Journal of Philosophical Investigations

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Candidate of Philosophy,, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 MA. in Philosophy of Science , Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Dialogue between Dreyfus, as the biggest American commenter of Heidegger and Merleau-ponty, and Searle, as one of the biggest analytic philosophers, started at the seventies. According to Searle, phenomenology is superficially and blind and has systematic errors. Additionally, in his view the concept of non-representational intention as center of Dreyfus’s phenomenology is inconsistent. But, in our opinion, Dreyfus introduces a consistent concept of non-representational intention, and proposes that Searle does not have a correct understanding of phenomenology. Dreyfus differentiates (draws distinction) between two interpretations of Searle: Searle as phenomenologist and Searle as analytic (analytical) philosopher. Dreyfus believes Searle’s approach as a phenomenologist is wrong because ignores non-representational intention; He also critics/refuses Searle’s approach as analytic philosopher since this approach accepts a causality for an abstract structure. However, we believe Dreyfus (himself) fails to go beyond the subject-object dualism. Moreover, introducing non-representational intention is not enough for rejecting Descartes dualism.

Keywords

Chalmers, David (1996), The Conscious Mind (New York: Oxford University Press).
Dreyfus, H (1991), “Being-in-the-world: A Commentary on Heidegger''''''''s Being and Time”, División I, MIT Press
Dreyfus, H (1993) “Heidegger’s critique of Husserl’s (and Searle’s) account of intentionality”, Social research Vol.60, N 1
Dreyfus, H and Dennett, D (1997) Mechanical Bodies, Computational Minds, A Bradford Book
Dreyfus, H and Spinoza, C (1) (1999) “Coping with Things in-themselves: A Practice-Based Phenomenological Argument for Realism, Inquiry”: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 42:1
Dreyfus, H and Spinoza, C (2) (1999) “Robust Intelligibility: Response to Our Critics, Inquiry”: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 42:2
Dreyfus ,H(1)(2000) “Responses, Coping, and Cognitive Science”: Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus, Volume 2, edited by Mark A. Wrathall and Jeff Malpas, 2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dreyfus, H (2)(2000) “Merleau-Ponty’s Critique of Husserl’s (and Searle’s) Concept of Intentionality,” Rereading Merleau-Ponty: Essays Beyond the Continental-Analytic Divide, Lawrence Hass and Dorothea Olkowski, Eds, (New York, NY: Humanity Books, 2000).
Dreyfus H (2007) “Why Heideggerian AI Failed and how fixing it would Require making it more Heideggerian”, Addressing from this site: http://leidlmair.at/doc/WhyHeideggerianAIFailed.pdf
Heidegger, M 1927 Being and Time, Translated by John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson, Basil Blackwell, 1962.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1945), Phenomenology of Perception (Translated by Colin Smith- First published in Routledge Classics 2002 by Routledge)
Nagel, Thomas (1995), Other Minds (New York: Oxford University Press).
Searle J.R (1992) Rediscovery of the mind, M.I.T Press
Searle J.R (1999) “Neither phenomenological description nor rational reconstruction: a reply to Dreyfus”, La Revue Internationale de Philosophie
Searle J.R (2000) “The Limits of Phenomenology, Heidegger, Coping, and Cognitive Science”: Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus, Volume 2, edited by Mark A. Wrathall and Jeff Malpas, 2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
CAPTCHA Image