What do you think?
Rate this book
انتصار الدين
قال لاكان ذات مرة عن نفسه: "أنا نتاج الكهنة". تلقى تعليمه على يد الأخوة المريميين (أو إخوة مريم الصغار)، وكان طفلاً تقيًا واكتسب معرفة شخصية كبيرة بالعذابات وحيل الروحانية المسيحية. لقد كان قادرًا بشكل رائع على التحدث إلى الكاثوليك وإحضارهم إلى التحليل النفسي. وتوافد اليسوعيون إلى مدرسته. وكان فرويد، وهو من أنصار التنوير المتفائل على الطراز القديم، يعتقد أن الدين مجرد وهم بأن تقدم الروح العلمية سوف يتبدد في المستقبل. لم يشارك لاكان هذا الاعتقاد على الإطلاق: لقد اعتقد، على العكس من ذلك، أن الدين الحقيقي، الكاثوليكية الرومانية، سوف يستوعب الجميع في النهاية، ويسكب دلاء مليئة بالمعنى على الواقع الأكثر إلحاحًا والذي لا يطاق والذي نحن فيه، في حياتنا.
95 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
9 people are currently reading
360 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Lacan
182 books1,226 followersJacques-Marie-Émile Lacan was a French psychoanalyst, psychiatrist, and doctor, who made prominent contributions to the psychoanalytic movement. His yearly seminars, conducted in Paris from 1953 until his death in 1981, were a major influence in the French intellectual milieu of the 1960s and 1970s, particularly among post-structuralist thinkers.
Lacan's ideas centered on Freudian concepts such as the unconscious, the castration complex, the ego, focusing on identifications, and the centrality of language to subjectivity. His work was interdisciplinary, drawing on linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, amongst others. Although a controversial and divisive figure, Lacan is widely read in critical theory, literary studies, and twentieth-century French philosophy, as well as in the living practice of clinical psychoanalysis.
Lacan's ideas centered on Freudian concepts such as the unconscious, the castration complex, the ego, focusing on identifications, and the centrality of language to subjectivity. His work was interdisciplinary, drawing on linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, amongst others. Although a controversial and divisive figure, Lacan is widely read in critical theory, literary studies, and twentieth-century French philosophy, as well as in the living practice of clinical psychoanalysis.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
July 31, 2023
Apologies ladies and gents, no review today. Skim this highlight reel instead.
"The true religion is the Roman one. To try to put all religions in the same basket and do what is called "the history of religions" is truly awful. There is one true religion and that is the Christian religion. The question is simply whether this truth will stand up - namely, if it will be able to secrete meaning to such an extent that we will truly drown in it. It will manage to do so, that's certain, because it is resourceful."
"for the average Joe - for this carnal being, this repugnant personage-the drama begins only when the Word is involved, when it is incarnated, as the true religion says. It is when the Word is incarnated that things really start going badly. Man is no longer at all happy, he no longer resembles at all a little dog who wags his tail or a nice monkey who masturbates. He no longer resembles anything. He is ravaged by the Word."
"There are, in fact, little domains where philosophy might still have something to say. Unfortunately, it is rather curious that philosophy shows so many signs of aging. Okay, Heidegger said two or three sensible things. But it has nevertheless been a very long time since philosophy has said anything that might interest everyone. Moreover, it never says anything that interests everyone. When it does say something, it says things that are of interest to two or three people. After that, it shifts to universities and then it's shot - there is no longer the slightest philosophy, even imaginable."
"What a sublime relief it would be nonetheless if we suddenly had to deal with a true blight, a blight that came from the hands of the biologists. That would be a true triumph. It would mean that humanity would truly have achieved something - its own destruction. It would be a true sign of the superiority of one being over all the others. Not only its own destruction, but the destruction of the entire living world. That would truly be the sign that man is capable of something. But it gets them quaking a bit in their boots, all the same. We aren't there yet."
"What scientific discourse unmasks is that nothing any longer remains of a transcendental aesthetic by which harmony would be established, even if that harmony were [now] lost, between our intuitions and the world. No analogy can henceforth be established between physical reality and any sort of universal man. Physical reality is fully and totally inhuman."
"The death instinct is, nevertheless, the response of the Thing when we don't want to know anything about it. It doesn't know anything about us either. But isn't this also a form of sublimation around which man's being, once again, turns on its hinges? Isn't libido - about which Freud tells us that no force in man is more readily sublimated, the last fruit of sublimation with which modern man responds to his solitude?"
"nothing in the concrete life of a single individual allows us to ground the idea that such a finality directs his life and could lead him - through the pathways of progressive self-consciousness undergirded by natural development - to harmony with himself as well as to approval from the world on which his happiness depends."
"Yes, we come back to Plato. It is pretty easy to come back to Plato. Plato said a huge number of banalities and naturally we return to them.”
"The true religion is the Roman one. To try to put all religions in the same basket and do what is called "the history of religions" is truly awful. There is one true religion and that is the Christian religion. The question is simply whether this truth will stand up - namely, if it will be able to secrete meaning to such an extent that we will truly drown in it. It will manage to do so, that's certain, because it is resourceful."
"for the average Joe - for this carnal being, this repugnant personage-the drama begins only when the Word is involved, when it is incarnated, as the true religion says. It is when the Word is incarnated that things really start going badly. Man is no longer at all happy, he no longer resembles at all a little dog who wags his tail or a nice monkey who masturbates. He no longer resembles anything. He is ravaged by the Word."
"There are, in fact, little domains where philosophy might still have something to say. Unfortunately, it is rather curious that philosophy shows so many signs of aging. Okay, Heidegger said two or three sensible things. But it has nevertheless been a very long time since philosophy has said anything that might interest everyone. Moreover, it never says anything that interests everyone. When it does say something, it says things that are of interest to two or three people. After that, it shifts to universities and then it's shot - there is no longer the slightest philosophy, even imaginable."
"What a sublime relief it would be nonetheless if we suddenly had to deal with a true blight, a blight that came from the hands of the biologists. That would be a true triumph. It would mean that humanity would truly have achieved something - its own destruction. It would be a true sign of the superiority of one being over all the others. Not only its own destruction, but the destruction of the entire living world. That would truly be the sign that man is capable of something. But it gets them quaking a bit in their boots, all the same. We aren't there yet."
"What scientific discourse unmasks is that nothing any longer remains of a transcendental aesthetic by which harmony would be established, even if that harmony were [now] lost, between our intuitions and the world. No analogy can henceforth be established between physical reality and any sort of universal man. Physical reality is fully and totally inhuman."
"The death instinct is, nevertheless, the response of the Thing when we don't want to know anything about it. It doesn't know anything about us either. But isn't this also a form of sublimation around which man's being, once again, turns on its hinges? Isn't libido - about which Freud tells us that no force in man is more readily sublimated, the last fruit of sublimation with which modern man responds to his solitude?"
"nothing in the concrete life of a single individual allows us to ground the idea that such a finality directs his life and could lead him - through the pathways of progressive self-consciousness undergirded by natural development - to harmony with himself as well as to approval from the world on which his happiness depends."
"Yes, we come back to Plato. It is pretty easy to come back to Plato. Plato said a huge number of banalities and naturally we return to them.”
May 14, 2021
sometimes you can read Lacan in Trump’s voice and it works too well. Anyway I’m glad someone tried saving Freud from himself (and even more glad Deleuze + Guattari tried saving Lacan from himself)
Read
June 9, 2025"Discourse to Catholics" is a really helpful and more or less accessible (it is a speech given to a much more lay audience than even Seminar XI) outline of the concept of das Ding that Lacan takes from Freud and only talks about sparingly before it's kind of transformed into objet a. There's a lot of good lines in regards desire wrapping around das Ding as a real, unimaginable void.
"The triumph of religion" is an interview that at points approaches Lou Reed levels of both irreverence and arrogance. The fact that it is here that he avows Christianity makes me take that statement with a grain of salt. Also it is here that he talks about how he writes not to be "understood" but to be "read." Grow up. Also he speaks with apodictic certainty that he will be as widely read as Freud in ten years' time. Unfortunately he was kind of right. All in all it is a really short read which seems to serve the sole purpose of proving to the reader that it would not be fun at all even a little bit to hang out and drink a beer with Jacques Lacan.
"The triumph of religion" is an interview that at points approaches Lou Reed levels of both irreverence and arrogance. The fact that it is here that he avows Christianity makes me take that statement with a grain of salt. Also it is here that he talks about how he writes not to be "understood" but to be "read." Grow up. Also he speaks with apodictic certainty that he will be as widely read as Freud in ten years' time. Unfortunately he was kind of right. All in all it is a really short read which seems to serve the sole purpose of proving to the reader that it would not be fun at all even a little bit to hang out and drink a beer with Jacques Lacan.
October 7, 2022
The more I read of this guy, the less I like him. Harold Bloom once called him a "hypnogogue."
I just can't believe you can't write more clearly. And there are places where it's so obvious that he's striking a pose, putting on an act to get people to think he's cool. It makes me lose respect for French people, that they can be taken in by such obvious posturing...
He's definitely creative, though. There's a passage where he goes off talking about how maybe scientific laws change. Which if nothing else is a genuinely interesting idea, although I think it's much more relevant to psychology than to the hard sciences.*
And he has a line where he is puzzled by the popularity of Jungian psychology among Christians, which he quite rightly describes as "gnostic mysticism or rustic paganism." So I liked that...
Ultimately I didn't really have to read this book. I knew his views on things going in, but I just wanted to make sure.
Something undeniably likable about Lacan is his skepticism towards the historical durability of his own position.
He basically alludes somewhere to the immense destructive powers of science (basically predicting biological warfare) and says, in effect, that science will gradually make things so unbearable (it will give us or really force us to receive so much reality) that people will be forced back into religion—which he takes to be a system designed to create meaning out of meaningless phenomena.
Psychoanalysis, he says, was a little bit of truth that people stumbled into by historical accident, because they were at loose ends. Like a treasure chest revealed by a freakishly-low tide, it is (probably) soon doomed to be vanish under the waves of history...
His position resembles that of the Grand Inquisitor in the Brothers Karamazov...
The only difference is that the Grand Inquisitor is more obviously in bad faith. He believes that it is religious truth—and the ensuing immense responsibility—is what people find so unbearable...
Neither one believes in institutional religion (rather, they both believe that the function it serves it to sooth people by keeping them from reality), but the inquisitor believes that there really is some religious truth, albeit one which must be kept, in a kind of weird moral self-sacrifice, from the common rabble. Deep down (I say deep down, but I guess I should say—when he's not trying to be a chic intellectual celebrity), Lacan is basically an Enlightenment-style atheist, albeit perhaps more rigorous than most. And I think it's pretty credible that modern science / enlightenment style thinking basically yields psychoanalysis as its most refined product.
I mean that the copernican/darwinian revolution is truly completed in psychoanalysis. Probably even taken too far, given that we do, in fact, have free will. But people always go too far...
There is undeniably truth in psychoanalysis, a whole lot of truth—truth that the American psychological establishment generally ignores (because of our collective stupidity and perhaps even the relative lack of mental sickness that comes from this**). But there's also a lot of stupid junk... a lot of nonsense, a lot of willfully obscure writing and messing around with confusing concepts. At its best, it's paradoxical, but it's often merely contradictory.
Nevertheless, I don't think we have any better means of actually receiving truth about the human soul—besides poetry, which is much less rigorous, and revelation, which is much more limited in scope.
* my personal theory is that the soul or the structure of human relations which conditions that soul is always progressing or at least changing, such that any working theory of human psychology, while true at a certain time, gradually loses its validity as collective human consciousness wises up to it and attempts to push truth forward—mainly by being even more screwed up than was hitherto acknowledged possible. Which again resonates with Dostoevsky, namely the passage in Notes from Underground where the narrator says that if you could scientifically predict a man's actions, he would do the opposite, partly to affirm his own freedom and partly out of spite.
** seriously, it sounds like an absurd point when so many Americans are diagnosed with mental illnesses, but from what I've seen of really effective modern American psychology, it's basically just the very slow, measured application of the golden rule vis a vis modern neoliberal individualism. "You don't like it when Jimmy spits in your face and hits you with bricks? I suggest you politely ask him to stop. If he doesn't stop, don't see him anymore..." It's not as if all of us couldn't benefit from such comparatively obvious insights... I guess my point is that the people who actually benefit from psychoanalysis are dealing with less silly issues. And moreover, it's not as if problems which present themselves as boundary issues or whatever (the problems with simple solutions) are not nevertheless bound up in (or originate in) a person's whole life story and internal psychic geography. You can't really blame Americans for being practical. There is something decent to solving a problem without going too deep into the weeds of the past. The downside is how easily it degenerates into willful stupidity. Anyway, as I wrote above, I think that the truth has a value in itself. So even if you can solve someone's problems fairly easy with a more superficial kind of therapy, I think that there is tremendous value to self-understanding, both as an individual and collectively.
I just can't believe you can't write more clearly. And there are places where it's so obvious that he's striking a pose, putting on an act to get people to think he's cool. It makes me lose respect for French people, that they can be taken in by such obvious posturing...
He's definitely creative, though. There's a passage where he goes off talking about how maybe scientific laws change. Which if nothing else is a genuinely interesting idea, although I think it's much more relevant to psychology than to the hard sciences.*
And he has a line where he is puzzled by the popularity of Jungian psychology among Christians, which he quite rightly describes as "gnostic mysticism or rustic paganism." So I liked that...
Ultimately I didn't really have to read this book. I knew his views on things going in, but I just wanted to make sure.
Something undeniably likable about Lacan is his skepticism towards the historical durability of his own position.
He basically alludes somewhere to the immense destructive powers of science (basically predicting biological warfare) and says, in effect, that science will gradually make things so unbearable (it will give us or really force us to receive so much reality) that people will be forced back into religion—which he takes to be a system designed to create meaning out of meaningless phenomena.
Psychoanalysis, he says, was a little bit of truth that people stumbled into by historical accident, because they were at loose ends. Like a treasure chest revealed by a freakishly-low tide, it is (probably) soon doomed to be vanish under the waves of history...
His position resembles that of the Grand Inquisitor in the Brothers Karamazov...
The only difference is that the Grand Inquisitor is more obviously in bad faith. He believes that it is religious truth—and the ensuing immense responsibility—is what people find so unbearable...
Neither one believes in institutional religion (rather, they both believe that the function it serves it to sooth people by keeping them from reality), but the inquisitor believes that there really is some religious truth, albeit one which must be kept, in a kind of weird moral self-sacrifice, from the common rabble. Deep down (I say deep down, but I guess I should say—when he's not trying to be a chic intellectual celebrity), Lacan is basically an Enlightenment-style atheist, albeit perhaps more rigorous than most. And I think it's pretty credible that modern science / enlightenment style thinking basically yields psychoanalysis as its most refined product.
I mean that the copernican/darwinian revolution is truly completed in psychoanalysis. Probably even taken too far, given that we do, in fact, have free will. But people always go too far...
There is undeniably truth in psychoanalysis, a whole lot of truth—truth that the American psychological establishment generally ignores (because of our collective stupidity and perhaps even the relative lack of mental sickness that comes from this**). But there's also a lot of stupid junk... a lot of nonsense, a lot of willfully obscure writing and messing around with confusing concepts. At its best, it's paradoxical, but it's often merely contradictory.
Nevertheless, I don't think we have any better means of actually receiving truth about the human soul—besides poetry, which is much less rigorous, and revelation, which is much more limited in scope.
* my personal theory is that the soul or the structure of human relations which conditions that soul is always progressing or at least changing, such that any working theory of human psychology, while true at a certain time, gradually loses its validity as collective human consciousness wises up to it and attempts to push truth forward—mainly by being even more screwed up than was hitherto acknowledged possible. Which again resonates with Dostoevsky, namely the passage in Notes from Underground where the narrator says that if you could scientifically predict a man's actions, he would do the opposite, partly to affirm his own freedom and partly out of spite.
** seriously, it sounds like an absurd point when so many Americans are diagnosed with mental illnesses, but from what I've seen of really effective modern American psychology, it's basically just the very slow, measured application of the golden rule vis a vis modern neoliberal individualism. "You don't like it when Jimmy spits in your face and hits you with bricks? I suggest you politely ask him to stop. If he doesn't stop, don't see him anymore..." It's not as if all of us couldn't benefit from such comparatively obvious insights... I guess my point is that the people who actually benefit from psychoanalysis are dealing with less silly issues. And moreover, it's not as if problems which present themselves as boundary issues or whatever (the problems with simple solutions) are not nevertheless bound up in (or originate in) a person's whole life story and internal psychic geography. You can't really blame Americans for being practical. There is something decent to solving a problem without going too deep into the weeds of the past. The downside is how easily it degenerates into willful stupidity. Anyway, as I wrote above, I think that the truth has a value in itself. So even if you can solve someone's problems fairly easy with a more superficial kind of therapy, I think that there is tremendous value to self-understanding, both as an individual and collectively.
Read
November 25, 2022Comment:
The great secret of psychoanalysis is its uselessness. It (more or less) adequately probes the shadows that churning human interiority throws, without a clue as to how to end the tumult. Here, Lacan throws in the towel and hands History back to Religion.
All we should ever talk about is utility. Secular Humanism gives exceptional people the space necessary to demonstrate and enjoy and profit from their exceptionality. This is why they worship it. But to ordinary people it gives nothing but their daily bread.
But as the Saviour of the Christians said so long ago:
"Man does not live by bread alone."
There is absolutely no way around this salient fact.
The great secret of psychoanalysis is its uselessness. It (more or less) adequately probes the shadows that churning human interiority throws, without a clue as to how to end the tumult. Here, Lacan throws in the towel and hands History back to Religion.
All we should ever talk about is utility. Secular Humanism gives exceptional people the space necessary to demonstrate and enjoy and profit from their exceptionality. This is why they worship it. But to ordinary people it gives nothing but their daily bread.
But as the Saviour of the Christians said so long ago:
"Man does not live by bread alone."
There is absolutely no way around this salient fact.
November 9, 2016
Kitabın içeriği 1960 yılında Lacan'ın vermiş olduğu bir seminere dayanmaktadır. Kitapta Lacan'ın cümleleriyle; dinin insalığa nasıl hitap ettiğinden ve felsefenin snop tutumuyla bilimin naif karakterinin dine bir alternatif oluşturma becerisi sergileyemediğinden bahsedilmektedir.
Bilimin çabasıyla etrafa saçılan hakikatin insanların kalplerine yaydığı tedirginliği dindirmek için dinin gerekçesi ya da gerekçeleri olacak...
"İnsanlar umduğumuzdan da fazla anlam salgılayacak ve bu salgılar yalnızca gerçek dini değil, daha bir çok sahte dini de besleyecek."
Bilimin çabasıyla etrafa saçılan hakikatin insanların kalplerine yaydığı tedirginliği dindirmek için dinin gerekçesi ya da gerekçeleri olacak...
"İnsanlar umduğumuzdan da fazla anlam salgılayacak ve bu salgılar yalnızca gerçek dini değil, daha bir çok sahte dini de besleyecek."
August 11, 2024
في هذا العمل القصير والمحاضرات المجمعة يوضح جاك لاكان نفسه كمحلل وطبيب نفسي مؤيدا لفرويد في مواضع ومعارضًا له في مواضيع اخرى في نظرته إلى الاحلام والزلات والليبيدو ، طارحًا نفسه كمعالج نفسي أهم من كونه فيلسوف ، مؤكدًا على اهمية اللغة كأداة تواصل وتحليل وكشف لفهم ما ينتهجه كطبيب في مستويات ثلاث في العلاج السلوكي ألا وهي الرمزي والخيالي والواقعي ، وتحليل الوعي واللاوعي وارتباطها باللغة ، مرسخًا مبدأ القلق الذي هو معضلة اغلب المعالجين النفسيين ..
جاك لاكان يرى أن الفلسفة في طريقها إلى الشيخوخة كما يرى هايدغر، وبطبيعة الحال وكما هو اسم الكتاب يرى أن الدين سينتصر على العلاج السلوكي والنفسي والمعرفي مهما تقدمت الشعوب والآليات وقدمت التكنلوجيا كل يوم بشكل جديد ، إلا ان الدين بكل ما يحمل من ارضية صلبة وتعاليم عميقة تحاكي نفس الإنسان وتلبي احتياجاته فهو المنتصر الأخير ..
لاكان بحديثه عن اللغة يوضح جانب الكلمة والاسم ويضع تفسيرا رائعًا لم عُلّم آدم الأسماء وليست الكلمات وذلك لما لها من حمل جسيم على نفس الإنسان ، وبذلك يفسر معنى النور والأنوار ..
كتاب جميل وقصير جدا يعطي فكرة ولمحة عامة لفكر جاك لاكان وطريقة علاجه وما يسلكه في تحليلاته ..
جاك لاكان يرى أن الفلسفة في طريقها إلى الشيخوخة كما يرى هايدغر، وبطبيعة الحال وكما هو اسم الكتاب يرى أن الدين سينتصر على العلاج السلوكي والنفسي والمعرفي مهما تقدمت الشعوب والآليات وقدمت التكنلوجيا كل يوم بشكل جديد ، إلا ان الدين بكل ما يحمل من ارضية صلبة وتعاليم عميقة تحاكي نفس الإنسان وتلبي احتياجاته فهو المنتصر الأخير ..
لاكان بحديثه عن اللغة يوضح جانب الكلمة والاسم ويضع تفسيرا رائعًا لم عُلّم آدم الأسماء وليست الكلمات وذلك لما لها من حمل جسيم على نفس الإنسان ، وبذلك يفسر معنى النور والأنوار ..
كتاب جميل وقصير جدا يعطي فكرة ولمحة عامة لفكر جاك لاكان وطريقة علاجه وما يسلكه في تحليلاته ..
February 2, 2021
Lacan sabía cómo hacerse escuchar por cualquier persona, que aunque estuviese ajena al psicoanálisis terminaría sintiéndose al menos algo más familiarizado con el mismo.
Interesante análisis de como la religión a servido para dar respuestas al ser humano, respuestas que ni siquiera la ciencia nos ha podido dar hoy en día.
La religión siempre ha dado respuestas a todo, y lo seguirá haciendo, más allá de que uno crea o no en esas respuestas, pero por algo sigue siendo de gran influencia en la humanidad, Lacan sabe que mas allá de que se pensara de que la religión cada vez tendría menos lugar en las personas (como creía Freud, pensando que tarde o temprano la ciencia la suplantaria) con el correr de los años, sigue cumpliendo un papel importante en el humano.
Interesante análisis de como la religión a servido para dar respuestas al ser humano, respuestas que ni siquiera la ciencia nos ha podido dar hoy en día.
La religión siempre ha dado respuestas a todo, y lo seguirá haciendo, más allá de que uno crea o no en esas respuestas, pero por algo sigue siendo de gran influencia en la humanidad, Lacan sabe que mas allá de que se pensara de que la religión cada vez tendría menos lugar en las personas (como creía Freud, pensando que tarde o temprano la ciencia la suplantaria) con el correr de los años, sigue cumpliendo un papel importante en el humano.
November 16, 2017
the name is misleading, not only because those essays has more to do with morals (fundemantally a very nietschzian notion of what religion is), but also because it would seem by the headlines, as well as by j.a. miller's notes, as if lacan is "putting all of his trust in god", or more precisely in religion. lacan is a cynical bastard, he couldn't do that. on a fundemantal level he sticks to the freudian notion of religion as a mass dellusion. extract the bitter edge of it, and you'll have the starting platform for that question, although as i said, it is hardly the main question in here.
February 11, 2024
A refreshing, well-written interpretation of religion and the libidinal economy. Distinguishing himself from his contemporaries, Lacan has a favorable view towards religion, arguing that religion triumphs over the realm of psychoanalytic practice since it can succeed at offering certainty, which psychoanalysis (with its focus on the inherent lack) cannot. Religion, specifically Catholicism, offers answers to existential questions and embodies a symbolic authority that helps the organization of social life, even if there are limitations to this authority.
July 6, 2020
The relationship between religion and psychology. Predicts itself being prophetic. It has been fulfilled.
November 13, 2022
Wtf why was Lacan so funny
February 4, 2023
he is sooo sassy
January 12, 2020
A lecture and an interview. The lecture was given to "lay audience," in which Lacan tried to convey his thoughts in an introductory manner. He articulated the question clearly: the moral consequence of the psychoanalytic practice and proceeded with a good guide to Freud. (Well, I probably would have been more interested in Freud over ten years ago if my professors at the time were Lacan!)
December 18, 2015
ojo que la graduación es independiente a mi lucidez sobre el texto. representa más el disfrute y los pequeños glimpses.
April 19, 2016
I did like it, short and sweet in a way.
December 3, 2022
Si la psychanalyse ne triomphera pas de la religion, c’est que la religion est increvable. La psychanalyse Montriond fera pas, elle survivra ou pas.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews