ABSTRACT
En este trabajo nos proponemos realizar una caracterización del concepto de goce en El reverso del psicoanálisis. Principalmente, nos centraremos en ubicar las coordenadas del goce en relación con el discurso del amo y al discurso del analista. Para estos fines, en un primer momento, presentaremos a Foucault como antecedente histórico de los desarrollos lacanianos en El reverso del psicoanálisis. En un segundo momento, expondremos la escritura de los cuatros discursos. En un tercer momento, analizaremos las relaciones entre significante y goce para mostrar las consecuencias que acarrean para los conceptos de saber y verdad. Este recorrido nos llevará a detenernos en la figura del filósofo -ilustrada por el Sócrates de Platón- como funcional al discurso del amo. En cuarto momento, intentaremos mostrar que la proximidad del analista respecto al santo lo aleja de la perversión. Finalmente, haremos un balance de los puntos más importantes de nuestro recorrido.
In this work we propose to make a presentation of the concept of enjoyment in The Other Side of Psychoanalysis. Mainly, we will focus on locating the enjoyment in relation to the Master's discourse and the Analyst's discourse. For these purposes, first, we will present Foucault as a historical antecedent of the Lacanian´s developments in The Other Side of Psychoanalysis. Second, we will present the four discourses writing. Third, we will analyze the relations between signifier and enjoyment to show the implications that they have for the concepts of knowledge and truth. This journey will take us to stop in the figure of the philosopher paradigmatically in Plato´s Socrates- as functional to the Master´s discourse. Fourth, we will try to show that the figure of the analyst implies placing himself in the position of the saint, that is, as a waste of enjoyment. Finally, we will sum up the most important points of our theoretical considerations.
Subject(s)
Philosophy , Psychoanalytic TheoryABSTRACT
This essay basically deals with Tagore‟s philosophy of three eternal values namely, truth, beauty and goodness. For him, “beauty is truth” and truth is beauty” is an ethical ideal for the individual and for society. Tagore suggested that all ugliness and evil, imbalance, discord, disharmony and disproportion should give place to beauty and goodness. It will help man to consider other fellow being his own self and establish unity in diversity.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to deal with two questions concerning the relation of philosophy and medicine in ancient greece. (1) Which influences had philosophy on medicine? (2) Whom did attack the author of On the ancient medicine? And (3) was his criticism right? (1) Philosophy's influences was twofold. (a) As early Greek philosophers had explained natural phenomena by natural elements without recourse to any supernatural god so authors of Hippocratic Works also had sought to explain diseases. They had replaced magical and religious medicine with rational medicine by virtue of rational explanation. This seems to have represented medicine's debt to philosophy. (b) Many medical authors primarily had studied the nature of human i.e. the basic constituents of the body since they had thought the very same to be causes of diseases. This aspect shows the conspicuous influence of philosophy. Because it was the nature of cosmos i.e. the source or basic constituent that early Greek philosophers had searched to explain cosmos and all natural phenomena in it. (2) On the other hand the author of On the ancient medicine attacks physicians that are influenced by cosmology of early Greek philosophers. The point of his criticism in Chapter 1 is that 'philosophical physicians' postulate one or two constituents of the body as the primary cause of men's diseases. Then are physicians that postulate various constituents free from the author's criticism? At least according to Chapter 20 it is not so. He seems to criticize physicians in general who proceed by the hypothetical method. He contrasts this method with the method of trial and error and asserts that this is of medicine but that is of philosophy. (3) Although this methodological separation was right in a sense at least the opinion of the author seems to be extreme. Because medicine can't be science if it does not make use of any hypothesis. And philosophical physicians or early Greek philosophers does not seems to be such dogmatic as the author thinks. First of all they did not exclude the method of experience. Their method was both empirical and speculative. They postulated some constituents by speculation based on experience and had a device to avoid danger of dogmatism that their theory might have It is critical thinking. It's obvious evidence is their various thinking concerning the basic constituents. The same is applied to philosophical physicians. Thus the harmonious relation of medicine and philosophy had seemed to be maintained in antiquity even though the author of On the ancient medicine attacked philosophical physicians so severely and attempted to separate medicine from philosophy.