With the possible exception of the first volume of the Ideas, no single work published by Husserl has caused as much controversy among philosophers otherwise sympathetic to his philosophical endeavor as the 5th Cartesian Meditation. The controversy centers around the constitutive analysis of the sense "another subject," an analysis the elaborate detail of which seems out of place in the otherwise programmatic Cartesian Meditations. This analysis, which marks the first step in Husserl's account of consciousness of the other as another (...) subject, consciousness of self as a subject among other subjects, and consciousness of the world as an Objective 1 world, a world shared by a plurality of different subjects, is regarded to be a test of the philosophical status of transcendental phenomenology as such, a test Husserl seems to have failed. The present essay will examine this constitutive analysis as well as the role it plays in the argument of the 5th Meditation. As the title suggests, I shall side with Husserl's critics in that the analysis will be found to be wanting. However, the essay will not be simply critical, nor will it be a review of the various criticisms and defenses of the 5th Meditation which have appeared in the phenomenological tradition. Rather, an attempt to rethink the problem of intersubjectivity, the title that will be adopted for the problems posed by meanings founded upon the sense "another subject," will be made, and, in light of this attempt, a new approach to the constitutive analysis of the sense "another subject" will be presented. The specific thesis of this essay, viz., that a new approach to the constitutive analysis of the experience of the other as another subject is required, one different from Husserl's approach in the 5th Meditation, is based upon the rejection of Husserl's position that consciousness of the other as another subject is originally founded upon a connection made by the I between the other qua phenomenal object and itself qua phenomenal object, a connection that makes the extension of mental predicates to the other possible. The question I shall pose is this: Is the proper locus for the constitutive analysis of the sense "another subject," the analysis of the various motives and resulting intentional accomplishments in virtue of which the other presents himself as another subject, the distinction made on the level of the fully constituted, intersubjective world between the "privacy" of mental life and the "publicness" of the body? It will be argued that the attribution of mental life to the other (and to the I, for that matter) has the status of an explanation for observed phenomena the basis for the recognition of which is intersubjective (e.g., conflicts between subjects regarding their opinions of an Object, the difference between the behavior of subjects vis-a-vis that of inanimate objects, etc.), and hence that the distinction between "mind" and "body" cannot guide the analysis of the intentional situation that motivates the distinction. (shrink)

Mohanty, J.N. Understanding Husserl's transcendental phenomenology.--Fink, E. The problem of the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl. Operative concepts in Husserl's phenomenology.--Funke, G. A transcendental-phenomenological investigation concerning universal idealism, intentional analysis, and the genesis of habitus: archē, phansis, hexis, logos.--Pentzopoulou-Valalas, T. Reflections on the foundation of the relation between the a priori and the eidos in the phenomenology of Husserl.--Landgrebe, L. Regions of being and regional ontologies in Husserl's phenomenology. The problem posed by the transcendental science of the a priori of the (...) life world.--Wahl, J. Notes on the first part of Experience and judgment by Husserl.--Landgrebe, L. A letter from Ludwig Landgrebe to Jean Wahl.-- Wahl, J. A note on some empiricist aspects of the thought of Husserl.--Toulemont, R. The specific character of the social according to Husserl. (shrink)