Costello, Peter. Layers in Husserl's Phenomenology: On Meaning and Intersubjectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COSTELLO, Peter. Layers in Husserl's Phenomenology: On Meaning and Intersubjectivity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. xiv + 225pp. Cloth, $60--Phenomenology is sometimes understood, usually by those who have had little actual contact with the works of its major exponents, to be a peculiarly introspective approach to philosophy. According to this view, research in phenomenology primarily consists in first-person descriptions of the various states of one's own consciousness. But a seminal insight in phenomenology, as inaugurated by Edmund Husserl at the turn of the twentieth century, is that consciousness is not transparent to itself, that the field of our experience is always haunted by the presence of others and by the sense of our own inherence within an historical horizon that transcends us. We are always interpreters, rather than simply reporters, in the field of our experience--and because that field is irreducibly intersubjective, the practice of interpreting the forms of experience is one that must be undertaken in dialogue with others. Peter Costello's book begins from this seminal phenomenological insight and exemplifies the approach to philosophical research that this insight entails. It is a superbly written study of the philosophy of Edmund Husserl, but its engagement with Husserl's work serves its larger aim of extending the field of phenomenological insight. While Costello covers a number of different topics in Husserl's phenomenology, from the foundations of logic to temporality and historicity, issues that preoccupied Husserl at different points in his career, he demonstrates the unity of Husserl's project by means of his own insight into the crucial role played in each of these various analyses by the term Deckung and its cognates. The author begins with a discussion of intersubjectivity, and in this connection introduces Husserl's concept of overlaying (Deckung). In this discussion we see that Deckung, which is sometimes misleadingly translated into English as coinciding, really implies a kind of overlaying in which difference, or noncoincidence, is preserved. As Costello explains, this concept is crucial for Husserl's account of the way in which we perceive other persons because it allows us to see how this process happens as a form of passive synthesis, beginning from an immediate sense of the similarity between our animate bodies, rather than as a kind of active inference. While Husserl recognizes that I can have no direct access to another's experience, he also does not subscribe to the view that there is some kind of mysterious process behind my ability to recognize other persons as subjects, or minds. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".