Maxime Doyon

Sense interaction is ubiquitous. All conscious experiences involve at least some interaction between the senses. One of the most debated questions in recent scholarship concerns the proper way of characterizing the phenomenology of multisensory experiences. According to Charles Spence and Tim Bayne (2015), the phenomenal character of multisensory integration is reducible to the co-conscious sum of modality-specific features. Following Casey O'Callaghan (2015), we can call this The Thesis of Minimal Multimodality. The main goal of the paper is to refute the thesis and show that the effect of multisensory integration is reflected in experience in a way that is not exhausted by (the sum of) modality-specific phenomenal features. Whereas O'Callaghan's strategy in trying to prove this consists in providing phenomenological evidence that runs contrary to what Spence and Bayne hold, he does not, however, put into question what has become since T. Nagel's famous essay (1974) the standard conception of the phenomenal. By drawing conceptual resources in the work of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, I will elaborate another approach and explain why the phenomenal character of experience cannot be reduced to its "what it's like" character. Phenomenal experience is thicker, and also includes various forms of bodily self-experiences and felt possibilities of action and behaviours. Building on these and like insights, the main objective of the paper is to outline a phenomenological account of multimodal perception and sensory interaction. I will draw three main conclusions. First, I will argue that both Husserl and Merleau-Ponty would, too, reject The Thesis of Minimal Multimodality and endorse the strong, Constitutive Thesis that O'Callaghan defends. More interestingly still, we will see, secondly, that the widening of phenomenal consciousness that they argue for allows to generalize the constitutive thesis, thereby showing that all perceptual experience constitutively depend on the interplay of two or more senses. Spelling out the details of this claim will bring me, thirdly, to specify the intrinsic relation between normativity and perceptual experience. In short, I will argue that the mechanisms responsible for multimodality make a phenomenological difference evaluable in normative terms.

Um den phänomenologischen Anspruch der Dekonstruktion ans Licht zu bringen, hat sich der Autor der vorliegenden Studie vorgenommen, die Bedeutungsverschiebung des Begriffs,transzendental‘ in Jacques Derridas Werk zu verfolgen. Die Untersuchung legt nahe, dass die Dekonstruktion des Begriffs ‚transzendental’ nicht als eine bloße Zurückweisung des Erbe der Transzendentalphilosophie hinausläuft. Die durch Derridas ganzes Werk hinduch stets geübte Kritik dieser umfangreichen Tradition – in all ihren Formen: mittelalterliche Onto-Theo-Logie, Kritizismus oder Phänomenologie – geht seit den allerersten Werken Derridas mit einer immer wieder betonten Notwendigkeit einher, transzendentale Fragen zu stellen, um überhaupt philosophieren zu können. Zwar gilt es, den Wert ‚transzendental’ zu dekonstruieren und die Geschichtlichkeit der transzendentalen Fragestellung kritisch zu untersuchen; es darf aber nicht vergessen werden, dass die Dekonstruktion ebenfalls nach den transzendentalen Bedingungen der Möglichkeit aller Art Phänomenen fragt. In diesem Zusammenhang bestand die Herausforderung dieser Studie darin, der doppeldeutigen Bewegung von Kritik und Aneignung der transzendentalphilosophischen Tradition am Leitfaden der in Derridas Werk erfahrenen Bedeutungsveränderung des Begriffs ‚transzendental’ in ‚ultra’ und ‚quasi transzendental’ die sorgfältigsten Analysen zu unterwerfen.

It is often said that the ethical, political and religious writings of the later Derrida aren't phenomenological in nature. Contrary to that widespread view, the present essay argues that the central motive of all these writings - Derrida's concept of the event - is driven by the attempt to show the limits of the phenomenological concept of intentionality. This critique revolves around three key-notions: the concepts of teleology, of horizon, and the phenomenological als-Struktur. An event, Derrida maintains, has no horizon and resists every teleological reappropriation, for it never appears as such. It is in that very special, Derridian sense 'im-possible'. This impossibility is nevertheless not to be understood as a logical or metaphysical impossibility, for the impossible, Derrida affirms, happens (in the case of an invention, for example) and when it happens, it leaves traces and produces manifest effects. Indeed, when an event takes place, it affects our world and provokes thereby a reconfiguration of the possible. The impossible is in that sense a condition of possibility (of the possible). This axiomatic principle of Derrida's thinking - impossibility as possibility - leads Derrida to speak occasionally of the quasi transcendental status of deconstruction. The present essay shows how his theory of the event fits in this description and why Derrida should be regarded as a quasi transcendental philosopher.

The idea that our perceptual openness to the world is normative can mean different things. In the Kantian tradition of Peter Strawson, Wilfrid Sellars and John McDowell, this openness is essentially tied to epistemic justification, that is to say, to our readiness to provide reasons for our actions and our beliefs about how things are. In the phenomenological tradition inaugurated by Edmund Husserl, the notion of norm-responsiveness that is relevant to perceptual experience has less to do with epistemic justification than with perception’s capacity to guide action or elicit certain behaviors. In the lectures on Active and Passive Synthesis, Husserl explains how perception involves a pull towards gaining a more optimal view of the object by moving around it or scrutinizing it in various ways. On his part, Maurice Merleau-Ponty invokes the notion of norm in reference to our capacity to skillfully move our bodies and alter our points of view according to the particular demands of our perceptual situation.

Eines der Hauptanliegen der Phänomenologie Husserls besteht darin, eine Analyse der Wesensstruktur des Bewusstseins vorzunehmen. Husserls Konzeption des Bewusstseins als Bereich von Erlebnissen ist insofern ›phänomenologisch‹, als er auf eine kausale Erklärung der die mentalen Zustände begleitenden neurologischen Prozesse verzichtet, bzw. sie bewusst ausblendet. Aufgabe der Phänomenologie ist es vielmehr, die unveränderlichen und wesenshaften Eigenschaften, Strukturen und Erkenntnisleistungen des Bewusstseins in der erstpersonalen (›ich‹) Perspektive zu beschreiben.

In several of his works, Immanuel Kant insists on the transcendental role of imagination in perception. In the Kantian scholarship, this claim has been interpreted in at least three ways: it is believed that the imagination is necessary to solve the riddle of the amodal character of perception, to justify the possibility of perceptual identity across time, and to explain the possibility of perceiving particular objects as such, viz. as belonging to a specific class of objects. The paper aims to show how E. Husserl inherited these sets problems without however having recourse to the imagination at all. In the last section, I will briefly analyse two types of mixed acts where perception and imagination unite, namely image consciousness (Bildbewusstsein) and what Husserl calls perceptual phantasy (perzeptive Phantasie). I here argue that these analyses do not contradict, but rather strengthen the argument defended throughout the paper, namely that in Husserl's phenomenology, and contrary to Kant's, the imagination does not assume a synthetic or transcendental function in perception.

Since its first formulation in the 1980s, the disjunctivist theory has changed the way philosophers think about perception. Fundamentally, the disjunctivist view is a negative metaphysical thesis about the nature of perceptual experience: it is based on a refutation of the so-called “common kind claim,” that is to say, the claim that perceptions, illusions, and hallucinations are conscious experiences of the same fundamental kind. Given the importance granted to perceptual experience in the phenomenological tradition, a few commentators have, in recent years, attempted to situate the phenomenological point of view vis-à-vis these two positions. While Romano (2012) and Bower (2020) have argued that Husserl’s conception of illusions and hallucinations entails a form of conjunctive analysis, Smith (2008), Hopp (2011), and Overgaard (2018) attempted to show that Husserl’s theory of perception amounts to a kind of disjunctivism avant la lettre. In this chapter, I side with Staiti (2015) and Zahavi (2017) and argue that the very opposition between conjunctivism and disjunctivism is hardly thinkable on Husserlian grounds. After brushing in very rough strokes Husserl’s normative theory of perception, I defend this claim with two arguments. The first – dubbed the metaphysical argument – targets one core metaphysical commitment of both conjunctivism and disjunctivism, namely their defense of metaphysical realism, which I deem incompatible with Husserl’s phenomenology, whether before or after the transcendental turn. The second argument – called the phenomenological argument – targets another presupposition shared by both parties, namely the idea that “perfect hallucinations” are possible. I lay out a series of reasons as to why this idea should be resisted, and then explain how this impacts the discussion between disjunctivism and conjunctivism.

Despite all controversies that might otherwise divide them, most phenomenologists agree that consciousness entails some form of self-consciousness. In fact, they go even further, as they virtually all agree on the necessity of fleshing out this insight in bodily terms: from the phenomenological point of view, self-consciousness is primarily experienced as a form of bodily self-consciousness (or self-awareness). Following Edmund Husserl's insight that the lived body (Leib), i.e. the body as it is subjectively felt or experienced, must necessarily be presupposed by all object consciousness, including the thematic consciousness of me as a body, there is a long-standing discussion within the phenomenological movement on how to conceive of this self-relation. This entry focuses on the French reception of Husserl and highlights the distinctive ways in which French phenomenologists such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Michel Henry, Jean-Paul Sartre and Jacques Derrida have elaborated on and disputed this key insight. It will be shown that discussions on this question have open onto two further debates: one revolves around the paradigmatic role Husserl grants to touch in the analysis of consciousness, while the other concerns the differences between the experience of one's own body and the experience of the body of others. Finally, we point to the fact that one's body can be experienced and evaluated as other, as is shown in the critical analyses of Frantz Fanon, Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault, and recent critical phenomenology. Here, it becomes clear that the bodily self-awareness of concrete subjects is shaped by the material conditions, norms, and discourses of their respective situation.

In the Fall of 2016, an international conference took place at Université de Montréal to reflect on the relation between the concepts of time and intentionality. Although the topic of intentionality has been very intensely investigated both within the analytic and the phenomenological traditions throughout the past century, little systematic work has been done with regard to intentionality’s temporal dimension per se. Our goal with this special issue – which contains a selection of the papers presented at the conference – is to contribute to correct this shortcoming in the current philosophical literature.

In his collection of essays Having the World in View (2009), John McDowell draws a distinction between empirical experience (conceived as the conceptual activity relevant to judgment) and empirical judgment (i.e., the full-fledged assertoric content itself ). McDowell’s latest proposal is that the form of empirical experience is transferable into judgment, but it is not itself a judgment. Taking back the view he advanced in Mind and World, McDowell now believes that perception does not have propositional content as such, but the content of perception can, however, always be actualized in a judgment. There is, in other words, a strict parallelism between the deliverances of sensibility and potential future judgments of experience. The early Husserl disagrees with this and recognizesexplicitly the existence of coherent forms of perceptual engagement with the world that is independent of the mastery of language and the use of concepts.Perception constitutes—together with certain other embodied practices—our primary mode of access to the world, and this occurs before and independently ofour thinking activity. However, the realization of the centrality of time for intentionality will lead Husserl after 1905 to recognize a kind of lawfulness internal tothe sensuous materials themselves, prior to any egoical achievement. The most immediate consequence of this paradigm change is that the very idea of non-conceptual content now seems unwarranted. Indeed, if time is that which keeps the process of sense formation unified even at the lowest levels of constitution, then the world-disclosing activity of the ego cannot be discontinuous with the conceptual realm. Against this background, it will be argued that the dialectic between the conceptual and non-conceptual ultimately makes no sense on a phenomenological basis. Once temporality has entered the scene, the only meaningful opposition that stands is that between the conceptual and pre-conceptual spheres.

The paper is organized around two ideas that come out in Steve Crowell’s Normativity and Phenomenology in Husserl and Heidegger and that I discuss critically in turn. The first concerns the reach of Crowell’s claim according to which the connection between intentionality, meaning and normativity is necessary in all forms of intentional experience. I make my point by considering the case of imagining experiences, which are—I argue—meaningful, intentional, but not necessarily normative in any relevant sense. The second question is about Crowell’s criticism of the role of bodily self-awareness in Husserl’s phenomenology of perception. While Crowell is right to maintain that the norm of proper functioning relevant to bodily skills can’t be understood as arising from a system of kinaesthetic sensations alone, I argue that bodily self-awareness still has a normative role to play in perception inasmuch as it allows me to cast my own experience in evaluative terms.

Most twentieth‐century European philosophers have attempted to think anew the Kantian question about the necessary conditions of experience. A rapid survey of last century's European philosophy would easily show that in spite of the various criticisms formulated against the very project of transcendental foundationalism, the vast majority of the philosophers in the so‐called Continental tradition have not abandoned the project of formulating transcendental arguments altogether. These transcendental inquiries into the conditions of possibility of all these phenomena are certainly more immediately visible in the early works, especially those on Husserl, but a patient reading would show that they are still very much present in the later writings as well. The overcoming of classical transcendentalism at work in deconstruction is indeed the outcome of an ultra‐transcendental strategy. In Of Grammatology, Derrida exposes this ultra‐transcendental logic for the first time when he famously claims that a “pathway” through the transcendental is necessary.

Volume XVII Part 1: Phenomenology, Idealism, and Intersubjectivity: A Festschrift in Celebration of Dermot Moran's Sixty-Fifth Birthday Part 2: The Imagination: Kant's Phenomenological Legacy Aim and Scope: The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy provides an annual international forum for phenomenological research in the spirit of Husserl's groundbreaking work and the extension of this work by such figures as Scheler, Heidegger, Sartre, Levinas, Merleau-Ponty and Gadamer. Contributors: Andreea Smaranda Aldea, Lilian Alweiss, Timothy Burns, Steven Crowell, Maxime Doyon, Augustin Dumont, Richard Kearney, Mette Lebech, Samantha Matherne, Timothy Mooney, Thomas Nenon, Matthew Ratcliffe, Alessandro Salice, Daniele De Santis, Andrea Staiti, Anthony J. Steinbock, Michela Summa, Thomas Szanto, Emiliano Trizio, and Nicolas de Warren.

The recognition of a meaningful sensory foundation of perception is central to Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. If some commentators do not hesitate to see in the notion of perceptual Gestalt a notion applicable to all domains of being, it is not a priori easy to see how it must be conceived in the more specific context of the perception of others (autrui). However, Merleau-Ponty is very clear on this point: all perception manifests itself in the form of a Gestalt, including the perception of other people. The ambition of this short study is to spell out in rough strokes how this injunction should be heard and thus to explain how others manifest themselves as Gestalts to perceptual consciousness.

Human activity is permeated by norms of all sorts: moral norms provide the 'code' for what we ought to do, norms of logic regulate how we ought to reason, scientific norms set the standards for what counts as knowledge, legal norms determine what is lawfully permitted and what isn't, aesthetic norms establish canons of beauty and shape artistic trends and practices, and socio-cultural norms provide criteria for what counts as tolerable, just, praiseworthy, or unacceptable in a community or milieu. Given the diversity of norm-governed phenomena prevailing in our everyday experience, it is not surprising that the question of normativity has recently generated important debates in philosophy. However, the more specific question concerning the nature and function of 'norms in perceptual experience' has received comparatively little attention. This volume brings together scholars from philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, and phenomenology to explore this question.

The notions of perceptual normativity and optimality have generated much discussion in the last decade or so in the literature on Merleau-Ponty. Husserl’s position on the topic has been far less extensively investigated. Surprisingly, however, Husserl wrote a great deal about the question of perceptual optimality. Not only are there a considerable number of important passages scattered throughout the manuscripts, the archive also contains a few important full texts on precisely this issue. Given the role of fulfillment for Husserl’s concept of intentionality, this should not really come as a surprise, since the teleological nature of the fulfillment structure terminates in an experience of the optimum. Hence, however marginal this topic might seem at first glance, reflecting on it rapidly leads us to the heart of Husserl’s project and sheds further light on his conception of intentional experience.