HISTORIENS HÅRDE DOM? eller HVEM ER HALSSTARRIG?

Kommentar til Benny Karpatschof: Fra fænomenologidebat til studenteroprør - Psyke & Logos nr. 1, 2000

Abstract

The commentary points out that the claim, reintroduced in Karpatschof's historical article, that the phenomenology of E.Tranekjær Rasmussen philosofically represents a phenomenalistic ontologic position, is neither documented by the author's own arguments nor by the arguments from the phenomenology debate of 1967-68, that introduced it. It is shown that the article's characterization of Tranekjær's phenomenology as an »antirealistic phenomenology« is in direct conflict with the facts. The final section of the commentary gives some examples of the historical persistency of the claim, and presents a few pieces of historical information, that throw some light on the quality of the basis for the position of some of the central critics from the original debate.