Search

There are many ways to describe gender, making this notion both productive and challenging for phenomenological analysis. This paper will begin with an eidetic/static analysis in order to determine the multiple aspects of gender--from individual experience to intersubjective concept. We will then shift to a genetic analysis, looking also to how gender appears at distinct phenomenological levels of experience. In doing so, we hope to gain not only a better understanding of gender through a phenomenological lens, but also new insights into phenomenology itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How are we able to experience values? Two sides are competing in contemporary literature: 'Meinongians' (represented notably by Christine Tappolet) claim that axiological properties are apprehended in emotions, while 'Hildebrandians' (represented in particular by Ingrid Vendrell Ferran) assert that such experiences of value (or valueceptions) are accomplished in special 'value feelings', and that emotions are only responses to these felt values. In this paper, I study the Husserlian viewpoint on this issue. I reveal that, contrary to what almost all scholars have assumed so far, Husserl's position is not reducible to Meinong's and must on the contrary be regarded as an innovative and stimulating approach that helps unifying the two standard frameworks. It indeed recognizes (with Hildebrandians) the existence of non-emotional value feelings, while maintaining (with Meinongians) that originary axiological experiences are necessarily emotional. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I contend that the core intuition that resides at the basis of Scheler's metaethics is expressed through the formal axiological distinction between things, goods, and values. I pursue a twofold aim: 1) to show that Scheler implicitly operates within Husserl's concept of 'unitary foundation' when describing how values inhere within goods; 2) to compare Scheler's metaethical argument concerning the independence of a world of goods with Hare's 'indiscernibility argument'. Scheler's reversal of Hare's argument confronts us with the formal-ontological difference between the analytic account of supervenience and the phenomenological account of unitary foundation. My argument is based on the formalization of the second type of unitary foundation that Husserl outlines in his Third Logical Investigation. The second type of unitary foundation is usually conflated with the first type of unitary foundation, as a result of the gross mistakes found in Findlay's English translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present article I aim to make a new contribution to our phenomenological understanding of the foundation between intentional experiences. In order to accomplish this goal, I discuss Husserl's effort to avoid the conflation of the class of non-objectifying acts, i.e., evaluations and volitions, with the class of objectifying acts, i.e., cognitions. Through the analysis of the transition from his early to his mature account, I explore how Husserl, by readdressing the idea of foundation in relation to the shift from the practical-evaluative to the theoretical attitude, clarifies how evaluations and volitions can exert their intentionality only on the basis of a foundation on cognitions without thereby being reduced to a mere special case of founded representations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]