Lacan 401

Lacan 401

The Subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious

佛洛伊德的無意識:主體的顛覆及欲望的辯證

The praxis that we call psychoanalysis is constituted by a structure. An audience like the one here today—an audience that we presume to be aware of philosophical problems—cannot ignore this structure.

結構組成我們所謂的精神分析學的本體。今天在現場的觀眾,我假定你們對於哲學的問題已經耳熟能詳,但是不要忽略這個問題。

The notion that to be a philosopher means being interested in what everyone is interested in without knowing it has the interesting peculiarity that its pertinence does not imply that it can be verified. For it can be put to the test only by everyone becoming a philosopher.

作為一位哲學家,表示你關心的問題,是一般大眾關心,但是不知其所以然的問題。這個觀念的特質頗耐人尋味,因為它非常中肯,卻不見得就能證實。因為只有每個人都成為哲學家,它才能夠被驗證。

I say its philosophical pertinence, for ushc, in the last resort, is the schema that hegel gave us of History in The Phenomenology of Mind.

我說,它在哲學方面非常中肯,是因為在黑格爾的「精神現象學」一書所給我們的歷史的模式中,它得到最後的證實。

Summarizing it in this way is to provide us with a mediation that facilitates the situating of the subject—namely, in relation to knowledge.

以這種方式概括論述,是要提供給我們一個仲介,方便確認主體的位置,換言之主體跟知識的關係。

It is also easy to demonstrate the ambiguity of such a relation.

主體跟知識的關係模糊不清,是顯而易見的。

The same ambiguity is manifested in the effects of science in the world today.

在今日的世界,顯而易見的,科學的效用也是同樣的模糊不清。

The scientists, too, is a subject, and one particularly qualified in his constitution, as is shown by the fact that science did not come into the world o is own accord ( its birth was not without its vicissitudes, and it was preceded by a number of failures—by abortion or premature birth).

科學家也是一位人的主體,只是對於自己的專業特別內行。事實上,科學並不是自動自發來到這個世界(科學的起源不是沒有興衰階段,中間經歷無數的失敗,或是中途夭折,或是時機不成熟。)

Now this subject who must know what he is doing, or so one presumes, does not know aht, in the effects of science, is already, in fact, where everyone finds himself at the same level as the scientist as far as ignorance on this point is concerned.

科學家作為一位主體,必須知道自己在做些什麼,或以為自己知道在做些什麼。但事實上,他並不知道,哪些科學的效用是受人歡迎。就欠缺自知之明這一點而言,科學家處於今天的世界,跟一般大眾的自以為是,其實是五十步笑百步。

This fact alone justifies us in speaking of a subject of science—a notion to which an epistemology that can be said to display more promise than success hopes to be equal.

光是這個事實,就足以讓我們振振有詞談到,人作為科學的主體是什麼。據說,人是有認識自己的本體是什麼的展望,但是不見得就能成功地達到。我希望精神分析學能夠符合這個期望。

Hence, let it be noted, my entirely didactic reference to Hegel, by which I wished to say something, for the purposes of the training that I have in mind, about the question of the subject, in so far as that question is properly subverted y psychoanalysis.

因此,讓我們注意一下。我的全部講授始終脫離不了要談黑格爾。對於人作為主體的問題,就我心目中的精神分析師的訓練,我希望有所貢獻,因為精神分析學道道地地顛覆了這個問題。

What qualifies me to proceed in this direction is obviously my experience of this praxis. What has decided me to do so, those who follow my teaching will bear this out, is a theoretical nullity coupled with abuses in the way in which it is passed on, which, while presenting no danger to the praxis itself, result, in either case, in a total absence of scientific status. To pose the question of the minimum conditions required for such a status was not perhaps a dishonest departure. This departure has taken us a long way.

我有資格對這個問題侃侃而談,顯而易見,是因為我在這個領域累積的經驗。聽過我授課的學生可以為我證明,我之所以如此孜孜不息,是因為精神分析學的理論莫衷一是,再加上方法的傳授粗製濫造。這對於精神分析學本身雖然並無大礙,但無論如何,卻造成完全無法在科學的地位受人肯定。不可諱言,精神分析學要成為一門科學,困難重重。但是,長久以來,我們卻都諱疾忌醫。

I am not dealing here with anything so broad in scope as a radical questioning of social bases; I do not intend, in particular, to dwell on the conclusions that I have been forced to draw about the notorious deviations in analytic praxis that are perpetrated in the name of psychoanalysis in Britain and America.

我目前並不是要處理精神分析學的建立,需要怎樣的社會基礎,如此廣泛的激進問題。特別是,我並不打算詳述在英國及美國,我所見所聞,那些打著精神分析學的旗號,諸般的惡名昭彰的從事行為。

What I will try to define is subversion proper, and I apologize to this gathering, whose quality I have already acknowledged, for being unable to do more in its presence than in its absence, that is, to take it as the very pivot of my demonstration, even though it is up to me to justify this attitude with regard to it.

我設法要談到的,是人作為主體的顛覆。恕我冒昧地說,我承認現場的諸位聽眾都具有基本的精神分析學素養,但是我依舊無法在諸位面前當下立竿見影,換言之,我無法當場證明你們作為人的主體已經被顛覆,雖然我有義務要為我的危言聳聽提供證詞。

Yet I shall use it in order to take as given the fact that empiricism cannot constitute the foundations for a science.

可是,我還是堅持我的主張,因為科學的基礎並不等於是經驗主義,已經受到公認。

At a second stage, we encounter what has already been constituted, by virtue of a scientific label, under the name of psychology.

其次,我們遭遇的問題是,精神分析學被歸類在心理學的名下,作為一門科學的標誌,所牽涉到的內涵。

A label that I would reject—precisely because, as I will show, the function of the subject, as it is established in Freudian experience, disqualifies from the outset what, under cover of the term ‘ psychology’, however one dresses up its premises, merely perpetuates an academic framework.

我會拒絕這個標誌,主要是因為,如我所說,佛洛伊德創立精神分析學的開始,以「心理學」這個術語作為掩飾,在學術的架構舞台粉墨登場,但主體的功用始終是妾身不明。

Its criterion is the unity of the subject, which is one of the presuppositions of this sort of psychology, it being even taken as symptomatic that its theme is always more emphatically isolated, as if it were a question of the return of a certain subject of knowledge ( connaissance), or as if the psychical had to obtain its credentials as a double of the physical organism.

它的標準是主體的一致性,這是這種心理學的預設立場之一。心理學處理的主題甚至刻意被孤立出來當著是病徵,好像某種主體的認知一但被恢復過來,他就會大病痊癒,或是好像心理的病徵,必須在生理的器官身上得到驗證。

We must take as our standard here the idea in which a whole body of traditional thought comes together to validate a term, ‘ state of knowledge’ ( etat de la connaissance), that is not without foundation. Whether it is a question of the states of enthusiasm described by Plato, the Buddhist degrees of Samadhi, or the Erlenis, the experience obtained under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, it is necessary to know how much of these is authenticated by any theory.

我們在此必須將這個觀念當著是我們的標準,傳統思想的整套系統一以貫之,就是要證實人的「認知的狀態」,這不是沒有道理的。是否這個狀態是柏拉圖所描述的全神貫注,或是佛教徒的涅槃境界,或德國哲學的超越經驗,或迷幻藥作用下的飄飄欲仙,我們都有需要去知道,它們到底有多少程度會獲得理論證實為真實。

Authenticated in the register of the connaturality implied in knowledge ( connaissance).

人對於真實的認知,意味著人天生稟賦有辨認真實的潛力。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: