A note on fact and meaning

My interest in working through Husserl’s The Crisis of European Sciences has waxed and waned.  This is probably due to the sharp transition I feel in moving from Kierkegaard’s style to the more straightforward work of ‘real’ philosophy.  What has kept my attention though is Husserl’s genuine impression of having discovered something and of its significance and secondly of the fact that in historical context the work he did has had tremendous historical significance.  So what is he doing?  I understand a primary motivation of his work to be a method of thinking subjectivity scientifically.  How can I be included in scientific investigation?  For this reason the natural sciences and mathematics always play a secondary (but certainly not disparaged) role.  These secondary sciences work from the assumptions of a pre-given world that accord with our experience of that world.  These sciences always rest on something prior.  So Husserl is trying to carry out to completion Descartes’s emphasis on the primacy of the ego.  But the ego is not a ‘premise’ from which the rest of knowledge is deduced.

The point is not to secure objectivity but to understand it.  One must finally achieve the insight that no objective science, no matter how exact, explains or ever can explain anything in a serious sense. To deduce is not to explain.  To predict, or to recognize the objective forms of composition of physical or chemical bodies and predict accordingly – all this explains nothing but is in need of explanation.  The only true way to explain is to make transcendentally understandable. (Crisis, 189)

This is not particularly shocking to anyone with exposure to philosophical hermeneutics but it is a helpful reminder for what continues presently to be a common and serious misconception, namely, that scientific findings are self-evidently meaningful.  These findings are framed as such because they give the air of authority and therefore power to various expressions.  While I am not sure I will follow Husserl in his own project I think this point remains sound.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “A note on fact and meaning

  1. ‘What has kept my attention though is Husserl’s genuine impression of having discovered something’- I like that.
    I suppose it is this ‘genuine impression of having discovered something’ which kicks the can down the road till, mysteriously, something really is discovered- everybody was a Physicist, who genuinely had the impression they had discovered something, till actual Physics starts to burgeon and- it may be- reveals itself to be something no one could have ever discovered or understood- let alone ‘transcendentally understood’.
    The pathos of philosophy- indeed of Science (I’m thinking of Hempel’s dilemma and Beenanker’s boundary)- is well captured by Geulincx’s formula- ‘if you don’t know how a thing is done, you do not do it.’

    Like

  2. I am still working backwards in a great deal of my reading in philosophy. And most of my reading in ‘philosophy’ was more philosophical hermeneutics where people weren’t even sure you could know what someone was talking about never mind ‘discover’ the true method of interrogating subjectivity. What is interesting is that many folks in hermeneutics appeal broadly to phenomenology so I am looking forward to read forward from Husserl in this particular trajectory and see where all the disillusionment comes in!

    Like

    1. my dear fellow- you are simply ignorant. Psilosophy, not philosophy is what makes itself accessibe when one is poor.
      Husserl was just wrong.
      He didn’t now he was wrong. So he kept at it.
      In those days some Math Mavens with private money had a kinda second job as Nazis or Racists or Eugenic cuntsshites.
      Husserl was just crap. Heidegger took his pants down. Why? Coz if a fucking clever Jew like Husserl can find out everything about everything without doing anything then , that fucking Jew can be sodomised by a fucking Black Forest peasant.

      Indeed, this is a highly generalizable result.`

      You are clearly a good guy- why do you want to wank in such lukewarm bath waters

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s