What do you think?
Rate this book
Body, Community, Language, World
Patocka, like few others before or since, combined what was best in Husserl and Heidegger, but at the same time found for himself a distinct, original philosophical voice. Both his originality and his synthesis of the two dominant strands of classical phenomenology are evident here, as Patocka pursues the threefold theme of subject body, human community, and the phenomenological understanding of "world." This volume is an excellent introduction to philosophy in the phenomenological tradition.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
208 pages, Paperback
Published January 12, 1999
5 people are currently reading
203 people want to read
About the author
Jan Patočka
86 books38 followersJan Patočka (June 1, 1907, Turnov, Bohemia - March 13, 1977, Prague) is considered one of the most important contributors to Czech philosophical phenomenology, as well as one of the most influential central European philosophers of the 20th century. Having studied in Prague, Paris, Berlin and Freiburg, he was one of the last pupils of Edmund Husserl, who is considered the founder of phenomenology, and Martin Heidegger. During his studies in Freiburg he was also tutored by Eugen Fink, a relation which eventually turned into a lifelong philosophical friendship.
His works mainly dealt with the problem of the original, given world (Lebenswelt), its structure and the human position in it. He tried to develop this basically Husserlian concept under the influence of some core Heideggerian themes (e.g. historicity, technicity, etc.) On the other hand, he also criticised Heideggerian philosophy for not dealing sufficiently with the basic structures of being-in-the-world, which are not truth-revealing activities (this led him to an appreciation of the work of Hannah Arendt). From this standpoint he formulated his own original theory of "three movements of human existence": 1) receiving, 2) reproduction, 3) transcendence.
His works mainly dealt with the problem of the original, given world (Lebenswelt), its structure and the human position in it. He tried to develop this basically Husserlian concept under the influence of some core Heideggerian themes (e.g. historicity, technicity, etc.) On the other hand, he also criticised Heideggerian philosophy for not dealing sufficiently with the basic structures of being-in-the-world, which are not truth-revealing activities (this led him to an appreciation of the work of Hannah Arendt). From this standpoint he formulated his own original theory of "three movements of human existence": 1) receiving, 2) reproduction, 3) transcendence.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 26, 2012
Body, Community, Language, World
Jan Patocka, a Czech phenomenological philosopher 1907-1977, who was tortured to death under police interrogation, delivered a series of lectures 1968-9 that represent the culmination of much of his work. The lectures were dutifully transcribed and put together in this book.
Phenomenology is a philosophical movement started in the early 20th century reflecting on and studying consciousness and the “phenomena” observed by or appearing in it. It differs from “Cartesian” (Rene Descartes) analysis which assumes a world of objective, mutually exclusive objects interacting with one another. Phenomenology focuses on the subjective versus objective.
Given that at this time the work of Einstein and Heisenberg and other quantum physicists were transcending* Newtonian ideas of mutually exclusive objects NOT connected to an observer, it is not surprising that in the realm of philosophy, a similar movement was occurring in which Rene Descartes’ ideas were being transcended. (transcending as in “not overturning or disproving”)
Those ideas still indeed hold eminent and practical day-to-day value. Nevertheless, the work of these thinkers points the way back to thinkers of long ago as well as forward.
So few words in the book were “superfluous”, so many demanded deliberate attention, an effort at complete comprehension if one hoped follow a difficult thing—describing and explaining what it is to be or not, to be conscious or not and to be humanly consciously or not. To be knowingly on and remain on the cutting edge of human understanding is not easy—whether lecturer or student.
One theme was the corporeity of experience… What has experience without having a body? This inevitably leads to what was—many ions ago and more recently since quantum discoveries—a lack of differentiation between mind and body, spirit and matter, etc. A reference point is needed, a localized consciousness for identifying up, down, left, right, front, behind…
The very word, “understand” shows a link in our language between mind and matter. I now under-stand this topic. “Yes”, I can now bend down, pick it up and stand under it. One cannot stand under or understand something without “being” a body. There is no mutual exclusivity and on the natural science side, mind and matter are being postulated as of a unified order, two ends of or a wedge within a spectrum.
Knowledge, now that is a bit different, not exclusive from but indeed subsequent to understanding. Obviously, in day-to-day affairs, it makes no use to make this differentiation i.e. the more knowledge of a topic, the better I understand it. However, for many reasons, it is helpful to recognize the differentiation. As this differentiation probably lies at the root of valuing “common sense” over bookishness, emotional intelligence vs harder forms of it types.
Another fascinating theme is the temporally unfolding nature of consciousness. This relates to the all-too-human experiences of self-concealment and only truly coming to know (at least all or in part) why one has done what one has done only AFTER one has done it—i.e. “I did not know what I was doing”. This is a very humane AND humiliating statement, and in my current nearly-single status, underscores the potential to experience (ham-handed unintended) pain, but also the repeat unfolding of increasingly meaningful experiences—whenever they occurred.
Parallels begin to be seen between this “unfixed” consciousness with both the ultimate blurriness between body and spirit mentioned above and our own shifting understanding of time. Again, going back to Descartes and Newton, time WAS considered linear, sequential, a thing in and of itself flowing, not effected by matter. And again, as the same with ions ago and then come early 20th century, Einstein blew that up by showing matter and energy DO effect time and frames of reference are necessary to understand and experience it.
As with the day-to-day reality of common sense being paramount over knowledge, so too is the day-to-day value of seeing matter as reliably stable and not prone at any minute to burst into spirit and bite you on the ankle. Damn spirit. And for that matter, to be preoccupied by what “time” it is. Plus, I am a huge fan of the achievements of the physic laws of Newton—the moon shot, medicine, internet, usefulness of clocks so I can arrive on time, etc….
Nevertheless, there is a peculiar “eternal now” to our mind at times. We do not ask for certain memories to “hit us” nevertheless sometimes distant ones do, shedding light on our unfolding understanding of ourselves and the sometimes stupid things done in the past. While Memories that “surface from the implicate order of the mind” can continue to be formative, the same holds true in reverse and we can formatively change those memories and possibly that implicate order. The past can change and who were thought we were can change.
Similarly, there may be an eternal “now” to the “implicate order” in the universe. The first cosmic gases may have been “informed” by an everywhere yet nowhere implicate order just as is the trajectory of the skidding of Halley’s Comet around the sun. It is the same implicate order from which electrons are continually unfolding and into which they are submerging themselves. In a sense it always was and still is. Further, similar to how we can possibly change the implicate order of our mind or at least our memories for sure, it is becoming apparent, again via quantum level studies, that the “explicate order”, i.e. rocks, electrons, the grey matter of the brain, etc can inform “back on” the underlying implicate order and “update” or at least influence and change it.
As if this were not enough, nestled in these chapters were three proposed “interpenetrating movements” of human existence, seriously, and bulleted!
1) Sinking roots and anchoring, a very “affect” rich instinctual movement. [Perhaps, “old brain”, needs based, “I need me a good man, woman, I’m cold, etc.” …]
2) self-sustenance and self-projection in which we come to terms with our given reality and through
working with others. [Day-to-day household upkeep, execution of career choice, community engagement, “Can’t wait for that next adventure with my buddies or that next whatever with my girls.”, etc.]
3) making sense of 1 & 2, bestowing meaning, coming to closure on those things, choosing paths forward etc... [Reflecting on life, why what was done was done, what does it mean, what will be done, how should it be done, etc…?]
Here we can see self-concealment of the human mind. There can be some bodily or psychological pain or need in the instinctual movement that subtly affect our choices as we self-project ourselves into the world. Then, in reflection, we may come to regret or be pleased with things, but either way, hopefully we learn.
Jan Patocka, a Czech phenomenological philosopher 1907-1977, who was tortured to death under police interrogation, delivered a series of lectures 1968-9 that represent the culmination of much of his work. The lectures were dutifully transcribed and put together in this book.
Phenomenology is a philosophical movement started in the early 20th century reflecting on and studying consciousness and the “phenomena” observed by or appearing in it. It differs from “Cartesian” (Rene Descartes) analysis which assumes a world of objective, mutually exclusive objects interacting with one another. Phenomenology focuses on the subjective versus objective.
Given that at this time the work of Einstein and Heisenberg and other quantum physicists were transcending* Newtonian ideas of mutually exclusive objects NOT connected to an observer, it is not surprising that in the realm of philosophy, a similar movement was occurring in which Rene Descartes’ ideas were being transcended. (transcending as in “not overturning or disproving”)
Those ideas still indeed hold eminent and practical day-to-day value. Nevertheless, the work of these thinkers points the way back to thinkers of long ago as well as forward.
So few words in the book were “superfluous”, so many demanded deliberate attention, an effort at complete comprehension if one hoped follow a difficult thing—describing and explaining what it is to be or not, to be conscious or not and to be humanly consciously or not. To be knowingly on and remain on the cutting edge of human understanding is not easy—whether lecturer or student.
One theme was the corporeity of experience… What has experience without having a body? This inevitably leads to what was—many ions ago and more recently since quantum discoveries—a lack of differentiation between mind and body, spirit and matter, etc. A reference point is needed, a localized consciousness for identifying up, down, left, right, front, behind…
The very word, “understand” shows a link in our language between mind and matter. I now under-stand this topic. “Yes”, I can now bend down, pick it up and stand under it. One cannot stand under or understand something without “being” a body. There is no mutual exclusivity and on the natural science side, mind and matter are being postulated as of a unified order, two ends of or a wedge within a spectrum.
Knowledge, now that is a bit different, not exclusive from but indeed subsequent to understanding. Obviously, in day-to-day affairs, it makes no use to make this differentiation i.e. the more knowledge of a topic, the better I understand it. However, for many reasons, it is helpful to recognize the differentiation. As this differentiation probably lies at the root of valuing “common sense” over bookishness, emotional intelligence vs harder forms of it types.
Another fascinating theme is the temporally unfolding nature of consciousness. This relates to the all-too-human experiences of self-concealment and only truly coming to know (at least all or in part) why one has done what one has done only AFTER one has done it—i.e. “I did not know what I was doing”. This is a very humane AND humiliating statement, and in my current nearly-single status, underscores the potential to experience (ham-handed unintended) pain, but also the repeat unfolding of increasingly meaningful experiences—whenever they occurred.
Parallels begin to be seen between this “unfixed” consciousness with both the ultimate blurriness between body and spirit mentioned above and our own shifting understanding of time. Again, going back to Descartes and Newton, time WAS considered linear, sequential, a thing in and of itself flowing, not effected by matter. And again, as the same with ions ago and then come early 20th century, Einstein blew that up by showing matter and energy DO effect time and frames of reference are necessary to understand and experience it.
As with the day-to-day reality of common sense being paramount over knowledge, so too is the day-to-day value of seeing matter as reliably stable and not prone at any minute to burst into spirit and bite you on the ankle. Damn spirit. And for that matter, to be preoccupied by what “time” it is. Plus, I am a huge fan of the achievements of the physic laws of Newton—the moon shot, medicine, internet, usefulness of clocks so I can arrive on time, etc….
Nevertheless, there is a peculiar “eternal now” to our mind at times. We do not ask for certain memories to “hit us” nevertheless sometimes distant ones do, shedding light on our unfolding understanding of ourselves and the sometimes stupid things done in the past. While Memories that “surface from the implicate order of the mind” can continue to be formative, the same holds true in reverse and we can formatively change those memories and possibly that implicate order. The past can change and who were thought we were can change.
Similarly, there may be an eternal “now” to the “implicate order” in the universe. The first cosmic gases may have been “informed” by an everywhere yet nowhere implicate order just as is the trajectory of the skidding of Halley’s Comet around the sun. It is the same implicate order from which electrons are continually unfolding and into which they are submerging themselves. In a sense it always was and still is. Further, similar to how we can possibly change the implicate order of our mind or at least our memories for sure, it is becoming apparent, again via quantum level studies, that the “explicate order”, i.e. rocks, electrons, the grey matter of the brain, etc can inform “back on” the underlying implicate order and “update” or at least influence and change it.
As if this were not enough, nestled in these chapters were three proposed “interpenetrating movements” of human existence, seriously, and bulleted!
1) Sinking roots and anchoring, a very “affect” rich instinctual movement. [Perhaps, “old brain”, needs based, “I need me a good man, woman, I’m cold, etc.” …]
2) self-sustenance and self-projection in which we come to terms with our given reality and through
working with others. [Day-to-day household upkeep, execution of career choice, community engagement, “Can’t wait for that next adventure with my buddies or that next whatever with my girls.”, etc.]
3) making sense of 1 & 2, bestowing meaning, coming to closure on those things, choosing paths forward etc... [Reflecting on life, why what was done was done, what does it mean, what will be done, how should it be done, etc…?]
Here we can see self-concealment of the human mind. There can be some bodily or psychological pain or need in the instinctual movement that subtly affect our choices as we self-project ourselves into the world. Then, in reflection, we may come to regret or be pleased with things, but either way, hopefully we learn.
August 17, 2011
I finally finished this book. I came to Patocka through Jacques Derrida's [Book: Gift of Death]. That lead me to Heretical Essays in the History of Philosophy, which I read from the UCLA library and only just bought a copy of. There were a couple of years there where all the copies online were $100+.
This book is still pretty cheap and very accessible considering it's origin story. It's a compilation of lecture notes by students of his during the one year since 1949 that Patocka was allowed to teach in the Czech university, 1968/69. The lectures start out very hopeful and end up more somber because the Soviets move in halfway through.
But that's just a sideshow that you learn about at the end if you read the translators postscript.
The philosophy is the star here. This is one of the most cogent, erudite philosophical treatises that I've ever read, not that I've read everybody. I did have to take a detour through Kant and read part of [Book: Caring for the Soul in a Postmodern Age: Politics and Phenomenology in the Thought of Jan Patocka] by [Author: Edward F. Findlay] and come back to really understand it. But don't let that intimidate you. I don't pretend to understand much of what I read in philosophy. I wait for the ah ha moments afforded and enjoy those and Patocka will give you many moments where you just smack your forehead and say, "Oh, that's how the world works! Right! How did I not think of that?!"
Just one example and I'll leave this very worthy book to your own perusal. On page 105, Patocka explains that people exist in a state of understanding. Not that we do understand things, just that we approach the world as if we understand it. I work in factories, for instance, and most people do things in a way handed down to them that wasn't very well explained. But if you ask people why they are doing something in a particular way, they will readily offer some folk explanation that they have come up with. Most of this world is inscrutable. Anyone familiar with the basis of scientific knowledge understands that there are always more questions than answers, however, if asked to provide an explanation for how things work, I would come up with one. In my day-to-day, I exist in the consciousness that I pretty well understand how things work, not in perpetual consciousness that I don't in any way understand it.
Anyhow, that's just a taste. Quite brilliant. Do pick it up.
This book is still pretty cheap and very accessible considering it's origin story. It's a compilation of lecture notes by students of his during the one year since 1949 that Patocka was allowed to teach in the Czech university, 1968/69. The lectures start out very hopeful and end up more somber because the Soviets move in halfway through.
But that's just a sideshow that you learn about at the end if you read the translators postscript.
The philosophy is the star here. This is one of the most cogent, erudite philosophical treatises that I've ever read, not that I've read everybody. I did have to take a detour through Kant and read part of [Book: Caring for the Soul in a Postmodern Age: Politics and Phenomenology in the Thought of Jan Patocka] by [Author: Edward F. Findlay] and come back to really understand it. But don't let that intimidate you. I don't pretend to understand much of what I read in philosophy. I wait for the ah ha moments afforded and enjoy those and Patocka will give you many moments where you just smack your forehead and say, "Oh, that's how the world works! Right! How did I not think of that?!"
Just one example and I'll leave this very worthy book to your own perusal. On page 105, Patocka explains that people exist in a state of understanding. Not that we do understand things, just that we approach the world as if we understand it. I work in factories, for instance, and most people do things in a way handed down to them that wasn't very well explained. But if you ask people why they are doing something in a particular way, they will readily offer some folk explanation that they have come up with. Most of this world is inscrutable. Anyone familiar with the basis of scientific knowledge understands that there are always more questions than answers, however, if asked to provide an explanation for how things work, I would come up with one. In my day-to-day, I exist in the consciousness that I pretty well understand how things work, not in perpetual consciousness that I don't in any way understand it.
Anyhow, that's just a taste. Quite brilliant. Do pick it up.
Read
February 23, 2008This is another one I'm really excited to dive into. Patocka takes as his starting point the notion that we are embodied in two ways, physiologically and subjectively. I'm reading this at the same time as I'm reading "The Use of Pleasure," so it should be interesting to see if these intersect.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews