Hans Vaihinger, the early 20^th Century German philosopher, contended that across a broad range of thought people tend to select one theory over others, all the while knowing that such a singular perspective is but an idealization or useful fiction of what the fuller truth is if one eventually includes those other theories. He argued for the necessity of utilizing a plurality of perspectives in order to see a more complete picture of the world despite our cognitive inability to juggle more than one theory at the same time. This vexing paradox is a focus of the contemporary philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah’s recent work that pays tribute to Vaihinger’s exploration of this topic. Appiah also examines Vaihinger’s view that hewing to a single fiction at certain times and for certain reasons is useful, while also considering how to expand one’s scope to reach for a more inclusive multiplicity of inexact models. I apply these and related issues to the psychoanalytic clinical situation, addressing such matters as: the possible triggers for the analyst’s shifts toward alternate theoretical persuasions and the complex matter of truth.

^{Hans Vaihinger}，20 世纪初世纪德国哲学家争辩说，在广泛的思想范围内，人们倾向于选择一种理论而不是其他理论，同时也知道这种单一的观点只是对更完整真相的理想化或有用的虚构，如果一个人最终包括那些其他理论. 尽管我们的认知能力无法同时处理多个理论，但他认为有必要利用多种视角来看到更完整的世界图景。这个令人烦恼的悖论是当代哲学家夸梅·安东尼·阿皮亚最近作品的一个焦点，该作品向维欣格对这一主题的探索表示敬意。Appiah 还检验了 Vaihinger 的观点，即在某些时候出于某些原因而对单一小说进行创作是有用的，同时还考虑如何扩大一个人的范围以达到更具包容性的不精确模型的多样性。我将这些和相关的问题应用于精神分析的临床情况，解决以下问题：分析师转向替代理论说服的可能触发因素和复杂的真相问题。