Lacan on Death 

Well, his ontology is more intense

ÇA VOUS SOUTIENT

😂😂😂😂😂

Based

It didn’t help me much when I tried to buy tomatoes in Calais. On the plus side, I got a job at the morgue.

Nope plz halp

It’s classic French pomposity

he knew they are not paying him for his lecture in middle of it

Feel Lucky about it because most of us suffer as well and hope living forever...damned fools...

I resonate with Nietzsche's concept of life affirmation myself. I hope you're doing better now, man.

i think Nietzches concept of "amor fati" and embrace the eternal recurrence fails,colpse at some point,Lacan formula is diferent,is enjoy your sintom

So I think that Nietzche by afirming life overidentifies with it while Lacan can take some distance and understend life as a desiese that gets cure with dead but until then we can not do another thing that obey the parasite that is our desire "enjou our sintom",so Nietzche overidentifies with this desire becasue from his undertending he just can denyor afirmin life,Lacan can take distance from that and understend that we have to give some meaning to our life and we have to obey our desire but there is nothing to celebrate in this desire and there is nothing to celebrate in life,quite on the contrary

i think personally the human body is an oppression of the perfect state of that which does not have a closed thermodynamic field or anything like that

Are u 12 lmao 😭

Death is unthinkable. Life has no opposite, the opposite of death is birth.

its like... he saw hell, he understood how it works and now wants us to understand it.fair enough

Passion has no language barrier.

Love this interpretation.

afaik early lacan used Heidegger's conception of being toward death

Our conscious is understands and is fixated on duration whereas the unconscious is atemporal. Its gibberish is death whispering.

Isn’t that what he said?

one of the best professors out there since freud

eff off wee mate. Lacan is the most important French Psychoanalyst

zarkoff45 you wouldnt cherish it though

You live in a fantasy dude, that's why...

No, you would not.

Nietzsche was brilliant, and I adore him, but he also went mad towards the end of his life. I don't think his views on death were necessarily more healthy than Lacan's. The whole point Lacan makes here is that death does not need any "sovereignty" to be a blessing, since it is not here and yet is coming. If we not only had no closure within meaning and language, but also existence itself, I do not think a human creature would function.

he knew they are not paying him for his lecture in middle of it

Not angry, just french

BigBossIsBack I think you missed the point... Try this: picture your self one million years from now. What you see you'll be doing with your pathetic life? Will you be bareable to your self? Have a good night sleep, Honey.

I certainly won't be peddling hollow bombast and trying to simulate profundity like this French hack.

BigBossIsBack No wonder you can't simmulate profondity. Go back to worldstar videos.

BigBossIsBack You're right, pal. Maybe you can try again when you grow up.

Samir Yes, perhaps one day I'll be as eloquent and insightful as Monsieur Lacan. Until then I'll have to make do with Herr Schopenhauer.

Jonathan Hatch: I don't see the connection. He is undoubtedly a showman, how that makes him a charlatan I don't know. Like many others I'm turned off by his form as well, the way he presents himself and his work, but that's a different matter to whether there's any substance to his ideas. Also, speaking in front of an audience like that is a show, a performance, he just steps it up to an almost circus like level. Let's not forget, pretending to be truly objective, factual and non superficial is dishonest as well. If there's a deeper point to why Lacan is doing it the way he is I don't know, maybe he just loves attention.

He himself said that he was more of a speaker and performer than a writer. That adds to the fact that most of his work was published and re-edited by Jacques-Alain Miller. As for the people saying he was an intellectual charlatan: i doubt they even tried to read his fundamental and least complex of all essays on the Mirror phase. I think what confuses the people in anglosaxon tradition the most about Lacan's work , is his existential and phenomenological approach to the ''biological theory'' of Freud (even that's disputable). His principle reformulation of the Oeydipus complex for example is radically different than what most of the people would expect, so what he argues is pretty hard to grasp. Before passing labels ( the same goes for continental obscurists's take on analytic tradition) on a philosopher's work, its crucial to first understand it and thus, read it. In Lacan's case on would find, that he actually does favor models and structures in his theoretical discourses and thats pretty uncommon for someone who is considered a pivoting force in the French academic sphere. You could say he's closer to some of the analytical philosophers in his discourses, he even drew on the work of Wittgenstein. Bottom line, this labeling and bashing of someone's work without decent arguements is contra productive and primitive and is sadly present in both schools of philosophy

THANK YOU!

sounds like someone is an anti-intellectual

If you would understand him you woulnd't say such things. Simple conclusion: you don't understand him. Now try to admit it.