|The line under metaphysics, or notes to the history of subjectivity|
|Title in the language of publication:||Черта под метафизикой, или К истории субъективности|
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Institute of Philosophy of the Saint Petersburg State University.
Address: 7/9 Universitetskaya emb., St. Petersburg 199034, Russia.
|Document type:||Research Article|
The “line under metaphysics” separates the time of metaphysics from the post-metaphysical era. It accomplishes the metaphysical history of the West and opens the post-metaphysical history, since it is the understanding of Being that is the case, while understanding is anyway an experience of one’s self, an experience of self-elevation which leads us “into the self”, makes us “experienced”, that is, ourselves as historical beings, finite in the radical sense that the very being of ours is the time. The post-metaphysical era has no difference in this aspect from the metaphysical era besides that the understanding, which came in the end of XIX — beginning of XX century, has clearly contoured the whole Platonic and Aritotelic science of beings (entities) as beings in its fairly described and interpreted onto-theo-logical carcass. It is right the intellectual act of valor behind this description that has made the previous metaphysics an inexhaustible source of ideas and senses once born within it but having remained unthought due to that it was shaped and developed predominantly as a research of the great corner question of essence of beings as a contemplative question. With only the “retreat” to Presocratics, the modern thought could become contemporary to itself, namely post-metaphysical. The great figures of the past-era philosophers disclose the “post-metaphysical” potential of its thought: they are “post” themselves for they are in front of us, if we understand them or in any case honestly attempt to understand, while having forgotten any “overcoming of metaphysics” with the only duty to overcome ourselves.
All the sonorous “turns” (practical, linguistical, performative etc.), backslides and refusals of metaphysics are orchestrated by this evidence revealed together with the disclosure of metaphysicality of metaphysics: the truth-correspondence is just one of the forms of truth-unhiddenness (ἀλήθεια), which is historically specified and locally confined. This, however, does not mean that one can forget about the truth and the enthroned “post-truth” era allows chatting whatever things on whatever things.
Essence, beings, Being, subjectum, substance, Cartesian subject, truth-correspondence, truth-unhiddenness.
Aristoteles (1983) “Ethica Nicomachea” (tr. by N. V. Braginskaya). Aristoteles. Soch.: v 4-kh t. T. 4 [Works in 4 vol. Vol. 4]. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 90 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 90]): 53–293. (in Russian).
Boethius (1990) “Contra Eutychen et Nestorium” (tr. by T. Yu. Boroday). Boethius. “Uteshenie filosofiei” i drugie traktaty [“The Consolation of Philosophy” and other treatises]. Moscow: Nauka (Pamyatniki filosofskoi mysli [Monuments of philosophical thought]): 167–189. (in Russian).
Chernyakov A. G. (2001) Ontologiya vremeni. Bytie i vremya v filosofii Aristotelya, Gusserlya i Hajdeggera [Ontology of time. Being and time in the philosophy of Aristotle, Husserl and Heidegger]. St. Petersburg: Vysshaya religiozno-filosofskaya shkola. (in Russian).
Hegel G. W. F. (1974) Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse. Erster Teil. Die Wissenschaft der Logik (tr. by B. Stolpner). Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 63 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 63]). (in Russian).
Hegel G. W. F. (1992) Phänomenologie des Geistes (tr. by G. Shpet). St. Petersburg: Nauka (Slovo o sushchem [Word on the Being]). (in Russian).
Heidegger M. (1967) Sein und Zeit. Elfte, unveränderte Auflage. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Heidegger M. (1997a) Sein und Zeit (tr. by V. V. Bibikhin). Moscow: Ad Marginem. (in Russian).
Heidegger M. (1997b). “Die onto-theo-logische Verfassung der Metaphysik”. Heidegger M. Identitat und Differenz (tr. by A. Denezhkin). Moscow: Gnozis; Logos: 29–59. (in Russian).
Heidegger M. (2009) Parmenides (tr. by A. P. Shurbelev). St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal. (in Russian).
Heidegger M. (2013) Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik: Welt, Endlichkeit, Einsamkeit (tr. by V. V. Bibikhin, A. V. Akhutin, A. P. Shurbelev). St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal. (in Russian).
Herrmann F.-W. v. (2000) Der Begriff der Phänomenologie bei Heidegger und Husserl (tr. by I. Inishev). Tomsk: Vodolej. (in Russian).
Koretskaya M. A. (2019) Ambivalentnost’ vlasti. Mifologiya, ontologiya, praksis [Ambivalence of power. Mythology, ontology, praxis]. St. Petersburg: Aletejya (Nezavisimyj al’yans [Independent alliance]) (forthcoming). (in Russian).
Leibnitius G. G. (1984) “De modo distinguendi phaenomena realia ab imaginaries” (tr. by G. G. Mayorov). Leibnitius G. G. Soch.: v 4 t. T. 3. [Works in 4 vol. Vol. 3]. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 92 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 92]): 110–114. (in Russian).
Ortega y Gasset J. (1991) “Ideas y creencias” (tr. by V. G. Reznik). Ortega y Gasset J. Estetika. Filosofiya kul’tury [Aesthetics. Philosophy of culture]. Moscow: Iskusstvo (Istoriya estetiki v pamyatnikah i dokumentah [History of aesthetics in monuments and documents]): 462–492. (in Russian).
Plato (1902) “Respublica”. Platonis opera. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit Ioannes Burnet. Tomus IV. Tetralogia VIII Continens. Oxford: Clarendon Press (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis).
Plato (1993) “Respublica”. (tr. by A. N. Egunov). Plato. Sobr. soch.: v 4 t. T. 3 [Collected Works in 4 vol. Vol. 3]. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 117 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 117]): 79–420. (in Russian).
Pogonyailo A. G. (2017a) Myshlenie i sozercanie. Materialy k lekciyam po istorii filosofii [Understanding and Con-templation. Materials of Lectures on History of Philosophy]. St. Petersburg: Nauka (Slovo o sushchem [Word on the Being]). (in Russian).
Pogonyailo A. G. (2017b) “Reviews of the book: Taguchi S. Das Problem des “Ur-Ich” bei Edmund Husserl. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006 (Phänomenologica. Bd. 178)”. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology. Vol. 6. No. 2: 376–379. (in Russian).
Taguchi S. (2006) Das Problem des “Ur-Ich” bei Edmund Husserl. Dordrecht: Springer (Phänomenologica. Bd. 178).
© Alexander Pogonyailo, 2018