Freud, Bion and Kant: Epistemology and anthropology in The Interpretation of Dreams

Translations of summary

This interdisciplinary article takes a philosophical approach to The Interpretation of Dreams, connecting Freud to one of the few philosophers with whom he sometimes identified – Immanuel Kant. It aims to show that Freud's theory of dreams has more in common with Bion's later thoughts on dreaming than is usually recognized. Distinguishing, via a discussion of Kant, between the conflicting ‘epistemological’ and ‘anthropological’ aspects of The Interpretation of Dreams, it shows that one specific contradiction in the book – concerning the relation between dream‐work and waking thought – can be understood in terms of the tension between these conflicting aspects. Freud reaches the explicit conclusion that the dream‐work and waking thought differ from each other absolutely; but the implicit conclusion of The Interpretation of Dreams is quite the opposite. This article argues that the explicit conclusion is the result of the epistemological aspects of the book; the implicit conclusion, which brings Freud much closer to Bion, the result of the anthropological approach. Bringing philosophy and psychoanalysis together this paper thus argues for an interpretation of The Interpretation of Dreams that is in some ways at odds with the standard view of the book, while also suggesting that aspects of Kant's ‘anthropological’ works might legitimately be seen as a precursor of psychoanalysis.

Freud, bion et kant : épistémologie et anthropologie dans l'interprétation des rêves

(article précédemment soumis sous le titre « L'antinomie onirique: Kant, épistémologie et anthropologie dans L'interprétation des rêves »). L'auteur de cet article interdisciplinaire, qui est basé sur une approche philosophique de L'interprétation des rêves, met en regard la pensée de Freud et celle de l'un des rares philosophes auquel celui‐ci s'identifiait parfois – Emmanuel Kant. Elle vise à montrer que la théorie des rêves de Freud partage plus de points communs avec les hypothèses que Bion a développées dans un second temps qu'on ne le reconnaît habituellement. A partir d'une discussion de la pensée de Kant, elle établit une distinction et une opposition entre les aspects épistémologiques et anthropologiques de L'interprétation des rêves et montre que l'une des contradictions spécifiques inhérentes à cet ouvrage – à savoir la relation entre le travail du rêve et la pensée vigile ‐ peut être analysée à la lumière de la tension entre ces aspects conflictuels. Freud parvient à la conclusion explicite que le travail du rêve et la pensée vigile diffèrent radicalement l'un de l'autre; mais la conclusion implicite de L'interprétation des rêves est tout autre. L'auteur soutient que la conclusion explicite résulte des aspects épistémologiques de l'ouvrage, tandis que la conclusion implicite, qui rapproche la conception freudienne de celle de Bion, résulte de la perspective anthropologique. En réunissant philosophie et psychanalyse, l'auteur plaide pour une interprétation de L'interprétation des rêves qui contredit dans une certaine mesure la vision habituelle de cet ouvrage, de même qu'elle émet l'hypothèse que les travaux anthropologiques de Kant peuvent par certains aspects être légitimement considérés comme les précurseurs de la psychanalyse.

Freud, bion und kant: epistemologie und anthropologie in die traumdeutung

Dieser interdisziplinäre Beitrag ist eine philosophische Untersuchung der Traumdeutung und bringt Freud mit einem der wenigen Philosophen in Verbindung, mit denen er sich gelegentlich identifizierte, nämlich Immanuel Kant. Gezeigt werden soll, dass Freuds Theorie der Träume mit Bions späteren Überlegungen zum Träumen mehr gemeinsam hat, als man sich gewöhnlich klar macht. Ausgehend von einer Kant‐Diskussion und der Unterscheidung zwischen den widerstreitenden „epistemologischen” und „anthropologischen” Aspekten der Traumdeutung wird gezeigt, dass ein spezifischer Widerspruch des Buches – er betrifft die Beziehung zwischen Traumarbeit und Wachdenken – verständlich wird, wenn man die Spannung zwischen diesen widerstreitenden Aspekten berücksichtigt. Freud gelangt zu der ausdrücklichen Schlussfolgerung, dass die Traumarbeit und das Wachdenken sich absolut voneinander unterscheiden; die implizite Schlussfolgerung der Traumdeutung besagt aber das Gegenteil. Die Autorin vertritt die These, dass die explizite Schlussfolgerung ein Ergebnis der epistemologischen Aspekte des Buches ist; die implizite Schlussfolgerung, die Freud deutlich näher an Bion heranrückt, resultiert aus dem anthropologischen Ansatz. Indem die Autorin Philosophie und Psychoanalyse zusammenführt, plädiert sie für eine Interpretation der Traumdeutung, die der üblichen Lesart des Buches in mancherlei Hinsicht zuwiderläuft; sie erläutert, dass Aspekte der „anthropologischen” Schriften Kants zu Recht als Vorläufer der Psychoanalyse betrachtet werden können.

Freud, bion e kant: epistemologia e antropologia nell'interpretazione dei sogni

(articolo inizialmente sottoposto alla redazione con il titolo: ‘L'antinomia onirica: Kant, l'epistemologia e l'antropologia nell’Interpretazione dei sogni). Questo articolo di taglio interdisciplinare si accosta all'Interpretazione dei sogni muovendo da un approccio di tipo filosofico e collegando Freud a uno dei pochi filosofi con cui egli si è talora identificato, Immanuel Kant. L'autrice si propone di mostrare come la teoria freudiana dei sogni abbia più aspetti in comune con quella del tardo Bion di quanto comunemente si riconosca. Distinguendo, attraverso una discussione di Kant, tra gli aspetti ‘epistemologici’ e quelli ‘antropologici’ dell'Interpretazione dei sogni – aspetti che l'autrice mostra essere in conflitto tra loro – si evidenzia come una specifica contraddizione nel libro, quella inerente alla relazione tra lavoro del sogno pensiero della veglia, possa essere compresa proprio facendo riferimento alla tensione tra questi due aspetti. Sebbene a livello esplicito Freud concluda che il lavoro del sogno e il pensiero della veglia sono del tutto diversi tra loro, la conclusione implicita dell'Interpretazione è diametralmente opposta. L'articolo sostiene infatti che la conclusione esplicita è il frutto degli aspetti epistemologici del libro, mentre quella implicita, che porta Freud molto più vicino a Bion, sarebbe il risultato dell'approccio antropologico. Attraverso l'interazione di filosofia e psicoanalisi si propone qui un'interpretazione dell'Interpretazione dei sogni che per più versi si discosta dall'idea che normalmente si ha del testo freudiano, e al tempo stesso si suggerisce che alcuni aspetti delle opere ‘antropologiche ‘ di Kant potrebbero essere legittimamente considerati come precursori della psicoanalisi.

Freud, bion y kant: epistemología y antropología en la interpretación de los sueños

El presente artículo interdisciplinario aborda La interpretación de los sueños desde un enfoque filosófico, conectando a Freud con Immanuel Kant, uno de los pocos filósofos con los cuales, a veces, se identificó. El estudio busca demostrar que la teoría de los sueños de Freud tiene más en común con las ideas posteriores de Bion sobre el sueño, de lo que suele reconocerse. Al distinguir, vía una discusión sobre Kant, entre aspectos “epistemológicos” y aspectos “antropológicos” conflictivos en La interpretación de los sueños, se demuestra que la relación entre el trabajo del sueño y el pensamiento diurno, una contradicción específica en esta obra, puede ser comprendida en términos de la tensión entre estos aspectos conflictivos. Freud llega a la conclusión explícita de que el trabajo del sueño y el pensamiento diurno difieren entre sí de manera absoluta; pero la conclusión implícita de La interpretación de los sueños es todo lo contrario. Se sostiene que la conclusión explícita es el resultado de los aspectos epistemológicos del libro; la conclusión implícita, que acerca a Freud más a Bion, el resultado del enfoque antropológico. Al reunir a la filosofía y el psicoanálisis, el estudio argumenta a favor de una interpretación de La interpretación de los sueños que no concuerda, de alguna forma, con la visión estándar sobre la obra, mientras también sugiere que ciertos aspectos de las obras “antropológicas” de Kant se podrían considerar, de manera legítima, como precursoras del psicoanálisis.

Key words:

• Freud
• Kant
• Bion
• dreams
• anthropology

Notes

1. Lacan does of course frequently refer to The Interpretation of Dreams, especially in the 1957 essay ‘The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason Since Freud’ (in Lacan, 2006), where he works through the relation between Freud's theory and structuralist linguistics. But his published works and his teaching (as far as we know) does not give The Interpretation of Dreams the same kind of sustained examination as other of Freud's works.

2. Throughout, page references refer to the Vintage edition of the Standard Edition of Freud's works.

3. Given that affects in dreams (for example, fear) are ‘real’ in a way that the content of the dream that provokes them is not, Freud ends section F of Chapter I by noting that “we are faced by the problem of what part of the psychical processes occurring in dreams is to be regarded as real, that is to say, has a claim to be classed among the psychical processes of waking life” (1900, p. 74).

4. See, for example, Freud (1900, p. 122). After the introduction of the idea of censorship in Chapter IV, the more neutral ‘alteration’ or ‘change’ (Veränderung) becomes the idea of ‘distortion’ (Entstellung) (Chapter IV is called ‘Die Traumentstellung’).

5. See also Bion (1962, p. 48): “I wish to emphasize that all that has been said about the problems of knowledge [in philosophy] applies with particular force to psycho‐analysis and that psycho‐analysis applies with particular force to these problems.”

6. Particularly from the sections on the synthesis of reproduction in the imagination and the second of the ‘Analogies of Experience’, where Kant discusses the objective law of appearances (basically: the law of causality) in distinction from the subjective sequences of perception, and where the “subjective play of my imaginings”, freed from the objective law of appearances, is indeed identified with “a mere dream” (Kant, 1781/87, p. A202/B247). References to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason cite the pagination of the first (A) and second (B) German editions, as is conventional.

7. For example in 1915, in the first section of ‘The Unconscious’ (‘Justification for the Concept of the Unconscious’), p. 171. See also Binswanger's reports of Freud's self‐comparison with Kant in Tauber (2009, pp. 4–7). Philosophers have often found the comparison convincing (for example, Bergo, 2004, pp. 343–345; Sallis, 2004, pp. 1–4, 7, 9, 12–14).

8. See Rockmore (2004, pp. 22, 23, 31); Dreyfus (1976, pp. xv–xvi); Sallis (2004).

9. Kant (1798, pp. 284, 285). See also p. 289.

10. See, for example, Kant (1798, pp. 285, 309).

11. See, for example, Kant (1781/87, p. B278); Kant (1790, p. 156).

12. Thus I cannot agree with Foucault (1781, pp. 68–69) that the “privileged domain” of the Anthropology is “where they show their failings … the movement by which the faculties, distancing themselves from their center and their justification, become other than themselves, illegitimate”.

13. Bion's ‘A Theory of Thinking’ (in Bion, 1967) is perhaps the best example of this.

14. This is not to suggest that Bion knew Kant's anthropological work; sources suggest that he did not have these works in his library (Noel‐Smith, 2013, p. 125). Certainly he did not refer to them in his published works.

15. Thus I agree with Sandler (2006) and Fischbein and Miramón (2015), contra Schneider (2010), that there is no ‘paradigm shift’ (Schneider, 2010, p. 91) between Freud's and Bion's work on dreaming.

16. Freud also often refers to overdetermination as one of the essential factors in the dream work, but to the extent that its mechanism is “a transference and displacement of psychical intensities” (1900, p. 307), the formations to which overdetermination gives rise can be seen in terms of displacement (especially) and condensation.

17. See Freud (1900, pp. 450–451, 445, 459, 545).

18. Translation modified. Freud writes: “Sie is nicht etwa nachlässiger, inkorrecter, vergeßlicher, unvollständiger als das wache Denken; sie is etwas davon qualitativ völlig Verschiedenes und darum zunächst nicht mit ihm vergleichbar” (p. 499) Strachey's translation of the first half of this sentence reads: “The dream work is not simply more careless, more irrational, more forgetful and more incomplete than waking thought”; it softens Freud's point.

19. Which makes Meltzer's hostility to the concept somewhat puzzling. He calls secondary revision “a shameful trick concept”, used to “caulk the whole leaky structure” of Freud's theory of dreams (Meltzer, 2009, p. 20). For an argument concerning the relation between the concept of the fragment, secondary revision Freud's Interpretation of Dreams see Sandford (2016).

20. See especially Chapter II, ‘The Epistemological Problem in the Theory of Dreams’, in Meltzer (2009).

21. See also Freud (1900, p. 596).