Advertisement

“Aristotelian” Themes in Husserl’s Logical Investigations

  • Richard Cobb-Stevens
Chapter
  • 213 Downloads
Part of the Phaenomenologica book series (PHAE, volume 164)

Abstract

In 1683, Nicolas Malebranche and Antoine Arnauld began an extended and sometimes acrimonious debate about the viability of Aristotle’s claim in the De Anima that in its cognitive function “the soul is somehow all things.” According to Malebranche, the principle of physics that there can be no action at a distance applies also to the domain of cognitive activity. It is therefore unreasonable to believe, he observes, that our minds are literally in the sky when we contemplate the stars: “It is not likely that the soul should leave the body to stroll about the heavens, as it were, in order to behold these objects.”1 Neither is it believable that our minds are capable of “walking about” even in more familiar spaces, for example, that they leave our bodies in order to see houses at a near distance. In defense of Aristotle, Arnauld responds that it is inappropriate to construe intentional presence in terms of spatial or local presence. Were God to allow our mind to leave our body and to travel to the sun in order to see it, our mind would have made, Arnauld says, “a great and very useless voyage.” It makes no difference whether bodies are present or absent, nearby or distant: “... it is for the mind the same thing.”2 Malebranche then responds that Arnauld, lacking a sense of irony, had taken his criticism too literally. The critique of the “walking-mind” had been intended only as a “good-natured ridicule” whose target was really the notion that the mind can know better what is closer, i.e., things that its body touches, or even the body itself. His point, he adds, was that the objects of the mind are intelligible, not material. The mind is not extended; it operates only within the realm of rationality, a purely intelligible realm which excludes everything material. Arnauld retorts that an intelligible sun is nothing other than the material sun as known. The point of Aristotle’s claim, he insists, was that the primary objects of our cognition are things and persons in the world around us, be they nearby or distant, present or absent.3

Keywords

Logical Investigation Intentional Object Intentional Content Metaphysical Foundation Transcendental Logic 
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.
    N. Malebranche, The Search After Truth, trans. T. M. Lennon and P. J. Olscamp, Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1980, Vol.1, p. 217; Oeuvres complètes de Malebranche, ed. A. Robinet Paris: J. Vrin, 1958–70, Vol. 1, 413. See also J. W. YOLTON, Perceptual Acquaintance from Descartes to Reid, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984, 47–49.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quand Dieu aurait permis à nostre ame de sortir de notre corps pour aller trouver le soleil afin de le voir, elle aurait fait un grande voyage fort inutilement… puisque présent ou éloigné c’est pour elle la méme chose…“ A. ARNAULD, Des vraies et fausses idées contre ce qu’enseigne l’auteur de la recherche de la vérité,ed. Christiane Frémont, Paris: Librairie Fayard, 1986, 70. See J.W.YOLTON, Perceptual Acquaintance,64–65.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Arnauld, Des vraies et fausses idées,89–99.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Hobbes, Leviathan, or the Matter, Form, and Power ofa ’ See, for example, M. HEIDEGGER, The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic,trans. M. Heim, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1984, §9–10, pp. 123–59.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See, for example, M. HEIDEGGER, The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic,trans. M. Heim, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1984, §9–10, pp. 123–59.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Sokolgwski, Introduction to Phenomenology,Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, trans. A. C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell and L. L. McAlister, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973, 88–89.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See R. Sokolowski, Presence and Absence: A Philosophical Investigation of Language and Being, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978, 62, n. 3.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aquinas, De Veritate,IV, 2 ad 3.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint,88–89.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint,9–10.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aristotle, De Anima,431b30–432a1.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aristotle, De Anima, 423a1–3. See S. ROSEN, “Thought and Touch: A Note on Aristotle’s De Anima, ” Phronesis, VI (1961), 127–37.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. A. S. Pringle-Patterson, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928, Bk. I, ch. 2, §15; Bk. II, ch. 11, §17.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See R. Sokolowski, Introduction to Phenomenology,216: “The notion of a solitary, self-enclosed consciousness, aware only of itself and its own sensations and thoughts, was disposed of by Husserl’s concept of intentionality… We experience and perceive things, not just the appearances or impacts or impressions that things make on us. Things appear to us through a manifold of presentations. Husserl presented this realism not only by pointing out the self-contradictions of the Cartesian and Lockean position, of the way of ideas, but by working out detailed descriptive analyses of various forms of intentionality, analyses that proved themselves by virtue of their precision and convincingness. One does not prove realism; how could one do so. One displays it.” See also 36–37.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Husserl, “Psychological Studies in the Elements of Logic,” in P. McCormick and F. Elliston (eds.) Husserl: Shorter Works, South Bend: Notre Dame University Press, 1981, 126–142. See D. WILLARD, Logic and the Objectivity of Knowledge, Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 34–38.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Husserl, Logical Investigations,trans. J. N. Findlay, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970, V, Appendix to §11 and 20, p. 595. See also V, §11, pp. 559–60.Google Scholar
  18. 18E.
    Husserl, Logical Investigations, V, §17, pp. 578–80, and §20, p. 589, §43, p. 657. See also J. DRUMMOND, Husserlian Intentionality and Non-Foundational Realism: Noema and Object, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990, 26–36.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Husserl, Logical Investigations, 1,§31, p. 330.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Husserl, Logical Investigations,I, §576, n. 1.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Husserl, Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, Book I, translated by F. Kersten, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1990, § 128, p. 308. See J. DRUMMOND, Husserlian Intentionality, 26–36, 39–42.Google Scholar
  22. E. Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology,trans. D. Carr, Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press, 1970, §23, p. 87.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1028a10–15; The Categories, 1b11–18. See J. A. SMITH, “rode ti in Aristotle,” Classical Review, XXXV (1921), 19.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1041a7–27. See S. ROSEN, The Limits of Analysis, New York: Basic Books, 1980, 55–58. See also D. K. W. MODRAK, Aristotle: The Power of Perception, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987, 168.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Rosen, Hermeneutics as Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987, 147–148.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    F. Nietzsche, Werke, ed. K. Schlechta, Munich, 1954–6, V, p. 440.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Husserl, Logical Investigations, VI, §47–48, pp. 788–95. See also R. SOKOLOWSKI, “Husserl’s Concept of Categorial Intuition,” Phenomenology and the Human Sciences (formerly Philosophical Topics), XII (1981), 127–41, and J. TAMINIAUX, “Heidegger and Husserl’s Logical Investigations: In Remembrance of Heidegger’s Last Seminar (Zähringen, 1973),” in Dialectic and Difference: Finitude in Modern Thought, trans. R. Crease and J. Decker, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1985, 91–114.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    See M. S. Mahoney, “The Beginnings of Algebraic Thought in the Seventeenth Century,” in Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics, ed. S. Gaukroger, Sussex: Harvester, 1980, 142–143.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    E. Husserl, Logical Investigations, Prolegomena,§70, pp. 242–3.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    E. Husserl, Formal and Transcendental Logic, trans. D. Cairns, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1969, §40, pp. 108–110. See J P MILLER, Numbers in Presence and Absence: A Study of Husserl’s Philosophy of Mathematics, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1982, 113–120.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. Husserl, Formal and Transcendental Logic,§89b, p. 218. I am grateful to James Dodd for calling this passage to my attention.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aristotle, On Interpretation, I, iv, 16b 26–7. This translation is a modified version of the translation proposed by M. Heim in: M.. HEIDEGGER, The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic, trans. M. Heim, Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1978, 22–23.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aristotle, On Interpretation, 1, iii, 16b 6–25.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aristotle, On Interpretation, I,iii, 16b 25–26. See M. HEIDEGGER, The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic, §1,p. 22–30.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    R. Descartes, Medit. III, The Philosophical Writings,trans. J. Cottingham. R. Stoothof, and D. Murdoch, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984, II, p. 25–26; Oeuvres de Descartes,ed. Ch. Adam and P. Tannery, Paris, 1964–76, VII, p. 37. In the Principles of Philosophy,Descartes speaks only of perceptions and volitions, and counts acts ofjudgment as acts of volition. The Philosophical Writings, I,p. 216–218 (Oeuvres,I, pp. 32 and 35).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, The Philosophical Writings,I, 204–207; Oeuvres,I, 18–21. See M. HEIDEGGER, The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic, §I,p. 35.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    F. Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint,79.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    F. Brentano, Psychologyfrom an Empirical Standpoint,198–199.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    E. Husserl, Logical Investigations,V, §22–31, pp. 597–619.Google Scholar
  40. E. Husserl, Logical Investigations,V, §37–8, pp. 636–41. See R. SOKOLOwSK1, Presence and Absence,52Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    E. Husserl, Logical Investigations, I, §34, p. 332.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    E. Husserl, Logical Investigations, V, §29, p. 615.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    E. Husserl, Formal and Transcendental Logic, §46, p. 127. See also R. Sokolowski, Husserlian Meditations, 233–234; 281–282.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    T. Nagel, The View From Nowhere, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986, 9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Cobb-Stevens
    • 1
  1. 1.Boston CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations