The work of Edmund Husserl

• Bill Overcamp

  ***Cartesian Meditations***

  Husserl identified "Descartes' Meditations as the prototype of philosophical reflection." ***Cartesian Meditations;*** Introduction; §1 The text may be downloadedHusserl identified "Descartes' Meditations as the prototype of philosophical reflection." ***Cartesian Meditations;*** Introduction; §1 The text may be downloaded from... http://www.mediafire.com/?219mvthtnk0 Husserl writes: "First, anyone who seriously intends to become a philosopher must 'once in his life' withdraw into himself and attempt, within himself, to overthrow and build anew all the sciences that, up to then, he has been accepting. Philosophy wisdom (sagesse) is the philosophizer's quite personal affair. It must arise as his wisdom, as his self-acquired knowledge tending toward universality, a knowledge for which he can answer from the beginning, and at each step, by virtue of his own absolute insights." As it seems to me, this 'meditative' withdrawal is more closely associated with religion than philosophy. The philosopher is not so much interested in forming his own view of life as he is in coming to know reality as it is. As such he should dive into the world, not remove himself from it. Personal reflection may be good for the soul, but it is far from clear how it advances philosophy.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (161)

  • 
    Bill Overcamp replied

    OK, I will gladly send invitations to anyone who adds me as a connection.

    Aug 11, 2011
• Harish Navale

  phenomenology

  good to discuss

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (2)

  • 
    Dr. Mohan Parasain replied

    Because it is temporary suspension of belief not disbelief. Epoche is methodological bracketing. so need not enter the final.

    Jun 19, 2011
• Sidney Clouston

  Phenomenological Ego

  A Technical Definition: Phenomenological Ego is the stream of consciousness in which one acquires meaning and reality from the surrounding environment. Husserl considered it a great mystery andA Technical Definition: Phenomenological Ego is the stream of consciousness in which one acquires meaning and reality from the surrounding environment. Husserl considered it a great mystery and wonder that a group of beings was aware of their existence, in effect human consciousness is the phenomenological result of introspection. By observing that “I can touch and see my being,” we recognize that we exist. The science proving we exist is not of value to human consciousness. The ego is always present, or nothing exists for the individual. A Comment: Ecclesiastes 1:2 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. http://www.facebook.com/Spiritual.Laws The Rosicrucian Teachings And Zen www.rosicrucian.org

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (14)

  • 
    Bill Overcamp replied

    So far as I know, there were none.

    Jun 12, 2011
• Bill Overcamp

  I know nothing... NOTHING!!

  Being one who knows nothing about the subject, who could be better to create such a group?

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (40)

  • 
    David Hirst replied

    boolean logic

    Oct 22, 2010
• Bill Overcamp

  The sum of its parts?

  It is said that a whole is the sum of its parts. In my humble opinion, nothing could be farther from the truth. Plants and animals are composed of parts. But the plant or animal is more than anyIt is said that a whole is the sum of its parts. In my humble opinion, nothing could be farther from the truth. Plants and animals are composed of parts. But the plant or animal is more than any sum of its parts. For it is fundamentally a 'self-organizing' system. That system is not a part, but is the form --- the very soul --- of the plant or animal.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (2)

  • 
    Bill Overcamp replied

    DH: "Bill - this requires serious discussion. As Roberto Poli recently reminded me, mereology deals with the 'part of' relation, rather than the 'part-whole' relation." I would begin byDH: "Bill - this requires serious discussion. As Roberto Poli recently reminded me, mereology deals with the 'part of' relation, rather than the 'part-whole' relation." I would begin by emphasizing my ignorance of the subject. As it seems to me, every relation involves three things: a subject, a correlate and the ground of the relation. Consider the case of a 'hand.' We ordinarily would say that a hand is part of a body. Thus one would speak of the relation of a subject, the hand to its correlate, a body. The ground of the relation is 'part of.' I take your comment as meaning that you would simply consider the parts by themselves, without identifying the whole to which they belong. Thus you might relate hand to hand or hand to foot rather than hand to body or hand to animal. Is this what you mean --- that the very idea of a whole composed of parts should be banished from our minds? DH: "Before preceding, we need to consider the nominalist motivations of both Lesniewski and Goodman." Once again, I know nothing about the subject.

    Oct 6, 2010