„Schatten Der Irresponsivität“: Pathos ohne Response /Response ohne Pathos. Trauma, Widerstand und Schelers Begriff der seelischen Kausalität

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Roberta Guccinelli
{"title":"„Schatten Der Irresponsivität“: Pathos ohne Response /Response ohne Pathos. Trauma, Widerstand und Schelers Begriff der seelischen Kausalität","authors":"Roberta Guccinelli","doi":"10.17454/pam-2308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses possible forms of loss or weakness of the ability to interact with others and the ways in which this arises. In particular, in the context of socio-affective knowledge and related failures, it focuses on certain deficits that primarily involve the body. The article aims to show that the “destiny” of our inner drives and our lives—the specific solutions to which they are forced in their vicissitudes—is less “blind” than it appears, leaving (albeit minimal) margins of escape, also because it has a relational connotation. Starting from Bernhard Waldenfels’s recent work on the relationship between phenomenology and psychoanalysis, in which this question is addressed from a phenomenological-responsive point of view, this article reflects on the problem by establishing a comparison between Waldenfels’s philosophy and Max Scheler’s phenomenology of values. Beyond the differences that their approaches to the problem of relational deficits present, Waldenfels and Scheler can be put in fruitful dialogue with each other, starting from their common interest in Freudian psychoanalysis. Within this framework, it is possible to evaluate, adopting Scheler’s point of view, both a methodological aspect and a psychological presupposition of Freud’s ontogenesis of sympathy and love: associationism. From this perspective, Freud reveals himself in part as an heir to British empiricism. I will argue that, with and beyond Freud, the human being is not reducible to a mere sum of blind sensations or blind drives and that for both at least certain forms of inability to interact with others are derivative—deformations of normal responsivity and aberrations of normal pulsional-(relational) life—rather than originary phenomena.","PeriodicalId":37133,"journal":{"name":"Phenomenology and Mind","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phenomenology and Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17454/pam-2308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper discusses possible forms of loss or weakness of the ability to interact with others and the ways in which this arises. In particular, in the context of socio-affective knowledge and related failures, it focuses on certain deficits that primarily involve the body. The article aims to show that the “destiny” of our inner drives and our lives—the specific solutions to which they are forced in their vicissitudes—is less “blind” than it appears, leaving (albeit minimal) margins of escape, also because it has a relational connotation. Starting from Bernhard Waldenfels’s recent work on the relationship between phenomenology and psychoanalysis, in which this question is addressed from a phenomenological-responsive point of view, this article reflects on the problem by establishing a comparison between Waldenfels’s philosophy and Max Scheler’s phenomenology of values. Beyond the differences that their approaches to the problem of relational deficits present, Waldenfels and Scheler can be put in fruitful dialogue with each other, starting from their common interest in Freudian psychoanalysis. Within this framework, it is possible to evaluate, adopting Scheler’s point of view, both a methodological aspect and a psychological presupposition of Freud’s ontogenesis of sympathy and love: associationism. From this perspective, Freud reveals himself in part as an heir to British empiricism. I will argue that, with and beyond Freud, the human being is not reducible to a mere sum of blind sensations or blind drives and that for both at least certain forms of inability to interact with others are derivative—deformations of normal responsivity and aberrations of normal pulsional-(relational) life—rather than originary phenomena.
"障碍物的影子"心灵创伤,阻力和顽疾的精神因果关系
本文讨论了与他人互动能力丧失或不足的可能形式,以及产生这种情况的方式。特别是,在社会情感知识和相关失败的背景下,它侧重于主要涉及身体的某些缺陷。这篇文章旨在表明,我们的内在驱动力和我们的生活的“命运”——它们在变迁中被迫得到的具体解决方案——并不像表面上那样“盲目”,留下(尽管是最小的)逃避的余地,也因为它有一种关系内涵。本文从Bernhard Waldenfels最近关于现象学与精神分析之间的关系的工作开始,从现象学响应的角度来解决这个问题,通过建立Waldenfels哲学与Max Scheler价值现象学的比较来反思这个问题。除了他们处理关系缺陷问题的方法不同之外,瓦尔登费尔斯和谢勒可以从他们对弗洛伊德精神分析的共同兴趣开始,进行富有成效的对话。在这个框架内,采用舍勒的观点,有可能评估弗洛伊德的同情和爱的个体发生的方法论方面和心理学前提:联想主义。从这个角度来看,弗洛伊德在某种程度上揭示了自己是英国经验主义的继承人。我要论证的是,无论弗洛伊德的观点如何,人类都不能被简化为盲目感觉或盲目冲动的总和,至少对两者来说,无法与他人互动的某些形式是衍生的——正常反应的变形和正常脉动(关系)生活的畸变——而不是原始现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Phenomenology and Mind
Phenomenology and Mind Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信