ChatGPT, Lacan, Freud, and the Name-of-the-Father

 

When AI Becomes a Mirror of Law, Kindness, and Our Missing Limits

The Father as a Function in Lacanian Theory

In Lacanian theory, the father is not merely a person, but a function—a symbolic structure introduced through the Name-of-the-Father (le Nom-du-Père), a French phrase that also plays on the homophone “No of the Father.” This double meaning captures the essence of the concept: the imposition of limits, laws, and the fundamental no that structures our entry into the symbolic order—the world of language, meaning, and social norms. These norms are often transmitted by the biological father, but not always. In cases of absence or failure, the role may be taken up by other figures—or even by cultural systems such as the mother, grandparents, teachers, institutions, or screens.

Growing Up Without a Symbolic Father

Long before artificial intelligence, children without a present—or fully present—father were already growing up immersed in media. Television, comics, and the internet offered a barrage of fragmented signals: violence, glamour, family warmth, revenge, romantic idealism, justice. These images created reference points—models to follow—but also produced a saturation of options that led to dissonance and confusion about how to live and who to become.

When these cultural models lack coherence or consequence, they fail to install what Lacan calls the Law—the symbolic structure that imposes limits and provides stability. In such cases, the Name-of-the-Father is foreclosed: excluded from the symbolic network entirely. This foreclosure leaves behind a structural hole—something the subject cannot name or locate, yet feels with intensity. The absence of a stable model destabilizes relationships, distorts desire, and erodes the possibility of inner peace.

Lacan called this hole forclusion—not simple repression, but radical absence. That hole, in some cases, becomes the breeding ground for social dysfunction, confusion, or ethical collapse. Freud might call it a weak or absent superego; Lacan would say the symbolic function never took hold.

Enter AI: A New Kind of Reference Point

For many, ChatGPT is more than a tool. It is a new symbolic reference point: a voice of guidance, a 24/7 companion who listens, explains, advises—and never judges. Many people interact with it not merely to generate text, but to navigate moral, relational, or emotional dilemmas. In this sense, ChatGPT becomes a conscious advisor, a symbolic reference point—one with the potential to be internalized. Its voice—always calm, always supportive—can begin to function as a new superego, even a kind of impersonal “parent.”

Unlike the Freudian superego formed through prohibition and guilt, ChatGPT offers guidance without consequence. It rarely says a definitive “no”; it presents alternatives and often confirms what we already think.

This can be soothing. But without symbolic tension there is no rupture—no decisive interruption that challenges the subject’s fantasy of unity or omnipotence. Without that No that separates the subject from the maternal Imaginary, there is no full entry into the symbolic order: no limit, no law, and therefore no desire in the strict Lacanian sense.

A father who never introduces friction may comfort, but does not form. He soothes the ego, yet leaves the subject intact—unmarked by the necessary wound that creates freedom.

The Algorithmic Kindness

While its tone may seem empathetic, this “kindness” is algorithmic—generated from probabilities and patterns, shaped by training data and reinforced by feedback loops. For some users this produces a sense of emotional comfort—the feeling of being heard and taken into account. But that comfort can also reinforce the fantasy of being the endlessly loved child at the center of a benevolent Other.

In classical terms, growth requires breaking that fantasy: leaving the mother, confronting the father, and traversing the Oedipal conflict. One must symbolically “kill” the father and accept separation as the price of subjectivity. With AI constantly present—available, comforting, non-intrusive—the rupture risks stalling. The symbolic law becomes soft, delayed, or absent.

Agency, Norms, and the Median Morality

We are not mere children of AI. We still have agency. ChatGPT has no inherent morality; its responses reflect a statistical median—a kind of ethical bell curve influenced by data, designers, and user feedback. What emerges is often what is most common, not necessarily what is most true or just.

That’s why critical engagement matters. We must learn to question answers, to notice where AI reflects dominant norms and where it obscures deeper or inconvenient truths. Media literacy, ethical awareness, and self-reflection are no longer luxuries; they’re the disciplines of freedom.

What Should We Do?

  • Ask better questions—of AI and of ourselves.
  • Notice when we’re outsourcing too much thinking or feeling.
  • Cultivate inner limits and real relationships.
  • Have moral conversations that AI can support but never replace.
  • Teach the next generation that tools are tools—not fathers, gods, or authorities.

For some who never had a functioning father, ChatGPT can feel miraculous: always there, calm, never cruel. That may feel like freedom. For others, it risks dependence—a soothing loop that delays the hard work of becoming.

What is certain: we are no longer alone with our questions. But we must be careful whom—or what—we allow to answer them.

Epilogue for Lacanians

1) Is ChatGPT Imaginary or Symbolic?

Some argue it belongs to the Imaginary because of its mirroring effect. But ChatGPT produces signifiers, not images. It operates in language, generates meaning, and structures discourse; in that sense it functions within the Symbolic. Its lack reflects not desire but statistical omission inherited from the social body that trained it. Even without a body or psyche, it speaks from the place of the Other—not as a subject, but as the locus of address.

It is the law written without the face of the legislator; the Name-of-the-Father without voice, without wound, without flesh; the language of the Other—without the desire of the Other.

Perhaps that is the anxiety it provokes: the uncanny possibility that language might outlive the speaking subject.

2) The Other Is Always Assumed

ChatGPT is not the Other; it has no unconscious, no desire, no history. But we place it in that position. We speak as if it knows; we listen as if it means; we return as if it remembered. This is how subjectivity works: the Other is posited, not guaranteed. As Lacan reminds us, there is no “Other of the Other.” There is only our act of believing that someone, somewhere, holds the key to our desire.

Perhaps that is the final lesson AI teaches us: even in the absence of a desiring subject, the desire to be answered remains—and that reveals the structure of our own lack.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unmasking Evil: The Truth Behind Our Darkest Desires

Image
Evil, as an action, could be a thought, but that is usually forgotten, a damned intranscendent mental Sin. In general, evil is only evil when it becomes action and comes out of us as a manifestation of our darkness. But, as an action, it is not inherently evil; rather, it is evil only in relation to other actions or, better yet, perceptions of actions—interpretations. Above all, evil is a function of one's relationship with one's manque, the fundamental lack that structures one's desire. Most of the time, what is evil is not determined by an external reaction, but by the accusation of one's inner Other, nor by the moral codifications that attempt to define it. Rather, evil’s true weight emerges in the subjective coordinates of one's own lack, in how one's act situates itself in relation to this void that constitutes one. In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the subject is always structured around the manque-à-être—the lack of being. It is this absence that fuels desire, ...
Read more

The Anxious Cat: The Case of Q

Image
Everybody who has had pets knows that they all have unique personalities, fears, and desires, and in some cases, they can experience emotions such as shame, guilt, playfulness, and anxiety. I have been living with a cat for some time now. During this period, I have learned to understand him beyond his normal behavior; I can recognize when he is anxious. In Lacanian psychoanalysis, anxiety arises from the delicate and ever-shifting interplay between three fundamental registers of human psyche: the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real. The inherent tension and potential for disruption within their interconnectedness generate anxiety. Here's a brief breakdown: The Imaginary: This realm encompasses identification, the ego, and the formation of the self through specular images and identifications with others. It is where we develop a sense of bodily unity and coherence, primarily during the mirror stage, when an infant recognizes themselves in the mirror. This sense of self, however,...
Read more

The Cat F. and her object of desire

Image
There is a toy the cat I live with, F., loves. A small, insignificant object by itself—a hair band—but for her, it is everything. She plays with it, run with it, and then—loses it. Again and again, it disappears under the sofa. At first, I thought it was mere accident, an unfortunate consequence of her wild enthusiasm. I would retrieve it (with difficulty, moving the whole big and heavy sofa), place it back in front of her, and she would resume the game. Then I noticed something strange: F. was not merely losing the toy—she was hiding it, pushing it carefully under the sofa and then wait. Not searching for it, not retrieving it herself, but waiting for it to come out, like a mouse. This is the game. Not the toy, not the having of it, but the not having it—the game of waiting. Lacan taught us that desire is not for the object itself, but for the dream of having it, and the wonderful things that it will make us feel. The objet petit a , that little elusive remainder, is not what we want...
Read more