This paper argues that Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutical philosophy attempts to reopen the question of human transcendence in contemporary terms. While his conception of language as self-transcending is deeply Husserlian, Ricoeur also responds to the analytical challenge when he deploys a basic distinction in Fregean logic in order to clarify Heidegger’s phenomenology of world. Ricoeur’s commitment to a transcendental view is evident in his conception of narrative, which enables him to emphasize the role of the performative in literary reading. The meaning (...) of the self in time provides Ricoeur with a discursive basis for distinguishing his own position from that of Kant and other philosophers in the transcendental tradition. (shrink)

Mein Aufsatz rekonstruiert ein Formexperiment der experimentellen deutschsprachigen Prosa der 1960er Jahre, das sich in Texten aus der Frühphase der edition suhrkamp bei Peter Weiss, Jürgen Becker, Ror Wolf und Peter Handke entwickelte. Anhand der von Hans Magnus Enzensberger geprägten Formel vom »Prinzip der Felder« werden die intensiven Bezüge und Strukturähnlichkeiten, aber auch die Variationsbreite dieser experimentellen Prosa diskutiert. Ein abschließender Blick auf zeitnahe Theorien zum Zusammenspiel von Feldern (Aron Gurwitsch) und Rändern (William James) des Bewusstseins soll zudem die von (...) Jürgen Becker entwickelte These bestärken, nach welcher die »Vielstimmigkeit des Bewusstseins« erstmals in dieser experimentellen Prosa der 1960er Jahre zur Darstellung kam. (shrink)

This paper is about whether consciousness flows. Evan Thompson (2014) has recently claimed that the study of binocular rivalry shows that there are some moments where consciousness does not flow, contra William James (1890). Moreover, he’s claimed that Abhidharma philosophers reject James’s claim that consciousness flows. I argue that binocular rivalry poses no special challenge to James. Second, I argue that because Thompson did not take up the question of how James and Abhidharma philosophers analyse or define flow, he under-described (...) their disagreement in a way that obscures an important conceptual contribution that Abhidharma philosophers make to the study of flow. They reject James’s claim that there are only two conceivable ways for consciousness to fail to flow, and suggest that there is a third way for consciousness to fail to flow – a way that James’s imagination did not reveal to be possible. (shrink)