Research in Husserl criticized Locke’s theory of ideas

【Abstract】 Through the analysis of Husserl’s criticism of Locke, the transcendence of Husserl’s thought expresses in the clarification of the universal thing, and transcends Locke’s ideas of self and the notion of intuition. The problem of Husserl’s criticism of Locke expresses in three aspects. First, Husserl’s self of perceptual activity is identical with Locke’s self in the meaning of conscious experience. Second, Husserl is unclear about the self of Locke’s ideas of self. Third, Husserl don’t explain how to shift the gaze from the individual intuition to the general intuition very well.

【Key words】 Husserl; Locke; theory of ideas

【作者簡介】李金花(1992.08-)，女，壯族，東華理工大學(xué)，碩士研究生，外國哲學(xué)，研究方向：現(xiàn)象學(xué)。

1. Introduction

Husserl’s and Locke’s theory of ideas have always been of concern for many philosophers. Husserl criticized Locke’s general ideas, and made an analysis of unique phenomenological point about the general object on this basis in the second study of Logical Investigations. In the middle and later periods of phenomenological studies, Husserl criticized Locke’s ideas of self and Abstract theory. in the First Philosophy.

In a series of criticism of Locke, Husserl is more interested in Locke’s theory of ideas and pay much attention to it. Based on this, Husserl also establishes a unique theory of ideas and answers the question of whether and how the general object exists.

2. The transcendence of Husserl’s thought

The transcendence of Husserl’s thought expresses in three aspects. First, Locke regarded general ideas as psychological phenomena, but other ideas were regarded as physical phenomena, which is a typical viewpoint of the psychological. Locke made psychological analysis of general ideas. Locke’s view of general ideas is known as? “conceptualism”. Conceptualism is a theory of the universals. Locke’s general idea is also called “Locke’s universals”. Locke regarded them as a kind of reality in thinking.

Husserl’s concept of universal is broader in extension than Locke’s. Husserl’s universal things are general things, including general ideas which Abstracted from thoughts and general states of affairs. Husserl’s the universal things are the unity of ideas of species or types.

After Husserl clarified the meaning of the universal, he also clarified the process of obtaining the universal. He thought that the acquisition of the universal not acquired through Locke’s referential activities but Husserl’s intentional act. Intentional act includs individual intentional act and categorial intentional act. Individual intentional act intends characteristics of things. Categorial intentional act intends idea or content. The categories of universal objects are also established by definition. Husserl also said that we can analyze from the signification of the name or the effective representation meaning of the category. In short, Husserl clarifies the universal not only in the meaning but also in the intentional act.

Second, While criticizing Locke’s theory of self, Husserl put forward his own theory of self.Husserl said that if we want to attain the self-evidence of the self, and to constitute in consciousness what is essentially the question of consciousness itself, we have to go back to Descartes’ cogito, to the subjectivity of his knowledge and to pure consciousness. The self, as it is known in the experience of the life, which is called identity. The self has absolute identity. The vary experiences of inner consciousness is not a part of the experience but belongs to the experience of the act. As each part of an experience will disappear with the loss of the experience, and no part of any experience can be truly the same as the previous experience.

Husserl agreed with the inner and pure object of intention under Brentano’s ego, which without need to ask and judge whether it is actually the real existence. As we watch a tree by the brook, that is a tree actually existing there, the phenomenon of the tree is presented to us as absolutely given and absolutely self-evident.

Later, Husserl’s transcendence of Locke’s self -ideas is also reflected in the theory of signs. In his criticism of Locke’s self -ideas, Husserl pointed out that Locke’s self was naturalistic. In his viewpoint, the thing given to Locke’s self is not absolutely self-evident, but a psychophysical causal thing. Locke’s self becomes a concrete self, not a pure self. Therefore, Husserl’s influence on Locke’s theory of self-extracts his own ego, which is the experience ego, through reducing the experience ego to form the transcendental ego.

Third, Locke thought that intuition including the intuitive perception of external things and the intuition of Internal things.According to Locke, we can obtain ideas through sensation and reflection, which can also be called sensation intuitions and reflection intuition. Locke thought the object of intuition can only be individual thing, that is, the nominal essences.

Husserl pointed out from the intuitive method of phenomenology that Abstract process is a process of seeing, in which the essence was been seen. Of course, this kind of seeing is a comprehensive activity including senses and consciousness, which is more of a view of mind than just a view of eyes

He divided intuition into inner intuition and outer intuition. The outer intuition and outer intuition are the unity of intention. The outer intuition here is different from Locke’s sensation intuition. Here outer intuition means unity of signification or general things, not Locke’s unity of reference or combination of ideas.

3. The problem with Husserl’s critique

Husserl pointed out that Locke’s universal was influenced by Natural Psychology, which was the reality set by psychology. Husserl made a strict distinction between natural psychology and his phenomenological psychology. He believes that his objects are phenomenological phenomena, and his perception of things is also intuitive and absolutely given.

In the first volume of Logical Investigations, Husserl pointed out that even though people have different definitions of psychology, they tend to regard psychology as a science of facts, and thus as an empirical science. So, since consciousness is always given to itself, which is to say the self-consciousness is really the self, Locke’s self is the self in experience. The empirical self in the empirical world is actually Husserl’s unreduced self. Although Husserl suspended the external world, the objective existence of self-consciousness cannot be changed.

Husserl’s self of perceptual activity is identical with Locke’s self in the meaning of conscious experience. Husserl’s self in perceptual activities is the experienced self without reductive self. Although he excluded the objective existence of things, but also had the color of experience. Empiricists will question Husserl’s objective existence of conscious experience because it is constructed. Therefore, for Locke’s criticism of psychology, I think Husserl should clearly point out some advantages of Locke’s psychology, rather than blindly distinguish and exclude.

Locke’s self-concept for personal identity. Husserl had no idea of Locke’s self-orientation enough, as can be seen from his description of Locke’s self-orientation in the First Philosophy, he positioned Locke’s self-orientation as the spiritual entity of Descartes.

Husserl said that for Locke, internal experience consists of the self, the ‘spirits,’ which is present, immediate, and wholly given. The self is the product of inner experience. It is the product of activities in the field of consciousness. Later, he also made an analysis of Locke’s tabula rasa theory: Locke believed that the (human) mind is at birth a blank slate without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one’s sensory experiences. The self is marked on the blank slate of consciousness, but sometimes Locke doesn’t know what the self is, doubts the self, and puts forward the idea that“I don’t know what ”, thereby interpreting the self as an unrecognizable entity.

Husserl believed that the ego is the active subject of the present consciousness. The subject is an intuitive and Abstract subject, and the self will form an idea of the self. Locke’s ideas and the self have a very complicated relationship which Husserl does not analyze in the First Philosophy. Locke’s self is the initiator of ideas, and it is self-evident.

Husserl also recognized in his exposition of Locke’s universal, although Husserl says that the individual, whether or not he is doing phenomenological analysis, is not the object of his study. This is a suspension of the objectivity and reality of Locke’s individual, but the individual can be the universal object, provided the direct eye is turned.

Husserl also argued that there are not only essential intuitions but also individual intuitions, which were also called perceptual intuitions. They have essential differences. Essential intuitions are based on individual intuitions, in which individual objects are constructed, and there are essential differences between individual objects and general objects. The individual object provides the basis for the general object, and in order to have an essential change, one has to shift the direct gaze, which is Husserl’s idea of focusing on the generality of the individual object. For example, we should focus not on the red of the paper but on the red itself. We know the red of the paper is the object of experience.Husserl’s vision of the individual is free to shift the intuition of species or type which is possible. This free shift the gaze is also obtained through the idealized Abstraction, that is, the intuition of essence. Although this idealized Abstraction is different from Locke’s, how can Husserl explain this free possibility of consciousness? Or is it intrinsically intuitive? Or is it self-evident? How does this free gaze shift?

4. Conclusion

In a word, even if Husserl has some problems in criticizing Locke’s theory of ideas, However, he also has the transcendence of thought. On the one hand, the study of Husserl’s criticism of Locke’s theory of ideas helps us to understand the shortcomings of Locke’s theory and avoid the shortcomings of empiricism and mentalism, On the other hand, it can improve our understanding of husserl’s theory of ideas and phenomenology.

References:

[1]John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding[M].China Renmin University Press,2012.

[2]E. J. Lowe. The Routledge Guidebook to Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding[M]. New York:Routledge Press, 2013:41-45.

[3]Edmund Husserl. Experience and Judgment:Investigation in a Genealogy of Logic[M]. translated by James S.Churchill and Karl Ameriks. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.1974:358.

[4]William Curtis Swabey, Locke's Theory of Ideas [J]. Duke University Press,1933.42(6): 573-593.

[5] Mirja Helena hartimo, “From Geometry to Phenomenology ” [J] .Synthese, 2008.162(02) :232.

[6]Jeffner Allen,What is Husserl’s First Philosophy,Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 1982.42 (4) :610.

[7]Saulius Geniusas,The Origins of the Horizon in Husserl’s Phenomenology,Springer,2012:116.

[8]James Street Fulton,The Cartesianism of Phenomenology,The Philosophical Review, 1940.49 (3) :286.

[9]Ayers, M. R. The Ideas of Power and Substance in Locke's Philosophy[J]. The Philosophical Quarterly.1975, 25(98): 1-27.