Cavell M
Department of Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley.
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1988;36(4):859-79. doi: 10.1177/000306518803600401.
I suggest that a conflict between two philosophical models of the mind so far unremarked in discussions of psychoanalysis is at the heart of questions about its status as a science, the objectivity of psychoanalytic interpretations, and the nature of the unconscious. In philosophy one model is embodied in the tradition of Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, among many others, which construes thought as prior to and independent of language. According to this tradition the mind is self-contained and mental contents or "ideas" are essentially subjective phenomena. It follows that knowledge of other minds and the material world is radically problematic. In the second and more contemporary model the phenomenon of meaning is dependent on interactions between minds, and between mind and the world. Since meaning is understood to be intrinsically social, so in an important sense is mind. I develop this second philosophic model, indicating its relevance for psychoanalysis. I also point out some of the contributions of psychoanalysis to philosophy of mind.
我认为,在精神分析讨论中迄今未被注意到的两种心灵哲学模型之间的冲突,是关于其作为一门科学的地位、精神分析解释的客观性以及无意识的本质等问题的核心。在哲学中,一种模型体现在笛卡尔、霍布斯、洛克、康德等众多哲学家的传统中,这种传统将思想视为先于语言且独立于语言的。按照这种传统,心灵是自足的,心理内容或“观念”本质上是主观现象。因此,对他人心灵和物质世界的认识存在根本性问题。在第二种也是更现代的模型中,意义现象依赖于心灵之间以及心灵与世界之间的相互作用。由于意义被理解为本质上是社会性的,所以在重要意义上心灵也是如此。我发展了这第二种哲学模型,指出其与精神分析的相关性。我还指出了精神分析对心灵哲学的一些贡献。