Introduction to Phenomenology

Posted by Dan on December 13, 2012, 06:00 PM | #

Mathematics is about producing new theorems via deduction. As a result it’s forward directed by its very nature. And there’s an agreed upon method for checking or determining whether progress has been made. Philosophy on the other hand is open-ended and there’s no specific method for evaluating whether progress has been made.

Posted by James Bowery on December 14, 2012, 12:23 AM | #

Ah, yes, the “continual shipwreck of philosophy”. 

However the metaphor breaks down when things such as the scientific method, mathematical logic (leading to computers), etc. are ensconced in the culture—things whose value is checked not by logic but by utility—that is unless you want to treat them as debris washed ashore and scavenged by beachcombers.

It is also the case that “ships” are continually being built anew and set sail for the rocks.  It is at such times that familiarity with the history of philosophy prevents vain repetition.  The “ontology project” here at MR is not such a rebuilding but more akin to checking value by utility.  Phenomenology will turn out to be another shipwreck and will offer another limited value of its own only to those willing to take it seriously.

Posted by John on December 14, 2012, 04:26 AM | #

Ersatz has a unique figurative meaning that “spare” doesn’t carry and Zeitgeist takes at least three words to render in English. Fundierung, OTOH, is semantically identical to and cognate with a borrowed English word and is thus (in an English language text, anyway) pretentious-elitist whereas Zeitgeist, ersatz and etc. are not or nearly not so much anyway.

Posted by Melba Peachtoast on December 14, 2012, 12:24 PM | #

Ersatz zeitgeist FTW! ROFLOL!

Posted by James Bowery on December 14, 2012, 01:04 PM | #

I should probably add that the word “use” (hence “utility”) may have very different meaning in reference to phenomenology’s cultural “products” due to the connotation of causality:  You use things to cause certain responses in other things.  This time around it appears that, like existence, causality itself may undergo a transformation that becomes ensconced in the culture.  The harbingers are (among other places) in quantum mechanics but are inadequate to the human condition.

Posted by DanielS on December 14, 2012, 02:05 PM | #

I imagine that the utility of aesthetic beauty is semiotic, viz. of health and enjoyment of life - in all likelihood, of particular ways of life.

The radical breaching and devaluation (e.g., as wholly “superficial”) of aesthetics signs would transform the sign system, creating ones either obfuscating the means of systemic health or directly pointing toward, and warning of its destruction.

I wanted to consider aesthetics against the criteria of utility. Since Jim apparently sees the individual adept at innovating technology as the one exemplary of Euro men and particularly worthy of survival, what value and place the artist and beauty has in light of such a world view.

Posted by James Bowery on December 14, 2012, 03:38 PM | #

From Martin Buber’s “I and Thou”:

The attitude of man is twofold, in accord with the twofold nature of the primary words which he speaks.

The primary words are not isolated words, but combined words.

The one primary word is the combination I-Thou.

The other primary word is I-it.

Others have said:  “This, thou art.”

What might be called a “conversation with matter” is IMHO central to reforming the view and reality of Man’s relationship with matter, one manifestation of which is technology.

Posted by John on December 14, 2012, 03:39 PM | #

“Ersatz zeitgeist FTW! ROFLOL!”

I was merely contrasting borrowed German words/concepts that look useful to me as expressing something unique and not pompous like I see words like “Fundierung”, which seem to be used only to make the author and his work seem more erudite. But I guess my accidental phrase, ersatz Zeitgeist is kind of funny.

Posted by DanielS on December 14, 2012, 05:26 PM | #

Yes, first to second person relationship and interaction is an important unit of analysis, particularly in correction of the overuse of the first-to-third person relationship typical of science.

Posted by James Bowery on December 23, 2012, 10:16 AM | #

I have a few suggestions to further Sokolowski’s attempt to demystify phenomenology.  One is the use of “attention” rather than “intention”.  Its fine to introduce the historic use of “intention” in order to dispense with it, but then it should be dispensed with.  Another is to consistently apply “pieces” and “moments” to the category of “parts” (in relation to “wholes”)..  Although the word “moment” may be a bit confusing as it has a temporal connotation, I can’t think of a less confusing word just now.  The point is that the distinction between pieces and moments is important enough that those words should appear throughout the demystified text rather than allowing synonymous words and phrases into the introduction to phenomenology (except, in the initial introduction of the concepts).  Still another is a modification to what he introduces somewhat tongue-in-cheek as the distinction between “transcendentalese” vs “mundanese”.  It seems of you’re going to introduce neologisms to cover the transcendental attitude, it might be best to simply use the prefix “trans” with the mundane words.

So, you have a language that looks like attend, attending, attended, attention, attentionality, in place of the corresponding “intent”-derived words.

Also, you have, in transcendentalese “transattending” rather than “noema” and “transattended” rather than “noesis”—perhaps shortening to transtending and transtended.

Another approach would be to make the prefix be “transcen” and the derived neologisms perhaps “transcentended” and “transcentending”.