Rodney K. B. Parker

Volume XVI Phenomenology of Emotions, Systematical and Historical Perspectives Aim and Scope: The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy provides an annual international forum for phenomenological research in the spirit of Husserl's groundbreaking work and the extension of this work by such figures as Scheler, Heidegger, Sartre, Levinas, Merleau-Ponty and Gadamer. Contributors: Esteban Marín Ávila, Thiemo Breyer, Jakub Čapek, Mariano Crespo, Roberta De Monticelli, John J. Drummond, Søren Engelsen, Maria Gyemant, Mirja Hartimo, Elisa Magrì, Ronny Miron, Anthony J. Steinbock, Panos Theodorou, Íngrid Vendrell Ferran, Antonio Zirión Quijano, and Nate Zuckerman. Submissions: Manuscripts, prepared for blind review, should be submitted to the Editors electronically via e-mail attachments.

The following essay serves as a general introduction to the idealism-realism debate at the core of the schism between Edmund Husserl and the early adherents of his phenomenology. This debate centers around two core issues: whether the “real” world exists independent from the mind, and whether epistemological idealism leads to metaphysical idealism. Husserl’s early critics saw his transcendental phenomenology as a denial of the existence of mind-independent reality and as a solipsistic form of idealism. Husserl considered many of these arguments to be predicated on misinterpretations. After contextualizing the idealism-realism debate as it unfolded within the phenomenological movement, I introduce the papers that comprise the present volume. These papers revive the debate concerning Husserl’s idealism among his mentors, peers, and students.

This volume aims to contextualize the development and reception of Husserl’s transcendental-phenomenological idealism by placing him in dialogue with his most important interlocutors – his mentors, peers, and students. Husserl’s “turn” to idealism and the ensuing reaction to Ideas I resulted in a schism between the early members of the phenomenological movement. The division between the realist and the transcendental phenomenologists is often portrayed as a sharp one, with the realists naively and dogmatically rejecting all of Husserl’s written work after the Logical Investigations. However, this understanding of the trajectory of the phenomenological movement ignores the extensive and intricate contours of the idealism-realism debate. In addition to helping us better interpret Husserl’s attempts to defend his idealism, reconsidering the idealism-realism debate elucidates the relationship and differences between Husserl's phenomenology and the broader landscape of early 20th century German philosophy, particularly the Munich phenomenologists and the Neo-Kantians. The contributions to this volume reconsider many of the early interpretations and critiques of Husserl, inviting readers to assess the merits of the arguments put forward by his critics while also shedding new light on their so-called “misunderstandings” of his idealism. This text should be of interest to researchers working in the history of phenomenology and Husserlian studies.

The paper is about a confrontation between Sidney Hook and Dorion Cairns that unfolded on the pages of The Journal of Philosophy in 1930. Hook published “A Personal Impression of Contemporary German Philosophy” following a brief stint studying in Germany. Hook initially identifies the phenomenological movement as one of the few high points of early 20th century German philosophy. However, Cairns found fault with almost every characterization that Hook gave of Husserl’s phenomenology. The aim here is to discuss the claims about the aims and method of phenomenology we find in Hook’s original appraisal and that get amplified and developed into criticisms of Husserl in his subsequent reviews of Formal and Transcendental Logic and Ideas I. Many of these criticisms persist among Anglo-American philosophers today. Despite Cairns’ attempt to defend Husserl, Hook maintained that Cairns did not adequately address the argument that Husserl’s logical realism and transcendental idealism are incompatible.

Alexandre Koyré (1892–1964) was a prominent member of the Göttinger Philosophische Gesellschaft, otherwise known as the Göttingen Circle. This group, who came together to study the work of Edmund Husserl, was responsible for the establishment and spread of the phenomenological movement. However, Koyré’s place within this group and how his early training in phenomenology impacted his later works has not been fully explored. He left no autobiography. The accounts we do have tend to emphasize the impact of Adolf Reinach and realist phenomenology on Koyré’s intellectual development and downplay the influence of Husserl and his transcendental phenomenology. After working with Husserl for roughly 3 years, Koyré submitted a draft–dissertation on the paradoxes of set theory. Husserl rejected the dissertation, and Koyré subsequently moved to Paris. Despite this change in location, Koyré kept in contact with his former Göttingen colleagues and, as I will show, never abandoned his phenomenological roots. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the historical–epistemological works that Koyré has become known for are a continuation of and a response to Husserlian phenomenology.

In this paper I draw attention to a little-known confrontation between Sidney Hook and Dorion Cairns that unfolded on the pages of The Journal of Philosophy in 1930. Hook published “A Personal Impression of Contemporary German Philosophy” following a brief stint studying in Germany. Hook initially identifies the phenomenological movement as one of the few high points of early 20th century German philosophy. However, Cairns found fault with almost every characterization that Hook gave of Husserl’s phenomenology. My aim here is to discuss the claims about the aims and method of phenomenology we find in Hook’s original appraisal and which are amplified and developed into criticisms of Husserl in his subsequent reviews of Formal and Transcendental Logic and Ideas I. Unfortunately, many of these criticisms, which Cairns considered to be based on misconceptions and misunderstandings, persist among Anglo-American philosophers today. Despite Cairns’ attempt to defend Husserl, Hook maintained that Cairns did not adequately address the argument that Husserl’s logical realism and transcendental idealism are incompatible. Moreover, Hook argues that Husserl’s idealism leads to solipsism.

Gerda Walther, a student of Alexander Pfänder and Edmund Husserl, penned numerous interesting contributions to phenomenology and phenomenological psychology during the 1920s, including her dissertation on social ontology and her studies on religious and mystical experience. This chapter gives a brief overview of Walther’s life and her relationship to both Marxism and the phenomenological movement, drawing attention to some of the interesting unpublished materials contained in her Nachlass. While Walther’s legacy has been widely neglected in the years since her death, there is renewed interest in her work on communities and we-experience. However, this only represents a small subset of her writings. Other aspects of her thought are relevant to contemporary philosophical debates in the phenomenology of religion and abnormal psychology.

Gerda Walther considered her Phänomenologie der Mystik to be her main philosophical work. Informed by her own alleged mystical experiences, this work attempts to show how spiritual beings are distinct from merely psychical beings, and that mystical lived-experiences and their objects can be distinguished from other forms of experience. Included here is a translation of the Introduction and Chapter One from the 1976 edition of Phänomenologie der Mystik, which outline her phenomenological approach to the study of mystical experience and her concept of the ego.

The present paper looks at the relationship between Edmund Husserl and Theodor Celms, and Celms’ criticisms of Husserl’s transcendental-phenomenological idealism. Celms argues that despite his account of intersubjectivity, Husserl cannot escape the threat of solipsism. First, I argue that there is evidence which supports the hypothesis that Husserl’s Fifth Meditation is a response to Celms. If this is the case, then reading Celms puts us in a better position for interpreting the Fifth Meditation and evaluating the success of Husserl’s argument therein. Second, in defense of Husserl, I suggest that the transcendental theory of intersubjectivity presented in the Fifth Meditation is an attempt to neutralize the threat of transcendental solipsism, but it does not necessarily preclude some form of pluralistic-epistemic solipsism. However, this is not necessarily a problematic result.

A pervasive interpretation among Husserl scholars is that his transcendental idealism inevitably leads to some form of solipsism. The aim of this dissertation is to defend Husserl against this charge. First, I argue that Husserl’s transcendental idealism is not a metaphysical theory. Transcendental phenomenology brackets all metaphysical presuppositions and argues from experience to the conditions of the possibility of experience. Husserl’s transcendental idealism should therefore be interpreted as a transcendental theory of knowledge. Second, it follows from the above characterization of Husserl’s transcendental idealism that the responses Husserl gives to the problem of solipsism are in no way meant to prove the existence in-itself of an external world or the existence in-themselves of other transcendental egos. The purpose of Husserl’s engagement with the problem of solipsism is to explain how it is that transcendental phenomenology can account for the constitution of both the Objectivity of the world of experience and other psycho-physical subjects. The result is a set of transcendental arguments that explain the necessary conditions of the cognition of a shared external world and of other persons. I conclude with Husserl that the solipsism is a transcendental illusion, and that Husserl’s transcendental idealism does not lead to a problematic solipsism. Through a careful study of Husserl’s Nachlass, with particular attention paid to Ideas I, Formal and Transcendental Logic, and Cartesian Meditations, I lay the framework for a transcendental-epistemological interpretation of Husserl’s idealism. Applying this interpretive strategy to Husserl’s discussions of the problem of solipsism and intersubjective monadology, I argue that, for Husserl, empathy is the condition of the experience of other subjects, but that it does not allow us to experience the mental-lives of other transcendental egos.