Article Sidebar
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
The editorial policy on copyright is not to hold restrictive copyright on manuscripts for publication in the journal, but to require authors to assign to the Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology the right to publish their texts both electronically and in any other format they see fit, along with the right to store manuscripts in an electronic archive. As with accepted scholarly practice, authors wishing to quote text from this journal must cite in full the details of the author, title, journal title, edition number and date of the article/s they wish to cite. The IPJP's policy in this regard accords with the best practice models supported by SHERPA. Authors might also wish to visit the SPARC hosted site dealing authors' rights as well as the Scholarly Communications section of the Duke University Library.
Main Article Content
Husserl’s Preemptive Responses to Existentialist Critiques
Abstract
Existentialist thinkers often publicly acknowledged Husserl’s phenomenology as one of their main points of departure for treatment of such themes as intentionality, comportment, transcendence, and the lifeworld. Several central elements of Husserl’s approach were adopted by the Existentialists, but equal to their gratitude were vigorous declamations of Husserl’s mistakes, dead-ends and failures. Many of the Existentialists’ criticisms of Husserl’s project are well-known
and have been rehearsed in various surveys of 20th century thought, but less well-remarked are the discrepancies between their complaints about Husserl’s aborted achievements and what Husserl actually delivered. This paper attempts to uncover the accuracy of some of their assessments of Husserl’s alleged failures and mistakes, whether or not Husserl actually held the position they claim he did, and especially whether or not Husserl was himself aware of some deficiency in his thematic analysis, and thus would have been able to offer a cogent response to critique. In doing so, a good case can be made that Heidegger, for example, quietly adopted some of Husserl’s main insights without credit, slanted his picture of Husserl’s work so that his own reversals had better purchase, or overlooked evidence that Husserl had already moved beyond that position. At least on some key topics, Husserl emerges as an exceptionally self-critical philosopher who had already gained the perspective more usually associated with an Existentialist orientation.
Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, Volume 1, Edition 1 April 2001
and have been rehearsed in various surveys of 20th century thought, but less well-remarked are the discrepancies between their complaints about Husserl’s aborted achievements and what Husserl actually delivered. This paper attempts to uncover the accuracy of some of their assessments of Husserl’s alleged failures and mistakes, whether or not Husserl actually held the position they claim he did, and especially whether or not Husserl was himself aware of some deficiency in his thematic analysis, and thus would have been able to offer a cogent response to critique. In doing so, a good case can be made that Heidegger, for example, quietly adopted some of Husserl’s main insights without credit, slanted his picture of Husserl’s work so that his own reversals had better purchase, or overlooked evidence that Husserl had already moved beyond that position. At least on some key topics, Husserl emerges as an exceptionally self-critical philosopher who had already gained the perspective more usually associated with an Existentialist orientation.
Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, Volume 1, Edition 1 April 2001
