Auto-referentiality and Auto-affectivity as Competing Patterns of Reading of Descartes’s Cogito Conception: Transcendental-phenomenological Context
PDF (Українська)

Keywords

auto-referentiality, auto-affectivity, Cogito, phenomenology, otherness

Abstract views: 27
PDF Downloads: 7

How to Cite

Ilyina, A. (2020). Auto-referentiality and Auto-affectivity as Competing Patterns of Reading of Descartes’s Cogito Conception: Transcendental-phenomenological Context. Multiversum. Philosophical Almanac, 1(2), 69-96. https://doi.org/10.35423/2078-8142.2020.1.2.05

Abstract

The paper examines two alternative possibilities to interpret Cartesian Cogito conception: as auto-referential structure and as auto-affectivity. A context of analysis is transcendental-phenomenological view on Cartesian philosophy as on the origin of transcendental motive. A role of auto-referentiality principle in transcendental thinking is determined. In terms of transcendental discursive field the principles of auto- referentiality and auto-affectivity are compared. By investigation of perspectives offered by Henry and Marion on interpretation strategies as regards Cartesian approach, some moments of irrelevance of auto-affectional attitude to transcendental thinking criteria are brought to light. By contrast, an adequacy of auto-referential model to the transcendental framework is justified. The author concludes that in spite of seeming priority in the realm of transcendental discourse of auto-affection, stemming from peculiar to its essence radicalization of functional aspect of consciousness and elimination of risk of Cogito’s substantivation, implied for its part in the structure of auto-referentiality, the last is more suitable for the claims of transcendental thinking because of retaining of «relation-difference» principle, constitutive for transcendental thought – which in a context of auto-affection turns out to be taken down. In sum, albeit the fact that both the treatment of ego cogito as immanent subjectivity and absolutization of consciousness’ act importance (peculiar to conception of cogito as auto-affection) seem to be the moments of hyperbolization of Husserl’s critical interpretation of Descartes by Henry and Marion, nevertheless reduction of intentionality and of any objectness whatever, following from this aspects of auto-affectivity, threatens with loss of concern to other, which underlies transcendental-phenomenological thinking. Instead, some quasi-objectivity inherent to auto-reference (“objectivity als ob”) allows save such significant to transcendental discourse predicates as heterogeneity, exteriority, distinctiveness etc.

https://doi.org/10.35423/2078-8142.2020.1.2.05
PDF (Українська)

References

Balibar, E. (2011). «Ego sum, ego existo»: Descartes au point d'heresie. In: E. Balibar. Citoyen sujet et autres essais d’anthropologie philosophique (pp. 87-120). Paris: PUF.: 102-103

Balibar, É. (2012). Kant, critique du « paralogisme » de Descartes. Le « je pense » (Ich denke) comme sujet et comme substance. Intellectica. Revue de l'Association pour la Recherche Cognitive, 57(1): Les lieux de l’esprit, 21-33.

Boos, W. (1983). A Self-Referential 'Cogito'. Philosophical Studies: An Inter-national Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 44(2), 269-290.

Brinkmann, K. 1997. Hegel sur le cogito cartésien. In: Actes du colloque inter-national Descartes, 52(3), 639-652.

Derrida, J. (2008). The Animal That Therefore I Am (D. Wills, Trans). New York: Fordham University Press, 176 p.: 94

Descartes, R. (1996). Meditationes de prima philosophia. In: R. Descartes, OEuvres complètes, in 11vol. (Ch. Adam, & P. Tannery, Eds.). T. VII: Medita-tiones de prima philosophia, Obiectiones, Responsio, Epistola ad Dinet (pp. 3-90). Paris: Vrin.

Hart, J.G. (1998). Intentionality, Phenomenality, and Light. In: D. Zahavi (Ed.). Self-awareness, Temporality, and Alterity. Central Topics in Phenome-nology (pp. 59-82). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.: 81

Henry, M. (1963). L'essence de la manifestation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 911 p.: 261

Henry, M. (2001). La Barbarie. Paris: Puf – Quadrige.

Hetherington, S. (2009). The Cogito: Indubitability without Knowledge? Prin-cipia: An International Journal of Epistemology, 13(1), 85-92.

Hintikka, J. (1963). Cogito, ergo sum as an inference and a performance. Phil-osophical Review, 72, (4), 487-496.

Ilyina, A. (2015). Deconstructive Turn in Transcendental Thinking. Sententi-ae, 33(2), 125-148. [In Ukrainian].

Ilyina, A. (2019). Derrida as an object of the history of philosophy: the concept of aporia in terms of the universality problem. Sententiae, 38(1), 6-26. [In Ukrainian].

Ilyina, A. (2020). Descartes sub specie transcendentalis: Kantian and Phenom-enological Retrospectives. Δόξα / Doxa. Zbirnyk naukovyh prac’ z filosofii ta filologii, 1(33), 20-49. [In Ukrainian].

Janicaud, D. et al. (2000). Phenomenology and the «Theological Turn»: The French Debate (B. G. Prusak, J. L. Kosky, Trans.). New York: Fordham Uni-versity Press, 245 p.

Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason (P. Guyer, A. Wood, Trans:). Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 512 p.

Laktionova, A. (2015). «Cogito ergo sum» I filosofija dii [«Cogito Ergo Sum» and Philosophy of Action]. Sententiae, 32(1), 88-99.

Lawlor, L. (2019). Jacques Derrida. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso-phy (Fall 2019 Edition), E. N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/derrida

Marion, J.-L. (1999). Does the Cogito Affect Itself? Generosity and Phenome-nology: Remarks on Michel Henry’s Interpretation of the Cartesian Cogito. In: Marion, Jean-Luc Cartesian Questions: Method and Metaphysics. (D.Garber, Trans.) (pp. 96-117). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Mehl, E. (2012). Auto-affection et cogito. Sur le cartésianisme de Michel Hen-ry. In: S. Ebbersmeyer (Ed.). Emotional Minds. The passions and the limits of pure inquiry in early modern philosophy (pp. 31-50). Berlin: de Gruyter: 32

Morin, E. (1990). Computo, ergo sum. Chimères,N° 8, 1-20. Retrieved from https://www.persee.fr/doc/chime_0986-6035_1990_num_8_1_1161: 6

Savatovsky, D. (1985). Le cogito est-il un énoncé performatif? Langages, 77, 55-73.

Staudigl, M. (2012). From the ‘‘metaphysics of the individual’’ to the critique of society: on the practical significance of Michel Henry’s phenomenology of life. Continental Philosophy Review, 45(3), 339-361.

Welten, R. (2010). L’âme cartésienne de la phénoménologie. In: Moran, D., Sepp, H. R. (Eds.). Phenomenology,Volume 4: Selected Essays from Northern Europe, Traditions, Transitions and Challenges (pp. 275-303). Zeta Books.

Williams, F., Kirkpatrick, R. (1960). Translators' introduction. In: .J.-P. Sartre, The Transcendence of the Ego (F. Williams, R. Kirkpatrick, Trans.) (pp. 11-27). New York: Hill and Wang.

Zahavi, D. (2007). Subjectivity and Immanence in Michel Henry. In: Grøn, A., Damgaard, I., Overgaard, S. (eds.), Subjectivity and transcendence (pp. 133-147). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.