Abstract
One of the striking features of Logical Investigations is its metaphysical neutrality. What are the implications of this neutrality? Should it be counted among the many virtues of the work, or rather mourned as a fateful shortcoming? In an article published in the beginning of the 1990s, I answered this question rather unequivocally.1 At that time I considered the neutrality in question to be highly problematic. In the meantime, however, I have had the pleasure of reading Jocelyn Benoist’s recent work Phénoménologie,sémantique, ontologie, where he argues for the opposite conclusion, criticizing my own interpretation in the process. In the light of this criticism, I would like to use this occasion to reconsider the question anew.
Metaphysische Fragen gehen uns hier nicht an....
Prolegomena
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Reference
D. Zahavi, “Constitution and ontology. Some remarks on Husserl’s ontological position in the Logical Investigations.” Humeri Studies 9,1992,111–124. Cf. D. Zahavi Intentionalitdt und Konstitution. Eine Einführung in Husserls Logische Untersuchungen. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1992.
In his “Entwurf einer Vorrede zu den `Logischen Untersuchungen (1913)’.” Tijdskrift voor Philosophie 1,1939, 325, Husserl accuses Lotse for having failed to do so and consequently for having fallen victim to a mythological metaphysics.
J. Benoist, Phénoménologie, sémantique, ontologie, Paris: PUF, 1997, 209.
J.N. Findlay, “Phenomenology, Realism and Logic.” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology3/3,1972, 235–244; E. LÉVINAS, Théorie de l’intuition dans la phénoménologie de Husserl. Paris: J. Vrin, 1978.
K. Twardowski, Zur Lehre vom Inhalt und Gegenstand der Vorstellungen. Wien: Philosophia Verlag, 1982.
Although Husserl’s assertion is contextually related to a discussion of the sensations, it has a wider application. See for instance his parallel discussion in the Second Investigation (LI, 359 [Hua XIX, 139]).
It has occasionally been claimed that even though Husserl is not a metaphysical realist when it comes to spatiotemporal objects, his Platonism in the Prolegomenadoes commit him to some kind of metaphysical realism about ideal objects. In reply, it might first of all be pointed out that Husserl himself subsequently emphasized that he was not trying to argue for the existenceof ideal objects in a separate supernatural realm, but that he was simply engaged in a defense of the validityof ideality. In short, he was advocating a logicaland not an ontologicalPlatonism (HuaXXII, 156–157). Secondly, Husserl’s `Platonism’ is mainly to be found in the Prolegomena,but the main part of this text dates back from 1896, and it has often been debated whether it truly forms an integrated whole with the rest of the Logical Investigations.In other words, it remains contested whether the Prolegomena isat all a phenomenological piece of work, or whether it does not rather remain pre-phenomenological. Thirdly, and most importantly, even if one concedes that it is possible to find assertions that seems to indicate a realism in regard to ideal objects, this does obviously not change the fact that Husserl quite explicitly speaks out against metaphysical realism and that he defines phenomenology in terms of a metaphysical neutrality. In short, even if Husserl’s `Platonism’ does commit him to some form of metaphysical realism, this would not turn Logical Investigationsinto a piece of realist metaphysics, it would only confirm (cf. p. 101 below) that the work contains some serious internal tensions.
J. Benoist, Phénoménologie,sémantique,ontologie,228. Cf. 274.
J.Benoist, Phénoménologie,sémantique,ontologie,285. It is not clear to me, however, how Benoist would reconcile this interpretation with the fact that Husserl inLogical Investigations advocates the existence of non-intentional experiences.
M. Heidegger, Grundprobleme der Phänomenologie 1919/20. Frankfurt a.M.: Vittorio Klostermann, 1993, 13–15. Cf. M. HEIDEGGER, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Zeitbegriffs. Frankfurt a.M.: Vittorio Klostermann, 1979, 31.
Cf. LI 47–48 [Hua XVIII, 12–13] and E. HUSSERL, “Entwurf einer Vorrede”, 325.
J.Benoist, Phénoménologie,sémantique,ontologie,215.
Cf. Hua IX, 29 and E. HUSSERL, “Entwurf einer Vorrede”, 109, 124, 329.
M. Heidegger, Grundprobleme der Phänomenologie 1919/20,15. This statement is rather surprising since it flatly contradicts the later Heidegger’s more well-known interpretation, according to which the descriptive project in Logical Investigations was preferable to Husserl’s later work, exactly because it was not yet contaminated by any transcendental concerns. As Heidegger formulates it in Zur Sache des Denkens: “Husserl selbst, der in den `Logischen Untersuchungen’ - vor allem in der VI. - nahe an die eigentliche Seinsfrage kam, konnte es in der damaligen philosophischen Atmosphäre nicht durchhalten; er geriet unter den Einfluß Natorps und vollzog die Wendung zur transzendentalen Phänomenologie, die ihren ersten Höhepunkt in den `Ideen’ erreichte. Damit war aber das Prinzip der Phänomenologie preisgegeben.”(M. Heidegger, Zur Sache des Denkens, Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 1988, 47 ).
T. DE Boer, The Development ofHusserl’s Thought, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1978, 195–197.
For a very early statement cf. Hua XXIV, 242.
Cf. G. Brand, Welt, Ich und Zeit. Nach unveröffentlichten Manuskripten Edmund Husserls, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1955, 28;
J.G Hart, The Person and the Common Life, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992, 12;
D. Zahavi, Self-awareness andAlterity, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1999, 121.
J. Benoist, Phénoménologie,sémantique,ontologie,281. 19J.BENOIST, Phénoménologie,sémantique,ontologie,208. 201. BENOIST, Phénoménologie,sémantique,ontologie,298.
J. BENOIST, Phénoménologie, sémantique, ontologie, 298. Benoist also seems to welcome Husserl’s non-egological position in Logical Investigations with its explicit criticism of any kind of]metaphysics. I am more dubious about the merits of a non-egological position, but it would lead too far if I were to discuss this issue here. Cf. however D. ZAHAVI, “Self and Consciousness” in D. Zahavi (ed.): Exploring the self. Philosophical and psychopathological perspectives on self-experience, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000, 55–74; D. ZAHAVI, “The Three Concepts of Consciousness in Logische Untersuchungen.” Husserl Studies 18, 2002, 51–64.
Ultimately, I think that Husserl’s notion of the transcendental is so broad that it might even be used to capture what is at stake in the works of the later Wittgenstein or the early Merleau-Ponty.
When it comes to Husserl’s later position the opinions are also divided. Although many interpreters would argue that Husserl’s avowed transcendental idealism is beyond both idealism and realism, there are many ways to interpret this claim. 1) One interpretation argues that transcendental idealism is beyond both realism and idealism in the sense that it strictly speaking is concerned with quite different matters altogether, that is, transcendental idealism simply lacks metaphysical impact. 2) Another possibility is to argue that transcendental idealism is beyond the traditional alternative between realism and idealism insofar as it actually seeks to combine elements from both positions. 3) Finally, it might also be argued that Husserl’s transcendental idealism transcends the alternative insofar as it makes us realize that both metaphysical realism and subjective idealism (together with a lot of traditional metaphysical heritage) are strictly speaking nonsensical.
For an extensive discussion cf. D. ZAHAVI, Husserl and Transcendental lntersubjectivity, Athens: Ohio University Press, 2001.
As L. Landgrebe puts it, the reduction is Husserl’s way to the metaphysical core-problems, (Der Weg der Phänomenologie. Das Problem der ursprünglichen Erfahrung, Gütersloh, Gerd Mohn, 1963, 26 ).
E. Fink, “Das Problem der Phanomenologie Edmund Husserls,” Revue Internationale de Philosophie I, 1939, 257.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zahavi, D. (2002). Metaphysical Neutrality in Logical Investigations . In: Zahavi, D., Stjernfelt, F. (eds) One Hundred Years of Phenomenology. Phaenomenologica, vol 164. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0093-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0093-1_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6056-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0093-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive