Mirja Helena Hartimo

In his 1896 lecture course on logic–reportedly a blueprint for the Prolegomena to Pure Logic–Husserl develops an explicit account of logic as an independent and purely theoretical discipline. According to Husserl, such a theory is needed for the foundations of logic (in a more general sense) to avoid psychologism in logic. The present paper shows that Husserl’s conception of logic (in a strict sense) belongs to the algebra of logic tradition. Husserl’s conception is modeled after arithmetic, and respectively logical inferences are viewed as analogical to arithmetical calculation. The paper ends with an examination of Husserl’s involvement with the key characters of the algebra of logic tradition. It is concluded that Ernst Schröder, but presumably also Hermann and Robert Grassmann influenced Husserl most in his turn away from psychologism.

Sense interaction is ubiquitous. All conscious experiences involve at least some interaction between the senses. One of the most debated questions in recent scholarship concerns the proper way of characterizing the phenomenology of multisensory experiences. According to Charles Spence and Tim Bayne (2015), the phenomenal character of multisensory integration is reducible to the co-conscious sum of modality-specific features. Following Casey O'Callaghan (2015), we can call this The Thesis of Minimal Multimodality. The main goal of the paper is to refute the thesis and show that the effect of multisensory integration is reflected in experience in a way that is not exhausted by (the sum of) modality-specific phenomenal features. Whereas O'Callaghan's strategy in trying to prove this consists in providing phenomenological evidence that runs contrary to what Spence and Bayne hold, he does not, however, put into question what has become since T. Nagel's famous essay (1974) the standard conception of the phenomenal. By drawing conceptual resources in the work of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, I will elaborate another approach and explain why the phenomenal character of experience cannot be reduced to its "what it's like" character. Phenomenal experience is thicker, and also includes various forms of bodily self-experiences and felt possibilities of action and behaviours. Building on these and like insights, the main objective of the paper is to outline a phenomenological account of multimodal perception and sensory interaction. I will draw three main conclusions. First, I will argue that both Husserl and Merleau-Ponty would, too, reject The Thesis of Minimal Multimodality and endorse the strong, Constitutive Thesis that O'Callaghan defends. More interestingly still, we will see, secondly, that the widening of phenomenal consciousness that they argue for allows to generalize the constitutive thesis, thereby showing that all perceptual experience constitutively depend on the interplay of two or more senses. Spelling out the details of this claim will bring me, thirdly, to specify the intrinsic relation between normativity and perceptual experience. In short, I will argue that the mechanisms responsible for multimodality make a phenomenological difference evaluable in normative terms.

This paper discusses Jean van Heijenoort's (1967) and Jaakko and Merrill B. Hintikka's (1986, 1997) distinction between logic as a universal language and logic as a calculus, and its applicability to Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. Although it is argued that Husserl's phenomenology shares characteristics with both sides, his view of logic is closer to the model‐theoretical, logic‐as‐calculus view. However, Husserl's philosophy as transcendental philosophy is closer to the universalist view. This paper suggests that Husserl's position shows that holding a model‐theoretical view of logic does not necessarily imply a calculus view about the relations between language and the world. The situation calls for reflection about the distinction: It will be suggested that the applicability of the van Heijenoort and the Hintikkas distinction either has to be restricted to a particular philosopher's views about logic, in which case no implications about his or her more general philosophical views should be inferred from it; or the distinction turns into a question of whether our human predicament is inescapable or whether it is possible, presumably by means of model theory, to obtain neutral answers to philosophical questions. Thus the distinction ultimately turns into a question about the correct method for doing philosophy.

An exciting trend in current analytic philosophy is the emergence of several topics that draw their inspiration partly from the work of Rudolf Carnap, a leading figure in the Vienna Circle. Approaches such as deflationary metaontology, conceptual engineering, logical pluralism, and related views on the normativity of logic are seen to have Carnapian roots; however, these topics are quite foreign to the once-prevalent but rather narrow reading of Carnap that derives from W. V. Quine’s and others’ appraisal of him in the 1950s and 1960s. The case of Carnap raises questions about the potential narrowness of our understanding of the Vienna Circle in general. While the reappraisal of the history of the Vienna Circle has been ongoing since the early 1980s, the more recent developments in analytic philosophy suggest that there might be even more interesting yet previously unnoticed views pertinent to present-day concerns. This Special Issue collects such novel perspectives on the Vienna Circle. The covered topics range from rereadings of the doctrines of the members of the Vienna Circle, such as Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, and Moritz Schlick, but also less well known figures, including its female members or sympathizers. We look for constructive connections between the Vienna Circle and different philosophical traditions as well as new perspectives on various thematic questions, such as the development of contemporary logic and unity of science.

This entry aims to explain briefly why Rudolf Carnap is an interesting philosopher, and so especially from the phenomenological point of view. There are two primary reasons for why this should be the case: First, there is a historical connection between the two. Carnap developed many of his philosophical ideas in Freiburg while attempting (in vain) to habilitate with Husserl. This may explain why interesting Husserlian themes can be found especially in Carnap’s early works. Philosophically more exciting is the second reason: the contemporary Carnap research is cultivating a view of him that is more nuanced than the Quinean logical empiricist Carnap. The “new Carnap’s” core ideas compare to Husserl’s views in interesting ways worthy of closer examination. In particular, the two philosophers have in common an open attitude towards the phenomena, which makes them each distinctively undogmatic and pluralist. The two are then compared with respect to what has been called Carnap’s “voluntarism,” intertwined with his method of explication and the principle of tolerance.

Husserl’s Philosophy of Mathematical Practice explores the applicability of the phenomenological method to philosophy of mathematical practice. The first section elaborates on Husserl’s own understanding of the method of radical sense-investigation (Besinnung), with which he thought the mathematics ofhis time should be approached. The second section shows how Husserl himself practiced it in tracking both constructive and platonistic features in mathematical practice. Finally, the third section situates Husserlian phenomenology within the contemporary philosophy of mathematical practice, where the examined styles are more diverse. Husserl’s phenomenology is presented as a method, not a fixed doctrine, applicable to study and unify philosophy of mathematical practice and the metaphysics implied in it. In so doing, this Element develops Husserl’s philosophy of mathematical practice as a species of Kantian critical philosophy and asks after the conditions of possibility of social and self-critical mathematical practices.

The paper discusses Husserl’s criticism of Frege in Philosophy of Arithmetic (1891) and then his later attitude towards logicism as expressed in Logical Investigations (1900-01). In Philosophy of Arithmetic Husserl holds that logicists offer needless and artificial definitions of notions such as equivalence and number. Frege criticized Husserl’s approach in Philosophy of Arithmetic as psychological, thus shifting the focus of the debate away from logicism. However, Frege’s criticism could be seen to lead Husserl to his later transcendental phenomenological concept of correlation and, with it, to a more developed criticism of logicism. In this regard the division of labor between mathematics and philosophy established in Prolegomena to the Logical Investigations (1900) is central. It implies that in Husserl’s view formal methods fail to shed philosophical insight into the essence of mathematics. In his picture the central notions in need of philosophical clarification are, instead of number and quantity, the notions that are central to abstract structural mathematics. Contrary to Frege who can only elucidate the primitive concepts, Husserl engages in detailed description of their constitution.

The paper shows how to use the Husserlian phenomenological method in contemporary philosophical approaches to mathematical practice and mathematical ontology. First, the paper develops the phenomenological approach based on Husserl's writings to obtain a method for understanding mathematical practice. Then, to put forward a full-fledged ontology of mathematics, the phenomenological approach is complemented with social ontological considerations. The proposed ontological account sees mathematical objects as social constructions in the sense that they are products of culturally shared and historically developed practices. At the same time the view endorses the sense that mathematical reality is given to mathematicians with a sense of independence. As mathematical social constructions are products of highly constrained, intersubjective practices and accord with the phenomenologically clarified experience of mathematicians, positing them is phenomenologically justified. The social ontological approach offers a way to build mathematical ontology out of the practice with no metaphysical magic.

The paper aims to capture a form of naturalism that can be found “built-in” in phenomenology, namely the idea to take science or mathematics on its own, without postulating extraneous normative “molds” on it. The paper offers a detailed comparison of Penelope Maddy’s naturalism about mathematics and Husserl’s approach to mathematics in Formal and Transcendental Logic (1929). It argues that Maddy’s naturalized methodology is similar to the approach in the first part of the book. However, in the second part Husserl enters into a transcendental clarification of the evidences and presuppositions of the mathematicians’ work, thus “transcendentalizing” his otherwise naturalist approach to mathematics. The result is a moderately revisionist view that takes the existing mathematical practices seriously, calls for reflection on them, and eventually gives suggestions for revisions if needed.

This essay presents Husserl’s Formal and Transcendental Logic (1929) in three main sections following the layout of the work itself. The first section focuses on Husserl’s introduction where he explains the method and the aim of the essay. The method used in FTL is radical Besinnung and with it an intentional explication of proper sense of formal logic is sought for. The second section is on formal logic. The third section focuses on Husserl’s “transcendental logic,” which is needed to make Husserl’s conception complete, i.e., to understand what makes Besinnung radical, how the proper sense of formal logic has been reached and how all this relates to transcendental constitution of an object in the world. Husserl’s work is connected to his context (in exact sciences) and the relevance of his views for the contemporary approaches is discussed.

Husserl holds that the theoretical sciences should be value-free, i.e., free from the values of extra-scientific practices and guided only by epistemic values such as coherence and truth. This view does not imply that to Husserl the sciences would be immune to all criticism of interests, goals, and values. On the contrary, the paper argues that Husserlian phenomenology necessarily embodies reflection on the epistemic values guiding the sciences. The argument clarifies Husserl’s position by comparing it with the pluralistic position developed in feminist epistemology, according to which sciences may be guided by several competing sets of epistemic values. Further, the existence of alternative epistemic values suggests that choices among such values are social and historically conditioned. Indeed, this is how Husserl’s mature discussion in The Crisis can be understood: his examination of Galileo’s contribution in physics operates as a criticism of the unquestioned dominance of certain set of inherited epistemic values, including the values of accuracy and universal applicability. Indeed, his The Origin of Geometry endorses another set of epistemic values, most importantly that of ontological heterogeneity. Husserl’s analysis demonstrates that the choice of any set of epistemic values is influenced by historical and social factors. Moreover, Husserl argues that we can only avoid biases due to “spells of the time” by continued reflection – Besinnung, in his terms – on the role of values in science.

The paper discusses Husserl’s method of historical reflection, radical Besinnung, as defined and used in Formale und transzendentale Logik (1929). Whereas Formal and Transcendental Logic introduces and displays Husserl’s usage of Besinnung in the context of the exact sciences, the paper seeks to develop it as a more general critical method with which to approach any rational goal-directed activity. Husserl defines Besinnung as a method that enables understanding agents and their actions by explicating agents’ typically implicit goals. It leads to the inclusion of historical-teleological activities as part of Husserl’s natural understanding of the world. The transcendental reflection radicalizes Besinnung by clarifying the kinds of evidence sought for in activities and then suggesting revisions to the concepts and principles used. The result is inner critique, which means that the activities are criticized against the norms that arise from reflection on these activities themselves, and not from a comparison with external standards or measures.

Critical views of logic are presented. These are views that are critical of logic in a sense akin to the way in which Kant is critical rather than dogmatic about traditional metaphysics. Such approaches differ from the Fregean ‘logic-first’ view. In accordance with the latter, logic is often regarded as epistemologically and methodologically fundamental. Hence, all disciplines – including mathematics – are considered as answerable to logic, rather than vice versa. In critical views of logic, by contrast, the logical principles that govern some subject matter may depend on the metaphysics of this subject matter or on the semantics of our discourse about it. Space is thereby carved out between a Fregean position on the one hand and thoroughgoing holism à la Quine on the other.

This book offers an updated and comprehensive phenomenology of norms and normativity. It is the first volume that systematically tackles both the normativity of experiencing and various experiences of norms. Part I begins with a discussion of the methodological resources that phenomenology offers for the critique of epistemological, social and cultural norms. It argues that these resources are powerful and have largely been neglected in contemporary philosophy as well as social and human sciences. The second part deepens the discussion by studying the existential and moral-philosophical foundations of practical normativity. It takes on the task of illuminating the origins of normativity and offers phenomenological alternatives to the neo-Kantian and neo-Hegelian approaches that dominate contemporary debates on the sources of normativity. The final part proceeds from practical normativity to the analysis of the guiding powers of values, perceptual norms, instincts and drives. These are different forms of intentionality that in various manners contribute to the constitution of human practices. By clarifying their divergences and their interrelations, the volume demonstrates that normativity is not one phenomenon but a complex set of various phenomena, with multiple origins and sources. Contemporary Phenomenologies of Normativity will be of interest to researchers and advanced students working on issues of normativity in phenomenology, epistemology, ethics, and social philosophy.

Husserl and Mathematics explains the development of Husserl's phenomenological method in the context of his engagement in modern mathematics and its foundations. Drawing on his correspondence and other written sources, Mirja Hartimo details Husserl's knowledge of a wide range of perspectives on the foundations of mathematics, including those of Hilbert, Brouwer and Weyl, as well as his awareness of the new developments in the subject during the 1930s. Hartimo examines how Husserl's philosophical views responded to these changes, and offers a pluralistic and open-ended picture of Husserl's phenomenology of mathematics. Her study shows Husserl's phenomenology to be a method capable of both shedding light on and internally criticizing scientific practices and concepts.

The paper examines Husserl’s phenomenology and Hilbert’s view of the foundations of mathematics against the backdrop of their lifelong friendship. After a brief account of the complementary nature of their early approaches, the paper focuses on Husserl’s Formale und transzendentale Logik viewed as a response to Hilbert’s “new foundations” developed in the 1920s. While both Husserl and Hilbert share a “mathematics first,” nonrevisionist approach toward mathematics, they disagree about the way in which the access to it should be construed: Hilbert wanted to reach it and show it consistent by his formalism on the basis of sensuous signs, Husserl held that there should be a reduction to elementary judgements about individuals. Husserl’s reduction does not establish the consistency of mathematics but he claims it is important for the considerations of truth.

In the recent literature on Husserl’s philosophy of mathematics the notions of constitution and construction have been assimilated (Da Silva 2017; van Atten 2017). The aim of this paper is to explain why this is problematic. The crux of the argument is that while construction in Husserl’s texts takes place in the natural mathematical attitude, constitution of the mathematical reality is revealed in the transcendental phenomenological attitude. Equating the two notions leads to misreading either Husserl’s notion of the transcendental attitude (cf. Da Silva 2017; Hartimo 2017) or else to a failure to appreciate the role of the natural attitude in Husserl’s approach (cf. van Atten 2017; Hartimo 2016). Since both mathematics and phenomenology are eidetic sciences, i.e., they are both about ideal structures, the difference between the two is perhaps difficult to grasp. However, a closer look shows them to be fundamentally different, both in method and in subject matter. The most fundamental difference between construction and constitution is in the attitude: in Husserl’s approach, construction takes place in natural mathematical attitude and constitution is something studied in transcendental phenomenological attitude.

ABSTRACT. The paper compares the views of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) and Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) on mathematics around the turn of the century. The two share a view that mathematics is an independent and theoretical discipline. Both think that it is something unrelated to how we actually think, and hence independent of psychology. For both, mathematics reveals the objective and formal structure of the world, and both think that modern mathematics is a Platonist enterprise. Husserl and Peirce also share a teleological conception of the development of mathematics: both view it to evolve towards a goal. This is where the primary difference between the two can be found: while for Husserl the goal of mathematics is to characterize definite manifolds, for Peirce it is to discover the real potential world as expressed by his conception of continuum. Peirce elaborates the continuum with the notion ‘potential aggregate,’ a totality of the series of uncountable sets (each created by Cantor’s theorem) briefly discussed and compared to Husserl’s notion of definite manifolds.

ABSTRACT This paper seeks to clarify Husserl’s critical remarks about Kant’s view of logic by comparing their respective views of logic. In his Formal and Transcendental Logic Husserl criticizes Kant for not asking transcendental questions about formal logic, but rather ascribing an ‘extraordinary apriority’ to it. He thinks the reason for Kant’s uncritical attitude to logic lies in Kant’s view of logic as directed toward the subjective, instead of being concerned with a ‘“world” of ideal Objects’. Whereas for Kant, general logic is about laws of reasoning. Husserl thinks that formal logic should describe formal structures. Husserl claims that if Kant had had a more comprehensive concept of logic, he would have thought of raising critical questions about how logic is possible. This kind of criticism cannot itself use forms of judgments or syllogisms of logic, nor even the ‘inferential’ [schliessende] method more generally, but should be descriptive in nature. Husserl's transcendental phenomenology is the method for such criticism. The paper argues that this results in reflection, and possibly revision, of the logical principles with respect to the normative goals governing the investigation in question.

The paper discusses Husserl's phenomenology of mathematics in his Formal and Transcendental Logic (1929). In it Husserl seeks to provide descriptive foundations for mathematics. As sciences and mathematics are normative activities Husserl's attempt is also to describe the norms at work in these disciplines. The description shows that mathematics can be given in several different ways. The phenomenologist's task is to examine whether a given part of mathematics is genuine according to the norms that pertain to the approach in question. The paper will then examine the intuitionistic, formalistic, and structural features of Husserl's philosophy of mathematics

Husserl’s notion of definiteness, i.e., completeness is crucial to understanding Husserl’s view of logic, and consequently several related philosophical views, such as his argument against psychologism, his notion of ideality, and his view of formal ontology. Initially Husserl developed the notion of definiteness to clarify Hermann Hankel’s ‘principle of permanence’. One of the first attempts at formulating definiteness can be found in the Philosophy of Arithmetic, where definiteness serves the purpose of the modern notion of ‘soundness’ and leads Husserl to a ‘computational’ view of logic. Inspired by Gauss and Grassmann Husserl then undertakes a further investigation of theories of manifolds. When Husserl subsequently renounces psychologism and changes his view of logic, his idea of definiteness also develops. The notion of definiteness is discussed most extensively in the pair of lectures Husserl gave in front of the mathematical society in Göttingen (1901). A detailed analysis of the lectures, together with an elaboration of Husserl’s lectures on logic beginning in 1895, shows that Husserl meant by definiteness what is today called ‘categoricity’. In so doing Husserl was not doing anything particularly original; since Dedekind’s ‘Was sind und sollen die Zahlen’ (1888) the notion was ‘in the air’. It also characterizes Hilbert’s (1900) notion of completeness. In the end, Husserl’s view of definiteness is discussed in light of Gödel’s (1931) incompleteness results.

This paper explicates Husserl’s usage of what he calls “radical Besinnung” in Formale und transzendentale Logik. Husserl introduces radical Besinnung as his method in the introduction to FTL. Radical Besinnung aims at criticizing the practice of formal sciences by means of transcendental phenomenological clarification of its aims and presuppositions. By showing how Husserl applies this method to the history of formal sciences down to mathematicians’ work in his time, the paper explains in detail the relationship between historical critical Besinnung and transcendental phenomenology. Ultimately the paper suggests that radical Besinnung should be viewed as a general methodological framework within which transcendental phenomenological descriptions are used to criticize historically given goal-directed practices.

The aim of this volume is to offer an updated account of the transcendental character of phenomenology. The main question concerns the sense and relevance of transcendental philosophy today: What can such philosophy contribute to contemporary inquiries and debates after the many reasoned attacks against its idealistic, aprioristic, absolutist and universalistic tendencies—voiced most vigorously by late 20th century postmodern thinkers—as well as attacks against its apparently circular arguments and suspicious metaphysics launched by many analytic philosophers? Contributors also aim to clarify the relations of transcendental phenomenology to other post-Kantian philosophies, most importantly to pragmatism and Wittgenstein’s philosophical investigations. Finally, the volume offers a set of reflections on the meaning of post-transcendental phenomenology