Journal of Eidetic Science V

Eidetic Seeing in Practice*
Shotaro Iwauchi**Research Associate
School of International Liberal Studies
Waseda University

Abstract
The aim of this study is to present the methodological procedure of eidetic seeing inphenomenology on the basis of practical concerns. Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, explicates the method of eidetic seeing especially in Phenomenological Psychology and Experience and Judgment, but his discussion remains theoretically and epistemologically centered, so it would not be easy to extract its practical potentiality. In thisstudy, I review the basic principles of eidetic seeing, focusing on the difference between
eidetic seeing conducted within the natural attitude and within the transcendental attitude. Eidetic seeing in the latter case always opens itself up to mutual critique, and continual historical-intersubjective confirmation by others plays a significant role in phenomenological essentialism. Then, I assess the process of eidetic seeing presented byHusserl and attempt to modify it so that anyone (not only professional phenomenologists)
can make use of the eidetic method. Also, I carry out an eidetic analysis of discrimination
to lay out each step of eidetic seeing in practice.
Keywords: eidetic seeing; essence; phenomenology; transcendental eidetics

Introduction
The aim of this study is to reexamine the method of eidetic seeing in Husserlian phenomenology in terms of practical concerns. Edmund Husserl believes that the phenomenological enterprise should disclose the infinite field of study, including not only thestudy of consciousness but also the regional ontologies of thing, life, person, and culture.
Moreover, many scholars have proved that the phenomenological method effectively
works as a method for qualitative research and that phenomenology can be also applied
to psychology, sociology, pedagogy, and nursing science. 1 Furthermore, it can be argued
that phenomenology enables to see lived experiences filled with meanings, emotions, andvalues, such as the essence of love, nihilism, and sexuality.2

The original version of this essay was presented at The 36 th International Human Science Research
Conference (IHSRC) on “Between Necessity and Choice: Existential Dilemmas in the Human
Life-World,” The Karkonosze College, on July 14 th, 2017.
** shotaroiwauchi@gmail.com
*

―

1

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
However, the principles of phenomenology have sometimes been modified or distorted
in correlation with the specific aim and object corresponding to each disciplinary field.
Husserl himself always focuses on the transcendentalism of phenomenology led by transcendental reduction, yet it remains unclear what distinguishes among several types of
eidetic seeing within the natural attitude, the phenomenological-psychological attitude,
and the phenomenological-transcendental attitude. Indeed, the debate over this can beseen in the varying perspectives of different thinkers; for Alfred Schütz, “the notion of
eidetic reduction is at least partially an operative one,” 3 whereas Amedeo Giorgi claims
that psychological phenomenological reduction instead of transcendental reduction “ismore appropriate for psychological analyses of human beings since the purpose of themeanings of phenomena experienced by human persons.” 4
In the present study, I take the side of the transcendentalism of phenomenology fromthe perspective of the “controversy concerning truth,” which is supported by Klaus Held.
Without the universal epoché and transcendental reduction, belief conflicts among pluralopinions, hypotheses, and theories cannot be conciliated in principle. Eidetic seeing must
proceed on to universality as a historical project ad infinitum, adjusting sociocultural differences, not oppressing them. Also, this study shows eidetic seeing is regarded as a language game performed among plural transcendental subjectivities. Although Husserl
himself did not clearly present the necessity of intersubjectivity in the discourse of eidetic
seeing, he referred to the relativity of the intuited essence. The image of solipsism nagged
around phenomenology should be turned into one of intersubjective communication. Essence in phenomenology is considered as generated through language games in which
the concerns, the thinking, and the experience of each participant are mutually exchanged.
Finally, I review the specific procedure of eidetic seeing by extracting the essence of discrimination. It is more difficult to see the essence of lived experience than the essence of athing such as the eidos red or sound, because active insight rather than passive synthesis
plays a more significant role in the eidetic analysis of lived experiences filled with specificcontents.

1. The Principle of Phenomenological Eidetics
Phenomenology is the eidetic science of lived experiences. In order to clarify the methodof eidetic seeing, it is first necessary to confirm the basic principles of phenomenologicaleidetics as the method often depends on its aim. However, this does not mean that theaim of phenomenology must be fixed but rather that the aim and method are mutuallydependent; therefore, if the aim is changed on the basis of a new perspective, so should
the method likewise be modified.5 In what follows, I focus only on the particular aim andmotivation of Husserlian eidetics in terms of the difference between eidetic sciences in thenatural attitude and in the transcendental attitude. I call the former “general eidetic sciences” and the latter “transcendental eidetic sciences.”
Noting that, the general eidetic sciences can be established without the operation of

―

2

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
transcendental reduction (e.g., phenomenological psychology and ontology of thelife-world). In an article written for the Encyclopedia Britannica (Britannica) and in The Crisisof European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (Crisis), Husserl outlines two new
ways to transcendental phenomenology, “the way through intentional psychology” and“the way through ontology,” in addition to the earlier Cartesian way, which is prepared in
Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy First Book (Ideas I).6 In both the new ways, Husserl shows the general form of eidetic sciences, which is
explicated within the natural attitude. In Britannica, phenomenological psychology is defined as an eidetic science in contrast to positive (empirical) psychology, 7 but simultaneously, Husserl draws our attention to the fact that “we must not overlook the fact thatpsychology in all its empirical and eidetic disciplines remains a ‘positive science,’ a science operating within the natural attitude, in which the simply present world is the thematic ground.”8 Alternatively, regarding the ontology of the life-world, which is an eidetic science of the perceivable world filled with colorful meanings and practical concerns
in daily life, and which rescues the realm of the life-world from the mathematization ofnature, Husserl maintains that “the invariant structures of the life-world” can be investigated within the natural attitude.9 However, he also argues the ontology of the life-world
within the natural attitude cannot satisfy the demands of transcendental phenomenology,
because “epoché which we freed ourselves from all objective sciences as grounds of validity, by no means suffices.”10 Namely, it can be said that phenomenological psychology
and the ontology of the life-world must be necessarily converted to transcendental phenomenology with the operation of the universal epoché and transcendental reduction, atleast in order to elucidate “the enigma of subjectivity”11 and to avoid the crisis of European
humanity.
What should be noted is that the definitive difference between general eidetic sciences
within the natural attitude and transcendental eidetic sciences within the transcendental
attitude lies not only in obtaining the self-responsibility of the philosopher based on the
non-presupposition of philosophy, or in not delivering the things in themselves, but also
in the way in which common understanding and intersubjective confirmation are created.
Moreover, it is transcendental reduction that differentiates phenomenological essentialism
from traditional essentialism such as that of Plato and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.12
Within the natural attitude, one is always exposed to the possibility of dogmatism,
which is to say, general eidetic sciences cannot eliminate the possibility of “Platonic hypostatization.”13 An inevitable consequence of Platonic hypostatization is clear: “the controversy concerning truth,” as Held points out:
Anything–be it an object of sense perception, an institution, a concern, or athought–in short, all that we are involved with in our thinking and acting canappear to us in such divergent ways that controversy concerning these mattersinevitably arises. Controversy erupts when each involved party maintains that

―

3

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
the way in which something appears to him or her is the only way that corresponds to what and how this thing itself is. This is the “controversy concerning
truth” named in the title of this paper. Such a controversy is just as likely to occur between individuals as among groups of people, indeed among entire nations and cultures.14
One of the main characteristics of general eidetic sciences lies in the naive presupposition
that essence exists in an objective or substantial state. By hypostatizing or objectivizing
essence, the controversy concerning truth may occur, and plural dogmatic opinions, theories, thoughts, and models may conflict with one another. The point is that there is no way
to elucidate belief conflict within the logic of general eidetic sciences. 15 This aporia can be
resolved only when the universal epoché and transcendental reduction are required.
In comparison to general eidetic sciences, transcendental eidetic sciences always entail
the universal epoché and transcendental reduction. The epoché enables us to exclude all
positing of being, and the positing of ideas and essences should also be parenthesized.
Based on the epoché, all being turns out to be objectivity in correlation with transcendental subjectivity through the operation of transcendental reduction. Simply stated, this is amethodological suggestion that the constitution of every being, including entity, concept,
idea, and essence, should be seen and grasped as “my (or our) conviction”: “subjective
belief,” “communal belief,” and “universal belief.”16 In the “Epilogue” to Ideas I, Husserl
writes the following:
It [the world] is for me and is what it is for me only so far as it acquires sense
and self-confirming validity from my own pure life and from that of the others
who are disclosed to me in my own life. […]. Absolute positing means that I no
longer have the world as “given” to me in advance or with the status ofstraightforward existence. Instead, from now on what is exclusively given (as aresult of my new attitude) is my Ego, purely as the Ego that exists in itself andthat in itself experiences the world, verifies it, etc.17
Within the transcendental attitude, the world acquires its meaning and validity from thetranscendental subjectivity. The range of reduction must expand to the realm of essences
so that essence in transcendental eidetic sciences can be taken in correlation with transcendental subjectivity. Phenomenology treats not the “transcendent essences” but the“immanental essences” of lived experiences.18 This means that transcendental reduction
proscribes the naive substantiation and objectification of essence and avoids the possibility of endless belief conflicts among plural theories, as Husserl argues thatthe ideality of the universal must not understood as if it were a question here ofa being-in-itself devoid of reference to any subject. On the contrary, like all ob-

―

4

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
jectivities of understanding, it refers essentially to the process of productive spontaneity which belong to it correlatively and in which it comes to original givenness.
The being of the universal in its different levels is essentially a being-constituted inthese processes.19
In this regard, transcendental phenomenology “is to be an eidetic doctrine, not of phenomena that are real, but of phenomena that are transcendentally reduced,” and “thephenomena of transcendental phenomenology will become characterized as irreal.” 20 Put
otherwise, transcendental eidetic sciences avoid the controversy concerning truth in advance by regarding essence as something that correlates with transcendental subjectivity
and which is constituted within it, for essence is reduced to my conviction in this case.
Starting from my conviction, the transcendental eidetic enterprise aims at creating universal consensus among plural transcendental subjectivities, but simultaneously, it should
always open itself up to continual assessment by others as the infinite project. Namely, it
will never be finalized as the historical project.
In short, the principle of phenomenological essentialism as a transcendental eidetic science can be determined as transcendental reduction in order to avoid the controversy
concerning truth and belief conflicts that may arise from different theories, opinions, hypotheses, and truths.21 In contrast, general eidetic sciences without reduction may presuppose the objectivity and substantiality of essence from the outset, so they cannot havethe principle to reconcile the controversy concerning truth and belief conflicts in principle.
The positing of person, experience, and the world could lead to controversy concerning
what is the real substance of them. Methodologically speaking, there cannot be any eideticsciences within the natural attitude in the phenomenological enterprise. Transcendental
eidetic sciences investigate common structures among individual cases extend beyondsociocultural differences, but they do so without oppressing sociocultural differences bystarting from my conviction.

2. The Basic Procedure of Eidetic Seeing
Although Husserl introduces epistemological validity into phenomenological essentialism,
his explanation of eidetic seeing seems in fact to leave a solipsistic and dogmatic image.
Also, because Husserl’s investigations are mostly directed at clarifying the essential
structures of the already approved universality, such as the essence of color or ton basedon the similarity of body structures, a question arises as to whether eidetic seeing can beapplied to the unperceivable realm of meaning and values in which universality has notbeen created so far, which is to say, whether phenomenological essentialism has a potentiality for investigating the essence of lived experiences (e.g., nostalgia, discrimination, ortrauma) and the essence of ideas (e.g., freedom, goodness, or justice).
Eidetic seeing starts with the procedure of free variation. The point is that an experiential comparison of real individuals given within factual experiences is not sufficient for

―

5

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
seeing essences; rather, the world of pure possibilities within imagination or fantasy plays
a significant role in phenomenological essentialism. In Husserl’s words,
It [free variation] is based on the modification of an experienced or imagined
objectivity, turning it into an arbitrary example, which, at the same time, receives
the character of a guiding ‘model,’ a point of departure for the production of an
infinite multiplicity of variants. It is based, therefore, on a variation.22
Picking up an experienced or imagined object as a guiding model, an investigator of essences freely varies the starting model into similar images as copies that are resemblancesof the original under investigation. Further, these copies of the original are produced “inthe subjective mode of the ‘arbitrary,’”23 so that each variant should be regarded as a purepossibility that cannot be related to actuality at all. Through free variation, similar images
in question are mutually overlapped, importantly, in the dimension of passivity; “it is passively preconstituted as such and that the seeing of the eidos rests in the active intuitive apprehension of what is thus preconstituted.”24
Furthermore, freedom of imagination should be limited “insofar as essential laws ofpossible quasi-fulfillment are inherent here within the boundaries of the unity of an identical possible objectivity understood as intentional and still indeterminate.”25 Free imaginative variation has been bound by eidetic law that is under advance investigation. Thus,
there is a sort of circularity in eidetic seeing, as J.N. Mohanty points out,
how can I say ‘this is not any longer Ø’ unless I have already an acquaintancewith what something must be like in order to be counted as a Ø or what something must lack in order to be ruled out from being a Ø.26
For instance, if I do not know anything about what sound is, how do I pick up an experienced or imagined objectivity as a guiding model? Least of all, how do I imagine otherforms of sound? Finally, how do I know that “this variant” is the last one that ends theprocess of free variation? This is the structure of circularity inherent in eidetic seeing.
What is to be noted here is that circularity is an inevitable and legitimate characteristic of
eidetic seeing, for eidetic seeing is a method for clarifying the essential structures andmoments that constitute the object in question. The world has always already been articulated through various experiences and language games before conducting eidetic seeing.
In eidetic seeing, the investigator does not seek for the truth beyond this world in the Platonic sense but rather inquires how the life-world or the mind is (static) and has been
(genetic) structuralized and articulated through the precipitation of experiences. On the
one hand, Husserl keenly distinguishes essences and ideal objects (necessity and universality) from matters of fact and experiential objects (contingency and individuality). 27“The essence (Eidos) is a new sort of object. Just as the datum of individual or experiencing intui-

―

6

―

Journal of Eidetic Science Vtion is an individual object, so the datum of eidetic intuition is a pure essence.”28 On the other
hand, this does not mean that essence comes into existence without any experiences.
What is important, as Husserl says, is instead thatno intuition of essence is possible without the free possibility of turning one’s
regard to a ‘corresponding’ individual and forming a consciousness of an example—just as, conversely, no intuition of something individual is possible without
the free possibility of bringing about an ideation and, in it, directing one’s regard
to the corresponding essence exemplified in what is individually sighted; but
this is no respect alters the fact that the two sorts of intuition are essentially different.29
If phenomenological essentialism were aimed at the apprehension of substantial essences
totally separated from lived experiences in the life-world, it would fall into dogmatism inthe sense that no one would have a way to examine and assess the validity of intuited essences. The mutually dependent relationship between experience and essence makes it
possible to avoid “Platonic hypostatization.”30 Simultaneously, it is still possible that thetwo different objectivities and corresponding intuitions are distinguished through reflection on how we cognize entity and idea. Therefore, essences in phenomenology have aclose relationship with matters of fact and lived experiences, which is to say, essence cannot exist independently of lived experience.
However, eidetic seeing should be confounded with experiential generalization interms of freedom of imagination and the foundation of truth-ness. According to Husserl,
while all experience of the individual is constrained by a context of unanimity, eidetic
seeing based on free variation owns the specific freedom. 31 It is the freedom of fantasy
that makes it possible to exceed the limits of actuality, as Wertz maintains that “[t]he useof free imaginative variations in understanding what is essential among individuals of acertain kind distinguishes eidetic analysis from induction, which in contrast infers empirical generality on the basis of a limited number of actually observed cases.” 32 Also, itshould be said that the truth-ness of empirical abstraction itself demands eidetic insight
into what truth-ness is beyond limited experiential observations and experiments, for“direct experience only presents particular singularities and no universalities; therefore it
is insufficient.”33 Thus, eidetic seeing should be distinguished from experiential generalization, although essential structures are articulated through the long succession of lived
experiences.
There is another problem—the biggest problem, I think—in eidetic seeing: whether intuited essences can be necessary and universal. In other words, even supposing that an
intuited essence necessarily and universally can be validated at least for the self, wouldthat obtained essence be accepted by the other who lives in different conditions?
Certainly, imaginative free variation provides pure possibilities into phenomenological

―

7

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
essentialism so that the eidetic analysis of phenomenology can be freed from the actuality
from the limited number of experiential observations and experiments. Furthermore, aspreviously discussed, eidetic seeing requires the operation of epoché and phenomenological reduction as long as it avoids the controversy concerning truth. Without a transcendent factor such as God, essence in itself, and absolute truth, phenomenological essentialism investigates common and universal structures shared among individual cases. However, the question remains unanswered: “To what extent are possibilities identifiable objects and to what extent do they have an intersubjective objectivity?” 34 Husserl also writes
thatthe result is tainted by a relativity which is not revealed and taken into account.
It is only when all relativities are displayed and brought into the contemplationof the essence that the idea arises of the regional essence of a thing in general:
henceforth, in the context of an infinitely open nature in general, and, further, ofa possible concrete world in general with reference to a community of subjects ingeneral, whose open environing world it is. It is only then that we obtain an insight into essence in full concretion.35
There is no doubt that an investigator of essences lives in specific sociocultural conditions,and there is no guarantee for insuring that an essence intuited by the self corresponds tothat intuited by the other. As Burt C. Hopkins points out, eidetic seeing unavoidably entails “the relativities of historical meaning, of social, cultural, and political environing
worlds, of masculine and feminine aspects of subjectivity, and indeed, of both a natural
world and subjectivity itself.”36 On this point, Husserl might be optimistic about being
able to create universal consensus. He presupposes a symmetrical relationship between
the self and the other, namely, the other can be regarded as a variation of the self.37 Following Husserl’s logic, the self can reach universality through free variation of the ego of
the self. Husserl writes the following:With each eidetically pure type we find ourselves, not indeed inside the de facto
ego, but inside an eidos ego; and constitution of one actually pure possibility
among others carries with it implicitly, as its outer horizon, a purely possible ego, apure possibility-variant of my de facto ego.38
This passage unfortunately leaves the impression of solipsism and leads to a misunderstanding of phenomenological essentialism. What is important here is that essences inphenomenology always open themselves to intersubjective assessment and confirmation.
Rather, it should be said that essences in phenomenology are generated throughintersubjective confirmation. “The image of ‘lonely reflection’ should be replaced by theimage of ‘mutual exchange of experiences’,” as Ken Nishi puts it.39 The expectation that

―

8

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
the other will not be a variant of the self is apparently deficient in Husserl’s discussion of
eidetic seeing. In the case of an eidos color or sound, sociocultural difference indeed
might be out of the question. But when it comes to an eidetic analysis of meaning (such as
the essence of nostalgia, discrimination, or trauma) and values (such as the essence of
freedom, goodness, or justice), we need to see whether the other agrees with the obtained
essence, simply because the essential order of meaning and values would be more dependent on the specific sociocultural conditions than that of perception of things. Phenomenological essentialism always requires the dimension of intersubjective confirmation
through the language game.
Also, free variation does not work as adequately as Husserl anticipated in the case of
abstract conceptions and ideas, simply because it is not possible to visualize the guiding
model under investigation, which is to say, lived experiences of meaning and values cannot be reduced to perceptual objects. According to Husserl, the passively overlapped,
which is common among imagined various copies of the original in question, arises
through free variation, and eidetic seeing can be regarded as the operation of actively
grasping the overlapped essential structures. However, in the case of the essence of discrimination, for instance, it is clear that free variation itself works differently. The guiding
model of discrimination is visually obscure, and free variation does not easily produce theoverlapped essence. Rather, active “insight,” I think, plays a more significant role in theprocedure of eidetic seeing in this case. The investigator directly verges to the actual or
imagined experience of discrimination and considers how the lived experience of discrimination is constituted and what sort of keywords are suitable for the lived experienceof discrimination. Of course, free variation can constitute an indispensable part of eidetic
seeing even in this case, but the active intuitive apprehension comes first and then imagines the other cases in order to assess whether the keywords effectively express the essential structures and moments of the object.
The investigator has to directly investigate and inquire into essential structures andmoments with reference to other cases under investigation through free variation: “howshall I put this?” or “let’s put it this way.” Merely the operation of free variation is not adequate, however. Active insight into the essential structures and moments is more vital,
although imagination contributes to seeing essence in terms of imagining other cases
lived by other people. In the transition from only for me to for us in general, free variation
develops a new role in the phenomenological eidetic enterprise.
To summarize, although the basis of eidetic seeing presented by Husserl can be in partpreserved, eidetic seeing should be regarded as a historical-intersubjective project among
plural transcendental subjectivities instead of as an image of exclusiveness in the processof solipsistic thinking. Furthermore, we cannot expect free variation to passively produce
essence. Namely, active insight constitutes a necessary part of eidetic seeing while retaining the services of imaginative free variation.

―

9

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V

3. Eidetic Seeing in Practice
Eidetic seeing can be regarded as a historical-intersubjective project among plural transcendental subjectivities for the sake of creating common understanding. The process of
eidetic seeing must move forward avoiding of the controversy concerning truth. In otherwords, eidetic seeing clarifies not only commonalities but also differences among persons,cultures, and societies, and we can only create an attitude of mutual recognition against
personal, cultural, and social differences. Starting from my insight, eidetic seeing requires
the phase of intersubjectivity in order to determine whether the intuited essential structures can agree with each other. In this regard, phenomenology can be seen as a universal
language game aimed at obtaining common understanding through the sense of mutual
recognition of difference on the basis of mutual critique and a mutual exchange of words.
The procedures of eidetic seeing can be described as follows:a. The subject-object schema should be changed to the immanence-transcendence
schema through the operation of the universal epoché and transcendental reduction. Preoccupied doxastic ideas that posit objective being, absolute truth, substantial essence, and autonomous value should be all parenthesized, and authorities in
the field of study under investigation, such as a dictionary, a scholar, a theory, or afamous book, should also be excluded. All being is to be thought in correlation
with transcendental subjectivity.
b. The essential and structural moments that underpin the articulation of the object,
concept, and idea in question should be caught with keywords through reflection
on lived experiences. Reflecting on lived experience itself, which is the only evidence of eidetic seeing, should at first be based on one’s insight and the undoubtedness of the investigator of essences. “What xxx is” is the basic form of questionin eidetic seeing.
c. Through mutual critique and the mutual exchange of words, the intuited essence
should be refined to generate intersubjective confirmation and consensus. What is
to be noted is that one eidetic seeing should be reassessed by other eidetic seeings.
Each participant sees the essence in reflection and makes sure that the intuited essence certainly and undoubtedly can be validated among all individual cases of theobject. This means that a person with a merely skeptical attitude who always criticizes and rejects other opinions without offering his/her own ideas cannot participate in the phenomenological language game. The only way of critiquing is topresent one’s own insight and ideas.
d. To grasp essence does not mean to grasp the absolute truth. In this regard, eidetic
seeing may be considered as a specific language game that is aimed at creating

―

10

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
common understanding that extends beyond sociocultural diversity. The main goalof eidetic seeing is to clarify the essential structures and moment of the object under investigation by means of presenting keywords and assessing them throughmutual critique and a mutual exchange of words.
Eidetic seeing is not a subjective project of a solitary thinker but an intersubjective projectof plural transcendental subjectivity. Although the actual procedure of eidetic seeing may
be conducted mostly all by oneself (because eidetic seeing does not necessarily have theform of oral discussion), the intuited essence must be reassessed through other transcendental subjectivities. In this regard, essence in phenomenology is not the absolute truth oran eternal substantial entity. Rather, essence is generated through the phenomenologicallanguage game: mutual critique and a mutual exchange of words.
Furthermore, it should be noted that participants need to share their concerns about
and interest in the topic in question in advance, especially when eidetic seeing is conducted in the field of meaning and values. Nishi points out that eidetic seeing does notcoincide with directly grasping the a priori immanent essence but that it always requires“some vital ‘viewpoint,’” and therefore “essential insight or essential description is‘viewpoint-correlative’.”40 Nishi also argues, however, that this does not mean that “allknowledge is only relative. If one sets an adequate viewpoint and tries to extract essence,
knowledge can arise, the correctness of which everyone can examine and confirm.” 41 For
instance, when trying to see the essences of “the other,” we have to clarify the concern andpurpose of this eidetic seeing in advance, that is, why we are extracting the essences of theother or what sort of concern we share regarding the other. On the one hand, the otherintersubjectively constitutes the objectivity of the world with the self in terms of transcendental concern, but on the other hand, the other can be a source of joyousness andanxiety in terms of existential concern. The essences of the other emerge out of the specificconcern, so it is not easy to extract essential structures of the other that are common
among participants from different sociocultural backgrounds without any viewpoint. In
what field of study do we need universality? What for is essence to be extracted? Whatsort of perspective do we need to take? These are crucial questions that we should examine before seeing essence in practice, and the specific concern and perspective should beclearly presented in the process of eidetic seeing. This point was not explained by Husserl
himself.42
In what follows, I review the specific procedure of eidetic seeing by taking the essenceof discrimination as an example. First, it is necessary for eidetic seeing to clarify and to express clearly why and from what perspective I see the essence of discrimination. My mainconcern is how discrimination is different from merely distinction, what can be the psychological reasons for creating such an order, and what does the experience of discrimination conduce to? Let me start with my own experience.
When I lived in Ireland, I belonged to a rugby club in college. Soon after signing up to

―

11

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
join the club, I sensed that I had generated a sense of aversion among some of my Irish
colleagues although I had many other good friends there. Because I was the only playerfrom an Asian country in the club, they did not want to accept me. Often, they asked me
how I knew rugby if I had grown up in Japan. They did not want to accept the fact that
Asian people also play rugby. One day, during practice, one of them kicked me in the face,insulting my nationality, and I was taken to a hospital. This incident was the result of discrimination. The particular distinction between Irish and Japanese led to this act of violence.
Here, it is clear that the distinction between Irish and Japanese offers something different from the distinction between red and blue, and that the experience of discrimination
just because someone is a foreigner is not a special but a universal case found all aroundthe world. Also, through free variation, I can imagine various sorts of other cases expressing the discriminatory, such as discrimination against women, sexual minorities, believers in a particular religion, ethnic minorities, single mothers and children, and against
people with a particular accent, color of skin, and so on.
What are the essential structures of discrimination common to these cases? How arethese distinctions different from the distinction between red and blue? This leads us to thenext stage of extracting common structures of discrimination. First, distinction and discrimination are different in that discrimination always entails creating a hierarchy of value order. Basically, the distinction between red and blue does not include the hierarchy ofvalue order (although there is a difference in meaning), but discrimination against Japanese produces a sense of mastery. Second, this hierarchy of value order is generated
without any rational verification by making use of an inevitable sense of belonging, suchas physical characteristics, nationality, and place of origin. The person who is discriminated against cannot escape from this unavoidable situation, so discrimination can diminish that person’s self-worth and self-confidence just because that person simply cannotchange his/her belonging. Thus, the essence of discrimination can be determined as thecreation of a hierarchy of value order without any rational verification, which enables one
to elevate oneself to a relatively superior position by making use of an inevitable sense of
belonging. As a result, discrimination enables those who discriminate to secure aself-identity and a superiority complex, or to avoid otherness and alienation, but those
who are discriminated against may feel distress and blame themselves, thinking that“possibly, the blame could be all mine,” because they cannot understand the reason why“I” am rejected by others, and they assume the possibility that the cause of discrimination
exists inside “myself.”43
It cannot be said that the eidetic analysis of discrimination presented above is adequately finalized and completed; rather, the intuited essence should open itself to continual intersubjective reassessment. Namely, through mutual critique and a mutual exchangeof words, the intuited essence is redefined toward intersubjective confirmation; eidetic
seeing may be considered as a sort of language game (that is, a phenomenological lan-

―

12

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
guage game) so that phenomenological essentialism cannot be dogmatism or solipsism. It
is a study of intersubjectivity. Essence and common understanding in phenomenology are
generated only through the dimension in which every participant assesses and confirms
the border between what is identical and what is accidental to the object in question.
Finally, I would like to briefly describe some concrete possibilities that are opened up
by eidetic seeing. Of course, I do not think that all the possibilities of eidetic seeing can berevealed in the following, but these items constitute part of the aims and possibilities of
eidetic analysis.
a. Understanding of the Self and the Other
Participants in the phenomenological language game mutually exchange their own
experiences. Problems consciously and unconsciously confronted in life can beclarified and deeply understood through verbalization. Through examining andunderstanding not only the sensitivity of the self but also the sensitivity of the other, the process of mutual recognition is of utmost importance. Eidetic seeing is employed as a method for discussion (for example, the essence of nostalgia, jealousy,
anger, or death).
b. Elucidation of the Controversy concerning Truth
When plural opinions, hypotheses, policies, doctrines, or theories conflict with one
another in the practical or the disciplinary realm, eidetic seeing opens up the possibility for creating a common basis on which every theory can exist. For instance,in the case of the conflict between traditional education and progressive education,
the essence of education offers a fundamental regional basis for each camp. Or,
before we examine whether medical care can be regarded as infrastructure in society or as a service in business, it is important first to clarify what medical caremeans. Eidetic seeing offers constructive engagement based on common essentialconditions.
c. Reexamination of Theory
The theory that has already been presented can be reexamined through eidetic
seeing. For instance, by seeing the essence of unconsciousness, the validity of theOedipus complex proposed by Sigmund Freud may be assessed. Eidetic seeing
enables us to assess and examine the validity of already existing fixed systems andtheories and sometimes to reveal that there is indeed no validity or relevance tothem and that they are merely a fundamental hypothesis or misconception.
d. Method of Philosophical Investigation
Transcendental eidetic sciences can be gradually established only through development in the specific eidetic analysis of lived experience, region, and idea. For in-

―

13

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
stance, the essence of love, faith, existence, unconsciousness, sexuality, discrimination, eroticism, language, meaning, reality, consciousness, life, person, society, theother, value, truth, freedom, beauty, goodness, human rights, and justice constitutethe main topics in transcendental eidetic sciences. Eidetic seeing provides a method for transcendental eidetic sciences that attempts to counteract the outrage of violence, irrational dictatorship, and the enigma of life.
It should be said that these four possibilities and aims of eidetic seeing are entwined with
one another rather than independent from one another. Further, according to each field ofstudy, a new possibility and aim will appear. However, what should be shared among all
possibilities and aims is that eidetic seeing is directed toward common understanding
without the oppression of difference. When distinct characteristics between persons, societies, religions, and cultures are forced to fuse together into sameness, the phenomenological language game is faced with the end. In this regard, phenomenology is also a
study of diversity and difference.
To summarize the present study, eidetic seeing is conducted within the transcendental
attitude in order to avoid and to conciliate the controversy concerning truth. The possibility of universal cognition starts from a very relative position, my insight, but it is always
oriented toward universal consensus through mutual assessment and confirmation. In thisregard, the phenomenological language game requires that every participant create atranscendental attitude through the operation of the universal epoché and transcendental
reduction. This is the historical project of essential investigation into common understanding confirmed by plural transcendental subjectivities.

Conclusion
Eidetic seeing can be viewed as a language game performed by plural transcendental
subjectivities in the historical-intersubjective process. Transcendental reduction functions
as an apparatus of elucidation for belief conflicts. Namely, it enables the essentialism andthe universalism of phenomenology without the oppression of sociocultural differences.
It is true that we cannot completely know in what field it is possible for us to create
intersubjective confirmation. However, more importantly, it is important to examine inwhat field it is necessary for us to create intersubjective confirmation. Particularly regarding the essence of social goodness and justice, it is important not only to exchange one’s
viewpoint and ways of understanding but also to reweave the order of desire and cognition and the world articulation in a different way of constraint. Social justice should beuniversal social justice as a matter of first priority; therefore, recognizing each individual
justice is apparently insufficient. In this case, the possibility of the creation of universality
depends on rational thinking and consensus, and sometimes we may come under pressure to change our opinions. Merely the mutual recognition of difference cannot provide
the appropriate principle in such a field. Currently, I do not have a clear image of the ex-

―

14

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V
tent to which the line of thought presented in this study can be applied to these problems.
However, I am sure that the outcome of the present study will be of some use in furthering phenomenological research in terms of the phenomenological methodology of eidetic
seeing.
Husserl believes that the transcendental enterprise discloses the infinite task of eideticsciences, but this promise has not been proved yet. Only concrete eidetic analysis can undertake the task of phenomenology. The problem in phenomenology is whether we reallyneed a common understanding beyond sociocultural differences. Essence is not easily
generated when we continue to hold an ironic and skeptical attitude. In this sense, it is theprocess mediated through the will and effort to achieve goodness that enables phenomenological essentialism. In order to start a constructive discussion, to counteract irrational
dictatorship, and to repress the eruption of violence, a phenomenologist employs essential
thinking. This is the biggest challenge for phenomenology.

Funding
This paper is a part of the outcome of research performed under a Waseda University
Grant for Special Research Projects (Project number: 2017B-330).

Amedeo Giorgi, The Descriptive Phenomenological Method in Psychology: A Modified Husserlian Approach, Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2009. Alfred Schütz and Thomas Luckmann, The
Structures of the Life-World, (trans.), Richard M. Zaner and H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., Evanston:Northwestern University Press, 1973. Max van Manen, Researching Lived Experiences: Human Science
for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy, London: The Althouse Press, 1990. Patricia Benner, From Novice toExpert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice, Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, 1984.
2 Max Scheler, The Nature of Sympathy, (trans.), Peter Heath, London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1954. Jiro
Watanabe, Nihilism: Phenomenology of Inwardness, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1975. Jacqueline
M. Martinez, Communicative Sexualities: A Communicology of Sexual Experience, Lanham/Boulder/New
York/Toronto/Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2011.
3 Alfred Schütz, “Type and Eidos in Husserl’s Late Philosophy,” Philosophy and PhenomenologicalResearch, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1959, pp. 147-165, p. 165.
4 A. Giorgi (2009), op. cit., p. 98.
5 If we look at the history of phenomenological movement, it is not difficult to understand the vicissitude of the relationship between the aim and method of phenomenology: Husserl’s phenomenology, Max Scheler’s eidetics, Martin Heidegger’s ontology, phenomenological sociology, or naturalized phenomenology etc. The aim and method have been varied within the phenomenologicalmovement; each phenomenologist stands against the things themselves from his/her own viewpoint.
6 See Iso Kern, “The Three Ways to the Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction in the Philosophy of Edmund Husserl,” (trans.), Frederick A. Elliston and Peter McCormick, in Frederick A. Elliston and Peter McCormick, (eds.), Husserl: Expositions and Appraisals, Notre Dame: Notre Dame
University Press, 1977, pp. 126-149.
1

―

15

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V

Edmund Husserl, Psychological and Transcendental Phenomenology and the Confrontation with
Heidegger (1927-1931), (trans.) and (ed.), Thomas Sheehan and Richard. E. Palmer, Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, p. 165.
8 Ibid., p. 170.
9 Edmund Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction
to Phenomenological Philosophy, (trans.), David Carr, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970,
p. 173.
10 Ibid., p. 147.
11 Ibid., p. 5.
12 See Shotaro Iwauchi, “Some Remarks on the Confrontation between Essentialism and Constructionism: A Phenomenological Perspective,” Transcommunication, 3 (2), 2016, pp. 275-292.
13 Edmund Husserl, Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy First
Book: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology, (trans.), Fred Kersten, The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff, 1960a, p. 41
14 Klaus Held, “The Controversy Concerning Truth: Towards a Prehistory of Phenomenology,”(trans.), Amy Morgenstern, Husserl Studies, 17, 2000, pp. 35-48, p. 35.
15 Please note that I do not say every general eidetic science should be regarded as a dogmatist wayof thinking. Here the point is the state of attitude. If one absolutizes one’s opinion, one’s thought andphilosophy will inevitably fall into dogmatism. The universal epoché and transcendental reduction
prevents this absolutization of opinion.
16 Seiji Takeda, “Renaissance of Phenomenology,” in Seiji Takeda, Husserl’s “The Idea of Phenomenology,” Tokyo: Kodansha, 2012, pp. 203-287, p. 256 ff.
17 Edmund Husserl, Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy Second Book: Studies in the Phenomenology of Constitution, (trans.), Richard Rojcewicz and André
Schuwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989, p. 416 f.
18 E. Husserl (1960a), op. cit., p. 137.
19 Edmund Husserl, Experience and Judgment: Investigations in a Genealogy of Logic, (ed.), Ludwig
Landgrebe, (trans.), James S. Churchill and Karl Ameriks, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press, 1973, p. 330.
20 E. Husserl (1960a), op. cit., p. xx.
21 To be honest, I am not sure why phenomenological psychologists and sociologists tend to refuse
the idea of the transcendentalism of phenomenology. For instance, eidetic analysis of trauma andresilience made by Frederick J. Wertz is outstanding, and apparently conducted as transcendental
eidetic science in my view, but he himself attentively distinguishes psychological reduction andtranscendental reduction, standing on the side of phenomenological psychology. I think one reason
why Wertz employs psychological reduction, which still posits the existence of persons and experiences in question, instead of transcendental reduction is that psychology needs not only to createcommon understanding aiming at the eidetic dimension but also to cure psychiatric disorders aiming at specific individual conditions. Even so, my question remains whether his analysis can becalled transcendental psychology instead of phenomenological psychology. See Fredrick J. Wertz, “A Phenomenological Psychological Approach to Trauma and Resilience,” in Fredrick J. Wertz et al., Five
Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis,
Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry, New York/London: The Guilford Press, 2011, pp. 124-164,
esp. pp. 125-128.
22 E. Husserl (1973), op. cit., p. 340.
23 Ibid., p. 341.
7

―

16

―

Journal of Eidetic Science V

Ibid., p. 343.
Edmund Husserl, Phantasy, Image, Consciousness, and Memory (1898–1925), (trans.), John B. Brough,Dordrecht: Springer, 2005, p. 671.
26 J. N. Mohanty, Transcendental Phenomenology: An Analytic Account, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989, p.
33.
27 E. Husserl (1960a), op. cit., p. 7 f.
28 Ibid. p. 9.
29 Ibid., p. 10.
30 Ibid., p. 41.
31 E. Husserl (1973), op. cit., p. 343 f.
32 F. J. Wertz (2011), op. cit., p. 127.
33 E. Husserl (1960a), op. cit., p. 37 f.
34 E. Husserl (2005), op. cit., p. 677.
35 E. Husserl (1973), op. cit., p. 363.
36 Burt C. Hopkins, “Phenomenological Cognition of the A Priori: Husserl’s Method of ‘Seeing Essences’ (Wesenserschauung),” in Burt C. Hopkins, (ed.), Husserl in Contemporary Context: Prospects
and Projects for Phenomenology, Contributions to Phenomenology, vol. 26, Dordrecht: Springer, 1997,
pp. 151–178, pp. 177-178.
37 Here I must extend my gratitude to Ken Nishi for drawing my attention to the importance of thedimension of intersubjectivity in eidetic seeing.
38 Edmund Husserl, Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology, (trans.), Dorion Cairns,
The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960b, p. 71.
39 Ken Nishi, “’Essential Insight’ as a method of understanding our internal life,” The Journal of Tokyo
Medical University, 69 (1), 2011, pp. 15-21, p. 17.
40 K. Nishi (2011), op. cit., p. 17.
41 Ibid.
42 According to Nishi, even the essence of perception demands a specific perspective that precedes
eidetic seeing such as the difference of perception and imagination. Husserl indeed extracts the essence from a specific viewpoint, but he is not aware of it. This naive attitude of Husserl’s leads to amisunderstanding of phenomenology as if the essence itself could exist without any concern andperspective. Ken Nishi, Philosophical Thinking, Tokyo: Chikuma-shobo, 2005, p. 425 ff.
43 I learned a lot regarding depression of self-value caused by discrimination from Kim Taemyeong,professor of legal philosophy and human rights at Osaka University of Economics and Law. I would
like to express my appreciation to him.
24
25

―

17

―