Difference between revisions of "Being"
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | [[Lacan]]'s use of the term '[[being]]' (''être'') introduces a metaphysical note to his discourse that distinguishes it from most other [[school]]s of [[psychoanalytic theory]], which refuse to engage with their metaphysical and philosophical foundations.<ref>(see E, 228)</ref> | |
| + | [[Lacan]] argues that it is necessary for psychoanalysts to engage with such concerns, for when the [[analyst]] intervenes his action "goes to the heart of [the analysand's] being," and this also affects his own [[being]], since he cannot "remain alone outside the field of play."<ref>(E, 228)</ref> | ||
| + | Hence "it is certainly in the relation to being that the analyst has to find his operating level."<ref>E, 252</ref> | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] also argues that during the course of the [[treatment]] the [[analyst]] is subjected to a progressive loss of being (Fr. ''désêtre''), as he is gradually reduced to being a mere [[object]] for the [[analysand]]. | ||
| + | [[Lacan]]'s discussion of [[being]] is clearly influenced by the ideas of [[Martin Heidegger]].<ref>(see Heidegger, 1927)</ref> | ||
| + | [[Being]] belongs to the [[symbolic]] [[order]], since it is "the relation to the Other in which being finds its status."<ref>(E, 251)</ref> | ||
| + | This relation, like the [[Other]] itself, is marked by a [[lack]] (''manque''), and the [[subject]] is constituted by this [[lack]] of [[being]] (''manque-à-être''), which gives rise to [[desire]], a want-to-be (''manque-à-être''); [[desire]] is thus essentially a [[desire]] for [[being]]. | ||
| + | Whenever [[Lacan]] opposes [[being]] to [[existence]], œt œS with [[existence]] in the [[real]], which contrasts with the [[symbolic]] function of [[being]]. Something may thus be without existing, when it is constructed from [[speech]] but finds no correlate in the [[real]] (e.g. the complete [[Other]]). | ||
| + | Conversely, something may exist without being, such as the 'ineffable, stupid existence' of the [[subject]], which cannot be completely reduced to a signifying articulation.<ref>(E, 194)</ref> | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] coins the neologism '''parlêtre''' from the verbal noun ''être'' ('being') and the verb ''parler'' ('to speak') to emphasise his point that [[being]] is constituted in and through [[language]]. | ||
| + | A human being is above all a speaking being. | ||
| − | + | ==See Also== | |
| + | * [[symbolic]] | ||
| + | * [[Heidegger]] | ||
| + | * [[desire]] | ||
| − | + | == References == | |
| − | + | <references/> | |
| − | + | [[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | |
| − | + | [[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | |
| − | + | [[Category:Philosophy]] | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 15:59, 15 June 2006
Lacan's use of the term 'being' (être) introduces a metaphysical note to his discourse that distinguishes it from most other schools of psychoanalytic theory, which refuse to engage with their metaphysical and philosophical foundations.[1] Lacan argues that it is necessary for psychoanalysts to engage with such concerns, for when the analyst intervenes his action "goes to the heart of [the analysand's] being," and this also affects his own being, since he cannot "remain alone outside the field of play."[2] Hence "it is certainly in the relation to being that the analyst has to find his operating level."[3] Lacan also argues that during the course of the treatment the analyst is subjected to a progressive loss of being (Fr. désêtre), as he is gradually reduced to being a mere object for the analysand. Lacan's discussion of being is clearly influenced by the ideas of Martin Heidegger.[4] Being belongs to the symbolic order, since it is "the relation to the Other in which being finds its status."[5] This relation, like the Other itself, is marked by a lack (manque), and the subject is constituted by this lack of being (manque-à-être), which gives rise to desire, a want-to-be (manque-à-être); desire is thus essentially a desire for being. Whenever Lacan opposes being to existence, œt œS with existence in the real, which contrasts with the symbolic function of being. Something may thus be without existing, when it is constructed from speech but finds no correlate in the real (e.g. the complete Other). Conversely, something may exist without being, such as the 'ineffable, stupid existence' of the subject, which cannot be completely reduced to a signifying articulation.[6] Lacan coins the neologism parlêtre from the verbal noun être ('being') and the verb parler ('to speak') to emphasise his point that being is constituted in and through language. A human being is above all a speaking being.
