“I think therefore I am.” This quote from Descartes has probably been repeated more times than one could count. However, it could also be said that many people recite this sentence with little thought as to what it really means–admittedly, I was one of these people not too long ago.
Descartes originally came up with this line of thought when he was trying to prove that he, in fact, existed. Starting with larger concepts, such as God or the world, did not provide the proof needed, as much of these things had been created or subjected to the will of humankind. Descartes thinking finally narrowed down to focus on the single entity “I.” If the “I” is thinking, it means he must “be” or exist, right? Maybe, but maybe not.
Lacan seems to tear apart this philosophy a bit based on the two assumptions Descartes makes: that there is an “I” and that “I” can think. The “I” presupposes the idea that there is only a single autonomous being, but fails to include the influences on that being, the past, and other less controllable factors.
We can relate this discussion, then, to Freud’s analysis of dreams. While in some areas Freud appears to make valid points, similar to Descartes, he also makes small assumptions that can be hard to detect in the beginning. Freud speaks of the unconscious as if it were some uncontrollable part of our being that ultimately ‘directs’ or relates the conscious. He portrays it as something in the background. Freud then uses this idea to demonstrate how dreams during the unconscious reflect the conscious; however, Lacan might debate that his argument bases analyses solely on the premise that the unconscious and the conscious are “consciously” linked and that somehow one leaks into the other.
Lacan makes a valid point with his connections between the unconscious and language. Both could be signifiers, but that does not mean that they have to be. And when each does act as a signifier, the signified is not always definitive. In this manner the unconscious works in much the same way as language. Lacan argues this as a very large mistake that is common among other psychoanalysts. I found his example about the “gentlemen” vesus “ladies” interesting to consider within this concept. When taken out of context, it is only too easy for someone to misinterpret the signifieds of these signs. A person from a different societal or cultural background could also easily misconstrue these signs.
When we relate this to the unconscious then, we see that when dreams or other desires are taken outside of the context of the unconscious and brought into the realm of the conscious. When we take these things into the conscious realm, we then try to apply the laws of the conscious world to them. However, this action is based off the assumption that the conscious and unconscious function in much the same manner and therefore can be held to the same rules. Maybe then, instead of presupposing old rules on it, we should try to discover what exactly the new laws are that govern the unconscious. They could indeed end up being similar or even the same, but they could also be something entirely different.
You make a valid and interesting point about the assumption that the conscious and the unconscious are somehow linked, what if they aren't at all and are governed by something totally different? When you say that Lacan sort of tears apart Descart's quote, I think he actually takes the basis of that argument and then enhances it by defining the I by what the I is not.
ReplyDelete*****(this is keblogging)*****I think that Lacan more of reforms Descartes' quote then tears it apart. I wonder what context Descartes was in/what exactly he was thinking about when he came up with his famous quote. Trying to decipher this quote in order to try and figure out an exact meaning is fruitless, however, because as when interpreting a full text, people will come up with different meanings. Instead, I propose that we take from each quote and each opinion, so that we can use them as building blocks to understanding literature and literary theory.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Keblogging and Marissa. Lacan seems to revise the statement instead of deconstructing it. Do you disagree with Freud's analysis about the latent and manifest content in dreams? How you phrased the introduction of the unconscious into the conscious realm made me feel as if you are discrediting Freud's ideas.
ReplyDeleteI think you make some valid points and I, for the most part, agree with the comments above. However, what do you think of Lacan's metonymic chain of desire, as well as the way in which he feels our consciousness and desires are formed out of this?
ReplyDelete