>>24833329
>Spiegelberg suggests that Wittgenstein could have taken the term from Rudolf Carnap, who uses the term and refers to Husserl in his Der Logische Aufbau der Welt of 1928. Anthony Kenny suggests that Wittgenstein’s discovery of intentionality in the Remarks must have been influenced by Husserl. In his 1968 article, Spiegelberg tells of a meeting between J. N. Findlay and Wittgenstein in 1939. Findlay told Wittgenstein that he was working on Husserl’s Logical Investigations (which he later translated) and Wittgenstein expressed astonishment that anyone was still interested in such an old text. This comment certainly does not prove that Wittgenstein had read Husserl, but it is very likely that anyone reading as much Frege as he did would naturally turn to thinkers such as Husserl and Meinong. In his foreword to the Schlick-Waismann conversations, B. F. McGuinness indicates that there were discussions "about ideas of Husserl, Heidegger, and Weyl" (WK, p. 19). In the published conversations, Schlick asks a question about phenomenology and Wittgenstein knows enough to answer specifically using the name Husserl (WK, p. 67). At another point, Schlick makes reference to Husserl in a question, again presumably on the assumption that Wittgenstein knew something about him (WK, p. 78).
Philosophy Department's worst nightmare

>>24833329
Always think of courses as glorified boot camps to help you form a study habit. Nothing more

Philosophy has always had competing systems. The Stoics vs the Epicureans for instance. Or Confucianism and Taoism in the east. Today, the split is continental vs analytic, with continental being more wholistic, and analytic being more particular.