English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

After explaining why phenomenology of the alien cannot be counted among traditional philosophical disciplines, the author explores why all of European history can be read as the “shading of the alien” (Verblendung des Fremden), although not in the sense of mere disregarding, neglecting or denying of the alien, but disciplining it, manipulating and exploiting it. The alien has not been forgotten for centuries, it was always in the European focus, but only as an instance through which the sense of power was traditionally constructed. Following the basic presumptions of Bernhard Waldenfels’ phenomenology of the alien the article presents the shading of the alien as analogous to the process of its naturalization. As if the tradition of European colonialism can be best understood in the key of maître et possesseur de’l étranger. That is to say, the European legacy shows, in an extraordinary manner, that the alien can be transformed into a resource, from which we can appropriate and assimilate everything. A crucial insight for Waldenfels is also that strangeness is not reducible to a narrow segment of reality, whether it is culture, religion or art-based, because strangeness is a radical dimension that transcends all regions. The irreducibility of the stranger to an enemy The phenomenology of the alien is not a new discipline among the already known philosophical disciplines. It can hardly be a new discipline, since to be considered as new, it must be determined by a new, previously unknown objective determination, or an entirely new methodology. A new method creates new forms of thought, which cannot be reduced to previous philosophical experiences. The phenomenology of the alien is not a new discipline because its topic is not a topic, and its object is not an object. Strangeness cannot be considered a traditional philosophical phenomenon, as it never exists by itself. The alien is always alien for someone or to someone, it is a category of a relation and it is not possible to perceive it without relating to someone or something. Strangeness is not tied to the sense of failure or perdition, it’s not just a simple failed misunderstanding. The experience of the alien is not like other experiences; it cannot be “grafted” to the previously experienced. The experience of the alien is a diversion, a fissure, a break – it slices through the harmony of the spontaneous temporal fabric of consciousness. It disrupts me, being

Polemology and xenology: Waldenfels and the sting of the alien