Arnaud Dewalque

In this paper, I explore one particular dimension of Brentano’s legacy, namely, his theory of mental analysis. This theory has received much less attention in recent literature than the intentionality thesis or the theory of inner perception. However, I argue that it provides us with substantive resources in order to conceptualize the unity of intentionality and phenomenality. My proposal is to think of the connection between intentionality and phenomenality as a certain combination of part/whole relations rather than as a supervenience or identity relation. To begin, I discuss some reasons for being a (neo-)Brentanian about the mind and briefly introduce the main characteristics of Brentano’s internalist description program. Then, I turn to the current “inseparatist” way of dealing with intentionality and phenomenality, focusing on the demand for unity coming from advocates of phenomenal intentionality. I suggest that the unity of the mind may be put in a new light if we put aside metaphysical–epistemological questions, go back to Brentano’s description program, and endorse his thesis that the mental is something unified in which various parts must be distinguished. In the last section, I draw some lessons from this approach, holding that, for any representational content R, R is (in Brentano’s terms) an abstractive or “distinctional” part of the relevant state and that, for any qualitative aspect Q, Q is an abstractive or “distinctional” part of the relevant representational content R.

Mon objectif est d’examiner les raisons qui ont poussé Rickert à affirmer la nécessité d’une analyse logique des sciences historiques en dépit du reproche de « formalisme » qui lui a été adressé. Revenant sur le débat qui l’oppose aux partisans d’une articulation purement ontologique ou « matérielle » des sciences empiriques, jesouligne que l’adoption d’un point de vue logique et « formel » a simplement chez lui la signification d’un procédé méthodique provisoire dont le but n’est pas de supprimer toutes considérations ontologiques sur les objets historiques, mais plutôt de fournir un soubassement critique pour de telles considérations à l’aide de la « disjonction logique » entre « sciences généralisantes » et « sciences individualisantes ». Ce procédé doit permettre, in fine, d’indiquer de façon formelle et suffisamment englobante ce qu’est un objet historique quelconque, donc de fonder, pour ainsi dire, une ontologie formelle de l’historique.The goal of this article is to clarify the reasons why Rickert maintains the necessity to perform a logical analysis of historical sciences despite of the objection of « formalism » one has raised against him. Taking into account his opposition to the representatives of a merely ontological or « material » articulation of empirical sciences, I suggest that Rickert’s defence of a logical and « formal » approach simply means a provisional method whose purpose is not to eliminate all ontological considerations about historical objects, but rather to provide a critical grounding for such considerations by means of the « logical disjunction » between « generalizing sciences » and « individualizing sciences ». This method must finally indicate what is any historical object in the formal broadest sense of the term. It has therefore to ground, so to speak, a formal ontology of historical object.