Physical nature lives! Naturalism facing scientism and the continental phenomenological tradition

Lok-Chi Chan, Kuei-Chen Chen
{"title":"Physical nature lives! Naturalism facing scientism and the continental phenomenological tradition","authors":"Lok-Chi Chan,&nbsp;Kuei-Chen Chen","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00295-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this lead article for an article symposium, we investigate the possible intersection between metaphysical naturalism and the phenomenological tradition. Our guiding hypothesis is that nature constitutes phenomenology, whereas phenomenology constitutes our access to nature. Pace renowned phenomenologists Gallagher and Zahavi’s call to replace “classic naturalism” with “non-classic conceptions,” we reconstruct “classic naturalism” by drawing on the seminal works of Armstrong, Lewis, Jackson, Braddon-Mitchell, Ney, and others. On this basis, we argue against the common assertion that metaphysical naturalism entails scientism and methodological naturalism and demonstrate their theoretical incompatibility, and thereby contend that a properly characterized classic naturalism could, in fact, accommodate phenomenological approaches. Then, we revise contemporary phenomenologists’ notions of “mutual constraints” and “mutual enlightenment” and reframe the subtle intersection between phenomenology and the naturalistic perspective. Finally, we address standard phenomenological criticisms of naturalism, which appeal to the primacy of the experiential perspective, and explore how the perspective can, in fact, accommodate and critically inform naturalism’s core theoretical commitments. This two-way discussion, which is grounded in both traditions, results in a phenomenology-friendly naturalism and a naturalism-friendly phenomenology that critically complement one another.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00295-7.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-025-00295-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this lead article for an article symposium, we investigate the possible intersection between metaphysical naturalism and the phenomenological tradition. Our guiding hypothesis is that nature constitutes phenomenology, whereas phenomenology constitutes our access to nature. Pace renowned phenomenologists Gallagher and Zahavi’s call to replace “classic naturalism” with “non-classic conceptions,” we reconstruct “classic naturalism” by drawing on the seminal works of Armstrong, Lewis, Jackson, Braddon-Mitchell, Ney, and others. On this basis, we argue against the common assertion that metaphysical naturalism entails scientism and methodological naturalism and demonstrate their theoretical incompatibility, and thereby contend that a properly characterized classic naturalism could, in fact, accommodate phenomenological approaches. Then, we revise contemporary phenomenologists’ notions of “mutual constraints” and “mutual enlightenment” and reframe the subtle intersection between phenomenology and the naturalistic perspective. Finally, we address standard phenomenological criticisms of naturalism, which appeal to the primacy of the experiential perspective, and explore how the perspective can, in fact, accommodate and critically inform naturalism’s core theoretical commitments. This two-way discussion, which is grounded in both traditions, results in a phenomenology-friendly naturalism and a naturalism-friendly phenomenology that critically complement one another.

物质的自然是有生命的!面对科学主义和大陆现象学传统的自然主义
在这篇文章研讨会的主要文章中,我们探讨了形而上学自然主义与现象学传统之间可能的交集。我们的指导假设是自然构成现象学,而现象学构成我们接近自然的途径。在著名现象学家加拉格尔和扎哈维呼吁用“非经典概念”取代“经典自然主义”的同时,我们借鉴阿姆斯特朗、刘易斯、杰克逊、布兰登-米切尔、内伊等人的开创性著作,重构“经典自然主义”。在此基础上,我们反对形而上学自然主义包含科学主义和方法论自然主义的普遍主张,并证明它们在理论上的不相容,从而主张一个适当表征的经典自然主义实际上可以容纳现象学方法。然后,我们修正当代现象学“相互约束”和“相互启蒙”的概念,重新构建现象学与自然主义视角之间的微妙交集。最后,我们讨论了对自然主义的标准现象学批评,这些批评诉诸于经验视角的首要地位,并探讨了该视角实际上如何适应并批判性地为自然主义的核心理论承诺提供信息。这种以两种传统为基础的双向讨论,产生了对现象学友好的自然主义和对自然主义友好的现象学,两者互为补充。
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
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信