Abstract
This essay discusses Husserl’s brief and Seebohm’s much more extensive comments on the grounding of several disciplines commonly described under the heading of “the humanities” as sciences in his History as a Science and the System of the Sciences. It asks not just what Husserl and Seebohm say about the grounding of these disciplines as empirical sciences, but also whether we can understand what they have to say by applying what they have to say to the actual practice of these disciplines, thereby extending and refining some of the rather general claims they make about the way they should and do proceed as genuine sciences in the sense indicated above. It does not attempt to do this with all of the humanities but with a few paradigmatic examples, all of which, as academic disciplines, typically take texts and the matters these texts are directed to as the objects of their studies. It thereby becomes clear in the summary of Husserl’s and Seebohm’s positions on the grounding of the Geisteswissenschaften (Husserl’s term, not Seebohm’s) why the notion of interpretation is so important, in particular for literary studies and history, but not so much for applied disciplines such as composition studies or foreign language instruction that are part of humanities departments but do not fit the classic model of the Geisteswissenschaften as theoretical, interpretive disciplines.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
I do not know whether Seebohm recognizes that one difference between the physicalist sciences and the life sciences is that the latter are not nearly as intent on avoiding secondary-quality descriptions of the objects of their work as the former tend to be. Most biologists have no problem describing their objects in terms of colors or smells instead of wavelengths or grams of something per square meter when describing larger plants and animals. Of course, at the increasingly dominant genomic level, the descriptions are all in terms of chemistry and thus usually described in physicalist predicates. To the extent that many biologists are increasingly attempting to give genomic accounts of almost everything, this would undermine some of that difference, but that project is still in its infancy.
References
Nenon, Thomas. 2002. Freedom, responsibility, and self-awareness in Husserl. In Neues Jahrbuch für Phänomenologie und phänomenologische Philosophie: 1–21.
———. 2014. Intersubjectivity, interculturality, and realities in Husserl’s research manuscripts on the lifeworld (Hua XXXIX). In The phenomenology of embodied subjectivity, ed. Dermot Moran. New York: Springer.
Seebohm, Thomas M. 2015. History as a science and the system of the sciences: Phenomenological investigations. New York: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nenon, T. (2020). Seebohm and Husserl on the Humanities. In: Nenon, T. (eds) Thomas Seebohm on the Foundations of the Sciences. Contributions to Phenomenology, vol 105. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23661-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23661-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23660-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23661-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)