Article Sidebar
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
The editorial policy on copyright is not to hold restrictive copyright on manuscripts for publication in the journal, but to require authors to assign to the Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology the right to publish their texts both electronically and in any other format they see fit, along with the right to store manuscripts in an electronic archive. As with accepted scholarly practice, authors wishing to quote text from this journal must cite in full the details of the author, title, journal title, edition number and date of the article/s they wish to cite. The IPJP's policy in this regard accords with the best practice models supported by SHERPA. Authors might also wish to visit the SPARC hosted site dealing authors' rights as well as the Scholarly Communications section of the Duke University Library.
Main Article Content
Husserl, Heidegger, and the Transcendental Dimension of Phenomenology
Abstract
Understanding phenomenology as a philosophical approach in which human-world relationships are analysed, as well as the constitution of subjectivity and objectivity within these relationships, this paper addresses some issues related to the transcendental dimension in the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl. An attempt is also made to re-address some issues related to phenomenology and its transcendental dimension as understood by adherents of hermeneutical phenomenology such as Paul Ricoeur. In essence, the focus of the paper is on exploring the following issues: what is this transcendental turn in Husserl’s philosophy? Is this an ‘unfortunate turn’ toward a neo-Kantian brand of transcendental idealism? What is the significance of this transcendental dimension in Husserl’s phenomenology? Is there any distinctive phenomenological programme that, despite their differences, is common to both Husserl and Heidegger? This line of questioning proceeds from the observations made by Paul Ricoeur that, “with the development of his ‘hermeneutics of facticity’, Heidegger rejected Husserl’s neo-Kantian brand of transcendental phenomenology in favour of a de-transcendental and historicized way of doing philosophy, that
Heidegger understood the subject to be ‘factic’, in contrast to Husserl’s pure ego as the source of the world constitution”(Hahn, 1995). Ultimately, however, the thrust of this exploration is towards understanding the transcendental way of doing philosophy and the so-called historicized way of philosophizing as two distinct ways to reach one common goal, the transcendental dimension of meaning.
Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, Volume 7, Edition 1 May 2007
Heidegger understood the subject to be ‘factic’, in contrast to Husserl’s pure ego as the source of the world constitution”(Hahn, 1995). Ultimately, however, the thrust of this exploration is towards understanding the transcendental way of doing philosophy and the so-called historicized way of philosophizing as two distinct ways to reach one common goal, the transcendental dimension of meaning.
Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, Volume 7, Edition 1 May 2007
