Changes

{{Top}}scientific|science]]''; |-|| [[German]]: ''[[Wissenschaft{{Bottom}}

Both [[Freud]] and [[Lacan]] use the term "[[science]]" in the [[singular]], thus implying that there is a specific [[unified]], homogeneous kind of [[discourse]] that can be called "[[science|scientific]]".

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

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

On the [[other ]] hand, these criticisms are not levelled at [[science]] per se, but at the [[science|positivist model]] of [[science]].

[[Lacan]] implies that [[science|positivism]] is actually a deviation from "[[science|true science]]", and his own [[model ]] of [[science]] owes more to the [[science|rationalism]] of Koyré, Bachelard and Canguilhem than to [[science|empiricism]].

In other [[words]], for [[Lacan]], what marks a [[discourse]] as [[science|scientific]] is a high degree of [[mathematical]] [[formalization]].

This is what lies behind [[Lacan]]'s attempts to [[formalize]] [[psychoanalytic theory]] in [[terms ]] of various [[mathematical]] [[algebra|formulae]].

[[Lacan]] argues that [[science]] is characterized by a [[particular ]] [[relationship ]] to [[truth]].

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

[[Science]] is also characterised by a particular relationship to [[knowledge]] (''[[knowledge|savoir]]''), in that [[science]] is based on the [[exclusion ]] of any access to [[knowledge]] by recourse to intuition and thus forces all the [[search ]] for [[knowledge]] to follow only the path of [[reason]].<ref>{{Ec}} p. 831</ref>.

The [[subject|modern subject]] is the "[[science|subject of science]]" in the sense that this exclusively [[rational ]] route to [[knowledge]] is now a common presupposition.

In [[stating ]] that [[psychoanalysis]] operates only the [[subject]] of [[science]],<ref>{{Ec}} p. 858</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]].

Although the [[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 [[figure ]] in [[Freud]]'s [[work]].

<blockquote>The opposition between the [[science|exact sciences]] and the [[science|conjectural sciences]] can no longer be sustained from the [[moment ]] when conjecture is susceptible to an 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>

Whereas in the last century physics provided a paradigm of exactitude for the [[science|exact sciences]] which made the [[science|conjectural sciences]] seem sloppy by comparison, the arrival on the [[scene ]] of [[structuralism|structural]] [[linguistics]] redressed the imbalance by providing an equally exact paradigm for the [[science|conjectural sciences]].

When [[Freud]] borrowed terms from other [[science]]s, it was always from the [[science|natural sciences]] because these were the only [[science]]s around in [[Freud]]'s day that provided a model of rigorous investigation and [[thought]].

[[Lacan]] differs from [[Freud]] by importing [[concepts ]] mainly from the "[[science]]s of subjectivity," and by aligning [[psychoanalytic theory]] with these rather than with the [[science|natural sciences]].

In other words, whenever [[Freud]] borrowed concepts from [[biology]] he reformulated those concepts so radically that he created a totally new paradigm which was quite [[alien ]] to its [[biological]] origins.

Thus, according to [[Lacan]], [[Freud]] anticipated the findings of modern [[structural]] [[linguists]] such as [[Saussure]], and his work can be better [[understood ]] in the light of these [[linguistics|linguistic concepts]].

[[Freud]] was quite [[explicit ]] in affirming the [[science|scientific status]] of [[psychoanalysis]]:

<blockquote>"While it was originally the [[name ]] of a particular therapeutic method [...] it has now also become the name of a [[science]] - the [[science]] of [[unconscious ]] [[mental ]] [[processes]]."<ref>{{F}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|An Autobiographical Study]]'', 1925a: [[SE ]] XX, 70</ref>. </blockquote>

However, he also insisted on the unique character of [[psychoanalysis]] that sets it apart from the other [[science]]s: <blockquote>"Every [[science]] is based on observations and experiences arrived at through the medium of our [[psychical ]] [[apparatus]]. But since our [[science]] has as its subject that apparatus itself, the analogy ends here."<ref>{{F}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|An Outline of Psycho-Analysis]]'', 1940a[1938]: [[SE ]] XXIII, 159</ref>.</blockquote>

In his pre-war writings, [[psychoanalysis ]] is seen unreservedly in scientific terms .<ref>{{e.g. L}} "[[Work of Jacques Lacan|Au-delà du 'principe de realité']]", 1936. {{E}} pp. 73-92</ref>.  However, after 1950 [[Lacan]]'s attitude to the question becomes much more [[complex]]. =====Art=====In 1953, he states that in the opposition [[science]] versus [[art]], [[psychoanalysis]] can be located on the side of [[art]], on condition that the term "[[art]]" is understood in the sense in which it was used in the Middle Ages, when the "[[liberal]] [[arts]]" included arithmetic, geometry, [[music]] 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, ''The [[Theory]] and [[Practice]] of Psychoanalysis'', [[London]] and New York: Routledge, 1989, p. 224. [Originally published in ''[[Psychoanalytic]] Quaterly'', 48 (1979)].</ref> =====Religion=====However, in the opposition [[science]] versus [[religion]], [[Lacan]] follows [[Freud]] in arguing that [[psychoanalysis]] has more in common with [[science|scientific discourse]] than [[religion|religious discourse]]:

In 1953, he states that in <blockquote>"Psychoanalysis is not a religion. It proceeds from the opposition same status as [[science]] versus [[art]], psychoanalysis can be located on the side of art, on condition that the term 'art' is understood in the sense in which it was used in the Middle Ages, when the 'liberal arts' included arithmetic, geometry, music and grammar itself."<ref>{{[[Lacan]]: 1953b: 224S11}} p. 265</ref>.</blockquote>

However=====Scientific Status=====If, in the opposition as [[Lacan]] argues, a [[science]] versus religionis only constituted as such by isolating and defining its particular object of enquiry, <ref>[[Lacan]] follows argues that [[Freudpsychoanalysis]] in arguing that psychoanalysis has more in common actually set [[psychology]] on a scientific footing by providing it with scientific discourse than religious discourse: 'psychoanalysis is not a religionproper object of enquiry -- the [[imago]]; <ref>{{L}} "[[Work of Jacques Lacan|Propos sur la causalité psychique]]", in {{E}} [1946]. pp. 151-93</ref>; {{Ec}} p. It proceeds from 188</ref> then, when in 1965 he isolates the same status ''[[objet petit a]]'' as the [[object]] of [[psychoanalysis]], he is in effect claiming a [[science|scientific status]]for [[psychoanalysis]] itself .<ref>{{Sl1, 265Ec}} p. 863</ref>.

IfHowever, as from this point on [[Lacan]] argues, a comes increasingly to question this view of [[sciencepsychoanalysis]] is only constituted as such by isolating and defining its particular object of enquiry <ref>{{see a [[Lacanscience]], 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</ref>, then, when in 1965 he isolates the objet petit a as the object of psychoanalysis, he is in effect claiming a scientific status for psychoanalysis <ref>{{Ec, 863</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" ('practice' <ref>{{pratique</ref> '') with a '"[[science|scientific vocation' ]]",<ref>{{Ec, }} p. 863</ref>, though in the same year he also speaks of 'the psychoanalytic [[science|psychoanalytic science]]' ."<ref>{{Ec, }} p. 876</ref>. By 1977 he has become more categorical:

Psychoanalysis is not a [[science]]. It By 1977 he 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>{{[[Lacan]], 1976-7; seminar of 11 January 1977; Ornicar?, 14become more categorical: 4</ref>

However<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, even when but this doesn't mean that [[analytic]] practice will ever produce a [[Lacanscience]] makes such statements. <ref>{{L}} ''[[Seminar XXIV| Le Séminaire. Livre XXIV. L'insu que sait de l'une bévue s'aile à mourre, 1976-77'', he never abandons the project of formalising psychoanalytic theory published in linguistic and mathematical terms. Indeed''Ornicar?'', nos 12-18, the tension between the scientific formalism of the MATHEME and the semantic profusion of lalangue constitutes one of the most interesting features 1977-9; [[Seminar]] of 11 January 1977; ''[[LacanOrnicar?]]'s later work.', 14: 4</ref></blockquote>

Indeed, the tension between the [[science|scientific formalism]] of the [[matheme]], 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, * economics, 210, ethology, animal, 279, genetics 151, human the semantic profusion of ''[[sciencelalangue]]s, 7, 20, 43, 223, * physics, 10, 163, physilogy, 163,'' constitutes one of the most interesting features of [[Seminar XILacan]]'s later work.

 [[Category:scienceScience]]