Philippe S. Blouin

The present paper explores anew the question of Husserl’s metaphysics by contrasting H. Philipse and D. Zahavi’s respective position on the matter. I argue that these positions fall victim to opposing exegetical pitfalls. On the one hand, while I concur with Philipse’s general characterisation of Husserl as an ontological phenomenalist, I disagree that this implies Husserl was a subjective idealist similar to Berkeley. On the other hand, while Zahavi’s correlationist interpretation of Husserl avoids this subjective idealist interpretation, I argue that it inadvertently succumbs to the realist alternative that construes the world as existing independently from subjectivity. The way out of this dilemma is to interpret Husserl as an experiential monist, where the phenomenal stream (Erlebnisstrom) is taken to be ontologically primary, by virtue of its antecedence over the subject-object or mind-world dichotomy.

The present article has for main purpose to reassess the meaning and validity of Husserl’s distinction between living (erleben) and perceiving (wahrnehmen), in response especially to Claude Romano’s critique of the adumbration (Abschattung) theory of perception and of phenomenological idealism. To do so, we examine firstly the way in which Husserl develops this distinction in the Logical Investigations, and attempt to identify certain early motifs behind the transcendental turn. A comparison of the Husserlian conception of experience with William James’ descriptive psychology is in this regard instructive. Finally, we argue that it is the thesis that perception is grounded in lived experience, or that identical being is grounded in fluent being, that ultimately allows Husserl to overcome certain difficulties related to the Cartesian way towards the phenomenological reduction.