
(2007) Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (1-2).
Can phenomenology contribute to the burgeoning science of consciousness? Dennett’s reply would probably be that it very much depends upon the type of phenomenology in question. In my paper I discuss the relation between Dennett’s heterophenomenology and the type of classical philosophical phenomenology that one can find in Husserl, Scheler and Merleau-Ponty. I will in particular be looking at Dennett’s criticism of classical phenomenology. How vulnerable is it to Dennett’s criticism, and how much of a challenge does his own alternative constitute? I will argue that there are some rather marked differences between these two approaches to consciousness, but as I also hope to make clear, Dennett’s own account of where the differences are located is off target and ultimately based on a somewhat flawed conception of what classical phenomenology amounts to.
Publication details
DOI: 10.1007/s11097-006-9038-7
Full citation:
Zahavi, D. (2007). Killing the straw man: Dennett and phenomenology. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (1-2), pp. 21-43.
References
2001
Daniel DennettMedford, Center for Cognitive Studies Tufts University

1952
Den Haag, Nijhoff

1954
Den Haag, Nijhoff

1984
Den Haag, Nijhoff

1993
Dordrecht, Kluwer
2003
in: The self in neuroscience and psychiatry, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press

1999
Jean Petitot, Francisco Varela , Bernard Pachoud, Jean-Michel Roy (ed)
Stanford, Stanford University Press

1991
Francisco Varela , Evan Thompson, Eleanor Rosch
Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press

1999
Evanston, Ill., Northwestern University Press

2005
Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press

2000
Dan Zahavi (ed)
Amsterdam, Benjamins

2002
Dan Zahavi, Frederik Stjernfelt (ed)
Dordrecht, Kluwer
This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.