The aim of this article is to examine the problematic frontier that separates the phenomenology of the body and the phenomenology of animality. The main difficulty is to differentiate phenomenologically not only between embodiment and animality, but also between specifically human embodied experience and what is accessible to us through empathy in relation to the corporeality of the animal. I will tackle these questions by considering relevant textual material from the writings of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. On the one (...) hand, I will show that although embodiment and animality are convergent on the level of the naturalistic attitude in Husserl’s Ideas II, they are divergent as soon as we place ourselves in the personalistic attitude, where the body enters into a different conjunction—namely, with the idea of person and of the spiritual world. On the other hand, Heidegger claims that, in spite of the abysmal bodily kinship with the animal, there is an essential difference between the human body and the animal organism, thus opposing the tendencies to humanize the animal and to animalize the human. (shrink)

Alfred Schütz is often credited with providing sociology with a firm ground derived from phenomenology of science and justifying it as a science operating within natural attitude. Although his project of social science draws extensively on Edmund Husserl’s theory of attitudes, it would be incorrect to assume that Schütz shares with the founder of phenomenology his conception of science. This paper compares Husserl’s and Schütz’s views on the structure and meaning of science and traces the roots of their radical divergence. (...) Whereas Husserl increasingly emphasises the importance of phenomenological reduction for the genuine human science, Schütz eventually rejects reduction and restricts the social science to a specific system of relevancies within the reality of the lifeworld. This paper presents the argument that Schütz’s conception eliminates the possibility of a phenomenological justification of social science, as it implies that there are no rationally justifiable grounds to pursue science. In this way, Schütz’s views substantially differ from the phenomenological theory of science and become open to the phenomenological critique of naivety. (shrink)

La siguiente reflexión interroga en qué sentido puede todavía hacerse valer hoy la distinción entre ciencias naturales y ciencias de la cultura reconsiderando dicha distinción en el marco de la fenomenología husserliana. Se indaga si ella refleja un “hiato en la cultura” irreversible e infranqueable —heredado del dualismo cartesiano, la crítica kantiana, el positivismo naturalista y la reivindicación neokantiana de las ciencias del espíritu— o si más bien no puede concebirse un suelo común como fuente última de su sentido y (...) validez. Se constata que sólo podrá descubrirse dicho suelo común trascendiendo toda toma de posición ontológica, e interrogando las fuentes trascendentales de la experiencia humana. Dicha interrogación revelará, a su vez, consecuencias inesperadas respecto del carácter finito y limitado de toda empresa humana.The following contribution reflects upon the sense that the distinction between natural and cultural sciences may still have nowadays, reconsidering it within the framework of Husserl’s phenomenology. It questions whether it reflects an irreversible and insurmountable “hiatus in culture” —inherited from Cartesian dualism, Kantian critique, Comte’s naturalism and the neo-Kantian vindication of the cultural sciences— or whether a common soil as their ultimate source of sense and validity may not be conceived instead. It purports that, the said common ground, may only be discovered by transcending every ontological statement, and by questioning the transcendental sources of human experience. This interrogation itself reveals unexpected consequences regarding the finite and limited character of every human endeavour. (shrink)

The twelve original studies collected in this volume examine different aspects of Edmund Husserl's Logical Investigations. They are authored by scholars and specialists internationally recognized for their expertise in the fields of phenomenology, logic, history of philosophy and philosophy of mind. They approach Husserl's groundwork from different angles and perspectives and shed new light on a number of issues such as meaning, intentionality, ontology, logic, etc. They also explore questions such as the place of the Logical Investigations within the whole (...) of Husserl's work, its sources in 19th century philosophy and in particular in the philosophical work of Franz Brentano and Bernard Bolzano, its reception amongst the so-called members of the Munich Circle and its influence on contemporary philosophy. In short, this volume constitutes a "companion" to Husserl's Logical Investigations. (shrink)

This dissertation deals with Merleau-Ponty's critical transformation of Husserl's phenomenology through a rethinking of the concept of "nature," which Husserl, Merleau-Ponty argues, fails to integrate or explain successfully in his philosophical system. The first chapter reconstructs Husserl's "transcendental-phenomenological" project in Ideas I, while the second widens the investigation to cover the ontologically-centered Ideas II and III. In my third chapter, I chart what I call Merleau-Ponty's "organic appropriation" of Husserl and the unique hermeneutical challenges it poses. Here the ambiguity of (...) Ideas II, which both grounds subjectivity in the lived body and separates nature from "spirit", plays a crucial role. The fourth chapter concentrates on the Merleau-Ponty's later meditations on the ontology of nature and subjectivity, particularly in his recently translated Nature lectures of 1959-61. Finally, the fifth chapter compares and contrasts Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, in terms of both substance and method, through a detailed examination of their different notions of "paradox." I show how Merleau-Ponty's "paradoxical" thinking stems not from chance or mere temperament but a fundamental, systematic commitment to the self-contradictory nature of being and truth themselves. (shrink)