Introduction to Phenomenology Part 2
Introduction to Phenomenology Part 2
In this video, Professor Thorsby discusses Edmund Husserl’s critique of Naturalism in Husserl’s essay “Philosophy as Rigorous Science”.
Send Us An Email! Info@StrokeRecoveryServices.com
The definition of philosophy, psychology of a branch of philosophy and not excluded from it,phi·los·o·phyfəˈläsəfē/nounthe study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
Excellent class Professor Thorsby, I am enjoying it very much. I just wanted to bring that Husserl was Jewish by some genetics, but was a Christian German citizen, (not that it matters): "…(…) "In 1886 he went to Halle, where he studied psychology and wrote his(…). He also was baptized. /(the same year)/ The next year he became Privatdozent at Halle and married a woman from theProssnitz Jewish community, Malvine Charlotte Steinschneider, who was baptized before the wedding. The couple had three children." (…)" IEP (Marianne Sawicki)
He is the example of the cruelty and evilness of the Nazi ideology. After being one of Historical luminaries of German Philosophy he became an "untouchable", and died in 1938, before WWII, and having lost children fighting with the German Army in the First World War, he was stripped of all his rights as a German citizen and also as a member of Academia.
I’ve been struggling with Husserl and this essay. Very clear presentation that makes reading continental philosophy more enjoyable. Plan to be back frequently for all content. Subscribed
Great series!
Did Edmund Husserl assume that mind is conscious? I request an answer to this because it is a very critical question.
I wish you didn’t start with _Philosophy as a Rigorous Science_ because every time I hear what Husserl says in it, especially the part where Philosophy had never begun, I get irked. I have _Logical Investigations Vol. 1_ and I’ve sections 1-20, but the claims has this seemingness of being irresponsibility. That the work of Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant, and Hegel, while he will bring back some, are dismissed as unnecessary. Philosophy is difficult in the fact that we cannot truly make a canon of work, or doctrines as you put it for Husserl, but in a way this supposed weakness is almost a light of hope. Not that this would be based on the passion of the matter, but that there is a complexity that science and analysis can’t itself comprehend. In the end, what Husserl did against Psychologism was good and so are his investigations, but perhaps where he claimed Philosophy didn’t have an object, and I believe this to be so, there was an object that he missed.
"The province of psychology" as described seems antithetical to the methodology of nearly every psychoanalyst other than Reich.
Best lecture I have heard on this subject so far, I can’t hardly wait for the rest , thanks for posting this 🙂
This is really clear.
Thanks.
Please do a course in ethics or epistemology in the future. Keep up the good work
Hi Mark, I notice that you make a reading mistake at 38:21. I am a german student and know we are studying about Logic. At Minute 38:21 you make a reading mistake and i want to know, if you mean "condition" or "conclusion". May first "condition" and afterwards "conclusion". I do not know, if there is a difference in english, but i assume, that there is the same difference in english than in german. I will mean a loot to me, if you clarify this for me.
Your Explanation about Edmund Husserls Philosophie are very helpful. Thank you for your time.
Best regards
Very well presented explanations, useful in my Gestalt research – will go back to your other lectures, Thanks!
Does Godel basically shows that psychologism is true?
These presentations and your explanations have been very useful. Have you made these presentations available for download anywhere ? Thank you
Do you have a series of lectures on Existentialism?
underrated channel, i love your content
What is emerging across Professor Thorsby’s depiction of Husserl’s understanding of phenomenology, is something of a turf war in Husserl’s mind, between mathematics/logic and psychology; where characterising psychology as naturalistic is a strawman device in Husserl’s commitment to science, and concomitantly to mathematics and logic as the final arbitrators of what is real and true. Husserl’s limitation for us then is, that 80 odd years down the line in time, we have given over to a greater understanding from the social sciences. Where now we displace the simplicity of Husserl’s idea of naturalism, with the rich complexity of all things social and collective and cultural; where Husserl’s naturalism is seen as a component part of a collective ideology which we have long left behind. Husserl was another elite figure who sought to comprehend all things from an elite position and for elite purposes; where we now see and understand such things as what they are.
Elite activities are reflections of what is done in a distributed way across all humanity, in all its diversity and multiplicity of instances. The elite philosophising of a moment reflects the philosophising that a contextualising population are doing. Rather than leading this overall process, elite philosophising needs to be serving this wider activity. Forget the eternal and communicating with aliens; and contribute to enhancing what members of a population are already doing. Science isn’t then the answer to everything’; rather science is simply one grand activity amongst numerous other grand activities.
"1+1=2" only works when we are already experiencing sameness. If and as we continue to experience uniqueness or singularity, we do not have experience across which 1+1=2 is pragmatically validated. I sometimes wonder as to just how dialogue went, when people went through the process of moving 1+1=2 from being meangingless to being valid and having utility. I’ve worked with children educationally who found nothing in their experience to validate the idea of 1+1=2.
Psychology is as much a concern with relating and interacting, with subjectivity and intersubjectivity, with the mystery and wonder of the other, with how we become self across the view of us by others; as it is as depicted by Husserl. In many ways the psychologist is the ultimate philosopher, seeking realtime understanding across realtime relation.
awesome presentation. Keep it up
I’am because I experience. I’am the essence of my existence because I can experience life, without experience you can know nothing and therefore cannot reason about anything —- we were not born with any innate knowledge but with a blank slate. If you say that conscious exists since conscious is a predicate it is a false predicate premise argument, being conscious is a verb and cannot exist without an object to the verb, what exists is our essence and conscious is the activity that our essence does —-this is proven by the fact we can be unconscious and wake up and we still exist —–our essence exists if we are conscious or not,
Damn Prof. Thorsby, you know how to make this topic digestible. Trying to work my way through Husserl before I attempt to read Heidegger again and you’re making it much smoother.
Realist phenomenology is best phenomenology.
Paul VanderKlay sent me here
This seems to be getting to the crux of what it might all be about. I’ve been wondering whether phenomenology was useful, or just some intellectual meandering of little worldly value. I’m still trying to decide.
Thank you for doing a great job on trying to elucidate the topic.
Dear Professor Thorsby: your image on the corner of the screen is way too small.
If phenomenology proceeds from Descartes – what did Descartes say? the mind is conscious and is immaterial, whereas everything else is material. Okay. Now, how can we possibly assign transcendental structures to consciousness or mind, that is something immaterial? But in phenomenology, we do assume that our consciousness has certain pre-given structures, that makes the experience possible. This means — we cannot assume that consciousness is immaterial (Descartes view). Also, Edmund Husserl said – our consciousness has certain features and structures — this means consciousness must be material. So, in phenomenology – what is consciousness – a material or immaterial? If it is immaterial, how can say, it has a structure? Please resolve this dilemma.
Why do you study philosophy???
To carry on the eternal work of humanity. Your welcome.
from my past experience with objective epistemology it seems like phenomenology is bullshit, "ANY IDEALS ARE ABSTRACT CONCEPTS THAT DON’T EXIST" for example Mickey Mouse, the Tooth Fairy or Mother Goose do not exist in objective reality, only identities and the relationship of those identities to each other exist in reality. —for the example words do not exist but they are just symbols that refer to objects in objective reality that do exist. What conscious is ——is biochemical reactions and neurotransmitters in the brain, naturalism is just one of the identities in objective reality, along with all matter of the universe, quantum waves, and other identies. It seems like the whole study of phenomenology is the study of non-existent abstract concepts, ideas don’t exist. Conscious is just part of the viol chemical processes of our body that cease to exist upon our death when those processes cease to function anymore,
Minor Clarification, There were 2 volumes to the LI. The first was published in 1900, the second in 1901. Fantastic videos by the way! Thank you.
Mark you are a great teacher
The problem with mathematics being the universal language with aliens is that mathematics isn’t a language – but a set of concepts that requires a language to communicate. If I write "1+1=2" – that won’t mean anything to you unless you are familiar with one funny shape that means "one", another funny shape that means "two", another that means "plus", another that means "equal" – as well as other things such as the way these funny shapes go together. Unless you’re familiar with all these symbols (which are the _language_ of mathematics) then "1+1=2" won’t seem like a mathematical equation to you, but rather, a scribble.
Good video.superbly explained
thanks Mark , keep it up
an amazing explination
I really did very much liked your explinations
I hope you keep it up
you are doing an excellent work
Excellent content, really appreciate you going to the trouble of sharing it with us.
One suggestion that would improve the presentation: stop saying "right?" every 3 words 🙂
I am told by certain pedagogues that science is essentially an experimental activity seeking to find rules/laws by which reality can be subjected to predictive definite outcomes. Mathematics is an abstract endeavor that assists science as a descriptive tool but evolves independently of science using its own methods. Philosophy offers abstract prescriptive methods of thinking to evaluate any problem, As such, the methods of Phenomenology remain one of the most powerful tools scientists can have to reject assumption, dogma, any weak hypothesis in the search for the truth.
Best lectures I have heard on video, thx
Thank you for your videos.
Very nice presentation with good historical background. TY.
Missed a flight last night and would have listened to this waking up in der schwarzwald just north of Frieberg… instead events, the insufficient application of reason, a rare but inevitable unexpected consequence of the principle caused something else. Thanks (nevertheless :-)) to Mark for such a great job!
A really amazing work Mark, looking forward to your next lecture
LOL. I keep seeing the 1st of February and the number 40 everywhere. Ian Brown – who I am a fan of – bringing forward his latest album release date from the 1st of March to the 1st of February. This video being released on the 1st of February. And this year being the 40th anniversary of the "Disco Sucks" campaign in the USA and the "Disco Demolition Night" at White Sox Baseball stadium in Chicago (arguably a fore runner of the present day "culture war"). I get it okay – I turn 40 years old on February 1st.
Thank you so much! All I’ve read so far has been so hermetic… and I needed to have good understanding of the basis on which I could build.
I believe that a much better example for a philosopher mathematician would be Gottfried Leibniz. Other great examples are Russell, Descartes, and, of course, the Greeks (Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato)