It may have been imperfect or clumsy but this period was one of incredible intellectual activity and renewal. This was what the 80s' "reactionary revolution" aimed at destroying.
@@ardesliini Freud's unconscious is like Plato's forms in that it attributes the primary concern to something that the subject themself cannot know. They forfeit their freedom so the psychoanalyst/priest can tell them what what lies in their unconscious/what God wants. IT'S MIND CONTROL! I assume the students in the audience are laughing because they were conditioned to believe that an older person must be wiser. But the young man was articulate in explaining his issue with Lacan's teachings. Lacan is also a follower of Hegel. Hegel says we will reach the end of history where all differences will cease. This is literally the doctrine of transhumanism. In the spirit of love, please read Deleuze and Guattari.
So they're not phonies just because they're not on smartphones? They betray their phoniness when they side with Lacan without understanding the young man's position.
Those moments, where the young explains and especially finishes explaining, is getting applause - his movement is lost. Later it's just a decay -sit with us and listen like a good student.. He can just escalate it or go away. But his will to be treated subjectively is nice.
considering that this was in 1972, just 4 years after the '68, he probably took on the streets and either organized or took part of the masses; thats what i assume he would also do the next day of the revolution
A very "symbolic" confrontation which illustrates perfectly the tension between revolutionary spontaneity and those who take refuge in intellectual language games.
+Michael Black It is in your dimension to believe that what Lacan said is just, "intellectual language games" but pragmatically speaking, your comment is ignorant and lacking incisive points.
Fair point, but if we're true to the meaning of language games, the moment the revolutionary started speaking, he was engaged in a language game. How does he justify himself? - through describing what he did as "authentic expression", in contrast with Lacan's inauthentic lecturing. Would it have made sense if he hadn't said that? probably not - it would have just been some random act, not necessarily expressing revolution, not necessarily authentic.
The kid is not on the right. Why? Because he is not articulate. This insolent act in itself is a symptom of not being able to communicate properly, the whole point of making a big mess of the situation, the whole meaning of this apparent spontaneousity is to bring this inability to communicate to the focus. In the end, he is unable to say nothing but the word 'revolution', but the word has no meaning. Revolution has no meaning. Shouting out revolution at this situation is just a way of covering up this impotence.
So, dumbing this down (for myself), the gist here is that these self-appointed cultural/ideological analyst philosopher-kings present for a spiritually exhausted public the veneer of radical thought but ultimately know that their radical thought only amounts to a narcotic kind of spectacular entertainment? And the reply from Lacan is more or less that this Revolutionary's gestures towards urgency and"authenticity" ultimately consume themselves with a lack of revolutionary purpose or overarching vision? If that's it I guess I get both points, that certainly it is true that our communications are transpiring under urgent circumstances and speech that leads to immediate and powerful ACTION is what we really need, but I'm not really convinced that people like Lacan or Foucault or Chomsky for that matter don't have that same interest at heart. Maybe Lacan less than the other two, but if we're thinking structurally, and these detached performances of critical analysis are under the gun here then I don't see why any of these philosopher-personalities are exempt when their work doesn't and hasn't included direct hands-on revolutionary action like seizing munitions factories or kidnapping and imprisoning corrupt oligarchs. Maybe we're all made dishonest when our actions consist of anything but the absolute most clear path we're capable of seeing towards imemdiate and continual overthrow of corrupt power structures. I'm not a well learned person, I'm doin my best here. Is that kind of the gist of it?
You did a great summary here. However, this was almost 50 years ago. How would you now, in the blockchain age, go about disrupting those power structures? By - simply - turning off the electricity worldwide? Or entering the state of constant revolution? Mao tried to do that and failed utterly. That would eventually bring the humanity back to Stone Age. There is a shortcut, though, as Buddhism has had an answer for millennia: "色既是空，空既是色" (the material form is the same as emptiness, and emptiness the same as the material form) All these ideas about improving the current state of affairs are disillusioned because they don't touch the very nature of things that have no real existence by themselves. Zhuangzi proposed a course of action but even though admired by later generations, he was labelled a weirdo in his age.
Lacan is protected by the very institution that he seeks to reveal. The person who stepped up and disrupted him, as if symbolising a protest or revolution is ridiculed by the mob and patronised by Lacan, effectively castrating him in the eyes of the only people capable of changing the instituition. And so, nothing leads to nothing.
Lacan is french, but the young guy is a belgian. Belgian people are even funnier, so that french jokes often start with "C'est l'histoire d'un belge..."
+Ro mi A revolutionary is an ultimate pessimist in the sense that s/he believes in an order other than the actual one. The difference between Lacan and the young man is that Lacan knows that his pessimism does not allow him to state but to simply comment and suggest. The young man is convinced that whatever he believes in is right hence his non-diplomatic approach.
@TheBirdThatWhistles The young man is convinced that whatever the "system" is "now" ain't right.. Not that "HIS" "personal system" is right... He's trying to say, why is everyone acting like nothing is wrong with the world, like it's natural to "live like that in the system / order we are living right now ..(hes simply saying that we need a revolution, and NOT what kind of revolution)... So anyway, in my opinion if you said Lacan knows that his pessimism does not allow him to state but to simply comment and suggest... Then the other guy is saying: His realism allows him to state, comment, suggest & ACT. Because if you don't ACT, its like you did nothing.. In the end Words are just words BUT you gotta put words to action.. Or else they are just words... Isnt it fun, that everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. The kid is just "turning-keys" for other people & wanting to make them think.. You gotta put the situation in perspective.. this happened like 50 years ago.. back then "the revolution bands came up" (pink floyd, the doors, etc) and it was the first time, the "living in a lie - mentality" was popularized...
@@TheBirdThatWhistles You're wrong. The revolutionary approach is optimism. We're already living in an order that is imposed on the majority by a minority. Lacan is a liar because he is saying that he's just there to simply comment and suggest, but you, the poor patient, don't realize that Lacan is actually mind-controlling you. The young man is not a liar because he shares his position openly. The young man IS right. We don't have to live this way. On drugs, going to jobs we hate, allowing the minority to treat the majority like slaves. Do you know why Plato was obsessed with banning art? BECAUSE PLATO WAS A LIAR TOO.
the way the student tried to attack lacan by raising his hand and walking towards him and the way lacan panicked and just slapped around his arms like a t rex was hilarious
Could you please tell me your favorite philosopher? I will then proceed to comment on him/her in a condescending manner to make myself look intellectually superior.
guattari, was busy being a militant that time. mothertrucker wouldnt waste time assaulting lacan. (i searched on guattar's bio, and it seems that he was also under lacan's supervision at la borde...)
The hippie kid is at least a revolutionary Marxist who tries to disrupt capitalist hegemony in real time (how effective he is is another question). If breadtube was half of that, breadtube would be 100 times better.
On 5'37, the translation is misleading: it is not "Let's hope that there wille be a new organization", but: "That things change in favor of a new organization". So that the entire sentence is: "That things change in favor of a new organization, it is not impossible that we see it being born". Which is of course consistent with the fact that Lacan then criticizes the very idea of such an organization. He obviously does not hope that such an organization will occur.
The laughter of the audience at Lacan's answer "Ah,pas du tous? says it all. How mentally poor masses are,so easily influenced ......Where are the Situationists of today?
They laughed precisely because they felt attacked when the kid implied that Lacan is bringing "justification" to their "miserable lives". Did he touch a nerve there? Maybe.
The young man looks mentally ill. The late Richard Webster (from memory: you can check out his amusing essays about Lacan on his Sceptical Essays website), describing a visit by the great man to New York, says that Chomsky thought he was mad too.
Found it: www.richardwebster.net/lacangoestotheopera.html "Later Lacan scandalised everyone during a lecture at the Massachusetts Instititute of Technology by the way he answered a question about thought put to him by Noam Chomsky. 'We think we think with our brains,' said Lacan. 'But personally I think with my feet. That's the only way I really come into contact with anything solid. I do occasionally think with my forehead, when I bang into something. But I've seen enough electroencephalograms to know there's not the slightest trace of a thought in the brain.' When he heard this, Chomsky concluded that the lecturer must be a madman. The appearance of an English translation of Elisabeth Roudinesco's biography of Lacan affords an excellent opportunity to ponder the question of whether Chomsky, a shrewd judge of many forms of autocratic imperialism, was right about Freud's most celebrated French follower."
And here is the concluding paragraph: "It would be better recognise that Lacan reacted to his own personal predicament in only way he could. Having rejected God and conceived a passionate hatred for his own family and his own origins, his life's project became that of turning himself into a God before whose ineffable and impenetrable wisdom others would prostrate themselves. To the extent we have done just this, it is the sanity of our intellectual culture as whole, and not only that of Lacan, which needs to be questioned."
@@seancoleman5021 I thought the young man's message was perfectly clear: instead of listening to this guy justifying why you all live shit lives, you should band together and change the system which causes these shit lives. Not saying he's necesarily right, but that's his point.
The true horror in this: that the student, who wants the revolution, who criticizes the establishment and the system, does not realize that all he truly desires is a new master.
+Martin You're right. At least someone here who understands what Lacan was trying to say. You read the 4 discourses? A master-position(S1) will never be able to give what the revolutionary desires. S1 denies the fact that he himself is also split by language and suffers from the same lack. A master needs to be silent if who wants to be one. The revolutionary wants S2(Le savoir-knowing). The problem is: from the moment a subject speaks, he gets lost under signifiers; language has an inherent Lack(A barred). History is a Hystory, Every revolution was caused by the hysteric who desires the knowledge to get to object a and reinstall the oneness.(Eros) He wants to return to the dual mother-child relationship of plus-de-jouir(full bliss). But from the moment an infant grows into language, it loses a part of himself and it becomes a split subject. A part of himself gets lost in the unconscious, the Real(which is situated outside of language and the Imaginary) The Real is the void, a non-realized being. Lacan actually was all about non-determination, he inspired people to accept their own lack, accepting the lack in the Other and from that moment build who they truly wanted to be. Creating their own symptom=subject; becoming a sinthome(Saint-homme(=saint-man)+symptom) People please understand, what we call normal, is somebody who build themselves an identity based upon what the Other desires. We all want to give the Other what he wants, we got lost in the maze. What Lacan wanted to do was to deconstruct that stuffed hollow man and give him his freedom back to rebuild himself, cleared from all the repressions. A trip through the fantasy.
Miel Dewitte Yes, you can already read the hegelian Master/Slave dichotomy into S1, where the Master never will be able to achieve what he truly wants from the Slave, because of the slaves lack. And the other way around of course. The have this very mutual lack. So yes, he is a hysteric, trying to close his 'che voui?' with a fantasy - although I also find an attempt to symbolize that he himself is the spectacle, the phallos, although I can only imagine this is exactly to cover up his own lack as a hysteric. But thats just what I read into it really quickly.
+Martin Krøyer We all got raised with the language of the first (m)Other(mother). If you read Heidegger, you understand what scientific/technical speech-> ballistics-... can do to the subject. We are alienating from the first Other and getting further and further away from object a. From the splitting point, the castration. The hysteric lives for his fantasy(Imaginary) because of too much alienation. $*A, he desires to fill in the lack of the Other(Symbolic order) through fantasmes. But even this is destined to fail, the symbolic overlaps the Imaginary, so the lack will always show up in the Symbolic again. He gets into a bond with Imaginary-Real. He needs to desire his own object a and not desire to fill in the lack in the big Other.
In brazilian portuguese we have an expression called "vergonha alheia", which translates, roughly, to something like "someone else's shame". It's when someone does something so stupid and cringeworthy that you yourself feel ashamed and humiliated just by seeing it; basically a catharsis of embarassment. Well, this video here evokes a particularly intense and obnoxious sense of "vergonha alheia". I absolutely love it.
there was a legitimate debate going on there, so much so that lacan himself mooved his lecture to that topic, recognizing him. It is you my friend the one who does not know about what was being talked about then
Which one? Lacan speaks in far more vague and indiscernible terms than the student. The student is articulate and uses metaphorical (perhaps excessively so) language to say that a revolution is needed and that Lacan is a barricade to that. I don’t agree with the student, but my point is that this accusation could be reasonably lobbed at either of them
Once all revolutionaries realise that fundamentally you won't change anything until some other elites want to shake the current order up you won't be able to do anything. At the end of the day the young guy did as much as the other people he criticized did
No, the revolutionary possibility offered with the end of capitalism is different to all previous revolutionary possibilities: The social revolution is possible. The revolutionary class in capitalism is the proletariat, meaning it is the masses themselves who are able to create a new society.
Because he is a revolutionary as situationnists can get I guess. Interrupting a teacher for propaganda purposes can be effective, but you can't do that alone and without a coherent ideology. But when you think you only have to fight the 'society of the spectacle', this kind of stunt becomes an end in itself.
The protestor frustrates me because I think he is saying something interesting, but the way he goes about expressing his beliefs is so immature that it’s almost impossible to take his side or even take him seriously.
then it's your failing. that you expect commentators to say things in line with your aesthetics and that's more important to you than what they're saying.
I think Dostoyevsky explains it best... 'What can one expect from man since he is a creature endowed with such strange qualities? Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in bliss so that nothing but bubbles would dance on the surface of his bliss, as on a sea; give him such economic prosperity that he would have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with ensuring the continuation of world history and even then man, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer libel, would play you some loathsome trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive rationality his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly, that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself (as though that were so necessary) that men still are men and not piano keys, which even if played by the laws of nature themselves threaten to be controlled so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar."
This is not a situationist Debord says: when things are upside down, the only true moment is the one of the false. And this one is so spontaneous in a very psychoanalytic term, the student couldn't take his breath normally because of the audience, he was so real, not false. In Lacanian terms, this student will be very symbolic. The real is symbolic
İt looks like from a scene of a goddard movie haha
th-cam.com/video/gQsTzWCKoqQ/w-d-xo.html
That student?
Albert Einstein
I wonder what that student is doing now, 22 years later.
God I wish academe today was still like this.
It may have been imperfect or clumsy but this period was one of incredible intellectual activity and renewal. This was what the 80s' "reactionary revolution" aimed at destroying.
Lacan greatly sympathized with May '68. His theory of the four discourses began as a response to the distressed students
shut up
You live in a fairy tale
@@ardesliini Freud's unconscious is like Plato's forms in that it attributes the primary concern to something that the subject themself cannot know. They forfeit their freedom so the psychoanalyst/priest can tell them what what lies in their unconscious/what God wants. IT'S MIND CONTROL! I assume the students in the audience are laughing because they were conditioned to believe that an older person must be wiser. But the young man was articulate in explaining his issue with Lacan's teachings. Lacan is also a follower of Hegel. Hegel says we will reach the end of history where all differences will cease. This is literally the doctrine of transhumanism. In the spirit of love, please read Deleuze and Guattari.
No phones in sight. Just people enjoyed the moment.
Yeah but in another way, living in black and white... nop, not for me...
they enjoyed watching, phone users doing the same
So they're not phonies just because they're not on smartphones? They betray their phoniness when they side with Lacan without understanding the young man's position.
That's probably because mobile phones were not invented yet
"Ah, pas du tout."
- Are u winning son?
(Sees son in girl dress, and realises it is not son anymore)
- Ah, pa do tout.
the interrumptor is Anatole Atlas. This was a situationist performance.
Indeed, now a middle aged jerk.
Situationist > Freudian boot licker
@@antoniovasquez9946 big time L take
Today, I see people looking like him only in porn
Those moments, where the young explains and especially finishes explaining, is getting applause - his movement is lost.
Later it's just a decay -sit with us and listen like a good student..
He can just escalate it or go away.
But his will to be treated subjectively is nice.
This is almost a Hollywood scene.
philosophers should box also
‘I want a Revolution’
In Žižek’s words, “That’s easy kid, what are you gonna do the next day of the Revolution?”
hahaha shut up.
Enjoy
considering that this was in 1972, just 4 years after the '68, he probably took on the streets and either organized or took part of the masses; thats what i assume he would also do the next day of the revolution
You find enemies of revolution within the ranks of the revolution
What happened to his laptop? Did it get wet?
;)
A very "symbolic" confrontation which illustrates perfectly the tension between revolutionary spontaneity and those who take refuge in intellectual language games.
Yup. The kid might have been vague and inarticulate, but he's also right.
+Michael Black It is in your dimension to believe that what Lacan said is just, "intellectual language games" but pragmatically speaking, your comment is ignorant and lacking incisive points.
Fair point, but if we're true to the meaning of language games, the moment the revolutionary started speaking, he was engaged in a language game. How does he justify himself? - through describing what he did as "authentic expression", in contrast with Lacan's inauthentic lecturing. Would it have made sense if he hadn't said that? probably not - it would have just been some random act, not necessarily expressing revolution, not necessarily authentic.
the student is a stupid leftist hippie, enough said.
The kid is not on the right. Why? Because he is not articulate. This insolent act in itself is a symptom of not being able to communicate properly, the whole point of making a big mess of the situation, the whole meaning of this apparent spontaneousity is to bring this inability to communicate to the focus. In the end, he is unable to say nothing but the word 'revolution', but the word has no meaning. Revolution has no meaning. Shouting out revolution at this situation is just a way of covering up this impotence.
So, dumbing this down (for myself), the gist here is that these self-appointed cultural/ideological analyst philosopher-kings present for a spiritually exhausted public the veneer of radical thought but ultimately know that their radical thought only amounts to a narcotic kind of spectacular entertainment? And the reply from Lacan is more or less that this Revolutionary's gestures towards urgency and"authenticity" ultimately consume themselves with a lack of revolutionary purpose or overarching vision? If that's it I guess I get both points, that certainly it is true that our communications are transpiring under urgent circumstances and speech that leads to immediate and powerful ACTION is what we really need, but I'm not really convinced that people like Lacan or Foucault or Chomsky for that matter don't have that same interest at heart. Maybe Lacan less than the other two, but if we're thinking structurally, and these detached performances of critical analysis are under the gun here then I don't see why any of these philosopher-personalities are exempt when their work doesn't and hasn't included direct hands-on revolutionary action like seizing munitions factories or kidnapping and imprisoning corrupt oligarchs. Maybe we're all made dishonest when our actions consist of anything but the absolute most clear path we're capable of seeing towards imemdiate and continual overthrow of corrupt power structures. I'm not a well learned person, I'm doin my best here. Is that kind of the gist of it?
You did a great summary here. However, this was almost 50 years ago. How would you now, in the blockchain age, go about disrupting those power structures? By - simply - turning off the electricity worldwide? Or entering the state of constant revolution? Mao tried to do that and failed utterly. That would eventually bring the humanity back to Stone Age. There is a shortcut, though, as Buddhism has had an answer for millennia: "色既是空，空既是色" (the material form is the same as emptiness, and emptiness the same as the material form) All these ideas about improving the current state of affairs are disillusioned because they don't touch the very nature of things that have no real existence by themselves. Zhuangzi proposed a course of action but even though admired by later generations, he was labelled a weirdo in his age.
Yes Garl you gave a nice gist to frame an audience's (me) perceptipn to better understand what happened in the video.
Lacan is protected by the very institution that he seeks to reveal. The person who stepped up and disrupted him, as if symbolising a protest or revolution is ridiculed by the mob and patronised by Lacan, effectively castrating him in the eyes of the only people capable of changing the instituition. And so, nothing leads to nothing.
solid analysis
he broke the lull of decadent spectatorship with a situation that evoked a discourse. Debord never had such sexy hair.
Debord was critiquing spectacle, that would not go well with having one on his head.
@@branislavhatala3067the spectacle is not simple aesthetics
Could those clothes on Lacan and especially the girl who drags the disruptor away from the table possibly be any more fabulous?
french people are the funniest people in terms of laughing at
Lacan is french, but the young guy is a belgian. Belgian people are even funnier, so that french jokes often start with "C'est l'histoire d'un belge..."
French people are the funniest? Have you ever seen the English? Or even funnier, Americans?
I like both. The young and the old man. They are not different, they are revolutioners - in a special way each of them...
+Ro mi A revolutionary is an ultimate pessimist in the sense that s/he believes in an order other than the actual one. The difference between Lacan and the young man is that Lacan knows that his pessimism does not allow him to state but to simply comment and suggest. The young man is convinced that whatever he believes in is right hence his non-diplomatic approach.
+Ro mi blah blah I stand in the middle
@TheBirdThatWhistles The young man is convinced that whatever the "system" is "now" ain't right.. Not that "HIS" "personal system" is right... He's trying to say, why is everyone acting like nothing is wrong with the world, like it's natural to "live like that in the system / order we are living right now ..(hes simply saying that we need a revolution, and NOT what kind of revolution)... So anyway, in my opinion if you said Lacan knows that his pessimism does not allow him to state but to simply comment and suggest... Then the other guy is saying: His realism allows him to state, comment, suggest & ACT. Because if you don't ACT, its like you did nothing.. In the end Words are just words BUT you gotta put words to action.. Or else they are just words... Isnt it fun, that everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. The kid is just "turning-keys" for other people & wanting to make them think.. You gotta put the situation in perspective.. this happened like 50 years ago.. back then "the revolution bands came up" (pink floyd, the doors, etc) and it was the first time, the "living in a lie - mentality" was popularized...
Blablabla One speaks nonsense onanist pseudointelctual bs, the other one is a real man of word and action...fuck postmodern sophists!
@@TheBirdThatWhistles You're wrong. The revolutionary approach is optimism. We're already living in an order that is imposed on the majority by a minority. Lacan is a liar because he is saying that he's just there to simply comment and suggest, but you, the poor patient, don't realize that Lacan is actually mind-controlling you. The young man is not a liar because he shares his position openly. The young man IS right. We don't have to live this way. On drugs, going to jobs we hate, allowing the minority to treat the majority like slaves. Do you know why Plato was obsessed with banning art? BECAUSE PLATO WAS A LIAR TOO.
the way the student tried to attack lacan by raising his hand and walking towards him and the way lacan panicked and just slapped around his arms like a t rex was hilarious
*when you read Guy Debord once*
th-cam.com/video/gQsTzWCKoqQ/w-d-xo.html
Deleuze
@@polnreff4112 the student literally says “spectacle”
Spectacles, testicles, brandy, cigar…
@@nickcarvethur all popes
Never thought that Joey Ramone and Lacan would meet in these terms
Lmfao
5:05 greatest anime plot twist
Could you please tell me your favorite philosopher? I will then proceed to comment on him/her in a condescending manner to make myself look intellectually superior.
Mohammed
Stereotype23 Nietzsche
you
Mousie Dung
Ha! Is this student a young guy debord or what?
Lacan is a scif-fi villain. That student should have muay-thai'ed his wrinkly post-structuralist face
post-structuralist? what about Le reel then?
best comment in youtube !
Hahaha well said. In Spain we call him "CharLacan".
and that student's name was,,, albert einstein
Revolution for the sake of revolution is the most postmodern thing I've ever witnessed
and profit for the sake of profit is what you're used to seeing
what the fuck are you on about
rebel without a cause
Guattari?
guattari, was busy being a militant that time. mothertrucker wouldnt waste time assaulting lacan.
(i searched on guattar's bio, and it seems that he was also under lacan's supervision at la borde...)
He want a revolution so much that after leaving the lecture, he became the lead singer of a punk band called The Ramones and the rest is history.
That hippie kid is what breadtube is today
lol no. breadtube is full of liberals
If only. It'd be epic if breadtube were full of anti-psychoanalysis situationists.
The hippie kid is a neoliberal? Ahead of his time that one. Most hippies did end up neoliberals tho so probably actually is.
The hippie kid is at least a revolutionary Marxist who tries to disrupt capitalist hegemony in real time (how effective he is is another question). If breadtube was half of that, breadtube would be 100 times better.
On 5'37, the translation is misleading: it is not "Let's hope that there wille be a new organization", but: "That things change in favor of a new organization". So that the entire sentence is: "That things change in favor of a new organization, it is not impossible that we see it being born". Which is of course consistent with the fact that Lacan then criticizes the very idea of such an organization. He obviously does not hope that such an organization will occur.
He didn't say anything anyway, the translation doesn't matter.
The laughter of the audience at Lacan's answer "Ah,pas du tous? says it all. How mentally poor masses are,so easily influenced ......Where are the Situationists of today?
Not wearing a mask
@@maximilianorodriguez1751 Don't make me laugh... Those are just ignorants.
They’re train hopping lol
Being useless just as they were then
They laughed precisely because they felt attacked when the kid implied that Lacan is bringing "justification" to their "miserable lives". Did he touch a nerve there? Maybe.
"Revolutionary"
French word meaning spoiled, rich kid.
I would say Lacan's reaction is the true because he did something unexpected, a false act
I don't think I understood what either of them was trying to say.
The young man looks mentally ill. The late Richard Webster (from memory: you can check out his amusing essays about Lacan on his Sceptical Essays website), describing a visit by the great man to New York, says that Chomsky thought he was mad too.
Found it: www.richardwebster.net/lacangoestotheopera.html
"Later Lacan scandalised everyone during a lecture at the Massachusetts Instititute of Technology by the way he answered a question about thought put to him by Noam Chomsky. 'We think we think with our brains,' said Lacan. 'But personally I think with my feet. That's the only way I really come into contact with anything solid. I do occasionally think with my forehead, when I bang into something. But I've seen enough electroencephalograms to know there's not the slightest trace of a thought in the brain.' When he heard this, Chomsky concluded that the lecturer must be a madman. The appearance of an English translation of Elisabeth Roudinesco's biography of Lacan affords an excellent opportunity to ponder the question of whether Chomsky, a shrewd judge of many forms of autocratic imperialism, was right about Freud's most celebrated French follower."
And here is the concluding paragraph:
"It would be better recognise that Lacan reacted to his own personal predicament in only way he could. Having rejected God and conceived a passionate hatred for his own family and his own origins, his life's project became that of turning himself into a God before whose ineffable and impenetrable wisdom others would prostrate themselves. To the extent we have done just this, it is the sanity of our intellectual culture as whole, and not only that of Lacan, which needs to be questioned."
@@seancoleman5021 I thought the young man's message was perfectly clear: instead of listening to this guy justifying why you all live shit lives, you should band together and change the system which causes these shit lives. Not saying he's necesarily right, but that's his point.
The true horror in this: that the student, who wants the revolution, who criticizes the establishment and the system, does not realize that all he truly desires is a new master.
***** "Dear, diary. Today I insulted another person, because I had nothing meaningful to contribute. Today was a good day".
***** Okay xD
+Martin You're right. At least someone here who understands what Lacan was trying to say. You read the 4 discourses? A master-position(S1) will never be able to give what the revolutionary desires. S1 denies the fact that he himself is also split by language and suffers from the same lack. A master needs to be silent if who wants to be one. The revolutionary wants S2(Le savoir-knowing). The problem is: from the moment a subject speaks, he gets lost under signifiers; language has an inherent Lack(A barred). History is a Hystory, Every revolution was caused by the hysteric who desires the knowledge to get to object a and reinstall the oneness.(Eros) He wants to return to the dual mother-child relationship of plus-de-jouir(full bliss). But from the moment an infant grows into language, it loses a part of himself and it becomes a split subject. A part of himself gets lost in the unconscious, the Real(which is situated outside of language and the Imaginary) The Real is the void, a non-realized being. Lacan actually was all about non-determination, he inspired people to accept their own lack, accepting the lack in the Other and from that moment build who they truly wanted to be. Creating their own symptom=subject; becoming a sinthome(Saint-homme(=saint-man)+symptom) People please understand, what we call normal, is somebody who build themselves an identity based upon what the Other desires. We all want to give the Other what he wants, we got lost in the maze. What Lacan wanted to do was to deconstruct that stuffed hollow man and give him his freedom back to rebuild himself, cleared from all the repressions. A trip through the fantasy.
Miel Dewitte Yes, you can already read the hegelian Master/Slave dichotomy into S1, where the Master never will be able to achieve what he truly wants from the Slave, because of the slaves lack. And the other way around of course. The have this very mutual lack.
So yes, he is a hysteric, trying to close his 'che voui?' with a fantasy - although I also find an attempt to symbolize that he himself is the spectacle, the phallos, although I can only imagine this is exactly to cover up his own lack as a hysteric.
But thats just what I read into it really quickly.
+Martin Krøyer We all got raised with the language of the first (m)Other(mother). If you read Heidegger, you understand what scientific/technical speech-> ballistics-... can do to the subject. We are alienating from the first Other and getting further and further away from object a. From the splitting point, the castration. The hysteric lives for his fantasy(Imaginary) because of too much alienation. $*A, he desires to fill in the lack of the Other(Symbolic order) through fantasmes. But even this is destined to fail, the symbolic overlaps the Imaginary, so the lack will always show up in the Symbolic again. He gets into a bond with Imaginary-Real. He needs to desire his own object a and not desire to fill in the lack in the big Other.
That student's name?
Albert Einstein.
hah, I don't disagree. My name on here may betray my bias
Eastwood's acting career has been spectacular. Hes political dementia doesn't change that.
ok!
Lacan was quasiscientist, pure narcisstic shit. Heideger was a genius.
God do l love the girl in black!
#MaleGaze
Lmao I fucking love the French
In brazilian portuguese we have an expression called "vergonha alheia", which translates, roughly, to something like "someone else's shame". It's when someone does something so stupid and cringeworthy that you yourself feel ashamed and humiliated just by seeing it; basically a catharsis of embarassment. Well, this video here evokes a particularly intense and obnoxious sense of "vergonha alheia". I absolutely love it.
We do have a term for that in English. "Second hand embarrassment."
L tbh
Yeah that's what i loved in several Dostoievski's novels. Strange pleasure...
@@golpeshiharan2215 No, it’s not the same thing.
KKKKKK simmmmmmmm concordo totalmente
this situation is the mirror of what the guy is complaining about, a spectacle.
not exaclty in the same sense aha
Vacuous.
Where can I see what was cut off at 5:15 ?
this is soo childish and counterproductive ugh... whats his @?
read anti oedipus
lol pure class his response was basically 'yup'.
beautiful counter transference.
Why
I have no idea what this is or means, can someone give some explanation of the context?
lacan
underrated comment
lacan
who speaks doesnt know. Who knows doesnt speak.
shut up
just kiddin
@duffy382 Yeah...Lacan is smoking a blunt...a tuscany blunt, I suppose...:-)...
Someone’s been reading a bit of situationist literature…
all in all great 8 minutes spent
I'm sure Derrida was there in disguise...as usual
I Play Becky [EVIL LAUGHTER AT DISTANCE]
Bravo au frisé
That kid is what breadtube is today - situationist date cringe
@aadhi gei checks out what? your subscription says it all leftoid. you'll never appreciate Lacan's wisdom
@aadhi gei situationists are marxist tho, OP could perfectly be a situationist for you if you had only seen his profile
the cigar!
still smoking lmao
The art of seeming intelligent while not articulating a single meaningful idea at all.
there was a legitimate debate going on there, so much so that lacan himself mooved his lecture to that topic, recognizing him. It is you my friend the one who does not know about what was being talked about then
Claudio Bianchi can you give me context or an explanation? I don’t get it
Which one? Lacan speaks in far more vague and indiscernible terms than the student. The student is articulate and uses metaphorical (perhaps excessively so) language to say that a revolution is needed and that Lacan is a barricade to that. I don’t agree with the student, but my point is that this accusation could be reasonably lobbed at either of them
@@mr.drakanator "articulate" as in he parroted whatever he had been reading
lol, situationists are more than just "disgruntled student[s]"
The professeur had to exit the place the disrupter leave him, using his own logos, quite unconfortable.
Heavy shit appealing to the ego of a boomer.
Wow the student is kind of dreamy........wonder what's up with him now
The student would definitely have been a femboy if he was alive today
he is still alive.
Plot twist, Lacan arranged the whole thing ahead of time
I mean, that's how he'd explain it probably
The Situationist influenced kid is more interesting than Lacan lol.
just more incorrect
Situationism isn't very interesting but the May '68ish revolutionnary mood of this ultra-left student is inspiring.
Once all revolutionaries realise that fundamentally you won't change anything until some other elites want to shake the current order up you won't be able to do anything. At the end of the day the young guy did as much as the other people he criticized did
brt.. profilna?!?
@@user-zr7iq2eg9j Да шта са њом
@@user-zr7iq2eg9j cek sad kad sam se vratio na vid provalio sam da si na ovo odg zasto je cetnik na lacan videu?
No, the revolutionary possibility offered with the end of capitalism is different to all previous revolutionary possibilities: The social revolution is possible. The revolutionary class in capitalism is the proletariat, meaning it is the masses themselves who are able to create a new society.
Sauf si vous êtes crédule, l'intervention du jeune au tiers de la vidéo est une comédie, une pièce de théâtre organisée.
Faut pas s'énerver comme ça papy,
C'est mauvais pour le cœur 😅😅
but what does equanimity mean?
I don't know either. Do you have access to the internet? Maybe there's a sort of a hint on Google?
The guy who interrupted looks like Maxmoefoe
i think Lacan is a charlatan....
"""Chomsky intensifies"""
thanks for sharing, i guess
They call him CharLacan for a reason.
Angry old man he was😂
Betas supporting betas as usual.
what did he spill? looks like his throw-up
Tweakin' hard 😂
oh, that's what he did. ok
I love this man
Jus d'orange... DCN
Anyone know who the student is?
Jean-Louis Lippert (aka Anatole Atlas, a belgian).
lol @ situation in quotes
Lacan went Louis de Funès on this kid 😂
Bon alors... the audience is more than ready to hear..
Lol
french people
What was so revolutionary about the kid's actions? He accomplished about as much as kicking over a trash can.
Because he is a revolutionary as situationnists can get I guess.
Interrupting a teacher for propaganda purposes can be effective, but you can't do that alone and without a coherent ideology.
But when you think you only have to fight the 'society of the spectacle', this kind of stunt becomes an end in itself.
The protestor frustrates me because I think he is saying something interesting, but the way he goes about expressing his beliefs is so immature that it’s almost impossible to take his side or even take him seriously.
That's just how French professors lectured.
then it's your failing. that you expect commentators to say things in line with your aesthetics and that's more important to you than what they're saying.
equanimity? not.
>french culture
I think Dostoyevsky explains it best...
'What can one expect from man since he is a creature endowed with such strange qualities? Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in bliss so that nothing but bubbles would dance on the surface of his bliss, as on a sea; give him such economic prosperity that he would have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with ensuring the continuation of world history and even then man, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer libel, would play you some loathsome trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive rationality his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly, that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself (as though that were so necessary) that men still are men and not piano keys, which even if played by the laws of nature themselves threaten to be controlled so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar."
That student's name?
You guessed it, Frank Stallone.
Is this staged?
No
The student has autism
i'ts not everyday you can see two people very bad at thinking together
Really? Come and see a session of our parliament then.
Yet everyday some people find a way to be pretentious and condescending.
This is not a situationist
Debord says: when things are upside down, the only true moment is the one of the false. And this one is so spontaneous in a very psychoanalytic term, the student couldn't take his breath normally because of the audience, he was so real, not false.
In Lacanian terms, this student will be very symbolic. The real is symbolic
What a hipster thing to do, brash chap
What a bunch of charlatans