Ion Copoeru

The paper outlines Schutz’s phenomenology of law in the context of the transformation of positivistic practices in a post-totalitarian society. His major contribution is seen in the disentanglement of social phenomena from any form of naturalness by incorporating the dimension of meaning and interpretation into them. This philosophical gesture is made possible by renouncing any theory of transcendent ground(s) of a pre-formed order (Section 1) and leads to an interpretive concept of law, in which the reciprocity of perspectives play the major role. The conclusions are pointing toward a phenomenological concept of law able to take our freedom seriously.

(Introduction) The question of heterogeneity does not appear at first glance to be a genuinely phenomenological problem and not even a problem in general. It seems to go without saying that there is “coupling” (Paarung), association, fusion, synthesis or in general any form connection between different data of consciousness, all as it seems obvious (at least from Husserl) that there must be objectities so that we can talk about knowledge and truth. After Kant we got so used to synthetic formations that we hardly think of their possibilities in principle and the problems that these are called upon to resolve. Phenomenology does nothing else but describing the synthetic process, starting with its most elementary (pre-reflective) levels, aiming thus to completely elucidate the constitution of the objectity and, by that, the functioning and the rights of reason. Now, such elucidation does not only involve an approach aimed at the how, but also, the why of this process. In other words, our attention and our theoretical interest must be directed not only towards the course of the constitutive synthesis, but also on what motivates her intrinsically. Questions like "why should he be there in general an objectity? " or "is it principally possible to associate in one form or another data belonging to to the same class or to different classes? ”, questions which are de jure and which therefore refer rather to the legality of the constitution than its more or less contingent functioning, cannot in any way be excluded from the scope of the phenomenological questioning. As much as the epistemological ideal of phenomenological description required above all that it avoid any form of abstraction and idealization, this class of questions is, if not excluded, at least left in shadow.

There are many ways of interpreting the behaviours related to substance misuse and addiction, which can be sort out as three basic models: biomedical, legal, and social. They are corresponding to approaches built in different epistemic and professional frameworks, such as medicine, law, and social work. Confronted with the experience of addiction, these models appear as pre-determined by a specific scientific or professional ideology; they presuppose a pre-understanding of the phenomena. I directed, therefore, my investigation on those phenomenological paths that might lead to, and circumscribe the experience of addiction and I propose an analytical framework based on three major phenomenological perspectives: descriptive, genetic, and inter-relational. This paper argues in favour of defining addiction without making reference to a form of failure, psycho-somatic or existential. On the contrary, it concludes that there is a need to adopt a definition of addiction which holds at its core the idea of empowering addicted persons, of re-constructing their capacity to take decisions about their own lives.

The Husserlian concept of intersubjectivity has been criticized for the fact that it belongs exclusively to a philosophy of representation and to a solipsistic consciousness. In this conceptual framework, the other (ego) appears to be constituted by a singular ego through the synthesis of the series of its appearances (perceptive or imaginative representations) and by extrapolation (transposition) of its own “sphere of originality”. For this theory of constitution seemed to be essentially related to the concept of objective representation that post-Husserlian phenomenologists have criticized and eventually replaced with another, in which affectivity is supposed to open the way to otherness, as we can see in Heidegger, Levinas, Merleau-Ponty, Michel Henry or Jacques Derrida. Our hypothesis is that the difficulty does not regard the theory of constitution, but the fact that the other and the community that he forms with me and with many others are thought only in terms of representation. Even those who discharged the “abstract” objective representation of Husserl’s function and replaced it with “affectivity” were not finally able to overpass the representational framework, because the other has always been for me (and vice-versa, I have been for him) only a “picture” (no matter whether representative or “affective”), something which simply “stands” before my eyes. But this is certainly a reductive way of understanding the relation between the I and the other. If we focus our attention on the phenomenon of community and not on some interpretations or simplifications of it, we realize that it is not sufficient that objective representation or affectivity or any other faculty constitute or disclose the other for the I (even if that is a necessary starting point). As a multilayered concept, “intersubjectivity”, in Husserl’s sense, is a system of transitions from mere appearance to transcendence, from passivity to activity, from cognitive and affective representation to volition and action. As soon as we see the relation between the I and the other as active, as an influence or intrusion of one consciousness in another, as an intention to “move” the other, to determine him to assume or to begin an action (a real one, effected in real life), the concept of intersubjectivity changes drastically, even though the “representation” of the other before the I and of the I in the eyes of the other remains a necessary interface. Accordingly, constitutive phenomenology has to take into consideration volition, action and communication not simply as extensions of the constitution of the thing. A reform of the theory of constitution, or rather its enlargement, to encompass this new type of “objectivity” (praxis) which would thus offer an adequate conceptual framework is strongly recommended.