Se examina la relación entre razones y causas de la acción en el psicoanálisis freudiano. Hay acuerdo en que Freud confundía, o por lo menos no hizo una distinción rigurosa a lo largo de su trabajo, entre razones y causas. Se analizarán dos interpretaciones al respecto. De un lado, la que sostiene que había en él una tendencia naturalista y que, en ese sentido, nunca abandonó su pretensión de encontrar las causas de la acción humana; de otro lado, la que (...) defiende que en Freud imperó siempre una orientación más psicologizante, con base en la cual defendió la búsqueda del sentido de actos fallidos, sueños, etc.; lo cual lo llevó a abandonar su orientación cientificista y a concentrarse en la comprensión o interpretación de la acción. Como alternativa se propone considerar que el conflicto en Freud se soluciona si dejamos de lado los dualismos razones / causas y comprensión /explicación. This paper examines the relationship between reasons and causes of action in Freudian psychoanalysis. There is an agreement on the issue that, throughout his work, Freud confused or at least did not make a rigorous distinction between reasons and causes. Two interpretations will be analyzed on this matter. On one hand, a position that holds that there was a naturalistic tendency in Freud and, in that sense, that he never abandoned his aspiration to find the causes of human action. On the other hand, a position that argues that a psychologizing orientation always prevailed in Freud, based on which he defended the search for the meaning of Freudian slips, dreams, etc; which led him to abandon his scientific orientation and to focus on understanding or interpreting the action. As an alternative it is suggested that the conflict in Freud is solved if we discard the dualisms reasons/causes and understanding/explanation. (shrink)

I demonstrate that analogies, both explicit and implicit, between Wittgenstein’s discussion of rituals, aesthetics, and psychoanalysis (and, indeed, his own philosophical methodology) suggest that he entertained the idea that Freud’s psychoanalytic project, when understood correctly—that is, as a descriptive project rather than an explanatory-hypothetical one—provides a “surveyable representation” (übersichtliche Darstellung) of certain psychological facts (as opposed to psychological concepts). The consequences of this account are that it offers an explanation of Wittgenstein’s admiration for and self-perceived affinity to Freud, as well (...) as of his apparent “know-nothing approach” to empirical psychology. (shrink)

The ArgumentDespite the enormous historical attention psychoanalysis has attracted, its popularization in Britain (as opposed to the United States) in the wake of the Great War has been largely overlooked. The present paper explores the sources and fate of the sudden “craze” for psychoanalysis after 1918, examining the content of the books through which the doctrine became widely known, along with the roles played by religious interests and the popular press. The percolation of Freudian and related language into everyday English (...) was effectively complete by the 1930s. Crucially, it is argued that in Britain the character of psychoanalytic theory itself demonstrably converged with the psychological needs of the British population in the postwar period. The situation in Britain was clearly different in many respects from that in the United States. This episode bears on numerous questions about scientific popularization, the distinctiveness of British psychoanalysis, and though it is treated here only peripherally the epistemological status or nature of psychoanalysis. More generally the present paper may be read as an exercise in reflexive disciplinary historiography, in which the levels of discipline (“Psychology”) and subject matter (“psychology”) are viewed as interpenetrating and mutually constitutive. (shrink)

The paper links Freud’s early work in the ‘Project for a scientific psychology’ with the psychoanalytic psychology of Kleinian object relations theory now current. Freud is often accused of introducing mechanism into his psychology and installing at its core an irreconcilable dichotomy of two disparate ways of explaining human behaviour. I suggest that Freud’s early mechanistic thinking is an attempt at what he only partly achieves, a functional account of the ‘mental apparatus’. I consider whether this way of conceptualising the (...) mind in functional terms is methodologically relevant to psychoanalytic investigation or whether it is at best heuristically useful. From a brief consideration of Kleinian object relations theory, illustrated by case material, I conclude that there are grounds for accepting the first of these alternatives. (shrink)

A. P. A. Hutchinson. What's the Point of Elucidation? Metaphilosophy, 2007, vol. 38, no. 5, pages 691-713. Published by and copyright Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. The definitive version of this article is available from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/.

In this article I examine three ways in which one might interpret Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations (PI). In a partial response to Hans‐Johann Glock's article in this journal, I suggest that since publication PI has, broadly speaking, been interpreted in three ways: doctrinal; elucidatory; or therapeutic. The doctrinal interpretation is shown to be, at best, difficult to sustain textually. The elucidatory (standard) interpretation, though seemingly closer to the text, is shown both to implicate Wittgenstein in some unfortunate philosophical commitments and to (...) face a problem of “motivation.” I argue that, correctly understood, any attempt to elucidate in PI is undertaken only in pursuit of the therapeutic goal. I conclude by arguing that the therapeutic interpretation is the only interpretation that can adequately make sense of Wittgenstein's text as a whole and the metaphilosophical remarks in particular. Furthermore, it is the only interpretation that can demonstrate Wittgenstein's continued importance and relevance as a philosopher. (shrink)

I argue for two theses: 1) An unconscious belief that p is not the same attitude as a conscious belief that p (here I am disagreeing with David Finkelstein and Richard Moran). 2) An unconscious belief that p is the attitude it is on account of its rational connection with the conscious belief that p (taking issue with Georges Rey). I defend parallel theses for emotions. I then argue that Wittgenstein can be understood as accepting both theses and that this (...) shows – contrary to the interpretations of Jacques Bouveresse and Donald Levy – that Wittgenstein can accept talk not only of descriptive but also dynamic unconscious states (in Freud's terminology). (shrink)

In this article, I endeavor to analyze Wittgenstein’s remarks on certain aspects of Freud’s theory in the hope to show that his criticism can be epistemologically fruitful to pinpoint some insurmountable theoretical difficulties in the metapsychological aspect of psychoanalysis, especially with regard to Freud’s insistent remarks that his deep psychology must be viewed as a scientific approach of psychic phenomena.

En este texto persigo dos propósitos. En primer lugar, abro un terreno común entre Wittgenstein y Gadamer a fin de entablar un diálogo entre los dos filósofos; dicho de otra manera, trato de ponerlos uno al lado del otro esperando que su proximidad haga que ganemos claridad sobre ambos. Muestro que el Wittgenstein de las Lecciones sobre estética y el Gadamer de la segunda parte de Verdad y método, especialmente en el apartado “La historicidad de la comprensión como principio hermenéutico”, (...) convergen en la tentativa de desarrollar una idea de ciencia no unitaria. Desde luego, en la búsqueda de este propósito desplazo el sentido de algunas de sus tesis, a fin de abrir ese terreno común. En segundo lugar, busco subrayar algunos puntos en los que me parece que la contribución de ambos autores a la filosofía de las ciencias sociales es especialmente importante. La problemática de la comprensión en ciencias sociales lleva consigo el germen de una concepción dualista de la ciencia. Ya el historicismo, desde Dilthey, construyó para las ciencias de la naturaleza y para las ciencias del espíritu un dualismo basado en la oposición entre explicación y comprensión. Esta controversia fue proseguida con la recepción de los planteamientos lingüísticos y hermenéuticos en ciencias sociales, que tomaban como hilo conductor las líneas de pensamiento Wittgenstein-Winch y Heidegger-Gadamer; este es uno de los puntos en que Wittgenstein y Gadamer pueden contribuir a las ciencias sociales. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to show that statistical analysis and hermeneutics are not mutually exclusive. Although statistical analysis may capture some patterns and regularities, statistical methods may themselves generate different types of interpretation and, in turn, give rise to even more interpretations. The discussion is lodged within the context of a quantitative analysis of dream content. I attempted to examine the dialogical texts of reported dreams monologically, but soon found myself returning to dialogic contexts to make sense of (...) statistical patterns. One could cogently argue that the reported statistical relationships in this study, rather than pointing to any interaction among the "signifieds," speak only to the relationships among the "signifiers" that were being played out through various actors on the analytic or scientific stage, since all of the constructs used in theorizing about, interpreting, and telling dreams come from the same discursive system. (shrink)