Husserl Studies

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 267–290 | Cite as

An early interpretation of Husserl's phenomenology: Johannes Daubert and the Logical Investigations

  • Reinhold N. Smid
Article

Keywords

Logical Investigation Early Interpretation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    MaxScheler, “Die deutsche Philosophie der Gegenwart: Zusätze aus den nachgelassenen Manuskripten”, in Manfred S.Frings ed., Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 7 (Bern und München: A. Francke, 1973), p. 328. -All translations are mine.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    In 1967, Professor Herbert Spiegelberg arranged for Daubert's posthumous papers to be deposited in the Bavarian State Library in Munich. After that the papers were classified and catalogued by Dr. Eberhard Avé-Lallemant (see his Die Nachlässe der Münchener Phänomenologen in der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek (Catalogus codicum scriptorum Bibliothecae Monacensis, tomus X, pars I) (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1975), pp. 125–138). In 1976, Prof. Schuhmann succeeded in deciphering Daubert's shorthand. From 1979 to 1983, the State University of Utrecht funded a research project under the supervision of Prof. Schuhmann for the transcription of and the research into Daubert's manuscripts. Cf. my article “Zwei Briefe von Johannes Daubert an Edmund Husserl aus dem Jahr 1907”, Husserl Studies 1 (1984), pp. 143 ff. The present paper too results from this research project.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quoted from KarlSchuhmann, Husserl-Chronik: Denk-und Lebensweg Edmund Husserls, Husserliana Dokumente, Vol. I (Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977), p. 72.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    HerbertSpiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction, Phaenomenologica 5/6 (The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff, 19823), p. 169.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MoritzGeiger, “Alexander Pfänders methodische Stellung”, in E.Heller and F.Löw, eds., Neue Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen: Alexander Pfänder zum sechzigsten Geburtstag (Leipzig: Johannes Abrosius Barth, 1933), p. 4.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daubertiana A II 3, note-book Psychologica, p. 91. The term “phenomenological” occurs also on pages 64 and 70 of this note-book.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See Theodor Lipps, “Psychische Vorgänge und psychische Causalität”, Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane 25 (1901), pp. 161 ff. This article was received by the editors on 19 December 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    TheodorLipps, “Inhalt und Gegenstand; Psychologie und Logik”, in Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und der historischen Klasse der K.B. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vol. 1905 (München: K.B. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1906), p. 556. Lipps strangely-does not discuss Hegel in this context, although he clearly adopts this expression from him.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    For some preliminary information about this see my article “‘Münchener Phänomenologie’: Zur Frühgeschichte des Begriffs”, in H. Spiegelberg and E. Avé-Lallemant, eds., Pfänder-Studien, Phaenomenologica 84 (The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982), pp. 116 ff.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cf. Theodor Lipps, “Fortsetzung der ‘Psychologischen Streitpunkte’”, Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane 31 (1903), p. 78. This article was received by the editors on 20 October 1902.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The lecture is in Daubertiana A I 4/1-15. -Quotations from the Daubertiana manuscripts are given in the text by referring to file, page number, and recto-/verso-markings. Quotations from Logische Untersuchungen. Zweiter Theil: Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis (Halle a.S.: Max Niemeyer, 1901) are abbreviated: LU II. -In 1984, a new critical edition of this text edited by Ursula Panzer was published as Hua XIX.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1902. In the same year there appeared Karl Heim's book Psychologismus oder Antipsychologismus? Entwurf einer erkenntnistheoretischen Fundamentierung der modernen Energetik (Berlin: C.A. Schwetschke und Sohn, 1902). According to its preface, this work was finished in October 1902. So Daubert could not refer to it in these manuscripts which were written in July of that year.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Spiegelberg, loc. cit.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quoted from K. Schuhmann, “Ein Brief Husserls an Theodor Lipps”, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 39 (1977), p. 141 f.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cf. K. Schuhmann, Husserl-Chronik, p. 81; and his work, Husserl über Pfänder, Phaenomenologica 56 (Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973), pp. 20 ff.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hans Büttner, “Die phänomenologische Psychologie Alexander Pfänders”, Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie 94 (1935), p. 317.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    See K. Schuhmann, Husserl über Pfänder, p. 17.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cf. E. Avé-Lallemant, Die Nachlässe der Münchener Phänomenologen in der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, p. 16.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hans Cornelius, “Psychologische Prinzipienfragen”, Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane. I. Abteilung. Zeitschrift für Psychologie 42 (1906), p. 401.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cf. my article “‘Münchener Phänomenologie’: Zur Frühgeschichte des Begriffe”, p. 123 f.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See MoritzGeiger, Methodologische und experimentelle Beiträge zur Quantitätslehre (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1906), p. 31, note 1 (cf. p. IV) = “Methodologische und experimentelle Beiträge zur Quantitätslehre”, Psychologische Untersuchungen 1 (1907), p. 355, note 1.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reinach's letters to Conrad are in the Bavarian State Library in Munich (Conradiana B II: Reinach; cf. E. Avé-Lallemant, loc. cit., p. 169). Copies of them lie in the Husserl archives in Louvain, Belgium.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Theodor Conrad's copy of Daubert's letter lies in Conradiana B II: Daubert (cf. E. Avé-Lallemant, loc. cit.).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cf. Conradiana B II: Reinach and Conradiana A V 1 (cf. E. Avé-Lallemant, loc. cit., pp. 166 and 169).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, p. 233.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    K. Schuhmann, Husserl-Chronik, p. 89.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    See ElmarHolenstein, “Einleitung des Herausgebers”, in Hua XVIII, XXXVII; and H.Spiegelberg, The Context of the Phenomenological Movement, Phaenomenologica 80 (The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981), p. 108 f. and p. 116, note 4.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cf. H.Spiegelberg, Phaenomenologica 5/6 (The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff, 19823), pp. 130 ff.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See Daubert's draft for a letter to Husserl of August 1907, which I published in: “Zwei Briefe von Johannes Daubert an Edmund Husserl aus dem Jahr 1907”, loc. cit.; quotation p. 150. Brentano himself wrote about the conversations with Daubert in a letter to Hugo Bergmann, in which he called Daubert Husserl's “main defender (Hauptverfechter)” in Munich, cf. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 7 (1946/47), p. 96.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cf. K. Schuhmann, loc. cit., pp. 155 and 183; and Ursula Panzer, “Einleitung der Herausgeberin”, in Hua XIX, XXII ff.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    See Daubertiana 5/118r cf. 5/126r. On Volkelt's concept of the “transsubjective” cf.Erfahrung und Denken: Kritische Grundlegung der Erkenntnistheorie (Hamburg und Leipzig: Leopold Voss, 1886), pp. 42, 139 ff., 159 ff., 188 ff. and 542 f.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    See Daubertiana A I 5/120r; 5/82r, 5/97v, and 5/124r.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cf. my dissertation ‘Mein reines Ich' und die Probleme der Subjektivität: Eine Studie zum Anfang der Phänomenologie Edmund Husserls (Phil. Diss. Köln, 1978), pp. 20 ff.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    On the “relation of similarity” cf. Daubertiana A I 1/24-29. See also my article “Ähnlichkeit als Thema der Münchener Lipps-Schule”, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 37 (1983), pp. 606 ff.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cf. K. Schuhmann, Husserl über Pfänder, p. 140.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cf. Ludwig, Busse, “Rezension: Edmund Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen” Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane 33 (1903), pp. 153 ff.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cf. H. Cornelius, “Psychologische Prinzipienfragen”, p. 406.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cf. MartinHeidegger, Zur Sache des Denkens (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1969), p. 83.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cf. my dissertation ‘Mein reines Ich' und die Probleme der Subjektivität’, pp. 10 ff. and 44 ff.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cf. K. Heim, Psychologismus oder Antipsychologismus?, pp. 17 f. and 53 f.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    On Husserl's answer to Daubert see K. Schuhmann, Husserl über Pfänder, p. 50.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cf. Schuhmann, loc. cit., p. 130.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    The term “Zumutesein” is very difficult to express in English. It means a prereflexive, non-intentional source of cognition. It is a cast of mood which founds (“fundiert”) our thinking and feeling, so I have chosen to render it “Being-in-a-mood”.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    In his article “Husserl and the Logic of Questions”, Analecta Husserliana 14 (1983). p. 387, C. Struyker Boudier quotes this statement of Husserl, but he is not aware of the fact that there are some problems in interpreting Husserl which can only be solved by probing into new sources of Husserl's thinking, such as Johannes Daubert's notes. Günther Pöltner does not take Husserl into account in his study Zu einer Phänomenologie des Fragens: Ein fragend-fraglicher Versuch Symposion 37 (Freiburg/München: Karl Alber, 1972). Pöltner is not able to fulfill the expectations which he evokes by this rather pretentious title.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    This manuscript is reproduced in E. Avé-Lallemant, Die Nachlässe der Münchener Phänomenologen in der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, p. 132. On the interpretation of the manuscript cf. my article “‘Münchener Phänomenologie’: Zur Frühgeschichte des Begriffs”, pp. 131 ff.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    On Husserl's concept of intentionality and his critics cf. J.N. Mohanty, “Husserl's Concept of Intentionality”, Analecta Husserliana 1 (1971), pp. 100 ff.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cf. Daubertiana 5/83v, 5/95v, 5/96r, 5/98r, 5/122, and 5/124r.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, §§ 29, 30; Otto Friedrich Bollnow, Das Wesen der Stimmungen (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1980o).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cf. K. Schuhmann, Husserl über Pfänder, pp. 162 ff.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Husserl's letters to Daubert are in the Husserl archives in Louvain, Belgium. Copies of them lie in the Bavarian State Library in Munich (Daubertiana B II: Husserl; cf. E. Avé-Lallemant, loc. cit., p. 136).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cf. K.Schuhmann, “Structuring the Phenomenological Field: Reflections on a Daubert Manuscript”, in W.S.Hamrick ed. Phenomenology in Practice and Theory Phaenomenologica 92 (Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985), pp. 3 ff.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reinhold N. Smid
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität KölnKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations