lacan

Non-intentional and immediate awareness has no already relationship with the other. While freedom is always related to others and not having a relationship with others does not fundamentally interfere with freedom. Therefore, freedom is never a question of knowledge. Consciousness in itself and for itself independently and unmediated by external objects internally projects its objectivity. This consciousness-based approach basically does not look outside itself, that is, it finds the origin and idea of ​​truth inside and without the mediation of others. The other is a competitor of freedom in all its forms in the sense that it does not allow any linguistic articulation to form outside its limits and swallows all the illusory elements of self-foundation. At the same time, there is no other way than facing the other towards a kind of reflexive awareness and knowing oneself as an ego. In addition, the link between freedom and moral responsibility is one of the most fundamental and long-standing topics of ethics, which establishes a link between the subject, the other, and agency. Kant's transcendental freedom constructs space as a support for empirical freedom and as a condition for the possibility of experiencing freedom. From this point of view, transcendental and unconscious freedom play the same role in relation to moral responsibility.

According to the theory of different fields of ontology in Lacan, which consists of the imaginary, the real, and the reality, the ego and the subject find a relationship with reality, and the attribution of this relationship to ethics leads to a distinct moral model. But Lacan needs to go beyond reality to present the moral model of reality. Transcending reality is achieved through the doctrine of Beyond the principle of pleasure. Lacan tries to explain the gap and lack of reality through the unconscious to extend the theory of pure desire to the field of ethics. Based on this, Antigone's moral model is the only model that, from Lacan's point of view, is loyalty to pure desire that can describe unconscious desire. Antigone is loyal to her will until the last moment, and her loyalty comes from ignoring and passing through the visible realm. Antigone not only acts according to her desire, but also pushes desire to the end until it reaches pure drive, a drive that insists on the object of desire until the end and on a specific object. According to Lacan, this model can be a suitable model for the ethics of self-centered desire and against any kind of reactionary and alternative ethics, including the law of the superego and the ideological matter.

The possibility of a dialog and the establishment of a balance between the thoughts and theoretical foundations of Sartre and Lacan is ambiguous and somewhat complex, especially since various interpretations have been offered regarding the realization of such a dialog. Some argue that the thoughts of Sartre and Lacan are in irreconcilable contradiction to each other and can only be evaluated as two heterogeneous thoughts opposing each other. In particular, there is a deep and serious divide in their political and theoretical approaches, which makes it difficult to find a topic for dialog between them (Tolini and Muller, 2015: 89). Others take more radical approaches to the relationship between the two, and since Sartre's thought is intertwined with freedom and consciousness and Lacan's with overdeterminism and the unconscious, they consider Lacanianism to be synonymous with opposition to Sartre. On this basis, anyone who agrees with Lacan's thinking and accepts his approach to subjectivity and the Other is incompatible with and alien to Sartre's thinking (Almen, 2006:11). The aim of this study is to deconstruct the subject in the face of the Other and also to find moments that challenge the traditional readings of Lacan and Sartre. The basic question of the present study is: What role does the other play in the construction of the subject of Sartrean existentialism and the subject of Lacanian psychoanalysis, and is it possible to establish a dialog and a balance between these two approaches? Despite Lacan's criticism of Sartre's mythological reading of the concept of freedom and Sartre's criticism of psychoanalysis as a deterministic discourse, both emphasize in their philosophical and metapsychological positions the constant presence of the other and the search for a way to liberate the subject. The concepts of Sartre's "fundamental choice" and Lacan's "fundamental desire" in the present and the inescapable authority of the other express an escape towards the realization of freedom. Subjects want freedom and individual identity, but there are contradictions that make it difficult for the subject to choose and satisfy desire. Finding moments in which these contradictions are resolved in both schools of thought, existentialism and psychoanalysis, is difficult and complex, but possible.

Literature Review:

Numerous books and articles have already been published on Lacan and Sartre. For this article, we have used "Jacques Lacan" by Shaun Homer (2004) and "Ethics of the Real" by Alenka Zupančič (2000). As far as the comparison between the two is concerned, two important articles were used: "Sartre and Lacan: Considerations on the Concepts of the Subject and of Consciousness Psychoanalysis and History" by Tolini and Muller (2015), and "Analyzing Gaze in Terms of Subjective and Objective Interpretation: Sartre and Lacan. In Human Studies" by Sharma and Barua. While the latter two works focus primarily on the concept of the gaze and subjectivity, this article attempts to present an independent interpretation of psychoanalytic concepts, the Other, and their relationship in shaping the subject, as well as to establish a hypothetical dialog between these two philosophers.

Research was conducted fundamentally based on the study of library sources and articles published in international journals and internet sources. The research method is library-based, based on the analysis of Sartre and Lacan's works. This study uses a descriptive-analytical and comparative method.

Lacan's psychoanalysis and Sartre's existentialism have similarities in their exploration of the nature of human subjectivity and the omnipresent 'other'. Sartre is more closely associated with Lacan's psychoanalytic structuralism than is generally assumed. Lacan's account of the unconscious structure overcomes many of the problems that plagued Freud's psychological reading, which portrayed the unconscious as a realm governed by a kind of preconscious awareness, language, and symbolic order. Lacan's unconscious thus provides a direct link between this fundamental psychoanalytic concept and Sartre's existentialism. Sartre's attempt to overcome the aspects of the unconscious that he found problematic leads him to an interpretation that Lacan might have agreed with. This encounter has significant implications for the reassessment of Sartre's ambiguous and complex relationship with psychoanalysis, as most commentators have noted that Sartre's critique was directed at the unconscious and the determinism of Freud's modern psychology, rather than Lacan's psychoanalysis (Flynn, 2014: 221). Below we will assess some of the central concepts in Lacan's and Sartre's thought and examine their encounter

This study attempts to reassess and reinterpret the philosophical and psychoanalytic positions on subjectivity. It shows that by redefining the subject and the unconscious and emphasizing the role of choice and desire, we can offer similar interpretations of other concepts within these discourses.On this basis, psychoanalysis is not a deterministic approach that is opposed to the freedom of the subject, nor does the concept of the unconscious negate human agency and freedom. Sartre's emphasis on freedom is based simultaneously on the situation of the subject and the omnipresent existence of the Other. The subject is thus in a state of confusion and entrapment and tries to breathe in such a space. Both psychoanalytic and existentialist discourses strive to free the subject from deceptive situations and symbolic structures. Lacanian psychoanalysis cannot be reduced to structuralism, since Lacan never attempted to abolish the subject and does not see it merely as a reproduction of the symbolic world. Sartre's subjectivity cannot be reduced to pure voluntarism or absolute freedom, since it is dependent on events and the Other always surrounds it. There is always something in the subject that transcends the domination of others and the symbolic realm. Moreover, the Other itself cannot be a solid and complete entity and is always confronted with a fundamental failure.

One of the common criticisms of Kant's moral theory is the excessive attention to reason and its absoluteness in the moral law. In such a way that neglecting other elements involved in the moral judgment, including feelings, leads to the impossibility and emergence of the sadistic strain of Kant's moral foundations and provides a suitable ground for the emergence of evil. According to this view, evil is considered to be associated with good, because what is meant by moral good is an action that is in accordance with the absolute, regardless of its content. Aligned with the impossibility of the absolute, Sade moves Kant's moral foundations and considers the name of every absolute will to be evil according to the principle of non-contradiction. Therefore, any morally heinous act can be willed according to the moral law according to the inclusion in the maxim, without disturbing the foundations of the absolute. According to Lacan, loyalty to desire and its insatiability is a moral criterion that If morality is considered devoid of pathological elements, it will become its opposite, simple morality, and the morality of desire, instead of moving from one object to another object, will be caught in the bed of simple satisfaction, as a result, in the movement towards pleasure at the ultimate threshold. The truth remains. Kant uses the special concept of respect as a representative of the pathological element to avoid falling into the sadistic side of his ethics and to fix this gap for his ethics.

This article deals with the imaginary and symbolic function of the psyche, and the Real as the main categories of Lacan's thought, which was achieved by the logical extension of Freud's psychoanalysis, and then, by using the Freudian-Lacanian conceptual network, the roots of formation of Plato's metaphysics will be considered. A requirement of Parmenides' philosophy is silence and the inevitable outcome of Heraclitus's becoming, is idle talk, and perhaps the death of Socrates is due to the disregard of the defenders of Parmenides to social issues and the baseless discourse of the defenders of Heraclitus. According to the Freudian-Lacanian interpretation, Parmenides’ thought, which deals with the idea, corresponds to the symbolic function, and Heraclitus’ orientation, which pays attention to sensory perceptions, is compatible with the imaginary function of the psyche. However according to the Platonic interpretation, absorption in unity is a static activity, and mere attention to multiplicity leads to baseless dynamics. Plato uses the generality and necessity of the idea to limit the representation of the object and transcends the violence hidden in the imaginary function by the truth-seeking spirit in the play of ideas.

Progressive research tries to apply the theory of the French thinker and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan to the formation of the subject in the great other according to the work Texts for nothing written by Samuel Beckett. Lacan's subject is dashed, fragmented, fragmented, and the subject of absence, which does not conform to a unified identity. The main question of the present article is to explain the inability of the subject to find the totality integrity of her identity. The main purpose of this article is to examine how the subject is formed in the great other and to explain how the language of the other penetrates into the I. For this reason, we first introduced key concepts such as: the unconscious, the other, the subject of expression and the expressive; Then we analyzed the text by descriptive-analytical method and by sample sampling. The findings show that the great other is present as a language and, by acting, causes the division of the subject, which manifests itself in conscious and unconscious propositions; Also, the "great other" dominates the subject with a chain of linguistic signs that deprive her of the power of speech, and this leads to the narrator of this work appearing in the form of a fragmented narrator and paralyzed, producing an incoherent narrative. In fact, this study can explain the ways in which the subject is represented in relation to the other and how to deal with the category of identity in the text in question.

The present article begins with the concept of post-truth in the Nietzscheian sense and ends with the concept of enchantment in the form of Nietzsche’s jester. By explaining the way in which the modern human encounters post-truth in the Covid19 era as a nontruth-truth, and distinguishing between the concepts of post-truth and fake news, the following questions arise: By encountering the post-truth, what kind of subjects are being constituted? And how will these subjects be constituted? I will exploit the Lacanian psychoanalytical perspective and method to prove my hypothesis, based on the fact that constituted subjects are hysterical subjects. The subjects that occur in a discourse turning and by questioning the master signifier, reveal the lack in knowledge of the Other and recognize that the truth is nontruth and illusion. Thus, the prelinguistic mythical desire (Delta) repulsed by the current discourse will be re-operated by the hysterical subject. According to the myth’s re-operation, overtaking the current discourse and their relationship with mythological studies in the sphere of Jungian analytical psychology, I will answer another question considering that how the enchantment in the information and virtual media era takes place and how we are moving toward a re-enchantment in Post-Covid19 era and which psychological archetype is projecting by this enchantment? At the end, the subjects’ enchantment in the era of virtual media projects the Explorer archetype and in the coming era of Post-Covid19 will be projected by Nietzscheian Jester/Clown.

In the present article we try to trace back what we call the "hegemony of silence" in some of Molavi's verses and poems. The advocates of the "hegemony of silence" over-value silence at the cost of a devaluation of language and take it to have a special kind of intuition, a special kind of insight into the Thing beyond language. This attitude towards silence and language has a long-lasting history and has only been questioned recently. We will try to read this hegemonic attitude against the background of a Hegelian-Lacanian attitude, a modern attitude which highly esteems both language and silence and ultimately considers silence as a linguistic phenomenon. We will argue that these two attitudes have two different logics as their ground: the first attitude, the hegemony of silence, is grounded on Sohravardi's "Imkan-e Ashraf" and the second one, on the retroactive logic of German Idealism. After examining the epistemological and ontological consequences of these two attitudes, we will come to the conclusion that the position of the "hegemony of silence" is a contradictory and impossible position.

In the later theory of desire, two important economies of desire can be identified according to Lacan and Deleuze; Different formulations of the expansion of desire, each of which creates special relationships with the subject and society. Deleuze, with the plan of schizoanalysis against psychoanalysis, is completely separated from the Freudian tradition and establishes a new form of the economy of desire. Against the Oedipal formulation of desire in Lacan, with continuous reference to a missing ultimate object, desire circulates in a vortex movement around an oedipal core, in Deleuze's anti-Oedipal scheme, the body becomes a desire machine. It is possible to produce and move desire in schizo and rhizomatic ways. In general, two types of economy of desire can be recognized here: interal-expansion of desire in Lacan and external- expansion of desire in Deleuze. Also, in Lacan, the concepts of lack and fantasy that organize the economy of desire, and in Deleuze, the concept of the body without organs by producing desire as force, formulate special forms of the relationship between desire and society.

Lacan and Levinas were among the first contemporary thinkers of the twentieth century who have put emphasize on the concepts of otherness and subjectivity. The approach of these two thinkers to the issue has been accompanied by critique and challenge of rational subjectivism and the ethics of modern philosophy. Accordingly, the decentralization of the self-sovereignty subject, the priority of the other in the destruction of subjectivity and the redefinition of Ethics among the common principles that have been heuristic in presenting their new reading of the subject. However, Lacan and Levinas have taken different interpretations, insights, and conclusions in their attempts to explain the meaning of the other, the reason for its priority over the subject, and also to redefine the subject. On the one hand, in the contexts of structuralist and poststructuralist approaches in the heart of the field of psychoanalysis, Lacan Summoned the lacking subject, which is split and barred, to resist and negate with the structure of the big other, and in this resistance, the concept of desire plays a key role. On the other hand, Levinas with a phenomenological approach and in the heart of a religion-based approach, exposes the subject to the other with asymmetric responsibility, and in this regard, the face of the other plays a fundamental role in evoking the inescapable responsibility in the subject. Lacan and Levinas deal with two different aspects of otherness, which has also led to a different reading of subjectivity.

For Zizek, considering Hegel's philosophy as the culmination of absolute systematization and idealism which ultimately dissolves the diversity of reality into absolute idea and knowledge, is a cursory judgment of his philosophy. Zizek argues it is possible to remove the stains of absolutistic perception from Hegel's thought by using Lacan. Accordingly, Zizek’s reading of Hegel's subject, unlike his predecessor and contemporary thinkers, takes place in the space of Lacanian concepts and the context of the real. In this respect, the Hegelian subject is not a pre-predicative thing and it doesn’t have a priori coherence, but it is always bounded by the conditions of the external occurrence. The existence of the subject is the product of an abstract totalitarian negation that challenges the authoritarian and totalitarian structure of the substantial order. Lacan's excuse for rereading Hegel is not because Zizek assumes Hegel is trapped in a kind of semantic and structural self-referential subjugation. Rather, he always identifies a kind of surplus in Hegel's philosophy of spirit which can only be analyzed by using Lacanian psychoanalytic concepts. Zizek takes Hegel's dialectic from the level of the logic of the signifier, in which desire is recognized through the other and the subject is digested as the subject of a sign in the symbolic order, to the level of Lacan's logic in which there is no big and perfect other. It is always incomplete, barred, and not-all structured around a fundamental lack. According to Zizek, there is the real in the subject which is not impossible, and a desire does not fit in the framework of the production of fantasy, signifier and big other, and this is exactly the point where the subject is formed.

The present research analyzes Facebook communicators as Lacanian subjects. Lacanian subject is not the ‘individual’ or ‘conscious subject’ of modern philosophy. Through psychoanalytic explanation of Lacanian barred subject, this research will define and analyze the gaze object in the construction of fantasy and hysteric subject. According to the post-structuralism and Lacanian approach, I came up with two critical questions: 1- How Facebook becomes a locus for fantasy by considering the gaze object (object a)? 2- How the Facebook discourse construct a hysteric subject? The Facebook users are being analyzed as subjects who, by using images, are developing their interactions in the visual field of drive to fulfill their traumatic lack in such a phantasmatic way. The reconstruction of false identification in an invisible background and the declined satisfaction of subjects that originate from being embraced by frozen images is a significant issue to look at Facebook as a discourse that regenerates hysteric subjects. By the penetration of capitalism ideology the Facebook discourse and the production of gaze object can be defined and analyzed.