Paul Ricoeur, Husserl: An Analysis of His Phenomenology, trabns by Edward G. Ballard and Lester E. Embree (Evanston: Northwestern University, 2007), xxii + 238 Pps., $????
This set of essays was composed by Paul Ricoeur, and translated into English by two different scholars: Edward G. Ballard, who was a professor of philosophy at Tulane University, and Lester E. Embree, who is the William F. Dietrich Eminent Scholar in Philosophy at Florida Atlantic University. With little in the manner of introductory comments outside of the forward and preface, the first seven essays contained herein are essentially unaltered translations of Ricoeur’s French texts. As a part of the discipline which led to his mastery of phenomenology, Paul Ricoeur paid careful attention to the work of Husserl. In fact, Ricoeur was one of the main reasons that the French were made aware of Husserl’s thoughts regarding phenomenology. Ricoeur is meticulous in his attention to Husserl’s texts, while being critical at points unto Husserl’s insights and methods. Some brief comments shall follow in review of the text as a whole and its individual parts.
The first seven texts in this volume form an important bridge that allows entrance into the thought of the founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, whereas the latter two essays contained herein transition to Ricoeur’s own original philosophy, heavily influenced by his interaction with Husserl’s texts. In the first essay, Ricoeur attempts to place Husserlian phenomenology within its historical setting and then to display its development. This first chapter functions as an introduction to all of the material that follows. Within this introduction, Ricoeur notes that all phenomenology is not Husserl, ‘but he is at the center of it’, which serves to highlight the import of this figure for the development of the phenomenological enterprise (3). Chapters two and three, respectively, introduce the reader to Husserl’s Ideas I, one of a planned three part collection regarding the budding philosophy of phenomenology. The fourth essay, an examination of Husserl’s Cartesian Meditations I-IV, notes that the initial aim of these meditations was to locate the transcendental motif of phenomenology within the history of philosophy (82).
Husserl’s Fifth Meditation is the subject matter of chapter five, where Ricoeur notes that this meditation highlights the significance of the Other in Husserl’s philosophy (115). Husserl’s apparent interest in history is covered in chapter six, wherein it is noted that in view of history, the objectivism of mathematical rationalism and sensuous empiricism are shaken at their foundation (166). Ricoeur attempts to locate the differences between Husserlian phenomenology and Kantian criticism in chapter seven, which is probably one of the more important chapters within the title. Ricoeur contends here that the difference should be located on the level where Kant determines the ontological status of the phenomena themselves, and not on the level of an exploration of these phenomena (175).
In the eighth essay of the volume, the first of Ricoeur’s own work, Ricoeur recognizes that the theme of the owned and lived body as one of chief characteristics of existentialism. He notes that this theme places a limit upon Husserl’s tendency toward the reduction of phenomenology to perception (204). Moreover, Ricoeur contends that neither the body, through which we are inserted into the world, nor its involuntary behavior will allow our suspension of their existence. The final essay explores the methods and tasks of a phenomenology of the will. In sum, one might say, the movement from Husserl to Ricoeur is one toward a critical awareness of the finality of the scientific ideal. Concerning this particular text, aside from what the titles of each essay directly connote, important themes throughout the volume include Husserl’s views on the body, the self, intersubjectivity, objectivity, and the tension between idealism and realism. Although generally laudable, this book is a difficult read, and could benefit from introductory material to each chapter so as to establish context. As such, I would recommend this title only to those who are thoroughly fluent in the philosophies of Husserl and Ricoeur, and would state that the general reader should approach it with caution.
Bradford McCall
Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA