Abstract

The article analyzes the commentaryof the Belgian phenomenologist MarcRichir on the Beilage III of the Crisis of Edmund Husserl. In this famous historico-philosophical treatise Husserl examines the eidetic dependencies of ideality, language and history from a genetic perspective. The model of ‘Ur-’, ‘Nach-’, and ‘Endstiftung’ is intended to bring to light a transcendental insight into the ‘inner historicity’ of the objects of knowledge which corresponds with an epistemological model of history. Marc Richir’s thesis is that in this field of complex relations there are several confusions of phenomenological and actually symbolic aspects. To be able to name and criticize these implicit changes of register, it is necessary to elaborate on Richir’s own transcendental-phenomenological approach: the phenomenological architectonics of the phenomenological and symbolic field. This architectonics inserts into the Husserlian difference of intentional and formal-syntactic thinking, a symbolic field in the sense of ‘languagephenomenon’