Bóg spoza nawiasu egzystencji. Max Scheler – mistyka czy fenomenologia aktowego zjednoczenia?

This article presents in the first part the concept of Schelerian phenomenology of religion and claims that pre‐phenomenon of Holiness could not be take in the bracket of existence as usual because the religious act raised by Holiness itself is an heteronomic act of God‐Holiness realized in the man and giving evidence of the existence of its Reasoner. In the second part of this article two types of unity are presented: unity due to joint feeling with others (unmittelbares Mitfühlen — “Two parents stand beside the dead body of a beloved child”) and unity due to co‐operation of personal acts (Mitvollzug — “I live, yet not I, but Christ in me”). This two types of unities present the Other in a primordial way, which launched several criticism against Max Scheler’s mysticism. Phenomenology of act and mysticism seems to merge together in one point, calling Maieutic Birth, a their method becomes enactment of meaning (Vollzugstheorie der Bedeutung — Karl Friedrich Gethmann)

Pomiędzy fenomenologią religii a mistyką świadectwa. Edyta Stein -versus Max Scheler i Martin Heidegger

This article begins with the presentation of three versions of phenomenology of religion shown as a maieutic turn in phenomenology: in case of Martin Heidegger,a Dasein as an enactment, in case of Max Scheler, a Person as an act. The second part of this work depicts Stein’s way towards God and tries to reconstruct her account of mysticalexperience based on her encounter with the thought of Saint John of the Cross. From a theoretical point of view, Edith Stein’s purpose seems to be limited, yet not in the merits of the case. Testimonial stays the only real way of experiencing God and reporting on His presence.This article begins with the presentation of three versions of phenomenology of religion shown as a maieutic turn in phenomenology: in case of Martin Heidegger,a Dasein as an enactment, in case of Max Scheler, a Person as an act. The second part of this work depicts Stein’s way towards God and tries to reconstruct her account of mysticalexperience based on her encounter with the thought of Saint John of the Cross. From a theoretical point of view, Edith Stein’s purpose seems to be limited, yet not in the merits of the case. Testimonial stays the only real way of experiencing God and reporting on His presence

Majeutyczny zwrot fenomenologii

Gut bekannt sind die Beziehungen zwischen Phänomenologie und Hermeneutik. Paul Ricoeur nannte bekanntlich die Hermeneutik ein Pfropfen auf dem Bau der Phänomenologie. Aus der hermeneutischen Perspektive wurde die Phänomenologie für ihre These einer vermeintlichen Voraussetzugslosigkeit von Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty oder Gadamer kritisiert, und ihre Geschichtlichkeit, Sprachlichkeit und Situationsbezogenheit ans Tageslicht gebracht. Die Phänomenologie vollzog hiermit eine hermeneutische Wende. Die in ihr implizierten maieutische Tendenzen kamen jedoch nicht zu einem gleichrangigen Durchbruch trotz vielen großartigen Entwürfen, sei es einer Phänomenkonzeption mit einer starken Akzentuierung des Vollzugsinnes und einer sogenannten Vollzugstheorie der Bedeutung (Gethmann) bei Heidegger, sei es einer Philosophie als Aktion bei Dilthey, sei es einer Vorbildkonzeption samt ihrer Forderung der Gefolgschaft bei Scheler. Eine maieutische Wende der Phänomenologie bleibt immer noch aus, und zwar obwohl viele maieutischen Tendenzen gleichzeitig in der Hermeneutik immer deutlicher wurden, sowohl bei Gadamer in seiner Anwendungvoraussetzung (Applikation) als auch bei Ricoeur in seiner dritten Mimesis als einer Refiguration. In dem darauffolgenden Text wird eine maieutische Wende der Phänomenologie skizziert, die sich für eine maieutische Wahrheitskonzeption stark machen will, in der vordergründig nicht abstrakte Inhalte zum Vorschein gebracht werden sollen sondern ihre adäquate, existentielle Aneignungsart im Focus stehen soll (gemäß dem Kierkegaardschen Postulat wonach das Wie der Wahrheit ist die Wahrheit oder mit Heidegger formuliert ein Kennen ist ein Können, wobei auf die Ähnlichkeit dieser Konzeption mit ihrer pragmatischen Version bei Ch. Peirce Bezug genommen wird)

The Gospel of Zarathustra: The Positive Message of Negative Theology of Friedrich Nietzsche

Artykuł jest próbą dotarcia do pozytywnego przekazu Nietzscheańskiego Zaratustry oraz próbą jego rekonstrukcji. Przekaz ten koncentruje się na trzech zasadniczych filarach: 1) pokonywaniu odruchu zemsty, 2) cnocie darzącej oraz 3) doczesnym wymiarze Królestwa Bożego. Ten w sensie metody negatywno-majeutczny przekaz w zdumiewający sposób wydaje się zbliżać do przekazu Jezusa z podstawowymi filarami jego sposobu życia: 1) przebaczania qua pokonywanie odruchu zemsty, 2) miłości qua cnoty darzącej, czy 3) doczesnego wymiaru Królestwa Bożego, do którego kluczem staje się przebaczenie. Początek tego Królestwa jest, wbrew faryzejskiej koncepcji Królestwa Bożego, nie na końcu dziejów, ale tu i teraz. Nietzscheański Zaratustra, wbrew masywnej krytyce zarówno pod adresem Apostoła Pawła, jak i Ewangelistów, wydaje się być bardziej uczniem niż adwersarzem Jezusa, a uzasadnieniem owej krytyki jest, zdaniem Nietzschego, sprzeniewierzanie się Jego intencjom. Z tej potrzeby zrodziła się „Piąta Ewangelia”, jak nazywał swego Tako rzecze Zaratustra Fryderyk Nietzsche.This is an attempt of reconstruction of the positive preaching of the Zarathustra’s negative theology. His message based on three pillars 1) overcoming an impulse of revenge, 2) virtue of gift-givining, 3) earthly dimension of the Kingdom of Heaven. This maieutic message resembles astonishingly the message of Jesus with the basic pillars of his way of life: 1) forgiveness qua an overcoming an impulse of revenge, 2) love qua a virtue of gift-givining, 3) earthly dimension of Kingdom of Heaven with a forgiveness as the key to it. The begin of the Kingdom of Heaven is, against to the Phariseec concept of The Kingdom, not in the end of time but here and now possible. The Nietzschean Zarathustra against to the massive critics addressed either to Apostle Paul or to the Evangelists seems to be more an adapt then an adversary of Jesus and the foundation of his critics lays according to Nietzsche in their rejection of Jesus’s intention. From this need arises “The Fifth Gospel” as Thus Spoke Zarathustra was called by Friedrich Nietzsche

The Logos of Communicative Silence

Artykuł poświęcony jest fenomenowi milczenia i jego licznym odcieniom. Autor stawia tezę, zgodnie z którą milczenie jest sposobem komunikowania, w tym także komunikowania niekomunikowalności. Komunikujący wymiar milczenia zostaje przedstawiony w części głównej jako milczenie natury, milczenie człowieka oraz milczenie Boga. Z kolei substancjalność różnorakich form milczenia zostaje ukazana z perspektywy emocjonalności różnych form bycia wspólnotowego, w których fundamentalną rolę odgrywa kategoria uważności. W części kończącej milczenie zostaje scharakteryzowane w różnych horyzontach ontologicznych. I tak, obok omawianego horyzontu dialogicznego i religijnego naszkicowany zostaje horyzont hermeneutyczny, fenomenologiczny oraz dziejowy milczenia.The article focuses on the phenomenon of not speaking and its various forms. The author puts forward the thesis that not speaking is a form of communication, including the communication of non-communicability. The communicative aspect of silence is discussed in the context of the silence of nature, human not speaking, and the silence of God. The substantiality of various forms of silence is in turn analyzed from the perspective of various forms of communal being, in which the category of attentiveness plays the fundamental role. In the concluding part of the text, silence and not speaking are considered in various ontological horizons. Apart from the dialogical and religious horizons of silence, the hermeneutic, phenomenological and historical aspects of this phenomenon are sketched. Translated by Dorota Chabrajsk

Pomiędzy fenomenologią religii a mistyką świadectwa. Edyta Stein -versus Max Scheler i Martin Heidegger

This article begins with the presentation of three versions of phenomenology of religion shown as a maieutic turn in phenomenology: in case of Martin Heidegger,a Dasein as an enactment, in case of Max Scheler, a Person as an act. The second part of this work depicts Stein’s way towards God and tries to reconstruct her account of mysticalexperience based on her encounter with the thought of Saint John of the Cross. From a theoretical point of view, Edith Stein’s purpose seems to be limited, yet not in the merits of the case. Testimonial stays the only real way of experiencing God and reporting on His presence.This article begins with the presentation of three versions of phenomenology of religion shown as a maieutic turn in phenomenology: in case of Martin Heidegger,a Dasein as an enactment, in case of Max Scheler, a Person as an act. The second part of this work depicts Stein’s way towards God and tries to reconstruct her account of mysticalexperience based on her encounter with the thought of Saint John of the Cross. From a theoretical point of view, Edith Stein’s purpose seems to be limited, yet not in the merits of the case. Testimonial stays the only real way of experiencing God and reporting on His presence

Between Phenomenology of Religion and Mysticism of Testimonial: Edith Stein versus Max Scheler and Martin Heidegger

This article begins with the presentation of three versions of phenomenology of religion shown as a maieutic turn in phenomenology: in case of Martin Heidegger,a Dasein as an enactment, in case of Max Scheler, a Person as an act. The second part of this work depicts Stein’s way towards God and tries to reconstruct her account of mysticalexperience based on her encounter with the thought of Saint John of the Cross. From a theoretical point of view, Edith Stein’s purpose seems to be limited, yet not in the merits of the case. Testimonial stays the only real way of experiencing God and reporting on His presence

God beyond of the bracket of existence. Max Scheler mysticism or phenomenology of actual unification

This article presents in the first part the concept of Schelerian phenomenology of religion and claims that pre‐phenomenon of Holiness could not be take in the bracket of existence as usual because the religious act raised by Holiness itself is an heteronomic act of God‐Holiness realized in the man and giving evidence of the existence of its Reasoner. In the second part of this article two types of unity are presented: unity due to joint feeling with others (unmittelbares Mitfühlen — “Two parents stand beside the dead body of a beloved child”) and unity due to co‐operation of personal acts (Mitvollzug — “I live, yet not I, but Christ in me”). This two types of unities present the Other in a primordial way, which launched several criticism against Max Scheler’s mysticism. Phenomenology of act and mysticism seems to merge together in one point, calling Maieutic Birth, a their method becomes enactment of meaning (Vollzugstheorie der Bedeutung — Karl Friedrich Gethmann)