Article/Publication Details
Views: 2153

THE INGARDENIAN DISTINCTION BETWEEN INSEPARABILITY AND DEPENDENCE: HISTORICAL AND SYSTEMATIC CONSIDERATIONS

Abstract
In this paper I present the Ingardenian distinction between inseparability and dependence. My considerations are both historical and systematic. The historical part of the paper accomplishes two goals. First, I show that in the Brentanian tradition the problem of existential (or broadly: ontological) conditioning was entangled into parts—whole theories. The best examples of such an approach are Kazimierz Twardowski’s theory of the object and Edmund Husserl’s theory of parts and wholes. Second, I exhibit the context within which Ingarden distinguished inseparability and dependence. Moreover, Ingarden’s motivations are presented: the problem of understanding the Husserlian concept of “immanent transcendence,” the issue of the existence of purely intentional objects, and finally the problem of the relationship between individual objects and ideas. The systematic part deals with the ambiguity of Ingarden’s definition of inseparability. I seek to improve this definition by reference to the distinction(made by Ingarden himself) between absolute and summative wholes. I also present some divisions of inseparability and dependence and investigate whether these types of existential conditioning are reflexive, symmetric, or transitive.

Key words
inseparability, dependence, absolute whole, summative whole, Roman Ingarden, Edmund Husserl, Kazimierz Twardowski.

References

• Chrudzimski, A.(2015). Ingarden on Modes of Being. In B.Leclercq, S.Richard, & D. Seron (Eds.), Object and Pseudo-Objects: Ontological Deserts and Jungles from Brentano to Carnap (199–222). Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Ginsberg, E.(1982). On the Concepts of Existential Dependence and Independence (P. Simons, Trans.). In B. Smith (Ed.), Parts and Moments. Studies in Logic and Formal Ontology (261–287). Munich/ Vienna: Philosophia Verlag.
• Husserl, E.(1982). Cartesian Meditations. An Introduction to Phenomenology (D.Cairns, Trans.). The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Husserl, E.(1983). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy (F.Kersten, Trans.). The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Husserl, E.(1994). Briefwechsel. Bd. III.Die Göttinger Schule. Husserliana. Dokumente III.Dordrecht/ Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Husserl, E.(2001). Logical Investigations. Vol. 2 (J.N.Findlay, Trans.) (5th ed.). London: Routledge.
• Ingarden, R.(1925). Essentiale Fragen. Ein Beitrag zum Wessensproblem. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung, 7, 125–304.
• Ingarden, R.(1929). Bemerkungen zum Problem Idealismus-Realismus. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung, 11, 159–190.
• Ingarden, R.(1931). Niektóre założenia idealizmu Berkeleya. In Księga Pamiątkowa Polskiego Towarzystwa Filozoficznego (215–258). Lwów: Polskie Towarzystwo Filozoficzne.
• Ingarden, R.(1973). The Literary Work of Art. An Investigation on the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic, and Theory of Literature (G.G.Grabowicz, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
• Ingarden, R.(1976). The Letter to Husserl about the VI.“[Logical] Investigation” and “Idealism” (H.Girndt, Trans.). Analecta Husserliana, 4, 419–438.
• Ingarden, R.(2013). Controversy over the Existence of the World. Vol.I (A. Szylewicz, Trans.). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Edition.
• Ingarden, R.(2016). Controversy over the Existence of the World. Vol.II (A. Szylewicz, Trans.). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Edition.
• Magdziak, M.(2016) A Logical Analysis of Existential Dependence and Some Other Ontological Concepts. A Comments to Some Ideas of Eugenia Ginsberg-Blaustein. Axioms, 5 (3), 4–10.
• Mitscherling, J.(1997). Roman Ingarden’s Ontology and Aesthetics. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
• Piwowarczyk, M.(2019). Two Models of the Subject—Properties Structure. Axiomathes, 30, 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-019-09463-w
• Płotka, W.(2020). Leopold Blaustein’s Descriptive Psychology and Aesthetics in Light of His Criticism of Husserl. In W.Płotka, & P.Eldridge (Eds.), Early Phenomenology in Central and Eastern Europe: Main Figures, Ideas, and Problems (163–185). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-39623-7_10
• Rosiak, M.(1995). Ontologia ufundowania: ogólna teoria części i całości w „Badaniach logicznych“ Edmunda Husserla. Filozofia Nauki, 3 (1-2), 25–61.
• Rosiak, M.(1998). Twardowski and Husserl on Wholes and Parts. In K.Kijania-Placek, & J.Woleński (Eds.), The Lvov-Warsaw School and Contemporary Philosophy (85–100). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Rosiak, M.(2007). Existential Analysis in Roman Ingarden’s Ontology. Forum Philosophicum, 12 (1), 119–130.
• Simons, P.(2005). Ingarden and the Ontology of Dependence. In A.Chrudzimski (Ed.), Existence, Culture, and Persons: The Ontology of Roman Ingarden (39–53). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.
• Tahko, T.E., & Lowe, E.J.(2016). Ontological Dependence. In E.N.Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from www.plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/dependence-ontological/
• Twardowski, K.(1977). On the Content and Object of Presentations (R.Grossmann, Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Żegleń, U.(2018). On Existential Dependence and Independence in the World of Thoughts and States of Affairs (with Reference to Eugenia Ginsberg-Blaustein’s and Roman Ingarden’s Analyses). In A.Garrido, & U.Wybraniec-Skardowska (Eds.), The Lvov-Warsaw School. Past and Present (249–262). Cham: Birkhäuser.