Crowell’s Account of Husserl’s and Heidegger’s Divergent Interpretations of Phenomenology’s Transcendental Character

  • Burt C. Hopkins
Part of the Contributions to Phenomenology book series (CTPH, volume 11)


Turning now to the final variation of the trend that seeks a rapprochement between the phenomenologies of Husserl and Heidegger, Steven Crowell’s careful discussion of their relationship will be considered, within the context of the present study. According to Crowell, the issue that divides Husserl and Heidegger does not concern the interpretation per se of phenomenology, that is, of “‘phenomenology: transcendental philosophy or ontology?’”1 Rather, for him the issue is “‘transcendental phenomenology: epistemology or ontology?’”2 Thus for Crowell, “the real issues concern not so much Heidegger’s rejection, as his reinterpretation, of central Husserlian notions.”3 Indeed, Crowell holds that “[t]here is a good sense in which Heidegger can be said to adopt the program of inquiry into ‘transcendental constitution’.”4


Transcendental Phenomenology Transcendental Philosophy Transcendental Subjectivity Phenomenological Reflection Reflective Inquiry 
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.


  1. 1.
    Crowell, “Husserl, Heidegger, and Transcendental Philosophy: Another Look at the Encyclopaedia Britannica Article,” op. cit., p. 503.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Ibid., p. 502.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibid., p. 509.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Ibid., p. 507.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibid., p. 516.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Ibid., pp. 516–17.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibid., p. 517.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ibid., p. 518n.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See § 93 above.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See § 90 above.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crowell, op. cit., p. 505.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See § 108 above.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crowell, op. cit., p. 517.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See §§ 105–107 and the discussion of Gadamer’s account of the Husserl-Heidegger relationship above.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    And this is suggested in Crowell’s analysis, without however, so far as I can tell, any discussion of what it is that is need of revision.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crowell, op. cit., p. 510.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ibid., p. 508.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See §§ 48–54.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crowell, op. cit., p. 514.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibid., pp. 516–17.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See § 102 above.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Burt C. Hopkins
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySeattle UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations