Article/Publication Details
Views: 4664

MARC RICHIR
PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE POETIC ELEMENT

Abstract
This publication is a translation into Russian of Marc Richir’s article Phenomenology of the poetic element, accompanied by a preface of translator. In his article Richir reveals «poetic element» of phenomenal experience as its fundamental condition, relying on it as a tradition and techniques of transcendental phenomenology and the empirical study of psychoanalysis. Richir gives concrete empirical content borrowed from Husserl’s concept of perceptual fantasies, referring to the theory of D.V. Winnicott’s «transitional object», and then extrapolates the results to the experience of creation and perception of the «poetic» work (knowing the latest in a broad, Aristotelian sense). Perceptual imagination of Richir’s phenomenology should be separated from «pure fantasy»: the latter is a «minimum level of conceptual self-image». It has been in existence as «the rudiments of sense», which take place in a passive synthesis of «extra-linguistic peace schematism». Pure fantasy becomes perceptive fantasy just when there is inversion (revirement) «germ of meaning» in the «sense bud», thanks to some fancy a change of perspective. This process involves the formation of a special «field of play» (Winnicott), or transcendental interfact space, which establishes a primary (preintentional) type of relationship between the two egos: the baby and mother, spectator and actor. In this respect, perceptual «sees» in fantasy not an object, and the other perceptive imagination in the fantasy that belongs to another. This formed the primary locus of communication: interfact transcendental space that is being «played intentionally», then it becomes a space of intersubjectivity. Dating back to some fancy-affective sphere, perceptive fantasy (or «poetic element») has a «phenomenological redundancy» in comparison with the logical concept. Therefore, one can speak about a special type of knowledge of reality beyond its objectivist and logical explication.

Key words
Transcendental phenomenology, perceptive fantasy, poetic element interfact transcendental, transitional field transcendental bosom, the phenomenon of language, formless, fantasy-affectation, the experience of the sublime.

References

• Detistova, A. S. (2012). Fenomenologicheskii proekt M. Rishira: fantaziya kak izmerenie fenomenologicheskogo [The Phenomenological Project of M. Richir: Fantasy as a Dimension of the Phenomenological]. Voprosy filosofii [Questions of Philosophy], 6, 139-148. (in Russian).
• Platon, (1994). Timei. In Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh. T. 3. [Collected Works in 4 Volumes: Vol. 3.]. Moscow: Mysl’. (in Russian).
• Hegel G. F. W. (1967). Jenaer Realphilosophie. Vorlesungsmanuskripte zur Philosophie der Natur und des Geistes von 1805-1806. In Hoffmeister, J. (Ed.), Philosophische Bibliothek: Vol 67. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
• Richir, M. (1992). Méditations phénoménologiques. Grenoble: J. Millon.
• Richir, M. (2004). Pour une phénoménologie des racines archaïques de l’affectivité. Annales de phénoménologie, 3, 155-200.
• Richir, M. (2006). Fragments phénoménologiques sur le temps et l’espace. Grenoble: J. Millon.
• Richir, M. (2008). Fragments phénoménologiques sur le langage. Grenoble: J. Millon.
• Gofmanstal’, G. (1995). Razgovor o stikhakh [Conversation about Poems]. In Gofmanstal’ G. Izbrannoe: Dramy. Proza. Stikhotvoreniya [Selected Works: Drama. Prose. Poems]. Moscow: Art. (in Russian).
• Hofmannsthal, H. (1980). L’entretien sur les poèmes (1903). In Hofmannsthal H. von Lettre de Lord Chandos et autres essays. Paris: Gallimard.
• Mal’dine, A. (2014). O sverkhstrastnosti [On Overpassion]. In Sholokhova, S. A., & Yampol’skaya, A.V (Eds.), (Post)fenomenologiya: novaya fenomenologiya vo Frantsii i za ee predelami [(Post)phenomenology: New Phenomenology in France and Beyond] (145-203). Moscow: Academic Project. (in Russian).
• Ril’ke, R. M. (1977). Novye stikhotvoreniya. Seriya Literaturnye pamyatniki [New Poems. Literature Landmarks Series]. Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian).
• Rilke, R. M. (1993). Lettres à un jeune poète. In Collection Poésie. Paris: Gallimard.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 4676

PHENOMENOLOGICAL TRANSCENDENTALISM AND POETIC VISION: MARC RICHIR’S CONCEPT OF THE POETIC ELEMENT.
THE PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION OF MARC RICHIR’S ARTICLE «PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE POETIC ELEMENT»

Abstract
This publication is a translation into Russian of Marc Richir’s article Phenomenology of the poetic element, accompanied by a preface of translator. In his article Richir reveals «poetic element» of phenomenal experience as its fundamental condition, relying on it as a tradition and techniques of transcendental phenomenology and the empirical study of psychoanalysis. Richir gives concrete empirical content borrowed from Husserl’s concept of perceptual fantasies, referring to the theory of D.V. Winnicott’s «transitional object», and then extrapolates the results to the experience of creation and perception of the «poetic» work (knowing the latest in a broad, Aristotelian sense). Perceptual imagination of Richir’s phenomenology should be separated from «pure fantasy»: the latter is a «minimum level of conceptual self-image». It has been in existence as «the rudiments of sense», which take place in a passive synthesis of «extra-linguistic peace schematism». Pure fantasy becomes perceptive fantasy just when there is inversion (revirement) «germ of meaning» in the «sense bud», thanks to some fancy a change of perspective. This process involves the formation of a special «field of play» (Winnicott), or transcendental interfact space, which establishes a primary (preintentional) type of relationship between the two egos: the baby and mother, spectator and actor. In this respect, perceptual «sees» in fantasy not an object, and the other perceptive imagination in the fantasy that belongs to another. This formed the primary locus of communication: interfact transcendental space that is being «played intentionally», then it becomes a space of intersubjectivity. Dating back to some fancy-affective sphere, perceptive fantasy (or «poetic element») has a «phenomenological redundancy» in comparison with the logical concept. Therefore, one can speak about a special type of knowledge of reality beyond its objectivist and logical explication.

Key words
Transcendental phenomenology, perceptive fantasy, poetic element interfact transcendental, transitional field transcendental bosom, the phenomenon of language, formless, fantasy-affectation, the experience of the sublime.

References

• Forestier, F. (2014). La phénomenologie génétique de Marc Richir. New York, NY: Springer.
• Richir, M. (1987). Phénomènes, temps et êtres I - Ontologie et phénoménologie. Grenoble: Jérôme Millon.
• Richir, M. (1988). Phénoménologie et institution symbolique. Grenoble: Jérôme Millon.
• Vinnikott, D. (2008). Igra i real’nost’ [Game and Reality]. Moscow: Institute for Humanities Research Publ. (in Russian).

Article/Publication Details
Views: 4498

MORITZ GEIGER
ON THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE AESTHETIC ENJOYMENT

Abstract
The following fragment represents the aesthetical researches of the German philosopher Moritz Geiger acted in the first half of the 20th century, whose works are considered to have initiated the phenomenological approach in the aesthetic domain. Being a fellow by many bright personalities, the representatives of the psychological aesthetic (Wundt, Lipps), Geiger favours on the one hand the psychological approach for it leads out of the speculative philosophism into empirical experience. On the other hand Geiger gets close with phenomenology and Husserl and belongs since 1907 to the Munich school of phenomenology. Geiger sees in the phenomenological approach an opportunity to shift the focus from the feeling subject to the aesthetic object. He insists on the permissibility and rather necessity of speaking about the objective aesthetic characteristics of an artwork. They are the aesthetic values, which mark an object of aesthetic enjoyment. So in the fragment below Geiger focuses first on the phenomenological nature of the aesthetic enjoyment. In the attached fragment Geiger proceeds from the Kantian argumentation about the particularities of aesthetic enjoyment and analyses the aesthetic enjoyment in its relation to the interest and the will of an individual as an enjoying subject. The preface introduces the general structure of the article, its stepwise concretizing of the problem domain beginning with the outline of the phenomenological bounds of pleasure in general and moving toward the narrow analysis of the aesthetic enjoyment in particular and its relation to the axiology and the psychological phenomenology. Thus the main peculiarities of Geiger’s phenomenological method could be put to the scrutiny of his analysis of the chosen distinct domain as well as his tendency to avoid any schematism and any simplification within the domain. That makes Geiger’s language such an subtle and sensitive instrument for it should be able to articulate the slightest nuances of pleasure types.

Key words
Phenomenological aesthetic, psychologism, aesthetic enjoyment, will, interests, Kant, Schopenhauer.

References

• Basch, V. (1896). Essai critique de l´esthétique de Kant. Paris: Alcan.
• Cohn, B. J. (1901). Allgemeine Ästhetik. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
• Kant, I. (1913). Kritik der Urteilskraft (Akademieausgabe). Berlin: Reimer.
• Kant, I. (1966). Kritika sposobnosti suzhdeniya. [Critique of Judgement]. Moscow: Mysl´. (in Russian).
• Nietzsche, F. (1921). Zur Genealogie der Moral. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner.
• Nitsshe, F. (1990). Genealogiya morali. [On the Genealogy of Morality]. Moscow: Mysl´. (in Russian).
• Nitsshe, F. (1990). Tak govoril Zaratustra. [Thus spoke Zarathustra]. Moscow: Mysl´. (in Russian).
• Ritook, E. (1910). Zur Analyse der ästhetischen Wirkung auf Grund der Methode der Zeitvariation. In Zeitschrift für Ästhetik 5 (356-407, 512-544). Stuttgart: F. Enke.
• Schopenhauer, A. (1873). Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
• Shopengauer, A. (1992). Mir kak volya i predstavlenie. [The World as Will and Representation]. Moscow: Moscow club. (in Russian).

Article/Publication Details
Views: 4519

THE PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION OF THE
7TH PARAGRAPH OF SECOND PART OF THE ARTICLE «ON THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE AESTHETIC ENJOYMENT» BY MORITZ GEIGER

Abstract
The following fragment represents the aesthetical researches of the German philosopher Moritz Geiger acted in the first half of the 20th century, whose works are considered to have initiated the phenomenological approach in the aesthetic domain. Being a fellow by many bright personalities, the representatives of the psychological aesthetic (Wundt, Lipps), Geiger favours on the one hand the psychological approach for it leads out of the speculative philosophism into empirical experience. On the other hand Geiger gets close with phenomenology and Husserl and belongs since 1907 to the Munich school of phenomenology. Geiger sees in the phenomenological approach an opportunity to shift the focus from the feeling subject to the aesthetic object. He insists on the permissibility and rather necessity of speaking about the objective aesthetic characteristics of an artwork. They are the aesthetic values, which mark an object of aesthetic enjoyment. So in the fragment below Geiger focuses first on the phenomenological nature of the aesthetic enjoyment. In the attached fragment Geiger proceeds from the Kantian argumentation about the particularities of aesthetic enjoyment and analyses the aesthetic enjoyment in its relation to the interest and the will of an individual as an enjoying subject. The preface introduces the general structure of the article, its stepwise concretizing of the problem domain beginning with the outline of the phenomenological bounds of pleasure in general and moving toward the narrow analysis of the aesthetic enjoyment in particular and its relation to the axiology and the psychological phenomenology. Thus the main peculiarities of Geiger’s phenomenological method could be put to the scrutiny of his analysis of the chosen distinct domain as well as his tendency to avoid any schematism and any simplification within the domain. That makes Geiger’s language such an subtle and sensitive instrument for it should be able to articulate the slightest nuances of pleasure types.

Key words
Phenomenological aesthetic, psychologism, aesthetic enjoyment, will, interests, Kant, Schopenhauer.

References

• Allesch, Ch. G. (2006). Einführung in die psychologische Ästhetik. Wien: WUV.
• Geiger, M. (1913). Beiträge zur Phänomenologie des ästhetischen Genusses. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung, 1, 567-684.
• Husserl, E. (1968). Briefe an Roman Ingarden. The Hague: Martinus Martinus Nijhoff.
• Mickunas, A. (1989). Moritz Geiger and Aesthetics. In E. F. Kaelin (Ed.), Ame­rican Phenomenology. Origins and Developments (43-57). Dordrecht – Boston, MA – London: Kluwer Academic Publ.

Article/Publication Details
Views: 4826

THE END OF ART AND PATOČKA’S PHILOSOPHY OF ART

Abstract
In this essay I consider the end-of-art thesis in its metaphysical and empirical versions. I show that both use the correspondence theory of truth as the basis for their conception of the history of art. As a counterpart to these theories I have chosen Patočka’s conception of the history of art. His theory is based also on the relationship between art and truth, but he conceives truth in the phenomenological sense of manifestation. In the rest of the essay I seek to show the consequences Patočka’s conception has for the history of art. In the first part, I set out to show Patocka’s critique of Hegel’s aesthetics as a system based on the correspondence theory of truth. In particular, I endeavour to explain his critique of some intrinsic problems of Hegel’s aesthetics, the general failure of Hegel’s system to achieve its goal, and, lastly, Hegel’s giving up on the meaning of the art in the present. I also seek to show that Danto’s version runs into the same problems and conclusions as Hegel’s. In the second part I discuss Patočka’s analysis of modern art and the aesthetic attitude, where he finds a hidden affinity between art and aletheia, which Hegel overlooked. The last part of the essay focuses on the consequences that the conception of the truth of art as aletheia have for the history of art. I conclude that art in such a conception represents an independent field of the manifestation of being in history beside philosophy. Moreover, modern and contemporary art do not mean the end of art; rather, they have their place in art history based on aletheia, since they are more focused on the manifestation itself than on what is manifested. Unlike Hegel and Danto, therefore, Patočka retains the historical meaning of modern and contemporary art. His conception of the history of art, summed up under the idea of aletheia, has greater explanatory potential than Hegel’s and Danto’s conceptions, and it retains the historical meaning of modern and contemporary art.

Key words
Phenomenology, aesthetics, Jan Patočka, truth, Hegel, Danto, history of art.

References

• Biemel, W. (1985). Bemerkungen zu Jan Patočkas Deutung der Kunst. Phanomenologishe Forschungen: Studien zur Philosophie von Jan Patočka, 17, 32–52.
• Blahutková, D., & Ševčík, M. (2014). Patočkovy interpretace literatury [Patočka’s Interpretations of Literature]. Červený Kostelec: Pavel Mervart. (in Czech).
• Chvatík, I., & Vojtěch, D. (2004). Ediční komentář [Editorial note]. In J. Patočka, Umění a čas [Art and Time]: Vol. I (367–428). Prague: Oikoymenh. (in Czech).
• Chvatík, K. (1990). Filosofie umění Jana Patočky [Jan Patočka’s Philosophy of Art]. Proměny, 27 (4), 28–33. (in Czech).
• Danto, A. C. (1984). The End of Art. The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art (81–116). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
• Hegel, G. F. W. (1975a). Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art: Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hegel, G. F. W. (1975b). Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art: Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Heidegger, M. (1998). Plato’s Doctrine of Truth. In W. McNeill (Ed.), Pathmarks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Legros, R. (1992). Patočka et Hegel. In M. Richir, & E. Tassin (Eds.), Jan Patočka: Philosophie, phénomenologie, politique (45–53). Grenoble: Millon.
• Major, L. (1967). Sebeuvědomění a čas: K Patočkově interpretaci Hegelovy estetiky [Self-awarness and Time: Notes on Patočka’s Interpretations of Hegel’s Aesthetics]. Filosofický časopis, 15, 625–635. (in Czech).
• Patočka, J. (1968). Husserlova fenomenologická filosofie a “Karteziánské meditace” [Husserl’s Phenomenological Philosophy and “Cartesian Meditations”]. In E. Husserl, Karteziánské meditace [Cartesian Meditations] (161-190). Prague: Svoboda. (in Czech).
• Patočka, J. (1996). Does History Have a Meaning? In J. Dodd (Ed.), Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
• Patočka, J. (1999). Evropa a doba poevropská [Europe and Post-Europe]. In Péče o duši II [Care for the Soul]. Sebrané spisy [Collected Works]: Vol. II. Prague: Oikoymenh. (in Czech).
• Patočka, J. (2004a). Hegelův filosofický a estetický vývoj [Hegel’s Philosophical and Aesthetic Development]. In J. Patočka, Umění a čas [Art and Time]: Vol. I (227–302) Prague: Oikoymenh. (in Czech).
• Patočka, J. (2004b). K vývoji Hegelových estetických názorů [On the Development of Hegel’s Aesthetic Views]. In J. Patočka, Umění a čas [Art and Time]: Vol. I (216–226). Prague: Oikoymenh. (in Czech).
• Patočka, J. (2004c). Poznámky k polyperspektivě u Picassa [Some Remarks on Polypercpectivity in Picasso]. In J. Patočka, Umění a čas [Art and Time]: Vol. II (30–34). Prague: Oikoymenh. (in Czech).
• Patočka, J. (2004d). Smysl mýtu o paktu s ďáblem [The Meaning of Myth about Pact with the Devil]. In J. Patočka, Umění a čas [Art and Time]: Vol. I (510–525). Prague: Oikoymenh. (in Czech).
• Patočka, J. (2004e). Učení o minulém rázu umění [Hegel’s Conception of Art as a Thing of the Past]. In J. Patočka, Umění a čas [Art and Time]: Vol. I (319–347). Prague: Oikoymenh. (in Czech).
• Patočka, J. (2004f). Úvahy nad Readovou knihou o sochařství [An Essay on Read’s Book on Sculpture]. In J. Patočka, Umění a čas [Art and Time]: Vol. I (441–453). Prague: Oikoymenh. (in Czech).
• Patočka, J. (2006). Spisovatel a jeho věc [Writer and his Thing]. In Češi [Czechs]: Vol I (280–292). Prague: Oikoymenh. (in Czech).
• Patočka, J. (2009). “Přirozený svět” v meditaci svého autora po třiatřiceti letech [“The Natural World” Reconsidered thirty-three Years Later]. In Fenomenologické spisy II (265-334). Prague: Oikoymenh. (in Czech).
• Patočka, J. (2015). Art and Time. Estetika: The Central European Journal of Aesthetics, 52(1), 99-113.
• Ševčík, M. (2014) Umění jako vyjádření smyslu: Filozofie umění Jana Patočky [Art as an Expression of Sense: Jan Patočka’s Philosophy of Art]. Červený Kostelec: Pavel Mervart. (in Czech).
• Ševčík, M. (2015). Patočka’s Interpretations of Hegel’s Thesis on the Past Character of Art. Estetika: The Central European Journal of Aesthetics, 52(1), 78–113.
• Šrubař, I. (1987). Zur Stellung der Kunst in Patočkas Philosophie. In J. Patočka, Kunst und Zeit (31-48). Stuttgart: Klett Cotta.
• Zuska, V. (2002). Mimésis — fikce — distance: k estetice XX. století [Mimésis — Fiction — Distance: to the Aesthetics of the XXth Century]. Prague: Triton.