Réponse aux commentaire de Jean Hyppolite sur la 'VerÂneinung' de Freud
Réponse au commentaire de Jean Hyppolite sur la "Verneinung" de Freud Réponse aux commentaire de Jean Hyppolite sur la 'Verneinung' de Freud
1954-1955 (31 pp.)-INTRODUCTION ET REPONSE AU COMMENTAIRE DE JEAN HYPPOLITE SUR LA "VERNEINUNG" DE FREUD (INTRODUCTION AND RESPONSE TO JEAN HYPPOLITE'S COMMENTARY ON FREUD'S "VERNEINUNG")-1956
In February 1954, in the seminars, the philosopher Hyppolite, a specialist on Hegel, commented on Freud's article on "Verneinung" (1925), which he sug�gested be translated as Denegation instead of Negation (R.F.P. 1934).
The real question is to analyze how the return of the repressed operates.
Freud analyzed a complex mode in which the repressed is intellectually accepted by the subject, since it is named, and at the same time negated because the sub�ject refuses to recognize it as his, refuses to recognize himself in it.
Denega�tion [denegation] thus includes an assertion on which the psychoanalyst can rely but whose status is difficult to define.
The stakes are very high because the frontier between neurosis and psychosis is drawn here, between repression [Verdriingung] and repudiation [Verweifung) (a term that Lacan replaced here by "withdrawal" [retranchement] before definitively calling it "foreclosure" lforclusion] in 1956 (30».
The version published in La Psychanalyse is an important rewriting of the session of the Seminaire I (25).
The Introduction condenses the entire beginning of the teaching and the Reponse promotes two of Hyppolite's ideas: the creation of the symbol refers back to mythic rather than genetic time; the symbolic creation of "negation" [la negation] is situ�ated at another level of the subject than "assertion."
Against the "doctrinarians" of the analysis of resistances, Lacan estab�lishes two poles of analytic experience: the (imaginary) ego and the (sym�bolic) speech.
For him, "the true subject," the one who must "come to be" [advenir], is "the subject of the unconscious" and "the unconscious is the discourse of the Other."
He then gives the following condensed description of therapy: "First. the subject talks about himself without talking to you, then .. , he talks to you without talking about himself.
When he is able to talk to you about himself, the analysis will be over."
To this possible reshaping of the Imaginary by the Symbolic, he opposes the intersection of the Symbolic and the Real without Imaginary mediation, which would be the characteristic of psychosis.
