Robert Stolorow: World, Affectivity, Trauma

Robert Stolorow: World, Affectivity, Trauma

book interview on Heidegger and Post-Cartesian Psychoanalysis: “one of the founders of intersubjective psychoanalysis, Robert Stolorow discusses his interest in Heidegger and the implications of that interest for the psychoanalytic project overall. What do “worldness”, “everydayness”, and “resoluteness” bring to the clinical encounter? What is the role of trauma in bringing us to a more authentic place?”



5 responses to “Robert Stolorow: World, Affectivity, Trauma

  1. psychoanalysis is like buddhism, the goal is to end suffering. i study heidegger and psychotherapy so that I can help people deal with mental illness (not to help a patient achieve “authencitiy in death” or realize he’s a “being-in-the-world” or without analyzing his for-the-sake-of-which) philosophers on the other hand– are about studying the history of old ideas, or in your case, a bunch of poststructuralist continental european graduate school thinkers. what is the pragmatic value? what is the practical value of european philosophy?

    philosophy grows more irrelevant everyday.

    • in my experience psychoanalysis, like many forms of monastical buddhism, is about how how to come to terms with one’s life as it is so that one can make one’s way in/of the world. some people are aided in such efforts by philosophical research while others are not, so it is with all of our all-too-human endeavors, no, or are you a true believer in some universal Truth/Way?

      • no, even as a zen buddhist, who is in love with heidegger, nietzsche, hubert dreyfus, robert solomon, and todd mayy (postructural anarchism), i do not recognize any ultimate truth.

        the only “ultimate truth” is that humans project their personal prejudices onto the world, and create universalizations out of those personal prejudicices through the act of science and philosophy, this is the nietzschean all-too-human critique that i think is true of pretty much every human being i’ve met.

        but this is true as it is subjectively true in my life, not in accordance with some meta-narrative or universal Truth/Way.

        I do find that philosophy, especially part 1 of “being and time”, casset y ortegra, and philosophy that focuses on pragmitism and finding meaning in everyday life is very useful. and my critique of this book is wrong, i realize actually that this book would have wide application to my future practice in psychology.

        however– as a general question, are not most philosophers like men who build a fancy castles that they describe in books but who live in shacks they rarely talk about? even badiou and francois tutelle are systematizers… where are the philosophers of “original thought” that are neither caught up in american analyticism or obvious european post-structuralism?

        My dislike of post-structuralism is that it has grown to become a “The Way” “Truth”, like the previous ideologies it is attempting to overthrow who also attempted to dominate all discursive formations. It has disciples and cliches. It has created a culture of people now less incapable of original thought than before when they were brainwashed with backwards myths. Foucault, is of course as original as fuck… but his disciples are cliche. It’s like the band Tool, have you ever listened to them? I bet you have. James Maynard Keynan is a genius who writes about overcoming darkness with a mix of strange esoteric, buddhist, and agnostic/atheist undertones. The song “the patient” is essentially about being patient. “lateralus” is about experiencing this “holy reality, pain is an illusion”– yet fans of tool mostly suck and are drungy dark thoughted negative people. this is the same of many people who claim to follow nietzsche. they preach nihism, even though nietzshe was primarily an enemy of nihilism and sought to find a way to create a mythology where a person could evolve to become a superman (his own value making being, no longer requiring myth), most people who follow nietzsche do not take up his original thought– they repeat his ideas, as i’ve repeated.

        I would like a culture where authentic believers, people who believe in Capital T truths (Myths), can live in a world of people like us who no longer believe in capital T truths. we shoudln’t be in this sam harris versus christianity war.

        I strongly believe we do not need to preach the death of God to every religious person we meet or try to persuade them onto our team.

      • also knowing your “for-the-sake-of-which” pretty much is the same process of realizing your place in the world, as a finite mortal human being.

        so i can see your point. maybe if people could philosophically analyze their life searching for their “for-the-sake-of-which” that interupts their FLOW, it would help them.

        my only concern is that insight into our nature, through philosophical analysis, does not then provide us tools to help us cope with Postmodernity, it simply says “this is the way it is, you are a competition of empirical drives”.

Leave a Reply to srwright607 Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s