Fenomenologia in "prima" e in "terza" persona: Searle e Dennett critici di Husserl
Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia December 29, 2014 DOI: 10.4453/rifp.2014.0022 via DOAJ
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractSearle and Dennett each reinterpreted Husserl's concept of intentionality, transforming it into a third-person model of description. This shift creates problematic consequences: it blurs the distinction between a mental act and its content, undermines the representational theory of mind, targets the Cartesian Theater and Homunculus arguments, and rejects the notion of the Unconscious. Both positions stem from a contradictory reductionism also present in naturalized phenomenology and neurophenomenology. These difficulties cannot be resolved by adapting phenomenology to cognitive science or returning to Husserl. Instead, specific problems such as the temporal structure of consciousness and unconscious mental contents should be addressed phenomenologically within a scientific context.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Philosophy of mind |
| Keywords | Analytic philosophy Theory of consciousness Cognitive sciences |
| Key finding | Searle's and Dennett's third-person modifications of Husserl's phenomenology lead to problematic consequences that cannot be resolved by naturalizing phenomenology or returning to Husserl, but require addressing specific phenomenological problems like temporal structure and unconscious contents. |
Abstract
“First” and “Third” Person Phenomenology: Searle and Dennett Critics of Husserl - In this paper I compare Searle’s and Dennett’s philosophies of mind with Husserl’s theory of consciousness. My aim is to show how they modified the phenomenological concept of intentionality turning it into a “third-person” model of description. This change leads to problematic consequences concerning mainly (i) the distinction between a mental act and its content, and the related criticism of the representational theory of mind; (ii) the Cartesian Theater argument and the related Homunculus argument as well as the claim that the notion of subjectivity needs to be dismantled; (iii) the rejection of the Unconscious. I my view Searle’s and Dennett’s positions follow from embracing a contradictory notion of reductionism, which is also implicit in the developments of “naturalized phenomenology” and neurophenomenology. These difficulties cannot be solved by adapting or applying the phenomenological method to cognitive sciences, nor even by merely returning to Husserl’s theory. Rather, we need to determine what specific problems can be phenomenologically addressed in a scientific context: for instance the temporal structure of consciousness and the issue of the unconscious contents of mind.