Відео

I am writing an academic paper on Heidegger right now and these videos are invaluable to me as it saves me time from going through the entire text to find what I am looking for as well as relieve the need for me to go through some secondary source which would prove less efficient in terms of speed. I look forward to subscribing to your patreon again when I am working and making some money.

Verbal diarrhea at best. Thank you for the nonsense

Much needed such summary in classrooms. Thank goodness textbook philosophy never in my formative years but it form a part of ideology now it has always been but we just skip, like Descartes skipping political with self censorship and enjoying his own science of those times.

Just a clarifying question : when you are demonstrating the identification with the lost object, (3:41) is it synonymous with the little other (a')? Furthermore, is the lost object synonymous with what Lacan will later call Objet a? thank you!

Would you say lacan's perspective here may be in contrast to say Derrida who might say that language is a generalisation?

I love this.

Memetic desire (Deleuze v. Lacan)

I'm trained in western philosophy and Heidegger. I'm also Buddhist. On existence, I believe Buddhist thinking can be instructive. To wit, "exist" in western though generally is a bit of a loaded term, and carries many connotations for historical reasons. For example, it connotes being as including something material, something spiritual (i.e., a "soul"), and so forth. But these go too far. Buddhism limits the self to nothing more than a sort of present-consciousness, there is no larger "ego", "soul" or anything like that. To me, this stripped-down sense of self is more consistent with modern science, logic, and anyway has the effect of freeing us from all kinds of problems if we embrace that view.

Thank you for this work, your 4 types remind me of John Vervaeke's 4 kinds of knowing. Where Trauma could be the breakdown of our participatory knowing, the evil eye as a breakdown of our perspectival knowing, the foreign body involves breaking down of procedural knowing, and Abjection deconstructs the subject object relations inherent to propositional knowing. Your book is definitely going on my bucket list

Wow!! Thank you so much!!!

Hegel please!!!

This was great and helped my understanding of Lacan. Thank you.

didnt understand a thing. I am a philosophy student, its my second year now, and the longer I study all of this, the more I hate it.

Another excellent video! Thank you for all your work!

I’m very happy you have made these videos, especially lecture by lecture in order to help us understand such a difficult subject.

1:52 guess I’ll buy the books and continue this video a month from now ✌🏼 😂

Could you please share at some platform your version of this graph? It seems very interesting, but needs to be investigated in HD with attention to all details and marks. That would be wonderful!

Perfectly concise explanation that misses *nothing*. Bravo.

Nice, thanks man

What’s the difference between the “They-self” and the internalized super ego

Thanks

Please never stop making these. Your video archive is a treasure

Thank you!

Death is anything but a w possibility, rather, it is the end of all my possibilities=nothingness.

I now believe Heidegger taljs in gobbledygook to provide people with too much time on their hands, to decode.

If philosophers want to communicate their ideas why the hell dont they talk normally? Why cloak their ideas with incomprehensible gobbledygook?

"Le Nom de Pere", "Per-verse", "Personne"...It seems that French is exclusively suitable for Lacan's theoretical ideas. In my native language, we have somewhat close multi-meaning interpretations like, for example, that of number 1876. In it, when some separate numbers are translated into their respective letters (according to the Orthodox-Church tradition), this produces "Турцiа кe падне" - 300 (Т) + 400 (У) + 100 (Р) + 900 (Ц) + 10 (i)+ 1 (А) + 20 (К) + 5 (Е) + 80 (П) + 1 (А) + 4 (Д) + 50 (Н) + 5 (Е) = 1876. This was a secret code used by revolutionaries in my country in the 19th Century that was to announce the exact year when the Ottoman Empire will fall and Balkans will be liberated from its oppressive rule.

Thank you for your remarkable interpretation, sir. The problem as to the one mirror schema is well addressed in your next video. And I have two questions about this lecture. First, is aggressivity invoked in the mirror phase related to masochism/sadism that first appears in the Oedipal crisis? Secondly, I can't find texts that attest to madness which occurs when "the ego ideal" meets the ideal image, which you said at the end of this video. In his "On Narcissism," Freud depicts a situation where the fulfillment of the ego ideal fails and the patient thus seeks a substitute for the satisfaction he once enjoyed whether in ego ideal or ideal ego. And this substitute is a sexual object, that is to say, a lover. When the situation gets worse, as in transference neurosis, the patient projects an excessive amount of libido onto the lover and is incapable of drawing it back. Hence an impoverishment of the ego. This is, I think, what Lacan refers to as madness or suicide. Otherwise, Freud says in the same essay that love, in its normal sense, is an activity of the ego, just like any other activities, which contains a flowing over and drawing back of libido of the ego so as to keep it at a constant level. Could you please explain the encounter of the ego ideal with the ideal image?

Thanks!

Thank you so much! I really understood the 4th seminar thanks to your videos and just got an A+ in my philosophy exam!

I do stuff so I can have stuff, ya know?

Fairbarin was generally problematic for mainstream psychoanalysis (Lacan was too, btw) simply because he rejected Freud's Tripartite model of the mind, actually quite convincingly. That's why he was considered a traitor and was for long ostracized by his personality-cult driven professional community. And, quite understandably, of course, he was doomed to be rejected by the one who entitled himself the most Freudian of all Freudians. Apart from that, Lacan's critique of Fairbairn is completely biased, one-sided, fragmentary and betraying a lack (or a tendentious unwilingness at best) of a more comprehensive consideration of the latter's ideas. But even this is somewhat understandable: he desperately needed to define, assert and defend his own territory of uniqueness as the most faithful acolyte.

Great video mate! I like your line of thoughts and there's some good info there! Only thing is that we should be careful when using the term "psychoanalysis" as this often refers to another universe of psychology/philosophy, making the title a bit misunderstanding, at least for me. The cool thing is that in psychology, "existential psychoanalisys" could mean a dialogue between existential psychology (Sartre, Heidegger) and some psychoanalysis concepts (mainly Freud and Winnicott in this context), which is an awesome subject.

Thank you!

It took me 110 days to finish being & Nothingness 😅, but these videos help me understand Sartre deeper, thank you 🙏🏻

Did a wonderful job breaking this down. Just finished this chapter today and it’s been my favorite so far. On to the body!

No... I should have known that the ending "be well" is the excrement to me.

What a coincidence, I think I just finished reading this part in the Interpretation of Dreams. But I believe it appears as a footnote on page 338 in the section where Freud explains absurdities in dreams.

I'm trying to read sartre's introduction to 《being and nothingness》

Will you please write on screen Your explain is excellent but we do not speak English and try to follow so have bad need for this writing please

Thanks!

Thank you for this video. Your ending line is very insightful: "...Giving an answer to the subject is to play right into the neurotic strategy of finding an answer that is ultimately in service of a defense against anxiety, and not a true modification of the subject's position vis-a-vis the question that structures the neurosis." For me it brings the loopy convolutions of Lacan's method for understanding psychic processes to a more tangible dimension.

My dreams are usually pretty literal aside from the ppl around me in my dreams responding to me how I'd respond to me, allowing me to "riff" in ways i can't usually in life. The locations are usually amalgamations of places I've felt comfortable (and, during nightmares, rather accurate maps of places I wasn't often comfortable but had to remain in them). Usually indoors bc i spend a lot of time indoors

Thank you for all these very helpful videos ! When completed will be a reference for understanding Lacan.

So the question I’m left with Zizek over and over again is: And of the economic? Just like all the criticism he gives to Heidegger and Badiou, Zizek does the same in refusing to address political economy as the primary class struggle and suggests just opting out of it entirely? If Bartleby existed in the real material world we live in, he would be left to die without a second thought. Just like Zizek can’t separate Heidegger from his thought from Nazism (which he is right to do), I can’t separate Zizek from his liberal, capitalist advocacy and ideology in Yugoslavia. I’m sorry but real people advocating for something other than capitalism don’t write for the Guardian.

So if there is an outcast potential within every in-group, and the role of the outcast is to use that position in order to find the universal truth that appeals to the outcasts of every in-group... why doesn't anything come of this? Surely, whether or not anyone wrote about these things in the way Zizek does here, we are not original in our experiences. This idea that a person can get outside of their in-groups and maintain any meaningful power seems chiasmatic. If it is successful, the outcasts become the in-group (perhaps a larger group than before) while the previous in-groups become the outcasts, and the cycle repeats over history. Reading Zupancic's book "What is Sex", it seems that the negativity of the sex as a 'some thing' which resists signification (because it is Real?) must be applied to these ideas of philosophies. In weight-lifting, it is ineffective to focus on one's own form, if that focus entails assigning attention to the physical positioning of the body against an ideal positioning. It is much more beneficial if the person assigns their focus to resisting the load against which that person is lifting/pulling/pushing. The former can lead to the body pulling and pushing against itself and never encountering the growth stimulus (mechanical tension, metabolic stress, muscular damage), while the latter inherently constrains effort to the encounters with the load (and therefore tension, stress, damage). Is it really of much use to do the same intellectually? There is a load we deal with (the Real) which cannot be accessed (understood), much the same way we do not perceive any specific load when moving our muscles (ie: without visual and tactile input, there would be no conception of what it is that we are moving, and yet it would move whenever we adjust our focus - we would feel its strain). So if a person's stance is set to copy an ideal form, they have a much higher risk of impeding their own perception of the load, and may create their own internal loads that are precisely imaginary. Is the role of philosophy to remove those imagined, internally created loads, to teach a simpler perception? That would seem to be what Zizek typically did by identifying and illustrating ideology. But I can't help but feel that it still is not teaching anyone to perceive things in opposition to the Real, that while we feel we have relaxed the internal loads, we are now no longer resisting or detecting any load at all (and yet it is there).

Thanks

Thank you so much for this

Maybe that's why near desth experiencers see life differently: they see it for some time as present-to-hand

I reckon up to this moment whatever i heard was another version of Zen ! I'm not sure but does he add something more to what is considered as Zen Buddhism?