This paper introduces Husserl's ethics by examining his critique of Kant's ethics. It presents Husserl's lectures on ethics in which he offers his own ethical theory in a historical context. The phenomenological ethics seeks to combine the advantages of both the traditional empiricism and rationalism. Husserl's ethics takes into account that emotions play an essential role in the constitution of values and morals. Contrariwise, Husserl fights against relativism in ethics and praises Kant for the discovery of an absolute moral imperative. (...) He considers Kant's ethics as a rationalistic position that is too formal and that does not take into account that every will must be motivated by some concrete material good that is evaluated in our feelings or emotions. (shrink)
This paper argues that Husserl’s ethics do not fit into any one of three commonly recognized kinds of ethical theory: virtue (Aristotelian), deontological (Kantian), and consequentialist (especially, utilitarianism). Husserl’s mature ethical theory, in particular, combines a modern, Kantian or Fichtean approach based on a strong concept of a free and active ego capable of shaping its life autonomously through its own will with a more Aristotelian theory of the virtues that help us to shape our lives in order to reach (...) happiness or eudaimonia. The paper presents a historical overview of Husserl’s writings on ethics, divided into two main periods with distinct emphases. It concludes that, on the one hand, Husserl’s theory of the ethical person clarifies the origin of the virtues in the free activity of the subject, and on the other, it extends the voluntaristic conception of subjectivity to encompass the passively constituted habits. In this way, Husserl combines an Aristotelian-style virtue ethics with modern theories of subjectivity. It is this combination of modern and Aristotelian elements in Husserl’s ethics that makes it a systematically fruitful and promising contribution to ethical theory. (shrink)
This article raises the question of whether there is one consistent theory of volitional acts in Husserl’s writings. The question arises because Husserl approaches volitional consciousness in his static and his genetic phenomenology rather differently. Static phenomenology understands acts of willing as complex, higher-order phenomena that are founded in both intellectual and emotional acts; while genetic phenomenology describes them as passively motivated phenomena that are implicitly predelineated in feelings, instincts, and drives, which always already include a characteristic element of striving. (...) Thus, according to genetic phenomenology, volitional acts are not founded on intellectual and emotional acts but rather influence those acts in their specific directedness. This article critically investigates four possible attempts to unite the two phenomenological approaches consistently and concludes that all these attempts are burdened with unsolved problems. It thus remains questionable whether Husserl has one consistent theory of volitional acts. (shrink)
This article is composed of three sections that investigate the epistemological foundations of Husserl’s idea of logic from the Logical Investigations . First, it shows the general structure of this logic. Husserl conceives of logic as a comprehensive, multi-layered theory of possible theories that has its most fundamental level in a doctrine of meaning. This doctrine aims to determine the elementary categories that constitute every possible meaning (meaning-categories). The second section presents the main idea of Husserl’s search for an epistemological (...) foundation for knowledge, science and logic. Their epistemological clarification can only be reached through a detailed analysis of the structure of those intentions that give us what is meant in our intentions. To reveal the intuitive giveness of logical forms is the ultimate aim of Husserl’s epistemology of logic. Logical forms and meaning-categories can only be given in a certain higher-order intuition that Husserl calls categorical intuition. The third section of this article distinguishes different kinds of categorical intuition and shows how the most basic logical categories and concepts are given to us in a categorical abstraction. (shrink)
Julio C. Vargas Bejarano, Phänomenologie des Willens. Seine Struktur, sein Ursprung und seine Funktion in Husserls Denken Content Type Journal Article DOI 10.1007/s10743-010-9068-4 Authors Henning Peucker, Universität Paderborn Fach Philosophie, Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften Warburger Str. 100 33098 Paderborn Germany Journal Husserl Studies Online ISSN 1572-8501 Print ISSN 0167-9848 Journal Volume Volume 26 Journal Issue Volume 26, Number 1.
Can we have objective knowledge of the world? Can we understand what is morally right or wrong? Yes, to some extent. This is the answer given by Adam Smith and Edmund Husserl. Both rejected David Hume’s skeptical account of what we can hope to understand. But they held his empirical method in high regard, inquiring into the way we perceive and emotionally experience the world, into the nature and function of human empathy and sympathy and the role of the imagination (...) in processes of intersubjective understanding. The challenge is to overcome the natural constraints of perceptual and emotional experience and reach an agreement that is informed by the facts in the world and the nature of morality. This collection of philosophical essays addresses an audience of Smith- and Husserl scholars as well as everybody interested in theories of objective knowledge and proper morality which are informed by the way we perceive and think and communicate. (shrink)
In seinem Beitrag „Paul Natorp über das Verhältnis von Philosophie und Psychologie“ stellt Henning Peucker im Ausgang von Hegel und in seiner Gegenüberstellung zu Kant erst einmal die unterschiedlichen Aufgaben von Philosophie und Wissenschaft heraus. Denn während die Wissenschaften um Objektivierung, immer exaktere Gegenstandsbestimmungen bemüht sind, fällt der Philosophie die Aufgabe zu, nach den Möglichkeiten solcher Erkenntnisse zu fragen und diese zu sichern. Von dieser Unterscheidung aus wendet sich Peucker der Bestimmung des Verhältnisses von Philosophie und Psychologie zu. Gleichsam stellt (...) er die Frage nach dem der Psychologie eigentümlichen Charakter und ihrem Gegenstand. Dieser Charakter gründet sich darauf, dass sich das Subjekt nach Natorp nicht wie andere Gegenstände objektivieren lässt. Was aber, so fragt Peucker, kann dann als Gegenstand der Psychologie gelten. Um dieser Frage nachzugehen, weist Peucker auf die drei Momente hin, welche das „Faktum des bewussten Erlebens“ ausmachen, nämlich das erlebende Subjekt, der erlebte Gegenstand und das Verhältnis beider zueinander. Dabei stellt Peucker heraus, dass allein der Inhalt für eine psychologische Untersuchung geeignet ist. Anders allerdings als in den Wissenschaften geht es in der Psychologie nicht um Objektivierung desselben, sondern um eine in entgegengesetzter Richtung ablaufende Subjektivierung, verstanden als Rekonstruktion der kategorialen Voraussetzungen einer jeweiligen Objektivierung. (shrink)