Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2020, Vol. 15 Issue (3) : 352-379     https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-009-020-0021-1
SPECIAL ISSUE
Articulating Consciousness: Brentano and Husserl on Descriptive Analysis
Genki Uemura()
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama 700-8530, Japan
Download: PDF(363 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The paper aims at reconstructing the conception of descriptive analysis shared by Brentano and the early Husserl. According to this shared conception, the descriptive analysis consists in the articulation of the multi-layered part-whole structure of consciousness. Focusing on the problem of intentional reference, the paper shows how they make different distinctions among parts of consciousness to carry out the descriptive analyses thus defined. Further, it shows how such a difference is closely connected to the two philosophers’ views on the nature of intentional reference.

Keywords Brentano      Husserl      descriptive psychology      phenomenology      method      consciousness      intentionality      parts and wholes      existential dependence     
Issue Date: 28 September 2020
 Cite this article:   
Genki Uemura. Articulating Consciousness: Brentano and Husserl on Descriptive Analysis[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 352-379.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-009-020-0021-1
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2020/V15/I3/352
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Genki Uemura
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Dmytro Mykhailov. The Phenomenological Roots of Technological Intentionality: A Postphenomenological Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 612-635.
[2] YU Chung-Chi. Husserl’s Intercultural Implication of Ethical Renewal and Theoretical Rationality: A Reappraisal from an East Asian Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 509-531.
[3] ZHANG Xianglong. The Marginality of Phenomenology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 472-492.
[4] Saulius Geniusas. Husserlian Phenomenology and Derridean Deconstruction: Their Fundamental Methodological Commitments[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 451-471.
[5] Heath Williams. Analytic Phenomenology (or “What It Is Like”) vs. Husserlian Phenomenology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 427-450.
[6] LI Jing. Day and Night Overlap: Jan Patočka’s Phenomenological Interpretation of the Front-Line Experience[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 409-426.
[7] LI Cunshan. Forty Years’ Study of Chinese Philosophy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 634-650.
[8] Jean-Yves Heurtebise. Kant’s, Hegel’s and Cousin’s Perceptions of China and Non-European Cultures: Racialism, Historicism and Universalism, and the Methodology of Comparative Philosophy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 554-573.
[9] Emilia Angelova. Hegel after Nancy: Sensibility, Singularity, and the Problem of the x[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 535-553.
[10] Hans-Georg Moeller. Necessity and Memory in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: A Reconstruction[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 505-517.
[11] Timothy O’Connor. Consciousness, Free Will, and the Sciences of the Mind[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 394-401.
[12] Paul Thagard. Mind, Consciousness, and Free Will[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 377-393.
[13] Giulio Tononi, Owen Flanagan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Consciousness[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 332-348.
[14] Hye Young Kim. A Phenomenological Approach to the Korean “We”: A Study in Social Intentionality[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 612-632.
[15] Patricia Huntington. Place as Refuge: Exploring the Poetical Legacy of Matsuo Bashō[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 572-590.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed