[The unmasking of consciousness by means of criticism of illusion and ideology].

The author contends that the constitution of Psychology as a Science requires the elucidation of the conceptual instruments to be used in the approach of its specific theoretical object. In order to meet that requirement, three main methodological subjects are considered: I. The image, conceived as embodiment of the illusory and the deceptive, vs. the image as "the imaginary". Images are defined as representations determined a priori as the sole possibility of understanding reality. The distinction is made between two modes of this gnoseological process: the one, apparent, the other real. The first one, image as a representation having no correspondence whatsoever with reality, conveys only deceptive features: illusion at the individual level, and ideology at the broader scale of the socioeconomical class. Illusion and ideology are subject to parallel in that both mask reality, uncovering a part of it in order to hide the whole; and they imply each other in that to each illusion of individual consciousness corresponds a single socio-economical ideology. The unmasking must be performed both at the individual (illusion) and the collective (ideology) levels, through a conceptual work under a clear conception of knowledge and its methods, leading to an actually objectivating neutral act-Husserl. II. The imaginary as a project of irreality. Accepting that the image has a double function: a) an essential (gnoseological) one, and b) an unesential, supplementary one, as the support of illusion and ideology, there is yet a double manner for the concealment: a) subjective or belonging to the psychological level, and b) objective-intersubjective level, or actual social level. The image provides the object for the "belief", being thus the basis for the creation of a super-reality, an invention over another invention, with the goal of fulfilling desire. This goal implies failure in itself, as desire is always beyond the reality that seeks its fulfillment. The process of illusion can be explained by the triple link: desire-imagination-illusion, leading to belief. In desire there is a double work: a) a positive one, or trend towards the appropriation of the object; and b) a negative one, or the all-present frustration leading, precisely, to illusion. III. Desire and discourse: dialectics of possibility. Reality provides a limit-border to desire: it sets the frontiers of impossibility. Only the discourse provides a program, a planification of the being-desire. But desire exceeds the limits of possibility, and sets the underlying framework on which the impossibility of desire is expressed. Two different answers have been attempted from a logical-gnoseological-methodological stand point, consisting of reductionisms or pseudo-answers. Firstly, intellectualism, professing to reduce everything to rational cathegories and their logico-formal methods; and secondly, naturalism, professing to reduce everything to a factic-empirical scheme and to its experimental method...