The Lacanian Subject (Descartes and Lacan) 

Thank you so much! 😄 People like yourselves are the reason that we make these videos!

Lacan was wrong about pretty much everything though so there’s not much to gain from him.

@@Darkloid21 so far you haven’t made that argument but rather are repeating a claim made by those that have something to lose if Lacan is to be taken seriously.

@@mobiditch6848 If you take him seriously there is no hope for you. Breaking him down shows how nonsensical his ideas are.

@@Darkloid21 depends on what you mean by “seriously”.

Thank you so much! 😄

Thank you so much! Because of nice people like you we will continue making these videos 😄

Thanks for your question! In the next video, that I am currently working on, will be about the graphs of desire. And in the first graph this mechanism from unconscious to the construction of the barred subject through the signifying chain will be explained in more detail. Hopefully this will help you! And if not, I will try to explain it in a comment as best as I can 😄.

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 just exceptional work from your side as always ❤️

Thank you so much for the compliment! People like you is why I make these videos 😊

Seriously, excellent.

Very welcome! 😄 I hope to cover Sloterdijk as well some time! Do you have any recommendation regarding one of his books?

That is a very good question actually. And it is also precisely why so many scholars have critiques Kant, since Kant argues that we can never know the things in themselves, and only the representation. But this representation is in some way still dependent on the object. Therefore Kant uses the following reasoning: 1) First we have sensibility by which we come to see the world. 2) Our intuitions of space and time perform some operation by which we come to know the representation of the object, that is, the judgement (for example: "A is not B", or "If a than B"). 3) However, now we have all these representations and we know that eventually we go from this manifold of representations to a unity in consciousness (to a concept). And the question is: "How?". 4) The awnser: Synthesis. What is synthesis? 5) Awnser: Synthesis is rule governed activity. What are these rules? 6) Awnser: The Categories of the Understanding. In summary, our mind brings these categories to the thing in itself by which we come to know the representation and the relation between representations. In this way, the unconscious could be seen as these rules or categories. Categories like cause and effect and negation (i.e. "if I push a rock it will roll". Or "a dog is not a cat".). These categories do not belong to the objects themselves, but come solely from the subject. They are as Kant calls it "synthetic". At the end of the day we do not know the thing in itself, but only the subjective interpretation of its representation. When Lacan says that the unconscious is structured like a language the reference in to these rules and representations. The matter for our unconscious is our representations (i.e. our symbols, signifiers and language). In short, the rules we use in language are the same rules that our mind uses to decode the world i.e. its representation. To understand this theory of Kant better I will upload a video in 1-2 days about that topic. Also, personally I have a problem with the term unconscious since it is often used in different ways than intended. The unconscious is simply the opposite of conscious and both can be seen as "not aware" and "aware". But awareness is no process nor the description of a process that Lacan aims at. That is also why you will never find the term unconscious in the Critique of Pure Reason. But I will make a video later on that goes into this topic 😁 I hope that this somewhat answers your question! If not feel free to ask more! 😊

Yess... hahaha. Wait till you see the next videos on the Graphs of Desire... 😉

Yes exactly! That is what Lacan, Freud and Nietzsche in this video would argue. And you might see how this would effect our vision of free will. Because if we do not think our thought, then how can we take responsibility? Nietzsche would argue that free will was the invention of the Church to make people accountable and introduce the concept of guilt. We go more into this topic of free will in our video on Free will 😄

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 Awesome, cant wait for that! Thank you so much for replying! :D

It's from Beyond Good and Evil, CHAPTER I (PREJUDICES OF PHILOSOPHERS) - paragraph 17 😄

Good question! Well first of all I would say that this theory is not meant to tell us what to do. According to Lacan we cannot change who we are, but we can understand ourselves a bit better. To this end I would say that this theory helps us to see that our actions are ascribed to an "I" as if we can control our actions, where in reality we are subjected to cause and effect outside the reach of a constructed "I". This insight might help us to be more forgiving and kind to others as well as ourselves. This also means that the input for this cause and effect is very important. In our case, knowledge can greatly change the outcome of a given situation. If your brain has more knowledge to draw from, the effect might change for the better. So in daily life I would say that this theory can help in a better understanding ouf our own and others behaviour, while also potentially improving our wellbeing. I hope this makes some sense. 😊

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 That kinda sounds like the no free will argument. In which case that would render life no worth living since we are essentially robots without choice. It also means that no one can really change so if people are in a bad spot in life they can’t rise above or improve because they can’t change who they are. I would mean that I as someone on the spectrum can’t hope for a life on my own and will have to be dependent on others. It sounds bleak not really hopeful. If anything I wouldn’t make us kinder to other people but crueler as it borders on a dangerous sort of essentialism. This theory would essentially give huge grounds for some dystopic caste system where you are where you are and there’s nothing you can do.

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 I don’t think it helps improve our wellbeing. That would only be possible if you could change. But if according to Lacan we can’t change who we are then it doesn’t matter how much you learn the outcome will be the same. It leads to a dangerous form of essentialism. IE bad people can’t change so they have to be destroyed and all that. Lucky we can change who we are, so he’s wrong about that. People grow and change all the time, they’re never the same person they were years or even months ago. So it’s a good thing he’s flat out wrong here.

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 This didn’t answer the question. I asked if we are to shun what we enjoy because it’s “not us”.

shall we discuss I think it will help us bother understand

it talks about what is proveable not what its rooted in

@@arisu6072 It’s still wrong though, not to mention Lacan is pretty much a quack. The self has more or less been proven, but yeah Lacan is just flat out wrong here.