For My Love of Lacan

This is a post for anonymous who dares not to reveal his/her identity. By his own admission, Lacan states that his writings are anti-thetical and therefore without an argument. Lacan was not a philosopher. This is evident given his misreadings of Hegel, Kierkegaard and Derrida. Pop culture does not underpin the very forum of this discussion. Technology provides the underpinning. I have nothing to learn from Zizek or Badiou, especially when they fail to acknowledge the crimes committed by their beloved Lenin and Mao.

Let us continue to educate anonymous. Lacan, even within the psychoanalytic movement was very much a minor figure, an eccentric psychiatrist with a taste for surrealism who had made no significant contribution to psychoanalytic theory and who was known, if he was known at all, for his stubborn refusal to conform to the therapeutic guidelines laid down by Freud. I follow the following critics: François Roustang, in The Lacanian Delusion, called Lacan's output "extravagant" and an "incoherent system of pseudo-scientific gibberish". Noam Chomsky described Lacan as "an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan". In Fashionable Nonsense (1997), Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont accuse Lacan of "superfical erudition" and of abusing scientific concepts he does not understand (e.g., confusing irrational and imaginary numbers). .... In short, Lacan's writings are largely indecipherable as the contradictory, that is why they find a home here in the Blogosphere supported by failed assistant English professors, righly denied tenure.