Fenômeno vs. Fenomenicidade. Husserl e Natorp no pano de fundo de um debate atual

Authors

  • Emanuele Mariano Universidade de Bolonha

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2318-8863.discurso.2025.240589

Keywords:

Husserl, Natorp, phenomenon, content, apprehension

Abstract

Does phenomenology allow us to pave the way for a privileged understanding of phenomena? A glance at the philosophical history of the concept of “phenomenon” suffices to confront us with complex results, not always easy to grasp. We need only mention two: the definitions of what a “phenomenon” is vary considerably both within and outside the phenomenological tradition; the phenomenological understanding of phenomena has been the object, especially since Husserl, of various objections from direct opponents, and continues to be so in the current debate that puts phenomenology to the test of criticism from other philosophical approaches – from analytically inspired philosophy of mind to the so-called cognitive sciences. We will therefore focus on the dialogue between Husserl and Natorp in order to demonstrate the originality of the Husserlian approach, limiting ourselves to Natorp’s critique of the theses expressed in the fifth of the Logische Untersuchungen. These criticisms allow us to articulate a twofold strategy, consisting in a direct confrontation with Husserl’s positions; in an indirect parallel with some of the main arguments we find in the current debate, where, besides the concept of phenomenon, other apparently related concepts appear. The first of these is “phenomenality”, which would indicate the purely subjective character of experience, as opposed to the objective contents that we experience. Our aim is therefore twofold: to formulate the necessary arguments to counter Natorp’s objections by focusing on the Logische Untersuchungen; to defend, in perspective, the specificity of the phenomenological understanding of phenomena in the face of certain alternatives that we find in the current debate.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bayne, T.; Michelle, M. (eds). (2011). Cognitive Phenomenology. Oxford: University Press.

Besoli, S.; Ferrari, M.; Guidetti, L. (eds). (2002). Neokantismo e fenomenologia. Logica, psicologia, cultura e teoria della conoscenza. Macerata: Quodlibet.

Bodei, R.; Cantillo, G.; Ferrara, A.; Kurotschka, G.; Maffettone, S. (eds). (2004). Ricostruzione della soggettività. Napoli: Liguori Editore.

Bouveresse, J. (1976). Le mythe de l’intériorité. Expérience, signification et langage privé chez Wittgenstein. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.

Brentano, F. (1928). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Meiner.

Chalmers, D. (1995). “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, vol. II, nº 3, p. 200-219.

Chalmers, D. (1996). “Moving Forward on the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, vol. IV, nº 1, p. 3-46.

Dastur, F. (2004). “Erscheinung”. In : Cassin, B. (ed.). Vocabulaire européeen des Philosophies, Paris: Le Robert, p. 372-377.

De Warren, N.; Staiti, A. (eds) (2015). New Approaches to Neo-Kantianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dewalque, A.; Seron. D. (eds). (2015). “Existe-il des phénomènes mentaux?” Philosophie, vol. CXXIV, nº 1, p. 105-126.

Dewalque, A.; Seron. D. (2015). “Les phénomènes.” Philosophie, vol. CXXIV, nº 1.

Drestke, F. (1995). Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

Dufour, É. (2010). Paul Natorp. De la Psychologie Générale à la Systématique Philosophique. Paris: Vrin.

Ferarri, M.; Gigliotti, G. (2011). Paul Natorp tra Husserl et Kant. Scritti 1887-1914. Firenze: Le Lettere.

Gallagher S.; Zahavi, D. (eds). (2008). The Phenomenological Mind. An Introduction to Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science. London/New York: Routledge.

Holzhey, H. (1991). “Zu den Sachen selbst! Über das Verhältnis von Phänome-nologie und Neukantianismus,” In: Herzog, M.; Graumann, C. F. (eds). Sinn und Erfahrung: phänomenologische Methoden in den Humanwissenschaften. Heidelberg: Springer, p. 3-21.

Husserl, E. (1950). Die Idee der Phänomenologie. Fünf Vorlesungen. Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Husserl, E. (1976). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reinen Phänomenologie. Den Haag: M. Nijhoff. Trad. Márcio Suzuki. São Paulo: Idéias&Letras, 2006.

Husserl, E. (1984). Logische Untersuchungen. Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Trad. P. Alves, C. Morujão. Lisboa: CFLUL, 2007.

Husserl, E. (2005). Einführung in die Phänomenologie der Erkenntnis. Vorlesung 1909. Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kern, I. (1964). Husserl und Kant. Eine Untersuchung über Husserls Verhältnis zu Kant und zum Neukantianismus. Den Haag: Nijhoff.

Kurotschka, G. (2004). “La questione dell’irriducibilità della coscienza.” In: Ricostruzione della soggettività. Bodei, R.; Cantillo, G.; Ferrara, A.; Kurotschka, G.; Maffettone, S. (eds). Napoli: Liguori Editore, p. 3-32.

Levine, J. (1983). “Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, vol. LXIV, nº 4, p. 354-361.

Luft, S. (2006). “Natorp, Husserl und das Problem der Kontinuität zwischen Leben, Wissenschaft und Philosophie.” Phänomenologische Forschungen, vol. VI, p. 97-133.

Luft, S. (2009). “Reconstruction and Reduction: Natorp and Husserl on Meth-od and the Question of Subjectivity”. In: Rudolf A. Makkreel, Sebastian Luft (eds). Neo-Kantianism in Contemporary Philosophy, Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press, p. 59-91.

Luft, S. (2013). “Einleitung”. In: Allgemeine Psychologie nach kritischer Methode, P. Natorp, p. XI-XXXVIII. Darmstadt: WBG Academic.

Moore. G. E. (1922). “The Refutation of Idealism.” Philosophical Studies, Londres: Kegan Paul, p. 1-30.

Nagel, T. (1974). “What is it Like to be a Bat.”. The Philosophical Review, vol. LXXXIII, nº 4, p. 435-450.

Natorp, P. (1887). “Über objective und subjective Begründung der Erkenntnis.” Philosophische Monatshefte, vol. XXIII, p. 257-286.

Natorp, P. (1888). Einleitung in die Psychologie nach kritischer Methode. Freiburg i.B.: J.C.B. Mohr.

Natorp, P. (1912). Allgemeine Psychologie nach kritischer Methode. Erstes Buch. Objekt und Methode der Psychologie. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

Porta, M. (2006). “Brentano y Natorp (Intentionalität y Bewusstheit).” Revista Philosophica, vol. 30, p. 103-126.

Sellars, W. (1956). “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind”. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, eds. H. Feigl, M. Scriven, p. 253-329.

Seron, D. (2009) . “La critique de la psychologie de Natorp dans la Ve Recherche logique de Husserl.” Érudit, vol. XXXVI, nº 2, p. 533-558.

Siewert, C. (2004). “Is Experience Transparent.”. Philosophical Studies, vol. CXVII, nº 1-2, p. 15-41.

Tye, M. (1995). Ten Problems of Consciousness. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

Zahavi, D. (2003). “Intentionality and Phenomenality: A Phenomenological Take on the Hard Problem.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. XXIX, p. 63-92.

Zahavi, D. (2004). “Introduction: Subjectivity in the Center or Back to Basics.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, vol. III, nº 3 (2004), p. 229-234.

Zahavi, D. (2004). “Phenomenology and the Project of Naturalization.” Phenome-nology and the Cognitive Sciences, vol. III, nº 4, p. 331-347.

Zahavi, D. (2008). “Internalism and Externalism in Phenomenological Perspective.” Synthese, vol. CLX, nº 3, p. 309-312.

Zahavi, D. (2015). “Intentionnalité et phénoménalité: un regard phénoménologique sur le “problème difficile,” Philosophie, vol. CXXIV, nº 1, p. 80-104.

Published

2025-06-30

Issue

Section

Artigos

How to Cite

Mariano, E. (2025). Fenômeno vs. Fenomenicidade. Husserl e Natorp no pano de fundo de um debate atual. Discurso, 55(1), 226-249. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2318-8863.discurso.2025.240589