The Existential Sacrifice of Husserl
“From
the defects of Science...there proceeds there proceeds the
philosophical demand for a presuppostionless beginning for a new life
of knowledge, a truly radical life., the demand for a life
inaugurating a science founded on an absolute justification...But
this absolute radicalism for those who wish to become philosophers in
the most authentic sense of the word implies submitting to a
corresponding decision that will engage their life in an absolute
radical manner, a decision which will make of their life an
absolutely devoted life. This is the decision through which the
subject becomes self determining, and even rigorously so-to the very
depths of their personality.-committed to what best in itself is the
universal realm of intellectual values and are committed, for their
entire life, to the idea of the supreme good..the subject chooses
supreme knowledge as their veritable vocation, for which they decide
and is decided once and for all..”..... Cartesian meditations
Husserl 1935
Husserl
asks us to challenge all the excepted assumptions of empirical
research he gives us a powerful credo of phenomenology. Husserl`s
approach is difficult to obtain or to understand. However we might
think of it like this. He begins with the defects of Science. In his
1935 Prague lecture he uses Planck`s quantum “Indeterminacy” or
Einstein's “relativity” to undermine Newtons classical physics
while still arguing that physics is an exact science. We might even
see echoes here of Jasper's Existential impatience with Science.
It
is not the exactness of exact science that troubles Husserl but the
matter of fact claims of its self belief that it is objective. It is
tempting to see exactness and objectivity as the same thing. Yet to
Husserl it leaves a gap in terms of the subject-object differential..
consider two words in this sentence. 2Things do not exist by virtue
of there explanation” or do they? . What is this EXIST if not an
unaware explanation. Think of this sentence then 2 c I am the
evidence of my own intuition. In
other words the subject is its own object of investigation and the
evidence is , its own state of absolute subjectivity.. Thus we have
a Science of Psychology and a separate science of Phenomenology.
The
recent malaise I heard spoken by many is that science and philosophy
are drifting apart. That is too vague. What does it really mean under
analysis? What drifts apart?. It is already intrinsic to the subject
that splits its existential and theoretical being. Existential means
being my own presence in the world. Theoretical means being the
subject of some other impersonal evidence.. So simply reductionism
would be impossible but for the complexity of mind.
The
world in all its pregiveness is the one in which we too are given
an existential subject. “Here I Am” says it all in transparent
obviousness. “T hats how things are, no question of it" But
this unproblematic natural attitude in the same objective world
shares the same objective world from which a theoretical approach of
science appears. Science doe not question how “things are as they
are” and we regularly switch psychologically from one attitude to
another. We switch convictions from a transparent view of “How
things are” and forget an inference from them that gains its
entire hold on our certitude.
So
it is that science – theoretical certainty- comes entirely to
occupy the field of our natural attitude and is thereby “naturalised”
as the only world view. We thus create a world in which we are both
explained by and are the explainer of laws which govern its
discovery. Thus I simply have forgotten how exactly I am in that
world and not by any religious sense but simply how appearance is
given in that world. .
We
fail to explain consciousness and should ask Heidiger`s question What
is, is? That natural attitude “what is” is taken for granted.
By stressing “what
is”
we awaken our uncertainty of it being a given So I see for once how
the world is already placed for me in it. For Husserl Descartes
“Cogito” is an error and therefore no matter how far scepticism
goes it remains in the natural attitude and the pre-giveness of the
world we are in. This is the paradox we must grasp that science is
only possible on the basis of an existential sacrifice and a
forgetfulness of being. Therefore existentialism is born out of this
crisis of science.
No comments:
Post a Comment