Since about the middle of the last century, language, speech, thanks to Freud's discoveries, has become the subject of close attention of both psychoanalysts, psychologists and philosophers. Psychotherapy of virtually any direction today is unimaginable without the use of speech, dialogue, and utterance, although it deals with them technically differently. In psychoanalysis, conflict is resolved through its verbalization and interpretation. However, the interpretation itself can also be performed in a variety of ways. It can be based on a psychobiological model or, say, a metapsychological one, it can proceed from objectivity or subjectivity, support relativistic or humanistic philosophy, etc. The philosopher Paul Ricoeur wrote about psychoanalytic understanding in this direction; in the second half of the last century, he made an important turn for understanding the role of interpretation, pointing out the important thing: Freud’s genetic theory (proto-event, where there are traumas and experiences of childhood) conflicts with the topical-economic theory (investments, counter-investments and the relationship of authorities), and at some point becomes just a metaphorical economic organization (that is at some point it ceases to matter whether people actually killed their forefather or not). Therefore, the fascination with exposing/interpreting illusions leads psychoanalysis to create many blind spots in the understanding of subjectivity. Modern analyst Rene Roussillon sets out this understanding of clinical hermeneutics: “We must listen to the patient in different registers and try to understand what he is saying and show him what he knows and doesn’t know at the same time.” However, it has long been noted that an interpretation based solely on decomposition into elements and explanations of causes (and Freud himself wrote about this in the “Preliminary Report” to the “Study on Hysteria” in 1985) does not give anything to the patient. It only creates the prerequisites for the reorganization of mental reality, which needs not only interpretation, but also response, etc. However, it is important that in subjectivity the concept of meaning is of central importance. Ricoeur emphasized that psychoanalysis substantiates respect for a person as a bearer of meaning in himself. Because only the patient himself can reveal the source of his suffering. That is, the patient does not just come to some kind of insight as he tells his story and affective revelations, he creates meanings when he interprets his story himself. Philosophers and analysts say that in fact, the hermeneutic in psychoanalysis is the person himself, who, you need to understand, is brought up, nurtured and subjectified on ready-made meanings (values, rules). Some of them grow in culture, some - in the traumatic existence of society and previous generations. The child is born into the “font of language,” as Lacan said, he is not free from the symbolization pre-assigned to him by family and culture. In other words, when we are born and growing up, we receive conscious meanings from our parents and society, who at the same time send us many unconscious signals. Growing up, a person who has his own affective and cognitive experience is not content with ready-made meanings and does not find consonance with them. This creates a psychological conflict of varying degrees of unconsciousness, and the symptom of the conflict carries an unpredictable degree of suffering. The psychoanalytic method makes it possible to read mental processes that are not directly expressed as the mental reality of the subject, who discovers himself to be the source of the facts of the unconscious. The coordinate system for reading is the topic of psychic authorities established by Freud (the first (PredSzn-Szn) and the second (I-It-Super-Ego) topics are distinguished). The reality of the unconscious is the Other, so when the facts of the unconscious begin to exist in the analyst's attention, in his listening and interpretation, these instances can be opened to the patient's consciousness. However, as psychoanalyst Jacques Laplanche († 2012) emphasized, the analyst is not so much a translator as a “smart.