Advertisement

Husserl Studies

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 123–141 | Cite as

On Husserl’s Alleged Cartesianism and Conjunctivism: A Critical Reply to Claude Romano

  • Andrea StaitiEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this paper I criticize Claude Romano’s recent characterization of Husserl’s phenomenology as a form of Cartesianism. Contra Romano, Husserl is not committed to the view that since individual things in the world are dubitable, then the world as a whole is dubitable. On the contrary, for Husserl doubt is a merely transitional phenomenon which can only characterize a temporary span of experience. Similarly, illusion is not a mode of experience in its own right but a retrospective way of characterizing a span of experience. Therefore, Husserl cannot be plausibly characterized as either a disjunctivist or a conjunctivist. The common premise of both theories – namely, that perception and illusion are two classes of conscious acts standing on equal footing – is phenomenologically unsound. I propose to call Husserl’s theory a hermeneutical theory of perception, i.e., one that interprets perception as a temporal and self-correcting process. In the last part of the paper I argue that Husserl’s positive appraisal of Cartesian doubt is only pedagogical in nature. Husserl does not take Cartesian doubt to be practicable, but the attempt to doubt universally has the positive effect of revealing transcendental subjectivity as the subject matter of phenomenology.

Keywords

Conjunctive Theory Husserlian Phenomenology Transitional Phenomenon Cartesian Meditation Transcendental Subjectivity 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I presented an earlier version of this paper in German at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg on June, 27th 2013 for the invited lecture series Colloquium Phaenomenologicum with the title Husserl ohne Descartes? I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Hans-Helmuth Gander for the invitation and all the participants for their insightful remarks. I am much indebted to Evan Clarke for the English translation of the original text, which served as a basis for all subsequent versions of the paper. My gratitude goes to Sonja Rinofner-Kreidl, Andrea Cimino, Steven Crowell, and an anonymous referee for their helpful comments and remarks, which greatly improved the paper. A generous research grant from the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung allowed me to do most of the work of rewriting and expanding on the initial version. Any obscurities or mistakes in the present article are entirely my responsibility.

References

  1. Augustine (1957). Against the Academicians, M. P. Garvey (Trans.). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, O. (2001). Husserl and Descartes. The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy, I, 351–356.Google Scholar
  3. Crowell, S. (2002). The cartesianism of phenomenology. Continental Philosophy Review, 35, 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Drummond, J. (2003). On Welton on Husserl. The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy, III, 315–332.Google Scholar
  5. Gaukroger, S. (1995). Descartes: An intellectual biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hua 1. Husserl, E. (1973). Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge. S. Strasser (Ed.) The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; Cartesian meditations. D. Cairns (Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960.Google Scholar
  7. Hua 11. Husserl, E. (1966). Analysen zur passiven Synthesis. Aus Vorlesungs- und Forschungsmanuskripten 19181926. M Fleischer (Ed.). Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff; Analyses concerning active and passive synthesis. Lectures on transcendental logic. A. Steinbock (Trans.). Dordrecht: Kluwer 2001.Google Scholar
  8. Hua 16. Husserl, E. (1973). Ding und Raum. Vorlesungen 1907. U. Claesges (Ed.). Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff; Thing and space: Lectures of 1907. R. Rojcewicz (Trans.). Dordrecht: Kluwer 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Hua 19/1. Husserl, E. (1984). Logische Untersuchungen. Zweiter Band. Erster Teil: Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis. Texte der 1. und der 2. Auflage ergänzt durch Annotationen und Beiblätter aus dem Handexemplar. U. Panzer (Ed.) Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff; Logical Investigations Volume I. J. N. Findlay (Trans.). London: Routledge 2001.Google Scholar
  10. Hua 27. Husserl, E. (1989). Aufsätze und Vorträge (1922-1937). T. Nenon and H. R. Sepp (Eds.) Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Hua 3/1. Husserl, E. (1976). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie. K. Schuhmann (Ed.). Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff; Ideas for a pure phenomenology and phenomenological philosophy. First book: General introduction to pure phenomenology. D. Dahlstrom (Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett 2014.Google Scholar
  12. Hua 39. Husserl, E. (2008). Die Lebenswelt. Auslegungen der vorgegebenen Welt und ihrer Konstitution. Texte aus dem Nachlass (1916-1937). R. Sowa (Ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. HuaMat 7. Husserl, E. (2005). Einführung in die Phänomenologie der Erkenntnis. Vorlesung 1909. E. Schuhmann (Ed.) Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Landgrebe, L. (2005). Husserl’s departure from cartesianism. In R. Bernet, D. Welton & G. Zavota (Eds.), Edmund Husserl: Critical assessments of leading philosophers (Vol. I, pp. 134–176). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Löwit, A. (1957). L’ « épochè » de Husserl et le doute de Descartes. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 62(4), 399–415.Google Scholar
  16. Luft, S. (2011). Subjectivity and lifeworld in transcendental phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  17. MacDonald, P. (2000). Husserl and Descartes: The philosophical project of radical beginnings. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ricoeur, P. (1967). Husserl: An analysis of his phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Romano, C. (2010). Au coeur de la raison la phénoménologie. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  20. Romano, C. (2011). Challenging the transcendental position: the holism of experience. Continental Philosophy Review, 44, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Romano, C. (2012). Must phenomenology remain cartesian? Continental Philosophy Review, 45, 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Staiti, A. (2012a). Human culture and the One structure: On Luft’s reading of the late Husserl. Comparative and Continental Philosophy, 4(2), 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Staiti, A. (2012b). The pedagogic impulse of Husserl’s ways into transcendental phenomenology. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 33(1), 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Welton, D. (2000). The other Husserl: The horizons of transcendental phenomenology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA

Personalised recommendations