Difference between revisions of "Mathematics"
(→Symbolic) |
(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>).) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Symbolic== | ==Symbolic== | ||
| − | In his attempt to theorize the category of the [[symbolic]], [[Lacan]] adopts two basic approaches. | + | 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 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 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]]. | + | 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=== | ===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 number theory.<ref>{{E}} pp. 316-18</ref> | + | 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 [[number]] theory.<ref>{{E}} pp. 316-18</ref> |
==Formalization== | ==Formalization== | ||
[[Lacan]]'s use of [[mathematics]] represents an attempt to [[formalize]] [[psychoanalytic theory]], in keeping with his view that [[psychoanalytic theory]] should aspire to the [[formalization]] proper to [[science]]. | [[Lacan]]'s use of [[mathematics]] represents an attempt to [[formalize]] [[psychoanalytic theory]], in keeping with his view that [[psychoanalytic theory]] should aspire to the [[formalization]] proper to [[science]]. | ||
| − | <blockquote>"Mathematical formalization is our goal, our ideal."<ref>{{S20}} p. 108</ref></blockquote> | + | <blockquote>"Mathematical formalization is our [[goal]], our [[ideal]]."<ref>{{S20}} p. 108</ref></blockquote> |
[[Mathematics]] serve [[Lacan]] as a paradigm of modern [[scientific]] [[discourse]], which "emerged from the little letters of mathematics."<ref>{{S7}} p. 236</ref> | [[Mathematics]] serve [[Lacan]] as a paradigm of modern [[scientific]] [[discourse]], which "emerged from the little letters of mathematics."<ref>{{S7}} p. 236</ref> | ||
==Metalanguage== | ==Metalanguage== | ||
However, this use of [[mathematics]] is not an attempt to produce a [[metalanguage]], since "no metalanguage can be spoken."<ref> {{E}} p.311</ref> | However, this use of [[mathematics]] is not an attempt to produce a [[metalanguage]], since "no metalanguage can be spoken."<ref> {{E}} p.311</ref> | ||
| − | <blockquote>"The root of the difficulty is that you can only introduce symbols, mathematical or otherwise, by using everyday language, since you have, after all, to explain what you are going to do with them."<ref>{{S1}} p.2</ref></blockquote> | + | <blockquote>"The root of the difficulty is that you can only introduce [[symbols]], mathematical or otherwise, by using everyday language, since you have, after all, to explain what you are going to do with [[them]]."<ref>{{S1}} p.2</ref></blockquote> |
| − | Thus [[Lacan]]'s use of [[mathematics]] is not an attempt to escape from the ambiguity of [[language]], but, on the contrary, to produce a way of [[formalization|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]] [[knowledge|intuitive understanding]] of [[psychoanalysis]]. | + | Thus [[Lacan]]'s use of [[mathematics]] is not an attempt to escape from the ambiguity of [[language]], but, on the contrary, to produce a way of [[formalization|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]] [[knowledge|intuitive understanding]] of [[psychoanalysis]]. |
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
Latest revision as of 19:16, 20 May 2019
| French: mathématiques |
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 Saussurean-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 number theory.[1]
Formalization
Lacan's use of mathematics represents an attempt to formalize psychoanalytic theory, in keeping with his view that psychoanalytic theory should aspire to the formalization proper to science.
Mathematics serve Lacan as a paradigm of modern scientific discourse, which "emerged from the little letters of mathematics."[3]
Metalanguage
However, this use of mathematics is not an attempt to produce a metalanguage, since "no metalanguage can be spoken."[4]
"The root of the difficulty is that you can only introduce symbols, mathematical or otherwise, by using everyday language, since you have, after all, to explain what you are going to do with them."[5]
Thus Lacan'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.
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. pp. 316-18
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 108
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book VII. The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959-60. Trans. Dennis Porter. London: Routledge, 1992. p. 236
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.311
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book I. Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-54. Trans. John Forrester. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p.2
