Prof. Roman Ingarden v v Krakow, January 8, 1966
Krakow, Biskupia 14
v Dear Ms. Irena,
v thank you for your last letter and I am glad that my article will be useful for your dictionary. I shall answer all your questions below.
1. The name you are asking about is Johannes Daubert. It is a mythical character in that he never wrote anything (like Rosenblum in Warsaw), but according to statements by Munich folk he was the smartest phenomenologist in Munich. I did not know him personally, I was supposed to meet him through Pfänder in 1934, but as a result of a misunderstanding even the meeting with Pfänder never happened, so in the end I never met the latter in person either. I am sending you Daubert’s life dates separately. Meaning, I attach a list of all original phenomenologists (if you can really count the French, who for the most part have never encountered Husserl in their).
Maybe the list can help you, maybe you can add it to the paper on Husserl. Or do a separate article titled Phenomenologists, but it would be a big job, as you can tell from the list of names alone.
2. Husserl indeed lost his son (Wolfgang Husserl) at Verdun in 1916. The second son, Gerhat Husserl, now a law professor in Freiburg (never reached his father’s status), was wounded three times, his daughter Elisabeth (now the wife of Prof. Rosenberg – formerly Kaiser of Friedrich Museum in Berlin, then professor of art history at Harvard University in Cambrigde, now retired, I believe the current director of the Harvard University Museum) worked as a sister of the Red Cross for four years. Husserl had a hard time reconciling with the baggage of the First World War also for other reasons, he was a German patriot, but he did not agree with German nationalists and the Reich’s aggressive policy, he was hurt by all the German crimes during the First War (Belgium.) It is difficult to write about.
3. The article Idea einer Philosophischen Kultur appeared in Japan in German in Japanisch-deutsche Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Technik Journal in 1923 (I believe I might have said 1924, but 23 is the date which appears in From Research on Modern Philosophy. A full bibliography would of course be very extensive. The titles of the three published bibliographies are provided by Spiegelberger, Phenomenological Movement I. p. 167. There is also a bibliography of more important items (currently probably outdated, as I do not own the second edition of Spiegelberger; I do not know if he added anything, but he certainly added a new preface. From the list he provided I chose the most important things that I shall list here:
Celms, Theodor, Der phaenomenologische Idealismus Edmund Husserl, Riga 1928
v v v v (Critique of H. idealism, I used to have it, but it stayed behind
v v v v in Lviv, so I could not use it later, I cannot remember much,
v v v v but it is a good book, even if superficial.)
Landgrebe Ludwig, Phaenomenologie und Metaphysik, Hamburg, 1949
Oskar Becker, Die Philosophie Edmund Husserls, Kantstudien XXXV,1930
Fink Eugen, Die phaenomenologische Philosophie Edmund Husserls in der
v v v gegenwärtingen Kritik, Kantstudien XXXVIII, 1933. (Husserl wrote
v v v the preface wherein he agreed with Fink’s interpretation)
Farber Marvin, The foundation of Phenomenology Edmund Husserl and the Quest for
v v v a Rigorous Science of Philosophy, Cambrigde 1943
Osbron, Andrew, D. The Philosophy of Edmund Husserl in its Development from his
v v v Mathematical Interest to his First Concepti[on] of Phenomenology in Logical
v v v Investigations, New York, XXX
Lauer Quentin, Phénoménologie de Husserl, Paris, 1955
Merlan Philip, time consciousness un Husserl and Heidegger, PPR.VIII, 1947
Cairus Dorian, The Philosophy of Edmund Husserl, Diss, Harvard, 1933
Spiegelberg, Herbert, The phenomenological Movement, vol. I. 1960 second edition, v 1965
Ingarden Roman, From research on contemporary philosophy,
Paenomenologica: 1. Husserl et la pensée moderne Actes du deuxieme Colloque v v v International de Phénomenologie, Krefeld Den Haag, 1959.
v 2. Edmund Husserl, 1859-1959, Den Haag. 1959
v 3. Aloise Roth, Edmund Husserl etische Untersuchungen, De Haag, v 1960.
v 4. Jan M. Brockmann, Phänomenologie and Egologie, ibid. 1963
v (Kern) 5. Iso Kern, Husserl und Kant. Den Haag,1964
v 6. Robert Sokolowski, The Formation of Husserl’s Concept of v v Constitution, ibid. 1964
v 7. Richard M. Zahner, The problem of embodiment. ibid. 1964.
Husserl, Cahiers de Royamount, (Colloque Intern. 1957) v v Paris,1959
Suzanne Bachelard, La logique de Husserl, Paris, 1957
René Toulemont, L’Essence de la Sociéte selon Husserl, PUF 1962, Paris.
v These would be the most important items I know. What you can use from this list is another matter. No Polish articles come to mind at the moment. What L. Kołakowski wrote recently in the volume on existentialism – probably not good. His article in Arguments was better.
v If you need anything else, please let me know. I will be in Warsaw on January 12, maybe I will stay for 13 and 14. On 1/12 I will be busy, but I might be able to call you. If I get my hands on Vitaral, I will bring it along.
v Thank you for sorting out the issue of my bibliography. I have not received the Studies in Aesthetics yet, and it is not available at the bookstore yet either.
v Cordial greetings and wishes for your good health
v v v v v v v v v v FENOMENOLOGOWIE
v v v v v v v v v v (phenomenologists)
Edmund Husserl, 1859 – 1938
Max Scheler, 1874 – 1928
Aleksander Pfänder, 1870 – 1941
Moritz Geiger, 1880 – 1937
Adolf Reinach, 1883 – 1917
v Wilhelm Schapp, 1884 –
v Heinrich Hofman.
v Hocking W.E.
v Pitkin Walter
v Conrad Theodor Rosenblum
Augustowski Aleksander (1886? – 1959? v v check the dates with Ms. Augustowska, Niepodległości Av. v 145, tel. 441659)
v Conrad-Martius Hedvig (1888 –
v Hering Jean (1890 –
v Koyré Aleksander (1892 – 1963) XXX XXX
v Rickert Heinrich junior, v +1914)
v Mamburger Siegfried, v +1914)
v Frankfurter Fritz, v +1914) Members of the Seminar (Göttingen)
v Clemens Rudolf, v +1914) Gottlieb XXX
v Hildebrand v. Dietrich (1889 – v XXX XXX
v Lipps Hans (1892 – 1941) v XXX Władyław
v Stein Edith (1892 – 1942) v XXX XXX
v Kaufmann Fritz (1891 – 1958) v XXX XXX
v Ingarden Roman (1893 – Helmuth Plessner (1915 XXX)
v Ludvig Landgrebe (1902 – v (Freiburg)
v Walther Gerda (1897 – v Rudolf Meier
v Becker Oskar (1889 – v Otto XXX
v Fink Eugen (1905 –
v Schütz Alfred (1899 – 1959)
v Gurwitsch Aron (1901 –
v Farber Marvin (1901 –
v Potocka Jan (190?
v Pos Hendrik ( )
v Cairns Dorian
v Celms Theodor (
v XXX L. Fr. (1890 –
The Munich Group: (with the exception of those already listed):
Johannes Daubert (1877 – 1947)
v Fischer Aloys (1888 – 1957)
Gallinger August (1871 – 1959)
v Beck Maximilian (1886 – 1950)
v Spiegelberg Herbert (1904 –
v Heller Ernst
v Schwarz Philip
Approached the subject field of phenomenology: Hartmann Nicolai (1882 – 1950)
v v Heidegger Martin (1889 –
v v Stavenhagen Kurt (1885 – 1951)
v v r Asemissen Hermann
v v Satre J. Paul (1905 –
v v Meralu – Ponty (1907 – 1962)
v v Dufrenne Mikel (1900 –
v v Ricoeur Paul (1913 –
v v Thevenaz Pierre (1913 – 1955)
v v de Wallens Alphons (1911 –
v v Minkowski Eugenius (1886 –
v v Neoncelle M. (1905 –