Publication: Semiótica, lógica e individuación en Deleuze y Lacan: ontología y política de la clínica
Loading...
Files
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2016-06-28
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
El planteamiento general de este trabajo tiene todo que ver con un intento de clarificación referido a las concepciones lógicas y semióticas en virtud de las cuales es posible sostener la irreductibilidad al discurso científico tanto de la filosofía como del psicoanálisis. Tal discurso se constituye en la modernidad y, por cuanto encuentra un peculiar modo de inserción institucional y social como práctica científica de innovación y desarrollo, además de porque dicha inserción le confiere un papel especialmente relevante en los procesos de subjetivación requeridos y propiciados por la sociedad contemporánea, entendemos que la cuestión planteada reviste una relevancia digna de ser tenida en consideración. Ahora bien, muchos son los estudios dedicados a esta cuestión desde perspectivas muy diversas, si bien frecuentemente aquello que se sitúa como objeto principal de la investigación es extraído, bien del lado de la articulación de la ciencia con las condiciones de producción de la sociedad moderna, bien del de un hipotético sujeto (en cierto sentido moral o personal) que resulta violentado o sometido por dichas condiciones. Sin embargo, el propósito y proceder de este volumen pretende situarse en un ámbito intermedio, sirviéndose del modo en el que dos figuras representativas tanto de la filosofía como del psicoanálisis durante la segunda mitad del siglo XX reciben las consecuencias del llamado “giro lingüístico”, en especial por lo que toca a su vertiente estructuralista y a los debates que aparecen a partir de su surgimiento. Tomando como partida la propuesta de Gilles Deleuze de considerar la sintomatología como una práctica propiamente crítica que concierne al modo de reunión y disociación de síntomas mediante la cual se construyen síndromes o regímenes de signos conforme a los que puede tener lugar una evaluación de los sujetos, entendemos que resulta crucial disponer de un aparato conceptual suficiente para dar cuenta de qué concepción del lenguaje y del signo en general se pone en juego en el psicoanálisis y de hasta qué punto ésta es solidaria con respecto a aquella que es efectiva en el ámbito de la sociedad contemporánea...
This work's general approach is due to an attempt to clarify those logical and ontological conceptions which made possible to support the distinction between scientific, philosophical and psychoanalytic speech. Scientific speech becomes constituted within modernity and finds a peculiar way of institutional and social insertion as innovation and development practices. That insertion gives scientific speech a relevant role in those subjectivation processes which are required and promoted by contemporary society. Thus, this approach presents a relevance that makes it worthy of some special regard. However, there are many studies on this issue from different perspectives. What is often taken as the main object for enquiry is either extracted from the way in which science articulates with modern society productive conditions, or from a hypothetical subject moral or personal constitution, which is actually busted down and submitted by those conditions. Nevertheless, our purpose and procedure here claim to remain in a half way field and aim to consider in which way two representative figures of philosophy and psychoanalysis during the late twentieth century deal with “linguistic turn”, specially regarding the structuralism trend and those debates which have been appearing since its birth. Taking as starting point Gilles Deleuze proposal to consider symptomatology as critical practice itself -concerning the way in which symptoms get assembled and dissociated in order to build syndromes as regimes of signs that constitute conditions of subject evaluation- an adequate conceptual apparatus seems to be crucial to know what kind of language and sign conception is used in psychoanalysis and also in which way it is supportive with the effective semiotics in contemporary society...
This work's general approach is due to an attempt to clarify those logical and ontological conceptions which made possible to support the distinction between scientific, philosophical and psychoanalytic speech. Scientific speech becomes constituted within modernity and finds a peculiar way of institutional and social insertion as innovation and development practices. That insertion gives scientific speech a relevant role in those subjectivation processes which are required and promoted by contemporary society. Thus, this approach presents a relevance that makes it worthy of some special regard. However, there are many studies on this issue from different perspectives. What is often taken as the main object for enquiry is either extracted from the way in which science articulates with modern society productive conditions, or from a hypothetical subject moral or personal constitution, which is actually busted down and submitted by those conditions. Nevertheless, our purpose and procedure here claim to remain in a half way field and aim to consider in which way two representative figures of philosophy and psychoanalysis during the late twentieth century deal with “linguistic turn”, specially regarding the structuralism trend and those debates which have been appearing since its birth. Taking as starting point Gilles Deleuze proposal to consider symptomatology as critical practice itself -concerning the way in which symptoms get assembled and dissociated in order to build syndromes as regimes of signs that constitute conditions of subject evaluation- an adequate conceptual apparatus seems to be crucial to know what kind of language and sign conception is used in psychoanalysis and also in which way it is supportive with the effective semiotics in contemporary society...
Description
Tesis inédita de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Filosofía, leída el 04-02-2016