Advertisement

Philosophia

pp 1–24 | Cite as

The Noema as Nash Equilibrium. Husserlian Phenomenology and Game Theory

  • Luca M. PossatiEmail author
Article

Abstract

The noema is one of the most daring and controversial concept of the Husserlian theory of intentionality. It was first introduced by Husserl in 1912, within some research manuscripts, but was only fully developed in Ideen. In this paper I claim that the noema is an ambiguous notion, the result of a theoretical operation, the epoché, whose aim is contradictory. In an effort to keep open the epoché, and therefore maintain distance with respect to every transcendent object, Husserl is forced to multiply intentional objects and complicate the notions of sense and noema. Given that, I propose to overcome the paradoxes of noema through the language of game theory. Game theory offers a very fruitful descriptive model that allows us to save the original Husserlian approach without the contradictions of the epoché. For this reason, I propose to re-interpret intentionality as social game, and the noema as Nash equilibrium. By replying to possible objections, I will show that this approach gives us many theoretical advantages. The general aim of the paper is a global reformulation of the phenomenalogical method.

Keywords

Phenomenology Intentionality Noema Game theory Nash equilibrium 

Notes

References

  1. Alper, G. (1993). The theory of games and psychoanalysis. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 23(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bégout, B. (2000). La généalogie de la logique. Husserl, l'antéprédicatif et le catégorial. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  3. Benoist, J. (2005). Les limites de l'intentionalité. Recherches phénoménologiques et analytiques. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  4. Benoist, J. (2013). Éléments de philosophie réaliste. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  5. Binmore, K. (1994-1998). Game theory and the social contract, vol. 1–2. Cambridge: The Mit Press.Google Scholar
  6. Binmore, K. (2007). Game theory: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Costa, V., Franzini, E., & Spinicci, P. (2002). La fenomenologia. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, D. (2001). A coherence theory of truth and knowledge. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Subjective, intersubjective, objective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heidegger, M. 2006. Sein und Zeit. Berlin: De Gruyter (I ed. 1927).Google Scholar
  11. Hintikka, J. 1983. The Game of Language. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  12. Hodge, W. (2013). Logic and games. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Google Scholar
  13. Husserl, E. (1982). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy (Vol. 1-2). The Hague: Kluwer. Translated by L. Kertesn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kripke, S. (1982). Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Hoboken: Blackwell. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. 1969. Convention. A Philosophical Study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lucchetti, R. (2008). Di duelli, scacchi e dilemmi. La teoria matematica dei giochi. Milano: Mondadori.Google Scholar
  17. Mashler, M., Solan, E., & Zamir, S. (2013). Game theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moran, D., & Cohen, J. (2012). The Husserl dictionary. Bloomsbury: Continuum.Google Scholar
  19. Myerson, R. B. (1999). Nash equilibrium and the history of economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1067–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nash, J. (2002). In H. Kuhn & S. Nasar (Eds.), The essential John Nash. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pacuit, E., Roy, O.. (2015). Epistemic foundations of game theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  22. Recanati, F. (2012). Mental Files. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ricoeur, P. 1986. A l'école de la phénomenologie. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  24. Romano, C. (2010). Au cœur de la raison, la phénoménologie. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  25. Ross, D. (2014). Game theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  26. Samuelson, P. (1938). A note on the pure theory of Consumers' behaviour. Economica, 5, 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Siegfried, T. (2006). A beautiful math. John Nash, game theory, and the modern quest for the code of the nature. Washington: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, B., & Smith, D. (1995). The Cambridge companion to Husserl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Von Neumann, J., & Morgensten, O. (2004). Theory of games and economic behavior (p. 1944). Princeton: Princeton University Press (first edition.Google Scholar
  30. Wellton, D. (1983). The origins of meaning. Den Haag: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yablo, S. (2014). Aboutness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations