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 (2004)
| Abstract | It is well known that Husserl clearly recognized the importance of the introduction of idealization in physics and its contribution to the further advancement in natural sciences. The history of the successful applications of idealization in natural sciences encouraged attempts to extend the use of this sophisticated instrument of theoretical investigation and theory construction to other domains of science. Since Husserl designed his phenomenology as the rigorous science of consciousness we have to find out why he did not use the method he understood so well to study experiences, the objects located by him in the domain of consciousness. The paper offers an answer to this question. It explains why Husserl conceived of the method of idealization as a tool of objectivization of previously subjective knowledge. Since idealization is used to objectify knowledge its application to experiences, conscious acts would produce objective knowledge of consciousness. This, however, would contradict phenomenological assertion that subjectivity is an essential component of experience and that the reliable knowledge about conscious acts could not be objectified. It is the core of Husserl's argumentation that there is no place for idealization in the research on consciousness. | |||||||||
| 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: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGeorge Heffernan (2009). 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? [REVIEW] Husserl Studies 25 (1):15-43.
Amie L. Thomasson (2005). First-Person Knowledge in Phenomenology. In David Woodruff Smith & Amie L. Thomasson (eds.), Phenomenology and Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
David Hyder (2003). Foucault, Cavaillès, and Husserl on the Historical Epistemology of the Sciences. Perspectives on Science 11 (1):107-129.
John Brough (2011). “The Most Difficult of All Phenomenological Problems”. Husserl Studies 27 (1):27-40.
Aron Gurwitsch (1955). The Phenomenological and the Psychological Approach to Consciousness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 15 (March):303-319.
Dermot Moran (2000). Heidegger's Critique of Husserl's and Brentano's Accounts of Intentionality. Inquiry 43 (1):39 – 65.
Michael R. Kelly (2009). The Consciousness of Succession. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (1):127-139.
Rudolf Bernet (2002). Unconscious Consciousness in Husserl and Freud. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1 (3):327-351.
Thomas J. Nenon (2008). Some Differences Between Kant's and Husserl's Conceptions of Transcendental Philosophy. Continental Philosophy Review 41 (4):427-439.
James W. Garrison (1986). Husserl, Galileo, and the Processes of Idealization. Synthese 66 (2):329 - 338.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads15 ( #78,648 of 549,084 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,084 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
