Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Mathematics

361 bytes added, 19:16, 20 May 2019
The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).
{{Top}}mathématiques{{Bottom}}
==Symbolic==
In his attempt to theorize the [[category]] of the [[symbolic]], [[Lacan]] adopts two basic approaches.
# The first approach is to describe it in [[terms]] borrowed from [[linguistics]], using a [[Saussure]]an-inspired [[model]] of [[language]] as a [[system]] of [[signifiers]].
# The second approach is to describe it in terms borrowed from [[mathematics]].
The two approaches are complementary, since both are attempts to describe [[formal]] systems with precise rules, and both demonstrate the [[power]] of the [[signifier]].
===History===Although there is a general shift in [[Lacan]]'s [[work]] from the [[linguistic]] approach which predominates in the 1950s to a [[mathematical]] approach which predominates in the 1970s, there are traces of the [[mathematical]] approach as early as the 1940s. The branches of [[mathematics]] (''which [[Lacan]] uses most are [[algebra]] and [[topology]], although there are also incursions into set [[theory]] and [[mathématiquesnumber]]'')theory.<ref>{{E}} pp. 316-18</ref>
In ==Formalization==[[Lacan]]'s use of [[mathematics]] represents an attempt to [[formalize]] [[psychoanalytic theory]], in keeping with his attempt view that [[psychoanalytic theory]] should aspire to theorize the category of the [[symbolicformalization]] proper to [[science]].<blockquote>"Mathematical formalization is our [[goal]], our [[ideal]]."<ref>{{S20}} p. 108</ref></blockquote>[[Mathematics]] serve [[Lacan]] adopts two basic approachesas a paradigm of modern [[scientific]] [[discourse]], which "emerged from the little letters of mathematics."<ref>{{S7}} p.236</ref>
The first approach is to describe it in terms borrowed from [[linguistics]]==Metalanguage==However, using a this use of [[Saussuremathematics]]is not an-inspired model of [[language]] as attempt to produce a system of [[signifiermetalanguage]]s, since "no metalanguage can be spoken."<ref> {{E}} p.311</ref> <blockquote>"The second approach root of the difficulty is to describe it in terms borrowed from that you can only introduce [[mathematicssymbols]]. The two approaches are complementary, mathematical or otherwise, by using everyday language, since both you have, after all, to explain what you are attempts going to describe formal systems do with precise rules, and both demonstrate the power of the [[signifierthem]]."<ref>{{S1}} p.2</ref></blockquote> Although there is a general shift in Thus [[Lacan]]'s work use of [[mathematics]] is not an attempt to escape from the ambiguity of [[linguisticlanguage]] approach which predominates in , but, on the 1950s contrary, to produce a mathematical approach way of [[formalization|formalizing]] [[psychoanalysis]] which predominates in the 1970s, there are traces of the mathematical approach as early as the 1940s (such as Lacan's analysis produces multiple effects of [[sense]] without [[being]] reducible to a logical puzzle in univocal [[signification]]. Also, by using [[mathematics]] [[Lacan, 1945; see his 1956 chain that "the laws ]] attempts to prevent all attempts at [[imaginary]] [[knowledge|intuitive understanding]] of intersubjectivity are mathematical" in Ec, 472)[[psychoanalysis]].
The branches of [[mathematics]] which [[Lacan]] uses most are [[algebra]] and [[topology]], although there are also incursions into set theory and number theory (e.g. E, 316-18). --==See Also=={{See}}* [[LacanAlgebra]]'s use of [* [mathematics]] represents an attempt to formalize [[psychoanalytic theoryLinguistics]], in keeping with his view that [[psychoanalytic theory]] should aspire to the formalization proper to [[science]]. "Mathematical formalization is our goal, our ideal." (S20, 108)||* [[MathematicsMathemes]] serves * [[LacanScience]] as a paradigm of modern scientific discourse, which "emerged from the little letters of mathematics." (S7, 236)||-- However, this use of * [[mathematicsSymbolic]] is not an attempt to produce a * [[metalanguageTopology]], since "no metalanguage can be spoken."<ref> {{EAlso}} p.311</ref>
==References==<blockquote>div style="font-size:11px" class="The root of the difficulty is that you can only introduce symols, mathematical or otherwise, by using everyday language, since you have, after all, to explain what you are going to do with them.references-small"><refreferences/>{{S1}} p.2</refdiv>
Thus {{OK}}[[LacanCategory:Science]]'s use of [[mathematics]] is not an attempt to escape from the ambiguity of [[language]], but, on the contrary, to produce a way of formalizing [[psychoanalysis]] which produces multiple effects of sense without being reducible to a univocal signification.
Also, by using mathematics Lacan attempts to prevent all attempts at imaginary intuitive understanding of [[psychoanalysis]].__NOTOC__
Anonymous user

Navigation menu