Abstract

Perplexed was I when invited to contribute a paper addressing the “landscape of Husserlian phenomenology.” I had no idea of the intended import of the landscape-metaphor. The issue was further complicated by the fact that the paper was to be part of a collection titled “Horizons of Phenomenology.” “Horizons” I get; it’s a technical term for Husserl, who distinguishes between inner and outer horizons. So, were I to talk about horizons, I would talk about phenomenology’s inner horizons, that is, about the possibilities for further explication of the implications of various, already articulated phenomenological approaches and positions. And I would talk too about phenomenology’s outer horizons, that is, about new areas indicated for phenomenological reflection by already existing analyses, including and especially those areas that bring phenomenology into contact with other philosophical approaches and other disciplines. So, “horizons” I could have dealt with. But “landscape”?