Some remarks on R. Carnap’s concept of construction in Aufbau and E. Hessserl’s concept of constitution

Ícaro Machado

doi:10.18012/arf.v7i2.51822

Abstract

This paper turns to the concept of constitution and some to it more immediately related notions contained in R. Carnap's Aufbau and Husserl's works that might have had some influence there, in order to find similarities and differences between them. It hopefully will contribute to this assessment of the plausible hypothesis, recently raised in the literature, of an influence of the father of phenomenology not explicitly sufficiently credited in Aufbau. The argumentative strategy was to expose, firstly in a separate way, the relevant points in each strand and then to make the comparative examination. This first analysis took place by two general aspects, namely, to address, on the one hand, the very relation of constitution and what is a system of it and, given the implicated foundationalism attributed to such notion, the data which are at the base of system like this. Then I move on to examine the differences and similarities between such expositions. As result, similarities were observed in that the two of them imply a broader thesis of foundationalism; they propose, in this, to an encompassing system. In addition, they contend that the fact that there is a difference between a lower-level object and a higher-level object does not imply between them mereological composition or some necessary commonality of properties. However, there are also differences regarding the kind of relationship that the notions of constituting imply in each case. Distinctions were also found about the role of sensations in each system; but in that sense, there is, in both perspectives, also similarities concerning their status. The paper concludes with the notion that there must be husserlian influences in the Aufbau not sufficiently credited. However, it is unreasonable the diagnosis of extreme importance of Husserl's influence.

Highlights

This paper is motivated by the recently raised thesis in the specialized literature1 that the few explicit2 references contained in R
It hopefully will contribute to this assessment of the plausible hypothesis, recently raised in the literature, of an influence of the father of phenomenology not explicitly sufficiently credited in Aufbau
The argumentative strategy was to expose, firstly in a separate way, the relevant points in each strand and to make the comparative examination. This first analysis took place by two general aspects, namely, to address, on the one hand, the very relation of constitution and what is a system of it and, given the implicated foundationalism attributed to such notion, the data which are at the base of system like this

Summary

INTRODUCTION

This paper is motivated by the recently raised thesis in the specialized literature that the few explicit references contained in R. It is time to move towards the most relevant vocations of the work, namely, the examination of similarities and differences between the concepts of constitution, and other notions immediately linked there, between the two authors, in order to contribute to the question of Husserl's influence on Aufbau content. Sensations and objects of perception features their constituentconstituted link alternated between the two analyzed texts Despite this dissonance, there are similarity, in the two of the perspectives, of an ontological holism for objects such as perceived things and elementary experiences (or any from constitution levels other than sensory data). These aspects are not present in the sensations, for example. Carnap establishes the same metaphysical note that distinguishes whole objects from mere sensory data in which it is apprehended: When intuiting a house, it will be immediately and intuitively perceived as a corporal object, its unnoticed back will be taken into account, its existence after looking elsewhere will be considered, the particular wellknown house will be recognized in this (CARNAP, 1967 [ Aufbau], p. 138)

CONCLUSION

Den Haag