Talk:The Symbolic

this makes no sense, some one ripped this off from some long winded humanities book

I totally agree. This pretends to 'explain' Lacan's Symbolic by placing it in relation to a confused selection of other Lacanian terms. This does not seem to be appropriate for Wikipedia. If we want that we can just go to http://nosubject.com/. Surely someone can do a better one.

nearly every source is from Lacan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.10.100.165 (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree, too. This article attempts to explain the history of the Symbolic without defining the concept. How do we get it flagged?

i think its rad fools — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.67.188 (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides concerns about legibility to non-specialists, this article also has an excessively adulatory tone that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Note expressions like "triumph," "as fruitful as that of the symbolic order," "enduring legacy," "triumphal exploration." This tone runs throughout, so I'm not sure what superficial editing can accomplish.65.112.10.213 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basic restructuring

The current article can be entirely summed up in a single "history" section, then reduced to be fit reasonably within a single section, or subdivided further in more neutral terms, such as the dates/decades the events happen. This article in its entirety is quite bad in its current form. Loverthehater (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]