Phenomenology | Kant, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Ahmed | Keyword

[@ivan_ivankovich]

Day-cart sounds like a gig economy company

[@clumsydad7158]

I hustle, therefore I am.

[@chronicallycal]

Thanks for this! I’m getting my masters in disability studies right now, and phenomenology comes up a lot, but I’d never been introduced to what it actually is. Now I can see why! The train example especially reminded me of the experience of being a wheelchair user, where everyone simultaneously looks over you (often literally lmao) while also seeing you as taking up and demanding too much space (again, often literally).

[@kevingeorge3423]

The kind of erudition this guy has is unbelievable. He is reading philosophical tomes cover to cover. Great job, David.

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

💪

[@qtl5406]

You consistently mix metaphysics and anthropology as if they had anything to do with each other

[@comradethatmetalguy]

Thanks for this video. Is always useful to do this comparisons.

[@ArmwrestlingJoe]

I can’t help but love philosophy and ideas. I don’t know if it means anything or leads to anything in “reality” but it’s what keeps me engaged

[@samibabar]

Woah!! This was really an all out coverage of phenomenology for a beginner in philosophy like me. Thaku

[@giovane3738]

Could you please give a quick explanation of why Hegel called his work on the Spirit phenomenology?

[@naph5456]

Wow, I was just thinking about how much I’d like to listen to a video like this. Thank you for making it!

[@TeoLicus]

What a great video! Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us! I really love your videos about broad topics that you upload from time to time, keep doing so. About one year ago I searched videos on your channel that tackles phenomenology and I was sad not to find one, and I'm glad you finally post one. I really can't believe the "Descartes" pronunciation problem still persists haha. I really like your French pronunciation and I think you can keep it that way! Haters gonna hate xD

[@Ailsworth]

Of course, our host here, when he was talking about Kant, meant no that Kant was studying "experience," but that he was studying HES perceptions of HIS experiences. One must be consistent. Kant was not excused from his own paradigm.

[@benney9908]

(i'm not particularly well read on philosophy, so take anything i say with a grain of salt (not to say one needs to be well read to talk about those things)) i'm having trouble understanding how so many people can easily split their perception of the world from the world when we're so often told our perceptions aren't what we think they are (i'm not talking about illusions, not things like "it looks like x but actually y" but something like "it looks like y and it is x but you've told yourself it isn't", or to give a more concrete example from my experience, something like "you aren't actually queer, it would just be convenient so you've convinced yourself of it despite the lack of any evidence"). this isn't a well developed thought and i'm honestly finding it kind of hard to get to a concrete point with this, i just thought i'd give my 2 cents on this topic for some reason i'm not sure of

[@bebrown11]

Thank you for this! How do you understand the difference between phenomenology and aesthetics? It seems to me that phenomenology (the study of phenomena or appearances) overlaps with aesthetics (the study of beauty) in several ways, but especially around attention to bodily sensations. This makes me think of how Terry Eagleton defines aesthetics as "a discourse of the body." Moreover, both fields of study can be traced to Kant. What do you see are some vital differences between these two fields? Can you point me to any resources that might help tease this out? Thanks again for this really helpful video!

[@clumsydad7158]

I think phenomenology is the actual inquiry into how something is experienced; how our brain gets images/info from the world. It's the meeting place of our senses/process with the stimuli coming in from the world. That what is real is that interaction, which creates a phenomenon of perception/realization. The place of communication and sense making b/n us and the outside world.

[@bebrown11]

@@clumsydad7158 perhaps then, can we understand phenomenology to be the "how" as opposed to the "what" of aesthetics?

[@blep1114]

Thank you for this interesting video! I've always been intrigued by the field of phenomenology, but never actually got to know it further. If I may ask, what texts would be good primers into the field itself? I'm not a postgraduate student majoring in philosophy; rather I just learn it for fun, to satisfy my curiosities. So I'm also wondering if there's also any background knowledge I need to know in understanding phenomenology?

[@adamlagerqvist8111]

Dan Zahavi a danish philosopher that has written a very good introduction to phenomenology. I think he specializes in Husserl but brings up Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and so on in his introduction. It's not hard to find a pdf online if you are interested.

[@Immaterialgorl]

Needed this

[@vitorboldrini6337]

Kharisma Aniqueness Nerve and Talent

[@clumsydad7158]

Cool. A good video was just released on The Young Idealist channel on E. Husserl; interview w/ Dr. Dermot Moran - Fyi

[@bhashanathilakarathna2683]

Can you name book on philosophical concepts suitable for beginners?

[@maaleladel4622]

I dont know if you noticed but your video got uploaded twicr

[@geolazakis]

Does Sara Ahmed problematise phenomenology because she wants queer experiences to be included in the dominant domain of power, or to validate their experiences outside its colonial allure? I don't see how this is any advance in phenomenology as it seems to flow directly the implications of Being and Death as set-out by Heidegger.

[@schadowizationproductions6205]

oh damn that screen is wiiiiii... ...de.

[@sinisterminister3322]

If phenomenology is about the study of appearances, what is the opposite? Is it the study of « noumena » (i.e. things in themselves)? Is that what we call science? If so, how does science and the scientific method manage to discover things in themselves?

[@Atigulus1]

No. Science does not and is not capable of studying things in themselves because any scientific study is ultimately mediated by our perceptions. It can be very descriptive about what we see, but ultimately cannot tell us what the thing is. An example would be the various interpretations of quantum mechanics. You gave the coppehagen interpretation, many worlds, pilot wave, etc. These all agree with the same description of the wave function, but disagree and ultimately can't access what the function actually is, if it even is anything. After all the wave function is also just OUR description of OUR empirical experience of the world.

[@sinisterminister3322]

@@Atigulus1 While I agree with you that science is also ultimately about « appearances » rather than the « the thing as it truly is », why even use the term « phenomenology » if, as you suggest, any field of study is ultimately about phenomena rather than noumena?

[@bubblegumgun3292]

BASED KANT

[@sierramaestra4998]

dude I like your morals. don't donate to me when you can donate to more people in need 👍

[@rafaelcarvalho3928]

🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩

[@rafaelcarvalho3928]

😙😙😙😙😙😙😙

[@rafaelcarvalho3928]

🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩