Search

There are two standpoints in Husserl’s phenomenology: subjectivism and historicism. According to Husserl’s subjectivism, things are constituted by an act of consciousness. For example, a desk is constituted (perceived) only if some appearances are regarded as the manner in which the desk is given to consciousness. The same explanation applies to ideal objects. For instance, the number “5” is constituted (known) only if a subject regards a certain representation of a group (such as a group of apples) as the manner in which “5” is given. However, Husserl also emphasizes the historical structure of knowledge of ideal objects. From this perspective, ideal objects are thought to have a public nature in the sense that they are possessed by humankind before being known by each subject. Thus, it is clear that the range of this historical interest is not entirely contained in that of the subjective one. We must ask how these two standpoints relate to each other in Husserl’s phenomenology. We confront a serious discrepancy between subjectivism and historicism, especially when we identify the former with “non-historical apriorism” because of the following idea: the evidence of knowledge is found only in individual subjects who actually recognize it. It is true that this kind of apriorism is incompatible with historicism, which focuses on the intersubjective aspect of our knowledge. I do not interpret Husserl’s phenomenology as an apriorism in the above sense. The purpose of this paper is to examine the historical or intersubjective aspect of the theory of constitution and to suggest a consistent understanding of Husserl’s phenomenology. For this purpose, I want to clear the historical immanence of intentional consciousness by referring to Husserl’s Origin of Geometry.

自由論文, 韓国最大の港湾都市である釜山は、韓国の民主化の歴史上、運動を先導した中心地の一つに数えられる。ところが、こうした釜山の民主化の歴史は、釜山の都市イメージの構成要素としては決して大きな位置を占めていない。 本論は、そうした点を前提として、現代韓国における「釜山の民主化の歴史」に内在する「問題点」について考察する。これは、「歴史性」の観点から都市イメージ研究へのフィードバックを試みるものであり、あわせて都市史・地方史としての釜山史研究への可能性を指摘しようとする研究である。, Busan has been the biggest harbor city in Korea, and ranked as one of the centers in democratization history of Korea. However, the history of democratization is not necessarily important as a component of the city image in Busan. This article argues the problem about the history of democratization of Busan in contemporary Korea. That is also the attempt to feed back the examination into city image studies, and to point out a possibility of the study of Busan history as an urban planning history or a local history.