| Summary: | 博士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 哲學研究所 === 83 === There is a controversy in Husserl''s later Philosophy, that is,does his last work "Crisis" contain any change of his
philosophical position? Or put in another way, does he retreat
from transcendental phenomenology in this work? How should
we read "Crisis", not only what he said in this book but also
what he really thougth in his mind. It is a easy thing to see
that in Crisis Husserl no longer propose his phenomenoloyg as a
study of pure consciousness or as a egology, in stead of that,
Husserl give us another idea as to what does phenomenlogy ought
to be, that is, a science of life-world. Was it a real
theoratical change, or just a literal change? That is the
question this thesis want to answer. As a result of careful
study, this thesis maintain that, first, the writing of Crisis
was a reaction of the impact of the philosophical movement of
scientific philosophy, and that is also true to the proper
configuration of phenomenology. Second, what Crisis said, as to
the subjective intention of Husserl himself, did not change the
propsal of a regirous science, and it should back to the
explication of transcental subjectivity. As to this concern, the
concept of life-world is but a media bewteen sciences of natural
attitude and transcendental phenomenology as a foundemental
science, when Husserl guide the readers to get aquaintance of
the way of phenomenoloyg. But in spite of the same intention of
Husserl, there did containd some theoratical changes in the new
introduction way. In this thesis, I give those points mention
above a regirous analysis.
|
|---|
