Husserl Studies

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 51–55 | Cite as

An Addendum to the Exchange with Walter Hopp on Phenomenology and Fallibility

  • George HeffernanEmail author

I have read Walter Hopp’s reply to my comments on his paper “Phenomenology and Fallibility” and noted his two principle concerns with my remarks. Since our common purpose is not to shut down but to open up the phenomenological discussion of forms of fallibility, and since it is important to concentrate as much as possible on the “forest” and not get distracted by the “trees”, I will restrict myself, for now, to the following brief observations on his two main points:

First, I do not think that “one of [my] principal objections to [his] account is mistaken” (44). The reason is that I raised no “objection” to his account in the first place, but rather only made a suggestion on a promising path along which he and others might take his original approach. Hence I never questioned the validity or utility of the notions of agent-fallibility or method-fallibility that Hopp advanced. I merely questioned their descriptive valence by inquiring as to whether they represent the onlyforms of...


Epistemic Justification Phenomenological Method Final Sentence Categorial Intuition Justify False Belief 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentAugustinian CollegeAndoverUSA

Personalised recommendations