Bernardo Ainbinder

In his paper, Vardoulakis traces a genealogy of the concept of the ‘ineffectual’ that dominates many discussions in continental political philosophy back to Heidegger’s reading of Aristotle in the early 1920s. Although I sympathize with Vardoulakis’s suspicions concerning the ‘ineffectual’, I think his genealogy misses the main aspects of Heidegger’s analysis of praxis. In particular, Vardoulakis’s reading relies on two fundamentally ill-conceived assumptions: (a) that Heidegger’s thought can be read as a continuous endorsement of a series of fundamental claims, in particular, the rejection of instrumentality, the critique of modern technical thinking, and a praise of a certain form of ineffectual meditative thought as an alternative; and (b) that Heidegger’s reading of Aristotle in general and of the Nichomachean Ethics in particular has, as its main aim, to ground in Greek thinking such form of ineffectual meditative thought. In this comment, I will challenge both these assumptions. I will claim that Heidegger’s project in the 1920s is oriented to provide an answer to the question that shaped the debate between Marburg Neo-Kantians, on the one hand, and Husserl, on the other: namely, how is it possible to account for lived experience and its categorial articulation. For Neo-Kantians such as Natorp (e.g. [1912: 28]), all conceptual understanding is an understanding of objects. Subjectivity as the pure form of activity—the Kantian I think—could not be understood but merely postulated. Hence, it is in principle impossible to account for subjectivity without objectifying it. This was a serious and potentially devastating objection to phenomenology’s fundamental project. It is in this context that Heidegger turns his attention to Aristotle’s ethics, precisely as a way of accounting for the kind of relationship between my understanding of experience and experience itself. Aristotelian praxis (and phronesis as the kind of ‘knowledge’ associated with praxis) provides a model for such understanding. Therefore, Heidegger has no interest in ethics or in developing a theory of action in the 1920s in general or when reading Aristotle in particular. Vardoulakis’s understanding of Heidegger’s mistranslation—even if there is one—can only make sense in hindsight, when reading those texts in the light of the later Heidegger’s interest in avoiding technical calculation and promoting a meditative thinking. If we abandon Vardoulakis’s assumptions, Heidegger’s analysis of praxis and, in particular, his reading of Aristotle’s hou heneka can be understood under a different light. Understanding the meaningful structure of the world as existing for the sake (hou heneka, umwillen) of Dasein is not so much a reflection on the role of ends in action—technical or otherwise—but an analysis of the way in which any understanding of the world and of our actions within it is an understanding of who we are and of the structures that constitute the very being of our subjectivity. This may suggest that there is in the early Heidegger a way out of the dilemma between ineffectuality and instrumentalism, a path that, perhaps, provides an alternative for contemporary ethics and political thinking.

In this paper, we examine the metaphilosophical relevance of the phenomenon of sleep, suggesting that it has the potential to not only enrich the analysis of limit cases but also to test some of the ideas concerning the possibility of naturalizing phenomenology and its limits. Insofar as sleeping allows for both a first personal and a third personal description and challenges the usual primacy of the first-person point of view, exploring sleeping under the prism of its import for the phenomenological method allows to illuminate the relationships between a first personal transcendental phenomenology and a third personal naturalized one. We do this by examining Husserl’s treatment of sleep as a limit-case, and the problem of accounting for deep sleep from a first-personal perspective. Drawing from a Heidegger-inspired account of sleep, we argue that sleep demands for a type of approach that can be fairly described as ontological, and which reveals a new understanding of subjectivity as a dynamic unity of different modes of being. Although this approach challenges a first-personal based approach, it does not, however support the naturalization of phenomenology or undermine the project of a transcendental philosophy of experience.

El tratamiento heideggeriano del problema de la vida es uno de los másenigmáticos y controversiales puntos de su obra. Mucho se ha cuestionadoel hecho de que Heidegger disocie, en particular a partir de la analíticaexistenciaria del Dasein, a éste del ámbito de lo viviente. Contra dichaslecturas, me propongo aquí mostrar que el problema de la vida es centralen la obra temprana de Heidegger y que sólo a partir de una adecuadaelucidación de su abordaje se hace comprensible no sólo el recorrido quelleva a Ser y Tiempo sino también una serie de tesis centrales de esta obra,en particular aquella referida precisamente a al consideración del Daseincomo un ente privilegiado. Sostendré que es precisamente porque el Daseinmuestra de un modo eminente la movilidad propia de la vida - y no porque,como suele creerse, se distancia radicalmente de lo vital - que es posibledistinguirlo metodológicamente del resto de lo viviente.

RESUMEN El artículo sostiene que la concepción fenomenològica de la justificación epistémica y su modo de elucidar la objetividad depende de la vigencia de un cierto ideal de racionalidad como ideal ético que orienta nuestras acciones. Se trata de lo que Husserl denomina el ideal de renovación, que cumple una doble función: a) da cuenta de la tendencia normativa a la corrección sobre la que se asienta la comprensión husserliana de la objetividad, y b) da cuenta de la motivación sobre la que se asienta la adopción de una actitud peculiar, la actitud fenomenológica o trascendental, que caracteriza al quehacer filosófico. ABSTRACT The article argues that the phenomenological conception of epistemic justification and its account of objectivity depends on the validity of an ideal of rationality as the ethical ideal that guides our actions. This is what Husserl calls the ideal of renewal, that fulfills a double function: a) it accounts for the normative tendency to self-correction on which the Husserlian understanding of objectivity is based, and b) it accounts for the motivation for the adoption of the properly philosophical stance, namely, the phenomenological or transcendental attitude.

Can Husserl’s phenomenology be understood as a variety of transcendental philosophy in Kant’s sense? To compare their uses of this term would require examining the various places where Husserl’s and Kant’s paths seem to diverge.Husserl’s insistence on including within the field of phenomenological inquiry allegedly causal, pre-personal, cognitive mechanisms seems to be one such divergence. In particular, it conflicts with Kant’s clear-cut distinction between questions of genesis and questions of validity. In this chapter, I claim that Husserl’s genetic analysis - at least in part - can be understood as a way of defending a transcendental perspective in the strong sense and of overcoming some of the flaws that he found in Kant’s critical philosophy. I will claim that Husserl’s appeal to mechanisms is transcendentally motivated: if transcendental philosophy is the inquiry into the conditions of possibility of cognition in terms of the justification of the validity of our claims to knowledge, analyzing the mechanisms involved and their transcendental role contributes to understanding what rational grounding is and how rational norms can inform our cognitive processes.

El presente artículo se propone analizar una serie de llamativas coincidencias entre el pensamiento tardío de Husserl y el pensamiento temprano de Heidegger –en particular en torno a tópicos como la muerte, la finitud, la negatividad y la posibilidad– a partir de la puesta en primer plano de un problema metodológico crucial para la fenomenología: el de la legitimación de las propias descripciones del ámbito de la subjetividad originaria. Ello conduce a Husserl, pretendo mostrar, al abandono de una noción estrecha de donación y legitimación asociada a la intuitividad y al desarrollo de una fenomenología constructiva centrada en la pregunta por lo inconstituible y por el modo en que la esfera propiamente constituyente puede darse, si bien siempre indirectamente, en la experiencia, en el sentido de lo que Montavont ha llamado un “trascendental a posteriori”. Es allí donde las coincidencias con Heidegger saldrán a la luz.

En este artículo introductorio, exploro el sentido de la influencia de Kant en la filosofía de Heidegger, y en particular examino el significado de su afirmación tardía según la cual "la ontología fundamental no es otra cosa que filosofía trascendental". Sostengo que, para dar sentido a esta afirmación, no tendremos que limitarnos a la lectura atenta de Heidegger sobre Kant a finales de la década de 1920, sino que nos centraremos en sus primeros trabajos sobre lógica y en su redescubrimiento de Aristóteles. Creo que, al hacerlo, Heidegger, fuertemente influenciado por el neokantismo y, en particular, por Emil Lask, llega a la idea de que la pregunta kantiana acerca del campo trascendental como un campo de validez solo puede responderse si planteamos preguntas a priori sobre el modo de ser de ese campo y la forma en que las determinaciones ontológicas emergen como condiciones de posibilidad para nuestra experiencia de los objetos.

In this paper, I will tackle a question that has been absent in the literature, namely, what is Heidegger’s conception of colour-perception. Heidegger himself, who discusses at length other kinds of experiences, is silent about the topic. There may a be a good reason for that: since he insists on the primacy of meaningful holistic coping with the world, considering colours as an isolated topic may well be the result of adopting a theoretical privative point of view on experience that Heidegger rejects. I think this approach to the problem is wrongheaded. Heidegger’s description of experience does not privilege some phenomena (say tools or meanings) vis-à-vis others (things, colours and the like) but a way of understanding experience in general (as organized in terms of a whole of meaningful relations where each single thing is defined by its normative import for the whole) vis-à-vis a way of understanding it in terms of atomic items and stratified properties. I will call Heidegger’s conception of experience a normative conceptual one (see Golob S, Heidegger on concepts, freedom and normativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014). Against this background, in this paper I will explore what Heidegger has to say about colours. In particular, I will claim: (1). that Heidegger’s description of Umsicht, i.e. the way of coping with the world as a meaningful whole, is not limited to the typical forms of practical coping he explicitly mentions but can be extended to the analysis of basic cases such as colour-perception. (2). that such analyses provides some new and interesting insights into what perceiving colours means (some surprising points of contact with Sellars’ analysis in Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind may be drawn here). (3). that colours provide a prime example of Heidegger’s normative conceptual conception of experience. (4). that some Heidegger-inspired approaches to the topic such as Kelly’s are misguided. Kelly (The Philos Rev 110(3):397–420, 2001a; Philos Phenomenol Res 62(3):601–608, 2001b) claimed that colour perception is a very good candidate to deny conceptualism, i.e. the thesis that contents of experience involve a form of articulation that is at least similar to the one expressed in judgment. I will claim, on the contrary, that colour perception is an excellent candidate to show in which sense conceptualism is true, precisely by analyzing Kelly’s examples of colour sorting.

Recently, Emil Lask’s work has been the object of renewed interest. As it has been noted, Lask’s work is much closer to phenomenology than that of his fellow Neo-Kantians. Many recent contributions to current discussions on this topic have compared his account of logic to Husserl’s. Less attention has been paid to Lask’s original metaphilosophical insights. In this paper, I explore Lask’s conception of transcendental philosophy to show how it led him to a phenomenological conversion. Lask found in Husserl’s Logical Investigations the possibility of grounding transcendental philosophy in purely objective terms, thus avoiding any risk of psychologism. But he also concluded that the tools found in Logical Investigations needed to be complemented by a method which would inquire back fr om the constituted to the constituting and a way of grounding such a methodological move in experience itself. Lask then provided a model for reduction and motivation without bringing a transcendental ego into the picture.