M?t ng? nghi?p v? tham chi?u và bi?u ??t: Tr??ng h?p Freud

Nguy?n H?u Lim

N?u Nietzsche l cha ?? c?a “gi?i c?u lu?n” (deconstructionism) v?n ? m? mn m?t ph??ng cch suy t??ng m?i cho giai ?o?n h?u hi?n ??i (post-modernity) ? cu?i Th? k? 19, th Freud, cng v?i Marx v Darwin, ? m? ra m?t cnh c?a th?c m?i v? con ng??i, ?nh ?? ci truy?n th?ng gi? ??nh v? gi tr? nhn b?n v?n l n?n t?ng c?a th?i ??i Khai Sng c?a u chu. Ci gia s?n tr th?c l?n c?a Freud l c?ng hi?n m?t ph?m tr t? t??ng, m?t ti?n ?? l thuy?t, m?t h? th?ng ph??ng php lu?n m?i nh?m gip con ng??i Ty ph??ng ti ??nh ngh?a v ??nh v? l?i chnh mnh trn c?n b?n th?c. C?ng nh? Marx trn ti?n ?? Kinh t? v Giai c?p, Freud, v?i ti?n ?? V th?c (the Unconscious), mu?n ?em ra nh sng ci c? s? n?ng l?c n?i t?i con ng??i v t? ?, n?ng t? quy?t ??nh cho l?ch s?, v?n minh v?n cn n?m trong bng t?i m t? t??ng Ty ph??ng mi cho ??n cu?i th? k? th? 19 v?n cn ch?a cng nh?n. N?u Marx ? thay ??i ???c l?ch s? nhn lo?i trong su?t th? k? qua, th c?ng trong th?i gian ny, Freud ? thay ??i ???c con ng??i Ty ph??ng trn chi?u h??ng t? bi?t v? chnh mnh(1).

Freud mu?n ?nh ?? ci huy?n tho?i b?n th? lu?n v? con ng??i v?n mang ??y mu s?c thnh linh c?a u chu b?ng m?t huy?n tho?i m?i. l Huy?n tho?i V Th?c the Myth of the Unconscious. Trn c? s? m?i c?a bi?n minh khoa h?c th?c nghi?m, ci Huy?n tho?i v? V th?c s? d?ng ton b? h? th?ng khi ni?m v ph??ng php lu?n c?a khoa h?c ?? mang cho mnh m?t chnh th?ng tnh cho th?i ??i. V t? ?, Freud khai sinh ra m?t “khoa h?c” m?i: phn tm h?c (psychoanalysis). Phn tm h?c v phn tm h?c tr? li?u (psychotherapy) l m?t n? l?c ?em nh sng th?c vo gc t?i c?a ?n ?c v th?c nh?m khai thng nh?ng ngu?n m?ch c?a ch v ??ng c?, nh?m ?i?u ch?nh v gi?i ha nh?ng hi?n t??ng tm th?n tiu c?c cho con ng??i. y khng ph?i l l?n ??u. Ph?t gio l m?t h? th?ng phn tm h?c ?? s? v?i m?t n?n t?ng b?n th? lu?n v siu hnh h?c khc(2). Nh?ng ??i v?i Ty ph??ng, v?n xa l? v?i Ph?t h?c, th Freud l m?t gio hong m?i mang chi?c o khoa h?c l?ng l?y v c?ng l m?t c du t??i tr? v?i ngn ng? xc th?t ??y quy?n r? lm say m bi?t bao nhiu th? h? tr th?c u M? mu?n gi?i phng n?ng tnh d?c cho mnh.

Tuy nhin, trn gc ?? tri?t h?c th Freud v Huy?n tho?i V th?c c?ng ? c?ng hi?n m?t tri th?c lu?n m?i a new epistemology. Thay v th?c quy?t ??nh s? h?u c?a con ng??i v?i cng th?c c?a Descartes, cogito ergo sum, th ??i v?i Freud, v th?c l n?n t?ng cho th?c v s? h?u c?a c nhn. Tri th?c (the mind) khng l th?ng nh?t v ton b? nh? Descartes ? ??a ra. V?i v th?c, tri th?c l m?t c?n nh b? chia hai: t?ng trn v?i nh sng c?a th?c v t?ng d??i ??t (basement) th v?n cn ?ang n?m trong bng t?i. ?i s?ng th?c ch? l m?t t?ng b?ng n?i trn m?t bi?n m v th?c l ph?n ? d??i n??c khng th?y ???c th to l?n g?p mun l?n v?n quy?t ??nh t?t c? nh?ng sinh ho?t v n?i dung th?c. Ci gc t?i c?a v th?c ch?a ??y nh?ng n?ng l?c ??y kh? n?ng ki?m sot m n?ng l?c l?n nh?t l libido: n?ng l?c tnh d?c ?n ?c ch? mu?n tho? mn b?ng m?i ph??ng di?n v m?i gi. T? ?, nh? th? lu?n Descartes gi?a thn (body) ??i v?i th?c (mind) ???c Freud chuy?n qua libido (d?c) ??i v?i ego (ng), eros (tnh) ??i v?i thanatos (t?). V?i ti?n ?? v th?c v ??ng c? tnh d?c, Freud gi?i thch t?t c? hi?n t??ng ch, suy t??ng, tm l, v cc bi?n d?ng tiu c?c c?a chng b?ng libido v eros. T? m?c c?m Oediphus mang n?ng th?c d?c tnh ??i v?i cha m?, ??n h?i ch?ng penis envy (ganh t? d??ng v?t) quy?t ??nh tnh ch?t c?m th? v? ??i th? ngh? thu?t gi?a trai v gi, hnh vi nt n?m tay c?a tr? con s? sinh, t?t c? ??u ???c Freud c?ng hi?n cho con ng??i Ty ph??ng m?t qu?n chng n?n nhn m?i, m trong ?, t?t c? nh?ng g m con ng??i ham mu?n v nui ch hnh ??ng ??u c th? ???c gi?i thch (explained away) b?ng ngn ng? tnh d?c. Ngay c? gi?c m? c?ng mang m?t n?i dung v th?c khc: ci n?ng th?a mn ??c mu?n ng?m ng?m ???c bi?u l? ha qua mn ?nh th?c trong lc ?ang ng? say. T? ?, v?n minh v l?ch s? con ng??i ch? l mn bi k?ch l?n di?n l? v khai m? nh?ng n?i u?n ?c d?c tnh ch? khng l c?a n?ng Tinh th?n, Th??ng ?? hay l c?a ??u tranh giai c?p. Nh?ng th??ng t?ng ki?n trc c?a t? duy nh? l v?n ch??ng, ngh? thu?t, ??o ??c hay l tn gio ??u ???c pht xu?t t? n?ng l?c d?n nn v n?i t?i ha tnh d?c. V khi s? d?n nn ny khng cn kho?ng tr?ng, n tr? nn ch t? ph? ??nh: lng hi?u chi?n ??i v?i th? gi?i khch quan ch? l s? ngo?i thn ho ci b?n n?ng mu?n ch?t (death instinct). Con ng??i v l?ch s?, do v?y, l m?t tr??ng chi?n cu?c lin min gi?a th?c v v th?c, gi?a l tnh v v l tnh, gi?a b?n n?ng v ph?n b?n n?ng.

Tuy nhin ci b?n n t? hnh ?n ch? Freud v ??a con pseudo-science phn tm h?c ?ang n?m trn bn cn ph?m tr nhn-qu? (categorical causality): chi?c c?u t??ng tc gi?a v th?c v th?c ch? l nh?ng gi? ??nh v? khi ni?m tu? thu?c vo v?n hnh l lu?n (logical operation) h?n l ???c ki?m ch?ng v minh xc b?i ph??ng php v ch?ng c? th?c nghi?m. Freud hi?u l?m v tr?n l?n gi?a hai ph?m tr c?a b?ng ch?ng l tnh (rational proofs) ??i v?i ch?ng c? th?c nghi?m (empirical evidence). B?ng ch?ng l tnh ch? bi?n minh ???c tnh h?p l c?a logic (logical validity) ch? khng ph?i l c? s? bi?n minh cho lin h? nhn-qu? gi?a hai ??nh th? tch bi?t. Nh? th? lu?n (ontological dualism) Descartes b? s?p ?? v lin h? nhn-qu? gi?a mind (th?c) v body (thn) ? khng ???c gi?i thch (3) nay b? l?p l?i b?i Freud v?i ti?n ?? “v th?c” versus “ th?c” t?t c? l nh?ng gi? ??nh thu?n l thuy?t, mang b?n ch?t v?n ch??ng hoang t??ng, h?n l c c? s? khoa h?c c gi tr? th?c nghi?m. y chnh l ?i?u m Sebastiano Timpanaro, d?a theo Karl Popper, c ni, “Ci th?c ch?t ph?n khoa h?c c?a m?t l thuy?t n?m ? ch? n c kh? n?ng tr?n trnh b?ng ngu? bi?n t?t c? m?i kh? n?ng ch?ng minh sai l?m”(4). Phn tm h?c c?a Freud c th? phn gi?ng v? m?t th? lo?i ?n ?c nh?m gi?i thch cho n?i dung m?t gi?c m? b?ng nhi?u lo?i d?n nn v th?c khc nhau m ci no c?ng c l nh? t?t c? m?i ci khc trong khi khng th? tr?ng d?n ch?ng c? tr? li?u (clinical evidence) cho tnh lin h? nhn qu? t? ?n ?c v th?c ??n n?i dung gi?c m?. y l ?i?u m cc tiu chu?n khoa h?c t? Aristotle ??n Bacon ? c?nh gic: ci b?nh l thuy?t tr??c r?i tm b?ng ch?ng bi?n minh sau ?? r?i t?t c? b?ng ch?ng ??u ???c gi?i thch t? l thuy?t ? c s?n v?i ch?ng c? th?c nghi?m khng v?ng ch?c. Ni theo tri?t lu?n c?a Wittgenstein th c? ?? l thuy?t v phn tm h?c c?a Freud l m?t tr?n ?? ngn ng? m trong ? quy php di?n ??t ? ???c quy ho?ch c? ??nh tr??c v t? ? t?t c? m?i gi?i thch trn c? s? b?ng ch?ng ??u khng thot kh?i ci khung c?a h?p c?a quy t?c di?n ??t v?n ? b? b?t bu?c(5). Wittgenstein so snh thuy?t v th?c c?a Freud v?i tri?t h?c logic c?a chnh ng, “Ci c n c?a Russell’s logic v c?a ti trong Tractatus (Logico-Philosophicus) l ? ch? khi m?t m?nh ?? ???c c?ng c? b?ng m?t vi tr??ng h?p ?i?n hnh th (chng ti) ? v?i cho r?ng n ? ???c th?u hi?u (v bi?n minh) hon ton trn bnh di?n ph? qut”(6). Wittgenstein ? ni ??n ci b?nh say mu trong ngn t? v khi ni?m c?a gi?i tr th?c ?a l thuy?t ha m?i s? ?? r?i t??ng t??ng trong m ho?c r?ng l thuy?t c?a mnh ? ???c ln ngi vua cha chn l cho m?t v??ng qu?c khoa h?c th?c nghi?m khch quan.

T? ?, ti?n ?? v th?c v?i gia s?n phn tm h?c c?a Freud nh?t l trn l thuy?t v? gi?c m? v ph??ng php lu?n di?n gi?i v? n ph?n l?n ch? l m?t lo?i khoa h?c ti?m danh, a pseudo-science, ??y l?a d?i v thi?u l??ng thi?n tr th?c(7). Th? nh?ng, th? gi?i tri?t h?c v tm l h?c Ty ph??ng sau Freud b? chong ng?p b?i ci mu s?c d?c tnh, ci c? ?? l?ng l?y ??y bng t?i, ??y b?nh ho?n ? h? h?i ch?p l?y ci tr ch?i ngn ng?, ci quy php di?n t?, nh?y ln chuy?n tu khi ni?m m?i c?a Freud ?? v?a gi?i tr cho ??u c, v?a ?nh l?n con ?en l??ng g?t v lm ti?n ?m qu?n chng thnh th? ngy th? v tr??ng gi? Ty u trong m?t th?i ??i v nh?ng x h?i ??y nhm chn v b?c b?i. Khi b?nh l v th?c ???c thay th? cho ch t?i l?i th chnh l lc m Freud tm ra ???c chi?c gh? n?m (couch) ?? cho b?nh nhn tm th?n ???c k? l? tm s? v?i bc s? phn tm h?c (v?i m?t gi ti?n th?i gian ??t nh? vng) nh?m thay th? cho php qu? g?i x?ng t?i v?i cc gio s? trong nh th?.

Sai l?m c?a Freud l sai l?m l?n c?a m?t tr th?c l?n nh?ng l m?t th? sai l?m, ni theo Wittgenstein, c?a khn ngoan (cleveness) ch? khng ph?i l c?a tr tu? (wisdom)(8) m?t th? sai l?m t? m?t ch ?a di?n ??t v m?t b?nh l ?i tm khoi l?c qua ngn ng? v khi ni?m. Khi ?m tang c?a Freud ?ang ti?n hnh (thng 9 n?m1939), th thi s? W. H. Auden c?a Anh qu?c, vi?t,

If often he was wrong and, at times, absurd
to us he is no more a person
now but a whole climate of opinion
under whom we conduct our diffrent lives.

(“N?u ng ta ? t?ng sai, nhi?u khi ??n ?? n?c c??i

v?i chng ta, con ng??i ? nay khng cn n?a
nh?ng gi? ?y, d??i c? m?t b?u tr?i quan ?i?m
chng ta nay hnh ho?t v?i nh?ng cu?c ??i ? khc x?a.”)(9)

Nh?ng cu?c ??i m?i c?a tr th?c u chu m Freud ? gin ti?p ?? ra l nh?ng Marcuse, l Lacan, l Foucault, Deleuze v nh?ng c?n say l thuy?t tri?n min c?a tr th?c u Chu, nh?t l Php(10). Nh?ng nh?ng c?n say ny nay ? ?i qua. Ci cn l?i c?a Freud v V th?c lu?n ch? l m?t th? lo?i t? ki?m th?o (self-critique) m?t ph??ng php lu?n mang b?n ch?t gi? thuy?t v suy l (theoretical speculation), nh?m nh?c nh? con ng??i thu?n l c?a th?i ??i ngy nay r?ng, l tnh khng ph?i l c? s? duy nh?t cho s? h?u (being) c?a con ng??i.

V tr th?c c?a th? gi?i ngoi u M? nh?t l ? Vi?t Nam hi?n nay c?ng ph?i th?c ??n ?i?u ny: Freud, c?ng nh? Marx, ch? l m?t hi?n t??ng l thuy?t pht xu?t t? ch t? ki?m th?o, t? ?i?u ch?nh trong truy?n th?ng tr th?c Ty ph??ng v?n ch? c gi tr? n?i t?i trong lu?ng v?n minh ? m thi (11). V v th?, hy ??ng c b?t ch??c ngn t?, khi ni?m c?a Freud nh? l m?t th? th?i th??ng mang chn l khoa h?c m?t th? khoa h?c ph thu?, m?t tr gi?u c?t su s?c v quy?n r? v?n ? dy ch?t t? lu trn qu h??ng c?a chng (12).

(NHL: 2004)

Ch thch

(1) Cho m?t phn tch r?ng l?n h?n v? m?t l?ch s? t? t??ng Ty ph??ng trn c? s? logic v tinh th?n tri?t h?c, xin ??c Nguy?n H?u Lim, “T? Th? Gi?i ??n Vi?t Nam: Ki?m th?o v ? ngh?.” T?p ch H?p L?u, s? 76, thng 4 & 5, 2004.
(2) y l m?t nh?n ??nh qu t?ng quan m khun kh? bi vi?t ny v?n ch? l m?t tri?t lu?n, ch? khng ph?i l m?t nghin c?u khng cho php ?i vo chi ti?t. Xin ??c Manly Hall, “Buddhism and Psychotherapy,” Los Angeles, 1979.
(3) V?n ?? c?n b?n c?a nh? th? lu?n gi?a “th?c” (mind) v “thn” (body) n?m ? trn ph??ng di?n t??ng tc nhn qu? (casual relationship): N?u th?c v thn l hai c? s? khc bi?t v tch r?i (distinct and seperate) th t?i sao th?c c th? c? ??ng chn tay?
(4) Nguyn v?n: “The actual non-scientificity of the theory resides precisely in its capacity to elude by way of sophistry every possibility of falsification.” Sebastiano Timpanara, “The Freudian Slip.” B?n d?ch ti?ng Anh c?a Kate Soper, New Jersey, 1976. (Trch t? Bouveresse, “Wittgenstein Reads Freud. Xem (4).”
(5) Jacques Bouveresse, “Wittgenstein Reads Freud: The Myth of The Unconscious.” B?n d?ch Anh Ng? c?a Carol Cosman. Princeton, 1995. ? thng hi?u h?n nh?ng v?n ?? ? ?y, xin ??c Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations.”
(6) S?d, tr. 50. Nguyn v?n: “The basic evil of Russell’s logic, as also of mine in the Tractatus, is that what a proposition is is illustrated by a few common place examples, and then presupposed as understood in full generality”). Xin ??c Wittgenstein’s “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.”
(7) V? nh?ng x?o thu?t v gian l?n v? b?ng ch?ng cho l thuy?t c?a Freud, xin ??c, J. M. Masson, “Freud: The Assault on Truth – Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory.” New York, 1984.
(8) Jacques Bouveresse, s?d, tr. 14.
(9) W. H. Auden, “In Memory of Sigmund Freud, 1939.”
(10) Jacques Lacan c th? l tr??ng h?p chnh xc h?n cho nh?ng ph bnh v? phn tm h?c trn c? s? tri?t ng?. Ti xin m??n l?i T. K. Seung c?a ?i H?c Texas ?? g?i nh?ng l thuy?t c?a tri?t h?c u Chu t? C?u trc lu?n, Gi?i c?u lu?n, Thng di?n lu?n (Hermeneutics)… l “the karma of reference and representation.” (“m?t th? ng? nghi?p v? tham chi?u v bi?u ??t.” (Seung, “Structuralism and Hermeneutics.” Columbia, 1982). V?n ?? cn ?i xa h?n. l v?n ?? c?a “cm d? c?a khi ni?m v ngn t?” m tr th?c v?n b?n th??ng b? r?i vo m h?n tr?n. Sau c?n say Hegel, h?u h?t tri?t h?c c?a Php ? bi?n thnh v?n ch??ng.
(11) Cho m?t phn tch v? ti?n ?? ny, xin ??c, Ashis Nandy, “The Savage Freud and other Essays on Possible and Retrievable Selves.” Princeton, 1995 v Harvie Ferguson, “The Lure of Dreams: Sigmund Freud and the Construction of Modernity.” London, 1996.
(12) Khi ?ang trn gi??ng b?nh v s?p la ??i vo n?m 1951, Wittgenstein c ni v?i ng??i b?n thn, “T?t c? nh?ng tri?t h?c c?a ti ??u l nh?ng m?u chuy?n hi ??c. Ti?c r?ng ti vi?t hi ??c h?i b? d?.” (Xem phim “Wittgenstein, A Life”). ? ?o?n p cht c?a “Tractatus” (6.54), Wittgenstein vi?t, “Ai hi?u ???c ti th cu?i cng ??u nh?n ra r?ng nh?ng g ti ni ra ??u ch? l v ngh?a (senseless).” Tinh th?n ny c?ng ph?i nn p d?ng cho tr??ng h?p c?a Freud.

Comments are closed.