Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie

Ed. by de Boer, Karin / Carriero, John / Horn, Christoph / Meyer, Susan Sauvé / Serck-Hanssen, Camilla

Editorial Board: Adamson, Peter / Allen, James V. / Bartuschat, Wolfgang / Curley, Edwin M / Emilsson, Eyjólfur Kjalar / Floyd, Juliet / Förster, Eckart / Frede, Dorothea / Friedman, Michael / Garrett, Don / Grasshoff, Gerd / Guyer, Paul / Irwin, Terence / Kahn, Charles H. / Knuuttila, Simo / Koistinen, Olli / Kosch, Michelle / Kraut, Richard / Longuenesse, Béatrice / McCabe, Mary / Pasnau, Robert / Perler, Dominik / Radcliffe, Elizabeth S. / Reginster, Bernard / Simmons, Alison / Timmermann, Jens / Trifogli, Cecilia / Weidemann, Hermann / Zöller, Günter

CiteScore 2018: 0.53

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.395
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.195

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 101, Issue 3


Re-examining Husserl’s Non-Conceptualism in the Logical Investigations

Chad Kidd
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Philosophy, City College of New York (CUNY), 160 Convent Avenue New York NY 10031 New York, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-10-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2019-3004


A recent trend in Husserl scholarship takes the Logische Untersuchungen (LU) as advancing an inconsistent and confused view of the non-conceptual content of perceptual experience. Against this, I argue that there is no inconsistency about non-conceptualism in LU. Rather, LU presents a hybrid view of the conceptual nature of perceptual experience, which can easily be misread as inconsistent, since it combines a conceptualist view of perceptual content (or matter) with a non-conceptualist view of perceptual acts. I show how this hybrid view is operative in Husserl’s analyses of essentially occasional expressions and categorial intuition. And I argue that is also deployed in relation to Husserl’s analysis of the constitution of perceptual fullness, which allows it to avoid an objection raised by Walter Hopp – that the combination of Husserl’s analysis of perceptual fullness with conceptualism about perceptual content generates a vicious regress.

  • Barber, M. D. 2008. “Holism and Horizon: Husserl and McDowell on Non-Conceptual Content.” Husserl Studies 24, 79–97.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bermúdez, J. L. 2007. “What Is at Stake in the Debate on Nonconceptual Content?” Philosophical Perspectives 21, 55–72.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • de Boer, T. 1978. The Development of Husserl’s Thought. Trans. by T. Plantinga. The Hague.Google Scholar

  • Crowther, T. M. 2006. “Two Conceptions of Conceptualism and Nonconceptualism.” Erkenntnis 65, 245–76.Google Scholar

  • Duhau, L. 2011. “Perceptual Nonconceptualism: Disentangling the Debate Between Content and State Nonconceptualism.” European Journal of Philosophy 22, 358–70.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Doyon, M. 2011. “Husserl and McDowell on the Role of Concepts in Perception.” New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy 11, 42–74.Google Scholar

  • Dreyfus, H. L. 1982. “Husserl’s Perceptual Noema.” In Husserl, Intentionality, and Cognitive Science. Eds. H. Dreyfus/H. Hall, Cambridge, MA, 97–123.Google Scholar

  • Drummond, J. 1990. Husserlian Intentionality and Non-Foundational Realism: Noema and Object. Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Evans, G. 1982. Varieties of Reference. Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Heck, R. 2000. “Nonconceptual Content and the ‘Space of Reasons’.” Philosophical Review 109, 483–523.Google Scholar

  • –. 2007. “Are There Different Kinds of Content?” In Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind. Eds. B. McLaughlin/J. Cohen, Oxford, 117–38.Google Scholar

  • Hopp, W. 2008. “Husserl on Sensation, Perception, and Interpretation.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38, 1–28.Google Scholar

  • –. 2010. “How to Think About Nonconceptual Content.” The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy 10, 1–24.Google Scholar

  • –. 2011. Perception and Knowledge. Cambridge.Google Scholar

  • Husserl, E. 1970. Logical Investigations. Trans. by J. N. Findlay. Vols. I and II. London.Google Scholar

  • –. 1975. Logische Untersuchungen. Ed. E. Holenstein. The Hague.Google Scholar

  • –. 2003. Philosophy of Arithmetic. Trans. d. Willard. Dordrecht.Google Scholar

  • Kaplan, D. 1989. “Demonstratives.” In Themes From Kaplan. Eds. J. Almog/J. Perry, H. Wettstein/D. Kaplan. Oxford, 481–563.Google Scholar

  • Kidd, C. 2014. “Husserl’s Phenomenological Theory of Intuition.” In Rational Intuition. Eds. D. Osbeck/B. Held. Cambridge, 131–50.Google Scholar

  • Kjosavik, F. 2003. “Perceptual Intimacy and Conceptual Inadequacy: A Husserlian Critique of McDowell’s Internalism.” In Zahavi 2003, 49–71.Google Scholar

  • Leung, K.-W. 2010. “Meaning and Intuitive Act in the Logical Investigations.” Husserl Studies 27, 125–42.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • McDowell, J. 1996. Mind and World: with a New Introduction. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

  • –. 2009. “Avoiding the Myth of the Given.” In McDowell 2003, 256–72.Google Scholar

  • –. 2003. Having the Word in View. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

  • Mooney, T. 2010. “Understanding and Simple Seeing in Husserl.” Husserl Studies 26, 19–48.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Mulligan, K. 1995. “Perception.” In The Cambridge Companion to Husserl. Eds B. Smith/D. Woodruff Smith. Cambridge, 168–238.Google Scholar

  • Mulligan, K./Smith, B. 1986. “A Husserlian Theory of Indexicality.” Grazer Philosophische Studien 28, 133–63.Google Scholar

  • Simons, P. 1982. “The Formalization of Husserl’s Theory of Parts and Wholes.” In Parts and Moments: Studies in Logic and Formal Ontology. Ed. B. Smith, 113–59. München.Google Scholar

  • Smith, D. W. 1982. “Husserl on Demonstrative Reference and Perception.” In Husserl, Intentionality, and Cognitive Science. Eds. H. Dreyfus/H. Hall, 1–21. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

  • Speaks, J. 2005. “Is There a Problem About Nonconceptual Content?” Philosophical Review 114, 359–98.Google Scholar

  • Stephens, J. W. 1978 Phenomenology and Realism. An Essay on Husserl’s “Logical Investigations”. PhD. Princeton.Google Scholar

  • Toribio, J. 2008. “State Versus Content: The Unfair Trial of Perceptual Nonconceptualism.” Erkenntnis 69, 351–61.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • van Mazijk, C. 2016. “Kant and Husserl on the Contents of Perception.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 54, 267–87.Google Scholar

  • Willard, D. 1972. “The Paradox of Logical Psychologism: Husserl’s Way Out.” American Philosophical Quarterly 9, 94–100.Google Scholar

  • Williford, K. 2013. “Husserl’s Hyletic Data and Phenomenal Consciousness.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 12, 501–19.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Zahavi, D. 2003. Metaphysics, Facticity, Interpretation. Phenomenology in the Nordic Countries. Dordrecht.Google Scholar

  • –. 1992. “Constitution and Ontology: Some Remarks on Husserl’s Ontological Position in the Logical Investigations.” Husserl Studies 9, 111–24.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-10-01

Published in Print: 2019-10-01

Citation Information: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, Volume 101, Issue 3, Pages 407–444, ISSN (Online) 1613-0650, ISSN (Print) 0003-9101, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2019-3004.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in