title: RESPONSE TO ANNA YAMPOLSKAYA’S REVIEW OF LEVINAS, KANT AND THE PROBLEMATIC OF TEMPORALITY
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: FRANGESKOU, ADONIS
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2020-07-08T10:57:20Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2020-07-08T10:57:20Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2020-03
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: FRANGESKOU A. RESPONSE TO ANNA YAMPOLSKAYA’S REVIEW OF LEVINAS, KANT AND THE PROBLEMATIC OF TEMPORALITY. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology, 2020, vol. 9, issue 1, pp. 355–365.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/2226-5260-2020-9-1-355-365
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/18582
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: The aim of this paper is to respond to Anna Yampolskaya’s challenge to the interpretative strategy of
  my book, Levinas, Kant and the Problematic of Temporality. I intend to refute her claim that by effectively
  withdrawing the problematic of sensibility from view my book has forgotten, or, at the very least,
  shaded the Rosenzweigian requirement of concreteness that Levinas first inherited from Heidegger,
  and to refute her corollary argument that my ethical reading of the schematism in Kant’s First Critique
  is not sufficiently justified because it suspends the problem of the symbolic imagination in Kant’s Third
  Critique. This double refutation will require me to reiterate the concrete unveiling of the Kantian schematism
  in Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant (according to its destruction of the schematism of the
  categories) and in Levinas’ explication of Rosenzweig (such as it unfolds a more radical destruction
  of the schematism of the ideas). It will also require me to demonstrate precisely how this ideal notion
  of the Kantian schematism in the form of the regulative ideas of pure reason (and more specifically,
  in the form of the regulative idea of God) is indeed read by Levinas himself in the ethical terms of the
  equivocation or enigma of diachrony, that is, in the ethical terms of his philosophy of ambiguity (such as
  it adheres to the Kantian antinomies). This is the interpretation that I propose to defend against Yampolskaya’s
  claim that my ethical reading of the First Critique should have taken this ambiguous form of
  rationality seriously.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: en
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology;Volume 9; Issue 1
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Levinas
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Kant
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Heidegger
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Rosenzweig
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Kantian schematism
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: imagination
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: reason
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: sensibility
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: diachrony
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: RESPONSE TO ANNA YAMPOLSKAYA’S REVIEW OF LEVINAS, KANT AND THE PROBLEMATIC OF TEMPORALITY
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 355-365.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/18582/1/355-365.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 641,2 kB