Talk:Name of the Father

This article is a trip

It really needs some severe clarification. As is, it borders on the nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.75.236 (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem

This article needs desperately to clearly situate the Name of the Father in the symbolic. Phil Sandifer 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem, the second coming

This talk page desperately needs to avoid the use of split infinitives. Alex Smith 00:13, 7 August 2006

Disbelief

The article desperately needs to clearly show that people are able to really take any of this seriously. It needs to actually convince the reader that this is for real. (Which of course it isn't.) 131.111.8.96 00:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the entire community at wikipedia is conspiring agianst you by creating false Lacanian terms. You should probably read some Lacan. I would then suggest that you go in for analysis on your paranoia problem. --Thaddius 18:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thadius, I think what the user was trying to say was that this article makes little sense to people unfamiliar with the topic. That makes it a poor encyclopedic entry. Instead of encouraging us to "read some Lacan", perhaps you could add a better introduction for the layman? In fact, why don't I just as a {{context}} tag to the top! --Knulclunk 05:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many who find Freudian and Lacanian terms to be false, which is their prerogative, but the fact is that there is a lot of literature on this stuff. The random user here says that they believe the term doesn't exist as a quip against its supporters. There are a lot of such comments on the talk pages of other Freudian and Lacanian terms. --Thaddius 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem

Line 2 of this article clearly situates the Name of the Father in the Symbolic. Please read carefully before disputing.

Okee dokee

Knulclunk, you said that there is a lot of things you do not understand on the article. Many of the complicated terms (that are VERY complicated) are linked. The Name of the Father is closely related to Semiotics and the language of signs and codes and the signifier and signified. Again these are complicated terms and understanding this article requires understanding of semiotics. If after reading those articles you still have problems comprehending the terms please inform me which need to be explained in layman terms and I will do what I can (keep in mind that I am not a psychoanalytic psychologist). Because of the antagonism most in psychology have toward both Freud and Lacan, there are very few wikipedia users out there who are willing to devote time to making comprehensive articles on these terms so I can imagine that the linked articles are not as comprehensive as one would like, so I completely understand if, after reading all the linked articles, you do not understand the terms. But. since semiotics is linked in the article and the semiotics article is very comprehensive, there is absolutely no need for a context template. --Thaddius 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, the Semiotics page is very accessible, and helps me understand better. The signs page could use some gentle editing to keep us non-philosophers from running away.

I would start by rewriting the introduction to signs like this:

In semiotics, a sign is generally defined as, "...something that stands for something else, to someone in some capacity." (Marcel Danesi and Paul Perron, "Analyzing Cultures"). It may be understood as a discrete unit of meaning, whether denotative or connotative. Signs are not just words, but also and include words, images, gestures, scents, tastes, textures, sounds — essentially all of the ways in which information can be processed into a codified form and communicated as a message by any sentient , reasoning mind to another.

The Name of the Father should be written more like this:

In semiotics, the Name of the Father (or the Names of the Father) is the signifier associated with the signified concept of the father. Name of the Father is the sign that stands for the power and control that the concept “father” invokes in others. The Name of the Father is a symbolic {link helpful?} formation, and as such is a key part of the symbolic order {link unhelpful!}. In {the original?} French, Nom du père, there is an intentional verbal pun in the - the 'no' or prohibitive Law of the Father.

The Symbolic order page is a self-reffering dead end.
--Knulclunk 03:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the symbolic order page is nothing great. I'll throw that on a 'to do' list. Symbolic order should be explained a tad here and a lot on its own article, of course.

As for the French bit at the end, Lacan was French so, yes, Nom du père is the original. --Thaddius 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Abba

I noticed that in Judeo-Christian religion, the Name of the Father is Abba (see God the Father). The Gospel of Mark records that Jesus used the term Abba when praying to Jehovah God during His Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane shortly before His Crucifixion. This name could have some meaning in Lacan's language theory. ADM (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No definition of the term

It sounds like whoever wrote this page didn't actually know what the Name of the Father is supposed to be. Madler (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)