Freud / Lacan / Zizek

[uncledote]

Has anyone here studied any of these three 'intellectuals'. Are they worth studying in depth both individually and with regard to the connections between the three?

Does anyone have thoughts on the fact that Lacan has been slated as an impenetrable, pretentious narcissist?

[Sphere70]

I read Freud's 'Civilization and Its Discontents' recently and found it to be a great, insightful, book. And he makes it quite clear in the beginning that he finds the hermetical, celibate, enlightenment-searching approach to life a psychological sickness (as a response to a friend of his - Romain Rolland - who wrote approvingly of certain sages / saints), which stands as an interesting contrast to this forum and generally to the traditional wisdom-ideal, and could indeed spark an interesting debate - though rather by someone who has read more of Freud (and Zizek / Lacan too - they are from what I know self-proclaimed 'Freudians').

Lacan I haven't read anything from, and Zizek I've only seen lecturing - and I must say I love his sense of humor and his, often, counter-intuitive conclusions.

Here's an amusing lecture from him: "The Buddhist Ethic and the Spirit of Global Capitalism"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkTUQYxEUjs

And a lil' tidbit ,-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf5L6kwJJtA

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Sphere70, I'm not sure if you got Freud's statements correctly or in the right context. As far as I know his opinion on Hermeticism (as philosophy) as well as the celibate developed over time into something more nuanced. First of all he appears to have been celibate himself for an important part of his life and he later refined his ideas on sexual repression and sublimation, especially the possibility of sublimation in certain creative and religious contexts. As therapist in the Victorian age he might have believed that generally it was about repression (of energies, id, "the force") and thus was often connected to mental illness. I'm pretty sure he never intended to include all instances of celibate. But even if he did you might wonder why it would be an "interesting contrast" since Freud is not exactly a philosopher. Towards the end of his life his insights appeared the most interesting in my opinion. People being hung up about sex and essentially death because they are terribly conflicted about their problem with existence.

[Sphere70]

Hi Diebert,

You're right about his own celibacy, but as I understand it he himself didn't hold himself up as reference of perfection/sanity (and this is also something that I'm unsure off about his work; what's his actual reference-point to sanity? I have my ideas but I'm not sure), and that he actually performed a self-analytic process with the intention to heal what he though were psychological imperfections/blockages (I think this was in relation to his fathers death).
So I don't think we can say that his own "celibacy" (I think he went without sex for couple of years or so) is a sign of his own approval of the matter, but rather a personal "fall" into what he himself would call a psychological abbreviation or something of that kind.
And I have no problem reading Freud as a philosopher (and I think many schools do?) because, for me, the greatest philosophers/philosophy's is the very ones that balances and interweaves the two (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, most eastern/perennial branches and so on)
And even though Freud generally despised philosophy as a waste of time - and maybe even a similar sublimation of the libido (the motivating, underlying, force) which he thought the celibate acted upon - I, personally, read 'Civilization and its Discontents' as a work of both philosophy and psychology - and I'm pretty sure Nietzsche would agree with me here ,-)

And I agree that his thoughts were most interesting towards the end of his life - with the above-mentioned book being written only 10 years before his death, and consequently one of his lasts books

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Sphere70, I revisited the work briefly and you mean like this:

• ...it seeks to master the internal sources of our needs. The extreme form of this is brought about by killing off the instincts, as is prescribed by the worldly wisdom of the East and practiced by Yoga. If it succeeds, then the subject has, it is true, given up all other activities as well — he has sacrificed his life; and, by another path, he has once more only achieved happiness of quietness - context

What has the wisdom and the East and the paths of Yoga to do with killing off the instincts? It doesn't look like that at all. Freud as usual is obsessed with his model of ID as inherently blind and chaotic: even appearing to us as violent and aggressive monster without much rhyme or reason. It was however Nietzsche who already suggested the monster was one of crooked instinct, a cultural and moral byproduct and not a deep natural impulse.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It confuses me that more than one philosophy exists

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Your confusion is something to be looked into. The mind is perfectly capable to skillfully handle hundreds of co-existing philosophies. Understand that your current grasp is more like a phase, a whimper.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

There is only one correct philosophy, only one world, only one kind of experience, all descriptions are referring to the same thing, understand that you know nothing about my current grasp because it was through letting go of this reasoning knowledge you think is important to gain that wisdom exists, not from labeling and discriminating more.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But your "one correct philosophy" is not really a philosophy. Your one world is not really a world and neither is your one kind of experience some kind of experience. Your mind labels and discriminates just as mine does. Once that is accepted why not go for quality and clarity instead of all the denial and obfuscation?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"But your "one correct philosophy" is not really a philosophy. Your one world is not really a world and neither is your one kind of experience some kind of experience."

You've just played on words and nothing more, "world", call it whatever you want, we are all experiencing of the same "place" or the same "being", which isn't a place and isn't being, there is only one truth for the same place, and that is that it's illusory like a dream, what we are is made up of and flows with these transient experiences, that these experiences encompass all of known existence, and that the world exists only within consciousness as opposed to as an independent or external thing.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But is that so much different from what the new age girl next door or even Eckhart Tolle is saying? Actually, I'm starting to think you're just stringing others along with a half-baked mishmash of philosophical bells and whistles. What you are relaying is hardly anything special, it seems all about your own specialness. Perhaps you've said all there is to say and you should try to be quiet on the topic for some while. Watch and learn what happens when your "dream world" rears its ugly head and changes the mood.

[Tomas]

Actually, I'm starting to think you're just stringing others along with a half-baked mishmash of philosophical bells and whistles.

His second post clued me in. Yer gettin' slow in your old age, Diebert.

Americans invented half-baked mishmash.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

That's because you've distrusted before trusting, and are being unfairly presumptuous in doing so, but since you have mistaken it as mishmash not of my own reasoning or understanding, or somehow flawed and incomplete, then I will do the opposite of what you said.. and post a thread.

*Which will be directly opposed to the common speech seen here which is filled with over detailed and over analysed descriptions, constantly displaying a lack of the knowledge of our complete ignorance and moving further and further away from the truth, which is simple and shouldn't be described in length but should only be referred to.

[queenofthedamn]

You're missing the point, SOW. The law of identity clearly manifested through thus and thus alone. Many philosophy sophies teach this same principle. Understanding philosophy or in my words philosophia isn't just a way to predetermine one's own selfish demise. Abe lincoln for example could be your philosophy. However he believed in jesus who taught the unselfish act or giving spirit. It all boils down to the tide and whimperers. That's my philosophy. Now, you can grade the future but nobody can place you in a rat cage. That is philosophy. Yes. I am very disruptive. Takes an eight year old to understand my philosophy; however, when I was 8 I was playing hide and go seek under church benches. Your chinese breaches wont compromise my progress or living.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Actually, I'm starting to think you're just stringing others along with a half-baked mishmash of philosophical bells and whistles.

His second post clued me in. Yer gettin' slow in your old age, Diebert.

Americans invented half-baked mishmash.

Hahaha! I didn't say when I started the thought but I'm getting definitely slower with releasing. There's also the idea of giving others enough rope to hang themselves. A skill which comes with age as the witch burning days are clearly over.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That's because you've distrusted before trusting, and are being unfairly presumptuous in doing so, but since you have mistaken it as mishmash not of my own reasoning or understanding, or somehow flawed and incomplete, then I will do the opposite of what you said.. and post a thread.

It's not about trust, everyone gets the same initial credit. Your ideas just turn out to be not really interesting, not just true or false. Simply because abilities are not yet in command of the ideas. Gibberish always results!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Like I said, why would I describe something you know? Your seeing what I am seeing, I don't presume to be able to explain it better than your experiencing, I'm talking with the assumption that you already know what these terms mean, having seen and understood these things, but, like I said, you don't even seem to be aware the apparent external world is a phenonema of consciousness, not independent of you, objects such as the body existing only so far as it is seen, and that your future experiences are directly subject to thought and intention. If you were aware of this why constantly act otherwise?

This is an undeniable truth, if you just forget what you think you know and observe your thoughts and experiences you will see it for yourself, then will you take into consideration that you might not have noticed something, its not impossible.
Why call it gibberish when you may have missed it? It has implications.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you were aware of this why constantly act otherwise?

Lets work with this then. How would you have expected someone to act? In which ways did I act otherwise? By creating counter points? By caring about anything?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I have no clue, all I ever hear is your disputes with specific choice of words, I've never really heard any straight forward philosophy from you Dennis or anyone I've chatted with this about, my own fault I guess for not having read all earlier threads, but still, you could do so now, I will never grasp your positions until they are stated to me relatively clearly, and seeing as we are experiencing the exact same kind of existence, I can only assume what you say will be very similar, at most the same thing can only be described in different ways.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I'm not sure what it is you seek, Seeker. You ask me if I were aware of this and "why constantly act otherwise"? But now you say you have no clue what this "acting otherwise" would look like. But you just said I was acting otherwise. How can I know what you mean if you don't know what you mean with your own words?

I guess my overall point in our discussions is the attention I try to direct toward the internal structure and logic of your own writing. Not to be pedantic but because chaotic, conflicted and unclear writing is 99% of the time a manifestation of hasty and muddled thinking. Which then often means some strong emotional attachment or selfish motivation which eclipses any attempt to reason calmly and clearly about whatever it is you are experiencing and intuiting.

It's true, we haven't even started to discuss "my position" or philosophy yet. But that's because I think it's the most obvious thing in the world which is not hard to find. This is why the discussion gravitates mostly toward helping people to clear their self-created and eagerly embraced confusions. It will sort itself out in the end.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I don't seek anything anymore lol, should change the name. What do you seek on here? We are all only passing time really.

"But that's because I think it's the most obvious thing in the world which is not hard to find."

Well since I have this same belief, and we are experiencing the same world, I guarantee after you say what you've said before, it will end up being varying in description, yet still agreeing on the same what is. The only claim I was ever really making was that the world is illusory, aka that it is a manifestation and result of consciousness, as opposed to consciousness being a result of an external/independent of consciousness world. Besides this, the only other points have been on inferences that can be made from this claim. If there is a disagreement here, voice on what aspects, or have you just been opposing by constantly pointing out my bad choice of words to troll me? You know exactly what I mean by now I'm sure.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... or have you just been opposing by constantly pointing out my bad choice of words to troll me?

Yes! Not only bad choice of words but bad phrasing, logic, consistency, patience, pacing and focus. And I just explained why it's important to clear that up for anyone desiring to open their mouth on the topic, meaning that there's a need to unravel before a mirror in place.

[chikoka]

Hi Diebert

I think seekerofwisdoms statement that there is only one philosophy is a simple restatement of the axiom of identity.
Something cannot be true and not true at the same time, and if you collect all truths you will have one philosophy.


P.s. I'm developing an inclination to beleiving that the AOI may not be all pervading for reasons i have not fully disclosed but using what (i think) you beleive, you must agree with statement 2.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I think seekerofwisdoms statement that there is only one philosophy is a simple restatement of the axiom of identity.

That's true but the problem is that the restatement was not simple at all and comes with a lot of additional, confusing cruft.

Something cannot be true and not true at the same time, and if you collect all truths you will have one philosophy.

Better to uncollect them! And that's not as easy as just stopping to buy any.

P.s. I'm developing an inclination to beleiving that the AOI may not be all pervading for reasons i have not fully disclosed ...

Is it that hard to write about it?

[chikoka]

It confuses me that more than one philosophy exists

That was the whole post, i fail to see what " lot of additional, confusing cruft" there was.

Quote:
P.s. I'm developing an inclination to beleiving that the AOI may not be all pervading for reasons i have not fully disclosed ...


Is it that hard to write about it?

The writing is the easy part. I have to see those henids more clearly first.