La estética fenomenológica debería ser capaz de revelar cómo la estructura de cualquier objeto estético dado está conectada con la experiencia de ese objeto, así como demostrar las condiciones necesarias para la propia experiencia estética. Para hacerlo, hay que argumentar en contra de los supuestos unilaterales, como por ejemplo la suposición del objetivismo estético que postula la belleza como rasgo exclusivo de la realidad independiente del sujeto; o la creencia opuesta, que la belleza es esencial y únicamente la proyección del (...) gusto subjetivo sobre las cosas en el mundo. Sesemann analiza el objeto estético y el acto estético, enfatizando su conexión. Esta conexión se refiere a lo que se describe en la fenomenología de Husserl como la correlación entre el objeto intencional y el acto intencional. Esta conexión puede ser descubierta sólo mediante el método fenomenológico: realizando la reducción fenomenológica. En este documento se explicará en primer lugar la percepción estética en la estética de Sesemann. Más adelante, se examina la concepción de la estructura del objeto estético en el contexto de la estética de Sesemann: la composición de los elementos, las sensaciones en relación con el significado, etc. Por último, el artículo sugiere que la estética de Sesemann se basa fundamentalmente en el método de la reducción fenomenológica.Phenomenological aesthetics should also be able to show how the structure of any given aesthetic object is connected with the experience of that object, as well as to demonstrate the necessary conditions for the aesthetic experience itself. In order to do so, one must argue against one-sided assumptions, such as the aesthetic objectivism’s supposition that beauty is exclusively the trait of reality not at all dependent on the subject’s experience of it; or its opposite belief that beauty is essentially and solely the projection of the subjective taste onto the things in the world. Sesemann analizes the aesthetic object and aesthetic act by emphasizing their connection. This connection relates to what is described in Husserls phenomenology as the correlation between the intentional object and the intentional act. This connection can be discovered only by using the phenomenological method: by doing phenomenological reduction. This paper will first explain the aesthetic perception in Sesemann‘s aesthetics. Later, it examine the conception of the aesthetic object‘s structure in Sesemann‘s aesthetic: composition of elements, sensations in connection with meaning; etc. Finally, the paper will argue that Sesemann‘s aesthetics is essentially based on the method of phenomenological reduction. (shrink)

Kultūrinių objektyvacijų dinamiką Husserlis įvardija sedimentacijos terminu, kuris apima atrastos prasmės formulavimą materialiose juslinėse išraiškose ir šių pasyviai egzistuojančių reikšmių reaktyvavimą. Šiame straipsnyje analizuojama sedimentacijos samprata susiejant ją su Husserlio apmąstymais apie kultūros krizę. Skirtingai nuo įprastų Husserlio kultūros filosofijos interpretacijų, teigiančių, kad mokslų krizė kyla dėl jų moksliškumo neadekvatumo ir negebėjimo spręsti gyvenimo prasmės problemų, aš teigiu, kad krizė gali būti suprasta kaip sedimentacijos dvilypumo rezultatas. Sedimentacijos ne tik išsaugo žinias, bet ir sukuria iliuziją, kad žinios atkuria pačios save. (...) Husserlis apmąstydamas kultūros krizę nuo teorinės filosofijos gręžiasi į praktinę filosofiją. (shrink)

Engl. Zsfassung u.d.T.: The crossings of the enlightenment and the romanticism : philosophical trends and controversies in Lithuania on the verge of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Artykuł stara się podać argumenty za hipotezą, że pijar litewski ks. Kazimierz Narbutt był filozofem, który miał zaszczyt jako pierwszy na wschodzie, a być może w całej Europie, krytykować przedkrytyczne poglądy Immanuela Kanta. W 1765 roku, w swoim wykładzie filozofii w Kolegium Pijarów w Dąbrowicy Narbut krytykuje pojęcie substancji zaproponowane przez „metafizyka Cantziusa”. Osobą wskazaną jako „Cantzius” mógł być albo Immanuel Kant, albo teolog Gottlieb Izrael Canz. W artykule zostały podane dwa argumenty dotyczące stanowiska Steponasa Tunaitisa: osobą, która została określona (...) przez Narbuta, nie mógł być Canz, ponieważ wyrażany przez niego pogląd był reprezentatywny dla teologii Wolffiańskiej. To stanowisko filozoficzne było zbliżone do samego Narbuta, jego koncepcja istoty substancji jest taka sama, jak szkoły Wolffa. Canz nie mógł dostarczyć pojęcia substancji, które byłoby sprzeczne z poglądem szkoły Wolffa. Drugi argument, odnosi się do głównej tezy Kanta zawartej w jego pracy z 1755 pt. Principiorum primorum cognitionis metaphysicae nova dilucidato można przypisać „metafizykowi Cantziusowi” jeśli chodzi o istotę, atrybuty i cele Boga, które zostały zakwestionowane przez Narbuta. To jednocześnie pozwala nam uznać, że Narbut zapoznał się bezpośrednio lub pośrednio z wyżej wymienionym dziełem Kanta. Osoba, o której mowa w tekście Narbuta, to nikt oprócz Kanta, który zajmował się w tym czasie zagadnieniami metafizycznymi. (shrink)

The manuscript “Self-knowledge, self-consciousness and objectification” is the text of Sesemann’s manuscript collection, Vilnius University (F122-102). The manuscript in the notebook dates from the third quarter of 1954 (Krasnokamsk). The notes were made in ink, some in pencil. The text was written during Sesemann's stay in a labor camp in Taishet (Irkutsk region) in 1950-1955. Due to the limited volume of publications in the journal, only part of Sesemann's text is given.

Despite their creativity, cultural actions are not established out of nothing. They are based on previous actions, their passive or active memory, and extension. Sedimentation is the depositing of sediments that occurs during certain processes. They testify to the processes that have taken place and themselves become significant links or traces. Different layers of sediment are formed, which testify to past events, which have structures in the present. The best-known phenomenological concept of sedimentation was formulated in Husserl’s text The Origin (...) of Geometry. Husserl uses the specific geological term of sedimentation to describe the science of geometry as a linguistically (written) mediated genesis of conceptual knowledge. The human practice of knowledge can be transmitted to other generations only by expressing it linguistically and recording it in writing. Derrida used the phenomenological concept of sedimentation and created Grammatology. The main idea of documentality is that a particular kind of social objects, namely documents (records of social acts) are the ground of social reality. For all three philosophers, writing or recording becomes a model for reflecting on cultural-social reality. The purpose of this article is to discuss the writing as a model for cultural sedimentation and memory. Husserl understood writing as a sedimentation that must be reactivated. However, Derrida and Ferraris identify the written objects only with materialized writing and the repetition of what is written. They do not distinguish between imitative and comprehensive reading. (shrink)

Engl. Zsfassung u.d.T.: The crossings of the enlightenment and the romanticism : philosophical trends and controversies in Lithuania on the verge of the 18th and 19th centuries.

This publication presents manuscript of the famous Russian-Lithuanian philosopher Vasily Seseman accompanied by a preface. The manuscript "Sport and Contemporary Culture" is the text of Seseman's manuscript collection, which is located in Vilnius University. Manuscript is a preparatory text for the article "Time, Culture and Body". In "Time, Culture and Body" Sesemann develops his ideas concerning the objectifying attitude, which leads to human's alienation towards body and time. Sesemann claims that the time is perceived as a meaningful entirety only when (...) the time is contemplated from the point of view of work. Work is a purpose-attaining activity where subjective creativity is oriented towards an objective result in future. Working in pursuit of one's goals helps to avoid facing the emptiness of time, but at the same time it alienates the present. Work helps the subject to overcome his individual limitations and to become a part of the objective culture. By hiding behind the results of an objective activity people avoid direct contact with the time because it may appear as an interruption of meaningful relations and as a boredom. The tendency to objectify time is accompanied by the process of objectification of body. Previously, a primitive person could trust his body more than tools. In the modern culture body is gradually downgraded because tools, machinery and even separate institutions take over its functions. In this way the centre of culture is moved to the world of objects which is beyond a subject's control and body plays a merely auxiliary part. A person can overcome his alienation towards time and body only by being wakeful - here and now, by self-knowledge and self-control. Sesemann describes the self-control as the practical ability and mood, which he called "presence of mind". In this state of mind person is able to fing oneself, concentrate and mobilise all his strength to his utmost, maintain inner composure, calmness and balance of spirit. (shrink)

This paper deals with the approach to self-consciousness and the unconscious found in the work of Moritz Geiger and the little known philosopher Vasily Sesemann. The aim of this presentation is to provide an account of Sesemann’s disagreement with Geiger regarding the concept of unconsciousness as well as to introduce his phenomenological explanation of the nonobjectifying self-consciousness. The first part of this paper explores Geiger’s concept of unconsciousness. The second part is concerned with Sesemann’s conception of the non-objectifying self-consciousness and (...) its relation to the unconscious. The last part of this paper argues that Sesemann’s concept of selfawareness is similar to the concept of self-consciousness developed by Husserl in his phenomenology. (shrink)

This paper discusses the modern idea of imagination and its various transformations in the phenomenological conceptual frameworks of Edward Casey, Mikel Dufrenne (1910-1995), Max Scheler (1874-1928) and Vasily Sesemann (1884-1963). I would like to raise and critically assess questions regarding the role of imagination in our consciousness: whether imagination is a productive or reproductive activity; and how, if at all, aesthetic expression limits the imagination. Casey criticizes Dufrenne for his attempt to unite imagination with aesthetic expression. He argues for the (...) autonomy of the imagination but leaves the question of the relationship between the imagination and perception unanswered. Dufrenne partially shares his theory of imagination with Sesemann. Both philosophers claim that imagination is a reproductive activity rather than a productive one in the sense that it is limited by the forms of the material a priori. In other words, aesthetic expression has to obey the principle of correlation between percipiens and perceptum. Creativity becomes possible when the creator is able to reproduce in his expression another subject’s possible perceptivity. Max Scheler emphasized the correlative connection of spiritual activity with the world. He linked the concept of imagination to the practical being in the world. In Sesemann’s aesthetics the role of embodied imagination in artistic creation and the perception of aesthetic objects were also considered. Both authors argued that the connection between imagination and the essential modes of the world’s givenness is guaranteed by the mode of embodied imagination. Both acknowledged that imagination is related to unconscious desires and drive. Both authors stated that the schematisms of imagination express the style of the perception of the world. The fact that imagination is an embodied phenomenon is illustrated by the way it exists in the world, since imagination is essentially a free activity restricted only by “the style of the world’s horizon.”. (shrink)

Vasily Sesemann’s aesthetics is a transcendental philosophy that seeks to answer the question of how an experience of beauty is possible. Sesemann insists that aesthetics should focus on the study of the aesthetic object itself, and through it go to the problematics of the act of perception and creativity. Sesemann states that not only the relationship between the work of art and the perceiver is important in order to understand the aesthetic object, but also the relationship between the work of (...) art and the creator. The aesthetic object in its sedimented form not only retains indications of the act of creation, but also makes demands on the perceiving subject. Aesthetic objects are sedimented passive structures that can be activated by the performative actions of the perceiver when she discovers the appropriate way of perception. Sesemann, like Moritz Geiger, claims that aesthetics is impossible without an analysis of feelings. He, like Geiger, recognizes the importance of empathy in aesthetic experience. However, Sesemann develops the concept of aesthetic empathy using Max Scheler’s arguments. Empathy is necessary, because the perceiver must be able to understand expressions. The aim of this paper is to analyse the phenomenological aspects of Vasily Sesemann’s aesthetics. Firstly, this paper analyzes the Sesemann’s phenomenology of aesthetic experience. Secondly, it shows that the analysis performed by Sesemann demonstrates why empathy plays a leading role in aesthetic experience. (shrink)

Pratarmę, rankraščio nuorašą ir vertimą parengė Dalius Jonkus, Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutas.

Don Quixote is not only a novel which represents Spanish culture, but a hero that reveals the relation between life and reason. I will compare two interpretations of Don Quixote. The first phenomenological interpreta-tion belongs to Ortega Y Gasset, and the second to Lithuanian philosopher Algis Mickūnas. The interpretations of Don Quixote are related to the question about an ideal. What is the role of ideals in culture? Are ideals principles con-structed by reason? Do these principles deny the reality of (...) life, or are ideals related to the self life-world rationality? Then what does the idealism of Don Quixote mean? Does it represent a utopian rationality or does it seek to show values that are not reduced to circumstance? Ortega criticizes Don Quixote as an idealist, who can’t find any ideal values in the nearest environment. Mickūnas suggests interpreting Don Quixote’s idealism as a phenomenological bracketing, which allows one to doubt the blind dependence on this life-world and question its value.Don Quijote no es únicamente una novela que representa la cultura española, sino también un héroe que revela la relación entre vida y razón. Compararé dos interpretaciones de Don Quijote. La primera interpretación fenomenológica pertenece a Ortega y Gasset y la segunda al filósofo lituano Algis Mickūnas. Las interpretaciones de Don Quijote se relacionan con la cuestión acerca de los ideales. ¿Cuál es el papel de los ideales en la cultura? ¿Son los ideales principios construidos por la razón? ¿Niegan tales ideales la realidad de la vida o bien se encuentran los ideales relacionados con la racionalidad misma del mundo de la vida? ¿Qué significa entonces el idealismo de Don Quijote? ¿Representa acaso una racionalidad utópica o trata más bien de mostrar valores que no se hallan reducidos a la circunstancia? Ortega critica a Don Quijote como un idelista, que no es capaz de encontrar valores ideales en su entorno más próximo. Mickūnas propone inter-pretar el idealismo de Don Quijote como un poner entre paréntesis de tipo fenomenológico, que nos permite dudar de la ciega dependencia del mundo vital y cuestionar su valor. (shrink)

Vasily Sesemann’s manuscript Self-Knowledge, Self-Consciousness and Objectification explores the relationship of consciousness with self-consciousness and the subconscious, as well as various forms of objectification of consciousness. This manuscript can be attributed to a group of manuscript texts that discuss the origin of consciousness and the metaphysical relationship between matter and spirit. Sesemann studied consciousness, describing it as an intentional experience and rejecting its naturalistic explanations. Sesemann revealed the irreducibility of life to physiological chemical processes and, at the same time, rejected (...) the dualistic opposition of spirit and matter, soul, and body. The article aims to show that the concept of consciousness formulated by Sesemann is phenomenological. The philosopher rejects naturalistic and objectivist explanations of consciousness. Consciousness must be explored as an experiential subjectivity, not as an object. Sesemann criticizes naturalistic psychology and argues that consciousness is an intentional activity in the world. Consciousness is embodied self-awareness and empathic connection with other living beings. (shrink)

Geniušas, S., 2021. Kas yra skausmas? Vilnius: Phi knygos, 150 p. ISBN 978-609-8236-12-5.

Saulius Geniusas. The Origins of the Horizon in Husserl’s Phenomenology. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. 243 p.. ISBN 978-94-007-4643-5.