The history of phenomenology is usually portrayed within its methodological scope and the same goes for its turning points, such as the hermeneutical approach developed by Martin Heidegger. I argue, however, that Gustav Shpet’s hermeneutical phenomenology has an ontological bearing and its methodological acceptance is subsidiary. I extract textual pieces of evidence from his critical appraisal of Husserl’s Ideen I, i.e. Appearance and Sense (1914), as well as from his phenomenological essay, The…
Read moreThe history of phenomenology is usually portrayed within its methodological scope and the same goes for its turning points, such as the hermeneutical approach developed by Martin Heidegger. I argue, however, that Gustav Shpet’s hermeneutical phenomenology has an ontological bearing and its methodological acceptance is subsidiary. I extract textual pieces of evidence from his critical appraisal of Husserl’s Ideen I, i.e. Appearance and Sense (1914), as well as from his phenomenological essay, The Consciousness and its Owner (1916), in order to show that at the basis of hermeneutics as a method lies a hermeneutical being on its own. I support this claim by comparing in a topological-contemplative way—that is a methodological procedure found in Viorel Cernica’s work on history of Romanian philosophy—the ideas of Gustav Shpet and those of Martin Heidegger that converge on this point. I show that both of them conceived human subjectivity as being both unique and historical, a notion that denounces Husserl’s transcendental turn. However, I claim that this differentiation doesn’t imply a dissent from phenomenology, but rather its recasting into a different philosophical ethos.
