Article/Publication Details
Views: 5940

RICCARDO LAZZARI
QUESTION ABOUT THE WORLD AND EUGEN FINK'S COSMOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF KANT'S «CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON»

Abstract
This paper is a translation into Russian of the article by Riccardo Lazzari where the poorly explored topic of Eugen Fink's phenomenological interpretation of Kant's «Critique of pure reason» is discussed. In this work he puts in a par interpretation made by Fink in his works: «Welt und Endlichkeit», «Alles und Nichts», «Epilegomena zu Immanuel Kants “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”» — with others phenom-enological interpretations of «Critique of pure reason». Comparing method of interpretation used by Fink with interpretations made by Heidegger and Husserl author discovers a specific of phenomeno-logical interpretation of Fink and its role as a method that allows phenomenological philosophy to find a way to negotiate metaphysics and to clarify one of the main philosophical problems that is the prob-lem of the world. In this article Lazzari particularly analyses the Fink's lecture «World and finitude» (1949) which is the most important text for understanding of the role of «Critique of pure reason» for Fink's own phenomenological approach. The aim of the article is to summarize the evolution of Fink's interpretation of Kant's «Critique of pure reason» during his entire philosophical research. The problem of the world is the guiding idea of this study. At the same time, Lazzari analyzes the role of Fink's inter-pretation of Kant in the debate about the meaning of the world between Fink, Husserl's phenomenology and Heidegger's phenomenological project.

Key words
Phenomenology, E. Fink, phenomenological interpretation, world, infinity, finitude, transcendental dialectic.

References

• Bruzina, R. (2004). Edmund Husserl & Eugen Fink. Beginnings and Ends in Phenomenology, 1928–1938. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
• Fink, E. (1957). Zur ontologischen Frühgeschichte von Raum — Zeit — Bewegung. Den Haag: Nijhoff.
• Fink, E. (1958). Sein, Wahrheit, Welt. Vorfragen zum Problem des Phänomenbegriffs. Den Haag: Nijhoff.
• Fink, E. (1966). Studien zur Phänomenologie (1930–1939). Den Haag: Nijhoff.
• Fink, E. (1976). Nähe und Distanz. Phänomenologische Vorträge und Aufsätze. Freiburg, München: Alber.
• Fink, E. (1985). Einleitung in die Philosophie. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.
• Fink, E. (1990). Welt und Endlichkeit. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.
• Fink, E. (2006). Phänomenologische Werkstatt. Vol. 3. Freiburg, München: Alber.
• Heidegger, M. (1978). Vom Wesen des Grundes. In M. Heidegger (Ed.), Wegmarken (123–173). Frankfurt a. M: Vittorio Klostermann.
• Heidegger, M. (1991). Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik. Frankfurt a. M: Vittorio Klostermann.
• Heidegger, M. (1996). Einleitung in die Philosophie (GA 27). Frankfurt a. M: Vittorio Klostermann.
• Khaidegger, M. (1997). Kant i problema metafiziki [Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics]. Moscow: Russian phenomenological society. (in Russian).
• Heimsoeth, H. (1966–1971). Transzendentale Dialektik. Ein Kommentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Vol. 1–4. Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Kerckhoven, G. v., & Herrmann, Fr.-W. v. (2004). Sull'edizione die Seminari Kantiani di Eugen Fink. Letture di Kant e Seminarikantiani di Fink. Gargnano del Garda, 16–18 ottobre 2002. Magazzinodi filosofia, (11), 121–135.
• Kant, I. (1924). Die philosophischen Hauptvorlesungen. München: Rösl.
• Kant, I. (1956). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Wiesbaden: Insel-Verlag.
• Kant, I. (1958). Schriften zur Metaphysik und Logik. Wiesbaden: Insel-Verlag.
• Kant I. (2006). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Deutsch-russische Ausgabe der Werke Immanuel Kants. Moscow: Kami-Nauka.
• Richir, M. (2005). Welt und Phänomene. In A. Böhmer (Ed.), Eugen Fink. Sozialphilosophie — Anthropologie — Kosmologie — Pädagogik — Methodik (228–251). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 4406

THE PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION
RICCARDO LAZZARI. QUESTION ABOUT THE WORLD AND EUGEN FINK`S COSMOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF KANT`S «CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON»

Abstract
This paper is a translation into Russian of the article by Riccardo Lazzari where the poorly explored topic of Eugen Fink's phenomenological interpretation of Kant's «Critique of pure reason» is discussed. In this work he puts in a par interpretation made by Fink in his works: «Welt und Endlichkeit», «Alles und Nichts», «Epilegomena zu Immanuel Kants “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”» — with others phenom-enological interpretations of «Critique of pure reason». Comparing method of interpretation used by Fink with interpretations made by Heidegger and Husserl author discovers a specific of phenomeno-logical interpretation of Fink and its role as a method that allows phenomenological philosophy to find a way to negotiate metaphysics and to clarify one of the main philosophical problems that is the prob-lem of the world. In this article Lazzari particularly analyses the Fink's lecture «World and finitude» (1949) which is the most important text for understanding of the role of «Critique of pure reason» for Fink's own phenomenological approach. The aim of the article is to summarize the evolution of Fink's interpretation of Kant's «Critique of pure reason» during his entire philosophical research. The problem of the world is the guiding idea of this study. At the same time, Lazzari analyzes the role of Fink's inter-pretation of Kant in the debate about the meaning of the world between Fink, Husserl's phenomenology and Heidegger's phenomenological project.

Key words
Phenomenology, E. Fink, phenomenological interpretation, world, infinity, finitude, transcendental dialectic.

References

• Fink, E. (1966). Vergegenwärtigung und Bild. Beitrage zur Phänomenologie der Unwirklichkeit. (1930). In Studien zur Phänomenologie 1930–1939 (1–18). Den Haag: Nijhoff.
• Fink, E. (1988). VI Cartesianische Meditation. Teil 1. Dortrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer.
• Fink, E. (2006). Phänomenologische Werkstatt (Eugen Fink Gesamtausgabe, Vol. 3/1). Freiburg, München: Alber.
• Fink, E. (2011a). Epilegomena zu Immanuel Kants “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”: ein phänomenologischer Kommentar (1962–1971). (Eugen Fink Gesamtausgabe, Vol. 13/1). Freiburg: Alber.
• Fink, E. (2011b). Epilegomena zu Immanuel Kants “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”: ein phänomenologischer Kommentar (1962–1971). (Eugen Fink Gesamtausgabe, Vol. 13/2). Freiburg: Alber.
• Fink, E. (2011c). Epilegomena zu Immanuel Kants “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”: ein phänomenologischer Kommentar (1962–1971). (Eugen Fink Gesamtausgabe, Vol. 13/3). Freiburg: Alber.
• Fink, S., & Graf, F. (1994). Eugen Fink. Vita und Bibliographie. Freiburg: Alber.
• Lazzari, R. (2010). Weltfrage und kosmologische Interpretation von Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft bei Eugen Fink. In C. Nielsen & H. R. Sepp (Eds.), Welt denken. Annäherungen an die Kosmologie Eugen Finks (38–56). Freiburg, München: Karl Alber.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 5603

PAUL RICŒUR
THE RULE OF METAPHOR. STUDY 7. METAPHOR AND REFERENCE

Abstract
The seventh study of the «Rule of Metaphor» deals with the problem of the reference of metaphoric statement. Poetic statements do not just constitute accentuating the message for its own sake. Far from being restricted to the emotive function, poetry also has a heuristic function which takes away the strong opposition between the internal and external, the subjective and objective. Metaphor re-describes reality and makes it possible to see it in a different way, «to see as...» Metaphor is based on the tension between two poles: «is» and «is not». Ricœur considers the nature of our phenomenological experiencing of the world in the language. He shows how the meaning emerges directly from our existence. The relationship between meaning, language and reality is the field of work of metaphor, in which we originally find ourselves. In this study Ricoeur takes up the question of reference on two different levels: semantic and hermeneutical ones. While the first presupposes the difference of semantics and semiology, the nature of predication, the second lets us shift from language to ontology and regard the problem as an ontological one. Here Ricœur addresses Frege's and Benveniste's theories of references, pointing the ideas they have in common. Approaching the hermeneutical research of reference, we face the necessity of postulating a special discursive entity, that is, the text. Concerning the discursive production Ricœur analyzes such categories as production and labor, disposition and codification, style and individuality, singularity. By considering the structure of the piece of work as its meaning and the world of the work as its denotation, hermeneutics regulates the transition from the structure to the world. Interpretation means revealing world, which the given work addresses, based on its composition, style and genre.

Key words
Reference, denotation, semantics, hermeneutics, poetic function, reality, metaphor, emotive function.

References

• Aristotel', (1983). Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [Collected Works in Four Volumes. Volume 4]. Moscow: Mysl'. (in Russian).
• Bacon, F. (1935). Novyi Organon [Novum Organum]. Leningrad: OGIZ.
• Barfield, O. (1964). Poetic Diction: A Study in Meaning. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Beardsley, M. C. (1958). Aesthetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
• Benveniste, E. (1967). La forme et le sens dans le langage. In Le Langage, Acte du XIII Congrès des sociétés philosophiques de langue française (29–47). Neuchâtel: La Baconnière.
• Benveniste, E. (1974). Kategorii mysli i kategorii yazyka [Categories of thought and categories of language]. In Obshchaya Linguistika [General linguistics] (104–114). Moscow: Progress.
• Berggren, D. (1962). The Use and Abuse of Metaphor. Part 1. Review of Metaphysics, 16 (1), 237–258.
• Berggren, D. (1963). The Use and Abuse of Metaphor. Part 2. Review of Metaphysics, 16 (2), 450–472.
• Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Cohen, J. (1966). Structure du langage poétique. Paris: Flammarion.
• Dubois, J., Edeline, F., Klinkenberg, J. M., Minguet, P., Pire, F., & Trinon, H. (1970). Rhétorique générale. Paris: Larousse.
• Frege, G. (1977). Smysl i denotat [On sense and reference]. SiI, (8), 181–210. (in Russian).
• Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of Art, an Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co.
• Granger, G. G. (1968). Essai d'une philosophie du style. Paris: Armand Colin.
• Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1953). The logic of explanation. In H. Feigl, M. Brodbeck (Eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (319–352). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Henry, A. (1971). Métonymie et Métaphore. Paris: Klincksieck.
• Hesse, M. B. (1965). The explanatory function of metaphor. In Y. Bar-Hillel (Ed.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (249–259). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
• Hester, M. B. (1967). The Meaning of Poetic Metaphor. Paris: Mouton.
• Jakobson, R. (1963). Results of the Conference of Anthropologists and Linguists. Supplement to International Journal of American Linguistics, 19 (2), 554–567.
• Kassirer, E. (2001). Filosofia simvolicheskih form. Tom 1. Yazyk [The Philosophy of symbolical Forms. Vol. 1. Language]. Moscow-Saint-Petersburg: University Book Publ.
• Langer, S. (1953). Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
• Le Groupe μ: Dubois, J., Edeline, F., Klinkenberg, J. M., Minguet, P., Pire, F., & Trinon, H. (1970). Rhétorique générale. Paris: Larousse.
• Le Guern, M. (1973). Sémantique de la métaphore et de la métonymie. Paris: Larousse.
• Pepper, S. C. (1942). World Hypotheses. Oakland: University of California Press.
• Richards, I. A. (1936). The Philosophy of Rétoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ricœur, P. (2008). De l'homme faillible à l'homme capable. Paris: PUF.
• Ruyer, R. (1955). L'expressivité. Revue de métaphisique et de morale, 1 (2), 69–100.
• Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Stanford, B. (1936). Greek Metaphor. In Studies in Theory and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals. An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Methuen.
• Todorov, T. (1967). Littérature et Signification. Paris: Larousse.
• Toulmin, S. (1953). The Philosophy of Science. London: Hutchinson.
• Turbayne, C. M. (1962). The Myth of Metaphor. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Wheelwright, Ph. (1962). Metaphor and Reality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Wheelwright, Ph. (1968). The Burning Fountain. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Wimsatt, W. K. (1954). The Verbal Icon. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
• Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 4911

THE PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION
P. RICŒUR. THE RULE OF METAPHOR. STUDY 7. METAPHOR AND REFERENCE

Abstract
The seventh study of the «Rule of Metaphor» deals with the problem of the reference of metaphoric statement. Poetic statements do not just constitute accentuating the message for its own sake. Far from being restricted to the emotive function, poetry also has a heuristic function which takes away the strong opposition between the internal and external, the subjective and objective. Metaphor re-describes reality and makes it possible to see it in a different way, «to see as...» Metaphor is based on the tension between two poles: «is» and «is not». Ricœur considers the nature of our phenomenological experiencing of the world in the language. He shows how the meaning emerges directly from our existence. The relationship between meaning, language and reality is the field of work of metaphor, in which we originally find ourselves. In this study Ricoeur takes up the question of reference on two different levels: semantic and hermeneutical ones. While the first presupposes the difference of semantics and semiology, the nature of predication, the second lets us shift from language to ontology and regard the problem as an ontological one. Here Ricœur addresses Frege's and Benveniste's theories of references, pointing the ideas they have in common. Approaching the hermeneutical research of reference, we face the necessity of postulating a special discursive entity, that is, the text. Concerning the discursive production Ricœur analyzes such categories as production and labor, disposition and codification, style and individuality, singularity. By considering the structure of the piece of work as its meaning and the world of the work as its denotation, hermeneutics regulates the transition from the structure to the world. Interpretation means revealing world, which the given work addresses, based on its composition, style and genre.

Key words
Reference, denotation, semantics, hermeneutics, poetic function, reality, metaphor, emotive function.

References

• Artunova, N. D. (1990). Metafora i diskurs [Metaphor and Discourse]. In N. D. Artunova & M. A. Zhurinska (Eds.), Teoria metafori [Theory of metaphor] (5–32). Moskow: Progress. (in Russian).
• Hoffman, R. (1985). Some implications of metaphor for philosophy and psychology of science. In W. Paprotté & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Kittay, E. F. (1990). Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wheelwright, P. E. (1990). Metafora i realnost' [Metaphor and Reality]. In N. D. Artunova & M. A. Zhurinska (Eds.), Teoria metafori [Theory of metaphor] (82–109). Moskow: Progress. (in Russian).

Article/Publication Details
Views: 5182

ON THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF ETHICAL TESTIMONY

Abstract
The essay aims to elucidate the phenomenological structure of ethical testimony. I start by referring to the perplexing current situation that, despite our having a plurality of testimonies that elaborate, often in a philosophically insightful manner, the experience of those whose lives were transfigured by the emergence of human evil, philosophy has not yet undertaken a systematic investigation of the philosophical and, especially, ethical significance of testimonies. Further, I present a concept of testimony as a proto-philosophical, narrative elaboration of the meaning of «ethical experience». I define the latter as an experience in which the irreducibility of good to evil («ethical difference») is revealed to us as «evidence» that cannot be denied, except perhaps at the price of betraying ourselves in our innermost self or identity (§ 1). Second, I show why phenomenology has a crucial role to play in the elucidation of the philosophical meaning of testimony and describe in some detail the relationship between ethical experience and testimony. In particular, I examine the crucial issue of the impossibility of exhausting the meaning of ethical difference in a purely theoretical or conceptual discourse: ethical difference, I claim, is not a pure eidos, but is always given in experience as an un-totalizable plurality of meanings, as a radically open series of expressions of the cleavage between good and evil as an irreducible polarity (§ 2). Finally, I suggest that Heidegger's analysis of «testimony» (Bezeugung) in § 54–60 of Sein und Zeit may be read as describing some essential traits of our encounter with truth(s) as given in experience. On this basis I briefly show that, when interpreted in specifically ethical terms, such an analysis may contribute to the understanding of how ethical difference is actually given in experience, and, consequently, of testimony in its ethical dimension (§ 3).

Key words
Ethical call/demand (appel/Anruf), ethical difference, ethical experience, evidence, testi- mony, Heidegger.

References

• Agamben, G. (1998). Quel che resta di Auschwitz. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
• Améry, J. (1966). Jenseits von Schuld und Sühne. Bewältigungsversuche eines Überwältigen. München: Deutsche Taschenbuch.
• Antelme, R. (1999). L'espèce humaine. Paris: Gallimard.
• Curthoys, A., & Docker, J. (2008). In D. Stone (Ed.), The Historiography of Genocide (9–41). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Derrida, J. (1996). Demeure. Fiction et témoignage. In M. Lisse (Ed.), Passions de la littérature. Avec Jacques Derrida (13–73). Paris: Galilée.
• Derrida, J. (2005). Poétique et politique du témoignage. Paris: L'Herne.
• Grossmann, V. (2006). Life and Destiny. New York: Review of Books.
• Heidegger, M. (1967). Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
• Henry, M. (1987). La Barbarie. Paris: PUF.
• Housset, E. (2007). La vocation de la personne. L'histoire du concept de personne de sa naissance augustinienne à sa redécouverte phénoménologique. Paris: PUF.
• Katz, S. (1994). The Holocaust in Historical Context. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kushner, T. (2006). Holocaust Testimony, Ethics, and the Problem of Representation. Poetics Today, 27 (2), 275–295.
• Lacoste, J.-Y. (1998). La phénoménalité de Dieu. Neuf études. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.
• Lanzmann, C. (Director). (1985). Shoah [DVD-Film]. France: Historia, Les Films Aleph, Ministère de la Culture de la Republique Française.
• Levi, N., & Rothberg, M. (Eds.). (2003). The Holocaust. Theoretical Readings. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
• Levene, M. (1988). Is the Holocaust Simply Another Example of Genocide? In S. Gigliotti, & B. Lang (Eds.), The Holocaust. A Reader (420–447). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Levene, M. (2005). Genocide in the Age of the Nation-State. Volume I: The Meaning of Genocide. New York: I. B.Tauris & Co.
• Levi, P. (1989). Se questo e un uomo. Torino: Einaudi.
• Levi, P. (1991). Le sommersi e i salvati. Torino: Einaudi.
• Levinas, E. (1959). Réflexions sur la technique phénoménologique. In Cahiers de Royaumont: Husserl (95–118). Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
• Levinas, E. (1972). Vérité du dévoilement, vérité du témoignage. In E. Castelli (Ed.), Le témoignage (101–110). Paris: Aubier.
• Levinas, E. (1974). Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence. La Haye: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Løgstrup, K. E. (1997). The Ethical Demand. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.
• May, L. (2004). Genocide. A Normative Account. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Moore, G. E. (2000). Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nabert, J. (1996). Le désir de Dieu. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf.
• Picard, M. (1948). Die Welt des Schweigens. Erlenbach-Zürich-Konstanz: Rensch.
• Rosenbaum, A. (2009). Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide. Philadelphia: Westview Press.
• Ricœur, P. (1988). L'identité narrative. Esprit, 7–8, 295–314.
• Ricœur, P. (1991). Life in Quest of Narrative. In D. Wood (Ed.), On Paul Ricœur. Narrative and Interpretation (20–33). London: Routledge.
• Ricœur, P. (1994a). Emmanuel Levinas, penseur du témoignage. In Lectures. Aux frontières de la philosophie (81–103). Paris: Seuil.
• Ricœur, P. (1994b). L'herméneutique du témoignage. In Lectures 3. Aux frontières de la philosophie (107–139). Paris: Seuil.
• Ricœur, P. (2000). L'histoire, la mémoire et l'oubli. Paris: Seuil.
• Rousset, D. (1981). Les jours de notre mort. Paris: Fayard-Pluriel.
• Rousset, D. (2010). L'univers concentrationnaire. Paris: Fayard-Pluriel.
• Semprún, J. (1994). L'écriture ou la vie. Paris: Gallimard.
• Tengelyi, L. (2006). L'expérience retrouvé. Essais philosophiques, I. Paris: Harmattan.