, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 363–374 | Cite as

The Brentano School and the History of Analytic Philosophy: Reply to Röck

  • Andreas Vrahimis
Original Paper


In ‘Brentano’s Methodology as a Path through the Divide’, Röck makes two related claims. (A) Röck argues that there exists a philosophical dilemma between description and logical analysis, and that the current divide between continental phenomenology and analytic philosophy may be seen as a consequence of the dilemma. (B) Röck further argues that Brentano’s work integrates description and logical analysis in a way which ‘can provide a suitable starting point for an equally successful integration of these methods in contemporary philosophy’ (Axiomathes 27:475–489, 2017). Without disputing Röck’s claim (B) about the suitability of Brentano’s work for such an integration, this paper questions (A) by examining the influence of Brentano and his school on early analytic philosophy. As recent scholarship in the history of analytic philosophy demonstrates, contrary to Röck’s contention, many prominent analytic philosophers conversed with Brentano and his school’s conceptions of phenomenological description.


Brentano Phenomenology Logical analysis Analytic philosophy Frege Husserl Russell Moore Meinong Vienna Circle Carnap Wittgenstein Ryle Austin 


  1. Albertazzi L (1996) A cubist state of mind: Meinong’s ontology. Axiomathes 7(1–2):5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin JL (1970) A plea for excuses. In: Philosophical papers. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker GP, Hacker PMS (1983) Frege: logical excavations. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaney M (2013) The historiography of analytic philosophy. In: Beaney M (ed) The Oxford handbook of the history of analytic philosophy. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell D (1999) A very British coup? In: O Hear A (ed) German Philosophy since Kant. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Brentano F (1973) Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (trans: Rancurello AC, Terrell DB, and McAlister L). Routledge LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Carnap R (1921–1926) Ms. “Vom Chaos zur Wirklichkeit” (mit Notizen zum Konstitution-System),
  8. Carnap R (1922) Der Raum. Ein Beitrag zur Wissenschaftlehre. Kant-studien 56:63–67Google Scholar
  9. Carnap R (1928). Der Logische Aufbau Der Welt. Leipzig, Meiner. Translated as: Carnap R (1967) The Logical Structure of the World. Pseudoproblems in Philosophy (trans: George R A). University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  10. Carus AW (2016) Carnap and phenomenology: What happened in 1924? In: Damböck C (ed) Influences on the Aufbau. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  11. Chisholm R (1957) Perceiving: A philosophical study. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  12. Chisholm R (1986) Brentano and intrinsic value. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Dummett M (1993) Origins of analytical philosophy. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Føllesdal D (1995) Gödel and Husserl. In: Hintikka J (ed) From Dedekind to Gödel. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedman M (2000) A parting of the ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger. Open Court, ChigagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Glock HJ (2008) What is analytic philosophy?. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffin N, Jacquette D (2009) Introduction. In: Griffin N, Jacquette D (eds) Russell vs. Meinong: The Legacy of “On Denoting”. Oxon: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Haddock GER (2008) The Young Carnap’s unknown Master: Husserl’s influence on Der Raum and Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill CO (2017) Introduction to Paul Linke’s ‘Gottlob Frege as Philosopher’. In: Poli R (ed) The Brentano Puzzle. Routledge, OxonGoogle Scholar
  20. Huemer W (2003) Logical empiricism and phenomenology: Felix Kaufmann. In: Stadler F (ed) The Vienna Circle and logical empiricism: re-evaluation and future perspectives. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacquette D (2009) Review of The Young Carnap’s Unknown Master: Husserl’s Influence on Der Raum and Der Logische Aufbau Der Welt. Hist Philos Logic 30(2):194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaufmann F (1940) Phenomenology and logical empiricism. In: Farber M (ed) Philosophical essays in memory of Edmund Husserl. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaufmann F (1941) Strata of experience. Philos Phenomenol Res 1(3):313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linke P (2017) Gottlob Frege as philosopher. In: Poli R (ed) The Brentano puzzle. Routledge, OxonGoogle Scholar
  25. McAlister LL (1974) Chisholm and Brentano on intentionality. Rev Metaphys 28(2):328–338Google Scholar
  26. Milkov N (2004) G. E. Moore and the Greifswald objectivists on the given and the beginning of analytic philosophy. Axiomathes 14(4):361–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Milkov N (2017) Russell and Husserl (1905–1918): the Not-So-Odd couple. In: Stone P (ed) Bertrand Russell’s life and legacy. Vernon Press, WilmingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Monk R (1996) Was Russell an analytical philosopher? Ratio 9(3):227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Monk R (2014) The temptations of phenomenology: Wittgenstein, the synthetic a priori and the “Analytic a Posteriori”’. Int J Philos Stud 22(3):312–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moore GE (1903) Review of the origin of the knowledge of right and wrong. By Franz Brentano. Int J Ethics 14(1):115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mulligan K (2003) Searle, Derrida and the ends of phenomenology. In: Smith B (ed) The Cambridge companion to Searle. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Nasim OW (2008) Bertrand Russell and the Edwardian philosophers: constructing the world. Palgrave Macmillan, HampshireCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson ES (2018) Dilthey and Carnap: the feeling of life, the scientific worldview, and the elimination of metaphysics. In: Feichtinger J, Fillafer FL, Surman J (eds) The worlds of positivism: a global intellectual history. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, pp 1770–1930Google Scholar
  34. Oliver A (1999) A few more remarks on logical form. Proc Aristot Soc 99:247–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Overgaard S (2010) Royaumont revisited. Br J Hist Philos 18(5):899–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poli R (1997) In itinere: pictures from Central European philosophy. In: Poli R (ed) In Itinere: European cities and the birth of modern scientific philosophy. Rodopi, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  37. Poli R (2017) The Brentano puzzle: an introduction. In: Poli R (ed) The Brentano puzzle. Routledge, OxonGoogle Scholar
  38. Reynolds J, Chase J (2011) Analytic versus Continental: arguments on the methods and value of philosophy. Stocksfield, AcumenGoogle Scholar
  39. Röck T (2017) Brentano’s methodology as a path through the divide: on combining phenomenological descriptions and logical analysis. Axiomathes 27:475–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Russell B (1905) On denoting. Mind 14(56):479–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Russell, B (2004) Philosophy in the twentieth century. In: Sceptical Essays. New York, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Ryle G (1927) Review of Essentiale Fragen Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Wesens, by Roman Ingarden. Mind 36(143):366–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryle G (1929) Review of Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit. Mind 38(151):355–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ryle G (1970) Autobiographical. In: Wood OP, Pitcher G (eds) Ryle: a collection of critical essays. Anchor Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Ryle G (1971) Phenomenology vs. The Concept of Mind. In: Collected Papers: Critical essays (Vol. 1). London, HutchinsonGoogle Scholar
  46. Ryle G (1973) Intentionality-theory and the nature of thinking. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 2(104/105):255–265Google Scholar
  47. Ryle G, Hodges HA, Acton HB (1932) Symposium: phenomenology. Proc Aristot Soc Suppl Vol 11:68–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sanford D (1997) Chisholm on Brentano’s Thesis. In: Hahn LE (ed) The Philosophy of Roderick M. Chisholm (The Library of Living Philosophers: Volume 25). Chicago, La Salle, Open CourtGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith JF (1985) The Russell-Meinong debate. Res 45(3):305–350Google Scholar
  50. Smith B (1994) Austrian philosophy: the legacy of Franz Brentano. Open Court Publishing Company, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  51. Stone AD (2010) On the sources and implications of Carnap’s Der Raum. Stud Hist Philos Sci 41:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stroll A (2000) Twentieth-century analytic philosophy. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Taylor C, Ayer AJ (1959) Symposium: phenomenology and linguistic analysis. Proc Aristotel Soc Suppl Vol 33:93–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thomasson AL (2002) Phenomenology and the development of analytic philosophy. South J Philos 40(1):115–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomasson AL (2007) Conceptual analysis in phenomenology and ordinary language philosophy. In: Beaney M (ed) The analytic turn: analysis in early analytic philosophy and phenomenology. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Tugendhat E (1972) Description as the method of philosophy: a reply to Mr Pettit. In: Mays W, Brown SC (eds) Linguistic analysis and phenomenology. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Vrahimis A (2013) Encounters between analytic and continental philosophy. Hampshire, Palgrave-MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vrahimis A (2014) Wittgenstein and the phenomenological movement: reply to Monk. Int J Philos Stud 22(3):341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vrahimis A (2018) Is there a methodological divide between analytic and continental philosophy of music?: reply to Roholt. J Aesthet Art Crit 76(1):108–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wittgenstein L (1958) Preliminary studies for the “philosophical investigations” generally known as the blue and brown books. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Wittgenstein L (1978) On Heidegger on being and dread. In: Murray M (ed) Heidegger and modern philosophy. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  62. Wittgenstein L, Waismann F, Baker GP (2003) The voices of Wittgenstein. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Classics and PhilosophyUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations