Oases of psychoanalytic discourse in Ukraine and Sigmund Freud’s personality

Abstract

Historic-psychological research realizes the author’s i d e a of interdependencies between: a) the situationally variable existence of Sigmund Freud’s experiences, thoughts, insights, and personal preferences and the psycho-content filling of acts of cognition in the organic interweaving of his life and creative paths as a non-intersecting p e r s o n a l i t y; b) his rich mental-conscious experience of competently conducted research in the field of psychiatry, psychology, sociology, cultural studies and numerous, deeply personified and even very intimate, m a n i f e s t a t i o n s in the creation of his brainchild – p s y c h o a n a l y s i s, and initially as a method of treating neuroses and other mental disorders, then as an original theory of the structure of the person and their character, then as a critical methodological approach to the state and achievements of European civilization, and finally as a separate philosophy and a peculiar worldview, as well as between: c) an original subjectivity of any serious researcher who seeks to reveal a verifiable ontological picture of the mental reality of a person, and the scientific-subject content of his study of this super-complex (human-dimensional) object of cognition/construction, which constitutes an integral system-forming condition for obtaining the most reliable rational-humanitarian knowledge and which clearly visualize for today the f i v e reasonably highlighted oases of psychoanalytic discourse in Ukraine. It has been convincingly proven that the personality of an intellectual, that is, a theorist, methodologist, empiricist and practitioner in one person, and his thinking activity are part of the metasystem of the essentiality of this extremely complex object, as a separate – self-developing, multisystem – block-factor that creates from itself and through itself modular, self-flowing processes, with which both the object itself and the inspired creative personality are overflowing. The object-subject field of the current research covers, on the one hand, the personally centered psychoanalytic discourse in its classical version and in the latest (mainly post-non-classical) Ukrainian realities (mainly the state and prospects of development), on the other – the personal driving factor in its analytical unfolding of events, situations, details in the connection of inter-causative interweaving of thought-action acts-events of the covital creative path of both the founder of psychoanalysis and his successors. At the same time, the methodological optics of the research is constructed on the basis of the principles and canons of the post-non-classical type of scientific rationality and contains a five-module set of lenses-means of reflective methodologization at the levels of universal (vitacultural methodology), general (the sphere of professional methodologization), special (subject and principles of historical-psychological study), single (methodological procedure of detailing), specific (quintet and quaternary thought-schemes). In addition, it has been argued the presence of five oasis-locations of psychoanalytic theorizing in the bosom of ethno-national everyday of Ukrainianness, whose founders according to the criteria of historicity were and/or are Yevhen Hlyva, Roman Trach, Tamara Yatsenko, Yuriy Kuznetsov, Yuliia Medynska. Finally, from the psychoanalytical standpoint, the personal and characteristic portrait of Sigmund Freud as the founder of one of the most important directions of the development of psychology during at least the last 120 years is essentially outlined, and it is once again proven that the basic psychological knowledge he acquired is extremely personal, subjectively historical, but at the same time ontologically rooted, rational-humanistic, human-dimensional and in many epistemological dimensions invariably reliable.