Galileo: Discoverer of Modernity

In the Crisis, Husserl offers an original and still provocative reading of the modern (what he broadly calls ‘Galilean’) scientific-technological revolution with its ‘mathematization of nature’ (Mathematisierung der Natur, C 61; K 61). Husserl was not a trained historian of science and therefore cannot be expected to provide an accurate, detailed, historical assessment such as would measure up to current standards in the history of science – a discipline which was only in its earliest stages when Husserl was writing. Rather, he is a philosopher who is offering a creative, meditative re-reading of Galileo’s achievement. He presents it as having a unified sense or meaning. Husserl summarizes his task on intellectual reconstruction as follows: ‘What is the meaning of this mathematization of nature? How do we reconstruct [rekonstruieren] the train of thought [Gedankengang] that motivated it?’ (C 23; K 20).

The meaning of modern science can only be understood when a ‘regressive enquiry’ is carried out into how this new conception of nature and scientific knowledge came about. Husserl’s study of Galileo, in Crisis § 9, then, has to be situated within his broader ‘historical reflections’ (geschichtliche Besinnungen, C 57; K 58) concerning the philosophical and cultural situation of his day. His general aim is to arrive at a ‘reflective form of knowledge’ (C 59; K 60) concerning the ‘primal establishment’ (Urstiftung) of modern science (C 73; K 75) that has shaped subsequent culture in the West. Husserl even speaks of the ‘historical a priori’ of modern physics (C 374; K 383), i.e. the a priori conditions that made this scientific achievement possible. We shall have more to say about the nature of this historical a priori in Chapter 5 below.