Scholarlink

<p>This paper examines Paul Natorp’s neo-Kantian critique of Edmund Husserl’s <i>Ideas I</i> and the subsequent development of Husserl’s genetic phenomenology. Natorp objected that Husserl’s “static” phenomenology could only describe intentional acts as finished types, thereby objectifying and “halting” the living stream of consciousness. In his own reconstructive psychology, Natorp proposed a “genetic” method aimed at recovering the processual character of cognition through regressive analysis into chains of condition and conditioned. Recent scholarship has suggested that Husserl’s later turn to genetic phenomenology responds to this critique, though the extent of Natorp’s influence remains contested. We argue that Husserl did take aspects of Natorp’s challenge seriously, yet transformed it within a distinct phenomenological framework. By introducing the notion of passive synthesis, Husserl developed a method that analyzes how complex achievements are conditioned by pre-reflective processes of association, retention, and habituation. While this appears structurally analogous to Natorp’s regress, the two diverge fundamentally: Natorp’s genesis remains within a logic of conceptual mediation, whereas Husserl’s is anchored in reflective evidence of lived temporality. Thus, Husserl neither executed Natorp’s unfinished project nor simply ignored his critique. Instead, their productive exchange suggests that terminological overlap concealed deeper methodological incompatibility.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Natorp’s Neo-Kantian Critique of Husserl and the Development of Genetic Phenomenology

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月19日

查看全文
  • Weier Visser,
  • Corijn van Mazijk

摘要

This paper examines Paul Natorp’s neo-Kantian critique of Edmund Husserl’s Ideas I and the subsequent development of Husserl’s genetic phenomenology. Natorp objected that Husserl’s “static” phenomenology could only describe intentional acts as finished types, thereby objectifying and “halting” the living stream of consciousness. In his own reconstructive psychology, Natorp proposed a “genetic” method aimed at recovering the processual character of cognition through regressive analysis into chains of condition and conditioned. Recent scholarship has suggested that Husserl’s later turn to genetic phenomenology responds to this critique, though the extent of Natorp’s influence remains contested. We argue that Husserl did take aspects of Natorp’s challenge seriously, yet transformed it within a distinct phenomenological framework. By introducing the notion of passive synthesis, Husserl developed a method that analyzes how complex achievements are conditioned by pre-reflective processes of association, retention, and habituation. While this appears structurally analogous to Natorp’s regress, the two diverge fundamentally: Natorp’s genesis remains within a logic of conceptual mediation, whereas Husserl’s is anchored in reflective evidence of lived temporality. Thus, Husserl neither executed Natorp’s unfinished project nor simply ignored his critique. Instead, their productive exchange suggests that terminological overlap concealed deeper methodological incompatibility.