ALTHOUGH THERE is no direct dependence of Bernard Lonergan upon Edmund HusserI in the manner, say, of Husserl himself upon Franz Brentano, there are nonetheless points of similarity and contrast between them. It would be possible to list these matching points singly on their own, such as Epoche and self-appropriation, Erlebnis and consciousness, monad and subject, Anschauung and affirmation. However, besides and beneath these individual points of similarity and contrast, lying as their basis, there is similarity and contrast at the (...) level of the fundamental conceptions of the two philosophers. Husserl and Lonergan share a common problematic: the structure of intentionality. If intentionality is the common problematic where Husserl and Lonergan meet, one might ask if and how various notions of theirs viewed in relation to intentionality are common or divergent. For the sake of comparison-confrontation, one might take the two central notions, Anschauung (intuition) in Husserl and affirmation in Lonergan, and inspect some of the implications they have for the two philosophers. Husserl calls intuition the "principle of all principles for his phenomenology." For his part, Lonergan conceives of affirmation as the culmination of the knowing process. Intuition and affirmation have analogous roles. For Husserl it is through intuition that cognition attains what is real, whereas for Lonergan it is through affirmation. The comparison-confrontation between Husserl and Lonergan can be summed up in terms of the three questions that Lonergan sets up to mark off the range of human knowing. First, what happens when one knows? Secondly, why is doing that knowing? Thirdly, what does one know when he does it? Husserl and Lonergan would seem closest in their approach to answering question one. However, they would part company in their answers to questions two and three, for here intuition and affirmation essentially determine what kind of an answer can be given. This paper will work within the brackets of these three questions. (shrink)

The aim of this paper has been a brief examination of Husserl's notion of the riddle of knowing with a comparison to Lonergan's notion of wonder and the intention of being. The examination was undertaken by relating Husserl's concept of a riddle essentially to these central themes: wonder, epoche, and intentionality, with concomitant references to Lonergan's analogous notions. The paper was thus divided into two sections to address these themes of Husserl and Lonergan: Part I: "The Riddle of Knowing"; and (...) Part II: "Wonder and Intentionality." The paper shows that for Husserl the very fact of human knowing in its correlation to transcendence is the riddle, and it shows that for Lonergan the subject wonders at this correlation, and consciously engages its structure of knowing and loving. (shrink)

Mr. Ryan brings to this study of Dante an insight developed by many years of close contact with the poet. The paper discloses a striking instance of the salient fact that medieval scholasticism, far from being a mere class-room philosophy, had its roots in the heart of man and spread its influence through all his works.

PARTICULAR point is given Mr. Ryan's study of the in philosophy of sanity by reason of the recent forward strides medical science has made in cures forsanity, Hygeia for September reports cures in "nervous" hospitals running as high as 40%. The disease is no longer a mysterious "divine visitation." The Editor.

PARTICULAR point is given Mr. Ryan's study of the in philosophy of sanity by reason of the recent forward strides medical science has made in cures forsanity, Hygeia for September reports cures in "nervous" hospitals running as high as 40%. The disease is no longer a mysterious "divine visitation." The Editor.