Guillaume Fréchette

Johannes Daubert est la figure centrale du Cercle de Munich ainsi que le premier véritable lecteur et critique de Husserl. Ses manuscrits contiennent, en plus d'une critique de la phénoménologie husserlienne, une conception originale de la phénoménologie laissant notamment une place importante aux analyses perceptives. Le présent article s'intéresse d'abord aux thèmes du donné et de l'évidence en tant qu'ils sont des motifs centraux à la fois chez Husserl et Daubert, pour ensuite relever, à partir d'une étude des manuscrits pertinents, la particularité des analyses daubertiennes concernant ces thèmes, ainsi que les contraintes ou limites que la phénoménologie doit s'imposer pour notamment se distinguer du rationalisme.Johannes Daubert is the central figure of the Munich Circle as well as the first real critical reader of Husserl. His manuscripts contain, in addition to a critique of the husserlian phenomenology, an original conception of phenomenology leaving a significant place to the perceptive analyses. This article is initially concerned with the topics of the given and of the evidence as they are central themes in Husserl's and Daubert's works, for then raising, starting from a study of the relevant manuscripts, the peculiarity of the daubertian analyses concerning these topics, as well as the constraints or limits that the phenomenology must impose itself to be distinguished from the Rationalism

In the present paper, I try to shed some light on the Munich-Göttingen conception of essences, laws of essence, and ideal objects. I first start with a preliminary account of their conception of the synthetic a priori at the basis of their conception of essence (§2); I then offer a first characterization of this conception, which I label as metaphysical realism (§3), highlighting its key concept: foundation (§4). In the last four sections (§§5-8), I discuss different outcomes of this conception of essences: the nature of laws of essences (§5), different categories of essences (§6) and anumericity (§7).

Is phenomenology nothing else than descriptive psychology? In the first edition of his Logical Investigations (LI), Husserl conceived of phenomenology as a description and analysis of the experiences of knowledge, unequivocally stating that “phenomenology is descriptive psychology.” Most interestingly, although the first edition of the LI was the reference par excellence in phenomenology for the Munich phenomenologists, they remained suspicious of this characterisationof phenomenology. The aim of this paper is to shed new light on the reception of descriptive psychology among Munich phenomenologists and, at the same time, to offer a re-evaluation of their understanding of realist phenomenology.

Dans l’essai Objets intentionnels de 1894, Husserl développe en réaction à Twardowski une théorie originale de l’assomption comme solution au problème des représentations sans objet. Après avoir examiné le détail de cette théorie et en avoir soulevé les difficultés, je montre dans cet article que la solution proposée par cette théorie doit être abordée de manière indépendante de celle qui sera développée plus tard dans les Recherches logiques et j’expose dans quelle mesure elle est ancrée dans la psychologie descriptive brentanienne tout en mettant à profit certains outils de la logique de Bolzano. Enfin, j’indique que Husserl continuera à développer cette théorie après les Recherches logiques, confirmant ainsi qu’elle occupe une place de choix dans la théorie phénoménologique du jugement.In his essay Intentional Objects of 1894, Husserl develops in response to Twardowski an original theory of assumptions as a solution to the problem of objectless presentations. First, I analyze in this paper the main points of his theory and point out some of the difficulties it raises. I then suggest that the solution presented in this theory must be addressed independently of the one developed by Husserl later in the Logical Investigations and try to show in which extent his theory of assumptions is rooted in the brentanian descriptive psychology, although it makes good use of some logical tools from Bolzano’s Wissenschaftslehre. Since Husserl continues to work on this theory even after the Logical Investigations, it confirms the important place one should give to the theory of assumptions it the phenomenological theory of judgment

This volume presents thirteen essays on intentionality, with a strong focus on historical issues—nine articles deal with the concepts of intentionality in Spinoza, Leibniz, Bolzano, Brentano, Marty, Husserl, and Pfänder—but also taking into consideration some contemporary issues about intentionality, especially from the perspective of externalism and on the question of collective intentionality. The wide variety of topics, historical periods, and perspectives presented in this volume bears witness to the fact that intentionality is widely acknowledged as a central phenomenon in philosophy of mind, despite the fact that there has thus far been no consensus on the methodology of investigation of this phenomenon—neither in the historical development of the concept, nor in its contemporary use. This may be one reason why the editor refuses to take a stand on how the concept historically developed and on the role played by this concept in contemporary issues. As the editor contends, the his ..

Phenomenological accounts of self-consciousness are often said to combine two elements by means of a necessary connection: the primitive and irre- ducible subjective character of experiences and the idealist transcendental constitution of consciousness. In what follows I argue that this connection is not necessary in order for an account of self-consciousness to be phenomenological, as shown by early phenomenological accounts of self- consciousness – particularly in Munich phenomenology. First of all, I show that the account of self-consciousness defended by these phenomenologists was not influenced as much by Husserl as by two important figures in the prehistory of phenomenology: their teacher Theodor Lipps, and – indi- rectly, through Lipps’ influence – Hermann Lotze. Second, I show that their account of self-consciousness takes the metaphysical realism underlying Lotze’s and Lipps’ views on the distinction between feeling and sensations seriously. I argue that this distinction played a central role in the development of many early phenomenological accounts of self-consciousness.