Husserl: Intuition

The idea of phenomenology seeks to revive the position of philosophy as the first and foundational knowledge. By referring to Descartes, Husserl tries to introduce philosophy as a broad and responsible knowledge about to other sciences, and for this reason, he considers mathematical and natural sciences to be related to philosophy in their foundations and principles, and claims that philosophy is a necessary and inherent Precedence over natural knowledge. In this regard, examining the quality and how the exact sciences depend (...) on phenomenology is a theme that can be traced in some of Husserl’s works. Although these topics in contemporary philosophy have never been widely considered by phenomenologists and interpreters of Husserl’s opinions, in recent decades and influenced by some conflicts in the “philosophy of science”, the rereading of this neglected aspect of phenomenological thinking has been given attention. In the current research, focusing on Husserl’s medieval thought, which is known as “transcendental phenomenology”, I have tried to provide a macro- framework for the philosophical asse”sment of physics knowledge. In the first chapter, a historical introduction is given,”during which the unique advantages and possibilities that exist in Husserl’s intellectual heritage for discussing the foundations of mathematical physics will be explained. In the second chapter, in two separate axes, the general relationship between philosophy and science is discussed from a phenomenological point of view. In the first axis, while re-reading Husserl’s perception of “natural thesis” and his proposed path for transitioning from this situation through the actions of “phenomenological Epoche”, I will explain how phenomenology Precedence over the exact sciences through redefining the entire range of knowledge attainable for humans as relations and verbs of Transcendental Ego. In the second axis, by reviewing the treatise on logical Investigations, Husserl’s fundamentalist view of ideatic sciences is examined, and in the next step, the basic distinction between the laws of mathematical physics and the above sciences is discussed, and thus, it will be clear that in Husserl’s view, the laws of natural sciences and empirical, they do not have the mastery and necessity and generality of ideatic sciences and have an estimated and approximate nature. In the thi’d chapter, focusing on the challenge of theoretical and unobservable identities, I will reread ’usserl's opinions in ideas 1 about the identity of the object determined by physical concepts with the Common perceptual object, and I will try to complete his theory by referring to the basic components of phenomenological epistemology. Referring to the idea of categorical intuition and discussing the quality of constitue of Universals will be the main pillar of this effort. I will argue that theoretical identities are Universals whose calendar involves a primary imaginary givenness, and this Universality, in the sense intended by Husserl, is a Kantian Universality (geometric and ideal essence) and not a Platonic Universality (an imprecise Universality). In the second half of this chapter, I will critically examine the interpretation of Husserl’s theories in the context of the philosophy of science and their registration under the realist-instrumentalist dichotomy, and by drawing a framework based on the principles of phenomenology to discuss reality and existence in the realm of material nature, I discuss about the laws of physics. For this purpose, it is necessary to reflect on the transition of phenomenology from a theory of knowledge to ontology and to explain the development of “transcendental idealism” based on the idea of phenomenology. In the final chapter, while rereading three basic challenges in the contemporary philosophy of science, each of which is an obstacle to the realistic acceptance of scientific laws, I will examine the possibilities available in Husserl’s philosophical science to overcome these bottlenecks. Pessimistic meta-induction, Underdetermination of Theory by Date and historical constructionism about science and doubts about the existence of “progress” in the history of science are three axes that, while examining them, put the theory that was formed in the previous two chapters about the phenomenological reality of the laws of physics to the test. I will show some of its advantages and limitations. (shrink)

This essay examines how Husserl stretches the bounds of his philosophy of meaning, according to which all propositions are categorical, to account for existential propositions, which seem to lack predicates. I examine Husserl’s counterintuitive conclusion that an existential proposition does possess a predicate and I explore his endeavor to pinpoint what that predicate is. This goal is accomplished in three stages. First, I examine Husserl’s standard theory of predication and categorial intuition from his 1901 Logical Investigations. Second, I show how (...) Husserl imposes those 1901 insights to uncover the predicate of the existential proposition in unpublished manuscripts and lectures. He determines that the existential proposition predicates of the subject, that it corresponds to an actual object. This analysis reveals that Husserl’s descriptions of existential propositions from the late 1890s employed both static and genetic methodologies. In those texts, he carefully untangles and clarifies the co-enmeshed passive and active moments of consciousness and shows that the passive givenness of certain circumstances is the condition of possibility for our active verifying of propositions. Finally, I execute a critical assessment of Husserl’s thought to reveal that, while his insights about existential propositions are largely correct, they are augmented by re-construing them within the context of his mature philosophy. Only by renouncing his metaphysical neutrality and by accounting for intersubjectivity, can Husserl properly clarify existential propositions. (shrink)

Quentin Meillassoux first book, After Finitude, argues that most of the post-Kantian philosophies, including phenomenology, are guilty of inconsistency, since none of them is able to give account of the ancestral phenomena. The incorrigible phenomenologist is accused to make it impossible to understand scientific statements about some ancient past, that would be prior to the emergence of life, and thus escaping from any kind of givenness. However, we think that this critic does not achieve its purpose, for four main reasons (...) : the fact that signitive intentions can remain meaningful without being fulfilled by intuitions ; the gifts of the imaginative intentions which, through the example of fiction, open up possibilities, for ancestral statements, of some quasi-fulfillment ; the « thematization », by most of Husserl’s disciples, of the diachronic nature of some events, the temporality of which differs tremendously with that of the inner perception’s one, the latter sustaining the intentional correlation ; its interest for an entirely different scientific field, to which phenomenology borrows some notions, and more generally its procedures : quantum physics. (shrink)

It is well known that Husserl considered phenomenology to be First Philosophy—the ultimate science. For Husserl, this means that phenomenology must clarify the ultimate phenomenological-epistemological principle that leads to ultimate elucidation. But what is this ultimate principle and what does ultimate elucidation mean? It is the aim of this paper to answer these questions. In section 2, we shall discuss what role Husserl’s principle of all principles can play in the quest for ultimate elucidation and what it means for a (...) principle to be ultimately elucidating and ultimately elucidated. We will see that the Husserlian thesis that originary presentive intuitions are an immediate and the ultimate source of justification qualifies as the ultimate epistemological principle. (shrink)

In my paper, I want to focus not only on the notions of givenness and evidence in Husserl’s phenomenology, but also on phenomenological work “after” Husserl. I will elaborate on how these phenomenological key ideas can methodologically be made fruitful, especially for an investigation into religious phenomena. After giving an outline of Husserl’s notions of givenness, evidence, and original intuition, I want to portray key elements of Steinbock’s discovery of a generative dimension in Husserl’s phenomenology and show how this approach (...) correlates to the field of religious experiences. Subsequently, I want to focus on Steinbock’s book Phenomenology of Mysticism: The Verticality of Religious Experience, and elucidate how for Steinbock different historical examples of mystical experiences can serve as leading clues for the revelation of the essential, eidetic structures of “vertical experiences”—or, phenomenologically speaking, the eidos of religious experience, which turns out to be “epiphany”. The expression “verticality,” as opposed to “horizontality,” denotes the existential and dynamic dimension of experiences which are oriented toward a new height “beyond” ourselves. (shrink)

The recent investigations into knowledge and its elements viz facts, skills and objects have become prominent in various subfields of philosophy and other areas like linguistics, cognitive science, neuroscience and artificial intelligence. These investigations have been mainly on understanding the relation between the intentionality and its referential entities to know how they enrich knowledge with their existence. This article starts with an exploration of the fundamental aspects of judgemental sense from the knowledge origins perspective. To explain the consequences of this, (...) I start with reconstructing the notion of categorial intuitions described in Husserl’s sixth Logical Investigations by relating it to ‘knowledge origination’ as an intuitive fulfilment of signifying acts. This offers a relation of perceptual synthesis, operating implicitly among the signifying intentions upon grasping intended objects, in view of language structures such as copulas. This leads to the synthesis of intuitive aspects mainly from the categorial elements for a judgemental sense or thinking and the attitude from the very sphere of perception. The tension between categorial intuitions is understood as foundational acts and founded acts. Husserl’s sixth Logical Investigation describes the notion of passive synthesis, the genesis of categoriality in every realm of sensibility that allows one to formulate the relational role among the ‘act of knowing’ and phenomenological approaches to the judgemental sense. Thus, the investigation focuses on perceptual judgements and categories, which fulfils the judgemental sense of categorial elements and attitude. (shrink)

Philosophical intuition has become one of the most debated problems in recent years, largely due to the rise of the movement called experimental philosophy which challenged the conviction that philosophers have some special insight into abstract ideas such as being, knowledge, good and evil, intentional action, etc. In response to the challenge, some authors claim that there is a special cognitive faculty called philosophical intuition which delivers justification to philosophical theses, while some others deny it based on experimental results. A (...) relatively smaller group of researchers aim at clarifying what the alleged intuition is. I follow the latter path. In this paper I argue that philosophical intuition is in the first place the capacity enabling one to what I refer to as the recognition of one’s epistemic position. The latter means becoming aware of the seemingly trivial “fact” that the way in which the world manifests itself depends on the cognitive apparatus one has, thereby propelling one to draw a distinction between appearances and reality. The recognition at stake is a very specific capacity to approach the world solely as it is experienced. This capacity, I argue, is the core and the defining feature of philosophical intuition. As part of my argumentation I also distinguish between the intuition in question and its different manifestations; and then introduce a novel notion of erotetic intuition. My argument is called “old-fashion” to emphasize the fact that I draw mostly on four figures who were pivotal in the twentieth- century philosophy and whose influence on the current debate concerning philosophical intuition should be, I believe, stronger than it is; I mean Russell, Carnap, Wittgenstein, and Husserl. (shrink)

Adorno’s intensive criticism of phenomenology is well known, his entire early period during the 1920s and 1930s being marked by various polemical engagements with Husserl. This engagement finds its peak during his work at his second dissertation project in Oxford, a dissertation that was supposed to systematicaly expose the antinomies of phenomenological thinking while particularly focusing on Husserl’s concept of “eidetic intuition” or “intuition of essences”. The present paper will take this criticism as its starting point in focusing on two (...) highly specific aspects of Adorno’s interpretation: the opposition between eidetic intuition and the traditional theories of abstraction and its relationship to genetic phenomenology. In light of this criticism I subsequently show: 1. that, in his later work, Adorno’s understanding of eidetic intuition undergoes a significant revaluation; 2. that he reappropriates key elements of the eidetic method in his own procedure of physiognomic analysis, and 3. that his account of physiognomics is relevant for addressing the aforementioned incongruities of phenomenological eidetics itself. (shrink)

Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit Husserls Lehre von der kategorialen An­schauung als einem der wichtigsten Momente seines Versuchs der Grund­legung der Phänomenologie als eidetischer Wissenschaft. Ausgehend von Husserls phänomenologischen Kritik an Versuchen einer Naturalisierung des Bewusstseins, werden insbesondere die Probleme der Bedeutungs­intention und -erfüllung, des Unterschieds zwischen sinnlicher und kate­gorialer Anschauung, der kategorialen Formung und der sog. Wesens­anschauung erörtert. In diesem Zusammenhang geht es auch um die Abgrenzung des Husserlschen transzendentalphilosophischen Ansatzes von der transzendentalphilosophischen Axiomatik Immanuel Kants.

One of the basic reasons for Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s critique of Edmund Husserl’s Wesenschau is represented by what has been defined as the “ambiguity” of the perceiver-perceived relationship, which is the theme of the “phenomenology of perception” developed by the French philosopher. Such ambiguity is in effect constitutive of fundamental perceptive-cognitive relationships; and—in the mature thought of Merleau-Ponty—it also extends, from an ontological point of view, to the “chair du monde” in which being and non-being, visible and invisible, are but two (...) sides of the same “reality.” In this contribution we try to highlight the ambiguous characteristics of corporeal intentionality which render it incompatible with visual perception. And we propose both the necessity and the possibility of eliminating this incompatibility with a new phenomenological approach, which is also consistent with scientific “visualisation.”. (shrink)

The issue of whether the phenomenology presented in Ideen I was a metaphysical realism or an idealism came to the fore almost immediately upon its publication. The present essay is an examination of the relation of Gustav Shpet, one of Husserl’s students from the Göttingen years, to this issue via his understanding of phenomenology and, particularly, of the phenomenological reduction, as shown principally in his early published writings. For Shpet, phenomenology employs essential intuition without regard to experiential intuition. If we (...) look on transcendental idealism as the label for this methodology, which disregards but does not deny either the empirical or its correlative species of intuition, then Shpet was such an idealist, all the while adhering to a metaphysical realism. In this way, Shpet could proclaim phenomenology to be the fundamental philosophical discipline without precluding the possibility of other philosophical disciplines insofar as they were conducted in relation to consciousness taken not as the “possession” of a human individual, but eidetically and thus not a “possession.”. (shrink)

『논리연구』에서 후설이 탐구하는 범주적 직관은 단순히 감성적인 방식으로 이루어지지 않는 직관이다. 그리고 거기에서 등장하는 범주적 재현(Repräsentation) 이론은 범주적 직관이 재현이라는 이론이다. 『논리연구』에서 ‘재현’과 ‘파악(Auffassung)’은 외연이 같은 말이므로, 범주적 재현 이론은 범주적 직관이 파악이라는 이론이 된다. 그런데 20여년 후????논리연구????제2판 제2분책 서문에서 후설은 범주적 재현 이론을 더 이상 인정하지 않는다고 말한다. 하지만 후설이 실제로 이 이론을 포기하는가 하는 점은 논란의 여지가 있다. 나는 후설이 이 이론을 포기하지 않거나, 적어도 포기해서는 안 된다고 주장한다. 범주적 재현 이론은 『경험과 판단』 같은 후기의 저작에서도 채택되는 것처럼 (...) 보이며, 무엇보다도 범주적 직관을 이해하기 위하여 필수적이기 때문이다. 이 논문에서 나는 범주적 직관과 범주적 재현 이론을 자세하게 설명한 후, 범주적 재현 이론이 포기되거나 수정될 필요가 있다고 주장하는 투겐트하트(E. Tugendhat)와 로마(D. Lohmar)의 견해를 각각 비판한다. 이와 더불어 명확해지는 것은, 범주적 재현 이론을 통해 이해된 범주적 직관 개념이 선술어적 경험으로부터 술어적 인식의 발생을 규명하는 데 결정적인 역할을 한다는 점이다. (shrink)

Husserl’s lifelong interest in Kant eventually becomes a preoccupation in his later years when he finds his phenomenology in competition with Neokantianism for the title of transcendental philosophy. Some issues that Husserl is concerned with in Kant are bound up with the works of Lambert. Kant believed that the role played by principles of sensibility in metaphysics should be determined by a “general phenomenology” on which Lambert had written. Kant initially believed that man is capable only of symbolic cognition, not (...) intellectual intuition. Lambert saw an increasing need in mathematics for symbolic cognition as exemplified in his proofs of the irrationality of π and e. Kant takes from Leibniz and Lambert an unrestricted notion of construction, allowing him to view mathematics as constructing its concepts in intuition, while Lambert’s proofs convince him that all mathematical problems are eventually solvable. Husserl criticizes Kant’s intuitionism for its inadequate accommodation of meaning to intuition, which he redresses with his theory of categorial intuition. This may improve on Kant’s intuition of the axiom of parallels but not so clearly on his spatial intuition. Husserl opposes Kant’s view of space as the form of outer intuition with his own view of it as the form of things. Husserl’s exploration of the geometry of visual space, which involves his earliest uses of epoché and reduction, converges however with Hilbert’s logical analysis of Kantian spatial intuition in leading to Euclidean spatial judgments. Hilbert’s analysis leads him to affirm the solvability of all well posed mathematical problems, a thesis complicated by the outbreak of logical paradoxes. Untroubled by such paradoxes, Husserl develops a supramathematics of all possible deductive systems whose completeness implicitly would also provide solutions of all such problems. Husserl’s full transcendental turn coincides with his realization that in effecting his Copernican turn, Kant was really the first to detect the “secret longing” of modern philosophy for a phenomenological clarification of being. Husserl now finds that Kant’s transcendental deductions presuppose a pure ego not adequately analyzed by Kant that survives the phenomenological reduction. Husserl’s idealism leads him to develop his own intuitionism, which adds to Kant’s, a “method of clarification” of mathematical concepts intended to clarify difficult impossibility proofs, but neither Husserl nor Kant base arithmetic on time. Husserl’s critique of the room left in Kant’s idealism, for things in themselves, leads to his own monadological solution of the problem of intersubjectivity. Husserl’s final judgment on Kant is that his form of transcendental idealism did not enable him to achieve absolute subjectivity through a genuine transcendental reduction. (shrink)

Phenomenological accounts of intuition are often considered as significantly different from, or even incommensurable with most of the conception of intuitions defended in analytical philosophy. In this paper, I reject this view. Starting with what I consider to be a relatively neutral phenomenological account of intuition, I first present the main features of Husserl’s and Brentano’s accounts of intuition, showing the structural similarities and differences between these two views. After confronting them, I finally come back to what unites the two (...) views in order to outline a map of the problem of intuition in which both traditions, the analytical and the phenomenological, appear as two complementary takes on one and the same problem. (shrink)

In den folgenden Überlegungen wird der Frage nachgegangen, welchen Status die Unterscheidung zwischen Sinnlichkeit und Begriff in der Philosophie Husserls hat und inwiefern sie für die Herausarbeitung eines ästhetischen Wissens fruchtbar gemacht werden kann. Husserl formuliert in den Ideen I das „Prinzip aller Prinzipien“ für die Philosophie, „daß jede originär gebende Anschauung eine Rechtsquelle der Erkenntnis sei, daß alles, was sich uns in der ‚Intuition’ originär (sozusagen in seiner leibhaften Wirklichkeit) darbietet, einfach hinzunehmen sei, als was es sich gibt, aber (...) auch nur in den Schranken, in denen es sich da gibt[...].“1 Eine Anschauung ist also die subjektive Erscheinungsweise eines Gegenstandes: Etwas erscheint mir „als“ etwas, d.h. das Selbstsein der Sache ist nicht ein ‚ansich’ Sein, sondern eine „subjektive[], situationsgebundene[] Gegebenheitsweise.“2 Es gibt eine Korrespondenz zwischen der Gegebenheitsweise – dem ‚Wie’ des Erscheinens – und dem Gegenstandsart bzw. dem Gegenstandssinn – dem ‚als Was’ der Gegenstand vermeint ist. Sinnliche und kategoriale Anschauungen konstituieren die Form der Gegenständlichkeit: die sinnliche aus den „Auffassungsstoffen“, die kategoriale aus den „Auffassungsformen“. Sie sind nicht getrennte Bereiche in der husserlschen Phänomenologie, sondern sind durch ein Fundierungsverhältnis3 aufeinander bezogen: Laut den Logischen Untersuchungen ist eine kategoriale Anschauung4 ein durch eine sinnliche Wahrnehmung fundierter intentionaler Akt;in der kategorialen Anschauung erfüllen sich die „kategorial geformten Bedeutungen“.5 Im Unterschied zur sinnlichen Anschauung ist die kategoriale Anschauung durch einen „Überschuss in der Bedeutung“ charakterisiert, denn „nur die in []einem ‚Begriff‘ vereinten Merkmalbedeutungen terminieren in der Wahrnehmung“.6 In seinen späteren Überlegungen erkennt Husserl aber, dass das Kategoriale auf das Nichtkategoriale, auf das Vorprädikative bzw. die passive Synthesis hinweist. Im Folgenden wird daher die These vertreten, dass diese Anerkennung einer passiven, vorkategorialen, ursprünglichen Sinnstiftung und die darauf aufbauende sich stets fortbildende Sinnbildung des identischen Gegenstandes im kontinuierlichen Wahrnehmungsverlauf dem Gegenstand einen sinnlichen Überschuss aufprägt, den die kategoriale Wahrnehmung nicht einzulösen vermag. Diesem Überschuss liegen spezifische Wissensformen zugrunde, die nicht mehr ganz im Sinne Husserl, sondern in Anknüpfung an Platons Politeia als eikasía (Vermutung: den Bildern, eikones, entsprechend) und pístis (Hinnahme, Überzeugung) bestimmt werden können. Im letzten Teil des Vortrages wird schließlich ein auf dem Boden der Lebenswelt aufbauendes Fundierungsverhältnis zwischen ästhetischem und wissenschaftlichem Wissen vorgeschlagen. (shrink)

The view that mathematics deals with ideal objects to which we have epistemic access by a kind of perception has troubled many thinkers. Using ideas from Husserl’s phenomenology, I will take a different look at these matters. The upshot of this approach is that there are non-material objects and that they can be recognized in a process very closely related to sense perception. In fact, the perception of physical objects may be regarded as a special case of this more universal (...) way of recognizing objects of any kind. (shrink)

Kurt Gödel wrote (1964, p. 272), after he had read Husserl, that the notion of objectivity raises a question: “the question of the objective existence of the objects of mathematical intuition (which, incidentally, is an exact replica of the question of the objective existence of the outer world)”. This “exact replica” brings to mind the close analogy Husserl saw between our intuition of essences in Wesensschau and of physical objects in perception. What is it like to experience a mathematical proving (...) process? What is the ontological status of a mathematical proof? Can computer assisted provers output a proof? Taking a naturalized world account, I will assess the relationship between mathematics, the physical world and consciousness by introducing a significant conceptual distinction between proving and proof. I will propose that proving is a phenomenological conscious experience. This experience involves a combination of what Kurt Gödel called intuition, and what Husserl called intentionality. In contrast, proof is a function of that process — the mathematical phenomenon — that objectively self-presents a property in the world, and that results from a spatiotemporal unity being subject to the exact laws of nature. In this essay, I apply phenomenology to mathematical proving as a performance of consciousness, that is, a lived experience expressed and formalized in language, in which there is the possibility of formulating intersubjectively shareable meanings. (shrink)

Dieser Text geht von der Frage nach der Wahrheit, die durch die Rekonstruktion der Auseinandersetzung zwischen drei Vertreter des zeitgenössischen philosophischen Denkens dargelegt wird, nämlich: Edmund Husserl, Jean-Luc Marion und Jacques Derrida. Wenn bei Husserl das Problem der Wahrheit mit der Analyse der verschiedenen Modalitäten der Anschauung zusammengehört, in denen sich das Phänomen bewusst eintritt, wiederum mag Marion de Darstellungsweise des Phänomens mit dem Begriff „Gegebenheit“ umfassen: somit schließt diese nicht nur die Modalitäten der Anschauung ein, sondern auch die Intentionalität (...) selbst, die sich irgendein etwas wendet. Nun weißt Derrida durch die Dekonstruktion der phänomenologischen Begriffe Anschauung und Gegebenheit darauf hin, dass die phänomenologische Betrachtung nicht ausreicht, um Zusammenhänge und Umstände nachzudenken, in denen sich die Wahrheit ohne anschaulichen Zug, ohne subjektive Intentionalität und in Widerstand gegenüber ihrer eigenen Sichtbarkeit anzeigt. Solche Nuancen hebt Derrida hervor, indem er die Gegebenheit und die „Gabe“ kontrastiert, und schließlich, indem er der Wahrheit den Charakter des Zeugnisses zuschreibt. (shrink)

This book deals with foundational issues in Phenomenology as they arise in the smoldering but tense dispute between Husserl and Heidegger, which culminates in the late 1920s. The work focuses on three key issues around which a constellation of other important problems revolves. More specifically, it elucidates the phenomenological method of the reductions, the identity and content of primordial givenness, and the meaning and character of categorial intuition. The text interrogates how Husserl and Heidegger understand these points, and clarifies the (...) precise nature of their disagreements. The book thus sheds light on the meaning of intentionality and of its foundation on pre-objective time, on the sense of the phenomenological a priori, on intentional constitution, on the relatedness between intentionality and world, and on Heidegger’s debt to Husserl’s categorial intuition in formulating the question regarding Being/Nothing. The author revisits these fundamental issues in order to suggest a general intra-phenomenological settlement, and to do justice to the corresponding contributions of these two central figures in phenomenological philosophy. He also indicates a way of reconciling and interweaving some of their views in order to free Phenomenology from its inner divisions and limitations, enabling it to move forward. Phenomenology can re-examine itself, its obligations, and its possibilities, and this can be of benefit to contemporary philosophy, especially with regard to problems concerning consciousness, intentionality, experience, and human existence and praxis within a historical world in crisis. This book is ideally suited to students and scholars of Husserl and Heidegger, to philosophers of mind, consciousness and cognition, and to anyone with a serious interest in Phenomenology. (shrink)

Even in the relatively recent literature on the issue of the philosophical relation between Husserl and Heidegger, some scholars recognize that despite a large number of very good accounts, the darkness surrounding the matter has not yet been totally lifted. In particular, we still lack a complete account of the exact influence that Husserl’s Phenomenology exerted on Heidegger’s project of a Fundamental Ontology. To use, e.g., Dahlstrom’s wording, until now, the available works on this subject “merely provide points of departure (...) for an explanation of the relation between the two phenomenologists” (Dahlstrom 2001, 142 n. 103; emphasis added). The situation is, of course, somewhat awkward, since Heidegger himself not only admitted his debt to Husserl’s philosophy, but also sometimes tried to guide us through the inner itineraries of this debt. In his Ontology: the Hermeneutics of Facticity (SS 1923), Heidegger admitted, in front of his students, that it was Husserl who gave him his philosophical eyes: “die Augen hat mir Husserl eingesetzt” (GA 63, 5). There are many occasions on which Heidegger thematizes his debt to Husserl’s Phenomenology. Two years later, in his Prolegomena to the History of the Concept of Time (SS 1925), he introduced his students to what he presented as the “three fundamental discoveries” of Husserl’s Phenomenology: intentionality, the doctrine of categorial intuition, and the phenomenological sense of the a priori, thereby publicly acknowledging his admiration for Husserl’s work. Both there and in BT, (1927) as well as in The Basic Problems of Phenomenology (SS 1927), Heidegger constantly acknowledges the decisive dependence of his philosophy on Husserl’s thinking. [...] All the available textual evidence, then, makes clear that Heidegger considered the doctrine of categorial intuition, developed in the sixth LI, as the most decisive influence from Husserl on his own thought (with intentionality and the phenomenological a priori following closely). Now, what precisely is the meaning of this influence? How might that Husserlian doctrine have helped Heidegger shape the way in which he treated the sole concern of his entire philosophical career, namely the question of Being (Seinsfrage)? (shrink)

In his Prolegomena to the History of the Concept of Time (1925), Heidegger develops what at first sight could be seen as a masterful presentation of the “three fundamental discoveries” of Husserl’s Phenomenology: intentionality, categorial intuition, and the new conception of the a priori. Nevertheless, closer examination of the text discloses a series of subtle but serious problems. Our interest here will be restricted to Heidegger’s presentation of his understanding of Husserl’s theory regarding the intentionality of perception and of categorial (...) intuition. In §6 of that work (48/64), we read that Husserl’s discovery of categorial intuition means two things. Firstly, it means that there is an experience of objectities in which we also have a simple apprehension of categorial constituents, i.e., of the elements which the tradition, in a “crude” fashion, called “categories” (48/64). Secondly, it means that this apprehension is already present in every experience and, as Heidegger explains a few lines later, according to what he has “already suggested” in his preceding analyses of the fundamental discovery of intentionality (in §5), categorial intuition is found even in every perception (48/64). Heidegger insists on this claim, and at several points of his presentation (see, e.g., §6.b.“), he repeats the idea that the intentional act of perception is, after all, permeated with categorial elements, with “categorial intuition.” Now, how should we understand this dense and heavy idea? Is it a hidden criticism of Husserl’s views on perception, or is it Heidegger’s sincere understanding of Husserl’s original discovery? The relevant literature seems to take Heidegger’s reading as a true depiction of Husserl’s theory of categorial intuition. However, as we will see, this reading of the latter theory is far from self-evident, a fact that also casts doubt on the corresponding stance regarding its actual motive. In this chapter, I plan to cast new light on the details of Husserl’s theory, and thus also on this fold of the philosophical relation between Husserl and Heidegger. (shrink)

The paper discusses Husserl’s conception of empathy by contrasting it to the classical interpretation of empathy as a phantasy transposition. I start by sketching out a brief historical overview of the classical conception of empathy, which Husserl encountered through its formulation in the work of Theodor Lipps. Following Husserl’s often employed analogy between empathy and memory, I try to work out the distinction between intuitive and non-intuitive empathy. Through this distinction, I will show that, in his later notations, Husserl was (...) inclined to regard the fulfillment of empathy not as an actual reproductive intuition, but as a coherent succession of mere apperceptions. (shrink)

Ce travail porte sur la question du remplissement des visées d’objets idéaux. Dans la VI e Recherche logique Husserl soulève cette question en introduisant un nouveau concept : le concept d’intuition catégoriale. La connaissance des objets idéaux passe selon Husserl par un remplissement qui se réalise au moyen d’une intuition particulière, dans laquelle l’objet idéal se donne en personne, et qui s’oppose à l’intuition sensible. Dans quelle mesure une telle intuition est-elle possible ? Qu’est-ce qui est à proprement parler intuitionné (...) en elle et comment cette intuition se rapporte-t-elle aux intuitions sensibles ? Telles sont les principales questions que je soulèverai dans cette étude. Ce travail me permettra ensuite de formuler un diagnostic sur les tensions qui persistent dans les Recherches logiques , et qui ne seront résolues que par la réduction transcendantale. (shrink)

This article presents phenomenological meta-analysis of Tymieniecka's phenomenology of life with regard to its strategies of knowledge. The novelty of phenomenology of life consists in special orientation of direct intuition of Tymieniecka's insight. The analysis suggests that the positioning of the direct intuition differes from philosopher to philosopher. Even though this perspective pays attention to individual differences in philosophical thinking, this view has to be distinguished froll1 psychologism as criticized by Husser!. and rather, seen as a development of Husserl 's (...) lheory of direct intuition. A framework for such analysis can be also found in Islamic philosophies of Suhrawardi and Ibn 'Arabi, who introduced the concepts of individual predisposition, modes of knowledge, and self-knowledge mediated by knowledge by presence. These concepts can be applied to understanding of the origins of philosophical insight. The paper examines in depth the workings of direct, or presentive, intuition in Tymieniecka's descriptions of the phenomenal field of life, and of life per se as a dynamic object. It demonstrates the dialogical nature of interrogation, and the sentience of logos as a horizon of philosophical inquiry. Finally, the paper introduces the concept of process phenomenology, and suggests directions of future research with regard to phenomenology of imagination. (shrink)

The discussion of universals in Peter Abelard’s Logica ‘Ingredientibus’ has been interpreted in many ways. Of particular controversy has been the proper way to interpret his use of the term status. In this paper I offer an interpretation of status by comparing Abelard’s account of knowledge of universals to Edmund Husserl’s presentations of categorial and eidetic intuition. I argue that status is meant to be understood as something like an ideal object, in Husserl’s sense of the term. First, I present (...) Abelard’s discussion of status and distinguish this term from universals, things, acts of understanding, and forms. Next, I consider Husserl’s account of categorial and eidetic intuition. Finally, I draw parallels between the two while showing how an interpretation of status as ideal object overcomesthe interpretive problems encountered by other commentators on Abelard. (shrink)

The decisive occasion for the following paper was the discovery, during the editorial work, of the expression “symbolische Ideation” (symbolic ideation) in theposthumous manuscript of Ernst Cassirer, “Prägnanz, symbolische Ideation”. The occurrence of this expression raises one more time the question of the relation between Cassirer and the system of concepts of Husserl’s phenomenology. The present research gets to the conclusion that Cassirer uses the concept of “symbolische Ideation” (symbolic ideation) in a sense which basically expresses his own philosophical position, (...) rather than Husserl’s, who links the “symbolische Ideation” with the term “Ideation”, meaning the unmediated self-giveness of the General, of the Identical. But still, one can also discover some common points between Cassirer and Husserl. (shrink)

This paper deals with the concept and meaning of apodicticity or apodictic self-evidence from a phenomenological point of view. The foremost aim of phenomenology is to return to original intuitions, that is, to bring everything to original intuitive givenness and to provide an intuitive basis for philosophical theories. Phenomenology gives a broad interpretation of the concept of intuition. The notion of apodicticity for Husserl is closely related to this conception of self-givenness of objects in intuition. This paper deals partly with (...) the Husserlian concept of apodicticity and also tries to discover the opportunities and possibilities of apodictic self-evidence in phenomenological philosophy, in it’s own right, as a phenomenological analysis of the concept. Furthermore, this paper will also set out to address how and to what extent phenomenology can transgress, in an apodictic manner, the immediate sphere of the present and hence gain insights through subjective consciousness about the fields of other minds, historicity, worldhood and psychology. (shrink)

The recent eruption of scholarship surrounding the nature and tenability of foundationalism in the work of Edmund Husserl offers the impetus and opportunity to (re)examine Theodor Adorno’s Metacritique of Epistemology. In that text, Adorno attempts an immanent critique of phenomenology designed to expose the antinomies that vitiate not only Husserl’s philosophy but any foundationalist epistemology. A detailed analysis of Adorno’s arguments and Husserl’s texts reveals that while Adorno successfully locates a hidden contradiction within Husserl’s notion of ‘perceptual fulfillment,’ his attack (...) on ‘categorial intuition’ misfires. These mixed results call out for renewed and refined exercises in the immanent critique of foundationalism. (shrink)

L’article s’interroge sur l’unité intrinsèque des concepts d’intuition, d’évidence et de remplissement dans la pensée de Husserl : existe-t-il un concept formel d’intuition qui soit valable pour toutes les sphères d’objets possibles ? Peut-on transposer aux différents types d’essences ou de catégories d’objets le paradigme de l’intuition élaboré dans la sphère de la perception sensible ? Cette question nous conduit à analyser, chez Husserl, la structure et les modalités du remplissement et de l’intuition pour les singularités sensibles, les essences matériales (...) et les essences mêlant sensibilité et forme catégoriale.In our paper, we ask whether or not the concepts of intuition, insight and fulfillment have an intrinsic unity in Husserl’s thought. Does a formal concept of intuition exist, which would have a validity in all possible spheres of objects ? Is it possible to transfer to the different kinds of essences the model of intuition, which has been elaborated in the sphere of sensory perception ? That problem leads us to analyze in Husserl’s thought the structure and modalities of fulfillment and intuition for sensory singularities, for material essences and for essences that are a mix of sensibility and categorical form. (shrink)

Desde su origen, la fenomenología de Husserl oscila entre una valoración positiva del cálculo técnico, para compensar la limitada capacidad de los seres humanos, y una denuncia de la ceguera que su desarrollo extraordinario ha ocasionado respecto de la verdadera naturaleza del pensamiento científico y filosófico, en su sentido de λ. Asimismo, respecto de la intuición, la fenomenología oscila entre una valoración positiva del carácter fundacional y auténtico de las representaciones intuitivas básicas y la observación de su finitud radical. En (...) esta ocasión exploramos algunos rasgos de estas oscilaciones. (shrink)

Desde su origen, la fenomenología de Husserl oscila entre una valoraciónpositiva del cálculo técnico, para compensar la limitada capacidad de losseres humanos, y una denuncia de la ceguera que su desarrollo extraordinarioha ocasionado respecto de la verdadera naturaleza del pensamiento científico yfilosófico, en su sentido de 8`(@H . Asimismo, respecto de la intuición, la fenomenologíaoscila entre una valoración positiva del carácter fundacional y auténticode las representaciones intuitivas básicas y la observación de su finitud radical.En esta ocasión exploramos algunos rasgos de (...) estas oscilaciones.Since its inception, Husserl’s phenomenology oscillatesbetween a positive valuation of technical calculus in order to compensate for thelimited capacity of human beings, and a denunciation regarding the blindnessthat its extraordinary development has brought about regarding the true natureof scientific and philosophical thinking, in their sense as 8`(@H . Likewise, regarding intuition phenomenology oscillates between on one side a positive valuation of the foundational and authentic character of the basic intuitive representations and, on the other, the observation of their radical finitude. This paper explores some salient features of these oscillations. (shrink)

Facing interpretations which make difficult a phenomenological approach between Husserl and Heidegger, this article seeks to face this difficulty through a particular subject matter of the phenomenological method. This is achieved as the phenomenological method is interpreted as a synthesis, and the foundation for such synthesis is highlighted in the analysis of the Logical Investigations, particularly in the treatment of perceptive and categorical intuition of the VI investigation. This procedure offers elements to set up a methodical parallelism with the comprehensive (...) intuition and the hermeneutics worked by Heidegger in his first lessons in Freiburg. (shrink)

Beginning with the book of Robert Sokolowski about Husserl’s concept of constitution the Philosophy of Arithmetic have been revisited as an important document of Husserl’s constitution-theory. It is not only an unripe sketch but a work that even formulates one of the most progressive thoughts of Husserl’s later philosophy. In my analysis this statement will also be true, if we concentrate on the second part of Husserl’s book and on the text that was meant to build the opening section of (...) the second volume of this early treatise of Husserl. These works are focused on a problem of the later Husserl, namely how everyday life is the base of using signs, symbols and idealized concepts and how this world also becomes transformed by these means: so the whole problem-complex of the interaction of intuitive and ideal-conceptual. If we take into account that Husserl wants to clarify the basis of symbolization as such in the PA, then it is not surprising that he handles these problems. But it is surprising that he comes very close to the results which were obtained in the late 20s and 30s. This will be clear if we are attent to some points in Husserl’s 1892/93 text about the concept of space. I will conclude that he abandoned these very progressive results, because he had realized, that his mood of analysis wasn’t sufficient to go in this direction already. (shrink)

In his first reading of Husserlian phenomenology, Levinas offered a very interesting criticism of the very notion of intuition, understood as an impossible pretension to grasp in its supposed immediacy the self-giving of the Origin. In his mature work, the role of the Husserlian intuition is played by desire: but the latter is conceived in its strong irreducibility to nostalgia. Human desire is always desire of the same for the other. This paper tries to understand the delayed temporalityof desire as (...) rooted in the radical past of separation. (shrink)

Early twentieth century, despite the intention of philosophy, philosophy objectives and style, philosophy, consistency between the topics and methods, stone wrapped in grams, between Wittgenstein and Husserl still occurred in a debate, or even is a direct conflict: the problems are mainly related to the nature of intuitive understanding. It first stone wrapped in grams and by mutual criticism between Husserl and show it, then wrapped again in stone grams and Wittgenstein's remarks get to proceed. This paper is a review (...) of this conflict, but the basic intent of this article is not only up to this point has been overlooked historical fact of the discovery and reproduction - only constitute the subject of this section. The main problem lies in the reiterated arguments and analysis: What is the concept of existence? What is its concept and intuitive? - This is the second article, three of the discussion. Although at the end of the third quarter has been given a Wittgenstein of Husserl and a summary of their respective positions, the fourth quarter remains in the form of summary, but the vision has been open, has been extended to the spirit of the times of the two observation: the doctrine of ideas and language of Marxism. At the beginning of the 20th. Century, although consistencies in regard to philosophical intention, aim, style, thesis and method, it has happened a controversy, indeed a conflict, between Schlick, Wittgenstein on the one side, and Husserl on the other side . The problem refers mostly to the understanding of Wesensschau . It first emerges from the mutual criticism between Schlick and Husserl, hereafter is continued in Schlick's and Wittgenstein's conversation. This text is firstly a review of this conflict, however, its basic intention lies not in to disinter and represent this always being neglected historical fact, which only constitutes the subject of the first section, but mainly in to reiterate and analyze the question: Whether the ideal being is possible? Whether the ideation of it is possible? This constitutes the contents of discussion in the second and third section. Although a brief account of Husserl's and Wittgenstein's standpoints has already been given at the end of the third section, the fourth section still maintains the form of summarizing, but the visual angle is expanded as far as possible to observe the both kinds of the Zeitgeist: the idealism and the lingualism. (shrink)

Edmund Husserl has argued that we can intuit essences and, moreover, that it is possible to formulate a method for intuiting essences. Husserl calls this method 'ideation'. In this paper I bring a fresh perspective to bear on these claims by illustrating them in connection with some examples from modern pure geometry. I follow Husserl in describing geometric essences as invariants through different types of free variations and I then link this to the mapping out of geometric invariants in modern (...) mathematics. This view leads naturally to different types of spatial ontologies and it can be used to shed light on Husserl's general claim that there are different ontologies in the eidetic sciences that can be systematically related to one another. The paper is rounded out with a consideration of the role of ideation in the origins of modern geometry, and with a brief discussion of the use of ideation outside of pure geometry. (shrink)