briefly pick up an issue left open alas months ago. Briefly, because now has been a long time because after a few arguments with my "colleagues" I decided to be more present on the forum, with more concise work ... cut it up for this preamble, a few steps and just focus knots in my opinion particularly significant advancements referring to discussions that may follow.
My short, not a lecture on psychoanalysis in general, but an intervention of epistemological cut.
First, it should be remembered as the discipline is being born as a model of the natural sciences. Now, if there is no doubt play a role in the formation of Freud, some experiments neurologist Charcot - what that our eyes could call into question the scientific purpose - it must be said that the intention of the founder of psychoanalysis, which had very clear principles of physiology, was able to establish a new discipline of mind with a strong approach "doctor."
From here, precisely as intended. That were not enough to exonerate the detractors of the charge of "philosophizing" and nothing else. How could anyone claim to scientifically study something that you can not see and touch? Submit comments to unambiguous, for example in the laboratory? And what about the viewpoint of the observer?
Only after the Second World War, these criticisms have lost value. Could no longer support unplayability that an object of study prevented from scientific inquiry when precisely one of the exact sciences by definition, physics, had recently had to "negotiate" this assumption. In my opinion, well before (say a few thousand years), with the study of motion of the planets humanity had shown that the limited means could not restrict all of the work of scientists - though at the time (eg at the Maya) scholars were not called. But those ancient scholars had really only reason we can say for sure now!
The point then is how to scientifically study the mind, invisible and intangible, man? Or maybe, we should ask, how is it possible to study in a more scientific possible, in relation to knowledge and methods that we have in our time?
This was I think the genius of Freud. It makes no sense to criticize today for what, in our eyes, he wrong then. The balance between the resources available in different ages and aims pursued continues to seem active.
Among his followers, some were not up to that - I admit, often frustrating - undertaking. They are the ones who call themselves philosophers. Others have recovered mission of the teacher, trying to refine the technique and to identify ways of alternative verification of their work - for obvious reasons - to simulations with volunteers or other types of laboratory experiments.
if tomorrow there will be a machine that could retrieve images stored neatly in the brain, the feelings, thoughts precisely, "transcribe" in a historical continuum and back, in a process of interplay between the mind doctor and patient, to traumatic events or even the construction of meanings from the point of view of the observed , the psychoanalysts would lose their raison d'etre. But until then, I will continue to think that psychoanalysis, which however does not affect synergies with other disciplines * in order to better carry out their work, an irreplaceable lrimarrà approach, plus a little invasive to work on ' psychological uniqueness of each human being.
* An interesting example is the text Neuropsicanalisi Mark Solms.
0 comments:
Post a Comment