These mean so much to me, thank you for making them. Your work is a constant presence in my life and it is very much appreciated, even though I do not always understand everything as someone who is not educated in philosophy
Julian my man, I recently started looking into Lacan and can’t fwd it to your patreon because I live in the penny ghetto. The little bit I have looked into was that Lacan believed that it was impossible to apply psychoanalysis to individuals from Japan. The full quote I believe is “ no one who dwells in the Japanese language has a need to be psychoanalysed “. After doing some digging, though I’m not eloquent enough to fully communicate it and understanding the reasoning is more for someone academic, which Is why I message you, Lacan’s position comes from how the construction of the Japanese language is formed and it’s relation to it’s signifier or what is being signified. I have a fuzzy understanding of how Lacan arrived to this point and if you youtube Lacan psychoanalysis japan, the not daily podcast goes into more detail on this-why it’s not true, and the practice of psychiatry in japan. The info I have parsed is fascinating into how language forms, in particular in japan and though slightly beyond me, offers another aspect on Lacan’s methods. I’d like to say when I stopped hyper researching zizek for a while, I had a novice to moderate’s understanding of the material, and this article I am linking on the subject, does offer an interesting black box to explore Lacan’s theory. Should you so choose, would love to see you go in depth with this. ogswrs.blogspot.com/2019/01/why-lacan-says-no-one-who-dwells-in.html
From my basic understanding of this point that Lacan made, which he also said of the rich and the English, was that it was meant as one of his playful remarks, a comment on the tendencies of those cultures and social strata at the time. Which is to say both the English and the Japanese had different ways culturally of avoiding looking inward; the English have the stiff upper lip and pragmatism and the Japanese have a culture of duty and self effacement. I don't believe either statement was a theory he seriously posited, so much as a remark about how certain cultures and classes had stereotypical traits which wouldn't make them good candidates for psychoanalysis given that psychoanalysis requires a lot of introspection from the patient. The reality is many people from those groups could be analysed, even more so today.
The easiest way for me to visualize and contextualize Lancan's understanding and theorizing of love is: the movie Groundhog Day. I say this and really got that after watching the movie. And then finding this video, again and waiting to watch it for the first time; after watching the movie. It took Phil (Bill Murray's character) decades or possibly centuries to see the love in himself and to see himself through Rita's eyes (Andie McDowell's character). The movie Groundhog Day doesn't fully explain love or Lacan's theory of love. But it did and still does make it easier to follow. It is though in many ways an example of sacrifice, risk or gamble, and discovery-in discovering who you really are and who or what you want to be. And how you want to be seen, remembered (presently and afterwards) and how you want to love and be loved.
Thanks for your videos, I am learning so much from them! Regarding love, is there a difference in the stance towards love from a neurotic vs a psychotic position?
Great content as always, hey, I was wondering if you have deleted some videos recently? I was looking for one on Borges and the idea of beauty that you did some time ago, and I couldn't find it. I thought that was a good video...
Thank you for explanations, but if you videos include subtitles I'll understand better what you tell because I am not English-speaker. Anyway, you do good work.
I suddenly remember when Zizek said in one of his talks: "What I like about love is not that I love you all. F*ck you, I don't love you all! I just love one and all of you can go to hell... I want to celebrate division, one-sidedness, imbalance and so on." Thank you for putting the context. Now I understood more what Zizek mean by that.
Love as showing vulnerable, as you are (lacking in terms not ideal state). Not as an idea. Giving away who you once were to be a new identity with other half. Love as narcissism (Layla and Majnun) we think other person is not lacking and has authentic core (and then see as lacking in oneself). These two lacks bring people together positively (feel more close through gaze of other half). Lack filled in (two hands holding). Love one person against someone else.
One hang-up I have been having with Lacanian psychoanalysis is how one should consider the potentially conflicting symptomatic imperatives of one's love for their partner and their life's work. This is a situation that I have been pondering for a while as it is personally relevant to me. If say, I was a young college student with a partner who lives in the area and whom I was beginning to love very deeply, and upon graduating soon, I could much more significantly pursue my life's work away from the college than nearby it. Where should a compromise be made between these two conflicting symptoms?
Hi Mr. Medeiros, unlike Lacan's psychoanalysis, what do you think of Foucalt's theory of sexuality... I remember you once saying that you were Foucaltian... It would be an interesting video to compare both intellectual's works on sexuality...
Hey Julian - in one of your lectures from the past you mentioned a short story about a boy that falls in love with a girl at first sight proceeding to confess himself to her only to find out she is deaf - what is the name of the short story and who is the author?
The Buddhist perspective on love is the sincere wish for all sentient beings to be joyful, and have the root cause for boundless joys and happiness. Also, compassion is the wish for all sentient beings to be free of suffering, and the root cause of all sufferings. As such, it has nothing to do with ones own needs and wants. The imaginary needs for love stems from a projection of not being a complete being. We long for someone to step into our lives and fill in those gaps in our imaginary life that we believe to be absent or lacking. This is based on a neurotic self-image and will not lead to fulfillment anyway we try. Not even love towards ones own guru will alone cure this sickness. It can only be cured through thorough understanding about ones own true nature. That’s why genuine spiritual practice is the only cure.
Yes, but not a very interesting perspective since it doesnt even describe the illusion in virtue of its own identity. It just destroys it by confining it to illusion.
@@nickpharoah If you’re interested in why self is an illusion, according to the Buddha, study and practice his teachings and you will find out. Truth about reality or illusion can only be discovered by your own introspection. Your intelligence will never be satisfied with mere words from me, or anyone else. Only you can find out.
Thanks for watching! If you’d like to support my work please consider becoming a patron. Thank you! www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy
Thanks for the clear explanation. Best introduction to Lacan's view on love I've ever seen
These mean so much to me, thank you for making them. Your work is a constant presence in my life and it is very much appreciated, even though I do not always understand everything as someone who is not educated in philosophy
Julian my man, I recently started looking into Lacan and can’t fwd it to your patreon because I live in the penny ghetto. The little bit I have looked into was that Lacan believed that it was impossible to apply psychoanalysis to individuals from Japan. The full quote I believe is “ no one who dwells in the Japanese language has a need to be psychoanalysed “.
After doing some digging, though I’m not eloquent enough to fully communicate it and understanding the reasoning is more for someone academic, which Is why I message you, Lacan’s position comes from how the construction of the Japanese language is formed and it’s relation to it’s signifier or what is being signified. I have a fuzzy understanding of how Lacan arrived to this point and if you youtube Lacan psychoanalysis japan, the not daily podcast goes into more detail on this-why it’s not true, and the practice of psychiatry in japan. The info I have parsed is fascinating into how language forms, in particular in japan and though slightly beyond me, offers another aspect on Lacan’s methods. I’d like to say when I stopped hyper researching zizek for a while, I had a novice to moderate’s understanding of the material, and this article I am linking on the subject, does offer an interesting black box to explore Lacan’s theory. Should you so choose, would love to see you go in depth with this. ogswrs.blogspot.com/2019/01/why-lacan-says-no-one-who-dwells-in.html
From my basic understanding of this point that Lacan made, which he also said of the rich and the English, was that it was meant as one of his playful remarks, a comment on the tendencies of those cultures and social strata at the time. Which is to say both the English and the Japanese had different ways culturally of avoiding looking inward; the English have the stiff upper lip and pragmatism and the Japanese have a culture of duty and self effacement. I don't believe either statement was a theory he seriously posited, so much as a remark about how certain cultures and classes had stereotypical traits which wouldn't make them good candidates for psychoanalysis given that psychoanalysis requires a lot of introspection from the patient. The reality is many people from those groups could be analysed, even more so today.
Explained super well!! Thank You!
julian i am so thankful for your contributions to us! keep going! i love all of them
Love your videos!
Could you please do a video on the concept that ‘the women doesn’t exist’ by lacan?
Thank you for the amazing content!
The easiest way for me to visualize and contextualize Lancan's understanding and theorizing of love is: the movie Groundhog Day. I say this and really got that after watching the movie. And then finding this video, again and waiting to watch it for the first time; after watching the movie.
It took Phil (Bill Murray's character) decades or possibly centuries to see the love in himself and to see himself through Rita's eyes (Andie McDowell's character).
The movie Groundhog Day doesn't fully explain love or Lacan's theory of love. But it did and still does make it easier to follow. It is though in many ways an example of sacrifice, risk or gamble, and discovery-in discovering who you really are and who or what you want to be. And how you want to be seen, remembered (presently and afterwards) and how you want to love and be loved.
Great concept
This comes in handy.
Thanks for your videos, I am learning so much from them! Regarding love, is there a difference in the stance towards love from a neurotic vs a psychotic position?
Great content as always, hey, I was wondering if you have deleted some videos recently? I was looking for one on Borges and the idea of beauty that you did some time ago, and I couldn't find it. I thought that was a good video...
Thank you for explanations, but if you videos include subtitles I'll understand better what you tell because I am not English-speaker. Anyway, you do good work.
I suddenly remember when Zizek said in one of his talks: "What I like about love is not that I love you all. F*ck you, I don't love you all! I just love one and all of you can go to hell... I want to celebrate division, one-sidedness, imbalance and so on." Thank you for putting the context. Now I understood more what Zizek mean by that.
Yes Žižek definitely tends to articulate Lacan in a more extreme way 😂
Love as showing vulnerable, as you are (lacking in terms not ideal state). Not as an idea.
Giving away who you once were to be a new identity with other half.
Love as narcissism (Layla and Majnun) we think other person is not lacking and has authentic core (and then see as lacking in oneself). These two lacks bring people together positively (feel more close through gaze of other half).
Lack filled in (two hands holding).
Love one person against someone else.
HI Julian ! :)
One hang-up I have been having with Lacanian psychoanalysis is how one should consider the potentially conflicting symptomatic imperatives of one's love for their partner and their life's work. This is a situation that I have been pondering for a while as it is personally relevant to me. If say, I was a young college student with a partner who lives in the area and whom I was beginning to love very deeply, and upon graduating soon, I could much more significantly pursue my life's work away from the college than nearby it. Where should a compromise be made between these two conflicting symptoms?
Just found myself breaking off a three year relationship. This is very....timely?
timely for me too….i’m about to tell my freudian analyst i love her
@@latedinn That sounds like a lot. Be prepared for some talk about transference, I guess. But do what you gotta do.
Hi Mr. Medeiros, unlike Lacan's psychoanalysis, what do you think of Foucalt's theory of sexuality... I remember you once saying that you were Foucaltian... It would be an interesting video to compare both intellectual's works on sexuality...
Solid
Hey Julian - in one of your lectures from the past you mentioned a short story about a boy that falls in love with a girl at first sight proceeding to confess himself to her only to find out she is deaf - what is the name of the short story and who is the author?
Very interesting, what if, at the end you give nothing upon the realization that what desire lacks is nothing.
Can you provide the references to read more?
Want to send money but there is no dollar icon...?
"Talking about love is like dancing about architecture." - Joan in Playing by Heart.
Amazing quote
I thought it was music, not love. And it was Zappa who said this
Dancing about architecture sounds interesting... I want to try that
greetings from brazil. i miss the video of love lies bleeding
i like smoke cigarettes
The Buddhist perspective on love is the sincere wish for all sentient beings to be joyful, and have the root cause for boundless joys and happiness. Also, compassion is the wish for all sentient beings to be free of suffering, and the root cause of all sufferings. As such, it has nothing to do with ones own needs and wants. The imaginary needs for love stems from a projection of not being a complete being. We long for someone to step into our lives and fill in those gaps in our imaginary life that we believe to be absent or lacking. This is based on a neurotic self-image and will not lead to fulfillment anyway we try. Not even love towards ones own guru will alone cure this sickness. It can only be cured through thorough understanding about ones own true nature. That’s why genuine spiritual practice is the only cure.
Yes, but not a very interesting perspective since it doesnt even describe the illusion in virtue of its own identity. It just destroys it by confining it to illusion.
@@nickpharoah If you’re interested in why self is an illusion, according to the Buddha, study and practice his teachings and you will find out. Truth about reality or illusion can only be discovered by your own introspection. Your intelligence will never be satisfied with mere words from me, or anyone else. Only you can find out.
are you related to @Memeanalysis ? you look like him.
It does not make sense to me.
What about love for your child or a dog? Love towards everyone on a great morning?
This idea does not extrapolate well.
Yea but what about the guys hair.. he looks like a vampire... 😅 for real tho rly enjoy the bite size lacan on love.. yum .. and so thanks
But I'm already unhappy.