Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Phaenomenologica ((PHAE,volume 98))

Abstract

A phenomenology of self-evidence has to begin with ascertaining the primary locus of self-evidence, which seems to me to be none other than consciousness. While phenomenologists have sufficiently recognised the intentionality of consciousness, the self-evidencing, self-illuminating character of consciousness has not been brought to the forefront. I propose to dwell on this briefly, before moving on to the question of truth and self-evidence.

First read in a symposium at the annual meeting of the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy held at the New School for Social Research, New York, 1970. The other symposiasts were Richard Zaner and David Levin. The paper was subsequently published in David Carr and Edward Casey (Eds.), Explorations in Phenomenology (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1973).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. E. Husserl, Ideen I, Sec. 85. Also P. Ricœur, Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary, trans. Erazim V. Kohak (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1966), Pt. III, Chap. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith (London, 1962), pp. 294–295, 383.

    Google Scholar 

  3. On the stronger version of the self-intimating character of the mental, a mental state p (belonging to A) is self-intimating for A if and only if: (1) p and (2) p logically implies (A believes that p). It has been argued, e.g., by Margolis (The Journal of Philosophy LXVII, No.21, Nov. 5, 1970) that there would always be some nonequi-valent true description d1 of p such that A does not believe, at the time he has p, in d1. I concede this point, but want to suggest a weaker version which may be stated as follows: p is self-intimating for A if and only if: (1) p and (2) there is at least one true description dk of p such that A believes, at the time he has p, in dk. This weaker version of self-intimating nature of mental states does not make one’s mind fully transparent to oneself but also avoids the other extreme of a possible total opacity.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Merleau-Ponty, op. cit., Preface.

    Google Scholar 

  5. For further elaboration of this concept of the given, see my Phenomenology and Ontology (Phaenomenologica No. 37) (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  6. F. Brentano, The True and the Evident, ed. Oskar Kraus, trans. R.M. Chisholm et al. (New York: 1966), pp. 118, 122.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ibid., p. 126.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid., p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  9. E. Husserl, Logical Investigations, II, Sec. 2, p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  10. I do not wish to suggest that Brentano and Husserl are giving a verbal or nominal definition of “knowledge” in terms of “evidence” and “true.” The definition is intended to be a real definition based on eidetic intuition of the essence of knowledge as exemplified in the paradigmatic case of perceptual knowledge. It is the choice of this instance as paradigmatic which may be regarded as being arbitrary; but again — as in all cases of eidetic intuition — the choice of the paradigm case and the subsequent variation are determined by a prereflective, nascent, vague acquaintance with the essence which eidetic variation and resulting intuition bring to reflective clarity.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P. Ricœur, Husserl: An Analysis of His Phenomenology, trans. E.G. Ballard and L.E. Embree (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1967), pp. 98–99.

    Google Scholar 

  12. E. Husserl, Formale und transzendentale Logik, p. 106.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ideen I, Sec. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  14. D.M. Levin, Reason and Evidence in Husserl’s Phenomenology (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1985 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mohanty, J.N. (1985). Towards a Phenomenology of Self-Evidence. In: The Possibility of Transcendental Philosophy. Phaenomenologica, vol 98. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5049-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5049-8_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-247-3146-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-5049-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics