Share This Article:

Defending Husserlian Phenomenology from Terry Eagleton’s Critique

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:42KB) PP. 10-13
DOI: 10.4236/als.2013.12003    4,640 Downloads   9,700 Views   Citations
Author(s)    Leave a comment

ABSTRACT

This article develops, illustrates, and defends Husserlian Phenomenology from a critique in Terry Eagleton’s Literary Theory: An Introduction second edition (1996). Husserlian Phenomenology is construed as a methodology of philosophical hunt for certainty and universal essences by pure perception through“phenomenological reduction”. Eagleton’s charge that Husserlian Phenomenology is a form of methodological idealism necessarily committed to a science of subjectivity and an imaginary solution to the world that leads to the sacrifice of human history. But Husserlian phenomenology insists that meaningful and potentially efficacious certainty must be connected to relevant entity and consciousness internal to the culture or social order at which the criticism is directed. Thus, to our defense, the complaint that phenomenological demand will likely limit actual historical backgroundwherecriticism is denied, and the ability of Husserlian Phenomenology to develop from pure phenomenon to unphenomenological thinking is defended and demonstrated.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Qin, B. (2013) Defending Husserlian Phenomenology from Terry Eagleton’s Critique. Advances in Literary Study, 1, 10-13. doi: 10.4236/als.2013.12003.

References

[1] Cohen, M. (1987). A historical overview of the phenomenologic move- ment. IMAGE: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 19, 31-34. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.1987.tb00584.x
[2] Eagleton, T. (1996). Literary theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
[3] Husserl, E. (1952). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. New York: Macmillan. (Original work published 1913)
[4] Husserl, E. (1965). Philosophy as a rigorous science. In Phenomenology and the crisis of philosophy. New York: Harper and Row.
[5] Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
[6] Husserl, E. (1973). Experience and judgment. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
[7] Husserl, E. (1993). Cartesian meditations. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
[8] Kearney, R., & Rainwater, M. (1996). The continental philosophy reader. New York: Routledge.
[9] Koch, T. (1995). Interpretive approaches in nursing research: The in- fluence of Husserl and Heidegger. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 827-836. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21050827.x
[10] Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). London, ON: Althouse.
[11] Merleau, P., & Maurice (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
[12] Polkinghorne, D. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. Valle & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential phenomenological perspectives in psychology: Exploring the breadth of human experience (pp. 41- 60). New York: Plenum. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-6989-3_3
[13] Sabia, D. (2010). Defending immanent critique. Political Theory, 38, 684-711.
doi:10.1177/0090591710372864
[14] Spiegelberg, H. (1982). The phenomenological movement: A historical introduction (3rd ed.). Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-7491-3

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.