Franz Brentano's Ontology - Selected Bibliography (A - K)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
STUMPF, HUSSERL and INGARDEN of the Application of the Formal Meaningful Categories
Formal Ontology FORMAL ONTOLOGY AS AN OPERATIVE TOOL of theory, categories that must be referred to as the objectual domain, which is determined by the ontological categories. In this way, we IN THE THORIES OF THE OBJECTS OF THE must take into account that, for Husserl, ontological categories are LIFE‐WORLD: formal insofar as they are completely freed from any material domain STUMPF, HUSSERL AND INGARDEN of the application of the formal meaningful categories. Therefore, formal ontology, as developed in the third Logical Investigation, is the corresponding “objective correlate of the concept of a possible theory, 1 Horacio Banega (University of Buenos Aires and National Universi‐ deinite only in respect of form.” 2 ty of Quilmes) Volume XXI of Husserliana provides insight into the theoretical source of Husserlian formal ontology.3 In particular, it strives to deine the theory of manifolds or the debate over the effective nature of what will later be called “set theory.” Thus, what in § of Prolegomena is It is accepted that certain mereological concepts and phenomenolog‐ ical conceptualisations presented in Carl Stumpf’s U ber den psy‐ called a “Theory of Manifolds” (Mannigfaltigkeitslehre) is what Husserl chologischen Ursprung der Raumvorstellung and Tonpsychologie played an important role in the development of the Husserlian formal 1 Edmund Husserl, Logische Untersuchunghen. Zweiter Band, Untersuchungen zur ontology. In the third Logical Investigation, which displays the for‐ Phänomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis. Husserliana XIX/ and XIX/, (ed.) U. mal relations between part and whole and among parts that make Panzer (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, ), hereafter referred to as Hua XIX/ out a whole, one of the main concepts of contemporary formal ontol‐ and Hua XIX/; tr. -
Comptes Rendus / Book Reviews
COMPTES RENDUS / BOOK REVIEWS Robin D. Rollinger, Austrian Phenomenology: Brentano, Husserl, Meinong, and Others on Mind and Object. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2008; 326 pages. ISBN: 978-3868380057. Review by Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray, Independent Scholar. Nietzsche was not alone in his skepticism and contempt for systematic philosophy, the stuff Hegel and Kant were made of; in fact on this point he could be called the voice of a generation and a timely man. Many academics in the mid to late 19th century felt a sort of ill will towards phi- losophy, especially given the leaps and bounds happening in science. Philosophy seemed less rigorous, impractical and out of touch with the modern era: who needed to contemplate God, freedom, and immortality when scientists were in their labs or in the field actively discovering laws of energy, plant cells, electromagnetism, radiation and evolution? Meta- physics and epistemology just couldn’t compete with physics and biol- ogy. However, several philosophers in Austria thought they could make philosophy more scientific and definitively show the academic commu- nity that philosophy was not to be retired like a relic of the past, but rather could hold her own as a discipline. One of the most notable groups of philosophers to attempt such a defence of philosophy was the School of Brentano, named after its leader, Franz Brentano, and which included his pupils Carl Stumpf, Anton Marty, Edmund Husserl, Kasimir Twardowski and Christian von Ehrenfels. This is where Rollinger’s book begins. Rollinger’s volume is a collection of revised, previously pub- lished papers. It is a comprehensive and insightful book, a necessity for anyone studying the Austrian philosophical tradition, or the early phe- nomenological movement under Husserl (Munich and Göttingen circles respectively). -
Taieb Review of Antonelli on Benussi
Forthcoming in Dialectica. Mauro Antonelli. 2018. Vittorio Benussi in the History of Psychology: New Ideas of a Century Ago. Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind 21. Cham: Springer, 377 + xi pp. Hamid Taieb The history of phenomenology has not been a peaceful and autonomous process taking place independently of any competitors. On the contrary, from the very beginning of their inquiries, phenomenologists had to struggle with several rival explanatory schemes in psychology. The most important among them were physiological psychology (of various sorts) and psychoanalysis. Both of these scientific projects tried to minimize the importance of consciousness in the explanation of the mind, the first by treating consciousness as some sort of epiphenomenal outcome of brain and other nervous processes, the second by describing it as a blind domain, driven by underlying mental acts to which consciousness itself has no access. Interestingly, however, phenomenology did not ignore these two competing explanatory schemes; on the contrary, it entered into manifold discussion with them, trying to establish more and more precisely the division of (scientific) labour among these three approaches. Evidence of this engagement is plentiful. With respect to physiological psychology, the discussion goes as far back as Franz Brentano, who tried to combine his “descriptive psychology”, also called “descriptive phenomenology”, with “genetic psychology”, that is, physiological psychology; and it has had a long and complex history, up to the most recent papers published in the journal Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. With respect to psychoanalysis, phenomenologists such as Merleau-Ponty and Ricœur engaged in detail with the thought of Freud (who, by the way, had been a student of Brentano); there have also been more recent attempts to combine these two traditions, for example by Dieter Lohmar and Jagna Brudzinska in Founding Psychoanalysis Phenomenologically. -
Janoušek and Rollinger, the Prague School, Cleaned Up
The Prague School Hynek Janoušek and Robin Rollinger The name the “Prague school of Brentano” refers to three generations of thinkers who temporarily or permanently lived in Prague, bound together by teacher/student relationships, and who accepted the main views of Franz Brentano’s philosophy. In 1879 Carl Stumpf (see CHAP. 31) arrived in Prague to take up a professorship of philosophy at the Charles-Ferdinand University. In 1880 Stumpf’s close friend and also a student of Brentano, Anton Marty (see CHAP. 30), became a professor in the same department. This marks the beginning of the Prague School. The presence of Stumpf and Marty was in fact a dramatic shift in orientation first and foremost in the domain of psychology, for Prague had previously been an enclave of Herbartian psychology, which Brentano had criticized in various respects throughout his Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (Brentano 1874). In a certain sense their presence even harked back to an earlier time in Prague when Bernard Bolzano was developing a theory of science very much in opposition to the Kantianism of his time. Though Brentano’s philosophy was very different from Bolzano’s in many respects, it was no less anti-Kantian. This was very important at that time, for neo-Kantianism was on the rise in the German-speaking world and even beyond, whereas Stumpf and Marty made efforts to combat this kind of philosophy. Though Stumpf’s sojourn in Prague was considerably shorter-lived than Marty’s, Stumpf published the first volume of his Tone Psychology (Stumpf 1883) during that time. -
Erfahrung Und Analyse Experience and Analysis
Erfahrung und Analyse Experience and Analysis Abstracts 27. Internationales Wittgenstein Symposium 8. – 14. August 2004 Kirchberg am Wechsel 27th International Wittgenstein Symposium August 8 – 14, 2004 Kirchberg am Wechsel Distributors Die Österreichische Ludwig Wittgenstein Gesellschaft The Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society Markt 63, A-2880 Kirchberg am Wechsel Österreich/Austria Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Abteilung Kultur und Wissenschaft des Amtes der NÖ Landesregierung Redaktion: Maria Elisabeth Reicher und Johann Christian Marek Visuelle Gestaltung: Sascha Windholz Druck: Druckwerker, 1050 Wien 2 Abstracts IS EVERYTHING NAMEABLE? ANALYSIS AS THE VANISHING OF VALUE? C. Anthony Anderson, Santa Barbara, California Brian Armstrong, University Park, Pennsylvania Seeking a foundation for intensional logic, arguments Although the Tractarian notion of value has recently begun bearing on whether everything is nameable are examined to receive more scholarly attention, there is still no clear and all are found to be without force. These include Fre- account of this notion. While I can hardly offer such an ge’s on unsaturated functions, an Intuitionistic argument, a account here, I do believe that our theme of experience Leibnizian argument, and Graham Priest’s Berkelian ar- and analysis can be used to shed new light on the issue. gument. The reasoning of the Zermelo-König paradox This new light results from the interesting paradox that leading to the conclusion that all ordinals are nameable is opens up in the Tractatus with respect to value and our stated within a theory of possible languages and found theme: the value that we experience seems to vanish upon wanting. It is concluded that the question is entirely open. -
A Sociological History of Lie Detection
Ctmrhusf San Franeista "OtntnitW The Hidden Truth: A Sociological History of Lie D etection Susanne Weber, MSc London School of Economics and Political Science Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the Ph.D. in Sociology 1 UMI Number: U61BB79 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U613379 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 TJfeses F m z txary ot Potncai 114523 i I, Susanne Weber, hereby confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed: Susanne Weber Abstract Drawing on Foucault and the sociology of science and technology, this thesis traces the curious attempt that has been made over the last century to capture one of the most elusive social acts - the lie. This endeavour was made possible by the emergence of the human sciences, whose guiding belief was that the subject’s inner life could be made apparent by means of physiological measurements and therefore be controlled. -
The Rise and Fall of the Graz School
THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GRAZ SCHOOL Geert-Jan A. Boudewijnse1 The gestalt movement is generally considered to have begun with EHRENFELS’ (1890) seminal article On ‘Gestalt Qualities’ (see ASH, 1982, 1995; BOUDEW IJNSE, 1996; HARRINGTON, 1996; MACNAMARA & BOUDEWIJNSE, 1995). Thirty years later, in 1920, Wolfgang KÖHLER published Die physischen Gestalten in Ruhe und in stationären Zustand [The Physical Gestalten in Rest and in Immobile Condi- tion]. The gestalt notion, with its implications, was by then well thought out. Gener- ally, the Berlin gestalt school of Max WERTHEIMER, Kurt KOFFKA and Wolfgang KÖHLER was painted as the successor of EHRENFELS’ thought. The works of the Graz school - Alexius MEINONG, Stephan WITASEK and Vittorio BENUSSI - how- ever, pre-date those of the Berlin school by about 10 years. Furthermore, the first ar- ticle in which a member of the Berlin school clearly articulated his own position was written by KOFFKA in 1915, and it gave a detailed exposition and a well-thought-out criticism of the Graz school. The Berlin school developed, or at least presented itself, partly in contrast to the Graz school. This warrants a discussion of the Graz school, which also has an interesting lineage. BENUSSI was not an Austrian citizen; he car- ried an Italian passport. After World War I, therefore, he was forced to leave Austria for Italy, where Cesare MUSATTI became his principal student. MUSATTI, in turn, taught Fabio METELLI and Gaetano KANIZSA. KANIZSA, like BENUSSI, would propose a theory of perception in which two levels of processing are identified and which recognizes that the organism adds to the perceptual data. -
Investigations
t::·. CDD: 142.7 HUSSERL'S CRITIQUE OF BRENTANO IN THE LOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS DERMOT MORAN Philosophy Departmen0 University College Dublin, DUBUN4, IRELAND [email protected] Husser/'s criticisms of Brentano's conception of descriptive p!ychology in the Fifth Logical Investigation are analYsed. It is argued that Husser/ moves completelY bryond Brentano's framework ina wqy that has not yet been fullY appreciated. 1. THE INVESTIGATIONS: A NEGLECTED MASTERPIECE Edmund Husserl's Logical Investigations (Logische Untersuchungen, 1900-01)1 is undoubtedly one of the most influential, but also among 1 E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen, 2 Bande (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1900- 1901). Husserl himself oversaw the publications of four editions: a revised Second Edition of the Prolegomena and first five Investigations in 1913, a re vised Edition of the Sixth Investigation in 1921, a Third Edition with minor changes in 1922, and a Fourth in 1928. A critical edition, which also includes Husserl's written emendations and additions to his own copies (Handexemplai), has appeared in the Husserliana series in two volumes: Volume XVIII, Logische Untersuchungen. Erster Band: Prolegomena zur reinen Logik. Text der 1. und der 2. Auflage, hrsg. Elmar Holenstein (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1975), and Volume XIX, Logische Untersuchungen. Zweiter Band: Untersuchungen zur PhiinomenoloJ!ie und Theone der Erkenntnis, in zwei Banden, hrsg. Ursula Panzer (Dordrecht: © Manuscrito, 2000. Published by the Center for Logic, Epistemology and History of Science (CLE/UNICAMP), State University of Campinas, P.O. Box 6133, 13081-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil. 164 DERMOT MORAN HUSSERL CRITIQUE OF BRENTANO 165 the most difficult and challenging, philosophical works of the twenti and contributed to its comparative neglect. -
Franz Clemens Honoratus Hermann Brentano (1838 - 1917)
Franz Clemens Honoratus Hermann Brentano (1838 - 1917) Franz Clemens Honoratus Hermann Brentano (January 16, 1838 Marienberg am Rhein (near Boppard) - March 17, 1917 Zürich) was an influential figure in both philosophy and psychology. His influence was felt by luminaries such as Edmund Husserl and Alexius Meinong who followed and later adapted Brentano’s views. Life Franz Brentano studied philosophy at the universities of Munich, Würzburg, Berlin (with Trendelenburg) and Münster. He had a special interest in Aristotle and scholastic philosophy, and his dissertation (in Tübingen) was on the manifold sense of Being in Aristotle. Subsequently he began to study theology and entered the seminary in Munich and later Würzburg, preparing to become a Roman Catholic priest (ordained August 6, 1864). In 1866 he wrote and defended his habilitation essay and thesis, and then began to lecture at the University of Würzburg. His students during this period included among others Carl Stumpf and Anton Marty. Between 1870 and 1873 Brentano was heavily involved in the debate on papal infallibility. As a strong opponent of such a dogma, he eventually relinquished his priesthood. Following these religious struggles, Carl Stumpf who was also studying at the seminar at the time was drawn away from the church. In 1874 Brentano published his major work “Psychology from an empirical standpoint” and from 1874 to 1895 he taught at the University of Vienna. Among his many students were the future intellectual greats such Edmund Husserl, Alexius Meinong, Christian von Ehrenfels and others (see the ‘School of Brentano’ for more details). While beginning his career as a full professor, he was forced to give up his Austrian citizenship and his professorship in 1880 in order to marry. -
The Reception of Ernst Mach in the School of Brentano
DENIS FISETTE The Reception of Ernst Mach in the School of Brentano Franz Brentano is one of the most infl uential fi gures in the philosophy of the late nineteenth century. Brentano and his successors have established a philosophical program which had a decisive impact on the history of philosophy in Austria. This program stands out clearly in several lectures delivered by Brentano during his stay in Vienna, particularly in his inaugural address at the University of Vienna (Brentano 1929) in which Brentano outlines the program that he systematically develops in his Psychology from an empirical Standpoint (2009). This program was the result of Brentano’s research in Würzburg (1866–1873) which has been partly inspired by Auguste Comte’s positive philosophy and John Stuart Mill’s empiricism (Münch 1989; Fisette 2018). During his stay in Vienna, Brentano’s interest in pos- itivism remained intact as evidenced by his 1893–1894 lectures “Contemporary philosophical questions” in which he examines several versions of positivism, in- cluding Mach’s version. This paper is about the reception of Mach by Brentano and his students in Austria1. I shall outline the main elements of this reception, starting with Bren- tano’s evaluation, in his lectures on positivism, of Mach’s theory of sensations. Secondly, I shall comment the early reception of Mach by Brentano’s pupils in Prague. The third part bears on the close relationship that Husserl established between his phenomenology and Mach’s descriptivism. I will then briefly ex- amine Mach’s contribution to the controversy on gestalt qualities. The fifth part bears on Stumpf’s debate with Mach on psychophysical relations and I shall conclude this study with some remarks on Husserl’s criticism of Mach’s alleged logical psychologism in his Logical Investigations. -
TEN YEARS of ITALIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY of PSYCHOLOGY: a Field in Progress
History of Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association 2010, Vol. 13, No. 3, 215–249 1093-4510/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0020093 TEN YEARS OF ITALIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY OF PSYCHOLOGY: A Field in Progress Glauco Ceccarelli Guido Cimino and Renato Foschi University of Urbino “Sapienza” University of Rome This article briefly outlines a picture of the activities and research conducted in Italy on the history of psychology during the last 10 years, focusing its attention on institutions, scholars, conferences, archives, journals, and so forth. At the dawn of the 21st century, the tradition of historical-psychological studies that developed in the last quarter of the 20th century has led to a renewed situation in teaching organization and research, with the emergence of several groups, especially at the universities of Rome “Sapienza,” Bari, Milan-Bicocca, and Urbino, and of a second generation of young historians increasingly engaged on an international level. After a general survey conducted with historiometric method on the principal areas of research cultivated and on the themes dealt with, we mention a change that has occurred in the historiographical approach, a transition from a historiography addressed prevalently to the “history of ideas” to one that, pursuing the approach of a new and critical “multifactorial” history, proves to be more attentive to the social and institutional history, in correspondence with established international trends. Keywords: Italian historiography of psychology, historiometry, old history, new history, multifactorial history An article published in this same journal in 2003 traced the itinerary of the historiography of psychology in Italy from the 1970s up to the threshold of the 21st century (Cimino & Dazzi, 2003). -
Frondizi and Mandelbaum on the Phenomenology and Ontology of Value
GESTALT THEORY, DOI 10.2478/gth-2019-0026 © 2019 (ISSN 2519-5808); Vol. 41, No. 3, 277–292 Original Contributions - Originalbeiträge Ian Verstegen Frondizi and Mandelbaum on the Phenomenology and Ontology of Value … it seems plausible to look for the objectivity of value in the objectivity of organization. Kurt Koffka, “The ontological status of value: A dialogue” (1935). In the past few years, there has been a considerable amount of research taking seriously the work of the school of Brentano and mainstreaming especially Husserl into an “analytic” phenomenologist (Chrudzimski & Huemer, 2004; Huemer, 2005). More specifically, there has been a renaissance of phenomeno- logical work on the thought of Maurice Mandelbaum (Horgan & Timmons, 2005; Kriegel, 2007; Timmons & Horgan, 2010). One might think it a proper time to reunite Mandelbaum’s thought to the phenomenological tradition. As I shall argue, this has already been done in a sense, by recognizing Mandelbaum’s lost mate in Risieri Frondizi. Risieri Frondizi (1910–1983) and Maurice Mandelbaum (1908–1987) had very similar theories of value, yet they never discussed one another. Both drew inspira- tion from the theories of Wolfgang Köhler, but in different ways. Frondizi focused on the ontology of value, calling a value a Gestalt quality. Mandelbaum instead focused on “fittingness,” and the phenomenological sense of obligation uniting an action and a context. I propose to combine the two to form a more rigorous theory, a combined phenomenological and ontological theory. After presenting the outlines of their respective theories, I will show how they fit together well, uniting the two strands of value theory from their common inspiration, Köhler.