Abstract
AbstractHusserl’s most systematic phenomenological work, Ideas for a Pure Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy. First Book: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology (Ideas I) (Husserl, 2014), differentiates pure transcendental phenomenology, as an eidetic science, from the eidetic science of mathematics. In line with the tradition of transcendental philosophy arguably—ante rem—stretching back to Plato, Husserl contrasts transcendental phenomenology with mathematics and argues that its conceptuality cannot be appropriately articulated and conceived in analogy with mathematics. While both mathematics and transcendental phenomenology are eidetic sciences, phenomenology “belongs to a basic class of eidetic sciences … [that is] totally different from that to which the mathematical sciences belong” (Husserl, 2014, 136). The key differential between these two sciences on Husserl’s view concerns the nature of the essences that are the subject matter of each discipline. Mathematics deals with exact essences, which he characterizes as ideas in the Kantian sense. Phenomenology deals with inexact essences, which Husserl characterizes as morphological.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference24 articles.
1. Bernet, R. (1982). Is the present ever present? Phenomenology and the metaphysics of presence. Research in Phenomenology, 12, 85–112.
2. Held, K. 2019 (1984). The phenomenology of time following Husserl. In J. Drummond & O. Höffe (Eds.), Husserl: German perspectives (pp. 209–238). Fordham University Press.
3. Hopkins, B. (2011a). The philosophy of Husserl. Routledge.
4. Hopkins, B. (2011b). The origin of the logic of symbolic mathematics: Edmund Husserl and Jacob Klein. Indiana University Press.
5. Husserl, E. (1939). Die Frage nach dem Ursprung der Geometrie als intentional-historisches Problem. Ed. Eugen Fink. Revue internationale de Philosophie, I, 203–25.