Article/Publication Details
Views: 1492

THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL OUTLOOK ON CRITIQUE OF IDEOLOGY

Abstract
The article further elaborates on a project of phenomenological critique of ideology and reveals its potential for the discourse of literature. Since the paradigm of studying ideology as a ‘false consciousness’ set in classical Marxism run into several problems connected with the transition from being in ideology to performing its critique, a genuine way out of it became impossible due to the totality of a discursive structure common to them. The articulation of this paradox in Karl Mannheim, Louis Althusser, Paul Ricœur, Michel Pecheux, and Mikel Dufrenne changed the way of statement of the question, shifting the emphasis from the content of ideology and its characteristic features to the status of a critic who is inevitably hypostatizing his thinking. The change of perspective, in turn, entailed a transformation of the method: while the previous tradition focused on finding a connection between the distorted representation of reality in ideological consciousness and the social position of its bearer, structuralist and phenomenological approaches tend to consider the contingent content of consciousness as an inevitable consequence of its structuring always-already-given horizon of meaning. Working with the latter, Mark Richir introduces the concept of a symbolic institution—the domain of meaning, which determines the human habitus, providing it with linguistic and cultural practices that have lost their phenomenological origin. In this framework, the criticism of ideology is understood as an exit from a symbolic institution, albeit temporary. Mark Richir thematizes this exit as an encounter between symbolic and phenomenological registers, i. e. a phenomenological challenge that assumes the agent of the reduction. Nevertheless, gaining a foothold 'outside' the symbolic institution is impossible: the overcome symbolic order undergoes recoding over time. Therefore, the phenomenological criticism of ideology cannot offer a normative program of a presumed non-ideological field to which the previous tradition aspired. The work hypothesizes that such critique is given as a trace of a once-perfect exit from a symbolic institution and is subject to interpretation as evidence. The development of this hypothesis is presented in the final, practical part of the work.

Keywords
critique of ideology, conversion, symbolic institution, Marc Richir, instrumentalization of phenomenology, moscow conceptualism.

References

• Althusser, L. (1970). Ideologie et Appareils idéologiques d’Etat. Paris: La Pensee.
• Althusser, M. (2003). The Humanist Controversy and Other Writings. London: Verso.
• Brekht, B. (1960). A Brief Description of the New Technique of Acting, Causing the So-called “Defamiliarization” Effect. In O teatre (102–115). Moscow: Izd-vo inostrannoi literatury Publ. (In Russian)
• Clastres, P. (1974). Les sociétés contre L’État. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
• Dufrenne, M. (1964). Critique littéraire et phénoménologie. Internationale de Philosophie, 18 (68/69), 193–208.
• Dufrenne, M. (1974). Art et politique. Paris: UGE.
• Legros, R. (1990). L’idée d’humanité. Paris: Grasset.
• Lekhtsier, V. (2000). Introduction to the Phenomenology of Artistic Experience. Samara: Izd-vo Samarskogo Universiteta Publ. (In Russian)
• Lekhtsier, V. (2020). Poetry as Phenomenology. Vozduh, 40. Retrieved from http://www.litkarta.ru/projects/vozdukh/issues/2020-40/lekhtsier/view_print/#name22.
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1999). Phenomenology of Perception. Rus. Ed. St. Petersburg: Nauka Publ. (In Russian)
• Pêcheux, M. (1975). Verités de la Palice: linguistique sémantique, philosophie. Paris: Maspero.
• Perec, G. (2021). The Things. One Story from 1960s. Moscow: Opustoshitel’. (In Russian)
• Prigov, D. (2016). Objects’ Description. In D. Prigov, Sovetskie teksty (90–99). Moscow: Izd-vo Ivana Limbaha Publ. (In Russian)
• Richir, M. (1988). Phénoménologie et institution symbolique. Grenoble: Jêrome Million.
• Richir, M. (1991). Du sublime en politique. Paris: Payot.
• Richir, M. (1992). Méditations phénoménologiques — Phénoménologie et phénoménologie du langage. Grenoble: Jerôme Millon,.
• Richir, M. (1994). Phénoménologie et politique. Les Cahiers de Philosophie, 8, 9-39.
• Richir, M. (1996). Le travail de l’artiste à l’œuvre: visible ou invisible? Publications de l’Université de Pau.
• Richir, M. (2000). Phénomenologie en esquisses. Grenoble: Édition Gerôme Million.
• Richir, M. (2011). Le statut phénoménologique du phénomenologue. Eikasia — Revista de filosofia, 93–104.
• Richir, M. (2015). L’écart et le rien. Conversations avec Sacha Carlson. Grenoble: Éditions Gerôme Millon.
• Richir, M. (2016). Phenomenology of the Poetic Element. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology, 5 (1), 281–298.
• Ricoeur, P. (1986). Du Texte à l’action. Essais d’herméneutique II. Paris: Le Seuil/Esprit.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 1433

PHENOMENOLOGY OR STRUCTURALISM. FOUCAULT, DERRIDA AND THE PASSIVE SYNTHESIS

Abstract
Foucault and Derrida react in two different ways to the new paradigm imposed by structuralism. Foucault uses structuralism to overcome phenomenology, in fact structuralism shows the naivety of phenomenology, in its claim to rely on conscience to constitute meaning. Instead, Derrida on the contrary immediately nurtures a certain distrust of structuralism, especially in its philosophical ambitions and uses the resources of phenomenology to criticize it, showing the metaphysical implications operating in it. We want to show how this opposing position is generated by the specific way in which the two philosophers have responded to the open problems and bequeathed by Husserlian phenomenology. In particular, the theme of “passive genesis,” which was raised in the French debate by Tran-Duc-Thao and Merleau-Ponty, is central. In the first writings it emerges how Foucault has received Merleau-Ponty’s theses and it is precisely to overcome them that he inaugurates an archaeological analysis to try to distance himself from the normalizing anthropological discourse present in the passive synthesis. Derrida reads passive genesis in a radically different way from Merleau-Ponty (and therefore Foucault): the radical nature of Husserl’s phenomenology has opened a space to question the transcendental genesis of philosophical discourse and its possibility of transcending its historical, social and psychological genesis and therefore the sciences that preside over these dimensions. Consequently, showing the naivety of structuralism, Derrida’s research of the sixties is configured as post-structuralist.

Keywords
Foucault, Derrida, Merleau-Ponty, phenomenology, structuralism, passive synthesis, transcendental genesis.

References

• Basso, E. (2022). Young Foucault: The Lille Manuscripts on Psychopathology, Phenomenology, and Anthropology, 1952-1955. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Courtine, J.-F. (2007). Foucault lecteur de Husserl. L’apriori historique et le quasi-trascendental. Giornale di Metafisica, 29, 211-232.
• Deleuze, G. (1986). Foucault. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
• Depraz, N. (2013). De Husserl à Foucault: la restitution pratique de la phénoménologie. Les Études philosophiques, 3, 333-344.
• Derrida, J. (1962). Introduction. In E. Husserl, L’origine de la géométrie (3-171). Paris: PUF.
• Derrida, J. (1967a). L’écriture et la différence. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
• Derrida, J. (1967c). De la grammatologie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
• Derrida, J. (1990a). Le problème de la genèse dans la philosophie de Husserl. Paris: PUF.
• Derrida, J. (1990b). Du droit à la philosophie. Paris: Galilée.
• Fink, E. (1974). De la phénoménologie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
• Foucault, M. (1963). Naissance de la clinique. Une archéologie du regard médical. Paris: PUF.
• Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard.
• Foucault, M. (2008). Introduction a L’Anthropologie d’un point de vue pragmatique di Emmanuel Kant. Paris: Vrin.
• Foucault, M. (2021a). Binswanger et l’analyse existentielle. Paris: Gallimard.
• Foucault, M. (2021b). Phénoménologie et psychologie. Paris: Gallimard.
• Foucault, M. (2022). La question anthropologique. Cours 1954-1955. Paris: Gallimard.
• Goris, W. (2014). L’ a priori historique chez Husserl et Foucault. Philosophie, 123, 3-27.
• Granel, G. (1967). Derrida et la rature de l’origine. Critique, 246, 874-896.
• Han, B. (1998). L’ontologie manquée de Michel Foucault. Grenoble: Éditions Jérome Millon.
• Hernandez, J. M. (2018). El joven Derrida y la fenomenología francesa (1954-1967): fenomenología, epistemología y escritura. Mauritius: Editorial Académica Española.
• Lawlor, L. (2002). Derrida and Husserl. The Basic Problem of Phenomenology. Bloomington-Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
• Lebrun, G. (1989). Note sur la phénoménologie dans “Les Mots et les Choses”. In Michel Foucault philosophe. Rencontre international. Paris 9-11 janvier 1988 (33-52). Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
• Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). La pensée sauvage. Paris: Plon.
• Lévi-Strauss, C. (1955). Tristes tropiques. Paris: Plon.
• Lyotard, J. –F. (1954). La phénoménologie. Paris: PUF.
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1951). Les sciences de l’homme et la phénoménologie. Paris: CDU.
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1960). Signes. Paris: Gallimard.
• Paltrinieri, L. (2010). Les aventures du trascendental: Kant, Husserl, Foucault. Lumières, 16, 11-32.
• Perego, V. (2016). Derrida e la fenomenologia come epistéme. In J. Derrida, La fenomenologia e la chiusura della metafisica. Introduzione al pensiero di Husserl (5-41). Brescia: La Scuola.
• Perego, V. (2018). Foucault e Derrida. Tra fenomenologia e trascendentale. Napoli-Salerno: Orthotes.
• Perego, V. (2020). Il problema dell’origine in Foucault. Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica, 1, 59-78.
• Perego, V. (2021). Derrida e la fenomenologia genetica di Merleau-Ponty. Paradigmi, 1, 159-176.
• Reynolds, J. (2004). Merleau-Ponty and Derrida. Athens: Ohio University Press.
• Sabot, P. (2006). L’expérience, le savoir et l’histoire dans les premieres écrits de Michel Foucault. Archives de Philosophie, 2, 285-303.
• Sabot, P. (2013) Foucault et Merleau-Ponty: un dialogue impossible? Les Études philosophiques, 3, 317-332.
• Sabot, P. (2014). De l’existence aux sciences humaines. Phénoménologie et archeologie chez Michel Foucault (1954-1969). In J. F. Bert & J. Lamy (Eds.), Michel Foucault. Un heritage critique (39-54). Paris: CNRS Éditions.
• Thao, T.–D. (1951). Phénoménologie et materialisme dialectique. Paris: Éditions Minh-Tân.
• Wahl, F. (1968). La philosophie entre l’avant et l’après du structuralisme. In O. Ducrot & T. Todorov (Eds.), Qu’est-ce que le structuralisme? (390-441). Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 1548

“LA DIFFERANCE” AND “RIEN ENROULE”: YOUNG MARC RICHIR READS DERRIDA

Abstract
This paper analyzes the influence of J. Derrida’s philosophy on the early thought of French phenomenologist M. Richir. Main texts for the analysis are Derrida’s report « La Différance » and the article « Le Rien Enroulé » by Richir. The author stresses their deep figurative and substantive interconnectedness. Thus, Richir borrows from Derrida a number of key philosophical figures, including the figure of différance itself, and applies them to phenomenological landscape through the “first-person” narrative. Having examined the correlation between Derrida’s figures of différance and Richir’s phenomenalization, the author concludes that Richir, influenced by the impersonal figure of différance, leads his “first-person” narrative in an attempt to take it beyond the limits of classical phenomenological discourse. Moreover, the author finds preconditions for Richir’s introduction of one of his early key concepts “nothing” (rien) in the text of Derrida’s « La Différance ». The main thesis of this research is: Richir borrows Derrida’s understanding of consciousness and performs phenomenological description from its perspective. The paper considers Derrida’s text as a key to understanding Richir’s article « Le Rien Enroulé » and, as a result, the key to his early philosophy in general.

Keywords
Marc Richir, Jacques Derrida, new French phenomenology, structuralism, nothing, difference, phenomenalization.

References

• Avtonomova, N. (1977). Philosophical Problems of Structural Analysis in Humanities. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russian)
• Carlson, S. (2010). L’essence du phenomena: La pensée de Marc Richir face à la tradition phénoménologique. Eikasia. Revista de Filosofía, 34, 199–360.
• Chernavin, G. (2014). The Preface to the Translation of “’Eποχή, Flicker and Reduction in Phenomenology” by Marc Richir. In (Post)phenomenology in France: The New Phenomenology in France and Beyond (204–208). Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt Publ. (In Russian)
• Derrida, J. (2000). Differance. In “Voice and Phaenomenon” and Other Works in Theory of Sign (169–208). Rus. Ed. St. Petersburg: Aleteia Publ. (In Russian)
• Hicks, S. (2021). Explaining Postmodernism. Rus. Ed. Moscow: RIPOL klassik Publ. (In Russian)
• Mikhaylov, D. (2020). The World Outside the Window: The Preface to the Translation of the Article “Defenestration” by Marc Richir. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology, 9 (2), 749–759. (In Russian)
• Richir, M. (1970). Le Rien Enroulé. Esquisse d’une pensée de la phénoménalisation. Textures, 70 (7.8), 3–24.
• Richir, M. (2020). Defenestation. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology, 9 (2), 760–781. (In Russian)
• Saussure, F. de (1999). Course in General Linguistics. Rus. Ed. Ekaterinburg: Izdatel’stvo Ural’skogo Universiteta Publ. (In Russian)
• Yampolskaya, A. (2017). Phenomenological Reduction as Artistic Device. Voprosy Filosofii, 2, 156–166. (In Russian)
• Yampolskaya, A. (2019). The Art of Phenomenology. Moscow: RIPOL klassik Publ. (In Russian)

Article/Publication Details
Views: 1386

DERRIDA’S OTHER TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC

Abstract
By going back to the starting point of Derrida’s debates with some of the main representatives of structuralism in France, I propose to highlight the ambiguities that cover the very notion of structure, and to take the measure of the exact role that the reference to phenomenology plays then and will continue to play thereafter. Among these ambiguities: the one that touches the mathematical notion of structure, central in the triumphant structuralist mathematical current in France at that time; and especially: the one called “groups of transformations,” the most important one to understand at the same time the audacities and the impasses of structuralism. The hard core of mathematization of modern physics, with Galileo’s principle of relativity, then developed in a masterly way in Einstein’s theory of relativity rest on this very structure. After tracing the broad outlines of these initial discussions, we engage in an analysis of how it is possible to understand the “epistemological contemporaneity” of relativity theory and Husserl’s transcendental aesthetics. Based on a thorough exploration of the analyses of the intersubjective constitution of space, time and the objective common world, we identify this central structure that Husserl calls “intersubjective group of transformation.” Equipped with this phenomenological structure, we trace this motif in Derrida’s work. Its insistence allows us to understand how the phenomenological premises of his critique of structuralism can help to understand his theoretical positions, especially in contrast to Jean-Luc Nancy.

Keywords
structure, group of transformation, relativity, coordinate system, intersubjectivity, space and time, body.

References

• Adam, M. (2000). L’eucharistie chez les penseurs français du dix-septième siècle. Hildesheim: G. Olms
• Armogathe, J.-R. (1977). Theologia Cartesiana. L’explication physique de l’eucharistie chez Descartes et dom Desgabets. The Hague: M. Nijhoff
• Baciocchi, J. de. (1964). L’eucharistie. Tournai: Desclée & Co.
• Balibar, F. (1984). Galileo, Newton lus par Einstein, Espace et relativité. Paris: PUF.
• Châtelet, G. (1979). Sur une petite phrase de Riemann. Analytiques, 3, 67-75.
• Châtelet, G. (1993). L’enchantement du virtuel, Mathématique, Physique, Philosophie. Paris: Éditions rue d’Ulm, « Pensée des sciences ».
• De Gandillac, M., & Goldman, L. (2011). Entretiens sur les notions de genèse et structure. Paris: Hermann.
• Derrida, J. (1967). Violence and Metaphysique. In L’écriture et la difference (117-228). Paris: Seuil.
• Derrida, J. (1976). Fors. In N. Abraham & M. Torok, Cryptonymie. Le verbier de l’homme aux loup (9-73). Paris: Aubier.
• Derrida, J. (1990). Introduction au problème de la genèse chez Husserl. Paris: PUF.
• Derrida, J. (1993). Spectres de Marx. Paris: Galilée.
• Derrida, J. (1996). La Religion (J. Derrida & G. Vattimo, Eds.). Paris: Seuil.
• Derrida, J. (2000). Le toucher, Jean-Luc Nancy. Paris: Galilée.
• Derrida, J. (2001). By Force of Mourning. In The Work of Mourning (139-164). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
• Derrida, J. (2003). Echoes of Encounters III. In F. Pousin & S. Robic (Eds.), Signes, Histoire, Fictions (136-143). Paris: Argument.
• Desanti, J.-T. (1976). Le philosophe et les pouvoirs. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.
• Descartes, R. (1964-1974). Œuvres, vol. 1-11 (A. Tannery, Ed.). Paris: Vrin.
• Descartes, R. (1963-1973). Œuvres philosophiques, vol. 1-3 (F. Alquié, Ed.). Paris: Garnier.
• Freud, S. (1968). L’inconscient, In Metapsychologie (65-121). Paris: Gallimard.
• Freud, S. (1993). Inhibition, Symptôme, Angoisse (J. Doron & R. Doron, Trans.). Paris: PUF.
• Freud, S. (1997). Psychologie des Unbewußten, 8e Auflage. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag.
• Galilée, G. (1953). Dialogo dei Massimi Sistemi. Milan-Naples: Oscar Mondadori.
• Galilée, G. (2000). Dialogue on the Two Great Systems of the World (R. Fréreux & F. de Gandt, Trans.). Paris: Le Seuil.
• Geiger, M. (1904). Bemerkungen zur Psychologie der Gefühlselemente und Gefühlsverbindungen. Leipzig: Engelmann.
• Geiger, M. (1911). Das Bewußtsein von Gefühlen. In A. Pfänder (Ed.), Neue Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen, Theodor Lipps zu seinem sechzigsten Geburtstag von früheren Schühlern (125-162). Barth, Leipzig.
• Gouhier, H. (1978). Cartésianisme et augustinisme au XVIIe siècle. Paris: Vrin.
• Husserl, E. (1950a). Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge (Hua I). Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague.
• Husserl, E. (1950b). Idées directrices pour une phénoménologie pure et une philosophie phénoménologique, I (P. Ricoeur, Trans.). Paris: Gallimard.
• Husserl, E. (1973a). Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass, Erster Teil, 1905-1920 (Hua XIII). The Haag: M. Nijhoff.
• Husserl, E. (1973b). Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass, Zweiter Teil, 1921-1928 (HUA XIV). The Haag: M. Nijhoff.
• Husserl, E. (1973c). Ding und Raum. Vorlesungen 1907 (Hua XVI). The Haag: M. Nijhoff.
• Husserl, E. (1976a). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie, Erstes Burch, Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie (Hua III/1). The Haag: M. Nijhoff.
• Husserl, E. (1976b). Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften un, die transzendentale Phänomenologie, Eine Einleitung in die phanomenologische Philosophie (Hua VI). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Levinas, E. (1976). Autrement qu’être ou au-delà de l’essence. The Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Lévi-Strauss, C. (1958). Anthropologie structurale I. Paris: Plon.
• Lobo, C. (2000). Le phénoménologue et ses exemples, Etude sur le rôle de l’exemple dans la constitution de la méthode et l’ouverture du champ de la phénoménologie transcendantale. Paris: Kimé.
• Lobo, C. (2005) L’a priori affectif (I). Prolégomènes à une phénoménologie de la valeur. Alter, Ethique et phénoménologie, 13, 35-68.
• Lobo, C. (2009). De la phénoménologie considérée comme un métier, In P. Kerszberg, A. Mazzu & A. Schnell (Eds.), L'Œuvre du phénomène, Hommage à Marc Richir (51-70). Brussels: Ousia.
• Lobo, C. (2010). Introduction à une phénoménologie des syntaxes de conscience. In Annales de phénoménologie (117-163). Paris: Association pour la Promotion de la phénoménologie.
• Lobo, C. (2012). La ‘résistance de Derrida à la psychanalyse’ et la phénoménologie transcendantale. Studia Phaenomenologica, 12, 399-425.
• Lobo, C. (2014) Self-Variation and Self-Modification. In D. Moran & R. T. Jensen (Eds.), The Phenomenology of Embodied Subjectivity (263-284). Cham: Springer.
• Lobo, C. (2017). Le maniérisme épistémologique de Gilles Châtelet. Relativité et exploration de l’a priori esthétique chez Husserl selon Weyl et Ch’telet. Revue de Synthèse, 138 (1-4), 279-313.
• Lobo, C. (2019). Retour sur une ‘déconversion.’ Piaget, Kelsen et Husserl. Intentio, Revue du CREALP, 1, 79-132.
• Lobo, C. (2022a). The Limits of the Mathematization of the Living and the Idea of a Formal Morphology of the Living World Following Husserlian Phenomenology. Theory in Biosciences, 141 (2), 175-202.
• Lobo, C. (2022b). Phénoménologie de l’à-peu-près. Le problème de l’approximation statistique chez Bachelard et Husserl. Intentio, Revue du CREALP, 3, 9-45.
• Marin, L. (1975a). La critique du discours: études sur la Logique de Port- Royal et les Pensées de Pascal. Paris: Minuit.
• Marin, L. (1975b). The ‘Neutre’ and Philosophical Discourse. In A. Montefiore (Ed.), Neutrality and Impartiality (86-127). London: Cambridge University Press.
• Marin, L. (1977). Pascal: du texte au livre. Information sur les sciences sociales, XVI (1), 27-58.
• Marin, L. (1981). La voix excommuniée, essais de mémoire. Paris: Galilée.
• Marin, L. (1986). La Parole mangée et autres essais théologico-politiques. Paris: Méridiens Klincksieck.
• Nancy, J.-L. (1979). Ego Sum. Paris: Aubier.
• Nancy, J.-L. (1992). Corpus. Paris: Metailié.
• Nancy, J.-L. (1996). L’être singulier pluriel. Paris: Galilée.
• Nancy, J.-L. (2003). Noli me tangere. Essai sur la levée du corps. Paris: Bayard.
• Piaget, J. (1967). Logique et connaissance scientifique. Paris: Pléiade, Gallimard.
• Piaget, J. (1972). Sagesse et illusions de la philosophie. Paris: PUF.
• Weyl, H. (2017). Philosophie des mathématiques et des sciences de la nature (C. Lobo, Trans.). Genève: Métis Presses.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 1458

SCHELLINGIAN MOTIVES IN M. RICHIR’S PHENOMENOLOGY: PHENOMENOLOGICAL UNCONSCIOUSNESS AND TRANSCENDENTAL HYPNOSE

Abstract
The article provides a philosophical reconstruction of the composition of key motives in the phenomenological project of Mark Richir, who is known for his criticism of the symbolic institution. Following Richir’s deep inspiration in Schelling’s philosophy allows to find connections between his theory of the phenomenological unconscious and affectivity, his commentaries concerning Greek mythology and mythological thinking in La Naissance de Dieux—and his political theory. Along with general historical and philosophical comments on a number of translations of Schelling into French, Richir repeatedly refers to Schelling in his own theoretical arguments. The research shows how some of Richir’s concepts — in particular, his interpretation of the phenomenological unconsciousness, myth, the Protean nature of power, the change of grand epochs as a change of types of the symbolic institutions of power—can be understood on the basis of relevant passages from Schelling’s philosophy, and how a semantic genealogical connection between them can be built. By considering the importance of the phenomenological unconsciousness in the course of phenomenalization process as described in Richir’s works, it is proposed to contrast the interpretation of the unconsciousness, which retains its simple mystery and the ways of dealing, with it in Richir’s version: while psychoanalysis is striving for the “disenchantment” of the unconsciousness by means of translating it into the symbolic language and transferring the living potentiation of meaning into the reproduction of a symptom. Richir’s phenomenological appeal to mythology turns out to be a non-trivial shift from theoretical philosophy to practical philosophy. The article also pays attention to the theory of power in Richir and Lefort, which presumably dates back to La Boétie. It is proposed to reveal the antithesis of the imaginary policy of the despot proposed by Richir, reproducing the symbolic institution of power and supporting the transcendental illusion of the need for control and order in the form of a kind of “hypnosis”—and real politics as a praxis of freedom.

Keywords
Richir, Schelling, phenomenological unconsciousness, phenomenalization, affectivity, mythology, sublime, tyrannic, transcendental hypnosis.

References

• Carlson, S., & Yampolskaya, A. (2020). On the Frontline of Phenomenological Experience. The Preface to the Translation of the First of “Phenomenological Meditations” by Marc Richir. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology, 9 (1), 275–282. (In Russian)
• Chernavin, G. I. (2018). The Oddity of the Taken for Granted. St. Petersburg, Moscow: Dobrosvet Publ. (In Russian)
• Detistova, A. (2012). The Phenomenological Project of M. Richir: Fantasy as a Dimension of the Phenomenological. Voprosy filosofii, 6, 139–148. (In Russian)
• Forestier, F. (2015). La phénoménologie génétique de Marc Richir. Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.
• La Boétie, É. (1952). Reasoning about Voluntary Slavery (F. A. Kogan-Bernshtein, Trans.). Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii nauk USSR Publ. (In Russian)
• Lefort, C. (1986). The Political Forms of Modern Society Bureaucracy, Democracy, Totalitarianism (John B. Tompson, Ed., Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Lévi-Strauss, C. (1999). Mythologists in 4 vol.: Vol. 1. Raw and Cooked. Rus. Ed. Moscow, St. Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga Publ. (In Russian)
• Maldiney, H. (1973). Regard, Parole, Espace. Lausanne: Éditions L’Âge d’Homme.
• Mesnil, J. (1994). L’anthropologie phénoménologique de Marc Richir. Revue internationale de psychopathologie, 16, 643–664.
• Richir, M. (1982). Barbarie et Civilisation. Réseaux, 41–42–43, 21–43.
• Richir, M. (1988a). Phenomenologie et institution symbolique (Phenomenes, temps et etres II). Paris: Jerome Millon.
• Richir, M. (1988b). Sauvagerie et utopie metaphysique. In F. W. J. Schelling, Les âges du monde (5–34). Bruxelles: Editions OUSIA S. C.
• Richir, M. (1989). Du sublime en politique. Synthesis Philosophica, 8 (2), 411–430.
• Richir, M. (1990). La mélancolie des philosophes. In Anuales de V Instituí de Philosophie de l’Université de Bruxelles: L’Affect philosophe (11–34). Paris: Vrin.
• Richir, M. (1991). Passion du penser et pluralité phénoménologique des mondes. Epokhé, 2, 113–173.
• Richir, M. (1994). Qu’est-ce que un Dieu? Mythologie et question de la pensée. In F. W. J. Schelling, Philosophie de la mythologie (7–85). Grenoble: Jéróme Millón.
• Richir, M. (1995). La naissance des dieux. Paris: Hachette.
• Richir, M. (1996a). Affectivité sauvage, affectivité humaine: animalité et tyrannie. Epokhe, 6, 75–115.
• Richir, M. (1996b). L’événement dans la création. In J. Greisch & G. Florival, Création et Evénement, Autour de Jean Ladrière. Actes du colloque de Cerisy-La-salle (123–144). Coll. Bibliothèque de Philosophie de Louvain.
• Richir, M. (2001). Inconscient, nature et mythologie chez Schelling. In A. Roux & M. Vetö (Eds.), Schelling et l’élan du Système de l’idéalisme transcendantal (133–148). Paris: L’Harmattan.
• Richir, M. (2002). Narrativité, temporalité et évènement dans la pensée mythique. Annales de Phénoménologie, 153–169.
• Richir, M. (2005). La nature aime à se cacher. Kairos, 26, 77–92.
• Richir, M. (2011). La contingence du Despote. Eikasia: revista de filosofía, 40, 129–136.
• Richir, M. (2014). On the Phenomenological Unconscious: Epoche, Blinking and Reduction Phenomenological. In S. Sholokhova & A. Yampol’skaya (Eds.), (Post)fenomenologiia. Novaia fenomenologiia vo Frantsii i za ee predelami (209–228). Rus. Ed. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt Publ. (In Russian).
• Richir, M. (2015). Hyperbole dans la philosophie positive de Schelling: Approche phénoménologique. In G. Bensussan, L. Hühn & P. Schwa (Eds.), L’héritage de Schelling / Das Erbe Schelling (41–52). Freiburg; München: Verlag Karl Alber.
• Richir, M. (2020). Defenestration. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology, 9 (1), 760–781. (In Russian)
• Sartre, J.-P. (2001). Imaginary. Phenomenological Psychology of Imagination. Rus. Ed. St. Petersburg: Nauka Publ. (In Russian)
• Schelling, F. W. J. (1861). Die Weltalter. In A. H. K. Schelling (Ed.), Sämtliche Werke. Abt. 1. Bd. 8, ed. (195–344). Stuttgart, Augsburg: J. G. Cottascher Verlag.
• Schelling, F. W. J. (1987). Collected Works in 2 vols.: Vol. 1. Rus. Ed. Moscow: Mysl’ Publ. (In Russian)
• Schelling, F. W. J. (1989). Collected Works in 2 vols.: Vol. 2. Rus. Ed. Moscow: Mysl’ Publ. (In Russian)
• Schelling, F. W. J. (2013). Philosophy of Mythology in 2 vols.: Vol. 2. Rus. Ed. St. Petersburg: Saint Petersburg University Press Publ. (In Russian)
• Schnell, A. (2015). Considérations sur l’inconscient phénoménologique. Annales de Phénoménologie, 205–220.
• Schnell, A. (2019). Réflexions sur le mouvement de pensée de Marc Richir. In Aux marges de la phénoménologie. Lectures de Marc Richir (79–93). Paris: Hermann Éditeurs.
• Vvedenskyi, A. (2020). I’m sorry I’m not a Beast. St. Petersburg: Pushkinskii dom Publ. (In Russian)
• Yampolskaya, A. (2017). Phenomenological Reduction as Artistic Device. Voprosy Filosofii, 2, 195–205. (In Russian)
• Wirth, J., & Burke, P. (Eds). (2013). The Barbarian Principle. Merleau-Ponty, Schelling and the Question of Nature. Albany: SUNY Press.