Husserl

by David Andrew Bell

One of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century, up to now Edmund Husserl's influence has been restricted largely to the "continental" philosophical tradition. In this critical examination of Husserl's philosophy, David Bell introduces those who work in the broadly "analytic" tradition to the arguments and ideas of this fascinating thinker. Bell considers Husserl's philosophy as a whole, tracing its origins in Brentano's teachings, and the way it developed from the earliest writings on logic to the last works on culture and the "Lebenswelt". He also shows how Husserl's ideas relate to those of contemporaries like Frege and Wittgenstein. This book should be of interest to students and teachers of philosophy at all levels.

Genres: Philosophy

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1990

Reviews

[Gastjäle · Rating 4 out of 5]

For an informative book which proposed to summarise Husserl's philosophical journey, Bell's Husserl is also (fittingly) empathetic in its construction and effect. By the former, I'm not referring to Bell's own style of writing: bloody hell, that geezer could be exhilaratingly vitriolic at times! It should be made clear from the get-go that this monograph should not be taken to be an objective review of Husserl - Bell's own voice is very manifest and he's not afraid to point and laugh at poor Edmund from time to time. No, by empathy I was (cleverly) referring to how the book made me feel the struggle and sense of futility which must've haunted poor Husserl throughout his life.

To put it pithily, Husserl's philosophical escapades seemed to have four chapters: the two chronicles embedded in naturalism, to wit, mathematics and logic, then we had the almost reactional transcendental awakening in the guise of solipsism, and finally we get the intersubjective finale. Throughout his career, he had a clear goal: to find an explanation how we, as essentially subjective beings whose very nexus of consciousness is in our own minds, can acquire objective knowledge of the outside world. Husserl wanted to create an a priori set of rules for this explanation; in other words, he wanted to create the very science of sciences.

First, he wanted to transcend mathematics by showing how one grasps the concept of numbers and assigns them to phenomena or objects. Well, turned out he couldn't build a proper bridge between the subjective and the objective reality. Next, he wanted to transcend logic by showing us how our minds work when forming abstract concepts and concentrating on insubstantial properties (moments) like colour etc. And once again, the same bloody lacuna refused to have a bridge built over it. Then, Husserl angrily rejected naturalism and wanted to transcend consciousness by observing the ego from an extraneous point of view, and abstracting things until we could see the real essence behind things. More problems suggested themselves than the initial bridge construction dilemma this time. Finally, after throwing a tantrum ("Well what can I transcend?" he must've quoth, similarly to Jim Hacker), Husserl wanted to transcend the egocentricism. He almost managed to do this, yet he based shabby foundations on his rigorous science and thus couldn't pull it off.

My explanation is very inadequate, but the main point here is to understand that Husserl had good and interesting intentions, yet they always ended in failure. As this text was philosophical and thus pretty dense (Husserl's quotes being well-nigh indecipherable), one really got a sense of achievement when one managed to trace the logic behind the theories - only to find out their grave deficiencies. Granted, Bell based some of the arguments upon his own interpretations, but he argued very plausibly, and so I can sort of believe him in his criticism.

It is worth noting, though, that towards the end of Husserl's career, he did make very interesting points. Like the idea about being aware of one's actions and their import, and being able to project oneself outside one's own body, and, mixing that with Husserl's theory of the horizon of potentiality, thus being able to see oneself not as the centre of the universe but as a mere object and from there to extrapolate that other beings, too, are conscious creatures who, after applying the horizon theory on those individuals, one finds to be sentient and, similarly to you, ever-complex creatures. (Sorry about that, one has to poke fun on purely stylistic grounds every now and then!) From here, Husserl saw the importance of factors such as culture, surroundings, communities etc. Of course, to a modern person, such theorems are hardly revelatory, but the way they're expressed is indeed stimulating and shows a wealth of imagination. And hey, even Bell liked this theory of Husserl's!

But now, I'm not animadverting Bell, really. He can be harsh, but he can also be fair. Husserl, apparently, wasn't the most lucid of writers, so Bell takes the liberty of observing the theories from different points of view, and sometimes even defending them. Also, Bell's writing style may be dense and lacking in needed summaries (it would've been helpful if he had clearly stated the problem he was after and clearly stated the answer at the end), but the best thing about it was that you could trust him. You could be sure that everything would be logical and that the sentences wouldn't be merely circulatory waffle. And, I must admit, I'm a sucker for the philosophical lingo, abounding in Latin and French.

Summa summarum, a very informative and strangely poignant book for its genre. At times needlessly abstruse, but most of the time the reader only has himself to blame for their lack of understanding.

Good night, Husserl - the dream you're having now will never end.

[Nenad Nesic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hvalim ovu knjigu na chat-u, pa mi palo na pamet da bi bilo red i ovde da je dodam. Posle jedno 5 godina studija mišljenja sam da je filozofija gubljenje vremena, ali pošto težim da budem fer, moram pomenuti ovu knjigu kao jednu od najsvetlijih tački svojih studija.
Imam utisak da mnogi filozofi maše poente i generalno dosta rade strawman argumente (ne iz zlonamernosti, već iz neshvatanja tuđih ideja ili zbog nedostatka sposobnosti da ih shvate (opet, ne jer su te ideje mnogo pametne, nego često jer filozofi jako loše i nejasno pišu)). Bell stvarno daje najbolju moguću i najkonzistentniju verziju Huserla i onda je obara tamo gde je manjkava, konstatuje da nije manjkava gde nije manjakava, pa čak i pokušava da manjakave delove rekonstruiše na bolji (savremeniji i/ili logički konzistentniji) način. Verovatno najbolja filozofska knjiga (tj. delovi knjige, pošto je nisam celu čitao, već samo one delove koji su mi potrebni za seminarske radove) koju sam u životu čitao.

[Larry · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is a rather puzzling thing to read an introduction to Husserl written by a Frege fanboy who spends a not inconsiderable amount of time bitching about the guy. The result is, as one might expect, hardly helpful.