UJAK

Pilar Beites: phenomenology of being spatial

Philosophy
Fernando Jess Garca Hpola

Contents
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The phenomenology ............................................................................................................. 2 Intentionality ......................................................................................................................... 5 The retention......................................................................................................................... 9 Immanent objects. .............................................................................................................. 11 The Protention .................................................................................................................... 13 The problem of space. The original relationship................................................................. 14 Three-dimensionality of the problem and the importance ................................................ 15 The problem of solipsism and skepticism ........................................................................... 18

1. The phenomenology The Phenomenology is a project of the great philosopher Edmund Husserl which is a response to the historical context in which he developed his philosophy. At that time, science enjoyed a boom. Most disciplines had the pretension of creating totalizing theories based only on their discipline. We talk biologicism, trying to explain all human behavior based only on the theory of evolution, or psicologicism, trying to explain the human being in terms of his subconscious, attitudes, etc.. Husserl, who comes from the mathematical discipline, try to create a philosophical method that results apodictically true knowledge. This means that knowledge should be undeniable, indubitable, inexorable affirmation as much as 2 +2 = 4. To do this, makes an approach similar to Descartes, but with some important nuances. Let's see: Descartes used the methodical doubt to start questioning how much was actually in the world. I can not assure you that the computer on which I write this summary really exists: can my senses deceive me. With this skeptical questioning, discards doubts the existence of everything around us. In the end, comes to something that can not be doubted: the cogito. "Cogito ergo sum" is considered an apodictic truth can not doubt that I exist while in my thinking and is supposed to exist. From this unquestionable truth, discards, using the deductive method (first seen in the other summary that always preserves the truth in the conclusions) will try to reach unquestionable statements. Husserl meant the same thing but using an alternative method to the methodical doubt. This method is what Husserl called the epoche. The
2

epoche is not to call into question the reality as we did Descartes. It's about creating a double standard: on one level the world of what Husserl calls the natural attitude stands: it's how we live every day, which I do not question the contingency of things, that may exist or not. This world of the natural attitude is the transcendental world, which escapes my conscience, which is (not really exist) outside. On a second level operates what Husserl calls the transcendental reduction: it is a level of discourse that reflects on the transcendental world, "bracketing existence" is not denied or affirmed, allowing us to draw conclusions about it. Applying the transcendental reduction in the world, no longer blindly believe there: it may be, as Descartes said, a delusion of my senses. For Husserl, there is something more than the EGO of Descartes is awareness. Indeed, rather than talk about it there, I must speak my conscience exists. In fact, I may be an illusion of my experience, my memories, and not be who I be. Only apodictically consciousness is indubitable. But there is another thing that is apodictically indubitable, and is the key concept of phenomenology: intentionality of my consciousness. I can not assure you that the computer on which I write really exists, because maybe my senses deceive me, but I can not doubt is that my conscience reference to this alleged computer, there is an intention that connects to my conscience and that assumption transcendental computer. The intention, therefore, is indubitable. To come to a knowledge entirely objective and true, we must analyze how we live our intentionality. Another important concept is that of intuition. Intuition is the act by which something seems indisputably true. When in fact it is
3

unquestionably true that some say it is apodictic intuition. For example, in my natural attitude no doubt that the computer on which I write there, but I can reflect and see that it can not exist. However, the truth of the statement "2 +2 = 4" is apodictic evidence.

2. Intentionality -Imagine that we have a tree. The tree has a appear, (color, shape, etc..), Which however disappear if I close my eyes, on the other hand, we have the tree appeared to know that does not go away even if you close your eyes, but that has its own existence, but not an apodictic existence: it is the tree that belongs to the transcendental world. Being what appeared is essentially different from the appear. The act of appearing is what Husserl called Noesis: the upshot of what appeared, it appeared becomes as transcendental, whereas appeared as immanent (that is, as constituting our consciousness, part of it). The immanent object before the epoche or transcendental reduction is fully accepted as existing, ie, was an object-in-itself. Said object is considered as being more than it appears. This computer where I write now I only see the front, the back part is assumed, but dubitable. After the transcendental reduction, we have the intentional object of the computer, which is indubitable. I can not doubt that I'm assuming so the back of the computer, whether it exists or not. Four arguments are given to show that Edmund Husserl's being displayed is different than what appeared to be (be intentional): Argument-existence: imagine a mirage of water in the desert. Regardless that water actually exists (be water or not water), its appearance will remain the same (the mirage). In short, being that I see water in the desert is not the be watching my water because I see there, and yet, the desert water can not exist. -Plot of multiplicity: imagine we have a box, to move this box, there are many different perceptions (related to different positions to be taking
5

the box. The transcendental box is the same throughout the process. Affirm the importance of an object (be the case) is like saying that no identical acts can have the same intentional object. -It is possible the appearance of various objects on the basis of the same feelings: for example, imagine that certain figures and arabesques have begun to exercise over us a purely aesthetic effect and suddenly realize that may be symbols or verbal signs. On one hand, we have seen as an art object: the other, as signs are. The momentous objects are distinct (Figures while aesthetic work and figures while signs). However, for both transcendental objects have only one associated calving. -Distinction between the parties essence of the experience and the object properties: Not the same color lived a target object that the color of an object. Imagine a lamp whose light is illuminated red ball that we know is white. We will see the red ball, but we know that is truly white. Being of appearing and what appeared differ. Intentionality has forced us to distinguish between what appears (intentional object) and appearing. The constituent of our consciousness are the experiences: when they appear intentional object are indistinguishable, we discuss phenomena when look different is an intentional object, we call it intentional experience or act. In the event we find an unintended component, content brokers (hyl), which is the unintentional act component, the "building material" which are animated and endowed with meaning by noesis. Thus, the hyle, which is unintentional, is animated by the noesis
6

referring to intentional objects (whose set is called noema). Thus, the noesis is the correlate of the noema, which makes it appear in the show appeared. The noema synthesizes hyl (which may be given not simultaneously) and refers to the same object. The noesis or intent provides reference to an object, which can be of two forms. Matter or quality might say roughly that there is something in the act that joins the intentional object. Meanwhile, the quality is more related to the mode of action. For example: I have before me a car that does not change angle, whose subject is the same, but I can make qualitatively different acts (hate him, I love him, doubt him). In turn, I can be loving the same car and yet they constantly change their stuff (that is running, etc..). The acts, according to its quality, are divided into objectifying (turn on speakers, not speakers) and not objectifying (and appetitive affective) Husserl also introduces the concept of "forms of apprehension" are the ways of joining two components of intentional action: the art and the representative. Intentional acts (the form that has the intention to refer to an object) are classified into intuitive and empty or not intuitive: -Intuitive are those that provide evidence consists of perceptual and imaginative acts and acts. -Non-intuitive are all signitive acts (eg, the meanings of the words I read). These are acts that are constituted as stated above subject, content and quality representatives (hyl). Husserl's signitive must always be
7

supported by an intuitive act, and hyl making this (if I read the word dog picture I think my mind I constitute hyl from the word dog). We see a house just opposite. The back side exactly matches the house, which would be a perceptual act, the sides, which are foreshortened, be imaginative acts (are also imaginative acts presenters I see on the television screen, they do not have a material reality associated). Finally, the interior of the house (furniture, bathroom, etc..) Do not see it, is supported signitive act in imaginative and intuitive acts, and taking these hyl. In turn, imagine a red sphere. For the first Husserl this area is, first, a red uniform objective (the objective property of that area), and a heterogeneous and multiple subjective red (actually that red is given by many shades). Well, not that subjective red uniform partly coincide with the red target (which would be the act of perception), the rest of subjective red that is similar to red correspond to objective imaginative acts: well, there just a glimpse of the form but also of feeling, and this is how the perception based on equality.

3. The retention How does consciousness become aware of the time? I can remember that yesterday I was in Prague Castle. Why that intention is equipped with temporality, what makes it makes me thing of the past? To do this, Husserl uses a phenomenon called retention. Retention is intentionality, aiming awareness to something that is no longer, because it was. My conscience, remembering that yesterday I was in Prague Castle, I'm recalling images that no longer exist. Not that exist in my mind, that is a natural attitude that should be discarded in the transcendental reduction. Retention is contrary to the impression (which is the immediate present awareness) and protention (which is the consciousness of the future). Imagine the following succession of notes in a given melody. DO-SOL FA-MI. These notes have the minimum duration must have so that you can hear. I catch first proto-sun as a feeling: my conscience intentionate that note in impresion. Then I hear the FA. Now my impression intention FA but my Retention intentionate DO. It is producing a very curious phenomenon: the DO now isnt, and however, the intent remains. Ultimately it is about being conscious of the nonbeing DO in the past, to "bring" the past to the present. Later we move to MI. Now print the MI intentional, and retention to FA. However, the AF was not seized simply as FA but as FA after a DO. The DO has disappeared from the primary retention but remains in high retention. When we pass the SOL in intencionar retention after an MI DO FA after.

Arguably via retention, have an awareness of this widespread in a range, and not confined solely to the immediately given. Well, thanks to this ability, I can recall the past. In this case, the content from past to present is brought, but as being unrelated to the present: as having a discontinuity that separates this last intention. I remember that yesterday I saw pictures of the Prague Castle, but remember as fitting sequentially with the actual present.

10

4. Immanent objects. The awareness of time linking the content for what they are is to yield the experience of proto succession of sensations. No duration, but the pass before my consciousness, showing her while longer displayed. . The immanent objects (those constituting this from my consciousness, though not necessarily in this order), whose main characteristic is to last in time. Immanent distinguish objects first and second order. In the first order is the temporal contrast which limits other: eg OJ tone that lasts is not only the succession of proto-feeling DO, but its duration, a set of successive past and portions defining it as such. The second order are constituted by first-immanent objects. EJ. Mozart Symphony consists of many tones and notes that contrast between them, ie, the contrast is inherent within the object itself. Not easy to find a criterion to determine where it ends and ends an immanent object of second order because in the case of the symphony would be an aesthetic criterion: the harmony that unifies the symphony itself. An immanent object is said to be in the present when one of its parts is given in the present. The song I hear is said that is now giving all of it, and yet only a part (the pitch ear now) is what is present now. In the immanent ground equality is not exact. What counts as the same is not exactly the same as the transitive law (A = B = C is not met A = C). Thus, the duration of the sound of a bell to be desvanenciendo, successive protosensaciones are given as equal (this is equal to the

11

next), but the first proto feel, for example, is not the same as the last. Is not met in this way the law of transitivity.

12

5. The Protention As retention allowed us knowledge of the past, what is the future protention. Protention is also an intention to something that is not. But it is a double intention: first an intention to the future, it is not yet. Moreover, an intentionality toward what we hope will be the future, what we expect of him. When we are aware of the future, always expect something from him. Tomorrow I go to school, and I imagine in my head how they will be classes. They might be that way or not, but it is essential that the wait in some way so you can say that it is the future. When a future event to get to this so please do not expect it to be, we say that is a disappointment. Disappointment can never be complete, must always be a certain fulfillment of the intention, that allows us to relate the intention with disappointment. Because if the two events) there was nothing in common. It would make no sense to say that this was the specific intent has been disappointed. In other words, to recognize the intentional objects of my consciousness, you can not give a complete disappointment. Imagine that a friend will introduce me to her boyfriend. In my head I imagined me tan. Seeing it, I see it's blond. There are a disappointment than I expected, but that disappointment is not complete: there is some relevance to what I expected, and that allows me to recognize that guy as my friend's boyfriend.

13

6. The problem of space. The original relationship. In space contiguity relations are given. These relationships are native, i.e. occur immediately without the consciousness synthesized. Based on her other two important spatial relationships are: the contrast ratios and fusion. Imagine that right now in the black soil is a white spot of paint. I can imagine it consists of many parts: the left part, some portion in the right corner, but the first time that is given to consciousness, this spot is given as being only one (a homogeneous whole) because the other white parts are fused by equal relationship. Meanwhile, the white spot looks different because the black soil contrast, their colors are different. Equality and distinticidad are also originating consciousness because relationships are given immediate evidence. Now suppose a lot of non-contiguous white spots. They can be seen as a whole, despite not being able to merge contiguous. The reason given is that Husserl that distance is eliminated by retaining, and so may melt. I see that portion of the stain that is separated from the others, retain in retention: so I can go to see other stains, my conscience can jump to another spot. Of course this phenomenon is a summary and not a native dation (e.g. if I search the word "mouse" in an alphabet soup obviously not ipso facto meeting, but I have to search to find a process that take your time and effort).

14

7. Three-dimensionality of the problem and the importance Pilar Fernndez Beites especially want to clarify the issue of how our consciousness manages to construct a three-dimensional objective world. Part of the conclusion that the three-dimensionality is formed from a bi-dimensionality. The parts of a whole as constituting that occur continuously all: however, there can not be infinitely small parts: our consciousness only manages to reach portions provided with an extension and minimum (the so-called proto-feelings). Otherwise, the whole would be nothing: since the whole is constituted by the sum of its parts, if these parties do not have an extension and minimum duration, then all would be the sum of parts with extension and zero duration, then would stretch the entire length and null. In the sense of sight, objects are given by profiles. Imagine that I stand before a statue. That statue I only see a profile, an infinitely thin layer folds in space, which we try to explain, I behind the statue is unknown to me until I go and look after her. What worries Beites Pilar is how we recognize objects whose appearance is different as equals. For example, the image of a truck seen a hundred yards away is smaller than the same truck seen ten meters. However, our consciousness can recognize that it is the same truck. It also happens that if we observe the flight of a dove to identify profiles that give infinite Dove as belonging to the same dove. Basing this explanation that "our brain builds that way and that is so" does not satisfy us. Precisely phenomenology founded by Husserl for not being based on contingent explanations and hogging of the
15

experimental sciences. Phenomenology seeks an unquestionable, indubitable and universal knowledge. We do not not worth the explanation may come from disciplines such as Gestalt psychology, although in this case Pilar Fernndez Beites recognizes that phenomenology can be inspired. The dimensionality is for practical purposes the cause of

transcendence (independent of consciousness) in the world. The theory of how this transcendence is constituted and was given by Husserl: I perceive an object staying up late going through profiles, as stated above. As time goes on we perceive the object, more profiles are disclosed. Theoretically at infinity that would completely object to consciousness, because they would have all the profiles that could constitute it. Well, for Husserl transcendence is basically this: a tendency towards infinity by which all profiles are perceived object would. The problem is that the infinite, by definition, is never reached. The significance, therefore, cannot be reached by consciousness. It is for this reason that the world gives me as dubitable. But consciousness can sense the existence of the world as a tendency to the infinite limit, as an approximation. Thus it is of importance for Husserl. . This explanation did not satisfy Beites Pilar, who criticized because to her that given the whole object at infinity is in fact a determination of the essence not of transcendence; Husserl in his argument confuses transcendence essence of the object, which is the amount of knowledge we have of that object. What explanation give Pilar Beites to explain the significance? The three-dimensionality of objects is largely due to the phenomenon of concealment: Imagine a bucket on a white background viewed from
16

front: obviously see only a square. Imagine the cube turns left: if the square of the front face of the cube was actually the side of a sheet of paper, this would decrease discovering the white background on the right (the supposed role would go left). But in the case of nature what is discovered is not the substance but the side face of the cube was hidden there. It is a face that comes from nowhere, and that was the boundary separating the front of the line. So it is in fact the background and depth: by unveiling made of the phenomena from nothingness, non-awareness.

17

8. The problem of solipsism and skepticism The existence of the world is impossible to establish it as an apodictic evidence. There is always the possibility that in reality our senses are deceiving us and the world does not exist as shown. Perhaps the world is a dream from which one must awaken. This reality has led many philosophers to relativism, skepticism and solipsism. Solipsism is a negative stance by which it is stated that the only thing that really exists is the consciousness that I have of things and not things. Skepticism argues that we can never get a satisfactory knowledge of the essence of the world by having doubtfulness. Relativism argues that, since there is no objective reality (for the reasons already presented by skepticism or solipsism), any interpretation of reality is equally valid. Husserl's phenomenology created largely to address these

philosophical perspectives. However, it failed to demonstrate the existence of the transcendental world indubitable. Pilar beites achieved neither. However ensures that even the existence of the transcendental world can not be assured, the certainty of his existence is the greatest thing there is. There is no evidence that the world can not exist: there is simply no evidence of any, so the possibility exists that there is latent. However, it is a highly unlikely possibility. Furthermore, as humans we are, we should not think that the world can not exist.

18

Bibliography: Fernndez Beites, Pilar (1999). Fenomenologa del Ser Espacial. Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia.

19