3 ms·

They would be called "unemployable" because they are literal charlatans. Please end our strange fascination with fashionable nonsense. Freud was wrong. There i

They would be called "unemployable" because they are literal charlatans. Please end our strange fascination with fashionable nonsense. Freud was wrong. There is no Oedipus complex. Everything lacan proposed was wrong. Deleuze and Guattari's mental health clinic failed spectacularly, and Deleuze ended up killing himself at the end (supposedly due to back pain?) They literally describe their thought as being "Schizoanalysis". How many more red flags do you need? Also, the more "modern" takes on this from techno folks, such as from Nick Land (Fanged Noumena), are openly fascist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment If you want cultural critique from smart people without it turning into fashionable nonsense, I recommend Mark Fischer, but be warned, he too killed himself.

masswerk 4y ago
"There is no Oedipus complex" is, using your own words, "fashionable nonsense". Of course there is a crucial conflict as we learn rules, and this establishes a universal foundation of ethics. And of course this takes place in the realm of our very object relations. Not bothering about what a concept actually means and/or describes is not a free card for criticism. (Neither does generalization over an entire section of science and human thinking help particularly.) – Sorry for the harsh words, but this actually bothers me. Regarding charlatans, mind that there are already few who have actually studied this. (I'm one of them.) Regarding Lacan, he provides us with an established theory of "talking machines", and, in a philosophical context, how they relate to our very freedom (or, what freedom may even be). This isn't totally useless in our current situation, and NB, it's actually quite the opposite of fascism.
thanatropism 4y ago
Guattari was the psychiatrist-analyst type, Deleuze was uninvolved with that. Also: what drove him to suicide was lung problems, to the point he was (old and) locked home connected to a machine to breathe. Some say it was an accident -- that he opened the windows to let some air. That's just to correct the record. I have no desire to re-litigate Sokal/Bogdanoff and so on. Good day sir cheerio.

masswerk 4y ago

"There is no Oedipus complex" is, using your own words, "fashionable nonsense". Of course there is a crucial conflict as we learn rules, and this establishes a universal foundation of ethics. And of course this takes place in the realm of our very object relations. Not bothering about what a concept actually means and/or describes is not a free card for criticism. (Neither does generalization over an entire section of science and human thinking help particularly.) – Sorry for the harsh words, but this actually bothers me. Regarding charlatans, mind that there are already few who have actually studied this. (I'm one of them.) Regarding Lacan, he provides us with an established theory of "talking machines", and, in a philosophical context, how they relate to our very freedom (or, what freedom may even be). This isn't totally useless in our current situation, and NB, it's actually quite the opposite of fascism.

thanatropism 4y ago

Guattari was the psychiatrist-analyst type, Deleuze was uninvolved with that. Also: what drove him to suicide was lung problems, to the point he was (old and) locked home connected to a machine to breathe. Some say it was an accident -- that he opened the windows to let some air. That's just to correct the record. I have no desire to re-litigate Sokal/Bogdanoff and so on. Good day sir cheerio.