Abstract

Brand criticizes Husserl’s remarks about motivation by saying that Husserl failed to analyse this phenomenon: "The fundamental nature of this phenomenon is claimed rather than demonstrated and not developed at all." It seems to me that this is the best way to criticize Brand’s own book on the mythological meaning of social processes. The basic character of such meaning is merely claimed rather than demonstrated. This singular lack of critical analysis vitiates whatever positive contributions Gesellschaft und persönliche Geschichte might have made. Brand starts out with a critique of the theoretical attitude and of scientific objectivism and the corresponding objective world against which he poses the personal attitude and the personal-mythological lifeworld. His critique consists mainly in a presentation of some points of Husserl’s analysis and critique of objectivistic science. The correctness of Husserl’s assessment and critique of scientific research is taken for granted. It is presented in annoyingly general and vague terms. Brand gives hardly more than theses and titles. What strikes me most is the absence of attempts to explain, to argue, to demonstrate and to give direct evidence for Husserlian positions. In most cases we are offered mere "Andeutungen" of issues, questions, problems, and promised solutions. The philosophical style of parts one and two would likely appear unbearably dogmatic for British and American readers. Brand simply gives definitions, rather than lead the reader along his path of reasoning. Either you see the truth of a point made or you do not; he hardly attempts to help you to understand. In short, I do not think that parts one and two communicate anything worthwhile. It might still make sense to approach the sciences today the way Husserl did some forty years ago, however, it makes little sense to do it the way Brand does. He often presents for rebuttal positions which have long been overcome in Anglo-Saxon philosophy of science, even in German philosophy of science. This "isolationist" approach will cause readers to put the book aside after the first few pages. Part three is even more dogmatic. Most of the time Brand merely presents, in rather vague terms and generalities, the "results" of the research and analyses of others without even indicating factual evidence or reasonable arguments. His "arguments" usually consist in paraphrases and quotations from others, quotations which give conclusions of investigations, analyses, etc., which, without any indication of their supportive evidence, appear as unwarranted affirmations. Sometimes Brand is even content to give summaries of summaries of books of others. Occasionally Brand admits that all he has given so far is merely an indication or bare outline, and that a thorough analysis will have to provide the required evidence. However, only a chain of unwarranted claims and speculations about generalities follows; for example, Brand introduces a quote from Ricoeur by saying that Ricoeur "indicates" in it such and such, and then, in the next paragraph it turns out that the "thorough analysis" promised on the preceding page consists in nothing but that reference to Ricoeur. Brand’s book is one of those examples of "phenomenology" which discredits the phenomenological movement among serious philosophers and scientists by confusing phenomenology with that type of speculative philosophy against which phenomenology, with its maxim: "To the things themselves!," originally was conceived of as a counter-movement. A cardinal tenant of phenomenology is to avoid description without demonstrating the object. And this is, precisely, what Brand’s book does not avoid. He characterizes the mythological meaning of social processes throughout the book without such demonstration. Consequently, I think that Brand’s book harms rather than helps the phenomenological movement.—H. S.