Advertisement

Commentary on Tuedio’s “Intentional Transaction”

Chapter
  • 95 Downloads
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 194)

Abstract

The distinctive aspect of James Tuedio’s interpretation of Husserl is the concept of phenomenon “X” within a fourfold noesis-noema-phenomenon-object scheme. It is employed to account for how we can perceive specific objects in the world (the problem of objective reference) and how perceptual knowledge of objects can be corrected or supplemented by further experience (intentional transactions). Most interpreters of Husserl use a threefold scheme, noesis-noema-object, differing with one another about the relationship of the latter two. Some consider the noema to be, or to be part of, the object; while others claim that the noema is not to be identified with the object in any way. In my remarks below I will first explain what I believe to be at stake in these differences and then discuss Tuedio’s interpretation within that context. This will require that I give my own interpretation of what Husserl thought the relationship between noema and object to be. I aim to show that what Husserl was trying to do philosophically is not captured by Tuedio’s scheme, and that his scheme is problematic even as a conceptual framework for a cognitive psychology.

Keywords

Objective Reference Flowing Sense Regulative Idea Perceptual Knowledge Transcendental Phenomenology 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Footnotes

  1. Husserl, Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, translated by F. Kersten. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague. 1982. Sections 41, 85 and 98. Kersten translates Auffassung as “construing.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Husserl, Analysen zur passiven Synthesis, Husserliana 11, edited by Margot Fleischer, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, (1966), p. 20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1988

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations