Abstract

Psihoanaliza kao teorija, praksa i interpretacija nije se pojavila kao samo još jedan »izam« na početku 20. stoljeća, već i kao jedan bitan pomak od doista tradicionalističkog poimanja onog unutarnjeg u čovjeku spram vanjskog. Sam Lacan, u suvremenosti jedan od najpoznatijih teoretičara i interpreta psihoanalize, kaže da pristup koji bi odogonetnuo mjesto polazišta njenog istraživanja i definiranja »nije baš unutra, a ne zna se da li je izvana«. Ovim se željelo nagovijestiti da ona uporišta koje govore ne samo o psihoanalizi, već i o mogućem nalaženju istih, iznose, pa i računaju s nekim nesigurnostima spram tradicije.U vrijeme nastanka i prvih aktualnosti psihoanalize i Freudovog učenja, u filozofiji se gotovo istovremeno sve češće pojavljuju napori da se ljudska psiha i uopće psihologijsko oslobodi kauzalnosti i mehanicističkih određenja, s jedne strane, i da se istovremeno oslobodi predstave i kauzalnosti nečeg iracionalnog i beskonačnog, s druge strane. Nastojeći izbjeći nejasna određenja i suprotstavljanja duše i/ili psihe, filozofija sustavnije od E. Husserla nastoji sve izrazitije naglasiti čovjekovu unutarnjost kroz reinterpretaciju transcendentalnih iskustva subjektivnosti i intersubjektivnosti. Individualna teorijska tvorba, međusobno teorijsko prožimanje, dodirne i razdvajajuće povijesno- teorijske i filozofijske točke ovih dvaju različitih, ali povremeno i komplementarnih ishodišta predmet su zanimanja i razmišljanja u ovom radu.Psychoanalysis as a theory, practice and interpretation did not occur like another -ism on the begining of the twentieth century, but also as one important step ahead from truly traditional understanding of inside of the man which is confronted with his outside existence. Jacques Lacan himself, today one of the most known theoritician and interpreter of psychoanalysis, says that approach which could figure out where is the starting point of its exploring and defining isn’t really inside, and it’s not sure if it’s outside. Saying this, one wants to foreshow that those foundations which speak not only of psychoanalysis, but also about possible findings of them.That is why there are some uncertainties about tradition in these considerations.At the time when psychoanalysis and Freud’s learnings became actual and new, in philosophy almost simultaneously more and more often are present efforts which human psyche and psychology in general were slowly making free of causalities and mechanistic charachteristics on one side. On the other side, in the same time, there have been efforts which would make the psyche free of such images that would define it as irational and infinte entity. Trying to avoid unclear definitions and confrontations in understanding of psyche and/or soul, philosophy is more sistematical with this problem since philosophy of Edmund Husserl. He’s trying to emphasize more utterly the world inside the man through the reinterpretation of transcedental experience of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. Individual philosophical creation, mutual theoretical coming between, connecting and separating historically-theoretical and philosophical standpoints of these two different, but occasionaly also complementary outcomes are the object of interest and reflections in this work