Daniele De De Santis

In the present section we will take to the next level our previous discussion of the concept of eidos. In particular, we will discuss Husserl’s notion of eidetic or a priori sciences, with a special focus on geometry (which Husserl takes to be the most paradigmatic example of a priori, material sciences). In particular, we will argue that for Husserl the importance of geometry is that it perfectly epitomizes the function that he ascribes to every eidetic sciences, i.e., that of rationalizing the empirical world.

In the present chapter we will follow the way in which Husserl himself develops his own conceptuality and language after the Logical Investigations by paying systematic attention to some of his most important lectures. Our goal is to bring to light when, and based upon what sort of difficulties and ambiguities affecting the notion of a priori, Husserl decides to start resorting to the term eidos to designate his own view on the matter. We will also show that it is around 1907 that Husserl starts recognizing the existence of two forms of rationality, and that, consequently, the a priori should be more generally understood as the expression of the ontological form of reason.

In this introductory chapter we will explain that Husserl’s phenomenology should be read and understood in light of the distinction between two different forms of rationality, which Husserl labels Rationalität and Vernünftigkeit respectively. While the former refers to what for the sake of brevity could be called ontological rationality or the rationality of being, the latter designates the transcendental form of rationality (according to the distinction between theoretical, practical and evaluative reason). We will also be claiming that the problem of the a priori is to be comprehended as the expression of the ontological rationality, the development of which coincides for the late Husserl with the very history of philosophy.

The paper proposes a systematic reconstruction of Oskar Becker’s interpretation of Husserl’s principle of transcendental idealism. Three phases will be distinguished in Becker’s approach. After a first attempt at understanding the principle exclusively on the basis of Ideas I, Becker tries to combine Husserl’s transcendental idealism with Heidegger’s ontology of Dasein. Finally, a third phase can be identified in which the picture that results from such combination is used by Becker to sketch an interpretation of the development of Husserl’s philosophy as a whole.

This paper offers an assessment of some of the central aspects of Edith Stein’s conception of intentional acts proposed in Potency and Act. Studies Towards a Philosophy of Being. Her account hinges upon a combination of Thomistic and Husserlian concepts. She borrows from Aquinas two conceptual pairs that are central to his metaphysics and theory of knowledge: the actuality-potency dichotomy; and the distinction between sensible and intelligible species. The distinction and relevant articulation between sensible and intelligible species provide Stein with the basis to present her own conception of intentionality (with special focus on perception): the sensible species is regarded as the correlate of the object’s Gestalt; by contrast, the intelligible species is mobilised to account for what Husserl labels noesis-noema correlation. But Stein’s ambition is also to inscribe her account of the species sensibilis within an overall (critical) interpretation of Husserl’s transcendental idealism. This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation, financing the project “Intentionality and Person in Medieval Philosophy and Phenomenology” (GAČR 21-08256S).

The goal of the present paper is to assess Hans Vaihinger’s understanding of the notion of the given in Die Philosophie des Als Ob. The claim will be advanced that the overall framework of Vaihinger’s theory of knowledge and, more specifically, his understanding of both the given and fictions should be sought for in the manner in which R. Hermann Lotze assesses the problem of knowledge, namely, the relation between thought and being in both his early and late Logik. As we will argue, the way in which Vaihinger recasts the opposition between what is given objectively (data of sensations) and what is added subjectively is to be deemed a direct radicalization of Lotze’s own stance. As the conclusion will further add, what is at stake inVaihinger’s fictionalism is a quite specific understanding of the ideas of reason and transcendental philosophy.

The book offers a systematic reconstruction of the disagreement between Husserl and Heidegger from the former's point of view, but without falling into any form of Husserlian apologetics. The main thesis is that Husserl's critique of Heidegger's existential analytics as a form of philosophical anthropology entails a deeper fundamental thesis, namely, that Heidegger confuses the subject matter of first philosophy (the transcendental subject) with metaphysics (in the Husserlian sense of the expression). At stake in Husserl's critique of Heidegger's philosophy in Being and Time is the refusal to transcendentalize the irrational aspects of our human existence. This second volume focuses on the question of being, clarifying the distinction between ontology and metaphysics in Husserl's thought. In fact, contrary to a long-standing and established interpretive tradition, according to which Husserl's phenomenology is metaphysically neutral, the book shows to what extent Husserl always understood as the ultimate goal of his philosophizing the positive foundation of a metaphysics. This volume appeals to students and researchers.

The book offers a systematic reconstruction of the disagreement between Husserl and Heidegger from the former's perspective, but without falling into any form of Husserlian apologetics. The main thesis is that Husserl's critique of Heidegger's existential analytics as a form of philosophical anthropology entails a deeper fundamental thesis, namely that Heidegger confuses the object of first philosophy (the transcendental determination of the subject) with metaphysics (in the Husserlian sense of the expression). Addressing the Husserl-Heidegger confrontation, this text provides the first systematic reconstruction of Husserl's conception of the system of philosophy from the perspective of his later works, with a special focus on the Cartesian Meditations. At stake in Husserl's critique of Heidegger's philosophy in Being and Time is the refusal to transcendentalize the irrational aspects and nature of our human existence. This first volume addresses Husserl's doctrine of transcendental idealism with the aim of elucidating the distinction between first philosophy, second philosophies and what Husserl calls last philosophy. This volume appeals to students and researchers.

Nous proposons de suite la première reconstruction de la discussion entre Martin Heidegger et Maximilian Beck, ancien membre du Cercle phénoménologique de Munich. Celle-ci a porté pour l’essentiel sur l’interprétation que Beck a donnée de « l’ontologie fondamentale » d’Être et Temps. En s’appuyant sur la correspondance encore inédite entre Heidegger et Beck, l’essai revient d’abord sur leur relation ; il analyse ensuite la critique majeure de Beck à l’égard de Heidegger, à savoir son « corrélativisme », ainsi que la réponse de ce dernier à cette critique dans ses cours de 1928.

Dieses Buch bietet die erste systematische Diskussion von Husserls Cartesianischen Meditationen. Beginnend mit einem Kommentar zum Text der fünf Meditationen werden in den hier veröffentlichten Aufsätzen einige der wichtigsten Begriffe der Husserlschen Philosophie untersucht und geklärt: Intentionalität, Synthese, Evidenz, Intersubjektivität. Darüber hinaus bietet das Buch die erste Diskussion von Husserls später Version der Transzendentalphilosophie und ihrer Relevanz für zeitgenössische Debatten in der kontinentalen und analytischen Philosophie. Mit Beiträgen von Andreea Smaranda Aldea | Lilian Alweiss | Stefano Bancalari | Jakub Čapek | Emanuela Carta | Daniele De Santis | Aurélien Djian | Saulius Geniusas | Sara Heinämaa | Leonard Ip | Hynek Janoušek | Federico Lijoi | Claudio Majolino | Danilo Manca | Sergio Pérez-Gatica | Witold Plotka | Alice Pugliese | Ignacio Quepons | Rosemary Rizo-Patrón de Lerner | Agustín Serrano de Haro | Wojciech Starzyński.

The present essay offers a first, systematic reconstruction of Husserl’s understanding of Socrates’ philosophical position in the Ideengeschichte with a special focus on the Socratic method. Our goal is twofold. On the one hand, we aim to provide a clear presentation of the way in which Husserl himself conceives of the “beginning” of Western philosophy by tackling the specifically Socratic contribution to it. On the other hand, we will clarify in what sense, and to what extent, the assessment of Husserl’s Socrates helps shed some light upon the properly Husserlian conception of philosophy, notably, his twofold notion of “rationality.”

In the following paper we will attempt to analyze and reconstruct Edith Stein’s interpretation of Husserl’s “transcendental idealism,” notably, the reason why, in her opinion, the latter ended up embracing that specific philosophical position. As will soon become apparent, according to Stein, Husserl misunderstands the peculiar ontological structure of individual essences and, in particular, the specific connection with reality that they carry within themselves. Without raising the question of whether Stein’s own understanding of transcendental idealism perfectly corresponds with Husserl’s, we will confine ourselves to discussing, first, the wider context within which she tackles it and, second, the relation between Husserl’s idealism and the formal-ontological issue of how to characterize the internal content of individual essences. No matter what we think of Stein’s critical assessment, her approach has the great and undeniable merit of forcing the “interpreter” to face the problem of the tight connection between the transcendental dimension and the eidetic dimension of Husserl’s thought.

This book presents a systematic discussion of the development of Husserl’s concept of the a priori from his early and through his later writings. The chapters contained herein analyze the different phases and aspects of Husserl’s phenomenology of the a priori in light of his twofold notion of reason, construed as both ontological and transcendental. Starting from the assessment of the introduction of the notion of a priori knowledge in the context of the Logical Investigations, this text uniquely explores its development during the Göttingen years. It is at this time during his work on The Crisis of European Sciences, that Husserl comes to see the a priori as a criterion to interpret the history of philosophy, notably, modern philosophy. This book sheds light upon such concepts as: essence and eidos; ideation, eidetic attitude and eidetic reduction; as well as formal and material, innate and contingent a priori. The author argues that the a priori becomes for Husserl the expression of an ontological form of rationality, i.e., the rationality immanent to being. This book appeals to students and researchers working on Husserl and phenomenology.

This paper presents a systematic discussion of Edith Stein’s critical understanding of Husserl’s transcendental-phenomenological idealism. After a brief explanation of the way in which, according to Stein, Husserl’s idealism should be framed, this paper offers an evaluation of her criticism with a special focus on her Introduction to Philosophy lectures of 1920. I argue that if, ultimately, Stein’s rejection of Husserl’s idealism in the text in question is deemed unsuccessful, we must examine the premises on which her own per-spective on the eidetics of nature is based.

The present essay, here published for the first time, is part of a group of four texts on the history of the early phenomenological movement that Theodor Conrad wrote right after World War II. One of these texts known as “Conrads Bericht” was edited by Eberhard Avé-Lallemant and Karl Schuhmann and published in Husserl Studies in 1992. The four original typescripts are preserved in the archive of the Munich Circle of phenomenology at the Bavarian State Library. As the reader will immediately realize, at the center of the present text is a peculiar account of the beginning of the phenomenological tradition, namely, of its first schism. Contrary to the usual thesis according to which the first schism revolved mainly, if not exclusively around the so-called “idealism-realism controversy,” Conrad points out that this was only part of it, and that the first controversy between Husserl and some of his early disciples or students bore on the nature of phenomenology itself.

In the present essay an attempt will be made at quickly reconstructing the debate between Dorion Cairns and the Munich phenomenologist Maximilian Beck, which bears on Husserl’s last published work, i.e., the Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. What is at stake is the value of Husserl’s phenomenology, with a focus upon the concepts of reason and rationality. As will be argued, the discussion between the two concerns the distinction, and relevant articulation, between what can be called “transcendental” and “ontological” rationality respectively. In so doing, this paper aims at both interpreting a crucial moment in the history of 20th century phenomenology and bringing attention back to the life and work of Max Beck.

The present paper provides the first presentation of Jean Hering’s dissertation Lotzes Lehre vom Apriori in light of Husserl’s assessment of Lotze’s theory of knowledge in the Logik. After a preliminary discussion of some of the main aspects of Husserl’s dismissal of both the metaphysical presuppositions and the absurd consequence of Lotze’s stance on knowledge, the case will be made for considering Hering’s critical approach to Lotze’s view on the a priori as a further development of Husserl’s position. In the conclusion, some remarks will be offered on how Hering elaborates on what he calls the “philosophical concept of the a priori.”

This paper aims at offering a concise, yet systematic, presentation of the Husserlian method of “self-variation” in connection to eidetic variation sic et simpliciter. After a brief review of the different meanings of this method in Husserl’s writings, I will focus on the way in which Husserl employs it to bring the eidos “ego” to the fore. To this end, I will take into account the specific subject matter of self-variation by resorting to a twofold concept of essence as well as to the formal-ontological notion of τóδε τι. The present investigation will have an almost exclusively methodological character, its purpose being to clarify a specific, yet still quite unexplored, tool of Husserl’s phenomenology.