Article/Publication Details
Views: 310

MEINONG: A NEW READING OR IMMERSION IN TRADITION

Abstract
This article is a response to A. Patkul’s review of my translation of D. Jacquette’s book “Alexius Meinong, the Shepherd of Non-Being.” I disagree with reviewer’s opinion on a number of issues. One of the objections is that A. Patkul proceeds from the implicit (and sometimes explicit) opposition of analytical and continental philosophy when considering the contents of a book written by an analytical philosopher, and moreover translated by an analytical philosopher. This attitude is manifested by him in two trends. Firstly, it is an emphasis on the already well-known sides of the Meinong’s theory of objects, which is rather of historical and philosophical interest, tending more to repeat the “Brentanian” roots and phenomenological aspects of Mining. Actually, the application of Meinong’s ideas to modern philosophical problems, which is the subject of Jacquette’s book, is practically ignored. Secondly, reviewer’s claims to the terminological decisions of the translator turn out, in addition to trivial typos, to be the result of all his desire to keep Meinong in the bosom of often scholastic terminology, with the recommendation to make do with Latin tracing paper. From my point of view, despite the well-known quirkiness of the terminology of Meinong himself, when translating, one should strive to convey the meaning in terms understandable to the reader.

Keywords
Meinong, Russell, object theory, ontology, existence, nothingness, fiction.

References

• Findlay, J. N. (1963). Meinong’s Theory of Objects and Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Griffin, N. (1982). Routley R. Exploring Meinong’s Jungles and Beyond. An Investigation on Noneism and the Theory of Items. Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies, 2 (2), 53–60.
• Lambert, K. (1983). Meinong and the Principle of Independence: Its Place in Meinong’s Theory of Objects and its Significance in Contemporary Philosophical Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Parsons, T. (1980). Nonexistent Objects. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Passmore, J. (1972). A Hundred Years of Philosophy. London: Penguin Books.
• Patkul, A. (2024). Dale Jacquette. Alexius Meinong, The Shepherd Of Non-Being. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology, 13 (1), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.21638/2226-5260-2024-13-1-280-289. (In Russian)
• Routley, R., & Routley, V. (1973). Rehabilitating Meinong’s Theory of Objects. Revue Internationalede Philosophie, 27, 224–254.
• Russell, B. (1956). On Denoting. In Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950 (103–119). New York: G. Putnam’s Sons.
• Ryle, G. (1933). Review of J. N. Findlay, Meinong’s Theory of Object. Oxford Magazine, 52, 118–120.
• Zalta, E. (1988). Intensional Logic and the Metaphysics of Intentionality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Kripke, S. (2013). Reference and Existence. The John Locke lectures 1973. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 328

PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF BODILY EXPERIENCE IN AESTHETIC STUDIES

Abstract
The article considers the trend characteristic of contemporary aesthetic practices, which is connected with the shift of attention to the subject’s corporeality and its mutual influence with the environment, to performativity and active involvement of the subject. The purpose of this review is to analyze the highlighted trend from the perspective of phenomenological philosophy. This will require showing the initial closeness of aesthetic experience to the phenomenological method and the ontological and epistemological grounds for it. The paper will consider the transition from the traditional Kantian understanding of aesthetics as “disinterested” contemplation and the corresponding reflection of this process in the theory of cognition to another model. For this purpose, it is proposed to turn to the theory of “performative turn” proposed by Fischer-Lichte, which demonstrates the irrelevance of hermeneutic and semiotic approach for analyzing aesthetic experience in the modern sense. The article considers the phenomenological approach of J.-L. Marion in its applicability to the analysis of modern aesthetic practices oriented to the radical transformation of the subject. It also suggests tracing the line of criticism of “opticocentrism” in film studies. The cinematic experience is analyzed on the basis of its multisensoriality, as well as the embodiment of the subject and its placement in the environment. For this purpose, the author of the article refers to the theory of M. Merleau-Ponty and its further development in the theory of enactivism. It is concluded that the search for a strategy to reduce the distance between subject and object can be realized in the aesthetic experience, in which subject realizes one's own incorporation to the world. The phenomenological method becomes a tool for analyzing this experience.

Keywords
phenomenological aesthetics, aesthetic perception, phenomenology of the body, environment, embodied cognition, Merleau-Ponty, Marion.

References

• Elsaesser, T., & Hagener, M. (2015). Film Theory: An Introduction Through the Senses. New York: Routledge.
• Fischer-Lichte, E. (2015). The Aesthetics of Performativity. Rus. Ed. Moscow: Kanon+ Publ. (In Russian)
• Gallagher, S. (2006). How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Kant, I. (1966). Critique of Judgment. In Sochineniia v 6 tomakh. T. 5 (161–529). Rus. Ed. Moscow: Mysl’ Publ. (In Russian)
• Haardt, A. (1994). Edmund Husserl and the Phenomenological Movement in Russia in the 10s and 20s. Voprosy filosofii, 5, 58–59. (In Russian).
• Haardt, A. (1996). Image Consciousness and Aesthetic Experience in the Phenomenology of E. Husserl. Logos, 8, 69–77. (In Russian)
• Levinas, E. (1987). Reality and its Shadow. In Collected Philosophical Papers (1–13). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
• Marion, J.-L. (2002a). Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Marion, J.-L. (2002b). In Excess: Studies of Saturated Phenomena. New York: Fordham University Press.
• Marion, J.-L. (2004). The Crossing of the Visible. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Marion, J.-L. (2014). Saturated Phenomenon. In S. Sholokhova & A. Yampol’skaya (Eds.), (Post) fenomenologiia: novaia fenomenologiia vo Frantsii i za ee predelami (63–99). Rus. Ed. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt Publ. (In Russian)
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1992). The Film and the New Psychology. Kinovedcheskie zapiski, 16, 40–53. (In Russian)
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1999). Phenomenology of Perception. Rus. Ed. St. Petersburg: Nauka Publ. (In Russian)
• Mitchell, U. D. T. (2014). There are no Visual Media. In N. Sosna & K. Fedorova (Eds.), Media: mezhdu magiei i tekhnologiei (128–143). Rus. Ed. Moscow, Ekaterinburg: Kabinetnyi uchenyi Publ. (In Russian)
• Sobchack, V. (1992). The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Sobchack, V. (2004). Carnal Thoughts: Embodiment and Moving Image Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Uexküll, J. von. (1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.
• Varela, F. F. J., Thompson E. T., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Yampolsky, M. (2022). Forms of Reality. Essays on Theoretical Anthropology. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ. (In Russian)

Article/Publication Details
Views: 297

HEIDEGGER’S PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE
BOOK REVIEW: LOHT S. PHENOMENOLOGY OF FILM: A HEIDEGGERIAN ACCOUNT OF THE FILM EXPERIENCE. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2017.

Abstract
In my review, I analyze the main points of Shawn Loht’s book “Phenomenology of Film: A Heideggerian Account of the Film Experience” (2017), in which the author makes not only an attempt to develop the phenomenology of cinema, but also to substantiate it as a kind of philosophy—philosophy through watching a movie. The content of the book can be reduced to three major components: 1) clarifying M. Heidegger’s attitude to cinema and evaluating the contribution of his philosophy to the analysis of cinema; 2) revealing cinema viewing as one of the ways of human existence; 3) substantiating cinema art as revealing the truth of being. To implement these tasks, Sh. Loht develops the phenomenology of cinema as a kind of cinema philosophy. Despite the fact that Heidegger expressed his negative attitude towards cinema and photography in his work “Time of the World Picture,” since they serve to technically represent the world, turn it into a picture and strengthen the position of a person as a representative subject, Loht substantiates the understanding of cinema as an artistic creation, which, according to Heidegger’s philosophy of art, reveals the truth of being. Using such concepts of Heidegger’s presence analytics as being-in-the-world, project, understanding, disposition, interpretation, speech, S. Loht describes the motion picture as a thing in the world that Dasein encounters, and the cinematic experience as a way of human existence. The author understands phenomenology as a method that focuses on phenomena as a person experiences them. Loht concludes that movies are fundamentally phenomenological. The subject of the phenomenology of cinema is the space between the viewer and the screen, the discovery and understanding that the viewer produces. The phenomenology of cinema is the phenomenology of the presence of the moviegoer. The core question is, is it possible to philosophize with the help of cinema? Loht answers in the affirmative, but this philosophizing will be phenomenology. The viewer philosophizes while watching the film, which is based on the self-understanding of the presence, the philosophical reflections of the viewer are caused by the film.

Keywords
philosophy of cinema, phenomenology of cinema, being-in-the-world, location, cinematic experience, M. Heidegger, S. Loht.

References

• Ferencz-Flatz, C., & Hanich, J. (2016). Editor’s Introduction: What is Film Phenomenology? Studia Phaenomenologica, 16, 11–61. https://doi.org/10.5840/studphaen2016161.
• Film-Philosophy. (2024). Retrieved from https://www.euppublishing.com/toc/film/28/1.
• Heidegger, M. (1993a). A Dialogue on Language between a Japanese and an Inquirer. In Vremia i bytie: Stat’i i vystupleniia (273–302). Rus. Ed. Moscow: Respublika Publ. (In Russian)
• Heidegger, M. (1993b). On the Origin of the Work of Art. In Raboty i razmyshleniia raznykh let (47–116). Rus. Ed. Moscow: Gnozis Publ. (In Russian)
• Heidegger, M. (1997). Being and Time. Rus. Ed. Moscow: Ad Marginem Publ. (In Russian)
• Loht, S. (2017). Phenomenology of Film: A Heideggerian Account of the Film Experience. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.
• Radeev, A., & Savchenkova, N. (Eds.) (2019). Cinematographic Experience: History, Theory, Practice. Collective Monograph. St. Petersburg: Estezis Publ. (In Russian)
• Sobchack, V. (1992). The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 319

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER: PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE BODY AND AESTHETICS

Abstract
The main thesis of this article is that Arthur Schopenhauer was the first to formulate clearly the problem of corporeality as an essential problem of philosophical thought. Schopenhauer can be understood as a philosopher and even as a phenomenologist of corporeality. For the first time in the European thought he explicitly describes the relation between consciousness and the body and offers a phenomenological description of the experience of embodiment, bringing his thought closer to M. Merleau-Ponty’s future phenomenology. The article considers the role of the body in the formation of subjectivity as well as the correlation between the concept of body and the concept of will in the structure of Schopenhauer’s philosophy. Both Schopenhauer and Merleau-Ponty understood the body as a key to the experience of the world and to overcoming the object-subject dichotomy. Hence, while Merleau-Ponty welcomes this conclusion, Schopenhauer considers it is a source of pessimistic sarcasm: the will of which I am the materialization is completely indifferent to my individual existence and uses me as material for its meaningless reproduction. The emphasis on corporeality has important intersections with the development of aesthetics in the 18th century. T. Eagleton thus suggests that Schopenhauer’s philosophy makes a crucial contribution to the modernist project of aesthetics by its “implicit” aesthetics, presupposed by the development of the theme of embodiment, to which he attributes the unexpected “comicality” of Schopenhauer’s philosophy, well suited to the interpretation of absurdist art. The article also considers the influence of Schopenhauer’s philosophy on Beckett’s work, which S. Garner interprets through Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of the body, proving that their reflections on body and flesh can be correlated with Beckett’s theater where the bodily presence of actors is emphasised.

Keywords
corporeality, phenomenology of corporeality, body, aesthetics, phenomenology, postmetaphysical thinking, comical, Schopenhauer, Merleau-Ponty.

References

• Carman, T. (1999). The Body in Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. Philosophical Topics, 27 (2), 205–226.
• Critchley, S. (2004). Very little… Almost Nothing. Death, Philosophy, Literature. London, New York: Routledge.
• Eagleton, T. (2004). The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Habermas, J. (1992). Postmetaphysical Thinking. Philosophical Essays. London: MIT Press.
• Heidegger, M. (1993). Being and Time: Articles and Speeches. Rus. Ed. Moscow: Respublika Publ. (In Russian).
• Heidegger, M. (2007). Nietzsche, T. 2. Rus. Ed. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’ Publ. (In Russian)
• Hübscher, A. (1994). The Thinkers of Our Time. Rus. Ed. Moscow: TsTR MGP VOS Publ. (In Russian)
• Husserl, E. (2004). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Rus. Ed. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’ Publ. (In Russian)
• Garner, S. (1993). “Still Living Flesh”: Beckett, Merleau-Ponty and the Phenomenological Body. Theatre Journal, 5 (4), 443–360.
• Hübner, B. (2006). Sense and SENSE-less Time. Rus. Ed. Minsk: Ekonompress Publ. (In Russian)
• Kant, I. (1994). The Critique of Pure Reason. Rus. Ed. Moscow: Mysl’ Publ. (In Russian)
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1992). Eye and Mind. Rus. Ed. Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ. (In Russian)
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1996). In Defense of Philosophy. Rus. Ed. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo gumanitarnoi literatury Publ. (In Russian)
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1999). Phenomenology of Perception. Rus. Ed. St. Petersburg: Iuventa Publ.; Nauka Publ. (In Russian)
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (2006). The Visible and the Invisible. Rus. Ed. Minsk: Logvinov Publ. (In Russian)
• Mulhall, S. (2001). On Film. London: Routledge.
• Peters, M. (2013). Will and Flesh: Schopenhauer and Merleau-Ponty on Corporeality. In Schopenhauer Jarhbuch (91–114). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
• Scheler, M. (1994). Man and History. In Izbrannye proizvedeniia (129–194). Rus. Ed. Moscow: Gnozis Publ. (In Russian)
• Schopenhauer, A. (1993a). The World as Will and Representation. In O chetveroiakom korne zakona dostatochnogo osnovaniia. Mir kak volia i predstavlenie. T.1. Kritika kantovskoi filosofii (127–609). Rus. Ed. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russian)
• Schopenhauer, A. (1993b). The World as Will and Representation. In O vole v prirode. Mir kak volia i predstavlenie. T.2 (110–627). Rus. Ed. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russian)
• Schopenhauer, A. (2001). Paralipomena. In Sobranine sochinenii v 6 tomakh. T. 5. Rus. Ed. Moscow: Terra — Knizhny klub Publ. (In Russian)
• Spiegelberg, H. (2002). The Phenomenological Movement. Rus. Ed. Moscow: Logos Publ. (In Russian)
• Thacker, E. (2017). Starry Speculative Corpse (Horror of Philosophy 2) Vol. 2. Rus. Ed. Perm: Hyle Press. (In Russian)
• Tonning, E. (2015). “I am not Reading Philosophy”: Beckett and Schopenhauer. In Beckett/Philosophy (75–102). Stuttgart: IBIDEM-Verlag.
• Vasalou, S. (2013). Schopenhauer and the Aesthetic Standpoint. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Waldenfels, B. (1999). The Motive of and Alien. Rus. Ed. Minsk: Propilei Publ. (In Russian)
• Žižek, S. (2008). The Parallax View. Rus. Ed. Moscow: Evropa Publ. (In Russian)

Article/Publication Details
Views: 280

ТHE REVIEW OF ТHE INТERNAТIONAL SCIENТIFIC WORKSHOP “ТHE ТRANSCENDENТAL ТURN IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY — 9: MEТAPHYSICS, EPISТEMOLOGY, THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS, COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND ARIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, THEOLOGY” (April 11–13, 2024, Moscow, Russia)

Abstract
This text provides an overview of the International Scientific Workshop (Conference) “Transcendental Turn in Contemporary Philosophy — 9: metaphysics, epistemology, theory of consciousness, cognitive science and artificial intelligence, theology”, held in Moscow on April 11–13, 2024, at the sites of the State Academic University of the Humanities and the Russian State University for the Humanities. The review examines both the reports on Kant’s transcendental metaphysics, made at the session “How metaphysics (as a science) is possible: on the way to transcendental metaphysics”, dedicated to the 300th anniversary of I.Kant, and reports on phenomenological problems, which were heard at the sessions “The Transcendental subject: Plato, Kant, Husserl”, “Transcendentalism and Phenomenology — 1: consciousness and cognition”, “Transcendentalism and phenomenology — 2: consciousness and reality”, “How is transcendental theology possible?” and “Transcendentalism, cognitive science and the problems of AI”. The author analyses the reports of the seminar participants, grouping them around topics and problems, to certain extents covered in these reports: the project of Kant’s transcendental metaphysics, the peculiarities of the phenomenological approach to consciousness, the status and understanding of reality in phenomenology, the concept of a transcendental subject in a historical and philosophical perspective, etc. This approach makes it possible to present the current field of work of modern transcendentalists and phenomenologists and identify areas of future possible research.

Keywords
transcendentalism, transcendental metaphysics, ontology, cognition, consciousness, phenomenology, passive syntheses, the transcendental subject, regional ontologies, Kant, Husserl.

References

- - -