Andrea Altobrando

Rivolgersi al fenomeno del silenzio può apparire paradossale e molte parole potrebbero essere sciorinate a partire da tale apparenza, su di essa e oltre di essa. In realtà, il fenomeno del silenzio, se affrontato seriamente e con rigore fenomenologico, non ha nulla di paradossale. Non è affatto un’espressione che allude a qualcosa di mistico, misterioso, esoterico o altro[1]. Di fatto, il silenzio è esperito in molti modi e una delle vere difficoltà a tale riguardo consiste nel coglierne non tanto le differenti manifestazioni, bensì che cosa consenta di racchiuderle sotto un unico concetto.Non ho qui l’ambizione di riuscire in quest’ultima impresa. Solo al termine mi permetterò qualche rilievo per un eventuale lavoro più compiuto e sistematico. Nelle pagine che seguono mi soffermerò brevemente su tre questioni che il fenomeno del silenzio presenta e che la ricerca fenomenologica deve sicuramente affrontare.Le tre questioni sono: a) quali sono le macro-categorie di silenzio che possiamo differenziare e come possiamo giungere a differenziarle sulla base dell’esperienza ordinaria e sensibile; b) quali giudizi si possono esprimere sul silenzio che in tali esperienze compare; infine, sulla scia di quanto emergerà affrontando le prime due questioni, si tratterà di avanzare alcune c) finali osservazioni sul possibile statuto ontologico del silenzio.

In this paper I try to understand the relationship between nature and subjectivity from a phenomenological (mainly Husserlian) perspective and to bring into focus the consequences of this relationship to the problem of human freedom. Husserl did not deeply explore the concept of freedom in almost any of his works and manuscripts, i.e. he never really gave a definition and a thorough analysis of freedom. Nevertheless it is quite clear that freedom plays a peculiar role in many strategic points of his philosophy. We can say even more: the entire phenomenological enterprise is funded on freedom, since the so called “phenomenological reduction” is, according to Husserl himself, the result of an absolutely free act. But if freedom is necessary in order to have a genuine philosophical and phenomenological enquiry, shouldn’t this “condition of possibility” be queried and eventually elucidated? Or is freedom something which remains outside the boundaries of phenomenological investigation? I think that by following Husserl’s inquiries into the different levels of constitution of subjectivity it is possible to produce evidence in support of the claim that freedom is an apodictic fact, but a fact which, if correctly understood, has conditions as well as consequences which should not be neglected if we don’t want to miss freedom itself in our “human existence”.

In this paper I try to understand the relationship between nature and subjectivity from a phenomenological (mainly Husserlian) perspective and to bring into focus the consequences of this relationship to the problem of human freedom. Husserl did not deeply explore the concept of freedom in almost any of his works and manuscripts, i.e. he never really gave a definition and a thorough analysis of freedom. Nevertheless it is quite clear that freedom plays a peculiar role in many strategic points of his philosophy. We can say even more: the entire phenomenological enterprise is funded on freedom, since the so called “phenomenological reduction” is, according to Husserl himself, the result of an absolutely free act. But if freedom is necessary in order to have a genuine philosophical and phenomenological enquiry, shouldn’t this “condition of possibility” be queried and eventually elucidated? Or is freedom something which remains outside the boundaries of phenomenological investigation? I think that by following Husserl’s inquiries into the different levels of constitution of subjectivity it is possible to produce evidence in support of the claim that freedom is an apodictic fact, but a fact which, if correctly understood, has conditions as well as consequences which should not be neglected if we don’t want to miss freedom itself in our “human existence”.

We are still looking for a satisfactory definition of what makes an individual being a human individual. The understanding of human beings in terms of organism does not seem to be satisfactory, because of its reductionistic flavor. It satisfies our need for autonomy and benefits our lives thanks to its medical applications, but it disappoints our needs for conscious and free, self-determination. For similar reasons, i.e. because of its anti-libertarian tone, an organicistic understanding of the relationship between individual and society has also been rejected, although no truly satisfactory alternative for harmonizing individual and social wellness has been put forth. Thus, a reassessment of the very concepts of individual and organism is needed. In this book, the authors present a specific line of thought which started with Leibniz' concept of monad in 17th century, continued through Kant and Hegel, and as a result reached the first Eastern country to attempt to assimilate, as well as confront, with Western philosophy and sciences, i.e. Japan. The line of thought we are tracing has gone on to become one the main voices in current debates in the philosophy of biology, as well as philosophical anthropology, and social philosophy. As a whole, the volume offers a both historical, and systematic account of one specific understanding of individuals and their environment, which tries to put together its natural embedding, as well as its dialectical nature. Such a historical, systematic map will also allow to better evaluate how life sciences impact our view of our individual lives, of human activities, of institutions, politics, and, finally, of humankind in general.

In this article I try to illustrate the reasons why Husserl included such a metaphysically challenging concept as the monad in his phenomenology. I will first offer a brief historical reconstruction of that path that led Husserl to such an introduction, and then focus on some key features of the Husserlian monad (immortality and unbornness, epistemic substantiality, plurality of monads, and uniqueness of the objective world). I will finally turn to a reflection concerning the phenomenological tenability of Husserlian monadology and weigh its merits and shortcomings.

This article examines the theory of mind proposed by the esteemed Islamic philosopher, Mulla Sadra, through a phenomenological lens. We specifically focus on how Mulla Sadra’s framework addresses the question of the individual human mind and its intricate relationship with the body. While Mulla Sadra presents concepts that resonate with some of Husserl’s ‘monadological-phenomenological’ reflections, we argue that strict adherence to phenomenological methodology precludes acceptance of the metaphysical implications he draws concerning the individual mind’s connection to the totality of existence, including a presumed divine reality. Nonetheless, our comparative analysis with Mulla Sadra’s thought illuminates key aspects of Husserlian monadology and highlights the limitations of a rigorously phenomenological approach to purely metaphysical inquiries.

Sellars has taught us that we do not have direct epistemic access to sense data. Therefore, the latter cannot work as the bedrock of our knowledge. At the same time, through the myth of genius Jones, Sellars has tried to explain how we become able to rationally refer to sense data. What is more, it even seems that, following Jones’ teachings, the Rylean folk have become able to observe sense data. How could this be possible if sense data are merely mythical entities? By making use of some ideas and reflections from Husserl on perceptual experience, categorial intuition, and knowledge, I suggest a way to overcome the riddle. My solution, however, will partially contrast with Sellars’ idea that sense data are, in the end, something internal to the subject.

As Dieter Lohmar (Citation2002; Citation2012) has shown, in the Logical Investigation Husserl sketches a peculiar type of reduction, the so-called “Reduktion auf den reellen Bestand.” Husserl does not explicitly put this kind of reduction forward, though, and he does definitely not clarify how it works, and what its elements properly are. Lohmar proposes to understand it as a kind of empiricist reduction to mere sense-data. On the contrary, I believe that it should be considered as entailing also the apprehensional forms of sense-data, though not the so-called apprehensional senses. In this article, I will offer some arguments and textual evidence in favour of this claim, and I will conclude by proposing that, despite Husserl’s unclarity on the issue, the reduction to the real components of experience, rather than being simply an ancestor of the transcendental-phenomenological reduction, should be seen as the regulative model of all later forms of reduction.

We provide a phenomenological explanation of the particular function mental images play in the realization of enjoyment and their significance for human freedom on the basis of the idea, drawn from Sartre, that images are not things but rather a way consciousness behaves towards objects. The mental image’s matter, which consists of affectivity, knowledge, and kinaesthetic operations, allows imagination to conjure up an unreal item to satiate a desire. However, by foreshadowing enjoyment in the imaginary, the mental image urges consciousness toward a change in the world that would make that enjoyment real. This is accomplished through the development of tools, which rely on the ability to overcome not just a given situation but also courses of goal-oriented behaviour that have already been prepared by the environment. Through this creation, consciousness exerts its freedom within reality, and marks the world as meaningful.

Abstract:It has convincingly been asserted that only what is conceptually formed can enter the space of reasons, and that only within the latter can we properly speak of knowledge in a way that is specific of human nature. The author purports to show (1) that, even if true, this does not mean that only what is intrinsically conceptual can have epistemic efficacy, (2) that we are able rationally to see nonconceptual contents, and (3) that the "vision" of nonconceptual content plays an essentially role within the realm of epistemic rationality. Nonconceptual content is, indeed, given, and its resistance plays a fundamental role to allow us to know that we are in touch with the world.

Phenomenology tries to uncover the pre-linguistic foundation of logical operators, in order to show how our logical thinking is grounded in reality, and does not have a merely psychological value. If negation is grounded in the pre-predicative experience, though, it seems to follow that reality somehow contains something negative. It has been in order to avoid such consequence that Brentano has promoted a reform of ‘classical’ logic, which, among others, avoids negative terms. Husserl answered to such a reform with a partial counter-reform that preserves a more classical understanding of logic. His logical and phenomenological investigations recognize the logical value of negation as such. However, such a recognition does not imply an ontological, or better ‘meontological’, commitment. This is possible precisely thanks to a more carefully phenomenological description of the formation and the structure of negative judgments.

Especially after the disasters of WWII, the relationship between human nature and technology has mainly been discussed in “Promethean” terms. That is to say, it has been discussed as it concerns the capacity, and perhaps the necessity, of humans to think and act technically, i.e., by means of technical devices, as well as to technically transform the environment. Now, as a consequence of the more recent, impressive advancements and achievements in biotechnology, pharmaceutics, etc. the new questions in this field seem more reminiscent of the story of Icarus. The enigmatic core of this myth concerns the capacity to somehow change the human nature, the need to do so, and, aside from just the risks, what the goals of such modifications would be. In this article, a simultaneously conceptual and phenomenological analysis will be carried out regarding the relationship between technical capacities, technical products, human needs, and human desires. Although such an analysis should allow one to better frame also current questions concerning the ethical sides of technical (self-)interventions into human “nature”, the aim of this article is just to contribute to the clarification of the link between being human and technology.

In the present article, we aimed at describing the diagnostic process in Psychiatry through a phenomenological perspective. We have identified 4 core concepts which may represent the joints of a phenomenologically oriented diagnosis. The "tightrope walking" attitude refers to the psychiatrist's ability to swing between 2 different and sometimes contrasting tendencies (e.g., engagement and disengagement). The "holistic experience" includes all those intuitive, nonverbal, and pre-thematic elements that emerge in the early stages of the clinical encounter as an emanation of the atmospheric quality of the intersubjective space. The "co-construction of symptoms" regards the hermeneutic process behind psychiatric symptoms, involving both the patient as a self-interpreting agent and the clinician as a translator of his/her experience. Finally, by the "evolving typification" we mean that the closer the relationship becomes with the patient, the more specific and nuanced becomes the typification behind psychiatric diagnosis. Each of these concepts will be accompanied by an extract from a clinical case deriving from one of the authors' most recent clinical experiences.

In this paper, we will revisit the relation between the respective conceptions of pure experience of Nishida Kitaro and William James. As various authors have previously shown, comparing Nishida and James can not only help us better understand both of their specific understandings of pure experience, and consequently its position within their respective enterprises, but also give a platform with which to see how these two authors could contribute to contemporary discussions on philosophical methodology. However, despite the long history of comparative research on these two thinkers, there is still no consensus about the extent to which Nishida's philosophy actually resembles James' work at all. Was Nishida's interest in James' work found only in superficial similarities between two authors interested in overcoming the subject–object distinction? Or did Nishida attempt to somehow develop or radicalize James' work, taking his notion of pure experience into the realm of religion and metaphysics? In this contribution, we will agree with previous authors who have argued that Nishida is best understood as trying to go beyond or develop James' work. However, we will make this claim with the caveat that James had good reason not to take the avenues Nishida pursued, and that Nishida's attempt to radicalize some ideas in James may have led to some difficult points within his early philosophy.

Within the history of philosophy and across different cultures, few questions have been raised as frequently as what the realization of oneself means. Certainly, one of the very driving forces of philosophy seems to be the clarification of the self and its life. However, in spite of this, within recent years, there have been few serious critical and philosophical efforts to discuss what exactly it means to realize oneself. To this degree, there is a need to critically assess the meaning of self-realization. What we propose to do, then, is to tackle this problem, from a variety of viewpoints. It is from this starting point that we hope to introduce the sprawling question of self-realization, as well as its connection to a variety of intellectual traditions.

Recent discussions of self-realization have devolved into unscientific theories of self-help. However, this vague and often misused concept is connected to many important individual and social problems. As long as its meaning remains unclear, it can be abused for social, political, and commercial malpractices. To combat this issue, this book shares perspectives from scholars of various philosophical traditions. Each chapter takes new steps in asking what the meaning of self-realization is–both in terms of what it means to understand who or what one is, and also in terms of how one can, or should, fulfilll oneself. The conceptual elucidations achieved from both theoretical and practical perspectives allow for a more mature awareness of how to deal with discourses on self-realization and, in any case, can help to demystify the subject.