Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The four principles of phenomenology

  • Published:
Continental Philosophy Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article, published originally in French just after the 1989 release of Jean-Luc Marion’s book Reduction and Givenness, consists of a sustained critical study of the manner in which Marion advances from the basic principles of phenomenology. Henry outlines briefly three principles, (1) “so much appearance, so much being,” (2) “the principle of principles” of Ideas I, (3) “to the things themselves!” before entering into a lengthy dialogue with Marion’s proposal of a fourth principle: “so much reduction, so much givenness.” Henry submits each principle to critique, highlighting that they contain confusing premises. Henry is appreciative of Marion’s capacity to root the appearing of phenomena in givenness, but he ultimately finds problematic the gap between the call and response that is a fundamental structure of Marion’s fourth principle. Henry, in contrast, develops his own theme of pure givenness, expressed in the form of subjectivity he calls auto-affection, in the final pages of the article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Henry fails to cite properly this originally German expression. Drawn from Heidegger and Husserl, in the German, Soviel Schein—soviel Sein, is a formula found in Jean-Luc Marion (1998, pp. 59 and 203) and (2004, pp. 94 and 303). Hereafter the French is followed by the pagination of the English translation. The 2004 edition of the text will be cited. The German is found in Heidegger (1985, p. 139). Heidegger writes exactly “Wieviel Schein jedoch, soviel ‘Sein’” in Heidegger (1962, p. 60, no. 3); Husserl writes “Soviel Schein, soviel Sein” in Husserl (1973, §46, p. 133; 1960, §46, p. 103) (Translators’ note).

  2. See Husserl (1983, §24, p. 44) (Translators’ note).

  3. Marion (2004, p. 302, p. 203).

  4. Descartes (1983:IX-2, p. 28; 1985: I, p. 195).

  5. Descartes (1983: IX-1, pp. 21–22; 1985: II, p. 18). Henry’s quote from Descartes, or its exact wording, cannot be located in the French citation he gives. (Translators’ note).

  6. Cf., Descartes (1983, X: p. 360; 1985: I, p. 9).

  7. Edmund Husserl (1970, p. 60; 1999, p. 64).

  8. Edmund Husserl (1964, p. 157; 1991, p. 121). The phrase may also be rendered in English as “objects in their ways of appearing” [Gegenstände im Wie] (Translators’ note).

  9. See here the author’s other essay, Henry (1988).

  10. Marion (2004, pp. 211–247; pp. 141–166).

  11. Cited by Marion (2004, p. 243; p. 163).

  12. “The wonder of all wonders: that that being is,” says the postscript of the 1943 What is Metaphysics?; cited and commented on in Marion (2004, p. 243; p. 163). See Heidegger (1975, p. 261).

  13. Marion (2004, p. 240; p. 161).

  14. Marion (2004, p. 208; p. 139). See also the author’s critique directed against the ontic preliminary of Heideggerian phenomenology in Henry (1973, §§ 11–13).

  15. Marion (2004, p. 278; p. 185).

  16. Marion (2004, p. 297; p. 198).

  17. Marion (2004, p. 298; p. 199).

  18. Marion (2004, p. 299; p. 200).

  19. Marion (2004, p. 299; p. 200).

  20. Marion (2004, p. 299; p. 200).

  21. Marion (2004, p. 284; p. 188).

  22. Marion (2004, p. 289; p. 193). This is a quote drawn from Heidegger (1977, p. 205).

  23. Marion (2004, p. 292; p. 194).

  24. Marion (2004, p. 292; p. 194).

  25. Marion (2004, p. 292; p. 195).

  26. Marion (2004, p. 293; p. 195).

  27. Marion (2004, p. 294; p. 196).

  28. Marion (2004, p. 295; p. 197).

  29. Marion (2004, p. 295; p. 197).

  30. Marion (2004, p. 296, p. 197).

  31. Marion (2004, p. 296; p. 197).

  32. Marion (2004, p. 296; p. 198).

  33. Marion (2004, p. 293; p. 195, tr. mod.).

References

  • Descartes, René. 1983. Oeuvres De Descartes. 11 vols. eds. Charles Adam and Paul Tannery. Paris: J. Vrin.

  • Descartes, René. 1985. The philosophical writings of descartes (trans: John Cottingham, Robert Soothoff and Dugald Murdoch, 2 vols). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Heidegger. 1962. Being and time (trans: John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  • Heidegger. 1975. Postscript to ‘What is metaphysics?’. In Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (trans: Walter Kaufmann, 242–264). New York: Penguin.

  • Heidegger, 1977. Letter on humanism. In Basic writings, ed. David F. Krell, 213–266. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, 1985. A history of the concept of time: Prolegomena (trans: Theodore Kisiel). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  • Henry, Michel. 1973. The Essence of Manifestation (trans: Girard Etzkorn). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Henry, Michel. 1988. The critique of the subject (trans: Peter T. Connor, Topoi 7: 147–153).

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1964. Leçons pour une phénoménologie de la conscience intime du temps trad. H. Dussort. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1970. L’Idée de la Phénoménologie: Cinq Leçons (trad. A. Lowit). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1973. Cartesianische Meditationen, ed. S. Strasser. Hua I. The Hauge: Martinus Nijhoff. Husserl. 1960. Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology, (trans: Dorion Cairns). Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1983. Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy: First book (trans: F. Kersten). Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1991. On the phenomenology of the consciousness of internal time (1893–1917) (trans: John Barnett Brough). Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic.

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1999. The idea of phenomenology (trans: Lee Hardy). Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic.

  • Marion, Jean-Luc. 2004. Réduction et donation: recherché sur Husserl Heidegger et la phénoménologie, 2e édition revue et corrigée. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Originally published in 1989. Marion. 1998. Reduction and givenness: Investigations into Husserl, Heidegger and phenomenology (trans: Thomas A. Carlson). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Michel Henry, “Quatre principes de la phénoménolgie,” Revue de métaphysique et de morale 1 (1991): 3–26. We thank the editors of the Revue for permission to publish the translation of this article. We also thank Scott Davidson for making several suggestions with regard to difficult French expressions that have improved the quality of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Albi, France

    Michel Henry

  2. Mater Dei Institute, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Joseph Rivera

  3. Seton Hall University, New York, NY, USA

    George E. Faithful

Authors
  1. Michel Henry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph Rivera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George E. Faithful
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph Rivera.

Additional information

In honor to the deceased author Michel Henry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henry, M., Rivera, J. & Faithful, G.E. The four principles of phenomenology. Cont Philos Rev 48, 1–21 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-014-9313-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-014-9313-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation