What is Semiotics? | Lacan's Signifier and Signified 

OMG THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M A LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGIST AND I STILL HAVE SUCH A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING LACAN.

great job this is a real difficult subject to wrap your head around also love the formulation: "I think where I am NOT, therefore I AM where i do not think"... makes you think...

Thank you so much for this video!! I was stuck on this bit of Lacan for an embarrassingly long time, and in under twelve minutes you cleared it up SO well. Thank you!

I found this more helpful than an entire lecture by one of my professors. ;-;

Thank you for introducing me to semiotics, Lacan and all this knowledge, I'm now absolutely enchanted with it. Thank you for this clear explanation, I was engrossed. Lovely graphics. Thank you for the remarkable work.

Funny enough, I was thinking about semiotic recently in the context of gender discussions (after stubbling on one of my old semiology college notes). When it comes to discussions on gender identity, I think we placed too much importance on the signifier rather than focusing on the thing that is signified, creating more confusion than clarity.

Great Video you should elaborate more on this discourse, perhaps the seminar of the purloined letter?

I understood the first half about the mirror phase quite well but the terminology confused me in the second half. Mimesis, Metonym, Synecdoche, Diagesis, Diataxis, wow those were a lot of new terminologies.

Yeah let me get back to the idea of reading Lacan when I’m 30

I love rewatching this vdieo every so often, it's great.

Thanks . The Cambridge companion to lacan p. 29 documents that lacan ‘ mirror stage was a steal from wallon (27)/and block( 28)

Thank you so much for covering this. I am literally reading Lacan for a class in University, and even though I re-read his text multiple times I was still struggling at some points. Thank you for such an enlightening video!

There’s a documentary of him on RU-vid but I thought was really hard to concentrate but I love his studies.

I could not help but imagine someone watching this and saying out loud to the screen: "Alright, we get it. You went to college."

I'm totally unfamiliar with all those theorists, so I understand almost nothing:) But, honestly, I really enjoyed watching it because you are so nice! So, Thanks for this video.

I highly recommend Terry Eagleton's literary theory. Great summarization of Structuralism, Post Structuralism, and Psychoanalysis.

Well done! Really! Your work is excellent! And trying to explain Lacanian theory with such clarity, this is truly brave! 😉😉

very good video, just one correction. In Saussurean terms the sign is made of the signified (the concept) over the signifier (the sound-image); this video already presented the Lacanian reading of the Saussurean sign, which is the signifier above the signified.

Very helpful video since Lacan's text are indeed inscrutable, though I'm not sure whether the blame lies with the translations I'm reading or whether it was already garbled in the original French. Whatever the case, your breakdown and analysis gave me a much better foothold in his work than I had previously! Much appreciated

I've been studying this in detail for my photography dissertation this year. Needless to say, I have had a perpetual headache for a few months now ...

Hi..thank you for a very very informative video...😁 can I ask questions regarding what yoir discussion?☺

Great video. I was looking for a decent explaination of the RSI, but found this. Cant say i got it all, bur definitely learnt something new.

Just want to say thank you, this was so helpful!

The video included everything I needed, thanks (: However, wanna know how to apply these ideas on a literary work, for example The Great Gatsby

Thank you for spending the time to create this video, it’s great! Could you make another video deconstructing Lacan’s concepts of the Real, Symbolic and the Imaginary (RSI)?

This will help me understand Zizek better, Thank you! Can you talk about Baudrillard, Peas! ... or Deleuze and Guattari

Thank you for this explanation. It's much easier to understand when the tutor uses humour.

Lacan is so interesting too bad I can't understand his texts 😪 which makes me love and appreciate this video even more!

So the signifier can be a dog. The signified can be either a German Shepard or a Bull Dog. Both of these things make up a sign, and they are different signs since the signified is different.

Hi ! Thank you for this video. Very interesting as always...although I will definitely need to rewatch it and pause to process what you say (I never studied literary/cultural theory). You make me want to go back to university so much :)

This is such a complex topic & you've broken it down to explain it so clearly. ^.^

Great video! It helped alot

This was of course very well done! I had not heard the 'signifier' you applied to Lacan (La-Can or Lack-on?) 'psychoanalytisist' for a man who was an actually practising analyst. The final section via Hayden V. White was brilliant in terms of a new avenue towards a broader understanding of Lacan, but from here my thought is a detour towards the concepts of the Real and the Sinthome inspired in part by the agitations of Deleuze and Guattari and examination of James Joyce and psychosis, in that Lacan saw the limitations of a purely symbolic-linguistic understanding of the human experience necessitating this direction.

Thanks Cynzia, this was really interesting! I had a tough time following it, but I found it useful to think of it in terms of the analytical concepts of Semantics and Syntax; or, a similar and more public understanding of it, the Use/Mention distinction. It seems like a close analogue to how we in the English speaking world understand the Signifier/Signified relationship - we talk about words and pictures and signs as objects in their own rights, as Syntax, and when we do so we Mention words and pictures and signs, but these words and pictures and signs can themselves have reference to other things, and when we want to employ them to talk or paint or dance about things, we take this as a Use of words and pictures and signs to communicate Semantic content. This Anglophone conception would break down the "stages" differently, because Metaphor and Diagesis concern the nature of Use (how do things Mean; and how does meaning as a whole hang together), and Metonymy and Mimesis are about the theory of Mention (how do we individuate and interact with symbols and syntax, and how do these objects which we intend to use as syntax behave when we try to pick them out). A Synechdote then is something akin to a theory of Soundness and Completeness, which is how the symbolic system comes to cover an entire body of meaning, and Diatactical reasoning utilises both symbolic and semantic components in the light of this synechdotal thesis.

Does loving Lacan make me a masochist? Idk but this is a really accessible and precise video

Wow, well done, even though I still don’t understand Lacan. I’ll need to watch your video a few more times! You would be a great professor someday because you make this headache somehow more manageable :)

This is amazing! Please please please do Derrida and deconstruction! He bakes my head :'(

Sorry I’m late to the party, but that was lovely and informative. Ok, I had to watch it twice to get it all... well almost all, but it was, nevertheless, really fun

You are great 🙌

What a trip..

I'm here in 2021 because Lacan almost made me throw his book at my wall. 😍

thanks! this was great

I just started reading lacan, I am reading theory an technique by Bruce fink. It explains alot of his Ideas. but for me, I barely understand it. If you have any recommendations regarding that I would like to hear them. And thank you, Your vedio really helped me.

IT WAS COOL!! VERY GOOD!!!

The mirror stage is the formative of I ?

really good stuff

People don't realize how important your channel is. They'll soon.

You're amazing :D

hey thx for the video i just have a simple question if you can help : are abstract things consider as Signifier or Signified ؟

excellent!

Yeah

Anything that is 4 years old with no recent comments are not worth my time! Please reformat your algorithms.

This was incredibly useful, thank you. I would love to know in what book of H. White it is discussed about this three phases of the unconscious?

I love you

Thanx for doing well on hardly the easiest topic. One needs a knowledge of semiotics to understand the first 100pg or so of Foucault's Pendulum/Eco. Semiotics can be cool. :-) Don't like eg. Lacan, TS Eliot or Ezra Pound. Don't like egotistical elitist authors who write difficult stuff for the sake of being difficult. Them's abstruse. The square root of the hippopotamus is equal to the sum of the squares on the other 2 sides. )-: )-:

Is this your real voice

I still don't understand anything ;_;

luh-CON

i dont get it

you lost me at 7:40

👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿

moar !!!! like dis pls owo

Wtf is a psychoanalyticist? Haha

ay yi yi, so we can blame lacan for spreading his version of this idealist, anti-realist, postmodern confusion, eh?! ;)

I love you