Brunner José
Tel Aviv Univ.
Psychoanal Hist. 2007;9(1):71-82. doi: 10.3366/pah.2007.9.1.71.
This paper examines Freud's approach to technology from two interrelated perspectives. First it discusses the way his theory presents technology solely in positive terms, as an instrument that expands human power over nature almost infinitely. Here the goal is to underscore a limitation of Freud's way of thinking about human creations, which comes to the fore in his somewhat myopic enthusiasm for technology. Then the essay elaborates on a void in Freud's writings, examining why he did not refer to railway accidents in his discussion of technology. It concludes with a choice of three possible answers: (a) that his theories allowed no conceptual room for accidents, (b) that his silence on accidents was conditioned by the emergence of his oedipal desire on the occasion of a railway journey from Leipzig to Vienna, (c) that his silence was caused by a fear of accidents that threatened to overwhelm him.
本文从两个相互关联的角度审视了弗洛伊德对技术的态度。首先,探讨了他的理论将技术完全以积极的方式呈现出来,视其为一种几乎能无限扩展人类对自然掌控力的工具。在此,目的是强调弗洛伊德思考人类创造物方式的局限性,这种局限性在他对技术有点短视的热衷中凸显出来。然后,文章阐述了弗洛伊德著作中的一个空白,探究他在讨论技术时为何未提及铁路事故。文章最后给出了三种可能的答案:(a)他的理论没有为事故留出概念空间;(b)他在从莱比锡到维也纳的铁路旅行中因俄狄浦斯欲望的出现而对事故保持沉默;(c)他的沉默是因为害怕事故会将他压垮。