El tema de la participación de la escuela de Brentano en la polémica en torno al psicologismo no se deja reducir a una simple y única pregunta, ni se puede responder con una simple y única respuesta, pues presenta una marcada diversidad tanto desde el punto de vista sistemático como histórico, componiéndose de diferentes polémicas que tienen un cierto grado de independencia.

This article first outlines the importance of Brentano’s doctrine of inner perception both to his understanding of the science of psychology in general in his Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint and to his new science of descriptive psychology in particular which he later advances in his lecture courses on ‘Descriptive Psychology’ at the University of Vienna in the 1880s and early 1890s. It then examines Husserl’s critique of that doctrine in an ‘Appendix: Inner and Outer Perception: Physical and Psychical Phenomena’, (...) which Husserl added to the 1913 re-issue of his Logical Investigations. This article argues that, though Husserl promotes a very different method in phenomenology to the method of ‘inner perception’ which Brentano designs for descriptive psychology, one cannot fully understand the significance of the method that Husserl advocates in phenomenology, both in the Logical Investigations and in Ideas I, without distinguishing four different meanings for ‘inner perception’ in Brentano’s thought and addressing the problematic issue of the particular kind of scientific method for his new science of descriptive psychology which Brentano bequeaths to Husserl. (shrink)

This volume contains an English translation of Edmund Husserl’s first major work, the Philosophie der Arithmetik, (Husserl 1891). As a translation of Husserliana XII (Husserl 1970), it also includes the first chapter of Husserl’s Habilitationsschrift (Über den Begriff der Zahl) (Husserl 1887) and various supplementary texts written between 1887 and 1901. This translation is the crowning achievement of Dallas Willard’s monumental research into Husserl’s early philosophy (Husserl 1984) and should be seen as a companion to volume V of the Husserliana: (...) Collected Works series (Husserl 1994b), which already contained selected translations from Hua XII. As Willard re- marks on the inner cover of the volume, it is “a window on a period of rich and illuminating philosophical activity”, to which I wholeheartedly agree. Willard’s two volumes of translations open this window on the beginnings of Husserl’s philosophy for the English-speaking world. This earliest period of Husserl’s philosophy has often been unjustly ignored and Willard provides the English reader with an excellent starting point. Husserl’s first steps into phenomenology and the philosophy of logic and mathematics contain many promising seeds that will flower later on, in the Logische Untersuchungen and beyond. (shrink)

Nadie puede negar que la figura de Edmund Husserl constituye la llave de acceso para el horizonte filosófico de nuestro tiempo, tanto en su versión continental como analítica. Pero ¿en qué medida un mismo planteamiento pudo dar suelo y sustento al despliegue de corrientes tan distintas? Aunque mucho se ha trabajado ya para desembrollar el renovado sentido que filosofía y ciencia adquieren en su propuesta, el camino que siguió para llegar a esas conclusiones todavía no goza de suficiente claridad. Por (...) ello, en este artículo nos hemos propuesto esclarecer algunos intersticios de la transformación de su pensamiento, tomando como hilo conductor las preocupaciones de juventud que, a la larga, desembocarán en la formulación de su contundente crítica al conocimiento. Para lograr nuestro objetivo daremos seguimiento al itinerario husserliano, comenzando por la Filosofía de la aritmética, para luego finalizar con su concepción de la filosofía como la más estricta de las ciencias. Nobody can deny that the figure of Edmund Husserl represents the key to the philosophical horizon of our time in both version, as continental as analytical one. But, how can the same approach give ground and support to the development of such diverse topics? Although much work has been done to explain the renewed sense that science and philosophy acquire inside their proposal, the way Husserl reached that conclusion is not sufficiently clear yet. That is why in this article we intend to clarify some aspects of his thought transformation, keeping it up whit his early concerns that will lead, inevitably, in his critique of knowledge. To achieve this, we will follow the husserlian itinerary from The philosophy of arithmetic to his conception of philosophy as the strictest science. (shrink)

This paper demonstrates that Edmund Husserl’s frequently overlooked 1890 manuscript, “On the Logic of Signs,” when closely investigated, reveals itself to be the hermeneutical touchstone for his seminal 1891 Philosophy of Arithmetic. As the former comprises Husserl’s earliest attempt to account for all of the different kinds of signitive experience, his conclusions there can be directly applied to the latter, which is focused on one particular type of sign; namely, number signs. Husserl’s 1890 descriptions of motivating and replacing signs will (...) be respectively employed to clarify his 1891 understanding of the authentic and inauthentic presentations of numbers via number signs. Moreover, his schematic classification of replacement-signs in Semiotic will illuminate the reasons why he believed the number system to be necessary for the operation of replacing number signs. (shrink)

The relationship between an independent scientific discipline called psychology with phenomenology that presents the methodology and method together is an excuse for investigating the relationship between Husserl and Brentano’s thoughts. Although their relationship is come from different sources, according to Husserl’s main problem, end, and concern in confronting psychology, a researcher can find a good issue for research. Psychology and phenomenology bond together in favor of philosophy and seek a different intuition. Husserl keeps a type of psychology and uses it (...) to achieve a philosophical attitude. The difference between Husserl and Brentano is both thematic and methodological, and of course, we can refer to the understanding of others and empathy that reduces the subjective aspect of the experience in Husserl’s phenomenology. Husserl goes to descriptive psychology with criticizing Brentano’s opinion about inner perception and also he criticizes Brentano's psychological reality that is the only appearance for him. Husserl’s attempt for modifying descriptive psychology makes to provides practical and functional solutions for contemporary psychologists. Of course, he does not forget the distinctions between psychology and phenomenology in terms of issue and method but especially holds them together. The brief article wants to follow the relationship between psychology and phenomenology from its origin (Husserl’s phenomenology) to achieve this purpose, the data of research have been collected through the library method and internet search then they are described and analyzed to reveal the concomitance of psychology and phenomenology. They must come together in the interpretation of the word description. (shrink)

On July 14, 1866 Franz Brentano stepped up to the pulpit to defend his thesis that “the true method of philosophy is none other than that of the natural sciences”. This thesis bound his first students to him and became the north star of his school, against the complex background of the progress and specialization of the natural sciences as well as the growth and professionalization of universities. I will discuss the project of the renewal of philosophy as science in (...) the School of Brentano and how this aimed to provide a scientific foundation for the humanities independently from the natural sciences, while preserving the unity of science. Through his well-known re-introduction of the concept of intentionality as criterion to distinguish internal and external perception, Brentano was able to supply an empirical foundation for the Geisteswissenschaften. While philosophy would use the method of natural science, its domain would not be nature, but consciousness: a full-blooded science of the mind that did not require a reduction to the physical in order to be scientific. Brentano’s science of consciousness was empirical, but not experimental, and relied on subjective methods, but was not introspective. Brentano’s students Carl Stumpf, Anton Marty, Alexius Meinong, Christian von Ehrenfels, Edmund Husserl and others came to occupy important chairs in philosophy throughout Europe. While they were certainly not all orthodox followers, they adapted and spread his theories far and wide in the schools and movements they founded and influenced: Gestalt psychology, Prague linguistics, phenomenology, etc.. Moreover, the 19th century idea of scientific research as a collaborative and collective achievement led to a division of labor in Brentano’s school. Each of his students was meant to work out a part of the greater whole: Stumpf, the philosophy of sound and music; Marty, language; Meinong the history of philosophy; Husserl, mathematics; etc. Yet all of them also contributed to the shared project of the renewal of philosophy as science and discussed the (foundational) relation of philosophy to other sciences in programmatic works. Though often forgotten and overlooked due to contingent historical circumstances, the scientific paradigm of the School of Brentano was very fruitful and highly influential in philosophy and the human sciences in general, throughout the second half of the 19th and into the 20th centuries. Yet it is relevant then as now to preserve the independent scientific dignity of the humanities. (shrink)