/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6982980]

What's the difference between a desire and an ideal?

[Anonymous No.6982999]

Ideals are objects of desire; but not conversely.

[Anonymous No.6983001]

*SNIIIÌII͞F҉FF͟F̵̨̛̫̺̰̘̲̪̹̙͖͔̜͜F̷̨̤͖̮̲͕̱͎̮̮̲̬̫̗͎͈̼̥͟͠F̵̵̧̫̮̗̞́͝F̨͜͏̸̜̼̮͇̩͉̲̤̘̙̤͙̱̳̬̰͖̥F͉̜̭͉̼̳͓̫̖̥̬̥̲̹̼͉͟͠͞͠͠ͅF̷̵̡̹̲̮̦̮͖̝̀͡*

[Anonymous No.6983008]

>>6983001
I fucking love this meme, it never ceases to be fucking hilarious

[Anonymous No.6983088]

>>6982999
Could you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.6983089]

>>6983088

The desire is what you feel, the ideal is what you desire.

[Anonymous No.6983167]

>>6983089
I see. But I was thinking more in terms of difference between something you desire versus something that you take as the ideal object of desire, that is, something you think you should desire, like something you feel obliged to desire.

[Anonymous No.6983229]

Desires come from below your neck.
Ideals form above your neck.

[Anonymous No.6983304]

>>6983167

I'm not well read in Lacan and in no way familiar with all the subtle nuances, but I'll give it a go. If I got anything wrong feel free to correct me.

Let's start with a simple use of "ideal":

>EGO-IDEAL AND IDEAL-EGO (Lacan) : Lacan makes a distinction between the "ideal ego" and the "ego ideal," the former of which he associates with the imaginary order, the latter of which he associates with the symbolic order. Lacan's "ideal ego" is the ideal of perfection that the ego strives to emulate; it first affected the subject when he saw himself in a mirror during the mirror stage, which occurs around 6-18 months of age (see the Lacan module on psychosexual development). Seeing that image of oneself established a discord between the idealizing image in the mirror (bounded, whole, complete) and the chaotic reality of the one's body between 6-18 months, thus setting up the logic of the imaginary's fantasy construction that would dominate the subject's psychic life ever after. For Lacan, the "ego-ideal," by contrast, is when the subject looks at himself as if from that ideal point; to look at oneself from that point of perfection is to see one's life as vain and useless. The effect, then, is to invert one's "normal" life, to see it as suddenly repulsive.


I'd imagine things work in a similar fashion for desire and ideal.

Object cause of desire = object small a, ideal object as in non-empirical, unknown to the divided subject, like some non-sense non-visible object made up in the unconscious that nonetheless imprints all desires and defines partial objects (for instance which men/women we find attractive and in what contexts).

There are some connections to be made with signifiers and master signifiers. For instance, if "space" is an ideal object because we do not know it (we know theories and sensations related to space for instance), yet this does not stop us from orientating ourselves in a spacial manner, the object cause of desire, despite being unknown to us, allows us to orientate ourselves through the desire that already shapes our subjective reality in every waking and dreaming moment.

[Anonymous No.6983325]

>>6983304
I should also mention that the Ego-Ideal and Ideal-Ego are also non-sense non-empirical objects and also unknown to the subject because they are unconscious. They affect how we perceive ourselves despite being some phantomatic "brain static" formed during childhood.

[Anonymous No.6983913]

You're more willing to make concessions to realize a desire than you are to realize an ideal

[Anonymous No.6984920]

>>6983304
>>6983325
Thanks anon, gives me stuff to think

>>6983913
This is true.

[Anonymous No.6984923]

Ideals are completely spooky.

Desires are less spooky.

[Anonymous No.6984932]

>>6984923
Stop reading the german milk man