Article/Publication Details
Views: 3684

PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION OF EDITH STEIN’S ARTICLE
“HUSSERL’S PHENOMENOLOGY AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS. ATTEMPT OF COMPARISON”

Abstract
In the first part of the introductory article to the translation from German into Russian of the Edith Stein’s work “Husserl’s Phenomenology and the Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas” is given a short biography of Edith Stein who has written her PhD thesis by Edmund Husserl in Göttingen then worked with him in Freiburg and who was one of the originators of the early phenomenological movement, collaborated with such phenomenologists as Dietrich von Hildebrand, Alexandre Koyré, Max Scheler, Hans Lipps, Martin Heidegger, and Roman Ingarden. In the second part of the introductory article the main theses and ideas of the translated work are presented in which Edith Stein tried to compare the seemingly uncompatible philosophies of Edmund Husserl and St.Thomas Aquinas.

Key words
Edith Stein, Husserl, phenomenology, phenomenological movement, catholic philosophy, Saint Thomas Aquinas.

References

• Baseheart, M. C. (1997). Person in the World. Introduction to the Philosophy of Edith Stein. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
• Stein, E. (2015). Aus dem Leben einer jüdischen Familie (GA 1). Freburg, Basel, Wien: Herder Verlag.
• Stein, E. (1929). Husserls Phänomenologie und die Philosophie des heiligen Thomas v. Aquino. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und Phänomenologische Forschung. Festschrift E. Husserl zum 70, X (315-338). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 4159

EDIT STEIN
HUSSERL’S PHENOMENOLOGY AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.
ATTEMPT OF COMPARISON

Abstract
This publication is a translation of the article by Edith Stein, a German-Jewish philosopher, in which she analyses and compares philosophical positions and theories of Edmund Husserl and Thomas Aquinas. The selection of such central figures results from two main directions in Stein’s life and research: on the one hand, from phenomenological work as Husserl’s scientific assistant and editor of his manuscripts, and, on the other hand, from her conversion to Catholicism, which led her to a detailed learning of Thomas Aquinas’ legacy and initiation into the Carmelites religious order. The challenge that Edith Stein offers in this work is to bring these two ways together, to break the boundary between faith and knowledge and to show the possibilities of productive interaction between both phenomenological and scholastic methods. Despite their great divergences caused by historical background and different starting points of philosophical thought, Stein shows us, that these methods share common basic foundations and are able to complement each other in solving philosophical problems arising from experience, knowledge and practical action in the world. Thanks to studies that have been undertaken, the author draws the conclusion that the scholastic legacy of Aquinas could be promising for findings ways to deal with some internal problems of Husserl’s phenomenological project and to overcome its limitation. The first attempt of such a comparison that was realized in this article provides the basis for another of Stein’s works, namely her book Finite and Infinite Being (Endliches und ewiges Sein), where she tries to build her own ontological project based on the synthesis of the scholastics and phenomenology but is placed mostly in the coordinate system of Aquinas’ theoretical field.

Key words
Edith Stein, Husserl, Thomas Aquinas, ontology, phenomenology, catholic philosophy, natural and supernatural knowledge, truths of faith, immediate and mediated knowledge, essential intuition.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 3992

MAX SCHELER’S PHENOMENOLOGY OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY AND SYMPATHY.
PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION OF MAX SCHELER’S BOOK “THE NATURE OF SYMPATHY” (SECTION A, I – II)

Abstract
The article is intended to emphasize the essential significance of Max Scheler, one of the leaders of the “Munich phenomenology”, in the phenomenological movement of the twentieth century, because his role in it is clearly understated today and his phenomenology does not simply amount to a historical context. The author examines the reasons why Scheler’s phenomenology has not received the proper recognition, research and development, appearing in the shadow of such figures as Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and others. The article reveals the originality and actuality of Scheler in the field of phenomenological research of intersubjective problems – he began to investigate its in his publications of the 10-ies of the last century first among philosophers. Separately, author marks the principal differences in the solution of the problem of intersubjectivity and the relationship between the I and the Other in the writings of E. Husserl and M. Scheler. So, Scheler’s understanding of intersubjective relations was based on personalistic, axiological, emotional grounds; he did not exaggerate the meaning of the activity of the Self; he turned to the experience of modern psychological theories (for example, Gestalt psychology), especially in the analysis of the perception of the Other in child psychology; he noted intersubjective community as a priori characteristic of human being. At the same time, the connection between Scheler’s understanding of the relationship of the I and the Other and Heideggerian is noted, and his influence to the existential psychotherapy and logotherapy of V. Frankl is a fact. In conclusion author analyzed the four main forms of sympathy that Scheler explores at the beginning of his final work (“The Nature of Sympathy”) in the field of phenomenology of intersubjectivity. As it seems to the author of the article, Scheler’s phenomenology of intersubjectivity is actually today, it can help to more productive reveal the phenomenological potential and deserves more attention and studying.

Key words
Phenomenology of Scheler, intersubjectivity, Husserl, I, other, senses, emotions, human community, forms of sympathy.

References

• Gusserl’, E. (1998). Kartezianskie razmyshlenija [Cartesian Meditations]. St. Petersburg: Nauka. (in Russian).
• Dorofeev, D. (2012). Pod znakom filosofskoj antropologii [Under Sign of Philosophical Anthropology]. Moscow, St. Petersburg: Centr gumanitarnyh iniciativ. (in Russian).
• Dupuy, M. (1959). La Philosophie de Max Scheler. Paris: Paris Presses universitaires de France.
• Frankl, V., & Kreuzer, F. (1986). Im Anfang war der Sinn. Von der Psychoanalyse zur Logotherapie. Ein Gespräch. München: Piper.
• Frankl, V. (2000). Volja k smyslu [Will to Sense]. Мoscow: Jeksmo. (in Russian).
• Frankl, V. (2015). Vospominaniya [Memories]. Moscow: Al’pina non-fikshn (in Russian).
• Frings, M. S. (2001). The Mind of Max Scheler. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
• Henkmann, W. (2005). “Geistige Person” bei Viktor E. Frankl und Max Scheler. In D. Batthyany & O. Zsok (Eds.), Viktor Frankl und die Philosophie (149-162). Wien: Springer-Verlag.
• Husserl, E. (1973a). Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Erster Teil: 1905–1920 (Hua XIII). Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Husserl, E. (1973b). Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Zweiter Teil: 1921–1928 (Hua XIV). Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Husserl, E. (1973c). Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Dritter Teil: 1929–1935 (Hua XV). Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Iribarne, J. V. (1994). Husserls Theorie der Intersubjektivität. Freiburg, München: AlberVerlag.
• Khaidegger, M. (1997). Bytie i vremya [Being and Time]. Moscow: Ad Marginem. (in Russian).
• Safranski, R. (2002). Khaidegger: germanskii master i ego vremya [Hedegger: German Master and his Time]. Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya. (in Russian).
• Scheler, M. (1954-1997). Gesammelte Werke. Bd. I-XV. Bern, München, Bonn: Bouvier Verlag.
• Scheler, M. (1963). Liebe und Erkenntnis. In M. Scheler, Gesammelte Werke, Bd. VI (77-98). Bern-München, Francke- Verlag.
• Scheler, M. (2009). Wesen und Formen der Sympathie. In M. Scheler, Gesammelte Werke, Bd VII. München: Bouvier Verlag.
• Schloßberger, M. (2005). Die Erfahrung des Anderen. Gefühle im menschlichen Miteinander. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
• Shchyuts, A. (2004). Teoriya intersub’ektivnosti Shelera i vseobshchii tezis al’ter ego [Scheler’s Theory of Intersubjectivity and General Thesis of the Alter Ego]. In Izbrannoe: Mir, svetyashchiisya smyslom [Selected Works: World Shining with Sence] (202-235). Moscow: ROSSPEN. (in Russian).
• Slinin, Ya. (2004). Fenomenologiya intersub’ektivnosti [Phenomenology of Intersubjectivity]. St.Petersburg: Nauka (in Russian).
• Sheler, M. (1994a). Fenomenologiya i teoriya poznaniya [Phenomenology and Theory of Knowledge]. In M. Sheler, Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected Works] (195-229). Moscow: Gnosis. (in Russian).
• Sheler, M. (1994b). Ordo amoris. In: M. Sheler, Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected Works] (339-377). Moscow: Gnosis. (in Russian).
• Shpigel’berg, G. (2002). Fenomenologicheskoe dvizhenie [Phenomenological Movement]. Moscow: Logos. (in Russian).
• Wicki, B. (1991). Die Existenzanalyse von Viktor Frankl als Beitrag zu einer anthropologishe fundierten Pädagogik. Bern: Haupt.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 3772

MAX SCHELER
THE NATURE OF SYMPATHY (SECTION A, I – II)

Abstract
We hereby present to the reader a translation of a fragment of one of Max Scheler’s main works, The Nature of Sympathy. Max Scheler was the most important figure in the philosophical life of Europe in the 1910-20s in phenomenology, axiology and philosophical anthropology. This work is an example of expressive, original and deep interconnection and intersection of these directions. The book was published in 1923 and was a significantly expanded, supplemented and rethought version of the book Phenomenology and Theory of the Feeling of Sympathy and of Love and Hate (1913). One of the central themes of this work is the development of a holistic theory of phenomenology of intersubjectivity (which first appeared in printed form) on the basis of the examination of the problems of personal relations between the “I” and “Other” by the experience of emotional sympathy. In the presented translation, Scheler carries out a detailed phenomenological analysis of the phenomenon of “sympathy” (Mitgefühl), in the course of which he criticizes theories of the Other (such as that of T. Lipps) and reveals various forms of “sympathy.”

Key words
Max Scheler, phenomenology of intersubjectivity, relations of “I” and “Other”, emotional experience, forms of sympathy.

References

• Clifford, W. K. (1879). Seeing and Thinking. Lectures and Essays. London: Macmillian.
• Freid, S. (1991). Massovaya psikhologiya i analiz chelovecheskogo «Ya». Tom 1 [Mass Psychology and Analysis of Human “I”]. Tbilisi: Merani. (in Russian).
• Koffka, K. (1921). Die Grundlagen der psychischen Entwicklung. Osterwieck Am Harz: Verlag A. W. Zickfeldt.
• Kofka, K. (2017). Osnovy psikhicheskogo razvitiya [Basics of Psychological Development]. St. Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt. (in Russian).
• Kulpe, O. (1920). Die Realisierung: Ein Betrag zu Grundlegung der Realwissenchaften. Bd. II. Leipzig: Hirzel.
• Le Bon, G. (1895). Psychologie des foules. Paris: Felix Alcan.
• Le Bon, G. (1912). Le Revolution francaise et la psychologie des Revolution. Paris: Flammarion.
• Lipps, T. (1907). Psychologisсhe Untersuchungen. Bd. I. Leipzig: Engelmann.
• Nitsshe, F. (1990). Antikhrist. Tom 2 [Antichrist]. Moscow: Mysl’. (in Russian).
• Riehl, А. (1908). Der philosophische Kritizismus: Geschichte und System. Bd. II. Leipzig: Kroner.
• Schneider, K. (1921). Pathopsychologische Beiträge zur psychologischen Phänomenologie von Liebe und Mitfühlen. Bd. 65. In Zschr ges Neurol Psychiat. Originalien. Berlin: Springer.
• Scheler, M. (1913/16). Der Formalismus in der Ethik und die materielle Wertethik. Halle.
• Sheler, M. (1994). Formalizm v etike i material’naya etika tsennostei [Formalism in Ethics and Material Ethics of Values]. Moscow: Gnosic. (in Russian).
• Stein, E. (1917). Neues zum Problem der Einfühlung. Dissertation. Freiburg.
• Tarde, А. (1890). Les lois de l’imitation. Paris: Alcan.
• Witasek, S. (1901). Zur psychologischen Analyse der ästhetischen Einfühlung. Zeitschrift für Psychologie und hysiologie der Sinnesorgane, 25, 1-49.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 4005

ŠPET’S “HERMENEUTIC PHENOMENOLOGY” PROJECT

Abstract
Over the past several decades, the figure of Gustav Špet (1879-1937) has grown unceasingly in prominence, and the significance of his work in contemporary philosophy has increased accordingly. Alongside this process has been another, just as relentless – that of the elaboration and enrichment of our conceptions of the philosopher’s creative character, as well as of nature and essence of his philosophy. Špet’s phenomenon was to become yet another of the major individual projects on the synthesis of the humanities that emerged during his time in the first half of the 20th century. From the point of view of historical fact, Špet’s involvement with the phenomenological movement is limited to him being Husserl’s student in Göttingen from 1912-1913, and to their subsequent written correspondence. Appearance and Sense, the monograph devoted to the problems of phenomenology, was published in 1914. The interweaving of phenomenology and hermeneutics that occurred in Appearance and Sense allowed Špet to reveal the very essence of phenomenology, the exact essence which, according to his words, Husserl was unable to unveil. And here he referred to hermeneutics in order to present phenomenology in a basic and essential way. In this text, hermeneutics and phenomenology are bound tightly together, and they intersect constantly. Following on from A. Savin, we endeavour to justify the thesis that hermeneutics, for Špet himself most likely a detailed commentary of his phenomenological research with no independent significance of its own, gained meaning only within the scope of his phenomenological program.

Key words
Hermeneutics, phenomenology, Gustav Špet, A. Savin, Husserl, phenomenological program, rigour science.

References

• Dennes, M. (2009). Novyi vzglyad na germenevtiku cherez tvorchestvo Gustava Shpeta [A New View on Hermeneutics through Gustav Špet’s Oeuvre]. In O.G. Mazaeva (Ed.), Tvorcheskoe nasledie G.G. Shpeta v kontekste sovremennogo gumanitarnogo znaniya. Pyatye shpetovskie chteniya. G.G. Shpet / Comprehensio. Pyatye shpetovskie chteniya [G.G. Špet’s Oeuvre in the Context of the Contemporary Humanitarian Knowledge. Špet G.G./ Comprehensio. The Fifth Špet Conference] (84-85). Tomsk: Natsional’nyi issledovatel’skii Tomskii gosudarstvennyi universitet. (in Russian).
• Dennes, M., Mikhailov, I.A., Molchanov, V.I., Motroshilova, N.V., Nemet, T., Pruzhinin, B.I., Savin, A.S., Tepp, F., Khan, A., Shmid, U., & Shchedrina, T.G. (2014). Kniga «Yavlenie i smysl» Gustava Shpeta i ee znachenie v intellektual’noi kul’ture XX veka (materialy konferentsii-kruglogo stola) [Book Appearance and Sense by Gustav Shpet and its Value in Intellectual Culture of XXth Century (Conference-Round Table Proceedings)]. Voprosy filosofii, 5, 29-171. (in Russian). Retrieved from http://vphil.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=960&Itemid=52
• Gadamer, H.-G. (1986). Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr
• Horuzhy, S. (2010). K predelam fenomenologii: Shpet, Gusserl’ i intentsional’nost’ v mire dukhovnoi praktiki [To the Limits of Phenomenology: Shpet, Husserl and Intentionality in the World of Spiritual Practice]. In M. Denn (Ed.), Gustav Shpet i ego filosofskoe nasledie. U istokov semiotiki i strukturalizma [Gustav Shpet and His Philosophical Heritage. At the Origins of Semiotics and Structuralism] (130-143). Moscow: ROSSPEN. (in Russian).
• Mazaeva, O.G. (2010). K istorii issledovaniya tvorcheskogo naslediya G. Shpeta (obsuzhdenie problem filosofii yazyka) [On History of the Research of Špet’s Legacy (Discussing Problems of Philosophy of Language)]. Tomsk State University Journal. Ser. Philosophy. Sociology. Political Science, 4 (12), 172-173. (in Russian).
• Riker, P. (2002). Konflikt interpretatsii. Ocherki o germenevtike [The Conflict of Interpretation: Essays on Hermeneutics]. Moscow: Kanon-Press-Ts. (in Russian).
• Savin, А.E. (2015). Fenomenologicheskoe istolkovanie germenevtiki Shpeta [Phenomenological Interpreting of Špet’s Hermeneutics]. In O.G. Mazaeva (Ed.), Fenomenologo-ontologicheskiei zamysel G.G. Shpeta i gumanitarnye proekty XIX-XX vv.: G.G. Shpet / Comprehensio. Shestye shpetovskie chteniya: sbornik statei i materialov mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii (1-7 iyunya 2015 g.) [G.G. Špet’s Phenomenological-Ontological Conception and Humanitarian Projects of XIX-XXth Centuries. G.G. Špet. Comprehensio. The Sixth Špet Conference: Conference Proceedings (1-7 June, 2015)] (342-352) Tomsk: Izdatel’stvo tomskogo universiteta. (in Russian).
• Scanlan, J.P. (1970). Nicholas Chernyshevsky and Philosophical Materialism in Russia. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 1, 65-86.
• Shpet, G.G. (1917). Mudrost’ ili razum? [Wisdom or Reason?]. Mysl’ i slovo, 1, 1-69. (in Russian).
• Shpet, G.G. (1992). Rabota po filosofii [Work on Philosophy]. Nachala, 1, 31-50. (in Russian).
• Shpet, G.G., & Gusserl’, E. (1996). Otvetnye pis’ma G. Shpeta [G. Shpet’s Answerring Letters]. Logos, 7, 123-133. (in Russian).
• Shpet, G.G. (2005). Yavlenie i smysl. Fenomenologiya kak osnovnaya nauka i ee glavnye problem [Appearance and Sense. Phenomenology as the Basic Science and Its Main Problems]. In G.G. Shpet, Thought and Word. Selectas. Мoscow: ROSSPEN. (in Russian).