Andrea Staiti

Edmund Husserl is regarded as the founder of transcendental phenomenology, one of the major traditions to emerge in twentieth-century philosophy. In this book Andrea Staiti unearths and examines the deep theoretical links between Husserl's phenomenology and the philosophical debates of his time, showing how his thought developed in response to the conflicting demands of Neo-Kantianism and life-philosophy. Drawing on the work of thinkers including Heinrich Rickert, Wilhelm Dilthey and Georg Simmel, as well as Husserl's writings on the natural and human sciences that are not available in English translation, Staiti illuminates a crucial chapter in the history of twentieth-century philosophy and enriches our understanding of Husserl's thought. His book will interest scholars and students of Husserl, phenomenology, and twentieth-century philosophy more generally.

Cet article présente la philosophie des sciences de Max Frischeisen-Köhler, conçue comme une réponse critique aux néo-kantiens. Frischeisen-Köhler tire son enseignement à la fois de son professeur Wilhelm Dilthey et d’Edmund Husserl. Dans les quatre premières parties j’examine la critique que Frischeisen-Köhler adresse au néo-kantisme de l’École de Marbourg et à celui de l’École de Baden. Cette critique défend l’idée que la réalité joue un rôle dans la cognition en tant qu’élément totalement indépendant que la cognition doit reconnaître et qui ne peut jamais se développer en dehors de sa propre légalité. Dans la cinquième section, je m’attache à la phénoménologie de Frischeisen-Köhler. Sa thèse principale est que la réalité est expérimentée comme telle dans l’action, de sorte que notre conscience de la réalité ne provient pas de considérations théoriques sur les causes hypothétiques de nos sensations, mais de nos activités dans le monde en tant qu’agents. La science part de cette expérience pré-scientifique de la réalité. Je conclus par une critique de la distinction que Frischeisen-Köhler établit entre conscience en général et subjectivité individuelle d’un point de vue phénoménologique.

In this paper I discuss Jaspers’ theory of worldviews with regard to the contemporary problem of naturalism. In particular, I consider the frequent characterization of naturalism as a worldview. First, I situate Jaspers’ conception of worldviews in the context of the philosophical debate of his time. I then turn to Jaspers’ distinction between substantial worldviews and derivative shapes of worldviews and present his construal of naturalism as a derivative shape of what he calls the sensory- spatial Weltbild. I then argue that contemporary naturalism still fits Jaspers’ description and can thus be considered a derivative shape, rather than a genuine worldview in its own right. I draw on some writings by Heinrich Rickert and Wilhelm Dilthey to further substantiate my claim. I conclude by arguing that if naturalism wishes to present itself as a worldview it should orient itself toward our human experience of nature.

After the demise of German Idealism, Neo-Kantianism flourished as the defining philosophical movement of Continental Europe from the 1860s until the Weimar Republic. This collection of new essays by distinguished scholars offers a fresh examination of the many and enduring contributions that Neo-Kantianism has made to a diverse range of philosophical subjects. The essays discuss classical figures and themes, including the Marburg and Southwestern Schools, Cohen, Cassirer, Rickert, and Natorp's psychology. In addition they examine lesser-known topics, including the Neo-Kantian influence on theory of law, Husserlian phenomenology, Simmel's study of Rembrandt, Cassirer's philosophy of science, Cohen's philosophy of religion in relation to Rawls and Habermas, and Rickert's theory of number. This rich exploration of a major philosophical movement will interest scholars and upper-level students of Kant, twentieth-century philosophy, continental philosophy, sociology, and psychology.

Cet article présente la philosophie des sciences de Max Frischeisen-Köhler, conçue comme une réponse critique aux néo-kantiens. Frischeisen-Köhler tire son enseignement à la fois de son professeur Wilhelm Dilthey et d’Edmund Husserl. Dans les quatre premières parties j’examine la critique que Frischeisen-Köhler adresse au néo-kantisme de l’École de Marbourg et à celui de l’École de Baden. Cette critique défend l’idée que la réalité joue un rôle dans la cognition en tant qu’élément totalement indépendant que la cognition doit reconnaître et qui ne peut jamais se développer en dehors de sa propre légalité. Dans la cinquième section, je m’attache à la phénoménologie de Frischeisen-Köhler. Sa thèse principale est que la réalité est expérimentée comme telle dans l’action, de sorte que notre conscience de la réalité ne provient pas de considérations théoriques sur les causes hypothétiques de nos sensations, mais de nos activités dans le monde en tant qu’agents. La science part de cette expérience pré-scientifique de la réalité. Je conclus par une critique de la distinction que Frischeisen-Köhler établit entre conscience en général et subjectivité individuelle d’un point de vue phénoménologique.

In this paper, I take a fresh look at Husserl's key distinction between objectifying and non‐objectifying acts, which roughly amounts to a distinction between presentational and evaluative experiences. My goal is to provide a clear and unified reconstruction of Husserl's argument for the thesis that non‐objectifying acts are necessarily founded in objectifying acts, a thesis that is highly controversial in and beyond Husserlian scholarship. In the first section, I reconstruct Husserl's view in the Logical Investigations, according to which only objectifying acts establish an independent intentional relation to their objects, and argue that it is justified by the positing function of objectifying acts. In the second section, I address two problematic interpretations of this view and, after criticizing them, I present what I take to be Husserl's core argument for his position. In the third section, I turn to the revision of the view of the Logical Investigations that Husserl proposes in the wake of his transcendental turn, especially in Ideas I and II. On Husserl's revised view, all acts are objectifying, including emotional acts [Gemütsakte]. This revision has led scholars to consider Husserl's view aporetic. I propose an alternative interpretation that dispels the purported aporia. I conclude with some remarks on the costs and benefits of my reading, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of Husserl's view in general.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Husserl and Mathematics by Mirja HartimoAndrea StaitiMirja Hartimo. Husserl and Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Pp. 214. Hardback, $99.99.Mirja Hartimo has written the first book-length study of Husserl's evolving views on mathematics that takes his intellectual context into full consideration. Most importantly, Hartimo's historically informed approach to the topic benefits from her extensive knowledge of Husserl's library. Throughout the book, she provides references to texts and articles that Husserl read, marked, and annotated, although regrettably, very few of these sources are quoted explicitly in his published works. The overall picture that emerges from Hartimo's book shows that Husserl continued to read and engage with mathematics throughout his career, and, even though extensive discussions of mathematical issues are not frequent in his later works, some of the ideas he develops, for instance, in The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, can be read against the backdrop of the developments of mathematics in his time.Chapter 1 sets the method for the rest of the book. Hartimo emphasizes the importance of a methodological device that takes center stage in Husserl's work from the 1920s onward: Besinnung. Hartimo claims that Besinnung is a method to reactivate the "goals and purposes" (21) that originally motivated scientists engaging in a particular line of research. According to Husserl, as specialized research progresses and becomes standard practice, such original goals and purposes might be blurred by other concerns. When applied to mathematics, Besinnung thus amounts to a reflection "on what mathematicians should do, on what the genuine goal of their activities should be" (21–22). Hartimo argues that this kind of approach to mathematics comes close to Penelope Maddy's naturalism, which takes its departure from what mathematicians are actually doing and then proceeds to inquire into the ontological status of mathematical objects and theories. Hartimo identifies particularly in David Hilbert, a colleague of Husserl's at Göttingen, a vivid embodiment of what Husserl considered to be exemplary work oriented toward the ideal goal of mathematics.In chapters 2 and 3, Hartimo expands upon Husserl's conception of what the true goal of mathematics should be. She does so, first, by addressing the classical topic of Husserl's psychologism in his first (and only) work entirely devoted to mathematics, The Philosophy of Arithmetic, and Frege's well-known critical review of it. In Hartimo's rendition, Husserl criticizes Frege for his attempt to provide formal definitions of basic notions, such as equality. For Husserl, such basic notions are intuitively available and require no definition—rather, they should be put to work to clarify vague notions. Frege, in return, attacks what he takes to be Husserl's wishy-washy psychological account of numbers, which revolves around the concrete act of collecting items and abstracting from their specific contents. Ultimately, Hartimo argues, Husserl takes Frege's criticism to heart and in his later Prolegomena no longer pursues a psychological foundation of number, but rather emphasizes the distinction between the subjective and the objective sides of mathematics, with philosophers studying the former and mathematicians focusing on the latter. While Hartimo's verdict on the philosophical yield of the debate is in line with the standard interpretation of Frege's review as prompting Husserl's antipsychologistic turn, she makes a remark that might be worthy of further discussion: "While for Husserl the debate was about logicism, Frege shifts the debate to be about psychologism and here commentators have followed Frege's example" (50). It would be interesting to imagine what a Fregean reply to Husserl's view about the uselessness of formal definitions for basic notions like equality might look like. In any case, Hartimo's reconstruction makes it clear that, however motivated, Husserl's rejection of psychologism does not amount to an acceptance of logicism.In chapter 3, Hartimo puts forward two of her central claims: (1) Husserl was a structuralist about mathematics; and (2) for Husserl, the goal of modern mathematics is encapsulated in the concept of definiteness. According to (1), mathematics is about the formal structures of systems, which can be isolated and compared. Definiteness, in turn, is the property of systems...