UDC: 167.7
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2026-1-129
EDN: FEXIQS


viewing

SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL RATIONALITY: ERNST MACH VS. EDMUND HUSSERL

V. A. Serkova1, I. P. Berezovskaya2
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia
1e-mail: henrypooshel@rambler.ru
2e-mail: ipberezovskaya@mail.ru

Abstract. Ernst Mach and Edmund Husserl developed as scientists and philosophers during a period when science was becoming the model of rational thought. However, Mach and Husserl had different understandings of the ideals of science and philosophy, and their understandings of the importance of science for philosophy and philosophy for science were radically different. The purpose of the study is to identify the reasons for their differences in views on the goals of scientific knowledge and the ideals of rational knowledge. The results of the study allow us to conclude that Mach, as a representative of positivism, believes that philosophy is too wasteful in its rational means. From Mach’s point of view, a scientist should present clear and consistent principles of research (the principle of economy of thought), achievable goals (description of facts), effective methods of analysis (observations and experiments), and philosophy is permissible in the scientific worldview if it does not contradict such rules of rationality. Husserl, on the contrary, suggests that philosophy should become the foundation of a scientist’s entire research practice, but to do so, it must itself become a «rigorous science». He develops the principle of phenomenological reductions to counter materialistic (naturalistic) and skeptical attitudes. Husserl, beginning with his earliest works, transformed philosophy into a consistent and coherent construction of the description of phenomena, developing a new interpretation of reality as diverse and interconnected meanings and forms of ideas about reality.

The scientific novelty of the article lies in the fact that a comparative analysis of the philosophical attitudes of Mach and Husserl allows, on the one hand, to identify the strengths of their theoretical positions, and on the other hand, to clarify important, though not obvious, consequences of the philosophical principles they apply, in particular, the logical sequence of Husserl’s principle of phenomenological reductions and the contradictory sides of the Mach’s principle of economy of thinking.

The theoretical and practical significance of the work lies in the fact that the correspondence disputes between Mach and Husserl allow us to more clearly understand some of the consequences of positivist and phenomenological ideas for modern development and the mutual influence of philosophy and science.

The obtained results allow us to conclude that the debate about the relationship between philosophical and scientific rational knowledge is far from over and, with the development of science, is becoming even more pressing and productive.

Key words: Ernst Mach, Edmund Husserl, elements of experience, fact, phenomenological reduction, structure of phenomenon, scientific and philosophical rationality.

Acknowledgements. The research was supported by RSF No. 24-28-01014, https://rscf.ru/en/project/24-28-01014/.

Cite as: Serkova, V. A., Berezovskaya, I. P. (2026) [Scientific and philosophical rationality: Ernst Mach vs. Edmund Husserl]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 1, pp. 129–139. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2026-1-129.


References

  1. Aristov, V. V. (2016) [Ernst Mach and Ludwig Boltzmann. The Drama of Ideas, the Drama of People]. Metafizika [Metaphysics]. Vol. 3 (21), pp. 100–112. (In Russ.).
  2. Vladimirov, Yu. S. (2002) Metafizika [Metaphysics]. Moscow: Laboratory of Basic Knowledge Publishing House, 568 p.
  3. Gaidenko, P. P. (2016) [Ernst Mach in the Context of the Philosophy of the Late 19th – Early 20th Century]. Metafizika [Metaphysics]. Vol. 3 (21), pp. 13–27. (In Russ.).
  4. Grishunin, S. I. (2016) [E. Mach’s Concept of Science]. Metafizika [Metaphysics]. Vol. 3 (21), pp. 44–54. (In Russ.).
  5. Husserl, E. (1999) Idei k chistoy fenomenologii i fenomenologicheskoy filosofii [Ideas for Pure Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy]. Moscow: DIK, 336 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  6. Husserl, E. (1996) Nachalo geometrii [The Beginning of Geometry]. Moscow: Ad Marginem, 272 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  7. Husserl, E. (1994) Fenomenologii vnutrennego soznaniya vremeni [Phenomenology of the Inner Consciousness of Time]. Vol. 1. E. Husserl Collected Works. Moscow: RIG Logos, Gnosis Publishing House, 162 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  8. Husserl, E. (1994) Filosofiya kak strogaya nauka [Philosophy as a Rigorous Science]. Novocherkassk: SAGUNA Publishing House, 357 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  9. Zotov, A. F. (2005) [Instead of a Preface, or Why This Book Is Interesting for the Modern Reader]. E. Makh Analiz oshchushcheniy i otnosheniye fizicheskogo k psikhicheskomu [E. Mach Analysis of Sensations and the Relationship of the Physical to the Mental]. Moscow: Territory of the Future, pp. 7–30. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  10. Carnap, R., Hahn, G., Neurath, O. (2005) [Scientific Worldview – The Vienna Circle]. Logos [Logos]. Vol. 2(47), pp. 13–26. (In Russ.).
  11. Kraft, V. (2003) Venskiy kruzhok. Vozniknoveniye neopozitivizma [The Vienna Circle. The Emergence of Neopositivism]. Moscow: Idea-Press, 224 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  12. Mach, E. (2005) Analiz oshchushcheniy i otnosheniye fizicheskogo k psikhicheskomu [Analysis of Sensations and the Relationship of the Physical to the Mental]. Moscow: Publ. House «Territory of the Future», pp. 31–301. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  13. Mach, E. (2003) Poznaniye i zabluzhdeniye. Ocherki po psikhologii issledovaniya [Cognition and Delusion. Essays on the Psychology of Research]. Moscow: Binom. Laboratory of Knowledge, 456 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  14. Mach, E. (2007) [Preface to the German edition]. P. Dyugem Fizicheskaya teoriya. Yeye tsel’ i stroyeniye [P. Duhem Physical Theory. Its Purpose and Structure 2nd ed]. Moscow: KomKniga, pp. 3–4. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  15. Poluyan, N. N., Kushova, I. A. (2015) [Edmund Husserl: Critique of Empiriocriticism]. Vestnik Vyatskogo gosudarstvennogo gumanitarnogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Vyatka State Humanitarian University]. Vol. 6, pp. 17–21. (In Russ.).
  16. Serkova, V. A. (2003) Fenomenologicheskaya deskriptsiya [Phenomenological Description]. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Publishing House, 320 p.
  17. Einstein, A. (2016) [Ernst Mach]. Metafizika [Metaphysics]. Vol. 3 (21), pp. 128–133. (In Russ.).
  18. Bhaskar, R. (1998) The possibility of naturalism: a philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 214 p. (In Eng.).
  19. Chalmers, D. (2007) Ontological Anti-Realism. In Chalmers D., Manley D. & Wasserman R. (Ed.). Metametaphysics New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 77–129. (In Eng.).
  20. Hacking, J. (2014) Why Is There Philosophy of Mathematics at All? Cambridge University Press, 304 p. (In Eng.).
  21. Himanka, J. (2019) Reduction in Practice: Tracing Husserl’s Real-Life Accomplishment of Reduction as Evidenced by his «Idea of Phenomenology Lectures». Phenomenology & Practice. Vol. 13. No. 1, pp. 7–19. – https://doi.org/10.29173/pandpr29371. (In Eng.).

In order for us to provide you with high-quality services, we use cookies that are stored on your computer (location information; ip-address; type, language, OS and browser version; device type and screen resolution; source from which you came to site the user; what pages the user opens and what buttons the user clicks; the same information is used to process statistical data on the use of the site through the Yandex.Metrika Internet service). By clicking the "I agree" button, you confirm that you are informed about the use of cookies on our website. You can disable cookies in your browser settings.