|
Lacan and Zizek 4 lyfe. I'm wondering... Should Freud be considered leftist lit? For some reason it never seems to be brought up in most discussions like this despite zizek always making the list. It's weird, I guess I'm basically saying you don't have to be a leftist to a prolific leftist writer. Anyways, I'm halfway through my second reading of Althusser & company's book Reading Capital in the new verso edition. Its p much my favourite work on Marxism Post Marx and as someone who has drudged through all 3 volumes of Kapital as well as the grundrisse, I highly recommend it.
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2020 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Alhazred posted:Freud isn't really that leftist or progressive. Totem and Taboos for example is all about the uneducated savage versus the noble and moderne westerner. I think that Edward Said should be om the list though. I mean, Freud never intentionally panders to leftism but a lot of his discoveries do end up aligning with leftist discourse (part of the reason anyone actually smart ends up a leftist) . Like, Freud was one of the first people to say gay people arent "devient", because he actually bothered to attempt a scientific understanding of sexuality. And I dunno, it seems like u conducted a pretty crude reading of totem and taboo. Edward said is extremely lame for that reason, sorry you've been taken in by liberal ideology. Consider checking out https://www.versobooks.com/books/698-the-sultan-s-court
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
What? I didn't say it was tame for its time, where are you getting that? Totem and taboo is making a broader point about desire and I think that's what you're missing here. Actually attempting to understand the basis for desire *is* the leftism part, since, ya know, culture of critique.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:My bad, read it on the phone and misread it it. It's exactly as "discredited" as Marx's analysis of political economy imo, though you're right in a certain sense and psychoanalysis is more than aware of that. Freud's ideas themselves, while always pointing in the right direction (the Unconscious), often missed the intended mark. Lacanianism was an attempt to clarify and elaborate on Freudianism with some crucial investigations into how the desire of Freud himself ends up playing a larger role in his "scientific" discourse than Freud thought, but that doesn't really undermine psychoanalysis because psychoanalysis doesn't really make a distinction between the productive work of Freud's desire, and the desire of scientific discourse. There's sort of a great flattening with psychoanalysis. Hope that makes some sort of sense. I encourage anybody here to read Lacan (his Seminar on the Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis is the best starting point) to get a sense for what I mean. He has a sort of talent for reading Freud. I think of him as a sort of Lenin of psychoanalysis lol. And ya, Civ and Discontents is a great example of what I mean. To me that is the greatest work of class analysis since the 18th Brumaire. EDIT: also I know of some analysts that actually make progress with schizophrenic patients, which is a lot more than other types of therapists can say. almost there fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Aug 27, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2020 17:22
|
|