Dasein - Monoskop

46 PART II
Husserl makes clear that the new theory of theories that he envisages
is in part modelled on developments in mathematics. He
even cites these mathematical developments as a proof of the feasibility
of a theory of sciences that reduces scientific theories to their
logical form, and that thus orders theories into different form classes
(Formklassen):
These indications will perhaps seem somewhat obscure. That
we are not here dealing with vague fantasies, but with conceptions
definite in their content, is shown by "formal mathematics"
in a most entirely general sense, or by the "theory of manifolds"
[of Riemann and von Helmholtz], the fine flower of modern
mathematics. 140
Husserl also calls his own theory of theories "the theory of manifolds"
and defines it as an investigation into essential types of all
possible theories in their lawful interconnections. 141
However, Husserl's science of theories does not coincide with
mathematics. The question concerning the "conditions of the possibility
of science in generaV u2 is not yet answered by reducing given
theories to their mathematical structure. Mathematical research is
itself not a conceptual analysis of notions that are presupposed by all
scientific inquiry. Notions like "'things', 'events', 'laws of nature 143
can only be studied by philosophy. In other words, Husserl envisaged
a metascience which is not able to confine itself to a syntactical
study of theories, but is forced to practice semantics as well. Semantical
categories belong to the study of "the ideal 'essence' of theory
as such". 144
Furthermore, it would be quite wrong to assume that under the
influence of Hilbert, Husserl now takes back his criticism of Schroder.
Despite his high appreciation for "formal mathematics", and despite
the role he assigns to this venture within his theory of theories,
Husserl still holds on to the distinction between logic and logical algebra,
that is, between philosophy and mathematics: "Here we must
note that the mathematician is not really the pure theoretician, but
only the ingenious technician, the constructor, as it were, who, looking
merely to formal interconnections, builds up his theory like a
technical work of art." 145 To appreciate this claim, we have to note