Changes

"[[love]]" ([[Fr]]. ''{{Top}}[[amour]]''){{Bottom}}

==Jacques Lacan=====Symbolic===[[Lacan]] argues that it is [[impossible ]] to [[speech|say ]] anything meaningful [[meaning]]ful or [[meaning|sensible ]] [[about ]] [[love]].<ref>{{S8}} p.57</ref> Indeed, the [[moment]] one starts to [[speech|speak]] about [[love]], one descends into imbecility.<ref>{{S20}} p. 17</ref> Given these views, it might seem surprising that [[Lacan]] himself dedicates a great deal of his [[seminar]] precisely to [[speech|speaking]] about [[love]]. However, in doing so, [[Lacan]] is merely demonstrating what the [[analysand]] does in [[psychoanalytic treatment]], for "the only [[thing]] that we do in the [[analytic discourse]] is [[speech|speak]] about [[love]]."<ref>{{S20}} p. 77</ref>

Indeed===Imaginary===[[Love]] is located by [[Lacan]] as a purely [[imaginary]] phenomenon, although it has effects in the moment [[symbolic]] [[order]].<ref>(one starts of those effects [[being]] to speak about produce "a veritable subduction of [[the symbolic]]") {{S1}} p. 142</ref> [love[Love]] is [[autoeroticism|autoerotic]], and has a fundamentally [[narcissism|narcissistic]] [[structure]]since "it's one's own ego that one loves in love, one descends into imbecility's own ego made [[real]] on [[the imaginary]] level."<ref>{{S1}} p. 142</ref> The [[imaginary]] [[nature]] of [[love]] leads [[Lacan]] to oppose all those [[analyst]]s who posit [[love]] as an [[ideal]] in [[psychoanalytic treatment]].<ref>{{S20S7}} p.178</ref>

GIven these views[[Love]] involves an [[imaginary]] reciprocity, since "to love is, essentially, to [[wish]] to be loved."<ref>{{S11}} p. 253</ref> It is this reciprocity between "loving" and "being loved" that constitutes the [[illusion]] of [[love]], and this is what distinguishes it might seem surprising that from the [[order]] of the [[drive]]s, in which there is no reciprocity, only pure [[activity]].<ref>{{S11}} p. 200</ref> [[Love]] is an [[illusory]] [[fantasy]] of fusion with the [[beloved]] which makes up for the [[Lacanabsence]] himself dedicates a great deal of his any [[seminarsexual relationship]] precisely to speaking about .<ref>{{S20}} p. 44</ref> This is especially clear in the asexual [[concept]] of [[courtly love]].<ref>{{S20}} p. 65</ref>

However, in doing so[[Love]] is [[truth|deceptive]]. "As a [[specular]] mirage, love is essentially [[Lacandeception]] ."<ref>{{S11}} p. 268</ref> It is merely demonstrating [[lure|deceptive]] because it involves giving what one does not have (i.e. the [[analysandphallus]] does in ); to [[psychoanalytic treatmentlove]], for is "the only thing that we do in the analytic discourse is speak about loveto give what one does not have."<ref>{{S20S8}} p.77147</ref> [[Love]] is directed not at what the [[object|love-object]] has, but at what he [[lack]]s, at the [[nothing]] beyond him. The [[object]] is valued insofar as it comes in the [[place]] of that [[lack]].<!-- Lacan suggests that when one is in love one is really saying: "I am what is [[lacking]] in you, with my devotion to you, with my sacrifice for you, I will fill you out, I will [[complete]] you." The operation of love is therefore [[double]]: the [[subject]] fills in his own [[lack]] by offering himself to the [[other]] as the [[object]] filling out the [[lack]] in the [[Other]]. -->

===Love and Desire===One of the most [[complex]] areas of [[LoveLacan]] is located by 's [[Jacques Lacan:Bibliography|work]] as a purely imaginary phenomenon, although it has effects in concerns the [[symbolicrelationship]] between [[love]] and [[orderdesire]] (. On the one of those effects being to produce "a veritable subduction of hand, the symbolic")two [[terms]] are diametrically opposed.<ref>{{S1}} p.142</ref> On the other hand, this opposition is problematized by certain similarities between the two:

====Opposition====As an [[imaginary]] phenomenon which belongs to the [[order|field]] of the [[ego]], [[love]] is clearly opposed to [[desire]], which is inscribed in the [[symbolic]] [[order]], the [[order|field]] of the [[Other]].<ref>{{S11}} pp. 189-91</ref> [[Love]] is autoerotica [[metaphor]], and has a fundamentally narcissistic whereas [[desire]] is [[structuremetonymy]] since "it's one's own ego .<ref>{{S8}} p. 53</ref> It can even be said that one loves in [[love]] kills [[desire]], one's own ego made real since [[love]] is based on a [[fantasy]] of oneness with the beloved and this abolishes the imaginary level[[difference]] which gives rise to [[desire]]."<ref>{{S1S20}} p.14246</ref>

The [[imaginary]] nature of [[love]] leads ====Similarity====On the other hand, there are elements in [[Lacan]] to oppose all those 's [[analystwork]]s who posit which destabilize the neat opposition between [[love]] as an ideal in and [[psychoanalytic treatmentdesire]].<ref>{{S7}} p.8</ref>

[[LoveLacan]] involves an 's own [[imaginarydiscourse]] reciprocity, since on [[love]] is thus often complicated by the same [[substitution]] of "to [[desire]]" for "[[love is, essentially, to wish to be loved]]" which he himself highlights in the [[text]] of [[Plato]]'s ''[[Plato|Symposium]]''."<ref>{{S11S8}} p.253141</ref>

It is this reciprocity between "loving" and "being loved===Courtly Love===Courtly love " that constitutes the illusion of [[love]], and this is what distinguishes it from the [[order]] of the [[drive]]s, in which there is no reciprocity, only pure activity.<ref>{{S11}} p.200</ref> --- [[Love]] is an illusory [[fantasy]] altogether refined way of fusion with the beloved which makes making up for the [[absence]] of any [[sexual relationship]].<ref>{{S20}} p.44</ref> This is especially clear in the asexual concept of [[courtly love]].<ref>{{S20}} p.65</ref> ---[[Love]] is [[truth|deceptive]]. <blockquote>"As a specular mirage, love is essentially deception."<ref>{{S11}} p.268</ref></blockquote> It is deceptive because relation by pretending that it involves giving what one does not have (i.e. the [[phallus]]); to love is "we who put an obstacle to give what one does not haveit."<ref>{{S8}} p.147</ref> [[Love]] is directed not at what the [[Courtly love]]-[[object]] has, but at what he [[lack]]s, at the nothing beyond him. The [[object]] is valued insofar as it comes in the place of that [[lack]]. --- One of the most complex areas of [[Lacan]]'s work concerns the relationship between [[a love]] and [[desire]]. On the one hand, the two terms are diametrically opposed. On the other hand, this opposition is problematized by certian similarities between the two: --- 1. As an imaginary phenomenon which belongs to the field of the [[ego]], [[love]] is clearly opposed to [[desire]], which is inscribed in the [[symbolic]] [[order]]impossible, the field of the [[Other]].<ref>{{S11}} p.189-91</ref> [[Love]] is a [[metaphor]], whereas [[desire]] is [[metonymy]].<ref>{{S8}} p.53</ref> It can even be said that [[love]] kills [[desire]], since [[love]] is based on a [[fantasy]] of oneness with for the beloved and this abolishes the difference obstacle which gives rise to [[desire]].<ref>{{S20}} p.46</ref> forever thwarts love ----  2. On the other hand, there are elements in [[Lacan]]'s work which destabilize the neat opposition between [[love]] and [[desire]]. Firstly, they are both similar in that neither can ever be satisfied. Secondly, the [[structure]] an elegant way of [[love]] as "the wish to be loved" is identical coming to terms with the [[structureabsence]] of [[desire]], in which the [[subject]] [[desiresexual relationship|sexual relations]]s to become the [[object]] of the [[Other]]'s [[desire]]. Thirdly, in the [[dialectic]] of [[need]]/[[demand]]/[[desire]], [[desire]] is born precisely from the unsatisfied part of [[demand]], which is the [[demand]] for [[love]]. [[Lacan]]'s own [[discourse]] on [[love]] is thus often complicated by the same substitution of "[[desire]]" for "[[love]]" which he himself highlights in the text of [[Plato]]'s ''Symposium''.<ref>{{S8}} p.141</ref>