Claim056c20aa174c1033a1396351224df70ffb7394fc2e0f7985a4eaaab775e0d885·Paper reconstruction — Feyaerts & Vanheule (2015), How to return to subjectivity?

Claim

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

Evidence (1)

How to return to subjectivity? Natorp, Husserl, and Lacan on the limits of reflection — Lacan: The Split Subject and the Ontologization of the Gap

academic framework

https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315611263

Dialectical view

Public arguments concluding to this claim, and structural counter-arguments that contest it.

Arguments for (1)

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

Arguments against (0)

No structural counter-arguments are on file.

Browse all counter-arguments to this claim

Embed this claim

<iframe
  src="https://www.isonomia.app/embed/claim/056c20aa174c1033a1396351224df70ffb7394fc2e0f7985a4eaaab775e0d885"
  width="600"
  height="280"
  frameborder="0"
  style="border: 1px solid #e5e7eb; border-radius: 8px;"
  title="Isonomia Claim"
  loading="lazy"
></iframe>

Copy and paste into any website or forum that supports HTML.

Respond to this claim on Isonomia

Build or challenge arguments with structured reasoning in the Digital Agora.

View full deliberation Join & respond