Yáñez Cortés R
Acta Psiquiatr Psicol Am Lat. 1980 Jun;26(2):139-44.
To establish the basis of the interpretative method is congruous with finding a solid basis--epistemologically speaking--to the analytic theory. This basis would be the means to transform this theory into a real science with its necessary adecuation among method, act and object of knowledge. It is only from a scientific stand that the psychoanalytic theory will be able to face successfully the reductionisms that menace it, be it the biologist-naturalism with its explanations of the psychic phenomena by means of mechanisms and biologic models or be it the speculative ideologies with their nucleus of technical praxis which make it impossible for the social-factic sciences to become real sciences. We propose as interpretative method the union of two models: the teleologic one which makes possible the appearance of intelligible, contingent and variable explanations between an antecedent and a consequent on one side, and on the other, the analogic model with its two moments: the comparative and the symbolic one. These moments makes possible the comparison and the union between antecedent and consequent baring in mind the "natural" ambiguity of the subject-object in question. The principal objective of the method--as a regulative idea in the Kantian sense--would be the search of univocity as regards the choice of one and only one sense from all the possible senses that "explain" the motive relationship or motive-end relationship in order to make the interpretation scientific. This status of scientificity should obey the rules of explanation: that the interpretations be derived effectively from the presupposed theory, that they really explain what they claim to explain, that they are not contradictory or contrary in the same ontologic level. We postulate that the synthesis of the two mentioned models, the teleologic-explanative and the analogic one allows us to find a possibility to make clear the "dark" sense of the noun interpretation and in this way the factibility of speaking of an interpretative method that develops the real concrete object by producing the formal and abstract one--which for us is the behaviour of the subject--. In this way the interpretations come to be teleological explanations overdetermined by an analogical relationship. This means that they produce the formal and abstract object -the method--which is in itself an intelligible, continguent and variable relationship between an antecedent and a consequent permitting in this way the emergence of a symbolic comparison to explain the real concrete. The symbolic explanations and comparisons are strictly derived from the presupposed theory, the theoretical body of psychoanalysis.
建立解释方法的基础，在认识论层面上，与为分析理论找到坚实基础是一致的。这个基础将是把该理论转变为一门真正科学的手段，实现方法、行为与知识对象之间的必要契合。只有从科学的立场出发，精神分析理论才能成功应对威胁它的各种还原论，无论是借助机制和生物学模型来解释心理现象的生物学家自然主义，还是以技术实践为核心、使社会事实科学无法成为真正科学的思辨意识形态。我们提出将两种模型结合作为解释方法：一种是目的论模型，它使得在一个前提与一个结果之间出现可理解的、偶然的和可变的解释成为可能；另一种是类比模型及其两个阶段：比较阶段和象征阶段。这两个阶段使得在考虑到相关主客体的“自然”模糊性的情况下，前提与结果之间的比较和结合成为可能。该方法的主要目标——从康德意义上的调节性理念来看——将是在从所有可能“解释”动机关系或动机 - 目的关系的意义中选择唯一一种意义时寻求单义性，以便使解释具有科学性。这种科学性的地位应遵循解释的规则：解释要有效地源自预设理论，要真正解释它们声称要解释的内容，在同一本体论层面上不能相互矛盾或对立。我们假定，上述两种模型（目的论解释模型和类比模型）的综合使我们有可能阐明名词解释的“隐晦”意义，从而有可能谈及一种通过产生形式的和抽象的对象（对我们来说就是主体的行为）来发展真实具体对象的解释方法。这样，解释就成为由类比关系过度决定的目的论解释。这意味着它们产生形式的和抽象的对象——方法——其本身是一个前提与一个结果之间可理解的、偶然的和可变的关系，从而使得象征比较得以出现以解释真实具体的事物。象征解释和比较严格源自预设理论，即精神分析的理论体系。
