• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The International Journal of Psychoanalysis >THE CONCEPTUALISATION AND COMMUNICATION OF CLINICAL FACTS: A CONSIDERATION OF THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION IJPA
【24h】

THE CONCEPTUALISATION AND COMMUNICATION OF CLINICAL FACTS: A CONSIDERATION OF THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION IJPA

机译：临床事实的概念化和交流性：对IJPA 75周年纪念版的思考

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The contributors to the Anniversary Edition of the IJPA attempt to respond to the Babel of ideas within contemporary psychoanalysis and to grapple with our methodology for discovering and validating our facts. Underlying this ambitious endeavour is the complex question of the status of psychoanalysis as a discipline-is it science, art, hermeneutics, or religion? Those who contribute to the volume have varying points of view on this question, reinforcing our ongoing confusion of tongues. The author argues that while we must tread very carefully to preserve the creativity and art of our discipline, we desperately need to address the basic science of psychoanalysis. Whether, and to what extent, we can succeed in doing so will perhaps best answer the question of what kind of discipline psychoanalysis is or can be. Many of us wish to view psychoanalysis as capable of scientific discourse and yet remain very ambivalent about embracing scientific methodology. What is unique to psychoanalysis must not be lost in turning to empirical research, nor in facile, 'reductive' translations to other models from other disciplines. However, if we are to make the claims of a scientific method, we must accept the burdens of it as well. In this regard, the author argues in favour of machines and brain, and against those who view such methods as 'radically' empiricist or reductionist. To truly test and reject our hypotheses, we must creatively and adaptively make use of empirical research methods that historically we have been very reluctant to embrace.
机译：IJPA周年版的撰稿人试图回应当代精神分析中的通天塔思想，并努力解决我们发现和验证事实的方法。这项雄心勃勃的努力的基础是精神分析作为一门学科的地位的复杂问题-是科学，艺术，诠释学还是宗教？对此做出贡献的人在这个问题上有不同的观点，这加剧了我们持续不断的语言混乱。作者认为，尽管我们必须非常谨慎地维护本学科的创造力和艺术性，但我们迫切需要解决心理分析的基础科学。我们是否能够成功以及在何种程度上能够成功地做到这一点，可能会最好地回答以下问题：心理分析是一种或可以是哪种。我们中的许多人希望将精神分析视为具有科学话语能力，但在拥抱科学方法论方面仍然持矛盾态度。精神分析所独有的东西，绝不能丢掉进行实证研究，也不能轻易地，“还原”地翻译成其他学科的其他模型。但是，如果要提出一种科学方法的主张，我们也必须接受它的负担。在这方面，作者主张机器和大脑，反对那些认为这种方法是“激进的”经验主义者或简化主义者的人。要真正检验和拒绝我们的假设，我们必须创造性地和适应性地利用经验性研究方法，这些方法在历史上是我们非常不愿意采用的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号