Talvitie Vesa, Ihanus Juhani
Institute of Behavioural Sciences, Psychology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9, FI-00014, Finland.
Int J Psychoanal. 2011 Dec;92(6):1583-601. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-8315.2011.00458.x. Epub 2011 Jul 11.
Neuropsychoanalysis focuses on the neural counterparts of psychoanalytically interesting phenomena and has left the difference in the metaphysical presuppositions between neuroscience and psychoanalysis unexamined. The authors analyse the logical possibilities concerning the relation between the brain and the mental unconscious in terms of the serial, parallel, epiphenomenalist and Kantian conceptions, and conclude that none of them provides a satisfactory ground for neuropsychoanalysis. As far as psychoanalytic explanations refer to the mental unconscious, they cannot be verified with the help of neuroscience. Neither is it possible to form a picture of how a neuro-viewpoint might be of help for psychoanalytic theorizing. Neuropsychoanalysis has occasionally been seen as a reductionist affair, but the authors suggest that neuropsychoanalysts themselves lean on the hybrid conception, which combines neuroscientific and psychoanalytic viewpoints. The authors state arguments in favour of the interfield conception of neuropsychoanalysis that takes seriously the metaphysical tensions between neuroscience and psychoanalysis.
神经精神分析专注于精神分析中有趣现象的神经对应物，而未审视神经科学与精神分析在形而上学预设方面的差异。作者们从串行、并行、副现象论和康德主义概念的角度分析了大脑与精神无意识之间关系的逻辑可能性，并得出结论，这些概念都不能为神经精神分析提供令人满意的基础。就精神分析解释涉及精神无意识而言，它们无法借助神经科学得到验证。也不可能勾勒出神经视角如何有助于精神分析理论化的图景。神经精神分析偶尔被视为一种还原论事务，但作者们认为神经精神分析学家自身依赖于将神经科学和精神分析观点结合起来的混合概念。作者们阐述了支持神经精神分析跨领域概念的论据，该概念认真对待神经科学与精神分析之间的形而上学张力。
