• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.229
• /
• pp.18-19
• /
• 1998

현대사상에 깊은 영향을 끼친 프로이트의 전집이 완간돼 한국 정신사학계의 사건으로 평가되고 있다. 이를 계기로 그의 사상과 이론이 올바르게 평가되고, 연구 또한 활성화 될 것으로 보인다. 용어집.서간집 등 후속작업도 기대된다.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• no.119
• /
• pp.129-159
• /
• 2017

The study of Freud's Moses and the background of the establishment of monotheism has become a subject of attention in the new atmosphere of the spreading of political theology and the recent rediscovery of Egyptology. This paper examines the publishing background and intentions of Freud's last book, Moses and Monotheism. And it will emphasize the fact that the Moses-Egyptian theory and his criticism of monotheism hid political theological intentions to prevent the spread of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany. According to the Egyptologist Jan Assmann, there is a difference in that Moses' Judaism is monotheism, but Akhenaten's Aton-religion is a cosmotheism, and while Freud emphasizes Moses the 'historical figure' of that name, Assmann refers to Moses as a 'mnemohistorical figure.' Just as Freud said that the source of Jewish hatred is in Moses himself who established monotheism, Assmann argues also, monotheism is based on the so-called "Mosaic distinction" that distinguishes between true religion and false religion, thus it is possible to dismantle oppression and violence through the abolition of the Mosaic distinction. Assmann estimates that Freud had a clear stance to stop the spread of anti-Semitism as "the most explicit opponent of the Mosaic distinction." While anti-Semitic hatred spread to Christians in the Nazi era, Freud regards the real founder of Christianity, a jew Paul, as both a "Judaism destroyer" and a "successor to Judaism." At this point, Taubes began to see Paul's theology from a political theological point of view, and Assmann succeeded it. The "historical Moses" described by Freud are not "Prophet Moses" but "Moses as lawmaker and political reformer", and Jewish hatred has arisen in his distinction. Thus, Freud's monotheistic criticism as "disintegration by historical reduction"(Nietzsche) has political theological power. Just as Taubes interpreted Paul as a political theologian, Assmann found political theological elements in Freud's criticism of monotheism.

• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.272
• /
• pp.39-39
• /
• 2000

• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.319
• /
• pp.45-45
• /
• 2002

• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.210
• /
• pp.19-19
• /
• 1997

• Science of Emotion and Sensibility
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.137-153
• /
• 2005

Phantasy is the psychic reality in which drive, sadism and anxiety are represented and constructed. It is one of important metapsychological concepts of the psychoanalysis which explains the formations of symptoms, internal psychic structure, and the mutual relationship between internal subjective world of man and external world. Through the understanding of phantasy we can approach the man's unconsciousness and fathom the structure of the subject itself. Especially S. Freud and M. Klein's psychoanalysis give us the deep insight into the phantasy, on the basis of which we can investigate the cause and structure of the pathological phenomena of the man.

• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.336
• /
• pp.76-77
• /
• 2003

• The Science & Technology
• /
• s.525
• /
• pp.102-103
• /
• 2013

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• no.121
• /
• pp.93-121
• /
• 2018

Deleuze and Guattari criticise in Anti-Oedipus theory of desire of Freud and Lacan as the idealist conception of desire as lack(fantasy) and try to search for a possibility of materialistic theory of desire. They criticise that Freud and Lacan trap the desire into the model of oedipal model and cut the flux of Libido of desire. This paper looks out for the different reason for the interpretation between psychoanalysis and schizoanalysis about the desire into the difference of interpretation about the 'repression' and 'the unconscious'. From this first of all, it examines the aspect of repression in Freud and Lacan, and it searchs for the meaning of distinction between 'psychic repression' and 'social repression' according to the interpretation in Deleuze and Guattari. Secondly, Freud and Lacan understand the unconscious as the region drived out by the defense mechanism of the mind activity, or the dimension of the unconscious structured like language. On the contrary, Deleuze and Guattari approach entirely differently interpretation about the unconscious. This paper analyzesespecially the unconscious of orphan, the unconscious productive and the unconscious molecular in the midst of manifold and new interpretation about the unconscious. In conclusion, it shows that the problem of desire and inhibition completely differently can be considered according to the new interpretation about the unconscious. It tries to serarch for the practical adaptability of schizoanalysis in Deleuze and Guattari on the real society.

• Journal of English Language & Literature
• /
• v.58 no.4
• /
• pp.783-807
• /
• 2012

This study compares and contrasts Freud's "work of mourning" which mostly appears in his memorable essay "Mourning and Melancholia" and Derrida's theory of mourning which appears in various works such as MEMOIRES for Paul de Man, The Work of Mourning, and others. Freud maintains that the mourner begins to sever emotional ties to the lost object through a labor of memory and eventually completes the work of mourning. It is a "testing of reality" that motivates the mourner to begin to relinquish emotional attachment to the lost object. Derrida, however, challenges Freudian work of mourning by saying that true mourning lies in "respecting the Otherness of the Other." Derrida suggests that Freud's "normal work of mourning" is "unjust betrayal" of the lost object because it "kills" and "devours" the other and thereby makes it part of the self. So he proposes that work of mourning has "to fail in order to succeed": "success fails" and "failure succeeds." There is an enormous, even epistemological, chasm between Freud who states that mourning, "however painful it may be, comes to a spontaneous end" and Derrida who states that "mourning is interminable. Inconsolable. Irreconcilable." and "I mourn Therefore I am." The former is the voice of "testing of reality" and common sense whereas the latter is that of utopian ethical vision. Yet neither seems to get the upper hand and they are kind of forced to maintain an ongoing dialogue with each other, for true mourning seems to lie somewhere in between.