Husserl on Cartesian Evidence: A Textual and Phenomenological Reappraisal

Abstract Following Descartes, Husserl assigns a pivotal epistemological, methodological, and ethical role to evidence within the framework of his radical rationalism. At the same time, however, he repeatedly criticizes Descartes’ theory of evidence, on two principal counts. First, he rejects what he takes to be Descartes’ circular attempt to justify the epistemic value of evidence by recourse to metaphysical considerations, namely the existence of a veracious God; second, he maintains that Descartes fails to provide a precise phenomenological characterization of evidence, reducing it to a mysterious feeling. The aim of this paper is to reassess these two criticisms. On the one hand, by returning to Descartes’ texts, I argue that he does not ground the validity of evidence in God’s veracity; on the other hand, I suggest that Husserl’s second objection can be turned back against his own position, insofar as his concept of apodictic evidence remains phenomenologically underdetermined.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Transcendental Philosophy
Published
2026-09-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/jtph-2025-0035
Primary Topic
Historical Philosophy and Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Husserl on Cartesian Evidence: A Textual and Phenomenological Reappraisal

Alexis Delamare
Journal of Transcendental Philosophy
Historical Philosophy and Science
article

Husserl on Cartesian Evidence: A Textual and Phenomenological Reappraisal

Alexis Delamare
article en

Abstract

Abstract Following Descartes, Husserl assigns a pivotal epistemological, methodological, and ethical role to evidence within the framework of his radical rationalism. At the same time, however, he repeatedly criticizes Descartes’ theory of evidence, on two principal counts. First, he rejects what he takes to be Descartes’ circular attempt to justify the epistemic value of evidence by recourse to metaphysical considerations, namely the existence of a veracious God; second, he maintains that Descartes fails to provide a precise phenomenological characterization of evidence, reducing it to a mysterious feeling. The aim of this paper is to reassess these two criticisms. On the one hand, by returning to Descartes’ texts, I argue that he does not ground the validity of evidence in God’s veracity; on the other hand, I suggest that Husserl’s second objection can be turned back against his own position, insofar as his concept of apodictic evidence remains phenomenologically underdetermined.

Journal of Transcendental Philosophy
University College Dublin (IE)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Historical Philosophy and Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.