/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11242297]

Where to start with him?

[Anonymous No.11242304]

Pharaoh (1999), to get a taste of what all his stuff culminates in.

[Anonymous No.11242312]

>>11242297
>>11242304
i think that will be all

[Anonymous No.11242445]

Bump
>>11242304
?

[Anonymous No.11242464]

>>11242304
based

[Anonymous No.11242478]

>>11242297
Forgot Husserl and his followers.

Start getting into phenomenology with, you won't regret it.

[Anonymous No.11242496]

>>11242478
meme

[Anonymous No.11242516]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fBYpm4MHyKM-80sTzQaBiYLI0vJKkE80h2b10JR5cwg/mobilebasic?pli=1

[Anonymous No.11242573]

Husserl is pretty tough to get into.. I would recommend reading Dermot Moran's books on him and having a very high degree of patience at first because when I read it, holy fuck did Moran jump straight into technical jargon that the uninitiated would have no way to navigate.

I remember I read another intro to Husserl thing that was arguing he was a Berkleyan idealist and didn't talk at all about his ideas. I was blown the fuck away.

He's not THAT hard to understand. Just do yourself a favour and start with some of his later, less work-in-progress writings, probably Ideas I or MAYBE the Logical Investigations. The real problem with understanding Husserl is that he's responding to so many strands of thought in so many ways that even contemporaries were baffled about where he stood on some basic issues. Once you "get" the gestalt of Husserl though, you can very fruitfully and pleasantly read his ouevre as him working toward it and trying to apply it in very interesting ways. It's just hard to get to that point.

[Anonymous No.11242624]

>>11242573
>gestalt
I like how you use that word

[Anonymous No.11242637]

>>11242573
People told me ideas 1 was really hard and not a good start point at all, care to elaborate on why you consider it a good starting point?
I hate how this fag names his books, so autustic
I'm only trying to get him because I want to into Merleau Ponty btw. What do you think of him? I tried to read P. of Perception but got btfo just around 10 pages after the prologue.

[Anonymous No.11242638]

>>11242304
kek

[Anonymous No.11242643]

>>11242573
>Dermot Moran
"introduction to phenomenology", or "edmund husserl"?

[Anonymous No.11242647]

>>11242297
I just learned he studied mathematics under Weierstrass! and I'm learning Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem right now! what a coincidence

[Anonymous No.11242652]

>>11242647
Wew!
>tfw mathlet
I will never make it. Why did I have to be such an slacker junkie in my first years of life only to find the path to appreciation of knowledge when it was already too late and the basics of all of it lack in myself?

[Anonymous No.11242673]

>>11242304
truth

[Anonymous No.11242685]

>>11242637
Maybe I'm wrong about Ideas I, then. I just remember that when I was getting into him, I was trying to decide where to start to get a good foothold on the gist of the whole thing, and I ended up with three basic options: early, middle, or late. Early is a bad idea, and the problem with middle period is that he's still like wrenching his own ideas out of the vernacular he was accustomed to, so there are still all these (I can't think of a better word) "clunky" re-appropriations that want to pretend they are't re-appropriations from logical and mathematical and neo-Kantian verbiage.. I can read LI and "see" the real Husserl in it, but I always worry with phenomenology that people will get lost in its trees and miss the forest.

Maybe I'm biased. I'm reading LI right now and it just feels.. wooden, or rigid, because he's trying to justify a radical position to a formalist world in its own formalist language.

Merleau-Ponty is hard but another one that is often misread. If you google, you can find the late Hubert Dreyfus' Berkeley lecture series on him. In the Heidegger lectures (also up on YT), Dreyfus says MP is even harder than Heidegger, but I don't know if it's true.

MP is interesting and I think maybe the best phenomenologist, but the appropriations his philosophy is getting these days (it's trendy) are dangerous and weird. It's a lot of biosemiotics people trying to smuggle MP's phenomenology of perception into a trendy "embodied cognition" metaphysics - just another extension of the postmodern French vogue for deconstructing "Cartesianism", the transcendental subject. If you're going to read MP, I would say (on a personal and biased level) to try to find the real MP beneath all the recent trendy garbage.

>>11242643
Both are OK but I found the Intro, if that's the one with the chapters on various phenomenologists, to be uneven. Still very interesting, for example his treatment of Sartre is a highlight, but goddamn. I went into Husserl with a good understanding of Heid and decent understanding of MP and I still had to squint and go "WHAT?" to Moran several times. Maybe I'm just dumb.

[Anonymous No.11242688]

>>11242624
Sorry if pretentious - reading too much Heidegger and others has made me use certain conceptual shorthand pretentiously

[Anonymous No.11242796]

>>11242685
>It's a lot of biosemiotics people trying to smuggle MP's phenomenology of perception into a trendy "embodied cognition" metaphysics
Like Maturana and Varela?

[Anonymous No.11242808]

>>11242304
can someone explain this meme please

[Anonymous No.11242813]

>>11242688
It was just an alex jones reference joke m8
>>11242685
Can "confirm" MP being harder than Heidegger. I'm at least capable of seeing some structure in Being and Time but MP is just form-less most of the time.
Why cant philosophy be easy reeee

[Anonymous No.11242886]

>>11242304
based

[Anonymous No.11242889]

>where to start with Husserl
don't

[Anonymous No.11242895]

>>11242889
:'(

[Anonymous No.11242911]

>>11242889
>>11242895
Don’t worry, it has a happy ending
>>/lit/thread/S10985152

[Anonymous No.11242990]

>>11242889
Lol

[Anonymous No.11242997]

>>11242911
>proust schoolar
lol

[Anonymous No.11243456]

Bump