/lit/ - Literature

husserl is a transcendental idealist along with kant which is to say all objects are objects for some subject, and necessarily conform to certain 'rules' of consciousness. the question of the 'reality' of these objects is left aside in husserl, or concealed behind the noumenal veil in kant.

>>16098022
>>16098070
Out of curiosity, do you guys know if Husserl was influenced by Nietzsche at all? I've never heard anyone make an association between them.

It will all become clear when you play Pharaoh (1999).

>if only she put that much passion into being a mother

>>16098095
No, Husserl was more influenced by real philosophers like Brentano and Frege.

>>16098095
i don't know about a direct influence, but it seems unlikely. both writing 'after kant'. husserl was highly conscious of an epistemological and ethical nihilism that he understood to be a threat to the sciences and to society at large, much like nietszche. his answer is, predictably, divergent.

Husserl was influenced by Brentano, an Aristotelian realist, and his earliest follows like Ingarden were realists who liked him for reacting against neo-Kantian category theory and transcendental subjectivism, but for the whole peak of his career he insisted that he was a transcendental philosopher in the Kantian tradition (which upset his realist followers).

There are different schools of thought on him now, nothing really definitive. Some come close to realism or "immanent" realism but I don't think it makes much sense or is very interesting. However the reason it's so hard to interpret him is that he's impossible to pin down on key issues.

>>16098095
Not especially but he did write during the crisis of historicism and philosophy in general that Nietzsche was a part of. He wrote one of his most read and most readable works, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, at the height of the Nietzsche craze in Germany. The general sense of crisis would have been for most people in Husserl's milieu very related to Nietzsche's philosophy. Or at least epitomized by it.

Husserl wasn't a systematic reader of other philosophers, he was pretty autistic and focused on his own projects. I think he only read Dilthey around 1910-1920.

>>16098138
He wasn't very influenced by Frege, this idea mostly comes from the belief that Frege criticized his psychologism and caused him to move away from psychologism, but it's a myth. He was never really psychologistic. Frege's hostility to psychologism in logic is irrelevant to Husserl's work, even the early stuff, unless one reads Frege as an extreme logical realist which also makes him irrelevant because he wouldn't even be able to talk to Husserl. Husserl regarded formal logic as uninteresting.

>>16098294
Did he use the word "nihilism" at all?

>>16098313
>he general sense of crisis would have been for most people in Husserl's milieu very related to Nietzsche's philosophy. Or at least epitomized by it.
I see, thank you for this anon, that was very helpful.

>Husserl wasn't a systematic reader of other philosophers, he was pretty autistic and focused on his own projects. I think he only read Dilthey around 1910-1920.
Yeesh, I am inspired to call him based.

>>16098313
>He was never really psychologistic.
Of course he was. 'Philosophie der Arithmetik. Psychologische und logische untersuchungen' was pure Psychologism. He completely abandoned that approach after Frege's criticisms.

>Husserl regarded formal logic as uninteresting.
Nonsense. 'Logische Untersuchungen' is all about logic. Husserl is best read in conjunction with Frege.

>>16098407
No problem. It's hard to talk about Husserl because every interpreter has their own take on what he "really" thought. It's not like with Heidegger for example, where you just don't see people claiming he was a realist or connecting him to wacky shit, or if you do, at least the person doing it is aware they're making a leap.

>>16098414
Whatever floats your boat I guess, this isn't what is represented in the literature however.

>>16098395
don't recall. is it important if he does?

>>16098022
>rather that the phenomena are more than just phenomena which appear to the subject's consciousness
You don’t see a thick rectangle made of paper, coated in cloth, you see a book.
You don’t see rough brown wood that moves vertically to the sky, splitting itself horizontally and covering itself in green bits, you see a tree. You don’t see yourself in a mirror as a stranger (the other) sees you, you see yourself how you view yourself.

>>16098022
Phenomenology does lead to idealism when its logic is followed through, which is its main disadvantage. It's only good for exploring mental phenomena, if you apply it to the external world you end up with a warped anthropocentric world-picture.

>>16099193
>Phenomenology does lead to idealism when its logic is followed through, which is its main disadvantage. It's only good for exploring mental phenomena, if you apply it to the external world you end up with a warped anthropocentric world-picture.
The Phenomenology of Perception by Merleau-Ponty expressly refutes everything you've said in the introduction.

>>16099256
Then he is wrong.

>>16099287
nah dawg. motility is a primordial or 'transcendental' principle that presupposes the existence of an external world. the experience of objects as situated in space is rooted in your ability to move your body around them.

>>16099366
I don't know what "motility" is supposed to refer to, but what I said is true for phenomenology in general. If you think that introspecting intentional objects is the *primary* way to access reality, it naturally leads to the conclusion that reality reduces to how it appears to the mind.

>>16099419
you have a reductive understanding of phenomenology. there are perfectly coherent non-idealist interpretations c.f. merleau-ponty.
read more.

>>16099419
you are also mistaken in your belief that the aim of phenomenology is 'accessing reality'--whatever that means--when its principle interest is an investigation into the structure of consciousness.

>>16099434
I don't have to read shit, if you can't argue for you position that's on you

>>16099514
you are not an authority here.

>>16099512
>you are also mistaken in your belief that the aim of phenomenology is 'accessing reality'--whatever that means--when its principle interest is an investigation into the structure of consciousness.
You just made my point for me. If your primary method of doing metaphysics is looking at the contents of your own mind, you will obviously end up with idealism. Which is why when Husserl and the early Heidegger tried to do metaphysics, the former ended up with idealism and the later with his incoherent mix of idealism and realism.

>>16099552
no shit, i didn't claim to be

>>16099558
not contents; structures of consciousness. if you cannot even distinguish between form and content you have no business commenting in a thread about phenomenology.
go away now.

>>16099558
>metaphysics
Phenomenology isn’t metaphysics you fucking pseud

>>16099552
that's not what he claimed, and neither are you

>>16099563
>enters a thread
>starts posting about topic
>gets assblasted when people point out you have no idea what you’re talking about
>>16099584
He claimed MMP is wrong in TPOP without reading the text you dipshit, you’re both pseuds

>>16099578
Do you know how to read? I said that phenomenology is a method that can be used, and historically has been used, to do metaphysics. I didn't say that phenomenology is metaphysics.

>>16099584
making a general statement and then demanding others refute your statement is arguing from a presumption of authority.

>>16099577
Don't posture to me dumbass. Yes phenomenology is a method that explores the contents of consciousness.

>>16099591
>phenomenology is a method that can be used, and historically has been used, to do metaphysics
Neither of those is true, you fundamentally have no idea what you’re talking about.

>>16099602
lol just stop man no one knows nor cares who you are here but if you continue like this you will be made to feel embarrassment

>>16099588
>He claimed MMP is wrong in TPOP without reading the text you dipshit, you’re both pseuds
Learn to read. I posted about phenomenology in general, not Merleau Ponty in particular.

>>16099621
>>16099287
you wrote 'then he is wrong' you little snake fuck just stop

>>16099617
Not the guy you're replying to but stop posting like an effeminate petty bitter cunt, you sound like you're tweaking your nipples while trying to shame someone on an anonymous forum

You a tranny? Really asking

>>16099621
So I in the post where I mentioned MMP and you replied saying
>then he is wrong
Is about phenomenology in general?

>>16099616
Yes they are true. You are a pseudointellectual.

>>16099635
Sure, I guess heideggers late works deconstructing metaphysics to show its pointlessness is him doing Metaphysics right?

>>16099628
lol suck my girl dick faggot
that get you off, being verbally abused by a tranny? that why you're goading me? bad boy.

>>16099627
>>16099659
>lol just stop like wow lollll wow just stop man dude.. stop... you really want to keep going yikes sweetie ummm k lol... stop.

Hahaha you are a real faggot from twitter

>>16099627
No, I said that if he makes the claim that a phenomenologically oriented metaphysics can avoid idealism, then he is wrong.

>>16099667
>phenomenologically oriented metaphysics
Lmao

>>16099667
except he does exactly that through reorganizing ontology along mereological lines and rejecting subject-object dualism.
but you haven't read him, so how would you know?

>>16099704
>you really want to throw down with my lowercase coolposting persona? wow. just wow. yikes. i mean okay then hun. if you rly wanna play this game with me. but yikes. like just stop. uh. okay. fyi, i'm kind of a big deal? um? sweetie? i wrote a term paper on merleau ponty at reed college? sweetie.. yikes. just stop lol. you aint gonna win this one fyi. lol dude just stop.

FAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!

>>16099663
you're not allowed to use the internet or touch your peepee for ten days okay?? be a good boy for mommy or she'll have to punish you .w.

>>16099719
>peepee um little boy? ummm sweetie? :) cool dude, nice, epic. hope that works out for you bud. um i write this way ironically? i could write normal if i want? i'm actually hella based tho? (ironically lol) dude but seriously just stop.. you're embarrassing yourself dude. lol. uh. lol.

YOU'VE FEMINIZED YOURSELF FAGGOT. YOU REALLY GONNA KEEP WRITING LIKE THIS AS AN ADULT MAN?

>>16099709
you've broken mummy's rule.

>>16099704
>except he does exactly that through reorganizing ontology along mereological lines and rejecting subject-object dualism.
but you haven't read him, so how would you know?
Because I have an independent argument for why doing metaphysics leads to idealism. I already told you what that argument is. If your primary way of doing metaphysics is looking at the contents of your mind, you are going to reduce reality to how it appears in your mind.
Also I don't believe you can coherently deny the subject-object distinction, so his attempt probably fails.

>>16098022
everything you percieve haves no trascendental counterpart = idealism

>>16099727
uh oh, bubby's having himself a little tanty wanty wantrum now isn't he? does he need mummy to put him in the corner?

>>16099735
>Also I don't believe you can coherently deny the subject-object distinction
Hahahahah a hahahahah

>>16099675
brainlet doesnt know how to read

>>16099735
*for why doing phenomenologically oriented metaphysics leads to idealism*

>>16099704
if ontology is 50% human and 50% everything else then its idealism, because humans do not compose even a mere 1% of beings in the universe. everything else is justification for blatant ontological anthropocentrism. btw im not the anon u replied to

>>16099735
again, not about contents.
your only 'access' to the world is through some specific mode of being, particular to the vantage you have on it. in that regard, you are limited in what you can know and understand about it. this is not the same as reducing reality to perception or representation. you relate to the world as a part of the world, amidst other parts, summarily forming the whole that is the world. where is there a fixation on the contents of consciousness in that?

>>16099772
reductive thinking mistaking the manner of speaking about something for the thing itself.

>>16099772
>everything else is justification for blatant ontological anthropocentrism
Have sex

>>16099778
I don't know what are you talking about, you need to use standard analytic terminology ot5herwise I can't address your points.

>>16099863
>standard analytic terminology
Ahh that explains why you’re such an idiot

https://youtu.be/cVtproooi8w

>>16098105
t. brainlet

Lmao what a thread.

>>16098100
Underrated

>>16099591
>>16099635

>>16100158
you will never be a real butterfly

> thread starts good
> some twitter sperg comes in and has no idea what he is talking about
> derails an actually good thread

>>16100572
so it goes

>>16098022
Im proud to say that I started MommyMartha posting :) glad you're catching on OP
Thread theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T34Wxq0SLNA&list=PLU60dlhvHX0rrU-XzJ55bBLtVErTUkv_L

>>16098105
t. Martha Argerich’s child

DYNAMIC DUO
https://youtu.be/sI9SFXz9MY4

>>16098523
>No problem. It's hard to talk about Husserl because every interpreter has their own take on what he "really" thought. It's not like with Heidegger for example, where you just don't see people claiming he was a realist or connecting him to wacky shit, or if you do, at least the person doing it is aware they're making a leap.
Has Heidegger ever clarified Husserl? I've heard he critiques him in the part of Being and Time on Descartes, is this true? If so would that serve in anyway to help people understand Husserl?

>>16098644
Well, yes, I believe it would show some relation to Nietzsche or at least it would just give me some more basic knowledge of the times.

>>16101653
Heidegger never clarified anything. He was a pseud who wrote gibberish.

>>16099875
kek got em.

>>16099735
>metaphysics is inherently idealist
>subject-object distinction is axiomatic

retard

>>16101653

From what I understand, Heidegger challenged Husserl’s “Empathy” by arguing that Being-With-Others and recognizing them as Dasein is ontologically prior to the empathetic mode. I’m not sure if there are other critiques, I haven’t finished the book yet.

>>16098022
>phenomenology
hack fields by intellectuals who wanted to larp as Hindus.

Bump

OP here, thanks for all the replies. Could someone answer my question though? I'm not so interested in having a summary of the dogma thrown at my face without source. Thanks.

>>16103566
Look up “what is phenomenology” by Maurice Merleau-Ponty

>>16103658
I will, thanks.

>>16098022
Husserl scholar here.
Anticipating a major revival in the next few years so now's the time to get in. Want to drop me a throwaway email?

>>16101823
>metaphysics is inherently idealist
*phenomenologically oriented metaphysics. I already corrected that
>subject-object distinction is axiomatic
No, what I said is that you can't deny the distinction coherently

>>16104394
Everything you're saying goes to show you're not familiar with the topic in this thread.

>>16104673
>Everything you're saying goes to show you're not familiar with the topic in this thread.
I am, but you are not, which is why you start whining every time I push you even slightly.

>>16104328
what for?

>>16104748
>I am, but you are not, which is why you start whining every time I push you even slightly
Fun fact, the post you responded to was my first post in the thread. Further demonstrating your non-knowledge.

>>16098105
Reminds me of the Boulet painting.

>>16104869
quit being a dickhead, argument or btfo

>>16105775
Here's an argument: if you'd been able to engage with source material of phenomenology you'd be able to construct something more significant than
>Also I don't believe you can coherently deny the subject-object distinction, so his attempt probably fails.
What do you want me to do, type out MMP's doctoral thesis dedicated to this, or write out his entire notes from on intertwining/chiasm where he explicitly talks about this? If you'd actually read these things and wanted to talk about specific sections or points I'd love to do that, but you haven't. So no, I'm not going to strip away the nuance of some 1000 pages of mid-century phenomenology to spoonfeed your bite-sized brain

>>16105871
>I'm not going to strip away the nuance of some 1000 pages of mid-century phenomenology to spoonfeed your bite-sized brain

>>16105871
>What do you want me to do, type out MMP's doctoral thesis dedicated to this, or write out his entire notes from on intertwining/chiasm where he explicitly talks about this? If you'd actually read these things and wanted to talk about specific sections or points I'd love to do that, but you haven't. So no, I'm not going to strip away the nuance of some 1000 pages of mid-century phenomenology to spoonfeed your bite-sized brain
What are you talking about dumbass, you don't speak from a position of authority in this conversation. My position is that you cannot coherently deny the subject-object distinction - your position is that you can. I have arguments to support my position, and so do you. Am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that you have read some books and you can write paragraphs of text? I can do that as well.
Again, I made the claim that you can't coherently deny the subject-object distinction. If you reject this claim, you can try to push me to give an argument for my claim, or you can make an argument against it. Sitting there and telling me how I got it all wrong and I just need to read more is neither of those, you are just being full of shit.

fuck skicho-analysis

>>16105888
Checked
>>16106206
Lmao don't come into a phenomenology thread then act all pissy cause everyone calls you out on not reading phenomenology.

>>16106206
>comes into a thread on a topic
>acts like a dick, says you can't come to the conclusions that topic comes to
>does all this without engaging in said topic
Yeah man you're an idiot

>>16101849
But then he did seem to suggest something ontological to the collective authenticity to the Volk when he was still an earnest supporter of the Third Reich and called Hitler "the manifestation of Dasein".

However do you think Heidegger ever developed an effectively moral way of thinking in his philosophy? Or was it always effectively left up to the action of man?

But anyway, thanks for the help anon.

>>16106542
>However do you think Heidegger ever developed an effectively moral way of thinking in his philosophy?
Heidegger gives you the tools to evaluate the morality of your actions, rather than having "Heideggerian morality"

>>16106521
I did engage and provided arguments, if you can't find them you are a moron

>>16104328
Are you THAT Husserl scholar?

Written 20 years prior to Camus writing about the absurd.

Why don’t people like husserl?

Who are some philosophers who do phenomenology along the Husserl-Merleau-Ponty line and not the Heidegger line? Luc-marion related material is also appreciated.

Also would you lads agree with marion’s analysis that Husserl ends with consciousness, Heidegger ends with being (which must pervade and always be given in consciousness) so logically the most primordial point in the phenomenological Analysis must be giveness? I know he partially takes this take from meinong and I agree partially, isn’t it more logical to go one step further and do what meinong did? And root giveness to sosein?

Comfy thread. I read somewhere that Zahavi argues Husserl was neither and externalist or internalist, and that by intentionality he meant that subject is as much constituted by the world as the world is by the subject? Something about the status of the noema participating in the nature of both, instead of being reduced to a moment of either side. I'm not very confident using the language of this tradition so that's the best I can do.

>>16107625
been meaning to get into lonergan myself

To repeat the point for those who didn't get it: The phenomenological method, because it is a method for exploring the contents of consciousness, if employed for metaphysical investigation, it naturally leads to the view that reality reduces to how its perceived by the subject. This is why Husserl was an Idealist.

>>16107629

I consider him a kind of neo-neo-platonist since he doesn’t say existence or essence has primacy but are more occurring at once, it’s just theyre occurring beneath and as a part of a transcendental ego, and Husserl did believe in a objective reality beyond the individual (which many people believe he did not) and this is why he wrote so much on the life world and his attempts at making an accurate shot at ontology.

So it’s related to idealism and Platonism but I wouldn’t call it either without giving that basic rundown.

>>16107628

I’ve read a little bit of his work and wasn’t so impressed personally.

>>16107625
Byung chul han
>>16107629
> it naturally leads to the view that reality reduces to how its perceived by the subject.
That’s not how phenomenologists talk about reality anon. They would say that our relation to reality is constituted by the perceiving subject.

>>16107626

Kinda, Husserl is saying consciousness by its very nature is Nondual to object perception because it is always directed so the consciousness has no separation between self and not-self on the highest level. The division being an eidetic construct more or less. Husserl’s ontological and phenomenological take is basically not too different from Hegel’s in science of logic.

>>16107629
True only if you interpret Husserl as an idealist. There are externalist readings that more emphasis on what the object contributes to the noema, as opposed to meaning being completely self-generated. There are schools halfway that would say meaning is collaborative

>>16107669
Can you articulate the difference between Husserl's transcendental ego and Kant's transcendental subject?

>>16107656
>Byung chul han

I’ll look into him, he seems to be more along Heidegger’s line though, right?

>>16107670
This, it should be emphasized that Husserl is opaque and however appealing the Zahavi reading interestingly described here >>16107626 may be, it is strongly argued by just as many Husserlians that it is an incorrect reading

For myself I simply don't believe Husserl (or Heidegger for that matter) ventured an opinion on it. They were both transcendental to the last.

>>16107676

The transcendental ego of Husserl and kant is effectively one thing except the transcendental ego has a more self-revealing quality, insofar as the transcendental Ego as that which pervades and is all consciousness is constantly revealing and embracing itself via externalizing itself as other and re-embracing itself through the act of consciousness of anything.

This to Husserl means we by the act of simple cognition, have every experience filled with the fullness of consciousness and meaning, basically to Husserl the absolute idea of Hegel=the transcendental ego of Kant. He more or less makes them one and the same, the only critique of Husserl would be that he still has some kantian elements which don’t follow in his own analysis, such as he still sees the transcendental ego as more or less bound by time. (But again this is just another point to how it’s basically the absolute-idea)

>>16107680
Kind of but not really, he’s more of a post structuralist who makes a heavy use of phenomenology. I have his 3 earliest books, they’re more broadly phenomenological rather than Heideggerian

>>16107676
For many Husserlians they are the same, at least insofar as they are both starting points for the transcendental method. Kant is often critiqued for deriving his categorial deduction from whatever logic textbooks were current at the time he wrote, but Kant was probably giving an immanent description of the transcendental to the best of his abilities at the time. By the time of the neo-Kantian movements contemporary with Husserl's writing, Kantian category theory or "pure logic" had become somewhat ossified and unreflective as well.

Husserl begins with the same assumption of kant, that is a transcendental subjectivity and thus the need for a transcendental inquiry undertaken by the subject into the conditions of his own cognition, but he is much more tentative about the fruits of that inquiry. Whereas Kant is ARGUABLY immanent and ARGUABLY suggesting the Kantian categories, Husserl is quite clearly not willing to venture a category theory, preferring to begin his inquiry with much more immediate "data," hence all his investigations into specific phenomena (like the irreducible temporality of consciousness).

This is why I think people reading Husserl as a neo-platonist are jumping the gun. The man barely started his own project after 50 years of trying, he himself didn't feel that he had even finished laying the groundwork for it. To jump ahead to the implications for the project, which he felt would be the whole work of the next phase of mankind and philosophy itself, is a bit hasty.

>>16107708
I'm interested in the connection between the absolute idea and transcendental ego. Know any papers that go into this? Thank you

>>16107715
Kants relationship of object->concept or truth is also not very husserlian

>>16107715
But aren't Husserl's eidetic essences just his version of the categories? They seem necessary but quite as universal. Maybe they aren't as formal in some way.

>>16107724


I’m mostly going off my reads of Husserl directly but there’s articles I can dig up, this one seems to get into it. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1192&context=dissertations_mu

>>16107724
Lonergan was a transcendental thomist trying to unite phenomenological analysis as an empirical inquiry with new metaphysics, which essentially requires a neoplatonic absolute or mind and turns phenomenology into empirical platonism

I've seen a few Buddhists do similar things, especially the Buddhists who view Buddhism as primarily a guide for ascetics, and neutral at the theory level regarding the nature of the external world. These Buddhists sometimes seem more like exploratory mystics than non-dualists to me, in very real and direct ways like accepting the existence of spirits and daemons, and they can have extremely sophisticated phenomenological method. It's just hard to find these sorts of Buddhists let alone one who combines all these approaches.

>>16107739

Eidetic essences aren’t like, pre-existing platonic Forms which project into you nor do you come pre-loaded with them all. You have consciousness and self nature, which through eidetic and empirical intuition, gains data which by ego and reason and so forth correlates data and creates categories and structures mentally. It is entirely possible to extent the range of the eidetic structures and by this regard expand the range of phenomenological experience by the simple act of experience-within-time. Again this hooks directly into hegel.

>>16107747
reading this felt like having a stroke, does this actually mean anything or do I just have to read more

>>16107757
Ok I get they're not Platonic forms, but I wasn't aware Husserl doesn't say they're built-in. Are you telling me these essences are emergent in time somehow, just through the process of observation and correlation that you're describing?

>>16107747
>Lonergan was a transcendental thomist trying to unite phenomenological analysis as an empirical inquiry with new metaphysics, which essentially requires a neoplatonic absolute or mind and turns phenomenology into empirical platonism

While that’s p fun, I just didn’t like his method of synthesis personally.

>I've seen a few Buddhists do similar things, especially the Buddhists who view Buddhism as primarily a guide for ascetics, and neutral at the theory level regarding the nature of the external world.

Not a fan, I prefer hardcore Vajrayana lit, dzogchen lit, shingon, etc. you might find the work of Francisco Varela of value, since Hes mixing neuroscience, Husserl, ponty and buddhist phenomenological analysis.

>These Buddhists sometimes seem more like exploratory mystics than non-dualists to me, in very real and direct ways like accepting the existence of spirits and daemons, and they can have extremely sophisticated phenomenological method.

Depends where you’re looking, have you studied Yogachara and the Dharma(relational) theories of Theravada? Or how do you feel about Nagarjuna in general?

>It's just hard to find these sorts of Buddhists let alone one who combines all these approaches.

Totally understandable.

>>16107780

Yep, eidetic intuition occurs within the transcendental ego through experience of phenomena through time. It’s an unfolding of and building of the conceptual categories through experience.

>>16107771

Just read more dude.

>>16107801
It's just funny we're having this conversation because I've been trying to articulate a middle way between essences being pre-loaded (internally or externally), and just plain emergent in time (which doesn't make complete sense to me). Seems like you're saying these essences are only available retroactively, just through the experience of these phenomena in time and doing the work. But maybe what I'm trying to do doesn't apply to Husserl. either way, thanks.

>>16107850

Have you read Cartesian meditations and ideas yet? You’ll find his work very very valuable in this regard.

>>16107853
I should. I feel like this is more sophisticated than the Kantian take, where the transcendental structure of consciousness or whatever seems to authorize consciousness before it's even arrived on the scene. It always seemed to me like Kant was seeing formal conditions behind experience just because he was there to see them. But who knows. I'll peep it

>>16107780
I think it's more like Husserl isn't making constitutive claims about their origin or nature as part of the preliminary investigation of their immanent, structural presence for us.

That doesn't mean he never would or doesn't think you ever could, but phenomenological analysis at least begins by bracketing the metaphysical. Describe first, explain later. Husserl was busy his whole life with trying to find a way to d the describing part right. Kant jumped the gun.

So "essences" can be arbitrary, which is why Heidegger and hermeneutic phenomenology are important for historicising and immanentising the becoming of beings. There is (probably) no platonic form of my concept of unicycle. We need linguistic, hermeneutic philosophy to come to understand the concept of unicycle, especially if we don't already have it or we want to explain it to someone who has never seen one. But that doesn't mean that the underlying phenomenological processes by which I came to
have a concept like unicycle are not, relatively speaking, more structurally stable.

The question is, are THOSE structures/categories/whatever stable, even platonic? Are there foundational ideas or intuitions from which lifeworlds are constructed? I think Heidegger's successors simply dropped this question and had too much fun splashing around in the (seemingly) infinite flux and mutability of language (which is temporal, historical). They criticise Husserl for thinking stable structures like "The Transcendental Ego" exist, but they don't realise that Husserl didn't care so much about the specific linguistico-cultural-historical structure "The Transcendental Ego" as whatever really intend/experience by that provisional sign.

If on the one hand you have Derrida who wants to reduce everything to linguistic flux and say that metaphysics is impossible, and on the other hand you have metaphysical thinkers who just insist their 1-2-3 scheme of metaphysics is real, in the middle you have Husserl trying to observe our knowledge empirically in order to see what is really stable in it, and then, maybe one day, go beyond those observations and question what is really metaphysically underlying those apparently stable structures. THAT could be platonic.

>>16107731
Yeah true if I'm understanding you right, many of the particulars of Kantian "phenomenology" are weird like the hard distinction between intuition and understanding. But oddly enough I think the difference between intuition and understanding maintained by Kant is a strong sign of the fact that he was only being provisional and immanent in his analysis. Most of his followers just thought it was a mistake he had neglected to tidy up in his DEDUCTION of the structure of mind. But he wouldn't make such a mistake (especially with his all powerful autism). It was intentional, he was being descriptive, not deductive. Fundamentally that is closer to Husserl than most other idealists.

>>16107789
Thanks, I will check these out. I am not really well read in the oriental things, I only just started to notice how rich Buddhism is. Do you have any recommendations for starting places with these movements/schools you mention?

I know them mostly through traditional accounts which present them as precritical, scholastic metaphysics so maybe that is biasing me.

>>16107771
Yeah sorry I am probably mixing a lot of idiosyncratic shit together and using phrases that make perfect sense to me (because I've been thinking with them for a long time), but that the reader has to puzzle out and translate for himself.

I hope it means something but it's also possible I'm up my own ass.

>>16107884
>think it's more like Husserl isn't making constitutive claims about their origin or nature as part of the preliminary investigation of their immanent, structural presence for us.

All right, that's fair. Thanks.

>>16107895

You could read husserl’s essay on Buddhism, Kek.

The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, Mulamadhyamakakarika,
here’s a good text on Abhidhamma

https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/Temple_Of_Solomon_The_King/Eastern/Buddhism/A%20Manual%20of%20Abhidhamma%20%28Abhidhammattha%20Sangaha%29.pdf

Also don’t forget to read the connected discourses of the Buddha which are primary texts.


>>16107912

No dude I understood you perfectly, it just takes a decent amount of reading to discuss deeper aspects of phenomenology as it relates to stuff like theology.

>>16107648
Be careful here because Neoplatonism has nothing to do with "idealism" in the sense that everything that exists are minds and ideas inside minds. Platonic ideas are mind-independent in Platonist and Neoplatonist metaphysics.

>>16108323

Of course, I’m saying neo-neo-platonist because his conception of the transcendental ego and its relation as basically Hegel’s absolute idea to me puts it as a new formation of the current of Hegel which has its origins ultimately in Plotinus. Ya know.

>>16107670
Well you can interpret him however you want, but my point about phenomenology in general (not just Husserl's philosophy) is that it cannot give you any kind of metaphysically robust conception of extra-mental reality. Phenomenology just sheds light to the contents of our experience, if you want to talk about the external world you need to find another method.

>>16108379
Okay but Plotinus doesn't think that reality exists in the mind of some transcendental ego. The material world just lies there, it's not inside a mind, human or divine.

>>16098022
>>16098095
>I've never heard anyone make an association between them.
>"Will to Power is not a positivism or a phenomenology."
If there's any interface, it would be by way of Roger Boscovich and FN's reading of him

>>16099659
I mean I'm kinda digging it at least, except the 40% part

>>16100460
uncalled for

What are the most important pre-Husserl texts for understanding phenomenology in general? As opposed to texts that are important for one author in particular.

If I wanted a "crash course" in phenomenology, equivalent to a semester-long class on the matter - assuming that beforehand I already read the prerequisite texts from the above question - what books should I read for that course?

If there was a single overview or introductory book you would recommend for phenomenology, which would you choose?

>>16107603
1. The only hard thing to refute Camus is the cute girl at the party 2. People like Husserl

>>16098022
Let me rephrase my question: to what extent is phenomenology a solipsism? Also more generally what do the more recent people (let's say from Husserl on) say about solipsism?