Talk:Logical Investigations (Husserl)

Recent changes
Who are these ‘many’ that don’t understand...I suspect they are non continnentally trained philosopher that think they are the ones with correct understanding instead because there eyes are closed the have problems swallowing the logical investigations (article cites Russel and leaves to the reader the false and vile logical conclusion that because Russel is smart and famous therefore the logical investigations are not relevant thus violating everything of the rules of knowledge as it is a hidden moralistic judgment not a scientific) and thus their mind remains closed while the mind of Stein and Heiddeger are open. Why is the superior philosopher Heiddeger or these no-ones used in the wiki page to discredit and give a biased account of the logical investigation based most probably on ignorance and the hubris of Hume-Kantian-Hegelian philosophers. The same that brought us communism and fascism the dropping of the bomb and so many other horrible things. All based on the wrong assumptions on the physical essence of reality that has been completely discarded both by Einstein, Husserl and the empirical evidences of quantum phisica Ald81, please stop altering the lead to state that Logical Investigations "gave birth" to phenomenology, as you did here and here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is supposed to use formal and accurate language. A book does not "give birth" to something. While I thank you for some of your other efforts to improve the article, there are problems with them. For example, this edit added text that was not properly cited, and I would consider the added text ("The Logical Investigations are the epistemological foundations of modern Artificial Intelligence providing a compelling mathematical framework going beyond Cartesian Newtonian Logical structuring and offering new scientific tools than go from mining and mapping genes to to coding structures for Quantum Computing") promotional rather than neutral. You added a citation here - thank you; I am sure it could be used to improve the article. Unfortunately, you failed to follow the article's existing citation system. It is not enough to place a citation for added text in the "Bibliography" section; text added to the article has to be followed by references to the citation, so that editors can see which citation supports which content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Gave birth
Well it is an interesting discussion. What would you prefer? Invented...could be more neutral and acceptable to Hegelians... didn’t Aristotle give birth to arestotelian logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ald81 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate changes
Ald81, I understand that you are trying to improve the article, but some of your recent changes are inaccurate and contradict the sources the article is based upon. For example, in this edit, you changed the sentence "Husserl's first major work, Logical Investigations has been credited with making twentieth century continental philosophy possible" to "Husserl's first major work, Logical Investigations has been credited with making twentieth century continental philosophy relevant". Please do not make changes of that kind, changing one word to another without explanation and thereby changing the meaning of the sentence of which it is part for no clear reason. The source used, Donn Welton's introduction to The Essential Husserl, uses the term "possible", not "relevant". Please review WP:VERIFY. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , you urgently need to review WP:VERIFY, which states, "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." Your edits so far have not respected this. I understand that the change you made here was good faith and well-intentioned, but once again, it contradicts the sources the article is based upon. Furthermore, it appears that you are editing while logged out to continue an edit war, for example here and here. That is entirely inappropriate behavior and can even led to a block. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Husserl is fonder of Phenomenology
Husserl is the Founder of the Phenomenological method that as he explains is a Method not a philosophy. Even assuming that continental philosophy to exist is a platitude with no citation. Continental philosophy has always existed.

I don’t know what is going on but either you clearly state that Husserl founded Phenomenology as a scientific method and not simply a philosophy like many other or I will have to become an expert and put all the quotations. As it is the page is devious and paints an incorrect picture of both what is phenomenology and it’s merits. Also reading newton and Descartes is like swallowing a whale. That is another non neutral way of closing an article. Ald81 (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ald81: as repeatedly requested, could you please familiarize yourself with WP:VERIFY, which states, "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." You are free to hold the view that "Husserl founded Phenomenology as a scientific method and not simply a philosophy like many other", that "Continental philosophy has always existed", or any other view you wish, but you cannot state anything in an article without the support of an appropriate citation. If you cannot provide appropriate citations for any information you wish to add, it will be removed. That includes the content you added here, while logged in, and the content you added here, while logged out. You simply cannot base article content on your personal beliefs and opinions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself tells us the obvious and not my belief

Husserl is the founder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)
 * Please stop making multiple posts about the same subject. This issue is dealt with below. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, though it is not really the crucial issue here, your claim that "Continental philosophy has always existed" is completely false. Obviously continental philosophy has not "always existed" because philosophy itself has not "always existed." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Husserl is the fonder of phenomenology
Well I am not making it up. It’s in Wikipedia itself. Husserl is the founder of phenomenology as the Wikipedia page well indicates. So please align the poorly written page to the face of him being the Founder. Thanks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) Ald81 (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a citation, as it does not qualify as a reliable source per WP:RS. Again: for any information you wish to add, you need an appropriate citation. Donn Welton's introduction to The Essential Husserl, one of the sources the article is based upon, states that Logical Investigations helped to create phenomenology. It does not state that it "founded" phenomenology. The effect of your changes is to suggest that Welton states something he does not, which is completely unacceptable: it is absolutely wrong to add a claim to an encyclopedia and follow it by a citation that states something completely different. Stop doing so. If you have a source that qualifies as reliable per WP:RS and states something different to Welton, then please provide it. Your personal disagreement with Welton is irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Biased editing
What is biased is clearly the article. Even cows know that Heiddeger said that Husserl opened his eyes. You are looking at bureaucratic excuses not to fix the page. Probably because as a non continental phisopher your eyes are closed , you need to stop making edits like this. I have already tried to make it completely clear to you that you cannot simply change one term to another (in this case "possible" to "relevant") based on nothing more than your personal opinions. Let me try to explain to you again the problem with this. The source to which you cited the statement that "Logical Investigations has been credited with making twentieth century continental philosophy relevant" is Donn Welton's introduction to The Essential Husserl. The problem is that Welton does not say that Logical Investigations made continental philosophy "relevant", he says that it made continental philosophy "possible". So your change represents him as supporting a claim that he does not make and indeed conflicts with what he actually states. That is totally irresponsible and unacceptable. If citations are used to support claims that they simply do not make, that amounts to lying to Wikipedia's readers, even if that is not your intent. It could hardly be more inappropriate. Though Wikipedia is not a forum for debating editors views on philosophy, I have to note in addition that your rationale for changing "possible" to "relevant", which is your personal belief that continental philosophy "always existed", is unambiguously and obviously false. No, continental philosophy did not "always exist"; like any other kind of philosophy at all, it came into existence at a certain point in time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I will give another example of unacceptable and confused editing. In this edit, removes the statement, "some commentators have seen a revival of psychologism in its second volume" from the lead, with the comment, "No reference to these commentators therefore non relevant". That comment displays a lack of understanding of WP:LEAD, which states, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." There have been multiple authors who have suggested that the second volume of Logical Investigations sees an apparent revival of psychologism; the article mentions Martin Heidegger and Theodor W. Adorno as holding this view. If multiple philosophers have made this suggestion, it is entirely reasonable for the lead to mention it. The idea that because the lead does not mention specific critics who have held this view, the issue is "non relevant" is baseless; it misses the point that the lead is a summary of the article's topic and does not have to go into the same level of detail as the article's body. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Though it is less important than its other problems, this edit also added text ("Later on Heiddeger would claim that in fact “Husserl opened my eyes” in reference to the Investigations") that does not appear to be properly cited. The citation is to David Farrell Krell's introduction to Heidegger's Basic Writings. I looked up the pages cited - 7, 12, and 13 of that introduction - and they do not support that addition. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing disagreements
As taken by the more balanced and less biased definition found on “internet encyclopedia of philosophy”, “Although not the first to coin the term, it is uncontroversial to suggest that the German philosopher, Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), is the "father" of the philosophical movement known as phenomenology. “

Therefore it is clear that freeknowledgecreator can’t understand that the logical investigations GAVE BIRTH to phenomenology and is UNFIT to edit pages with content regarding Husserl and Phenomenology. This editor went to the extreme of banning as vandalism a genuine effort to correct a Wikipedia falsehood. Falsehood that is less clear and accentuated in other pages that also need urgent fixing Ald81 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ald81, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I am not uniquely responsible for "supervising" phenomenology-related pages, have never claimed to be, and nor would I ever want to be. I have reverted your edits for numerous reasons, including their violation of basic policies such as WP:VERIFY; other problems include the fact that the text you have added is often worded in a promotional rather than a neutral way. Some of it frankly resembles advertising material, for instance this: "The Logical Investigations are the epistemological foundations of modern Artificial Intelligence providing a compelling mathematical framework going beyond Cartesian-Newtonian-Kantian logical thought structuring axioms. They offer instead a new scientific method that can be applied to fields from the latest theological advancements in Christology to solving medical research questions as well as support the coding architectures suited for Quantum Computing." That would have to be rewritten to remove the promotional element for there to be any chance of it being acceptable. I have repeatedly urged you to familiarize yourself with basic policies and to try to understand where you are going wrong, and you have repeatedly ignored that advice. I do not consider your edits to be "vandalism", as you wrongly suggest, but it is clear that so long as they continue to be inconsistent with fundamental policies they have to be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia hides merits and scientific importance of Husserl and logical investigations
As taken by the more balanced and less biased definition found on “internet encyclopedia of philosophy”, “Although not the first to coin the term, it is uncontroversial to suggest that the German philosopher, Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), is the "father" of the philosophical movement known as phenomenology. “

Therefore it is clear that freeknowledgecreator can’t understand that the logical investigations GAVE BIRTH to phenomenology and is UNFIT to edit pages with content regarding Husserl and Phenomenology. This editor went to the extreme of banning as vandalism a genuine effort to correct a Wikipedia falsehood. Falsehood that is less clear and accentuated in other pages that also need urgent fixing Ald81 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Ald81 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You made essentially the same comment above. See my reply there. Please do not repeat the same points in multiple posts. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes
Hello, OnlyChandra. Thank you for your edits to the article; it is good to see someone trying to improve it. Unfortunately the majority of your changes are either unnecessary or factually inaccurate. In particular, it is inaccurate to state that Logical Investigations is a work about phenomenology. Logical Investigations is certainly a work that contributed to Husserl's eventual development of phenomenology, but phenomenology is not itself the subject of the book; that's a misconception. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes (continued)
Hello, it appears that an ordinarily undisputed fact: on the nature of this work as a work of phenomenology, is disputed here. I am sitting with both volumes here. I encourage you to read the sixth investigation which is explicitly about the phenomenology of knowledge. Chapter three of this investigation is even entitled "The phenomenology of the levels of knowledge". It is important to understand the purpose of his criticisms of psychologism, which is to pave the way for a phenomenological grounding of mathematics and logic in general. Yes, other topics like mereology are covered, but it is undisputable, given the sheer number of uses of the term phenomenology in this text, that this is a work of the phenomenology of logic and knowledge.

OnlyChandra (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * If you read Michael Dummett's preface to the book, you'll see he states that the work was "written at a turning point in Husserl's philosophical development, between his earlier book, Philosophy of Arithmetic (1891), deeply embedded in the psychologism so prevalent in German philosophy of the time, and the Ideas towards a pure phenomenology and phenomenological philosophy (1913) in which the notion of noema was first presented and the programme of phenomenology was first set out." Similarly, the introduction by Dermot Moran states that the book "set the agenda for the emerging discipline Husserl fostered under the name phenomenology" and that its second volume in particular led to "the development of phenomenology."


 * Logical Investigations is a work about logic. It contributed to the development of phenomenology. That does not make phenomenology itself the subject of the book; there is a fundamental difference between saying that the book led to the development of phenomenology and that phenomenology is its subject. It is obviously inaccurate to state that a book is about phenomenology simply because the word "phenomenology" appears in the book a given number of times. This issue has to be distinguished from the merits of your other changes. Thank you for making them, but they are not improvements. You have offered no reason for any of them, and I find them to be, almost without exception, unhelpful. You have simply changed words ("philosopher" to "phenomenologist", for instance) without any apparent rationale or justification; that is not constructive. Other changes add poor writing, for example, the description of the Logical Investigations as "two volumes of work" rather than a two-volume work. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OnlyChandra, it is rude of you to continue to repeat the same disputed changes here without any attempt at discussion on the talk page. That simply is not how things work on Wikipedia. I have already tried to explain to you that you simply cannot continue to make the same change, over and over again, in an attempt to get it accepted; you have to persuade other editors that you are right when there is a dispute. Discussion does not have to be just between you and me. There are other editors besides us who are interested in philosophy topics; I will be interested to hear their views. You could try placing a neutral request for help here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Although it was clearly a good faith change, unfortunately there are numerous problems with the edit you made here. I apologize for the length of my comments in response, but it made numerous unhelpful changes and I have to explain why they are unhelpful and the relevant guidelines. Your edit introduced a citation style that is not consistent with the one already used in the article. Please do not do that. An article is expected to employ a single citation style consistently, not a mixture of conflicting citation styles added by different editors at different times. It is appropriate for you to follow the existing citation style used in the article. Please review WP:CITEVAR, which states, "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor". The first major contributor in this case is me, thus, you should use the citation style I introduced. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Since your recent edit makes many changes to the lead, you should review WP:LEAD, if you have not already. It states, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" and also "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Your good-faith addition of numerous quotations, such as those by Dermot Moran, unfortunately violates this guideline, especially the second part I quoted. Neither of the two Dermot Moran quotations is covered in the main body of the article. That being the case, neither of those two quotations belongs in the lead. The same remark applies to the Bertrand Russell quotation: since it is not covered in the remainder of the article, it does not belong in the lead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The correct approach to improve the lead is to summarize the contents of the main body of the article, not to add new content only to the lead. Please consider placing quotations such as those by Moran and Russell elsewhere in the article. The quotation from Marianne Sawicki was a poorly-chosen addition. It is not important that one person used the phrase "wickedly clever" clever to describe Husserl's work; that is a minor detail that does not belong anywhere in the article. Please don't add such content to the article. Per WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You commented that you, "removed content that was not backed by direct citation".


 * That comment was presumably in relation to your removal of a paragraph reading,


 * "The work has been praised by philosophers for helping to discredit psychologism, Husserl's opposition to which has been attributed to the philosopher Gottlob Frege's criticism of his Philosophy of Arithmetic (1891). The Logical Investigations influenced philosophers such as Martin Heidegger and Emil Lask, and contributed to the development of phenomenology, continental philosophy, and structuralism. The Logical Investigations has been compared to the work of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Wilhelm Dilthey, the latter of whom praised the work. However, the work has been criticized for its obscurity, and some commentators have maintained that Husserl inconsistently advanced a form of psychologism, despite Husserl's critique of psychologism. When Husserl later published Ideas (1913), he lost support from some followers who believed the work adopted a different philosophical position from that which Husserl had endorsed in the Logical Investigations. Husserl acknowledged in his manuscripts that the work suffered from shortcomings."


 * Since you seem to be confused about this, I have to note that everything in that paragraph, which you inappropriately removed, was carefully cited. Respectfully, you would have realized this if you were more familiar with how Wikipedia operates. It is a common error, often made by new editors, to think that statements in the lead that are not immediately followed by citations must be uncited. Often the citations are present elsewhere in the article. It is quite common for them to not be repeated in the lead. MOS:LEADCITE deals with this matter: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)