Philosophy in flight from rigorous science: two testimonies of one escape (M. Heidegger and E. Husserl)
по
Journal Menu
> Issues > Rubrics > About journal > Authors > About the journal > Requirements for publication > Editorial collegium > Peer-review process > Peer-review in 24 hours: How do we do it? > Policy of publication. Aims & Scope. > Article retraction > Ethics > Copyright & Licensing Policy > Publication in 72 hours: How do we do it? > Digital archiving policy > Open Access Policy > Open access publishing costs > Article Identification Policy > Plagiarism check policy > Editorial board
Journals in science databases
About the Journal

Публикация за 72 часа - теперь это реальность!
При необходимости издательство предоставляет авторам услугу сверхсрочной полноценной публикации. Уже через 72 часа статья появляется в числе опубликованных на сайте издательства с DOI и номерами страниц.
По первому требованию предоставляем все подтверждающие публикацию документы!
MAIN PAGE > Back to contents
Philosophical Thought
Reference:

Philosophy in flight from rigorous science: two testimonies of one escape (M. Heidegger and E. Husserl)
Chubatov Andrey

Post-graduate student, the department of Logic, Saint Petersburg State University

199034, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, ul. Mendeleevskaya Liniya, 5

samoesamo@mail.ru
Другие публикации этого автора
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8728.2018.11.26958

Review date:

23-07-2018


Publish date:

20-11-2018


Abstract.

This article traces the fate of the project formulated by Edmund Husserl in headline of the article “Philosophy as a Rigorous Science”. As demonstrated in the correspondence with Gustav Shpet, scientific rigor is understood as a synonym to rationality in a general sense. Following Husserl, Martin Heidegger in 1927 also speaks of the identity of philosophy and science in its original Greek sounding. It would seem that within such meaning of scientific rigor, this reasoning sounds like pleonasm. However, in fact, identification requires not only broadening of the concept of science, but also narrowing down the boundaries of mind to the limits of science. Thus becomes the question: whether or not the prerequisite of scientific rigor, regardless of the broad understanding of the latter, contradicts the underlying phenomenology principle of non-prerequisite. In such case, phenomenology, in order to remain faithful to the “things themselves”, must overcome the horizon of the rooted in classical rationalism project of structuring philosophy as a rigorous science. Heidegger makes this step back in 1929, claiming that transformation into the absolute science is not the capability of philosophy whatsoever. Husserl, in turn, if judging by the published during his lifetime works, remains faithful to his idea to the end. Nevertheless, some fragments out of the published postmortem, give cause for making a careful assumption that at the close of his days comes to realization of unfeasibility of his own aspirations. Hence, the downfall of the project of philosophy as a rigorous science not in the slightest degree means the crash of phenomenology as such, but rather is a decisive step that allows the latter gaining faithfulness to its fundamental principles.

Keywords: Heidegger, Husserl, worldview, freedom from presuppositions, scientific character, rigorous science, phenomenology, things themselves, thinking, Shpet
This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

References
1.
Gusserl' E. Filosofiya kak strogaya nauka // Gusserl' E. Izbrannye raboty. – M.: Izdatel'skii dom «Territoriya budushchego», 2005. – S.185-240.
2.
Khaidegger M. Osnovnye problemy fenomenologii. – SPb.: Vysshaya religiozno-filosofskaya shkola, 2001. – 446 s.
3.
Gusserl' E. Sobranie sochinenii. T. 3 (1). Logicheskie issledovaniya. T. II (1). – M.: Gnozis, Dom intellektual'noi knigi, 2001. S.30.
4.
Aristotel'. Nikomakhova etika // Aristotel'. Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh. Tom 4. – M.: Mysl', 1983. S.174-175.
5.
Gustav Gustavovich Shpet – Edmundu Gusserlyu. Otvetnye pis'ma. Publikatsiya V. Kurennogo, I. Mikhailova, I. Chubarova // Logos. 1996. № 7. S.125.
6.
Pis'ma Edmunda Gusserlya k Gustavu Shpetu // Gusserl' E. Izbrannye raboty. – M.: Izdatel'skii dom «Territoriya budushchego», 2005. S.289.
7.
Khaidegger M. Bytie i vremya. – M.: Nauka, 2002. S.37.
8.
Khaidegger M. Osnovnye ponyatiya metafiziki // Khaidegger M. Vremya i bytie. – M.: Nauka, 2007. – S.452-476.
9.
Khaidegger M. Chto znachit myslit'? // Khaidegger M. Razgovor na proselochnoi doroge. – M.: Vyssh. shk., 1991. – S.137.
10.
Khaidegger M. Prolegomeny k istorii ponyatiya vremeni. – Tomsk: Vodolei, 1998. – 384 s.
11.
Khaidegger M. Nauka i osmyslenie // Khaidegger M. Vremya i bytie. – M.: Nauka, 2007. – S. 349.
12.
Merlo-Ponti M. Vsyudu i nigde // Merlo-Ponti M. V zashchitu filosofii. – M.: Izdatel'stvo gumanitarnoi literatury, 1996 – S. 114.
13.
Husserl E. Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transcendentale Phänomenologie. Husserliana. Bd. 6. Haag, 1954. S. 508.
14.
Svas'yan K.A. Fenomenologicheskoe poznanie. Propedevtika i kritika. – Erevan: Izdatel'stvo AN Armyanskoi SSR, 1987. S. 178
Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.


Other our sites:
Official Website of NOTA BENE / Aurora Group s.r.o.
"History Illustrated" Website