Difference between revisions of "Chance"
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles).) |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{Top}}contingency|chance{{Bottom}} | ||
| + | ==Sigmund Freud== | ||
| + | [[Freud]] has often been accused of a [[chance|crude determinism]], since no [[slip]] or blunder, no matter how apparently insignificant, is ever ascribed to [[chance]]. | ||
| + | Indeed, [[Freud]] wrote, "I believe in [[external]] (real) chance, it is [[true]], but not in [[internal]] ([[psychical]]) accidental events."<ref>{{F}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|The Psychopathology of Everyday Life]]'', 1901. [[SE]] VI. p. 257</ref> | ||
| − | chance | + | ==Jacques Lacan== |
| + | [[Lacan]] expresses the same [[belief]] in his own [[terms]]: [[chance]], in the [[sense]] of pure [[time|contingency]], only [[exists]] in the [[real]]. | ||
| − | + | In the [[symbolic]] [[order]], there is no such [[thing]] as pure [[chance]]. | |
| − | + | ==''Automaton'' and ''Tyche''== | |
| + | In the [[seminar]] of 1964, [[Lacan]] uses [[Aristotle]]'s [[distinction]] between two kinds of [[chance]] to illustrate this distinction between the [[real]] and the [[symbolic]]. | ||
| − | + | In the second book of the ''[[Physics]]'', where the [[concept]] of [[causality]] is discussed, [[Aristotle]] explores the [[role]] of [[chance]] and [[chance|fortune]] in [[causality]]. | |
| + | |||
| + | He distinguishes between two types of [[chance]]: | ||
| + | * ''[[automaton]]'', which refers to chance events in the [[world]] at large, and | ||
| + | * ''[[tyche]]'', which designates [[chance]] insofar as it affects agents who are capable of [[ethics|moral]] [[action]]. | ||
| − | + | ==Symbolic== | |
| + | [[Lacan]] redefines ''[[automaton]]'' as "the network of [[signifiers]]", thus locating it in the [[symbolic order]]. | ||
| − | + | The term thus comes to designate those phenomena which seem to be [[chance]] but which are in [[truth]] the [[repetition|insistence]] of the [[signifier]] in determining the [[subject]]. | |
| − | + | ''[[Automaton]]'' is not truly [[arbitrary]]: only the [[real]] is truly arbitrary, since "[[The Real|the real]] is beyond the ''automaton''."<ref>{{S11}} p. 59</ref> | |
| − | + | ==Real== | |
| + | The [[real]] is aligned with ''[[tyche]]'', which [[Lacan]] redefines as "the [[encounter]] with the real". | ||
| − | of | + | ''[[Tyche]]'' thus refers to the incursion of the [[real]] into the [[symbolic]] [[order]]: unlike the ''[[automaton]]'', which is the [[structure]] of the [[symbolic order]] which determines the [[subject]], ''[[tyche]]'' is purely arbitrary, beyond the determinations of the [[symbolic]] [[order]]. |
| − | + | ==Trauma== | |
| + | It is a knock on the door that interrupts a [[dream]], and on a more painful level it is [[trauma]]. | ||
| − | + | The [[trauma]]tic [[event]] is the encounter with the [[real]], extrinsic to [[signification]]. | |
| − | + | ==See Also== | |
| + | {{See}} | ||
| + | * [[Causality]] | ||
| + | * [[Real]] | ||
| + | || | ||
| + | * [[Signification]] | ||
| + | * [[Signifier]] | ||
| + | || | ||
| + | * [[Subject]] | ||
| + | * [[Symbolic]] | ||
| + | {{Also}} | ||
| − | + | ==References== | |
| + | <div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"> | ||
| + | <references/> | ||
| + | </div> | ||
| − | + | [[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | |
| + | [[Category:Sigmund Freud]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Dictionary]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Concepts]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Terms]] | ||
| + | {{OK}} | ||
| − | + | __NOTOC__ | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 20:05, 27 May 2019
| French: chance |
Sigmund Freud
Freud has often been accused of a crude determinism, since no slip or blunder, no matter how apparently insignificant, is ever ascribed to chance.
Indeed, Freud wrote, "I believe in external (real) chance, it is true, but not in internal (psychical) accidental events."[1]
Jacques Lacan
Lacan expresses the same belief in his own terms: chance, in the sense of pure contingency, only exists in the real.
In the symbolic order, there is no such thing as pure chance.
Automaton and Tyche
In the seminar of 1964, Lacan uses Aristotle's distinction between two kinds of chance to illustrate this distinction between the real and the symbolic.
In the second book of the Physics, where the concept of causality is discussed, Aristotle explores the role of chance and fortune in causality.
He distinguishes between two types of chance:
- automaton, which refers to chance events in the world at large, and
- tyche, which designates chance insofar as it affects agents who are capable of moral action.
Symbolic
Lacan redefines automaton as "the network of signifiers", thus locating it in the symbolic order.
The term thus comes to designate those phenomena which seem to be chance but which are in truth the insistence of the signifier in determining the subject.
Automaton is not truly arbitrary: only the real is truly arbitrary, since "the real is beyond the automaton."[2]
Real
The real is aligned with tyche, which Lacan redefines as "the encounter with the real".
Tyche thus refers to the incursion of the real into the symbolic order: unlike the automaton, which is the structure of the symbolic order which determines the subject, tyche is purely arbitrary, beyond the determinations of the symbolic order.
Trauma
It is a knock on the door that interrupts a dream, and on a more painful level it is trauma.
The traumatic event is the encounter with the real, extrinsic to signification.
See Also
References
- ↑ Freud, Sigmund. The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, 1901. SE VI. p. 257
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p. 59
