Advertisement

Some Puzzles on Essence

  • Miguel García-Baró
Part of the Analecta Husserliana book series (ANHU, volume 34)

Abstract

It is simply surprising that it could ever have been asserted that phenomenology, though granting to the idea of essence so fundamental a role as to define itself by means of it, has not tried to determine it from its very beginning.1 In actuality, Husserl presented, already in the first edition of his Logical Investigations, a very precise and elaborate theory of essence, one which he even incorporated as a major constituent in his “Elements of a Phenomenological Elucidation of Knowledge” (Sixth Investigation). In my opinion, this theory has been too much neglected. Hence, the first part of this essay is devoted to its reconstruction.

Keywords

Logical Investigation Ideal Object Blue Book Transcendental Phenomenology Abstract Part 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cfr., e.g., Xavier Zubiri, Sobre la esencia (4th ed., Madrid: 1972), p. 32: “Con sus célebres esencias, Husserl no nos dirá nunca qué es la esencia sino tan soló qué es lo que se nos da en el modo absoluto de conciencia; y este ‘qué’ es al que llamará sin más esencia.”Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cfr., only as recent significative examples for a copiously documented tradition: Fritz Wenisch, Die Philosophie und ihre Methode (Salzburg/Munich: 1976), especially those chapters which describe the history of “creontic philosophy”; and Josef Seifert, Back to Things in Themselves. A Phenomenological Foundation for Classical Realism (New York/London: 1987).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU), VI, §29, A 573. (I will use throughout the quotation system employed by Ursula Panzer in her Husserliana edition [The Hague: 1984].)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU) VI, §31, A 579.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU) VI, §25, A 558. Cfr. V, §20, A 390.Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU) VI, §6, A 497.Google Scholar
  7. 11.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU), V, §20, A387f.Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU), V, §25, A407.Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    Garciá-Baró, Fundamentos …, op. cit., Part II, in fin.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    H. Natorp, Zur Frage der logischen Methode, Mit Beziehung auf Edmund Husserls ‘Prolegomena zur reinen Logik’, 270. Reproduced in: H. Noack (ed.), Husserl (Darmstadt: 1973), 1.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU) V, §16, Anm, B1 397.Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU), V, §21, B1 440.Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU),V, §21, A 392.Google Scholar
  14. 19.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU), B XIV–XV. Cfr. a detailed discussion on truth as a species in my “Ideal Objects and Skepticism: A Polemical Point in Logical Investigations” in A-T. Tymieniecka (ed.), Analecta Husserliana Vol. XXIX (1990), pp. 73–90.Google Scholar
  15. 20.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU), V, §29, A 419.Google Scholar
  16. 21.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU), VI, §25, A 560.Google Scholar
  17. 22.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU), VI, §28, A 567.Google Scholar
  18. 23.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU), VI, §23, A 551.Google Scholar
  19. 24.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen (hereafter, LU), VI, §16, A 536.Google Scholar
  20. 25.
    M. García-Baró, “La filosofía primera de Edmund Husserl en torno a 1900,” op. cit., §4, pp. 56ff.Google Scholar
  21. 26.
    A. Reinach, “Die obsersten Regeln der Vernunftschlüsse bei Kant” [1911]: Sämtliche Werke (K. Schuhmann and B. Smith, eds. Munich: 1989), I, pp. 56ff.Google Scholar
  22. 27.
    See M. Heidegger, Gesamtausgabe I (Frankfurt a. M.: 1978), p. 114.Google Scholar
  23. 28.
    E. Husserl, Erfahrung und Urteil (5th ed., Hamburg: 1976), pp. 314f.Google Scholar
  24. 29.
    Dallas Willard, “The Paradox of Logical Psychologism: Husserl’s Way Out,” Readings on Edmund Husserl’s Logical Investigations,’ ed., J. N. Mohanty (The Hague: 1977), pp. 52f.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel García-Baró
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad ComplutenseMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations