Demystifying Roman Ingarden’s Purely Intentional Objects of Perception

  • Genki Uemura
Part of the Contributions To Phenomenology book series (CTPH, volume 101)


The aim of the present paper is to eliminate a seeming redundancy in Roman Ingarden’s theory of perceptual intentionality and, through this, provide a modest and partial defense of his theory. I shall first argue that, contrary to an impression one might initially have, Ingarden’s notion of purely intentional objects of perception is not superfluous; purely intentional objects of perception play a role as representational contents. Second, I shall point out that Ingarden’s theory has some merits that prove it to be worthy of serious and closer consideration for us today.


Ingarden Perceptual experience Intentionality Intentional objects Representational contents 


Works by Ingarden

  1. EF=Ingarden, Roman. 1925. Essentiale Fragen. Ein Beitreag zum Wesensproblem.” Reprented in his Über das Wesen, P. McCormick (ed.). Heidelberg: Karl Winder, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. LK=Ingarden, R. 1931/72. Das literarische Kunswerk. 4th edition, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. (English translation: Roman IngardenThe Literary Work of Art. G. G. Grabowicz (tr.), Evanston (Ill.): Northwestern University Press, 1973.)Google Scholar
  3. Streit=Ingarden, Roman. 1964/65. Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt. 2 volumes, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. (English translation: Roman Ingarden, Controversy Over the Existence of the World, 2 vols, A. Szylewicz (tr.), Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2013/2016.)Google Scholar
  4. RIGW=Ingarden, Roman. 1992ff. Gesammelte Werke. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Works by Husserl

  1. Hua=Husserl, Edmund. 1950ff. Husserliana. Edmund Husserl Gesammelte Werke, Den Haag et al.: Martinus Nijhoff/Kluwer/Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Husserl, Edmund. 2001. Logical Investigations. New Edition. Trans. J.N. Findlay and Ed. Dermot Moran. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2014. Ideas for a Pure Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy. First Book: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Trans. D.O. Dahlstrom. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett.Google Scholar

Other Works

  1. Baldwin, Thomas. 1992. The Projective Theory of Sensory Content. In The Contents of Experience. Essay on Perception, ed. Tim Crane, 177–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chrudzimski, Arkadiusz. 1999. Die Erkenntnistheorie von Roman Ingarden. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 2004. Roman Ingarden. Ontology from a Phenomenological Point of View. Reports on Philosophy 22: 121–142.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2005a. Brentano, Husserl und Ingarden über die intentionale Gegenstände. In Chrudzmski 2005b, 83–114.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2005b. Existence, Culture, and Persons. The Ontology of Roman Ingarden. Frankfurt a. M.: Ontos.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2010. Composed Objects, Internal Relations, and Purely Intentional Negativity. Ingarden’s Theory of States of Affairs. Polish Journal of Philosophy IV(2): 63–80.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2012. Negative States of Affairs. Reinach versus Ingarden. Symposium: Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy 16 (2): 106–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2015. Intentional Objects and Mental Contents. Brentano Studien XIII: 81–119.Google Scholar
  9. Crane, Tim. 2001. Elements of Mind. An Introduction to Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2014. Aspects of Psychologism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Unversity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dummett, Michael. 1992. Origins of Analytical Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fish, William. 2010. Philosophy of Perception. A Contemporary Introduction. New Yotk: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Galewicz, Wlodzimierz. 1994. Das Problem des Seinsstatus der gegenständlichen Sinne und Ingardens Ontologie der rein intentionalen Gegenstände. In Kunst und Ontology. Für Roman Ingarden zum 100. Geburtstag, ed. Wlodzimierz Galewicz, Elisabeth Ströker, and Wladyslaw Strozewski, 5–19. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  14. Madary, Michael. 2010. Husserl on Perceptual Constancy. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (1): 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim, J. 2010. Philosophy of Mind. 3rd ed. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  16. Millar, Boyd. 2011. Sensory Phenomenology and Perceptual Content. The Philosophical Quarterly 61 (244): 558–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mittscherling, Jeff. 1997. Roman Ingarden’s Ontology and Aesthetics. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mooney, Tim. 2010. Understanding and Simple Seeing in Husserl. Husserl Studies 26 (1): 19–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mulligan, Kevin. 1995. Perception. In The Cambridge Companion to Husserl, ed. Barry Smith and David Woodruff Smith, 168–238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Robinson, Howard. 1994. Perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Rynkiewicz, Kazimierz. 2008. Zwischen Realismus und Idealismus. Ingardens Überwindung des transzendentalen Idealismus Husserls. Frankfurta. M: Ontos.Google Scholar
  22. Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Siegel, Susanna. 2006. What Properties are Represented in Perception? In Tamar Szabó Gendler, John Hawthorne, ed. Perceptual Experience, 481–503. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Simons, Peter. 1994. Particulars in Particular Clothing. Three Trope Theories of Substance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (3): 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ———. 2005. Ingarden and the ontology of dependence. In Chrudzimski. 2005b, 39–53.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, Barry. 1989. On the Origins of Analytic Philosophy. Grazer Philosophische Studien 34: 153–173.Google Scholar
  27. Thomasson, Amie L. 1999. Fiction and Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Williford, Kenneth. 2013. Husserl’s Hyletic Data and Phenomenal Consciousness. Phenomenology and Cognitive Science 12 (3): 501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Genki Uemura
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Humanities and Social SciencesOkayama UniversityOkayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations