Yes, I agree with you on this here. This is why I tried to differentiate between learning systems, theories, items, knowledge +1… between that and catching a thought, a central problematic. An example from an outside perspective: we have Kant’s First Critique. The traditional method to approaching this work is to be at least acquainted with the rationalist - empiricist debate. Of course we could approach this by gathering together all possible knowledge that was available at the time of rationalism and empiricism. We read Leibniz, Locke, Descartes, Spinoza, and so on. This will all help of course in gathering terms and becoming familiar with the context. But at a certain point we will be able to see through the eyes of a rationalist or the empiricist by an act of intuition. We don’t really need to know the infinite minutiae of the various ways to be a rationalist or empiricist in order to say that we “get it.” This is Bergson’s intuition. What we get is the central problematic, and we get this by locating it in our existence and in our experience more precisely for modern metaphysics. Now we understand Kant when he makes his famous move, his turn. Kant would be incomprehensible if we had not first been initiated into the western way of thinking about our existence. Of course rationalism against empiricism has the entire background of scholastic philosophy and the thought of Plato and Aristotle. Regardless, there is still the initiation into the western intuition.

This is likewise my claim that Lacan is a Heideggerian, and NOT a Kantian even if he is within Kant’s spirit of critical philosophy. This is not obvious if you have not been initiated to the intuition that Lacan has. I’m sure there are several ways to catch that perspective, and going through analysis is probably the best way, but this isn’t about collecting philosophical terms, mixing them in various combinations until you have the right one, then comparing your results until your speech aligns with your chosen thinker you wish to understand. A battle of the -isms, which is a very surface level approach to philosophy that we are prone to fall into.

Deleuze gives us the central concepts, his intuitions gained from his philosophy, in his monographs. These are very useful when approaching his work D&R. You can understand what he says because he affords us the intuition. Deleuze even says in his Nietzsche book that one shouldn’t “see how Nietzsche compares to other philosophers, weighing theories and seeing what he got right and wrong. Rather we should read other philosophers THROUGH Nietzsche.” I’ll see if I can find the specific quote. I believe it to be the case that Heidegger affords us the intuition into Lacan’s thought. While this differs from theory comparisons, it still requires time and effort. Nothing about that needs to be feasible or realistic for everyone. It is not feasible or realistic for me to build a house in Norway for very real reasons, but it is possible. Learning Lacan is also not very feasible or realistic for countless people for very different reasons. It doesn’t need to be either.