Abstract
Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology addresses itself to issues that are integral to the study of mental experience. [1] In this respect, it would not be inappropriate to refer to Husserl’s philosophy as cognitive phenomenology. In fact, given Husserl’s emphasis on the importance of establishing the strictly scientific character of the philosophical enterprise, one can extend this claim even further: cognitive phenomenology is, if Husserl is correct, the only truly rigorous foundation for the enterprise of cognitive science. We will investigate this claim at the conclusion of this essay. But first, we need to understand Hussei’s position with respect to the nature and function of minds. Since Husserl’s reflections on the structure of mental experience developed in large part out of an attempt to resolve the enigma of objective reference, I will present a capsule view of his proposed resolution to this problem. In the process, I will attempt to show that Husserl viewed mental operations as transactions—specifically, intentional transactions—between the life of conscious subjectivity and all that stands over and against consciousness as an object or objective state of affairs. In the end, it may be possible to show that Husserl’s theory of intentionality should be a crucial ingredient in any attempt to model or comprehend the functional nature of the human mind.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Footnotes
Husserl’s interest in mental experience can be traced to his earliest publications, written under influence of Franz Brentano and Kasimir Twardowski. Many of these writings have been collected together in Aufsatze and Rezensionen (1890–1910) edited by Bernhard Rang, Husserliana 22 (Nijhoff: The Hague, 1979).
See also Klaus Hedwig, “Intention: Outlines for the History of a Phenomenological Concept,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 39, pp. 326–340.
Husserl calls this the “natural attitude,” and discusses its relation to phenomenology in Ideas I (1913).
Susanne K. Langer, Philosophy in a New Key (Harvard University Press, 1957), pp. 26ff.
Cf. a similar discussion by Husserl in Erste Philosophie (1923/24), Zweiter Teil: Theorie der Phänomenologischen Reduktion, Husserliana 8, edited by R. Boehn (Nijhoff, 1959) pp. 47ff.
As Husserl puts the matter in his Lectures on Passive Synthesis (1918–26), the conception under which a given object is intended can never be known to have exhausted the possible determinations of a given object. But our prescriptions may nevertheless “suffice” for our pragmatic or practical interests. See his discussion in Analysen zur Passiven Synthesis (1918–26), Husserliana II, edited by Margon Fleischer (Nijhoff, 1966), pp. 23ff.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 D. Reidel Publishing Company
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tuedio, J.A. (1988). Intentional Transaction as a Primary Structure of Mind. In: Otto, H.R., Tuedio, J.A. (eds) Perspectives on Mind. Synthese Library, vol 194. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4033-8_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4033-8_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8290-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-4033-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive