kids don't reflect Lacan's mirror stage and you get, guaranteed

> i-it's not about mirrors!
> i-t's not strictly during infancy but throughout your whole life!

Stretch the metaphor until it fits and then when some neuroscientist says "oh yeah, look Freud/Lacan were right" suddenly it stops being metaphor.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 22:59:05 2015 No.6690004

>>6689993
So you're saying that woman become lesbians because they're stuck in narcissism? That's a cute theory, I bet you've plenty of cute evidence too :)

Oh, can I share mine too! Can I can I! My mommy says that woman become lesbians because they were hurt by men/their daddies and turned away from god because of it. Isn't it great to share theories! Let's do shipping and fanart of some lesbians next too ^_~

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:02:25 2015 No.6690016 >>6689387 >Lacanian psychoanalysis isn't Where did you get this from?

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:04:01 2015 No.6690025
File: 27 KB, 510x381, 51f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6689997
Once again you fail to completely understand the ontology of Psychoanalysis. Come back when you've educated yourself and actually studied up on any of the relevant theories.

>>6689993
Psychologically speaking all infants are bi/pansexual, they just learn to project their sexual drives towards a single gender.

In some cases it's both but that's not a deviation from Freudian psycho-sexual development, it's just a different variation of it.
All humans are naturally driven towards themselves and attracted to both genders until they're conditioned through healthy development otherwise.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:05:50 2015 No.6690032

>>6690004
> "Lacan sez..."
>So you're saying that
> I bet you've plenty of cute evidence too :)

Do you even read? I said I'm explaining Lacan. If you want to cover your ears for fear of not having your worldview profoundly shaken, please, go back to Gawker.

Otherwise you can engage in discussion on Lacan without resorting to ad hominems and strawmans. Even Judith Butler is capable of engaging Lacan.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:09:30 2015 No.6690042

>>6690000
>Stretch the metaphor until it fits
But you don't need to stretch the metaphor, it is a metaphor and that's it. An easily understandable concept that doesn't require the hundreds of obscure prose-pages that Lacan wrote on it to really understand.

All the Mirror Stage is, is an infant realizing "Wow, I EXIST! I'M ALIVE!" It's that exact precise moment when they gain any sort of awareness/self-identity.
And becoming aware of their own existence through language, they come to realize they're not just a collection of hands, legs, teeth, blood and drooling spit, but also an individual. One with a "unique identity", even if it's just a fiction. (I'm Brian, an American from PA and a Catholic! Oh wait, people just used words to make those things up so they're not really true)

However they have to acknowledge that in spite of those stories, those fictions (within the symbolic order), they're STILL, technically, just bones and meat, an organic being even above what they call themselves.

Human beings cannot easily reconcile with this fact, so they gain lack. Their Identity is incomplete. They'll spend the rest of their life looking for an Identity, their perfect mirror other that will tell them that they're not just meat lumps, that there is a real them as concrete and objective as as their own cells, their own image in a mirror. But they never will.

So it's really them realizing "I EXIST! Oh wait holy shit I really don't. BUT I DO! But I...don't? FUCK which is it?" And never being able to reconcile it.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:17:38 2015 No.6690084

>>6690032
I get that. By what makes it true? What makes that thing you just said accurate, or atleast useful. Science can zoom into people's brains, test the androgens and hormones within development at a certain stage of life and identify specific, biological traits of homosexuals. This works with 97.5% accuracy on clinical trials.

How does Lacan provide any "profoundly shaken worldview"? Everything you said was a mystic platitude, it doesn't really tell someone who is a lesbian or why a woman would choose lesbianism. For example
>Lacan sez women become lesbians because they literally can't imagine themselves feeling beautiful with another man
Is such a bold claim it might as well be found in a pickup-artist datebook.
Why do woman have to feel beautiful? How can we say that woman need to feel beautiful with men.
> and if they can imagine themselves in a narrative where a man makes them feel beautiful they will return to heterosexuality
And this, reads just about as true as the predominant Christian Theory that if Gays pray and can imagine a narrative where god will forgive them and heal their hearts they can come back to god and "Return to heterosexuality."

And the science I mention puts this absurd theory at odds. What if a woman has a homosexual makeup but decides that man can make them feel beautiful. What if they overcome their love for themselves and can see past their own self love, yet still have chemicals and endorphins in their brain that make activate their limbic system and make them aroused at the female physique?

For that matter, what about animals? Homosexuality is commonly found in the animal kingdom. Should we extend narcissism and autosexuality for the reason that animals become attracted to their own sex?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:23:06 2015 No.6690104 >>6689531 >purely I didn't use that word. A disease can have both psychological and biological origins.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:24:44 2015 No.6690110

>>6690084
Holy shit you're dense.
Psychoanalysis is a study of the development of the individual, what that anon is saying are conditions that apply to their general neurosis, as a lesbian. It's not the exact, definable cause of homosexuality, just a cause of it. There is a specific 'thing' to be a schizophreniac.

The experience is not the same as the medical causes for schizophrenia. But we cannot just treat it with empty science.
The map is not the territory.

You're like a retard giving an explanation on geological processes and Global Waming when asked "Why do people go go the Beach? What's so fun about the ocean?"

Stop taking things so literally, your retardation is extra showing.

>>6690000
The metaphors are Framing Devices to apply a set of situations to the individual.

The Mirror Stage just has to do with self-identification.
Lacan believed we form our Identity purely though language, but language can error and that causes our Identity to error. Not literal words, mind you but language as the french philosophers understand it.
He was right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:26:16 2015 No.6690116 >>6689761 I don't see how not being literal is a plus tbh, the nitty gritty of what he means is intuitively true bullshit that you can glean from life experience or most philosophers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:27:27 2015 No.6690119 File: 18 KB, 315x556, a29f5d0790bdc18ab316a5430fb175e8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6690110 >It's not the exact, definable cause of homosexuality, just a cause of it. Seriously? WHAT THE FUCK IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:28:36 2015 No.6690125

>>6690110
>empty science
>The map is not the territory
Science is a useful tool for making more accurate maps of territories. By disregarding it you're making yourself look bad. The goal of science isn't to create a perfect map but to facilitate the collection of knowledge. If you want to leave scientific information out of your medical treatment, go ahead.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:28:42 2015 No.6690126

>>6689944

>muh empirical data, muh MRI, muh complex thoughts that aren't a data set are too hard to understand, muh psychology is better now, we have antipsychotics and antidepressants and mood stabilizers (don't pay attention to the fact that they don't work except for the far end of the spectrum!)

"science" has gotten us no closer to understanding psychic pathology and the assertion that it has makes this feel like. there has been no emptier thought than "something we've evaluated thoroughly with science, and found closely to be related with genes, neurotransmitters and androgen's effecting pre-natal development at birth"

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:28:57 2015 No.6690128

>>6690116
True, a lot of it seems redundant from other philosophers. But the thing about those ones and the experiences is they aren't as concentrated on psychology. They don't focus on the unique problems faced by the individual with realizing their own existence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:32:01 2015 No.6690139 his theory of the symbolic imaginary and real is interesting

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:33:19 2015 No.6690152

>>6690125
Lacan and Psychology never claimed to be scientific. It's not science, it makes has adherents to be so.

Since it's so specialized on focusing towards the individual and mental conception of self, why should it be? Lacan wouldn't for example

>>6690126
>>6690119
Be concerned whether or not Chemicals in the brain make Elsa attracted to other woman. But rather how she, as a self-conscious, yet language capable/caged subject deals and with handles the subjectivity of her Homosexuality, if she chooses to embrace it, or deny it and her biology altogether. And from there once the Conditions for her self-identification and beliefs are reached he'd ask "Okay, what now?"

Or are you going to suggest that all homosexuals are equally alike just because there may be some variance of explanation behind them. That's honestly kind of trivializing of Gay experience, don't you think?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:35:24 2015 No.6690162 >>6690152 >It's not science So what? Science is correct whether psychoanalysis is scientific or not. Where the two disagree, science has to win. It's that simple.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:36:52 2015 No.6690168 >>6690152 Why not worry about the chemicals? Don't you think they're also important? What gives you cause to write them off like that? Even Deleuze and Guattari acknowledged the importance of genetics and chemistry. You're a sophist.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:37:58 2015 No.6690179

>>6690119
The Real is different from the Subjective and the Imaginary. It's the tip of the triangle.

"exact, definable cause of homosexuality" = The Real, the unknowable, undefinable and uncontrollable, scary conditions beyond language/understanding that make the gay.

"a cause of it" = The Subjective and Imaginary. The latter is what we define as "Gay", which is different in every culture (Greeks, Japanese, Native American, ect) as defined by language. Obviously there's going to be a different set of rules for Homosexuality in the Indians than there is for us.

The former's just how one goes about embodying those definitions. The sterotypes, behaviors, and deviations.

There may be brain gay in all humans, but what it means to be "Gay" for the individual is so drastically different it cannot be reduced to biology, only explained but not defined.

You are completely omitting the symbolic experiences, the subjectivity of a human beings and it's quite insulting.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:46:02 2015 No.6690208

>>6690162
>Science is correct whether psychoanalysis is scientific or not.
Not on the scale of the individual it's not, or do scientist run tests on every single person that ever complains about their mind?

>>6690168
Science is important for sciences sake. It's plenty helpful for humanity yeah, but where as Psychology is concerned it's not interested in science. You can give a patient all the details on the process of Reproduction, but the moment you start calling their children "Offspring" or start trying to explain their individual problems with only neuroscience you end up sounding really really autistic.

"Oh Mary you're dad abandoned you when you were 6 and you're mom was an alcoholic and your sister tried to care for you but got addicted to heroin and overdosed leaving you to seek male partners for love and security only to end up broken and alone with no way out and now you seek therapy."
Do you see how absurd it would be to try to explain and resolve that situation with science? What could chemicals possibly offer her for her own life experience, besides maybe antidepressants. It's not useless, just merely not always applicable. Not to psychology anyway.

There's science behind being sad, depressed, and systems that regulating emotions right? But so what. A scientist telling Mary that she's sad just because of the chemical reactions in her head, rather than her own emotional subjective, and personal experiences is just useless reductionism. Should a scientist choose to recommend them pills or fixes on their head that fix their emotions (if such a thing can be said), than that's on them. Psychology is focused on the individual subject.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:50:48 2015 No.6690231

>>6690162
>Science is correct whether psychoanalysis is scientific or not.
Lacan was focused on the very ascientific conditions of humankind actually. Mental disorders and diseases.It saw man trapped not only in language but all of society trapped in the aims of Ideology. In that, science serves different aims.

Whereas medical science/psychiatry were concerned with much the same, Lacan doesn't say how or what to free yourself from the symbolic order constructed by the cage of language. He doesn't tell people how to best serve society or improve everyday life, he's not concerned with how to get better at work or school or serving the state/country anything you could imagine.

All his aim is, is to help people understand themselves as themselves a little better. The unique subject, separated from the object of their relations, to do whatever it is they want to do or find out. That's it. There's no comparable science to that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:51:17 2015 No.6690238 >>6690084 >For that matter, what about animals? Homosexuality is commonly found in the animal kingdom. like.. are there lesbian cows?? How do they em... have sex?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:54:13 2015 No.6690253 >>6690238 The same way other lesbian animals try to do it? Bumping themselves or something. Than again Cows aren't really monogamous so it's harder to say.

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:55:58 2015 No.6690260

>>6690084
>I get that. By what makes it true? What makes that thing you just said accurate, or atleast useful. Science can zoom into people's brains, test the androgens and hormones within development at a certain stage of life and identify specific, biological traits of homosexuals. This works with 97.5% accuracy on clinical trials.

Can they predict the normal homosexual, the crossdressers, the sissy-ones, the active, or the passive kind of gays? what about the closet homosexual that are married and shit?

Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:56:34 2015 No.6690263
File: 21 KB, 317x233, 1428617923165.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6690231
Than how can Lacan help me?
With fetishes, neurosis, sexual dissatisfaction. Don't give me any purple prose theory wordpile, just offer the straight up lowdown on what he has to offer.

I want a Lacanian right her and now to explain why I have genderbending or Cross dressing/Mind warping fetishes. If they cannot, they've little to offer me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:57:07 2015 No.6690268 >>6690253 hahahaha are you 14?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:57:25 2015 No.6690271 >>6690162 Where does it disagree though? Psychoanalysis doesn't make claims about physical structures of the brain. At most it uses physical metaphors to clarify certain things.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:57:57 2015 No.6690272 >>6690231 THIS. Lacan is the existential psychologist. That's why he's both so controversial and was so popular back in the day. He stood out far against the populist crowd representing psychology back than.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 14 23:58:19 2015 No.6690276 File: 14 KB, 270x314, IMAGE18[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Can someone explain what's going on here?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:00:13 2015 No.6690287

>>6690260
If they've already come out as Gay, the trials they do are pretty accurate. In theory it could be used to test the homosexuality of all men but, the actual amount of information and conductive testing needed would really defy any use for them. (Atleast with the amount of time people are willing to spend having their brain fluids examined, scanned, tested and studies for extended periods)

It's not a practical or long-term solution for society but if you wanted it, it's there.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:04:42 2015 No.6690307

>>6689774
>The real would be those dainty, annoying folds and crinkles in the napkin that don't allow it to fold right

Sure, in the post-oedipal sense. But the unfolded napkin is the primordial, Jungian, pre-oedipal Real where mother and child share "something of oneness."

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:05:05 2015 No.6690309

>>6690276
The matheme's just showing the relationship between one's self-identity and pleasures.

Castration, entry into Lack, is caused by loss of the primordial pre-language self. This leads to them extending their perception to the Signifier (Words, clothing, beliefs, ideals and ideology) and their primal fears/pleasures (Jouissance) being formulated as an aversion to the Lack. To fulfill the nothingness that exists at the center of all human experience and self-Identity.

It's a really complex diagram spelling out {"People desire things because they don't have them."} or {"Humans always want things because to want is human."}
It's the closest translation and explanation I can give.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:06:54 2015 No.6690314 >>6690307 >Jungian Real Now this is new to me. I've never heard this concept before, or atleast the Real applied retroactively like that. Fascinating.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:07:04 2015 No.6690315 >>6690287 >It's not a practical or long-term solution for society exactly

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:11:23 2015 No.6690331

>>6690315
Maybe not right now, where testing and neuroscience is still in it's infancy. But we've made a lot of progress and for that extra assurance and security that kind of testing does exist.

I find it a lot more applicable atleast to individuals seeking help than being told by Lacanians that they lack an Identity or cannot stop desiring.

That's not even some super deep profound revelation really. Biology shows that we produce pheromones and hormones after a certain age until the day we die. Scientifically speaking humans never stop desiring. Only we don't do it with a hamfisted social theory.

>>6690309
Than why not just say it? Why make such a convoluted diagram at all?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:11:45 2015 No.6690332

>>6690287
it sounds like bullshit. Sexual preferences are not like "true or false".

There are a lot of "scientific studies" for everything and a lot of bullshit you have to take apart.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/sep/25/lonely-potato-syndrome-mental-disorder-psychological-condition

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:15:26 2015 No.6690350

Well, it is not a scientific practice, meaning it therefore has no precise methodology, and has proven to be more harmful than beneficial. I think it was just a scam by Lacan to live a luxurious life without having to work. That is the French dream, after all.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:16:44 2015 No.6690357

>>6690307
They share the same psychoanalytic dimension I think, but are simply restructured differently pre and post Oedipal stage.

>>6690315
>>6690287
I get the feeling that that kind of thing is only right so much as it is that someone coming out to be tested, is already so convinced and leaning towards their sexuality that it doesn't even matter. A test result isn't going to change their experience or decisions at all.

>>6690331
Because than you wouldn't understand it or have asked that question.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:17:29 2015 No.6690359 How is Lacan a Heideggerean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:18:25 2015 No.6690362 >>6690359 They were both obscurantist mystics, but that's about all they have in common. I don't know why someone would consider him a follower of Heidegger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:18:36 2015 No.6690364 >>6690332 It was never that black and white in the first place, just a positive correlation showing "If you have this brain chemistry and these androgens, you are much more likely to be gay." Who would follow science so pedantic otherwise?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:19:25 2015 No.6690365 >>6690364 >patient a: has a wife and several male lovers, he thinks he is just bisexual. >patient b: he has a gf, but had an adventure 5 years ago with his roomate, he is convinced that he is homosexual. Do you see the problem here?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:23:33 2015 No.6690379

>>6690331
>I find it a lot more applicable at least to individuals seeking help than being told by Lacanians that they lack an Identity or cannot stop desiring.

Do you really want to live in a world where science explains everything, devoid of any humanness, because that's where your train of thought is headed. Don't misinterpret this as a castigation of what science has been able to do for us. (I take antidepressants)

The thought of science being able to deconstruct every human process is very unsettling. (You are sad because the x triggered x chemical to release and flood the snyapses yadda yadda yadda)

Humans are better than science at explaining the human condition in a relatable way and always will be.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:25:17 2015 No.6690385

>>6690365
No? They can both just get tested if they wish. If one of them as more anatomical markers than that may tell the Researchers about how to perceive his orientation, but assuming it's him that wanted to get tested there's no inclination for him to do anything about it. Not unless he truly feels such attraction that even low test results would be problematic.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:26:43 2015 No.6690392
File: 5 KB, 200x200, roxy_lalonde_by_fat_fudge_lover-d62799q.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6690357
>Because than you wouldn't understand it or have asked that question.
Uhhh.. the fuck?
I didn't understand it initially to start with. I wouldn't have needed to ask anything if it was presented simply.

Try again and be patient with me please.
How the fuck is a diagram like that useful? If it can be said in simpler words I don't really comprehend how it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:38:20 2015 No.6690416 >>6690385 you just dont get it. defining oneself as gay is very subjective, as most things related to human beings.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:39:40 2015 No.6690424 >>6690000 They're always already metaphors, they are always already only interpretations. They drag the patient back to his signifying, interpreting self as an object, but not as an object conscious of his self per se.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:41:12 2015 No.6690427

>>6690379
Science doesn't devoid humanity at all. Understanding genetics and fertilization doesn't take away a Mother's love for their child. Understanding the science behind bonding and hormones doesn't make human relationships worthless. Beyond their function and utility, obviously the humanity in place is still enact.

I don't really bemoan Lacan, even if I think he's absolutely wrong an nonsensical. If there were psychotherapies based on science than I'd be more understanding. As is it's just pretentious poetry. You have to remember that human beings, and I mean people, real people with lives, friends, relationships and lives of their own are infact people. Not 'subjects' or 'castration entities' or anything like that. I'd want science to explain and reason with them, not try to try them like a phallus equated to the square root of a penis when they just ask for simple guidance and help. Anything more extraneous seems extremely damaging, as far as therapy goes. Science is just one approach, but Psychology seems like it tries to be an end-all to itself.

Think of it like this. Say a little girl, 12-16 was having problems with attractions to another girl. Atleast for me, I'd much rather tell her that it's a perfectly, natural humanistic and even scientifically healthy/valid thing, to be okay with being attracted to other woman. I'd encourage her and whether she wants to hear the science or not, acknowledge that the research shows it's nothing abnormal and hope she believe so too.

Now compare that to the Lacan approach. Doesn't it seem far more cold, and more unsettling to tell her that she's just fallen for a false narrative of self-love where she cannot imagine feeling beautiful with another man, and that to become a proper, correct heterosexual she simply needs to face her infancy stage where she's still in narcissistic love with herself, and tell her to stop being so autosexually driven? Can you do that, how can any therapist or even human say that with a straight face to a real person and try to tell them that because of some absurd baseless theory this is what they believe and what they should to do to change it

Psychotherapy, especially lacanian Psychology is not science, it's not even theory. It's a cult. It's more akin to a Religion than it is anything humanistic or humanizing. That's why I'm against it.

It, much like the theory stated, is entirely narcissistic in itself. It's not concerned at all with helping people, affirming human values or assisting personal relations. It's only concerned with proving itself right and that's it. Whether or not it "Helps" others or serve to cure the patients insecurities, is really only a matter of if it proves itself right or not, not otherwise.

Don't agree? Than tell that to all of Lacan's patients who killed themselves. Too that to Lacan himself who often strangled, beat, abused and slept (LIKE A CULT!) with all his patients like the maniac that he was. I'd like to see someone try it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:42:31 2015 No.6690430 >>6690427 But it can't possibly fill a mother's love and all its complications with an interpretive meaning beyond evolutionary psychology, and that is why we have the humanities. We forgot waaay too often.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:43:58 2015 No.6690443 >>6690427 stop it, you just dont understand anything about Lacan.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:46:27 2015 No.6690455
File: 13 KB, 100x100, thepsychosloth.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6689859
>>6690263
>fetishes
Can I get any insight into this, please. I'm not unread with Lacan I just don't get where he's coming from at some places.

The hardest part is when he speaks about Desire I know often he doesn't really mean "Desire" as in sexual desire, just epistemological desire and how we can know what we want, what we don't want, and so forth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:49:18 2015 No.6690472 >>6690416 How do you back up that statement? You can't just state something as a fact without evidence.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:50:09 2015 No.6690477

>>6690443
This is literally the solution everytime anyone objects or criticizes Lacan's methods and theories.
>Y-you, you just don't understand!

Don't get me wrong, if it were just reading books and interpreting movies than sure, let the spooks badger off buzzwords all they want. But when it comes to understanding real people and therapy, how can such an aggravating polarizing theory say anything on human worth?

>>6690430
As opposed to what, the ravings of a psychotic Frenchman whose theories were based on theories that reduce woman to the envy of men's penises and described their experiences as a "Dark Continent"? That's going to fill the interpretative meaning of a mother's love?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:52:13 2015 No.6690484 >>6690477 >aggravating polarizing theory first understand the theory properly, then you come here and complain.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:54:58 2015 No.6690496

>>6690477
It's really easy for Psychologist and Critical theory buffs to apply their theories to Books and cinema. They don't talk back!
Whereas it's much harder to verify theories in people and settings when your ideas just aren't falsifiable.
No, statics showing your methods don't work don't show a falsifiable field of study.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:55:34 2015 No.6690500 >>6690484 I don't think you understand his critique.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 00:59:56 2015 No.6690514

>>6690484
I understand the very basics of theory.
I just don't see how it's useful from a psychoanalytic stand point.
People aren't made of signs and signifier, I mean they are but to them they're not. They might be completely floored with ideology and beliefs but Lacan only preaches how to deconstruct one's own world view, as far as I understand it he says nothing about how to improve it or rebuild it within oneself. He's not interested in getting people to feel better or improve their neurosis's, just become more aware of themselves and question their dogmatic signifiers. It's not concerned with anything else but the exploration of it's own theories, for theories sake.

>first understand
>Understand understand understand
You'll just keep repeating this mantra ad infinitum. Well guess what, patients aren't going to have time to "Understand" your pretentious ideas but you won't care will you? Variable session means $$$ again and again so why should you even care.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:01:32 2015 No.6690524 >>6690484 It's not a theory You have no theory Theories are fallible Lacan and his scribes are not

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:04:10 2015 No.6690540

>>6690514
>Lacan only preaches how to deconstruct one's own world view, as far as I understand it he says nothing about how to improve it or rebuild it within oneself. He's not interested in getting people to feel better or improve their neurosis's

what is catharsis.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:04:45 2015 No.6690542 File: 162 KB, 500x514, tumblr_l8hforlbxo1qdogv5o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6690443 He dindu nuffin!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:06:04 2015 No.6690548 >>6690542 >tumblr Just fuck off, please, you are as bad as /pol/acks.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:06:27 2015 No.6690551
File: 80 KB, 360x360, old-face-dom-clean_sml.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>ITT: Ignorant Lacan-bashers revel in their stupidity and spout off regardless of knowing nothing about the philosophy that they're criticizing
>Psychology deniers get BTFO

>>6690514
Of course the therapist isn't going to tell them how to reconstruct their identity.
That's the entire fucking point.
If they do that, it will just be another false signifier, the Big Other manifested from the Little Other (the therapist) telling them how to live their live. Lacan was strict on not doing that.
The Therapist isn't your parent. They're not going to hold your hand or tell you how to live your life, because they know that all such Identities are false and lead to more false desires/errors and it'd be counterproductive to instill anymore into the patient.

Are you seriously this fucking stupid that you're mad at Psychologist for not instilling further Ideology into the subject? Seriously, get fucked. You cunts have no idea what you're even talking about.

>>6690500
>>6690514
>>6690524
Go read some Lacan and come back when you have any idea what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:07:50 2015 No.6690555 >>6690548 >Getting mad at people who don't discriminate google image search results.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:08:15 2015 No.6690558 >>6690551 Explain, then, why you agree with Lacan's opinions on the mind, capital letters and mental therapy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:09:15 2015 No.6690562 >>6690555 >he doesn't name his files properly

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:10:29 2015 No.6690567 File: 137 KB, 380x370, Don't sound so serious.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6690562 geez, calm down

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:20:36 2015 No.6690606

>>6690558
First off they aren't "Opinions."
Secondly, Lacan's methodology is based off Deleuze. It puts the subject center fold, not the ideology like that other idiot was trying to say. The subjects disconnect with their ontological reality, the unknowable world leaves them detached so they leave the dimension of the Real and enter the Symbolic realm. That means they can think for themselves, as humans and use thoughts, words, signals and signs to identify and differentiate themselves from others. But Language is a redundant system, we cannot think outside it but it's ALL We can think in. It forms the blueprint of all reality for our psyche and thus forms our subconscious as much as it does our psychosis's. If there's a problem of the mind that can be fixed by fixing the blue print of the mind, Language. Capital letters are just important too emphasize differences between Signifies. The little other is other people, human beings and the big Other is society, convention, and so forth at large. Mental Therapy just seeks to correct misconceptions about the self and others, be it sexuality, illness, disorder or simple neurosis and allows the patient to choose for themselves what's "Right" or "Correct" as far as establishing their own mindset goes. It's not concerned with correcting them in light of the big Other (Society) or making them productive citizens, good wives, better husbands or employers, or even heterosexuals like that retard said. Heterosexuals may deviate from the natural order of sexual development but they can still be productive citizens and realized individuals.

Mental therapy does work, you'd know that if you weren't so illiterate and actually studied up on Lacan's theories. The more the critics speak up the more they reveal how little they actually understand.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:26:30 2015 No.6690628 >>6690606 That is not quantifiable or falsifiable, it is just a big opinionated mess.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:27:59 2015 No.6690639

>>6690606
Homosexuals I meant. Homosexuals suffer from a certain mental differentiation in their development but it's not an unhealthy one, not unless they let it be or cannot ascertain their own Name of the Father leading them to turn their Gaze towards the own sex.

It's a defense mechanism against the Lack they feel at deep seated Castration Anxiety, in other words a lack of security or identity rooted in themselves from their parents or upbringings. That is to say homosexuals just need security.
Lesbians towards themselves from other's, to affirm themselves. Males from the reassurance they get that comes with supporting the other (They couldn't support their maternal parent nor overcome the triad of their paternal one so they turn to other men allowing them to be both provider and maintain their phallus)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:29:00 2015 No.6690644 >>6690606 Presenting an opinion as a fact, even with your poor grammar, does not make it factual.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:30:22 2015 No.6690653 >>6690628 And you've shown repeatedly your arguments have no substance and have really no understanding of structuralism, Psychology, or really any social science at all. We cannot compensate for your ignorance I'm afraid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:31:42 2015 No.6690658 >>6690639 And what evidence do you have to support these claims?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:33:50 2015 No.6690667

>>6690653
You know, just because what you've said stems from some social 'science' tradition, doesn't mean it is exempt from scrutiny or that it even needs to be taken seriously. All you're doing is presenting obscure claims with no evidence based on your poorly defined concepts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:33:51 2015 No.6690668 >>6686890 under8'd toast

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:34:02 2015 No.6690669
File: 827 KB, 493x447, user188621_pic78809_1407852205.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYY.
REMEMBER ME?

>>6689859
>>6690263
>>6690455
You asshits ignored me 3 TIMES.
What the hell does Lacan say about my particular perversions and fetishes? Don't cop out or ignore me this time, if you have any ounce of legitimacy actually fucking answer me this time you dimshits.

I'm sorry that was rude.
Please fucking answer me this time.

>>6690639
And that just sounds like silly psychobabble. My friend in his freshman year of college was raised by a single mother and is an outstanding gay guy.
Yeah none of that applies to him, at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:36:10 2015 No.6690677 >>6689993 TRIGGER WARNING: This is what lesbians are like.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:40:03 2015 No.6690692

>>6690669
You call the signifying interpretation of homosexuality which I've espoused "psychobabble" and than you swear and demand an explanation for your own neurosis? Ahahaha, no dice kid. Way to kick up that arrogance notch. I'm not going to give you any insight that you won't believe in, go read Lacan for yourself and stop looking for free answers on a silver platter yourself.

And it's metaphorical, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean the dialect isn't applicable to most homosexuals.

>>6690677
^Lucky dubs anon is right you know.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:43:37 2015 No.6690706
File: 193 KB, 670x448, Sarada_awakening_the_Sharingan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6690639
>>6690669
>It's a defense mechanism against the Lack they feel at deep seated Castration Anxiety, in other words a lack of security or identity rooted in themselves from their parents or upbringings. That is to say homosexuals just need security.

Wow.
Wowwwww. I didn't even read all of that post but let me say dude, you are. A huge. HUGE. Fucking asshole. I've known all kinds of pricks in my day but just even imagining how any prick could read that huge chode of bullocks makes it difficult to imagine what kind of disgusting, Academia humping, insufferable tool you'd have to be to believe that, let alone regurgitate it like word vomit and state any notion of it's possible truthdom. Like fuckfuck holyshit you are goddamn terrible. You are like a new Genius World Book record of terrible.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:48:08 2015 No.6690722

>>6690706
He's not wrong you edgelord.
Homosexuals are oversensitive as fuck, be they manly or feminine, guys or chicks, butch, bears or twinks.

From every personal experience I've had with homos they DO need security.

Why don't you try considering his theories and thinking for yourself instead of just blaspheming their ideas? Can you not think for yourself instead of insulting people and being entitled?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:51:24 2015 No.6690731 File: 88 KB, 593x540, 1395823839193.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6690692 >it's metaphorical, therefore it can't be wrong >>6690722 >From every personal experience

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:51:24 2015 No.6690732 >>6690722 That sounds like a terribly shallow and empty platitude/personal personal anecdote. It's not indicative of anything. Psychoanalysis is for stiffminded little maggots.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 01:57:50 2015 No.6690748

>>6690706
Marvelous rhetoric you've got there. It's so incredibly articulated, so intelligent you might as well be running in the Academia Olympics.

The special olympics
But seriously, if you cannot refute the assertion I've stated what more do you want other than to insult me.

It's been formulated, circulated and debated by different schools of thought succeeding around Freud and Lacan's ideas for decades now, all the way to both feminism and Queer Theory.

And you think you can bawww and pronounce it wrong without any argument or evidence, nay with a couple of cheap ad hominems and smug anime pictures? Cute story.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:01:02 2015 No.6690751 >>6690748 >if you cannot refute the assertion Your assertion is baseless and without evidence, it doesn't need to be refuted.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:02:05 2015 No.6690754 >>6690748 >all the way to both feminism and Queer Theory. Wow I Am Really Scared Now, What A Couple Of Great Subjects There!

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:07:49 2015 No.6690762

>>6690751
Psychology makes no claims or assumptions to be science. Do you have any idea how Psychoanalysis works? It starts with the patient and leading theories on the matter. It's not something you can Frodo just be demanding proof.

Lacan himself accepted this and even celebrated it. He rejected scathingly the psych circles embracing positivism and trying to become more empirically based, thus losing the individual as the focus and giving up the centering of Subjectivity which Psychoanalysis seeks to arrive at.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:12:37 2015 No.6690778 >>6690762 Yeah, so it's just posturing. If you like that, then fine, but most people wouldn't trust a 'doctor' who rejects evidence and observation.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:19:52 2015 No.6690801
File: 31 KB, 500x406, tumblr_nhkozsH3Gk1s5mr85o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6690748
>>6690762
Look man, I'm no philosopher. I admit that. I'd be lying if I said I've looked at even more than a few minutes of Wikipedia articles on these subjects and know anything. I profess to my ignorance as it is, strike me down for that if you must. But atleast hear me out.

Your theories, that is to say Freud, Lacan and by extension Zizek's theories are very interesting. They've made bold claims and held a lot a water over the decades, obviously they're very influential. People seem to love them, I don't, I don't get why anybody does. But for one reason or another Academic types rush to eat them up like a kindergartner on colorful sugary cereal. For that, they are respected in niche areas and still used today. For that, I credit them and often wonder if there's any merit to them.

To this, I turn to the carriers of the torch, Lacanist today. I've asked countless of you to cut it down with the fancy talk, the theories and highbrow, buzzword spewing prose and just give me something real. Something of substance. Homosexuals are sensitive? They need security you say? Okay that sounds interesting. But how do you prove it? What patients or cases, which evidence or trials and clinical studies can say for sure that it's true. And if not, what use is it? I've tried again and again to get a straight answer but it never works.

So try again, like you're speaking to a child or I'm done. I asked for some sort of analysis or interpretation on my fetishes earlier, not with high minded ideologies or schools of thought but the simplest of interpretations but just a straight up answer.

You couldn't do that. None of you could, you never can. Absolutely none of you can reduce your explanations and theories to anything more than memetic moo'ing, buzz spewing nonsensical sounding horse shit and for that, any respect or intrigue I have for your theories lost. Not because of Lacan himself, but because of you as the beacons of his ideas cannot offer me anything solid, or anything understandable.

And I"m sure you're response is going to be "Well have you read them?" Or "You just don't understand them!" Fair enough. In most philosophical debates, you'd be right. And I'd be just some philistine desperate for answers without looking for any of my own. But read this next part, are you there? Listen closely and please read what I have to say, and see if you can get where I'm coming from.....

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:26:29 2015 No.6690817 the point of psychology is more about talking in group or not

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:29:55 2015 No.6690823
File: 47 KB, 213x213, tumblr_mtuohvYXfd1s9g6xgo1_500.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6690801
You've give me nothing. Not only nothing super intelligent sounding but, nothing remotely reducible. Let's play a game for a moment.

Say I was a patient. Not a student of Lacan, not someone being taught Lacan or Freud or even anyone remotely related to Academia.

Say I was just, an ORDINARY, regular everyday person- because surprise, I AM- and asked you as a patient to give me your take, your discourse of dialect on my theories that I ,as the dumb ignorant patient am eager to hear.

What would you say than?
Would you ask me to just go read Lacan? Would say that I'm ignorant when I refuse to educate myself on his lectures, to be enlightened to the ways of his mystical babble?
I'm asking honestly here.

And if the answer is yes, what use is there in your ideas?
If the answers is no, what use is there? You'd do the same to your patients like you're doing here in these threads, to critics that ask for a coherent explanation and want answers but are turned away with dismissal. Do you get what I'm saying?

Have you ever thought that maybe, just MAYBE it's not the critics of Lacan that are dismissing his theories, it's you. It's YOU! Whenever anybody asks for a straight answer, your retreat to mysticism and denial and say that we're just not privileged, not educated or knowledgeable enough to have a relationship with the therapist, to be given a straight answer and talked down to and outright dismissed.

In that, it's not me or that patients that turned away from Psychoanalyst, it's you. It's you you you you double infinity fucking you. YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU. That are turning the subject away.
Understand yet?
Is this getting through to you yet?
You fucks are narcissistic of the worst kind. You're not interested in hearing the patient or giving any accessible answer. Now an answer that can help them improve their life, that they can understand or be any use of then. No, you must be gatekeepters! You must hold them hostage for 10 minutes, charge them money and the wry them up and accuse them of being close minded when they don't get your nonsense, and like a priest say that they lack faith.

I'm doing trying to make sense out of you chucklefuckse when you clearly have absolutely no intention of doing so. Later! Goodluck! Fucksy byesy! Arrivederci! I don't wish you well, but if you ever want to be taken seriously, than get a grip.
>>6690778
This to.^ Get. A fucking. Grip.

Humans are not just subjects, we're people too. Science never forgets that. Psychologist starts rejecting that with it's basic premise. And unless you can talk down to me like you would a patient trying to get through to them I have nothing more to say to you.

Peace out Suckas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:34:19 2015 No.6690830 >>6690801 >>6690817 >>>/a/ Animufucks who don't know what they're talking about should stop shitposting on other boards. Sssh, the adults are talking here.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:44:06 2015 No.6690844

>>6690801
>>6690823
Everything you've states is completely redundant, and shows how little you understand. The reason the patient doesn't willingly give away information or tell them how to live, is because they're trying to get out insight from their subconscious. The subconscious isn't reasonable or rational. It won't reason with you, the subject or level down to you even as a patient. That's why the Therapist doesn't. It maybe be structured like a language, but it's not one that you can understand.

It's the Therapist job to help you reach catharsis and reach these revelations for yourself. If it were just someone telling you what to do, what you're doing wrong with your life, telling you who you are and giving you all the answers it would miss the entire point. That's the whole idea of Psychoanalysis, to train the patient to think for themselves and come to these answers, these realizations purely on their own. You're speaking so utterly childish by writing about how they don't give you the answers. This is nigh equivalent to a whiny student moping to a teacher "Why don't you just GIVE us the answers? Why do we have to do tests and homework? Waaaaaaahh" and shows how juvenile your worldview truly is. You're still stuck in the Symbolic Order. No answers will ever satisfy you unless you come to your own, you retarded faggot. It's not the therapist job to tell you how to fix your marriage or deal with your divorced mother, and if you think so you've missed the point entirely. IF you want to let other people think for you and never arrive at anything for yourself, go seek counseling or schooling.

Psychoanalysis is for the pedestrian that wishes to culture, enlighten and teach themselves what they wish to learn. But I digress, go ahead and speak from a position of ignorance. Or keep posting dumb anime pictures and whining, yeah do that too.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:46:21 2015 No.6690850

>>6690801
>>6690823

>Theory doesn't have any practical application, so it's worthless!

People have repeated over and over in this thread that Lacanian psychoanalysis has no clinical significance whatsoever. You just aren't going to be able to use his ideas to treat illness. If application is a criteria that must be filled for you to take an idea seriously, philosophy and critical theory are not for you.

>You guys are just pretending to understand so you can feel superior!

Sure, there are some people like that. But there are plenty of ideas that Lacan came up with that are pretty easy to understand, like his refining of Freud's death-instinct. That doesn't make them true, of course, but they aren't garbled nonsense.

>If you can't explain an idea in terms so simple a child could understand it, it doesn't mean anything!

This is obviously untrue. If you want an excellently written argument as to why, you should look up Judith Butler's response to John Searle and Alan Sokal's critique of her writing.

In fact, you would probably benefit from reading about the Sokal affair in full. Plenty of intelligent people agree with you, you know. Chomsky thinks Lacan is a complete hack; he wrote a whole paper on it.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:49:18 2015 No.6690855
File: 48 KB, 480x640, 66f99b9c1b0ef58af4b626eeef4cdcb2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6690844
>''It's not the therapist job to tell you how to fix your marriage or deal with your divorced mother''
Word. For. Word.
Is that seriously what you just said? Seriously now?
Come on, perhaps you would've liked to say this instead?
>It's not a therapists job to help you fix anything! You're just giving them money to sit on a chair and pretend to listen to you while spouting bullshit theories

Psychoanalysis everybody!

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:52:29 2015 No.6690861

>>6690850
>People have repeated over and over in this thread that Lacanian psychoanalysis has no clinical significance whatsoever.
Now hold on there buddy that's a little bit exaggerated don't you think?
Lacanian psychoanalysis afterall is still practiced, in a clinical sense in parts of the world today. In the sense of academia sure it's great but it still has far reaching uses for psychology today.

>This is obviously untrue.
Funnily enough, the reason Chomsky dismissed Lacan and Zizek for not being able to explain them to a 12 year old. Because that makes a lot of sense, yeah right.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:53:14 2015 No.6690863

>>6690855

As a bystander to this whole conversation, are you fucking retarded? He's saying that the psychoanalyst's task is to help you reach the conclusion on your own, because ultimately only you are capable of fixing yourself. Achieving emotional and mental health can't be done by someone telling a list of steps. They can help you find the way to your own epiphany, but they can't give it to you. If you told me you feel insecure and I, as a psychoanalyst, told you to man up, you wouldn't suddenly be cured. I'd have to help you find the root of your insecurity and let your understanding of that root let you come to terms with it.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:54:30 2015 No.6690867

>>6690855
You do sound pretty ignorant right now. It really isn't a therapist's job to tell you how to live your life. What a good therapist does is ask the right questions, helping you to uncover trauma in your subconscious and helping you figure out the correct means of dealing with your particular case of neurosis. As a poster stated above, no answer will satisfy you unless you arrive at it by your own means.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 02:58:54 2015 No.6690878 File: 14 KB, 372x209, das ignant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6690867 >ignorant Is this you?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:02:56 2015 No.6690886

>>6690863
>>6690867
Fair enough, but what I'm trying to get at is if a therapist cannot connect their pretensions, precocious ideas to actual therapy how is it worth anything?

You don't need 800 pages of ridiculous therapy that doesn't have anything to do with the human subject and is based off NO evidence or empirical focus, just to be able to ''listen'' and ask the right questions. That's just preposterous It's all posturing.

If the Theory cannot be brought down and related to the level of the subject, and bridged the cap between the theoretical and the practical dialogues, like
>>6690850 was saying as far as I and Sokal are concerned, it's seems rather useless.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:03:41 2015 No.6690887

>>6690861
I would hesitate to call any form of psychoanalysis "medicine," so no, I don't think what I said is an exaggeration. Quackery is quackery regardless of whether or not it is actively practiced.

That doesn't mean it has no literary or philosophical value, though. If you want a brilliant Lacanian reading of Edgar Allen Poe, for example, you could do no better than "The Purloined Poe." That essay won't cure anyone, but it is fascinating and entertaining.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:11:55 2015 No.6690903

>>6690887
>If you want a brilliant Lacanian reading
Lurker here, I have nothing meaningful to contribute to this conversation but I don't get this.

How can any "Reading" be useful?
Why don't we make Wittenstein readings or Pixar Readings, HBO Readings or Objectivism. All of these might seem 'entertaining' but there's no real point.

If "Readings" cannot be wrong nor right or subject to criticism how do they have anything to say about the text itself? They seem to say more about the specific viewpoint or philosophy than the Text honestly.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:15:02 2015 No.6690910

>>6690855
Psychoanalysis is for understanding of the mind.
Psychotherapy is for "healing" of the mind.

You can't expect change in a session or two. First you are analysed. Then you might get advice. Only advice. Then you can use the advice or reject it.

Many people expect to be fixed in a session or two. This is not possible. Many want to feel better just from talking to a psychiatrist. This is also hardly possible. You can't simply be told what to do with your life. You have to figure it out. Nobody can live your life for you. YOU have to understand yourself to be able to live with yourself. This is why YOU should also try to read philosophy and later on psychology. Not excessively but as a hobby. This keeps you thinking about the world and yourself. Stop forcing people to do stuff for you and do them yourself. People are not your servants and there are no excuses for being ignorant.

Source: A family of psychiatrists (my family)

Did this session help you understand understanding yourself, patient?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:15:36 2015 No.6690912

>>6690886
You're going to have to accept that, yes, critical theory is rather "useless," at least in the sense that it doesn't produce tangible results in the majority of the fields it appears in. That's why Fukuyama quit studying comparative literature under Barthes(!) and switched to writing about political philosophy (a shame, because The End of History has been pretty well refuted in 2013+2). What theory does is provide a framework for the application to rest upon - tons of first-year composition theory relies on the public sphere that Habermas first wrote about in the 60s, but you're not liable to come up with a working pedagogy for first-year writing students simply by quoting that text.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:16:43 2015 No.6690916

>>6690844
The subconscious is not structured like a language.
There's nothing "Deep" or super insightful hidden inside our heads that we cannot find by just thinking on the surface of things analytically and discovering for ourselves.
Psychology is pointless, Freud was a fraud and Lacan was a Crackpot.

That said, their theories are influential and cool to use for fiction atleast.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:17:43 2015 No.6690920 >>6690903 It's just for fun. Are you saying you haven't psychoanalyzed a character or thought about their thoughts and life atleast once?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:19:51 2015 No.6690926 >>6690912 Lurkanon. What about Political Philosophy? Is Zizek right with his criticisms and theories when he uses really really esoteric and muddled psychoanalytic theory to try to critique the cultural realm and political sphere?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:19:51 2015 No.6690927 File: 32 KB, 520x381, FB_IMG_1434294911375.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Read a fucking book. Read a fucking book. Read a fucking book. Etc. Etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:21:11 2015 No.6690931 >>6683644 Not the OP but I'm interested in this as well. Does Lacan have any legitimacy anymore? Academics seem to like him, but he gets a lot of flack for his theories and his works are pretty incomprehensible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:23:52 2015 No.6690935 >>6690931 CHARLATAN H A R L A T A N

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:25:46 2015 No.6690940 >>6690926 >Is Zizek right? Well, that's really up to you to decide. Do you think his "esoteric and muddled psychoanalytic theory" accurately explains the phenomena you witness and experience in your life?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:27:56 2015 No.6690943 >>6690931 We've heard a lot from both sides of this coin throughout the thread. Why don't you actually read through it and decide for yourself?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:29:34 2015 No.6690946

>>6690940
I honestly don't know.
It's too esoteric and muddled for me to really grasp or see if it reflects the world.
The last book I think I even read of him was his Economic book "First as Tragedy Than as Farce", which had good political and real world analysis but I just kind of skimmed over the mystical psychobabble sounding parts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:30:44 2015 No.6690953 >>6690943 What was the general consensus?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 03:34:33 2015 No.6690959 >>6690953 You know it happened right in this thread right? The same one you're reading? You can scroll up and just see for yourself, holy shite just read the thread for yourself mag.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 04:39:09 2015 No.6691135 >>6690231 Mental disorders and diseases are scientifically explainable phenomena, though, and the fact that Lacan had existential interests doesn't make his and your disregard for science acceptable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 04:40:09 2015 No.6691136 >>6690307 >Jungian, pre-oedipal Real This isn't a real concept

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 04:43:34 2015 No.6691143

>>6690379
>The thought of science being able to deconstruct every human process is very unsettling.
Not as unsettling as many Lacanian theories, which have much less evidence supporting them. This really seems like nothing but fear of being proven wrong.
>Humans are better than science at explaining the human condition in a relatable way and always will be.
But treating disease isn't about explaining the human condition, and psychoanalysis is supposed to treat disease, whether you only use it for literary criticism or not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 04:44:48 2015 No.6691145 >>6690424 That's really obnoxious. At least Freud and Jung made hard claims.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 04:46:05 2015 No.6691148

>>6690427
>You have to remember that human beings, and I mean people, real people with lives, friends, relationships and lives of their own are infact people. Not 'subjects' or 'castration entities' or anything like that. I'd want science to explain and reason with them, not try to try them like a phallus equated to the square root of a penis when they just ask for simple guidance and help.
This. Lacanfags don't get how inhuman most of his bullshit is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 04:47:12 2015 No.6691150 >>6690430 The humanities don't make anyone feel anything. You greatly exaggerate your field's significance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 04:48:56 2015 No.6691153 >>6690551 >Psychology deniers Lcanians are the psychogy deniers, actually

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 04:51:36 2015 No.6691159 >>6690762 Psychology does claim to be scientific, though. Lacanian psychoanalysis isn't psychology in general.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 04:54:47 2015 No.6691165 >>6690903 This. The fact that you can use a theory to interpret a text doesn't make the theory correct. And correctness is actually an important factor in most serious fields.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 05:51:36 2015 No.6691278

>>6691135
>Mental disorders and diseases are scientifically explainable phenomena
Bullshit. There may be some mental disorders with scientifically valid diagnosis's (Alzheimer's, ect) there's a shitload of bullshit in the field of psychiatry that only exists to peddle pharmaceutical bigbucks and ease fears about made up symptoms.

Being "sad" is a mental disorder now, to the point where you can dope yourself into submission and saying you're cured?
Or how about having too many moods, or not being unemotional enough? Got to drug those too!
What about not being able to sit still or pay attention- oops, don't forget that for some reason this scientifically only happens to school children and in the classroom! If you're grown up you cannot be diagnosed.
Don't even get me started on all the ridiculous hysteria that is the big one. Spectrum disorder my ass.

Personality disorders in general are pretty much designer drug illnesses. If anyone had the slightest clue how corrupt Psychiatry and Pharmaceuticals are they'd know there's absolutely nothing scientific about it, other than the drugs designed to induce the intended so called "cure" of on-socially sanctified behavior as decided by the ruling ideology.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 05:53:53 2015 No.6691287

>>6691278
That doesn't have anything to do with flaws of science through.
That drug companies, irresponsible parents and schools are unethical really doesn't make the practicing of medicine any less scientific. If we wanted to get really technical here, we could live in a Blade Runner 1984 esque society where Drugs are only used to mindnumb you and it's still be rigorously scientific.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 05:55:43 2015 No.6691295 >>6691278 I don't see how the fact that the medical industrial complex exists does away with the biological elements of mental illness or makes it impossible to grasp them scientifically. I see a lot of rhetoric with little substance.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 05:57:50 2015 No.6691302

>>6690427
>It, much like the theory stated, is entirely narcissistic in itself. It's not concerned at all with helping people, affirming human values or assisting personal relations. It's only concerned with proving itself right and that's it.

I've never seen a more wrong statement about psychology in all my time here on this site. Talk about ridiculous fear mongering.

>Don't agree? Than tell that to all of Lacan's patients who killed themselves.
What the fuck?!?!?
Are you fox news?
None of his patients killed themselves as far as I know. And if they did it certainly wasn't due to him, you cannot blame a clinician on the death of a patient for being too severe and too insane to keep their natural preservation instincts intact.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 05:59:35 2015 No.6691307 >>6691302 >you cannot blame a clinician on the death of a patient You can if the patient died because the clinician gave them advice that they followed

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:00:03 2015 No.6691308

>>6691287
>where Drugs are only used to mindnumb you
What else do drugs really do?
They don't treat or "Cure" mental disorders at all. Honestly even if they could no company would endorse or want that, they'd lose so much money that way if drugs could cure mental phenomenon permanently. The money is in keeping patients doped for a short time and keeping them back for more.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:01:09 2015 No.6691309

>>6691307
>You can if the patient died because the clinician gave them advice that they followed

Not unless their advice was literally "Go kill yourself" you cannot. And where the fuck is this coming from? What's the evidence for such an absurd claim anyway.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:02:58 2015 No.6691311

>>6691308
>What else do drugs really do?
Go suck a dick. I've had severe Bi-polar and Depression throughout my life and if I didn't have meds I wouldn't have even made it through highschool, let alone got my bachelors. I'd be some crack-addict on the streets if I wasn't "Mindnumbed" and able to focus like I was.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:04:49 2015 No.6691315

>>6691311
Why didn't you turn to a Lacanian for help :^)?
OBVIOUSLY your symptoms would have been helped soooo much better by having him write equations about your emotions and measuring your dick size while banging your mother (Got to get that Oedipus complex out of the way!) You could have been cured for just 199$ a session, 5-15 minutes a sit down that way!

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:06:41 2015 No.6691319

>>6691302
>None of his patients killed themselves as far as I know.
Yes, they did. Several of them.
Lacan shrugged it off as an anomaly.
He clearly didn't have any objection to taking their money and sleeping around with them or their relatives/friends however.
Because he was an asshole like that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:08:10 2015 No.6691322 >>6691315 Talking cure doesn't work for real symptoms or medical problems. What else is new? Doping Drugs are still a shitty alternative but they're the best shitty alternative we have at the moment until neuroscience improves decades into the future.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:09:56 2015 No.6691324 File: 238 KB, 500x546, 1367267886887.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6691287 >If we wanted to get really technical here, we could live in a Blade Runner 1984 esque society where Drugs are only used to mindnumb you You mean that we don't?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:11:33 2015 No.6691327

>Is there anything there, or is it just snake oil?
Hmm, it seems you are starting from some shaky premises. Why do you think those two are mutually exclusive? Selling snake oil to bored suburban housewives can be an extremely profitable endeavour. This being said, it's obviously a load of bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:12:03 2015 No.6691328 >>6691319 Lacan's a charlatan, but most of what you're referring to is purely hearsay.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:14:58 2015 No.6691333 >>6691309 I'm not the same anon, I didn't use the word suicide. https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/jacques-lacan-fraud/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:17:42 2015 No.6691338 >>6690940 >accurately explains Wtf does "accurately explains" mean?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:17:57 2015 No.6691339

>>6684772
this shit does have real world implications. This from a 2012 French documentary about autism.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16d4fv_le-mur-ou-la-psychanalyse-a-l-epreuve-de-l-autisme_school

It was banned when Psychoanalysts sued the film maker.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:21:44 2015 No.6691343 >>6691333 There is nothing substantial here, what is this based upon, where did the information come from? This is only barely less shaky than Lacan's own theories.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:25:57 2015 No.6691347 >>6691343 >Disorders of Personality: Introducing a DSM/ICD Spectrum from Normal to Abnormal, Third Edition by Theodore Millon. 2011 The source is at the end.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:27:22 2015 No.6691353 >>6691347 I mean the anecdotes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:45:12 2015 No.6691392 >>6691339 Oh? I don't speak french, what is it. What do psychoanalysts think about Autism anyway, how does that fit into their whole psychosexual equation?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:47:20 2015 No.6691397

>>6691333
>" Then he began “non-sessions” where the patient was “not allowed to speak and not allowed not to speak”."
I would love to see Lacan enthusiast try to defend this. Variable sessions for establishing a more non-formal relationship and ending on "Critical moments" is one thing, but what the hell is the point of this? What mythical ego-quackery theory could one possibly pull out of their ass to justify this level of Malpractice?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:49:09 2015 No.6691402

>>6691397
>"The only reason he was shortening his sessions was so he could see more patients. He soon shortened sessions to as few as a 3-4 minutes. He saw as many as 60 patients a day at this rate. Later in his career, he shortened his sessions to as short as one minute. Then he began “non-sessions” where the patient was “not allowed to speak and not allowed not to speak”.

All patients were billed at an hourly rate. Even during the one minute sessions, he interrupted them to take calls from his tailor and others. Late in life when he was demented, he punched patients, pulled their hair and abused them in other ways."

This I mean. All of it.
In any other professional work place you'd be out of a job and all your work discredited near instantly. Why does being a French asshat excuse this somehow?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:54:06 2015 No.6691413 >>6691402 He also ejaculated on the patients, and told them to call themselves "whores" over and over. Sometimes patients who objected would be to eat his semen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 06:56:35 2015 No.6691421 >>6691392 primarily that the do not think it is a developmental disability, they think it is psychosis or it is not even real.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 07:00:09 2015 No.6691426
File: 1007 KB, 800x3219, 1388123713208.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6691413
>He also ejaculated on the patients, and told them to call themselves "whores" over and over. Sometimes patients who objected would be to eat his semen.
...
What?
Are we talking about the same guy who wrote "ecrits" and is hailed as a master theorist in critical academia circles? The last most influential psychologist today?

I cannot even...I knew his methods were ineffective but this is downright degenerate.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 07:02:45 2015 No.6691428

>>6691421
Really? Why?
Is this any fault of Lacans or any specific psychoanalytic theory? I mean even I don't buy Autism as entirely what a lot of media hypes it to be but, there's clearly something there. Even if it's currently as well understood as pre-20th century psychiatry.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 07:03:24 2015 No.6691430 >>6691311 thats exactly the point

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 07:05:37 2015 No.6691434

>>6691421
What exactly do they think they can do, fix a social developmental delay by talking to them, like seriously.

It's so ironic how the French love to posture and present themselves as so smart and such deep, thoughtful thinkers when in fact they're the least scientifically minded of any 1st world country. Not to mention lazy, perverse and really bad at warfare.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 07:07:17 2015 No.6691437 >>6691430 Not them but what is? That science is purely motivated by economic incentives and material interests, so if it's counterproductive to cure diseases that make companies money they simply won't?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 07:09:39 2015 No.6691440 >>6691339 aaahahaha classic france

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 07:14:19 2015 No.6691445 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aqGYYBwKbQ Everyone on /lit should watch this.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 07:17:25 2015 No.6691448

>>6691428
There is some mentioning of Lacan's theories in the doc, "crocodile mothers" and some other crazy shit (blaming the condition on the parents first contact with child or on sex issues during conception). I would imagine that psychoanalytic theory generally ignores neuroscience, therefore psychoanalysts see autism as a condition of the mind and not as a condition of the brain.

>>6691434
Yes it is completely fucked, the school lack programs for these kids and they often put into asylums.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 07:17:57 2015 No.6691449
File: 198 KB, 650x975, johnk-27.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6691440
>http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17583123
>"They thought that if the child was failing to communicate with the outside world, it was because of some trauma in the womb or in very early life. There was a family malfunction, and we had to cure it!"
>Because of trauma in the womb

You cannot make this stuff up.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:23:14 2015 No.6691590

>>6691426
Yes, yes, him. He also used to make his patients get naked on the floor and throw nuts around the room and make them pick them up using only their mouths while he was shouting at them "Renounce the symptom, accept the phallus!" and doing a dance called The Name of the Fucker.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:29:41 2015 No.6691606 >>6691397 >the patient was “not allowed to speak and not allowed not to speak”. The fuck does this even mean? Was he moving their mouths using his hands or something?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:36:05 2015 No.6691624 >>6691606 >The fuck does this even mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jacques_Lacan#Early_life >His father was a successful soap and oils salesman

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:44:17 2015 No.6691652 >>6691353 There's this. >http://www.lacanonline.com/index/2010/07/the-short-session/ The session length thing is undeniable, and is meaningful enough that, anecdotes about his personal life aside, he shouldn't have been allowed to practice.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:48:28 2015 No.6691671

>>6691624
>>6691606
>>6691590
>>6691652
One man's blunders and mispractices aside, that doesn't disclose any of his ideas from having any significance or relevance overall. If anything it makes them stronger since he practiced such a bohemian lifestyle, and if we include the author into the equation it allows us to look more into his theories through the lenses of his own life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:49:23 2015 No.6691674 >>6691671 Yes, yes it does.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:50:58 2015 No.6691681

You know a lot of Lacanians always say that his ideas and theories were just symbolism and metaphors, and shouldn't be taken literally or biologically.

I always tend to ask, "Okay, but metaphors for what? What the hell does it really symbolize? Do you even know?"

Than they go real quiet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:52:01 2015 No.6691682 >>6691674 >We shouldn't listen to the founding Fathers because they fucked their cousins, detested Jews and owned slaves!

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:54:47 2015 No.6691692

>>6691671
His theories are unsound. Psychology is a science whether you admit it or not, and psychoanalytic claims are also psychological claims and should be evaluated scientifically. It's fine to speculate about these concepts but taking Lacan's word as absolute truth is ridiculous, especially when it's as controversial as it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:55:48 2015 No.6691697 >>6691671 >If anything it makes them stronger since he practiced such a bohemian lifestyle >"He was a bohemian so his ideas are good" >2015 >Being unable to separate the man from the idea

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:56:54 2015 No.6691700 >>6691682 Are you saying we should go back to the Constitution as it was before the abolition of slavery?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 08:57:02 2015 No.6691702

>>6691692
>Psychology is a science whether you admit it or not
At the very least, Freud and Lacan never admitted it. They openly stated in speeches that they never wanted their work to be considered rigorous science and were disappointed in all their contemporaries for turning to more rational, empirical pursuits.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:00:03 2015 No.6691713

>>6691700
No, I'm sarcastically ridiculing your suggestion that we should reject everything about a person's ideals and notions put forth just because they seemed to live a life brimmed with standards that we find unacceptable in modern contemporary life. Less we forget that in America, both that for the Founding Fathers and very early politicians, fist fights, brawls, violent riots and personal physical attacks were the norm for court of law and matters of legislation. A president died because they agreed to a shooting duel, something we'd believe to be barbaric and completely uncivilized.

That doesn't change the fact that these individuals did in fact form the rites for the United States country, it's laws and systems and conceptualize it's very existence.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:02:20 2015 No.6691718

>>6691702
Freud and Lacan are two psychologists. Psychology is a large field. There are many scientists doing psychological research that involves making empirical observations about processes and events (including recording individuals' subjective claims about phenomenal experience) relating to consciousness. Naming two intellectuals, one of whom founded the modern discipline and whose theories are disregarded for their scientifically baseless nature more than because they make it hard to fold a metaphorical napkin into a shape no one cares to fold actual napkins into under actual circumstances, the other of whom explicitly disregarded the possibility that science could enlighten his project at all, as demonstrating the unscientific nature of psychology is kind of weak.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:05:25 2015 No.6691726

>>6691713
Yes, but I'm not sure why that means people can't reject some of their ideas about the US' future. The Jeffersonian agrarian ideology is unfeasible in postindustrial america, for example, and there are many flaws in the very structure of the Constitution. It isn't divinely inspired, and it's important to remember that.
Freud is more of a founding Father, anyway. You're quick to discard Oedipus.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:06:02 2015 No.6691728

>>6691718
That's a bold claim. Not to praise those two charlatans but can Science really ever evaluate our Subjective experiences like the way psychoanalysis claims to? It would have to account for the individual and case studies as it's sole observation and that's something empirical testing seldom does.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:10:40 2015 No.6691743

>>6691681
Well the thing is they don't have to be symbols for something else. I mean Lacan describes, above all else, relations between signifiers. Desire works based on these rather than on empirical objects. You can get aroused by seeing a naked woman or man (depending on the situation) or a sexual situation, but when you stop to ask yourself what exactly aroused you it becomes a retroactive discourse. I'm not saying Lacan is right about these things, only that if you accept the premise that signifiers (Man, Woman, Love, Sex, Pleasure, Happiness, etc.) affect desire then his discourse makes more sense than if it's taken as a metaphor for something else.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:10:50 2015 No.6691744

>>6691726
Than we can only criticize them on the basis of their ideals. Not their personal life or quarrels.
The same we that we cannot debase or debunk Lacan soley on the fact that might have been abusive and honestly quite mentally unhinged as a practicing psychologist. There are much easier reasons to do so than that, like the fact that he never did any real case studies, testing, data or observations, or really honestly anything to validate his ideas.

Seriously, his entire Theory is based on, well nothing. Fluff. Wishful thinking? With some popular philosophies at the time thrown in the mix. It's completely contrived, made up and baseless.

Freud may not have been right but at the very least he based his theories on his actual patients and specific cases. He did some research, even if it was scarce. Lacan's work is entirely theoretical and completely fictional, based only on his own delusions of fancy.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:12:43 2015 No.6691747

>>6691728
>but can Science really ever evaluate our Subjective experiences like the way psychoanalysis claims to?
Science aims to evaluate consciousness and thereby increase our understanding of it. Psychoanalysis aims to clarify our experience of it, and if it wants to truly inform us about our experience of consciousness, psychoanalysis would be greatly aided by having access to the accurate information that science yields about the way consciousness relates to experience. Throwing out science in general is ridiculous; the disciplines, if both of them are legitimately concerned with bringing consciousness into the open (in a Heideggerian sense) and create a clearing for consciousness to show its being, which is what all thinking aims to do with its object, can and must inform each other.
You're assuming there's a contradiction between openness to phenomenal experience and informed understanding of scientific facts. There isn't.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:16:23 2015 No.6691756

>>6691744
>The same we that we cannot debase or debunk Lacan soley on the fact that might have been abusive and honestly quite mentally unhinged as a practicing psychologist.
His practice is connected to his theory and is the most meaningful expression of it we really have. Denying this is pointless.
>There are much easier reasons to do so than that, like the fact that he never did any real case studies, testing, data or observations, or really honestly anything to validate his ideas.
I thought we disagreed about this and you were defending the theories themselves, this argument seems to be a misunderstanding. We're on the same page about why they're flawed.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:19:10 2015 No.6691763

>>6691743
>ou can get aroused by seeing a naked woman or man (depending on the situation) or a sexual situation, but when you stop to ask yourself what exactly aroused you it becomes a retroactive discourse.
Pure instinct? Even separating lust and sexuality from his concept of desire, I don't know it just seems pretty shallow. He CLAIMS that Desire works on these signifier relations but never gives any details or examples of how that can work.

> only that if you accept the premise that signifiers (Man, Woman, Love, Sex, Pleasure, Happiness, etc.) affect desire then his discourse makes more sense than if it's taken as a metaphor for something else.
It's hard to, it really is. It's barely more adequate than Freud's Dream = Sexual fantasy= sometimes childhood trauma, only rather than dreams now we have to read into and over-interpret, what, words?

This fails on a very basic level, and that's that humans, are not books.
We aren't literature. We don't have Arcs, Themes, Symbolism or meaning that can be read into like a novel can.
There's no superduper hidden deep meaning or "Authors Intent" behind literally everything we say and do. This isn't even really true for literature despite what structuralist claim, so how could such signifiers be true for human beings?

I recall in one of his works he was arguing for an appraisal of Freud for discovering a nasal Fetish just for a Pun in translation alone "Glanz auf der Nase." A Pun? Really, you can analyze the subconscious which is structured like a language just by a signifier such as a Pun? That sure is some deep analysis there.

It's something that thinks highly of itself in theory but has absolutely no practical use or application whatsoever. Take his shot at the Wolf man case for example, that was the stupidest example of wordplay posturing I can even think of. He really couldn't apply even his own system at all to patients. It's not surprising he just beat them up and treated them like circus animals really.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:22:49 2015 No.6691774

>>6691756
More or less.
It's just earlier you were saying he could be dismissed because he did 'wrong' things. (Violence, unprofessionalism, ect)
Whereas I just thought he could be dismissed because he didn't do 'right' things. (Case studies, experiments, research) That has less to do with him as a person but speaks volumes about his work.

It's a bit of semantics but I was just arguing that no matter how wrong someone may be, we cannot discredit them solely on their personal life or character.

Not unless say, they were a huge hypocrite and their entire life's work was based on them demonstrating it. (Gandhi being violent, Hitler endorsing the Jews and dismissing Germans secretly, ect)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:23:52 2015 No.6691777 >>6691763 >This isn't even really true for literature despite what structuralist claim, so how could such signifiers Woah there, watch yourself. You're running on a bit of a slippery slope argument there.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:25:52 2015 No.6691781

>>6691774
No, you're right, the article I posted was more character defamation and criticism of his clinical method than refutation of his ideas. However, for most of thos thread I've been autistically arguing that psychological claims should be informed by an understanding of biological science and the systems that relate to consciousness, and that Lacan fails because he made no attempts to fond such grounds for his claims. You were right to object to what you objected to, though.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:27:00 2015 No.6691786

>>6691777
>>6691763
>>6691756
>>6691747
>>6691744
>>6691743
>>6691728
>>6691726
>>6691718
>>6691774
Quick question or request really.
Have any of you actually ever SEEN a Lacanian psychoanalysis session? Would it be something that I could find out about, in transcript, video, a document or something so I can actually see for myself how it works, or doesn't work?

All I've ever heard about is his arguments and theories, never the Practice itself. That's why it's so hard for me to gauge if there was truly anything to him or not. I've never witnessed or found out anything about how his methods, the sessions themselves go.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:29:56 2015 No.6691795

>>6691781
Am I? I really wouldn't want anyone that abuses their patients to practice or get a say in academia..but than I remember what I said earlier, that America's founding father's owned slaves and most pre-20th century presidents, and well really everybody crucial were huge racists. These sort of things, as much it sucks to swallow really just have to be dismissed for the better judgement, or you'd never end up looking at anyone importants work.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:34:49 2015 No.6691807

>>6691763
>There's no superduper hidden deep meaning or "Authors Intent" behind literally everything we say and do.

You know I don't believe in Lacan, more fond of Jung and Archetypes but can this really said to be true? I've always been interested in whether their are any universal signifiers for mankind that can be identified and codified into a kind of language, maybe even towards the individual as well.

Think about it. A Psychology that reads into each individual human being, each person as embodying their own personal Mythos. And than interpreting them (Or having them do so) based on a reading of their own life's Narrative. Backed by some kind of science or evidence, if that could even be possible however. (I doubt it, but it's worth not being baseless over)

That would be really cool.
I know there's some kind of weird branch of narrative therapy already but, it doesn't really incorporate linguistics or Jungian Archetypes like I'd hoped.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:35:49 2015 No.6691809 >>6691795 I agree completely, but attacking character doesn't refute ideas. They have to be dealt with separately, if only for the sake of intellectual honesty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:37:24 2015 No.6691815 >>6691807 Logos, dude

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:40:04 2015 No.6691823

>>6691807
Jung had some real fresh ideas but like Freud was too dogmatic. Lacan had a weird way with the ladies and was even popular in the feminist circles. Meanwhile the only archetypes Jung thought woman could be were variants of Good mothers (Highest being a Maternal Goddess) and diligent daughters. (I know there are variations but they're all basically pigeonholed into very classical, traditional roles) His ideas while interesting, aren't really all that flexible. I really don't think they could be incorporated into another field the same way Lacan did with Psychoanalysis and Structuralism.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:41:13 2015 No.6691827

>>6683710
Wrong.
Psychiatrists are against drugs. They do prescribe, but don't use.
Their solution to everything is to buy a new BM or take an Airbus to sunny locations. The big pharma help finance this dad in the business
Unfortunately, trips abroad are too expensive for most of their patients. So for them, it's drugs. The people's opium.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:42:47 2015 No.6691830 >>6691823 But Jung had 4 Main archetypes for woman.The Mother, the Amazon, the Hetaira, and the Medial.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:43:14 2015 No.6691833

>>6691763
Pure instinct isn't saying much though. I mean, with animals you can argue that it's a chemical reaction (aroused due to mating season, due to smells, etc.) but with humans the range of sexual possibilities is huge (the first example that comes to me is of some serial killer that would get aroused by pushing needles into his testicles). If it was just a matter of penetration (hetero or homo) it would've been less of a problem, but some fantasies are undeniably tied to something like a narrative (the other anon is right to lament over how psychoanalysis treats or rather ignores fetishism in it's numerous forms). There is of course the Deleuzian assemblage theory to explain such compositions, but I'm not convinced that it's incompatible with Lacan's ideas.

But yeah, psychoanalysts are, as far as I know, unable to truly distinguish between symptoms and accidents, except for vague explanations ("that wasn't really a slip, it was just the patient being tired"). I suppose this is why they consider the clinical therapy as a process, it's supposed to distinguish between the patient's symptoms and the unimportant bits.

>>6691786
Haven't seen one, but from the little I know:
1) The analyst doesn't tell the patient his diagnosis as this would just make him play the role or try not to play it.
2) The analyst doesn't really talk, except for asking questions that direct the patient's speech towards his symptom.
3) The analyst pays attention to non-discursive reactions like periods of strange silence right after something was said as a possible indication of a symptom.

That plus the obvious stuff like denegation (whatever the patient denies without being asked about it is the sign of a symptom, like that famous "but it's not my mother" saying from Freud - the point is just that Freud never asked him anything before he started denying that it was his mother in the dream).

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:46:39 2015 No.6691841

>>6691823
Yes they can. Psychoanalysis in general is useful for informing ideas in most areas of the humanities. Jung was almost more of a philosopher than a psychologist. He engaged with alchemical and hermetic ideas pretty seriously, which turns a lot of modern minds off to him, but those ideas were pretty relevant for a long time so writing him off as some New Age goofball on account of his taking spirituality seriously seems unfair. He's a more spiritual Freud.

Also, does anyone else feel like the collective unconscious seems kind of like the Platonic world-soul?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:51:30 2015 No.6691851

>>6691786
New to thread here. Actually, I didn't even read thread, just your post, because I don't have time.

But I've been going to a Lacanian analyst once a week for the past 4 years. It has helped me greatly. She doesn't talk in detail about the process (afterall, that's not why I'm there, I'm there to talk). She also pointed out at a certain moment how there are many ways to approach Lacan and so her way is not necessarily the way other Lacanians would do it.

It's hard to talk about how it works, everytime I try, people end up misunderstanding it (I guess that's natural). I go there to talk about the way I see things, almost like wandering through a land that's my life. She doesn't comment on it like a friend would, with her words and advice, but rather she walks behind me marking places and leaving flags, so that later on as I speak, she can remind me of something I've said. She is there to say "do you see how you're walking in circles here?" and sometimes making the simplest questions "and why are you going there now?" that usually makes me answer things that I didn't know myself. The process has changed a lot in the course of 4 years and the nature of the conversation varied. Thoughts on desire, demand, others, control, autonomy, guilt, pleasure, etc. are usually key, but maybe that's just how it works for me.

You can ask me, but I'll only be able to answer you later

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:53:37 2015 No.6691857

>>6685056
>the image of the image of the phallus is analogically similar to the square root of -1
topkek
no wonder the guy didn't want to get published
he knew he was a fraud

and now for the STEMbois who engage in the debate science VS /lit/, you'll have to reconsider when you realize that the biggest frauds (freud, lacan) are Medicine Doctors.
Say what you want about /lit/ being amateurish, mystic, having no standards, being unfalsifiable, but the greediest cunts are on the other side (medicine, "hard science", neurology, stem...)

Lacan is just one of many examples of a greedy scientist, who read a bit of philosophy (the structuralists), but lacked the philosopher's ethics needed to produce anything of value.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:54:44 2015 No.6691861

>>6691833
>fetish
Considering Psychoanalysis, as demonstrated earlier in the thread, cannot even properly address Homosexuality it's highly doubtful it has any real meaning towards fetishes.

Scientifically speaking, our sexual desires are decided mostly by our limbic systems and our Orbitofrontal cortex which regulated desire/reward mechanisms against chance, patterns, and recursions. The closest explanation to it would be Claude Lévi-Strauss's mythemes extended to the idea of self.

The frontal lobe which controls language and higher thought processes (including dreams and fantasies) doesn't even factor into it until the former starts to get 'horny.'

What this means is that our bodies decide their state of attraction first, than ask for a specific kink or fantasy conditions into the rational, reasoning brain to help itself get off.

Lacan wouldn't know this of course, but the fact is that Fetishes just aren't tied with anything currently understandable by Psychology or science, it's just general arousal. I mean go on /d/ right now, and look at the fetishes that exist. Can one really honestly say that anyone in each thread shares some kind of narrative or experience that bonds their neurochemistry towards being attracted to that fetish? Let alone a common signifier in their past. It's just too variant and yet arbitrary to ever be known for certain.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:57:08 2015 No.6691866 >>6691857 >greediest It isn't about how bad they are as people, it's about how accurate the information their methodology yields is. Medicine is a useful tool, not just an instrument of capitalist oppression.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:58:19 2015 No.6691870

>>6691841
I think so, just in a much more scientific sense. Technically, he's right isn't he? Maybe we don't share memories but as far as cognitive architecture goes we really do share the same brain, physiologically speaking. Same structures and all, although I know squarely that wasn't what he was talking about, it sounds a lot more like Hegel's "Spirit of the Age", the Zeitgeist inherent in society and humanity at large.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 09:59:44 2015 No.6691875

>>6691851
Is it just me or does anyone else swear they've seen posts similar to this before.

Have you posted this before anon? About your experiences on /lit/.

If so I think I've seen your posts plenty of time on here. I'm pretty interested if you're telling the truth and so on.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:03:06 2015 No.6691886

>>6691866
Oh really anon. Really?
You don't believe that the Psychiatry field now, as well as Psychology and medical practitioners aren't an instrument of the state?
Atleast in the US, Health Industry is a big big business. Literally one of the biggest.
Pharmaceuticals are also pretty big buckwise.

They're so damn big that they can publish their own journals, studies and reports self-validating their trials and than get them approved for the next big cash rake in, which usually is whatever diagnosis is trendy and "curable" (for 15$ a dosage) at the time.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:04:04 2015 No.6691889

>>6691870
That's how I've interpreted it for the most part. It isn't purely neurological either, people living in the same culture growing up with similar physiologies and neural structures are simply likely to have similar experiences and associate certain images in the world with words, sensations, thoughts, etc. Even people growing up thousands of miles apart have similar experiences: mother, father, sunrise, sunset, etc. Whether this is because of something mystical or because of common neurological functions (how are these not modern divinities?), it's true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:04:51 2015 No.6691892 >>6691886 Hey don't blame us that your NigNogger signed into law that the Medical sector officially owns your wallets like a pimp and his bitches. We've had a nanny welfare state to deal with of our own for decades now!

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:06:08 2015 No.6691895

>>6691886
>You don't believe that the Psychiatry field now, as well as Psychology and medical practitioners aren't an instrument of the state?
That isn't my point, and I wouldn't deny that you're correct about it. My point is that you, yourself, can do certain experiments that will give you accurate information about phenomena in the world. Do you disagree?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:08:39 2015 No.6691903

>>6691861
Unless I misunderstood, there seem to be two beginnings of causal chains in what you are saying. To exemplify it:

Chain 1: Get horny, go on the Internet / out looking for a mate.
Chain 2: Randomly stumble onto something sexual and find it arousing / disgusting.

If the limbic system and orbitofrontal cortex act on an exterior excitation rather than an internal impulse (so start of chain 2 rather than 1) then the cause of desire is already factored in. This does not mean that language must be involved per se, but rather that something language might be attached to (a situation rather than an entity for instance) might be involved. Lacan says that the unconscious is structured like a language, not that it is a language.

Granted, in order to be aroused by something stumbled upon, there need to be certain conditions (someone who's just been stabbed probably won't find a picture arousing even if it's of what he would consider the most beautiful creature in the world), but these seem to be rather minimal. There's also the problem with the word "arousal" here since it does not necessarily cover the whole of Desire (which covers emotions as well, which are connected to cognition even when we're doing logic as far as I know).

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:08:40 2015 No.6691904

>>6691889
I find the fact that in nearly every cultural existing in large societies, some type of female courtesan class was always present, elevated and mystified throughout their civilization. That strikes me as kind of universal and almost novel. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples too.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:10:50 2015 No.6691910

>>6691895
Keyword there being "Can."
Can they? Sure, why not. Anyone can with the right money and education.
Will they? Are they interested in it? Are they actually doing it? That's a very different question altogether. People do experiments for different reasons, it might or might not give accurate information about the world but that isn't always the end goal. Nor is it always the result.

We live in an age of blinding Ideology. This makes even such a simple method not so straightforward, cut and try.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:16:13 2015 No.6691923

>>6691851
good for you, bro.
your faith is quite disarming, it's beautiful.
Sorry to bother you with the facts, but do you have any idea in what way your shrink is Lacanian?

The relationship you described seems to me as a teacher/student rlsp (she's the student). Or a secretary who helps you rephrase a sentence when it's not clear, does the proofreading, editing etc.

I'm not a violent Crusader against psychoanalysis, I paid for this a few years myself. But if the psychoanalysts are as intelligent as they pretend they are (they surround themselves in their office with prestigious books, leaving one conspicuously open on their desk, near where you put the cash money), then they should make a session more like a conference :

- first third : *they* teach you what they know, not the other way around
- rest of the time : you ask questions and have a normal session.

if they'll only play secretary, then they're fags and not worth my money.
The shrinks who publish books have all my respect, it takes more guts than just "active listening".

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:23:44 2015 No.6691948

>>6691903
>there need to be certain conditions
Conditioning itself is a pretty powerful force. The primitive systems of the brain just want to get off, they don't really care how. They give the higher thought processes a lot of freedom in that regard but it's still pretty determined by one's own experiences. In other words, either things that you found fascinating and wet off to before, or things that stimulate the brain enough to be considered.

The important thing is that, physiologically speaking Desire enters the picture BEFORE language factors in. You might imprint a memory of getting stabbed or beaten and later internalize it with sexual connotations, but needing to fulfill your urges, and than externalizing desire through murder doesn't imply the latter. This is especially true on the internet because the novelty of it is rich enough in itself that there's no way for one to predict it with IRL, base experiences alone.

>There's also the problem with the word "arousal" here since it does not necessarily cover the whole of Desire (which covers emotions as well, which are connected to cognition even when we're doing logic as far as I know).
I find this part kind of interesting, Lacan never states Desire as only inherently sexual. But the same flaws apply, it cannot really explain even linguistically why our object a petite really quantifies with specific signifiers of lack. I understand this principle well since there are fetishes (of sorts) I'm not sexually attracted to but categorize them that way due to their attraction. The thing is, it's not the repeating thoughts themselves that mark them as fetishistic, all people or atleast some have that to some degree. It's more "Acknowledging that this thought, is in some way out of sync or overly Novel and extraneous with one's own thoughts/identity", and that can be really telling about how we avow our castration of the Lack. By noticing when we've shoehorned in something that doesn't belong but still desire it despite it's discomfort (Jouissance).

Simply put, it's not the thing that gives us Pleasure that Lacan says is extraordinarily meaningful. It's that which brings us 'unwanted' discomfort despite the suffering and pain we feel, that unattached signifier that doesn't belong with the "Master signifier" of one's own subjectivity, owing to the ressoance of the symbolic order.

So most fetishes, if enjoyed aren't cause for alarm. (Using fetish differently here, since on 4chan it's normal to be a sexual deviant, the context changes) It's that which 'persists' onto itself and is noticed as a peculiarity that a psychoanalyst would derive insight on. That's what we'd call a "Fetish" in the french or classical sense, in light of this conversation anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:27:25 2015 No.6691950 >>6691903 >>6691948 If I gave a list of specific fetishes, would a psychologist practicing in Lacanian thought be be able to draw any special connections or meaning from that list alone?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:27:39 2015 No.6691951
File: 56 KB, 403x275, Quotation-Lacan-truth-fiction-Meetville-Quotes-131607.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6691886
>Atleast in the US, Health Industry is a big big business. Literally one of the biggest.
>Pharmaceuticals are also pretty big buckwise.
(not him)
In France, Sanofi-Aventis (pharm) recently overtook Total (oil) at the head of the CAC40, biggest company at the stock market.
The rush for the black gold is over, the future, young men, is in psychiatry!

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:32:09 2015 No.6691960

>>6691950
Not quite that easily.
The fetishes themselves are only Imaginary signifiers.
Explaining what they are, how and what you enjoy about them and why lends to the symbolic realm and might tell a bit about you however.

For example, if you were lukewarm on most of them but especially elated or at a loss to explain another, without explanation, that pause shows something. Context is important, and how you explained the fetishes defines that. Do you identify with any of them? Would you actually want them to happen to you? These are questions an analyst might ask and depending on your answer (Or inability to answer) some things might be revealed.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:32:50 2015 No.6691963

>>6691910
This really just seems like posturing. You're telling me you don't think anyone does meaningful scientific research in this century just because ideology is involved?
Again, I'm saying that if we want to have practices like psychiatry at all, they should be informed by information about the subjects they deal with. This is literally all I'm saying. Adding that ideology interferes with the implementation of these disciplines addresses concerns that have nothing to do with the power of the scientific method itself.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:36:32 2015 No.6691976

>>6691903
>Granted, in order to be aroused by something stumbled upon, there need to be certain conditions
The same parts of the brain responsible for arousal, are also responsible for fear, anger, happiness, fight or flight, shock, disgust and Pain, so forth. This goes a long way into explaining how people get arousal from different things.

But desire isn't necessarily arousal.
You can get aroused during a murder, but not necessarily desire it. What one chooses to accept, or Reject their arousal by into desire (I'm sure there's some fancy Lacan term for this) seems like it might be more profound for analysis.
I wonder, can the opposite be said? Can you really desire something that doesn't arouse you, doesn't active your emotions or drives in any real way?

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:44:46 2015 No.6692005

>>6691963
Ideology doesn't cancel out progress or meaningful science per say. Many times it can improve it! Like during the cold war, science improved at an unprecedented rate. During the age of Colonialism, ideology about Nationalism lead to technological races that sped up human advancement.

But, this isn't always true.
Take Nazi science for instance. How much "Meaningful" science was contributed measuring skull sciences, pulling teeth or any racist pseudo-scientific experiments? That's not about advancing the human spirit or implementing the scientific method for it's own sake, but for Ideology.

Did you hear about the 180$ Million vacuum stimulator, created to replicate the conditions of space in a massive hundred meter long tunnel that was created by NASA? It was created purely so the Government said "We have this." and that it could exist.

But we already had the technology, proper science and resources to create it decades earlier. It didn't have any use when built, cost hundreds of millions of dollars and was immediately shelved deep underground after use, not for experimentation but for a mere statement on a Legislators checklist.
Ideology.

>Again, I'm saying that if we want to have practices like psychiatry at all, they should be informed by information about the subjects they deal with.
But shouldn't we be highly concerned with those subjects themselves? For not just ethical matters but practical and scientific matters as well.
We should be concerned with the goals of psychiatry, just as much as we should Social Darwinism and State Sponsored Racism. If we don't, the end result won't ever be scientific, regardless of whether the methodology is is scientific or not.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:52:57 2015 No.6692027

>>6692005
>How much "Meaningful" science was contributed measuring skull sciences, pulling teeth or any racist pseudo-scientific experiments?

Not to poke holes in your rhetoric here or anything but, quite a lot actually. We learned a fuckload from those experiments and a lot of fundamental things about medical practice, horrible as they were, by simply looking into those experiments. Just because they had negative connotations doesn't mean they didn't accomplish anything or weren't real science.

Do you even know how much on genealogy and ethnic distinctions/origins we know now just due to Nazi experiments?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:55:48 2015 No.6692038 >>6692027 Honestly speaking, no. No I don't. I wasn't even aware they were anything more than complete pseudoscience. Just another example of how the end goal and the results are hardly ever conflated when ideology is involved.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:56:52 2015 No.6692046

>>6692005
>It was created purely so the Government said "We have this." and that it could exist.
You don't think there are experiments that would be worth running on it?
Most of your post has nothing to do with anything I've said ITT. Do you or do you not accept that science can give us accurate information about the world?
>But shouldn't we be highly concerned with those subjects themselves?
Have I ever said otherwise? I'm critical of Lacanian psychoanalysis because I think it's a flawed fork of treatment. Psychiatry might be flawed in its current form, but the scientific (not purely empirical, mind you, but scientific) study of the mind and the medical application of information gained from that study are worthwhile goals.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 10:58:52 2015 No.6692059 >>6692005 Most of the scientific study of human bodies in extreme conditions of exposure come from Nazi research. You're too quick to write them off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 11:00:27 2015 No.6692069 >>6692038 The only ideology here is your assumption that all Nazi science was pseudoscience.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 11:10:29 2015 No.6692124

>>6692046
>You don't think there are experiments that would be worth running on it?
In theory. Not in practical, no. We already have the theoreticals for the project and anything that could be tested for it would be beating a dead horse. It's like building a a massive "Newtonian reactor" a hundred years after modern Physics are established. Worthless.

>Do you or do you not accept that science can give us accurate information about the world?
It can. It often does! Not always.
It's ignorant to say it always does. Emphasis on the 'accurate' part here.

I get your argument, that we should apply science to better refine methods like Psychiatry and that'd definitely be better, right?

So long as we've established and unanimously decided that, said thing is a worthwhile goal and is worth keeping/being improved. Rather than just being onotologically replaced and radically rethought. To the point of paradigm shift even, maybe.

Can you improve a piece of shit with pretty paints and clay? Well yeah sure. But why would you bother?

Psychiatry has it's origins in Psychology and per-scientific theories. Does science improve it, sure. But to what extent? How much science can we add before realizing it's roots are too thick and detrimental to this refinement that it's not worth the acknowledging?

At the risk of sounding pretentious, I'm really interested in a lot of emerging fields like Cognitive neuroscience and even Computational theory. I'm not hugely optimistic about analytic science but atleast it goes off somewhere completely new where turds like psychoanalysis and Psychiatry cannot touch it.

In conclusion the idea of improving on Lacan and psychology with science is great, cute even. But there are definitely limits to that methodology. At the risk of sounding ignorant, I wonder if trying to bridge the gap between Newtonian and relativistic physics with Quantum Theory and the subatomic is flawed in itself.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 11:15:00 2015 No.6692147

>>6692124
>We already have the theoreticals for the project and anything that could be tested for it would be beating a dead horse.
I'm not sure you're qualified to make that judgment. I'm not saying federal funds are never wasted but you're making grandiose claims without backing them up.
>I'm not hugely optimistic about analytic science but atleast it goes off somewhere completely new where turds like psychoanalysis and Psychiatry cannot touch it.
I think we're pretty much on the same page. Both fields do seem woefully inadequate and probably not worth saving, although I don't agree with throwing it every premodern idea just because it's premodern.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 11:22:44 2015 No.6692184 >>6691951 >26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older or about one in four adults suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. Nice bussiness you have there murricans.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 11:27:08 2015 No.6692204

>>6692147
You're probably right, but regardless the Government clearly didn't think so. Here's the Article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/12/15/nasas-349-million-monument-to-its-drift/

On second thought it might've actually been really useful. If we ever tested or decided to use it that is.

>although I don't agree with throwing it every premodern idea just because it's premodern
I think there's something to be said about Lacan's theory to all this, in that Ideology isn't just in the state, it's in every level of language and ordeal that confronts us in society. This includes our commerce, our politics and relations, health field, and yes even our sciences. They come from long traditions and at some point ran from much simpler traditions. Most Monasteries were cultured from the cults of ancient Greek Philosophers, and these Monos in turned, turned out the thinkers and circles of dialogue that would allow for modern science to form.

If premodern ideas are allowed to flourish, than one has to accept that their premodernity and the methodology, no matter how improved will always be present if carried forth. That's why it may be just easier to profess new methods of pedagogy at times rather than trying to sustain too many old ones. Because of this even hundreds of years after Alchemy moved on to Chemistry all kinds of misconceptions and baseless absurdities were still alive and inherent in the practice, all the way until physics discredited them.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 11:50:00 2015 No.6692274

>>6692204
The reason chemistry is fucked up by alchemy isn't because alchemy was flawed but because chemistry is a fundamentally different enterprise than alchemy. Aristotle had different aims than Newton did, which is why he wrote a book like the Physics and didn't try to represent motion with equations. Premodern discourses sometimes just ask questions that modern science doesn't have any interest in answering, and these superfluous questions unfortunately don't always get pruned before their consequences have already ruined the younger discipline. That doesn't mean they aren't interesting and worthwhile questions, though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 12:18:13 2015 No.6692392 File: 95 KB, 400x266, Lacan, yo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] hopefully

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 15:24:26 2015 No.6693083

>>6691807
>A Psychology that reads into each individual human being, each person as embodying their own personal Mythos. And than interpreting them (Or having them do so) based on a reading of their own life's Narrative.
there is literally a course at my university which examines the production and self-analysis of your own auto-biographical narrative. Not quite reached the level of any psychiatric treatment, but still a very interesting study nonetheless.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 19:01:04 2015 No.6693792

>>6691857
>Lacan is just one of many examples of a greedy scientist, who read a bit of philosophy (the structuralists), but lacked the philosopher's ethics needed to produce anything of value.

that is cute, when one of your own is clearly shown as a fraud you try to pass him off as a Scientist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 19:14:13 2015 No.6693824 >>6693792 well you can't deny he was a Medicine Doctor, a psychiatrist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 19:21:34 2015 No.6693845 >>6693824 >Medicine Doctor, a psychiatrist in France and in the 1930s. Medicine has only recently become a scientific field and it still is heavily criticized for not being overly rigorous with respect to science.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 19:26:05 2015 No.6693859

>>6693845

>In 1920, on being rejected as too thin for military service, he entered medical school and, in 1926, specialised in psychiatry at the Sainte-Anne Hospital in Paris.
>
>1930s
>In 1931 Lacan became a licensed forensic psychiatrist.
(WP)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan#Biography

If he had started by philosophy, he would have been weeded out as a charlatan.
But medicine studies are notoriously easy when you have a good memory.

Anonymous Mon Jun 15 19:40:45 2015 No.6693899
File: 236 KB, 1000x1500, p.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6693859
medical school in France in the 1920/30s would be completely different from a modern medical school. The lack of scientific rigor in medicine is a hot topic today not just on the research side but also on the practice side. Atul Gawande has written some great and accessible books on the subject.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 15 19:59:43 2015 No.6693941 >>6693899 yeah, surgeons are butchers.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature