What do you think?
Rate this book
Phenomenology and Existentialism
A reprint of the popular 1972 Harper and Row collection of essays in phenomenology and existential phenomenology. Contributions from a wide range of scholars are included, among them Husserl, Frege, Chisholm, Merleau-Ponty, Schmitt, Tillman, Gendlin, Sellers, Linsky, Dreyfus, Ryle, Solomon, Schlick, Ricoeur, Marcel, Heidegger, Sartre, Brentano, Olafson, Camus, and de Beauvoir.
- GenresPhilosophy
546 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1972
About the author
Robert C. Solomon
124 books179 followersRobert C. Solomon (September 14, 1942 – January 2, 2007) was a professor of continental philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin.
Early life
Solomon was born in Detroit, Michigan. His father was a lawyer, and his mother an artist. After earning a B.A. (1963) at the University of Pennsylvania, he moved to the University of Michigan to study medicine, switching to philosophy for an M.A. (1965) and Ph.D. (1967).
He held several teaching positions at such schools as Princeton University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Pittsburgh. From 1972 until his death, except for two years at the University of California at Riverside in the mid-1980s, he taught at University of Texas at Austin, serving as Quincy Lee Centennial Professor of Philosophy and Business. He was a member of the University of Texas Academy of Distinguished Teachers. Solomon was also a member of the inaugural class of Academic Advisors at the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics.
His interests were in 19th-century German philosophy--especially Hegel and Nietzsche--and 20th-century Continental philosophy--especially Sartre and phenomenology, as well as ethics and the philosophy of emotions. Solomon published more than 40 books on philosophy, and was also a published songwriter. He made a cameo appearance in Richard Linklater's film Waking Life (2001), where he discussed the continuing relevance of existentialism in a postmodern world. He developed a cognitivist theory of the emotions, according to which emotions, like beliefs, were susceptible to rational appraisal and revision. Solomon was particularly interested in the idea of "love," arguing against the notion that romantic love is an inherent state of being, and maintaining, instead, that it is instead a construct of Western culture, popularized and propagated in such a way that it has achieved the status of a universal in the eyes of many. Love for Solomon is not a universal, static quality, but an emotion, subject to the same vicissitudes as other emotions like anger or sadness.
Solomon received numerous teaching awards at the University of Texas at Austin, and was a frequent lecturer in the highly regarded Plan II Honors Program. Solomon was known for his lectures on Nietzsche and other Existentialist philosophers. Solomon described in one lecture a very personal experience he had while a medical student at the University of Michigan. He recounted how he stumbled as if by chance into a crowded lecture hall. He was rather unhappy in his medical studies at the time, and was perhaps seeking something different that day. He got precisely that. The professor, Frithjof Bergmann, was lecturing that day on something that Solomon had not yet been acquainted with. The professor spoke of how Nietzsche's idea asks the fundamental question: "If given the opportunity to live your life over and over again ad infinitum, forced to go through all of the pain and the grief of existence, would you be overcome with despair? Or would you fall to your knees in gratitude?"
Solomon died on January 2, 2007 at Zurich airport. His wife, philosopher Kathleen Higgins, with whom he co-authored several of his books, is Professor of Philosophy at University of Texas at Austin.
Early life
Solomon was born in Detroit, Michigan. His father was a lawyer, and his mother an artist. After earning a B.A. (1963) at the University of Pennsylvania, he moved to the University of Michigan to study medicine, switching to philosophy for an M.A. (1965) and Ph.D. (1967).
He held several teaching positions at such schools as Princeton University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Pittsburgh. From 1972 until his death, except for two years at the University of California at Riverside in the mid-1980s, he taught at University of Texas at Austin, serving as Quincy Lee Centennial Professor of Philosophy and Business. He was a member of the University of Texas Academy of Distinguished Teachers. Solomon was also a member of the inaugural class of Academic Advisors at the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics.
His interests were in 19th-century German philosophy--especially Hegel and Nietzsche--and 20th-century Continental philosophy--especially Sartre and phenomenology, as well as ethics and the philosophy of emotions. Solomon published more than 40 books on philosophy, and was also a published songwriter. He made a cameo appearance in Richard Linklater's film Waking Life (2001), where he discussed the continuing relevance of existentialism in a postmodern world. He developed a cognitivist theory of the emotions, according to which emotions, like beliefs, were susceptible to rational appraisal and revision. Solomon was particularly interested in the idea of "love," arguing against the notion that romantic love is an inherent state of being, and maintaining, instead, that it is instead a construct of Western culture, popularized and propagated in such a way that it has achieved the status of a universal in the eyes of many. Love for Solomon is not a universal, static quality, but an emotion, subject to the same vicissitudes as other emotions like anger or sadness.
Solomon received numerous teaching awards at the University of Texas at Austin, and was a frequent lecturer in the highly regarded Plan II Honors Program. Solomon was known for his lectures on Nietzsche and other Existentialist philosophers. Solomon described in one lecture a very personal experience he had while a medical student at the University of Michigan. He recounted how he stumbled as if by chance into a crowded lecture hall. He was rather unhappy in his medical studies at the time, and was perhaps seeking something different that day. He got precisely that. The professor, Frithjof Bergmann, was lecturing that day on something that Solomon had not yet been acquainted with. The professor spoke of how Nietzsche's idea asks the fundamental question: "If given the opportunity to live your life over and over again ad infinitum, forced to go through all of the pain and the grief of existence, would you be overcome with despair? Or would you fall to your knees in gratitude?"
Solomon died on January 2, 2007 at Zurich airport. His wife, philosopher Kathleen Higgins, with whom he co-authored several of his books, is Professor of Philosophy at University of Texas at Austin.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 5, 2019
180415: this is phenomenology for analytic philosophers. this is a historical document, from 1972, this edition 1980, and according to GR the 115th phenomenology text I have read. this would not have been the best first text, as it reminds me primarily of why I was not attracted to philosophy in the 80s- 90s at university- which was here mostly teaching anglo-american analytic philosophy... and in fact why it was phenomenology that eventually caught, sustained, my interest, as someone who reads, not studies philosophy in the past ten years. does anyone enter such interest by reading analytic, i do not know- i can read some essays, particularly if they are about phenomenology, but not entire books... whereas for example at the moment Deleuze fascinates...
this is a collection of essays, mainly from when existentialism and phenomenology could be popularly misunderstood as the same thing, and it is helpful in separating them, so kind of interesting in my own reflection, as I started with sartre's being and nothingness, thus from the existentialist end, though most of my readings would become merleau-ponty. who is strongly influenced by both husserl and Heidegger. this collection of essays is edited by Robert Solomon, who wrote the survey text I first read, but in the interests of the explicating phenomenology must include several excerpts from husserl and this man, as mentioned before, as many commentators have noted, is not a fluid writer- though if you want to understand much better I suggest natanson's work...
and this reflects the general theme of my review of this work. this is phenomenology and the existentialism for the analytic mind, this has a few critical essays- where the argument seems to go, 'well I do not understand it, so it is nonsense' or of the phenomenological reduction,'I cannot do it, so it must be confused'... but then, maybe I just do not understand the perspective from which these authors approach, any difficulty with the reductions, phenomenological or eidetic, so must admit my mind works differently, my pleasure of philosophy experienced differently, and the few excerpts offered here read previously and in context, kind of made sense... do not want to insist my interest in love of wisdom is that of natives of Borges's tlon, uqbar, orbis, tertius- where philosophy is dedicated not to truth but to beautiful metaphysical poetry- I do much prefer virtually any continental work to any analytic philosophy. so this is when I aver that I do not like to 'do' philosophy, not of that style, but like to 'read' philosophy, at least of this style, and maybe this is only relative to these traditions of modern 'western' kinds of philosophy, maybe this is, like Deleuze, or is it Nietzsche, that I do not think 'dialectic' or 'analysis' are the most exciting ways to deal with wisdom...
and then there is existentialism, there is bringing thought of being down from metaphysical heights of 'judgement', of 'purity', of 'science'- as mentioned from 'how the world is' to 'how to be human', this is rendered clearly in this text, this makes me remember that for me it all started with Sartre, and how I wanted to make that bridge between ways of thought to ways of Being, how Heidegger became a big deal, how I found Merleau-Ponty offering something like this before his early death- how I can now trace the historical progression of continental thought from Descartes, Kant, Hegel, through Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, de Beauvoir, to Deleuze and by him to Bergson... all, all, all an evolution of love of wisdom that deeply engages me, that inspires my own thinking, that gives me an intellectual pleasure not far removed from aesthetic pleasure of any great work of fiction...
so I give this a three, I have read most of the selections before, I can maybe sympathize on the basis of selections here, that husserl is opaque and difficult- but do not think the entire 'style' of phenomenology is mistaken, but then I am not big on typical logical tools designed to find only the errors, confusion, opacity or contradictions, rather than clarifying, offering understandability and insights, in this style of thought, of which I have read in many more interesting collections or books on these philosophers. I like to believe I am not stupid or easily misled. I am pleased to learn something from everything I read, it is interesting to read this other perspective, it is interesting to see plausible arguments of the move from phenomenology to existentialism, this move that seems embedded, essential, from husserl and his conception of the 'lifeworld', so not a radical rejection thus more an evolution, but as mentioned this is a historical document, so this offers little idea where is today 43 years later, the conversation, the arguments, of either or any style of thought, phenomenology or existentialism, continental or analytic...
this is a collection of essays, mainly from when existentialism and phenomenology could be popularly misunderstood as the same thing, and it is helpful in separating them, so kind of interesting in my own reflection, as I started with sartre's being and nothingness, thus from the existentialist end, though most of my readings would become merleau-ponty. who is strongly influenced by both husserl and Heidegger. this collection of essays is edited by Robert Solomon, who wrote the survey text I first read, but in the interests of the explicating phenomenology must include several excerpts from husserl and this man, as mentioned before, as many commentators have noted, is not a fluid writer- though if you want to understand much better I suggest natanson's work...
and this reflects the general theme of my review of this work. this is phenomenology and the existentialism for the analytic mind, this has a few critical essays- where the argument seems to go, 'well I do not understand it, so it is nonsense' or of the phenomenological reduction,'I cannot do it, so it must be confused'... but then, maybe I just do not understand the perspective from which these authors approach, any difficulty with the reductions, phenomenological or eidetic, so must admit my mind works differently, my pleasure of philosophy experienced differently, and the few excerpts offered here read previously and in context, kind of made sense... do not want to insist my interest in love of wisdom is that of natives of Borges's tlon, uqbar, orbis, tertius- where philosophy is dedicated not to truth but to beautiful metaphysical poetry- I do much prefer virtually any continental work to any analytic philosophy. so this is when I aver that I do not like to 'do' philosophy, not of that style, but like to 'read' philosophy, at least of this style, and maybe this is only relative to these traditions of modern 'western' kinds of philosophy, maybe this is, like Deleuze, or is it Nietzsche, that I do not think 'dialectic' or 'analysis' are the most exciting ways to deal with wisdom...
and then there is existentialism, there is bringing thought of being down from metaphysical heights of 'judgement', of 'purity', of 'science'- as mentioned from 'how the world is' to 'how to be human', this is rendered clearly in this text, this makes me remember that for me it all started with Sartre, and how I wanted to make that bridge between ways of thought to ways of Being, how Heidegger became a big deal, how I found Merleau-Ponty offering something like this before his early death- how I can now trace the historical progression of continental thought from Descartes, Kant, Hegel, through Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, de Beauvoir, to Deleuze and by him to Bergson... all, all, all an evolution of love of wisdom that deeply engages me, that inspires my own thinking, that gives me an intellectual pleasure not far removed from aesthetic pleasure of any great work of fiction...
so I give this a three, I have read most of the selections before, I can maybe sympathize on the basis of selections here, that husserl is opaque and difficult- but do not think the entire 'style' of phenomenology is mistaken, but then I am not big on typical logical tools designed to find only the errors, confusion, opacity or contradictions, rather than clarifying, offering understandability and insights, in this style of thought, of which I have read in many more interesting collections or books on these philosophers. I like to believe I am not stupid or easily misled. I am pleased to learn something from everything I read, it is interesting to read this other perspective, it is interesting to see plausible arguments of the move from phenomenology to existentialism, this move that seems embedded, essential, from husserl and his conception of the 'lifeworld', so not a radical rejection thus more an evolution, but as mentioned this is a historical document, so this offers little idea where is today 43 years later, the conversation, the arguments, of either or any style of thought, phenomenology or existentialism, continental or analytic...
Read
August 24, 2009I've been trying to track down some Husserl, but I was having trouble finding Logical Investigations for under $200. This contains a lot of Husserl's essays from throughout the development of his thought. It then promises to show how Heidegger, Merleu-Ponty and Sartre took phenomenology. The first few chapters (The Paris Lectures and various selections from Logical Investigations) have already given me more insight into Husserl's thought than anything else I've read.
3/20
I've finished just finished the section of this book on the Phenomenological Reduction. It is only after having read through the final essay in the chapter that I finally feel like I really have a grasp of what Phenomenology refers to. The text by Husserl in this section excitedly describes a transcendental ego, as something that is uncovered by his method. It is this ego that pertains to the objects of phenomenological objects (things in-themselves). Husserl goes on to use these concepts in his criticism of psychologism (a school of thought that asserts that what are objective truths are grounded in psychological laws).
I failed to really grasp his position, and his refutation of psycholgoism didn't particularly interest me. Yet, the final essay in the chapter points to the muddled nature of the "transcendental ego" and the author explains that what Husserl is trying to point to isn't really an ego at all, but rather just a specific perspective. It's a perspective (a way of looking at a situation, or a way of describing a situation)leads to us describing the formal rules that govern intentional acts. This, instead of describing the content of those acts.
3/20
I've finished just finished the section of this book on the Phenomenological Reduction. It is only after having read through the final essay in the chapter that I finally feel like I really have a grasp of what Phenomenology refers to. The text by Husserl in this section excitedly describes a transcendental ego, as something that is uncovered by his method. It is this ego that pertains to the objects of phenomenological objects (things in-themselves). Husserl goes on to use these concepts in his criticism of psychologism (a school of thought that asserts that what are objective truths are grounded in psychological laws).
I failed to really grasp his position, and his refutation of psycholgoism didn't particularly interest me. Yet, the final essay in the chapter points to the muddled nature of the "transcendental ego" and the author explains that what Husserl is trying to point to isn't really an ego at all, but rather just a specific perspective. It's a perspective (a way of looking at a situation, or a way of describing a situation)leads to us describing the formal rules that govern intentional acts. This, instead of describing the content of those acts.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews