2.27 Heidegger and Husserl

Category: History of Philosophy

Keywords: heidegger, husserl, sartre, phenomenological, brentano, hartmann, phenomenology, transcendent, research, transcendental, realm, ego, constituted, intentionality, kierkegaard

Number of Articles: 404
Percentage of Total: 1.3%
Rank: 28th

Weighted Number of Articles: 273.1
Percentage of Total: 0.8%
Rank: 59th

Mean Publication Year: 1964
Weighted Mean Publication Year: 1963.6
Median Publication Year: 1963
Modal Publication Year: 1941

Topic with Most Overlap: Idealism (0.0442)
Topic this Overlaps Most With: Self-Consciousness (0.0171)
Topic with Least Overlap: Formal Epistemology (0.00037)
Topic this Overlaps Least With: Formal Epistemology (2e-04)

Heidegger and Husserl

Figure 2.68: Heidegger and Husserl

Heidegger and Husserl Articles in Each Journal

Figure 2.69: Heidegger and Husserl Articles in Each Journal


In earlier iterations of this project I ran through a few different journals. And one of the effects of doing this was that I’d occasionally see topics that weren’t really that big in philosophy in general, but were a big deal in that journal. And some of them were very distinctive to the interests of one or other journal editor. This iteration of the project mostly didn’t have this; very few topics are held up by a single journal.

This is arguably an exception. The graph for Philosophy and Phenomenological Research obviously looks very different to the graphs for the rest of the journals. But I don’t think this means that that we’re seeing something unrepresentative here. Rather, what we’re seeing is something like a blindspot (or deliberate oversight) in the other eleven journals which is counter-balanced by Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. This does mean that when PPR changes its focus in the 1980s, this topic seems to fall away very quickly. Thats not right; it just moves elsewhere.

I’m calling this a history topic because most of the papers feel historical; they are looking back at work done in the glory days of phenomenology. But those 1940s papers that make up a chunk of the topics weren’t intended as being papers in history of philosophy; they were just doing philosophy. This is a systematic challenge with a study this long. If I extended the study even further - say by putting works by Berkeley or Hume into it - we’d see even more dramatic versions of this effect. They didn’t think they were writing histories of early modern philosophy, but that’s how the model would classify them.