You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The subject of this paper is the conflict between various interpretations of human existence, in particular between psychoanalysis and other apparently conflicting interpretations. The French philosopher, Paul Ricoeur (b. 1913) has previously taken up this theme in his work, De I'Interpretation, Essai sur Freud (1965), which has been translated into English (Freud and Philosophy: Essay on Interpretation, and German, as well as in a number of articles including “Psychoanalysis and the development of modern culture” and the essay entitled “The development of the father-figure from phantasm to symbol”, which concludes the little book on Danish Sprogfilosofi. Other articles concerned with the same theme are to be found in the collection of essays, Le conflit des interprétations from 1969 (in English, The Conflict of Interpretations).
My account of the special role of psychoanalysis will in many respects constitute a reproduction of Ricoeur's thought, though in some cases I shall express myself or draw conclusions in a rather different manner from Ricoeur himself. However I have presented Scandinavian readers with a more comprehensive description of Ricoeur's philosophy in the Swedish book, Språk och Existens.
In using Ricoeur as guide for this exposition, I shall at the same time refer to the French debate on psychoanalysis, and to its central figure, Jacques Lacan (b. 1901). Lacan's conception of psychoanalysis is characteristic in that it is essentially conversation or dialogue, i.e. language. Psychoanalysis consists of a communication between analyst and patient, and thus, Lacan maintains, cannot consist of a simple technique, i.e. the manipulation of an object in the scientific sense. “Treatment” must consist