A Bibliography of the Noema

Daniel, Mano

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3425-7_12

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Few concepts have attracted as much scholarly attention in Husserl studies as the notion of the noema. Let alone the vast number of research articles on the topic, many book-length studies have been dedicated to the study of just this concept in Husserl's phenomenology (see Daniel 1992 for an extensive bibliography up until the early 1990's; more recently, see Zahavi 2017, pp. 82-108;Mazijk 2017;Moran 2015;Drummond 2015;Smith 2013, pp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling the Noema Debate

Hirvonen

2022

Axiomathes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the key concepts of Edmund Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology is the noema. Husserl uses the concept to denote the aspect of what is intended in experience as it remains within the transcendental domain of inquiry after the phenomenological reduction. Despite such seeming simplicity, Husserl’s discussion of the noema is ambiguous to the extent that it has sparked a wide-ranging debate in the secondary literature. The gist of the dispute concerns the question about the relation between the noema and the object: whether the noema is content, ontologically distinct from the object, or the object itself just considered differently in philosophical reflection. In this paper, I propose an interpretation that aims to reconcile two opposing positions of this debate (the so-called West and East Coast interpretations). The impetus for the reconciliation stems from the fact that both interpretations seem to be correct while they also suffer from their own shortcomings. I propose the reconciliation by applying a distinction Husserl makes between two areas of phenomenological investigation, neutralized pure phenomenology and non-neutralized phenomenology of reason. Having clarified the distinction between them, I suggest that both competing interpretations can be partially correct when reserved for the aspect of the noema in either of the two areas of phenomenological investigation. Finally, I show how this proposal could aid in resolving issues in the recent discussion concerning Husserl’s noema and the internalism–externalism debate in philosophy of mind.

show abstract