Lacan re-describes this split as enunciation vs. utterance and as the "fading" of the subject in the signifier.

Lacan re-describes this split as enunciation vs. utterance and as the "fading" of the subject in the signifier.

• Therefore reflection structurally splits the subject (subject of reflection / reflected subject); reconstruction objectifies too, so no method escapes.
  Evidence for this premise (1)

  How to return to subjectivity? Natorp, Husserl, and Lacan on the limits of reflection — Natorp and Husserl Reconsidered: The Split Within Reflection

  pure consciousness

  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315611263
• The subject tries to represent itself in the signifying chain but loses itself there.
• The phenomenological split (subject of reflection / reflected subject) recurs, in structuralist terms, as enunciation / utterance.

These are challenges this argument’s reasoning pattern must still withstand. Answering them on Isonomia strengthens the argument.

• Are there critical differences?Open
• Are the relevant similarities strong?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests