Husserl: Empirical vs Transcendental

This book focuses on Edmund Husserl’s philosophical collaboration with Eugen Fink which took place in the early 1930s, and shows how their disagreement over the nature, origin, and aim of phenomenology led to a crucial divergence on the issue of who was engaging in phenomenology, and with what motivation. It provides a philosophical investigation of a key moment in the development of Husserl’s late phenomenology. The author claims that Husserl’s meta-phenomenological exploration of the theoretical and, importantly, practical underpinnings of the (...) transcendental investigator leads him to affirm their humanity and, ultimately, to adopt an ethically charged ideal of “higher humanity” as telos of phenomenology. Fink argued that phenomenology was essentially an activity beyond the horizon of human possibility and history. In contrast, Džanić illustrates how Husserl was looking for a way to theoretically unite the purity of transcendental insight with the existential reality and practical motives of the phenomenologist. Understanding the complex aspects of this debate is crucial for understanding the Crisis-period of Husserl’s thought. This text appeals to graduate students and researchers in phenomenology and related fields of philosophy. (shrink)

The author analyses the second phase of the development of Husserl’s phenomenological egology and the transition from nonegological to egological phenomenology. Accepting the necessity of the pure I as a phenomenological residue of the transcendental epoché, a non-constituted transcendence in immanence and the source of the evidence of the ‘I am’, it is analysed in its main aspects – such as, among others, the I-pole and I-substrate of habitualities – and in its traits and roles it plays in the stream (...) of lived experiences of pure consciousness. Thus formulated, pure I will be incorporated into the late concepts of transcendental ego and transcendental intersubjectivity. The shortcomings of such an egological conception of consciousness will also be examined, to which the nonegological theories of Husserl’s followers will not offer an adequate solution, making the debate of the egological character of consciousness present also in contemporary philosophy. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the puzzling question of what motivates the radical epistemological shift necessary for engaging in transcendental phenomenology. Husserl touches on the problem of motivation on many occasions, but it becomes an explicit issue in Fink’s bold reimagining of the transcendental theory of method, as presented in the Sixth Cartesian Meditation. In the first section, I briefly introduce the problem as it appears in Husserl. The second section of the paper discusses Fink’s Hegelian dissolution of it. Finally, I (...) point to several historical, practical, and ethical aspects of transcendental phenomenology, and argue that a good account of motivation for phenomenology ought to find a way to address these without hastily bracketing them. (shrink)

I present the first systematic account in the literature of a Husserlian response to Natorp’s critique of Husserl’s account of the pre-givenness of both the absolute stream of lived-experience and its essencesEssences to reflectionReflections. My response is presented within the broader context of what I argue is Heidegger’s misappropriation of Natorp’s critique of the phenomenological limits of reflectionReflections in Husserl’s transcendental phenomenologyTranscendental phenomenology and the misguided French attempt to address Heidegger’s critique by introducing the dialectical notion of “pre-reflectivePre-reflective” consciousness to (...) phenomenology. My Husserlian response shows that Husserl’s account of reflectionReflections in Ideas I is able to rebut Natorp’s critical claims that transcendental phenomenologyTranscendental phenomenology cannot access the streaming of the stream of lived-experience without “stilling” its flow and that a gap in Husserl’s account of the transformation of the natural phenomenonPhenomenon of reflectionReflections into transcendental reflectionReflections provides justification for Natorp’s criticism of the ambiguity of Husserl’s account in Ideas I of the givennessGivennesses of the essenceEssences of lived-experience investigated by transcendental phenomenologyTranscendental phenomenology. (shrink)

“Pero la cuestión que quiero plantear es la siguiente: ¿no es suficiente con tener este yo psíquico y psicofísico? ¿Necesitamos añadirle un yo trascendental, como una estructura de la conciencia absoluta?” Sartre planteó esta cuestión en su célebre ensayo La trascendencia del ego. Ella enuncia la concepción básica de la fenomenología no-egológica, la cual no niega la existencia misma del ego o del sujeto, sino más bien lo concibe como un ser constituido y mundano, como trascendente respecto del ámbito de (...) la conciencia. En la presente ponencia me gustaría mostrar por qué la fenomenología no puede prescindir de la noción del ego trascendental. Con tal propósito, consideraré de cerca la noción husserliana del “yo puro” del primer y del segundo libro de Ideas y, a grandes rasgos, el concepto general que Husserl se hace sobre el yo “fenomenológico” y “yo trascendental”. Tal concepto se puede encontrar en los manuscritos de este periodo, así como en algunos textos más tardíos. Intentaré demostrar que la noción husserliana del ego trascendental propia de este periodo podría articularse como una respuesta satisfactoria o al menos plausible, al desafío no-egológico con el que se ve confrontada la fenomenología egológica de Husserl.“But the question I would like to raise is the following: is this psychical and psycho-physical me not sufficient? Do we need to add to it a transcendental I, as a structure of absolute consciousness?” – Sartre raised this question in his famous essay, The transcen-dence of the ego. This is the basic conception of non-egological phenomenology, which latter does not deny the very existence of ego or subject, but regards it as a constituted, worldly being, something which is transcendent concerning the domain of consciousness. In this lecture I would like to demonstrate the thesis, why phenomenology cannot get along without the concept of a transcendental ego. I will have a closer look on Husserl’s notion of “pure I” in the first and second book of Ideas, and more generally on Husserl’s overall concept of “phenomenological” or “transcendental I” that could be found in the manuscripts of this period and little after. I will try to show that Husserl’s conception of transcendental ego that one could find in this period could be articulated as successful or at least plausible answer to the non-egological challenge of Husserl’s egological phenomenology. (shrink)

Jan Patočka desarrolló un original trabajo fenomenológico pese a circunstancias adversas. En él, pasó de defender unas tesis muy cercanas a Ideas I a sostener unos planteamientos notablemente alejados. Para el filósofo checo, Husserl habría localizado la esfera trascendental pero habría errado al tomarla por un ente o preente subjetivo. Por el contrario, una aplicación consecuente hasta el final de la epojé nos permite ir hasta la auténtica esfera trascendental, que es el mundo como proto-estructura universal de aparición. En consecuencia, (...) Patočka diverge muy notablemente de Husserl al tiempo que mantiene la propuesta de una fenomenología trascendental. Asimismo, esta noción de la esfera trascendental permite profundizar la crítica a Husserl, pues su subjetivismo vendría dado por haber confundido la realización concreta del aparecer en cada sujeto concreto con la esfera pura del aparecer. Husserl no habría sido, a ojos de Patočka, lo suficientemente trascendental.Jan Patočka developed an original phenomenological research in spite of adverse circumstances. He underwent a profound evolution. If at first his theses were very close to Husserl’s Ideas, at the end of his life his position was notably different of his master’s. For the Czech philosopher, Husserl was right to speak about a transcendental sphere but was wrong to take it as an entity or pre-entity of subjective nature. On the contrary, a consequent use of epokhe enables us to get to the true transcendental sphere. This sphere is the “world” as the universal structure of appearing as such. Consequently, Patočka diverges from Husserl but he keeps the idea of a transcendental phenomenology. Furthermore, Patočka thinks that Husserl mistook the realisation of appearing in each particular subject with the pure sphere of appearance. According to Patočka, then, Husserl’s Phenomenology would not have been transcendental enough. (shrink)

Foucault found the starting point of modern European philosophy to be the construction of “man” as both an empirical fact and a transcendental operator. The aim is to show how this construction was made possible by an underlying strategical handling of the concept of matter. Some restrictions imposed on the materiality of knowledge-contents became key in explaining how actual men could gain access to transcendental knowledge. The paper focuses on Husserl and Kant as meaningful turning points of this transcendental discourse. (...) However, the relevance of their dematerializing strategies will be shown to lay beyond their historic-cultural meaning, since they can also provide a way of dealing with knowledge experiences that can be critical even towards modernity’s characteristic anthropocentrism. (shrink)

From Kant’s transcendental idealism to Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology, how was the relationship between the transcendental I and empirical subjectivity determined, and how has it evolved? It is this crucial and complex question that my contribution intends to address. This endeavor will require a special focus on the nature and content of internal experience, as well as a thorough consideration of what the “outer man” is with respect to transcendental subjectivity. Furthermore, from an epistemological point of view, it is the scientific (...) status of psychology and anthropology that will thus be subject to clarification. (shrink)

The transcendental turn of Husserl's phenomenology has challenged philosophers and scholars from the beginning. This volume inquires into the profound meaning of this turn by contrasting its Kantian and its phenomenological versions. Examining controversies surrounding subjectivity, idealism, aesthetics, logic, the foundation of sciences, and practical philosophy, the chapters provide a helpful guide for facing current debates.

In this article, I address the question of violence with respect to the phenomenological difference between the transcendental and the empirical field. In the first part, I phenomenologically address the notion of violence, developing a concept required for an account of the phenomenon of violence. Thus, I correlate it with the notion of vulnerability, arguing that violence cannot be understood irrespective of vulnerability. However, a proper phenomenological account has to indicate the subjective conditions of possibility of a phenomenon as it (...) is given in experience. Therefore, we should ask: what is the status of violence when we are talking about the transcendental field? This question leads to the second part of my article, where I address the notion of violence from the perspective of the difference between the pure and the empirical ego, as it has been traced out by Husserl. If from the point of view of an empirical ego the concept of violence is meaningful, from the point of view of the transcendental ego it seems to be absurd. This is particularly significant, because Husserl is talking about the transcendental ego as being immortal. The pure ego is thus invulnerable and this means that violence—understood from the point of view of both the violating subject and the violated one—is something that cannot be linked to the transcendental field. The question that arises—how is violence possible on the empirical level, since it is impossible on the transcendental level?—is a question to which Husserl cannot respond. (shrink)

In Cognitive science and philosophy of consciousness, the explanatory gap, following Joseph Levine, refers to the unintelligible link between our conscious mental life and its corresponding objective physical explanation; the gap in our understanding of how consciousness is related to a physical or a physiological substrate :354–361, 1983). David Chalmers holds the explanatory gap as the evidence for a form of metaphysical dualism between consciousness and physical reality. On the other hand, McGinn takes it as an epistemic rather than an (...) ontological gap. Considering the recent advances in neuroscience, however, the reductionist approaches have become replete, which attempt to reduce consciousness and subjectivity to neurobiological accounts. On this view, consciousness mirrors the brain mechanisms, and the self is formulated as an illusory product or construct of neuronal processes. Thomas Fuchs, who is committed to embodied and enactive approaches toward cognition, in Ecology of the Brain, espouses an enactive-ecological perspective concerning the problem of the explanatory gap. He develops an account of human’s life in its dual aspects of the living body and lived body which, on the one hand, defies the ontological dualism and, on the other hand, avoids drifting towards any form of reductionism. Often, the ontologically monistic approaches to the explanatory gap have inclined to a form of reductionism because they conceive consciousness as either identical with its physiological substrate or caused by it, where in both cases, consciousness is claimed to be explainable within the framework of physicalism. Fuchs, however, defends an ontological monism which remains irreconcilable with reductionism. In his account of dual aspects, there is no interaction or impact between the sphere of subjectivity and nature; however, these two aspects imply one another. In this essay, I will develop the philosophical justification of the above reformulation of the mind–body problem and employing the analogy of light will canvass the paradoxical relationship between dual aspects in a phenomenological framework. (shrink)

The present book intends to approach the problem of mind, meaning and consciousness from a non-naturalist or transcendental point of view. The naturalization of consciousness has reached a dead-end. There can be no proper solution to the problem of mind within the naturalist framework. This work intends to reverse this trend and bring back the long neglected transcendental theory laid down by Kant and Husserl in the West and Vedanta and Buddhism in India. The novelty of this approach lies in (...) how we can make an autonomous space for mind and meaning without denying its connection with the world. The transcendental theory does not disown the embodied nature of consciousness, but goes beyond the body in search of higher meanings and values. The scope of this work extends from mind and consciousness to the world and brings the world into the space of mind and meaning with a hope to enchant the world. The world needs to be retrieved from the stranglehold of scientism and naturalism. This book will dispel the illusion about naturalism which has gripped the minds of our generation. The researchers interested in the philosophy of mind and consciousness can benefit from this work. (shrink)

Classical phenomenology is locked inside a form of transcendentalism and so it is the entire tradition which made it possible. This is the reason (some think) why it must become object of a systematic criticism meant to convince us that phenomenology abandoned the world of facts and construed a nonrealistic account of consciousness. This argument must be understood as part of a much broader form of criticism philosophical naturalism erected not only against phenomenology but against all pre-phenomenological theories which employ (...) themselves to defend non-naturalistic accounts of consciousness. It was first Hume and the logical positivists to address these theories in a critical manner in order for later contemporary naturalists to reinvigorate the same kind of argument. But similar replies have been also put forward by those usually considered defenders of classical phenomenology (the so-called “post-phenomenologists”). There is however a third category of philosophers, the so-called “transcendentalists”, who defended Husserl and continue to do so. I think some of the transcendentalists were onto something but they ultimately failed to do justice to classical phenomenology for the same two particular reasons I believe the post-phenomenologists have failed to convince. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis paper reconstructs and defends a Husserlian transcendental conception of intentionality. Initially, naturalistic conception of intentionality seems attractive, however, a naturalistic understanding conceals the true meaning of the puzzle and the nature of intentionality. Following Kant and primarily Husserl, this paper tries to determine the conditions a transcendental conception of intentionality must satisfy in order to be qualified as “transcendental”. Additionally, following Husserl, this paper argues that the alternative transcendental conception is not only possible, hence plausible; but also necessary, in (...) the sense that a thorough understanding of intentionality can only be achieved if a transcendental conception is adopted. (shrink)

This article explores the way in which Husserl’s transcendental idealism reverses the thesis stemming from the naturalistic worldview, according to which the existence of humanity in the universe is a contingent fact. It will appear that the resulting teleological account of the world history does not interfere with the traditional explanations provided by the empirical sciences and that it is a consequence of the teleology inbuilt in the correlation between transcendental subjectivity and the world. The conclusion is reached by analyzing (...) some of Husserl’s text concerning the transcendental role of embodiment and normality. (shrink)

For such refined idealists as Schopenhauer, Husserl and Wittgenstein, the correlation between the world and the subject must be recognized. Furthermore, the three commonly emphasize the distinction between the transcendental subject and the empirical subject as well as the distinction between the subject and object’s mode of being. They all realized that the confusion of the transcendental subject and the empirical subject causes the paradox of that the subject as one part of the world is at the same time the (...) a priori condition of the whole world. In the history of western Philosophy, Schopenhauer is the first to realize that the subject is no more than the invisible body, or the body playing the subject’s role. Our body plays a role both as object and as subject. However, the fact does not mean that the body playing a role as a subject can be identified with the body playing a role as an object. As the subject, the body is the prerequisite of all the representations, but the body itself cannot simultaneously be represented by itself. If objects are always visible to me, then my body as a subject is invisible. (shrink)

In this paper, I investigate the account of self-consciousness provided by Chinese Yogācārins Xuanzang (602-664CE) and Kuiji (632-682CE). I will explain how they clarify the transition from selfattaching to self-emptying through the articulation of consciousness (vijñāna). Current scholarship often interprets the Yogācāra account of consciousness either as a science of mind or as a metaphysical idealism. Both interpretations are misleading, partly because they perpetuate various stereotypes about Buddhism, partly also because they overlook the religious goal of realizing in practice the (...) wisdom of emptiness and the non-egoistic compassion. Against the status quo, I argue that through their account of self-consciousness, Xuanzang and Kuiji advocate what can be referred to as transcendental idealism that stresses the correlation between subjectivity and objectivity. Yogācārins thus neither nullify the existence of subjectivity nor formulate subjectivity as a higher entity. The transcendental idealism yields a Buddhist phenomenology that is similar to and also different from Edmund Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology. In what follows I will first characterize Husserl’s phenomenology as an approach to consciousness at two levels (the descriptive level and the explicative level). Then, I elicit the Buddhist phenomenology from Yogācāra philosophy that is not only descriptive and explicative but also prescriptive. This three-level architectonic of consciousness, while reaffirming the importance of agency, further justifies the role of religious rituals and moral practices for Yogācāra devotees. (shrink)

n this essay through a brief sketch of Husserl’s thesis about time-consciousness, especially concentrating on its third level, it has been argued that a turn has been taken during his last reflections on time published in the C-Manuskripte in his phenomenology in general and his phenomenology of time in particular. That is to say, by holding the view that the absolute consciousness is temporal character and denying his earlier conception of a non-temporal point for consciousness as keystone of philosophy as (...) a rigorous science, has abandoned three decades of seeking to founding transcendental philosophy; and indeed his dream of philosophy as a rigorous science is over. Therefore, the philosophical tradition that had begun with Descartes and aimed to base the edifice of knowledge on the rigorous, undoubtable and unchangeable ground, comes to end in Husserl’s phenomenology, its last heir, and thus clears the way for the appearance of a new version of phenomenology in the works of the frequent thinkers of this movement. (shrink)

Whether or not Merleau-Ponty’s version of phenomenology should be considered a form of ‘transcendental’ philosophy is open to debate. Although the Phenomenology of Perception presents his position as a transcendental one, many of its features—such as its exploitation of empirical science—might lead to doubt that it can be. This paper considers whether Merleau-Ponty meets what I call the ‘transcendentalist challenge’ of defining and grounding claims of a distinctive transcendental kind. It begins by highlighting three features—the absolute ego, the pure phenomenal (...) field, and the reduction—that Husserl had used to justify claims of a specifically transcendental kind within a phenomenological framework. It then examines how Merleau-Ponty modifies each of these features to focus on the lived body and a factically conditioned phenomenal field, while remaining ambivalent about the reduction. Finally, it assesses whether Merleau-Ponty’s modified position can still legitimately be considered transcendental. I argue that—despite his own rhetoric—this modified position shapes the modality of Merleau-Ponty’s claims in such a way that his phenomenology cannot meet the transcendentalist challenge and therefore should not be considered ‘transcendental.’. (shrink)

Se describen varios elementos que le permiten a la fenomenología elaborar una descripción del ser humano sin renunciar a lo que tiene de ontología universal o antropologización, lo que implica que en todo análisis de la conciencia general deben caer la razón humana, la paradoja de la subjetividad o, lo que es lo mismo, la paradoja de la conciencia en su estado humano. De aquí se desprende que ella pueda ser observada en un sujeto que posee un cuerpo con el (...) cual y desde el cual la experiencia y la percepción pueden tener lugar. Esto valida el ejercicio de interrogar a la razón por su genética antropológica en un proceso de filogenias. This article describes the various elements which allow phenomenology to develop a description of the human being without giving up its status of universal ontology or anthropologization, which implies that any analysis of general awareness refers to human reason, the paradox of subjectivity, or, in other words, the paradox of con-sciousness in its human state. From this it follows that it can be observed in a subject that has a body with which and from which experience and perception can take place. This validates the action of interrogating reason for its anthropological genetics in a process of phylogenies. (shrink)

According to Jacques Derrida, the tradition of metaphysics is dominated by a basic distinction between presence and absence that plays a fundamental role in Husserl’s theory of meaning and contaminates the core of his phenomenological project. If Husserl’s distinction between indication and expression in the 1st Logical Investigation is credited for opening a ‘phenomenological breakthrough’, his account of the entwinement between the indicative and expressive functions of linguistic signs is accused of restoring and maintaining the metaphysical primacy of presence. In (...) the last chapters of Voice and Phenomenon, Derrida focuses especially on the cases of indexical or ‘essentially occasional’ expressions, whose concrete meaning is a function of the occasion of their use and which rely on the indicative function of meaning. According to Derrida’s reading, Husserl holds that such indexical meanings like ‘I’, ‘here’ or ‘now’, are necessarily always fulfilled and cannot lack of intuitive fulfilment. Consequently Derrida takes Husserl’s account of the meaning of ‘I’ as an obvious symptom of his inability to move away from the myth of pure expressivity, bringing phenomenology back into the history of metaphysics. Husserl would have failed to acknowledge that indexical meanings, like ideal or objective meanings, can remain unfulfilled and deprived of intuition. This article demonstrates that Derrida’s critique misses the most important point in Husserl’s analysis of the meaning of ‘I’, and argues that indexical or subjective expressions are somehow insensitive to the prospect of intuitive presencing and fulfilment. (shrink)

The paper addresses the problem of the place of deconstruction in the history of transcendental philosophy. J. Derrida’s project is considered as one of the most representative and consistent realizations of theoretical foundations of transcendentalism along with prominent conceptions such as Kant’s critique and Husserl’s phenomenology. The author suggests a number of attributes of transcendental thinking that allow historical reconstruction of the transcendental paradigm. Derridian approach is considered as a turn towards this tradition, conceived as a transcendental tradition par exellence, (...) guided by the attitude of «turning. Historical legacy of deconstructive «turning» is analyzed with respect to Husserlian Rückfrage: return-inquiry as method, idea and attitude, reproducing in deconstructive strategy of interpretative critique. A concept of hyperbolic transcendentalism is introduced in order to (1) define a deconstructive version of transcendental philosophy and (2) indicate an immanent tendency in the transcendental thought, constitutive for both Kantian critical project and Husserlian strive towards intellectual radicalism extending from methodological hyperboles (reduction and epoche) to radicalization of «transcendental motive». The author relies upon the concept of quasi-transcendental (thematized by Derrida himself), which defines a mode of de-dogmatization, critical purifying and preservation of proper transcendental foundations of philosophical thinking. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The proper relationship between phenomenology and naturalism has reemerged as a pressing issue following interdisciplinary developments in the cognitive sciences. Most solutions opt for a naturalized phenomenology, rather than a phenomenological naturalism. This article takes up the latter approach, confronting the implications of Merleau-Ponty's reformulation of Husserl's paradox of subjectivity. I argue that Merleau-Ponty's formulation—which I term “the paradox of madness”—reveals a deep, ontological contingency in what Husserl took to be necessary transcendental structures of consciousness and world, revealing that (...) these transcendental structures are in fact embedded in and contaminated by the very world they constitute and disclose. (shrink)

The purpose of this book is to investigate the roots of phenomenology and to analyse, from a historical and systematic point of view, the reasons that enabled Husserl to set down in his Logical Investigations the conditions of a strictly descriptive philosophy. The ‘breakthrough’ of phenomenology was made possible by Husserl’s investigations on the specificity of logical forms, and was grounded upon his ability to establish in the Logical Investigations a descriptive distinction between sensitive and categorial forms. Such distinction allows (...) Husserl to account for the possibility of a certain kind of adequacy between speech and perception that is necessarily involved in phenomenological description. Indeed, as a descriptive activity, phenomenology entails the opposition between two fundamentally different modalities of intentionality that both take part in description: intuition on the one hand and signification on the other. By making the adequacy between signification and intuition possible, ‘categorial intuition’ not only sheds new light on the relations between thought and perception, or between seeing and thinking, it also legitimates phenomenological description as a philosophical method. This book proposes a new and revisited reading of the Logical Investigations by examining Husserl’s reform of the theory of categories and its relation to the phenomenological method of description. (shrink)

This article addresses an ambiguity in Edmund Husserl’s descriptions of what it means to be a human being in the world. On the one hand, Husserl often characterizes the human being in natural scientific terms as a psychophysical unity. On the other hand, Husserl also describes how we experience ourselves as embodied persons that experience and communicate with others within a socio-historical world. The main aim of this article is to show that if one overlooks this ambiguity then one will (...) misunderstand the relation between the subject that experiences a world (and that Husserl terms transcendental) and the human being within the world. (shrink)

In the background of accelerated interdisciplinary development of phenomenology, there appears more clearly a deficiency of the epistemological grounding and methodological explanation of present research. This is particularly evident in the field of social phenomenology, in which the research positions extend from that of the “orthodox” transcendental phenomenologists to an endless search for a new foundation for pragmatic social phenomenology in philosophical anthropology, to a vague thesis about “fruitful discussion” between E. Husserl and A. Schutz. The main task of this (...) article consists in the establishment of the fundamental significance of the epistemological succession between Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology and Schutz’s natural phenomenology. This confirms itself through the analysis of such concepts as sense and constitution, which play the prominent methodological role in the main works – Ideas-I and correspondingly The Phenomenology of the Social World. Such comparative analysis allows not only to highlight the most important similarities in the projects of both thinkers such as a “sense-giving function” of consciousness, but also to distinguish small deviations of the mundane phenomenology from the transcendental project, i.e., the rejection of transcendental reductions and the “pragmatic conditioning” of the subjective action’s sense through now- and so-states of the ego. It is proposed to interpret the famous Schutzian “turning away from Husserl” first of all as a skeptical turn; however, that does not mean that the essential transcendental prerequisites such as a correlation of “attitude – experience – world” should be abandoned. In the end, it is demonstrated that the main metaphysical statements of Husserl can still retain their value within the framework of the contemporary conventional research models such as the “scientific research program” by I. Lakatos, whereas further theoretical statements, i.e., of social phenomenology, can be bound with this “hard core” as “auxiliary hypotheses” in cooperation with empirical sciences. (shrink)

In the background of accelerated interdisciplinary development of phenomenology, there appears more clearly a deficiency of the epistemological groundingand methodological explanation of present research. This is particularly evident in the field of social phenomenology, in which the research positions extend fromthat of the “orthodox” transcendental phenomenologists to an endless search for a new foundation for pragmatic social phenomenology in philosophical anthropology, to a vague thesis about “fruitful discussion” between E. Husserl and A. Schutz. The main task of this article consists (...) in the establishment of the fundamental significance of the epistemological succession between Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology and Schutz’s natural phenomenology. This confirms itself through the analysis of such concepts as sense and constitution, which play the prominent methodological role in the main works – Ideas-I and correspondingly The Phenomenology of the Social World. Such comparative analysis allows not only to highlight the most important similarities in the projects of both thinkers such as a “sense-giving function” of consciousness, but also to distinguish small deviations of the mundane phenomenology from the transcendental project, i.e., the rejection of transcendental reductions and the “pragmatic conditioning” of the subjective action’s sense through now- and so-states of the ego. It is proposed to interpret the famous Schutzian “turning away from Husserl” first of all as a skeptical turn; however, that does not mean that the essential transcendental prerequisites such as a correlation of “attitude – experience – world” should be abandoned. In the end, it is demonstrated that the main metaphysical statements of Husserl can still retain their value within the framework of the contemporary conventional research models such as the “scientific research program” by I. Lakatos, whereas further theoretical statements, i.e., of social phenomenology, can be bound with this “hard core” as “auxiliary hypotheses” in cooperation with empirical sciences. (shrink)

Kantian transcendental philosophy has shown that we can never decide the question of whether or not the world is infinite in space and time, because, in the field of appearance, the world as a totality of concordant experience "does not exist as [an unconditioned] whole, either of infinite or of finite magnitude."1 However, appearances are encountered in a world, in which one aspect of a thing always invites us to consider others, indicating thereby a road to infinity. According to a (...) discovery of transcendental phenomenology, every single thing contains in itself "a continuum of appearances," which exhibits an "all-sided infinity."2From this an important consequence can be drawn: although the world as a physical .. (shrink)

Obwohl Husserl und Deleuze ihre Philosophien unter den Leitbegriff des Transzendentalen stellen, scheint es schwer, sie in ein konstruktives Gespräch miteinander zu bringen. Zu einer solchen produktiven Konfrontation soll hier der Versuch unternommen werden, indem die von der Mathematik des 19. Jahrhunderts inspirierte Idee der Mannigfaltigkeit als zentraler Operator bei Deleuze wie auch bei Husserl identifiziert wird. In dieser kritischen Auseinandersetzung schärfen sich auch der Sinn und die Aufgabenstellung der Phänomenologie als einer Philosophie reiner Immanenz, deren grundlegende metaphysische Dimension die (...) Zeit sein muss. (shrink)

Die vorliegende Studie befasst sich mit der Deutung, die der so vielschichtige Begriff des Lebens Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts in der neukantianischen Transzendentalphilosophie sowie in der Phänomenologie erfahren hat. Am Beispiel von Natorp, Husserl und Heidegger werden verschiedene Ansätze analysiert, die darauf abzielen, den Lebensbegriff aus seinen vitalistischen und historistischen Verengungen zu befreien und zur Deutung der Grundstrukturen des Bewusstseins bzw. der faktischen Existenz heranzuziehen. Dabei zeichnet sich eine Entwicklung ab, die von einer wenig differenzierten Verwendung des Lebensbegriffs als Synonym (...) der Bewusstseinsdynamik als solcher (Natorp) über die Dualität von vorphänomenologischem Welterleben und transzendentalem Bewusstseinsleben (Husserl) bis hin zur Einsicht in die vorsubjektive Primordialität des „Lebens selbst“ (Heidegger) führt. Das Leben erscheint somit letztlich als kein wie immer geartetes Was, sondern als ein Wie, nämlich als die Möglichkeit, das Kontinuum des Welterlebens jederzeit zu durchbrechen und es auf den Grad seiner Nähe zur Intensität des Ursprungserlebens hin transparent zu machen. (shrink)

In this paper I show how Merleau-Ponty comes to identify the natural attitude and the original experience of the world, thus distinguishing his approach sharply from Husserl’s. I conduct my analysis along the line of Merleau-Ponty’s interpretation of some fundamental concepts in Husserl’s phenomenology. In particular, I identify the origin of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological perspective in his ontological interpretation of the Husserlian concepts “empirical” and “transcendental”. This move entails an implicit ontologization that undergirds his late endeavors towards a new ontology. Merleau-Ponty (...) considers the phenomenological couple empirical/transcendental as a reformulation in a “post-substantialistic” key of Descartes’ conceptual pair res extensa/res cogitans, also recast in terms of matter/spirit and, with a small but not irrelevant semantic shift, fact/meaning. In the paper I show how on this ground Merleau-Ponty can come to affirm the insuperability of the natural attitude and the correlative impossibility to transcend original experience. (shrink)

Husserl and Fink have both brought the understanding of transcendental phenomenology to its radical consequences. Where is the place of the phenomenologist between the transcendental and natural? Whereas Husserl answered this just in a implicit way, Fink put it as the main theme of his 6. Cartesian Meditation. The main topic that concerns this question is phenomenological self-understanding itself. How is possible to mediate it sense? Their common answer was that is possible just in the relation with the pregiveness of (...) the world. If for Husserl this meant a relation between the theoretical and practical subject, for Fink meant the self-relation of the phenomenological subject of reduction. (shrink)

El artículo explora el sentido en que tanto Kant como Husserl entienden lo trascendental y la importancia de este concepto para sus respectivas filosofías. El autor aborda esta relación con la intención de mostrar que ambos filósofos parten de una reflexión radical sobre las condiciones de posibilidad de la experiencia, llegando a conclusiones diferentes sobre ésta. Se pasa revista de las consecuencias de establecer una filosofía trascendental y la enorme diferencia que ambos autores establecen sobre el tema de la experiencia (...) como articuladora de lo trascendental en sus respectivas filosofías. (shrink)

This paper explores the emergence of the distinctions between the transcendental and the psychological and, correlatively, between phenomenology and psychology that emerge in The Idea of Phenomenology. It is argued that this first attempt to draw these distinctions reveals that the conception of transcendental phenomenology remains infected by elements of the earlier conception of descriptive psychology and that only later does Husserl move to a more adequate—but perhaps not yet fully purified—conception of the transcendental.

This short text to follow is an attempt at philosophizing "free-style"; an attempt, that is, which does not concern itself with much recourse to primary or secondary literature. Hence, references to texts by the philosophers mentioned here are kept to a minimum. The purpose of this text, instead, is to initiate a "fundamental reflection", as one could call it, on the nature of phenomenology. May the reader indulge me in this free-styling activity, and I would welcome equally unburdened responses.

Hubert L. Dreyfus has worked out a critique of what he calls “representationalism” and “cognitivism,” one proponent of which, according to Dreyfus, is Husserl. But I think that Dreyfus misunderstands the Husserlian conception of practical intentionality and that his characterization of Husserl as a “representationalist” or as a “cognitivist” is thereby wrongheaded. In this paper I examine Dreyfus’s interpretation by offering a Husserlian critique of Dreyfus’s objections to Husserl, and then by outlining Husserl’s account of practical intentionality and the practical (...) lived Body. I sketch the critique and the approach of Dreyfus in three steps. First, I deal with his objections against Husserl’s theory by arguing that Dreyfus understands neither the role of the reduction nor the function of background-awareness in Husserl’s phenomenology. Second, I elucidate the central role that the “practical lived Body” plays in practical intentionality for Husserl, and, third, I highlight the consequences that follow from the analyses offered in the previous sections. (shrink)

resumo O objetivo deste artigo é discutir o modo como Husserl desenha a originalidade da subjetividade transcendental, frente à sua homônima psicológica. Se é certo que a noção de “imanência autêntica” pode apontar para as diferentes fronteiras entre o transcendental e o psicológico, resta que por si só ela não permite decidir nada quanto ao “modo de ser” transcendental, em sua diferença face ao “mundano”. Sendo assim, procura-se reconstituir alguns dos momentos centrais do esforço husserliano para construir um conceito de (...) “subjetivo” e de “subjetividade” que não se confunda mais com o “psíquico” da psicologia tradicional. palavras-chave subjetividade – psique – fenômeno – noema – transcendental. (shrink)

This paper offers a further look at Husserl’s late thought on the transcendental subject and the Husserl–Heidegger relationship. It attempts a reconstruction of how Husserl hoped to assert his own thoughts on subjectivity vis-à-vis Heidegger, while also pointing out where Husserl did not reach the new level that Heidegger attained. In his late manuscripts, Husserl employs the term ‘transcendental person’ to describe the transcendental ego in its fullest ‘concretion’. I maintain that although this concept is a consistent development of Husserl’s (...) earlier analyses of constitution, Husserl was also defending himself against Heidegger, who criticized him for framing the subject in terms of transcendental ego rather than as Dasein. Husserl was convinced that he could successfully respond to Heidegger’s critique, but he did not grasp that Heidegger’s fundamental ontology was an immanent development, rather than a scathing criticism, of his own phenomenology. (shrink)

The question of who we are is a perennial one in philosophy. It is particularly acute in transcendental philosophy with its focus on the subject. In its attempt to see in the subject the structures and activities that determine experience, such philosophy confronts what Husserl called “the paradox of human subjectivity.” This is the paradox of its two-fold being. It has “both the being of a subject for the world and the being of an object in the world.” As the (...) first, it appears as the subject whose constitutive syntheses result in the presence of the world. Possessing an “absolute being,” it is uniquely singular. As the second, it is itself but one object among many in the world. It appears as a particular human subject with all the vulnerabilities and limitations that we all too readily recognize in ourselves. Reflecting on this duality, Husserl asks: “Howcan human subjectivity,which is a part of theworld, constitute thewhole world, i.e., constitute it as its intentional product . . .? The subjective part of the world swallows up, so to speak, the whole world including itself. What an absurdity!”4 The absurdity arises when we identify the two subjectivities, that is, when we say that the absolutely constituting subjectivity is, in fact, our own limited empirical subjectivity. It is at this point that we say that a part of the world constitutes the whole of the world and hence itself as a part of this whole. (shrink)

In this elegant, smoothly written book, David Carr provides nothing less than a defense of both Kantian and Husserlian versions of transcendental philosophy against Heidegger’s critique of metaphysics. Carr’s Paradox of Subjectivity is organized into four parts. In the first part, Carr provides a synopsis of Heidegger’s interpretation of traditional metaphysics. Part two is devoted to a reconstruction of Kant’s transcendental theory of subjectivity. The third part deals with Husserl’s conception of transcendental subjectivity. Finally, in part four, Carr proposes to (...) show that, for both Kant and Husserl, transcendental subjectivity is a purely methodological implement, which cannot in turn be reified into serving the role traditionally reserved for metaphysical substance. Instead, transcendental subjectivity is to be understood as itself a critical regard of traditional metaphysics. Moreover, such a strictly methodological conception of transcendental subjectivity cannot be assimilated into Heidegger’s conception of metaphysics. Consequently, Heidegger’s critique of metaphysics cannot be extended as a critique of either Kant or Husserl. (shrink)

There is a two-fold problem the phenomenologist must face: the first has to do with thinking like a phenomenologist given that one is always already steeped in the mundane sphere; the second has to do with the phenomenologist entering into dialogue with those scientists, psychologists, sociologists and other laypersons who still remain in the mundane sphere. I address the first problem by giving an Husserlian-inspired account of the movement from the mundane to the transcendental, and show that there are decent (...) prospects for getting life-world folks to start thinking like phenomenologists. I address the second problem by showing that Husserl has himself caught in a dilemma: either the reduction takes place and no communication is possible between phenomenologist and non-phenomenologist, or the reduction does not take place and the phenomenological method remains a psychological makeshift, supposedly accessible to Husserl and his esoteric followers. (shrink)