In the analysis of the Dora case you receive the idea that interpretation should to stop, she can't be brought to the end by reason that a few years later would be called transference. Inexhaustibility analysis, confirmed by all further studies of the transfer, then it is alleged in connection with endless - and endlessly problematic - the nature of the relationship between patient and analyst relations, obviously determining for psychoanalysis. This attitude opens the space in which psychoanalysis can endlessly turn around, do not being able to complete ever. Nietzsche incompleteness of interpretation is also obvious. Philosophy in it is not that other, as literature, but Philology is always unfinished, borderless unfolding further and further and are not able to be completely locked. Why? Because ".."***" In Ecce Homo he showed how he was close to it "absolute knowledge", which....As well as in the autumn of 1888, in Turin. If you restore from the correspondence of Freud that he was constantly disturbed since the discovery of psychoanalysis, we can ask the question: is it experience something close to the experience of Nietzsche? Maybe what is referred to in the point of interpretation, in this effort of interpretation to the point where she becomes impossible, is something like the experience of madness. Experience, which opposed to Nietzsche, and which it was drawn; experience which Freud himself fought all his life, not without fear. Maybe this experience creates the possibility of this movement of interpretation, in which she infinitely of priblijaetsa to its centre, and, burned, destroyed. This essential incompleteness of interpretation is connected, I it seems that even with two fundamental principles. They, together with those the two principles I mentioned above, seemed to form postulates modern hermeneutics. First, if the interpretation never may fail, simply because there is no "interpreted".
In the analysis of the Dora case you receive the idea that interpretation should
ReplyDeleteto stop, she can't be brought to the end by reason that
a few years later would be called transference. Inexhaustibility
analysis, confirmed by all further studies of the transfer,
then it is alleged in connection with endless - and endlessly problematic -
the nature of the relationship between patient and analyst relations, obviously
determining for psychoanalysis. This attitude opens
the space in which psychoanalysis can endlessly turn around, do not
being able to complete ever.
Nietzsche incompleteness of interpretation is also obvious. Philosophy in
it is not that other, as literature, but Philology is always unfinished,
borderless unfolding further and further and are not able to be
completely locked. Why? Because ".."***"
In Ecce Homo he showed how he was close to it
"absolute knowledge", which....As well as in the autumn of 1888, in Turin.
If you restore from the correspondence of Freud that he was constantly disturbed
since the discovery of psychoanalysis, we can ask the question: is it
experience something close to the experience of Nietzsche? Maybe what is referred to in
the point of interpretation, in this effort of interpretation to the point where she
becomes impossible, is something like the experience of madness. Experience, which
opposed to Nietzsche, and which it was drawn; experience which Freud himself
fought all his life, not without fear. Maybe this experience
creates the possibility of this movement of interpretation, in which she
infinitely of priblijaetsa to its centre, and, burned, destroyed.
This essential incompleteness of interpretation is connected, I
it seems that even with two fundamental principles. They, together with those
the two principles I mentioned above, seemed to form postulates
modern hermeneutics. First, if the interpretation never
may fail, simply because there is no
"interpreted".