Ion Tanasescu

The idea of philosophy as science expands throughout 19th century philosophy; first instantiated by German Idealism's systems in the shape of absolute science which start from pure subjectivity to further gather deductively the entire world under its categories. This idea is later found within the works of Franz Brentano in the form of philosophy as inductive science that has to work according to the method of natural sciences. However, despite this methodological commitment, Brentano did not give up the metaphysical dimension of philosophical research and accepted natural theology as philosophical science. In this way, his inductive-scientific philosophy is fundamentally different from Comte's and Mill's positive philosophy, which purposely bracketed metaphysical problems in order to focus upon the constant relations of phenomena. Within this framework, the volume starts from Brentano's conception of philosophy as science and aims to analyze the source of this idea in Mill, Comte, and Bentham, its criticism and further development by Marty, Stumpf, Twardowski, and Husserl, and also the alternative competing views on the topic of Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Newman, Dilthey, and Wittgenstein.

The paper argues that Brentano was the exponent of a methodological monism, which is based on the requirement that science should be grounded on experience, and not on a speculative-idealistic principle, as in the case of German idealism. In Brentano’s psychological writings, this methodological requirement concretized in two different theses: (T1) The method of psychology is identical with the method of natural science; (T2) The method of psychology is inspired by the method of natural science. The thesis of this study is that an important part of Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint is elaborated in accordance with T1. By contrast, Brentano’s Descriptive Psychology illustrates the subsequent decision to give up this idea. In its place, the aforementioned requirement is elaborated in the spirit of a methodological particularism that recommends the scientist elaborate his methods according to the specificity of the phenomena under investigation and to the difficulties that need to be overcome when approaching them.

In the well-known intentionality quote of his Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, Brentano characterises the mental phenomena through the following features: (1) the intentional inexistence of an object, (2) the relation to a content, and (3) the direction toward an object. The text argues that this characterisation is not general because the direction toward an object does not apply to the mental phenomena of sensation. The second part of the paper analyses the consequences that ensue from here for the Brentanian classification of mental phenomena: in Brentano’s psychology one can distinguish two concepts of mental phenomena—the mental phenomenon in a broad sense and the mental phenomenon in a narrow sense; the former concept allows the separation of the mental from the physical, while the narrow concept allows the distinguishing of the main classes of mental phenomena. The third part of the paper shows that, with respect to sensation, the absence of a direction toward an object is compatible with both Brentano’s early taxonomies of philosophical sciences, and his early program for the establishment of a new, empirical and non-speculative philosophy. For this reason, I hold that intentionality is important for the foundation of both psychology, and empirical philosophy.

: Ernst Mach's atomistic theory of sensation faces problems in doing justice to our ability to perceive and remember complex phenomena such as melodies and shapes. Christian von Ehrenfels attempted to solve these problems with his theory of "Gestalt qualities", which he sees as entities depending one-sidedly on the corresponding simple objects of sensation. We explore the theory of dependence relations advanced by Ehrenfels and show how it relates to the views on the objects of perception advanced by Husserl and by the Gestalt psychologists.

In this paper, I argue that Brentano’s analysis of the mental act of presentation faces a major difficulty. Specifically, Brentano provides a description of the intentional relation of presentation that neglects an important difference between sensory presentation and nominal presentation. I also maintain that there are four kinds of intentional relations in Brentano’s empirical psychology: 1) intentional relation as a genus, 2) the relation of bare intentional containing of sensory presentation, 3) the relation of signification proper to nominal presentation, and 4) the direction towards an object as it occurs in judgments and emotional phenomena.

Before now, there has been no comprehensive analysis of the multiple relations between A. Comte’s and J.S. Mill’s positive philosophy and Franz Brentano’s work. The present volume aims to fill this gap and to identify Brentano’s position in the context of the positive philosophy of the 19th century by analyzing the following themes: the concept of positive knowledge; philosophy and empirical, genetic and descriptive psychology as sciences in Brentano, Comte and Mill; the strategies for the rebirth of philosophy in these three authors; the theory of the ascending stages of thought, of their decline, of the intentionality in Comte and Brentano; the reception of Comte’s positivism in Whewell and Mill; induction and phenomenalism in Brentano, Mill and Bain; the problem of the "I" in Hume and Brentano; mathematics as a foundational science in Brentano, Kant and Mill; Brentano’s critique of Mach’s positivism; the concept of positive science in Brentano’s metaphysics and in Husserl’s early phenomenology; the reception of Brentano’s psychology in Twardowski; The Brentano Institute at Oxford. The volume also contains the translation of the most significant writings of Brentano regarding philosophy as science. I. Tănăsescu, Romanian Academy; A. Bejinariu, Romanian Society of Phenomenology; S. Krantz Gabriel, Saint Anselm College; C. Stoenescu, University of Bucharest.

The paper defends the following thesis: the intentionality passage from Brentano’s Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (1874) can be interpre- ted from two perspectives: intentionality as the most salient distinguishing feature separating the mental from the physical, and intentionality as a the- ory of the way in which mental acts, with their contents, are related to ex- tra-mental objects. Fundamentally, the theory of intentionality from 1874 is an example of the former. Its role is that of allowing the establishment of psychology as a science. However, it can also be understood as a theory of intentionality in the second sense through a clarification of the relations it entails between the content and the object of the act. For this reason, it could be said that the act–content–extra-mental object distinction was already achieved in the 1874 work, at least at the level of sensory acts. The distinction between the psychical act, the content, and the object presen- ted through this content was already made in the EL 80 Logik manuscript from 1869/70 at the level of nominal presentation, which provides a fur- ther argument for the above thesis.

Die Abhandlung entwickelt und vertritt folgende Thesen: (1) Brentanos Vier-Phasen-Theorie wurde unabhängig von Comtes Drei-Stadien-Gesetz entworfen . (2) Aber Brentano legte großen Wert darauf, die Übereinstim- mung beider Theorien zu unterstreichen . (3) Beide Theorien gehen von verschiedenen Geschichtsauffassungen aus: Comtes Theorie schließt die Geschichte der fundamentalen positiven Wissenschaften ein, die geradli- nig verläuft, stets aufwärts führt und durch keine gesetzmäßig auftretenden Verfallsphasen belastet wird, aber dennoch Stagnationen kennt . Dagegen bezieht sich Brentanos Theorie vorwiegend auf die Geschichte der Philo- sophie, allerdings indirekt auch auf die schönen Künste . Dabei verlaufen die historischen Entwicklungen zyklisch und kennen Perioden des wissen- schaftlichen Auf- und Niederganges, die sich wiederholen . (4) Beide The- orien enthalten verschiedene Strategien, die auf eine grundlegende Erneu- erung der Philosophie abzielen . Für Comte gilt, dass die neue Philosophie positiv und unabhängig von der philosophischen Tradition arbeiten müsse . Dagegen vertritt Brentano die Auffassung, nach der die Philosophie von ihrer Methode her der Naturwissenschaft analog empirisch forscht und da- bei der philosophischen Tradition prinzipiell verpflichtet bleibt.

R. M. Chisholm interprets Brentano’s theory of intentionality through the lens of two theses: the ontological thesis, according to which the intentionality of the mental designates the fact that there is an immanent object in the act; and the psychological thesis, according to which intentionality consists of the direction of the mental act toward the extra-mental object. In my paper I interpret Chisholm’s and Brentano’s theses on intentionality from two perspectives: intentionality as the most salient distinguishing feature separating the mental from the physical (Chisholm’s ontological thesis), and intentionality as a theory of the way in which mental acts with their content are related to extra-mental but theoretically-constructed objects of physics (Chisholm’s psychological thesis). Thus, an important issue of my paper is also to show that Chisholm’s well-known ontological and psychological theses on Brentanian intentionality rest on presuppositions that do not fit the program of Brentanian psychology.

The paper analyses the method of Franz Brentano’s descriptive psychology and argues that this method can be considered as a preparatory form of Husserl’s phenomenological method. It analyses the following methodological stages: experiencing, noticing, fixing, inductive generalization and making deductive use. The paper asserts that noticing constitues the main methodical stage for Brentano, arguing that it represents a cognitive process which clarifies the particular components of a confused complex of consciousness by separating and differentiating its parts.

The paper analyses the method of Franz Brentano’s descriptive psychology and argues that this method can be considered as a preparatory form of Husserl’s phenomenological method. It analyses the following methodological stages: experiencing, noticing, fixing, inductive generalization and making deductive use. The paper asserts that noticing constitues the main methodical stage for Brentano, arguing that it represents a cognitive process which clarifies the particular components of a confused complex of consciousness by separating and differentiating its parts.

The paper argues that Brentano was the exponent of a methodological monism, which is based on the requirement that science should be grounded on experience, and not on a speculative-idealistic principle, as in the case of German idealism. In Brentano’s psychological writings, this methodological requirement concretized in two different theses: The method of psychology is identical with the method of natural science; The method of psychology is inspired by the method of natural science. The thesis of this study is that an important part of Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint is elaborated in accordance with T1. By contrast, Brentano’s Descriptive Psychology illustrates the subsequent decision to give up this idea. In its place, the aforementioned requirement is elaborated in the spirit of a methodological particularism that recommends the scientist elaborate his methods according to the specificity of the phenomena under investigation and to the difficulties that need to be overcome when approaching them.

In the well-known intentionality quote of his Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, Brentano characterises the mental phenomena through the following features: the intentional inexistence of an object, the relation to a content, and the direction toward an object. The text argues that this characterisation is not general because the direction toward an object does not apply to the mental phenomena of sensation. The second part of the paper analyses the consequences that ensue from here for the Brentanian classification of mental phenomena: in Brentano’s psychology one can distinguish two concepts of mental phenomena—the mental phenomenon in a broad sense and the mental phenomenon in a narrow sense; the former concept allows the separation of the mental from the physical, while the narrow concept allows the distinguishing of the main classes of mental phenomena. The third part of the paper shows that, with respect to sensation, the absence of a direction toward an object is compatible with both Brentano’s early taxonomies of philosophical sciences, and his early program for the establishment of a new, empirical and non-speculative philosophy. For this reason, I hold that intentionality is important for the foundation of both psychology, and empirical philosophy.

The article analyses the psychological aspects of “phantasy presentation” in Brentano’s lecture Ausgewählte Fragen aus Psychologie und Ästhetik dated 1885/1886. It focuses primarily on two major aspects of Brentano’s work: (1) the traditional understanding of phantasy presentation as intuitive presentation, and as fundamentally related to the perceptual presentation; (2) Brentano’s conception according to which phantasy presentations are “concepts with intuitive nucleus”. In this context, the text focuses on the following topics: the relation between the inauthentic presentations of the phantasy and perceptual presentations; the relation between presentations with attributive unity and surrogate presentations in logic; and the relation between the intuitive and conceptual element in the constitution of phantasy presentations. The study argues that, despite the title of the lecture—Ausgewählte Fragen aus Psychologie und Ästhetik—Brentano’s analysis of phantasy presentation does not refer to the aesthetic function, but to the psychological function of this presentation. Furthermore, it argues that the psychological aspect of phantasy presentation represents one of the main aspects of Brentano’s work, subsequently used by Husserl in his studies to underline the differences between the perceptual and phantasy presentation.