Franz Brentano (1838-1917)

Franz Brentano (1838-1917)

Brentano’s thinking developed as a whole around several thematic bases, which had been at the heart of a vast debate, thus placing him “at the origin of the main trends of the 20^th century ”. However, due to often careless editing and to the arbitrary selection criteria adopted in the posthumous publication of his works, the reception of his thought has engendered many misunderstandings—an issue frequently highlighted by such scholars as L. Albertazzi, T. J. Srzednicki and L. McAlister. Notably, some aspects of his oeuvre still require an adequate reconstruction and systematization in their historical-critical, biographical, and conceptual research. Among these, the development of Franz Brentano’s thought, specifically what concerns some central issues of his position, is still today a poorly explored field. This is also due to the fact that a great amount of the literature on the development of his concepts is “deposited in a huge epistolary (1400 letters exchanged with Marty alone)” that has only been partially collected and published.

For these reasons, only a repositioning and thorough analysis of his Nachschriften and his early papers as well as his written exchanges with relatives, friends, and disciples ― papers related to the years of 1860 to 1873 ― may introduce some useful results and contribute to clarifying certain areas of his work.

It is possible to glean this project, which essentially steers his entire thinking, from an exchange of letters with Christoph Bernhard Schlüter from June 2, 1861, to February 16, 1863 as well as from the correspondence between the poet Louise Hensel ― loyal friend of Clemens Brentano and Franz’ aunt Frau von Savigny née Gundel Brentano ― and the very same Schlüter and his sister Therese. From these correspondences one understands that Brentano goes to Münster during the 1859 summer semester in order to “be introduced more deeply to Thomas Aquinas’ thought”. Moreover, Brentano will frequently and regularly remain in contact with Schlüter during his entire stay in the city of Westfalia, that is, not only for a semester as was his original project, but at least until March 15, 1861, in spite of his master Clemens falling seriously ill and moving to the south of France for rest and treatment.

Here Brentano operates in the direction received by Trendelenburg. In 1858 in Berlin Brentano has attended the lectures of Trendelenburg and he increasingly approaches Aquinas’ commentary “in which Aristotle is explained with much more accuracy than that present in many later commentators”. Brentano also receives stimuli from his familial environment, specifically from his father Christian, who was connected by direct collaborative links to the Mainz circle, above all to Ketteler, Moufang, Heinrich (1816-1891), and Paul Leopold Haffner (1829-1899), who had undertook the editing of the “Der Katholik” magazine, which soon came into conflict with the Tubingen School and with the “Tübinger Theologischer Quartalschrift”, the quarterly review of the local theological faculty, inspired by German Idealism.

Due to these influences, the young Brentano’s thought constructively considers the relationship between Aristotle and Saint Thomas, and grants it a privileged position as being able to answer the needs of modern times. In a speculative post-Kantian horizon, this recognition implied a renewed consideration of Scholasticism in its more mature philosophical and theological expressions in order to distinguish and adopt a more reliable measure in view of determining a new foundation for objective cognition. Such a tendency bears within itself precise consequences, displayed in all of Brentano’s following writings, and it is therefore advisable to identify and underline the respective core motives and main stages thereof.

Therefore, this leading thread, that is, recovering the best results achieved by scholasticism and Aristotle, dovetails with Brentano’s criticism of Kant and German Idealism, and also finds expression and continuity in the other 1860s work by Brentano on (Aristotle’s Psychology, Mainz, 1867). In this work, Brentano examines Aristotle’s doctrine of cognition, not only because, generally speaking, it deserves specific attention, but also because, more than any other author, Aristotle “has erected with great success the field of logic, in which his principles have remained untouched much more than in any other field, and a grateful posterity honours him as both creator and father of this science”. But there is another reason: logic has its roots in psychology.

Brentano’s text is explicitly opposed to the Hegelian school’s interpretation of cognition, specifically and very harshly with one of its followers, the historian of Greek philosophy Eduard Zeller, and with his attempt to clarify the doctrine of the nous poietikos, which was perceived at the time as both one of the most important issues of the Aristotelian gnoseological teaching and as its most obscure.

This very same high appreciation for Aristotle and Saint Thomas is traceable, for instance, in the 951-page unpublished manuscript, entitled Geschichte der Philosophie (from Thales to Lotze), recently discovered in Graz by the author of these pages, which bears the date Würzburg 1866/67 and stems from the first university course given by Brentano. In it, in a consistent and assiduous dialogue with both writers, up to 230 pages are dedicated to Aristotle and 37 to Saint Thomas, who both therefore keep centre stage and deeply orient Brentano’s thought, offering the background and opportunity for further advancement of his analysis. According to Brentano, Aristotle, notably, in the entire boundless range of his research, added such prestige and advancement to the various philosophical subjects that he can be defined one of those who best promoted the development of the philosophical disciplines. Almost in the same pages, Aquinas ― considered as substantially converging with the Greek thinker ― rises from the outset as an expression of further thought in that if it is true that in the Middle Ages he and Albert the Great granted the Stagirite a longlasting hegemony in the schools of Europe, then it is also true that, altogether, the Aquinate with his writings rises to a higher level himself, namely that which concerns the theological doctrines.

On the other hand, the school of Thomism, in its further developments, proved itself inadequate and unable to understand the Master himself as well as read him in the proper light of his Aristotelian sources. Precisely because of Saint Thomas’ high appreciation, one has limited oneself only to the study of his works, being content with his texts as the only source of one’s study and teaching of him.

To overcome these issues, as they are recalled and further manifested a few years later in an unpublished letter sent on May 5, 1869, from Brentano in Würzburg to Heinrich Denifle, it is necessary to reintroduce the Aquinate into the intellectual history from which he had been carelessly déraciné. It follows that only by coming back or, rather, by turning to the Aristotelian sources, to which the very same Doctor Angelicus has gone, and explicitly confronting them within the cultural milieau of the second half of 19^th century, allow one to understand how to go further, that is, to take the advancements of modern science into consideration.

This lack of Aristotelian sources accounts for how Thomism has never been able to take advantage of or even understand Saint Thomas’ philosophical legacy. The result is that, among his countless disciples, none have really carried on his scientific work. All this has brought on some of the most deleterious results ― certainly unwelcome and unintended by Thomas ― regarding the events concerning the Wirkungsgeschichte of his doctrine and of his school. It is therefore necessary to reconsider and reopen the path of research in the awareness that a new tilling of the speculative reality is needed.