Alexei Krioukov

Alexei Krioukovs Studie widmet sich einem der sowohl interessantesten als auch in theoretischer Hinsicht schwierigsten Themen der zeitgenossischen Philosophie: dem Problem der Intersubjektivität. In praktischem Sinn handelt es sich dabei um die Beziehung zwischen Menschen (Subjekten). Was alltäglich nicht zu beweisen ist, bildet auf theoretischer Ebene ein grundsätzliches Problem: Wer sind die Subjekte der Intersubjektivität? Auf welche Weise, mit welchem Recht und mit welcher Methode kann man einen Bezug zwischen diesen Subjekten rechtfertigen? Alexei Krioukov geht detailliert auf diese Fragen ein und diskutiert sie ausführlich anhand der Theorien von Husserl und Sartre.

In my talk I would like to discuss a topic concerning the idea of the mental experience as an experiment in the transcendental philosophy. One can see a big difference between two branches of knowledge: humanitarian sciences and „exact“ sciences. The main difference consists in the fact that the experimental dates of the exact sciences can be verified by other researchers, but the mental dates in the mind of one humanitarian researcher cannot be repeated in the mind of another. It allows for the skeptics to say that the humanitarian sciences cannot be a real science. The modern German philosopher Lambert Wiesing asserts that in the field of transcendental philosophy we have something like an experience in the usual sciences. It is called the „eidetic variation“ (eidetische Variation). Three principles of the method are of great value. They are: self-reflection, phantasy, and self-clarification. In my report I am going to, firstly, clarify the principles of „eidetic variation“ in Husserl’s phenomenology, and secondly relate this to the methods found in German transcendental Idealism. I see three interpretations of the term „eidetic variation“: as a synonym of the transcendental reduction, as achieving an eidos of the thing and the transcendental ego itself, and as something that can be held in a phantasy. The same method is used in German idealism (by Fichte for example). The main outcome of my talk should be, that if we accept an „eidetic variation“ as a transcendental method, we can explain, or at least have the chance, how to build the abstract category and understand such abstract items like beauty and general philosophical notions.

A genesis of the ideas concerning Husserl’s concepts of time and reflective structure of consciousness is analysed in this article. There will be taken into account in the article three main texts: ”Vorlesungenzur Phanomenologie des inneren Zeitbewusstseins”, ”Bernauer Manuskripte” and ”C-Manuskripte”. Next topics will be discussed: reflexive structure of consciousness as genetic problem, Ego as an emanate cen-ter of time construction, possibility of the achievement of hyletical, non-reflexive consciousness structure.

This study aims, first, to delimit the seemingly synonymous concepts of “phenomenon” and “appearance” and second, to trace the functions of each in Kant’s philosophy and the phenomenological tradition. The analy­sis is based on Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and the central works of Edmund Husserl and Eugen Fink. Kant does not explicitly distinguish the two terms and only speaks about phenomena when he deals with the categorial application of reason. With Husserl, appearance is linked with the area of the natural attitude while the phenomenon is absolute. Fink’s position is interesting in that it differs from the views of the main representatives of transcendental philosophy, Kant and Husserl. According to Fink, appearing is the foundation of the fact that what exists is and that appearing is being. Fink takes a different approach to the meanings of appearance as opposing the thing in itself which possesses true but unknowable being and appearance as taking place in the “relative” sphere of the natural attitude : with Fink, appearance turns out to be the condition of the existence of objects. Appearance, understood through the prism of the human being which perceives something as Vorschein, implies an inherently open world. Following Fink, I analyse these provisions and examine, first, light as the metaphysical source of cognition, second, the human being as a special kind of being, third, the pre-Socratic treatment of being and, fourth, the formation of a distinct phenomenological idiom. I come to the conclusion that the metaphysical-ontological method of phenomenological analysis of appearance proposed by Fink affords a new insight into the a priori principle and the nature of Kant’s “thing in itself” and proposes a new grounding of Husserl’s thesis which questions Kant’s agnosticism.