Knowledge of the unconscious. Like most philosophers, Freud believed that all human knowledge is somehow connected with consciousness. Classical psychoanalysis is about translating the repressed unconscious into the preconscious. Besso knowledge status

Psychoanalysis could be called the realm of transdisciplinary or supra-disciplinary research. The fact is that the unconscious as an object of psychoanalytic knowledge and practice is qualitatively heterogeneous. Although Freud included the concept of the unconscious among the main elements of the theory of psychoanalysis, he never had unambiguity in his interpretation (suffice it to say that the term “unconscious” was present in him only in the so-called “first topic”, and in the second it disappeared under the name of It). So the unconscious in psychoanalysis is often called completely different instances that do not form a single object. This, by the way, can also be found in the history of psychoanalysis, where various levels of the unconscious (in fact, various types of the unconscious) - biological, social, linguistic, etc. - successively came to the fore. And this means in our case that both the translation of the unconscious into consciousness, and translations between different levels of the unconscious have their limits. With all the conventionality of the “objective” representation of what can only partly be called an object, with all the limitations and simplification of any naturalistic picture of the unconscious, one can propose the following conditional three-term scheme: in the unconscious, the “animal” (archaic) unconscious, the “group” (psychological, psychofamily) unconscious, the “social” unconscious and, possibly, some other types of it coexist.

The most ancient or even atavistic layers of the unconscious are concentrated in the animal unconscious - that which almost directly connects man with animals. These are layers of instincts, barely torn off from their animal fundamental principle - biological needs, impulsive drives. The history of Freud's concept of "drive" shows all his hesitations about the place of drives in the unconscious - somewhere on the verge of biological and psychological. Apparently, it is at this level that the unconscious drives and needs of the infancy period, i.e., the period of the utmost helplessness and dependence of the human being on other people and circumstances, are concentrated to the greatest extent. It can be assumed that the unconscious influence of hypnotic mechanisms, in particular in psychotherapeutic practice, is associated with this period of prolonged dependence. When the psyche regresses to the level of the animal unconscious (infantile, archaic), human development “shrinks” and gives free rein to herd instincts. In the group unconscious, we are talking about the psychological mechanisms of group interactions - primarily the psychofamily unconscious (of course, all other levels of the unconscious can also be attributed to the unconscious mental and are presented at the level of psychological mechanisms, but this does not negate their specificity). This layer of the unconscious imprints psychofamily and group conflicts, the vicissitudes of acquiring family and gender roles, the moments of a child’s puberty (from the initial awareness of gender to the future acceptance of one’s gender role), which leaves its mark on the entire emotional experience of a person. Of course, the prerequisites for gender identification are formed even at the stage of the "animal unconscious" (for example, when a mother - "the first seducer" - caring for a child, touches his genitals345).

However, more developed structures of psychofamily relations take shape during the period of mastery of a language that can reinforce the ban on incest and include the child in the cultural symbolic order. We note that the psychofamily layer of the unconscious is not yet its proper social layer, although some prerequisites for developed sociality may already be present at the psychofamily level, just as the prerequisites for the psychofamily unconscious may still be formed at its “archaic” level.

The social unconscious is qualitatively unique; it is in no way reduced to either the dynamics of primordial drives or conflicts of psychofamily identification. It is no coincidence that some of Freud's students (first of all, Jung, and later, representatives of neo-Freudianism), carried away by studies of the social (collective) unconscious, essentially abandon the concept of the sexual content of the unconscious. In the social (collective) unconscious, there are not sexual desires, although sublimated, but the social interests of groups and classes, national communities, etc.

With a certain degree of conventionality, it can be assumed that all these strata in the unconscious are, apparently, the product of different historical eras, as well as different periods of individual human development, but all at the same time, interacting in one way or another, function in the psyche of an individual. That is why sometimes it is so difficult to understand what layer or level of the unconscious we are dealing with at the moment. For example, interpersonal mechanisms operate in the social unconscious, similar to hypnotic or suggestive influence: when fragments of a lower level are included in the whole, they partly obey the logic of interactions of a higher level, and partly remain as a specific formation as part of the whole. So, biological impulses, impulses, desires are present at the level of the psychofamily unconscious, but they do not determine its specificity - it is not subject to them. In the same way, psychofamily mechanisms participate in the functioning of the social unconscious, however, its logic can only be characterized in a simplified and metaphorical sense according to psychofamily or archaic (animal) schemata, for example, as a herd search " strong father” or “escape from a despotic mother” (or, on the contrary, turning to the state as an unconditionally “loving mother”), etc., etc.

This idea of ​​the stratification of the unconscious explains many of the difficulties in its cognition. One of these difficulties is related to the search for causal chains in the unconscious, which, as Freud emphasized, do not know breaks. The fact is that causal chains, as is clear from what has been said above, arise at different levels of the unconscious, so that the crossing of various causal series greatly confuses the overall picture. The very interaction of multi-level causal chains gives rise to the phenomenon of “over-causality” (or over-determination)318 or, in other words, a plurality of causal chains and nodes that add up to a compromise non-rigid causal certainty. Psychoanalysis cannot and should not pretend to embrace the entire unconscious. In fact, its subject is the middle, “psychosemic” unconscious, and therefore the transfer of the patterns of this level to other layers of the unconscious is, to some extent, a problematic extrapolation. At different periods of his life, Freud sought explanations for the mental processes that he observed in his medical practice, either at the biological and physiological level (in the early period) or at the level of socio-mythological schematics (in recent decades), and this, apparently, can be interpreted as going beyond the limits of the psychoanalytic object, as a foray into territory inaccessible to psychoanalysis.

The specificity of the object determines, as is known, the specificity of the corresponding discipline. The term "metapsychology", with which Freud tried to designate something essential in the science he created (that which is beyond the scope of a narrowly clinical argument), seems to be much more accurate than it might seem at first glance. Very often, metapsychology is interpreted either as a set of naturalistic, biological ideas about the unconscious in Freud's early works, or, on the contrary, as a social mythology of late psychoanalysis. However, the prefix "meta" means both "beyond", "after", and "above". It can be assumed that when creating psychoanalysis, Freud built exactly meta-psychology, that is, a new psychology that follows what existed then in the form of psychological knowledge, or maybe “proto-psychology” - an analysis of the prerequisites of any knowledge about the psyche in its bodily immersion. But if we consider that in most traditions of psychology there is no place for the body, desire, language in their irreducibility to consciousness, then we have to admit that psychology and psychoanalysis, regardless of what Freud thought about it, are pictures of different realities, not reducible to a common denominator.

Peculiar is not only the attitude of psychoanalysis to its closest neighbor - psychology, but also its relationship with the religious, ethical, philosophical components of culture. Some of these relationships have become fixed in the history of its origin and are now reproduced in one way or another in the composition of psychoanalytic procedures. Arising at the junction of various forms of knowledge and practice, psychoanalysis assumed various functions. For example, after the process of secularization in Europe in the XIX century. destroyed, in particular, the ritual of confession, purification and clarification of the soul, liberation from passions and sins, the psychoanalyst really appeared as a "confessor of the devil." Losing its ethical-religious meaning, psychoanalytic confession can acquire a psychotherapeutic, liberating meaning in the secular sense of the word319. This aspect of psychoanalytic activity continues to exist in the corresponding psychoanalytic forms and rituals, contributing, in particular, to the disclosure of the ethical-cognitive orientation of psychoanalysis.

The rise of psychoanalysis was both a symptom and a consequence of powerful social and cultural shifts. The forms of communication between people, the criteria and ways of incorporating the social into the individual, the forms of interpersonal contacts are changing. The understanding of the human phenomenon itself is expanding. And sometimes it is psychoanalysis that becomes the leading link in various practices of interpersonal communication associated with the transformation of mental and bodily experience. Psychoanachis shows us with his own eyes the variety of ways of participation of the low in the high, of the corporeal in the spiritual, of the “scum of life” in its noble impulses and accomplishments. The participation of the bodily in the life of the human psyche complicates the choice between certain motives, motives, goals, tasks, ways of solving them, makes one look for compromise forms of behavior. In general, it is difficult for a person to learn to be a person - to work, enjoy life, love. In this regard, the experience of psychoanalysis as a search for civilized forms of personal freedom gives not just intellectual knowledge, but also the ability to be oneself, listen to one's inner impulses, and understand the logic of one's own actions.

Now the way is open for psychoanalysis into the life of Russian culture - not only as a phenomenon of Western civilization, studied mainly from books, but also as a spiritual and practical phenomenon320. Different voices in the debate about psychoanalysis again sounded in our country. For some, psychoanalysis is a new philosophy. For others, it is a special "form of life", which is not reducible to either philosophy or experimental scientific knowledge322. For still others, psychoanalysis is a genuine, fully mature science, and in any case "a science no less than physics"323. Such a bright polyphony cannot but please the ear, but it does not replace a critically reflective position, otherwise it risks becoming more a bouquet of emotional reactions to old prohibitions than the result of new reflections. Of course, psychoanalysis is distinguished by the striving for scientificity and objectivity, but the consistent implementation of this objectivist tendency in it would mean the death of everything that is unique, creative and eventful in it. Of course, psychoanalysis is also distinguished by the desire for a liberating and liberating effect - and this is sometimes carried out. However, any victorious psychoanalytic schematization gravitates towards dogmatization and ritualization, towards the circular reproduction of psycho- analytical scheme in culture, when the facts are adjusted to the scheme, and the scheme exists in culture in advance as something self-evident324. In psychoanalysis, various components of the natural and spiritual world, art and social mythology, ethics and craft, philosophy and practical recipes were combined. However, the problematic core of psychoanalysis is nevertheless created precisely by the cognitive intention. Accordingly, the challenge that psychoanalysis poses to us is primarily epistemological, although in our days this is not so easy to notice.

The discovery of the unconscious was not Freud's philosophical discovery at all, although it certainly had philosophical meaning: the main thing is that Freud was able to present the unconscious at the level of the scientific possibilities of his time. It seems to us that there is no need either to save Freud from psychoanalysis (together with the scientistic critics of psychoanalysis), or to defend psychoanalysis from Freud (together with those of his interpreters who are convinced that, while claiming to be scientific, psychoanalysis does not understand itself). Rather, we need to preserve the sobriety of a rational approach to the unconscious as a factor in human life - an approach that is designed "neither to frighten nor console", but to help us understand ourselves, softening the painful contradictions between individual inclinations and the demands of culture that the development of civilization brings with it.

In the modern literature on heuristics, the thesis about the important, moreover, the dominant role of the unconscious (subconscious) in creative activity became essentially trivial. And this is by no means a tribute to the Freudian theory of the "repressed unconscious", but a consequence of the ever-increasing interest of researchers in serious scientific developments of the problem in the pre- and post-psychoanalytic period, which gives reason to consider the phenomenon of the unconscious as a "source of the creative process" (V. A. Engelhardt).

Analyzing the structure of creative thinking, researchers invariably single out that stage (level) of it * , usually referred to as "passive", or a period of "rest", which follows a long (usually unsuccessful) stage of solving a problem by conventional methods of logical analysis. It is at this moment, it is believed, that there is an activation of those forms of the psyche that cannot be attributed to the activity of consciousness in the strict sense of the word.

* (There is no consensus on the number of these levels. A. Poincaré and J. Hadamard name the number 2, G. Wallace and E. Hutchinson - 4, G. Neller - 5, etc.)

One of the founders of the theory of creativity, A. Poincaré called it "abnormal brain activity", in which the researcher splits into two "I": "I" - conscious "and" I "unconscious" (sublimal), associated primarily with "subtle intuition". Consciousness, in his opinion, requires discipline, rigor and a clear methodology. The unconscious, on the contrary, is freed from such severe restrictions and is associated with freedom and creative search. This point of view has since become very widespread. The unconscious is characterized as "a hidden process, the possibilities of which far exceed the mechanisms of conscious intellectual activity. These hidden mechanisms, according to numerous data, are associated with creative processes, with acts of instant "enlightenment", "insight", such as intuition, the phenomenon of insight, etc. " *

* (Problems of management of intellectual activity. Tbilisi, 1974, p. 42.)

It is curious and at the same time significant that both these statements, separated by a time interval of three quarters of a century and a colossal shift in the development of science, do not essentially have a positive semantic distance. The fact of the stability of the concept is quite obvious. Many specialists in the field of heuristics, who recognize the reality of unconscious forms of mental reflection, regardless of their own philosophical and psychological orientation, are united by the desire to emphasize the primacy of the unconscious over consciousness in the field of creative activity. This trend becomes the theoretical basis for constructing various structural and functional models of creative thinking and developing methods for its stimulation. One of them - the method of psycho-intellectual generation (PIG), proposed by scientists from the Institute of Cybernetics of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR, is based precisely on the "pumping" of information from the sphere of the unconscious into the sphere of consciousness.

The model of heuristic thinking is based on the hypothesis of the quantum-wave structure of the coherent brain, which, according to the authors, makes it possible, in the materialistic sense, to outline a philosophical solution to questions about the nature of the unconscious, the essence of intuition, etc. Consciousness and the unconscious are considered as different types of brain activity, conventionally called C-thinking and Q-thinking, controlled by C-neurons and Q-neurons, respectively. To the question of where new thoughts ripen and what is the source of productive thinking, a clear answer is given: mainly in Q-structures, in which information processing is of a "globally integral" nature, in contrast to the "locally elementary" activity of consciousness. The unconscious processes themselves are "ordinary real physical processes associated with the interaction in 4-dimensional lattice nervous networks of many coherent waves-signals described by quantum-wave information functions. The unconsciousness of these processes is not due to the fact that these are some kind of mystical, otherworldly processes, but to the fact that in them events of the external world are compared not with probabilities, but with amplitudes of probabilities" *.

* (Problems of intellectual activity management, p. 52.)

This is the essence of the concept and the structural-functional model of intellectual activity built on its basis, which, according to the authors, is capable of describing the system of interaction of various levels of mental reflection, revealing the specifics of creative thinking and giving a philosophical and materialistic explanation of the nature of these phenomena.

Despite the fact that many modern researchers of the problems of creativity have resolutely shifted the emphasis from unconscious activity to conscious activity, the reality of unconscious components in the system of creative activity does not cause them any doubts. Moreover, it is the unconscious (hidden) side of this process that, in their opinion, requires further in-depth research. And if in assessing the dominant factors of various forms of psycho-intellectual activity that implement the creative process, the opinions of scientists differ, then the unconscious nature of intuition is considered to be one of its most characteristic features. I. V. Bychko, V. F. Gorbachevsky, V. N. Dubrovin, E. S. Zharikov, V. N. Kolbanovsky, I. K. Rodionova, A. G. Spirkin, V. P. Tugarinov, A. E. Sheroziya, V. A. Engelgardt and others associate intuition with unconscious (subconscious) activity in one way or another.

So, modern researchers are faced with a dilemma: either the "passivity" of consciousness at a certain stage of creative activity is only a mental illusion, or the thought process really shifts into the sphere of unconscious forms of mental reflection. If the first thesis is true, then how to explain the lack of conscious control over certain forms of creative thinking, and above all intuition? Recognition of the validity of the second thesis requires the introduction of significant adjustments to the theory of mental reflection and the theory of knowledge, since it allows the possibility of realizing higher forms of intellectual activity at the level of the unconscious psyche. This problem has not only psychological and epistemological, but mainly methodological significance. In any case, in solving the problem of the mental mechanisms of the phenomenon of intuition, this seems to be quite obvious.

The problem of the unconscious is often associated primarily with the school of psychoanalysis and especially with the teachings of 3. Freud. However, long before Freud, this problem was the subject of serious attention of such thinkers as I. Kant, G. Leibniz, G. Fechner and others. Describing the human psyche, Fechner compared it with a giant iceberg, where consciousness is represented by its insignificant visible part; the main invisible part of the iceberg is the unconscious psyche.

At the end of the 19th and especially at the beginning of the 20th century. the hypothesis of the reality of the unconscious mental becomes already a scientific fact. This became possible thanks to the successes of experimental and theoretical psychology, which by that time had become an independent field of scientific knowledge. The theory of the unconscious psyche received further fruitful development in the studies of P. Janet, F. Brentano, R. Schubert-Soldern, T. Lipps, T. Ribot, G. Carus, I. M. Sechenov and many others.

Thus, the widely held opinion about the priority of Freud (and the psychoanalytic school in general) in the study of the problem of the unconscious is in fact not true. Moreover, the study of this problem was directed by Freud along a channel in which it acquired a clearly anti-scientific sound. Freudianism embodied a lot of erroneous postulates, laid the foundation for other anti-scientific concepts, such as the "theory of cellular consciousness", "theory of the world soul", "panpsychism", "logical voluntarism", "psychoid theory" and others, deeply reactionary in their essence and false in methodology.

At the same time, Freud also forced a critical review of certain problems of psychological and philosophical science. Freudianism was to a certain extent a response to the limitations of traditional introspective psychology. Freud's priority lies in the fact that he was the first to investigate the problem of the unconscious mind on rich clinical material as a pathopsychologist, the first to raise and attempt to resolve the issue of the relationship between the unconscious and consciousness.

Freud himself explained the need to develop the problem of the unconscious in this way. First of all, it was necessary, in his opinion, to understand the specifics of those behavioral acts in the regulation of which consciousness does not dominate. Further: "our unconscious is not exactly the same as the unconscious of philosophers, and besides, most philosophers do not want to know anything about the "unconscious mental" *. As for the latter, Freud is only partly right here.

* (Freud 3. Methods and techniques of psychoanalysis. M. - Pg., 1923, p. 26.)

Freud's first postulate, on which the entire traditional theory of psychoanalysis is built, "reduces to the recognition that all mental processes are essentially unconscious ..." * . It should be noted, however, that such an interpretation of the unconscious psyche not only does not contradict the views of some idealist philosophers, but, on the contrary, proceeds from them. Thomas Aquinas, Schelling, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Hartmann and many others considered the unconscious to be the primary regulator of human behavior. But the point of view of the materialists Leibniz, Fechner and others is really "not quite the same" as Freud himself thinks on this score.

* (Freud 3. Lectures on introduction to psychoanalysis, vol. 1. M., 1922, p. 28.)

This basic postulate of Freud was not a conclusion from clinical and theoretical research, but an a priori thesis that predetermined the direction of the experiments themselves.

Freud claims that various kinds of human mental processes do not disappear in him without a trace, but are only obscured, "displaced" for some time into the sphere of the unconscious. As such, these phenomena have some energy potential, become, as it were, "explosive", ready at any time to get out of control (or, as the author himself says, "censorship") of consciousness, suppress the latter and seize power over the subject. The complex of sexual desires (libido), which has potentially inexhaustible possibilities in terms of the formation of mental complexes in the widest range: from pathological changes to creative inspiration, is put in first place in terms of the "reserves" of such psychoenergy. According to Freud, creative inspiration is based on the so-called "repressed unconscious". And "repression" in his understanding is nothing but "the sexual aversion of neurotics." This, it turns out, is the nature of the talent and ability of the best minds of mankind!

It is not our task to criticize such a "theory". We only note that the students and followers of Freud, for the most part, simply ignored these fantastic fabrications of their forerunner. Thus, the role of the sexual complex is the second fundamental principle of the characterization of human behavior.

The mental unconscious, thus, turns Freud into an independent entity, displacing consciousness into the background, relegating it to secondary roles. The elementary forms of the psyche rise above the social essence of man. The antagonism of the conscious and the unconscious manifests itself especially clearly in the doctrine of the structure of the psychic (id, ego, super-ego).

* (See: Freud 3. I and IT. M., 1921.)

However, the forms of Freud's unconscious psyche described above are not the only possible ones; there is another kind of it - "preconscious" (hidden unconscious), which, unlike the unconscious, can penetrate consciousness and is a kind of mediator between the one and the other. Thus, the structure of the mental is composed, according to Freud, of three components: the unconscious, the preconscious, and consciousness.

Such a scheme is of particular interest and creates the basis for in-depth studies of the system of relationships between these components in the psyche and clarification of the functions of each of them. However, it is precisely here that something emerges that makes us doubt the sincerity of Freud's assurances about striving for a positive solution to the problem posed. It turns out that it is still impossible to know the essence of unconscious and preconscious processes. Freud draws this conclusion on the basis that only that which constitutes consciousness itself can be considered cognizable. The unconscious and preconscious can become the subject of research only when they pass into the sphere of consciousness. But this kind of "former" unconscious and "former" preconscious have lost their specific, characteristic features and characteristics, and therefore are no longer of any interest. So, the circle closes and there is no way to penetrate into it. The mystery of the unconscious psyche remains an unsolvable enigma * .

* (Attention is drawn to the surprising similarity of Freud's views with the concept of Bergson, who performed exactly the same "trick" with intuition. The methods of Freudism and the methods of intuitionism, on closer examination, turn out to be surprisingly consonant and even identical.)

So, Freud's theory of the unconscious does not at all clarify this problem itself, not to mention the problems of the psychology of intelligence and creative thinking, and it is useless to place any hopes on it in this regard (the latter still takes place). It is no coincidence that, according to an American scientific publication * , the most cited author in the American psychological literature is Freud on all issues except physiological psychology and psychology of intelligence.

* (Sexton and Misiak. History of Psychology. N.Y., 1966.)

It is interesting to note that the prominent theorist of psychoanalysis L. Bellak, with the tacit consent of his like-minded people, was forced to admit that Freud himself undeservedly ignored many aspects of the problem of the unconscious. However paradoxical it may sound, it seems to us that F.V. Bassin's remark that Freud has largely impoverished the theory of the unconscious seems to be absolutely fair. This conclusion is quite legitimate and organically follows from fundamental principles Freudian theories. The history of science knows many examples when excessive absolutization of the object of study in the sense of endowing it with special and exceptional functions, artificial isolation from the system of natural connections and relations led to a dead end and doomed the most seemingly brilliant ideas to failure. It seems to us that Freudianism in solving the problem of the unconscious played a role analogous to that which intuitionism played in solving the problem of intuition. The consequence of this was, in essence, a complete rejection of the further development of the problem of the unconscious on the part of scientific dialectical materialistic psychology. Interest in the problem in domestic psychology and philosophy has revived only in recent years. Meanwhile, according to A. N. Leontiev, science has lost a lot from the fact that it has ignored the problem of the unconscious for so long.

Freud's doctrine, which has received such wide distribution and aroused great interest, according to many, including foreign experts, cannot claim either the role of the main psychological theory, much less the role of a methodological system. IP Pavlov, later Fress and Baryuk spoke in favor of the opinion that Freudianism is more a religion than a science. By the way, in the future, the theory of psychoanalysis broke up into a number of very independent currents, among which there is one where the emphasis was shifted from the unconscious to consciousness. A number of modern concepts of psychoanalysis differ significantly and favorably from Freudianism proper.

In the 1920s, the well-known Georgian philosopher and psychologist D. N. Uznadze sharply criticized the Freudian concept of the unconscious.

First of all, Uznadze was not satisfied with the fact that the Freudian unconscious does not include anything new in comparison with the phenomena of conscious, mental life, but is something like the same consciousness turned inside out. This content of the concept of the unconscious carries only negative characteristics and is nothing new in comparison with consciousness. Another fundamental mistake of Freud is, according to Uznadze, the assumption of the possibility of mutual transformation of consciousness and the unconscious. Unlike the Freudian unconscious, which could become consciousness, the unconscious, according to Uznadze, never was and cannot be.

Uznadze considered the problem of the unconscious to be one of the most urgent and complex. Only she is able, in his opinion, to give the key to understanding those processes that make possible the transition from the physical (physiological) to the mental. But it was precisely this question that all the doctrines of the unconscious known at that time did not give an answer to.

Uznadze saw the error of all bourgeois psychology in the wrong approach to the question that objective reality affects the consciousness (psyche) of a person directly and directly. He is convinced of the real existence of a buffer zone between the physical and the mental. This zone is the area of ​​unconscious phenomena that have a specific, and not imaginary, as in other authors, content. "In addition to conscious * processes, something else is happening in it (the human body. - V. I., A. N.) that is not itself the content of consciousness, but determines it to a large extent, lies, so to speak, at the basis of these conscious processes. We found that this is an attitude that manifests itself in virtually every living being in the process of its relationship with reality" **.

** (Uznadze D.N. Psychological research. M., 1966, p. 179.)

Instead of the traditional psychological formula "stimulus-reaction", Uznadze offers his own: "stimulus - attitude - reaction". “Installation,” explains A. E. Sherozia, “is a kind of “subpsychic sphere of activity”, where the contradiction between the mental (subjective) and physical (transsubjective) is “removed”, thanks to which it is able to receive information about the slightest changes in both. Hence Uznadze's corresponding statement about the "object" as the main "determinant" of the state of the attitude, and through it, of any psyche in general"*.

* (Sherozia A. E. To the problem of consciousness and the unconscious mental, vol. 1. Tbilisi, 1969, p. 199.)

So, sums up Uznadze, “the unconscious really exists with us, but this unconscious is nothing but the attitude of the subject.

Consequently, the concept of the unconscious ceases from now on to be only a negative concept, it acquires an entirely positive meaning and must be developed in science on the basis of the usual methods of research.

* (Uznadze D. N. Experimental studies of the psychology of the installation, Tbilisi, 1961, p. 178.)

Meanwhile, the installation is a very unusual phenomenon. It is not only "subpsychic", but also "nadphysiological". The installation is something that combines the nature of both and at the same time does not belong to each of them separately. It is quite obvious that some area of ​​objective reality unknown to science, "the third nature", appears under the name of installation.

Installation, according to Uznadze, is the readiness of a living organism for a certain kind of activity in the conditions of the current situation and the needs of the organism. The main distinguishing feature of the set should be considered its fundamental ("pure") unconsciousness, and this feature is of a "chronic" nature. Only under this condition, in the opinion of the author, can one get rid of the difficulties and misconceptions that characterize Freudianism. An attitude not only can never become consciousness, but is generally incapable of manifesting itself through any of its contents. This idea of ​​Uznadze is figuratively commented by A.E. Sherozia: on the path of attitude to consciousness, the "red light" is always burning.

This is, in general terms, the concept of the unconscious, proposed by Uznadze in the initial period of his creative activity.

Much later, at the end of the 1940s, Uznadze gradually came to the conclusion that his own views on the identity of the psyche and consciousness were untenable. The latter, in his opinion, closes access to the disclosure of the genesis mental development person. Therefore, it is necessary to admit the existence of some form of the mental, which does not coincide with consciousness, Uznadze believes. Consciousness cannot exhaust the entire psyche. "The emergence of conscious mental processes ... is necessarily preceded by a state that cannot be considered in any way a non-psychic state, only a physiological state. We call this state an attitude" * .

* (Sheroziya A. E. To the problem of consciousness and the unconscious mental, t. 1, p. 156.)

The metamorphosis of the set is quite obvious: it transforms from "chronic non-psychicity" into the primary (initial) state of the human psyche. The setting not only forms the psyche in the phylogenetic and ontogenetic terms, both the emergence and realization of consciousness itself depend on it.

Acting in a quality that is fundamentally new for itself, the installation naturally acquires both new features and new, much broader functions. From now on, the set is considered by the author as a "holistic-personal" state of the body, the main function of which is the integral coordination of the subject's actions. All human behavior is associated with a system of attitudes, with which he is constantly enriched (both his own and those of others). Since the attitude depends on the tasks and the conditions for their satisfaction, it naturally cannot be an innate property of the organism. However, according to Uznadze, we have no reason to believe that, on the basis of needs and situations, the setting of the corresponding activity can arise only in a person. All animal activity also takes place on the basis of "expedient" attitudes.

As a result of many years of research, Uznadze comes to one very important conclusion: he (let's use the same terminology of A. E. Sheroziy) nevertheless extinguishes the "red light" on the way from attitude to consciousness. Set and consciousness, in his opinion, must be connected somehow, but in a different way than Freud connects them.

The above type of attitude is most characteristic of the behavior of man and animals: it (the attitude) presupposes an ordinary situation and equally ordinary forms of its realization. It is a different matter when the subject finds himself in an unusually complex environment and encounters new circumstances. Then significant changes take place in the traditional "stimulus ... reaction" scheme. The simpler, more stereotypical the situation, the faster the body's response follows. The more complex it is, the slower, as a rule, the body reacts. There is a so-called delay, a kind of break in the chain of behavioral acts. A person in this situation is forced to call for help the highest forms of theoretical knowledge, will, experience and "objectify" the current situation, make it the subject of special observation. According to Uznazde, "the ability of objectification frees a person from direct dependence on natural * installations and opens the way for independent objective activity. It gives him the power of independent, objectively justified influence on circumstances and control over them; it frees a person from direct, unconditional dependence on nature and helps him become an independent force capable of controlling it "**.

* (It should be noted that the concept of a "natural" attitude contradicts Uznadze's statements. Apparently, the term "natural" he refers to the existing system of skills that meet the requirements Everyday life, and not some innate, given from the nature of the installation. - V.I., A.N.)

** (Uznadze D. N. Psychological research, p. 286.)

Simply put, "objectification" is nothing more than a conscious approach of the subject to an objectively established system of circumstances. Uznadze himself confirms this: every act of objectification is, first of all, the awareness of something. In contrast to reflection in terms of attitude, in objectification we are talking about reflection built on the basis of the logical principle of identity, which is necessary for regulating acts of mental activity. It goes without saying, the author believes, that objectification is a specific property of the human psyche, which the animal is deprived of and due to which the superiority of the former over the latter is explained.

Thus, a person, unlike an animal, has two levels of mental activity: an attitude associated with "effective, slightly differentiated perceptual and reproductive elements" (common with animals), and objectification, on the basis of which thinking, intellect and will are formed.

And yet, Uznadze believes, the highest forms of mental activity cannot proceed on the basis of objectification alone. All the same, they are based on an attitude, but not the primary one that arises on the basis of elementary needs and is realized by the corresponding levels of the psyche, but the secondary one, which is formed on the basis of objectification. Such a setting is called "fixed". Unlike the primary attitude, it goes through the stage of awareness and is the product of a person's conscious activity; at the same time, the formula of the subject's conscious activity takes the form: "stimulus - objectification (simultaneous release from primary attitudes) - secondary attitude - reaction". Thus, the secondary attitude is a qualitatively new phase of the unconscious - the unconscious "after-conscious". Only with this understanding can we consider that the secondary attitude is a qualitatively new mental content that is not characteristic of either the primary attitude or objectification.

The reality of the secondary attitude, as an unconscious form of the psyche, is quite acceptable. Just like habits and automated actions, a fixed attitude in its initial stage develops as a conscious ("objectified" by consciousness) action. However, in the future, these actions completely go out of the control of consciousness. Moreover, attempts to bring them back under conscious control (for example, to realize the order of purely mechanical hand movements when playing the piano) turned out to be fruitless at best, and at worst led to serious mental disorders. The concept of a secondary attitude only has real meaning when the attitude returns to the phase of unconscious activity. According to Uznadze, this is how it should be. This proves the fact that there is no impenetrable barrier between consciousness and attitude.

This is, in general terms, the essence of the theory of attitude - one of the most complex and controversial teachings on the problem of the unconscious, which, according to experts, occupies a very special place not only in relation to related theories of Western philosophy and psychology, but also in domestic science. As a result, the theory of set is not always objectively and impartially covered in the psychological and philosophical literature. In this case, there are two extreme trends. Some authors categorically deny the positive value of Uznadze's teaching; others, as a rule, students and followers of the scientist, on the contrary, in every possible way obscure and smooth out objectively existing contradictions, allow obvious exaggerations where it simply contradicts the facts, try to think a lot for the author, often to the detriment of the theory itself.

As for the general positive assessment of the theory of set, it depends on whether the author's initial and later concepts on the problem of the unconscious are combined. If yes, then it is not difficult to show that Uznadze, as a result of his many years of research, refuted his own postulated principles and came to the triumph of those ideas that he was supposed to refute. This is the argument used by many opponents of attitude theory.

It is possible, however, to proceed in the assessment of this doctrine from other principles: to take as a basis the views of the author, relating to the final stage of his scientific research.

It goes without saying that the early conception that contradicts these views cannot simply be ignored. Combining these two concepts together, one can get a clear picture of the historical and logical evolution of Uznadze's views in his desire to uncover one of the most interesting and unknown secrets of the human psyche.

Chapter 4

Unconscious mental

There is an idea that psychoanalysis is primarily a doctrine of the unconscious, and Freud is a scientist and doctor who first discovered the sphere of the unconscious and thereby made the Copernican revolution in science and medicine. Such an idea, which is reflected primarily in ordinary consciousness, is widespread, but very far from the true state of things.

The fact that Freud's doctrine of the unconscious is an important, integral part of psychoanalysis is undeniable. But psychoanalysis is not reduced only and exclusively to this doctrine. The fact that Freud attached particular importance to the study of unconscious processes occurring in the depths of the human psyche is also no less indisputable. But he is not the discoverer of the realm of the unconscious, as is sometimes believed by researchers inexperienced in the history of psychoanalysis or orthodox psychoanalysts who are trying to defend Freud's priority in this area.

In a number of works devoted to the disclosure of the ideas and concepts of psychoanalysis and published both in our country and abroad, it is convincingly shown that the palm in posing the problem of the unconscious does not belong to Freud. There are studies, the authors of which specifically considered the history of scientists' appeal to the problems of the unconscious, covering it on the basis of psychological, philosophical and natural science material.

In fact, the history of the appeal of the thinkers of the past to the problems of the unconscious has its roots in ancient times. So, for some ancient Indian scientists, it was characteristic to recognize the existence of a “foolish soul”, “foolish life”, proceeding in such a way that a person became beyond his own feelings. The Bhagavad Gita, or Gita, which arose during the period of the first millennium BC, contained the concept of a threefold division of the mind: the mind that knows, misunderstands (passionate) and shrouded in darkness (dark). There was also an idea of ​​\u200b\u200b"kama" as passion, lust, the main beginning of the human soul, unreasonable in its inner nature. The Vedic literature of the Upanishads spoke of "prana" - the vital energy, which was originally unconscious. Buddhist teaching also proceeded from the recognition of the presence of unconscious life. Yoga admitted that in addition to the conscious mind there is an unconscious, but "psychically active" area. The ancient Greek teachings contained ideas related to the problem of irresistible, out of control of the individual drives and unconscious knowledge of a person. Plato, for example, spoke of a "wild, bestial beginning" capable of taking a person anywhere.

Since ancient times and up to the emergence of psychoanalysis, the problems of the unconscious have been touched upon in one way or another in the works of many thinkers and scientists. Suffice it to say that ideas about the unconscious were contained, for example, in the writings of such philosophers as Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and many others. Freud was familiar with some of the works of the philosophers mentioned above and could well draw certain ideas about the unconscious from these sources, for example, from the works of Lipps, as already mentioned.

In reviewing the foregoing material, attention was drawn to the fact that in The Interpretation of Dreams Freud made several references to Schopenhauer. In one place of this work, he emphasized that in comprehending the nature of dreams, a number of authors adhered to the views of the German philosopher. At the same time, reproducing some of the ideas of Schopenhauer, Freud wrote that the body's stimuli from the outside, from the sympathetic nervous system, have an unconscious effect on our state of mind during the day.

It is difficult to say with all certainty whether other statements of Schopenhauer, which are directly related to the problem of the unconscious, have been deposited in Freud's memory. For example, such a statement, contained in the main work of the German philosopher "The World as Will and Representation" (1819), according to which unconsciousness is the natural state of things and, therefore, it is the basis from which, in certain kinds of beings, as its highest color, consciousness grows. But it can be argued with good reason that in addition to the work of Lipps, Freud was familiar with literature, to one degree or another contained ideas about the unconscious.

In the second half of the 19th century, ideas about unconscious human activity, as they say, were in the air. As the English researcher L. White showed, in the period from 1872 to 1880 in English, French and German at least six scientific publications have been published with the term "unconscious" in their titles. However, even before 1872 there were works in the title of which this term appeared. A typical example was the voluminous work of the German philosopher Eduard von Hartmann "Philosophy of the Unconscious" (1869), which emphasized that woe to that person who, exaggerating the price of the consciously rational and wanting only to support its significance, forcibly suppresses the unconscious.

Hartmann's work devoted to the problems of the unconscious differed significantly from the works of other thinkers, in which, although they contained ideas about the unconscious, they nevertheless did not receive a detailed justification. The German philosopher not only discussed in detail the problems of the unconscious, recognized the undoubted value of the unconscious for understanding human actions, but also tried to consider the pluses and minuses that it includes.

Putting forward arguments in favor of recognizing the unconscious, Hartmann noted the following pluses, which, in his opinion, determine the value of the unconscious.

First, the unconscious forms the organism and keeps it alive.

Secondly, as an instinct, the unconscious serves the purpose of the self-preservation of the human being as such.

Thirdly, thanks to sexual attraction and maternal love, the unconscious not only preserves and maintains human nature, but also ennobles it in the process of the history of the development of the human race.

Fourthly, as a kind of premonition, the unconscious guides a person, especially in cases where his consciousness is unable to give any useful advice.

Fifthly, being an integral element of any inspiration, it contributes to the implementation of the process of knowledge and favors the revelation that people sometimes come to.

Sixthly, the unconscious is a stimulus for artistic creativity and gives a person pleasure when contemplating beauty.

Along with the undoubted advantages, Hartmann also drew attention to those obvious disadvantages that, in his opinion, are characteristic of the unconscious. First of all, guided by the unconscious, a person always wanders in the dark, not knowing where it will lead him. In addition, being under the influence of the unconscious, a person almost always depends on the case, since he does not know in advance whether inspiration will come to him or not. In fact, there are no reliable criteria for identifying inspiration, since only by the results of human activity can one judge their true value.

To this it should be added that, unlike consciousness, the unconscious seems to be something unknown, vague, alien. Consciousness is a faithful servant, while the unconscious includes something terrible, demonic. Conscious work can be proud of, while unconscious activity can be perceived as a kind of divine gift. The unconscious is always pre-prepared, as it were, while consciousness can be changed depending on the acquired knowledge and social conditions of life. Unconscious activity leads to finished results that cannot be perfected, but you can continue to work on the results of conscious activity, improve them, improve your skills and abilities. And finally, the unconscious activity of a person depends entirely on his affects, passions and interests, while conscious activity is carried out on the basis of his will and reason and, therefore, this activity can be oriented in the direction necessary for him.

Freud read this work of Hartmann. In The Interpretation of Dreams, he not only referred to his Philosophy of the Unconscious, but also quoted from this work. True, it was about the transfer of elements of wakefulness into the state of sleep, and also about the fact that scientific interest and aesthetic pleasure, which reconcile a person with life, seem to be, according to Hartmann, not transferred to a dream. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Freud did not pay attention to the reflections of the German philosopher on the unconscious, including its positive and negative characteristics.

Whatever it was, but remains real fact that long before Freud, the problems of the unconscious came to the attention of various thinkers. Another thing is that, in contrast to the philosophy of the second half of the 19th century, in science and medicine, ideas about man as a conscious being prevailed. At best, considerations were expressed about unconscious physiological reactions. However, the psychology of human perception was mainly focused on considering him as a reasonable, rational, conscious being.

The vast majority of psychologists of that period believed that the psyche and consciousness are one and the same. The idea of ​​the identity of consciousness and the psyche had its roots deep in history, when it was consciousness that was considered to be the distinguishing characteristic of a human being from an animal. In its deep understanding, the idea of ​​the identity of consciousness and the psyche was reflected in the famous saying of the 17th century French philosopher Rene Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.” True, in his treatise The Passions of the Soul, he wrote about the struggle between the lower, "feeling" and the higher, "rational" parts of the soul. However, considering that the parts of the soul practically do not differ from each other (“the feeling” part of the soul is at the same time “reasonable”, and unconscious movements refer only to the body), Descartes thus, as it were, excluded the sphere of the unconscious from the human psyche.

Interested in the unconscious actions of people, which Freud observed during experiments with hypnosis, and taking into account some of the ideas about the unconscious contained in philosophical works, he first of all questioned the widely held idea in science of the identity of consciousness and the psyche. The fact is that if the psychic was wholly and completely correlated with the conscious, then practically insoluble difficulties arose associated with the so-called psychophysical parallelism. The soul and the body acted as human spheres irreducible to each other, in each of which their own laws acted and, as it were, their separate processes proceeded in parallel to each other. Unconscious movements and reactions were related to the bodily organization of a person, conscious thought processes - to the human soul.

Freud opposed such ideas, according to which the human psyche is characterized exclusively by such processes, which, by definition, are conscious. He insisted that it would be more appropriate to recognize the presence in the human psyche of processes that are not only conscious. The division of the psyche into conscious and unconscious became the main premise of psychoanalysis. At the same time, Freud believed that considering the human psyche from the point of view of the presence of unconscious and conscious processes in it, firstly, helps to resolve the difficulties of psychophysical parallelism and, secondly, makes it possible to better explore and understand those pathological processes that sometimes arise in mental life. Appealing to such arguments, he put forward an important theoretical position that the conscious is not the essence of the mental.

Speaking against the Cartesian understanding of the human psyche, Freud emphasized that the data of consciousness have various kinds of gaps that do not allow one to competently judge the processes that occur in the depths of the psyche. Both in healthy people and in sick people, such mental acts are often observed, the explanation of which requires the assumption of the existence of mental processes that do not fit into the field of vision of consciousness. Therefore, Freud believed that it makes sense to admit the existence of the unconscious and work with it from the standpoint of science in order to fill in the gaps that inevitably exist when the psychic is identified with the conscious. After all, such an identification is, in essence, conditional, unproven and seems no more legitimate than the hypothesis of the unconscious. Meanwhile, life experience, and even common sense, indicate that the identification of the psyche with consciousness turns out to be completely inappropriate. It is more reasonable to proceed from the assumption of the unconscious as a kind of reality that must be reckoned with, as long as we are talking about understanding the nature of the human psyche.

In his justification for the expediency of recognizing the unconscious, Freud argued with those theorists who rejected this concept, believing that it was enough to talk about different degrees of consciousness. Indeed, in the philosophy and psychology of the late 19th century, the belief was often defended that consciousness can be characterized by certain shades of intensity and brightness. As a result, along with clearly perceived processes, one can observe states and processes that are not clear enough, hardly noticeable, not conspicuous, but nevertheless present in consciousness itself. Those who adhered to this point of view believed that there was no need to introduce the concept of the unconscious, since it was quite possible to get by with ideas about poorly conscious processes and not entirely clear states.

Freud did not share this view. Moreover, he considered it unacceptable. True, he was ready to admit that the theoretical propositions defended in this way could be to some extent substantive. However, in his opinion, these provisions are practically unsuitable, since equating subtle, imperceptible and not quite clear processes with conscious, but insufficiently conscious ones does not eliminate the difficulties associated with breaks in consciousness. It would be more expedient, therefore, not to confine ourselves to relying on consciousness and keep in mind that it does not far cover the entire psyche.

Thus, Freud not only revised the previously existing habitual idea of ​​the identity of consciousness and the psyche, but, in fact, abandoned it in favor of recognizing unconscious processes in the human psyche. Moreover, he not only drew attention to the need to take into account the unconscious as such, but put forward a hypothesis about the legitimacy of considering what he called unconscious mental. This was one of the virtues of the psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious.

It cannot be said that it was Freud who introduced the concept of the unconscious mind. Before him, Hartmann distinguished between the physically, epistemologically, metaphysically, and psychically unconscious. However, if the German philosopher limited himself to such a division, expressing very vague considerations about the mentally unconscious and concentrating his efforts on understanding its epistemological and metaphysical aspects, then the founder of psychoanalysis put the unconscious mental at the center of his thoughts and research.

For Freud, the unconscious mental acted as an acceptable hypothesis, thanks to which the prospect of studying the mental life of a person in all its completeness, inconsistency and drama opened up. In any case, he proceeded from the fact that consideration of the human psyche solely through the prism of consciousness leads to a distortion of the actual state of things, since in real life people quite often do not know what they are doing, do not realize deep conflicts, do not understand the true reasons for their behavior.

Ideas about the unconscious mind were put forward by Freud in his first fundamental work, The Interpretation of Dreams. It was in it that he emphasized that careful observation of the mental life of neurotics and the analysis of dreams provide irrefutable evidence of the existence of such mental processes that occur without the participation of consciousness. Strictly speaking, the recognition of the reality of the existence of unconscious mental processes is that sphere of mental activity where, according to Freud, "doctor and philosopher enter into cooperation." It is also due to the fact that both recognize unconscious mental processes as quite expedient and legitimate.

Speaking of cooperation between the physician and the philosopher in the recognition of unconscious mental processes, Freud has in mind, first of all, similar ideas about the unconscious that he and Lipps had in place. We are talking about the rejection of an excessive assessment of consciousness, which is a necessary prerequisite for a correct, from his point of view, understanding of the mental as such. Lipps believed that the unconscious should form the basis of the consideration of mental life. Freud believed that the unconscious includes the full value of mental action. This is where his idea of ​​the psychic unconscious comes from.

Thus, Freud's discovery of the unconscious psyche was due to at least three factors:

¦ observations on neurotics;

¦ analysis of dreams;

¦ the corresponding ideas of Lipps about the unconscious.

It must be said that the unconscious psychic was not for Freud something abstract, demonic, completely empty and elusive, which can at best act as an abstract concept used in describing some mental concepts. Like some philosophers who appealed to this concept, he was ready to recognize the heuristic significance of the unconscious. That is, he considered it as a theoretical construct necessary for a better understanding and explanation of the human psyche. However, unlike those who saw in the unconscious only a theoretical construct that helps to establish logical connections between conscious processes and the deep structures of the psyche, Freud considered the unconscious as something really mental, characterized by its own characteristics and having very specific meaningful implications. Based on this, within the framework of psychoanalysis, an attempt was made to comprehend the unconscious by identifying its meaningful characteristics and revealing the specifics of the flow of unconscious processes.

The identification and description of unconscious processes was an important part of Freud's research and therapeutic activity. However, he did not limit himself to this and subjected the unconscious to analytical dismemberment. The disclosure of the mechanisms of the functioning of unconscious processes, the identification of specific forms of manifestation of the unconscious mental in human life, the search for various components of the unconscious itself - all this was of considerable interest to Freud. Moreover, he was not just interested in describing and revealing the unconscious as something negative, outside of consciousness, but sought to identify precisely the positive component of the unconscious psyche. He drew attention to those properties of the unconscious that testified to the originality and specificity of this sphere of the human psyche, which differs qualitatively and in content from consciousness.

Turning to the study of the unconscious mental, Freud proceeded from the fact that any manifestation of the unconscious is a valuable act of the human psyche. That is, an act that is endowed with a certain meaning. Meaning meant not a common idea of ​​something that required abstract reflections on life, fate or death. The meaning was understood as a very specific intention, tendency and a certain place among other mental phenomena. One of the important tasks of psychoanalysis was precisely to reveal the meaning of unconscious processes, to reveal their meaning and semantic connections in a meaningful, positive way. It seems that, contrary to various assessments of the unconscious in psychoanalysis as something negative, negative (psyche minus consciousness), it is more correct and correct to speak of the psychoanalytic concept of the unconscious as a positive concept.

The study of the unconscious was carried out by Freud not in isolation, not in itself, but in the context of its relationship with consciousness. This was the usual path followed by those scientists who recognized the existence of the unconscious. However, Freud faced questions that needed to be answered in the light of understanding the unconscious psyche.

For Freud, to be conscious means to have immediate and reliable perception. But what about perception in the realm of the unconscious? And here the founder of psychoanalysis compared the perception of consciousness of unconscious processes with the perception of the external world by the senses. Moreover, he proceeded from those clarifications that were once introduced by the German philosopher Kant in understanding this problem. Kant emphasized the subjective conventionality of human perception, the non-identity of perception with the perceived that cannot be known. Freud, on the other hand, began to focus on the illegality of identifying the perception of consciousness with unconscious mental processes that were the object of this consciousness.

The further development of Kant's ideas results in Freud's assertion that the unconscious mental should be recognized as something really existing, but the perception of which by consciousness requires special efforts, technical procedures, certain skills associated with the ability to interpret perceived phenomena. This means that psychoanalysis, in essence, deals with such an unconscious in the human psyche, which is considered as a specific reality, regardless of whether this reality is real or imagined.

Questioning the theory of seduction, Freud came to the conclusion that in the field of neurosis, the defining moment is not reality as such, perceived as some kind of accomplished fact, but mental reality, which can border on fiction, imagination, but nevertheless is very effective in human life. Psychic reality is, for the most part, not a prerogative of consciousness. It is dominated by the unconscious mental, which does not always fall into the field of consciousness, but has a significant impact on human behavior. This unconscious psychic is by nature neither passive nor inert. On the contrary, it is very effective, active and capable of bringing to life such internal processes and forces that can result in creative activity or be destructive both for the person himself and for the people around him.

Freud came to the idea of ​​the effectiveness of the unconscious even before the main ideas of psychoanalysis were formulated. The experiments carried out by the French physician I. Bernheim made him think about the fact that even something that is not conscious can be active and effective. So, Bernheim introduced a person into a hypnotic state and inspired him that after the lapse of time he must definitely perform the action that he was told about. After leaving the hypnotic state, the person did not remember anything about what was suggested to him, but at a certain time he performed the corresponding action. At the same time, he did not understand at all why and why he was doing something. One had only to ask him why, for example, he opens his umbrella, as the person immediately found various kinds of explanations, although they did not correspond to reality in any way and did not justify his action.

From such an experiment it followed that a lot of the person remained in the unconscious. He did not remember what the experimenter suggested to him. He did not remember either the hypnotic state itself, or the influence of the experimenter on it, or the content of the action suggested to him. Only the idea of ​​a specific action popped up in the mind of a person, which he did, not having the slightest idea of ​​the reasons that made him do it. Therefore, he had an idea of ​​action, which, although unconscious, was still active and ready for implementation. The unconscious psychic turned out to be endowed with an active principle.

If, according to Freud, the unconscious psyche is actually active, then how should one relate to the traditional ideas about consciousness as a specific feature of a human being? And what, then, is the relationship between consciousness and the unconscious? Freud could not ignore these questions and tried to answer them in his own way.

Sayings

Z. Freud: “The question of whether the mental is identical to the conscious, or is it much wider, may seem like an empty play on words, but I dare to assure you that the recognition of the existence of unconscious mental processes leads to completely new orientation in the world and science.

Z. Freud: “The division of the psyche into the conscious and the unconscious is the basic premise of psychoanalysis, and only it makes it possible to understand and introduce to science the frequently observed and very important pathological processes in mental life.”

Z. Freud: "Our unconscious is not exactly the same as the unconscious of philosophers, and besides, most philosophers do not want to know anything about the" unconscious mental "".

Z. Freud: “The unconscious is big circle, which includes the lesser conscious; everything conscious has a preliminary unconscious stage, while the unconscious can remain in this stage and still claim the full value of mental action.

Topeka and dynamics of mental processes

First of all, the founder of psychoanalysis proceeded from the fact that every mental process first exists in the unconscious and only then can it appear in the sphere of consciousness. Moreover, the transition into consciousness is by no means an obligatory process, since, from the point of view of Freud, not all mental acts necessarily become conscious. Some, and perhaps many of them, remain in the unconscious, not finding possible ways to access consciousness.

Resorting to figurative thinking, Freud compared the sphere of the unconscious with a large anteroom, in which all mental movements are located, and consciousness with a narrow room adjoining it, a salon. On the threshold between the antechamber and the salon stands a guard who not only scrutinizes every spiritual movement, but also decides whether to let him through from one room to another or not. If any spiritual movement is allowed by the guard into the salon, this does not mean that it thereby necessarily becomes conscious. It becomes conscious only when it attracts the attention of the consciousness at the end of the salon. Therefore, if the front room is the abode of the unconscious, then the salon is, in fact, the receptacle of what might be called the preconscious. And only behind him is the cell of the conscious, where, being in the back of the salon, the consciousness acts as an observer. This is one of the spatial, or, as Freud called it, topical, ideas about the unconscious and the conscious in psychoanalysis.

The division of the psyche into the conscious and the unconscious was not Freud's own merit. Describing the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious was also not unusual, at least beyond the imagination of those, including Lipps, who believed that the psychic could exist in the form of the unconscious. However, compared with his predecessors, who paid attention to the unconscious as such, Freud emphasized the activity and effectiveness of the unconscious. This led to far-reaching consequences, when unconscious processes began to be considered not so much in statics, but in dynamics. Psychoanalysis is precisely aimed at revealing the dynamics of the deployment of unconscious processes in the human psyche.

But that is not all. The difference between the psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious and those interpretations of it contained in previous philosophy and psychology was that Freud did not limit himself to considering the relationship between consciousness and the unconscious, but turned to the analysis of the unconscious mental to identify its possible components. At the same time, he discovered something new that was not the object of study in previous psychology. It consisted in the fact that the unconscious began to be considered from the point of view of the presence in it of constituent parts that are not reducible to each other, and most importantly, from the point of view of the functioning of various systems that in their totality make up the unconscious mental. As Freud wrote in The Interpretation of Dreams, the unconscious comes to light as a function of two separate systems.

In Freud's understanding, the unconscious is characterized by a certain duality, which is revealed not so much when describing unconscious processes as such, but when revealing the dynamics of their functioning in the human psyche. If in previous psychology the question of a twofold kind of unconscious was not even raised, then for the founder of psychoanalysis, the recognition of the existence of two systems in the unconscious became the starting point for his further research and therapeutic activity.

The difference between the psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious and its previous interpretations, including the corresponding ideas of Lipps, was that in the unconscious itself two streams of thoughts, two types of unconscious processes, were revealed. The comprehension of clinical material, the analysis of dreams and the rethinking of the ideas about the unconscious contained in philosophical and psychological works led Freud to the need to distinguish between preconscious And unconscious. But he did not limit himself to this and tried to understand in more detail the nature of the types of the unconscious he had identified. The focus on in-depth research contributed to the emergence and development of new ideas that became an integral part of psychoanalysis.

In the course of uncovering the dynamics of mental processes that are not conscious, what Freud called hidden, latent unconscious. This unconscious had characteristic features that testify to its specificity. The main feature of this type of the unconscious was that the idea, being conscious at some point, ceased to be so at the next moment, but could again become conscious under certain conditions that facilitate the transition of the unconscious into consciousness.

In addition, the dynamics of the deployment of mental processes, it turned out, made it possible to speak of the presence in the human psyche of some kind of counteracting force that prevents the penetration of unconscious ideas into consciousness. Freud called the state in which these representations were before they were realized repression, and the force contributing to the repression of these representations, resistance. The comprehension of both led him to the conclusion that the elimination of resistance is, in principle, possible, but it is feasible only on the basis of special procedures, with the help of which the corresponding unconscious ideas can be brought to the consciousness of a person.

All this contributed to the fact that, in Freud's understanding, the unconscious appeared as two independent and not reducible mental processes. The first kind of hidden, latent unconscious is what Freud called preconscious second - repressed by the unconscious. The conceptual subtlety lay in the fact that both were unconscious. But in the case of using the concept "preconscious" it was about the descriptive meaning of the unconscious psyche, while "repressed unconscious" implied the dynamic aspect of the psyche. Ultimately, the division traditional for psychology into consciousness and the unconscious was supplemented by a psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious psyche, in which not two, but three terms appeared: “conscious”, “preconscious” and “unconscious”.

The topical, that is, spatial, representation of the human psyche through the prism of the conscious, preconscious and unconscious contributed to a better understanding of the dynamics of the development of mental processes. However, in terms of terminology, not everything was as simple and clear as Freud wanted. And indeed, in a descriptive sense, there were, as it were, two types of the unconscious - the preconscious and the repressed unconscious. From the point of view of the dynamics of the deployment of mental processes, there is only one type of the unconscious, namely the repressed unconscious.

The duality of the unconscious introduced by Freud sometimes creates confusion and uncertainty when revealing the specifics of the psychoanalytic understanding of the nature of unconscious processes. Such confusion and uncertainty take place not only in the amateurish perception of psychoanalysis, but also in psychoanalytic literature, where the meaning of the concept of "unconscious" used by various authors is not always specified. Freud himself distinguished between the unconscious and the preconscious, between repressed and latent unconscious representations.

Difficulties of the conceptual order in considering the unconscious made themselves felt even during the life of Freud. He himself said that in some cases it was possible to neglect the distinction between the preconscious and the unconscious, while in other cases such a distinction seemed important and necessary. Moreover, feeling the need to clarify concepts, he also sought to show the differences between the unconscious in general as a descriptive concept and the repressed unconscious, relating to the dynamics of mental processes. It would seem that Freud succeeded in clarifying the difference between the concepts he used when considering the unconscious psyche. Nevertheless, a certain duality and ambiguity persisted, and some effort was required in order to avoid possible confusion. And if in the theory of psychoanalysis it was still possible to understand the conceptual subtleties associated with the use of the terms "preconscious", "repressed" and "unconscious", then in his practice such difficulties did arise that not only could not be resolved, but were not realized by the psychoanalysts themselves.

Sayings

Z. Freud: “We are accustomed to thinking that every latent thought is such because of its weakness and that it becomes conscious as soon as it gains strength. But we have now seen that there are hidden thoughts which do not penetrate the consciousness, however strong they may be. Therefore, we propose to call the hidden thoughts of the first group preconscious while the expression unconscious(in the narrow sense) to keep for the second group, which we observe in neuroses. Expression unconscious, which we have hitherto used only in a descriptive sense, now acquires a broader meaning. It designates not only latent thoughts in general, but mainly those of a certain dynamic character, namely those that are kept away from consciousness, despite their intensity and activity.

Z. Freud: “We see, however, that there are two types of the unconscious: latent, but capable of becoming conscious, and repressed, which by itself and without further can not become conscious.”

Z. Freud: “The latent unconscious, which is such only in a descriptive, but not in a dynamic sense, is called by us the preconscious; we apply the term "unconscious" only to the repressed dynamic unconscious."

Z. Freud: ““The Unconscious” is a purely descriptive, in some respects indefinite, so to speak, static term; ‘repressed’ is a dynamic word that takes into account the play of psychic forces…”

Polysemy of the Unconscious

Classical Freud's psychoanalysis was based mainly on revealing the characteristics and nature of one kind of unconscious, namely the repressed unconscious. Strictly speaking, the practice of psychoanalysis is focused on identifying the patient's resistance and that repressed unconscious, which was the result of the repression of unconscious drives and desires from his consciousness and memory. Meanwhile, in theory, in psychoanalytic teaching, the “repressed” was only a part of the unconscious psyche and did not completely cover it.

The contradictions between the theory and practice of psychoanalysis cause constant discussions and disputes among modern psychoanalysts. They are conducted on a variety of issues - on the interpretation of dreams, the role of sexuality and the Oedipus complex in the formation of neuroses, the relationship between the language of psychoanalytic theory and the practical use of the analytic method, and so on. But terminological nuances associated with the psychoanalytic concept of the unconscious are extremely rarely in the field of consciousness of psychoanalysts. With that ambiguity in its use, which, among other things, is reflected in the differences between the theory and practice of psychoanalysis.

Freud himself was aware of all the ambiguity that arises in the process of in-depth consideration of the unconscious from the point of view of revealing its functional features of the flow in various mental systems - whether it be the system of the preconscious or the repressed unconscious. Moreover, he believed that some ambiguity arises even when considering the consciousness and the unconscious, since in the end the differences between them are a matter of perception, which must be answered in the affirmative or in the negative. It is no coincidence that Freud emphasized that when using the terms "conscious" and "unconscious" it is difficult, almost impossible, to avoid the ambiguity that takes place.

Realizing this situation, Freud, as a researcher seeking to reveal the truth and prevent possible misunderstandings, nevertheless tried to eliminate the ambiguity associated with the ambiguous use of the term "unconscious". To this end, he proposed using letter designation to describe various mental systems, processes, or states. Thus, the system of consciousness was abbreviated by him as Bw (Bewusst), the system of the preconscious - as Vbw (Vorbewusst), the system of the unconscious - as Ubw (Unbewusst). With a lowercase letter, respectively, such designations were introduced as bw-conscious, vbw-preconscious and ubw-unconscious, which was understood mainly as the repressed, dynamically understood unconscious.

Letter designation of various systems and processes to some extent contributed to the elimination of misunderstandings that arose when using the corresponding terms. However, in the course of further research and therapeutic activity, it became clear that the distinction between the preconscious and the repressed unconscious, previously made by Freud, turned out to be theoretically insufficient and practically unsatisfactory. Therefore, the topical and dynamic understanding of the human psyche was supplemented by its structural understanding. This was the case in I and It (1923), where Freud considered the structure of the psyche through the prism of relationships between It (unconscious), I (consciousness) and Super-I (parental authority, ideal, conscience).

Nevertheless, a new look at the relationship between conscious and unconscious processes not only did not eliminate the ambiguity in the interpretation of the unconscious, but even more complicated the understanding of the unconscious mental as such. In fact, the work of "I and It" was aimed at eliminating those simplifications in understanding the relationship between consciousness and the unconscious, which became apparent as the development of the theory and practice of psychoanalysis took place. However, deepening into the wilds of the unconscious clearly demonstrated the trivial truth reflected in the common saying: "The farther into the forest, the more firewood."

It would seem that psychoanalytic structural theory was supposed to remove those ambiguities in the understanding of the unconscious that arose during the topical and dynamic consideration of unconscious processes. After all, thanks to this theory, the unconscious was studied not only from the inside, from the depths of the unconscious psyche, where unconscious processes were correlated with the forces of the It or all the low, animal that is contained in human nature. It was also studied from the side of the Superego, which embodies the norms, prescriptions and requirements imposed on a person as he becomes accustomed to culture. However, as a result of the structural cut of the study of the human psyche, the psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious not only has not lost its duality, but, on the contrary, has become ambiguous.

The latter circumstance is connected with Freud's recognition that in the ego itself there is something unconscious that exists along with other types of unconscious processes. This unconscious manifests itself like the repressed, and its realization also requires special work. It is precisely here that one of the difficulties arises when intrapersonal conflicts are reduced to a clash between consciousness and the unconscious. At the same time, the emphasis is on the repressed unconscious, but it is not taken into account that neurosis may be due to internal conflicts in the Self itself, part of which is also unconscious.

We are talking about Freud's introduction of a change in the previous understanding of intra-personal conflicts. In the beginning, a distinction was made between the conscious and the unconscious. The descriptive approach to the human psyche presupposed just such a division of it. Then, when revealing the dynamics of mental processes, consciousness, the preconscious, and the repressed unconscious were singled out. Finally, the structural approach to the human psyche made a significant addition to its understanding, when the unconscious was found in the ego itself, which did not coincide with the repressed unconscious. Freud called it "third" unconscious, which in the structural model was denoted by the term "Super-I".

Freud's recognition of the "third" unconscious made it possible, in a different way than before, to explore the complex interactions between conscious and unconscious processes occurring in the depths of the human psyche. It contributed to a better understanding of the nature of intrapersonal conflicts and the causes of neuroses. At the same time, the isolation of the "third" unconscious aggravated the general understanding of the unconscious mental, which became not just ambiguous, but really ambiguous. Freud understood this. It is no coincidence that, speaking of the introduction of a "third" unconscious, he wrote about the ambiguity of the concept of the unconscious, which has to be recognized in psychoanalysis.

As soon as the concept of the unconscious turned out to be ambiguous, maybe it should be abandoned? And then one should agree with those psychologists and philosophers who believed that researchers do not have the right to talk about the unconscious at all, since it is indefinite? However, taking into account the ambiguity of this concept, Freud, nevertheless, not only did not abandon the unconscious mental as such, but, on the contrary, insisted on the need for its thorough and comprehensive study. Moreover, he warned against the fact that on this basis there should not be a dismissive attitude either to the very concept of the unconscious, or to the psychoanalytic idea of ​​the effectiveness of the unconscious mental.

Thus, when considering and evaluating Freud's psychoanalytic doctrine of the unconscious mental, it is necessary to take into account those subtleties that relate to Freud's distinction between certain types of the unconscious. Without distinguishing between the psychoanalytic understanding of the preconscious, the repressed, and the "third" unconscious, it is easy to fall into simplistic generalizations about the nature of the relationship between consciousness and the unconscious.

It is generally accepted, for example, that Freud absolutized the antagonistic nature of the relationship between consciousness and the unconscious. And this is partly true, if we keep in mind the relationship between the repressed unconscious and consciousness. But the relationship between the preconscious and consciousness was not antagonistic in Freud. He did not draw a sharp line between them either in the topical examination of the human psyche, or in its structural-functional analysis.

Another thing is that the primacy of the unconscious over consciousness in the genetic cross-section (consciousness is a product of a higher organization of the psyche) Freud extended to the functional relationship between them. If we take into account his thesis that a significant part of the I is no less unconscious than something that is on the other side of consciousness, then the proportionality of both from the point of view of classical psychoanalysis becomes clear. In any case, to understand this proportionality in psychoanalysis, an image was used that left no doubt about this. The human psyche has been compared to an iceberg, one third of which (consciousness) is above water, and two thirds (unconscious) is hidden under water.

Turning to the consideration of the unconscious mental, Freud sought to understand the mechanism of the transition of mental acts from the sphere of the unconscious into the system of consciousness. This was directly related to both the theory and the practice of psychoanalysis. In the research plan, it was necessary to understand how and in what way the awareness of the unconscious is possible. From a clinical point of view, it was important to develop technical means to help patients gain knowledge of their unconscious drives and desires in order to further free them from the symptoms of mental illness. In both cases, there were some difficulties that require clarification.

Sayings

Z. Freud: “Even a part of the Self (God alone knows how important a part) can be unconscious, and without any doubt it is. And this unconscious in the ego is not latent in the sense of the preconscious, otherwise it could not be made active without awareness, and awareness itself would not present so many difficulties. When we are thus confronted with the necessity of recognizing a third, not repressed, we have to admit that the property of unconsciousness loses its significance for us. It becomes an ambiguous quality that does not allow for the broad and indisputable conclusions for which we would like to use it.

Z. Freud: "The difference between the conscious and the unconscious is, after all, a matter of perception, which can be answered with 'yes' or 'no'."

Z. Freud: “In the end, the property of unconsciousness or consciousness is the only ray of light in the darkness depth psychology».

Cognition of the unconscious

Freud argued that, like the physical, the mental need not really be exactly as it appears to us. Reality is one thing, and the idea of ​​it is another. The perception of psychic reality by consciousness is one thing, and the unconscious mental processes that are the object of consciousness are another. Therefore, a difficult question arises before the psychoanalyst: how is it possible to know the unconscious mental, if, in essence, it is as unknown to man as the reality of the external world?

Freud was aware that revealing the contents of the unconscious is a difficult task. However, he believed that, as in the case of cognition of material reality, when comprehending psychic reality, it is necessary to make adjustments to its external perception. Kant also said that perception is not identical with the perceived, and on the basis of this he distinguished between the thing “in itself” and “for itself”. Freud did not seek to grasp the essence of such subtleties. But he believed that adjustments to internal perception were feasible and, in principle, possible, since, as he believed, understanding an internal object was to some extent even easier than cognition of an external object.

Of course, one can disagree with some of Freud's statements, especially since, as real practice shows, knowledge of the inner world of a person turns out to be a more difficult matter than knowledge of the material reality surrounding him. It is no coincidence that in the 20th century, thanks to scientific and technical knowledge, it was possible to find the key to discovering many secrets of the surrounding world, which cannot be said about comprehending the secrets of the human soul. However, such an optimistic mood of Freud in relation to the possibilities of cognition of the unconscious mental was explained by the fact that psychoanalytic ideas about the repressed unconscious included a quite definite, although perhaps at first glance, a strange attitude. Based on it, such processes can take place in the human psyche, which, in essence, are known to him, although he seems to know nothing about them.

Those who denied the unconscious often asked very reasonable questions. How can we talk about something that we are not aware of? How can one judge the unconscious at all if it is not an object of consciousness? To what extent is it possible in principle to know what is beyond consciousness? These questions demanded an answer, and many thinkers racked their brains to no avail. The difficulties associated with the very approach to solving these issues gave rise to such a mindset, according to which a reasonable way out of the situation consisted in refusing to recognize the unconscious as such.

Freud did not like this situation. Having recognized the status of reality for the unconscious psychic, he could not ignore all these questions, which in one way or another boiled down to considering how and in what way it is possible to know what is eluding human consciousness. And he began to comprehend the question of the knowledge of the unconscious from elementary things, from general reasoning about knowledge as such.

Like his predecessors, Freud argued that all human knowledge is somehow connected with consciousness. Strictly speaking, knowledge always acts as consciousness. In turn, this means that the unconscious can only be known by making it conscious. But the traditional psychology of consciousness either ignored the unconscious, or at best allowed it as something so demonic that it was more likely to be condemned than to be known. Unlike the psychology of consciousness, psychoanalysis not only appeals to the unconscious mind, but also seeks to make it an object of knowledge.

For Freud, for whom the unconscious psyche became an important object of knowledge, the question inevitably arose: how is it possible for the unconscious to become conscious if it is not itself consciousness, and what does it mean to make something conscious? It can be assumed that the unconscious processes occurring in the depths of the human psyche themselves reach the surface of consciousness, or, conversely, consciousness in some elusive way breaks through to them. But such an assumption does not contribute to the answer to the question posed, since both possibilities do not reflect the real state of affairs. After all, only preconscious processes can reach consciousness, and even then a person needs to make considerable efforts to ensure that this happens. The road to consciousness is closed to the repressed unconscious. Consciousness, too, cannot master the repressed unconscious, since it does not know what, why and where it has been repressed. It seems to be a dead end.

In order to get out of the impasse, Freud tried to find some other possibility of transferring internal processes into a sphere where there was scope for their awareness. Such an opportunity presented itself to him in connection with the found solution, similar to the one that Hegel spoke about in his time. A German philosopher once expressed a witty idea, according to which the answers to unanswered questions lie in the fact that the questions themselves must be posed differently. Without referring to Hegel, Freud did just that. He reformulated the question of how something becomes conscious. It becomes more expedient for him to ask how something can become preconscious.

Freud correlated the preconscious with the verbal expression of unconscious ideas. Therefore, the answer to the reformulated question did not cause any difficulties. He sounded in such a way that something becomes preconscious by connecting with the corresponding verbal representations. Now it was only necessary to answer the question of how the repressed could become preconscious. But here direct analytical work came to the fore, with the help of which the necessary conditions for the emergence of mediating links that facilitate the transition from the repressed unconscious to the preconscious.

In general, Freud tried in his own way to answer the tricky question about the possibilities of awareness of the unconscious. For him, conscious, preconscious and unconscious representations were not "records" of the same content in different mental systems. The first included subject representations, designed in an appropriate verbal way. The second is the possibility of entering into a connection between subject representations and verbal ones. The third is the material that remains unknown, that is, unknown, and consisting of some subject representations. Based on this, the process of cognition of the unconscious in psychoanalysis is transferred from the sphere of consciousness to the area of ​​the preconscious.

In fact, we are talking about the transfer of the repressed unconscious not into consciousness, but into the preconscious. The implementation of this translation takes place with the help of specially developed psychoanalytic techniques, when the human consciousness, as it were, remains in its place, the unconscious does not rise directly to the level of the conscious, but the preconscious system becomes the most active, within which there is a real possibility of turning the repressed unconscious into the preconscious.

Thus, in Freud's classical psychoanalysis, the cognition of the unconscious is correlated with the possibilities of meeting objective representations with linguistic constructions expressed in verbal form. Hence the importance in the theory and practice of psychoanalysis, which is attached to the role of language and linguistic constructions in revealing the content characteristics of the unconscious. In the process of a psychoanalytic session, a dialogue takes place between the analyst and the patient, where language turns and speech constructions serve as the basis for penetrating into the depths of the unconscious.

However, specific difficulties arise here, due to the fact that the unconscious has not only a different, different, different logic from consciousness, but also its own language. The unconscious speaks in a language that is incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Without knowledge of this "foreign" language of the unconscious one cannot rely on knowledge of the unconscious psyche. The specific language of the unconscious is especially vividly manifested in human dreams, where various images and plots are permeated with symbolism. This symbolic language of the unconscious needs to be deciphered, which is not an easy task, the implementation of which involves familiarizing a person with an ancient culture, where the language of symbols was an important part of people's lives.

Realizing the difficulties with the cognition of the unconscious, Freud paid considerable attention to both revealing the symbolic language of the unconscious and understanding the possibilities of transferring the repressed unconscious into the sphere of the preconscious. He offered such a specific interpretation of the nature of verbal representations, thanks to which they allowed the logical possibility of understanding the unconscious through preconscious mediating links.

The founder of psychoanalysis put forward the postulate of verbal representations as certain traces of memories. In his understanding, any word is ultimately nothing more than a remnant of the memory of a previously heard word. In accordance with this, classical psychoanalysis was based on the recognition of the presence in a person of such knowledge, which, in general, he has, but about which he himself knows nothing. Possessing a certain knowledge, the individual nevertheless does not realize it until the chain of memories of real events and experiences of the past that once happened in the life of an individual or in the history of the development of the human race is restored.

From Freud's point of view, only that which was once consciously perceived can become conscious. Obviously, with such an understanding, the knowledge of the unconscious becomes, in fact, a recollection, a restoration in the memory of a person of previously existing knowledge. The process of cognition of the unconscious turns out to be a kind of resurrection of knowledge-memory, fragmentary components of which are in the preconscious. However, the deep content of this is repressed due to the unwillingness or inability of a person to recognize behind the symbolic language of the unconscious his aspirations and desires, which are often associated with some kind of hidden demonic forces that are alien to the individual as a social, cultural and moral being.

In his reflections on the need to restore previous memories in a person’s memory, Freud approaches the reproduction of the Platonic concept of “anamnesis”. And this is true, because in the treatment of this issue there are striking similarities between Freud's psychoanalytic hypotheses and Plato's philosophical ideas.

As you know, the ancient Greek thinker believed that a vague knowledge is embedded in the human soul, which needs only to be remembered, making it an object of consciousness. This was the basis of his concept of human cognition of the surrounding world. For Plato, to know something first of all meant to recall, to restore the knowledge that belongs to a person. Freud also held similar views, believing that knowledge is possible thanks to the traces of memories. Plato proceeded from the fact that a person who does not know something has a correct opinion about what he does not know. Freud reproduced the same thought almost verbatim. In any case, he emphasized that although a person does not always know about the phenomena contained in the depths of his psyche, nevertheless they are, in essence, known to him.

Plato's concept of knowledge was based on the recall of knowledge that existed in the form of a priori given ideas. In Freud's classical psychoanalysis, the knowledge of the unconscious was correlated with the phylogenetic heritage of mankind, with phylogenetically inherited schemes, under the influence of which life phenomena lined up in a certain order. Both in that, and in other case it was a question of very similar, if not more, of the same type of positions. Another thing is that these positions were not identical to each other. There were also some differences between them. Thus, Plato proceeded from the premise of the existence of an objective world soul, the material world of which is reflected in the human soul in ideal images. Freud, on the other hand, emphasized the subject representations expressed in the symbolic language of the unconscious, behind which were hidden phylogenetic structural formations that arose in the process of the evolutionary development of the human race.

The topical, dynamic and structural consideration of the unconscious psyche has led, on the one hand, to a deeper understanding of the relationship between consciousness and the unconscious, and, on the other hand, to the ambiguity of the term “unconscious” used in psychoanalysis. Freud's reflections on the possibility of knowing the unconscious partly clarified the question of how, in principle, the transition from the repressed unconscious through the preconscious into the sphere of consciousness is carried out, and at the same time contributed to the ambiguity of the interpretation of the unconscious mental. And this is exactly so, since the unconscious itself has become correlated not only with ontogenesis (human development), but also with phylogeny (development of the human race). This understanding of the unconscious was reflected in Freud's Totem and Taboo (1913), which showed similarities between the psychology of a primitive man, subject to herd instincts, and the psychology of a neurotic, who is at the mercy of his own drives and desires.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that the ambiguity of the concept of "unconscious" in psychoanalysis has caused certain difficulties associated with the final results of the knowledge of the unconscious mental. It is not so much about translating the unconscious into consciousness as about the limits of psychoanalysis in revealing the essence of unconsciousness as such. Indeed, as a result, Freud's research and therapeutic activity was aimed at revealing the initial components of the unconscious, namely those deep drives, the impossibility of realization and satisfaction of which, as a rule, led to the emergence of neuroses.

Sayings

Z. Freud: “Only that which was once already a conscious perception and that, in addition to feelings from within, wants to become conscious can become conscious; it must make an attempt to become external perceptions. This is made possible by memory traces.”

Z. Freud: "The question - how to make something repressed (pre) conscious - should be answered as follows: it is necessary to restore such preconscious middle links by analytical work."

Z. Freud: "The psychoanalyst strives to bring the material repressed from consciousness into consciousness."

Metapsychology of drives

The disclosure of the unconscious inclinations of a person was one of the main tasks of the theory and practice of psychoanalysis. If the practice of psychoanalysis was focused on a person's awareness of his unconscious drives, then the theory of psychoanalysis demonstrated the possibilities of detecting these drives and ways to realize them. Strictly speaking, this was where Freud's research activity ended, since, theoretically, the possibilities of psychoanalysis turned out to be exhausted.

The only thing that psychoanalysis can still claim is, perhaps, to comprehend how legitimate it is to talk about unconscious drives in general. In fact, Freud's merit was the isolation and study of the unconscious mind. The analysis of this unconscious inevitably led to the identification of the most significant unconscious drives for the development and life of a person. Initially (until 1915), Freud believed that these were the sexual drives (libidinal) and the drives of the ego (drives to self-preservation). Then, studying narcissism, he saw that sexual desires can be directed not only to an external object, but also to one's own Self. Sexual energy (libido) can be directed not only outward, but also inward. Based on this, Freud introduced the concepts of object and narcissistic libido. The sexual drives he had previously put forward came to be regarded by him as object libido, and the drives for self-preservation - as I-libido, or self-love. Finally, in the 1920s (Beyond the Pleasure Principle), Freud correlated the sexual drives with the life drive, and the ego drives with the death drive. Thus, he formulated and put forward the concept according to which a person manifests two main drives - the drive to life (Eros) and the drive to death (Thanatos).

In general, we can say that attraction is the unconscious desire of a person to satisfy his needs. Freud, who first used this concept in his Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), distinguished between instinct (Instinkt) and attraction (Trieb). By instinct, he understood biologically inherited animal behavior, by attraction - the mental representation of a somatic source of irritation.

Paying special attention to sexual desire, Freud singled out sex object, that is, the person to whom this attraction is directed, and sexual purpose that is, the action to which the impulse impels. He supplemented the psychoanalytic understanding of the object, purpose and source of attraction with the corresponding ideas about the strength of attraction. To quantify sexual desire, Freud used the concept of "libido" - as a kind of force or energy that measures sexual arousal. Libido directs human sexual activity and makes it possible to describe in economic terms the processes taking place in the human psyche, including those associated with neurotic diseases.

In Instincts and Their Fates (1915), Freud deepened his understanding of instincts. He emphasized that the goal of attraction is the achievement of satisfaction, and its object is that through which the attraction can achieve its goal. According to his views, attraction is influenced by three polarities: biological polarity, which includes an active and passive attitude towards the world; real - implying division into subject and object, I and the outside world; economic - based on the polarity of pleasure (pleasure) and displeasure.

As for the fate of drives, in his opinion, there are several possible ways of their development. Attraction can turn into its opposite (turning love into hate and vice versa). It can turn to the personality itself, when the focus on the object is replaced by the person's attitude towards himself. The attraction may be inhibited, that is, ready to retreat from the object and goal. And finally, attraction is capable of sublimation, that is, of modifying the goal and changing the object, in which social assessment is taken into account.

In the Introduction to Psychoanalysis lectures written in 1933, Freud summarized his views on the life of drives. In the light of these generalizations, the psychoanalytic understanding of drives has taken on the following form:

¦ attraction is different from irritation, it comes from a source of irritation within the body and acts as constant force;

¦ studying attraction as a process, it is necessary to distinguish between the source, object and goal, where the source of attraction is the state of excitation in the body, and the goal is the elimination of this excitation;

¦ attraction becomes mentally effective on the way from the source to the goal;

¦ mentally effective attraction has a certain amount of energy (libido);

¦ on the path of attraction to a goal and an object, it is allowed to replace the latter with other goals and objects, including socially acceptable ones (sublimation);

¦ it is possible to distinguish between drives delayed on the way to the goal and lingering on the way to satisfaction;

¦ there is a difference between drives that serve the sexual function and drives for self-preservation (hunger and thirst), the former being characterized by plasticity, substitutability and detachment, while the latter are adamant and urgent.

In sadism and masochism, there is a fusion of two types of drives. Sadism is an inclination directed outward, towards external destruction. Masochism, apart from the erotic component, is an attraction to self-destruction. The latter (the drive to self-destruction) can be considered an expression of the drive to death, which leads the living to an inorganic state.

The theory of drives put forward by Freud caused an ambiguous reaction from psychologists, philosophers, doctors, and also psychoanalysts. Many of them criticized metapsychological (based on general theory human psyche) ideas about human drives. Freud himself repeatedly emphasized that drives constitute such a field of study in which it is difficult to navigate and not easy to achieve a clear understanding. So, initially the concept of "attraction" was introduced by him to distinguish between the mental and the bodily. However, later he had to say that instincts govern not only mental, but also vegetative life. Ultimately, Freud recognized that the drive is a rather obscure but indispensable concept in psychology, that drives and their transformations are the end point accessible to psychoanalytic knowledge.

Among psychologists, philosophers and physiologists of the second half of the 19th century, there were discussions about whether there are unconscious ideas, conclusions, drives, actions. Some of them believed that it was possible to speak only of unconscious representations, but there was no need to introduce the concept of "unconscious inferences." Others recognized the legitimacy of both. Still others, on the contrary, generally denied the existence of any form of the unconscious.

Like some researchers, Freud also raised the question of whether there are unconscious feelings, sensations, drives. It would seem that given the fact that in psychoanalysis the unconscious psyche was considered as an important and necessary hypothesis, such a formulation of the question looked more than strange. After all, the initial theoretical postulates and the final results of Freud's research and therapeutic work coincided in one thing - in the recognition of unconscious drives as the main determinants of human activity. Nevertheless, he posed the question: how legitimate is it to speak of unconscious drives? And, paradoxical as it may seem at first glance, Freud's answer to this question was completely unexpected. Be that as it may, he emphasized that there are no unconscious affects, and in relation to drives one can hardly speak of any opposition between the conscious and the unconscious.

Why did Freud come to such a conclusion? How can all this be correlated with his recognition of the unconscious psyche? What role did his reflections on the limits of psychoanalysis in the knowledge of the unconscious play in his views on human drives? And finally, why did he question the existence of unconscious drives, which, it would seem, crossed out his doctrine of the unconscious?

In fact, Freud did not think of repudiating his psychoanalytic doctrine of the unconscious psyche. On the contrary, all his research and therapeutic efforts were concentrated on identifying the unconscious and the possibilities of transferring it into consciousness. However, the consideration of the unconscious psyche in the cognitive plane forced Freud not only to recognize the limitations of psychoanalysis in the cognition of the unconscious, but also to turn to clarifying the meaning that is usually invested in the concept of "unconscious desire".

The specificity of the issues discussed by Freud was that, according to his deep conviction, the researcher can deal not so much with the human drives themselves, but with certain ideas about them. According to this understanding, all reasoning about drives from the point of view of their consciousness and unconsciousness is nothing more than conditional. On this occasion, the founder of psychoanalysis noted that his use of the concept of "unconscious desire" is a kind of "harmless carelessness of expression."

Thus, although Freud constantly appealed to the concept of "unconscious desire", it was, in fact, an unconscious representation. This kind of ambiguity is very characteristic of classical psychoanalysis. And it is no coincidence that Freud's teaching about the unconscious psychic and basic drives of a person met with such discrepancies on the part of his followers, not to mention critical opponents. This has led to the emergence of divergent trends within the psychoanalytic movement.

The “harmless carelessness of expression” that Freud spoke of turned out to be not so harmless in reality. It had far-reaching consequences. And it's not just that the many meanings of the concept of "unconscious" and the ambiguity in the interpretation of human drives often affected the interpretation of psychoanalysis as such. More importantly, behind all the ambiguities and omissions that concerned the conceptual apparatus of psychoanalysis, there was a heuristic and content limitation, which ultimately makes it difficult to know and understand the unconscious. Another thing is that this was indeed an unusually difficult field of research and practical use of knowledge in clinical practice, which did honor to any scientist and analyst, if he at least to some extent advanced in the direction of studying the unconscious mind. Freud was no exception. On the contrary, he was one of those who not only raised fundamental questions regarding the nature and possibility of knowing the unconscious, but also outlined certain paths, following which allowed both himself and other psychoanalysts to make a feasible contribution to the study of the unconscious.

Sayings

Z. Freud: “Instincts and their transformations are the lowest that psychoanalysis is able to know. It then gives way to biological research."

Z. Freud: “I really think that the opposition between the conscious and the unconscious does not find application in relation to attraction. A drive can never be an object of consciousness; it can only be an idea that reflects this drive in consciousness. But even in the unconscious, attraction can be reflected only by means of a representation.

Z. Freud: “And if we are still talking about an unconscious drive, or about a repressed drive, then this is only a harmless carelessness of expression. By this, we can understand only such an attraction, which is reflected in the psyche by an unconscious representation, and nothing else is meant by this.

The specifics of unconscious processes

When thinking about the problem of the unconscious psyche, Freud put forward several ideas that turned out to be important for the theory and practice of psychoanalysis. In addition to the distinctions he made between the conscious, the preconscious and the repressed unconscious, as well as the recognition of the "third" unrepressed unconscious (Super-I), he considered the properties and qualities of unconscious processes. First of all, Freud emphasized that, along with the primary nature of unconscious processes, they are dynamically active and mobile. Displaced into the unconscious desires and desires of a person do not lose their effectiveness, do not become passive, do not remain at rest. On the contrary, being in the depths of the human psyche, they accumulate their strength and are ready to break free at any suitable moment. As a result, a person sometimes has no choice but to flee into illness. The human psyche contains, to use Freud's expression, the ever active, immortal desires of our unconscious sphere. They resemble mythical titans, on which from time immemorial heavy mountain ranges have been built, once heaped up by the gods and still shaken by the movements of their muscles.

In the theory of psychoanalysis, the recognition of their active nature behind unconscious processes meant a focus on studying the dynamics of their transition from one system to another. In the practice of psychoanalysis, this involved considering the causes of neurosis from the point of view of the repressed unconscious dormant in the depths of the psyche for the time being. Activation of the latter inevitably leads to the formation of a variety of symptoms indicating a mental illness.

In addition, Freud believed that, unlike consciousness, the unconscious is characterized by the absence of any contradictions. The logic of consciousness is such that it does not tolerate contradictions. If they are found in the thoughts or actions of a person, then at best this can be regarded as a misunderstanding, and at worst as a disease. The logic of the unconscious is distinguished by such dissent, in which the inconsistency of the flow of unconscious processes is not a deviation from a certain norm. Contradictions exist only in consciousness and for consciousness. For the unconscious there are no contradictions.

Any absurdity fixed by consciousness is not such for the unconscious. On the contrary, it is no less significant in meaning for the unconscious than any logically coherent and consistent construction for consciousness. From the point of view of the theory of psychoanalysis, behind the inconsistency and absurdity of the unconscious is a hidden, hidden meaning, the identification of which is very relevant for research work. In clinical terms, the patient's thinking and behavior, which are illogical from the point of view of consciousness, are perceived by the analyst as important empirical material, indicating the activation of unconscious processes that need to reveal their origins and specific content. The goal is to reveal their true meaning and bring to consciousness everything that seems at first glance absurd and contradictory.

No less significant is the fact that, in revealing the specifics of the unconscious psyche, Freud revised the usual ideas about time. In his understanding, time as such has significance only for consciousness. The unconscious has no sense of time. The unconscious itself is, as it were, out of time. Thus, in a dream or in a neurotic state, the past and the present do not have to follow each other in the chronological sequence in which real or imagined events took place. In the unconscious, the past and present, as well as the future, can shift in any direction, ahead of or replacing each other.

For Freud, timelessness is one of the most characteristic features of the unconscious. He even believed that the psychoanalytic concept of the timelessness of the unconscious could lead to a revision of the ideas of the German philosopher Kant about a priori, that is, existing independently of human experience and the preceding forms of space and time. It is important to keep in mind that looking at the unconscious through the lens of its timelessness led to the recognition of specific differences between conscious and unconscious processes. As Freud believed, unlike conscious processes, unconscious processes are not distributed in a temporal sequence, do not change over time, and generally have nothing to do with time.

Freud's ideas about time were directly related to both the theory and practice of psychoanalysis. In theory, the concept of time was used by him to characterize various mental processes. In clinical practice - to establish the frequency of psychoanalytic sessions and the duration of treatment.

In addition to recognizing timelessness for the unconscious, Freud believed that there is an interval between the occurrence of a disease in the present and its deep roots, rooted in the past. The causes of neurotic diseases should be sought in the period of time when the strongest childhood experiences arose, caused by various kinds of real events or fantasies.

The problem of time is also important for the practice of psychoanalysis. It includes three aspects: the exact time of the patient's arrival to the analyst, the frequency and duration of the psychoanalytic session, and the duration of the patient's treatment. Freud believed that, despite the timelessness of the unconscious, or rather precisely because of it, the observance of certain conditions regarding time is essential for all three aspects.

The appointment of the exact hour of the visit to the psychoanalyst is of fundamental importance. The patient is responsible for the time allotted to him, even if he does not use it. He is responsible for him by the fact that, in principle, he is obliged to pay for the time assigned to him, but not used, as it sometimes happens when the patient begins to resort to various tricks to miss the next session. The desire of the patient to reschedule the next session of psychoanalytic treatment for another time, being late or forgetting the time of a visit to the analyst - these are most often the tricks of patients trying to slow down the process of revealing the secrets of their life or to save their illness in order to obtain some benefit from it.

The duration of a psychoanalytic session is usually limited to one academic hour, which is 45-50 minutes, and their frequency depends on the patient's condition. Freud argued that psychoanalytic sessions should be held daily, except for weekends and holidays, and in mild cases or long-term, well-established treatment, three times a week. Missed sessions, breaks in treatment complicate psychoanalytic work and do not contribute to the treatment of the patient.

The duration of treatment with psychoanalytic methods is always long in time - from six months to several years. One can understand patients who want to get rid of a neurotic disorder in two or three sessions. One can also understand those who consider long-term psychoanalytic treatment as a way to “extort” money from patients. However, as Freud emphasized, the desirable shortening of psychoanalytic treatment is hampered by the timelessness of unconscious processes and the slow implementation of psychic changes. The time limit does not benefit either the doctor or the patient.

Finally, along with reflections on the timelessness of unconscious processes, Freud carefully examined the relationship between physical and mental reality in order to identify specific characteristics of the unconscious. He began by rethinking his earlier theory of seduction, according to which the cause of neuroses was real traumatic childhood events associated with the attacks of adults, most often parents or close relatives, on children. As a result, the understanding of psychic reality as an important component of human life has come to the fore. In psychoanalysis, it is psychic reality that has become an important and integral part of research and therapeutic activity. In fact, during the psychoanalytic "dissection" of the unconscious, any boundaries between fiction and reality, fantasy and reality were erased in it.

This did not mean at all that such boundaries did not exist at all or that they could not be drawn in principle. This is not the point at all, but the fact that for the unconscious, the inner reality is no less important than the external world. Rather, on the contrary, most often it is the psychic reality that becomes more significant for a person than his external environment. Especially great importance this reality has in the occurrence of neuroses. In any case, focusing on the unconscious psychic, Freud proved that for a neurosis, psychic reality means more than material reality.

For the founder of psychoanalysis, psychic reality was the sphere in which the most significant and significant processes and changes for human life occur, affecting his thinking and behavior. From his point of view, the unconscious psyche is the object of study that allows you to better understand both the specifics of the course of certain processes in the human psyche and the causes of neurotic diseases. Thus, flight into illness is a person's departure from the reality around him into the world of fantasy. In his fantasies, the neurotic does not deal with material reality, but with a fictitious one; nevertheless, it turns out to be really significant for him. In the world of neuroses, it is psychic reality that is decisive.

In psychoanalysis, considerable attention is paid to the consideration of the role of mental reality in human life. Hence the special interest in fantasies and dreams, which make it possible to look into the depths of the human psyche, to reveal his unconscious desires and inclinations. The psychoanalyst does not attach fundamental importance to whether a person's experiences are connected with real events that once took place or they correlate with plots that are reflected in fantasies, dreams, daydreams, and illusions. To understand the intrapsychic conflicts that are played out in the human soul, it is important to identify those elements of psychic reality that caused these conflicts to arise. For the successful treatment of nervous diseases, it is necessary to bring to the patient's consciousness the significance of unconscious processes and forces that make up the content of psychic reality and play a certain role in human life.

All this was taken into account by Freud when considering the unconscious mental. All this was taken into account by him when identifying the specific characteristics of the unconscious as such.

In order to present Freud's views on the psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious in a more visual form, it makes sense to fix the most important theoretical positions put forward by him. These provisions are as follows:

¦ identification of the psyche with consciousness is inappropriate, because it breaks mental continuity and plunges into insoluble difficulties of psychophysical parallelism;

¦ the assumption of an unconscious mental is necessary because the data of consciousness have many gaps, the explanation of which is impossible without the recognition of mental processes that are different from conscious ones;

¦ the unconscious is a natural and inevitable phase of the processes that underlie the mental activity of a person;

¦ the core of the unconscious is made up of inherited mental formations;

¦ each mental act begins as an unconscious one, it can remain so or, developing further, penetrate into consciousness, depending on whether it encounters resistance or not;

¦ the unconscious is a special mental system with its own way of expression and its inherent mechanisms of functioning;

¦ unconscious processes are not identical to conscious ones, they enjoy a certain freedom, which the latter are deprived of;

¦ the laws of unconscious mental activity differ in many respects from the laws to which the activity of consciousness is subject;

¦ one should not identify the perception of consciousness with the unconscious mental process, which is the object of this consciousness;

¦ the value of the unconscious as an indicator of a special mental system is greater than its value as a qualitative category;

¦ the unconscious is known only as conscious after its transformation or translation into a form accessible to consciousness, since, being not an essence, but a quality of the mental, consciousness remains the only source that illuminates the depths of the human psyche;

¦ some of the unconscious states differ from the conscious only in the absence of consciousness;

¦ the opposition of the conscious and the unconscious does not apply to attraction, since the object of consciousness may not be attraction, but only an idea that reflects this attraction in consciousness;

¦ special properties of the unconscious:

– primary process;

– activity;

- the absence of contradictions;

- flowing out of time;

- replacement of external, physical reality with internal, mental reality.

It is obvious that the theoretical propositions about the unconscious formulated by Freud can be perceived differently by those who are still trying to understand the meaning, significance and role of unconscious processes in human life. Some of these provisions can be perceived as starting, initial, contributing to the identification and understanding of the unconscious activity of people. Others, perhaps, will cause objection and even protest on the part of those who are disgusted by the installation of recognizing the unconscious as a fundamental principle that predetermines the thinking and behavior of the individual. Still others will disappoint specialists in the field of human studies with their triviality. Fourth - will seem too abstruse, philosophically colored and not related to therapeutic activities.

However, no matter how it was perceived by contemporaries who condescendingly refer to classical psychoanalysis, it is hardly worth discounting the fact that it was Freud who made a serious attempt to consider in detail the characteristic features and essence of the unconscious, as well as the possibilities and ways of its knowledge.

Sayings

Z. Freud: “The unconscious seemed to us at first only a mysterious feature of a certain mental process; now it means more to us, it serves as an indication that this process is part of the essence of a certain mental category, which is known to us by other important characteristic features, and that it belongs to a system of mental activity that deserves our full attention.

Z. Freud: “The mental life of hysterical patients is full of active, but unconscious ideas; from them come all the symptoms. This is indeed a characteristic feature of hysterical thinking - it is dominated by unconscious ideas.

S. Freud: “The reduction of analytic treatment remains a completely just desire, the fulfillment of which we seek different ways. Unfortunately, this interferes important point- the slowness with which deep mental changes are made, in the final analysis, perhaps, the timelessness of our unconscious processes. L. Shertok, “The unconscious is not a kingdom of blind forces, but a certain structure, the basis of which is several basic drives. After this Freudian discovery, the unconscious ceased to be a dark well, from the depths of which we can extract something interesting from time to time. It has become an object accessible to scientific knowledge.

Difficulties and limitations on the way of understanding the unconscious

Freud was not a man who blindly trusted his own ideas about the unconscious mental and who did not have any doubts about the possibilities of knowing the unconscious. On the contrary, having put forward his ideas about the unconscious mental, he constantly made adjustments to his understanding of the dynamics of unconscious processes and sometimes expressed such considerations, according to which psychoanalysis did not always lead to theoretically indisputable evidence and practically effective results.

Thus, striving to reveal and reveal the meaning of unconscious drives and desires of a person, Freud believed that the study of dreams is the most fruitful and promising approach to understanding the nature, content and mechanisms of the functioning of the unconscious. The work "The Interpretation of Dreams" was devoted to this very task - the study of the unconscious through the interpretation of various dreams. For Freud, dreams acted as the "royal road" to the knowledge of the unconscious. However, this did not prevent him from being critical of the limits of psychoanalytic knowledge of the unconscious. It is no coincidence that at the end of The Interpretation of Dreams, he noticed that the unconscious is not fully revealed by the data of the dream, as the analyst would like.

Attention has already been drawn to the fact that Freud's knowledge of the unconscious ended, in fact, with the identification of unconscious drives. Thus, he recognized the limit beyond which the psychoanalyst cannot go further, wishing to comprehend the unconscious manifestations of a person. But doesn't this mean that, in fact, Freud recognized the impossibility of revealing the nature of the unconscious psyche by means of psychoanalysis?

Strange as it may seem at first glance, the founder of psychoanalysis often came to precisely this conclusion. Indeed, in many of his works he opposed abstract interpretations of the unconscious and reproached his predecessors, especially philosophers, for failing to explain the true nature of man's unconscious activity. At the same time, while carrying out his research work on understanding the unconscious mental, he also found himself in a rather strange position when he had to talk about the limits of psychoanalytic knowledge of the unconscious. In any case, Freud was forced to state that, like a philosopher who considered the unconscious as a kind of fiction, an analyst who recognizes the mental life of a person as unconscious rather than conscious, as a result, also cannot say what the unconscious is.

This situation was characteristic not only for the theory, but also for the practice of classical psychoanalysis. In fact, in the process of Freud's practical activity, the knowledge of the unconscious in order to eliminate the patient's ignorance about his mental processes as one of the causes of neurosis did not lead to automatic deliverance from a neurotic disorder. The initial setting, according to which knowledge of the meaning of a symptom led to liberation from it, turned out to be problematic in its practical implementation. This attitude served as a necessary orientation in revealing the meaning of the patient's unconscious activity in order to reveal its hidden tendencies behind the symbolic language of the unconscious and make them an object of consciousness. But in a theoretical sense, the knowledge of the unconscious reached the fixation of unconscious drives of a sexual nature and stopped there. In the practice of psychoanalysis, it turned out that the disclosure of the meaning of individual manifestations of the patient's unconscious acts did not always directly free him from neurosis.

Subsequently, Freud revised the possibilities, ways and means that could lead to liberation from painful symptoms. I shall return to this question when the psychoanalytic conception of neuroses and psychoanalytic therapy as a whole become the object of consideration. In the meantime, I emphasize that in Freud himself, many cases of psychoanalytic treatment turned out to be incomplete.

However, unlike some modern psychoanalysts who consider psychoanalysis as a panacea for all mental illnesses, Freud did not consider psychoanalytic treatment to be omnipotent, suitable for all occasions. On the contrary, as in the cognition of the unconscious, he saw certain limitations of psychoanalysis as a medical tool for the treatment of patients. It is no coincidence that Freud emphasized that the value of psychoanalysis should be considered not so much in terms of its effectiveness in medical practice, but in terms of understanding its significance as a conceptual tool for the study of the unconscious mind. He observed that if psychoanalysis were as unsuccessful in all other forms of nervous and mental illness as it was in the field of delusions, it would still remain fully justified as an indispensable means of scientific research.

Ultimately, both in Freud's research and therapeutic activities, deciphering the traces of the unconscious and revealing the meaning of unconscious processes did not finally solve the question of the depth of knowledge and awareness of the unconscious mental. After all, the interpretation of the manifestations of the unconscious, which are reflected in a person’s speech, his dreams, or the symptoms of an illness, can allow for variable, that is, diverse, often not coinciding with each other interpretations of the unconscious.

On the one hand, the individual-personal speech of a person communicating with an analyst often turns out to be embellished, concealing and disguising the true state of things. The patient is not always sincere and truthful. He wants to appear in the eyes of the analyst better than he really is. Often he not only consciously deceives the analyst, but unconsciously deceives himself at his own expense. Moreover, the patient's insincerity is clothed both in forms that the psychoanalyst, being a professional, can easily recognize, and in robes that are far from always recognizable and contribute to the exposure of a conscious or unconscious deceiver. Not only are there difficulties professional nature, but also opens up scope for a misinterpretation of the unconscious, especially when the analyst relies on his own infallibility.

On the other hand, the understanding of linguistic material, speech flow depends on the subjective perception of the analyst, who adheres to one or another ideological orientation. It is one thing to strictly adhere to the rules and guidelines of classical psychoanalysis, with all the ensuing consequences. Another is to follow other psychoanalytic theories that reject Freud's ideas about the sexual nature of the Oedipus complex, the unconscious drive to death, the destructive, destructive instinct inherent in man. It is no coincidence that psychoanalysts, who hold different views on the initial assumptions about unconscious drives, also perceive the "historical truth" hidden behind the speech of patients, their dreams or symptoms of diseases in different ways. For example, in the analysis of dreams, various interpretations are possible, since patients often adapt the content of their dreams to the theories of their physicians. Psychoanalysts, on the other hand, often see in the dreams of their patients exactly what they want to see, in order to bring theory and practice into line. Besides, dream interpretation does not exclude the possibility that the psychoanalyst may overlook something significant, underestimate some image, plot, element, or take a different look at the whole dream as a whole. Therefore, the deciphering of the traces of the unconscious and the identification of semantic connections allow for a biased attitude, which manifests itself in the process of psychoanalytic cognition of the unconscious.

There is something else to keep in mind as well. Arguing that psychoanalysis can be regarded as an indispensable tool for scientific research, Freud at the same time placed the main emphasis not so much on explanation as on description and interpretation of the unconscious mind. True, in his works he sometimes did not distinguish between explanation and interpretation. However, it is clear that they are not the same. In addition, Freud considered psychoanalysis as a natural science, which implies that the description and interpretation of unconscious processes would have to be followed by their explanation. However, his first fundamental work was called "The Interpretation of Dreams", and not an explanation of them.

At one time, the German philosopher Dilthey tried to identify the differences between "explanatory" and "descriptive" psychology. He argued that only natural phenomena can be explained, while the mental life of a person is comprehended by internal perception and, therefore, its understanding is achieved by describing the corresponding ideas, motives of behavior, memories and fantasies of the individual. Freud did not intend to identify psychoanalysis with descriptive psychology. On the contrary, in some works he even sought to emphasize the difference between the psychoanalytic doctrine of the unconscious and this kind of psychology. He believed that after recognizing the differences between the conscious, the preconscious, and the repressed unconscious, psychoanalysis separated from descriptive psychology.

It would seem that such a vision of psychoanalysis by Freud brings him closer to explanatory psychology. In reality, however, psychoanalysis has not become an explanatory scientific discipline. Despite Freud's attempts not only to describe but also to the extent possible to explain mental processes and thus reveal the nature of the unconscious mind, he failed to make explanation the basic principle of psychoanalysis. It is no coincidence that in his works he speaks more often about the description and interpretation than about the explanation of mental processes.

Considering psychoanalysis as a science, many of its representatives try to prove the scientific nature of psychoanalytic constructions. At the same time, they resort to such arguments, according to which psychoanalysis organically fits into the core of scientific disciplines dealing with the explanation of certain phenomena, processes and forces contained and acting in the human psyche. Of course, there are opposing points of view, according to which psychoanalysis is not an explanatory science, but is at best a tool for describing and interpreting the unconscious mind.

With all the desire to consider psychoanalysis as a scientific discipline that gives a scientific explanation of the unconscious, Freud was forced to recognize the limitations of the psychoanalytic approach to the knowledge of the unconscious precisely in terms of its explanatory functions. Thus, in one of his works, he unequivocally said that the explanation of the unconscious psyche is inaccessible to psychoanalytic research.

All this does not mean at all that psychoanalysis has no prospects in the study of unconscious processes or in the treatment of neuroses. This does not mean that Freud's research and therapeutic activity was useless for revealing the unconscious psyche and eliminating neurotic symptoms. His own admissions of the limitations of psychoanalysis, which is unable to go beyond the detection of a person’s unconscious drives and become an omnipotent cure for literally all mental illnesses, testified more to the honesty of the scientist and the modesty of the doctor than to the worthlessness and futility of the psychoanalytic approach to the study of man.

Some psychologists, philosophers and doctors believed, as, indeed, they still believe, that in principle it is impossible to know something that is not an object of consciousness and, therefore, there can be no question of any unconscious. Freud, however, not only opposed such a point of view, but throughout his research and therapeutic activity demonstrated the possibility of revealing unconscious processes. If those who nevertheless recognized the unconscious allowed only abstract, abstract reflections on unconscious processes, then, in contrast to them, the founder of psychoanalysis, on the basis of concrete, empirical material, showed how and in what way it is possible to identify the unconscious, fix it and work with it.

Freud recognized that psychoanalysis is not omnipotent either in its research or in its therapeutic functions. He agreed that, like philosophers, the psychoanalyst cannot answer the question of what the unconscious is. But he proceeded from the fact that psychoanalysis can help in the study of the unconscious mind and use the knowledge gained in this way for therapeutic purposes. Moreover, there and then, where and when other methods of research and therapy turn out to be, due to their inherent limitations, ineffective and ineffective in revealing the unconscious desires and inclinations of a person. In this regard, Freud's statement in The Resistance to Psychoanalysis (1925) is remarkable, according to which the analyst can point out specific areas of human activity where the unconscious manifests itself.

One of Freud's greatest merits was precisely that he demonstrated the possibility of studying the unconscious on concrete material. He turned to the study of the specifics that, as a rule, did not fall into the field of view of psychologists, philosophers and doctors who are interested in the laws of human thinking and behavior. His research and therapeutic interest was attracted by the “little things in life” that remain on the other side of consciousness and do not represent any significance for people who are used to correlating their own lives and the lives of others with epoch-making events, grandiose accomplishments, large-scale tasks.

The psychology of consciousness soared to the heights of the spiritual world of the individual. The psychology of the unconscious presupposed an appeal to the base passions of man. The first focused on the disclosure of the conscious-intelligent activity of the individual. The second encroached on the identification of unconscious processes, forces, desires and inclinations that accumulate and are contained in the underworld of the human soul. Traditional psychology was engaged in the study of the patterns of the inner world of man, contributing to the deployment of his vitality. Psychoanalysis swung at the disclosure of its "abominations" that bring pain, suffering, torment to a person and bring him to such a state when he had to flee into illness.

For Freud, it was the “little things in life” that became the primary object of close attention and reflection. For him, it was the patterns of the inner world of a person that turned out to be important and essential for understanding the essence and mechanisms of the work of the unconscious. Therefore, Freud's research and therapeutic activity was directed primarily to such areas of manifestation of the unconscious, which for the most part remained in the shadows, were not recognized as worthy objects of study. For Freud, erroneous actions, dreams and neurotic symptoms became such areas of manifestation of the unconscious. Their research marked the beginning of a concrete study of the unconscious and the formation of psychoanalysis as an independent branch of knowledge and therapeutic treatment of mental illness.

It is quite obvious that in order to better understand the significance of Freud's contribution to the psychoanalytic understanding of man, it is necessary to follow him by turning to the "little things of life", to those areas of manifestation of the unconscious that aroused increased interest among the founder of psychoanalysis. Thus, the object of subsequent consideration will be the erroneous actions of a person, his dreams and neurotic symptoms.

Sayings

3. Freud: "The unconscious is the truly real psychic, as unknown to us in its inner essence as the reality of the external world, and revealed by dream data to the same insignificant extent as the external world is revealed by the indications of our senses."

3. Freud: “The task of explaining psychoanalysis in general is narrowly limited. It is necessary to explain the conspicuous symptoms, revealing their origin; there is no need to explain the mental mechanisms and drives one arrives at in this way; they can only be described.

3. Freud: "The analyst also cannot say what the unconscious is, but he can point to the area of ​​those manifestations, the observation of which led him to assume the existence of the unconscious."

Control questions

1. Is Freud the discoverer of the realm of the unconscious?

2. How and how did Freud arrive at the idea of ​​the unconscious mind?

3. What is the preconscious and the repressed unconscious?

4. How is it possible to know the unconscious?

5. What did Freud mean by talking about unconscious drives?

6. What is the psychoanalytic understanding of human drives?

7. What is the specificity of unconscious processes?

8. Can a psychoanalyst answer the question, what is the unconscious?

9. What are the difficulties and limitations that lie in the way of understanding the unconscious?

10. In what areas of human activity can a psychoanalyst fix the real manifestation of unconscious processes?

1. Bassin F. B. The problem of the unconscious (about unconscious forms of higher nervous activity). - M., 1968.

2. Unconscious: nature, functions, research methods / Ed. A. S. Prangishvili, A. E. Sheroziya, F. B. Bassina. - Tbilisi, 1978. T. 1.

3. Knapp G. The concept of the unconscious and its meaning in Freud // Encyclopedia of depth psychology. Vol. 1: Sigmund Freud. Life, work, legacy. - M., 1998.

4. Rank O., Zaks G. The unconscious and the forms of its manifestation // Sigmund Freud, psychoanalysis and Russian thought. - M., 1994.

5. Freud 3. Some remarks on the concept of the unconscious in psychoanalysis // Sigmund Freud, psychoanalysis and Russian thought. - M., 1994.

6. Freud 3. Resistance against psychoanalysis // Psychoanalytic studies. – Minsk, 1997.

7. Freud 3. I and It // Libido. - M., 1996.

8. Ellenberg G. F. The discovery of the unconscious: the history and evolution of dynamic psychiatry / General. ed. foreword V. Zelensky. - St. Petersburg, 2001. Part 1.

9. Ellenberg G. F. The discovery of the unconscious: the history and evolution of dynamic psychiatry / General. ed. and foreword. V. Zelensky. - St. Petersburg, 2004. T. 2.

The turn of the XIX-XX centuries. - the most important milestone on the path of philosophical thought, opening the modern newest stage its complex and controversial history. Philosophy of the 20th century can be called postclassical, since it differs from the "classical" stage of its development. 20th century - this is the age of the greatest upheavals in the life of mankind (world wars, revolutions), when the question of the very existence of earthly civilization really arose before all the people of the planet. The scientific and technological revolution has made man's relationship to the natural world and to his own world of culture much more complex than in past times, more indirect. The dialogue between "philosophy of man" and "philosophy of science" in our time, in fact, is just beginning. In this dialogue, new directions of philosophical knowledge were born and are being born. Let's point out some of them.

Neo-positivism (logical positivism) is a modern form of positivism, the general cultural and epistemological roots of which go back to the 19th century, when the basic principles and provisions of classical positivism were formulated and developed: the recognition of only physical-experimental knowledge as reliable and the refusal of a scientific researcher from "unscientific", "metaphysical" explanations (i.e., worldview and philosophical problems) both theoretically and practically impossible. Understanding philosophy as a kind of activity that can be reduced to the analysis of natural and artificial languages, logical positivists have achieved certain results in clarifying the role of sign-symbolic means in scientific knowledge and the possibility of mathematization of knowledge, the relationship between the theoretical apparatus and the empirical basis of science. Neopositivists consider the apparatus of mathematical logic to be the ideal means of solving these problems.

Postpositivism arose and took shape in the middle of the 20th century. On criticism and self-criticism of neopositivism. Delimitation of scientific knowledge from non-scientific representatives of postpositivism, seeing that scientific knowledge can be refuted in principle with the help of experimental data. From this point of view, any scientific knowledge is only hypothetical and subject to error.

Psychoanalysis is a direction that owes its origin to the Austrian culturologist, psychologist and psychiatrist S. Freud (1856-1939). The direction is based on the fundamental position about the role of the unconscious in people's lives, which is considered by psychoanalysts as a powerful energy principle. All the desires and fears forbidden by culture are “hidden” in this area, which gives rise to permanent neuroses and mental disorders in a person. But unconsciousness should become the subject of scientific knowledge, since unconscious processes have their own meaning. Psychoanalysis is the means scientific knowledge secrets of the unconscious.

Phenomenology is a direction, modern look which was given by the German philosopher Husserl (1859-1938). Phenomenology, in his opinion, is a discipline that describes the essential characteristics of consciousness. Phenomenology can fulfill them only by being a rigorous science. This means that it must single out pure, that is, pre-objective, pre-symbolic consciousness, or "subjective flow", and determine its features. Only in this way can one come to an understanding of the essence of consciousness in general, the main characteristic of which is "intentionality", that is, its focus on one or another object. Phenomenology recognizes the world of everyday life (life world) as the source of all theories and concepts of science. The transition from the consideration of concrete objects to the analysis of their pure essence has received from phenomenologists the name of "phenomenological reduction", i.e., reorientation of the scientist's attention from the subject to how these objects are given to our consciousness. In this way, according to phenomenology, the possibility of studying the diverse types of human experience opens up.

Existentialism is a direction that recognizes the existence of the human person as the only true reality. General provision existentialism is the assertion of the primacy of human existence in relation to the social essence of the individual. And this is because a person defines his own essence. He strives for his individual goal, creates himself, chooses his life. But in everyday life, a person does not realize the meaninglessness of the world and strives to be “like everyone else”, avoiding freedom and responsibility. This, however, distinguishes an ordinary person from a genuine person who takes full responsibility for his choice and his decisions. Modern existentialism (mainly German and French) was formed under the influence of the ideas of the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard, the philosophy of life and phenomenology. The forerunners of existentialism were the Russian philosophers N. Berdyaev and L. Shestov.

Structuralism and post-structuralism is a common name for a number of trends in modern philosophical and humanitarian knowledge, associated with the search for logical structures that objectively exist behind the diversity of cultural phenomena. The premises of structuralism can be traced even in antiquity (Pythagoreans, Neoplatonists), but the ideas of structuralism came to modern philosophy from special areas of knowledge (linguistics, literary criticism, ethnography). Structuralism sees its main task in the search for stable logical structures, that is, stable connections between objects. Structuralism has made significant progress in revealing the deep structures of culture. At the same time, he was opposed to humanistic ideas about the central role of man and his freedom, which objectively dehumanizes social science. A continuation, but also a self-criticism of structuralism, was post-structuralism, which recognized the impossibility of reducing the subject to structures, which to a large extent meant a return to man as a subject.

Philosophical hermeneutics - originally (from ancient times this word meant the art of interpreting texts. Since the 20th century (M. Heidegger, G. Gadamer, P. Anker, etc.) this word denotes the philosophical doctrine of understanding and comprehending the meaning (“essence of the matter”) of the phenomena of spiritual culture, Gadamer’s goal is understanding - a way of existence of a knowing, acting and evaluating person, a universal way of mastering the world by a person in the “experience of life”, in the “experience of history” and “experience arts."

Philosophical anthropology sets itself the task of comprehending the problems of human nature and the basic modes of human existence. The contradictory essence of man lies in the fact that he is both immersed in the world and rises above it, which makes it possible for him to look at the world from the point of view of the moment, from the point of view of eternity. The uniqueness of man as a cosmic being capable of self-consciousness requires studying him both as an object and as a subject of his life. Philosophical anthropology has come out against the biologizing concepts of the essence of man, emphasizing the spiritual and creative foundations of man and society.

Turning to psychic reality, Freud tried to answer one of the essential questions that confronted psychoanalysis in one way or another. If, being unconscious, mental processes do not fall into the field of consciousness, then how can a person learn about them and is it possible in principle to become aware of the unconscious?

Like most philosophers, Freud believed that all human knowledge is somehow connected with consciousness. Strictly speaking, knowledge always acts as co-knowledge. Therefore, he proceeded from the fact that the unconscious can be known only by making it conscious.

It can be assumed that the cognitive processes that take place in the depths of the human psyche unconsciously reach the surface of consciousness or, conversely, consciousness somehow breaks through to them. But such an assumption does not contribute to the answer to the question posed, since, according to Freud, both possibilities do not reflect the real state of affairs. To get out of the impasse, the founder of psychoanalysis tried to find another way to transfer internal processes into a sphere where access to their awareness is opened.

Freud believes that the question "How does something become conscious?" it is more expedient to put it in the form "How does anything become preconscious?" For him, conscious, unconscious, and preconscious representations are not records of the same content in different mental systems. The first include subject representations, designed in an appropriate verbal way. The second is the material that remains unknown, i.e. unknown, and consisting of some subject representations. Still others - the possibility of entering into a connection between subject representations and verbal ones. Based on this, the process of recognizing the unconscious is transferred from the sphere of consciousness to the area of ​​the preconscious.

Classical psychoanalysis is about translating the repressed unconscious into the preconscious. The implementation of this translation is supposed to be carried out through specially developed psychoanalytic techniques, when the human consciousness, as it were, remains in its place, the unconscious does not rise directly to the level of the conscious, but the preconscious system becomes the most active, within which it becomes possible to turn the repressed unconscious into the preconscious.

Recognition of the unconscious correlates with the possibilities of meeting subject representations with linguistic constructions expressed in verbal form. Hence the importance in the theory and practice of psychoanalysis that Freud attached to the role of language in revealing the content characteristics of the unconscious.

The founder of psychoanalysis proceeds from the fact that verbal representations are traces of memories. Accordingly, the knowledge of the unconscious is based on the recognition of the presence in a person of such knowledge, of which he himself knows nothing, until the chain of memories of real or imaginary events of the past that took place in the life of an individual or in the history of the development of the human race is restored.

Cognition of the unconscious becomes in psychoanalysis nothing more than a recollection, a restoration in the memory of a person of pre-existing knowledge. Psychoanalytically understood awareness turns out to be the resurrection of knowledge-remembering, repressed into the unconscious due to the unwillingness or inability of a person to recognize behind the symbolic language those inner drives and desires that are often associated with hidden demonic forces.

From Freud's point of view, in a normal, healthy person, the process of cognition takes place as if automatically. If necessary, a person can always restore the events of the past in his memory, mentally running through the traces of memories. Even if he is not aware of his internal mental processes, does not understand the meaning of what is happening, does not see the logical connections between the past and the present, this does not affect his life in any way. In such a person, possible conflict situations are resolved due to the mechanism of sublimation (switching mental energy from socially unacceptable to socially approved goals) at the level of symbolic representations that are activated in dreams or artistic creativity. Another thing is the neurotic, whose psyche is in the power of the repressed unconscious. The logical connections between the past and the present are broken in him, as a result of which ignorance becomes pathogenic, causing doubts, torment and suffering. Strictly speaking, neurosis is, according to Freud, the result of ignorance or lack of information about mental processes that should have been known.

In order to turn pathogenic ignorance into normal knowledge, to transfer the repressed unconscious into the preconscious, and then into consciousness, it is necessary to restore the broken internal connections, help the neurotic to understand the meaning of what is happening and thereby lead him to an understanding of the true causes that caused his suffering. In principle, this is possible, since there is nothing random in the human psyche. Every mental act, every unconscious process has a certain meaning, the identification of which seems to be an important task of psychoanalysis.

By meaning, Freud understands the purpose, tendency, intention of any mental act, as well as its place and significance among other mental processes. Therefore, the object of study in psychoanalysis is all, at first glance, inconspicuous, seemingly secondary unconscious manifestations. If in traditional philosophical teachings attention was paid mainly to large-scale, pronounced phenomena, then in psychoanalysis the emphasis shifts to the plane of studying the "dregs of life", which previously did not arouse serious interest among philosophers due to the unattractiveness of the subject or the insignificance of the course of unconscious processes.

Freud believes that knowledge of the unconscious mind is possible and necessary within the framework of the material that most often remains beyond the threshold of consciousness of researchers. Such material is primarily dreams, erroneous actions, including slips of the tongue, slips of the tongue, forgetting names, loss of objects, various kinds of ceremonies and daily rituals - in a word, everything that relates to the daily life of people.

The meaning of the unconscious motives, inclinations and motivations of a person is clarified by a scrupulous and laborious clearing of the "garbage of life" in order to get to the fundamental principles of human existence. The unconscious is not silent. It declares itself especially loudly in dreams. It appears in allegorical symbolic images. It should be noted that most often a person does not understand what the unconscious is broadcasting in dreams. Human consciousness does not perceive the voice of the unconscious, because they speak different languages. Therefore, Freud focuses his efforts on deciphering the language of the unconscious, developing a psychoanalytic dictionary in which the translation of unconscious symbols into the language of everyday consciousness is carried out.

Deciphering the language of the unconscious correlates in classical psychoanalysis with the search for sexual roots that underlie a person's motivational activity. The search for the meaning of intrapsychic processes ends with an indication of deep sexual desires that predetermine human behavior in real life.

The unconscious is known by immersion in the depths of human existence. The explanation of the present occurs by reducing it to the drives of man in the past, to those drives that flow from eros. The past for Freud is both the early childhood of the individual and the primitive state of the human race. The study and interpretation of dreams, being an important tool for understanding the unconscious, clearly demonstrate the origins of the unconscious desires of a person, rooted in the ontogenetic prehistoric period, i.e. in the childhood of the individual, and in the phylogenetic prehistoric era, i.e. in the childhood of mankind.

Referring to the childhood of the individual and humanity as a whole, Freud correlates the initial unconscious drives of the human being with sexual relations in the family, primitive community. The knowledge of the unconscious ends with the discovery of the Oedipus complex, which, according to Freud, having arisen at the early stages of human civilization, makes itself felt in the life of modern people, since the structure of the personality contains the unconscious It, on the basis of which the triangular arrangement of the Oedipal relationship (father-mother-child) occurs, and the Super-I as the heir to the Oedipus complex.