Anti-philosophy And Break The Limit

In order to localize the Lacanian psychoanalysis,the attempt at its initial point to unravel it alongside the very margin of philosophy is necessary.Philosophy,in general,through underscoring its themes upon reason,existence and knowledge,which confronts directly the problems of the faith,the lack and the unconscious in its antithesis.The tension of Athens-Jerusalem,as well as the internal division within philosophy especially in Plato for the distinction of muthos and logos,are for psychoanalysis a juncture of transition from the theodicy/anthrodicy dichotomy to the decentralized subject opposed to the resignation of sophia(especially as the moral alibi in philosophy)proper,which enriches the very hypothesis and praxis to anti-philosophy.Basically,the subject in psychoanalysis to be gauged is divided and a triangular relation is maintained with God and woman in the rupture of symbolic register,the former is the unconscious consequence we take on the death of God while the latter from which we will deepen stretches through the disruption and conjunction between desire and jouissance.After the introduction to this thesis as an independent chapter,the very first chapter which endeavors to display a not panoramic but nonetheless a thematic and thorough opposition,we will then move to prescribe the return to Freud.Therefore,in the second chapter,the provocation from Lacan aims to re-establish in Freudian tradition on the basis that the reason since Freud has pointed out a non-paradoxical unconscious bearing multiple wish-reality conflicts ridding from linear temporality and surpassing the demarcation between rational or irrational.In this vein,the dissension from Foucault to repudiate psychoanalysis as human science as well as other distinctions in view of positive science or subjective science also needs to delve into,the return to Freud is thus pivotal.Besides,we highlight that Freud has been in opposition to the restauration of the philosophical discourse from the Enlightenment(the pursuit for scientificity,the Kantian morality,Darwinism,etc.)At the beginning of this work in psychoanalytical line of thought,it is necessary to shed light on this Freud-Enlightenment opposition,the latter of which derived especially from the then dominant discourses.On the contrary,Freud poses the very critique against the illusion of progress and the dominion of reason.In parallel,from this vein onward,the theory of happiness is probed respectively in philosophy and in psychoanalysis.The very problematic of ought-is and the discrepancy between virtue and happiness is rejuvenated into ought-expectation and happiness-lack of satisfaction counterparts.In addition to this,the theme illustrated in the classical tragedy through which the human being arrogates the place of the God is not thereby prone to virtue or good at all;adversely,it encounters the jouissance towards the evil,the death drive,the meddling love-hatred,to enumerate just a few.Assuredly,the Lacanian and Freudian discontinuity in terms of the Enlightenment and beyond should also be underscored.After clarifying the connection between psychoanalysis and philosophy even in modernity,we then deepen the Freudian technique through the the root of its edifice pinning down this very notion of “know”.In this chapter,in order to take the knowledge in a sense specific to Lacan into account which resists significance as well as to designate the pure desire not in the grasp of reasoning but inaccessible and irrepresentable coming from the void,the approach we set about is by means of an inter-connection between incomprehension and non-knowledge,breaching the specular inter-subjectivity where actually a binary but non-reciprocal formation constituted as the alterity and identification,separation and alienation which are entwined traversing the very phylogenesis of the subject.The Lacanian theory and practice marks in particular an ethics of desire.Following this line of thought,on the one hand,the debt to pay while cannot be acquitted is nothing but which buttresses the unconscious,an articulation over the castration of language that exerts on each to be embedded in this inevitable debt albeit the individual destiny varies thoroughly,no matter how the payment is exigent,yet it comes back over and over again;on the other hand,the desire under the form of being irreducible,indestructible and untamable is correlative to the position the analyst and the analysand respectively take.The desire and the debt are homologous.This still contradicts to the acceptation upon the stable knowledge attributed to the supposed subject,i.e.,the analyst,as the object of desire.In other words,there is no such conjunction being knowable and desirable dubbed to the analyst.However,the vigor and the conduct of the cure in psychoanalysis purports to maintain the stark distance of the narcissistic I and the pulsional object a which takes on the cause of the subject’s proper desire.The pivot task is not only to counter against the illusion of the fulfilled pair,the mirage towards the totality of the individual,but also to further deepen the identification in analytical clinics considering the traverse from the impotence to the impossible,viz.,within the real for the unveiling of “ There is no Other of the Other”,notably,to unfold the S(?).The dimension of history in psychoanalysis also attaches to the real and attempts to respond to a futile and superficial criticism against it,so to speak.We also broach a concrete combination between theory and clinics,notably,the mechanism of negation.This psychical apparatus has also extended to the classical problem of negation,on close scrutiny,we will thus illustrate how the unconscious wishful impulses are acceptable to consciousness as well as how the perception/presentation distinction discloses,etc.The following chapter,i.e.,chapter IV,concentrates on the very problematic of transgression by a comparison between Foucault and Lacan.Foucault constraints himself within a return to language,notably,his gesture shuttling back and forth the limit which is saturated in speaking the unspeakable,however,this ontology of de-subjectivity cannot go through thoroughly,the com-measurable world and its beyond are still in split.The lack,limitless limit and the void of the subject in Foucault’s grasp correspond to Lacan’s lack-of-being,the inhibited surplus and the divided subject.Lacan converts thus Foucault’s problematic into that of culpability and jouissance.There in Freud,the cannibalism is established upon digestion and identification.Without culpability,there will be neither transgression nor the law.Pleasure(satisfaction)and reality(de-criminalization)implement in line with the economy principle while the former is submerged by jouissance and the latter is buttressed by moral law.By means of the ambivalence of the term sanction which denotes meanwhile the approbation and constraint,the prohibition and the law are appropriated respectively in Freud and Lacan.Unfortunately,Freud doesn’t enable to traverse the couplets,so,it is necessary to employ Lacan to probe into their extension and antagonism where the issue of the perverse jouissance hallmarks.Nevertheless,the pervert in general takes on the instrument of the other’s jouissance.The transgression in terms of jouissance anyhow pertains to sustain the forms of law.The interrogation on the superego still further demonstrates a paradox which on the one hand subverts the law replaced by the diverse fantasies but on the other hand from the oedipal interdiction to the name of the father,it becomes an hermetic imposition of the law from the Other,even as an order to enjoy.In a word,the perversion is a deadlock to the transgression of the law,the transgression stumbles.The last chapter pushes forward the desire and the psychoanalytic act to its paroxysm.We embark at the outset to the refutation to the three ideals confined to morality: the ideal of love,the ideal of authenticity and the ideal of the non-dependence which makes Lacan to distinguish between the ideals freed from suffering and ignorance and what is authentically permitted by us through analytic intervention,notably,between the doctrine prior to Lacan out of positive or negative appraisal of habits,education or orthopedics and the unconscious ethics accomplished through desire to the real.Therefore,by labeling himself against such apparent assurance in modernity which props up the rational and knowing subject,a further distinction among morality,politics and ethics in Lacanian nomenclature is crucial.The political structure which constitutes the community,exploiting Benedict and Nancy thereof,the very notion is neither the imaginary nor an identity precedes to distinction.Rather,it is a gift and a debt,a constitutive alterity surrounding the void with respect on our own.Lacan has entirely distanced from both moral and political edifices in his bid to the kernel of Antigone.In response to the debt which involves the maternal wage,the tragedy of Antigone invokes her very reasons to act that she renounces all the else regardless of what must be at cost.It is not the law that supports the desire so much so that,on the contrary,not giving ground to desire is her own law that she clings to.Antigone is actually not against the law,rather,she is so obstinate to discover the critical law that renders all the human beings in equivalence facing the death.In this respect,it is not limited to the conflict between the justice from the heaven and the underworld,between filiation and power or the public and the private that counts,because the difference between the sexes matters par excellence.It concerns the non-partake between man and woman,directing towards the impossible inscription of the feminine position in the exercise of politics.Following this vein in our argument,we analyze from Hegel(the superior ethical strength attains to reconciliation over substantive ties to family or to state),Kierkegaard(out of the disruptive ambiguity of lineage to refocus on authorship of the action of the subject)to Butler(the antipode both to kinship and to law),Nussbaum(the phronosis in balancing concession and control)and Anouilh(for his more dramatic rendition in Antigone sisters),etc.in order to pinpoint that the Lacanian interpretation is the only one that marks the signifier out of the Other’s discourse,i.e.,the atè that is the cut which limits and empties the object as the product.Even though in the reign of morality,desire in its pure state usually adduces to boundless sacrifice or annihilation of the object;adversely,far from being a theory which refers to the blame on fatality,the Lacanian psychoanalysis rejects the proper object and its remnant as such in advance,thus leaving the very place for love which is not perverse,however beyond the limits of the law,the destiny and the signifier.It brings forth to life merely through the dimension of psychoanalysis.The conclusion is henceforth decidedly left open to construct an ethics out of love revealed by Antigone.