Сцієнтиське самонерозуміння психоаналізу
Вантажиться...
Дата
2019
Назва журналу
Номер ISSN
Назва тому
Видавець
СумДПУ імені А. С. Макаренка
Анотація
Стаття присвячена філософсько-методологічному дослідженню наукового статусу психоаналітичного вчення. Розглянуті взаємозв’язки між класичним психоаналізом і філософією. Особлива увага приділяється критиці психоаналітичного вчення з боку представників позитивізму. Показана невідповідність основних постулатів психоаналітичної теорії критеріям верифікації та фальсифікації. Окреслена проблема наукового самонерозуміння психоаналізу. Зроблена спроба проаналізувати ставлення до класичного психоаналізу в системі міф – філософія – наука.
Methodological aspects of psychoanalytic doctrine have been investigated, the relationship between psychoanalysis and philosophy has been examined, and an attempt has been made to analyze the attitude towards psychoanalysis in the system of myth – philosophy – science. Psychoanalysis as the embodiment of «non-classical psychology» arises in the epistemological crisis conditions, in the atmosphere of general theoretical debates about the psychic nature and on the basis of scientific determinism. Moving from the purely biological concept, psychoanalysis is transformed into the cultural and philosophical version. The psychoanalysis evolution, and therefore the wide range of concepts and interpretations of psychic phenomena, allows speaking about psychoanalysis as the theory that deserves attention. L. Wittgenstein, in his early period, predicted the anti-metaphysical pathos of neo-positivists. He criticized psychoanalysts, arguing that psychology is fruitless because of its conceptual confusion. Psychoanalysis has been criticized by neo-positivism (especially R. Karnap) as a theory that does not conform to the verification principle –the process of establishing the truth of scientific statements through their empirical verification, and critical rationalism of K. Popper and his followers (I. Lakatosh): Z. Freudʼs theory turned out to be fundamentally unfalsified, and therefore unscientific. Many science philosophers (do not agree with the K. Popperʼs conclusions, believing that S. Freud made the assumptions, which can still be falsified, the most important of which is the «coincidence argument». In the 21st century psychoanalysis in general and psychoanalytic studies of psychoanalysis went beyond purely scientistʼs determination in the philosophy realm. Psychoanalytic concepts actively influence different directions of modern philosophy, being the gravity centre of different worldview orientations, no matter how sharply and fundamentally they criticize individual psychoanalytic positions and concepts of biologicalizing reductionism, or vice versa, uncritically borrowing the psychological basic ideas.
Methodological aspects of psychoanalytic doctrine have been investigated, the relationship between psychoanalysis and philosophy has been examined, and an attempt has been made to analyze the attitude towards psychoanalysis in the system of myth – philosophy – science. Psychoanalysis as the embodiment of «non-classical psychology» arises in the epistemological crisis conditions, in the atmosphere of general theoretical debates about the psychic nature and on the basis of scientific determinism. Moving from the purely biological concept, psychoanalysis is transformed into the cultural and philosophical version. The psychoanalysis evolution, and therefore the wide range of concepts and interpretations of psychic phenomena, allows speaking about psychoanalysis as the theory that deserves attention. L. Wittgenstein, in his early period, predicted the anti-metaphysical pathos of neo-positivists. He criticized psychoanalysts, arguing that psychology is fruitless because of its conceptual confusion. Psychoanalysis has been criticized by neo-positivism (especially R. Karnap) as a theory that does not conform to the verification principle –the process of establishing the truth of scientific statements through their empirical verification, and critical rationalism of K. Popper and his followers (I. Lakatosh): Z. Freudʼs theory turned out to be fundamentally unfalsified, and therefore unscientific. Many science philosophers (do not agree with the K. Popperʼs conclusions, believing that S. Freud made the assumptions, which can still be falsified, the most important of which is the «coincidence argument». In the 21st century psychoanalysis in general and psychoanalytic studies of psychoanalysis went beyond purely scientistʼs determination in the philosophy realm. Psychoanalytic concepts actively influence different directions of modern philosophy, being the gravity centre of different worldview orientations, no matter how sharply and fundamentally they criticize individual psychoanalytic positions and concepts of biologicalizing reductionism, or vice versa, uncritically borrowing the psychological basic ideas.
Опис
Ключові слова
філософія, наука, психоаналіз, сцієнтизм, антисцієнтизм, верифікація, фальсифікація, демаркація, philosophy, science, psychoanalysis, scientism, anti-scientism, verification, falsification, demarcation
Бібліографічний опис
Вертель, А. В. Сцієнтиське самонерозуміння психоаналізу [Текст] / А. В. Вертель, Т. О. Мотрук // Філософія науки: традиції та інновації : науковий журнал / МОН України, Сумський державний педагогічний університет імені А. С. Макаренка ; [редкол.: М. М. Ведмедєв, В. С. Бугрій, І. О. Снегірьов та ін.]. – Суми : СумДПУ ім. А. С. Макаренка, 2019. – № 1 (19). – С. 24–33.