Abstract
This rebuttal responds to the article "Getting it quite wrong" (published in this journal issue of QHR). My work is described as "amassing experiential descriptions," simply aiming to "reproduce the original experience unaltered," naively claiming "that the fundamental question of phenomenology is to understand what it is like to have this or that experience" and other such injudicious points. I take issue with these claims. Husserl is quoted as supportively stating that "phenomenology was from the beginning never supposed to be anything except the path to a radically genuine 'strictly scientific metaphysics.'" I will show with textual examples that the presented view of phenomenology is too limited and one sided.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
