Search

This paper addresses the question of whether Husserlian phenomenology can be considered a type of correlationism in the sense in which Quentin Meillassoux characterizes it in After Finitude and related texts. It is argued that the answer must be a negative one strictu sensu, although it is added that phenomenology may be regarded as a kind of correlationism, but a sui generis one that falls out of Meillassoux´s conception. By answering this question, I intend to clarify certain misunderstandings surrounding Husserlian phenomenology from Meillassoux's point of view, as well as contributing to the dialogue between phenomenology and other contemporary philosophical views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we provide an overview of the main stages in the development of Edmund Husserl's conception of metaphysics, highlighting its most significant characteristics. We propose that Husserl's views on metaphysics traversed three main stages: (1) from the early 1890s until his so-called "transcendental turn" around 1906/07; (2) from his transcendental turn until the late 1920s, and (3) the metaphysical conceptualization during the 1930s, aptly characterized as—following the interpretation of László Tengelyi—a "metaphysics of primal facts" (Urfakta, Urtatsache). We further demonstrate that Husserl's considerations concerning metaphysics—throughout his entire opus—span three essential levels: (1) the epistemological level, in particular, phenomenological preparations to establish a foundation for metaphysics; (2) a level concerning metaphysics as the universal and ultimate science of reality, and (3) a level addressing metaphysics as a proper field of phenomenological investigations into the highest and ultimate questions (such as God and immortality). We argue in detail that Husserl attempted to render this field—which radically transcends the domain of possible intuitions (Anschauungen) and direct experience—accessible to a legitimate phenomenological treatment via the method of phenomenological constructions, prior to the efforts of Eugen Fink. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the vast landscape of Edmund Husserl's investigations, the theme of attention has long been neglected: the dispersal of his treatment of the topic across works from various years, the use of a diversified lexicon, and an intrinsic difficulty in identifying the attentional phenomenon itself have all contributed to the long-standing underestimation of this theme. Following a line of study that – especially after the publication of volume XXXVIII of the Husserliana (Wahrnehmung und Aufmerksamkeit) – has renewed interest in this topic, this article aims to contribute to the historical as well as theoretical reconstruction of Edmund Husserl's phenomenology of attention. In particular, we will focus on the contribution of a figure who had a crucial impact on Husserl's development and the framing of the phenomenological method itself, namely Carl Stumpf, concentrating especially on the engagement that the father of phenomenology had with him, starting from the treatment of attention through the concept of interest. This debate will be reconstructed from the examination of (1) part of the Göttingen Lectures of 1904-05, explicitly dedicated to attention; (2) a very early but theoretically significant Husserlian manuscript, "Noten zur Lehre von Aufmerksamkeit und Interesse" (1893); and (3) Stumpf's own work, particularly Tonpsychologie, where the interpretation of attention as "Lust am Bemerken" is formulated and with which Husserl engages in a rigorous critical dialogue. On the basis of this confrontation, we will highlight from an original perspective Husserl's significant debt to the psychology of the time, from which he not only borrowed certain themes and a general interest in the simplest levels of experience, but also the basic outlines of notions that would serve as the foundation for the development of some crucial concepts of transcendental phenomenology such as that of intentionality. Moreover, it is through the examination of attention that the profound continuity of Husserl's reflection becomes apparent, evidenced by the extraordinarily early emergence of crucial and typical notions of his later phase (known as "genetic phenomenology") during these formative years, even before the phenomenological method was fully developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Islamophobia does not only occur among non-Muslims but Islamophobia is also experienced by Muslims who do not agree with their thoughts. Islamophobia is a psychological symptom that sufferers experience when they encounter Muslims. The cause could be due to an unpleasant experience experienced by the sufferer, or because they are influenced by news reporting that Islam is a harsh religion, so that they feel afraid if they must face Muslims. The aims of this research are (1) to understand the picture of Islamophobia in Germany; (2) analyze the form of Islamophobia in Germany; and (3) describe the impact of Islamophobia in Germany. Researchers used descriptive qualitative methods with primary data sources in the form of online news and supported by related journals as secondary data. The results of the research are (1) Symptoms of Islamophobia in Germany have increased significantly every year; (2) the forms of Islamophobia found were the dissolution of mosques, harassment of Muslim women and prohibitions on wearing the headscarf, public opinion, work and education; (3) the impact of Islamophobia in Germany, namely psychological, social, legal and political policies. Islamophobia tidak hanya terjadi pada kalangan non-Muslim saja melainkan Islamophobia juga dialami oleh umat Islam yang tidak sependapat dengan pemikirannya. Islamophobia merupakan gejala psikis yang dialami penderita ketika mereka berhadapan dengan orang muslim. Penyebabnya bisa karena pengalaman yang tidak menyenangkan yang dialami oleh si penderita, ataupun karena terpengaruh oleh kabar yang memberitakan Islam sebagai agama yang keras, sehingga mereka merasa takut jika harus berhadapan dengan orang Islam. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah (1) mengetahui gambaran Islamophobia di Jerman; (2) menganalisis bentuk Islamophobia di Jerman; dan (3) menjabarkan dampak Islamophobia di Jerman. Peneliti menggunakan metode kualitatif deskritif dengan sumber data primer berupa berita online dan didukung dengan jurnal terkait sebagai data sekunder. Adapun hasil dari penelitian yakni (1) Gejala islamophobia di Jerman mengalami peningkatan yang signifikan di setiap tahunnya; (2) bentuk islamophobia yang ditemukan adalah adanya pembubaran masjid, terjadinya pelecehan perempuan muslimah dan larangan berjilbab, pendapat publik, pekerjaan dan pendidikan; (3) dampak dari Islamophobia di Jerman yakni dampak psikologis, sosial, kebijakan hukum dan politik.

Immanuel Kant is often conveyed as a Platonic or Newtonian thinker of the temporal, expressing time as an absolute and continuous repository wherein all objects occur. However, employing themes from his aesthetic writings, what happens when Kantian “sublime” time is reoriented towards a more discontinuous temporal register? This essay employs just such a reading, while also utilising Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO), as a methodological device for rethinking both Kantian and object time as neither solely continuous nor discontinuous, but somewhere inbetween these two determinations, in what I term their “ontological ambience.” By doing so I offer a critique of both Kantian orthodoxy and Harmanian OOO, via a comparative analysis of (1) how Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger thematise Kantian temporality, and (2) how Harman develops their subsequent ideas about time. This schema provides post-Kantian philosophy with a provisional model for thinking posthuman time in new and productive ways: as ambient temporalities.

This study examines Edmund Husserl’s and Giovanni Bruno Vicario’s perspectives on time. Husserl’s work focuses on consciousness and its processes of synthesis, thus on a transcendental concept of time. Vicario, a member of the Trieste Gestalt school of psychology, rather explores the issue through an experimental perspective. This difference leads Vicario to criticize Husserl, reinterpreting and, sometimes, misunderstanding his texts. Through a careful textual analysis of Husserl’s and Vicario’s works on time, it is argued that, despite methodological differences, their views can be integrated into a pluralistic understanding of time. This includes both phenomenological and psychological perspectives, and offers valid alternatives to a unified and physicalistic view of time.

Frantz Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks opens with a discussion of language in the colonial setting. I argue that this is at least in part due to Fanon's background in phenomenology, and the crucial role that intersubjectivity plays in the phenomenological account of the subject. I begin by demonstrating the phenomenological underpinnings of Fanon's chapter on language. I then further develop the background phenomenological account of the subject, showing how this informs Fanon's project. I then develop a sonic account of the subject, arguing that metaphors of sound best represent the phenomenological account of the subject. Finally, I build on this sonic account to draw out the implications for our thinking about communication and liberation in Fanon's work and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I argue that there are no irrational visual experiences, if we mean just the experiences that one is having now, but there are irrational visual experiences, if we mean also the experiences that one has had in the past. In other words, I will be arguing that perceptual irrationality is a retrospective phenomenon. So as to further support the first conjunct of my thesis, and to contextualize it among contemporary discussions, I also critique Susanna Siegel's proposal that one could be having an irrational experience, in the sense of a hijacked experience that has inherited a sub-threshold epistemic charge from a corrupt outlook. The present discussion is conducted from a Husserlian point of view, according to which perception is rational, rather than arational. I am, however, in this paper, not undertaking to defend the Husserlian view or the rationality of perception, or even to argue that the view I refer to as Husserlian is, in all aspects, the view that Edmund Husserl actually held. I aim merely to provide certain clarifications concerning the more specific topic of irrational visual experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent series of important papers, Søren Overgaard has defended a disjunctivist reading of Edmund Husserl's theory of perception. According to Overgaard, Husserl commits to disjunctivism when arguing that hallucination intrinsically differs from perception because only experiences of the latter kind carry singular content and, thereby, pick out individuals. This paper rejects that interpretation by invoking the theory of intentionality developed by Husserl in the Logical Investigations. It is claimed that this theory not only lacks the notion of singular content, but it also entails the idea that perceptions and hallucinations belong to the same kind of experience. If that is correct, a commitment to conjuctivism on Husserl's end follows, pace Overgaard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Este texto relaciona la filosofía de Byung-Chul Han, específicamente su concepto de cansancio, con la teoría de la intencionalidad de Edmund Husserl. Aun cuando estos dos desarrollos filosóficos son distantes cronológicamente y distintos epistemológicamente, se intenta verificar la posibilidad de una proximidad entre las dos argumentaciones filosóficas. El análisis se lleva a cabo a partir de los textos La sociedad del cansancio, de Han (2012), en el cual el autor trata del cansancio en la sociedad del inicio del siglo XXI; Wahrnehmung und Aufmerksamkeit (Hua 38) (Beilage II, § 9) y Experiencia y juicio (§ 15-21 y 51), de Husserl (1980; 2004), que abordan aspectos afectivos/sensibles del sujeto en la percepción. El filósofo surcoreano se dedica a la crítica de la sociedad tardomoderna, mientras que el filósofo alemán, cuando expone posibles límites de la percepción, considera restricciones afectivas y la sensibilidad del yo. Para esta aproximación, se propone la hipótesis del cansancio de Han como un fenómeno semejante a los límites de la percepción analizados por Husserl. Para verificar la aproximación, se realizaron los siguientes pasos: análisis del concepto de cansancio en el pensamiento de Han; examen de los límites de la percepción, según Husserl; presentación de posibles aproximaciones entre esas dos perspectivas y, finalmente, exposición de las conclusiones.

Teesid: Käesolevas artiklis annan ülevaate filosoofiaprofessor Ülo Matjuse (1942–2023) fenomenoloogilisest mõtlemisest ja tegevusest. Kirjeldan Matjuse kujunemisteed fenomenoloogina, vaatlen tema kirjutatud fenomenoloogia-alaseid tekste, konverentsiettekandeid ning loenguid fenomenoloogilisest filosoofiast. Ülo Matjus oli 1970. aastatest alates üks esimesi fenomenoloogilise filosoofia uurijaid Balti riikides. Ta oli fenomenoloogilise ja olemisajaloolise mõtlemise maaletooja Eestis, selle tõlkija ning õpetaja. Matjuse fenomenoloogia-alane tegevus ei piirdunud aga ainult Eestiga. Ta oli 1970. aastatel seotud Riia fenomenoloogide ringiga ning pidas ettekandeid ka Saksamaal, kohtudes saksa filosoofi Hans-Georg Gadameriga (1900–2002). Ülo Matjuse fenomenoloogia-alased tõlked ja artiklid jäävad kestma ning õpetused jätkuvad tema õpilaste kaudu. The article introduces professor of philosophy, Ülo Matjus (1942–2023) as a phenomenological thinker. Matjus was a professor of philosophy at the University of Tartu from 1992 to 2015. His research was mainly focused on Roman Ingarden’s (1893–1970), Edmund Husserl’s (1859–1938), and Martin Heidegger’s (1889–1976) philosophy, but he also investigated Estonian intellectual history and was an avid bibliophile. He prepared the establishing of the Chair of Intellectual History at the University of Tartu and also studied Estonian book history and published several articles on the topic. This article focuses on Ülo Matjus as a phenomenologist. Ülo Matjus was one of the first phenomenological thinkers and researchers of phenomenological philosophy in the Baltic States in the 1970s and also a member of the Latvian Circle of Phenomenology in the same time period. Matjus started his phenomenological journey in the Soviet Union in the 1970s when Estonia was one of its parts. His earlier articles were written in Russian due to the Russian occupation and the restrictions posed by it in the Baltic States. These—for example the article ‘The Problem of the Being of “Material Things” in E. Husserl’s Phenomenology’ (1988) introduced Roman Ingarden’s and Edmund Husserl’s phenomenological thinking to the Soviet intellectuals. His doctoral dissertation was also written in Russian, and was concerned with Roman Ingarden’s aesthetical views on art—its title is The Problem of Intentionality in Roman Ingarden’s Aesthetics. The thesis was supervised by professor Leonid Stolovitš (1929–2013) and defended in Riga, Latvia in 1975. Since the 1990s when Estonia restored its independence, Matjus could concentrate more on Martin Heidegger’s thinking. He had an opportunity to meet and talk with Heidegger’s student, the philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002) in Bonn (in Bad Godesberg) on the symposium ‘On Heidegger’s Philosophical Relevance’ (1989). Matjus participated in the event as a scholarship holder for the Alexander von Humboldt’s Foundation and gave a presentation (Matjus [1989]2004b, 313). In 1993 Matjus also had a conversation with Martin Heidegger’s son Hermann Heidegger (1920–2020) about translation of Martin Heidegger’s Introduction to Metaphysics into Estonian (Matjus 1999, 278–280). Matjus translated several phenomenological texts, for example Heideggers Introduction to Metaphysics and The Origin of the Work of Art into Estonian (1999 and 2002, respectively) and wrote afterwords to the translations. He also translated some articles and presentations by Heiddeger, for example ‘The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinking’ (Estonian in 1989), ‘A Question about Technique’ (1989), ‘Creative Landscape. Why we Stay in Province’ (1989), ‘Spiegel’s Conversation with Martin Heidegger’ (1992) and ‘Phenomenology and Theology’ (1994). He also translated Edmund Husserl’s The Paris Lectures (1993), to which he wrote an introduction entitled ‘Edmund Husserl on the Paths of Descartes’. Matjus taught several courses on phenomenology at the University of Tartu since the 1990s and attended conferences both in Estonia as well as in Latvia and Germany. For example, in 1995/1996–2001/2002 he gave a lecture course “The Basics of Aesthetics” (later “Aesthetics” and “Aesthetics II”) at the University of Tartu, which introduced traditional European philosophical aesthetics and Heidegger’s non-metaphysical aesthetics from The Origin of the Work of Art. In addition, Matjus gave lecture courses entitled ‘Development of Phenomenology and its Basic Problems’ in 1997/1998 and 1999/2000 and ‘Phenomenology from the Estonian Perspective’ (2012/2013, 2013/2014 and 2015/2016). Matjus also gave presentations on phenomenological philosophy, for example, ‘On the Interdisciplinary Origin of Phenomenology’ (2014) and ‘On the Benefits and Harms of Intentionality’ (2010) at the Annual Conferences of Estonian Philosophy. Some of his students have also studied phenomenology—Margit Sutrop (b. 1963), Anne Kokkov (1960–2017) and Juhan Hellerma (b. 1986) wrote their MA theses about phenomenology. Matjus also applied a phenomenological and open-minded attitude (i.e. an attitude without prejudice) in his life. As a professor and phenomenologist, he warned his students what to beware of, and toward which one must hold on to, which is part of phenomenological attitude, but let them stay themselves at the same time. He had respect for his students. He was very supportive and at the same time taught them that you have to find your own way. His teachings now live on through his students.

Teesid: Fenomenoloogilise filosoofia alguses seisavad selle suuna kaks keskset suurkuju, Edmund Husserl ja tema õpilane Martin Heidegger. Mõlemad mõtlejad näevad fenomenoloogias ennekõike filosoofilist meetodit – viisi läheneda, mis aga saab suunised oma aineselt, fenomenilt ehk sellelt, mis end ise näitab. Käesoleva artikli eesmärk on välja joonistada, kuidas need kaks mõtlejat mõtestavad fenomenoloogiat, küsides, mida kujutab nende käsitluses endast fenomen ja kuidas sellele ligipääsu saavutada. Oma käsitluses rõhutame kahe mõtleja jagatud fenomenoloogilist põhihoiakut, ent toome välja ka aspekte, milles nende käsitlused lahknevad. This article presents Edmund Husserl’s and Martin Heidegger’s take on phenomenology. In a critical dialogue with traditional approaches, Husserl and Heidegger demonstrated the possibility of a philosophy that captures human existence as it shows itself in a living experience. The article offers a reading of how Husserl and Heidegger conceived the concept of the phenomenon, i.e. the self-showing. It likewise elucidates how both thinkers interpreted the phenomenological method that ought to make the phenomenal sphere accessible for description and scrutiny. We highlight that while Husserl and Heidegger share the basic attitude, their approaches are also subject to disagreements and ambiguities. The first part of the article dissects the methodological starting points of Husserl’s phenomenology against the background of the Cartesian axiom ‘I think, therefore I am’. Radicalizing Descartes’s idea of pure subjectivity discovered in methodological doubt, Husserl conceives phenomenology as an inquiry exclusively devoted to the realm of self-showing subjectivity. Based on the Cartesian insight into the unquestionable existence of subjective experiences, Husserl establishes phenomenology as a study of experiential modes of relating to objects, an endeavour Descartes failed to articulate. Furthermore, unlike Descartes, whose reasoning stems from a realist framework, opposing subjectivity to the independent external world, Husserl unfolds the notion of a transcendental subjectivity within which the sense of the world as existing and real is constituted and made possible to begin with. By suspending all questions and interest regarding the independent existence of the world, Husserl’s concept of the phenomenological method – the phenomenological epoché – reflects the imperative to focus solely on the inherent structures of subjectivity. In the second part of the article, we explain that, while guided by the principle of principles formulated by Husserl, which requires focusing solely on what shows itself, Heidegger modifies Husserl’s phenomenology. Significantly, for Heidegger, Husserl fails to conceive the fundamental question of philosophy, which is the question of Being. According to Heidegger, phenomenology goes hand in hand with ontology, which gives phenomenology its theme. Accordingly, Heidegger emphasises that what must show oneself is not any being, therefore not a Husserlian subjectivity, but Being of that being itself. Furthermore, as Heidegger points out, Being is something which, first and foremost, does not show itself but rather is covered up or hidden in one way or another. Exploring how to reveal a phenomenon, which mostly stays hidden, the article examines Heidegger’s phenomenological method. We unfold Heidegger’s phenomenological method through three methodological moments or aspects, drawing mainly on Heidegger’s early lecture courses preceding his magnum opus Being and Time: phenomenological destruction, phenomenological explication, and formal indication. In short, phenomenological explication describes how one should approach a phenomenon. According to Heidegger, a phenomenon is a totality of sense in three directions of sense, and the task of phenomenology is to explicate the phenomena in these directions. This means inquiring into an experience with respect to its ‘what’ and ‘how’: what is experienced in the experience (content sense), what kind of relation is at work in the experience (its ‘how’, relational sense), and how the relational sense is further enacted (actualisation sense). Phenomenological destruction, on the other hand, is a methodological means to understand and bring out existing attitudes, including highlighting that the theorising focus on the meaning of the content has become the predominant way of approaching anything whatsoever and thus causing the hiddenness of the phenomenon. Finally, the formal indication is a methodological moment that aims to lead us out of hiddenness toward the possible articulation of a phenomenon. It has a twofold task. First, it warns us against following habitual tendencies and becoming stuck in an object-theoretical attitude. Second, it indicates the direction the phenomenological approach can and should highlight, i.e. the need to focus on the relational sense (or fundamental structures), which in turn must be defined in such a way that the concrete implementation (its actualisation) of the relational sense is always left open for fulfilment in a concrete situation. An example of a formally indicated phenomenon is Dasein, both as a notion and as a being, which Heidegger destructs and explicates throughout his Being and Time, articulating its tendencies and pointing to its fundamental structures. Thus, we show that the autopsy of these methodological aspects helps us to understand the fundamental analysis of Dasein presented in Heidegger’s main work Being and Time. In addition, the analysis of Heidegger’s methodological moments enables us to shed light on his sometimes alienating use of language and related translation problems, which are well known to the Estonian reader.

Teesid: Oma artiklis soovin arutleda kultuurifenomenoloogia kui meetodi üle. Sel teemal on Tõnu Viik avaldanud mitmeid nii inglis- kui ka eestikeelseid artikleid. Ma leian, et Viigi arendatud kultuurifenomenoloogia on liialt Husserli staatilise fenomenoloogia raamistikus – otsides invariantseid, eideetilisi struktuure (noeem–noees). Oma hilisemas filosoofias arendab Husserl aga geneetilist fenomenoloogiat. Kui uurida tähendusloome protsesse, siis peaks kindlasti vaatama Husserli geneetilist fenomenoloogiat ja tema aktiivse ja passiivse sünteesi ideed. Ma soovin näidata, et just kogemuse passiivne tasand aitab seletada mõningate kultuuriobjektide kogemist, samuti kultuurikriiside tekkeid ja nendest väljatulekuid. The aim of the article is to contribute to the study of the methodology of cultural phenomenology based on Edmund Husserl’s philosophy. More specifically, it aims to develop further, but also criticise, Tõnu Viik’s understanding of the meaning-formation in Husserl’s phenomenology. I find that the cultural phenomenology developed by Viik is too constrained in the framework of Husserl’s static phenomenology, describing the invariant, eidetic structure of consciousness. Husserl later developed genetic phenomenology that, in my view, is better suited to examine the processes of meaning-formation. This is why the concepts of passive and active synthesis in genetic phenomenology become important. According to Husserl’s distinction between passive and active synthesis (or genesis) presented in the Cartesian Meditations, passive synthesis is the lowest level of our experience. However, active synthesis, as a higher form, necessarily presupposes the passive synthesis in which the objects are already given. In active genesis, the Ego functions through specific Ego-acts that are productively constitutive. On the basis of already given objects (in passive synthesis), active synthesis can constitute new objects originally. As Anthony Steinbock emphasises, it is important to see that already passive synthesis functions to form intelligible, meaningful wholes out of diverse manifolds. Thus, passive synthesis is an important part of meaning-formation. In Experience and Judgment, Husserl divides passive synthesis into primary or original passivity (ursprüngliche Passivität) and secondary passivity (sekundäre Passivität). The former is a mere act of receiving the sense originally preconstituted in passivity and involves the structures of association and affection. Secondary passivity involves, for instance, habituality and traditions or sedimentations. In my article, I would like to show that the concept of primary passivity can be used to explain our strong emotional responses to certain cultural objects and that the concept of secondary passivity can be useful in understanding the emergence of cultural crises and the ways to overcome them. Simon Høffding and Tone Roald argue in their article ‘Passivity in Aesthetic Experience’ (2019) that Husserl’s concepts of passive synthesis and passivity are helpful in explaining intense aesthetic experience, that is, the experience of being moved or carried away, or the putative experiences of subject–object fusion. Harri Mäcklin follows Høffding and Roald’s approach in his article “Ingarden, Dufrenne, and the Passivity of Aesthetic Experience” (2021) and summarises ‘passive synthesis’ in the following way: it is a peculiar experience of which I have a sense of ownership (a sense of being the one who experiences the results of those acts), but no sense of agency (a sense of being the instigator of those acts). In my article, I take this description of passive synthesis to correspond to Husserl’s primary passivity and suggest that it is not limited to aesthetic experience. Some ordinary everyday life objects that we own, such as a cup of coffee, can evoke strong affective responses in us, so much so that we might even be reluctant to let someone else touch them. These experiences could be explained by the concept of primary passivity. Many of Husserl’s texts suggest that cultural crises are instigated by the upsurge of passive tendencies (containment, impotence and servitude). To overcome crises, we need renewal (Erneuerung) which can only be achieved through activity. As Husserl argues in the so-called Kaizo-articles, passive tendencies obstruct reflection and self-evaluation, that is, truly authentic human life. Authenticity consists in the sovereignty of the rational, active self over the passive self. However, as many Husserl scholars have shown, passivity can also play an important role in overcoming cultural crises. Victor Biceaga shows that there is no clear-cut divide between passivity and activity in Husserl’s philosophy. Moreover, passive sedimentations (secondary passivity) are necessary for the conservation of actively thought. Thus, passivity not only causes cultural crises, but also contributes to the accomplishment of the renewals. This article highlights the importance of distinguishing between passive and active synthesis to emphasise that passivity plays an important role in meaning-formation. A further step would be to examine whether primary and secondary passivity are culture-defined, culturally dependent. For example, is the strongly emotional experience of works of art specific to certain cultures? Or, do cultural crises manifest differently in cultures that do not consider rationality (Rationalität) and free will to be the ‘highest’ form of life?

Teesid: Käesolev artikkel uurib, kuidas Friedrich Nietzsche ning Jacques Derrida dekonstrueerivad husserliku teadvuse kui vahetu (enese)teadmise asupaiga. Derrida, kes on tuntud kui poststrukturalismi üks klassikuid, alustas fenomenoloogia rajaja Edmund Husserli tõlgendaja ja uurijana. Oma teoses „Hääl ja fenomen“ dekonstrueerib ta üksikasjalikult Husserli märgi- ja teadvusekäsituse. Huvitaval kombel kattub see dekonstruktsioon teatud olulistes osades Nietzsche teadvusekriitikaga ta teoses „Rõõmus teadus“. Artiklis tõlgendan ning analüüsin nende kolme autori asjassepuutuvaid tekstikohti ning avan selle kaudu nii Nietzsche, Husserli kui ka Derrida filosoofiat tervikuna ning ühtlasi fenomenoloogia suhet poststrukturalismi. In this article, I investigate the main arguments by means of which Friedrich Nietzsche and Jacques Derrida deconstruct Husserlian consciousness as the site of immediate (self)knowledge. Jacques Derrida is known as one of the founders of poststructuralism, but it is by no means uninteresting that he started as a Husserl scholar and interpreter, translating his text ‘Origins of Geometry’ into French and writing a long and detailed introduction to it. In his early book Speech and Phenomena (1967), Derrida deconstructs Husserl’s conceptions of signs and consciousness. Interestingly, this deconstruction, in quite essential and crucial ways, reminds us of Nietzsche’s criticism of the self-presence of consciousness in his book The Gay Science. By close reading of some of the texts of these three authors the intricate relationship between phenomenology and poststructuralism will be explained and historically situated. The article first analyses Husserl’s conception of signs and what it means for the constitution of meaning in human consciousness. Husserl distinguishes between meaningful signs, expressions, and indicative signs, indications which do not have meaning by themselves, but which intimate, point towards meaning. Husserl then shows that in communication, expression as a meaningful sign always has to function also as an indication because it indicates to the hearer that the speaker has such and such sense-giving inner experiences and intentions. He then poses the question about the real and pure sphere of meaning where all kinds of indications are excluded. This sphere according to him is ‘solitary mental life’ (das einsame Seelenleben). It is important for Husserl that in solitary mental life we do not use real speech, real signifiers anymore, but only imagined words, (re)presented speech, thus the ideal form of signifiers. This reduction of the signifier is crucial for Husserl because it helps to guarantee the purity and presence of the meanings. Thus, in solitary mental life, where we only use imagined words, the meanings are instantly present to us since they do not have to make a detour over or through material signifiers. In his elaborate analysis Derrida deconstructs the main distinctions that Husserl makes in the first of the ‘Logical Investigations’, that is, the distinction between expression and indication, and real speech and imagined speech. The article provides a detailed analysis of Derrida showing that also in the solitary mental life we cannot really get rid of indications as meaningless signs, and hence the purity of meaning is contaminated and the self-presence of the subject undermined. In other words, Derrida demonstrates that the idea of ‘imagined words’ always presupposes a number of representations which intervene in the supposed purity of the solitary mental life. The solitary mental life cannot thus free itself from communication because it also communicates—namely, to itself, and by means of the ‘imagined speech’ which always refers back to real speech. The article then shows that with his argumentation and critique of Husserl, especially with his insight regarding the functioning of signs, Derrida in a way also lays the theoretical ground for Roland Barthes’s famous short essay ‘The Death of the Author’ (which itself seems to lack that ground) which is the main text of poststructuralist theory of literature. The last part of the article analyses Nietzsche’s criticism of consciousness and shows that it anticipates many of the same points that Derrida made in his criticism. Nietzsche calls his critique ‘possibly extravagant conjecture’ and demonstrates that consciousness is always, and already from the very beginning, contaminated by relations to the other, thus, by communication and language, and precisely for that reason it can never serve as a site of immediate (self)knowledge that Husserl was looking for. The similarities between Nietzsche’s and Derrida’s arguments are not necessarily surprising because from early on Derrida was an avid reader of Nietzsche.

Teesid: Artiklis kirjeldatakse, kuidas on võimalik kogeda ontoloogilist diferentsi – oleva suhtes täiesti teist. Säärane ontoloogiline kogemus leiab siinse arutluse kohaselt aset negatiivsuse, ei(miski) kogemises, mis omakorda seisneb tähendusloome luhtumises olulisimate üldisemate probleemide puhul ning sellega kaasnevas negatiivses häälestuses. Ontoloogilise diferentsi kogemine leiab aset afektiivsel väljal, häälestustes, mis toimivad üldjuhul intentsionaalsete aktide taustal horisondina, kuid muutuvad erilistel puhkudel keskseks, halvates sujuva kogemuse, muutes tähenduslikkuse tõrke sedavõrd intensiivseks, et negatiivne häälestus haarab kogeja läbinisti enda võimusesse. The aim of the article is to describe how it is possible to experience an ontological difference —i.e. something completely different from all beings. Such an ontological experience, the author argues, takes place in the experience of negativity, of nothingness, which in turn consists in the failure of meaning-making in the most important general problems and the negative attunements (Stimmung) that accompanies it. Thus, the experience of ontological difference takes place in the affective field. Experiences of this kind have been analysed to some extent in the light of Martin Heidegger’s thought. The originality of this article lies in its attempt to describe the experience of ontological difference in the vocabulary of classic, Husserl-inspired phenomenology. According to the mainstream interpretation, Heidegger’s ontological radicalism abandons the original idea of phenomenology to remain within the boundaries of things themselves (i.e. given to consciousness as intentional objects). This interpretation is also deepened by Heidegger’s post-turning renunciation of the description of his own thinking as phenomenology. Inspired mainly by Husserl (and often also by the sections of Heidegger’s Being and Time devoted to everyday experience), contemporary phenomenology analyses all kinds of phenomena and spheres of subjectivity given to everyday experience, leaving nothingness, ontological difference, etc. as a mystical-paradoxical remnant about which nothing can be said. In the first chapter of the article, ‘The Radical Failure of Significance in the Clash of Horizons’, ontological experience is reconstructed in terms of the concept of the horizon. Already in his late phenomenology of the lifeworld, Husserl pays considerable attention to the horizonal construction of experience. Horizons in experience are either not given intentionally at all or have a weak, background intentionality. It is true that in ordinary perceptions it is possible to transform the horizon into a full-blooded intentional object. However, according to the discussion here, this is not the case for special boundary horizons, for general horizons that maintain the overall coherence of meaning-making, e.g. world, death, infinity. The urge for meaningful fulfilment inherent in consciousness in general (and philosophy in particular) tries to thematise these too, but unsuccessfully, incompletely. While there is much that is horizontally non-intentional in the simple acts of meaning-making, all the parts play together to produce meaning. In the case of a negative boundary experience, it is the failure that becomes the central seized sense (Auffassungssinn), rather than—which is amplified in the absence of meaningful content, in the case of empty intentionality—the attunement. This is the focus of the second chapter of the article, “Ontological Experience in Negative Attunements”. The chapter begins by discussing the question of the intentionality of attunements, and, following Husserl, arrives at the premise that attunements thus constitute a horizon of emotionality and have an ambiguous intentionality inherent in the horizon. As a horizon, attunement not only organises the general palette of conscious sensations, but also ‘colours’ the experience of all objects, even the world as a universal horizon of all experience. In the ontological experience, only a few particular negative attunements, which, using the vocabulary of existentialism, can also be called marginal experiences, are present. In the case of these strange, frightening (unheimlich) states, the affective horizon intrudes, so to speak buries the person under itself, but not in the manner of an emotion (together with the intentional object in relation to which the emotion is felt), but in a non-objective way, without any apparent cause, thus creating—as in the reflection on the universal horizons discussed above—a total repulsion in the movement from object to object. Such an experience also dispels self-consciousness. Regarding the relationship between the themes explored in the two chapters, the article argues that, while it seems that creative activity (including philosophy) inspired by the fundamental problems of a strained ontology, clashing with so-called universal horizons, is often accompanied by a persistent negative attunement, so that the creative person falls out of everyday life, the causal links between these phenomena remain open. The specificity of the human being does not lie in the mere operation of linguistic meanings, but in the fact that it is inherent to him/her to philosophise: to push towards the most important horizons of experience and to experience in relation to them the failure of the creation of meaning, to experience the ontological differentiation of not-ness. Here, the article remains in the position of the phenomenological epoché: it is not possible to know that such a mode of not-ness is something proper (Ereignis), as Heidegger implies throughout. However, the derivation of such experiences from the valorisation of language, as naturalists and pragmatists proclaim, remains equally unproven. It remains the task of phenomenology to bear the human incongruity, to remain—to paraphrase Husserl’s famous slogan—directed towards the things themselves (zu den Sachen selbst).

Normality as a Fundamental Phenomenon of Life. An Attempt at a Phenomenological Approach - - - In the present article, we attempt to show that Husserl’s notion of life should be characterized by an inherent normativity at every level. In this regard, we can also differentiate between normality—as a more encompassing concept—and normativity—as a specific concept—, but the focus of our study is on normativity, which is a narrower notion. We attempt to distinguish and analyze the main types of normativity in Husserl’s texts. In the discussions regarding the most important levels of normativity, we essentially rely on Anthony Steinbock’s considerations, according to whom one can separate four fundamental types of normativity: accordance, optimality, typical normativity, and home or home-world (Heimwelt). The subsequent crucial point of our investigations is to show that the main levels of normativity have a different order in rational, self-aware beings, on the one hand, and in non-rational beings without self-consciousness, on the other. Finally, we try to demonstrate that there exists a principal connection between affectivity and normativity, and that affectivity has a decisive role in the constitution of different forms of normativity.

W artykule przedstawiam krótko historię rozwoju fenomenologii, która jest ściśle związana z analizami świadomości. Fenomenologia aktów, fenomenologia transcendentalna i fenomenologia genetyczna oznaczają postęp w teorii świadomości. W tym kontekście wskazuję powody, dla których Edmund Husserl w ostatnich pracach określił świadomość jako system intencjonalnych funkcji, a fenomenologię jako hermeneutykę życia świadomości. ----------------------------------------- Zgłoszono: 07/03/2023. Zrecenzowano: 17/01/2024. Zaakceptowano do publikacji: 26/01/2024.

This Article uses various concepts of Husserlian phenomenology to explain the disparate opinion between the North American and Italian public in response to the prosecution and ultimate acquittal of Amanda Knox. This Article argues that the comparative difference in public opinion is due to an extensive shift in culture that is necessarily accompanied by a shift in spatial-temporal location. In this Article, the Husserlian concepts of intentionality, the Self, the Other-I, and empathy overlay the judicial opinions and media releases critical to shaping North American and Italian public perceptions of Amanda Knox. As applied, these Husserlian concepts function as interpretive lenses, providing the reader with a novel framework for analyzing the cause of interpretive difference across cultures.

The experience error is the fallacy of attributing to our experience of a thing what we know to be true of that thing from an objective point of view. This paper argues that the "method of purification" advocated by Edmund Husserl for psychology is nothing other than avoidance of the experience error. The purity of psychology is not philosophical (transcendental) purity. Psychology remains in the natural attitude; it is pure if it is true to the subjective, psychical, genuinely lived content of experience and thus is purely descriptive. But that is easier said than done. Due to the dominance of the modern scientific outlook, the experience error is so insidious that, as the paper argues in a final section, Husserl himself was not immune to it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Methis is the property of University of Tartu Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Methis is the property of University of Tartu Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Methis is the property of University of Tartu Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Methis is the property of University of Tartu Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Methis is the property of University of Tartu Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article explores the phenomenology of religion as a reflection on religious experiences and their manifestation. Highlighting the work of Gerardus van der Leeuw, it emphasizes his balance between historical examination and phenomenological analysis, showcasing religious phenomena’s paradossal nature – being simultaneously opaque and clear. Drawing on Husserl’s methodologies, the study examines the inner dimensions of human experiences, suggesting a connection between phenomenological anthropology and religious studies, and stressing the importance of subjective interiority in understanding the universality and singularity of religious experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Beytulhikme: An International Journal of Philosophy is the property of Beytulhikme: An International Journal of Philosophy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper offers an assessment of some of the central aspects of Edith Stein's conception of intentional acts proposed in Potency and Act. Studies Towards a Philosophy of Being. Her account hinges upon a combination of Thomistic and Husserlian concepts. She borrows from Aquinas two conceptual pairs that are central to his metaphysics and theory of knowledge: the actuality-potency dichotomy; and the distinction between sensible and intelligible species. The distinction and relevant articulation between sensible and intelligible species provide Stein with the basis to present her own conception of intentionality (with special focus on perception): the sensible species is regarded as the correlate of the object's Gestalt; by contrast, the intelligible species is mobilised to account for what Husserl labels noesis-noema correlation. But Stein's ambition is also to inscribe her account of the species sensibilis within an overall (critical) interpretation of Husserl's transcendental idealism. This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation, financing the project "Intentionality and Person in Medieval Philosophy and Phenomenology" (GAČR 21-08256S). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Phainomena is the property of Phenomenological Society of Ljubljana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This Article uses various concepts of Husserlian phenomenology to explain the disparate opinion between the North American and Italian public in response to the prosecution and ultimate acquittal of Amanda Knox. This Article argues that the comparative difference in public opinion is due to an extensive shift in culture that is necessarily accompanied by a shift in spatial-temporal location. In this Article, the Husserlian concepts of intentionality, the Self, the Other-I, and empathy overlay the judicial opinions and media releases critical to shaping North American and Italian public perceptions of Amanda Knox. As applied, these Husserlian concepts function as interpretive lenses, providing the reader with a novel framework for analyzing the cause of interpretive difference across cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anthropology has long resisted becoming a nomothetic science, thus repeatedly missing opportunities to build upon empirical theoretical constructs, choosing instead to back away into a kind of natural history of sociocultural differences. What is required are methods that focus the ethnographic gaze upon the essential structures of perception as well as sociocultural differences. The anthropology of experience and the senses is a recent movement that may be amenable to including a partnership between Husserlian phenomenology and neuroscience to build a framework for evidencing the existence of essential structures of consciousness, and the neurobiological processes that have evolved to present the world to consciousness as adaptively real. The author shows how the amalgamation of essences (sensory objects, relations, horizons, and associated intuitions) and the quest for neural correlates of consciousness can be combined to augment traditional ethnographic research, and thereby nullify the “it’s culture all the way down” bias of constructivism.

In the study presented here, the author disputes the conclusions that the American history professor Peter E. Gordon presented in his book Adorno and Existence, and ponders the book’s role in contemporary Adorno research within the discourse of the Anglo-Saxon world. The general theme of Gordon’s book is Adorno’s lifelong response to the philosophy of Husserl and Heidegger. In his principle argument, Gordon argues that negative dialectics is the realization of a goal that the aforementioned philosophers set themselves but never fulfilled. The task of the first half of the study is to show Gordon’s book in the context of the current response to Adorno’s philosophy in the Anglo-Saxon countries and, in light of the argument mentioned above, to show where Gordon’s work is essential and where it fails. The second half of the study seeks to modify Gordon’s argument. The author asserts that phenomenology and existentialism can only serve towards the formulation of Adorno’s own positions if they are sated with a pre-established method – a method developed on the basis of Walter Benjamin’s theory of knowledge and György Lukács’ Hegelian Marxism.

In this essay, I articulate an Augustinian "philosophy of history" by highlighting some important texts sprinkled throughout St. Augustine's writings, especially his City of God. I concentrate on Augustine's claim that there are "joints of time" that structure God's self-disclosure to us through sacred history, and I develop these Augustinian insights with the help of Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. While Augustine enables us to see that God's revelation is achieved in a sacred history that illuminates the deepest structure and order of the temporal flow of human events, Husserl's phenomenology can be used to show that the structure and order of sacred history is fitting for our natural human mode of encountering being through successive stages of presence and absence. Husserl's descriptions of the ways in which the identical thing is given to us in grades of fulfillment sheds light on the mystery of God's revelation by highlighting the temporal dimension of our grasping of the being of things. Throughout the essay, I make use of Robert Sokolowski's writings in the areas of Husserlian phenomenology and the theology of disclosure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyses the reception of Hume's moral philosophy in the lectures and manuscripts of Edmund Husserl and in the published lectures of Franz Brentano, on which Husserl originally based his views. I first present the reasons that led Brentano to appreciate Hume's sentimentalist background in moral philosophy and to criticize Hume's relativism. I then show how Husserl, following the critique of psychologism in his Logical Investigations, builds on this starting point and attempts to show a possible contradictory nature of Hume's moral relativism. Finally, I consider whether Hume's doctrine contains phenomenological insights that Husserl overlooks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay embarks on a thorough exploration of Edmund Husserl's seminal contributions to the philosophical discourse on consciousness, with a particular focus on the dynamics of conscious decisions within the framework of phenomenology. By delving into Husserl's nuanced examination of consciousness--its temporal structure, the nature of self-awareness, and the foundational concept of intentionality--the analysis reveals the intricate ways in which Husserl posits the transcendental ego as the nexus of meaning, judgment, and perception. The discussion illuminates how Husserl's theory of intentionality and the intentional act's matter and quality serve as the cornerstone for understanding the will's engagement with the world. Through a detailed exposition of Husserl's ideas on the phenomenological reduction, the essay articulates the active role of consciousness in constituting reality and the ethical dimensions underpinning the exercise of free will. The paper argues that Husserl's insights into conscious decision-making challenge conventional views by framing free will within the contexts of knowledge, ethical deliberation, and the ego's autonomy. This essay contributes to the ongoing dialogue between phenomenology and contemporary philosophy of mind by highlighting Husserl's profound impact on our understanding of consciousness, agency, and the existential significance of human decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a mutual critique of the analytic and phenomenological theory of action. The first perspective focuses on the standard approach introduced by G.E.M. Anscombe. According to Anscombe, actions are events that are intentional under a description. Consequently, the distinction between action and mere behavior depends on the linguistic description of behavior. However, this perspective fails to address the possible transitions between behavior and action. One way to fill this gap is by investigating the specific form of intentionality belonging to striving or tendency. Such an investigation can complement the standard theory of action by illuminating the realm in which volitional and intentional actions are formed. In this regard, it is instructive to examine A. Pfänder's and E. Husserl's philosophy of striving and willing. Pfänder's Phenomenology of Willing (1900) and the essay Motives and Motivation (1911) reflect on the genesis of volition from striving. Both texts view willing as a particular form of striving that may, but does not have to, lead to action. Similarly, Husserl aims to retrace the pre-voluntary roots of willing, but unlike Pfänder, he considers willing and action to be necessarily connected. The second perspective focuses on what analytic philosophy contributes to philosophical action theory: the recognition of language's constitutive role in determining actions. This is evident not only in terms of how we describe actions (Anscombe), but also in how we ascribe willing, intending, and acting to one another in communicative contexts (H.L.A. Hart). Therefore, a phenomenological investigation of action should be complemented by linguistic analysis. This idea is already outlined in rudiments by Husserl and particularly by Pfänder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anthropology has long resisted becoming a nomothetic science, thus repeatedly missing opportunities to build upon empirical theoretical constructs, choosing instead to back away into a kind of natural history of sociocultural differences. What is required are methods that focus the ethnographic gaze upon the essential structures of perception as well as sociocultural differences. The anthropology of experience and the senses is a recent movement that may be amenable to including a partnership between Husserlian phenomenology and neuroscience to build a framework for evidencing the existence of essential structures of consciousness, and the neurobiological processes that have evolved to present the world to consciousness as adaptively real. The author shows how the amalgamation of essences (sensory objects, relations, horizons, and associated intuitions) and the quest for neural correlates of consciousness can be combined to augment traditional ethnographic research, and thereby nullify the "it's culture all the way down" bias of constructivism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, my aim is to develop a phenomenological understanding of discrimination from the perspective of the discriminator. Since early existential phenomenology, the phenomenon of discrimination has received a great deal of attention. While much of this work has focused on the experience of the discriminatee, recent scholarship has begun to reflect on the intentional structures on the side of the discriminator. In a contribution to this trend, I argue that our sense of what is (ab)normal plays a constitutively significant role in the reiteration and reinforcement of harmful discriminatory practices. More specifically, I argue that Husserl's distinction between two forms of normality, namely, concordance-normality [Einstimmigkeit] and optimal-normality [Optimalität], is an important tool for illuminating otherwise overlooked aspects of the discriminator's experience. I achieve this by demonstrating how these two notions of normality play distinct constitutive roles when comparing deliberate acts of discrimination committed with malintent, compared with more habitual and prereflective expectations which are already discriminatory in nucleo. I argue that at the heart of discriminatory practices there is a naïve, normalizing attempt to stabilize concordance at the expense of critical self-reflection, normative revisions, and enriched horizons of expectation. In doing so, this paper provides a novel and important contribution to philosophical discussions surrounding discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we will attempt to outline a phenomenology of attention centered around the concepts of interest and selection. We will start with an analysis of Husserl’s notion of attention, then turn to the reflections of William James, Alfred Schutz and Erving Goffman, all of whom recognized the fundamental role attention plays in the processes by which social actors frame and define reality. Finally, we will consider Bernhard Waldenfels’ ethics of attention. He offers an ethics based on openness to and recognition of the other that, above all, offers both a response and an antidote to xenology and xenopolitics.

Should we approach the lived experience and/or understand the other with the sense of things? If this is the case, how are we to treat the human experience par excellence? Paradoxically, Edith Stein gives a fresh meaning to the Husserlian term “leibliche Selbstgegebenheit.” In contrast to Max Scheler’s account, she develops the “persönliche Note” criterion of authenticity. And against Maetin Heidegger’s existential philosophy, a concern for human existence itself resonates. Based on these three dimensions, this article discusses the idea of “the lived experience” according to Edith Stein, that is, the human experience contemplated by the humanities.

Abstract: A number of claims made by Derrida concerning Merleau-Ponty’s interpretation of Husserl will be carefully considered and evaluated here. First, Derrida’s claim that Merleau-Ponty’s mis-interprets Husserl’s letter to Lévy-Bruhl will be challenged. Secondly, Derrida’s claim that his criticism of Husserl’s phenomenology can be applied just as well to Merleau-Ponty’s will be challenged. Thirdly, it is a careful consideration of textual evidence that will be used to support these challenges. Finally, Merleau-Ponty’s late lectures will take us back to the Lévy-Bruhl letter and finally to Merleau-Ponty’s own phenomenology of language, one that integrates perception and language and yet that still privileges not eidetic essences or linguistic expression but perception as its primary term.

The article brings into conversation phenomenology and the Ignatian tradition of discernment as it explores phenomena of illusion in spiritual life. Special attention is paid to harmful illusions, such as religiously motivated and/ or justified sexual abuse, abuse of authority, and terrorist acts. Here the article explores both the resilience of illusions, as they enter at different phases of experience, and a process of learning resilience as a person or a community learns to cope with misperceptions, serious errors of judgment and their consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]