Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis: A Theory in Crisis

Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis

espanolEl autor plantea la cuestion de si resulta mas conveniente el desarrollo de una teoria clinica por un lado y una teoria psicoanalitica general mas abstracta por el otro o si, por el contrario, seria preferible centrarse unicamente en una teoria clinica. Con respecto a la primera propuesta, critica lo que el considera como la parte mas metapsicologica del pensamiento freudiano, especialmente aquella referida al modelo economico. Segun el autor, tal pensamiento esta basado en modelos cientificos decimononicos que considera obsoletos y que dificultan, a su entender, un acceso mas directo e inmediato a los hechos clinicos. Es por ello que finalmente se muestra partidario de una teoria psicoanalitica lo mas cercana posible a la clinica, asumiendo que ello pueda darse sin una metapsicologia basal de referencia. EnglishThe author considers the question of whether it is more appropriate to develop a clinical theory on one side and a more abstract general psychoanalytic theory on the other; or whether, by contrast, it would be preferable to focus solely on a single clinical theory. With regard to the first proposal, he criticizes what he considers to be the more metapsychological part of Freudian thought, in particular that part which refers to the economic model. According to the author, such thought is based on nineteenth-century scientific models which he considers obsolete and which, in his opinion, hinder a more direct and immediate access to the clinical facts. For this reason he is ultimately in favour of a psychoanalytic theory that adheres as closely as possible to clinical work, assuming that this can occur without a fundamental metapsychology as a framework. francaisL, au teur se demande s 'il est preferable d, avo ir un developpement d'une theorie clinique d'une part et une theorie psychanalytique plus abstraite de l'autre ou si, au contraire, il ne conviendrait pas de se centrer sur une theorie clinique. Par rapport a la premiere proposition, il critique ce qu'il considere comme la partie la plus metapsychologique de la pensee freudienne, specialement celle en rapport avec le modele economique. D'apres l'auteur, ces modeles se basent sur des modeles scientifiques du XIX siecle, qu'il considere perimes, et qui rendent difficile, d'apres lui, un acces plus direct et immediat aux faits cliniques. C' est pourquoi finalement il se montre partisan d'une theorie psychanalytique le plus proche possible de la clinique, en assumant que cela puisse avoir lieu sans une metapsychologie basale de reference.

¿Dos teorías o una? Perspectivas para el cambio en la teoría psicoanalítica

Departing from the debate between Julia Kristeva and Daniel Stern that produced a predictably intense polemic, the author tries to conceptualize the very different models of psychoanalysis that emerge. On the basis of the irreducibility between natural sciences and social sciences, these models are shown. They are situated in a historical context, paying attention to the epistemological debates that have accompanied psychoanalysis for many years. Differences are exemplified through the exploration of Kristeva's and Stern's perspectives about the functions of the mother figure. The debate between Stern and Kristeva took place in the context of the 2010 IFPS Forum.

Rómulo Aguillaume-Torres

Papers

One psychoanalysis or two