I am glad I found this channel. I was introduced to these concepts in my university and your videos are way more helpful in grasping information. You are explaining complexed ideas and theories in an understandable and a clear way. Watching this in 2023!!!
Great video! I just have to make a comment: although it is correct in a pedagogical sense, strictly speaking, we can't say that Lacanian perspectives are similar to the "constructivist" theoretical framework. The reason that explains social conventions (as in the example of the difference between men's and women's baths) isn't the existence of social constructs. Rather, it's because there is no social fact, physic fact nor human being that exists outside the lenguage. The lenguage is understood here as the Big Other, whose existence makes possible the fragil constitution of the social bond.
Thank you for your clear explanation! My question would be: Isn't this "social construct" precicely the definition of the Big Other? What else is a social construct if not the rules and prohibitions that exists in language?
@@eversbrothersproductions1476 Great question! Certainly, there is a subtle, but supremely important difference. And I think that this difference can be found on the epistemological ground. Constructivism aims to provide a theory for the comprehension of social reality in general. It claims that the social world we perceive it’s constructed by the institutionalisation and, later, the socialisation of practices. From this point of view, language is just one more constructed mechanism of the social repertoire. Meanwhile, in Lacanian theory of the subject, language it’s The Structure that allows human species to constitute subjects and to live in society. In other words, Language (as system, not as parole, using Sassurean slang) is Social reality itself. The articulation of the Borromean knot, central in Lacanian theorisation, doesn’t take place before the impregnating of the Language (S1) in the body. The human subject it’s an effect of the signifier, and there is no “noumena” or “Real” knowable “outside Language”.
@@ojega_alejo I totally see what you mean now! It is not that the subject created language as a social institution, the subject itself is in the first place only existent in this language. But how then does this translate to the Gig Other, since the Big Other is "outside" the subject?
agree - Lacan is not a Platonist - the Real is not the "ideal thing" of which the signifier is a representation. The Real is that which cannot be represented. It is outside or beyond language, which nonetheless has a causal status in terms of our fears, hopes, anxieties etc. We can only know the Real in terms of its effects, not in terms of what it "is". So a Lacanian ontology is quite different to the Platonic/Kantian ontology presented here and which then becomes the basis of Saussurian linguistics and beyond that post-structuralism.
Could someone please tell me the name of the piano music at the start?? Its been haunting me after watching too many youtube videos (Since they all use the same 5 pieces of piano music), and I've decided to learn it to get it out of my system. I thought it was Claire de Lune, but it turns out that that's one of the OTHER 5 pieces of piano music.
Just makes me so happy I started with Peirce then deleuze and guattari. This helps me understand the later 2, thanks a bunch. This signifier-signified nonsense seems to me to be a distinctio formalis a parte rei, in reality signifier=signified and it's useless as conceptual distinction, it only does harm to semiotics, like the distinction between subject and object, haha, im just taking an opportunity to practice my craft of psuedointellectualism
My question is if the mirror stage is so importabt to development of the symbolic order what happens in the age of video where the infant might see him/herself acting out on a screen that is not a mirror? Also can we develop the symbolic order in our pets if we expose them to mirrors and try to get them to understand it when they are puppies/kittens/parrotlettes.
When you say "His Sheaf" implies a capitalist competition, are you saying in relation to theoretical "other peoples sheaf"? i.e. the name Booz on its own does not imply that he is competing with anyone else? If this is correct, I'm not sure I agree... Maybe its more that by replacing booz with "his sheaf", means that Booz is innocent and its "his sheaf" that is the antagonistic one... I get confused at this point in the video. this is still a very informative video though, thankyou.
Thanks for your comment! 😄Your first observation is indeed what is implied. So for example when he would be a communist instead of a capitalist he would say "the sheaf". But the emphasis here is on "his", implying that there is a competition for who's sheaf it is. It is indeed the case that the name Booz himself would be a form of competition, but this is a competition in the social context, i.e. to be neither miserly not hateful as a person, whereas the "his" implies the possession of commodity that would not be apparent from only the name Booz. This adds a dimension that is hidden as it were that is merely signified by one word. It is often that we use these clever tricks that Lacan is hinting at. The writer could just have said "Booz is neither...". But by adding the sheaf it tells us more than is in only the words themselves. Noticing these little hints in the signifiers is one of the key aspects of the psychoanalysis of Lacan. I hope this clarifies it a bit 😄.
@@eversbrothersproductions1476 thanks... yes I think I do.. so what you are saying is that "his" implies or more accurately "signifies" competition, whereas using Booz you would have to explicitly state there was competition, i.e. "Booz is neither misely nor hateful... unlike everyone else" i hope thats right. Anyway, thank you for taking the time
The signifier can also be images, colors, signs, etc. Anything that signifies something. So a traffic sign is also a signifier of which the signified is embedded in cultural meaning for example.
No no, what a picture of a dragon depicts is exactly what it looks like, a dragon. It's an icon, it's actuality is that it looks like a dragon. This is the point, a dragon-icon can only come to signify something other than the dragon it looks like, by virtue of it being a dragon depicted, it is exactly what it looks like. Without this potential there could be no dragons standing to psychoanalyze or play word association with.
Why is there dazzling snow in the background of the presentation? It just annoys and distracts me. Your videos require concentration and these kinds of effects don't help with that.
Lacan est déjà difficile à comprendre, mais c'est vraiment difficile de traduire et expliquer comme ça. Bien fait!
This channel needs more subscribers.
I've been searching for English texts explaining Lacan and just found your videos. Thank you so much for making them
I am glad I found this channel. I was introduced to these concepts in my university and your videos are way more helpful in grasping information. You are explaining complexed ideas and theories in an understandable and a clear way.
Watching this in 2023!!!
Thanks for this clear and concise presentation of a very difficult topic!
Great video! I just have to make a comment: although it is correct in a pedagogical sense, strictly speaking, we can't say that Lacanian perspectives are similar to the "constructivist" theoretical framework. The reason that explains social conventions (as in the example of the difference between men's and women's baths) isn't the existence of social constructs. Rather, it's because there is no social fact, physic fact nor human being that exists outside the lenguage. The lenguage is understood here as the Big Other, whose existence makes possible the fragil constitution of the social bond.
Thank you for your clear explanation! My question would be: Isn't this "social construct" precicely the definition of the Big Other? What else is a social construct if not the rules and prohibitions that exists in language?
@@eversbrothersproductions1476 Great question! Certainly, there is a subtle, but supremely important difference. And I think that this difference can be found on the epistemological ground. Constructivism aims to provide a theory for the comprehension of social reality in general. It claims that the social world we perceive it’s constructed by the institutionalisation and, later, the socialisation of practices. From this point of view, language is just one more constructed mechanism of the social repertoire.
Meanwhile, in Lacanian theory of the subject, language it’s The Structure that allows human species to constitute subjects and to live in society.
In other words, Language (as system, not as parole, using Sassurean slang) is Social reality itself. The articulation of the Borromean knot, central in Lacanian theorisation, doesn’t take place before the impregnating of the Language (S1) in the body. The human subject it’s an effect of the signifier, and there is no “noumena” or “Real” knowable “outside Language”.
@@ojega_alejo I totally see what you mean now! It is not that the subject created language as a social institution, the subject itself is in the first place only existent in this language.
But how then does this translate to the Gig Other, since the Big Other is "outside" the subject?
agree - Lacan is not a Platonist - the Real is not the "ideal thing" of which the signifier is a representation. The Real is that which cannot be represented. It is outside or beyond language, which nonetheless has a causal status in terms of our fears, hopes, anxieties etc. We can only know the Real in terms of its effects, not in terms of what it "is". So a Lacanian ontology is quite different to the Platonic/Kantian ontology presented here and which then becomes the basis of Saussurian linguistics and beyond that post-structuralism.
Very well explained and thorough. Thank you.
thank you very much for making these videos, these videos are helping me very much in understanding Lacan.
I love that most/all of the concepts (in this video) we know and use subconciously,but few people really thought about that
this video is great to start understanding Lacan. Thank you
Amazingly tight. Thank you.
Could someone please tell me the name of the piano music at the start?? Its been haunting me after watching too many youtube videos (Since they all use the same 5 pieces of piano music), and I've decided to learn it to get it out of my system. I thought it was Claire de Lune, but it turns out that that's one of the OTHER 5 pieces of piano music.
best video on lacan that i had seen so far
Thank you for these videos
Fantastic breakdown
The fact that I even know about and understand lacan makes me feel so much better than other people
Just makes me so happy I started with Peirce then deleuze and guattari. This helps me understand the later 2, thanks a bunch.
This signifier-signified nonsense seems to me to be a distinctio formalis a parte rei, in reality signifier=signified and it's useless as conceptual distinction, it only does harm to semiotics, like the distinction between subject and object, haha, im just taking an opportunity to practice my craft of psuedointellectualism
3rd time watching this. Great!
This is great. Thanks!
My question is if the mirror stage is so importabt to development of the symbolic order what happens in the age of video where the infant might see him/herself acting out on a screen that is not a mirror? Also can we develop the symbolic order in our pets if we expose them to mirrors and try to get them to understand it when they are puppies/kittens/parrotlettes.
Lacan’s. ‘Signifying chain’ appears to be a signifier for Audi.
When you say "His Sheaf" implies a capitalist competition, are you saying in relation to theoretical "other peoples sheaf"?
i.e. the name Booz on its own does not imply that he is competing with anyone else? If this is correct, I'm not sure I agree... Maybe its more that by replacing booz with "his sheaf", means that Booz is innocent and its "his sheaf" that is the antagonistic one... I get confused at this point in the video.
this is still a very informative video though, thankyou.
Thanks for your comment! 😄Your first observation is indeed what is implied. So for example when he would be a communist instead of a capitalist he would say "the sheaf". But the emphasis here is on "his", implying that there is a competition for who's sheaf it is.
It is indeed the case that the name Booz himself would be a form of competition, but this is a competition in the social context, i.e. to be neither miserly not hateful as a person, whereas the "his" implies the possession of commodity that would not be apparent from only the name Booz. This adds a dimension that is hidden as it were that is merely signified by one word. It is often that we use these clever tricks that Lacan is hinting at. The writer could just have said "Booz is neither...". But by adding the sheaf it tells us more than is in only the words themselves. Noticing these little hints in the signifiers is one of the key aspects of the psychoanalysis of Lacan.
I hope this clarifies it a bit 😄.
@@eversbrothersproductions1476 thanks... yes I think I do.. so what you are saying is that "his" implies or more accurately "signifies" competition, whereas using Booz you would have to explicitly state there was competition, i.e. "Booz is neither misely nor hateful... unlike everyone else" i hope thats right. Anyway, thank you for taking the time
@@PeterZeeke That is right 😄. You are welcome!
rather language expresses ST RU CT URE(s) of the brain (see my writings at Medium) just very good and succinct and useful, clear and to the point.
Thank you so much.
To be recommended, then sipped like a fine wine (or, as the Italians say, "a wine of contemplation").
"First, draw an S... next, a more different S..." 🦖
great stuff
@9:27 the in the title unconscious is mispelled.
Thank you for your observing aye. 😀
I did not understand a thing beyond Saussure and I'm supposed to be a linguist :')
😊中国🇨🇳网友很喜欢这个视频
11:25 nice language point
The signifier can be an image or only words?
The signifier can also be images, colors, signs, etc. Anything that signifies something. So a traffic sign is also a signifier of which the signified is embedded in cultural meaning for example.
@@eversbrothersproductions1476 Where do affect / emotions fit into Lacan's system? Or do they!?
Fire video
No no, what a picture of a dragon depicts is exactly what it looks like, a dragon. It's an icon, it's actuality is that it looks like a dragon. This is the point, a dragon-icon can only come to signify something other than the dragon it looks like, by virtue of it being a dragon depicted, it is exactly what it looks like. Without this potential there could be no dragons standing to psychoanalyze or play word association with.
Delirante - has nothing to do with Lacan
good video! but clearly Lacan didnt understand a word of what Saussure wrote about the notion of 'Signifier'...
Why is there dazzling snow in the background of the presentation? It just annoys and distracts me.
Your videos require concentration and these kinds of effects don't help with that.
Excellent
You should have put as 🔣 signifier for contemporary gentlemen :
some dorks on e-scooters or behind some screen displays.
That's the factuality 😊