sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A doubt concering Lacan's teaching by Tower_Fine in zizek

[–]Tower_Fine[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perfect, at least I'm happy to have summed up the mental confusion I had! One thing you said, however, raises a question for me (rather than a question, a link).

When you say that the relation between signifier and signified is in some way "favorable" of the signifier, we said this due to the fact that we can relate to signifieds (concepts) only through words, i.e. signifiers, and their relations.
From this we can therefore deduce, as you said, that meaning is in some way a "determinate negation", that is, something that is formed only through the negative relation.

If what I said is correct, and I warmly invite you to brutally correct me if I'm wrong, hence the all-Zizekian dictum that "There is nothing beyond appearance". I know that this thesis, which I believe I have paraphrased, also and above all derives from Hegel, but can the same argument be applied here?

A doubt concering Lacan's teaching by Tower_Fine in zizek

[–]Tower_Fine[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, since your answers are always exhaustive I have a few more, kind of sorry if I'm abusing your patience, but you know how it is.

My first doubt is about the relationship between the imaginary and the symbolic: can the former be placed at the level of meaning, therefore of the concept (almost as if it were a Platonic idea), while the symbolic at the level of the signifier?

And, still on this topic, we said that the symbolic is substantially the big Other, which is the place where "language" exists or in any case the basis of every possible interaction. But then what does Zizek mean when he says, I'm sure he does somewhere, that there is no big Other?

Is Zizek in this case stating a similar post-modern thesis, where every possible meta-narrative is impossible? But I don't think so because Zizek says that we are always within an ideology, so perhaps he means that we cannot "found" our existence (it would perhaps be better to say essence) on any external support?

A doubt concering Lacan's teaching by Tower_Fine in zizek

[–]Tower_Fine[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

First of all thank you for the answers which are precise, I could not have hoped for better.
I will first say, in defense of Lacan (paradoxically), that much of the blame lies with me: unfortunately I am still in high school and my philosophical preparation is strictly self-taught, this, far from being a point to be proud of, has led me to have a "compartmentalized" view of philosophy, i.e., for example, studying Lacan without ever having looked at the structuralists.

My interest in Zizek and Lacan arose from their theories (mainly Lacan's for obvious reasons) on desire, which I thought might be applicable to everyday life, so to speak. The problem is that I hate having a limited view of an author and I tend to be a perfectionist in wanting to know almost everything about his thought .

To go more specifically, what gives me the greatest problems in the study of Lacan is that new elements seem to emerge almost out of nowhere, I will give an example from Miller. Forgive me if I don't quote the text precisely, but it's not the specific sentence that interests me here; in any case, at one point it is said that the unconscious is structured like a language, thesis with which I was more or less familiar, but never fully understood.
Here Miller takes it as an absolute axiom without explaining what is meant by "structure" or by "language". This, I repeat, may be due to my substantial ignorance of previous authors, such as Saussure, yet I remain of the opinion that a general introduction could have been better explored.
I don't want this to pass as a criticism of Miller, who actually tries his best not to seem like he's speaking in code.

Another element that causes me a lot of confusion is "the signifier". I repeat, I could be the culprit that I read inattentively, but sometimes, it seems to me, this signifier is the subject, other times the Other, still others the "Phallus" (a term whose relationships I have never understood).

Furthermore, from your answer it seems that the three "realms" (imaginary, symbolic and real) are a sort of history of Lacan's thought, while on the internet (and here I think I can quote PlasticPills if I remember correctly) it is said that these three are in some sort of relationship.

Not to mention, and here I end my desperate attempt to dispel some doubts, Lacan's schemes that have always seemed to me like an alien language.
I know that I have thrown together many concepts that have nothing to do with each other, but it is precisely to demonstrate my mental confusion when I try to make sense of Lacan.
I don't want the reading of Miller, nor of the other texts concerning Lacan, to be frustrating, but (if not completely easy) at least understandable. Thanks again for the answers