ABSTRACT
This chapter analyses the problem of psychological interiority or the inner world of the self. The author will argue that the current use of the expression psychological interiority is based on two implicit premises. The first premise is cognitive and epistemologically flawed; the second is of the order of mental experience that is theoretically justified and, furthermore, psychologically imperative. Regarding the epistemic fragility of the sense of “interiority,” the author will appeal to a critique of the ordinary use of the term by authors from conceptual approaches such as phenomenology, ecological psychology, behaviorism, and the analytical philosophy of mind that emphasizes bodily action. To discuss the compulsory nature of the psychological experience of the inner world, the author will use psychoanalytic theses, including ideas from Margolis, Castoriadis-Aulagnier and, above all, D.W. Winnicott.
