Advertisement

Attitudes and illusions: Herbert Leyendecker’s phenomenology of perception

  • Kristjan LaasikEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this paper, I discuss aspects of Herbert Leyendecker’s 1913 doctoral dissertation, Towards the Phenomenology of Deceptions (Zur Phänomenologie der Täuschungen), which he defended in 1913 at the University of Munich. Leyendecker was a member of the Munich and Göttingen Phenomenological Circles. In my discussion of his largely neglected views, I explore the connection between his ideas concerning “attitudes” (Einstellungen), e.g., of searching for, observing, counting, or working with objects, and the central topic of his text, perceptual illusions, thematized by Leyendecker as a kind of perceptual “deception” (Täuschung). Indeed, Leyendecker argues that a change of attitude is a necessary aspect of an illusion. I argue that Leyendecker’s use of the notion of attitude in accounting for illusions is problematic; yet I also suggest that his ideas are not devoid of philosophical interest, in relation to current debates.

Keywords

Perception Phenomenology Attitude Illusion Herbert Leyendecker 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the Hundred Talents Program Research Funds, Humanities and the Social Sciences, Zhejiang University. I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers for pointing me to sources of important information concerning Herbert Leyendecker’s life, including his academic relationship with Max Scheler.

References

  1. Cimino, A. 2018. The sense of deception: Illusion and hallucination as nullified, invalid perception. Husserl Studies 35: 1–23. (Published online, Nov. 23, 2018.).Google Scholar
  2. Dunlop, F. 1984. Zur Phänomenologie der Täuschungen by Herbert Leyendecker. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 15(2): 206–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hopp, W. 2011. Perception and knowledge: A phenomenological account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Husserl, E. 1970. Logical investigations, vol. 2. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. Husserl, E. 1997. Thing and space. Lectures of 1907. Edmund Husserl Collected Works, vol. VII. (R. Rojcewicz, Ed., & R. Rojcewicz, Trans.) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Leyendecker, H. 1913. Zur Phänomenologie der Täuschungen. Halle an der Saale: Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
  7. Mulligan, K. 1995. Perception. In The Cambridge companion to husserl, ed. B. Smith and D.W. Smith, 168–238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nachlass von Herbert Leyendecker (1885–1958)—BSB Ana 375/0: Repertorium des Nachlasses von Herbert Leyendecker (1885–1958). 1970. Retrieved March 2019, from Bayerische Staatsbibliothek: https://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/metaopac/search?View=default&db=100&id=BV041380061 (Nachlassverzeichnis).
  9. Noë, A. 2004. Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Noë, A. 2012. Varieties of presence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Overgaard, S. 2013. Motivating disjunctivism. Husserl Studies 29: 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Romano, C. 2011. Challenging the transcendental position: The holism of experience. Continental Philosophy Review 44: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Romano, C. 2012. Must phenomenology remain cartesian? Continental Philosophy Review 45: 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schapp, W. 1976. Beiträge zur Phänomenologie der Wahrnehmung. Wiesbaden: Heymann.Google Scholar
  15. Scheler, M. 1973. Formalism in ethics and non-formal ethics of values. A new attempt toward the foundation of an ethical personalism. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, A. 2008. Husserl and externalism. Synthese 160: 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Spiegelberg, H. 1965. The phenomenological movement. A historical introduction, 2nd Edition, vol. I. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  18. Staiti, A. 2015. On Husserl’s alleged cartesianism and conjunctivism: A critical reply to Claude Romano. Husserl Studies 31: 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, School of HumanitiesZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations