Abstract

Husserl’s transcendental philosophy has frequently been disparaged in many of the central philosophical debates of the 20th century. And many of his most virulent critics have been adherents of phenomenological philosophy. Critiques have stressed the bankruptcy of the concept of ultimate foundation in relation to a transcendental subject that is allegedly solipsistic and conditioned by modern prejudices. Two essential insights have led me to reconsider such critical assessments.1 On the one hand, the open-ended and infinite nature of Husserlian intentional analysis seems to indicate what could be characterized as a “withdrawal of ground” or an endless deferral of a self-sufficient, “ultimate foundation” in Descartes’s sense. On the other hand, a close examination of Husserlian concepts such as ‘ground’ and ‘rational knowledge’ reveals that their original Cartesian meaning has undergone semantic changes in Husserlian thought. In the present essay, I aim to lend support to these insights by examining the Fourth and, very briefly, Fifth Cartesian Meditations. The examination comprises four stages. First, it makes a case for focusing on the Cartesian Meditations, where Husserl’s “Cartesian option” seems obvious. Second, it attempts to disclose a differentiated foundational discourse in the Fourth Meditation, one that is dedicated to the difficult and core issue of the “ego’s self-constitution.” Third, it reassesses the foundational discourse of the intersubjective transcendental theory sketched in the "Fifth Meditation," after pointing out some misunderstandings concerning the sense of Husserl’s transcendental “idealism” and “solipsism.” And, finally, it asks whether the notions of ‘ground’ and ‘reason’—whose sense is shown in the foregoing stage to have been transformed—do, in fact, belong to a project that is, as Husserl’s critics claim, no longer feasible. The guiding thesis here is that if these steps are taken and my hypotheses confirmed, then Husserl’s work will still be able to contribute significantly to contemporary debates on the status of scientific discourse and the nature and goals of practical discourse, where both are conceived of as grounded in a radically understood human praxis.