5 ms·
I don't think neither can be taken at face value as psychological theories. Then, stricto sensu scientific psychology is undergoing an awesome crisis of credibi
by thanatropism 7y ago
I 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.