Psychoanalysis has established that it is the subject's discourse. But she has no need to hear the philosophy that it is a subject. If it is useless philosophy, then she is harmful and should be designated as. This is the time of the anti-philosophy.
The word surprised. Reference to the philosophers seemed inseparable from the work of Lacan. Where Freud remained reserved – more Austrian than German in this respect – and ever more willing to support the arts and letters that philosophy, Lacan constantly cited corpus philosophorum. Speaking of anti-philosophy, he had decided to deny himself?
The theme is certainly dated. He was born with the reorganization, in 1975, Department of Psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII. It reappears in 1980, during a polemic by L. Althusser. Here as elsewhere, However, it would be vain to stick to the circumstances of anecdote. The reorganization of the Department of psychoanalysis has had to go through curious and disparaging palaver with the Department of Philosophy, reappeared in his own way on this occasion is a real conflict of the faculties, it is not without importance, if it is worn today by smile. But nothing does the story to justify the production of a word as violent. It can not be entirely explained by causes to the extent of his violence. If only for reasons of chronology, causes are clearly in the general search of the second classical, that is to say in the matheme.
We know that Lacan long hesitated to register in the organizational structure of the University, satisfactory to the shelter she could grant him his margins. After 1970, he accepted and perhaps wished that Party Claims department directly to him. Changes whose causes are multiple. We can not count for nothing upheaval suffered by the own academic institution in French 1968. The question is how Lacan interpreted. There are some reasons to think he understood it as a mechanism of decay; Precisely for this reason, concludes that it would cost much more to use the means that were still available within an institution obsolescent (Christians and did not hesitate to use the Empire, soon as they were assured of its incurable crisis. Even presented itself as the safest guarantee).
But it should not stop there: the university is based on an act of transmission; the legitimacy of a university department of psychoanalysis is therefore argued that a doctrine provided a transmissibility of psychoanalysis. If a university department could actually be received as a suitable place for the teaching of Lacan (new decision, remember the), This is because the doctrine of matheme was now complete. The activation of the university is not only contemporary classicism second; it requires as its necessary condition (This does not mean that it is a necessary consequence; on this, the clever compete).
Or, the reorganization of the department is summarized under the head of the anti-philosophy. This is the matheme which alone can justify the word. More exactly, the anti-philosophy is just another name matheme.
The thesis is:
It is mutual exclusion between philosophy and matheme of psychoanalysis'.
The argument is in truth easy to build. Just take the letter that many philosophers (not all) say for themselves: they depend, uninterruptible major, Greek philosophy. Or, Greek philosophy is fundamentally tied to the world of’Episteme. In some respects, she founded the world. The’Episteme, in its structure theoria Distinguée of practice, is fully licensed by the philosophy. In return, the philosopher can never be indifferent to the possibility of there’Episteme (he denies or affirms this possibility): that is to say, one who calls the soul and summons
The very name philosophy key to the foundations of such a world. The necessary pumps and, likeness and duties, the soul and its purification, this is the soul together and’Episteme deploy; Perhaps the name most likely to summarize it is that of sophia, wisdom to be loved as himself (philein). A fact that modern science renounces. Psychoanalysis explicitly deploys waiver. It is strictly the opposite of philosophy.
It is therefore concluded:
'There is no philosophy which is fully synchronous with the modern science, she would Contemporary '.
This is indeed confer a size. Contemporary philosophy of modern science testifies to her devices that are foreign; hence its relatedness gasoline mathematics, as long as it is not defined in terms of language. Even though it does not deny the major break, philosophy maintains open and problematic; she calls to think. Some would say it is in a position of absolute reference.
But psychoanalysis, meanwhile, is inherently synchronous modern science; it is of another time – logical or chronological – that philosophy. Must still be said that its own synchrony. After Freud, it no longer had to this end that the language of science adulterated ideal. This is what, the first device in the classical, that psychoanalysis uses philosophy. It is for her to insert a wedge between itself and the ideal science as Freud and Freud imagined small. Reflected in the first axiom of the subject and its namesake.
Freud had told humanist culture – literature, history, archeology. This appeal was not enough; could provide would suffice even less after the institutional collapse, military, political and moral regions where classical humanism had long survived – Germany Melancthon, Austria Jesuit, France at the Sorbonne Dreyfus. Especially as the ideal science had gained strength: it was, from 45, in the victors. The victory of liberal democracy engineers and merchants was also the victory of the more obtuse Science (18).
Return to Freud assumed therefore visit by regions that Freud himself was prohibited. Against scientism rogue of the International, weapons of philosophy were now stronger than weapons culture. To hear his intimate belonging to the world of science, Lacan must first dissolve the false membership and strictly imitative had ended up building, away from homeland, psychoanalysis English. To this end, philosophy alone could serve, since only arose, in the order of systematicity and demonstration, Other than as science.
Repeated use that Lacan's philosophy during this time does not contradict the mutual exclusion relationship it maintains with psychoanalysis. On the contrary, it implies the exclusion. It only allows philosophy is committed to raise the large masses of the ideal science and its institutional imitations. The use of philosophy is the exact reverse anti-philosophy. This also means that the second is the obverse of the first.
Remains a reversal occurred, with name creation. We went back to the obverse, the battery to the face. Lacan is probably considered won his first battle against the ideal science. Science ideal WASP, at least. With perhaps 68, that would supposedly put a stop to the expansion of painless it. With perhaps the LEM alunissant, in the real qu'irruption successful in science it delivers it to his imaginary ballasting to convene only the mathematization (“scientific discourse réusssi[t] the anulissage which attests to the emergence of a thought real. This is without the mathematical language of camera”, Television, p. 59).
To these external causes, who value symptom, Assistant to an internal cause: the emergence of the theory of matheme, consolidated by setting to the node. At the time of the second classical, the name of anti-philosophy relates specifically to the transmission. At the time of the first classical, it has not to be uttered, because the problem of full transferability of psychoanalysis has not been tackled head. It is true that during this period, Lacan holds up the relationship of psychoanalysis to modern science; it is true that incessemment use of mathematical objects, but it does not say that the only possible transmission occurs with the letter mathematical. Because in fact it has not fully empowered doctrine of the letter and because it does not define the mathematical letter. As soon as they are made theses critical, touching the letter, mathematics and transmission, the reversal can be accomplished.
The rest, it is only to quote: “To be the language most conducive to scientific discourse, mathematics is the science without conscience which is our promise good Rabelais, that which a philosopher can only remain clogged.” (The stunning, p; 9; I emphasize); “the advent of real, The landing occurred [...] without the philosopher in there through each journal will be moved…” (Television, p.59; I emphasize); “I rise, if I may say, against philosophy. What is certain, is that it is a finite thing. Even though I expect that bounce rejection” (“Mr. A.), Ornicar?, 20/21, 1980, p.17; Lacan emphasizes) (19).
There is therefore no wonder that after constantly attended philosophical texts, concept formed after the reading of Hegel, After translating Heidegger, commented Plato and Descartes, quoted Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, Lacan invented a word that philosophers, it must be said, have generally taken as an insult.
In this respect, so is philosophy as politics. Their co-belonging becomes a theorem: “Metaphysics has never been and can not be extended to deal with plugging the hole in the policy. This is the spring”, Lacan writes 1973, namely addressing Heidegger (“Introduction to the German edition of Writings“, Scilicet 5, p. 13). Because the policy, also, proves radically out of sync with the modern world.
Est-ce one hasard if, Speaking of State, democracy, domination, of liberté, she speaks Greek and Latin (for some, it is true, she speaks; most of the time, she mumbles)? For this fundamental dyschronie, she called from the psychoanalytic principle of indifference. Because one or the other and the same world or the same universe;
Still that science and politics have nothing to do together – otherwise commit crimes – because they do not belong to the same world or the same universe, well psychoanalysis has nothing to do with politics – if not talk nonsense. This was, we remember, Freud's position: “agnosticism policy”, “indifference” (Science and Truth, p.858) (20). Antipolitical, arguably, parallel to the anti-philosophy.
Indifference, taken as meaning, does not necessarily lead to silence on objects whose political talks. Lacan is not always remained silent on the matter. Let's put that aside very general comments on the course of world – they remain scattered on Lacan proptreptiques interventions often do not bother and simply resume, mostly, put in relation to mass: light of intelligence in relation to the opinion, but short in terms of knowledge. There is also something else: understand the theory of the four discourses. It is an intervention in the field of empirical things policy – as a practice and as thought – deals. Successful or not, that is not the issue. It is important to emphasize, it is about the nature of. It is obvious that he does nothing to correct the radical indifference, only authorized by Freud, since about the highest political opposites may be seen as different values of the same variable.
There is even a radical philosophical indifference of psychoanalysis.
This is actually the responsibility of overabundant references corpus philosophorum. Must be profoundly indifferent to philosophy user with as much freedom, all the technical concepts, explicit or implicit allusions, or, what amounts to the same, must be taken that philosophy texts form a constellation of sparkling, but not thinking. We found the anti-philosophy, in the form of philosophical culture broadest.
No more than political indifference prevents occasionally talk politics (indifference in politics is not indifference to politics), the anti-philosophy should not stop talking about what philosophy: indifference in philosophy is not indifference to philosophy. A vrai say, must go further: psychoanalysis has not only the right, but the duty to speak about what philosophy, because it has exactly the same objects. In Television, Lacan agrees to answer the question put to him under the triple head “know, hope, do”, he argues that this issue, léguée par Kant, is irrelevant. One could certainly recognize here a simple meeting culture. Yet, the relationship is more intrinsic.
The intervention of psychoanalysis point indeed leaves summarized as: the passage of the previous time when the speaking could be other than it is infinitely – in his body and in his mind – at the subsequent time when the speaking, because of its very contingency, became quite like an eternal necessity. Finally, because psychoanalysis speaks only one thing: the conversion of each singularity of a subjective law also required that the laws of nature, they also contingent and as absolute.
Or, it is true that philosophy has stopped processing this moment. In one sens, one could argue that it was properly invented. More, to describe, it has generally taken the way of off-world. Or, psychoanalysis is nothing if it does not maintain, as central to his doctrine, there are no off-universe. Then and only then is there of structural and non-chronological in its relation to modern science.
At the same time, we understand that philosophy and psychoanalysis are talking about exactly the same thing, in terms of the more identical they are opposite effect. So, the word is anti-philosophy leaves interpret more fully; it is constructed as the name of Antichrist – as presented before Nietzsche John. “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us” (1 Jn, 2, 19). And could speak of Lacanian philosophers; more appropriately, they could remember that the Antichrist, as such, must speak exactly as Christ. His speech he calls discourse has nothing to do, he looks absolutely, he speaks of the same things, by using the same terms, and that because he has no relationship with him.
The only difference with John, is that modern, not believing in the finite, do not believe in Doomsday. If the Antichrist and Christ continues the disappearance of one of the other, This is because the time is near: “there are now many antichrists;: whereby we know that it is the last hour”, writes the Apostle (1 Jn, 2, 18). For anti-philosophy and the philosopher, en revanche, times are open, infinitely. In this infinity, their mutual exclusion becomes a reciprocal envelopment; each point one has reversed its correlate in the other; each will turn the dead god and purple shroud.
Jean-Claude Milner, The Work clear, Lacan, Science, philosophy, “The philosophical”, Threshold, pp 146-154.
(18) This is the core meaning of Article “British psychiatry and war” (Evolution psychiatric, 1947, p. 293-312); could read, through praise addressed to England, description of an upcoming opponent: WASP world, subjecting England and the United States together in each country, on behalf of the ideal science, that there was more enemy of free thought. A version of this world: IPA. In 1960, Lacan concluded: “notable deviations in England and America” (Subversion of the Subject, Writings, p. 794); mention of england prohibited recognize here a variant of the termination of the’american way of life.
(19) This text, read at seminar 15 March 1980, is a response to The. Althusser, designated as the “Mr. A., philosopher”. Par contrast, Lacan indicates the title of a work by Tristan Tzara: Mr. Aa, the antiphilosophe. On the proposition notera “philosophy is a finite thing”; it is not unreasonable to interpret: “philosophy has no place in the infinite universe”. I thank François Regnault for drawing my attention to this reference.
(20) Lacan here refers to’Essay on Indifference Lamennais. The reference is found in S., XI, p. 238. Note that the indifference Freudian policy limits that we are not forced to approve; it does not prohibit marked favor towards the English political system. To be almost the rule among European scholars since the eighteenth century, this bias is not without silliness and contains the seeds some later developments. Cf. Supra, n. 18.