Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front. Philos. China    2016, Vol. 11 Issue (3) : 395-414    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-005-016-0029-4
Orginal Article
The Invisible and the Secret: Of a Phenomenology of the Inapparent
François Raffoul()
Department of Philosophy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA
 Download: PDF(308 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

I consider in this article Heidegger’s late characterization of phenomenology as a “phenomenology of the inapparent.” Phenomenology is traditionally considered to be a thought of presence, assigned to a phenomenon that is identified with the present being, or with an object for consciousness. The phenomenon would be synonymous with presence itself, with what manifests itself in a presence. However, I will suggest in the following pages that phenomenology is haunted by the presence of a certain unappearing dimension, a claim that was made by Heidegger in his last seminar in 1973, when he characterized the most proper sense of phenomenology as a “phenomenology of the inapparent.” I attempt to show in what sense for Heidegger the “inapparent” plays in phenomenality and in phenomenology, and to then consider (drawing from Levinas and Derrida) its ethical import.

Keywords phenomenology      presence      invisibility      otherness      secret      responsibility     
Issue Date: 19 September 2016
 Cite this article:   
Fran?ois Raffoul. The Invisible and the Secret: Of a Phenomenology of the Inapparent[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 395-414.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-005-016-0029-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2016/V11/I3/395
[1] Dmytro Mykhailov. The Phenomenological Roots of Technological Intentionality: A Postphenomenological Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 612-635.
[2] Saulius Geniusas. Husserlian Phenomenology and Derridean Deconstruction: Their Fundamental Methodological Commitments[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 451-471.
[3] Heath Williams. Analytic Phenomenology (or “What It Is Like”) vs. Husserlian Phenomenology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 427-450.
[4] LI Jing. Day and Night Overlap: Jan Patočka’s Phenomenological Interpretation of the Front-Line Experience[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 409-426.
[5] Genki Uemura. Articulating Consciousness: Brentano and Husserl on Descriptive Analysis[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 352-379.
[6] Emilia Angelova. Hegel after Nancy: Sensibility, Singularity, and the Problem of the x[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 535-553.
[7] Hans-Georg Moeller. Necessity and Memory in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: A Reconstruction[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 505-517.
[8] Marcel Brass, Derk Pereboom. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Free Will[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 361-376.
[9] ZHANG Ke. Situationism and Moral Responsibility[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 420-429.
[10] Giulio Tononi, Owen Flanagan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Consciousness[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 332-348.
[11] Hye Young Kim. A Phenomenological Approach to the Korean “We”: A Study in Social Intentionality[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 612-632.
[12] Patricia Huntington. Place as Refuge: Exploring the Poetical Legacy of Matsuo Bashō[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 572-590.
[13] Sai Hang Kwok. Tianming and the Other: Rethinking the Source of Responsibility in the Zhong Yong and Emmanuel Levinas[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 501-520.
[14] Tara Kennedy. The Ethics of Treating Animals as Resources: A Post-Heideggerian Approach[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 463-482.
[15] Megan Altman. Heidegger on the Struggle for Belongingness and Being at Home[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 444-462.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed