Husserl Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 63–81 | Cite as

Seeing Meaning: Frege and Derrida on Ideality and the Limits of Husserlian Intuitionism



The article seeks to challenge the standard accounts of how to view the difference between Husserl and Frege on the nature of ideal objects and meanings. It does so partly by using Derrida’s deconstructive reading of Husserl to open up a critical space where the two approaches can be confronted in a new way. Frege’s criticism of Husserl’s philosophy of mathematics (that it was essentially psychologistic) was partly overcome by the program of transcendental phenomenology. But the original challenge to the prospect of a fulfilled intuition of idealities remained and was in fact encountered again from within the transcendental analysis by Husserl himself in his last writings on geometry and language. According to the two standard and conflicting accounts, Husserl either changed his earlier psychologistic program as a result of Frege’s criticism, or he was in fact never challenged by it in the first place. The article shows instead how Husserl continued to struggle with the problem of the constitution of ideal objects, and how his quest led him to a point where his analyses anticipate a more dialectical and deconstructive conclusion, eventually made explicit by Derrida. It also shows not only how this development constitutes a philosophical continuity from the original dispute with Frege, but also how Frege’s critique in a certain respect could be read as an anticipation of Derrida’s deconstructive elaboration of Husserl’s phenomenology.


Ideal objects Intuition Psychologism Genetic phenomenology Deconstruction Husserl Frege Derrida 


  1. Derrida, J. (1962). L′Origine de la géométrie. Traduction et introduction. Paris: PUF; Edmund Husserl′s origin of geometry: An introduction. (J. P. Leavey, Jr., Trans.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  2. Derrida, J. (1967). Le voix et la phénomème. Paris: PUF; Speech and phenomena (D. Allison & N. Garver, Trans.). Evanson: Northwestern University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. Derrida, J. (1988). Limited Inc. S. Weber (Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Derrida, J. (2003). The problem of genesis in Husserl’s philosophy (M. Hobson, Trans.). University of Chicago Press: Chicago; Le Problème de la genèse dans la philosophie de Husserl. Paris: PUF, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. Føllesdal, D. (1958). Husserl und Frege. Ein Beitrag zur Beleuchtung der Entstehung der Phänomenologischen Philosophie. Oslo.Google Scholar
  6. Frege, G. (1894). Dr. E. Husserls Philosophie der Arithmetik. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 103, 313–332; Review of Dr. E. Husserl’s Philosophy of Arithmetic. In F. Elliston & P. McCormick (Eds.), Husserl. Expositions and appraisals (pp. 314–324). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Frege, G. (1918). Der Gedanke: eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus, 1, 58–77.Google Scholar
  8. Frege, G. (1979). In Hermes et al. (Eds.). Posthumous writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Haaparanta, L. (1994). Mind, meaning and mathematics. Essays on the philosophical views of Husserl and Frege. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Hua XII (1970). Philosophie der Arithmetik. In L. Ely (Ed.). Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  11. Hua VI (1976). Die Krisis der europaischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phanomenologie. In W. Biemel (Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  12. Hua III:1 (1977). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch 1. Halbband: Text der 1.-3. Auflage. K. Shuhmann (Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  13. Kates, J. (2005). Essential history. Jacques Derrida and the development of deconstruction. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kates, J. (2008). Fielding Derrida. Philosophy, literary criticism, history and the work of deconstruction. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kauppinen, J. (2000). Atopologies of Derrida, philosophy, law, and literature. Ph.D. Diss., Helsinki University.Google Scholar
  16. Mohanty, J. N. (1982). Husserl and Frege. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ortiz Hill, C., & Rosado Haddock, G. (2000). Husserl or Frege? Meaning, objectivity, and mathematics. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  18. Seebohm, T. (1995). The apodicticity of absence. In W. Mc Kenna & J. Evans (Eds.), Derrida and phenomenology (pp. 185–201). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Culture and CommunicationSödertörn UniversityHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations