Why people struggle with this basic idea I have no idea. Nothing is as it seems. Everything flows and nothing abides. And that hasn't changed since Heraclitus was a lad. I side with Chomsky that Lacan was a self promoting charlatan who brought nothing new to the table except his own cult. That's not to expunge all merit from his work. Reminding people of things again is a worthy cause.
oh dang really? I was watching this and really liking it...thought I'd familiarize myself with Lacan becuase i have a reading for a class coming up by Lacan...is this video innacurate? how so?
agreed--this is a very superficial video about lacan's ideas. i would say that it is perhaps more biographical facts about his life. how do you have a video about lacan and not mention linguistics, structuralism or freud?
In a way, intellectuals are always at least a bit famous. The notion emerged with mass market press and exploded with radio and television precisely because it involves taking part in and elevating the public debate.
Slakfocmsnvfgls exactly. The word « intellectual » was invented by Maurice Barres, which was a french rightist extremist in the late 19th century, and created this neologism to describe « leftist jews Freemasons dreyfusard ». It was just after the Second World War that the word became to describe all people that were doing things that involved the intellect, even the rightists, thanks to television and radio.
Andre Sassi Not unusual anywhere, not just the France. Jordan Peterson comes to mind as the latest bullshitter, but it's by no means restricted to the Anglo tradition- celebrity of the Maharishi, Tony Robbins, the Dalai Llama, Gurus of ALL stripes, etc etc. Ironically, this is precisely what Laçan warned us about.
@@andresassi526 He said this very thing in the video, that's why I said that Lacan "warned us." In what ways is Peterson a serious thinker? He seems like a great therapist or self-help guru for certain people, but I have a Father already so I know to make my bed everyday, if you get what I mean. His only serious attempt at intellectual debate was the one a couple months ago against Slavoj Zizek, in which he was thoroughly embarrassed. Didn't you watch it? It's on here. I don't see how anyone can consider him to be a "serious thinker" anymore after such a disastrous performance. I at least expected him to have SOME kind of coherent critique of Post-Modernism/The Frankfurt School/neo-Marxism, but he didn't have any. I've literally heard better critiques of Marxism from Left Anarchists, and I've heard far better critiques of Post-Modernism from Marxist-Leninists! I agree with your last point though, we should attempt to be as clear as possible when communicating, especially by text, since it can be such a poor mode of communication.
Another excellent video, Alain. But can I just give a shout out to whoever edits your videos, they do an amazing job and I really enjoy it from a cinemagraphic perspective!
1. There is a TED Talk by Laurel Braitman called " Depressed Dogs, Cats with OCD. What Animal Madness Means for us Humans". She studies animal's mental health issues. She says that people often think how difficult her work must be, since the poor things can't tell you what they suffer from. She answers saying that we aren't any different indeed.How very true! I am sure Lacan would like that! In fact,Argentina's most beloved psychoanalyst Gabriel Rolon says that when patients come to him claiming to have a certain problem, over the course of the therapy ,it always turns out that indeed their problem was something totally different... 2. I highly recommend Gabriel Rolon's wonderful psychotherapy books to everyone. He writes in Spanish, but the books are translated into German and Portuguese too. He mentions Lacan a lot in his books. He says for example, that for Lacan the ultimate achievement of a psychoanalyst would be to help a patent "live his solitude without sadness". What an ambitious goal really... 3. It is also very true that we will never understand anybody entirely ( including ourselves I would add) and we also will be misunderstood ( and misunderstand ourselves! ) Pico Iyer says that when his mother turned 80, he asked her what she has learned after so many years . She said: " You can never know another person". I also remembered this wonderful line by Federico Garcia Lorca: "..and the heart feels like an island in infinity." " y el corazon se siente isla en el infinito" It is as depressing as it sounds. But in the end, in terms of our need for love and all the things we all suffer from, we have a lot in common too. 4. Considering the "mirror face", there is an incredible and really fun episode by the podcast Radiolab called: Mirror, Mirror. Here is the info: Up next, we meet a man named John Walter who swapped places with his mirror self. Kind of. He explains how changing his hair part changed his life, and how the experience convinced him that mirrors (and the reversed images they reflect) lie to us. We run John's theory by Mike Nicholls of the University of Melbourne, who admits John might be on to something about the way we perceive faces. 5. I do agree with Lacan's thoughts on love! Talking about the way romantic love works he says something like: "To love is to give what you don't have, to the one who is not who you think that is". Sorry I don't have the original quote. I have it here in a book in Spanish: " Amar es dar lo que no se tiene a quien no lo es". I guess he is talking about that period where we fall in love: we show ourselves much more tolerant, understanding, generous( especially with our time) and patient than we indeed are. The first 6 months or so... So we are "giving" something that we indeed don't really have, since it is impossible for us to continue with that intensity. So in that period of mutual blindness non of us is being what he or she really is. 6. And the most fun quote I know by Lacan is what he says about the Christian injunction " love thy neighbour as thyself". He says this must be ironic, because people hate themselves! Well, I don't think this is true for everyone. But it reminds us of something very important: If we want to be a compassionate, loving and generous person, we must start with ourselves. Thanks a lot for this wonderful lesson, as always!
In my humble opinion we can never know everything about ourselves. But still, it is worth trying one life long, to learn as much as we can learn about ourselves. Any information helps. I use two types of meditation for this: 1. Alain be Botton's "Philosophical Meditation". If you wish, just watch the video they made about it. You can then click on the information under the video and print the questions. 2. I meditate using guided meditation podcasts. I heard about them watching a Yale Lecture on Mindfullness on youtube. Just search for this on Itunes: "UCLA Hammer Meditation". They are extremely helpful. I send you my best wishes!
***** Thanks for the recommendations. I search for my fears. Meditation is good, but nothing beats the real thing. And I use mushrooms. The thoughts become beings in that particular state. You can see parts of the brain at work. They can't do their job properly, but you'll learn something about each piece.
Just out of curiosity, why are you so curious about one's self? BTW I'm going to check on some of the sources you mentioned because I'm interested in a lot of this stuff too. Thanks.
Hello David! Thanks a lot for reading. I am curious about everything in this world, but since you are the lens through which you see the world, it is also very important to be curious about yourself. Especially in bad times, it is a wise thing to do, to approach one's self with a lot of curiosity, rather than being hard on yourself. Alain de Botton twitted this the other day, which is so true: "If we saw someone else treating us the way most of us treat ourselves, we might think them despicably cruel. " So true... Have a nice weekend!
Say what you want about Lacan... I'm doing the past 2 years Lacanic psychoanalysis and it help me alot... With my major anxiety and with alot of other problems...
There are no Studies that probe as an effective Therapy. you are cheating saying that because you can't probe it was la can "Therapy" that worked and no something else. studies said that is no more effective than talking to a friend.
Stunningly inaccurate. You omitted the core components of his work and spent time on things that had nothing to do with Lacan at all. This is a shame because the other videos in this series have been very well done. This one seems to have been written by someone who scanned a couple of basic articles, missed the important points, invented a couple of things, and then confused Lacan with other thinkers. I hope that no one takes this as introduction to Lacan. Please don't use this as a source of knowledge about Lacan. There are a lot of good videos about Lacan on TH-cam, but this is most certainly not one of them. Please take this down and redo this video without the glaring errors.
Can you guys do Henri Ey? He was a French psychiatrist who was Lacans' theoretical rival. He created his own theories behind the human psyche (mixing psychoanalysis and neurobiology) and helped modernize psychiatry by defining and classifing different mental illnesses in his manuals, some of which are still used to this day.
It strikes me, watching these videos, that the lives of many of these great thinkers were shaped by their own personal experiences. Lacan's negativity about man and woman ever really knowing each other strikes me as typical of a good-looking man who dated a lot of beautiful women, serially. If he'd been a plainer man, who married a plain-looking sweetheart at a young age and stayed with her 40 years, I think his ideas on how well men and women know each other would have been quite different. I've observed that these are often the most stable relationships, while attractive people with seemingly enviable love lives often end up with the most polarized, Mars-and-Venus view of the sexes. Michel Foucault is another example: He grew up feeling very repressed by his bourgeois French family and the Catholic Church, and then spent his life proposing the most controversial, anti-bourgeois theories possible. In a way, he might have just been trying to make Mama and Papa really, really mad.
I'm having a rather hard time understanding Lacan's three stages (the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary). Shame you don't include them in the video :(
Hey, I'm a student of Psychoanalysis from Brazil (I became a student in 2018), BUT NOW, I'M HERE AND I WILL TRY TO HELP YOU (hope it's not TOO LATE) hahaha. @Erica Wrote some good stuff, but I will go further. The Real: it's the life, the events, the unassimilable, unsignifiable register (imagine when something really new and strange happened to you, like a car accident or getting robbed); The Symbolic: it's the Inconscious, Figures, symbols, words; The Imaginary: consciouness, what you are, and what you think and see.
@@martharigby Video is not entirely wrong, he just let too much out, Lacan can't be summarized in 8 minutes, he did wayyy too much, it's a bad video and add the fact that the channel is super liberal, it's just tainted with politics as well lol.
I hate lacan. Even though I got a first on an essay about him, his work made me suffer for the amount of time I researched that bloody essay. Once again, I express my deepest hatred of Lacan.
The REALLY big problem with this video isn't that it's wrong, but that it leaves out so much stuff that it's more than easy Lacan as standing for something he didn't. Lacan didn't say that we don't know who we are, or that we're worried that nobody will get us- his point is that WE'RE NOT ANYTHING beside a linguistical construct, imaginary ego, a fundamental lack in being. This is what we form ourselves around. Look deep enough and you won't find a "true and stable self", but a psychological structure based around a fundamental lack both in ans of being. Lacan spent his life trying to create a thorough and unflinching model of the psyche as formed by language and society, not to provide life-affirming insights. Reducing him to that is insulting to his life work.
I think even though there may be plenty of reason to hate him, judging by these comments, that's not really the point of this video or channel. It's more about the interesting things that have been said, the different ways to think and interpret the world and ourselves, and the only reason he's credited is to attribute these thoughts to a source. Regardless of who Lacan was, that's not the part we should take away from this video.
Lacan as an antidote to all kinds of pop psychology... I find him fascinating (although sometimes unnecessary obscure) and very intellectually intriguing challenging a lot of so called "norms".
Well yeah I mean he has spent his whole career defending Lacan and Hegel pretty much. A video on him would be interesting though since he does have a lot of interesting theories.
That's just a formula. What do you do with it ? That's the problem with Freud or Lacan, they are useless when you work in psychiatry, and not much useful in your personal life. Fuck them, if I may say so.
in the premise that you cannot possess love but nonetheless give it and that you can actually acknowledge to want it or not, even when you have never had it because as said before you have never possessed it hence you have never experienced it, You are describing that love is the idea that you give something unknown to somebody who doesn't need it, but not because he has experienced it but because of his idea of what you are giving him is something he does not want or need at the time and they can think of love as anything their imagination allows them to think of it as they can never know what it really is because they can never experience it therefore the person who gives does not know what he is giving and the person who does not want it does not know what he doesn't want therefore love does not exist as it is something that a person can never have, possess, give, know, want or experience Your comment has denied the existence of love poetry-like You have managed to prove the existence of something based on its unexistence which is not possible but just rather poetic and ironic.
@@ofdrumsandchords Well from the very first, the final goal of Lacan psychoanalysis wasn't the adaptation of clinical patients like any other psychology or psychiatry man.
All your videos are interesting and well done, Can you please optimize the voice level for external speakers? Like on desktop computers All your audio levels are mostly optimized for headphones only. Thank you, keep going
YES! A psychoanalyst that was in dire need of elucidation. Thank you, School of Life. EDIT: Well, that was a bit disappointing. How come there were no mentions of his psychoanalytic concepts besides the mirror stage, such as the Real and the Imaginary?
yes, alain gets all tangled up in trying to apply ideas to some vague social project, then we miss the actual thought of lacan - getting some misshappen contortion to tack on about everyday life instead
I like it though. also, consider the format. it's a less than ten minute film. It definitely condenses too much, but it acts as a good introduction to laymen.
They didn't include many of his concepts because many of them are littered with socialist propoganda. Lacan followed Freudo-Marxism, the idea that somehow, capitalism can cause mental disarray. Lacan, even if you look in this video, that all people secretly want some "Big Brother" figure ruling them.
Rather subjective adaptation of Lacan. To me it seems like you are very selective in what you want to present to the viewer. This is of course due to both the brevity of this video and Lacan's usefulness for the conveyance of your own philosophy which I can understand to some degree but this video has a manipulative and subversive effect. Lacan's ideas are at least as complex and ungraspable as his writings and to represent him like this (straightforward and logical and indirectly as an anticipant of the school of life philosophy) feels unjust and even immoral to me.
Great job with the video, though I would mention it covers more of Lacanian ethics than the actual theoretical framework. One central notion in Lacanian psychoanalysis is that we are who we are, as human beings, because of something that we experience to be missing from us (usually an incestuous forbidden love from our childhood). It naturally follows, at least from what I’ve read on Lacan, that we spend the rest of our lives making up for that lost object in an illusory fantasy we call reality. The episode of the toddler staring at its own reflection in the mirror is an instance of this, where the image in the mirror represents an imaginary “Self” constructed for the purpose of identification. Similarly, to play this game called life, everything in our immediate vicinity since socialization is set up as a mirror for us to identify with. Whether that thing is love, desire, or individuality, it is not coming from within us, it is constantly being produced from positions outside of ourselves. Taking advantage of this decentered nature of reality, the analyst tries to become a mirror for the analysand (patient) in order for the latter to project his or hers deepest concerns to them. Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m still reading Lacan, but just for fun :)
It's kind of unsettling that no matter how hard we try how big our vocabularies are we will never be able to exactly precisely put words to thoughts and feelings don't get me wrong, we can get damn close but no other human being will see what you're thinking,or 100% understand that one unmistakeable, undesirable feeling not even if you're desperate but we still try , that's all we can do
So, im a barber...this made sense When people sit in my chair ...and all their deep thoughts come out ,im a better help to them because of this channel. :) Ever thank ful.
My dog (labrador) usually barks with fear when he sees himself in the mirror haha the question would be if he barks because he recognizes himself and gets afraid or because he thinks there's another dog in front of him
how do we know the baby looking in the mirror recognises itself? Further, how do we know that animals cannot recognise themselves in reflections? Elephants paint pictures of elephants.
This video is far too generous to Lacan. He deserves none of this praise. He was a megalomaniac who drove his patients to suicide and whose work is a mix of gibberish and total horseshit, for example his outright fraud of a thesis. His legacy was the destruction of all legitimacy for several entire disciplines of academia. Perhaps the single worst thinker of the 20th century. He's a disgrace, and it's disgraceful that he was ever afforded any legitimacy, but doubly disgraceful now that we've had the time to reflect on his terrible career. No discipline in academia that would welcome such a man deserves any respect.
Why would The School of Life use Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama as examples of "adults" in politics? All of these presidents, most noticeably Obama, promise the world, as Democrats are ought to do. "Hope and change?" More welfare and funding for more programs and the elimination of poverty? Did we mention more welfare? Please try to display ACTUAL adults in politics who understood the nation's responsibilities and their limitations, most noticeably on the budget level. Fiscally Conservative.
Republican presidents haven't always been an unqualified success, to put it mildly. And the party has gone so far right that they wouldn't even elect their hero Reagan if he stood today because he'd seem too liberal.
Abraham Lincoln Teddy Roosevelt William Taft Richard Nixon Old Ronny Probably George Herbert Walker Bush. Notice, this is based on President's personality and how they campaigned, not just their policies.
Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus Augustus Bush Sr was famous for two things: 1. Vomiting on the Japanese priime minister and 2. Pledging not to raise taxes and subsequently raising taxes. Which is one reason he lost to Clinton.
1:32, actually for the first time my dog had seen itself in the mirror, she started barking at her own reflection thinking it was another dog, after a while of freaking out she sort of accepted it and never paying attention to it, so I think some animals do understand
Well lots of people have run scientific tests on this, and certain animals can. Octupi and dolphins can recognise their reflections for example. Its seen as an important (but obviously not complete) way of trying to gauge a species intelligence and consciousness. As far as I am aware no dogs have passed the test.
Dogs do not hold visual events to be of the same importance as olfactory events, and therefore can not be expected to react to a visual representation of themselves in the same way primates and birds do(due to vision being our most important sense). Therefore an identity test should probably be focused on scent rather than vision. There have been tests done and dogs do recognize what is 'their' scent and that it 'belongs' to them, but obviously the results are up for interpretation.
My dog knows that when he looks at my reflection in the mirror that's only a reference to know where I am. That means he recognizes some relation and diference between my image and my actual person (I have tried several ways of experimenting with this). Anyway, Lacan didn't have to state that diference, it wouldn't make any change at all to his theories if dogs could use language as we do. That was a mistake. I think Derrida's work on the subject are capital (L'' animal q donc je suis)
Psychoanalysis is one the biggest BS since a while. Not only it does make any sense but it also does not cure anything more than other more reasonable therapies. I also don't like the quasi-religious side of psychoanalysis and the dogma behind certain concepts.
There have been studies that suggest that elephants have self-recognition also. But they are summarizing *Lacan's* thoughts and theories. Like anyone else's, they are subject to error and one must keep what is valuable and bear the rest in mind and in stride.
The flaw in his gibberish is that you don't need a reflective smooth surface to self recognize in this way. The world and all of your social interactions are mirrors for you to see yourself in. All of your actions have noticable real world consequences everywhere you go, no matter how great or small, which effect the way you reflect on your own mental image of yourself and it's also how you're able to perceive yourself in a past and future tense. Seeing yourself in an actual mirror isn't the first time you perceive yourself. That's so dumb.
I noticed The School Of Life has yet to say much on our roles within our extended family. One can link a great deal of the world's ills to the demise of community and extended family.
"For Lacan, the truly talented politician isn't someone who knows how to whip up the crowd and ignite feelings of semi conscious, childlike dreams of perfection." A dismissal of Sanders perhaps? "It's the one who dares to be an adult - someone who has the skill to persuade people of the disappointing nature of reality and Who has the tact to do so without arousing unbearable rage and tantrums." A dismissal of Clinton as well, I suppose.
A dismissal of any politican, really....very few have ever been able to win the political game from both sides of the spectrum..that is, appealing to the people while ALSO appealing to the rich.
These "Quick Capsule" reviews of key philosophers' lives and works are perfect for an attention-span challenged literalist like me. Do you have a group of redactors or are they solely the work of the narrator?
Thanks so much for your very generous comment, we're hugely conscious of the need for brevity!. Just to explain: The videos (including this one) are usually the collective work of a team of writers of which Alain, the narrator, is a key member.
"Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content" R. Dawkins
The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax,[1] was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies - whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross - [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
This is a very generous redemption of a man who is considered to be a charlatan and a deceiver (to gain status and economical benefits) by many important intellectuals like Chomsky and even some former psychoanalysts. I recommend reading “From Lacan to Darwin” by Dylan Evans (2005). He created a popular reference book about Lacan's theory, appreciated by many psychoanalysts, but in the process came to understand Lacan as a charlatan. I understand that this space is about philosophy. And if we take Lacan, Jung, and Freud's writings as philosophy, I sympathize that there are many things of value to highlight. The problem is that Lacan never had the humility to recognize that he was proposing a kind of philosophy. Instead, he was proposing a categorical description of human nature and a method of intervention. But the value of this theory/practice is not based on evidence, but on the obscurity of his texts and the authority of a charismatic man. The many cases in which psychoanalysis is not just unhelpful but harmful are well known in the psychological literature. I would simply advise more discretion when speaking about Lacan and the value or validity of his claims.
Yes, very simplistic and leaves out the discussion of the distinction between the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real as the basis of his re re-thinking of the categories of psychoanalysis
First, I want to clarify that I am loving this channel, and that the way they take a lot of their subjects has sparked a lot of interest on my part to study things I didn't even consider before. That said, am I the only one that thinks the audio is a bit too low? I tend to put everything at max, and even then I can't really hear it properly, that added with the fast nature of the narrator, sometimes make it difficult to understand what is being said. Really good channel either way.
I came here to try to get to the bottom of those moments when Zizek doesn't wipe his nose and pull his t-tshirt...you know - the bits where he talks...
As someone who has recently been trying to understand Lacan through a wide range of books, seminars, podcasts, etc., this really synthesized it all together for me. Thanks!
"the we will be almost entirely misuderstood"... Jordan Peterson definitely did... but then again it's probably a voluntary, or even pragmatic misunderstanding
Starting in 1975, Jacques Lacan clearly recognized, on several occasions, the aporias of psychoanalysis. In 1977, on ethics: "Our practice is a swindle, bluffing, making people stick, dazzling them with words that are shocked, [...] From an ethical point of view, it's untenable." In 1978, on scientificity: "Psychoanalysis is not a science. ...it is a delusion - a delusion that is expected to carry a science." In 1979, on the conditioning of the analyzed: "It is not a science at all because it is irrefutable. The psychoanalyst is a rhetorician. ...operates only by suggestion. He suggests, that's the characteristic of a rhetorician, he doesn't impose anything of substance." On 5-1-1980, Lacan declared in his 'Letter of Dissolution': "I have failed - that is to say, I have become confused. ...] Freud allowed the psychoanalytical group to prevail over discourse, to become Church." His followers continue to try to understand his SIBYLLINAR TEXTS by avoiding taking seriously the last cities, however clear they may be. Source: "Freud & Lacan. Quacks?" Facts and legends of psychoanalysis. Jacques Van Rillaer. Jacques Van Rillaer practised psychoanalysis for about ten years. Appointed professor of psychology at the University of Louvain and the University of Saint-Louis (Brussels), he had the opportunity to study Freudism and various innovations, in particular those of Lacan. He ended up becoming very critical of his old beliefs. He is the author of "Les illusions de la psychanalyse", "Psychologie de la vie quotidienne", "Le Livre noir de la psychanalyse" and "La gestion de soi".
A note on the short session; Lacan did this not because he “felt” like but because he wanted to punctuate the session. When a signifier with particular libidinal resonance was said he’d end the session so the signifier would emerge as a ‘quilting point’ that would rearrange the subject’s signifying structure. It’s very hard to explain Lacan in a short way that is faithful to the intricacy and profundity of his ideas. If anyone is interested in a deeper understanding of Lacan, I implore them to read Freud as Philosopher by Richard Boothby. While the title only names Freud, it is easily the best introduction to Lacan ever written.
The Mirror effect is very real. This is why they place high-definitions mirrors that tell the truth in rest-rooms . People are offended by the true image they see of themselves and won't loiter about. Don't think so ? Watch someone in a restroom. When they wash theirs hands and look into the mirror they quickly dry off their hands and exit the facility.
Thanks for this. I knew nothing of Lacan and will now put him on my reading list. But my initial reaction from a Buddhist perspective, is that the impossibility of being understood arises from the construction by the person of what it means to be understood. The person constructs a self which they attempt to define with concepts expressed (as they must be) in words. Such concepts of self are a partial construction of experience which will more or less but rarely entirely correspond with those of another person. The Buddhist perspective would be to strip away such language based attempts to define the self and to recognise the commonality of human experience which one can infer subsists in others. Any statement about the self which begins “I am” is both a movement towards others but at the same time differentiates us from them. There may be reasons to construct a self in this way. But if the reason is to achieve a unity of understanding with others, it is self defeating. The key is to see the human process that underlies the language. This occurs in times of great stress such as war, where the vacuity of identity becomes apparent. But it can also be seen through mediation which is the Buddhist method and lets face it, is preferable.
“His brother became a benedictine monk”
*shows an russian orthodox monk*
Rasputin, too, from the looks of it!
Rasputin 😂
You had me thinking that Rasputin and Lacan sere related for a second
Lol same
Pretty sure everyone thought that!!
*were
Same lol
25 years later, I still look at myself in the mirror and wonder, 'Damn! Is that me?'
"Well! now that is unfortunate"
"Now that can't be accurate"
we change everyday. we are never the same, so that is no surprise :)
Why people struggle with this basic idea I have no idea. Nothing is as it seems. Everything flows and nothing abides. And that hasn't changed since Heraclitus was a lad.
I side with Chomsky that Lacan was a self promoting charlatan who brought nothing new to the table except his own cult. That's not to expunge all merit from his work. Reminding people of things again is a worthy cause.
sorry but charlatanism is the most important quality one can have if they are to be intelligent. all true intelligence is charlatanism.
What, no mention of The Real or Object petit a?
Yeah, this has almost nothing to do with Lacan...
Yep, on top of that is the core part of the video just egopsychology, which is fundamentally anti-lacanian.
oh dang really? I was watching this and really liking it...thought I'd familiarize myself with Lacan becuase i have a reading for a class coming up by Lacan...is this video innacurate? how so?
@@martharigby watch the plastic pills channel, they have good videos about lacan
@@nilsdninjasinlightspeeddie2122 hey, thanks dood!
agreed--this is a very superficial video about lacan's ideas. i would say that it is perhaps more biographical facts about his life. how do you have a video about lacan and not mention linguistics, structuralism or freud?
"wipe face" Its an obscenity "sniffs" catastrophe "rub nose" and so on and so on... "ajust shirt"
*Gesticulating and sweating profusely* You know, In the old USSR we used to have a joke that went somewhere like this...
@@SandroAerogen Yeh, pretty good, but he grew up in the old Yugoslavia (Slovenia).
God-like Entity: "I can grant any wish you may have, but what I do for you I will do twice for your neighbor."
Zizek: "Take one of my eyes."
This is fantastic.
Zizek brought me here
Same
An intellectual celebrity is not that unusual in France.
In a way, intellectuals are always at least a bit famous. The notion emerged with mass market press and exploded with radio and television precisely because it involves taking part in and elevating the public debate.
Slakfocmsnvfgls exactly. The word « intellectual » was invented by Maurice Barres, which was a french rightist extremist in the late 19th century, and created this neologism to describe « leftist jews Freemasons dreyfusard ». It was just after the Second World War that the word became to describe all people that were doing things that involved the intellect, even the rightists, thanks to television and radio.
True. I think of Sartre and Camus. Especially Camus, actually.
Andre Sassi Not unusual anywhere, not just the France. Jordan Peterson comes to mind as the latest bullshitter, but it's by no means restricted to the Anglo tradition- celebrity of the Maharishi, Tony Robbins, the Dalai Llama, Gurus of ALL stripes, etc etc.
Ironically, this is precisely what Laçan warned us about.
@@andresassi526 He said this very thing in the video, that's why I said that Lacan "warned us." In what ways is Peterson a serious thinker? He seems like a great therapist or self-help guru for certain people, but I have a Father already so I know to make my bed everyday, if you get what I mean.
His only serious attempt at intellectual debate was the one a couple months ago against Slavoj Zizek, in which he was thoroughly embarrassed. Didn't you watch it? It's on here. I don't see how anyone can consider him to be a "serious thinker" anymore after such a disastrous performance. I at least expected him to have SOME kind of coherent critique of Post-Modernism/The Frankfurt School/neo-Marxism, but he didn't have any. I've literally heard better critiques of Marxism from Left Anarchists, and I've heard far better critiques of Post-Modernism from Marxist-Leninists!
I agree with your last point though, we should attempt to be as clear as possible when communicating, especially by text, since it can be such a poor mode of communication.
Another excellent video, Alain. But can I just give a shout out to whoever edits your videos, they do an amazing job and I really enjoy it from a cinemagraphic perspective!
I second that. :)
I triple that! ;)
I'm all in.
Call
It's good in terms of production, but the script is just God-awful. He is not representing Lacan accurately. At all.
1. There is a TED Talk by Laurel Braitman called " Depressed Dogs, Cats with OCD. What Animal Madness Means for us Humans". She studies animal's mental health issues. She says that people often think how difficult her work must be, since the poor things can't tell you what they suffer from. She answers
saying that we aren't any different indeed.How very true! I am sure Lacan would like that!
In fact,Argentina's most beloved psychoanalyst Gabriel Rolon says that when patients come to him claiming to have a certain problem, over the course of the therapy ,it always turns out that indeed their problem was something totally different...
2. I highly recommend Gabriel Rolon's wonderful psychotherapy books to everyone. He writes in Spanish, but the books are translated into German and Portuguese too. He mentions Lacan a lot in his books. He says for example, that for Lacan the ultimate achievement of a psychoanalyst would be to help a patent "live his solitude without sadness". What an ambitious goal really...
3. It is also very true that we will never understand anybody entirely ( including ourselves I would add) and we also will be misunderstood ( and misunderstand ourselves! ) Pico Iyer says that when his mother turned 80, he asked her what she has learned after so many years . She said:
" You can never know another person".
I also remembered this wonderful line by Federico Garcia Lorca:
"..and the heart feels like an island in infinity."
" y el corazon se siente isla en el infinito"
It is as depressing as it sounds. But in the end, in terms of our need for love and all the things we all suffer from, we have a lot in common too.
4. Considering the "mirror face", there is an incredible and really fun episode by the podcast Radiolab called: Mirror, Mirror. Here is the info:
Up next, we meet a man named John Walter who swapped places with his mirror self. Kind of. He explains how changing his hair part changed his life, and how the experience convinced him that mirrors (and the reversed images they reflect) lie to us. We run John's theory by Mike Nicholls of the University of Melbourne, who admits John might be on to something about the way we perceive faces.
5. I do agree with Lacan's thoughts on love! Talking about the way romantic love works he says something like:
"To love is to give what you don't have, to the one who is not who you think that is".
Sorry I don't have the original quote. I have it here in a book in Spanish:
" Amar es dar lo que no se tiene a quien no lo es".
I guess he is talking about that period where we fall in love: we show ourselves much more tolerant, understanding, generous( especially with our time) and patient than we indeed are. The first 6 months or so... So we are "giving" something that we indeed don't really have, since it is impossible for us to continue with that intensity. So in that period of mutual blindness non of us is being what he or she really is.
6. And the most fun quote I know by Lacan is what he says about the Christian injunction " love thy neighbour as thyself". He says this must be ironic, because people hate themselves!
Well, I don't think this is true for everyone. But it reminds us of something very important: If we want to be a compassionate, loving and generous person, we must start with ourselves.
Thanks a lot for this wonderful lesson, as always!
Do we ever really know ourselves?
In my humble opinion we can never know everything about ourselves. But still, it is worth trying one life long, to learn as much as we can learn about ourselves. Any information helps. I use two types of meditation for this:
1. Alain be Botton's "Philosophical Meditation". If you wish, just watch the video they made about it. You can then click on the information under the video and print the questions.
2. I meditate using guided meditation podcasts. I heard about them watching a Yale Lecture on Mindfullness on youtube. Just search for this on Itunes:
"UCLA Hammer Meditation".
They are extremely helpful.
I send you my best wishes!
*****
Thanks for the recommendations.
I search for my fears. Meditation is good, but nothing beats the real thing.
And I use mushrooms. The thoughts become beings in that particular state. You can see parts of the brain at work. They can't do their job properly, but you'll learn something about each piece.
Just out of curiosity, why are you so curious about one's self? BTW I'm going to check on some of the sources you mentioned because I'm interested in a lot of this stuff too. Thanks.
Hello David! Thanks a lot for reading. I am curious about everything in this world, but since you are the lens through which you see the world, it is also very important to be curious about yourself. Especially in bad times, it is a wise thing to do, to approach one's self with a lot of curiosity, rather than being hard on yourself.
Alain de Botton twitted this the other day, which is so true:
"If we saw someone else treating us the way most of us treat ourselves, we might think them despicably cruel. "
So true...
Have a nice weekend!
Say what you want about Lacan... I'm doing the past 2 years Lacanic psychoanalysis and it help me alot... With my major anxiety and with alot of other problems...
negative opinions about Lacan usually revolves around politics, because no one can agree on that shit
There are no Studies that probe as an effective Therapy. you are cheating saying that because you can't probe it was la can "Therapy" that worked and no something else. studies said that is no more effective than talking to a friend.
+ThirdEyeFilmz I haven't read Lacan politics I'm not interesting in politics
+Nuncio Sidereo yeah and also everything is 8n your mind... Tell this to all the people helped by Lacanic therapy
+Johnny “Walker” Kat that is stil not a valid Studie. not surprised that you couldn't make a stament ... :) simple and closed minds..
I'm still waiting for Carl Jung
Do a video on Kropotkin.
Chomsky works too.
That guy...
Which one? And why?
Stunningly inaccurate. You omitted the core components of his work and spent time on things that had nothing to do with Lacan at all. This is a shame because the other videos in this series have been very well done. This one seems to have been written by someone who scanned a couple of basic articles, missed the important points, invented a couple of things, and then confused Lacan with other thinkers. I hope that no one takes this as introduction to Lacan. Please don't use this as a source of knowledge about Lacan.
There are a lot of good videos about Lacan on TH-cam, but this is most certainly not one of them. Please take this down and redo this video without the glaring errors.
Can you guys do Henri Ey? He was a French psychiatrist who was Lacans' theoretical rival. He created his own theories behind the human psyche (mixing psychoanalysis and neurobiology) and helped modernize psychiatry by defining and classifing different mental illnesses in his manuals, some of which are still used to this day.
Yep, just erase and ignore all of his influence from, and towards Marxism.
It strikes me, watching these videos, that the lives of many of these great thinkers were shaped by their own personal experiences.
Lacan's negativity about man and woman ever really knowing each other strikes me as typical of a good-looking man who dated a lot of beautiful women, serially. If he'd been a plainer man, who married a plain-looking sweetheart at a young age and stayed with her 40 years, I think his ideas on how well men and women know each other would have been quite different. I've observed that these are often the most stable relationships, while attractive people with seemingly enviable love lives often end up with the most polarized, Mars-and-Venus view of the sexes.
Michel Foucault is another example: He grew up feeling very repressed by his bourgeois French family and the Catholic Church, and then spent his life proposing the most controversial, anti-bourgeois theories possible. In a way, he might have just been trying to make Mama and Papa really, really mad.
interesting
I feel the same. I dont think theres any real way to truly get a holistic view on the nature of stuff without being at least a little schizophrenic
Maybe you haven't seen any glitches of your reality yet. If you don't see the problems, the theories are useless.
can you please do george orwell
thanks
don't you mean eric arthur blair? ;)
+Elexie Munyeneh wow you must be educated
fnchrstphr ...it's a joke. Don't be such a halophile
+Elexie Munyeneh I'm going to say something really cutting and mean but first I need to look up halophile.
fnchrstphr you'll be impressed.
I'm having a rather hard time understanding Lacan's three stages (the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary). Shame you don't include them in the video :(
The Real: the unassimilable, unsignifiable register
Symbolic: language and signification
Imaginary: the level of images, and ego
Because it’s double speak / sophistry.
@@allseeingry2487 it’s dialectics m8 lol
Lacan online has some great videos on him
Hey, I'm a student of Psychoanalysis from Brazil (I became a student in 2018), BUT NOW, I'M HERE AND I WILL TRY TO HELP YOU (hope it's not TOO LATE) hahaha. @Erica Wrote some good stuff, but I will go further.
The Real: it's the life, the events, the unassimilable, unsignifiable register (imagine when something really new and strange happened to you, like a car accident or getting robbed); The Symbolic: it's the Inconscious, Figures, symbols, words; The Imaginary: consciouness, what you are, and what you think and see.
I hate hate HATE what you’ve done with lacan, the ego psychology and live laugh love could’ve really matched a video on any other thinker.
hey, i dont know much about Lacan but I ended up here to get an introduction...is this video really wrong? If so, what was Lacan really about?
@@martharigby Video is not entirely wrong, he just let too much out, Lacan can't be summarized in 8 minutes, he did wayyy too much, it's a bad video and add the fact that the channel is super liberal, it's just tainted with politics as well lol.
@@martharigby Derek Hook has some great introductory videos on his channel th-cam.com/channels/zdZyq2SC9BtMn3fLTknIMQ.htmlvideos
You hate hate HATE... is just a reflection of your ego that you got the first time you saw yourself in a mirror..
Liberal? Like Margaret Thatcher liberal? @@ash-gms4562
Neon Genesis Evangelion makes so much more sense now.
Is that show about Lacan?
@@Onehundredpounds in a way
I hate lacan. Even though I got a first on an essay about him, his work made me suffer for the amount of time I researched that bloody essay. Once again, I express my deepest hatred of Lacan.
Next stop, Carl Jung?
The REALLY big problem with this video isn't that it's wrong, but that it leaves out so much stuff that it's more than easy Lacan as standing for something he didn't.
Lacan didn't say that we don't know who we are, or that we're worried that nobody will get us- his point is that WE'RE NOT ANYTHING beside a linguistical construct, imaginary ego, a fundamental lack in being. This is what we form ourselves around. Look deep enough and you won't find a "true and stable self", but a psychological structure based around a fundamental lack both in ans of being.
Lacan spent his life trying to create a thorough and unflinching model of the psyche as formed by language and society, not to provide life-affirming insights. Reducing him to that is insulting to his life work.
You didnt mention that he structured unconscious part as a language. "Symptom is a defect of symbolization".
Yeah, that's what I am interested about Lacan. Mind is language?
Can you please give me a link where I can find more about Lacan's theory of language
I think even though there may be plenty of reason to hate him, judging by these comments, that's not really the point of this video or channel. It's more about the interesting things that have been said, the different ways to think and interpret the world and ourselves, and the only reason he's credited is to attribute these thoughts to a source. Regardless of who Lacan was, that's not the part we should take away from this video.
Lacan as an antidote to all kinds of pop psychology... I find him fascinating (although sometimes unnecessary obscure) and very intellectually intriguing challenging a lot of so called "norms".
Ioannis Kazlaris eww
Put the speed on 1.5 or even better, 1.75. Provides another perspective on his chat...
Can you please do a video on Slavoj Zizek? I believe his work was heavily influenced by Lacan as well.
Well yeah I mean he has spent his whole career defending Lacan and Hegel pretty much. A video on him would be interesting though since he does have a lot of interesting theories.
He’s a professional yapper
"Love is giving something we don't have to someone who doesn't want it."
This sounds more like the definition of capitalism.
@@BalthasarGondii why?
That's just a formula. What do you do with it ? That's the problem with Freud or Lacan, they are useless when you work in psychiatry, and not much useful in your personal life. Fuck them, if I may say so.
in the premise that you cannot possess love but nonetheless give it and that you can actually acknowledge to want it or not, even when you have never had it because as said before you have never possessed it hence you have never experienced it, You are describing that love is the idea that you give something unknown to somebody who doesn't need it, but not because he has experienced it but because of his idea of what you are giving him is something he does not want or need at the time and they can think of love as anything their imagination allows them to think of it as they can never know what it really is because they can never experience it therefore the person who gives does not know what he is giving and the person who does not want it does not know what he doesn't want therefore love does not exist as it is something that a person can never have, possess, give, know, want or experience
Your comment has denied the existence of love poetry-like
You have managed to prove the existence of something based on its unexistence which is not possible but just rather poetic and ironic.
@@ofdrumsandchords Well from the very first, the final goal of Lacan psychoanalysis wasn't the adaptation of clinical patients like any other psychology or psychiatry man.
Carl Jung? Surprised he isn't in here already. And/or Otto Rank?
Agreed. Jung is the great.
@@hithere5133 None greater : )
And Carl Rogers (voted the most influential psychotherapist - by other therapists - in 2009).
fuck jung
@@djaballahadel why tho?
why does this channel make me feel so good?
All your videos are interesting and well done, Can you please optimize the voice level for external speakers? Like on desktop computers All your audio levels are mostly optimized for headphones only. Thank you, keep going
Yeah, I agree. Plus i think it would be more interesting if they were to add background music.
YES!
A psychoanalyst that was in dire need of elucidation. Thank you, School of Life.
EDIT: Well, that was a bit disappointing. How come there were no mentions of his psychoanalytic concepts besides the mirror stage, such as the Real and the Imaginary?
feel free to add them here if you can
and so on...
yes, alain gets all tangled up in trying to apply ideas to some vague social project, then we miss the actual thought of lacan - getting some misshappen contortion to tack on about everyday life instead
I like it though. also, consider the format. it's a less than ten minute film. It definitely condenses too much, but it acts as a good introduction to laymen.
They didn't include many of his concepts because many of them are littered with socialist propoganda. Lacan followed Freudo-Marxism, the idea that somehow, capitalism can cause mental disarray. Lacan, even if you look in this video, that all people secretly want some "Big Brother" figure ruling them.
Rather subjective adaptation of Lacan. To me it seems like you are very selective in what you want to present to the viewer. This is of course due to both the brevity of this video and Lacan's usefulness for the conveyance of your own philosophy which I can understand to some degree but this video has a manipulative and subversive effect. Lacan's ideas are at least as complex and ungraspable as his writings and to represent him like this (straightforward and logical and indirectly as an anticipant of the school of life philosophy) feels unjust and even immoral to me.
Since he was a charlatan that wouldn't even finish sentences I agree with you 100%
That's a really unfair analysis of the video. I thought it was good. I've studied lacan for 9 years. I feel some real insecurity from your response.
Yea its shit, but, immoral?xD
@@buicktothemoon what have you learned from studying another person's thoughts/Lacan ?
@@Stoney-Jacksman I know you aren't asking me, but I'd hope that he learned what they think about!
Great job with the video, though I would mention it covers more of Lacanian ethics than the actual theoretical framework. One central notion in Lacanian psychoanalysis is that we are who we are, as human beings, because of something that we experience to be missing from us (usually an incestuous forbidden love from our childhood). It naturally follows, at least from what I’ve read on Lacan, that we spend the rest of our lives making up for that lost object in an illusory fantasy we call reality. The episode of the toddler staring at its own reflection in the mirror is an instance of this, where the image in the mirror represents an imaginary “Self” constructed for the purpose of identification. Similarly, to play this game called life, everything in our immediate vicinity since socialization is set up as a mirror for us to identify with. Whether that thing is love, desire, or individuality, it is not coming from within us, it is constantly being produced from positions outside of ourselves. Taking advantage of this decentered nature of reality, the analyst tries to become a mirror for the analysand (patient) in order for the latter to project his or hers deepest concerns to them. Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m still reading Lacan, but just for fun :)
by any chance, do you do policy debate? ;)
Do Jung. But only when you're ready.
I think Terence McKenna would be a good character to make a video on.
Heartily seconded.
Substantially and evidentially vacuous sentiment.
R.B. Terence was a thinker and a deep one at that. Certainly one for Alain.
Terence had many things to say...
Definitely, as well as Alan Watts
Lacan: a psychoanalyst expelled from psychoanalysis and largely unaware of all serious psychological and psychiatric research.
It's kind of unsettling that no matter how hard we try
how big our vocabularies are
we will never be able to exactly precisely put words to thoughts and feelings
don't get me wrong, we can get damn close but no other human being will see what you're thinking,or 100% understand that one unmistakeable, undesirable feeling
not even if you're desperate
but we still try , that's all we can do
So, im a barber...this made sense
When people sit in my chair ...and all their deep thoughts come out ,im a better help to them because of this channel. :)
Ever thank ful.
"I don't think man can love. Atleast not the way he means. Inadequices of reality always set in."-Rustin Cohle, True Detective
What proof do you have that dogs can't recognize themselves in a mirror?
They don't shave or brush their hair!
Because Lacan said so.
Red Dot experiment, theory of mind etc etc
My dog (labrador) usually barks with fear when he sees himself in the mirror haha the question would be if he barks because he recognizes himself and gets afraid or because he thinks there's another dog in front of him
Pls do one on carl jung! He's one of the most interesting psychologists and the one fascinates me truly with his theories on personality.
Where’s the Carl Rogers video? Or the R.D. Laing video? Irvin Yalom? Any humanists?
All_is_1 immortal Laing
All_is_1
to bore people to death?
The mirror stage was one of the most frustrating and liberating concept I ever learned about.
Had a little heart attack when I saw fucking Rasputin. I thought for a second he was Lacan's brother.
Superb channel, must have been asked already but would be nice to see a video about Carl Jung. Merci!
how do we know the baby looking in the mirror recognises itself? Further, how do we know that animals cannot recognise themselves in reflections? Elephants paint pictures of elephants.
This video is far too generous to Lacan. He deserves none of this praise. He was a megalomaniac who drove his patients to suicide and whose work is a mix of gibberish and total horseshit, for example his outright fraud of a thesis. His legacy was the destruction of all legitimacy for several entire disciplines of academia. Perhaps the single worst thinker of the 20th century. He's a disgrace, and it's disgraceful that he was ever afforded any legitimacy, but doubly disgraceful now that we've had the time to reflect on his terrible career. No discipline in academia that would welcome such a man deserves any respect.
هاها یو آر وری کانفدنت ایندید !! :))
Why would The School of Life use Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama as examples of "adults" in politics? All of these presidents, most noticeably Obama, promise the world, as Democrats are ought to do. "Hope and change?" More welfare and funding for more programs and the elimination of poverty? Did we mention more welfare? Please try to display ACTUAL adults in politics who understood the nation's responsibilities and their limitations, most noticeably on the budget level. Fiscally Conservative.
ACTUAL adults such as?
Republican presidents haven't always been an unqualified success, to put it mildly. And the party has gone so far right that they wouldn't even elect their hero Reagan if he stood today because he'd seem too liberal.
Abraham Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
William Taft
Richard Nixon
Old Ronny
Probably George Herbert Walker Bush.
Notice, this is based on President's personality and how they campaigned, not just their policies.
Well the Republicans of the past were more like the Democrats of today.
Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus Augustus
Bush Sr was famous for two things: 1. Vomiting on the Japanese priime minister and 2. Pledging not to raise taxes and subsequently raising taxes. Which is one reason he lost to Clinton.
favorite thing about lacan: stealing bataille's wife
PsychoBabble means more Clients {$$$$}, get sick soon and stay sick{$$$}_____Lacan
1:32, actually for the first time my dog had seen itself in the mirror, she started barking at her own reflection thinking it was another dog, after a while of freaking out she sort of accepted it and never paying attention to it, so I think some animals do understand
If you’re reading this, immediately stop watching this half-assed sophist’s takes and get reading.
SoL please do one about Fritz Perls!!!
I’ve been looking at the psychoanalytic approach to religion and the assumptions it brings.
Not very shure that dogs do not recognize their image in the mirror... :)
Well lots of people have run scientific tests on this, and certain animals can. Octupi and dolphins can recognise their reflections for example. Its seen as an important (but obviously not complete) way of trying to gauge a species intelligence and consciousness. As far as I am aware no dogs have passed the test.
Dogs do not hold visual events to be of the same importance as olfactory events, and therefore can not be expected to react to a visual representation of themselves in the same way primates and birds do(due to vision being our most important sense). Therefore an identity test should probably be focused on scent rather than vision. There have been tests done and dogs do recognize what is 'their' scent and that it 'belongs' to them, but obviously the results are up for interpretation.
My dog knows that when he looks at my reflection in the mirror that's only a reference to know where I am. That means he recognizes some relation and diference between my image and my actual person (I have tried several ways of experimenting with this). Anyway, Lacan didn't have to state that diference, it wouldn't make any change at all to his theories if dogs could use language as we do. That was a mistake. I think Derrida's work on the subject are capital (L'' animal q donc je suis)
Psychoanalysis is one the biggest BS since a while. Not only it does make any sense but it also does not cure anything more than other more reasonable therapies. I also don't like the quasi-religious side of psychoanalysis and the dogma behind certain concepts.
Carl Jung next please
This is odd. My cat often looks at himself in a miror and seems to understand that it is him.
Cats yeah. I reckon some of them can eventually clock it
There have been studies that suggest that elephants have self-recognition also. But they are summarizing *Lacan's* thoughts and theories. Like anyone else's, they are subject to error and one must keep what is valuable and bear the rest in mind and in stride.
Many animals can; dozens of Ant species routinely pass the mirror test. What this actually means, I am unsure.
The flaw in his gibberish is that you don't need a reflective smooth surface to self recognize in this way. The world and all of your social interactions are mirrors for you to see yourself in. All of your actions have noticable real world consequences everywhere you go, no matter how great or small, which effect the way you reflect on your own mental image of yourself and it's also how you're able to perceive yourself in a past and future tense. Seeing yourself in an actual mirror isn't the first time you perceive yourself. That's so dumb.
I noticed The School Of Life has yet to say much on our roles within our extended family. One can link a great deal of the world's ills to the demise of community and extended family.
LMAO at their interpretation of "the sexual relationship doesn't exist", it's not about "soul mates" or "ideal partners" at all
Lacan always struck me as a charlatan.
>French
>Father had success in emerging soap industry
>Emerging
>french
"For Lacan, the truly talented politician isn't someone who knows how to whip up the crowd and ignite feelings of semi conscious, childlike dreams of perfection." A dismissal of Sanders perhaps?
"It's the one who dares to be an adult - someone who has the skill to persuade people of the disappointing nature of reality and Who has the tact to do so without arousing unbearable rage and tantrums." A dismissal of Clinton as well, I suppose.
The second statement was a dismissal of every politician ever possibly
A dismissal of any politican, really....very few have ever been able to win the political game from both sides of the spectrum..that is, appealing to the people while ALSO appealing to the rich.
This video is such a terrible take on Lacan. I would like to direct anyone here to Plastic Pills on TH-cam - great channel.
I've been looking for a video like this on Lacan and the mirror stage to show my students for years! This is wonderful,, thank you :)
"Adult politicians" - shows three Democrat presidents (two of which were very bad). Clearly NOT biased.
Great video! Could you please do a video on Julia Kristeva, particularly where she departs from Lacan?
Why is Alain de Botton so obsessed with philosopher's hair? This video, the Derrida video...
"He had a fabulous head of hair" haha. Love it 😂
what does the image of rasputin have to do with Lacans brother becoming a Benedictine monk?
"Lacan: an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan.” Noam Chomsky. I think Chomsky summarized the issue quite well.
Why does he looks so similar to Derrida and share a first name lma
Jake Oswald France moment
Let's wait for Chomsky fanboys in comments complaining how difficult Lacan's language is and using word 'charlatan' in every sentence.
"Inside we are polysexual" oops...the first lie lol! The pretentiousness of narrator's voice rivals that of the jargon of Lacon!
True wtf polysexual? Nah NOT all are like that
Lacan in 8 minutes? oh god
That was good! Thanks :)
Bullshit!
These "Quick Capsule" reviews of key philosophers' lives and works are perfect for an attention-span challenged literalist like me. Do you have a group of redactors or are they solely the work of the narrator?
Thanks so much for your very generous comment, we're hugely conscious of the need for brevity!. Just to explain: The videos (including this one) are usually the collective work of a team of writers of which Alain, the narrator, is a key member.
John Armstrong Cheers!
Try adderall
you should do deleuze or baudrillard
May I ask why you used Sarkozy's face instead of Hollandes's to depict french leadership? :p
I guess, because he is more popular. ....
I think that neither of them is really popular :p
mid
"Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content" R. Dawkins
www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html
Richard Dawkins is an idiot. Just because he doesn't 'get it' automatically means that it is stupid? gtfo with that logic.
The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax,[1] was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor
and, specifically, to investigate whether "a leading North American
journal of cultural studies - whose editorial collective includes such
luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross -
[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it
sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological
preconceptions"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
This is a very generous redemption of a man who is considered to be a charlatan and a deceiver (to gain status and economical benefits) by many important intellectuals like Chomsky and even some former psychoanalysts. I recommend reading “From Lacan to Darwin” by Dylan Evans (2005). He created a popular reference book about Lacan's theory, appreciated by many psychoanalysts, but in the process came to understand Lacan as a charlatan.
I understand that this space is about philosophy. And if we take Lacan, Jung, and Freud's writings as philosophy, I sympathize that there are many things of value to highlight. The problem is that Lacan never had the humility to recognize that he was proposing a kind of philosophy. Instead, he was proposing a categorical description of human nature and a method of intervention. But the value of this theory/practice is not based on evidence, but on the obscurity of his texts and the authority of a charismatic man. The many cases in which psychoanalysis is not just unhelpful but harmful are well known in the psychological literature. I would simply advise more discretion when speaking about Lacan and the value or validity of his claims.
a video about specieism would be awesome!
Yes!
This is a garbage take on Lacan. He should sue you for this. The big Other is watching you
Yes, very simplistic and leaves out the discussion of the distinction between the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real as the basis of his re re-thinking of the categories of psychoanalysis
First, I want to clarify that I am loving this channel, and that the way they take a lot of their subjects has sparked a lot of interest on my part to study things I didn't even consider before.
That said, am I the only one that thinks the audio is a bit too low? I tend to put everything at max, and even then I can't really hear it properly, that added with the fast nature of the narrator, sometimes make it difficult to understand what is being said. Really good channel either way.
No YOurrrrE Nawt DEE ONLIIIEEye Wum!!
Please do C.G.Jung ♥♥♥
I love this channel!! Can you guys do some stuff on logical fallacies?
I came here to try to get to the bottom of those moments when Zizek doesn't wipe his nose and pull his t-tshirt...you know - the bits where he talks...
As someone who has recently been trying to understand Lacan through a wide range of books, seminars, podcasts, etc., this really synthesized it all together for me. Thanks!
Sadly this video is very misleading and doesn t probide accurate info
@@livinginahotdog1563please elaborate
"the we will be almost entirely misuderstood"... Jordan Peterson definitely did... but then again it's probably a voluntary, or even pragmatic misunderstanding
An atheist who fantasized with a big christian funeral. What a conflicted mind.
Finally Lacan :) Thx a ton. Would you mind doing an episode on Deleuze and Guattari?
Starting in 1975, Jacques Lacan clearly recognized, on several occasions, the aporias of psychoanalysis.
In 1977, on ethics:
"Our practice is a swindle, bluffing, making people stick, dazzling them with words that are shocked, [...] From an ethical point of view, it's untenable."
In 1978, on scientificity:
"Psychoanalysis is not a science. ...it is a delusion - a delusion that is expected to carry a science."
In 1979, on the conditioning of the analyzed:
"It is not a science at all because it is irrefutable. The psychoanalyst is a rhetorician. ...operates only by suggestion. He suggests, that's the characteristic of a rhetorician, he doesn't impose anything of substance."
On 5-1-1980, Lacan declared in his 'Letter of Dissolution':
"I have failed - that is to say, I have become confused. ...] Freud allowed the psychoanalytical group to prevail over discourse, to become Church."
His followers continue to try to understand his SIBYLLINAR TEXTS by avoiding taking seriously the last cities, however clear they may be.
Source: "Freud & Lacan. Quacks?"
Facts and legends of psychoanalysis.
Jacques Van Rillaer.
Jacques Van Rillaer practised psychoanalysis for about ten years. Appointed professor of psychology at the University of Louvain and the University of Saint-Louis (Brussels), he had the opportunity to study Freudism and various innovations, in particular those of Lacan.
He ended up becoming very critical of his old beliefs.
He is the author of "Les illusions de la psychanalyse", "Psychologie de la vie quotidienne", "Le Livre noir de la psychanalyse" and "La gestion de soi".
A note on the short session;
Lacan did this not because he “felt” like but because he wanted to punctuate the session. When a signifier with particular libidinal resonance was said he’d end the session so the signifier would emerge as a ‘quilting point’ that would rearrange the subject’s signifying structure.
It’s very hard to explain Lacan in a short way that is faithful to the intricacy and profundity of his ideas. If anyone is interested in a deeper understanding of Lacan, I implore them to read Freud as Philosopher by Richard Boothby. While the title only names Freud, it is easily the best introduction to Lacan ever written.
Can you please do an episode on Camille Paglia?
The Mirror effect is very real. This is why they place high-definitions mirrors that tell the truth in rest-rooms . People are offended by the true image they see of themselves and won't loiter about. Don't think so ? Watch someone in a restroom. When they wash theirs hands and look into the mirror they quickly dry off their hands and exit the facility.
bad lighting?
Thanks for this. I knew nothing of Lacan and will now put him on my reading list. But my initial reaction from a Buddhist perspective, is that the impossibility of being understood arises from the construction by the person of what it means to be understood. The person constructs a self which they attempt to define with concepts expressed (as they must be) in words.
Such concepts of self are a partial construction of experience which will more or less but rarely entirely correspond with those of another person.
The Buddhist perspective would be to strip away such language based attempts to define the self and to recognise the commonality of human experience which one can infer subsists in others.
Any statement about the self which begins “I am” is both a movement towards others but at the same time differentiates us from them. There may be reasons to construct a self in this way. But if the reason is to achieve a unity of understanding with others, it is self defeating.
The key is to see the human process that underlies the language. This occurs in times of great stress such as war, where the vacuity of identity becomes apparent. But it can also be seen through mediation which is the Buddhist method and lets face it, is preferable.
i liked it until i saw bill clinton