Refine
Language
Document Type
- Articles (202) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (202) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2002 (202) (remove)
>Krieg der Zivilisationen< oder rechtsintellektuelle Deutungsmacht im Dienste westlicher Hegemonie
(2002)
Historicity, Humility, and the Analytic Exercise Reply to Commentaries by Drs. Palombo and Horner
(2002)
This study is to suggest the aggression, human`s instinct as the new essence of sport. Through the psychological approach it could be found that the aggression which is human instinct is deeply related with the origin of sport. In relation to the instinct of death Freud has proved that there exists the aggression in human mentality and it could be said that the aggression of sport is related with Thanatos, the instinct of death that Freud said. Fromm, a sociopsychologist expanded the concept of Freud`s aggression and divided the aggression in human mentality as the defensive and positive aggression and destructive and malignant aggression and he saw that sport is related with the malignant aggression. I think we have to discard the attitude just to try to adapt the methodical value of sport although the value of sport exists with human instinct. Sport is the only thing to express and purify the aggression and it is expected to play the important role to create the future culture.
Much contemporary analytic writing is focused on the intersubjective >space< between analyst and analysand. This article focuses on a different area of analytic subjectivity and intersubjectivity – on the implicit rules that guide psychoanalytic thought and discourse, which have not received the kind of critical scrutiny as our explicit theories. The paper describes five problematic aspects of this implicit grammar and corresponding ways of refining it: articulating conceptual multiplicity where we often use unitary constructs (such as the unconscious or the therapeutic action of psychoanalysis) specifying mechanisms rather than causally ambiguous descriptions (such as two unconsciouses talking to one another) and conditional rather than blanket statements avoiding using terms in overdetermined ways that lead to theoretical imprecision and confusion of theory and metaphor exercising greater caution in the use of developmental constructs and analogies, particularly from infancy and rethinking the nature and presentation of evidence in psychoanalytic discourse.
Two central questions raised by Spezzano's commentary have to do with the extent to which we seek objectivity in psychoanalytic theory and practice, and the extent to which one or another set of methods (e.g., clinical observation) is adequate or optimal for generating that knowledge. A discipline and treatment devoted to understanding subjectivity is nevertheless devoted to objective knowledge about a patient's subjectivity, defenses, and so forth and requires valid theories to guide exploration, inference, and intervention. Seeking objective knowledge does not require a naïve empiricism ignorant of the limits of objectivity. We would do well to use multiple methods to learn about how the mind works and what leads to therapeutic change.