AbstractQuentin Meillassoux’s speculative materialism aims to define access to reality of the natural world apart from its giveness to sentient subjects. This world apart is designated by Meillassoux as the “Great Outdoors” which was marginalized as a topic of philosophy after Kant’s critiques. The question of the incommensurability of human subjects and physical objects is taken up by Meillassoux and addressed by allowing mathematizable properties of physical objects to be referred to objectively in mathematical statements. In this paper we follow the discussion with speculative materialism conducted by Deborah Danowski and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro in The Ends of the World (2017). These authors show that Meillassoux’s conception of the “Great Outdoors” includes, yet insufficiently explores, the notion of ancestral humanity in Amerindian myth – and intimately related to the practice of hallucinogenic trance – as the means to address the problem of said incommensurability.

The paper considers a polemic thesis that Viveiros de Castro’s Amerindian perspectivism is characterized by the overcoming of the first-person perspective. Multi-natural cosmological deictic figures instead of the first-person perspective. This opposes the latter to the perspective of transcendental philosophy. The thesis of multiple worlds is an interpretation of the indigenous perspective which is determined, among other themes, by its point of view toward the West. It implies that Amerindian perspectivism should be understood as resistance to naturalism, akin to phenomenology’s origin as it is conceived in eco-phenomenology. The ontological turn of anthropology is the most concerted attempt to formulate an anthropological version of Husserl’s reduction that reduces the division of first and third-person perspectives to reveal the indigenous cosmological deictics. The opponents of the ontological turn oppose it to phenomenology.

Straipsnyje tiriamas antrajame tyrinėjime išdėstytas Husserlio ginčas su empiristine abstrakcijos teorija. Atskleidžiami keturi pagrindiniai Husserlio argumentai ir išryškinama fenomenologinio dėmesio aprašymo problematika. Atrandamas dėmesio ir intencionalumo fenomenų skirties pagrindas generalizuojančios ir individualizuojančios intencijos distinkcijoje, nes šiai paaiškinti būtina turėti dėmesio sampratą. Tai laiduoja abstrakčios dėmesio sąvokos reikšmės išaiškinimo reikmę ir genetinę dėmesio sampratos išplėtojimo galimybę.

According to Viveiros de Castro, comparison as ontology defines the ontological turn in anthropology. It presents a necessity for philosophy to approach the matter with comparative strategy. Morten Pedersen claims that ontological turn should be interpreted as a fulfillment of an anthropological version of Husserl’s method. Thus, phenomenology enters the field of interest along with its critique in Speculative Realism. In this article, we will see clearly why this selection is not accidental but rather unavoidable. Amerindian perspectivism necessitates the philosophical reconceptualization of perspective in general, which is to be taken as a challenge for the established discourses. The need arises to rethink the problematic of Kantian perspectivism and its offspring. Amerindian perspectivism proposes cosmological deictics that hold a spatiality of the perspective of the other, of the in-itself, thus it comes into an opposition to Kant’s system. Phenomenological perspective, as one of the Kantian offspring, faces a predicament that is interwoven with the critique of correlationism arriving from Speculative Realisms. The synthetic character of phenomenology allows enough flexibility for it to traverse these recent charges. We will draw a comparative picture of dynamic co-evolution of strains of recent thought, striving for a synthetic multiplicity, permeated by a common perspectival thread.

[straipsnis ir santrauka lietuvių kalba; santrauka anglų kalba]Kritinėje literatūroje, skirtoje dėmesio fenomenologijai, išsiplėtojo diskusija apie ankstyvąją Husserlio dėmesio sampratą. Išskirtinos dvi pagrindinės polemikos pusės: pirmoji, neigianti ankstyvąjį Husserlį formulavus dėmesio sampratą kaip atskirą nuo intencionalumo tematikos (Depraz, Dwyer, Arvidson); antroji, tvirtinanti, kad ankstyvasis Husserlis skyrė dėmesio ir intencionalumo fenomenus ir suvokė tai kaip (sąlyginai) atskiras fenomenologinių tyrinėjimų sritis (Bégout, Wehrle, Breyer, Nečiajev).Straipsnyje tiriamas antrajame tyrinėjime išdėstytas Husserlio ginčas su empiristine abstrakcijos teorija. Atskleidžiami keturi pagrindiniai Husserlio argumentai ir išryškinama fenomenologinio dėmesio aprašymo problematika. Atrandamas dėmesio ir intencionalumo fenomenų skirties pagrindas generalizuojančios ir individualizuojančios intencijos distinkcijoje, nes šiai paaiškinti būtina turėti dėmesio sampratą. Tai laiduoja abstrakčios dėmesio sąvokos reikšmės išaiškinimo reikmę ir genetinę dėmesio sampratos išplėtojimo galimybę.