O discurso formativo do Biólogo sobre a morte: matizes e metáforas do saber que o sujeito não deseja saber

This study - Biologist s formative speech about death. Nuances and metaphors from knowing that the subject of do not want to know - shows a marginal cognitive construction in scientific education from biologist - death. It considered as obvious that death is a theme that covers both the scientific education from biologist and the division of the subject, and concerns the splitting of the double life-death and the principles of inclusion and exclusion of the subject. Part of sensitive question: What is the epistemological weave who supports biologist's speech about death? It is constituted an object of study of the biologist s speech on death. It is advocated the thesis that: Death is an epistemological obstacle announcing for something always aims to escape from the perspective of knowledge, especially of scientific knowledge because, since it is understood as cognitive learning about the disruption of biological phenomenon life which is involved on weave of imaginary and symbolic constructions about the finiteness of life; it has constituted a metaphorical knowing - encouraged by the noisy silence - which does not allow to know in full, mobilizing hence subject in searching for transitional truths that reduce the ontological being-mortal anguish centered in subjective dimension involved in the act of knowing. From this movement of search that the object mental life after death wins a symbolic value that requires a real-looking multi-referential for the study of biology - life - and its implications: the finiteness of life, especially by moving the omnipotence of scientific objectivity expressed by signs and symbols that seek say the completeness of scientific knowledge-, signaling thus the existence of the dynamics of incompleteness implicit in subjectivity that supports knowledge relating to the double, life and death, and to the temporality of the existence of Homo sapiens sapiens, with the axis guiding the desire of the subject, do not want to know about death, implicit in the mechanisms objective-subjective founded by non-said of death is the epistemology of the existence of objective-subjective subject, whose core is the negation of death. The theoretical methodological knowing web is anchored in the multi-reference which favors a transit by theoretical current, as the Psychoanalysis, bachelardian philosophy, the epistemology of complexity, the Thanatology, the Social Psychology, and Etnocenology, and Understanding Interview. The unveiling of the study object from the analysis of oral speech of eleven biologists who serve in high school, from three main guiding: Death in the history of life,Death in biologist s academic education and, Conceptions about concepts

A questão do estilo na psicanálise lacaniana

Lacanian psychoanalysis has won a considerable space in brazilian university: a search for Lacan in the field of subject of the CAPES Thesis Bank shows 1.032 results! However the difference in the style of knowledge production and language usage is considerable between academic psychology and lacanian theory. The difficulty in reading and understanding Lacan is something pointed out by supporters and critics alike. In addition to that, his disciples choose many times to imitate his baroque, complex style, full of neologisms, causing perplexity in many unprepared audiences. What is the origin of such an enigmatic and polemic style of expression? How it became so widespread under the sign of repetition? And which are the consequences of this style to the communication, transmission and teaching of lacanian psychoanalysis? Through these questions it is our goal to contribute to the dialogue between lacanian psychoanalysis and the academy, to provide a better understanding of the causes of this style, analyzing the consequences it has to the transmission of psychoanalysis. We chose to perform a theoretical study, using authors that have treated Lacan s style and the history of psychoanalysis from a critical point of view, like Beividas (2000), Roustang (1987, 1988) and Gellner (1988), and also those that have defended and justified its legitimacy, like Glynos e Stavrakakis (2001), Fink (1997) and Souza (1985), using as well some works by Freud and Lacan. The study of these texts has led us to three main themes: 1) the difficulty of the lacanian text; 2) Lacan, heir of Freud; 3) consequences of the lacanian style. In the first one, we enumerate many different explanations and interpretations given by commentators about the difficulty and particularity of the lacanian discourse; in the second, we show how Lacan came to occupy the place of great idealization that was before destined to Freud, what made his style something to be taken as a model, to be imitated by disciples; in the third, we explore the way in which the concepts are treated in lacanian psychoanalysis, arguing that their multiple meanings point out that the final goal is not to build a clear and coherent theory, but to try to aim directly at the subject, to catch him