Husserl Studies

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 13–27 | Cite as

From Adequacy to Apodicticity. Development of the Notion of Reflection in Husserl’s Phenomenology

  • Wenjing Cai


The article explores a gradual refinement of the notion of reflection in Husserlian phenomenology. In his early period, Husserl takes phenomenological reflection to attain adequate evidence, since its object is self-given in an absolute and complete manner. However, this conception of reflection does not remain unchanged. Husserl later realizes that immanent perception or phenomenological reflection also involves a certain horizonality and naivety that has to do with its temporal nature and must be queried in a further critical, apodictic reflection. Focusing more on the notion of apodicticity than adequacy, Husserl subsequently ascribes a new methodological role to reflection: instead of a mere epistemic warrant that guarantees for us the ultimate truth of our experiential life once and for all, phenomenological reflection ensures the strictness of phenomenology insofar as it entails an ethical-existential dimension as the norm of a life-form where the subject pursues full self-understanding and self-justification.


Double Negation Immanent Perception Transcendental Phenomenology Husserlian Phenomenology Cartesian Meditation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Most of this article was written while I was a PhD student at the Center for Subjectivity Research, University of Copenhagen. I am grateful to Dan Zahavi and Hanne Jacobs for their insightful comments on some of the issues in it. I would also like to thank Steven Crowell and an anonymous referee for a number of helpful comments on the paper.


  1. Descartes, R. (1993). Discourse on method and Meditations on first philosophy. D. A. Cress (Trans.). Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Gadamer, H.-G. (1999). Neuere Philosophie I, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  3. Heffernan, G. (2009). On Husserl’s remark that ‘[s]elbst eine sich als apodiktisch ausgebende Evidenz kann sich als Täuschung enthüllen …’ (XVII 164:32–33): Does the phenomenological method yield any epistemic infallibility? Husserl Studies, 25(1), 15–43.Google Scholar
  4. Hua I. Husserl, E. Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973; Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology. D. Cairns (Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977.Google Scholar
  5. Hua III/I. Husserl, E. Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971.Google Scholar
  6. Hua VI. Husserl, E. Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1976.Google Scholar
  7. Hua VIII. Husserl, E. Erste Philosophie (1923/4). Zweiter Teil: Theorie der phänomenologischen Reduktion. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1959.Google Scholar
  8. Hua IX. Husserl, E. Phänomenologische Psychologie. Vorlesungen Sommersemester 1925. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1968.Google Scholar
  9. Hua XXVII. Husserl, E. Aufsätze und Vorträge. 19221937. The Hague: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. Hua XXXIV. Husserl, E. Zur phänomenologischen Reduktion. Texte aus dem Nachlass (19261935). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. Hua XXXV. Husserl, E. Einleitung in die Philosophie. Vorlesungen 1922/23. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/2008). Phenomenology of perception. C. Smith (Trans.). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968/1992). The visible and the invisible. C. Lefort (Ed.), A. Lingis (Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ricœur, P. (1996). A key to Husserl’s Ideas I. B. Harris and J. Spurlock (Trans.). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Schmid, H. B. (2001). Apodictic evidence. Husserl Studies, 17(3), 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zahavi, D. (2003). Husserl’s Phenomenology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of HumanityShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations