Phenomenology and the Formal Sciences pp 93-105 | Cite as
Husserl’s Formalism
Abstract
It has been one of the strange and unexamined features of contemporary philosophy that philosophical as well as technical concern with the formal sciences — formal logic and mathematics, formal syntax and semantics — has been taken to be an ally of a positivistic, formalistic and (narrowly) analytic philosophical perspective. I believe that upon closer questioning, this alleged alliance breaks down, and the prima facie neutrality of the concern with formalism leaves room for a great diversity of philosophical standpoints — from a Platonic to a Kantian, to name two familiar contrasting positions. It is also a philosophically unexamined point of view, which requires that an understanding of the nature of the formal sciences must itself be formalistic, that you truely understand the nature of a formal discipline when you embed it in a meta — discipline of the same nature. There is certainly a sense of “understanding” in which this is the case. But there is a sense of “understanding”, a sense that is of central importance to philosophy — in which one can ask questions about the formal sciences which do not permit any non-trivially formalised answer.
Keywords
Formal Science Formal Ontology Pure Logic Formal Essence Formal SyntaxPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.E. Husserl, Formal and transcendental Logic, E. tr. D. Cairns, The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1969, §28.Google Scholar
- 2.E. Husserl, Studien zur Arithmetik und Geometrie, ed. I. Strohmeyer, Husserliana Bd. XXI, The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1983, p. 66.Google Scholar
- 3.E. Husserl, Einleitung in die Logik und Erkenntnistheorie, ed. U. Melle, Husserliana Bd. XXIV, Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff, 1984, §14, pp. 51 f.Google Scholar
- 4.E. Husserlch. 3.Google Scholar
- 5.F. u. t. l., §54.Google Scholar
- 6.Husserliana Bd. XXIV, ch. 4, esp. §25.Google Scholar
- 7.E. Husserl, p. 134.Google Scholar
- 8.For more about this, see my “Psychologism in Indian Logical Theory”, in: Matilal & Shaw (eds.), Analytical Philosophy in Comparative Perspective, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985, pp. 203–211.Google Scholar
- 9.H. Weyl, “David Hilbert and his Mathematical Work,” Reprinted in: C. Ried, Hilbert, New York: Springer Verlag, 1970, pp. 245–283, esp. p. 274.Google Scholar
- 10.R. Tieszen, “Mathematical Intuition and Husserl’s Phenomenology,” Nous, 18, 1984, pp. 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Cp. F. u. t. l., §§77, 79.Google Scholar
- 12.R. Tieszen, p. 100Google Scholar
- 13.G. Kreisel, “Mathematical Logic” in: Lectures on Modern Mathematics, vol. III, ed. T. L. Saaty, 1965, p. 186. Also see J. M. B. Moss, “Kreisel’s Work on the Philosophy of Mathematics,” in R. O. Gandy and G. M. E. Yates (eds). Logic Colloquium’69, London/Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1971, pp. 411–438, esp. p. 422.Google Scholar
- 14.in: R. E. Butts & J. Hintikka (eds), Logical Foundations of Mathematics and Computability Theory, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1977, pp. 149–169, esp. p. 151.Google Scholar
- 15.Cp. G. Null, “Husserls1 Theory of Essence” in: J. N. Mohanty and William McKenna (eds.), Husserl: A Textbook. Washington, D. C: University Press of America k The Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology, 1989.Google Scholar