Table Of ContentContributions To Phenomenology 101
Nicolas de Warren
Shigeru Taguchi Editors
New
Phenomenological
Studies in Japan
Contributions To Phenomenology
In Cooperation with The Center
for Advanced Research in Phenomenology
Volume 101
Series Editors
Nicolas de Warren, Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA
Ted Toadvine, Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA
Editorial Board
Lilian Alweiss, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Elizabeth Behnke, Ferndale, WA, USA
Rudolfh Bernet, Husserl Archive, KU Leuven, Belgium
David Carr, Emory University, GA, USA
Chan-Fai Cheung, Chinese University Hong Kong, China
James Dodd, New School University, NY, USA
Lester Embree, Florida Atlantic University, FL, USA
Alfredo Ferrarin, Università di Pisa, Italy
Burt Hopkins, University of Lille, France
José Huertas-Jourda, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
Kwok-Ying Lau, Chinese University Hong Kong, China
Nam-In Lee, Seoul National University, Korea
Rosemary R.P. Lerner, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru
Dieter Lohmar, University of Cologne, Germany
William R. McKenna, Miami University, OH, USA
Algis Mickunas, Ohio University, OH, USA
J.N. Mohanty, Temple University, PA, USA
Junichi Murata, University of Tokyo, Japan
Thomas Nenon, The University of Memphis, TN, USA
Thomas M. Seebohm, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Germany
Gail Soffer, Rome, Italy
Anthony Steinbock, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, IL, USA
Shigeru Taguchi, Hokkaido University, Japan
Dan Zahavi, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Richard M. Zaner, Vanderbilt University, TN, USA
Scope
The purpose of the series is to serve as a vehicle for the pursuit of phenomenological
research across a broad spectrum, including cross-over developments with other
fields of inquiry such as the social sciences and cognitive science. Since its
establishment in 1987, Contributions to Phenomenology has published more than
80 titles on diverse themes of phenomenological philosophy. In addition to
welcoming monographs and collections of papers in established areas of scholarship,
the series encourages original work in phenomenology. The breadth and depth of
the Series reflects the rich and varied significance of phenomenological thinking for
seminal questions of human inquiry as well as the increasingly international reach
of phenomenological research.
The series is published in cooperation with The Center for Advanced Research in
Phenomenology.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5811
Nicolas de Warren • Shigeru Taguchi
Editors
New Phenomenological
Studies in Japan
Editors
Nicolas de Warren Shigeru Taguchi
Department of Philosophy Faculty of Humanities and Human Sciences
Pennsylvania State University Hokkaido University
Pennsylvania, PA, USA Sapporo, Japan
ISSN 0923-9545 ISSN 2215-1915 (electronic)
Contributions To Phenomenology
ISBN 978-3-030-11892-1 ISBN 978-3-030-11893-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11893-8
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Introduction
Ever since the initial reception of Husserl’s thinking at the beginning of the twenti-
eth century, the development of phenomenological research in Japan has steadily
and fruitfully engaged multiple movements of phenomenological thought. Already
in the early 1920s, Japanese philosophers began to study in Germany with Husserl
and/or Heidegger. To name the more significant and influential figures, Tanabe,
Kuki, Miki, and Watsuji not only enthusiastically embraced the spirit of phenome-
nology but equally confronted the actual forms of phenomenology developed by
European philosophers. These philosophical confrontations led this generation of
Japanese thinkers to formulate their own original views of philosophy. As an intro-
duction to the collection of contemporary Japanese thinkers gathered together in
this volume, our aim here is to sketch the historical reception of phenomenology in
Japan. This admittedly cursory survey is meant to offer the reader a broader horizon
for a better understanding of particular tendencies, approaches, and interests repre-
sented in New Phenomenological Studies in Japan.
Nishida and Tanabe: Two Dominant Figures in Modern
Japanese Philosophy
Not even ten years after the publication of Husserl’s Logical Investigations
(1900/01), Husserl’s nascent phenomenology was already referenced in Japan.
Kitaro Nishida (1870–1945), widely considered to be the most important Japanese
philosopher before the World War II, is arguably the first philosopher who intro-
duced Husserl to Japanese scholars. Nishida was a highly original thinker in his own
right, who was steeped in East Asian intellectual cultures and professionally trained
in Western philosophy. With his broad knowledge and insightful understanding of
the entire span of Western thought from its Greek origins, Nishida recognized the
significance of Husserl’s philosophical endeavor. In his article on “The Claims of
the Pure Logic School of Epistemology” (1911), Nishida referenced Husserl’s
v
vi Introduction
phenomenology. Yet Nishida considered that Husserl’s thinking shared marked
affinities with Neo-Kantians such as Rickert and thus referred to this entire group-
ing of German thought as “the pure logic school,” which he understood as seeking
to define objective truth independently of any empirical-psychological facts. More
intense study of Husserl’s thought allowed Nishida to grasp its specifically phenom-
enological character. With this newfound appreciation, Nishida perceived a com-
monality with his own conception of “pure experience” while nonetheless remaining
critical of Husserlian phenomenology. This affinity between phenomenology and
Nishida’s thinking had easily been forgotten or overlooked, until the more recent
research of Yoshihiro Nitta (1929–), who recognized Husserl’s importance for
Nishida, claimed that Husserl’s phenomenology is important for an elucidation of
Nishida’s thinking. Nitta’s scholarship proved essential for establishing this connec-
tion between Husserl and Nishida within the contemporary scene of Japanese
phenomenology.
The transformation in Nishida’s thinking that centered on his breakthrough con-
ception of basho (place) placed once again Husserl’s phenomenology in a different,
more critical light. Nishida became critical of Husserl’s conception of conscious-
ness for merely representing what is thought of as consciousness. According to
Nishida, however, consciousness is not what we are conscious of but the conscious-
ness that itself is conscious or the “being conscious itself” that lies at the bottom of
the consciousness in contrast to transcendent objects. Nishida’s conception of con-
sciousness offers a suggestive partner in a broader phenomenological dialogue con-
cerning the scope of consciousness and its temporalization.
In contrast to Nishida, Hajime Tanabe (1985–1963), Nishida’s successor to the
Chair of Philosophy at Kyoto University, assessed phenomenology to be a highly
creative philosophy that formed one of the representative trends in European phi-
losophy in the twentieth century.1 Whereas Nishida did not have the opportunity to
study abroad, Tanabe went to Germany in 1922 to study in Berlin with Alois Riehl,
an important Neo-Kantian philosopher at the time. During the 1920s, Neo-
Kantianism was popular in Japan, with Tanabe as one of its most sympathetic advo-
cates. Soon after arriving in Germany in 1922, Tanabe discovered the many ways in
which phenomenology was intensely debated and discussed in Europe. Shortly after
his arrival, Tanabe moved to Freiburg to study with Husserl. While attending
Husserl’s seminars and lectures, Tanabe rapidly assimilated phenomenological
thinking. More thrilling for him was the encounter with Heidegger, who at the time
was Husserl’s assistant. Tanabe immediately recognized the outstanding signifi-
cance of Heidegger’s new interpretation of phenomenology.
Upon his return to Japan in 1924, Tanabe gave lectures and published articles on
phenomenology. In his article “A New Turn in Phenomenology: Heidegger’s
Phenomenology of Life” (1924), Tanabe stressed how Heidegger’s reinterpretation
of phenomenology could compensate for the weakness of Husserlian phenomenol-
ogy and thereby open new philosophical possibilities. According to Tanabe,
1 Tanabe was not properly speaking Nishida’s student. Nishida was instead a private mentor for
Tanabe.
Introduction vii
Husserl’s method cannot satisfactorily fulfill its original demand for concreteness
(Sachlichkeit). This demand could, however, be more adequately addressed with
Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology. In this article of 1924, Tanabe provided
a detailed report of Heidegger’s 1923 Summer Semester Lectures in Marburg.
Tanabe’s presentation of Heidegger’s thinking is surprisingly accurate given that
Heidegger had at that time published little, and none of his lectures.
According to Tanabe, Heidegger’s phenomenology as “self-understanding and
self-interpretation of Dasein” proved more promising than Husserl’s. Nevertheless,
Tanabe criticized Heidegger’s thinking for neglecting the spatiality of Dasein with
its overemphasis on temporality. Furthermore, a central dimension of reality seemed
to be ignored in Heidegger’s phenomenology: the body (even if Heidegger would
eventually address the body in the Zollikon Seminars from 1959). For Tanabe, the
body is a cardinal point of reference insofar as it mediates between subjective
“inner” experience and objective transcendent existence. The body functions as a
medium of the free actions of ego in its environment and constitutes the “front edge
of the self-manifestation of transcendent being” (Tanabe 1931 [1963]: 345). Even as
Tanabe stressed the function of the body, he did not proceed to develop a fully-
fledged phenomenology of the body in the manner of Merleau-Ponty but developed
instead a philosophy of dialectical intersection between apparently contradictory
phenomena, such as immanence and transcendence, relativity and absoluteness, and
time and eternity. Tanabe’s thinking would develop farther afield from phenomenol-
ogy, and yet, as reflected in this volume (Taguchi), his concept of “mediation” might
have an impact on the future development of phenomenology.
New Generation: The Assimilation of Husserlian
Phenomenology
For both Nishida and Tanabe, phenomenology represented a novel development in
European philosophy, which they could not, however, completely accept. Both
thinkers, instead, leveraged phenomenology to develop their own respective philo-
sophical approaches. A younger generation of Japanese thinkers adopted a different
attitude. Phenomenology already stood before them as a highly attractive trend. In
the 1920s and1930s, a sizeable contingent of Japanese scholars arrived in Germany
to study with Husserl and Heidegger. This phenomenon was jestingly referred to as
the “Freiburg Pilgrimages.”2 Three thinkers from this generation who eagerly
assimilated Husserlian phenomenology are noteworthy.
Satomi Takahashi (1886–1964) studied under Husserl. His memoirs offer lively
images of Husserl and his relationship with young scholars from Japan. The master
gave special attention to these students from Japan, which became more and more
important to him. Before Takahashi came to Freiburg in 1926, Husserl had in fact
2 The original Japanese is “Freiburg moude,” which is a pun for “Freiburg-Mode” in German. Both
words are pronounced in a similar manner.
viii Introduction
received an invitation to visit Japan, which, however, he was unable to accept.
Instead, Husserl wrote his celebrated articles for the Japanese journal Kaizo.
Originally planned to include five articles, Husserl only managed to complete three.
In turning to a Japanese audience in the years after the First World War, Husserl took
this opportunity to outline the ethical and cultural mission of phenomenological
philosophy. These articles represent a rare published presentation of Husserl’s ethi-
cal thinking in its historical self-understanding.
Husserl expected that Japan would become a promised land of phenomenology
through the efforts of his young missionaries. He often invited Japanese students to
his house for special private lectures. He was apparently not willing to waste a min-
ute even during coffee breaks. Takahashi was struck by the gravitas of his master,
who literally “lived phenomenology no matter where he was” (Takahashi 1931,
107). It is reported that Husserl once declared to his Japanese students that they
should not be satisfied with taking a walk through fields cultivated by other philoso-
phers. Husserl advised instead that they should work hard on turning even just one
furrow of philosophy by themselves rather than just looking around Western culture
as if on a trip of intellectual sightseeing (Takahashi 1931, 112). On another occa-
sion, as recounted by Takahashi, Husserl informed his students that he was not will-
ing to make a new philosophical school. As he said, “the best I can give you is not
my completed theory, but a ‘liberated thinking’” (Takahashi 1931, 113).
Risaku Mutai (1890–1974) is another Japanese philosopher who studied with
Husserl. According to his memoir, Husserl once said that if there was a place in the
world outside of Germany where phenomenology would flourish, it must be Japan
(Mutai 1940, 326–327). Mutai also notes an impressive episode. One day at the
Freiburg train station, Mutai happened to encounter his master, who wore shorts and
carried a backpack. Husserl’s wife and his assistant accompanied him. They and
Mutai traveled together to Basel. In the train, Husserl was continuously talking
about phenomenology. The compartment was changed into an improvised seminar
room (Mutai 1940, 327–328). As with Takahashi, Mutai was equally struck by
Husserl’s seriousness and inexhaustible perseverance and considered the openness
of Husserl’s thinking as one of the principle reasons for its attraction among
Japanese intellectuals.
Tomoo Otaka (1899–1956) represents another Japanese philosopher who studied
with Husserl in Freiburg, as well as with Hans Kelsen in Vienna. Versed in the phi-
losophy of law, Otaka formed a strong personal and intellectual relationship with
Alfred Schutz (1899–1959). In fact, two of their books were published in the same
year 1932: Otaka’s Grundlegung der Lehre vom sozialen Verband and Schutz’s Der
sinnhafte Aufgabe der sozialen Welt.3 Each work acknowledged the other. Schutz
reviewed Otaka’s work in 1937 (Schutz 1937). The publication of Schutz’s book
was financially supported by Otaka (who came from a wealthy family). Otaka’s
work was strongly influenced by phenomenology, especially by the ideas of Husserl
and Schutz. The phenomenological tradition entered through Otaka into legal
3 Otaka dedicated his work to Husserl.
Introduction ix
studies in Japan, as centered on the University of Tokyo, where Otaka played a sig-
nificant role.
Heidegger’s Impact on Japanese Philosophy: Kuki, Miki,
Watsuji
In addition to the growing influence of Husserlian phenomenology in Japan during
the 1920s and 1930s through the teaching and writings of Takahashi, Mutai, and
others, Japanese philosophers who had passed through their “Freiburg Pilgrimage”
also began to take note of Heidegger’s thinking and introduce Heidegger to Japan.
One of the most prominent among this group is Shuzo Kuki (1888–1941), whose
most famous work is his treatise on Japanese aesthetics and the notion of Iki (chic)
in his The Structure of Iki (1930; Kuki 1997), written under the influence of
Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit. Kuki attempted a hermeneutic-phenomenological analy-
sis of Japanese aesthetic taste, which has since been recognized as an indispensable
contribution to aesthetic theory and especially subtle work in Japanese aesthetics.
Kuki resided in Germany and France for eight years (1921–1929). After studying
with Rickert in Freiburg, Kuki moved to Paris in 1924 to learn French and to study
philosophy with Jean-Paul Sartre, whom he hired as a private teacher.4 In 1927,
Kuki returned to Germany to study with Husserl and Heidegger. In Unterwegs zur
Sprache (1959), Heidegger looks back to Kuki’s visit to his home where they dis-
cussed the Japanese aesthetic concept of Iki. Before returning to Japan in 1929,
Kuki met Bergson in 1928. Upon his return to Japan, Kuki introduced French phi-
losophy, Heidegger’s thinking, and existentialism to Japanese readers through his
teaching at Kyoto University and publications. In 1936, Kuki invited Karl Löwith,
who was escaping from Nazi persecution to Japan, where he would, laregely with
Kuki’s support, obtain a professorship at Tohoku University in Sendai until 1941—
the year of Kuki’s death.
As with other Japanese thinkers under the influence of Heidegger, Kuki was an
outstanding interpreter of Heidegger’s philosophy, who argued, however, as did
Tanabe, that spatiality is as fundamental for Dasein as temporality. Kuki considered
that Heidegger’s underestimation of spatiality was connected to the lack of any
significant role for Mitdasein in Heidegger’s thinking of Being and Time. As Kuki
proposed, the encounter with others necessarily takes place through the mediation
of space-giving “distance” (Kuki 1981, 37–38). In this light, the present and contin-
gency are much more important than Heidegger believed since we can only encoun-
ter others in the present and this encounter is marked by contingency (Kuki 1981,
268–270).
Kiyoshi Miki (1897–1945) studied with Heidegger in Marburg in 1923–1924.
The imprint of Heidegger’s thiking on Miki’s writings is clearly evident, especially
4 See Light 1987 for details.
