Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology

263–269

Authors: JESÚS M. DÍAZ ÁLVAREZ, JESÚS GUILLERMO FERRER ORTEGA

No abstract

285–301

Authors: JESÚS M. DÍAZ ÁLVAREZ, JORGE BRIOSO

This article tries to unravel some of the main clues provided by Ortega on his understanding of philosophy. The thesis we defend is that the Spanish philosopher maintains two slightly different answers concerning the question what is philosophy, though Ortega does not acknowledge them in the explicit narrative of his thinking. This, we believe, creates tensions in his late second philosophical model, as he does not fully break away from certain “adherence” or “mannerisms” associated to his early model. In this respect, Ortega would be a thinker who lives between two philosophical worlds, someone who sees, narrates and interprets the philosophical shock wave occurring at his time, but does not quite let go of the old intellectual constructions. To support our thesis, we will compare two texts, his 1929 lectures What is Philosophy?, and his Notes on Thinking, from 1941. In the period between these two works, Ortega seems to move from a more “traditional,” “universalistic,” “transcendental,” in short, Husserlian phenomenological understanding of philosophy, to a more historicist, hermeneutical, and pragmatic one, which lays the emphasis on the plurality of discourses on the sense, the contingency of the philosophical narrative itself, and even the very possibility of its ending, at least in its more “metaphysical” and classical form.

327–339

Authors: MIGUEL GARCÍA-BARÓ LÓPEZ

This article deals with the reception of phenomenology by Xavier Zubiri, one of the most important figures of 20th century Spanish philosophy. During his lifetime Zubiri published few books, but he left an immense legacy of courses and manuscripts. Among the most important published works is the book Naturaleza, Historia, Dios. Zubiri explains there his critical reception of phenomenology: he subscribes to it, insofar as it is a philosophy of things themselves. But this evaluation of phenomenology is at the same time a farewell to her. Zubiri’s philosophical project consists in giving a reason not for things as objects of consciousness, but rather for their entitary or real structure. Thus, his purpose is to establish a logic of reality or new metaphysics that is at the same time different from the old ontology and whose sources of inspiration are Heidegger and Aristotle. To the author of this essay seems also highly probable that Alfred N. Whitehead influenced decisively certain prominent features of Zubiri’s ontological program. Husserl’s treatment of the theory of wholes and parts in Logical Investigations III pertains also to the intellectual basis of Zubiri. The article raises the question of the traces of phenomenology that are still present in Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, and critically assesses their importance for phenomenological philosophy today. The article shows above all how Zubiri’s perspective vindicates phenomenologically the traditional concept of Man and his experience of religious connection (religatio) with a transcendent Grund. As a consequence, the traditional notions of spiritual reality, eros and agape are given a new meaning.

362–381

Authors: CÉSAR GÓMEZ ALGARRA

This paper discusses why the work of Eduardo Nicol, still not translated and mostly unknown outside of the Hispanic context, deserves more attention, for two main reasons. First, the novelty of his meditations concerning phenomenology, following the steps of Husserl and Heidegger, but taking a different turn. Furthermore, several scholars have noted how his phenomenological project intertwines with the anthropological question, fostering a new approach to the question concerning “who are we?”. Our aim is to explore how Nicol, while setting foot in the founders of phenomenology, departs from previous interpretations of its method, to advance a new dialectical phenomenology that could contribute to the actual debates on anthropological phenomenology. In order to do so, we will first examine how his vision of the phenomenological task involves an historical interpretation of metaphysics and a critique of two fundamental concepts: the transcendental reduction (Husserl) and the thesis of an “occultation of being” (Heidegger). A careful reading of Nicol’s philosophy would allow us to go a step further and explain how, according to him, phenomenology should become an analysis of the dialectical presence between being/beings. Finally, we will show that the answer to the question “who are we?” is to be found inside this dialectic, in what Nicol identifies as the historical phenomenon of expression, encouraging a new dialogue with other phenomenologies of the body⸺and beyond.

398–432

Authors: IRENE BREUER

This paper focuses on the Argentine philosopher Eugenio Pucciarelli (1907-1995) and his critical reception of phenomenology. It introduces to his contribution to phenomenology in the context of its early reception in Argentina and addresses the following issues: 1) the mission of philosophy, the various ways of accessing its essence, in particular those of Scheler, Dilthey and Husserl, 2) his reception of Husserl as far as the ideals of science and reason are concerned, 3) the crisis of reason 4) his pluralistic conception of reason and time, and finally, to 5) his humanistic stance. I argue that his conception of philosophy, which emphasizes the personal dimension and the social commitment of philosophical practice as well as the relentless search for unshakeable foundations of knowledge as carried out by Husserl, is underpinned by a pluralistic conception of reason, time and culture that confers Pucciarelli’s philosophizing a humanistic bias. Phenomenology as conceived by Pucciarelli becomes thus an active force by embracing multiple perspectives, such that its methodology can be applied to varying contexts and circumstances. Pucciarelli’s commitment to social justice and Latin American culture responds to the attempt to rescue the virtues and freedom of the individual, which ground human dignity. In short, Pucciarelli’s stance reveals a profound pluralistic humanism that does not neglect its militant and critical function, thus evidencing its relevance to the current sociopolitical situation in Latin America.

457–478

Authors: JUAN JOSÉ RODRÍGUEZ

This paper refers to the connection between the metaphysical duality of ground and existence and inner dynamic of the particular will of man. We will analyse how the metaphysical monism, which Schelling attributes to Spinoza and later to Hegel, is responsible for the abolition of the freedom of the human individual, because it does not account for the existence of evil, and consequently reduces it to the existence of a higher order reference system that over and predetermines the individual (1). We will first scrutinise the principles of separation and union, ground and understanding from the human point of view, namely as the will of ground and love, as particular and universal will (2). The will of man reveals itself as the culmination and model of the will that permeates nature, an essential aspect of the process of God’s revelation and becoming. The link between the principles of separation and union shows us the difference that Schellingian thought establishes between man and God, the real and the ideal. While God, or the purely ideal principle, precedes the separation in a logical-ontological sense, the will of man remains always in an indissoluble tension between the principles, since it is unable to overcome the opposition between good and evil that is characteristic of freedom. The good remains one of the results of human freedom and thus of the particular will of man. The good lies for Schelling not in the simple actualization of the general, but in the moment ineradicable particularity needed for the attainment of a real and effective principle (3). It is to this insurmountability of the particular will in the process of the constitution of man that our proposal of Schelling’s libertarian anarchism refers. The connection of this thesis with the critique of the State is also discussed (4)

502–530

Authors: MIKHAIL BELOUSOV

The question of the world in itself — the world beyond its correlation with experience in the broadest sense — is one of the sore points of phenomenology and becomes especially acute in the light of modern discussions around correlationism. These discussions, in one way or another, make phenomenology come around to the classical distinction between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself, with the help of which Kant outlines the field of ethics as a special world lying on the other side of the correlation of knowledge and object constitutive for nature. Philosophy deals with the thing-in-itself in the proper, positive sense of the word, not as phenomenology (transcendental philosophy, which reveals the correlation of knowledge and reality in the world of phenomena and the futility of attempts by theoretical reason to know anything beyond phenomena), but as a critique of practical reason. The article attempts to consider the opposition of the thing-in-itself and the phenomenon in the context of the criticism that Kant’s practical philosophy is subjected to in Hegel’s The Phenomenology of Spirit and to explicate the arguments that this criticism makes available to phenomenology for rethinking the problem of Ding an sich and the ethical dimension of the epoche. The first part of the article examines the Hegelian analysis of the main contradiction contained in the Kantian opposition of duty as something that is in itself, and nature as a phenomenon (this opposition forms what Hegel calls the moral worldview): duty does not depend on nature and therefore does not need natural (phenomenal) realization in actions, but at the same time, duty is nothing but the necessity of actions and, consequently, the necessity of a phenomenon. This contradiction, as Hegel shows, leads to the disintegration of the moral worldview and, thus, turns into the sublation of the absolute separation of duty (thing in itself) and nature (phenomenon). The restitution of the difference between the moral an sich and the phenomenon within conscience — a phenomenon that arises as a result of the destruction of the moral worldview — turns into a new paradox, which demonstrates that the thing-in-itself (ethical good), since it is freed from the phenomenon, is not only unreal, but also turns into its own opposite. The paradox consists in the fact that the consciousness of duty, taken in its independence from the phenomenal realization in actions, becomes evil itself, turning to hypocrisy in the moral judgment about other people’s actions. In the second part of the article, the significance of the Hegelian critique of Kant’s practical philosophy for the phenomenological destruction of the difference between the thing-in-itself and the phenomenon and the problematization of the ethical dimension of the phenomenological method is explicated. Tracing the naive origins of this difference in the natural attitude and their transformation in Kantian philosophy, the author tries to consider the sublation of the opposition of the thing-in-itself and the phenomenon in the field of ethics as one of the possible paths to phenomenology. It is shown how the necessary relation of the supra-worldly an sich with the situational nature of its phenomenal realization in actions calls into question the possibility of a phenomenological epoche. The author also seeks to demonstrate that the problematization of the difference between the thing-in-itself and the phenomenon does not turn phenomenology into a system in the Hegelian sense.

554–569

Authors: ALEXANDER FROLOV

This article attempts to outline the contours of a transcendental phenomenology that would retain the intuition of a healthy realism. In this connection it is proposed to reinterpret the Husserlian notion of constitution, presenting constitution as a discover of reality. A distinction is made between strong and weak versions of constitution. It is constitution in the weak sense that combines, in our opinion, with the realist attitude. In order to achieve the above-mentioned goal (to present constitution as discovery), the Husserlian notion of object sense is clarified: it is excluded as a representative or substitute of an intentional object; object sense is seen as a mode of givenness, as а medium by means of which the object is implied or given. The idea of a meaningful discovery of reality is best matched by this treatment of object meaning. It is thus possible to combine the realist attitude with the idea of meaningful access to the real, thus avoiding, on the one hand, naive realism and, on the other hand, transcendental-idealist implications. The Husserlian notion of constitution is further related with the idea of forming interpretative schemes of understanding the world, which may include political agendas, scientific paradigms, systems of speculative metaphysics, and religious faith. It is emphasized that, although the rejection of interpretation is impossible, interpretive schemes must be reconciled with real facts and events in order to “fine-tune” reason and reality. Finally, a separation is undertaken with the conception of J.-L. Marion, which relies on the deflation of meaning in favor of the given as such, calling into question the status of man as a being who possesses reason, who discovers reality and constitutes its meaning.

580–595

Authors: SVETLANA KONACHEVA, ANDREI PATKUL, ANNA I. REZNICHENKO

Our paper is an overview of the anniversary All-Russian scientific conference with international participation “Aleshin Academic Readings — 2022: Philosophy as a Way of Life. Dedicated to the 30th Anniversary of the Faculty of Philosophy of the Russian State University for the Humanities,” which was held at this faculty from December 15 to 17, 2022. The first day of its work was devoted to plenary reports, the other two days were connected with the work of sections and workshops. Speakers from Moscow, Almaty (Kazakhstan), Volgograd, Yekaterinburg, Yerevan (Armenia), Kaliningrad, Rome (Italy), St. Petersburg, Simferopol, Tyumen, Ufa, Bochum (Germany), Essen (Germany) performed their presentations at the conference. It discussed a wide range of topics, both classical and modern philosophy, having some bearing on philosophy as a way of life and on the significance of a philosopher’s way of life for philosophical knowledge. Particular emphasis in the course of reports and discussions was placed on the problems of the relationship between theoretical and practical in philosophy, the limited nature of the philosophy of forms and concepts and the possibilities of overcoming such limitations, the existential sense of philosophizing, the possibility of explication of living historical experience by means of philosophy, the role of philosophy for diagnosing modernity, the prospects of dialectics, the relationship between philosophy and governments. Sections of the conference were also devoted to methodological, historiographical, pragmatic and other problems of modern thought. No less wide was the range of materials on which the speakers relied, starting with pre-Socratic philosophy and ending with the most relevant examples of philosophy that have not yet received sufficient reception in our country. Many talks also referred to the history of Russian philosophical thought.

612–616

Authors: ANTON VAVILOV

No abstract