The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Le Vautre
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: June 21st, 2019, 9:58 am

The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Le Vautre »

I've seen today one of the masterpieces of the italian moviemaker Pasolini, namely, Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964).

It's obviously very well done, given the means of that time, and it's was very well commented, so I'll ignore the doodads. But, even if it's very well done, it's still very strange when I compare it to Hitchcock who realized movies at the same year (Marnie, for example, was realized in 1964). Hitchcock had a strong american style, with a camera that films stably, with nice sequence shots, without “sentimentality” and with technical prowesses as we know it. On the other hand, with Pasolini as I see it with that movie, there's a very strong “sentimentality” (misery ?) – even if it's probably not voluntary but the result of the production framework: they are Italians, and the film was shot in southern Italy (one should notice the similarity of the South-Italians landscapes and the South-Italians ethnicity with the Judaic atmosphere – it sticks well, even if the medieval sets are too obvious). So, while I'm sure that Pasolini was a really great moviemaker, the Gospel according to Matthew has a frankly miserable character, the actors being moreover true amateurs. But, do not be mistaken, it's not a criticism: I consider this movie almost perfect, even better than the Passion of Christ of Mel Gibson (2004), precisely because of the production's framework. You see, the actors who say their lines without passion, randomly in a scene, almost (I have the impression) poorly improvised, it's just magnificent compared with Gibson's movie which is, certainly, best at the scenary level, but nevertheless who's doing too much with his vastly superior means of production. Pasolini's film, it's almost in fact if it had been shot today by Belorussians, Belorussians without money but full of determination and good will and who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, know the sacred luck of beginners. Really, I find that the staging, the actors and the way in which Jesus says the big maxims like that, randomly, like a Walmart cashier who forces her “good morning”, it reveals how much Jesus was insignificant (the Jesus of Pasolini) while exploding by contrast the Christ (that is to say, the result of Christ's preachings).

That's Gibson's problem: his film is a Christian film while Pasolini's film is Christic. There is a big qualitative chasm. Gibson's film was impregnated by the Christian doctrine and was made with a Christian perspective, as if, deep down (and it's obviously the case), Christianity had already taken place. Well, no! For this to be doubly realistic, it is still necessary to do “as if”, namely “as if” it (Christianity) never happened. Doesn't this method give the viewer the pleasure to conceive the scope of the said maxims, and to pass from Jesus to Christ by himself?

(Not to mention the music! The music is completely incongruous, it's great! Gibson, for his part, is totally is the Hans Zimmer's epicness style.)

This is precisely all the difference between dynamism & statism, namely, the difference between the Real & Reality (cf. Lacan). The Real is what happens against the Reality, while the Reality happens all the time. Here (and this is not a Christian apologia), Jesus is the Real, that is to say what happens when Real (which is Really Real) destroy the Discourse, i. e. what you tell to yourself. It's because of that that Lacan announced the pathology of holiness for our times: the Judeo-Christian maxims will put before us our inability to see the Ungrundness of the Real. Doesn't that remind you Heidegger? The main difference is that lacanism is way more bergsonian than heideggerian, because Lacan defined the Real as “semblant”, when Heidegger refused this heterogeneous definition because (apparently) it'll put the Being into Space! :lol: :lol: :lol: To be more Catholic than the Pope... Bergson accepted the paradox of symbolism, even when it implies to spacialize (politicize ?). It knocks him (Heidegger) for six! :lol: :lol: :lol: Behold the “mauvaise foi”! Maybe Gibson doesn't accept this situation... Truthfully, it's really (so to speak :lol: ) difficult to be a saint nowadays (look at Macron!) for the saint authorized (un)consciously the paradox of anti-politics. Anyway, listen to Paarthurnax: holiness is never where we expect! René Girard would probably agree with Lacan, when he spoke about the “martyr du martyr” and “martyropathie”. All because of what I said. Pasolini is symptomatic (saint -omatic?). It's maybe now that we can understand Pascal about dereliction, therefore Heidegger also and his “Geworfenheit”.

For the so-called nietzscheans:
Lacan wrote:Sometimes, however, [the saint] takes a break, which he's no more content with than anyone else. He comes [jouit]. He's no longer working at that point. It's not as if the smart alecks aren't lying in wait hoping to profit from it so as to pump themselves up again. But the saint doesn't give a damn about that, any more than he does about those who consider it to be his just deserts. Which is too sidesplitting.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Belindi »

Le Vautre quoted:

Lacan wrote:
Sometimes, however, [the saint] takes a break, which he's no more content with than anyone else. He comes [jouit]. He's no longer working at that point. It's not as if the smart alecks aren't lying in wait hoping to profit from it so as to pump themselves up again. But the saint doesn't give a damn about that, any more than he does about those who consider it to be his just deserts. Which is too sidesplitting.

A good life according to individual conscience and not according to others' opinions or one's own safety or comfort, may well be called 'sainthood' if you are partial to a lexicon loaded with Xian connotation.


Zizek wrote about the sort of reality which is like that of the fabled child who sees and exclaims the Emperor has no clothes on. Not the Christianised Christ! But the Jesus of history, who was one who told us to see like the child with a pure and uncorrupted vision.
User avatar
Le Vautre
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: June 21st, 2019, 9:58 am

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Le Vautre »

Belindi wrote: June 29th, 2019, 4:56 amA good life according to individual conscience and not according to others' opinions or one's own safety or comfort, may well be called 'sainthood' if you are partial to a lexicon loaded with Xian connotation.
This is the definition of amor fati, but maybe Nietzsche was influenced by sainthood!

Zizek wrote about the sort of reality which is like that of the fabled child who sees and exclaims the Emperor has no clothes on. Not the Christianised Christ! But the Jesus of history, who was one who told us to see like the child with a pure and uncorrupted vision.
Maybe it inspired Nietzsche for his 3 metamorphoses... Zizek is lacanian, and Lacan was like Nietzsche, that is to say, christic (mirror stage!).
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Belindi »

Le Vautre wrote: June 29th, 2019, 10:38 am
Belindi wrote: June 29th, 2019, 4:56 amA good life according to individual conscience and not according to others' opinions or one's own safety or comfort, may well be called 'sainthood' if you are partial to a lexicon loaded with Xian connotation.
This is the definition of amor fati, but maybe Nietzsche was influenced by sainthood!

Zizek wrote about the sort of reality which is like that of the fabled child who sees and exclaims the Emperor has no clothes on. Not the Christianised Christ! But the Jesus of history, who was one who told us to see like the child with a pure and uncorrupted vision.
Maybe it inspired Nietzsche for his 3 metamorphoses... Zizek is lacanian, and Lacan was like Nietzsche, that is to say, christic (mirror stage!).
I'd call Nietzsche a prophet or seer, not a saint.

What does the following mean?( especially " christic(mirror stage)" ) . Please use explicit language:
Maybe it inspired Nietzsche for his 3 metamorphoses... Zizek is lacanian, and Lacan was like Nietzsche, that is to say, christic (mirror stage!).
User avatar
Le Vautre
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: June 21st, 2019, 9:58 am

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Le Vautre »

But I explain everything in the topic! ^^ Christic it's what happen before the Discourse, that is to say before alienation by language (mirror stage).
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by h_k_s »

Le Vautre wrote: June 21st, 2019, 10:59 am I've seen today one of the masterpieces of the italian moviemaker Pasolini, namely, Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964).

It's obviously very well done, given the means of that time, and it's was very well commented, so I'll ignore the doodads. But, even if it's very well done, it's still very strange when I compare it to Hitchcock who realized movies at the same year (Marnie, for example, was realized in 1964). Hitchcock had a strong american style, with a camera that films stably, with nice sequence shots, without “sentimentality” and with technical prowesses as we know it. On the other hand, with Pasolini as I see it with that movie, there's a very strong “sentimentality” (misery ?) – even if it's probably not voluntary but the result of the production framework: they are Italians, and the film was shot in southern Italy (one should notice the similarity of the South-Italians landscapes and the South-Italians ethnicity with the Judaic atmosphere – it sticks well, even if the medieval sets are too obvious). So, while I'm sure that Pasolini was a really great moviemaker, the Gospel according to Matthew has a frankly miserable character, the actors being moreover true amateurs. But, do not be mistaken, it's not a criticism: I consider this movie almost perfect, even better than the Passion of Christ of Mel Gibson (2004), precisely because of the production's framework. You see, the actors who say their lines without passion, randomly in a scene, almost (I have the impression) poorly improvised, it's just magnificent compared with Gibson's movie which is, certainly, best at the scenary level, but nevertheless who's doing too much with his vastly superior means of production. Pasolini's film, it's almost in fact if it had been shot today by Belorussians, Belorussians without money but full of determination and good will and who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, know the sacred luck of beginners. Really, I find that the staging, the actors and the way in which Jesus says the big maxims like that, randomly, like a Walmart cashier who forces her “good morning”, it reveals how much Jesus was insignificant (the Jesus of Pasolini) while exploding by contrast the Christ (that is to say, the result of Christ's preachings).

That's Gibson's problem: his film is a Christian film while Pasolini's film is Christic. There is a big qualitative chasm. Gibson's film was impregnated by the Christian doctrine and was made with a Christian perspective, as if, deep down (and it's obviously the case), Christianity had already taken place. Well, no! For this to be doubly realistic, it is still necessary to do “as if”, namely “as if” it (Christianity) never happened. Doesn't this method give the viewer the pleasure to conceive the scope of the said maxims, and to pass from Jesus to Christ by himself?

(Not to mention the music! The music is completely incongruous, it's great! Gibson, for his part, is totally is the Hans Zimmer's epicness style.)

This is precisely all the difference between dynamism & statism, namely, the difference between the Real & Reality (cf. Lacan). The Real is what happens against the Reality, while the Reality happens all the time. Here (and this is not a Christian apologia), Jesus is the Real, that is to say what happens when Real (which is Really Real) destroy the Discourse, i. e. what you tell to yourself. It's because of that that Lacan announced the pathology of holiness for our times: the Judeo-Christian maxims will put before us our inability to see the Ungrundness of the Real. Doesn't that remind you Heidegger? The main difference is that lacanism is way more bergsonian than heideggerian, because Lacan defined the Real as “semblant”, when Heidegger refused this heterogeneous definition because (apparently) it'll put the Being into Space! :lol: :lol: :lol: To be more Catholic than the Pope... Bergson accepted the paradox of symbolism, even when it implies to spacialize (politicize ?). It knocks him (Heidegger) for six! :lol: :lol: :lol: Behold the “mauvaise foi”! Maybe Gibson doesn't accept this situation... Truthfully, it's really (so to speak :lol: ) difficult to be a saint nowadays (look at Macron!) for the saint authorized (un)consciously the paradox of anti-politics. Anyway, listen to Paarthurnax: holiness is never where we expect! René Girard would probably agree with Lacan, when he spoke about the “martyr du martyr” and “martyropathie”. All because of what I said. Pasolini is symptomatic (saint -omatic?). It's maybe now that we can understand Pascal about dereliction, therefore Heidegger also and his “Geworfenheit”.

For the so-called nietzscheans:
Lacan wrote:Sometimes, however, [the saint] takes a break, which he's no more content with than anyone else. He comes [jouit]. He's no longer working at that point. It's not as if the smart alecks aren't lying in wait hoping to profit from it so as to pump themselves up again. But the saint doesn't give a damn about that, any more than he does about those who consider it to be his just deserts. Which is too sidesplitting.
My Latin is better than my Italian.

"The Gospel second Matthew" ??

Or … "The second gospel Matthew" ??

Or … "The Gospel Matthew second" ??

For those of us who did not have time to learn Italian (great language for visits to Rome, Naples, and Venice though) you should clarify this please.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by h_k_s »

Le Vautre wrote: June 21st, 2019, 10:59 am I've seen today one of the masterpieces of the italian moviemaker Pasolini, namely, Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964).

It's obviously very well done, given the means of that time, and it's was very well commented, so I'll ignore the doodads. But, even if it's very well done, it's still very strange when I compare it to Hitchcock who realized movies at the same year (Marnie, for example, was realized in 1964). Hitchcock had a strong american style, with a camera that films stably, with nice sequence shots, without “sentimentality” and with technical prowesses as we know it. On the other hand, with Pasolini as I see it with that movie, there's a very strong “sentimentality” (misery ?) – even if it's probably not voluntary but the result of the production framework: they are Italians, and the film was shot in southern Italy (one should notice the similarity of the South-Italians landscapes and the South-Italians ethnicity with the Judaic atmosphere – it sticks well, even if the medieval sets are too obvious). So, while I'm sure that Pasolini was a really great moviemaker, the Gospel according to Matthew has a frankly miserable character, the actors being moreover true amateurs. But, do not be mistaken, it's not a criticism: I consider this movie almost perfect, even better than the Passion of Christ of Mel Gibson (2004), precisely because of the production's framework. You see, the actors who say their lines without passion, randomly in a scene, almost (I have the impression) poorly improvised, it's just magnificent compared with Gibson's movie which is, certainly, best at the scenary level, but nevertheless who's doing too much with his vastly superior means of production. Pasolini's film, it's almost in fact if it had been shot today by Belorussians, Belorussians without money but full of determination and good will and who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, know the sacred luck of beginners. Really, I find that the staging, the actors and the way in which Jesus says the big maxims like that, randomly, like a Walmart cashier who forces her “good morning”, it reveals how much Jesus was insignificant (the Jesus of Pasolini) while exploding by contrast the Christ (that is to say, the result of Christ's preachings).

That's Gibson's problem: his film is a Christian film while Pasolini's film is Christic. There is a big qualitative chasm. Gibson's film was impregnated by the Christian doctrine and was made with a Christian perspective, as if, deep down (and it's obviously the case), Christianity had already taken place. Well, no! For this to be doubly realistic, it is still necessary to do “as if”, namely “as if” it (Christianity) never happened. Doesn't this method give the viewer the pleasure to conceive the scope of the said maxims, and to pass from Jesus to Christ by himself?

(Not to mention the music! The music is completely incongruous, it's great! Gibson, for his part, is totally is the Hans Zimmer's epicness style.)

This is precisely all the difference between dynamism & statism, namely, the difference between the Real & Reality (cf. Lacan). The Real is what happens against the Reality, while the Reality happens all the time. Here (and this is not a Christian apologia), Jesus is the Real, that is to say what happens when Real (which is Really Real) destroy the Discourse, i. e. what you tell to yourself. It's because of that that Lacan announced the pathology of holiness for our times: the Judeo-Christian maxims will put before us our inability to see the Ungrundness of the Real. Doesn't that remind you Heidegger? The main difference is that lacanism is way more bergsonian than heideggerian, because Lacan defined the Real as “semblant”, when Heidegger refused this heterogeneous definition because (apparently) it'll put the Being into Space! :lol: :lol: :lol: To be more Catholic than the Pope... Bergson accepted the paradox of symbolism, even when it implies to spacialize (politicize ?). It knocks him (Heidegger) for six! :lol: :lol: :lol: Behold the “mauvaise foi”! Maybe Gibson doesn't accept this situation... Truthfully, it's really (so to speak :lol: ) difficult to be a saint nowadays (look at Macron!) for the saint authorized (un)consciously the paradox of anti-politics. Anyway, listen to Paarthurnax: holiness is never where we expect! René Girard would probably agree with Lacan, when he spoke about the “martyr du martyr” and “martyropathie”. All because of what I said. Pasolini is symptomatic (saint -omatic?). It's maybe now that we can understand Pascal about dereliction, therefore Heidegger also and his “Geworfenheit”.

For the so-called nietzscheans:
Lacan wrote:Sometimes, however, [the saint] takes a break, which he's no more content with than anyone else. He comes [jouit]. He's no longer working at that point. It's not as if the smart alecks aren't lying in wait hoping to profit from it so as to pump themselves up again. But the saint doesn't give a damn about that, any more than he does about those who consider it to be his just deserts. Which is too sidesplitting.
Nothing is really obvious especially if you have never heard of it.

You could try using "clearly" or "certainly" or "in my opinion". Mostly things like this are just a matter of taste, which Adam Smith in his 1775 AD book "The Wealth Of Nations" (short title) delves into in deep detail.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by h_k_s »

Le Vautre wrote: June 21st, 2019, 10:59 am I've seen today one of the masterpieces of the italian moviemaker Pasolini, namely, Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964).

It's obviously very well done, given the means of that time, and it's was very well commented, so I'll ignore the doodads. But, even if it's very well done, it's still very strange when I compare it to Hitchcock who realized movies at the same year (Marnie, for example, was realized in 1964). Hitchcock had a strong american style, with a camera that films stably, with nice sequence shots, without “sentimentality” and with technical prowesses as we know it. On the other hand, with Pasolini as I see it with that movie, there's a very strong “sentimentality” (misery ?) – even if it's probably not voluntary but the result of the production framework: they are Italians, and the film was shot in southern Italy (one should notice the similarity of the South-Italians landscapes and the South-Italians ethnicity with the Judaic atmosphere – it sticks well, even if the medieval sets are too obvious). So, while I'm sure that Pasolini was a really great moviemaker, the Gospel according to Matthew has a frankly miserable character, the actors being moreover true amateurs. But, do not be mistaken, it's not a criticism: I consider this movie almost perfect, even better than the Passion of Christ of Mel Gibson (2004), precisely because of the production's framework. You see, the actors who say their lines without passion, randomly in a scene, almost (I have the impression) poorly improvised, it's just magnificent compared with Gibson's movie which is, certainly, best at the scenary level, but nevertheless who's doing too much with his vastly superior means of production. Pasolini's film, it's almost in fact if it had been shot today by Belorussians, Belorussians without money but full of determination and good will and who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, know the sacred luck of beginners. Really, I find that the staging, the actors and the way in which Jesus says the big maxims like that, randomly, like a Walmart cashier who forces her “good morning”, it reveals how much Jesus was insignificant (the Jesus of Pasolini) while exploding by contrast the Christ (that is to say, the result of Christ's preachings).

That's Gibson's problem: his film is a Christian film while Pasolini's film is Christic. There is a big qualitative chasm. Gibson's film was impregnated by the Christian doctrine and was made with a Christian perspective, as if, deep down (and it's obviously the case), Christianity had already taken place. Well, no! For this to be doubly realistic, it is still necessary to do “as if”, namely “as if” it (Christianity) never happened. Doesn't this method give the viewer the pleasure to conceive the scope of the said maxims, and to pass from Jesus to Christ by himself?

(Not to mention the music! The music is completely incongruous, it's great! Gibson, for his part, is totally is the Hans Zimmer's epicness style.)

This is precisely all the difference between dynamism & statism, namely, the difference between the Real & Reality (cf. Lacan). The Real is what happens against the Reality, while the Reality happens all the time. Here (and this is not a Christian apologia), Jesus is the Real, that is to say what happens when Real (which is Really Real) destroy the Discourse, i. e. what you tell to yourself. It's because of that that Lacan announced the pathology of holiness for our times: the Judeo-Christian maxims will put before us our inability to see the Ungrundness of the Real. Doesn't that remind you Heidegger? The main difference is that lacanism is way more bergsonian than heideggerian, because Lacan defined the Real as “semblant”, when Heidegger refused this heterogeneous definition because (apparently) it'll put the Being into Space! :lol: :lol: :lol: To be more Catholic than the Pope... Bergson accepted the paradox of symbolism, even when it implies to spacialize (politicize ?). It knocks him (Heidegger) for six! :lol: :lol: :lol: Behold the “mauvaise foi”! Maybe Gibson doesn't accept this situation... Truthfully, it's really (so to speak :lol: ) difficult to be a saint nowadays (look at Macron!) for the saint authorized (un)consciously the paradox of anti-politics. Anyway, listen to Paarthurnax: holiness is never where we expect! René Girard would probably agree with Lacan, when he spoke about the “martyr du martyr” and “martyropathie”. All because of what I said. Pasolini is symptomatic (saint -omatic?). It's maybe now that we can understand Pascal about dereliction, therefore Heidegger also and his “Geworfenheit”.

For the so-called nietzscheans:
Lacan wrote:Sometimes, however, [the saint] takes a break, which he's no more content with than anyone else. He comes [jouit]. He's no longer working at that point. It's not as if the smart alecks aren't lying in wait hoping to profit from it so as to pump themselves up again. But the saint doesn't give a damn about that, any more than he does about those who consider it to be his just deserts. Which is too sidesplitting.
Mel Gibson's movie "Passion Of The Christ" is probably my favorite movie. I watch it every Easter Thursday after returning home from Mass.

I mostly relate to the soldiers on patrol and in garrison, though not the ones in the prison. That's because I was a soldier (of the sea) once myself, plus my Latin is much better than my Aramaic. So I can understand the Latin parts better. It truly makes me wonder of Jesus (Latin spelling; in Greek it is IESOUS; in Hebrew or Aramaic it is JESHUA; Pilate actually was the first to dub Him "Jesus" when he wrote his sign for the cross "Jesus Of Nazareth King Of The Jews" in Latin" but most people don't know this -- they think Jesus was called Jesus since the day of his birth and that God reached down from Heaven and wrote the Bible with quill and ink in English, word perfect") … .

… Make me wonder, of Jesus, whether he answered Pilate who spoke to Him in Aramaic, using Latin in response?

Of course the Catholic (large "C") Church wants you to believe Jesus spoke Latin. Maybe and maybe not.

Anyway this is the best movie I have ever seen.

In a close second place is Brad Pitt in "Troy" which is a remake of the Iliad.

In third place is Sam Elliot's portrayal of Gen. Buford in "Gettysburg." (We must deprive the enemy of the high ground!)
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by h_k_s »

Le Vautre wrote: June 21st, 2019, 10:59 am I've seen today one of the masterpieces of the italian moviemaker Pasolini, namely, Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964).

It's obviously very well done, given the means of that time, and it's was very well commented, so I'll ignore the doodads. But, even if it's very well done, it's still very strange when I compare it to Hitchcock who realized movies at the same year (Marnie, for example, was realized in 1964). Hitchcock had a strong american style, with a camera that films stably, with nice sequence shots, without “sentimentality” and with technical prowesses as we know it. On the other hand, with Pasolini as I see it with that movie, there's a very strong “sentimentality” (misery ?) – even if it's probably not voluntary but the result of the production framework: they are Italians, and the film was shot in southern Italy (one should notice the similarity of the South-Italians landscapes and the South-Italians ethnicity with the Judaic atmosphere – it sticks well, even if the medieval sets are too obvious). So, while I'm sure that Pasolini was a really great moviemaker, the Gospel according to Matthew has a frankly miserable character, the actors being moreover true amateurs. But, do not be mistaken, it's not a criticism: I consider this movie almost perfect, even better than the Passion of Christ of Mel Gibson (2004), precisely because of the production's framework. You see, the actors who say their lines without passion, randomly in a scene, almost (I have the impression) poorly improvised, it's just magnificent compared with Gibson's movie which is, certainly, best at the scenary level, but nevertheless who's doing too much with his vastly superior means of production. Pasolini's film, it's almost in fact if it had been shot today by Belorussians, Belorussians without money but full of determination and good will and who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, know the sacred luck of beginners. Really, I find that the staging, the actors and the way in which Jesus says the big maxims like that, randomly, like a Walmart cashier who forces her “good morning”, it reveals how much Jesus was insignificant (the Jesus of Pasolini) while exploding by contrast the Christ (that is to say, the result of Christ's preachings).

That's Gibson's problem: his film is a Christian film while Pasolini's film is Christic. There is a big qualitative chasm. Gibson's film was impregnated by the Christian doctrine and was made with a Christian perspective, as if, deep down (and it's obviously the case), Christianity had already taken place. Well, no! For this to be doubly realistic, it is still necessary to do “as if”, namely “as if” it (Christianity) never happened. Doesn't this method give the viewer the pleasure to conceive the scope of the said maxims, and to pass from Jesus to Christ by himself?

(Not to mention the music! The music is completely incongruous, it's great! Gibson, for his part, is totally is the Hans Zimmer's epicness style.)

This is precisely all the difference between dynamism & statism, namely, the difference between the Real & Reality (cf. Lacan). The Real is what happens against the Reality, while the Reality happens all the time. Here (and this is not a Christian apologia), Jesus is the Real, that is to say what happens when Real (which is Really Real) destroy the Discourse, i. e. what you tell to yourself. It's because of that that Lacan announced the pathology of holiness for our times: the Judeo-Christian maxims will put before us our inability to see the Ungrundness of the Real. Doesn't that remind you Heidegger? The main difference is that lacanism is way more bergsonian than heideggerian, because Lacan defined the Real as “semblant”, when Heidegger refused this heterogeneous definition because (apparently) it'll put the Being into Space! :lol: :lol: :lol: To be more Catholic than the Pope... Bergson accepted the paradox of symbolism, even when it implies to spacialize (politicize ?). It knocks him (Heidegger) for six! :lol: :lol: :lol: Behold the “mauvaise foi”! Maybe Gibson doesn't accept this situation... Truthfully, it's really (so to speak :lol: ) difficult to be a saint nowadays (look at Macron!) for the saint authorized (un)consciously the paradox of anti-politics. Anyway, listen to Paarthurnax: holiness is never where we expect! René Girard would probably agree with Lacan, when he spoke about the “martyr du martyr” and “martyropathie”. All because of what I said. Pasolini is symptomatic (saint -omatic?). It's maybe now that we can understand Pascal about dereliction, therefore Heidegger also and his “Geworfenheit”.

For the so-called nietzscheans:
Lacan wrote:Sometimes, however, [the saint] takes a break, which he's no more content with than anyone else. He comes [jouit]. He's no longer working at that point. It's not as if the smart alecks aren't lying in wait hoping to profit from it so as to pump themselves up again. But the saint doesn't give a damn about that, any more than he does about those who consider it to be his just deserts. Which is too sidesplitting.
I think most people associate Heidegger with Adolf. Hard to get past that. Even if you are pure blooded German. I am 50%. The other half is part French and mostly Greek. So no great fan of Adolf nor of Heidegger.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by h_k_s »

I think it is important to note that religion must be kept separate from Science and from Philosophy.

Bertrand Russell points this out on many occasions.

Science must be kept separate as well.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Hereandnow »

h_k_s
I think it is important to note that religion must be kept separate from Science and from Philosophy.

Bertrand Russell points this out on many occasions.

Science must be kept separate as well.
If religion didn't have so many lunatic social consequences,and if it didn't preclude meaningful possibilities, then I would agree.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Belindi »

Hereandnow wrote: July 2nd, 2019, 4:04 pm
h_k_s
I think it is important to note that religion must be kept separate from Science and from Philosophy.

Bertrand Russell points this out on many occasions.

Science must be kept separate as well.
If religion didn't have so many lunatic social consequences,and if it didn't preclude meaningful possibilities, then I would agree.
Not only religion but any art form might be used for political or financial gain. Probably all of them have been so used!
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Hereandnow »

Belindi
Not only religion but any art form might be used for political or financial gain. Probably all of them have been so used!
Not quite what i had in mind, the use of popular religion for some profit. Popular religions are bad for our political "conversation" because they make people think dogmatically, and the ideas for this issue from a lot of irresponsible thinking, as when one looks to Leviticus for an understanding of being gay, or, as I read about Rush Limbaugh once, you think animals are ethically irrelevant because Genesis put them under the dominion of man. this kind of thoughtlessness makes its way into policy in a democratic society.

Perhaps even worse, religious dogma displaces real philosophical thinking, and this bars the way to growth in philosophy, that is, growth in understanding what the world is at the level of basic questions, which is, by my lights, what the whole damn thing is about. Once there, and mundane interpretations of all before you no longer hold sway, and you are dealing with Kierkegaard, Kant, Heidegger, Lacan and Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (these latter wrote Anti Oedipus, which I am reading now, motivated to do so by Le Vautre's post) and so many more, THEN one's gaze dramatically changes. That is important. Call it spiritual growth. Note how the world yields to this.

But then, there are those, the majority, that are terminally dogmatic, and living is like being ventriloquized by history ( I think it was Foucault who said this). It is THE QUESTION that brings this world to its knees, stops the madness (see Kierkegarrd's Concept of Anxiety for a very interesting understanding of Hereditary Sin). Questioning is the piety if language. What do you think Heidegger meant by this?
User avatar
Le Vautre
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: June 21st, 2019, 9:58 am

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Le Vautre »

@H_k_s, don't quote the entire text because I can't understand which passage you are referring to. ... :| "Secondo" mean "According to", it cames from Latin (sequor) which implies "subordinate", etc.. ... My whole point was to say that I don't like Gibson's movie: too much Christian! I would like to make comparisons with video clips but I do not have yet the ability to put links. But, for example, look on Youtube "The Recruitment Speech" from Il Vangelo secondo Matteo, and you will see the difference -- 1:40, when Jesus speaks about sparrows sold two for a penny. His voice changes, from masculine to feminine. It's not just a question of taste, it's structural and Darwinian.

@Hereandnow, the world is obviously a Mediterranean salad, with cucumbers and tomatoes. The dressing is ... castration. :lol:
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Hereandnow »

Le Vautre:
... castration
Pay no attention. I'm just a schizophrenic out for a walk.

In truth, I have known several schizophrenics, and they are, on the one hand, lost in social company (there is more than one kind), but on the other, they tend to live, when their meds don't turn them miserably normal, freely in the present. Personal hygiene notwithstanding....as well as the occasional howl.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021