Editing Jacques Lacan (section)

===Mathematics in psychoanalysis===
In their work ''[[Fashionable Nonsense]]'' (1997), through which their stated intention was to show that "famous intellectuals" abuse scientific terminology and concepts,{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=x}} professors of [[Physics]] [[Alan Sokal]] and [[Jean Bricmont]] examine Lacan's frequent references to [[Mathematics]]. They are highly critical of his use of terms from [[mathematical]] fields, accusing him of "superficial erudition", of abusing scientific concepts that he does not understand, and of producing statements that are "[[not even wrong]]."{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|r={{cite book | last1=Sokal | first1=Alan |author-link=Alan Sokal |last2=Bricmont |first2=Jean |author2-link=Jean Bricmont | title=[[Fashionable Nonsense|Fashionable nonsense: postmodern intellectuals' abuse of science]] | publisher=Picador USA | publication-place=New York | year=1998 | isbn=0-312-20407-8 | oclc=39605994}}|p=21|q=[Lacan] mixes [the terms] up arbitrarily and without paying attention to their meaning.}}

In a seminar held in 1959, he confuses the [[irrational number]]s with the [[imaginary number]]s, despite claiming to be "precise."{{efn|Lacan is quoted defining "human life" as a "[[calculus]] in which zero is irrational."}} A year later, the mathematical "calculations" he presents in another seminar are assessed as "pure fantasies."{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=25-26}}

Sokal and Bricmont find Lacan to be "fond" of [[topology]], in which, though, they see Lacan committing serious errors. He uses technical terms erroneously, e.g. "[[Topological space|space]]", "[[Bounded set (topological vector space)|bounded]]", "[[Closed set|closed]]", and even "topology" itself, and posits claims about a literal and not just symbolic or even [[metaphor]]ical relation of topological mathematics with [[neurosis]].{{efn|E.g. Lacan states: "[The] [[torus]] really exists and it is exactly the structure of the [[Neurosis|neurotic]]. It is not an [[analogy|analogon]]; it is not even an [[abstraction]], because an abstraction is some sort of diminution of reality, and I think [the torus] is reality itself." Lacan (1970)}}{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=18-21}}<ref>{{cite book |last=Lacan |first=Jacques |date= 1 May 1970 |editor-last1= Macksey|editor-first1=Richard |editor-last2= Donato |editor-first2=Eugenio |title=The Languages of Criticism & the Sciences of Man: the Structuralist Controversy|publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University]] Press|pages=186–200 |chapter=Of structure as an inmixing of an otherwise prerequisite to any subject whatsoever|isbn=978-0801810473}}</ref>

In the book's preface, the authors state they shall not enter into the debate over the purely psychoanalytic part of Lacan's work.{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=17}} Nonetheless, after presenting their case, they comment that "Lacan never explains the relevance of his mathematical concepts for psychoanalysis," stating that "the link with psychoanalysis is not supported by any argument." Equally meaningless they find his "famous formulae of sexuation" offered in support for the maxim "There are no sexual relations." Considering the "cryptic writings," the "play on words" and "fractured syntax", as well as the "reverent exegesis" accorded to Lacan's work by "disciples", they point out a similarity to religiosity.{{efn|They end posing the rhetorical question whether we are "dealing with a new religion."}}{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=31-37}}