Radical Empiricism as Naturalistic Phenomenology vs. Non-naturalistic Phenomenology of Max Scheler

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
J. Edward Hackett
{"title":"Radical Empiricism as Naturalistic Phenomenology vs. Non-naturalistic Phenomenology of Max Scheler","authors":"J. Edward Hackett","doi":"10.5325/jspecphil.37.4.0503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, the author wishes to defend a naturalistic version of phenomenology rooted in and expropriated from William James’s radical empiricism against Max Scheler’s non-naturalistic phenomenology. By drawing from Jack Reynolds’s arguments for a minimal phenomenology, the author posits that radical empiricism is a middle way between the misguided self-sufficiency of transcendental phenomenology and the misguided self-sufficiency of ontological naturalism. The orthodox reading of Scheler as a dualist is found problematic, and in outlining four propositions characteristic of Scheler’s positions, the author motivates resources from Jamesian thought to argue for the superiority of a naturalistic phenomenology.","PeriodicalId":44744,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Speculative Philosophy","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Speculative Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.37.4.0503","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this article, the author wishes to defend a naturalistic version of phenomenology rooted in and expropriated from William James’s radical empiricism against Max Scheler’s non-naturalistic phenomenology. By drawing from Jack Reynolds’s arguments for a minimal phenomenology, the author posits that radical empiricism is a middle way between the misguided self-sufficiency of transcendental phenomenology and the misguided self-sufficiency of ontological naturalism. The orthodox reading of Scheler as a dualist is found problematic, and in outlining four propositions characteristic of Scheler’s positions, the author motivates resources from Jamesian thought to argue for the superiority of a naturalistic phenomenology.
作为自然主义现象学的激进经验主义与马克斯·舍勒的非自然主义现象学
在本文中,作者希望捍卫根植于威廉·詹姆斯的激进经验主义的自然主义现象学版本,以反对马克斯·舍勒的非自然主义现象学。通过借鉴杰克·雷诺兹关于最小现象学的论证,作者认为激进经验主义是一条介于被误导的先验现象学自给自足和被误导的本体论自然主义自给自足之间的中间道路。将谢勒视为二元论的正统解读存在问题,在概述谢勒立场的四个特征命题时,作者从詹姆斯思想中激发资源来论证自然主义现象学的优越性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信