Oh nooo you are both men in lacanian sense XDDD or Kantians in a sense that. There is a noumenon but it is not accessible because of the properties of the subject xd so silly. Idk if you saw it the whole talk is basically there has to be whole, a certain full system buuuut in order to create that full system for instance a system of religious studies grounded in truth there has to be something inaccessible some sort of ultimate reality or some sort of woman xdd
I feel compelled to quote Lacan himself here: "What is written is not to be understood". But all kidding aside, it's interesting you bring this up, I actually just got my hands on a copy of Lacan's Seminar XX ("Encore"), where he talks about how men and women are merely signifiers. Oh! Another interesting thing. As I'm going back and reading this over again, it seems like you're drawing a connection between Kant and Lacan, perhaps with the "point de capiton" being Kant's noumena? I like that. When I'm trying to explain Lacan's real to people more familiar with Kant, I try to talk about the real as being somewhat comparable to the noumena.
@@VarsityBookworm ye ye masculine position was explained to me through that and I found it very clear because it seemed that noumenon takes specifically the position of the exception from the universal. Sorry for writing in that chaotic way I usually don't pay that much attention to TH-cam comments cuz I am scared they will be taken too seriously. Oh also ye when talking abt real idk if you do it. But like. I was also told that Lacan doesn't take position on if real exists only as a gap in the symbolic, like, Zizek or Zupancic say it, or if it really exists there like Kantian noumenon. Lacan would probably say that people who say that real is either gap in symbolic or a real positive space (some material real) have their own ontologically justified agenda xd. I found that a lot of practitioners of psychoanalysis share that Kantian view because the patient comes to the office and they have to reaffirm them that okay what you saw there is material, some sort of fleshy, gory material reality but it's okay it's just reality the idk laws of physics apply you are protected by police, by me whatever, the symbolic order still works. While Zupancic would say that it is always a subject that fantasizes about real, the real is never there, it's like imagining what children think when they don't think with language.
@@firesalamander4795 it's all good haha, I appreciate your input. And I think you're right about Lacan not taking a position on whether the real "exists" or not. I think he may have tried to avoid taking a hard stance because it allows for a diversity of interpretations. I always liked Leon Brenner's explanation: "The Real […] can be characterized as that aspect of an encounter with an object which does not have any symbolic designation. It is exactly that which does not “exist” in our reality. It is that part of our symbolic reality which is not signified. Nevertheless, that is not to say that it does not exist in the strictest of senses, but that if it does, it does so in a different way than the objects in our reality".
Oh nooo you are both men in lacanian sense XDDD or Kantians in a sense that. There is a noumenon but it is not accessible because of the properties of the subject xd so silly. Idk if you saw it the whole talk is basically there has to be whole, a certain full system buuuut in order to create that full system for instance a system of religious studies grounded in truth there has to be something inaccessible some sort of ultimate reality or some sort of woman xdd
I feel compelled to quote Lacan himself here: "What is written is not to be understood".
But all kidding aside, it's interesting you bring this up, I actually just got my hands on a copy of Lacan's Seminar XX ("Encore"), where he talks about how men and women are merely signifiers.
Oh! Another interesting thing. As I'm going back and reading this over again, it seems like you're drawing a connection between Kant and Lacan, perhaps with the "point de capiton" being Kant's noumena? I like that. When I'm trying to explain Lacan's real to people more familiar with Kant, I try to talk about the real as being somewhat comparable to the noumena.
@@VarsityBookworm ye ye masculine position was explained to me through that and I found it very clear because it seemed that noumenon takes specifically the position of the exception from the universal. Sorry for writing in that chaotic way I usually don't pay that much attention to TH-cam comments cuz I am scared they will be taken too seriously. Oh also ye when talking abt real idk if you do it. But like. I was also told that Lacan doesn't take position on if real exists only as a gap in the symbolic, like, Zizek or Zupancic say it, or if it really exists there like Kantian noumenon. Lacan would probably say that people who say that real is either gap in symbolic or a real positive space (some material real) have their own ontologically justified agenda xd. I found that a lot of practitioners of psychoanalysis share that Kantian view because the patient comes to the office and they have to reaffirm them that okay what you saw there is material, some sort of fleshy, gory material reality but it's okay it's just reality the idk laws of physics apply you are protected by police, by me whatever, the symbolic order still works. While Zupancic would say that it is always a subject that fantasizes about real, the real is never there, it's like imagining what children think when they don't think with language.
@@firesalamander4795 it's all good haha, I appreciate your input. And I think you're right about Lacan not taking a position on whether the real "exists" or not. I think he may have tried to avoid taking a hard stance because it allows for a diversity of interpretations.
I always liked Leon Brenner's explanation: "The Real […] can be characterized as that aspect of an encounter with an object which does not have any symbolic designation. It is exactly that which does not “exist” in our reality. It is that part of our symbolic reality which is not signified. Nevertheless, that is not to say that it does not exist in the strictest of senses, but that if it does, it does so in a different way than the objects in our reality".