On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Ricoeur’s work entitled, "Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation," Études Ricœuriennes/Ricœur Studies devotes Vol. 7, No 1 (2016) to the question of the relationship between “Ricœur and Psychoanalysis.” Differences in perspective and theorization aside, the theoretical and clinical vocabulary of psychology still bears the mark of Freud’s teaching. If, on the one hand, there is wide variation in therapy structures, on the other hand, psychoanalysis still has a solid presence, directly or indirectly, in each of the following areas: the development of models of mental life, the interpretation of inner conflicts and behavioural problems, and the understanding of a certain number of mental functions. Indeed, mental distress caused by mental disorders always has a deep connection with the sphere of meaning. Likewise, none of the great philosophies of the twentieth century has been able to avoid comparison with the work of Freud and we can see that the dialectical relation between psychoanalysis and philosophy, which was formed through this type of comparison, did prove particularly fruitful. If psychoanalysis drew inspiration from philosophy in order to solve some of the knotty problems of interpretation and explication, and if none of the more significant psychoanalysts were able to avoid a certain amount of philosophical reflection on psychoanalysis, the staple diet of contemporary philosophy has been and continues to be psychoanalysis’ capital and the debate on the issues it raises. For that reason, Paul Ricoeur’s works represent a contribution of major importance. If “Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation,” published in the original French in 1965, clearly represents the philosopher’s main contribution to the question of the relationship between philosophy and psychoanalysis, the fact remains that, from “Freedom and Nature” (published in French in 1950) to “Living Up to Death” (published in French in 2007), Ricoeur does not stop reflecting on Freud’s works, while endeavouring to accord him a place of central importance in his critical hermeneutics. In contrast to the antagonistic views that “Freud and Philosophy” elicited in France in the 1960’s and 1970’s, a certain number of recent studies, although still spread over a wide area, seem to indicate that the Ricoeurian reflection on psychoanalysis is now receiving growing attention and that, in future, a new and very promising phase of the reception of the philosopher’s theses on this question will open up. From that perspective, we would hope to make this edition of ERRS the starting point for a new inquiry into the significance of Ricoeur’s relationship to psychoanalysis; and, as guest editors of the review, we opened to all contributions that focus on this theme, suggesting two main axes of reflections: a) one focusing on the place of psychoanalysis in Ricoeur’s work and b) a second focusing on the comparison between Ricoeur’s theses and other philosophical readings of Freud or more widely, between Ricoeur’s theses and the theoretical and clinical development of psychoanalysis.
Ricœur et la psychanalyse / Ricœur and psychoanalysis
BUSACCHI, VINICIO;
2016-01-01
Abstract
On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Ricoeur’s work entitled, "Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation," Études Ricœuriennes/Ricœur Studies devotes Vol. 7, No 1 (2016) to the question of the relationship between “Ricœur and Psychoanalysis.” Differences in perspective and theorization aside, the theoretical and clinical vocabulary of psychology still bears the mark of Freud’s teaching. If, on the one hand, there is wide variation in therapy structures, on the other hand, psychoanalysis still has a solid presence, directly or indirectly, in each of the following areas: the development of models of mental life, the interpretation of inner conflicts and behavioural problems, and the understanding of a certain number of mental functions. Indeed, mental distress caused by mental disorders always has a deep connection with the sphere of meaning. Likewise, none of the great philosophies of the twentieth century has been able to avoid comparison with the work of Freud and we can see that the dialectical relation between psychoanalysis and philosophy, which was formed through this type of comparison, did prove particularly fruitful. If psychoanalysis drew inspiration from philosophy in order to solve some of the knotty problems of interpretation and explication, and if none of the more significant psychoanalysts were able to avoid a certain amount of philosophical reflection on psychoanalysis, the staple diet of contemporary philosophy has been and continues to be psychoanalysis’ capital and the debate on the issues it raises. For that reason, Paul Ricoeur’s works represent a contribution of major importance. If “Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation,” published in the original French in 1965, clearly represents the philosopher’s main contribution to the question of the relationship between philosophy and psychoanalysis, the fact remains that, from “Freedom and Nature” (published in French in 1950) to “Living Up to Death” (published in French in 2007), Ricoeur does not stop reflecting on Freud’s works, while endeavouring to accord him a place of central importance in his critical hermeneutics. In contrast to the antagonistic views that “Freud and Philosophy” elicited in France in the 1960’s and 1970’s, a certain number of recent studies, although still spread over a wide area, seem to indicate that the Ricoeurian reflection on psychoanalysis is now receiving growing attention and that, in future, a new and very promising phase of the reception of the philosopher’s theses on this question will open up. From that perspective, we would hope to make this edition of ERRS the starting point for a new inquiry into the significance of Ricoeur’s relationship to psychoanalysis; and, as guest editors of the review, we opened to all contributions that focus on this theme, suggesting two main axes of reflections: a) one focusing on the place of psychoanalysis in Ricoeur’s work and b) a second focusing on the comparison between Ricoeur’s theses and other philosophical readings of Freud or more widely, between Ricoeur’s theses and the theoretical and clinical development of psychoanalysis.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
