/lit/ - Literature

>>5923164
>muh utility

>>5923164
To further pseudoscience in philosophy?

>>5923208
When has phenomenology ever pretended to be a science in the American sense? Why would a phenomenologist even want to do that?

>>5923260
You don't have to claim to be science to be pseudoscience. See astrology

>>5923283
Pseudo-science means falsely pretending to be science, or taking itself for science when it is not science.
If it doesn't pretend to be science or take itself for science, it can't be pseudo-science.

>>5923312
By your definition, but that's not the definition that's commonly used, i.e. transparency thesis. Where does astrology say that it's science? Phenomenology claims to inform us of the external world through subjective experience. Entirely qualitative. It's bullshit. I fail to see how being unable to quantify the experience of eating ice cream is worth anything at all

>>5923312
Please tell me how neurology and clinical psych have to make use of phenomenology, or what phenomenology does that they don't. No one can answer that question. I think the only reliable investigations into consciousness are through neuro & psych

>>5923283
That's an idiosyncratic view. If all modes of knowing and understanding that are not science are "pseudoscience", what meaning does the concept even have? Should I stop reading poetry because the way it widens my understanding it is not scientific? Is the historical method useless and invalid because it is pseudoscience? Should we stop thinking about human experience simply because you would apply the term "pseudoscience" to it?

>>5923335
Does poetry purport to provide a meaningful explanation of the way the world actually works? Answer: no.

>>5923283
That's an idiosyncratic view. If all modes of knowing and understanding that are not science are "pseudoscience", what meaning does the concept even have? Should I stop reading poetry because the way it widens my understanding is not scientific? Is the historical method invalid because it is not science? Should we stop thinking about human experience simply because you would apply the term "pseudoscience" to it?

>What's the use of phenomenology?
>use

the purpose of phenomenology is to understand phenomenon

>>5923326
>Phenomenology claims to inform us of the external world through subjective experience
who makes this claim, and where?

>Entirely qualitative. It's bullshit.
why is something that's qualitative bullshit?

> I think the only reliable investigations into consciousness are through neuro & psych
how do you measure "reliability"?

>>5923349
But why can't or doesn't philosophy of mind/language and psychology do that?

>>5923326
>By your definition, but that's not the definition that's commonly used
textbook no true scotsman

>Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
please provide a link to several prominent figures in phenomenology presenting phenomenology as a science

>>5923341
The same goes for phenomenological and and, in fact, the scientific method. In no way does acknowleding the utility of the scientific method imply scientific (or any ontological) realism as a philosophical stance.

>>5923360
Husserl ""the reflective study of the essence of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view."

Something entirely qualitative doesn't reveal anything about how the world actually works. You need actual justification for something rather than writing about it.

>>5923375
Uhh, no, that's Wittgenstein, actually.

Husserl himself said phenomenology is " a kind of "descriptive psychology".... a transcendental and eidetic science of consciousness"

>>5923376
That's part of the point. Phenomenology has no justification for its discussion of ontology, even if the terms it used were actually coherently defined.

>>5923368
Because they're concerned with different subjects entirely. They don't aim to understand and conceptualise the phenomenal world as phenomena like phenomenology does.

>>5923404
Can you define the phenomenal world in any coherent way? I'm having trouble finding anything that even remotely makes sense.

>>5923368
>philosophy of mind/language
phenomenology seems to me to be a methodological school within philosophy of mind, although mind is not identical to phenomenon
>and psychology
psychology's aims are to help a client understand themselves and to help treat psychological disorders. the aim doesn't seem to be understanding a "logic of experience" as such

>>5923383
>Uhh, no, that's Wittgenstein, actually.
to my knowledge someone being wittgenstein doesn't absolve them from fallacious thinking

>Husserl himself
i asked for several figures, not one. plus he could have been using "science" in a more general way; metaphysics was considered "queen of the sciences". do you have any more compelling evidence than this?

>>5923404
I think philosophy of language, particularly ordinary language philosophy, does a much better job at clearly understanding the "phenomenal world" than phenomenology does. That's why Wittgenstein said "phenomenology is grammar".

>>5923420
>to my knowledge someone being wittgenstein doesn't absolve them from fallacious thinking

The point flew completely over your head. Since you're completely unable to Google, I'll explain it to you. It's not a true scotsman fallacy but a rejection of the equivocation in philosophy. To argue against my label of pseudoscience, you snuck in your own definition of pseudoscience ("falsely pretending to be science") to contradict my label. The transparency thesis states that such philosophical problems are trivial and philosophy is useless when it just redefines words to match consistency. I'm obviously stating that I think phenomenology doesn't work and rests on methodology we know to be false.

>i asked for several figures, not one. plus he could have been using "science" in a more general way

Jesus, man, can you not google? Check on the wiki page for phenomenology, you'll find dozens of more descriptions. I'm not using the internet for you because you're technologically incompetent.

Again, transparency thesis. One of the biggest problems with continental is that it fails to define its own fucking terminology

>>5923438
I love how you criticize other people so deeply but all of your implied stances are utter shit

Look at the philosophy of definition and categorization

>>5923409
Husserl used the classic Kantian definition while bracketing all ontological assumptions. Heidegger did the same, but "ontologised" Husserl's phenomenology by dissociating the phenomenal from the noumenal and therefore clearing the way for a anti-realist ontology. How is that difficult to understand? I'm getting the feeling you're not even remotely familiar with the authors you are attempting to critique.

All of continental philosophy is world salad and is independent of any justification. Analytic philosophy has its flaws, but continental is trash. You have to do something more than make obscure metaphors to justify something

>>5923471
do you like dicks

i bet you like dicks

>>5923478
>Thinks liking dicks is bad
>Is on 4chan
>Must be a continental neckbeard

>>5923383
>a transcendental and eidetic science of consciousness

"Wissenschaft" had a much different meaning in Husserl's time than the contemporary use of "science."

>>5923438
>It's not a true scotsman fallacy but a rejection of the equivocation in philosophy.
>By your definition, but that's not the definition that's commonly used,
this is just a second-order no true scotsman.

> but a rejection of the equivocation in philosophy.
this statement is itself a rejection of the equivocation in philosophy. just say that people aren't defining their terms and using ambiguous language next time

>The transparency thesis states that such philosophical problems are trivial and philosophy is useless when it just redefines words to match consistency.
we haven't been talking about any philosophical problem. you're labeling phenomenology a pseudoscience, and someone is rejecting your thesis because phenomenology doesn't fit the definition of pseudoscience (something which presents itself as a science but does not follow scientific procedure or rely on the scientific method). you just go ahead and reject that, justifying that rejection by saying that that's not the true definition of pseudoscience.

you can jump around it all you want m8 but you're not convincing anybody

>Jesus, man, can you not google? Check on the wiki page for phenomenology
it's your argument, your thread. you collect evidence and present it. you just don't have any.

I can give you the long and skinny of phenomenology including the relevance of phenomenology from a phenomenologist's perspective. You can choose to accept the phenomenologist's arguments on your own terms or you can in turn argue against them. I don't care.

Husserl invented phenomenology to "ground the sciences," so to speak or, in other words, to validate scientific knowledge and the evaluations humankind makes in the process of conducting the scientific method. You can break up his career into two halves: the early Husserl much resembles Brentano and the "descriptive psychologists" of 19th century Germany whereas the late Husserl seems something like an experiential realist such as Hilary Putnam. The Logical Investigations characterizes the early Husserl and Ideas as well as Crisis characterize the late Husserl. Common among these two halves of his career is the notion that language, psychology, physics, chemistry, and biology all methodically shape the experience of a "transcendental" or theoretical Cartesian ego rather than constitute it. These tools, then, and the results of their employment determine the experience of the ego as such; however these tools in themselves (or "equipment" as Heidgger might term them) merely give form to the experiences of the ego. Phenomenology is that method that, according to phenomenogists and this reasoning, investigates the terms and component parts of that whole experience after it's rendering.

In effect a phenomenologist should know a thing or two about science, psychology, and language and acknowledge their respective roles in determining the greater phenomenon of experience, but the phenomenologist nonetheless regards the experience itself as primitive to the ego as such.

Heidegger, Jaspers, and the French have more to say on the subject, but I don't know enough to speak on that matter.

>>5923517
Only coherent post in this entire thread. Thanks for the info.

>>5923517
What a useless post full of horseshit. Read a book.

>>5923501
And it still has in places that are not America.

>>5923522
Why is that depiction wrong?

>>5923527
It's hardly a depiction at all. Most of it is biography or context. It also ignores the fact that a lot of phenomenologists strayed from Husserl in significant ways (Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty). For example, Heidegger doesn't even believe in the subjectum (ontologically speaking).

>>5923521
Not a problem! As I said I only gave the "long and skinny." I think phenomenology is a fun sort of philosophical tradition worth its salt on the whole if you have the time and the resources to enjoy the literature. If you have the leisure and the interest, I highly recommend that you delve in to the finer details for yourself! You don't have to buy it, and if you do, more power to you. I just think it's a fun and exhilarating ride.

>>5923393
This is such a trainwreck of a post that I don't really know where to begin.

First, you're contradicting yourself. In >>5923341, you implied that the purpose of science is to "provide a meaningful explanation of the way the world actually works", that the same applies to phenomenology and that phenomenology is "pseudoscience" because of this. This, however, is wrong, since the phenomenological method does not imply ontological realism and thus is not concerned at all with "how the world really works".

This leads us to our second point: not all ontology is realist. The phenomenological methdo does not imply acceptance of ontological realism, but you definitely can formulate an anti-realist ontology using the phenomenological method, which is exactly what Heidegger's fundamental ontology is an attempt at.

Third, what are referring to by phenomenology's "discussion of ontology"? Heidegger is an exception here: most phenomenologists do not attempt to formulate phenomenological ontologies at all, and the utilisation of phenomenological methodology does not imply any particular ontological stance any more than the utilisation any other methodology (historical, hermeneutic, scientific and so on). Again, I'm getting the feeling you're not well acquainted with the authors you are trying to critique.

>>5923501
It still has a ridiculously broader meaning than the word science does in English.

I think it's a massive failure of translation that we automatically translate Wissenschaft as science.

In regards to humanities, Wissenschaft in German is much more akin to studies. This applies to phenomenology as well; the goal isn't to be scientific in the English sense of the word- that is to use the scientific method and empirical data- but instead to engage in logical critique of things.

So in the German context, Wissenschaft being used to describe phenomenology means that there is a consistent logic used in the attempt at understanding phenomena.

Whichever anon or anons are talking about it being pseudoscience and bullshit just don't understand that it's not comparable to science as such, since its grounding is exclusively in the subjective experience of phenomena, not in an objective experience. Its base assumptions differentiate itself from science.

Does that mean it can't inform science? No. Does that mean it's bullshit? No.

Does that mean these people arguing against it here in this thread don't have the understanding necessary to make the claims they're making? Clearly it does.

>>5923326
>Phenomenology claims to inform us of the external world through subjective experience.
That is precisely what phenomenology actively does not do.

>Entirely qualitative. It's bullshit.
Some sciences are in part qualitative. Biology for example. You could claim this even for mathematics: a notion of a set or a function is a qualitative notion based on which quantities are then possible.

>>5923420
>psychology's aims are to help a client understand themselves and to help treat psychological disorders. the aim doesn't seem to be understanding a "logic of experience" as such
wrong