Pedro Alves

In this essay, I analyze the relationship between the static and genetic versions of Phenomenology. Contrary to certain important interpretations, which I discuss, I defend the thesis that genetic phenomenology is not a simple extension and deepening of its initial “static” formulation. Thus, I argue that it is an absorption by self-transformation of areas that had been expressly excluded so that the initial, “static” Phenomenology could be delimited. In particular, I highlight two themes. The first is that of the genetic-causal psychological dimension, which, in the wake of Brentano, had been excluded. The genetic version of Phenomenology assimilates this dimension, no longer as causal genesis but as transcendental genesis, opening the door to analyses of passivity and active genesis. The second theme concerns the concrete life of subjectivity and its community and historical insertion, which had been methodically set aside in order to delimit the field of nascent transcendental Phenomenology. Now, going beyond Brentano towards Dilthey's project of a “psychological” foundation of the sciences of the spirit, Husserl incorporates the theme of concrete subjective experience and its internal historicity into a project, only sketched out, of a genetic and explanatory phenomenology of the singularity and internal historicity of subjective life.

In what follows, I intend to address an issue which is at the boundaries of the phenomenological method of reflective explication, and that, in this sense, points to some limitations of the phenomenological approach to consciousness and mind. I am referring to an aporetic situation that is at the heart of the phenomenological analysis of passivity. On the one hand, phenomenology shows, at least indirectly, a passive life that is beyond the first steps of the activity of the ego in the receptive, affective life. This is something that is beyond the rising of an ego, and from which a phenomenology of the ego-form of subjective life could be addressed. On the other hand, the analytic and conceptual tools of the phenomenological method have no grips on this basic realm of subjective life. As a result, Husserl’s analysis of passivity starts with the evidence of a pre-affective, pre-egoic realm, from which a phenomenology of the ego could be developed. However, Husserl’s analyses end up with the denegation of this dimension, as if it was invisible for the phenomenological method. As a consequence, the starting point of the analysis is not passivity proper, but rather the primitive forms of receptivity, which is already a first layer of the activity of the ego. Instead of an analysis of the ego-polarization (the “birth” of the ego), the egoic layer of conscious life is simply presupposed. A phenomenology of the ego-form is, thus, at the same time promised and denied. This aporetic situation is visible in the alteration of the concept of a passive pre-givenness in Husserl’s Analysis Concerning Passive Synthesis.

I discuss, from a phenomenological point of view, the distinction between judgments and norms. I stress the limits of the Husserlian canonical analysis in order to rightly account for the sense and content of normative intentionality. Based on some Kelsenian insights, I draw a clear distinction between judgments and norms, criticizing some classical trends coming from Husserl himself that consider norms as a kind of intentionality founded upon objectifying acts. However, taking distance from Kelsen, Kaufmann, and Cossio, I stress that the ought-proposition (Sollsatz) cannot be a good rendering of the sense-content of norms, based on the phenomenological distinction between the intentional matter and the quality of intentional acts. Finally, I propose my own account based on the concept of “ductive force”. I stress that the ductive force of norms cannot be identified with simple coercion. I show that there is, even inside the juridical sphere, a variety of ductive forces, going from sheer coercion to council and recommendation. To end, I stress the centrality of the concept of “ductive force” for a phenomenology of the social world.

Este artigo trata das dimensões consciente e inconsciente da vida mental. Distingo o sentido transitivo da consciência, estar consciente de algo, intencionalidade, do sentido adjetival ou adverbial, estar consciente ou conscientemente direcionado a algo. Mostro que um ato intencional pode ser consciente ou inconsciente no segundo sentido e argumento que, a partir dessa posição, podemos formular boas perguntas sobre o que é a consciência e sua função na vida mental. Para alcançar esse resultado, começo enquadrando o tópico na tradição da psicologia anterior a Husserl, ou seja, Lipps e Brentano, e, em seguida, descrevo a dimensão inconsciente a partir do aparato conceitual da fenomenologia.

Neste artigo, discuto a interpretação de Fisette a respeito da filosofia da mente de Brentano contra o pano de fundo das modernas teorias de ordem superior, especialmente na versão de Rosenthal. Ao reconhecer a verdade da interpretação de Fisette da psicologia de Brentano como uma teoria de primeira ordem, examino detidamente as teses de que todos os estados mentis são estados conscientes, ou podem se tornar estados conscientes, e de que a consciência de primeira ordem de alguns estados mentais deve ser explicada como auto-consciência. Discordo com ambas as teses e proponho uma imagem geral dos estados mentais e da consciência a partir de algumas intuições vindas de Leibniz e não de Aristóteles e Descartes.

In this paper I intend to understand from a phenomenological point of view the relationship between figurative consciousness and other non-original presentations, such as expectations, remembrances or fantasies. My analysis is focused on the difference between figurative consciousness, on the one hand, and a modality of fantasy that I call “reverie” (or daydream consciousness), on the other hand. I stress that figurative consciousness implies a pure observational ego, whereas reverie is a free construction of the ego’s own personal story. The freedom of reverie has, nevertheless, some important constraints. I emphasize the constraints that come from the passive and affective life of the ego. Finally, I propose new criteria for the phenomenological differentiation between several kinds of acts of non-original presentations (Vergegenwärtigungen).

In this paper I intend to understand from a phenomenological point of view the relationship between figurative consciousness and other non-original presentations, such as expectations, remembrances or fantasies. My analysis is focused on the difference between figurative consciousness, on the one hand, and a modality of fantasy that I call “reverie” (or daydream consciousness), on the other hand. I stress that figurative consciousness implies a pure observational ego, whereas reverie is a free construction of the ego’s own personal story. The freedom of reverie has, nevertheless, some important constraints. I emphasize the constraints that come from the passive and affective life of the ego. Finally, I propose new criteria for the phenomenological differentiation between several kinds of acts of non-original presentations (Vergegenwärtigungen).

In this chapter, I begin by presenting a phenomenological analysis of norms, supported, above all, by the analytical and conceptual tools of Husserl’s Logical Investigations, more precisely, his treatment of intentionality in the fifth investigation. I distinguish between act quality and the semantic content of norms. I name the former “ductive force,” and I locate the deontic operators—for instance, obligation, prohibition, and permission, among others—in the semantic content. On this basis, I criticize an ambiguous use of the term “duty” in the usual forms in which the normative phenomenon is analyzed, confusingly designating both a type of ductive force (the obligatory) and a particular deontic operator (the obligation). In the second half of the chapter, I move from the ductive power of norms to their basis in the social world, which I call “ductive power,” that is, the social power to establish a bond between individuals or groups. I distinguish mainly three non-overlapping axes of the social world, with respect to the type of normative binding among individuals. I designate them by the terms “sociabilitas,” “imperium,” and “oikeiosis.” In closing, I show how important institutions of the social world are based primarily, but not exclusively, on one of these types of normative binding.

The first Chapter of the collective volume “The Phenomenology of Law and Normativity,” co-written by the three editors, Pedro Alves, Panos Theodorou, and Anna Irene Baka, introduces the volume and examines the concept of normativity, exploring its multi-dimensionality and its varied interpretations across philosophical traditions. Within the analytic tradition, the Chapter briefly refers to debates concerning the multiple senses and interpretations of normativity. Rather than the analytic tradition, however, the authors recognize a more robust connection of the phenomenology of normativity with other traditions as being on the side of neo-Kantianism. Then, the authors stress that the phenomenological perspective, particularly in recent literature, incorporates historical and existential dimensions, situating normativity within concrete human experiences and social interactions. In this context, there is a defense of the joint work of phenomenologists and philosophers of law and a reference to how this collaboration echoes the once strong link between ethics and law, especially in Modern Philosophy, as the two arms of moral philosophy. The Chapter -and the volume, in general-propose a phenomenology of normativity that focuses on its application to the social world, with law being a key albeit not unique component. In so doing, the Chapter reflects, not without some minor criticisms, the “normative turn” in phenomenology, which underscores the relevance of normativity across ethics, law, and social customs, enlightening us on its pervasive influence. Finally, the Chapter presents the volume’s structure, noting its division into four parts, each containing three chapters. This organization reflects the logical progression of the volume, gradually deepening the reader’s understanding of the interplay between normativity, law, and social realities.

Against the widespread, mainstream take on the philosophy of law, this collected volume fills an important scholarly gap by introducing a phenomenological account of some of the major questions and themes of jurisprudence such as rights and norms. This volume argues that wherever there is a demand for grounding normativity, the phenomenological method can provide a priori—albeit corrigible—access to essential truths, with reference to beings and their social relationships. The present work reflects upon the place and potential impact on the theory of law and normativity stemming from the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl—largely overlooked by legal philosophers and legal theorists. Further coverage contains those who have built upon these ideas of Husserl such as Martin Heidegger, Alfred Schutz, Edith Stein, Emmanuel Levinas, and Adolf Reinach. This text addresses new issues and questions from the general perspective of the phenomenology of law. It is a response to those critical of phenomenology by presenting sober arguments in support of its potential for achieving a deeper grasp of legal normative concepts such as rights, claims, obligations, promises, and apologies. Boundaries between law and morality as well as legal and social ontologies are approached from a phenomenological perspective. It appeals to students, researchers, and professionals working in phenomenology, ethics, legal philosophy, and human rights theory and practice.

In this paper, I assess Husserl's reading of Descartes. I argue that Husserl's relationship with Descartes was a crucial element in the development of his own idea of transcendental phenomenology. I try to show that Husserl was not sensitive to the Cartesian questioning about the being of the ego sum and, from there, I argue that the ontological drift contained in Descartes does not give in to the Husserlian criticisms of “transcendental realism” and of being the precursor of “psychologism.” I characterize this limitation of the Husserlian reading as the blind spot of his appraisal of Descartes. Next, I try to show how there is an ontological horizon that Descartes only foresees and that Husserl does not see at all, locking himself into his doctrines of the temporal self-constitution of transcendental subjectivity and the ego as “absolute fact.” Finally, I argue that the horizon of being and its expression as a “there is” and not an “I am” remains irreducible to both Cartesian doubt and Husserlian epoche. I draw from this situation some theses about the space of a fundamental ontology above the regional ontic spheres of Husserl's system of a priori, eidetic knowledge.

This article deals with the conscious and unconscious dimensions of mental life. I distinguish the transitive sense of consciousness, being conscious of something, intentionality, from the adjectival or adverbial sense, being conscious or consciously directed towards something. I show that an intentional act can be conscious or unconscious in the second sense and argue that, from this position, we can ask good questions about what consciousness is and its function in mental life. To achieve this result, I begin by framing the topic in the tradition of psychology before Husserl, namely Lipps, and Brentano, and then describe the unconscious dimension from the conceptual apparatus of phenomenology.

Based on the concept of intentionality, I argue for an integrative view of mental life as a higher function of the living organism, beyond the classical oppositions and dualisms between mind and body. Next, I claim in thesis that Phenomenology has never truly isolated and addressed the problem of consciousness, given the persistent confusion between it and intentionality. Similarly, I also isolate attention from consciousness and argue, based on experience, for the existence of both conscious and unconscious mental processes. In the third section, I attempt a phenomenological description of consciousness as such, showing its high impact on mental life. Finally, some remarks are made about the difference between the concept of consciousness I propose and the classical analyses on qualia and sentience.

What, if any, are the limits of the Husserlian concept of Gegebenheit? Is there a limit beyond which nothing can be seen by the phenomenologist? In asking these questions, we allude to a distinction typical of Kantian criticism: “Grenze” or “Schranke”, limit or boundary? These same questions are reformulated in a famous review of Ideen I by Paul Natorp, a Marburg neo-Kantian who directly attacks the unlimited scope Husserl gives to the phenomenological principle of intuition. From a phenomenological point of view, however, the Achilles’ heel of the critical method lies in the impossibility of accessing by intuition, beyond phenomena, the thing-in-itself. A major consequence is that the phenomenological dissolution of the “Grenze” prescribes a limitless opening to the horizon of phenomena. But if we can speak of a limitless openness, it is because in a certain way everything gives itself to be seen. What kind of vision is this? And what kind of Gegebenheit is at work here? The Husserlian answer lies in the recovery of a concept, the “idea in the Kantian sense”, without its counterpart, the “limit”, whereas for Kant as well as for Natorp it is precisely the concept of “limit” that characterizes the gnoseological status of the “idea”.

This paper is concerned with the reappraisal of Husserl’s ontology and epistemology, sketched in book one of Ideen. The main issue is Husserl’s theory of essence and essential insight. I present the fundamental distinction between facts and essences, and, over and above it, Husserl’s defense of an a priori knowledge based on essential insight as well as his partition of the whole realm of a priori knowledge into a formal set of material, regional ontologies. I will show how the theory of essential insight presented in Ideen gives rise to several criticisms, namely those made by Neo-Kantians, like Rickert and Natorp. In the last part, I will show how the mathematical concept of an invariant under a group of variations was the leading case for Husserl’s mature notion of eidetic insight.

In the first part of this paper we try to show how the discussion of Meinong’s distinction between distributed and undistributed objects was crucial for Husserl’s thinking about the phenomenology of time consciousness. The criticism of Meinong’s thesis that the representation of a distributed object (temporal object) is an undistributed act is presented as the central point for the development of Husserl’s own thesis about the perception as a continuum of continua and about consciousness as an unitary flux of temporal phases. In a second part, we move to Brentano’s theory about original associations in the constitution of the “presence-time”. Brentano’s position about the function of phantasy as the origin of our representation of time is refused by Husserl and, as a result, the structural composition of time consciousness in phases of primal-impression, fresh memory (later “retention”) and immediate expectation (later “protention”) appears as the core form to the intuition of the present and the constitution of time. In a last section, we follow Husserl’s revision of his own analysis of fresh memory in order to understand his final position about retention as a primitive form of Vergegenwärtigung.

In this paper, I start with the opposition between the husserlian project of a phenomenology of the experience of time, started in 1905, and the mathematical and physical theory of time, as it comes out from the special theory of relativity, by Einstein, in the same year. Although the contrast between the two approaches is apparent, my aim is to show that the original program of Husserl’s time theory is the constitution of an objective time and a time of the world, starting from the intuitive giveness of time, i.e., from time as it appears. To show this, I stress the structural similarity between the original question of time, by Husserl, and the problem of a phenomenology of the space constitution, as it was first developed in the husserlian manuscripts of the XIX century, in which we find the threefold question of the origin of our space representation, of the geometrization of intuitive space and the constitution of transcendent world space. Finally, I reconsider some of Husserl’s main theses about the phenomenological constitution of objective time in the light of the main results of special relativity time-theory, introducing several corrections to central assumptions that underlie Husserl’s theory of time.

While not a phenomenologist, Fernando Gil was highly interested in some aspects of Husserl’s work. One of these aspects was Husserl’s theory of evidence. ln a notable book entitled Traité de l’évidence, he developed a throughout theory of evidence, paying close attention to the most important insights Husserl exposed his works. Gil’s theory of evidence is at the same time rooted in Phenomenology and extended beyond it in as much as he locates the first dimension of evidence ma primitive stratum hallucinating aesthesia from desire. Accounting for evidence as threefold process, going from aesthesia to presence, and then to the intellectual grasping of an individual object, the most interesting feature of his theory is the of evidence as a hallucinating process, encompassing all strata of sensitive, perceptive, and conceptual life.

In this paper, I present the main traits of the phenomenological thinking of Abranches de Soveral. I start with the work of his master Miranda Barbosa explaining the criticisms he address to the Husserlian phenomenology. I show Soveral’s approach to phenomenology is framed by the conceptions of Barbosa and the problems that, for him, phenomenology cannot answer in an accurate way. In this context, I present the fundamental tenets of Soveral’s rejoinder to his master, showing how phenomenology can be rearranged in order to formulate and to answer “the fundamental problem of knowledge”.