The Checkered Legacy of Marvin Farber’s Idiosyncratic Understanding of Phenomenology

Chelstrom, Eric

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99185-6_6

Eric Chelstrom²⁹

Part of the book series: Contributions to Phenomenology ((CTPH,volume 100))

350 Accesses
1 Altmetric

Abstract

I endeavor to explore Farber’s work leading into the Foundation in order to construct an understanding both of his idiosyncratic interpretation of Husserl, and of what lead to Farber’s break with phenomenology. A great irony of Farber’s career may turn out to be that a scholar so deeply bothered by presuppositions and so committed a methodological pluralist may have discarded phenomenology because of his own philosophical commitments, a fact noted by Farber’s former student, Sang-Ki Kim. In an essay in Farber’s memory, Kim questions whether Farber himself was subject to the limitations and prejudices inherent in his commitments to scientific Marxism and naturalism. Farber’s pervasive interests in naturalism are likely influenced, in part, by consideration for the cancer research of his brother, Sidney. This work will first examine Farber’s attitudes towards metaphysics and naturalism. Second, it will turn to an examination of his interests in logic – which largely prompted his interests in phenomenology. Farber’s methodological pluralism is driven in part by his understanding of logic and in part his other interests. Further disagreements with Husserl will be reappraised in the concluding section of the essay.

The material here used is quoted from Marvin Farber’s Foundation of Phenomenology by kind permission of SUNY Press.

Thank you to St. Mary’s University for a New Faculty Grant to procure copies of material from the Farber Archive at the University at Buffalo Library.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Alonzo Church. Review of The Foundation of Phenomenology, by Marvin Farber. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 9.3 (1944): 63–65.
2.
Gilbert Ryle. Review of The Foundation of Phenomenology, by Marvin Farber. Philosophy, 21.80 (1946): 263–269.
3.
Eric Voegelin. Review of The Foundation of Phenomenology, by Marvin Farber. Social Research, 11.3 (1944): 384–387.
4.
Aron Gurwitsch. Review of The Foundation of Phenomenology by Marvin Farber. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 6.3 (1946): 439–445.
5.
Herbert Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, third edition. (Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982), 253.
6.
Sang-Ki Kim, “Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology.” Analecta Husserliana, XXVI. E.F. Kaelin & C.O. Schrag, eds. (1989), 3.
7.
Gabriel R. Ricci recounts Farber’s ardent disagreements with Fritz Kaufmann over the nature of the journal’s inclusivity or restrictedness (Ricci, “Edmund Husserl’s Reception in Marvin Farber’s Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.” Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 46.3 (2015): 268–269).
8.
Kah Kyung Cho, Farber’s chosen successor at Buffalo, argues that Farber’s break with phenomenology was more or less complete by the time Foundation is published and that he is best seen as also a committed naturalist (Cho, “Marvin Farber in memoriam, Sein Leben und Wirken für die Phaenomenologie in U.S.A.” Phenomneologische Forschungen, 12 (1982): 145–172).
9.
Marvin Farber, “Husserl’s Méditations Cartésiennes.” The Philosophical Review, 44.4 (1935): 387.
10.
Kim, “Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology,” 14.
11.
Kim, “Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology,” 6.
12.
Of note is that Farber speaks well of transcendental phenomenology in the opening pages of chapter XV of his The Foundation of Phenomenology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1943b). What to make of Farber’s manic commitments is unclear.
13.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 491.
14.
More recent scholarship on Husserl’s idealism and phenomenology’s relationship to metaphysics are important answers to Farber’s critique (David Carr, The Paradox of Subjectivity: The Self in the Transcendental Tradition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Steven Crowell, Husserl, Heidegger and the Space of Meaning. (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2001); Dan Zahavi, “Phenomenology and Metaphysics.” In Metaphysics, Facticity, Interpretation, eds. D. Zahavi, S. Heinämaa & H. Ruin, 3–22. (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003a)). Zahavi’s article in particular does a nice job of distinguishing in what senses metaphysics can be ruled out by phenomenology and in what senses metaphysics is a dimension of phenomenology. It is also clear that any who confuse Husserl’s, or even Kant’s transcendental idealism with Berkeleyan metaphysical idealism commit a gross injustice to both philosophers. Though Farber understands well that Husserl’s idealism is not Berkeleyan in nature (Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 554). It is also worth noting that Amie L. Thomasson has argued one is not committed to transcendental idealism simply in virtue of accepting phenomenological method (Amie L. Thomasson, “In What Sense is Phenomenology Transcendental?” The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 45 (2007), 90).
15.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 216. Compare this with the following from an earlier essay of Farber’s:

Phenomenology is anti-metaphysical only with respect to the tradition. It attempts the construction of a priori sciences on the basis of concrete intuition-such sciences as pure grammar, pure logic, pure law, the eidetic science of the world intuitively apprehended, etc., and the elaboration of a general ontology of the objective world which embraces everything. This is metaphysics, says Husserl, if it is true that the ultimate knowledge of being may be called metaphysics. Rejecting the traditional metaphysics because of its speculative excesses, he sets up his own “apodictic” theory. Eidetic descriptions of constitutive experiences take the place of the physical reality. (Farber, “Husserl’s Méditations Cartésiennes,” 384)
16.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 569.
17.
Amie L. Thomasson, “Phenomenology and the Development of Analytic Philosophy.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 40 (2002), 136.
18.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 536.
19.
Marvin Farber, Archive Folio 30.15.
20.
Ibid.
21.
Ibid.
22.
Ibid.
23.
Ibid.
24.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 569ff.
25.
Marvin Farber, “Relational Categories and the Quest for Unity.” The Philosophical Review, 43.4 (1934), 369.
26.
Ibid.
27.
Marvin Farber, “The Significance of Phenomenology for the Americas.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4.2 (1943a), 216.
28.
Ibid.
29.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 491.
30.
Farber, Archive Folio 30.15.
31.
This is especially clear in the archive material (Farber, Archive Folio 30.15). Though Descartes is no idealist, which makes the array of comparisons questionable.
32.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 554.
33.
Husserl in Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 540. Farber returns to this later in Foundation, and cites his teacher at Harvard, Ralph Perry, as informative (Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 568 n.24). Kim also comments on Perry’s influence on Farber, especially his approach to naturalism (Kim, “Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology,” 4). Given the citation in Foundation and its context, I believe one has some basis for seeing the connection between Farber’s naturalism and his views on metaphysics.
34.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 541.
35.
Farber, “Husserl’s Méditations Cartésiennes,” 382.
36.
Ibid., 385.
37.
See discussions in Dan Zahavi, Husserl’s Phenomenology. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003b), 47–53 and Dermot Moran, Edmund Husserl: Founder of Phenomenology. (Cambridge: Polity, 2005), 191–193.
38.
Farber, “Husserl’s Méditations Cartésiennes,” 384.
39.
See discussion in Zahavi, Husserl’s Phenomenology, 68–72.
40.
Kim, “Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology,” 6 and Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 495.
41.
Farber, “The Significance of Phenomenology for the Americas,” 215.
42.
Farber, Archive Folio 30.15.
43.
Farber, “The Significance of Phenomenology for the Americas,” 216.
44.
Jean Wahl, “A Letter to Marvin Farber.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 11.3 (1951), 404.
45.
Ibid., 402.
46.
Kim, “Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology,” 6.
47.
Ibid.
48.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 504.
49.
Ibid., 510.
50.
Marvin Farber, “Logical Systems and the Principles of Logic.” Philosophy of Science, 9.1 (1942), 41.
51.
See also Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 504–510.
52.
Farber, “Logical Systems and the Principles of Logic,” 53.
53.
Ibid., 52.
54.
Marvin Farber, “Theses Concerning the Foundations of Logic.” The Philosophical Review, 38.3 (1929), 231.
55.
Marvin Farber, “The Method of Deduction and its Limitations.” The Journal of Philosophy, 27.19 (1930b), 515.
56.
Ibid.
57.
For discussion see Farber, Marvin. Theses Concerning the Foundations of Logic. 229–231 and Farber, Marvin. The Foundation of Phenomenology, 495–503.
58.
Farber, Marvin. The Foundation of Phenomenology, 551.
59.
Kah-Kyung Cho. 1990. Phenomenology as Cooperative Task: Husserl-Farber Correspondence During 1936–1937. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50: 30 (Supplement).
60.
Ibid., 30–31.
61.
It is surely this sort of phenomenological absolutism that Farber must have in mind when he calls phenomenological method, “a danger for philosophy” in his notes (Archive Folio 30.15).
62.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 569.
63.
See also Farber, “Relational Categories and the Quest for Unity,” 370–371.
64.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 568.
65.
Ibid., 572.
66.
Farber, “Relational Categories and the Quest for Unity,” 372.
67.
Kim, “Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology,” 4.
68.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 499–500.
69.
Farber, Archive Folio 30.15.
70.
Farber, “Theses Concerning the Foundations of Logic,” Farber, “Relational Categories and the Quest for Unity,” and Farber, “Logical Systems and the Principles of Logic.”
71.
Farber, “Logical Systems and the Principles of Logic,” 41.
72.
Ibid.
73.
See also Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 496.
74.
Farber, “Logical Systems and the Principles of Logic,” 43.
75.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 492.
76.
Ibid., v.
77.
Kim, “Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology,” 3 and 5.
78.
Gurwitsch, Review.
79.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 571.
80.
Ibid.
81.
Ibid.
82.
Ibid.
83.
Ibid.
84.
Ibid., 572.
85.
Ibid.
86.
Discussion of phenomenology as first philosophy is also in the notes (Farber, Archive Folio 30.15).
87.
It would be interesting to look to the later Farber to see if he found Merleau-Ponty to be a potential ally, or if Farber continued to isolate himself from any potential allies within phenomenology.
88.
Kim, “Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology,” 4. Kim only quotes the nicer statements thereof. If Farber is harsh toward Husserl at times, his comments towards other members of the phenomenological tradition are nasty and potentially undermine the sincerity of Farber’s commitment to logical pluralism or the cooperation of methods. Some of the things he says also raise serious questions about his competence with phenomenology beyond Husserl.
89.
Farber, Archive Folio 30.15.
90.
Kim, “Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology,” 12.
91.
Ibid., 13–14.
92.
Ibid., 14.
93.
In support of this assessment consult Gurwistch, Review; Kim, “Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology;” Ricci, “Edmund Husserl’s Reception in Marvin Farber’s Philosophy and Phenomenological Research;” and Farber, Archive Folio 30.15.
94.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology; Cho, “Phenomenology as Cooperative Task: Husserl-Farber Correspondence During 1936–1937,” 29.
95.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, v.
96.
Farber, Archive Folio 9.12, published copy in Cho, “Phenomenology as Cooperative Task: Husserl-Farber Correspondence During 1936–1937.”
97.
Ibid.
98.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, v.
99.
Cho, “Phenomenology as Cooperative Task: Husserl-Farber Correspondence During 1936–1937,” 38.
100.
Ibid.
101.
Ibid.
102.
Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 535–536.
103.
Farber, “The Significance of Phenomenology for the Americas,” 210ff; Farber, The Foundation of Phenomenology, 495.
104.
Cho, “Phenomenology as Cooperative Task: Husserl-Farber Correspondence During 1936–1937,” 38.
105.
Wilfred Sellars, “Autobiographical Reflections.” In Action, Knowledge, and Reality: Critical Studies in Honor of Wilfred Sellars. Hector-Neri Castañeda, ed. (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1975).
106.
Ricci, “Edmund Husserl’s Reception in Marvin Farber’s Philosophy and Phenomenological Research” does an excellent job of examining this dimension of Farber.
107.
Ricci, “Edmund Husserl’s Reception in Marvin Farber’s Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,” 276.

References

Carr, David. 1999. The Paradox of Subjectivity: The Self in the Transcendental Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Cho, Kah Kyung. 1982. Marvin Farber in Memoriam, Sein Leben und Wirken für die Phaenomenologie in U.S.A. Phenomneologische Forschungen 12: 145–172.
Google Scholar
———. 1990. Phenomenology as Cooperative Task: Husserl-Farber Correspondence During 1936–1937. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (Supplement): 27–43.
Article Google Scholar
Church, Alonzo. 1944. Review of The Foundation of Phenomenology by Marvin Farber. Journal of Symbolic Logic 9 (3): 63–65.
Article Google Scholar
Crowell, Steven. 2001. Husserl, Heidegger and the Space of Meaning. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Farber, Marvin. 1929. Theses Concerning the Foundations of Logic. The Philosophical Review 38 (3): 219–231.
Article Google Scholar
———. 1930a. A Review of Recent Phenomenological Literature. The Journal of Philosophy 27 (13): 337–349.
Article Google Scholar
———. 1930b. The Method of Deduction and Its Limitations. The Journal of Philosophy 27 (19): 505–515.
Article Google Scholar
———. 1934. Relational Categories and the Quest for Unity. The Philosophical Review 43 (4): 368–379.
Article Google Scholar
———. 1935. Husserl’s Méditations Cartésiennes. The Philosophical Review 44 (4): 380–387.
Article Google Scholar
———. 1939. Erfahrung und Urteil: Untersuchungen zur Genealogie der Logik. The Journal of Philosophy 36 (9): 247–249.
Article Google Scholar
———. 1940. Edmund Husserl and the Background of His Philosophy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1 (1): 1–20.
Article Google Scholar
———. 1941. The Function of Phenomenological Analysis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1 (4): 431–441.
Article Google Scholar
———. 1942. Logical Systems and the Principles of Logic. Philosophy of Science 9 (1): 40–54.
Article Google Scholar
———. 1943a. The Significance of Phenomenology for the Americas. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4 (2): 208–216.
Article Google Scholar
———. 1943b. The Foundation of Phenomenology. Albany: State University of New York Press. Farber Archive Material. Farber Archives. University at Buffalo Library.
Google Scholar
Gurwitsch, Aron. 1946. Review of The Foundation of Phenomenology by Marvin Farber. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 6 (3): 439–445.
Article Google Scholar
Kim, Sang-Ki. 1989. Marvin Farber and Husserl’s Phenomenology. In Analecta Husserliana, ed. E.F. Kaelin and C.O. Schrag, vol. XXVI, 3–15. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Google Scholar
Moran, Dermot. 2005. Edmund Husserl: Founder of Phenomenology. Cambridge: Polity.
Google Scholar
Ricci, Gabriel R. 2015. Edmund Husserl’s Reception in Marvin Farber’s Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 46 (3): 265–281.
Article Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. 1946. Review of The Foundation of Phenomenology by Marvin Farber. Philosophy 21 (80): 263–269.
Article Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfred. 1975. Autobiographical Reflections. In Action, Knowledge, and Reality: Critical Studies in Honor of Wilfred Sellars, ed. Hector-Neri Castañeda. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Google Scholar
Spiegelberg, Herbert. 1982. The Phenomenological Movement. 3rd ed. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
Book Google Scholar
Thomasson, Amie L. 2002. Phenomenology and the Development of Analytic Philosophy. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 40: 115–142.
Article Google Scholar
———. 2007. In What Sense Is Phenomenology Transcendental? The Southern Journal of Philosophy 45: 85–92.
Article Google Scholar
Voegelin, Eric. 1944. Review of The Foundation of Phenomenology by Marvin Farber. Social Research 11 (3): 384–387.
Google Scholar
Wahl, Jean. 1951. A Letter to Marvin Farber. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 11 (3): 401–405.
Article Google Scholar
Zahavi, Dan. 2003a. Phenomenology and Metaphysics. In Metaphysics, Facticity, Interpretation, ed. D. Zahavi, S. Heinämaa, and H. Ruin, 3–22. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chapter Google Scholar
———. 2003b. Husserl’s Phenomenology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

St. Mary’s University, San Antonio, TX, USA
Eric Chelstrom

Authors

Eric Chelstrom
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Chelstrom .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Holy Apostles College and Seminary, Cromwell, CT, USA
Michela Beatrice Ferri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chelstrom, E. (2019). The Checkered Legacy of Marvin Farber’s Idiosyncratic Understanding of Phenomenology. In: Ferri, M.B. (eds) The Reception of Husserlian Phenomenology in North America. Contributions to Phenomenology, vol 100. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99185-6_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99185-6_6
Published: 06 June 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99183-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99185-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics