Psychology and philosophy, part three

Zizek , As most people who read him know, is basically a synthetic philosophy of Hegel And Lacan. You know, come to think of it, I think that after eating the Kierkegaard smorgasbord of philosophy, because Kierkegaard is basically a commentary largely on Hegel, I felt that I should have some acquaintance with this latter Philosopher. So during that time I read “the phenomenology of spirit/mind”. And I think I also dipped my fingers into some of his Other works. I think I read the phenomenology of spirit and then moving into other Hegelian works, from understanding the phenomenology of spirit, I think that the other works just seemed to complement it. As if he was just talking about necessary repercussions that far away or fall from the basic proposition of the phenomenology of Spirit.

So, I felt like I had a pretty good handle on what Hegel was really referring to, and the point he was trying to make.

But I had never heard of Lacan and I don’t think once in my whole life did I ever even begin to think that psychology was interesting in the least. To me, psychology was very flat and dry. And I felt that people that were Interested in psychology we’re really not interested in themselves, or finding anything out about themselves as an intact being, but wanted to be told who and what they were. I don’t know, that’s just how I always felt about psychology; like it was a cop-out. Like it was inauthentic and its approach.

My view upon it is changed a little bit now a days, since I’m going to be a counselor, but still I have that flavor in my mouth, that’s sour kind of Brussel sprout kind of flavor that I can eat with a lot of cheese, but by itself, unless maybe the roasted with some bacon, it’s not very palatable it’s not very tasty at all.

OK that’s enough for part three.c