Husserl on First Philosophy

[@nrg937]

I recently decided to re-engage with Husserl's ouvre. Earlier today I searched for this lecture which I originally listened to as an undergrad back in ca. 2018, and now here it is.

[@vaporchild1821]

i'm in the midst of reading ideas 1 just as this was posted, thank you for this!!

[@xxx6555]

For a long time I thought Husserl is outdated until I watched this video (and another lecture given by another philosophy professor) today. I think I should pay more attention to him, as well as his intellectual relations with his students like Leo Strauss. Now I even incline to think there seems to be no solid argument that can really refute the Husserlian idea of a transcendental ego.

[@cheri238]

Thank you for this. I am doing studing on Hussserl. Leo Strauss.

[@englishandbengaliworkshop4532]

A great discussion

[@timmcd2179]

Did Husserl ever directly engage with the opposing position of the historicists/sophists? Sokolowski mentions this opposing camp as one of two distinct antagonistic philosophical "schools" in Husserl's time. But nothing is mentioned about the arguments between the Historicist and the Phenomenological approaches. It would be helpful if someone could direct me to Husserl's engagement with this other school, or other philosophers who explicitly engaged in this argument.

[@julian-m]

For his most prominent critique of historicism, you should have a look at Husserl's Logos article called "Philosophy as a rigorous science". For Sophism or scepticism in general, the first two parts of the Crisis of the European Sciences [...] should also be accessible. The philosopher Husserl adresses as being historicist is Wilhelm Dilthey. Dilthey was quite popular with many phenomenologists, including Heidegger. So relevant paragraphs on historicity in Being and Time could be used to further discuss historicism.

[@teporeliot]

Don't forget early Derrida as profoundly influenced by Husserl!

[@aussiebeermoney1167]

Phenomenology is like phrenology is to neuroscience

[@OntologicalCatastrophe]

you haven't even been capable of articulating a full sentence, that should say enough about how much attention your statement is worth

[@aussiebeermoney1167]

@@OntologicalCatastrophe you also have not used grammar correctly. get rekt scrub!

[@marchdarkenotp3346]

This is an incomplete comparison. Phenomenology : x :: phrenology : neuroscience. What does the x stand here for? Another presupposition: it is assumed here that there is such a thing as pseudoscience and disciplines of knowledge that had no advancement that is of relevance to the overall knowledge of humanity. Anyone who holds these presuppositions have no idea how the scientific method works. (Verificationism has been debunked for many decades now; thank Popper and Kuhn for that.)

[@aussiebeermoney1167]

@@marchdarkenotp3346 it's obvious what is meant, unlike Phenomenologists who like to get like to get lost in their own nonsense

[@pectenmaximus231]

Your meaning was clear, to me anyway. But I don’t think it’s totally fair. I mean some years ago I definitely felt that way, which is why I think it’s worth revisiting this if you keep your mind open to the idea that phenomenology isn’t all wishy-washy navel gazing touchy-feely silliness.

[@theadchefer]

70% filler this speaker is awful

[@platolover6377]

Distortion of Aristotle

[@Hermes1548]

Husserl playing with words, while Otto Selz was already creating his Lösungstheorie, the first steps of Cognitive Psychology, from which it will arrive Evolutionary Psychology today, with Darwin’s evolution by natural and sexual selection as the foundations. I have tried to study Husserl, but he does not repay the effort.

[@carlosluis1970]

All continental philosophy of the 20 century is based on Husserl (even the so called existencialism school, like Sartre, Heidegger, as well as the ethical like Levinas, Derrida, or the sociology of Luhmann, and the psychoanalisis of Lacan....

[@Hermes1548]

@@carlosluis1970 That says much about continental philosophy. Heidegger says in Sein und Zeit (mutatis mutandis): Husserl’s idea of personality is correct. Humans are no things. I suppose Heidi never studied Labor Law nor studied history and slavery. Homo sapiens is an animal, and has been treated as an animal (an object) as long as slavery in the USA endured. And today you have slaves called ‘proletarians’. Read your Marx. His utopia is fake, but his analysis of capitalism’s essence is right. Capital is the reification of labour. Humans as objects. Alienated, reified, cosified. Heidi cannot measure himself with Marx. He is the mystic (what is being?) and Marx is the fighter (what is justice?).