Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.

Jacques Lacan: Psychoanalysis and the Politics of the Family: A Conversation with Daniel Tutt

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 19 сер 2024
  • In this interview, Daniel expands on the central themes and theories with which he deals in his recently published book, Psychoanalysis and the Politics of the Family. With remarkable explanatory lucidity and a promptness to engage with relevant historical interlocutors, he sketches a dismal portrait of the conditions facing the modern family -- its members harried by an acephalic social superego, reduced to precarity by proletarianization, and alienated by the decline of paternal authority. In his book, Psychoanalysis and the Politics of the Family, he offers possible exits from this galling vision of a society without social bonds.
    Daniel's UA-cam Channel: @study_groups
    Book: Psychoanaylsis and the Politics of the Family: www.amazon.com...
    Website: danieltutt.com...
    #lacan #freud #socialism #nietzsche #philosophy #psychoanalysis

КОМЕНТАРІ • 16

  • @PhilosophyPortal
    @PhilosophyPortal Рік тому +9

    Love the shout-out to Theory Underground on the importance of time-energy as central to socialist politics.

  • @thejudgeofthat1122
    @thejudgeofthat1122 Рік тому +4

    BASED timenergy and pleeb shoutout! 42:00

  • @theory_underground
    @theory_underground Рік тому +5

    1:14:48 Love this talk. Thanks for the shout out! IDK about taking Badiou seriously when he plays down the fights and splits. The dude was a cancel culture bro before Tumblr, literally leading troops of students to interrupt Deleuze's lectures. Now that he outlived everyone he is rewriting history and of course writing himself into that history in a more significant role than is perhaps deserved... -___-

  • @JAMESKOURTIDES
    @JAMESKOURTIDES Рік тому +5

    Great interview

    • @The_Big_Sig
      @The_Big_Sig Рік тому +3

      Thank you James. This year we plan to keep doing big interviews.

  • @TheDangerousMaybe
    @TheDangerousMaybe Рік тому +3

    Great work, guys! Fantastic discussion!

  • @tclass101
    @tclass101 Рік тому +5

    How have Daniel and Todd talked to everyone except each other! The question of the left super ego/ the enemy would be great not to mention Todd's aversion to the oedipus framework. So much to be discussed!
    Anyways, loved the interview. Makes me really excited to check out Daniel's book.

    • @thevanishingmediators
      @thevanishingmediators  Рік тому +2

      I’d kill to listen to debate between Todd and McGowan on the issue of a multiplicity of superegos v Todd’s singular superego.
      Do you think Todd has an aversion to the oedipus framework? Would be a good question to ask him.

    • @thevanishingmediators
      @thevanishingmediators  Рік тому +1

      I’d bet Todd would respond positively to Daniel’s take on oedipus as a matrix of ambivalence of symbolic roles and the affects supposed to attach to those roles.

    • @dissatisfiedphilosophy
      @dissatisfiedphilosophy Рік тому

      @@thevanishingmediators Todd has said before that he doesnt like the Oedipus Complex and doesnt speak much about it

  • @lurkerthree4544
    @lurkerthree4544 Рік тому +2

    This conversation was excellent.

  • @dissatisfiedphilosophy
    @dissatisfiedphilosophy Рік тому +2

    Such a great video! I disagree with his reasons for not speaking of the Big Other often but nonetheless new innovations in Lacanian theory is always good!

  • @lordtains
    @lordtains 3 місяці тому

    Kernberg is a mixture of object relational (Kleinian) and classical ego psychology (Freudian). He is not relational (which comes from the work of Stephen Mitchell and colleagues and is different from object relational).

  • @addammadd
    @addammadd Рік тому +2

    35:03 interestingly, the whole “strong man perceived as powerful by the enemy” is its own subjective fallacy I.e. “Trump is a weak man’s idea of a strong man.”
    52:20 respectfully, that indicates second hand experience and this is important because the speaker is making a totalizing statement which isn’t strictly speaking correct. I have personal, actual firsthand experience, that directly contradict this take. I certainly wouldn’t use my firsthand experience to generalize it into a “we all know…” statement.
    It doesn’t have to involve drugs and depravity and such; it very well could involve self-sacrifice and (non-lacanian) enjoyment of phenomena unavailable to people who are enmeshed in the meritocratic discursive constellation and thereby blind to said phenomena.