Husserl's Phenomenology: Method of Philosophizing

[@yuutkenkatoa7765]

That is the clearest explanation to Husserl's Phenomenology ever. Thanks for the video. It helped me a lot to get the point.

[@PHILOnotes]

many thanks for your sweet and very inspiring comments, yuut. best wishes!

[@etcetera3282]

Very interesting and you're excellent at explaining this not so easy concepts. I don't think I can stop watching your videos from now on, time not forbidding. Thank you so much for putting all the energy and time in.

[@PHILOnotes]

Awesome! Happy to hear that! Thanks

[@paulcallahan3897]

What a superbly clean, wonderfully articulated discourse. Thank you

[@yahyawikov]

The best introduction I've seen to the husserl's phenomenology. Thanks a lot and continue

[@PHILOnotes]

Hi Abderrahim! Many thanks for your very generous comments. We are truly inspired to continue working on this project. Please note that a video on Martin Heidegger's existential philosophy is in the pipeline. Thanks again and best wishes!

[@lyrical9582]

@@PHILOnotes any links to Heidegger ?? Thanks in advance 😊

[@PHILOnotes]

@@lyrical9582 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqKUiZp-gsqni6s

[@PHILOnotes]

@@lyrical9582 here's the full transcript: philonotes.com/index.php/2017/11/25/heidegger/

[@lyrical9582]

@@PHILOnotes thank you dear 😍

[@zacd798]

Thank you for this introduction! Tackling Husserl's work is so full of jargon, it helps to get a key points based video!

[@PHILOnotes]

No worries, Zac. Thanks too for your kind words. You really did inspire us more. All the best!

[@can.I.dothis]

Thank you so much ! I fastened the speed of talk and it's a great and thorough overview !

[@PHILOnotes]

Thank you so much for your very inspiring comments, Nelle. Best wishes!

[@libinandrews]

I watched many videos on KZbin on Phenomenology but none of them explicates the Transcendental Phenomenology of Husserl in depth. It's a great work you did. Thank you!

[@PHILOnotes]

Thank you so much, Libin, for your very inspiring comments. Cheers!

[@srbernadettelutaaya1641]

thank you philo notes, this explanation is so superb. i had never understood phenomenology until today

[@solomonekpo1151]

Thanks so much for your clarity. Besides, your tone of voice is so calming and relaxing as to make the mind more attentive and receptive. It's a real pleasure to listen to you!

[@PHILOnotes]

Thanks too, Solomon, for your very inspiring comments. I wish you all the best!

[@BizRasam]

This breakdown is insane and I thank you for it.

[@PHILOnotes]

no worries, Biz Rasam!

[@MrPipvampire]

I just love this. Thank you so much. What an eye-opener. Why didn't I know this?????????? it's so obvious when it's revealed.

[@PHILOnotes]

We are super inspired by your very positive comments, Leslie. We wish you all the best!

[@shaibaldas8493]

A great and comprehensible introduction to Husserl. Thank you. Looking for more

[@PHILOnotes]

Thanks too, Shaibal.

[@ADLocke]

Clear, concise and consistent. Good Job!

[@PHILOnotes]

thank you for your very inspiring comments, A.D. Locke. cheers!

[@allangallego3244]

Been watching your videos on methods of philosophizing... the other of the same content is the Socratic method of philosophizing. After seeing these videos I realize that there is no absolute method of philosophizing. I mean I can make my own method of philosophizing such as the method of philosophizing by Plato's theory of Forms. Thanks for sharing this video. I always prefer to see your videos whenever I search for philosophical topics in my subjects. As a teacher of philosophy, these help me a lot. God bless!

[@Jalfaruki]

This incredibly an effective lecture. As a teacher of sociology for long I benefited a lot from this and I request you to do more video related to phenomenological sociology. Thanks a lot again

[@PHILOnotes]

We're glad to hear we could be of help. We still have plenty of topics in the pipeline, but we'll make sure to do more on phenomenological sociology. Thank you!

[@sraadam2323]

hands down the best explanation I have found, thank you very much.

[@PHILOnotes]

thank you so much for your very inspiring comment, SRa Adam. best wishes!

[@veiled33]

Excellent video capturing the nuance and complexity of Husserl's thought and methodology while also presenting it in an accessible manner. This is a very fine difficult task!

[@PHILOnotes]

thanks Chris Pierce for your very inspiring comments. best wishes!

[@Jbwibo]

This is a huge huge aha moment for me. It is brilliant! The tone of voice is just right, technical words are introduced by their 'character' before being used so that they do not destruct the flow of the delivery of knowledge. That way they do not sound heavy to the mind. It is an aha moment because it appears we can never really exhaust how concepts can be explained. I was contrasting this method with a video of someone reading the transcript or a video of some in front of a class.

[@PHILOnotes]

Hi Julius, thank you so much for your very generous review. We deeply appreciate it. We wish you all the best!

[@khalida613]

The best simplified explanation I have seen so far. Thank you so much

[@PHILOnotes]

Thanks me me. Glad it was helpful!

[@hereticaljake740]

Great video! Just wanted to add a quick note: Descartes ends the meditations by finalizing his thinking to, "Cogito, Sum" = "I think, I am". After receiving criticism from Mary Shepard, he removes the "Ergo" as the presupposition presented problems for Shepard.

[@rodcr3392]

Thank you for this, it helped me a lot!! But I got very confused after 19:10: the questions made just before proved that it would still be a table EVEN if it had none os the 5 features previously asked. There are tables with more or less than 4 legs, and they're still tables. There are tables not made of wood, and they're still tables, etc. So the answer to WHAT IS A TABLE?, at 19:30, looks like a natural atitude answer, rather then a phenomenological one...! Where did I failed to understand?

[@PHILOnotes]

I think the proper term is not "natural attitude", but "intentionality". For Husserl, intentionality is a characteristic of consciousness whereby it is conscious of something, that is, that consciousness is directed towards an object (table in this case).

[@josephzirk6523]

@@PHILOnotes it appears to me that these problems have been discussed thoroughly by a lot of people, such as Plato in his discussion of the concept of circle and the circular shapes that people draw in real world.

[@alirezasabetpour7025]

I am a doctor... The best sets of video of philosophy

[@PHILOnotes]

Many thanks, Alireza, for your very generous comments. You inspire us to work hard! Best wishes!

[@raphaelessien3538]

Thanking you immensely for this clear and indepth explaination. God bless you. you are the best

[@oswaldpaulbartiana2245]

Thank you so much for making this easy it really helped me in making my report about this. Keep up the good work and may God bless you always 😊

[@PHILOnotes]

No worries, Oswald. We wish you all the best. Cheers!

[@gooddebt]

Thank you. I will be doing a quantitative dissertation, but this is super valuable.

[@1995yuda]

This is a PHENOMENAL explanation! Thank you!!

[@PHILOnotes]

Thank you so much, mate!

[@Gvcp117]

Thank you very much for this video! These are hard concepts to grasp, but you made a great job making it clear!

[@PHILOnotes]

Many thanks Paolo for your generous comment! Best wishes!

[@minalamo1766]

The back ground music makes me sleepy while watching this video.

[@PHILOnotes]

thanks Mina Lamo for the feedback. But please note that we already removed the music in our other videos. Best wishes!

[@PHILOnotes]

@Arunandi hmmmm....yeah

[@PHILOnotes]

@Arunandi ok ok ☺

[@PHILOnotes]

@Arunandi Many thanks, Arunandi, for your very inspiring comments!

[@PHILOnotes]

@Arunandi what do you mean?

[@shayrho3289]

Thank you, you made his philosophy so clear!

[@PHILOnotes]

You are most welcome, Shanae. Best wishes!

[@akashm8307]

Thank you so much for the elaboration. Its really helpful to grasp the core ideas of phenomenology.

[@PHILOnotes]

you're welcome, Akash. cheers!

[@nilanjanaghosh3432]

Thanks for making it comprehensible.

[@PHILOnotes]

thanks too, Nilanjan Ghosh, for your generous comments. cheers!

[@ashleyjiae.2280]

Thank you so much, I was assigned to read many many materials and dont understand at all... but your video helps!

[@PHILOnotes]

Happy to hear that! You're very welcome!

[@tngo4042]

Thanks for the detailed explanation...it is quite confusing at first but it registers once you pay attention....

[@PHILOnotes]

Glad to hear you find our video helpful. Thanks too, T Ngo23. Your generous comments really inspired us! Best wishes!

[@AnjuTMakin]

wonderfully concise and detailed at the same time!

[@PHILOnotes]

Thanks heaps for your generous comments, Anju. Cheers!

[@sairamolleda1410]

It really helps me to understand what is the differences of realism and idealism.

[@didinsyafruddin49]

This video does make philosophy accessible👍

[@EvaAhimsa]

Thanks so much! would you consider doing a video on heidegger? i'm totally lost

[@PHILOnotes]

Hi Eva! Here's the link to our video on the key concepts of Heidegger's existential philosophy. We hope this helps! kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqKUiZp-gsqni6s

[@EvaAhimsa]

Thank you! I was looking for a video on him but didn't find it immediately

[@PHILOnotes]

You're welcome, Eva!

[@aion5837]

I thought that Heidegger said that he wasn't an existentialist.@@PHILOnotes

[@PHILOnotes]

Yes, the Sartrean model of existentialism. thus, Heidegger, including Jaspers, preferred to use the word "existential philosophy" than Sartre's "existentialism"

[@alohagraceramirezreforsado4104]

This is very helpful, thank you so much

[@Munjoykhimhun]

Interested people may answer. What if the consciousness is not experiencing any object or thought, rather just experiencing itself? Now here in such experience there would be no perception, but only pure consciousness conscious of nothing and just being conscious. consciousness not flowing outward but inward. What would have Husserl said about that kind of consciousness?

[@PHILOnotes]

"reflexive thinking" or "self-consciousness" (that is, the moment intentionality is directed towards one's own state of mind". thanks Munjoy Khimhun for this insightful comment. cheers!

[@PHILOnotes]

"reflexive thinking" is also Berkeley's answer to the question as to who (if esse est percipi) would perceive the mind for it to exist.

[@steviewax]

Pure consciousness only exists in god who is the source. For humans, consciousness is reflected in the fears, dreams and desires from experienced life. The religiously or mystically minded may get glimpses of pure consciousnes..

[@sadegaldolaim3143]

1

[@carolinevonarnim4451]

Perhaps he would say: As long as the consciesness is given a body, there is no escape from flowing out to it and go to the t-deoartmen sometime.

[@fegeneralao5964]

Great information video...

[@paulmetdebbie447]

Great video. It made very clear for me what Husserl meant, and also where he failed compared to advaita vedanta.

[@sodiqshitta7078]

I can't find the transcript again

[@janfrancesaviles8582]

Your videos are really great! Always been checking your channel for a lighter and more condensed explanation. May I know your primary sources because they really are a MUST for papers.🥺💖

[@janfrancesaviles8582]

oh! saw them just now iin your site. I already subscribed for the newsletter. Thank you for these!😁

[@PHILOnotes]

Thank you so much for your very inspiring comments, Jan Frances. Best wishes!

[@markfabian2582]

Well done . Please keep it !

[@PHILOnotes]

Thanks heaps, Mark. Cheers!

[@amiraslkhalili5638]

< a, b > = correlation = { < , > , 0 } = { a , b , c } a = { deterministic , random } b = { deterministic , random } c = { deterministic , random } this is toward , phenomenological methodology

[@John-lf3xf]

It seems to be a splicing between Kantian transcendental reasoning and Hegelian materialistic dialectical analysis

[@PHILOnotes]

yeah. thanks

[@origaminoh8995]

Thank You ! I love it .

[@PHILOnotes]

No worries, Origami Noh. We are glad you find our videos helpful. We wish you all the best!

[@soo3827]

this is very helpful, thank you so much for making this video!

[@PHILOnotes]

No worries, soo. Glad it helps. Best wishes!

[@jericocortes7194]

Isang Thank You para kay Sir Wilbert!

[@PHILOnotes]

yeah...

[@lyrical9582]

Hi. Great video. Any videos on phenomenological method ???

[@PHILOnotes]

thanks Lyrical. sure, will make more

[@DaveWasley]

Where's the aha! moment of intuition (at 19:58)? This has been great so far, but the conclusions you reach don't follow from your premises regarding the eidetic reduction of "table." Is it still a table if it has less than four legs? Yes. Is it still a table if it isn't made of wood? Well, I'm writing this on an iPad on a metal table, so it would still be a table. Is it still a table if it doesn't have a flat surface? Sure, plenty of tables don't have flat surfaces. Is it still a table if were a shape other than a rectangle? No, all tables must be rectangular. Circular tables aren't tables. I use my tables primarily for decoration, so they must not be tables...see what I mean? These are all more like accidental properties of the table, and say nothing of the essence of tableness. Wouldn't it be better to ask something to the extent of, "What about this table constitutes it as a table and not as a fish?" I don't know where to go from here though, because my answer would be some variation of Platonism, empiricism, or a combination of both: I've got the notion of what a table is "in me" which is there either naturally as a form, or intuited by collating the experiences I've had (probably the latter), but it's not necessarily something I can give a positive qualification to. It probably comes down to the structuralist explanation: my understanding of what a table is is socially constituted, and involves not an understanding of what a table is, but an intuition of all the things that the table is not.

[@PHILOnotes]

The clear understanding of what something is made up of and its main function. Simple as that. However, I understand that you are not engaging my articulation of Husserl's pure phenomenology, but Husserl himself. I don't need to engage you further. I'm not Husserlian in the first place. Thanks though for your comments.

[@williambunter3311]

How about the further suggestion, Diamondback, that a table is known as such by its being USED as a table, regardless of its material accidentals such as shape, weight, colour etc.? One could add a sub-definition by saying something that is CUSTOMARILY so-used. For instance, you might rest some paperwork on a chair and use it for support while you write. So to all intents and purposes it is serving as a table. Probably, however, you would still refer to it as a chair, because that would be its usual function.

[@venusmungesa26]

pornography

[@blessingojembe9834]

That simply shows that the experiences people go through in life, do not make them less a man. So Yes! It is still a table no matter the functional limitations or the design. After all, that is why we are all differently created, but yet, we are all still man.

[@Worshipsatch]

I suppose eidectic reduction is subjective in first place, what you demonstrated in your query, is your own eidectic reduction, might be different for different people , the common factor is acknowledgement of these self-made premises.i suppose...

[@deeppurrple]

Someone limited understand philosophy wanted to know phenomenology had his 'aha' movement watching this video. After watching 100s of video this is Best.

[@PHILOnotes]

Thank you so much for your very inspiring comment, Deep Purple. Best wishes!

[@enoswafula111]

Thanks for that great inside....God bless...

[@PHILOnotes]

No worries, mate!

[@orchinary5083]

You made it so simple. Thank you.

[@PHILOnotes]

Thank you very much, Yahya Ghazali! It is really our purpose to provide simplified learning materials and resources and make the learning in philosophy incredibly easy! So, we're so glad to hear your feedback. :)

[@agnaldonhangumele6010]

wow. this was amazing explanation

[@PracticalWisdomPhilosophyDS]

Thanks for your information 🌼🙏

[@PHILOnotes]

Thanks a lot too!

[@teachersgaming7026]

Do you have a report about "the human person as an embodied spirit"?

[@PHILOnotes]

hi Yuan, we are still in the process of making it.

[@drfaustens4504]

How does Descartes' "cogito" differ from Parmenides' "to think and to be are one in the same"?

[@PHILOnotes]

I haven't thoroughly studied Parmenides. Hence, I cannot give a substantial answer to the questions. Thanks for the question though.

[@youtubeweb3009]

hello can you please elaborate the difference between natural attitude and phenomenological attitude thank you!

[@PHILOnotes]

natural attitude is just our unreflective attitude. we are aware of things, but we are not conscious. phenomenological attitude, on the other hand, is when you are reflective. you are aware and at the same time conscious. here question things. i hope this helps.

[@inthemomenttomoment]

The other (phenomenona) expects more than IT'S will can give. It takes perception that's supernal to really understand things as they appear to us that are more or less than US.

[@inthemomenttomoment]

Without doubt, in true Faith, it is more like, I AM, therefore I think that I AM. I am Reason that resonates with all others who resonate with the One Truth! LOVE=mc2 accepts TRUTH!

[@g.1260]

Awesome! Thank you!

[@PHILOnotes]

thank you so much, mate!

[@Worshipsatch]

Really liked your explanation... Thanks 😊

[@PHILOnotes]

Thanks too, Worshipsatch!

[@bradspitt3896]

So when you talk about the definitions of "knowledge," which I believe the Epistomological definition is synonymous with "Certainty," the phenomenalogical definition is not that. The phenomenological definition of "knowledge" is an equivocal definition and is always bracketed? Meaning it's not concerned with certainty or even Epistomology in general. Is that accurate?

[@PHILOnotes]

definitions are always normative. from the very beginning things didn't have names. and then people begin to define, that is, to set the limits of something (Latin: definire) to avoid confusion. after people set the limits of something, they agreed to call that thing, that thing. that's how we come up with a "definition" of something. hence, definition is not synonymous with certainty. we only become certain about something because we agreed to call that something, that something. for example, a table didn't have a name from the beginning. when we define a table, we set the limits of that table. for example, we may say a table has four legs, made up of wood, has a flat surface, and is used primarily for dining or putting things on it. after we describe that table, we agree (hence, normative) that anything that possesses those characteristics is a table. that's how we become certain about our understanding of a table. it's certain because everybody agrees; hence, the objectivity of our understanding of the table. now, the process of coming up with a "precise" understanding (thus, certainty) of something (the table in our example) is the business of Husserlian phenomenology. i hope this helps.

[@ronaldpoyntz6394]

We have bought several books on the topic but this is far and away my favorite intro to Husserl's Phenomenology. We would LOVE to acquire these visual diagrams of the explanations. Any suggestions? .

[@erikaburlagdan6558]

Thanks for that video

[@pbasswil]

Husserl is a Germanic name, so you wouldn't sound it out as if reading English. Huss is like puss(ycat). erl is like Errol (Flynn) - if you slur Errol almost into one syllable. Or to rhyme with the way a posh Brit might say 'girl': gehl_ Btw, I don't mean to criticize the way the narrator is speaking - she's doing a _fantastic_ job, speaking a second language.

[@PHILOnotes]

many thanks for the constructive criticism, pbasswil. we will try to study more, especially on pronunciation. best wishes!

[@snowwhite4367]

At about the epoché or something, what i understood is basically "emptying your cup" Is that right? Or nah? This is still hard for me. Sorry and thank yoy

[@snowwhite4367]

One more thing, i did not understand the talk about consciousness and stuff. Lile when you compared descartes and husserl in the start of the video

[@PHILOnotes]

Yeah, like emptying a cup, that is, freeing your mind from biases.

[@PHILOnotes]

In Descartes, the Cogito (that is, the "I") determines reality or a specific thing. Husserl begins with that. Like Descartes, Husserl believes that the I is always conscious of "something". I hope this helps, Snow White.

[@snowwhite4367]

@@PHILOnotes OH MY GODD YOU REPLIED! THANK YOU SO MUCH! Uhmm imma take advantage of this and ask more questions. I am also confused between phenomenogy and existentialism, aren't they the same in finding essence of something? and another thing, in my book there is a concept of existential phenemenology and i can't seem to find any videos explaining that.

[@PHILOnotes]

@@snowwhite4367 no worries, Snow White. First, please note that both phenomenology and existentialism take different forms. Thus, for example, the phenomenological model of Husserl is different from that of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and the existentialism of Heidegger is different from Sartre's. However, there is a common ground between and among phenomenological approaches, that is, the study of phenomenon. In existentialism, the common ground is the study or the attempt to understand the meaning of life. So, at the end of the day, phenomenology and existentialism are not the same. Again, phenomenology focuses more on "things", that is, phenomena, while existentialism focuses on "human" life. But since phenomenology is understood in general as a study of phenomena, then when it studies life or the "meaning of life", to be specific, then we may call it as "existential phenomenology". I hope this helps, Snow White. Best wishes!

[@advisorywarning]

Does anyone know what accent this is?!?! It driving me insane. PLEASE let me know!!

[@PHILOnotes]

just any English out there!

[@sossupummi]

my sensors indicate a tad hint of Finnish :)

[@passivemoon]

Thank you.

[@PHILOnotes]

no worries, passivemoon! cheers!

[@paulmetdebbie447]

Phenomenology in its description of experiences relies completely on personal language, which is conditioned by the mind and therefor limited and distorted. . It can never reach reality, only the illusory mind made version of reality. Going beyond the mind as in Advaita Vedanta however, can. This gives an account of the stillness between the product of the mind (words, feelings, sensation, images). This is the fundamental difference between the two, and between experience and realization.

[@Acerbic_Enigma]

This is a nice video. Really helped me a lot in my studies! May I know the resources (books) for this video?

[@gincotree]

Thank you. It is very helpfull.

[@PHILOnotes]

No worries, Chong Chin KIm. We are glad you found our videos helpful. All the best!

[@TheAbsurd_Man]

Please make more lectures on regular basis

[@PHILOnotes]

Hi Jedi. I was away from my desk for a month. But thanks for the reminder. I am now back. I will start posting more lectures next week. Thanks again. Cheers!

[@nathanjudemartinez9281]

I am very confused

[@justinecostillas8987]

In what sense does phenomenology help build a fair and humane society?

[@PHILOnotes]

This requires another long write-up, Justine. Can't do it this time. We have so many articles in the pipeline.

[@philosophyhonsramanujanclg594]

It was good But please make video on ponty's phenomenology of perception , asap.

[@PHILOnotes]

Thanks, but we cannot make a video lecture asap on Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology of perception because we have a long list of topics in the pipeline, and in the first place, we still have to research and write a draft on this topic.

[@nenu-nenu]

寝る前に聞きながら寝てます

[@paulmetdebbie447]

Advaita vedanta makes us discover that, more than Husserl imagined, consciousness even needs no doing or intention. Choiceless Awareness is not directed, not intentional and it is no doing, it is the essence of the Daoist principaal of Wu Wei, complying to the natural flow. This indeed has to do with intuition, but it has no purpose, agenda or object as it focus. It is unfocussed Awareness of the one subject, Oneness. It is more like the Dasein of Heidegger, but even more abstract.

[@nkotanyijclaude6770]

Très intéressant.

[@PHILOnotes]

Je vous remercie

[@rodrigogil8643]

I like the music. It helps (but I can my own music on background, so it's ok if you take them out)

[@JavierBonillaC]

17:00 the first example. No “moral of the story” in this example though. Does not conclude.

[@PHILOnotes]

ok

[@edthoreum7625]

5:45 the given [no preconceptions/speculation] 14:14 eidectic reduction=[trans/phen0] -facts -essence /possibilities[hope,,,]

[@maryannilagan2265]

Thank You

[@inthemomenttomoment]

Super Conscious is more like an Absolute, resonanting, residential, royal complex that needs no referential object &/or is The Supreme Object, over any Other Conscieness that needs an object to refer to.

[@naikimran7411]

Please do not add background music in video

[@cube2fox]

Small side note: In this video the name gets pronounced something like "Husserel", but it should really be pronounced like "Husserl", i.e. without adding an "e" after the "r". In IPA its [ˈhʊsɐl].

[@PHILOnotes]

Many thanks for your constructive critique, Trurl. Cheers!

[@clintonlunn4357]

Too many ads for me to get through.

[@PHILOnotes]

yeah, but KZbin set all those ads. Just skip them. also, please note that it's the ads the keep us going.

[@khevinliza5427]

Thankyou maam

[@PHILOnotes]

No worries, mate

[@angelicavasquez8850]

💞💞💞 Joy Cerujales

[@alpaslanertungealp9563]

Putting aside the pros of this video here are some constructive criticisms: 1. Please do not use background music. That is numbing. Philosophy does not require any ambience at all. 2. Please make the speech a bit faster. Do not worry, those shoe watch these videos can follow difficult thought chains easily. 3. The use of the term “transcendental” in this video necessitates the explanation of its origin, i.e. Immanuel Kant’s transcendental idealism, which would necessitate a long video in itself. Your usage of this term in this video is flawed. It is not the first time I come across with the misconception and misunderstanding of the term. Most of the anglophone philosophers, use it with a meaning which is alien to its origin. The misunderstanding follows from a linguistic habit. Transcendental cannot b derived from the word transcendent, but in German it is an Etruscan linguistic heritage coming through Latin into German. The word did not exist until Kant, it was created by him, the meaning of which does not just leap in the direction of transcendence but it is reflected back. Thus it does not point to a “realm” beyond something but it points back to the self, to the mind. The knower is here, the subject did not transcend. Kant’s philosophy is not about something which transcends, on the contrary. Thus the usage of the word in this video is wrong. From which follows the misunderstanding of Husserl’s philosophy.

[@PHILOnotes]

many thanks, Alpaslan, for your very thorough and constructive critique. points well taken. cheers!

[@TheKinix13]

Thanks

[@PHILOnotes]

You're welcome, Kinix!

[@kcrongmei6317]

Please don't put background music

[@PHILOnotes]

@KC Pamei Thank you for the feedback. We already removed the background music in our recent videos. Keep watching! :)

[@kcrongmei6317]

@@PHILOnotes thank you so much. It's useful for learners like me... Keep it up!

[@PHILOnotes]

@@kcrongmei6317 No worries, KC Pamei. Best wishes!

[@rawitdawitmakamandag8624]

Sartre is pronounced as "Sart" only

[@PHILOnotes]

Thanks Papi Chess for your comments. But I think the Asians mispronounced the term. My PhD dissertation supervisor who is French and was once a professor of Sorbonne pronounced it as "Sar-tre".

[@magik8566]

@@PHILOnotes the last syllable falls off with the "e" being barely pronounced if at all... SarTRRRRe...(except in Southern France, of course, where they pronounce last syllables!). Good dissertation BTW.

[@PHILOnotes]

@@magik8566 oh, thank you Magik for the brilliant thoughts. now we know. cheers!

[@GreekSoldier46]

Are you French ?

[@PHILOnotes]

Nope

[@arisgonzales3045]

PHILO-notes Are you Filipino?

[@aprilcasiro2287]

💗💗💗💗

[@jean-pierrebeaujeu774]

The background « music » is annoying me. In fact, it’s pissing me off.

[@shepherdchikohora8974]

A POWERFULL

[@PHILOnotes]

thanks Shepherd Chikohora. cheers!

[@virabadrasana]

What is a table? Dinner is served!

[@PHILOnotes]

Yeah, then let's eat. Thanks Jean-Pierre Fouche! Cheers!

[@BobanOrlovic]

This is just kantianism, why does everyone treat husserl as if he's a special philosopher if all he did was repeat kant, and poorly at that?

[@PHILOnotes]

Thanks for your comments, Boban. I think everyone is not making Husserl special. But we have to admit that just as Kant, he was also important. And considering the bulk of Husserl's works, it's not fair to say that he just repeated Kant---in the same way that it's not fair to say that Kant copied so many thoughts of Baumgarten without the former acknowledging the latter. Please note however that we will be uploading a video on Kant soon.

[@BobanOrlovic]

What other ideas did he really give? I've read crisis of the european sciences, the idea of phenomenology, cartesian meditations and now am reading ideas,, am I missing some side hidden of husserl from another book? Or are these books a good enough representation of his ideas? Thanks in advance

[@PHILOnotes]

In what sense that all of Husserl's philosophy is just a repeat of Kant's. Can you please explain?

[@PHILOnotes]

Of course, I have to admit that I am not an expert on Husserl. I just have a basic understanding of the key concepts of his model of phenomenology. But I believed that it's not fair to claim that all of Husserl's philosophy is a repeat of Kant's.

[@BobanOrlovic]

Well, there is the whole idea of transcendentalism, which says that the world comes in certain universal lenses, which is the main crux of husserl, to look at the phenemenon from the perspective of consciousness, but transcendentalism was widely popular from kant in the 1700's. The natural attitude vs the phenomenological attitude is the same thing as the empirical attitude vs the transcendentalist/idealist attitude as well. Phenomenological reduction, eidedic reduction, the epoche, intuition, these are all names for identification, and of course all philosophers have talked about that, but the difference is that husserl is stressing that this identification is identifying solipsistic phenemenon, but if everything is phenemenon, then all identification is the same thing. Then some things like noema and noesis are just phenemenon and judgement, and this too already existed, so he is mostly using the transcendentalist philosophy, which kant popularised, (and he admits he likes kant, and that kant was also influenced by his favorite descartes) and when he is not, is is re-labeling concepts that even aristotle wrote about. I don't see anything in husserl that would strike me as wow-new, it seems like just a repetition of solipsistic consciousness, ideal categories of phenomenon, and stressing the falseness of the natural attitude, but this is exactly what kant popularized already 100 years ago