Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
I'm a bit busy at the moment, but a brief defence of Lacan's writing: he himself decries it. He's really not interested in the written word. He constantly repeats, in interviews and so on, that his seminars were most important, and his students have spent most of the last century saying that his was a work in progress, an amorphous, constantly-changing response to the world. There are themes, and there are consistencies, and he has a lot of ideas that recur, but he himself would've likely been aghast at the amount of stress that's placed on works he didn't necessary stand by as definitive.
|
i've no problem with his writing. i have a problem with his elevation as unquestionable prophet who is namedropped by people who can't possibly understand him.
see: demonrail's anecdote.
i bet you that sucka he witnessed is today angling for a departmental chair somewhere.
how many people quote lacan who haven't bothered to read freud? answer:
most of them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
And if he says something very simple (which he does) which has been said elsewhere (which is debatable, but not very - I can't be bothered to negate it), is that really a problem?
|
is not a problem as long as this is kept in perspective, not treated like he forever changed the world. he was a shrink. had some interesting ideas, some are hard to grasp, some incomprehensible. some of them are valuable, some are fresh, some are recycled. good enough, but he's no philosophical god-- though you seem to think so. i'd like to understand why. which brings us to the last part (skip this next thing if you want)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
Ultimately, we're stuck between two poles - he's a difficult 'writer' saying something simple, re-articulating existing points.
|
nothing wrong with that, as long as this is remembered and kept in perspective.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
His consolidation of Wittgenstein into psychoanalysis, reconstituting a modern metaphysics is indispensable and seminal, to my mind,
|
ok, so, here, please,
when you have time, can you explain how he "consolidated wittgenstein into psychoanalysis and reconstituted a modern metaphysics"? i've never heard of such thing (i don't mean this as "there is no such thing", i mean it as "i am ignorant of it"), and i'd like to know. if you can explain it in a manner this audience can understand, that would be great. i guess those are 2 statements so perhaps explain them separately? start with his work "consolidating wittgenstein into psychoanalisis", then explain how metaphysics was "reconstituted" as a result. i am seriously clueless about what you're saying here. feel free to provide historical-narrative context.