Warren Buffett

This article needs major clearing up

Even after reading this article I am still not sure what the hell Phenomenology IS. I gently suggest that those who are working on this article should make it clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foamhead (talk • contribs) 11:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a good way of clearing this entire article up would be to put all the different uses of the term, historical uses, etc, in a separate heading towards the bottom. The introduction should, basically, be about Husserl's phenomenology, with the beginning mentioning that "Although the term phenomenology may indicate different things depending on context, today it usually refers to Edmund Husserls philosophical system." The way it is now, when you enter the page, all you get is confusing historical information. It's also a bit silly to first say it has three main uses, and then list several other uses before making a slightly more detailed description of Husserl's philosophy, including the most direct influences, and then adding yet another list of influences after that. Then, it all continues detailing the development of Husserl's phenomenology in his books. It would be better to treat it less as Husserl's "property," and focus more on just detailing what phenomenology is, noting important philosophers, and then a short list of major concepts. Because there are way way too many concepts that are specific to phenomenology if all types of phenomenology is included, it would be better to keep this list to the basic ones (lifeworld, intentionality, lived body, noema and noesis, the specific definition of phenomenon (how phenomenology it avoids becoming rationalism or empiricism or any other reductionist philosophy), and some others).Der Zeitgeist (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Disambiguation Topic

Phenomenology is:

A) an administrative way of getting alternative views; B) a behavioural response to personal stimuli; C) a computable way of formating or viewing things from an individual's perspective; E) an empiricist way of validating one's thoughts; I) an ideal way of formating personal attributes; P) a phenomenologist way of viewing things from a mental view; S) a solipsist way of viewing how one's view of one's world affects one;

This is a strange sort of article. Is is possible to have a more conventional sort of write-up, too?

• I'm not really sure who would really be looking for any of these lettered topics. I would imagine people coming to this page would be looking for either (1) what is the meaning of the term "phenomenology", or (2) information about the philosophical school of phenomenology. But I was philosophy student, so I might not be the best judge. AdamDiCarlo 15:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Variants and Schools within Phenomenology

The article reads a little like a quick biography of Husserl. As well as Brian Shapiros point that Hegel was an important influence there is little on Heidegger's role and nothing whatsoever on Maurice Merleau-Ponty. I'd like to see a broadening of the article to cover more of the variation within phenomenology. This might also better elucidate the common unifying themes that help define the school. Dr Headgear April 1 2004

• [Regarding schools or strands of Phenomenology,] I dont think these should necessarily have seperate pages, rather a few paragraphs on each. --Dr Headgear 15:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, Munich phenomenology rejected Husserl's later transcendental turn, so they are fundamentally different. However, we do not need to decide this now. We should rather start working on them as sections within the phenomenology article and see later on whether they need an article of their own. Cat 15:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, agreed, lets write and see what comes out. --Dr Headgear 16:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Realist Phenomenology

A small subsection, outlining phenomenology as espoused in the _Logical Investigations_. Link to it from Munich phenomenology. AdamDiCarlo 15:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Transcendental Phenomenology

Phenomenology as espoused in the _Ideen_. Probably what people generally mean when the say phenomenology. Another topic referred to by the Munich phenomenology page. AdamDiCarlo 15:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Munich phenomenology

• There's already a separate article on this, I guess we need to link to it. AdamDiCarlo 15:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Existential phenomenology

Existential phenomenology differs from transcendental phenomenology by it's rejection of the transcendental ego. Merleau-Ponty objects to the ego's transcendence of the world, which for Husserl leaves the world spread out and completely transperent before the concious. Heidegger thinks of conscious being as always and already in the world. Transcendence is maintained in existential phenomenology to the extent that the method of phenomenology must take a presuppositionless starting point - transcending claims about the world arising from, for example, natural or scientific attitudes or theories of the ontological nature of the world.

Impact of Phenomenology

I'd suggest adding to all of this, something about the general influence of phenomenology and its relationship to other streams of thought, e.g. structuralism, poststructuralism, analytic philosophy, consciousness studies. Mporter 01:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rejection of Cartesian Dualism and Realism

• Does this fit well enough for both trans. and ext. Ph. ? Dr Headgear

Phenomenology arises from the failure of naturalism. Naturalist disciplines, like obviously the natural sciences, need a firm foundation to account for their status. However, you cannot employ a naturalist epistemology to found the validity of naturalist disciplines, because this leads to a vicious circle of a method "proving" its own validity. Phenomenology observes that not all knowledge is empirical and hence not all science needs to be naturalist. We do experience ourselves (or "our selves") in a completely different way as we experience external objects. Moreover, when we employ methodological scepticism, we see that we could be misled about everything appearing in our senses except our own consciousness about it. This would lead to solipsism, except that while we live in this limbo of suspending our judgements over the existence of external objects, we are in a privileged position to investigate their essence. We can use all logical possibilities, and not mere empirical generalisation, to categorise and analyse the objects that we experience with our senses by uncovering their essence, i.e. what makes them objects of one kind instead of another. Doing this without having to refer to really existing things "out there", produces invaluable results because, by suspending the naturalist prejudice, we can produce a non-empirical and hence non-circular foundation for the natural sciences. There are various concrete analyses given in the works of phenomenologists like Pfänder, Daubert, Scheler etc. concerning values, ethics, art, law, right, etc. but one of the most impressive examples is that of Adolf Reinach who gave an analysis of legal language that led him to the discovery of speech acts, 50 years before John Austin, who eventually also spoke of linguistic phenomenology in reference to his own work. Does this answer your request at least partially? I have tried to avoid most typical phenomenological terminology, but if you want me to, I'll use "transcendental" in the next one ... . Cat 13:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Precursors of Phenomenology (Berkeley)

I'm surprised that there isn't more mention of Berkeley's idealism in relation to phenomenology. Berkeley's idealism asserted that our only direct, immediate knowledge is of the ideas, representations, and perceptual pictures in our mind. We don't directly know what is external to our mind, that is, what is considered to be "real." Husserl's bracketing of reality and focus on mental phenomena seem to follow Berkeley's thinking. 152.163.100.11 16:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)James Moriarty, Professor of Mathematics

• I would agree, this is clearly a precursor of phenomenology, as is skepticism, both from the ancients and from Hume. It would be worthwhile to add a section indicating precursors of phenomenology. AdamDiCarlo 15:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Also it isn't entirely clear that Husserl escaped a form of idealism himself. Johnor 10:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Lifeworld

The lifeworld ("Lebenswalt" if I remember correctly) was a key element of later phenomenological writings of Husserl, and probably deserves at least a quick mention and definition. AdamDiCarlo 15:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Critique of Phenomenology

A survey of some of the most salient critiques of phenomenology.

Bracketing brackets too much

Phenomenology assumes that mental activities are completely transparent. No account is taken of the influence of, say, native language on thought processes themselves. The theory of object constitution, a large topic of the _Ideen_, takes no account of the impact of linguistic terms as "pre-given" as it were to the perceiving subject. It is difficult if not impossible to modify the phenomenological study of mental apperception to account for linguistic or historical factors. AdamDiCarlo 15:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

See the work of Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, where he talks about the impossibility of a complete transcendental reduction. 16:39 09 May 2006

Fall of Phenomenology

It might be worthwhile to look at what happened to the influence of phenomenology, specifically, its dwindling influence. The phenomenological school does have an arc, where it grew and then shrank. By the 60s it was almost completely gone.

I would suggest that phenomenology represented one of the last great "aufklarung" projects of total knowledge. That is, it assumes a complete knowability of the mind. It also envisioned philosophy being crowned again as the apex of the sciences. More "partial" philosophies such as post-structuralism, deconstructionism, situationalism reflected a more limited role that philosophy was to limit itself. Basically, the enlightenment becoming the post-enlightenment. This is probably too broad and editorial however. AdamDiCarlo 15:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, phenomenology is experiencing somewhat of a resurge right now. People such as Alva Noë, Shuan Gallagher, Pierre Bourdieu, Hubert Dreyfus, Albert Borgmann, and many others have contributed a great amount to a contemporary phenomenology movement. In fact these phenomenologists (Bourdieu is not really a phenomenologist, but the influence that phenomenology, especially Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, has had on his work is undeniable) have largely reconciled their theories with scientific studies. I am mainly talking here about those in the tradition of Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty who speak of embodiment and such, but I think it is too soon to say that phenomenology has totally dwindled. Many people, in all different disciplines (philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology) are subscribing to more or less phenomenological positions these days. What really needed to be done was to look to science, especially psychology and the neurosciences etc., and to situate the subjectivity of phenomenology within an overall structural, or objective, framework (as Bourdieu endeavored to accomplish). This may be coming from my biased selection in readings, but I think that most contemporary phenomenology is more in the Heideggerian/Merleau-Pontian vein. That is to say, they deal more with analyzing the body and being-in-the-world and practices. I am not sure if there is much transcendental phenomenology these days. It seems that many people are still taking from Husserl, but not to the extend that they are commiting themselves to an acknowledgement of the superiority of cognition, or to intellectualism, or to recognizing some sort of transcendental ego. Of course, I could be wrong about this. The main point is that phenomenology is still alive, though it may be weaker (it does not seem to have had any major theorists like Husserl or Heidegger lately). Drifter 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

I made some changes based on Adam's suggestions and on the Italian article. I hope the "stubby" sections and the lists can be expanded to something better. Just two more points to make here: 1) Husserl's realist phenomenology of the first edition of the LI is not the same as later realist phenomenology by the Munich group and others. Also the Munich current is not coincidental with all of realist phenomenology, i.e. not all realists are Munich realists. AS reported on the CARP page, recent realists include Barry Smith and Karl Schuhmann. So I'd keep two separate sections on Husserl's early stuff and later realism. 2) The one big glaring omission is that of the transcendental-phenomenological reduction. Perhaps we should do something about that before worrying about precursors and decline and such. :) Cat 10:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there something left out in the first words?

Shouldn't

Phenomenology is a current philosophy

be

Phenomenology is a current in philosophy

?--Imz 03:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Corrected. Cat 16:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Existential Phenomenology

Is it right to call Heidegger an Existential Phenomenologist? As far as my limited knowledge of the subject goes, this term - not widely in use, in my experience - connotes the Existentialism of Sartre with whom Heidegger has been lumped, and also with Levinas, who was certainly greatly influenced by Heidegger's thought but had little to do with Sartre's interpretations, again. Heidegger does repeatedly make use of the terms existentiality, existence, etc but they mean different things and Heidegger himself objected to Sartre's use of the words. Sartre popularised the term Existentialism to refer to the rather different ideas expressed in Being and Nothingness - any comments/ revision suggestions? -- Simonides 06:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Though Heidegger repudiated the term, he is considered nevertheless an existentialist. Furthermore, though he distanced himself critically from Husserl's phenomenology, he is considered a phenomenologist. Therefore the most suitable label, even if it's use is not widespread, is to call him an "existential phenomenologist". This term is used with explicit reference to Heidegger, for instance here (tendencies and stages-existential phenomenology) For Heidegger as an existentialist see here. Hope this helps. Cat 09:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

He is of course a phenomenologist, my quibble is with the preface "existential" which is not used by any philosophers of note. Historians of philosophy tend to come up with phrases that oversimplify philosophical terms and have little philosophical content, for instance by calling Kierkegaard, Kafka, et al "Existentialist" - I don't think we should adopt the dilution of the terms. -- Simonides 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"not used by any philosophers of note" is a vague criterium: do you consider of note those who I consider of note? The authors of the two webpages I linked above are two established scholars, tenured professors in their field and they use the label "existential phenomenology" for Heidegger's philosophy. They do not call him existentialist, but existential phenomenologist, which clearly distinguishes him from Sartre (whom few would call "phenomenologist"). If you are really offended by the epiteton "existentialist" you could call him an "ontological phenomenologist", however, considering the research area of organisations such as SPEP I don't think anyone in the field actually has many qualms about associating Heidegger with existential philosophy / phenomenology. Cat 09:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A phenomenological existentialist...Platypusjones 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Shall we clarify the definition?

The very beginning of the definition goes:

Phenomenology is an approach to philosophy that takes the intuitive experience of phenomena (what presents itself to us in conscious experience) as its starting point and tries to extract from it the essential features of experiences and the essence of what we experience.

Now, let's clarify here what is that "it" in the sentence referring to. It's not clear. In short, let's look at the structure of the sentence: Phenomenology is an approach that takes something as its starting point and tries to extract something from it. It what?

If would be nice to clarify that part.

For more detailed information on Phenomenology go to http://www.ihoratio.com

The "it" from that definition seems to refer, fairly unproblematically, to refer to whatever the initial occurrence of "Phenomenology" refers to. 67.171.140.29 (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Part on Husserl and Heidegger

I temporarily removed the following piece from the article to put it up for discussion. I think it is a bit too POV in its present form. Cat 19:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Although perhaps most Encyclopedias will maintain otherwise, the view expressed by Edmund Husserl himself is that Martin Heidegger did not develop the philosophy of phenomenology. Rather, Edmund Husserl, a Jew by race, was retired by the Nazi Party and Martin Heidegger, a member of the Nazi Party, was installed in his place. The ideology developed by Heidegger was original to him, using Heidegger's original terminology. Thus the new science of phenomenology as defined by Husserl was halted with the advent of Heidegger, and was revived only after the fall of the Nazi government by scholars who recognized Husserl's unique value.

Very well, then let's discuss it, Cat. Perhaps it's too pointed as written, yet the facts of the matter are on its side. Most Encyclopedias don't have the courage to discuss the obvious facts -- but rather than overbalance obsequious Encyclopedias, I'm willing to maintain the NPOV that the facts offer -- provided that we reveal the relevant facts as they are. The discussion should at minimum indicate: (a) Heidegger was indeed a Nazi; (b) Husserl was indeed a Jew; and (c) Husserl disapproved of Heidegger's technical treatment of phenomenology. The rest of it, that: (d) a Nazi would naturally displace a Jew at the University, in a most hostile way if necessary; and (e) Heidegger's hasty and non-phenomenological composition of BEING AND TIME was intended to satisfy minimal requirements for Husserl's post, may be set aside for a later entry. Petrejo 01:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems a little dubious to call Heidegger's B&T non-phenomenological. It all depends on the definition. If phenomenology is simply a method of describing phenomena as they appear, or, as Merleau-Ponty says it, a return to the phenomena, then I think Heidegger's exposition certainly was phenomenological, for it attempted to describe the experience of Da-sein in a primordial fashion. If phenomenology is a method, not a position, then I think it could be said that Husserl and Heidegger differ largely in content, not in form. Indeed, Merleau-Ponty made the apt observation that Heidegger's philosophy flows straight from Husserl (or something to that extent). By this he might have meant that Husserls method, carried to its limits, will result in something like Heidegger's B&T (at least with respect to, for example, being-in-the-world), or otherwise that Husserl in his later life came to many of the same conclusions that Heidegger did (especially with respect to lebenswelt, etc.). While the political differences did indeed serve as an indubitible background for each's philosophy, we should recognize that the philosophies are neither mutually exclusive (as can be seen in the way in which they are often combined by philosophers) nor completely discontinuous and opposed to each other.

a) Heidegger was a Nazi: OK, but this is the article about phenomenology, not about Heidegger or the Nazi party. b) Husserl was an ethnic Jew, and hence victim of racial laws passed by the Nazis: OK, but this is an article about phenomenology, not about Husserl's biography or about Lehrstuhlpolitik in Germany in the '20 & '30 c) Husserl not only disapproved of Heideggger, he explicitly stated that what Heidegegr was doing was not phenomenology at all (at least not Husselrian phenomenology) and called his work "Geniale Unwissenschaftlichkeit": OK this is indeed relevant for the article. d) Heidegger replaced Husserl, but I do not know in how far that went paired with personal hostilities. Heidegger as a Professor had to be a party member (AFAIK) and obey the rul, even though he might disagree with them, or be fired. Not sure, but I don't think it is very relevant here. e) This hastyness is new to me, I have to check it, I'll get back to you tomorrow about this. That it is unphenomenological needs to be amended: it is not Husserlian phenomenology.

My main beef is that many of the statements, while true or arguably true, are not very relevant in the current context. The article is about Phenomenology as a current in philosophy. Perhaps we could also write another article about the history of the phenomenological movement, taking into account who was professor where and when or why he was promoted and who he knew and liked or disliked. I hope though that we can keep this article here more focused on the philosophical content. However, I think some of your points can be easily integrated in the articles and biographies of Husserl and Heidegger. Cat 12:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to talk about Phenomenology, Cat, specifically Husserl's Phenomenology, then it makes good sense to be accurate. It is *relevant* that Heidegger was *not* a follower of Husserl -- because most Encyclopedias say that he *was*. See how important that is? The truth matters. We can try to show the reader that Heidegger was *not* a follower of Husserl by using advanced philosophical language -- but that is for experts and professionals. We can *also* show that Heidegger wasn't a follower of Husserl by showing the *external* facts of their relationship.

Since Heidegger was an alleged student of Husserl, that leads the uninformed to conclude that Heidegger was paying attention to Husserl. But Husserl says he wasn't. What was Heidegger doing then? The facts suggest a reasonable reply -- Heidegger was planning to kick Husserl out in any way he could. You say that's not proven, Cat, but actually you haven't read all the facts, have you? There are several books on this topic -- a good starting author is Tom Rockmore.

Heidegger was *not* a follower of Husserl, as Husserl says. That's the key. To know more about Heidegger's involvement with Nazism is critical. It *does* influence his writing. (If Heidegger were a composer or architect, you could argue that his politics wouldn't necessarily influence his work. But writing and philosophy are special cases. They *are* influenced by personal politics.)

Advocates of Heidegger try to argue that he joined the Nazi Party at such-and-such a date, and so he had no interest in the Nazi Party before that. The facts speak otherwise. Heidegger made many speeches in favor of Hitler and the Nazi Party -- including all the Heil Hitlers -- and it shows in his writings, when, for example, he writes of the lack of scientific spirit in philosophy. Also, his advocacy of Nietzsche is directly related to Hitler's enthusiastic advocacy of Nietzsche. These are not isolated cases. (Naturally that's an emotional topic.)

We're speaking of Phenomenology -- specifically that of Husserl, so please get the facts correct, Cat. Speak of Husserl, but DON'T speak of Heidegger in that way, even though most other Encyclopedias do. They don't know or don't care. The facts declare that Heidegger made zero contribution to the advancement of phenomenology -- whether Hegel's or Husserl's.

If you wish to be accurate, Cat, then don't follow the crowd. Leave Heidegger out of it -- unless you feel competent to make the case before Professors. Speak more of Husserl, and more of Hegel, and you'll have the right approach. Petrejo 00:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree, let's get the facts correct. Husserl intended Heidegger to be his successor and carry on with phenomenology, several letters report his glowing opinion of Heidegger. Then between 1927 and 1931 he begins to get severe doubts about Heidegger's approach, for instance he writes to Roman Ingarden that "Heidegger diesen Gang und somit den ganzen Sinn der Methode der phänomenologischen Reduktion nicht erfaßt <habe>" (Brief an Ingarden, 1927, BW III, S. 236)." Notwithstanding Husserl himself proposed Heidegger to be his successor at Freiburg. However, after reading Sein und Zeit" Husserl kame to the conclusion that "ich das Werk nicht im Rahmen meiner Phänomenologie einordnen kann..." (Brief an Ingarden, 1929, BW III, S. 254)." As we both agree, what Heidegger is doing is not Husserlian phenomenology. Ludwig Landgrebe and Eugen Fink tried to carry on Husserl's work, but I do think we should acknowledge that Heidegger's own brand of philosophy should still be called phenomenology and should be distinguished very clearly from Husserl's. Hence the approach in the article to individuate different phases and stages of the phenomenological movement and my proposal to split them out into realist phenomenology (the Münich group, and more recently Spiegelberg, Schuhmann, Smith), transcendental phenomenology, or constitutive phenomenology, developed after the transcendental or idealist turn (Husserl's mature position, most known and studied), and finally existential phenomenology, which would be Heidegger's approach in SuZ. I still think that Heidegger's relation to Nazism and the possible influecens of Nazi ideology on his work are best left for a separate article and should not enter into this one. The personal realtionship of Husserl and Heidegger can best be treated in their respective biographies, not here. In the content of your observations I might even agree to a great extent, but I just don't think this is the right place. If you want to address Heidegger's (very personal) interpretaions of Nazism, feel free to start a new article. This one here is about phenomenology in general and its development. Heidegger is considered to be part of that and it is correct to report it here, making it clear that it is very different from Husserl's, but then also Husserl's mature thought is very different from his early work. Nevertheless the article should succintly treat all forms of phenomenology and serve as a portal to more specific articles, one of which might be about Heidegger and Nazism. Cat 08:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on condition that an objective article about Heidegger and Husserl and their relationship to the Nazi period must be *referenced* within the article about Phenomenology, and even highlighted. The article as it now stands is still tame -- since these two are the two main writers discussed, and their relationship with each other isn't irrelevant. Indeed -- it impacts the history and development of phenomenology as a possible science. A third name should be inserted here -- G.W.F. Hegel -- who was arguably the first German to write a full-length book on phenomenology (i.e. PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT, 1807). Granted, Hegel's phenomenology isn't transcendental or existential, it's dialectical. But it's still oft-cited and is more than a little relevant because Heidegger wrote specifically about Hegel in at least three different publications. (I should add that Hegelians tend to agree that Heidegger's treatment of Hegel was superficial in the extreme, and led to the postmodern habit of dealing with Hegel in a superficial manner.) Husserl may have enjoyed seeing Heidegger bungle his work on Hegel.

I did some fact-checking on the issue. Husserl retired (Emeritat) voluntarily as was normal for a Prof. Ord. of a certain age in 1928. He was "sent into a permanent vacation" on 6 April 1933, but this was a general racial law not something targeted at Husserl personally. In fact it was reversed for him personally on 20 July 1933. References to official documents to this effect can be found in Husserliana Dokumente I "Husserl Chronik", p. 428-429 and 433. In both cases, Heidegger had nothing to do with it. To the contrary, Husserl proposed Heidegger as his successor and Heidegger was chosen unanimously by the faculty. Moreover, Heidegger at that point already was an ordinarius at Marburg, so didn't need to fulfill any extraordinary requirements to become prof. at Freiburg (see Hua Dok. III Briefwechsel vol. VIII p. 194.f). Also, I nowhere found any documents supporting the claim that Heidegger barred Husserl from the library. That too probably was a general racial law and not a personal act of hostility of Heidegger towards Husserl. Cat 09:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The June 20 summary is largely correct, although it is true that Heidegger, as rector, enforced certain general laws which did indeed have the effect, for example, of barring Husserl from the philosophy seminar library. However, it is absurd to suggest that he was anything other than a follower of Husserl. He acknowledges Husserl in Sein und Zeit, and repeatedly and explicitly throughout the lectures on phenomenology which he gave in the late 1920s and early '30s. His philosophy would have diverged significantly from the work of his mentor, regardless of national politics. He began as a follower of Husserl, and later deviated from Husserl's thought. Nothing strange in that. Incidentally, it is important to be careful with supposed facts. "Husserl was indeed a Jew". Well, the Nazis certainly designated him as Jewish, and his family had indeed been Jewish. But Husserl was a Protestant - an assimilated German protestant, whose sons had fought with distinction in the 14/18 war. KD November 2006

Phenomenology forums

Hello everyone. This is not quite on the topic of the article and for that I apologize. I have set up some freely-hosted forums for the purpose of discussing all aspects of phenomenology. I am not sure if it will at all be successful (especially because it does not have its own domain and all that fancy stuff), but I got lots of time before the semester and nothing to do, so I might as well try and garner a phenomenological forum. If you are at all interested, go ahead and visit phpbber.com/phpbb/phenomenologyso.html Drifter 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Phenomenology in (the philosophy of?) science

There's a short article titled Phenomenology (science) in need of improvement/rewriting. Its content seems to fall more under philosophy of science than under science itself. It has been proposed for a merger into Particle physics phenomenology, although the latter has nothing to do with philosophy (and uses the term phenomenology in a very different way). I don't know anything about philosophy of science and hoped to find some experts here to contribute to the discussion. Thanks! HEL 13:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarified introduction

Former version implied that Heidegger was as different from Husserl as Husserl was from Hegel. No: Hegelian phenomenology is one thing; Heideggerean phenomenology derives directly from Husserl's in the 1920s lectures before and after the publication of Being and Time. His dispute with Husserl is quite specific, and I've given a short-hand version of it. Other changes: "transcendental" phenomenology isn't the direct intuition of experience, but its examination at the level of the transcendental ego - I've tried to encapsulate that in a couple of words; the description of Heidegger's work was esoteric unless you're a Heideggerian, and didn't relate to existential phenomenology directly anyway - I simplified, although it's not perfect. Will try to look at other parts of the article later.KD Tries Again 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)KD

Can one at least try to separate the particular philosophies from the meaning or definition of the term(there is none on his page)? What about buddhist phenomenology? Does english have an equivalent to the word phenomenon, and what would it be? The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article about phenomenological reduction which isn't very helpful, can anyone name or find a better source? Wouldn't it be nice to better define the word phenomenon? - since it's like, a realy realy important part of the word "phenomenology"? : )

just throwing it out there, for consideration 89.172.50.205 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible, as the terms mean something different for each of the philosophies mentioned. I agree the rest of the article does need work. "Phenomenon" for these purposes just is an English word.KD Tries Again 19:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)KD

Derrida

How do people feel about including Derrididean phenomenology as another "main meaning" of phenomenology in the history of philosophy? I was present at a talk he gave in which he stated that his thought was phenomenological. Hay4 18:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be disinclined. He wrote about Husserlian phenomenology extensively, but most sources categorize him, of course, as a post-structuralist or deconstructionist. I don't know the context of the remark he made in the talk, but in any case I don't think that would be a decisive cite for Wikipedia as it's a primary source (however absurd that might be).KD Tries Again 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)KD

The context of Derrida's remark? He was making it clear that he understood himself to be a phenomenologist. But I agree that in the US Derrida is commonly labeled a "post-structuralist." I personally think the label is misleading. Hay4 05:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty I have is that I know Derrida is not a Husserlian phenomenologist; he discusses it very critically. Nor is he a Heideggerian. From a second-hand report of a remark at a meeting, without context, I have no idea what he might have meant. I think both for that reason, and also to be consistent with Wiki policy, it would be good to have a written reference which everyone can see.KD Tries Again 19:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)KD

To digress a little; Wow you guys are really smart. Seriously, no kidding. Amit 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of tobacco in phemon estate agent in Kilburn.

Weak Weak explain the various management of different senses in housing population gated communities. Your love, Stephen Gate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.244.142 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As Hegel wrote: "Spirit is this movement of the Self which empties itself of itself and sinks itself into this substance, and also, as Subject, has gone out of that substance into itself, making the substance into an object and a content at the same time as it cancels this difference between objectivity and content." Your love, Lestrade.Lestrade (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

What phenomenology is for

A lot of people reading this are probably thinking "OK, so phenomenology studies the structures of consciousness and the way things appear to consciousness, but why?" This isn't made particularly clear in the article, yet describing some of the many purposes for which phenomenology is used may make it easier for readers to comprehend what phenomenology is and why it is considered a fruitful practice. --Le vin blanc (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See the current version. 71.247.12.83 71.247.12.83 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Prereflexive"

The section "What Is Phenomenology?" says "It is the attempt to reflect on pre-reflexive experience . . ." Should the word be "prereflective"? Cognita (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No. A surface is reflective - it reflects what is looking at it back. A person is reflexive - he is directed towards himself.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)