How We Think About Things: Reference in Husserl and the Analytic Tradition

Dissertation, Boston College (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The phenomenon of reference is a very ordinary one. We refer to things in one manner or another in nearly every sentence we utter or thought we entertain. Yet within the analytic tradition, the phenomenon of reference has proved oddly resistant to philosophical clarification. Attempts to provide such clarification have met with a wide range of paradoxes and seemingly intractable aporias. The phenomenon has generally been treated in one of three ways: as an unexplained relation between words and entities of the 'non-linguistic world'; as an internal feature of language lacking a genuinely relational structure; or as a 'mentalistic excrescence' that can and should be dissolved by logical analysis. I argue that none of these ways of accounting for the phenomenon does justice to it, and that the difficulties surrounding the problem of reference in the analytic tradition stem largely from certain reductive and metaphysical prejudices within that tradition. ;I attempt to demonstrate here that the phenomenon of reference can be adequately clarified only when its relational structure and its essential nature as an act are acknowledged. I argue that Husserl's phenomenology is uniquely able to meet this criterion, providing a clarification of the phenomenon while correcting the philosophical prejudices of the analytic account. That the phenomenological account of reference compares favorably to the analytic one is illustrated here by examining the difficulties that have attended analytic attempts to explain reference from Frege onward. These include the puzzle of informative identity statements, problems with substitution, naming, identification and description, Russell's Paradox, difficulties with occasional/indexical reference, 'intentional inexistence' and several others. Each of these problems can be readily solved with the phenomenological model. ;Though Husserl's phenomenology is certainly not without its own difficulties and limitations, it provides a much-needed correction to the myopia of the analytic tradition, particularly with respect to the irreducibly relational and act-driven structure of experience. The phenomenological clarification of reference, a phenomenon that issues directly from this structure, is uniquely illustrative of the value of such a correction

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Husserl’s Theory of Meaning and Reference.Barry Smith - 1994 - In L. Haaparanta (ed.), Mind, Meaning and Mathematics: Essays on the Philosophy of Husserl and Frege. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 163-183.
Reference Without Ontological Import.Ali Asghar Toraby Moghadam - 1981 - Dissertation, The University of Rochester
Theoretical terms without analytic truths.Michael Strevens - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 160 (1):167-190.
Externalism and analyticity.Consuelo Preti - 1995 - Philosophical Studies 79 (3):213 - 236.
Multiple Groundings and Deference.Antonio Rauti - 2012 - Philosophical Quarterly 62 (247):317-336.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-01

Downloads
2 (#1,787,337)

6 months
1 (#1,516,429)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Shannon Vallor
University of Edinburgh

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references