Exegesis of "The Vienna Lecture"

           Edmund Husserl, in “The Vienna Lecture,” analyzes the difference between objectivity and subjectivity in the pursuit for knowledge. He hopes to reach those who are consumed by the task of defining a falsely objective reality, and pleads for them to reevaluate the real underlying subjectivity of their fields. Husserl is concerned with the historical path away from the spirit, ego, or self, and towards less important knowledge of the external physical world, one that people mistake to be an objective world. He claims that it is only through transcendental phenomenology that one can achieve a truly enlightened perspective of existence.
            Husserl first establishes the premise regarding philosophy’s nature as being a path to the infinite. The ideal achievements of philosophy, or that which should be sought by the philosopher, are not universal truths but are instead a path to the infinite regress of perceived truths. Husserl states, “There is the constant threat of succumbing to one-sidedness and to premature satisfaction, which take their revenge in subsequent contradictions.” This is what happens when an idea is not thoroughly fleshed out for its possible flaws, or when the initial attractiveness of an idea prevents the philosopher from adequately transcending from the initial idea to deeper concepts. The ideal philosopher must not be bogged down by the initial attractiveness of possible objective truths, but must instead seek to falsify or find doubt in the potential truths as a means of attaining a more enlightened and truly relative form of knowledge.
            The first step that a philosopher takes in his work is establishing the idea itself, the idea being a proposal based on our tools of cognition that offers a plausible explanation of something we do not know. Husserl mentions that, at first, the philosopher approaches contemplation from a one-sided and narrow minded perception. This narrow path will undoubtedly lead to seemingly wondrous ideas, but is only a partial philosophical examination and one that needs further analysis. This is explained when Husserl states, “If inadequacy announces itself through obscurities and contradictions, this motivates the beginning of a universal reflection.” This comes from his claim that no idea is wholly true or isolated from the infinite perspectives of the universe. It is essential that the philosopher address the potential fallacies of the idea in question, in an attempt at achieving what Husserl refers to as “constant reflexivity.” The constant reflexivity would then put the philosopher back on the path towards infinite and absolute knowing, or universal reflection. This path to infinite knowing is the path to realization, and realization is that which philosophy should strive to achieve.
            Husserl then contemplates the beginning of philosophy, and the perspective that the world is initially seen from, by the earliest of thinkers. At first, we are observers, simply taking in the sensual perceptions around us as we separate the physical world from ourselves, and then seek out knowledge about the nature of that physical world. The physical world at first seems objective, since we are so able to immerse ourselves within the community and within the importance of our practical lives. We are merely the observers, but we tend to forget this and take our own perceptions to be universal and objective. “The historical course of development…” as Husserl states, leads to a point in time where “…[the] first and great step of discovery is taken, namely, the overcoming of the finitude of nature already conceived as an objective in-itself, a finitude in spite of its open endlessness.” This is the transcendence from perceiving the world as finite and objective to the understanding of the “infinite ideals and infinite tasks” that make up a subjective universe.
            Expanding on this claim of subjectivity, Husserl then fleshes out the world view of the objectivist. He claims that an objective claim is an obvious one, and because of its blatant obviousness, it is also one-sided and naïve.  It is obvious because it is direct, based on observations and direct perceptions of the world around us. We see the physical world, and we feel the spiritual world, and we then proceed to evaluate the ideas of both and make causal inferences between them, inferences that we may not be wholly justified in making. Husserl concludes this paragraph by saying that the assumption that the spiritual being exists in the same space and time within nature as the physical being is the absurdity that fuels wrongful claims of objectivity.
            The power of objectivity is fueled by the power of mathematics, in that math seems to bring further order and objectivity to concepts that are not at first deemed so. The mathematician or scientist forgets that it is he doing the calculations and deductions, and thus mistakes the determinateness of mathematical probabilities and precisions to be universally objective.
This assumption, that the rationality of the individual is the unabridged and whole rationality of the universe, is what allows for seemingly objective conclusions about the spirit and the physical world to be made. By forgetting himself, the subject of the rationality, the scientist ignores the subjectivity of the rationale itself, and also the subjectivity of all subsequent claims made based on this initial relative rationale. After all, we cannot come to objective conclusions based on subjective premises. The subjectivity of the initial premises permeates itself throughout the entire argument so that any claims made can never truly transform to an objective state, even though we make think they do.
            Psychologists are amongst the worst offenders of this objective absurdity, in that they are attempting to explain the subjective soul via objective means. Scientists at least establish subjective claims and assumptions, that of which they claim to be objective, as a foundation for which to find further falsely objective truths. Scientists can ignore the subjectivity of rationality for the sake of establishing a thorough branch of knowledge that is based on their one particular rationale. The psychologist cannot do so, as the reality they are trying to study is already the subjective self, not the idea of an objective reality that the self is immersed within.  The goal of the scientist is accomplished, as they can learn extensively within the particular branch of rationale as long as he does not consider the potential subjectivity of the entire tree, starting at the roots. However, the goal of the psychologist is never truly accomplished, for they are not trying to extend knowledge from the roots of a subjective assumption, but instead trying to objectify and universalize the very subjective assumption itself, that being the identity of the soul. Beautifully, Husserl states the following, “But it is not a true psychology, any more than statistics about morals, with their no less valuable knowledge, constitute a moral science.” This analogy greatly clarifies the absurdity of trying to come to objective truths about a subjective field.
            The feigned objectivity of the sciences allows for humanity to learn a lot about the physical world around us, but we do not learn anything about our true spiritual selves. Husserl claims “Only when the spirit returns from its naïve external orientation to itself, and remains with itself and purely with itself, can it be sufficient unto itself.” This can be achieved through transcendental phenomenology, or the acceptance that the self is merely a spectator, and only one observer of a subjective reality. Husserl concludes his essay with a plea for transcendental phenomenology, claiming that Europe’s naturalism will be its demise unless a reform occurs. It is pertinent that we do not fear the idea of an infinite task, Husserl pleads, for it is the only true path to actual enlightenment. We must avoid the delusions of the physical world, and return to our spirit, where the most important and universal knowledge lies.

Introduction

In order to understand the relationship between destruction and progression, we must first analyze the mind's method of interpreting the sensations and experiences that are the most powerful. Normally, the mind analyzes and interprets events around us using our senses and our past experiences. For instance, if we see a picture moving in a frame, we can either interpret this as reality via our sensual perception, or we can use our prior knowledge to call this moving picture a television. Knowledge builds through this relationship, but so do emotions, wisdom, and strength. The word sublime, I will define as any experience that is exceptionally stronger than any past experiences. By "exceptionally stronger," I am referring to the emotional reaction to sublime actions. Merely learning does not qualify as sublime, since the strength of the acquisition of knowledge may often be mundane and unemotional, but learning through a sublime action evokes a strong emotional response to what is being learned. The majority of sublime responses come through emotional actions, like tragedy or aesthetic beauty. I refer to the experience as "learning" because as we experience something sublime, our minds are being force fed new and very strong ideas, or experiences, that expand our perception of the world.

One scenario that would evoke a sublime response is from witnesses of a great tragedy, like the bombing of the world trade centers. The emotions that are felt when watching such horrors are sublime because we know of similar tragedies happening, but the actual sensual perception of such an action is much stronger than just the knowledge of the event. The mind's ability to take in such a horrific event, and get over the event, leads to a stronger, more experienced self. The mind not only becomes more emotionally numbed to such tragedies, but also intellectually interprets the entire process as a whole as a means of growing. Although sublime does not necessarily refer to tragedy, understanding the sublime reaction is important because it is the start of the mind's path from destruction to progression.

When we experience loss, anger, confrontation, or any strong negative emotion, we are naturally inclined to the avoidance of similar responses. The mind does not like feeling afraid, insulted, or angry so we naturally avoid any action that poses a risk of these. If we are lucky however, the mind can take another step after merely attempting to avoid tragedy, and instead grow past the initial emotional wound or experience, just as a callus forms over worn skin. As we experience more and more tragedy's, arguments, insults, and pain, our brain's emotional callus grows and results in a stronger individual. Although this new individual may not be happy at first, they must remember that tragedy and pain are natural to life itself. We do have to kill other living things just to survive after all. The fearful avoidance of any situation is an adherence to the claim, "ignorance is bliss." Fear only keeps us from experiencing what inevitably occurs naturally and outside of our sensual perception, so we might as well use the existence of tragedy as a tool for our growth. Experiencing tragedies allows us to expand our knowledge of the world, improve our maturity as an individual, and strengthen our resolve when we are faced with similar tragic situations.

With this all being said, I must digress and urge the reader to take such a claim with a grain of salt. There is a crucial difference between fearlessness and stupidity that must be underlined. I think that living without fear is the key to living a beautifully fulfilled life. Living a beautifully fulfilled life however, involves actually living long enough to achieve such a status. Embarking on ruthless and careless adventures in an attempt to experience life is not encouraged as it will too often result in the loss of life. A crucial balance must be met in order to adequately grow through tragedy. Arguments, affronts, claims, beliefs, open-mindedness, and courage in the face of tragedy are all ways of becoming open to the many experiences life has to offer. I will conclude with a quote that too many people devalue, that being Friedrich Nietzsche's claim, "What does not kill me, makes me stronger."