Skip to main content

Introduction

  • 860 Accesses

Part of the book series: Phaenomenologica ((PHAE,volume 208))

Abstract

This study of the receptions of phenomenology in French philosophy and religious thought prior to 1939 was occasioned by the renewal of phenomenological approaches to theology and the philosophy of religion in France beginning in the 1980s, as represented, on the one hand, by Paul Ricoeur ’s hermeneutical interpretation of biblical narratives, and, on the other, by Jean-Luc Marion ’s so-called “radical” or post-ontological investigations of the primordial givenness of God. Their employment of phenomenological strategies to explore theological questions has not passed without criticism, however. For example, Dominique Janicaud , in a polemical essay published in 1991 whose title, Le tournant théologique de la phénoménologie française, pronounces an indictment upon Marion , Levinas , and other radical phenomenologists, argues that Husserl and Heidegger along with Sartre and Merleau-Ponty established firm precedents for keeping phenomenology and theology separate enterprises. French debates over the application of phenomenological methods to religious philosophy have nevertheless engaged American thinkers due to the impact that structuralist and post-structuralist theories have had on a wide range of academic disciplines in the United States. So, too, the professorships that Ricoeur and Marion have held in the Divinity School at the University of Chicago and the translations of their major works have brought their ideas directly to American audiences. To provide a context for evaluating these and other contemporary rapprochements of phenomenology and theology, this study offers a comprehensive historical analysis of the introduction of phenomenology to France through an examination of various precursors, early interpreters, popularizers, and adopters.

Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Together with Jean Hyppolite, Ricoeur was instrumental in establishing this research center for phenomenology and hermeneutics (UA 106) under the auspices of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in 1967. For a history of the foundation of the Husserl Archives in Paris, see the dossier presented by its director Jean-François Courtine (1989).

  2. 2.

    See Ihde (1971, 95ff.).

  3. 3.

    See the collection of essays by Ricoeur (1995) .

  4. 4.

    See Geffré (1983), available in English as Geffré (1987).

  5. 5.

    The phrase “radical phenomenology” has gained currency in post-modern classifications of philosophy; see for example, Sallis (1978). Husserl, however, was responsible for applying the term to phenomenology. For instance, in Philosophy as Rigorous Science , he says of phenomenology: “The science concerned with what is radical must from every point of view be radical in its procedure. Above all it must not rest until it has attained its own absolutely clear beginnings” (Husserl 1981, 196). Again, in Crisis of the European Sciences, Husserl observes that “humanity, struggling to understand itself . . . feels called to initiate a new age, completely sure of its idea of philosophy and its true method, and also certain of having overcome all previous naïvetés, and thus all skepticism, through the radicalism of its new beginning” (Husserl 1970a, 14). Husserl asserts that phenomenology is essentially radical because it assumes the most extreme beginning point, absolute subjectivity. A radical phenomenology, then, is one that takes absolute subjectivity as its point of departure and attempts to draw out its full implications. By contrast, a non-radical approach (e.g., Ricoeur ’s) would regard phenomenology as a limited method whose value lies in its potential to be used in conjunction with other philosophical approaches and critiques.

  6. 6.

    See especially, “La distance et son icône,” 255–315.

  7. 7.

    See Lacoste (1987) and Lacoste (1990).

  8. 8.

    Since the time of this study, Marion was appointed to the John Nuveen professorship, which he held from 2004 to 2010, after which he was named the Andrew Thomas Greeley and Grace McNichols Greeley Professor of Catholic Studies in the Divinity School at the University of Chicago following the retirement of David Tracy.

  9. 9.

    See Spiegelberg (1982, 426–27): “The development of French phenomenology can be divided into two overlapping phases: a mainly receptive period, during which phenomenology remained almost completely an exotic plant, represented by German-trained scholars, of interest primarily to those concerned about promoting international relations in philosophy; and a predominantly productive phase, when phenomenology became an active tool in the hands of native Frenchmen. The dividing line may be placed in 1936. The first landmark of the new period was the first independent phenomenological publication of Jean-Paul Sartre .”

  10. 10.

    The third revised and enlarged edition of The Phenomenological Movement (1982) also includes the English translation of an article on Emmanuel Levinas by Stephen Strasser.

  11. 11.

    See Waldenfels (1983, 16). An indication of the similarity between Waldenfels’s volume and Spiegelberg’s is that the former includes the same essay on Levinas by Stephen Strasser in its original German form.

  12. 12.

    Quillien (1994). The three essays pertaining to the reception of phenomenology are: “Sartre et Heidegger” by Alain Renaut, “La réception de Heidegger : Jean Beaufret entre Sartre et Merleau-Ponty” by Dominique Janicaud , and “Réflexion, dialectique, existence: P. Ricoeur et la phénoménologie” by André Stanguennec.

  13. 13.

    Noël (1910). Noël ’s article is discussed in Chap. 3 as in instance of the philosophical reception of Husserl’s early writings.

  14. 14.

    See, for example, Alberigo et al. (1987).

  15. 15.

    See, for example, McGregor and White (1990).

  16. 16.

    Cf. Pius X (1981, 3:77–78, 84; §§16–17; 39).

  17. 17.

    For further discussion of the encyclicals cited here and the rise of modern separated philosophies, see McCool (1989, 7–8).

  18. 18.

    See Spiegelberg (1976, 108–127).

  19. 19.

    See for example Husserl’s clarifying note following Ideas §51 where he states, “Our immediate aim concerns not theology but phenomenology, however important the bearing of the latter on the former may indirectly be” (Husserl 1931, 157).

  20. 20.

    While it is true that the early French Hegelian scholars, such as Alexandre Kojève, frequently conflated the phenomenologies of Hegel and Husserl (cf. Spiegelberg (1982, 440–442)), these misinterpretations will not be addressed in the present study, which is concerned only with the French reception of phenomenological movements that can be traced directly or indirectly to Husserl.

  21. 21.

    The periodization of Husserl’s philosophical development in this paragraph is drawn from Fink (1939, 107–108). Cf. Spiegelberg (1982, 70), who prefers a somewhat earlier dating for the three major periods: (1) the “pre-phenomenological period,” 1887–1896; (2) the period of “phenomenology as a limited enterprise,” 1897–1905; (3) and the period of “pure phenomenology,” 1906–1938. In my opinion, Fink ’s periodization does more justice to Husserl’s shift toward transcendental idealism following the publication of the first volume of Ideas in 1913.

  22. 22.

    The second and third volumes of Ideas , although written around 1912, were not published until 1952.

  23. 23.

    Cf. Husserl (1969, 149).

  24. 24.

    Following the emergence of phenomenological existentialism after 1940, French philosophers concentrated almost exclusively on writings from the third phase of Husserl’s career, yet the current generation of French phenomenologists has been reviving interest in works from his earlier periods, including the Logical Investigations . Cf. Marion (1989, 7–63).

  25. 25.

    See Husserl (1967, x).

  26. 26.

    The distinction of terms that follows is based on Greisch (1991, 244–251). Greisch credits Henri Duméry with having formulated the distinction between religious philosophy and philosophy of religion. Jean Hering (1926, 6–8) employs a similar set of distinctions that will be examined in Chap. 3.

  27. 27.

    See Levinas (1982).

  28. 28.

    See Janicaud (1991, 75–89). Jean-Paul Sartre also fundamentally opposed the rapprochement of theology and phenomenology, as Chap. 2 will make clear. Not only does Sartre exclude the transcendence of God from phenomenological consideration, but he even rejects Husserl’s postulate concerning the existence of the transcendental ego. Significant supporting texts for an atheistic interpretation of phenomenology may be found in Ideas §58 and the note that follows §51. Interestingly, Jean Hering interprets these passages in the positive sense of establishing theology as an independent science, as we shall also have occasion to discuss in Chap. 3.

  29. 29.

    See Strasser (1959), cited by Spiegelberg (1981, 79–80).

  30. 30.

    See Husserl (1975, 40): “Only a science that is grounded from the very beginning upon ‘transcendental phenomenology’ and that flows from it to the principal original sources can correspond to the full idea of an absolutely justified knowledge. The stage we call positive science may be an historical fact, but this stage must be surmounted in a universal reform of science that cancels [aufhebt] any distinction between positive science and a philosophy to be opposed to it or that transforms all sciences at once into philosophical sciences and gives pure phenomenology the value of a universal fundamental-science—of a first philosophy.” Cf. Husserl (1931, §63; 188).

  31. 31.

    For a fuller discussion of Sartre ’s appropriation of phenomenology and engagement with the Cartesian tradition, see the corresponding sections of my dissertation (Dupont 1997, 211–236), which, because they cover same ground trodden by many other investigators, have been abbreviated in this volume.

  32. 32.

    See Spiegelberg (1982, 679–680, 681).

References

  • Alberigo, Giuseppe, Jean-Pierre Jossua, and Joseph A. Komonchak (eds.). 1987. The reception of Vatican II. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrétien, Jean-Louis, Michel Henry, Jean-Luc Marion, and Paul Ricoeur (eds.). 1992. Phénoménologie et théologie. Paris: Criterion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtine, Jean-François. 1989. Fondation et proto-fondation des Archives Husserl à Paris. In Husserl, ed. Elaine Escoubas and Marc Richir. Paris: Million.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupont, Christian Y. 1997. Receptions of phenomenology in French philosophy and religious thought, 1889–1939. Ph.D., Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, Eugen. 1939. Vorbemerkung des Herausgebers zum Entwurf einer ‘Vorrede’ zu den Logischen Untersuchungen (1913) von Edmund Husserl. Tijdschrift voor Philosophie 1(1): 106–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geffré, Claude. 1983. Le christianisme au risque de l’interprétation. Paris: Cerf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geffré, Claude. 1987. The Risk of Interpretation. On Being Faithful to the Christian Tradition in a Non-Christian Age. Trans. David Smith. Mahwah: Paulist Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greisch, Jean. 1991. La philosophie de la religion devant le fait chrétien. In Introduction à l’étude de la théologie, ed. Joseph Doré. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering, Jean. 1926. Phénoménologie et philosophie religieuse. Étude sur la théorie de la connaissance religieuse. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering, Jean. 1950a. La phénoménologie en France. In L’activité philosophique en France et aux États-Unis, ed. Marvin Farber. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering, Jean. 1950b. Phenomenology in France. In Philosophic thought in France and the United States. Essays representing major trends in contemporary French and American philosophy, ed. Marvin Farber. Buffalo: University of Buffalo Publications in Philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1931. Ideas. General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Trans. W. R. Boyce Gibson. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1960. Cartesian Meditations. An Introduction to Phenomenology. Trans. Dorion Cairns. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1964. The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness. Trans. James S. Churchill. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1967. The Paris Lectures. Trans. Peter Koestenbaum with an introduction. 2nd ed. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1969. Formal and Transcendental Logic. Trans. Dorion Cairns. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1970a. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Trans. David Carr. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1970b. Logical Investigations. Trans. J. N. Findlay. 2 vols. New York: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1970c. Philosophie der Arithmetik. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1975. Introduction to the Logical Investigations. A Draft of a Preface to the Logical Investigations (1913). Trans. Philip J. Bossert and Curtis H. Peters. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1981. Philosophy as rigorous science. In Husserl, Shorter works, ed. Peter McCormick and Frederick A. Elliston. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, Don. 1971. Hermeneutic phenomenology. The philosophy of Paul Ricoeur. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janicaud, Dominique. 1991. Le tournant théologique de la phénoménologie française. Combas: Éditions de l’Éclat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacoste, Jean-Yves. 1987. Penser à Dieu en l’aimant. Philosophie et théologie de Jean-Luc Marion. Archives de philosophie 50: 245–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacoste, Jean-Yves. 1990. Note sur le temps. Essai sur les raisons de la mémoire et de l’espérance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leo XIII, Pope. 1981. Aeterni patris. In The papal encyclicals 1878–1903, ed. Claudia Carlen. Wilmington: McGrath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, Emmanuel. 1982. De Dieu qui vient à l’idée. Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marion, Jean-Luc. 1977. L’idole et la distance. Paris: Grasset & Fasquelle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marion, Jean-Luc. 1982. Dieu sans l’être. Paris: Fayard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marion, Jean-Luc. 1989. Réduction et donation. Recherches sur Husserl, Heidegger et la phénoménologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marion, Jean-Luc. 1991. God Without Being. Trans. Thomas A. Carlson with a foreword by David Tracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCool, Gerald A. 1989. From unity to pluralism. The internal evolution of Thomism. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, Graham, and R.S. White (eds.). 1990. Reception and response: Hearer creativity and the analysis of spoken and written texts. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noël, Léon. 1910. Les frontières de la logique. Revue néo-scolastique de philosophie 17: 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pius X, Pope. 1981. Pascendi dominici gregis: Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the doctrines of the Modernists, Sept. 8, 1907. In The papal encyclicals 1903–1939, ed. Claudia Carlen. Wilmington: McGrath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quillien, Philippe-Jean (ed.). 1994. La réception de la philosophie allemande en France aux XIXe et XXe siècles. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, Paul. 1949. Le volontaire et l’involontaire. Paris: Aubier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, Paul. 1960. L’homme faillible. Paris: Aubier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, Paul. 1965. Fallible Man. Trans. Charles L. Kelbley with an introduction by Walter Lowe. Revised ed. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, Paul. 1966. Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary. Trans. E.V. Kohák. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, Paul. 1967. The Symbolism of Evil. Trans. Emerson Buchanan. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, Paul. 1988. La symbolique du mal, 2nd ed. Paris: Aubier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, Paul. 1995. Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative and Imagination. Trans. David Pellauer with an introduction by Mark I. Wallace. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sallis, John (ed.). 1978. Radical phenomenology. Essays in honor of Martin Heidegger. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1936–1937. La transcendance de l’Ego. Esquisse d’une description phénoménologique. Recherches Philosophiques 6: 85–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1957. The Transcendence of the Ego: An Existentialist Theory of Consciousness. Trans. Forrest Williams and Robert Kirkpatrick with an introduction and annotations. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelberg, Herbert. 1960a. Husserl’s phenomenlogy and existentialism. Journal of Philosophy 57: 62–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelberg, Herbert. 1960b. The phenomenological movement. A historical introduction, 2 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelberg, Herbert. 1976. Scholastic intention and intentionality according to Brentano and Husserl. In The philosophy of Franz Brentano, ed. Linda L. McAlister. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelberg, Herbert. 1981. The context of the phenomenological movement. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelberg, Herbert. 1982. The phenomenological movement. A historical introduction, 3rd ed., revised and enlarged. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strasser, Stephen. 1959. Das Gottesproblem in der Spätphilosophie Husserls. Philosophisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft 67: 130–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldenfels, Bernhard. 1983. Phänomenologie in Frankreich. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dupont, C. (2014). Introduction. In: Phenomenology in French Philosophy: Early Encounters. Phaenomenologica, vol 208. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4641-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics