Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

ANGEL AK I

journal of the theoretical humanities


volume 10 number 1 april 2005

n his famous Gifford Lectures in the winter of


I 1927, which were soon thereafter to become his
book The Nature of the Physical World, the great
astronomer Arthur S. Eddington dealt with the
philosophical outcome of what were then the
recent changes brought to scientific thought in
the wake of relativity theory and quantum
mechanics. He took the risk of a brief introductory
excursus in which he tackled this philosophical
outcome from a rather unusual angle, assuming in
a deliberately false pretense that the scientist,
facing the strangeness of the new conceptions of
the physical world, is compelled to forget all of
his spontaneous philosophy. Eddington began pierre kerszberg
by reminding us that modern physics has taken
away any trace of a mysterious substance attached
to such a simple thing as the table that stands NATURAL SCIENCE AND
before me: its essence is anything but impene-
trable substance. We have learned to see it as an THE EXPERIENCE OF
array of atoms and fields of force, all of which are
scattered in a space which is mostly empty. What, NATURE
then, does it mean to say that it stands ‘‘there’’?
From the scientific perspective, the fact that it is This dramatic conclusion did not come
‘‘there’’ is immaterial, because it could just as well abruptly. It was prepared for by the modern
be situated anywhere: our mathematical concept mathematical physics brought about by Galileo
of space allows for a reversible substitution and Newton. Indeed, a philosopher such as Kant
between ‘‘here’’ and ‘‘there’’ without damage to realized the need for a doctrine of the pure
the being of the table, whatever this being may be. experience of ‘‘thereness’’ which tallies with
As Eddington says: only the scientific table ‘‘is that part of science which, by construction, is
really there – wherever ‘there’ may be.’’1 Since it totally free from ‘‘substance,’’ namely geometry.
can be anywhere, the thereness of the thing cannot According to this doctrine (Transcendental
belong to its thingness. However, how legitimate is Aesthetic), space and time, as pure a priori
this latter claim, since thingness is precisely what forms of sensibility which enable our attunement
the modern scientist claims not to know, on to the material things of the world which are
account of the now redundant mystery tradition- ‘‘there,’’ are indeed also the forms of geometry.
ally associated with substance? In so doing, But with the rise of the theory of relativity things
mathematical physics has simultaneously rejected became even more radical, in the sense that, as the
substance and any possible meaning for the coordinates of space and time lost their direct
‘‘there’’ in ordinary experience. physical significance, geometry began to insinuate

ISSN 0969-725X print/ISSN 1469-2899 online/05/010187^13 ß 2005 Taylor & Francis and the Editors of Angelaki
DOI: 10.1080/09697250500225842

187
natural science

itself in the supposed ‘‘inner being’’ of physical attention to the fact that it is the mode of being of
things themselves. Consequently, Eddington each world which has thereby become enigmatic.
speaks of the external world, represented in The enigma that we have to think through is
contemporary physics, as a world of shadows. double, or else there is no enigma worthy of the
And it is a really strange world indeed, since the trouble, and we could rest satisfied with the
objects which cast the shadows cannot be the emancipation from the immediate life-world
objects of familiar experience: they are none other provided by the sciences. This forces us to raise
than the objects constructed abstractly in our own the possibility, if not the necessity, of an unex-
minds. To be sure, he believes that the great lesson pected union between the two worlds in terms of
of relativity and quantum mechanics is that there one common, grand enigma:
can no longer be a bridge between the world of
familiar experience and the scientific world. And We are posing questions whose clarifying
answers are by no means obvious. The contrast
yet he cannot but ask himself whether ‘‘perhaps,
and the inseparable union (we have been
indeed, reality is a child which cannot survive exploring) draw us into a reflection which
without its nurse illusion.’’ Thus, in spite of entangles us in more and more troublesome
himself, Eddington finds himself caught in the difficulties. The paradoxical interrelationships
inextricable web in which modern science has of the ‘‘objectively true world’’ and the ‘‘life-
managed to entangle itself when he writes that world’’ make enigmatic the manner of being of
nature as revealed by physics has nothing to do both. Thus (the idea of a) true world in any
with the familiar world from which we started in sense, and within it our own being, becomes an
everyday experience, and yet the scientific world enigma in respect to the sense of this being. In
‘‘is, or is intended to be, a wholly external world.’’ our attempts to attain clarity we shall suddenly
become aware, in the face of emerging
Here, Eddington’s phraseology is quite remark-
paradoxes, that all of our philosophizing up
able: despite the validity of the construction of the
to now has been without a ground. How caP Kn
world by means of mathematical symbols, there we now truly become philosophers?3
is still the fact that this world might simply not
be – for, in the final analysis, could it not be the This single enigma, handed over to philosophy
case that the intention that it be such or such turns by the sciences, is encapsulated in the contrast
out to be no more than merely wishful thinking?2 between sense and idea: on the one hand, the
This unclarified connection between ‘‘being’’ definite sense of our own being, and on the other
and ‘‘intention’’ lies at the heart of what is perhaps hand, facing it, the idea of the true world
the entire destiny of modern mathematical according to physics, the sense of which can be
physics. Capturing the meaning of this intention, any sense whatsoever (as long as it corresponds to
and just how and why it is still possibly related to the idea). From this perspective, it is not only the
familiar ‘‘being,’’ despite the ever more symbolic scientist but the philosopher, too, who is bereft of
representation of the world in science, is the all his philosophy.
primary task of philosophy of nature today. The clarification of the sense of being must
Arguably, Husserl was the great philosophical come from some encounter of natural science with
figure of the twentieth century who was bold the ‘‘original’’ experience of nature which we have
enough to propose clarification on the basis of this through the life-world. But what kind of union
one fundamental premise: intention comes first. is this? To begin with, it cannot be thought of
For him, clarity goes hand in hand with radicality. as a free union. It cannot be free, since the new
It is not simply the case that the absence of a theoretical results brought about by science add
bridge between the two worlds (familiar experi- themselves necessarily as validities to the compo-
ence vs. the symbolic shadows) leaves them sition of the life-world; ever since Galileo, the life-
separate, as if the relation of one to the other world has never been free to divorce itself from the
could be left, at most or at best, as ‘‘nurse world of science. But if the union is not free,
illusion.’’ To be sure, the absence of a bridge it cannot be uneven either. The scientist is not a
is enigmatic in itself. However, Husserl draws monstrous creature from outer space, but a human

188
kerszberg

being equipped with a sense of being that belongs whether philosophical reflection, even assuming
to us all, so that the concrete life-world in which we that it does take into account the fundamentally
all live cannot but remain the ‘‘grounding soil’’ of new aspects of nature revealed by science, has
the ‘‘true’’ world according to physics. Because anything to contribute. After all, has not contem-
past philosophy has now become useless for the porary science itself become highly reflective?
clarification of the mode of being of each world, It does proceed in accordance with a prior view,
the philosopher will be the ‘‘true’’ philosopher conceptually organized, of what is and is not
vindicated in phenomenology if he succeeds in question-worthy; it does rest on methods which are
forcing the union against each party’s will. designed to make this questioning actually effec-
However, the forthcoming union that our judge/ tive; and, above all, its statements derive from an
phenomenologist is about to draw up includes a explicit account of the principles according to
formidable saving clause, the famous ‘‘suspension which the appropriate conceptualization ought to
of belief’’ entailed by the phenomenological be worked out. In short: the idea of the ‘‘true
reduction. Perhaps, in the end, the full union world’’ according to physics is grounded in a
will never take place, and the dispute over the carefully articulated ideal of all that is thinkable.4
terms of this clause will go on raging for ever. But Would it not be enough, then, to interrogate
the sheer attempt to force the union will provide science itself, assuming that it has a sufficiently
the highest tools available for reflection on the developed critical conscience of itself? If so, would
ultimate significance of our sense of being in the philosophical discourse not fall short of its tradi-
world of science. tional commitment to a certain radicality in
thinking – that very radicality that has character-
Contemporary physics is the result of a profound ized philosophy ever since its inception?
upheaval that has shaken up the so-called How, then, might we set about retrieving this
‘‘classical’’ basis of the modern vision of nature. radicality? Following Husserl, the question
Undeniably, this disruption brings with it, at the pertaining to the sense of our own being must be
very least, the preliminary sketch of a new mediated by a preliminary account of the sense of
interrogation toward nature. But how is this mathematical ideality as it has been worked out in
interrogation to be carried out? The screen the natural sciences since Galileo. Husserl asserts
between brute nature and us has never been so that this ideality is at one with the technical
thick and impenetrable; instead of developing a manipulation of its formulae. Suffice it to think
discourse about the sense of natural things, the about Hertz, whose overall view of the achieve-
natural sciences have interposed the artificial ments of mathematical physics led him to claim
mediation of ever more sophisticated tools that toward the end of the nineteenth century that the
allow us to manipulate their being virtually at will. principles of natural science are nothing other than
But, after all, the electromagnetic waves passing its own equations. Yet the sense of ideality is not
through our pieces of equipment are anything but thereby exhausted. The formula world is, rather,
artificial; the electrons moving in highly elaborate the theme of physics, its center of interest; but
circuits are just as ‘‘natural’’ as a table or a between this world and its actual referent in
thunderstorm. To be sure, we do not relate to an objective nature, one will always find some
electromagnetic wave in the way we relate to a divergence, however minimal it may be.
table; the mode of presence of natural being is now This divergence justifies two things simulta-
mediated by abstractions; human praxis has neously: first, the weight of tradition in science,
penetrated the natural world in order to extract which is marked by the unavoidable tendency
from it a number of unheard-of potentialities. And to cover up the divergence for the sake of
yet, despite those artifacts, and over and above ‘‘efficiency’’; second, the actual moments of dis-
them, isn’t there some original nature that ruption (usually referred to as ‘‘crises’’), when the
continues to provide a basis, a ground, a shelter? divergence becomes unmanageable, and in which
This ground is, of course, exceedingly disfig- entirely new resources are found for unlocking the
ured. So much so that we may ask ourselves essence of nature. Each great scientific revolution

189
natural science

since the seventeenth century is precisely the hangs over them all, that is, ‘‘in their complete and
consequence of one such moment when the ultimate grounding on the basis of absolute
divergence breaks out. Nevertheless, Husserl insights.’’7 In light of the new historical config-
argues that ‘‘the reflection back upon the actual uration brought about in the twentieth century,
meaning which was to be obtained for nature Husserl undertakes to radicalize the Cartesian
through the technical method stops too soon. It no doubt. Doubt does not bear upon the existing
longer reaches far enough even to lead back to the sciences, since they have already locked them-
position of the idea of mathematizing nature selves up in radical uncertainty concerning their
sketched out in Galileo’s creative meditation.’’5 own accomplishments – as Husserl said, at some
This suggests two important things. First, science point in retrospection (Rückbesinnung), any sense
is reflective, in the sense that it constantly will do if one is to grasp reflectively the idea of a
surmounts its own crises by reflecting back upon true world at the basis of mathematical physics.
the sense of what was implicitly contained in the The existing sciences will therefore be ‘‘neutral-
idea of the world that is constitutive of classical ized,’’ kept at a distance from the center of
physics; Husserl calls this idea the Galilean apodictic certainty that we still want to find after
project. Second, because this sense must be so Descartes, despite the demise of his own under-
rich as to lend itself to multiple and ever taking. Their effect on us – we, living subjects,
renewable interpretations, this ‘‘reflection back’’ who look for truth – is thus inhibited. We are then
(Rückbesinnung) gets aborted too quickly; the left with the merely hypothetical idea that the true
philosopher then relays the scientist when he concept of science – whatever it may be – still
interrogates and reflects upon the first theoretical motivates the accomplishments of our contempor-
gestures that communicate in some way with the ary sciences. Yet a lot can be done with this idea
deeper layers of sense unreachable by scientific pervading all sciences, even though its realization
method. In these deeper layers, sense is not may remain forever out of reach. We possess the
fully constituted yet: they encapsulate the pre- idea, and therefore ‘‘there is nothing to keep us
theoretical basis of the raw experience of nature. from ‘immersing ourselves’ (einzuleben) in the
The scientific interpretation of science’s own scientific striving and doing that pertain to
achievements assumes the life-world to be a mini- them.’’8 Living through the intention (or final
mal stock of raw material thanks to which it gets aim) that pervades and enlivens the sciences is
started, whereas the phenomenological interpreta- possible only if we commit ourselves to a certain
tion sees in it a gigantic, possibly inexhaustible, interpretation of the origin of the sciences:
source yet to be investigated. Our central question namely, that they are anchored in some form of
is then the following: can the phenomenology of pre-scientific life, which perforce is absolute.9
natural science reach so far in this investigation as For only under this condition can we say that
to recover a sense of original ‘‘nature,’’ a sense out both scientific and pre-scientific knowledge are
of which science nurtures itself endlessly? animated by a common intention. As a philoso-
In order to bring this investigation to a pher, I can grasp the intention inherent to the
satisfactory end, the phenomenologist of nature sciences, if and only if, when I live in pre-scientific
is, at first, more interested in the degree of failure life, I also immerse myself in the world from out
in Descartes’s original plan for philosophy and of which the scientific world will grow.
science than in Galileo’s renewed successes. One major difficulty with this method is that
Husserl begins with the observation that the it is based on the presumption of an existing
sciences today are not what they ought to have continuity from pre-scientific life to the world
been if they had followed the reform suggested by of science, but the reverse is not guaranteed.
Descartes: namely, self-sufficient members of the Constructing (or constituting) the objects of
one all-inclusive science, i.e., philosophy.6 The experience by living through the idea of genuine
sciences occupy fragmented domains of nature, science can only be done at the risk of not finding
even though ‘‘scientific genuineness’’ itself should at the end of the process the object as it is actually
consist for each of these domains in a unity that conceived in physics. Indeed: ‘‘The knowledge

190
kerszberg

of the objective-scientific world is ‘grounded’ in The fact is that, even though the gap between
the self-evidence of the life-world. The latter is the world of science and the world of immediate
pregiven to the scientific worker, or the working experience keeps widening, a certain posture
community, as ground; yet, as they build upon with respect to the world in general has been
this, what is built is something new, something adopted, in which the two senses of being-in-
different.’’10 So, if in the final analysis some kind the-world – ours and that of the world itself – are
of union can be maintained between the two once again fused. The rise of modern, and then
worlds, it is important to notice from the outset contemporary, science has not changed anything
that this works in one direction only. with regard to this overwhelming self-evidence.
What is it, then, that is specific to the Galilean This posture is what Husserl famously refers to as
project, which justifies its unlimited success? the natural attitude.12 Whether I am a layperson
Husserl diagnoses the conflation between method or a scientist, I cannot decline this attitude; nor am
and object: the mathematical method of construc- I aware of being committed to it. According to this
tion of the object is assumed to be equivalent to the attitude, natural cognition (natürliche Erkenntnis)
physical thing itself. The method knows of no of the empirical type pertaining to the immediate
limit in its progression, since it ensures the experience of natural facts is absolutely prior to
scientist of catching up ultimately with the full any other kind of cognition; this absolute priority
being-in-itself of its object. Now, science based on qualifies it as an original attitude. But this priority
this project can perhaps lay claim to truth, but this is not to be taken in a temporal sense, as if, being
is not enough. Science does not consist in simply a direct report of whatever is experienced, it
bumping into truths, as it were, since then its contained the seeds of forthcoming theoretical
truths could not be distinguished from other facts; knowledge: the natural attitude is ‘‘original’’
science has to secure a proper understanding of its precisely in the sense that it is present in every
own truths: possible cognition, however theoretical it has
become. Instead of providing a direct report of
Every artificial operation with signs serves in whatever there is, natural cognition in this attitude
a certain way goals of knowledge; but not
is not naive and unreflective, since it interprets
every one leads to knowledge, in the true and
experience as an encounter with the things out
authentic sense of logical insights. Only when
the device is itself a logical one, when we have there. That is why it is just as well to call it the
the logical insight that, as it is and because it is theoretical attitude. What is this interpretation?
so, it must lead to truth, then the result is not It is one according to which one is spontaneously
only a truth de facto, but a knowledge of inclined to equate ‘‘true being’’ with whatever is
truth.11 effectively real, both actual (real) being and being
in the world. Surrounded by things, my daily
Science, in other words, must be able to account concern with them is for the most part practical
for its own method – which is precisely what it and utilitarian. On account of their familiarity,
cannot do as long as the confusion prevails I am at first captured by their massive evidence.
between object and method. Put differently: But how can they be what they are, in their own
because of the use of symbols in its formula- positivity and identity, if my sole access to them is
world, modern physics does not really have a this very familiarity? This is possible only if what
natural object that properly belongs to it. Does they seem to be is also what they are, i.e., they are
that mean that the natural object is to be inasmuch as their pretension to be is automatically
apprehended via some special attitude, quite (‘‘naturally’’) satisfied. In this interpretation, the
alien to science, such that, in the final analysis, apparent proximity of things remains unseen,
pre-scientific knowledge could not be distin- since their being-in-itself is astoundingly close to
guished from non-scientific knowledge, as if me, even though it is so far away from my
Husserl was a nostalgic thinker of some preoccupations, which remain primarily practical
‘‘paradise lost’’? in character.

191
natural science

Science thus has this much in common with the of the life-world.15 If we make the effort to engage
concrete world of life: neither of them has a in it, then, from the new vantage point, being-in-
properly defined object. The object is either an itself appears as one among many other hypotheses
overly remote shadow that pretends to no being occurring in practical life. Hence, the life-world is
at all, or an overly proximate appearance that not at all another name for the natural attitude,
pretends to carry its own being with the help of since it is essentially not an original attitude.
its own forces. The paradox of modern scientific Rather, it defines that which ‘‘is at all times
theories is that, as sciences of nature (material, but consciously pregiven [. . .] as available.’’ The
also psychophysical), they all present themselves apparent, yet unseen, proximity of being gives
as sciences in the natural attitude.13 To be sure, at way to its constant presence, because what is
some point, science will direct its interest toward permanently available is a structure, not a content:
objects that are likely to be unrecognizable in the ‘‘the life-world does have, in all its relative
natural attitude as it existed prior to the rise of features, a general structure [. . .] We can attend
abstractive procedures. But this interest is not yet to it in its generality and, with sufficient care, fix it
a new interpretation. For the constitutive tendency once and for all in a way accessible to all.’’16 For
of science is, in turn, to naturalize them, but still in example, the pre-scientific world is already spatio-
accordance with the prevailing, spontaneous inter- temporal, but ‘‘in regard to this spatiotemporality
pretation of the natural attitude. This is achieved there is no question of ideal mathematical points,
by means of a higher degree of theoretical of ‘pure’ straight lines or planes, no question at all
engagement, thanks to which the unnoticed of mathematically infinitesimal continuity or of
proximity of being-in-itself (in the natural attitude the ‘exactness’ belonging to the sense of the
prior to science) is elevated to the rank of geometrical a priori’’: in short, no pretension,
hypothesis, whereby the pretension of natural however elaborated technically, to the being that
objects to be is made explicit; the shadow-world things seem to have ‘‘in themselves.’’ In scientific
is now given being by means of this operation reasoning, things have lost their ‘‘thickness’’ in
within the natural attitude, but this being remains favor of imponderable figures and numbers, which
entirely subordinated to the validity of the allows one to freely imagine all kinds of empirical
hypothesis. A new attitude with respect to nature situations which do not exist in fact, as if anything
is required, an interrogative attitude, without were possible; by contrast, in the structural
which the object that belongs properly to nature ontology opened up by the domain of the life-
would remain elusive. world, it is not the case that everything is possible
The new interrogation shatters the natural – even for the sake of argument. In science, the
attitude, and therefore frees itself from it, by real is akin to a gift that is dealt with in complete
turning off (Ausschaltung) from the hypothesis of freedom through mathematization and experimen-
being-in-itself. A fundamental question is raised, tation; in phenomenology, the real must be gained
based on the presumption that the natural attitude from the interrogative attitude which leads it back
did not exhaust what is to be considered as the pre- to the point where it could not be but what it is,
scientific life. What then happens to the hypoth- as pregiven. But this pregivenness is not some
esis of being-in-itself for all those ‘‘real’’ things fatality that somehow fell upon us from above, as
that belong to the concrete experience of the if the task of our intellect was to comply with it in
world, when they are seen not from the standpoint the most adequate way possible to us. As Husserl
of the natural attitude (and the objective sciences notes in his investigations concerning the origin
which are built upon it) but as they are in the of geometry, ‘‘every spiritual accomplishment
pre-scientific life, a sphere of being presumed to proceeding from its first project to its execution
be larger than that encompassed by the natural is present for the first time in the self-evidence of
attitude?14 Husserl’s answer goes essentially in actual success’’; the point is that the successful
the direction of this presumption: we were drawn accomplishment presupposes a more primitive
to the hypothesis of being-in-itself as long as we formation of meaning that, by rights, must
did not see the ‘‘complete and full concreteness’’ have preceded the ‘‘first time’’ when the

192
kerszberg

accomplishment came into being. The fact is, our thinking capacities. Second, phenomenologi-
however, that the presupposition in question – the cal reflection has to be carried out beyond this
more primitive formation of meaning – has ‘‘never point, but still within the limits defined by the
been fulfilled.’’17 ontology of the life-world. Hence, phenomeno-
From this perspective, the scientific revolution logical reflection becomes transcendental reflec-
of the seventeenth century can be understood as tion, its object being what Husserl calls ‘‘pure
an attempt to start anew from just such a ‘‘more universal nature.’’20 What is this?
primitive formation of meaning.’’ This was A quick survey of modern physics indicates the
thought to be possible by means of a displacement presence of indecisions with regard to the actual
or transfer from the forms of already accomplished meaning of its fundamental concepts. Whether
(idealized) mathematics to the sphere of the sense- space is absolute or relative, our mechanics of
qualities pertaining to natural objects. Indeed, the the macroscopic world is still Newtonian; whether
fundamental idea at the heart of the scientific the large-scale structure of space-time is finite,
revolution has been described by Husserl as a unbounded, or infinite, our cosmology is the
strangeness (Befremdlichkeit), by which he means standard relativistic cosmology. Numerous exam-
not simply the strangeness of Galileo’s project for ples of this sort could be given. Now, Husserl’s
his contemporaries but more fundamentally the pre-eminent act of self-reflection is the phenom-
idea that the more primitive formation of meaning enological epoché whereby I do not deny the
could now be at one with its successful accom- world, as if I were a sophist; I do not doubt the
plishment through mathematization and experi- existence of the world, as if I were a skeptic.
mentation. The idea is that ‘‘everything which Rather, I no longer permit myself to form any
manifests itself as real through the specific sense- judgment with regard to the being of the world,
qualities must have its mathematical index in so that the question of the world’s existence or
events belonging to the sphere of shapes – which inexistence is left undecided. Thus, indecision
is, of course, already thought of as idealized – and no longer bears upon interpretation of the
that there must arise from this the possibility of world’s fundamental constituents, as in the self-
an indirect mathematization.’’18 Husserl speaks of interpretation of science, but upon the world as
indirect mathematization, because mathematics as totality. Even though it is cut off from the world
spiritual accomplishment is considered by the regarded as absolutely valid, the transcendental
pioneers of modern science as if it had already ego – or ‘‘disinterested spectator’’ (Zuschauer) –
succeeded; that is, the more primitive formation of who performs the epoché still relates to the world,
sense is supposed to be fully mastered. Hence, the but only inasmuch as the world is totality. I am
world as pretension to be is now mirrored in the not completely disinterested in the world; rather,
mind with its pretension to master the world itself. I am the one who, considering the world in its
This extraordinary idea must be scrutinized from totality, refrains from any interest in this or that
the standpoint of the life-world and the radicality particular aspect of the world.
of the phenomenological method. Modern mathematical physics has developed its
‘‘Phenomenology possesses no formed logic own discourse about totality. It runs something
and methodology in advance and can achieve its like this. In the beginnings of algebra, the
method and even the genuine sense of its mathematics of the continuum, analytic geometry,
accomplishments only through ever renewed the new idea that arose was the Galilean mathesis
self-reflections.’’19 We face the need to articulate universalis: ‘‘the idea that the infinite totality
a double reflection. First, we have to follow in a [Allheit] of what is in general is intrinsically a
critical manner the reflection actually accom- rational all-encompassing unity [Alleinheit]
plished by the sciences back to their own condi- that can be mastered, without anything left
tions of possibility; in principle, this can be over, by a corresponding universal science.’’21
followed to the end since this reflection always The mathesis under consideration conflates its
stops too soon, presumably because of the resis- object with its method in the following precise
tance exerted by the phenomena themselves upon sense: ‘‘constructing, systematically and in a sense

193
natural science

in advance, the world, the infinitude of causalities, manner of speaking, les jeux sont faits, because
starting from the meager supply of what can be they ignore that ‘‘even when it is inductive, the
established only relatively in direct experience, inductive anticipation is of a possible experience-
and of compellingly verifying this construction in ability which is ultimately decisive.’’25 But, in
spite of the infinitude [of experience].’’22 The crux modern science, the form of all forms is obviously
of the matter lies in the qualification ‘‘in advance’’: not experienceable. Following Copernicus, the
the construction operates ‘‘in a sense in advance structured cosmos of the ancients displayed in
(Gewissermaßen im voraus).’’ Indeed, modern immediate experience was destroyed; there
science vindicates a higher respect both of, and remained in its stead a formal framework (space
for, empirical evidence, yet at the same time plus time, and later on space-time), first amor-
priority is given to a well-defined Idea of the world. phous and then dynamical, in which the laws of
(For the pioneers of modern science, this nature found the appropriate conditions for their
amounted to the mathematization of Platonic concretization.
ideas.) The point was to discover the whole of The phenomenological critique of the natural
being, not by means of an empirical knowledge sciences finds its justification right at this point:
of totality but thanks to universal laws of nature retrieving a sense of proportion, without claiming,
induced from experimentation. That is why, quite of course, that this proportion has anything to do
paradoxically, the systematic construction from with Aristotelian physics or Ptolemaic cosmology.
the minimum that is given in immediate experi- (As we shall soon see in some detail, let us not be
ence, is made possible by what Husserl calls ‘‘a misled by Husserl’s famous claim that ‘‘the earth
total form encompassing all forms, and this form does not move’’ . . .) The critique begins with this
is idealizable in the way analyzed and can be simple acknowledgment: the all-encompassing
mastered through construction.’’23 Through some form in the Galilean project cannot ‘‘hang over’’
kind of decree, in which our own intellect is all the other forms if it does not include in some
supposed to operate much as God’s intellect did at way the consideration of the being that corre-
the time of creation (Descartes’s benevolent God), sponds to it. In fact, the dynamical cosmic form in
each singular form draws its essence from its relativistic cosmology, which is the latest version
conformity with an all-encompassing form. of the nineteenth-century conception of absolute
Obviously, the three-dimensional, infinite, and space as ether, was one instance of science’s own
homogeneous Euclidean space, which will become response to this need. But again, from the
absolute space in Newton’s physics, is just this phenomenological standpoint, this explicit consid-
form of all forms. On balance, Galileo breaks with eration of the being of the form of all forms
Aristotle inasmuch as the object of Aristotelian provides merely the sketch of a full reflection.
physics was not physis considered as the whole of Likewise, the need arises to boost the minimum
being; but the whole that Galileo finds in return of concrete experience with which we begin.
is no more than a mathematical form. Husserl asserts that all theories in which the
We see here exactly what it means for Galileo’s alleged ‘‘true’’ physical thing turns out to be
genius to be (as Husserl memorably puts it here) at independent from the concrete lived experience
once ‘‘discovering [entdeckender]’’ and ‘‘conceal- are possible only as long as one avoids the serious
ing [verdeckender].’’24 For the disclosure of the examination of what is actually and directly given
new realm of being was paid at the price of an in, or with, the thing (Dinggegebenen).26 As lived
obvious disproportion: one can patiently construct experience, any object (whether real or ideal)
with the minimum borrowed from experience only shows the ability to show itself in person, without
because the need arises to pass over its complexity, false pretence, in its own living corporeity
to anticipate its conformity with the overall plan (Leibhaftigkeit). Inasmuch as the thing so
for the world – the form which hangs over all presented is not regarded as the picture or sign
forms. When the founders of modern science of a thing in itself hidden behind the evidence of
claim obedience to the principle of induction, it is sense, ‘‘the perceived physical thing itself is always
a fake induction that they hold to: for them, in a and necessarily precisely the thing which the

194
kerszberg

physicist explores and scientifically determines as well. In order to force the contrast with ancient
following the method of physics.’’27 To this thing astronomy, it could perhaps be formulated like
which is the same, both in immediate perception this: ‘‘saving the geometry,’’ that is: how can
and in symbolic construction, there must corre- geometry continue to prevail as the sustaining
spond a consciousness capable of apprehending structure of the whole, even though it is deprived
it as self-same. Husserl calls it ‘‘the absolutely of its natural support in visibility?
constituting consciousness of nature.’’ Geometrization now applied to the invisible
power at work in nature, and only incidentally to
In the remainder of this paper, I will deal with the universe as a whole. This fact has been
some of the guiding threads in both parts of the interpreted by historians and philosophers of
phenomenological philosophy of nature: the science as the ‘‘deontologization’’ or ‘‘desubstan-
search for the being of nature which is related to tialization’’ of nature; in the words of Cassirer, for
the form of all forms, and the enlargement of the example, modern science substituted the ideal of a
meager supply provided in direct experience. functional correlation between the basic constitu-
ents of nature for the elusive substance of pre-
modern natural science. But this does not yet
I the cosmological horizon
capture the core of the strangeness involved in
For the Greeks, nature does not mean the same the mathematization of nature. Assuming that the
thing as cosmos. Cosmos is the harmonious whole cosmological motivation does not simply vanish,
of what exists and of what is seen, whereas nature but remains implicitly in the background, the
refers to a mysterious power that governs but does point is to understand the geometrization of nature
not itself appear. One sees the cosmos – in a sense by providing what physics alone could not
it is meant to be seen – because its essential quality provide, but without which physics would be
is connected with vision: order must appear, must incomplete – that is, as far as its sense is
manifest itself majestically, if only because its concerned: namely, the ontological basis for
coming-to-be-seen is majestic. By contrast, nature pure appearances. And this understanding can
hides itself (Heraclitus), it makes itself known be achieved only by maintaining and exploring the
indirectly through its effects or its actions. world horizon constitutive of every possible
The cosmological question is the question of cognition.
the essence of manifestation and coming-to- At the basis of all knowledge, according to
appearance in accordance with a certain order. Husserl, there is a world horizon of experience
The first response to the question was geometrical: which never exceeds sensible experience. Yet the
the spherical shape of the heavenly spheres gives intelligibility of this world horizon is not accessible
the reason for the observed order. ‘‘Saving the from within the natural attitude, since its funda-
appearances’’ became the leitmotif of astronomy mental character is to be always already pregiven
when the sacrosanct equation between geometrical as totality. This horizon he calls ‘‘simple experi-
order and visibility had to be gauged against the ence’’: what Husserl means by this is ‘‘every
observed retrogradations of the planets. experience with the being-sense (Seinsinn) of a
Things changed radically with the Copernican simple substrate [. . .] the existing substrate is a
Revolution, since now the retrogradations became, body, i.e., a body which confirms itself in the
as it were, ‘‘pure appearances.’’ They were no harmony of experience and as such has the validity
longer sustained, i.e., ‘‘saved,’’ by some putative of a body truly existing.’’28 At its most simple
onto-theological structure such as, for example, level, being is natural body. Once belief in its
the one aiming at the Good in Plato’s Timaeus. existing being has been bracketed, the thing in
They were now merely the visible result of the fact perception is usually grasped through a series of
of our own motion, which is not itself directly adumbrations of its visible and not-yet visible
perceptible or visible. How could invisible motion sides; in this process, the sense (Sinn) of the thing
be the cause of visible motion? Consequently, the is gradually constituted, but nothing really ensures
leitmotif of scientific intelligibility had to change the absolute confirmation of the thing. But the

195
natural science

natural body is characterized by a sort of pre- mathematics that undermines it from within.
established harmony of adumbrations, thus a According to the relativistic equations of the
visibility that no other physical body could gravitational field, the distribution of matter and
possibly present, since nothing in the course of energy in the universe indicates the unique way in
experience could conflict with the sense already which the metrical structure can be specified at
acquired. Hence, the original grounding experi- each point. Now, assuming that observations reach
ence, at the basis of all modes of experience, and out to the absolute limits of the universe, and even
as distinguished from anything available in the though the global metric of space-time would thus
natural attitude, is that of nature: ‘‘Universal be specified, the fact is that the topological
sensuous experience, conceived in universal relations of continuity, independent from the
harmony, has a unity of being which is a unity of distribution of matter and energy, could always
a higher order; the being of this universal modify the local metrical relations. This proves
experience is nature in its totality, the universe that the Galilean mathesis, i.e., the form of all
of all bodies.’’ Nature, in the phenomenological forms that regulates all the singular forms, still
sense of pure universal nature, is thus the highest remains a regulative ideal for the physics of space-
point in the encounter of pure form with the being time; it is still not constitutive of the world in the
which corresponds to it. It is both the unity (or sense that it ought to have been, if the Galilean
horizon) of all beings inasmuch as they constitute project had been as successful as it pretends to be.
a world, and the sum total of all beings that make What does the phenomenological philosophy
a universe (uni-versum). This equation between of pure universal nature say about this? Husserl
world and universe is most paradoxical. The sketches out a response to the question of how
cosmological concept of world usually refers to geometry is to be ‘‘saved’’ by connecting space
the task of metaphysics, the totality of being as with the property of motion of natural bodies.
being, and it is distinguished from the physical What is the transition from form (the Earth as
concept of universe regarded as totality of the sphere) to motion (the Earth as moving body
worldly domain of res corporea. Yet the phenom- among other planets)? His conclusion is that,
enological concept of nature requires their identi- however far reference systems may be pushed,
fication. From now on, the question of sense is from the walker on Earth to the passenger in a
primordially a cosmological question in this train, from the bird to the spaceship, the privilege
particular, somewhat unusual form. of the original position of rest on our own Earth
In a celebrated manuscript29 Husserl has tried cannot vanish. Even if I were to experience a
to clarify the new interrogation of nature by flying-machine as a new Earth, I would not have
starting from a special case: the Earth and the two Earths: ‘‘motion would always be relative to
principle of relativity. Indeed, among all the the other body and non-relative to the synthetic
natural bodies that belong to pure universal basis of their being together.’’30 Reference systems
nature, one is privileged: the Earth, which is a could be proliferated without any limit, but
ground both empirical and originary, since as the conclusion is inescapable: as experienced,
natural body it is also the condition for the relativity would be more and more complete,
experience we have of all other bodies. This the principle of relativity (which assumes the
ground is not immediately describable in terms equivalence of rest and motion) would lose,
of Euclidean geometry, since it is well known that proportionately, its absolute validity.
we can discover the spherical shape of the Earth
without leaving it. Moreover, this ground is
perceived as being at rest. If there is one geometry
II the galilean project revisited by
natural science itself
of the Earth as a whole, could there not also be one
geometry for the universe as a whole? But, as of The teleological idea at the basis of the Galilean
now, our current relativistic cosmology has been project has been defined by Husserl as the idea of
unable to ‘‘save geometry’’ in the appropriate way. a world existing in itself, fixed and determined,
Indeed, this theory has to struggle against a coupled with ideal scientific truths which are also

196
kerszberg

valid in themselves. This is the idea of a being-true conditions of a given system; in quantum theory,
completely independent from all that is relative this is not allowed, since the initial conditions are
and subjective in everyday experience. Among the interfering with one another. In particular, the
various theories constructed since Galileo, quan- observation of atomic phenomena leads to an
tum mechanics is certainly the boldest of all, since irreducible interaction with the instruments of
here the reference to a fixed and determined world observation. Given this interference, a quantum
is apparently called into question and challenged postulate has been formulated that states that no
as never before; yet the world does not thereby independent reality (in the ordinary sense given
become essentially relative and subjective. Does it to it by physics) can be assigned, either to the
reject or overcome the Galilean project, as if this phenomena or to the instruments. A system
project had finally given all that it could give? In a formed by an electron and its macroscopic
brief, somewhat puzzling, comment on quantum environment cannot be separated into its compo-
theory,31 Husserl sketched out its philosophical nents; according to Bohr, this is true both for the
impact in the context of the cosmological question practical limits of instruments and pure thinking
which he sees as constitutive of any science. He as well. The system ‘‘electron þ apparatus’’ is
argued that quantum theory is in fact more atomic, in the sense of ‘‘indivisible.’’
modest than classical physics, since it gives One fundamental idea of phenomenology is that
up the complete overcoming of all that is the manner in which objects of a certain kind are
subjective–relative in intuition. Its departure given in immediate apprehension characterizes the
from the life-world is therefore justified, not by a domain of being to which they belong. ‘‘Being’’
leap out of the life-world but by the mere does not mean the same thing in different
‘‘permanence of its being-relative.’’ The question domains. Thus, it is legitimate to ask whether
is how far it can go in doing so. This is not to mean the new definition of ‘‘atom’’ (the indivisible
that quantum theory gets us any closer to system formed by the wavicle and the macroscopic
immediate, sensible intuition. Husserl is quite piece of equipment) means the discovery of a new
clear on the fact that the new physics does not ontological domain. Husserl’s response seems to
really question Galilean metaphysics, for example be negative; in fact, he does not even consider
by granting a theoretical dignity to sensible the relation of the elementary unit of the world to
experience. The dignity of immediate intuition the instrument: he is essentially interested in its
can still only be found in the life-world considered relation to the experience of the world as a whole.
in itself. Rather, the theory begins with idealiza- Husserl begins by reminding us that causality is
tion like classical physics, but inserts in it new constitutive of the a priori idea of nature in the
elements of empirical intuition that were not sense of any mathematical science of nature;
taken into consideration in classical physics. quantum theory does not and cannot change
The peculiarity of quantum theory is that the anything with regard to this idea. His interpreta-
manner according to which quantum objects tion seems to be based on the well-known fact that
manifest themselves to us is part of its own the repetition of experiments finally leads to
formalism. It is impossible to see the details of objective statements concerning statistical distri-
a quantum state, and therefore two otherwise butions. From this viewpoint, causality is not
incompatible properties, wave-like and particle- abandoned; it has simply become approximate
like, are attributed to the electron. This impossi- instead of absolute. Causality is still inherent to
bility is not merely technical, as if some day it nature, but it is now more remote from immediate
could be overcome; rather, it is the precondition observation. In other words, the Galilean project is
for the existence of the so-called ‘‘wavicles.’’ The not abandoned; but its validity is now apparent at
laws of both classical and quantum theory deal the level of ensembles, not singulars such as a
with many possible worlds, yet their actualization particle or a wave. There is nothing in the theory to
in observation is always unique. In classical change the view of nature as ultimate singularities;
physics, the possibles can be ‘‘controlled,’’ as it nothing is changed in the presupposition that
were, by fixing absolutely the initial (boundary) individual being is given in a determinate way.

197
natural science

Thus, nothing is changed in the conception of what it has lost in unity. This is no
originary nature as a system of simple substrates. breaking off in the Galilean
But the mathematization of natural being is no mathesis universalis; but the new
longer directed to these ultimate singular objects. physics brings about a startling
Indeed, the calculability of what occurs in singu- tension within it.
larity now passes over this singularity. All that
concerns the behavior of ultimate singularities is notes
given only in terms of probability. What can be
calculated univocally is the behavior of singu- 1 A.S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World
larities as they belong to groups, in accordance (Cambridge: Cambridge UP,1928) xiv.
with certain types of events. 2 It is interesting to measure the degree of mis-
What does this hiatus between original nature understanding that Eddington’s argument gener-
and mathematization indicate with regard to the ates. Thus, in his Philosophy of Natural Science
phenomenological identity between world and (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966) 78,
universe? Even though Husserl’s remarks on this Hempel writes in protest: ‘‘It is neither the aim
point remain very scarce, he seems to suggest that nor the effect of theoretical explanations to show
quantum mechanics is precisely the theory in that the familiar things and events of our everyday
which the identification between world and experience are not ‘really there’.’’ Thus, as he goes
on to argue, ‘‘atomic theory of matter does not
universe has become more pressing than in any
show that a table is not a substantial, solid, hard
other. In this theory, since mathematization now
object; it takes these things for granted and seeks
applies directly to groups of individuals rather
to show in virtue of what aspects of the underlying
than to individuals per se, there is no reason to microprocesses a table displays those macroscro-
stop at any particular level: thus, for example, the pic characteristics.’’ The point that Eddington is
wavicle could be the first unit in a series of ever trying to make is that the absence of ‘‘thereness’’
more unitary levels. If one thinks of a series of is not a consequence of the scientific method, but
concretions, the level of which is either lower or that it has become its implicit presupposition.
higher than a given level, they must be organized Substantiality may be taken for granted, but only
in accordance with a certain global typicality. This to the extent that it is equated with solidity in the
typicality is the content that provides the world as plain, familiar sense of the term. Whether, in the
a whole with being. As for the world as universum, final analysis, the theory succeeds in explaining
it is not simply a collection of its most elementary some or all of the characteristics of the common
concretions. If this were the case, the world would experience of the hardness of a thing is irrelevant
to the fact that this common experience was,
be one concrete universum among others that
from the outset, burdened with an unclarified pre-
remain possible. Rather, it is a universum with an
supposition concerning its substantiality as a thing.
embedded law of construction, where the law is
built in accordance with the typicality of all 3 E. Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences, trans.
concretions. But of course, once again, this is D. Carr (Evanston: Northwestern UP,1970) ‰ 34 e,
only the regulative ideal of physics. Quantum 131^32.
theory, as Husserl notes emphatically toward the 4 Kant’s sense of ‘‘ideal’’ fits nicely in this context,
end of his text, cannot escape the consequences even though Kant reserved it for metaphysics.
proper to all theoretical situations – namely, the According to Kant, ideals ‘‘supply reason with a
mistaken belief in a mathematical deduction of all standard which is indispensable to it, providing it,
concretions of the concrete world, starting from as they do, with a concept of that which is entirely
original concretions. In this way, the great lesson complete in its kind, and thereby enabling it to
of quantum theory is that, without changing the estimate and to measure the degree and the
Galilean mathesis universalis as such, the balance defects of the incomplete’’ (Critique of Pure Reason,
between totality (Allheit) and all-encompassing trans. N.K. Smith (London: Macmillan, 1929)
A569-70/B597- 8).
unity (Allenheit) has been modified: that is, the
intelligibility of the world has gained in totality 5 Crisis ‰ 9g, 48.

198
kerszberg

6 E. Husserl,Cartesian Meditations, trans. D.Cairns 31 This is a text of June 1936, published as a


(The Hague: Nijhoff,1960) ‰1,1. supplement to ‰12 of the Crisis, not available
in the English translation. See Die Krisis der
7 Ibid. 2.
europa«ischen Wissenschaften und die Transzendentale
8 Ibid. ‰ 4, 9. Pha«nomenologie, ed. W. Biemel (The Hague:
Nijhoff,1962) 527^31.
9 Obviously this interpretation is far from evi-
dent. Other philosophical schools have advocated
a complete separation between pre-scientific life
and the symbolic world of science.
10 Crisis ‰ 34e,130.
11 E. Husserl, ‘‘Zur Logik der Zeichen’’ [1890] in
Philosophie der Arithmetik mit erga«nzenden Texten.
Husserliana XII (The Hague: Nijhoff,1970) 368.
12 E. Husserl, Ideas Pertaining to a Pure
Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy,
Book I, trans. F. Kersten (The Hague: Nijhoff,
1982) ‰1, 5.
13 Ibid. 6.
14 Crisis ‰ 34e,130 ^31.
15 Ibid.131.
16 Ibid. ‰ 36,139.
17 ‘‘The Origin of Geometry,’’ Crisis 356, 366.
18 Ibid. ‰ 9c, 37.
19 Ibid.181.
20 E. Husserl, Experience and Judgment, trans.
J. Churchill and K. Ameriks (Evanston:
Northwestern UP,1973) ‰12, 56.
21 Crisis ‰ 8, 22.
22 Ibid. ‰ 9b, 32.
23 Ibid. ‰ 9c, 35.
24 Ibid. ‰ 9h, 52.
25 Ibid. ‰ 34d,127 n.
26 Ideas I, ‰ 52,118.

27 Ibid.119; original emphasis.


28 Experience and Judgment ‰12, 54.
Pierre Kerszberg
29 E. Husserl, ‘‘Foundational Investigations of Département de Philosophie
the Phenomenological Origin of the Spatiality Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail
of Nature’’ in Husserl: Shorter Works, eds. 5, allées Antonio Machado
P. McCormick and F. Elliston (Notre Dame, F-31058 Toulouse cedex 9
IN: U of Notre Dame P,1981) 222^33.
France
30 Ibid. 227. E-mail: pierre.kerszberg@univ-tlse2.fr

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen