Skip to main content

Four Phases in the Reception of Phenomenology in French Philosophy, 1910–1939

  • 956 Accesses

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

Abstract

This chapter distinguishes four phases in the reception of phenomenology among French academic philosophers between 1910, when Husserl’s work was first mentioned in a French publication, and Husserl’s death in 1938 and the outbreak of World War II the following year—the period that Herbert Spiegelberg has called the “receptive phase” of the French phenomenological movement. Following Husserl’s own lead, French academic philosophers interpreted phenomenology as representing a continuation of the Cartesian tradition. This trend is shown through the discussion of essays published by the eight thinkers who did the most to introduce Husserlian phenomenology to French philosophical circles prior to 1939. In order to organize and highlight their variously nuanced interpretations of phenomenology, they are grouped into contemporaneous pairs representing four distinct phases in the awareness and appreciation of Husserlian phenomenology among French philosophers: Léon Noel and Victor Delbos , who introduced Husserl as a combatant against psychologism ; Lev Shestov and Jean Hering , who debated the Platonic and idealist character of phenomenology; Bernard Groethuysen and Georges Gurvitch , who offered popularizing accounts of phenomenology against the backdrop of contemporary German philosophy; and the original appropriations of phenomenology by Emmanuel Levinas and Jean-Paul Sartre . Where appropriate in the overall chronological framework of the chapter, other relevant events are introduced, such as the publication of Husserl’s own works, visits by Husserl and Scheler to France, and translations of essays by German phenomenologists, including Heidegger . A concluding section calls attention to the contributions of a few other scholars not mentioned elsewhere in the chapter.

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.

    For a detailed account of the rescue Husserl’s papers from Nazi Germany and the establishment of the Husserl Archives, see Van Breda (1959).

  2. 2.

    Noël refrains, however, from commenting on the theological implications of Husserl’s new logic, hence the treatment of his article here rather than in Chaps. 3 and 4.

  3. 3.

    Cf. Husserl, Logical Investigations , “Prolegomena to Pure Logic,” §§49–51 (1970b, 1:187–196), and Investigation VI, Chap. 5, “The Idea of Adequation. Self-evidence and Truth,” §§36–39 (1970b, 2:760–770).

  4. 4.

    Noël (1910, 232) quotes Husserl, Logical Investigations , “Prolegomena to Pure Logic,” §15 (1970b, 1:80).

  5. 5.

    See the “Préface” to Andler (1912). Delbos ’s essay, “Husserl, sa critique du psychologisme et sa conception d’une logique pure,” was first published in the Revue de métaphysique et de morale (1911) and reprinted in Andler’s volume (25–42). For the purposes of citation, the pagination of the original publication will be followed below.

  6. 6.

    Delbos (1911, 686). Cf. Wundt (1910). Wundt (1832–1920) was the prominent founder of experimental psychology. In this late article, he argues against both psychologism and logicism, yet his attack upon the latter is especially vehement. If Delbos followed Wundt in regarding Husserl’s work as an example of logicism, he did so with evidently higher esteem, although he reiterates some of Wundt ’s criticisms. For Husserl’s comments on Wundt ’s essay, see Husserl (1975, 52–55).

  7. 7.

    Neither Noël nor Delbos cites any of the half dozen or so articles that Husserl published between 1891 and 1900.

  8. 8.

    Noël does not recognize Stumpf ’s independent use of the term phenomenology after 1904 to designate the initial phase of all scientific research, namely the description, by experimental means or otherwise, of the contents of experience; see Spiegelberg (1982, 51–65). Regarding Husserl’s own distinction of phenomenology from descriptive psychology, compare “Note 3” in the first and second editions of the Logical Investigations , “Introduction to Volume II,” §6 (1970b, 1:262).

  9. 9.

    See Delbos (1911, 697), where he sums up what Husserl means by phenomenology as follows: “elle est une description et une analyse de ces événements qui sont la représentation, le jugement, la connaissance; elle doit occuper un domaine neutre entre la psychologie, qui vise l’explication causale et génétique de ces événements, et la logique pure, qui s’occupe des lois idéales; mais elle s’applique surtout à suivre et à analyser les opérations qui permettent à ces lois d’être posées.” As one of the collaborators in the Société de philosophie française involved in the production of the Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, Delbos probably help to craft the definition of “phénoménologie” that it contains: “Étude descriptive d’un ensemble de phénomènes, tels qu’ils se manifestent dans le temps ou l’espace, par opposition soit aux lois abstraites et fixes de ces phénomènes;—soit aux réalités transcendantes dont ils sont la manifestation;—soit à la critique normative de leur légitimité” (Lalande 1928, 2:581, s.v. “Phénoménologie”).

  10. 10.

    See Husserl, Logical Investigations , Investigation V, §8 (1970b, 2:550).

  11. 11.

    See Husserl, Logical Investigations , Investigation V, §8, “Additional Note to the Second Edition” (1970b, 2:551).

  12. 12.

    See Spiegelberg (1976b).

  13. 13.

    Husserl collaborated with Heinrich Rickert on launching Logos in 1910. The first issue contained Husserl’s essay “Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft”; see Husserl (1910–1911). A French translation was published in 1955 (Husserl 1955) and an English translation in 1965 (Husserl (1965) and Husserl (1981)).

  14. 14.

    See Husserl, Logical Investigations , Investigation VI, Chap. 6, “Sensuous and Categorial Intuitions,” especially §§40–48 (1970b, 773–795).

  15. 15.

    Huisman (1984, s.v. “Delbos , Victor”). Cf. (Parodi 1919, iii–iv). A particularly interesting essay that documents the shift of French interest away from German philosophy to its own traditions is Boutroux (1916). Also, Boutroux (1927, 184–185) discusses universalism as a characteristic theme of French philosophy.

  16. 16.

    Huisman (1984, s.v. “Chestov, Léon”). Note that the French spelling of Shestov name differs from the English; for the purposes of this dissertation, the English spelling will be used in all references and citations. Shestov also inspired critic Benjamin Fondane , who published in 1936 a collection of literary essays on contemporary philosophers, including Husserl, Heidegger , Kierkegaard , and Shestov . See Sect. 3.5.5 in the conclusion to this chapter and Fondane (1936).

  17. 17.

    For the French translation, see Shestov (1926). For the original Russian publication, see Shestov (1917).

  18. 18.

    Shestov (1923). The French translation appeared in 1928 as volumes 5 and 6 of Shestov (1926–1928). An English translation is available as Shestov (1968).

  19. 19.

    Husserl (1981, 142), quoted in Shestov (1926, 16).

  20. 20.

    Husserl, Logical Investigations , Investigation I, §28 (1970b, 1:321), quoted in Shestov (1926, 57).

  21. 21.

    Cf. Shestov (1926, 38, 44, 56).

  22. 22.

    See Spiegelberg (1982, 696).

  23. 23.

    A German version of Hering ’s essay was also published the same year in the second volume of Philosophischer Anzeiger; see Hering (1927b) and note 29 below.

  24. 24.

    In a footnote, Hering admits that his assurance on this point derives more from Husserl’s course lectures than his publications, although he does cite Sects. §58 and §51 of Ideas for support. Cf. Hering (1926, 83–86), where he rejects, however, the ontological implications of Husserl’s interpretation of consciousness in §49 of Ideas .

  25. 25.

    Hering apparently leaves the reader to infer that if phenomenology ultimately leads to a metaphysics, it will be because Husserl’s doctrine of intentionality affirms that the mind grasps objects in their very mode of being.

  26. 26.

    The Alcan edition is a reprint of the original publication of Hering ’s thesis for the Faculty of Protestant Theology at the University of Strasbourg (Hering 1925).

  27. 27.

    Hering quotes here a line from Husserl’s preface to the first volume of his Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung (Husserl 1913). My translation follows more closely the original German, which Hering quotes in a footnote: “dass nur durch Rückgang auf die originären Quellen der Anschauung und auf die aus ihr zu schöpfenden Wesenseinsichten die grossen Traditionen der Philosophie.” Hering ’s French paraphrase (“… c’est de creuser jusqu’aux sources primordiales de l’intuition et d’y puiser les évidences d’ordre essentiel”) may be rendered in English as “… to dig down to the primordial springs of intuition and to draw from them the evidences of essential order.”

  28. 28.

    Hering ’s remarks comparing Bergsonism and phenomenology at the end of Part II of his monograph have already been referred to in Chap. 1.

  29. 29.

    That Shestov referred to the title of Hering ’s response as “sub specie aeternitatis” instead of “sub specie aeterni” likely indicates that Shestov read the German version published in Philosophischer Anzeiger instead of the French version published in Revue d’histoire et de philosophie réligieuse; see note 23 above.

  30. 30.

    See Hering (1927a, 363n5).

  31. 31.

    “sans vision intuitive (anschauunggebende Akte) et immediate de ce qui est donné.” Hering here refers to Husserl, Logical Investigations , Investigation VI, §§ 36–52 (1970b, 2:760–802).

  32. 32.

    My translation of Hering ’s citation of Husserl. Cf. Husserl, Ideas , §24 (1931, 92): “that every originary presentive intuition is a legitimizing source of cognition, that everything originarily (so to speak in its “personal actuality”) offered to us in “intuition” is to be accepted simply as what it is presented as being, but also only within the limits in which it is presented there” (emphasis Husserl’s).

  33. 33.

    See Shestov (1940, 11).

  34. 34.

    See Hering (1926, 43).

  35. 35.

    Spiegelberg (1982, 441) attributes this tendency to historical coincidence, noting the belated spurt of French interest in Hegel beginning in the late 1920s (a neo-Hegelian movement had been underway in Europe since around 1910). Spiegelberg also notes the influence of the Russian Marxist Alexandre Kojève , whose interpretation of the Hegelian method as essentially descriptive and non-dialectical enabled him to identify it with Husserlian phenomenology. While I do not disagree with Spiegelberg’s argument, I simply would add one more factor. See also Lyotard (1992, 40–44).

  36. 36.

    See Shestov (1927, 38): “Husserl avait posé la question: il n’y a pas d’autre issue; il faut choisir entre la philosophie et la sagesse, mais celle-ci a fini son temps, tout comme l’astrologie et l’alchimie.” Elsewhere in this article Shestov makes explicit reference to Hegel (cf. 49, 69).

  37. 37.

    See especially pp. 5, 32.

  38. 38.

    See Huisman (1984, s.v. “Groethuysen , Bernard”).

  39. 39.

    Husserl charged those of his students who applied phenomenological techniques of description unreservedly to objects of any sort with practicing a “Bilderbuchphänomenologie,” i.e., picture book phenomenology. See Spiegelberg (1982, 168).

  40. 40.

    One is reminded here of the “spiritualist positivism ” (positivisme spiritualiste) that Ravaisson prophesied would become the dominant current of French philosophy by the end of the nineteenth century (see Chap. 2.1.3).

  41. 41.

    Nature et formes de la sympathie. Contribution à l’étude des lois de la vie émotionnelle (1928) is the French translation of Scheler ’s Wesen und Formen der Sympathie. Der “Phänomenologie der Sympathiegefühle” (1923), which represents an expanded version of Zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Sympathiegefühle und von Liebe und Hass: Mit einem Anhang über den Grund zur Anahme der Existenz des fremden ich (1913). An English translation of Wesen und Formen der Sympathie was published under the title The Nature of Sympathy (1954). A second volume, containing French translations of related essays, appeared under the title Le sens de la souffrance, suivi de deux autres essais (1936).

  42. 42.

    See Xavier Léon’s public introduction of Husserl on the occasion of his February 1929 lectures at the Sorbonne , as reported by Emmanuel Levinas , “Avertissement,” in Husserl (1947, vi). See also Eschweiler (1928).

  43. 43.

    See Spiegelberg (1982, 432).

  44. 44.

    See Leroux (1994, 332–355, especially 336).

  45. 45.

    Emmanuel Levinas , “Avertissement,” in Husserl (1947, v).

  46. 46.

    Husserl lectured in German, but for the benefit of his French-speaking audience a short syllabus in translation was printed and circulated. Stephan Strasser’s reconstruction of the original text of Husserl’s lectures from early versions of manuscripts for the eventual Méditations cartésiennes, together with German and French versions of his syllabus, are included in Husserl (1950). A translation of Strasser’s reconstructed text with an introduction by Peter Koestenbaum has been published as Husserl (1967). In addition, a translation of the syllabus with an introduction by Herbert Spiegelberg may be found in Spiegelberg (1976a). In his introduction to Husserl (1950), Strasser notes that Husserl had already experimented with linking his approach to the Cartesian method of doubt in Ideas (cf. §31; Husserl (1931, 107)) and in some of his unpublished manuscripts.

  47. 47.

    Hering (1926, 83n85): “Quant à l’intuitivisme de N. Losskij, il présente également quelques analogies avec la phénoménologie. Comme elle, le penseur russe rejette toute théorie de la connaissance qui invente de mythiques copies ou images subjectives de l’objet; comme elle, il affirme nettement le caractère transubjectif de l’acte de la connaissance. Mais les ressemblances s’arrêtent là. Notamment sa définition de la connaissance comme d’un événement de la conscience comparé à d’autres, s’inspire d’une conception absolument différente de celle de l’intentionalisme des phénoménologues.”

  48. 48.

    For background on Gurvitch ’s courses at the Sorbonne , see Gurvitch (1930, 4, 9). Gurvitch published several articles in French on Russian philosophers during the 1920s, including “La philosophie russe du premier quart du XXe siècle” (Gurvitch (1926)). For biographical information on Gurvitch , see Huisman (1984, s.v. “Gurvitch , Georges”).

  49. 49.

    A second edition appeared in 1949.

  50. 50.

    See also the preface to Gurvitch ’s volume by Léon Brunschvicg , 3, and my discussion of Brunschvicg in Chap. 2.

  51. 51.

    Cf. Hering (1926, 78–83).

  52. 52.

    Spiegelberg (1982, 441–442) attributes this tendency on the one hand to the coincidence of an overdue spurt of interest in Hegel in France during the late 1920s, and on the other to the Russian Marxist Alexandre Kojève , whose interpretation of the Hegelian method as essentially descriptive and non-dialectical enabled him to identify it with Husserlian phenomenology. See also Lyotard (1992, 40–44).

  53. 53.

    See Brunschvicg (1897).

  54. 54.

    Note: Les tendances actuelles contains alternative spellings of Wesensschau, usually Wesenschau , but sometimes Wesenchau, evidently a typographical error.

  55. 55.

    Cf. Husserl (1969, §§56, 94, 103–104; pp. 151ff., 232ff., and 272ff.). The term transcendental egology does not come from Formal and Transcendental Logic , but it has been picked up by other interpreters (cf. Spiegelberg (1982, 252)).

  56. 56.

    Gurvitch (1924) had recently published an important study of Fichte .

  57. 57.

    See Husserl (1931, §58; 174): “… What concerns us here, after merely touching on the different groupings of such rational grounds for the existence of a ‘divine’ Being beyond the world, is that this existence should not only transcend the world, but obviously also the ‘absolute’ Consciousness. It would thus be an ‘Absolute’ in a totally different sense from the Absolute of Consciousness, as on the other hand it would be transcendent in a totally different sense from the transcendent in the sense of the world” (emphasis Husserl’s).

  58. 58.

    In fact, he refers to the essay only twice: once in a chronology of Husserl’s works and a second time in a footnote as evidence of Husserl’s anti-Hegelianism; see Gurvitch (1930, 27 and 21n3).

  59. 59.

    See Waldenfels (1983, 36).

  60. 60.

    For a detailed reflection on the French reception of Scheler ’s hierarchical theory of values from Gurvitch to Ricoeur, see Leroux (1994).

  61. 61.

    See Spiegelberg (1982, 268–269).

  62. 62.

    As noted above, the short monograph that Scheler dedicated to its study became the first phenomenological work to be translated into French.

  63. 63.

    Cf. Lask (1923, 2:1–282).

  64. 64.

    Cf. the sections below on Levinas and Sartre .

  65. 65.

    Recall that a failure to give adequate attention to the irrational was one of Gurvitch ’s main criticisms of Husserl.

  66. 66.

    Note that the expression reveals Gurvitch ’s negative assessment of Heidegger ’s attempt to go beyond this Kantian impasse.

  67. 67.

    Biographical information drawn from Levinas (1990, 291). This section on Levinas is an abridged version of the fuller treatment of his life and early phenomenological studies included in my dissertation; see Dupont (1997, 186–210).

  68. 68.

    Levinas (1990, 291). Cf. Levinas (1992, 19–20), where he credits fellow student Gabrielle Peiffer , with whom he later shared the work of translating the Cartesian Meditations , with having first exposed him to Husserl by sharing with him a passage from the Logical Investigations . Hering is not mentioned in this context. See also Levinas (1931).

  69. 69.

    Levinas (1929, 234). The quotation marks reflect Levinas ’s employment of Husserl’s terminology; cf. Husserl, Ideas §3 (1931, 54–56) and Husserl, Logical Investigations, Investigation II (1970b, 1:337–432).

  70. 70.

    Cf. the discussion of Gurvitch above.

  71. 71.

    Cf. Husserl (1931, §24; 92–93).

  72. 72.

    Cf. Husserl (1931, §19; 83).

  73. 73.

    As noted above, Gurvitch faulted Husserl for absolutizing what he regarded as the relative idea of the pure ego while failing to posit a transcendent Absolute, as Fichte had.

  74. 74.

    Cf. Husserl (1931, §75; 209).

  75. 75.

    Note that Levinas ’s proposition is similar to Lask ’s insistence that in order for ideal objects to become objects of knowledge, they must be enveloped by a categorial form, or in other words, that they must be constituted by a synthesis. So far as I can judge, however, Levinas was not influenced by Lask or any other neo-Kantian in offering this interpretation.

  76. 76.

    Cf. Husserl (1931, §80; 234): “The meditations which we propose to follow up still further in this Section of our work [i.e., the longest section, Section 3 on the ‘Procedure of Pure Phenomenology in Respect of Methods and Problems’] will bear, by preference, on the objectively oriented aspect, as that which first presents itself when we forsake the natural standpoint.”

  77. 77.

    Cf. Husserl (1970b, 2:675–706).

  78. 78.

    Cf. Husserl (1931, §141; 393): “… All this may serve to indicate by way of illustration large and important groups of problems dealing with the ‘confirming’ and ‘verifying’ of immediate rational positings” (emphasis Husserl’s).

  79. 79.

    Levinas (1963), available in English as Levinas (1995).

  80. 80.

    Levinas (1963, 18); Levinas (1995, lviii).

  81. 81.

    Levinas (1963, 212); Levinas (1995, 149).

  82. 82.

    Levinas (1963, 222); Levinas (1995, 157): “Consequently, despite the revolutionary character of the phenomenological reduction , the revolution which it accomplishes is, in Husserl’s philosophy, possible only to the extent that the natural attitude is theoretical. The historical role of the reduction and the meaning of its appearance at a certain moment of existence are, for him, not even a problem.”

  83. 83.

    Levinas (1963, 214); Levinas (1995, 150). In 1949, Ludwig Landgrebe published a series of essays under the title Phänomenologie und Metaphysik, the last of which contains his own proposal for an intersubjective reduction . It would be interesting, but obviously beyond the scope of this dissertation to compare the respective notions of Levinas and Landgrebe.

  84. 84.

    Levinas (1963, 215); Levinas (1995, 150–151). Note that Levinas borrows Husserl’s term Einfühlung (empathy) without translating it, a decision reflected in Orianne’s translation.

  85. 85.

    Levinas (1963, 59); Levinas (1995, 32).

  86. 86.

    Levinas (1963, 22); Levinas (1995, 4), emphasis Levinas ’s.

  87. 87.

    Levinas (1932). Henry Corbin ’s 1931 translation of “Was ist Metaphysik?” also included a brief introduction to Heidegger by Alexandre Koyré ; see Heidegger (1931). Although it was not accompanied by any interpretative or introductory note, it should be mentioned in this context that the inaugural issue of Recherches philosophiques published a translation of Heidegger ’s “Vom Wesen des Grundes” by A. Bessey; see Heidegger (1931–1932) and below.

  88. 88.

    See for example Marck (1936) and Shestov (1936).

  89. 89.

    Levinas actually uses three expressions to translate Heidegger ’s variations on Sorge (i.e., Besorge, Fürsorge, etc.): prendre soin, souci, and sollicitude, although he does not employ them with any discernible consistency. On the whole, he seems to prefer sollicitude to express the general existential notion of care.

  90. 90.

    Heidegger (1938). Corbin ’s collection also included translations of the complete texts of “Was ist Metaphysik?,” “Vom Wesen des Grundes,” “Hölderlin und das Wesen der Dichtung,” and §§42–45 of Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik. Sections 1–44 of Sein und Zeit were translated in 1964, but a complete translation became available only in 1985.

  91. 91.

    Heidegger (1931–1932) and Heidegger (1931).

  92. 92.

    Among those sources that accurately recount the details of Sartre ’s studies in Berlin , see Cohen-Solal (1987, 91–95) and Hayman (1987, 97–110). Other sources mistakenly indicate that Sartre also went to Freiburg to study with Husserl or Heidegger or both during this period or give incorrect dates for the period of his fellowship.

  93. 93.

    See my fuller discussion of Sartre ’s early encounters and attempts to grapple with phenomenology in the corresponding sections of my dissertation (Dupont 1997, 211–236), which have been abridged here.

  94. 94.

    Sartre (1936–1937, 122); Sartre (1965, 83), available in English as Sartre (1957, 103).

  95. 95.

    See Sartre (1995, 404), available in English as Sartre (1984, 183). While in Berlin , Sartre bought himself a copy of Being and Time, planning to read it after finishing Ideas , but he gave up after fifty pages.

  96. 96.

    See Beauvoir (1960, 363–364), available in English as Beauvoir (1962, 282).

  97. 97.

    Sartre (1939b, 131), here quoting the English translation, Sartre (1970b, 5).

  98. 98.

    Sartre (1948, 8). Cf. Sartre (1962, 23), where “phénomenologue” is mistakenly translated as “psychologist.”

  99. 99.

    In his famous 1945 lecture, “Existentialisme est un humanisme,” Sartre (1970a, 17) classifies existentialists according to two categories: Christian existentialists, among whom he names Jaspers and Marcel , and atheistic existentialists, among whom he names Heidegger first, then the “French existentialists,” and finally himself. An English translation with an introduction by Bernard Frechtman is available as Sartre (1947).

  100. 100.

    See Sartre (1948, 9); Sartre (1962; 25). Cf. Heidegger (1962, Int II.A; 51–55).

  101. 101.

    Sartre (1948, 10); Sartre (1962, 25).

  102. 102.

    Sartre (1939b, 132); Sartre (1970b, 5).

  103. 103.

    The volume in which Hering ’s essay appeared was simultaneously published in English; see Farber (1950) and Hering (1950b). Spiegelberg (1982, 448) makes reference to Hering ’s remark.

  104. 104.

    Avertissement 1931–1932, viii). See also Lavelle (1942), “Les Recherches philosophiques,” 251–262.

  105. 105.

    See Blondel (1926) for his own remarks on the launching of the society that his own mentor, Émile Boutroux, had envisioned at the International Congress of Philosophy in 1900.

  106. 106.

    See Serrus (1930a), Serrus (1930b), and Serrus (1931a).

  107. 107.

    Husserl’s name first appeared on the list of corresponding members of the society published in Les études philosophiques in the first issue of its third year of publication in June, 1929, thus a few months following his visit to France and lectures in Paris. See also Serrus (1930a, 42), where he reports, “À la suite d’études husserliennes que j’avais eu l’honneur de présenter à la Société philosophique de Marseille, le célèbre professeur de Fribourg en Brisgau acceptait le titre de correspondant de cette Société, et nous écrivait sa joie de voir s’ouvrir à la phénoménologie la vieille cite Phocéenne: ‘Ich war überracht und hocherfreut zu ersehen dass auch Marseille eine Stätte ernst bethätigter phänomenologischer Studien ist.’ Depuis lors Edmund Husserl n’a cessé de nous prodiguer ses encouragements sous la forme d’envois de publications ou d’ouvrages; et c’est ainsi qu’il adressait au bureau de la revue dès son apparition, sa récente ‘Logique formelle et transcendantale.’”

  108. 108.

    See Serrus (1930a), especially 129–131.

  109. 109.

    See Berger (1945) for an editorial statement regarding the change in publisher.

  110. 110.

    See Spiegelberg (1982, 239, 428, 431–434, 438, and 441).

  111. 111.

    Both essays were republished in Minkowski ’s second book, Vers une cosmologie (1936). See also Spiegelberg (1982, 434).

  112. 112.

    See for example, Gurwitsch (1936). See also Spiegelberg (1982, 251–252).

  113. 113.

    See Landsberg (1936) and Landsberg (1939). See also Spiegelberg (1982, 302, 431).

References

  • Andler, Charles (ed.). 1912. La philosophie allemande au XIXe siècle. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avertissement. 1931–1932. Recherches philosophiques 1: vii–viii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauvoir, Simone de. 1960. La force de l’âge. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauvoir, Simone de. 1962. The Prime of Life. Trans. Peter Green of La force de l’âge. Cleveland: World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Gaston. 1926. Ou nous en sommes …. Bulletin de la Société d’études philosophiques du sud-est 1(1): 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Gaston. 1945. A nos lecteurs. Les études philosophiques 20: 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blondel, Maurice. 1926. Note liminaire. Bulletin de la Société d’études philosophiques du sud-est 1(1): 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgarel, Raymond, Charles Serrus, Jacques Paliard, Gaston Berger, Paul Nayrac, et al. 1929. Catégories grammaticales et catégories logiques. Les études philosophiques 3: 20–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutroux, Émile. 1916. Philosophy and War. Trans. Fred Rothwell. New York: E. P. Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutroux, Émile. 1927. Nouvelles études d’histoire de la philosophie. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunschvicg, Léon. 1897. La modalité du jugement. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Solal, Annie. 1987. Sartre: A Life. Trans. Anna Cancogni. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbos, Victor. 1911. Husserl, sa critique du psychologisme et sa conception d’une logique pure. Revue de métaphysique et de morale 19: 685–698.

    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 

  • Eschweiler, Karl. 1928. Max Scheler et sa philosophie de l’homme. La vie intellectuelle 1: 112–122.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fondane, Benjamin. 1929. Edmund Husserl et l'oeuf de Colomb du réel (de la philosophie phénoménologique allemande). L'Europe 78 (15 June 1929): 331–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fondane, Benjamin. 1936. La conscience malheureuse. Paris: Denoël et Steele.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groethuysen, Bernard. 1926. Introduction à la pensée philosophique allemande depuis Nietzsche. Paris: Librarie Stock, Delamain & Boutelleau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurvitch, Georges. 1924. Le système de la morale concrète de J. G. Fichte. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurvitch, Georges. 1926. La philosophie russe du premier quart du XXe siècle. Monde slave 3: 254–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurvitch, Georges. 1928. La philosophie phénoménologique en Allemagne. Revue de métaphysique et de morale 36: 553–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurvitch, Georges. 1929. Phénoménologie et criticisme. Une confrontation entre les deux courants dans la philosophie d’Émile Lask et de Nicolaï Hartmann. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 108: 235–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurvitch, Georges. 1930. Les tendances actuelles de la philosophie allemande. Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurvitch, Georges. 1949. Les tendances actuelles de la philosophie allemande, 2nd ed. Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurwitsch, Aron. 1936. Quelques aspects et quelques développements de la psychologie de la forme. Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 33: 413–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayman, Ronald. 1987. Sartre: A life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1931. Qu’est-ce que la métaphysique? Bifur 8: 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1931–1932. De la nature de la cause. Recherches philosophiques 1(1): 83–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1938. Qu’est-ce que la métaphysique? Trans. with a preface and notes. Henry Corbin. 2nd ed. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering, Jean. 1925. Phénoménologie et philosophie reglieuse. Étude sur la théorie de la connaissance religieuse. Faculté de théologie protestante, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg: Imprimerie Alsacienne.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering, Jean. 1927a. Sub specie aeterni. Réponse à une critique de la philosophie de Husserl. Revue d’histoire et de philosophie réligieuse 7: 351–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering, Jean. 1927b. Sub specie aeternitatis. Eine Erwiderung auf L. Schestovs Artikel ‘Memento mori,’ enthaltend eine Kritik an der Husserlschen Philosophie. Philosophischer Anzeiger 2: 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering, Jean. 1939. La phénoménologie d’Edmund Husserl il y a trente ans. Souvenirs et réflexions d’un étudiant de 1909. Revue internationale de philosophie 1: 366–373.

    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 

  • Huisman, Denis (ed.). 1984. Dictionnaire des philosophes, 2 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1910–1911. Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft. Logos 1: 289–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1913. Vorwort. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung 1: v–vi.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1947. Méditations cartésiennes. Introduction à la phénoménologie. Trans. Gabrielle Peiffer and Emmanuel Levinas. Revised ed. Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1950. Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1955. La philosophie comme science rigoreuse. Trans. Quentin Lauer with an introduction and commentary. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1960. Cartesian Meditations. An Introduction to Phenomenology. Trans. Dorion Cairns. 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, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1964a. The Idea of Phenomenology. Trans. William P. Alston and George Nakhnikian. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1965. Philosophy as rigorous science. In Phenomenology and the crisis of philosophy, ed. Quentin Lauer. New York: Harper & Row.

    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. 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 

  • Lalande, André, ed. 1928. Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, 3 vols., 2nd ed., revised. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landgrebe, Ludwig. 1949. Phänomenologie und Metaphysik. Hamburg: M. von Schröder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsberg, Paul-Ludwig. 1936. L’acte philosophique de Max Scheler. Recherches philosophiques 6: 299–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsberg, Paul-Ludwig. 1939. Husserl et l’idée de la philosophie. Revue internationale de philosophie 1: 317–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lask, Emile. 1911. Die Logik der Philosophie und die Kategorienlehre. Eine Studie über den Herrschaftsbereich der logischen Form. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lask, Émile. 1923. Gesammelte Schriften, 3 vols. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle, Louis. 1942. La philosophie française entre les deux guerres. Paris: Aubier Montaigne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leroux, Henri. 1994. Sur quelques aspects de la réception de Max Scheler en France. In Studien zur Philosophie von Max Scheler. Internationales Max Scheler Colloquium, “Der Mensch im Weltalter des Ausgleichs,” Köln, 1993, ed. Ernst Wolfgang Orth and Gerhard Pfafferott. Freiburg: Karl Alber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, Emmanuel. 1929. Sur les Idéen de Husserl. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 107: 230–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, Emmanuel. 1931. Fribourg, Husserl et la phénoménologie. Revue d’Allemagne et des pays de langue allemande 5(43): 402–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, Emmanuel. 1932. Martin Heidegger et l’ontologie. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 113: 395–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, Emmanuel. 1940. L’oeuvre d’Edmond Husserl. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 129: 33–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, Emmanuel. 1963. La théorie de l’intuition dans la phénoménologie de Husserl, 2nd ed. Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, Emmanuel. 1990. Difficult Freedom. Trans. Seán Hand. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, Emmanuel. 1992. Éthique et infini. Paris: Le Livre de Poche.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, Emmanuel. 1995. The Theory of Intuition in Husserl’s Phenomenology. Trans. André Orianne. 2nd ed. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, Jean-François. 1992. La phénoménologie, 11th ed., corrected. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcel, Gabriel. 1936–1937. Aperçus phénomenologiques sur l’être en situation. Recherches philosophiques 6: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marck, Siegfried. 1936. La philosophie de l’existence dans l’oeuvre de K. Jaspers et de M. Heidegger. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 121: 197–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkowski, Eugene. 1934. Esquisses phénoménologiques. Recherches philosophiques 4: 295–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkowski, Eugene. 1935. Le problème du temps vécu. Recherches philosophiques 5: 65–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkowski, Eugène. 1936. Vers une cosmologie. Paris: Aubier.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parodi, Dominique. 1919. La philosophie contemporaine en France. Essai de classification des doctrines. Paris: Alcan.

    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. 1938. La nausée. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1939a. Esquisse d’une théorie des émotions. Paris: Hermann & Cie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1939b. Une idée fondamentale de la phénoménologie de Husserl: l’intentionalité. La nouvelle revue française 52: 129–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1943. L’être et le néant. Essai d’ontologie phénoménologique. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1947. Existentialism. Trans. Bernard Frechtman. New York: Philosophical Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1948. Esquisse d’une théorie des émotions, 2nd ed. Paris: Hermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1956. Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. New York: Washington Square Press.

    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 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1962. Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions. Trans. Philip Mairet. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1964. Nausea. Trans. Lloyd Alexander. Cambridge, MA: Robert Bentley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1965. La transcendance de l’ego. Esquisse d’une description phénoménologique. Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1970a. Existentialisme est un humanisme. Paris: Éditions Nagel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1970b. Intentionality: A fundamental idea of Husserl’s phenomenology. The Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 2: 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1984. The War Diaries of Jean-Paul Sartre, November 1939–March 1940. Trans. Quintin Hoare. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1995. Carnets de la drôle de guerre, septembre 1939–mars 1940. nouvelle édition ed. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheler, Max. 1913. Zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Sympathiegefühle und von Liebe und Hass, mit einem Anhang über den Grund zur Anahme der Existenz des fremden ich. Halle: Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheler, Max. 1923. Wesen und Formen der Sympathie. Der “Phänomenologie der Sympathiegefühle.” 2nd ed. Bonn: F. Cohen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheler, Max. 1928. Nature et formes de la sympathie. Contribution à l’étude des lois de la vie émotionnelle. Trans. M. Lefebvre. Paris: Payot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheler, Max. 1936. Le sens de la souffrance, suivi de deux autres essais. Trans. Pierre Klossowski. Paris: Aubier Montaigne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheler, Max. 1954. The Nature of Sympathy. Trans. Peter Heath. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrus, Charles. 1930a. L’oeuvre philosophique d’Edmund Husserl. Les études philosophiques 4(1): 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrus, Charles. 1930b. L’oeuvre philosophique d’Edmund Husserl. Le réel phénoménologique. Les études philosophiques 4(2–3): 126–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrus, Charles. 1931a. L’oeuvre philosophique d’Edmund Husserl. Logique formelle et logique transcendantale. Les études philosophiques 5(1): 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrus, Charles. 1931b. Review of Edmund Husserl, “Nachwort zu meinen Ideen zu einer Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie” (Halle: Niemeyer, 1930) and Edmund Husserl, Méditations cartésiennes. Introduction à la phénoménologie. Trans. Gabrielle Peiffer and Emmanuel Levinas (Paris: Colin, 1930). Les études philosophiques 5(3): 127–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrus, Charles, Gaston Berger, Jean Rimaud, Raymond Bourgarel, Gabriel Monod, Émile Augier, and Jacques Paliard. 1928. Le conflit du logicisme et du psychologicisme. Les études philosophiques 1: 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shestov, Lev. 1917. Memento mori. По поводу теории познания Эдмунда Гуссерля. Вопросы философии и психологии = Voprosy philosophii i psychologii (Problems in Philosophy and Psychology) 139–140: 1–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shestov, Lev. 1923. Власть ключей. Potestas clavium, 3 vols. Munich: Verlag der Nietzsche Gesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shestov, Lev. 1926. Memento mori. À propos de la théorie de la connaissance de Husserl. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 101: 5–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shestov, Lev. 1926–1928. Oeuvres de Léon Chestov. Trans. Boris de Schloezer. 6 vols. Paris: J. Schiffrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shestov, Lev. 1927. Qu’est-ce que la vérité? Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 103: 36–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shestov, Lev. 1936. Kierkegaard et la philosophie existentielle. Trans. Boris de Schloezer. Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shestov, Lev. 1940. À la mémoire d’un grand philosophe: E. Husserl. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 129: 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shestov, Lev. 1968. Potestas clavium. Trans. Bernard Martin. Athens: Ohio University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelberg, Herbert. 1976a. Husserl’s syllabus for the Paris lectures on “Introduction to Transcendental Phenomenology.” The Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 7: 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelberg, Herbert. 1976b. 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. 1982. The phenomenological movement. A historical introduction, 3rd ed., revised and enlarged. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Breda, Herman Leo. 1959. Le sauvetage de l’héritage husserlian. In Husserl et la pensée moderne, ed. H. L. Van Breda. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wundt, Wilhelm. 1910. Psychologismus und Logizismus. In Kleinen Schriften. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

    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). Four Phases in the Reception of Phenomenology in French Philosophy, 1910–1939. In: Phenomenology in French Philosophy: Early Encounters. Phaenomenologica, vol 208. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4641-1_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics