Talk:Edmund Husserl

message: I think the entry on Husserl needs some updating and improving. I will try to improve matters, which will lead to a more extended and organised page. I will start by providing some categories and reallocating the existing information to those.
As Husserl's life and works are closely connected I deem a chronological approach the clearest one.
I propose a division in 5 headings:
* his time as a student (done)
* the period at the university of Halle (partially done)
* at Goettingen 
* at Freiburg
* his works after his retirement
The reworking of this entry will probably bring several new empty entries (noesis, noema, Munich phenomenology, etc.). I will try to provide at least a stub to begin with for all those new entries. Help and criticism is greatly appreciated.
:Cat 15:38, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography

message: I noticed that Husserl recently has been placed in the category "continental philosophy". That is debatable, as Husserl can be placed before and above the alleged rift between so-called continental and analytic philosophy. As has been repeatedly argued in the literature, the entire School of Brentano is quite analytic and scientific in its approach and could be better classified under the header Austrian Philosophy (including i.a. Brentano, Meinong, Husserl and all their schools and pupils), as opposed to German philosophy such as German idealism, Kant and Neo-kantianism, Karl Marx and Heidegger. Alternatively, in view of his considerable influence on cognitive science and philosophy of mind, couldn't he be placed in two (or more) catagories?
:Cat 15:38, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an interesting solution; perhaps (in this article) "Category:Continental philosophy" should be left UNBRACKETED for philosophical reasons. MPS 19:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Continental Philosophy?

message: Re  BASIC QUESTION.  Hey, YoungSpinoza, will you do me a favor? Next time, you are in the library, please get a copy of what Heidegger had to say about Die Grundfrage der Philosophie (The Basic Question of Philosophy) in the summer semester of 1933. The first two pages will do. But please don't cheat. Read them in the original German. Pay attention to the rhythm. Imagine you're sitting in class, listening to the Herr Professor hammering it in. Listen to the students stamping madly (noted in some editions) whenever Heidegger hits the right key. Don't worry, your German is good enough for this particular Heidegger text. As a matter of fact, your German is good enough for any Heidegger text. Heidegger's "philosophy" is revealed only in the texts that you can read. Forget about anything written in the usual Heigibberish.
When you are through with the two pages, please explain to the people here what kind of philosophy the students (Kevin's "secondary sources"!) were taught by the Herr Professor. And explain to them also why there can be no serious discussion about Husserl or any other philosopher of his time without this text. Sorry, but I haven't got the strength.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HELP!!!

message: how did he die? Being a jew in nazi germany i can think of a few possible causes but its not mentioned, other than to say that he lived until 1938. WookMuff 11:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He died of a good old natural death. He was quite old and had been ill. Cat 11:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  death? 

message: Was Husserl's famous exposition on phenomenology in the Encyclopedia Brittanica currently in the public domain?  That'd be a nice thing to reproduce?Balonkey 15:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brittanica Article?

message: Yes, Husserl was Jewish, but no where does it suggest he was a Czech, and one cannot redefine the term "Czech Jew" to mean anyone born in Bohemia and Moravia who was Jewish. If this category is to be added it needs to have a rename that is appropriate in its use of words. 141.211.251.69 22:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Germany exists from 1871, he was born in a place which now is Czech, but at his born time was part of the Austrian empire.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.106.139 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

text: The term "Czech Jew" has long since gone from this article. He's now described as "a German" and his nationality seems to be fully explained, although I see that the de.wiki article describes him as "Austrian-German". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Could Husserl be tagged as all four: Czech, Jewish, German, and Austrian? MaynardClark (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "tagged". Of course, "Jewish" is not a nationality, so that's ok. I guess the Czechs would want to claim him, because of where Prossnitz is located today, and as far as I'm concerned, why not. Another thought, though - do you think the artcoe currently lends enough support to the category :Category:Converts to Protestantism from Judaism? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Prossnitz is not only now located in Czechia but was since the time it was founded. In the time he was born the official term was Margaviate of Moravia and Kingdom of Bohemia but still one cultural and historical whole as it was hunders years before Austrian empire was created and after. The problem is he didn't want to be considered Jew, so he presented himself as a German and wanted to be seen that way, Prossnitz was a jewish city, he keeps his origin in secret from his children and couldn't continue if they saw the town. He hadn't no problem with being a Czech - he consider all Czech philosophers in Germany his fellow countrymen, he was married to woman also from Prossnitz, his family lived in Czechia for generations, he intended to escape to Prague before WWII. 46.135.26.202 (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Czech Jews

message: Is there a reason Kant isn't listed as an influence? I was about to add him to the list of influences, but figured it would be best if I asked here first whether or not there are any reasons for his name being absent. Josh.passmore 17:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences

message: The section about Frege's influence on Husserl seems out-of-context and overly specific/specialized. It looks like someone copied and pasted their philosophy mid-term into the article.  Does anyone have any particular reason it should stay, or can it go?Binkyping 01:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gottlob Frege section 

message: Hello, I'm working on Georg Cantor, and would really like to include parts of the section copy/pasted below. I can't, however, because I have no full references for the assertions. Can anyone supply full references? Thanks:
Husserl recognized a logical third stratum, a meta-logical level, what he called a "theory of all possible forms of theories"... It is, in formal ontology, a free investigation where a mathematician can assign several meanings to several symbols, and all their possible valid deductions in a general and indeterminate manner.  It is properly speaking the most universal mathematics of all.  Through the posit of certain indeterminate objects (formal-ontological categories) as well as any combination of mathematical axioms, mathematicians can explore the apodeictic connections between them just as long as consistency is preserved.
This view of logic and mathematics accounted, according to him, for the objectivity of a series of mathematical development of his time, such as ... Cantor's set theory among others.
Thanks Ling.Nut 00:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  would you supply a few inline references? 

message: These two redlinks appear on this page, and are being addressed as part of the improvement project on logic articles.
* formation rules
* transformation rules
The two redlinks appear only in this article.  If there is no objection, I'm going to link both to formula (mathematical logic) tomorrow. Rick Norwood 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  logic 

message: I'm not sure why, but in the section on Husserl's critique of psychologism, there is a sudden digression into another language. Vandalism, I assume, but I don't know what language it is. Here's an example: μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος. If anyone could translate it back to the original, that would be great. Tiger Khan (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all Greek to me, but a translation of the text immediately follows in the article. Hgilbert (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first Greek section may be translated parenthetically, but I don't believe the second Greek word(s) are. Also, why would Greek be necessary? Husserl may have written in German, but is there any reason he would have a thought he could only express in Greek? (Note: this is not an attack on you, thanks for your help; this is just something I'm wondering) Tiger Khan (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I transliterated the Greek words into Latin alphabet as a quick fix. However, since the quotation does not cite a source (and I don't believe Husserl uses the Aristotle quote himself), I think the section should be rephrased. 80.221.53.44 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Language 

message: I came to this page with almost no idea about Edmund Husserl, I'd been recommended to read about his work by a friend/ uni lecturer. So I represent an ordinary wikipedia user, not a specialist. 
The article obviously has the potential to be great. The writers obviously have a very detailed and comprehensive knowledge. But, the big problem is for an encyclopaedic purpose it gets much too technical and detailed too early on - the initial summary explanation needs expanding and clarifying a lot! 
Thanks.
82.32.0.13 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback from a non-specialist 

message: I made a slight change in the opening bio discussion - it had mentioned where he was born, then continued with a barbed comment about the expulsion of the German population in 1945.  This I find problematic - not only did Husserl leave well before this time and not for this reason, but the German expulsion happened after his death.  In terms of accuracy, Prostějov ceased to be part of the Austrian Empire in 1918, not 1945.  A small point, admittedly, but I just wonder why an article such as this would serve as a forum for unrelated cultural politics.  Hm.  Br.locke (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  remark about Czech Republic 

message: Hi! Are there any sources stating how much exposure did Husserl have to the findings of physics at the turn of the 20th century? I am asking because (it might sound naive, I know), concepts like relativity of time may have helped push him toward studying the phenomenology of time and maybe even the transcendental reduction. -- 213.6.6.112 (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativity 

message: Huh?
Leibniz hasn't influenced Husserl and the latter hasn't been influenced by him?
I find this a bit odd...
Is there anyone, please, that would like to discuss it in private?
Thanks for your attention.
science.is.based.on.curiosity@gmail.com
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My first thought was to agree with you, but then I went and checked.  Page 138 of Vol 1 of the L.U. in the 2001 Routledge paperback edition.  He expressly credits Leibniz as a past philosopher who influenced his new conception of logic.  I was surprised, but there it is.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leibniz influence on Husserl 

message: I gave up on the psychologism section, but the next copyeditor may find these comments useful.
Is Psychologism totally a thing of the past?  Who says?  Needs a citation.  Will make it present tense until some citation shows it doesn't exist any more.  Stipulation is the wrong word, but that's not a copyediting problem, that's a content problem.  What are the opposing views?  Who states that logic exists outside of the human mind?  That would be good as a counter-point.  At any rate, the section on psychologism needs lots of work, besides just copyediting.  
I strongly object to the terms "psychologism," "biologism" and "anthropologism" (the latter two merely thrown in with not even the merest attempt to discuss them) appearing without citations, without accompanying articles, without other points of view.  I know the overall argument, most people who've taken up the finer points of logic know the overall scope of the "psychologism" argument - but let's not decide in advance who is correct.  Make it neutral!
The article is under-referenced and makes sweeping claims about entire disciplines, without even linking to sections of wikis to show that the claims have any basis at all.  Psychologism isn't even a word, and if it is one of the philosophical 'isms it needs its own page.  
Using a passive tense instead of "we" (when there is no "we" in the article, Husserl is not a group of people) makes the unsubstantiated weaseling more obvious.  It needs to be fixed.  If Husserl said what this article says he did, surely there should be secondary literature on it.  In fact, I have two volumes just on Husserl on my shelf, and several encyclopedias that would be sources - although they do not say exactly what is said here and I am not here to improve content, just to clear up the copyediting issues so progress can be made on other things.
::I agree the section is written like a personal essay.  However, I'm reluctant to just jettison it, as it's essentially correct.  Psychologism is indeed a defunct doctrine, and I might find a reference in Dummett for that.  The section can be written based on textbooks on Husserl, but it won't be a quick task.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting and clarity 

message: Since Prostějov was part of the Austrian Empire in 1859, when Husserl was born there, should his nationality be given as Austrian instead of German, or even Czech? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably it should be Austrian rather than German, but both The Oxford Companion to Philosophy and The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy give Husserl's nationality as German, and as I pointed out, we certainly can't link the name of his nationality to Czech Republic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. They must both be considered very strong sources for an article such as this. Prostějov was only briefly part of Germany, of course (we know why. But Husserl obviously lived in German most of his life, and studied and wrote in German. But was he a German citizen? The article doesn't really tell us. Certainly, after leaving Prostějov, he lived the early part of his life in Vienna and then Olomouc. Later of course, in Freiburg, he resigned from the Deutsche Academie in protest against the racial laws. As a footnote I notice that the de-wiki article gives him categories of German, Austrian and Prussian! The ru-wiki page calls him German and gives him a Category of "German philosopher". While the fr-wiki says he was "of Austrian and Prussian birth" but also categorises him as "German philosopher". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationailty 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Edmund Husserl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040807142614/http://www.hiw.kuleuven.ac.be/hiw/eng/husserl/ to http://www.hiw.kuleuven.ac.be/hiw/eng/husserl/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051119191924/http://www.husserlarchiv.uni-freiburg.de/husserl.html to http://www.husserlarchiv.uni-freiburg.de/husserl.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Did Husserl have any connection at all to this place? Or is that image just a clever photoshopped spoof? There is nothing about in the article text. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kiepenheuer Institute for Solar Physics]] 

message: Was he banned or not? The article currently says both "yes" (for just a week) and "no" ("incorrectly rumoured to have been denied the use of the library"). Which was it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Freiberg library ban 

message: , I'm failing to understand or find rationale for your deletion of the Arabic translation of one of the most important works of Husserl. FWIW, the translation was also winner of Sheikh Zayed Book Award. Nowhere did neither the cited MOS:SECTIONORDER, its relevant subsection (MOS:BIB), nor its parent (MOS:WORKS) mention anything to justify such deletion. I've re-inserted the material in case it was mistakenly deleted while restructuring. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the English Wikipedia. Why should we have translations of Husserl's works in any language other than English? --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Where would we stop? Which language(s) would "not deserve" to have a translation of "one of his most important works"? We generally have works in a writer's native language. Did Husserl have any special affinity with Arabic? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also Husserl's biography article. Translations of a work of his, let alone a magnum opus, into other languages gives readers an impression about its global notability. This certainly serves an encyclopedic purpose. The idea of enWP not discussing thematically relevant subjects satisfying notability requirements based on just not being in English strikes me as severely lacking worldview. Why do we have those transliteration and translation template parameters after all? Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a "thematically relevant subject" - it's the same work, translated. If RS sources say the translation into Arabic is particularly notable, then that could be included, possibly with the details of that translation. One might expect to see a statement like "Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy has been translated into at least 14 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Tamil and Finnish" etc. or whatever? Just because that Arabic translation appears at Sheikh Zayed Book Award, doesn't mean it should also appear here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Winning a notable award can amount to the pretty subjective "particularly notable", although it'd be contradictory not to think the same of the still included anthologies just because they're in English. They too aren't backed by RS mentioning their "exceptional notability", nor do they have to (lest this be understood as WP:POINTy), in my opinion, so long as they're serving an encyclopedic purpose (as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Whether to introduce it in the prose or as a list item is, to me, a matter of how much details we have, with the least amount of details -- namely a mere citation, corresponding to a list item. I can see you just dismissed the discussion of global notability and the encyclopedic purpose I've alluded to, so I'll basically drop the stick and leave this to others who can probably address deletionism better than I do. Assem Khidhr (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Omnipaedista & Martinevans123 on these points. Husserl's many works have been translated into many languages. Why mention only this specific one & not all the other ones? Mentioning it on the Arabic Wikipedia would make sense but not here. Phlsph7 (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  If we had an article specifically for this book then mentioning the translation there might be justified, but not in a general article on Husserl. Phlsph7 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

text:   I'm very sorry if you think I've "just dismissed the discussion of global notability". But no, I don't see why a particular Arabic translation is necessarily notable. even if it's won a prestigious prize; it's the original work that's "globally notable" (perhaps). We have the English translations listed (even if they have never won any prizes), since the original works were in German: because this is English Wikipedia not "World Wikipedia"? I quite understand if you now wish to stop the discussion. Thanks for discussing and not edit warring, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear , I must point out that your civility is inviting. I've been here for a while now, so I understand the limitations (and inevitability) of consensus and I have no intention to edit war whatsoever. Here are some notes:  Though I was admittedly disappointed, my intention to stop was partly to avoid bludgeoning as well, since I feel like we've been circling in an otherwise straightforward matter. In case other arguments are there, I'll be happy to reply. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your very clear exposition. I have no intention of bludgeoning anyone. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. I guess if we had an article for Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy (First, Second and Third books combined?), it might belong there, either as a sepaarte text etntry or as a reference. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic translation 

message: Some time ago, the article was edited by User:Pashute to say in the heading that Husserl was a Jewish atheist. Although citations were added in support of this change, I have checked them and none seem to mention him being an atheist. As for being Jewish, although he was born Jewish, he later converted to Christianity, and so whatever affiliation he had with Judaism seems too attenuated and complex to be mentioned in the heading (the article's body does describe this, at sufficient length).
For now, I will undo Pashute's edit, but will mention him here so that he may defend it. LunaticLarry (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish atheist? 

message: This page has been blown completely out of the category "Biography." The bulk of the text reads like a philosophical thesis, intermittently interrupted by disconnected references to the political climate, the debatable merits of philosophical theories and a lot of details about the lives of other philosophers. Some aren't even connected to the Hesserl, they're simply philosophers in the same circle who have entire sections devoted to their lives.
The biography should mention his family, colleagues, mentors and students. But they aren't the focus. They have their own Wiki pages.
From an editorial pov, the page is also disorganized, repetitive, uses inconsistent tense (Hesserl says, said, is saying) and passive voice.
In the passive voice it sounds like: "this lecture, given by Hesserl in 1931, being a departure from what he had done before, was received badly by those who had been interested in his work previously." That's an exaggerated example of the writing. Active voice: "Many former admirers of Hesserl's work condemned the new ideas he presented in a 1931 speech..."
The information may be accurate, but the delivery is just as important. MandieJ1975 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography or doctoral thesis? 

message: In his early work, he elaborated critiques of historicism and of psychologism in logic based on analyses of intentionality.
Do you mean?
In his early work, he elaborated critiques of 
* historicism
* psychologism in logic 
based on analyses of intentionality.
Or do you mean? 
In his early work, he elaborated critiques of 
* historicism
* psychologism 
in logic 
* based on analyses of intentionality.
This is the kind of thing that keeps people from outside the fence permanently outside the fence, rather than inviting them in. 
The Humanities are notorious for some of their Gordian shibboleths. If you've ever wandered over from the slide-rule side of campus and tried to unpack "romanticism" or "modernity" (or "socialism") you've had that "holy fark, Batman, how do these people even tie their shoes" moment. Then you see a word like "historicism" and your intestines begin to writhe. Should I check that out? Or would I rather do something else—possibly productive—with the whole of my Saturday morning? Does it have a handle you can find quickly where you can at least stick a pin into a rough cognitive map, or is it yet another one of those Houdini kaleidoscopes with about as much of a permanently fixed address as a sand dune in the Sahara?  
'Psychologism' is similarly opaque from outside the fold. Was it applied retroactively to something classical? I'm sure they had words for things we now call psychology. For a crash course in how the old becomes new again, check out Husserl's own use of the word 'noema'. If you can't date 'logic' back to at least Euclid, you're not trying very hard. 
So in the grand philosophic Venn diagram of all things classical as rehashed for 2000 years, the Bayesian prior is strong for some overlap between this unknown flavour of psychology and logic, and probably quiet a bit weaker for some overlap between logic and some unknown paradigm of historical treatment, but far from zero. 
Thus a definitive parse of the above is entirely unavailable to anyone from the slide-rule side of campus with better things to do with their entire Saturday morning. 
Steven Pinker calls this the curse of knowledge. I know that many people on the other side of campus have heard of Pinker, because a bunch of you signed a big petition to the effect that he was an ass, containing many false individual accusations, but never mind, it's the Gestalt that counts. 
Moreover, Pinker wrote that entire damn book about why people on campus can't write very well, for precisely this kind of reason. That can't have helped his cause, either; nor is pointing this out likely helping mine, but it felt good to get this off my chest, and it ticked a box in my canine lived experience of barking at cats. — MaxEnt 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous modifier mired in ambiguous soil