When Foucault discusses Freud, he speaks of having the "absolute ground for a possible hermeneutic." He then claims that Freud is an exegete and not semiologist. It would seem to me that Foucault's diagnosis of Freud is very aptly appropriated by me and made to fit my opinion on the opposition of Philosophy and Psychology.
By semiologist, Foucault means someone who understands, on the highest possible level, the rules that govern the way signs convey meaning. This does not seem like a hermeneutic. It seems more akin to the "absolute ground for a hermeneutic," which is quite possibly why Foucault contrasts Freud with the semiologist, and the absolute ground with Freud's project, which is a hermeneutic. So, one could, for the sake of argument, view Psychology as a hermeneutic, and in being so, perhaps being a second order study, and then map Philosophy onto semiology, or if not precisely onto semiology, at least onto the knowledge of the absolute ground for the possibility of a hermeneutic.
This may seem like a strange mapping, but upon further examination, it may prove to be a very good one. Foucault posits that the human sciences are merely a moment in the destiny of Western philosophy. Through the addition of the unconscious, psychology has been appropriating the territory of the human sciences, and through this addition, attempting to add normative force to its discoveries. This normative aspect begins the part of psychology that attempts to be more than a hermeneutic. It is attempting to move into the territory of philosophy in studying the qualities of man through a hermeneutic. It is not possible to come to the absolute ground for the possibility of a hermeneutic through the hermeneutic itself. Thus, when one looks at the normative thrust of psychology, one must disallow it, and look at what really grounds the study of the individual, which is philosophy. So, the distinction between interpreter and grammarian can be loosely mapped onto the distinction between psychology and philosophy, and hopefully it can be realized that this normative force which psychology exerts is precisely causing this anthropological slumber that Foucault speaks of. It is the illegitimate attempt of the human sciences, through psychology, which poses as the study of the individual, to constitute their own ground, that causes this anthropological slumber.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I have a few questions on this post.
1. I could easily accept that psychoanalysis and enlightenment philosophy oppose each other, but I wouldn't be able to draw the opposition beyond that. Why do you (generally) believe that psychology and philosophy as such oppose each other?
2. You say that the human sciences are illegitimately trying to appropriate their own ground through psychology. This implies that philosophy has legitimated itself. How exactly would you say this was accomplished, that could not at the same time be said of the human sciences?
I'm not exactly sure how you would respond to these questions, maybe I'll bring it up in class if I remember (although my experience with sleep deprivation makes me think I'll have no memory of this tomorrow), otherwise, if you personally find it interesting enough to include in your blog, maybe an edit at the end of your post.
Post a Comment