Full Lecture: Lacan on Love and why masculinity is the pervert’s fetishistic disavowal

In this lecture: Lacan’s definition of love, desire and Lack. Also, why masculinity is a fetishistic disavowal and what makes Andrew Tate a Lacanian pervert.
You can download the essay of this class here: / 71811531
#lacan #zizek #psychoanalysis #philosophy

[@YUGOPNIK]

Love for your work from the good old Balkans. Keep it up!

[@addammadd]

Of course my favorite KZbin socialist is in my favorite KZbin Žižekian’s comments.

[@AdobadoFantastico]

Hey neighbor! ;)

[@thomaspollack7451]

Pretty cool seeing you on here. You're references to and quotes of Zizek are a big part of why I started studying philosophy

[@Soupdude338]

@YUGOPNIK Sorry to bother you here, but in your masculinity crisis video do you know which book or lecture you are referencing from Lacan when you state: "Lacan proposes that Masculinity in itself, is a false identity, insofar as it only exists in its relation to the fetishized idea of the Feminine"

[@toastpiece3382]

Yugopnik is a fellow lacan sufferer??

[@afterschooling2509]

05:40 Start 07:18 Lacan's idea of hate 14:04 Love is the love of lack in the other 16:00 Lack 19:44 Augustine's theory about male sex organ 24:06 Lacan's 'The Phallus' 28:50 We love the chase 31:28 Problem of ascetic 33:28 'I love their desire' 33:50 love is a repetition 37:56 Phallus is never a physical compensation 40:36 Idea of womanhood 42:34 Masculinity is a pervert's position 42:54 Example of fetishistic disavowal 45:17 'Love is the truth of lack' 49:15 Why pervert is incapable of loving? 50:20 Embracing your symptoms

[@stardust26261]

tysm

[@TheGothicguitar]

Joining from India 🇮🇳 you’re making psychoanalysis comprehensible for the general public which is a great step forward, love and peace

[@gaolong7153]

Love from China. I have been watching your videos with subtitles on a Chinese Video Platform BiliBili. New to the philosophy world too, and you are the first one I have been binge watching!

[@kimodify]

It's a good response to my comment on your ( i prefer not to ) video about stopping to desire for peace of mind. Makes me see it more clearly now, not desiring being a desire on itself . Thank you

[@julianphilosophy]

Apologies for the terrible quality. This is recorded on an old iPhone SE. but I’m posting a higher audio quality version to my patreon: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian

[@julstheturk]

Will the audio version be seamless? Starting from minute 30 the video starts to glitch out, there’s audio missing and it’s harder to follow.

[@Kuffyeyo-HonestWeirdo]

Watching from Nigeria

[@yakuzzi35]

Joining from South Africa :) recently discovered Zizek and your videos are helpful to understand him, and also gives food for thought. Keep it up

[@julianphilosophy]

Greetings from Washington! Glad you’re here 👍😊

[@timcareymusic]

Yo! Enjoying this series while I jog around Seattle. Thanks so much!

[@jenesuispassanslavoir7698]

Lecture begins around 5:47

[@piyawatsuwanna975]

Self control is awareness i have no control over myself this paradox help me work out to the next level

[@jackl4349]

Sad to find out we were in Seattle at the same time but I only just found your channel/Patreon. Either way, thanks for the work and exploration.

[@ekeneam3644]

Love from Nigeria!

[@Kuffyeyo-HonestWeirdo]

Nigeria here too

[@metro2197]

Me three

[@santaskiddo7503]

this video was IT! thanks Julian.

[@prettysober]

Found you last week and I'm glad to. Regards from Chile, keep the good work!!

[@julianphilosophy]

Greetings from Seattle to Chile!

[@JaydenWeirMusic]

Love this stuff, I find all of these lectures super interesting but I don't think I fully wrap my head around this topic yet, these lectures actually make me want to start taking notes (which is something that every teacher I've had has failed to do). Any book recommendations to get more into the topic of love and desire? or some other lectures of yours maybe? Thanks alot!

[@kvass679]

I recommend Zizek's Sublime subject of ideology and his book How to read Lacan. Zizek uses very simplified language. But also watch Zizek's lectures. There are many of them on KZbin they are extremely entertaining and satisfying to watch.

[@victorw1125]

Watching from Honduras, thanks for all the great work you do!

[@motikumar9266]

Good style and analytical discussion.

[@adammada9117]

I would say in general, the phallus is not inherently a symbol for a feeling of impotence, but rather that only those who feel impotent see the phallus as a symbol at all. I would say the concealed nature of the penis (meaning very few people have seen it other than the person who has it) makes a perfect symbol for all the repressed masculine traits a man might possess. If a man, or i suppose a teenage boy, as this is likely the time feelings of impotence first arise, begins to become self conscious for any reason, he will repress elements of his character and instead outwardly expresses traits that are considered to be more masculine than the ones he possesses. I believe some people call this performativity. I think this results in two effects. 1. The traits the man represses in exchange for more socially conventional masculine traits become internally defined as masculine, being that it was for “masculine” traits that they were repressed. 2. The repressed masculine traits become symbolized by the penis, litterally “the concealed masculinity” or “concealed manhood” thus the phallus becomes the symbol of all the elements of his masculinity that only he knows about. If the traits were not sources of insecurity for the man, he would have never repressed them, thus the phallus itself becomes a source of insecurity; it is the symbol of repressed masculine insecurity, or impotence. He then participates in all the compensation measures you mention. Or he becomes resentful towards women, who he believes is the source of his insecurity. I would also say that this results in some men desiring their partners to affirm his masculinity to him, simply because he still believes deep down that women don't find him masculine(the “him” meaning his repressed masculine traits, not his adopted ones). Those who did not repress their traits, likely never had this relationship at all. It is not inconceivable to me that there exist a man somewhere with so much blind confidence in himself that feelings of inadequacy are rare if ever present. If this seems impossible, it could be because freud or lacan, or myself for that matter could never possess the blind confidence required to sprint towards every precipice as though we had wings, and thus the idea would seem alien to us. Additionally i would note that it is this man that everyone imitates, even if only accidentally. It is precisely his confidence that is masculine, and thus he is the role that everyone preforms. This is probably where the idea of the male ego stems from, simply because so much of men’s “masculinity” is performed by the ego. And when his “masculinity” is criticized, he is effectively taking offense not at being a bad man, but a bad actor, and he is reminded he is not himself. Thanks for the great lecture.

[@savoirfaire6181]

Your explanation is much better than in the lecture above and rings more true to a typical journey of male development in many cultures. Good insight. Augustine was the source of a lot of messed up ideas about human sexuality, which I shall not quote here for the sake of avoiding vulgarity. He had quite a struggle in his history with his sexual obsession being in tension with his beliefs, whether Christian or more primarily Montanist. So his feelings about his phallus were rather unique to the tensions in his specific worldview over the issue of his powerlessness towards "lust" and not to some inherent way that men feel about their phalluses in general. It's a false problem, IMHO and doesn't ring true. His ideas are the source of enough suffering in western history so it's disturbing to see him sit at the head of more ideas still to come. If God exists then everything is permitted, right? The Christian worldview and its obsessions seems something we cannot avoid in the West to this very day in either political camp. It seems to me that the argument about the phallus above in the lecture, from Augustine through Freud and Lacan on seems likely a fetishistic disavowal of genuine masculinity's utility to our species. At least for many it may function this way. Knowledge is empowering and this includes false knowledge. We should suspect that such arguments may become an easy fetishistic replacement for the masculine power of our species we are losing. It is with a face full of glee that our modern culture has thrown off the tyranny of primitive gender roles, including that of fatherhood ("patriarchy"). Like a child sucking its thumb we can't stop talking about them though. The attachment to what we hate, as per the above ideas. I'd add that if genius is the ability to make complex things simple then what is it's opposite? I'd suggest it's something screaming for Ockham to bring his big phallus like sword over and cut the limp and absurd thing right off.... It seems obvious there are simple and easy to understand biological reasons for masculinity and femininity rather than such theoretical arcana. Addressing the abuses and excesses of male power and struggles with inner weakness has been important to any culture throughout history. In doing so we should note that the awkward journey towards mature masculinity or femininity is not the same thing as the destination. Our failure to mature results in childish grounds for our shallow explanations of what we don't really understand. I'd suggest that genuine masculinity is simply an outward focus towards the needs of others which relies upon typical male strengths to meet those specific needs. The same would go for genuine femininity in regards to female strengths, (which the male is adapted to be particularly receptive towards in return). Both keep in balance with that which is polarized to themselves in order to form productive relationship of mutual benefit for the sake of species propagation and mutual survival. By contrast, what we popularly call "masculine" these days is simply boyish cockiness and baloney being acted out by insecure and immature males trying to attract immature and insecure females who readily fall for shenanigans. This is of course obnoxious and "macho" but it isn't masculine at all in a mature sense. It of course tricks a lot of immature females into feeling attraction until the point of their pregnancy and disillusionment. It's no wonder it's utilized so commonly by immature males who are no longer challenged to join mature masculine ranks through initiation rites and difficult testing and accomplishment. The more accepting our society is towards these immature and imprecise character formations and judgments, the more prolific they have become. We are selecting for deception over quality and in fact, due to the organization of our society into an extremely strong state power structure, established gender roles are now virtually obsolete. The patriarchy and matriarchy has been fully replaced with the state in near total utopian fetishistic disavowal. Thus the state is worshipped as containing both male and female qualities in civil religion of both the left and the right. If the state succeeds in providing for life for our species long term, then this will remain the case. However, the greatly accelerated ecological disaster wrought by the weaponized organization of power into state hands and the fight of that hierarchy to maintain its control seems to predict that our species will utterly perish along with most others, since coercion sits at its core as its starting point of social organization and is necessary for its continued structural survival. If we narrowly avoid complete annihilation then we will no doubt be forced to re-organize back into more traditional gender roles once again in some waste land where more basic social organization will be absolutely necessary and errors in judgment regarding true masculine character will result in near certain death. In small social organizations without access to high technology, no tyrant is as strong as a true leader and so the same masculine qualities which brought us through the last 200,000 years of survival will continue on when these conversations have long become out of date themselves.

[@lukefriede2986]

Great comment 👍

[@OsirusHandle]

But what makes you a man in the first place? Why a boy already by your teenage years? Freuds Oedipal drama recognizes that even the infant feels impotent the moment, for some mysterious reason you cant comprehend, you are denied milk. The motivating object behind this mysterious reason momma denies you what you want is the Phallus, or Phallic symbol, in lacanian theory. The penis is not the phallus here. In turn, studies repeatedly find that children make up their rough mind about their gender around 3 years old.

[@tomc4187]

In Lacanian psychoanalysis, phallus is precisely not a penis.

[@OsirusHandle]

@@tomc4187 Right, but the subjects relation to it is still formative of their Sex; what else brings it about? Do you believe like the neuroscientists in a pre-symbolic sexual identity?

[@r3fus32d13]

watching from French Canada. You have a great selection of topics. Very relatable for our age group

[@julianphilosophy]

Thank you!

[@zack49]

Hello from Montgomery, Alabama. You do great work, thank you!

[@MotorcyclePhaedrus]

Reading todd mcgowns "emancipation after hegel", and "embracing alienation", have been rewarding beyond my expectations. Im beginning to rediscover my love of reading again, and this excellent yt content just shows what good there is in the world. Im from south africa, living in the northern most part of norway. The other day i struck up a conversation with a masters student, and she was getting stuck into hegel at the same time as she was pursuing a degree in neurobiology if i remeber correctly.

[@Vladimir-Struja]

so the song " I Want You To Want Me" seems to be about lacanian psychoanalysis :D, at least in the title

[@drumnbasskickyourass]

Лол

[@genuineletter]

I love it! You cleared up quite a few things there. The way you developed the concepts of lack and the phallus was very palpable. Although, the way I understood it was that the phallus is usually attributed to the woman. In any case, I am not sure about your conclusion. While the pervert might not be able to love like a neurotic subject does (or a psychotic), he has a very special access to jouissance/enjoyment. Actually, the way you put the goal of analysis means that the goal would be to turn the analysand into a pervert! Because- oh the pervert enjoys his symptom terribly! It's huge topic on many levels: the pervert and the law (of the father), the pervert and jouissance, and what you developed: the pervert and the phallus (or the castration complex). What you described is how the pervert relates to his object I would say. In addictions, the field of jouissance and the law are very present - and many addicts have a perverse structure (according to Lacan). Well thank you! And I also wanted to mention that I read a good argument for how a pervert is in fact able to love in Stephanie Swale's book. It's recomendadtion, although its very clinical and as far as I can see you are more into the theoretical gems. I'll be following and listening!

[@julianphilosophy]

Thanks! Really appreciate this.

[@tommythewho6073]

Irish guy in Colorado. thank you for your work

[@chunguskhan3009]

Watching from Lithuania, all of these ideas are relevant worldwide!

[@addammadd]

6:50 what if it’s a misreading to assume the Joker’s prime antagonist and essential opposite is Batman? Perhaps down to the limiting binary imposed by Hegelian totality. For example, consider that maybe The Joker has no antagonist; or rather his antagonist is jouissance. He hates all that society stands for precisely because he hates himself insufficiently to warrant suicide. Batman in this reading is more reasonably considered the Joker’s sinthome; always bringing the maximum pain and resistance but always just short of the death for which he strives. Batman isn’t the Joker’s antagonist, but instead the emergence (here I go anti-Hegelian) produced by the Joker’s misanthropic codependency with society. Without The Joker, there would be no Batman certainly, but the former doesn’t require the latter for his existence because so long as there is one more human, there will always be a society to loathe.

[@julianphilosophy]

Oeh I like this! Very good take

[@addammadd]

@@julianphilosophy I love your work Julian.

[@kimodify]

Interesting take, so basically Joker is just doing what he always does, even before batman existed. Which the show actually confirms. But without the Joker Batman has no meaning or purpose. So like a toxic relationship only one is dependent on the other. Which makes him rage about his own existence.

[@chandlerbwilson]

Watching from my dock on w lake Sammamish! Do you ever do in person events/ book clubs?

[@giorgioferrari8241]

Joining from Italy, thank you very much, you are godsend for us all

[@julianphilosophy]

Greetings back to Italy from Washington!

[@kvass679]

Ur works are very helpful thanks. Love from Morroco

[@nicholasburch2122]

this is the most coherent explanation of lacan i have ever heard holy fuck

[@monicacruz4407]

Thank you from Spain

[@pallasashta9129]

Thank you for the informative video

[@unusualpond]

Excellent thank you

[@venti7669]

Love your videos from Bavaria

[@roryobrien6655]

Australia - great lectures. There are a few drop outs in the one, use a second camera to record offline for KZbin while doing the live vids!

[@julianphilosophy]

Hi! Greetings from Washington 😊 yeah I’m not sure why the internet was so bad in this one. I used a second camera to record on instagram and I’ve saved it there for free as well. Alternatively, I’ve posted the audio on Patreon: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian

[@AdobadoFantastico]

Dammit, this makes me not want to go back to Seattle. I still can't believe how much rain I saw while living there, lol. Appreciations from a traveler.

[@muzicidelift410]

prly Lacan had a very game theory oriented approach to what he perceived as love, perhaps ludic. first time i tried reading him I felt like he was writing in order to cynically flirt with me

[@y.elfakir8192]

im from Morroco and u rock

[@lokihiggs6579]

Howdy from Zurich, Switzerland!

[@orangesurfboard2238]

This is a lot to take in, but so very worthwhile. It makes sense to me and is helping me understand why I am averse to toxic masculinity. I knew they were perverts! (but I didn't know why....)

[@Skeptgeo3]

I had to dip because the points in the title were not addressed in a reasonable time

[@Birutaginkgolab]

Hugs from a brasilian in Switzerland

[@arpitverma3071]

Love your work, joining from India

[@julianphilosophy]

Greetings from Washington!

[@jeremybruck5402]

Life is perverse, because it speaks through ideal conceptual categories to disavow the essence of the conceptual categories in order to trap their audience in a false certainty that causes them to disavow what is conceived to be empty and to replace it with constructions that are actually empty.

[@Nalhek]

Wound up here bc I had been doing a great deal of thinking about the transition within ancient mythologies from earth mother goddesses to sky father gods and I've been trying to make sense of that transition in a way that might provide a framework within which the subsequent evolution of human culture - and ultimately our arrival at contemporary culture - can be better understood. It seems to me that some sort of gender dynamics - psychoanalytic, archetypal, mythic, etc - are the heart which beats the pulse of both individual human lives as well as that of human civilization at large. So anywho, to that end I'm trying to get a better grip on Lacan's conceptions of masculinity, femininity, the (M)Other, the phallus, the name of the father, and all those other terms that I know how to say but don't really understand even though it seems like they should be obvious. Anywho, love your work. Keep it up.

[@pallasashta9129]

The idea of a primordial matriarchy can be called neo-romantic

[@Vnm2207]

@@pallasashta9129 it’s “neo” only when looked from a male history perspective and it is romantic only in the way that males came to define romanticism in modern culture…

[@abrahamhempel9260]

Heterosexual romantic love feels very performative to me. It's difficult for me to get over this aspect, or maybe I am too old and jaded to believe in true romance anymore.

[@anneallison6402]

Is there a place I can talk to you personally I need help I think only a philosopher can give. Please!!!

[@anneallison6402]

What does psychoanalisis have to say about transgender issues??

[@theforcefor]

Hello from Mexico!!! :D

[@ruthpower4892]

Watching from Ireland!! Sisyphus 55 made a video that touches on this!!

[@tommythewho6073]

fellow Irish person here. Happy to see it, sometimes the lack of thirst for intellectual conversation that is out of the realms of pop culture (with in Ireland) sadness me . although I have not been there in 4 years and maybe I just had a poor pool of people I was surrounded with

[@nopenope1834]

from Sydney Australia

[@swimmingchicken7254]

Watching from pittsburgh

[@usagi-z]

Dzień dobry from Poland!

[@jrrr5039]

You're saying "Lacan does not comdem this [the perpetual cycle of desire], he is not Buddhist", however, this seems to me an implicit misunderstanding of Buddhism. To condem desire would (at least on my reading of Buddhism) merely be a projection of the ego; a projection according to an ideal of what ought to be (e.g., I ought not to desire), hence precisely not the radical acceptence entailed by the concept of enlightenment in Buddhism. Buddhism is not concerened with denying or supressing desire, which would merely create the desire not to desire; but rather, observing desire and practicing letting desires go by virtue the very same lack and void through which desire arises - i.e., the ability to project possibilities - that ultimatley gives us the negative freedom to say "I would prefer not to". The mistake pointed out above seems quite prevalent within Western interpretations of Buddhism (see: e.g., Nietzsche), and seems to me a blind spot in the Hegelian/Lacanian/Zizekian line of thought. It is as if you cannot fully take Buddhism seriously because it would entail, if not a challenge, than at least an alternative to this line of thinking. That said, I am more of a Heideggerian myself, so my blind spot within philosophy is precisely this Hegelian/Lacanian/Zizekian line of thought, which makes it all the more interesting because I can see a lot of important insights there as well. Anyways, keep up the amazing work!

[@_M_4]

Very interesting. Online dating completely changed the game tho. Capitalism at its finest. It's all about superficiality and checklists, at least for women. Masculinity is pretty much completely tied to trying to satisfy women's onslaught of criteria.

[@MrFiremagnet]

I happened to watch quite a few red pill videos, but always had a sense of bullshit. Lacan's take points out and explains why.

[@julianphilosophy]

I’m honestly so glad this makes sense to you. Be been getting a lot of heat for posting about this 😅

[@emilianosintarias7337]

Since Lacan didn't know much about evolutionary biology, experimental psychology, neurology, or cultural anthropology, what is the point of discussing his ideas on masculinity without using them as a lens on the above, or vice versa?

[@julianphilosophy]

Not sure if this is a good faith quesrion or a rhetorical one, but as I said in the beginning of the lecture the purpose of introducing these psychoanalytic concepts is so that next week we can link them back to žižek’s reading of a Hegel. I would also like to add that Lacanian/Freudian psychoanalysis exists very much against the backdrop of evolutionary biology because it precisely rejects biological determinism.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

@@julianphilosophy It is in good faith, though I am a little skeptical of Lacan, -but there are no sections, timestamps to the video so sorry, i missed that remark. I am familiar with Zizek, but I didn't hear an argument for the claim that masculinity is a perverted form of disavowal, I assume it is spread throughout the video. But I guess to make such a statement that would potentially sound sexist to the average layperson, it is a good idea to put a condensed, almost syllogistic formula of the argument at the end of beginning, with the rest of the video being the more in depth, unpacked version. I think what I heard instead, and I really am not sure, is that there is no masculinity as we understand it, and then that prompts an exploration of theory of identity and the body. When you say backdrop of evolutionary biology, the go to assumption is you mean built upon it. So evolutionary psychology maybe, or perhaps buddhism, or some new theories in neuroscience. But it sounds like you mean in opposition to. What worries me is that evolutionary biology and the importance of biology in sex, and sex in gender is conflated with determinism or pure functionalism. If it is, there is no nature, no world, no stuff. left to be molded or acted on reflexively by human subjectivity. In other words, it sounds anti science, with science being equated with scientific reductionism

[@alexander63736]

You were having fun with this one lol

[@marlie4872]

11:04

[@The0l0L0]

♥♥♥

[@hajarderkaoui3253]

Morocco ❤

[@lepianiste93]

Who finally implements the prostate into all this?

[@hughmac13]

Odi et amo…

[@al148]

India Mumbai

[@superman5810]

material great, quality ....ugh, butthnx for the content

[@julianphilosophy]

Thanks! Yeah I tend to keep it very poor quality.

[@araymond1227]

Greetings from 🇵🇰

[@danielgavish1315]

Love from israel!

[@SPACEDOUT19]

i have a type tho, its cute danish and dutch girls

[@emiliaerle6030]

I prefered the original clickbait title of this stream 😁

[@xletix69]

what was it?

[@emiliaerle6030]

@@xletix69 "Love thy phallus as you love thyself" or sth along these lines, sounded like a self-care tutorial 😀

[@swimmingchicken7254]

Getting soy vibes