The Lacanian Subject (Descartes and Lacan)

[@SpearedPage]

What is impressive is not just that you break down Lacan into simple and accessible ideas, it's also that you do this so succinctly. I appreciate that you show a lot of care in not overburdening your audience. I have found your videos have taken me further in my understanding of Lacan than countless blogs and articles I have read, and farther than excerpts from Lacan himself. Thank you so much for putting these videos out into the world. I hope you can continue making them because you're very good at it.

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Thank you so much! 😄 People like yourselves are the reason that we make these videos!

[@Darkloid21]

Lacan was wrong about pretty much everything though so there’s not much to gain from him.

[@mobiditch6848]

@@Darkloid21 so far you haven’t made that argument but rather are repeating a claim made by those that have something to lose if Lacan is to be taken seriously.

[@Darkloid21]

@@mobiditch6848 If you take him seriously there is no hope for you. Breaking him down shows how nonsensical his ideas are.

[@mobiditch6848]

@@Darkloid21 depends on what you mean by “seriously”.

[@mastermati773]

This video is so damn good. I swear Lacan is complicated. The barrier to entry is like nothing else. And you put it so clearly.

[@ЯсенЧапкънов]

Yeah but Descartes is simple. The "I think therefore I am" quote isn't even from his meditations but earlier works. In fact by the time he wrote the book he realized the formulation was circular so he had to express himself with more word to explain that it isn't a proof of existence but rather a proof for not doubting it. Lacan's aspect is nonetheless brilliant.

[@Rodieck1234]

This is probably the clearest explanation of Lacan I've ever heard.

[@leoti9527]

thanks for your hard work, the content is pure gold, much appreciated

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Thank you so much! 😄

[@guilhermeherrmann6757]

Thanks for the great content!! As someone who just started studying Lacan, your videos are helping me a lot

[@kylefawcett5790]

Thank you for these videos. To those that have made these videos, you have a good ability to break down concepts and present them in an easy to understand way. I hope this channel grows and that you continue making videos. If you make a patreon or something if that sort, I will donate

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Thank you so much! Because of nice people like you we will continue making these videos 😄

[@manisaphoenix3467]

Love the lacan content. Just finished how to read lacan and your videos help wrapping my head around some of it

[@mihirsingh5644]

This is just exceptional work. One thing I couldn't understand in Fink's book was the movement of the conscious subject to the left when he talks about "where it was, I must come into being." That part where there is a moral obligation to take responsibility of the thoughts that you have. That is a subtelty I would like you to explain sometime! Great great great video!

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Thanks for your question! In the next video, that I am currently working on, will be about the graphs of desire. And in the first graph this mechanism from unconscious to the construction of the barred subject through the signifying chain will be explained in more detail. Hopefully this will help you! And if not, I will try to explain it in a comment as best as I can 😄.

[@mihirsingh5644]

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 just exceptional work from your side as always ❤️

[@danielamarquesdani6018]

Hello! I'm starting to study Lacan by my self and your videos are the only ones which really helped clarifying things for me. Thank you very much for the hard work. Sending love

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Thank you so much for the compliment! People like you is why I make these videos 😊

[@usudnik4561]

Awesome, clear and concise!

[@inteligenciamilgrau]

You must understand also that the original quote is "cogito ergo sum"! In latim theres no "I"! It's hidden! This detail changes everything! If we understand it, even the "I" is not proved, but just the existence of thinking/thoughts!

[@Ledhoven]

Most appreciated my guy 👍 very good distinctions and clarifications.

[@benjammin4840]

These are so awesome. Thank you!

[@dethkon]

Funnily I came to this same conclusion a few years ago. Descartes might as well had said “I think, therefore I think.” It’s a tautology.

[@grimmGrievs]

Dont you dare stop making these vids! Disregard the views and just focus on the quality - which is superb. Thx for focusing on Lacan. Ever think you'll get to Sloterdajk?

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Very welcome! 😄 I hope to cover Sloterdijk as well some time! Do you have any recommendation regarding one of his books?

[@MrJamesdryable]

There was a young man who said “Though It seems that I know that I know, what I would like to see is the "I" that knows me when I know that I know that I know”. - Alan Watts I like this quote, but in reality there is no I to be am.

[@mateusdeitos2133]

You are an amazing teacher!

[@dumpsterbaby6016]

Can't wait for the next video! Thank you so much :))

[@wadesharp8017]

I don't have all of the seminars, and so I'm learning a lot from excerpts. There's so much information to sift through to answer the million questions I have. When Lacan asserts that the "I think" of the Cogito is like something inside a homunculus that causes the Subject to be and act, and then shows how that leads to an infinite regress, is he then using that as a way to show that thoughts stem directly from unconscious impulse because it's the most logical way for him to break the infinite regress of the "I think, therefore I am?" As Nietzsce says, "It" is doing the thinking, and we are acting the thought. But what is doing the thinking that causes the thinking of the it? and so on and so on... Does it all just stop at impulse? In other words "desire"? So, unconscious desire is what's doing the thinking, and language is like the passport which allows the subject to enact the desire in one way or another? Or is the big Other that is doing the thinking from outside, and we just reiterate it within a form that fits our desire? Like, the unconscious is just this empty mirror/jug that sucks language in from the big Other to understand its own Oedipal drives and then manipulates the signifiers and ships them back out to create action? Am I just making stuff up here, or have I actually learned something?

[@flaviocury2815]

Amazing work! Thank you very much for sharing! 😃

[@MineKrowa]

Damn i just found your channel. awesome stuff my guy

[@YoruShika-vh3md]

such a great video. very detailed explanation

[@21stcenturyoptimist]

Thank you so much! This is a gift of the gods!

[@hellothereiamivo]

Thanks a lot for the video. It's really excellent.

[@hellothereiamivo]

Seriously, excellent.

[@georgiostsichritzis2152]

Just wow, thanks a lot, really really good and crystal clear explanation

[@weekendresearcher]

Another masterpiece. Waiting for wittgenstein

[@cristy02]

thank you for this video!!!!!! learned so much❤

[@MegaLotusEater]

Great vid. Thank you!

[@abczyx159]

this video is incredibly helpful, thank you very much

[@DanielTrengove]

I have a question about your reference to Schopenhauer, as well as Kant's Thing-in-Itself. If the unconscious performs a similar function for Lacan as the Thing-in-Itself does for Kant, in what sense could we say that the unconscious is structured like a language? For, as Schopenhauer maintains, structure is a feature of our representations, not of things in themselves. I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts on this

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

That is a very good question actually. And it is also precisely why so many scholars have critiques Kant, since Kant argues that we can never know the things in themselves, and only the representation. But this representation is in some way still dependent on the object. Therefore Kant uses the following reasoning: 1) First we have sensibility by which we come to see the world. 2) Our intuitions of space and time perform some operation by which we come to know the representation of the object, that is, the judgement (for example: "A is not B", or "If a than B"). 3) However, now we have all these representations and we know that eventually we go from this manifold of representations to a unity in consciousness (to a concept). And the question is: "How?". 4) The awnser: Synthesis. What is synthesis? 5) Awnser: Synthesis is rule governed activity. What are these rules? 6) Awnser: The Categories of the Understanding. In summary, our mind brings these categories to the thing in itself by which we come to know the representation and the relation between representations. In this way, the unconscious could be seen as these rules or categories. Categories like cause and effect and negation (i.e. "if I push a rock it will roll". Or "a dog is not a cat".). These categories do not belong to the objects themselves, but come solely from the subject. They are as Kant calls it "synthetic". At the end of the day we do not know the thing in itself, but only the subjective interpretation of its representation. When Lacan says that the unconscious is structured like a language the reference in to these rules and representations. The matter for our unconscious is our representations (i.e. our symbols, signifiers and language). In short, the rules we use in language are the same rules that our mind uses to decode the world i.e. its representation. To understand this theory of Kant better I will upload a video in 1-2 days about that topic. Also, personally I have a problem with the term unconscious since it is often used in different ways than intended. The unconscious is simply the opposite of conscious and both can be seen as "not aware" and "aware". But awareness is no process nor the description of a process that Lacan aims at. That is also why you will never find the term unconscious in the Critique of Pure Reason. But I will make a video later on that goes into this topic 😁 I hope that this somewhat answers your question! If not feel free to ask more! 😊

[@yp77738yp77739]

Thank you. Rather analogously to calculus, I approached increasingly closer to an understanding of what he is saying. However, concurrence with his conclusions remain significantly distant.

[@mitchie2267]

Great video as always! Keep the Lacan videos up. 😊 Before Descartes was Descartes he was originally Iblis in the Quran. Iblis refused to prostrate himself before Adam, acting out against Allah he made the assumption that bowing before Adam was an absurdity since fire is greater than clay. He thought he knew the essence much like how the Cartesian subject does.

[@guillegamarra]

Thank you so much for your work, simply brilliant

[@tufancan4640]

Amazing, amazing, amazing.

[@litstudent]

Very helpful video thank you

[@lyren5540]

Thank you for your work!

[@telosbound]

Really great stuff

[@seandelaney6796]

Schelling deserves some credit!

[@parsa.mostaghim]

thanks for these videos on Lacan

[@Darkloid21]

How does this apply to daily life? Are we to just shun what we enjoy doing because it’s “not us”?

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Good question! Well first of all I would say that this theory is not meant to tell us what to do. According to Lacan we cannot change who we are, but we can understand ourselves a bit better. To this end I would say that this theory helps us to see that our actions are ascribed to an "I" as if we can control our actions, where in reality we are subjected to cause and effect outside the reach of a constructed "I". This insight might help us to be more forgiving and kind to others as well as ourselves. This also means that the input for this cause and effect is very important. In our case, knowledge can greatly change the outcome of a given situation. If your brain has more knowledge to draw from, the effect might change for the better. So in daily life I would say that this theory can help in a better understanding ouf our own and others behaviour, while also potentially improving our wellbeing. I hope this makes some sense. 😊

[@Darkloid21]

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 That kinda sounds like the no free will argument. In which case that would render life no worth living since we are essentially robots without choice. It also means that no one can really change so if people are in a bad spot in life they can’t rise above or improve because they can’t change who they are. I would mean that I as someone on the spectrum can’t hope for a life on my own and will have to be dependent on others. It sounds bleak not really hopeful. If anything I wouldn’t make us kinder to other people but crueler as it borders on a dangerous sort of essentialism. This theory would essentially give huge grounds for some dystopic caste system where you are where you are and there’s nothing you can do.

[@Darkloid21]

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 I don’t think it helps improve our wellbeing. That would only be possible if you could change. But if according to Lacan we can’t change who we are then it doesn’t matter how much you learn the outcome will be the same. It leads to a dangerous form of essentialism. IE bad people can’t change so they have to be destroyed and all that. Lucky we can change who we are, so he’s wrong about that. People grow and change all the time, they’re never the same person they were years or even months ago. So it’s a good thing he’s flat out wrong here.

[@Darkloid21]

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 This didn’t answer the question. I asked if we are to shun what we enjoy because it’s “not us”.

[@MineKrowa]

Will it be correctly understood if I assume that every thought I have is actually created by the uncounsious and therefore i can never take credit for the originality of the thought? Your video is great i just wanted to be sure :D

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Yes exactly! That is what Lacan, Freud and Nietzsche in this video would argue. And you might see how this would effect our vision of free will. Because if we do not think our thought, then how can we take responsibility? Nietzsche would argue that free will was the invention of the Church to make people accountable and introduce the concept of guilt. We go more into this topic of free will in our video on Free will 😄

[@MineKrowa]

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 Awesome, cant wait for that! Thank you so much for replying! :D

[@patrickdaly3628]

Can anybody provide source for the Nietzshe quote around min 3?

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

It's from Beyond Good and Evil, CHAPTER I (PREJUDICES OF PHILOSOPHERS) - paragraph 17 😄

[@Crowleydjackson]

great video

[@Naypa11]

Yes another video thank god

[@maxr.k.pravus9518]

Woah, this is getting really deep now

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Yess... hahaha. Wait till you see the next videos on the Graphs of Desire... 😉

[@ParadoxXx-eh8bt]

So much words... Of course when I say that I know myself I am not referring directly to the underlying system itself. I am referring to the oversimplified and incomplete model of how the system works that has been constructed to navigate social environments. The fact that I am aware of the existence of my unconscious is enough to not be delusional about the depth of the I. Heck even a computer with an open task manager knows not all processes are represented in the window.

[@hugoochoa1602]

I really fail to see what he sees wrong with Decartes. Cogito ergo sum is the start of his rational development of the method, the starting point representing the most basic believable truth for the observer, that he or she is alive and thinking because it is able of doubting. Doubt is what cannot be reduced. Decartes comes with a far better, most parsimonious explanation of our experience of thinking (conscious or not it is still a thought!) than Lacan..

[@atharvasagavekar5778]

Thanks

[@hsunteik]

Why must the conscious "I" be the result of the unconscious thinker? I think the conscious "I" can very well be a separate entity that connects with the unconscious thinker, and thus adopt its language and other content.

[@shrewdagency6588]

One could argue that the disconnected freewheeling conscious I that chooses which elements to construct itself selectively from to which you refer, would still require a shared language or mode of symbolization or "rules" that at least 'seem' to emenate from elsewhere... from without perhaps in Descartes sense, namely God, or within, the more modern parlance - being - the unconscious. The question which your formulation correctly identifies remains: exactly how free are we within the rules of this game to choose the material we identify with? But we can all probably agree that we have limited agency to change the rules of the game, and even less agency to deny that this game exists, and that we don't know or at least not always aware of all of the rules - even when we operate within them. As soon as the free floating "I" engages it becomes part of the system. So I guess the next question is how it can be said to be at all distinct since the terms we use to define it are language itself - i.e. the system. It's a knotty one to be sure. Anyway... Happy thinking.

[@Lastrevio]

good video

[@spacelion6318]

I'm am therefore I can think

[@philo2903]

I am pretty good at philosophy but this video is not understandable for me, the big other, the 2 types of subjects, language creates consciousness. It sounds like sophistry This is so extremely confusing I've watched the whole video and I still know nothing about lacanian philosophy

[@Footstabber200]

shall we discuss I think it will help us bother understand

[@Darkloid21]

It’s a weird subject to be sure. If the thinker is not the one being aware of the actions (which seems doubtful since it doesn’t match the evidence on what the subconscious is) then that would make criminal prosecution impossible because the intent isn’t in the one doing the crime. Sounds like bad philosophy to me

[@donaldthompson6848]

I let me get this straight - the concept of an unconscious I thinking versus the conscious I having experienced "think" is interesting. It really is. In the argument however, i've never interpreted Descartes' Cogito to presuppose anything about subjectivity outside the phenomenological experience of "there is a think, therefore there is a thinker". Whether the thinker is the same as the one experiencing the thought is outside the argument in this step of his meditation, and it's apparent that this is the case as most of Lacan's good arguments against it come refuting Descartes post Cogito - which lets be honest, who can't refute Descartes post Cogito? He was a mess after his Cogito, it's a struggle to find anyone that takes that seriously. Again, given that - it's a very interesting concept, tying in (from an ontological perspective) this almost substance dualism to the linguistic "I". I'll have to digest it for a bit, but very interesting

[@davidagiel8130]

I know I am

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

@@davidagiel8130 but who is "I"? 😏

[@davidagiel8130]

@eversbrothersproductions1476 all is mind, as above, so below, as within, so without. Our external reality is a projection of our inner world, which is shaped by our life experiences. The ultimate goal is to raise our frequency to the highest level we can attain.

[@gwendeseminat8r]

thisi s dogmatic

[@Darkloid21]

It’s also worth noting Lacan is wrong about everything. The self isn’t rooted in language and neither is consciousness, that’s the brain. Also the unconscious is not what he makes it out to be in this, but as a Freudian it makes sense. People had a naive view back then before modern neuroscience.

[@Footstabber200]

it talks about what is proveable not what its rooted in

[@Darkloid21]

@@Footstabber200 It’s still wrong though, not to mention Lacan is pretty much a quack. The self has more or less been proven, but yeah Lacan is just flat out wrong here.