/lit/ - Literature

i was like omggggg so sickkkkk <33 LOVED IT!!

>>18400967
He thought his students perverted phenomenology and he disassociated with their work

>>18400967
Didn't he think he was saying a lot of the same thing in his later work but no one noticed?

>>18400967
He shitted his pants because he realized he was inferior to Heidegger

>>18401016
what were his arguments?

>>18401036
Heidegger mogged him hard in the way he titled his books so maybe thats why no one noticed it

>>18401122
Idr i just remember him ostracizing himself from them or feeling ostracized. Better ask pharaoh anon

>>18401220
was he sad :(?

>>18401125
That is true.

Just the way Heidegger wrote about his philosophy, the whole "being" thing, was fantastic marketing.

>>18400967
>>18400967
He gave him an upvote and some reddit gold.

>>18401220
>pharaoh anon
kek

>>18401280
>Just the way Heidegger wrote about his philosophy, the whole "being" thing, was fantastic marketing.
Even what he claimed he was doing.
"Western philosophy since Aristotle has ignored the question of Being" or something akin to that.
Hegel literally starts The Science of Logic with the concept of Being.

He was pretty flabbergassed

>>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.

>>18402152
The way I heard it, Heidegger presented Husserl with a personal signed copy of Being and Time and Husserl read and annotated it. Part of the Husserliana authoritative Gesamtausgabe of Husserl's works is this Being and Time copy, with Husserl's annotations reproduced in the margins. Did he wait to read it or something?

Either way, Husserl thought Heidegger was saying things he already said or that were already implicit in his thought, however there is also a marked turn in Husserl's 1930s thought toward the temporal, and the historical/semantic/linguistic dimensions, which Heidegger is more known for.

No offense intended but I don't think this needs to be stated so clunkily because it isn't THAT complicated. You are right, Heidegger felt that Husserl's transcendental phenomenology created (as opposed to found) its object, in a way that is unlike how the object is actually given for us in ordinary consciousness, which is what phenomenology should be concerned with (hence all the Heideggerian focus on the Greek sense of letting things "appear" in their natural way). One way of thinking about is that Husserl wanted to find the underlying base structures of subjective consciousness but in doing so he projected such an atemporal, functionalist (and neo-Kantian) model onto the phenomena, instead of letting them do their thing. This is the common critique of Husserl today from a post-Heideggerian perspective, including Ricoeur I believe, who read both Husserl and Heidegger deeply.

The problem with Husserl isn't whether he had an answer or not to Heidegger's position - Heidegger's position can be critiqued from various perspectives, not least being that he IS imposing certain presupposed structures on consciousness just as he critiqued Husserl for doing, and he therefore does not escape being a "transcendental" philosophy in the Kantian stream. Some of these structures he got from Husserl. A critique from this direction would typically be made by a Derridean or post-Derridean Nietzschean like Judith Butler, who wants to really REALLY reduce all transcendental elements in phenomenology to linguistic immanence. (An interesting side effect of this is that while Heidegger can still maintain "organic culture-nation-peoples" within his framework, the political theology of Derrida/Butler's post-Heideggerian phenomenology is more cosmopolitan.)

As I was saying, the with Husserl problem isn't that he can't be defended from Heidegger's critique with a counter-critique. The problem is that Husserl was never very good at making such critiques. I believe Husserl when he says he FELT that Heidegger's position was implicit in his own. But this means taking Husserl at his word that he "intended" to get around to the temporal/historicistic dimension of phenomenological analyses. More likely this intent was vague and inchoate, like all of Husserl's long term plans generally, before Heidegger lit a fire under his ass (resulting in Experience & Judgment).

Banging his head in a 15 min video to his fav section

>>18402394
>One way of thinking about is that Husserl wanted to find the underlying base structures of subjective consciousness but in doing so he projected such an atemporal, functionalist (and neo-Kantian) model onto the phenomena, instead of letting them do their thing.
I forgot to add, to flesh this out: The "one way to think about this" is that Heidegger wanted to start at the "surface" of phenomena, and Husserl was trying to penetrate beyond the surface to its underlying structures.

Heidegger thought that phenomenology should START with the natural attitude, that is with the objects given in it (and then the modalities in which they are given, etc.). Husserl wanted to begin by bracketing the natural attitude, by studying the "core" acts of consciousness, which instantiate in particular acts of object-consciousness of particular objects.

These divisions are fuzzy though and there is much that is Husserlian in Heidegger's thinking and obviously Husserl thought that "Heideggerian thinking" was implicit in his own. And either way, both positions can be critiqued/discussed from other perspectives.

The sad thing is that phenomenology has come to be viewed as a system. In my opinion, Heidegger was just easier to turn into a system than Husserl was, and also more suited to the "existentialists" who didn't want the taint of scientism that Husserl has. French existentialists contributed to popularising Heidegger and making him the Good phenomenologists for the same reason that they surgically removed the scientism from Freud to create French Freudianism. Actual diehard Freudians were an ever shrinking minority.

With Freud, they wanted a hermeneutics of the unconscious, not a positivist, progressive framework of systematic inquiry. With Heidegger, they wanted a deconstructive "technique" to do interesting things with, a post-positivistic, post-transcendental, post-systematic tool. But then they elevated this nihilistic, deconstructive position (through which they also rehabilitated Nietzsche) into the final meta-system, the system of not having a system. Like I said, the political theology of Derrida is limp, Paris-centric cosmopolitanism, implicitly reliant on bourgeois civilisation (centered around fashionable metropoles like Paris) lasting forever, an ideology which the neo-liberal epoch then took up for its own reasons. Now the yuppies and boomers are all dying and deconstruction is old and boring, young people are craving a new positivism. I wish it would be founded on the kind of systematic research Husserl wanted, but it will more likely be founded on some cheap kitschy renewed pantheism.

>>18402394
>The way I heard it, Heidegger presented Husserl with a personal signed copy of Being and Time and Husserl read and annotated it. Part of the Husserliana authoritative Gesamtausgabe of Husserl's works is this Being and Time copy, with Husserl's annotations reproduced in the margins. Did he wait to read it or something?
I don't know the full story there, but I know it is known. Oh and some corrections on the timeline :

> "In this article I am focusing on a specific topic that will offer one pathway into this difficult field, namely, the question of personhoo or of a phenomenological anthropology. What is at stake, moreover, is the question of phenomenology as transcendental philosophy that, for Husserl, could onlybe based on consciousness framed in a transcendental register. To Heidegger, phenomenology – leaving aside the question as to its status as transcendental – must begin with considering concrete Dasein, which,however, is just a point of access to the question of Being as the actual
telos of his project. Historically, the last philosophical debate between the two took place during their collaboration on an entry for the Encyclopaedia Britannica (on ‘Phenomenology’) which Husserl was asked to write in 1927.Perhaps because Husserl already sensed the differences in Heidegger’s understanding of phenomenology (he did not read Being and Time until1931)"

- "Husserl’s concept of the ‘transcendental person’: Another look at the Husserl–Heidegger relationship" by Sebastian Luft

>>18402152
>>18402394
>>18402444
thanks for the effort posts
also checked

>>18402660
Some more except from that article, since it is on point.

> Heidegger’s critique aims not only at the concept of the transcendental ego (its exact ontological status), but also at Husserl’s methodological‘device’ or agent inextricably involved in analyzing it, namely, that of the ‘unparticipating observer’. Of course, Heidegger was not so naïve as too verlook the fact that in his own account the analyzing agent must somehow distance itself from its own entanglement in the world – since it is one andthe same Dasein that now lives ‘naturally’ and later philosophizes.However, he wants to undercut the theory–practice distinction altogether.
In this sense, it is Heidegger’s contention that Husserl’s concept of the unparticipating observer also reflects Husserl’s theoretical or all too abstract methodological approach to the question of the subject. This mightaccount for the fact that an explicit analysis of the philosophizing agent ismissing in Being and Time. Thus, because of the ‘detached’ stance of the‘unparticipating observer’, Husserl does not ‘see’ the worldhood of theworld and the human being’s engagement in it in their concrete modes. Or,as Merleau-Ponty famously phrased it: the reduction cannot be completed,for if it were, we would be disembodied spirits.

>>18402152
can you imagine having the guy you teached your revolutionary theories turning them upside down, becoming a legend AND being a fucking nazi? How didnt Husserl kill himself?

>>18402691
> As Landgrebe,Husserl’s former assistant, rightly remarks, ‘in Heidegger’s rejection of the “unparticipating observer” lies an attack on one of Husserl’s core thoughts’, namely, his notion of philosophical theory. Such a stance accounts for an abstract view of subjectivity and cannot represent its true concretion. In other words, because of his ‘theorizing’ presupposition,Husserl failed to really get ‘to the subject itself’. The upshot of this critique is ultimately that the distinction between a ‘mundane’ and transcendental subject is impossible, and it is ultimately a rejection of Husserl’s conception of transcendental phenomenology as a theory that can only begin its work after breaking with the ‘natural attitude’.

(from Husserl)
> I, the human being in the world, living naturally only as this humanbeing and finding myself in the personal attitude as this human person,am thusly not another ego which I find in the transcendental attitude.[…] The transcendental ego as pole and substrate of its potential totality is, as it were, the transcendental person which is primarily instituted [urgestiftet] through the phenomenological reduction. This ego will be framed henceforth in terms of the universality of the concrete transcendental and takes on for itself the all-embracing life that brings into play all potentialities and that can then actualize all possible modes of self-actualization. It will become apparent that natural personal existence and life is only a particular form of life, a life that remains identi-cal in view of all potential changes, i.e., [it is] the actual and possible unity of life, centered through the identical ego-pole, which remains the same in all these potential changes.

(back to the article)
> The transcendental person is thus not an abstract or ‘theoretical’ moment of the human person, but the person viewed in its fullest ‘concretion’. As such, it is just a different term from the more familiar concept of the monad that Husserl employs sporadically in 1910 and prominently in the 1920s (in Husserl’s quite ‘unterminological’ manner of thinking). The ‘monad’ asa term for the transcendental ego entails (having recourse to Leibniz) that the ego, as a sphere of experience of world, implies the world within it. It also, moreover, reminds us of the Leibnizian distinction between factual and eidetic truths, the latter of which phenomenology strives to ascertain as truths of the subject as person in its concretion.

>>18401045
heidegger bros...

>>18402789
>How didnt Husserl kill himself?
He was an optimist, and also religious (he had converted from judaism to protestantism at some point in the 1880s. And also already at the end of his life when it started to be clear Heidi would (sadly) outshine him.

> "The future alone will judge which was the true Germany in 1933, and who were the true Germans—those who subscribe to the more or less materialistic-mythical racial prejudices of the day, or those Germans pure in heart and mind, heirs to the great Germans of the past whose tradition they revere and perpetuate."

- Husserl, May 1933, about a month before his "resignation".

>>18402891
>died 1938
damn I didnt know he didnt get to see the end of nazy germany
that sucks

>>18402916
>nazy
ups
nazi*

>>18402916
Point aside, the "suicide" question is actually really on point if you consider that early century Austria and Germany were fucking suicide factories. Wittgenstein's siblings did themselves in like it was the Virgin Suicides.

>>18402916
It was the point tho. The entire Second World War was a false flag operation set up by the Catholic Church in order to get their hands on Husserl's manuscript before too many people managed to reach the transcendental field on their own.

Presumably he read aloud statements like:
>Thus "phenomenology" means αποφαινεσθαι τα φαινομενα -- to let that which shows itself be seen from itself in the very way in which it shows itself from itself.
And
>Temporality temporalizes as a future which makes present in the process of having been.
in a retard voice back to Heidegger and that's what lead to the later animus.

>>18402982
holy based

>>18400967
>>18402152
>>18402394
Real answer incoming. Husserl didnn't understand Being and Time on his first read, and his wife set up a one-on-one between Husserl and Heidegger so the two could discuss the ideas. Pic related is from The Other Husserl: The Horizons of Transcendental Phenomenology.

>>18403070
>tfw even fucking Husserl himself got filtered by being and time
imagine being lucky enough to get Heidegger to come to your place to explain Being and Time for you

>>18403070
>Husserl didnn't understand Being and Time on his first read, and his wife set up a one-on-one between Husserl and Heidegger so the two could discuss the ideas.
His wife was his secretary, it is perfectly natural she would write these letters. As for when Husserl actually read B&T, I'll have to check further, I remember many sources putting later than 1927, but a letter is hard to trump.