The article addresses the negative judgements on natural sciences, however persistent and frequent they may be, found scattered in the philosophical texts of the two founding fathers of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. It first presents these harsh views and then, by assuming the phenomenological method, advocated by both philosophers, endeavours to suspend these judgements in favour of a phenomenologically more adequate description of the scientific comportment, trying to do justice to its non-philosophical excellence. The basic claim of the treatise is that Husserl's and Heidegger's criticisms should only be understood in the defensive sense of procuring a firm and safe ground for theoretical comportment, bios theoretikos. Such an approach, however, begs for a phenomenological description of the intrinsic excellence of science, which might be phenomenologically most accurately understood as most rigorous practical comportment, as bios praktikos.
This contribution starts from Max Scheler's claim that modern philosophy holds two differing views on feelings. The first view, which Scheler attributes to René Descartes, presents them in their intentional role but rejects their independence; the other view, which Scheler attributes to Immanuel Kant, holds that they cannot be reduced to the rational part of the soul and thus affirms their independence, but deprives them of all cognitive powers. After considering both views, I discuss the views of Franz Brentano and Edmund Husserl. Husserl takes an ambivalent approach to attunement, which opens the possibility of understanding Martin Heidegger's thought of fundamental attunement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.