Phenomenology

[Adam Pittman]

Most of you have probably heard of the names associated with this movement -- Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre -- but I was wondering how much experience everyone's had with it. For the uninitiated, phenomenology is the philosophical movement popularized in the 20th century that deals with the study of appearances (phenomena). More specifically, it deals with the connection between consciousness and appearances. For phenomenologists, everything exist only within a context, and you cannot just be conscious--you have to be conscious of something. Unlike most other philosophies, phenomenology is poetry-friendly, insisting that human beings are geared towards truth and that the mind and the world are interdependent in a non-Cartesian (subjective) way.

Anywho, if anyone is interested in this philosophy, I suggest picking up Introduction to Phenomenology by Robert Sokolowski. Personally, I found that just studying phenomenology gives that poetry-writing muscle in my head a workout. So--if you're low on inspiration, check it out.

[Dunc]

you cannot just be conscious--you have to be conscious of something

You allege, then, that, Monty Python notwithstanding, Heidegger was but a moderate drinker?

[River Not]

nice summary, Adam.

here is a link that offers some basic principles of Phenomenology (http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/phenom.htm), although I can't be too certain as to how accurate the definitions presented at the link are to academic definitions of Phenomenology.

I found the following statement rather *controversial*

1. Phenomenologists tend to oppose the acceptance of unobservable matters and grand systems erected in speculative thinking;

The relationship between consciousness and appearances, in my opinion, is unobservable to the extent that consciousness outside of self-awareness is ever expansive and indeterminate: there is always "what if" when there is "is so", and there is always uncounted information as information itself is innumerable.

there is also this essay to consider:

For some phenomenology of religion refers to an attitude toward or the study of religious phenomena in the broadest sense. For others, it refers to the actual cross-cultural comparative study and classification of religious manifestations. For still others it expresses a commitment to a specialized method of inquiry of religious expressions.

http://www.wheaton.edu/Missions/Moreau/articles/Phenomenology.htm

It would seem that the object of Religion, the motivational source of the morals that make up one's religious lifestyle, is an unobservable matter.

[River Not]

just to clarify my tiny point...


if a person's manner of existence is determined (motivated) by an unobservable aspect, then this aspect cannot be removed from an assessment conducted by phenomenological methodology. Thus, by opposing the acceptance of unobservable aspects the phenomenologist presents a bias, which must surely effect the dignity of a phenomenologist's survey.

I'm assuming, however, that the point against which I'm debating is still a legitimate practice of phenomenologists; surely the philosophical method of phenomenology has undergone revisions since 1997.

[Dunc]

Well, let me say it again. You only have to know that you know. I know (because I was there) that a savage hangover doesn't need to know what (if anything) I particularly know. One just floats to the surface. But no one but me experiences that particular float.

So I say, Over-intellectualised nonsense to all of that! Regards / Dunc

[River Not]

Originally posted by Dunc McReil
One just floats to the surface. But no one but me experiences that particular float.

So I say, Over-intellectualised nonsense to all of that! Regards / Dunc


Children say the darndest things.

[River Not]

In case anyone might be interested in investigating literature pertaining to phenomenological philosophy, another excellent book to check out is:

The Theory of Intuition in Husserl's Phenomenology by Emmanuel Levinas.

I've owned this book for about a year, but I've yet to read more than a few excerpts from it so I'm not familiar with the engaged argument. My skills as a reviewer need sharpening, and I won't attempt to comment on a work I've only just barely read, so I'll just quote the back of the book:

An essential and illuminating explication of central issues in Husserl's phenomenology, it is also important as a formative work of one of this century's most distinguished philosophers.

Levinas focuses on the role of intuition, which he explains as "the theoretical act of consciousness that makes objects present to us." He demonstrates how Husserl's theory of intuition follows directly from his new conception of being. He then identifies intuition as the original phenomenon that leads to the concept of truth itself. In this analysis, he shows that Husserl's theory of being opens up an entirely new philosophical dimension.

I think I'll be reading that book this weekend.



However, just to validate the vastness of phenomenology's definition, observe its use in a completely different title:

Sex Murder and Sex Aggression - Phenomenology, Psychopathology, Psychodynamics and Prognosis by Eugene Revitch and Louis B. Schlesinger.

In the "phenomenological" study of the book, straight facts are presented without the interference of any moral devaluation. This is merely one example of applied phenomenology. I haven't read much of that book either.

[Dunc]

Wow!

Have a lovely weekend. And the Easter break to follow! The mind boggles at what you'll know by Easter Tuesday!

Regards / Dunc
[SIZE=1]Can't wait for the movie.[/SIZE]

[River Not]

Dunc, if there is something bothering you that you want to tell me about then you're welcome to send me a private message.


Right now, you're bordering on trollism, although I suspect there's some unrelated event going on that's causing you to... (not my business)


or, let me say it like this,

if you can't contribute to the discussion in a way that progresses the topic instead of insisting it stagnates on self-refuse (either your own or what you think another's to be), then maybe you'd be better off staying out of the conversation altogether.

unless you'd like to show me how your last post, in which you comment on how "my" knowledge will boggle THE MIND, contributes to the discussion of phenomenological methodology and its various studies...


I really don't care what you think I know or do not know, Dunc, just to make that all clear like.

have a sweet day.


-----
"Do we imagine Virtue is so blind,
to dwell in the male, when the female's more refined?" - Agrippa Female Pre-Eminence

[Dunc]

Phenomenology doesn't explain what it tries to explain. Husserl never found a somewhere else from which to look at observer and observed, the inside and the outside, at the same time; Heidegger never successfully articulated his essentially mystical notion of being; and Sartre’s importance lies in the politics of his moral theories rather than in any analysis of human perception.

But this is Voyages and the tone of my previous post was inappropriate here. I withdraw it accordingly. Regards / Dunc

[Adam Pittman]

Hi guys,

Thanks for taking time to put in your ideas. To tell the truth, my experience with phenomenology is limited at best, so I can't very well deliver a critique of the movement. Anywho, it was the synthesis of consciousness and phenomena found in phenomenological writings that really drew my attention. For some reason or other, this synthesis reminded me of the general direction of modern poetry; hence why I said that reading phenomenological writings "exercises" my creative/poetic muscle. Thanks again for your responses!

Pittman