透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.216.123.120
  • 期刊

胡塞爾現象學心理學與超越論的現象學於認識的一致性上的交會與各自的矛盾

The intersection and contradiction between Husserl's Transcendental Phenomenology and Psychological Phenomenology in concordance of cognition

若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


本文首先說明胡塞爾如何解釋認識主體跨越個別性達到認識一致性,即運用現象學心理學還原說明移情作用,再以超越論的現象學還原來奠定認識的確然。接著討論胡塞爾為何主張該二學科必得相互內含(implicit)始能作為超越論本質的現象學(eidetic phenomenology)去究明成就了認識一致性的意向相關,並述及兩學科若獨立運作會於該議題上出現的不足,也就是現象學心理學由於預設了自我主體的自明性而缺乏確然真相作為足夠穩固的研究根基,超越論的現象學則是無法在缺乏「身體作為人(即自我)的指標」的自我主觀意識下去單獨解釋移情作用。本文接著歸結出上述不足原因來自於學科原則與胡塞爾自身理念在「意識的等同綜合者是否可能超出認識主體」上的不一致,最後則延續現象學理念,試著提出得以貫徹學科精神的可能解方。

並列摘要


In general, cognition process seems begin and end only in one's mind, where both perception and consciousness take place. However, daily life experiences tell us that organic subjectivities can communicate with each other by perceiving or being conscious of the same thing in the world. Here comes a question: How does the cognizing subjectivity not being limited in the mental life of its own, but let its mental content penetrate others', or join the same mental world with others, that is, how to make different cognizing subjectivities cognize the same objectivities? And in this paper I use "the concordant cognition" to describe that kind of cognition. I will first illustrate how Husserl solved this question by Phenomenological cognition system: He applied Psychological- Phenomenological reduction to explain the operation of Empathy, so as to claim that different cognizing subjectivities will in the same step of cognition adequacy accomplishment when facing the same objectivities. Then Transcendental Phenomenological reduction was applied to establish cognition apodicticity. This shows why Husserl stated only if the two disciplines complement mutually can concordant cognition be well explicated. Psychological Phenomenology lacks apodictic truth to be its foundation on account of presupposing ego-subject is evident. Transcendental Phenomenology is not able to supple Empathy without applying ego-subject and thus ignoring its principle. This paper discusses difficulties the two disciplines face separately, and thus finds out "Meeting the issue of whether Identifying Synthesis is carried out by one transcends the cognizing subject, Husserl's idea and purpose are in fact violate the principles of two disciplines" as the root cause of these contradictions. At the end, I will try to find way out of the problem while following regulations of Phenomenology. The solutions I supposed is either accept Solipsism, or modify Transcendental Phenomenology by replacing ego-subject with what I called "world subjectivity".

參考文獻


胡塞爾(Edmund Husserl)著,王炳文譯:《第一哲學研究》,北京市 : 商務印書館, 2006。(原著出版年﹕1923/1924 年)
胡塞爾(Edmund Husserl)著,(荷)舒曼編,李幼蒸譯:《純粹現象學通論 : 純粹現象學和現象學哲學的觀念第一卷》,北京市 : 商務, 1996。(原著出版年﹕1913 年)
胡塞爾(Edmund Husserl)著,倪梁康譯:《內时间意识现象学》,北京市 : 商务印书馆, 2010。(原著出版年﹕1928 年)
胡塞爾(Edmund Husserl)著,張憲譯:《笛卡兒的沈思 : 現象學導論》,台北巿 : 桂冠, 1992。(原著出版年﹕1931 年)
胡塞爾(Edmund Husserl)著,黃文宏譯:《大英百科全書草稿》,2018。(未出版講義)(原著出版年﹕1927-28 年)

延伸閱讀