Talk:Edmund Husserl

Biography

I think the entry on Husserl needs some updating and improving. I will try to improve matters, which will lead to a more extended and organised page. I will start by providing some categories and reallocating the existing information to those.

As Husserl's life and works are closely connected I deem a chronological approach the clearest one. I propose a division in 5 headings:

• his time as a student (done)
• the period at the university of Halle (partially done)
• at Goettingen
• at Freiburg
• his works after his retirement

The reworking of this entry will probably bring several new empty entries (noesis, noema, Munich phenomenology, etc.). I will try to provide at least a stub to begin with for all those new entries. Help and criticism is greatly appreciated.

Cat 15:38, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

• I would suggest we keep this entry for the biographical issues; the outline you make above is good. As for entries like 'noesis' etc, better to just point to the Phenomenology article. AdamDiCarlo 16:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Continental Philosophy?

I noticed that Husserl recently has been placed in the category "continental philosophy". That is debatable, as Husserl can be placed before and above the alleged rift between so-called continental and analytic philosophy. As has been repeatedly argued in the literature, the entire School of Brentano is quite analytic and scientific in its approach and could be better classified under the header Austrian Philosophy (including i.a. Brentano, Meinong, Husserl and all their schools and pupils), as opposed to German philosophy such as German idealism, Kant and Neo-kantianism, Karl Marx and Heidegger. Alternatively, in view of his considerable influence on cognitive science and philosophy of mind, couldn't he be placed in two (or more) catagories?

Cat 15:38, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I have an interesting solution; perhaps (in this article) "Category:Continental philosophy" should be left UNBRACKETED for philosophical reasons. MPS 19:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Phenomenology?

no phenomology mentionded in article

Better description of Phenomenology

What is "phenomology"? I can't make any sense of the sentence that contains "...combine mathematics, psychology and philosophy with as main goal...."

Ideen Summary

Husserl's Ideen(Ideas) needs a thorough description in a seperate article.

Logical Positivism a misunderstanding of phenomenology?

This is outrageous, one thing is to say Carnap misunderstood Husserl. A quite different one is to say such a movement, which preceded Carnap's attending Husserl's lectures, could have been originated, even in part, by a misunderstanding of a such a different kind of philosophy. YoungSpinoza 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it ourageous or is it false? If it is true that logical positivism originated within the Vienna Circle during the 1920' that would combine very well with Carnap attending lectures of Husserl's in 1924-1925. Furthermore, what do you mean by "such a different kind of philosophy"? Husserl was a trained mathematician, strived to give a secure foundation to all formal sciences and worked ceaselessly to answer the question how knowledge is possible, combining insights from language, psychology and logic ... not so different from current analytical philosophy IMHO. Cat 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is "outrageously" false. Firstly, the Vienna Circle (which is not all logical positivism) started meetings around 1922, under Moritz Schlick, not Carnap, if it originated then it doesn't mean the foundations of its principles weren't laid quite before, in the member's readings of mach, kant, the marburg school members, frege, russell, wittgenstein and others. Secondly, the fact that Carnap read, heard and misunderstood Husserl, does not mean Husserl was influential on Carnap's own ideas. Up to here, enough to say the statement is false (maybe it was user-invented or maybe it came from some not cited phenomenology-worshipping author trying to show analytical philosophy has its origins in phenomenology and thus end the Cont-Anal controversy- I've read parts of some of them, and the most recurring theme is Austin and the Oxford school being deemed as "language phenomenologists", but I never heard this logical positivism issue). Now, considering, whether there is a relationship between Husserl and logical positivism (which is something I mentioned not really as an argument for the falsity of the "origin" connection), it is true Husserl originally tried to give a non-empirical foundation to mathematics, just like Frege wanted. Yet, he easily departed from that task both in the style and in the content appropriate to such an endeavour and topic. As u said, he was a "trained mathematician", yet not a "mathematician" in the sense that he made any lasting contribution to mathematics. In fact, little if any of his work can be considered of a "mathematical" nature. So right away in about the third of his logical ivnestigations he lefts any "analytical" approach (when he considers statements, thought geometrical figures and so on) and starts with the old-essence-ideas-subject unity-metaphysical jargon. Well, he worked to answer how knowledge is possible? I really think that was not even his purpose. Rather, he tried to "create knowledge" of a new type of "entity" that was unconsidered before him. As regards the "insights", hardly anything he wrote has reference to mainstream linguistics, psychology (even though he may have influenced quite a bunch of psychologists) or logic. Yet, my point is not to discuss this, rather, to indicate the falsity of such a statement placing the origin of logical positivism in Husserl (rather in a "misunderstanding", which, due to its negative connotations, may be regarded as incidental POV). YoungSpinoza 02:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be quite biased against the mere possibility that phenomenology and analytical philosophy might just share an ancestor or might have influenced each other at some point. Let's start out by building some common ground here, based on solid, demonstrable facts.

1. Schlick started out by being anti-positivistic and opposed to Mach. (Cf. Joia Lewis Schlick's Critique of Positivism in PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1988, Volume One: Contributed Papers (1988) , pp. 110-117)
2. Carnap was influenced by Husserl, quoting the phenomenological method of transcendental reduction as akin to his own. (Cf. Review by Bas van Fraassen of R. Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World, in Philosophy of Science 35 (1968), pp. 298-299)
3. Logical Positivism and Husserl's (early) phenomenology share very important traits. (Cf. Thomas Mormann Husserl's Philosophy of Science and the Semantic Approach in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Mar., 1991) , pp. 61-83)
4. Austin himself spoke of his endeavours as "linguistic phenomenology": in A Plea for Excuses he remarked that "I think it might be better to use, for this way of doing philosophy [i.e. Austin's own linguistic approach], some less misleading name [...] - for instance, 'linguistic phenomenology' .
5. Austin (and Grice and Searle) were anticipated by Anton Marty, his student Karl Bühler and by the Munich phenomenologists Johannes Daubert, Alexander Pfänder and Adolf Reinach. In particular, the latter developed a detailed theory of social- and speech-acts. Reinach's work was based mostly on Edmund Husserl's analysis of meaning in the Logische Untersuchungen, but also on Daubert's criticism of it. Pfänder had also been doing research on commands, promises and similar speech acts, but it was Reinach's work Die apriorischen Grundlagen des bürgerlichen Rechtes that was the first systematic treatment of social acts and speech acts. (many articles on this topic)
6. Husserl was very much a mathematician: he studied mathematics with some of the most prominent mathematicians of the time: Karl Weierstrass, Kronecker and Königsberger. He obtained his PhD in mathematics with a technical mathematical dissertation on the calculus of variations and worked for a year as an assistant with Weierstrass. He then strived to combine his mathematical and philosophical knowledge in his first works, treading in the footsteps of his mentor Weierstrass, who was also very interested in giving a solid foundation for mathematics. Furthermore he wrote several articles on logic and amthematics in the 1890's, entering in fruitful discussion as a peer with people like Helmholtz, Riemann, Schröder, Sigwart, Frege etc.. He was also an esteemd colleague and friend of Cantor and Hilbert and was able to integrated their discoveries and insights into his own work.

Hence I would ask you to reconsider your rant about Husserl not being a "true" mathematician and your claim that his style and method would not be "appropriate". Once we agree on some common ground, we might tackle the real issue at hand, regarding Carnap's understanding of Husserl and the influence it had on the development of Logical Positivism. Moreover, the "analytic-continental" shift didn't even exist at the time, and besides Peirce and Dewey there was no "anglo-saxon" philosophy outside of Great Britain either. Heidegger's philosophy and everything that followed might be considered "phenomenological", but not Husserlian Phenomenology, which is at stake here, so don't confuse postmodernism or anything like that with Husserl, whose ideals, like those of many members of the School of Brentano, were quite in line with what today is called analytical philosophy. A paper that might interest you could be David Woodruff Smith How to Husserl a Quine - and a Heidegger, too in Synthese 98 (1994) pp. 153–173 Regards, Cat 12:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

1. What does that mean? What does it matter to the content of logical positivism what Shlick “started out” thinking about positivism? Or even Mach, an individual who, by the way, had strange mystical ideas (like immanentism) that wouldn’t fit into LP? Ryle started out as a promoter of Heidegger in Britain and ended up dismissing as a particular kind of nonsense any philosophy that plays around “reference-less” concepts such as his famous “mind”. What does his own philosophical path tells us about the Oxford School or about ordinary language philosophy? Nothing.

2. Well, this shocked me, can’t check the source to see in what “sense” it is akin and I can’t check either whether he changed his views afterwards. Above all, I can’t know whether he referred to 1901 Husserl or to 1913 and afterwards Husserl. Nevertheless, as above, Carnap is but a name.

3. Well, they do share some traits, Husserl considered his Phenomenology to be “true positivism”, there is a common interest in Erlebungen, etc. I haven’t checked the reference, and attempts to draw such parallels are common, as I said.

4. A well-known cliché, Austin does not refer to Husserl and post-Husserl phenomenology, he only uses the word to express the relationship between language and phenomena, maybe in resemblance to the saying “a phenomenological theory” in physics, as distinct from a “representational theory”. Moreover, he uses the term just as a preferred suitable way to address the OS, not in any grandiloquent sentence.

5. Yes, way too mentioned by people trying to show “correlations” (correlations that are not quite parallel, and rather try to showing LP as a “deviated branch” of Phenomenology). It even made me want read Reinach, yet, the fact the topic was studied earlier doesn’t mean such an earlier study was a cause to the works of the Oxford School. Even Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations can’t be said to have spurred such an interest (which is easily contested through dates-check, even though many people think of Wittgenstein as having originated ordinary language philosophy). By the way, we were talking about LP not OS, nor OLF.

6. I never meant Husserl was not a true mathematician, I said he made no contributions to it. My college math teacher is a mathematician, yet he made no contributions to it. I believe his (my teacher) thesis was also on something related to calculus. Well, the “mathematical content” in Logical Investigations and all the content in Philosophie der Arithmetik would not classify as “in the style” of a math research article. Now, this has a reached a point of senselessness. Keynes was friend with Virginia Woolf and with Bertrand Russell. Does that make Keynes a mathematician or Woolf an economist?

It was a mistake to take this discussion to the analytic-continental shift, it takes us off focus. Thus, your (true) statement “besides Peirce and Dewey there was no "anglo-saxon" philosophy outside of Great Britain either" adds little to the topic in question (given that LP was not even Anglo-Saxon in origin).

Now, you do re-address the issue when referring to “regarding Carnap's understanding of Husserl and the influence it had on the development of Logical Positivism”. I do agree Brentano, neo-kantism and other late XIX century groups or thinkers may bear a resemblance to LP, and/or OLF and/or philosophy of science and/or many other sub-disciplines related to APh. Husserl may also have, though I believe less, resemblances of such a kind. Putnam said “well, when you come to think of it, even Plato may have been an analytical philosopher”. Of course, that doesn’t mean any kind of philosopher may classify as such (i.e. Hegel). Yet, parallelism is one thing, saying something “is partly originated by” is quite another (not to mention the original version said something quite encyclopedic like “the whole bunch of LP was a deviated branch of Phenomenology”). Going into individual “who influenced who” topics is much the “continental” way of talking about (or even doing) philosophy, which, you may imagine, I don’t really like to indulge in in my free time (not that I despise it at all, though). I suggest this: first, open (you) a new paragraph with title “parallelisms with analytical philosophy” and pour whatever parallelism you think appropriate; second, if you find an author (any, though I suggest not yourself, even though you may have published material on it) that speaks of LP or APh as being “partially originated by (early) Phenomenology”, then state it and cite “according to X, […] [reference]”. I’m sorry if I gave the impression I was an APh fanatic trying to dogmatically reject any parallelism, I just got over excited about a statement in the introduction that was blunt, POV and ameliorated after a clear “ideological philosophical vandalism”. I’ll try to get that article you mentioned, best regards. YoungSpinoza 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing

I plan on adding and re-editing a lot of this when I get the chance. I plan on discussing noema and noesis, etc. As well as "hyletic data" (though maybe not so much). I also plan on elaborating on the natural standpoint.

I already did some very minor edits. I added the Philosopher InfoBox template, switched "natural attitude" to "natural standpoint", and I took out the parenthetical "noesis" and "noema" which were inappropriately placed (the noema is not really the "object" of perception, or however it was phrased, it is the meaning through which perception is framed; the "object" would be an inner intentional object which Husserl denied the existence of).

Kevin L. 05:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Re HALF FULL. Right, Kevin, it is NOT the "object". But it is NOT the "meaning through which perception is framed" either. It is the sinnverleihende Akt, the act that lends meaning. It's NOT about being framed. It's all about ACTING. There can be no Abschattung without the sinnverleihende Akt.

I am not sure I completely agree with you. Husserl does talk about "acts" (and please note I only have read selections from Ideas) in terms of "acts of perception". However, and I am only saying this with partial certainty while in a pre-sleep dose, I do not take it that the noema itself is the act itself. In this language (and I might indeed be confused in some sense), it seems more fitting to say that the noesis is the act particular to the perceiver. However, the noema is the objective (in the sense that it is in all thinkers when they are in that noetic experience, as opposed to the noesis which is subjective and particular to the thinker) meaning attached to the object (I must be careful here, for many reasons) that sets up the framework through which hyletic data is ascertained (this, I take it, is what Husserl means when he talks about "filling" [or it might have been "fulfillment", I forget at this moment]). I do not doubt that you know much about Husserl and Heidegger, among others, but in this particular instance I feel inclined to respectfully disagree with you. Please correct me if I am indeed wrong. Kevin L. 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Husserl has to be read closely, Kevin. Husserl's language is not Heigibberish. Husserl wasn't trying to fool anybody.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re ABSCHATTUNG. Dear Kevin, you're quite obviously a decent and intelligent person. So I hope you won't be offended when I tell you that I can't discuss Husserl's terms with you. We would never be able to find common ground because we would not be talking about the same text. That's what I was trying to bring across with my remark. We could, however, talk about Husserl in a more general context. Take e.g. your strange statement that I "know much about Husserl and Heidegger". This is, of course, a classical syllepsis (or more loosely: a zeugma). What is strange about it is not so much that your schooling prevents you from seeing your figure of speech for what it is, but that it prevents you from realizing that other people consider the yoking of these two names as ridiculous. Or am I only imagining this?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My so called figure of speach was not so much to group together Heidegger and Husserl, but to make an overall statement referring to both to your knowledge of Husserl, and to your separate knowledge of Heidegger, which I only refer to because I recall a previous interaction on the gestell talk page regarding Heidegger. This, however, seems to be quite irrelevant for the immediate purpose of making an acceptable article on Husserl.

Your suggestion that we take Husserl in his general sense is intriguing. Exactly what do you have in mind? It would be improper to completely gloss over such key concepts as noesis noema and the natural standpoint. Perhaps it would be best to have an extremely broad and encompassing defintion (and very short) that makes the reader aware of the controversy. Perhaps an added section to the article as a whole on the difficulty of reading Husserl? This however would be outside my personal range, as such a task would require one to be acquainted with a larger amount of Husserl's work than I. My abilities in this respect only include more specific elaborations on the concept of the natural standpoint, noema, noesis, and fulfillment (or filling? again, the correct term escapes me at the moment). As such, I would expect only someone well acquainted with the multiplicity of Husserl's works (such as you) to be qualified to at least begin the section on the more general part of Husserl (as previously stated, I feel the current version is somewhat inadequate). However, to sit and quibble about things such as improper linguistic constructions within the talk page is merely to talk of immediately irrelevant (although helpful outside the context of this article) facts that contribute nothing to the article at hand (or so it seems to me). That said, I thank you for your comments, and hope a great article on the founder of phenomenology can be conjured. Kevin L. 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re IRRELEVANT. You mean to say that you would NOT think it is ridiculous to describe someone as knowing a lot about Beethoven and Britney Spears? Then how about Mozart and Mickey Mouse? Still not ridiculous? César Franck and Frankenstein? No?
You are mistaken, Kevin. This is neither irrelevant, nor can it be called quibbling. We are right at the center of the problem. Your problem. If you can't see that "Husserl and Heidegger" sounds ridiculous in ANY context it is because you believe that Heidegger was a philosopher. But as long as it is not 100% clear to you that Herr Professor Heidegger's writings are nothing but a monstrous pile of garbage, your opinions about Husserl's philosophy will not have any weight. Yes, Kevin, I do think that talking about trigonometry doesn't make much sense as long as it's not clear to all parties concerned what is and what is not a triangle. What's more, there is another point that in your shoes I would try to make clear BEFORE setting out to write a great article on Husserl: What makes an article great? I could of course give you my answer to this question. But I don't want to waste your time with yet another discussion that you feel is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I wish you lots of luck with your work. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we have extracted the essence of this discussion? I believe I have clarified that my statement of "Husserl and Heidegger" was in no way a grouping with respect to Husserl and Heidegger themselves, but with respect to you. Your mistake is that this is not linguistic confusion on my part, but on yours. It is not ridiculus to describe someone knowing about Beethoven and Britney Spears in two senses; one, that the person may indeed know quite alot about either separately, and two, it may be a comment on that persons wide range of knowledge. You have sucessfuly shown that you are unable to perform the "epoché", or bracketing of the natural standpoint, as you have shown to be somewhat infatuated with the properties of objects themselves. Could you not see that my statement was with respect to the ego, to the person's knowledge and perception, and had not a thing to do with the objects (viz. Husserl and Heidegger) themselves (except insofar as they were related, perhaps independantly, to the person's ego)? However, I take back the statement for two reasons; one, so as to rid ourselves of something irrelevant (and you have in no way shown otherwise). Two, you have shown that you do not know much about Heidegger. It is most often the case that someone is quite mistaken to consider the whole of another's work to be "a monstrous pile of garbage" (aside from the fallacious, and overly-emotional language). Heidegger's notion of intentionality (at least insofar as I am familiar with it through secondary sources) is ingenious and, I think, correct. While his writing may be quite terrible, his writings (at least some) are both intriguing (while many times disagreeable) and sometimes useful. Of course, a more concise, and perhaps pragmatic, reason to ignore this is that the article in question here is about Husserl, and not about Heidegger. While I respect your concern for my knowledge and formulation of ideas, you go off to discuss Heidegger when that is inappropriate in this context.

As for the definition of a "great article": Forgive me for the incorrect wording. While the question you raise is a good one, for the purposes of this article the answer is this: An article conforming to the great majority of standards set forth in Wikipedia guidelines, as well as being exceptionally informative and well formulated (along correct, concise, clear, and intelligent grammer and wording). This does not answer your question in general, but that is all that is pertinent for us here. I will attempt to further this article in this direction (although I must say it is at this time still quite "good) when I have the sufficient amount of free time to do so. I thank you for your good wishes, and I wish you luck with your own work. --Kevin L. 05:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

HELP!!!

Re BASIC QUESTION. Hey, YoungSpinoza, will you do me a favor? Next time, you are in the library, please get a copy of what Heidegger had to say about Die Grundfrage der Philosophie (The Basic Question of Philosophy) in the summer semester of 1933. The first two pages will do. But please don't cheat. Read them in the original German. Pay attention to the rhythm. Imagine you're sitting in class, listening to the Herr Professor hammering it in. Listen to the students stamping madly (noted in some editions) whenever Heidegger hits the right key. Don't worry, your German is good enough for this particular Heidegger text. As a matter of fact, your German is good enough for any Heidegger text. Heidegger's "philosophy" is revealed only in the texts that you can read. Forget about anything written in the usual Heigibberish.
When you are through with the two pages, please explain to the people here what kind of philosophy the students (Kevin's "secondary sources"!) were taught by the Herr Professor. And explain to them also why there can be no serious discussion about Husserl or any other philosopher of his time without this text. Sorry, but I haven't got the strength.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

death?

how did he die? Being a jew in nazi germany i can think of a few possible causes but its not mentioned, other than to say that he lived until 1938. WookMuff 11:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

He died of a good old natural death. He was quite old and had been ill. Cat 11:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Brittanica Article?

Was Husserl's famous exposition on phenomenology in the Encyclopedia Brittanica currently in the public domain? That'd be a nice thing to reproduce?Balonkey 15:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not Public Domain AFAIK, but it is online here. Cat 19:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Czech Jews

Yes, Husserl was Jewish, but no where does it suggest he was a Czech, and one cannot redefine the term "Czech Jew" to mean anyone born in Bohemia and Moravia who was Jewish. If this category is to be added it needs to have a rename that is appropriate in its use of words. 141.211.251.69 22:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

He wasnt Czech. He was German. Redy

Germany exists from 1871, he was born in a place which now is Czech, but at his born time was part of the Austrian empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.106.139 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The term "Czech Jew" has long since gone from this article. He's now described as "a German" and his nationality seems to be fully explained, although I see that the de.wiki article describes him as "Austrian-German". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Could Husserl be tagged as all four: Czech, Jewish, German, and Austrian? MaynardClark (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "tagged". Of course, "Jewish" is not a nationality, so that's ok. I guess the Czechs would want to claim him, because of where Prossnitz is located today, and as far as I'm concerned, why not. Another thought, though - do you think the artcoe currently lends enough support to the category Category:Converts to Protestantism from Judaism? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC) p.s. I made a suggestion for Austrian in the thread below headed "Nationailty".

Prossnitz is not only now located in Czechia but was since the time it was founded. In the time he was born the official term was Margaviate of Moravia and Kingdom of Bohemia but still one cultural and historical whole as it was hunders years before Austrian empire was created and after. The problem is he didn't want to be considered Jew, so he presented himself as a German and wanted to be seen that way, Prossnitz was a jewish city, he keeps his origin in secret from his children and couldn't continue if they saw the town. He hadn't no problem with being a Czech - he consider all Czech philosophers in Germany his fellow countrymen, he was married to woman also from Prossnitz, his family lived in Czechia for generations, he intended to escape to Prague before WWII. 46.135.26.202 (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Influences

Is there a reason Kant isn't listed as an influence? I was about to add him to the list of influences, but figured it would be best if I asked here first whether or not there are any reasons for his name being absent. Josh.passmore 17:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Simone de Beauvoir should absolutely be listed as a philosopher influenced by Husserl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leparadis (talk • contribs) 06:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Gottlob Frege section

The section about Frege's influence on Husserl seems out-of-context and overly specific/specialized. It looks like someone copied and pasted their philosophy mid-term into the article. Does anyone have any particular reason it should stay, or can it go?Binkyping 01:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

would you supply a few inline references?

Hello, I'm working on Georg Cantor, and would really like to include parts of the section copy/pasted below. I can't, however, because I have no full references for the assertions. Can anyone supply full references? Thanks:

Husserl recognized a logical third stratum, a meta-logical level, what he called a "theory of all possible forms of theories"... It is, in formal ontology, a free investigation where a mathematician can assign several meanings to several symbols, and all their possible valid deductions in a general and indeterminate manner. It is properly speaking the most universal mathematics of all. Through the posit of certain indeterminate objects (formal-ontological categories) as well as any combination of mathematical axioms, mathematicians can explore the apodeictic connections between them just as long as consistency is preserved.

This view of logic and mathematics accounted, according to him, for the objectivity of a series of mathematical development of his time, such as ... Cantor's set theory among others.

Thanks Ling.Nut 00:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK these points are made in Husserl's Prolegomena. IIRC most of them are inspired by Bolzano. Search Google Scholar for articles on Husserl's concept of "pure logic". Cat 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

logic

These two redlinks appear on this page, and are being addressed as part of the improvement project on logic articles.

• formation rules
• transformation rules

The two redlinks appear only in this article. If there is no objection, I'm going to link both to formula (mathematical logic) tomorrow. Rick Norwood 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd Language

I'm not sure why, but in the section on Husserl's critique of psychologism, there is a sudden digression into another language. Vandalism, I assume, but I don't know what language it is. Here's an example: μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος. If anyone could translate it back to the original, that would be great. Tiger Khan (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all Greek to me, but a translation of the text immediately follows in the article. Hgilbert (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The first Greek section may be translated parenthetically, but I don't believe the second Greek word(s) are. Also, why would Greek be necessary? Husserl may have written in German, but is there any reason he would have a thought he could only express in Greek? (Note: this is not an attack on you, thanks for your help; this is just something I'm wondering) Tiger Khan (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I transliterated the Greek words into Latin alphabet as a quick fix. However, since the quotation does not cite a source (and I don't believe Husserl uses the Aristotle quote himself), I think the section should be rephrased. 80.221.53.44 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from a non-specialist

I came to this page with almost no idea about Edmund Husserl, I'd been recommended to read about his work by a friend/ uni lecturer. So I represent an ordinary wikipedia user, not a specialist.

The article obviously has the potential to be great. The writers obviously have a very detailed and comprehensive knowledge. But, the big problem is for an encyclopaedic purpose it gets much too technical and detailed too early on - the initial summary explanation needs expanding and clarifying a lot!

Thanks. 82.32.0.13 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here here, to much showing off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.35.81.18 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

remark about Czech Republic

I made a slight change in the opening bio discussion - it had mentioned where he was born, then continued with a barbed comment about the expulsion of the German population in 1945. This I find problematic - not only did Husserl leave well before this time and not for this reason, but the German expulsion happened after his death. In terms of accuracy, Prostějov ceased to be part of the Austrian Empire in 1918, not 1945. A small point, admittedly, but I just wonder why an article such as this would serve as a forum for unrelated cultural politics. Hm. Br.locke (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Relativity

Hi! Are there any sources stating how much exposure did Husserl have to the findings of physics at the turn of the 20th century? I am asking because (it might sound naive, I know), concepts like relativity of time may have helped push him toward studying the phenomenology of time and maybe even the transcendental reduction. -- 213.6.6.112 (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Leibniz influence on Husserl

Huh?
Leibniz hasn't influenced Husserl and the latter hasn't been influenced by him?
I find this a bit odd...
Is there anyone, please, that would like to discuss it in private?
Thanks for your attention.
science.is.based.on.curiosity@gmail.com Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was to agree with you, but then I went and checked. Page 138 of Vol 1 of the L.U. in the 2001 Routledge paperback edition. He expressly credits Leibniz as a past philosopher who influenced his new conception of logic. I was surprised, but there it is.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Copyediting and clarity

I gave up on the psychologism section, but the next copyeditor may find these comments useful.

Is Psychologism totally a thing of the past? Who says? Needs a citation. Will make it present tense until some citation shows it doesn't exist any more. Stipulation is the wrong word, but that's not a copyediting problem, that's a content problem. What are the opposing views? Who states that logic exists outside of the human mind? That would be good as a counter-point. At any rate, the section on psychologism needs lots of work, besides just copyediting.

I strongly object to the terms "psychologism," "biologism" and "anthropologism" (the latter two merely thrown in with not even the merest attempt to discuss them) appearing without citations, without accompanying articles, without other points of view. I know the overall argument, most people who've taken up the finer points of logic know the overall scope of the "psychologism" argument - but let's not decide in advance who is correct. Make it neutral!

The article is under-referenced and makes sweeping claims about entire disciplines, without even linking to sections of wikis to show that the claims have any basis at all. Psychologism isn't even a word, and if it is one of the philosophical 'isms it needs its own page.

Using a passive tense instead of "we" (when there is no "we" in the article, Husserl is not a group of people) makes the unsubstantiated weaseling more obvious. It needs to be fixed. If Husserl said what this article says he did, surely there should be secondary literature on it. In fact, I have two volumes just on Husserl on my shelf, and several encyclopedias that would be sources - although they do not say exactly what is said here and I am not here to improve content, just to clear up the copyediting issues so progress can be made on other things.

I agree the section is written like a personal essay. However, I'm reluctant to just jettison it, as it's essentially correct. Psychologism is indeed a defunct doctrine, and I might find a reference in Dummett for that. The section can be written based on textbooks on Husserl, but it won't be a quick task.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Grammar quibble

I usually ignore this, but for some reason I found the over-use of "student of X" rather than "student of X's" in this article to be annoying. E.g., so-and-so "was a student of Faber." That's not incorrect, but more idiomatic would be "was a student of Faber's." The former is more appropriate to someone who studies Faber, the latter to someone who studied under Faber. It's the difference between "a student of me" and "a student of mine."

Nationailty

Since Prostějov was part of the Austrian Empire in 1859, when Husserl was born there, should his nationality be given as Austrian instead of German, or even Czech? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Arguably it should be Austrian rather than German, but both The Oxford Companion to Philosophy and The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy give Husserl's nationality as German, and as I pointed out, we certainly can't link the name of his nationality to Czech Republic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. They must both be considered very strong sources for an article such as this. Prostějov was only briefly part of Germany, of course (we know why. But Husserl obviously lived in German most of his life, and studied and wrote in German. But was he a German citizen? The article doesn't really tell us. Certainly, after leaving Prostějov, he lived the early part of his life in Vienna and then Olomouc. Later of course, in Freiburg, he resigned from the Deutsche Academie in protest against the racial laws. As a footnote I notice that the de-wiki article gives him categories of German, Austrian and Prussian! The ru-wiki page calls him German and gives him a Category of "German philosopher". While the fr-wiki says he was "of Austrian and Prussian birth" but also categorises him as "German philosopher". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edmund Husserl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040807142614/http://www.hiw.kuleuven.ac.be/hiw/eng/husserl/ to http://www.hiw.kuleuven.ac.be/hiw/eng/husserl/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051119191924/http://www.husserlarchiv.uni-freiburg.de/husserl.html to http://www.husserlarchiv.uni-freiburg.de/husserl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Kiepenheuer Institute for Solar Physics

Did Husserl have any connection at all to this place? Or is that image just a clever photoshopped spoof? There is nothing about in the article text. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

University of Freiberg library ban

Was he banned or not? The article currently says both "yes" (for just a week) and "no" ("incorrectly rumoured to have been denied the use of the library"). Which was it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Arabic translation

Omnipaedista, I'm failing to understand or find rationale for your deletion of the Arabic translation of one of the most important works of Husserl. FWIW, the translation was also winner of Sheikh Zayed Book Award. Nowhere did neither the cited MOS:SECTIONORDER, its relevant subsection (MOS:BIB), nor its parent (MOS:WORKS) mention anything to justify such deletion. I've re-inserted the material in case it was mistakenly deleted while restructuring. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Why should we have translations of Husserl's works in any language other than English? --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Where would we stop? Which language(s) would "not deserve" to have a translation of "one of his most important works"? We generally have works in a writer's native language. Did Husserl have any special affinity with Arabic? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's also Husserl's biography article. Translations of a work of his, let alone a magnum opus, into other languages gives readers an impression about its global notability. This certainly serves an encyclopedic purpose. The idea of enWP not discussing thematically relevant subjects satisfying notability requirements based on just not being in English strikes me as severely lacking worldview. Why do we have those transliteration and translation template parameters after all? Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "thematically relevant subject" - it's the same work, translated. If RS sources say the translation into Arabic is particularly notable, then that could be included, possibly with the details of that translation. One might expect to see a statement like "Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy has been translated into at least 14 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Tamil and Finnish" etc. or whatever? Just because that Arabic translation appears at Sheikh Zayed Book Award, doesn't mean it should also appear here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Winning a notable award can amount to the pretty subjective "particularly notable", although it'd be contradictory not to think the same of the still included anthologies just because they're in English. They too aren't backed by RS mentioning their "exceptional notability", nor do they have to (lest this be understood as WP:POINTy), in my opinion, so long as they're serving an encyclopedic purpose (as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Whether to introduce it in the prose or as a list item is, to me, a matter of how much details we have, with the least amount of details -- namely a mere citation, corresponding to a list item. I can see you just dismissed the discussion of global notability and the encyclopedic purpose I've alluded to, so I'll basically drop the stick and leave this to others who can probably address deletionism better than I do. Assem Khidhr (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Omnipaedista & Martinevans123 on these points. Husserl's many works have been translated into many languages. Why mention only this specific one & not all the other ones? Mentioning it on the Arabic Wikipedia would make sense but not here. Phlsph7 (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If we had an article specifically for this book then mentioning the translation there might be justified, but not in a general article on Husserl. Phlsph7 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Assem Khidhr: I'm very sorry if you think I've "just dismissed the discussion of global notability". But no, I don't see why a particular Arabic translation is necessarily notable. even if it's won a prestigious prize; it's the original work that's "globally notable" (perhaps). We have the English translations listed (even if they have never won any prizes), since the original works were in German: because this is English Wikipedia not "World Wikipedia"? I quite understand if you now wish to stop the discussion. Thanks for discussing and not edit warring, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Martinevans123, I must point out that your civility is inviting. I've been here for a while now, so I understand the limitations (and inevitability) of consensus and I have no intention to edit war whatsoever. Here are some notes:

1. The original work being more globally notable (as you've suggested) is what I'm arguing can be denoted by listing the translation and where the encyclopedic significance of that lies: having a notable author and philosopher translating a work and winning a notable award for the translation (which plausibly involves judgments about its quality as well, not just its origin) means that the work is notable in the Arab world at least. This is a piece of encyclopedic knowledge potentially useful to all kinds of human readers, nice and easy.
2. A fallacy arises in the opposition between enWP and "World Wikipedia": the linguistic modifier should be understood as the type of signifiers used to denote the targeted "All human knowledge" (as per the project's vision), not the type of content that should or shouldn't be targeted. Language plays a mere instrumental role, and again, that's why foreign sources are allowed and, more importantly, why we do allow direct interwiki translation: language, being a conduit, is rather a formal than a contentual requirement.
3. Arguing against the inclusion of the English translations is a bit of a strawman argument. I was pointing rather to the anthologies, which aren't Husserl's own work and thus should be subject to the general criteria for inclusion: verifiability, notability, NPOV, etc.
4. Citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which I originally introduced above, while removing the translation is a paradoxical overreach tbh, putting it side-by-side with lyrics databases and logs of software updates.

Though I was admittedly disappointed, my intention to stop was partly to avoid bludgeoning as well, since I feel like we've been circling in an otherwise straightforward matter. In case other arguments are there, I'll be happy to reply. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your very clear exposition. I have no intention of bludgeoning anyone. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

p.s. I guess if we had an article for Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy (First, Second and Third books combined?), it might belong there, either as a sepaarte text etntry or as a reference. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Jewish atheist?

Some time ago, the article was edited by User:Pashute to say in the heading that Husserl was a Jewish atheist. Although citations were added in support of this change, I have checked them and none seem to mention him being an atheist. As for being Jewish, although he was born Jewish, he later converted to Christianity, and so whatever affiliation he had with Judaism seems too attenuated and complex to be mentioned in the heading (the article's body does describe this, at sufficient length).

For now, I will undo Pashute's edit, but will mention him here so that he may defend it. LunaticLarry (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Due to nazism and the dispute about Heidegger's conduct and evidence about the discourse around him as Jewish in his later days, his official religion as Christian as opposed to the Jewish religion is irrelevant to the fact that he was continuously considered Jewish as a nationality. He even said he saw the persecuted Jews as his brothers. And as we now know he Was persecuted himself and from his being ... what? JEWISH. Then ther is the question of atheism. That was iianm the original saying about his religious beliefs. It is clear by saying a Jewish Atheist that was not a Jewish religion believer in any way. I find it hard to believe that someone still thinks we should categorize Jews in modern times (and proud ones at that) solely in accordance with their attitude towards the Jewish religion. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Biography or doctoral thesis?

This page has been blown completely out of the category "Biography." The bulk of the text reads like a philosophical thesis, intermittently interrupted by disconnected references to the political climate, the debatable merits of philosophical theories and a lot of details about the lives of other philosophers. Some aren't even connected to the Hesserl, they're simply philosophers in the same circle who have entire sections devoted to their lives. The biography should mention his family, colleagues, mentors and students. But they aren't the focus. They have their own Wiki pages. From an editorial pov, the page is also disorganized, repetitive, uses inconsistent tense (Hesserl says, said, is saying) and passive voice. In the passive voice it sounds like: "this lecture, given by Hesserl in 1931, being a departure from what he had done before, was received badly by those who had been interested in his work previously." That's an exaggerated example of the writing. Active voice: "Many former admirers of Hesserl's work condemned the new ideas he presented in a 1931 speech..." The information may be accurate, but the delivery is just as important. MandieJ1975 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguous modifier mired in ambiguous soil

In his early work, he elaborated critiques of historicism and of psychologism in logic based on analyses of intentionality.

Do you mean?

In his early work, he elaborated critiques of

• historicism
• psychologism in logic

based on analyses of intentionality.

Or do you mean?

In his early work, he elaborated critiques of

• historicism
• psychologism

in logic

• based on analyses of intentionality.

This is the kind of thing that keeps people from outside the fence permanently outside the fence, rather than inviting them in.

The Humanities are notorious for some of their Gordian shibboleths. If you've ever wandered over from the slide-rule side of campus and tried to unpack "romanticism" or "modernity" (or "socialism") you've had that "holy fark, Batman, how do these people even tie their shoes" moment. Then you see a word like "historicism" and your intestines begin to writhe. Should I check that out? Or would I rather do something else—possibly productive—with the whole of my Saturday morning? Does it have a handle you can find quickly where you can at least stick a pin into a rough cognitive map, or is it yet another one of those Houdini kaleidoscopes with about as much of a permanently fixed address as a sand dune in the Sahara?

'Psychologism' is similarly opaque from outside the fold. Was it applied retroactively to something classical? I'm sure they had words for things we now call psychology. For a crash course in how the old becomes new again, check out Husserl's own use of the word 'noema'. If you can't date 'logic' back to at least Euclid, you're not trying very hard.

So in the grand philosophic Venn diagram of all things classical as rehashed for 2000 years, the Bayesian prior is strong for some overlap between this unknown flavour of psychology and logic, and probably quiet a bit weaker for some overlap between logic and some unknown paradigm of historical treatment, but far from zero.

Thus a definitive parse of the above is entirely unavailable to anyone from the slide-rule side of campus with better things to do with their entire Saturday morning.

Steven Pinker calls this the curse of knowledge. I know that many people on the other side of campus have heard of Pinker, because a bunch of you signed a big petition to the effect that he was an ass, containing many false individual accusations, but never mind, it's the Gestalt that counts.

Moreover, Pinker wrote that entire damn book about why people on campus can't write very well, for precisely this kind of reason. That can't have helped his cause, either; nor is pointing this out likely helping mine, but it felt good to get this off my chest, and it ticked a box in my canine lived experience of barking at cats. — MaxEnt 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)