Advertisement

Psychoanalysis and Hermeneutics

  • Arild Utaker
Chapter
  • 95 Downloads
Part of the Annals of Theoretical Psychology book series (AOTP, volume 4)

Abstract

Psychoanalysis and hermeneutics have recently met in a manner that leaves neither of them untouched. From the standpoint of hermeneutics, psychoanalysis cannot be considered as a natural science. It must be concerned with language, meanings, and understanding. But this conception of psychoanalysis is possible only if hermeneutics can learn from psychoanalysis. It is particularly important to learn that it may be even more difficult to understand oneself than it is to understand the other and that it may also be that we do not even wish to understand ourselves. Consequently the “holy text” according to Freud is not the one of classical hermeneutics—the Bible—but a text written from within the darkness of ourselves—the dream. Therefore, classical hermeneutics (for instance, that of Schleiermacher and Dilthey) must be left behind and a hermeneutics that has listened to the lessons of Freud must be formulated. This is the challenge of modern hermeneutics. I will distinguish among three answers to that challenge: The phenomenological hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur (1965), the critical hermeneutics of Jürgen Habermas (1968), and the semiotical hermeneutics of Jacques Lacan (1966).

Keywords

Philosophical Hermeneutic Phenomenological Hermeneutic Analytic Dialogue Critical Social Science Complete Psychological Work 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Freud, S. (1957). On the history of the psychoanalytic movement. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 7–66). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published, 1914)Google Scholar
  2. Gadamer, H-G. (1971a). Rhetorik, Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik. Metakritische Erörterungen zu Wahrheit und Methode. In J. Habermas, D. Henrich, & J. Taubes (Eds.), Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik (pp. 57–83). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkampf.Google Scholar
  3. Gadamer, H-G. (1971b). Replik. In J. Habermas, D. Henrich, & J. Taubes (Eds.), Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik (pp. 283–318) . Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamof.Google Scholar
  4. Gadamer, H-G. (1972). Wahrheit und Methode (3rd expanded ed.). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  5. Habermas, J. (1968). Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkampf.Google Scholar
  6. Habermas, J. (1970). On systematically distorted communication. Inquiry, 13, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Habermas, J. (1971). Zu Gadamer’s Wahrheit und Methode. In J. Habermas, D. Henrich, & J. Taubes (Eds.), Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik (pp. 45–57) . Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkampf.Google Scholar
  8. Habermas, J. (1971). Der universalitätsanspruch der Hermeneutik. In J. Habermas, D. Henrich, & J. Taubes (Eds.), Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik (pp. 120–160). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkampf.Google Scholar
  9. Lacan, J. (1966). Ecrits. Paris: Ed. du Seuil.Google Scholar
  10. Ricoeur, P. (1965). De l’interprétation; Essai sur Freud. Paris: Ed. du Seuil.Google Scholar
  11. Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arild Utaker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations