What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Read...
لاکان به روایت ژیژک
Unusual book
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2006
396 people are currently reading
7402 people want to read
About the author
Slavoj Žižek
652 books7,616 followersSlavoj Žižek is a Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic.
He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).
Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."
He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).
Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 404 reviews
June 5, 2016
Slavoj Žižek - Slovenian psychoanalytic philosopher, cultural critic and all around Marxist bad boy. You might not agree with his philosophy or politics but one thing is certain - he has the uncanny ability to explain difficult theories and concepts in vivid, comprehensible language.
Since one of my own areas of interest in Jungian psychology, I thought it wise to gain at least a basic understanding of another major theorist in the world of psychoanalysis - Jacques Lacan. To this end I tried reading an introductory text but had no luck since technical, obscure language filled the pages right from the first chapter. So I tried this introduction by Slavoj Žižek. Bingo! I enjoyed reading the entire book and now I have at least a modest grasp of the great French analyst’s thinking. To share some of the flavor of Slavoj Žižek’s instruction on how to read Lacan, here are several quotes from the book coupled with my comments:
“Lacan started his ‘return to Freud’ with the linguistic reading of the entire psychoanalytic edifice, encapsulated by what is perhaps his single best-known formula: ‘The unconscious is structured as a language.’ The predominant perception of the unconscious is that it is the domain of irrational drives, something opposed to the rational conscious self. For Lacan, this notion of the unconscious belongs to the Romantic philosophy of life and has nothing to do with Freud.” ---------- To illustrate this point, Slavoj Žižek gives the example of how there was a factory worker accused of stealing every evening when he left the factory. Night after night, the guards would very carefully check the wheelbarrow he was pushing to make sure he wasn’t hiding anything belonging to the factory. But then one night the guards finally got the point – he was stealing wheelbarrows. “This is the first thing to bear in mind about the way the unconscious works according to Lacan; it is not hidden in the wheelbarrow, it is the wheelbarrow itself.”
“For Lacan, psychoanalysis at its most fundamental is not a theory and technique of treating psychic disturbances but a theory and practice that confronts individuals with the most radical dimension of human existence. It does not show an individual the way to accommodate him- or herself to the demands of social reality; instead it explains how something like ‘reality’ constitutes itself in the first place." ---------- Perhaps this is why nowadays Lacan is encountered more in academic departments of philosophy, linguistics and literature rather than actual clinical practice: his theory isn’t about curing sickness or improving people’s ability to function in society; rather, his psychoanalytic framework can provide a more penetrating approach to the ways in which we construct the building blocks of our perception and understanding of the world.
“For Lacan, the goal of psychoanalytic treatment is not the patient’s well-being, successful social life or personal fulfillment, but to bring the patient to confront the elementary coordinates and deadlocks of his or her desires.” ---------- This statement gives a hint that Lacan is not overly optimistic about the human capacity to have all our desires satisfied – at best, we reach a more complete awareness of the structure of our psyche and why our dissatisfaction is a very human reality.
“In order to unlock the secret treasures of Freud, Lacan enlisted a motely tribe of theories, some from the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure, through Claude Levi-Strauss’s structural anthropology, up to mathematical set theory and the philosophies of Plant, Kant, Hegel and Heidegger." ----------- Slavoj lets us know right in his introduction that he will not delve into the details of linguistics or anthropological theory as it is used in psychoanalytic treatment. He takes a different tact, linking a passage from Lacan to areas we are all more familiar, such as film and current day politics. This is the beauty of this introduction – you learn a good bit about Lacanian theory and have fun along with way.
“It is clear that none of these versions (of toilets) can be accounted for in purely utilitarian terms: a certain ideological perception of how the subject should relate to the unpleasant excrement that comes from within the body is clearly discernible in it." ---------- Here Slavoj is talking about the difference between a French toilet, an American toilet and a German toilet and how each culture betrays its ideology and vision of life with their respective design of this bathroom gadget.
“When a judge speaks, there is in a way more truth in his words than in thee direct reality of the person of that judge; if one limits oneself to what one sees, one simply misses the point. . . . What is missed by the cynic who believes only his eyes is the efficiency of the symbolic fiction, the way this fiction structures reality.” ----------- Slavoj Žižek provides a lucid explanation of how a society and nation’s legal institution with its body of law forms this ‘effective symbolic fiction’ to make sure the judge’s words have much more punch than simply those pronounced by a single individual. The author also ties in this example with Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory.
September 18, 2012
A terrific summary of Zizek's reading of Lacan. It could be more appropriately called "How to Read Zizek's Reading of Lacan" than simply "How to Read Lacan". An impressive number of his examples are familiar from his other works, especially The Parallax View. Having Zizek's Lacan illustrations published in one book makes it a lot easier to make sense of his reading of Lacan.
There is just this one "but". Zizek does not really read Lacan. Rather, he uses his reading of Lacan to read something else, notably films or novels, which he in turn uses to illustrate something else, such as the conservatives' wrongheaded response to some problem in society. Actually the book should be called "How to Read Zizek's Reading of Lacan to Read X". X refers to the Kubrick film "Eyes Wide Shut" or the Ridley Scott film "Alien" etc.
Even if more limited in scope than its title suggests, "How to Read Lacan" is good enough to be more than just good enough.
There is just this one "but". Zizek does not really read Lacan. Rather, he uses his reading of Lacan to read something else, notably films or novels, which he in turn uses to illustrate something else, such as the conservatives' wrongheaded response to some problem in society. Actually the book should be called "How to Read Zizek's Reading of Lacan to Read X". X refers to the Kubrick film "Eyes Wide Shut" or the Ridley Scott film "Alien" etc.
Even if more limited in scope than its title suggests, "How to Read Lacan" is good enough to be more than just good enough.
August 5, 2023
Nur Kurz:
Zizek ist ein fantastischer Erklärbär.
Hör ich nochmal von irgendwem die Floskel „das ist ja interessant“, ist hier zappenduster!
Ich weiß jetzt warum ich so viele Bücher runterlade und abspeichere! Der große Andere liest für mich 😉.
Wenn ein Geschenk für die geliebte Person meine Liebe symbolisieren soll, dann muß es nutzlos sein, überflüssig in seiner Fülle – nur auf diese Weise, wenn der Gebrauchswert aufgehoben ist, kann es meine Liebe symbolisieren.
Find ich gut. Dann tust immer die „welke Rose der Trostlosigkeit“ von Umberto Ecos „Die Insel des vorigen Tages“.
Übrigens find ich Herrn Han hierzu präziser, der statt Liebe das/den Eros einsetzt.
Mein persönlicher Stolperstein: die Angst andere zu belästigen ist Toleranz der Intoleranz des Anderen vor dem Anderen. Wenn ich jetzt konsequent bin und keine Toleranz für Intoleranz aufbringe, muss ich belästigen?! 😵💫🙄
Zur Erklärung folgendes Zitat:
„Im vorherrschenden Gebrauch des Begriffs »Belästigung« verschiebt sich diese elementare Bedeutung jedoch kaum wahrnehmbar zur Verurteilung jeglicher exzessiven Nähe eines realen menschlichen Wesens mit seinen Begierden, Ängsten und Lüsten. Zwei Themen bestimmen die gegenwärtige liberale tolerante Haltung gegenüber anderen: Respekt und Offenheit für die Andersheit und zwanghafte Angst vor Belästigung. Der andere ist in Ordnung, insofern seine Anwesenheit nicht aufdringlich ist, insoweit der andere nicht wirklich anders ist. Toleranz stimmt mit ihrem Gegenteil überein: Meine Pflicht, dem anderen gegenüber tolerant zu sein, bedeutet gewissermaßen, daß ich ihm nicht zu nahe komme, nicht in seinen Raum eindringe – kurz, daß ich seine Intoleranz gegenüber meiner zu großen Nähe respektieren sollte. Das ist es, was sich mehr und mehr als das zentrale »Menschenrecht« in der spätkapitalistischen Gesellschaft abzeichnet: das Recht, nicht belästigt zu werden, das heißt in sicherer Distanz zum anderen gehalten zu werden“.
Kloschüssel Vergleiche ziehen bei mir sowieso.
Das Fundamentalisten einen authentischen Glauben haben, durch den andere pseudogläubige und Atheisten sich bedroht fühlen, hab ich schon immer gesagt. Danke Zizek für die Bestätigung!
Ja und die Sache mit dem Cyberspace konnte ich bei Herrn Han schon nicht ganz mitgehen.
Über das idealisierte SpiegelIch hab ich kapiert warum mir Verhalten vieler Menschen suspekt ist. Ich kenne so etwas wie das IdealIch nicht. Zumindest nicht in der Form, dass es mich interessiert wie andere mich sehen sollen. Oder der große Andere versteckt es vor mir und verkloppt mich damit in meinen Träumen 😬.
Für Lacan ist die Psychoanalyse auf ihrer grundlegendsten Ebene keine Theorie und Technik der Behandlung psychischer Störungen, sondern eine Theorie und Praxis, die die Individuen mit der radikalsten Dimension der menschlichen Existenz konfrontiert.
Moah! Konfrontation mit der radikalsten Dimension der menschlichen Existenz… immer mitten in die Fresse rein…. Jap passt👍😬
Zizek ist ein fantastischer Erklärbär.
Hör ich nochmal von irgendwem die Floskel „das ist ja interessant“, ist hier zappenduster!
Ich weiß jetzt warum ich so viele Bücher runterlade und abspeichere! Der große Andere liest für mich 😉.
Wenn ein Geschenk für die geliebte Person meine Liebe symbolisieren soll, dann muß es nutzlos sein, überflüssig in seiner Fülle – nur auf diese Weise, wenn der Gebrauchswert aufgehoben ist, kann es meine Liebe symbolisieren.
Find ich gut. Dann tust immer die „welke Rose der Trostlosigkeit“ von Umberto Ecos „Die Insel des vorigen Tages“.
Übrigens find ich Herrn Han hierzu präziser, der statt Liebe das/den Eros einsetzt.
Mein persönlicher Stolperstein: die Angst andere zu belästigen ist Toleranz der Intoleranz des Anderen vor dem Anderen. Wenn ich jetzt konsequent bin und keine Toleranz für Intoleranz aufbringe, muss ich belästigen?! 😵💫🙄
Zur Erklärung folgendes Zitat:
„Im vorherrschenden Gebrauch des Begriffs »Belästigung« verschiebt sich diese elementare Bedeutung jedoch kaum wahrnehmbar zur Verurteilung jeglicher exzessiven Nähe eines realen menschlichen Wesens mit seinen Begierden, Ängsten und Lüsten. Zwei Themen bestimmen die gegenwärtige liberale tolerante Haltung gegenüber anderen: Respekt und Offenheit für die Andersheit und zwanghafte Angst vor Belästigung. Der andere ist in Ordnung, insofern seine Anwesenheit nicht aufdringlich ist, insoweit der andere nicht wirklich anders ist. Toleranz stimmt mit ihrem Gegenteil überein: Meine Pflicht, dem anderen gegenüber tolerant zu sein, bedeutet gewissermaßen, daß ich ihm nicht zu nahe komme, nicht in seinen Raum eindringe – kurz, daß ich seine Intoleranz gegenüber meiner zu großen Nähe respektieren sollte. Das ist es, was sich mehr und mehr als das zentrale »Menschenrecht« in der spätkapitalistischen Gesellschaft abzeichnet: das Recht, nicht belästigt zu werden, das heißt in sicherer Distanz zum anderen gehalten zu werden“.
Kloschüssel Vergleiche ziehen bei mir sowieso.
Das Fundamentalisten einen authentischen Glauben haben, durch den andere pseudogläubige und Atheisten sich bedroht fühlen, hab ich schon immer gesagt. Danke Zizek für die Bestätigung!
Ja und die Sache mit dem Cyberspace konnte ich bei Herrn Han schon nicht ganz mitgehen.
Über das idealisierte SpiegelIch hab ich kapiert warum mir Verhalten vieler Menschen suspekt ist. Ich kenne so etwas wie das IdealIch nicht. Zumindest nicht in der Form, dass es mich interessiert wie andere mich sehen sollen. Oder der große Andere versteckt es vor mir und verkloppt mich damit in meinen Träumen 😬.
Für Lacan ist die Psychoanalyse auf ihrer grundlegendsten Ebene keine Theorie und Technik der Behandlung psychischer Störungen, sondern eine Theorie und Praxis, die die Individuen mit der radikalsten Dimension der menschlichen Existenz konfrontiert.
Moah! Konfrontation mit der radikalsten Dimension der menschlichen Existenz… immer mitten in die Fresse rein…. Jap passt👍😬
August 16, 2018
Εδώ φαίνεται πώς ο Ζιζεκ χρησιμοποιεί το Λακάν για να παρουσιάσει τις δικές του θέσεις, και το κάνει με πολύ αριστουργηματικό τρόπο. Βέβαια ο αμετάφραστος τίτλος του βιβλίου είναι "How to read Lacan" πράγμα που δεν είμαι σίγουρος ότι επαληθεύεται στη πράξη. Μέσα από τις προσωπικές του αναζητήσεις ο Ζιζεκ χρησιμοποιεί το Λακάν για να αναλύσει κάποιες ταινίες και λογοτεχνικά αποσπάσματα και να σχολιάσει το κοινωνικό-πολιτικό πεδίο. Σίγουρα δίνει ενδιαφέρουσες προεκτάσεις σε όποιον έχει μια εξοικείωση με τα εννοιολογικά εργαλεία της λακανικής θεωρίας. Θεμελιακές έννοιες της λακανικής θεωρίας όπως το Φαντασιακό, το Συμβολικό και το Πραγματικό, αντιστοιχούνται παράλληλα με το Ιδεώδες Εγώ, το Ιδεώδες του Εγώ και το Υπερεγώ. Με πολύ χαρακτηριστικά παραδείγματα και χιούμορ ο Ζιζέκ κάνει αναγωγές στο δικό του γλωσσικό σύμπαν. Ένα από τα συγκλονιστικότερα αποσπάσματα είναι το παρακάτω: "Στη Φροϋδική ανάλυση για τον Άνθρωπο με τους Λύκους, τον διάσημο Ρώσο ασθενή του, ο Freud απομόνωσε ως το πρώιμο τραυματικό γεγονός ότι, ως παιδί ενάμιση έτους, είδε τους γονείς του σε σεξουαλική πράξη κατά την οποία ο άνδρας διεισδύει στη γυναίκα από πίσω. Ωστόσο, αρχικά, όταν συνέβη το γεγονός, δεν υπήρχε τίποτα το τραυματικό σε αυτό: δεν συντάραξε πραγματικά το παιδί, απλώς εγγράφηκε στη μνήμη του ως ενα γεγονός του οποίου το νόημα δεν του ήταν διόλου ξεκάθαρο. Χρόνια αργότερα όταν το ερώτημα «από που έρχονται τα παιδιά;» του έγινε έμμονη ιδέα και άρχισε να αναπτύσσει παιδικές θεωρίες για τη σεξουαλικότητα, μονάχα τότε ανέσυρε αυτή την ανάμνηση ως τραυματική σκηνή που δίνη μορφή στο μυστήριο της σεξουαλικότητας. Η σκηνή δεν πήρε τη θέση τραύματος, δεν εξελίχθηκε σε τραυματικό Πραγματικό, παρά μονάχα αναδρομικά, για να βοηθήσει το παιδί να αντιμετωπίσει το αδιέξοδο στο συμβολικό του σύμπαν (την αδυναμία του να βρει απαντήσεις στο αίνιγμα της σεξουαλικότητας). Συντονιζόμενος με τη μεταστροφή του Einstein, ο Freud ορίζει ότι το αρχικό γεγονός εν προκειμένω είναι το συμβολικό αδιέξοδο και ότι το τραυματικό συμβάν αναβιώνεται για να γεμίσει τα κενά στο σύμπαν της σημασίας."
Και ένα τελευταίο απόσπασμα που χαρακτηρίζει το βιβλίο αλλά και την ταινία του Ζιζεκ "The Pervert's Guide to Ideology" (2012) με κεντρική σημασία την έννοια της ιδεολογίας: "Η απόλαυση σήμερα λειτουργεί παραδόξως κατ' ουσίαν ως ηθικό καθήκον: οι άνθρωποι αισθάνονται ένοχοι όχι επειδή παραβιάζουν ηθικές απαγορεύσεις επιδιδόμενοι σε παράνομες απολαύσεις, αλλά επειδή αδυνατούν να απολαύσουν."
Και ένα τελευταίο απόσπασμα που χαρακτηρίζει το βιβλίο αλλά και την ταινία του Ζιζεκ "The Pervert's Guide to Ideology" (2012) με κεντρική σημασία την έννοια της ιδεολογίας: "Η απόλαυση σήμερα λειτουργεί παραδόξως κατ' ουσίαν ως ηθικό καθήκον: οι άνθρωποι αισθάνονται ένοχοι όχι επειδή παραβιάζουν ηθικές απαγορεύσεις επιδιδόμενοι σε παράνομες απολαύσεις, αλλά επειδή αδυνατούν να απολαύσουν."
July 8, 2015
کتاب با چیره دستی تمام، تفسیری انحصاری ژیژک از لکان را با ارجاعات مکرر به فیلم ها، رمان ها و نمایشنامه را نمایندگی می کنند. درون کتاب از عبارات های ثقیل خالی نیست ولی راحت فهمی نوشته های ژیژک در نهایت معنایی رو منتقل میکنه.
کتاب رو با دوستی خوندیم و برای همین قدری طول کشید ولی قطعا اونقدر جدی نیست. تلاش ژیژک برای پرده برداری از مفاهیم کلیدی اندیشه لکان قابل تقدیره؛ مفاهیمی مثل دیگری بزرگ و کوچک، امر واقعی و امر نمادین و ...
به هرحال گویا سری "چگونه ... را بخوانیم" اونقدرم دم دستی نیست و شدیدا مشتاقم نسخه کیرکگاردش رو به قلم کاپیوتو بخونم.
کتاب رو با دوستی خوندیم و برای همین قدری طول کشید ولی قطعا اونقدر جدی نیست. تلاش ژیژک برای پرده برداری از مفاهیم کلیدی اندیشه لکان قابل تقدیره؛ مفاهیمی مثل دیگری بزرگ و کوچک، امر واقعی و امر نمادین و ...
به هرحال گویا سری "چگونه ... را بخوانیم" اونقدرم دم دستی نیست و شدیدا مشتاقم نسخه کیرکگاردش رو به قلم کاپیوتو بخونم.
October 25, 2014
This is a pleasurable book to read about Lacan, but it does not even begin to give the reader what it purports to offer, namely instruction on how to read (or understand) Lacan. Like all of Zizek's writing on Lacan, it does not actually do a very good job communicating what Lacan is really all about. Rather, we're getting Zizek-on-Lacan with a pretty heavy emphasis on Zizek. For readers new to Lacan, the book as a whole should be taken with a grain of salt.
This can function as a great first book on Lacan if the novice reader understands that this is not really a Lacan primer. It's more to whet the appetite and see if you're interesting in getting more into this stuff. Zizek does a fantastic job of showing just how intensely fascinating Lacan's work can be, and incorporates it into a whole host of modern pop cultural and political contexts. It's all great, but eventually it becomes clear that Zizek is more interested in incorporating Lacan into these different things than just explaining to the reader the real fundamentals of Lacan (incidentally, it's likely that Lacan himself would've supported Zizek's technique.)
But it's a fun read that can serve as a real "gateway drug" into further study of Lacan. If you're intrigued by this book and want to learn the real basics in a clear way, read Lionel Bailly's Lacan: A Beginner's Guide.
This can function as a great first book on Lacan if the novice reader understands that this is not really a Lacan primer. It's more to whet the appetite and see if you're interesting in getting more into this stuff. Zizek does a fantastic job of showing just how intensely fascinating Lacan's work can be, and incorporates it into a whole host of modern pop cultural and political contexts. It's all great, but eventually it becomes clear that Zizek is more interested in incorporating Lacan into these different things than just explaining to the reader the real fundamentals of Lacan (incidentally, it's likely that Lacan himself would've supported Zizek's technique.)
But it's a fun read that can serve as a real "gateway drug" into further study of Lacan. If you're intrigued by this book and want to learn the real basics in a clear way, read Lionel Bailly's Lacan: A Beginner's Guide.
May 30, 2016
It does not merely enable a human being to accept the repressed truth about him- or herself; it explains how the dimension of truth emerges in human reality.
It is a testament to my sloth and stupidity that I reaped so much from this text as well as Z's other primer Event. Telling, how much Žižek utilizes the Bard here, as opposed to his "typical" Hitchcock. (anyone want to ponder the skeletons in Dakota Johnson's baggage claim?). No, Shakespeare is placed beside Stalin, while the "true" defendants in these proceeding are the Bush (41) Administration --and their circle of disaster. Honestly, Lacan remains as impenetrable as ever, but I found both a vitality and a questioning spirit which both humbles and cleanses. That last sentence wasn't intended to be so Jesuit, it must be the Imaginary and the Symbolic at cross purposes.
It is a testament to my sloth and stupidity that I reaped so much from this text as well as Z's other primer Event. Telling, how much Žižek utilizes the Bard here, as opposed to his "typical" Hitchcock. (anyone want to ponder the skeletons in Dakota Johnson's baggage claim?). No, Shakespeare is placed beside Stalin, while the "true" defendants in these proceeding are the Bush (41) Administration --and their circle of disaster. Honestly, Lacan remains as impenetrable as ever, but I found both a vitality and a questioning spirit which both humbles and cleanses. That last sentence wasn't intended to be so Jesuit, it must be the Imaginary and the Symbolic at cross purposes.
February 14, 2015
داستان کارگری را به خاطر بیاورید که مشکوک به دزدیش بوند : هر روز غروب، وقتی که کارخانه را ترک می کرد، گاری دستی اش را با نهایت دقت وارسی می کردند، اما نگهبان ها نمی توانستند چیزی پیدا کنند، و گاری همیشه خالی بود. عاقبت فهمیدند قضیه چیست : اموال مسروقه چیزی نبود مگر همین گاری ها. همین نوع چرخش خود بازتابنده را در امر ارتباط نیز می توان مشاهده کرد : نباید از خاطر برد که محتوای یک عمل ارتباطی شامل خود آن هم می شود، زیرا معنای هر عمل ارتباطی در عین حال، به شیوه ای بازتابنده اعلام می کند که یک عمل ارتباطی است.
این نخستین نکته ای ست که باید درباره ی طرز کار ناخودآگاه بیاموزیم : ناخودآگاه محتوای گاری دستی نیست، بلکه خود آن گاری است.
این نخستین نکته ای ست که باید درباره ی طرز کار ناخودآگاه بیاموزیم : ناخودآگاه محتوای گاری دستی نیست، بلکه خود آن گاری است.
Read
July 19, 2019
February 6, 2025
a maddening book and a sort of baptism by fire, because (a) it's not a lacan 101 introductory work, (b) the structure and the examples are somewhat chaotic, frequently reading like stream-of-consciousness and not necessarily being explicitly tied together, which is why the ideal reader of this book is a lacan 'initiate', (c) it's not always clear where lacan's thought stops and žižek's own takes over, especially in examples of political nature. still, here are the takeaways:
EMPTY GESTURES AND PERFORMATIVES
- nil-value symbolic (phatic) exchanges with only symbolic worth
- declarative/symbolic dimension of gestures, appearances, forms, possessions (everything a repository of meaning -> everything is 'texts'?)
- the "excess" (superflous, too earnest, too eager) gesture is upsetting
- paranoiac stance is itself the destructive plot it's fighting (a self-fulfilling prophecy
- "the unconscious is not hidden inside the wheelbarrow, it is the wheelbarrow itself" (a rough metonimic equivalence between: unconscious = language = the Other = symbolic order = superego)
THE INTERPASSIVE SUBJECT: LACAN TURNS A PRAYER WHEEL
- letting a thing do one's work instead of him (e.g. watermill, prayer wheel, hegel's Idea realizing itself in history) -> letting a thing do one's emotional work instead of him (e.g. canned laughter, hired mourners, movies hoarded on a VCR)
- false activity = nil-value activity (neurotic's compulsions, calvinist hoarding) intended to sustain the unmoving Other's fixity
- 'symbolic registration' of things with the virtual Other ("oops!", talking to ourselves, etc.)
- "culture" = practice without beliefs ('does the work for us'); "barbarians" = anti-cultural because they dare to believe
- 'persona' (drag queen, unconstrained internet presence) manifests itself most freely in explicitly FICTIVE environments
- persona also 'does the work for us'
- authority figure perceived as weak still afforded respect because of the FICTION standing behind him (we believe 'their words' and not 'our eyes')
- empiricism is blind to this truth
- gap between direct psychological identity and my symbolic identity, the symbolic narrativein which i live, is 'symbolic castration'
- 'phallus' = the 'donned', 'attached', sticking-out part conferring power, but that one can never fully identify with
- hysteria = subject's questioning of his symbolic title
- hysteric cannot distinguish between his 'true' desire and what others see and desire in him; in this he intuits the truth that all desire is caused by, and filtered through, the other
- 'hedonistic asceticism' = cultural pheomenon, think yuppie culture, milk without fat, minorities without scary otherness, etc.
FANTASY; EYES WIDE SHUT
- neighbour is monstrous; no equal enjoyment possible, so laws create equal prohibitions
- being too closely exposed to the othr/his desire/the fulfillment of our fantasy (freud: rape) is TRAUMATIC
- character of fantasy is intersubjective, like desire is always connected to the other (i.e. freud's daughter eating strawberry cake to be admired)
- fantasy sustains and enables all relationships, institutions, sexual acts, etc. ("fictional character of truth") which would be TRAUMATIC without it
- art can unite the discord of mutually overlapping fantasies (think surrealism)
- 'aphanisis' = the 'fantastical' truth at the centre of all human experience is inacessible; when we get too close to it, to symbolic integration, we disintegrate, get eclipsed by the signifier — and that's why we must conceive of ourselves always relationally, vis-à-vis something else (cf. structuralism) –
- this happens to a hysteric after symbolic castration
- the fact that all reality is seen through fantasy means that an escape into reality can be an escape from the unsymbolizable, phantasmagoric, visceral, traumatic Real (paradoxically considering the name, present in dreams)
TROUBLES WITH THE REAL: LACAN AS A VIEWER OF ALIEN (* least comprehensible chapter, some concepts read like prose poems)
- melancholic not mourning LOST object; he has it but has lost his desire for it
- what makes me sad is the awareness that i'm going to lose the desire for what i now desire or have
- 'objet petit a' (object-cause of desire) = a constitutive lack, the 'unfinishedness' of the human being -> primordial inscription of ourselves into the field of the big Other that takes various shapes based on our inner states -> we project into an other something that does not really exist there, the thing that would make us whole -> no matter how close i get to he object of my desire, it seems to be no closer, and that's because the CAUSE of the desire (objet petit a) is unknown to me
- retroactive traumatization of scenes, elevating of scenes into traumatic Reals, to help one cope with an impasse in his symbolic universe
- 'Real' = that which is unsymbolizable, 'raw core' (dreams too)
EGO-IDEAL AND SUPEREGO: LACAN AS A VIEWER OF CASABLANCA
- 'jouissance' = superego's imperative of enjoyment
- 'ideal ego' (cf. imaginary) = what I want to be + how I want others to see me
- 'ego-ideal' (cf. symbolic) = the Other i obey and try to impress
- 'superego' (cf. real) = the Other in its controlling, sadistic, punishing aspect
- case study of the 3½ seconds did they/didn't they shot in 'casablanca': ego-ideal being properly satisfied that they didn't fuck in the eyes of the big Other, i can indulge my fantasy that they did (superego; but this doesn't imply a division in the Other or harm to it, because...)
- BOTH sides are necessary; what seems like perverse by-products are actually inherent built-in transgressions of the system
- we set the 'proper order of things' (ego-ideal; american values) by committing undercover obscenities (superego; prison torture) — if we become cognizant of the fact that thus the 'order' is blasphemed and becomes a mockery of itself, well, too bad!
'GOD IS DEAD, BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW IT': LACAN PLAYS WITH BOBOK
- 'traditionalism' allows space for healthy rebellion, but 'permisiveness' sets one up to be spectrally plagued by absent prohibitions, and is therefore more oppressive
- "if god doesn't exist, then everything is prohibited", that is, enjoyment is sabotaged by the superego's prohibitions
- true formula of materialism isn't "god is dead" but "god is unconscious" (there is nothing magical about money or commodities — but THEY don't know it!)
- once we publicly believed and privately transgressed; now we publicly transgress but privately (via unconscious injunctions) believe
- where religious authors (e.g. dostoyevsky in 'bobok') construct a godless universe, it is often just a projection of religion's own underside (which is the injuction to TRANSGRESS, whereas in 'truly' godless universes the injuction is that of HAUNTING REPROACH)
- psychoanalysis allows one not to enjoy, relieves one of the pressure to do so
- aside: link between judaism and psychoanalysis (terrifying Other, external traumatic encounter)
- aside: kierkegaard's central opposition in western spirituality is between socrates (inner journey of remembrance) and christ (shock of external encounter)
- aside: cyberspace as gnostic: no body, "freed" self
PERVERSE SUBJECT; BOUYERI
- sadist (whether sexual or political) pretends to be realizing some objective, externally imposed, necessity -> "i am the instrument-object of another's will"
- political sadist's excuse: "what horrible things i had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders"; murder as necessity for society's progress
- modern (islamic) fundamentalism's special 'regime of truth' -> what separates Truth from Lie is death, i.e. the truthful subject's readiness and wish to die
- "purest" appearance isn't putting up a deceptive screen to conceal a transgression (= to appear good) but feigning that there is a transgression to conceal (= appear bad on purpose)
- per lacan, in mimicry i don't imitate the image i want to fit into, but those features of the image that seem to indicate that there is some hidden reality behind (illusion of 'depth', 'texture', organicity?)
- aside: ironically, secular humanists espouse belief while religious fundamentalists (but i'd argue all fundamentalists, i.e. some new atheists) espouse knowledge
EMPTY GESTURES AND PERFORMATIVES
- nil-value symbolic (phatic) exchanges with only symbolic worth
- declarative/symbolic dimension of gestures, appearances, forms, possessions (everything a repository of meaning -> everything is 'texts'?)
- the "excess" (superflous, too earnest, too eager) gesture is upsetting
- paranoiac stance is itself the destructive plot it's fighting (a self-fulfilling prophecy
- "the unconscious is not hidden inside the wheelbarrow, it is the wheelbarrow itself" (a rough metonimic equivalence between: unconscious = language = the Other = symbolic order = superego)
THE INTERPASSIVE SUBJECT: LACAN TURNS A PRAYER WHEEL
- letting a thing do one's work instead of him (e.g. watermill, prayer wheel, hegel's Idea realizing itself in history) -> letting a thing do one's emotional work instead of him (e.g. canned laughter, hired mourners, movies hoarded on a VCR)
- false activity = nil-value activity (neurotic's compulsions, calvinist hoarding) intended to sustain the unmoving Other's fixity
- 'symbolic registration' of things with the virtual Other ("oops!", talking to ourselves, etc.)
- "culture" = practice without beliefs ('does the work for us'); "barbarians" = anti-cultural because they dare to believe
- 'persona' (drag queen, unconstrained internet presence) manifests itself most freely in explicitly FICTIVE environments
- persona also 'does the work for us'
- authority figure perceived as weak still afforded respect because of the FICTION standing behind him (we believe 'their words' and not 'our eyes')
- empiricism is blind to this truth
- gap between direct psychological identity and my symbolic identity, the symbolic narrativein which i live, is 'symbolic castration'
- 'phallus' = the 'donned', 'attached', sticking-out part conferring power, but that one can never fully identify with
- hysteria = subject's questioning of his symbolic title
- hysteric cannot distinguish between his 'true' desire and what others see and desire in him; in this he intuits the truth that all desire is caused by, and filtered through, the other
- 'hedonistic asceticism' = cultural pheomenon, think yuppie culture, milk without fat, minorities without scary otherness, etc.
FANTASY; EYES WIDE SHUT
- neighbour is monstrous; no equal enjoyment possible, so laws create equal prohibitions
- being too closely exposed to the othr/his desire/the fulfillment of our fantasy (freud: rape) is TRAUMATIC
- character of fantasy is intersubjective, like desire is always connected to the other (i.e. freud's daughter eating strawberry cake to be admired)
- fantasy sustains and enables all relationships, institutions, sexual acts, etc. ("fictional character of truth") which would be TRAUMATIC without it
- art can unite the discord of mutually overlapping fantasies (think surrealism)
- 'aphanisis' = the 'fantastical' truth at the centre of all human experience is inacessible; when we get too close to it, to symbolic integration, we disintegrate, get eclipsed by the signifier — and that's why we must conceive of ourselves always relationally, vis-à-vis something else (cf. structuralism) –
- this happens to a hysteric after symbolic castration
- the fact that all reality is seen through fantasy means that an escape into reality can be an escape from the unsymbolizable, phantasmagoric, visceral, traumatic Real (paradoxically considering the name, present in dreams)
TROUBLES WITH THE REAL: LACAN AS A VIEWER OF ALIEN (* least comprehensible chapter, some concepts read like prose poems)
- melancholic not mourning LOST object; he has it but has lost his desire for it
- what makes me sad is the awareness that i'm going to lose the desire for what i now desire or have
- 'objet petit a' (object-cause of desire) = a constitutive lack, the 'unfinishedness' of the human being -> primordial inscription of ourselves into the field of the big Other that takes various shapes based on our inner states -> we project into an other something that does not really exist there, the thing that would make us whole -> no matter how close i get to he object of my desire, it seems to be no closer, and that's because the CAUSE of the desire (objet petit a) is unknown to me
- retroactive traumatization of scenes, elevating of scenes into traumatic Reals, to help one cope with an impasse in his symbolic universe
- 'Real' = that which is unsymbolizable, 'raw core' (dreams too)
EGO-IDEAL AND SUPEREGO: LACAN AS A VIEWER OF CASABLANCA
- 'jouissance' = superego's imperative of enjoyment
- 'ideal ego' (cf. imaginary) = what I want to be + how I want others to see me
- 'ego-ideal' (cf. symbolic) = the Other i obey and try to impress
- 'superego' (cf. real) = the Other in its controlling, sadistic, punishing aspect
- case study of the 3½ seconds did they/didn't they shot in 'casablanca': ego-ideal being properly satisfied that they didn't fuck in the eyes of the big Other, i can indulge my fantasy that they did (superego; but this doesn't imply a division in the Other or harm to it, because...)
- BOTH sides are necessary; what seems like perverse by-products are actually inherent built-in transgressions of the system
- we set the 'proper order of things' (ego-ideal; american values) by committing undercover obscenities (superego; prison torture) — if we become cognizant of the fact that thus the 'order' is blasphemed and becomes a mockery of itself, well, too bad!
'GOD IS DEAD, BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW IT': LACAN PLAYS WITH BOBOK
- 'traditionalism' allows space for healthy rebellion, but 'permisiveness' sets one up to be spectrally plagued by absent prohibitions, and is therefore more oppressive
- "if god doesn't exist, then everything is prohibited", that is, enjoyment is sabotaged by the superego's prohibitions
- true formula of materialism isn't "god is dead" but "god is unconscious" (there is nothing magical about money or commodities — but THEY don't know it!)
- once we publicly believed and privately transgressed; now we publicly transgress but privately (via unconscious injunctions) believe
- where religious authors (e.g. dostoyevsky in 'bobok') construct a godless universe, it is often just a projection of religion's own underside (which is the injuction to TRANSGRESS, whereas in 'truly' godless universes the injuction is that of HAUNTING REPROACH)
- psychoanalysis allows one not to enjoy, relieves one of the pressure to do so
- aside: link between judaism and psychoanalysis (terrifying Other, external traumatic encounter)
- aside: kierkegaard's central opposition in western spirituality is between socrates (inner journey of remembrance) and christ (shock of external encounter)
- aside: cyberspace as gnostic: no body, "freed" self
PERVERSE SUBJECT; BOUYERI
- sadist (whether sexual or political) pretends to be realizing some objective, externally imposed, necessity -> "i am the instrument-object of another's will"
- political sadist's excuse: "what horrible things i had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders"; murder as necessity for society's progress
- modern (islamic) fundamentalism's special 'regime of truth' -> what separates Truth from Lie is death, i.e. the truthful subject's readiness and wish to die
- "purest" appearance isn't putting up a deceptive screen to conceal a transgression (= to appear good) but feigning that there is a transgression to conceal (= appear bad on purpose)
- per lacan, in mimicry i don't imitate the image i want to fit into, but those features of the image that seem to indicate that there is some hidden reality behind (illusion of 'depth', 'texture', organicity?)
- aside: ironically, secular humanists espouse belief while religious fundamentalists (but i'd argue all fundamentalists, i.e. some new atheists) espouse knowledge
March 22, 2015
لکان از آن متفکرانی است که احاطه بر آموزه هایش به راحتی ممکن نیست. ارجاعات مکرر وی به ریاضیات، فلسفه، منطق، زبان شناسی و ... و رفت و آ��دهایش بین حوزه های گوناگون دانش از یک طرف و ابداعات غریبش در حوزه لغات و واژگان از سوی دیگر، سبب می شود ترجمه تحت اللفظی آثارش چندان مفید نباشد.
اسلاووی ژیژک نیز دست کمی از لکان ندارد! تصور کنید قرار است لکان را از خلال مقالات ژیژک بشناسید که خودش به پیچیده نویسی شهره است و به ارجاعات مکرر و غامض لکان، هالیوود و تلویزیون را هم اضافه می کند.
به نظرم مطالعه این کتاب بدون اطلاع قبلی از آموزه های لکان چندان مفید نیست و مقصود نویسنده چنان که باید برآورده نشده.
ترجمه اثر از مشکل دامنه دار همه ترجمه های این روزگار رنج می برد: لغات من درآوردی
مترجم محترم برای برخی اصطلاحات مورد استفاده، از معادل هایی استفاده می کند که لااقل من تا کنون ندیده ام. برگردان «سوژه» به «خودوند» ، «اگو» به «منخود»، «سوپراگو» به «ابرمنخود» ، «فیکشن» به «بافمان» ممکن است جالب یا حتی صحیح باشد، اما سبب سردرگمی خواننده می شود.
خلاصه آنکه در خواندن این کتاب باید در آن واحد با فهم مقاصد سه نفر سر و کله زد: لکان، ژیژک و مترجم!
اسلاووی ژیژک نیز دست کمی از لکان ندارد! تصور کنید قرار است لکان را از خلال مقالات ژیژک بشناسید که خودش به پیچیده نویسی شهره است و به ارجاعات مکرر و غامض لکان، هالیوود و تلویزیون را هم اضافه می کند.
به نظرم مطالعه این کتاب بدون اطلاع قبلی از آموزه های لکان چندان مفید نیست و مقصود نویسنده چنان که باید برآورده نشده.
ترجمه اثر از مشکل دامنه دار همه ترجمه های این روزگار رنج می برد: لغات من درآوردی
مترجم محترم برای برخی اصطلاحات مورد استفاده، از معادل هایی استفاده می کند که لااقل من تا کنون ندیده ام. برگردان «سوژه» به «خودوند» ، «اگو» به «منخود»، «سوپراگو» به «ابرمنخود» ، «فیکشن» به «بافمان» ممکن است جالب یا حتی صحیح باشد، اما سبب سردرگمی خواننده می شود.
خلاصه آنکه در خواندن این کتاب باید در آن واحد با فهم مقاصد سه نفر سر و کله زد: لکان، ژیژک و مترجم!
June 1, 2020
Ler Lacan não é uma tarefa fácil, mas Zizek faz uma boa introdução ao pensamento lacaniano. Recorrendo essencialmente ao cinema e à literatura, Zizek faz uma aplicação prática dos conceitos de Lacan. Para quem tem uma noção do pensamento de Pierre Daco, Freud, Carl Jung, talvez seja mais fácil dispensar a leitura esta introdução , mas é sempre enriquecedor conhecer a visão de Zizek sobre este assunto (que,aliás, ele domina muito bem). Uma viagem aos arquétipos da condição humana.
December 24, 2012
The book is divided in seven chapters each of which start with a text from Lacan and then dwell upon the concept it contains. We are given the notions (in no particular order here) of the big Other, the small Other, fantasy, perversity, the unconsciousness of God, intersubjectivity, the other as an unknown behind the wall of language, et cetera. Zizek's extrapolation of Lacan's view of psychoanalysis as a method of reading ends at finding a Lacanian method of reading everything. Zizek also mentions the uncanny solidarity between pshychoanalysis and marxism - the proof of which is in the redoubtable merging of Lacanian pshychoanalysis and Marxian dialectical materialism as is apparent in works of Zizek, Badiou, and to some extent in all new Communists.
This book might help you less in readings of Lacan and more in readings of Zizek and Badiou. Zizek's effervescent intelligence finds it tough to stick to the premise of the book. But you don't get anything new of Zizek in it either. If you've already been reading Zizek you might find some of his examples repeated here (like the one that pounds on the difference between German, French and English toilets heaps of ideological tidbits a la - admittedly - Claude Levi-Strauss)
The little benefit of reading this is bound to be lost if one doesn't go on to read, in reasonably quite time, a seminar paper of Lacan's. I'm going there soon.
This book might help you less in readings of Lacan and more in readings of Zizek and Badiou. Zizek's effervescent intelligence finds it tough to stick to the premise of the book. But you don't get anything new of Zizek in it either. If you've already been reading Zizek you might find some of his examples repeated here (like the one that pounds on the difference between German, French and English toilets heaps of ideological tidbits a la - admittedly - Claude Levi-Strauss)
The little benefit of reading this is bound to be lost if one doesn't go on to read, in reasonably quite time, a seminar paper of Lacan's. I'm going there soon.
June 25, 2022
I got nothing from this. Slavoj simply didn't know how else to justify publishing thoughts on his political climate or his take on the movie Alien, why yes, Lacan and Alien in the same sentence, ground-breaking. This isn't a book on how to read Lacan, this is a booklet on how Slavoj reads Lacan, his own recipe that he moulded into his own para-psychoanalytic babble.
There is no recipe on how to read Lacan and anyone who tries to claim otherwise is just talking through their hat. Lacan's system of thought has always been much too undefined even to himself, for someone else to come along and pretend they got him figured out. According to Slavoj:
“For Lacan, the goal of psychoanalytic treatment is not the patient’s well-being, successful social life or personal fulfilment, but to bring the patient to confront the elementary coordinates and deadlocks of his or her desires.”
This is Slavoj talking through his own arrogance instead of psychoanalysing himself out of it.
To this reader, what stands out most upon reading Lacan's case-studies, is that through his psychoanalytic treatment, he exhibits almost an uninhibited desire to study.
And for that, there is no recipe. One simply has to read, be confused and frustrated, read some more and more until things start to come together.
It's a fabulous feeling.
Almost as good as... what was it again.... confronting the deadlocks of one's desires.
There is no recipe on how to read Lacan and anyone who tries to claim otherwise is just talking through their hat. Lacan's system of thought has always been much too undefined even to himself, for someone else to come along and pretend they got him figured out. According to Slavoj:
“For Lacan, the goal of psychoanalytic treatment is not the patient’s well-being, successful social life or personal fulfilment, but to bring the patient to confront the elementary coordinates and deadlocks of his or her desires.”
This is Slavoj talking through his own arrogance instead of psychoanalysing himself out of it.
To this reader, what stands out most upon reading Lacan's case-studies, is that through his psychoanalytic treatment, he exhibits almost an uninhibited desire to study.
And for that, there is no recipe. One simply has to read, be confused and frustrated, read some more and more until things start to come together.
It's a fabulous feeling.
Almost as good as... what was it again.... confronting the deadlocks of one's desires.
September 17, 2023
ژیژک میخواهد در این کتاب "از خود لاکان برای توضیح معضلات اجتماعی و لیبیدویی ما" کمک بگیرد. نتیجه آش شلم شوربایی است. از کافکا تا کازبلانکا، از خودارضایی ویتگنشتاین تا سخنان دیک چنی و نظریه ابر ریسمان، همه در این کتاب هست. همراه با یک سری اصطلاحات لاکانی که نویسنده از اول هم قرار نبود آنها را توضیح دهد. نتیجه این است که تحت نام لاکان گوز به شقیقه ربط پیدا میکند و " معضلات اجتماعی و لیبیدویی ما" توضیحاتی تقلیلگرانه و کمی با نمک و جذاب پیدا میکند.
نکتهای دربارهی ترجمه: نمیدانم چرا بعضی از مترجمان اصرار دارند معادلهای عجیبی را برای واژههایی که معادلهای مانوس و قابل قبولی دارند، انتخاب کنند. سوژه، سوژه است. "خودوند" نیست.
نکتهای دربارهی ترجمه: نمیدانم چرا بعضی از مترجمان اصرار دارند معادلهای عجیبی را برای واژههایی که معادلهای مانوس و قابل قبولی دارند، انتخاب کنند. سوژه، سوژه است. "خودوند" نیست.
October 4, 2021
Truly – regardless of what this might say on the cover – this is a book about Zizek. That's OK, Zizek is a Lacanian, so we're getting to Lacan through the filter of Zizek (should have been titled 'How Zizek Reads Lacan'). Anyway, for most readers - those not hoping to walk away with a thorough understanding of Lacan's philosophy - that won't really matter. In fact, it'll be a bonus, Zizek is fun, clear and observable and Lacan is boring, difficult and obscure. Also, to this reader, Zizek takes the best of Lacan and leaves out the rest. He takes our deepest held assumptions and beliefs and turns them upside down. He picks apart some of the underlying structures that govern our reality and deflates them with a maniacal grin.
Is this philosophy? By definition only. It's more of a wry reevaluation of the world. From the CIA, the Nuremberg trials and the shapes of European toilet bowls, Zizek asks us to ponder what's going on under the surface. Or – more accurately perhaps – What's going on in the subconscious. As he discusses in the introduction, there's certainly been a lot of Freud bashing going on in the past fifty years, and it might take the ultimate contrarian in philosophy today to put that trend to rights. Lacanian or not, any thinking person would enjoy this book. Just don't expect to come out with less questions when you put it down. Looking forward to reading some more Zizek in the future.
Is this philosophy? By definition only. It's more of a wry reevaluation of the world. From the CIA, the Nuremberg trials and the shapes of European toilet bowls, Zizek asks us to ponder what's going on under the surface. Or – more accurately perhaps – What's going on in the subconscious. As he discusses in the introduction, there's certainly been a lot of Freud bashing going on in the past fifty years, and it might take the ultimate contrarian in philosophy today to put that trend to rights. Lacanian or not, any thinking person would enjoy this book. Just don't expect to come out with less questions when you put it down. Looking forward to reading some more Zizek in the future.
August 10, 2019
Книга не про те, як читати Лакана, а проте, як через Лакана читати що завгодно, від Шекспіра та Голлівуду до конструкцій унітазів (так, саме з цієї книжки легендарний жижеків аналіз взаємозв’язку ідеологій та унітазів, через це ставлю на одну зірочку більше, ніж варто було). Цікава і часом корисна інтелектуальна вправа, не варто тільки забувати, що Шекспір, кінорежисери та дизайнери унітазів насправді не мислили таким чином, принаймні, свідомо. З іншого боку, тут не про свідоме й мова.
December 28, 2010
What's great about Zizek is also the answer to the question people always ask about critical theory ("that's interesting and all but what do I do with it?"). Zizek is the master of practical illustration and application of theory. He doesn't stop at showing you where the water is or what conditions of epistemic knowledge make it possible for said water to be constituted as such, or whatever; rather, he points to the water, leads you to the water, helps you understand the possible consequences of being made to drink the water might be, and then he shows you how to build your own goddamn pond where water tastes like rainbows and gets you birthday-style drunk. Which is the point of theory in the first place: how can we make the world one big happy birthday party at the drunk pond? Don't be fooled by the title of this book (Lacan is only a background figure throughout) because Zizek could have written it without mentioning Lacanian principles even once. This book is about getting you to the mindset where you understand what is at stake in the world today socially, politically, and interpersonally. It teaches you how to unthink and unlearn, and then it leads you to the traumatic moment of your first thought where now you may learn, all over again, how to think.
April 11, 2019
Read this for a second time before giving it to a friend and found myself wanting to lower it by a star so I did. Still enjoyed it quite a bit overall, but now that I have a little more Lacan under my belt I felt a little less enthralled by Zizek's treatment of his themes and concepts. Ironically, or perhaps completely logically, Zizek seems to be using Lacan in a bit of a fast and loose manner much like Lacan has been accused of using Freud similarly. Harold Bloom I suppose would approve but it rubbed me a bit as self-aggrandizement this go around. Or maybe I'm just feeling grumpy...
November 6, 2012
Zizek não gosta de café descafeinado. Com razão.
June 10, 2019
цікаві порівняння - ось за, що я люблю Жижека. складні терміни через прості поширені ситуації. це той випадок, коли не хочеться, щоб книжка закінчувалась.
August 9, 2012
The great Slavoj Zizek, the sage of Lubjana, writing about something he knows inside and out. It's illuminating, engaging, vibrant and complex.
A lot of what's in here has really made sense of some of my own observations about life and human psychology come into clearer focus. I'm going to refer back to it again and again.
Part of what I really appreciate about Zizek's writing is that he is master of the accessible, anecdotal pop culture reference to illustrate what term or insight Lacan has to offer.
It isn't always easy but Zizek makes it worth your while as a reader.
Read
January 2, 2025i mean it didn't help but it was fun
September 16, 2020
Muy a su estilo, Zizek nos enseña unas lecciones introductorias al pensamiento Lacaniano, a través de las referencias a la cultura (pop o no), películas, acontecimientos, teatro, literatura... los conceptos básicos del psicoanálisis lacaniano se van desplegando y más o menos entendiendo: el Otro, el fantasma, la pulsión, la perversión... Sobre todo me confirma lo que algunas veces había pensado: a veces uno lee y dice "¿Cómo no le entendí antes?", pero es que antes no estabas suficientemente embebido para entender alguna cosa.
October 21, 2020
i love that this is basically lacan for dummies because i have a small brain and short attention span which makes it hard for me to understand psychoanalysis normally. enjoyed how zizek relates various cultural phenonema to direct quotes from lacan...the part about eyes wide shut is particularly fun to read. maybe now i understand enough of the basics to read ecrits
September 16, 2020
ik haat lacan nu, maar wel goed uitgelegd
July 30, 2024
Some interesting anecdotes but idk how much of this actually had to do with Lacan
Read
May 28, 2023Favourite book I've read this year. Keep going back to it. Zizek is a lively writer and full of helpful analogies. Excited to read more of Lacan.
February 5, 2021
لَکان و «معلم پیانو »ی هانکه
در فیلمِ « معلم پیانو »ی هانکه ، کاراکتر زن/معلم فیلم که موهوماتی سادومازوخیستی دارد ، و در خیالات/اوهام خود گمان میبرد که تنها از طریق خشونتِ جنسی و تجاوز به ارگاسم میرسد ، پس از رسیدن به این مهم و تجربه کردن عمل تجاوز توسط کاراکتر مرد/شاگرد فیلم ، از این عمل منزجر میشود و در نیمهٔ راه از شریک جنسیِ خود میخواهد این عمل را متوقف کند ؛ و پس از آن دچار فروپاشی روانی میشود و به گریه میافتد .
در تحلیل روانکاویِ این عمل ، باید به آرای فروید/لکان نقب بزنیم .
فروید میگوید : « اگر آنچه اشخاص در واهمههای خود با شور و شوق خواهانش هستند در واقعیت به آنها عرضه شود ، از آن روی برمیگردانند »
لکان متذکر میشود که علت این امر نزدیک شدن به هستهٔ وهمِ خود است ؛ چرا که چنین مهمی برای ما غیرقابل تحمل است . لکان تحقق زوریِ هستهی وهمانیِ هستیِ من در برابر خودِ واقعیت اجتماعی را ، تحقیرآمیزترین نوع خشونت میداند . خشونتی که بنیانِ هویتِ من ( تصویر من از خودم ) را تحلیل میبرد .
همانند ایکاروس که وقتی به هستهٔ مرکزی خورشید ( هستهٔ مرکزیِ وهم ) نزدیک شد ، بالهایش ( هویتاش ) از بین رفت و همین امر باعث تباهیِ او شد .
___
« رابطهی جنسی وجود نداردِ » لَکان و تفسیر درخشان ژیژک
اسلاوُی ژیژک برای تفسیر رهیافتِ درخشانِ لَکان مبنی بر اینکه « رابطهٔ جنسی وجود ندارد » ، به یک آگهیِ تبلیغاتی تلویزیون نقب میزند :
در این آگهی دختری جوان در کنار رودخانهای ، قورباغهای میبیند ، او را بغل میکند و میبوسد ؛ قورباغه به مردی جوان و زیبا تبدیل میشود . مرد نگاه حریصانهای به دختر میاندازد ، او را به سمت خود میکشد ، و او هم تبدیل به میشود به بطریِ نوشابهای که مرد جوان پیرزومندانه در دست میگیرد .
« برای زن نکته این است که عشق و عاطفهٔ او (که بوسه مظهر آن است) قورباغه را به مردی زیبا یعنی یک حضور فالوسیِ تمامعیار تبدیل میکند . برای مرد ، نکته عبارت است از فروکاستن زن به یک ابژهٔ جزئی ، به علت میلِ مرد . به علت این عدم تقارن است که رابطهی جنسی وجود ندارد : ما یا زنی با یک قورباغه داریم و یا مردی را با یک بطری نوشابه . آنچه هیچوقت نمیتوانیم داشته باشیم ، زوج طبیعی یک زن و مرد زیباست : قرینهی وهمانی این زوج آرمانی عبارت خواهد بود از فیگور قورباغهای که یک بطری نوشابه را بغل کرده است _ تصویری ناهمخوان که بهجای تضمین هماهنگی رابطهی جنسی ، ناهمخوانی مضحک آن را برجسته میکند »
در فیلمِ « معلم پیانو »ی هانکه ، کاراکتر زن/معلم فیلم که موهوماتی سادومازوخیستی دارد ، و در خیالات/اوهام خود گمان میبرد که تنها از طریق خشونتِ جنسی و تجاوز به ارگاسم میرسد ، پس از رسیدن به این مهم و تجربه کردن عمل تجاوز توسط کاراکتر مرد/شاگرد فیلم ، از این عمل منزجر میشود و در نیمهٔ راه از شریک جنسیِ خود میخواهد این عمل را متوقف کند ؛ و پس از آن دچار فروپاشی روانی میشود و به گریه میافتد .
در تحلیل روانکاویِ این عمل ، باید به آرای فروید/لکان نقب بزنیم .
فروید میگوید : « اگر آنچه اشخاص در واهمههای خود با شور و شوق خواهانش هستند در واقعیت به آنها عرضه شود ، از آن روی برمیگردانند »
لکان متذکر میشود که علت این امر نزدیک شدن به هستهٔ وهمِ خود است ؛ چرا که چنین مهمی برای ما غیرقابل تحمل است . لکان تحقق زوریِ هستهی وهمانیِ هستیِ من در برابر خودِ واقعیت اجتماعی را ، تحقیرآمیزترین نوع خشونت میداند . خشونتی که بنیانِ هویتِ من ( تصویر من از خودم ) را تحلیل میبرد .
همانند ایکاروس که وقتی به هستهٔ مرکزی خورشید ( هستهٔ مرکزیِ وهم ) نزدیک شد ، بالهایش ( هویتاش ) از بین رفت و همین امر باعث تباهیِ او شد .
___
« رابطهی جنسی وجود نداردِ » لَکان و تفسیر درخشان ژیژک
اسلاوُی ژیژک برای تفسیر رهیافتِ درخشانِ لَکان مبنی بر اینکه « رابطهٔ جنسی وجود ندارد » ، به یک آگهیِ تبلیغاتی تلویزیون نقب میزند :
در این آگهی دختری جوان در کنار رودخانهای ، قورباغهای میبیند ، او را بغل میکند و میبوسد ؛ قورباغه به مردی جوان و زیبا تبدیل میشود . مرد نگاه حریصانهای به دختر میاندازد ، او را به سمت خود میکشد ، و او هم تبدیل به میشود به بطریِ نوشابهای که مرد جوان پیرزومندانه در دست میگیرد .
« برای زن نکته این است که عشق و عاطفهٔ او (که بوسه مظهر آن است) قورباغه را به مردی زیبا یعنی یک حضور فالوسیِ تمامعیار تبدیل میکند . برای مرد ، نکته عبارت است از فروکاستن زن به یک ابژهٔ جزئی ، به علت میلِ مرد . به علت این عدم تقارن است که رابطهی جنسی وجود ندارد : ما یا زنی با یک قورباغه داریم و یا مردی را با یک بطری نوشابه . آنچه هیچوقت نمیتوانیم داشته باشیم ، زوج طبیعی یک زن و مرد زیباست : قرینهی وهمانی این زوج آرمانی عبارت خواهد بود از فیگور قورباغهای که یک بطری نوشابه را بغل کرده است _ تصویری ناهمخوان که بهجای تضمین هماهنگی رابطهی جنسی ، ناهمخوانی مضحک آن را برجسته میکند »
February 15, 2018
З третього разу я дочитала нарешті цей текст. З одного боку, він легкий і - в перших главах - захопливий, з іншого - це легкість оманлива. Мені кілька глав мені дуже подобалися, бо здавалися дуже, якщо чесно, застосовними до мого повсякденного життя (а більшого я, мабуть, і не хотіла, зважаючи на те, що психоаналіз - ето нє научно). Скажімо, концепт Великого Іншого, символічного поля є дуже зручним для розуміння явищ навколо. Втім, трохи згодом мене почав дратувати сам виклад Жижека. Він будується приблизно так: теза з Лакана, потім приклади (якщо спочатку це були анекдоти, і часом досить влучні, то потім це, наприклад, був риторичний аналіз листа терориста-вбивці з властивим відхиленням в жижеківську ідеологію), потім трохи пояснення, потім ще приклади, висновку зазвичай чіткого нема. Тобто це справді така дещо розважальна література, яка прагне дати пробойову теорію, що пояснює все - починаючи від любові й закінчуючи Бен Ладеном.
Сам психоаналіз у викладі Жижека надзвичайно дратує, бо він пропонує теорію, яка, мовляв, здатна пояснити абсолютно все в людському житті. Людина за замовчуванням травмована й має проблеми, коли ж винятково психоаналіз може позбавити їх. Якщо супер-его змушує нас насолоджуватися й все навколо наполягає на насолоді, то лише психоаналіз - те укриття, де можна втекти від насолоди. І таке інше. Не знаю, чи Жижек відзвітовував собі аналогію між фундаменталізмом, який віддає перевагу не вірі, а знанню, і власне психоаналізу, який займається тим самим.
Книга не тягне на пролегомени до вивчення Лакана, а перетворюється в такий собі розіграш, власне, в протилежність Лакану, який писав зашифровано й двозначно - тут шифру нема, все на поверхні завдяки аналізу явищ масової культури, але сенс усе одно невловний.
Сам психоаналіз у викладі Жижека надзвичайно дратує, бо він пропонує теорію, яка, мовляв, здатна пояснити абсолютно все в людському житті. Людина за замовчуванням травмована й має проблеми, коли ж винятково психоаналіз може позбавити їх. Якщо супер-его змушує нас насолоджуватися й все навколо наполягає на насолоді, то лише психоаналіз - те укриття, де можна втекти від насолоди. І таке інше. Не знаю, чи Жижек відзвітовував собі аналогію між фундаменталізмом, який віддає перевагу не вірі, а знанню, і власне психоаналізу, який займається тим самим.
Книга не тягне на пролегомени до вивчення Лакана, а перетворюється в такий собі розіграш, власне, в протилежність Лакану, який писав зашифровано й двозначно - тут шифру нема, все на поверхні завдяки аналізу явищ масової культури, але сенс усе одно невловний.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 404 reviews