Doesn't your example illuminate why systems of thought like psychoanalysis are useful?

We currently don't know concretely how psychological phenomena like consciousness, happiness, selfhood, desire are formed or what they consist of. We know they exist, because we experience them 'in normal human experience'.

Analogously, Aristotle did not know anything concrete about how atoms, energy, time, cells in the body worked. But his natural philosophy created a speculative framework to talk about these things, explore possibilities, and try to relate what was known or observed, to what might possibly be true.

The potential advantage of modern theories like psychoanalysis, is that today we are able to make a clear distinction between falsifiable scientific knowledge, and other types of statements about the world. Thus, we can evaluate Lacan's thought on the correct level - as a form of philosophy which gives us a way of thinking about certain matters without attempting to provide definitive information.

But we know several ways in which this way of thinking is incorrect. First, it is based on revelation, or the direct experience of one analyst with a handful of patients. We know that we cannot achieve any meaningful scientific conclusion for the broad topics you mention from this kind of data. Second, this way of thinking is averse to tests, and to the extent it has been tested, it failed. Psychoanalysis has been tested empirically, and it is simply not producing great therapeutical effects.

Your rather generous interpretation could equally apply to quantum coaching or any other modern fad that is clearly wrong, because even though we don't know everything, it conflicts with what we know.

You are literally evaluating psychoanalysis as a scientific theory in this response - which is exactly what I pointed out we should avoid doing if we want to understand its value. Lots of types of thought and culture do not have scientific content, and yet are valuable.

Psychoanalysis, when tested empirically, produces therapeutic effects no worse than other talking therapies. In fact the great empirical paradox of therapy is that they are all similarly successful, regardless of the exact details of the theory they are based on.

> In fact the great empirical paradox of therapy is that they are all similarly successful, regardless of the exact details of the theory they are based on.

But if that's so, isn't that saying that the theory is irrelevant? And if so, why do I care about Lacan? Okay, so he's got a theory. So do lots of other people, and they all work just as well in practice.

It is saying that the purpose of trying to understand what Lacan had to say is not to achieve empirically proven therapeutic effects, either as a patient or as a therapist, yes.

> You are literally evaluating psychoanalysis as a scientific theory in this response - which is exactly what I pointed out we should avoid doing if we want to understand its value. Lots of types of thought and culture do not have scientific content, and yet are valuable.

I'm not sure what other "types of thought and culture" you are referring to. A superhero movie certainly is entertaining, can make you think and it's not a scientific theory. However, the big difference is that a movie does not make empirical claims or promises to have access to a method of self-knowledge, nor does it try to explain mental disorders. Psychoanalysis is mainly a service that promises empirical effects, and therefore should be treated empirically. Furthermore, Freud certainly envisioned it as a scientific theory, and so did many of its followers. I just don't think that this defense of psychoanalysis as having some sort of entertainment value, despite its absurdity, is a saving grace.

Your second point only reinforces what I'm saying. If any type of therapy has the same effect, then they are all placebos. Their effect is comparable to homeopathy, which is none. Homeopathy is certainly a different "type of thought", that is, an incorrect one.

Typically when someone uses the word "nonsense", I stop trying to explain, because I see it as a judgment of worth made prior to full understanding of the topic at hand. I guess I labor under the assumption that anyone who writes something (at least, something intended to be public) always has a "sense" they're attempting to express, and that I should strive to understand what exactly this "sense" is before I make a judgment call. In other words, I feel like I should be able to reconstruct the logic of their argument, even if I disagree with some of the leaps they make.

Of course, making sense of Lacan is indeed an undertaking, because his work is so discursive ("return to Freud" x Enlightenment x Classical phil) and also in a peculiar seminar medium, so I don't blame people for not wanting to make an attempt, especially since Lacan in particular would require suspending one's axiomatic presuppositions about epistemology and ethics (knowledge and goals), assuming one is mostly familiar with scientific or technical fields of study. Typically in a case like that I would simply say "I don't know enough to say", whereas a judgment of "nonsense" is effectively a signal of faith rather than pure non-comprehension.

What I'm saying is that I applaud your efforts to communicate (and think you're basically correct in your interpretation, although perhaps not phrased in a way that will immediately click with readers here), and wish you luck, but I have a feeling based on experience that it will end in frustration.