![](\"http:\/\/davidlavery.net\/Barfield\/Images\/People\/sartre2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n psyche’yi a\u00e7\u0131klama do\u011frultusunda bir kuram\u0131n temeli olam\u0131yaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daha 1939’da, Esquisse d’une Th\u00e9orie des Emotions’da [bundan sonra Esquisse diye an\u0131lacak] belirtmi\u015fti Sartre. Bilin\u00e7 ve bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131: Freud’cu ‘psikanaliz kuram\u0131’, bu iki ayr\u0131 alandan bilinci edilgin olanla s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131yor, bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 bu edilginli\u011fin imledi\u011fi kavramsal bir alan olarak kuruyordu. Esquisse’in diliyle s\u00f6ylersek: bilincin ediminin anlam\u0131, edimin d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndayd\u0131, ya da imlenen imleyenden kopar\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131.<\/p>\n
Sartre bu ‘kopma’y\u0131, psikanaliz kuram\u0131n\u0131n bilin\u00e7 [imleyen] ile bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131\u2019n\u0131 [imlenen], ayr\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f ontolojik d\u00fczlemlere koymas\u0131 olarak anl\u0131yor. Bilin\u00e7 olgusu, diyor Sartre, neyi imliyorsa ona [imlenen’e], belirli bir olay\u0131n sonucu olan bir nesne bu olaya nas\u0131l ba\u011flan\u0131yorsa b\u00f6yle ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Psikanalitik kuramda, bilin\u00e7le bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131, d\u0131\u015fsal bir ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131d\u0131r \u00f6yleyse, nedensellik ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131s\u0131d\u0131r. Bu ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fas\u0131 \u00fczerinde durur Sartre. \u00d6rne\u011fin, der, bir da\u011fba\u015f\u0131nda s\u00f6nm\u00fc\u015f bir ate\u015fin k\u00fcllerine raslasak, ‘burada birileri ate\u015f yakm\u0131\u015f olmal\u0131!’ deriz. O birileri k\u00fclde yokturlar ama, k\u00fcl ile bir nedensellik ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7indedirler. K\u00fclle ate\u015f aras\u0131nda bu do\u011frultuda bir ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131 oldu\u011funu \u00f6nceden bilmeyen biri, k\u00fcl\u00fcn oradan birilerinin ge\u00e7mi\u015f oldu\u011funu g\u00f6steren bir im oldu\u011funu bilemez. \u00d6yleyse, bilin\u00e7 olgular\u0131n\u0131 nesneler [\u00f6rne\u011fin, k\u00fcl] gibi bir ‘im’ k\u0131lan, ona anlam veren ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131y\u0131, bilincin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda m\u0131 aramal\u0131y\u0131z? B\u00f6yle yaparsak bilinci imlenen’le olan ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131s\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan bir nesne durumuna getirmi\u015f olmaz m\u0131y\u0131z? Bir ba\u015fka deyi\u015fle, bilin\u00e7le [imleyen] ile bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 [imlenen] birbirinden ayr\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f ontolojik d\u00fczlemlere koymu\u015f olmuyor muyuz?<\/p>\n
Sartre\u2019\u0131n ‘psikanaliz kuram\u0131\u2019n\u0131 ele\u015ftiri\u015fi burada ba\u015fl\u0131yor. Bilincin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 konutlamak, psyche’nin t\u00fcrde\u015fli\u011fini y\u0131kmak anlam\u0131na geliyor. Sartre i\u00e7in bu, Descartes’\u00e7\u0131 Cogito’nun da y\u0131k\u0131l\u0131s\u0131 demek. Oysa bilin\u00e7 kendisi-i\u00e7in-varl\u0131k\u2019t\u0131r (l\u2019\u00e9tre-pour-soi), nesneyse kendinde-varl\u0131k (l’\u00e9tre-en-soi). Cogito’yu, kendisi-i\u00e7in varl\u0131k\u2019\u0131n [bilincin] yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 kuran katmanlar olarak tan\u0131mlar Sartre. Cogito kuram\u0131, der, kendisi-i\u00e7in-varl\u0131k\u2019\u0131n bir objeye y\u00f6nelmi\u015fli\u011fi (intentionalit\u00e9) ba\u011flam\u0131nda bu objenin fark\u0131na varmay\u0131 oldu\u011fu kadar, objenin fark\u0131nda oldu\u011funun fark\u0131nda olmay\u0131 da i\u00e7erir. Ve Cogito’nun katmanlar\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kar kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za: cogito reflexif objenin fark\u0131nda olmak; cogito pr\u00e9reflexif, objenin fark\u0131nda oldu\u011funun fark\u0131nda olmakt\u0131r. Kendisi-i\u00e7in-varl\u0131k\u2019\u0131, kendinde-varl\u0131k\u2019tan ayran bir belirlenimdir Cogito. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla cogito pr\u00e9reflexif varsa, bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131 olamaz Reflexif ve pr\u00e9reflexif Cogito ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131lar\u0131yla yap\u0131lanm\u0131\u015f, a\u015fk\u0131n kendisi-i\u00e7in-varl\u0131k\u2019\u0131n fark\u0131nda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hi\u00e7bir\u015fey yoktur.<\/p>\n
Sartre\u2019\u0131n heyecan (l’emotion) kuram\u0131 da, Freud’un ‘psikanaliz’ kuram\u0131n\u0131n temellendirdi\u011fi heyecan nosyonunun yeniden yap\u0131land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131d\u0131r. Freud, heyecan\u0131n bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunur. Heyecan, Freud’a g\u00f6re, bilin\u00e7ten kaynaklanmayan bir bo\u015fal\u0131m s\u00fcrecinin bilin\u00e7li alg\u0131lan\u0131\u015f\u0131d\u0131r. Oysa Sartre, heyecan\u0131 bilincin bir b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcr; b\u00f6yle oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in de bir objeye y\u00f6nelmi\u015ftir heyecan, anlam\u0131 da bu objeyle temellenir. T\u0131pk\u0131, der Sartre, s\u00f6zc\u00fcklerimin neyi imliyorlarsa onunla anlam kazanmalar\u0131 gibi… Anlam, benim s\u00f6zlerimle d\u0131\u015f d\u00fcnya aras\u0131nda nedensel ya da t\u00fcme var\u0131m yoluyla belirlenmi\u015f bir ba\u011flant\u0131yla ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmiyor, s\u00f6zc\u00fcklerle imledikleri aras\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fiyor. Daha do\u011frusu, neyi imliyorlarsa onunla anlam kazan\u0131yorlar. Sartre’da y\u00f6nelmi\u015flik ile imlemek birbiriyle \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015fen alanlar oluyor b\u00f6ylece. Bilin\u00e7, ayr\u0131lmaz bir b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc olan heyecan\u0131n belirli bir objeye y\u00f6neldi\u011finin fark\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi, bu y\u00f6nelmi\u015flikte neyi imledi\u011finin de, Cogito’nun yap\u0131s\u0131 gere\u011fi, fark\u0131nda olacakt\u0131r. Do\u011fall\u0131kla objenin neyi imledi\u011finin, imlenenin ne oldu\u011funun belirtik (explicite) olmas\u0131 gerekmez; yo\u011funla\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n (condensation) kerteleri vard\u0131r. Bu y\u00fczden Sartre\u2019\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, ‘psikanaliz’ kuram\u0131n\u0131n bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131 nedenlerinin yerine, fenomenolojik kuram\u0131n belirtik olarak bilinmeyen, bilin\u00e7li se\u00e7me’sini koymakt\u0131r. Sartre bu durumu, L’Etre et Le N\u00e9ant\u2019da, bilin\u00e7 ve se\u00e7me bir ve ayni \u015feydir, diye belirtecektir.<\/p>\n
Biz yine Esquisse\u2019e d\u00f6nelim. Sartre s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fcr s\u00f6zlerini: heyecan d\u00fcnyay\u0131 belirli bir bi\u00e7imde kavramakt\u0131r. heyecan\u0131, d\u00fcnyan\u0131n d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesi olarak da tan\u0131ml\u0131yor Sartre. Ger\u00e7ekte edimlerimizle d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcr\u00fcz d\u00fcnyay\u0131; belirli ama\u00e7lara belirli ara\u00e7lar\u0131 kullanarak gidilecek rasyonel ‘yol\u2019lar\u0131n uyumlula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir haritas\u0131d\u0131r d\u00fcnya. Bu hodolojik haritay\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kararak d\u00fcnyay\u0131 bizim yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z bir\u015feymi\u015f gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcr\u00fcz, kendimizin k\u0131lar\u0131z. Heyecan, der Sartre, bu hodolojik harita\u2019n\u0131n belirledi\u011fi, ‘kullan\u0131labilir bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak d\u00fcnya\u2019n\u0131n ise yaramaz oldu\u011funda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar. B\u00fct\u00fcn ussal yollar kapan\u0131nca, d\u00fcnyay\u0131 b\u00fcy\u00fcse1 bir edimle d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrmeye kalkar\u0131z. Heyecan, d\u00fcnyay\u0131 b\u00fcy\u00fcyle d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrmektir, der Sartre: Heyecan, kullan\u0131labilir d\u00fcnyan\u0131n ans\u0131z\u0131n g\u00f6zden kaybolmas\u0131, b\u00fcy\u00fcn\u00fcn onun yerini almas\u0131d\u0131r.’<\/p>\n
Sartre L’Etre et le Ne’ant\u2019da bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n olanaks\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorununa yeniden d\u00f6ner. Ama bu kez, ‘psikanaliz’ kuram\u0131n\u0131 ele\u015ftirmekle kalmayacak, bu kurama g\u00f6r\u00fcng\u00fcbilimsel \u00e7er\u00e7eve i\u00e7inde bir alma\u015f\u0131k getirmeyi deneyecektir. Bu kendini-aldatma (mauvaise foi) kuram\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
‘Kendini-aldatma’y\u0131, bilincin kendi olumsuzlamas\u0131n\u0131 d\u0131\u015fa y\u00f6neltmek yerine, kendine do\u011fru y\u00f6neltmesi olarak tan\u0131mlar Sartre. Kendini-aldatma, bir olumsuzlama olmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yalan’a benzer. Yalanc\u0131, yalan s\u00f6ylerken gizledi\u011fi, s\u00f6ylemedi\u011fi do\u011frunun [hakikatin] ne oldu\u011funu bilir. Bir insan, bilmedi\u011fi bir\u015fey hakk\u0131nda yalan s\u00f6yleyemez-olanaks\u0131zd\u0131r bu. Sartre, yalanc\u0131n\u0131n da bir tan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 yapar: Yalanc\u0131, do\u011fruyu kendi i\u00e7inde evetleyen (affirmant), s\u00f6zlerinde de\u011filleyen (niant) ki\u015fidir Aldatmaya niyetlenmi\u015ftir yalanc\u0131, bu niyetini kendinden gizleme gere\u011fini duymaz. Bilin\u00e7, yalanla, \u00d6teki’nden gizlice varoldu\u011funu evetler. Kendini aldatma da insanin kendi kendine s\u00f6yledi\u011fi bir yalan olarak tan\u0131mlanabilir. Ama bir ayr\u0131mla: kendini-aldatma i\u00e7inde olan biri, tats\u0131z bir do\u011fruyu [hakikati] \u00f6rtbas etmekte ya da tatl\u0131 bir yalan\u0131 do\u011fruymu\u015f gibi sunmaktad\u0131r. Kendini-aldatma i\u00e7inde, der Sartre, do\u011fruyu \u00d6teki’nden de\u011fil, kendimden (alt\u0131n\u0131 ben \u00e7izdim H.Y) gizliyorumdur. Yalandaki aldatan\/aldat\u0131lan ikili\u011fi kendini-aldatma’ da ortadan kalkar. Yalan, \u00d6teki’yle ‘birlikte olma’n\u0131n (mitsein) a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131d\u0131r.\u2019<\/p>\n
Sartre burada da bir proje’den s\u00f6zeder. Proje, kendini-aldatman\u0131n kavranmas\u0131n\u0131 ve pr\u00e9reflexif bilincin kendini-aldatma ile ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesini i\u00e7erir. Yalanc\u0131 ile yalan\u0131n s\u00f6ylendi\u011fi ki\u015fi, ayni ki\u015fidir; demek ki, der Sartre, yalanc\u0131 olarak benim, aldat\u0131lan olarak kendimden gizledi\u011fim do\u011fruyu [hakikati] bildi\u011fim anlam\u0131na gelir. Birbirinden ardzamanl\u0131 olarak ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f bir ‘ikilik g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fc” de\u011fildir bu. Projenin tekil yap\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7inde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fir, \u00d6yleyse, diye sorar Sartre, yalan onu ko\u015fulland\u0131ran ikilik ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015fken, varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 nas\u0131l s\u00fcrd\u00fcrebilir?<\/p>\n
G\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fckler bitmiyor, Sartre’a g\u00f6re. Bilincin yar\u0131saydaml\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan (translucidit\u00e9) do\u011fan daha ba\u015fka sorunlar da var. Kendini-aldatma i\u00e7inde olmak, kendini-aldatman\u0131n bilincinde olmakt\u0131r. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc, diyor Sartre, bilincin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131, varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n bilincidir. De\u011fi\u015fken psi\u015fik yap\u0131s\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n [Sartre, de\u011fi\u015fkenlik i\u00e7in ‘metastable’ s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc kullan\u0131yor] \u00f6zerk ve s\u00fcrekli bir formu vard\u0131r kendini- aldatman\u0131n. Birdenbire sahihli\u011fe ya da kinizme do\u011fru de\u011fi\u015fse bile kendini-aldatma i\u00e7inde yasayabilir insan. Bu, kendini-aldatman\u0131n bir yasam stili oldu\u011fu anlam\u0131na gelir. De\u011fi\u015fkenli\u011fine kar\u015f\u0131n s\u00fcreklili\u011fi y\u00fcz\u00fcnden kendini-aldatmay\u0131 ne reddedebiliriz, ne de onaylayabiliriz.<\/p>\n
Bu g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fcklerden kurtulabilmek i\u00e7in, psikanaliz kuram\u0131n\u0131n ‘bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131’ kavram\u0131na ba\u015fvurdu\u011funu belirtir Sartre. Psikanaliz kuram\u0131, aldatan\/aldat\u0131lan ikili\u011fini yeniden temellendirebilmek i\u00e7n bir sans\u00fcr d\u00fczene\u011fi \u00f6nerir. Bu kuram, davranislarin anlam\u0131 konusunda \u00f6znenin kendi kendini aldatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 varsay\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 getirir. Onu somut varl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda [bilin\u00e7 d\u00fczeyinde] kavrar, do\u011frulu\u011fu [bilin\u00e7alt\u0131 d\u00fczeyinde] i\u00e7inde kavrayamaz. Freud, psyche’yi ikiye b\u00f6ld\u00fc, der Sartre: Id ve Ego. bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131 psyche’mle olan ili\u015fkilerimde ayr\u0131cal\u0131kl\u0131 bir konumum yoktur Freud’a g\u00f6re. Do\u011frunun [hakikatin] bulgulanmas\u0131n\u0131 psikanaliste [hekime] ba\u011flar Freud. Hekim, \u00d6teki’dir. \u00d6teki ise bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131mla bilin\u00e7li yasam\u0131m aras\u0131nda bir dolay\u0131md\u0131r (mediation): bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131 tez’le bilin\u00e7li antitez aras\u0131nda bir sentezi ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirir. Ben, kendimi \u00d6teki’nin dolay\u0131m\u0131nda kavrar\u0131m. \u0130d\u2019imle olan ba\u011flant\u0131mda \u00d6teki’nin konumunday\u0131md\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Oidipus kompleksi konusunda Sartre, Pierce gibi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc belirtir: deneysel bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u2019d\u00fcr bu kompleks, ya da bir varsay\u0131m. Freud’de psikanaliz, kendini-aldatma’n\u0131n yerini al\u0131r; yalan\u0131n temel ko\u015fulu olan aldatan\/aldat\u0131lan ikili\u011finin yerine \u0130d ve Ego ikili\u011fini koyar. \u0130d\u2019i, bilincin ayr\u0131lmaz bir b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc olmaktan \u00e7ikarir Freud, bir kendinde-varl\u0131k\u2019a (l’etre- en-soi), nesneye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Sartre\u2019\u0131n L’Etre et le Ne’ant\u2019da ‘psikanaliz’ kuram\u0131na y\u00f6neltti\u011fi ele\u015ftiriler burada temellenir. Bir kere bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131,n [\u0130d\u2019in] konumunun bir nesnenin konumu olam\u0131yacag\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yler Sartre. Nesne, kendisiyle ilgili san\u0131lar\u0131m\u0131za (conjectures) kay\u0131ts\u0131zd\u0131r; oysa \u0130d do\u011fruya [hakikat] yakla\u015f\u0131rken bu san\u0131lara \u00e7ok duyarl\u0131d\u0131r (touche’). Freud’un, hekim do\u011fruya yakla\u015f\u0131rken bir direncin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131ndan s\u00f6zetmesi bundan dolay\u0131d\u0131r. Bu diren\u00e7, d\u0131\u015fardan kavranan nesnel bir edimdir: hasta ya konu\u015fmaz, ya d\u00fc\u015flemlerini anlat\u0131r ya da sa\u011faltmadan [tedavi] cayabilir. Peki, diren\u00e7 g\u00f6steren b\u00f6l\u00fcm hangisidir, diye sorar Sartre, \u0130d mi, Ego mu?. Bilin\u00e7li olgular\u0131n psi\u015fik b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc olarak Ego olamaz bu direncin kayna\u011f\u0131. Do\u011fruya yakla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilemez Ego; \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc kendi tepkilerinin anlam\u0131yla olan ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131s\u0131, hekimin ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131s\u0131 gibidir: Ego, olsa olsa, hekimin \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc varsay\u0131mlar\u0131n olas\u0131l\u0131k kertesini nesnel olarak g\u00f6rebilir. Dahas\u0131, der Sartre, bu olas\u0131l\u0131k Ego’ya kesinli\u011fin (certitude) s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr; bundan da tedirginlik duymas\u0131na gerek yoktur; psikanalitik sa\u011faltmay\u0131 bilin\u00e7li karar\u0131yla se\u00e7en Ego’dur. Sartre sorar: [Bu durumda] hastan\u0131n, hekimin a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131ndan tedirgin oldu\u011funu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla de bir yandan diren\u00e7 g\u00f6sterirken bir yandan da, kendi g\u00f6z\u00fcnde sa\u011faltmay\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmek isteyen biriymi\u015f gibi g\u00f6sterme aldatmacas\u0131n\u0131 yasad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 m\u0131 s\u00f6ylemeliyiz? Bu bir kendini-aldatma’d\u0131r, ve bu kendini-aldatma’y\u0131 bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131yla a\u00e7\u0131klamam\u0131z s\u00f6zkonusu degildir; b\u00fct\u00fcn bunlar bilin\u00e7 d\u00fczleminde olup bitmektedir \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc. Dahas\u0131, diyor Sartre, direnci psikanalistin suy\u00fcz\u00fcne \u00e7\u0131kartmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 kompleksten kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 varsay\u0131m\u0131yla da a\u00e7\u0131klayamay\u0131z. Burada kompleks, psikanalistin yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131d\u0131r: kompleks, t\u0131pk\u0131 hekimin istedi\u011fi gibi, suy\u00fcz\u00fcne \u00e7\u0131kmak istemektedir. Sans\u00fcr d\u00fczene\u011fine oyun oynayan; suy\u00fcz\u00fcne \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131n\u0131 engellemesine kar\u015f\u0131n sans\u00fcr\u00fcn engellerini asarak bilin\u00e7 d\u00fczlemine \u00e7\u0131kma sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 veren bu komplekstir.<\/p>\n
\u0130mdi, direnci ne Ego\u2019yla a\u00e7\u0131klayabiliyoruz ne de kompleksin yap\u0131s\u0131yla. \u00d6yleyse direnci, sans\u00fcr d\u00fczleminde aramak gerekir. Sorunlar\u0131n, ya da hekimin varsay\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n, bask\u0131ya almaya (refouler) \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 ger\u00e7ek d\u00fcrt\u00fclere (tendances) yakla\u015f\u0131p yakla\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bilse bilse sans\u00fcr d\u00fczene\u011fi bilebilir. Neyi ya da neleri bast\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilen odur sadece; etkinli\u011fini ay\u0131rdederek uygulayabilmek i\u00e7in neyi bast\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilmek durumundad\u0131r \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc. Sans\u00fcr d\u00fczene\u011fi bask\u0131ya alma (refoulement) i\u015flemini se\u00e7erek uygulayacaksa, [\u201changi d\u00fcrt\u00fcler bask\u0131ya al\u0131nacak, hangilerine izin verilecek?\u201d] yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 se\u00e7menin fark\u0131nda olmak (se repr\u00e9senter) zorundad\u0131r. Ba\u015fka nas\u0131l olabilir ki? Diye sorar Sartre: yasal cinsel tepilere (impulsion) , a\u00e7l\u0131k, uyku, susuzluk gibi gereksemelere izin verirken, \u00f6tekileri bask\u0131ya almas\u0131n\u0131 ba\u015fka nas\u0131l a\u00e7\u0131klar\u0131z? Sans\u00fcr d\u00fczene\u011fi, bask\u0131ya alma gereksemesi duyulan tepileri, onlar\u0131 \u00f6tekilerinden ayirdetti\u011finin bilincinden olmadan nas\u0131l ay\u0131rabilir? Alain, bilmek bildi\u011fini bilmektir, demi\u015fti. Sartre bunu bilmek, bildi\u011fini bilmenin bilincidir, diye yeniden s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor. B\u00f6ylelikle diren\u00e7, sans\u00fcr d\u00fczleminde bask\u0131ya alinmi\u015f olan fark\u0131nda olma\u2019y\u0131 (une repr\u00e9sentation) du refoul\u00e9); psikanalistin sorular\u0131n\u0131n y\u00f6neldi\u011fi sonucun ne oldu\u011funun kavranmas\u0131n\u0131; bask\u0131ya alinmi\u015f kompleksin do\u011frulu\u011fu [hakikati] ile bu do\u011frulu\u011fu suy\u00fcz\u00fcne \u00e7\u0131karmay\u0131 ama\u00e7layan hekimin varsay\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir sentetik ilintiyi i\u00e7erir. B\u00fct\u00fcn bu i\u015flemler, der Sartre, sans\u00fcr d\u00fczene\u011finin kendi bilincinde oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir. Nas\u0131l bir kendinin-bilinci\u2019dir bu? Sartre s\u00f6yle s\u00f6yler: bu, bask\u0131ya al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olan d\u00fcrt\u00fcn\u00fcn bilincinde oldu\u011funun bilincinde olmamak i\u00e7in, bilincinde oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir. Bu da, sans\u00fcr d\u00fczene\u011finin kendini-aldatma i\u00e7inde olmas\u0131 de\u011filse nedir? der Sartre.<\/p>\n
Psikanaliz kuram\u0131, b\u00f6ylece, kendini-aldatma’y\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmay\u0131 denemi\u015f, oysa giderek, bilin\u00e7le bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131 aras\u0131nda kendini-aldatma i\u00e7inde bir \u00f6zerk bilin\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sartre, psikanaliz kuram\u0131n\u0131n kendini-aldatmay\u0131 yok edemedi\u011fini, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla psikanalizin kendini-aldatman\u0131n yerini alam\u0131yacag\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6sterir b\u00f6ylece. Kendinden bir \u015feyler gizleyen bir reflexif d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u2019\u00fcn \u00f6z\u00fc, tekil bir psi\u015fik d\u00fczenek, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla de birli\u011fin i\u00e7inde ikili bir etkinli\u011fi i\u00e7erir: bir yandan gizlenecek olan\u0131 saptamak ve korumak, \u00f6te yandansa baskiya almak ve saklamak. Bu etkinli\u011fin iki g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fc de birbirlerinin b\u00fct\u00fcnleyicisidirler. Sartre s\u00f6yle d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr: sans\u00fcr d\u00fczene\u011fi arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla bilinci bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndan ay\u0131rmakla psikanaliz kuram\u0131, bu edimin iki evresini ay\u0131rmay\u0131 ba\u015faramam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kendini belli sembolik formlar\u0131n arkas\u0131nda gizleyen tepinin bask\u0131ya al\u0131nmas\u0131na gelince, Sartre’a g\u00f6re, tepinin (i) bask\u0131ya al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funun bilinci; (ii) neyse o oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in geriye itilmi\u015f oldu\u011funun bilinci; ve (iii) bir gizlenme projesi olmadan kendini gizlemesi s\u00f6zkonusu de\u011fildir. Yo\u011funla\u015ft\u0131rma (condensation) ve aktarma (transference), tepinin kendisini etkileyen bu de\u011fi\u015fimleri a\u00e7\u0131klayamaz. Sartre s\u00f6yle ba\u011flar s\u00f6zlerini: \u201cbilin\u00e7, sans\u00fcr\u00fcn \u00f6tesinde hem istenen hem de yasaklanan bir sonuca var\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 konusunda bir kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131 i\u00e7ermiyorsa, tepinin simgesel ve bilin\u00e7li doyurumuna ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olan hazz\u0131 ya – da bunalt\u0131y\u0131 nas\u0131l a\u00e7\u0131klayabiliriz?<\/p>\n
Kaynak: Felsefe Yaz\u0131lar\u0131, Yazko Yay\u0131nlar\u0131 2. Kitap 1982 Sayfa: 105-110<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n psyche’yi a\u00e7\u0131klama do\u011frultusunda bir kuram\u0131n temeli olam\u0131yaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daha 1939’da, Esquisse d’une Th\u00e9orie des Emotions’da [bundan sonra Esquisse diye an\u0131lacak] belirtmi\u015fti Sartre. Bilin\u00e7 ve bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131: Freud’cu ‘psikanaliz kuram\u0131’, bu iki ayr\u0131 alandan bilinci edilgin olanla s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131yor, bilin\u00e7d\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 bu edilginli\u011fin imledi\u011fi kavramsal bir alan olarak kuruyordu. Esquisse’in diliyle s\u00f6ylersek: bilincin ediminin anlam\u0131, edimin d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndayd\u0131, ya da […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[103],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4132","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-felsefe-genel"},"yoast_head":"\n