Not only was Gellius' preface received in the fifteenth century at the end of his work instead of the beginning, but it arrived almost or wholly without the Greek, which had to be patched up by guesswork; between siluarum and quidam early editors read ‘ille κηρον, alius κρας μαλӨεας’, the first two names in the similar passage, Plin. N.H. pr. 24. Salmasius, in the preface to his Plinianae exercitationes, printed a text ‘ex vestigiis antiquae scripturae optimi exemplaris [sc. MS P (...) = Paris, BN lat. 5765] partim etiam coniecturis nostris correctiorem’; following κρας he gave, in the right place but with the wrong accent, ‘alius Κρια’. But when eleven years later he came to annotate Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' γχειρδιον, alerted by Simplicius' statement συνταξεν ρριανς, τ καιριτατα κα ναγκαιτατα ν øιλοσοø κα κινητικτατα τν ψυχν πιλεξμενος κ τν πικττου λγων, he remarked: ‘Quidam et inscripsere libros suos olim τ καρια, quod maxime ad rem quam tractabant pertinentia eo opere persequebantur’, citing Gellius with ‘alius καρια and commenting ‘Ita enim ex veteri codice ibi scribendum est, non ut vulgo editur, κριον [sic]'. Nevertheless, editors preferred his first thoughts to his second; Hertz, in his separate edition of Gellius' preface and in his editio maior , gives three parallels: Plin. N.H. pr. 24, ‘Κηρον inscripsere quod uolebant intellegi fauom’, where the Latin translation guarantees the reading; Clem. Alex. 6.1.2.1 ν μν ον τ λειμνι τ νӨη ποικλως νӨοȗντα κν τ παραδεσ [‘orchard’] τν κροδρων øυτεα ο κατ εδος καστον κεχρισται τν λλογενν , where again the sense requires the honeycomb; Philost. VS 565 πιστολα δ πλεȋσται ρδου κα διαλξει κα øημερδες γχειρδι τε κα καίρια τν ρχααν πολυμӨειαν ν βραχεȋ πηνӨισμνα, where hertz emends καρια to κηρα. (shrink)

Volume V of Analecta Husserliana consists of papers and discussions at the Third International Conference held by the International Husserl and Phenomenological Research Society. Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, who is the President of the Society, has edited the papers and discussions of this volume and has provided a keynote inaugural lecture in which the dominant and unifying themes of the Conference are delineated. The general title, which binds the papers and discussions in the volume into a thematic unity, is "The Crisis (...) of Culture." The sub-title, "Steps to Reopen the Phenomenological Investigation of Man," provides further clarification of the direction of questioning that is illustrated throughout. Both the diagnosis and cure for the crisis of contemporary culture is sought through ruminations on the procedures and goals of phenomenological analysis. Ms. Tymieniecka, however, makes it abundantly clear in her inaugural lecture that if phenomenology is to lead us to a comprehension of the concrete modalities of human life, with their irreducible value predicates, then it will need to proceed along different lines from those laid out by Husserl in his program of transcendental, intentional analysis. What is recommended is a shift of inquiry-standpoint, enabling one to recover the initial spontaneity of concrete, lived-experience. This shift of standpoint enjoins a substitution of creativity for constitution as the guiding thematic, and a move from logos to ethos as the proper dimension in which to search for the dynamics and meaning of human action. Creativity rather than constitution points to the primordial function of consciousness, and the appeal to ethos makes possible the retrieval of lived-experiences that antedate the apriori possibilities of theoretical intentionality. (shrink)

The philosophical press, in the United States as well as abroad, has not given the thought of the Polish philosopher, Roman Ingarden, the recognition that it rightly deserves. It is because of this state of affairs that Volume IV of Analecta Husserliana comes to us as a scholarly contribution in a time of need. The singular merit of this volume is that it not only makes available some noteworthy critical and constructive analyses by Ingarden but also offers a series (...) of systematic studies of various facets of Ingarden’s philosophy by his chief interpreters and critics. The first selection in Volume IV is part of the Oslo Lectures, given by Ingarden in 1967, and here made public for the first time in its original German transcription. In these very important lectures Ingarden distills the results of his many years of critical reflection on the possibilities and limits of Husserl’s program of phenomenological research. The general topic of these lectures is: "The Problem of Husserlian Reduction". However, as the discussion proceeds it is not only problems attendant to the celebrated reduction that come under critical review but indeed the whole gamut of Husserlian motifs from intentionality to inter-subjectivity. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be (...) preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Mead's pragmatic focus on habit as the foundation of meaning is usually viewed in sharp contrast with Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological examination of meaning within experience. This paper attempts to show the way in which the explicit focus of each philosopher's position is latent within that of the other. For Mead and Merleau-Ponty alike, the content of human awareness at all levels is inseparably linked with the structure of human behavior. And, for both, such a structure is permeated throughout by the ``living (...) meaning'' of anticipatory habit or vital intentionality. (shrink)