/lit/ - Literature

>>21941204
>I ask because Descartes' Rules are straightforward enough I don't see what someone else would add or change about them.
You mean the Rules of the Direction of the Mind? No, Husserl doesn't add on to those specifically. I don't see him disagreeing with any of it, in fact a significant part of his philosophy serves to justify 1.
The connection with Descartes comes in rather late, at least 25 years into his writing career, and marks more or less the affirmation of transcendental idealism within phenomenology. Having isolated the pure ego, he uses Descarte's Cogito to expose its principle, although pushing it much beyond what Descartes did himself. As such, Husserl's use of the Cogito is often referred to as a radicalization.
Shameless copy post from notes because I'm still just about 50% sure I'm replying to bots.
> Every actual cogito has an intentional object (and is a mode of thinking about something). The cogito itself may become a cogitatum if the principle that "I think" becomes an object of consciousness. Thus, in the cogito, the act of thinking may become an intentional object. However, in contrast to the Cartesian principle that "I think, therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum), the phenomenologically reduced cogito is a suspension of judgment about whether "I am" or whether "I exist." The phenomenologically reduced cogito is a suspension of judgment about the question of whether thinking implies existence. Thus, phenomenology examines the cogito as a pure intuition, and as an act of pure consciousness.
Also note that Husserl very rarely directly tackles another philosopher. Most of the time if Husserl addresses someone its a contemporary with whom he is in open dispute. If his own works brings him in a territory that was already uncovered by another philosopher, and he sees an opportunity to specify his own theory further by contrast, then he will mention the author (such as Descarte's Cogito, or kantian or neo-kantian theories). If he dislikes someone or believes they are not doing anything close to philosophy, he will not speak their name (I do not believe he ever mentions Nietzsche once, for example).

>>21888156
sorry for the meme answer on >>21888161, but I was exiting work. More precisely, there is little overlap between the two, mostly just points of contacts, because Heidegger situate the entirety of his writings in a region of phenomenology which Husserl didn't think was yet properly opened for exploration. Heidegger believes he can do so precisely because he never exhibit the profound epistemological commitment to Truth (the only "real" "idea" according to Husserl) that his mentor had, and which was pretty much considered to be the requirement for proper phenomenology, which took years to develop in students. Heidegger's treatment of the impossibility of the epoche is the perfect expression of this epistemological disdain.
As such, if you wanted a list of everything Husserl treated better than Heidi, well...
> Intentional acts
> the correlation of ontology and epistemology thus requiring us to the posit theory of Knowledge
> the distinction between the logical and the psychological
> the ontogenesis of concepts
> the actual and penultimate question of metaphysics
> the dangers of historicism, relativism and materialism
> a theory of signification
> a theory of perception (which keeps showing its relevancy over a century after it was discovered)
> a theory of the nature of ideal objects and the relations between them
> actually being good at math
> actually not doing any math because the most basic philosophical questions have not been answered so math is pointless until then, only reply to shit on mathematician's newfangled theories that makes no sense.
> According to his students he made some of the best sauerkraut in the country.
> Not getting cucked and then actually raising the bull's kid ffs what more proof do you need that this dude is a weak ass loser?

>>21753226
>is just a different angle on Descartes
I wouldn't say "just", this is evident in the fact that the Cogito and Husserl's interest for Descartes emerges rather late in his writings and career. The link of husserlian phenomenology with the Cogito is definitely an important point of its trajectory, some have argued the most important, but it was not an end point, and it had to be reached organically, through a different path from which Descartes came, and went much further. Husserl radicalize the Cogito in a way to go beyond it. Also, his "foundation of science" was a pursuit he knew he wouldn't accomplish by himself. Contrary to Frege's, who wanted an actual symbolic logic for his Mathesis Universalis (and developed one, the Begriffsschrift), the axiomatisation of science for Husserl would remain in natural language, and would require a "phenomenological review" of the entirety of science, which he could not hope to accomplish by himself. Eventually you would have "phenomenological" studies of just about everything if you really wanted to develop Phenomenology, however there is an obvious structuration to the edifice of science, and handling the purer ontoligical regions allows you to start ahead, so by focusing on mathematic, logic and psychology allowed Husserl to reach what interested him faster.
Finally, (you) do not have a proper opinion on Husserl. I do not have a proper opinion on Husserl and I've been studying him for about 12 years and taken university courses under experts. We have access to a fraction of his texts and studies, or that of his multiple groups he organized. Husserl dictated to his wife or wrote about 4 hours every day, there are tens of thousands of pages that will never be published, and a sizeable portion that we have forever lost because its written in an insane Austrian shorthand that disappeared completely and is apparently harder to crack than Enigma.

>>21252162
>How much of Husserl should one know?
ALL OF IT.

>>20695635
>If we [...] define Being in the universal sense as the principle of manifestation
Correct
>and [...] the totality of possibilities of all manifestation
Incorrect.
Everything else is gibberish mistaking potentiality and impossibilia.
Is this really the power of Nazi mystics?

>>20388819
>Define truth
1) objective identity
2) evidence (or inter-active coincidence)
3) the fullness of the intuited object
4) the correctness of the signitive intention with respect to the object identified.

>>20340484
> I can't understand what you write
> But I'm supposed to understand
">>20340392
>So why would, in a dimension that is not truly atomic but rather just a field (or series of fields) with disturbances, an object (rock) be fundamentally different than a cow? Wouldn't it just point to a supposed Brahman's "thought" that doesn't reciprocate you in a sapient manner?"

Is anyone here able to elaborate on the following ideas:

>The system by which Husserl uses the cogito to ground truth-giving experience, and how and where he departs from it in his general Phenomenology?

My understanding is:
>He draws analogy with Descartes idea of doubt to secure in phenomenology the idea of consciousness as the necessary ontological/epistemic condition for experience, but disagrees with his conclusion that these constitutive structures in the mind that make experience possible are in any way restricted just to mind, and are in fact constitutive of all experience itself (he rejects Dualism). If I'm correct the departure from Descartes is here, but could someone flesh it out?

My understanding is also that, for Husserl, there is some passive synthesis of associations that occur when the act of experience is carried out (noesis/eidetics). Is this in any way used to push the concept of cogito beyond Descartes' mere ontological grounding.

And is anyone able to link these ideas together? Any help much appreciated!

Writing a paper on Husserl for a Phenomenology class and needed to work out some of the contextual stuff before I actually delve into Husserl's ideas themselves. If anybody could help me summarise the following:
>What were the prevailing philosophical orthodoxies during the turn of the 20th century - what was Husserl a response to? (Naturalism/Rationalism)?
>Does Husserl's study of consciousness thread into the general modernist trends in art/literature? (centrality of Subject, decay of conventional institutions)

Any help would be greatly appreciated! I have more questions about Phenomenology but I'll stick with these two just to open up the discussion. Will be replying slowly.

Where do I start with him and what's his aim?

>>19789111
> He doesn't realize the Cogito bears within it its cogitatum.
God help you son.

>>19737293
This. Grondin's an absolute authority on metaphysics. I had the chance of going to highschool with his son and met him a couple of times. Great teacher, pretty asshole dad ngl.
He doesn't understand Husserl at all tho. His "Hermeneutical turn of phenomenology" is fucking shameful.

>>19423378
>Philosophy has ruined this board
As it has ruined everything else. When will this madness end?

>>19416720
Ooooooooh....

>>19363879
> be me
> be phenomenology teacher
> make assignment to describe an apple
> do a word analysis in python

> eidetic : 1231
> Autopoeitic : 3
> real : 12
> reel : 6
> real/reel : 12461
> intentionally : 36
> "Husserl was a realist" : 25
> apple : 0.2

Can /lit/ do any better?

>>19227396
>would I be mischaracterizing him?
Yes, he does claim that your perception itself is real, but that it is a "user-illusion". Qualia does not exist because it is not a good way to represent the concept. Following this, he emphasizes that your intuition that you are not a zombie is the only thing that leads you to argue against it.
He fails to understand that this conviction is the expression of the transcendental Ego and the apodictic conviction of its contemplation.

>>19134205
And Freud was btfo by Brentano and Husserl while he was still in university, so what's your fucking point, retard?

>>18974760
He's good, but he isn't Husserl.

>>18955729
Not gonna lie, I'm curious what a transcendent cuckold is... Is that like, when you pretend to read Husserl while the bull is splitting your wife in two in the next room?

>>18918145
What the fuck is your defect, mate?

>>18790656
Husserl's Philosophy as a rigorous science, found in the Logos journal of 1910 (maybe 1911, not sure). It is online.

>>18449425
Husserl is the least jewish Jew author there is. (he did also convert to Christianism very early in his life).
Ironically, Heidegger is conversely the most jewish non-jew author.
Also you are retarded because Husserl never interacted with Derrida, he learned about Husserl from his teacher Desanti, from who he inherited his inability to express himself properly. Desanti is the (mostly unknown) point where French philosophy became charlatanism.
> "I got turned off from Husserl because you can't merge phenomenology with marxist theory".
Not even joking.

>>18400967
Husserl did not read B&T until around or after 1932. He knew he'd hate it so he simply put it off for as long as possible.
He had already figured out that Heidi was a shithead with no understanding of his philosophy by then, and had begun cutting ties. Around 1929 (Iirc, I might be wrong on this one) he asked Heidi to help him write a definition of phenomenology and the two came with contradictory positions.
>>18401122
Heidi thought that phenomenological thematisation denatured the object of phenomenology (by making it an object), and that it had to remain closer to an exegesis of habituation than an exploration of the transcendental proper.
The really sad part is that Husserl had already addressed all of that very clearly in the notes that would later become On the Passive Synthesis.

>>18371044
Half of you cunts read like /x/ schizos.
I love it.