Kantian Journal 39 (4):29-61 (2020)

Authors
Alexei Krioukov
The Sociological Institute Of The RAS
Abstract
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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5922/0207-6918-2020-4-2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,975
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Critique of Pure Reason.I. Kant - 1787/1998 - Philosophy 59 (230):555-557.
Discourse on Method.René Descartes - 1900 - The Monist 10:472.
The idea of phenomenology.Edmund Husserl, William P. Alston & George Nakhnikian - 1964 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 20 (4):538-538.
German Philosophy 1760-1860.Terry Pinkard - 2007 - Filosoficky Casopis 55:775-778.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Eugena Finka rozumienie Ja transcendentalnego.Piotr Łaciak - 2011 - Folia Philosophica 29:205--223.
The Play of Being and Nothing.Catherine Homan - 2019 - Philosophy Today 63 (1):35-54.
The Transcendental Object.Donald R. Dunbar - 1975 - Idealistic Studies 5 (2):127-138.
La Paideia Phenomenologique Entre Husserl Et Fink.Reza Rokoee - 2020 - Studia Phaenomenologica 20:101-120.
Kant's Theory of the Self. [REVIEW]Colin Marshall - 2010 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18 (5):950-952.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-01-13

Total views
8 ( #1,002,300 of 2,498,168 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #140,331 of 2,498,168 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes