Husserl Studies

, 27:197 | Cite as

Representationalism and Husserlian Phenomenology

Article

Abstract

According to contemporary representationalism, phenomenal qualia—of specifically sensory experiences—supervene on representational content. Most arguments for representationalism share a common, phenomenological premise: the so-called “transparency thesis.” According to the transparency thesis, it is difficult—if not impossible—to distinguish the quality or character of experiencing an object from the perceived properties of that object. In this paper, I show that Husserl would react negatively to the transparency thesis; and, consequently, that Husserl would be opposed to at least two versions of contemporary representationalism. First, I show that Husserl would be opposed to strong representationalism, since he believes the cognitive content of a perceptual episode can vary despite constancy of sensory qualia. Second, I then show that Husserl would be opposed to weak representationalism, since he believes that sensory qualia—specifically, the sort that he calls “kinesthetic sensations”—can vary despite constancy in representational content.

References

  1. Byrne, A. (2001). Intentionalism defended. Philosophical Review, 110, 199–240.Google Scholar
  2. Crane, T. (2009). Intentionalism. In B. P. McLaughlin, et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Harman, G. (1990). The intrinsic quality of experience. Philosophical Perspectives, 4, 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hopp, W. (2008). Husserl on sensation, perception, and interpretation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 38(2), 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Horgan, T., & Tienson, J. (2002). The intentionality of phenomenology and the phenomenology of intentionality. In D. J. Chalmers (Ed.), Philosophy of mind: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 520–533). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hua IV. Husserl, E. Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologische Philosophie: Zweites Buch: Phänomenologische Untersuchungen zur Konstitution. M. Biemel (Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1952.Google Scholar
  8. Hua XI. Hussserl, E. Analysen zur passiven Synthesis. M. Fleischer (Ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1966.Google Scholar
  9. Hua XVI. Husserl, E. Ding und Raum. U. Claesges (Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. Hua III. Husserl, E. Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie: Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie. K. Schumann (Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977.Google Scholar
  11. Hua XXIII. Husserl, E. Phantasie, Bildbewusstsein, Erinnerung. Zur Phänomenologie der anschaulichen Vergegenwärtigungen. Eduard Marbach (Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1980.Google Scholar
  12. Hua XIX. Husserl, E. Logische Untersuchungen: Zweiter Band. Ursula Panzer (Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. Hua XXXVIII. Husserl, E. Wahrnehmung und Aufmerksamkeit. T. Vongehr and R. Giuliani (Eds.). Dordrecht: Springer, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. Keller, P. (1999). Husserl and Heidegger on human experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kind, A. (2003). What’s so transparent about transparency? Philosophical Studies, 115, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kind, A. (2007). Restrictions on representationalism. Philosophical Studies, 134, 405–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pitt, D. (2004). The phenomenology of cognition or what it’s like to think that p? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Siewert, C. (1998). The significance of consciousness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Twain, M. (2010). The awful German language. In R. Blount Jr. (Ed.), A tramp abroad. Washington D.C.: Library of America.Google Scholar
  20. Tye, M. (1995). Ten problems of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, color and content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tye, M. (2007). Intentionalism and the argument from no common content. Philosophical Perspectives, 21, 589–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCalifornia State University Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations