• Pourya
    1
    Hello dear members,
    As a student of English literature I have to study some introductory philosophy to interpret literary works. As it is well-known the modern literary criticism starts with the work of the German philosopher, Edmund Husserl, and his famous phenomenology. Going through his philosophy, I have understood the concepts that he bases phenomenology upon. He first argues that to see the world as a separate natural existence and independent of the mind is wrong. He calls this perspective "natural attitude" and he rejects it. The perspective that empirical thinkers held; they ignored the role of the mind in perceiving the world. A perspective that finally gave rise to positivism. He then claims that everything in the universe must go through the minds of the subjects, so what is out there is a "pure phenomenon". He disagrees with the Kantian idea that "the things in themselves" are inaccessible because we never get out of our heads and see them. On the contrary, he believes that we can "reduce" these phenomena by "bracketing" all other immediate experiences that interfere with a certain phenomenon in our consciousness. This "phenomenological reduction" can help us arrive at the "essence" of things which are invariable and unchangeable. This method finally gives us a genuinely reliable knowledge based on which we can construct sciences. So phenomenology is a science of sciences. Husserl aimed at finding a way to finally get to the concrete essence of things in themselves. He also called this essence "Eidos", the Greek word for "type". An eidetic abstraction is an unchangeable concept, such as "redness" or "jealousy", although their degree varies in different subjects.


    I just gave a very brief description of what i have understood from Husserl. First of all i want to know if I am wrong in any of the points I have mentioned and the second thing I am concerned with is an approach that Husserl believed in. He called his approach "intuitive". He claimed that phenomena need not be interpreted and reasoned, instead they must be understood intuitively. Can anyone help me understand what he means by that? Are not our intuitions deceitful and subjective? if it is subjective, how is it possible to get to the things in itself?


    By the way, I have learned all this from a book I am reading called "literary Theory, An Introduction" by Terry Eagelton"
  • Veronika Pugach
    2
    Hi. I've passed a course on phenomenology at the university and I think all the points you wrote are correct but it must be added that Husserl is not really doubting the outside world or saying that it is dependent on mind but he just says that this world of natural attitude is not of his interest. We must not forget that there are always others in the world, so it is definitely not dependent on our own mind at least but is constituted by all of us together.

    As for intuition, this is a hard think to understand. I.Kant said that noumenon can be defined as an object of non-sensible intuition which we, people, do not possess. E.Husserl disagrees with Kant on this point and thinks people do have an intellectual intuition which enables them to grasp the true entities by seeing them with self-evidence. And phenomenology doesn't explain, it only describes what is seen. It is supposed that when we see properly we will see the same self-evident things. This is a big problem indeed.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    The issue with Husserl's stance as I perceive it, is that he as with many other philosophers before and after him, are still seeking access our definition of truth. The problem is that in a universe that is in constant, never-ending, change, flow, flux, it is impossible to stop time long enough to gain truth. In other words, and so-called fact that one states, is a product of prior memory of some individual mind, and before any possible instantiation of a fact can be formed, everything, everywhere had changed, making any statement of fact subject to change. This point of view depends upon the observation that everything is always changing, a condition that is supported by current scientific thinking.

    As for intuition, I believe this is the only route to a deeper understanding of ourselves, of life, and the universe. It is a process of self-journey and as with everything else is subject to change. The way I already intuition is by observing events from many different perspectives and finding the similarities and differences and forming new positions and ideas.

    Will intuitive observations change and will they differ from individual to individual? Yes, they will. But no more than any other process that we might use. Every process towards understanding is always subject to change, to disagreements, to different observations, to different conclusions. It is an aspect of the creative mind that is at the heart of everything and embedded in the fabric of the universe. The universe simply did not yield to absolutes because it is always changing.
  • wayne kaye
    2
    I understand "the natural attitude" as the normal attitude that one takes when going about everyday life and engaging in common perceptions. In the phenomenological attitude, we examine how things present themselves in this natural attitude:

    "The natural attitude is the focus we have when we are involved in our original, world-directed stance, when we intend things, situations, facts, and any other kinds of objects. The natural attitude is, we might say, the default perspective, the one we start off from, the one we are in originally. We do not move into it from anything more basic. The phenomenological attitude, on the other hand, is the focus we have when we reflect upon the natural attitude and all the intentionalities that occur within it. It is within the phenomenological attitude that we carry out philosophical analyses"(Sokolowski, 1999, p. 42).

    Sokolowski, R. (1999). Introduction to Phenomenology. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.