English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

By commenting Iannini’s text about the convergence between the scientific attitude and aesthetic thought in Freud’s writings, the aim of this article is to question the supposed confiability of a merely positivistic criterion of scientific reasoning in the psychoanalytic works. At first, following some of his aesthetics comments, written anonymously in his essay on the Moses of Michelangelo, we will see how Freud admits that the method for recognising the authorship of an artwork developed by the Italian physician Giovanni Morrelli played considerable influence on him, even before the discovery of psychoanalysis. This method consisted on the observation of peripheral singulars details of a unique work of art, just as psychoanalysis dispense attention to little noticed features and secret things to shed light upon the unconscious. Later, this same method would also have been assigned to the type of research carried out by Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, by being baptized by Carlo Ginzburg of evidential paradigm, or presumptive method. In a second moment, however, we’ll refuse this same sherlockian tradition by suggesting that Freud’s scientific attitude should be recognized more in the good faith of his investigatives procedures and intellectual rectitude, which led him to recognize limitations and flaws in all research, than in the final resolution of a puzzle, and we will approach our analysis to the hermeneutics and pragmatics reading of psychoanalysis. Finally, we will move away also from this last perspective, to show that the persistence of Freud’s archaeological researches on the meaning of dreams, symptoms and memory disorders to enhance the dynamics of the treatment approaches psychoanalysis to the materialistic perspective of Benjamin, refusing the notion of finite, closed and linear time, to support a non-progressive, positivist and developmental conception of history.

Do detalhe à história: Comentário do texto de Iannini “A psicanálise Freudiana entre ciência e arte”