1990
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-1974-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Husserlian Intentionality and Non-Foundational Realism

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
68
0
14

Year Published

2004
2004
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 158 publications
(82 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
68
0
14
Order By: Relevance
“…Jetzt ist das reale Verhältnis, das vordem als wirklich bestehendes gemeint war, gestört. Die Wahrnehmung ist allein übrig, es ist nichts Wirkliches da, auf das sie sich bezieht» (Husserl 1950, p. 220). numerous interpretations of the doctrine of noema in Husserl; they can be divided into three groups: the ''objectivistic'' interpretation asserted by Gurwitsch (1975Gurwitsch ( , 1982, the ''intensionalistic'' (opposite to the former) asserted by Føllesdal (1982Føllesdal ( , 1990 and extended by Smith and McIntyre (1982), and a third group in which noema, as the intentional element in perception, is neither a part of the object nor a Fregean sense (Drummond 1992;Lanfredini 1994). Following the theoretical suggestion of the latter group and taking a position similar to that of Süssbauer (1995), I have asserted an ''ecological'' notion of noema in which this element of Husserl's phenomenological reduction is not merely an ''egological'' one, but an entity similar to ''matters of fact''; as such, it is an entity that can be considered in re, but as a sense of perception.…”
Section: Historical Evaluation Of the Phenomenological School From Thmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Jetzt ist das reale Verhältnis, das vordem als wirklich bestehendes gemeint war, gestört. Die Wahrnehmung ist allein übrig, es ist nichts Wirkliches da, auf das sie sich bezieht» (Husserl 1950, p. 220). numerous interpretations of the doctrine of noema in Husserl; they can be divided into three groups: the ''objectivistic'' interpretation asserted by Gurwitsch (1975Gurwitsch ( , 1982, the ''intensionalistic'' (opposite to the former) asserted by Føllesdal (1982Føllesdal ( , 1990 and extended by Smith and McIntyre (1982), and a third group in which noema, as the intentional element in perception, is neither a part of the object nor a Fregean sense (Drummond 1992;Lanfredini 1994). Following the theoretical suggestion of the latter group and taking a position similar to that of Süssbauer (1995), I have asserted an ''ecological'' notion of noema in which this element of Husserl's phenomenological reduction is not merely an ''egological'' one, but an entity similar to ''matters of fact''; as such, it is an entity that can be considered in re, but as a sense of perception.…”
Section: Historical Evaluation Of the Phenomenological School From Thmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Cette compréhension logico-sémantique de base du noème est en jeu dans plusieurs de mes discussions dans Husserl, et elle sous-tend la doctrine sémantique discutée par Jean-Michel Roy. Drummond s'oppose depuis longtemps à cette explication du noème (voir Drummond, 1990). De manière conséquente, dans son commentaire sur Husserl, Drummond affi rme que « la doctrine de la corrélation noèse-noème […] est une doctrine phénoménologique, et non une doctrine ontologique ».…”
Section: Intentionnalité Noème Et Attitudeunclassified
“…La lecture de Marbach fait écho à un ancien ouvrage 5 et converge avec la ligne d'interprétation de Drummond (voir Drummond, 1990) et avec une étude précédente de Robert Sokolowski sur la phénoménologie et l'intentionnalité 6 . Je vais maintenant reconsidérer la doctrine du noème dans le présent contexte de discussion.…”
Section: Le Rôle Du Noème Dans Le Modèle Médiateur De L'intentionnalitéunclassified
“…In other words, it is not the purpose of this paper to clarify whether those objects exist in the same or in a different manner. Here, it must be enough to mention Smith and McIntyre's critique of Gurwitsch and the controversy betweenDrummond and McIntyre (Smith and McIntyre 1982; Gurwitsch 1964;Drummond 1990).4 If we are to talk about acts' components, it must be noted here that noesis is the second and ultimate part of experience; but the text distinguishes ''really inherent'' components from the noema, which is the ''not really inherent,'' ''intentional'' one(Hua III, pp. 200-222: 1982/211-233).…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%