Negative Platonism and the Appearance-Problem

Negative฀Platonism฀and฀the฀฀ Appearance-Problem Tamás฀Ullmann฀ The฀expression฀“negative฀Platonism”฀is฀not฀only฀the฀title฀of฀a฀well-known฀essay฀by฀ Patočka,฀it฀points฀as฀well฀to฀a฀whole฀philosophical฀program.฀Patočka’s฀thought฀was฀ guided฀and฀directed฀by฀this฀program฀from฀1953฀–฀the฀year฀the฀essay฀began฀circulating฀ in฀manuscript฀form฀–฀through฀his฀late฀writings฀of฀the฀1970s.฀It฀may฀sound฀strange฀ to฀say฀that฀Patočka’s฀rich฀and฀complex฀philosophical฀œuvre,฀extending฀from฀historical฀research฀and฀aesthetics฀to฀concrete฀political฀questions,฀and฀covering฀almost฀all฀ relevant฀philosophical฀domains,฀has฀but฀one฀central฀problem.฀I฀would฀nonetheless฀ like฀to฀argue฀that,฀insofar฀as฀we฀consider฀Patočka฀as฀a฀phenomenologist,฀his฀phenomenologically฀oriented฀work฀is฀a฀constant฀rethinking฀of฀one฀and฀the฀same฀predominant฀problem:฀that฀of฀negative฀Platonism.฀I฀shall฀begin฀my฀essay฀with฀a฀brief฀ outline฀of฀its฀main฀phenomenological฀ideas,฀then฀go฀on฀to฀try฀to฀show฀the฀relation฀ between฀negative฀Platonism฀and฀the฀appearance-problem฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀texts฀ published฀in฀the฀volume฀Vom฀Erscheinen฀als฀solchem.1฀Concerning฀the฀problem฀of฀ appearing,฀we฀must฀consider฀first฀Patočka’s฀critique฀of฀Husserl,฀Heidegger฀and฀others,฀then฀the฀radicalized฀phenomenological฀approach฀that฀he฀himself฀terms฀asubjective฀phenomenology.฀At฀this฀point,฀a฀deep,฀indeed฀aporetical฀question฀arises฀in฀the฀ conceptual฀framework฀of฀Patočka’s฀philosophy:฀how฀can฀we฀speak฀in฀one฀breath฀of฀ asubjective฀phenomenology฀and฀personal฀responsibility?฀It฀would฀seem฀difficult฀to฀ reconcile฀ the฀ goal฀ of฀ asubjective฀ phenomenology฀ and฀ the฀ supposition฀ of฀ free฀ responsibility฀ in฀ one฀ coherent฀ theory.฀ Viewing฀ this฀ as฀ the฀ central฀ problem฀ of฀ Patočka’s฀later฀philosophy,฀I฀shall฀conclude฀by฀attempting฀to฀reconstruct฀a฀possible฀ answer฀to฀this฀aporetic฀question. Jan฀Patočka,฀Vom฀Erscheinen฀als฀solchem.฀Texte฀aus฀dem฀Nachlaß,฀ed.฀H.฀Blaschek-Hahn฀and฀฀ K.฀Novotný฀(Freiburg฀and฀München:฀Alber,฀2000). 1฀ T.฀Ullmann฀()฀ Faculty฀of฀Humanities,฀Eötvös฀Lorand฀University-ELTE,฀Múzeum฀krt.฀4/i,฀฀ Budapest฀1088,฀Hungary฀ e-mail:฀[email protected] 71 72 T.฀Ullmann 1฀ ฀Negative฀Platonism The฀ questions฀ raised฀ in฀ Patočka’s฀ essay฀ “Negative฀ Platonism”฀ are฀ the฀ following:฀ what฀does฀metaphysics฀mean,฀how฀can฀we฀understand฀something฀like฀a฀Platonic฀Idea,฀ and฀what฀is฀the฀task฀of฀philosophy฀in฀our฀pragmatic฀technical฀age?฀The฀author฀sees฀ a฀crucial฀change฀at฀the฀Greek฀beginnings฀of฀philosophy:฀the฀transformation฀of฀the฀ Socratic฀attitude฀into฀Platonic฀idealism.฀According฀to฀Patočka,฀this฀seemingly฀minor฀ shift฀ has฀ had฀ a฀ tremendous฀ impact,฀ not฀ only฀ on฀ philosophy,฀ but฀ on฀ the฀ whole฀ of฀ European฀history.฀If฀we฀live฀today฀in฀a฀cultural฀crisis,฀it฀is฀because฀metaphysics฀–฀the฀ metaphysics฀ born฀ in฀ Plato’s฀ theory฀ of฀ Ideas฀ –฀ continues฀ to฀ determine฀ our฀ present฀ worldviews.฀The฀philosophical฀program฀outlined฀in฀Patočka’s฀“Negative฀Platonism”฀ takes฀shape฀around฀three฀central฀concepts:฀metaphysics,฀freedom,฀and฀Idea. 1.฀Negative฀Platonism฀tries฀to฀find฀the฀real฀sense฀of฀metaphysics฀cleansed฀of฀all฀ higher฀objective฀entities฀or฀absolute฀rules.฀Turning฀away฀from฀the฀dream฀of฀a฀perfect฀ higher฀ ideal฀ reality฀ implies฀ that฀ there฀ are฀ no฀ metaphysical฀ facts.฀ As฀ Patočka฀ writes:฀“Metaphysics฀has฀no฀independent฀subject-matter.”2฀In฀other฀words,฀a฀logicalepistemological฀ analysis฀ easily฀ reveals฀ that฀ the฀ supposedly฀ metaphysical฀ objects฀ are฀sheer฀fictions,฀due฀mainly฀to฀language฀schemes.฀He฀makes฀a฀list฀of฀metaphysical฀ fictions:฀ideas฀both฀as฀realities฀and฀as฀logical฀entities,฀universals,฀values,฀categories฀ such฀as฀substance฀and฀causality฀(when฀understood฀as฀the฀ultimate฀building฀blocks฀ of฀reality),฀and฀finally฀Being฀itself,฀it฀too฀without฀objective฀content.฀It฀is฀interesting฀ to฀ note฀ that฀ his฀ argumentation฀ is฀ not฀ only฀ similar฀ to฀ the฀ Nietzschean฀ critique฀ of฀ metaphysics,฀but฀relies฀on฀the฀same฀central฀argument:฀the฀seduction฀of฀language.฀ Metaphysical฀fictions฀emerge฀because฀we฀submit฀to฀our฀language฀schemes. The฀negativity฀of฀metaphysics฀has฀two฀sides:฀the฀“logical-epistemological”฀side฀ consists฀ in฀ positing฀ a฀ higher,฀ but฀ fictitious฀ reality,฀ whereas฀ the฀ “existential”฀ side฀ assures฀comfort฀against฀fear,฀anxiety,฀suffering,฀loss฀of฀meaning,฀doubt,฀and฀despair.฀ Nonetheless,฀metaphysics฀has฀a฀positive฀side฀as฀well,฀and฀that฀profoundly฀intrigues฀ Patočka.฀How฀can฀we฀find฀our฀way฀back฀to฀metaphysics฀in฀a฀positive฀sense?฀At฀this฀ point,฀Patočka฀relies฀on฀phenomenological฀insights.฀First฀of฀all,฀on฀the฀fact฀that฀we฀ can฀withdraw฀from฀our฀everyday฀occupation,฀from฀particular฀things.฀Phenomenology฀ and฀philosophy฀are฀nothing฀else฀but฀this฀act฀of฀distancing฀from฀particular฀entities฀and฀ interests.฀Metaphysics฀in฀this฀sense฀is฀not฀the฀unfolding฀of฀a฀new฀universe฀beyond฀the฀ sensible฀world,฀it฀does฀not฀reveal฀“the฀experience฀we฀have,”฀but฀rather฀“the฀experience฀ we฀are.”3฀Metaphysics฀in฀its฀positive฀sense฀is฀thus฀turned฀towards฀our฀world,฀towards฀ reality฀here฀and฀now,฀and฀it฀tends฀to฀open฀up฀the฀hidden฀structure฀of฀this฀world฀and฀of฀ “the฀experience฀we฀are.”฀Instead฀of฀an฀ideal฀universe฀and฀eternal฀rules,฀inner฀drama฀ and฀the฀particular฀structure฀of฀this฀concrete฀world฀–฀this฀is฀how฀Patočka’s฀conception฀ of฀metaphysics฀could฀be฀summarized. Jan฀Patočka,฀“Negative฀Platonism:฀Reflections฀concerning฀the฀Rise,฀the฀Scope,฀and฀the฀Demise฀of฀ Metaphysics฀–฀and฀Whether฀Philosophy฀Can฀Survive฀It,”฀in฀Philosophy฀and฀Selected฀Writings,฀ed.฀ and฀transl.฀E.฀Kohák฀(Chicago฀and฀London:฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press,฀1989),฀p.฀188. 3฀ Ibid.,฀p.฀192. 2฀ Negative฀Platonism฀and฀the฀Appearance-Problem 73 2.฀ His฀ second฀ intention฀ is฀ to฀ interpret฀ freedom฀ in฀ a฀ new฀ way.฀ The฀ negative฀ i฀nterpretation฀ of฀ freedom฀ has฀ two฀ main฀ branches฀ in฀ tradition:฀ either฀ we฀ suppose฀ freedom฀to฀be฀nothing฀more฀than฀arbitrariness,฀or฀we฀determine฀it฀as฀the฀mere฀lack฀ of฀natural฀determinism.฀Neither฀one฀of฀these฀interpretations฀can฀elucidate฀the฀real฀ phenomenon฀of฀freedom.฀According฀to฀Patočka,฀we฀should฀adopt฀a฀radically฀new฀ attitude:฀freedom฀should฀no฀longer฀be฀treated฀from฀the฀standpoint฀of฀causality฀(the฀ above-mentioned฀ two฀ versions฀ of฀ freedom฀ are฀ both฀ dependent฀ on฀ the฀ concept฀ of฀ causality).฀ Both฀ because฀ freedom฀ in฀ a฀ positive฀ sense฀ has฀ nothing฀ to฀ do฀ with฀ the฀ conceptual฀framework฀of฀causality฀and฀because฀causality฀has฀turned฀out฀to฀be฀one฀ of฀the฀major฀metaphysical฀fictions. On฀the฀other฀hand,฀Patočka฀refuses฀to฀divide฀human฀beings฀into฀a฀sensible฀and฀a฀ suprasensible฀component,฀as฀if฀the฀former,฀the฀body,฀were฀subordinated฀to฀the฀rules฀ of฀natural฀causality,฀and฀the฀latter,฀the฀soul฀or฀the฀mind,฀were฀beyond฀any฀physical฀ determinism.฀ Both฀ conceptions฀ are฀ linked฀ to฀ a฀ false฀ metaphysics.฀ We฀ are฀ free฀ as฀ sensuous฀ beings,฀ and฀ we฀ are฀ free฀ in฀ the฀ sensible,฀ natural฀ world.฀ But฀ how฀ is฀ this฀ ฀possible?฀ Patočka฀ attributes฀ three฀ characteristics฀ to฀ freedom:฀ (1)฀ Freedom฀ is฀ an฀ experience.฀But,฀unlike฀sense฀experience,฀it฀is฀not฀related฀to฀any฀fact,฀or฀object,฀or฀ state฀ of฀ things:฀ it฀ is฀ not฀ the฀ experience฀ of฀ something฀ objective฀ to฀ which฀ one฀ can฀ return฀whenever฀one฀wishes฀to฀do฀so.฀The฀experience฀of฀freedom,฀linked฀to฀a฀concrete฀situation,฀happens฀once฀and฀only฀once.฀It฀never฀repeats฀itself฀in฀the฀same฀form.฀ The฀experience฀of฀freedom฀is฀an฀experience฀of฀risk฀and฀struggle,฀and฀of฀losing฀stability฀and฀comfort฀in฀habitual฀life.฀(2)฀Freedom฀is฀negative฀in฀the฀sense฀that฀we฀are฀not฀ satisfied฀with฀sense฀experience฀and฀pre-given฀ready-made฀things.฀And฀what’s฀more:฀ the฀whole฀content฀of฀passive฀sense฀experience฀can฀become฀void฀and฀insignificant.฀ The฀ negativity฀ of฀ the฀ experience฀ of฀ freedom฀ consists฀ in฀ the฀ troubling฀ insight฀ that฀ irreality฀and฀fantasy฀can,฀under฀certain฀circumstances,฀be฀more฀important฀than฀socalled฀reality,฀the฀supposed฀object฀of฀our฀perceptual฀experience.฀The฀human฀being฀ seems฀to฀be฀flexible฀and฀pliant฀to฀such฀an฀extent฀that฀his฀hopes,฀fantasies,฀desires฀ overcome฀ the฀ harshness฀ of฀ reality.฀ (3)฀ The฀ experience฀ of฀ freedom฀ is฀ always฀ “full฀ experience.”฀As฀Patočka฀writes:฀“The฀experience฀of฀freedom฀is฀always฀an฀experience฀of฀the฀whole,฀one฀pertaining฀to฀a฀global฀‘meaning.’฀”4฀That฀is฀why฀he฀concludes:฀ “For฀all฀these฀reasons฀we฀can฀designate฀the฀experience฀of฀freedom฀as฀one฀of฀transcendence.”5฀ However,฀ transcendence฀ is฀ not฀ something฀ “suprasensible”฀ in฀ traditional฀terms,฀it฀belongs฀to฀all฀human฀life฀as฀its฀natural฀movement฀and฀tendency.฀On฀ the฀other฀hand,฀freedom฀as฀transcendence฀is฀not฀limited฀to฀the฀“moral฀or฀existential”฀ sphere฀of฀human฀life,฀since฀other฀sorts฀of฀human฀activity฀as฀well฀(distancing฀from฀ things,฀language,฀science,฀thinking,฀etc.)฀are฀rooted฀in฀the฀experience฀of฀freedom. 3.฀ Finally฀ –฀ and฀ this฀ seems฀ to฀ be฀ the฀ most฀ programmatic฀ part฀ of฀ Patočka’s฀ ฀reasoning฀–฀he฀attempts฀to฀reconsider฀the฀concept฀of฀idea.฀This฀is฀certainly฀the฀climax฀ of฀his฀essay฀on฀negative฀Platonism.฀He฀tries฀to฀find฀a฀middle฀way฀between฀the฀two฀ extremities฀that฀have฀determined฀philosophy฀since฀Plato:฀the฀first฀declares฀that฀all฀that฀ appears฀ is฀ somehow฀ determined฀ by฀ an฀ ultimate฀ ideal฀ structure฀ of฀ essential฀ rules.฀฀ Ibid.,฀p.฀193. Ibid. 4฀ 5฀ 74 T.฀Ullmann This฀attitude฀can฀be฀represented฀by฀the฀Platonic฀Idea,฀the฀Cartesian฀rational฀God,฀ Kant’s฀transcendental฀ideal฀and฀the฀eidetic฀structure฀of฀consciousness฀in฀the฀early฀ Husserl.฀The฀second฀extremity฀supposes฀that฀there฀is฀nothing฀stable฀in฀Being:฀things฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ experiences฀ of฀ things฀ are฀ constantly฀ changing฀ (radical฀ empiricism,฀ Schelling,฀ etc.).฀ According฀ to฀ Patočka,฀ we฀ should฀ give฀ up฀ the฀ ancient฀ dream฀ of฀ metaphysics฀of฀an฀ultimate,฀stable,฀eternal฀structure฀of฀Being฀as฀such.฀The฀first฀and฀ fascinatingly฀perfect฀expression฀of฀this฀dream฀took฀shape฀undoubtedly฀in฀Platonic฀ idealism.฀Unfortunately฀–฀as฀we฀shall฀see฀–฀Husserl฀and฀even฀Heidegger฀continued฀ to฀pay฀tribute฀to฀this฀tendency,฀mainly฀because฀of฀their฀hidden฀subjectivism.฀But฀the฀ other฀extremity฀cannot฀be฀accepted฀either:฀philosophy฀based฀on฀raw฀empiricism฀or฀ on฀the฀productive฀imagination฀gives฀up฀not฀only฀rules฀and฀ideal-logical฀form,฀but฀ the฀ very฀ sense฀ of฀ experience.฀ Experience฀ risks฀ losing฀ all฀ concrete฀ determination,฀ content,฀and฀form,฀if฀it฀is฀based฀on฀sheer฀sensuality฀or฀on฀the฀arbitrariness฀of฀imagination.฀Patočka฀is฀convinced฀that฀there฀is฀a฀sense฀of฀existence,฀of฀time,฀of฀life,฀but฀ this฀sense฀is฀far฀from฀being฀ideally฀pre-given.฀At฀first฀sight,฀his฀solution฀seems฀to฀ be฀a฀strange฀reversal฀of฀the฀Platonic฀conception฀of฀Idea.฀As฀if฀by฀this฀reversal฀we฀ could฀eliminate฀the฀false฀metaphysical฀aspects฀of฀the฀Idea฀and฀retain฀only฀its฀“phenomenological”฀characteristics. Patočka’s฀negative฀Platonism฀considers฀the฀Idea฀in฀a฀metaphysical,฀but฀not฀in฀a฀ supra-sensible฀or฀supra-natural฀way.฀It฀means฀that฀the฀Idea,฀though฀neither฀a฀higher,฀ supratemporal฀entity,฀nor฀a฀general฀objectivity,฀nonetheless฀transcends฀the฀particular.฀ How฀ are฀ we,฀ however,฀ to฀ grasp฀ something฀ that฀ would฀ thus฀ function฀ between฀ ideal฀ entity฀ and฀ particular฀ thing?฀ Traditional฀ philosophy฀ has฀ no฀ word฀ for฀ such฀ a฀ thing฀ or฀ structure.฀ It฀ is฀ clear฀ from฀ the฀ text฀ that฀ the฀ Idea฀ in฀ the฀ sense฀ of฀ negative฀ Platonism฀ is฀ not฀ what฀ we฀ see,฀ but฀ that฀ which฀ makes฀ it฀ possible฀ to฀ see฀ things฀ in฀ general.฀Idea฀expresses฀our฀ability฀to฀step฀back฀from฀the฀present฀and฀the฀given,฀it฀ frees฀us฀from฀the฀bondage฀of฀reality,฀it฀makes฀possible฀to฀see฀what฀is฀more฀and฀what฀ is฀new฀as฀compared฀with฀the฀perceptually฀given.฀That฀is฀why฀the฀Idea฀in฀negative฀ Platonism฀ falls฀ within฀ the฀ province฀ of฀ temporality฀ and฀ history,฀ rather฀ than฀ eternity. There฀is฀a฀concept฀appearing฀in฀the฀last฀part฀of฀the฀essay,฀the฀importance฀of฀which฀ has฀not฀–฀in฀my฀opinion฀–฀been฀duly฀stressed:฀the฀concept฀of฀chōrismos฀(separation).฀ In฀Plato,฀it฀refers฀primarily฀to฀the฀separation฀between฀the฀sensible,฀natural฀world฀and฀ the฀suprasensible฀sphere฀of฀Ideas,฀but,฀in฀a฀more฀general฀approach,฀it฀has฀to฀do฀also฀ with฀ the฀ separation฀ between฀ sensuous฀ givenness฀ and฀ ideal฀ meaning,฀ and฀ with฀ the฀ separation฀between฀causal-temporal฀determination฀and฀supratemporal฀freedom.฀It฀is฀ not฀difficult฀to฀see฀that฀the฀concept฀of฀chōrismos฀latently฀determines฀the฀whole฀metaphysical฀tradition฀from฀Plato฀to฀Husserl:฀sensuous฀experience฀and฀ideal฀meaning฀are฀ always฀separated,฀that฀is฀why฀they฀have฀to฀be฀synthetized. According฀to฀Patočka,฀it฀is฀precisely฀the฀Platonic฀form฀of฀chōrismos฀that฀must฀ be฀relinquished฀if฀we฀wish฀to฀give฀sense฀to฀metaphysics.฀Giving฀up฀this฀central฀ metaphysical฀ conviction฀ of฀ a฀ clear-cut฀ separation฀ of฀ the฀ spheres฀ is฀ the฀ clue฀ to฀ negative฀ Platonism.฀ For฀ example,฀ one฀ of฀ Patočka’s฀ most฀ significant฀ insights,฀ guiding฀his฀later฀phenomenological฀research฀on฀the฀nature฀of฀appearance,฀is฀that฀ there฀is฀no฀separation฀between฀the฀sensuous฀and฀the฀logical-ideal฀part฀of฀experience.฀ Negative฀Platonism฀and฀the฀Appearance-Problem 75 To฀put฀it฀more฀concisely:฀ideal฀meaning฀is฀not฀apart฀from,฀but฀rather฀part฀of฀the฀ p฀ henomenological฀field. These฀three฀transformations฀–฀that฀of฀the฀metaphysical฀attitude,฀that฀of฀the฀function฀of฀freedom฀and฀that฀of฀the฀concept฀of฀Idea฀–฀outline฀the฀overall฀framework฀of฀ the฀new฀program฀called฀“negative฀Platonism.”฀I฀believe฀the฀whole฀of฀Patočka’s฀later฀ thinking฀can฀be฀connected฀directly฀or฀indirectly฀to฀these฀basic฀insights.฀Let฀us฀see฀ now฀how฀he฀returns฀to฀these฀themes฀in฀the฀late฀1960s,฀when฀–฀thanks฀to฀his฀renewed฀ teaching฀activity฀–฀he฀can฀once฀more฀concentrate฀on฀the฀fundamental฀problems฀of฀ phenomenology. 2฀ F ฀ rom฀the฀Critique฀of฀Phenomenology฀to฀Asubjective฀ Phenomenology During฀his฀first฀period฀as฀a฀university฀teacher,฀after฀the฀Second฀World฀War,฀Patočka฀ dealt฀with฀the฀beginnings฀of฀philosophy฀in฀Ancient฀Greece,฀focusing฀on฀Socrates,฀ Plato฀and฀Aristotle.฀His฀second฀period฀–฀in฀the฀late฀1960s฀–฀can฀be฀characterized฀by฀ a฀strong฀renewal฀of฀his฀interest฀in฀basic฀phenomenological฀questions.฀Introduction฀ to฀the฀Study฀of฀Husserl’s฀Phenomenology,฀as฀well฀as฀Body,฀Community,฀Language,฀ World,฀and฀The฀Problem฀of฀the฀Natural฀World฀are฀the฀classical฀results฀of฀this฀period.฀ I฀prefer,฀however,฀to฀consider฀here฀his฀manuscripts฀from฀the฀1970s,฀published฀in฀the฀ volume฀ Vom฀ Erscheinen฀ als฀ solchem,฀ which฀ seem฀ to฀ represent฀ an฀ even฀ deeper฀ immersion฀in฀phenomenological฀problems. The฀program฀called฀“negative฀Platonism”฀offers฀several฀possible฀paths฀for฀thinking.฀ What฀is฀historicity?฀How฀can฀human฀life฀be฀conceived฀as฀life฀in฀the฀natural฀world?฀ How฀is฀freedom฀to฀be฀defined฀in฀an฀ethical฀and฀in฀an฀existential฀context?฀What฀ is฀the฀historical฀destiny฀of฀metaphysics?฀The฀meaning฀of฀technology?฀The฀essence฀ of฀politics?฀The฀role฀of฀art฀in฀life?฀Etc.฀Be฀all฀that฀as฀it฀may,฀it฀is฀interesting฀to฀note฀ the฀resoluteness฀of฀Patočka’s฀return฀to฀the฀very฀foundations฀of฀phenomenology,฀as฀ soon฀ as฀ political฀ change฀ allows฀ him฀ to฀ devote฀ himself฀ to฀ deeper฀ studies฀ and฀ research.฀His฀interest฀focuses฀on฀a฀predominant฀question:฀what฀is฀appearing?฀All฀the฀ others฀seem฀to฀be฀reducible฀to฀this฀fundamental฀problem.฀And,฀as฀we฀shall฀see฀later,฀ the฀phenomenological฀philosophy฀of฀appearing฀outlined฀in฀his฀later฀manuscripts฀is฀ one฀ of฀ his฀ major฀ attempts฀ to฀ elaborate฀ the฀ program฀ put฀ forward฀ in฀ the฀ essay฀ on฀ negative฀Platonism. His฀critique฀of฀Husserl’s฀phenomenology฀is฀based฀on฀a฀clear฀distinction฀between฀ epoché฀and฀reduction.฀The฀patient฀elaboration฀of฀this฀distinction฀becomes฀the฀methodological฀ background฀ of฀ Patočka’s฀ later฀ phenomenology.฀ Though฀ epoché฀ and฀ reduction฀do฀not฀coincide฀in฀Husserl’s฀approach฀either,฀the฀radicalization฀of฀their฀ difference฀makes฀it฀possible฀for฀Patočka฀to฀open฀up฀a฀new฀path฀for฀phenomenological฀research.฀Greatly฀simplifying,฀we฀can฀say฀that฀the฀epoché฀is฀the฀fundamental฀act฀ of฀phenomenology฀and฀of฀philosophy฀in฀general.฀It฀is฀a฀free฀act,฀a฀kind฀of฀stepping฀ back฀from฀concrete฀things฀and฀from฀the฀ontic฀belief,฀which฀is฀meant฀to฀open฀the฀ phenomenological฀field.฀Contrary฀to฀the฀epoché,฀the฀reduction฀is฀a฀dubious฀step.฀ 76 T.฀Ullmann For฀Patočka,฀it฀means฀reduction฀to฀something฀that฀is฀posited,฀supposed฀as฀a฀constant฀ background.฀Though฀Husserl฀was฀the฀first฀to฀uncover฀the฀phenomenological฀field,฀ thanks฀to฀the฀methodological฀means฀provided฀by฀the฀epoché,฀his฀transcendental฀turn฀ falsified฀this฀essential฀discovery.฀Though฀Husserl฀rejects฀Descartes’฀objectifying฀of฀ the฀sum,฀he฀also฀fixes฀consciousness,฀not฀ontologically,฀as฀Descartes฀and฀Kant฀did,฀ but฀transcendentally:฀positing฀an฀essential฀structure฀as฀the฀ultimate฀framework฀of฀all฀ conscious฀activities. The฀appearance฀and฀importance฀of฀the฀reduction฀after฀the฀transcendental฀turn฀is฀ a฀clear฀symptom฀of฀Husserl’s฀Cartesianism฀and฀of฀its฀metaphysical฀residues.฀For฀ Patočka,฀ this฀ Cartesianism฀ originates฀ in฀ Husserl’s฀ confusion฀ of฀ subjectivity฀ and฀ phenomenality.฀At฀first,฀phenomenality฀was฀subjective฀solely฀in฀the฀narrow฀sense฀ that฀ all฀ phenomena฀ appear฀ to฀ me,฀ in฀ this฀ given฀ perspective,฀ in฀ this฀ given฀ aspect.฀ It฀ shifted,฀ however,฀ from฀ this฀ neutral฀ position฀ to฀ a฀ central฀ one,฀ and฀ subjectivity฀ became฀the฀source฀of฀all฀that฀appears.฀This฀shift฀is฀inadmissible฀in฀Patočka’s฀eyes.฀ To฀ speak฀ of฀ constitution฀ instead฀ of฀ phenomenal฀ appearance฀ is,฀ for฀ Patočka,฀ the฀ same฀mistake฀as฀to฀speak฀of฀subjectivity฀instead฀of฀the฀phenomenological฀field,฀or฀ of฀reduction฀rather฀than฀epoché.฀An฀appearing฀being฀is฀reduced฀to฀another฀being฀ and฀we฀miss฀the฀appearing฀itself,฀since฀reduction฀to฀transcendental฀subjectivity฀is฀ not฀ reduction฀ to฀ the฀ real฀ source฀ of฀ appearance,฀ but฀ to฀ a฀ special฀ component฀ of฀ appearing฀itself.฀Appearing฀as฀such฀is฀more฀original฀than฀subjectivity,฀which฀–฀even฀ in฀its฀non-psychological,฀transcendental฀form฀–฀is฀part฀of฀the฀phenomenal฀field.฀As฀ Patočka฀puts฀it,฀in฀very฀simple฀words:฀“Historically,฀one฀has฀always฀attempted฀to฀ reduce฀ the฀ appearance-problem฀ to฀ some฀ appearing฀ being.”6฀ And฀ this฀ is฀ true฀ of฀ Husserl฀himself,฀who฀discovered฀the฀epoché,฀the฀gateway฀to฀the฀age-old฀problem฀ (“das฀uralte฀Problem”)7:฀what฀is฀appearing? Patočka฀considers฀Heidegger’s฀philosophy฀as฀overcoming฀the฀difficulties฀of฀the฀ Husserlian฀transcendental฀approach.฀His฀critique฀on฀Heidegger฀is฀nonetheless฀sharp฀ and฀appropriate.฀Although฀Heidegger฀underlines฀the฀existential-ontological฀character฀ of฀Dasein,฀the฀problem฀of฀appearing฀takes฀shape฀for฀him฀in฀the฀framework฀of฀“opening฀ possibilities.”฀The฀fundamental฀event฀or฀function฀of฀Dasein฀is฀the฀opening฀of฀the฀ world,฀which,฀according฀to฀Heidegger,฀is฀nothing฀but฀the฀projection฀of฀possibilities฀ (“Entwurf฀der฀Möglichkeiten”).8฀Patočka’s฀counter-argument฀against฀this฀conception฀is฀that฀no฀one฀could฀open฀his฀or฀her฀possibilities฀if฀these฀possibilities฀were฀not฀ already฀opened฀to฀him.9 6฀ Jan฀Patočka,฀Vom฀Erscheinen…,฀op.฀cit.,฀Text฀V:฀“Phänomenologie฀als฀Lehre฀vom฀Erscheinen฀ als฀solchem,”฀p.฀154:฀“Man฀hat฀in฀der฀Geschichte฀dieses฀Problems฀immer฀Erscheinung฀auf฀irgendein฀ Erscheinendes฀zurückzuführen฀versucht.” 7฀ See฀ibid.,฀p.฀149. 8฀ See฀ibid.,฀Text฀III:฀“Leib,฀Möglichkeiten,฀Welt,฀Erscheinungsfeld,”฀pp.฀87,฀92,฀94. 9฀ Ibid.,฀p.฀94:฀“Kein฀endliches฀Wesen฀ist฀imstande,฀Möglichkeiten฀zu฀schaffen฀–฀genausowenig฀wie฀ Wirklichkeiten.…฀ Der฀ Entwurf฀ eigener฀ Möglichkeiten฀ ist฀ kein฀ ursprüngliches฀ Schaffen฀ von฀ Möglichkeiten,฀ kein฀ Weltentwurf,฀ sondern฀ es฀ ist฀ bloß฀ ein฀ Entwurf฀ meiner฀ Existenz฀ auf฀ der฀ Hintergrund฀der฀Welt.” Negative฀Platonism฀and฀the฀Appearance-Problem 77 Heidegger’s฀ hermeneutical฀ phenomenology฀ seems฀ to฀ be฀ subjectivistic฀ to฀ the฀ extent฀that฀the฀projection฀of฀possibilities,฀on฀which฀all฀appearance฀is฀based,฀can฀only฀ be฀ understood฀ as฀ my฀ project฀ of฀ possibilities.฀ The฀ project฀ of฀ possibilities,฀ which฀ makes฀ it฀ possible฀ to฀ open฀ the฀ world฀ and฀ all฀ that฀ appears฀ in฀ the฀ world,฀ originates฀ from฀my฀own฀Dasein.฀“I฀do฀not฀open฀my฀possibilities,฀but฀my฀situation฀in฀the฀light฀ of฀ the฀ possibilities฀ that฀ open฀ themselves.”10฀ In฀ spite฀ of฀ his฀ struggle฀ against฀ Cartesianism฀ and฀ transcendentalism,฀ Heidegger’s฀ approach฀ remained฀ subjectivistic,฀since฀the฀structure฀of฀the฀projection฀of฀possibilities฀is฀fundamentally฀a฀transcendental฀structure.฀And฀there฀is฀another฀crucial฀problem:฀“Heidegger฀does฀not฀deny฀ corporeity,฀he฀does฀not฀deny฀that฀we฀exist฀also฀as฀things฀among฀other฀things,฀but฀he฀ does฀not฀analyze฀it฀further,฀does฀not฀recognize฀it฀as฀a฀fundamental฀of฀our฀life.”11 The฀ method฀ that฀ Patočka฀ calls฀ “a-subjective฀ phenomenology”฀ is฀ probably฀ his฀ most฀enigmatic฀yet,฀at฀the฀same฀time,฀most฀promising฀attempt฀to฀renew฀phenomenological฀research.฀The฀starting-point฀of฀his฀reasoning฀could฀be฀summarized฀as฀follows:฀ with฀ the฀ transcendental฀ turn,฀ Husserl฀ fell฀ back฀ into฀ a฀ certain฀ Cartesianism.฀ Albeit฀his฀concept฀of฀subjectivity฀implies฀temporality฀and฀corporeity,฀and฀is฀thus฀ more฀than฀the฀point-like,฀abstract฀Kantian฀ego,฀it฀is฀still,฀for฀Patočka,฀a฀metaphysical฀ conception.฀The฀Husserlian฀transcendental฀consciousness฀carries฀a฀transcendental฀ structure฀of฀eternal,฀ideal,฀pre-given฀forms฀that฀Husserl฀calls฀eidē.฀In฀the฀connection฀ ego-cogito-cogitatum,฀Husserl฀focused฀on฀the฀ego,฀on฀the฀sense-bestowing฀activity,฀ neglecting฀the฀sum,฀the฀mode฀of฀existence฀of฀this฀ego. This฀is฀the฀point฀where฀Patočka’s฀own฀investigation฀begins.฀When฀we฀examine฀ the฀sum,฀existence,฀we฀find฀that฀it฀cannot฀be฀traced฀back฀to฀a฀constitutive฀ego฀which฀ would฀be฀responsible฀for฀all฀manners฀of฀appearance.฀On฀the฀contrary,฀it฀becomes฀ clear฀ that฀ even฀ the฀ ego฀ itself,฀ consciousness,฀ which฀ Husserl฀ supposes฀ to฀ be฀ adequately฀given฀in฀reflection,฀is฀a฀conceptual฀construction,฀a฀projection,฀an฀illusion:฀ the฀illusion฀of฀an฀ultimate฀origin.฀To฀be฀sure,฀the฀phenomenal฀field฀has฀a฀central฀ perspective,฀ a฀ certain฀ pole฀ of฀ appearing,฀ which฀ is฀ what฀ we฀ normally฀ call฀ ego฀ or฀ consciousness.฀But฀consciousness฀appears฀to฀itself฀in฀the฀same฀temporal฀stream฀as฀ the฀other฀phenomena,฀so฀it฀is฀part฀of฀appearing฀and฀by฀no฀means฀its฀source฀or฀foundation.฀The฀phenomenal฀field฀determines฀this฀pole฀of฀appearing,฀just฀as฀consciousness฀determines฀what฀appears฀and฀how฀it฀appears. The฀sum฀thus฀proves฀to฀be฀more฀fundamental฀than฀the฀ego.฀In฀itself,฀this฀idea฀is฀ not฀particularly฀original.฀Heidegger,฀Merleau-Ponty,฀Ricœur฀have฀all฀tried฀to฀follow฀ the฀same฀argumentation,฀reversing฀the฀order฀of฀the฀subject฀and฀its฀mode฀of฀existence.฀ Yet฀these฀thinkers฀all฀believed฀that฀existence,฀even฀preceding฀consciousness,฀must฀ have฀an฀invariant฀structure.฀And฀it฀is฀precisely฀on฀this฀point฀that฀we฀see฀the฀originality฀ of฀Patočka’s฀idea:฀asubjective฀phenomenology฀does฀not฀suppose฀any฀hidden฀structure,฀ any฀ invariant฀ foundation฀ within฀ human฀ existence,฀ on฀ the฀ level฀ of฀ the฀ sum,฀ beneath฀the฀ego.฀According฀to฀Patočka,฀the฀subjective฀being฀has฀no฀determinable฀or฀ Ibid.,฀ p.฀ 93:฀ “Ich฀ erschließe฀ nicht฀ meine฀ Möglichkeiten,฀ sondern฀ meine฀ Lage฀ im฀ Lichte฀ der฀ Möglichkeiten,฀die฀sich฀erschliessen.” 11฀ Jan฀Patočka,฀Body,฀Community,฀Language,฀World,฀ed.฀J.฀Dodd,฀transl.฀E.฀Kohák฀(Chicago฀and฀ La฀Salle:฀Open฀Court,฀1998),฀p.฀176. 10฀ 78 T.฀Ullmann conceivable฀characteristic฀whatsoever,฀but฀that฀in฀no฀way฀means฀that฀consciousness฀ is฀nothing฀or฀that฀it฀is฀sheer฀indetermination;฀its฀determination฀comes฀from฀its฀situation฀ and฀ its฀ acts:฀ its฀ being฀ is฀ a฀ system฀ of฀ possibilities.฀ The฀ basic฀ aspects฀ of฀ this฀ a-subjective฀phenomenal฀pole฀are:฀temporality,฀movement,฀historicity.฀And฀the฀way฀ Patočka฀ more฀ concretely฀ describes฀ his฀ a-subjective฀ phenomenal฀ sphere฀ brings฀ us฀ back฀to฀the฀form฀of฀human฀being฀in฀the฀natural฀world. Nevertheless,฀ two฀ questions฀ arise:฀ (1)฀ We฀ have฀ seen฀ that฀ Patočka฀ tries฀ to฀ go฀ beyond฀all฀metaphysical฀construction฀so฀as฀to฀free฀our฀vision.฀The฀result฀is,฀apparently,฀that฀there฀remains฀in฀his฀description฀nothing฀to฀hold฀on฀to.฀We฀no฀longer฀find฀ any฀constant฀structure฀in฀the฀appearing฀world,฀nor฀–฀parallelly฀–฀any฀invariant฀moment฀ in฀ human฀ consciousness฀ or฀ being.฀ Everything฀ seems฀ to฀ be฀ moving,฀ changing฀ –฀ ฀everything฀seems฀to฀be฀part฀of฀a฀Heraclitean฀stream.฀Does฀this฀conception฀not฀lead฀฀ to฀extreme฀skepticism?฀(2)฀We฀know฀how฀important฀freedom฀is฀in฀Patočka’s฀description฀ of฀ the฀ movements฀ in฀ the฀ natural฀ world.฀ Freedom฀ is฀ the฀ third฀ movement,฀ the฀ breakthrough฀to฀one’s฀own฀possibilities,฀the฀highest฀possible฀level฀of฀self-realization.฀ Freedom฀has฀nothing฀to฀do฀with฀arbitrariness,฀it฀coincides฀essentially฀with฀responsibility.฀And฀if฀we฀speak฀of฀responsibility฀(in฀whatever฀sense฀we฀take฀it:฀responsibility฀ for฀others,฀for฀myself฀or฀for฀the฀world),฀it฀is฀very฀difficult฀not฀to฀conceive฀it฀in฀terms฀ of฀an฀I,฀as฀my฀own,฀personal฀responsibility.฀My฀responsibility฀is฀my฀most฀essential฀ possibility,฀it฀is฀what฀constitutes฀me฀as฀a฀person,฀and฀the฀meaning฀of฀my฀existence฀is฀ inevitably฀linked฀to฀this฀personal฀responsibility.฀We฀have฀here,฀apparently,฀an฀aporetic฀ problem,฀ensuing฀from฀a฀hidden฀contradiction,฀inasmuch฀as฀asubjective฀phenomenology฀seems฀to฀go฀beyond฀all฀subjective,฀ego-like,฀personal฀characteristics,฀even฀beyond฀ the฀authentic฀conception฀of฀Being-in-the-world.฀How฀can฀this฀conception฀be฀reconciled฀with฀Patočka’s฀very฀strong฀accentuation฀of฀freedom฀as฀responsibility?฀How฀can฀ we฀practice฀asubjective฀phenomenology฀and฀still฀speak฀of฀personal฀responsibility? I฀believe฀these฀two฀fundamental฀questions฀motivated฀Patočka’s฀thinking฀in฀his฀ later฀period,฀and฀it฀seems฀to฀me฀that฀the฀two฀can฀only฀be฀answered฀at฀the฀same฀time,฀ or฀at฀least฀in฀a฀parallel฀manner. 3฀ ฀Appearing฀as฀Such Patočka฀expresses฀on฀many฀occasions฀his฀conviction฀that฀the฀ultimate฀problem฀of฀ philosophy฀ as฀ interpretation฀ of฀ our฀ experience฀ is฀ nothing฀ other฀ than฀ appearing.฀ However,฀it฀is฀not฀the฀appearing฀of฀this฀or฀that฀object,฀or฀of฀any฀particular฀kind฀of฀ objectivity,฀but฀appearing฀as฀such,฀Erscheinen฀als฀solches.฀What฀does฀this฀mean,฀and฀ how฀ can฀ we฀ approach฀ appearing฀ as฀ such?฀ Let’s฀ begin฀ with฀ some฀ remarks฀ in฀ “Negative฀Platonism.”฀Patočka฀speaks฀here฀of฀the฀experience฀of฀freedom฀as฀an฀experience฀with฀no฀substrate,฀“if฀by฀substrate฀we฀understand฀some฀finite฀positive฀content,฀ some฀subject,฀some฀predicate,฀or฀some฀complex฀of฀predicates.”12฀The฀experience฀of฀ Jan฀Patočka,฀“Negative฀Platonism…,”฀op.฀cit.,฀p.฀196. 12฀ Negative฀Platonism฀and฀the฀Appearance-Problem 79 freedom฀can฀be฀grasped฀in฀both฀a฀negative฀and฀a฀positive฀manner.฀“It฀has฀the฀negative฀ character฀ of฀ a฀ distance,฀ of฀ a฀ remove,฀ of฀ an฀ overcoming฀ of฀ every฀ objectivity,฀ every฀ content,฀ every฀ re-presentation฀ and฀ every฀ substrate.”13฀ That฀ is฀ why฀ Patočka฀ terms฀this฀experience฀poor.฀Nevertheless,฀it฀has฀a฀positive฀aspect฀as฀well:฀from฀this฀ point฀ of฀ view,฀ the฀ experience฀ of฀ freedom฀ means฀ an฀ experience฀ of฀ totality,฀ of฀ the฀ whole.฀Precisely฀in฀this฀sense฀we฀can฀say฀that,฀for฀Patočka,฀the฀experience฀of฀freedom฀in฀all฀its฀guises฀implies฀a฀holistic฀character,฀a฀kind฀of฀totality,฀not฀in฀the฀sense฀ of฀a฀sum฀total฀of฀particular฀beings,฀but฀as฀the฀ultimate฀and฀original฀condition฀of฀all฀ that฀appears.฀That฀kind฀of฀totality฀is฀what฀Patočka฀calls฀“appearing฀as฀such.”฀In฀a฀ first฀step,฀we฀can฀approach฀appearing฀as฀such฀through฀the฀concepts฀of฀the฀whole,฀of฀ world฀and฀of฀horizon. Appearing฀as฀such฀relates฀to฀the฀whole.฀This฀proposition,฀enigmatic฀at฀first฀sight,฀ is฀the฀key฀formula฀of฀Patočka’s฀later฀phenomenology.฀The฀task฀of฀asubjective฀phenomenology฀is฀simply฀to฀uncover฀appearing฀as฀a฀whole.฀Of฀course,฀this฀whole฀does฀ not฀coincide฀with฀the฀whole฀of฀our฀sense฀experience,฀nor฀does฀it฀refer฀to฀a฀sphere฀ beyond฀sensuous฀experience,฀a฀sphere฀of฀imagination,฀of฀speculative฀thinking.฀The฀ whole฀is฀reality฀itself,฀but฀–฀so฀to฀say฀–฀after฀the฀act฀of฀epoché.฀The฀suspension฀of฀the฀ validity฀ of฀ particular฀ beings฀ and฀ ontic฀ convictions฀ does฀ not฀ reduce฀ everything฀ to฀ nothing,฀ but฀ rather฀ turns฀ our฀ attention฀ to฀ the฀ whole.฀ However,฀ the฀ whole฀ is฀ not฀ a฀ higher฀level฀of฀Being฀or฀a฀more฀intense,฀fuller฀manner฀of฀Being฀(in฀a฀theological฀or฀ mystical฀sense).฀For฀Patočka,฀the฀whole฀is฀not฀an฀ontological,฀but฀rather฀a฀profoundly฀ phenomenological฀term:฀it฀is฀the฀essence฀of฀appearance,฀appearing฀as฀such. If฀we฀consider฀appearing฀as฀the฀central฀problem฀of฀phenomenology,฀phenomenology฀becomes฀a฀phenomenology฀of฀the฀world.฀To฀understand฀the฀significance฀of฀this฀ phenomenological฀approach฀to฀the฀world,฀we฀must฀turn฀our฀attention฀to฀Eugen฀Fink’s฀ philosophy.฀As฀we฀know,฀Patočka฀and฀Fink฀kept฀up฀an฀intense,฀lifelong฀correspondence.14฀The฀Czech฀philosopher฀considered฀Fink’s฀phenomenology฀as฀one฀of฀the฀most฀ important฀ philosophical฀ achievements฀ after฀ the฀ Second฀ World฀ War,฀ and฀ he฀ was฀ deeply฀inspired฀by฀Fink’s฀world฀philosophy฀(Weltphilosophie).฀Alongside฀the฀forgetting฀of฀Being,฀Fink฀speaks฀of฀the฀forgetting฀of฀the฀World.฀Metaphysics,฀which฀confined฀itself฀to฀particular฀beings฀(as฀a฀latent฀Dingontologie),฀is฀nothing฀but฀the฀history฀ of฀this฀fundamental฀oblivion฀of฀the฀World.฀Fink฀criticizes฀Heidegger,฀who฀succeeded฀ in฀overcoming฀objective฀ontology,฀but฀failed฀to฀overcome฀the฀metaphysics฀of฀light.฀ The฀logos฀of฀the฀World฀(Weltlogos),฀at฀work฀in฀all฀beings฀according฀to฀Fink,฀cannot฀ be฀grasped฀from฀the฀viewpoint฀of฀a฀“Lichtmetaphysik.”฀Fink’s฀cosmological฀approach฀ is฀an฀exemplary฀model฀for฀Patočka’s฀later฀phenomenology.฀And฀the฀fact฀that฀Fink’s฀ philosophy฀is฀at฀least฀as฀deeply฀influenced฀by฀Nietzsche฀as฀by฀Heidegger฀also฀points฀ to฀a฀possible฀manner฀of฀thinking฀that฀became฀exemplary฀for฀Patočka. Why฀ does฀ Patočka’s฀ concept฀ of฀ “world”฀ not฀ coincide฀ with฀ that฀ of฀ Husserl’s฀ ฀“life-world,”฀ despite฀ Husserl’s฀ apparent฀ overcoming฀ of฀ Cartesianism฀ in฀ his฀ later฀ Ibid. See฀ Eugen฀ Fink฀ and฀ Jan฀ Patočka,฀ Briefe฀ und฀ Dokumente฀ 1933–1977,฀ ed.฀ M.฀ Heitz฀ and฀฀ B.฀Nessler฀(Freiburg฀and฀München:฀Alber,฀1999). 13฀ 14฀ 80 T.฀Ullmann philosophy?฀We฀can฀better฀answer฀this฀question฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀Fink’s฀philosophy.฀ However฀ positive฀ his฀ turn฀ towards฀ the฀ life-world,฀ Husserl฀ still฀ fails฀ to฀ take฀ into฀ account฀the฀historicity฀of฀the฀world,฀which฀is฀neither฀the฀external฀temporal฀framework฀of฀an฀atemporal,฀unchanging฀basic฀structure,฀nor฀a฀transcendental฀historicity,฀ but฀rather฀the฀constant฀changing฀of฀the฀very฀basic฀structure฀of฀the฀world฀itself.฀In฀ Patočka’s฀terms:฀the฀historicity฀of฀appearing฀as฀such. Patočka’s฀new฀approach฀–฀what฀we฀might฀call฀a฀phenomenology฀of฀world฀–฀cannot฀ be฀ easily฀ defined.฀ We฀ can฀ first฀ reach฀ a฀ few฀ negative฀ determinations:฀ (1)฀ It฀ is฀ not฀ subjectivistic฀in฀the฀sense฀that฀appearing฀as฀such฀cannot฀be฀traced฀back฀to฀a฀transcendental฀source฀of฀constitution฀and฀sense-bestowing฀activity.฀(2)฀It฀is฀not฀objectivistic฀ either,฀ since฀ Patočka฀ rejects฀ all฀ traditional฀ approaches฀ that฀ consistently฀ reduced฀ appearing฀to฀an฀appearing฀entity15฀and฀failed฀to฀take฀into฀account฀the฀phenomenological฀difference฀between฀phenomenal฀being฀and฀phenomenality฀itself.฀The฀concept฀ of฀ horizon฀ does฀ not฀ help฀ either,฀ since฀ horizon฀ is฀ always฀ the฀ horizon฀ of฀ a฀ certain฀ object.฀Even฀conceived฀as฀an฀infinite฀background,฀horizon฀remains฀relative฀to฀a฀finite฀ object.฀ Object฀ presupposes฀ horizon,฀ and฀ vice฀ versa,฀ hence฀ the฀ concept฀ of฀ horizon฀ remains฀in฀the฀framework฀of฀an฀objectivistic฀conception.฀(3)฀The฀phenomenology฀of฀ world฀cannot฀be฀metaphysical,฀if฀metaphysics฀means฀an฀ahistoric฀approach. This฀last฀insight฀–฀namely,฀that฀everything฀is฀temporal฀and฀historical฀–฀can฀be฀ found฀in฀various฀forms฀and฀on฀various฀levels฀in฀Patočka’s฀manuscripts.฀(1)฀On฀the฀ level฀of฀appearing฀as฀such,฀sense฀data฀and฀intentional฀sense-bestowing฀activity฀can฀ no฀longer฀be฀clearly฀separated.฀Animation฀of฀hyletic฀data฀by฀objectifying฀intentions฀ is฀no฀adequate฀way฀of฀describing฀appearance.16฀Everything฀that฀can฀be฀considered฀ as฀a฀“datum”฀is฀not฀an฀external,฀indifferent,฀neutral฀moment฀of฀appearing,฀but฀essentially฀ part฀ of฀ appearing,฀ and฀ appearing฀ itself฀ as฀ well:฀ “everything฀ that฀ is฀ in฀ the฀ appearance-field฀ is฀ already฀ appearing฀ being.”17฀ In฀ other฀ terms:฀ the฀ components฀ presumed฀ to฀ make฀ appearing฀ possible฀ (intentionality,฀ consciousness,฀ sense฀ data,฀ horizon,฀etc.)฀are฀not฀exterior฀to฀appearing฀as฀such;฀on฀the฀contrary,฀all฀are฀part฀and฀ parcel฀ of฀ it.฀ This฀ means฀ that฀ we฀ can฀ grasp฀ them฀ only฀ retroactively,฀ by฀ making฀ a฀ detour฀ through฀ separation฀ and฀ abstraction.฀ (2)฀ Analogously,฀ Patočka฀ states฀ that฀ temporality฀does฀not฀mean฀inserting฀atemporal฀objects,฀data,฀forms,฀aspects,฀etc.,฀ into฀the฀stream฀of฀time.฀The฀concept฀of฀temporality฀implies฀that฀all฀parts฀and฀components฀of฀temporality฀are฀temporal฀as฀well.฀There฀are฀no฀unchanging,฀supratemporal฀ spheres฀ of฀ reality.฀ Husserl฀ recognizes฀ something฀ similar฀ when฀ he฀ speaks฀ of฀ a฀ manner฀ of฀ temporality฀ even฀ in฀ the฀ case฀ of฀ ideal฀ objects,฀ but฀ he฀ fails฀ to฀ reach฀ a฀ deeper฀level฀of฀temporalization.฀Though฀he฀gives฀up,฀in฀his฀analysis฀of฀time,฀the฀ structure฀“form฀of฀apprehension฀–฀content฀of฀apprehension,”฀he฀still฀presupposes,฀ with฀the฀concept฀of฀“Urimpression,”฀atemporal฀sense฀data.฀According฀to฀Patočka,฀ there฀can฀be฀no฀atemporal฀components฀of฀the฀time-stream,฀just฀as฀there฀can฀be฀no฀ dead฀“hylē฀”฀in฀intentional฀experience.฀(3)฀Temporality฀is฀the฀ultimate฀background.฀ See฀note฀6฀above. Cf.฀Jan฀Patočka,฀Vom฀Erscheinen…,฀op.฀cit.,฀Text฀V,฀pp.฀126,฀135. 17฀ Cf.฀ibid.,฀Text฀III,฀p.฀94. 15฀ 16฀ Negative฀Platonism฀and฀the฀Appearance-Problem 81 In฀other฀words:฀the฀asubjective฀fundament฀for฀phenomenology฀is฀nothing฀other฀than฀ temporality.฀This฀thesis฀is฀not฀often฀formulated฀in฀Patočka’s฀writings,฀but฀when฀it฀ does฀appear,฀we฀find฀it฀always฀on฀loci฀of฀primary฀importance,฀and฀it฀can,฀therefore,฀ be฀considered฀as฀a฀fundamental฀principle฀of฀his฀phenomenology.18฀As฀he฀writes฀in฀ the฀first฀of฀his฀two฀articles฀on฀asubjective฀phenomenology:฀“The฀result฀of฀radical฀ analysis฀of฀the฀phenomenal฀sphere฀points฀in฀the฀direction฀of฀an฀original฀time,฀not฀ towards฀a฀mere฀time-experience,฀but฀towards฀time฀as฀such.”19฀Time฀plays฀an฀important฀role,฀not฀only฀in฀the฀order฀of฀foundation,฀but฀also฀functionally.฀When฀Patočka฀ meditates฀on฀the฀unity฀of฀the฀world฀as฀an฀appearance-structure฀and฀on฀the฀question฀ of฀how฀the฀amazing฀multiplicity฀of฀things,฀aspects,฀appearances,฀can฀belong฀to฀one฀ unitary฀whole,฀his฀answer฀is฀as฀follows:฀what฀assures฀the฀synthetic฀unity฀of฀experience฀is฀not฀transcendental฀categories฀or฀other฀general฀idealities,฀it฀is฀the฀unity฀of฀ time฀which฀prevents฀multiplicity฀from฀falling฀apart.20 Everything฀ is฀ thus฀ part฀ of฀ appearing,฀ and฀ everything฀ is฀ part฀ of฀ time.฀ In฀ other฀ words:฀every฀part฀of฀appearing฀appears฀in฀its฀entirety,฀just฀as฀every฀part฀of฀time฀is฀ temporal฀in฀every฀respect.฀A฀strange฀vision.฀Husserl’s฀absolute฀consciousness฀and฀ transcendental฀ ego฀ seem฀ to฀ be฀ devoid฀ of฀ temporal฀ change฀ or฀ genesis฀ (even฀ in฀ genetic฀phenomenology,฀one฀finds฀residues฀of฀atemporal฀structures:฀forms฀of฀intention,฀ hyletic฀ data,฀ absolute฀ horizon,฀ a฀ priori฀ structures฀ of฀ the฀ life-world),฀ and฀ Heidegger’s฀ Being,฀ somehow,฀ beyond฀ temporality฀ (despite฀ its฀ being฀ what฀ gives฀ temporality).฀Patočka’s฀vision฀is฀more฀radical.฀For฀him,฀there฀can฀be฀no฀exception฀ to฀appearing฀or,฀consequently,฀to฀temporality฀–฀neither฀consciousness,฀nor฀Being,฀ nor฀ world.฀ He฀ seriously฀ endeavors฀ to฀ think฀ through฀ the฀ consequences฀ of฀ such฀ a฀ radical฀phenomenological฀attitude.฀That฀is฀how฀his฀philosophy฀becomes฀thoroughly฀ and฀completely฀historical. 4฀ ฀Asubjective฀Appearing฀and฀Personal฀Responsibility The฀ enigma฀ posed฀ by฀ Patočka’s฀ late฀ phenomenology฀ resides฀ not฀ only฀ in฀ giving฀ a฀ coherent฀interpretation฀of฀appearing฀as฀such,฀but฀also฀in฀finding฀a฀way฀to฀mediate฀ between฀ or฀ reconcile฀ asubjective฀ phenomenology฀ of฀ appearing฀ and฀ subjective฀ Ibid.,฀ Text฀ II:฀ “Die฀ Transzendentalphilosophie฀ Husserls฀ nach฀ der฀ Revision,”฀ p.฀ 52:฀ “Ist฀ es฀ umgekehrt฀nicht฀notwendig,฀auf฀einer฀neuen,฀asubjektiven฀Grundlage,฀d.h.฀auf฀der฀Grundlage฀von฀ Zeit฀[my฀emphasis]฀und฀deren฀Erhellung฀etc.,฀eine฀Theorie฀der฀menschlichen฀Erfahrung฀als฀derjenigen฀Erfahrung฀darzustellen,฀die฀in฀den฀Zusammenhang฀dieser฀ursprünglichen฀Erhellung฀gehört?” 19฀ Jan฀Patočka,฀“Der฀Subjektivismus฀der฀Husserlschen฀und฀die฀Möglichkeit฀einer฀‘asubjektiven’฀ Phänomenologie,”฀in฀Die฀Bewegung฀der฀menschlichen฀Existenz.฀Phänomenologische฀Schriften฀II,฀ ed.฀K.฀Nellen,฀J.฀Němec฀and฀I.฀Srubar฀(Stuttgart:฀Klett-Cotta,฀1991),฀p.฀284:฀“Das฀in฀einer฀radikalen฀ Analyse฀der฀phänomenalen฀Sphäre฀gewonnene฀Resultat฀zeigt฀in฀die฀Richtung฀einer฀ursprünglichen฀ Zeit,฀keines฀bloßen฀Zeiterlebens,฀sondern฀der฀Zeit฀als฀solcher.” 20฀ Jan฀Patočka,฀Vom฀Erscheinen…,฀op.฀cit.,฀Text฀IV:฀“Weltform฀der฀Erfahrung฀und฀Welterfahrung,”฀ p.฀105:฀“Es฀muß฀eine฀ganz฀andere฀vorgängige฀Einheit฀da฀sein฀…฀welche฀nie฀isoliert฀ist,฀sondern฀ immer฀sich฀weitet,฀ohne฀sich฀zu฀zersplittern.฀Es฀ist฀die฀Einheit฀der฀Zeit.” 18฀ 82 T.฀Ullmann f฀ reedom฀as฀responsibility.฀I฀believe฀there฀are฀at฀least฀three฀possible฀mediations,฀all฀of฀ which฀can฀be฀found,฀in฀a฀more฀or฀less฀elaborated฀form,฀in฀Patočka’s฀later฀writings. 1.฀ The฀ first฀ would฀ be฀ a฀ kind฀ of฀ aesthetic-artistic฀ approach฀ to฀ reality.฀ The฀ aesthetic฀observation฀of฀appearing฀things฀and฀the฀beauty฀of฀the฀world฀reveals฀not฀only฀ appearing฀as฀such,฀but฀also฀a฀kind฀of฀responsibility,฀what฀Patočka฀calls฀responsibility฀for฀Being.฀We฀can฀find฀traces฀of฀such฀a฀conception฀in฀several฀essays.21฀An฀artist฀ observes฀ things฀ and฀ at฀ the฀ same฀ time฀ lets฀ them฀ appear฀ as฀ they฀ are:฀ this฀ twofold฀ movement฀is,฀according฀to฀Patočka,฀the฀essence฀of฀art.฀Letting฀things฀appear฀as฀they฀ are฀is฀an฀aesthetic฀aspect฀of฀responsibility฀for฀Being.22 2.฀Another฀possible฀mediation฀can฀be฀erected฀on฀the฀concept฀of฀the฀Other.฀My฀ being฀in฀the฀world,฀my฀life฀as฀movement฀in฀the฀world,฀cannot฀attain฀its฀supreme฀ possibility,฀the฀breakthrough฀to฀freedom,฀without฀Others.฀All฀forms฀of฀heroic,฀solitary,฀self-sufficient฀attempts฀to฀live฀an฀authentic฀life฀(either฀in฀the฀Nietzschean฀form฀ of฀Titanism,฀in฀Heidegger’s฀heroic฀attitude,฀or฀in฀the฀Sartrean฀form฀of฀a฀hopeless฀ struggle฀against฀reification)฀imply฀a฀manner฀of฀nihilism,฀which฀boils฀down฀to฀clinging฀to฀the฀ego.฀Being฀in฀truth฀cannot฀be฀realized฀without฀responsibility฀for฀others.฀ Asubjective฀phenomenology฀of฀appearing฀necessitates฀the฀investigation฀of฀the฀sum฀ in฀the฀world,฀and฀this฀sum,฀this฀movement฀in฀the฀world,฀inevitably฀implies฀a฀relation฀ to฀the฀others,฀which฀is฀responsibility.23 3.฀It฀seems฀to฀me฀that,฀in฀his฀manuscripts฀on฀appearing฀as฀such,฀Patočka฀outlines฀ a฀third฀possibility฀of฀mediation฀between฀asubjective฀phenomenology฀and฀personal฀ responsibility.฀ This฀ mediation฀ makes฀ both฀ implicit฀ and฀ explicit฀ references฀ to฀ Nietzsche’s฀ and฀ Fink’s฀ conception฀ of฀ world.฀ As฀ we฀ have฀ already฀ mentioned,฀ Patočka฀was,฀mainly฀through฀Fink,฀very฀deeply฀influenced฀by฀Nietzschean฀philosophy฀and฀critique฀of฀metaphysics.฀Nietzsche’s฀conception฀of฀being,฀based฀on฀movement,฀change,฀and฀conflict฀of฀forces,฀had฀a฀strong฀impact฀on฀Patočka’s฀phenomenology฀ of฀appearing฀as฀such.฀On฀the฀other฀hand,฀it฀is฀a฀Nietzscheanism฀without฀determinant฀ factors฀of฀Nietzschean฀thinking:฀Patočka฀does฀not฀accept฀the฀will฀to฀power,฀the฀idea฀ of฀eternal฀return฀and฀the฀tendency฀towards฀heroic฀Titanism. One฀should฀be฀very฀careful฀in฀approaching฀the฀connection฀between฀the฀two฀ thinkers.฀ I฀ by฀ no฀ means฀ want฀ to฀ suggest฀ that฀ Patočka฀ was฀ a฀ follower฀ of฀ the฀ Nietzschean฀way฀of฀philosophizing.฀I฀wish฀merely฀to฀show฀that฀the฀radicalization฀ of฀phenomenology฀made฀it฀well฀nigh฀impossible฀for฀him฀to฀express฀his฀new฀vision฀ Cf.฀Jan฀Patočka,฀“Die฀Sinnfrage฀in฀der฀Epoche฀des฀Nihilismus:฀Masaryk฀–฀Dostojewski฀–฀Kant฀–฀ Nietzsche฀ –฀ Heidegger,”฀ in฀ Tschechische฀ Philosophen฀ im฀ 20.฀ Jahrhundert,฀ ed.฀ and฀ transl.฀ L.฀Hagedorn฀(Stuttgart฀and฀München:฀Deutsche฀Verlags-Anstalt,฀2002),฀p.฀250:฀“so฀etwas฀wie฀ein฀ von฀ der฀ Liebe฀ geleitetes฀ Verstehen,฀ dessen฀ nächtsliegendes฀ Beispiel฀ in฀ unserer฀ Welt฀ die฀ ฀künstlerische฀Liebe฀ist,฀die฀die฀Dinge฀sich฀aus฀sich฀selbst฀entfalten฀läßt.” 22฀ Jan฀Patočka,฀Body,฀Community…,฀op.฀cit.,฀p.฀170:฀“In฀a฀manner฀of฀speaking,฀humans฀are฀pragmata,฀something฀that฀serves;฀human฀life฀serves฀in฀a฀sense฀different฀from฀that฀in฀which฀things฀are฀ equipmental.฀Objectivity฀[věcnost]฀means฀letting฀things฀be,฀letting฀them฀come฀to฀themselves,฀to฀ their฀being฀which฀is฀external฀to฀them฀and฀yet฀is฀theirs.” 23฀ See฀ Patočka’s฀ analysis฀ of฀ Dostoevsky’s฀ “The฀ Dream฀ of฀ a฀ Ridiculous฀ Man”฀ in฀ “Die฀ Sinnfrage…,”฀op.฀cit.,฀pp.฀239–253. 21฀ Negative฀Platonism฀and฀the฀Appearance-Problem 83 in฀ a฀ conceptual฀ way.฀ Appearing฀ as฀ such,฀ the฀ appearance-field฀ as฀ the฀ ultimate฀ ฀background฀of฀all฀phenomenalities,฀seems฀to฀defy฀not฀only฀conceptual฀interpretation,฀ but฀also฀phenomenological฀description.฀Patočka฀is฀not฀Nietzschean,฀but฀he฀tends฀to฀ apply฀Nietzschean฀concepts฀and฀metaphors฀to฀express฀his฀own฀philosophical฀vision.฀ I฀shall฀try฀to฀describe,฀from฀this฀point฀of฀view,฀the฀mediation฀between฀asubjective฀ phenomenology฀and฀subjective฀responsibility.฀It฀will฀be฀an฀attempt฀to฀reconstruct฀ Patočka’s฀phenomenology฀of฀appearing฀in฀a฀series฀of฀successive฀steps,฀though฀it฀is,฀ of฀course,฀not฀an฀argumentation฀in฀the฀classical฀sense. First฀step:฀Weltapriori.฀ Investigating฀the฀structure฀of฀appearing,฀Patočka฀relies฀on฀ the฀ concept฀ of฀ the฀ apriori฀ of฀ the฀ world.฀ The฀ world฀ is฀ not฀ the฀ universe฀ of฀ things:฀ world-structures฀ are฀ not฀ the฀ structures฀ of฀ finite฀ things,฀ just฀ as฀ the฀ lawfulness฀ of฀ appearing฀has฀nothing฀to฀do฀with฀the฀causal฀laws฀of฀physics฀or฀psychology.฀World฀ in฀this฀sense฀means฀a฀comprehensive฀unity฀of฀organic฀structural฀moments.24฀This฀ apriori฀as฀an฀organic฀unity฀of฀structural฀laws฀of฀appearing฀is฀not฀behind,฀but฀in฀the฀ very฀heart฀of฀all฀that฀appears.฀It฀is฀very฀difficult฀to฀grasp,฀because฀the฀ontic฀structure฀ of฀appearing฀things฀covers฀over฀this฀layer.฀The฀apriori฀of฀the฀world฀is฀within฀things฀ and฀objective฀relations,฀but฀is฀not฀itself฀a฀thing฀or฀an฀objective฀relation. Second฀step:฀Other฀kinds฀of฀realities.฀ Epoché฀means฀taking฀a฀step฀back฀from฀finite฀ things฀and฀turning฀our฀attention฀to฀the฀whole฀as฀such,฀but฀it฀is฀not฀merely฀a฀heuristic฀ or฀ methodological฀ claim,฀ after฀ which฀ the฀ phenomenologist฀ could฀ safely฀ turn฀ back฀to฀things.฀The฀change฀in฀attitude฀means฀changing฀the฀orientation฀of฀our฀attention฀as฀well.฀The฀modal฀transformation฀of฀our฀attitude฀towards฀reality฀involves฀a฀ more฀radical฀transformation:฀that฀of฀the฀subject฀of฀our฀phenomenological฀intuition.฀ Instead฀ of฀ objective฀ things฀ and฀ real฀ connections,฀ we฀ must฀ be฀ able฀ to฀ bring฀ into฀ sight฀other฀kinds฀of฀realities.฀What฀are฀these฀realities?฀Patočka,฀on฀several฀occasions,฀makes฀an฀attempt฀to฀list฀them,฀but฀the฀result฀seems฀always฀rather฀limited:฀ the฀near฀and฀the฀far,฀perspectives,฀characters฀of฀appearance,฀levels฀of฀fullness฀and฀ emptiness,฀ the฀ zero-point฀ of฀ orientation,฀ totality฀ of฀ space,฀ duration,฀ deficiency,฀ actuality฀ and฀ inactuality,฀ etc.25฀ What฀ does฀ this฀ list฀ suggest?฀ Neither฀ ontological฀ 24฀ Jan฀Patočka,฀Vom฀Erscheinen…,฀op.฀cit.,฀Text฀IV,฀p.฀104:฀“Die฀Zugänglichkeit฀des฀Einzelnen฀…฀ bedeutet฀ nur,฀ daß฀ kein฀ einziges฀ Seiendes฀ erfahren฀ werden฀ kann฀ außerhalb฀ dieses฀ Zusammenhangs,฀ welcher฀ das฀ ständig-grundlegende฀ Apriori฀ jeder฀ Erfahrung฀ bedeutet.฀ Dies฀ Apriori฀ ist฀ kein฀ Verhältnis฀ von฀ Kategorie฀ zur฀ Anschauung,฀ es฀ ist฀ kein฀ Begrifflich-Allgemeines,฀ sondern฀ man฀könnte฀es฀eher฀mit฀dem฀Verhältnis฀von฀einer฀durchgehenden฀Einheit฀zur฀von฀ihr฀umfaßten฀ Mannigfaltigkeit฀vergleichen.” 25฀ Ibid.,฀Text฀V,฀p.฀121:฀“Selbstgegeben฀und฀ursprünglich฀gegeben฀sind฀da฀Dinge฀in฀Perspektiven฀ und฀Erscheinungscharakteren,฀in฀Nähe฀und฀Ferne,฀im฀Optimum฀der฀Fülle฀oder฀schwindender฀Fülle฀ bis฀zum฀Verdecktsein฀und฀Verschwinden฀im฀Leerhorizont,฀der฀gar฀nicht฀so฀leer฀ist”;฀p.฀146:฀“Aus฀ den฀ Erscheinungscharakteren฀ wie฀ Raumtotalität,฀ Dauer,฀ perspektivische฀ Gegebenheit฀ des฀ Seienden,฀Originalgegebenheit฀und฀Defizienz,฀Gegenwart฀in฀Aktualität฀und฀Inaktualitäten,฀kann฀ sich฀ wegen฀ der฀ Formalität฀ dieser฀ Züge฀ kein฀ ‘Weltbild’฀ ergeben”;฀ p.฀ 151:฀ “Kein฀ Ding฀ und฀ Sachverhalt฀ kann฀ erscheinen,฀ ohne฀ in฀ die฀ Felder฀ von฀ Anschaulich-Unanschaulich,฀ Leere-Fülle,฀ Nähe-Akme-Ferne฀ usw.฀ einbezogen฀ zu฀ sein.฀ Diese฀ Zusammenhänge฀ und฀ ihr฀ ‘Funktionieren’,฀ ihren฀ Sinn฀ zu฀ durchforschen฀ scheint฀ uns,฀ anstatt฀ der฀ ‘noetisch-noematischen฀ Strukturen’,฀ die฀ Aufgabe฀einer฀Phänomenologie฀als฀Erscheinungslehre฀zu฀sein.” 84 T.฀Ullmann description฀in฀terms฀of฀subject฀and฀predicate,฀nor฀transcendental-฀phenomenological฀ approach฀in฀terms฀of฀noetic-noematic฀constitution.฀Patočka฀attempts฀to฀grasp฀the฀ structural฀lines฀of฀a฀new฀sphere,฀which฀has฀never฀been฀approached฀by฀traditional฀ thinking. Third฀ step:฀ Perspectivism,฀ forces,฀ struggle.฀ This฀ kind฀ of฀ phenomenological฀ approach฀is฀completed฀by฀a฀strong฀emphasis฀on฀–฀I฀would฀say฀–฀Nietzschean฀motifs.฀ I฀present฀three฀of฀them:฀perspectivism,฀forces,฀and฀struggle.฀(A)฀Patočka฀underlines฀ in฀many฀contexts฀the฀importance฀of฀a฀perspectivistic฀view:฀the฀lack฀of฀perspectivism฀ can฀be฀considered฀as฀the฀main฀flaw฀of฀every฀metaphysics.฀Perspectivism฀determines฀ not฀ only฀ temporal฀ and฀ historical฀ description,฀ but฀ also฀ movements฀ in฀ the฀ naturalsocial฀ world.26฀ Perspectivism฀ is฀ the฀ clearest฀ expression฀ of฀ the฀ both฀ thoroughly฀ social฀and฀thoroughly฀historical฀character฀of฀appearing฀as฀such.฀(B)฀Patočka฀discovers฀a฀certain฀cooperation฀or฀tension฀of฀forces฀on฀the฀level฀of฀appearing฀as฀such;฀in฀ other฀ words:฀ he฀ substitutes฀ description฀ of฀ forces฀ for฀ analysis฀ of฀ objects.฀ This฀ is฀ perhaps฀ the฀ point฀ where฀ he฀ most฀ clearly฀ goes฀ beyond฀ subjectivism.฀ To฀ speak฀ of฀ forces฀ in฀ appearing฀ implies฀ that฀ these฀ forces฀ belong฀ neither฀ to฀ intentional฀ sensebestowing฀activity,฀nor฀to฀particular฀objects.฀Phenomenology฀of฀appearing฀as฀such฀ abandons฀once฀and฀for฀all฀subjectivism฀and฀objectivism฀from฀the฀moment฀Patočka฀ takes฀into฀account฀the฀functioning฀of฀“forces”฀of฀appearing.27฀The฀task฀of฀phenomenology฀ is฀ thus฀ to฀ uncover฀ the฀ “Kraftlinien฀ des฀ Erscheinens,”฀ which฀ in฀ no฀ way฀ coincide฀ with฀ particular฀ things฀ or฀ objective฀ relations.฀ (C)฀ From฀ the฀ concept฀ of฀ forces,฀it฀is฀but฀a฀short฀step฀to฀the฀likewise฀Nietzschean,฀and฀indeed฀Heraclitean,฀ concept฀ of฀ struggle฀ between฀ forces.฀ We฀ know฀ the฀ importance฀ of฀ polemos฀ in฀ Patočka’s฀philosophy,฀but฀the฀function฀of฀polemos฀on฀the฀level฀of฀appearing฀as฀such฀ is฀not฀obvious.฀We฀might฀be฀tempted฀to฀think฀of฀the฀phenomenology฀of฀appearing฀ as฀ a฀ sphere฀ of฀ peaceful฀ Being฀ and฀ quiet฀ contemplation.฀ However,฀ the฀ novelty฀ of฀ Patočka’s฀thinking฀consists฀precisely฀in฀showing฀that฀appearing฀as฀such,฀the฀essence฀ of฀ phenomenality,฀ is฀ not฀ only฀ temporal,฀ historical,฀ and฀ thoroughly฀ dynamic,฀ but฀ also฀“polemic.”฀Polemic฀in฀the฀sense฀that฀things฀do฀not฀belong฀to฀a฀calm,฀neutral,฀ and฀ inoffensive฀ sphere฀ of฀ aesthetic฀ appearances;฀ on฀ the฀ contrary:฀ what฀ presents฀ itself฀as฀stable฀and฀lasting฀Being฀in฀the฀classical฀ontic฀or฀ontological฀sense฀(with฀ a฀substantial฀core฀and฀variable฀predicates)฀is฀a฀dynamic฀and฀organic฀complex฀of฀ struggling฀ forces.฀ Temporality฀ and฀ historicity฀ characterize,฀ not฀ only฀ the฀ socialnatural฀world,฀but฀also฀the฀seemingly฀more฀individual฀level฀of฀phenomenological฀ contemplation.฀ Parallel฀ to฀ this:฀ polemos฀ functions,฀ not฀ only฀ in฀ the฀ social-natural฀ world,฀but฀also฀on฀the฀phenomenological฀level฀of฀appearing฀as฀such. 26฀ Ibid.,฀p.฀126:฀“Was฀erscheint,฀ist฀nämlich฀nie฀eine฀Welt฀ohne฀die฀konkreten฀Subjekte,฀sondern฀die฀ Welt฀samt฀ihnen฀und฀ihrem฀Zusammenhang,฀der฀Sozialität.…฀er฀[der฀Zusammenhang฀zwischen฀ konkreten฀Subjekte฀und฀Weltdingen]฀läßt฀…฀die฀Möglichkeit฀verwirklichen,฀eine฀perspektivische฀ Welt฀erscheinen฀zu฀lassen,฀die฀Welt,฀die฀jemandem฀erscheint.” 27฀ Ibid.,฀p.฀124:฀“Die฀angeblichen฀Intentionen฀sind฀nichts฀anderes฀als฀Kraftlinien฀des฀Erscheinens฀ am฀Erscheinenden.฀Sie฀formieren฀und฀‘konstituieren’฀auch฀nichts,฀sondern฀zeigen฀bloß฀und฀weisen฀ auf฀anderes[,]฀als฀[es]฀das฀schon฀Erscheinende฀ist.” Negative฀Platonism฀and฀the฀Appearance-Problem 85 Fourth฀step:฀Embodiment฀and฀action.฀ Hence,฀the฀importance฀of฀bodily฀being฀for฀ Patočka.฀Corporeity฀cannot฀be฀interpreted฀as฀a฀transparent฀medium฀of฀perceptual฀ experience฀ or฀ practical-pragmatic฀ Being-in-the-world.฀ For฀ Patočka,฀ corporeity฀ is฀ more:฀it฀is฀what฀makes฀us฀part฀of฀a฀whole฀to฀which฀we฀belong฀by฀the฀whole฀of฀our฀ activity,฀passivity,฀and฀affectivity,฀yet฀from฀which฀we฀can฀still฀distance฀ourselves.฀ Corporeity฀ symbolizes฀ Patočka’s฀ profound฀ insight฀ that,฀ as฀ bodily฀ beings,฀ we฀ are฀ neither฀the฀mere฀passive,฀observing,฀contemplative฀part฀of฀appearing,฀nor฀its฀active,฀ constitutive฀source,฀but฀rather฀a฀field฀of฀forces฀within฀the฀whole,฀within฀the฀ultimate฀ field฀of฀forces.฀That฀is฀why฀Patočka฀rejects฀a฀phenomenology฀of฀kinesthesis.28฀The฀ body฀is฀not฀something฀that฀precedes฀actions,฀a฀permanent฀substratum฀for฀momentary฀actions.฀The฀body฀is฀nothing฀other฀than฀the฀complex฀system฀of฀actions. Fifth฀ step:฀ Actions฀ and฀ responsibility.฀ Perspectivism,฀ struggle฀ of฀ forces,฀ and฀ embodiment฀imply฀that,฀even฀from฀the฀viewpoint฀of฀asubjective฀phenomenology,฀ we฀would฀seem฀to฀arrive฀at฀a฀kind฀of฀interrelated฀complex฀of฀(non-Cartesian)฀ego฀ and฀ (non-subjectivistic)฀ activity.฀ Activity฀ directly฀ implies฀ responsibility,฀ since฀ freedom฀is฀not฀projection฀of฀possibilities,฀but฀responsibility฀for฀actions.29฀Though฀ the฀ adjective฀ that฀ best฀ characterizes฀ Patočka’s฀ phenomenology฀ of฀ appearing฀ is฀ doubtless฀ “antihumanistic,”฀ it฀ still฀ implies฀ the฀ idea฀ of฀ responsibility.฀ Like฀ all฀ other฀ phenomena฀ in฀ the฀ world,฀ we฀ are฀ not฀ substantial฀ beings,฀ but฀ the฀ result฀ of฀ struggling฀ forces,฀ physical฀ and฀ biological฀ forces,฀ bodily฀ and฀ psychic฀ instincts.฀ The฀task฀of฀thinking฀consists฀first฀of฀all฀in฀uncovering฀the฀illusions฀of฀anthropomorphism.30฀This฀very฀Nietzschean฀insight฀is฀an฀exemplary฀idea฀for฀Patočka,฀and฀ he฀ tries฀ to฀ show฀ from฀ many฀ points฀ of฀ view฀ that฀ freedom฀ is฀ not฀ my฀ particular฀ freedom,฀ since฀ there฀ is฀ no฀ human฀ substrate฀ with฀ the฀ special฀ attributes฀ of฀ freedom.31฀Nonetheless,฀freedom,฀distancing฀from฀things,฀is฀what฀constitutes฀my฀own฀ personal฀ perspective฀ of฀ experiencing฀ appearance฀ and฀ performing฀ acts฀ in฀ the฀ world.฀Strange฀as฀it฀may฀sound,฀it฀seems฀that฀bodily฀being฀and฀polemos฀of฀forces฀ constitute฀ my฀ personality฀ and฀ personal,฀ free฀ responsibility.฀ In฀ other฀ words:฀ the฀ origin฀ of฀ responsibility฀ is฀ not฀ a฀ spiritual฀ component฀ of฀ my฀ existence,฀ because฀ Ibid.฀p.฀132:฀“so฀gibt฀es฀auch฀keine฀einzelnen฀‘Kinästhesen’,฀sondern฀es฀gibt฀eben฀nur฀den฀agierenden฀und฀reagierenden฀Leib.” 29฀ Ibid.,฀ Text฀ III,฀ p.฀ 87:฀ “Die฀ Freiheit฀ liegt฀ nicht฀ im฀ Entwurf฀ der฀ Möglichkeiten,฀ sondern฀ in฀ der฀ Verantwortung฀für฀die฀Aktion,฀darin,฀daß฀es฀nicht฀ein฀Prozeß,฀ein฀passiv฀rezipiertes฀Geschehen,฀ sondern฀eine฀Leistung฀ist,฀die฀ich฀dadurch฀erbringe,฀daß฀ich฀die฀Möglichkeit,฀die฀mich฀aus฀der฀Welt฀ anspricht,฀als฀meine฀aufnehme฀oder฀abweise.” 30฀ Jan฀Patočka,฀Body,฀Community…,฀op.฀cit.,฀p.฀168:฀“Is฀there฀not,฀in฀Heidegger’s฀conception,฀still฀ too฀much฀that฀is฀anthropological?฀…฀Is฀there฀not,฀in฀the฀conception฀of฀the฀world฀as฀an฀aggregate฀ of฀potentialities฀which฀we฀can฀interpret,฀read,฀still฀too฀great฀a฀tendency฀to฀ignore฀the฀original฀closure฀ within฀ itself฀ of฀ what฀ is,฀ the฀ primordial฀ dark฀ night฀ of฀ existence฀ which฀ precedes฀ all฀ individuation?” 31฀ Jan฀Patočka,฀Vom฀Erscheinen…,฀op.฀cit.,฀Text฀I:฀“Kritik฀der฀Husserlschen฀phänomenologischen฀ Philosophie,”฀p.฀49:฀“Wenn฀es฀aber฀kein฀Seiendes฀oder฀‘Vorseiendes’฀gibt,฀zu฀dessen฀Attributen฀ die฀Freiheit฀gehörte…” 28฀ 86 T.฀Ullmann there฀is฀no฀such฀spiritual฀฀component.฀The฀very฀nature฀of฀appearing,฀the฀corporeal฀ relation฀to฀appearing฀and฀forces฀within฀appearing฀turn฀out฀to฀be฀the฀origin฀of฀freedom฀ and฀of฀responsibility. These฀briefly฀sketched฀structural฀moments฀seem฀to฀compose฀the฀middle฀sphere฀ between฀ two฀ extremities,฀ between฀ metaphysical฀ idealism฀ and฀ a฀ chaotic฀ vision฀ of฀ Being:฀Patočka฀calls฀this฀middle฀sphere฀“Idea”฀in฀the฀sense฀of฀“negative฀Platonism.”฀ An฀“idea”฀referring,฀not฀to฀the฀general฀characteristics฀of฀an฀objective฀mode฀of฀Being,฀ but฀precisely฀to฀the฀complex฀of฀asubjective฀and฀non-objective฀features,฀aspects,฀patterns,฀structures,฀perspectives฀and฀forces฀that฀compose฀appearing฀as฀such.