“Ontology” is understood and undertaken very differently in the phenomenological tradition than it is in the recent analytic tradition. Here I argue that those differences are not accidental, but instead reflect deeper differences in views about what the proper role and methods for philosophy are. I aim to show that, from a phenomenological perspective, questions about what exists can be answered ‘easily,’ whether through trivial inferences (in the case of ideal abstracta) or (always tentatively, of course) by ordinary empirical means—seeing (...) how our observations hang together. As a result, it can get us away from the obscurities, epistemological mysteries, and skepticism that the neo-Quinean approach to ontology has left us in and provide a clearer and less problematic approach to questions of ontology. (shrink)

European Journal of Philosophy, Volume 29, Issue 4, Page 1026-1038, December 2021.

Interpretations abound about Husserl’s understanding of the relationship between veridical perceptual experience and hallucination. Some read him as taking the two to share the same distinctive essential nature, like contemporary conjunctivists. Others find in Husserl grounds for taking the two to fall into basically distinct categories of experience, like disjunctivists. There is ground for skepticism, however, about whether Husserl’s view could possibly fall under either of these headings. Husserl, on the one hand, operates under the auspices of the phenomenological reduction, (...) abstaining from use of any epistemic commitments about mind-transcendent reality, whereas conjunctive and disjunctive accounts of perceptual experience, on the other hand, are both premised on some form of metaphysical realism. There seems to be a basic incompatibility between the former approach and the latter. I examine this line of thinking and argue that the incompatibility is only apparent. (shrink)

This paper critically evaluates Amie Thomasson’s (2003; 2005; 2006) view of the conscious mind and the interpretation of Husserl’s phenomenological reduction that it adopts. In Thomasson’s view, the phenomenological method is not an introspectionist method, but rather a “transparent” or “extrospectionist” method for acquiring epistemically privileged self-knowledge. I argue that Thomasson’s reading of Husserl’s phenomenological reduction is correct. But the view of consciousness that she pairs with it—a view of consciousness as “transparent” in the sense that first-order, world-oriented experience is (...) in no way given to itself—is not compatible with it. Rather, Thomasson’s view is, from a Husserlian vantage point, self-undermining in the same way that any genuinely skeptical view is self-undermining: it undermines the conditions of its own possibility. This is one of the motives Husserl has for developing a same-order view of self-consciousness as the complement to his transparent method for self-knowledge acquisition. (shrink)

Husserl’s philosophy of mathematics, his metatheory, and his transcendental phenomenology have a sophisticated and systematic interrelation that remains relevant for questions of ontology today. It is well established that Husserl anticipated many aspects of model theory. I focus on this aspect of Husserl’s philosophy in order to argue that Thomasson’s recent pleonastic reconstruction of Husserl’s approach to essences is incompatible with Husserl’s philosophy as a whole. According to the pleonastic approach, Husserl can appeal to essences in the absence of a (...) positive metaphysical account of their nature. I show, using central results from recent model theory, that the pleonastic approach undermines Husserl’s approach to formalization and categoricity, an effect that will ripple out from Husserl’s philosophy of mathematics into Husserl’s metatheory and transcendental phenomenology. The result is that Husserl cannot appeal to formal essences without metaphysical commitments. However, the very observations Thomasson makes about the nature of eidetic intuition in Husserl lead to a general strategy for responding to the problem. The article thus illustrates that the pleonastic and the model-theoretic routes for making Husserl relevant to present-day ontology are competing approaches, but I conclude that Husserl scholars seeking to set Husserl’s present-day relevance into sharp relief could do worse than to emphasize the model-theoretic nature of Husserl’s enterprise. (shrink)

The paper explores the relationship between conceptual engineering and the methodology of the Lvov-Warsaw School. While conceptual engineering is commonly seen as rooted in Rudolf Carnap's works and his method of explication, this paper argues that LWS predates and informs contemporary understanding of this methodology. The paper establishes that LWS not only engaged in but also systematically developed a method of conceptual revision aimed at enhancing clarity, precision, and coherence with specific theoretical frameworks. The analysis shows that LWS's approach to (...) concepts combined both descriptive and normative methodologies to improve and adapt philosophical concepts to better address actual phenomena and certain theoretical or practical needs. This method, described by LWS members as 'analysis and construction', parallels contemporary conceptual engineering practices, particularly its so-called 'narrow' understanding focused on revising existing concepts rather than on merely introducing new ones. By tracing the historical trajectory of conceptual engineering back to LWS, this paper provides a deeper understanding of its foundational strategies and suggesting that LWS's methodology could serve as a guide for current and future philosophical projects. (shrink)

In this paper, I present an important, yet hitherto neglected, development within Husserl’s phenomenological formal ontology. The first sixteen paragraphs of Ideas 1 serve as the point of departure for my presentation. In these paragraphs, Husserl presents the category of “concretum”, or concrete individual, as the cornerstone of his whole formal-ontological framework. The aim of this paper is to present and discuss a revision of the account of the concrete individual Husserl develops in his Ideas 1 in 1918 in a (...) text that is now published as text 11 in Husserliana 41. I will also draw out some further implications from a text of the same year published as Appendix XVII of Husserliana 41. No adequate treatment of the 1918 account of “concrete individual” has been provided so far, however, and my paper aims at filling this gap in the scholarship. The relevance of the 1918 revision is phenomenological and philosophical, rather than just historical. In that text Husserl solves some ambiguities in the Ideas 1 treatment of concrete individuals, and, in doing so, he introduces an original distinction between two types of genera, self-individuating and other-individuating. He also provides elements to a phenomenological doctrine of the principle of individuation and takes a stance on the question of the individuation of essence. (shrink)

A presente dissertação almeja analisar, a partir de Husserl, a forma com que o idealismo transcendental contribui na construção de uma fenomenologia enquanto fundamento de toda a filosofia. Para tal, o primeiro capítulo tem como foco determinar quais são os elementos que conduzem Husserl à virada transcendental. O segundo capítulo concentra-se na tarefa de apresentar a especificidade que Husserl confere ao seu idealismo, principalmente em relação a Kant. O terceiro e último capítulo, tem o objetivo de apontar o papel atribuído (...) ao idealismo fenomenológico-transcendental na fundamentação da filosofia. Em linhas gerais, pode se observar que Husserl enfatiza que somente a fenomenologia, ao retornar às coisas-mesmas, e com a consciência transcendentalmente purificada, promove as condições legítimas para o alcance do conhecimento. Esta organização da fenomenologia transcendental descobre a possibilidade de desenvolver uma doutrina que forneça as condições de consolidação de uma ciência rigorosa. Pois o idealismo fenomenológico, segundo o autor, possui uma abrangência universal, sendo que ao efetivar a redução fenomenológica, afasta-se de qualquer fundamentação que possa ser proveniente algo subjetivo, e, portanto, relativo. O fundamento da fenomenologia, revelado sob a forma do cogito, isto é, do Eu puro, detém uma veracidade apodítica, a partir da qual toda a reflexão se faz possível. Por isso, é que o fundamento da filosofia repousa sobre o idealismo fenomenológico-transcendental. (shrink)