Exploring conceptual thinking and pure concepts from a first person perspective

Abstract

Traditionally, conceptual thinking is explored via philosophical analysis or psychological experimentation. We seek to complement these mainstream approaches with the perspective of a first person exploration into pure thinking. To begin with, pure thinking is defined as a process (how we think) and differentiated from its content (what we think about), the concepts itself. Pure thinking is an active process and not a series of associative thought-events; we participate in it, we immerse ourselves within its active performance. On the other hand, concepts are also of an experiential nature. And yet, little is known about what is it like to have or produce a thought, a concept, or an idea? Is a concept our own construction, a product of our own activity, or is it something we merely discover instead of producing it? We address these issues in a systematic first person enquiry into pure thinking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    To be explicit about our background that informs our approach in a general manner (specific references will be given below), we stand in the tradition of modern experimental psychology and of cognitive phenomenology; one of the authors is trained as a mathematician (RZ). We both also have a background in the philosophical works of Steiner, concentrating on epistemological issues, particularly Steiner (2016a, b).

  2. 2.

    Our approach seems to be Husserlian, however, as Lohmar (2010, pp. 78–79) and Gutland (2018a, b, p. 12) have shown, Husserl eventually believed that concepts are in need of a sensory foundation to be experienced as meaningful. This contradicts with our belief pointed out in this paper that there is an experience of pure concepts which is independent of any sensory input or linguistic occurrences, although the latter experiences may occur parallel to it.

References

  1. Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 373–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, F. (2016). The dynamic phenomenology of Occurrent thinking. Phenomenology and Mind, 10, 196–205.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, F. (2018). The dynamic phenomenology of conscious, occurrent thinking: A first-person approach. United Kingdom: Living Thinking.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bayne, T., & Montague, M. (2011). Cognitive phenomenology: An introduction. In T. Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive phenomenology (pp. 1–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Breyer, T., & Gutland, C. (2016). Introduction. In T. Breyer & C. Gutland (Eds.), Phenomenology of Thinking. Philosophical Investigations Into the Character of Cognitive Experiences (pp. 1–24). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carruthers, P., & Veillet, B. (2011). The case against cognitive phenomenology. In T. Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive phenomenology (pp. 1–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chudnoff, E. (2011a). The nature of intuitive justification. Philosophical Studies, 153(2), 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chudnoff, E. (2011b). What intuitions are like. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 82(3), 625–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chudnoff, E. (2013). Awareness of abstract objects. Noûs, 47(4), 706–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chudnoff, E. (2014). Intuition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chudnoff, E. (2015). Cognitive phenomenology (1st ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Douglass, B. G., & Moustakas, C. (1985). Heuristic inquiry: The internal search to know. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 25, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gutland, C. (2016). Phänomenologie des Denkens. PhD Dissertation, Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg.

  14. Gutland, C. (2018a). Denk-Erfahrung. Eine phänomenologisch orientierte Untersuchung der Erfahrbarkeit des Denkens und der Gedanken. Freiburg im Breisgau: Alber.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gutland, C. (2018b). Husserlian phenomenology as a kind of introspection. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00896.

  16. Hackert, B., & Weger, U. (2018). Introspection and the Würzburg school: Reconsidering the Würzburg approach and its implications for experimental psychology. European Psychologist, 23, 217–232.

  17. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1987). Context of discovery and context of justification. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 18, 501–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kriegel, U. (2011). Cognitive phenomenology as the basis of unconscious content. In T. Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive Phenomenology (pp. 79–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  19. Levine, J. (2011). On the phenomenology of thought. In Tim Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive Phenomenology (pp. 103–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  20. Lohmar, D. (2010). Intuition in mathematics: On the function of eidetic variation in mathematical proofs. In M. Hartimo (Ed.), Phenomenology and mathematics (pp. 73–90). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Petitmengin, C., & Bitpol, M. (2009). The validity of first-person descriptions as authenticity and coherence. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(10–12), 363–404.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pitt, D. (2004). The phenomenology of cognition or what is it like to think that P? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pitt, D. (2011). Introspection, phenomenality, and the availability of intentional content. In T. Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive phenomenology (pp. 141–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schwitzgebel, E. (2008). The unreliability of naive introspection. Philosophical Review, 117(2), 245–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Siewert, C. (2011). Phenomenal thought. In T. Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive phenomenology (pp. 236–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Spener, M. (2011). Disagreement about cognitive phenomenology. In Tim Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive Phenomenology (pp. 268–284). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  27. Steiner, R. (2016a). Die Philosophie der Freiheit. In Christian Clement (Ed.), Rudolf Steiner, Schriften - Kritische Ausgabe, Vol. 2: Philosophische Schriften (pp. 73–260). Stuttgart: Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog.

  28. Steiner, R. (2016b). Wahrheit und Wissenschaft. In Christian Clement (Ed.), Rudolf Steiner, Schriften - Kritische Ausgabe, Vol. 2: Philosophische Schriften (pp. 3–71). Stuttgart: Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog.

  29. Tewes, C. (2015). Das paradoxale Ich. Zur Antinomie der reflexiven Erfassung präreflexiver Elemente des Selbst. In C. Asmuth & W. Ehrmann (Eds.), Zirkel – Widerspruch – Paradoxon: das Denken des Selbst in der klassischen deutschen Philosophie und in der Gegenwart (pp. 77–90). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tieszen, R. (2002). Gödel and the intuition of concepts. Synthese, 133(3), 363–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tieszen, R. (2010). Mathematical realism and transcendental phenomenological idealism. In M. Hartimo (Ed.), Phenomenology and mathematics (pp. 1–22). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tye, M., & Wright, B. (2011). Is there a phenomenology of thought? In Tim Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive Phenomenology (pp. 285–325). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  33. Weger, U., & Wagemann, J. (2015a). The behavioral, experiential and conceptual dimensions of psychological phenomena: Body, soul and spirit. New Ideas in Psychology, 39, 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Weger, U., & Wagemann, J. (2015b). The challenges and opportunities of first-person inquiry in experimental psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 36, 38–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Weger, U., Wagemann, J., & Meyer, A. (2018). Introspection in psychology. European Psychologist, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. White, P. A. (1988). Knowing more about what we can tell: ‘Introspective” access and causal report accuracy 10 years later’. British Journal of Psychology, 79(1), 13–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ziegler, R., & Weger, U. (2018). First-person experiments in thinking. European Psychologist, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Fergus Anderson, Christopher Gutland, Christian Tewes and the two anonymous referees for helpful comments that worked towards an improvement of our paper. We would like to thank the Software AG Stiftung for supporting this project.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Both authors made substantial contributions to the conception and the design of the work; RZ made the first draft, UW has been revising it critically for important intellectual content; both RZ and UW gave final approval of the version to be published. RZ and UW both agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renatus Ziegler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ziegler, R., Weger, U. Exploring conceptual thinking and pure concepts from a first person perspective. Phenom Cogn Sci 18, 947–972 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-018-9593-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Active conceptual thinking
  • Pure concepts
  • Process account of thinking
  • First person approach
  • Reflection of thinking
  • Phenomenological analysis