Husserl

spiceoflife

People, who can explain Husserls transcendental phenomenology to me??????

Playboy

I'm afraid that would take way too long and too much effort. Phenomenology is one of the more difficult concepts in philosophy. There are lots of books in most university libraries that are excellent introductory texts to phenomenology, ask your lecturer to reccommend some.

Tar.Aldarion

I would stay away from most books on philosophy in libraries from my past experiences,urgh!
The net seems to be better because people tend to talk about it in plainer language and try to get it accross whereas in books that are published and put in an university library tend to be quite technical and teh ghey!!!
I find people's descriptions of the work much easier to understand that the creators work itself.

I was browsing my Stanford book of philosophy earlier and I came accross this little gem.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/
This site seems to have a good description too, http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/ (go down to Tendencies and Stages within Philosophical Phenomenology Thus Far for the different concepts)

As far as I can tell phenomenology is the the philosophical study of consciousness and is the study of our experience — how we experience. Everybody looks at and sees an object differently.We see something like it is because of psychologism.If we had been brought up in complete isolation how would we see it?Husserl wanted to step back from Psychologism.
Phenomenology studies the world as it is given to or “constituted by” consciousness. One can speak of the phenomenology of reading, of dancing, of mathematical investigation, of chess-playing, and so forth, in each case meaning an analysis or description of how that activity is experienced by the person engaging in it (for example, the first-person experience of dancing or playing chess). One can also study objects (construed widely to include not just physical objects like tables and chairs but also abstract objects like numbers and values) in terms of the way they appear to consciousness.Husserl also had this thing about 'ideal concepts/objects'(like a number for example) like plato but Husserl thought that although we could percieve these ideals we had to experience or encouter them to fully understand them for what they are.
I think Husserl wanted to destroy psychologism or at least mostly.Step back from something and look at it for itself, you know what i mean?
We are all given preconceptions of things when growing up and we see these when when we look at the object.I think he wanted to step back and look at a thing for itself and not for how we have always percieved it.

Urgh phenomenology is huge,I suggest reading the links

DadaKopf

What's it these days with threads all being about philosophy students who can't grasp the concept of reading a book on the course's recommended reading list?

We can't write the book for you, but if you're having a more specific problem, we may be able to clarify a few points.

For me (and phenomenology was one of the most exciting things I ever studied, I threw myself into it), the best sources for introductions are: the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy (linked upstairs) and Richard Kearney's Modern Movements in European Philosophy - once you sort out the terminology. Absolutely brilliantly written, if you're willing to invest a little time and effort. Husserl in 15 or so pages.

There's another book that I never read by someone with a Russian/Polish-sounding name, and Dermot Moran's Introduction to Phenomenology. He's an Irish expert on Husserl, but not brilliant on many others and the book is too big and fairly boring, until you get through some more accessible primers like Kearney.

Playboy

DadaKopf wrote:

There's another book that I never read by someone with a Russian/Polish-sounding name, and Dermot Moran's Introduction to Phenomenology. He's an Irish expert on Husserl, but not brilliant on many others and the book is too big and fairly boring, until you get through some more accessible primers like Kearney.

That would be Robert Sokolowski. His 'Introduction to Phenomenology' is excellent. Much better than Moran's imo.

Playboy

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I think Husserl wanted to destroy psychologism or at least mostly.Step back from something and look at it for itself, you know what i mean?
We are all given preconceptions of things when growing up and we see these when when we look at the object.I think he wanted to step back and look at a thing for itself and not for how we have always percieved it.

I think you are trying to get at the concept of intentionality here. Consciousness is always intentional. Every mental phenomenon, every psychological act has a content, is directed at an object (the intentional object). Every belief, desire etc. has an object that they are about: the believed, the wanted.

spiceoflife

yea i get his concept, thanks for the recomended books. writing my essay on his affect on modern philosophy and id like to bring in descartes and kant slighty but will this be too far removed from the noema concept and bracketing......very confused on what exact angle to take on it

DadaKopf

Pretty simple maybe. Just how various aspects of his philosophy influenced others - you can easily get this from Kearney's book who explains the influence of Husserlian phenomenology on Heidegger, Sartre, then there's others like Bergson. Of course, Derrida began his career critiquing Husserl before he began delving into Heidegger, subsequently unleashing deconstruction on the world. Of course, one of my pet favourites, Ricoeur, combined Husserlian phenomenology with concrete existentialism, linguistic theory (Derrida did this, too) and hermeneutics (thereby going beyond Gadamer). Husserl, but maybe more Heidegger and Marx, greatly influenced Merleau-Ponty, by far a much better and elegant phenomenologist than Sartre. So I'm sure you can find a few books that'll link some of these thinkers back to Husserl.

But I wouldn't like this forum to turn into a place for students to cog answers!