The Original Phenomenological Movement

  • Herbert Spiegelberg
Part of the Phaenomenologica book series (PHAE, volume 5/6)


There was no such thing as a definite beginning of a Phenomenological Movement, let alone a school, in Husserl’s wake, just as little as there had been a deliberate and clearly marked founding of phenomenology in his own development. But around 1905 Husserl began to attract a number of students, in the beginning chiefly from Munich, who developed a kind of group spirit and initiative which led gradually to the formation of the Göttingen Circle.


Literary Work Intentional Object Phenomenological Method Transcendental Phenomenology Original Movement 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Selective Bibliography

Major Works

  1. Phänomenologie des Wolfens (1900, 3rd ed. 1963)Google Scholar
  2. Einführung in die Psychologie (1904)Google Scholar
  3. “Motive und Motivation” in Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen (1911)Google Scholar
  4. “Zur Psychologie der Gesinnungen” in JPPF I (1913) and III (1916)Google Scholar
  5. Logik (1921) JPPF IV (1921, 3rd ed. 1963) Translation: Spanish (1928, 1940) by J.Google Scholar
  6. Perez Bances “Grundprobleme der Charakterologie” in Utitz, E., ed., Jahrbuch für Charakterologie I (1924), 289–335Google Scholar
  7. Die Seele des Menschen (1933)Google Scholar
  8. Philosophie der Lebensziele (posthumous edition of lecture notes by Wolfgang Trillhaas) (1948); see PPR X (1950), 438–42Google Scholar
  9. Schriften aus dem Nachlass zur Phänomenologie und Ethik. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1973. Band 1: Philosophie auf phänomenologischer Grundlage, ed. H. Spiegelberg in collaboration with E. Avé-Lallemant. Band 2: Ethik in kurzer Darstellung, ed. Peter SchwanklGoogle Scholar
  10. Translation of the articles on “Motive und Motivation” and the Introductions to the Phänomenologie des Wolfens and the Logik in Phenomenology of Willing and Motivation and Other Phaenomenologica introduced and translated by Herbert Spiegelberg. Northwestern University Press, 1967.Google Scholar


  1. SCHUHMANN, KARL, Husserl über Pfänder. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973Google Scholar
  2. SPIEGELBERG, H., Alexander Pfänders Phänomenologie. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963.Google Scholar
  3. SPIEGELBERG, H. Pfänder-Studien, edited by H. Spiegelberg and E. Avé-Lallemant. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  4. TRILLHAAS, WOLFGANG, Alexander Pfänder. In Memoriam. Erlangen, 1942Google Scholar


  1. RICOEUR, PAUL, “Phänomenologie des Wollens und Ordinary Language Approach” Die Münchener Phänomenologie, pp. 105–24Google Scholar
  2. SPIEGELBERG, H. “Neues Licht auf die Beziehungen zwischen Husserl und Pfänder” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 36 (1974), 565–73Google Scholar
  3. TRILLHAAS, WOLFGANG, “Selbst leibhaftig gegeben”. Reflexion einer phänomenologischen Formel nach Alexander Pfänder. Die Münchener Phänomenologie, pp. 8–18.Google Scholar
  4. Most complete Bibliography in Cchuhmann, Karl, Husserl über Pfänder pp. 196–207, updated in Pfänder-Studien (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Major Writings

  1. Wesen und Wert, Grundlegung einer Philosophie des Daseins (1925)Google Scholar
  2. Psychologie. Wesen und Wirklichkeit der Seele (1938)Google Scholar
  3. “The Proper Object of Psychology”, PPR XIII (1953), 285–304Google Scholar
  4. Beck’s papers are now deposited and catalogued in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. See Die Nachlässe der Münchener Phünomenologen, pp. 181–190Google Scholar

Major Writings

  1. “Zur Ontologie der sozialen Gemeinschaften,” JPPF VI (1923), 1–158Google Scholar
  2. Phänomenologie der Mystik (1923; second revised edition 1955)Google Scholar
  3. “A Plea for the Introduction of Edmund Husserl’s Phenomenological Method into Parapsychology.” Proceedings of the International Conference of Parapsychology, Utrecht (July-August, 1953)Google Scholar
  4. Zum anderen Ufer (1960). An autobiography, in which the sections on Freiburg and Munich phenomenology are of particular interest.Google Scholar

Writings with phenomenological inport

  1. “Über das Wesen der Idee,” JPPF XI (1930), 1–238Google Scholar
  2. “Sinn und Recht der Begründung in der axiologischen und praktischen Philosophie,” Neue Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen. Pfänder Festschrift (1933), pp. 100–142Google Scholar
  3. Antirelativismus. Kritik des Relativismus und Skeptizismus der Werte und des Sollens (1935)Google Scholar
  4. Gesetz und Sittengesetz. Vorstudien zu einer gesetzesfreien Ethik (1935)Google Scholar
  5. The Essentials of the Phenomenological Method. Separate edition of Part V of this book with a special preface (1966)Google Scholar
  6. The Context of the Phenomenological Movement. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981. Companion volume to the present work, containing comparative studies and historical explorations.Google Scholar
  7. Most of my general phenomenological pieces have now been integrated into a book under the title Doing Phenomenology. Essays On and In Phenomenology (1975).Google Scholar
  8. For a more comprehensive bibliography with additional explanations see part III of Phenomenological Perspectives, ed. P. J. Bossert (1975) (“Apologia pro Bibliographia Mea”).Google Scholar


  1. Untersuchungen über das Wesen der philosophischen Erkenntnis, Dissertation, Munich University. Münster i.W.: Aschendorff, 1931.Google Scholar
  2. Der Mensch in der Geschichte. Versuch einer philosophisch-anthropologischen Geschichtsbetrachtung. Munich: Kurt Desch, 1949.Google Scholar
  3. “Über das Wesen der geschichtsbildenden Idee.” In Natur, Geist, Geschichte. Festschrift für Aloys Wenzl, ed. by Josef Hanslmeier. München-Pasing: Filser, 1950.Google Scholar
  4. “Über das Wesen der phänomenologischen Psychologie.” In Lexikon der Pädagogik in 3 Bünden. Bern: Francke, 1951, vol. II, pp. 387–89.Google Scholar
  5. Systematische Anthropologie. Strukturgesetze der menschlichen Seinsverwirklichung. Munich: Hueber, 1957; 2nd revised edition.Google Scholar

Major Writings

  1. Gesammelte Schriften (1921) (G.S.) Posthumous edition with introduction by Hedwig Conrad-Martius; includes fragments from his philosophy of religion.Google Scholar
  2. English translation: “What is Phenomenology” in Philosophical Forum I (1968) by Devers Kelly, and The Personalist I (1969) by Dallas Willard.Google Scholar

Articles on Reinach

  1. HUSSERL, EDMUND, “Adolf Reinach,” Kantstudien XXIII (1919), 147–49.Google Scholar
  2. VON BAEYER, ALEXANDER, Adolf Reinachs Phänomenologie. Bern Dissertation, 1969.Google Scholar

Studies in English

  1. OESTERREICHER, JOHN M., Walls are Crumbling. New York: Devin-Adair, 1952, pp. 99–134.Google Scholar
  2. For a collection of Reinach materials, see E. Avé-Lallemant, Die Nachlässe der Münchener Phänomenologen pp. 171–180.Google Scholar

Major Works

  1. “Bemerkungen zur Psychologie der Gefühlselemente und Gefühlsverbindungen,”Google Scholar
  2. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie IV (1904), 233–88.Google Scholar
  3. “Methodologische und experimentelle Beiträge zur Quantitätslehre” in Lipps, Th., ed., Psychologische Untersuchungen I (1907), pp. 325–522.Google Scholar
  4. “Über das Wesen und die Bedeutung der Einfühlung” Bericht über den IV. Kongress für experimentelle Psychologie (1911), 1–45.Google Scholar
  5. “Zum Problem der Stimmungseinfühlung,” Zeitschrift für Ästhetik VI (1911), 1–42.Google Scholar
  6. “Das Bewusstsein von Gefühlen,” Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen (1911), pp. 125–62.Google Scholar
  7. “Beiträge zur Phänomenologie des ästhetischen Genusses,” JPPF I (1913), 567–684. “Das Unbewusste und die psychische Realität,” Ibid., IV (1921), 1–138.Google Scholar
  8. Die philosophische Bedeutung der Relativitätstheorie. Lecture (1921).Google Scholar
  9. Systematische Axiomatik der Euklidischen Geometrie (1924).Google Scholar
  10. “The Philosophical Attitudes and the Problems of Essence and Subsistence,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Philosophy (Harvard, 1927), 272–278.Google Scholar
  11. Zugänge zur Ästhetik (1928).Google Scholar
  12. Die Wirklichkeit der Wissenschaften und die Metaphysik (1930).Google Scholar
  13. “Alexander Pfänders methodische Stellung,” Neue Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen (1930), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Posthumous Publication

  1. Die Bedeutung der Kunst. Zugänge zu einer materialen Wertästhetik. Gesammelte, aus dem Nachlass ergänzte Schriften, ed. Klaus Berger and Wolfhart Henckmann. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1976.Google Scholar

Studies on Geiger

  1. LISTOWELL, EARL OF. A Critical History of Modern Aesthethics. London: Allen, 1933, pp. 83–86.Google Scholar
  2. MéTRAUX, ALEXANDRE, “Zur phänomenologischen Ästhetik Moritz Geigers”, Studio philosophica (1969), 68–92.Google Scholar
  3. MéTRAUX, ALEXANDRE, “Edmund Husserl und Moritz Geiger”, Die Münchener Phänomenologie, pp. 139–57.Google Scholar
  4. Geiger’s philosophical papers are now deposited in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich; see E. Avé-Lallemant, Die Nachlässe der Münchener Phünomeno-logen, pp. 139–57.Google Scholar

Major Works

  1. Die erkenntnisth?oretischen Grundlagen des Positivismus, Bergzabern, 1920 (private print).Google Scholar
  2. “Zur Ontologie und Erscheinungslehre der realen Aussenwelt” in JPPF 3, Halle, 1916.Google Scholar
  3. Metaphysische Gespräche, Halle, 1921.Google Scholar
  4. “Realontologie” in JPPF 6 (1923); special printing Halle, 1924.Google Scholar
  5. “Farben” in: Husserl-Festschrift, Halle, 1929. Google Scholar
  6. Ursprung und Aufbau des lebendigen Kosmos, Salzburg 1938 (2nd ed. Abstammungslehre, Munich, 1949).Google Scholar
  7. Der Selbstaufbau der Natur, Hamburg, 1944 (2nd ed. Munich 1961).Google Scholar
  8. Naturwissenschaftlich-metaphysische Perspektiven, Hamburg and Heidelberg, 1948.Google Scholar
  9. Bios und Psyche, Hamburg, 1949.Google Scholar
  10. Die Zeit, Munich, 1954 (Spanish translation Madrid, 1958).Google Scholar
  11. Utopien der Menschenzüchtung, Munich, 1955.Google Scholar
  12. Das Sein, Munich, 1957.Google Scholar
  13. Der Raum, Munich, 1958.Google Scholar
  14. Die Geistseele des Menschen, Munich, 1960.Google Scholar
  15. Schriften zur Philosophie Band I–III, Munich 1963–1965 (ed. by E. Avé-Lallemant).Google Scholar

English translation

  1. “Phenomenology and Speculation” Philosophy Today III (1959), 43–51 (from “Schriften zur Philosophie” vol. III).Google Scholar


  1. Complete bibliography in Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung XXX, 2 (1977), 301–309.Google Scholar

List of Unpublished Papers

  1. AVé-LALLEMANT, EBERHARD, Die Nachlässe der Münchener Phänomenologen in der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, Wiesbaden, 1975, pp. 191–256.Google Scholar

Studies on Conrad-Martius

  1. AVé-LALLEMANT, EBERHARD, Der kategoriale Ort des Seelischen in der Naturwirklichkeit (Dissertation). Munich, 1959.Google Scholar
  2. AVé-LALLEMANT, EBERHARD, “Conrad-Martius y la filosofia de la naturaleza”, Atlantida IV/20 (1965), 196–210.Google Scholar
  3. AVé-LALLEMANT, EBERHARD, “Die Antithese Freiburg — München in der Geschichte der Phänomenologie” Die Münchener Phänomenologie (Phaenomenologica 65). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1976, pp. 19–38.Google Scholar
  4. AVé-LALLEMANT, URSULA, “Hedwig Conrad-Martius”, Jahrbuch (ed. by Evangelische Akademie Tutzing) XV (1965/66), 203–212 (on biography).Google Scholar
  5. BEHLER, WOLFGANG, Realität und Ek-sistenz (Dissertation). Munich, 1956 (Conrad-Martius and Heidegger).Google Scholar
  6. HABBEL, IRMINGARD, Die Sachverhaltsproblematik in der Phänomenologie und bei Thomas von Aquin. Regensburg, 1960.Google Scholar
  7. HART, JAMES G., Hedwig Conrad-Martius’ Ontological Phenomenology (Dissertation). Divinity School, University of Chicago, 1969.Google Scholar
  8. HERING, JEAN, “Das Problem des Seins bei Hedwig Conrad-Martius”, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung XIII/3 (1959), 463–69.Google Scholar
  9. KRINGS, HERMANN, “Zeit und Sein. Bemerkungen zu einem wichtigen Buch,” Hochland XL VII/2(1954), 178–84.Google Scholar
  10. SCHMüCKER, FRANZ GEORG, Phänomenologie als Methode der Wesenserkenntnis (Dissertation). Munich, 1954.Google Scholar
  11. VRANA, CARLO, La costituzione ontica degli organismi nel pensiero di H. Conrad-Martius (Dissertation). Rome, Pontificia Universitá Lateranense, 1963.Google Scholar
  12. VRANA, CARLO “Filosofia della natura vivente”, Filosofia e vita IV/1 (1963), 54–64.Google Scholar
  13. Also contributions to Festschrift für Hedwig Conrad-Martius (Philosophisches Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft, LXVI). Munich, 1958 (especially articles by F. G. Schmücker, F. J. J. Buytendijk, Jean Wahl, H. Sedlmayr).Google Scholar

Major Works

  1. “Über die Gefahr einer Petitio Principii in der Erkenntnistheorie” in JPPF IV (1921).Google Scholar
  2. “Intuition und Intellekt bei Henri Bergson” in JPPF V (1922).Google Scholar
  3. “Essentiale Fragen” in JPPF VII (1925).Google Scholar
  4. Über die Stellung der Erkentn is théorie im System der Philosophie (1925).Google Scholar
  5. “Bemerkungen zum Problem Idealismus-Realismus” in JPPF Ergänzungsband (1929).Google Scholar
  6. Das literarische Kunstwerk (1931). Translations: Polish (1960); Italian (1968); English (1973) by G. G. Grabowicz; Portuguese (1975).Google Scholar
  7. Szkice zfilozofii literatury (Essays in the Philosophy of Literature) (1947).Google Scholar
  8. Studia z estetyki (Studies in Aesthetics) 3 volumes (1957, 1958, 1970).Google Scholar
  9. Untersuchungen zur Ontologie der Kunst (1962).Google Scholar
  10. Z badań nad filozofią współczesną (Investigations on Contemporary Philosophy) (1963).Google Scholar
  11. Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt, vol. 1 Existenzialontologie (1964), vol. 2, part I Formalontologie: Form und Wesen (1965), vol. 2 part 2 Formalontologie: Welt und Bewusstsein (1965), vol. 3 Ueber die kausale Struktur der realen Welt (1974). Polish version of vol. 1 and 2 (1947/48). English translation of part of volume 1 under the title Time and Modes of Being (1964) by H. R. Michejda.Google Scholar
  12. Vom Erkennen des literarischen Kunstwerkes (1968). Earlier Polish version (1937). Translations: Czech (1967); English The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art (1973) by R. A. Crowley and K. R. Olson.Google Scholar
  13. Erlebnis, Kunstwerk und Wert (1969).Google Scholar
  14. Ueber die Verantwortung (1970).Google Scholar
  15. U podstaw teorii poznania (On the Foundations of Epistemology) (1971).Google Scholar
  16. Z teorii języka i fdozoficznych podstaw logiki (On the Theory of Language and the Philosophical Foundation of Logic) (1972).Google Scholar
  17. Ksiqzeczka o człowieku (Little Book about Man) (1972).Google Scholar
  18. Wstęp do fenomenologii Husserla (Introduction to the Phenomenology of Husserl). Polish translations of lectures given in German at the University of Oslo in 1967 (1974). Norwegian translation (1970).Google Scholar
  19. On the Motives which Led Husserl to Transcendental Idealism (1975). Phaenomenologica vol. 64.Google Scholar
  20. Gegenstand und Aufgaben der Literaturwissenschaft (1976)Google Scholar

Studies on Ingarden

  1. TYMIENIECKA, ANNA-TERESA, Essence et existence. Etude à propos de la philosophie de Roman Ingarden et Nicolai Hartmann (Paris, 1957).Google Scholar
  2. Szkice filozoficzne Romanowi Ingardenowi w darze (Ingarden Festschrift) Warsaw-Cracow, 1964).Google Scholar
  3. Fenomenologia Romana Ingardena (Warsaw, 1972).Google Scholar
  4. SCHOPFER, WERNER, Das Seiende und der Gegenstand. Zur Ontologie Roman Ingardens (Munich, 1974).Google Scholar
  5. Roman Ingarden and Contemporary Polish Aesthetics, essays edited by P. Graff and S. Krzemien-Ojak (Warsaw, 1975).Google Scholar
  6. GIERULANKA, DANUTA, “The philosophic work of Roman Ingarden: a systematic outline” Dialectics and Humanism, 1977, no. 4.Google Scholar
  7. See also articles in Analecta Husserliana, Dialectics and Humanism: The Polish Philosophical Quarterly (especially vol. 2 no. 2, Spring 1975), JBSP (especially vol. 6 no. 2, May 1975).Google Scholar
  8. A complete bibliography of the works of Ingarden until 1971 (242 items) is given by A. Pöłtawski “Bibliografia prac filozoficznych Romana Ingardena 1915–1971” pp. 19–54 in Fenomenologia Romana Ingardena (Warsaw, 1972).Google Scholar


  1. Das Problem der objektiven Möglichkeit (1912).Google Scholar
  2. Zur Grundlegung einer Lehre von der Erinnerung (1914).Google Scholar


  1. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie XV (1914), 83 ff.Google Scholar
  2. See Röhrs, Hermann, Die Pädagogik Aloys Fischers. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1967.Google Scholar


  1. “Sprachphilosopische Untersuchungen” Part I in Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie XIX (1910), 395–474.Google Scholar
  2. “Über Wahrnehmung und Vorstellung,” Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen (1911), 51–76.Google Scholar
  3. Zur Wesenslehre des psychischen Lebens und Erlebens (Phaenomenologica 26) 1968.Google Scholar
  4. See also E. Avé-Lallemant, Die Nachlässe der Münchener Phänomenologen, pp. 159–170.Google Scholar


  1. Beiträge zur Phänomenologie der Wahrnehmung (1910; 2nd edition 1925).Google Scholar
  2. Die neue Wissenschaft vom Recht (1930 and 1932).Google Scholar
  3. In Geschichten verstrickt (1955).Google Scholar
  4. Zur Metaphysik des Muttertums (1965).Google Scholar
  5. Metaphysik der Naturwissenschaft (1965).Google Scholar


  1. Absolute Stellungnahmen. Eine ontologische Untersuchung über das Wesen der Religion (1925). Reprinted New York: Garland, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. Das Wesen der Nation (1934). “Charismatische Persönlichkeitseinungen” in Neue Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen (1933).Google Scholar
  3. Heimat als Grundlage menschlicher Existenz (1939).Google Scholar
  4. Person und Persönlichkeit. Untersuchungen zur Anthropologie und Ethik; edited by Harald Delius (1957). Contains also a complete bibliography of Stavenhagen’s publications.Google Scholar


  1. “Die Idee der sittlichen Handlung,” JPPF III (1916), 126–252.Google Scholar
  2. “Sittlichkeit und ethische Werterkenntnis,”JPPF V (1922), 462–602.Google Scholar
  3. Metaphysik der Gemeinschaft (1930).Google Scholar
  4. Der Sinn philosophischen Fragens und Erkennens (Bonn, 1950).Google Scholar
  5. Sittliche Grundhaltungen (1933); translated as Fundamental Moral Attitudes (1950).Google Scholar
  6. Christian Ethics (1953).Google Scholar
  7. Graven Images: Substitutes for True Morality (1957). See especially the second essay (“Substitutes and Other Moral Deformations”) with further studies on value blindness.Google Scholar
  8. An edition of von Hildebrand’s Gesammelte Werke in German (Regensburg: Habbel, 1971) thus far does not include all his older German works but a number of new ones.Google Scholar
  9. For a complete bibliography up to 1960 see Baldwin Schwarz, ed., The Human Person and the World of Values (1960) pp. 195–210.Google Scholar
  10. A comprehensive account of von Hildebrand’s work has been given by the same author in Thought XXIV (1949) 655–76. Schwarz, his main disciple, is also the author of a thorough study of the problem of error.100 Google Scholar


  1. Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie der Erkenntnis2 vols. 1927, 1928.Google Scholar
  2. Untersuchungen zu einer hermeneu tischen Logik, 1938.Google Scholar
  3. Die menschliche Natur, 1941.Google Scholar
  4. Die Verbindlichkeit der Sprache, 1944.Google Scholar
  5. Die Wirklichkeit des Menschen, 1954.Google Scholar
  6. Works in 5 vols. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1977.Google Scholar


  1. “Bemerkungen über das Wesen, die Wesenheit und die Idee,” JPPF IV (1921), 495–543.Google Scholar
  2. Phénoménologie et philosophie religieuse. Études d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse. Strasbourg, 1925.Google Scholar


  1. Zum Problem der Einfühlung (1917); translated by Waltraut Stein. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1964.Google Scholar
  2. “Beiträge zur philosophischen Begründung der Psychologie und der Geisteswissenschaften” (I. Psychische Kausalität, II. Individuum und Gemeinschaft), JPPF V (1922), 1–284.Google Scholar
  3. “Eine Untersuchung über den Staat,” JPPF, VII (1925), 1–124.Google Scholar
  4. Endliches und ewiges Sein: Versuch eines Aufstiegs zum Sinn des Seins. Published posthumously in Edith Steins Werke, II (1950).Google Scholar
  5. Welt und Person VI (1962).Google Scholar
  6. Aus dem Leben einer jüdischen Familie: Das Leben Edith Steins: Kindheit und Jugend. Freiburg: Herder, 1965.Google Scholar
  7. Werke, ed. L. Gelber und Romaeus Leuven. Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1954 ff.Google Scholar
  8. Writings of E.S. Selected, translated, and introduced by Hilde Graef. Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1956 — Only the last section (IV) deals with her philosophical writings. GoodGoogle Scholar

Article in English

  1. COLLINS, JAMES, “Edith Stein and the Advance of Phenomenology.” Thought XVII (1942), 685–708.Google Scholar


  1. “Bemerkungen zu den Zenonischen Paradoxien,” JPPF V (1922) 603–628.Google Scholar
  2. La philosophie de Jacob Boehme (1929).Google Scholar
  3. Études galiléennes (1939).Google Scholar
  4. Complete bibliography in Mélanges Alexandre Koyré. L’aventure des sciences, Paris, 1964.Google Scholar


  1. Der Weg der Phänomenologie, 1969.Google Scholar
  2. Phänomenologie und Geschichte, 1968.Google Scholar
  3. See also Landgrebe’s contribution to Philosophie in Selbstdarstellungen. Hamburg: Meiner, 1975, vol. II, pp. 128–69.Google Scholar


  1. Studien zur Phänomenologie 1930–1939, 1966.Google Scholar
  2. Vom Wesen des Enthusiasmus, 1947.Google Scholar
  3. Nachdenkliches zur ontoiogischen Frühgeschichte von Raum — Zeit — Bewegung, 1957.Google Scholar
  4. Oase des Glücks. Gedanken zur Ontologie des Spiels, 1957.Google Scholar
  5. Sein, Wahrheit, Welt. Vor-Fragen zum Problem des Phänomen-Begriffs, 1958.Google Scholar
  6. Alles und nichts. Ein Umweg zur Philosophie, 1959.Google Scholar
  7. Sprache als Weltsymbol, 1960.Google Scholar
  8. Metaphysik und Tod, 1970.Google Scholar
  9. Nähe und Distanz, ed. Franz-Anton Schwarz, 1976.Google Scholar


  1. “Beiträge zur phänomenologischen Begründung der Geometrie und ihrer physikalischen Anwendungen,” JPPF VI, 1923.Google Scholar
  2. “Mathematische Existenz” JPPF VIII, 1927.Google Scholar
  3. “Von der Hinfälligkeit des Schönen und der Abenteuerlichkeit des Künstlers,” Husset Festchrift, 1929Google Scholar
  4. Dasein und Dawesen, 1963Google Scholar
  5. On Becker’s Phenomenology: Otto Pöggeler, “Hermeneutische und mantisch Phaänomenologies,” Philosophische Rundschau 13 (1965), 1–39.Google Scholar


  1. Das Reich des Schönen. Bausteine zu einer Philosophie der Kunst. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer (1960) with a complete bibliography, pp. 394–396. The epilogue by Hans-Georg Gadamer contains a brief, but particularly helpful and sympathetic account of Kaufmann’s work and development (pp. 397–402).Google Scholar
  2. See also his posthumos contribution to Edmind Husserl 1859–1959. The Hague” Martinus Nijhoff, 1959, pp. 40–47.Google Scholar


  1. Wissenschaft als Philosophie, 1945.Google Scholar
  2. Einfürung in die Phänomenologie Edmund Husserls, 1959.Google Scholar
  3. Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft, 1961.Google Scholar


  1. Freiheit, Wollen und Aktivität (1927).Google Scholar
  2. Das Phänomen des Glaubens. Das Problem seines metaphysischen Gehalts (1934).Google Scholar
  3. Die Grundlagen der Sittlichkeit (1974). Second edition of Pflicht und Neigung (1951).Google Scholar
  4. “Sinn und Recht der phänomenologischen Methode”, Edmund Husserl 1859–1959.Google Scholar
  5. “Zur Bedeutung der phänomenologischen Methode in Ethik und Rechtsphilosophie”. Festschrift für Gerhart Husserl, 1969Google Scholar
  6. For a conspectus of Reiner’s work, see: Irene Eberhard, “Das philosophische Werk Hans Reiners”, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 25 (1971), 615–618.Google Scholar
  7. Bibliography up to 1966 in Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 21 (1967) 154–58.Google Scholar
  8. Natanson, Maurice, ed., Phenomenology and Social Reality. Essays in Memory of Alfred Schutz. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1970, pp. 297–306.Google Scholar


  1. Le monde naturel comme problème philosophique. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. Die Welt des Menschen — Die Welt der Philosophie: Festschrift für Jan Patocka, edited by Walter Biemel. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1976.Google Scholar


  1. 1.
    See Hocking’s “From the Early Days of the ‘Logische Untersuchungen’” in Edmund Husserl 1859–1959. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1959, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “Der aesthetische Gegenstand” Zeitschrift für Aesthetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft III (1908) 71–118. II ibid. 469–511, IV (1909), 400–455.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jean Hering, “La phénoménologie d’Edmund Husserl il y a trenteans” in Revue internationale de philosophie I (1939), 336–73, and oral communications.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    There survives from those days a little piece of spirited satire on Husserl’s innovations in the form of a “Phänomenologenlied” composed by Alfred von Sybel at the end of the summer term 1907, during which Husserl had first presented his lectures on “The Idea of Phenomenology”; it reveals the sceptical attitude of the group. See Alwin Diemer, Edmund Husserl, p. 38, note.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See Phenomenology in Psychology and Psychiatry, pp. 42–52.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Remarkably, Lipps himself abandoned and rejected this “psychologism” as early as 1903, especially in his treatise on “Inhalt und Gegenstand; Psychologie und Logik” of 1905; in fact, at the International Congress of Psychology in Rome of the same year he denounced William James’s position as Psychologismus. Also, the personal relations between Lipps and Husserl warmed up, leading to personal visits and to Lipps’s nomination of Husserl as a member of the Bavarian Academy and, on Husserl’s side, to intensive study of Lipps’s work, especially with regard to Lipps’s concept of empathy. (See also Iso Kern’s editorial introduction to Husserliana XII, p. XXV–XXVI.)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    More information about him can be found in the catalog of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek under Daubertiana. (Die Nachlässe der Münchener Phänomenologen verzeichnet von Eberhard Avé-Lallemant, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1975, pp. 125–38). Under Karl Schuhmann’s supervision a transcription of Daubert’s shorthand manuscripts is in progress.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See Karl Schuhmann, Husserl über Pfänder (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 20–23); also his Husserl-Chronik, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scheler’s characterization of the Munich Circle in a text made available in the Zusätze to volume VII of his Gesammelte Werke (pp. 327–330) is worth mentioning here in translation, especially about the “strange way of its formation and the even stranger growth of this circle… through growing additions from very specific schools, whose members brought along their own orientations, methods and problems… The core group of the so-called Phenomenology was the school of Theodor Lipps: Pfänder, Reinach, Geiger, whom later I myself joined after transferring my habilitation [from Jena to Munich in 1907]…. Hence not a society formed where Husserl himself taught (Halle, Göttingen, Freiburg) but an [independent] society in Munich.”Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paul Ferdinand Linke (1876–1955) was a figure of the Original Movement whose first independent work, Die phänomenale Sphäre und das reale Bewusststein, appeared as early as 1912. In Volume II of Husserl’s Jahrbuch of 1916 (pp. 649–668), he had an article entitled “Phänomenologie und Experiment in der Frage der Bewegungsauffassung” published. In the second edition (1929) of his Grundfragen der Wahrnehmungslehre, he defined his position within the Movement in an important Postscript. See Reinhold Smid, “‘Münchener Phänomenologie’,” Pfänder-Studien.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    In England, since Bosanquet’s review of Pfänder’s contribution to the first volume of the phenomenological yearbook in Mind XXIII (1914), 591 f., only John Laird in his Recent Philosophy (Home University Library, 1936) has paid attention to him, but in a rather misleading context. As to France, Jacques Maritain in his highly critical discussion of phenomenology in Distinguer pour unir ou les degrés de la connaissance (1932; English translation by Bernard Wall, Centenary Press, 1937) refers at least in a footnote (p. 122 of the translation) to the “Munich school, which does not follow Husserl’s neo-idealism, and whose full significance cannot be easily gauged until the work of Alexander Pfänder has been published completely.” Pfänder has made a much stronger impression in Spain and Mexico, perhaps because of Ortega y Gasset’s stimulating interest.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See Karl Schuhmann, Husserl über Pfänder. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973, pp. 17–26.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See also Husserl’s remark to Hans-Georg Gadamer, who had told him about the demonic impression of Scheler upon him, in consternation: “Oh, it is a good thing that we have not only him but also Pfänder” (Paul Good, ed., Max Scheler im Gegenwartsgeschehen der Philosophie Bern: Francke, 1975, p. 12).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thus he had already written to Roman Ingarden in a letter of December 24, 1921: “Even Pfänder’s phenomenology is at bottom something essentially different from my own. Since he has never fully understood the problems of constitution, he — though otherwise thoroughly honest and substantial (der übrigens grundehrliche und solide) — is drifting toward a dogmatic metaphysics.” See also Husserl’s letter to Pfänder of January 6, 1931, to appear in Pfänder-Studien edited by H. Spiegelberg, and E. Avé-Lallemant. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See my “Epoché und Reduktion bei Pfänder und Husserl.” Pfänder-Studien, “Neues Licht auf die Beziehungen zwischen Husserl und Pfänder”, Tijdschrift voorFilosoße 36 (1974) 565–573. — See also JBSP IV (1973), 3–15.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Die Nachlässe der Münchener Phänomenologen, pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schriften aus dem Nachlass zur Phänomenologie und Ethik, 2 vol. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1973.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Einführung in die Psychologie (Leipzig, 1904), p. 42f; my translation.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    That Pfänder was also at home in experimental psychology to the extent of constructing experimental apparatus is attested by Wilhelm Wirth in C. Murchison, ed., History of Psychology in Autobiography, Clark University Press III (1936) p. 289.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pfänder’s criticisms of William James should be contrasted with his high admiration for G. F. Stout’s Manual of Psychology expressed in a review for the Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane XXIII (1900), 415–19.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Phänomenologie des Wollens. Eine psychologische Analyse (Leipzig, 1900). The Introduction is translated in A. Pfänder, Phenomenology of Willing and Motivation and Other Phaenomenologica. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1967, pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See Schriften aus dem Nachlass zur Phänomenologie und Ethik, vol. I: Philosophie auf phänomenologischer Grundlage, ed. H. Spiegelberg, vol. II: Ethik in kurzer Darstellung, ed. Peter Schwankl. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1973.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    According to Reinhold Smid’s investigations the term phänomenologisch occurs first in Lipp’s Article “Psychische Vorgänge und psychische Kausalität,” Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane 25 (1901), 161–203, submitted on “December 19, 1900.”Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tracing the development of Pfänder’s conception of phenomenology in detail would require a thorough study of the unpublished manuscripts in the Pfänderiana collection, some as early as 1907, distinguishing phenomenology and psychology (A V 3). Of particular interest are texts from the late twenties around the time that Pfänder gave his 1929 lecture on “Epistemology and Phenomenology” in Prague, now published in the Appendix of the posthumous Philosophie auf phänomenologischer Grundlage. They show, among other things, that for Pfänder at this time phenomenology was by no means merely a method of philosophy, but also what he called a “science” dealing on the basis of the epoché with essences, connections of essences, objects and acts of consciousness and their connections, and even with the “constitution” (Aufbau) of these acts and objects (pp. 154–157).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See, especially his vigorous support of the penetrating study of Der phänomenologische Idealismus Husserls by Theodor Celms in Deutsche Literaturzeitung 50 (1929), 2048–2050.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    See my “Epoché without Reduction,” JBSP (1975), 260–61.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    It should be realized, however, that quite apart from a letter of January 3, 1927 to his friend Alfred Schwenninger, in which Pfänder refused to be classified as either an idealist or a realist, his final manuscripts avoid all such labels conspicuously; see Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 36 (1974), 571–72.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    See Philosophie, p. 65.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Translated in Phenomenology of Willing and Motivation, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1967, pp. 12–40.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pfänder’s stake in pedagogics and particularly the education of the Gesinnungen is attested by substantial manuscripts for eight courses between 1906 and 1914, i.e., the period of preparation for his relevant phenomenological studies (Pfänderiana G.).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    JPPF, III, 39 f.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Neue Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen, ed. E. Heller and F. Löw. Leipzig: J. A. Barth, 1933.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    Gesammelte Schriften, p. 122.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    Gesammelte Schriften, pp. 6, 171, 397.Google Scholar
  35. 37.
    Gesammelte Schriften, p. 1 ff.Google Scholar
  36. 38.
    For the distinction between ontologically and logically analytic and synthetic knowledge, see also Pfänder, Logik, pp. 192 ff. (3rd ed.).Google Scholar
  37. 40.
    At least a fragment of his rather original, though relatively unpretentious conception has survived. See “An Introduction to Existential Philosophy” PPR III (1943), 255–78.Google Scholar
  38. 41.
    Zugänge zur Ästhetik, p. 67.Google Scholar
  39. 42.
    Letter to Roman Ingarden, December 24, 1921.Google Scholar
  40. 44.
    See E. G. Boring, A History of Experimental Psychology, pp. 339, 642.Google Scholar
  41. 45.
    This was a version of phenomenology advocated particularly by Paul F. Linke (1876–1955); see especially Philosophische Hefte 2 (1930), 65–90.Google Scholar
  42. 46.
    See my “Neues Licht auf die Beziehungen zwischen Husserl und Pfänder” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 36 (1974), pp. 572–3.Google Scholar
  43. 47.
    Die Wirklichkeit der Wissenschaften und die Metaphysik. — See also his English paper “The Philosophical Attitudes and the Problems of Essence and Subsistence,” read at the Sixth International Congress of Philosophy at Harvard in 1927.Google Scholar
  44. 48.
    For a more recent phenomenological attack on these problems see my article on “Critical Phenomenological Realism” in PPR I (1940), 154–76, now incorporated in Doing Phenomenology (1975), pp. 149–163.Google Scholar
  45. 49.
    Beiträge zur Phänomenologie des ästhetischen Genusses, p. 61.Google Scholar
  46. 50.
    A later attempt to distinguish such meanings of “depth” may be found in Dietrich von Hildebrand’s treatise on “Sittlichkeit und ethische Werterkenntnis” Part III, JPPF V (1922), 524 ff.Google Scholar
  47. 51.
    Now collected in Schriften zur Philosophie, edited by E. Avé-Lallemant. 3 vols. Munich, 1963–65.Google Scholar
  48. 52.
    Op. cit. III, p. 335, 375 f.Google Scholar
  49. 53.
    The eidos in its independence with regard to all determination by the subject is designated as Wesenheit, whereas it is conceived as Urphänomen in its relation to the subject mediated by Ideen (in ideation). (“Die Idee ist das gegenständlich für sich gesetzte Wesen irgendeiner Sache.” “Durch das gegenständliche Transparent dieser Idee hindurch erfasse ich… die Wesenheit” Das Sein, p. 49, 85).Google Scholar
  50. 54.
    Schriften I, p. 36.Google Scholar
  51. 55.
    Realontologie § 1.Google Scholar
  52. 56.
    Das Sein, p. 6.Google Scholar
  53. 57.
    Schriften III, p. 325.Google Scholar
  54. 58.
    This means that one can speak of a physical outer space as well as of an inner psychical one (Bios und Psyche, p. 106 ff.).Google Scholar
  55. 59.
    Metaphysik des Irdischen. Unpublished manuscript (Nachlass A VII 5), p. 12.Google Scholar
  56. 60.
    “So behandle ich den liebsten und getreuesten meiner alten Schüler — neben dem mir eigentlich nur Jean Hering gleich nahe steht.” Letter from Dec. 2, 1929 in Husserl, Briefe an Roman Ingarden. Mit Erläuterungen und Erinnerungen an Husserl herausgegeben von Roman Ingarden. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1968, p. 55.Google Scholar
  57. 61.
    Cf. Husserl, Briefe… Unfortunately Ingarden’s replies were destroyed during World War II, except for the item mentioned in note 63 below.Google Scholar
  58. 62.
    Cf. Husserl, Briefe…, p. 55, p. 62; cf. also p. 72, p. 102. Husserl appreciated especially the precision of Ingarden’s distinctions, the thoroughness of his work (“die Präzision der Unterscheidungen”, “ausserordentlich fein durchgearbeitet”). Notice that the fact that the 1929 paper was about the realism—idealism controversy did not prevent Husserl’s praising it.Google Scholar
  59. 43.
    A draft of this letter has been published in Analecta Husserliana vol. 2 (1972), 357–374. Cf. also Ingarden’s explanations in Husserl, Briefe…, pp. 140–141.Google Scholar
  60. 44.
    Cf. Husserl, Briefe…, pp. 63–64, 73; for Ingarden’s exposition of the point at issue see ibid., pp. 165–167, and Ingarden, Wstęp do filozofli Husserla, Warsaw, 1974, p. 164. See also p. 263 note 78 and p. 264 note 86. Ingarden’s remarks to the Cartesian Meditations have in part been published in Husserliana I.Google Scholar
  61. 65.
    His Ph.D. dissertation was Idee und Perception. Eine erkenntnistheoretische Untersuchung aus Descartes, Vienna, 1892, his Habilitationsschrift Zur Lehre vom Inhalt und Gegenstand der Vorstellungen, Vienna, 1894 published in English under the title On the Content and Object of Presentations. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977. (The manuscript of a review by Husserl of Zur Lehre… has been preserved in the Husserl Archives; it did not get published because the editor of the Archiv für systematische Philosophie, Paul Natorp, had himself written a review of the same work. See Husserliana XXII.) A complete bibliography of the published works of Twardowski (363 items) by Daniela Gromska can be found in Twardowski Wybrane pisma fllozoficzne (Selected Philosophical Writings), Warsaw, 1965, pp. XIII - XXXVI.Google Scholar
  62. 66.
    But e.g. T. Kotarbiftski agreed with the “reistic” position of the later Brentano.Google Scholar
  63. 67.
    The underlining is mine. Cf. “Dązenia fenomenologów” (The aims of the phe-nomenologists) Przeglgd Filozoficzny 22 (1919), pp. 118–156, 315–351; reprinted in R. Ingarden Z badań nadfilozofig współczesng, Warsaw, 1963.Google Scholar
  64. 68.
    “Der logistische Versuch einer Neugestaltung der Philosophie. Eine kritische Bemerkung” Actes du 8e Congrès International de Philosophie à Prague, 2–7 Septembre 1934, Prague, 1936, pp. 203–208; enlarged version “L’essai logistique d’une refonte de la philosophie” Revue Philosophique 60 (1935), pp. 137–159. “Glowne tendencje neopozytiwizmu” (The main tendencies of neopositivism) Marchoff 2 (1935/36), pp. 264–278. Both papers are reprinted in Polish in Ingarden Zbadah… Google Scholar
  65. 69.
    An exception was Leopold Blaustein (1905–1944) who in 1925, upon recommendation by Ingarden and K. Ajdukiewicz, studied with Husserl in Freiburg and who wrote a Ph.D. dissertation with Twardowski in Lvov: “Husserlowska nauka: o akcie, trésci i przedmiocie przedstawienia” (Husserlian science: on the act, content and object of representations) Archiwum Towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie, wydzial II historyczno-filozoficzny, torn 4, zeszyt 3, Lvov, 1928, 95 pp. He made contributions to descriptive psychology and aesthetics and he was a pioneer of the description of the psychological reception of motion pictures and radio programs. His works include Przedstawienia imaginatywne (Representations of Imagination). Lvov, 1930; Przedstawienia schematyczne i symboliczne (Schematic and Symbolic Representations). Lvov, 1931; “O zasadach psychologii humanistyczne” (On the principles of humanistic psychology) Przeglgd Filozoficzny, 1935; “Przyczynek do psychologii widza kinowego” (Contribution to the psychology of the spectator of motion pictures) Przeglad Psychologiczny, 1938; O ujmowaniu przedmiotôw estetycznych (On the reception of aesthetic objects), Lvov, 1938.Google Scholar
  66. 71.
    “Marxist critique of phenomenology and the philosophy of Roman Ingarden” an international conference, organized by Dialectics and Humanism: The Polish Philosophical Quarterly under the auspices of the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, in Jadwisin, June 19–22, 1975.Google Scholar
  67. 72.
    A good account of the influence of The Literary Work of Art has been given by G. G. Grabowicz in his “Translator’s introduction” to the English edition. Northwestern University Press, 1973, pp. LXI–LXX.Google Scholar
  68. 73.
    “Was wir über die Werte nicht wissen” and other articles in Erlebnis, Kunstwerk und Wert. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer; 1969; “Remarks concerning the relativity of values” JBSP 6 (1975), 102–108; Ueber die Verantwortung. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1970; Książeczka o człowieku (Little Book about Man). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2nd ed., 1973, cf. J. Makota “Roman Ingarden’s philosophy of man” JBSP 6(1975), 126–130.Google Scholar
  69. 74.
    “Essentiale Fragen. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Wesens,” JPPF 7 (1925), pp. 125–304. This work has been reviewed by G. Ryle in Mind 36 (1927), 366–370. Cf. Ingarden in Husserl Briefe… p. 115: “Ich war also ganz begeistert, als ich von Husserl hörte, dass man der Philosophie eine Wesensforschung zur Aufgabe zu stellen hätte.”Google Scholar
  70. 75.
    Cf. Z badan… p. 358.Google Scholar
  71. 76.
    Cf. “Bemerkungen zum Problem Idealismus—Realismus” JPPF Ergänzungsband (1929), pp. 159–190, esp. p. 162.Google Scholar
  72. 77.
    Husserl wrote in the margin of his copy of Ingarden’s “Bemerkungen…”, p. 162: “Wie früher in meinen Vorlesungen”. Cf. also the note which Husserl later wrote on the manuscript of his lectures on Urteilstheorie from 1905 (ms. F I 27): “Hier ist Phänomenologie noch allgemeine Wesenslehre des Bewusstseins.”Google Scholar
  73. 78.
    Cf. Husserl (etwa 1924): “… dass überhaupt ein reales und ideales Sein, das die totale transzendentale Subjektivität überschreitet, ein Widersinn ist und als das absolut einzusehen ist.… Alle philosophischen Ontologien sind transzendentalidealistische Ontotogien.” Husserliana WW, p. 482. — Husserl himself had said that the phenomenology of the noematic object provided a “guiding thread” for the noetic phenomenology of the acts (cf. e.g., Husserliana V, p. 159), but as we shall stress below, Ingarden’s ontology is not noematic phenomenology. In the Cartesian Meditations Husserl says of the unreduced ontology that it serves as a “guiding thread” for the transcendental investigation, but this is still not Ingarden’s position, because Husserl insists immediately that the transcendental investigation will disclose something “entirely new”, i.e., that it will change the very meaning of the statements of unreduced ontology (cf. Husserliana I, pp. 165–166). — See also p. 261 note 64 and p. 264 note 86.Google Scholar
  74. 79.
    Cf. Ingarden “Intuition und Intellekt bei Henri Bergson” JPPF 5 (1922), p. 396 note, p. 431 ff. (Zbadan… p. 121 pp. 159 ff); “Bemerkungen…”, p. 183; Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt vol. 1 Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1964, p. 5, where transcendental idealism is characterized as a hybrid between metaphysical and epistemological idealism. — The three-fold division can already be found in the letter from 1918 (cf. Analecta Husserliana vol. 2, p. 360), but its most extensive discussion is given in Ueber die Stellung der Erkenntnistheorie im System der Philosophie. Halle: Niemeyer, 1925. See also G. Küng “Zum Lebenswerk von Roman Ingarden: Ontologie, Erkenntnistheorie und Metaphysik” in H. Kuhn, E. Avé-Lallemant and R. Gladiator, eds., Die Münchener Phänomenologie (Phaenomenologica 65). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 1976, pp. 158–173.Google Scholar
  75. 80.
    Der Streit… vol. 1, p. 48, p. 31, p. 33. In distinction to physics and other sciences metaphysics is concerned with an understanding of the essential nature of what is in fact the case, and it tries to arrive at an ultimate explanation of its why.Google Scholar
  76. 81.
    Cf. E. Swiderski “Some salient features of Ingarden’s ontology” JBSP 6 (1975), 81–90.Google Scholar
  77. 82.
    Der Streit… vol. 1, p. 33. I write “Idea” with a capital letter in order to distinguish Ingarden’s technical term from the ways the word is normally used.Google Scholar
  78. 83.
    Cf. Z teorii jezyka i filozoficznych pods taw logiki. Warsaw, 1972, p. 116.Google Scholar
  79. 84.
    Cf. “Bemerkungen zum Problem der Begründung” Studio Logica 13 (1962), 153–176; Z badań… p. 189; The Literary Work of Art. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973, p. 159 where Ingarden speaks of “the structure of the concreteness;” Ingarden “On the ontology of relations” JBSP 6 (1975), 78 where Ingarden speaks of the primary and genuine form of a relation which, strictly speaking, cannot be expressed.Google Scholar
  80. 85.
    Cf. G. Küng “The role of language in phenomenological analysis” American Philosophical Quarterly 6 (1969), 330–334.Google Scholar
  81. 86.
    Cf. Ingarden “Ueber den transzendentalen Idealismus bei E. Husserl” in Husserl et la pensée moderne. Actes du deuxième Colloque International de Phénoménologie, Krefeld, 1–3 novembre 1956 (Phaenomenologica 2). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1959, pp. 190–204; and Ingarden On the Motives which led Husserl to Transcendental Idealism (Phaenomenologica 64). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975. — It is quite controversial in what sense Husserl is to be regarded as a transcendental idealist. He himself had stressed that his philosophy had nothing to do with the idealistic position as it is traditionally understood (Husserl, Briefe… p. 73). Many interpreters agree with this self-appraisal of Husserl and go on to claim that in phenomenology the opposition of idealism vs. realism disappears. This claim can take two forms: (a) it is stressed that Husserl did not deny the contingent facticity of the real world (cf. the Husserl texts cited in I. Kern, Husserl und Kant (Phaenomenologica 16). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 1964, pp. 293–303; notice however that Kern does not deny that Husserl was an idealist, cf. below); (b) it is stressed that according to Husserl it is only the sense (the noema) of the real world which is said to be a product of consciousness. I would however remark: (ad a) this merely proves that Husserl was never an objective idealist in the Hegelian sense according to which world history would follow necessarily from the laws of dialectics, but it does not prove that Husserl accepted an autonomously existing real world in the realist’s sense (after all Berkeley, the subjective idealist, too, did accept the facticity of the real world); (ad b) as a matter of fact Husserl made the additional claim that the notion of something beyond this sense is nonsensical (widersinnig) (cf. Kern, op. cit., pp. 276–283; Husserl Ideen I 2. A. p. 117; Husserl (ca. 1924) in Husserliana vol. 8 p. 482), and it is precisely this additional claim which has never been accepted by the realists. — See also p. 261 note 64 and p. 263 note 78.Google Scholar
  82. 87.
    Cf. Ingarden in Husserl, Briefe… pp. 123–131. According to Wstep… p. 165 Ingarden tried this approach until 1922, according Der Streit… vol. 1 p. VII until 1923. — Notice that there seems to be a connection between this insistence on the status of the Empfindungen and Ingarden’s conviction that the qualitative material determines what ontological form it can take: if the objectivity of the Empfindungen is accepted and if it is agreed that the categorial form is determined by the qualitative material, then the objectivity of the real world as we experience it would seem to be established.Google Scholar
  83. 88.
    Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt vol. I, vol. II/1, vol. II/2, vol. III. See the bibliography.Google Scholar
  84. 89.
    Ingarden initially distinguished nine different concepts of form and matter, with further subdivisions. Cf. Der Streit… vol. II/1, pp. 27–29.Google Scholar
  85. 90.
    In the controversy between idealism and realism it is the exact nature of the relations of dependence or independence holding between consciousness and the world that is at issue. It was therefore logical to start with an elaboration of existential ontology. Ingarden found four primary types of dependence or independence, and investigating which of their logically possible combinations were not apriori nonsensical, he arrived at a basic map of the idealism-realism controversy which can exactly differentiate between no less than fifteen apriori possible positions (cf. Der Streit… vol. 1, pp. 187–188). Investigations of further existential moments characteristic of the existence in time and the investigations in formal ontology indicated possible directions which a reduction of the number of acceptable positions might take, but their implementation presupposes already metaphysical evaluations of what is in fact the nature of consciousness and of the real world.Google Scholar
  86. 92.
    Der Streit… vol. I p. 104 and vol. III.Google Scholar
  87. 93.
    But cf. E. Holenstein, Roman Jakobson’s Approach to Language: Phenomenologicat Structuralism, Indiana University Press, 1976, concerning the influence of Husserl on Jakobson.Google Scholar
  88. 94.
    Ingarden continues here the work of Husserl and Pfänder. Cf. not only ch. 5 of The Literary Work of Art, but also the as yet untranslated volume Z teorii języka i filozoficznych podstaw logiki (On the theory of language and the philosophical foundations of logic), Warsaw, 1972.Google Scholar
  89. 95.
    Cf. A. Szczepanska “Perspectives of the axiological investigations of the work of Roman Ingarden” JBSP 6(1915), 116–125, esp. p. 123.Google Scholar
  90. 96.
    This has some similarity with the existentialist notion of the limit situation (Grenzsituation).Google Scholar
  91. 97.
    See “Erinnerungen an Husserl”, Edmund Husserl 1859–1959, pp. 11–28.Google Scholar
  92. 98.
    The most explicit discussion of this sense can be found in Der Sinn philosophischen Fragens und Erkennens (1950) pp. 89–91.Google Scholar
  93. 99.
    See his important contribution to Ludwig Pongratz ed., Philosophie in Selbstdarstellungen. Hamburg: Meiner, 1975, vol. II, 77–127, esp. p. 109.Google Scholar
  94. 100.
    Der Irrtum in der Philosophie. Münster, 1934.Google Scholar
  95. 101.
    “Husserls Phänomenologie und die Philosophie des hl. Thomas von Aquino,” Husserl Festschrift, p. 329.Google Scholar
  96. 102.
    See Jean Hering, “Phenomenology in France,” in Farber, Marvin, ed., Philosophy in France and the United States (University of Buffalo Publications, 1950), pp. 70–72.Google Scholar
  97. 103.
    Personal letter of December 10, 1953.Google Scholar
  98. 104.
    Zum anderen Ufer. Remagen: Der Leuchter, 1960, p. 213.Google Scholar
  99. 105.
    Philosophie in Selbstdarstellungen. Hamburg: Meiner, 1975, vol. II, 136.Google Scholar
  100. 107.
    “For a long time I did not succeed in putting Husserl’s phenomenology and Heidegger’s thought into the right relation. I wavered back and forth between the two without finding a firm foundation.” Ibid. II, 134, 135.Google Scholar
  101. 108.
    Pfänder’s plan of a Festschrift for HusserPs sixtieth birthday in 1919 led only to dedications of individual contributions in the Jahrbuch.Google Scholar
  102. 109.
    “Husserls Abschied vom Cartesianismus,” Philosophische Rundschau 9 (1962), 133–176; translated in R. O. Elveton, ed. The Philosophy of Husserl. Chicago: Quadrangle Club, 1970, pp. 259–306.Google Scholar
  103. 110.
    “Die phänomenologische Philosophie Edmund HusserPs in der gegenwärtigen Kritik” Kantstudien 38 (1933), 313–83, transi, in R. O. Elveton, op. cit. pp. 73–147.Google Scholar
  104. 111.
    Phänomenologie und Metaphysik. Hamburg, 1948, p. 7.Google Scholar
  105. 112.
    Problèmes actuels de la phénoménologie. Paris, 1951, p. 54.Google Scholar
  106. 113.
    See also his expository essay on “Die Philosophie Edmund Husserls,” Kantstudien 35 (1930), 119–150, transi, in R. O. Elveton, op. cit. pp. 40–72.Google Scholar
  107. 114.
    Die Grundlagen der Sittlichkeit. Meisenheim: Hain, 1974 (Second edition of Pflicht und Neigung, 1951), p. 158 note 26.Google Scholar
  108. 115.
    See Lester E. Embree, “Biographical Sketch” in Life-World and Consciousness. Essays for Aron Gurwitsch. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1972, pp. XVII-XXX.Google Scholar
  109. 116.
    “Phänomenologie der Thematik und des reinen Ich,” Psychologische Forschung XII (1929), 19–381.Google Scholar
  110. 117.
    Die mitmenschlichen Beziehungen in der Milieuwelt, edited posthumously with a helpful preface by Alexandre Métraux. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. Translated by Fred Kersten as Human Encounters in the Social World. Duquesne University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  111. 119.
    See “Signature” in Difficile Liberté 1963, p. 323; “La ruine de la représentation,” Edmund Husserl 1859–1959, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
  112. 120.
    See W. R. Boyce Gibson, “From Husserl to Heidegger. Excerpts from a 1928 Freiburg Diary” JBSP II (1971), 58–82.Google Scholar
  113. 122.
    Der phänomenologische Idealismus Husserls. Riga: Acta Universitatis Latviensis, 1928.Google Scholar
  114. 123.
    See my “On the Misfortunes of Edmund Husserl’s Encyclopaedia Britannica article ‘Phenomenology,’”(1972) now in The Context of the Phenomenological Movement, pp. 162–165.Google Scholar
  115. 125.
    Felix Kaufmann’s papers and voluminous correspondences are for the moment at Waterloo, Ontario.Google Scholar
  116. 126.
    “phenomenology and Logical Empiricism” in Farber, M. ed., Philosophical Essays in Memory of Edmund Husserl, pp. 124–42.Google Scholar
  117. 127.
    Methodology of the Social Sciences, 1944.Google Scholar
  118. 128.
    “Strata of Experience” PPR I (1941), 313–24.Google Scholar
  119. 129.
    Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Vienna, 1932; translated as The Phenomenology of the Social World (Evanston, 1967) by George Walsh and Frederick Lehnert.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herbert Spiegelberg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations