Žižek and Lacanian Psychoanalysis: How to Read Lacan
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 тра 2024
- Lacan is one of the most difficult thinkers to read and decipher. With Lacan, he seems to have a language within a language. A mode(s) of communication that go beyond traditional lingual structures; a way of communicating power relations that has never been done. For this, Zizek has taken Lacan into his project among Marx and Hegel. Zizek has an interesting way of interpreting and applying Lacan. Seen in his text: How to Read Lacan.
This entire channel is funded by you all. If this channel is something you enjoy, supporting keeps it alive. You'll recieve early access to videos, exclusive content, discord access, editing tutorials, and more! / epochphilosophy
How to Read Lacan: amzn.to/3kYkx7N
Same exact perks if you prefer to support via the UA-cam member section:
/ @epochphilosophy
If you want to support the channel for free, use the amazon affiliate link, this helps us IMMENSELY: amzn.to/32hdeQB
Socials:
Twitter► / epochphilosophy
Instagram► / epochphilosophy
Timestamp:
Intro: 0:00
Approaching Lacan: 3:47
Desire, Lack, and Split Subject: 6:48
Symbolic Order: 9:17
Imaginary: 13:00
Ideology and False Consciousness: 15:45
Political Jouissance: 20:02
Split Law, the Sublime, Notions of Truth: 22:48
Zizek's 'Reading' of Lacan: 25:23
A Message: 27:15
Hi, everyone! Wanted to shoutout our Patreon, and our Patrons/UA-cam Members who keep this alive! Big thanks to you! Funding via Patreon is the number one way this channel survives. Consider pledging a few bucks a month to ensure we can keep making these videos! I offer some cool perks as well. Check it out! Patreon: www.patreon.com/epochphilosophy
Ah thank you for pointing out that you made this today. Keep it up love the content!
@@karlmarx7511 Anytime my man
Your channel is my favorite on UA-cam! Congratulations on your initiative in approaching Lacan and Zizek. These ideas deserve to gain more visibility outside the academy.
P.S.: It would be awesome if you made a video about Alain Badiou.
Badiou may come sooner than you'd expect!
Thanks for the kind words!
Why? Isn't Freud unempirical?
This was really fabulous. One thing I could add, is that Nietzsche already introduces the idea that consciousness is equally predicated on remembering and forgetting. I think it’s in the genealogy of morals.
I’m mostly interested in applying Lacan’s concepts of the Real and Trauma to horror media like Japanese comics. You’ve got a new patron.
This was so good! Definitely gave me a passion to learn more.
So glad you covered this. I’ve been doin heavy studies on Lacan and Žižek lately.
Hi ,I read your comment and want to help me writing my thesis I need articles ,books on narcissim related to lacan and zizek ..
Would u kindly help me ?? and I will be thankful...
This is beautiful, brother. Thank you for the great content.
Brilliant video, great editing, very well researched as well and visually informing. I would urge and request you to do some videos on Kant and Hegel. Especially, Hegel, for he is the most complex philosopher to understand and you have a good way of breaking down things. Keep up the good work!
I’m reading the Sublime Object of Ideology now and found this video was quite helpful in establishing more context - thank you so much !
Another brilliant video. Another reason why this channel is my fav on youtube
Still an amazing video a, year later. I hope you got plenty of patrons from this. Thank you for your work on this
Thank you for making this, I know i will return to it again and again
Great video! Just a tip - manque is pronounced more like mawnk than mawn-kay. General rule with French is not to pronounce the last letter. Merci quand même, j'adore tes vidéos ^_^
It's monke all the way down
Shit. I looked up the pronunciation as to not butcher it, and that's how it said to pronounce it. My inner American doesn't allow me to pronounce anything correctly.
@@epochphilosophy Don't sweat it! French is a ridiculous language lol
@@Tofu_va_Bien Haha, thanks for the heads up and understanding. Pretty sure this was the nicest comment regarding my butchering of pronunciation. Most comments are much more harsh in nature lol.
@@epochphilosophy so could one say the pronunciation could only be understood by application? 🤔
I shouldn't attempt jokes before caffeine 😆
Thank you so much! I’ve been struggling with zizek and Lacan lately
Omg yes, thank you so much for the content!
Loved the video. Explains it in a descriptive way and ends in philosophical way that is with a quest. 😌
great video! thanks for all the research and work you put into these
My absolute pleasure. Thank you for watching.
You're paraphrasing titans of thought! And doing it well. Cheers for bringing knowledge back to the village.
An amazing video! As someone who has spent so much time reading their works, I honestly think this is the best introduction to Žižekian philosophy and Lacanian psychoanalysis available on UA-cam. Kudos to you!
Thanks so much!
bro kha se start kre psychoanalysis ki study? ..zizek? lacan?
@@pushkar2951 i personally started with Žižek kyuki Lacan’s written works were way too tough for me to grasp. You can try Žižek’s How to read Lacan, along with Mahitosh Mandal’s Jacques Lacan. Then you can either read Lacan’s Écrits or his Seminars (maybe start with Seminar 4).
this is truly a heroic deed my dude
Your videos are awesome, thanks.
Reading Sublime Object/Zizek in general for the first time rn, this helped a lot, thank you!
Amazing video! Love the visuals
Great video ! I’ll graduate my therapist (with a Lacanian approach and theorical background) degree in a year, so UA-cam proposed to me this.
I’m French btw, and I think your social approach of this is pretty interesting, but it could have been really interesting to get into the philosophical and clinical aspect of it ! But of course it’s pretty impossible to depict it easily so I get why you didn’t get into it :P
Anyway great vid man
Excellent work, very good analysis.
amazing video. think I'm going to need to watch it a few more times tho lmao
Amazing! Thanks for the content! Greetings from Brazil 🥰
More than happy to provide! Thanks for the kind words and for stopping by and saying hi!
Thankyou master 🌹
I hate when people call philosophers obscurantist, yes some philosophers write in a very complex and hard to read way but that doesn’t mean that they have nothing to say, it is your job to find out what they’re trying to say.
Yes, but still, some philosophers could definitely learn (or could have learned) to communicate their ideas a bit better.
They have nothing to say that couldn't be said in mono syllables. Its just bullshit.
@@sr-gc6vh ok
@@sr-gc6vh so you are saying biologists should call Lithobates catesbeianus simply “The American Bullfrog”?
Why. Why would anyone write in such bullshit way apart from wanting to virtue signal to the rest of the clique and perhaps some personal unresolved feelings of inadequacy or some shit lol.
It's not so much that they don't have much to say, but more so that what they say could've been documented and represented in a MMMUUCCCHHH more accessible fashion. Making your ideas less accessible for what purpose?
That's why philosophy is a lot less popular today than rationalist fields like physics, maths, chemistry, engineering as a whole. In these fields you are required to be clear and effective. Whereas in philosophy, merit comes from a weird circle jerk in desperate need of validation.
They reinvent already existing concepts, redefine them with poor examples just to then say the most obvious shit in the world that could have been described in a much more standardised and commonly familiar way.
One could argue that there might be ties to bourgeoisie circle jerk, just like they do with art, classical music, Greek statues. It's all just an aesthetic, and it should be taken seriously because look at how important they look and sound.
Philosophers aren't interested in being understood or in spreading their ideas, they are more so interested in glory and clout they get from their fellows. A bastardisation of what philosophy should be.
Great, great, great stuff. I’ve been digging into Lacan for some time now and have a basic understanding, but still am unable to explain his concepts to others.
The drive circles around a void, without aiming at an end of this movement: a good representation of Lacan's figure skating. On the one hand, he wants to arrive at a theory; on the other, as a reader or a disciple, it is essential that the theory remains for you something never completely understood, and so you will always be anticipating a totalization that, according to the theory, can't be achieved. So Lacan mirrors his own theory; at the level of Lacan himself, it becomes a perverse play (out of necessity maybe).
"The origin of this desire comes from a lack known as monkey."
OMG, DESIRE IS ABOUT RETURNING TO MONKE!
On a more serious note, great video again, now the two best philosophy channels (Plastic Pills and yourself) both have Lacan videos!
Nice lapsus tho Hahahaha
For what is worth, Jouissance and the idea of the death drive does consist (at some point) on returning to the real "nothingness", our "natural" state, therefore it is interesting to link the monkey there as a reference to a natural (biological) state, a state before language.
Although the actual idea is actually related to the return to an unaltered state, of basically being dead, not to a certain "nature" of some kind, since there isn't anything quite natural when it comes to speaking beings: humans.
Awesome work buddy
Thank you, friend.
Confusion is something I thought I knew well until now.And yet I'm telling myself I'm ok with it. Thanks for making this available.
Great discussion
Really understandable video about a nearly not understandable thinker! Thank you
Great video, thanks
Brilliant video, I feel much better equipped at approaching Lacan. Some very interesting parallels with him and Mahayana Buddhism, funnily.
That is stumbled upon it in my actual situation is a miracle!
Good video. I wouldn't say the symptom necessarily stems from Marx as Marx was just using epicruean, pre-christian, etc. dialectic to form his dialectic. I would say it's a sociological reproduction(ironically jungian), but even Freud only reproduced his idea of symptom from his analysis of family dynamics through a scope of representation through general humanities. Still good video that keeps on track with exactly what you're trying to get across and I enjoyed it a lot.
Great analysis Mr poop. I would add that humour is a necessary and sufficient component of the symbolic order to find homeostasis within the split subject, a healthy comedy
I think he’s borrowing the idea of Marx inventing the symptom from Zizek, who says that the symptom is present in Marx’s analysis of commodities (which predates Freud).
Does anyone have a link to Marx’s dissertation or whatever writings he did on Epicurus?
What an amazing video! Thank you so much for making this- it clarifies so much for me. I’m going to subscribe to your Patreon!
Brilliant
Thanks!
Great vid
very good
i'm not a psychology student, i wanted to study it but the option wasn't there. So, i apologise for any wrong sayings. So, delved into Lacan on my own (via youtube of course) and it was... quite an experience. i lean more into Freud myself but when i tried to understand Lacan's REAL and how we can only see it when we're fallen apart completely, that itself gave me nightmares. i have experienced some deep traumas and when i think about it in general, i can see and feel the horror that is reality. No rhyme, no reason, no justice, no nothing.
You will like, Lacan . You need to Lacan slow
It's tough to study lacan, because learning is aided so much by dialog, and hardly anyone is willing to read and discuss a work that's "not meant to be understood". Thanks for the video though, good to double check understanding.
I loved this; How to Read How to Read Lacan.
this is a great 101 on lacan
Good video.
The best way to understand Lacan is by first reading and coming to terms with Freud. Don't bother with Lacan if you know nothing about Freud. Also, it is important to note that many Lacanians do not see Žižek's interpretation of Lacan as correct.
I actually see it backwards; don’t bother with Freud if you don’t know Lacan!
What do you mean by Split Semiotics in this video? Thank you for this!
Wtf I just got Zizeks How To Read Lacan in my postbox yesterday
A fun project is trying to produce an economic theory through the precepts of Lacan and of course with the help of Marx and Zizek.
This is a really good introduction to lacan, I think this is helping me a lot to understand what the hell he's saying
Wait.... why is Conan O'Brian in the Mexican Soap Opera?!??!
i wish i could find an elegant way to combine Marxism with Lacan, Fanon & Bracha L. Ettinger. Her work on fleshing out not just the Real, but also the connections between the "registers" (Real, Imaginary, Symbolic) are what makes sense to me as someone who's not only experienced catastrophic traumas but also practiced still+silent meditation during the fallout & the lead‐up, and have also "overcome" statistical limits (outcomes) due to being very autistic.
i mean, i already combined them and made little charts similar to the chart you showed (voix, signifier, castration, etc), but knowing a better way to talk about it, bc it's my special interest lol.
i do ironically get limited in conversation by accessible language bc i KNOW it won't make sense unless i translate it
oh hell yeah
Maybe you could break a video like this into smaller parts and host it as a playlist? Just to help with the algorithm. Viewers get ad interruptions anyway.
hey great video. This might be pedantic, but you keep referring to the 'subconscious'. is the the the right word for the job. Doesn't psychoanalysis talk of the unconscious? I bring this up, because subconscious implies being beneath consciousness; subordinate to it, topologically. Unconscious implies a negation, or lack. Like I said, its a pedantic point. Thanks for the video I really enjoyed it.
I thought it was the opposite. Mostly people talk of the unconscious, and mainly psychoanalysts talk about the subconscious.
You believe the opposite of what the factuality is. Psychoanalysis focuses on the unconscious as a driver of our actions and desires ; whereas “most people” (whatever that even means) focus on ...um ...consciousness, what they can immediately think/perceive !
The unconscious isn't just lack, that's the desire part. It also has drives, repressed memories, and all sorts of other mental content not readily accessible to the ego. One of the goals of psychoanalysis is to try making the unconscious conscious in order to help the subject come to realise why they repeat certain behaviour patterns over and over and to hopefully help confront and overcome trauma.
Heavy.
Also, Freud wasn't the first or even one of the first do to any of the things claimed in the video.
Che fottuto capolavoro la scena con Conan O'brien
The idea of the panopticum has the same reflection of empty power as the big other i think
I can't this one. I just can't.
I see a big collaboration with Plastic Pills . Of Course, He is brilliant just like how you guys are. Great explanations.
One objection to these Videos is you center around Zizek too much. As far as I know Fredric Jameson is the God of cultural theory. He has written extensively on Ideology of Theory and Postmodernism using Burke, Baudrillard, Freud, Lacan, Marx .Please try to explain him from his Prisonhouse of Language to his latest essay The Aesthetic of Singularity.
7:52 you read the Man right but the que in Manque is not read "keh" it's just read "k".
I have a question. I'm really new to just about all of this, so I'm sorry if this is an obvious question that's been asked before or has an obvious answer.
What would we be like if we found a way to sort of, I dunno, "mesh minds"? Instead of using language to communicate? I know our brains aren't actually like computers as some believe; they don't "store" or "retrieve" information, etc. But, like, if they were, or if by some means we could implant chips or something (or find any other way of basically being psychic/telepathic is what I'm asking), what would that do to us as a species? If language is a construct meant to protect us from The Real from birth via the Symbolic and Imaginary, is there any possible way to transcend these protective fantasies? And what's more, would that be better or worse? Are we only evolved enough to handle snippets or interpretations of The Real? If we meshed with other minds in order to communicate, would we be lost in a jumble of subjectivity, fantasy, etc.? Would it be of any help, offer any clarity, or just make things worse? Can we even know, or is a waste of time to speculate? Am I just perpetuating the ideology via Jouissance, enjoying the tension of wanting to escape something and so relying on the thing I want to escape to exist?
I guess that's a lot of questions. x) Sorry. I took a lot of notes and this is what I came away with. It seems so unfair, being trapped from birth into ideology. We're still so primitive, and it never really feels that way to me. I am so impatient for the future, just to see what it brings.
Like I said, I'm very new to all of this, so I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of plausible "antidote" has already been put forth, perhaps many times over. I wish I could get over my desire for it, though.
traduzcan plis!!1
Name a better duo than zizek and lacan.
This whole time I thought he was talking about the Spartans (laconic)
Felt, eidetic, speculatively real
The Real seems very buddhist emptiness alike
Žižek often mentions this analogical relationship too, haha!
comment for the algorithm
Lacan looks like pentti linkola (notorious deep ecologist) in the thumbnail
Philosophers need to take a course on engineering documentation writing. I swear to god, every time philosophers reinvent already existing terminology and almost purposefully make it a convoluted fucking mess that could've been documented in a much clearer and more coherent, accessible way.
From the footage of old Belgrade, to the footage of old San Francisco ... this is wonderful visual collage, (except that Lacan's cigarete, that thing is gross)
Try my best to fulfill the eyes. Beautiful footage only!
Does Marx really help what otherwise is good philosophy?
Marx describes the foundation for much of this. He was the first
😊💟⭐️
big other = "The Man"
there is no how , either you understand or not . People do not search knowledge , they search difficulty , challenge to overcome.
No subconscious! Unconscious!
Lacan: Manque
The English speaking: Ma'n-Kay
They know it, but they are doing it anyway. As desiring machines. Imagine how easy reading anti-oedipus is after reading Zizek 🥴
You have a great channel with respect to visuals and graphics and style while your analysis of the ideas and thinkers is top notch. The things about these clowns is that I now prefer my thinkers to mean what they say and slay what they mean. I know clowns is a bit extreme but I mean it they are posturing post whatever you like clowns. Do something on someone serious like Evola and do it as a critique. I’m so tired of philosophy meaning post war theory of disenfranchised privileged double speak clowns. There is a perennial philosophy, philosophy did not end with Heidegger just because he said so, so so childish. Anyway have a good day.
Air
Sorry to say I believe you have some things incorrect, firstly there is no subconscious in Lacan this is a term that Jungians use. Secondly the signified isn't a thing it's a concept of a thing and although this might seem like nit picking it's not. Nearly everyone who reads this book thinks they understand what he's saying but there will be very little common understanding of the concepts described and exemplified by Zizek amongst readers. Mainly this is because Zizek whilst provoding examples of his abstract paradoxical and often obtuse Lacanian concepts doesn't follow up and explain why and how the example maps on to the concept, instead he moves on to another example and then another and the result is that no one really can fully grasp what he's describing. The other thing is that his explanations lack parsimony. An example of this is his discussion of why people are terrified to actually have their fantasies actualised. His explanation is that it would put people in touch with the kernel of the fantasy and this would be too traumatic (though he doesn't exactly say why this would be too traumatic), a more straightforward explanation would be that fantasies allow for a a certain amount of control whereas actualising them or having them actualised doesn't provide this, just the opposite. In my estimation the book is poor and the fact that Zizek has gained such a lauded position in the world of academia says a lot about the deterioration that has occurred in the humanities over the last fifty years.
".. there is no subconscious in Lacan"? Lacan: "Subconsciousness is structured as talk." ... And, period of humanities doesn't exist any more.
@@arvopart3783 Lacan doesn't use the term subconscious, he keeps to Freud's term 'unconscious' which Lacan claims is structured 'like' a language.
@@michaelkulyk Yes, sorry, bad reading, my mistake: unconsciousness. And, that actually unconscious is structured as language, I don't agree completely. There are some "holes" in this claim.
@@arvopart3783 Zizek and Lacan claim that metonymy (part representing a whole of which it is a part) and metaphor (one thing stands for another) are linguistic structures that are the basis for displacement and condensation which Freud describes as being the main elements of dream structure. However this is something that not all psychoanalysts agree with. Andre Green a leading French Psychoanalyst says that according to Freud only thing representations are contained in the unconscious and that linguistic structures are confined to the preconscious, that the primary process of the unconscious lacks negation and no verbal based language can exist without negation.
@@michaelkulyk I agree - that even I am not agree with all... but I agree how Freud describes of MAIN elements of dreame structure. ".. no verbal based language can exist without negation" can be noticed (that bad negation) in Julia Kristeva ('Revolution in Poetic Language' and other works) how in her thought unfortunately isn't presented hegelians dialectic, or hegelians "machine of thought". This things for my opinion lovely describes Catherine Malabou. And is question here, if every word traverses mirror neuron.
Desire as the root of humanity... Siddartha was right all along ☸️
я на саппорте должна киллы делать животное?
Is it wrong to say cynicism is a type of false consciousness? I wouldn’t totally throw out what Marx said about that…
Pas mal
So basically just hegemony
Lacan can only be interesting to humanists with no serious training in psychology. Certainly, he's had little or no impact on contemporary psychology or psychiatry.
How about questioning the "reality" of the Indo-European steppherders' human lifestock keeping techniques, which form the ageold Roman system slavery matrix, all western societies are still deeply enslaved in? Zizek does not go far enough to break free!!!
Thanks, but I'm okay living perpetually ignorant of how to read, in the words of Chomsky, an "amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan."
What the f--k😂😂😂😂❤️🌹🥰😇
Agreed.
Not real, felt
go and live in some cheaper areas.. keep these videos going. I basically don't care if you sleep on the side walk.
just don't whine about living out your dream
Oh boy ... this all sounds like such a cultish con.
You say "subconscious" but that word is rejected by psychoanalysis.
I quite literally do not care. I don't think you should, either.
@@epochphilosophy It wasn't an attack on your video but your hostility would tell me that you do care :-). Pro tip: it's "unconscious".
@@epochphilosophyDon’t be such a prick crybaby
Lacan is Very confused guy with a only good idea of desire, everthing else is kinda poopy