Book Review Philosophy

BOOK REVIEW : THE ART OF PHENOMENOLOGY

 

By Anna Yampolskaya, Kairos Ripol Classic Moscow, 2018

 

ИСКУССТВО ФЕНОМЕНОЛОГИИ АННА ЯМПОЛЬСКАЯ

KAIROS МОСКВА, 2018

 

A new book on Philosophy titled: 'The Art of Phenomenology , ' represents a bold

attempt to not only define phenomenology but to widen the discourse to encompass

not only students but artists, writers and anyone not afraid of questioning the very

foundations of their most cherished beliefs. The book is in Russian. It is not light

reading. However, it will appeal to those who like Sartre , Heidegger , Husserl and

Derrida. And that is to name but a few thinkers! Yet given the large number of

highly advanced and sophisticated people in Moscow who often drop into

cafes and libraries to listen to philosophy talks, this book should find an audience.

My experience as a teacher in Moscow readily confirms that there are many

Russians who can quickly grasp complex philosophical ideas.

The book is not just academic. In attempting to draw on the thoughts of philosophers

on topics such as the promises we make to each other, the nature of feelings,

confession, forgiveness and death, it deals with the questions which matter most

to us. But the breath and scope of this book is staggering!

The book begins with the question 'What is Phenomenology?' The author answers

that it, of course, is mainly associated with the philosopher Edmund Husserl. This

daring and passionate philosopher attempted to establish a new 'science of

Phenomenology ' where a person would attempt to study how the actor perceives

the world around him and how he should best study the nature of phenomena.

He argued that consciousness could be selective in that we intentionally draw

our attention to certain things around us. He developed a complex methodology

which would allow the observer to 'bracket ' the most irrelevant things in order to

capture the essence of an object . That is we have to control and contain

prejudices which distort and cloud our perception. Most people take the world

for granted and don't acutely observe things. They could pass the same tree

in a street they'd lived in for years without noticing never mind fully acknowledging

it. But phenomenology sought to explore how consciousness could perceive an

object or person in so many different ways . This led to attempts to create a new

science of mental illness, criminology and, in Heidegger's case, an ontology

of being based on death.

Yampolskaya's work declares that almost anything should be up for debate by

philosophy. Even the very definition of the word is open to debate . I mean is

philosophy 'the love of wisdom ' ? Is it mainly concerned with preparing for

death?' or is it concerned with discovering the truth? Now philosophy has

almost been reduced to subdivision of linguistics ! For instance, an indication

of how far philosophy has been marginalized in Scotland is how students of the

social sciences and natural sciences are no longer obliged to study it for

a year which was previously the case. The study of philosophy which encourages

people to think critically is unwelcome in a society based in an answer all

culture where the answers are already assumed in advance. What matters most

in Britain are the narrow values of effectiveness, efficiency and economic growth.

The subject philosophy is almost a dirty word in many parts of Britain.

A clue to Yampolskaya's own perspective is when she tells how Dante descends

into Hell and fully perceives his woman Beatrice not as an object or his own self

but as a wholly unique person in her own right. 'Dante compares Beatrice with

Christ - but the figure of Christ does not narrow ,nor replace the real humanity

of Beatrice : Beatrice remains herself, and is not turned into a transcendental

idea of beauty and love , and appears herself as an earthly woman.' From this

it follows that we should perceive people as unique beings who are special.

The philosophy of Phenomenology therefore represents a kind of spiritual

effort where we overcome our old egoism and become a new subject or

better person. We should attempt to perceive the person in all his complexity

rather than as a mere object or even an annoying obstacle which gets in our way.

Perhaps the notion that Phenomenology can represent a saner way of doing

philosophy is best illustrated by the warm relationship between Russian philosopher

Leon Shestov and Husserl . He once told his friends in front of Shestov : "No one

has ever attacked me so sharply as he - and that is why we are such close friends".

Husserl not only helped to publish articles by Shestov but got him acquainted with

Kierkegaard. Once he scolded Shestov with the words: "You have turned me into

a stone statue, raised me onto a lofty pedestal, and then with hammer - blows you

have shattered this statue to bits. But am I really so lapidary? " Shestov had

misconstrued and misunderstood Husserl's project and portrayed him as some

kind of soulless rationalist which was far from the case. But Husserl was a very

open-minded person who never took disagreements personally, but on the contrary

welcomed critique of his ideas.

I found the chapter centered around a debate between Derrida and Austin and

Searle's speech act theory intriguing. Austin stated that uttering words does

many things such as make promises , marriages and friends and so causes

significant actions. However, Derrida claimed that speech had been privileged

over the written text and that the words themselves could change their meaning in

such a way the outcome could be open-ended. A word itself can lose its meaning

if the context is no longer available. Searle argued back that Derrida did not

recognize the possibility of rational discourse and agreement between actors

and, worse, was a relativist. However, it would be fairer to state that Derrida

only stressed how highly problematic any form of rational discourse has become.

If you read Alasdair Macintyre's ' After Virtue,' you will notice how much discourse

has become characterized by a self righteous tone where people are speaking

from incompatible perspectives.

One thorny issue which is raised is whether swearing an oath in court 'To tell

the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' ... can be taken seriously.

What if the person does not believe in God or the fact we have a new context

where the country has become secular? Has not the oath lost it's strength of

purpose? Why make promises we can hardly keep? The Philosophers believe

that people are not swearing to the God of Abraham, Issac or Christ but a

' political device.'

Yampolskaya ends her book with a chapter on death. This is perhaps the most

controversial. She states : 'Of all the philosophical problems , the problem of

death presents the closest to non philosophers : we all confront the deaths of

other people and everyone of us knows that sooner or later they are also going

to die. Or to be more exact, everyone is mortal and we try not to think about our

own deaths. However, there are exceptions, philosophers, and to philosophize

means to learn how to die'. In a sense, philosophy is a preparation for death.

However, according to Yampolskaya , this itself is problematic because if I die,

I can't return to learn the errors of how I died. Unless one takes the examples

of returning from the land of the dead seriously. I can only die my own death

and not the death of another person. In a sense, dying is one of the loneliest

experiences. Many people have argued that the intensity of almost dying

sharpens the intensity of their lives and offers a fresh perspective on what

really matters most. Most people dread or fear death . A passage from

Tolstoy's : 'The Death of Ivan Ilyich ' is cited as demonstrating the dread

and fear of dying. Death is feared by some because, to quote Shakespeare's

Hamlet ; 'It is the undiscovered country' . But it is worth asking 'Is death so

dreaded by so many? Is it so trivialized or concealed in discussion?"

It largely depends on how people perceive death! There are a wide spectrum

of beliefs on death and the reason why suicide was strictly forbidden by

the church was due to many Christians taking their own lives so as to

quickly enter paradise. There are worse things than death such as illness,

torture and loss of the soul. Although there might be one biological death,

it is worth asking how many different forms of death there are. A person

can die by failing to love other people or simply to live a profoundly meaningless

life. In Shakespeare's work: 'Measure for Measure, the Friar tells Claudio:

'What's yet in this life that bears the name of life? Yet in this life,

lie hid more thousand deaths: yet death we fear,

That makes these odds all even.'

That death can be a welcome relief to someone tortured by pain can't be

underestimated. My grandmother yearned for death because of the pain

she was experiencing. I recall a touching story by the Scots Storyteller

Duncan Williamson where a character personifying death drops in to see

a woodcutter he is fond of. But he drops in at the wrong time when he is not

present, instead scaring his young granddaughter. The woodcutter

returns to meet 'death', treats him to some bread and soup and

leaves to go with death. Death replies: "Where are you going? I have

not come for you yet. You still have many years to live. I have come

to take an old woman ill, in agony, to relieve her of her misery. I visited

you only because you are the only person i know who understands my

job and appreciates me'. There is a lot of sense in the story.

Yampolskaya writes that our fear of death is not always abnormal as:

'When I am afraid of death, when I experience fear of death, I am myself

forced to feel my own uniqueness. That I exist as a single kind of person,

like the Tower of Pisa or the Cathedral of Basil the Blessed, means that

the end and irreversible destruction of my self, my inner world with

my rich wealth of memories and what I went through perishes

entirely.'

Yampolskaya has written a very thoughtful, arresting and appealing book. It is

food for the soul and thought for the mind! It is well worth reading.

It is a must for all serious students of philosophy!