By all means David – I just posted during a class where the reading was discussed.
I feel that the passage can be seen as a distinctly positive example of Lacan’s obscure and obfuscated prose. Where Analytic philosophy maintains a supposedly reasoned commitment to clarity of argument I think that Lacan’s critique comes from both the content of his writing and also the form of it.
My prof also drew out a connection between the term ‘concentrational’ and the (perhaps Levinasian) response to the Holocaust etc. I’m not sure if this is an accurate reading or even a helpful one.
And lastly, I appreciate that several schools of thought make appearances in the convoluted sentence such as utilitarianism, existentialism and Hegelianism (although I am not catching the reference to Hegelian murder).
What continues to stump me is understanding his understanding of freedom. Is he saying existentialism in its current form has offered a false freedom? Is ‘never more authentic’ supposed to be ironic or literal?
Care to elaborate?
By all means David – I just posted during a class where the reading was discussed.
I feel that the passage can be seen as a distinctly positive example of Lacan’s obscure and obfuscated prose. Where Analytic philosophy maintains a supposedly reasoned commitment to clarity of argument I think that Lacan’s critique comes from both the content of his writing and also the form of it.
My prof also drew out a connection between the term ‘concentrational’ and the (perhaps Levinasian) response to the Holocaust etc. I’m not sure if this is an accurate reading or even a helpful one.
And lastly, I appreciate that several schools of thought make appearances in the convoluted sentence such as utilitarianism, existentialism and Hegelianism (although I am not catching the reference to Hegelian murder).
Thoughts?
What continues to stump me is understanding his understanding of freedom. Is he saying existentialism in its current form has offered a false freedom? Is ‘never more authentic’ supposed to be ironic or literal?
I know its a cop-out answer – but I don’t think we can ever be sure about that with Lacan