I was directed to read Laplanche on Freud's Copernican revolution by an editor because I used the term in my work. It's surprising to read how Lacanians give so much reverence to Freud only to paternalistically criticize his premises and conclusions since they don't refer to language (semiotics). Freud explicitly sets his revolution in the tradition of Schopenhauer, but for Laplanche this is Freud "denying the originality of his discovery". He also criticizes Freud's phylogenetic ideas for "recentering man among living things," which is a great example of how what is a slobbering stupidity in the mouth of the religious fanatic, somehow becomes high theory once Lacan is associated with it.
After reading the article it's hard to see what Freud actually contributed to psychoanalysis other than to save a seat for Lacan (that his followers could later claim to be a throne).
The goal of good scholarship is to be able to account for as much in the text as possible with one's formulations. To also find the thinkers overall sensibility, and the contradictions in it, and put a nice frame around the original picture.
The goal isn't to fixate on a footnote and use it as an opportunity to give a monologue on famous thinkers throughout history in order to let others know that you've read them in their native language.
Isn't this just intimidation? Isn't this just another way for egoists to control knowledge by passing off all their memorization as wisdom?
Behind the semblance of intellectual potency, it is no doubt the patient who loses as the altruists ignore their phenomenological insights and search for the hidden, deeper meaning in slavish devotion to their father-substitutes.
But make no mistake, to overcome the Cartesian error the altruist must teach the egoist to overcome his solipsism and the egoist must teach the altruist to overcome her theism.