The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

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?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
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 » 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.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2653
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Belindi » June 29th, 2019, 4:56 am

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 » June 29th, 2019, 10:38 am

Belindi wrote:
June 29th, 2019, 4:56 am
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.
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: 2653
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Belindi » June 30th, 2019, 6:58 am

Le Vautre wrote:
June 29th, 2019, 10:38 am
Belindi wrote:
June 29th, 2019, 4:56 am
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.
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 » June 30th, 2019, 12:15 pm

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: 763
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 » July 2nd, 2019, 1:07 pm

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: 763
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 » July 2nd, 2019, 1:09 pm

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: 763
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 » July 2nd, 2019, 1:18 pm

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: 763
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 » July 2nd, 2019, 1:23 pm

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: 763
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 » July 2nd, 2019, 1:24 pm

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: 2385
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 » 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.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2653
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The lacanian difference between Jesus and Christ

Post by Belindi » July 2nd, 2019, 6:10 pm

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: 2385
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 » July 3rd, 2019, 11:35 am

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 » July 3rd, 2019, 6:05 pm

@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: 2385
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 » July 3rd, 2019, 8:51 pm

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