Burt Hopkins

This paper offers both a phenomenologically psychological and a phenomenologically transcendental account of the constitution of the unconscious. Its phenomenologically psychological portion was published in the previous volume of this journal as Part I, while its phenomenologically transcendental portion is published here as Part II. Part I first clarified the issues involved in Husserl's differentiation of the respective contents and methodologies of psychological and transcendental phenomenology. On the basis of this clarification it showed that, in marked contrast to the prevailing approach to the unconscious in the phenomenological literature, an approach that focuses on the emotive and aesthetic factors (rooted in Freud's theory of repression) in the descriptive account of the constitution of an unconscious, there are cognitive factors (rooted in Jung's theory of apperception) that have yet to be descriptively accounted for by phenomenological psychology. Part I concluded with a phenomenologically psychological account of the role these cognitive factors play in the constitution of an unconscious. Part II shows how Jung's claims regarding a dimension of unconscious contents that lacks genealogical links to consciousness proper, i. e., the so-called "collective unconscious," can be phenomenologically accounted for if: (1) Jung's methodological differentiation of empirical and interpretative (hermeneutically phenomenological) approaches to the unconscious is attended to and; (2) such attention is guided by the phenomenologically transcendental critique of the emotive and aesthetic limitations of both the Freudian and heretofore Husserlian accounts of the descriptive genesis of something like an unconscious.

Jacob Klein’s own account of the change from the ancient to the modern mode of thinking presented in his seminal Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origin of Algebra included the observation that it did not consider the larger perspective of this change. The discussion to follow proposes to view the larger perspective of this transition through the lens provided by the Kantian concept of a “critique” of pure reason. By asking and attempting to answer the question of whether Klein’s account of what he calls the “symbolic abstraction” responsible for the genesis of the modern concept of number can be seen as what Kant characterizes as an “assessment” of pure reason, it is my intent to venture a prolegomenon to a critique of what, following Klein, I want to argue is most properly called “symbolic reason.”

Straipsnyjc svarstornas Algio Micklino atsakas huscrliSkosios fcnorncnologijos kritikarns. Autorius iSrySkina tris svarbiausius IJusscrlio kritikq argurnen- tus: 1 .IHusscrlio fcnorncnologija yra toli graiu nc "rnohlas bc jokiq ikankstiniy prielaidq", ji suponuo- ja dckartiSkqj teiginj, jog bliti rciSkia "hliti paiintu". 2.1-Tusserlio tciginj apic fcnorncnologines duotics apo- diktiSkurnq susilpnina jo patics patcikiarni tokios duo- tics apra5yrnai. IS ju, prieSingai Husserlio ketinirnarns. i6aiSkcja fenorncnologincs rcflcksijos ncpajcgurnas "susidoroti" tiek su retencine 1;iikines patirties di- rncnsija, tiek su radikalia Kito patirtics kitokybe. 3.Husscrlio rnctodui ir rnqstyrnui apskritai budingas eurocentrizrnas ir episterninis irnpcrializrnas - visus kultlirinius ir istorinills skirturnus jis susurnuojn savo fenornenologijoje, kuriy traktuoja kaip slaptq graiko- curopictiSko.jo irnogaus llikcsi.iij iksipildyrnn. Algiui Micktinui svarbiausias klausirnns yra Sis: Koclkl reiketq intcrpretuoti Husserli blitent iitaip? Micktinas, Husscrlio rnokiniy Eugcno Finko ir Lud- wigo Landgrebe's rnokinys, gcrai suvokc, jog ypa- tingas Husscrlio raSyrno stilius nesyk yra veikiau su- trrlkdes nei pacle,jysvisu radikalurnu atsiskleisti svar- biausiorns Mol\qto.jo @valgorns ir atradirnarns. Tatiau jam Sis triikurnas visuornct atrodes ncrciksrningas ly- ginant su rniliiniiku potcncialu, kuris Siuosc atradi- rnuose gltidi. laukdarnas tolcsnio iiplctojirno. Hus- scrlio filosofija Micktinui yra tarsi jminirno laukiantis rnjsliy rinkinps, ir Si jrninirnq jis laiko prasrningesniu uidaviniu ui pastangas padcrnonstruoti huserliSkos fenornenologijos nenuoscklurnus ir silpnqsiasvietas. Savo darbuose Micktinas parodo. jog, ncpaisant kri- tikq iipuoliu, Husscrlio fcnorncnologinio rnctodo vi- suotinurnas ir fundamentalurnas iilicka ncpancigti. Raktiniai iodiiai: fi.nornenologija, refleksijn, skirtis, jk~~orner~ns, ~~~~enntnn.spn.snrrli.s, pntirtis

This book reassesses the phenomenological `controversy' between Husserl and Heidegger over the proper status of the phenomenon of intentionality. It seeks to determine whether Heidegger's hermeneutical critique of intentionality is sensitive to Husserl's reflective account of its `Sachen selbst'. Hopkins argues that Heidegger's critique is directed toward the `cogito' modality of intentionality, and therefore, passes over its `non-actional', or `horizonal', dimension in Husserl's phenomenology. As a result of this, he concludes that Heidegger misinterprets Husserl's account of the intentional `immanence' exhibited by phenomenological reflection. On the basis of these findings, Hopkins suggests that the phenomenological methodology, operative in the so-called hermeneutic critique of transcendental consciousness, itself involves transcendental `presuppositions' that are most appropriately characterized in terms of intentional, and reflective, phenomena.

The article explores the relationship between the philosopher and historian of mathematics Jacob Klein’s account of the transformation of the concept of number coincident with the invention of algebra, together with Husserl’s early investigations of the origin of the concept of number and his late account of the Galilean impulse to mathematize nature. Klein’s research is shown to present the historical context for Husserl’s twin failures in the Philosophy of Arithmetic: to provide a psychological foundation for the proper concept of number, and to show how this concept of number functions as the mathematical foundation of universal arithmetic. This context establishes that Husserl’s failures are ultimately rooted in the historical transformation of number documented in Klein’s research, from its premodern meaning as the unity of a multitude of determinate objects to its modern meaning as a symbolic representation with no immediate relation to a concrete multiplicity. The argum...