Abstract:
In this article, we reject the frequent pessimism regarding human life and the destiny of mankind that is found in Freud's work and often pointed out by his readers. This rejection is supported by the distinction in his work between metapsychology and clinical practice. Metapsychology, which is strongly related to the systematization of psychoanalysis, admits a naturalist determinism that on its own terms does not conceive the self-determination of man, civilization, or their destinies; that is, it does not have freedom as an operative notion. Metapsychology is marked by theoretical speculations composed of a certain evolutionary point of view shared with biology, and an entropic point of view taken from physics. We argue that metapsychology was thus conceived on the basis of principles that guide the evolution of man and humanity according to a purpose that entails their own exhaustion, and for that reason we call it entropic-declinist. The second domain, that of clinical practice, is related to diagnosis and healing techniques and sustains a notion of man and civilization that is not the result of natural or supernatural providence. It admits a kind of self-enlightenment, choice, and even self-regulation, aiming at human self-production and thus allowing a postponement of the entropic destiny of humanity; we call this emancipatory. Based on this distinction, we attempt to discern the philosophy of history and of nature contained in Freud's work.
Keywords:
Psychoanalysis; Clinic; Metapsychology; Evolution; Entropy