-
18 Unification of Freudian Psychoanalysis through an Archaeological Methodology
- Northwestern University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
337 Under such flattering colors and make-up as well, the basic text of homo natura must again be recognized. To translate man back into nature; to become master over the many vain and overly enthusiastic interpretations and connotations that have so far been scrawled and painted over that eternal basic text of homo natura; to see to it that man henceforth stands before man as even today, hardened in the discipline of science, he stands before the rest of nature, with intrepid Oedipus eyes and sealed Odysseus ears, deaf to the siren songs of old metaphysical bird catchers who have been piping at him all too long, “you are more, you are higher, you are of a different origin!” —Nietzsche The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! —Nietzsche Freud assumed the role of Zarathustra upon the summit of the glacier of human consciousness, shining his lantern into the dark and hidden recesses of the unconscious mind, and was not always welcomed as bearing the light of truth. Neither the scientists of his day nor the philosophers who desired the revelation of something optimistic in human nature appreciated his account of the human unconscious. For Freud, humans were essentially one species of animal that had evolved, for better or worse, into Unification of Freudian Psychoanalysis through an Archaeological Methodology 18 conscious beings who could not escape the instinctual ancestry of their past. And although consciousness could provide the tools for awareness, liberation was limited to understanding and not action. The existential phenomenologists wanted something more than an instinctually deterministic account of human nature, which stripped humanity of its freedom and responsibility. For the most part, they rejected Freud on the basis of his adherence to and misapplication of the scientific methodology and accused him of overstepping the boundaries of science with the introduction of a nonscientifically verifiable unconscious. Yet, as we have seen, in relegating Freud within a scientific and contradictory Cartesian–Kantian framework, the existential phenomenologists neglected to honor their own demands that any theoretical framework be critiqued within the full historical context from which it arose. It is relatively clear to what extent the existential phenomenologists were familiar with the works of Freud. From Boss, we know that Heidegger “generally perused” Freud’s metapsychological papers1 and his articles on therapeutic technique.2 Heidegger only directly referred to Freud’s Psychopathology of Everyday Life.3 Sartre was at most familiar with Freud’s Studies in Hysteria, The Interpretation of Dreams, The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, An Autobiographical Study, and possibly his Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis. Merleau-Ponty referred only to Freud’s Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis and Five Lectures on Psycho-analysis in his magnum opus The Phenomenology of Perception. Based on this limited exposure to Freud’s writings, it can hardly be argued that any of the existential phenomenologists were thoroughly familiar with Freud’s work. As a result, this led to some specific misunderstandings and subsequent mischaracterizations of Freud’s position (especially on the part of Sartre). We submit that had they been more extensively familiar with Freud’s psychological works (which extend to twenty-three volumes) and sought to situate Freud within the full context of his philosophical heritage, they might have been able to see the greater depth and unity of his metapsychology, as grounded in Schopenhauer ’s philosophy. When the existential phenomenologists (and scientists) criticized Freud, they did so from the standpoint of their own a priori interpretive frameworks and hence wound up understanding Freud from an unduly narrow perspective. It is by looking into a fuller account of the philosophicalhistorical confluences which fed into the ultimate development of his theory that we are enabled to truly understand it. 338 A P P R E H E N D I N G T H E I N A C C E S S I B L E [3.95.233.107] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:35 GMT) Freud as Synthesizer As we have witnessed, through the application of a regressive archaeological investigation (a “philosophography”) of the philosophical background of Freudian psychoanalysis, Freud’s work represents a culmination and synthesis of many great ideas throughout the history of Western philosophy. Briefly, in Bacon and the Philosophes, Freud found the philosophical grounding of science and an...