An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
Burning ghost wrote:I have found Husserl very useful. I set out my own ideas over the years and finally stumbled across Husserl when I was reading a text book on cognitive neuroscience.
Burning ghost wrote:I am not going to pretend I have a full understanding of his work. I have read his last (incomplete) work cover to cover ("Crisis").
Burning ghost wrote:I have also read a commentary on his Cartasian Mediations, which looks at his text with an overview of all of his work in relation to this (was by ... Smith, Cambridge press I think?). Was a good read, but I felt Smith was pushing his own position little and interpreting Husserl to fit his own needs (I guess no one can help but understand things with their own view onboard - part of what I feel Husserl was addressing).
Burning ghost wrote:An old friend of mine mentioned that Logical Investigations is recognized as one of Husserl's most highly regarded works. I have not read this, but I think it is fair to say from that point he has refined his ideas more over time and that from there both phenomenology and existentialism arose. I believe he is probably the most important philosopher in the 20th century in regards to setting the foundation for people like Heidegger, Satre, Foucault, Derrida, Wittgenstein and consequentially a few others. That said I also believe, especially in regard to Heidegger, that his intent was taken off course by Heidegger because I se Husserl's intent being one of a very, very broad nature that refused to adhere to any particular methodology, rather Husserl was interested in the methodology of methodology, and what happen after him was that people took this literally and so moved phenomenology more toward the investigation of language itself (ie. with Heidegger, Derrida and I would even say Wittgenstein too although I have no idea how Wittgenstein is considered in regard to Husserl in academia because I am not an academic student - my hobby is being interested in stuff and here I am).
Burning ghost wrote:I have my own view, as we all do, tagged onto how I read Husserl. So I am probably not in a good position to address your question having only read a small part of all that he has written.
Burning ghost wrote:I would recommend taking a look at "The Origin of Geometry". It was an essay that seemed to be meant as part of his last work. I read Derrida's critic of it which you can download online. From that they may be able to see my point about how Husserl wrote things in a vague way (on purpose) and how someone like Derrida, being bafflingly obscure, took his written words and IMO got stuck in the linguistics of Husserl rather than seeing Husserl's words as an "adumbration" of X.
Burning ghost wrote:-- Updated May 13th, 2017, 9:16 am to add the following --
Just to add I have HUGE issues with Heidegger's "dasein". I really hate that I cannot find, in his words, a coherent definition of what he is referring to. In many ways he simply renamed a lot of Husserl's ideas and often didn't bother to change them. Some of his terms are subtley diffrnt from Husserl's though.
I read Being and Time once and I have tried to read it again, but flounder early on. I think the only way to read it is to ignore a large part of the opening view chapters. I remember reading about 50 pages and then finding him sum it all up in about 200 words. Why didn't he just start with the 200 words? I never lost that sense of suspicion in his words and lacked convinction he really knew what he was saying half the time. That said I have taken onboard a lot of his ideas and found them useful. It does get confusing though when comparing Husserl to Heidegger because terms like "de-distancing" and "horizon" can, and perhaps should, be taken in different ways. In my mind Heidegger took a very particular route in phenomenology where Husserl insisted the point to be a route-less journey with assiduous focus on where and when to employ precision or vagueness in order to give the reader the best possible clarity. Like Kant himself says in Critic of Pure Reason, in trying to be more and more precise we sometimes end up doing the exact opposite. Heidegger seems not to have considered this in the slightest IMO.
I found something very intriguing in Crisis. He uses the term "prescientific man" to try to highlight the difference between a theoretical and non-theoretical attitude.
I think I am correct in saying he pointed out the "theoretical attitude" as being the difference between science and non-science.
I would recommend taking a look at "The Origin of Geometry".
Upon the combined “sediments” reposes finally our actual interpretation of the world … the “scientific” attitude permeates all our thoughts and attitudes … We take for granted that there is a “true world” as revealed by the combined efforts of the scientists … This idea of a true, mathematically shaped world behind the “sensible” world, as a complex of mere appearances, determines also the scope of modern philosophy. We take the appearances of things as a kind of disguise concealing their true mathematical nature. (20-21).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests