This chapter contains sections titled: Phenomenology Existentialism The Organization of the Book.

The book suggests a "phenomological" philosophy of science, in the sense of Husserl and Heidegger. Reality is consideried as continuity. The scientific model is entangled into reality by many links in a single context rather than to redlect a certain separate part of reality studied by a scientific discipline as an "image of reality", A coherent, rather than correspondent, concept of truth is relevant to that kind of philosophy of science.

In this enlightening new Very Short Introduction, Simon Critchley shows us that Continental philosophy encompasses a distinct set of philosophical traditions and practices, with a compelling range of problems all too often ignored by the analytic tradition. He discusses the ideas and approaches of philosophers such as Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Habermas, Foucault, and Derrida. He also introduces key concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and phenomology, by explaining their place in the Continental tradition. The perfect guide for (...) anyone interested in the great philosophers, this volume explains in lucid, straightforward language the split between Continental and Anglo-American philosophy and the importance of acknowledging Continental philosophy. (shrink)

Presents the basis of Merleau-Ponty's ontology, as presented in his book Phenomology of Perception, and shows how it can help provide humans with a foundation ...

This is a book of wide-ranging scope, as the title suggests. First, it canvasses a broad selection of topics—from electromagnetism and quantum mechanics to Husserl’s phenomological constitution of logic, from Russell and Wittgenstein to Hartry Field. Second, its aims are broad. The author describes the book both as a “rational reconstruction of Poincaré’s position” and as a “treatise on modern epistemology”. The former description is somewhat misleading in that, together with Zahar’s stated aim of both “clarifying and of then reconciling (...) Poincaré’s various theses about the foundations of mathematics and the natural sciences”, it might give the reader hope that all of these theses might be shown to be part of one unified position. In fact, though, Poincaré’s philosophy of physics and his philosophy of mathematics turn out to be fundamentally different. Zahar attributes to Poincaré a “structural realist” view of physics and a “quasi-Kantian” constructivist view of mathematics. It’s not entirely clear, though, why the considerations adduced in favor of structural realism in physics can’t be carried over to the case of mathematics. More might have been said to explain this divergence, perhaps for example by developing the contrast in the introduction between the empirical testability of scientific hypotheses and the intuitive self-evidence of mathematical theorems. (shrink)