Talk:Jacques Lacan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sense of enlightenment[edit]

"Lacan claimed that his Écrits were not to be understood rationally, but would rather produce an effect in the reader similar to the sense of enlightenment one might experience while reading mystical texts."

I really doubt this is true. I can't find anything to this effect in Seminar XX, which is the citation note 80 gives. Does anyone have a page number for this? 68.114.206.138 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not logged in before. I've done another quick skim of every mention of the Écrits in Seminar XX, and have only found this quotation, from page 29 in the French edition: "It is rather well known that those Écrits cannot be read easily. I can make a little autobiographical admission -- that is exactly what I thought. I thought, perhaps it goes that far, I thought they were not meant to be read." This is quite obviously a continuance of the poubellication joke. As such, I'm removing the sentence in question from the article. Bateau (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed a parenthetical statement from the opening paragraph:

Untitled[edit]

I removed the following parenthetical aside from the last sentence of the opening paragraph: "His ideas have had a significant impact on critical theory, literary theory, twentieth-century French philosophy, sociology, feminist theory and clinical psychoanalysis (though not on clinical psychology)." The parenthetical statement removed is "(though not on clinical psychology)." Although the statement is cited, it cites an extremely partisan anti-Lacanian named Dylan Evans. In other words, this is a contentious claim. If necessary, I will import a citation to the contrary from Elisabeth Roudinesco's Why Psychoanalysis? (2003). The contention is not that the opposite of the contentious parenthetical statement should be inserted; merely that the contentious statement be removed. Lacan's impact on clinical psychology is, at least, contentious; if it is to be established as NPOV, there needs to be another specific citation for the claim. Otherwise, this is similar to including a contentious claim by Dawkins in the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia page about God. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.182.180 (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

funny, no discussion on Lacan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.2.106 (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

a magpie long fallen silent[edit]

"While it is widely recognised that "Lacan was...an intellectual magpie"", I appreciate literary flourish as much as anyone, but this entire section is loaded with opinion in the guise of consensus. He may well have been these things, but the way it is put forth is either cut and pasted from books or unsourced opinion (actually, it could be both). Anyone who ever builds upon existing methodologies or knowledge could be called an "intellectual magpie", though the question of why such language would be used is an interesting one.124.168.138.228 (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

The last sentence of the criticism section is totally out of place. Not only is it bad grammar (it simply doesn't read coherently), it comes across as having been put there by someone who can't stand to read this guy being put down, so needs the last word to be a somewhat positive note. The section is specifically titled criticism, it has no place for such a sentence/sentences.

That sentence is, rather obviously, bullshit. It should be left in place. It exemplifies what Lacan's work is about. Maproom (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

All the criticism of Lacan you could wish for here...

http://www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de/infc/en/Shrink_from_Hell.htm

(To see what a real polymath looks like, go and visit Raymond Tallis.)

Should there be more about Lacan's personal conduct in the criticism section - and/or should the biographical sections include accounts of some of the questionable actions described by Tallis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.181.83 (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


I would like to ask if this section should actually be in his biography. If someone wants it here, then it should criticize his theory not him. This section only has ad hominem arguments which add little to the article and are not real criticism but judgements.190.18.146.11 (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Carlos.

Still needs clarification[edit]

I'm the first to admit that Lacan is fiendishly difficult to pin down at times. In fact, if an article on him can get anywhere near the ideal that Wikipedia sets for clarity, it desrves a medal of some sort. This article seems to be improving, but it's still got some way to go - too many Lacanian jargon terms that need to be translated. For all that, well done those of you who are chipping away at this! I wish I had the expertise to contribute more confidently to the formation of this article.

Another plea for clarification[edit]

I have to agree with every word of the above - congratulations to all who are making this more intelligible - the job of clarifying Lacan is dauntingly tricky - but the article still needs work to get near Wikipedia ideals. Pgg7 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

artificial intelligence[edit]

can someone who knows clarify how lacan's ideas apply to cybernetics/ai mentioned in the criticism section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.51.158 (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

ring of borrowmai[edit]

missing a graphic of the clarified connection between real, imagino, symbolic [ris]. this schould be mentioned for pschychy and media worker. how to use this system may be connected from slavoij zisek or hictkock's suspense folio.--Raskollnika (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Les Non-dupes errent"[edit]

Perhaps is it important to translate : Non-dupes wander (the french verb "errer", related with error, "errare humanum est"). And to say that the sentence is a joke, a word game : Les Noms du Père, the Names of the Father. Another thing : Here [1], a video perhaps interesting to follow French news of Lacan. Some formulas of Lacan are humorously used in the New York v. Strauss-Kahn case. Examples : "Monsieur Stress-Khan, qui s'ennuie à mourir et qui, s'ennuyant à mourir a décidé de ne pas céder sur son désir... est quelqu'un qui a parfaitement compris Lacan à l'envers. Et je vous le prouve. [...] Ai-je besoin de vous dire que le FMI --Le Fond de Masturbation International-- ne l'a pas F.M.I.-né [effeminé] ?" (Mister Stress-Khan [sic] who is bored to death, and bored to death decided to not yield to his desire, is someone who perfecly understood Lacan upside-down. And I will prove... Do I need to tell you that the IMF - The International Masturbation Fund - has not F.M.E.nate [effeminate] him ?) ; Les séances courtes (short sessions) ; Il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel (there is no sexual intercourse) ; L'hystérique veut un maître sur lequel elle règne (the hysteric wants a master over whom she reigns, with the example of Anne Sinclair and DSK). Translation with the help of Google, so certainly ça laisse à désirer... Blogbreather (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Section on the drives

One place to start with sources/references would be the chapters of Seminar XI that deal with the drives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.62.110 (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum : My translation of Il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel is bad. The same Philippe Sollers recently said on TV, about the movie with the same Lacan's quote as a title [2], here [3] at 1:39'30", on the french TV show Ce soir (ou jamais !), January 10th 2012 : ‘[Il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel], ça veut dire : il n'y a pas de rapport mathématique a/b = c/d. Qu'il y ait des 'actes' sexuels, Lacan n'a jamais dit le contraire.’ I give this time to reflect. Blogbreather (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources for 'the drives'[edit]

One place to start with sources/references would be the chapters of Seminar XI that deal with this subject. Oli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.62.110 (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Literary Theory Influence[edit]

There isn't much in this article about his influence on Literary Theory, mainly his argument between Metaphor and Metonymy. There's a stub article here that briefly covers it. I'm not enough of an expert to write on it, but I imagine there's enough content for inclusion here. Shaded0 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

"[Lacan] made prominent contributions to psychoanalysis and philosophy" - contestable?

To have made a considerable impact is not necessarily to have made a substantial contribution. Lacan doesn't stray into my academic home territory, but wouldn't it be fair to say that there's a substantial body of academic opinion that questions the validity of his work, or rejects it outright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.181.83 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Other/other and Hegel?[edit]

This sentence seems to require some clarification:

"While Freud uses the term "other", referring to der Andere (the other person) and "das Andere" (otherness), under the influence of Alexandre Kojève, Lacan's use is closer to Hegel's."

A Hegelian other would seem to be a reflection of or reaction to something, making it a little "o" other. I am not sure how to reconcile the Other/other dichotomy with Hegel, and the reference to the Wiki page on Hegel does nothing to clarify the connection with Other/other-ness. Can someone clarify? As it stands, the last part of opening sentence does nothing to clarify the concept, and the first simply states Freud's usage (which may be appropriate, since Lacan claimed to be a Freudian, but doesn't really clarify Lacan's use of the two terms). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.93.205 (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of criticism needed[edit]

"Philippe Laborie ... shows that Lacan is a contemporary avatar of Vichy France" This really needs to be clarified: what is an avatar in this context and how precisely does it relate to the Vichy regime? (This is the sort of line which probably couldn't be left in the article if the subject was living.) AllyD (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Return to Freud[edit]

Lacan (and disciples) says "Return to Freud" like a slogan or a publicity; warning POV !--G de gonjasufi (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jacques Lacan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Lacan's influence on Linguistics[edit]

The intro paragraph asserts that Lacan had a "significant impact on [...] linguistics". Is this true? I think I've seen this assertion made before, but not by linguists. Did Lacan influence Linguistics (as professional linguists understand the field)? -Ben (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)