The Essential Husserl, the first anthology in English of Edmund Husserl's major writings, provides access to the scope of his philosophical studies, including selections from his key works: Logical Investigations, Ideas I and II, Formal and Transcendental Logic, Experience and Judgment, Cartesian Meditations, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, and On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time. The collection is an indispensable resource for anyone interested in twentieth-century philosophy.
Why all the poor reviews of Husserl I wonder? Or do they represent judgments about the value of this particular compilation? Welton really does know his Husserl and has included selections from most of the biggies here. I guess most people, even philosophers, are inclined to see Husserl as unmanageably complex, author of a dead-end absolute idealism that can't account for the genesis of its own "transcendental consciousness" (Derrida), or as a relic of the Fregean era in semantics whose theory of meaning and whose internalism lead him to an idealism that can't account for intersubjectivity (pragmatists perhaps; analytic semanticists). Still, it's important to read him in the first place, even if only to criticize his ideas. Maybe if we read him more closely than most are inclined to do in the U.S.A, we'll find elements of his philosophy worth reconsidering.
Husserl is brilliant. He went beyond Descartes and Kant and claimed that consciousness is not equivalent to the “I” but actually precedes it and is the metaphysical foundation for the logical laws that undergird all empirical and eidetic (intellectual principles as opposed to sense-data-focused) sciences. It’s a deeply moving project when paired with the unfinished Crisis of the European Sciences, in which his yearning for a philosophy that provides a level foundation not only for our knowledge but for our sense of selves progressing in the world pours forth in a startling clarity sharpened when one remembers that by then he had already lost his authority to teach university due to the rise of the Third Reich. But he overlooked the importance of style. When I read Heidegger or Wittgenstein or Cavell or even J. L. Austin, I feel as if I’m learning to take heed of the world differently, that the world is disclosing its hidden corners to me, or that it’s expanding into a new one. Husserl didn’t care about style—he wrote in jottings, using language as a tool to communicate ideas rather than a way of “looking.” Which is to say, our sensibilities are drastically different and I don’t know if I’ll be returning to him again.
There’s no need for this edition if you have Husserl’s works. At times, the divisions and sections placed together here may obfuscate Husserl’s meaning rather than enhance it. I would rather read the full text of his writings without being sewn together like this, so for me, this is not a helpful volume.