What do you think?
Rate this book
My Teaching
Bringing together three previously unpublished lectures presented to the public by Lacan at the height of his career, and prefaced by Jacques-Alain Miller, My Teaching is a clear, concise introduction to the thought of the influential psychoanalyst after Freud.
116 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
38 people are currently reading
666 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Lacan
182 books1,218 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 - 30 of 58 reviews
January 10, 2025
Friends, Lacan is both a rather brilliant individual and an absolute S.O.B (no, not the shortness of breath acronym, the other one) whose mummy should have put him in time-out more often. That's all.
June 10, 2016
"when it comes to the equation great civilization = pipes and sewers, there are no exceptions"
In this text, Lacan pithily explicates some of the underlying assumptions of his teaching. This text helps position Lacan in a number of ways. It reminds readers that he is a psychoanalyst rather than a philosopher and he is someone set on educating future generations of psychoanalysts rather than obtaining fame and fortune for his own work. The text is made up of 3 essays, "The Place, Origin and End of My Teaching," "My Teaching, Its Nature and Its Ends," and "So, You Will Have Heard Lacan."
In the first essay, Lacan calls into question the systemization of psychoanalysis and explores the function of language in relation to the subject. What is important to Lacan is that psychoanalysis is by nature a point of inquiry, both into the neurosis of the analysand and the nature of the practice itself. Each interaction between the analyst and analysand can produce methodological changes, thus psychoanalysis is not that which can be systematized. Lacan also asserts that the desire of the Other, and his own perspective more generally, would be well utilized in the organization of society.
In the second essay, readers encounter Lacan's clever exploration of the relationship between sewage and civilization. Primarily, as the essay goes on, Lacan is concerned with the relationship between psychoanalysis and philosophy. Lacan asserts that the subject functions quite differently in psychoanalysis than in science or philosophy. Lacan brands the system of science a failure for its consistent desire to evacuate the subject from itself, and yet it is unable to do so. Lacan writes:
Here, we find one of the fundamental disagreements between Lacan and Foucault. For Lacan, "enlightened experience" or the system of scientific knowledge constantly attempts to evacuate the subject. Lacan is invested in maintaining and redeploying the subject, for what would there be for the analyst if there was no subject? In The Order of Things, Foucault suggests this same system is precisely what constitutes the subject and that prior to the system Lacan describes, there was no subject. Foucault envisions a world where such a system falls away, and so too does the notion of subject formation. It is worth noting, however, that Lacan and Foucault mean something a little different when they conceptualize the subject. For Lacan, the subject is the site where desire functions. The subject is the person who desires the desire of the Other. That relation crystallizes the subject. For Foucault, the subject is the person who has a self-awareness of themselves under the regime of certain identitarian logics.
Lacan's third essay praises Freud and positions Freud at the core of Lacan's thinking. In this text, Lacan also criticizes the self-promoting analysts only concern with raising their own scholarly profile. For Lacan, Freud should have the immense impact of a thinker like Marx, and Lacan's teaching intends to the end of placing Freud in such a venerated position.
To be frank, I find this text to be dense. But, I also find his seminars to be readable. I question, though, if this is a good starting point for interested parties. I might suggest his 7th seminar, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, instead. My Teaching is welcome for its brevity, but without context might not generate the kind of provocation that Lacan intended in these talks. Still, Lacan's brilliance is on full display and the text offers much food for thought when revisiting the seminars and Écrits.
In this text, Lacan pithily explicates some of the underlying assumptions of his teaching. This text helps position Lacan in a number of ways. It reminds readers that he is a psychoanalyst rather than a philosopher and he is someone set on educating future generations of psychoanalysts rather than obtaining fame and fortune for his own work. The text is made up of 3 essays, "The Place, Origin and End of My Teaching," "My Teaching, Its Nature and Its Ends," and "So, You Will Have Heard Lacan."
In the first essay, Lacan calls into question the systemization of psychoanalysis and explores the function of language in relation to the subject. What is important to Lacan is that psychoanalysis is by nature a point of inquiry, both into the neurosis of the analysand and the nature of the practice itself. Each interaction between the analyst and analysand can produce methodological changes, thus psychoanalysis is not that which can be systematized. Lacan also asserts that the desire of the Other, and his own perspective more generally, would be well utilized in the organization of society.
In the second essay, readers encounter Lacan's clever exploration of the relationship between sewage and civilization. Primarily, as the essay goes on, Lacan is concerned with the relationship between psychoanalysis and philosophy. Lacan asserts that the subject functions quite differently in psychoanalysis than in science or philosophy. Lacan brands the system of science a failure for its consistent desire to evacuate the subject from itself, and yet it is unable to do so. Lacan writes:
All possible enlightened experience indicates that the subject is dependent on the articulated chain represented by science's acquired knowledge. The subject has to take his place there, situate himself as best he can in the implications of that chain. He constantly has to revise all the little intuitive representations he has come up with, and which becomes part of the world, and even the so-called intuitive categories. He's always having to make some improvements to the apparatus, just to find somewhere to live. It's a wonder he hasn't been kicked out of the system by now.
And that is in fact the goal of the system. In other words, the system fails. That is why the subject lasts.
Here, we find one of the fundamental disagreements between Lacan and Foucault. For Lacan, "enlightened experience" or the system of scientific knowledge constantly attempts to evacuate the subject. Lacan is invested in maintaining and redeploying the subject, for what would there be for the analyst if there was no subject? In The Order of Things, Foucault suggests this same system is precisely what constitutes the subject and that prior to the system Lacan describes, there was no subject. Foucault envisions a world where such a system falls away, and so too does the notion of subject formation. It is worth noting, however, that Lacan and Foucault mean something a little different when they conceptualize the subject. For Lacan, the subject is the site where desire functions. The subject is the person who desires the desire of the Other. That relation crystallizes the subject. For Foucault, the subject is the person who has a self-awareness of themselves under the regime of certain identitarian logics.
Lacan's third essay praises Freud and positions Freud at the core of Lacan's thinking. In this text, Lacan also criticizes the self-promoting analysts only concern with raising their own scholarly profile. For Lacan, Freud should have the immense impact of a thinker like Marx, and Lacan's teaching intends to the end of placing Freud in such a venerated position.
To be frank, I find this text to be dense. But, I also find his seminars to be readable. I question, though, if this is a good starting point for interested parties. I might suggest his 7th seminar, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, instead. My Teaching is welcome for its brevity, but without context might not generate the kind of provocation that Lacan intended in these talks. Still, Lacan's brilliance is on full display and the text offers much food for thought when revisiting the seminars and Écrits.
August 9, 2019
Öncelikle şunu söyleyeyim, en rahat okunan Lacan kitabı sanırım Benim Öğrettiklerim (yine de büyük oranda dikkat istiyor). Lacan'ın bilinçdışı ve özne kavramlarını merkeze alan üç farklı konuşmasından oluşuyor kitap. Aslen sesli bir şekilde aktarıldıkları için de hafif çalkantılı bir ritmi var metinlerin. Uzun süre sohbet edasında keyifle şakacı Lacan'ı dinlerken, bir anda kaşlar çatık ciddi ve hevesli dinleyici moduna geçivermek gerekiyor. Okuması çok keyifli oldu benim için.
Lacan, bir psikanalist olarak, psikanalizle ilgilenen insanlara yönelik konuşsa da ben bu kitabı kendisiyle ya da bir şeylerle derdi olan herkese ( yani herkese :) ) tavsiye etmek istiyorum. Biliyorum ki okumak ve anlamak biraz çaba istiyor. Fakat yine de insanın doğasının saçmalamak ve üstüne daha da saçmalamak olduğunu söyleyen Lacan'ın söylediklerini hiç anlamadığını düşünerek bile okumak, kesinlikle insan olmaya dair bir şeyleri keşfetmeye yarar diye düşünüyorum.
Benim Öğrettiklerim Lacan'ın en sevdiğim kitabı oldu. Lacan benim için çatık kaşlı, anlaması güç sözler söyleyip, formüller uyduran bir psikanalist olmakan çıkıp, insan olmanın esaslarını kavramaya çalışan espirili ve bilge birine dönüştü.
Lacan, bir psikanalist olarak, psikanalizle ilgilenen insanlara yönelik konuşsa da ben bu kitabı kendisiyle ya da bir şeylerle derdi olan herkese ( yani herkese :) ) tavsiye etmek istiyorum. Biliyorum ki okumak ve anlamak biraz çaba istiyor. Fakat yine de insanın doğasının saçmalamak ve üstüne daha da saçmalamak olduğunu söyleyen Lacan'ın söylediklerini hiç anlamadığını düşünerek bile okumak, kesinlikle insan olmaya dair bir şeyleri keşfetmeye yarar diye düşünüyorum.
Benim Öğrettiklerim Lacan'ın en sevdiğim kitabı oldu. Lacan benim için çatık kaşlı, anlaması güç sözler söyleyip, formüller uyduran bir psikanalist olmakan çıkıp, insan olmanın esaslarını kavramaya çalışan espirili ve bilge birine dönüştü.
January 17, 2019
"The basic thing about analysis is that people finally realise that they've been talking nonsense at full volume for years"
October 29, 2021
Three short lectures by Lacan. Short, accessible language, and introduces some Lacanian concepts. However, I don't understand who this book is for. Lacan himself does a poor job at explaining his ideas simply, and any newbie who reads this will be none the wiser. And yet, if you are already familiar with Lacan, you won't learn anything new whatsoever, as the ideas he introduces he does so in such a superficial manner that nothing interesting is explained or formulated. Some vaguely interesting ideas are mentioned, but nothing you wouldn't find in a much more in-depth and clear form in any other text about or by Lacan.
I can only suppose this book is for fans of Lacan, those who would find interest in what Lacan has to say solely because it's Lacan. Those looking to learn about Lacanian theory at an introductory level would do better by reading Bruce Fink's The Lacanian Subject.
I can only suppose this book is for fans of Lacan, those who would find interest in what Lacan has to say solely because it's Lacan. Those looking to learn about Lacanian theory at an introductory level would do better by reading Bruce Fink's The Lacanian Subject.
January 9, 2010
I find some of Lacan's formulations fascinating but this collection only grazes the surface of his theories, dealing more with selling the basic premises and insulting people who disagree with him. For someone who ends with a plea to psychoanalysts for humility and subjective destitution, Lacan spends much of his time here calling very smart people stupid and generally being a prick. Sometimes it's funny and almost charming, other times it's cloying. The best part is, by far, the beginning of the second speech, where he makes fun of the word "colloquium" and then spouts off some amazing quotes about the management of human waste. Basically saved the book just as I was starting to consider dropping it entirely.
September 20, 2022
3,5
Especialmente buena la última parte, en la que los objetivos y puntos de diferencia del análisis con las ciencias modernas son demarcados y donde Lacan deja ver cómo el psicoanálisis lucha contra la separación mente-cuerpo y la primacía del pensamiento
Especialmente buena la última parte, en la que los objetivos y puntos de diferencia del análisis con las ciencias modernas son demarcados y donde Lacan deja ver cómo el psicoanálisis lucha contra la separación mente-cuerpo y la primacía del pensamiento
June 15, 2019
Knjiga je sastavljena iz tri predavanja koja je Lakan održao krajem 60ih godina prošlog veka i predstavljaju njegov pokušaj da usmeno približi svoje učenje ljudima koj inisu striktno psihoanalitičari. Jasno je da mu se to i ne radi baš i to praktično ponavlja u sva tri predavanja, na ovaj ili onaj način. Pa su i predavanja takva kakva jesu, ne posebno zanimljiva.
Najupečatljiviji momenat mi je kada priča o "želji Drugog" odnosno o potrebi neurotične osobe, kao i religijske (iako ne tvrdi da su to iste stvari) da udovoljavaju željama Drugog, jasno je koliko je ta ljudska problematika aktuelna i danas u raznim pokretima političke korektnosti i socijalne pravde.
Najupečatljiviji momenat mi je kada priča o "želji Drugog" odnosno o potrebi neurotične osobe, kao i religijske (iako ne tvrdi da su to iste stvari) da udovoljavaju željama Drugog, jasno je koliko je ta ljudska problematika aktuelna i danas u raznim pokretima političke korektnosti i socijalne pravde.
June 2, 2025
#scriptiedingen 2
November 8, 2012
Zizek'ten öğrenmektense, Lacan'dan direk öğrenmek daha iyi. Muhtemelen Zizek okumak, Lacan'ı anlamayı kolaylaştırıyordur. Ama çok temiz bir mantığı var Lacan'ın. Tabi çeviri çok iyi. Ondan olsa gerek. Tek bir negatif not: "Benim Öğrettiklerim" yanlış çeviri! "Benim öğretilerim" olmalıydı. Zaten çevirmen de bunu belirtiyor. Ama doktirini karşılamamak için bunu yapmışlar, iddiaları bu. Türkçe'de öğreti deyince çok daha büyük şeyler anlaşılıyor. Fransızca'da da öyle mi, bilmiyorum. Ama bana sanki, Lacan bu kadar ukala değildir, diyebilmek için kasılmış gibi geldi.
Kitap benim için "Neden arzu, hep başkasının arzusudur?" sorusunun yanıtını bu kadar temiz verdiği için önemli. Zizek dahil, kimse anlatmamış. Lacan düzgünce anlatmış. Ve tabi bir de Lacan'ın düşünme şeklini -mesela "bir şey tam anlamıyla doğru olmayabilir, olsun, yine de az buçuk işimize yarıyor şimdilik, o halde devam" gibi- verdiği için çok değerli.
Kitap benim için "Neden arzu, hep başkasının arzusudur?" sorusunun yanıtını bu kadar temiz verdiği için önemli. Zizek dahil, kimse anlatmamış. Lacan düzgünce anlatmış. Ve tabi bir de Lacan'ın düşünme şeklini -mesela "bir şey tam anlamıyla doğru olmayabilir, olsun, yine de az buçuk işimize yarıyor şimdilik, o halde devam" gibi- verdiği için çok değerli.
January 5, 2022
bazen hastaların gerçekten akıllıca şeyler söyledikleri olur ve söyledikleri lacan'ın bizzat kendisinin sözleridir. yalnız, önceden psikanalistler lacan'ı duymamış olsalardı, hastayı dinlemezlerdi bile ve şöyle derlerdi: yine şu akıl hastaları zırvalıyor.
lacan'ın üç konferansının bir araya getirilmesiyle oluşmuş bir kitap benim öğrettiklerim.
bilinçdışı, psikanaliz gibi kavramları inceliyor. "hakikatte delik açan cinsellik" gibi fikirler var; tam olarak anlamadım hocam diyebilsem, dersi bir saat daha uzatıp erek gibi kelimeler kullanarak anlatmaya devam edebilir, sonra anlamış gibi hmmmmmm yaparım ki tüm amfi kulaklarımı çınlatmasın. öyle bir şeydi benim için.
June 6, 2015
I think these three "lectures" are a combination of some of the most lucid (but a bit less rewarding) Lacanian "texts". This is because the purpose of the these talks was not to expound psychoanalytic theory to its practitioners but to get a sense for how Lacan views/viewed his own material and symbolic position within history and language. He has always had a unique take on this topic and there are certainly rewarding tidbits specifically on culture, society's "evacutive measures" ("All societies have had waste removal systems" my paraphrase) and the break with conscious thinking as an overrated form of distraction ("but not always"). He makes a lot of radical statements and always, in funny, creative ways fictizes them to the listener (saying things like, "you don't have to believe me" or "I don't care what you think" or "it's probably not as radical as this", etc.).
I laughed out loud frequently while reading the book and it was the fastest I've ever read anything by Lacan (a day and a half even for 115 pages is very short - it took me months to finish seminar XI). This may be that I'm returning to him after a 6 month hiatus, or that these lectures are meant "for the uninitiated" as another reviewer has pointed out. Either way, he always leaves something wanting, finger forever pointing to the Freudian, psychoanalytic moon.
A solid four stars from me and a great "gateway drug" into Lacan if you've already swallowed the Zizek pill ;-)
December 19, 2017
“Eating shit is all very well, but you can’t always eat the same shit. So, I try to get hold of some new shit.” :D
November 28, 2025
Three lectures by Lacan. I can only imagine this publication is for the readers with a completion fetish who know his works already — and can imagine some of the digressions, such as about human waste processing being the marker of a civilisation, are delightful to some readers. One of the lectures is titled : So, You Will Have Heard Lacan. I have heard, but have not really understood. His point is not clear, he doesn’t present an argument. But maybe a better educated reader will have heard, and understood.
November 25, 2022
Neden Lacan okumalıyız sorusunu cevabı bu alıntıda.
"Yazdıklarımı okumak, çok iyi anlamasak da, bir etki yapar, alıkoyar, ilgi uyandırır. Gecikmeye gelmez bir şeyin zorunlu kıldığı ve gerçekten yapacak bir şeyleri, yapılması kolay olmayan bir şeyleri olan kişilere seslenen bir yazı okuduğumuz hissi sık sık başa gelmez."
"Yazdıklarımı okumak, çok iyi anlamasak da, bir etki yapar, alıkoyar, ilgi uyandırır. Gecikmeye gelmez bir şeyin zorunlu kıldığı ve gerçekten yapacak bir şeyleri, yapılması kolay olmayan bir şeyleri olan kişilere seslenen bir yazı okuduğumuz hissi sık sık başa gelmez."
December 23, 2024
honestly does a better job of painting a picture of lacan as a person rather than his concepts. would not recommend it as an introductory text. a part of me wishes i was alive to witness these lectures in real-time, if only to see my colleagues' reaction when lacan goes on his tangent about *checks notes* human shit.
Read
July 21, 2021"In the beginning, there was not the origin. There was the place." - "The least we can ask might be for psychoanalysts to notice that they are poets."
October 5, 2023
Theory.
A collection of three 'lectures' by Laclan. As my first foray into him, I conclude feeling more scared and confident to read him - and unsure of what I have really just read. His comments on culture as an undefinable product that's own size has eclipsed anything it used to really represent, transforming it into this connective tissue of 'shit' was interesting, as well as his closing remarks on the importance of Freud.
A collection of three 'lectures' by Laclan. As my first foray into him, I conclude feeling more scared and confident to read him - and unsure of what I have really just read. His comments on culture as an undefinable product that's own size has eclipsed anything it used to really represent, transforming it into this connective tissue of 'shit' was interesting, as well as his closing remarks on the importance of Freud.
Read
December 28, 2024متن سه سخنرانی (به قول خودش سمینار، نه درسگفتار) لاکان در اواخر دهه شصت (بعد از چاپ اِکریتز) که ژاک آلن-میلر تنظیمشون کرده. افکار و آثار این مرحله که اصطلاحاً به «لاکان متاخر» معروفند (در برابر لاکان متقدم دهه سی و چهل) روی متفکران مکتب اسلوونی (ژیژک و زوپانچیچ و بقیه) تاثیر بسیار گذاشتند و به همین دلیل به اونها لاکانیهای متاخر یا میلریها میگن.
.
آدمِ دیندار به هیچ وجه رواننژند نیست، اما به آنها شباهت دارد، چون او هم همهچیز را حول آنچه در واقع میل دیگری بزرگ است جمع میکند. تنها تفاوتشان این است که چون این دیگری بزرگ وجود ندارد، چون خداست، به برهان نیاز داریم، پس وانمود میکنیم دیگری بزرگ چیزی از ما میخواهد، مثلاً قربانی. (44)
.
گاهی اوقات بیمار حرفهای خیلی هوشمندانهای میزند، و این گفتار خودِ لاکان است که به زبان آنها میآید. اگر روانکاوها اول حرفهای لاکان را نشنیده بودند، حتی به حرفهای بیمارانشان گوش هم نمیدادند و میگفتن: باز یک بیمار روانی دارد چرند و پرند میبافد. (47)
.
پای معادلهی تمدن بزرگ مساوی لولهکشیها و فاضلاب که به میان میآید، هیچ استثنائی وجود ندارد. در بابل فاضلاب وجود داشته و تمام روم هم روی راه فاضلاب بوده. اصلاً شهر اینطور بود که به وجود آمد، با بزرگترین فاضلاب. بنا بود که بر دنیا حکمرانی کند. پس باید مایهی مباهاتمان باشد. ولی چرا نیست؟ چون اگر به این اصطلاح، اهمیت بنیادینش را میدادیم، آنوقت متوجه شباهت شگفتانگیزی میشدیم که بین فاضلاب و فرهنگ وجود دارد... فرهنگ دیگر امتیاز به حساب نمیآید. همه تا بیخ در آن فرو رفتهایم. فرهنگ روی آدم میماسد. چون در پوستهی بزرگ فضولاتی که همهاش از یکجا نشات میگیرد گیر کردهایم، تلاشهای ناچیزی میکنیم تا به آن سروشکلی بدهیم... حاصلش چه میشود؟ به قول آنها ایدههای بزرگ. تاریخ، مثلاً. (64)
.
فقط تقاضا میکنم از واژهی تاریخ همان معنایی را که در تاریخ فلسفه یا هر چیز دیگری به شما آموختهاند، برداشت نکنید. چون این مالهکشیها برای فریب شماست تا خیال کنید مرحلههای مختلف تفکر زایندهی یکدیگر بودهاند. با یک نگاه مختصر به تاریخ میتونید ببینید که اصلاً هم اینطور نبوده و برعکس همهچیز از گسستها سرچشمه گرفته و این کوششها و گشایشهای پی در پی در هر مرحله ما را به این خیال خام انداخته که بالاخره میشود به کلیتی رسید. نتیجهاش اینکه کافیست وارد یکی از کتابفروشیهای قدیمی بشوید و کتابی از دوران رنسانس در دست بگیرید. بازش کنید، درست بخوانیدش و آنوقت متوجه میشوید نمیتوانید رشتهی سهچهارم افکار آن دوره را که ذهن آدمها را به خودشان مشغول میکرده و برایشان اساسی بوده دنبال کنید. بدیهیات امروز شما در دوران خاصی پدید آمده که به زمان دکارت بر میگردد... به خصوص شروع علم نوین که از همان موقع بود؛ علمی که خصوصیت بارزش در تاثیر کم و بیش تحمیلگری است که به آن امکان میدهد در روزمرهترین جزئیات زندگی همه مداخله کند... بنابراین آموزهی من مربوط به چیزیست که که در سدههایی متولد شده که تا گردن در علم فرو رفته بودیم، حتی قبل از اینکه بشود از ماجرای آن به این شکل صحبت کرد. منظورم روانکاویست. (87)
.
آدمِ دیندار به هیچ وجه رواننژند نیست، اما به آنها شباهت دارد، چون او هم همهچیز را حول آنچه در واقع میل دیگری بزرگ است جمع میکند. تنها تفاوتشان این است که چون این دیگری بزرگ وجود ندارد، چون خداست، به برهان نیاز داریم، پس وانمود میکنیم دیگری بزرگ چیزی از ما میخواهد، مثلاً قربانی. (44)
.
گاهی اوقات بیمار حرفهای خیلی هوشمندانهای میزند، و این گفتار خودِ لاکان است که به زبان آنها میآید. اگر روانکاوها اول حرفهای لاکان را نشنیده بودند، حتی به حرفهای بیمارانشان گوش هم نمیدادند و میگفتن: باز یک بیمار روانی دارد چرند و پرند میبافد. (47)
.
پای معادلهی تمدن بزرگ مساوی لولهکشیها و فاضلاب که به میان میآید، هیچ استثنائی وجود ندارد. در بابل فاضلاب وجود داشته و تمام روم هم روی راه فاضلاب بوده. اصلاً شهر اینطور بود که به وجود آمد، با بزرگترین فاضلاب. بنا بود که بر دنیا حکمرانی کند. پس باید مایهی مباهاتمان باشد. ولی چرا نیست؟ چون اگر به این اصطلاح، اهمیت بنیادینش را میدادیم، آنوقت متوجه شباهت شگفتانگیزی میشدیم که بین فاضلاب و فرهنگ وجود دارد... فرهنگ دیگر امتیاز به حساب نمیآید. همه تا بیخ در آن فرو رفتهایم. فرهنگ روی آدم میماسد. چون در پوستهی بزرگ فضولاتی که همهاش از یکجا نشات میگیرد گیر کردهایم، تلاشهای ناچیزی میکنیم تا به آن سروشکلی بدهیم... حاصلش چه میشود؟ به قول آنها ایدههای بزرگ. تاریخ، مثلاً. (64)
.
فقط تقاضا میکنم از واژهی تاریخ همان معنایی را که در تاریخ فلسفه یا هر چیز دیگری به شما آموختهاند، برداشت نکنید. چون این مالهکشیها برای فریب شماست تا خیال کنید مرحلههای مختلف تفکر زایندهی یکدیگر بودهاند. با یک نگاه مختصر به تاریخ میتونید ببینید که اصلاً هم اینطور نبوده و برعکس همهچیز از گسستها سرچشمه گرفته و این کوششها و گشایشهای پی در پی در هر مرحله ما را به این خیال خام انداخته که بالاخره میشود به کلیتی رسید. نتیجهاش اینکه کافیست وارد یکی از کتابفروشیهای قدیمی بشوید و کتابی از دوران رنسانس در دست بگیرید. بازش کنید، درست بخوانیدش و آنوقت متوجه میشوید نمیتوانید رشتهی سهچهارم افکار آن دوره را که ذهن آدمها را به خودشان مشغول میکرده و برایشان اساسی بوده دنبال کنید. بدیهیات امروز شما در دوران خاصی پدید آمده که به زمان دکارت بر میگردد... به خصوص شروع علم نوین که از همان موقع بود؛ علمی که خصوصیت بارزش در تاثیر کم و بیش تحمیلگری است که به آن امکان میدهد در روزمرهترین جزئیات زندگی همه مداخله کند... بنابراین آموزهی من مربوط به چیزیست که که در سدههایی متولد شده که تا گردن در علم فرو رفته بودیم، حتی قبل از اینکه بشود از ماجرای آن به این شکل صحبت کرد. منظورم روانکاویست. (87)
September 3, 2015
viejo pedante.
July 12, 2021
This is a short little book consisting of three lectures that Lacan gave in the late 1960s.
The first lecture is called “the Place, Origin and End of my teaching“.
“… The function of the psychoanalyst is not self evident…“ he says that the place is 1953 when psychoanalysis in France was in a moment of crisis.
Everyone knows what the unconscious is however to speak of it raises many questions and puzzles. Obviously there are thoughts as it were in the subconscious you how can that be? The unconscious is unconscious. Some say that thought is transparent to itself that you cannot think without knowing you are thinking. That is a very Cartesian notion. He says that that objection carries no weight. Not that anyone has any real idea of what is reputable about it. “It seems irrefutable, but it is irrefutable. And that is precisely what the unconscious is. It is a fact, a new fact“
“When I express myself by saying that the unconscious is structured like a language, I am trying to restore the true function of everything that structures under the edges of Freud, and that in itself allows us to see the first step.“
“It is because language exists that truth exists, as everyone can come to see.“
“Truth begins to be established only once language exists. If the unconscious we’re not language, what might be called the unconscious and the Freudian Sands would have no privilege, would be of no interest.”
The second lecture is a rambling beginning but then he makes a big point at least a point he thinks that is big which is that there is a big difference between animals and men in that man has an extraordinary embarrassment towards excrement and waste disposal while animals do not. He makes another anti-civilization point: “but when it comes to the equation great civilization equals pipes and sewers there are no exceptions.“
Lacan holds Freud in rather high esteem even though by the 60s Freud must’ve been known to be wrong. So if you base your life’s work on some thing that is wrong what does that do to you psychologically?
Near the end of the third lecture he says “nothing could be more different from what we should be helping them to find, namely the right situation of asceticism or what I would call destitution: that is the situation of the analyst to the extent that he is a man like any other,and one who must know that he is neither knowledge nor consciousness, but is dependent upon the desire of the other, just as he is on the speech of the other.” Is he saying that sound treatment for an analyst is to show their client that asceticism or even destitution perhaps of emotion is the sound of treatment. Given the fact that the client has neither knowledge nor consciousness of their own but it’s rather dependent upon the opinions and desires of others. There is no self here?
I have read many difficult books in my life, this is very near the top of the list. Lacan is purposely obscure and too clever for his own good. Perhaps he is insouciant but to an extent that his audience cannot understand him. He is certainly pleased with himself. I do not know if he ever saw people in therapy but I hope that they were not too damaged for having seen him.
This is not a good book to read as an introduction to his thought. He repeatedly asks questions which he does not answer. He rambles. He refers to things with his own notation. I imagine the audiences to these three lectures were disappointed, perhaps angry.
The first lecture is called “the Place, Origin and End of my teaching“.
“… The function of the psychoanalyst is not self evident…“ he says that the place is 1953 when psychoanalysis in France was in a moment of crisis.
Everyone knows what the unconscious is however to speak of it raises many questions and puzzles. Obviously there are thoughts as it were in the subconscious you how can that be? The unconscious is unconscious. Some say that thought is transparent to itself that you cannot think without knowing you are thinking. That is a very Cartesian notion. He says that that objection carries no weight. Not that anyone has any real idea of what is reputable about it. “It seems irrefutable, but it is irrefutable. And that is precisely what the unconscious is. It is a fact, a new fact“
“When I express myself by saying that the unconscious is structured like a language, I am trying to restore the true function of everything that structures under the edges of Freud, and that in itself allows us to see the first step.“
“It is because language exists that truth exists, as everyone can come to see.“
“Truth begins to be established only once language exists. If the unconscious we’re not language, what might be called the unconscious and the Freudian Sands would have no privilege, would be of no interest.”
The second lecture is a rambling beginning but then he makes a big point at least a point he thinks that is big which is that there is a big difference between animals and men in that man has an extraordinary embarrassment towards excrement and waste disposal while animals do not. He makes another anti-civilization point: “but when it comes to the equation great civilization equals pipes and sewers there are no exceptions.“
Lacan holds Freud in rather high esteem even though by the 60s Freud must’ve been known to be wrong. So if you base your life’s work on some thing that is wrong what does that do to you psychologically?
Near the end of the third lecture he says “nothing could be more different from what we should be helping them to find, namely the right situation of asceticism or what I would call destitution: that is the situation of the analyst to the extent that he is a man like any other,and one who must know that he is neither knowledge nor consciousness, but is dependent upon the desire of the other, just as he is on the speech of the other.” Is he saying that sound treatment for an analyst is to show their client that asceticism or even destitution perhaps of emotion is the sound of treatment. Given the fact that the client has neither knowledge nor consciousness of their own but it’s rather dependent upon the opinions and desires of others. There is no self here?
I have read many difficult books in my life, this is very near the top of the list. Lacan is purposely obscure and too clever for his own good. Perhaps he is insouciant but to an extent that his audience cannot understand him. He is certainly pleased with himself. I do not know if he ever saw people in therapy but I hope that they were not too damaged for having seen him.
This is not a good book to read as an introduction to his thought. He repeatedly asks questions which he does not answer. He rambles. He refers to things with his own notation. I imagine the audiences to these three lectures were disappointed, perhaps angry.
Read
September 14, 2020Maybe this is only because I’ve picked up enough context in class (and done enough reading on phil of consciousness in the past year) to have a toehold, but this was mostly pretty comprehensible to me (except for the places where it seemed like JL was being deliberately difficult) and as such works well as My First Lacan. These three lectures were not given in the order in which they are printed, but the editor arranged them wisely. It is a bit like reading Beckett’s trilogy in the sense that you are sort of getting the same project three times in a row, successively stripped down and to the point. Lacan is very direct and witty, if not personable, and across these three lectures he goes from spending a lot of time trying to answer the question “what is my work all about” to getting (relatively) into the nitty gritty about the relationship between thought, language, subjectivity, embodiment, and of course Freud’s work. I doubt this book will turn anyone into a Lacanian, because he is doing a lot more reading than sowing and you only get a few glimpses of the actual philosophical/theoretical/practical work involved, but I would be kidding myself if I said that I didn’t need to be shown the broad strokes in order to understand what the hell is going on in some of his more detailed and intense writing.
And, just to reiterate, Lacan is a very, very funny speaker. I laughed out loud repeatedly while reading this book.
And, just to reiterate, Lacan is a very, very funny speaker. I laughed out loud repeatedly while reading this book.
February 15, 2025
This book is available in English for the first time of three lectures French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan gave in 1967 in Lyon, Bordeaux, and Strasbourg.
He speaks of his writings : “ Écrits”, and “Seminars’.”
While it’s interesting to read his lectures, I would have probably preferred an interview style to keep him focused on what the world deems important to know of him, his work, and his encouragement to read Freud.
Excerpted from the text:
“ Somewhere Freud writes ‘ Wo Es war, soll Ich werden.’Even if we remain at the level of his second topography, what is this, if not a certain way of defining the subject? Where the reign of sleep was, I must come, become, with the special accent the verb werden takes in German, and we have to give it its import of becoming in the future. What does that mean? That the subject is already at home at the level of ‘Es.’
There is no point of quibbling and saying that, in his second topography, Freud calls a certain system the perception-conscious system, ‘ das Ich,’ with the article because there are no words in German that function the way ‘ moi’ and ‘je’ function in French. ‘ Das Ich’ is something like the other two agencies, to use that vague term, he associates it with: the ‘Es’ and the ‘Überich’. What is it, if not, strictly speaking, the core of the subject?”
— page 83
He speaks of his writings : “ Écrits”, and “Seminars’.”
While it’s interesting to read his lectures, I would have probably preferred an interview style to keep him focused on what the world deems important to know of him, his work, and his encouragement to read Freud.
Excerpted from the text:
“ Somewhere Freud writes ‘ Wo Es war, soll Ich werden.’Even if we remain at the level of his second topography, what is this, if not a certain way of defining the subject? Where the reign of sleep was, I must come, become, with the special accent the verb werden takes in German, and we have to give it its import of becoming in the future. What does that mean? That the subject is already at home at the level of ‘Es.’
There is no point of quibbling and saying that, in his second topography, Freud calls a certain system the perception-conscious system, ‘ das Ich,’ with the article because there are no words in German that function the way ‘ moi’ and ‘je’ function in French. ‘ Das Ich’ is something like the other two agencies, to use that vague term, he associates it with: the ‘Es’ and the ‘Überich’. What is it, if not, strictly speaking, the core of the subject?”
— page 83
August 4, 2019
[...]- «Ο άνθρωπος κατοικεί τη γλώσσα», ακόμη και αποσπασμένο από το κείμενο του Χάιντεγκερ, μιλάει από μόνο του. Αυτό πάει να πει ότι η γλώσσα υπάρχει πριν από τον άνθρωπο, πράγμα που είναι προφανές. Όχι μόνο ο άνθρωπος γεννιέται μέσα στη γλώσσα, όπως ακριβώς γεννιέται μέσα στον κόσμο, αλλά γεννιέται δια της γλώσσας.
- Ένα όνειρο στον Φρόυντ δεν είναι μια φύση που ονειρεύεται, ένα αρχέτυπο που κινείται, μια μήτρα του κόσμου, ένα θείο όνειρο, η καρδιά της ψυχής. Ο Φρόυντ μιλάει για το όνειρο σαν κάποιο κόμβο, σαν ένα συνείρμικό δίκτυο λεκτικών αναλυμένων μορφών που διασταυρώνονται ως τέτοιες, όχι μέσω αυτού που σημαίνουν, αλλά μέσω κάποιου είδους ομωνυμίας. Όταν η ίδια λέξη απαντά σε τρία διαφορετικά σταυροδρόμια των ιδεών που έρχονται στο υποκείμενο, τότε αντιλαμβάνεστε ότι το σημαντικό είναι αυτή η λέξη και τίποτε άλλο. Όταν έχετε βρεί τη λέξη που συγκεντρώνει γύρω της τον μεγαλύτερο αριθμό από τα νήματα αυτού του μυκηλίου ξέρετε ότι εκεί βοίσκεται το κρυμμένο κέντρο βάρους της επιθυμίας που διακυβεύεται. Για να είμαι σαφής, αυτό είναι το σημείο για το οποίο μιλούσα προ ολίγου, αυτό το σημείο-πυρήνας όπου ο λόγος είναι τρύπιος. [...]
- Ένα όνειρο στον Φρόυντ δεν είναι μια φύση που ονειρεύεται, ένα αρχέτυπο που κινείται, μια μήτρα του κόσμου, ένα θείο όνειρο, η καρδιά της ψυχής. Ο Φρόυντ μιλάει για το όνειρο σαν κάποιο κόμβο, σαν ένα συνείρμικό δίκτυο λεκτικών αναλυμένων μορφών που διασταυρώνονται ως τέτοιες, όχι μέσω αυτού που σημαίνουν, αλλά μέσω κάποιου είδους ομωνυμίας. Όταν η ίδια λέξη απαντά σε τρία διαφορετικά σταυροδρόμια των ιδεών που έρχονται στο υποκείμενο, τότε αντιλαμβάνεστε ότι το σημαντικό είναι αυτή η λέξη και τίποτε άλλο. Όταν έχετε βρεί τη λέξη που συγκεντρώνει γύρω της τον μεγαλύτερο αριθμό από τα νήματα αυτού του μυκηλίου ξέρετε ότι εκεί βοίσκεται το κρυμμένο κέντρο βάρους της επιθυμίας που διακυβεύεται. Για να είμαι σαφής, αυτό είναι το σημείο για το οποίο μιλούσα προ ολίγου, αυτό το σημείο-πυρήνας όπου ο λόγος είναι τρύπιος. [...]
July 22, 2017
Lacan lleva los estudios de Freud acerca del inconsciente a otro nivel. La "escuela" de psicoanálisis de Lacan es muy completa porque parte de la Filosofía, de conceptos que ya existían mucho antes de que Freud se los adueñara, de paradojas. Lacan corrige algunos errores de Freud, y en base a su experiencia como psiquiatra y psicoanalista, escribe sus "Enseñanzas", su "visión" del inconsciente y el psicoanálisis, del pensamiento. Me encantó su estilo, aunque muchas personas lo sienten ofensivo y agresivo, yo no lo vi así, es sentido del humor para explicar conceptos muy complejos y profundos, es estilo, forma y no fondo. Leer a Lacan es una experiencia, los primeros capítulos acabé con dolor de cabeza y náuseas de lo angustiante, profundo y confrontativo que es, te lleva al límite de la razón, y luego te lanza al vacío para que saques conclusiones propias y sigas su línea de pensamiento. No le puse 5 estrellas porque para mí, el libro se queda corto, considero que para entender las enseñanzas de Lacan este libro es sólo una introducción. Muy buena introducción!
February 24, 2025
Very accessible "work" from Lacan, a compilation of three lectures he gave at different times in 1967. Although I wouldn't describe it as anything going into depth about his work itself, nor would I say this is an introduction to something like that, to which I find Bruce Fink's 'The Lacanian Subject' to be much more comprehensible and yet easy to read theoretical introduction, which does its best into breaking down as much of his key concepts during his career (a very impossible task to be completed by itself) into a single book. But coming back to this, it's again, three lectures where he talks about Freud (where doesn't he) and his importance in both the field of philosophy and psychoanalysis, most of which has appropriated him while abandoning his revolutionary grasp on the subject and language (there is a paragraph where he talks about how Freud lays the ground for linguistics, a bold statement but still something that should be given consideration regardless of what one might think of it).
March 10, 2025
(3.5) Lacan castrated of his sex appeal, that which is always already in the first instance dispersed, obfuscated, only to be located in the covert loci within the components of his mechanisms. That is to say, there stands held within this text a certain, lucid Lacan, who by being so becomes no longer Lacan as such. This is not necessarily to his detriment. Many key concepts find themselves explicated with clarity in this way that projects them as figures laden with some organelle that stands productive of their transferability. But without Lacan's obtuse attentions towards obscured systems, these ideas carry little weight beyond their aesthetic appeal. 'My Teaching' fulfills its function of orienting its reader towards Lacan's thinking but fails to provide the tools whereby a deeper penetration of his corpus would be made possible.
July 14, 2018
What is this guy saying? It's silly to say but there is something enigmatic about Lacan that makes him challenging. And it's not the sort of challenging that I'm used to, like Fredric Jameson or Sianne Ngai, in a verbose and languid but eventually extremely rewarding way. No, instead it's about the absences, the gaps that Lacan either wants the reader to fill or to not fill, the holes in our understanding between science and art, or language and communication.
Perhaps it's my own lack of knowledge in psychoanalysis that struggles with understanding Lacan's concepts. Or it's his post-structural desire to restate or state always more clearly a position that nevertheless is difficult to comprehend. Despite any of this I learned a lil somethin
Perhaps it's my own lack of knowledge in psychoanalysis that struggles with understanding Lacan's concepts. Or it's his post-structural desire to restate or state always more clearly a position that nevertheless is difficult to comprehend. Despite any of this I learned a lil somethin
March 21, 2025
I would imagine this is as good a place as any to start reading Lacan. It probably wont make much sense to the uninitiated, but it does give a taste of his digressive, at times polemical style while introducing most of his concepts, however cursorily. And it's quite a digestible portion. Chock full of his aphorisms. An enjoyable and entertaining read. I found his discussion of the unconscious as thought that is not transparent to itself particularly elucidating.
August 21, 2019
The title is missing an "s". Which is to say, while interesting, it is really about his "teachings" - ie psychoanalysis - than his teaching. The pupil/teacher dyad drops so far into the background it is a little shocking in fact. It is, though, for all that, fascinating; and a great insight into both his methods of speaking and thinking, and some key psychoanalytic ideas from that time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews