When talking about psychoanalysis, many people have a somewhat confusing view of their scientific nature. Some see it as a more artistic or philosophical practice than properly scientific. However, it is important to understand that psychoanalysis has its roots in both worlds: that of natural science and that of hermeneutics. In this article, we will explore this dichotomy and how it applies to the practice ofpsychoanalysis.
Introduction to Natural Sciences
Natural sciences are disciplines that seek to understand the physical world through observations, experiments, and formulation of universal laws. Physics, chemistry and biology are classic examples of these sciences. They operate under the principle of objectivity, seeking to describe phenomena in a quantifiable and predictable manner.
Psychoanalysis, on the other hand, deals with human subjectivity, exploring the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of individuals. This puts it in a slightly different category of the natural sciences, as the complexity of the human mind with traditional scientific tools cannot easily be easily measured.
Psychoanalysis as a hermeneutic science
Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation, especially texts, but also applies to understanding of any form of human expression. Psychoanalysis fits this category because it seeks to interpret the symbols, dreams, lapses and other elements of subjective experience to better understand the functioning of the mind.
As a hermeneutic science, psychoanalysis does not seek universal laws or mathematical formulas to explain human behavior. Instead, she focuses on each patient’s individual narrative, seeking to understand how her past and present experiences influence her current thoughts, feelings and actions.
The intersection with the natural sciences
Although psychoanalysis has a hermeneutic approach, it is not completely detached from the natural sciences. Neuroscience, for example, has contributed significantly to the understanding of brain functioning and how this is related to psychological processes.
Studies in neuroplasticity show how the brain can change in response to experiences, including psychoanalytic therapies. This suggests that although psychoanalysis operates on the domain of subjectivity, it has a measurable impact on brain functioning, dining a connection between hermeneutics and the natural sciences.
Challenges and criticism
One of the main challenges faced by psychoanalysis is the difficulty in quantifying their results. As a therapy based on subjective interpretation, it is complicated to establish objective parameters to measure the success of a treatment.
Moreover, critics argue that psychoanalysis does not follow traditional patterns of scientificity, such as the replicability of results and the falsifiability of theories. These criticisms raise questions about the validity of psychoanalysis as a scientific discipline.
However, advocates of psychoanalysis argue that their unique approach to human understanding cannot be reduced to traditional scientific methods. They argue that the subjectivity and complexity of human experience require a more qualitative and interpretative approach.
Future Conclusions and Perspectives
Psychoanalysis, as a hermeneutic science, offers a valuable perspective on the human condition. Although it may not fit perfectly along the lines of the natural sciences, its ability to explore and interpret human subjectivity is invaluable.
As we continue to advance in the understanding of the brain and mind, we are likely to see even greater integration between psychoanalysis and natural sciences. Neuroscience and other disciplines are beginning to recognize the value of the hermeneutic approach in understanding complex phenomena such as consciousness and subjective experience.
Therefore, instead of seeing psychoanalysis and natural sciences as mutually exclusive, we can consider them as complementary. Together they offer a more complete view of what human beings means, covering both the complexity of the mind and the biological foundations of our existence.
