Changes

Both This [[Freuddiscourse]] and begins, according to [[Lacan]] use the term '[[science]]' , in the singularseventeenth century <ref>{{Ec}} p. 857</ref>, thus implying that there is a specific unified, homogeneous kind with the inauguration of discourse that can be called '[[scientific]]'modern physics.<ref>{{Ec}} p. 855</ref>.

This discourse begins, according to [[Lacan]], in the seventeenth century <ref>{{Ec}} p.857</ref>, with the inauguration of modern physics.<ref>{{Ec, 855</ref>.=====Sigmund Freud==========Science and Religion=====[[Freud]] regarded [[science]] (Ger. ''Wissenschaft'') as one of [[civilisationcivilization]]'s highest achievements, and opposed it to the reactionary forces of [[religion]].

On the one hand, he criticises modern criticizes [[science|modern science]] for ignoring the [[Symbolicsymbolic]] [[dimension ]] of [[human]] [[existence]] and thus encouraging modern man "to forget his [[subjectivity]]."<ref>{{E}} p.70</ref>.

He also compares modern [[science|modern science]] to a "fully realised [[Realparanoia]]ised paranoia," in the [[sense ]] that its totalising totalizing constructions resemble the architecture of a [[delusion]].<ref>{{Ec}} p.874</ref>

On the other hand[[Lacan]] implies that [[science|positivism]] is actually a deviation from "[[science|true science]]", these criticisms are not levelled at and his own [[model]] of [[science]] per se, but at owes more to the positivist model [[science|rationalism]] of Koyré, Bachelard and Canguilhem than to [[science|empiricism]].

=====Formalization=====In other [[words]], for [[Lacan]] implies that positivism is actually , what marks a deviation from 'true [[discourse]] as [[science|scientific]]', and his own model is a high degree of [[sciencemathematical]] [[formalization]] owes more to the rationalism of KoyrÈ, Bachelard and Canguilhem than to empiricism.

In other words, for This is what lies behind [[Lacan]], what marks a discourse as scientific is a high degree 's attempts to [[formalize]] [[psychoanalytic theory]] in [[terms]] of various [[mathematical]] [[formalisationalgebra|formulae]].

This is what lies behind These [[Lacan]]'s attempts to [[formalise]] [[psychoanalytic theoryalgebra|formulae]] in terms also encapsulate a further characteristic of various [[mathematicalscience|scientific discourse]] formulae , which is that it should be transmissible.<ref>{{see [[mathematics]], [[algebra]]TV}} p. 60</ref>.

These formulae also encapsulate =====Truth=====[[Lacan]] argues that [[science]] is characterized by a further characteristic of scientific discourse, which is that it should be transmissible.<ref>[[Lacanparticular]] [[relationship]] to [[truth]], 1973a: 60</ref>.

On the one hand, it attempts to monopolize [[Lacantruth]] argues that as its exclusive property <ref>{{Ec}} p. 79</ref>; and, on the other hand, [[science]] is characterised by in fact based on a particular relationship to [[foreclosure]] of the [[concept]] of [[truth]]as [[cause]].<ref>{{Ec}} p. 874</ref>.

On the one hand, it attempts =====Knowledge=====[[Science]] is also characterised by a particular relationship to monopolise [[truthknowledge]] (''[[knowledge|savoir]] as its exclusive property <ref>{{Ec}} p.79</ref>; and, on the other hand''), in that [[science]] is in fact based on a the [[foreclosureexclusion]] of any access to [[knowledge]] by recourse to intuition and thus forces all the concept of [[truthsearch]] for [[knowledge]] as to follow only the path of [[causereason]].<ref>{{Ec}} p.874831</ref>.

In [[Sciencestating]] is also characterised by a particular relationship to [[knowledge]] (''savoir''), in that [[sciencepsychoanalysis]] is based on operates only the exclusion of any access to [[knowledgesubject]] by recourse to intuition and thus forces all the search for of [[knowledgescience]] to follow only the path of reason.,<ref>{{Ec}} p.831858</ref>[[Lacan]] is arguing that [[psychoanalysis]] is not based on any appeal to an ineffable [[experience]] or flash of intuition, but on a [[process]] of reasoned dialogue, even when reason confronts its [[limit]] in [[madness]].

The modern subject is =====Human And Natural Sciences=====Although the 'subject [[distinction]] between the [[science|human sciences]] and the [[science|natural sciences]] had become quite well-established by the end of the nineteenth century, it does not [[sciencefigure]] in [[Freud]]' in the sense that this exclusively rational route to s [[knowledgework]] is now a common presupposition.

In stating that [[psychoanalysisLacan]] operates only , on the subject of [[science]].<ref>{{Ec}} pother hand, pays great attention to this distinction.858</ref>

However, rather than talking of the "[[science|human sciences]]" and the "[[Lacanscience|natural sciences]] is arguing that ", [[psychoanalysisLacan]] is not based on any appeal prefers instead to an ineffable experience or flash talk of intuition, but on a process of reasoned dialogue, even when reason confronts its limit in the "[[science|conjectural sciences]]" and the "[[madnessscience|exact sciences]]."

Although In 1965, however, [[Lacan]] problematizes the distinction between the human [[science|conjectural]]s and the natural [[science|exact]]s had become quite well-established by the end of the nineteenth century <ref>{{thanks to the work of Dilthey</ref>, it does not figure in [[Freudscience]]'s work. :

<blockquote>The opposition between the [[science|exact sciences]] and the [[Lacanscience|conjectural sciences]], on can no longer be sustained from the other hand, pays great attention [[moment]] when conjecture is susceptible to this distinctionan exact calculation and when exactitude is based only on a formalism which separates axioms and [[law]]s of grouping [[symbol]]s.<ref>{{Ec}} p. 863</ref></blockquote>

However, rather than talking Whereas in the last century physics provided a paradigm of exactitude for the "human [[science|exact sciences]]s" and which made the "natural [[science|conjectural sciences]]sseem sloppy by comparison," the arrival on the [[Lacanscene]] prefers instead to talk of the "conjectural [[sciencestructuralism|structural]] [[linguistics]]s" and redressed the "imbalance by providing an equally exact paradigm for the [[science|conjectural sciences]]s."

Whereas the exact =====Natural Sciences=====When [[Freud]] borrowed terms from other [[science]]s concern , it was always from the field of phenomena in which there is no one who uses a [[signifierscience|natural sciences]],<ref>{{S3}} p.186</ref> because these were the conjectural only [[science]]s are fundamentally different because they concern beings who inhabit the around in [[symbolicFreud]] 's day that provided a model of rigorous investigation and [[orderthought]].

In 1965, however, [[Lacan]] problematises argues that this paradigm shift is in fact implicit in [[Freud]]'s own reformulations of the concepts that he borrowed from the distinction between conjectural and exact [[science|natural sciences]]s:.

The opposition between the exact =====Structural Linguistics=====In other words, whenever [[scienceFreud]]s and the conjectural borrowed concepts from [[sciencebiology]]s can no longer be sustained from the moment when conjecture is susceptible to an exact calculation and when exactitude is based only on he reformulated those concepts so radically that he created a formalism totally new paradigm which separates axioms and was quite [[lawalien]]s of grouping to its [[symbolbiological]]s.<ref>{{Ec}} porigins.863</ref>

Whereas in Thus, according to [[Lacan]], [[Freud]] anticipated the last century physics provided a paradigm findings of exactitude for the exact modern [[structural]] [[sciencelinguists]]s which made the conjectural such as [[scienceSaussure]]s seem sloppy by comparison, and his work can be better [[understood]] in the arrival on the scene light of structural linguistics redressed the imbalance by providing an equally exact paradigm for the conjectural these [[sciencelinguistics|linguistic concepts]]s.

When =====Is Psychoanalysis a Science?=====[[Freud]] borrowed terms from other [[science]]s, it was always from the natural quite [[scienceexplicit]]s because these were in affirming the only [[science|scientific status]]s around in of [[Freudpsychoanalysis]]'s day that provided a model of rigorous investigation and thought. :

<blockquote>"While it was originally the [[Lacanname]] differs from of a particular therapeutic method [...] it has now also become the name of a [[Freudscience]] by importing concepts mainly from - the "[[science]]s of subjectivity," and by aligning [[psychoanalytic theoryunconscious]] with these rather than with the [[naturalmental]] [[scienceprocesses]]s. "<ref>{{F}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|An Autobiographical Study]]'', 1925a: [[SE]] XX, 70</ref></blockquote>

However, he also insisted on the unique [[Lacancharacter]] argues that this paradigm shift is in fact implicit in of [[Freudpsychoanalysis]]'s own reformulations of the concepts that he borrowed sets it apart from the [[natural]] other [[science]]s.:

In other words, whenever =====Jacques Lacan=====The question of the status of [[Freudpsychoanalysis]] borrowed concepts from [[biology]] he reformulated those concepts so radically that he created a totally new paradigm and its relationship with other disciplines is also one to which was quite alien to its [[biologicalLacan]] originsdevotes much attention.

ThusIn his pre-war writings, according to [[Lacanpsychoanalysis]], is seen unreservedly in scientific terms.<ref>{{L}} "[[Freud]] anticipated the findings Work of modern structural linguists such as [[SaussureJacques Lacan|Au-delà du 'principe de realité']]", and his work can be better understood in the light of these linguistic concepts1936. {{E}} pp.73-92</ref>

Is =====Art=====In 1953, he states that in the opposition [[science]] versus [[art]], [[psychoanalysis a ]] can be located on the side of [[scienceart]]? , on condition that the term "[[Freudart]] was quite explicit " is understood in affirming the scientific status of psychoanalysis: 'While sense in which it was originally used in the name of a particular therapeutic methodMiddle Ages,' he wrote in 1924, 'it has now also become when the name of a "[[liberal]] [[sciencearts]] - the " included arithmetic, geometry, [[sciencemusic]] of unconscious mental processes' and grammar.<ref>{{L}} "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|The Neurotic's Individual Myth]]," trans. Martha Evans, in L. Spurling (ed.), ''[[Sigmund Freud]]: Critical Assessments'', vol. II, 1925a''The [[Theory]] and [[Practice]] of Psychoanalysis'', [[London]] and New York: SE XXRoutledge, 1989, p. 224. [Originally published in ''[[Psychoanalytic]] Quaterly'', 7048 (1979)].</ref>.

However, he also insisted on the unique character of psychoanalysis that sets it apart <blockquote>"Psychoanalysis is not a religion. It proceeds from the other same status as [[science]]s; 'Every [[science]] is based on observations and experiences arrived at through the medium of our psychical apparatusitself. But since our [[science]] has as its subject that apparatus itself, the analogy ends here' "<ref>{{[[Freud]], 1940a: SE XXIII, 159S11}} p. 265</ref>.The question of the status of psychoanalysis and its relationship with other disciplines is also one to which [[Lacan]] devotes much attention. In his pre-war writings, psycho- analysis is seen unreservedly in scientific terms <ref>{{e.g. [[Lacan]], 1936</refblockquote>. However, after 1950 [[Lacan]]'s attitude to the question becomes much more complex.

In 1953=====Scientific Status=====If, he states that in the opposition as [[Lacan]] argues, a [[science]] versus is only constituted as such by isolating and defining its particular object of enquiry, [[artLacan]], argues that [[psychoanalysis can be located ]] has actually set [[psychology]] on a scientific footing by providing it with a proper object of enquiry -- the side [[imago]]; <ref>{{L}} "[[Work of artJacques Lacan|Propos sur la causalité psychique]]", on condition that the term 'art' is understood in the sense in which it was used in the Middle Ages{{E}} [1946]. pp. 151-93</ref><ref>{{Ec}} p. 188</ref> then, when in 1965 he isolates the 'liberal arts' included arithmetic[[objet petit a]]'' as the [[object]] of [[psychoanalysis]], geometry, music and grammar he is in effect claiming a [[science|scientific status]] for [[psychoanalysis]].<ref>{{[[Lacan]]: 1953b: 224Ec}} p. 863</ref>.

However, in the opposition [[science]] versus religion, from this point on [[Lacan]] follows comes increasingly to question this view of [[Freudpsychoanalysis]] in arguing that psychoanalysis has more in common with scientific discourse than religious discourse: 'psychoanalysis is not as a religion. It proceeds from the same status as [[[[science]]]] itself <ref>{{Sl1, 265</ref>.

If, as In the same year he states that [[psychoanalysis]] is not a [[Lacanscience]] argues, but a "practice" (''pratique'') with a "[[science|scientific vocation]] is only constituted as such by isolating and defining its particular object of enquiry ",<ref>{{see [[Lacan]], 1946, where he argues that psychoanalysis has actually set psychology on a scientific footing by providing it with a proper object of enquiry - the imago - Ec, 188}} p. 863</ref>, then, when though in 1965 the same year he isolates also speaks of 'the objet petit a as the object of psychoanalysis, he is in effect claiming a scientific status for psychoanalysis [[science|psychoanalytic science]]."<ref>{{Ec, 863}} p. 876</ref>.

However, from this point on [[Lacan]] comes increasingly to question this view of psychoanalysis as a [[science]]. In the same year he states that psychoanalysis is not a [[science]] but a 'practice' <ref>{{pratique</ref> with a 'scientific vocation' <ref>{{Ec, 863</ref>, though in the same year he also speaks of 'the psychoanalytic [[science]]' <ref>{{Ec, 876</ref>. By 1977 he has become more categorical:

<blockquote>Psychoanalysis is not a [[science]]. It has no scientific status - it merely waits and hopes for it. Psychoanalysis is a delusion - a delusion which is expected to produce a [[science]]. . . . It is a scientific delusion, but this doesn't mean that [[analytic ]] practice will ever produce a [[science]]. <ref>{{L}} ''[[Lacan]]Seminar XXIV| Le Séminaire. Livre XXIV. L'insu que sait de l'une bévue s'aile à mourre, 1976-777'', published in ''Ornicar?'', nos 12-18, 1977-9; seminar [[Seminar]] of 11 January 1977; ''[[Ornicar?]]'', 14: 4</ref></blockquote>

=====Linguistics and Mathematics=====However, even when [[Lacan]] makes such statements, he never abandons the [[project ]] of formalising [[formalizing]] [[psychoanalytic theory ]] in [[linguistic ]] and mathematical terms. Indeed, the tension between the scientific formalism of the MATHEME and the semantic profusion of lalangue constitutes one of the most interesting features of [[Lacanmathematical]]'s later workterms.

==See Also=={{See}}* [[Algebra]]* [[Art]]* [[Biology]]||* [[Discourse]]* [[scienceKnowledge]], 1, 7-8, 10-11, 19, 34, 39-40, 47, 77, 86, 151, 163, 225-6, 231, 234, 245-6, 259, * 264, 274, astrology and astronomy 152, chemistry 9, chinese astronomy 151-2, [[Linguistic]]||* economics, 210, ethology, animal, 279, genetics 151, human [[scienceMathematics]]s, 7, 20, 43, 223, * physics, 10, 163, physilogy, 163,[[Matheme]]* [[Nature]]||* [[Psychoanalysis]]* [[Psychology]]* [[Religion]]||* [[Subject]]* [[Treatment]]* [[Seminar XITruth]]{{Also}}

 [[Category:scienceScience]]

[[Category:HelpConcepts]][[Category:Terms]][[Category:Edit]] __NOTOC__