On Husserl's remark that “[s]elbst eine sich als apodiktisch ausgebende evidenz Kann sich als täuschung enthüllen …” (XVII 164:32–33): Does the phenomenological method yield any epistemic infallibility?
Husserl Studies 25 (1):15-43 (2009)
| Abstract | Addressing Walter Hopp’s original application of the distinction between agent-fallibility and method-fallibility to phenomenological inquiry concerning epistemic justification, I question whether these are the only two forms of fallibility that are useful or whether there are not also others that are needed. In doing so, I draw my inspiration from Husserl, who in the beginnings of his phenomenological investigations struggled with the distinction between noetic and noematic analyses. For example, in the Preface to the Second Edition of the Logical Investigations he criticizes the First Investigation as having been “one-sidedly” noetically directed and as having thus neglected the noematic aspects of meaning (XVIII 13–14). Also, in an addendum to the Fifth Investigation he notes that in the transition from the First Edition to the Second he has learned to broaden the concept of “phenomenological content” to include not only the “real” ( reell ) contents (noetic, subjective) of consciousness but also the “intentional” (noematic, objective) (XIX/1 411). The fact that, in gradually moving from consciousness (noesis) to what consciousness is of (noema), Husserl struggled with this distinction is an indication of the immensity of the perplexing problems and potential solutions that Hopp has led the phenomenology of knowledge into by introducing his useful notions of agent-fallibility and method-fallibility. Like Husserl, he has focused mainly and mostly on the noetic issues; like Husserl as well, I will try to move step by step from the noetic area into the noematic. I conclude that Hopp’s approach has the potential to become seminal. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,865 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesCarlos Sanchez (2010). Epistemic Justification and Husserl's Phenomenology of Reason in Ideas I. In Pol Vandevelde & Sebastian Luft (eds.), Epistemology, Archaeology, Ethics: Current Investigations of Husserl's Corpus. Continuum.
Walter Hopp (2008). Husserl, Phenomenology, and Foundationalism. Inquiry 51 (2):194 – 216.
Andrzej Klawiter (2004). Why Did Husserl Not Become the Galileo of the Science of Consciousness? Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 82 (1):253-271.
Sebastian Luft (2011). Subjectivity and Lifeworld in Transcendental Phenomenology. Northwestern University Press.
Robert Keith Shaw (2010). Husserl's Phenomenological Method in Management. In Proceedings of the ANZAM conference, Adelaide, Australia. Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management.
Ronald McIntyre & David Woodruff Smith (1989). Theory of Intentionality. In William R. McKenna & J. N. Mohanty (eds.), Husserl's Phenomenology: A Textbook. University Press of America.
Łukasz Kosowski (2010). Noema and Thinkability : An Essay on Husserl's Theory of Intentionality. Ontos Verlag.
George Heffernan (2009). An Addendum to the Exchange with Walter Hopp on Phenomenology and Fallibility. Husserl Studies 25 (1):51-55.
Walter Hopp (2009). Phenomenology and Fallibility. Husserl Studies 25 (1):1-14.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-02-16Total downloads14 ( #84,198 of 556,775 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,775 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
