Introduction. Brentano and His School: Reassembling the Puzzle

  • Liliana Albertazzi
  • Massimo Libardi
  • Roberto Poli
Part of the Nijhoff International Philosophy Series book series (NIPS, volume 52)


If we use the device of treating complex and ramified movements of thought as somehow unitary points of reference, then the main distinction to be drawn in twentieth-century scientific philosophy sets analytic philosophy against phenomenology — two movements which waged outright war against each other for more than half a century and which only recently called a truce.1 And here we meet our first surprise. If we go back to the origins of these two movements, we find something that perhaps we were not expecting. If we may legitimately consider Frege to be the grandfather of analytic philosophy and Husserl the father of the phenomenological school, what would have been the reaction of a German student reading Frege and Husserl in, say, 1903?2 He would certainly not have considered them to be two radically antagonistic thinkers. Indeed, despite their differing interests, he would have believed that they largely shared the same point of view. The split between the two movements that drew on Frege and Husserl for their insights and arguments only came later; their common basis remained unchanged. Giving detailed treatment of the reasons for the distinction first, and the split later, between analyticists and phenomenologists would be beyond our brief; we shall make only a limited number of remarks. However, what we wish to stress in particular is precisely the fact that two of the 20th century’s most significant movements in scientific philosophy have, at the very least, a common thematic origin and a shared cultural background.


Analytic Philosophy Mental Phenomenon Vienna Circle Scientific Philosophy Psychic Phenomenon 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ajdukiewicz 1978a.
    K. Ajdukiewicz, The scientific world-perspective and other essays 19311963, Dordrecht/Boston, Reidel.Google Scholar
  2. Ajdukiewicz 1978b.
    K. Ajdukiewicz, “Syntactic onnection”, in Ajdukiewicz I978a, 118–139. 1978bGoogle Scholar
  3. Albertazzi 1993a.
    L. Albertazzi, “I1 tempo psichico tra analisi concettuale e laboratorio, Franz Brentano e Renata Calabresi”, in Albertazzi and Poli 1993, 131–173.Google Scholar
  4. Albertazzi 1993b.
    L. Albertazzi, “Psicologia descrittiva e psicologia sperimentale: Franz Brentano e Enzo Bonaventura sul tempo”, Axiomathes 4, 389–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Albertazzi 1993c.
    L. Albertazzi, “Descriptive psychology in Italy”, Brentano Studien 4, 155–193.Google Scholar
  6. Albertazzi and Poli 1991 L. Albertazzi and R. Poli (eds.), Topics in philosophy and artificial intelligence, Bolzano, Istituto mitteleuropeo di cultura.Google Scholar
  7. Albertazzi and Poli 1993.
    L. Albertazzi and R. Poli (eds.), Brentano in Italia, Milano, Guerini.Google Scholar
  8. Baumgartner 1993.
    W. Baumgartner, “I corrispondenti italiani negli archivi Brentano”, in Albertazzi and Poli 1993, 237–46.Google Scholar
  9. Becker 1927.
    O. Becker, “Mathematische Existenz”, Jahrbuch für Philosophie and phänomenologische Forschung, 439–809.Google Scholar
  10. Brentano 1874.
    F. Brentano, Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt, Leipzig, Dunker and Humblot.Google Scholar
  11. Brentano 1966.
    F. Brentano, Die Abkehr vom Nichtrealen, Bern-München, Francke.Google Scholar
  12. Brentano 1969.
    F. Brentano, Vom Ursprung sittlicher Erkenntnis, Hamburg, Meiner.Google Scholar
  13. Burkhardt and Dufour 1991.
    H. Burkhardt and C.A. Dufour, “Part-whole I: History”, in Burkhard and Smith 1991, 663–73.Google Scholar
  14. Burkhardt and Smith 1991.
    H. Burkhardt and B. Smith (eds.), Handbook of metaphysics and ontology, Munich, Philosophia.Google Scholar
  15. Cacciari 1976.
    M. Cacciari, Krisis. Saggio sulla crisi del pensiero negativo da Nietzsche a Wittgenstein, Milano, Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  16. Cacciari 1980.
    M. Cacciari, Dallo Steinhof. Prospettive viennesi del primo Novecento, Milano, Adelphi.Google Scholar
  17. Chisholm 1960.
    R.M. Chisholm (ed.), Realism and the background of phenomenology, Glencoe Illinois, The Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chisholm and Haller 1978.
    R. Chisholm and R. Haller (eds.), Die Philosophie Franz Brentanos, Amsterdam, Rodopi. 1978Google Scholar
  19. Dummett 1988.
    M.E.A. Dummett, Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  20. Ehrenfels 1891.
    C. von Ehrenfels, “Zur Philosophie der Mathematik”, Vierteljahrsschr f für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 15, 185–347.Google Scholar
  21. Grassl and Smith 1986.
    W. Grassi and B. Smith (eds.), Austrian economics. Historical and philosophical background, London/Sidney, Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  22. Grelling 1939.
    K. Grelling, “A logical theory of dependence”, Erkenntnis 9 (Owing to the war, this issue of Erkenntnis did not appear).Google Scholar
  23. Grelling and Oppenheim 1938.
    K. Grelling and P. Oppenheim, “Der Gestalt im Lichte der neuen Logik”, Erkenntnis 7, 211–25.Google Scholar
  24. Grelling and Oppenheim 1939.
    K. Grelling and P. Oppenheim, “Logical analysis of `Gestalt’ as `functional whole”’, Erkenntnis 9 (Owing to the war, this issue of Erkenntnis did not appear).Google Scholar
  25. Haller 1979.
    R. Haller, Studien zur österreichischen Philosophie, Amsterdam, Rodopi.Google Scholar
  26. Haller 1986a.
    R. Haller, Fragen zu Wittgenstein und Aufsätze zur österreichischen Philosophie, Amsterdam, Rodopi.Google Scholar
  27. Haller 1986b.
    R. Haller, “Gibt es eine österreichische Philosophie?”, in Haller 1986a, 31–44.Google Scholar
  28. Henry 1991.
    D.P. Henry, Medieval mereology, Amsterdam, Grüner.Google Scholar
  29. Holenstein 1974.
    E. Holenstein, Jakobson ou le structuralisme phénomenologique, Paris, Seghers.Google Scholar
  30. Husserl 1900.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen, Halle, Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  31. Jakobson 1963.
    R. Jakobson, “Parts and wholes in language”, in Lerner 1963, 157–162.Google Scholar
  32. Janil and Toulmin 1975.
    A. Janik and S. Toulmin, Wittgenstein’s Vienna, New York, Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  33. Kaufmann 1930.
    F. Kaufmann, Das Unendliche in der Mathematik und seine Ausschaltung. Eine Untersuchung über die Grundlagen der Mathematik, Leipzig and Vienna, Deuticke.Google Scholar
  34. Köhler 1920]W. Köhler, Die physischen Gestalten in Ruhe und im stationären Zustand. Eine naturphilosophische Untersuchung, Vienna, Braunschweig.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kotarbinski 1966.
    T. Kotarbihski, Gnoseology. The scientific approach to the theory of knowledge, London, Pergamon.Google Scholar
  36. Kraus 1929.
    O. Kraus, “Selbstdarstellung”, in Schmidt 1929, VII.Google Scholar
  37. Lerner 1989.
    C. Lejewski, “Ricordando Stanislav Lesniewski”, in Quaderni del Centro studi per la filosofia mitteleuropea, 1.Google Scholar
  38. Lesniewski 1992a.
    D. Lerner (ed.), Parts and wholes, London, Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Lesniewski 1992b.
    S. Lesniewski, Collected works, 2 vol., Dordrecht-Boston-London, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  40. Libardi 1993a.
    M. Libardi, “Robert Musil tra letteratura e filosofia”, Axiomathes 4, 249277.Google Scholar
  41. Libardi 1993b.
    M. Libardi, “S. Lesniewski, Collected works”, Axiomathes 4, 105–129.Google Scholar
  42. Libardi 1995.
    M. Libardi, “Robert Musil tra letteratura e filosofia (2nd part)”, Axiomathes 6 (forthcoming). 1995Google Scholar
  43. Lotze 1852.
    R.H. Lotze, Medicinische Psychologie oder Physiologie der Seele, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  44. Meinong 1921.
    A. Meinong, “Selbstdarstellung”, in Schmidt 1921, 91–148.Google Scholar
  45. Meinong 1960.
    A. Meinong, “The theory of objects”, in Chisholm 1960, 76–117.Google Scholar
  46. Morscher 1978.
    E. Melandri, Le Ricerche logiche’ di Husserl. Introduzione e commento alla Prima ricerca, Bologna, Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  47. Mulligan 1986.
    E. Morscher, “Brentano and his place in Austrian philosophy”, in Chisholm and Haller 1978, 1–9.Google Scholar
  48. Nyiri 1986.
    K. Mulligan, “Exactness, description and variation: How Austrian analytical philosophy was done”, in Nyiri 1986, 86–97.Google Scholar
  49. Pelc 1979.
    J.C. Nyiri (ed.), From Bolzano to Wittgenstein. The tradition of Austrian philosophy, Vienna, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
  50. Peruzzi 1988.
    J. Pelc (ed.), Semiotics in Poland 1894–1969, Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
  51. Poli 1992.
    A. Peruzzi, Noema. Mente e logica attraverso Husserl, Milano, Angeli. R. Poli, Ontologia formale, Genova, Marietti. 1992Google Scholar
  52. Poli 1993–94] R. Poli, “At the origin of analytic philosophy”, Aletheia,218–231. M. Puglisi, “Prefazione del traduttore”.Google Scholar
  53. Brentano 1913.
    M. Puglisi, “Prefazine del traduttore”, Aletheia, 218 – 231.Google Scholar
  54. Russell 1973a.
    B. Russell, Essays in analysis, London, Allen and Umwin.Google Scholar
  55. Russell 1973b.
    B. Russell, “Meinong’s theory of complexes and assumptions”, in Russell 1973a, 21–76.Google Scholar
  56. Schmidt 1921.
    R. Schmidt (ed.), Die Philosophie der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen, Leipzig, Meiner.Google Scholar
  57. Schmidt 1929.
    R. Schmidt (ed.), Die Philosophie der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen, Leipzig, Meiner.Google Scholar
  58. Simons 1987.
    P. Simons, Parts. A study in formal ontology, Oxford, Clarendon press.Google Scholar
  59. Smith 1981.
    B. Smith (ed.), Structure and Gestalt: Philosophy and literature in Austria-Hungary and her successor states, Amsterdam, Benjamin.Google Scholar
  60. Smith 1982.
    B. Smith (ed.), Parts and moments. Studies in logic and formal ontology, Munich-Vienna, Philosophia.Google Scholar
  61. Smith 1988.
    B. Smith (ed.), Foundations of Gestalt theory, Munich/Vienna, Philosophia.Google Scholar
  62. Smith and Mulligan 1982.
    B. Smith and K. Mulligan, “Pieces of a theory”, in Smith 1982, 15109.Google Scholar
  63. Spiegelberg 1984.
    H. Spiegelberg, The phenomenological movement. A historical introduction, The Hague/Boston/Lancaster, Nijhoff (2nd ed.).Google Scholar
  64. Stegmüller 1978.
    W. Stegmüller, Hauptströmungen der Gegenwartsphilosophie, Stuttgart, Kröner (6th ed.). 1978Google Scholar
  65. Stumpf 1883 C.
    Stumpf, Tonpsychologie,Leipzig, Hirzel. 1883 CGoogle Scholar
  66. Szaniawski 1989.
    K. Szaniawski (ed.), The Vienna circle and the Lvov-Warsaw school, Dordrecht-Boston-London, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  67. Tatarkiewicz 1973.
    W. Tatarkiewicz, Nineteenth century philosophy, Belmont ( California ), Wadsworth Publishing Co. Inc.Google Scholar
  68. Twardowski 1979.
    K. Twardowski, “On clear and obscure styles of philosophical writings”, in Pelc 1979, 1–2 (fragments).Google Scholar
  69. Willard 1991.
    D. Willard, “Attaining objectivity: Phenomenological reduction and the private language argument”, in Albertazzi and Poli 1991, 15–21.Google Scholar
  70. Wolenski 1989.
    J. Wolenski, Logic and philosophy in the Lvov-Warsaw School, Dordrecht-Boston-London, Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wolenski and Simons 1989.
    J. Wolenski and P. Simons, “De veritate: Austro-Polish contributions to the theory of truth from Brentano to Tarski”, in Szaniawski 1989, 391–442.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liliana Albertazzi
  • Massimo Libardi
  • Roberto Poli

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations