À la frontière de la psychanalyse et de la science dans son actualité. Réflexions épistémologiques

The author of this article proposes different reflections on the epistemology of psychoanalysis in order to encourage dialogue among representatives of modern sciences. Obviously our times have seen a multiplication of scientific rationale with observation methods and experimentation that no longer refer to a single objective reality. Psychoanalysis itself can no longer be defined as a single homogeneous unity. The framework of our discussion compares Freud's analytic method with what is commonly called exact science. Psychoanalysis appeared late in the history of sciences and attempted to find a place in the world of modern epistemologies. The author argues that the founder of psychoanalysis postulated that his unique method had its roots in ancient Greek technique defined as a know-how that encompassed both an art and a science. Such a technique appears in Freud's analytic method as the work of a craftsman. He describes the technique in his first work on his method by the use of language and its evocative quality. Even though he does not make explicit reference to the great rhetoric tradition, which goes way back to Aristotle, Freud's psychoanalysis is in a way an inheritor of this great cultural movement of ancient times. While exact science is based on evidence of mathematical origin that was initiated a few centuries ago by legendary researchers such as Galileo, Newton and Descartes, psychoanalysis is based on language because of its technical qualities. It is here that we find the fundamental difference between the two epistemologies. The former evolved by strict adherence to rationality, which made mathematical calculations possible. The latter took the direction of working on symptoms and research by way of conjectural thought.