Abstract The aim of this paper is to discern the subtitle on 2004 Marc Richir’s book, Phantasia, imagination, affectivité. Phénoménologie et anthropologie phénoménologique. Traditionally, Phenomenology has been elusive to link to Anthropology. However, Richir gives its importance including it into the title of his book. Husserl first, and then Richir, facing the Cartesian solipsist subjectivity outline, propose the concept of intersubjectivity. Community prevails over an individual and generalizing self. The other, then, becomes our incarnation, a live-­‐‑incarnation, it defines our own (...) self, as long as it is done from a de-­‐‑anchoring, that is to say, there is a union in distance, it is the intersubjectivity tissue. The community, therefore, shapes up, but it is not uniform yet it is always a whole. The concept of Phantasieleib plays a significant role in this community, this Richirianne concept is very important to grasp the movement between fantasy and language, also, it is very influential in actual phenomenologists as Murakami. This movement is also key in language and phenomena language, furthermore, is also relevant in the Inter-­‐‑subjectivity Foundation. Resumen El objetivo de este artículo es discernir el subtítulo de Marc Richir, del 2004, a saber, Phantasia, imagination, affectivité. Phénoménologie et anthropologie phénoménologique. Tradicionalmente, la fenomenología se ha mostrado reticente a vincularse a la antropología. Por el contrario, Richir le confiere una importancia al incluirlo en dicho título. Frente al planteamiento cartesiano de una subjetividad solipsista, primero Husserl y después Richir, proponen la intersubjetividad. La comunidad prevalece ante la individualidad de un yo generalizador. El otro se convierte en nuestra encarnación, una encarnación viva, define nuestro propio yo, siempre que se haga en un des-­‐‑anclaje, es decir, se produce una unión en la distancia, es el tejido de la intersubjetividad. La comunidad, por tanto, toma forma, pero, no es uniforme, aunque está siempre unida. El concepto de Phantasieleib juega un papel fundamental en dicha comunidad, este concepto richiriano es muy importante para comprender el movimiento entre phantasia y pensamiento, además, de suponer una gran influencia en los fenomenólogos actuales como Murakami. Este movimiento es también importante en el lenguaje y los fenómenos del lenguaje, a su vez, relevante también en la fundamentación de la intersubjetividad. (shrink)

Illusionism is the view that conscious experience is some sort of introspective illusion. According to illusionism, there is no conscious experience, but it merely seems like there is conscious experience. This would suggest that much phenomenological enquiry, including work on phenomenological psychopathology, rests on a mistake. Some philosophers have argued that illusionism is obviously false, because seeming is itself an experiential state, and so necessarily presupposes the reality of conscious experience. In response, the illusionist could suggest that the relevant sort (...) of seeming here is not an experiential state, but is a cognitive state, such as a judgement or a belief, which is fully amenable to a physical or functionalist analysis. Herein, I argue that this response is unsuccessful and fails to undermine the reality of conscious experience. Nonetheless, the response does raise the problem of how a judgement or belief about the character of a conscious experience, even if it is true, can be justified if the conscious experience has no causal role in the formation of the judgement or belief. This is not a new problem, but is a reiteration of an old problem that is known in the philosophy of mind literature as the paradox of phenomenal judgement. I consider how the paradox of phenomenal judgement can be resolved and how the judgement or belief about conscious experience can be justified with appeal to the notion of acquaintance. (shrink)

This chapter offers a phenomenological interpretation of Brentano’s view of mentality. The key idea is that mental phenomena are not only characterized by intentionality; they also exhibit a distinctive way of appearing or being experienced. In short, they also have a distinctive phenomenology. I argue this view may be traced back to Brentano’s theory of inner perception. Challenging the self-representational reading of IP, I maintain the latter is best understood as a way of appearing, that is, in phenomenological terms. Section (...) 1 addresses Brentano’s claim that IP is one mark of the mental alongside intentionality. Sections 2 and 3 present support for a phenomenological interpretation of IP. And Section 4 briefly discusses two objections. (shrink)

Heterophenomenology is a third-person methodology proposed by Daniel Dennett for using first-person reports as scientific evidence. I argue that heterophenomenology can be improved by making six changes: (i) setting aside consciousness, (ii) including other sources of first-person data besides first-person reports, (iii) abandoning agnosticism as to the truth value of the reports in favor of the most plausible assumptions we can make about what can be learned from the data, (iv) interpreting first-person reports (and other first-person behaviors) directly in terms (...) of target mental states rather than in terms of beliefs about them, (v) dropping any residual commitment to incorrigibility of first-person reports, and (vi) recognizing that thirdperson methodology does have positive effects on scientific practices. When these changes are made, heterophenomenology turns into the self-measurement methodology of firstperson data that I have defended in previous papers. (shrink)

The neurobiology of affection is becoming established as a new sub-discipline that focuses on the study and understanding of human emotional experience. It is a scientific discipline that has emerged from neurosciences, on the basis that we can now only advance towards a global understanding of human emotions and of their alterations by widening the horizons and methods available to study the emotional life. Here, we present the current contrast between the phenomenological and the neuroscientific analysis of emotions. We propose (...) that it is necessary to maintain an interdisciplinary dialogue between these two approaches and we think that this complementation will be especially beneficial for the field of clinical neuroscience and anthropology. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to present an outline of a phenomenological theory of thought experiments. In doing so, I am dealing with a topic that is currently starting to receive increased attention from philosophers with phenomenological leanings. However, since no serious attempt has been made to tackle the issue in a systematic fashion, I will not merely review existing phenomenological work on thought experiments. For the most part, my paper is programmatic: its aim is to suggest some basic (...) directions in which a phenomenological theory of scientific thought experiments should be developed. (shrink)

When we perceive we are under the impression of being directly aware of concrete, mindindependent objects. We also consider perception as a basic, reliable source for acquiring beliefs and an effective means for coping with the environment. In the philosophical literature, this direct and basic character of perception is sometimes captured by saying that perception is openness to the world. Articulating, refining and vindicating as far as possible this commonsensical view of perception as openness to the world is the main (...) objective of this work. In order to make the metaphor of openness tractable in theoretical terms, I set up the dialectic in terms of a contrast between representationalism, which holds that perception represents things as being a certain way, and pure relationalism, which holds that perception can be openness to the world only by being a non-representational relation between a subject and objects in the world. The main thesis that I defend with several arguments in this work is that perception is both representational and relational. Indeed, it intelligibly relates us to the world in virtue of its representational content. In chapter one, I place perception in the broader context of intentional states. I articulate a view on which intentional states are directed toward their objects in virtue of having representational content, and show that prima facie the arguments for thinking that paradigmatic intentional states such as belief have content apply to perception too. I also explain why pure relationalists would reject the application of the content-model to perception. Chapter two is devoted to Charles Travis’s argument that perceptual experience does not have content. I counter his argument by offering a phenomenological account of perceptual constancy, and I show that content is necessary for capturing constancy in theoretical terms. Further, I argue that content helps us to better explain how the mind-independent nature of concrete objects is manifest in the phenomenology of perceptual experience. Chapter three concerns the question of how we should elucidate perceptual experience as openness to the world in the face of illusion and hallucination. I consider three possible approaches, and I argue that a view on which perceptual experience is both representational and relational can best make sense of the relevant phenomena. In the fourth chapter, I consider the debate on phenomenal character between representationalist and purely relationalist views in light of a distinction between particularity and generality. I show how representationalists are committed to there being an element of generality in perception, and how pure relationalists construe perception as wholly particular instead. I defend the representationalist view on the grounds that generality is necessary to make sense of the phenomenal and epistemic determinacy of perception. In the concluding remarks, I consider the question of whether my view can make room for the relationality of perception, and I argue again that only a distorted view of the metaphor of openness to the world could lead one to think that content and relationality are incompatible. (shrink)

This article defends the thesis that in theorizing about the mind we need to accord first-person (“introspective” or “reflective”) judgments about experience a “selective provisional trust.” Such an approach can form part of a descriptive psychology. It is here so employed to evaluate some influential interpretations of research on attention to conclude that—despite what conventional wisdom suggests—an “introspection-positive” policy actually offers us a better critical perspective than its contrary. What supposedly teaches us the worthlessness of introspection actually shows us why (...) we need to take it seriously. (shrink)

Dennett’s theory of consciousness is often misread as broadly anti-realist. His aversion to ontology encourages readers to form their own interpretations, and the rhetoric he employs often seems to support the anti-realist reading. Dennett does offer defenses against the anti-realist charge, but these are piecemeal and diffuse. This paper examines Dennett’s most current expression, which proves insufficient on its own as a resolution to the ontological dispute. Drawing on related discussions in an attempt to find a resolution leads to a (...) further challenge from Schwitzgebel. Crucial distinctions between inner and outer, cause and effect, and reporting and expressing, unite in a general characterization of how a realist explanation of consciousness should bottom out. Dennett’s form of realism depends upon distinguishing the explananda of consciousness from their doomed explanans; anti-realism about the latter makes room for genuine explanation of how things seem to us. (shrink)