/lit/ - Literature

nah

Heterosexuality actually has a function that extends beyond someones warped psychology, so nah

Did Lacan actually say that ayy lmao I gotta read this nigga lol

>>6892997
Lacan presumes this? HA. Glad I never read any of those threads about him.
It's a cute pithy quote, OP.
What people tend to forget to consider is the various bisexuals out there. They confuse everybody, even themselves I think.

>>6892997
"Lel so clever" clickbait for people on Facebook with rainbows for their profile pic

>>6892997
From a purely logical perspective, in the absence of any concrete information, maybe.

But in reality we know that heterosexuality is the default/normal state for basically all animals, as evidenced by the fact that we exist at all, and that far more people are heterosexual in the absence of experience with homosexuality than the other way around.

>>6893060
>From a purely logical perspective, in the absence of any concrete information, maybe.
really?

>>6893035
Bisexual master race.

>>6893076
ah, to be in a group with Anne Frank.

>>6892997

No, it can't. Why would you think that? If anything heterosexuality issues from a disappointment in Asexualism on a biological level.

>If Lacan talks penguin shit and I reverse it, is the reversal true?

>>6893120
Now we're left with a constipated penguin

Close but no cigar, modern day homosexuality issues from disappointed heterosexuality

>>6892997
Where do bisexual people fall under this than?

Lacan also claims that a fetish is the symbolic substitute for the mother's missing phallus.

So...
My fetish for muscle girls, clown girls, transformation, skintight clothes and elf girls are just me trying to wish they were my moms dick? Because that sure makes sense.

Homosexuality is a notion that dates from the nineteenth century and is therefore a recent categorization.

>let's discuss the random ramblings of a charlatan

>>6892997
what does a disappointed heterosexuality mean?

>>6894283
DUDE. I've never seen Foucault with hair before. Move aside, Camus, you've got some competition!

i had a thought last week

>>6894308
he looks like a nerd lmaooo

>>6894308

>>6894308
>Foucault being competition for Camus
not even close

>>6893060
>>6893032
Heterossexuality is not normal, normality does not exist. Neither Lacan nor Butler believe in it, even if they may be at fault at certain points. Quite honestly, it can only be out of ignorance that people insist on this concept, we truly live in a very religious time.

You're talking about what is most common and how you take what's common and make it into what's normal. There is no default person, no default dog, no default apple, that's all in your head, a fantasy built in language.

>>6893035
>he doesn't hold the same ideology as me, so I'm glad I know nothing about him

>>6894330
That's not true at all.
Even in the Animal kingdom organisms seek the cues for which attract them to the opposite sex. Peacocks to colorful feathers, goats and rams to horns, primates the redness of lips and size of the buttocks, these are determined by very set biological features.

Homosexuality may be natural, but its kind of naive to just claim that Heterosexuality is not "normal."
Less than 6% of the population is estimated to be homosexual for a reason.

>>6894330
lol. you're letting theory substitute reality.
that's all in your head, a mental construct built in socio-political ideology.

heterosexuality is the norm, it is biologically conducive, it is the avenue by which nature propagates itself. the fact that i have to explain this to you (and that you'll refute it) is absurd. fucking absurd. post modernist marxist thought is a blight upon the human consciousness

>>6894366
>post modernist marxist thought is a blight upon the human consciousness

It goes so far into into it's rejection of progress and science that it denies any objectivity or reality outright.

>>6894330
>There is no default person, no default dog, no default apple, that's all in your head, a fantasy built in language.
>2015
>being a conceptualist

>>6894327
in their respective playing fields it could be pretty close tbh. Are there any sources on Camus and his women?

>>6894366
>muh teleology
>muh idealistic epistemology

TOP FUCKING KEK
O
P

F
U
C
K
I
N
G

K
E
K

you're so bluepilled it hurts

>>6894277

More than you know considering some modern fairy tales may have had an origin in Agditis.

>>6894277
What if your fetish is being analyzed by a Lacanian psychologist?

>>6894383
you didn't explain how or why, which leads me to believe you haven't had any self-thought on the matter

>>6894334
In that sentence, he is wrong. He is basing his wild assumption on bisexuals who switch their preferences. Of course I'm glad to have not gotten into him.
He may be decent on some things but this one aspect is way off.

>>6894406
>In that sentence, he is wrong. He is basing his wild assumption on bisexuals who switch their preferences. Of course I'm glad to have not gotten into him.
His work is more than a sentence you buffoon. You're worse than those people who won't read marx because muh ussr famines

First of all I want to know when "normal" became an inappropriate word.

noun
1.
the usual, average, or typical state or condition.
"her temperature was above normal"

Okay, so would a good analogy be; what is (statistically) average?

If yes, then why is it wrong to consider homosexuality not normal. I have no problem with any sexuality, any belief, any person, any thing, yet I'm just awestruck at how we're allowing academic persons to not change language, that wouldn't be such a bad thing, but to use a static language to completely distort the very nature of our reality. It's not normal to be gay. It's not bad to be gay. It's not good to be gay. It's just a trait.

>>6894395
You'd be hard-pressed to find one these days. From what I understand, most practicing analysts don't apply Lacanian concepts to their work - it's either Freudian, Kleinian, Jungian, or a combination of many different schools of psychoanalytic thought. I would be willing to bet that most schools of psychoanalysis these days teach that it's unwise to pigeonhole yourself in the thought of one theorist.

>>6894406
>Of course I'm glad to have not gotten into him.
>He may be decent on some things but this one aspect is way off.
You are a lazy thinker and a bad reader. Good writers will not coddle you and spoonfeed you your own beliefs, they're probably going to challenge you and tell you that you're wrong

>>6894348
And none of that has any bearing on what I said. Normality does not exist. To say things fall is different from saying things obey the law of gravity, get it? Things fall, I can see that. That's not normal, that's what we see.

Nature is another thing that does not exist at all. Better as well call it God.

>>6894366
>you're letting theory substitute reality.
Me? You people are doing it. Holy shit, you did not get the first thing.

What is a mental construct? What have I constructed here at all, tell me.

>>6894379
>conceptualist
Zero idea on how you came to that erroneous conclusion.

Go on, fags, this is hilarious. You can't even tell the difference between whatever words you are using, you think to say something is normal, or common, or natural, or recurrent, or righteous, or default is the same fucking thing.

>>6894376
It doesn't even scratch science or objectivity at all, look at how you derailed this shit, holy fuck. Don't even start with that.
Do you fags even read?
Do you just go on your daily lives projecting your faith onto what you see like that, seeking to sustain it that way?
Are you going to call me names that are easy enough for you to break apart or are you going to think about what is being said here?

>>6894406
he doesn't say anything about switching their preferences, just that one doesn't work for them.

>>6894366
>you're letting theory substitute reality.

Welcome to /lit/. Instead of having any knowledge or understanding about what they're talking about they just engage in bullshit philosophizing that's completely detached from reality and has no relevance to the real world.

>>6894431
>Do you fags even read?
>Do you just go on your daily lives projecting your faith onto what you see like that, seeking to sustain it that way?
hahahaha, this is hilarious

>Zero idea on how you came to that erroneous conclusion.
come on, you dont even know what your position is called

>>6894411
>Anon is worse because they don't read the works of a charlatan who peddles pseudo-scientific nonsense ramblings taking after the ravings of a Cocaine addict

>"The Real, information hidden beneath locks or a veil of the obscure, sometimes enticing the curious to investigate and make them known. If information is out in the open, The real can garble and obscure it via partial destruction, as in the phallic registers misspoken slip ups or the neurotics babbling. And if information - or any ordered object, as a physical attraction overcome by it's materiality of substance touched by inordinately strong jouissance [pleasure/pain trauma dichotomy] - is to be rendered permanently irrelevant, it may simply be destroyed. In addition to disorder, lies and fiction are also voided in the register of the Real, that which is ordered but meaningless; however, both tend to be shot through with rays of the Imaginary masculine subject beneath the distractions of the hysteric. The uncertainty of the Real even serves to move objects and individuals, in a way almost analogous to the uncertainty principle: unlike Symbolic interpretations, which travels in a near-straight line, since ‘position’ is meaningless for something plunging through the Real, it can appear out again virtually with any connection of the subject ego that resolves desire in immediacy."
>"The Real is that which is unperceived, unknown, and perhaps unknowable: that which is invisible to everyone is thought of as unimportant, at least until it steals into the perceptions of the Imaginary register and symbolized into the unconscious symbolic law codified by a history of recognized signifier."
>"After all,on the opposite spectrum of the Imaginary. The Real embodies an antithesis to that which commands attention, and by definition one ensconced in it may find themselves ignored by those around them; a property which is deviant when their exists unconscious principles of stipulated usefulness the subject may wish to pry and share out of the irrelevance [to the analyst], but useful when one instead wishes to remain hidden and reserve for the neurotic subject."

I swear it's like reading spiritual hippie science about energy crystals or some shit.

>>6894418
"Normal" is not an inappropriate word, it's a very appropriate word, it's the only thing that it's good at. It's a rhetoric tool, a linguistic twist to prove whatever point you have.

The "usual": what is used.

The average: another abstract tool that does not exist. I have two apples and gave it to john and mary, the average is one apple per person, how many apples does john have? You don't fucking no. But you may use average to make whatever point you have without looking at the differences between john and mary. It's like when you say "the average joe thinks..." or "people like to...", who are these people, who is joe? It's a fantasy you create to support your theories that seek to normalize the evidence you see.

The typical: a type, a simplistic, reproductible little thing that you wish that was all the same. See stereotypes.

You can go around all day saying this is normal, that is normal, the moment you actually believe there is such thing as normal, you're just fooling yourself. The normal is only there so that you don't get desperate because you're too weak minded to live in a world without god, without dad, without norms and rules. Afterall, if things are this way, they ought to be this way, right? lol.

Living in Plato's dreamland the lot of you.

>>6894484
>you're too weak minded to live in a world without god, without dad, without norms and rules.
>without dad
i-im sorry anon, i wont bother you again :^(

>>6894463
Precisely what normalization is all about.

Am I saying something here? I haven't said anything at all. I'm just unsaying the idiotic things anons are vomitting here.

>>6894464
>come on, you dont even know what your position is called
This is pathetic, anon. My contrarian stance immediately provokes that sense onto you, there must be a name, that's what's important, huh? Words, just words. Really living in rhetoricland of magic.

I'm getting tired of this bullshit, so long normalityfags, enjoy believing there is an essence to things, I know you will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY5r_zox-a8

>>6894431
>What is a mental construct? What have I constructed here at all, tell me.
a construct built into relativist, postmodernist thinking, which is a mechanism of political control to obscure differences and diminish the average person's ability to distinguish.

yes, the world we perceive is a model projected by our brains etc etc. but there are principles in nature that are, practically, constant. principles that we owe our very existence to. yes, they require a mind to be cognizant of, but when these principles are observed and applied to cold hard, non-mental reality, they produce observable and practical effects... like say birthing another human being.

you can say there is no default man or default dog. well then how do you distinguish between man and dog? there is no default sexuality. there is no default morality.
then how do you distinguish between what i sustainable and what isn't? you don't. that is theory fucking with common sense.

and that is what people who used to think like you do are quickly realizing, only most are a bunch of reactionary fuckwits who, if they aren't at one extreme of the socio-political spectrum, violently alternate to the other end.

>>6894482
What?
What does any of that mean?
Is there any scientific base for this "Real" or the register thingys that can actually be useful? Even if it's just a concept making up obscure theories for something that may not exist is kind of, stupid? I may not get it but I very much doubt anyone who follows that can 'get' any human being beyond a totally shallow and superficial, pretentious level. It's too easy to force your own interpretations on a patient with this kind of thing.

It's not useful for anything relating to the real world at least.

>>6894522
Chill out, it's not that complicated, even if it's wrong. That was basically a tl;dr version of Lacanian theory from someone trying to dumb it down. Here I'll post more.

>>6894508
>My contrarian stance
no, the contrarian stance would be nominalism, your position is conceptualism, google them up, kiddo

>>6894521
>it is real in my mind so it must be real in reality

literally superstition

>>6894543
>thinking there can be such thing as "mind" or "language" in your theory
literally cognitive dissonance

>>6894484
You're like a Stone Buddha. You know the Dharma so well you can't move. "There's nothing!" I'd argue by that same logic that there is everything.

>>6894539
>"The other represents the subjects reaction to the choices and decisions presented to oneself and the name-of-the-father, the façades one presents to the environment, and how one approaches obstacles and situations. The way one interprets one’s options in general, logically processes and decides in which paths one shall enforce their will. Where the little other symbolizes what one already wishes to do, the big Other, represented with a a capital O, is the domain is everywhere where one would stop and think, weighing the options as if they’re on scales. The dialectic of desire and pleasure are balanced by a focus on the mind relationship between the big and little other: One cannot be judged heavily for other, for the inclinations they cannot help – it’s instead the choices we make upon which judgment falls. The little other also masks the big Other, disguising one’s intentions from others and titrates one’s appearances, often in order to manipulate others or one’s environment. Outwardness in all its forms. In this we come to understand the subject as a dialogue between the desires of the other and the ego impulse drives of the Other balancing out their respective demands to archive exclusionary unity within the symbolic order."

>"The other and Other dichotomy form a balance between one’s inner identity and outward identity; What the subject would inwardly perform as a vacuum or unhindered, versus what they would externally do when confronted with obstacles and choices. other is “who you are in the dark”; Other is “the face that you keep in a jar by the door”. (Or if you prefer, other is like hardware, raw potential, inclination, and inner integrity, whereas Other is like software querying it for results.) These are not only classically opposed, in a sense, but also demonstratively opposed in the Apollo and Dionysian sense: If you recall, by impeding one's own death drive to be wrought near one's own symbolic interpretation as a demonstration, the analyst enforces a gambit of otherness at the expense of big Other, guarding one's trust in her and enforcing the repetition of Object a within their relationship. However, don’t be blindsided into declaring that favoring Other over other is any less criminal. When the subject internally hides the object of their pleasure in a completely safe register without fear of traumatic castration, the subject may turn to completely disregarded the dangerous nature of their environment in order to indulge her natural curiosity and venture forth the unconscious unyielding. They may overindulged in the pleasure demanded from the Other; the slightest bit of logic applied to one's Oedipal situation would have keep her from entering the domain of the hysteric, kept the subject safe and alive."

It's so simple, why haven't you idiots absorbed this shit and solved the psychological disturbances of the socio-political system today with this perfectly brilliant and coherent theory?

>>6894330
I never said normal once in my post.

All I ever said was heterosexuality has a more functional purpose that extends beyond warped psychology, and that includes people who are heterosexual but do weird shit like BDSM or lick feet, etc. That purpose being for the propagation of the species, homosexuality is functionally useless from a biological perspective.

That's just how it is.

>>6894611
Well....
is it right?
Honest question here. If right isn't applicable here perhaps "Is it useful" to understand this, might be a better question.

>>6894634
It's useful if you think it is. If you don't it won't be.

>>6894543
you missed the point entirely

>>6894573
implying

>>6894640
no you

>>6894639
It's hard to think much of it when I don't really understand it.

Here, treat me like I'm a child and explain what any of that means. Without overly long words or reaching explanations, just say it in simple statements. Is that so hard?

Sexuality, insofar as it is defined as a psychosocial identification of oneself based on sexual practices, is an issue in general. It is an unfounded cultural invention that is completely counter intuitive and harmful.

There is no way to justify "sexual identification" beyond "it feels good." You can't appeal to natural instincts when talking about any sexual practice that isn't vaginal sex for procreation, including other heterosexual extravagances like blow jobs, hand jobs, etc. You have no natural instinct to cum in a woman's mouth, and you did not evolve to rub your dick between her tits. Those are cultural afflictions that you learned.

You may believe the hedonistic argument that "sex feels good" justifies "sexuality" (read: fetishism), but if you consider all of the money spent, all of the time squandered, all of the effort, the dreaming, etc, all in the pursuit of sex, you realize what better pleasures you could have experienced. Those few minutes of awkward satisfaction (which debatably could be better achieved by yourself) are so picayune compared to that incalculable expense.

>>6894655
>he's trolling
Stop.

>>6894611
>"The Maternal Phallus vs Name-of-the-Father — The phallus of the matron represents belief as a whole, the unknown and that which one wishes to exist. It also may represent the encouragement derived thereof, that derived from the unlimited possibility sourced in belief. Against the registers of trauma one may experience in seeking their pleasure, the the name of the father may actually represent cruel, frustrating resignation, at reality or the appearance thereof when confronted with being consigned to the limitations of the Oedipus complex. (Or, more clearly: Hope in the mother's phallus is one’s belief in the breadth of the possibilities open to them for pursuit, for delivery into reality, while the name of the father is how one’s perception of them is narrowed considerably through anger and fear of social taboo and self-limitation, such as through incest, a lack of power and inability to achieve one's sexual satisfaction. Or simply how our mental filters keep us blind to what’s right under our noses… "Name of the father is how we all walk through life with our eyes half-lidded.) The pair also seem to represent the often-interwoven poles of positive vs negative emotion, attraction vs revulsion, love and reproduction vs familial strife, the faith to wait for a better option vs the conviction and resignation to do what’s hard and necessary. When one allows the Imaginary register to break character with the subjects role as the fundamental signifier, and thus inviting the transference of these instincts through phallic ordinance, he not only encouraged others to quell their despair or anger , removing the symptoms of the neurotic –– but also invited people to discard their resignation and belief in the overall inevitability of the triumph of paternal omnipotence."

>"And when inviting this resignation through the Name of the Father, for example, the subject may exhibit signs of machoism/sadism (Within the reasons of the Phallic Jouissance to allow one's own registers to co-exist with these fantasies) in the imaginary spectrum of paternal resignation and bow before the name of the father, or convinced the likes of the subject was intentionally murdering others, such as the parent preventing their desires from being archived and uniting with the maternal phallus, and thus killing her was the “only way”! (Shrinking the possibilities reachable through her desires, the desires of the other, to those of destruction, at the final moment of the big Other and symbolic "fathers" otherness) Both of these aspects are similar in their purvey over the perception of possibility and choices, and the inspiration or resignation derived from one’s interpretation thereof, which itself can extend or contract what one can achieve, allowing the analyst to release the subject from their neurosis in the long term."

>>6894703
the temptation is too great, lit really is the easiest board to troll

i'm also being totally serious though

>>6894708
>he's serious
Stop.

>>6894707
Why do I feel if Lacan lived today he'd be a natural celebrity at Ted Talks and similar garbage?

>>6894482
>>6894611
>>6894707
So you need entire lectures and essays just to say "Waaaah fathers are jerks I have daddy issues why didn't my mother ever love me? Society is so unfair, if I could just make my DREAMS come true and become a demi-sexual polyhaired treekin I could finally be happy :C"

>>6894277
>clown girls

>>6894707
STOP SPOONFEEDING NORMIES

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>6894330
This is what happens when you study modern philosophy.

No wonder hawking said philosophy was dead, people like you killed it. Just kill yourself, pal.

>>6894666
You sound like such a level 1 reader it hurts. Actually apply some critical thinking and read into the material a little more before judging it you ubber-pleb. It cannot be understood by a child so stop acting like one and expecting others to cater to your lack of ability to interpret anything for yourself.

>>6894707
The fuck? This makes zero sense.

Psychoanalytical homotardbabble.

>So people grow up and for no reason hate their parents, because their moms dont have a dick. So they cannot fufill their demi-anthro sexual incesttatious orgy fantasy. Of which was brought on from their father not buying them a piece of candy so they grew to resent his dick and looked for dick with their mom.
Tl;dr: All psychoanalysists are flaming homo's, and truly believe, with 100% conviction that everyone is the same.

>>6894521
>you can say there is no default man or default dog. well then how do you distinguish between man and dog?

this pretty much ended the argument tbh

>>6894708

nah /v/'s easier to troll

>>6894802
>It cannot be understood by a child
So you're saying it cannot be broken down into simplistic or even basic factual statements and there fore has absolutely nothing to say about the human condition, the individual or anything benefiting the social sciences.

Good to know.

>>6894754
thats more of the STEM side of things

>>6894707
>When one allows the Imaginary register to break character with the subjects role as the fundamental signifier, and thus inviting the transference of these instincts through phallic ordinance, he not only encouraged others to quell their despair or anger , removing the symptoms of the neurotic –– but also invited people to discard their resignation and belief in the overall inevitability of the triumph of paternal omnipotence."

Is it any wonder SJWS, feminists and lesbians love this homoqueer horseshit?

>>6894841
Ted Talks aren't even all that analytic, they're feel good vague, shitty vague motivational garbage. And reading the paragraphs of Lacan's shit up there makes me feel his ambiguous and completely-pulled-out-his-ass style of writing and theorizing would be right at home with redditors and ted talkers.

>>6894803
>>6894835
ITT: Level one readers getting BTFO

Lacan's Oedipal imperialism and parking lot Freudianism is irrelevant.

Though concerning that point, it is certainly the case that sexuality arises from an early age during your teen years when you have to decide what your aproximating sexual desire is.

>>6894835
of course it can, but this is an +18 internet website, so youre expected to read like one

>>6892997
>as observation is said to show

lel lacan is a hack

>>6894521

>but there are principles in nature that are, practically, constant. principles that we owe our very existence

No there are not, and especialy no transcedental principles which can be defined as being the "laws" of the universe.

At this point you are no better than those New Age kooks that believe in chakra enegry and reincarnation.

>>6894862
I'm 20, and have the reading comprehension skills of highschool brat. These psychologists shouldn't be so haughty and full of themselves to treat their own texts like Quantum Physics. Just look at those paragraphs of psychobabble, they're weird man. Look at them and don't just tell me they're intelligent and well formulated, but prove it.

Either someone explain this to me in statements that are meaningful and can be readily understood or applied or accept it's just posturing nonsense wordsalad.

>>6894876

>I enjoy being dumb

maybe /lit/ isn't the board for you, eh?

I suggest /tv/ or /v/

>>6894858

Why do these stem babies even come here?

Do tehy think they are smart because they have read 1984 and Brave New World?

This board needs a good purge.

>>6894707
>The phallus of the matron represents belief as a whole, the unknown and that which one wishes to exist.
>The phallus of the matron represents
>Mommy Dick

I only read the first sentence and am confused by this bullshit.

Lacan, Lacan man. You know that ladies don't have dicks or "phallus's" right? If you want to invent new concepts that's one thing but why symbolize it as a "Maternal Phallus?" Why do that shit? It doesn't help explaining abstract concepts by making your terminology even more arcane and loaded than it already is. I don't want to feel like I'm reading some conspiracy theorists live-journal entries.

>>6894876
What a ignorant, stupid, useless human being you are. Shoot yourself in the eye with a crossbow before you get the occasion of spreading your shit genes.

>>6894277

Not the same kind of fetish.

>>6894881
>>6894890
Will you get off your Ivory Tower and stop being asshats for once? I'm actually asking you for your interpretation and help understanding this, and you're playing it like some enlightened 3deep6u fedorafaggot.

Just saying "You're too dumb to understand it we're not going to explain it" doesn't help your case at all for people who are skeptic whether or not these theories are completely unintelligible.

>>6894895

Woman is wants to become the phallus in Lacanian terminology, that is become the desiring object.

Stop being a turbo pleb and open a fucking book fagget.

>>6894906
>le ivory tower meme
>look at me I'm so down to earth

You're stupid and should feel bad.

>>6894902
So I'm ignorant, stupid and useless for not being able to read something thrown together that reads like complete nonsense that a teenager on deviantart or tumblr could come up with?

Why don't you faggots stop deflecting with
>NO U
and defend your cock-worshipping oil salesman already.

I haven't seen a single explanation or even attempt to interpret for what any of those paragraphs actually mean yet.

>>6894895

The phallic mother is something we imagine. The illusion of wholeness that we hold over from our time in the womb gives us an imaginary image of the mother as whole, complete or uncastrated.

The phallus has nothing to do with the penis, except when we develop our own imaginary relationship between the two.

>>6894906
Lmao look at this dumbass.

>>6894910
>implying Lacan is worth reading to begin with

muh power structures

>>6894902
cool it champ. it's a lit board but we're not obligated to give a shit about your gay little pomo husbando

>>6894924
>If I just call him stupid that'll PROVE I'm so smart and the wordshit out my ass is comprehensible! That'll show them, epic continental superiority XD!!!

>>6894925
Everybody knows Lacan is a hack. It doesn't change the fact that you are a babbling ape.

Now stop angrily bashing your keyboard and go open a book.

>>6894876
>I'm 20, and have the reading comprehension skills of highschool brat. These psychologists shouldn't be so haughty and full of themselves to treat their own texts like Quantum Physics.
why do you think only physics has the "right" to use complex words?
if you said that to a physicist he would laugh you off, just like any other person who saw you complaining that "i dont understand, pls make babby level 4 me"

As a Lacanian, I want to apologize for all the shitty explanations being thrown around.

>>6894936
Wow, good job on that post. I'm impressed. Tell me more.

>>6894934
>worthless rhetoric
Lol nobody endorses Lacan you cum-garggling piece of shit.

>>6894876
>everybody look at how retarded I am

>>6894926
>Or, more clearly: Hope in the mother's phallus is one’s belief in the breadth of the possibilities open to them for pursuit, for delivery into reality, while the name of the father is how one’s perception of them is narrowed considerably through anger and fear of social taboo and self-limitation, such as through incest, a lack of power and inability to achieve one's sexual satisfaction.

But babies don't imagine anything in the womb. Much less have an imaginary concept of their mother.

From the following paragraphs it speaks of limitation by not being allowed to believe the maternal phallus an overcome "The name of the Father." How does this name of the father break the illusion of "wholeness" exactly?

>>6894910
That seemed to be aimed at a rather male-gendered subject. I suppose it could apply to females but, is this just a really over-complicated way of saying fathers are jerks and every little girl/boy wants to have the dick in the family and fuck mommy?

>>6894958
Did your mom give birth standing on her two legs ?

>>6892997

No, because sexuality doesn't emerge out of disappointment.

>>6892997
sexuality emerges from the reward system in childhood.

dykes have been touched by some females

>>6894938
>why do you think only physics has the "right" to use complex words?
Because physics words have very concrete and highly specific meanings. They're used in the exact context that they're needed and it's only through a continual process of inquiry their lexicon is solidified within a scientific framework and verified.

It kind of seems like I could just throw those big words around that Lacan uses, well pretty much anywhere and it would seem just as "Accurate" or insightful as any use for them he has.

And if I asked a psysics professor to give a simplified explanation of his theories (Quarks have charges, string theory says everythings strings lol) and he just said I'm too dumb to be told anything and to shut the fuck up and never question him again, why I'd think he's kind of full of shit.

>>6894991
>Because physics words have very concrete and highly specific meanings. They're used in the exact context that they're needed and it's only through a continual process of inquiry their lexicon is solidified within a scientific framework and verified.
okay, then tell us what is energy in physics, what is a set in mathematics.

also, natural languages have more vagueness and circularity, but it is not mean that physics does have a more rigorous language.

>>6892997
No because heterosexuality requires more bravery than homosexuality. It makes no sense to say that a higher thing stems from a lower thing, only the other way around happens.

>>6894991
>>6894958
>>6894925
>>6894906
>>6894936
>STEMfags with zero experience with any real rigorous subject try to come in and tell us that real philosophers are just chickenshit
>Lose their shit when people call them out on it
The irony. It makes my dick so hard.
Crymoar you whiny cunts, maybe you'd be better off reading ayn rand than having any place understanding something as engaging as psychology.

>>6894958

The Name-of-the-Father is the Oedipal ordeal, where the Father comes between the child and its desire for the Mother. (Father and Mother needn't be parents here; they're functions. This desire also needn't be sexual.)

In some way, the Father enforces the Law in order to separate them. This is what Lacan called the symbolic order: law, language, society, etc. This separation shatters the child's illusion that he and mother share "something of one-ness."

>>6894991

I bet you are an American that only enjoys his ignorance but tries to justify it to others.

The world at large is not your fucking microcosm you piece of shit. Those "big words" have a context and apropriate use. Just because you don't understand shit doesn't mean nobody else doesn't as well.

>>6894991
>I'd think he's kind of full of shit.
the problem is your coming off as a lazy person by trying to discredit some dude's work because you dont understand it, the work was written to be read by people with a certain degree of reading comprehension. Of course a more simplified explanation could be given, but you would have to ask a professor, not /lit/

>>6895012
Energy is just a measure of change. It serves the function of accounting for change in temperature, motion, position and properties of an object. It can be transferred between matter, mass and non-solidified forms. I'm sure there's more to it than that but it's something a childrens picturebook can elaborate on.

Sets are just series of numbers with a collective of properties that can be grouped together. It's as simple as that.

>also, natural languages have more vagueness and circularity, but it is not mean that physics does have a more rigorous language.

I feel like there's a difference between ambiguity, and vagueness so ill and poorly defined that it ceases to be anybit meaningful.

For example if I got a 100 Lacanist in separate rooms asked what is the "Real" or "Mother's phallus", would the definitions align? Would their be any consistency or agreement between them?

>>6895016

Homosexuality is far braver, because it is the realization of the death drive to it's extreme.

In contrast, heterosexuality is just re-confirming the same cultural codes aka the "holy triad family". Homosexuality however , overcodes the signifying lines , because it is litteraly unproductive, therefore it is stop gap in the genealogical line of descent and blocks the cultural codes.

>>6895047
>Energy is just a measure of change
Stopped reading here.

>>6894958
>That seemed to be aimed at a rather male-gendered subject. I suppose it could apply to females but, is this just a really over-complicated way of saying fathers are jerks and every little girl/boy wants to have the dick in the family and fuck mommy?

Most men are what Lacan would call obsessive. They search endlessly for something in the world to complete them, because they know unconsciously that they are castrated, though they repress this consciously. Of course, no object (job, woman, car, etc.) is going to actually "complete" them or give them the sense of wholeness that they're seeking, so they become bored once they actually achieve whatever they wanted and move onto something else.

Most women are hysterics. They want to become the phallus for the man and constantly make him prove himself. (I am your phallus, show me now that you are powerful.)

This is why Lacan said there is no sexual relation. The man is acting on contradictory demands. He cannot accept the hysteric's offer of becoming the phallus as he cannot admit that he lacks.

Now, keep in mind that what I'm talking about here is sexuation (how we enjoy) which can be masculine (obsessive) or feminine (hysteric, or JA) and doesn't necessarily line up with our biological sex or our gender identity, but often does.

>>6895032
I'm not asking for an explanation out of any desire to discredit it but rather an actual understanding of it.

And if I cannot get any understanding of it, as far as my experience goes it has no explanation. I'm sure there might be some incredibly oblique use of it for some people but, without even having the basic fucking idea what a text or person is talking about they might as well sound crazy or utterly insane to me. That's not to say they are, but it's too removed from reality for me to attach any value to, or understand where it fits in.

It's like if someone hands me a box with a gift inside and tells me the box will change my life.

But than says I'm not allowed to open it because my eyes won't comprehend what I'm seeing, but keeps trying to urge me it's super important and will change my life so much.

I'd be like "Okay... now what?"

I have absolutely no way to judge or have any idea what they're talking about and it loses any meaning to me.

>>6895047
>For example if I got a 100 Lacanist in separate rooms asked what is the "Real" or "Mother's phallus", would the definitions align? Would their be any consistency or agreement between them?


there will be plurality of explanations and after they talk between each other to agree on their vocabulary that each used to formulate Lacan's theory into their ''own words'', the agreement will be reached amongst the majority, just like their will be a plurality of explanations and words used to explain energy in physics.

>>6895047
>measure of change.
and measure [of a system] and change [of states of a system] are not well defined


also, sets are primary in set theory, on which the physicists rely. there is no definition of a set in set theory and since the physicists today use set theory, we can deduce that the mathematical version of the energy is a set [just like any number, function or whatever mathematical entity in set theory ] and is not well defined.


. But the physicists do not consider whatever previous mathematical result they rely on as physically relevant. the physicists consider the mathematical results that they use as relevant only up to a certain point in the mathematical chains of theorems. For instance, they care about manifolds in GR, but not the all the mathematics pertaining the manifold theory.

Lurker here.

>>6895068
Do you mind explaining this part here?
>>6894611
What do they mean by little otherness vs the big otherness being some sort of huge conflict with one's identity?

I recognized the parts about "Apollonian and Dionysian" conflict but the rest of it kind of confuses me.

>>6895068
lmfao

>>6895102

The other (or little other, as in little o) is the other of the ego. Most of our waking life, our ego is making our choices. It's the conscious part of the imaginary, the part of our unconscious that develops all of these illusions of wholeness. The ego is very fragile and aggressive. Any threat to the illusions it's developed will elicit some kind of response.

When our ego is treating with other people, they are other (little o) because we're treating them like objects in a game of ego-inflation.

The Other (capital O) is the radically Other, it transcends our imaginary illusions; the Other is out of our control (ie, we are castrated.) Like the Father I mentioned earlier, this is also related to the law and language, two things we must accept as greater than us in order to function in society. (Psychotics do not do this.)

>>6895158

This creates a conflict between demand (the ego's demand for objects / ego-projections that will fulfill the illusion) and desire (what the symbolic unconscious truly wants.)

Desire is what we are trying to uncover in analysis.

>>6895158
Interesting.
Does the Other extend beyond merely the public and figures, and go to all degrees of lack of control and realities one must face?

For example, physics. Or history. Genes, biological reality, causality, self-conscious and delusion, ect.

>>6895158
So a society or individual that
>overindulged in the pleasure demanded from the Other; the slightest bit of logic applied to one's Oedipal situation would have keep her from entering the domain of the hysteric
Leads to either totalitarianism, or some form of unhealthy abuse/abusive relationship for instance, or maybe neurosis?

>>6895182

Things that are true regardless of humans (physics, biology/genes, etc.) would be part of the real, which is the most enigmatic and least-discussed element of the Lacanian unconscious. We can only talk around it or symbolize it, but never truly represent it with language.

This isn't unlike Kant's noumena and phenomena, where the real (noumena) is reality-as-it-is and phenomena (imaginary and symbolic) are how we've made sense of it.

>>6895206

That's a poorly written sentence, but my best guess is that they're getting at Woman's alternate method of enjoyment. Instead of trying to be the phallus, one can realize that (1) they are castrated, (2) everyone is castrated) and that (3) everyone can be loved despite their lack.

>>6895206
cool chinchilla bro

>>6895227
So that's what the Real is overall. Summarized above as
>"The Real is that which is unperceived, unknown, and perhaps unknowable: that which is invisible to everyone is thought of as unimportant, at least until it steals into the perceptions of the Imaginary register and symbolized into the unconscious symbolic law codified by a history of recognized signifier."
Is there a distinct point where the Real and the Other are separated, or can they overlap at some points?
Since from what I'm understanding so far the "Other" is something we're powerless to change or have any effect in, whereas the "Other" is something we're powerless to even understand or know about.

So would a "Real Other" be something that derives it's power over simply being too steeped into the unknown but makes us powerless to stop it all the while? I'm thinking of something from a scifi film like a supervirus or body snatching, totally out-of-reality thing we're unable to comprehend or stop.

As opposed to an Imaginary Other or Symbolic Other which can be readily constructed and understood, but still out of our control nonetheless.

>>6895270
*Whereas the "Real" is something we're powerless to even understand or know about.
Slipped up there.

anyone mind giving me a tl;dr on this guy and why anyone should care about his philosophy

>>6895289
The basics are summed up already.
>>6894482
>>6894611
>>6894707

>>6895289
Crazy guy tells people they can resolve their own problems by paying attention to language, identity, and childhood and continually question the language which governs their life.

>>6895316
Uhhh okay than? Not that anon but can someone give me a tl;dr on all of that?

>>6895337
what is it with contemporary philosophy and fuckin language man jesus christ

>>6892997
mind=blown as always with jb

>>6895380
That's the whole point of Lacan's philosophy.
That the unconscious is structured like a language and so we should pay a lot of attention to it.

>>6895270

Lacan talks about the difference between the Real and the Other / the Symbolic mainly in terms of language (which he'd consider thought itself.)

The Other is speakable. We don't have any power over it, but it's something we can understand and interact with. Individually, one has no power to change the tax code. You just have to pay your taxes. You can't change language because you don't like the word "chocolate."

The Real is outside of the dichotomy of self/other completely. It's not simply that we don't have control over the real, but that it's entirely unable to be assimilated into the symbolic, or "that which resists symolisation absolutely." The symbolic is neatly differentiated into discrete elements (signifiers) that we can attach to symbols (words, usually). The real resists that, as it is "absolutely without fissure." Lacan follows Heidegger here in proposing that the symbolic (language) makes sense of chaos--what remains is the real.

(A good example is our encounter with the materiality of our own existence. If one suffers a catastrophic wound and suddenly one's arm looks a bit like ground beef, the real "erupts" and disturbs the imaginary and symbolic.)

>>6894411
I am basing my single comment on this single comment. People do that sort of thing.
As I already stated in that post, I have not judged him finally, but this one quote does not bode well for someone who is supposed to be smarter than most.

>>6894422
Wrong about what?

>>6894463
Female homosexuality does not issue from a disappointed heterosexuality. ("As observation is said to show". This observation is of bisexuals) The quote is filtered through Butler, so I think I have been cautious enough in not calling him a complete hack, or worse, which is the norm around here. Or haven't you noticed? I have. I'm a pretty careful reader.

>>6895356
There are, however, many features of the “big Other” which get lost in this simplified notion. For Lacan, the reality of human beings is constituted by three mutually entangled levels: the Symbolic, the Imaginary, and the Real. This triad can be nicely illustrated by the game of chess. The rules one has to follow in order to play it are its symbolic dimension: from the purely formal symbolic standpoint, “knight” is defined only by the moves this figure can make. This level is clearly different from the imaginary one, namely the way different pieces are shaped and characterized by their names (king, queen, knight), and it is easy to envision a game with the same rules, but with a different imaginary, in which this figure would be called “messenger” or “runner” or whatever. Finally, real is the entire complex set of contingent circumstances which affect the course of the game: the intelligence of the players, the unpredictable intrusions that may disconcert one of the players or directly cut the game short.

>>6892997
What I want to know is, what do any of Lacan's theories have to do with actual sexual preferences? I hear this far-reaching interpretation that homosexuality is caused by disappointment or narcissism but there's so so so much more to sexuality than just that.

What about being Bi/queer? What of furries and bestiality? Or fetishes and kinks so outside the realm of analysis it kind of belittles the thought. Don't even forget actual mental illness. It's almost like the "Real" of lacan is so guarded that a lot of ideas fall apart at how vast their lack of implications really are.

>>6895430
What would the little and big other be in your Chess analogy, the playing board and little squares?

>>6892997
I'm not going to bother allotting this shill thread itself anything over a light skim but here's the thing, no, Mr. Butler, that heterosexuality issues from a disappointed homosexuality is NOT equally clear as vice versa, because heterosexuality has grounding in reality.

Homosexuality is just a social construct which exists only ever upon the back of the possibility of heterosexuality.

Heterosexuality has priority because it's not heterosexuality, it's just sexuality in general. It only ever becomes 'heterosexuality' when it's juxtaposed with one of its weaker forms, homosexuality.

>>6892997
well i don't know Lacan enough to know if he had said this in the beginning, but the point she is trying to make sounds absurd. A disappointment doesn't make you suddenly switch from one gender to the other, if there was no attraction to that gender already.

>>6895880
You're acting like homosexuality is inborn.

That's not possible. Homosexuality could only ever be an experientially dethroned version of heterosexuality.

>>6895887
Yeah i do, i think we're all born pansexual, but we are drawn to a gender more than an other, and the other 5% or something stays hidden.

>>6895904
>i think we're all born pansexual

>>6895904
No we're all born heterosexual because that's just what sexuality is.

We're all born with the possibility of polymorphous perversity which is essentially just the capacity to inappropriately ascribe sexuality to the wrong things, for instance the same sex (homosexuality), oneself (clinical narcissism, transsexuality), and any combination of the prior two (bisexuality, pansexuality, etc.)

>>6895904
Baby. Pans are not our natural sexual preference

But no seriously. These "pans" are just bisexuals. That all it is.

>>6895974
You're just offensive.

>>6895974
lol at your right/wrong basic vision of sexuality...you're a good sheep.

>>6896000
The truth is offensive in its obviousness.

>>6896006
The basic is the only thing which is real when it comes to sexuality. Anything beyond it is narcissistic delusions of grandeur on your part.

>>6896015
you must be trolling.

>>6896015
how is bi/pan-sexuality a combination of the previous two?
not those other anon btw

>>6896027
Bisexuality is just blind sexuality at anything which resembles an actual object of sexuality (the opposite sex), so it's the opposite sex and the same sex, because what looks most like a female besides a female? A male. But bisexuality isn't bestiality because a male is more adjacent to a female than is a creature of a different species. This is why bisexuality is so frequent in the animal kingdom, it's literally just a primitive form of actual (hetero)sexuality.

Pansexuality on the other hand is the somewhat implemented version of bisexuality, in which the subject (fallaciously) realises that sexuality can at least to some faintly practical degree be attributed to things outside of the realm of what is logically appropriate, so they go on to affirm their identities as that which is all encompassing, hence 'pan' and thus the interspecial boundary is crossed.

>>6896000
>These "pans" are just bisexuals.
Cho cho, don't you understand the difference between sex preference and gender preference? Come on now.

>>6896051
There is no difference. Sex and gender are the same thing, prescriptively speaking. You can't identify as another gender, because gender is inherently descriptive, and identity is inherently prescriptive.

>>6895540

In chess, the pieces would be subjects (individuals) subject to the Other (the rules of the game)

>>6896059
Then how are there feminine males and masculine females?

Sex identity is based on your genitals.
Gender identity is based on your behavior comportment.

Also:
>gender is inherently descriptive, and identity is inherently prescriptive.
Total bullshit. Identity is always in a state of construction and negotiation. There is nothing inherent about it.

>>6896070
There aren't prescriptively speaking, only descriptively. And how they can exist descriptively is just a matter of sexual confusion.

The problem is you're so turned off by this idea of sexual confusion that you dismiss it at the outset as flatly wrong without ever actually questioning it and realising that it's a very real thing and that it explains basically everything about why homosexuals or transsexuals or pansexuals exist.

The truth is bleak. These people are not these special, unique snowflakes like they need to be, they're just degraded versions of the standard. You just can't accept a truth which is so obvious and plain because you think truth is this profound thing when really the only profound thing about truth is how empty it is.

>>6896070
>Identity is always in a state of construction and negotiation.
Nope. This is what you wish for to be the case. There is only construction and negotiation as far as acceptance of what is already there. Sure the internal substance of identity shifts over time, but that's something which is realised after the fact. The only way to change your identity is to do so preemptively, like for instance going from homeless to a CEO at a fortune 500 company.

Then again that change was already contained latently in the first place so in truth nothing actually changes, things are only ever expressed.

>>6896085
not the anon your responding to

from what background/system of thought are you drawing out your conclusions?

>>6896085
I don't think you understand how identity works.

Identity is always in tension between "prescriptive" (socially defined roles that tell you how you "ought" to act) and "descriptive" (personal claims that seek to describe who an individual says they are). There is no "one or the other" in Identity. Identity is always in flux. There is no "correct" identity.

I suggest you review the history of sexuality so you can see what you consider "sexual confusion" has been considered the norm in plenty of times and locations. The most confused person appears to be you.

>>6896093
>There is only construction and negotiation as far as acceptance of what is already there.
And what is already there is a massive range of possibility. You can call yourself whatever you want. And if society accepts your claim to that identity, it's yours. This is always happening everywhere for everyone.

So basically, you agree with me, but it doesn't gel with your narrative of "fuck the faggots" so you say I'm wrong. Interesting.

>>6895419
>Female homosexuality does not issue from a disappointed heterosexuality
It's that easy is it? You've gotten to the bottom of such a complex matter, even Lacan couldn't get there apparently, but you could do it just in time to reaffirm your own ideology.

>>6896095
Logical positivism I guess. But really I mean it's just reality. The logical positivists simply got the closest to reality without fully abandoning philosophy or espousing a completely irrationalist point of view to the point of turning philosophy more into literature (in the manner of Kierkegaard or Nietzsche for example).

>>6896102
Okay, and I don't think you understand what prescriptivity is if you feel okay with yourself in boiling it down to 'socially defined roles the tell you how you 'ought' to act', because that's just a superficial reading of it. Prescriptivity is simply what there is, as in the ding an such. Of course descriptivity is itself the means to prescriptivity, but that doesn't mean all descriptions are inherently descriptive. Mathematics is an easy example of this. We can describe something as being singular or plural, but that description is really actually sufficient for the prescription as well.

>There is no "one or the other" in Identity. Identity is always in flux. There is no "correct" identity.
From a descriptive perspective, sure, but that's not the significant part of it, so that doesn't matter. And it's no wonder your thought ends at the descriptive part of it when you don't actually understand the definition of what is prescriptive.

I'm a human being, aren't I? That's an example of a prescriptive identity, something which is in fact, as you say, 'correct'. It boils down to scientific categories which are sufficient. Sure, there may be some bigger bigger picture, but that is irrelevant as the scope in which the current bigger picture is contained in right now, in the prescription of my humanity, is congruent, and that's all that matters, that's all what is sufficient.

>I suggest you review the history of sexuality so you can see what you consider "sexual confusion" has been considered the norm in plenty of times and locations. The most confused person appears to be you.
And that's where your thought again stops. You think that just because there has occurred a difference in norms both geographically and historically that this somehow means these norms are infallible. What if, rather than there being some sort of legitimate difference, some actual plurality, within the intrinsic nature of things, we just haven't got it right yet?

The latter is supported by Occam's razor as well as the notion of a naturalistic species which came into existence through evolutionary trial rather than through supernature.

It's really funny how atheistic postmodern types like yourself have belief systems which are entirely presupposed of supernaturalistic tendencies.


tl;dr
>naturalistic universe = heterosexuality is central, everything else is peripheral
>supernaturalistic universe, centrality and peripherality are not even distinguished, thus allow for anything and everything

>>6896111
>And what is already there is a massive range of possibility.
No, necessity rather.

You're simply confusing 'an enormous range of possibility' with the necessary because perhaps the two things in that case look similar.

What already is there is inherently deterministic. There is no room for creation. Everything is conserved. This is a primary law of physics what makes you think it doesn't apply duly to something like sexuality?

>>6896153
>Logical positivism
i thought this was refuted a long time ago

>>6896183
Nope.

That's the thing about a lot of philosophy. None of it really gets actually refuted. People just basically stop thinking about it for a few years, newer theories come in, and then they forget about it entirely.

Though it is a (suspiciously) common thing to cast off that process as equivalent to refutation.

>>6896183
>>6896194

Um, yes. Logical positivism was abandoned in the 1960s

We kept the good parts and threw away the rest, like any other movement.

>>6896211
>good parts
which are ?

>>6896211
No it wasn't. We did keep the good parts and that's why it wasn't abandoned.

>>6896223
Reality is essentially genetic. Everything is defined by its origin before it's defined by its 'real' existence.

So for instance, since heterosexuality itself was created out of reproduction, and since reproduction is created out of heterosexuality, heterosexuality is real. And since homosexuality was created out of reproduction (heterosexuality), but reproduction definitionally cannot be created out of homosexuality, homosexuality is not therefore real. It's just a lesser, confused form of heterosexuality.

That's the logical positivist conclusion of sexuality and its basically inarguable. Because it's right. Because logical positivism is right, and actually did finish the majority of philosophy.

People who don't agree simply don't understand it completely.

>>6896223

Some of their work in logic (like the Principia Mathematica,) some of their work with language (though this could just as well be attributed to Wittgenstein.)

>>6896225

Even Ayer said "the most important" defect "was that nearly all of it was false."

LogPos is dead. Just because you like it doesn't mean it isn't.

>>6896244
Ayer was referring to the specific practices of the Vienna Circle not the idea of logical positivism itself. He said the way in which they were doing logical positivism was nearly false, not that logical positivism itself was.

It has nothing to do with what I like. It's about what makes sense at a logical level. That's not something my personal preferences have control over. Don't mistake the fact of your weak sense of the logical for the idea that what is logical is subject to personal preference. Logic is the antithesis of that. To say otherwise is to deny that logic itself even exists. Something which is just not possible in light of the factual existence of things like completeness proofs for first order caculi.

>>6896255

I honestly don't even know what to say. You're deluded beyond belief.

I'm afraid anything short of extensive therapy isn't going to help you.

>mfw that verificationist principle

>>6894330
Well fuck philosophy mang. Heterosexuality as by nature is normal, while other forms are a fluke.

>>6896392
>by nature

Isn't appealing to nature a fallacy?

Why is it that suddenly all you nerds think you're an expert on human sexuality? Reading books doesn't make you any more qualified to opine on the subject.

>>6894634
Zizek thinks it's useful

>>6896433
no, the fallacy arises from an equivocation of the word "nature"

>>6892997
>yfw you realised girl ass is the same as boy pussy

why care what some idiot wrote?

heterosexuality comes from genes, our ancestors were necessarily heterosexual at some point, otherwise we wouldn't exist

it has nothing o do with 'psychology' or whatever this lacan fuck said, it's just straight biologly

>>6896263
Lmao somebody hit you hard with that therapy bit once and now that's your go-to 'I really have no comeback' response.

Good job dude you're a fucking faggot.

>>6892997
This isn't just a non sequitur. It's a non sequitur which is shameless in its rhetorical character.

She knows she can't make the point through the use of rhetoric so she makes it as rhetorical as possible to attempt to hide the rhetoric in plain sight.

Fucking absurd the cancer philosophy has degenerated into within the past half century.

>>6893034
Yeah Lacan's views on femine sexuality are a huge divider in the psychoanalysis circle

>>6894277
>he makes this exact post every time Lacan comes up

>>6894366
>muh biology
>muh nature
>muh propagation
>muh progress
>muh evolution
>muh postmodernism is inherently bad

someone understands nothing about what he's trying to talk about

>>6894330
>we truly live in a very religious time

a time of staunch dogmatisms, to be sure, but not especially religious in character. indeed the "Christians" of our time are often less devout than our atheists, some of whom carry powerful feelings for abstracted bits and pieces of God (beauty or truth or goodness, etc), if never a love for his whole Being.

if the world were more religious and less dogmatic it would be a nice place, no? to love God more and themselves less, ay, that would be nice

>>6894330
>You're talking about what is most common and how you take what's common and make it into what's normal
>normality does not exist
what does this even mean

>>6894406
today, you have failed me, butters

I think this is a question better left to science, not philosophy. Speaking of science, I'd like to see some sources cited for that so-called "observation".

>>6896051
Gender is the feminine masculine scale, and not what is being discussed. It has little to do with *sexual* preference. When describing a persons heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality, asking about gender is like asking what kind of music you like. I'm homosexual, but I like feminine and mid-feminine/tomboy-ish types Do I have now ID as a "pan-sexual"? No. Fuck that. You like traps/TS/trans-men/trans-women, fine. You're bisexual if you like penis and vagina.

>>6897191
Pretty weak retort, anon.

>>6897422
Pansexuality has nothing to do with gender. Pansexuality means you have sex with animals and children. Stop trying to sugarcoat what it is by bargaining with some bullshit about it being about gender. That's not what it is. And if that's the current idea then it's extremely recent because a year ago and for all time before pansexuality existed specifically to signify that the person's sexual capacity reached outside of the humane.


Fuck these fucking retarded social constructs. There is only heterosexuality. Everything else is perversion and fake.

>>6894851
How is Lacan's work "feel good"?

>>6898466
>>6897422
all these "identities"

>>6892997
Humans in large part are naturally predisposed to heterosexuality for the purpose of procreation.

>>6898522
But is homo and bi sexualities caused by something that happens before or after birth?

>>6898535
i would say after, i liked anons line of thought that bisexuality/homo is a failure to differentiate the male/female essence

>>6894330
>There is no default person, no default dog, no default apple,

This is how I know you didn't start with the Greeks, you colossal degenerate faggot.

>>6898522
Humans are not predisposed to heterosexuality, they are disposed for it.

Heterosexuality isn't some sort of accident. I mean sure it technically speaking comes into existence accidentally, but then so does absolutely everything. That accidental nature doesn't make it any less necessary.

>>6898535
They are triggered by things which happen after birth. There is no argument against this simply because to say that homosexuality is innate is to suppose that humans have a literal (as opposed to an at best figurative) understanding of language (literal linguistic concepts) before they are even out in the world.

That's an a priori impossibility. When people say that homosexuality et al. is inborn what they're really saying is there's basically a set up to it which is biological, and even though this run up is not directly related to homosexuality per se, it's still surprising considering we used to believe homosexuality was a flat out 100% conscious and deliberate choice.

But no, homosexuality is not inborn, that's absurd. The only reason heterosexuality can be said to be 'inborn' is because heterosexuality is the default. Like saying that an object has a 'negative potential energy' latent in its entelechy when really it's just explicable more completely by what we understand as gravity.

Also as far as all of the 'evidence' which people claim supports the idea that homosexuality is innate, I've perused literally thousands of these studies (not the sensationalist Slate article but the actual scientific publication) and all of them assert a biological PREdisposition, which does not in any way mean that homosexuality is innate, just that what causes homosexuality is.

The problem is people conflate the thing which causes homosexuality for homosexuality itself, when in reality they are completely distinct.

>>6898572
maybe he did start with it but moved beyond it?

because we have had 2000 years since plato and thats a good enough time to reject him for something more satisfying

>>6898590
>truth changing
>ever

It's time to consider suicide as a treatment plan

>>6898590
>reject him for something more satisfying
>your satisfaction
>having anything to do with reality

fucking hell.
>reality is what's convenient for me!!!!!!!!111!!!one!!!1!!!!!!!1!eleven!! :)))) xDDDD

>>6894330
hahaha this is why pomo needs to be eradicated

you have nothing of value to say. the circuit of your lives has never taken you out of your cushy first world existence. your life is surface. no wonder everything is a construct to you. you've sucked the marrow out of life with your machiattos, your climate-controlled cars, your refusal to entertain anything that came from a time where horses were the primary means of transportation. you think your the vanguard of something new and Better but you're a bunch of noodle-armed fucking yahoos in plaid.

your "philosophy" are treatises on such scintillating nuggets of wisdom as "people have slightly varying conceptions of general terms", "language is ambiguous and not always a perfect descriptor of reality", and my favorite, "if it's not a tangible object in front of my face it does not exist and is useless to talk about. furthermore, to get back to power structures"

it's the year 2015. there's never been a time like this before in this planet's 4 billion year history and we're stuck talking about genitals being a social construct and "woman-phalluses".

kill yourself you good for nothing faggots

>>6898606
I'm pretty sure he meant satisfying as in closer to logical satisfiability but your point still stands.

If you find something better than the past chances are you're just involving your grasp of it in understatement in some form or another.

>>6898608
b-b-but anon this is an extremely postmodern post you just made

>>6898606
intellectually satisfying

but go on and be angry, your reaction betrays your age

>>6898608
10/10 post you're an anon's anon

>>6898619
your faggotry betrays your many vaginas attached to your body you little dicksmuggler

>>6898619
>implying that's any different

are you too arrogant to realize that it's not only possible but infinitely probable that reality is simply beyond our grasp.

who cares if something is satisfying, intellectually or otherwise. It doesn't mean it's closer to the truth.

>>6898631
then you have nothing to argue about, and a rejection of any approximation of truth being better than any other should force you to never speak of such matters again

>>6898648

actually, no.
what is closer to truth can still be gauged, just not on satisfaction.

I'm not a philosophy grad, but doesn't the idea of inherent sexuality presuppose an existence beyond shared reality? The statement "Bob is homosexual" seems like it not only implies that Bob doesn't have sexual relationships with women, but that he's incapable of it. Furthermore, for the label to exist as anything more than a nominal category, he'd have to have sex with men regularly as well.
The concept of 'gay virgins' for example seems completely insane.

If we cut beyond the nominal existence of sexuality, it's easy to reduce it to a couple of axioms: "sexual stimuli feels good", "sex is an emotional/spiritual experience", and so on. But from these basic axioms it's not hard to deduce that the de-facto sexuality of everyone is bisexual. It would also follow that casual sex is bad, or at least less inherently good, than eros/philia inspired sex.

But this seems to spit in the face of modern attitudes towards sexuality.

Obviously the difference between my theoretical sex life and reality is the existence of the erotic, but this is a cultural manifestation, not an inherent quality.

Yet if we look at modern society, the main subject of eroticism is consumerism. Individual existence is defined by consumer preference, with consumption considered the highest virtue. This set of values are reflected through modern sexuality: first through the transformation of gays from libertines and cultural boogymen to an exploitable consumer demographic, and secondly through the rise of the casual sex market where people are reduced to abstract tools of masturbation through anonymous sex and pornography. This is why suddenly "sexual variety" and "sexual experimentation" are considered not only normal, but trendy in modern culture.

All this talk about "sex positivity", "gay rights", etc., "BDSM", is just an affirmation of capitalism in the face of morality.

Just my two cents at least.

>>6894330
>There is no default person, no default dog, no default apple, that's all in your head, a fantasy built in language.
Hetrosexual acts are the prerequisite for existence, how is that not "default"?

>>6898824
>Yet if we look at modern society, the main subject of eroticism is consumerism. Individual existence is defined by consumer preference, with consumption considered the highest virtue. This set of values are reflected through modern sexuality: first through the transformation of gays from libertines and cultural boogymen to an exploitable consumer demographic, and secondly through the rise of the casual sex market where people are reduced to abstract tools of masturbation through anonymous sex and pornography. This is why suddenly "sexual variety" and "sexual experimentation" are considered not only normal, but trendy in modern culture.

>>6898608
>the circuit of your lives has never taken you out of your cushy first world existence.

This, pretty much. The persistence need that academics have to make material things into abstractions stems from a life lived without any urgency. Perhaps there is no essential thing, like, say, a loaf of bread. Perhaps the word "bread" is little more than a signifier which is loaded with cultural associations, symbolic interactions, and metaphor, but I guaran-fucking-tee that to someone who's known real hunger, the symbolic importance of that bread is a thousand times less meaningful than its objective, material significance.

Of course, dialectic materialism isn't much better. Its proponents are just as removed from reality. Very few Marxists have actually had dinner in the home of a working man.

>>6899362
it's trumped up fluff. an abstracted, autistic hall of mirrors. great, dude, the way we process the world and signify meaning isn't so iron-clad, got it, now what? and the whole pomo brigade goes mum.

they just want to tear down things, never build them up. there's questioning because you have a genuine, burning need to understand the world, and there's questioning because you think your pedantic, sex-obsessed drivel does anything to enrich the lives of others. OH BUT EUDAIMONIA IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT AND

no nigger. i'm out here in the real world. when you have to contort basic, everyday experience into an arabesque of autistic faggotry to make a point, or blow up such pedestrian observations as "society, history, and culture contribute to the popular understanding of x" into a whole school of thought i get buttmad. plato may have been off in his own metaphysical world but it was based on this one, it celebrated it.

and i get buttmad because we're on the cusp of great and terrible things at this point in history and I want to talk about crazy cool shit not fucking women-dicks you goofs

only when you've been out there in the wild can you know what rain, or heat, or sunlight, or nature really means. not behind a desk.

>>6898824
>muh ebul capitalism

Sometimes I wonder if /lit/ is comprised entirely of edgy 16-year olds.

>>6894876
Hey man, I actually agree with you. Although it is a rare facility to be able to sum something up without losing the spirit of the thing, one has to actually also be able to comprehend it fully first. Which I doubt the prior responses to your post actually do, they mostly seem butthurt for having a bad time of it tbh

Lemme read that shit and see what I get, sec

Ok in just the first sentence we have some weird things, "name-of-the-father" (God? Jesus? C-can you hear me?), subject turns to oneself turns to their in the second sentence. Pretty confusing but who cares. The gist of the first paragraph is that there are two things, o and O. The first some kind of half-mechanical consciousness or rather the expressions thereof, it seems to me. What is presented before a person, and how it deals with that. It seems to be a sort of process between oneself and the exterior world and has to do with the relationship between them. Thats o, "the other" with a small o. The big O is a more conscious affair "is the domain is everywhere where one would stop and think, weighing the options as if they’re on scales.". Thinking, reasoning. Then they go on to sperg about o having some of O in it, hidden somehow.

I'm gonna stop here. To be honest you would be better served reading Jung on cognitive processing and function theory.

>>6899963
Wonder? tbh? I am completely certain of it. 90% of that, the rest are miscreants from /v/ excepting a gaggle of middle aged pessimist.

>>6894330
You diseased fucking idiot

why the fuck is this thread 100 pages?

you fucking morons

>>6899947
>and i get buttmad because we're on the cusp of great and terrible things at this point in history and I want to talk about crazy cool shit not fucking women-dicks you goofs

Man... I knew there was a reason I kept coming here. <3

>>6894330
You got rekt

As a homo, I know that heterosexuality is the default human orientation. Though I don't agree with Lacan that homosexuals are frustrated heteros.

>>6894431
dude you're a fucking idiot

>>6899231
>>6899231
>vP795oJ.jpg
good girl

>>6898631
You people are evil shills right? You don't actually believe such things right? I mean noone could be that stupid right?

>>6894873
oh my god this is the dumbest fucking shit ive ever read

>>6903055
Well he's right as far as the "laws" of nature being purely descriptive.

For example "forces", in the newtonian sense, can not be said to have a falsifiable existance.