Authors
Emanuele Mariani
Universidade de Lisboa
Abstract
Riassunto: La fenomenologia, in virtù del suo stesso nome, pare rivendicare un diritto di prelazione sui fenomeni. È sufficiente, tuttavia, uno sguardo panoramico sulla storia della filosofia o, più generalmente, delle scienze per rilevare il vasto impiego che si va affermando, senza fenomenologia, del concetto di fenomeno. In cosa consisterebbe allora la specificità della comprensione fenomenologica dei “fenomeni”? Per rispondere a questa domanda, riconsidereremo il dibattito tra Edmund Husserl autore delle Logische Untersuchungen e Paul Natorp, filosofo neokantiano di Marburgo, le cui tesi presentano un duplice interesse: l’avere, per un verso, sollecitato lo stesso Husserl a una precisazione della proposta fenomenologica; l’aver, per l’altro, anticipato alcuni tra gli argomenti di maggior rilievo nell’ambito delle scienze cognitive in merito ai vari tentativi di naturalizzazione della coscienza. Parole chiave: Fenomeno; Intenzionalità; Oggetto; Edmund Husserl; Paul Natorp Phenomena With or Without Phenomenology. An Open Dialogue: Phenomenology, by its very name, seems to invoke a priority claim on the study of phenomena. Yet a glance at the history of philosophy or, more generally, the sciences, suffices to demonstrate how widely the concept of “phenomena” has been used outside phenomenology. So, what exactly is unique to the phenomenological understanding of phenomena? In order to formulate a possible answer, we reactivate the debate between the Husserl of the Logische Untersuchungen and Paul Natorp, a neo-Kantian philosopher from Marburg. This debate is of interest on two fronts: first, because Natorp’s criticism directly forced Husserl to clarify his views on phenomenology; second, because the debate anticipated some of the most important arguments on naturalizing consciousness in the cognitive sciences. Keywords: Phenomenon; Intentionality; Object; Edmund Husserl; Paul Natorp
Keywords Edmund Husserl  Fenomeno  Intenzionalità  Oggetto  Paul Natorp
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.4453/rifp.2019.0012
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,740
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Über objektive und subjektive Begründung der Erkenntnis.Paul Natorp - 1887 - Philosophische Monatshefte 23:257-286.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reconstruction and Reduction: Natorp and Husserl on Method and the Question of Subjectivity.Sebastian Luft - 2010 - Meta: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy 8 (2):326-370.
Réduction Et Subjectivation Chez Theodor Celms.Denis Seron - 2018 - Meta: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy 10 (2):295-316.
Un problema de la fenomenología: La controversia entre Husserl y Natorp.José Ruiz Fernández - 2007 - Investigaciones Fenomenológicas: Anuario de la Sociedad Española de Fenomenología 5:209-223.
Roman Ingarden.Arkadiusz Chrudzimski - 2012 - In Antonio Cimino & Vincenzo Costa (eds.), Storia della fenomenologia. Carocci Editore.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-09-01

Total views
7 ( #1,049,562 of 2,462,895 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #299,108 of 2,462,895 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes