4 ms·
This is hilarious. You're accusing Freud of being bullshit compared to Lacan? Lacan is practically the king of bullshit-- a textbook example. No one can muster
by staticautomatic 7y ago
This is hilarious. You're accusing Freud of being bullshit compared to Lacan?
Lacan is practically the king of bullshit-- a textbook example. No one can muster a non-bullshit explanation of what exactly the fuck Lacan is talking about (I'm looking at you, Zizek, bless your heart).
In my experience, most people who are "suspicious" of Freudian psychoanalysis don't understand how psychoanalysis began and evolved over time, and they don't understand that some of it's stranger jargon refers in fact to very straightforward concepts. It's true that Freudian analysts have overreached and been wrong in various ways, but you're incorrect and you're throwing the baby out with the bath water if you think that somehow invalidates all of the revolutionary and important work that Sigmund/Anna did.
Also see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261567941_The_Dark_Side_of_the_Loon_Explaining_the_Temptations_of_Obscurantism https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261567941_The_Dark_...
- thanatropism 7y agoI don't think neither can be taken at face value as psychological theories. Then, stricto sensu scientific psychology is undergoing an awesome crisis of credibility with all the p-hacking and stuff. I think Lacanian theory showcases a notion of "theory" that is worth being familiarized with. Ordinarily "theory" in humanities/philosophy etc. is equated with "critical theory"; but Lacan's bogus theory of psychology and Althusser's bogus theory of economics share this sense of "theory". I think there are many shades to "bullshit". From a scientific, objective point of view, all of this is bullshit -- I'm a STEM nerd by day and I have that point of view.From that point of view I'd have to see extraordinary evidence towards methods like Anna's or Melanie Klein's (or Kohut, or, or) making any sense at all. That's a sense in which I reject Freud. The sense in which I accept Lacan is something very different.
- llamaz 7y agoWhy is Althusser's theory bogus? I sympathise with your assessment, but I haven't read enough to justify my sympathies
- staticautomatic 7y agoRespectfully, your description of Lacan's "theory" not being that kind of theory or whatever is exactly the kind of bullshit at issue; no one can even articulate what kind of theory it is, let alone what the theory itself is. You are asserting, precisely in the obscurantist way described in the paper I linked to, that his work is immune to critical attack.
- thanatropism 7y agoLacanian psychoanalysis is a dead horse that's pointless to "attack". If you want soft gooey targets for sokal-ish "critical attack", please take down Piketty or Judith Butler.
- coldtea 7y ago>Lacan is practically the king of bullshit-- a textbook example. No one can muster a non-bullshit explanation of what exactly the fuck Lacan is talking about Nobody, except any European with a working knowledge of 19th and 20th century thought currents... It's not like Lacan is for readers or Marvel Comics or anglosaxon philosophy...
- staticautomatic 7y agoSo are you not one of those people or are you just teasing us?