• thewonder
    345
    Is there such a thing as Post-Lacanian or Post-Freudian theory? I like Lacan's notion of jouissance, some what he gleans of the "Other", and his interpretation of anxiety, but think that he failed not to surpass the Freudian fixation upon phallic symbolism and obsession with castration. Sexuality is a facet of the human experience and not it's sole manifestation. I also honestly suspect that the fear of castration stems from the utilization of the guillotine. It is not necessarily a natural fear.

    There seems to be a real need to go beyond Freud and not to just return to him. Deleuze and Guattari lambasted Freud, and, perhaps they were right to just be done with him altogether, but I wonder if there isn't anything out there that could be likened to what Post-Structuralism is to Structuralism. I don't know that I would even agree with Post-Lacanians or Post-Freudians, but it does seem like it would make for some interesting theory.
  • csalisbury
    1.9k
    Kierkegaard back in his day spoke of a feverish desire to go beyond, at any cost, beyond whatever there was out there. He counselled beginning at the beginning.

    But hey if you want to just go for pure new - OOO seems to fit the vibe
  • StreetlightX
    3.9k
    Psychoanalysis is now so diffuse among contemporary theory that if you don't find 'post-Lacanians' or 'post-Freudians' it's because the use of psychoanalysis can no longer be neatly fitted into any particular school or movement. Not because it's not out there, but because it's everywhere, with so many taking their cue from Lacan and Freud but developing them in vastly different ways. In many ways I think this is a healthier environment than one in which one or two new 'schools' dominate and claim the mantle of paychoanalysis.

    And what of other classic psychoanalysists like Winnicot, Klein, Laplanche and Pontalis? People were thinking 'beyond' Lacan even while Lacan was still around.
  • thewonder
    345

    I plan on reading Kierkegaard once my books show up in the mail or after I reread Being and Nothingness.


    I think that you're right about that.

    I suppose that suggesting that there should be a "Post"-Lacanianism is somewhat absurd as a number of the "Post-Structuralists" reject the label.
  • csalisbury
    1.9k
    My advice in general (as someone eminently guilty) is try not to use erudition as shield and sword. Reread Being and Nothingness all day but there comes a moment when everything youve read droops down around you and youre still the same person. If you want an image of the philosopher who has it all under control, the first short of The Ballad of Buster Scruggs on netflix captures what happens well. Eventually youll be able to talk good forever but...

    Philosophy (& psychoanalysis) should be supplement. Don't make too much of it.
  • thewonder
    345

    I was just explaining that it could be a while before I get around to reading Kierkegaard as I plan on reading Being and Nothingness first. I wasn't trying to suggest that I know what I am talking about because I am someone who is willing to read Being and Nothingness.
  • csalisbury
    1.9k
    My apologies if I misread you.
  • thewonder
    345

    You don't have to apologize. I thought that your post was kind of funny.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.